PB's just posted the committee's "arguments against dismissal," all of which will be familiar to Churchill watchers, including the supposed disproportionality of dismissal to Churchill's scholarly crimes (he didn't kill anybody), the "chilling effect" it would have on other academics who speak truth to Gower (Champion), and, of course, the inherent loosey-gooseyness of ethnic studies itself:
Well, by all means then let's not be harmful to their mission--that being, for too many like Ward, the violent demise of western civilization. On the other hand, you'll be glad to know that:
The field has been characterized by its newness as a discipline, by the lack of formally established standards, its concern with advocacy for groups who have been historically marginalized or excluded, and the need to confront and to challenge orthodox methods and conclusions that in their views have contributed to misrepresentation and exclusion of their cultures and history. . . .
[T]hese are legitimate core activities for some in this field, and they view any attempt to force their challenge into the standards of the existing academy as harmful to their mission. . . .
The University need not, of course, accept conduct that is inherently dishonest or deceitful.Need not. Admirable firmness. But why is it so hard for them to understand that if you allow a "discipline" like ethnic studies to ignore all standards of evidence, what you'll inevitably get is dishonesty and deceitfulness? I just don't get it.
Update: LGF includes Ward in a poll asking readers who they think caused the site's server meltdown the other day, but MIM's other good buddy Ron Paul is winning going away.