The state of academic research according to Ward Churchill

In the response of Ward Churchill to his dismissal, the soon to be former professor expresses his understanding of how academic research is conducted. It is so bizarre that it needs little additional explanation. But more importantly, it also suggests how shaky the state of some academics is in today's environment of political correctness.

Here is part of what he said - "Instead, they indulged in a repetition of the "Scopes Monkey Trial," presuming to assert the "truth" of the various historical and legal questions involved, in a manner comfortable to themselves and to those they seemingly perceive as comprising the "American mainstream." Such enforcement of orthodoxy was plainly not within the panels legitimate mandate.

Indeed, as regards the allegations of fraud raised by Interim Chancellor DiStefano, whether what I wrote is true or false is irrelevant. The ONLY relevant consideration is whether I had reason to believe it was true.

On this score, I did, and still do, and the panel proved nothing to the contrary. This is amply reflected in the evidence the panel left largely unaddressed in its report. Much the same pertains to my having supposedly "invented" historical incidents, and the alleged implications of my ghostwriting."

So I guess truth in research is limited to what the researcher believes is true. I wonder if Mr. Churchill would be willing to submit to an operation with a doctor trained to that same level of excellence. The only concern I had about the report from the university is why they believed that Churchill's original outrageous statement about the victims of 9/11 is within the bounds of academic freedom.