The American Council of Trustees and Alumni rebuts the ACLU’s contention that “Calls for Churchill’s firing were the result of his expression of unpopular views, not because of the quality of his scholarship.” Describing Churchill as the “poster boy for academic malfeasance, not academic freedom,” the ACTA points out that while his work as an “activist” may be hateful and outrageous, his work as an “academic, is worthy of a pink slip:
In March 2005, a review team announced its finding that the “allegations of plagiarism, misuse of others’ work and fabrication” against Churchill “may constitute research misconduct.”
In September 2005, the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct found that seven charges against Churchill merited “full investigation.”
In May 2006, after performing that investigation, the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct released a 125-page report charging that Churchill “committed several forms of academic misconduct.”
In June 2006, a majority of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct said in a report that Churchill should be dismissed for severe, repeated, deliberate, and harmful acts of scholarly misconduct. CU-Boulder’s interim chancellor agreed.
In May 2007, Privilege and Tenure Committee said Churchill’s work fell “below minimum standards of professional integrity and…requires severe sanctions” and that he “committed multiple acts of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification.”