So CU-Boulder accepted the representations of a candidate without verification in order to meet its goal of diversity?

Am I the only one who sees that the more such institutions so loosely pursue such poorly defined goals, diverse it gets?

Nope. It is common at University's to make tenure decisions based on everything but merit. Diversity is the current Baal on campus and sacrificing quality ot it of education and research a standard practice.

And academics wonder why state goverments are interfering more and more...

CU wanted a flamboyant frontman to a fraudulent academy ... and got the perfect candidate.

I don't think this adds up...I'm betting there will be more plot twists before this is done.

An MA ? You gotta be kidding me ! How many of the little figures inside the matchbook cover did he have to draw and submit to get that ? Only a BSc here, but at least it's in an actual discipline and one where an MA is virtually unknown and universally despised.

I see no justification for the tenure system. Having same-minded academics grant permanent job security to same-minded academics contravenes the free exchange of ideas.

I've never heard a fully tenured Professor NOT having a PhD or other doctorate level degree. And getting tenure in 11 months? More than that, his MA is from an experimental hippy "college" where the average undergraduate age was 30. http://raw360.com/index.php?itemid=1636&catid=14

There can be exceptions, though I suspect the one I have in mind may have been tenured before more stringent standards came into being.

The most intellectually rigorous professor in the entire poli sci department at the state university I graduated from, is listed in the faculty roster as having only a B.B.A.

Then again, doctorate holders in poli sci were no great shakes even then, so it's no surprise a guy with a bachelor's in business administration was the better academic...

My wife told me about when she was in school an african american sociology insructor of hers who only had a B.A. made her jump through hoops to get a C when she was a A,B student. She asked if she could do any extra credit. He told her she could do some of his research for his thesis. After looking at Churchill, we wish now that she had dropped a dime on him then. Maybe blogs can start pointing out these frauds far and wide and get some sanity back in the schools. We can only hope so.

Education, Education, Education!

I am from a school not oft mentioned in today's eduational discussions. I am from the proverbial "school of hard knocks".

I am a high school graduate, with a modicum of intelligence....one who followed the "Newsman" title for several years.

I worked 1st as a radio newsman....then as a radio news director, then as a TV/Radio anchor.....

All in 8 short years.

I left to become an "Economic Development" professional...

Today I blog!

I blog loud and clear....and I love the "NEW" media as it resonates 1st with truth, and open ideas, and 2nd because it offers us an opporunity to check the "run-a-muck" MSM of today who believe they are actual Gods!

Thanks goodness for the blogosphere!

Duke of DeLand
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com

Last night I said I didn't think this added up. John Bruce and I have been posting on alternative explanations and what we think will turn up next.

Just another example of the academic excellence pushed by our Lefty co-ingabitants...

And Boulder seemed like such a nice place...

Hmmm. I have a JD from a top 20 nationally ranked law school and an MBA from USC. I would qualify as an enthnic exotic to CU - have them contact me, sounds like easy money.

Oh yes, and "fight the power, my brothers."

I know of professors who have tenure without PhDs and professors who have been hired with immediate tenure in engineering and science fields. The reason this occurs is the same one that gave Ward Churchill the easy in: money and status. When a department is convinced they have someone who can bring in $$ and/or prestige and they can convince the university that they have to fight to get this person, immediate tenure is one of the carrots they dangle in front of the person. Until recently, Churchill could probably be counted a good buy for the university. They could point to him as an example of their sensitivity to Native American affairs. Now, I bet they're wishing they looked a little closer at his resume, though.

This is fatuous on several levels. Fausta had it right in the previous posting, academic inbreeding is the result of the tenure process. Bad ideas get in, are unchallenged, and remain.
Nothing against educators as a whole but I do have a problem with people who grow up, go to school, go to college, and never leave. I believe that many "professors" have a fear of the real world work force. I also believe that a further proof of this fear is the unrealistic job insulation of the tenure system. Trying to think of another profession with less accountability, meteoroligist comes to mind but I have to imagine that they can't claim free speech each time they project a faulty forecast. Apparently, professors can make this claim after giving an irresponsible lecture.
Which leads to my second complaint. Free speech is well and find and should be protected, but the argument isn't really about free vs. oppressed. Free speech can be good or bad while it is still free. We've all told stupid (or even smart) people to stop saying stupid things at one time or another. Are we attempting speech tyrany. No, we are attempting to end the disservice that we experience when our ears are subjected to inanity. It is unconscionable to allow any portion of the argument as put forth by Churchill defenders to focus on free speech. Every report I have read where a university has booked this dim bulb includes an obligatory defense of his right to speak. Certainly, Ward Churchill has the right to make noises with his mouth. But none of us have a right to subject others to those noises if they are unwelcome. Sexual harassment, racial epithets, threats of physical harm, even heavy breathing are forms of free speech that come with a price. They are deemed hateful, hurtful, and occassionally creepy unless the utterances are met by the right audience. Chris Rock can say words publicly that others cannot. My mouth can sputter verbiage to my wife without the intervention of human resources. I can threaten and excoriate close friends in a manner ill-advised for the woman ahead of me in line who wants to make me wait while she digs through her purse for a coupon to save thirty cents on canned peaches.
Ward Churchill has the right to his speech, even if he is an undereducated worm of the nudibranch variety. But he has no right to subject audiences to his speech if the student body, board, or alumni would rather not be associated with him.

Question:
Does celebrating free speech really require broadcasting bad or unwanted speech?