CNews 11June06

"The chapter was apparently part of Robbins' doctoral dissertation..."



Exactly right. Hence my question here, several weeks ago, of the status of Robbin's PhD. No one put forth an opinion, educated or otherwise. If Ward wrote some portion of her thesis, the work was not her own and the validity of the degree conferred, based in part on that work, should be questioned. Likewise with any reviews of Jaimes, resulting in pay increases, which were partly based on her publishing. If Ward was the true author, Jaimes' employer should be most unhappy.



Robbins and Jaimes need to step up and say so if Ward has lied about the "ghost writing". Otherwise, they need to take their lickings for presenting his work as their own.

  — Laurie - 11 June '06 - 10:47

Laurie,

On one hand, I agree with you that Robbins and Jaimes should have spoken to the committee to defend themselves. On the other, Jaimes and Robbins might legitimately be afraid of Churchill. Remember that Churchill's first wife got a restraining order against him and has refused to talk to the media, citing concerns about her personal safety. Third wife ended up dead under strange circumstances. Cohen, previously threatened by Churchill, refused to testify in person in front of the committee, presumably because of personal safety concerns. So Robbins and Jaimes might be afraid to speak up. Churchill's behavior is probably more bark than bite, but he does run with a dangerous crowd, as many AIM members are violent thugs.

Second, since this is all going to end up in court, they might not have wanted to participate for legal reasons. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see that Churchill is probably going to sue everybody remotely connected to the investigation and that avoidance might be the best strategy.

I do believe that it was wrong for the committee to take Churchill's word that he wrote those articles in the absence of any evidence. The burden of proof should have been on Churchill, not the two women, since we all know that Churchill is a fantastic liar.

That said I doubt that it will ever be known who exactly wrote what.

  — Elizabeth - 11 June '06 - 12:21

Your point that these women may fear Churchill for a law suit or physical violence more than they fear what may happen to their careers is well taken. The one possibility that you left out was that he did indeed do their writing work for them while they took the credit.



Having no authority to subpoena any of these witnesses, what choice did the committee have but to accept Churchill's explanation?

  — Laurie - 11 June '06 - 17:27

The Committee did not really need to go beyond Churchill's explanation. His defense against committing plagarism was that he knowingly committed academic fraud by "ghost writing" a portion of another's doctoral dissertation. Churchill basically condemned himself with his defense. There is no point for the committee to worry about which offense Churchill has truly committed since he has been more than willing to admit to a VERY SERIOUS breach of academic standards, he is in effect hanging himself so why should they stop him?

  — [rex] - 12 June '06 - 11:29

Absolutely, Rex. But would you or someone please comment on the status of Robbins and Jaimes re: their jobs and credentials?

Thanks.

  — Laurie - 12 June '06 - 14:02

Robbins seems to have left academia. Jaimes is currently a tenured professor of women's studies at SFSU. I doubt that she would be fired for having her name on something that her husband wrote, since they probably worked together on it. Her bigger concern is that Churchill probably also co-wrote part of her (Jaimes's) dissertation. She may be at risk of losing her Ph.D., but I'd say it's a very long shot that anything at all will happen to her. No one will investigate at either institution unless someone brings a formal complaint. Who wants to do that? And where is the hard evidence sufficient to convict her? All you've got is Churchill's word, which is worth squat.

  — Noj - 12 June '06 - 14:24

"...for having her name on something that her husband wrote, since they probably worked together on it."



Noj, what evidence leads you to believe they worked together on it? Churchill says he wrote these "from the ground up". Is there other information that contradicts his assertion?



"No one will investigate at either institution unless someone brings a formal complaint. Who wants to do that?"



Everyone who wants qualified people, rather than cheaters, teaching our children in our universities.

  — Laurie - 14 June '06 - 08:05

No trackbacks:

Trackback link: