tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post115526470393970532..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1155862429302379842006-08-17T20:53:00.000-04:002006-08-17T20:53:00.000-04:00Sorry I gave that appearance, but I was only refer...Sorry I gave that appearance, but I was only referring to the report of the specialist panel, which I found very impressive.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1155589935192096102006-08-14T17:12:00.000-04:002006-08-14T17:12:00.000-04:00Minor quibble: you've conflated the findings of tw...Minor quibble: you've conflated the findings of two different committees, and in doing so you've made the Chancellor's decision seem rather more unilateral than it was. The University's Standing Committee on Research Misconduct (10 members, all CU faculty) appointed a specialist's panel (including faculty from CU and from other Universities, as well as legal counsel) to investigate the charges. This panel wrote the detailed report, but as you say came to no clear decision about what action to take. However, the Standing Committee subsequently did come to a decision - they voted 9-3 in favor of dismissal (one member was absent). That may not be a "consensus", but it's a pretty strong majority.<BR/><BR/>More significantly, I think you're stretching things in inferring that this would have much of an impact upon academic bloggers. IIRC, the Panel made a point of confining itself to Churchill's "Scholarly Work", which they defined as publications described as such in Churchill's C.V. While this is a larger category than peer-reviewed publications, I don't think it likely that anyone would extend it to include blog posts, any more than it would include newspaper Op-Eds or interviews on Fox News.<BR/><BR/>RobertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com