the Race to the Bottom

Prepared by Carlos Rueda:

This morning’s session commenced with the testimony of Dr. Michael Radelet from the University of Colorado, witness for the defense.

Dr. Radelet was part of the committee that investigated the allegation of academic dishonesty regarding Mr. Churchill’s work. Specifically, Dr. Radelet was in charge of investigating and determining whether two sentences in one of Mr. Churchill’s books constituted academic dishonesty. The two sentences in question regarded the proposition that John Smith intentionally introduced small pox to the Indian population in 1616.

Under direct examination, Dr. Radelet testified that he, and the committee, concluded that Mr. Churchill did commit academic dishonesty on those two sentences because it was an absolute statement of fact and the source cited by Mr. Churchill did not support that assertion. Dr. Radelet stated that absolute statements of fact, unless generally known to the public, must be supported by a proper citation. He explained that the two sentences were absolute statements of fact and not opinion because Mr. Churchill did not disclose anywhere in his book that it was an opinion, and did not prefaced the sentences with the words “in my opinion.” Therefore, Dr. Radelet said that those two sentences must have been supported by an appropriate source in citations.

With regard to whether the source cited by Mr. Churchill was appropriate, Dr. Radelet testified that the source was not appropriate. He said that Mr. Churchill’s conclusion that John Smith introduced small pox with the intention of eliminating the Indians was a “far cry” from what he found in the source, because the source never specifically stated that “John Smith wanted to wipe out the Indians.” Dr. Radelet concluded that Mr. Churchill’s assertion was inappropriate because there wasn’t a preponderance of the evidence to establish the assertion was truthful.

Later, also on direct, Dr. Radelet was asked whether a few problems with Mr. Churchill’s footnotes was really a problem when Mr. Churchill had authored over 4,000 pages. He said “yes.” He stated that even a couple of problematic footnotes raises a serious doubt about the credibility of Mr. Churchill’s work. That “it goes to the heart of a researcher’s career.” In conclusion, Dr. Radelet said, “everything he has done is worth nothing.”

When asked whether he ever felt pressured by the administration at the University, Dr. Radelet said he was never pressured by anyone. He said that he did not want Mr. Churchill to be fired over those two sentences and the other findings of research misconduct, but felt that the appropriate consequence would have been a 5 year suspension.

On cross examination, Mr. Lane started questioning Dr. Radelet regarding his conceptualization of bias. On direct examination, Dr. Radelet said that bias was an observable behavior from which a person can determine whether someone has a bias against another. During direct examination Dr. Radelet testified that he never observed or experienced any type of bias against Mr. Churchill. Mr. Lane asked him whether one needs objective and observable evidence in order to establish whether there is bias. Dr. Radelet said “yes,” that observable evidence such as an attitude can establish evidence of bias. He said that he looks at specific behavior. Mr. Lane then brought up Professor Wesson’s email where she compared Mr. Churchill to O.J. Simpson, and asked Dr. Radelet whether that email was observable evidence of Professor Wesson’s, and therefore the committee’s, bias against Mr. Churchill. Dr. Radelet said “no,” attempted to explain why, but Mr. Lane stopped him asking him to restrict himself to a yes or no answer. Dr. Radelet asked to explain, but Mr. Lane said that the defense counsel could ask him to do so later.

Next, Mr. Lane moved on to the two sentences regarding John Smith. Mr. Lane asked Dr. Radelet whether those mere sentences in the entire book were really a big deal. Dr. Radelet, on the witness stand, said “yes,” that they were “a very, very big deal.” He said they were a big deal because the two sentences assert how small pox was introduced to the continent, and because future students and scholars will accept those two sentences as the truth and might cite them in their own work. Meanwhile, Mr. Lane was preparing to publish a video of Dr. Radelet’s deposition to the jury. The video is shown in the court and it shows Dr. Radelet saying that “those two sentences are not a big deal.” Furthermore, Dr. Radelet is shown in the video saying that the sentences were not a big deal “because there are a lot of mistakes in scholarly work” and if one went to a library one could have a great bonfire every day over all the books with poor footnotes. Mr. Lane asked him whether or not it was a big deal. Dr. Radelet said that it was a big deal when the central theme of the work is based on the statement. Mr. Lane then asked whether those two sentences in the middle of the book really were the central theme of the book. Dr. Radelet said yes because the two sentences assert that John Smith did introduce small pox to the Indian population.

Moving on, Mr. Lane attempted to question Dr. Radelet on a paper Dr. Radelet published twenty years ago in a law review. Mr. Lane then asked him if he had ever been accused of academic dishonesty, Dr. Radalet said “no,” but that there had been critics. Mr. Lane then attempted to introduce extrinsic evidence to impeach him, but he was unsuccessful because of the defense’s objections.