...But everyone suddenly has an opinion. Since we were away from a computer today, and since Drunkablog and Slapstick Politics have done such a fine job rounding up all the best punditry, we'll simply link to them to get you started (and to give us time to reconnoiter).

In an attempt to defend Churchill, some have claimed the only reason his academic offenses were discovered was because his research received increased attention due to the controversy. They say to find academic offences as the result of attention due to his extreme political views is inherently unfair. Here’s the problem with that argument: by publishing essays, publishing “research,” and speaking at other universities, Churchill was trying to garner attention. Because he was seeking attention by his own actions, I am not troubled that controversy brought increased attention to his work. He got all the attention he wanted (and more). He succeeded! I don’t think he can say, “Please examine this essay. Please attend to this idea. ...Whoa! Stop all this attention. I didn’t want that much attention!”

Publishing is, by definition, not a private activity. Published work is out there for anyone to read. His academic offenses were not expressed in private letters or telephone conversations. His offenses were expressed in work he voluntarily published. If his research could not stand public scrutiny, then he should not have published it to the public.

Churchill’s cheating is a stain on academia. I have no sympathy for cheaters, especially those who unapologetically and repeatedly cheat. Good riddance.