Both Jonathan Yardley,"When Chicago was a Good Town for Men of Bad Character," Washington Post, 22 July, and Bruce Olds,"Chicago's Bawdy Side," Chicago Tribune, 21 July, object to the historical license taken in Karen Abbott's Sin in the Second City: Madams, Ministers, Playboys, and the Battle for America's Soul: undocumented scenes, recreated dialogue, reconstructing characters' inner thoughts, unreliable sources. It would still have been a rollicking story without all the fiction. Hat tip.

Mark Grimsley,"What if France had not Fallen in 1940?" Blog Them Out of the Stone Age, 24 July, considers a counterfactual.

The University of Colorado Board of Regents voted 8 to 1 yesterday to follow President Hank Brown's recommendation to fire Ward Churchill. Churchill's attorney indicates that he will file suit against the Regents for violating Churchill's First Amendment rights. See: The University of Colorado Board of Regents voted 8 to 1 yesterday to follow President Hank Brown's recommendation to fire Ward Churchill. Churchill's attorney indicates that he will file suit against the Regents for violating Churchill's First Amendment rights. See: CHE, Denver Post, IHE, Rocky Mountain News, and Brown's statement following the Board's action. Peter Kirstein responds to the news with characteristic understatement.

chris l pettit - 7/26/2007

I see this as why the who concept of legal rights and what not is pretty non-existent in real life (no matter our fantastical fantasies about it may be). We just can't stick with a story, no matter how important it might be (look at the lack of understanding and interest in the latest executive privilege claims and other ghastly legal moves made by the administration). Note that I am not saying that the Churchill thing is one of these "important" stories...it might not be. But in this era of moral relativism and paucity of critical thought, rationality, reason, and common sense for the sake of political positions, power bases and ideology, the only thing I can safely note is that there are the blowhards on either side that should be paid no heed because of their ideological slants and intellectual impotency...and oftentimes the truly reasoned analysis and provocative thinkers get swept aside because "everything has already been said." I think that this is a case where all sides (since there were more than 2) were wrong in some way...or their ideological assumptions just didn't line up...meaning they were always going to disagree. So we just say that everything has been said and move on to our next fetish...

CP

Peter N. Kirstein - 7/25/2007

While you may be correct concerning the blogosphere, the Churchill case has been covered extensively in the American and international press. From the Chicago Sun-Times, to Al Jazeera to the International Herald Tribune to the Los Angeles Times, this situation has received substantial coveragae. Kindly consult this link: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&...

Ralph E. Luker - 7/25/2007

It seems to me that Jon's essentially right, Sherman. This thing has gone on now for two and a half years. The Bellesiles thing lasted only one year -- and there were bitter complaints then that *it* took too long.

Jonathan Dresner - 7/25/2007

I can't speak for anyone else, but everything worth saying in this case has pretty much been said. Positions were taken a long time ago, and I for one don't have the energy to rehash something just for the sake of rehashing it. Your summary, Sherman, covers the ground very nicely, and Kirstein covers the other side perfectly well, and for once the blogosphere is just not that engaged.

Frankly, this is just not that big a deal: the decision was largely predictable, as was the legal response by Churchill. So it now goes to the courts and who cares? At least the CU regents seem to have largely gone by the book (unlike the UH regents when they fired Evan Dobelle) so they have a legally defensible procedural position, which means that all that's left is heat, not light.

Sherman Jay Dorn - 7/25/2007

Thus far, there's been almost nothing on the blogosphere. I've written a brief discussion of sanctions, and there are the responses of Kirstein and John Wilson, but Eugene Volokh just repeated what he said last year, and though everyone knew this was coming, almost all I hear online is silence. Hmmn...