Having granted him tenure, the University should not be able to fire him for expressing his views, reprehensible as they may be.  But if he actually does have a history of academic misconduct (which, at least according to the quoted material, is not disputed) then he can lump it, as far as I'm concerned.  If there's no real academic misconduct, the University should not be able to dump him.

He asked his students to think.

Commodity traders, sitting in front of computer screens, in little booths, isolated, high up in a skyscraper. They push a button, and millions of dollars of food, lumber, grain, copper leap into action.

Mine, plantation, and factory owners push another button, and millions of dollars are piled into vaults thousands of miles away.

Persecuted peasants, doing the hard labor, die prematurely. Their only prayer is to die before their children do.

Students!....Can anyone see a correlation between today's oppression of the poor and weak, and the isolated bookkeepers of the Third Reich, ala Adolph Eichmann?
***************
Meanwhile, in America:

McDonalds had to put pictures on their cash registers. Otherwise, all those letters, and things; how is a clerk to know the difference between a Big Mac, and an Egg McMuffin? Letters, numbers, stuff....they all look so, so, much the same. Reading, learning, comprehending, thinking....its so yesterday.

Sounds like he really engaged in some serious misconduct.

(His own sister-in-law denounced a preface for a book his late wife wrote - a preface which Churchill wrote.  She called it "inaccurate and defaming").

As for those in the World Trade Center... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

I read a moving article a few years back in the New York papers about some undocumented immigrants who were presumed dead on 9/11.  I have to say "presumed" because, being undocumented and with no family here, no one really knows.

All that is known is that their families, back home in Latin America, used to intermittently hear from them.  Once in a while they would send remittances home.  I think one of the individuals had actually written that he had a new job in the World Trade Center and was excited about it.

The families, naturally, can't even get death certificates.  No one can prove anything about what happened to them.  The State of New York has no idea that they even existed.  For our part, we're only hearing about these people because they had families to talk to the papers; what about the very real possibility that there may have been victims who left no one behind?  What's it like, to be gone and have no one to even wonder what became of you?

The most important question to be adjudicated (IMO) will be: What have we learned about our country these past sixteen years?

First, we had eight years of an educated President, whose goal was to increase the standard of living for the largest number of American citizens. He respected intellect, and used education, technology, and political acumen in pursuing his goals. Upon his exit, most Americans, and the Country, were substantially better off than before his arrival.

That was followed by eight years of an "educated," yet illiterate, President, whose goal was to be the lightning rod for the most powerful, regressive, and, unfortunately, successful campaign in our nation's history, namely, the total usurpation, and re-allocation of the wealth held by most of our citizens. Shunning intellect, he embraced a psychology analogous to the "Brown Shirt" thugs of prior unfortunate regimes. Upon his exit, virtually all but a tiny minority of Americans were substantially worse off than before he arrived.

So, let the trial begin. Will it be viewed through the complex academic prism of facts, debate, exercise, exploration, supposition, nuance, hue, and fearless exercise of the 1'st amendment (in all its complexity?)

Or

Will we succumb to Talk Radio Rules?

It's been a while since I've read it.

I really have no words for it at this time.