I'm confused. How does one get fired, then step down, yet 'remain on staff?'

I think the "step down and remain on staff" came after the 9/11 comments. (That information should have come earlier in the CNN article, so it didn't muddy the sequence.) Now, several years later, he's been fired and hasn't commented.

"The Board of Regents affirms that its decisions in this matter have been made solely on the basis of the allegations of research misconduct against Professor Churchill and have not been influenced or motivated by extrinsic considerations, Professor Churchill's political and social views or a desire to punish Professor Churchill for expression of his political or social views," the university announced.

That's disingenuous. It's like when the government wants a person; they have so many different ways of coming at him, they'll eventually get the person on something. Ask Al Capone about his taxes. As far as I'm concerned, the regents wanted Churchill out after the 9/11 controversy, but it took them this long to find a good excuse.

They just don't have the balls to say it.

How can it be disingenuous?

disingenuous adjective
Not straightforward or candid; crafty

The paragraph from the regents was disingenuous because it obfuscated and side-stepped what I believe were the real reasons for firing him. Sure, Al Capone was guilty of not paying his taxes, but do you think that's what the government really gave a rat's ass about?

Let's cut some of the verbiage.

"...decision...made solely on the basis of the allegations of research misconduct...not...influenced or motivated by...a desire to punish Professor Churchill for expression of his political and social views."

Of course they got rid of him because of his "political and social views," the little liars. That's why they went out of their way to deny it. ("Please don't sue us, Mr. Nutcase Churchill!") I think I made it fairly clear that I believe they did in fact want him out since the 9/11 controversy, but don't have the balls to say so. They believed they couldn't fire him previously and have spent all this time finding what they believe to be an air-tight reason for getting rid of him.

It's disingenuous because they are lying about their motivation. It's disingenuous because they are covering their asses. If they said, "This guy's an embarrassment, thank God we can finally get rid of him," they'd probably be sued, so they -- again -- don't have the balls to say that, so they say, "Oh, no, this has nothing to do with all the shame he heaped down upon this university, this is limited solely to his plagiarism. 9/11? What 9/11? Never heard of it. Nah, this twit's a plagiarist, that's all. Can't have that."

That's "not straightforward" that's "not candid" and that is "crafty" (and buried under an avalanche of unnecessary words -- ignore the man behind the thesaurus), i.e. disingenuous.

And I think that was all pretty clear in the nice little paragraph I originally wrote.

He is entitled to his opinion but I would never pay for my kid's tuition at any institution where he teaches.

Which is why they got rid of him but are too afraid to say so. Hence, disingenuous. What is so hard to get about that?