The historian that the Gray Lady hired to look into the Walter Duranty Pulitzer has recommended that the prize be revoked. It's up to the Pulitzer committee now. If it actually happens, it will be interesting to see the response from academia.

So, Rand:

Will the moonbats decry this as revisionism and stripping a good man of his prize?

Will they attribute this to the nasty VRWC, and its efforts to rewrite history?

Will they shoot for some other Pulitzer prize-winner in order to "balance the books"?

Or will they simply stay quiet on this?

(Least likely is that they will applaud the move, but somehow, I don't think too many of the Left, as opposed to left, will do so.)

I'm of the opinion that Duranty's Pulitzer should not be revoked. I think it should be allowed to remain, as evidence of how worthless it really is. Letting them revoke it and pretend nothing bad happened would be the sort of historical revisionism they performed, and still perform, in the dictatorships.

The record should be left to stand, that the Pulitzer was awarded to someone who lied on behalf of a mass-murdering dictator. With no whitewashing.