NEH and Newberry disagree on Bellesiles grant

Josey1

NEH and Newberry disagree on Bellesiles grant


By David Mehegan, Globe Staff, 5/24/2002

he controversy over historian Michael A. Bellesiles, who is under investigation by Emory University over allegations that he faked research for his 2000 book, ''Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture,'' has ignited a secondary skirmish between the National Endowment for the Humanities and Chicago's distinguished Newberry Library.



Bellesiles has spent the past academic year at the Newberry on a $30,000 research grant given by the library to fund research on his next book, a history of American gun-control laws. Though awarded by the library, the money came out of a larger $270,000 grant from the NEH. Earlier this week, NEH deputy chairman Lynne Munson fired off a letter to James Grossman, the Newberry's vice president for research and education, ordering that the NEH name be taken off any written references to Bellesiles's grant.

The Munson letter says, ''The Newberry Library was in error when it awarded Professor Michael Bellesiles an NEH-supported fellowship without due consideration of the serious charges raised within the scholarly community about his work.'' The letter says the NEH has drawn no conclusions ''about specific charges against `Arming America,''' and its action has no practical effect: Bellesiles's fellowship ends this month, and the library is not being asked to take back the money.

NEH chairman Bruce Cole said, ''By neglecting its crucial oversight responsibilities, the Newberry Library failed to meet the high scholarly and ethical standards necessary for any award bearing the NEH name.''

Irritated and baffled, Newberry officials yesterday said they will comply with the NEH demand but strongly defended the grant, which was given in February 2001, before any formal scholarly charges had been made. In a statement, Newberry president and librarian Charles T. Cullen said, ''The charge that the Newberry does not take academic integrity seriously because it did not investigate or adjudicate the charges against Professor Bellesiles is ... problematic. Professor Bellesiles neither did research for nor wrote `Arming America' at the Newberry. Emory University is carrying out a full investigation of all charges, and ... we consider Emory the proper venue for such an investigation.''

Mary Lou Beatty, an NEH spokeswoman, said yesterday that the action was intended to uphold the NEH's standards: ''We are proud of the NEH name. And we think it stands for a standard of scholarship and excellence.''

Responding yesterday to an e-mail, a furious Bellesiles called the NEH move ''mean-spirited, meant to embarrass me. ...

''The NEH did not contact me, did not ask for any response by me to the charges, did not conduct an investigation, and did not state the charges against me. They simply made a political decision that should send chills through academics everywhere.'' http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/144/living/NEH_and_Newberry_disagree_on_Bellesiles_grant+.shtml



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Following the Bellesiles Story
By HNN Staff




Printer Friendly Version

Mail it to a friend



Click here to read the latest developments.
Click here for an index to HNN articles concerning Michael Bellesiles.

(Many people have wondered how to pronounce Mr. Bellesiles's name. It's ba-leale ... "leale" rhymes with eel.)

On April 19, 2002, two months after Emory announced it had launched a formal investigation of Mr. Bellesiles's book, Arming America, the school newspaper, the Emory Wheel, called on the university to complete its work quickly, noting that "by remaining silent on the issue in the face of national controversy, Emory appears to be implicitly supporting Bellesiles." "If Emory has already completed its investigation," the paper's editorial continued, "it has an unquestionable duty to its students to release its findings. And if it has not yet, the University should reach a verdict before he sets foot in the classroom. Whatever the final outcome, Emory must eventually participate in the national dialogue surrounding Bellesiles' research, either to support or denounce him." The editorial included this stinging accusation: "an overwhelming amount of evidence has surfaced to suggest that Bellesiles was indeed guilty to some degree of fraud."

(Note: Mr. Bellesiles is currently a fellow at the Newberry Library in Chicago. He is scheduled to return to Emory in the fall.)

On April 24 National Review, which published several highly critical articles about Mr. Bellesiles in the fall, reported that Columbia University's Bancroft committee was considering taking away the Bancroft Prize, which was awarded to Arming Americain 2001. The magazine cited Roger Lane as a source; Lane himself was a winner of the Bancroft Prize. Doubt was cast on the story the next day when Eric Foner told the magazine, "I've heard nothing about Columbia rescinding the prize. The University's trustees would have to do it, not the Bancroft Committee."

Another report by National Review was more portentous; the magazine reported that Bellesiles's Newberry fellowship may be in question:


The National Endowment for the Humanities has sent a letter to the Newberry Library in Chicago which raises serious questions about the Library's $30,000 grant to Michael Bellesiles for the second book he is writing on guns. In a letter to Dr. James Grossman, director of the Newberry Library, the NEH asks the Newberry to provide a written notice of the institution's "procedures for handling alleged cases of academic misconduct and fraud." If the Newberry's response fails to satisfy the NEH's concerns, officials there are prepared to take any "necessary and appropriate actions including but not limited to removing the NEH name from the Newberry Fellowship to Michael Bellesiles."
On April 25 Andrew Ackerman, the Wheel's assistant news editor, reported that Mr. Bellesiles "suggested this week that one of his main critics fabricated e-mails in his name." The charge referred to a controversy first reported by History News Network on April 15, when Mr. Bellesiles denied writing certain emails to critic James Lindgren. According to the Wheel, Mr. Bellesiles this week went further, charging Lindgren with manufacturing the emails: "I don't know how to break this to you, but anyone can print up anything and say I received this e-mail." Bellesiles added: "Shouldn't you go by what I say I said rather than what someone else asserts?"
In a separate article, the paper charged that "Bellesiles may have lied to the Wheel" about the emails, including an email Lindgren wrote Bellesiles. The paper reported obtaining "an e-mail confirming Lindgren wrote Bellesiles on Nov. 11, 2000, offering to assist the Emory professor. The e-mail was forwarded to the Wheel by Randy Barnett, a visiting professor of law at Harvard University (Mass.) who was copied the message when Lindgren originally sent it." The paper also reported that Bellesiles had told the paper that "he was driven off e-mail in September 2000." The Wheel reported that "this statement appears to be a falsehood."

Six days after the Wheel encouraged Emory to reach a decision about Mr. Bellesiles quickly, the university issued the following statement:


On February 7, Emory University announced that its History Department and Michael Bellesiles had jointly initiated a formal process to address allegations of misconduct in research concerning Professor Bellesiles' book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. That internal inquiry is now complete, and based on it, Robert Paul, Dean of Emory College, concluded that further investigation would be warranted by an independent committee of distinguished scholars from outside Emory University. That investigative committee's work is now underway and should be concluded no later than summer's end. During the course of the investigation the committee's work will remain confidential. Professor Bellesiles has concurred that the outcome of the investigation may be made public.
This statement was reported by National Review online. It was not posted on the university website.

On May 2, 2002 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reported that the Newberry Library had provided answers to the NEH's detailed questions about the $30,000 fellowship awarded to Bellesiles to study the history of American gun laws. "The NEH request is unprecedented," said the Newberry's James Grossman, vice president for research and education: "They're asking questions that they're entitled to ask, and we're answering them as best we can." The library refused to disclose the answers provided to the NEH. Grossman told the newspaper that the grant was awarded before the controversy arose and that it was up to Emory to investigate Bellesiles, not the library.

George Will weighed in on the Bellesiles story with an essay in Newsweek (dated May 20) titled, "Gunning for a Bad Book." The article--posted prominently on the last page of the magazine--recounted many of the allegations Jerome Sternstein leveled in HNN in March and April (though without citing Sternstein by name). According to Will this "academic scandal" has produced evidence of "Bellesiles's malfeasance" that is "startling in its sweep, brazenness and apparently political purpose."

Shortly after the Newsweek story appeared, the Weekly Standard published an article about "the continuing misadventures of award-winning author Michael Bellesiles." Author David Skinner, the magazine's assistant managing editor, reviewed in detail the Vermont court records Bellesiles cited in Arming America and a previous book, Revolutionary Outlaws, and concluded:

even if Bellesiles did find pre-1790 Superior Court Records for years other than 1778 to 1782--records that do not exist in Rutland county where he said they reside; records that are not listed in the Windham county inventory held by [state archivist] Gregory Sanford; records he did not refer to in 'Arming America' or list in the long and detailed appendix of 'Revolutionary Outlaws'--such records would still fail to cover the years mentioned in his original claim." (Disclosure: Mr. Skinner based his article in part, he acknowledged, on work published on HNN by Mr. Sternstein.)

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

The week of May 20 HNN published two articles about Mr. Bellesiles. Jerome Sternstein cast doubt on Bellesiles's story about the "great Bowden Hall flood" that allegedly destroyed the yellow legal pads on which he says he recorded probate data related to gun ownership in early America. Don Williams noted that because Arming America was cited frequently in legal briefs filed by gun-control advocates, the serious questions about the book may very well undermine the position anti-gun groups took in court.

On May 21 the National Endowment for the Humanities asked the Newberry to remove the NEH name from Mr. Bellesiles's fellowship. The Newberry said it would comply. This is the statement the NEH released to the media:


May 21, 2002
Statement by Chairman Bruce Cole on Newberry Library Fellowship Award
The issue of trust and truth is at the heart of our decision to require the Newberry Library to remove the NEH name from Professor Michael Bellesiles' fellowship. The authorities at the Newberry Library neglected to take seriously the many substantial questions that had been raised about the accuracy of Mr. Bellesiles' scholarship. These questions were widespread before the award committee made its decision; indeed some of them were discussed in the national press, in the letters of support for Professor Bellesiles, and on a web discussion group on which the Newberry was regularly posting notices before the award was made. It was the responsibility of the Newberry Library to have known about these charges and to have held Professor Bellesiles, or any other applicant, to the highest ethical standards. By not doing this they failed to weigh and consider all the factors surrounding Professor Bellesiles's previous research, his proposed research, and indeed the credibility of the researcher himself. By neglecting its crucial oversight responsibilities the Newberry Library failed to meet the high scholarly and ethical standards necessary for any award bearing the NEH name. Consequently we have asked the Newberry Library to remove the NEH name from Professor Bellesiles' fellowship.

Bruce Cole
Chairman
National Endowment for the Humanities


On May 22 National Review online drew attention to the Newberry's contention that the library had not been aware of questions about Bellesiles's scholarship when his fellowship was awarded. "How the Newberry thought they could get away with this assertion is remarkable," observed NRO's Melissa Seckora.

As the NEH notes, questions regarding Arming America were raised in the press as early as October 29, 2000--about five months before the Newberry gave Bellesiles $30,000 to write a second book on guns. What is most fascinating about the NEH's follow-up letter to the Newberry is that two of Bellesiles's letters of recommendation for the grant "clearly called attention" to "extensive criticism" of Arming America. States NEH: "One opined that Arming America had 'created a sensation,' arguing that awarding Professor Bellesiles a fellowship 'would be a public service' in light of the 'financial resources available to gun rights groups.' Another forecast that 'his next book, which focuses on the history of gun laws, promises to upset even more people."
NRO also reported that NEH deputy chairman Lynne Munson chided the library for flawed procedures. "t is the Endowment's opinion that the Newberry procedure...is flawed, in part because it does not extend to claims made in applications to the library. Please know that the federal government defines research misconduct as 'fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing, or in reporting research results.'" Munson added: "because the serious questions concerning academic integrity, which the Newberry gives no evidence of having considered, Professor Bellesiles' application must be deemed insufficiently competitive to warrant an NEH-sponsored fellowship."

Mr. Bellesiles responded to the NEH action in an email sent to the Chronicle of Higher Education (May 23, 2002): "They simply made a political decision that should send chills through academics everywhere. The spirit of Joe McCarthy stalks the halls of the NEH." He said the NEH's action was "completely gratuitous." He added: "I regret that my name has been associated with an agency that values so little the principles of the First Amendment, due process, and academic freedom." The NEH awarded the Newberry $270,000 in 2000 for fellowships. Mr. Bellesiles received $30,000.

On May 23 the Newberry released a statement defending its fellowship practices. Library President Charles T. Cullen wrote that questions about Arming America in scholarly journals (as distinguished from the mass media) were not raised until after February 2001, when Mr. Bellesiles was awarded his fellowship: "We disagree that our review process was 'flawed' and that our actions afterwards reflect inattention to issues of academic misconduct." As evidence of the high esteem in which the book was still held at the time, Mr. Cullen noted that "in April 2001, two months after the Newberry's review committee's meeting, Columbia University awarded Professor Bellesiles its Bancroft prize."

Mr. Cullen did not defend Mr. Bellesiles or his book. He insisted that questions about the book should rightly be referred to Emory University. On May 30 Mr. Bellesiles is scheduled to deliver an address at the Newberry regarding the subject of the book he has been working on during his Newberry fellowship: "The War of 1812 in experience and memory."

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=691#neh2


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878