In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
The Cowards of Academe Michael Bellesiles's .....
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
The Cowards of Academe
Michael Bellesiles's rear-guard defenders.
by David Skinner
06/10/2002, Volume 007, Issue 38
A NEW WORK OF HISTORY is published. You review the book on the front page of the book section of the New York Times, saying the author "has dispelled the darkness" surrounding an issue of significant historical interest. Turns out later the book is deeply flawed. Historical sources have been misrepresented. Key numbers are flat-out wrong. Data that should have been carefully collected and made reproducible for verification were neither, and when spot-checked against original documents, prove incorrect. The book's credibility is fatally undermined. Should you feel embarrassed? Why? Garry Wills, who reviewed Michael Bellesiles's "Arming America" for the Times book section on September 10, 2000, doesn't seem at all embarrassed. He simply declines to comment.
Equally sanguine are many other people and institutions who celebrated Bellesiles's prize-winning book for its "debunking" of the "myth" of widespread gun ownership in pre-Civil War America. Well over a year and a half after this mistake-ridden brief for gun control was published, precious few individuals or institutions have recanted or even qualified their support for its sloppy and dishonest work. Columbia University bestowed the prestigious Bancroft prize on "Arming America," but has barely flinched at revelations of missing historical documents and gross miscounts, to say nothing of the author's own preposterous excuse-making, which has consistently dug him deeper in the hole.
For a time, it was rumored that the university would take back the prize. In December 2001, it was reported, the dean's office distributed copies of articles critical of Bellesiles's work to the judges who had awarded him the Bancroft. Nothing came of this. In January, James Devitt, a spokesman for the university, dismissed the idea that the controversy was anything out of the ordinary. Asked who the judges were, Devitt said the committee was "private," but that all three members "definitely have an expertise in these areas." Their identities now revealed, it is not clear that these scholars either have specifically relevant expertise or feel any more regret than the university does.
Professor of American Jewish history Arthur Goren, Columbia's own representative on the Bancroft panel, says after repeated requests for an interview, "I have nothing to say." Jan Ellen Lewis of Rutgers University, the author of "The Pursuit of Happiness: Family and Values in Jefferson's Virginia" and coeditor of a book about Thomas Jefferson's relationship with slave Sally Hemings, is almost as reticent. "I've been very busy with the end of the semester, as well as a couple of writing deadlines of my own," she says via e-mail after several attempts to reach her. "I'm sorry; I don't have any comment at this time." According to her curriculum vitae, Lewis is a close colleague of University of Virginia's Peter S. Onuf, with whom she has collaborated on several books. Coincidentally, Onuf authored a blurb for the jacket of "Arming America," calling it "deeply researched" and a "myth-busting tour de force."
Berkeley professor of history and women's studies Mary P. Ryan, the third Bancroft judge, is apparently also too busy to answer questions. Reached by phone, she seemed unnerved at having been identified. She said several times that it was very rude to call her like this and that she would "only speak through [the Bancroft] committee." Asked whether she had an obligation as a scholar to address the many criticisms of "Arming America," she insisted that she had given a lot of thought to the subject. Pressed for details, she exclaimed, "You are being very rude." Finally Professor Ryan said she would answer questions via e-mail.
After receiving such an e-mail, she wrote back: "I have received your questions and will consider them. You will understand, however, if I find that this discussion is not the most productive way of advancing historical understanding, and it certainly is not the best use of my particular knowledge as a historian working on very different subjects. Therefore I will not be getting back to you until I have met some deadlines of my own." That was over three weeks ago. Professor Ryan has apparently joined the club of Bellesiles promoters who seem unworried that the book is fundamentally mistaken if not fraudulent.
Emory University, where Bellesiles is a professor of history, also seems to be taking the long way around to passing judgment. Last fall, after many months of serious scholarly dispute, the head of the history department suggested Bellesiles address his critics. What resulted were the most minor and superficial of concessions, wrapped in a thoroughly disingenuous article published in a professional newsletter. This failing to satisfy anyone, the William and Mary Quarterly agreed to host a discussion between Bellesiles and four other historians. Three of the four assailed Bellesiles's documentary evidence, saying he had failed "to supply basic information," that his approach was "consistently biased," and his findings were "mathematically improbable or impossible." Bellesiles's only defender simply failed to address the issues of documentary evidence.
With many questions still wanting answers--Why are Bellesiles's militia counts so open to challenge? Where are the probate records he claims to have seen, and why do his numbers diverge so radically from those in existing databases? What about the Vermont court records whose existence no one can verify? Or the scads of original sources his critics show he has misrepresented?--Emory University announced in February that a faculty commission would look into the matter. That commission led to the formation of yet another commission, this one made up of scholars from outside Emory. The persistent avoidance of coming to any conclusion, much less assessing blame, is now a well-established pattern.
One organization, however, has shown that it takes this matter seriously: the National Endowment for the Humanities. Recently, NEH deputy chairman Lynn Munson forced the Newberry Library in Chicago to formally disassociate her agency from a Newberry fellowship awarded to Bellesiles for his continuing research on guns. It was a symbolic gesture, to be sure, serving mainly to embarrass the Newberry people and of course Michael Bellesiles. Still, the NEH went out of its way to demonstrate a concern for academic standards, while so many scholars energetically postpone responsibility. In a letter responding to the NEH announcement, the Newberry Library denied any obligation to look into the accusations against Bellesiles, citing Emory University's own investigation as the "proper venue for such an investigation." Ah, yes--another scholarly institution that believes truthfulness is someone else's problem.
David Skinner is an assistant managing editor at The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/323pkmbz.asp
"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
Michael Bellesiles's rear-guard defenders.
by David Skinner
06/10/2002, Volume 007, Issue 38
A NEW WORK OF HISTORY is published. You review the book on the front page of the book section of the New York Times, saying the author "has dispelled the darkness" surrounding an issue of significant historical interest. Turns out later the book is deeply flawed. Historical sources have been misrepresented. Key numbers are flat-out wrong. Data that should have been carefully collected and made reproducible for verification were neither, and when spot-checked against original documents, prove incorrect. The book's credibility is fatally undermined. Should you feel embarrassed? Why? Garry Wills, who reviewed Michael Bellesiles's "Arming America" for the Times book section on September 10, 2000, doesn't seem at all embarrassed. He simply declines to comment.
Equally sanguine are many other people and institutions who celebrated Bellesiles's prize-winning book for its "debunking" of the "myth" of widespread gun ownership in pre-Civil War America. Well over a year and a half after this mistake-ridden brief for gun control was published, precious few individuals or institutions have recanted or even qualified their support for its sloppy and dishonest work. Columbia University bestowed the prestigious Bancroft prize on "Arming America," but has barely flinched at revelations of missing historical documents and gross miscounts, to say nothing of the author's own preposterous excuse-making, which has consistently dug him deeper in the hole.
For a time, it was rumored that the university would take back the prize. In December 2001, it was reported, the dean's office distributed copies of articles critical of Bellesiles's work to the judges who had awarded him the Bancroft. Nothing came of this. In January, James Devitt, a spokesman for the university, dismissed the idea that the controversy was anything out of the ordinary. Asked who the judges were, Devitt said the committee was "private," but that all three members "definitely have an expertise in these areas." Their identities now revealed, it is not clear that these scholars either have specifically relevant expertise or feel any more regret than the university does.
Professor of American Jewish history Arthur Goren, Columbia's own representative on the Bancroft panel, says after repeated requests for an interview, "I have nothing to say." Jan Ellen Lewis of Rutgers University, the author of "The Pursuit of Happiness: Family and Values in Jefferson's Virginia" and coeditor of a book about Thomas Jefferson's relationship with slave Sally Hemings, is almost as reticent. "I've been very busy with the end of the semester, as well as a couple of writing deadlines of my own," she says via e-mail after several attempts to reach her. "I'm sorry; I don't have any comment at this time." According to her curriculum vitae, Lewis is a close colleague of University of Virginia's Peter S. Onuf, with whom she has collaborated on several books. Coincidentally, Onuf authored a blurb for the jacket of "Arming America," calling it "deeply researched" and a "myth-busting tour de force."
Berkeley professor of history and women's studies Mary P. Ryan, the third Bancroft judge, is apparently also too busy to answer questions. Reached by phone, she seemed unnerved at having been identified. She said several times that it was very rude to call her like this and that she would "only speak through [the Bancroft] committee." Asked whether she had an obligation as a scholar to address the many criticisms of "Arming America," she insisted that she had given a lot of thought to the subject. Pressed for details, she exclaimed, "You are being very rude." Finally Professor Ryan said she would answer questions via e-mail.
After receiving such an e-mail, she wrote back: "I have received your questions and will consider them. You will understand, however, if I find that this discussion is not the most productive way of advancing historical understanding, and it certainly is not the best use of my particular knowledge as a historian working on very different subjects. Therefore I will not be getting back to you until I have met some deadlines of my own." That was over three weeks ago. Professor Ryan has apparently joined the club of Bellesiles promoters who seem unworried that the book is fundamentally mistaken if not fraudulent.
Emory University, where Bellesiles is a professor of history, also seems to be taking the long way around to passing judgment. Last fall, after many months of serious scholarly dispute, the head of the history department suggested Bellesiles address his critics. What resulted were the most minor and superficial of concessions, wrapped in a thoroughly disingenuous article published in a professional newsletter. This failing to satisfy anyone, the William and Mary Quarterly agreed to host a discussion between Bellesiles and four other historians. Three of the four assailed Bellesiles's documentary evidence, saying he had failed "to supply basic information," that his approach was "consistently biased," and his findings were "mathematically improbable or impossible." Bellesiles's only defender simply failed to address the issues of documentary evidence.
With many questions still wanting answers--Why are Bellesiles's militia counts so open to challenge? Where are the probate records he claims to have seen, and why do his numbers diverge so radically from those in existing databases? What about the Vermont court records whose existence no one can verify? Or the scads of original sources his critics show he has misrepresented?--Emory University announced in February that a faculty commission would look into the matter. That commission led to the formation of yet another commission, this one made up of scholars from outside Emory. The persistent avoidance of coming to any conclusion, much less assessing blame, is now a well-established pattern.
One organization, however, has shown that it takes this matter seriously: the National Endowment for the Humanities. Recently, NEH deputy chairman Lynn Munson forced the Newberry Library in Chicago to formally disassociate her agency from a Newberry fellowship awarded to Bellesiles for his continuing research on guns. It was a symbolic gesture, to be sure, serving mainly to embarrass the Newberry people and of course Michael Bellesiles. Still, the NEH went out of its way to demonstrate a concern for academic standards, while so many scholars energetically postpone responsibility. In a letter responding to the NEH announcement, the Newberry Library denied any obligation to look into the accusations against Bellesiles, citing Emory University's own investigation as the "proper venue for such an investigation." Ah, yes--another scholarly institution that believes truthfulness is someone else's problem.
David Skinner is an assistant managing editor at The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/323pkmbz.asp
"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
Comments
An antigun scholar defends his shoddy work by calling critics names.
BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Thursday, June 6, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT
Let us now praise institutions with backbone. In this case, the National Endowment for the Humanities.
If you've been following the news, you've probably heard about the scandal of Emory professor Michael Bellesiles and his book, "Arming America." In 2000, Mr. Bellesiles's tome caused a firestorm, purporting as it did to show that few early Americans actually owned guns--thus calling into question whether the Second Amendment was designed to protect individual gun rights.
But just a few months after its release, as Mr. Bellesiles was piling up accolades from antigun activists, a fierce academic debate broke out over its accuracy. Since then, scholars of every stripe have piled up an impressive body of work demonstrating that Mr. Bellesiles's book is riddled with egregious errors. The Emory professor, rather than seriously refute the claims, has instead engaged in a dog-ate-my-homework extravaganza: His notes were "flooded," a hacker had altered his data, small-town historical societies were out to get him.
But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of L'affaire Bellesiles is that despite the enormity of the scandal, nearly every institution involved--from Emory University, to Columbia University's Bancroft Prize Committee, to the publisher--has refused to take a professional or moral stance. The silence of these bodies--groups charged with maintaining the standards and ideals of the academic profession--has been so deafening, that even the traditionally closed-mouth world of scholars is calling for some public disclosure.
Which gets us back to the National Endowment of the Humanities. Several weeks ago, in a bold and impressive move, the NEH became the first institution to treat the accusations against Mr. Bellesiles with the gravity they deserve. It came in response to a $30,000 NEH-funded fellowship that the Newberry Library, a Chicago research institution, awarded Mr. Bellesiles in February 2001. Last month NEH deputy chairman Lynne Munson wrote to the library that in light of the "serious question concerning academic integrity," that have been raised about Mr. Bellesiles, the NEH wanted its name removed from the fellowship.
The Newberry Library's defense is that the criticism of Mr. Bellesiles's book didn't take on a "scholarly character" until after it had granted the fellowship. But whatever the timing, the fact remains that Newberry never did anything about revoking or suspending the fellowship--even when serious questions about Mr. Bellesiles's academic integrity came to the fore.
Not that Newberry is alone. In April 2001, Mr. Bellesiles was awarded the Bancroft Prize, one of the more prestigious history awards. So far, Columbia University, which administers the prize, has been mum as to what, if any, action it will take. In January, a spokesman for the university boldly said there was "nothing new" in such controversy. Past winners no doubt will be thrilled to learn that Columbia thinks their scholarship is no better than Mr. Bellesiles's.
Emory itself has been only moderately more responsive. Its first step was simply to request that Mr. Bellesiles formally respond to his critics (one might have hoped he'd have done that already). He ultimately did, in the newsletter for the Organization of American Historians, in a piece that was three parts complaints about his critics and one part a repeat of everything he'd said before--which is to say, nothing.
In February, a year into the debate and under growing pressure, Emory timidly said it would put together a panel of faculty members to look at the claims. This led to another commission, this time of non-Emory folk. Word is that this panel may be making an announcement in July, but nobody is holding his breath.
Meanwhile, some organizations have actually gone out of their way to defend Mr. Bellesiles. The book's publisher, Knopf, has defended "Arming America," noting that most of the criticisms were a "matter of interpretation," and that it "stands behind" the author.
The American Historical Association, which might have been best placed to undertake a scholarly inquiry, instead limited itself to passing a "resolution" on Mr. Bellesiles's behalf. "the Council of the American Historical Association considers personal attacks upon or harassment of an author . . . to be inappropriate and damaging to a tradition of free exchange of ideas and the advancement of our knowledge of the past."
Mr. Bellesiles, for his part, has been making the most of those fears. After the NEH removed its name from the Newberry grant, he labeled the move a "political decision that should send chills through academics everywhere and is clearly intended as a warning to any scholar who dares to work on a controversial topic."
In case anyone missed the point, he illuminated in an interview with the Guardian, a left-wing British newspaper, which reported: "The decision by his funders to remove their name from his fellowship, [Bellesiles] added, reawakened the ghosts of McCarthyism. 'It sends a message: that there are some topics which perhaps should not be addressed . . . This is a dangerous environment to talk about firearms. I think that's rather obvious now.' "
Of course, if there is anyone who would see through such claptrap, it is scholars themselves. And fortunately, while institutions seem paralyzed with inaction, many historians have not been. The result is that much of the heavy lifting to investigating both Mr. Bellesiles's work and his subsequent claims is being coming from the bottom up, and with some very impressive results.
The man who has done the most is James Lindgren, the Northwestern professor who has shown that Mr. Bellesiles's counts of early probate records are flawed. Mr. Lindgren has been adamant about documenting all of his work and requesting academic review of it from unbiased scholars. He's also been careful to focus the debate entirely on the academic work in question, despite the increasingly personal accusations that Mr. Bellesiles continues to level in his direction.
There has also been several scholars who originally gave the book positive reviews but have since reversed course. Meanwhile, Clayton Cramer, another historian, has doggedly researched even lower-profile areas of the book. And in February, the William & Mary Quarterly published lengthy reviews of "Arming America" from four prominent historians, three of whom rendered damning judgments.
Most recently, Jerome Sternstein, a professor emeritus of history at Brooklyn College, wrote a remarkable article for the History News Network, in which he meticulously researched Mr. Bellesiles's claims about the "flood" that supposedly destroyed his notes. Mr. Sternstein not only reconstructs the flood day (and concludes Mr. Bellesiles's story, once again, is seriously in doubt), but even tries to replicate the "water damage" with his own sets of legal pads and a shower.
Contrast this to Mr. Bellesiles defenders. We have yet to see even one scholarly defense of the disputed parts of his book. Rather, those who stand behind the Emory professor have resorted to the weakest of defenses--impugning the character or motives of his critics. Never mind that many of those questioning Mr. Bellesiles's work have also professed themselves sympathetic to his general views about guns.
It has been heartening to see members of the academic world work so hard to right its house. For the rest of us, who have always been told that scholarship is about the cause of truth, they are fitting role models. The bureaucrats and former scholars who now head of the nation's academic institutions could learn something from them.
Ms. Strassel is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrassel/?id=110001806
"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