We have reached the conclusion with reference to clauses a through c, that Professor Bellesiles contravened these professional norms, both as expressed in the Committee charge and in the American Historical Associations definition of scholarly integrity, which includes an awareness of ones own bias and a readiness to follow sound method and analysis wherever they may lead, disclosure of all significant qualifications of ones arguments, careful documentation of findings and the responsibility to thereafter be prepared to make available to others their sources, evidence, and data, and the injunction that historians must not misrepresent evidence or the sources of evidence.
Much like the case of the Central Park Jogger, my basic response is “the system works”.
Like Bellesisles, I tend to believe that the role of the gun in American history is somewhat overstated, so my initial response to his book was positive.
But as I followed the controversies afterward, I have to say the his critics made serious points, and that his response to them was a textbook example of how not to defuse a bad situation. Even reading the report (pdf file), it appears that he didn’t do the logical things that would have defended his academic credibility, if not the specific research in question.
I’m sorry for him and his family, and glad that the academic community has performed careful review and upheld its integrity.
I don’t feel sorry for Mr. Bellesiles. What he did was academic fraud, and the reason he did it was to provide the gun control movement academic (ahem) ammunition (cough).
I have no doubt that Arming America will still be quoted as “authoritative” for decades, though. No matter how debunked the anti-gun forces are, their propaganda lives on. “Forty-three times more likely” ring a bell? How about “Twelve children a day!”? There seems to be a real “ends justify the means” attitude among the members of that side of the issue.
Had Bellesiles admitted up front what he’d done, we’d be right where we are now, but it wouldn’t have taken so long nor been so public.
My question: Will Bellesiles be stripped of the Bancroft Prize now, or will Columbia University ignore the Emory report?
I take the opposite point of view. This is a case of the intrusion of pressure-group politics into scholarly life. Let’s assume that his work was really as bad as they say.
Suppose he had done equally shoddy work on, for example, the history of the Volga Bulgars (ca. 1100 AD), or the cotton industry in 19th century Britain? What would have happened?
His career would have dead-ended. No promotions, no chance of a better position anywhere else. If he didn’t have tenure he wouldn’t have been rehired and would have ended up teaching in junior college.
But because he attacked a right wing sacred cow which was protected by a vigorous and fanatical organization, he’s out of there.
Kevin Baker talks about anti-gun fake statistics, but I hear pro-gun fake statistics all the time. If you disagree with someone, prove they’re wrong, argue with them, but don’t go after their job.
I probably wouldn’t be writing this if I was sure at this point that criticisms of Bellisles were valid. It looks to me like he ran into the mighty Wurlitzer of the NRA propaganda machine.
Ziska, all I can say is read the report, the criticisms and his responses (I have). I’ve done a fair amount of research (physical and social science) in my life, and if I ever did the kinds of things that even he admits to doing, I’d think seriously about getting a job at In N Out Burger because I’d be too damn embarassed to be seen as a professional, much less an academic.
I know he’s wrapping himself in the martyr flag, and I’m genuinely sorry that he is. Facts talk, and if he had them, we’d be listening.
A.L.
>> Suppose he had done equally shoddy work on, for example, the history of the Volga Bulgars (ca. 1100 AD), or the cotton industry in 19th century Britain? What would have happened?
“Shoddy” suggests that the work was merely inaccurate. However, the “mistakes” all went one way.
And, then there’s his responses to the questions. His abuse of Lindgren is unconsionable. And, there’s the ever changing stories. (BTW – at this point, there’s even some question as to whether the “flood” destroyed any of his notes.)
Bellesiles and his supporters claimed that his work had great political significance. He raised the stakes, so why shouldn’t that cut both ways?
>> I probably wouldn’t be writing this if I was sure at this point that criticisms of Bellisles were valid.
Which criticisms? The strawmen that Bellesiles and his supporters respond to? Or the criticisms raised by Cramer, Lindgren, and other professional historians?
Cramer has even gone to the trouble of scanning and posting many of the documents that Bellesiles cited. In doing so, he’s shown that Bellesiles’ descriptions are, let us say, inaccurate.
Many of these books are fairly readily available. You could double-check Cramer.
My skepticism about the merits of the case is based entirely on a recent Nation article. If the points made in the Nation article are not good, then I have nothing much to say on that point. (One thing that was questioned was how central the disputed passages were to the argument of the book as a whole).
I still have enormous doubts about the role of the NRA publicity machine in this case. They can have a tremendous intimidating effect and I’m sorry to see at it at work in the academic world. I say this whether or not the case against Bellesiles is a good one. (How the hell DO you spell that name? — a google search worked equally well with that spelling and with Bellisles).
I find it difficult to argue 2nd amendment questions, since this is a pretty low priority for me and 2nd amendment advocates always come loaded for bear. Just because it’s a low priority for me, I’m basically willing to compromise my (relatively mild) pro-gun-control beliefs, but I’m not really prepared for the nuts and bolts argument. (Citizenship is like that. You can’t be on top of everything.) But in order to argue a moderate position, you have to be just as well-prepared as to argue a strong position. And I’m not and I won’t be. I will always pretty much discount 2nd amendment advocates and absolutists who throw the kitchen sink at me, though.
Ziska –
If you discount the 2nd Amendment absolutists, do you also discount the 1st and 14th Amendment absolutists as well??
It’s the picking-and-choosing that frustrates me…
A.L.
Zizka wrote: “Kevin Baker talks about anti-gun fake statistics, but I hear pro-gun fake statistics all the time. If you disagree with someone, prove they’re wrong, argue with them, but don’t go after their job.
Um, the guy’s job is (or at least was) being an historian, not gun-control supporter or defender. He wrote a book, in no small part fiction, to support an agenda. Academics are supposed to be interested in facts and that’s what got him in trouble with his fellow historians. Lindgren is no 2nd Amendment supporter.
The majority of spurious gun “facts” come from the avowed “special interest” groups, however the medical profession has weighed in in the person of Arthur Kellerman. Look into what his advocacy got him (and us.) Yet he is still quoted as an authority. Or quoted without reference. Or badly misquoted without reference.
So, you read the Nation piece? Search Instapundit’s blog and The Volokh Conspiracy for links that review and refute it.
What Bellesiles (pronounced “Bul-leel”) did was blatant, and he got caught. How he could imagine that he could get away with it is beyond me. Perhaps if he had written a similarly flawed work on the Volga Bulgars he might have gotten away with it, but then it wouldn’t have garnered him rave reviews from national newspapers and a Bancroft Prize either. Yet when an economist does a statistical study on the effects of concealed-carry legislation and has it peer-reviewed, he is pilloried by the press and criticized for everything up to and including his eyebrows.
(Why is it that when people dispassionately study gun control and its effects they tend to conclude that gun control doesn’t work? I strongly recommend you acquire and read Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America by Wright, Rossi, and Daly. The three were commissioned by the Carter administration to study the state of gun control research and efficacy at the time. Wright was known to be in favor of gun control. The conclusion of the book was probably not what the Carter administration was expecting. It didn’t win any major prizes or get great reviews in the major media either.)
>> My skepticism about the merits of the case is based entirely on a recent Nation article.
Wowsers.
>> (One thing that was questioned was how central the disputed passages were to the argument of the book as a whole).
Take a look at Cramer’s site; virtually the whole book is suspect. While Bellesiles suggests otherwise, the committee had their pick of targets.
>> I still have enormous doubts about the role of the NRA publicity machine in this case.
Feel free to document that role. Bellesiles complained that the NRA was out to get him, but what did they actually do? (Oh dear, four guys handed out a pamphlet and Cramer wrote letters and posted things on a web site. None of those folks are representatives.)
>> They can have a tremendous intimidating effect
On historians?
>> I find it difficult to argue 2nd amendment questions, since this is a pretty low priority for me and 2nd amendment advocates always come loaded for bear.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I don’t think that the 2nd is sacred. If I thought that it was a bad idea (from a utilitarian perspective), I’d support repeal.
However, it’s pretty clear that none of the folks arguing against the individual right interpretation would do so if the subject was something else. (Let’s stipulate their misinterpretation of the phrase “well regulated militia” and rewrite the 2nd to another subject. “A literate bureaucracy being necessary to good government, the right of the people to have and read books shall not be infringed.” Would anyone argue that that doesn’t protect an individual’s rights to books?)
The honest approach for folks who don’t like the individual right is to amend the constitution, and the difficulty of doing so does not justify any other approach.
I’ve always loved that argument, Andy. But of course the government could restrict just what books individuals could own. They couldn’t be too big, or too small, or have too many pages. Hardbacks would be restricted to government employees. And of course we could have no book series with more than 10 volumes.
It’s a fun analogy to play with.
Zizka:
Regarding the article in The Nation please let me refer you to this link that should cover that pretty thoroughly. The piece also links to rebuttals of the article at other sites.
http://www.discriminations.us/archives/000191.html
Zizka–
Do you honestly believe that the NRA controls the conclusions of academic committees at major educational institutions? I only WISH they were that powerful.
I doubt you could find a place more hostile to the NRA than the faculty of a research university. For academics to end up taking the pro-gun side in this debate is rather like Burger King telling you that french fries are unhealthy. You don’t really need study the facts in depth, because you can be sure that most of these historians WISH whats-his-name was correct, and were really disappointed that he wasn’t.
Well, as I feared, Bellesiles’ now thoroughly discredited work will be quoted as authoritative into the future. Clayton Cramer’s blog (link: http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2002_10_27_archive.html#83674283 ) excerpts from Gary Wills’s new book A Necessary Evil: A History of American Mistrust of Government where Wills uses Bellesiles’ probate “studies” and commentary on the relative lack of hunting as gospel.
I wonder if the publisher will pull it? Probably not. So Wills will, in the future, probably be quoted as the primary source for these allegations that will live on as unquestioned “fact.”
Marvelous. Just marvelous.
THAT is why no one was happy with the time period between the assertion of wrongdoing and the final decision.