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revelations of missing historical documents and gross miscounts,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.
|
|
