Posted: 8/22/2002 1:56:38 PM EDT
|
Statement from Emory University: "Professor Michael Bellesiles will be on paid leave from his teaching duties at Emory University during the fall semester. The University's inquiry regarding Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is continuing. Professor Bellesiles and the University have agreed that the results of the University's inquiry will be made public when the inquiry is completed." Looks like bullshit to me. Their outside committee has supposedly completed their work. They should be able to pull the trigger on him by now. This does not bode well for the reputation of Emory's history department. |
|
His reputation is trashed; everyone realizes he fabricated data. The question is whether he'll get canned from Emory for it. He couldn't get a job anywhere else these days. I like to believe that even lefty elite universities still have some regard for truth. See [url]www.instapundit.com/lawrev/Lindgren.pdf[/url] for a devastating review of his methods. |
|
Quoted: I am not sure if you guys are up to speed about the political state of academia today. This guy would be welcome at the most prestigious universities in America, just because his biases are in line with theirs. No, I don't believe he would now be welcome. Dud has committed the unpardonable - he's embarrassed academia. |
|
If anyone read on how he got his data, it would amuse you! Apparently he believes that all gun sales and "inheritance" of guns took place on paper. Thus the arguably 3% of on paper gun transfers were what he based his theories on. Basically, his chosen proof was so limiting that he could come to no real conclusion. The destroyed documents were not really a loss since the method of research was faulty. However, the attacks on him were too narrow, they should have attacked his methods and such, although they did get him in the end! Good riddance, and I do believe that academically, he'd screwed. |
|
His methods were attacked plenty; that's why his job and carrer are on going down in flames. It wasn't just that he did bad history, and selectively presented evidence or used bad methods. He did all those, but if he limited himself to just that he'd have only been written off as a doofus. But he also FABRICATED evidence, which is a hanging offense in academia. He claimed to have examined records that didn't exist. That can't be written off as just differences of opinion, or sloppiness. It's fraud. And any department worth the name, in any discipline, should deal with it severely if it wants to keep its reputation. |
|
This will not come as a surprise to many who have followed this story but some pretty well known historians have sung the praises of this guy and his thesis. Since the original blush of praise I think Gary Wills has said he's too busy to pursue the issues. [url]hnn.us/articles/575.html[/url] Historians are starting to remind me of pop-psychologists. |