Both of these statements are false. Bellesiles, unlike Churchill, did not systematically lie, twist, mis-cite, make up up, and plagiarize himself for _years_ over the dozens of books and articles WC notes he has written. The main charges against him come down to the (serious) charge that he did not do the research he claims he did for a number of footnotes in his book, and was unable to produce evidence that he did the research for those footnotes or that the evidence he bases them on exists. But unlike the case with WC, this involves one book, and the footnotes in question were not essential to B's argument. In WC's case, the made-up or twisted sourcing, misrepresentation, and outright lies go to claims that are essential to his basic theses and have been repeated and amplified for a long time across many works.
Nor is WC really faced with what happened to B -- total scholarly ruin. The committee's recommendation is that he be suspended without may, not stripped of tenure and fired. There is one member who supported that view, but the majority view of the committee is different.
Why the double standard? Bellesiles
> did far more than "fudge the sources in one chart"
> so why
> bend over backwards to defend one author and not
> another for committing the same transgressions? Why
> does Justin lament Bellesiles career is ruined and
> yet write the following concerning Churchill:
"Lament" is not an accurate characterization of my views or my statements. It is just a fact that B's career is ruined. I think what happened to B was mainly political -- he pissed off the NRA -- and he should have mainly suffered the normal consequences of really shoddy scholarship, namely, diminished reputation in the profession. His scholarly crimes were not bad enough to merit what happened to him. If he'd been suspended without pay for a period, as is proposed for WC, I would say that wasn't disproportionate, though it strikes me as being on the high end.
You will say, and I agree, that the investigation of WC was political, it got started with his "Little Eichmanns" statement, but the fruit of the investigation was far more damaging to WC's work, and quite independent of his political views. So, I don't understand why you think it advances the cause of Native Americans, the left, or anything good to defend this fraud.
> Bellesiles is forgiveable because he was might be
> correct even though he fabricated evidence and
> deliberately misrepresented sources but Churchill is
> not to be forgiven for fabricating evidence and
> misrepresenting sources even it he does turn out to
> be correct! What an amazing double standard.
No, B's fabrications are not forgivable, they just don't damage basic argument of his book, which rests on a lot of stuff that no one argued was fabricated, though people can dispute whether it is right or rightly interpreted. B deserved to be thoroughly spanked as a scholar. What he didn't deserve was to be fired and professionally ruined. That was disproportionate.
WC's fabrications, on the contrary, are structural defects; he has not got stuff independent of his lies to back up what he says. (I guess you don't dispute that WC is in fact a liar and the truth is not in him -- that would be a hard row to hoe after the report.) I'm not advocating any particular punishment for him; his reputation is already ruined, and a suspension without pay does not strike me as excessive -- and given the greater length, breadth, and systematicity of WC's misrepresentations compared to B's, would not be on the high end.
What I did say was that we should not defend WC, apologize for his misdeeds, continue to regard him as a reputable or credible authority (if we ever did). It seems to me that with B, the case with regard to credibility is rather more open because B's scholarly crimes were lesser for the reasons I have stated; if B were still in the biz, and with respect to the claims in his book, I guess I'd say we know we can't take his word and have to check his sources quite carefully. And if the thesis of his book survived rigorous examination, B's reputation would still be damaged. However, with WC, his reputation is demolished and he should just be ignored as a fraud -- not someone to defend.
If we oppose WC suffering B's fate of being stripped of tenure and fired, which is not recommended, it should only be because the principle of tenure requires defense, not because WC and his work deserve anything more than our contempt.
No doubt you will say this some sort of racist bigotry, I defend white people and not Indians. Think what you like. If B had done what WC had done, I'd say the same for him: he doesn't deserve our defense, except insofar as the principle of tenure requires defense.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs where instead of being able to say (as one could with David Abraham), this man is the victim of a political frameup; his work is basically sound and his errors are no worse than those of 99% of scholars, with WC one is reduced to saying (in my case incorrectly), that he's an incompetent and liar, but he's being treated worse than other incompetent liars because he's an Indian. As I've said, B not really similarly situated; his lies were not as bad or damaging, but even if they were, he's been professionally destroyed, as is not proposed for WC, and if they were as bad, he would deserve our contempt as much, and merit our support as little, as WC does.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com