Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Opinion on teacher's suit | Main | More on "assault rifles," Brady, and officer slayings »

Ward Churchill on defending academic fraud

Posted by David Hardy · 10 November 2007 02:03 PM

Honestly, I don't think you could make this stuff up. Ward Churchill speaking on Michael Bellesiles:

"Consider the case of Michael Bellesiles, the young historian at Emory who wrote Arming America, a study devoted to debunking many of the more cherished myths of the country's thriving gun culture (for which he won the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 2000). It wasn't other academics who went after Bellesiles, but the National Rifle Association, which commenced a campaign alleging "academic fraud" even before the book was published (there were nearly 250 national articles published on the "Bellesiles Hoax" in less than two years). Ultimately, the "fraud" claim hinged on a single footnote in which Bellesiles gave the wrong archival location for certain documents he cited to demonstrate that gun ownership in early America was much less common than those of the NRA persuasion-which, by the way, includes me-would have it. The documents actually existed, and they said pretty much what Bellesiles said they said. Nonetheless, in the face of an unrelenting barrage of negative publicity-the NRA was able to orchestrate nearly 250 articles on the "Bellesiles Hoax" in less than two years-a panel of "impartial" scholars commissioned by Emory to "investigate the integrity of Professor Bellesiles' scholarship" concluded that in this instance his handling of data was "less than professional." On that basis, although the university tried to put a happy face on the situation by allowing him to "resign," Bellesiles was effectively fired. Once again, the performance of the left was something less than exemplary. Although there were a few progressive scholars who publicly defended Bellesiles-Gary Wills comes to mind-I can name none who expressed a sense of outrage that their colleagues on the left weren't joining in."

I can't see one statement of fact (other than that Bellesiles published a book) that isn't utterly false. Well, one is only misleading. He did get the Bancroft Prize ... but it got revoked.

14 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | November 10, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply

This from a guy who was photographed wearing a beret, the requisite "A.I.M. underground warrior" sunglasses, and holding an AK.

Oh yeah, did I mention that no federal recognized Indian tribe will claim him as a member?

Tarn Helm | November 10, 2007 8:14 PM | Reply

That passage is more evidence that diplomas, degrees, and certificates are no guarantee of sound judgment in matters of consequence, nor of moral or intellectual integrity.

RKV | November 10, 2007 10:12 PM | Reply

Pinhead only has an MA. And that from a 3rd rate school.

Don Gwinn | November 11, 2007 6:54 AM | Reply

Blah blah blah.

RSweeney | November 11, 2007 9:26 AM | Reply

I guess Churchill missed progressive Gary Wills' comment on Bellesiles post the Emory investigation "I was took. The book is a fraud."

Guess anything that doesn't fit the narrative is discarded and things that do fit are invented at will.

Which is the same problem Bellesiles had... hmmmm.

Chris | November 11, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply

I'm thankful that more Leftists are NOT pro-2nd Amendment. I also predict that may change.

Can you imagine the KOS kids and DUmmies being armed? They can't control themselves from keying a car with a Bush sticker. What will they do when they carry concealed?

thirdpower | November 11, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply

"the NRA was able to orchestrate nearly 250 articles on the "Bellesiles Hoax" in less than two years"

I guess this must be the same NRA that has organized the blogospere with their wheelbarrows full of cash.

straightarrow | November 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply

Mr. Hardy, I must take issue with your statement "Honestly, I don't think you could make this stuff up." Evidently you can. Belleseiles made it up and Churchill is proving quite creative in making up more "stuff".

tkdkerry | November 11, 2007 8:41 PM | Reply

Straightarrow, think a little more tongue-in-cheek.

A little more...

More...

OK, got that tongue pushing really hard on that cheek?

Now bite down hard.

straightarrow | November 11, 2007 9:22 PM | Reply

Well gee, TDKerry, ya think? Perhaps you should take your own advice. Just a thought. :)

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | November 11, 2007 11:08 PM | Reply

Boys, if you can't behave, Karina von Kroft will have to whack your pee-pee.

tkdkerry | November 12, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply

I was. You still don't get it? ;)

The Duck | November 13, 2007 12:43 PM | Reply

Well perhaps if they keep retelling the same lies, they can find a way to bury the truth, that seems to continue to be the tactic they use

RRyan | November 19, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply

"Ultimately, the "fraud" claim hinged on a single footnote in which Bellesiles gave the wrong archival location for certain documents he cited [...]. The documents actually existed, and they said pretty much what Bellesiles said they said."

What a bunch of hooey. I followed the Bellesiles case pretty closely at the time. Based on my recollection (and without going back to re-read any old stories or articles):

1. Bellesiles' fraud was extensive and was not limited, even in the Emory report, to one footnote.

However, the panel wanted to avoid a debate on various interpretations of Bellesiles' "research" and him on one specific incidence of fraud that was black and white and not subject to various interpretations.

2. I believe the specific incident on which Emory nailed Bellesiles had nothing to do with the location of records, but that they were able to establish that Bellesiles deliberately falsified data regarding probabte records.

Leave a comment