Actually, it appears that academia has ideological standards. Hardly news there. This article is superlative, a few excerpts:
...On April 18 Columbia University will hand out its prestigious Bancroft Prize, an annual award presented for outstanding books in history and diplomacy. One of this year's recipients is Emory professor Michael Bellesiles, for his now-famous book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture."
That's hardly surprising, as few books in recent years have so riveted academic and political circles. Released by highbrow publisher Knopf last year, "Arming America" was a historical and political bombshell, a rare piece of work that purported not only to overturn long-held historical beliefs, but to alter modern politics profoundly in the process....
...To understand the fuss over "Arming America," you have to realize how important Mr. Bellesiles's work is to the gun-control movement. It's been rough going for those who believe the Second Amendment only protects "collective" use of guns by an organized militia. Over the past 15 years evidence that the Founders specifically had individual protection in mind has mounted so persuasively that even leading constitutional scholars on the left have been swayed.
"Arming America" was the first work in decades that revived the collective-right argument. And while Mr. Bellesiles says he is a historian, the book's promotion was highly political. "Michael A. Bellesiles is the NRA's worst nightmare," screamed one blurb on the back cover. Another: "Thinking people who deplore Americans' addiction to gun violence have been waiting a long time for this information."
Most newspaper reviews focused largely on the book's political implications, while making little effort to evaluate its historical accuracy. Meanwhile peer review in historical journals that delves into the nitty-gritty of scholarship is notoriously slow; most reviews don't appear until several years after a book's publication...
...Unsurprisingly, left-leaning journalists, academics and politicians went weak at the knees. The New York Times praised the work before it was released. Noted historians like Garry Wills wrote slobbery reviews. Politicians and lobbyists rushed to incorporate the book's conclusions into their work....
...But there's a problem. A growing number of respected scholars, from across the political spectrum, are saying that Mr. Bellesiles's research and conclusions are wrong. They've charged that "Arming America" is riddled with errors so enormous as to seriously undermine his work. They argue he has incorrectly tabulated probate records, failed to include facts that strongly argue the opposite case and misquoted and miscited sources. Mr. Bellesiles denies all this, but has not yet handed over evidence to refute his critics.
"From what I've seen," says Gerald Rosenberg, a visiting professor of law at Northwestern, "the evidence is so overwhelming that it is incumbent upon Bellesiles as a serious scholar to respond. He either has to admit error, or somehow show how his work is right." ...
opinionjournal.com
You gotta love the NYTimes. "All the news that fits their agenda". They praise the book before its release and then assign its review to the notorious Wills.
But, of course, they have no agenda. LOL. |
