What the Newberry Knew and When It Knew It
These charges against the Newberry are stated in two documents released this week: a letter from NEH Deputy Chairman, Lynn Munson; and a public statement issued by NEH Chairman Bruce Cole. The NEH accuses the Newberry Library of awarding a fellowship to Professor Bellesiles despite the existence of"widespread" scholarly debate at the time of the award, and charges the Library with inattention to academic integrity because"the federal research misconduct policy calls for investigation and adjudication of fraudulent claims made not only in grant products, but also in applications for federal funds submitted to federal agencies and to their institutional grantees." The controversy that has developed over Professor Bellesiles' last book did not take on a scholarly character until well after February 2001. We disagree that our review process was"flawed" and that our actions afterwards reflect inattention to issues of academic misconduct.
The Newberry awarded a fellowship to Professor Bellesiles late in February 2001, after an outside peer review committee of distinguished humanities scholars had recommended him and other scholars for these awards. The decision was based on evaluations of applicants' research proposals, along with letters of recommendation and statements by Library staff assessing the value of the Library's collections to the proposed research. In the case of senior scholars like Professor Bellesiles, the quantity and significance of previous publications are among the factors considered in the evaluation process. The review committee and Newberry staff were well aware that Professor Bellesiles' second book, Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, had attracted public controversy. But if there was"serious and widespread" debate as Ms. Munson asserts, it certainly was not taking place in the scholarly arena. By February 2001, some isolated criticism existed, to be sure, but"widespread" debate had not yet emerged among scholars.
Ms. Munson cites one article in the Washington Post of October 2000, one review in Reason magazine of January 2001, one hour-long radio program that aired in Chicago in January 2001, and references to discussion on the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Internet discussion group. She references an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education of February 1 of this year that lists in its chronology of Bellesiles events the existence of discussion"raging" on various Internet discussion groups among"professional and amateur historians" by October 2000. She confuses postings of general announcements to a central Internet site (H-Net) with participation in individual discussion groups. Most significantly, the NEH did not cite a single scholarly journal in its letter. It could find only one example of a historian who had questioned Bellesiles' methods, and that was in a daily newspaper. At the time the fellowship was offered to Professor Bellesiles, the scholarly reviews were overwhelmingly laudatory. She quotes selectively from two letters of recommendation submitted to our review committee in support of Professor Bellesiles' application in which the writers refer to controversy over his second book. She omits, however, mention of the fact that these writers all praised his scholarship and made clear that their references to controversy were to public rather than scholarly debate (each of these writers also thought such public debate was good for scholarship).
Ms. Munson's letter and Dr. Cole's statement failed to take into account other pieces of relevant information in the Chronicle article she references. That article described, in the order of occurrence, first"glowing reviews," along with"attacks from pro-gun activists." Academic criticism in the beginning came from Professor James Lindgren, whose criticism was presented publicly on that referenced radio program in January 2001. His attack spread and started what the article refers to as"the second wave" of criticism in which scholars have played an active role. By September 2001, the Chronicle identifies what it calls"growing concern." Ms. Munson relied on the article's appended chronology of events for evidence that debates raged among historians"both professional and amateur" by November 2000, but she neglected references to three other significant events. In April 2001, two months after the Newberry's review committee's meeting, Columbia University awarded Professor Bellesiles its Bancroft prize. In June 2001, the governing boards of both the American Historical Association and the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture (on whose Web discussion board the issue had been debated since the previous fall) passed resolutions condemning"harassment of Mr. Bellesiles" and defending a"tradition of free exchange of ideas." In October 2001, eight months after the Newberry's review committee meeting, the Organization of American Historians Executive Board adopted the same resolution, and Emory University decided the scholarly criticism was serious enough to take some steps to manage the growing controversy. Now, in May 2002, the NEH accuses the Newberry Library of negligence fifteen months earlier as it considered an application from an established scholar who wished to do new research in the Library's collections.
The charge that the Newberry does not take academic integrity seriously because it did not investigate or adjudicate the charges against Professor Bellesiles is similarly problematic. Professor Bellesiles neither did research for nor wrote Arming America at the Newberry. His employer, Emory University, is carrying out a full investigation of all charges relating to Arming America, and we explained to the NEH that we consider Emory the proper venue for such an investigation. In a previous letter, Ms. Munson asked the Newberry about its procedures for evaluating academic misconduct, and we replied that if a historian was charged with misconduct for work related to a Newberry residency, we would rely on the American Historical Association's Statement of Standards of Professional Conduct in addition to following the NEH's own guidelines. We stand by that commitment.
The Newberry has enjoyed a strong collaborative relationship with the National Endowment for the Humanities for many years, and we believe that the staff of the Endowment will affirm that we have fulfilled our responsibilities during this period. We work closely with NEH staff, and note that when we forwarded our list of 2001-02 fellows we did not receive any questions about Professor Bellesiles or anyone else on the list.
Our disagreement with the comments offered by Ms. Munson and Dr. Cole are offered in this spirit of continued collegial relations with the NEH. The humanities are about free inquiry and scholarly engagement based on reasoned, civil discourse. This often means that honest scholars disagree while respecting the integrity of their colleagues. This kind of scholarly debate relating to Professor Bellesiles' book became widespread only after we awarded the fellowship. Just as we hope that Professor Bellesiles and his critics welcome reasoned debate on his work (past and present), we welcome questions and criticisms of our fellowships program offered in that constructive spirit. We share Dr. Cole's concern with"the issue of trust and truth." Indeed, we are pleased to be guided by Thomas Jefferson's statement:"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."