BELLESILES UPDATE: Kimberly Strassel blasts the historians:

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of L’affaire Bellesiles is that despite the enormity of the scandal, nearly every institution involved–from Emory University, to Columbia University’s Bancroft Prize Committee, to the publisher–has refused to take a professional or moral stance. The silence of these bodies–groups charged with maintaining the standards and ideals of the academic profession–has been so deafening, that even the traditionally closed-mouth world of scholars is calling for some public disclosure. . . .

The American Historical Association, which might have been best placed to undertake a scholarly inquiry, instead limited itself to passing a “resolution” on Mr. Bellesiles’s behalf. “the Council of the American Historical Association considers personal attacks upon or harassment of an author . . . to be inappropriate and damaging to a tradition of free exchange of ideas and the advancement of our knowledge of the past.”

Strassel does note that individual scholars, such as James Lindgren of Northwestern and Jerome Sternstein of Brooklyn College have worked hard to set the record straight. Interestingly, Eric Alterman sort of agrees:

I don’t doubt that Michael Bellesiles’ “Arming America” is fundamentally flawed. But I wonder how so many in the media can continue to write about academia as if it is populated by nothing but sixties-style radicals when in fact, it was these very academics who undertook to judge the book and find it wanting when questions about Bellesiles’ research methods were raised.

Despite the highly charged nature of the argument over whether America really is, historically, a nation of guns, historically, Bellesiles has not enjoyed a closed-ranks defense of his work from the counterparts of the people who feel compelled to defend say, the racist pseudoscience of Charles Murray. I feel certain, moreover, that those institutions that rewarded Bellesiles will, after careful consideration, act on the question of whether to rescind those awards.

Careful consideration, after all, is what academia is good for.

In truth, though, Bellesiles did enjoy that sort of defense until the evidence became overwhelming — as the AHA resolution Strassel cites demonstrates. But ultimately, the evidence does seem to have won out — as the fact that even an antigun lefty like Alterman has written off Bellesiles’ work proves beyond any doubt.

Only Garry Wills is still in denial — or at least in seclusion — on this one. So far nobody’s been able to get a comment out of him, as far as I can tell.