It goes without saying that it is difficult for historians to get published...and they have to endure an execrable job market...blah blah blah.

But I must ask, how is it possible (or even a teeny bit just) for an utterly disgraced historian like Michael Bellesiles, who lost his tenured position, had his Bancroft Prize yanked (Columbia found "After considering all of these materials, the Trustees concurred with the three distinguished scholars who reviewed the case for Emory University that Professor Bellesiles had violated basic norms of acceptable scholarly conduct"), and lost the profession's respect because his book was an invention and an insult to scholarship, not only secure another job (albeit an adjunct slot at some provincial Connecticut campus) but also get another book out? While, it is pedantic to point out, the best minds of this generation are [destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked] out there serving fries while endlessly being not published somewhere? It is simply dismaying.

I use the Bellesiles case every year as exhibit A in discussions of academic dishonesty and will continue to do so.

In more amusing matters, and speaking of academic cheats, I have now caught at least one plariarizer each semester for a year (including Winter Session) because they simply copy and pasted from Wikipedia without removing the hyperlinks. Boneheaded, to say the least.

At least Bellesiles just made the stuff up--- and then later claimed his notes were destroyed in a flood. Marginally more creative than the usual excuse cheats offer up.

My favorite is the perennial "my cousin" assembled the material for me. Maybe Bellesiles should peddle the cousin angle.


Anonymous said…
A good medicine tastes bitter. .............................................

Popular posts from this blog

Buddhas, Buddhas, y Mas Buddhas

Can octopus heads be hazardous to your health?