The process of historical interpretation leaves a good deal of room for debate, disagreement, and, we hope, constructive dialogue across differences. There is, however, a difference between interpretive disagreements of this kind and basic professional standards that all historians are expected to meet. During the last couple of years, several well-known historians, among them Stephan Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin, have been accused of failing to meet these standards in a variety of ways. Many of these cases involve plagiarism, a relatively well-known form of academic dishonesty, but others have involved charges that individual historians misrepresented their sources (or their research in them) in other ways as well. This week I'd like you to take a look at the case of one of these historians, Michael Bellesiles, whose book, Arming America : The Origins of a National Gun Culture, attracted a good deal of praise on its publication in 2000 but was soon subjected to overwhelming criticism from a number of quarters, eventually resulting in a full-scale investigation by a national panel of historians chosen by Emory University, where Bellesiles was then on the faculty. I've asked you to read the American Historical Association's most recent statement on professional standards, and to read as much of the History News Network's coverage of the Bellisiles case as you possibly can. If you have additional time, History News Network offers details of several similar professional standards cases, which I invite you to browse through as well.

Reading Assignment:

American Historical Association, Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct, 2003 Edition. (in Course Reader).