To find out about the latest deveopments in the Bellesiles case click here.

In early June, a journalist working for a pro-gun organization interviewed an unnamed professor at Emory University who reportedly was closely following the institution's investigation into the allegations of academic fraud and misconduct leveled against Michael Bellesiles's research in his award-winning book Arming America. The interviewer wanted to know his take on how Emory was handling the matter. "The people I talk with say that Bellesiles is toast," said the professor. "Emory is going slow in its investigation, trying to follow certain procedures carefully. And they are doing this because they think [Bellesiles] is dead meat and they want to make sure that when they hang him up to rot, the smell won't come wafting back on them."

The recent announcement by Emory's interim provost, Woody Hunter, that Bellesiles was appealing the findings of the independent outside committee charged with investigating those allegations has naturally led many to wonder what those procedures Emory was following consisted of and whether Emory would finally soon come to a conclusion concerning Bellesiles's culpability, as the provost's statement seems to promise. A close reading of Emory's "Policy and Procedures for Investigation of Misconduct in Research," with especial attention to those provisions which apply to the appeal process (ie., part 11 ff.), indicates that a final disposition of the Bellesiles Case is not very far off. Such a reading also seems to suggest -- though the Emory jury is still out, and given the nature of juries one must always expect the unexpected -- that, as the anonymous Emory professor predicted months earlier, "Bellesiles is toast."

According to the relevant provisions dealing with appeals in Emory's "Policy and Procedures" statement, "In cases where the charges of misconduct in research are substantiated" by the Investigative Committee:

The accused has the right to appeal the decision of the Investigative Committee to the Provost and the appropriate Vice President within 30 days after the final report of substantial. . . misconduct. The grounds for appeal must be: (a) inadequacy of the investigative procedure; and/or (b) new evidence not considered by the Investigative Committee. The Provost and the appropriate Vice President, in consultation with the dean/director, may appoint an ad hoc Appeals Committee, which should not include members of the original Investigative Committee.

Clearly, since Provost Hunter has announced that Bellesiles is appealing the Investigative Committee's report, it is reasonable to assume the Committee's conclusions are that Bellesiles has committed some form of academic misconduct. Furthermore, any grounds for appeal are limited by the rules under which the University is operating. Accordingly, Bellesiles cannot appeal on the basis that he is innocent of misconduct or that the outside panel misinterpreted the evidence it considered or that the committee made some mistake in judgment. His only grounds for appeal are (1) the investigative procedure was inadequate; (2) there is new evidence the panel failed to consider in making its judgment.

Under the appeals process now underway, the Appeals Committee is urged to report to the Provost and Vice President "as promptly as possible, but no later than 30 days after the appeal has been received." And if it finds "procedural irregularities or agrees that new evidence exists," it can call for a "reinvestigation" by the original Investigative Committee or the establishment of a new Investigative Committee. Such an outcome would lengthen the process considerably. But since the hurdles Bellesiles must navigate are so rigorous it is highly improbable he will win on appeal. Any procedural irregularity could easily be resolved by merely taking the case back to the Investigative Committee. And as for new evidence, what exculpating materials could Bellesiles bring forth at this late date that he has failed to provide when invited to on multiple occasions in the past?

Within thirty days, barring some unforeseen event, the chances are that Emory will announce what sanction, if any, it will apply to Prof. Bellesiles. According to the guidelines, "If misconduct is substantiated. . . the specific sanction(s) will depend upon the severity of the misconduct and may range from a letter of reprimand to the dismissal of the individual."

But whatever Emory's decision is, under the guidelines Emory is adhering to it must go further than merely disciplining a member of its faculty for research misconduct. The rules state that if Emory finds, as the outside Investigative Committee may have already determined, Bellesiles has engaged in academic misconduct, "all pending. . . papers emanating from the fraudulent research should be withdrawn and editors of journals in which previous. . . papers were published should be notified (11.2)." Also, "Institutions and sponsoring agencies with which the individual has been affiliated should be notified if there is reason to believe that the validity of previous research might be questionable (11.3)." Thus, in practical terms, if Emory's investigation concludes -- which its outside panel seemingly already has -- that the findings of Prof. James Lindgren, Prof. Randolph Roth, Clayton Cramer, and others are confirmed, then Emory must notify the Journal of American History to withdraw Bellesiles's article, "The Origins of American Gun Culture in the United States, 1760-1865," JAH, 83:425 (1996), where his allegedly falsified data first appeared in print. According to Emory's own rules, it must also notify Knopf/Vintage of its findings so that it can withdraw Arming America from circulation. Furthermore, though the rules under which Emory is operating do not specifically call upon it to so act, any determination of academic misconduct obligates Emory to urge the Organization of American Historians to withdraw the 1996 Binkley-Stephenson Award Bellesiles's JAH article received, as well as to urge the trustees of Columbia University to withdraw the Bancroft Prize it awarded Arming America in 2000.

A further point needs to be emphasized. Emory might, in the end, fail to apply the strong sanctions against Bellesiles which many of his critics feel are warranted by what they regard are his serious violations of academic norms. If the Investigative Committee or Emory should bring forth a slap-on-the-wrist decision which many perceive to be a whitewash, Emory will reap a whirlwind. If it thinks it will rid itself of the Bellesiles controversy by so doing, the probable response by the press, Emory alumni, Emory students, as well as members of Emory's own History faculty would doubtless show that such an approach was sadly misguided. Now that tens of thousands of readers have had access to scholarly articles like those written by Prof. James Lindgren for the William & Mary Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, and by Prof. Randolph Roth for the William & Mary Quarterly, and have seen for themselves how Bellesiles has misconstrued, tortured, even perhaps fabricated much of his research, it is impossible to comprehend how administrators or committees of "experts" could ever provide, no matter how forcefully they might argue their case, adequate reliable evidence that would persuade those readers that Arming America was not a dishonest scholarly undertaking. If Emory believes otherwise, it will be seriously mistaken.

So far, the investigation into allegations of research misconduct by Bellesiles appears to cover only the evidentiary problems publicly revealed before last February. But researchers are continuing to unearth errors which are just as serious and resonant of academic fraud as those that have already been brought to light, including new evidence tending to show that Bellesiles never, ever used some of the records he claimed to have employed; never, ever spent a moment in some of the archives holding records that he claimed to have read; and never, ever read hundreds of records that existed only in his own imagination (far more non-existent records than have been revealed publicly so far). When this new scholarship is published, which it most surely will be, Emory would again find itself entwined in a scandal, this time of its own making and with a "smell" emanating from the inner sanctum of the administration. If Bellesiles continues to teach at Emory, it is almost certain that Emory will again be consumed by another investigation of Bellesiles -- an investigation demanded simply by its own guidelines and the pervasiveness of the alleged fabrications in Arming America.