With support from the University of Richmond
History News Network

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Polls
December 16, 2003

HNN Poll: Should the American Historical Association Stop Investigating Scholars Who Commit Fraud and Plagiarism?

by HNN Staff
On May 5, 2003 the American Historical Association (AHA) announced that it would no longer investigate charges of plagiarism and fraud leveled against historians. The organization explained that it"does not believe that the modest benefits to the profession justify the time, energy, and effort that have gone into the process."

Some historians immediately denounced the decision, arguing that now more than ever--after Ambrose, Goodwin, and Bellesiles--a forum is needed in which allegations of misconduct against historians can be investigated and adjudicated.

The AHA insists that in fact investigations often accomplished little:

Because AHA adjudication was confidential, it had virtually no public impact on the profession. For the most part, only those who complained or were complained against knew the outcome of complaints. Adjudication has not promoted a wide public and professional understanding of what historians mean by scholarly integrity.

Because the Professional Division only considered formal complaints, this complicated and time-consuming process failed to address many cases of obvious plagiarism and professional misconduct.

Because the AHA had virtually no sanctions for misconduct, it was difficult to demonstrate that adjudication had serious consequences even for individuals clearly guilty of egregious professional misconduct.

Because of its wholly appropriate effort to maintain neutrality, the Association felt constrained from commenting publicly about professional misconduct that might come before the Professional Division as complaints. The procedures of the Association rendered it ineffective—indeed, almost silent—in criticizing such behavior.

Are the AHA's energies best devoted elsewhere, or is it shirking its responsibility at a time when holding historians to high ethical standards is of the utmost importance?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Related Links: