History News Network

Departments

On The Other Hand, Clayton ...

The Historians Committee for Fairness is rightly critical of Michelle Malkin's book, In Defense of Internment. Eric Muller, a professor of law at the University of North Carolina, and Greg Robinson, a historian at the University of Quebec, in particular, have been effective critics of Malkin's argument. On the other hand, Eugene Volokh and my colleague, Tim Burke, argue quite persuasively that the Historians Committee frames the issues in their letter quite badly. Instead of focusing on errors in Malkin's book and referring to documentation of those errors elsewhere, the historians make a whole series of claims about turf and who is prepared to discuss historical issues intelligently.

A consequence of framing the critique of Malkin's book wrongly is that it renews bitter memories, not of Japanese internees, but of more recent vintage. Volokh refers his readers to Clayton Cramer's commentary on the Malkin debate. Cramer's bitter memories of the Bellesiles controversy keep him from appreciating the ironies in his attack on the historians' letter. He accuses them of being a "truth squad ... intent on suppressing discussion" of Malkin's book and her appearance on talk shows, as if he hadn't been a "truth squad ... intent on suppressing discussion" of Bellesiles's book.

But let Clayton speak for himself: "The letter complains about 'a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness.'"

Okay, fair enough. A professional historian has obligations in these areas. But the next sentence reminds us, "Malkin is not a historian, and she states that she relied almost exclusively on research conducted or collected by others." So why do the professional standards of the historian apply to Malkin, who is, by their own admission, not a professional historian?
I suppose that I could take the "professional standards" argument a bit more seriously if we didn't have the recent memory of the Bellesiles scandal, where many professional historians did their best to prevent any serious examination of massive and obvious fraud from working its way into popular newspapers and court decisions.

That's a serious charge, Clayton, against a lot of historians and I don't think your link is a sufficient evidence. But, go on ...

We also have the claims of professional historians about the origins of homosexuality laws that appeared in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) claims that are clearly incorrect, at least to the extent that they make sweeping claims that I was able to quickly demonstrate are false.

I've repeatedly invited you to write an article in which you document these claims in a constructive way and present it for publication at HNN. Why won't you do so?

There are professional historians who take what they do seriously, regardless of the political consequences of what they find. But I no longer have any illusion that these "professional standards" are adhered to by the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U.S.

Do you mean to charge "the vast majority of history professors teaching in the U. S. with not adhering to ‘professional standards'"? That is a gross and irresponsible accusation, a crude smear of the profession which you couldn't begin to document. When do you become accountable to "professional standards" of evidence you were so intent on holding Bellesiles to and which the historians' now argue Malkin should be accountable to?

Update: Posting under the rhuberic, "You Can't Make This Stuff Up," Danny Loss beat me to the punch on this one by over an hour. It's the second time in 24 hours I've been nosed out by one of those aggressive Swarthmore historians.

Posted on Thursday, September 2, 2004 at 1:48 AM | Comments (69) | Return

Home Newsletter Submissions Advertising Donations Archives Internships About Us FAQs Contact Us All Articles