Professor Wiener asks "Who is James Lindgren?" I can say that I first met Jim in Law School at the University of Chicago in the mid-1970's. We worked together at the American Bar Foundation as research fellows for several years. We taught together recently at Northwestern University Law School for several years (we both teach Trusts & Estates) before I moved to Rutgers-Camden Law School as Dean. In addition to my law degree I have a PhD in American legal history from the University of Chicago. Jim is a meticulous researcher who has written numerous articles where he challenges commonly held assumptions or accepted theses by examining or reexamining the empirical bases upon which the thesis rests. Do I always agree with every methodological choice Jim makes? No. Do I wish sometimes that his conclusions did not undercut political positions I hold dear? Yes. But do I ever doubt the integrity of his research? Absolutely not – never. Over the years I have watched as he meticulously and thoroughly conducted research projects (including his examination of the Philadelphia colonial probate records for this project) and I have always admired his tenacity in trying to be accurate and honest to the sources.
For Professor Weiner to attack him by questioning his motives though association with other work Professor Lindgren has done is wrong. He should ask whether Professor Lindgren’s research is accurate. By implying a linkage between four NRA goons who are unfairly and outrageously harassing Professor Bellesiles and what Jim Lindgren is doing borders on the outrageous. Professor Lindgren has confined his “attacks” to the scholarly evidence and to debates in journals. This is what scholars are supposed to do. Professor Weiner should recognize this and join that debate -- not try to engage in guilt by association.
One of Professor Lindgren’s first public scholarly papers challenging Arming America was presented at a panel at the annual meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. An eminent empirical scholar from the Law & Society movement, who shares my liberal politics, turned to me after Jim’s paper (he did not know Professor Lindgren) and said, “I do not know the Bellesiles’ book, but it seems to me that Lindgren has raised enough doubt for the burden to be shifted to Bellesiles to explain the inconsistencies and errors.” Unfortunately, Professor Bellesiles has yet to do that. Professor Weiner has not advanced that effort either.
by Rayman L. Solomon on October 19, 2002 at 9:54 AM