Bellesiles and Lott (again)
Tim Lambert links to a piece that asserts the following regarding why Lott still has a job and Bellesiles doesn’t:
The answer briefly is power—especially power wielded by groups outside the history profession. Historians targeted by powerful outside groups can face intense media scrutiny and severe sanctions for transgressions, while historians connected to powerful outside groups can be shielded from the media spotlight as well as from the consequences of malfeasance; in some cases, they have even been rewarded.
Actually, I think it’s a matter of exposure. Lott’s stuff was ineffectual really because the goal had mostly been achieved. It was more like an afterthought to already existing policies. People like to assert that Lott’s highly contested research was the reason for the rash of concealed carry laws. It was not. His book came about in 2000 (if I recall) and most states with CCW laws had those laws on the books prior to that (the trend started in the late 1980s and continued through the mid 1990s). I think a few did after 2000 (Ohio and Missouri come to mind). And Lott’s stuff didn’t get much exposure until recently after such laws were passed.
Bellesiles’ work, however, was discussed in the press rather extensively (and by rather extensively, I mean quite a bit for a supposed history piece). The NY Times and other media outlets praised the book and its fraudulent conclusions about gun ownership in early America. Bellesiles had more exposure and, when it crashed, it crashed harder.
January 7th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
Actually, the results for the first Lott & Mustard study were released in 1996, so it might have influenced a few of the states that came late to the CCW party. By 1998, he was well enough known that when he came to speak at Boalt Hall, the Federalist Society was unable to locate a single law professor at Boalt, Stanford, Hastings, Davis, Santa Clara, McGeorge or University of San Francisco willing to debate him. [Frank Zimring would have done so, but was out of town.]
January 8th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Lott has received way more media coverage than Bellesiles. Compare their scores on Posner’s list of public intellectuals: Lott has six times the coverage. And here is an example of Lott influencing legislation.
January 8th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
As for media mentions, I would expect someone who writes regular columns to have a higher score (that is the case now). I don’t think that was the case during the Bellisiles incident and it’s remarkable lack of coverage.
As for lott influencing legislation, yeah, i said missouri.