By Jonathan Stankiewicz
Adjunct history professor Michael Bellesiles is no newcomer to scandal. Having released a controversial book on the history of guns in America and an article about a former student’s loss of a half brother from war, he’s now trying to give a second go at teaching.
“I’m an adjunct, [I] was a full-time professor,” said Bellesiles. “I cannot get a full-time job in the U.S.”
Before the firestorm, Bellesiles was a respected historian, now he is left trying to make a fresh start, a task which is proving easier said than done.
“I wish I never written about guns,” said Bellesiles.
The drama started with Bellesiles’s first book, published in 2000, titled Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture. Bellesiles was a highly acclaimed historian at Emory University and was working full-time.
After Bellesiles’s book came out and he won the highly acclaimed Bancroft prize in 2001, things began to unfold.
The book showed that guns were not prevalent before the Civil War. Arming America challenged foundations that the National Rifle Association has thrived on for years.
Gun rights activists were outraged and started to look through Bellesiles’s notes and sources very, very closely.
Questions were raised about how Bellesiles used the records, who he talked to and even his counting of the number of guns was under fire. The use of probate records, which are composed of information about family relationships, property holdings and values, and land and building locations and descriptions, came into question, isn’t an exact science. Scholars know that wills and records written hundreds of years ago shouldn’t be taken for concrete fact.
Soon other history scholars couldn’t replicate the numbers and they began to see misquotations.
“Arming America is changing the way that some historians think about their own profession and how some scholars in fields allied to history regard historical research and publishing,” said critic James Lindgren, in a book review from April 2002 in the Yale Law Journal.
Things were beginning to get out of hand and Emory’s dean, Robert A. Paul, decided to establish an expert panel of scholars to investigate the charges against Bellesiles. The panel consisted of three distinguished historians – Stanley Katz of Princeton University, Hanna Gray of the University of Chicago and Laurel Thatcher Ulrich of Harvard.
The investigation concluded with a 40-page indictment, along with a 7-page response by Bellesiles himself.
Among the findings of the panel they found that “Every aspect of his work in the probate records is deeply flawed.”
“Bellesiles seems to have been utterly unaware of the importance of the possibility of the replication of his research,” said the panel in their findings.
Soon after the investigative report was released in October, Bellesiles resigned from his post at Emory.
Today, Bellesiles wishes that the book that caused him so much grief was never written.
“It was a horrifying experience,” said Bellesiles, “that was 12 years of my life.”
One would think that the troubles would be done, but Bellesiles’s story takes another turn for the worse.
Bellesiles wrote an article in June of this year titled “Teaching Military History in a Time of War” in the Chronicle Review. The story was about a student named “Ernesto” who had allegedly lost a half brother overseas.
No sooner was the article published that cynics were already trying to disprove his story. Skeptics flew out of the woodwork to try to find loopholes and fabrications in Bellesiles’s story.
And those cynics found some.
A former critic named James Lindgren searched through military deaths and came up empty with anyone that could have been related to student “Ernesto.” Lindgren posted his findings on the site The Volokh Conspiracy.
“In my review of several sites, but chiefly ICasualties, I find no Connecticut military killed in Iraq in 2009 or 2010 (and only one in 2008, a Marine who died from a non-hostile cause),” wrote Lindgren on the site.
Others piled on and Bellesiles’ hope for people to get that extra insight to living in a time of war was lost.
“That was the one unfortunate experience as long as I can remember,” said Bellesiles, “I have always trusted my students.”
Bellesiles was especially upset about how bloggers and journalists alike acted.
“It was unfortunate that a few people felt that they should track down that student,” said Bellesiles. “No one benefited from them doing that.”
But now, Bellesiles is back, teaching here at CCSU as an adjunct. The history department at CCSU denied to comment saying that it would be inappropriate to talk about faculty members.
Coming back to teaching wasn’t easy for Bellesiles.
“I have had gotten down to the point where I was signing the contract [to teach] and it has been yanked away,” said Bellesiles, “from coordinated complaints that I should not be teaching.
All of that is thanks to Arming America, said Bellesiles.
“I admire the integrity of CCSU,” said Bellesiles. “If they have received any sort of [outside] pressure they have not buckled.
Life for Bellesiles is easier, but there are weekly, if not daily reminders of the past.
As casual as talking about how “cool” his neighbors are, Bellesiles described how he still gets hate mail roughly “two to three times a week” but “e-mail is more often than that.”
It’s been almost nine years, and Bellesiles has had enough, even going as far as to get rid of the home answering machine due to so much “cussing.”
“I don’t know what I did to them,” said Bellesiles, “just accept my apology to anyone I have ever hurt.”
And even leading historians want this behind them.
“What more is there at issue?,” said David Hollinger, the president of the Organization of American Historians. “I think the press should let it alone. Enough already.”
Bellesiles is back in the classroom, having just released his newest book, 1877: America’s Year of Living Violently, an anecdotal study of one of America’s bloodiest years.
Taking just 18 months to write 1877, Bellesiles was not only teaching, but researching and writing for his new book. 1877 was a much easier write for Bellesiles and critics pending are not expected to cause any problems.
“I get so many ideas from my students,” said Bellesiles. “For me, intellectually, students are full of ideas and especially in ways of relaying the past…it’s nice to constantly be reminded how exciting it is to be [a teacher].
Bellesiles’ past never seems to get far enough away from him though.
“Everything about him surprises me,” said Stanley Katz, one of the three historians on the investigation panel that looked into Arming America. “He’s very puzzling to me; I guess I’m a little surprised that he seems to be making a campaign now.”
Katz isn’t against Bellesiles writing a new book, he actually thinks that it’s the “best thing he’s done.”
“He’s done the right thing,” said Katz, “reestablishing a professional reputation.”
But Katz isn’t convinced about everything that Bellesiles is doing right now.
“Test for him [Bellesiles] is peer judgment [on his new book],” said Katz, “but the other is Central. To what extent will it be difficult for him to do a proper job as a teacher, that’s for the students to figure out?”
Bellesiles isn’t fazed by critics or anything for that matter; the man doesn’t read the stories about him.
“I never read about myself,” said Bellesiles. “Journalists have to do their jobs.”
Bellesiles pushes on even with his past ever so close behind him. He’s in the middle of writing a book that should be out next year.
The future book will be about working with veterans. Bellesiles wrote a lot of the book based on personal interviews.
“One of the great accomplishments of scholars is to record these memories,” said Bellesiles.
And like his books, Bellesiles will continue to live on and not without a great pride by having returned to teaching.
“I just cannot say enough about how much I like teaching at CCSU,” said Bellesiles, “I identify with [my students].
Bellesiles appreciates the situations of his students and the rest of the Central community.
“I’ve taught rich kids but they are different; they’ve had it all,” said Bellesiles. “I like working with students who have to fight for it.”
