Also in January 2001, Joyce Lee Malcom, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior fellow at the MIT Security Studies Program, published a review of Arming America, claiming that Professor Bellesiles’ “findings are not supported by his sources.” Professor Malcolm said that Professor Bellesiles “presents a skewed selection of records, dismisses contradictory information, and even alters the language of quotations and statutes.” On January 16th -- still more than a full month before the Newberry awarded the fellowship -- Professor Bellesiles and three other scholars debated the validity of his scholarship on Chicago’s National Public Radio station, WBEZ. In that hour-long debate, Boston University Professor Randy Barnett said that scholarly inquiries into Bellesiles’ work thus far “raise serious questions about the accuracy” of Arming America.
Had this extensive criticism of Professor Bellesiles’ work somehow gone unnoticed by Newberry officials, letters of recommendation submitted in support of Professor Bellesiles’ fellowship application clearly called attention to it. Two of Professor Bellesiles’ recommences felt it important to describe the controversy his work had generated. One opined that Arming America had “created a sensation,” arguing that awarding Professor Bellesiles a fellowship “would be a public service” in light of the “financial resources available to gun rights groups.” Another forecast that “his next book, which focuses on the history of gun laws, promises to upset even more people.” These comments should have caught the Newberry’s attention and engendered further research. Of course, the NEH also hopes that the Newberry would have discounted this sort of praise in its evaluation of Professor Bellesiles’ application, though this is not indicated in any of the review materials you supplied.
The debate over the accuracy of the scholarship underpinning Arming America was already serious and widespread by the fall of 2000 and only intensified during the early months of 2001. Even if the external review committee making recommendations to the Newberry overlooked these serious challenges to Professor Bellesiles’ research, it was the Newberry’s responsibility to weigh them appropriately.
Because the name of the National Endowment of the Humanities represents a standard that Professor Bellesiles’ application did not meet, we are revoking the NEH’s name from the fellowship. Please remove from all Newberry materials, including your website, any association of Professor Bellesiles with the NEH. Also, convey the NEH’s decision to Professor Bellesiles in writing, making it clear that he is not to use the name of the NEH in association with any publication which grows out of the work done while on this fellowship. Please supply us with a copy of this correspondence.
(continued)