From the WaPo's Volokh Conspiracy:
Did Nancy MacLean make stuff up in ‘Democracy in Chains’?
Critics of “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America” have accused its author, professor Nancy MacLean of Duke University, of mangling quotations to change their meaning, asserting facts that are not only false but are not supported by her own footnotes, and drawing wildly speculative conclusions about matters regarding which she has no documentary evidence. In short, critics accuse MacLean of making stuff up. Co-blogger Jonathan Adler links to many of these (and other) critiques in this post.
Many historians and others who have become aware of these criticisms have responded not by investigating the allegations, but by reasoning that MacLean is a respected historian, and respected historians don’t just make things up, and therefore MacLean’s critics must be wrong. (Adler also links to a couple of substantive defenses).
That’s where her allegations of a coordinated conspiracy against her book come in. As Adler notes, MacLean was asked in her recent interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Do you have any evidence for your claim in that Facebook message [that you wrote] that the attacks on your work are ‘coordinated’?”
She responded, “I’m not saying they called each other up and planned a series of critical responses to my book. What I’m saying is many of the critics come from similar backgrounds — they are libertarians who trained at or are employed by the very institutions I write about in my book.”
In other words, no, she doesn’t and didn’t have any evidence of coordination.
6 comments:
So far, our usual suspects aren't the least bit exercised about it, and that's not surprising--if it can't be weaponized against the right, it doesn't exist.
James Buchanan was not a figure in the evangelical academy or in evangelical organizational life generally. His writings are of no interest to evangelicals qua evangelicals (though they may be to evangelicals interested in Buchanan's book of business). It's also a reasonable wager that Fea and Throckmorton know nothing of economics, much less using the tools of economics to attempt to understand political life. Political science, history, anthropology, and swatches of sociology remain accessible to the general reader. Economics requires background.
Indeed, many in the leftish edu-industrial complex have circled the wagons for her, as is their custom.
The institution named does not admit to employing this fellow anymore
http://www.theday.com/article/20120917/NWS10/309209649
They did, however, hire him at one point.
Someone who has had to leave academe because there is not a position for him therein is here
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jdwynekenphd
Yes, Michael Bellesiles got caught too red-handed. There are countless other frauds who are just better at it--and very few of their peers interested in challenging them.
As for Dr. John Fea, when he got in front of the real article and not a tomato can like Barton, say Daniel Dreisbach, he got taken to school.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2017/02/americas-christian-heritage-dreisbach.html
https://thewayofimprovement.com/2017/01/16/the-authors-corner-with-daniel-l-dreisbach/
As for psych teacher Throckmorton, he's no expert on history, only on David Barton. He was also taken to school recently, quite entertainingly exposed by Dr. Hunter Baker.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2017/08/post-barton-christianity-constitution-hunter-baker/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jdwynekenphd
Interesting fellow. I have many friends who lean to the right who have a tough time in academia; several of my blogbrothers at newreformclub.com have been forced to write pseudonymously out of a well-placed fear to their careers.
With anything about fighter pilots on his CV, he bears the mark of Cain.
Don't know about 'countless', but Clayton Cramer has named names of history professors who are self-consciously deceptive (Saul Cornell) or countenance that sort of thing for the cause (the fellow who edited Journal of the Early Republic ca. 2000). Another one who's not been professionally censured is sociological fabulist Sarah Deutsch of Duke. (See KC Johnson and the late Ralph Luker on some of their correspondence with her).
Not sure how Dr. Wyneken 'leans'. He had a position as a museum curator after his last adjunct contract expired. I don't think military history was part of his bibliography prior to that. His specialty is 20th century German history. He's one of a considerable mass of people in humanistic and semi-humanistic disciplines who cannot build a career in academe because there's just too much surplus labor being produced by graduate schools. (I thought of Wyneken because he taught at Grove City for a time and Throckmorton roped him into an odd excursion a number of years ago).
The point is that this topic is very important for everyone. You are very good writer, but the essay writing service law - http://essaywritingservice-s.com/ can help you to improve your skills. Thank you.
Post a Comment