Integrity and History

John R. Dichtl

For further reading:
AHA Statement on Plagiarism

A few turbulent months ago, before the events of 11 September, the Joseph Ellis case was still national news. Friends and acquaintances who are not historians asked me about "that historian who lied to his students." An awkward way to begin a conversation, perhaps, but it proved an opportunity to talk about what it is that teachers and scholars do, and what it is that historians in particular owe their audiences. It might be a challenge to explain why historians continually reinterpret the past, but at least we can agree that the job requires integrity.

Unfortunately, the credibility of historians is in question again. During the first week of the year, Stephen Ambrose's reputation took a nosedive when the Weekly Standard showed that his new book about World War II bomber crews, The Wild Blue, included passages copied from Thomas Childer's Wings of Morning. So far at least another four of Ambrose's books show evidence of plagiarism. Has Ambrose's climb stalled, or will a bit of infamy boost sales? Add Doris Kearns Goodwin to the list of high-flying historians whose work is under scrutiny. Her 1987 book, The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys, borrowed language from three other authors without sufficient attribution, and, the Boston Globe reports, she subsequently settled out of court with one author for an undisclosed sum.

Lest we too quickly relegate the current controversy solely to the realm of celebrity scholars doing popular history, we should remember the press's interest in Michael Bellesiles's prizewinning Arming America. According to newspaper coverage, the commotion is less about Bellesiles's interpretation of evidence and more about whether his sources existed in the first place, how he recorded his data, and what has happened to his handwritten notes since publication of the book.

It is too early to tell whether the media and the public will see the Ambrose and Goodwin plagiarism cases as exceptions that prove the rule: historians today are a credible bunch, and all who interpret the past are obliged to follow rigorous standards of critical inquiry. Will the current focus on cases such as Ellis, Ambrose, and Goodwin help the public better appreciate the demands of the historian's endeavor, or will it widen the gap of understanding between historians and their audiences? Alternatively, will the media and public grow cynical about historical methods and ethics? Will they distinguish between historians who build new interpretations on factual foundations and those who simply tell stories?

These controversies are an opportunity to draw closer to our readers, students, visitors to our exhibits, and all who care about the study of the past. The plagiarism section of the American Historical Association's Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct refers to a "community of inquiry" comprised of amateur and professional historians, students and established scholars, who share "an obligation to oppose deception." Self-scrutiny by anyone doing historical work is the first line of defense against plagiarism, according to the Statement, and should accompany the development of work habits (e.g., clear note taking) that preclude its occurrence. Indeed, both Ambrose and Goodwin said their errors resulted from negligence. Ambrose and his team of assistants, presumably, will slow their pace. Goodwin now relies on a computer instead of handwritten notes on legal pads and will keep her secondary sources in front of her as she writes.

In his Chronicle of Higher Education piece (20 July 2001, reprinted August 2001 in the OAH Newsletter), "Why are Academics Ducking the Ellis Case?" Elliott J. Gorn suggested that historians had shown a disturbing "lack of outrage" over the scandal. Historians were in danger of losing their sense of purpose in seeking truth together with their students in the classroom. Gorn suggested that as a profession, it is "our integrity in presenting" historical sources "that authorizes us to bear witness to the past." We have a duty, he concluded, to remind ourselves and our audiences that integrity matters--and to do it in a way so the public "hears us voicing our concerns."

"The real penalty for plagiarism is the abhorrence of the community of scholars," observes the AHA Statement. In addition to the sanctions that institutions employing historians can apply, scholarly peer pressure keeps dishonesty in check. But should it not be one of our goals, as a profession, to seek to share that burden with a broader community? Ideally, the abhorrence of all people interested in history should be brought to bear on incidents of deception.

What is at stake here is too important to keep quiet about. These issues should not emerge only in shocking stories shared between individual historians, or arise in the cases that quietly move through the AHA's Professional Division or occasionally appear in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Plagiarism and the ability to identify and resist it must be the subject of ongoing conversations in our teaching, mentoring, and professional activities. As teachers, we need to do more than quickly deal with plagiarism on the course syllabus, on that first day of class, or in the context of "it's time to hand in the term paper." As mentors and colleagues, we should discuss such matters regularly and rely on each other for advice about professional ethics as well as practicalities such as note-taking, writing from notes, and attributing sources. It is too often assumed that we all recognize plagiarism when we see it, and simply avoid "it" like the plague.

We need to openly converse about why plagiarism is bad, how it undermines the historical venture, and what new threats are emerging for historians. Historians need to vigorously assert before the public the integrity of the discipline. Because building upon other historians' efforts is a crucial part of what we do, ensuring clear and proper attributions, like following elusive truth and objectivity, should be a perpetual effort. We will have to continually remind ourselves and vigorously assert before the public the integrity of the discipline.