NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... along out the word nicht which means not, Abraham transforms a negative position to a positive one. Reach had actually written that he did not wish to create a point of crystallization between the bourgeois right and the NSDAP. Did errors like these prove intent, and thereby justify Feldman's accusations of fraud? Lawrence Stone, Dodge Professor of History at Princeton, disagrees with Feldman's belief that good historians do not make mistakes: When you work in the archives, youre far from home, youre bored, youre in a hurry, youre scribbling like crazy. Youre bound to make mistakes.
I dont believe any scholar in the Western world has impeccable footnotes. Archival research is a special case of the general messiness of life Other historians also believe that close study of many works of history would reveal errors like Dr. Abrahams. For example, the publishers of the great British historian Sir Lewis Name had planned a second edition of Structure of Politics at the Accession of George 3 rd. However, when editors checked the footnotes, they found endless, constant, minor errors.
The Vatican librarian had also criticized Frances most celebrated historian, Emmanuel Le Roy Laurie for mistranslations and other errors in Montaillou. The purpose is not to offer excuses for Abrahams work, which he himself called sloppy and accorded to hastiness accompanied by occasional hurried translation. The purpose is to determine whether the punishment fit the crime. What was the crime? What was Abrahams grave offense?
According to Feldman, Dr. Abraham committed a violation of scholarly trust. The punishment: academic crucifixion and alienation from the profession he had spent his adult life pursuing. It is true that trust is the foundation upon which other scholarly work is built. For the sake of progress and because no one scholar could personally research every single detail to construct an overall thesis, scholars depend on and trust each other. It is this trust in academic integrity that allows scholars to stand on the shoulders of those that came before in order to see further and continue building on or improving previous ideas (progress).
In this sense, Feldman was partly right in calling Abrahams work dangerous. Perhaps Feldman feared that the shaky foundation laid by Abraham would spawn legions of scholars, each building on the errors of the one before. However, Feldman not only perceived a violation of scholarly trust; more specifically, Abraham had committed what in his mind constituted as fraud. Fraud is any misrepresentation or omission of a material fact on which a reasonable person would and does rely to his or her detriment.
However, fraud necessitates the element of intent to deceive. Did Feldman ever prove intent to deceive? Moreover, did Feldman ever even try to prove intent to deceive? In his article, Collapse in Weimar Scholarship, he wrote whatever the reasons for what Abraham has done...
With this statement, it is clear that Feldman does not care whether Abraham acted intentionally or not: whatever the reasons. Yet, Feldman acted as if he did have definite knowledge of Abrahams intent by accusing him of fraud. Whether or not Abraham purposefully and intentionally filled his book with egregious errors, tendentious misconstrues and outright inventions is a difficult matter to determine. One way of going about determining whether it was innocent misrepresentation or fraudulent misrepresentation is to crudely attempt to judge the characters of the individuals involved by their outward manifestations (actions). Fellow colleagues called Feldman petty. Arno Mayer concluded, you [Feldman] vent your anger at David Abraham for daring to publish a book on a topic on which you yourself have been working for years...
What this profession needs and expects from you is [not] sniping attacks on young scholars who have the temerity to trespass on an intellectual territory that you declare to be your private preserve... Have you no shame? Have you no sense of decency? The tone of Feldman's criticism was not the tone appropriate for constructive criticism.
Instead, he uttered such statements as: Handing David Abraham a research library wouldve been like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. Feldman also took matters into his own hands in order to make sure that Abraham was denied employment. He made unsolicited phone calls denouncing Abraham and provided condemning documents (Nockens article, which was never published, although Feldman promised and presented it as it would be) without allowing Abraham enough time to respond. Feldman even made veiled threats to bypass the selection committees and go to the Board of Reagents. This kind of vigilante behavior certainly does not reflect kindly on Feldman's character. On the other hand, Abraham responded to a barrage of harsh criticisms in an appropriate manner and through appropriate channels.
The tone of his articles lent itself to a man that listened to the accusations and responded as best he could. Could it have been that in a frenzied attempt to beat the tenure-clock, Abraham disregarded the intellectual canon of scholarly trust (class discussion)? Is it possible that he believed he would get away with it, knowing full well what a competitive and specialized field he was working in? My personal view is that anything is possible, and so, I must concede that there is a chance that Abraham disregarded and disrespected the canon of scholarly trust and believed he would get away with it. However, this scenario seems highly implausible. What seems much more plausible is that his errors were born of inexperience and perhaps youthful over-ambition.
On a personal note, I would like to address the notion of youthful over-ambition. It has been my observation that almost every scholar, or aspiring (as most college students are) scholars dream is to revolutionize, or at least revitalize their specific field of study. Every one of us dreams of not simply recycling old ideas and tweaking them a bit, but of creating or discovering something completely new. In science, one dreams of discovering the enzyme cascade or cellular pathway that would finally answer some daunting problem. As with Abraham, perhaps he dreamed of providing the final word on the daunting problem of the relationship of German industrialists and the Nazi movement (Jamie van Hook). Weighing the actions of the central figures involved, the signs point to innocent misrepresentation.
The punishment does not seem to fit the crime. (NOTE: that a crime was committed is acknowledged; only that Abraham was guilty of a different crime than he was accused of). In the early 1990 s the American Historical Association adopted standards of civility which this case helped bring about. The bond that grows out of lives committed to the study of history should be evident in the standards of civility that govern the conduct of historians and their relations with one another. The preeminent value of all intellectual communities is reasoned discourse - the continuous colloquy among historians of diverse points of view. A commitment to such discourse make possible the fruitful exchange of views, opinions, and knowledge. This was obviously aimed at Feldman and future-Feldman's.
Although the AHA did nothing at the time to reprimand Feldman nor dissuade his actions, that they (the AHA) saw it necessary to adopt a standard of civility is admission enough that Feldman acted improperly and inappropriately. Along with the standards of civility, the AHA also stated: Historians should carefully document their findings and thereafter be prepared to make available to others their sources, evidence, and data... Historians must not misrepresent evidence or the sources of evidence, must be free of the offense of plagiarism, and must not be indifferent to error or efforts to ignore or conceal it Abrahams work would not have met this standard. That the AHA issued this statement is acknowledgment of the fact that Abraham also wronged. However, he has since been punished for his negligence. What is disturbing is that Feldman was not and has not been punished for his crime.
He was allowed to use his established academic reputation to eliminate what he perceived to be a dangerous element from the historical community. Whereas Abrahams work might have been dangerous in that it laid shaky foundation for future historians, Feldman's actions are equally if not more so dangerous for truncating an aspiring scholars career. Who is to say what Abraham might have contributed had he been given the chance. Ethical judgments and appropriation of suitable punishments for violators seem to be very problematic in the area of history.
The purpose is not to attempt to provide oversimplified answers to overly complex scenarios. Questions of interpretation will continue and the vital role of trust in the academic world must always be examined. The Abraham case is worthy of study because of its implications on the rest of the historical community and the issues present within. What does the Abraham case say about the historical community? It was the historical community as a whole that ultimately failed Abraham and that allowed Feldman to do what he did.
Those hoping to practice history will tread carefully for fear of being Abraham. But what of those on the other end of the spectrum? What of Feldman, who went unpunished? What of the future-Feldman's? Will the historical community tolerate future reckless disregard for civility as it did with Feldman?
Should not young scholars be given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to redeem themselves? Bibliography Abraham, David. Business Wars: On Contributions of Weimar Scholarship. Vierteljahrschrift fur Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 72: 329 - 352 (vol. 3; 1985).
pg. 332 Campbell, Colin. A Quarrel Over Weimar Book. The New York Times 23 December 1984, p 1, 35. Feldman, Gerald D. A Collapse in Weimar Scholarship.
Central European History 17: 158 - 177. Feldman, Gerald D. A Collapse in Weimar Scholarship. Central European History 17: 158 - 177. Campbell, Colin. A Quarrel Over Weimar Book.
The New York Times 23 December 1984, p 1, 35. Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183. Abraham, David. A Reply to Gerald Feldman.
Central European History 17: 178 - 244. Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183. Abraham, David.
A Reply to Gerald Feldman. Central European History 17: 178 - 244. Abraham, David. A Reply to Gerald Feldman. Central European History 17: 178 - 244. Campbell, Colin.
A Quarrel Over Weimar Book. The New York Times 23 December 1984, p 1, 35. Bowen, Ezra. Stormy Weather in Academe. Time. 14 Jan 1985, p. 59. Campbell, Colin.
A Quarrel Over Weimar Book. The New York Times 23 December 1984, p 1, 35. Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183. Winkler, Karen J.
Brouhaha Over Historians Use of Sources Renews Scholars Interest in Ethics Codes. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 6 February 1985, pg 1, 8 - 9. Winkler, Karen J. Brouhaha Over Historians Use of Sources Renews Scholars Interest in Ethics Codes. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 6 February 1985, pg 1, 8 - 9. Abraham, David.
A Reply to Gerald Feldman. Central European History 17: 178 - 244. Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183.
Caplan, Jane and Jon Wiener. Drama in the History Department. New Statesmen. 3 May 1985, p 25 - 27. Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183 Caplan, Jane and Jon Wiener.
Drama in the History Department. New Statesmen. 3 May 1985, p 25 - 27. Feldman, Gerald D. A Collapse in Weimar Scholarship.
Central European History 17: 158 - 177. Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183. Evans, Richard. In Defense of History.
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. , New York, 1999. Evans, Richard.
In Defense of History. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. , New York, 1999.
Abraham, David. Business Wars: On Contributions of Weimar Scholarship. Vierteljahrschrift fur So Feldman, Gerald D. A Collapse in Weimar Scholarship.
Central European History 17: 158 - 177 Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183. Feldman, Gerald D. A Collapse in Weimar Scholarship.
Central European History 17: 158 - 177 Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183. Campbell, Colin. A Quarrel Over Weimar Book.
The New York Times 23 December 1984, p 1, 35. Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183. Abraham, David.
Business Wars: On Contributions of Weimar Scholarship. Vierteljahrschrift fur Sozial Feldman, Gerald D. A Collapse in Weimar Scholarship. Central European History 17: 158 - 177 Feldman, Gerald D. A Collapse in Weimar Scholarship. Central European History 17: 158 - 177 Feldman, Gerald D.
A Collapse in Weimar Scholarship. Central European History 17: 158 - 17 Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183 Campbell, Colin. A Quarrel Over Weimar Book.
The New York Times 23 December 1984, p 1, 35. Weiner, Jon. Footnotes to History. The Nation. 16 Feb 1985, p. 180 - 183. American Historical Association. Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct 1990 American Historical Association.
Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct 1990
Free research essays on topics related to: feldman, american historical, european history, york times, w norton
Research essay sample on European History York Times
