Writing for the History News Network, Clayton Cramer argues that the Bellesiles scandal is symptomatic of an academy where political conformity has come to matter far more than intellectual debate:

Over the last thirty years, the academic community in general, and historians in particular, have become quite concerned about the need for diversity: sexual diversity; racial diversity; and ethnic diversity. It does not surprise me that a professorate consisting largely of white males tended to give less importance to the history of women, blacks, and Hispanics in America. This wasnít because white males were consciously ignoring other groups; it was because it takes a considerable effort to break outside the assumptions with which you have been raised. I think most historians agree that there is merit to having a diversity of voices within the profession.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Bellesiles scandal exposed the lack of political diversity within the profession. You see, at least part of why historians swallowed Arming Americaís preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well. I donít mean that historians consciously decided not to look at Bellesilesís claims because they were afraid of what they would find; I mean that Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians, that they didnít even pause to consider the possibility that something wasnít right.