Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Ralph Luker Responds

In response to my previous post defending Tom Reeves, Ralph Luker made the following comment:

Professor Reeves was called out by his former colleagues, Michael Meo, and me -- not because he is a conservative, but because his text, in the case of his article, and his citation, in the case of his blog post, were misleading. In a number of respects, I am myself a conservative. Some others who blog with me at Cliopatria also have some conservative instincts. Unfortunately, some people reached conclusions before looking at the evidence and made unreasonable accusations, which they could not substantiate.

This is all well and good, given that I never suggested that Professor Luker’s accusations were motivated by politics. Granted, I did mention that Reeves was a conservative, but I have no idea what motivated Luker’s denunciation of him. My point was that it was unfair. Reeves’ cri de coeur about UW-Parkside was anecdotal; as more than one person has pointed out, the fact that his colleagues had different impressions of their students does not make him a "liar." And while--as I have already said--it is perfectly legitimate to question Reeves’ citation of "solid studies" on the school uniform issue, this is easily chalked up to sloppiness. If he were being deliberately dishonest, why link to the page in question, allowing people almost effortlessly to check the reference?

Finally, regarding Professor Luker’s concluding statement about "unreasonable accusations," I can only hope that he is referring to his own, as they are the only accusations I am aware of in this case.

Discussions - 2 Comments


I’m yawning with "history student". But I reply point for point.
1) All six of Professor Reeves’s former colleagues accused him of misrepresentation of evidence. The word "lying" is not an inaccurate euphemism for misrepresentation. Choose another euphemism, if you like. Dissembling, perhaps.
2)Those who were Michael Bellesiles’s defenders also used the sloppiness excuse in his behalf. Bellesiles, at least, attempted to correct himself. At the time I posted the criticism of Reeves, he had been notified of his "sloppiness" and made no move to correct it. Of course my post was over the top. There was no other way to get Reeves’s attention -- since quieter voices had already gone ignored.
3) Since Professor Moser is unaware of them, I have to assume that Professor Moser did not bother to read the accusations that Professor Tootle made about me. If that is the case, why bother with praising them? Another false cite?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2005/01/ralph-luker-responds.php on line 442

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2005/01/ralph-luker-responds.php on line 442