Posted by Juan Non-Volokh:
Ponnuru v. Goldstein - Part Tres:
The [1]smackdown continues. The latest entries:
* [2]Goldstein (5-page PDF)
* [3]Ponnuru
* [4]Goldstein (3-page PDF)
The entire exchange and supporting documentation will soon be
available [5]here, or at www.rameshponnuru.com.
For what it's worth, I thought the initial Ponnuru piece on Tribe cam
up a bit short. Even accepting everything at face value, it hardly
seemed like scholarly misconduct. At most it demonstrated that that
Tribe engaged in a bit of puffery, so it hardly seemed worth all the
space in National Review.
Without engaging in an extensive side-by-side comparison of all the
documents and rejoinders, I think that Goldstein showed Ponnuru
engaged in some slight misrepresentations of his own, but I don't
think Tribe comes off scot-free either. I think a fair-minded reader
could still conclude that Tribe exaggerated some points in his initial
essay. Again, however, this hardly amounts to academic fraud.
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_02_27-2005_03_05.shtml#1109879453
2. http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/Ponnuru2.pdf
3. http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_02_27_corner-archive.asp#057499
4. http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/Ponnuru3.pdf
5. http://tribeponnuru.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
