Over at the History News Network, Clayton Cramer has a post where he comments on the parallels or lack of same between the Lott and Bellesiles affairs:
1. There were legitimate questions raised about the 1997 survey, most notably by Tim Lambert. Proving that the survey didn't take place is impossible, unlike Bellesiles' problems, which often involved documents that were easy to find.
It's also easy to find out what "national surveys" and Gary Kleck's study say. Lott's claims here are wrong and he won't even admit to making them.
2. Lott has managed to scrape together enough evidence now (including replicating the 1997 survey results with a new, better document survey) that I think even Mr. Lambert recognizes that the 1997 survey probably did happen. Mr. Lambert's criticism now is that the survey size is so small that the 98% number is meaningless, and I generally agree with him on this.
Lott's new survey does not replicate the results of the alleged 1997 survey. The sample size is too small for it to be evidence for anything. Since no students have come forward after the Chicago Tribune article, it looks increasingly likely that there was no 1997 survey.
3. The parallel between Lott and Bellesiles is strongest in that Lott lied when he posted as Mary Rosh, and claimed to be a former student. Pseudonyms are fine on the Internet, and part of a proud American tradition; lying about who you are, is not.
I actually don't have much problem with Rosh claiming to be a former student of Lott's. It's the other lies he told, like this one.
4. The 98% number is ONE SENTENCE out of Lott's book. If Bellesiles' problems had been one sentence, or one paragraph, nothing would have happened to him. I wouldn't have pursued the matter, and neither would anyone else.
If the 98% claim had just been one sentence I don't think that anyone would have pursued the matter either. The problem is that Lott repeated the claim over 50 times.