The smackdown continues. The latest entries:
The entire exchange and supporting documentation will soon be available 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.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Ponnuru v. Tribe - The Final Chapter
- Tribe Responds:
- Ponnuru v. Goldstein - Part Tres:
- Smackdown Over Tribe:
- Tribe's Travails: