I thought your presentation of the "Jellinek is a fraud" and Ron Roizen
comments thereon did a great service. One of your members frequently
comments about my work by disparaging it in terms of "letters from
California" (where I no longer reside), the work of a "hobbyist." and his on
the sly comments to the history lovers moderator (now deceased) that my work
lacked integrity. I thought Roizen's carefully worded comments about Jellink
presented a perspicacious thought or two about those who labor in the
vineyard and stir up some knowledge and activity. And probably a good deal
of jealousy. I'm not ashamed of my Stanford AB and JD degrees or of my Phi
Beta Kappa key or my editorship of the Stanford Law Review. My
qualifications in researching and writing on A.A. history have far more to
do with 16 years of hard work and a great deal of personal experience in
A.A. itself. But I would add  that, after many years of ad hominem attacks
on my work and diligent efforts to exclude me from shining fields of
scholarly conferences, your sharp-tongued member finally conceded that he
had really failed to look into the whole Akron A.A. fellowship scene
"because of the cost of traveling from the East Coast to Akron" or words to
that effect. Hardly an adequate justification for twenty-five years of
distorted history. I was very pleased that I was invited to join ADHS after
my cv and works were reviewed; but I'd like to think my contributions-often
posted on your site-are recognized for what they have unearthed and enabled
others to learn rather than having been being rejected as "hobby" work
because they emanated from an old alcoholic lawyer than from a slightly
younger alcoholic Ivy League Ph.D. I don't think Thomas Alva Edison, George
Washington Carver, or Fulton and his Steamboats were ignored or ridiculed
for lack of an Ivy League degree. Or for their failure to study engineering
or agriculture at an esteemed university.  In fact, with my limited
knowledge of Stanford, I could verify that it was much more what Sandra Day
O'Connor did on the Supreme Court and what David Packard did at HP than what
either studied at Stanford that won them a modicum of respect.  Why all this
palaver? Just to suggest that judgments about research and scholarship ought
to be based on their veracity, thoroughness, documentation, and value as
building blocks rather than on what laboratory was involved at the outset
when the researcher acquired his or her thinking abilities. Cheers. Richard
Gordon Burns, J.D. (otherwise known as Dick B.)
 
  _____  

From: Alcohol and Drugs History Society [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Ron Roizen
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Jellinek's troubled c.v.
 
I wonder if I might respond to this post briefly.  It was (I believe)
sometime in 1996 or 1997 (I could check my files and give the more or less
exact date) that I took the opportunity, provided by the ease of
communication of email, to send a note to the registrar of Leipzig
University to ask about E.M. Jellinek's transcript and degrees received
there.  As I noted in Ranes Report's issue number 11
(http://www.roizen.com/ron/rr11.htm), wherein I later reported the results
of this inquiry, there was talk around the watercooler in my old days at the
Alcohol Research Group regarding E.M.J.'s "uncertain academic background and
certification."  The result of my inquiry was a seeming confirmation that
Jellinek probably took no degree from Leipzig U. and may have possessed no
earned doctorate or even any college degree at all.  I never intended that
publishing this finding on the web would have the effect of encouraging some
readers to wholly dismiss any of E.M.J.'s contributions to alcohol science.
Indeed, I took some pains to emphasize that E.M.J. contributions to the
emergent alcohol science field in the U.S. were significant.  I wrote, for
example, in the piece:  "From his alcohol-related work's commencement in
1939 (at offices in the New York Academy of Medicine) to his death in 1963
(at Stanford University), Jellinek played a crucial role in the ascendancy
of modern science's claim to cultural "ownership"3 of the American alcohol
problems social arena."  My main conclusion regarding this excursion into
Jellinek's academic past was that his iffy certification might be regarded
as a telling indirect indicator of the very marginal status of alcohol
science in its early post-Repeal days.  In due course, however, I leaned
that in some quarters the misstatement of one's academic credentials has a
sort of "this invalidates everything he did" consequence.  On another list
and a year or two ago, one lay (if I may term it such) listmember explained
to me that possessing a doctorate by itself created much of the authority
behind someone's pronouncements or contributions to a field of research or
study.  I think the situation is significantly different in the academic
community.  E.M.J. might have lost an academic job if it were discovered
that his c.v. had been embellished (he might not have, too - it depends),
but his journal articles would not, by that fact alone, have been withdrawn
or lost whatever research and scholarly value they possessed.  That value,
instead, would have to be judged on the merits of the contribution, not the
author's troubled c.v. alone.  Perhaps one or two of my colleagues grimaced
a little when I published the Jellinek web article, I'm not sure.  Maybe
Jellinek's iffy credentials should have remained inside the protected
province of alcohol researchers, as a kind of "insider knowledge" that is
not allowed to sully a revered scientist in a field still struggling for
scientific legitimacy.  Some might say I've never been much good at
scholarly etiquette.  But, and to repeat, I never saw this little article as
an excuse to trash and disregard any and all of Jellinek's work.
Thanks.
Ron Roizen
 
  _____  

From: Academic and Scholarly Discussion of Addiction Related Topics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of No Name Available
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Does any one know anything about this - AA works for a few
people
 
I wonder how many people who've heard of Jellinek found out that he was a
fraud? He claimed to possess a PhD but in fact had attended college for less
than a year. 
 
At the time he claimed to have been awarded his degree, all German and
Austrian universities had excluded Jews (he was Jewish), and he wouldn't
have been permitted in their buildings, let alone awarded a degree. 
He later claimed that all records of his academic work had been destroyed in
the war, and was able to advance his fraudelent career as a 'researcher'.
 
His Jellinek Curve has nothing to do with the progression of alcoholism for
most people, and his 5 types of alcoholics could have been described by any
observant bartender or minister. 
 
Just like most of AA's tenets, Jellinek's work has no validity whatsoever.
 
In a message dated 3/23/06 5:44:59 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
I wonder how many of the folks who spout about alcoholism/alcohol dependence
being a disease have ever read Jellinek's "Disease Concept of Alcoholism"?
 
Fred
 
----------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe
put- unsubscribe Addict-L -in the body of a message to:
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------- List archives
and subscription options are at:
http://listserv.kent.edu/archives/Addict-L.html
----------------------------------------------------------- Send requests
for help to [log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------