Here's the list of historians and political scientists who've debunked or criticized D'Souza here on Twitter. It now runs to 151 scholars.
I'm going to leave it there, but as this list continues to circulate, I thought I should step back to explain why I've compiled this in the first place.
First of all, many people have asked why I and the other 151 scholars here would ever bother responding to an obvious con man like D'Souza.
I've previously laid out my reasons here:
Even though lots of us were doing this work, D'Souza weirdly singled me out for attention -- constantly tweeted at me and talking about me in public events (including the Liberty University convocation below):
He apparently thought that by singling me out and ignoring the others, he could frame this as a "debate" between "this guy at Princeton" and him, rather than an entire scholarly community pointing out he was a fraud.
So, following a suggestion in my replies, I drew up the list.
The list seemed like a fitting way to do this, in light of how much we know D'Souza likes lists:
And at first I threw up the obvious ones I knew about, for a list that ran around 60 names or so.
D'Souza, showing he's at good at math as he is at history, dimissed that as a "couple dozen."
So I added more names.
But drawing up this list wasn't just about the numbers.
D'Souza likes to dismiss all of his critics as leftists, including me -- which I'm sure is news to actual leftists.
In reality, though, a number of conservative scholars have taken him to task as a con man and a fraud. Here's a sampling of them below.
This isn't a case of left against right, as D'Souza pretends.
It's a diverse set of actual scholars speaking out against a grifting fraud.
When these scholars, with actual credentials and expertise, have exposed D'Souza as a fraud, his regular response is to resort to snobbery and elitism.
(N.B. The "Stanford U scholar" claim is based on a fellowship he had at the Hoover Institution, not Stanford itself.)
Now, an argument from authority is a weak argument in general.
But usually it rests on some actual authority. D'Souza is claiming his undergraduate degree in English literature somehow makes him more of an authority on American history than professors with PhDs.
I should note for the record that D'Souza *did* briefly have an academic post, but it didn't last long: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/nyregion/dinesh-dsouza-is-out-as-kings-college-president-in-scandal.html …
As you can see, it's not that D'Souza doesn't have critics; it's that he doesn't have facts.
And when he's called out on his lies, he typically opts to ignore the correction and resort to childish insults.
Apologies for going on at length with this list the past few days, but as you can see, there's a reason for it.
And, one more time, if D'Souza can provide scholars other than this exceptional one who support his work, he can let me know anytime:
You can follow @KevinMKruse.