The first paper notes that Mead’s research examined Hall’s hypothesis that a tumultuous adolescence is a phase through which all people in all cultures must pass in going from childhood to adulthood. The subsequent papers assess elements of Freeman’s case against Mead, based on the correspondence between Boas and Mead in 1925 and 1926 and on the academic literature. Another paper examines Mead’s position on evolutionary and biological influences on behavior over her career, the impact of her book Coming of Age in Samoa, and how Freeman has gained favor with the public via journalists. The next paper focuses on Freeman’s claims regarding the importance of Mead’s Samoan research for the Boasian paradigm and the reception of Mead’s book in anthropology. A further paper updates critiques of Freeman’s hoaxing theory, considers why Freeman concluded that Mead admitted that she was hoaxed, and argues that the eagerness of Mead’s publisher to make Mead’s book a bestseller resulted in many of the book’s controversial aspects. The final paper examines Freeman’s strategy in using Mead as his foil and Mead’s formula for success for gaining the public’s attention. The overview concludes that the papers’ authors disagree on some points but have reached a consensus that Freeman’s case against Mead is flawed in several basic ways. Texts of letters between Boas and Mead and chapter reference lists