ACTA's Must-Reads
« Lewis and Summers speak out | Main | Get a taste of "Indoctrinate U" on Sunday »
Overstepping
In December, the annual meeting of the American Historical Association debated whether to pass a resolution opposing the war in Iraq. While there was much support for a resolution, a few clear-headed historians opposed it on the grounds that it would overstep the bounds of professionalism and would be inappropriately political. Timothy Burke was one of those who spoke out against the resolution, and this blog applauded him for standing up and stating his opinion at a moment when the organizing body of his discipline was clearly toying with the idea of creating one of those moments of compulsory consensus that are so definitive in academic culture.
The protests of Burke and others notwithstanding, the AHA put the resolution to a vote, and it has now passed. Although only 15% of its membership bothered to vote, this was enough for a quorum, and 75% of respondents voted in favor of the resolution. The AHA is now officially in the business of taking stands on U.S. foreign policy. Those stands, in turn, represent intentions: Rowan University history professor David Applebaum was delighted, noting that "It will help us translate thought into action."
InsideHigherEd.com has the details -- along with some choice comments from readers.
From Jonathan Cohen, professor of mathematics at DePaul:
One can debate the merits of the Iraq war and I think clearly it has proven to be a lot more problematic for the US than any of its supporters anticipated. But that is not really the issue raised by the resolution. The question is whether the war is so clearly morally reprehensible that the professional organization representing American professional historians should commit itself to one sided proselytizing against it.Politics is very different from education. Its goal is to convert people and enlist them in support of a particular cause or candidate. It is not about intellectual inquiry. The purpose of speeches, pamphlets, demonstrations, rallies, petitions, resolutions and the like is to convince people of a particular set of positions. It is not to present an objective set of views and allow the individuals to make up their mind. That is fine for politics but it is not so great for education.
... for a group of professional historians to declare a correct political position on as controversial topic as the Iraq War is very problematic and calls into question their commitment to education. ... here is a big difference between indoctrination and education. Propaganda is not scholarship. But by passing a one sided resolution on the war in Iraq, the historical society suggests that they are unclear about the distinction.
From Rice professor Martin Wiener:
Perhaps most offensive in the "Resolution on United States Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession" is its dishonesty -- the pretense that American involvement in Iraq is specifically "inimical to the values of the historical profession." The examples cited in the article show how far its authors have to stretch logic to justify their effort to get the AHA to go on record on their side in a political quarrel: exclusion of foreign scholars, reclassification of previously unclassified documents -- are these part of the war in Iraq? Of course not. They can be -- and have been -- objected to on their own. Nor do military interrogation techniques, which are part of the war, have any clear bearing on the historical profession. The level of argument aimed at linking the two would surely be given a failing grade if submitted by an undergraduate.
And from a reader named Jack Olson:
Has the historical profession so perfected its research and teaching of history that it should turn to political issues like supporting or opposing the Iraq War? It doesn't seem so. There is considerable evidence that college students today do not learn as much history as a college graduate should be expected to know. The AHA hasn't offered any good solutions to problems in higher education such as grade inflation, the escalating cost of higher education, or the continuing replacement of faculty by low-paid adjuncts.So, why a resolution on what is undoubtedly a national issue but not particularly one of historical scholarship? Because digressing into minor issues is what organizations do when they recognize their failure at their main mission. Thus, the American Bar Association, having failed to improve either justice for the average citizen or the reputation of their profession, takes official stands on tax funding for the arts, the nuclear freeze movement, and AIDS (they're against it). Voting an official resolution against the Iraq War is a damn sight easier than finding good jobs for all the underemployed historians to whom they've given PhD's, so the AHA understandably prefers to concentrate on the former.
Worth noting: The AHA also considered a resolution opposing campus speech codes at its annual meeting. That one did not pass.
Posted by acta online at March 16, 2007 09:10 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/308