The history profession has many issues to grapple with today. How should historians tell the story of this country, with the right wanting to emphasize America's uniqueness and “greatness” and the left wanting to emphasize America's flaws and blind spots? What role does history play in a society with extremely short attention spans? And to stem the decline in the number of history majors, which by the latest tally was 1.2 percent of American college students, the field is becoming increasingly popular. What can you do?
But the most pressing questions at the American Historical Association's annual conference, which I just attended in New York, had nothing to do with any of these. It wasn't even about the study or practice of history. Instead, it focuses on what historians in U.S. academia, K-12 schools, public institutions, and museums refer to as Israel's “academic murder” in Gaza (defined as the deliberate destruction of the education system). It was about how the AHA, which represents the AHA, would act. , should respond.
On Sunday evening, members at their annual business meeting voted on a resolution introduced by Historians of Peace and Democracy, an affiliate group founded in 2003 to oppose the Iraq war. It included three measures. First, the group's condemnation of Israeli violence undermines Gazans' right to education. Second, there is a demand for an immediate ceasefire. Finally, and perhaps most unusually for an academic organization, the group pledged to “establish a committee to help rebuild Gaza's educational infrastructure.''
Van Goss, professor emeritus of history at Franklin Marshall College and founding co-chair of Historians of Peace and Democracy, said of Israel's actions in Gaza: “We are calling this academic freedom. “I think it's a diverse range of infringements,” he said. He noted that the AHA has taken public positions in the past, including condemning the Iraq war and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. “We felt we had no other choice. If we voted down this resolution, it would send a message that historians don't actually care about academic decline.”
These enthusiastic efforts energized the business meeting, which in previous years was a solid gathering of about 50 attendees, but this year it was standing room only due to the gathering earlier in the day. Outside the Mercury Ballroom at the New York Hilton Midtown, a group of members vote without hearing the arguments of the five pro and five speakers (including the AHA's incoming president). It happened.
Sunday's meeting was closed to the media, but attendees and social media accounts described an unusually raucous atmosphere. Many members were seen entering the venue wearing kaffiyeh and stickers that read “Say no to the academic rush.” Opponents of the resolution could be heard booing and hissing, while those in favor received thunderous applause.
It may come as no surprise that the vote passed by an overwhelming majority of 428-88. “Free, Free Palestine!” chant. There was an uproar as soon as the results were announced.
Clearly, there was a real consensus among professional historians, a group that has grown considerably more diverse in recent years, or at least among the members who were present.. It can also be read as an expression of the field's dynamism, where historians are actively involved in world affairs rather than sitting silently in dusty archives, and, as opponents suggest, are well-organized. It may have been the result of a campaign.
But no matter how morally responsible the resolution may make its supporters feel, voting is counterproductive.
First, this resolution contradicts historians' clear commitment to basing their arguments on evidence. The paper says Israel has “virtually destroyed Gaza's education system,” without mentioning that, according to Israel, Hamas is harboring militants in schools, which is not mentioned.
Second, this resolution could encourage other academic groups to join the Israel-Gaza conflict. It's an issue that tore the campus apart last year and is still trying to recover from that conflict. For example, at the Modern Language Association's annual meeting this weekend, members are expected to protest the humanities organization's recent decision to refuse to vote on joining a boycott of Israel. There is.
Even those who agree with the message of the AHA resolution may find reasons not to support its passage. Indeed, it distracts the group from challenging its core mission of promoting the important role of historical thinking and research in public life. Enrollment in history classes is declining and the department is shrinking. The job market for history Ph.D.s is terrible.
Finally, this resolution argues that academia is fundamentally politicized at the very moment that academia-hostile Donald Trump has taken office and is already attempting to crack down on left-wing activity in education. Demonstrates and strengthens awareness. Why fan the flames?
“If this vote is successful, the AHA will be destroyed,” said Jeffrey, professor emeritus of history at the University of Maryland and one of five historians who opposed the resolution on Sunday. Herb told me. “At that point, public opinion and political actors outside the academy will say that the AHA has become a political organization, and they will completely lose faith in us. Why should I believe what they say?”
A resolution is not a fait accompli. The organization's governing board, the AHA Board of Trustees, must accept the vote, refuse to consent, or issue a veto. If rejected, the resolution will be sent to the organization's more than 10,450 members, all of whom will vote on it. Instead, the council issued a brief statement at Monday's meeting saying it would defer the decision until its next meeting sometime in the month. Until then, the AHA will not take an official position.
“The AHA cannot and should not intervene anywhere,” Jim Grossman, the organization's executive director and opponent of the resolution, said in a message to members. “As a membership organization, we distance ourselves from controversial issues within and among our members, and our effectiveness depends on our legitimacy, impartiality, and professional integrity. “We are mindful that we are building on our reputation for fine lines and appropriately narrow boundaries.''
That attitude may have already collapsed. For example, the group's 2007 Iraq War Statement condemned America's involvement in Iraq and the censorship of related public records, but also called for an end to the war. Regarding Ukraine, the statement was more carefully worded as a rejection of President Vladimir Putin's characterization of Ukraine as ahistorical as part of Russia.
Those who approved this current resolution may believe that they are acting out of moral obligation. But historians are trained to consider the long term. I would argue that while historians should be free to participate in public service themselves, the AHA as an organization should never engage in political conflict. Some might call this “anticipatory obedience.” I see it as wisely stemming the creeping tide of mission and supporting independent thought by scholars.
