The history profession has many questions to confront at this time. Between those on the right who want to emphasize America’s uniqueness and “greatness” and those on the left who want to emphasize America’s weaknesses and blind spots, how should historians tell the nation’s story? What is the role of history in a society with very short attention spans? And what can the field do—if anything—to halt the decline in history majors, which, at the most recent count, were an abysmal 1.2 percent of American students?
But the most pressing question at the annual conference of the American Historical Association, which I just attended in New York, had nothing to do with any of this. It wasn’t even about the study or practice of history. Instead, it was about what he called Israel’s “scholastic genocide” — defined as the deliberate destruction of an education system — in Gaza, and how the AHA, which represents historians in academia, K-12 schools, public institutions and museums in the United States , should answer.
On Sunday night, members voted at their annual business meeting on a resolution proposed by Historians for Peace and Democracy, an affiliate group founded in 2003 to oppose the Iraq War. It included three measures. First, a condemnation of Israeli violence that the group says undermines Gazans’ right to education. Second, the demand for an immediate ceasefire. Finally, and perhaps most unusual for an academic organization, the commitment “to form a committee to help rebuild Gaza’s educational infrastructure.”
“We see this as a multiple violation of academic freedom,” Van Gosse, professor emeritus of history at Franklin & Marshall College and founding co-chair of Historians for Peace and Democracy, told me about Israel’s actions in Gaza. The AHA has taken public positions in the past, he noted, including condemning the Iraq war and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “We felt we had no choice – if we lost this resolution, it would send a message that historians didn’t really care about holocaust.”
That kind of passionate engagement enlivened the business meeting, a typical affair that draws about 50 attendees but this year, after a rally earlier in the day, was standing room only. Groups of members were allowed to vote outside the Mercury Ballroom of the New York Hilton Midtown without even hearing the five for and five against speakers (which included the incoming AHA president) make their case.
Sunday’s meeting was closed to the media, but attendees and social media accounts described an unusually raucous atmosphere. I saw many members wearing hoodies and stickers that read: “Say no to school killing.” Those opposed to the resolution booed and whistled, while those in favor won resounding applause.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, the vote passed overwhelmingly, 428 to 88. Chants of “Free, free Palestine!” erupted as the result was announced.
Clearly there was real consensus among professional historians, a group that has become much more diverse in recent years, or at least among those members present.. One could read it as a sign of the dynamism of the field that historians are actively engaged in world affairs rather than quietly graying over dusty archives, or it may have been the result, as opponents have suggested, of a well-organized campaign.
But no matter how well the resolution makes its supporters feel about their moral responsibilities, the vote is counterproductive.
First, the resolution contradicts the historian’s defining commitment to key arguments as evidence. It says Israel has “virtually eliminated Gaza’s education system” without noting that, according to Israel, Hamas – which is not named – shelters its fighters in schools.
Second, the resolution could encourage other academic organizations to take sides in the conflict between Israel and Gaza, an issue that has torn college campuses apart for the past year and from which they are still trying to heal. At the Modern Language Association’s annual meeting this weekend, for example, members are expected to protest the humanities body’s recent decision to reject a vote to join the boycott of Israel.
Even those who agree with the message of the AHA resolution may find reason not to support its passage. It certainly distracts the group from the challenges to its core mission, which is to promote the critical role of historical thought and research in public life. Enrollment in history courses is declining and classes are shrinking. The job market for history PhDs is lousy.
Finally, the resolution documents and hardens the notion that academia has become radically politicized just as academia-hostile Donald Trump takes office and is already threatening to crack down on left-wing activism in education. Why light these flames?
“If this vote passes, it will destroy the AHA,” Jeffrey Herf, professor emeritus of history at the University of Maryland and one of five historians who spoke against the resolution Sunday, told me. “At that point, the public and political actors outside of the academy will say that the AHA has become a political organization and they will completely lose confidence in us. Why should we believe anything they have to say about slavery or the New Deal or anything else?’
The resolution is not a fait accompli. The AHA Council, the organization’s governing body, must accept, decline to agree, or veto the vote. A refusal would send the resolution to the organization’s 10,450-plus members for a full vote. Instead, at its meeting on Monday, the council signaled, issuing a curt statement, that its decision would be postponed until the next meeting sometime this month. Until then, the AHA will not take an official position.
“The AHA cannot, cannot and should not step in everywhere,” noted Jim Grossman, the organization’s executive director and an opponent of the resolution, in a message to members. “As a membership organization, we distance ourselves from issues that are controversial within and among our members. And we bear in mind that our effectiveness rests on our legitimacy, our reputation for equality, professional integrity and appropriately narrow boundaries.”
That stance may already be compromised. The group’s 2007 statement on the Iraq war, for example, condemned America’s involvement in Iraq and the censorship of the related public record while urging an end to the war. As for Ukraine, her statement was more carefully worded as a rejection of Vladimir Putin’s designation of Ukraine as part of Russia as ahistorical.
Those who passed this resolution may believe they are acting on a moral imperative. But historians are trained to take the long view. I would argue that while historians should be free to engage in public affairs on their own, it would be better for the AHA as an institution to never weigh in on political conflict. Some might call this “preemptive obedience.” I see it as wisely stemming the tide of mission creep and supporting independent thinking by scholars.
