The history profession has plenty of questions to grapple with right now. Between those on the right who want it to accentuate America’s uniqueness and “greatness” and those on the left who want it to emphasize America’s failings and blind spots, how should historians tell the nation’s story? What is history’s role in a society with a seriously short attention span? And what can the field do — if anything — to stem the decline in history majors, which, at most recent count, was an abysmal 1.2 percent of American college 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 was called Israel’s “scholasticide” — defined as the intentional destruction of an education system — in Gaza, and how the A.H.A., which represents historians in academia, K-12 schools, public institutions and museums in the United States, should respond.
On Sunday evening, members voted in their annual business meeting on a resolution put forth by Historians for Peace and Democracy, an affiliate group founded in 2003 to oppose the war in Iraq. 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 cease-fire. Finally, and perhaps most unusually for an academic organization, a commitment to “form a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s educational infrastructure.”
“We consider this to be a manifold violation of academic freedom,” Van Gosse, a professor emeritus of history at Franklin & Marshall College and a founding co-chair of Historians for Peace and Democracy, told me, speaking of Israel’s actions in Gaza. The A.H.A. has taken public positions before, he pointed out, including condemning the war in Iraq and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “We felt like we had no choice — if we were to lose this resolution, it would send a message that historians did not actually care about scholasticide.”
That kind of impassioned commitment animated the business meeting, typically a staid affair that attracts around 50 attendees, but which this year, after a rally earlier in the day, was standing room only. Clusters of members were left to vote outside the Mercury Ballroom of the New York Hilton Midtown without even hearing the five speakers pro and five speakers con (which included the A.H.A.’s incoming president) make their case.
Sunday’s meeting was closed to the media but attendees and accounts on social media described an unusually raucous atmosphere. I saw many members heading in wearing kaffiyehs and stickers that read, “Say no to scholasticide.” Those opposing the resolution were booed and hissed, while those in favor won resounding applause.
It’s perhaps not surprising, then that the vote passed overwhelmingly, 428 to 88. Chants of “Free, free Palestine!” broke out as the result was announced.
Clearly there was a real consensus among professional historians, a group that has become considerably more diverse in recent years, or at least among those members who were present. One could read it as a sign of the field’s dynamism that historians are actively engaged in world affairs rather than quietly graying over dusty archives, or it may have been the result, as opponents suggested, of a well-organized campaign.
But no matter how good the resolution makes its supporters feel about their moral responsibilities, the vote is counterproductive.
First, the resolution runs counter to the historian’s defining commitment to ground arguments in evidence. It says Israel has “effectively obliterated Gaza’s education system” without noting that, according to Israel, Hamas — which goes unmentioned — shelters its fighters in schools.
Second, the resolution could encourage other academic organizations to take a side in the conflict between Israel and Gaza, an issue that tore campuses apart this past year, and from which they are still trying to heal. At this weekend’s annual meeting of the Modern Language Association, for example, members are expected to protest the humanities organization’s recent decision to reject a vote on joining a boycott of Israel.
Even those who agree with the message of the A.H.A. resolution might find reason not to support its passage. Certainly it distracts the group from challenges to its core mission, which is to promote the critical role of historical thinking and research in public life. Enrollment in history classes is in decline and departments are shrinking. The job market for history Ph.D.s is abysmal.
Finally, the resolution substantiates and hardens the perception that academia has become fundamentally politicized at precisely the moment Donald Trump, hostile toward academia, is entering office and already threatening to crack down on left-wing activism in education. Why fan those flames?
“If this vote succeeds, it will destroy the A.H.A.,” Jeffrey Herf, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Maryland and one of five historians who spoke against the resolution on Sunday, told me. “At that point, public opinion and political actors outside the academy will say that the A.H.A. has become a political organization and they’ll completely lose trust in us. Why should we believe anything they have to say about slavery or the New Deal or anything else?”
The resolution isn’t a fait accompli. The A.H.A. Council, the organization’s governing board, must accept, refuse to concur with or veto the vote. A refusal would send the resolution to the organization’s 10,450-plus membership for a full vote. Instead, at its meeting on Monday, the council punted, issuing a terse statement that its decision will be postponed until the next meeting, sometime within the month. Until then, the A.H.A. will not take an official stance.
“The A.H.A. cannot, does not, and should not intervene everywhere,” Jim Grossman, the organization’s executive director and an opponent of the resolution, noted in a message to members. “As a membership organization, we keep our distance from issues that are controversial within and among our members. And we keep in mind that our effectiveness rests on our legitimacy, our reputation for even-handedness, professional integrity and appropriately narrow boundaries.”
That stance may have already been compromised. The group’s Iraq war statement in 2007, for example, condemned America’s involvement in Iraq and censorship of the related public record while also urging an end to the war. On Ukraine, its statement was more carefully phrased as a rejection of Vladimir Putin’s characterization of Ukraine as part of Russia as being ahistoric.
Those who approved this current resolution may believe they are acting on a moral imperative. But historians are trained to take into account the long view. I would argue that while historians should be free to take part in public affairs on their own, it would be better if the A.H.A. as an institution never weighed in on political conflicts. Some may call this “anticipatory obedience.” I see it as wisely stemming the tide of mission creep and supporting independent thought by scholars.
