Scholasticide at the American Historical Association 

On January 5, 2025, attendees of the American Historical Association’s (AHA) annual business meeting approved a “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza” by a margin of 428 to 88. Put forward by Historians for Peace and Democracy, the resolution notes that Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have destroyed 80 percent of Gaza’s schools and all 12 of its university campuses, leaving 625,000 students without access to education. In addition to killing 261 teachers and 95 university professors, the IDF has destroyed numerous archives, museums, libraries, cultural centers, and bookstores. If passed, the AHA would affirm the “right of all peoples to freely teach and learn about their past,” and condemn the violence in Gaza that undermines that right. The resolution further called for a permanent ceasefire and the creation of a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s educational infrastructure.

After its passage the resolution was sent to the AHA’s Council, which could have accepted it or sent it to the general membership for a vote. Instead, the Council vetoed the resolution. In a single paragraph posted on the AHA website, the Council claimed that the resolution contravened the Association’s constitution and bylaws, and lay outside the organization’s mission and purpose. Though the statement quoted the association’s mission to promote historical knowledge and research, it said nothing specific about how the resolution violated the constitution, or how exactly it lay outside the association’s mission.

The Council’s veto has caused a major controversy in the world’s largest association of professional historians. Though historically an elitist organization, in recent years the AHA has become more active in advocating for educators’ rights across the educational spectrum, from primary school teachers to university professors. The highly undemocratic veto of January 17 will undoubtedly be perceived by many of the organization’s more than 11,000 members as yet another example of U.S. educational institutions’ hypocrisy when it comes to Israel-Palestine. Whether Ivy League administrations or leading academic associations, it seems that educational institutions’ fear of offending political authorities trumps the defense of basic democratic principles.

Scholasticide, not a new phenomenon

Though the “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza” is primarily concerned with events in Gaza since 2023, the term scholasticide is not new. It was coined more than a decade ago by Karma Nabulsi, professor of Politics at Oxford University, and refers to the “systemic destruction, in whole or in part, of the educational life of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” Though developed in the context of Israel’s targeting of Gaza’s Ministry of Education and other learning-related buildings in 2009, the concept refers to a pattern of Israeli attacks on Palestinian scholars, students, and educational institutions that dates as far back as the Nakba of 1948. This pattern, Nabulsi argues, is evidence of an effort to eradicate a Palestinian tradition in which education and freedom of thought are highly valued as a means to resist occupation and imagine a different world.

A 2017 report by Friends of Birzeit University details how Palestinian youth have been forced to contend for seven decades with oppressive and violent conditions of occupation and exile. A scarcity of schools due to planning restrictions and the constant threat of demolition exists in the West Bank as well as Gaza, while students are often forced to learn without artificial light or internet access because of Israel-imposed energy shortages. The IDF has subjected students to prolonged and arbitrary military detention for many years, and students are regularly detained for exercising their right to assembly, association, and expression. Scholasticide is not a new phenomenon, and has not been confined to times of violent conflict.

While the vague “news update” published by the AHA justifying the Council’s decision nowhere mentioned scholasticide, it did mention Palestinian rights. Its opening sentence claims the Council “deplores any intentional destruction of Palestinian educational institutions, libraries, universities, and archives in Gaza.” Notable here is the absence of any mention of who is doing the destroying—namely, Israel, with the crucial support of the U.S. government. Also suggestive is the qualifier intentional, whose inclusion implies that the destruction of Gaza’s educational infrastructure might be accidental and, if so, could be justified as an unfortunate casualty of war. While a response to one of the resolution’s claims, it is a platitude empty of any meaning.

Also troubling is the manner in which the Council deliberated. Jim Grossman, the AHA’s executive director, informed Inside Higher Ed that the Council vote in favor of the veto was 11 to 4, with one abstention. Grossman also stated that a vote in support of the statement explaining the veto was 10 to zero with three abstentions, coming after some members left the meeting (in protest?). This suggests that one or several Council members had already drafted the statement that would appear on the AHA website explaining its veto before the meeting to discuss the resolution even occurred. If the Council is within its constitutional rights not to reveal details of its meeting, the lack of transparency concerning its ostensible “careful deliberation and consideration” will inevitably be followed by speculation and suspicion among members. This is especially the case as the veto now appears to be a fait accompli.

While Grossman refused to discuss specifics for Inside Higher Ed, one member, Anne Hyde, said that she voted no “to protect the AHA’s reputation as an unbiased historical actor,” and noted the association appears before congressional hearings. It appears that Hyde and other Council members privileges access to Congress—whose pro-Israel bias is undeniable—over a democratically-determined decision of its members.

Hyde also stated that the war in Gaza “is not settled history, so we’re not clear what happened or who to blame or when it began even, so it isn’t something that a professional organization should be commenting on yet.” This is a curious assertion. Was the AHA’s condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022 “settled history”? Grossman claimed that “the Ukraine statement was purely historical,” when in fact the declaration condemned an invasion that began only days before, and pledged to “vigorously support the Ukrainian nation and its people in their resistance to Russian military aggression.” The association also regularly takes positions on contemporary educational issues, whether in the U.S., Poland, or China. Why is there an exception for Palestine?

While the vote to veto the resolution held a majority in the Council, members were clearly divided on the issue. This lack of consensus makes the explanation for its rejection of the resolution highly problematic, if not unconstitutional. In an update published after the resolution’s passage at the business meeting, the Council cited Article 7(3-5) of the constitution, which states that all measures passed by the business meeting then go to the Council for acceptance, nonconcurrence, or veto. While Section 4 asserts the Council’s right to veto business meeting measures, it also requires that the body publish an explanation for any such veto. The bland statement of January 17 can hardly be credited as a sufficient explanation for the veto of a resolution passed by 82 percent of voting members.

More problematic still, Section 5 states that if Council members do not concur in a decision it will submit the disputed measure to a vote of the entire membership within 90 days. Proponents of the measure and the Council are to have the opportunity to set forth their respective positions, after which a vote will take place. If approved by a majority of the members voting, the measure shall be binding on the Association. Since the Council meeting lacked a consensus and therefore did not “concur,” why did it not follow the AHA constitution and submit the measure to the general membership? Evidently, in the Council’s view, some decisions are too important to be left to dues-paying members.

Democracy and the future of the AHA

There is a precedent for the AHA’s crisis. In the fall of 2024, the Modern Language Association’s Executive Council refused to allow its membership to vote on a resolution endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that would have included a condemnation of the ongoing scholasticide. The MLA council justified its veto by citing anti-BDS (and unconstitutional) state laws that would harm the organization’s ability to sign contracts with colleges and universities in those states. Rather than challenge censorship and intimidation through publicity and member mobilization, the MLA simply caved—exactly as the crafters of such laws intended.

With the humanities under perennial attack by political reactionaries and STEM-obsessed utilitarians, it is unfortunate that two leading American humanities organizations have failed to defend educational rights. Fortunately, there are thousands of scholars working to protect and rebuild Palestinians’ rights to dignity and freedom, education included. Inspiration can be found in the numerous academic organizations that have endorsed BDS, including the Association for Asian American Studies, the American Studies Association, the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association, the Association for Humanist Sociology, and the African Literature Association, to name a few. Hopefully these organizations will mobilize their members to support the movement against scholasticide, as well.

For the AHA, the issue is not going away. Historians for Peace and Democracy intends to pressure the AHA Council to put the resolution to a membership vote with a signature campaign. Undoubtedly many members will withhold dues and boycott the 2026 conference. Some will simply leave the organization. Whether or not the resolution ever reaches the general membership may determine the AHA’s future, whether it will be a democratic organization responsive to its membership, or whether it will privilege its status within the halls of power.

Featured Image credit: Dominaiustitia; modified by Tempest.
Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”