History without democracy

In February 2025, I reported for Tempest on a controversy at the American Historical Association (AHA), the world’s largest association of history scholars and teachers. A motion brought to the annual business meeting in early January by Historians for Peace and Democracy (HPAD), the “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza,” condemned Israel’s destruction of universities, schools, and cultural centers in Gaza, and the killing of students and teachers underwritten by the United States.

Following a contentious discussion, members in attendance overwhelmingly (428 to 88) passed the resolution. According to the AHA constitution, the executive council could accept the resolution as binding, submit it to a general membership vote, or veto it—if it believed the measure was “in violation of the Association’s constitution, the law, or financially or administratively infeasible.” In an interview after the meeting, resolution supporter Rebecca E. Karl predicted the council would submit the resolution to the membership, since while it was clear the council opposed the resolution a veto “would be absurd, given the landslide support it had at the meeting.”

Yet that is precisely what it did. In a short statement published on January 17, the executive council claimed the resolution contravened the AHA’s mission as outlined in the constitution, which is to promote “historical studies through the encouragement of research, teaching, and publication,” including the “collection and preservation of historical documents and artifacts” and the dissemination of historical knowledge among the general public. The resolution condemned the IDF’s destruction of Gaza’s archives, libraries, and other cultural centers–which clearly falls within the association’s remit. There is, moreover, readily available information concerning Israel’s destruction of Palestinian archives and libraries, going back to 1948 and accelerating after October 7, 2023.

A very different scene unfolded at the April annual business meeting of the Organization of American Historians’ (OAH), the largest historical association dedicated solely to the study of U.S. history, where HPAD brought a similar Scholasticide resolution. Like their colleagues at the AHA, attendees of the OAH conference voted for the resolution by a large margin, in this case 104 to 25. Unlike the AHA, however, the OAH executive council honored the vote as binding on the organization, and has agreed to set up a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s education system.

Members were not willing to let the issue die at the AHA. At the end of May HPAD, together with the Palestine Historians Group and Historians for Palestine, endorsed a slate of candidates for the annual AHA officer election. The candidates had to petition to get on the ballot, however, as nominations for the organization’s officers are chosen by a nominating committee. Notably, the right to get on the AHA ballot by petition has its origins in the turbulent 1969 annual meeting, when the Radical Historians’ Caucus led by Howard Zinn and the Committee on Women in the Historical Profession unsuccessfully attempted to pass anti-Vietnam War resolutions and elect Staughton Lynd to the presidency.

That controversy led then-president R.R. Palmer to acknowledge that the AHA was experiencing a major crisis, and reforms followed. It would not be going too far to say the association is experiencing another major crisis. At a time of severe rightwing reaction, as the Trump administration engages in a major offensive against all levels of education, academia in general is experiencing a crisis. It is an unfortunate irony that as it attempts to position itself as an important pillar of resistance to the new authoritarianism, the AHA has subverted democratic norms in its own organization. Notably, while candidates for office this year all vowed to defend history teaching and scholarship from the reactionary assault, only HPAD-endorsed candidates also emphasized the need for greater democracy within the AHA.

The Counteroffensive

The AHA establishment was determined to thwart the “Democratize the AHA” slate, however. Subscribers to at least two listservs for history professionals, H-France and the Labor and Working-Class History Association (LAWCHA), received a letter about the association’s election (then in process). The post was signed by 27 prominent scholars, with asterisks next to names indicating that 12 signatories were former presidents of the AHA—a clear demonstration that the message held institutional weight. The letter urged readers who belonged to the AHA, or who wished to join, to vote in the election.

Claiming this was a “moment of truth” for the AHA, the message was presented as part of an effort to combat the Trump administration’s assault on the institutions (National Archives, Smithsonian, Library of Congress, National Endowment for the Humanities, etc.) on which educators and researchers depend. The AHA’s current leadership had “valiantly” fought book bans and legislative efforts to limit the teaching of “divisive” topics—the right’s code word for teaching and curricula that acknowledge the U.S.’s racist past and present. These efforts were why, signers claimed, it was crucial to vote in the election.

While encouraging members of professional organizations to vote in elections might seem unobjectionable, the post in fact made little sense. What person running for AHA office would not vigorously defend the teaching and research of history from the attacks of Trump and the likes of the Heritage Foundation? Were the unprecedented exhortations to people in groups unrelated to the AHA, to vote in that organization’s internal elections, really be attributable solely to the current rightwing assault on academic freedom?

In fact, as Joan Scott pointed out on the blog of the American Association of University Professors, the letter was in reality a “stealth attack” against the Democratize the AHA slate. That the post was about defeating insurgent candidates rather than combatting MAGA attacks on educational institutions was obvious to anyone with an inkling of knowledge about the Scholasticide controversy. LAWCHA and H-France subscribers were not just encouraged to vote; they were urged to vote specifically for “those candidates proposed by the Nominating Committee.” Each year, listserv members were informed, the committee puts forward two candidates for each office, a “diverse mix of professors and history professionals” who are “judicious, responsible, and committed to the organization’s values.”

If, however, the two candidates put forward every year by the committee are equally judicious, responsible, and committed to the organization’s values, what, one might ask, is the point of the letter—or even of voting? If that weren’t enough, the message implored subscribers one more time “to vote for one of the two candidates proposed by the Nominating Committee (i.e. one of the first two listed).” The point could not be clearer: do NOT vote for candidates on the ballot by petition. The nominating committee knows who should be elected, and its wisdom and authority should not be questioned. No other interpretation makes sense.

Scott noted that the letter implicitly impugned the integrity and motives of those on the alternative slate, and suggested that they were outsiders not committed to the AHA’s values. Scott also acknowledged that some signers likely opposed the Scholasticide resolution on its merits, fearing that insurgents would force their criticism of Israel on the association, which could in turn bring the Trump administration’s wrath on the organization. It was possible that had there been an honest debate, and had the resolution been put to the general membership, it may not have passed. However, instead of an open debate, a call to arms commenced that purported to defend the association from the right, when in fact it was worried about an insurgency from the Left. This, Scott claimed, contradicted the democratic values that “ought to” guide the AHA.

The Response

The responses to Scott’s blog post in the comments section exemplify the divide between the AHA establishment “elders” and the rank and file. One of the signers opposing the Democratize slate, Claire Potter, wrote a long (and at times incoherent) response to Scott’s message that claimed the letter was completely independent of the AHA, and that “We are merely a group of concerned colleagues with a point of view.” Potter also asserted that the letter was not sent to any listservs, being circulated only in signers’ personal networks. The message’s motive was as it states: the AHA must be ready to meet the challenges of the Trump administration, so members should vote.

However, while claiming that the more members who participate “the greater our internal democracy as an organization” regardless of who wins the election, Potter also claimed—evidently unaware of any contradiction—that because they were “people deeply familiar with the work of the organization,” signers know that it is the nominating committee that is best suited to choose who will successfully promote and defend the historical profession. Potter evidently has a deferential democracy in mind, one in which the plebs defer to their betters but are rewarded with the democratic façade of choosing one of two candidates hand-picked by an elite committee.

Commenters also pointed out that Potter’s response was flatly wrong. One scholar claimed to have received the letter via an AHA account, contrary to Potter’s assertion, and shamed the association and its signers for their attempt to undermine the election. Potter was forced to issue corrections about the assertion the letter was not sent to listservs, as it was obviously sent to both H-France and LAWCWA (and possibly more?). These errors, however, were excused by the claim that the “accepted risk of electronic documents is that they will find homes elsewhere.” More disturbingly, Potter attacked Scott personally and demanded evidence that signers “intended to do anything other than ask people to consider an institutionalist point of view hen [sic] they cast their votes”–an odd phrase that, like the actual alternative candidates, appears nowhere in the letter.

An anonymous historian of the Middle East lamented the message and Potter’s “smug condescension and contempt for both histories and historians of the Middle East.” They also called out the hypocrisy of the association’s condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and academic censorship in China while refusing to defend Middle East historians from attack in the U.S. In the past year alone, the commenter noted, three AHA members—Raz Segal, Cemal Kafadar, and Rosie Bsheer—lost academic positions for speaking out on Gaza. (The University of Minnesota rescinded an offer to Segal; Kafadar and Bsheer were dismissed by Harvard in that university’s disgraceful attempt to appease Trump.) The AHA’s silence in all these cases “is as shameful as it is indefensible.”

The Results

Election results were announced on July 21, and four of HPAD’s six endorsed candidates (Van Gosse, Karen Miller, Prasannan Parthasarathi, and Alexander Aviña) were victorious. Annalise Orleck, a Dartmouth professor arrested at a Gaza encampment in May of 2024, was unsuccessful in her bid for the position of president-elect, as was Sherene Seikaly, of UC-Santa Barbara and editor of the Journal of Palestine Studies, in her bid for vice-president of the professional division. Nevertheless, the success of the alternative slate in winning four offices is an unambiguous demonstration of a rank-and-file desire for a more democratic and accountable association. Conversely, the establishment’s effort to manipulate the election can only be described as a shambolic failure.

Whether the association can truly be reformed is another question. The executive council and nominating committee (together with the executive director) have substantial control over the AHA, and in academic associations—as, unfortunately, in too many labor unions—changing bylaws in ways that facilitate member engagement are difficult by design. Perhaps usefully, however, recent controversies regarding Palestine in organizations like the AHA and Modern Language Association reveal the hypocrisy of liberal organizations that profess progressive and democratic values, but are willing to violate these principles when officials deem it necessary.

Back in 2015, AHA executive director (and opponent of the Scholasticide resolution) James Grossman introduced the hashtag #EverythingHasaHistory. This was done in the belief history “can inform our understanding of everything and historians’ voices are essential in conversations about current events.” As we witness the first “livestreamed genocide,” it is worth asking at what point the AHA will reach out to Middle East experts for their views on what is happening in Gaza (and the West Bank) if it is truly committed to being relevant to an informed citizenry. As members get weekly notifications for history workshops, talks, panels, and initiatives, and as a growing chorus of scholars and professional organizations recognize the genocide in Gaza, the AHA’s silence only grows louder.

There are analogies in the AHA’s current crisis with U.S. society more broadly. Like the Democratic Party, university administrations, and liberals generally, AHA institutionalists have refuted (and sought to subvert) the wishes of its base in an effort to maintain respectability and access to the halls of power. Such strategies, in the AHA as elsewhere, have succeeded only in generating demoralization and resentment among those it claims to represent. As should be clear to historians more than anyone else, grassroots organization from below, not deference to self-proclaimed authorities, makes social and political change. Given the stakes at every level, it is important that our voices both be heard and encouraged.