{"id":14142,"date":"2025-08-06T18:38:03","date_gmt":"2025-08-06T22:38:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tempestmag.org\/?p=14142"},"modified":"2025-08-13T01:25:11","modified_gmt":"2025-08-13T05:25:11","slug":"history-without-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tempestmag.org\/test02\/2025\/08\/history-without-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"History without democracy"},"content":{"rendered":"

I<\/span>n February 2025, I reported<\/a> for Tempest<\/em> on a controversy at the American Historical Association (AHA), the world\u2019s 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 \u201cResolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza,\u201d condemned Israel\u2019s destruction of universities, schools, and cultural centers in Gaza, and the killing of students and teachers underwritten by the United States.<\/p>\n

Following a contentious discussion, members in attendance overwhelmingly (428 to 88) passed the resolution. According to the AHA constitution<\/a>, the executive council could accept the resolution as binding, submit it to a general membership vote, or veto it\u2014if it believed the measure was \u201cin violation of the Association\u2019s constitution, the law, or financially or administratively infeasible.\u201d 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 \u201cwould be absurd, given the landslide support it had at the meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet that is precisely what it did. In a short statement<\/a> published on January 17, the executive council claimed the resolution contravened the AHA\u2019s mission as outlined in the constitution, which is to promote \u201chistorical studies through the encouragement of research, teaching, and publication,\u201d including the \u201ccollection and preservation of historical documents and artifacts\u201d and the dissemination of historical knowledge among the general public. The resolution condemned the IDF\u2019s destruction of Gaza\u2019s archives, libraries, and other cultural centers\u2013which clearly falls within the association\u2019s remit. There is, moreover, readily available information<\/a> concerning Israel\u2019s destruction of Palestinian archives and libraries, going back to 1948 and accelerating after October 7, 2023.<\/p>\n

A very different scene unfolded at the April annual business meeting of the Organization of American Historians\u2019 (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<\/a> 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\u2019s education system.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, endorsed<\/a> 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\u2019s officers are chosen by a nominating committee. Notably, the right to get on the AHA ballot by petition has its origins<\/a> in the turbulent 1969 annual meeting, when the Radical Historians\u2019 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<\/a> to the presidency.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Counteroffensive<\/h4>\n

The AHA establishment was determined to thwart the \u201cDemocratize the AHA\u201d 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\u2019s election (then in process). The post<\/a> was signed by 27 prominent scholars, with asterisks next to names indicating that 12 signatories were former presidents of the AHA\u2014a 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.<\/p>\n

Claiming this was a \u201cmoment of truth\u201d for the AHA, the message was presented as part of an effort to combat the Trump administration\u2019s assault on the institutions (National Archives, Smithsonian, Library of Congress, National Endowment for the Humanities, etc.) on which educators and researchers depend. The AHA\u2019s current leadership had \u201cvaliantly\u201d fought book bans and legislative efforts to limit the teaching of \u201cdivisive\u201d topics\u2014the right\u2019s code word for teaching and curricula that acknowledge the U.S.\u2019s racist past and present. These efforts were why, signers claimed, it was crucial to vote in the election.<\/p>\n

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<\/em> 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\u2019s internal elections, really be attributable solely to the current rightwing assault on academic freedom?<\/p>\n

In fact, as Joan Scott pointed out<\/a> on the blog of the American Association of University Professors, the letter was in reality a \u201cstealth attack\u201d 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 \u201cthose candidates proposed by the Nominating Committee.\u201d Each year, listserv members were informed, the committee puts forward two candidates for each office, a \u201cdiverse mix of professors and history professionals\u201d who are \u201cjudicious, responsible, and committed to the organization\u2019s values.\u201d<\/p>\n

If, however, the two candidates put forward every year by the committee are equally judicious, responsible, and committed to the organization\u2019s values, what, one might ask, is the point of the letter\u2014or even of voting? If that weren\u2019t enough, the message implored subscribers one more time \u201cto vote for one of the two candidates proposed by the Nominating Committee (i.e. one of the first two listed).\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cought to\u201d guide the AHA.<\/p>\n

The Response<\/h4>\n

The responses to Scott\u2019s blog post in the comments<\/a> section exemplify the divide between the AHA establishment \u201celders\u201d 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\u2019s message that claimed the letter was completely independent of the AHA, and that \u201cWe are merely a group of concerned colleagues with a point of view.\u201d Potter also asserted that the letter was not sent to any listservs, being circulated only in signers\u2019 personal networks. The message\u2019s motive was as it states: the AHA must be ready to meet the challenges of the Trump administration, so members should vote.<\/p>\n

However, while claiming that the more members who participate \u201cthe greater our internal democracy as an organization\u201d regardless of who wins the election, Potter also claimed\u2014evidently unaware of any contradiction\u2014that because they were \u201cpeople deeply familiar with the work of the organization,\u201d 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 fa\u00e7ade of choosing one of two candidates hand-picked by an elite committee.<\/p>\n