The annual conference of the American Historical Association recently brought to light a pressing issue that goes beyond the typical discussions within the history profession. Amidst debates about how historians should tell the nation’s story and the decline in history majors, the focus shifted to Israel’s “scholasticide” in Gaza.
During the conference, a resolution was put forth by Historians for Peace and Democracy, calling for a condemnation of Israeli violence in Gaza that undermines the right to education, an immediate cease-fire, and a commitment to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s educational infrastructure. The resolution sparked intense debate and passion among attendees, with a standing-room-only business meeting and a resounding vote in favor of the resolution.
However, some critics argue that the resolution may have unintended consequences. They point out that it lacks a balanced perspective by failing to mention Hamas’s role in the conflict and could potentially politicize academic organizations and further divide campuses already grappling with contentious issues.
Moreover, opponents of the resolution fear that it could damage the credibility and trust of the American Historical Association. They argue that taking a political stance on such complex and divisive issues could erode the organization’s reputation for impartiality and undermine its core mission of promoting historical thinking and research.
As the A.H.A. Council deliberates on whether to accept or veto the resolution, the debate continues about the role of historians in public affairs and the potential impact of taking a stance on politically charged issues. While some believe in the moral imperative of speaking out, others advocate for maintaining a neutral stance to preserve the integrity and independence of the historical profession.
Ultimately, the outcome of this debate will shape not only the American Historical Association but also the broader role of historians in contemporary society. It remains to be seen how the organization will navigate these complex and contentious waters while upholding its commitment to historical scholarship and academic integrity.
