A Journal’s Apology Prompts Soul-Searching Over Racial Gatekeeping in Academe
For some, the controversy illuminates a problem ‘that is far, far more common than we would like to admit’
By Tom Hesse
April 21, 2017
A controversial book review in a well-known history journal has led to an apology from the American Historical Review and extensive introspection over gate-keeping and the barriers to young and minority scholars throughout academe.
The journal’s decision to allow a professor with views seen as supporting white supremacy to review a book on school segregation was met with surprise, but not by some scholars of American history. Nathan B. Connolly, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University, who is black, said scholars of color are all too familiar with having to overcome intellectual racism in academe.
We're sorry. Something went wrong.
We are unable to fully display the content of this page.
The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network.
Please allow access to our site, and then refresh this page.
You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one,
or subscribe.
If you continue to experience issues, please contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com
A controversial book review in a well-known history journal has led to an apology from the American Historical Review and extensive introspection over gate-keeping and the barriers to young and minority scholars throughout academe.
The journal’s decision to allow a professor with views seen as supporting white supremacy to review a book on school segregation was met with surprise, but not by some scholars of American history. Nathan B. Connolly, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University, who is black, said scholars of color are all too familiar with having to overcome intellectual racism in academe.
“This is a rare moment of something being brought to light that is far, far more common than we would like to admit,” Mr. Connolly said.
The book, Ansley T. Erickson’s Making the Unequal Metropolis: School Desegregation and Its Limits, debuted last year, but a review in February shifted the conversation from the book’s focus, school desegregation in Nashville, to the journal’s choice of the reviewer: Raymond Wolters.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Wolters, a professor emeritus at the University of Delaware, has written about desegregation in the past, which is how he came to be on the publication’s list of prospective reviewers. But in its apology the journal admitted ignorance about more recent criticism of Mr. Wolters’s work, which has been tied to white supremacy and discredited notions on the impact of biology on race.
Robert A. Schneider, interim editor of the journal, which is the official publication of the American Historical Association, penned an apology in the April edition, announcing that a new review was being commissioned and saying of Mr. Wolters: “It is absolutely true, of course, that a little more digging would have turned up evidence that would have — and has — discredited him as a legitimate scholar.”
Perhaps the most controversial line in Mr. Wolters’ review was one in which he noted that Ms. Erickson did not address sociobiology in school segregation. The theory, which posits a genetic explanation for behavior, has been widely dismissed as racist, especially as it relates to education issues. In addition to the apology, the journal published a half-dozen letters criticizing Mr. Wolters’s review. The University of Delaware briefly took down his faculty page. A spokeswoman confirmed that the page was taken down but then put back up.
Ms. Erickson, an assistant professor of history and education at Columbia University, said she appreciates the printed apology and the seriousness with which the American Historical Review is taking the issue. But, she said, it’s a reminder of the state of American history research in academe.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It’s still the case that the American historical academy is not representative of the U.S. over all,” Ms. Erickson, who is white, said, adding that it’s a good time to turn to minority colleagues and listen to their experiences.
Mr. Connolly is one of those colleagues. The first black U.S. historian to be tenured at Johns Hopkins, Mr. Connolly wrote a letter to the editor of the publication criticizing the review. While many have expressed condemnation at the review, Mr. Connolly said those in the field, particularly scholars of color, aren’t shocked by an instance of “racial gatekeeping.”
‘Blocking Scholars of Color’
In American history circles, Mr. Connolly said, new scholars are accepted or rejected by those that came before them. When it comes to issues of race or scholars of color, Mr. Connolly said, it’s an even steeper climb.
“White academics who have a published record in some form of African American history have been some of the most egregious violators in terms of blocking scholars of color, blocking work that has a kind of social construct understanding of race and racism,” Mr. Connolly said.
It’s really important ... that the way we save the history profession is by bringing a much deeper and greater historical sensibility.
ADVERTISEMENT
It’s an issue, he said, that can affect hiring, tenure, publication, and any other work for new academics. In this case, Mr. Connolly said, the impact is obvious to see. But the problem runs deeper than a mistake by a single journal.
“This is not an unknown problem in the academy. And when you look at places that have heavily represented scholars of colors, be they universities or university presses, those are the places that have done the best job of putting the networks of scholars of color at ease about those gatekeeping practices not being exercised in those places,” Mr. Connolly said.
Those sorts of decisions create their own form of segregation. Mr. Connolly said institutions that have developed a reputation for being open to scholars of color are likely to be the focus for those scholars, while other institutions remain stagnant in diversifying their departments or publications. Many scholars of color won’t choose to pursue paths that are known to be unreceptive of their work. “There are many people who very wisely avoid that burden,” Mr. Connolly said.
It’s why, Mr. Connolly said, the flap at the American Historical Review can be an opportunity for journals, departments, and universities to ask important questions: Have we ever had a person of color as the executive director for our journal? Has our department given a tenure-track job to a woman? What is our own history of diversity?
“It’s really important, ironically enough, that the way we save the history profession is by bringing a much deeper and greater historical sensibility,” Mr. Connolly said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Looking for Solutions
Patricia Matthew, an associate professor of English at Montclair State University, has written extensively on diversity in higher education. She said the challenge in cases like these is that outsiders will see the problem with the American Historical Review without taking inventory of their own diversity problems.
“When people hear ‘diversity’ or ‘inclusion,’ or think about restructuring things, they think about it as important to other people: They’re not those people and they’re not the problem,” Ms. Matthew said.
And as long as that’s the case, “it’s going to be really hard to change.” The solution to that goes beyond “adding one or two black people,” Ms. Matthew said.
When people hear ‘diversity’ or ‘inclusion,’ ... they think about it as important to other people: They’re not those people and they’re not the problem.
Mr. Connolly referred to a similar sentiment as a “flat” view of diversity, saying that changing appearances doesn’t necessarily address a structure unfavorable to scholars of color.
ADVERTISEMENT
For Ms. Matthew, publications and universities can start the conversation by addressing their own diversity, but she said it’s also prudent to examine the structure of the academic process itself: the notion of a prestigious journal serving as a gatekeeper to academe is, itself, a problem. If you’re an exclusive journal, she said, “you’re already part of the problem because your reputation relies on being exclusionary.”
While Mr. Wolters’s review might be an easy mistake to spot, Ms. Matthew said racial issues in academic circles require thorough examination. After all, as long as there is a gate, there is the opportunity for problematic gatekeepers.
“We have to start looking at other ways to value a scholarly contribution,” Ms. Matthew said. “These are always moments where we have to reconsider what we practice, if it’s still useful.”
‘Not a White Supremacist’
In an interview with The Chronicle, Mr. Wolters said he’s a “race realist,” but “I’m not a white supremacist. That’s for sure.”
However, Mr. Wolters is not backing off his belief in sociobiology, pointing to authors like E.O. Wilson and Carl Degler as support of his ideas. Mr. Wolters stands by his views, even while acknowledging that sociobiology can be used as a tool for racist rhetoric.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Some people may do that, but I don’t see that as the big problem now. That is a potential problem. Some people may use that to say that some races are superior or inferior. Mostly they’re just different in some minor — well, maybe not so minor — in some respects.”
He sees a parallel between himself and Charles A. Murray, who has been in the news for campus protests of his controversial writings on race, saying that “social justice scholars” are behind the pushback.
In hindsight, though, Mr. Wolters said he regrets having included the sociobiology comment in the review.
“If I had to do it over again, I would leave that sentence out,” he said. “I’m not seeking a lot of bad publicity. Or I’m not seeking a lot of attention, frankly, or any kind of publicity.”