What’s New
The American Historical Association’s leaders vetoed a resolution Thursday condemning Israel’s deadly attacks on Gaza, an issue that sparked fierce debate among historians at the group’s convention this month.
In a Friday statement, the association’s council, its main governing body, said the resolution — which called for a ceasefire to stop the “scholasticide,” a term that’s been used to describe the destruction of Gaza’s educational system — conflicted with the scholarly organization’s constitution and bylaws. The resolution also asked the AHA to form a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s educational infrastructure.
The council also decided that the resolution was outside of the association’s scope, which includes promoting the study of history through research, teaching, and publishing; collecting and preserving documents and artifacts; disseminating records and information; and broadening the general public’s knowledge of history.
The statement stressed that the historical association “deplores any intentional destruction of Palestinian educational institutions, libraries, universities, and archives in Gaza.”
The Details
James Grossman, the association’s executive director, said the vote was 11-4 in favor of a veto, with one member abstaining. (The council includes 16 voting members and three nonvoting members.) Grossman said he could not elaborate on the published statement or provide more details about the discussion, other than that it was a “well-informed” and “spirited” debate.
On Friday, academics on social media called the veto “indefensible,” “outrageous,” “cowardice,” and a “shame.” A few posts encouraged members to not renew their membership.
Grossman said he expected there to be controversy no matter what the council decided. “This is an issue for which Americans, historians and otherwise, have very strong opinions,” he said.
He said he hopes the association will have sessions about the war in Gaza at the next annual meeting but that the sessions “focus on history.” He reiterated that the association’s scope is “narrowly focused” on “history, the work of historians, and historical thinking.”
The Backdrop
The resolution condemning scholasticide was overwhelmingly passed by the historical association’s membership at its annual convention earlier this month. Around 500 scholars participated in that vote; the organization represents more than 10,000 members.
Some who criticized the council’s veto pointed to the AHA’s other resolutions related to wars. In 2007, the council accepted a resolution criticizing the Bush administration for actions taken during the war in Iraq, like excluding well-recognized foreign scholars and reclassifying previously unclassified documents. More recently, in 2022, the council approved a resolution that condemned Russian President Vladimir Putin’s use of “outlandish historical claims” to justify his attack on Ukraine.
Grossman said those resolutions differ from the one about Gaza because the Ukraine resolution was focused on history and the one about Iraq didn’t “take sides.”
Another scholarly organization, the Modern Language Association, also recently grappled with a resolution related to the Israel-Hamas war.
A group of its members put forth a resolution that endorsed a call for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. But the organization’s executive council declined to have the full membership vote on the document, citing the MLA’s unique organizational structure. The association, leaders said, risked taking a financial hit due to laws that prohibit state entities from holding contracts with companies that support boycotts. Scholars protested the decision at the MLA’s annual meeting this month.
The Stakes
The Israel-Hamas war has raised questions about the role of activism in scholarly organizations, especially as the academy faces criticism of bias toward progressive positions.
In an opinion essay for The New York Times, columnist Pamela Paul (who is now expected to leave the newspaper) argued that the AHA resolution vote distracts from the organization’s purpose and will further provoke conservative attacks on academe.
Before the Gaza resolution vote, Grossman said during his annual report at the convention that the AHA is “not a political organization, which is essential if we are to have any standing to provide Congress with briefings on such issues as the histories of deportation, taxation, civil service, and other pressing issues.” Grossman told The Chronicle that his comment was not directly about the vote, but about the association’s credibility in general.
Grossman said he does not want members to leave the organization over the vote.
“Yes, there will be disagreement,” he said, “but I hope our members will recognize the value of diversity of perspective.”
