Richard White: Notes that historians seem reluctant to debate issues of controversy
While preparing the OAH Strategic Plan in 2002, the OAH Executive Board recommended that future program committees “create sessions on scholarly controversies in which two or more distinguished historians take opposing positions.” It seemed a good idea at the time, and still seemed good when the committee met to plan the 2007 convention. This coming year is the one hundredth anniversary of the OAH, and if there were ever a time to show the diversity of views within the profession—and historians’ belief in candid intellectual exchange—it would be at our centennial celebration next spring in Minneapolis. But then, again, maybe not. There was a notable lack of enthusiasm among the scholars invited to participate.
As historians, we do take opposing positions, but we seem to be united on one thing: a reluctance to debate. This was evident in our attempts to implement the “scholarly controversies” sessions. I won’t mention names—and there is no need to—because the problem is not personal but rather collective. The unwillingness to debate spans the spectrum of the profession. It was as strong on the left as on the right. Race and gender, as far as I know, made no difference. There were numerous excuses given, including other commitments, but although the reasons varied, the refusal was pretty universal. The always exceptional Patricia Limerick accepted and so did a few others, but they were the outliers.
This is, on one level, puzzling. If the debate were to take place on Crossfire, I can understand a “thanks but no thanks” answer. If this were to be a debate along the lines of presidential “debates,” I could understand why people, particularly the potential audience, might say, “why bother?” But these would be debates between colleagues who have taken differing positions on important issues. The audience would be their professional equals. I have little doubt that all of us would go to the wall to defend the free exchange of ideas, but we don’t seem much interested in exchanging ideas ourselves, at least in public where there might be occasion for embarrassment.
I may be the most naïve member of this organization, but I didn’t think that any of us have that much to lose....
Read entire article at OAH President Richard White in the OAH Newsletter
As historians, we do take opposing positions, but we seem to be united on one thing: a reluctance to debate. This was evident in our attempts to implement the “scholarly controversies” sessions. I won’t mention names—and there is no need to—because the problem is not personal but rather collective. The unwillingness to debate spans the spectrum of the profession. It was as strong on the left as on the right. Race and gender, as far as I know, made no difference. There were numerous excuses given, including other commitments, but although the reasons varied, the refusal was pretty universal. The always exceptional Patricia Limerick accepted and so did a few others, but they were the outliers.
This is, on one level, puzzling. If the debate were to take place on Crossfire, I can understand a “thanks but no thanks” answer. If this were to be a debate along the lines of presidential “debates,” I could understand why people, particularly the potential audience, might say, “why bother?” But these would be debates between colleagues who have taken differing positions on important issues. The audience would be their professional equals. I have little doubt that all of us would go to the wall to defend the free exchange of ideas, but we don’t seem much interested in exchanging ideas ourselves, at least in public where there might be occasion for embarrassment.
I may be the most naïve member of this organization, but I didn’t think that any of us have that much to lose....