Recap
Carol Biliczky,"Kent State Denies Ties to Jihadi Site," and Biliczky,"KSU Prof Defends Right to Free Speech," Akron Beacon Journal, 1 and 2 March clarify the issues involving Kent State historian Julio César Pino and charges made against him in Mike S. Adams,"Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard," Townhall, 28 February.
In other news, the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs announces the formation of a private, bipartisan National War Powers Commission to examine constitutional authority to begin, conduct, and end war. Chaired by former secretaries of state James A. Baker, III, and Warren Christopher, the Commission announces that Doris Kearns Goodwin will be its historical advisor. So, the lead editorial in yesterday's Daily Cavalier,"Some Things Borrowed" wonders that U Va students are bound by the University's honor code, but the U rewards distinguished violators. This wouldn't be the first time U Va has done this. Hat tip: Mary Dudziak and Margaret Soltan.
Debate over the AHA's"Resolution on United States Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession" is now officially closed and voting has begun. Members who are eligible to vote have been notified by e-mail. In the meantime, however, supporters of the resolution within the AHA published it as a letter to the editor of the NYRB (15 March).
The letter clearly stated that the resolution is"subject to ratification by the association's full membership in electronic voting March 1–9, 2007," but it led to a sharp exchange in the discussion site between Jerry Z. Muller and Staughton Lynd. Publication of the resolution in such a public venue was a"slap in the face" of the AHA's executive committee, Muller claimed, and, even while debate proceeded, appeared to claim that the resolution had official standing."... as I explained in my letter published on page 10 of the February 2007 Perspectives," Lynd replied,
under Article VII of the AHA Constitution a business meeting resolution"accepted" by the AHA Council becomes"binding" -- get that,"binding" -- on the Association. The fact that a ratification process is occurring is a concesion [sic] by supporters of the resolution, not required by the AHA constitution, precisely in the interest of the free speech that you and I both value. So please, back off your hyperbolic rhetoric.
Yet, if Lynd's claim about Article VII is correct, it raises questions about the status of the referendum now taking place. Is the resolution already"binding" – and the referendum a mere non-binding plebescite – or does the resolution automatically no longer have official standing if it fails to pass in the referendum?