A Code of Ethics for the Historical Profession

Editor’s Note. At each annual meeting the Professional, Teaching, and Research Divi­sions, and the AHA Committee on Women Historians, sponsor sessions on issues that are central to a committee’s work and to the interests of many of our members. The 1985 Annual Meeting in New York City saw five sponsored sessions; the reports submitted by the session chairs are reprinted below. The chair of the Research Division’s session also includes the text of one of the session papers (on scholarly publishing) as an especially clear and urgent statement by the director of a major university press. Questions, comments, or requests for further information should be directed to session participants, or sent “in care of” to the AHA’s national office (400 A Street, SE, Washington, DC 20003).

Sponsored by the AHA Professional Division

A Code of Ethics for the Historical Profession

CHAIR: Richard S. Kirkendall, Iowa State University, and vice-president, Professional Division

Is a Code of Ethics an Essential Feature of a Profession?
Nicholas Steneck, University of Michigan

Does the AHA Have a Code Comparable in Quality to Other Associations of Its Kind?
Jamil S. Zainaldin, American His­torical Association

How Have Various Professions Dealt with Ethics Issues?
William B. Griffith, George Wash­ington University

COMMENT: Bernard Semmel, State University of New York, Stony Brook, and Professional Division
Clara M. Lovett, George Washington University, and Professional Division

About seventy-five people attended a session on A Code of Ethics for the Historical Profession. In my opening remarks, I described and explained the Division’s interest in this subject.

The topic owed much to the emer­gence of several controversies, above all the Abraham/Turner-Feldman case, which revolved around questions of the quality and methods of historical re­search, interpretation, and the proper ways of influencing decisions on ap­pointments to history positions. The case has received a large amount of press coverage, much of it unfavorable to the profession, the AHA, as well as the participants in the controversy.

Other influences, including a desire to make the AHA more useful to public historians and an excellent report by Jamil Zainaldin, AHA’s Deputy Execu­tive Director, also helped to persuade the Division that an attempt should be made to develop a more complete ethics code. The session was organized to ad­vance the education of Division mem­bers and promote discussion.

Three panelists responded to ques­tions posed by the Professional Division. William B. Griffith, a professor of phi­losophy at George Washington University who previously worked on professional ethics, argued that professions have seldom dealt satisfactorily with ethical issues, especially those concerned with the relations between professionals and the public. Nicholas Steneck, a pro­fessor of history and the director of the Collegiate Institute for Values and Science at the University of Michigan and the author of a report for his university on integrity in scholarship, rejected the major arguments against the development of a code by a professional association. He ended his case for a code with the argument that history has great social importance and thus must have high standards.

Jamil Zainaldin discussed his report, which showed what the Association has already done in this area, compared these with the efforts of similar organi­zations; explored the implications of this issue to public history, part-time employment, and temporary employ­ment; and examined alternative codes of conduct ranging from educational statements to rules enforced by special agencies. He concluded that the Associ­ation has a code, consisting mainly of the so-called Hackney Report of 1975, and that it, while not fully adequate, compares quite favorably with codes of similar organizations.

Two members of the Division and several people in the audience commented on the presentations. The Divi­sion members, Bernard Semmel and Clara M. Lovett, agreed that efforts should be made to improve the Associa­tion’s code. With half an hour available for discussion, speakers from the floor made several helpful suggestions.

The Division intends to move on from this point. With help from the Commit­tee on Women Historians, the National Council for Public History, and others, members are reexamining and revising the Hackney Report and developing supplementary statements on part-time and temporary employment, public his­ tory, and sexual harassment. The short-run goal is preparation by December 1986 of a report that is acceptable to tee Council. The Division hopes that the AHA statement on the ethics of the historical profession will become a cru­cial part of the education of historians in the United States.