Arenas, Platforms, and Megaphones

In the early morning hours of March 16, a document titled “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again” descended on the Internet. Within 12 hours, the AHA had dispatched a letter, reprinted below, to the inboxes of our members. It expressed our opposition to the proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2018 and encouraged members to contact their congressional representatives in support of the programs that make historical work possible.

Did we overreact? This was, after all, just a proposal, and by the end of the day even members of the president’s own party had expressed opposition to significant aspects of the 53-page plan.

If every AHA member agreed with everything we did, we would not be doing very interesting work. Rather than see that diversity as a shortcoming, we believe it makes the Association stronger.

The radicalism of that plan required a swift and decisive response. It was an assault on agencies deeply related to what many of us do, as historians and as Americans committed to the importance of history and historical thinking to public life and public policy. Never in its more than half-century of life has a president proposed eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), an agency whose minuscule budget (roughly a nickel per year from the average taxpayer) leverages millions of additional dollars in funding for humanities research and public programming. Ending federal support for the NEH—and for other agencies relevant to the work of historians within and beyond the academy—has little to do with fiscal prudence. Taken together, their cost represents rounding errors in the overall budget. They are targets because of what they do rather than what they cost.

My colleagues on the AHA Council and I recognize that not all members agree with this position, or with the four public statements that the Association has issued in 2017. We have received nearly a dozen messages from members strongly opposing our positions this year, in some cases declaring immediate resignation from the Association. I have responded to each of these messages (but not to comments of nonmembers) explaining that the AHA’s membership is diverse and that the leadership recognizes that not every member will agree with every position we adopt. A scholarly society should be both an arena for debate and a representative of its members’ interests. Our members are bound to disagree about those interests, and we take public positions only when the matter is especially compelling and directly related to our stated mission. If every member agreed with everything we did, we would not be doing very interesting work. Our members are thoughtful and informed, and they bring a variety of perspectives to the table. Rather than see that diversity as a shortcoming, we believe it makes the Association stronger.

The disagreements we’ve met have not been confined to a single political valence. Our Tuning and Career Diversity initiatives, for instance, have attracted criticism from perspectives that traverse the political spectrum, expressed in these pages as well as at the annual meeting and other conference venues. The AHA has members occupying multiple sides of debates about which issues require us to speak out, precisely what to say, and how often we should say it. Responding to that diversity by simply staying quiet would run counter to our mission.

So we continue to welcome—via e-mail, social media, or the Member Forum on our website—vigorous debate not only over our statements but about everything we do. We will not seek controversy for the sake of provocation. But we welcome the controversy that will arise when the AHA is not afraid to lead. We remain committed to confronting challenges to our discipline and seeking new opportunities for current and future members.