Letters to the Editor, May 1985

Communication Gap

Dear Editor:

There has recently been considerable dis­cussion in the profession about the use of personal communications and open letters to question the scholarship in publications claiming the status of research monographs. A vital point too often overlooked in this discussion is that historical journals, includ­ing the American Historical Review, currently follow policies that drastically restrict access to their pages for the purpose of airing charges that the scholarly standards of our profession have been violated. Only with great difficulty and delay can persons other than reviewers make such charges known in scholarly journals. Under certain circum­stances, this possibility is altogether preclud­ed by the current policies of the AHR.

Because of the current policies, for exam­ple, there is no possibility of correcting even demonstrably untrue assertions in the “Com­munications” section of the AHR once a chal­lenged author has responded. As a result, those who possess information needed by other historians sometimes find themselves with no alternative except to resort to unpub­lished communications, if they are to alert the profession to violations of scholarly standards in time to prevent others who do not share their information from being victim­ized. While it can never be the function of the AHA to regulate communication and inhibit freedom of speech, it obviously is in the interest of the profession to have charges of scholarly malfeasance and responses to them aired publicly within a reasonable period of time.

In the light of this situation, we urge the Board of Editors of the AHR to revise the present policies regarding publication of communications from historians. One possi­bility would be to empower the Board of Editors to approve petitions to waive the normal policies in order to permit publica­tion of communications presenting evidence that scholarly standards have been violated or that statements contained in communica­tions are demonstrably false. In our opinion, the Board should waive the regular policies regarding access to the pages of the AHR only in cases where, in the judgment of the Board, failure to do so would leave members of the profession without information that might enable them to avoid relying, in their own writing and teaching, upon spurious scholarship or false statements contained in communications to the AHR. A necessary corollary would, it seems to us, be to provide commensurate space for any author whose published work or communication to the AHR was addressed in such an exceptional manner.

Gerald D. Feldman
Professor of History
UC Berkeley

Henry A. Turner, Jr.
Professor of History
Yale University

NEH Reorganization

To: Richard Ekman, Director, Division of Research Programs, National Endowment for the Humanities

Dear Mr. Ekman:

I am writing to you in my capacity as chair of the Joint Committee on Historians and Archivists whose role is the systematic coordi­nation and review of issues of mutual profes­sional interest among the three (AHA, OAH, SAA) professional organizations. Programs at the National Endowment are of particular interest to archivists and historians. For that reason the Committee needs to keep abreast of changes in organization and funding  at the Endowment that might affect archival work and historical research.

One recent change at the Endowment is the creation of an Office of Preservation and the reorganization of the Research Resources Program. While the scholarly community is generally aware of these changes, they are much less clear about the impact. Major questions include:

1. Does the elimination of a program offi­cer to head the access program reflect a decrease in level of support for the program?
2. What is the projected level of support for this program in fiscal 1986?
3. Are the criteria, submission dates, or other aspects of the program affected by the reorganization?
4. Do you anticipate further changes with­ in your division that will affect the crite­ria or level of funding for various pro­grams of potential interest to archivists and historians?

I look forward to your response.

Nicholas C. Burckel
Chair, Joint Committee on Historians and Ar­ chivists

Response

Dear Mr. Burckel:

Many thanks for your recent letter and for the opportunity to try to provide an explana­tion of the Endowment’s recent reorganiza­tion. Please be assured that the Endowment’s Division of Research Programs continues to encourage the submission of proposals through the Access grant category for pro­jects that will make important research mate­rials in the humanities more readily available to scholars. The Access category, which is now located within the Reference Works Program, will consider most of the types of projects that would have been eligible for support in the Access category previously. That is to say, funds continue to be available for the arrangement and description of ar­chival and manuscript collections, for cata­ loging printed and nontextural research col­lections, for oral history projects, records surveys, and certain microfilming projects, and for the preparation of bibliographies, finding aids, and other guides to sources.

Typical grants awarded during the most recent application cycle include a grant to the Chicago Historical Society to support the establishment of a system of automated cata­loging for the Society’s photograph collec­tion, a grant to the Alabama Department of Archives and History to support the arrange­ment and description of its manuscript col lections, a grant to the University of Califor­nia, Berkeley to support the cataloging of a collection of Japanese maps, and grants to Indiana University and the American Anti­quarian Society to support the cataloging of special collections of children’s literature.

Confusion about the recent reorganization at the Endowment has led some librarians and archivists to express their concern about the Endowment’s commitment to the Access category. In fact, the reorganization is part of an effort by the Endowment to expand its work in preserving research materials and making them more accessible to scholars. Despite the fact that the Endowment’s overall FY ’86 budget request is 10 percent smaller than FY ’85 appropriation, the combined re­ quests for the Access category and the new Preservation Office, at $7.35 million, repre­sents a 56 percent increase. Based on a review of past applications that included “ac­cess” and “preservation” components, we an­ticipate little difficulty on the part of appli­cants in utilizing the new categories of sup port.

Those interested in receiving further in­formation or application instructions should contact the staff of the Access category. The address is Division of Research Programs, NEH, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 319, Washington, DC 20506. 202/786-0204.

Richard Ekman
Director, Division of Research Programs