Correction
Dear Editor:
Kindly correct the error in the May/June 1987 Perspectives (“People,” p. 8) by which I have become “formerly” editor of the William and Mary Quarterly. So far as I know (do you know something I don’t?), I am still editor of WMQ.
Sincerely,
Michael McGiffert
Editor, William and Mary Quarterly
CWH Replies
Dear Editor,
Professor Roy Lubove’s letter in the May/ June 1987 Perspectives states and misinterprets the AHA Committee on Women Historians’ intent in suggesting guidelines on gender neutral language and gender integrated sessions. As the author of the annual report to which he objects, I should like to respond.
The CWH came to its position on gender neutral language only after several other professional organizations (including the Modern Language Association) had adopted guidelines of the sort that we requested, and after persuasive psychological evidence confirmed that “for most native speakers of English, he, in a generic context, did not mean he or she.” Like Professor Lubove, we were concerned for the welfare of the language, but we are equally committed to historical accuracy. We believe the latter is better served by using factually correct pronouns. The AHA has long observed a general policy of avoiding gender-specific and/or sex-biased language, but frequent requests for guidelines encouraged the development of a formal policy. These guidelines have been adopted by the AHA since I wrote my report.
Similarly, program committees for the last several years have had a de facto policy of discouraging gender-segregated panels, just as they discourage panels whose members come from a single institution or region. I fully agree with Professor Lubove that a “proposition that participation be guaranteed on the basis of gender” would be undesirable, as I agree that the “opportunity to participate should be available to all.” It is precisely to ensure the opportunity to participate that the CWH proposes that gender segregated panels be avoided whenever possible. Nothing more. The CWH suggested that this become a formalized policy, so that members of the AHA would be alerted to it as they put together panels for the annual meetings. This suggestion has now been approved by the Professional Division.
As informal commitments, both of these policies have had salutary effects in making the AHA more accessible to all historians. The Committee on Women Historians acknowledges and appreciates the support of other AHA committees in their endeavors.
Sincerely,
Alice Kessler-Harris
Professor of History
Hofstra University
Former Chair, Committee on Women Historians
A Demonstration of Necessity
Dear Editor:
I was astounded by the tone as well as the content of Roy Lubove’s letter (Perspectives, May/June 1987, p. 17) regarding proposals by the Committee on Women Historians. His negative response to gender-inclusive language displays at best profound ignorance; his familiarity with it suggests worse. In regard to the proposal concerning the institutionalization of gender-integrated program sessions, I myself have had questions and mixed feelings. Mr. Lubove’s letter, however, has demonstrated the necessity of acting on these proposals.
Sincerely,
Martha Clayton Skeeters
Norman, Oklahoma
Mentoring and the Graduate Student
Dear Editor:
The April Perspectives announced a series of future articles related to jobs and mentoring under the auspices of the Committee of Women Historians. I am concerned that the focus of the article might be too limited if it simply reflects a woman’s view of the difficult issues of mentoring.
The need to establish a mentor relationship is a problem which all graduate students face and it is particularly hard for older students. To the folks who will be writing the mentoring article, may I suggest a most appropriate reading. Peter Loewenberg’s “Emotional Problems of Graduate Education” is a great place to begin. It is in his Decoding the Past: The Psychohistorical Approach published by Knopf (1983). It appeared earlier in the Journal of Higher Education, 40, #8 (Nov., 1969) pages 610–623.
A focus upon career-related topics is to be commended. Perhaps you might go one step further, and review and report upon the success rates for graduate students. Recently we have been hearing much about the graduation rates of college athletes. Would it not be appropriate for graduate schools to gather data on their success rates and to make that information known? High graduate dropout rates are surely relevant to beginning scholars and a professional organization might show its concern for future members by seeing to it that they had the facts before entering programs with high failure rates.
Perhaps the AHA might consider program evaluation and success measures an appropriate topic for an annual meeting session? A session on mentoring might be a real consciousness raiser.
Sincerely,
William J. Fitzgerald
Batavia, Illinois
