The period 1973-75 will probably come to be viewed as a kind of watershed in the history of the AHA. In 1973 three women sat on the Council and on the Nominating Committee. In 1974 the Council adopted a new constitution, which established the present administrative structure, approved the report of the Hackney Committee on the Rights of Historians, and voted to move the American Historical Review away from Washington. In 1975 the section “Recently Published Articles” was omitted from the Review to be issued henceforth as an independent publication. I should like to suggest one more significant step, the movement of the AHR henceforth from university to university on a prudent and carefully calculated basis.
In 1974 the AHA was experiencing a continuing and troublesome deficit. To solve this problem, I proposed that it move the AHR to a university, in order to save space in the crowded Washington headquarters and to shift some of the financial burden elsewhere. The Council debated this radical proposition, and rather doubted that any university would be interested; some members were impressed by an emotional protest from a distinguished former member of the Council who predicted various kinds of ruin should the AHR leave Washington. However, the deficit was an immediate and heavy responsibility and the Council finally voted, reluctantly, to try out the idea. Fortunately, a number of universities proved to be interested and two made substantial bids. Indiana University received the majority of the Council votes and the Review moved to Bloomington in 1975. Later Otto Pflanze was appointed editor and served from the April 1977 issue through the October 1985 issue, when David L. Ransel succeeded him.
The wisdom of the move away from Washington may be seen in the report on the AHR that appeared in Perspectives for April 1985. David L. Pinkney had proposed to the Council on March 31, 1981 that various important changes be made in its contents, including the reincorporation of “Recently Published Articles” and the omission of original articles except for the Presidential Address. There was a session at the December 1984 annual meeting on “The American Historical Review: The Next Fifty Years” at which Pinkney presented a paper with another version of his views on changes he considered necessary.
Earlier in 1984 the AHA circulated a detailed questionnaire designed to find out what its members thought of the Review. The responses evidenced strong support for the Review as conducted since it moved to Indiana. The report on the questionnaire in Perspectives mentioned above concluded that “three-fourths of the respondents believed that the scholarly quality of the Review remained the same or improved in the last decade.”
Additional information was found in another article in the same issue of Perspectives on “The AHR Compared with Other Journals.” Based on detailed statistics compiled by the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, the conclusion of this examination was noteworthy: “There can be no doubt that the current editors have, during the last seven years, quickly restored the official scholarly organ of the American Historical Association to a position of preeminence among historical journals published in this country and abroad.”
Finally, the exchange of letters between Pinkney and Pflanze in the March 1986 Perspectives adds some piquant detail to these events but nothing, in my opinion, to lead one to follow Pinkney in his desire for substantial changes in the Review. His key proposal, to omit original articles (except the Presidential Address) was soundly defeated by those who replied to the recent questionnaire, for 97 percent of the respondents said “yes” to the following question: “Is the publication of original historical scholarship (i.e., the articles section of the AHR) an appropriate activity for the AHA?” Moreover, now that Recently Published Articles, as a separate publication, earns substantial royalties, it is most unlikely that many members will wish to have it returned to the AHR where it would produce no income to strengthen the AHA’s finances.
Readers who wish to know in more detail the results of the questionnaire should study the careful “Analysis of AHR Survey Results” in the April 1985 Perspectives. It seems to me evident that AHA members have clearly spoken; they generally approve the policies and practices that have governed the Review since its move to Indiana, and there appears to be little support for substantial changes.
Now that the Review has survived and even been strengthened by its move away from Washington, the time has come to consider its long-term future. When I started to study history at Northwestern University in 1921, there were relatively few truly outstanding centers for historical training in the US. For example, on my graduation in 1925 only Harvard and the University of California, Berkeley, attracted me as possible places for graduate work in Latin American history. Today, flourishing departments of history and excellent library facilities for research in a variety of fields of history are situated in many regions of the country. One experienced scholar believes that at least twenty-five universities have the necessary academic infrastructure to support such a demanding operation as the AHR. Consequently, would it not be desirable for the Council to approve a regular move of the AHR from one university to another now that it has been demonstrated that the Review can flourish out side Washington?
Before setting forth the possible advantages of such moves, let me emphasize that this proposal does not imply or suggest any dissatisfaction with the strong academic and financial commitment by the administration and Department of History of Indiana University. Indeed, we should all recognize and be grateful for the generous support Indiana University has consistently provided and the care it has taken to ensure that outstanding scholars have served as editors.
The move from Bloomington would only be made if the Council were to approve it as a matter of principle and established policies and procedures well in advance. The transition from one university to another would require careful planning. Considerable lead time would be needed to ensure a smooth transition. In order to offer the necessary substantial financial support and space, any university desiring to enter the competition would need time to calculate its resources. Subsequently, the Council would need time to evaluate whatever offers were made. Then would come the selection of the editor, a joint operation of the AHA and the university concerned. This, of course, is a key and complicated decision; it should be remembered that two interim editors served at Indiana before Pflanze began.
Another desideratum must be mentioned. The AHR could not safely move unless each successive editor had a direct and continuing relationship to the Council. Such a relationship has now been assured by the unanimous vote of the Council on December 27, 1984, when it made the editor henceforth an ex officio Council member. This sound provision, together with the advice of the Board of Editors appointed by the Council, should make possible effective administration for the foreseeable future, wherever the Review may be located.
Now that the Review has survived and even been strengthened by its move away from Washington, the time has come to consider its long-term future.
My thoughts on the future of the AHR run as follows:
- The Review will probably never return to Washington.
- Given the number of universities strong enough to serve as a home for the Review, it seems desirable not to limit it to any one institution.
- In reflecting on the possible advantages and disadvantages of this proposal, we should keep in mind the changing character of the Review and the Association over the years. When I first attended an annual meeting in 1923, John Franklin Jameson was editor and had been for most of the years since 1895. After he retired in 1928, a period of uncertainty ensued. Beginning in 1941 Guy Stanton Ford became both the executive secretary of the AHA and editor. This combination of heavy responsibilities did not end until 1964.
By this time both positions had be come much more important and more complicated than in the pioneer days of Jameson. Today Samuel R. Gammon has, as only one of his numerous tasks, to serve as an ex officio member of the Council and of the thirty-five standing committees of the Association. Deputy Executive Director Jamil S. Zainaldin is also kept very busy, and even so the harried Washington office would probably find it extremely difficult to perform all its many duties without the competent assistance of such experienced veteran staff members as Eileen Gaylard.
The work and dimension of the AHR have likewise expanded greatly since Jameson. Just as the elected officers of the AHA today represent a remarkable variety of human and academic types, so do the articles and reviews in the AHR reflect the present situation in the field of history. Every editor, therefore, may be considered a kind of endangered species, and the term should be relatively short. Six years might be a reasonable period, with a seventh year for recovery and rehabilitation as a teacher and researcher after labor in the editorial salt mines. If the Council and the host university agreed on a second term, it should be for a shorter period than the first. Probably ten years would be as long as any one university in the future should have the AHR, an arrangement that seems to me desirable from the standpoint of the Council, the editor, and the institution concerned.
Past editors have been white males whose scholarly expertise has generally been in American or European history. Just as the presidency and other elected offices have been opened up since 1973-75 to a much broader range of historians, it is likely that the character and specialties of our editors will change. Scholars representing other fields than American or European history will be attracted to the challenge of editing the Review. This trend has already started with the coming of the present editor. Does anyone doubt that in the long run this would be a healthy development?
- If the AHR moves about our vast country in the way projected above, I believe that graduate students in a succession of universities would over the years gain an immense benefit from working on the Review, the graduate program of the host universities would be strengthened, and the AHR itself would be broadened and enriched by the influence of the skilled editors coming from a variety of fields of history who would surely be found in a number of universities. Would not the American Historical Association itself be affected by prudent moves from one great university to another? Historians young and old might well take a more active interest in Association affairs if one of its own principal contributions—the American Historical Review—became better known throughout the country.
If this radical step were to be approved by the Council, it would only be as successful as the move from Washington to Indiana if enough time were allotted to plan the transition. It is for this reason that l venture to bring this project to the attention of our members now, when there is no current crisis and when another competent editor is at the helm in Bloomington.
–
