Members Respond to the Cincinnati Decision
To the Editor:
On page 1 of the May/June 1995 issue of Perspectives, AHA President John Coatsworth wrote, "I hope every member will contribute [to defray the Cincinnati costs], even those who had misgivings about moving the meeting site." Fair enough, but his comment juxtaposes oddly with his predecessor's statement on the Cincinnati situation that "there are limits to this invitation to entertain a diversity of views: I do not welcome disingenuous arguments ..." (Perspectives, April 1994, pages 21–22). Is it now the AHA position to welcome members' money so long as they keep their views to themselves?
Hubert P. van Tuyll
The AHA received a number of comments in support of the Cincinnati decision from individuals who contributed to the Association's Cincinnati Fund. Among these were the following:
I fully support your decision—wish I had the resources to give even more.
Thanks for your willingness to take a stand on principle, particularly in the face of financial loss. It seems too few are willing to do so these days.
I am sorry to not be able to afford more. I was proud of the AHA for its prompt and decisive action. What a shame the cost is so high.
I've read that the AHA has paid a heavy fee for refusing to meet in Cincinnati due to the city's recent attack on the constitutional rights of gays. While not an AHA member (I am a member of the Organization of American Historians and the Southern Historical Association), I want to contribute to help offset the loss as a token of my esteem.
Dennis J. Pfennig
Tags: Letters to the Editor
Please read our commenting and letters policy before submitting.