Allen Weinstein: A Historian with a History
Jon Wiener, in the LAT (May 2, 2004):
Go ahead, try. Name the archivist of the United States.
It's a pretty fair bet you failed. The archivist, former Kansas Gov. John Carlin, oversees the nation's most important documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. The position has traditionally been one of the lower-profile jobs in the federal hierarchy, but, as its website notes, the National Archives is not simply"a dusty hoard of ancient history. It is a public trust on which our democracy depends. It enables people to inspect for themselves the record of what government has done."
The archives collects and preserves the records of government, including many presidential papers and documents from hearings such as those conducted last month by the 9/11 commission. In the next year, the archives will be preparing the release of papers from President George H.W. Bush's term in office.
Researchers rely heavily on the archives' documents and on its commitment to openness and access, which may be why so many historians are deeply worried about President Bush's nomination last month of historian Allen Weinstein to take over the job from Carlin next year.
The White House nominee has a controversial history involving charges of excessive secrecy and of ethical violations. Almost two dozen organizations of archivists and historians have expressed concern about his nomination, and will almost certainly speak against it at Senate hearings later this year.
The charges against Weinstein center on ethical issues involving access to research materials he used in writing two books. Other historians have not been permitted to see his documents and interviews, which violates the standards of the American Historical Assn. and the Society of American Archivists.
Weinstein's 1999 book,"The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America — The Stalin Era" (coauthored with a Russian-speaking former KGB agent named Alexander Vassiliev), is based on documents said to come from KGB archives.
Weinstein's publisher, Random House, paid approximately $100,000 to an organization of retired KGB agents to gain exclusive access to the documents for its authors — something widely regarded as a violation of research ethics. It's wrong for a historian (or his publisher) to pay archivists not to provide information to anyone else. It prevents others from checking the accuracy and completeness of the resulting work.
After the archival operation at the KGB had been going on for two years, the Russian government closed it down. It has remained closed ever since, leaving Vassiliev (Weinstein doesn't speak Russian) as one of the few people to have had access to it. The result, says Anna K. Nelson, a historian with expertise in government archives policy, is that"we have no way to confirm the contents of this book."
Other historians with other publishers did it the right way: When Yale University Press obtained access to the Communist Party archives in Moscow, editors declared that their documents would be available to other researchers. Jonathan Brent, executive editor of the"Annals of Communism" book series at Yale, explained that"we want to enhance scholarship, not impede it."
Weinstein also withheld research materials from other scholars in his earlier book"Perjury," an examination of the Alger Hiss case in which Weinstein concluded that Hiss really was a Soviet spy. With that book, Weinstein refused to make his interviews available to historians who disagreed with him — again violating the standards of the American Historical Assn. The book, published in 1978, presented new evidence that Hiss, the prominent New Deal figure accused of espionage in 1948 by former communist Whittaker Chambers, was guilty as charged.
But Victor Navasky, now publisher and editorial director of the Nation magazine, found that six of Weinstein's key sources each said he or she had been misquoted or otherwise misrepresented in the book. Weinstein then promised to make his interview tapes available at the Truman Library. That was in 1978. Twenty-six years later, Weinstein has never deposited the tapes at the Truman Library or any other archive. But these ethical violations did not prevent Bush from nominating Weinstein to the archivist position.
Other historians accused of ethical breaches have not had such happy endings. The charges against Weinstein call to mind another historian accused of research fraud, Michael Bellesiles, author of a book on the history of gun culture in America, who was forced to resign a tenured professorship at Emory University in 2002. The contrast says a lot about who has the power to end historians' careers, or advance them....
Conservative pundits at the Weekly Standard and National Review often claim that the left controls the history profession. But with Allen Weinstein and Michael Bellesiles, the right demonstrated far more power to punish historians — or to reward them with White House nominations.
Note A longer version of this article was published by the Nation.
comments powered by Disqus
Greg Malmgren - 7/28/2004
The last paragraph of Wieners May 2nd LAT article about
Allen Weinstein would seem to simultaneously both dismiss the possibility that the Left controls the history profession while at the same time suggesting that only the Right is bothered by Bellesiles steaming load of crap labelled history.
Am I missing something?
- 'Sexist' Paris streets renamed in the name of feminism
- NYT profiles a path-breaking transgender pioneer who became a judge
- CIA Plans Huge Release of Top-Secret Reports From the 1960s
- South Dakota drops history as a high school requirement
- The Forgotten History Of 'Violent Displacement' That Helped Create The National Parks
- Historian author Antony Beevor says his new World War 2 book may anger Americans
- Ron Radosh and Allis Radosh plan to defend Warren Harding in a new book
- Historians tackle America’s mass incarceration problem
- Report: Russian studies in crisis
- Ken Burns: Donald Trump’s birtherism — a “politer way of saying the ‘N-word'” — proves America isn’t remotely “post-racial”