Leftists and Serious History

by Cliopatria

The aftermath of the MEALAC investigating committee report—which sharply criticized the activities pro-Israel “outside” organizations while avoiding comment on the outside organizations, such as the NYCLU, the Nation, or the AAUP, that supported the MEALAC faculty—has brought renewed attention to the question of intellectual diversity at Columbia generally.

The investigatory committee included one member of the History Department, Mark Mazower, who had issued strongly critical public statements of Ariel Sharon’s foreign policy. And the department’s most prominent member, Eric Foner, has been a fierce defender of the MEALAC faculty. This would have come as little surprise to the campus newspaper, the Spectator, which last fall observed that “conservative professors are noticeably absent from history, philosophy, and the rest of the humanities departments.” The History chairman, Professor Walt Harris, publicly objected to the editorial.

I remain concerned less with the problem of ideological diversity than with a lack of pedagogical diversity on campus. And, along these grounds, Harris had potential rebuttals to the Spectator editorial. Unlike, say, Michigan or UCLA, Columbia’s History Department has recognized the value of fields perceived as more “traditional”: it has a senior U.S. diplomatic historian, Anders Stephanson, and, until he became provost, housed the nation’s leading scholar of 20th century U.S. political history, Alan Brinkley. Or, Harris could have pointed to the scholarly quality of some of the department’s most outspoken leftists: few American historians have been more influential than Foner, while Mazower’s work on 20th century Europe has been widely commended.

Yet, after consulting with Foner, Harris raised neither of these points, and his defense of the department’s hiring practices increased rather than soothed concerns that factors other than intellectual merit are at play in Fayerweather Hall.

Harris began by saying it was possible that one or more of the 48 members of the department voted for George Bush in 2004. As he couldn’t identify even one History professor that did so, however, I’m not sure why this point helped his case.

The chairman then chastised the newspaper for not investigating “the political coloration of, say, the Business School.” I’d guess that most CU Business School professors are on the right. I’d also speculate that most faculty at Teachers’ College, the school of Social Work, and the Journalism School are on the left. Professional schools’ faculty tend to reflect the ideological mainstream of the profession for which they train. Is Harris really saying that the intellectual diversity of a History Department should be evaluated as if the department were a professional school rather than a component of a liberal arts college?

Finally, and most alarmingly, Harris wondered, “Is it possible that serious scholarly study of history tends to lead a person towards the left?” Yes, it is possible. It’s even more possible that those who believe that a link might exist between a person’s ideology and whether they are engaged in “serious scholarly study of history” can convince themselves, in the inherently subjective nature of the personnel process, that non-leftists who apply for positions have, for some reason, not produced high-quality history.

What makes such comments so depressing is that many institutions have situations far worse than Columbia—whose administration seems to understand why intellectual diversity matters, and whose History Department is more pedagogically diverse than at least some of its Ivy League counterparts (notably Princeton). So if someone like Harris can ponder about the connection between left-wing political beliefs and serious study of history while simultaneously claiming that no job candidate before his department has ever been subjected to an “implicit political test,” what can be expected at institutions whose administrations seem to desire an ideologically homogeneous faculty, or who don’t particularly care about having faculty of the intellectual quality of someone like Foner or Mazower?

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

chris l pettit - 4/20/2005

Dershowitz does qualify as a liberal...depending upon how you define liberal. he is the perfect example why I despise those who take partisan sides to arguments, and those on both sides who do not respect international law, human rights, and universal standards that are found in the fundamental tenets of all cutltures and faiths. The fact is, Dershowitz is as legally and ethically corrupt as many on the left and the right. He is as legally corrupt on torture and Israel as many on the right. His positions are also as legally and ethically corrupt as Clinton and Reno's when it came to the illegalities of the Balkans conflict, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Haiti. This is why this liberal conservative crap just gets old. Some of us actually have the ability to rise above ridiculous partisan ideologically ignorant (Buddhist definition) positions...

CP

Louis N Proyect - 4/20/2005

The New Republic is liberal? Now I have heard everything.

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/20/2005

Ahh, again a simplistic litmus test. You inhabit a world in which you will not recognize anyone as liberal who disagrees with your narrow conception of liberalism. A liberal can support a war you oppose and still be liberal. A liberal can make a case for torture (and to my mind be wrong) and still be a liberal. A liberal can support Israel and still be a liberal. You don't get to decide the politics of others. Dershowitz is a liberal. He also disagrees with you on soem matters. I do not recall the Louis Proyect standard as one that liberal Democrats have ever had to meet. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure that the Nation speaks for American liberalism as well as the New Republic does these days. But both might do so -- liberalism isn't monolithic. That rudimentary lesson ought not to be something we need to explain to anyone who has gone beyond the history survey.

dc

Louis N Proyect - 4/20/2005

Dershowitz became infamous last year for advocating torture. I don't seem to recall that the Nation Magazine or Mother Jones ever came up with something like that. Anybody who advocates torture is no liberal. Period.

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/20/2005

Wait a second -- is someone going to assert that Dershowitz is not a liberal? Proyect is not worth engaging if this is the case. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of ontological fact. The only way to deny that dershowitz is a liberal by any standard definition would be to make support of israel a litmus test. Given that many, many liberal democrats, myself included, but also every Democratic president since israel's establishment has also supported Israel's existence, I think we get a sense of just what a whack job Proyect is. Adding inanities to inanities not surprisingly gives us a whole lot of inanity. In any case, someone remind me of who wrote the book
"Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000." (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)?

dc

Ralph E. Luker - 4/20/2005

Right. I think KC concedes much of your point in his post -- finding significance primarily in the fact that the department chairperson doesn't cite Columbia's pedagogical diversity as a form of ideological diversity. It's elsewhere -- a Michigan, a Duke, or a Princeton -- that he'd see examples of those connections. It would be interesting to hear Mark Grimsley's reflections on these issues. He's interested in getting beachheads for military history where they've been lost; but he's also raising questions about ideological diversity in a large department like his at Ohio State.

Caleb McDaniel - 4/20/2005

Thanks, Ralph. I'm still somewhat of a newcomer here, so you have a better sense than I do of what has already been said. I apologize if I'm going over old ground.

I did know that KC has posited a causal connection between the presence of traditional fields in a department and ideological diversity, but I guess I am still somewhat skeptical, and Columbia seems to prove why. The Spectator is concerned that there aren't conservatives in the department, yet KC points out that there is a respect for traditional fields. That at least shows that there is not a tight or necessary causal connection between those two things, or at least not enough of one that Columbia would be refuting the Spectator's argument by pointing to its "traditional" hires. That's a refutation only if you already buy that traditional hires are usually conservatives or more open to conservatives, but the example of Columbia itself seems to mitigate that generalization.

Ralph E. Luker - 4/20/2005

Caleb, KC's been fairly consistent in suggesting that, in American history, at least, the re-assignment of hiring lines from traditional fields of constitutional, diplomatic, military, and political history to class, gender, and race-related fields over the last thirty years is probably a significant factor in the narrowing of ideological diversity in history departments. He's also been fairly consistent in suggesting that his primary concern is the former rather than the latter. You can be skeptical of his sense of a causal connection between those two things, but it does help to explain the logic of the connections he makes.

Caleb McDaniel - 4/20/2005

I'm confused by the relationship between this post and your last one, which closed by paraphrasing Samuel Johnson to the effect that pedagogy is the last refuge for scoundrels. Yet here you say that what you're concerned about is "pedagogical," rather than "ideological" diversity. Later on you also speak of "intellectual diversity."

Is ideological diversity a requirement, on your view, for pedagogical diversity? Or can a conservative professor teach in such a way that liberal arguments are presented with respect, and vice versa?

I suspect you'll answer that second question "yes." But in that case, I don't see how the Spectator editorial is to the point. If pedagogy and ideology are distinct, then why raise the point about a lack of ideological diversity as proof that pedagogical diversity is endangered?

On a side note, I'm not sure I see how the fact that Columbia's history department recognizes "traditional" fields would be a rebuttal to the Spectator's charge that it lacks ideological diversity.

Ralph E. Luker - 4/19/2005

Look here.

Jacob paul segal - 4/19/2005

Has KC Johnson condemned Horowitz's absurdities? I have not seen him do so despite his great output of opinions.

Louis N Proyect - 4/19/2005

Dershowitz a liberal? Now I have heard everything.

Derek Charles Catsam - 4/19/2005

I'm not sure who named Mr. Proyect judge, jury, and executioner, but I'll say this -- KC Johnson's intellectual integrity is beyond reproach. To lump him in with Horowitz and Pipes is absurd. Then to throw dershowitz in there though -- that's interesting, and it tells us all we need to know. Mr. Proyect just revealed his hand -- by any stretch of the imagination, Dershowitz is a liberal. A diehard liberal. But where does Dershowitz fit in here? He supports Israel. That's the only link. So now we know where Proyect stands. If one supports Israel, one gets lumped in with Horowitz, pipes, et. al. I guess that means I can do a little lumping of my own. Let's see. Who has opposed Israel and the Jews . . .

Meanwhile, where is the crusade to purge the academy of Palestinian professors? Where has KC Johnson ever advocated such a thing? Evidence, please, Mr. Proyect. Not some sloppy, half-assed smear campaign, not some dopey argument by analogy, not some collossally stupid reductio ad absurdum. Where is your evidence that KC does not want exactly what he has advocated here time and again -- ideological diversity? I was lucky enough to be a colleague of KC's a few years back in a seminar in Washington, DC. He is not a knee-jerk conservative. I'm not even certain KC is any kind of conservative -- this is what amuses me endlessly about his critics. Rather than tackle his points, some of which I support and some of which I take issue with, by the way, they take potshots at him that have nothing to do with the substance of the discussion.

dc

Louis N Proyect - 4/19/2005

I must demur. KC *is* on the same wave-length as Pipes and Horowitz. Collegiality prevents Jonathan from admitting this. Luker, of course, is coming from the same angle as KC but tries to maintain some credibility by the occasional potshot at Horowitz. You have to look at this question politically. There is a crusade to purge the academy of pro-Palestinian professors and KC's nonstop scandal-mongering of MEALAC is calculated to put pressure on Columbia. He is cahoots with the NY Sun, Alan Dershowitz, Nat Hentoff, Pipes and Horowitz. Guilty as charged.

Jonathan Dresner - 4/19/2005

That's both illogical and against evidence, to conclude that KC's problem is "insufficient patriotism" and that he's advocating some kind "intellectual cleansing." You are projecting, and doing so in an unfair and unhelpful fashion. That is all the response that this deserves. No deals, no give and take: come back with something that isn't knee-jerk fantasy and we'll talk.

Ralph E. Luker - 4/19/2005

Professor Proyect, I'll make a deal with you. Don't you classify KC Johnson with David Horowitz; and I won't classify Eric Foner with you.

Louis N Proyect - 4/19/2005

It strikes me that KC is really disturbed by independent scholarship rather than bias. It drives people like him, Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz nuts that history professors write articles or give lectures stating that, for example, the Atomic bomb was dropped despite evidence that it was necessary. To make such a point is not ideological. It is simply critical scholarship. The only way to deal with these "unpatriotic" professors is the same way that Columbia did in the 1950s, which is to fire them. That is the real agenda of KC, Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz.