NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 12, #36; 15 September 2006)
2. DOCUMENTARY EDITORS LODGE PROTEST WITH NEH OVER NEW GUIDELINES
3. DOE REPORT ON INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS
4. BITS AND BYTES: National History Center Joins History Coalition; Constitution Day Events; Bush Library Release; Heritage Preservation Award Nominations Sought
5. ARTICLES OF INTEREST: “History by Miniseries: Too fast, Too Loose?” (Christian Science Monitor); "ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots" (The Nation)
1. STATE DEPARTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE TAKES DOD TO TASK During the 11 September 2006 open session meeting of the Advisory Committee on Diplomatic Documentation the State Department’s historical advisory body that provides assistance in the production of the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) documentary edition series -- members of the committee took the Department of Defense (DOD) to task for repeatedly and consistently holding up the production of FRUS volumes.
In sharp contrast to the otherwise routine reports by State Department History Office (HO) presenters, Robert McMahon and other members of the committee ripped into the DOD during a discussion of status of future FRUS volume declassification efforts. Drawing attention to the proposed FRUS release schedule prepared by the HO, McMahon noted that DOD review deadlines for no less than seven volumes have been missed. HO staff chimed in and stated that on average, DOD reviews run seven and a half months behind; staff noted that concerns have been repeatedly raised in the committee’s annual reports to Congress, but with little effect. Following discussion, the advisory body requested that the HO request that DOD officials appear during the committee’s December meeting to explain the causes for the “unacceptable” processing delays.
During the meeting, HO officials gave the usual upbeat reports on the status of upcoming releases of FRUS series volumes. Chief Historian Marc Susser reported on several conferences and educational releases slotted to take place in the near future. Deputy Historian David Herschler introduced a half-dozen or so new hires for the HO and stated that as a result there now is a “full complement of staff historians” for the first time in many months.
FRUS General Editor Ted Keefer discussed at some length the challenges presented by the recent Japan volume release (see “Controversial Japan FRUS Volume Released” in NCH Washington Update vol. 12 #33; 24 August 2006). He then lamented that several years back the HO had “backed a loser” when the decision was made to produce FRUS volumes supplemented with microfiche documents, but that he was pleased to report that they had “backed a winner” with the release of various digitally based Internet FRUS volumes. As evidenced by the number of website “hits,” these volumes are receiving substantial use by scholars and reaching far more readers than the standard print volumes. During the discussion that followed Keefer’s report, the advisory committee suggested that the HO may want to explore digitizing some of the volumes already published in print form.
2. DOCUMENTARY EDITORS LODGE PROTEST WITH NEH OVER NEW GUIDELINES The Association for Documentary Editing (ADE) has sent a letter to National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) Chair Bruce Cole, expressing the organization’s concern over aspects of the endowment’s new Digital Humanities Initiative. The new initiative is designed to channel limited NEH funds toward the production of digital versions of scholarly editions rather than continue to concentrate efforts on producing print volumes. To resolve concerns that “trouble the scholarly editing community” the ADE has requested a meeting with Cole and his key program managers.
The letter, signed by ADE President Roger Bruns, discusses the potential impact that the NEH initiative will have on existing as well as new scholarly editions. According to the NEH’s new programmatic guidelines, in the FY 2007 funding cycle applicants for NEH project support funds must employ digital and online technology in the preparation, management, and publication of all critical and documentary editions. Projects that include a Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) component and offer free online access “will be given preference.” In the letter to Cole, the ADE asserts that this “eleventh-hour imposition...seems to require that on-going scholarly editions present plans for digital publication if they seek funding from the NEH. The agency's objective is admirable. Its execution seems unrealistic and potentially endangers the future of the ongoing book editions.”
The ADE argues that “No electronic publication of any value and guaranteed permanence can be designed with two months lead-time.” Also, “publishers have made substantial financial investments in these editions with little or no profit to show for it. Asking them to produce free online resources is unrealistic.” (In addition to the ADE, university publishers have also raised concerns about the impact the new guidelines will have on scholarly presses.) The ADE asserts that the new requirement must be accompanied by “significant increases in funding that will permit hiring staff dedicated to the electronic projects.” Otherwise, it puts “at jeopardy the publications that the NEH has long nurtured, promoted and funded.”
The letter continues by statistically documenting what is characterized as a continuing pattern of “declining resources” set aside for documentary editions by the NEH. The ADE charges that funding is “wholly inadequate” in spite of the infusion of “We the People” (WTP) grant funds (WTP funds specifically support American history related programs and projects undertaken by the NEH), and that in real dollar figures, NEH grants in 2003 and 2004 “totaled less than they did in 1982!” When combined with declining federal support by the only other source of federal funds for documentary edition projects the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) an ever larger percentage of project funds must now be raised privately.
The ADE letter also raised concerns about the elimination of the once vibrant peer review process for scholarly editions. The NEH eliminated the peer review requirement some time back, asserting that the process consumed staff time and resources. Today, the agency makes funding recommendations based on input from panels that, the ADE claims often lack the expertise to make thoughtful recommendations. The ADE maintains that “60 proposals from scholarly editing projects is not an overwhelming number” and calls on the NEH to reinstate peer review procedures.
To address the organization’s concerns, ADE President Bruns has requested a meeting with Cole and other members of the NEH’s senior staff. When contacted by the history coalition, a spokesperson for the NEH stated that the agency is “deliberately considering the points in the thoughtful letter.”
3. LATEST DOE REPORT ON INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS The Department of Energy (DOE) has released a report part of its Congressionally mandated responsibilities (Public Law 105-261) that states that the agency has recently completed the examination of 465,760 pages of documents in its systematic search for “inadvertent disclosures” of classified information. In its twenty-second report to Congress, the DOE redacted 116 documents that should be considered Restricted Data (RD) or Formerly Restricted Data (FRD).
The previously declassified documents were located in collections devoted to the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Army, and focused on nuclear weapons during the 1950s and 1960s. The RD included information about the efficiency of nuclear materials, naval nuclear propulsion information, and other weapon design. Some FRD information was also identified, reporting on topics such as storage location, stockpile quantities and nuclear weapon yield.
The current DOE report states that information in the previously declassified documents, if made public, could potentially assist enemies of the United States. The DOE believes that reports discussing older nuclear weapons are still valuable because the designs detailed in the pages are less sophisticated and therefore “would be most readily used by a would-be nuclear proliferant to obtain its first nuclear weapon.”
The report was issued in conformance with the Kyl-Lott Amendments in 1998, which mandates a review of open shelf archival documents that contain information about nuclear weapons and energy. The DOE has now spent over $22 million in their review of 200 million declassified documents, according to the National Security Archive at George Washington University (GWU). The DOE report is available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/inadvertant22.pdf
4. BITS AND BYTES: Item # 1 National History Center Joins History Coalition: The policy board of the National Coalition for History (NCH) welcomes its newest member organization, the National History Center. The center encourages research and teaching, and fosters public understanding of national and international historical issues. Created by the American Historical Association in 2002, the center was also established to provide a place where historians from all over the world can meet and exchange ideas and help historians reach out to broader audiences by providing historical context necessary to better understand today’s events. For additional information, visit www.nationalhistorycenter.org . The NCH welcomes new organizational members; for information, visit our webpage at http://www.h-net.org/~nch.org .
Item #2 Constitution Day Events: According to a law passed in 2004 (118 Statute 2809, 334-45), “each educational institution that receives federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year.” Consequently, institutions, including colleges and universities throughout the United States, will be holding events to commemorate the U.S. Constitution on or about 17 September 2006. The National Archives has scheduled special events throughout September in honor of Constitution Day. This year, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a humorous “Pop Quiz for Constitution Day” that can be easily accessed and distributed by educators. Questions from the quiz prompt students and the general public to reflect on the first words of the Constitution and its current location. One question asks readers to remember who wanted the Constitution to be rewritten every generation, giving them choices ranging from Khrushchev and Satan to Thomas Jefferson. The full quiz can be found in the Chronicle Review here. The schedule of events hosted by the National Archives can be found here.
Item #3 Bush Library Release: The George Bush Presidential Library has released about 18,000 pages of documents from the George Bush Presidential records and the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential records. According to Supervisory Archivist Robert Holzweiss, the library has released “60,841 pages” while “an additional 11,300-plus documents remain closed.” There is no set date for the release of the remaining documents. The 18,238 documents that comprise the 30 August 2006, include memos and letters from staff and various political figures regarding issues such as health care, the environment, and campaign finance. The complete list of released materials can be found at http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/releaseddocuments.html.
Item #4 Heritage Preservation Award Nominations Sought: Nominations are being sought for the 2007 “Award for Outstanding Commitment to the Preservation and Care of Collections,” a contest sponsored by the Heritage Preservation and the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works. In the past, the award has been given to both large and small institutions throughout the United States. The 2006 award winner was the Historical Society of Frederick County, Maryland, one of the smallest institutions to win. Larger, nationally recognized organizations such as the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the Henry Ford National Historic Landmark have also received the award. Successful nominations demonstrate an exemplary commitment to conservation concerns, preservation and care of their cultural property. Nominations may be submitted by anyone; self-nominations are also acceptable. However, they must be postmarked no later than 15 December 2006. Nomination guidelines and a list of previous recipients can be found at http://www.heritagepreservation.org/awards/aic.htm .
5. ARTICLES OF INTEREST Two postings this week, both relating to the recent ABC 9/11 docudrama. In “History by Miniseries: Too fast, Too Loose?” by Daniel Wood and Gloria Goodale (Christian Science Monitor; 13 September 2006) the authors focus on the controversy generated by “The Path to 9/11" that mixed historical fact with creative fiction in tracing the events leading to the 9/11 tragedy. Much of the debate centers on the portrayal of the Clinton administration and their alleged refusal to seriously address issues of terrorism. Politicians and media critics claim the docudrama could influence the outcome of the November elections. While experts are divided as to whether or not the miniseries could influence political realities, ethical questions regarding the manipulation of historical fact are inescapable.
In "ABC 9/11 Docudrama's Right-Wing Roots" (The Nation; 11 September 2006) Max Blumenthal present's his "incontrovertible evidence" outlining the involvement of the films screenwriter and director "in a concerted effort to blame President Clinton for allowing the 9/11 attacks to take place."