American Historical Association passes anti-war resolution by wide margin.

Note: I did plan to post about our new sidebar link to MilBlogs, which I am attempting to join. MilBlogs is a ring of bloggers written by men and women in uniform, like our own Buck Sargeant, as well as spouses, other family members and the like. It aims to report on the happenings of our military and other issues from the voices who know. The reason I did not is because I wanted this news to be viewed first, but did not want to also sacrifice the news about MilBlogs either. I invite you to check out the site after reading this update to the earlier post on the anti-war resolution approved in the AHA business meeting, which was debated by the general membership.

As reported about a month ago, the American Historical Association (AHA) was debating an anti-war resolution that was to be put to a vote of the membership. Well, that vote has occurred and it is a troubling outcome. The resolution was approved by a roughly 75-25% divide, however, only 15% of the members voted, which leads me to wonder about the outcome had all members voted. Here again is the text of the resolution in question:

Resolution on United States Government Practices
Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession

Whereas, The American Historical Association’s Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct emphasizes the importance of open inquiry to the pursuit of historical knowledge;

Whereas, the American Historical Association adopted a resolution in January 2004 re-affirming the principles of free speech, open debate of foreign policy, and open access to government records in furthering the work of the historical profession;

Whereas during the war in Iraq and the so-called war on terror, the current Administration has violated the above-mentioned standards and principles through the following practices:

* excluding well-recognized foreign scholars; condemning as "revisionism" the search for truth about pre-war intelligence;
* re-classifying previously unclassified government documents;
* suspending in certain cases the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus and substituting indefinite administrative detention without specified criminal charges or access to a court of law;
* using interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, Abu-Ghraib, Bagram, and other locations incompatible with respect for the dignity of all persons required by a civilized society;

Whereas a free society and the unfettered intellectual inquiry essential to the practice of historical research, writing, and teaching are imperiled by the practices described above; and

Whereas, the foregoing practices are inextricably linked to the war in which the United States is presently engaged in Iraq; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Historical Association urges its members through publication of this resolution in Perspectives and other appropriate outlets:

1. To take a public stand as citizens on behalf of the values necessary to the practice of our profession; and

2. To do whatever they can to bring the Iraq war to a speedy conclusion.

Now, there are several things that trouble me about this resolution. First, it is blatantly liberal in tone. This is illustrated by phrases like "the so-called war on terror" as well as the following points:
* suspending in certain cases the centuries-old writ of habeas corpus and substituting indefinite administrative detention without specified criminal charges or access to a court of law;
* using interrogation techniques at Guantanamo, Abu-Ghraib, Bagram, and other locations incompatible with respect for the dignity of all persons required by a civilized society;

The AHA is supposed to be non-partisan, but this resolution clearly violates that tenet. Imagine the ire of the left had the AHA drafted a resolution in support of the administration and the war. While I certainly respect other historians' rights to disagree with me and my views, I do not approve of my money going to an organization that is being dominated by fringe anti-war, extreme left-wing elements such as the AHA. This is not to say that all AHA members are left-wing or anti-war, as they are not, but the fact the resolution passed with less than 20% of the membership voting and with such a wide margin of victory leads me to believe that the anti-war element of the membership, particularly members who are associated with the group Historians Against the War (HAW) "stuffed" the ballot box. I mean that in the most figurative sense, as I think that most members simply deleted the email, while more HAW members were paying attention and voted on it to ensure its passage. One can only imagine that if the names of the members who voted on the resolution were known and background on them were examined that many who voted Yes are HAW members. In short, I am very disappointed by this development and have attempted to remove every linkage to the AHA as a recommended site from my sites, as I can not recommend people waste their money in joining this now left-wing dominated organization.

You can read more on this story at the following sites:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/13/iraq
http://blog.historians.org/news/166/iraq-war-resolution-is-ratified-by-aha-members