Respecting Diversity in the OAH

E. G. Pollack

On 13 March, Stephen H. Norwood, Stan Nadel, Larry Logue, and I e-mailed a Statement of Concerns to the president, past presidents, and executive committee:

"Several of us are disturbed that the OAH has moved the annual convention to St. Louis University, which identifies itself 'as a Catholic, Jesuit university.' In justifying its decision to move the meeting out of the Adam's Mark, the OAH argued that 'All OAH members must be able to participate fully and freely in its conventions.' For a number of reasons, however, several of us find it difficult to participate comfortably under current conditions. Some of us question the appropriateness of a secular organization's holding its annual convention at, and giving money to support, a religious institution. Much more unsettling is . . . that most of the rooms in which sessions, etc. will be held have crucifixes on the walls. We find this particularly troubling, since for 2000 years this icon has been inextricably tied to the Church's deicide libel against the Jews. Indeed, it was only in 1965, more than a decade after Brown v. Board of Education, that the Catholic Church finally abandoned the charge of collective guilt against the Jewish people. The crucifix is not just another religious symbol, like a Star of David or a mezuzah, or even a statue of Jesus or the Virgin. To us it is a particularly potent historical symbol of aggressive, even lethal, antisemitism. We see several parallels to the discomfort many feel toward the Confederate flag, and we cannot imagine the OAH holding sessions in rooms adorned with that flag. Although some of us informed the executive director of our concerns, the response, posted on the OAH web site, is dismissive, and misrepresents our position. The OAH writes: 'We should not expect the university to erase its religious identity simply because it is hosting a secular organization like the OAH.' No one, to our knowledge, is asking the university 'to erase its religious identity,' but to do something about icons which some find unsettling, or at least to schedule sessions in rooms lacking this symbol. . . . Certainly, some historians, Jews, seculars, et al, have at times chosen to speak beneath the crucifix, in churches or schools. But this was an individual decision, far different from a professional organization's choosing to hold its convention in a place where, in order to participate, one must, in effect, speak beneath the cross.

We also find it distressing that the conference is being held at a university whose library is named the Pius XII Memorial Library. Historians have found that 'Pius's behavior regarding the Holocaust was often deplorable'. . . . Moreover, the Vatican's first authoritative statement on the Church's actions during the Holocaust, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, published only two years ago, has been found by secular historians to completely whitewash Pius XII's actions. To several of us, whose relatives were murdered during the Holocaust, the Shoah is not just a European issue.

We are also dismayed that the convention is being held at a Jesuit institution, since Jesuits (and their organs) have long been in the forefront of the movement to deny or limit abortion rights. Should the OAH be giving money that might ultimately be applied to the 'pro-life' crusade? Note too that it was only last year, for the first time in 90 years, that America, the Jesuit weekly, hired a female staff member. The OAH writes that 'historians are united in their conviction that racism is a scourge on the land, which the OAH has long been committed to overcome.' But many historians have also long struggled for women's 'right to choose,' for women's equal rights, etc.

Although we do not and would not ask the OAH to change the location of the convention, we hope that it will accord these concerns the same close attention it gave to the objections of those whoprotested the original site. The current official response of the OAH which distorts our positions and dismisses our concerns appears to reflect a double standard, one which we find unacceptable for an organization committed to diversity. Perhaps it is not only 'the issue of racial inequality in the United States and in their profession' that historians should address at the annual meeting."

In their responses to us, in which they tacitly refused to take any steps toward

Learn More About The OAH Annual Meeting OAH 2000: St. Louis Main page of the OAH Annual Meeting A Historical Account of the St. Louis Meeting An excellent overview of the events in St. Louis. Frequently Asked Questions Read a list of popular questions and answers regarding the 2000 OAH meeting.

meeting our needs, the leadership stressed that "All members of the executive board feel extremely grateful to the university." We replied, "We appreciate the dilemma the OAH faced, but question a solution that ignores the interests of some of its members. We do not understand why the OAH concluded that it must embrace its rescuer uncritically."

In justifying their unqualified endorsement of the new site, and their rejection of any modifications in the current arrangements, the president, past president, and an executive committee member emphasized that St. Louis University "share[s] our commitment to racial justice," that its "commitment to equal justice . . . is decisive. . . ." We responded, "Surely, the OAH is not only committed to 'equal justice,' narrowly defined, but to a true respect for diversity. It is, therefore, hard for us to understand why the OAH discounts our perspective on the crucifix, etc., and, in effect, upholds only the Catholic approach of St. Louis University, which we cannot share."

In dismissing our concerns, OAH president David Montgomery informed us that "A Jewish rabbi felt perfectly comfortable participating . . . in the opening sessions of the fall term, and Jewish faculty members at the university . . . helped make arrangements for the OAH." We pointed out that each of those situations "has no bearing on the issue at hand. Each . . . reflected only the decisions of individuals, and their comfort level need not be ours. We, by contrast, are confronted with our secular professional organization's, in effect, requiring members who had planned to participate in its annual convention, to speak beneath the crucifix."

Montgomery wrote that he "see[s] no profit in cataloguing the historic sins of those churches. . . ." Herein lay the divide, and the differing perspectives that we assumed the OAH would respect. We explained, "What you characterize as 'sins,' however, we perceive as atrocities. And what you consign to the 'historic,' we believe suffuses the present, shapes, and has shadowed our lives. Recall that it was only in 1965 that the Church even officially dropped its charge of collective guilt against the Jewish people for deicide. And that as recently as five months ago the Church was still aggressively promoting the canonization of Pius XII, and the whitewashing of his record during the Holocaust. Is the OAH asking its members simply to ignore that a core institution, the library, of the university it praises, is dedicated to the memory of Pius XII?" The OAH president may have set aside the Church's sins, but this does not mean that we should--or ever could.

The president assured us that the convention was a "totally secular meeting." But would an association of historians of women hold its convention at the Playboy mansion, its sessions in rooms adorned with pinups, and then assure its members that it was a "totally feminist meeting?"

The leadership's concern for some members' discomfort at the hotel, and complete disregard for some members' discomfort at the university, suggest a double standard. The sessions should have been scheduled in rooms without crucifixes or, failing that, the crucifixes should have been hidden behind maps. To us, our experience indicates that there was/is a need for a forum devoted to fully integrating the study of Jews and antisemitism into the (multicultural) American history curriculum.