The Georgia Historical Quarterly Controversy: Readers React to Article; Authors Reply

Finding a Balance
Dear Editor:
A colleague has forwarded to me an electronic copy of Robert Cohen and Sonia Murrow's "A Case of Censorship?", which describes the struggle for control of the Georgia Historical Quarterly. My colleague pointed out, correctly in my view, the loaded language and bias of the authors. They use words like "ally," "purged," and "censorship," and they imply racism at Georgia Historical Society. On the other hand, the history faculty at the University of Georgia merits words like "diverse," "groundbreaking scholarship," and "innovation." Does anyone hear the sounds of professional-quality axes grinding in the background? My colleague, who is also a professional historian and has a particular expertise in journal publishing, also observed that the Georgia Historical Quarterly is "dull."

Well, dull to whom is the real question. The history faculty views state history journals as natural publication vehicles for their students, and publication in peer-reviewed journals is essential to placement of their students in jobs. What faculty members easily, and sometimes conveniently, forget is that historical societies have real responsibilities to their members, most of whom are not professional historians. Rare, indeed, is the historical society that can publish a steady stream of econometric, gender, class, and race articles to mounting acclaim from the membership. Most usually want their money back. Rosenzweig and Thelen have ably demonstrated that citizens don't identify with their past in these terms, and one could reasonably extrapolate that they would resent historians trying to cram such "cutting edge research" down their throats, as a benefit of membership.

Publishing institutions like ours and the Georgia Historical Society must find the balance between good history and appealing presentation. Ninety pages of book reviews and news notes? Really, now. It's one thing for the AHR or JAH to make choices like that because the membership is professional and has a high threshold for boredom, but not when the health and prospects of the institution depend in large part on the attractiveness and vitality of the publications.
Sincerely,
George L. Vogt
Director, State Historical Society of Wisconsin

Motivated by Vengeance?
Dear Editors:
I am writing to express my disappointment in the OAH Newsletter article "A Case of Controversy? Historical Society Pulls Journal from the University of Georgia," by Robert Cohen and Sonia Murrow. I had hoped the authors would be able to deal with this controversy in a more objective manner. Instead, it seems to be another argumentum ad hominem with considerable hearsay evidence. An objective study of this controversy by an impartial examiner would certainly find the situation more complex than the onesided report by Drs. Cohen and Murrow. For example, if Dr. Todd Groce's aim was to seize control of the Georgia Historical Quarterly so as to enable him, among other things, to reduce the amount of women's history appearing in the GHQ, why would he grant complete editorial control to Dr. Anne J. Bailey? Noted for her scholarship and editorial experience, she has more publications in the field of Georgia history than any previous editor at the time of their appointment.

Dr. Groce's critics claim to be motivated by their concern that the scholarly quality of the GHQ will decline now that it has been removed from the University of Georgia. Since there are many quality history journals not associated with large universities, it is difficult to follow this reasoning. Would it not seem more reasonable to wait and examine a few editions under Dr. Bailey's direction before passing judgement? Indeed, the criticism of Dr. Groce and, by inference, Dr. Bailey almost seems designed to produce a scholarly boycott of the GHQ, thus encouraging the predicted decline in its quality. Could the critics be motivated more by a desire for vengeance than by concern for the journal's quality?
Frank B. Vinson
Professor Emeritus

Accusations without Evidence
Dear Editors:
A number of catchy phrases come to mind after reading Robert Cohen and Sonia Murrow's article, "A Case of Censorship?" in the August 2000 issue of the OAH Newsletter. Among them are "Don't criticize someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes" and "An ad hominem attack." As historians we should all be disturbed by this one-sided attack on a colleague. Even more so, because the attacks seem to be based on unidentified sources and criticize events that have yet to occur. Perhaps, the criteria under which I received my historical training is too old fashioned--that historians attempt to base their conclusions on verifiable sources and on events that have occurred.

Let us examine the case. First, no one denies that the Georgia Historical Quarterly is owned by the Georgia Historical Society (GHS). The executive director of the GHS, Todd Groce, has a responsibility to his employers for what is produced under the name of the Society. The vast majority of GHS members are individuals with an interest and love of history, but not necessarily academic historians. John Inscoe is no longer the editor of the Quarterly. The University of Georgia's (UGA) Department of History has paid for and supplied a faculty member to be editor in past years and apparently thought that it should do so again. The GHS and the UGA History Department apparently could not reach an agreement about where and for whom the Quarterly's editor should work.

So the question is has there been a significant change in either the topics covered or authors or books reviewed? At the time the Cohen and Murrow's article was published, Anne J. Bailey, the new Quarterly editor, had yet to publish an issue. One wonders how the authors could conclude that significant changes in either the content or quality of the Georgia Historical Quarterly would occur? Those historians and others who have edited scholarly journals know that the quality of what is published in a scholarly journal rests to a degree on what is submitted.

If the article authors' concern is the subject matter for articles in the Georgia Historical Quarterly, I suggest that again the editor will be limited by what is submitted. Is there any evidence that someone other than the editor or editorial board is selecting the subject matter? If one examines the various state historical and regional historical journals it does seem that the current scholarship on the South focuses on social, cultural, ethnic and labor history. Every state historical administrator in the South must on occasion explain why the focus of their historical journal seems to be so narrow. In part, the narrow focus is because the best scholarship and hence the best articles are being submitted on these subjects. We also recognize that there are some historical issues in the New South that are being given short shrift--such as the growth of technology, political changes, the change in agricultural practices or urbanization. The conclusion to be drawn is that the Georgia Historical Quarterly is just as likely to continue publishing the best scholarship from what is submitted to it. Second, every journal or publication does follow certain guidelines in regards to submissions (or self-censorship if you will). In addition to the concerns about libel and plagiarism, editors (at least those who need to be gainfully employed) will try to select those items that, while they may challenge the readers and their opinions, will not egregiously offend. We admit that the line between the two is often a fine one. In the end both the publisher and the editor must ask whether the materials being published are or are not a threat to the existence of the journal. If this is censorship, then those who practice it are in good company. It seems unlikely that in the year 2000 that the Journal of American History would publish an article about reconstruction using the Dunning school interpretation no matter how well written.

The dual funding of the Quarterly by UGA and the GHS always had the potential for dispute, if not conflict. In spite of a common goal of promoting historical understanding, there was a significant difference in the organizational structure as far as the employees are concerned. We contend that those working for the Society need to be far more responsive to their clients than those working at the University, where state procedures often make dismissal or even reprimand of employees onerous. Tenure is virtually non-existent for employees of private historical societies. Furthermore, as much as we might like to say that we are true to Clio's muse, the proliferation of history courses designed to attract students indicates that even universities are ready to bow to popular will. Patron count matters.

One of the issues in dispute was the cost to produce and publish the Quarterly. Although, I am not privy to the salaries paid at the University of Georgia and the indirect costs assigned to this production effort, I have had experience both as an editor and the publisher of historical journals and magazines. Editorial production costs of $94,000 seem pricey, if not princely. If I were a Georgia citizen, I would wonder if this were not indicative of the fiscal management of the university system supported by my taxes.

Education and experience tell us that there are many strange relationships in this world. But is it not normal to desire control over one's present, and to a degree, over one's future? In the relationship between the GHS and UGA, the latter apparently either does not understand or care that it may have a significant influence on the future of the other. The effort to "control" the editor of the Quarterly may be couched in a different light as one of survival. The survival of the Quarterly, we suggest, does not affect UGA's history department. But if GHS members chose not to renew their membership because they strenuously object to the content and style of the Quarterly, then at some point the GHS ceases to exist.

Furthermore, when Bailey claims editorial independence, the authors indicate that this only occurred because Groce was forced to grant it. Was this in reaction to the words spread by rumor mongers or was it something that the GHS board would have maintained in any case? Where is the evidence?

An unfortunate aspect of the article is the backhanded attack on the board of the GHS. I hope that the authors were not implying that the current GHS board has any less concern about the portrayal of Georgia and Southern history than do historians employed by educational institutions. By promoting a "them"versus "us" dichotomy, the authors ask the readers to believe that having money and administrative expertise is somehow antithetical to the operations of a state historical society. What is their evidence? "Critics also charge. . . ." "[W]hich some people think. . . " "Most opponents ... see. . . ." are all convenient canards rather than historical evidence. The only named critics of the GHS are the former editor of the Quarterly and the Chair of UGA's history department.

It is neither surprising nor unusual to find "business leaders" and local "elites" dominating the boards of societies, or even educational institutions, such as the University of Georgia. Apparently, these societies and institutions gain more benefit than harm from their participation. Maybe the requirements for setting the policies of a historical society or educational institution are different from, and perhaps, greater than those for running a department or being a history professor.

Furthermore, the relationship between the boards of smaller institutions and administrators is considerably different than those of large ones, such as a university. At smaller institutions the director is responsible for everything that occurs and may be blamed for the actions of any employee. When you have many employees, such as at a university, a board is more likely to assume that the university president does not have direct control of everyone and thus not consider complaints from a few students as worthy of immediate action. One suggests that having a "powerful" board is important in a smaller institution because it and its employees will continually be buffeted by the wishes of a few patrons.

The authors also imply, again only naming one source, that "[t]he Curators Board is loaded with high profile people who seldom involve themselves in meetings or policy, while the small executive committee, which some people think is hand-picked by Groce, now has sweeping powers...." I think good historical scholarship checks this statement. Is the attendance of "business figures and other non-academics" at board meetings greater or lesser than when academics dominated the Curators board? As to the argument that the current board is less critical, the authors, a few paragraphs later, write that the curators have been "offended by the GHQ's featured essay reviews" and thus may have influenced or forced Groce to make changes. If true, this is proof that when there is an issue that may affect the GHS, the curators do take an active role.
The makeup of Boards changes over time. Sometimes their membership consists of persons with particular skills, which those making the selections find necessary. If Georgia historians are concerned that the current Board's membership is such that the needs of the Georgia Historical Society are not being met, then I urge them to nominate appropriate board candidates at the next opportunity. To resign seems to indicate that historians think that they do not want to have any influence on the Georgia Historical Society's present or future.

If Todd Groce has as much power over the Curators board as the authors seem to indicate, then indeed he should be replaced. There are many other institutions that need his uncanny ability to control boards. I cannot but admire such an all-powerful individual, who single-handedly, apparently, has altered the Georgia Historical Society in the name of "more money for the Society." In the profiles of desirable characteristics for research and higher education institutions, fund raising is given a high priority.

Joan C. Browning's account of her efforts to change the Greenbrier Historical Journal may have been meant to illustrate that historians are defenders of truth and promoters of ideas. By implication this raises some chimera of the Georgia Historical Quarterly's future. Ms. Browning's experience, however, brings to mind the saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If historians have as their objective to force a particular view of history on an unwilling public, then the profession may be in serious trouble. I believe that in the various historical controversies over the last few years, historians have failed to utilize their persuasive powers. Instead we have arrogantly lectured as the oracles of historical truth. Is the problem with the public or is the problem with historians? It is an important question, whose answer will affect the future of all those who profess to search for the accurate portrayal of the past.

Unfortunately, the publication of articles such as "A Case of Censorship?" does more harm than good to the historical profession. When authors attempt through innuendo to blacken the character of one of their colleagues, fail to argue from facts, and offer hearsay evidence, then the article clouds the issues rather than enlightening. Based on what the authors write in the article, one must respond that the case is unsubstantiated.
David O. Percy, Executive Director
The South Carolina Historical Society

Murrow and Cohen Respond