Capitol Commentary

Bruce Craig, Director of the National
Coalition for History

At Deadline

R. Bruce Craig, the Executive Director of the National Coalition for History for about seven years, informed the NCH policy board that effective January 2007, he plans to relocate permanently to Prince Edward Island, Canada. Bruce is looking forward to beginning his teaching responsibilities at the University of Prince Edward Island. There he will also be working to establish a unique public history degree program and will begin researching and writing his biography of accused spy Alger Hiss. A search committee for the new NCH executive director has been formed, and the NCH executive board has drafted a position announcement which will be posted on the OAH web site and elsewhere. Anticipated deadline for applications will be Oct. 1, 2006.

Smithsonian Officials Defend Showtime Deal

Summoned by the House Administration Committee, Smithsonian Institution (SI) Secretary Lawrence Small and members of his senior staff recently testified before a House oversight committee on the controversial agreement entered into between the Smithsonian and CBS/Showtime Networks Inc. The agreement limits the abilities of documentary filmmakers to independently produce films that make more than “incidental use” of the Smithsonian’s collections and resources. Small’s testimony did little to mollify critics; in fact, his appearance raised new and more serious questions about the long-term ramifications of the semiexclusive Showtime deal.

Smithsonian officials provided two versions of the 170-plus page contract between the SI and Showtime to Representative Vernon J. Ehlers’s (R-MI) House oversight committee. Small stated that he personally did not take part in drafting the contract––that task fell to Gary M. Beer, chief executive of Smithsonian Business Ventures.
With flailing hands that nearly knocked over his microphone several times, Small passionately tried to defend the benefits that he insisted the agreement will accrue to the Smithsonian. He explained that the Smithsonian was trying to bring in extra revenue; that in spite of a $800 million endowment and some $1 billion raised since 2000, there is still a backlog of repairs that, unless funded privately, would cost Congress “billions” of dollars. Repeatedly, he asserted that out of over 900 media agreements in the last five years, there have been only seventeen instances of “substantial use” of Smithsonian resources. Thus, the activities of over 95 percent of potential users would not be impacted by the provisions of the contract.

But according to Carl Malamud of the Center for American Progress, whose organization has been at the forefront of criticism of the Showtime deal, $500,000 a year plus a profit sharing provision in which the dominant party has a 90 percent equity stake is a “pretty cheap price to sell our archives.” Furthermore, stated Malamud, in his professional opinion, a thirty-year contract “is impractical . . . . In this Internet era, even three-year distribution contracts can be considered long.”

Not that Lawrence Small already does not have enough problems with Congress and critics of the Showtime agreement, but now the Smithsonian Secretary is under investigation for his role in a recently discovered accounting scandal at the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). From 1991 until 2000 when he became Smithsonian Secretary, Small served as president, chief operating officer, and board member of that association. The investigation prompted Senate Finance Committee Chair, Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), to ask openly the question that many have been whispering privately, whether Small is the right person to continue heading the Smithsonian.

Grassley is especially concerned about recent revelations relating to Small’s involvement in the Fannie Mae investigation. But Grassley, in a letter to Office of Management and Budget officials, noted that the Smithsonian’s own inspector general is also looking into allegations of financial irregularities and excessive executive compensation packages in the Smithsonian Business Ventures Division.

Human Subject Research Legislation Introduced

On June 9, 2006, Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced the “Protection for Participants in Research Act of 2006” (H.R. 5578)—legislation seeking to insure that all human subject research is conducted in accordance with the Common Rule and other provisions in law that are designed to insure that human subject research poses minimal risk to research participants. The bill also seeks to insure “informed consent” by all research participants.
Human subject research—including certain oral history research activities—has been interpreted by some federal officials in the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and some university Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to be governed by provisions in the Public Health Service Act. The law, which originally was designed to protect the human subjects from abuse by biomedical researchers, remains vague if not totally mute with respect to oral history research. This, however, has not stopped some university IRBs to (in the words of critics) “overreach” their authority when applying OHRP regulations to oral history research. Some university IRBs grant an exemption to oral history research while others (especially those that do not have historians or social scientists sitting on the IRB) demand that historians seek IRB approval for any oral history research that may be undertaken in the process of conducting historical research.

In recent months there have been several new IRB horror stories relating to oral history. For example, at one major research university, a doctoral dissertation that had been approved by the dean of the graduate school was withdrawn just weeks prior to the student’s anticipated graduation. In what appears to have been a communication problem between the student’s graduate advisor, the graduate school, and the university IRB, the doctoral candidate was ordered to take back his dissertation, strike all references to his oral history interviewees, and destroy the tapes he made, even though he had secured signed releases from all his oral history interviewees. The student’s graduation and future—including a bonafide job offer (his position is conditioned on him having the Ph.D. in hand prior to appointment)—at this writing remains in jeopardy.

DeGette’s bill does not speak directly to the issue of oral history research and would do little to address the specific concerns relating to such research activities. There is a provision in the bill that directs the Health and Human Services Secretary to consider whether the list of exemptions should be modified or whether “new categories of exemptions [should be] established.” The bill also mandates that local IRBs are to consist of at least two persons whose expertise is in “nonscientific areas” and an additional two persons from outside the research institution.

While the DeGette bill does little to resolve the controversy over oral history, the Oral History Association, and several other history-related organizations have formally requested that the OHRP (which in the past has sent contradictory messages to the historical community) clarify their regulations and policies regarding the applicability of oral history in IRB review.

Morehouse College Purchases Martin Luther King, Jr. Papers

More than 10,000 handwritten documents and books from the estate of famed civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were purchased by Morehouse College in Atlanta. A successful effort coordinated by Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin apparently brought together a coalition of individuals, businesses, and philanthropic leaders who were able to make the purchase without having the papers go to auction. The collection that had been slated to go on the auction block in early July had been estimated to draw more than $30 million had it gone to auction; the Morehouse College offer, however, exceeded the estimated auction value. According to David Redden, Vice President of Sotheby’s Auction House, “I can’t imagine a better home than the home of Dr. King for this collection . . . It was there for years; it’s going to be there forever.”

Senate Conducts Hearing On Anderson Papers

On June 6, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted an oversight hearing in which members questioned Justice Department officials about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) interest in the papers of the late journalist Jack Anderson that are now deposited at the George Washington University. The Justice Department spokesman gave the senators little information, refusing to comment on sources, methods, or the recent developments on the case.
The FBI has publicly stated that the bureau believes that Anderson collected secret documents and other information from sources unauthorized to release them. Information gleaned from these documents and sources were used in the preparation of his syndicated column, “Washington Merry-Go-Round,” that ran in papers across the country from 1969 until 2004. The FBI apparently was particularly concerned about materials in Anderson’s file that may relate to a current espionage case against two pro-Israel lobbyists.

Quickly reaching a dead end on the Anderson case with questions posed to Matthew Friedrich, Chief of Staff for the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Senators Charles E. Grassley (R-IA), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and Committee Chair Arlen Specter (R-PA) shifted their line of questioning of the witness. They attempted to obtain the Justice Department’s views on whether Congress needs to provide more protection for journalists and unnamed sources. Friedrich asserted that the existing laws were sufficient and that there was no need for additional legislation. Based on the tone of questions, the Senators, for the most part, disagreed.

Also appearing before the Committee was Anderson’s son, Kevin Anderson, as well as Gabriel Schoenfeld, a senior editor at Commentary magazine; Professor Rodney Smolla, Dean of the University of Richmond Law School; and Mark Feldstein, Director of the Journalism Program at George Washington University. The panelists spoke to the need for a law to protect journalists from government intimidation.

CIA Declassifies Nazi Files

In accordance with the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act of 1998, on June 6, 2006 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) released some 27,000 files relating to Nazi war criminals and those involved with them. When added to some other 60,000 pages of CIA documents that have been released since 1999, this release of documents provides additional corroboration of what historians have long believed; that the CIA recruited war criminals and protected and supported them during the Cold War era when fighting communism became the thrust of American intelligence efforts.

According to historian Timothy Naftali of the University of Virginia (and Nixon Presidential Library Director designee), “Hiring of these tainted individuals brought little other than operational problems and moral confusion to our government’s intelligence community.” The documents show that many of the former Nazi CIA recruits peddled mostly hearsay and gossip in the hope of advancing personal agendas while at the same time avoiding retribution for their past crimes.

Release of the documents was stalled by the CIA last year when the agency balked at declassifying the more detailed materials (the more revealing documents) relating to the agency’s operational activities, but caved in after Congress intervened.

A similar declassification effort relating to Japanese war criminals is expected by the end of summer.

Smithsonian Gets Katrina Donation from NOAA

The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History has received a donation of Hurricane Katrina-related materials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This donation includes a dropwindsonde—a scientific instrument used to measure and track tropical storm conditions—as well as replicas of maps and in-depth weather charts used by hurricane specialists. The museum will also receive a copy of the urgent weather message compiled and issued by NOAA on August 28, 2005—the day before the storm hit the Gulf region—accurately predicting the catastrophe and its aftermath.

These objects will join a recently established permanent collection of Hurricane Katrina related materials documenting this natural disaster. The museum is working to build this collection by focusing on objects and photographs that reflect specific aspects of Hurricane Katrina’s impact along the Gulf Coast, the rescue and recovery, and the long-term effects on local communities and the nation. “By preserving these objects, we will help historians of the future to understand this natural disaster and the detrimental effects of its aftermath on the nation,” said Brent Glass, director of the National Museum of American History. “The NOAA team played an especially important role in this historical national event and I am pleased that these objects will be preserved for the future as part of the national collections at the Smithsonian,” said retired Brig. Gen. David L. Johnson, U.S. Air Force, director of NOAA’s National Weather Service.

Readex Newspaper Project Completed

On June 21, 2006, Readex, a leading publisher of online historical collections, announced the completion of Early American Newspapers, Series I, 1690-1876. An integral part of Readex’s web-based Archive of Americana, this digital edition offers fully searchable, cover-to-cover reproductions of nearly 350,000 issues from over 700 historical American newspapers, totaling more than 1.5 million pages. Digitized primarily from the extensive historical newspaper holdings of the American Antiquarian Society (AAS) and published in cooperation with the AAS, Early American Newspapers, Series I is a collection of great significance for historical researchers at all levels.

Early American Newspapers, Series I provides unprecedented access to America’s past by documenting daily life, popular issues and events, and both majority and minority views in hundreds of communities. The collection focuses largely on the eighteenth century and offers titles from twenty-three states and the District of Columbia. This comprehensive resource is based on Clarence S. Brigham’s History and Bibliography of American Newspapers, 1690-1820 and other authoritative bibliographies. Users can easily view, magnify, print, and save items and limit searches to items that fall into such categories as news/opinion, election returns, letters, poetry, legislative acts or legal proceedings, prices, advertisements, matrimony notices, and death notices.

“The joint effort of Readex and the American Antiquarian Society has led to the creation of a digital historical newspaper collection of unparalleled breadth and depth,” said Ellen S. Dunlap, President of the American Antiquarian Society. “We are pleased to see our vast newspaper holdings serve to further contribute to fresh understandings of our nation’s past.” “Now, web based access to one of the most valuable sources for eighteenth- and nineteenth-century historical research is enabling students and scholars at hundreds of institutions worldwide to explore nearly every aspect of early America,” said Remmel Nunn, Readex Vice President of New Product Development. 

National History Day Contest Wraps Up Another Year

National History Day (NHD), which in actuality is a year-long nonprofit education program dedicated to improving the teaching and learning of history in our nation’s school systems, recently wrapped up its annual competition at the University of Maryland campus.

Each year, dramatic performances, imaginative exhibits, multimedia documentaries, and research papers based on an annual theme are evaluated at local, state, and national competitions. Kicking off this year’s event that focused on the theme “Taking a Stand: People, Ideas, Events” were speeches by Linda Hunt, author of Bold Spirit: Helga Estby’s Forgotten Walk Across Victorian America, and Fred H. Cate, a NHD alumnus and professor at the Indiana University School of Law in Bloomington. Two days of judging followed with finalists making presentations the next day. The winners were announced during the gala awards ceremony. Students received cash awards as well as gold, silver, and bronze medals, and certificates that recognized individual achievements.

For more information about National History Day, visit them online at <http://www.nationalhistoryday.org/>.