Correspondence

Letter to OAH Newsletter:

It's extremely curious to find oneself a "case" (Ralph E. Luker, "Where Do We Go From Here?," OAH Newsletter, August 2002)--most especially curious when, as a former president of the organization r emarked on seeing the article, there is no "Buhle Case."

I was subject to a nasty political attack in a noted neoconservative journal, the New Criterion, not for plagiarism, nor for expanding my own historical role (and no university or commercial press, to date, has felt it necessary to withdraw my two dozen books from publication).

For the record, Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes labored mightily to find defects in three entries--out of several hundred--in the Encyclopedia of the American Left, two of these based not on supposed inaccuracies but on topics missing. The third is evidentiary: the role of American Jewish communists in the Israeli War of Independence. Had Klehr and Haynes done their homework in the Daily Worker files, they would have found evidence aplenty--I look forward to a full discussion in some neutral venue.

But as in most of these cases, they were only spoiling for a fight. The back-story evidently involves bitter feelings against the Encyclopedia from a less-than-disinterested co-editor of a now-forgotten competing volume, the Biographical Dictionary of the American Left; and my criticisms of the coauthors' badly flawed monographs on real and supposed communist spies, notably in the Times Higher Education Supplement (harsh reviews do not register as "cases" against authors, and I don't think that they should).

In short, this is a grudge match of the kind that the publications of the right seem determined to press these days, underlain by a resentment that I should dare to contrast or compare CIA activities--including those endemic within the American labor movement and those widespread within our own history profession in the three decades after 1950--to the assorted activities of political opposite numbers, communists or otherwise. There are, of course, extremely good reasons why some would wish to have these more substantive matters remain outside scholarly investigation.

Gossip will doubtless continue, most of it politically flavored. I would suggest that Luker, among others, has more valuable things to do with his time.

Dear Sir:

Every graduate student in history should take to heart Vince DiGirolamo's thoughtful and important essay, "The Historian as Artist, Activist, and Amateur," in your August Newsletter. 750 new Ph.D.s (plus unsuccessful job seekers from previous years) pursuing 150 jobs must know from the beginning of graduate study that they probably will not receive faculty positions in universities. Vince ably defines his understanding of the meaning of "historian." There is life after the oral defense.

History Ph.D.s know how to analyze critically and communicate effectively, both verbally and in writing. They know how to research, to identify problems, and suggest possible solutions. They have strong work ethics. Business organizations will hire them in spite of their lack of business experience because few people can offer these desperately needed skills.

Opportunities for teaching history exist other than in colleges and universities. Ph.D.s may feel overqualified to teach at the high school level, but it is richly challenging work, especially when compared with unemployment. Ph.D.s bring a breadth and depth of knowledge that will encourage their colleagues and, if combined with Vince's passion, inspire their students, two qualities sorely needed in public education. A friend of mine argues that the best college teachers first taught at the secondary level.

High school teaching requires more classroom hours than many college schedules but does not prevent the professional historian from continuing to research, write, and speak about his craft. High school salaries also compare favorably with colleges. If history Ph.D.s can look beyond the ivy, they will find a world out there.