All I know is that, as a professor of English literature, I was teaching a course in Milton this spring. I had occasion to read aloud part of Satan's triumphant speech in Book X where he announces the Fall of Man, and promises that the devils will have an easy crossing of Chaos, that "unreal, vast, unbounded deep/Of horrible confusion" that Satan has braved alone on his first mission to Earth: "By Sin and Death a broad way now is paved/To expedite your glorious march," he says. And out of my mouth automatically came the words, "And Mexico is going to pay for it." I always knew Trump's speaking style reminded me of someone.
10
Stanley Fish writes that the historians who authored the anti-Trump letter, "are merely people with history degrees, which means that they have read certain books, taken and taught certain courses and written scholarly essays."
That's like saying that doctors who warn against the dangers of smoking really have no standing to issue their warnings. They're just people who have taken a few biology courses, an anatomy course or two. They are only supposed to hand out pills, not lecture Americans about what to do with their lives.
How could this ugly anti-intellectual nonsense have been deemed worthy of publication in the New York Times? And how could such a call for willful ignorance be published under the rubric of "Gray Matter"? And which editor precisely is it who thought it was appropriate to publish this nonsense?
I'm embarrassed for the Times.
That's like saying that doctors who warn against the dangers of smoking really have no standing to issue their warnings. They're just people who have taken a few biology courses, an anatomy course or two. They are only supposed to hand out pills, not lecture Americans about what to do with their lives.
How could this ugly anti-intellectual nonsense have been deemed worthy of publication in the New York Times? And how could such a call for willful ignorance be published under the rubric of "Gray Matter"? And which editor precisely is it who thought it was appropriate to publish this nonsense?
I'm embarrassed for the Times.
23
The last time we had someone like Trump n the national scene, no one would stand up to him and he did a lot of harm. Here Trump is lying as much as Joe McArthy and like McCarthy is getting away with it because no one will stand up to him. Justice Ginsburg pointed out the danger and the whole media came down on her even thoguh Scalia was ppolitical on and off the bench with very little criticism.
Trump is dangerous and attacking the people who point it out is playng the same game again. He's reckless, undisciplined and a pathological liar. Many more people should be attacking him and pointing out these issues.
Someone referred to him as Crazy Trump and he really is.
Trump is dangerous and attacking the people who point it out is playng the same game again. He's reckless, undisciplined and a pathological liar. Many more people should be attacking him and pointing out these issues.
Someone referred to him as Crazy Trump and he really is.
41
So learned people should watch as evil triumphs? Evil as in a candidate seeking to undermine the Constitution being elected. Sorry. EVERY thinking person has a person to speak up now before it's too late. Must Be nice for Mr. Fish to watch and think he should do nothing.
37
History does inform politics, and knowledge of history informs political opinions. Next you'll be saying scientists are not better informed than most people about global warming.
45
Does Professor Fish express the same objections when the Chamber of Commerce claims to speak for "business" and tell us which candidates are good for the economy?
36
While I agree with Prof. Fish that academics should be careful to separate their personal from their professional opinions, it is far from clear that the historians' opposition to Trump is due to, "their obviously partisan views." Never Trump critics range from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Maddow on the left to Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and George Will on the right. Being against Mr. Trump and what he stands for is clearly a bipartisan position and many of those who support him do so very cautiously, like House Speaker Paul Ryan.
31
Were I Trump i would welcome professorial opposition given the contempt the average, or even above average person has for most academics. Just like I would welcome the NY Times editorializing on the front page against me. It simply works to drive neutrals to him out here in the great flyover states. This letter that gets Fish so worked up though is small stuff, it is no where nearly as pathetic as "courage" it takes for american studies profs, and anthropology profs to oppose Israel and support Palestinians. I mean that shows just how gutsy your typical academic campfollwer can be.
2
What I don't understand about this column and some of the comments is why people would jump on history professors for suggesting that history might be repeating itself. Isn't the objective of studying history to keep us from repeating mistakes of the past.
Oh, I get it... Fish and the others no longer, or maybe never did, think Trump is a fascist, regardless of the rather strong evidence to the contrary.
But for those of us who see Trump and his supporters as not too far from the brown shirts of the 1930s, well, we kind of think its our duty to say so. What is being more patriotic, seeing a fascist in the making and saying nothing, or seeing a repeat of history and speaking out?
There comes a time in every person's life when they have to stand up and be counted. Whether you do it as an individual or with other individuals is immaterial. This election is one of those times. You are with a person who has shown every tendency to be a fascist, to be as bigoted and racist as any candidate we have ever had, or you are not. If you stand on the sideline you are a coward, plain and simple. I, for one, really regret Justice Ginsburg's backtracking on her statements about Trump. If someone can prove all of us who see history repeating itself are wrong, then we will admit our error and shut up.
Lastly, Fish's attack on the professoriate is petulant at best and anti-intellectual at its core. That's the sorry state of America these days.
Oh, I get it... Fish and the others no longer, or maybe never did, think Trump is a fascist, regardless of the rather strong evidence to the contrary.
But for those of us who see Trump and his supporters as not too far from the brown shirts of the 1930s, well, we kind of think its our duty to say so. What is being more patriotic, seeing a fascist in the making and saying nothing, or seeing a repeat of history and speaking out?
There comes a time in every person's life when they have to stand up and be counted. Whether you do it as an individual or with other individuals is immaterial. This election is one of those times. You are with a person who has shown every tendency to be a fascist, to be as bigoted and racist as any candidate we have ever had, or you are not. If you stand on the sideline you are a coward, plain and simple. I, for one, really regret Justice Ginsburg's backtracking on her statements about Trump. If someone can prove all of us who see history repeating itself are wrong, then we will admit our error and shut up.
Lastly, Fish's attack on the professoriate is petulant at best and anti-intellectual at its core. That's the sorry state of America these days.
18
Lawyers don't really believe in experts anyway, so why expect Mr. Fish to give experts any credence? Surely one can find an expert to give any desired "expert testimony" in a courtroom....
Now that we no longer have "faith" in our experts, what do we think is true and not true?
Slippery world we live in...
Orwell could not have planned it better.
No wonder Brexit passes, Trump becomes president, global warming is not happening, and the world is flat.
Now that we no longer have "faith" in our experts, what do we think is true and not true?
Slippery world we live in...
Orwell could not have planned it better.
No wonder Brexit passes, Trump becomes president, global warming is not happening, and the world is flat.
14
Pfiffle. Everyone is a citizen, everyone has the right to speak out, and everyone uses whatever they've got to make the best argument they can, based on whatever their own perspective and experience is. Or maybe this is just some sort of super-ironic meta-snark -- famous Prof. Fish panders to the rubes with garden-variety right-wing professor bashing in the New York Times, for all places!
17
Hogwash as my grandmother used to say Mr. Fish. It is important that Historians and well as other educated speak up against a Mr. Trump. We should all remember (many don't) what happened in Germany in the 1930's when they didn't speak up. Sorry Mr. Fish I don't need a repeat of that in the USA. One of the great failure of the news media is to treat Mr. Trump like he some how up to the task at hand.
27
Academics favor Democrats. Wow, who knew?
They betray their scholarship by their partisanship. I would imagine that their students are not getting educated but certainly getting indoctrinated.
They betray their scholarship by their partisanship. I would imagine that their students are not getting educated but certainly getting indoctrinated.
5
“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
Albert Camus
Albert Camus
23
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana)
Aren't historians our front line rememberers of the past? Have they not actually studied history? Yes, they also have mundane duties such as teaching students how to handle archival materials, but does this mean that they aren't allowed to think and hold opinions? Are they not allowed to get together and proffer their opinions as a group? You seem to think not. You seem to think that individuals holding history degrees are entitled to an opinion but groups of individuals with history degrees are not because it suggests that all individuals holding history degrees must be in agreement. I disagree with that. They call themselves "Historians Against Trump" not "Every Historian Against Trump." Would you be happier if they called themselves "Some Historians Against Trump?"
People get to opine; groups of people get to opine. That's just how it is. Your opinion is that historians are not competent to opine, that "academic expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom." Apparently many historians disagree with you.
Aren't historians our front line rememberers of the past? Have they not actually studied history? Yes, they also have mundane duties such as teaching students how to handle archival materials, but does this mean that they aren't allowed to think and hold opinions? Are they not allowed to get together and proffer their opinions as a group? You seem to think not. You seem to think that individuals holding history degrees are entitled to an opinion but groups of individuals with history degrees are not because it suggests that all individuals holding history degrees must be in agreement. I disagree with that. They call themselves "Historians Against Trump" not "Every Historian Against Trump." Would you be happier if they called themselves "Some Historians Against Trump?"
People get to opine; groups of people get to opine. That's just how it is. Your opinion is that historians are not competent to opine, that "academic expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom." Apparently many historians disagree with you.
17
I would be impressed if these "historians" warned us about the corruption of Bill and Hillary. But, alas, these "historians" are blinded by what they want to see, and what they don't want to see.
6
Nice strawman you've built here Mr. Fish. They aren't providing opinions on politics, which is more closely related to campaigns and the inner machinations of Washington than to leadership, they're writing about the virtues of a candidate as a potential world leader. In addition, they're right (as you readily admit, or at least concede that it might be so), so your argument also employs the fallacy fallacy—assuming that since they are overly emotional and opinionated, their argument is invalid—as well. If we can't trust history professors to give us an interpretation of the present, then what the heck is the purpose of history classes? But, I'm sure you know best. What do I know? I'm just an English teacher and a former journalist, and we all know that we know nothing.
23
Excellent and accurate piece. Kudos for making it clear that this is your personal opinion (as all Op Eds are) versus the unique insight provided to you as a "professor of law".
8
I agree completely. In fact, given Professor Fish's perspective, I also suggest that his column be replaced by a random essay, written by a random person. After all, what does he know, he's just some Perfesser from some fancy pants school who thinks he's got some sorta learnin'.
Or maybe he should just go back and re-read Hofstader's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.
Or maybe he should just go back and re-read Hofstader's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.
54
Professor Fish sings his same old song. Historians claiming some special right to talk in public about history? On the face of it, this doesn’t feel overwhelmingly silly. Indeed, Professor Fish himself seems to suggest this, for he feels compelled to pepper their claims with question-begging adjectives of his own devise: it is Fish, not the professors, who says they claim a “unique” right to talk about Mr. Trump (“uniquely qualified,” “uniquely objective”).
The view of a historian about history may be right or wrong, but it is not simply “a view like anyone else’s,” just as Mr. Fish’s views on John Milton, whom he has written a lot about, sometimes perceptively, are not just like anyone else’s. But I do sometimes wonder what that radical republican intellectual would say about Professor Fish’s recurrent claim that knowledge is to be kept contained inside disciplinary confines, where they “perform as historians,” and not turned onto the work of human liberation. I think Milton would call Fish's proposal a fugitive and cloistered virtue. Here, the Historians against Trump side with Milton, while Mr. Fish sides with, oh, perhaps the inglorious hordes of academic administrators who like quiet faculty who do their jobs without raising too much of a ruckus? Or perhaps just with himself.
The view of a historian about history may be right or wrong, but it is not simply “a view like anyone else’s,” just as Mr. Fish’s views on John Milton, whom he has written a lot about, sometimes perceptively, are not just like anyone else’s. But I do sometimes wonder what that radical republican intellectual would say about Professor Fish’s recurrent claim that knowledge is to be kept contained inside disciplinary confines, where they “perform as historians,” and not turned onto the work of human liberation. I think Milton would call Fish's proposal a fugitive and cloistered virtue. Here, the Historians against Trump side with Milton, while Mr. Fish sides with, oh, perhaps the inglorious hordes of academic administrators who like quiet faculty who do their jobs without raising too much of a ruckus? Or perhaps just with himself.
38
Professorial freedom is sacrosanct in academia and by extension on the front page of the New York Times. The problem is not with the academic community but rather the flaw in democracy that grants any idiot a vote.
15
"I’m not saying that this view of Mr. Trump is incorrect; nor am I saying that it is on target: only that it is a view, like anyone else’s."
Mr. Fish, you make the classic mistake of claiming that all views are of equal value. In reality, informed views -- views based on education and information -- are of much greater value (i.e. more likely to be true) than uninformed, "gut" feelings like those driving Mr. Trump's popularity.
Mr. Fish, you make the classic mistake of claiming that all views are of equal value. In reality, informed views -- views based on education and information -- are of much greater value (i.e. more likely to be true) than uninformed, "gut" feelings like those driving Mr. Trump's popularity.
59
Wow, Stanley Fish, when did you become so set in the anti-intellectualism of the day? Your first three paragraphs are rife with misinterpretations of the letter (I'm amazed you had the gall to provide a link to it so we could read it for ourselves rather than rely on your bizarre reading).
It hardly seems worthwhile to discredit you sentence by sentence. A fair reading of the letter is all that is necessary. This group of academicians are doing their professional duty, and you are hooting at them.
It hardly seems worthwhile to discredit you sentence by sentence. A fair reading of the letter is all that is necessary. This group of academicians are doing their professional duty, and you are hooting at them.
68
The irony in this column is impossible to miss. Professors are no more, and no less, qualified than columnists and pundits to produce an editorial. I don't think the classroom is the arena for these discussion but they are entitled to the same column-inches that you would be.
37
And this guy is a law professor? Historians normally do not sign letters like they did unless they collectively believe it's important to alert the public. Mr. Fish may have good legal reasoning appealing to the right wing, but his anti intellectual stance is buffoonery and should not have been published under the guise of "the free press." His commentary would be just fine in the National Enquirer, not the Times.
9
Mr. Fish first reduces the work of historians to that of clerks sorting materials so that he can then say they haven’t learned anything from history.
9
Fish presents a "classic" American anti-intellectual argument: yes, these historians have a particular expertise, but after all, they're "just folks" when you come right down to it. Therefore, their opinions have no more merit (and should have no more authority), than Joe the plumber.
The delicious irony--that he as a privileged pontificator and self-appointed arbiter, is engaged in precisely the same activity he criticizes--seems to escape him.
The delicious irony--that he as a privileged pontificator and self-appointed arbiter, is engaged in precisely the same activity he criticizes--seems to escape him.
25
What you seem to miss is that history is not just a study of past, but an entity that plays out in the present. There's an entire sub-discipline of subject that is concerned with memory -- how the remembrance of past events influences the social attitudes of today.
In order to stop Trump, you must diagnose the reasons his support in fact supports him. It didn't spontaneously erupt in 2015, but has been years in the making.
History is a case study for the reasons and implications of human behavior. Its aim above all else is empathy (which you, Mr. Fish, may seem to think of as an example of a historian's self-endowed "moral...superiority"). It's only once you understand something that you can change it.
In order to stop Trump, you must diagnose the reasons his support in fact supports him. It didn't spontaneously erupt in 2015, but has been years in the making.
History is a case study for the reasons and implications of human behavior. Its aim above all else is empathy (which you, Mr. Fish, may seem to think of as an example of a historian's self-endowed "moral...superiority"). It's only once you understand something that you can change it.
11
Professor Fish has been making arguments like this for over 30 years. I haven't always liked his arguments, but they seemed to have an air tight logic. They annoyed me, but at least, I thought, they were fairly harmless. This version of the argument is especially reprehensible, though.
Sorry to play the Jew card, but I am myself a Jew, and I would ask Prof Fish (another Jew) whether historians are not, at the very least, capable of remembering the past, and learning something from its horrors. Would Fish have faulted German historians for speaking out against Hitler? Would he have faulted only if they didn't speak as historians? Would he have been happy if German academics kept silent -- kept silent as academics -- and only wrote personal letters to the editor? (In fact, most of them kept silent.)
We are facing a candidate who has openly called for deporting residents of America and preventing people of a whole religion from entering the country. Deportation. This is something to which historians are obliged to respond -- and to respond precisely as historians.
To suppose that historians have no wisdom, but only a technical expertise, is not only insulting: it is amnesiac.
Historians, keep reminding us about what xenophobia and racism has meant again and again! Please remind us about the pitfalls of populist hatred! And please keep telling us that you know about this not in spite but because of the fact that you are historians!
Sorry to play the Jew card, but I am myself a Jew, and I would ask Prof Fish (another Jew) whether historians are not, at the very least, capable of remembering the past, and learning something from its horrors. Would Fish have faulted German historians for speaking out against Hitler? Would he have faulted only if they didn't speak as historians? Would he have been happy if German academics kept silent -- kept silent as academics -- and only wrote personal letters to the editor? (In fact, most of them kept silent.)
We are facing a candidate who has openly called for deporting residents of America and preventing people of a whole religion from entering the country. Deportation. This is something to which historians are obliged to respond -- and to respond precisely as historians.
To suppose that historians have no wisdom, but only a technical expertise, is not only insulting: it is amnesiac.
Historians, keep reminding us about what xenophobia and racism has meant again and again! Please remind us about the pitfalls of populist hatred! And please keep telling us that you know about this not in spite but because of the fact that you are historians!
24
Where precisely, Stanley, does it say that historians have no professional authority to speak about the present? Or is that just something you decided? After all, you appear to have professional authority to say whatever you want about law, politics, morality, etc.--despite merely having a PhD in English literature.
You seem to not respect--and not understand, really--the profession of history. You say that it's our job to teach students about historical and archival methods. Yes, that's partly true. But that seems to entirely ignore the fact that (most of us, anyway) are also scholars who have spent years analyzing and interpreting social, cultural, political, economic, intellectual, scientific, and artistic movements in human culture. I'd say that's a bit more than just "read[ing] certain books." It gives us a pretty good basis--not infallible, but good--for analyzing current affairs. The past also gives us some insight into the present: we've long ago recognized the fallacy of Whiggism, but the present is still causally connected to the past, and we tend to remember things that the rest of society has moved on from.
Other commenters have already pointed out your specious reasoning in asserting that a group of historians who speak, as historians, are claiming the mantle of all historians. That's just silly. But I will note that, as you've often demonstrated in your columns, you're quick to condemn in others what you practice yourself. That's arrogant.
You seem to not respect--and not understand, really--the profession of history. You say that it's our job to teach students about historical and archival methods. Yes, that's partly true. But that seems to entirely ignore the fact that (most of us, anyway) are also scholars who have spent years analyzing and interpreting social, cultural, political, economic, intellectual, scientific, and artistic movements in human culture. I'd say that's a bit more than just "read[ing] certain books." It gives us a pretty good basis--not infallible, but good--for analyzing current affairs. The past also gives us some insight into the present: we've long ago recognized the fallacy of Whiggism, but the present is still causally connected to the past, and we tend to remember things that the rest of society has moved on from.
Other commenters have already pointed out your specious reasoning in asserting that a group of historians who speak, as historians, are claiming the mantle of all historians. That's just silly. But I will note that, as you've often demonstrated in your columns, you're quick to condemn in others what you practice yourself. That's arrogant.
18
How would you feel about a group of economists speaking out as economists on economic policy that was part of a political debate? Or a group of evolutionary biologists on creationism in a political debate, such as whether or not to teach it in public schools?
5
“it couldn’t possibly be true unless it were the case that no credentialed historian is a Trump supporter; even one or two (and I bet there are a lot more than that) would spoil the broth.”
This argument has worked pretty well for the climate-change deniers. You sure you want to go there?
This argument has worked pretty well for the climate-change deniers. You sure you want to go there?
5
Thank you, Stanley Fish, for being an intellectual who deconstructs every opinion but your own. I think that historians, like all other people, can and should express their views on current events. Historians do have insights that can speak to the present political moment. And historians are not always the voice of the victors and the powerful. That is just a cheap shot.
7
Sorry, Professor, but your argument seems like a fly buzzing around over a pie it rejects, circular and at the same time pointless.
Denying any judgment of the validity of their argument, you reject it, because it's theirs. They have an opinion, and therefore, it's invalid. If I hear you correctly, we should reject what they say because they claim to know what they are talking about.
Neat trick; ad hominem and counterfactual. That's laughable, but highly conservative.
Denying any judgment of the validity of their argument, you reject it, because it's theirs. They have an opinion, and therefore, it's invalid. If I hear you correctly, we should reject what they say because they claim to know what they are talking about.
Neat trick; ad hominem and counterfactual. That's laughable, but highly conservative.
6
I am surpised and disappointed to see Mr. Fish dismiss actual knowledge of history as irrelevant to the discussion of who may be the best, or at least the less dangerous candidate. Does he think that the context of history has no proper place in this discussion? Or does he think that these historians are unqualified to express their opinions?
7
Interesting piece. I'm curious if you would say the same thing about the Union of Concerned Scientists and its work regarding the dangers posed by nuclear weapons, surely a political matter.
10
As Mary Scott wrote in a comment on the Times' editorial "Donald Trump and Mike Pence: The Political Reality Show" published July 15, 2016:
"If the press was actually doing its job, every article about Trump would end with a demand to see his tax returns and a call for him to admit that his promise to his supporters to self-fund his presidential campaign so he owed nothing to special interests was one more lie among the hundreds he's told in the past year."
Article after article, op Ed after op Ed, in the Times about Trump and no mention of his refusal to disclose his tax returns.
The silence is deafening.
"If the press was actually doing its job, every article about Trump would end with a demand to see his tax returns and a call for him to admit that his promise to his supporters to self-fund his presidential campaign so he owed nothing to special interests was one more lie among the hundreds he's told in the past year."
Article after article, op Ed after op Ed, in the Times about Trump and no mention of his refusal to disclose his tax returns.
The silence is deafening.
7
Fish is using his own credentials to validate the very argument that people shouldn't use their credentials to make public statements in areas outside of their expertise. He couldn't have done a better job of exposing himself as self-contradictory and hypocritical. Furthermore, Fish has no degree in law, yet passes himself off as a law professor, trading on his work in literary studies. If that isn't exactly what he's denouncing here, I don't know what is.
11
Whether historians have a special handle on wisdom is a point I can't resolve, having trained as a historian. But this moment of national danger requires all of us, whether historians, clergy, judges, or any others, to proclaim their views of the perils promised by a Trump regime. Maybe NYTimes is not the best forum to do so, since its editorials have been full-throated in their recognition that Trump is not a suitable person for national leadership. Maybe historians should post their views in the Daily News or the Post Dispatch or, more likely, Twitter and Facebook.
Another commenter referred to this moment as resembling Weimar in 1932. That may be a reference that does not connect to those who didn't take modern history. Perhaps the historians should post their lessons about that moment on Twitter and Facebook as well.
Another commenter referred to this moment as resembling Weimar in 1932. That may be a reference that does not connect to those who didn't take modern history. Perhaps the historians should post their lessons about that moment on Twitter and Facebook as well.
8
Mr. Fish you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Of the dozens of people I've spoken with about Trump's candidacy few, if any, have knowledge of Western Civilization and no one has studied; e.g., Hitler's rise to power; i.e., not his early beer hall years, the racial laws, Holocaust, etc., but his political creep up the ladder from 1927 to 1933. For those who have studied such, qualified by degrees and stature, their opinion IS better than the average one (and certainly better than yours). "Academic expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom"? You'd have me put faith in a contemporary journalist? Come to think of it, who's wisdom should we value? Possibly the cretins at the gym who declare they know an American when they see one; e.g., white, Christian, heterosexual and angry.
10
What better qualifications than do these historians have which entitle Fish to opine regularly in the Times in general and here about these particular group of historians?
Why does the fact they expressed their opinions as a group nullify the value of what they have to say?
I would guess that sometime in the past, a historian or, perhaps, a group of historians stepped on Fish's ego and bruised it considerably.
Why does the fact they expressed their opinions as a group nullify the value of what they have to say?
I would guess that sometime in the past, a historian or, perhaps, a group of historians stepped on Fish's ego and bruised it considerably.
4
Not sure what the real point of his column is. Comparing academics to Ruth Bader Ginsberg doesn't hold up. She's a member of one of the three branches of government. Historians are just ordinary citizens, who happen to be well-informed students of the past.
5
Seems that what we have here is simply another disagreement between a bunch of academics (in this case Fish v Historians), nothing more.
2
Donald Trump is a dangerous demagogue and a very real threat to American democracy (what's left of it); I don't have any qualifications at all, and I don't think that is just one view among many.
8
Stanley Fish says straight-forwardly that historians should stay out of politics because their competence lies elsewhere. Yet, he, a literary critic and "professor of law" (a title he has not earned as he's never earned a law degree, by the way) has entered the fray of politics with this declaration, although his competence (whatever might be) lies elsewhere too. He wouldn't be published in the New York Times were he not the professor, Stanley Fish. He's trading on his credentials in one field to speak in another, exactly what he's calling out the historians for doing. Likewise, his article is self-contradictory and hypocritical. Nice try, Professor Fish. Maybe go back to close reading of the text?
13
If a group of professors of biology wrote a collective letter asserting that certain politicians' views about the reality of evolution were incorrect, inflammatory and divisive, would you also denigrate them, because they are just professors, and not political experts? Isn't the whole point of being an expert, with degrees, that you have been trained in certain areas of knowledge, and are more likely to have accurate insights and understanding of those areas? Doesn't history matter in understanding our future?
11
Not a winning argument, Professor Fish.
Are you against "professors" opining about politics or "historians"? If "professors"—and that seems to be your emphasis—well, I might agree there has been too much opining about the mind of Trump from professors of psychology. But if commenting on modern day governing and politics is out of bounds for historians, what on earth are historians for? Winston Churchill drew on his credentials as a historian when he first warned and later inspired the British people against the threat of Nazism. Echoing George Santayana's famous warning that those forget the past are doomed to relive it, Churchill said that the loss of the past would mean “the most thoughtless of ages. Every day, headlines and short views.” (House of Commons, 16 November 1948). That certainly feels like 2016 and the rise of a demagogue whose genius is in whipping to a fevered pitch the anger and frustration of the deluded masses (but who has no interest in helping anyone but himself)—if ever we needed the reminder of history, and historians, it is now.
Are you against "professors" opining about politics or "historians"? If "professors"—and that seems to be your emphasis—well, I might agree there has been too much opining about the mind of Trump from professors of psychology. But if commenting on modern day governing and politics is out of bounds for historians, what on earth are historians for? Winston Churchill drew on his credentials as a historian when he first warned and later inspired the British people against the threat of Nazism. Echoing George Santayana's famous warning that those forget the past are doomed to relive it, Churchill said that the loss of the past would mean “the most thoughtless of ages. Every day, headlines and short views.” (House of Commons, 16 November 1948). That certainly feels like 2016 and the rise of a demagogue whose genius is in whipping to a fevered pitch the anger and frustration of the deluded masses (but who has no interest in helping anyone but himself)—if ever we needed the reminder of history, and historians, it is now.
9
If anything, Dr. Fish establishes for all to see how historians understand how to do history and what it is for, skills and knowledge that lawyers typically lack. Check out any law review or law journal where a lawyer purports to do and use history and be ready for a surprise. You'll find what informed lawyers refer to as "law office history," or as Sanford Levinson has put it, where "each side engages in shamelessly (and shamefully) selective readings of the historical record in order to support what one strongly suspects are predetermined positions."
3
Apparently, Stanley Fish is the only professor who should have an opinion and express it in public.
17
In the absence of town cryers, we should all use whatever platforms we have to warn of approaching danger.
11
Students of WWI and WWII have their eyes wide open. To do nothing is to be complicit. We should all be doing all that we can. In personal and professional capacities.
9
Professor Fish is just wrong about this. In fact, if historians or other academics believe that Mr. Trump poses an extraordinary threat to our democracy, I think it is their duty to say so and to justify their claims.
8
How dare these "professors" give their professional opinion about history and how history keeps on coming back. So what if they have read every book on the subject, reflected deeply on important issues, and have devoted their careers to studying how past societies have made bad decisions. I value the opinion of the average guy on the street. I want to hear from the common man! Give me the wisdom of the guy who has learned from years of watching real-life TV! So what if he doesn't know the difference between fascism and fashion--both words begin with "F" and so does Freedom, Family, and Fox-News! Don't clutter my minds with analysis! I was born an expert!
14
This article is part of a disturbing trend in which some writers contest other writers not on the information they present, but on their "right to speak it." Members of the most educated professions are being told, "You cannot speak as a historian" or "You cannot speak as a jurist" or "Historians have no rights to opine about politics" or "Judges should never reveal political opinions" or "Teachers should only teach their paid students."
This "attack the right to speak as a professional" seems to me a bit too close to simply attacking free speech rights. If one disagrees with another's assertions -- argue against those assertions. Simply saying, "my opponent has no right to a publicly expressed opinion on this subject" and "my opponent must shut up based on his/her job" is a weak argument.
This "attack the right to speak as a professional" seems to me a bit too close to simply attacking free speech rights. If one disagrees with another's assertions -- argue against those assertions. Simply saying, "my opponent has no right to a publicly expressed opinion on this subject" and "my opponent must shut up based on his/her job" is a weak argument.
7
Oh, baloney. Historians are uniquely qualified to "opine" (your word: how pretentious!) about history, and we can and should pay a certain amount of extra attention to their opinions, as a group and as individuals, just like we give more credibility to, say, a combat-tested general with an opinion about terrorism, or Serena Williams about a one-handed backhand. Historians, if they are any good, are adept at spotting cause-and-effect behaviors and demonstrating how 1 + 1 + 1 - 1 brings you to 2. So if a group of historians inserts itself into the conversation about the dangers of a Trump presidency, then I'm going to be interested in what is said; I feel that the group will have insight that I want to hear. Just because historical examples illustrating of the dangers of a Trump presidency are so manifestly obvious to anyone with a brain—starting with Supreme Court nominees—doesn't make the opinion of a historian one whit less valuable. And I'd be more "with" you about Justice Ginsburg if Republicans had at least given the president's nominee a fair shake. So, so what if she got a teeny bit frustrated and aired her views. What? Are you saying that her opinion, given the fact that, like the "Historians Against Trump," she has expertise in her field, doesn't count? Do you bristle when someone with any authority dares to speak his or her, or, collectively, their mind? Heck, I'm just an amateur historian and even I can see that Trump victory heralds the end of America.
5
I totally disagree with this column, which is pure anti-intellectualism. Those with PhD's in "subject X" might indeed have something of value to say about subject X. An informed non-scientist might well ask "what do climatologists think about global warming?", or "what do biologists think about genetically-modified crops?", or "what do physicists think about nuclear power?" as a way to get an informed viewpoint for consideration. It makes great sense for historians to provide their informed perspective on current events for the rest of us to consider.
8
The more pertinent observation is this: imagine how agitated a group of historians must be to be sufficiently moved to publish such a letter with it's extremely serious concerns. Canary in the mine anyone ?
5
Wow, 500 signatories ! ?
Academic so-called expertise may not be a qualification for delivering political wisdom, but they've read more history than I, so let's hear them out, then let us reflect and form our own perspectives.
Academic so-called expertise may not be a qualification for delivering political wisdom, but they've read more history than I, so let's hear them out, then let us reflect and form our own perspectives.
4
What's REALLY outrageous is that the American working class summoned up the unity and energy to make their own choice for the Republican Party nominee for President, instead of letting the elite power structure trained by all those historians do the job for them ---yet again.
Another outrage is that the working class communicated in language of their own choosing --- as decided by Donald Trump. Trump decided to make comments elites consider rude about Mexicans, Muslims and so on.
Of course, academic elites are on the leading edge of demanding freedom of expression, as long as they and their colleagues are the ones doing the expressing. If someone chooses to address issues of interest to the working class, in language that attracts the attention of the working class, but which academics don't like, then of course that communication is WRONG!
You guys are hopelessly taken with yourselves.
Perhaps you should study the history of the election of Andrew Jackson as President of the United States for a similar break between elites and the common man.
Another outrage is that the working class communicated in language of their own choosing --- as decided by Donald Trump. Trump decided to make comments elites consider rude about Mexicans, Muslims and so on.
Of course, academic elites are on the leading edge of demanding freedom of expression, as long as they and their colleagues are the ones doing the expressing. If someone chooses to address issues of interest to the working class, in language that attracts the attention of the working class, but which academics don't like, then of course that communication is WRONG!
You guys are hopelessly taken with yourselves.
Perhaps you should study the history of the election of Andrew Jackson as President of the United States for a similar break between elites and the common man.
2
Fish wrote: "Or in other words: We’re historians and you’re not, and “historians understand the impact these phenomena have upon society’s most vulnerable.” Therefore we can’t keep silent, for “the lessons of history compel us to speak out against Trump.”
Sounds reasonable to me. They state their background and then state their argument. I take into account their background, assess their argument, and reach my conclusion.
Sounds reasonable to me. They state their background and then state their argument. I take into account their background, assess their argument, and reach my conclusion.
10
Intellectual dishonesty needs to be challenged whenever it rears it's adorable head. If the "effete snobs" of academia serve any purpose, other than paying back student loans and occupying Ivory Towers, it's by putting on airs and annoying the bejesus out of the rest of us average joes. Anyway, smart people should know better than to have opinions. Opinions belong to the illiterate, as the polls seem to prove.
6
Love the blatant generalization in the first line. Yes, professors every where are doggedly telling the world, via their websites, their blogs, their emails, their vlogs, their twitter and facebook pages, that alert: Trump must be stopped. Let me put down my laptop where I have 40 papers to grade this weekend, let me ignore my lecture work, which needs fine tuning by Monday morning (I teach summer classes), put away the book orders, and don't answer any emails or do any other professorial work, for I, along with all my other colleagues around the country, must stop Trump.
Mr. Fish, often I disagree with you, for you do sit in your ivory tower and pontificate a bit too often, and seems to be you are doing exactly what you are complaining about in this essay, professor.
Mr. Fish, often I disagree with you, for you do sit in your ivory tower and pontificate a bit too often, and seems to be you are doing exactly what you are complaining about in this essay, professor.
4
Some things are so objectionable that they should not be tolerated. At such times intellectual honesty is better than faux objectivity. I think this is one of those times.
7
What a streak of anti-intellectualism we have in America. So, let me get this straight. Some law professor gets upset that a group of history professors has spoken out publicly against somebody they disagree with. So the law professor then speaks out publicly against the people he disagrees with.
12
Dr. Fish, in my opinion (is it ok for a PhD in engineering to make an opinion?), you're off base. As a member of the polis (which is all of us) we, if informed, are obliged to make political opinions known. It matters not whether we are historians, engineers, doctors, etc, we are people first and as citizens of our wobbling democracy we must be responsible.
4
Possesion of an advanced degree may not correlate with virtue; but it does equate with intelligence.
8
Thoughtful and well-reasoned column. Understand where they (historians) are coming from, but they do a disservice to the democratic-republic, i.e., the 'people' with these heavy-handed lectures. Would they prefer a society in which only those with an I.Q. of plus 140 could vote?
Et tu, Brute?
Studying for the bar and note the number of references to Trump in my Kaplan BarBri prep material. I've never understood why he has loomed so large for so long in the American consciousness. Only that source of cognitive dissonance his candidacy resolves for me.
Studying for the bar and note the number of references to Trump in my Kaplan BarBri prep material. I've never understood why he has loomed so large for so long in the American consciousness. Only that source of cognitive dissonance his candidacy resolves for me.
I respectfully disagree with Stanley Fish. Brecht wrote in his classic poem "To Posterity": "What kind of an age is this when it is almost a crime to speak about trees, because it is a kind of silence about injustice". When demagogues are at the gates and threaten the foundations of civil behavior - eschewing truth, and supporting torture - none of us should be guilty of not having spoken out against it, should the worst transpire. Both Trump and all his hypocritical supporters are playing with fire, and our values, our children's future, and the welfare of the weakest among us are at stake. Let every professor share their view, their expertise, their powers of persuasion. This no time to be muzzled by a misguided op-ed writer in the New York Times. We're better than that.
83
A bizarre column, which ignores (a) a long tradition in this and other western countries (and many non-western ones, too) of academic commentary on current events, and (b) Prof. Fish's own long-running participation in that very tradition. Again, bizarre. (And the column's last sentence is astoundingly pompous: by speaking out as historians, these historians have given up their claim to their credentials? What an odd claim.)
11
Smart, educated, thoughtful people are not everybody’s cup of tea. We must give equal time to dullards and recognize the inherent appeal of ignorance and prejudice.
4
I am so tired of hearing from politicians and lawyers trying to get book deals. We should always consider the thoughts of professionals who study history. If only Germans had in the 1930s.
7
So, let me see if I've got this right. A group of academics came out against a narcissistic, ignorant, and racist bully and this gentleman has a problem with that. FIU is a marginal university at best facing large financial problems and whose faculty is at about the same level as Trump in its critical thinking capabilities. This same university has been placed on probation numerous times by the NCAA. This is the same professor who championed Kim Davis' "right" to refuse to follow the law and grant marriage licenses.
8
Watching a New Zealand detective show whose gumshoe loves country music made me wonder what had become of Stanley Fish. Welcome back. I agree that opinions disguised as encyclicals should be taken with a grain of salt. It's also true, however, that when people wonder how to account for the liberal "bias" among academics they might consider that those opinions are most often got not only through instinct, like everyone's, but learning and reflection.
I suspect that this column is really about academia rather than the sure-to-be-ignored letter from Historians Against Trump. In a country that doesn't even pay attention to scientists' countless warnings on climate change, the historians' letter will attract about as much attention as sunglasses at the beach.
I suspect that this column is really about academia rather than the sure-to-be-ignored letter from Historians Against Trump. In a country that doesn't even pay attention to scientists' countless warnings on climate change, the historians' letter will attract about as much attention as sunglasses at the beach.
1
As an historian, I have a professional obligation to question the value of the sentiments of a lawyer writing a newspaper op-ed. It is important to understand that the opinion of a guy on the internet is quite possibly, nil. A guy on the internet, arguing against some other guys on the internet is amusing but not particularly illuminating.
4
Professors should not stop opining about Trump. We are continually bombarded with opinions of the much less qualified. When put through a triage process Dr Fish's intense dislike for this perceived hubris takes a back seat to the danger of these historians not offering the benefit of their expertise.
5
Stanley Fish has a point. However, the opinion-ators on Donald Trump also have a right to say especially when collectively with deliberation say it. Often they tend to be liberals. But many right-wingers also have concluded that Trump is not appropriate for the country, as he is either not conservative enough (I disagree here) or too dangerous. I do have as another opinion-ator do not disagree that he is not quite appropriate for the job. I had the same feeling in 2000 against George W Bush, which turned about to quite accurate.
I am a liberal Democrat. But I wouldn't have minded that much if Mitt Romney hadn't picked Paul Ryan, whom I detest, may be less that so of Ted Cruz, because of his Ayn Randian mentality.
I happen to be a psychiatrist. My opinion, or diagnosis is, Trump is HYPOMANIC. He is unlikely to recognize that. He may make irrational, grandiose, impulsive decisions. Nevertheless he's not at all an evil man. His heart, for a business man is pure enough. He has good intensions. He's not a racist or sexist. He's too sure of himself, which's dangerous.
In spite of all, I preferred Trump to all other 16. His VP pick is okay. Mr. Pence is a radical right-winger but quite weak, unlike Paul Ryan.
I wish and hope Hillary Clinton would pick Bernie Sanders, which gives her and the country, as of now the best chance to beat Trump.
I am a liberal Democrat. But I wouldn't have minded that much if Mitt Romney hadn't picked Paul Ryan, whom I detest, may be less that so of Ted Cruz, because of his Ayn Randian mentality.
I happen to be a psychiatrist. My opinion, or diagnosis is, Trump is HYPOMANIC. He is unlikely to recognize that. He may make irrational, grandiose, impulsive decisions. Nevertheless he's not at all an evil man. His heart, for a business man is pure enough. He has good intensions. He's not a racist or sexist. He's too sure of himself, which's dangerous.
In spite of all, I preferred Trump to all other 16. His VP pick is okay. Mr. Pence is a radical right-winger but quite weak, unlike Paul Ryan.
I wish and hope Hillary Clinton would pick Bernie Sanders, which gives her and the country, as of now the best chance to beat Trump.
Dean Fish's reflexive response to his fellow academics warnings about Trump continues his "wiser than thou" habit. Trump has had predecessors who hoodwinked electorates that granted them power which they then abused. Historians understand the iconditions that allowed this to happen. For Fish to argue this expertise is irrelevant exposes, yet again, his contempt for his fellow academics.
5
One of the purposes of academicians, grades per-kindergarten through postdoctoral studies is to teach the students to think and to challenge current thinking, ideas or theories.
In a fascist country, ala Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, teachers, especially professors and free thinkers are summarily executed for the very above reasons.
In a fascist country, ala Saudi Arabia, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, teachers, especially professors and free thinkers are summarily executed for the very above reasons.
4
I remember reading Prof. Fish's literary criticism with some interest in the 1980s. Now he uses his authority as a Prof. of Law (at two institutions) to argue against the authority of any but the most isolated academics. He criticizes the historians against Trump for a lack of evidence in their arguments. Where is his compelling evidence in this essay? It's a screed, not a "winning argument."
5
Prof. Fish is right. To all the commentators here who disagree, even though I am certain they consider themselves thinkers, they should reflect upon their reaction if a similar letter had been written by another group of academic historians in which Ms. Clinton was claimed to be catastrophic for the nation.
Hmmm. Methinks someone has something against History professors. In their letter, they've stated, "The lessons of history compel us to speak out against a movement rooted in fear and authoritarianism." And why not? I for one am interested in their promised forthcoming papers putting this candidacy in historical perspective. Professor Fish's arguments against their right to speak out are not persuasive.
5
That Stanley Fish (and a host of supposedly intelligent Americans) cannot recognize a con artist demagogue (who often appeals to dark human emotions) when a classic one is presented to them is truly depressing..Plato warned of the mass man who falls hard for a tyrant who promises them everything.
4
So, well informed, highly educated people, who not only study the techniques of developing historical perspectives, but apply them to specific time and events in our past, should keep their expertise to themselves and let a lying, self-aggrandizing, scare mongeting fool share his own view of reality so the less will informed can make up their own mind? no wonder you are a law professor at FIU.
9
Does anyone really care what history professors think, other than other history professors? They get their sense of importance by browbeating students, who can't openly disagree with their version of history. That mismatch reinforces their self-righteousness. As the saying goes: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
Sometimes countries are lucky in their leaders and sometimes they are not.
We were lucky to have Lincoln and Roosevelt at times when we really needed a good leader.
We were unlucky with Bush Jr and others, but with Bush it was bad because we really needed a good leader at that time.
It's pretty clear already that Trump would be a bad leader.
I wish Biden had run and that General Powell had not been a wall-flower.
We were lucky to have Lincoln and Roosevelt at times when we really needed a good leader.
We were unlucky with Bush Jr and others, but with Bush it was bad because we really needed a good leader at that time.
It's pretty clear already that Trump would be a bad leader.
I wish Biden had run and that General Powell had not been a wall-flower.
1
Smug and derisive pieces like this, commentaries that mock (academically affiliated) researchers for expressing their thoughts on the very phenomena they study, are a compelling argument for all those in Europe and beyond who accuse Americans as having an anti-intellectual and crude society. Deeply disappointed to see this in the NY Times - what, ironically, seemed to be America's singular bastion of insightful, research-based publishing.
9
Stanley Fish, who is not a historian, knows the "limits" of academic historians' jobs better than they do. I wonder what he would think were someone from another discipline to march into his department and tell law professors what their proper jobs are and what the limits of their authority and speech ought to be. Apparently, according to Mr. Fish, no academic ought to speak out beyond the confines of the classroom. Ought these same historians recuse themselves from publishing books in which they consider the current election as well?
His piece is full of rhetorical half-truths and manipulations. When professors speak out, they are, he claims, offering "political wisdom." No; they are offering professional judgment based on their extensive reading, research, and observation. When Ginsburg spoke out, she was speaking "off the cuff." It's hard to imagine such a profoundly thoughtful person speaking as she did without having given it quite a lot of thought beforehand. And though she did not cite her office or background, everybody knows what that is, whereas the general public is not likely to have name recognition of academic historians.
In Fish's opinion apparently any negative judgments about Trump are necessarily signs of bias and heated partisanship.
His piece is full of rhetorical half-truths and manipulations. When professors speak out, they are, he claims, offering "political wisdom." No; they are offering professional judgment based on their extensive reading, research, and observation. When Ginsburg spoke out, she was speaking "off the cuff." It's hard to imagine such a profoundly thoughtful person speaking as she did without having given it quite a lot of thought beforehand. And though she did not cite her office or background, everybody knows what that is, whereas the general public is not likely to have name recognition of academic historians.
In Fish's opinion apparently any negative judgments about Trump are necessarily signs of bias and heated partisanship.
8
Excellent analysis. It's why when I hear that it is fact that all Trumps supporters are racist xenophobes I feel the argument is disingenuous. I mean, if that's your opinion, that's great, but it's presented as solid fact.
Sure, some of Trumps supporters are racist xenophobes. Some Clinton supporters are war mongering neo imperialists. The truth is something less sensational and moderate when you take in the aggregate.
Sure, some of Trumps supporters are racist xenophobes. Some Clinton supporters are war mongering neo imperialists. The truth is something less sensational and moderate when you take in the aggregate.
2
Let me get this straight: having an advanced degree disqualifies someone from expressing a political opinion? Unless, of course, that someone is English Professor Stanley Fish. When it comes to objectivity, of at least insight into a higher truth, English professors are truly a special case.
7
I am 72 years old. I have never before experienced a presidential candidate who, in my opinion, is as dangerous to our country as Donald Trump. I will do whatever I can, including writing this comment, to help elect his opponent.
Although I am not a mind reader, I'm guessing that the historians and Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke out for the same reason.
Although I am not a mind reader, I'm guessing that the historians and Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke out for the same reason.
12
I am so confused.
Are we to conclude that professors of law possess the wisdom to decide that mere "academic expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom?"
By what circular reasoning?
Are we to conclude that professors of law possess the wisdom to decide that mere "academic expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom?"
By what circular reasoning?
3
"...so commonplace for professors (not all but many) to regularly equate the possession of an advanced degree with virtue."
Were it not for Nice and Turkey, this is the quote of the day -- except that it's "...so commonplace for professors (not all but many) to regularly equate the importance of an advanced degree" with their own importance.
Were it not for Nice and Turkey, this is the quote of the day -- except that it's "...so commonplace for professors (not all but many) to regularly equate the importance of an advanced degree" with their own importance.
So let me be sure I understand Mr. Fish's point --- people should not get together in groups with similar professional credentials and voice their opinions about current matters from their vantage point. So how do you feel about the AMA Mr. Fish? Does it seem wrong to you that a bunch of doctors should get together and make public comments on a wide range of medical and medical/social issues invoking the ethos lent by their professional credentials? Should they just sit their, dispense bandages, clean gunshot wounds, and send people into trauma surgery or to the morgue, all the while keeping their mouths shut lest they overstep their boundaries? This is just one example of a professional organization that has recently stepped forward on an important social topic.
These historians have not overstepped the boundaries of their profession. They've used the skills of their profession to come to a conclusion about a matter of public concern and they are warning about this. Note: they are NOT endorsing anybody. They are simply warning based on their expertise in sifting through materials and examining evidence of numerous bully demagogues throughout history. Do you have a problem with their alluding to the obvious: if we don't look carefully at history, we are bound to repeat it?
These historians have not overstepped the boundaries of their profession. They've used the skills of their profession to come to a conclusion about a matter of public concern and they are warning about this. Note: they are NOT endorsing anybody. They are simply warning based on their expertise in sifting through materials and examining evidence of numerous bully demagogues throughout history. Do you have a problem with their alluding to the obvious: if we don't look carefully at history, we are bound to repeat it?
5
As a person of average intelligence that was privileged to receive a liberal arts education including history and philosophy, I was happy to read your article on the limits of theoretical thought. I'm not sure if this is absolutely right 100% of the time, but the idea that life precedes analysis has stood me in good stead for a long time.
I am not a history prof. But I can read about a person's behavior and make an estimate of his mental stability. Everyone can and everyone should.
Trump has no stability. He is unfit for the office of President of the USA. He should run for the office of dogcatcher of Podunkville, but even that may be too much. As to being a "successful businessman", that may be possible, but what does that have to do with being a politician?
Trump has no stability. He is unfit for the office of President of the USA. He should run for the office of dogcatcher of Podunkville, but even that may be too much. As to being a "successful businessman", that may be possible, but what does that have to do with being a politician?
3
Stanley Fish must live in the academic world 24/7. I am a historian and this is the first I've even heard of this letter and group. As a historian, I went straight to the "primary source" after reading Mr. Fish's interpretation of it (aka a "secondary source"). I would not have signed it myself, but he willfully misrepresents the letter (considering he's an old, "pomo" English prof., I'm not surprised. His sort waged a highly successful war against notions of "scientific reason," and "objectivity" throughout the 90s). These historians simply place Trump in the long history of American populism, demagoguery, and scapegoating of immigrants and minorities. That is not a well-known history outside of the academy, and they express concern about the ways he fits into that history. These historians also claim to speak from multiple political viewpoints and close with a celebration of the old "Grand Old Party that was born out of the struggle for abolition and justice." Many years ago the American Historical Association spoke out against Holocaust deniers, relying on the profession's expertise in gathering evidence to claim that, yes, Jews were systematically massacred across Nazi-occupied Europe. This is "fact," not "text." Donald Trump's entire campaign is historically oriented: "Let's Make America Great Again." Who else but historians, who spend most of their working day studying history, are in a position to assess the historical validity of that claim?
7
I was surprised to find such an anti-intellectual argument in the Times. If, as Mr. Fish suggests, the "reading of certain books" and a professional proficiency in handling archival materials, etc." yields no wisdom that may be of use to society, then it is hard to see how history would be of any value or worthy of public funding. If it does yield some kind of wisdom or vicarious experience, then these professors should be thanked for sharing that with the general public.
8
While I don't claim to be a "historian", I have taught History to 7th-graders for fifteen years, and I would urge people not to vote for Trump because of his history as a businessman.
He's always dealt with his own good in mind, never the good of others. He has frequently stiffed vendors who are small business people, and has declared bankruptcy on four separate occasions. He is thrice married and has publicly discussed his sexual habits with Howard Stern. While I don't care about that, it makes his support by evangelicals and social conservatives nakedly hypocritical.
He is a failure as a businessman. It has been shown over and over again that if he had simply put his inheritance into a blind trust, he would have substantially more money than he does from all his wheeling and dealing.
Last, he has been a parasite feeding off of the financial misfortune of other Americans. He wanted the housing bubble to collapse in 2008 so he could buy properties on the cheap from Americans who had just lost everything.
Why would I vote for such a pathetic, money-grubbing failure?
He's always dealt with his own good in mind, never the good of others. He has frequently stiffed vendors who are small business people, and has declared bankruptcy on four separate occasions. He is thrice married and has publicly discussed his sexual habits with Howard Stern. While I don't care about that, it makes his support by evangelicals and social conservatives nakedly hypocritical.
He is a failure as a businessman. It has been shown over and over again that if he had simply put his inheritance into a blind trust, he would have substantially more money than he does from all his wheeling and dealing.
Last, he has been a parasite feeding off of the financial misfortune of other Americans. He wanted the housing bubble to collapse in 2008 so he could buy properties on the cheap from Americans who had just lost everything.
Why would I vote for such a pathetic, money-grubbing failure?
8
Again, we have the tired, classical liberal view of the historian as the disinterested academic with no opinions, who just shows students how to distinguish between good and bad sources.
Here's a question for Dr. Fish: if the person about to be appointed Surgeon General believed in eugenics, and a similar group of health practitioners spoke out against that appointment, would Dr. Fish urge everyone in the medical profession to keep quiet about it, since medical expertise is "not a qualification for delivering political wisdom"? I wonder.
Here's a question for Dr. Fish: if the person about to be appointed Surgeon General believed in eugenics, and a similar group of health practitioners spoke out against that appointment, would Dr. Fish urge everyone in the medical profession to keep quiet about it, since medical expertise is "not a qualification for delivering political wisdom"? I wonder.
8
Dead wrong. It is the duty of the scholars of history to inform us of our previous errors so we do not repeat mistakes going forward. You do not need to be a political guru to realize that Trump is one of a long line of demagogues who have wreaked havoc once elected into powerful positions.
We could learn a lot if we began to pay closer attention to academics.
We could learn a lot if we began to pay closer attention to academics.
8
Never underestimate the arrogance of the American academic elite.
I don't think these professors realize that one of the things that Trump supporters rebel against is members of the elite talking down to them. Their letter is worth thousands of votes to Trump. I haven't read it; I don't intend to; we've all heard the tone before. He'll probably put read excerpts at his rallies to stir up the crowd.
If the Democratic party ever begins to understand why it is so corrosive for them to be the party of the liberal elite, they might actually start winning some majorities in this country, and save us from Trump.
I don't think these professors realize that one of the things that Trump supporters rebel against is members of the elite talking down to them. Their letter is worth thousands of votes to Trump. I haven't read it; I don't intend to; we've all heard the tone before. He'll probably put read excerpts at his rallies to stir up the crowd.
If the Democratic party ever begins to understand why it is so corrosive for them to be the party of the liberal elite, they might actually start winning some majorities in this country, and save us from Trump.
Yeah, except we have free speech so they are free to opine. And the study of history does in fact give its practitioners more insight into the lessons of history, just like climate scientists know more about global warming than people in other professions, and biologists know more about evolution, and professional electricians would be better at assessing a wiring schematic for your house.
8
I might say "Professors, Stop Opining About Trump" myself, but for another reason. Most of us are still completely clueless about Trump's appeal, and I see article after earnest and well-written article warning us of the danger of Trump. the lies of Trump, the tawdriness of Trump.
The problem is that the writers and the audience are one on this already. The analytical diatribes about Trump are just more educated and thoughtful people writing to others of the same set. They are preaching to the choir.
But Trump's followers don't read the New York Times, they don't bother to read what historians think of Trump, and if they did they still wouldn't care. Donald Trump is a giant human middle finger being sent to elites seen as having presided over the death of an old America, a lost way of life, millions of lost jobs, and for many, no future.
So, rather than inappropriate, I see these academic forays into political commentary as futile and sad.
The problem is that the writers and the audience are one on this already. The analytical diatribes about Trump are just more educated and thoughtful people writing to others of the same set. They are preaching to the choir.
But Trump's followers don't read the New York Times, they don't bother to read what historians think of Trump, and if they did they still wouldn't care. Donald Trump is a giant human middle finger being sent to elites seen as having presided over the death of an old America, a lost way of life, millions of lost jobs, and for many, no future.
So, rather than inappropriate, I see these academic forays into political commentary as futile and sad.
2
Lots of people think Mr. Trump is unfit to be President , even Jeb Bush . There is some value in having historians be part of this group, because of their unique perspective on how people like Trump has acted in the past , and why this makes him unfit to be President. It might be helpful to hear from other groups too, with some sense of what they bring to understanding Mr. Trump's candidacy and its risks. We need to do everything to help us reason out our political decisions. In this arena anti-intellectual biases are a barrier to achieving this goal.
4
(a) I agree with Dr. Fish. Some self-selected agglomeration of academics in a highly contentious discipline doesn't have a lock on the truth; these folks just imagine they do. To say that History speaks or Criticism speaks or Philosophy speaks decisively to this matter or another is risible hubris to anyone who has been to more than one academic conference. These people can't even agree on the nature of "objective" reality (if there is one).
(b) I'm certainly not voting for Trump. I figured that out long ago without their help.
(b) I'm certainly not voting for Trump. I figured that out long ago without their help.
3
I'd rather listen to what historians have to say than Sarah Palin.
7
Don't hold your breath waiting for a group of historians to publicly support Mr. Trump. Go back 50 years and I can only think of Frank Trager at NYU as an apologist for the Nixon administration and supporter of the Vietnam War.
By the way it is easy to grasp Trump's popularity and his popularity always reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's warning to his fellow citizens. "We have given you a republic, if you can keep it." The comparisons of Trump to Mussolini are begging to be made and we live in a country where perhaps 25% of the voting public even knows anything about Fascist Italy. From his own ivory tower, Mr. Fish should carefully consider his words.
By the way it is easy to grasp Trump's popularity and his popularity always reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's warning to his fellow citizens. "We have given you a republic, if you can keep it." The comparisons of Trump to Mussolini are begging to be made and we live in a country where perhaps 25% of the voting public even knows anything about Fascist Italy. From his own ivory tower, Mr. Fish should carefully consider his words.
5
Maybe I'm missing the point here. Obviously the letter is their opinion and since they are historians they are more qualified to judge Mr. Trump through the lens of history.
For example, a friend asks me to look at a rash and since I went to medical school I am more qualified to suggest a diagnosis than say a CPA. The diagnosis of course will be my opinion but one based on years of training, how is the letter any different?
For example, a friend asks me to look at a rash and since I went to medical school I am more qualified to suggest a diagnosis than say a CPA. The diagnosis of course will be my opinion but one based on years of training, how is the letter any different?
92
Their authors wrote that they have a unique obligation, not unique abilities. They also discussed their methods and perspectives, which may have been meant to imply a unique wisdom, or which may have been merely an attempt to convince readers that they were writing only after careful analysis.
Mr Fish - could it be that you are the one overstepping here?
Mr Fish - could it be that you are the one overstepping here?
164
I would much rather take the opinions of learned professors than charlatan journalists. Astronomers and astrophysicists are also people who learn their disciplines a certain way by reading certain books. If we want to learn about the Galaxy, or navigation for that matter, we don't go to loudmouth charlatans, we go to them and so far they have been very successful in what they have told us. The GPS which guides our aplle and android devices are based on their calculations.
85
Uh, no.
I may not want them to "speak from the bench" of academia, but I certainly want to hear their opinions.
I want to hear from historians (talk to us about Lindbergh and Father Coughlin and Huey Long) from demographers (who are the Trump supporters and how can our leaders offer them a different better vision than Trump) and from our political scientists (who can describe this new political landscape).
Dr. Fish is making a fine distinction, but please don't muzzle academia in the name of correctness.
I may not want them to "speak from the bench" of academia, but I certainly want to hear their opinions.
I want to hear from historians (talk to us about Lindbergh and Father Coughlin and Huey Long) from demographers (who are the Trump supporters and how can our leaders offer them a different better vision than Trump) and from our political scientists (who can describe this new political landscape).
Dr. Fish is making a fine distinction, but please don't muzzle academia in the name of correctness.
19
Not "academics," Professor Fish, they are historians as in "those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." Historians do have an expertise that is of value in public life and it's appropriate that they share it. That said, I wish their statement had specified more exactly what they as historians know that they wish to remind the rest of us to learn. I recently heard an academic historian compare Trump to Andrew Jackson, the man they're taking off the twenty dollar bill. Here at least was a concrete observation.
11
Stanley Fish loves to be merely and polemically paradoxical. History professors are thoughtful citizens with lives spent thinking about the past and therefore eminently qualified to take a position on the present. Why not grant them that right? Why not allow that they are far more cogent and well-informed in their opinions of an ignoramus like Trump than others who are not, to put it mildly, ill-informed, enamored of the ignorant and mendacious statements of a Donald Trump?
32
Thank you Prof. Fish for writing this essay. I have taught at the university level for over twenty years. Occasionally community or civic groups ask me to come to an event and offer my *opinion* on political matters. I always politely decline. It is my job to offer *scholarly analyses* of the subject matter that comprises the fields of my research and scholarship. It is not my job to use my academic credentials to give support to a political issue or candidate.
7
Sorry, this commentary is quatsch. We might as well do away with professions. There's no value for people who dedicate their life and career to looking far deeper than most into the complex, interdependent sequence of historical events and their consequences. No, all history is accessible and well-known to anybody on the internet.
27
Groups of people form common backgrounds form together and write such communiques of support or dismissal in many elections in many political seasons.
Unlike the author, most of us are able to take them at face value for nothing more than that, learn from them or ignore them, or move on.
Professor Fish could simply do the same.
Unlike the author, most of us are able to take them at face value for nothing more than that, learn from them or ignore them, or move on.
Professor Fish could simply do the same.
18
Let's see, in the speech announcing his candidacy, Donald Trump said that things are so bad that GDP is negative. As an economics professor, am I not allowed to make fun of this (after all, the analog in physics would be "things are so bad that the earth is flat")?
59
I'm confused. So professors are not allowed to use their knowledge to form opinions and express them? They have no first amendment rights? They are held to a higher standard because they are professors? Presumably students are then incapable of critical thinking and debate as a result of a professor taking a stand? If I weren't reading this article online, then I'd rip it from the fold and use it as toilet paper.
36
If it were a letter signed by 16th Century English lit professors, I might roll my eyes; however, historians are precisely the academicians I am likely to take seriously when it comes to warnings rooted in historical precedent and the conditions that have (and may again) lead to totalitarianism and institutionalized xenophobia. Why so reactionary, Dr. Fish?
59
Very weak and shallow. Some historians collectively advise and attempt to persuade, with everyone else being free to be persuaded, or not, and Prof. Fish is dismayed and objects? And members of the profession of history should not be making political pronouncements of any kind? So, they should be just quiet technicians, silent and neutral? Why should free and democratic societies prefer the professions to be quite and apolitical, silent? When in the past such was the accepted or insisted on behaviour of professionals, were things better? Free societies need to silence these academics, these "seers or political gurus"? No. Much better that we read their arguments, and not just those of newspaper columnists, who, of course, are not seers or gurus -- whatever is meant by such ever so insightful labels -- and have maybe a thought or two along the way. There is no vice here, and Prof. Fish's remedy is neither needed nor beneficial.
37
I applauded RBG, but I understand the concerns about the appropriate constraints on the judiciary. However the warning presented by these learned historians is not merely within their "expertise
field of expertise, they would be remiss for stayingn silent in view of their beliefs. I"d love to hear the scholars who come tp praise Trump, especially at his political funeral.
field of expertise, they would be remiss for stayingn silent in view of their beliefs. I"d love to hear the scholars who come tp praise Trump, especially at his political funeral.
10
The constant conflation of Trump and Hitler is a cheap rhetorical tool designed, obviously, to tarnish the former. In that, it demonstrates far more about the speaker than about Trump. To spend energy denying the comparison on substantive grounds is to concede that raising the question is legitimate. It is not. Stop, breathe deeply and think.
If we had a nickel for every time the left has raised the bogeyman of fascism--it was a staple of the Johnson, Nixon and Reagan years--our coffers would be filled.
If we had a nickel for every time the left has raised the bogeyman of fascism--it was a staple of the Johnson, Nixon and Reagan years--our coffers would be filled.
10
Looks like Mr. Stanley wants to get into the show and to sell more books, only his and Trump's arguments are worth considering, thus historians are people that appear to know something and should not compromise that appearance and risk compromising their credentials.
If we do not learn from History, we are bound to repeat the same mistakes, and historians do have a social responsibility, and in situations like the Trump event, where the historical advance that we have made is at stake, then, they are oblige to do it.
To make it simple, I will believe Professor Stanley's good faith, if he trusts his savings and retirement into an investment in a Trump property fund.
If we do not learn from History, we are bound to repeat the same mistakes, and historians do have a social responsibility, and in situations like the Trump event, where the historical advance that we have made is at stake, then, they are oblige to do it.
To make it simple, I will believe Professor Stanley's good faith, if he trusts his savings and retirement into an investment in a Trump property fund.
14
Mr. Fish sounds like a lawyer, i.e.; able to take sides no matter what the issue. But he misses the point. The historians were expressing their concerns based on their knowledge of history. They've seen how things turned out with past "Trumps." So their credentials are indeed valuable for much more than mere academic exercises behind ivy walls. As they know all too well, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
66
Maybe the prospect of Trump has triggered some deep seated hysteria in Stanley Fish prompting this fussy little tantrum about the limits of the Dewey Decimal System. Yes, the professor is at it again browbeating the poseurs because he's uniquely qualified as a morally superior poseur and they're not.
Or in other words: the house is on fire but it's just a teachable moment so take notes but don't yell "fire!" unless you're Oliver Wendell Holmes in a crowded theater. Rome burns but keep fiddling. Academics have a good thing going as overpaid bookworms with tenure for life so let's not call needless attention to ourselves. It's beneath professionals with advanced degrees to indulge the vice of virtue. So don't rock the boat already.
After all who cares if opinion is informed or not when America can be great again? Or associate the Star of David with political corruption and money? Or demonize the victims of racism, poverty and crime as the cause of racism, poverty and crime?
Apparently not Fish who offers us his cool, temperate and disinterested analysis that all opinions are equal, whether proffered by Trump troglodyte Ann Coulter or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Vandals may be burning books and trashing the library but librarians should stick to sorting titles alphabetically and chiding firefighters to keep quiet and not disturb others.
Stanley's Fish tale: Don't rage against the dying of the light...go gentle into that goodnight.
Speak for yourself.
Or in other words: the house is on fire but it's just a teachable moment so take notes but don't yell "fire!" unless you're Oliver Wendell Holmes in a crowded theater. Rome burns but keep fiddling. Academics have a good thing going as overpaid bookworms with tenure for life so let's not call needless attention to ourselves. It's beneath professionals with advanced degrees to indulge the vice of virtue. So don't rock the boat already.
After all who cares if opinion is informed or not when America can be great again? Or associate the Star of David with political corruption and money? Or demonize the victims of racism, poverty and crime as the cause of racism, poverty and crime?
Apparently not Fish who offers us his cool, temperate and disinterested analysis that all opinions are equal, whether proffered by Trump troglodyte Ann Coulter or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Vandals may be burning books and trashing the library but librarians should stick to sorting titles alphabetically and chiding firefighters to keep quiet and not disturb others.
Stanley's Fish tale: Don't rage against the dying of the light...go gentle into that goodnight.
Speak for yourself.
114
It is perhaps too obvious to point out that anybody, credentialed or not, who expresses a prediction about politics (and especially about Trump) is expressing an opinion and not a scientific fact. I challenge Professor Fish to find an intelligent person who believes otherwise.
And second, if we believe the maxim that "those who are ignorant of the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it", can we not give some weight to the contrapositive?
And second, if we believe the maxim that "those who are ignorant of the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it", can we not give some weight to the contrapositive?
33
Once again Professor Fish is arguing that one cannot do two things at one time, specifically that one cannot not make an academic argument that is political. This is the same old tired argument that Professor Fish made against New Historicists years ago, and it has been proven wrong by the good work done by, say, Greenblatt and by the better feminist new historicists. Admittedly, such work can be done well or not, but it can be done. Fish does not give up arguing this same tired point for decades, and itself is political, since by trying to desert the political arena one is implicitly making a rather conservative political statement.
74
I looked at the letter. Most of the signatories aren't professors or even history PhDs. So there is no reason to get worked up about this. It's not an official statement of the American Historical Association or an open letter signed by America's leading historians. That said, there is excellent historical work and some truly awful demagogues who ran for president in recent history (think Wallace and Le May) and it would be wonderful to have a smart scholar write an intelligent piece putting Trump's candidacy into perspective.
36
I often encountered students in my history classes (a subject I taught for 37 years) who would insist that their view on a question of historical interpretation was as "good" (meaning as correct) as any of the historians we were reading. I wish Stanley Fish could have stepped forward and told these budding relativists, "No, the historians you are reading know (to quote Professor Fish) 'how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, how to build a persuasive account of a disputed event,' you do not, though I have no doubt you can learn these skills." The Historians Against Trump have worked to earn the skills and understandings of their disciplines, obtain the authority which goes along with those tools of their profession. It is a responsible act to use them in the public square when they deem it proper.
144
I read this latest offering from Professor Fish trying my best to give him the benefit of the doubt. I gave up. His argument is simply incoherent. Fish is saying, apparently seriously, that individuals with expertise in relevant areas of study should not be making public their concerns about issues and individuals.
What would he like them to do? Stay silent? Only write as single individuals? Mask their identities? Strip their academic credentials from their statements? Disguise their credentials?
Fish seems to be of the opinion that, by speaking as a group of historians, the signers of the letter were, somehow, speaking for all historians. This is a strange inference. Surely he doesn't think that when the AMA issues a statement with political implications that they speak for all physicians? If two economists write an open letter criticizing a candidate are they speaking for the whole discipline? How about if three do? Why does it suddenly become "inappropriate" when it's twenty? Or thirty?
Academics are a constant and reliable source of advice and consultation on matters of politics and government. That was the rationale for establishing the National Academies.
This opinion piece is a seriously misguided offering from Professor Fish who is not, I should point out, speaking for all us Professors.
What would he like them to do? Stay silent? Only write as single individuals? Mask their identities? Strip their academic credentials from their statements? Disguise their credentials?
Fish seems to be of the opinion that, by speaking as a group of historians, the signers of the letter were, somehow, speaking for all historians. This is a strange inference. Surely he doesn't think that when the AMA issues a statement with political implications that they speak for all physicians? If two economists write an open letter criticizing a candidate are they speaking for the whole discipline? How about if three do? Why does it suddenly become "inappropriate" when it's twenty? Or thirty?
Academics are a constant and reliable source of advice and consultation on matters of politics and government. That was the rationale for establishing the National Academies.
This opinion piece is a seriously misguided offering from Professor Fish who is not, I should point out, speaking for all us Professors.
57
Yes Professor, academic degrees is not equivalent to political or moral high virtue; but is an important expertise and gives more analysis elements.
I also consider that there are a lot of afirmations incorrect by the candidate Trump.
I don't agree that political views of academics organizations should be seen only as a partisan position that loses the character of the discipline they represent, the academic or partisan character depends of the arguments, its sturdiness and the available information to verify.
Historians, doctors, engineers..., every one continue opining: as citizen, as expert... - * without believing that you have been granted wisdom or is in your academic area -
I also consider that there are a lot of afirmations incorrect by the candidate Trump.
I don't agree that political views of academics organizations should be seen only as a partisan position that loses the character of the discipline they represent, the academic or partisan character depends of the arguments, its sturdiness and the available information to verify.
Historians, doctors, engineers..., every one continue opining: as citizen, as expert... - * without believing that you have been granted wisdom or is in your academic area -
9
Fish says "Were an academic organization to declare a political position, it would at that moment cease to be an academic organization...". In parallel, when a preacher uses a church service to declare a political position, they are no longer a church and should lose all tax-exempt status.
I think historians are very qualified to use their knowledge of the past to warn about the future. I'm surprised to see Fish exhibit such anti-intellectualism in print. By doing so, does he compromise his credentials of being a law professor? Is he now just a mere political pundit?
I think historians are very qualified to use their knowledge of the past to warn about the future. I'm surprised to see Fish exhibit such anti-intellectualism in print. By doing so, does he compromise his credentials of being a law professor? Is he now just a mere political pundit?
32
When students asked for my personal opinion about politics, I instead addressed the attempt to ignore the votes of millions of people. I was not hired for my personal opinions. I was hired to do my job. Because I teach critical thinking, I encourage my students to look beyond their personal views and to identify subjective rather than objective news reports. My job is not to teach them what to think but rather how to think. Even the question "How are we going to stop Trump?" frightens me. Do we no longer respect the rights of others to have opposing views? The people voted. Respect their rights.
9
I see your point, Prof. Fish. You are playing the role of a nervous, don't know what to do Speaker of the House. These historians aren't hiding behind their profession anymore than those democrats that sat down in the House were hiding behind their side of the government. It wouldn't be hard to make the case that our dysfunctional government and understanding of government is the result of a dysfunctional education system. Institutional disobedience can be just as alive as civil disobedience is now in our streets, and it should be welcomed, supported, and when seriously considered, taken to heart. Judges live in a time where their understanding of contempt of court needs to be freed up a bit. People are scared and we deserve our leaders.
4
Now imagine a counterfactual scenario where the vast majority of academic historians were politically conservative, and a group calling itself *Historians Against Clinton* published an open letter to the American people, with all the same grand, dutiful, expert, moral and universal qualifiers propping up its obligatory warning against "[Hillary Clinton's] candidacy and the exceptional challenges it poses to civil society."
No, this is not an example of false equivalence! Mr. Fish's argument has nothing to do with the merits of the political claims being made by this or any other group. Mr. Fish is not speaking to the truth or falsity of their claims. In other words, his argument applies equally well to the above counterfactual scenario. The politics are irrelevant to the point.
His example of Justice Ginsberg provided the perfect illustration of that point. And it's more than a bit discouraging that most of the commenters here fail to recognize this important distinction. Trump, not surprisingly, also couldn't get his head around that distinction.
No, this is not an example of false equivalence! Mr. Fish's argument has nothing to do with the merits of the political claims being made by this or any other group. Mr. Fish is not speaking to the truth or falsity of their claims. In other words, his argument applies equally well to the above counterfactual scenario. The politics are irrelevant to the point.
His example of Justice Ginsberg provided the perfect illustration of that point. And it's more than a bit discouraging that most of the commenters here fail to recognize this important distinction. Trump, not surprisingly, also couldn't get his head around that distinction.
5
Mr. Fish makes a longer version of this argument in a book called Save the World on Your Own Time (2008). On my reading, the issue for Fish is wether or not a person or group cites academic credential as the basis of legitimacy—as a sign of purity—when advancing views about political affairs. For Fish, academic and political work are different.
This key point—that academic work does not entail political commentary—runs counter to democratic sensibilities. It can seem like an academy/politics distinction amounts to a call for credentialed academics to abstain from having their say in public discourse. Fish's column does not work hard enough to avoid making this impression.
My concern with Fish's argument is not its content; we agree that virtue is not tied to the trappings of one's office. My concern is with its rhetorical effect. It seems—and seeming is what matters to rhetoric—as if Fish wants us to think that academic expertise should not be brough to bear on political persuasion.
Fish's legal discipline has had a long, tortured relationship with that of rhetoric. This column demonstrates that tension. Legal discourse still operates on a false objectivity/subjectivity continuum. (Cue the Ginsberg case). But in the public domain of rhetoric, expertise counts as credibility (ethos), and it should be brought to bear as a political strategy. Identity matters in politics. Of course it does not guarantee truth. But it may lend credibility at moments when credibility matters.
This key point—that academic work does not entail political commentary—runs counter to democratic sensibilities. It can seem like an academy/politics distinction amounts to a call for credentialed academics to abstain from having their say in public discourse. Fish's column does not work hard enough to avoid making this impression.
My concern with Fish's argument is not its content; we agree that virtue is not tied to the trappings of one's office. My concern is with its rhetorical effect. It seems—and seeming is what matters to rhetoric—as if Fish wants us to think that academic expertise should not be brough to bear on political persuasion.
Fish's legal discipline has had a long, tortured relationship with that of rhetoric. This column demonstrates that tension. Legal discourse still operates on a false objectivity/subjectivity continuum. (Cue the Ginsberg case). But in the public domain of rhetoric, expertise counts as credibility (ethos), and it should be brought to bear as a political strategy. Identity matters in politics. Of course it does not guarantee truth. But it may lend credibility at moments when credibility matters.
8
Prof. Fish assumes that the relevance of academic expertise is circumscribed by the academy itself. He writes here as if what historians think only matters while engaged directly in the academic discipline of history. If he's to be consistent, then he must also commit himself to the claim that the humanities only matter in humanities departments, sciences only matter in science departments, etc. I don't think I've ever encountered a professor so blatantly implying such a stark division between between the academy and "real life."
None the above means I think Historians Against Trump are right or wrong in their analysis. I haven't read it yet. But Fish's suggestion, essentially, of a breach of academic ethics for taking a political stand based on academic expertise expresses a deep misunderstanding of academic life and its various subject matters.
None the above means I think Historians Against Trump are right or wrong in their analysis. I haven't read it yet. But Fish's suggestion, essentially, of a breach of academic ethics for taking a political stand based on academic expertise expresses a deep misunderstanding of academic life and its various subject matters.
9
It's certainly possible for a professor to be pompous. And tendentious. And to have opinions not particularly well buttressed by whatever expertise they are supposed to have.
But -- and I stay this as a college-educated 65 year old working among 20- and 30-year olds -- even a basic working knowledge of 20th century history absolutely cannot be presumed to exist among people of that generation. What they don't know -- heck, what they have no absolutely no idea about, no concept of -- is staggering, and anyone who knows even the basics of 20th century European history and world history might weep to hear them discuss it. If they did, which they really don't. To them, Trump is a new thing entirely: nothing remotely like him has ever existed. To them, there is nothing to remember, nothing to compare him to.
I seriously doubt anyone pays much detailed attention to statements of anyone from professors, but believe me -- there are millions of Americans who are not capable even of wondering whether what they see happening before their eyes has any historical precedent. They can't even formulate the questions. Maybe in some small way, these profs have something to contribute.
But -- and I stay this as a college-educated 65 year old working among 20- and 30-year olds -- even a basic working knowledge of 20th century history absolutely cannot be presumed to exist among people of that generation. What they don't know -- heck, what they have no absolutely no idea about, no concept of -- is staggering, and anyone who knows even the basics of 20th century European history and world history might weep to hear them discuss it. If they did, which they really don't. To them, Trump is a new thing entirely: nothing remotely like him has ever existed. To them, there is nothing to remember, nothing to compare him to.
I seriously doubt anyone pays much detailed attention to statements of anyone from professors, but believe me -- there are millions of Americans who are not capable even of wondering whether what they see happening before their eyes has any historical precedent. They can't even formulate the questions. Maybe in some small way, these profs have something to contribute.
10
Anti-intellectualism, it appears, pervades American thinking and not just that of "conservatives." History professors are dedicated to seeing two sides, at least, to all conflicts back through history. To say that those who run for office are wiser than those who sit in them is fatuous thinking to say the least.
James A. Sanders
Professor emeritus of biblical studies
Claremont School of Theology and the Claremont Graduate University
President emeritus of the Ancient Biblcial Manuscript Center, Claremont
James A. Sanders
Professor emeritus of biblical studies
Claremont School of Theology and the Claremont Graduate University
President emeritus of the Ancient Biblcial Manuscript Center, Claremont
2
There is no science in history nor politics nor economics nor law.
There is no science that currently "knows" the nature of physical reality in dark matter or dark energy or the quantum or the relative or the uncertain or the incomplete.
We all have opinions. And neither the divine supernatural nor the normal natural care. All of our opining reflects our biological human nature and human cultural nurture.
There is no science that currently "knows" the nature of physical reality in dark matter or dark energy or the quantum or the relative or the uncertain or the incomplete.
We all have opinions. And neither the divine supernatural nor the normal natural care. All of our opining reflects our biological human nature and human cultural nurture.
1
In fact, Dr. Fish, historians are uniquely qualified to opine on Trump' fitness for the presidential office. Studying the past gives us insight into the human condition. While there are no laws of history there are definite patterns. We've seen this show before and it never ends well. I for one will not be silent. This is not about left vs. right. It is about the survival of our democracy. We ignore the lessons of the past at our own peril.
11
Prof. Fish claims he has the knowledge and authority to delineate the scope of the profession of historian as well as dictate what historians are able to contribute to the political discussion. He dismisses their backgrounds with “they are merely people with history degrees, which means that they have read certain books, taken and taught certain courses and written scholarly essays, often on topics of interest only to other practitioners in the field,” (presumably in contrast to law professors), as though they should not form opinions about historical events based on years of in-depth and critical study. Or if they do, it seems they should not bless us with their analysis. RBG gets a pass by Fish because she wasn’t speaking ex cathedra, as though a Supreme Court justice is just a private citizen who happened to be interviewed by the media. If you go to the Historians Against Trump site and actually read it they present themselves as historians, not solely professors, stating “We are history professors, school teachers, public historians and museum professionals, independent scholars and graduate students.” The list of signatories is long and diverse in affiliations. Prof. Fish's column is hypocritical coming from someone who puts his academic credentials at the bottom of every column to give credence to his views and to sell his book. The motivation for his petulant diatribe is unclear. Perhaps an historian kicked sand in his face at the beach?
12
As an historian whose first presidential vote was for Eisenhower, I choose to place Donald Trump into the pantheon of dangerous demagogues. In my lifetime there were two--Huey Long 'soak the rich' and Joe McCarthy '206 Communists in the State Department. Donald Trump is the third. As an historian and former diplomat and businessman, I believe that America is great and does not been to be 'made great again,' only better in some aspects. A presidential candidate whose false statements sent a presidential candidate record does not lend himself to normal historical analysis. Chucking NATO and existing free trade agreements, building a huge wall with Mexican money, disparaging women, and having a tax plan that enhances the 1% provide a basis for judging Trump's candidacy. There was a political party that better suited Trump--it was the American Party in 1848, which proudly characterized itself as the "Know Nothing Party." It, like Trump, based its platform on fear, especially of immigrants. By contrast, FDR spoke of Freedom from Fear. America deserves better than a fear-spouting narcissist.
12
Good historical thinking provides one the ability to weigh evidence and analyze sources not only for their own sake, but to use these skills to make sense of the world in which we live. The past does not foretell the future, but knowing the past, understanding hallmarks of good leadership, and taking into account the political context in which an electorate casts its vote are insights worth examining. Moreover, leaders from all sides of the aisle agree that studying history is a necessary foundation for good citizenship. What could be a better mark of citizenship than being engaged in the political process?
The fact remains, historians have every right to weigh in against Trump because as Americans, we have that right. (You don't need to be a Constitutional egghead to see that.) After all, if a presumptive nominee can make a case that he is uniquely qualified to be President because his business acumen translates to executive leadership, then who can deny those with history expertise the right to "opine" on politics and share their well-reasoned insights?
The fact remains, historians have every right to weigh in against Trump because as Americans, we have that right. (You don't need to be a Constitutional egghead to see that.) After all, if a presumptive nominee can make a case that he is uniquely qualified to be President because his business acumen translates to executive leadership, then who can deny those with history expertise the right to "opine" on politics and share their well-reasoned insights?
10
Precisely because historians are not objective, but stand inside a particular society, as a profession they uphold certain very broad themes of that society. Whether they are evaluating archival material, or building a persuasive account of a disputed event, American historians are also relying on certain underlying assumptions common to all, or nearly all, historians. By speaking against Trump, these historians are arguing that he has broken with those assumptions. They are saying he is beyond the pale. There are good reasons to suppose Trump, alone among modern nominees, really is beyond the pale, starting with his utter disregard for historical truth. I would suggest a reasonable check on the power of these historians would be other historians. If, indeed, any historians at top universities can be found to support Trump, let them write a letter. Absent that, their letter stands as fitting indictment of this singular demagogue.
12
Fish is arguing against a straw man. Academics do not equate possession of an advanced degree with virtue, or with moral or political superiority. Academics do - and should - equate possession of an advanced degree with knowledge.
If extended study in a field does not yield superior knowledge of that field, then advanced degrees are useless. Is Fish saying that academics were all conned, like Trump University students? How's that for a straw man?
Historians have a great deal of value to add to popular political discussion in 2016 - in particular, historians who have studied fascist movements around the world. And we would do well to listen to them.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
If extended study in a field does not yield superior knowledge of that field, then advanced degrees are useless. Is Fish saying that academics were all conned, like Trump University students? How's that for a straw man?
Historians have a great deal of value to add to popular political discussion in 2016 - in particular, historians who have studied fascist movements around the world. And we would do well to listen to them.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
14
I see your point, and it does have some merit. Certainly a bunch of history professors are not going to dissuade Trump supporters or prospective supporters. But the issue is whether all expertise is inappropriate to political debates. Should climatologists not weigh in as a group on climate change policy? Should physicians not weigh in on anti-vaccination debates? If historians are considered to have some special insights -- by virtue of their professional knowledge and expertise -- on an election with several historical precedents, then it seems that they can use their professional credentials to further their argument.
13
I keeping hearing that Justices must not offer political opinions because of decorum and now that historians must not offer their collective expertise in service of a similar political opinion.
While the United States may or may not be an exceptional country to whom the rules do not apply, certainly Trump the candidate for President is. In fact Trump may upset the framework of rules that defines a Supreme Court Justice or even an Academic.
To this exceptional candidate, exceptional views are permitted, even demanded by whatever authority is offered.
Silence is unconscionable when the danger to our Republic is an echoing bell from just 80 years ago, long enough to grate in the ears of historians, yet long enough to be prehistorically invisible to many voters.
While the United States may or may not be an exceptional country to whom the rules do not apply, certainly Trump the candidate for President is. In fact Trump may upset the framework of rules that defines a Supreme Court Justice or even an Academic.
To this exceptional candidate, exceptional views are permitted, even demanded by whatever authority is offered.
Silence is unconscionable when the danger to our Republic is an echoing bell from just 80 years ago, long enough to grate in the ears of historians, yet long enough to be prehistorically invisible to many voters.
10
There are all kinds of academics: those who stick to the halls of their discipline; those who spin their work for a popular audience; those who are also social activists. No field is without bias, and if any academic seeks to align her- or himself with social justice founded on the principles of their study, then why not? Mr. Fish seems to believe that academics should just stick to their 'job,' as long as it fits his definition of an academic: a surprising narrow conception that pins the Ivory Tower to itself, when colleges and universities are continually criticized for being islands apart from the 'real world.' If one's studies have nothing to do with the real world, what is the point? And if an academic openly declares her/his vested interests, I fail to see why such an informed and clear statement from a perspective is harmful. We see plenty of occupations endorse, and speak out against, political candidates, and I shudder at the chilling effect that Mr. Fish advocates.
20
Seems to me that Professor Fish's criticism is shaped like a pretzel. He draws his own inference (not necessarily shared by all readers of the letter!), and then criticizes the historians for making a claim they never actually made. Nowhere do the historians assert that the entire profession agrees with them (a fact easily verified or disproven), and I never saw any implication of it either.
They simply state their argument, including -- a staple of persuasive writing -- what they consider to be their expert credentials, and why they assign weight to those credentials. Readers are free to accept or reject that part of the reasoning, or any other. Readers can even extrapolate beyond that reasoning -- but that's on the reader, Professor Fish, not the authors.
I'm not a historian, but I believe in history -- its complexity, its mystery, and its glimpses into the nature of being human.
They simply state their argument, including -- a staple of persuasive writing -- what they consider to be their expert credentials, and why they assign weight to those credentials. Readers are free to accept or reject that part of the reasoning, or any other. Readers can even extrapolate beyond that reasoning -- but that's on the reader, Professor Fish, not the authors.
I'm not a historian, but I believe in history -- its complexity, its mystery, and its glimpses into the nature of being human.
14
Aside from some obvious and tiring circular reasoning, I find it difficult to swallow that one of the leading academics of my lifetime would 1) claim that historians, as a group, can speak from an expertise about the past and its immediate relationship to the present and, in an even larger sense, 2) claim that the skills mastered and the books read in the academy are to be limited to the academy and kept right out of the world. This is the very worst intellectual elitism that fires the fear and hatred of a man like Donald Trump. This article is designed to fuel the Trump Machine and is at the far end of the extremes of American culture; at the other end is a pervasive (and, yes, historical) anti-intellectualism. True intellectualism doesn't nitpick. And it's a toss-up as to who is guilty of the greater hubris--Professor Fish or the Historians Against Trump. The question is beside the point, which is that we have created a world in which Donald Trump is taken seriously.
7
The idea that professors should divorce professional authority from political standind is simply absurd. Fish's claim is only apparently defendable because History belongs to Humanities. If we transpose the claim to Sciences, the incongruity becomes transparent: the biologist forced to renounce his knowledge about population dynamics when defending some ecology policy; the physicist who disclaims her authority over thermodynamics when attacking some energy solution; the computer scientist who denounces SOPA/PIPA, but then adds hastily "please disconsider all my knowledge about TCP/IP, DNS, internet privacy, etc."
Justa as we weight heavier the opinion of scientific scholars on their respective domains, historians have every right to claim extra authority when commenting on populism and its past tragic consequences. We, as members of the public, are free to listen or to ignore, to take their advice, or to discard it. However, we cannot force them to disavow their own authority in name of some chimerical professional neutrality.
Justa as we weight heavier the opinion of scientific scholars on their respective domains, historians have every right to claim extra authority when commenting on populism and its past tragic consequences. We, as members of the public, are free to listen or to ignore, to take their advice, or to discard it. However, we cannot force them to disavow their own authority in name of some chimerical professional neutrality.
15
The law professor uses his credentials and expertise to dismiss the credentials and expertise of history professors? Um, ok.
If his point is to say everyone has an opinion that one can take it or leave or if he is criticizing neutral organizations that take a sudden political side then I can understand his view.
But his main point seems to be that the history professors' expertise shouldn't be allowed or considered because they are evaluating through the lens of their particular field. Which makes me wonder well what's the point of education and expertise at all then?
If his point is to say everyone has an opinion that one can take it or leave or if he is criticizing neutral organizations that take a sudden political side then I can understand his view.
But his main point seems to be that the history professors' expertise shouldn't be allowed or considered because they are evaluating through the lens of their particular field. Which makes me wonder well what's the point of education and expertise at all then?
14
The impropriety that this interesting and important article portrays is but the tip of the iceberg. If this recent initiative to derail Mr. Trump's advance to the White House is irresponsible and blatantly self serving (and it is), imagine what goes on in many of our classrooms. Teachers of all levels, from pre-school to college and beyond, wield power over their students. Somehow this signals to many teachers that they can instill their own political beliefs into the those people who are beholden to them for grades, recommendations and advise. This has been going on with increasingly intensity since the 1960s. Quite frankly, it is this kind of propaganda instead of actual thinking that significantly contributes to the decline of education here in America.
3
Fish seems to think that historians are antiquarians, unqualified to do anything but report the past as it was, without comment on how it might relate to the world in which we find ourselves. To grasp what a waste this would be, imagine how differently things may have turned out if the Bush administration had consulted historians of the Middle East about Shia-Sunni relations in Iraq before beginning its adventures in nation building.
Also In claiming that when academics take political positions their views must be considered in the absence of their qualifications, he ignores the fact that learned societies routinely lobby congress on education policy, science funding, climate change, and other issues. Would he also criticize the American Medical Society if it denounced Trump's claim that vaccines cause autistm?
More ironically, he overlooks the fact that academics have had a long and bloodspattered history as early critics of fascist and totalitarian regimes, and thus were among the first purged by the Soviets, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and Mao's Cultural Revolution. People can of course vote however they wish, but I'd think that when people who study the past for a living see disturbing paralells between the past and present, it is worth taking their views into account.
Finally, if expertise means nothing then why care what Fish says, since I imagine he would not have his column were it not for his professorship and PhD.
Also In claiming that when academics take political positions their views must be considered in the absence of their qualifications, he ignores the fact that learned societies routinely lobby congress on education policy, science funding, climate change, and other issues. Would he also criticize the American Medical Society if it denounced Trump's claim that vaccines cause autistm?
More ironically, he overlooks the fact that academics have had a long and bloodspattered history as early critics of fascist and totalitarian regimes, and thus were among the first purged by the Soviets, Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and Mao's Cultural Revolution. People can of course vote however they wish, but I'd think that when people who study the past for a living see disturbing paralells between the past and present, it is worth taking their views into account.
Finally, if expertise means nothing then why care what Fish says, since I imagine he would not have his column were it not for his professorship and PhD.
29
"But it’s not the degrees, which are finally inessential, but the strength or weakness of the arguments that will tell in the end."
Well, guess what: all that reading books and honing research skills and deciding between good and bad evidence---all that stuff PhDs in the humanities do---it's geared quite determinedly toward developing the capacity to make strong, well-supported arguments. That the degrees are strictly inessential to such a process, sure; but to suggest that such degrees aren't even GERMANE to the process of argument-building strikes me as knee-jerk anti-intellectualism.
And no humanities PhD worth their salt these days, History ones included, claims to be free or separate from politics. We are all political beings, and we all admit it--to do otherwise is to fall into dangerous assumptions of objectivity that simply aren't possible. I shouldn't have to tell Stanley Fish this, for crying out loud, but there are only arguments--good ones and under-supported ones--and commitments and values. No lofty freedom from politics because you know how to do research. The research skills probably invest one with even more political responsibility, not less!
Well, guess what: all that reading books and honing research skills and deciding between good and bad evidence---all that stuff PhDs in the humanities do---it's geared quite determinedly toward developing the capacity to make strong, well-supported arguments. That the degrees are strictly inessential to such a process, sure; but to suggest that such degrees aren't even GERMANE to the process of argument-building strikes me as knee-jerk anti-intellectualism.
And no humanities PhD worth their salt these days, History ones included, claims to be free or separate from politics. We are all political beings, and we all admit it--to do otherwise is to fall into dangerous assumptions of objectivity that simply aren't possible. I shouldn't have to tell Stanley Fish this, for crying out loud, but there are only arguments--good ones and under-supported ones--and commitments and values. No lofty freedom from politics because you know how to do research. The research skills probably invest one with even more political responsibility, not less!
17
This is a beautiful article. I am an academic instructor who cringes when colleagues attempt to influence students, over whom they hold the power of the grade, with their personal political views.
Done carefully, many instructors can convince you of much, without you feeling that you were convinced. It is an intentionally-practiced skill to guide dialogue such that the other person "creates" ideas that they think and feel are their own, but that they were, in fact, carefully guided within dialogue to conclude. Direct instruction in this skill is couched in the context of building better relationships. I, myself, have studied it.
Many instructors practice self-validation; they want to see and hear things from their students that flatter them, including a lot of mirroring back of the instructor's personal likes and dislikes. In doing so, they go beyond the curriculum, but doing so is one way that some derive the feeling of being skilled at teaching.
Done carefully, many instructors can convince you of much, without you feeling that you were convinced. It is an intentionally-practiced skill to guide dialogue such that the other person "creates" ideas that they think and feel are their own, but that they were, in fact, carefully guided within dialogue to conclude. Direct instruction in this skill is couched in the context of building better relationships. I, myself, have studied it.
Many instructors practice self-validation; they want to see and hear things from their students that flatter them, including a lot of mirroring back of the instructor's personal likes and dislikes. In doing so, they go beyond the curriculum, but doing so is one way that some derive the feeling of being skilled at teaching.
33
Historians did not save any country from communism or fascism, in fact many abetted the rise of such movements. And they even teach falsehoods about the fall of past empires. It is a major talking point in comments in these pages and elsewhere that the Roman Empire fell because the civilian aristocracy became too rich and untaxed (the implication being the need for higher taxes on rich civilians today), when in fact crushing taxes on the civilian elite and exemptions solely for the soldiers resulted in a different, military elite supplanting them in the late days of the Roman Empire (the rise of "honestiores" over the "humiliores". Not only have historians not supplied useful teaching to the rest of society, but they have taught false things, giving people the wrong lessons, in the service of contemporary political movements that they favor. And they have not covered the failures of contemporary political movements, like the failure of racial engineering to bring about equality for black people in any country, from North America to the Caribbean to Africa itself. They are not much more trustworthy than social scientists.
2
There is so much talk about Trump's lack of qualifications for the Presidency of the United States that I want to inject my opinion also.
A lot of people in the United States, if given capable advisers, can credibly govern the country. Few have the stomach to run the expensive and gruelling, one to two year, political campaign to want the job. This removes perhaps thousands of capable people. We are then left with a few megalomaniac, ambitious, and narcissistic people, only one of whom finally succeeds. Looking backwards, one will find Presidents who were fit or unfit for the job.
It is only after the person actually becomes President that we learn whether he was fit or not. The same could be said about Trump. He may turn out to be a perfectly good President or a complete failure. There is no sure way to know before hand what he would be like.
Unlike the President, we elect our congressmen and senators with much less scrutiny. After getting elected, most of them become prisoners of well funded lobbyists who have an enormous influence on their future electability.
Who wins? The public or the lobbyists?
A lot of people in the United States, if given capable advisers, can credibly govern the country. Few have the stomach to run the expensive and gruelling, one to two year, political campaign to want the job. This removes perhaps thousands of capable people. We are then left with a few megalomaniac, ambitious, and narcissistic people, only one of whom finally succeeds. Looking backwards, one will find Presidents who were fit or unfit for the job.
It is only after the person actually becomes President that we learn whether he was fit or not. The same could be said about Trump. He may turn out to be a perfectly good President or a complete failure. There is no sure way to know before hand what he would be like.
Unlike the President, we elect our congressmen and senators with much less scrutiny. After getting elected, most of them become prisoners of well funded lobbyists who have an enormous influence on their future electability.
Who wins? The public or the lobbyists?
2
When I read this article I was impressed by the great writing and eagerly, I wanted to find out who the author was. I was pleasantly surprised to find out it was Prof. Fish who I met in a summer theory and criticism seminar in Dartmouth College. I've missed his articles in New York Times! I might not agree with every statement, but I do agree with the arrogant and pedantic nature of most college professors who really do not know much about what they claim or think to know. Most are in the profession because of its prestige and also because many of those who can't, teach. They also got lucky or had connections. Many talented and bright individuals with advanced degrees cannot get a job in the decreasing faculty opportunities in academia. So, yes, I agree with Prof. Fish that advanced degrees do not grant expertise on individuals who think they are privileged. But then the same can be said of the opposite in an era that with internet access everyone thinks they are an expect in every subject even though they never engaged extensively in any kind of experience or research. Moreover, it's not only that history has different versions, facts or data can be incorrect as well. This is why revisions are always welcomed.
Historians' academic credentials actually stand for something -- for years dedicated to sifting the evidence of the past for patterns and insight into our present situation as human beings and how it might change in the future. Few professionals are as qualified as historians to comment on present events in their full context and to ponder their likely implications. Historians don't just sit in their offices; they work all over the world, in archives, libraries and in the field, absorbing knowledge, sifting facts, weighing and considering the meaning of political and social events in a vast context. They possess a font of knowledge and insight on which we should depend at pivotal moments. We must heed the warning these historians are offering us rather than deriding their Ph.D.s as meaningless degrees suitable only for discourse with other specialists.
5
Speaking of hubris this is an interesting quote: "it’s their job to teach students how to handle archival materials, how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, how to build a persuasive account of a disputed event, in short, how to perform as historians, not as seers or political gurus." I am sure historians appreciate that the author has decided (utilizing his infinite wisdom) that he can summarize their professional identity in one dismissive sentence. I am a Psych prof but I love to read great history books and it seems clear to me that a knowledge of history is uniquely informative (even more so than psych) about the rise of demagogues. Anyway, nowadays everyone basically considers themselves an expert on everything and makes all kinds of grandiose claims. The author calls out historians against demagogues as expressing as a particularly egregious example of hubris given current trends? Really! Anne-marie no offense but it is absurd beyond measure to claim that academic historians think of history as a set of objective "facts." That was the way i taught history in high school. When I took history in college in the 1980s of course we were taught about perspectives and that the "standard" cultural/historical narrative is shaped by the winners. To claim otherwise a strawman argument. The very basics of postmodernist thought does not have to be painstakingly spoonfed to history profs.
2
Take Caro's masterpieces on LBJ (not Lebron) and his portrayal of the bleakness of lives in poverty in East Texas in the early part of the last century (think sad irons) and how that poverty and shame formed LBJ's personality and intuitive ability to read and influence others, allowing him to navigate and change the cumbersome political behemoth that is our nation. Imagine please, Trump able to read and influence Sam Rayburn (what I wouldn't give for a tow-headed boy to take fishing), to facilitate a rise to power. Imagine, Trump, recognizing that both our nation and his own legitimacy as president, required a swearing in with a blood soaked widow just feet from the lifeless body of JFK. Imagine, Trump, abandoning the entire structure of a carefully crafted political life and risking all to facilitate the Civil Rights Act. Imagine Robert Caro did not write his masterpieces and left us instead with an impression of that period of government marked only the scar of a gall-bladder operation, a dog's stretched ears and two awkward, albeit lovely, daughters instead of the complex period in which a nation was changed due to LBJ's personality defects. Imagine that Professor Fish's piece conveyed anything useful. It did not. Can he imagine that these "living rules" (think nuns) should be silenced because they share a love of country, are repositories of immense amounts of accurate knowledge and have the gift of putting pen to paper? This piece was a waste of space.
2
Fish is embarrassing himself with this. The American Historical Association has a statement on Standards of Professional Conduct. A quote:
"Among the core principles of the historical profession that can seem counterintuitive to non-historians is the conviction, very widely if not universally shared among historians since the nineteenth century, that practicing history with integrity does not mean being neutral or having no point of view. Every work of history articulates a particular, limited perspective on the past. Historians hold this view not because they believe that all interpretations are equally valid, or that nothing can ever be known about the past, or that facts do not matter. Quite the contrary. History would be pointless if such claims were true, since its most basic premise is that within certain limits we can indeed know and make sense of past worlds and former times that now exist only as remembered traces in the present. But the very nature of our discipline means that historians also understand that all knowledge is situated in time and place, that all interpretations express a point of view, and that no mortal mind can ever aspire to omniscience."
https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-...
"Among the core principles of the historical profession that can seem counterintuitive to non-historians is the conviction, very widely if not universally shared among historians since the nineteenth century, that practicing history with integrity does not mean being neutral or having no point of view. Every work of history articulates a particular, limited perspective on the past. Historians hold this view not because they believe that all interpretations are equally valid, or that nothing can ever be known about the past, or that facts do not matter. Quite the contrary. History would be pointless if such claims were true, since its most basic premise is that within certain limits we can indeed know and make sense of past worlds and former times that now exist only as remembered traces in the present. But the very nature of our discipline means that historians also understand that all knowledge is situated in time and place, that all interpretations express a point of view, and that no mortal mind can ever aspire to omniscience."
https://www.historians.org/jobs-and-professional-development/statements-...
8
Sure, I too have issues with the politicization of faculty (particularly when they are with a captive audience of students). But there's more than a little irony when Stanley Fish, one of America's most politicized scholars (who has shown little compunction in chiming in on topics he has no special training for), complains about historians employing their expertise to argue against Trump, a political figure without historical precedent in the U.S., despite historical parallels to other global figures. Fish has made a career of insisting (to the delight of the Right) how irrelevant humanities scholarship is to the "real world." But Trump, like so many other's in today's far Right, willfully re-write history and ignore reliable evidence (i.e., the stuff Fish thinks historians should be focusing on), to make grotesque claims about how social policies regarding things like immigration, religious discrimination, military intervention, censorship, enforced gender-discrimination, and a range of other things will play out. Yet there are historical precedents for these policies, so why hand-cuff historians? Fish reduces their claims to an argument based on "Credentials," but ignores their roles as actual scholars. While collective letters are unlikely to have any sway with anyone not already agreeing that Trump is a clown, the notion that it undermines the legitimacy of the authors is rich given Fish's own history.
4
I am a retired History professor with an Ivy Ph.D. and a career in a Big Ten University. Am I qualified to respond to Dr. Fish or should I put the word "merely" in front of "Ph.D." and "Big Ten"?
Dr. Fish has frequently excoriated professors for taking political stances in the classroom. Now he criticizes them for adopting a political position in the public sphere. These are not equivalent criticisms.
In the classroom, students often fear professors' power; they are intimidated by their knowledge, and, by turns, admire them for the status they have earned. Like Dr. Fish, I oppose those who assert political positions (of any stripe) because, deliberately or not, they are using a subtle coercive power over captive listeners who are subordinates in a hierarchy.
But endorsing a letter to the public and identifying themselves as professors of history has no such coercive power. For these professors to Identify their intellectual and academic experience is a means of claiming authority in the eyes of the reader who is free to sneer (as some posters do here) or accept what they have to say or anything in between. Having earned an advanced degree in history is a lot like connoisseurship. It isn't "objective" like physics, but it shows experience with and dedication to understanding what has motivated people in the past and the unintended consequences of historical actions and events. Dr. Fish has no legitimate ground for his criticism here.
Dr. Fish has frequently excoriated professors for taking political stances in the classroom. Now he criticizes them for adopting a political position in the public sphere. These are not equivalent criticisms.
In the classroom, students often fear professors' power; they are intimidated by their knowledge, and, by turns, admire them for the status they have earned. Like Dr. Fish, I oppose those who assert political positions (of any stripe) because, deliberately or not, they are using a subtle coercive power over captive listeners who are subordinates in a hierarchy.
But endorsing a letter to the public and identifying themselves as professors of history has no such coercive power. For these professors to Identify their intellectual and academic experience is a means of claiming authority in the eyes of the reader who is free to sneer (as some posters do here) or accept what they have to say or anything in between. Having earned an advanced degree in history is a lot like connoisseurship. It isn't "objective" like physics, but it shows experience with and dedication to understanding what has motivated people in the past and the unintended consequences of historical actions and events. Dr. Fish has no legitimate ground for his criticism here.
9
I find Professor Fish's commentary dangerous--in part, he reasserts the peculiar American myth of the ivory tower, and that professors best stay there. He mistakes a collective, a small group of professors, as speaking for the whole profession of historians. And that the very fluidity of history, how it is re-inventing itself and re-asserting its deep structures should not be examined, and identified, named for it they are. I long for more collective engagement!
And while this may be an over-reach, Professor Fish's position seems only to add to the view that the academic is irrelevant, that he or she is merely an element in the higher-ed industry, something to be commoditized and thus disposable. And what is especially undesirable are the voices that dispute hegemonies, especially hegemonic voices such as Professor Fish. The academy has essentially relegated itself to the neo-liberal project, where any authentic critical thought is fugitive, to use the terms of Fred Moten and Stefano Harney. While the class room may not be the place for radical critique, the voices of academics--individual or collective--in the public sphere should not be squelched. Professor Fish's immense talents would be better used in providing a critique of Trump, or analysis of Trump's past actions, from legal and rhetorical perspectives than wrist-slapping (a prelude to worse actions by worse actors?) a group of historians.
And while this may be an over-reach, Professor Fish's position seems only to add to the view that the academic is irrelevant, that he or she is merely an element in the higher-ed industry, something to be commoditized and thus disposable. And what is especially undesirable are the voices that dispute hegemonies, especially hegemonic voices such as Professor Fish. The academy has essentially relegated itself to the neo-liberal project, where any authentic critical thought is fugitive, to use the terms of Fred Moten and Stefano Harney. While the class room may not be the place for radical critique, the voices of academics--individual or collective--in the public sphere should not be squelched. Professor Fish's immense talents would be better used in providing a critique of Trump, or analysis of Trump's past actions, from legal and rhetorical perspectives than wrist-slapping (a prelude to worse actions by worse actors?) a group of historians.
4
Uh, wut?
Professor Fish doesn't find it relevant that people who spend their lives striving to make fact-based arguments should feel compelled to warn their countrymen of the results of racial populists in the past?
Make no mistake, Trump may just be a carnival barker in the current grotesque road show of American politics. But there is most definitely a threat. It is in the tribal reflex to mass migrations and extremist Islamic provocation, reaching for solutions through revenge, the specter of a take-no-prisoners boss man, the cleansing power of war.
Trump has greatly emboldened white nationalists, who make no secret that they want "separation."
If I were a history professor, or a journalist, or political scientists or an economist, damn right I would feel would feel my country was threatened. I'm just a math teacher but I see fear in the eyes of my students sin papeles. The populist grousing to deport millions without due process is growing into a movement. Racial tensions are at a shooting point.
In 2002, more than 13,000 US academics signed an open letter arguing that Bush had not made an adequate case for war in Iraq. I know Fish doesn't think academics should make moral arguments (huh? Isn't that a moral argument?), but I ask him, should we have listened to those 13,000 academics or not?
Professor Fish doesn't find it relevant that people who spend their lives striving to make fact-based arguments should feel compelled to warn their countrymen of the results of racial populists in the past?
Make no mistake, Trump may just be a carnival barker in the current grotesque road show of American politics. But there is most definitely a threat. It is in the tribal reflex to mass migrations and extremist Islamic provocation, reaching for solutions through revenge, the specter of a take-no-prisoners boss man, the cleansing power of war.
Trump has greatly emboldened white nationalists, who make no secret that they want "separation."
If I were a history professor, or a journalist, or political scientists or an economist, damn right I would feel would feel my country was threatened. I'm just a math teacher but I see fear in the eyes of my students sin papeles. The populist grousing to deport millions without due process is growing into a movement. Racial tensions are at a shooting point.
In 2002, more than 13,000 US academics signed an open letter arguing that Bush had not made an adequate case for war in Iraq. I know Fish doesn't think academics should make moral arguments (huh? Isn't that a moral argument?), but I ask him, should we have listened to those 13,000 academics or not?
9
In this misguided piece, the author contributes to the terrifying normalization of the tone and content of the Trump campaign. Violent rhetoric must not be normalized. The historians in question make clear that they view this moment as exceptional. Theirs is not, therefore and as the author suggests, merely a "political opinion". The Trump campaign, after all, has no realistic policy position othe than force and rage. It explicitly attacks institutions of American government.
The historians are a group of concerned citizens to come together under a common cause to contribute to public debate. What could be more representative of democratic ideals? Yet the author finds this somehow illegitimate. He somehow believes that individual opinions cannot be combined, an opinion bizarrely at odds with the very nature of coalitional government. He seems not to accept that a group of individuals may find common cause by virtue of their particular identities. He rejects the notion that experience and knowledge are relevant in the public sphere.
What a lonely, fearful, ignorant world the author would have us live in.
The historians are a group of concerned citizens to come together under a common cause to contribute to public debate. What could be more representative of democratic ideals? Yet the author finds this somehow illegitimate. He somehow believes that individual opinions cannot be combined, an opinion bizarrely at odds with the very nature of coalitional government. He seems not to accept that a group of individuals may find common cause by virtue of their particular identities. He rejects the notion that experience and knowledge are relevant in the public sphere.
What a lonely, fearful, ignorant world the author would have us live in.
6
Good historical thinking provides one the ability to weigh evidence and analyze sources not only for their own sake, but to use these skills to make sense of the world in which we live. The past does not foretell the future, but knowing the past, understanding hallmarks of good leadership, and taking into account the political context in which an electorate casts its vote are insights worth examining. Moreover, leaders from all sides of the aisle agree that studying history is a necessary foundation for good citizenship. What could be a better mark of citizenship than being engaged in the political process?
The truth is, historians have every right to weigh in against Trump because as Americans, we have that right. (You don't need to be a Constitutional egghead to see that.) After all, if a presumptive nominee can make a case that he is uniquely qualified to be President because his business acumen translates to executive leadership, then who can deny those with history expertise--specifically, those with expertise in executive decision making--the right to "opine" on politics and share their well-reasoned insights?
The truth is, historians have every right to weigh in against Trump because as Americans, we have that right. (You don't need to be a Constitutional egghead to see that.) After all, if a presumptive nominee can make a case that he is uniquely qualified to be President because his business acumen translates to executive leadership, then who can deny those with history expertise--specifically, those with expertise in executive decision making--the right to "opine" on politics and share their well-reasoned insights?
2
Yes, Dr. Fish, it's called an appeal to unqualified authority. In this case the historians are appealing directly to their authority as degreed professionals to make their arguments more persuasive.
The rift in the comments here seem to reflect disagreement over whether their authority is unqualified or not, but in my opinion there is no question; their particular authority has no more bearing on current politics than that of a professional football player, and is no less blindly partisan. And to pretend otherwise is dishonest. I'm saying this as someone who largely shares their opinions on Trump.
The moment they wrote their opinions, they left behind the rigor and virtue of historical study and entered the realm of political speech, which is a profession and area of study in its own right. It reminds me of when academics try to write for marketing. It's cringe-worthy.
But, hey, everyone's doing it, and no one takes the political opinions of academia (institutions or individuals) seriously anyway, so who cares.
The rift in the comments here seem to reflect disagreement over whether their authority is unqualified or not, but in my opinion there is no question; their particular authority has no more bearing on current politics than that of a professional football player, and is no less blindly partisan. And to pretend otherwise is dishonest. I'm saying this as someone who largely shares their opinions on Trump.
The moment they wrote their opinions, they left behind the rigor and virtue of historical study and entered the realm of political speech, which is a profession and area of study in its own right. It reminds me of when academics try to write for marketing. It's cringe-worthy.
But, hey, everyone's doing it, and no one takes the political opinions of academia (institutions or individuals) seriously anyway, so who cares.
"I would have no problem with individuals, who also happened to be historians, disseminating their political conclusions in an op-ed or letter to the editor; but I do have a problem when a bunch of individuals claim for themselves a corporate identity and more than imply that they speak for the profession of history."
Having read the letter thrice, it is not at all clear to me that this is true.
The authors claim that historians are familiar with the appeal of demagoguery, and that their profession compels them to speak out against Trump, but they never claim that all historians support their cause. If merely coming together under the banner of their profession implies a pretension to speak for all historians, what does that mean for a group like the Union of Concerned Scientists?
Nor is it clear to me that they are trying to situate themselves as "leaders and guides as we prepare to exercise our franchise in a general election." What you call a warning (a word the authors of the letter never use) reads to me more like a statement of purpose and qualifications -- historians may not be possessed of "moral and political superiority," but they do, as a matter of professional experience, have a better understanding of things like the dynamics of demagoguery and political scapegoating than many of us non-historians, and I would suggest that it is equally problematic to reduce the insights and expertise of the entire historical profession to methodology bereft of content.
Having read the letter thrice, it is not at all clear to me that this is true.
The authors claim that historians are familiar with the appeal of demagoguery, and that their profession compels them to speak out against Trump, but they never claim that all historians support their cause. If merely coming together under the banner of their profession implies a pretension to speak for all historians, what does that mean for a group like the Union of Concerned Scientists?
Nor is it clear to me that they are trying to situate themselves as "leaders and guides as we prepare to exercise our franchise in a general election." What you call a warning (a word the authors of the letter never use) reads to me more like a statement of purpose and qualifications -- historians may not be possessed of "moral and political superiority," but they do, as a matter of professional experience, have a better understanding of things like the dynamics of demagoguery and political scapegoating than many of us non-historians, and I would suggest that it is equally problematic to reduce the insights and expertise of the entire historical profession to methodology bereft of content.
7
This post is by jroll.
This is crazy. Why is the focus on Trump and not on the millions of Americans who voted for him? The absolute failure of the professors and the majority of commentators, here, to ask that question is precisely why Trump won and the other 16 did not. This is my answer to that question. Trump as a tv star paid attention to ratings; as a salesman, he had to pay attention to what what people were buying. He was used to listening for feedback from audiences and customers. Perhaps the history professor could understand this as a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Trump responded to the genuine fear and anger over lost jobs due to globalization. Likewise Bernie responded to the overwhelming fear and anger of young people about the burden of college loans. In elections, primary or general, despite the outlay of millions of dollars from special interests, etc. each citizen get one vote. Trump understood that better than any of his opponents. The bullying was for laughs. The message was for votes.
Since I studied poli sci in college, I am very frightened by the prospect of a Trump victory. Once President, he would not have to be concerned about the "opinions" of the electorate. I urge the history professors and their followers to watch, again, the Nazi propaganda film, "Triumph of the Will"...and concentrate on the cheering crowds and the happy faces, not the high squeaky voice of the oddly ugly Hitler, and ask why?
This is crazy. Why is the focus on Trump and not on the millions of Americans who voted for him? The absolute failure of the professors and the majority of commentators, here, to ask that question is precisely why Trump won and the other 16 did not. This is my answer to that question. Trump as a tv star paid attention to ratings; as a salesman, he had to pay attention to what what people were buying. He was used to listening for feedback from audiences and customers. Perhaps the history professor could understand this as a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Trump responded to the genuine fear and anger over lost jobs due to globalization. Likewise Bernie responded to the overwhelming fear and anger of young people about the burden of college loans. In elections, primary or general, despite the outlay of millions of dollars from special interests, etc. each citizen get one vote. Trump understood that better than any of his opponents. The bullying was for laughs. The message was for votes.
Since I studied poli sci in college, I am very frightened by the prospect of a Trump victory. Once President, he would not have to be concerned about the "opinions" of the electorate. I urge the history professors and their followers to watch, again, the Nazi propaganda film, "Triumph of the Will"...and concentrate on the cheering crowds and the happy faces, not the high squeaky voice of the oddly ugly Hitler, and ask why?
3
I guess I qualify as a member of the cultural elite: multiple graduate degrees from a top university. I also have made a significant donation to my alma mater, but will not do so again. What is not mentioned in this article is the enormous left-leaning bias of university faculties. Far too often these same faculties are engaged in the conscious deconstruction of the basic values of our society. Note also that free speech is under attack on many campuses. Students, encouraged by their professors, refuse access to speakers who have views that they might disagree with. Surely, the definition of an educated person includes at the ability to hear points of view different than their own. Not on many of our campuses, and sadly not in the classes of many of our history professors.
I support the basic point of this article.
I support the basic point of this article.
2
Here is how it's starting to look in the mind of a historically undecided voter (myself): Trump has made some rude remarks here and there, but I find the response from the left is becoming increasingly more inappropriate. From violent protesters at Trump rallies to Justice Ginsburg's comments to the professors addressed in this article, it would seem that the left is actually giving credence to those who say the left can't do anything but call people racists/misogynists.
I don't think there are many people who sincerely believe that Trump is some sort of white supremacist. Hillary and Co. don't seem to realize that waving your finger at Trump and calling him rude will only get them so far, especially when he clearly doesn't give a rip. Now it appears that they feel the appropriate response is to lecture their perceived subordinates from their ivory towers.
I was planning on voting for Hillary for most of the presidential primary season, but now Trump seems to be exposing the left's true colors. Unless they can come up with something more substantive other than the "Trump is Rude" platform, I will be casting my ballot for Trump in November.
I don't think there are many people who sincerely believe that Trump is some sort of white supremacist. Hillary and Co. don't seem to realize that waving your finger at Trump and calling him rude will only get them so far, especially when he clearly doesn't give a rip. Now it appears that they feel the appropriate response is to lecture their perceived subordinates from their ivory towers.
I was planning on voting for Hillary for most of the presidential primary season, but now Trump seems to be exposing the left's true colors. Unless they can come up with something more substantive other than the "Trump is Rude" platform, I will be casting my ballot for Trump in November.
1
Readers of this column may not be aware that Stanley Fish made his reputation by practicing a very linguistically-oriented form of literary criticism which holds that the meaning of a text does not exist outside the mind of the individual reader, or possibly communities of readers. Having been a graduate student of history myself when this point of view was having its first vogue, I well remember the mind-bending conundrums it throws in the way of the very idea of objectivity, and I think its underlying radical subjectivism has in fact eroded the historical profession's confidence in its own methods.
Eventually, however, I came to the conclusion that life was too short to waste trying to have this argument. Language manifestly evolved so that homo sapiens could share information about the world. It's not perfect, but that is essentially what it is for. This means that it is in fact possible to derive information about the past from what evidence has been left behind, and studying it does in fact teach us about the world that preceded us, upon which ours is built. And this is the perspective of most working historians, whether they articulate it or not.
So yes, historians of political, social and cultural history may be well-qualified to speak to our current political situation. Why in the world would we want to do without the benefit of our predecessors' experience?
Eventually, however, I came to the conclusion that life was too short to waste trying to have this argument. Language manifestly evolved so that homo sapiens could share information about the world. It's not perfect, but that is essentially what it is for. This means that it is in fact possible to derive information about the past from what evidence has been left behind, and studying it does in fact teach us about the world that preceded us, upon which ours is built. And this is the perspective of most working historians, whether they articulate it or not.
So yes, historians of political, social and cultural history may be well-qualified to speak to our current political situation. Why in the world would we want to do without the benefit of our predecessors' experience?
14
I agree with Stanley Fish. In fact, I am beginning to believe that education often makes people stupider than they were before--in part because it license the sort of hubris Fish is pointing at. There were similar events in the past in which anthropologists took out ads explaining why a certain policy with nuclear weapons was bad. There expertise especially qualified them since their field was the human being--whose existence was threatened by nuclear weapons. The overwhelming number of criticisms in the comments comes from people feeling the ends justify the means. Since we know Trump is evil, anyone who uses whatever means to oppose him (almost) must be right. We don't need to worry about the long-term integrity of the university since the apocalypse is here. And the apocalypse justifies anything. Thank you professor Fish maintaining your good sense. There are real problems in the academic world that this sort of thing is a symptom of.
2
Disagree. RBG was not just a citizens giving an opinion, she is now a sitting S. Court justice and that ‘invests her remarks with authority’, and of a special kind.
The rw will now shout that her future decisions are infected by politics. Also, some defend RBG with the example of conservative justices who don’t care if they show they’re politically connected. Yes, they’re compromised. Well, the liberals on the court and elsewhere should keep higher standards, as contrast in the eyes of the nation.
Our politics is corrupted enough. Let’s maintain categories according to purpose. Sure, I agree with RBG’s statements, and I’d also like her to retire asap, so Clinton can nominate someone. Then RBG can let her loose on her opinions. Let her write columns or go on TV as a pundit—I’d welcome it.
But a group of historians isn't entrusted to decide court cases resulting in penalties for the loser, and affecting national laws and policy. They are not a 3rd branch of govt to serve as a balance, with a constitutional role.
Historians are experts in history and can put our current crazy politics in a context we don’t get in the daily hurly burly of news, which looks for ratings, plus profits from our campaign finance in ad fees.
Other academic historians could form a group to advocate for the other side, using historical evidence as they see it. We need clash of ideas and a wider range of opinion than we get. Let historians trace back what let a Trumpf even emerge.
The rw will now shout that her future decisions are infected by politics. Also, some defend RBG with the example of conservative justices who don’t care if they show they’re politically connected. Yes, they’re compromised. Well, the liberals on the court and elsewhere should keep higher standards, as contrast in the eyes of the nation.
Our politics is corrupted enough. Let’s maintain categories according to purpose. Sure, I agree with RBG’s statements, and I’d also like her to retire asap, so Clinton can nominate someone. Then RBG can let her loose on her opinions. Let her write columns or go on TV as a pundit—I’d welcome it.
But a group of historians isn't entrusted to decide court cases resulting in penalties for the loser, and affecting national laws and policy. They are not a 3rd branch of govt to serve as a balance, with a constitutional role.
Historians are experts in history and can put our current crazy politics in a context we don’t get in the daily hurly burly of news, which looks for ratings, plus profits from our campaign finance in ad fees.
Other academic historians could form a group to advocate for the other side, using historical evidence as they see it. We need clash of ideas and a wider range of opinion than we get. Let historians trace back what let a Trumpf even emerge.
1
Several arguments here are unsupported.
You argue that historians have nothing to add to political discourse based on their study of history because they have "merely" earned a degree, read books, etc. This makes as much sense as saying that attorneys have nothing to add to our political discourse based on their study of and work in the law because they have merely read certain books, taken a certain exam and perhaps devoted their lives to working within the justice system.
When I have a serious decision to make, like voting, I look to the opinions of many with expertise and experience outside my own, because like everyone no matter how I try I am limited in my own knowledge and insight. The discounting of an opinion because it comes from a particular group of people with a particular expertise which they openly explain is inconsistent with a thinking person's approach to informed decision-making.
You argue that Historians Against Trump claim a corporate identity. I see nothing in the letter claiming a corporate status. And, even if so, how would that imply that they speak for the entire profession of history? Apple does not include every tech worker nor speak for the entire tech sector.
You state that the profession should not make political statements. Again confusing historians with the entire profession. But, regardless, the Constitution allows political speech, even from historians, exercising the right to association and assembly.
You argue that historians have nothing to add to political discourse based on their study of history because they have "merely" earned a degree, read books, etc. This makes as much sense as saying that attorneys have nothing to add to our political discourse based on their study of and work in the law because they have merely read certain books, taken a certain exam and perhaps devoted their lives to working within the justice system.
When I have a serious decision to make, like voting, I look to the opinions of many with expertise and experience outside my own, because like everyone no matter how I try I am limited in my own knowledge and insight. The discounting of an opinion because it comes from a particular group of people with a particular expertise which they openly explain is inconsistent with a thinking person's approach to informed decision-making.
You argue that Historians Against Trump claim a corporate identity. I see nothing in the letter claiming a corporate status. And, even if so, how would that imply that they speak for the entire profession of history? Apple does not include every tech worker nor speak for the entire tech sector.
You state that the profession should not make political statements. Again confusing historians with the entire profession. But, regardless, the Constitution allows political speech, even from historians, exercising the right to association and assembly.
178
Take this statement:
"it couldn’t possibly be true unless it were the case that no credentialed historian is a Trump supporter; even one or two (and I bet there are a lot more than that) would spoil the broth."
Substitute "scientist" for "historian" and "climate change denier" for "Trump supporter. Would it still be valid? Or at that point do you fall back on the idea that science is objective and history isn't?
"it couldn’t possibly be true unless it were the case that no credentialed historian is a Trump supporter; even one or two (and I bet there are a lot more than that) would spoil the broth."
Substitute "scientist" for "historian" and "climate change denier" for "Trump supporter. Would it still be valid? Or at that point do you fall back on the idea that science is objective and history isn't?
Although I am not a historian, I am a signatory to the Historians against Trump letter. (I taught history of philosophy, including regular doses of Plato's _Republic_ and John Dewey's _Democracy and Education_ and _The Public and Its Problems_, at a private university for twenty-two years.) If the "responsibilities and limitations of [our] profession[s]" require us to muzzle our collective voice when we perceive a grievous threat to our democracy, then what, pray tell, is the purpose of liberal education in a democracy supposed to be? Dewey writes, “Personality must be educated, and personality cannot be educated by confining its operations to technical and specialized things, or to the less important relationships of life. Full education comes only when there is a responsible share on the part of each person, in proportion to capacity, in shaping the aims and policies of the social groups to which he belongs.” In light of this, and in light of the clear and grievous danger that Trump and his followers present to what is left of our democracy, it is Professor Fish's "it's all just opinion" relativism and his chastising of the Historians against Trump that constitute failures of responsibility to the American public and to the academic profession.
9
I have read the letter Mr. Fish objects to and find myself puzzled by his complaint. The historians who signed the letter do not claim to speak for all historians. They identify themselves as "Historians Against Trump." I can imagine a group calling itself "Historians for Trump" writing a very different letter. What's the harm in this? The signatories identify themselves as historians not to insulate their views from criticism but to explain to the reader what informs their opinion. The Historians Against Trump assess his candidacy in light of past events which, in their view, expose the dangers posed by him. I assume Historians for Trump would disagree, as might non-historians who also take a more positive view of Trump's candidacy. It is not wrong to bring expert knowledge to bear on politics. In fact, expert knowledge can be illuminating, or at the very least help stimulate a more productive discussion of the issues at hand. All parties need only bear in mind that expert knowledge is neither infallible nor irrefutable. Perhaps Mr. Fish believes that the signatories to the letter issued by Historians Against Trump were trying to use their status as experts to impart an undeserved authority to their political opinions. If so, this strikes me as a particularly ungenerous reading of the letter, one that tells us more about Mr. Fish than about those who signed the letter.
10
So professor, your opinion also has no relative value derived from the expertise you managed to garner through years of study and analysis? Why are you privileged to offer your opinion in the New York Times? Expert testimony from those who actually dig a little deeper offers the public a basis for the critical thinking they might entertain. The public discourse by mainstream media is like empty calories for the news diet. Bravo historians and any other discipline who informs the masses of an alternative viewpoint based on something of substance.
11
I'm the last person to say historians or scholars in general are smarter than anyone else--artists, in particular, have far more to offer in terms of "warnings" to the general public than do your standard-issue academics--but Professor Fish is wrong here to assume historians cannot and should not act as "seers or political gurus." The entire academic enterprise--every single part of it, if it's any good--is meant to "see," meant to "politicize;" indeed it can hardly keep itself from doing both. I suppose Professor Fish would rather other corporate bodies take over the university system; well, I have news for him: they already have. Historians Against Trump, although very likely comprised of a number of people I myself might find all-too-self-satisfied and/or personally annoying, had better exercise their freedom of speech as often and as loudly as possible--in the classroom and everywhere else--lest Trump and his mob threaten to take it away; we all need academics--and everyone else, too--to stand up against Trumpism during our every waking moment, and that includes all those moments in which we're "teach[ing] students how to handle archival materials, how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, and how to build a persuasive account of a disputed event."
105
"In fact they are merely people with history degrees, which means that they have read certain books, taken and taught certain courses..."
Yes - certain books and courses on what has happened in the past when nations embraced a leader like Trump.
"and written scholarly essays, often on topics of interest only to other practitioners in the field." It sounds like Dr. Fish would like to keep it that way.
Yes - certain books and courses on what has happened in the past when nations embraced a leader like Trump.
"and written scholarly essays, often on topics of interest only to other practitioners in the field." It sounds like Dr. Fish would like to keep it that way.
2
Is that not what history is for? To learn from prior mistakes? Ignorance should never, ever be bliss.
1
Jeez, stop opining about how people, particularly qualified ones, should stop opining.
2
Academics have long ago left their responsibilities. The politics of personal identity promoted on college campuses have been a disaster for America. As citizens professors have an obligation to use what they know to speak out against someone as unfit for the presidency as Trump. Fish just wants to contrary.
2
Ho hum, just another attack on education and educators by the ignorant. If they only learned to listen as well as to read, we might not have people like Trump as candidates for the country's highest office.
1
Sometimes I think that liberalism only exists to put the Kaibash on action and dissent. The moment anyone or any group take the courageous step of standing up, the one thing you can count on is that there will be a liberal there to criticize them. We live in a passive country that is probably going to elect Donald Trump and Mike Pence. We need to be doing everything to try and stop it. I salute these professors.
>>>
“historians understand the impact these phenomena have upon society’s most vulnerable.”
As opposed to the intellectually challenged American voter?
I'll play the odds and follow the professors.
“historians understand the impact these phenomena have upon society’s most vulnerable.”
As opposed to the intellectually challenged American voter?
I'll play the odds and follow the professors.
14
Somehow, I can't look past the irony of a literary theorist-turned-public-intellectual using his perch at the NYT to criticize other academics for speaking out about Trump.
12
Has Prof. Fish felt the same way when the Union of Concerned Scientists -- clearly a "political" group, just like Historians Against Trump, despite the members' primary occupations -- has denounced politicians or policies that deny or are against climate science?
If students of history, which is what these professors are, cannot opine, based on what they've learned from history, about the clear danger of a personality like Trump becoming the most powerful person on the planet, then who does he believe is qualified to opine? In fact, I would argue that their civic duty should compel professors, individually or as a group, to speak out against people or policies that they believe, based on their expertise, would be harmful to the nation!
This oped is ill-advised and misguided and should never have been published.
If students of history, which is what these professors are, cannot opine, based on what they've learned from history, about the clear danger of a personality like Trump becoming the most powerful person on the planet, then who does he believe is qualified to opine? In fact, I would argue that their civic duty should compel professors, individually or as a group, to speak out against people or policies that they believe, based on their expertise, would be harmful to the nation!
This oped is ill-advised and misguided and should never have been published.
18
Oh come on. It's America. Everybody's entitled to an opinion. If Trump proves nothing, he proves that.
1
One of your most nonsensical columns - the people most educated to see potential warning signs are by that very fact prohibited from remarking on them? That's a position I'd most associate with an anti-intellectual like, say, Trump.
29
I am a history professor, and history tells me that Trump is potentially the American version of Hitler and Mussolini that no one before him has been--and, since he is the presumptive nominee of one of the only two major parties with a real chance of victory, I feel confident in saying that.
So a group of historians decided to get together and say that. Do they speak for the entire profession? I don't see evidence of that. But since Stanley Fish is so concerned that I just stick to teaching students how to discern evidence, let's look at the bottom of the article. It identifies him FIRST by his academic affiliation, THEN as an author. Doth the pot overlook its own tarnished state in describing the kettle?
So a group of historians decided to get together and say that. Do they speak for the entire profession? I don't see evidence of that. But since Stanley Fish is so concerned that I just stick to teaching students how to discern evidence, let's look at the bottom of the article. It identifies him FIRST by his academic affiliation, THEN as an author. Doth the pot overlook its own tarnished state in describing the kettle?
24
Academics have free-speech rights just like everyone else; the public can ascribe authority to their remarks or not as it sees fit. I personally take their remarks extremely seriously, believe their profession gives them unique insight into the dangers a Trump-personality type poses to the values of the Republic, and would go so far as to say that historians have a public duty to make their views clear.
10
Ironically shortsighted commentary from someone whose profession is constructed to a great extent on precedent--that is, the use of the past to form opinions in the present. While Fish has a limited understanding of the the role of history and the work of historians, he does concede that their job, in part, is to teach, "how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, how to build a persuasive account of a disputed event." In other words, historians teach critical thinking skills, skills that appear vital to navigating the communication barrage of the 21st century.
But let's see. We have celebrities grouping together to sign petitions against Donald Trump. Writers. Doctors. Veterans. But historians have no group standing because (according to Fish) "Academic expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom." Sidestepping a lengthy rebuttal: Yes. It is. And that includes academic expertise in history, science, medicine, engineering, economics, and yes, law, among others.
Fish's article simply reinforces how happy I am to have chosen a doctorate in history over law school.
But let's see. We have celebrities grouping together to sign petitions against Donald Trump. Writers. Doctors. Veterans. But historians have no group standing because (according to Fish) "Academic expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom." Sidestepping a lengthy rebuttal: Yes. It is. And that includes academic expertise in history, science, medicine, engineering, economics, and yes, law, among others.
Fish's article simply reinforces how happy I am to have chosen a doctorate in history over law school.
16
Trump's monomaniacal and incoherent demagoguery has to be called out for what it is by any means possible. Whether incarnated from the common man's angst or Republican ineptitude, the legitimacy of his candidacy has to be called into question by anyone and everyone in agreement at every opportunity. Governing this country, and leading the world, cannot be done by screaming into a phone to Fox News, or by Twitter, or by outright bullying, then walking back that very statement after Ivanka and Jared coach Dad to calm down. Stop Trump.
5
Congratulations Prof. Fish. You have laid out the strongest case against how in the name of saving the country from Trump, these historians have falsely used their profession as the reason that allows them to speak for all historians on the Trump candidacy.
This is not a new issue. Decades ago, in the 1960s, the great and late historian of slavery, Eugene D. Genovese, made the same case against those historians who founded Historians Against the War, and tried to get the entire professional historian groups to not only oppose the War, but to argue that they had a responsibility to do so as historians. Genovese opposed the politicization of history they represented (even though he opposed the war) and he said it condemns many of their fellow historians who in fact did not agree with them.
Genovese won the vote and the leftist historians' group was stopped. The difference is that in that era, there were still mainstream centrist and conservative historians who dominated the field, and the Left had few numbers of people in the profession.Now the situation is reversed.
The Left historians took "the long march through the existing institutions", and just like in the literary field, before long they virtually dominated the entire profession and the two organizations which represent historians. \
So again, thank you for tearing apart their arguments, and defending true academic freedom.
Ron Radosh,
Prof. Emeritus of History, CUNY
Adjunct Fellow, the Hudson Institute
This is not a new issue. Decades ago, in the 1960s, the great and late historian of slavery, Eugene D. Genovese, made the same case against those historians who founded Historians Against the War, and tried to get the entire professional historian groups to not only oppose the War, but to argue that they had a responsibility to do so as historians. Genovese opposed the politicization of history they represented (even though he opposed the war) and he said it condemns many of their fellow historians who in fact did not agree with them.
Genovese won the vote and the leftist historians' group was stopped. The difference is that in that era, there were still mainstream centrist and conservative historians who dominated the field, and the Left had few numbers of people in the profession.Now the situation is reversed.
The Left historians took "the long march through the existing institutions", and just like in the literary field, before long they virtually dominated the entire profession and the two organizations which represent historians. \
So again, thank you for tearing apart their arguments, and defending true academic freedom.
Ron Radosh,
Prof. Emeritus of History, CUNY
Adjunct Fellow, the Hudson Institute
2
Given the arrogant and scolding tone of Professor Fish's piece, I assume the illustration you chose at the top of the article is of Professor Fish.
10
I have no idea where Professor Fish got the idea that these history professors were making some sweeping claim to Total Objective Knowledge due to their academic credentials. No fair or reasonable reading of their document yields any such notion, and it's frankly a bizarre strawman of an argument he's built here.
15
I think the real title of the facebook page should be "Democrat Historians Against Trump". Although I wholeheartedly agree with all they opine, it does smack a bit of partisan collusion. I bet they would all support Hillary over any Republican. Be transparent at least.
2
What an absurd idea. Since when does having qualifications actually disqualify you from giving political opinions? Historians know something about history. They therefore recognize the similarities between Donald J. Trump and his fascist predecessors. That the historians delivered their views as experts on history perhaps resulted from their being accredited experts on history. Our political discourse would benefit from having more experts speak up against injustice and fewer anti-intellectual Op-Ed bloviators whine about them doing it.
13
Stanley Fish claims that "The Historians Against Trump ... are saying, here is our view of the election and you should pay particular attention to it because we are academics".
This is FALSE. In fact the statement says "We are history professors, school teachers, public historians and museum professionals, independent scholars and graduate students" not "we are academics".
Mr. Fish has already demonstrated, through the Sokal affair, that he cannot distinguish truth from hoax. How much falsehood are we supposed to take from him?
This is FALSE. In fact the statement says "We are history professors, school teachers, public historians and museum professionals, independent scholars and graduate students" not "we are academics".
Mr. Fish has already demonstrated, through the Sokal affair, that he cannot distinguish truth from hoax. How much falsehood are we supposed to take from him?
4
Yet ironically Stanley Fish is guilty of exactly the same sin by signing his speculative opinion piece as "professor of law at Florida International University and visiting professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and author etc etc." If historians have no particular professional brief or specialized insights to comment AS historians on current affairs then it follows that exactly the same logic applies to Mr Fish as professor of law. He should just sign off as Mr Stanley Fish. Period. Or maybe Mr Fish, Florida. No shingle required.
8
"Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a campaign of violence: violence against individuals and groups; against memory and accountability, against historical analysis and fact."
Spot on.
Spot on.
6
Prof. Fish takes an important point and largely negates it with inconsistencies. Others have dealt with the inconsistencies, I'm going to focus on the important point.
One of the worst things that's happened to universities is the public perception--not always true--that they are a bastion of liberals and radicals. In that context, group statements of scholars against Trump seem to most people as nothing more than the latest cage match: "professors v. conservatives round 55.” It’s not the special warning that these scholars perceive it to be.
Even without this perception, people are more likely to pay attention to individuals, particularly if they can make their expertise and its relevance clear.
If all these scholars wrote their own editorials (or speeches or blog posts, whatever), speaking for themselves but utilizing their skills to make good arguments, they would have a bigger impact.
One of the worst things that's happened to universities is the public perception--not always true--that they are a bastion of liberals and radicals. In that context, group statements of scholars against Trump seem to most people as nothing more than the latest cage match: "professors v. conservatives round 55.” It’s not the special warning that these scholars perceive it to be.
Even without this perception, people are more likely to pay attention to individuals, particularly if they can make their expertise and its relevance clear.
If all these scholars wrote their own editorials (or speeches or blog posts, whatever), speaking for themselves but utilizing their skills to make good arguments, they would have a bigger impact.
1
Stanley Fish's next column is to be entitled, "Climate Scientists, Stop Complaining About the Weather!"
6
I could not disagree more strenuously. This is one of the most mean-spirited and demeaning opinion pieces I have ever read. It suggests that an opinion grounded in facts and evidence is no better than a know-nothing opinion grounded in myths and emotion. Historians are in fact uniquely qualified and credentialed to do what this group has done. To be a historian does not simply mean that the person has read certain books and checked the right boxes in his/her quest for a Ph.D. It means they have studied analogous past events and come to an understanding of how those events led to the outcomes they did. Applying that knowledge to current situations and projecting what may be the outcome is exactly what historians do and should do. Most of the rest of us have not done that homework and can gain much from listening to those learned opinions.
12
By his own logic, since Dr. Fish is speaking as a Professor of Law and not simply a "private citizen", he should only comment on the practice of law. Certainly that doesn't include any expertise in politics or the appropriate professional conduct of historians.
13
Kant's distinction between "private" and "public" intellectual discourse is relevant here. Dr. Fish makes the point but does not cite Kant. The idea is neatly explained in "What is Enlightenment" and is based on the notion that a citizen can and should participate in public debate of political issues, but NOT as an official representative of his or her profession. Exactly the case with the historians vs. RBG. I kept waiting for someone to point this out when Ginsberg was being raked over the coals - I'm glad Fish has done so here.
2
You are so right. How dare these highly educated elitists list their credentials as evidence that they might actually know what they are talking about?!? Who is going to listen to that? Certainly not us 'mericans! We all know that you get far better advice from "people you can have a beer with" than from so-called "subject matter experts" or "academic elitists" or "smart people."
4
I find this article reprehensible, everyone in this country has the right to express their opinions, either individually or as a group and we all supposedly base our opinions on our knowledge and backgrounds. To accuse these professors of doing something wrong when they are basing their opinions on their knowledge is ridiculous, They are not claiming any political wisdom other than their own, and by the way who are you to say they are wrong to opine about this year's election, why do you as a law professor expect me to take your opinion with any more value than theirs.....
4
First error: Fish seems to think that unless every single historian agrees with the platform, then the title “historians” cannot be claimed. But this is not an exclusionary title, like the New York Yankees. Some historians may embrace Trump, and some may disavow him, but that does not make them any less historians.
Second error: nowhere are the signatories “obviously partisan”; they are anti-Trump, not anti-GOP. Many in the actual GOP are anti-Trump as well (see: Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush).
Third error: Fish explicitly separates academic expertise and political wisdom, but then provides no basis FOR political wisdom, except to say that it shouldn’t be academic. Then where does it come from? He pronounces ex cathedra that “the profession of history shouldn’t be making political pronouncements of any kind” and that its expertise lies is handling old documents! If those with knowledge of past politics (historians, political scientists, philosophers, etc.) do not comment on current politics, this guarantees that past tragedies will repeat themselves.
The letter is a bit arrogant in tone, but you can’t deny that the Trump candidacy is rooted in fear, violence & aggression. If historians can help voters connect the dots between previous authoritarian regimes and Trump, they are doing their duty as public intellectuals. By contrast, Fish’s implied alternative seems to be that academics should just sit back and have a mojito, since they clearly have no present service to perform.
Second error: nowhere are the signatories “obviously partisan”; they are anti-Trump, not anti-GOP. Many in the actual GOP are anti-Trump as well (see: Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush).
Third error: Fish explicitly separates academic expertise and political wisdom, but then provides no basis FOR political wisdom, except to say that it shouldn’t be academic. Then where does it come from? He pronounces ex cathedra that “the profession of history shouldn’t be making political pronouncements of any kind” and that its expertise lies is handling old documents! If those with knowledge of past politics (historians, political scientists, philosophers, etc.) do not comment on current politics, this guarantees that past tragedies will repeat themselves.
The letter is a bit arrogant in tone, but you can’t deny that the Trump candidacy is rooted in fear, violence & aggression. If historians can help voters connect the dots between previous authoritarian regimes and Trump, they are doing their duty as public intellectuals. By contrast, Fish’s implied alternative seems to be that academics should just sit back and have a mojito, since they clearly have no present service to perform.
5
Historians correctly predicted the quagmire in Iraq. They have every right to make thier opinions known. Just as career politicians are apparently experts on everything.
4
No, the statement by the historians is not "just another point of view." That's moral relativism at its worst. That's the attitude that causes the brainwashed to say, "That's just your opinion" when presented with facts.
I happen to believe that opinions based on knowledge are more to be trusted and respected than opinions based on delusions, prejudices, or indoctrination. People who say that Hitler was a Marxist or that Mexican immigration is the result of "the Spanish" trying to complete their colonization of the whole Western Hemisphere are just plain wrong. (I guess we can thank the dry and superficial instruction in world history that the average American receives in high school--if they take world history at all.)
I hope we can all agree that encouraging bigotry is bad and that an emotionally unstable anger junkie who can't string a coherent sentence together is a poor candidate for an important leadership position, whether in the local Chamber of Commerce or the presidency of the United States.
I see a different problem with the historians' pronouncement, namely the American habit of anti-intellectualism that Professor Fish referred to, what Isaac Asimov called the belief that "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge."
The average Trump supporter will view the professors' statement as "just another set of pointy-headed elitist intellectuals."
I happen to believe that opinions based on knowledge are more to be trusted and respected than opinions based on delusions, prejudices, or indoctrination. People who say that Hitler was a Marxist or that Mexican immigration is the result of "the Spanish" trying to complete their colonization of the whole Western Hemisphere are just plain wrong. (I guess we can thank the dry and superficial instruction in world history that the average American receives in high school--if they take world history at all.)
I hope we can all agree that encouraging bigotry is bad and that an emotionally unstable anger junkie who can't string a coherent sentence together is a poor candidate for an important leadership position, whether in the local Chamber of Commerce or the presidency of the United States.
I see a different problem with the historians' pronouncement, namely the American habit of anti-intellectualism that Professor Fish referred to, what Isaac Asimov called the belief that "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge."
The average Trump supporter will view the professors' statement as "just another set of pointy-headed elitist intellectuals."
2
I think this article is representative of the anti-intellectualism strain that has plagued our country from its beginnings, and which was elucidated in Richard Hofstadter's 1963 book and still alive and well in 2016.
4
Stanley Fish has become entirely too useful for those who would repress dissenting intellectuals. When Trump claims "America First" as a slogan, unleashes his mobs against the press by telling them how to hound reporters specifically (because disabled, female-bodied with "blood coming out," or Jewish), makes no pretense of even understanding the role of courts in a democracy, and telling his brown-shirts to punch protesters in the face, isn't it useful to have a historian around to tell you what that has presaged in the past? Shame on Stanley Fish for telling historians to stay in their lane, to stop calling our group of signatories "historians" when that's, in fact, what we are.
10
Is there a counter group of professors and intellectuals to Historians Against Trump who are being gagged about their vision of the economic , racial and harmonious nirvana that a Trump presidency will engender ? There must be thousands upon thousands of academics not only in the u s a but across civilization who salivate at the thought of Trump being the leader of the free world !!! Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol
3
Historians may opine about Trump in a century, maybe, but not yet.
As Mao Tse Tung said, when asked his judgment of the French Revolution, it's too soon to know.
As Mao Tse Tung said, when asked his judgment of the French Revolution, it's too soon to know.
2
I have been reading H.L. Mencken for more than 50 years and still find him my best guide
to the current scene.
Here is the close of his famous obituary of William Jennings Bryan. With a little updating, it could have been written yesterday.
"Thus he fought his last fight, thirsting savagely for blood. All sense departed from him. He bit right and left, like a dog with rabies. He descended to demagogy so dreadful that his very associates at the trial table blushed. His one yearning was to keep his yokels hated up - to lead his forlorn mob of imbeciles against the foe. That foe, alas, refused to be alarmed. It insisted
upon seeing the whole battle as a comedy. Even Darrow, who knew better, occasionally yielded to the prevailing spirit. One day he lured poor Bryan into the folly I have mentioned: his astounding argument against the notion that man is a mammal. I am glad I heard it, for otherwise I'd never believe it. There stood the man who had been thrice a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic - there he stood in the glare of the world, uttering stuff that a boy of eight would
laugh at. The artful Darrow led him on: he repeated it, ranted for it, bellowed it in his cracked voice. So he was prepared for the final slaughter. He came into life a hero, a Galahad, in bright and shining armor. He was passing out a poor mountebank."
to the current scene.
Here is the close of his famous obituary of William Jennings Bryan. With a little updating, it could have been written yesterday.
"Thus he fought his last fight, thirsting savagely for blood. All sense departed from him. He bit right and left, like a dog with rabies. He descended to demagogy so dreadful that his very associates at the trial table blushed. His one yearning was to keep his yokels hated up - to lead his forlorn mob of imbeciles against the foe. That foe, alas, refused to be alarmed. It insisted
upon seeing the whole battle as a comedy. Even Darrow, who knew better, occasionally yielded to the prevailing spirit. One day he lured poor Bryan into the folly I have mentioned: his astounding argument against the notion that man is a mammal. I am glad I heard it, for otherwise I'd never believe it. There stood the man who had been thrice a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic - there he stood in the glare of the world, uttering stuff that a boy of eight would
laugh at. The artful Darrow led him on: he repeated it, ranted for it, bellowed it in his cracked voice. So he was prepared for the final slaughter. He came into life a hero, a Galahad, in bright and shining armor. He was passing out a poor mountebank."
3
Fish has half an argument since the language of the letter touches on some obviously non-historian-related points. However, Fish (who has made this argument before) insists that academics are only experts in the procedures of scholarship. It is baffling, however, that he doesn't believe academics are experts in the _content_ of their fields, which in the case of historians involve examining historical processes and events like, say, the rise of fascism. I wonder if he thinks political scientists have the right to comment? Another extremely illogical argument of Fish's is the idea that experts would have to speak in unison to speak as members of a discipline. Not all doctors have to speak for a group who present an opinion about medical knowledge _as_ doctors; the point is that they speak as experts, not that experts always agree. And finally, it is bizarre to say that academics have no right to speak about rhetoric that they see as an attack on the values of their profession, and the letter is surely right (Fish doesn't quote this) that "Trump’s contempt for constructive, evidence-based argumentation mocks the ideals of the academy."
9
I'm struggling to reconcile the irony of an article making the claim that specialized knowledge and training in an area provides no stance upon which to argue, written by a professor of law who apparently specializes in how to argue. Does Fish not understand that it is his status as a Professor Who Writes Big Important Books that allows him to write and be heard in this context?
Further, his book seemingly includes techniques for how to win an argument "in the bedroom." Fish is a law professor. What on earth allows him to extrapolate his legal knowledge and bring it into that realm? Academics are wrong to "insert themselves into the political process under the banner of academic expertise," but Fish is completely comfortable writing a book inserting himself into the sexual process under the banner of legal expertise. See, Professor Fish? That's how academic knowledge works. We use it to make conclusions. If you can, so can we.
Further, his book seemingly includes techniques for how to win an argument "in the bedroom." Fish is a law professor. What on earth allows him to extrapolate his legal knowledge and bring it into that realm? Academics are wrong to "insert themselves into the political process under the banner of academic expertise," but Fish is completely comfortable writing a book inserting himself into the sexual process under the banner of legal expertise. See, Professor Fish? That's how academic knowledge works. We use it to make conclusions. If you can, so can we.
3
The "Open Letter" referred to in this article does serve as an amusing example of the sense of self-importance of some in academia, but other than that it's just a laundry list of grievances common to those with an antipathy towards Mr. Trump. Like so much of the negative commentary about him, it has more to do with self-affirmation of its writers and signers as being on what they see as the correct side, rather than an actual attempt to persuade. Because of this, it is a perfectly harmless thing to post, and doesn't prove anything about their profession's "responsibilities and limits", other than what many already think about ivory tower academics!
I read this morning that a group of tech leaders have written a letter of concern about a Trump presidency. Should they not express their views as a group either?
6
When I was in college, I had quite a few narrow, mean, ignorant "professors" who gave higher education a bad name. There were SOME wise ones, but not the majority.
1
Stanley Fish! The name at the end came as a bit of a shock; is this the same Stanley Fish I once knew as a literary theorist and (or so I'd imagine) member of the Modern Language Association, which has frequently issued public statements supporting what some might construe as 'political' views? If all that professors can do is mark papers and make sure that students follow the best research methods, then we might as well close the doors of academe today. When a society loses its mind, loses its conscience, loses its sense of history, then I feel that history professors have, indeed, a special obligation to do what they can to speak out and remind us what we, as citizens, need to consider.
6
I completely disagree. Historians are eminently qualified to give their political opinions and should. But I'm not limiting my comment to historians; all people have the right to state their opinions in academic settings and anywhere at all, due to our First Amendment rights.
3
It seems Stanley Fish wants every academic to stay in his or her ivory tower. Well, except for Stanley Fish, of course. As for myself, I'm appalled at how little our political and economic elite listen to academics who do in fact know more about public policy and science and history and... well, it's a long list. I will offer one perfect example: climate change. Should scientists, either individually or as a group, stay out of the politics of this issue? I hope not. We need them to speak out. Stanley Fish's argument is weak, weak, weak.
13
Concepts studied by social psychologists (such as propaganda techniques, authoritarianism, group polarization, in group bias and discrimination,..) are essential for an understanding of the rise of Trump's popularity. I'll be using Trump as an example of these in my classes despite Dr. Fish's admonition, and I know I won't be the only one.
4
Why does it matter if they vest their authority? How is that unfair? Fish never gives a good answer. After all, they are not stealing anyone's vote. In fact, it is probably rare anybody would even see this letter besides other history professors who likely agree. The only thing they are saying is 'my opinion is more important and informed than x because of my position'. It probably is objectively true that it is a more informed opinion, morally and historically. Still, it has no bearing on the outcome.
Further Ginsburg is doing the same thing as the Historian whether she intends to or explicitly states it--Fish draws a line without a distinction. The audience rightfully implies her authority whether she wants to or not. Still, nobody is acting unfairly even if that's the case and Fish's impulse to exonerate her shows the entire endevour has no meaning besides hating on people that use their authority to say they have a more informed opinion.
Further Ginsburg is doing the same thing as the Historian whether she intends to or explicitly states it--Fish draws a line without a distinction. The audience rightfully implies her authority whether she wants to or not. Still, nobody is acting unfairly even if that's the case and Fish's impulse to exonerate her shows the entire endevour has no meaning besides hating on people that use their authority to say they have a more informed opinion.
3
Mr. Fish has interesting opinions about the purpose of studying history, and the actual study if history does not seem to be included in the job description.
But in fact, the importance of having knowledge about history is precisely that it puts us in a better position to judge the present.
But in fact, the importance of having knowledge about history is precisely that it puts us in a better position to judge the present.
The hubris displayed by Stanley Fish in this column is far greater than any hubris exhibited by the history professors. Basically he's saying, "Only I may decide when it is appropriate for you to express an opinion, and upon what topics. I, however, will continue to pass judgement on whatever I please, whenever I see fit." Breathtaking for its lack of self awareness.
4
How odd.
Condemning intelligence and learning in defense of ignorance, fear, and hate.
What America has become.
Condemning intelligence and learning in defense of ignorance, fear, and hate.
What America has become.
1
Stanley Fish, stop opining about history professors.
1
Fish's sentiments here are consistent with his postmodernist perspective in other matters, with his distrust of claims to objectivity, and his view of "truth" obscured by subjectivity of opinions.
But if university professors, arguably the smartest and most knowledgeable segment of our society, should not express opinions on politics, who should? Moreover, one does not have to be able to write a great novel or make a car in order to judge if a novel or car is well-made. Even if my professional academic expertise is only distantly related to modern political issues, that doesn't mean that I can't form expectations about how he would perform, were he elected.
Are you saying that academics should stay mum and let the less educated dominate contemporary political debates?
But if university professors, arguably the smartest and most knowledgeable segment of our society, should not express opinions on politics, who should? Moreover, one does not have to be able to write a great novel or make a car in order to judge if a novel or car is well-made. Even if my professional academic expertise is only distantly related to modern political issues, that doesn't mean that I can't form expectations about how he would perform, were he elected.
Are you saying that academics should stay mum and let the less educated dominate contemporary political debates?
4
Professor Fish: A little introspection might be in order: "I would say that the hubris of these statements was extraordinary were it not so commonplace for professors (not all but many) to regularly equate the possession of an advanced degree with virtue." What more perfect example could there possibly be of throwing stones from a glass house?
2
Maybe if these folks went out into the real world, we could take their opinions, and let's be clear, they are only opinions, not facts, more seriously.
1
Stanley Fish dislikes the fact that a group of historians have applied their discipline to a political question, in this case to Trump. I suppose he would object as well to a group of nuclear scientists warning of the consequences of a nuclear exchange. And he would disdain climate scientists for warning of the causes and perils of climate change. Historians, he says should stick to talking to each other (about things only they find interesting) and to their students (about how tell truth from falsehood). This is not only a denial that academics have an obligation to use their specific training, when relevant, for a good outside of academe. Even worse, he thinks it's wrong for them to do so. "Just shut up and stick to your irrelevant academic activities," is what Fish advises historians to do. This is one of those cases that leaves one wondering, "Where do I begin?" Finally, he is claiming that that the only reasoning these historians provide is that they are historians, which of course is false. One cannot help thinking that Fish rates provocation way above any concern for truth.
9
Some commenters here seem to be adding their own emotional flourishes - Since Trump announced his presidential fantasy, the restless literate has increasingly feared that the electorate, (the great unwashed they are ostensibly educating) is so incredibly stupid it will actually vote into office a proven non-entity like Donald Trump just to make a point. Ergo, saith the profs, "Historians Against Trump" is joining the fray (ta da!), if nothing else to demonstrate to the world that college professors don't only live in ivory towers.
Isn't Fish's point essentially that of the freshman in beginning philosophy classes: "all opinions are equal, except mine"? Fish has been doing this for years and has been handsomely rewarded, I will add.
1
Weren't you the guy who absolutely guaranteed that Hillary Clinton would win the 2006 presidential race? Why, yes, you were! No wonder.
How utterly silly. Fish tells us how to do everything--maybe people take his book to the bedroom to be prepared for events there? This is an English professor who became a law professor, which shows us the state of law schools--about as low as you can get--and English departments who allow the "expertise" of criticizing books to be sullied by a person becoming a law professor, a job in decline if there has ever been one, since lawyers are being replaced by $200 computers.
2
Since the influence of these harmless bloviators is zero, Mr. Fish's passion for the scourge is odd.
Most of us are more worried about celebrities and public officials who routinely instruct judges on the law, scientists on science and the general population on everything from war and peace to correct personal conduct.
Most of us are more worried about celebrities and public officials who routinely instruct judges on the law, scientists on science and the general population on everything from war and peace to correct personal conduct.
1
Even with Dr. Fish's lofty outrage - and as others below have pointed out, it may stem from some mysterious, anti-intellectual burr under his Official Pundit saddle - we are still faced with profound historical illiteracy in this country, and not just with Trump supporters. Any pronouncements and judgments from academic historians adds a layer of factual insight we all obviously need to be better informed voters. We can "believe" their conclusions, or not, with the same critical faculties we use to decide if we believe Fox "News" pundits or Dr. Fish himself. I happen to think the historians hit the nail on its blow-dried, hairsprayed head.
6
This is actually a very stupid article. It certifies the trend towards not thinking in politics and endorsement of simplistic appeals to the basest of feelings. Disqualifying intellectuals is the first step in dictatorships. This is why they are persecuted and ridiculed in communist, fascists, fundamentalist, and demagogic regimes. You do not want people able and capable of logic and critical thinking. You appeal to the ignoramus, the opportunist, and the gullible. I hope professors and intellectuals keep up to the challenge and keep talking and writing. It would be a tragedy to see the US becoming an other Third World Fundamentalist Country. Full of feeling, faith, and dysfunctional hostility to thinkers, while controlled by a small clique of friends, channaling country assets to fiscal paradises.
8
Professor Fish's concerns may be more relevant to ordinary times. These are not ordinary times, and I feel that those professors and historians who spoke out were right in doing so. I feel they had an ethical obligation to speak out, and if history harshly judges of our culture, as I believe it will if Trump succeeds, then we will judge them harshly in turn had they remained silent.
3
Highly educated historians warning fellow citizens about the well-chronicled disasters of Trumpian leaders and the wreckage they've strewn throughout the course of civilization.
It's an outrage! How dare they offer their professional perspective? Everyone knows a history degree from a fancy college isn't worth the parchment it's written on. They should all just shut their yaps and keep their noses pressed between the pages of some obscure, dusty tome.
Let's all instead glean our political wisdom and historical perspective from the guy holding court on a stool at the end of the bar after five beers. Or my crazy uncle in Idaho who just discovered Twitter. What could possibly go wrong?
I mean, why not rush headlong into the future without paying so much as any heed to signposts from the past that might be screaming: "Dangerous curves ahead!"
And when we pull ourselves from that smoking wreckage -- if we can pull ourselves from that smoking wreckage -- will we perhaps then take the time to reflect what it means to be on the right side of history and maybe how vitally important professional historians are for the FUTURE health of our democracy?
It's an outrage! How dare they offer their professional perspective? Everyone knows a history degree from a fancy college isn't worth the parchment it's written on. They should all just shut their yaps and keep their noses pressed between the pages of some obscure, dusty tome.
Let's all instead glean our political wisdom and historical perspective from the guy holding court on a stool at the end of the bar after five beers. Or my crazy uncle in Idaho who just discovered Twitter. What could possibly go wrong?
I mean, why not rush headlong into the future without paying so much as any heed to signposts from the past that might be screaming: "Dangerous curves ahead!"
And when we pull ourselves from that smoking wreckage -- if we can pull ourselves from that smoking wreckage -- will we perhaps then take the time to reflect what it means to be on the right side of history and maybe how vitally important professional historians are for the FUTURE health of our democracy?
5
I don't entirely disagree...but what is the NYTimes up to this political season? Endlessly antagonizing Bernie fans, exacerbating the rift in the democratic party; loading up the front page with endless articles about Trump; and coming down hard on who is and isn't allowed to criticize Trump. Fair point about these historians, but....necessary? Did we really need this article? I'm sure Trump loves it.
1
The American Studies Association has been doing this for many years, from pro-US Cold War politics to embroilment in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That always struck me as arrogance, and the organization certainly did not represent the diversity of opinion in the field itself. I whole-heartedly agree that a group of historians should not represent themselves as the voice of an entire field, although I doubt they have the influence they imagine.
1
Thanks for providing the link to the "Open Letter." I was unaware of it.
3
I like very much what one really great scholar said about academia, that it is meanness disguised as intellect.
While it may seem to be just a part of religious thought, what St. Paul had to say about people who acquire knowledge but who have the biggest educational deficit of all: they have not learned how to care for other people, is really quite appropriate here:
"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
This describes many men and women in academia whose acquisition of knowledge is used to feel superior to other people not to know them.
While it may seem to be just a part of religious thought, what St. Paul had to say about people who acquire knowledge but who have the biggest educational deficit of all: they have not learned how to care for other people, is really quite appropriate here:
"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing."
This describes many men and women in academia whose acquisition of knowledge is used to feel superior to other people not to know them.
1
It feels futile to have cultivated scholars addressing a candidate that is on the same intellectual level as Yosemite Sam.
There will be many within the university who be annoyed and even offended by Mr. Fish's drawing of a line between life in universities and the much, much, much larger world outside academe (there will also be many who agree with him). That the line has to be drawn is testament to the degree that universities have been politicized. Mr. Fish wisely reprises Dan Bell's distinction between a scholar and an intellectual (paraphrasing), the scholar being bounded by a field of knowledge, seeking to find her or his place in it, adding to the tested knowledge of the past, the intellectual beginning with his or her own perceptions, perspectives, and limitations, judging the world by those sensibilities.
Bell went on to cite Wm. James, who pointed out that intellectuals often 'cannot distinguish possibilities from probabilities, and convert the latter into certainties.' It seems that the quest for certainty is very much a temptation even to many who call themselves scholars.
Bell went on to cite Wm. James, who pointed out that intellectuals often 'cannot distinguish possibilities from probabilities, and convert the latter into certainties.' It seems that the quest for certainty is very much a temptation even to many who call themselves scholars.
2
So, in other words, you're basically saying, "Stay in your lane and stop offering a political position on behalf of other people." Sorry, but if the signatures on the statement in question are public, then it seems the only folks they're representing are themselves.
At the high risk of being reductive, is this kind of discourse not what American politics has been for the past, oh, I don't know, several *centuries*? This is akin to saying that the White Christian clergy in the 19th Century who were against slavery should not have offered their public support of Abolition because their "expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom."
Once again, we are being treated to classism and cognitive dissonance poorly disguised as objectivity in levying critiques against arguably one of the most vile and unlettered Presidential campaigns we've seen in quite a few years (Sara Palin's foray into political theatre notwithstanding). This is exactly why this country is long overdue for a major shift in structure, if not a full collapse of its framework.
But hey, what do I know? That would be something historians would be better suited to understand.
At the high risk of being reductive, is this kind of discourse not what American politics has been for the past, oh, I don't know, several *centuries*? This is akin to saying that the White Christian clergy in the 19th Century who were against slavery should not have offered their public support of Abolition because their "expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom."
Once again, we are being treated to classism and cognitive dissonance poorly disguised as objectivity in levying critiques against arguably one of the most vile and unlettered Presidential campaigns we've seen in quite a few years (Sara Palin's foray into political theatre notwithstanding). This is exactly why this country is long overdue for a major shift in structure, if not a full collapse of its framework.
But hey, what do I know? That would be something historians would be better suited to understand.
1
The mass-authored letter is an essential part of a huge democracy in which lone voices are hard to hear and signal is hard to discern in the noise.
1
I've read a lot of Fish's work.
In his early career, he revolutionized literary criticism by suggesting that readers operate through their own subjective experiences as much as through generalizable identity categories, an idea that seemed to offer a restoration of power to the individual reader's imagination.
Later on, as humanities departments and programs began to suffer severe cuts, he argued that the humanities are essentially indefensible (that is, they only hold intrinsic worth and can't really be "argued for"), pushed for graduate students to take on the teaching and grading duties of English professors at Duke, and began to refer to himself gleefully as "unprincipled," it became clear that he is essentially a nihilist, not a humanist.
For him, contrary to other intellectuals who believe in a mission of transformative education, words and concepts don't generate real-world consequences or engage ethics in a meaningful way. There is essentially no change that can be made to our world through our beliefs. It is coherent with this bizarre individualism, then, that he resists the force of diverse historians coming together, by profession and expertise, to bravely speak out against a very real danger.
The individual reader Fish once wrote about looks less like an imaginative pioneer to me now, and more and more like a lonely, disconnected, and faceless representative of white America's current despair. I'm sorry to see that in a piece by a once-great intellectual.
In his early career, he revolutionized literary criticism by suggesting that readers operate through their own subjective experiences as much as through generalizable identity categories, an idea that seemed to offer a restoration of power to the individual reader's imagination.
Later on, as humanities departments and programs began to suffer severe cuts, he argued that the humanities are essentially indefensible (that is, they only hold intrinsic worth and can't really be "argued for"), pushed for graduate students to take on the teaching and grading duties of English professors at Duke, and began to refer to himself gleefully as "unprincipled," it became clear that he is essentially a nihilist, not a humanist.
For him, contrary to other intellectuals who believe in a mission of transformative education, words and concepts don't generate real-world consequences or engage ethics in a meaningful way. There is essentially no change that can be made to our world through our beliefs. It is coherent with this bizarre individualism, then, that he resists the force of diverse historians coming together, by profession and expertise, to bravely speak out against a very real danger.
The individual reader Fish once wrote about looks less like an imaginative pioneer to me now, and more and more like a lonely, disconnected, and faceless representative of white America's current despair. I'm sorry to see that in a piece by a once-great intellectual.
2
So who else isn't allowed to speak against Trump? If professors can't speak against him, what about people with bachelor's degrees (like me)? Can only white Republicans who never went to college voice an opinion on him? And let's not forget your advising academics not to give an opinion on a candidate who has thrown journalists out of his events, denied papers credentials, and promised to "open up the libel laws" so as president he could sue newspapers that print what he doesn't like. All end runs around the First Amendment and freedom of the press. But I guess it's ok because Mr. Trump is not a professor.
2
Fish leads by example in showing that the highest aim for any academic is to opine about anything one wants while arrogantly dismissing the efforts of others who seek to do the same. There is no bench and he knows that.
That many if not most historians would be opposed to Trump's candidacy is not very surprising. Trump knows his demographics and has made few attempts at outreach to the academy. Who cares if they write a letter? If the message in the letter is not a compelling one, it will not persuade anyone.
That many if not most historians would be opposed to Trump's candidacy is not very surprising. Trump knows his demographics and has made few attempts at outreach to the academy. Who cares if they write a letter? If the message in the letter is not a compelling one, it will not persuade anyone.
1
Dear Stanley,
You are hopping from one foot to the other. On the one hand, you imply that the historians are purporting to give us the "truth" about Mr. Trump based on their training and academic expertise. On the other hand, you are not saying that their view of Mr. Trump is incorrect or not on target. Only that it's a view, like anyone else's.
You seem to be saying that their view might well be on target, except that their background and expertise should be discarded or even questioned by the reader.
I disagree. One of the special skills of an historian is to get a clearer perspective on past events and, if possible, to make careful generalizations.
Few of us are alive today who remember people like Father Charles Coughlin or Colonel Charles Lindbergh, who was one of the founders of the America First Committee, whose ideology and language Mr. Trump seems to be borrowing. As American historians who are knowledgeable about these figures from the past, they are better informed and positioned than you or me to make useful generalizations about how Mr. Trump fits with their political personalities and behavior or doesn't.
To this extent, their qualifications should be taken into account just as the views of a trained geophysicist on the consequences of climate change should.
You are hopping from one foot to the other. On the one hand, you imply that the historians are purporting to give us the "truth" about Mr. Trump based on their training and academic expertise. On the other hand, you are not saying that their view of Mr. Trump is incorrect or not on target. Only that it's a view, like anyone else's.
You seem to be saying that their view might well be on target, except that their background and expertise should be discarded or even questioned by the reader.
I disagree. One of the special skills of an historian is to get a clearer perspective on past events and, if possible, to make careful generalizations.
Few of us are alive today who remember people like Father Charles Coughlin or Colonel Charles Lindbergh, who was one of the founders of the America First Committee, whose ideology and language Mr. Trump seems to be borrowing. As American historians who are knowledgeable about these figures from the past, they are better informed and positioned than you or me to make useful generalizations about how Mr. Trump fits with their political personalities and behavior or doesn't.
To this extent, their qualifications should be taken into account just as the views of a trained geophysicist on the consequences of climate change should.
4
As one of the signatories to the Historians against Trump, I could not disagree more with Stanley Fish. Historians did not stop being politically engaged just because we got our PhD's. Historians should be public intellectuals and engage in the public sphere, as should any one else. "Academic expertise is not a qualification for delivering political wisdom," Fish writes. But much of our expertise is about the history of power. If you don't like our "wisdom," then disagree. But don't deny our right to have it.
14
There is a simple reason why ALL academics should be against trump. He denies the science of climate change. Any other academic discipline that doesn't fit his message may be next.
I believe what we have here in Professor Fish’s argument is a clever, facile, slickly worded rationalization for not standing up to a tyrant. It really is that simple.
1
So, the profs have been ok with a horde of illegals, taking jobs out of the country and more debt than we can count?
Go Trump!
Go Trump!
1
I have no real problem with Prof Fish's essential argument, though in that vast scheme of things, it does seem a little specious. My concern is one of having to restrain my own sarcasm: Historians Against Trump (H.A.T.--what would be emblazoned on it, I wonder?), repeating themselves to an audience of six or seven old philosophy undergrad majors (such as myself) who showed up to hear their pronouncement, as Justice Ginsburg lobs the real-time Trump bomb-lets into the wide skies of our hysterical air.
1
"Perhaps Justice Ginsburg should have been more reticent in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety (the suspicion will be that her partisan views will spill over into her judicial performance)."
It is not Justice Ginsburg's "partisan views." It is her view of Trump. Her comments were not about Republican Party. Isn't it ironic that while Professor Fish protects her from her professional identity, rightly so, he fails to do the same scrutiny for her subject, the Mr. Trump himself? This nullifies what he argues about in the whole article in one little detail by identifying Trump as the organisation he currently associated with in his mental map? Where does one's belonging start and where does it end?
It is not Justice Ginsburg's "partisan views." It is her view of Trump. Her comments were not about Republican Party. Isn't it ironic that while Professor Fish protects her from her professional identity, rightly so, he fails to do the same scrutiny for her subject, the Mr. Trump himself? This nullifies what he argues about in the whole article in one little detail by identifying Trump as the organisation he currently associated with in his mental map? Where does one's belonging start and where does it end?
1
The fact of the professors' letter fits in to the"all's fair in love and war" thingee but my heavens, they are preaching to the choir with that stuffy erudition, rather than offering a more appropriately worded communique to the voter demographic who really needs it. History teaches us you must tailor your language to your audience. Remember, those who forget history are doomed to re-live it.
While I agree with your general point I wish you would spend your intellect on endeavors that do not indirectly benefit a proto-nazi trying to dupe the masses and do a trump u. On us all.
I don't agree with Stanley Fish. People should be free to speak out, with whatever clout they can muster -- especially given that this election carries the dangers of this one. Also, I love the idea that it will somehow have a big effect...
While I think the author has a certain point, I believe it's over-stated. The point being that they don't speak for an entire profession. However, there's no differentiation made between "an informed opinion" and an "opinion". Instead, it's all opinion and looked down on as a result.
The most telling phrase in this piece was: "it’s their job to teach students how to handle archival materials, how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, how to build a persuasive account of a disputed event, in short, how to perform as historians"
Doesn't it stand to reason that a group of people who possess these skills and reach a conclusion can have a more informed opinion than say a person whose only receiving blips from the media?
Still, despite the historians view point, or Dr. Fish's admonition, I think people will make-up their own minds.
The most telling phrase in this piece was: "it’s their job to teach students how to handle archival materials, how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, how to build a persuasive account of a disputed event, in short, how to perform as historians"
Doesn't it stand to reason that a group of people who possess these skills and reach a conclusion can have a more informed opinion than say a person whose only receiving blips from the media?
Still, despite the historians view point, or Dr. Fish's admonition, I think people will make-up their own minds.
Fish is right. The issue is professional boundaries. Does knowledge or training in one area provide one with a superior perspective on an other area?
Depends on the specific knowledge and the specific other area. Historians necessarily study politics, so I'm interested in what a historian would have to say about Trump. However I am not interested in what a collection of historians say that is political in nature.
A personal example: I have a PhD and at this stage in life am caring for my demented wife. I also volunteer to help other caregivers in a number of ways. I purposely do not mention use my degree, because it is not relevant and might mislead.
I wonder what others think of the current trend of prosecutors choosing not to indicted and using their office for opprobrium. Another issue of boundaries.
Depends on the specific knowledge and the specific other area. Historians necessarily study politics, so I'm interested in what a historian would have to say about Trump. However I am not interested in what a collection of historians say that is political in nature.
A personal example: I have a PhD and at this stage in life am caring for my demented wife. I also volunteer to help other caregivers in a number of ways. I purposely do not mention use my degree, because it is not relevant and might mislead.
I wonder what others think of the current trend of prosecutors choosing not to indicted and using their office for opprobrium. Another issue of boundaries.
1
So if the Union of Concerned Scientists issues a position on global warming, we're to disregard their views on some Fishy principle? There is such a thing as knowledge, however fragile and mutable, just as there's such a thing as professional or expert opinion. Concerned scholars probably have just a little more persuasive weight than concerned citizens in general. If scholarship were valued only insofar as it serves the academy, we'd be hard put to justify spending public money on the academy.
3
I, for one, am delighted when anyone with the ability to grab our attention for five minutes opines about Trump. He represents a direction in our country of frightening possibilities and deserves to be attacked with full force. Altho the Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg spoke "inappropriately", the times are inappropriate as well. Those of us who are outraged by Trump can hardly help ourselves. Need I remind Professor Fish of not so distant history when a country was swept into madness? Renee Hack
Well, I agreed with Fish as long as it seemed that these were tenure-track or tenured history professors making such a statement. Those (we) can be a stuffy crowd. But if you look at the signatories, they are a wonderful mish-mash of grad students, adjuncts, popular history writers, retirees, and all kinds of people who care about history. They have a right to their opinions as such.
2
The writing and teaching of history is an inherently political enterprise that in order to be done well requires its practitioners to be open and honest about where their loyalties lie. Such openness permits students and colleagues to judge a historians pronouncements in a more fully informed way. Prof. Fish asked historians to embrace a sort of relativism that would render their profession moot and all possible pronouncements, no matter how odious, worthy of equal consideration. Dangerous territory indeed.
1
Good heavens. What a preposterously garbled essay. It makes two weak arguments: first, that academics who have studied history have no platform on which to speak about contemporary politics, and instead can only teach students how to handle archival materials and sift evidence. This is prima facie absurd and is little better than the dressed-up anti-intellectualism of the right-wing frustration with "experts." All citizens, no matter their political convictions, welcome the contributions of those who have studied previous historical moments that may shed light on our current time.
Second, that a group of over 500 historians should not represent themselves as speaking for all historians. But they don't represent themselves in that way. They specifically announce that they represent a particular viewpoint and don't anywhere in their statement assert that all historians agree with them.
This is the mush that Prof. Fish has been producing in his retirement?
Sad!
Second, that a group of over 500 historians should not represent themselves as speaking for all historians. But they don't represent themselves in that way. They specifically announce that they represent a particular viewpoint and don't anywhere in their statement assert that all historians agree with them.
This is the mush that Prof. Fish has been producing in his retirement?
Sad!
8
How great to see Fish in the NYT again, and so spot on as is usually the case. And as is also usual, so many commentators seem to miss his point.
2
We public educators have been plagued by the Ivory Tower of Stupidity and Hubris for decades. Most districts are low on money because these self appointed (actually driven to publish or walk) drive Superintendents to implement their ridiculous ideas. Of course the Superintendents do it to fatten their resumes regardless of the educational value of the latest Ivory Tower Pronouncement and will have moved on by the time the New Idea has crashed and burned. Yes Professors are best left to book store coffee klatches and need to be ignored most of the time.
1
Beautiful column, Mr. Fish. I am very tired of ivory tower elitists lecturing the supposedly dim witted masses. Mr. Fish hits it out of the park.
1
Doesn't this argument about professors extend to professors opining about professors opining about professors opining about professors ....
3
You've got to wonder what role the position Fish takes in this piece has played in the rise of someone like Trump himself. Every civil society group should be speaking against Trump, but according to "the philosopher," who of them has the authority to speak but as individuals? He picks on historians because as a former literary theorist he has an old academic dislike for them, but to what group would this argument not apply? Isn't every profession, by definition, going to be arrogant (and illegitimate) if it speaks corporately?
And, beyond the Trump issue, who these days can in fact speak with authority? No one it seems. Authority seems to have been vacated.
So why doesn't Professor Fish write about that problem? In other words, how can he help public discourse? Why use the privilege of this column to try to shut people up? Otherwise, his own expertise comes across as hermetic nihilism ... and that brings us back to Donald Trump.
And, beyond the Trump issue, who these days can in fact speak with authority? No one it seems. Authority seems to have been vacated.
So why doesn't Professor Fish write about that problem? In other words, how can he help public discourse? Why use the privilege of this column to try to shut people up? Otherwise, his own expertise comes across as hermetic nihilism ... and that brings us back to Donald Trump.
3
Perhaps, if the professors had just joined in protest as "citizens against Trump," and not as professional historians, Professor Fish would not have objected. However, Mr. Fish could also organize a Professors of Law in Support of Trump's First Amendment Rights.
Somehow, I can support the history professors concern because I have always felt that the real analysis of Trump's unorthodox rise to power has explanations more in European history than it does in recent American history.
Trump's political legacy is one that dare not speak its name.
Somehow, I can support the history professors concern because I have always felt that the real analysis of Trump's unorthodox rise to power has explanations more in European history than it does in recent American history.
Trump's political legacy is one that dare not speak its name.
2
Historians are a groups who are positioned well to reflect on the past. Think back to demagogues who have risen, to the later cries of "why did nobody speak out?" It seems that this is a group who feels that they have an important voice to add to the debate. Prof. Fish makes some compelling points, but a group speaking with one voice is often effective at getting attention, especially ones with particular expertise relevant to the issue at hand.
Nothing prevents a "Historians for Trump" group from assembling and providing their own letter.
Politics and history are entwined. This is an academic discipline that can provide valuable perspective. So why suppress their valuable perspective, merely because some historians write as group with one unified voice?
Nothing prevents a "Historians for Trump" group from assembling and providing their own letter.
Politics and history are entwined. This is an academic discipline that can provide valuable perspective. So why suppress their valuable perspective, merely because some historians write as group with one unified voice?
1
"they are merely people with history degrees, which means that they have read certain books, taken and taught certain courses and written scholarly essays"--
What expertise could they possibly have? The nerve of these academic snobs. I was an adjunct professor NOT of history, but I know enough to recognize parallels and patterns when I see them. Right now, I am in the middle of a history of Germany's Weimar Republic (1918-39), Scarier stuff than Stephen King.
Suppose some historians specialize in presidential history. Are they to be gagged in commenting on the dangerous farce now taking place?
What expertise could they possibly have? The nerve of these academic snobs. I was an adjunct professor NOT of history, but I know enough to recognize parallels and patterns when I see them. Right now, I am in the middle of a history of Germany's Weimar Republic (1918-39), Scarier stuff than Stephen King.
Suppose some historians specialize in presidential history. Are they to be gagged in commenting on the dangerous farce now taking place?
3
While I find Trump to be offensive in the extreme, I fully support the position of Prof. Fish. If its anything, its posterity that validates historical judgments, not the pronouncements of contemporary historians; even here, though, the judgments of posterity change with a later posterity. Right now the political judgments of contemporary historians, offered not as personal opinions but as truths supported with the full panoply of their academic and professional associations, seem to me to be redolent of an arrogant "I am right because I have tenure somewhere, and if you disagree with me, you are an anti-intellectual" attitude that is supposed to foreclose any further discussion or debate of the issue, or at least has that effect. Somewhere out there, there must be a historian who supports Trump. What should happen to that person: forever be banned from the profession as unworthy?
2
"Professors ... demonstrating ... how little they understand ... the limits of their profession"
Well I am sure that historians all over the world will be grateful that you Professor Green have now defined it for them. Clearly you learning in the law privileges you to write this piece of ironic hypocrisy.
Personally I think that those who study history are more attuned to its resonance in the present. Of course there is plenty of bias in historical interpretation, and historians will disagree. In prediction they will therefore diverge and many will be wrong - but I expect that they are uniquely driven by the sense that we should learn from the mistakes of the past, and so I for one am interested in their opinions - far more so than in the opinion of one who says I should not be.
Well I am sure that historians all over the world will be grateful that you Professor Green have now defined it for them. Clearly you learning in the law privileges you to write this piece of ironic hypocrisy.
Personally I think that those who study history are more attuned to its resonance in the present. Of course there is plenty of bias in historical interpretation, and historians will disagree. In prediction they will therefore diverge and many will be wrong - but I expect that they are uniquely driven by the sense that we should learn from the mistakes of the past, and so I for one am interested in their opinions - far more so than in the opinion of one who says I should not be.
3
Professor Fish shames historians for their hubris, even as his own takes over. Please. We are quite capable of listening to historians (and indeed history itself) and either agreeing or disagreeing with a developed thesis or point of view and drawing our own subjective conclusions. Tsk-tsk-ing thoughtful academics for pointing out a terrible turn in our politics feeds the same anti-intellectual fervor that led to Trump's ascendancy, irony duly (and sadly) noted.
9
So I guess historical expertise (as in knowledge, a lifetime of study, grounded in archival work, and wide and deep reading) doesn't count for much. Hmm. So if I have a cancer relapse or break a bone, I will not head to the hospital. I would think that the analyses offered by these historians would be welcome, if only to the readership of the NYT. I am glad to know about these videos and plan to watch them. All of them. And maybe even buy some of the works these historians have written and seek out their articles on JStor. I especially value what they have to say *because* it comes from a position of expertise. Their arguments are of value and add (greatly) to the public discussion, whether or not one agrees with each point they make.
2
If we are to complain about the arrogance of professions in thinking that they know everything, what about journalists? I remember a few weeks ago, a Time editorialist thanking the Supreme Court for protecting the country from the "whims of the majority". Apparently the elite has carefully considered opinions while the majority just has "whims". One of the "whims", by the way, has been consistent for more than 40 years: rejection of Roe vs Wade.
2
Prof Fish is advocating not for Trump, but for reason. History is not a predictive science. We must agree with a bunch of astronomers who tell us just where Mercury will appear in the sky at a date specified. Historians have no such power. They are free to speak as individuals. Let us then let us judge them by their arguments, But their 'historian' badge gives them no additional authority.
2
Rubbish. These history professors published their anti-Trump manifesto with cause, because they feel frightened by what they see -- in him certainly but also in the rest of us. What they see is shaped by their studies and the wisdom imparted by them to some extent, insights afforded by their profession. But it should be noted that neither their fears nor their declarations of them are unique to them, nor confined to their academic specialty. Prof. Stephen Hawking, the physicist, has voiced similar alarm and shown great contempt for Trump the man.
Neutrality is impossible in our sorry circumstances. Yet many critics seem determined to muzzle this kind of dissent. Why? Because it strikes them as unseemly? Or because they think it reflects badly on their professions or institutions?
I suppose such reactions are inevitable coming from those made uncomfortable by others' open displays of courage. Because it highlights their lack of it, born of fear of reprisal? That seems to be the case whether coming from lowly academicians, obscure academic groups or outspoken Supreme Court justices.
I, for one, would send Justice Ginsburg a box of cut roses, my way of saying thanks for showing such outspoken revulsion, for standing up and calling out Trump, for calling a spade 'a spade'. Unfortunately, my gift would never get past her front door; intercepted by the bomb squad; about as sad a commentary about our sad state of affairs and the sad state of our world as anything I can imagine.
Neutrality is impossible in our sorry circumstances. Yet many critics seem determined to muzzle this kind of dissent. Why? Because it strikes them as unseemly? Or because they think it reflects badly on their professions or institutions?
I suppose such reactions are inevitable coming from those made uncomfortable by others' open displays of courage. Because it highlights their lack of it, born of fear of reprisal? That seems to be the case whether coming from lowly academicians, obscure academic groups or outspoken Supreme Court justices.
I, for one, would send Justice Ginsburg a box of cut roses, my way of saying thanks for showing such outspoken revulsion, for standing up and calling out Trump, for calling a spade 'a spade'. Unfortunately, my gift would never get past her front door; intercepted by the bomb squad; about as sad a commentary about our sad state of affairs and the sad state of our world as anything I can imagine.
6
Would not a medical society be best at determining the qualifications of doctors? Would not an association of lawyers be best at assessing the qualifications of a judge? Would not a carpenter be best at identifying someone with no carpentry skill?
Would not a body of presidential scholars be best at identifying someone who does not posses the basic qualifications of a president?
And if such a body of historians and scholars can form a consensus that proclaims Mr. Trump to possesses qualifications of the same order as past presidents, I'd say so be it. But alas, none exists because even Mr. Trump himself disdains those qualifications. Mr. Fish, if you want, see if you can form such team of Historians for Trump (I'm sure Twitter and Alt Right will be helpful in this regard).
Contrary to Mr. Fish, here's where academics can really help by identifying the basic required qualifications and Mr. Trump's lack thereof.
Would not a body of presidential scholars be best at identifying someone who does not posses the basic qualifications of a president?
And if such a body of historians and scholars can form a consensus that proclaims Mr. Trump to possesses qualifications of the same order as past presidents, I'd say so be it. But alas, none exists because even Mr. Trump himself disdains those qualifications. Mr. Fish, if you want, see if you can form such team of Historians for Trump (I'm sure Twitter and Alt Right will be helpful in this regard).
Contrary to Mr. Fish, here's where academics can really help by identifying the basic required qualifications and Mr. Trump's lack thereof.
2
No need to go into history, from another professor: Hare, in an article in Scientific American describes psychopaths as: “Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.”
Th the other day I read a story in the Times about younger people and their admitted ignorance of history, including the Holocaust. So sure, let's ignore the historians. What do they know about what has happened in the world anyway?
5
Who do they think they are anyway? Experts in a specific and relevant set of knowledge that could help informed voters make decisions about the future?
4
So I guess because they're historians they loose their first amendment rights? The point of free speech is they can express their opinion and it's up to the reader to decide on it's credibility. Professor Fish's position is apperantly meant to be provocative (he got me to read, and comment! on his article) but it's just silly.
2
Ginsburg was wrong when she spoke up publicly about Trump. She has spent her whole life in the judiciary and knew better than to involve herself, a Supreme Court Justice , in politics. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above partisan politics.
She was trying to influence the public to vote for Hillary, who ironically, has been plagued by legal issues and ethical scandals her whole life.
Ginsburg can no longer be trusted to be impartial and should resign. But she will not because we demand no accountability from our public officials.
What Ginsburg did was not benign whether you like or dislike Trump. Ginsburg behavior was unethical and wrong. This is truly scoundrel time.
She was trying to influence the public to vote for Hillary, who ironically, has been plagued by legal issues and ethical scandals her whole life.
Ginsburg can no longer be trusted to be impartial and should resign. But she will not because we demand no accountability from our public officials.
What Ginsburg did was not benign whether you like or dislike Trump. Ginsburg behavior was unethical and wrong. This is truly scoundrel time.
2
Stanley Fish is guilty of the same thing he accuses other academics of: equating his degree and position with having something to contribute to a broader political discussion. Let's take his op ed at face value: he's spending column inches telling fellow historians to stop making very specific claims that almost no one else has noticed. But the real reason for the column is at the very top: his name, in bold print, in the New York Times.
3
Every thoughtful American regardless of background should be warning of a Trump presidency. Buffoonery is not a policy position. George Bush gave us 9/11, Irag (with the resultant chaos of the Middle East), and the tragedy following Katrina. Trump wants a wall, religious bans, deportations, tariffs, and threats against our allies.
2
This group certainly does not speak for all historians. There was no letter, email, poll, or missive sent to all historians to assess the views of those in the profession (as a historian I can speak to that fact). Therefore the question is who appointed these people to speak for the profession? Individually any of those signatories can express his or her view on the suitability of anyone of the candidates running for office. They do not, however, possess the right to speak for an entire group without first canvassing all members of said group to ascertain that group's views. It is actions of this sort that contribute to the low regard accorded to the humanities departments by many, unfortunately.
3
If a counter group of historians were prohibited from telling us how its view of history shows that Trump will lead the country to new heights of greatness, I'd be worried. As a matter of fact, I'd love such a group to explain the historical basis for believing that a President Trump would be great for democracy.
Get your pens out, Historians For Making America Great Again.
Get your pens out, Historians For Making America Great Again.
107
I agree that professors are not necessarily more virtuous than other people, and perhaps historians have no special ability to opine on presidential candidates. But other profs have much to offer: economists should analyze Trump's tax proposals, climate scientists should analyze his (complete lack of) environmental policy, etc. In this partisan world, we need the professoriate – – unaffiliated and relatively objective – – to clarify and critique all politicians' policy proposals.
84
The greater harm is not professors speaking out as professors. It is the media's practice of quoting them, generally in "objective" news articles, which identify them simply as experts. Almost without exception, the conservative media consults conservative "experts" and the liberal media consults liberals. These biases are seldom disclosed. The effect is to suggest that objective experts favor the bias of the media outlet. Well-educated professors are thereby manipulated by a profoundly biased media. This is a great disservice to the American public.
"Professors are at it again..." Facepalm reaction here. Your lede gives your bias away. These particular professors really do know their stuff, and they are for the most part far more qualified to draw parallels between past tyrants and demagogues, and DJT.
And thank heaven that they are. As they offer their takes on the Trump candidacy from their individual professional perspectives, there's no threat, manipulation or arrogance in what they're doing. They have as much right to speak as we do. That they're doing it in an organized way is more evidence of their professionalism. Kudos to them for standing up to speak, organizing to be heard more widely, and not backing down for fear of offending anyone who is jealous of their capabilities.
I watched all their videos and read their letters, and was impressed by how diverse their viewpoints were, and their common conclusion that DJT is a serious danger to the ethos of the American democratic system. I say they didn't go far enough, actually. He's an exemplar of a new kind of threat on the world stage. Resist now. Say no now. Or pay a heavy price in the future.
And thank heaven that they are. As they offer their takes on the Trump candidacy from their individual professional perspectives, there's no threat, manipulation or arrogance in what they're doing. They have as much right to speak as we do. That they're doing it in an organized way is more evidence of their professionalism. Kudos to them for standing up to speak, organizing to be heard more widely, and not backing down for fear of offending anyone who is jealous of their capabilities.
I watched all their videos and read their letters, and was impressed by how diverse their viewpoints were, and their common conclusion that DJT is a serious danger to the ethos of the American democratic system. I say they didn't go far enough, actually. He's an exemplar of a new kind of threat on the world stage. Resist now. Say no now. Or pay a heavy price in the future.
12
As I read the historians' letter, they are uniting under their professional mantle not in order to support a partisan position or candidate, but to defend professional values: i.e. the use of reason, evidence, coherence & honesty in public discourse. You depend on those same values in this very essay, but you somehow think it is clever to use them in the defense of someone who mocks them. Someone who would, if your reasoned opinion were inconvenient for him, simply dismiss you with the same sort of adolescent insult he aimed at Justice Ginsberg. And who would thereby, in the court of the short attention span media, win the argument.
Professor Fish, perhaps you should, to assure us that you are simply voicing your own unfounded opinion instead of that of a professional philosopher, disqualify your own assertions as well.
Professor Fish, perhaps you should, to assure us that you are simply voicing your own unfounded opinion instead of that of a professional philosopher, disqualify your own assertions as well.
5
Empty rhetoric. Thanks for your opinion, Mr. Fish, but it just stinks. The pot calling the kettle black. My reasoning: This is similar to the 2000 or so members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. They don't claim to have exclusive knowledge for the sole interpretaion of a problem; rather, they're hoping that by introducing themselves as professionals with particular expertise who've scrutinized a problem, they might get more people to pay closer attention to the issue. Thus, using their credentials is mearly a form of saying they've invested a lot in researching this sort of subject and the issue at hand concerns them enough to speak out. They're hoping their title will compel some to reconsider. No more, no less.
Yours truly,
A Reader
Yours truly,
A Reader
4
I'm not a historian, but it's my view that the role of the historian is to understand what has happened before and why. They do this for its own sake and to allow us to better understand and make predictions about our own time. It is a moral obligation of the historian - and anyone, really - to share what they know when it might be useful. So if these historians see parallels between Trump's campaign and events from the times they've studied, then they should share their insights. And if the question is political in nature? Well, questions usually become political because the answer matters, and if the answer matters then that's when we need those insights the most.
The fact that these particular historians are also professors doesn't change that. Our society supports historians and other types of scholarships through the university system because the people who study a subject are best equipped to teach it and vice versa. The roles will sometimes come into conflict, but one shouldn't trump the other. Furthermore, they cite to their academic credentials - their PhD's professorships, etc. - because that's what tells they rest of us that we can trust what they have to say more so than some random individual posting a comment on the internet (for example).
These historians are just acting on their consciences, and I think they're right to do so. If the only role of the historian is to train new historians, then what's the point of having them at all? Why bother?
The fact that these particular historians are also professors doesn't change that. Our society supports historians and other types of scholarships through the university system because the people who study a subject are best equipped to teach it and vice versa. The roles will sometimes come into conflict, but one shouldn't trump the other. Furthermore, they cite to their academic credentials - their PhD's professorships, etc. - because that's what tells they rest of us that we can trust what they have to say more so than some random individual posting a comment on the internet (for example).
These historians are just acting on their consciences, and I think they're right to do so. If the only role of the historian is to train new historians, then what's the point of having them at all? Why bother?
4
Perhaps the historians were thinking as Edmund Burke was when he said: Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat is. Or similarly George Santayana who said: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. History has more of a purpose than memorizing correct facts, etc. It offers patterns of life, actions and their consequences. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was a cautionary tale. These historian seeing a critical situation in the Unites States offered their expertise to the nation. It might be well to pay attention to them.
1
It sounds like the good Professor Fish would like non-pundits to leave political commentary exclusively to the pundit class, which happens to include him. Did the professors who spoke up actually claim that they speak for the whole profession, or that none of its members disagree with their opinions? It sounds like they did what historians or other academic professionals often do: they used their expertise to provide a certain perspective to an issue, in this case the presidential election. We often value the political opinions of farmers, doctors, engineers, truck drivers, and many others, not because they claim to represent everyone in their professions but because they legitimately bring their profession's perspective to their opinions. We might gain insight both from their views and from the views of others in their professions who disagree. I'm sure the historians in question are accustomed to, and comfortable with, others in their profession taking issue with their opinions. That should not suppress them from explaining to us as best they can why they believe their opinions best represent the perspectives and lessons of their profession.
3
I think the author has needlessly attacked a reasonable argument scheme by the historians in question. Sure, arguments from authority are not simply valid because they are made by authority. The tone of the article, however, seems to ignore the notion that arguments from authority can be compelling and worth hearing. In the case in question (Trump's campaign) I think myself and more than a few people look for the opinions that come from academics. I'm under no delusion that those opinions are necessarily true simply because of their source, but I nonetheless trust that historians, political scientists, and philosophers can provide a thoughtful perspective worth considering. The fact that the historians in question make their perspective known while also professing their vocation is a fact that I find to be a good thing, for it provides context for the interested listener to better understand the essence of the argument.
2
Many references in this article about academics can more appropriately be applied to members of the media as well (substitute "reporters" for "academics" and it makes as much -- actually even more -- sense ). This is especially true here in Canada in our state-owned media outlets, where our reporters gaze over the border and suddenly feel they are competent analysts and wise commentators, set free to paddle out ithe deep end of the political pool wearing nothing more than the life jacket of what their editors have agreed to pander to their groupie followers.
1
Certainly the views and opinions of professional historians is at least as valuable as those of celebrities, such as actors and sports stars. And by the way, just because Stanley Fish was a Dean somewhere doesn't mean his opinions on academia are more valuable than others....
7
What a pleasure, to again read the curmudgeonly thoughts of Prof Fish in the Times. As usual, his argument is clear and logical -- like it or not.
To play the historian's occasional game of the counterfactual: had this group of historians not offered broad assessments of the candidate, but rather specific critiques of some of Trump's assertions using the tools of historical analysis, would they not stand on firmer ground in claiming to speak as historians?
To play the historian's occasional game of the counterfactual: had this group of historians not offered broad assessments of the candidate, but rather specific critiques of some of Trump's assertions using the tools of historical analysis, would they not stand on firmer ground in claiming to speak as historians?
2
The open letter from Historians Against Trump reflects perfectly what the humanities and social sciences have devolved into: academic disciplines which make themselves worthless as they worship social justice rather than objectivity or the truth. Besides, last I checked, Ph.D.'s in history study the past not the future.
1
"it not so commonplace for professors (not all but many) to regularly equate the possession of an advanced degree with virtue.". this must be referring to professors in liberal arts departments. in over thirty years as aa professor at a major research university working in the fields of theoretical physics and computer programming, i have never heard a single one of my colleagues in a STEM curriculum claim to have extra knowledge or insight into matters outside of their areas of expertise by virtue of their professional training or degrees. this is a unique characteristic of liberal arts professors who claim to have such 'virtue' (this is especially true of economics, a field whose practitioners display time after time (including a columnist in the NYT) an unsurpassed inability to understand or predict much of anything about anything).
3
I completely agree with Prof. Fish. The Historians Against Trump claim a special authority that they do not have. In fact, by approaching the matter in the chosen way, they betray principles of their profession: instead of presenting facts and cogent analysis in the desire of supporting a debatable thesis, they simply don the mantle of authority, climb to the pulpit and declare "you must follow us, because we know better than you".
1
Since the Reagan era, elitism has been turned on its head, as people who indulge in willful thoughtlessness are depicted as paragons of moral and cultural rectitude who represent "the real America", while those who have worked to understand the issues we face as a nation are depicted as being somehow unworthy. "lesser than" and "not one of us". It's snobbery disguised as patriotism, and the author of this piece isn't the first to be intimidated by it.
Of course, these are the same folks who would choose a Harvard-trained surgeon to do an operation on a loved one over a doctor from a less prestigious school every time. When things matter most, choosing the "less-accomplished-but-he's-the-salt-of-the-earth " option suddenly appears less attractive.
It's moral vanity, pure and simple.
Of course, these are the same folks who would choose a Harvard-trained surgeon to do an operation on a loved one over a doctor from a less prestigious school every time. When things matter most, choosing the "less-accomplished-but-he's-the-salt-of-the-earth " option suddenly appears less attractive.
It's moral vanity, pure and simple.
5
I was thrilled by Ken Burns' impassioned pleas at Stanford and the subsequent call from serious historians, students of American culture, to recognize the immoral and ahistorical basis of Trump's campaign. Here was a warning from respected scholars that this is a stark departure from previous political discourse, and as such, presents a grave danger to our society and our future. Trump doesn't care about the lessons of history. He doesn't acknowledge the virtues and failures of that which has come before him. He fails to recognize that our constitution and our mores are some of our greatest legacies as a society. If we, the people, don't recognize and protect these defining features of American democracy, then we deserve what we get. Far from reflecting narrow corporate or academic interests, these historians are doing their duty by reminding us that our values and our history are indeed what makes us special as a nation.
12
As written, the letter probably merits the scorn Fish heaps on it. No academic training can endow historians (or political scientists, etc.) with the knowledge, much less wisdom, to judge Trump's qualifications to serve as president. The authors of the letter, moreover, include the standard criticisms of the GOP candidate, but in a document so short, they lack the necessary space to substantiate any of those charges with facts or analysis. They do promise to produce such studies over the next few months.
That said, Professor Fish too quickly dismisses the value of a historian's expertise as an asset in the debate over this year's election. He implicitly defines the historian's role as that of a mentor to future scholars, without addressing the importance to society of the investigations they conduct.
But those scholars who specialize in the American past have acquired the knowledge that would enable them to analyze the place of Trump's candidacy in the history of presidential contests. They could compare his promises and style of campaigning to that of earlier candidates, drawing conclusions about the similarities and differences between his approach to the race and that of his predecessors. Economic historians could weigh his claims about the impact of trade treaties on the fate of the American worker, while experts in immigration studies could trace the impact of new arrivals on American culture.
Historians have more to offer than Fish acknowledges.
That said, Professor Fish too quickly dismisses the value of a historian's expertise as an asset in the debate over this year's election. He implicitly defines the historian's role as that of a mentor to future scholars, without addressing the importance to society of the investigations they conduct.
But those scholars who specialize in the American past have acquired the knowledge that would enable them to analyze the place of Trump's candidacy in the history of presidential contests. They could compare his promises and style of campaigning to that of earlier candidates, drawing conclusions about the similarities and differences between his approach to the race and that of his predecessors. Economic historians could weigh his claims about the impact of trade treaties on the fate of the American worker, while experts in immigration studies could trace the impact of new arrivals on American culture.
Historians have more to offer than Fish acknowledges.
1
I call it the "universality of the Ph.D." Too many people who have one assume that their expertise is broad, when in fact it's terribly narrow. When I first started work on mine, I knew that I was going to learn more and more about less and less, until I knew absolutely everything about almost nothing. I'm an expert in a narrow field, nothing more.
Those who forget what their academic training actually qualifies them for do the profession a disservice. I agree with Prof. Fish.
Those who forget what their academic training actually qualifies them for do the profession a disservice. I agree with Prof. Fish.
1
I think that many eminent historians are indeed illustrating very well "how to build a persuasive account of a disputed event."
https://www.facebook.com/historiansondonaldtrump/
https://www.facebook.com/historiansondonaldtrump/
Always good to hear from Morris Zapp. But what difference is there between these historians aggregating their analyses and their views, and the leadership of the ABA is arguing in favor of various court reforms, or the AMA opining against Obamacare? Academics slide in and out of government posts where their individual pronouncements carry the weight of policy, yet they still are academics. Prestigious panels of academics at the National Academy of Sciences levy weighty opinions on matters of health, economics, crime, and several other public policy areas, yet when historians band together (the NAS doesn't convene historians), this is a problem? I'm hard pressed to distinguish this analysis of historical evidence from the rigorous analysis of medical or engineering or other evidence.
1
If historians have learned anything from history, they'll be the only ones, given Hegel's observation: "We learn for history that we do not learn from history."
Trump is a right wing Dalai Lama...
Grok that and you might begin to tumble while bourgeois academics cannot grasp his popularity.
Trump is a right wing Dalai Lama...
Grok that and you might begin to tumble while bourgeois academics cannot grasp his popularity.
6
I know that Prof. Fish believes that academic inquiry should be objective rather than partisan, and I share his conviction in that regard, but I cannot agree with him that a professor should never use his professional understanding to do anything but research and teach.
Would the Professor say that a group of climate scientists shouldn't, on the basis of their specialized knowledge, express opposition to the continued release of greenhouse gases?
Would the Professor say that a group of doctors shouldn't, on the basis of their understanding of cacinogenesis, express opposition to smoking?
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" and even educated non-historians like myself can be see the parallel between Donald Trump and some of histories worst demagogues. I see no reason that historians shouldn't use their specialized knowledge to inform the public of the dangers a Trump presidency; indeed, I would argue that it is their moral duty to do so.
Would the Professor say that a group of climate scientists shouldn't, on the basis of their specialized knowledge, express opposition to the continued release of greenhouse gases?
Would the Professor say that a group of doctors shouldn't, on the basis of their understanding of cacinogenesis, express opposition to smoking?
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" and even educated non-historians like myself can be see the parallel between Donald Trump and some of histories worst demagogues. I see no reason that historians shouldn't use their specialized knowledge to inform the public of the dangers a Trump presidency; indeed, I would argue that it is their moral duty to do so.
425
You nailed i!. There's something fishy about 'Professor' Fish's article - seems he must have started from the position of being a Trump supporter and worked backward - let's see, how can I justify disqualifying from public discourse a group who's specialty particularly relates to the problem (Trump's behavior) being examined? Why of course! - use my own standing as a 'Professor' to narrow down and trivialize to the point of academic uselessness what these other professors have spent their lives studying. They have no knowledge, they just handle 'archival materials'. This just reinforces my opinion that all Trump supporters, including the few professors who might secretly lean in his direction, are, at bottom, stupid.
1
A conundrum: One candidate who already wears the blood of violence on their hands has the persona of understanding, while the other candidate wears no blood of violence and already has the persona of great harm.
There is an irony in Professor Fish spouting about how scholars are mere people when he has been given a precious NYT editorial platform for the same reason...he has read certain books.
I'm imagining a group of science professors writing a similar letter critical of the GOP climate change denying ticket. I assume even Professor Fish would not attack this group. Or perhaps he would! After all, they are mere people who happen to have read certain journal articles.
I'm imagining a group of science professors writing a similar letter critical of the GOP climate change denying ticket. I assume even Professor Fish would not attack this group. Or perhaps he would! After all, they are mere people who happen to have read certain journal articles.
196
Philosophers are at it again, demonstrating in public how little they understand the responsibilities and limits of their profession.
1
An academician with various advanced degrees railing against academicians with advanced degrees? How ironic!
I would consider historians unethical and irresponsible if they did NOT speak out against Trump. The whole point of studying history is to learn from it. Duh...
Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it.... The Republicans don't want anyone to remember so they can profit from repeating it.
Professor Fish should be ashamed to advocate the censorship of educated people.
Those who don't remember the past are doomed to repeat it.... The Republicans don't want anyone to remember so they can profit from repeating it.
Professor Fish should be ashamed to advocate the censorship of educated people.
174
I don't think it's censorship he's calling for, but for not using their credentials as a reason for their authority.
But his argument doesn't hold, firstly because, as several commenters have noted, he himself is an academic trading on his credentials for the position of columnist; and secondly, because his anti-argument about Justice Ginsberg doesn't take into account the fact that her name and position (authority) are instantly recognizable, whereas those of most academic historians are not.
But his argument doesn't hold, firstly because, as several commenters have noted, he himself is an academic trading on his credentials for the position of columnist; and secondly, because his anti-argument about Justice Ginsberg doesn't take into account the fact that her name and position (authority) are instantly recognizable, whereas those of most academic historians are not.
2
So, Prof. Fish, tells us which is worse: a group of historians speaking out against a potential U.S. chief executive and doing so as alleged experts (allowing us to heed or dismiss their alleged expertise)? Or a billionaire businessman and TV "reality show" host trying to pass himself off as a credible candidate for that chief executive post? An argument can be made on behalf of those historians. On the other hand, anyone with any real knowledge of Donald Trump in particular or of human behavior in general would know a phony when he sees one.
144
If academic historians do not warn the public about Trump and he is actually elected they might feel that they had not done everything they could to help defeat him. They are using their knowledge and research in support of public institutions that are part of our democracy. Trump is anti-intellectual and against free speech. (He seems to think he can actually make non believers say, "Merry Christmas.") Historians are aware that people can be easily manipulated because of their fear of the future and a sense of loss. It is also amazing how many people don't know that Hitler was elected during a time of great social upheaval when Germans were worried about their loss of status as a world power. Hitler told the German people he would "make Germany great again" and return it to a world power.
193
He also came to power with absolutely no governmental experience based on charismatic appeal to mob mentality, racial and religious hatred, and the argument that Germany was getting screwed financially by other countries (war reparations). And he did it entirely legally having been placed in the chancellorship by political parties who abhorred him but thought they could use him to serve their own ends. Even the passage of the Enabling Act giving him dictatorial powers was done within existing law. This all sounds ominously familiar to me. After that there was no one left with power to stop him. When is it too soon to speak up, defy convention and call out a maniacal, unqualified lunatic? Our democracy should not be Donald Trump's latest plaything. The Constitutional requirements should have been a natural born citizen and thirty five years old with the brain, maturity and social development of a thirty five year old. As written our constitution literally permits Charles Manson to run for president. Heaven forbid that Ruth Ginsburg should violate decorum and suggest there might be a problem if Charlie got too close to the nuclear codes.
4
Well, I say this as a human being worried about my country:
Trump is a selfish jerk bent on destroying civilization for gain, and doesn't care about working stiffs, whom he regards as punters for his cons. He is a supreme marketer and has no conscience whatsoever, he just says what he thinks will get the right effect. All that glitters is not gold. 3500 lawsuits, several wives, stiffed contractors, etc. etc.
Simple enough for you?
Dismissal of expertise is a problem, but I agree that this should not have been done as historians: pretentious and likely to have the opposite effect from that intended.
Trump is a selfish jerk bent on destroying civilization for gain, and doesn't care about working stiffs, whom he regards as punters for his cons. He is a supreme marketer and has no conscience whatsoever, he just says what he thinks will get the right effect. All that glitters is not gold. 3500 lawsuits, several wives, stiffed contractors, etc. etc.
Simple enough for you?
Dismissal of expertise is a problem, but I agree that this should not have been done as historians: pretentious and likely to have the opposite effect from that intended.
43
I've been studying history, and it is depressing. Civil society is not the norm. Repression and taking advantage and blaming victims is the norm. We are regressing. While we're at it we are trashing our hospitable planet, so no doubt there will be an end to it.
46
Humans are fundamentally tribal and hence, predatory. Religion is used to justify subsequent violence against those deemed as other.
1
Professor, if memory serves me, you quite enjoy playing the contrarian - and are again doing so here.
While history is constantly being reinterpreted, I think it highly unlikely that the reputation of fascism is likely to improve within the academy (or anywhere else where civilized men and women analyze ideas) any time soon. Fascism's victims are simply too numerous to sweep under the proverbial rug, and our memory of them too vivid to forget.
IMHO, unless we are willing to discard everything that the reasonable man or woman has concluded from study of our collective confrontation with fascism, then these academics and writers are standing on relatively secure ground in sharing their professional opinion - THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION - that the Trump campaign is likely bad news.
Are historians better equipped to identify repeating patterns in human behavior, and then alert us to the potential dangers or opportunities that these patterns represent? IMHO, without question - and I therefore welcome their opinion, even if a professional contrarian like yourself might not.
While history is constantly being reinterpreted, I think it highly unlikely that the reputation of fascism is likely to improve within the academy (or anywhere else where civilized men and women analyze ideas) any time soon. Fascism's victims are simply too numerous to sweep under the proverbial rug, and our memory of them too vivid to forget.
IMHO, unless we are willing to discard everything that the reasonable man or woman has concluded from study of our collective confrontation with fascism, then these academics and writers are standing on relatively secure ground in sharing their professional opinion - THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION - that the Trump campaign is likely bad news.
Are historians better equipped to identify repeating patterns in human behavior, and then alert us to the potential dangers or opportunities that these patterns represent? IMHO, without question - and I therefore welcome their opinion, even if a professional contrarian like yourself might not.
258
Personal opinion should not be supported by or validated by one's profession. One can make an assertion and then state their profession and then allow the user to make their own decision whether the profession of the owner of the opinion supports the credence of the opinion. But to state that "I work as an X, and therefore my opinion on this matter is absolute" is not only erroneous but flat out arrogant.
Mr. Fish is spot on with this one. Whether you support Trump or not, having a bunch history professors declare that they know what's best for us is way out of line and downright insulting.
Mr. Fish is spot on with this one. Whether you support Trump or not, having a bunch history professors declare that they know what's best for us is way out of line and downright insulting.
2
Hmmm. I don't need every last member of the profession to be a signatory, but I suspect that this group is self-selected, and as such can't be assumed to be a representative sample of the population of academic historians. That population probably exceeds 10,000 given the last 30 years produced over 20,000 PhD's and academic employment takes about half of them. Seems like there is room for their august opinion of their opinion of Trump and the of authority of their profession to be a little skewed. I'll give Professor Fish some leeway on this one.
My own view is that you don't need a high horse for this. Did you vote for the class narcissist in high school? The class bully? The guy who managed to be both? Then why would you ever vote for him when it could have real consequences?
My own view is that you don't need a high horse for this. Did you vote for the class narcissist in high school? The class bully? The guy who managed to be both? Then why would you ever vote for him when it could have real consequences?
I think the historians like Ruth Bader Ginsberg are alarmed that Trump may become president. I am alarmed that Trump may become president I don't see how given our Constitutional right to free speech, either the historians or Justice Ginsberg can be faulted for being concerned about a Trump presidency. I don't think any of these people would have said what they said about any of the other Republican candidates. Trump is special and not in a good way.
161
That all may be true; but I am just as concerned that we could elect an avaricious crook and world class liar.
If Historians Against Trump are as clear-sighted as they claim, then why don't they understand that their letter is more likely to hurt rather than help their cause? In any electorate there are always more anti-elites than elites. Turning Mr. Trump into the enemy of the egg-heads is only likely to make his election more likely.
38
True.
But that is not Fish's argument. His argument is that historians SPEAKING AS A BODY are not uniquely qualified to comment in a partisan fashion, and that by being partisan they undermine their profession's reputation. IMHO, Fish is being merely contrarian, and I strongly disagree with his claim that if one or two historians are Trump supporters, 'Historians Against Trump' can not claim a broad consensus on the topic of Trump within their profession.
But that is not Fish's argument. His argument is that historians SPEAKING AS A BODY are not uniquely qualified to comment in a partisan fashion, and that by being partisan they undermine their profession's reputation. IMHO, Fish is being merely contrarian, and I strongly disagree with his claim that if one or two historians are Trump supporters, 'Historians Against Trump' can not claim a broad consensus on the topic of Trump within their profession.
7
In all likelihood, anyone who would vote for Trump because historians are against him was already going to vote for Trump. But if there are even just a small percentage of few fence-sitting voters who can be influenced by academic argument, it's worth a try.
In the end, no one who sits silent will have an easy conscience if Trump wins and carries out his promises.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
In the end, no one who sits silent will have an easy conscience if Trump wins and carries out his promises.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
3
@abo
"In any electorate there are always more anti-elites than elites."
That's an extraordinary statement. And not at all objective. Perhaps its true in some countries, but it also presumes that the two types self-identify with the labels you use. In fact, I suspect those who most easily dismiss as 'elitist' the views of experts are those who consider themselves as possessing an equal (if different in substance) capacity for expertise. regardless of an official credential. In other words, just another self-identified 'elite' identifying the 'anti-elites'.
"In any electorate there are always more anti-elites than elites."
That's an extraordinary statement. And not at all objective. Perhaps its true in some countries, but it also presumes that the two types self-identify with the labels you use. In fact, I suspect those who most easily dismiss as 'elitist' the views of experts are those who consider themselves as possessing an equal (if different in substance) capacity for expertise. regardless of an official credential. In other words, just another self-identified 'elite' identifying the 'anti-elites'.
These history professors fail a basic test, which is to acknowledge that "history" is not an objective set of facts. History is always the story of the victors and the powerful. While there are surely facts, e.g., names, dates, history is largely a matter of perspective. To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.
Not to worry, though. The right-wing considers academia hopelessly liberal; liberals already believe all bad things about Trump (much of it deserved, IMHO). The 'historians' waste their time and breath.
Not to worry, though. The right-wing considers academia hopelessly liberal; liberals already believe all bad things about Trump (much of it deserved, IMHO). The 'historians' waste their time and breath.
30
Er, did you (like Prof. Fish) miss the part where the historians wrote "As historians, we consider diverse viewpoints while acknowledging our own limitations and subjectivity."
Professional historians -- and it is a profession, right?...which includes, as Prof. Fish insinuates, addressing a lot of disciplinary work to other historians -- are the first to acknowledge that "'history' is not an objective set of facts". That's a core canonical premise of the discipline. Historians don't claim to present "objective facts", but to help contextualize and interpret the facts by organizing them into narratives (or to borrow Fish's formulation, "to handle archival materials, ... to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, ... to build a persuasive account of a disputed event..."
Every reader of an op-ed is free to decide how persuasive the Historians Against Trump are in their case, as they are the first to acknowledge.
Professional historians -- and it is a profession, right?...which includes, as Prof. Fish insinuates, addressing a lot of disciplinary work to other historians -- are the first to acknowledge that "'history' is not an objective set of facts". That's a core canonical premise of the discipline. Historians don't claim to present "objective facts", but to help contextualize and interpret the facts by organizing them into narratives (or to borrow Fish's formulation, "to handle archival materials, ... to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, ... to build a persuasive account of a disputed event..."
Every reader of an op-ed is free to decide how persuasive the Historians Against Trump are in their case, as they are the first to acknowledge.
22
Yes, history is always incomplete and vulnerable to misinterpretation. (I majored in Classical history.) It still offers vast amounts of evidence that narcissistic sociopaths with grandiose ideas for achieving national greatness tend to be catastrophic failures as leaders. How many more millennia of examples will we need, in order to accept that maxim?
5
Reality has a liberal bias to Righties. That is why they are susceptible to arguments that the educated are "elites" who can't be trusted, as well as the argument that uneducated people are more "genuine" than the educated. At least Trump was truthful when he stated something along the lines of "I love the poorly educated". They are his Base.
2
"No, it’s their job to teach students how to handle archival materials, how to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, how to build a persuasive account of a disputed event, in short, how to perform as historians, not as seers or political gurus."
I always was taught that we study history to learn from the past to better understand the present and make better judgements about the future. I was always taught that when we studied past elections and their outcomes - or decisions by political leaders - it was to learn from their successes and failures.
In Italy in 1922 the Italian people made political choices that took their nation down a dangerous direction. In Germany in 1932 the Italian people made political choices that took their nation down a dangerous direction. Historians should present the facts to the American people so that they do not vote and find later that they have taken their nation down a dangerous direction.
I always was taught that we study history to learn from the past to better understand the present and make better judgements about the future. I was always taught that when we studied past elections and their outcomes - or decisions by political leaders - it was to learn from their successes and failures.
In Italy in 1922 the Italian people made political choices that took their nation down a dangerous direction. In Germany in 1932 the Italian people made political choices that took their nation down a dangerous direction. Historians should present the facts to the American people so that they do not vote and find later that they have taken their nation down a dangerous direction.
309
And sometime soon, voters in France may well have the opportunity to vote for or against Marie LePen for president. If historians of European history wrote about the dangers of electing a far-right nationalist, and supported their argument using historical examples, would they be accused of "partisanship," and of going beyond "the responsibilities and limits of their profession"?
74
"we study history to learn from the past to better understand the present and make better judgements about the future..."
If you look at Prof. Fish's writings, you'll learn that he strenuously denies that we can learn to better understand the present or make better judgments about the future. I had the opportunity to converse with him once, many years ago, about why anyone would want to be a historian. The only reason he would accept is because it was fun (which, in fact, it is).
If you look at Prof. Fish's writings, you'll learn that he strenuously denies that we can learn to better understand the present or make better judgments about the future. I had the opportunity to converse with him once, many years ago, about why anyone would want to be a historian. The only reason he would accept is because it was fun (which, in fact, it is).
7
(Not Mark) I would have a lot more sympathy for these sophomoric examples if they had a little more history behind them. Where is Trump's fascist organization? Where are his legion of thugs/followers? There is no similarity to fascism/Nazism then in the fevered heads of the left. I say this as someone who is against Trump's candidacy. If Trump is elected it will signify nothing, except perhaps we will have a new worst president ever example. In 4 years we will elect someone else. It's call democracy and although many places have trouble with it, we here in the US don't. The only thing fascist about the election are the behavior of the left wing thugs trying to shut him down and attack people who are going to see him. Look that up, that is the real danger.
4
Politics is an art that you learn by running for office - not sitting in an office.
19
Barking up the wrong tree? According to Aristotle politics is the "master science"
1
Subject-changing. They're not claiming to understand the art of politics. They're claiming that Trump's technique is good but the work he produces evil.
1
Tump is getting his first lesson. I doubt he will ever get a second.
1
I lost you at this sentence: "In fact they are MERELY people with history degrees, which means that they have read certain books..."
Try re-writing it without the spin ("merely" always marks argumentation posing as fact): "In fact they are people with history degrees, which means that they have read certain books, taken and taught certain courses and written scholarly essays." Add you own point later down: " it’s their job to teach students how to ... distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence." What's so bad about that?
You then proceed to inflate what you maintain they are doing by publishing an op-ed (surely something that 'the rest of us' do, too), claiming that they purport to represent the discipline of history as a unanimous lock-step phalanx against Trump. That's not their claim, nor would any sensible reader of an op-ed think it was. Historians Against Trump are exactly, as you say, a political group, one drawing on their shared experience in things like "distinguishing between reliable and unreliable evidence" to make a shared statement.
Your effort to deny a voice in public to any group speaking from their position -- apparently, only individuals can speak legitimately -- reproduces the Thatcherite and Reaganist attack on community and society that, taken too far as it has been, weakens us all. It is not improper, much less is it incipient fascism, for a group of professionals to express shared views that reflect their shared expertise.
Try re-writing it without the spin ("merely" always marks argumentation posing as fact): "In fact they are people with history degrees, which means that they have read certain books, taken and taught certain courses and written scholarly essays." Add you own point later down: " it’s their job to teach students how to ... distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence." What's so bad about that?
You then proceed to inflate what you maintain they are doing by publishing an op-ed (surely something that 'the rest of us' do, too), claiming that they purport to represent the discipline of history as a unanimous lock-step phalanx against Trump. That's not their claim, nor would any sensible reader of an op-ed think it was. Historians Against Trump are exactly, as you say, a political group, one drawing on their shared experience in things like "distinguishing between reliable and unreliable evidence" to make a shared statement.
Your effort to deny a voice in public to any group speaking from their position -- apparently, only individuals can speak legitimately -- reproduces the Thatcherite and Reaganist attack on community and society that, taken too far as it has been, weakens us all. It is not improper, much less is it incipient fascism, for a group of professionals to express shared views that reflect their shared expertise.
584
The historians know a lot about what works and what does not in a democracy. They also know the hard won and still on going battles to make this country more equitable and adherent to our Constitutional principles. I've seen more than few headlines of articles questioning whether our government can hold up to a man like Trump who has dictatorial ambitions. He has been compared to Mussolini and Hitler and Joseph McCarthy. Those comparisons are based on his ideas and his campaign promises. Trump has no conscience and seems to enjoy hurting people. I can think of no president or candidate who has this profile.
91
NO you miss the point-- Professor Fish is not making an "...effort to deny a voice in public to any group speaking from their position..."
He is "MERELY" claiming that as Academics--they out not to publicly take political stands, which I believe is an appropriate claim to make and attempt to uphold. Of course historians, physicists, astronomers and even english professors and deans all have political views from the left to the right and in-between. The point is that because of their position those positions should not be put forward in a public manner. Academics, as academics should not be putting forth their political views. Just as Justices and Civil Servants, such as police, fireman, building inspectors, etc should not. We as a society believe that people in those and similar positions be publicly neutral in such political matters.
He is "MERELY" claiming that as Academics--they out not to publicly take political stands, which I believe is an appropriate claim to make and attempt to uphold. Of course historians, physicists, astronomers and even english professors and deans all have political views from the left to the right and in-between. The point is that because of their position those positions should not be put forward in a public manner. Academics, as academics should not be putting forth their political views. Just as Justices and Civil Servants, such as police, fireman, building inspectors, etc should not. We as a society believe that people in those and similar positions be publicly neutral in such political matters.
2
We've read those books to (some of us, at least). We can think for ourselves.
The ideological constraints of contemporary academic life are in themselves enough to disqualify most professorial pronouncements on most topics.
The ideological constraints of contemporary academic life are in themselves enough to disqualify most professorial pronouncements on most topics.
1
This essay is a fascinating example of American anti-intellectual bias. Also fascinating is that the bloviator himself is an intellectual.
OK, Dr. Fish, if you don't want historians opining about Trump, how about a (retired) neuropsychologist? And before you say I haven't met the guy, permit me to remind you that experienced neuropsychologists can study documents and view videos of an individual's behavior and reach one or more tentative diagnoses.
Trump appears to me to represent a classic example of narcissistic personality disorder. Were I to write a report, the recommendations section would likely include a warning that he not be placed in any leadership position, whether of a business or a country.
OK, Dr. Fish, if you don't want historians opining about Trump, how about a (retired) neuropsychologist? And before you say I haven't met the guy, permit me to remind you that experienced neuropsychologists can study documents and view videos of an individual's behavior and reach one or more tentative diagnoses.
Trump appears to me to represent a classic example of narcissistic personality disorder. Were I to write a report, the recommendations section would likely include a warning that he not be placed in any leadership position, whether of a business or a country.
852
Narcissistic personality disorder doesn't' seem to capture how dangerous he is. How about pathological liar and psychopath?
78
Wouldn't many politicians get the same diagnosis? A certain former president named Clinton comes to mind.
2
NO you miss the point-- Professor Fish is not making an argument against an informed argument against Trump.
He is claiming that as Academics--they out not to publicly take political stands, which I believe is an appropriate claim to make and attempt to uphold. Of course historians, physicists, astronomers and even english professors and deans all have political views from the left to the right and in-between. The point is that because of their position those positions should not be put forward in a public manner. Academics, as academics should not be putting forth their political views. Just as Justices and Civil Servants, such as police, fireman, building inspectors, etc should not. We as a society believe that people in those and similar positions be publicly neutral in such political matters.
He is claiming that as Academics--they out not to publicly take political stands, which I believe is an appropriate claim to make and attempt to uphold. Of course historians, physicists, astronomers and even english professors and deans all have political views from the left to the right and in-between. The point is that because of their position those positions should not be put forward in a public manner. Academics, as academics should not be putting forth their political views. Just as Justices and Civil Servants, such as police, fireman, building inspectors, etc should not. We as a society believe that people in those and similar positions be publicly neutral in such political matters.
2
So if each of the 517 signatories of the open letter wrote, say, an op-ed arguing that "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a campaign of violence: violence against individuals and groups; against memory and accountability, against historical analysis and fact,” with her/his academic affiliation and title published at the end, Professor Fish would be fine with it?
I don't believe that these people claim to speak for the profession of history, any more than Stanley Fish claims to speak for the profession of law scholars when he writes his Gray Matter pieces. Professor Fish has the platform he has in the Times because of his academic position and training. As he put it in a 2007 piece published by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Professor Fish has "the opportunity afforded me by The New York Times to have my say on anything I like every Monday."
Although his pieces are no longer published weekly, Professor Fish brings his training and academic position to bear when he "has his say." These historians are open about the fact that they are doing the same thing in their letter about Trump. Professor Fish can write about anything he likes. Why shouldn't these historians, whether individually or collectively?
I don't believe that these people claim to speak for the profession of history, any more than Stanley Fish claims to speak for the profession of law scholars when he writes his Gray Matter pieces. Professor Fish has the platform he has in the Times because of his academic position and training. As he put it in a 2007 piece published by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, Professor Fish has "the opportunity afforded me by The New York Times to have my say on anything I like every Monday."
Although his pieces are no longer published weekly, Professor Fish brings his training and academic position to bear when he "has his say." These historians are open about the fact that they are doing the same thing in their letter about Trump. Professor Fish can write about anything he likes. Why shouldn't these historians, whether individually or collectively?
496
Actually, by his reasoning, he shouldn't use the title of Professor when writing this piece. What good is his academic expertise when criticizing what a group of historians is doing? Yet, isn't he just using his academic authority to give gravitas to what would otherwise just be an opinion, like theirs?
I'm not a historian. I'm not a professor. But I am a person, and by that authority, I can detect the stench of hypocrisy when it reeks.
I'm not a historian. I'm not a professor. But I am a person, and by that authority, I can detect the stench of hypocrisy when it reeks.
9
The difference is that he didn't start by saying "as an academic I know reality is on my side now here it is." He shared his opinion and understanding of how academia is supposed to work (he's right by the way.) I think the negative comments here reflect people who know he's right but are looking for any opportunities to disagree to save their own fractured positions
3
Dangerous territory, Dr. Fish.
First because you offend so many. And second because you're right.
First because you offend so many. And second because you're right.
73
Not right.
2
Except that he exaggerates their claims to exclusive competency. They have unique qualifications and, like Fish, have a right to their fact-based opinions.
3
No doubt if Professor Fish were reading these comments, he would indeed try to convince himself that all the negative reaction is because he has touched a nerve. he has pierced the veil of political correctness and got to the truth! What a martyr to intellectual honesty he is!
No, actually. Usually, when everyone thinks you're wrong, it's because because you are, in fact, wrong. Sure, there a few instances where being alone in holding a particular view means you are genius among dunces. But most of the time it just means you are narcissist who is not nearly as smart as you think you are.
No, actually. Usually, when everyone thinks you're wrong, it's because because you are, in fact, wrong. Sure, there a few instances where being alone in holding a particular view means you are genius among dunces. But most of the time it just means you are narcissist who is not nearly as smart as you think you are.
3
The one thing has has constantly impressed (or depressed) me over the years is the American indifference to the lessons of history, which I suppose is best summed up in the weird notion of "American exceptionalism." Prof. Fish seems to share this indifference to history in his comments about the Historians against Trump. To me, it seems entirely legitimate that a group of respected historians wish to express their distress over the very disturbing direction American politics is taking. There are plenty of historical parallels, and understanding them is necessary for the preservation of our fragile democracy.
633
If the historians cited parallels and referred to their research, you would be exactly right. But follow the link to the letter and you will see that it is void of historical analysis and merely states unsubstantiated opinions. As the author states, the historians are offering non-expert opinion which falsely claims to reflect their professional expertise.
4
I do not think that Prof. Fish is advocating an ahistoric approach to politics. He is merely upset at the hubris of a small group of academics who proclaim to be speaking for the entire profession and imply that their personal political conviction is imbued with some kind of higher virtue than that of normal people who have not access to the deep wisdom that this group believes to share.
3
I believe you've missed his point entirely. ..
3
The nerve of these profs, roaming the halls of academia like hoodlums with pipes and elbow patches, spewing their negative opinions against a poor, defenseless proto-fascist who just wants to be president. This "Historians Against Trump" movement wields the frightful power of academic eggheads against a sensitive and defenseless candidate. (Or is he a senseless and defensive candidate? I can't keep track. Either way, the audacity!)
Millions of scantily-educated older incipient racists and lovers of chaos swoon over Trump. Don’t these professors realize how seriously these voters take open letters from academics? Imagine their disillusionment!
This letter suggests that our democracy would be in danger if a completely unqualified narcissistic buffoon occupied the Oval Office. How dare they?! What evidence do we have that an ignorant Republican yahoo would cause mayhem if he was elected president?
Prof. Fish would have no problem if these historians were individual people who happened to opine about Trump, but they claim a corporate identity. Obviously corporations don’t have the rights of people! If they did, corporations could pour millions into political campaigns under the guise of free speech. What’s next? Corporations with religious beliefs? That’ll never happen.
This is a slippery slope. If we start believing academics when they opine about Trump, we’ll have to start listening to scientists when they talk about climate change. Where will it end?
Millions of scantily-educated older incipient racists and lovers of chaos swoon over Trump. Don’t these professors realize how seriously these voters take open letters from academics? Imagine their disillusionment!
This letter suggests that our democracy would be in danger if a completely unqualified narcissistic buffoon occupied the Oval Office. How dare they?! What evidence do we have that an ignorant Republican yahoo would cause mayhem if he was elected president?
Prof. Fish would have no problem if these historians were individual people who happened to opine about Trump, but they claim a corporate identity. Obviously corporations don’t have the rights of people! If they did, corporations could pour millions into political campaigns under the guise of free speech. What’s next? Corporations with religious beliefs? That’ll never happen.
This is a slippery slope. If we start believing academics when they opine about Trump, we’ll have to start listening to scientists when they talk about climate change. Where will it end?
1427
History Professors can give a context for the possibility of a Trump Presidency. The United States is a democracy. Therefore, those who wish to voice an opinion either individually or as a group can do so. If readers object to this they also have the freedom to write an opinion about Mr. Trump as a nominee for the American Presidency.
I have a PH.D. I think Mr. Trump would be a disaster as a President. He does not have the intellectual or emotional skills to sit in the Oval Office.
I have a PH.D. I think Mr. Trump would be a disaster as a President. He does not have the intellectual or emotional skills to sit in the Oval Office.
60
You wasted your time reading this piece. You failed entirely to understand the writer's point. Your uninformed tirade,which is irrelevant to the writer's argument, reminds me of Trump himself.
4
For me, the slippery slope is that public discourse has degenerated into an argument over credentials and authority, instead of over facts and proper analysis thereof. Unfortunately, it appears that in the age of sound bites and twitter, the public is no longer able to have a real debate that requires the hard work of studying facts, analysing them and then participating in an exhausting discussion. We are just looking for the quick fix expert who can tell us what is right without our having to look up from our computer game. Everything that Neil Postman wrote about decades ago came true and just keeps getting worse.
1