History departments and the search for truth

[Merv Benson]

This post is based on a NY Sun article about Mark Moyar who is the author of Triumph Forsaken.

It discusses the academic hostility Moyar has faced for challenging the liberal narrative about Vietnam.

Mark Moyar doesn't exactly fit the stereotype of a disappointed job seeker. He is an Eagle Scout who earned a summa cum laude degree from Harvard, graduating first in the history department before earning a doctorate at the University of Cambridge in England. Before he had even begun graduate school, he had published his first book and landed a contract for his second book. Distinguished professors at Harvard and Cambridge wrote stellar letters of recommendation for him.

Yet over five years, this conservative military and diplomatic historian applied for more than 150 tenure-track academic jobs, and most declined him a preliminary interview. During a search at University of Texas at El Paso in 2005, Mr. Moyar did not receive an interview for a job in American diplomatic history, but one scholar who did wrote her dissertation on "The American Film Industry and the Spanish-Speaking Market During the Transition to Sound, 1929-1936." At Rochester Institute of Technology in 2004, Mr. Moyar lost out to a candidate who had given a presentation on "promiscuous bathing" and "attire, hygiene and discourses of civilization in Early American-Japanese Relations."

It's an example, some say, of the difficulties faced by academics who are seen as bucking the liberal ethos on campus and perhaps the reason that history departments at places like Duke had 32 Democrats and zero Republicans, according to statistics published by the Duke Conservative Union around the time Mr. Moyar tried to get an interview there

Links to the Sun article and my review of Moyar's book are at the post.

[The Patriot]

I'll be honest - I hate liberals. Not because I'm a hateful person, but because they are so pathetic. Here again, we have proof positive of the liberal bias in academia. Ask any liberal about it, and they'll deny it. "It's just not true" they'd say. But any thinking person knows it's true. The same goes for the bias in media and in the judiciary. What to do about it, I'm not exactly sure. I do believe this, though - I believe that liberals can be counted among the domestic enemies of the United States. As a patriot, sworn to defend the Constitution, what am I to do with these people? I think I know the answer, but the answer is harsh and unthinkable to most people. Left unchecked, though, I believe they will undermine the Constitution, our way of life, and our nation.
...Just a few thoughts from a concerned citizen.

[tequila]

Your opinion is about as valid as a liberal who hates conservatives.

Never thought much of those who descend to actually hating their fellow Americans. My own feelings don't go that far, and I don't have much respect for those who do.

[Tom Odom]

Your opinion is about as valid as a liberal who hates conservatives.

Never thought much of those who descend to actually hating their fellow Americans. My own feelings don't go that far, and I don't have much respect for those who do.

Agreed

tom

[John T. Fishel]

Like Tom, I agree that it is wrongheaded (at the very least) to hate one's fellow citizens just because we disagree with them.

I am, however, concerned that far too many folk who should know better don't seem to give a damn about the facts letting their ideology and/or personal pique get in the way of understanding and effectively playing the hand they have been dealt.

[tequila]

I am, however, concerned that far too many folk who should know better don't seem to give a damn about the facts letting their ideology and/or personal pique get in the way of understanding and effectively playing the hand they have been dealt.

And somehow, after four years of the Iraq War, you believe that this is limited to one side of the political spectrum?

[The Patriot]

...hating their fellow Americans...

Gentlemen: I respect your responses. But I disagree with your premise that my opinion is as valid as a liberal who hates conservatives. Liberals and conservatives disagree and debate over many issues. But because a debate exists, that doesn't mean that a gray area exists. You can believe that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east and debate me all day long, but you'll be wrong. So it is with many liberal issues. The issue of bias on campus that started this thread - we know it exists. Is that American? Knowingly excluding others that don't share your views? No. Playing politics at home while troops are in the field? Inexcusable. My view is that many, not all, liberals have been wrong on most important issues for decades. Tax and spend government, weak foreign policy, legislating from the bench - hardly American.
I just get frustrated more and more each day by the human freakshow that is aligning itself with the American Left - intellectual 'heavyweights' like Rosie O'Donnell spouting their ignorance on mainstram television and thousands of people applauding her, war protesters holding up banners saying 'F*** the Troops', politicians on the Senate floor saying 'This war is lost.' Guys, I have two young sons, and I see what 'liberal values' are doing to this country today, and it scares me. I fear for the future they will inherit. I do not hate my fellow Americans. I hate the enemies of the US. What people have to realize, painful as it may seem, is that some of them are American.

[The Patriot]

...and of course self-centered, short-sighted politicians don't always come from Blue states, but the unfortunate siuation we sometimes find ourself in these days is voting for the lesser of two evils.

...by the way, sorry to get the discussion off track. I just had to vent after reading yet another example of liberal hypocrisy. The Taliban-like zeal of those who rudely heckle conservative speakers and deny employment to conservative professors just because their views are different, is intolerable.

[Steve Blair]

And I think all this is distracting from the original point of the post...

There are certain segments within the academic community that have a vested interest in defending certain points of view, especially when it comes to military history and the 1960s. In my opinion this has more to do with the way academic culture perpetuates itself (often blatant cronyism) and the need of some individuals to justify what they did (or didn't do) during the 1960s. Military history itself has to almost constantly justify its existence in many universities. How can we learn from the past if we refuse to teach it? This to me is a much more valid discussion than liberals versus conservatives.

[tequila]

Interesting article by Prof. Mark Grimsley about the future of academic military history here. The good professor's site dedicated to spreading military history professorships in academia here.

Good overviews of the current state of academic military history can be found in Jeremy Black's Rethinking Military History.

Everyone who cares should be a member of the Society for Military History --- the journal archives alone are more than worth the price.

[marct]

...by the way, sorry to get the discussion off track. I just had to vent after reading yet another example of liberal hypocrisy. The Taliban-like zeal of those who rudely heckle conservative speakers and deny employment to conservative professors just because their views are different, is intolerable.

I would suggest that academics are just as influenced by popular politics as other people. The pretense that academic disciplines are trans-national cultures is, to some degree, a bit of a farce. For example, many academics in Canada are much more "Liberal", in the pejorative sense that you are sing, than academics in the US. What I find to be very different is that Canadian academics (not ex-American draft dodgers from the 1960's) tend, on the whole to be more interested in and supportive of different political positions - at least amongst their peers. I suspect that this has to do with how our political spectrum is different from that of the US.

And I think all this is distracting from the original point of the post...

There are certain segments within the academic community that have a vested interest in defending certain points of view, especially when it comes to military history and the 1960s. In my opinion this has more to do with the way academic culture perpetuates itself (often blatant cronyism) and the need of some individuals to justify what they did (or didn't do) during the 1960s. Military history itself has to almost constantly justify its existence in many universities. How can we learn from the past if we refuse to teach it? This to me is a much more valid discussion than liberals versus conservatives.

Agreed, and it's not only Military History that has to justify itself . I just finished reading our universities new "Strategic Plan" - long on buzz words but, to my mind, short on specifics. You mentioned "blatant cronyism" and I would agree with you, but I would also note that, at east in my experience, it tends not to be politically (or theoretically) based. Then again, that could be a function of how it operates in Anthropology.

I honestly believe that part of the problem with hirings is an often unspoken argument within departments surrounding the perceptions of what their discipline is / should be. At the core of this, as my old supervisor said, is the realization that "you are going to be living and working with his person for 30 years". Since there is an increasing tension between academia and the "real world", I think that this tension gets played out in hirings and how the new hire will "look" to the world.

Marc

[MaxL]

Agreed, and it's not only Military History that has to justify itself . I just finished reading our universities new "Strategic Plan" - long on buzz words but, to my mind, short on specifics. You mentioned "blatant cronyism" and I would agree with you, but I would also note that, at east in my experience, it tends not to be politically (or theoretically) based. Then again, that could be a function of how it operates in Anthropology

While not an academic myself, my father is a professor. Based on conversations with my fathers and his peers, it is much the same at my school across all departments.

On the topic of military history, there is an intersting problem at my schools (I attend a school which is part of a consortium of schools); due the military's 'don't-ask-don't-tell' policy (there are also, if we're being honest, anti-military tendencies at my school) two of the schools in the consortium give no credit for attending classes taught by the ROTC folks at one of the other schools. The ROTC folks happen to be the only ones teaching military history (there is a for-credit class dealing with Vietnam being taught by a guy who one of RAND's analyst, but that's not 'just' military history).

As far as Moyar goes, there are a few rather scathing reviews of his book on the Phoenix program available on JSTOR. Having not read his book, I can't comment on it, other than to say that if the reviews are accurate, it's not surprising Moyar had such difficulty securing a tenure-track position.

[AFlynn]

As a young, center-left college student, I'll clearly acknowledge that academics are often more liberal than I am. However, it's not as if the path of a conservative student is lined with thorns. For one, there are quite a few low-key, well funded campus-based outgrowths of big Heritage Foundation-type organizations. If someone decides to style themselves as a would-be conservative intellectual, it seems like there's a place for them.

I'll definitely agree that there's basically no military history here, per se, which is kind of a shame, considering that's what I tried to write this spring. I think I might rework the paper for the SWC after all.

[Lastdingo]

I always wondered why U.S. americans couldn't find a more correct description for the people they call "liberals" for "liberals "

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which advocate individual liberty.

Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.

A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank.

I doubt that so many U.S. armericans as are ranting about "liberals" indeed are contrra to liberalism.

The inaccuracy of their expressions is really irritating to foreigners ... which often read such texts in the www and are often accepted and wanted as partners for discussion.

[Tacitus]

I'll be honest - I hate liberals. Not because I'm a hateful person, but because they are so pathetic.

... I do believe this, though - I believe that liberals can be counted among the domestic enemies of the United States. As a patriot, sworn to defend the Constitution, what am I to do with these people? I think I know the answer, but the answer is harsh and unthinkable to most people. Left unchecked, though, I believe they will undermine the Constitution, our way of life, and our nation.
...Just a few thoughts from a concerned citizen.

I don't know how many or what percent of the American population you hate. If it amounts to those with a different political preference, it could conceivably rise to 50% or more of the population, depending on the issue. Why a man would even want to defend a citizenry he so despises is a question to ponder.

As for the unspecified "harsh answer." Well, specify it, for us, if you please. Are you advocating some sort of overthrow of the Republic, perhaps a military dictatorship?

I doubt what this country really needs or desires is a Julius Ceasar. If I'm wrong, and that is what the American people eventually call for, then I'll peacefully leave for some other place that pays more than lip service to liberty.

[Bill Moore]

Patriot you're killing me, but the saddest part is I understand your anger at the "extreme" left. I really appreciate lastdingo's post, because we misuse the term liberal, and I concur that probably half our country is liberal (whatever that means). The reality is most Americans are both liberal and conservative depending on the issue. For example they may have a conservative view on abortion, but a so called liberal view on immigration. In my opinion I think many liberals throughout our history have been our greatest heros. They have been the ones who had the moral courage to change what was wrong with our society from racial segregation to equal rights for women to developing mass work programs during the depression, and no suprise many of these individuals did hard time in the trenches as a soldier during war without complaint. You can hate liberals, but we be could easily be in the same foxhole together fighting a common enemy to our nation.

I don't think it is the liberals we hate, I think what many of us find hard to understand is the extreme left. This small percentage of self rightous freaks are as steadfast in their opinions as Hilter was in his. They are far removed from any intellectual high ground, as a matter of fact, they can't stand intellectualism, because intellectuals must reason. The extreme left despises reason, they are instead blind believers of some pseudo religion, where free thought is not tolerated. They are the thought police on some campuses, and dissenting voices will not be heard, and dissenting books will not be read. A liberal on the other hand would welcome the voice of dissent and attempt to reason with it, and more importantly remain open to persuasion. The extreme far left is the end of reason and the end of humanity if they could get their way. If it was politically correct to shape their heads, they would all do so. I personally like to persuade them that stepping off a cliff is PC, but that might be a little harsh, because there remains hope they'll awaken from their dellusion.

[Steve Blair]

Lastdingo's post is interesting, but within the context of US politics the use of the term "liberal" is (sadly) correct. One of the downsides of a two-party system is the need for (more or less) two terms to describe each party. In standard US usage, democrat has come to equal liberal and republican has come to stand for conservative. Never mind that both terms are incorrectly applied: within the context of general US political discourse they ARE correct. As most Western countries have multi-party systems and thus see a great deal of obvious political shading I think they can have some difficulty understanding this. While there is shading within wings of both parties, the "one or the other" idea is a fixture in US politics.

And in line with Bill's post, the only real difference between the extreme right and extreme left (in most cases) is WHO or WHAT they hate. The extreme left bothers me more because they ride the coattails of enlightened liberalism simply by claiming that they ARE liberal. No one questions them, and they usually play an "-ist" card (racist, sexist, take your pick) if you disagree with them. In US political discourse that immediately puts YOU on the defensive and gives them a very dubious "high ground" from which to pontificate.

[phil b]

Lastdingo,

The contemporary use of 'liberal' in the US that you find irritating has its origins in the early 20th century progressive era. An excellent account of that time and movement is Charles Forcey's The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, Weyl, Lippman and the Progressive Era, 1900-1925. In the introduction, Forcey describes the transformation of the meaning of 'liberal':

American liberalism in the twentieth century has undergone a significant transformation. At the cost of considerable semantic confusion, the old nineteenth-century liberalism of individual rights and laissez faire has gradually given way to a different pattern of thought that also claims the name of liberalism. The claim gains substance from the fact that the older liberalism has become the ideological bastion of conservative defenders of established privilege, of men without that faith in human mutability and social progress so central to the earlier doctrine. A measure of the success of the new creed in usurping the old name appeared in the amazement that one greeted the late Robert A. Taft's description of himself as a liberal. Actually, in the nineteenth-century sense of the term, the Senator spoke with his usual semantic precision.

With the easy alchemy of all ideology the "new liberalism" has reworked the elements of the old faith into modern coinage. The earlier emphasis on individualism has been replaced with a concern for individuality, a desire to resist the conformity exacted by an ever more integrated technological society. Equality has been expanded to mean not merely formal equality before the law but also social, religious, and racial equality insured by considerable legal coercion. Liberty has been redefined through a total social view that comprehends how much one man's liberty may be another's bondage. The new liberalism, in sum, has turned away from a dream of automatic progress by the free-wheeling exercise of individual rights to a conviction that only the conscious, co-operative use of governmental power can bring reform.

The new liberalism had its first real beginnings in the minds of certain publicists and politicians of the progressive era. While some of its aspects had been anticipated earlier by men like Edward Bellamy and Lester Ward, the creed first enjoyed a widespread hearing and partial practice while the progressive era was at its height from 1910 to 1917. As such the era marked the crossroads of liberalism, that turning point where two divergent emphases began to emerge within the common liberal faith.

Emphasis mine. Forcey's book was published in 1961 before the new left and postmodernism transformed 'liberalism' even further from its original meaning.

[Rob Thornton]

Curious as to what the thought out there is. Sec Gates recently advised some Academy grads to be apolitical (I think he was constraining the remark to when it comes to judging the motivations of Congress, the Admin and the Press). You can use any definition you want, but is the militiary culture more conservative or liberal? How about individual service cultures? Does this translate readily as Republican and Democrat? Is this good or bad? Does it impact important debates like being able to criticize the war without being critical of the troops? Could the military alienate itself from society if it were decidely "conservative" while the public was more "liberal" in its attitude toward war? Could the military become a symol of "conservatism" or uniformly identified with a sole political party? Is this good, bad or does not matter?

We were discussing civil-military relations, and allot of great points came up (many are abve). I've never really questioned where I stood, or why I stood there. I never really considered the dangers of alienating any group outside of the green suiters - I mean we have lived on base pretty much the entire time and when I was enlisted I was always on base. Even in ROTC (APSU) the people I identified most with were other former enlisted making the transition. It was pointed out to me recently the military's role is to "preserve" and "defend" - that seems like a "conserve" role to me.

Since we have so many folks on the outside on this forum, it seemed like a great place to discuss it - since I saw this thread, it beat starting a new one.
regards, Rob

[SteveMetz]

This post is based on a NY Sun article about Mark Moyar who is the author of Triumph Forsaken.

It discusses the academic hostility Moyar has faced for challenging the liberal narrative about Vietnam.



Links to the Sun article and my review of Moyar's book are at the post.

Three points:

1. While it is true that military history is deprecated within university departments, that in itself may not be due to the prevalence of people who are left leaning. In history, in particular, there are literally hundreds of applications for every job. Moyar may be losing out to people with more faddish research specializations rather than because of his political leanings.

2. To the comment about Rosie O'Donnell, I am of the opinion that stupidity inhabits both ends of the spectrum. O'Donnell and Moore are no worse than Limbaugh and Coulter.

3. As a refugee from civilian academia, I believe it is true that a leftist ethos dominates. I don't think, though, that has had a major impact on American politics. It has simply made academia less relevant, often irrelevant in the formation of national policy. A case in point is the uproar in academic anthropology circles about the fact that folks like Montgomery McFate are trying to help the U.S. military better understand culture. The Vietnam generation of academics has replicated itself by turning out graduate students with similar attitudes.