Historians Condemn Israel’s ‘Scholasticide.’ The Question Is Why.

The history profession has plenty of questions to grapple with right now. Between those on the right who want it to accentuate America’s uniqueness and greatness and those on the left who want it to emphasize America’s failings and blind spots, how should historians tell the nation’s story? What is history’s role in a society with a seriously short attention span? And what can the field do — if anything — to stem the decline in history majors, which, at most recent count, was an abysmal 1.2 percent of American college students?

But the most pressing question at the annual conference of the American Historical Association, which I just attended in New York, had nothing to do with any of this. It wasn’t even about the study or practice of history. Instead, it was about what was called Israel’s scholasticide — defined as the intentional destruction of an education system — in Gaza, and how the A.H.A., which represents historians in academia, K-12 schools, public institutions and museums in the United States, should respond.

On Sunday evening, members voted in their annual business meeting on a resolution put forth by Historians for Peace and Democracy, an affiliate group founded in 2003 to oppose the war in Iraq. It included three measures. First, a condemnation of Israeli violence that the group says undermines Gazans’ right to education. Second, the demand for an immediate cease-fire. Finally, and perhaps most unusually for an academic organization, a commitment to “form a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s educational infrastructure.”

“We consider this to be a manifold violation of academic freedom,” Van Gosse, a professor emeritus of history at Franklin & Marshall College and a founding co-chair of Historians for Peace and Democracy, told me, speaking of Israel’s actions in Gaza. The A.H.A. has taken public positions before, he pointed out, including condemning the war in Iraq and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “We felt like we had no choice — if we were to lose this resolution, it would send a message that historians did not actually care about scholasticide.”

That kind of impassioned commitment animated the business meeting, typically a staid affair that attracts around 50 attendees, but which this year, after a rally earlier in the day, was standing room only. Clusters of members were left to vote outside the Mercury Ballroom of the New York Hilton Midtown without even hearing the five speakers pro and five speakers con (which included the A.H.A.’s incoming president) make their case.

Sunday’s meeting was closed to the media but attendees and accounts on social media described an unusually raucous atmosphere. I saw many members heading in wearing kaffiyehs and stickers that read, “Say no to scholasticide.” Those opposing the resolution were booed and hissed, while those in favor won resounding applause.