Advocacy is not a choice

,

Editor’s note: This post was published in Volume 44 Number 4 of Public History News, NCPH’s quarterly newsletter. It is cross-posted here in response to History@Work‘s current Special Call for posts on “advocacy in the field.” 

During this past election year there was a predictable uptick in the number of opinion pieces regarding historians’ work as public intellectuals, particularly as political commentators. As is typical, some observers argued that historians have no legitimate role to play in the realm of politics. Others relied on historians to explore the context and provide analysis of candidates’ qualities, qualifications, and policy proposals. Still others asked historians to extrapolate from their knowledge of the past to make predictions about election outcomes. It is easy to be sidetracked by this cyclical and seemingly perpetual debate. Many observers believe it raises the question: is it right or is it wrong for historians to participate in political punditry?

Screenshot image of a CNN anchor interviewing a historian on the air. The caption reads "Debate Fallout: Historian who correctly predicts presidential election reacts. Allan Lichtman, distinguished professor of history, American University"

Screenshot of the CNN segment, “Should Democrats replace Biden? Hear what historian thinks,” aired on June 29, 2024. Accessed from YouTube, August 7, 2024.

But that question is misleading.  

As public historians, we do not have the luxury to decide whether to be politically engaged. Our work is, by virtue of its location and its nature, inherently political. As a result, we think critically about how to occupy politically charged spaces and when to take a stand on issues. Our academic colleagues who appear in the Oval Office or on CNN put their individual reputations on the line when offering advice or informed opinion. While we are also vulnerable to criticism and cancellation, we are less likely to be working in a vacuum. Public historians operate within a diverse social network that can include scholars, educators, community organizers, vernacular historians, and others. We are process-oriented, always calibrating the space between responsiveness and responsibility, deciding when we must stand up on behalf of our stakeholders and collaborators and when we should simply stand behind them.

As an organization, the National Council on Public History has worked to strike a similar balance in our approach to advocacy. We represent and support a broad and diverse network of professionals with a variety of needs and interests. Our Advocacy Policy enables us to develop fruitful partnerships and relationships, to engage in public conversations about the relevance of history, advocate for the interests of all public history practitioners, and to support history education, broadly defined. Over the past ten years, the Board of Directors, with guidance from the Advocacy Committee, has taken a variety of stands to defend the legitimacy of our profession and the safety and security of our members. 

plaque surrounded by greenery in a public park that reads "'Bobby (Lil' Bobby) Hutton' April 21 1950-April 6 1968. First member and Treasurer of the Black Panther Party." The text is above the Black Panther Party slogan "ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE" and logo as well as an image of a young man, Bobby Hutton, in a black beret.

The NCPH Advocacy Committee in partnership with public history advocates (including Fredrika Newton) in Oakland, California, seek to designate DeFremery Park, or “Bobby Hutton Park,” as one of several National Park Service sites dedicated to the history and legacy of the Black Panther Party in the area. Photo credit: Melinda Young Stuart, 2018. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

In 2023, the Advocacy Committee worked with the Board to revise the NCPH Advocacy Policy to clarify the objectives, issues, and procedures guiding our efforts and to align our advocacy efforts with the goals of our most recent Long Range Plan. The new policy encourages us to think critically about the boundaries of our authority, the extent of our reach, and the limits of our capacity. Sometimes, NCPH must take the lead as an organization—issuing a statement, writing a letter, or establishing guidelines on behalf of our members. But in other cases, NCPH can better serve an issue by taking a less visible role, providing space for coalition building, hosting advocacy workshops or webinars, supporting working groups that might form new communities of practice, or encouraging issue-oriented communications on History@Work. Perhaps most importantly, we hope the new policy helps support the culture of activism and advocacy that defines our field. 

The question is not whether or not we should engage pressing political issues. The question is how best to connect with one another and a new and growing body of partners to put the past to work on behalf of the present and the future. To explore NCPH’s recent advocacy work and to read our updated policy, visit the “Adocacy” page on the NCPH website. 

~Denise D. Meringolo is the President of the National Council on Public History and the Chair of the Department of History at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.