Scranton concludes that our work “does not meet the standards the AHA and NCPH have established to define professional historical scholarship.” (Scranton, p.40).
We will leave such judgment to our colleagues in the historical profession, asking them to read our book and judge whether or not such an accusation is warranted. We feel no need to defend ourselves from Scranton’s own assertion of moral superiority. We do feel it is important to point out, however, certain elemental aspects of the AHA guidelines. Although Scranton implies the existence of specific and immutable AHA and NCPH guidelines, in fact the guidelines for professional scholarship are very general and very short. While they are quite laudable, it is disingenuous to claim that they are anything other than a work in progress. They are not meant as a bludgeon with which to attack others’ scholarship. The AHA guidelines on scholarship include “standards of civility.” “The preeminent value of all intellectual communities is reasoned discourse – the continuous colloquy among historians of diverse points of view. A commitment to such discourse makes possible the fruitful exchange of views, opinion, and knowledge.” Our book is an attempt to engage in such a dialogue. We feel that Scranton, in his 40 page single spaced report, transforms disagreement into an issue of integrity and ethics. Had he simply disagreed with our interpretation of documents the decision as to who is more accurate could have been left to colleagues (and, in this case, a jury) to decide. Instead, he attacked our integrity and ethics. This has the effect of cutting off scholarly discussion and debate and undermines any attempt to foster a “fruitful exchange of views, opinion, and knowledge.” The critical discussion of industrial history and occupational disease must not be cut short nor should historians be intimidated by the obfuscation and legalistic arguments characteristic of lawyers trying to win their case at all costs -- in dollars as well as professional reputations. We offer this response to Scranton’s attack on our work both as a defense of our scholarship and reputations and a defense of the right of historians to pursue their work without fear of intimidation.
Previous Page | Page 30