What's Wrong with American Studies?

Can they point to articles that are unjustly critical of America? How about those they think appropriate? For example, is a historical article summarizing the errors and omissions that let to Pearl Harbor “critical of America” or “history”?

The us needs right wing universities. Let them compete in merit alone. By their labors fruit you shall know them.

The authors go out of their way to try to establish neutrality, pointing out that they "objected to Donald Trump’s attempt to whitewash negative aspects of our country’s story", but I feel like the equivalence they draw between the two sides here is pretty disingenuous.

Are historians saying emancipation didn't happen? Or are they saying it wasn't enough? Because many voices on the right, with FAR greater reach than any scholar of American Studies, are very explicitly saying that slavery wasn't all that bad, and that racism has been completely dispelled from American society. The same people, who often have direct influence on actual policy, are trying to eliminate topics like slavery from curricula.

It doesn't seem like the authors are actually accusing these academics of lying, or even necessarily using truths in a misleading manner. The criticism seems to be limited to the notion that historians are fixating on the bad, and that that is somehow hurting their credibility and perhaps even justifying the counter-messaging from the right. Definitionally, this is tone policing. They're scolding historians for not reading the room better. It's a complaint about information curation. They want academics to use a compliment sandwich when they have something negative to say.

If I can just take the subheadings from this article one by one:

*Mischaracterizing Methodology*

The authors' own academic integrity was attacked by subjects of the study, and this is simply a personal defense. In taking the time to address this, they're engaging in the exact same thing they're trying to incriminate American Studies professors for. They opened this dialogue when they attacked the credibility of a bunch of academics, some of whom retaliated with attacks on the authors' own credibility. Just two sides calling each other bad scholars and taking offense from being called bad scholars. Pure noise from all involved, both sides insisting the other is playing into the hand of a common enemy.

*Denying Objective Truth*

When I read this section it felt like it was leading to a specific accusation of dishonesty. I would agree that it's extremely egregious to insist that there are absolutely no objective truths. The authors offer, as counterexamples, the emancipation of the slaves and suffrage for women. But are they asserting that left-wing professors are claiming that slavery was NOT abolished, and that women have NOT been given the right to vote? Because if that were the case, that would be much bigger news than anything else on the table. That's bigger news than a politician denying the holocaust. Framing it this way without closing the loop is a pretty blatant straw-man. I wouldn't doubt that they had professors push back on the rigidity of certain truths, or assert that there is grey area around a lot of topics, but it beggars belief to imply that they were making claims as stupid as the ones floated by these authors.

How does a person even make the claim that the abolition of slavery didn't happen? We don't have slavery now, so if we ever did, we obviously ended it. On the other hand, if you make the claim that slavery didn't happen, or that it wasn't that bad, I can't easily prove you wrong just by pointing to the current state of the world.

Pretty wild to suggest that academics are broadly engaging in the same level of "alternate facts" as MAGA without pointing to a single objective falsehood. Are you calling them downers, or liars? Because it feels like you want me to see them as liars, while essentially only accusing them of being cynical and their message being unpalatable.

*Alleging Bad Motives*

Once again, personal defense. The authors hurt some feelings, and they had their feelings hurt in return. Everybody is "implying" that everybody else is enabling Trump. I can't definitively say who's "right" or "wrong" because everybody is far outside the realm of scholarship at this point. They're accusing each other of having their hearts in the wrong place. Weren't we just championing objective truths a moment ago?

*Who is Actually Enabling Trump?*

Ironic to start this section admonishing others for lack of self-reflection. I struggle to believe that these guys actually think the average American has read anything written by the subjects of their study. To suggest that professors are hurting the field of American Studies by being a bunch of downers, as they themselves hand Trump and gang a WSJ article entitled "American Studies Can't Stand Its Subject" to use as evidence for their next call to kneecap academia is profoundly hypocritical.

Absolutely wild to see a guy like Kahlenberg, who seems to have a legitimate progressive track record instigating such a petty slapfight, even when it's so obviously convenient for the far right. What an inopportune time to be taking a swipe at American academics. If the nerds start straight up misinforming the public, you'll have my attention. But to throw them under the bus for writing too many articles about slavery in a moment when the ruling party is making overt efforts to erase the topic is pretty gross. Why tone-police truth tellers who are already being routinely slandered by liars who also happen to be some of the most powerful people in the world?

I just don't know how to take such a hypocritical perspective seriously, especially from the guys that threw the first punch. Not only did these guys do everything they accused their subjects of, they did it all twice. Once with the initial volley, which nobody asked for aside from the guys already sharpening their knives for higher education, and then again with this petty "i'm rubber and you're glue" rebuttal.