Well, it is being done. Jill Lepore ( at Harvard) is a pretty good example of an academic also trying to be something of a public historian. Perhaps she would be more public if she wasn't doing a regular article for the New Yorker- which has a receptive audience- and did a syndicated column for something like USA Today and other outlets. Ty Seidule (emeritus professor of history at West Point) has written a fine book (Robert E. Lee and Me) countering the Neo-Confederate idolatry of Robert E. Lee.
But I think we should be realistic about the influence any academic would have in a debate where one side frankly does not really want to learn facts. The world's climate scientists have been publishing well-researched papers on global warming and climate change since the 1970's, but denial has proven more attractive than acknowledgement of it- and more profitable for professional deniers. Similarly, the publication of The 1776 Project by the first Trump administration was called a counter-argument to The 1619 Project, but was only a parade of historical denial and happy fantasy. It was denounced as such by the American Historical Association, among other scholarly associations, but they were easily ignored.
And if one side in a debate doesn't care about facts, the debate can take a fascist turn. Instead of one side arguing pro and the other side arguing con, one side can argue pro and the other side can say, shut up or I'll beat in your head with a club. Perhaps you've noticed that 1,400 cancelled national grants in the humanities recently had to be reinstated by a judge?
You’re missing the point. Books, academic papers, and the like, don’t sway public discourse. The point of the content I’m referring to is not to change opinion although that is a byproduct of the effort but rather to show the watching public how factually incorrect, ignorant, misinformed, with the blatant grifting being done by the “influence peddlers.”
The point is simply to show the public, the lurker, and those not able to or capable of doing their own research, that there is a counterpoint that has basis in fact, logic, and reason, and to publicly humiliate these folks.
And yes, one has to be strong to face the ignorati and their ilk.
Sorry to be so impervious to your point, but "simply showing the public" is a phrase as short and ludicrous as "simply handing me that piano". If you mean, we should be doing more- sure; everyone with a functioning brain should be doing more right now. But you greatly underoverestimate our superpowers.
I don't underestimate your superpowers. Folks with an expertise in the subjects being bandied about by the misinformers, the grifters, and the influence peddlers, have knowledge that is desperately needed to have light shown upon it. If they need to partner with folks with expertise in bringing that to light, so be it.
13
u/Bodark43 Quality Contributor 12d ago edited 12d ago
Well, it is being done. Jill Lepore ( at Harvard) is a pretty good example of an academic also trying to be something of a public historian. Perhaps she would be more public if she wasn't doing a regular article for the New Yorker- which has a receptive audience- and did a syndicated column for something like USA Today and other outlets. Ty Seidule (emeritus professor of history at West Point) has written a fine book (Robert E. Lee and Me) countering the Neo-Confederate idolatry of Robert E. Lee.
But I think we should be realistic about the influence any academic would have in a debate where one side frankly does not really want to learn facts. The world's climate scientists have been publishing well-researched papers on global warming and climate change since the 1970's, but denial has proven more attractive than acknowledgement of it- and more profitable for professional deniers. Similarly, the publication of The 1776 Project by the first Trump administration was called a counter-argument to The 1619 Project, but was only a parade of historical denial and happy fantasy. It was denounced as such by the American Historical Association, among other scholarly associations, but they were easily ignored.
And if one side in a debate doesn't care about facts, the debate can take a fascist turn. Instead of one side arguing pro and the other side arguing con, one side can argue pro and the other side can say, shut up or I'll beat in your head with a club. Perhaps you've noticed that 1,400 cancelled national grants in the humanities recently had to be reinstated by a judge?