ACLS Community Message for January 2025
Right now, in a number of ACLS member societies, controversy is alight over the question of what societies should do regarding the conflict in the Middle East (I should note that this is only one way to describe what is going on in the region, and what phrase most accurately captures the situation is itself a matter of debate). The intensity of felt commitment has fueled activity at society annual meetings and on social media that are intentionally designed to divide people, to compel them to take a side. Free speech should always allow for passion. But some speech and actions have crossed the line into personalized attack.
The question of whether, when, and how a society takes a public stance as a collective body on an issue – be it related to funding or politics or some other topic – is entirely fair game. Debates within societies over which, if any, views they want to amplify happen on a regular basis. ACLS doesn’t take a stand on any society’s approach, and we believe in people’s right to speak out. I understand the frustration and rage among partisans on all sides, to whom it is inconceivable that reasonable people can disagree on these questions. But the fact is that there is disagreement, or at least a plurality of views, about the Middle East conflict and what to do about it among members in every society. This is the reality.
It is also our reality, here in the United States and around the world in 2025, that many forces are at work encouraging divisiveness and conflict. Familiar standards for debate and decision making are being cast as weak and meek. These issues are emotional and the stakes high. But what is accomplished when an executive director needs to retain police protection, or when emerging scholars feel pressure to boycott an annual meeting, or if society presidents are so stressed by the vitriol they face that their doctors advise them to resign for the sake of their health?
While what I’m describing is not yet the norm, I worry that our polarized climate may help normalize it. Normalization would aggravate at least two problems. The current discourse takes an enormous personal toll on the people in the societies who are working to defend and strengthen their fields. Attacks on executive directors, trustees, and presidents can force dedicated leaders to question whether they are able to continue their service. In the cloud of views and emotions around this debate, one thing is clear to me: the defense of academic freedom and our capacity to create and disseminate knowledge will suffer if we make it too difficult for the people in our societies to carry out their work.
In terms of the debate itself, the normalization of personal invective damages our capacity as humanistic thinkers to try to use what we know to argue in ways that acknowledge our common humanity, a major challenge at any time and especially difficult today. As a friend recently told me after an argument about a different issue in higher education in which we surprised one another by how angry we became, “I feel that we tear each other down which actually only helps those that want to tear it all down.”
Those who want to exercise their free speech rights should and must do so; ACLS and our member societies will forever defend their right to do so. This isn’t an argument against dissent or protest or emotion, but an appeal to make arguments and resist power in ways that embody a better way of being with one another. I ask us all to work to find ways to disagree that acknowledge the humanity of each person in the discussion.
With respect and hope,
Joy