A reader who wishes to remain anonymous writes with some provocative thoughts on the manner in which academic argument can be used to paralyze necessary recognitions -- about everything from genocide to professionalism:

I just read an Inside Higher Ed article about historians, the U.S. government, and the Turkish government squabbling over whether the Armenian genocide really happened. It makes interesting reading, not only for its historical insights, but also for the window it offers into how academic values can become complicit with official governmental prevarication. Having always denied that a "genocide" ever happened, the Turkish government is now eagerly backing American academics whose calls for ever more nuance, ever more debate, and thus ever more irresolution in making a final determination prevent Turkey from having to admit any fault. However, Armenian scholars are duly frustrated by what they see as an effort to deny historical truth:

To those scholars of the period who accept the widely held view that a genocide did take place, it's a matter of some frustration that top government officials suggest that these matters are open for debate and that this effort is wrapped around a value espoused by most historians: free and open debate.

'Ultimately this is politics, not scholarship,' said Simon Payaslian, who holds an endowed chair in Armenian history and literature at Boston University. Turkey's strategy, which for the first 60-70 years after the mass slaughter was to pretend that it didn't take place, 'has become far more sophisticated than before' and is explicitly appealing to academic values, he said.

'They have focused on the idea of objectivity, the idea of "on the one hand and the other hand,"' he said. "That's very attractive on campuses to say that you should hear both sides of the story.' While Payaslian is quick to add that he doesn't favor censoring anyone or firing anyone for their views, he believes that it is irresponsible to pretend that the history of the period is uncertain. And he thinks it is important to expose 'the collaboration between the Turkish Embassy and scholars cooperating to promote this denialist argument.'

Perhaps this is a far-fetched comparison, but I see a connection between this endless irresolution on issues of history and academics' unwillingness to admit that university teaching, research, hiring/tenuring, and administrative policy are all heavily inflected by leftist agendas. As long as academics can keep generating new studies that question old studies, and keep calling for ever more refined "nuance," they can indefinitely defer any definitive conclusion. This is Derridean differance as postmodern praxis....

Comments are welcome!