The Sixty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians

Abstract

s of the workshop offerings were distributed at the convention in a separate flyer. N. Drewry, Princeton University, presiding; paper by Stephen F. Klein, Educational Testing Service (abstract in 1976 Program, 79); comments by Robert C. Bannister, Swarthmore College, and Alan 0. Kownslar, Trinity University. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.123 on Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:50:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Sixty-Ninth Annual Meeting 973 Longin for liberal arts colleges, Henry French for community and junior colleges, and Hugh Hammett for programs in continuing educationgrappled with an ominous question, Can the Teaching of History Survive 1984?68 Happily, they concluded that it can. In an effort to ensure that historical conventions, as well as historical teaching, survive, the 1976 Program Committee made a number of reforms in the structure of sessions and in the layout of the printed program. Expanding on a trend that has been evolving for several years, the committee limited an individual's formal participation in the convention to a single role (the sole exception being session chairpersons who in the few instances also served as panelists or commentators in the same session); as a result, approximately 290 scholars played active roles in the 1976 convention. The committee also tried vigorously to eliminate such traditional convention annoyances as excessively long papers, papers that reached their commentators too late for adequate evaluation, and sessions or papers with titles that obfuscated their contents. To remove the latter possibility, the committee published in the program an abstract of each paper and a statement of focus on each panel or seminar. And the program layout was redesigned in several ways to make it more convenient and valuable to its users. Lastly-but first in the committee's priorities-was the convention's intellectual coherence and significance. The Program Committee sought a variety of sessions that would clarify the major issues of the Revolution and its consequences while offering attractive alternatives to historians whose interests lay elsewhere.69 Whatever success was achieved can be attributed largely to the nearly 300 scholars who presented the fruits of their labors and to the 2,000 historians who served as their attentive and responsive audience.70 68 Hugh B. Hammett, Rochester Institute of Technology, presiding; Charles F. Sidman, University of Kansas, Thomas Longin, Ithaca College, Henry P. French, Jr., Monroe Community College, and Hugh B. Hammett, panelists. 9 In addition to the formal sessions described in this report, several informal sessions were held, as well as several luncheon meetings at which papers were read. For a listing of these meetings see the program and the supplementary list distributed at the convention. Frank Freidel's presidential address, American Historians: A Bicentennial Appraisal, which was delivered to a large and appreciative audience, appeared in the June 1976 issue of this journal. ,'The 1976 Program Committee consisted of Henry N. Drewry, Princeton University; Paul S. Holbo, University of Oregon; Stanley I. Kutler, University of Wisconsin; Pauline R. Maier, University of Massachusetts, Boston; Burl Noggle, Louisiana State University; R. Jackson Wilson, Smith College; and Alden T. Vaughan, Columbia University (Chairman). Local arrangements and publicity were organized by James D. Norris, University of Missouri, St. Louis (Chairman); Walter Ehrlich, University of Missouri. St. Louis; George E. Glass, Horton Watkins High School, St. Louis; Nedra Branz, Southern Illinois University; Sister Elizabeth Kolmer, St. Louis University; and Glen E. Holt. Washington University. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.123 on Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:50:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms