I forget who posted it, but I must agree with the observation that
university historians tend to want money for their public utterances, no
matter how inane they may be.

In our state, the NEH funding body (Delaware Humanities Forum) has an
interesting policy for their public round-table events. There must be a
"humanist" on the panel, who gets first dibs on the funding.

And, of course, all "humanists" are, by definition, university history
professors.

As a result of this policy, some university historian gets a stipend, but
the other panelists are expected to donate their time.

Since I have the temerity to assert that I am just as much a professional
"humanist" as any member of the history department, I routinely turn down
invitations to panels. When I have asked about compensation, I have been
flatly told that money is reserved for the "humanist" on the panel, and we
peons are expected to work free.

Even though the Secretary's standards classify me as a qualified historian,
I must agree with most on this thread that the historical profession is a
close-minded, closed shop that is impervious to innovative evidence of the
sort that we can provide. But it's also a two-way street.


      _____
  ___(_____)
  |Baby the\
  |1969 Land\__===_
  |  ___Rover   ___|o
  |_/ . \______/ . ||
  ___\_/________\_/____________________________________________
  Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html