[DMCA-Activists] On Weinstein Nomination: National Coalition for History

[Seth Johnson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE re: Weinstein
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:13:54 -0400
From: Debbie Richards <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden

Only parts of the NCH update re: Weinstein are below.  Parts #3-6 have been 
removed.
---
From: Bruce Craig <address@hidden>
Subject: [partial] NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 10, #16; 16 April 2004)


NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE (Vol. 10, #16; 16 April 2004)
by Bruce Craig (editor) <address@hidden>
National Coalition for History (NCH)
Website http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~nch
*****************
1. Historical and Archival Communities Push for Senate Hearing on
Archivist of the U.S. Position
2. Historians and Archivists Take a Closer Look at the Weinstein Nomination

1. HISTORICAL AND ARCHIVAL COMMUNITIES URGE SENATE HEARING ON ARCHIVIST OF
THE U.S. POSITION
Concern is growing within the archival and historical communities regarding
the Bush administration's hoped for "fast-track" process to replace
Archivist of the United States John Carlin with one of its own choosing --
historian Allen Weinstein. According to informed sources, the
administration hopes to short-circuit the normal confirmation process and
see Weinstein confirmed through an "expedited" process. Their goal
-- place Weinstein in the position prior to the November election.
According to Hill insiders, the effort to replace Carlin is coming from the
highest levels of the White House. Reportedly, Karl Rove who is widely
viewed as one of the president's chief political advisors, if not his
political mastermind and, Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President,
want their own archivist in place for two overarching reasons: first,
because of the sensitive nature of certain presidential and executive
department records likely to be opened in the near future, and second,
because there is genuine concern in the White House that the president may
not be re-elected.

Though it is not widely known, in January 2005, the first batch of records
(the mandatory 12 years of closure having passed) relating to the
president's father's administration will be subject to the Presidential
Records Act (PRA) and could be opened. Another area of concern to
presidential officials relates to the 9-11 Commission records. Because
there is no mandatory 30-year closure rule (except for highly classified
White House and Executive Department records and documents), all materials
relating to the commission are scheduled to be transferred to the National
Archives upon termination of the Commission later this year. These records
could be made available to researchers and journalists as soon as they are
processed by NARA.

In what appears to be a calculated move by administration officials, Rove
and Gonzales have advanced the nomination of Weinstein fully aware that
according to the "National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984
(P.L. 98-497) the Archivist of the United States position is to be an
appointment based "without regard to political affiliations and solely on
the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties
and responsibilities of the office of the Archivist." If Weinstein is
confirmed and if President Bush is not elected, then President Kerry could
be accused of "politicizing" the position should he try to replace
Weinstein. In fact, though, the president's strategy in seeking to replace
Carlin at this time rather than later injects an element of partisanship
that could give John Kerry, should he be elected president in November,
ample justification to replace Weinstein in the same manner that the White
House is seeking to replace Carlin.

Carlin has made it widely known that he anticipated stepping down from the
Archivist position in July 2005, upon his 65th birthday, upon the tenth
anniversary of his appointment to the position, and upon the completion of
his ten-year strategic plan for NARA. His intention not to step down until
then has been stated in several public interviews including (reportedly),
in a recent interview with CNN's Brian Lamb (26 November 2003 broadcast of
"National Journal"). Months back, recognizing that Carlin intended to step
down next year, archival organizations had begun to pull together
qualification statements and a "highly qualified" list of names for the
White House to consider in finding Carlin's replacement. What appeared to
be an orderly procedure to pass power from Carlin to a new archivist in
summer 2005 has now been short-circuited.

There are two basic ways for the Archivist of the United States to be
replaced -- resignation or replacement by the President. In his letter to
NARA employees last week (see "Historian Allen Weinstein Slotted by Bush
Administration to be Next Archivist of the United States" in NCH WASHINGTON
UPDATE, Vol 10, #15 8 April 2004) Carlin stated that he was not resigning
and he would not submit his resignation until a new archivist is
appointed. There is no indication that the White House has any
cause-related reason to replace Carlin and no reason was communicated to
Congress when Weinstein's nomination was advanced formally last week. Some
observers speculate that by refusing to resign until a new archivist is in
place, Carlin is tacitly protesting what Hill insiders consider his
"premature" removal.

If Carlin (a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton) had resigned outright, the
decks would have been cleared for the White House to promptly replace him.
However, that did not happen. It appears that the White House does not want
any adverse publicity that would be generated by officially coming up with
a "reason" for communicating to Congress its desire to replace Carlin as
required by law ("the President shall communicate the reasons for any such
removal to each House of the Congress"). Hence, by advancing Weinstein's
nomination (which was received by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
on 8 April) and by securing Weinstein's confirmation, the White House can
then quietly force Carlin's resignation.

Owing to the controversy surrounding the anticipated resignation of Carlin,
historians and archivists are calling for these and other issues to be
addressed in Weinstein's confirmation hearing. To that end, some
historical and archival organizations believe that John Carlin should also
be invited to testify under oath regarding the pressure he is under and
what he knows about his "premature" resignation. Governmental Affairs
Committee staff, however, report that such a move would almost be
unprecedented in a confirmation hearing.

On 14 April 2004, archival, historical, and other governmental watchdog
organizations concerned both the politicization of the appointment process
and the qualifications of the nominee, issued a "statement" calling for the
Senate to conduct a confirmation hearing consistent with other positions of
importance requiring Senate confirmation. The statement drafted by the
Society of American Archivists and issued on behalf of several archival and
historical organizations (see
http://www.archivists.org/statements/weinstein.asp ) raises a concern about
"the sudden announcement on April 8, 2004, that the White House has
nominated Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United
States."
According to the statement that has the endorsement of the Society of
American Archivists, the Association of Research Libraries, Council of
State Historical Records Coordinators, Northwest Archivists, Inc., the
Association of Documentary Editors, Midwest Archives Conference, the
American Association for State and Local History, and the Organization of
American Historians: "Prior to the announcement, there was no consultation
with professional organizations of archivists or historians. This is the
first time since 1985 that the process of nominating an Archivist of the
United States has not been open for public discussion and input. We
believe that Professor Weinstein must -- through appropriate and public
discussions and hearings -- demonstrate his ability to meet the criteria
that will qualify him to serve as Archivist of the United States....the
decision to appoint a new Archivist should be considered in accordance with
both the letter and the spirit of the 1984 law."

The statement also calls on the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs
"to schedule open hearings on this nomination in order to explore more
fully 1) the reasons why the Archivist is being replaced, and 2) Professor
Weinstein's qualifications to become Archivist of the United States."

2. HISTORIANS AND ARCHIVISTS BEGIN TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE WEINSTEIN 
NOMINATION
Now that the nomination of Allen Weinstein has been officially advanced to
the Senate for confirmation (see related story above), historians and
archivists are scrambling to learn more about the president's nominee.
Allen Weinstein possesses both strong Republican political connections and
scholarly qualifications. In the past he has served as a foreign policy
adviser to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. Lugar has worked with Weinstein for years in promoting
democracy across the globe. According to the senator, Weinstein "always
has had a keen understanding and perspective of the complexities of
democratic societies, qualities that will serve him well as head of the
agency that preserves the nation's most important documents." (For
Weinstein's official bio, tap into
http://www.centerfordemocracy.org/awbio.html ).
But outside the world of Republican political activists and a small circle
of historians of espionage, Weinstein is not very well known by many
academics. Also, he is a virtual unknown to archivists. Though he
possesses fine academic training and qualifications, Weinstein has not been
a member of either the Organization of American Historians or the American
Historical Association for years, essentially since his career turned to
that of being an activist in the field of foreign relations and
international service.

Several historians and journalists familiar with Weinstein's scholarly and
popular writings (especially relating to the contentious Alger Hiss case)
and career have started to express their views on the nominee privately and
publicly. His nomination has been characterized by former National
Security Archive founder and director Scott Armstrong as "the most cynical
appointment of an Archivist possible. He [Weinstein] has a very clouded,
very complicated, self-promoting, neo-con, politically manipulative
record....While he uses historical documentation in his work, he is very
selective in his use."

Much of the controversy on Weinstein's work relates to the disposition of
his research notes and his research methods relating to his "Perjury: The
Hiss-Chambers Case" (1978, rev. 1998) and a more recent work, "The Haunted
Wood" (1999). His book on the Alger Hiss case is considered in many
circles as definitive. Because Weinstein concluded that Alger Hiss was
Soviet spy, he earned the wrath of Hiss's defenders (including Victor
Navasky publisher of The Nation), but, at the same time, Weinstein found
himself embraced by conservatives for the same reasons. "Perjury" served as
his entree into the world of conservative causes and financing which
Weinstein has tapped throughout the years to help underwrite his various
projects. (For interesting reading focusing on the records-related issues
regarding "Perjury," tap into:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=19971103&s=navasky and
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010716&c=1&s=navasky ).
More controversial questions arise out of a more recent study in which
allegedly Weinstein (or his publisher) paid a fee to the KGB for "exclusive
access" to documents that no other historians have been able to see
relating to Soviet espionage in America. Historian Ellen Schrecker writes
about Weinstein's role in the payment to the KGB (in possible violation of
Russian law) that resulted in the crafting of "The Haunted Wood"
co-authored by Weinstein and former KGB agent Alexander Vassiliev (For more
on this controversial issue, tap into:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=19990524&s=schrecker
). Schrecker notes "this sort of research is not the kind that inspires
confidence within the scholarly community" and it raises "ethical
questions." (See also other recent postings on the History News Network by
British economist-historian Roger Sandilands: 
http://hnn.us/articles/printfriendly/4604.html and The Nation lead 
editorial, "The Haunted Archives" at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040503&s=editors ).
In addition to professional historians' concern about Weinstein's research
methods and attitudes about access to records, Weinstein has yet to
establish his credentials in the realm of archival management. 
Consequently, archivists have begun to compile a series of questions that 
Weinstein will be asked to respond to.
In the statement issued 14 April (see related story above) archivists have
expressed a desire to learn more about Weinstein's "knowledge and
understanding of the critical issues confronting NARA and the archival
profession generally, especially the challenges of information technology,
and the competing demands of public access to government records, privacy,
homeland security, and ensuring the authenticity and integrity of all
records." To that end, archivists wondered how Weinstein believes NARA
"should balance competing interests for protecting sensitive or
confidential information with those seeking to gain access to records
created by government agencies; ideas for continuing essential programs as
well as important new archival initiatives, such as the Electronic Records
Archives project; his thoughts on fully supporting the National Historical
Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) whose grants help to raise the
level of archival practice at state and local levels," and his "experience
and demonstrated ability to lead and manage a large government agency such
as NARA."

No doubt in the weeks ahead, answers to these and other questions stand to
make this nomination controversial both in terms of the politicization of
the office of Archivist of the United States and with respect to the
nominee's specific qualifications. Hopefully, answers will come when the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee holds confirmation hearings that have
yet to be scheduled.

....

***********************************************************
The National Coalition for History invites you to subscribe to this FREE
weekly newsletter! You are also encouraged to redistribute the NCH
Washington Updates to colleagues, friends, teachers, students and others
who are interested in history and archives issues. A complete b backfile of
these reports is maintained by H-Net on the NCH's recently updated web page
at: <http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/~nch>.
To subscribe to the "NCH Washington Update," send an e-mail message to
address@hidden with the following text in the body of the message
(and only this text): SUBSCRIBE H-NCH firstname lastname, institution. To
unsubscribe send an e-mail message to: address@hidden according to
the following model: SIGNOFF H-NCH.
You can accomplish the same tasks by tapping into the web interface at
http://www2.h-net.msu.edu/lists/subscribe.cgi and at the "network" prompt,
scroll down and select H-NCH; enter your name and affiliation and "submit".