I have sent out a message to members of S-USIH regarding proposed changes to the constitution. For this particular situation, we will use the blog as one way to discuss these proposed changes and answer questions. The constitution in its current form can be found here.
We intend to use the website for communication regarding the society in the future.
So we invite you to ask questions here or you can email me directly at [email protected].
Thank you.
One Thought on this Post
S-USIH Comment Policy
We ask that those who participate in the discussions generated in the Comments section do so with the same decorum as they would in any other academic setting or context. Since the USIH bloggers write under our real names, we would prefer that our commenters also identify themselves by their real name. As our primary goal is to stimulate and engage in fruitful and productive discussion, ad hominem attacks (personal or professional), unnecessary insults, and/or mean-spiritedness have no place in the USIH Blog’s Comments section. Therefore, we reserve the right to remove any comments that contain any of the above and/or are not intended to further the discussion of the topic of the post. We welcome suggestions for corrections to any of our posts. As the official blog of the Society of US Intellectual History, we hope to foster a diverse community of scholars and readers who engage with one another in discussions of US intellectual history, broadly understood.
Just had a chance to look at the proposals, many of which seem sensible and expected: I am all in favor of a “living constitution” and there are inevitably things to be worked out as the organization starts to function. The proposal to eliminate the checks on the president’s authority (proposal 6) goes along with the general tenor of the Constitution, which maximally empowers all officers. (I’m in favor of checks and balances, but that’s history….) The office of the president is somewhat weak in the current Constitution. On proposal 4, I stand in favor of the venerable “not only…but also” formulation formulation and will vote no! Proposal 5, which creates language allowing the Executive Committee to revoke membership seems somewhat unusual and unnecessary. I don’t recall seeing this in any other constitutions we surveyed…and why would it be necessary?