The situation of creeping political correctness into academia is worse than you think... let's look at science in America.

Gender and Ethnic studies departments are attacking current research in genetic research as being 'behaviorally insignificant.' Their students learn that some things 'should not be studied' and that their is such a thing as socially destructive 'knowledge.' Research must support predetermined social goals.

When we can not look honestly at the world... nothing good will come.

If feminism were genuinely about equality then it is important to emphasize men's role in society and in history as well.

But feminism is not interested in emphasizing men's role in society and history.

Therefore, feminism isn't about equality.

The opposite of feminism is masculism.

QED masculism - not feminism - is about equality.

"...in contemplating the evolving state of the profession, one might equally ask - will they be missing so much?"

It might be better to remain ignorant of badly taught history than be indoctrinated in such politically-correct but highly distorted worldviews. Both are useless to the learner, but at least with the former there's no need to unlearn what was wrong.

Roger's comment reminded me of what has been done to NASA, once dedicated to our space program, now a cultural/political instrument for relations with one segment of the world's population.

Maybe it is a godd thing that I am getting old, the years ahead promise to be very boring; at best.

None of this is by chance - you have to rewrite the past if you want to control the future. The old idols must come down, all mention of their name removed, etc. Attacking our history (and access to it though teaching) is attacking our ability to remain free. I weep for our future...

Odd, isn't it, that the book reading public has an insatiatible thirst for traditional history. Case in point: O'Reilly & Dugard's books on the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations both sit atop the bestseller lists. Military history is hugely popular, as are bios of past presidents. Guess the great unwashed public is out of step with academia.

Perhaps on-line education will change this trend. Its easy to cram oppression studies down the throat of students when you have their money in your pocket, the police on your side, and the student is on the hook for $200,000 in student loans.

Virtually free classes must deliver knowledge or they will not be watched.

If students want dramatic history/science, they will view free movies on-line. If they want facts, they will view free classes on line.

Anyone who has dealt with primary source historical information realizes that behind history are billions of facts, most of which are trivial. The historian works to distill the important facts into a useful narrative. Unfortunately, history has become a magnet for the cultural marxists who are able to create a narrative to suit their purpose. I don't trust our public institutions to be able to manage this.

Here is the fix: 1) dump women's studies. 2) develop Conservative Studies. 3) Eliminate tenure.

"At the same time, more than 50% of the new PhDs are now trained in women and gender history, in cultural history (a watered-down version of social history), in world and African-American history"

So basically over 50% of our new history PHD's specialize in politicised crap. This sentence is the worst news of all. And its even worse, since no sensible business would ever hire any of these useless idiots, most of them will go to academia, leaving even less history professorships in the hands of competant people that actually know history.

When I went to HS and college, there were at least a few real history teachers left, and I learned to love history. But given the idiots teachng it now, I can understand why no sensible undergrad would want to take it now.

Rather than lamenting what has happened, let's attempt to peer into the future: No way public funding, nor private funding, for that matter, for these irrelevancies will continue at the same rate as in the past. The idiots savants will be economically squeezed, hard.

Serious historians have always had, and continue to have, an audience of interested consumers of history. The audience is willing to pay. For a while, at least, the audience will be mainly outside the academy, but it will help keep the discipline alive. Surely, one day it can move back into the academy.

As long as the source material still exists, a new generation of historians can still be born.

I've been seeing some of this in military history. It seems as though many of the mil hist writers I've heard of or read were people who were curious and could only feed their curiosity by tracking down the original documents, until one day they were the foremost authority on said subject.

The internet will also help, simply because of the amount of searchable classics people keep uploading. In another window, I've got an online translation of Aeneas Tacticus, that I've been just reading for the heck of it.

And, when my kid brother got a humanities project to design a post zombie apocalypse society, I pointed him to that as an example of how low tech societies defended towns.

Curious people will look for this stuff, and they'll find it.

I am reminded of the time my daughter came home from 4th grade excited from learning about Eleanor Roosevelt. After listening to her recitation, I asked if she knew who Eleanor Roosevelt was married to and what he did. Nope, her teacher didn't cover that. She only spent one more year in public schools; switched her to private schools with more rigorous classes.

"It is important to emphasize women's role in society and in history."

I disagree. It is important to emphasize all roles when relevant to a thorough and honest treatment of the material and the discussions thereof, regardless of gender, sex, class, or the socio-political and cultural biases du jour. Phrasing it the way you have validates the sexists' premises while attempting to articulate their danger, much like handing a loaded gun to a psychopath and then attempting to explain why it's illogical to shoot you. Good luck with that.

What's worse is that the p.c. nomenklatura bred in universities has a tight grip on primary education and is making certain that only the party line will be taught. The utter lack of a quality history curriculum in public schools not only deprives students of a national identity, it indoctrinates them to believe their country is the cause of all the world's ills, real or not.

Extrapolate that to other disciplines and combine them with badly educated teachers and we have a recipe for our long, slow demise.

And then these graduates go on to careers in academia or government where they perpetuate this PC view of true history, like the new Smithsonian exhibit on the slaves of Thomas Jefferson. Why, it's as if they are trying to discredit our Constitution!

I eagerly await an exhibit about the racism of progressive Woodrow Wilson and Margaret Sanger.