Chapter 1 and 2

The first two articles from Public History: Essays in the Field delineate the obstacles public historians have had to overcome to be accepted within academia and the public. Patricia Mooney-Melvin notes that, for most of the twentieth century, academic historians were an isolated community, focusing on training and developing professional ethics while ignoring their duty to educate the general public. Although many historians scoffed at the idea of interacting with nonprofessionals, the American populace displayed an insatiable appetite for history; as a result, historical societies and museums proliferated throughout the nation. While the academic community has revised much of their outdated thinking towards public historians, I cannot help but notice that many historians still view a career in public history as an alternative to a career in academia, rather than an integral component to their own profession. (Mooney-Melvin, 7, 10-12, 14). In my experience, some professional academics (Please note that I am not including SEMO in this observation) do not view archivists as esteemed colleagues who have developed their own professional organizations and code of ethics. When issues arise that may conflict with SAA (Society of American Archivists) ethics, they simply sweep them aside as if they did not matter.  Public history professionals will be unable to create and sustain a viable code of ethics if their colleagues in academia continue to view public historians as secondary in importance. I believe this poses significant challenges for academic departments that are attempting to establish viable public history departments and remains one of the biggest obstacles towards Mooney-Melvin’s goal of broadening the historical profession’s relationship towards the public (Shulz, 34).