Fleming says, however, that he disapproves of separating historical inquiry into specific areas. "It is fragmentation that I don't myself approve of," he says.

"I hate to see women pushed off into separate categories" because women's history is a part of the greater historical picture, he says.

The charge that Harvard is hostile to the new fields of study is "peculiar" and "unfounded," says Thernstrom, who is a social historian. Harvard has been a pioneer in the field, he says, citing the works of Handlin and Bailyn.

"I certainly don't think there is a commitment to look for traditional historians," Thernstrom says.

"It is precisely that the department is looking for absolutely first rate minds," Thernstrom says, adding "I have no doubt that next appointments will include people in those fields."

Thernstrom adds the department cannot cover all areas in American history, saying the department has never had more than 10 tenured professors in American history.

Because funds are limited, the department must focus on recruiting scholars with broad interests, he says.

Bisson adds that the History Department has only two to three additional faculty positions remaining for the next five years. "That means with so few [open positions] there's a certain reluctance" to promote scholars whose scholarship is limited to specific areas of history.

"Our view has been let's pick the best. People with knowledge broad enough to teach different things," says Thernstrom.

But Arnesen says this emphasis on scholars pursuing traditional fields has "made the department safe for conservatism" at the expense of progress.

"In a very, very conservative department of Americanists, it's hard to imagine how new work that is at odds with that conservative vision will get a fair hearing," he says.

"No one who is liberal has managed to make it through the sacred gates of tenure in decades," says Arnesen.