So I took a quick look at the study discussed in the Chronicle Review that lambasts the field of American Studies because of what articles are published in American Quarterly. Why did I do it? Maybe because I'm home sick with COVID (day 4) and I'm bored. Anyway... 1/5

...Here's what I found: Of the 9 articles from the first issue of American Quarterly analyzed, only 1 of the authors teaches in an AMST program. I'm not surprised by that at all, but it seems to suggest that the real beef of that report ought to be with AQ, not with AMST as a field. 2/5

I have a hunch that if I bothered to look at the rest of the issues of AQ analyzed, a similar pattern would be found. I don't mean this as a criticism of AQ. The report, "The Distortion of American Studies," does acknowledge in its subtitle that it uses AQ as its lens of analysis. 3/5

In the body of the report, though, it makes a point of noting how many colleges and unis have AMST majors in the US (more than 150), suggesting that the authors whose articles they take umbrage with are the ones teaching in those majors, leading undergraduates astray. 4/5

Finally, the authors of the study--neither of who has a degree in American Studies--have taken upon themselves the task of telling folks what American Studies majors ought to study. I guess that would sort of be like me telling my colleagues in the Business school what they ought to teach. 5/5