Fascinating article - and hardly a surprise. I received my undergrad degrees in 1978 (history and anthropology). I went on for grad degrees and became employed as the administrator of a state historic preservation office in 1983, remaining in that position for three decades, service which included appointment to the National Park System Advisory Board and the National Historic Landmarks Committee (as chair). I also taught as adjunct faculty throughout that time: in short, I have had the opportunity to see the full spectrum of possible employment and available students.

By the 1980s, it was clear that most of the "history" that is done locally was public rather than academic. As a grad student, we received repeated calls from the media asking for the input of a historian. By the end of my career, those calls always went to a public agency. Not sometimes university, sometimes public - always public. The university became invisible from the point of view of the public.

But that isn't the only transition I have observed. It is increasingly clear that the way history is "done" and who is "doing it" has changed. This subreddit is an excellent expression of that process. I have seen excellent history being done by people with little training, and more importantly, I have seen no history being done (aside from mandatory teaching) by academic historians. By the end of my career in public history, I had published more than the lower half of the local university history department. They were sitting on their asses complaining about how hard they were working because they were teaching two classes and had to attend committee meetings.

There are still, of course, some excellent academic historians (many of whom do great service on this subreddit), but where they were the biggest part of the game in 1960, they are now shrinking in comparison to public historians and others who delve into the past. The game is changing, and I suppose this article is reflecting part of this process. Its not just a matter of majors; everything is changing when it comes to how we approach and deal with the past.

I read the AHA report the other day, and it definitely shows a worrying trend, but I wouldn't say all hope is lost. I am attending school for a dual masters degree in History and Library Science and a course I am taking this semester focuses on how historians interact with the public. It offers a fascinating look at how historians used to present their material (books, lectures, and journal articles) and what new ways they are going about it in the age of technology (Twitter threads, blog posts, appearing on talk shows). This is not to say they no longer write books and attend lectures, but the majority of the discipline has recognized the trend and are now realizing they must take the academic fight to places where any anonymous individual can claim authority where they actually have none.

If you have a Twitter account, I highly recommend browsing the hashtag "twitterstorians." Here, people ask questions and historians collaborate with one another over answers, as well as general historical conversations are being held daily. Although Twitter is not as conducive of a platform as Reddit, which allows long walls of text and citations, it does help get messages out there. In some ways it has its advantages; requiring the answerer (and the asker) to be concise - in the days where people want instantaneous results - but also allowing them to provide links, photos, call over other experts, and use hashtags to draw attention to certain topics unlike a Reddit post allows.

Of course it must be said that there is no organizational moderation like /r/askhistorians, however the "historical Twitter" community does a decent job of policing their own. There are reputable scholars online with whom the public can interact and easily check their credentials (if they are verified). One such individual who is currently popular is Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse), a Professor of History at Princeton University. Famous for his frequent and relentless fact-checking of Dinesh D'Souza ("dunkin' on D'Souza" as the community has termed it), Kruse engages with questions in his specialty almost daily. He has also made lists of other historians he recommends people follow, as each person has their own specialty. Outside of his historical tweets he converses like a regular social media user, and this is something I think is vital to the continued existence of the profession. Historians today get a lot of grief for pontificating in their ivory towers, some warranted, but not the majority of it. The reason they are so precise is because their career demands it. Kruse's innocuous interactions allow the public to see him as a regular individual like the rest of us, rather than a demigod on a pedestal. It gives him the opportunity to show that making informed decisions is something anyone can do, you just need to know where to look.

Back to my experience in class; we have discussed how to make history an approachable and enjoyable subject that once again appeals to the general public. Not just in the sense that people read popular history books and consider themselves "history buffs" (as /u/TomJoad260 notes in this thread), but as a means to better understand our place in the world and each other. Simple citing YouTube videos, Wikipedia articles, and David McCullough, does not, a historian make. Rather, the current focus of the discipline (at least as I experience it) is to help the public understand that history requires inquiry. It is well and good to visit a museum of natural history and appreciate their collection of third world artifacts; but what does the museum patron get out of that experience? They remember they saw items from peoples who were deemed lesser and because they are on display in a foreign institution, they must be inferior to those who are displaying them. This was at least the trend of the British and American museums of the 20th century. The next wave of history educators, whether they are teachers, professors, or museum educators, can expect to face the difficult challenge of realizing that these cultures have their own merits. Their own self-worth. As the definition of human rights continues to change, historians will be forced to evolve their studies so that they educate not from a place of condescension, but of examination. That is not to say it is not already being done; rather that there is much more work to do. The historical study of marginalized groups in their own right, rather than how the dominant force overpowered them and brought them into the light, began to take flight in the last quarter of the 20th century. Today we have historians researching and writing about the histories of women, minorities, the religiously oppressed, the disabled, and so much more; all from the perspectives of how these groups lived their lives and not how those in power interacted with them.

While the numbers represented in the study are worrisome, it is my personal opinion (and something I am extremely excited about) that the subject of history is going through a rebirth. Not that it is starting over, but that the approach to subjects is brand new. We are still using tried and true methods of research (as well as new ones - like online archives - making them more accessible to those who may not have the normal means of traveling to remote locations) but we are looking at old topics from their perspective; unfortunately a previously underrepresented approach. As stories are revised and told in ways that appeal to broader audiences, I believe we will see a resurgence in an interest in history; though it is still up to educators to teach students how to approach these topics with respect. History is not just names and dates that people should memorize, but rather a collective story of human interaction that has led us to this point in the present. When we, as historians, can instill a sense of inquiry and wonder in others (the same that we feel about our topics of interest) then history and critical analysis will see a revitalization in a population hungry for knowledge. We have to make it relatable, entertaining, and most important of all - emphasize its relevance to every day life.

As I said, I am only an MA student; and perhaps an overly optimistic one at that. But that is my take on the current situation. It may seem that the world outlook is a little more dire these days, hurling ourselves into climate change, violent social conflicts, and displays of unconscionable wealth disparity. But the bright side is these topics are now being talked about openly, and advocated against voraciously. Not everyone is free or able to do so, but it is happening, and it's going to be a hell of a battle I don't intend to give up on.