Category: Research & Commentary

Twentieth Century Women Across Cultures

Twentieth Century Women Across Cultures

Freddy Blake

                        War is dispassionate in choosing its victims. It causes all participants, voluntary or involuntary, to suffer. And yet, throughout history, women have been defined by many social studies curricula as noncombatants, unable to wield a weapon against their enemy despite remaining on the receiving end of the opposition’s weapon. Women in twentieth century warfare instead contribute to the war effort from the homefront, taking the positions typically held by men who had left for the warfront. However, war is by nature chaotic and often has little respect for the socially manufactured lines of home and war fronts, potentially blurring the physical gap between the two. This is certainly the case on the eastern front of World War II for the Soviet Union. As Germany advanced far into Soviet territory in 1941, the warfront was pushed ever closer to the heart of Soviet noncombatants’ homes. These civilians, both men and women, became motivated to fight to reclaim their homes, supported by the national ideal that all Soviet citizens must be willing to fight and die for their motherland. One woman in particular, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, became the embodiment of this ideal, and her career “exemplified the activism fostered in young women” of the time.[1] Through her memoir Lady Death, Pavlichenko details the proximity the war had with the typical Soviet citizen as hometowns were transformed into battlefields. This blend of home and war fronts is a foreign concept for the United States however, emphasized throughout Lyudmila’s reflection on her time spent in the western nation in 1942 as she drew comparisons between Soviet and American women. Therefore, Lyudmila Pavlichenko’s story may be used in history classrooms as a case study to allow students to explore the roles of women in World War II as well as note the differences between Soviet and American cultures in an era directly preceding the Cold War.

            Female soldiers were not unheard of in the Soviet Union by 1941. In Soviet mythology and history, women were often portrayed as “being physically strong and capable of fighting.”[2] Prior to the Russian Revolution of 1917, approximately 6,000 women were enlisted as soldiers in the Russian military. During the civil war following the Revolution, somewhere between, “73,000 and 80,000 women served on the Bolshevik side.”[3] After the Russian Civil War’s conclusion, the Constitution of 1918 established voluntary military service for women. Soviet women were given equal rights to men in Article 122 of the 1936 Constitution. Of particular note is Article 133 of the same constitution, in which it is stated that, “The defense of the fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the USSR.”[4] These two Articles, when considered together, created a sense of military duty for every Soviet citizen, regardless of gender. This is evident in the feelings of many Soviet women as they remembered their enlistment, such as Svetlana Katykhina who recalls that, “My father was the first to leave for the front. Mama wanted to go with my father, she was a nurse, but he was sent in one direction, she in another. I kept going to the recruitment office, and after a year they took me.”[5] Each member of Svetlana’s family enlisted in the Soviet military, including both Svetlana’s mother and Svetlana herself. Pavlichenko herself echoes this call to arms, stating that, “everyone who was confident in military knowledge and skills, regardless of his or her sex or national affiliation, had to join the ranks and make whatever contribution they were capable of to wipe out the German Fascist invaders.”[6] Soviet citizens were united against Germany through their national sense of duty to military participation in conjunction with their united hatred for the aggressors invading their home.

            Alongside legal support offered to Soviet women prior to the war, it was not abnormal for Soviet women to learn to work with firearms as citizens. In 1918, the Vsevobuch was created, requiring all male citizens between the ages of 18 to 40 to complete eight weeks of military training. This training was also offered to women, although participation was voluntary.[7] Lyudmila’s first experience with shooting occurred far prior to the war through a shooting club offered to workers at Lyudmila’s factory, where her “enthusiasm for rifle-shooting began, [alongside her] apprenticeship as a sharpshooter.”[8] Lyudmila then pursued her hobby in the form of a two-year-long curriculum at Osoaviakhim sniper school from 1937 to 1939. Lyudmila did this not explicitly out of her own interest in sniping, however, but because the activity of Germany in Europe in the late 30s that led Lyudmila to believe her sniper skills, “might come in handy.”[9] Lyudmila was a rare case in the sense that her intention of fighting in the Red Army as a sniper existed prior to the war encroaching upon the Soviet Union’s territory.

            Upon Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, only about 1,000 women were active in the Soviet military.[10] The battlefield quickly reached Soviet citizens’ doorstep, forcing families that were able to evacuate east. Olga Vasilyevna, an eventual Soviet soldier, recalled that her “war began with evacuation… I left my home, my youth. On the way, our train was strafed, bombed.”[11] It was at this point that the lines between war and homefront began to blur for Soviet citizens, causing both men and women alike to enlist in the Red Army. In the first few weeks, tens of thousands of Soviet women volunteered. Most were rejected.[12] Lyudmila Pavlichenko, despite graduating with top marks from the Osoaviakhim sniper school, was initially rejected, recalling that the military registrar, “looked at me with a harassed expression and said: ‘Medical staff will be enlisted from tomorrow.’”[13] It is this initial rejection of female soldier applicants in the Soviet Union that displays that women’s enlistment in the Red Army did not stem solely from Soviet social leniency towards women on the frontlines, as Soviet culture–like most nations in the mid-twentieth century–viewed women as a means of support during wartime. As the war progressed, however, “female volunteers were increasingly accepted.”[14] On the second day of war, a request was made for 40,000 women to be called up for medical duties. By August of 1941, another 14,000 women were recruited as drivers. This trend continued until 1943, wherein,

Soviet women had been integrated into all services and all military roles, ranging from traditional support roles like medical service, to primarily defensive work in antiaircraft defense, to offensive combat roles in the infantry, to artillery, and armor, as well as the partisan movement.[15]

While Soviet women had to begin their fight in the war prior to reaching the battlefield by gaining a foothold into the army, they quickly emerged victorious as the Red Army sought out additional manpower.

            Lyudmila Pavlichenko and other Soviet women snipers were able to prove themselves effective on the battlefield. Women began to gain more respect in the eyes of Soviet military commanders. Pavlichenko’s sniping instructor, Alexander Vladimirovich Potapov, told Lyudmila that, “he was sure that women – not all, of course – were better suited to sniper operations… [women] had a considered and careful approach to the process of firing.”[16] Soviet Major General Morozov stated that superior female marksmanship was due to their enhanced sense of touch allowing for the smooth pulling of a trigger, insinuating that, “innate feminine characteristics… predisposed women to surgical killing.”[17] The Soviet government, recognizing women’s aptitude for the sniper role in combat, began training female snipers on the front lines.[18] Early Soviet media reports on female soldiers often masculinized names to hide female involvement.[19] However, this shifted as the war went on, as in March 1942 the Russian tabloid Komsomolskaya Pravda published the sentiment, “If a young Soviet woman patriot is burning to master the machine gun, we should give her the opportunity to realize her dream.”[20] Lyudmila’s experience echoed these social changes. After struggling to gain even a rifle with which to prove herself,[21] Lyudmila was able to quickly rise up in rank after proving her abilities. She was promoted from private to corporal after recovering from shrapnel wounds[22] and was later given her own sniper platoon to select and instruct in late 1941.[23] While she continuously faced many fellow Soviets who doubted her abilities as a soldier due to her gender, she encountered just as many who recognized her talents. Pavlichenko returned from the frontlines in 1942 after having killed over 309 enemy soldiers.[24]

            Lyudmila, after being injured for her fourth time in 1942, was taken away from the frontlines and sent to the USSR’s western allies to pressure political leaders into opening up a second front against Germany. Lyudmila begins her journey in the United States, where she is subject to the drastic cultural shift between Soviet and American values during a time of war. Lyudmila is interviewed repeatedly, and she finds herself growing increasingly aggravated at the sense of calm and the focus on pointless subjects rampant within the U.S. In one press conference, Lyudmila is asked if women were, “able to use lipstick when at war,” to which Lyudmila replied, “Yes, but they don’t always have time. You need to be able to reach for a machine gun, or a rifle, or a pistol, or a grenade.”[25] In the United States, says Lyudmila,

I feel like the butt of jokes, the object of idle curiosity, something like a circus act. Like a bearded woman. But I’m an officer of the Red Army. I have fought and will go on fighting for the freedom and independence of my country.[26]

For a society so distanced from the forefront of war, the United States’ culture viewed Lyudmila as an individual from another world, an object needing pity due to the “need” of Soviet Russia to employ their women–who, from the American perspective, should be distanced from conflict–as frontline soldiers.

During her trip to America, Lyudmila came into contact with feminist world leader Eleanor Roosevelt. When meeting with Lyudmila over breakfast, Eleanor noted that, “If you had a good view of the faces of your enemies through telescope sights, but still fired to kill, it would be hard for American women to understand you, dear Lyudmila.”[27] Lyudmila responded that the difference between American and Soviet women stems not from their ability and willingness to kill, but from the difference between American and Soviet circumstances in the war. Lyudmila,

explained to those living in a state far from the struggle against Fascism that we had come from a place where bombs were destroying towns and villages, blood was being spilt, where innocent people were being killed, and my native land was undergoing a severe ordeal. An accurate bullet was no more than a response to a vicious enemy.[28]

Soldiers fought in World War II from both the U.S. and the USSR. However, while Soviet women were given rifles and machine guns to defend their homes from the frontline, “uniformed women from the United States did not participate in organized combat.”[29] So what was the difference between Soviet and American women in the mid-twentieth century? How were Soviet women capable of pulling the trigger of a rifle pointed at their enemy, while American women–or rather their media representation–remained preoccupied with the attractiveness of their uniform? The gap between American and Soviet female participation in the military did not stem from cultural nor biological differences, but from the circumstances of the war itself. While the United States remained free of foreign invaders or bombings, the Soviet Union was subject to constant pressures, bombing runs, and gunfire. In the United States, women who desired to participate on the frontline of World War II had to travel thousands of miles to the medical tents.[30] For women in the Soviet Union, the frontline came to them.

These conclusions can be applied in a (likely high school-level) history classroom to lead students to think more about the cultural gap between Soviets and Americans prior to the decades-long Cold War. Rarely are personal interactions between the two superpowers brought into the classroom, and equally rare is a case study portraying women as strong and deadly representatives of their nation on the frontline in times of war. Lyudmila Pavlichenko’s story brings both of these seldom-discussed aspects of history together, creating a perfect case study to use as a medium to bring historical context and personal perspectives from the mid twentieth century into the modern classroom. Students may be encouraged to use Lyudmila’s story as a source for a research paper or the excerpts about Lyudmila’s visit to the US as a basis for a student-led project. With the American curriculum often restricted to a western-based perspective on World War II and the Cold War, Lyudmila Pavlichenko’s memoir allows for a drastic change in perspective and representation of the “enemy’s” culture in contrast to our own.

References

Aleksievich, Svetlana. The Unwomanly Face of War: An Oral History of Women in World War II. New York, NY: Random House, 2018.

Judy, Barrett Litoff and David C. Smith. “American Women in a World at War.” Magazine of History 16, no. 3 (Spring, 2002): 7-7,9. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/american-women-world-at-war/docview/213740770/se-2.

Markwick, Roger D., and Euridice Charon Cardona. Soviet Women on the Frontline in the Second World War (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).

Muller, Richard. R, and Amy Goodpaster Strebe. 2009. “Flying for Her Country: The American and Soviet Women Pilots of World War II.” Journal of American Studies 43 (1). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021875809006422.  

Pavlychenko, Li︠u︡dmyla Mykhaĭlivna. Lady Death: The Memoirs of Stalin’s Sniper. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Read How You Want, 2021. 

Pennington, Reina. “Offensive Women: Women in Combat in the Red Army in the Second World War” Journal of Military History (2010) 74#3 pp 775–820.

[1] Roger D. Markwick and Euridice Charon Cardona, Soviet Women on the Frontline in the Second World War, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), 204.

[2] Reina Pennington, “Offensive Women: Women in Combat in the Red Army in the Second World War,” in Journal of Military History (2010), 778.

[3] Ibid., 779.

[4] Ibid., 779.

[5] Svetlana Aleksievich. The Unwomanly Face of War: An Oral History of Women in World War II, (New York, NY: Random House, 2001), 58.

[6] Li︠u︡dmyla Mykhaĭlivna Pavlychenko. Lady Death: The Memoirs of Stalin’s Sniper, (Strawberry Hills, NSW: Read How You Want, 2021), 133.

[7] Pennington, Offensive Women, 779.

[8] Pavlychenko, Lady Death, 32.

[9] Ibid., 38.

[10] Pennington, Offensive Women, 780.

[11] Aleksievich, The Unwomanly Face of War, 92.

[12] Pennington, Offensive Women, 780.

[13]  Pavlychenko, Lady Death, 54.

[14] Pennington, Offensive Women, 780.

[15] Ibid., 782.

[16]   Pavlychenko, Lady Death, 42.

[17] Markwick and Cardona, Soviet Women on the Frontline, 211.

[18] Ibid., 209.

[19] Richard R. Muller and Amy Goodpaster Strebe, “Flying for Her Country: The American and Soviet Women Pilots of World War II,” in Journal of American Studies 43, (2009).

[20] Markwick and Cardona, Soviet Women on the Frontline, 211.

[21] Pavlychenko, Lady Death, 58.

[22] Ibid., 78.

[23]  Ibid., 107.

[24]  Markwick and Cardona, Soviet Women on the Frontline, 203.

[25] Pavlychenko, Lady Death, 305.

[26] Ibid., 340.

[27]  Ibid., 302.

[28]   Ibid., 302.

[29] Barret Litoff Judy and David C. Smith, “American Women in a World at War,” in Magazine of History 16, no. 3 (2002).

[30] Ibid.

Why CRT Belongs in the Classroom, and How to Do It Right

Why CRT Belongs in the Classroom, and How to Do It Right

Stacie Brensilver Berman, Robert Cohen, and Ryan Mills

Reprinted with permission from the History News Network

Right wing politicians in eight states have enacted laws and mandates banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) from their schools, and since 2021 an astounding total of 42 states have seen bills introduced in their legislatures that would restrict the teaching of CRT and limit how teachers can discuss the history of racism and sexism in public schools. This has been done on the dubious grounds that such teaching amounts to left wing indoctrination, which they denounce as divisive, anti-American, racist, and damaging to white students’ self-esteem. Such gags on teachers constitute the greatest violation of academic freedom since the McCarthy era. The hysteria against CRT has been so extreme that Republican legislators in states such as North Dakota enacted anti-CRT bans while publicly acknowledging that there was no evidence that their state’s public schools even taught CRT. The bans amount to a new front in the culture wars, designed to preemptively strike against critical historical thinking and sow political division at the expense of meaningful learning experiences.

Though we are veteran teacher educators, we never taught CRT to our student teachers prior to this era of anti-CRT hysteria. This was not because we disdained CRT, but rather because secondary school history tends to be atheoretical, focusing primarily on the narration of political – and to a lesser extent social – history.[1] We thought of CRT primarily as a set of ideas taught at the graduate level, especially in law schools, and of little use for high school teachers. Though we observed New York City public school history teachers for years, we never saw one teach CRT. But all the controversy about CRT provoked us to explore its origins and meaning, which led us to realize our error in failing to see CRT’s utility for teaching U.S. history, debating the history of racism, and exploring the theory itself. Note that we speak here of having students debate the history of racism and CRT, not indoctrinating students, as right-wing politicians imagine. We are convinced that CRT, with its controversial assertion that racism is a permanent feature of American society, is a powerful tool that enables students to analyze, discuss, and debate the meaning of some central events and institutions in U.S. history, including slavery, Indian Removal, Jim Crow, Chinese Exclusion, Japanese internment, mass incarceration of Black men, and the Trumpist movement to bar Latinx immigrants. Those seeking to ban CRT either do not understand it or distort its meaning to obfuscate the educational benefits of discussing and debating its provocative perspective. We witnessed this positive impact firsthand as we piloted a unit on the uses and debates about and criticism of CRT in a high school class.

Based as we are in New York, we were drawn to study and teach about the writings of the late New York University law professor Derrick Bell– a widely admired teacher and mentor–regarded as Critical Race Theory ‘s intellectual godfather.[2] Un-American? Hardly. Hired as a civil rights attorney by Thurgood Marshall for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, Bell spent years championing equal opportunity in historic desegregation cases. But Bell was troubled by the fact that even when he won such cases, whites evaded school integration to the extent that, by the early 21st century, many school systems remained de facto segregated and scholars wrote about the re-segregation of American public education. Seeking an explanation for this persistent, effective white resistance to racial integration, Bell argued that racism was a permanent feature of American society, and any anti-racist court victories and political reforms would have limited impact since whites would always find ways to avoid integration and limit progress towards racial equality.

Was Bell right? This question has great potential to spark historical debate in our nation’s classrooms because his perspective offers one possible explanation for key events in African American history. Think, for example, of the emancipation of enslaved Blacks at the end of the Civil War, which the white South quickly limited by adopting Black Codes. Congress responded by enacting Radical Reconstruction to empower and enfranchise formerly enslaved people, but this multiracial democracy was overthrown violently by white supremacists and replaced with what became the South’s Jim Crow regime. The dynamic of racial progress yielding white backlashes–asserted by Bell and documented exhaustively in Carol Anderson’s recent study, White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide (2016) – can be seen in the way the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas decision sparked a furious massive resistance movement in the South, the Supreme Court’s refusal in Milliken v. Bradley (1974) to mandate busing to integrate schools across municipal lines, and the Court’s assault on affirmative action. Think, too, of how Barack Obama’s two terms as America’s first Black president were followed by Donald Trump’s presidency, which championed white grievance, flirted with white nationalism, and demonized the Black Lives Matter movement and the national wave of protests following the police murder of George Floyd, culminating in banishing CRT from schools. How do we account for this pattern of racial progress followed quickly by reversals? And what are we to make of the fact that this pattern seems to conform to Bell’s argument about the permanence of racism in America? In confronting, rather than evading or banning these questions, we enable students to probe some of the central questions in American history.

Discussing and debating Bell and CRT works best when we also explore their most perceptive critics’ arguments. Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy, for example, charges that Bell was too pessimistic in his outlook on the history of racial progress and unrealistic in his yardstick for measuring the impact of civil rights law. According to Kennedy, Bell

 …was drawn to grand generalities that crumple under skeptical probing. He wrote, for example, that “most of our civil rights statutes and court decisions have been more symbol than enforceable laws, but none of them is … fully honored at the bank.” Yet consider that phrase “fully honored at the bank.” It does suggest a baseline – perfect enforcement. But such a standard is utopian. All law is under-enforced; none is “fully’” honored.[3]

Kennedy draws upon voting rights to support this critique, finding that deep South Black voter registration skyrocketed thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Whereas in 1965 Black voter registration in Alabama was meager, with only 19.3% of Blacks registered, by 2004 72.9% were registered. In Mississippi the percentage rose from 6.7% in 1965 to nearly 70% in 2004.[4] Kennedy viewed such statistics as proof that civil rights law worked over the long run, undermining Bell’s pessimistic claim that “Racism in America is not a curable aberration. [O]ppression on the basis of race returns time after time – in different guises, but it always returns.”[5]

Clearly, then, debates about Bell and CRT are thought provoking and merit inclusion in high school history classes since they challenge students to assess the trajectory of a central theme in American history: the ongoing struggle for racial equity. We partnered with a New York City high school teacher in designing a unit on debating Derrick Bell and Critical Race Theory. We describe this unit below, but we would like to preface this summary by assuring you that – contrary to the hysterical fears of right-wing politicians – no students found these lessons anti-American, racist, divisive, or emotionally disturbing. To the contrary, the students learned a great deal of history from this unit and came to see it as foolish, even outrageous, that teaching about CRT was banned from many school systems.

As we began to plan the unit, certain things were clear: students needed to learn about Bell’s ideas, life, experiences, and intellectual turning points; the unit had to include resources and information that explained CRT in a way that high school students could understand; we needed to include a range of views on CRT from those who support it, to scholars who critiqued it, to polemics against it from the Right; and it was essential for students to evaluate historical and current events and decide for themselves if Critical Race Theory is, in fact, persuasive. We were intentional in our planning–this could not be a unit that explicitly or implicitly steered students’ thinking in one way or another. Our goal was to enable students – with proper support and resources – to discuss and debate CRT and its use as a tool for assessing key patterns in American history, arriving at their own conclusions. The unit, therefore, gave students the tools to engage in this work.

We worked with an AP Government teacher at a large comprehensive Brooklyn high school. He taught this unit over three days to his senior-level class, whose racial composition was 50% white, 29% Black, 14% Asian, and 7% Latinx. The teacher was white. Students previously learned about racial conflict in the United States, including lessons on slavery, Reconstruction, segregation, violence against Black people, and resistance to each; this unit built on that prior knowledge. The readings and resources, though used here a senior class, could be used in any high school class.

We established two Essential Questions to frame the unit: “To what extent is backlash an inevitable response to Black Americans’ legal and societal progress?” and “To what extent does Critical Race Theory (CRT) provide an accurate framework for the U.S.’s relationship to and problems with race in the past and present?” These questions challenged students to assess historical developments and CRT’s validity as an overarching theory. To help students answer these questions, the lessons explored Bell’s central claim about the permanence of racism in the United States, and the ways racism is institutionalized. We were mindful of planning a unit for high school students and tailored our intended understandings about Bell and CRT to that audience; we focused on Bell’s most important argument about the endurance of racism and chose not to explore his secondary arguments (such as his claim that fleeting moments of Black progress only occur when they align with white self-interest). At the end of this unit students would understand the most important component of a nuanced and complicated legal theory and, through historical analysis, be able assess the extent to which it explained the role of race and racism in the United States.

Students navigated a variety of resources including biographical information on Derrick Bell, videos of scholars explaining CRT, excerpts from Randall Kennedy’s critical essay on Bell, primary sources focused on instances of progress and backlash in Black history, and statistics and media reports on school segregation and recent attempts to prohibit discussions of CRT in classrooms. Ultimately, students used all that they learned to evaluate CRT. At the unit’s end, students responded to two prompts: “To what extent does history align with Bell’s ‘one step forward, two steps back’ argument?” and “Indicate the extent which you agree with the following statement: ‘Critical Race Theory accurately depicts the impact of racism in the United States.’” Additionally, the students responded to a scenario addressing the New York State Assembly’s proposal to ban discussions of Critical Race Theory from schools, drawing upon information from the lessons to support their positions.

Most students knew little about CRT before the unit began. Four recalled hearing of it but were not sure of its precise meaning. Their previous study of racial conflict in American history – from slavery through and beyond the Jim Crow era– made them more open to learning about this and understanding Bell’s views. Three surmised, based on prior study, that it was related to systemic racism. Students participated in discussions and group work, volunteering to share their thoughts with their peers. From the first day of the unit, when students learned about Derrick Bell and the origins and critiques of Critical Race Theory, takeaways included: “Derrick Bell was one the first people to discuss this theory” and “Racism is more than just how people talk to each other. It’s more systemic.” Students were especially animated on Day Two, when they watched video of North Dakota legislators debate banning CRT in classrooms and worked in groups to apply CRT to pairs of historical events.

Overall, students gained an understanding of the debate over Critical Race Theory and the extent to which arguments and theories on the permanence of racism in the U.S. explain Black Americans’ struggles. Through historical analysis they made connections between events that signified progress towards racial equality, such as the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education, and Obama’s election, and the backlash that curtailed that progress – Jim Crow laws, massive resistance, and the way Trump’s “birther” slander against America’s first Black president helped make Trump a popular figure on the right, paving the way for his presidential campaign and ascendance to the presidency. Seventy-five percent of the students identified “one step forward, two steps back” as a trend over time, claiming, for example, “I think throughout most events in history involving race, there had been more setbacks than step forwards for people of color.” Of course, this pessimism merits critical interrogation since such steps forward as the abolition of slavery and Jim Crow were not followed by a “two steps” return to that degree of racial oppression.

Clearly, the CRT argument about the endurance of racism resonated with many students who had come to political consciousness in a city where there had been vocal opposition to Trump and his rhetoric of white racial backlash. When asked if CRT accurately depicts the impact of racism in the United States, about 75% of the students wholeheartedly agreed that it does, positing, for example, “One of the main points of CRT is that racism is fundamentally and deliberately worked into our government and society, and I think that that is absolutely true in the United States. A variety of factors, including healthcare outcomes, educational attainment, average income, and incarceration rates, all indicate that there is a disparity in opportunities offered to white people versus people of color.”

But on the other hand, twenty-five percent of the students took more moderate stances, asserting, “Regression does happen but that does not mean that substantial progress has not/ can’t be made.” Just under a fifth of the class aligned with Kennedy and his critique of Bell. One student, for example, stated, “While racism was indubitably present in society, I don’t completely agree with it being embodied in law and government institutions because people have tried making some progress by passing laws that would make people more equal.” 

Learning about CRT did not offend students, and none felt pressured to agree with Bell. Students’ differences of opinion indicate that this unit, which provided plenty of room for debate and discourse, didn’t indoctrinate students. Though the students’ views on Bell/ CRT differed, evidence suggests that they found these ideas intellectually stimulating and so were unanimous in their belief that they should be taught. The same student who critiqued CRT said, “People have to be aware of darker aspects of history so they remember those bad times and prevent them from happening; it encourages understanding of each other.” A classmate who agreed with CRT’s assessment of U.S. history connected what happens in classrooms to society at large, stating, “I would say that for the sake of our democracy, it is always better to err on the side of protecting free speech. This is especially true when it comes to students and teachers.” 

As students became more familiar with the critique of American racism offered by Bell and CRT and with the movement to ban CRT in schools, they grew more vocally critical of that movement, which they saw as “an attack on unbiased education” and proof that “the system has been working against people of color up until even now.” They reacted passionately when asked how they felt about New York considering such a ban, saying, “It’s not right to pass laws saying we can’t learn about it in school” and “CRT is as much a part of history as everything else we learn about. We should learn about virulent racism happening at the same time as all these other events.” Students also questioned, “What is education if we erase history?”

None of the students’ comments disparaged the country or sought to evoke white guilt. Rather, learning about CRT and historical evidence that supports and contradicts it enabled students to better investigate and understand events of the past and develop informed conclusions about the present. We observed a huge chasm between anti-CRT polemics, such as that of North Dakota Representative Terry Jones (R), who compared teaching CRT to “feeding our students… poison,” and our class sessions, where students were not poisoned but intellectually stimulated by engaging in open discussion and drawing their own evidenced-based conclusions. Such open-minded inquiry is, after all, a goal of historical and social studies education.[6]

Creating this unit and working with a high school teacher to implement it demonstrated the possibilities and benefits of exploring Bell and CRT’s claims about the permanence of racism in America. Students learned about figures and ideas omitted from their textbooks and most curricula and engaged with multiple and diverse resources. Did every student agree with Bell? No. Did that indicate that the unit failed? Of course not – and such disagreement attests that the lesson succeeded in fostering debate. Did students walk away with a better understanding of Bell and CRT’s critical take on racism and the way it might be applied to U.S. historical events? Certainly. Whether or not students’ analysis of racism aligned with Bell’s, they had the time and space to think deeply about CRT, its roots, and the debate over its place in education in the last year and a half.

If classroom realities matter at all to those governors and state legislators who imposed CRT bans on schools, they ought to be embarrassed at having barred students in their states from the kind of thought provoking teaching we witnessed in this project.

References:

“Black [Americans] Upbeat about Black Progress, Prospects.” Pew Research Center, January 12, 2010. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2010/01/12/blacks-upbeat-about-black-progress-prospects/.

Calixte, Christiane. “Take it from a high schooler who’s actually learned about CRT: Adults need to chill out.” Washington Post, January 14, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/14/high-school-critical-race-theory-message-to-protesters/.

Cobb, Jelani. “The Man Behind Critical Race Theory.” The New Yorker, September 13, 2021. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/20/the-man-behind-critical-race-theory.

“Critical race theory: Experts break down what it actually means.” Washington Post, July 13, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svj_6w0EUz4.

Delgado, Richard & Stefancic, Jean, eds. The Derrick Bell Reader. New York: NYU Press, 2005.

Fortin, Jacey. “Critical Race Theory: A Brief History.” New York Times, November 8, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html.

“Most Americans Say Trump’s Election Has Led to Worse Race Relations in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, December 19, 2017. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/12/19/most-americans-say-trumps-election-has-led-to-worse-race-relations-in-the-u-s/.

Schwartz, Sarah. “Who’s Really Driving Critical Race Theory Legislation?: An Investigation.” Education Week, July 19, 2021. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/whos-really-driving-critical-race-theory-legislation-an-investigation/2021/07.

Stout, Cathryn and Wilburn, Thomas. “CRT Map: Efforts to restrict teaching racism and bias have multiplied across the U.S.” Chalkbeat, updated February 1, 2022. https://www.chalkbeat.org/22525983/map-critical-race-theory-legislation-teaching-racism.

[1] Though CRT has been applied to analyses of educational inequities, it is not a pedagogical practice or topic that most American students encountered in K-12 education prior to this. As Stephen Sawchuk wrote in Education Week, “much scholarship on CRT is written in academic language or published in journals not easily accessible to K-12 teachers.” (Stephen Sawchuk, “What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?” Education Week, May 18, 2021, https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05.)

[2] “Tributes,” Derrick Bell Official Site, 2014, accessed August 10, 2022, https://professorderrickbell.com. 

[3] Randall Kennedy, Say It Loud!: On Race, Law, History, and Culture (New York: Pantheon Books, 2021), 45.

[4] Kennedy, 50-51.

[5] Kennedy, 44.

[6] Maddie Biertempfel, “North Dakota Senate passes bill banning critical race theory, heads to governor’s desk,” KX News, November 12, 2021, https://www.kxnet.com/news/local-news/north-dakota-senate-passes-bill-banning-critical-race-theory-heads-to-governors-desk/.

Deliver Us from Evil: “Fallen Women” and The Irish Magdalene Laundries

Deliver Us from Evil: “Fallen Women” and The Irish Magdalene Laundries

Kameron Anderson

Throughout history, there has been a large amount of fascination and fear associated with the so-called “fallen women.” Historically, these were women who disobeyed the word of God and subsequently lost their innocence. This interpretation of the fallen women is exemplified in the story of Eve. In the bible, Eve is expelled and falls from the Garden of Eden after eating the forbidden fruit.[1] In nineteenth-century Europe with the rise of Victorian morality, the trope of the fallen women was narrowed down to only include women who committed sexual transgressions. Things like promiscuity or having a child outside of marriage were seen as morally reprehensible and women who committed these so-called crimes were looked down upon as social pariahs.[2] The ostracization of these women and the desire to have these women out of the public eye led to a dilemma for their condemners. How do we get rid of these women without ignoring the expectation of Christian charity? The solution manifested in a combination of the two, religious sponsored homes for women who had sinned.[3]

In the first half of the twentieth century, Ireland was in the midst of a moral panic. As Irish historian Diarmaid Ferriter put it, Ireland was existing in a “mythical state of sexual purity and chastity.”[4] Traditional Roman Catholic values were at the forefront of Irish culture and to say that there was a fear of sin and sexuality would be a gross understatement. It is due to these high morals placed on the Irish, that the country welcomed these religious institutions aimed at housing “fallen women.” Irish people were so steadfast in maintaining their facade of Roman Catholic purity, that families were willing to give up their daughters rather than have their families shamed.

For over two centuries, hundreds of thousands of women across Ireland were forced out of their homes and into forced labor at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. Magdalene Laundries or Magdalene Asylums as they were also known, were institutions run by leaders within the church. Despite the pretense of charity and goodwill in their names, once admitted into one of these institutions, young women were subjected to forced labor and various forms of abuse. While some women were only in the laundries for a few months, it was a life sentence for others. The last Magdalene Laundry was not closed until 1996.

On August 21st, 2003, The Irish Times reported that the bodies of 155 women were found buried in the lawn at Sisters of Charity of Our Lady of Refuge in Dublin. Almost none of the women discovered were named. Instead, they were referred to by religious epithets like Magdalen or Lourdes.[5] This discovery led to outrage amongst the Irish people. Despite the nation’s history of persecuting fallen women, it is much easier for the modern Irish to empathize with these women. To see women who could have been their mother, sister, or grandmother, being dehumanized and forgotten in this way must have been jarring, to say the least. After this discovery, there was a lot of confusion amongst the Irish as to how these institutions remained in operation for as long as they did. There was also a desire in both survivors and their families to find someone to blame.

In the decades after the 2003 discovery, there were several investigations by the Irish government and international bodies. The leading advocacy group for survivors of the laundries, Justice for Magdalenes, have presented their case to both. The United Nations Committee Against Torture determined that there was “significant state collusion” in the operations of the Magdalene Laundries in Ireland.[6] While some of the contents of this report were disputed by survivors, it does acknowledge that the laundries could not have remained in operation without collaboration by the state.

 It would be easy to use either the Roman Catholic church or the Irish government as a scapegoat in the establishment and continual use of the Magdalene Laundries. However, I would argue that the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. With a topic as intricate and sensitive as the laundries I think there is a great deal of blame to share. Many historians have looked at the topic and written scholarship that took one side or the other. Leading Magdalene Laundries scholar James M. Smith placing the blame solely at the feet of the government in his book Ireland’s Magdalen Laundries and the Nation’s Architecture of Containment. While nearly every source that interviews survivors, such as the 1997 documentary Sex in a Cold Climate, focuses on the role that the church played in running these institutions.

While this scholarship is both commendable and valid, by choosing one sole culprit, you are at risk of developing tunnel vision and missing what is right in front of you. This paper will argue that it was a combination of the Roman Catholic church and the Irish government who are responsible for the maintenance of the Magdalene Laundries. The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland was responsible for the establishment and day-to-day running of the laundries. They also recruited families to give up their daughters using traditional Roman Catholic values to create guilt and fear regarding young womanhood. The Irish Government was responsible for turning a blind eye to the well-known abuse and forced labor that took place at these institutions, allowing them to remain in operation until the late 1990s. The Magdalene Laundries would not have and could not have existed without the assistance of both the Catholic church and the Irish government.

This paper will begin by looking into the historical context of the Magdalene Laundries, to help the reader understand what kind of nation Ireland was at the time. If they understand this, they will have a better understanding of what may have led families to give up their daughters. In this section, we will also touch on the evolution of the Magdalene Laundries, from a haven for reformed prostitutes to a prison for “sinful” young women. The next section will focus on what life was like for the women in the laundries. By using chilling testimonies from survivors, the reader will be able to hear what this experience was like from a woman who lived it. Finally, this paper will explain what led to the decline of laundries. Before the conclusion, the paper will investigate the various attempts to seek justice for survivors and the investigations that occurred. By using all of these different sources, this paper will prove that the blame should not be put on one individual group, but on the way that various groups worked together.

Background and historical context

            While it is difficult for modern readers to comprehend giving up your daughter to a life of unpaid labor and abuse, Ireland in the first half of the twentieth century was a very different place. It is important to remember that for much of its history, the Roman Catholic church was viewed as the highest moral authority in Ireland. As one survivor recalled, “In Ireland, especially in those days, the church ruled the roost. The church was always right. You never criticized the priest. You never criticized the holy nuns. You did what they said without questioning the reason why.”[7] To put it simply, Ireland at this time was a nation driven by a fear of shame. In 1925, a group of Irish bishops gave a speech on the moral superiority of Irish citizens, claiming “There is a danger of losing the name which the chivalrous honor of Irish boys and the Christian reserve of Irish maidens has won for Ireland. If our people part with the character that gave rise to the name, we lose with it much of our national strength. … Purity is strength and purity and faith go together. Both virtues are in danger these times, but purity is more directly assailed than faith.”[8] With a reputation of being beacons of purity, there was an immense amount of pressure from the church to never put a foot wrong.

While all Irish citizens were under intense scrutiny, not all citizens were scrutinized the same way. Without a doubt, men and women had vastly different expectations that they had to meet. Men were expected to avoid sin at any cost, while women were the sin.[9] Irish women were held to unimaginable standards. The Archbishop of Tuam Dr. Thomas Gilmartin claimed, “The future of the country is bound up with the dignity and purity of the women of Ireland”[10] This is an outlandish statement. He is quite literally claiming that Ireland’s future is dependent on how pure its women are. Not only does this kind of thinking impact the women themselves, but also the people around them. While this does not justify families giving up their daughters to the church it does give some explanation into what their thought patterns may have been. Also, this explains why there were no male equivalents to the Magdalene Laundries. As women were the ones who were seen as inherently bad and it was the men who suffered as a result of their sinful ways.

            While the laundries may have turned into something much more sinister, the original purpose was not intended to be so. Although the plan with these institutions was always to sequester fallen women away from the public, the early laundries were meant to serve as a rehabilitation center for them. Following the teachings of Jesus and their namesake Mary Magdalene, the first laundries in Ireland were meant to assist prostitutes in finding their way back to god.[11] Essentially, they were enforcing the belief that anyone could be forgiven if they wanted to. While this is a noble cause, some have noted that the laundries had little impact in decreasing the number of prostitutes in Ireland.[12]

Despite this, the number of laundries continued to grow. It seemed that the institutions were moving further away from their original purpose of helping prostitutes get back on their feet. Frances Finnegan makes note of that in her book Do Penance Or Perish: Magdalen Asylums in Ireland. She argues that “it seems clear that these girls were used as a ready source of free labor for these laundry businesses.”[13] Another development occurring during this time was defining what made a fallen woman. Before, the laundries were only inhabited by prostitutes. As the need for more hands to work in the laundries increased, nuns running them became more willing to allow all sorts of women into their midst.[14] This is how the laundries become home to unwed mothers, promiscuous women, women who were seen as too pretty, and developmentally disabled women.[15]

Some women could hardly understand themselves why they were sent to a laundry. When asked the reason why she was sent to a laundry, a survivor named Mary recalled, “I would actually say that – without trying to say I’m special in any way – but I think I was just so attractive and the nuns probably thought, ‘oh my God she’s going to get pregnant,’ without…nobody telling you anything about the facts of life”[16] Another survivor interviewed was named Christina Mulcahy. As a teenager, Christina gave birth to a son out of wedlock. She was subsequently disowned by her family and sent to a home for unwed mothers where she gave birth and raised her son for the first ten months of his life. Before the baby was even weaned, Christina was forced to leave the home and move into a laundry to begin working there. She wasn’t even allowed to say goodbye to her son. Since she was an unwed mother she had no other place to go and she was forced to give up her son and move into a laundry.[17]

What were once homes solely for prostitutes, now accepted any woman who went against the traditional morals at the time. Even women who they believed had the potential to lead men to sin. Once benevolent religious leaders were quick to forget their Christian obligations and take advantage of vulnerable young women for financial gain. By looking at the historical context, it is clear that the presence of the Catholic church was instrumental in establishing the laundries. If the morals were not there in the first place, the Magdalene Laundries never would have existed.

Life in the laundries

            Once a woman was admitted into the laundries, life looked pretty bleak for them. Daily life was a monotonous routine of unpaid labor that was supposed to help them repent for their sins. The term Magdalene Laundries was fairly self-explanatory. Local businesses and the occasional family would commission the laundries to wash their clothes. Work consisted of washing clothes, scrubbing floors, ironing, and other tedious tasks. Residents received no financial compensation for their work. Although the work itself was not abusive, the intensity and hours they were expected to work were impossible to maintain long-term. Between 2010 and 2013, Dr. Sinead Pembroke conducted a series of interviews with survivors of the Magdalene Laundries often using pseudonyms. In one such interview, a survivor going by the name “Evelyn” explains the physical toll that the work in the laundry took on her body. “Physical would probably…probably be my hands, because my hands hurt now and from those big heavy irons that you’ve got in there. And then we used to have to scrub floors as well, and get on your hands and knees and scrub floors as well, and there was stone floors.”[18] She goes on to say that her knees and hands are still impacted to this day, over fifty years after her release. Another survivor interviewed was named Pippa Flanagan. Pippa did not beat around the bush and stated “The work was killing, half killed us. We used to hardly be fit to walk. We were just like slaves.”[19]

Another way in which the laundries took a physical toll on its residents was in the diet they were expected to live on. Survivor Bernadette Murphy recalled that the food she received contained little sustenance and that she did not have a menstrual period in the six-year period she lived and worked there.[20] Evelyn, Pippa, and Bernadette’s cases were unfortunately not rare occurrences, it was the expectation when working in the laundries.

The pain experienced by women was not only physical. The mental toll of being taken from their homes to an unknown and traumatic future. Another survivor known as Mary Smith recalled her confusion and anger with her predicament. She proclaimed, “Who gave them the right to take me from my mother, to lock me up, to lock my mother up, to lock me into these Magdalene Laundries and let me suffer, suffer so much? That pain will never go away, that suffering will never go away.”[21] Age played a big role in the mental trauma associated with the laundries. More often than not, the women who were entering these institutions were very young. They have young impressionable minds that are easily malleable. The story of Magdalene Laundries survivor Mary Gaffney is a perfect example of this. Mary was born to an unwed mother who she never met after birth. She was then turned over to be raised in “schools” run by nuns. She was never taught to read and when she was still a child, began working in the laundry system. Mary’s experience was quite typical of women in her predicament. She “scrubbed floors and cleaned endlessly.”[22] At one point, Mary discovered that the mother of one of her fellow residents knew her mother. However, Mary was prohibited from any attempts to make contact with her. Unfortunately, Mary’s story does not have a happy ending. The institutions in which she was brought up, gave her no pathway toward being an independent adult. Since she was admitted into the laundry so young, she knows no other way of life. Journalist Caelainn Hogan recorded Mary’s story in The Irish Times in 2020. At that point, she was still living in an institutionalized setting run by nuns.[23] Mary was never given the opportunity to make a life for herself or have a family of her own. She knew no other way. The system that she was born into failed her and so many women like her.

While the mandatory labor that occurred at these institutions was well-known in Ireland at the time, there were also much more sinister and lesser-known occurrences happening in the laundries. When interviewed, nearly every survivor of the Magdalene Laundries claimed to have experienced some form of abuse during their stay. Being separated from their families and forced to work in inhumane conditions was enough to traumatize them for life. However, there are countless accounts given by survivors that inform us that this was just the tip of the iceberg. A survivor known only as Mary perfectly encapsulates her experiences with this sentiment, calling her time in the laundry, “The worst experience of my life – I wouldn’t wish it on a dog.”[24] From the testimony of survivors, beatings seemed to be a regular occurrence. Whether it be for minor infractions, not meeting work quotas, or seemingly no reason at all. Survivor Phyllis Morgan remembers the constant beatings and feeling like they would never end. “And you know sometimes you…you think, ‘my God is this nun ever gonna stop?’ They’d be frothing at the mouth, you know, and you’d think – God! You…you’d be nearly fainting your hands would be so painful from the beatings. But you didn’t dare not still stand there because it would…you felt like you know you were going to get worse if you ran away or…so you just stood there and took it!”[25] This account makes the nuns appear almost sadistic and the young residents appear completely helpless and accepting of their circumstances. It makes one wonder, what happened to the benevolent religious leaders who wanted to help women find their way back to god? Did they abandon those principles or did they see the abuse as another step to get there?

The theme of cruel religious leaders was a key part of Steve Humphries’ 1998 documentary on the laundries, Sex in a Cold Climate. The documentary came out two years after the closing of the last Magdalene Laundry in Ireland. It was the main inspiration for Peter Mullen’s 2002 film The Magdalene Sisters. In the documentary, we are introduced to four survivors of the laundries. These women recount the experiences that led them to be residents in the laundries. They also describe the psychological abuse they faced in these institutions. Bridgid Young was an orphan who, like Mary Gaffney, spent her entire childhood in religious-run institutions. She recalled the way that nuns would abuse their power and force underage girls to strip and judge their bodies. “They used to touch you a lot. They used to line us up every Saturday night and they used to make us strip naked for them. They would be standing at the bottom of the laundry and they would be laughing at us and they would be criticizing you if you were heavy, fat, or whatever. They would be shouting abuse at us. We had no privacy with them at all. No privacy. They enjoyed us stripping naked.”[26] Not only did women in the laundries have to deal with hard labor and physical abuse, but also gross invasions of privacy and public humiliation as well.

In 1993, an event occurred that would be the beginning of the end for the Magdalene Laundry system in Ireland. One of the most notable laundries in the country, Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, lost a significant amount of money in the stock exchange. As a result, the sisters were forced to sell a portion of their land to property developers. When construction began on the property 155 bodies were found in unmarked graves.[27]

The last Magdalene Laundry did not close until 1996. However, they had gradually begun to become a less common occurrence. Historians have debated what caused this to happen. It is a widely accepted fact that the reason why the laundries were able to exist for so long was largely due to Ireland’s highly conservative values. However, as decades passed there was a cultural shift and morals changed. There was less emphasis on purity and therefore people did not see the need to send their daughters away anymore. While it is nice to believe that religious institutions let residents leave once they believed their duty was done, some historians believe that the institutions closed once they were not profitable anymore. Frances Finnegan argues that “By the late 1970s the widespread use of the domestic washing machine has been as instrumental in closing these laundries as changing attitudes.”[28] Once the women ceased to bring the laundries any profit, they were discarded from the only life most of them had ever known.

The testimony of survivors provides us with valuable insight into what life was like inside these institutions. It is clear from hearing these women recall their time there that they place most of the blame on the nuns who ran the laundries. This is completely understandable given the fact that they saw them every day. However, it is important to remember that outside of the day-to-day operations, there was the larger system of government allowing the laundries to remain in use.

Reactions, fallout, and blame

            In the immediate aftermath of the closing of the last Magdalene Laundry, there were only murmurs about the secret activities that went on in the institutions. Survivors did not yet feel comfortable sharing their experiences with loved ones. We can interpret the silence as the shame that these women must have felt resulting from being thrown out of their homes. Despite the progress that Ireland had made regarding morality, how could they open up to their families who were so quick to turn their backs on them?

Survivors attempted to move on with their lives despite the trauma they had faced. This was easier said than done. More often than not, women who married after leaving the laundries were less likely to leave abusive spouses. This is understandable since many of them have not known a relationship without abuse. Also, many of the women released now had to go about their days knowing that they had children out in the world whom they had no connection or way to get in contact with. This was because laundries were known to force women who had children out of wedlock to give their children up for adoption. These were women who had to make a place for themselves in a world that had recently wanted them tucked away, out of the public eye. To say they felt unwelcome was putting it mildly.

It was only after the 1997 release of Sex in a Cold Climate on Channel Four that there was widespread public knowledge and outrage at the activities of the Magdalene Laundries.[29] A few years later, several mass graves were uncovered on land that used to house the laundries. The graves contained no names of the women who were buried in them.[30] These events triggered a desire amongst the public for an investigation into what occurred at the laundries and who was to blame. Numerous groups got together to campaign for the Irish government to issue a formal apology to the women, one of the more notable ones being Justice for Magdalenes. The demands of these advocacy groups led to two major investigations. One by the Irish government and one by The United Nations Committee Against Torture.

The investigation conducted by the Irish government was led by politician Martin McAleese, husband to a former President of Ireland and devout Catholic. The report was widely criticized by survivors and had many aspects that were proven to be false or downplayed. In his report, McAleese acknowledged that women who were sent to work in the laundries were subjugated to verbal abuse and harsh working conditions. However, he claims that there was no evidence of physical or sexual abuse in the laundries.[31] This is hard to believe as nearly every survivor interviewed reported abuse during the confinement. This is not the only claim made by McAleese that is widely criticized by survivors. He claims that “the average stay was calculated at seven months.”[32] This was unanimously disputed by survivors. In the Magdalene Oral History Collection, an interviewee named Bernadette addressed this directly in her testimony. She claimed “There was no end to our incarceration… Nobody had an end term. I…I hear a lot of talk now since the McAleese Report about people only being in for three months. I saw one person leave in the year I was in there…I…so I find this three-month thing very, very, very strange, but nobody had a release date.”[33] The final claim made in the McAleese Report is that the laundries never made a profit. This was also proven to be inaccurate. Records show that laundries had a long list of clients. It was well documented that “the nuns had contracts with all the local hotels and businesses as well as all the convents and seminaries.”[34] These companies would pay the nuns to have their laundry done for a cheaper price. In addition, with no employees to pay, any profit made from the laundries stayed with the people running them. The Irish Times also posted an extensive list of Irish Companies that used a Magdalene Laundry at some point. Some of the more notable examples are Guinness, Clerys, and the Bank of Ireland.[35] The number of claims made in the McAleese Report that were disputed by survivors makes one wonder, how did he come to these conclusions? Did he even interview any survivors?

Despite the shortcomings of the McAleese Report, it was successful in accomplishing one of the goals of Justice for Magdalenes. The Irish government issued a formal apology to the survivors. On February 19th, 2013, the Taoiseach or head of government in Ireland Enda Kenny apologized to the women on behalf of the government. He called the Magdalene Laundries the “nation’s shame” and stated “the government and our citizens deeply regret and apologize unreservedly to all those women for the hurt that was done to them, and for any stigma they suffered, as a result of the time they spent in a Magdalene Laundry.”[36] He also indicated that the government would be willing to provide a form of financial compensation for survivors. While the apology did not erase any of the hurt inflicted, it did acknowledge their suffering, and that was worth a lot to the survivors. 

While this statement was celebrated amongst survivors, some members of the Roman Catholic church were outraged that the Irish government was willing to criticize them in this way. For centuries, the catholic church was seen as a second governing body in Ireland. Now, they were being criticized alongside the government for their role in maintaining these institutions. One such critic of Kenny’s statement was Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League in the United States and outspoken skeptic of sexual abuse by priests. He argued that the women who were institutionalized in the laundries were not there against their will and could have left if they wanted to. Donohue also claimed that the vast majority of women inhabiting the laundries were indeed prostitutes. He added, “There was no slave labor, … It’s all a lie.”[37] It should be noted that Donohue had no evidence to back up these lofty claims.

Apart from the McAleese Report, the other major investigation into the Magdalene Laundries was by The United Nations Committee Against Torture (UNCAT). Unlike the other report, the UNCAT confirmed that the vast majority of women and girls who were residents in the laundries were “involuntarily confined.”[38] The UNCAT also recognized that the state failed to protect the women who were sent to these institutions. However, it is important to note that in the eyes of many survivors, the UNCAT’s report also left much to be desired. They agreed with the McAleese Report that the claims of abuse had been exaggerated. They acknowledged the presence of verbal abuse, but stated that instances of physical and sexual abuse were rare.[39] This was incredibly frustrating to the survivors. They now had not one, but two investigations that are invalidating their experiences. This is another instance of victims being gaslit. It is insufferable to imagine a group of people telling you the abuse you experienced is non-existent. This is yet another reason that survivors of the laundries were hesitant in coming forward with their stories.

After two meticulous investigations by two different governing bodies, the consensus seems to be pretty clear. It was the state who failed nearly 300,000 women and girls who were involuntarily confined to the Magdalene Laundries over two centuries. The state was certainly responsible for allowing these institutions to remain in existence for as long as they did. They turned a blind eye to the reported abuse perpetrated by leaders in the Catholic church and even used the laundries themselves. The same list in the Irish Times that revealed several Irish companies had used labor provided by Magdalene Laundries, also revealed that departments within the government itself were using it. “It discloses that, including those listed above, regular customers for the laundry believed to be the one at High Park, including the Department of Justice, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries, and CIÉ.”[40] Áras an Uachtaráin, the Irish Presidential residence was known to use labor from the laundries. This makes them look very guilty, as the Irish government cannot pretend to be ignorant of a situation when you are exploiting that exact situation.

Despite the urge of many to use the government as the sole scapegoat for abuse in the Magdalene Laundry system, they were only complicit in allowing the system to remain. While this is inexcusable, if you asked most of the survivors who they resented the most, chances are they would name the religious leaders who were in charge of the day-to-day operations in the laundries. It was the nuns who ran the laundries and the people who oversaw them that are responsible for the daily abuse suffered by the women and girls who were trapped there. In addition, some responsibility also falls to the feet of leaders within the catholic church for the centuries of purity culture and policing women’s bodies. If these unattainable morals were not put there in the first place, families would not have been so willing to give up their daughters rather than be shamed by the church. It is because of these reasons that the government of Ireland and the Catholic church worked in tandem with one another to establish and keep the Magdalene Laundry system for over two centuries, as both parties had something to gain from keeping them open.

Conclusion

            The United Nations Committee Against Torture estimates that up to 300,000 women passed through the Magdalene Laundry system during its two-century existence. In 2014, there were still around 600 survivors alive.[41] The Magdalene Laundries and the women and girls who inhabited them have become a sad part of Irish history. Today, the laundries have also become a part of Irish pop culture. Irish Singer-songwriter and notable critic of the Catholic church Sinéad O’Connor was admitted to a laundry as a teenager for truancy and shoplifting. She has spoken out on her disdain for these institutions publicly.[42] The struggle of these women was also immortalized in Joni Mitchell’s 1994 song The Magdalene Laundries. Mitchell empathizes with their struggle singing, “They sent me to the sisters, For the way men looked at me, Branded as a Jezebel, I knew I was not bound for Heaven, I’d be cast in shame, Into the Magdalene laundries”[43] The laundries have also been the subject of several motion pictures, most notably The Magdalene Sisters and The Devil’s Doorway. Despite promises and condolences from the government, very few of the survivors received any form of financial compensation. This is a debate that is ongoing to this day.

            Whenever there is a tragedy in history, it is human nature to want to point the finger at someone. A shared sense of anger towards one party can be cathartic and necessary to heal. It can also help survivors have something else to concentrate on apart from their trauma. However, the Magdalene Laundry system was not a simple issue and there was no simple fix. It was a set of institutions that lasted over two centuries with the complicity of the majority of the country. It is impossible to place the blame on one party. The laundries were able to remain in operation for as long as they did due to the complicity of the government, the motivation of the church, and the conservative morals in place in Ireland. If we looked deeper or further back, we would without a doubt find several other groups of people to blame.

            By using this way of thinking we can reevaluate many historical events that have a unanimous source of blame. Perhaps if we look a little deeper we can uncover that the events were in reality, triggered by a combination of interwoven causes. There may be a historical event to have a universally accepted source of blame. However, the Irish people know all too well that there is often blame to share. Also, the Magdalene Laundry system is a textbook example of how morals of the time can cause historical events. To put it bluntly, people make history. While we view the Magdalene Laundries as barbaric institutions, the Irish people of the time were more concerned with their religious beliefs than the well-being of their women and girls. If we break it down, at one point a group of people truly believed that they were doing the morally correct thing. We can apply this same process to other historical events. By looking at events through different lenses, we can put ourselves in their shoes and become better historians.

            Nearly every woman found in the mass grave at Sisters of Charity of Our Lady of Refuge in Dublin was unnamed.[44] Families today are still campaigning for the remains to be returned to their families. In 2022, there was a memorial stone unveiled in Dublin, the first of its kind.[45] There is still so much unknown about what occurred in these institutions and it is essential to interview survivors while they are still with us. What happened to these women can never be undone, but by learning about their stories new generations can ensure that it never happens again.

How can this be used in the classroom?

            The Magdalene Laundries and the plight of the women who resided in them, are not topics that many students will have heard of. Despite it being a bit obscure compared to the curriculum, there is a lot of merit in studying this topic. First, as I mention in this paper, much of what we know about the laundries comes from survivor testimonies. Having students read this paper can teach them how to interact with primary sources of this nature. Since the Magdalene Laundries are a more modern historical event, learning about them can broaden the knowledge that is traditionally obtained in social studies classrooms. We have pictures, oral testimonies, and documentaries on the laundries. It will be very easy for students to emphasize with the survivors. Another reason why this paper can be useful in classrooms is because it highlights the story of traditionally marginalized groups. It tells the story of poor, disabled, and oppressed women who suffered greatly at the hands of a government and religious leaders. However, my paper does not portray them as merely victims, but survivors who are currently working hard to get the justice they deserve. Stories like this where victim narratives are seen from a different point of view deserve a platform to be told. Classrooms are a great place to start.

References

Anderson, Amanda. Tainted Souls and Painted Faces: The Rhetoric of Fallenness in Victorian Culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004.

Brennan, Michael. “Tearful Kenny Says Sorry to the Magdalene Women – Independent.ie.” Irish Independent, February 20, 2013. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/tearful-kenny-says-sorry-to-the-magdalene-women-29082107. html.

Donohue, Bill. “Myths of the Magdalene Laundries.” Catholic League, July 15, 2013. https://www.catholicleague.org/myths-of-the-magdalene-laundries/.

Ferriter, Diarmaid. “‘Unrelenting Deference’? Official Resistance to Catholic Moral Panic in the Mid-Twentieth Century.” 20th Century Social Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2010).

Finnegan, Frances. Do Penance or Perish: Magdalen Asylums in Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Fischer, Clara. “Gender, Nation, and the Politics of Shame: Magdalen Laundries and the Institutionalization of Feminine Transgression in Modern Ireland.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 41, no. 4 (2016): 821–43. https://doi.org/10.1086/685117.   

Harrison, Shane. “Irish PM: Magdalene Laundries Product of Harsh Ireland.” BBC News. BBC, February 5, 2013. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-21326221.

Hogan, Caelainn. “Mary’s Story: The Magdalene Laundry Survivor Who Still Lives There.” The Irish Times. The Irish Times, August 30, 2020. https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/mary-s-story-the-magdalene-laundry-survivor-who-still-lives-there-1.4340289#:~:text=Gaffney%2C%20now%2074%2C%20has%20lived,remain%20living%20in%20institutional%20settings.

Humphreys, Joe. “Magdalen Plot Had Remains of 155 Women.” The Irish Times, August 21, 2003.

Kelly, Olivia. “Memorial Unveiled Dedicated to All Incarcerated in Magdalene Laundries.” The Irish Times. The Irish Times, July 29, 2022. https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/dublin/2022/07/30/memorial-unveiled-dedicated-to-all-incarcerated-in-magdalene-laundries/. 

McGarry, Patsy. “Áras an Uachtaráin among Users of Magdalene Laundry.” The Irish Times. The Irish Times, June 22, 2011. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/aras-an-uachtarain-among-users-of-magdalene-laundry-1.602530. 

O’Connor, Sinead “To Sinead O’Connor, the Pope’s Apology for Sex Abuse in Ireland Seems Hollow.” The Washington Post. WP Company, March 28, 2010. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502363.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1%C3%A2%C2%8A%C2%82=AR. 

Roberts, Sue Lloyd. “Demanding Justice for Women and Children Abused by Irish Nuns.” BBC News. BBC, September 23, 2014. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29307705.

Sex in a Cold Climate. Testimony Films. Channel 4, 1998. “UNCAT 2011.” Justice for Magdalenes Research, July 27, 2017. http://jfmresearch.com/home/restorative-justice/accountability/uncat-submissions/uncat-2011/

[1] Amanda Anderson, Tainted Souls and Painted Faces: The Rhetoric of Fallenness in Victorian Culture, (Ithica, Cornell University Press, 2004), 125.

[2] Anderson, Tainted Souls and Painted Faces, 2.

[3] Anderson, 93.

[4] Diarmaid Ferriter, ‘Unrelenting deference’? Official resistance to Catholic moral panic in the mid-twentieth century, Dublin, 2010.

[5] Joe Humphreys. “Magdalen Plot Had Remains of 155 Women.” The Irish Times, 2003.

[6] UNCAT 2011, Justice for Magdalenes Research, 2017.

[7] Sex in a Cold Climate. Testimony Films, 1998. http://www.testimonyfilms.com/work/sex-in-a-cold-climate.

[8] Clara Fisher, Gender, Nation, and the Politics of Shame: Magdalen Laundries and the Institutionalization of Feminine Transgression in Modern Ireland (finish citation)

[9] Fisher, Gender, Nation, and the Politics of Shame.

[10] Irish Independent. 1925. “Sermon by Archbishop Gilmartin.” Irish Independent, May 12 (fix citation)

[11] Rebecca Lea McCarthy, Origins of the Magdalene Laundries: An Analytical History, (Jefferson, NC, McFarland, and Co., 2010) 85.

[12] Frances Finnegan, Do Penance Or Perish: Magdalen Asylums in Ireland, (Oxford University Press, 2001), 17.

[13] Finnegan, Do Penance Or Perish, 162.

[14] Finnegan, 10

[15] Finnegan, 128.

[16] O’Donnell, Katherine, Sinead Pembroke, and Claire McGettrick. “Magdalene Oral History Collection,” 2013. https://repository.dri.ie/catalog/dn39x1535.

[17] Sex in a Cold Climate. Testimony Films, 1998.

[18] O’Donnell, Katherine, Sinead Pembroke, and Claire McGettrick. “Magdalene Oral History Collection,” 2013.

[19] O’Donnell, Pembroke, and McGettrick. “Magdalene Oral History Collection,” 2013.

[20] O’Donnell, Pembroke, and McGettrick. “Magdalene Oral History Collection,” 2013.

[21] O’Donnell,, Pembroke, and McGettrick.

[22] Caelainn Hogan, Mary’s story: The Magdalene laundry survivor who still lives there, The Irish Times, 2020.

[23] Hogan, Mary’s Story.

[24] O’Donnell,, Pembroke, and McGettrick. “Magdalene Oral History Collection,” 2013.

[25] O’Donnell,, Pembroke, and McGettrick. “Magdalene Oral History Collection,” 2013.

[26] Sex in a Cold Climate. Testimony Films, 1998.

[27] Joe Humphreys. “Magdalen Plot Had Remains of 155 Women.” The Irish Times, 2003.

[28] Finnegan, 113.

[29] Finnegan, 64.

[30] Finnegan 156.

[31] Shane Harrison, Irish PM: Magdalene laundries product of harsh Ireland, BBC, 2013.

[32] Harrison, Irish PM: Magdalene laundries product of harsh Ireland.

[33] O’Donnell, Pembroke, and McGettrick. “Magdalene Oral History Collection,” 2013.

[34] Sue Lloyd Roberts, Demanding justice for women and children abused by Irish nuns, BBC, 2014

[35] Patsy McGarry, Áras an Uachtaráin among users of Magdalene laundry, Irish Times, 2011.

[36] Michael Brennan, Tearful Kenny says sorry to the Magdalene women, Irish Independent, 2013.

[37] Bill Donohue, Myths of the Magdalene Laundries, Catholic League, 2013.

[38] UNCAT 2011, Justice for Magdalenes Research, 2017.

[39] Irish Department of Justice, “Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee to establish the facts of State involvement with the Magdalen Laundries”, 2013.

[40] Patsy McGarry, Áras an Uachtaráin among users of Magdalene laundry, Irish Times, 2011.

[41] United Nations Committee Against Torture, 2017.

[42] Sinead O’Connor, To Sinead O’Connor, the pope’s apology for sex abuse in Ireland seems hollow, The Washington Post, 2010.

[43] Joni Mitchell, The Magdalene Laundries, 1994.

[44] Joe Humphreys, “Magdalen Plot Had Remains of 155 Women.” The Irish Times, 2003.

[45] Olivia Kelly, Memorial unveiled dedicated to all incarcerated in Magdalene laundries, The Irish Times, 2022.

We Have A Civics Education Crisis – And Deep Divisions on How to Solve It

We Have A Civics Education Crisis — And Deep Divisions on How To Solve It

Glenn C. Altschuler and David Wippman

Reprinted with permission from Made in History, The Washington Post

According to the most recent analysis by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 13 percent of eighth graders are proficient in U.S. history — down from a peak of 18 percent in 2014. A mere 22 percent of those students are proficient in civics, the first decline since the test began in 1998.

Adults fare little better. Less than half of those surveyed could name the three branches of government (1 in 4 could not name any). Nor did they know that a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling becomes the law of the land.

Yet, even as Americans across the political spectrum believe that more civic awareness could help heal the country’s divides, only seven states require a full year of civics education.

The belief that an educated citizenry is the best protection for democracy is as old as the Republic. As George Washington asked in the founding era: “What species of knowledge” is more important than “the science of government?”

Yet, U.S. history and civics curriculums have long been attacked from the political right as insufficiently patriotic and from the left as woefully incomplete and discriminatory. In short, Americans have never agreed about what should be taught when it comes to our nation’s history and government. And as this latest round of test scores suggests, that has real implications for schoolchildren.

How to teach American history and civics was not initially an issue of national debate or concern. At the nation’s founding, most Americans received little or no formal schooling, but learned instead from family, work and church.

That began to change with the adoption of universal, state-funded education. By the 1840s, education reformers like Horace Mann argued that publicly supported schools could help to create “disciplined, judicious, republican citizens” by “teaching the basic mechanics of government and imbuing students with loyalty to America and her democratic ideals.”

To protect public schools from “the tempest of political strife,” fears spurred in part by the arrivals of immigrants, Mann insisted civics be presented in a nonpartisan, nonsectarian manner — even as he and his allies, consciously or not, imbued their own values into this supposedly neutral curriculum. Civics was taught through study, memorization and recitation of patriotic speeches and foundational texts, such as the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. These exercises were paired with readings from the King James Bible “that exemplified the Protestant ethic.”

Unsurprisingly, controversies arose. Abolitionists complained that the nonpartisanship required the exclusion of anti-slavery principles. Roman Catholic leaders attacked non-sectarianism as a stealth imposition of Protestantism, prompting “school wars” that led to the creation of the Catholic parochial school system.

In the North, some native-born critics feared that the 9 million immigrants arriving in their port cities between 1880 and 1917 — predominantly non-English-speaking Catholics and Jews from Southern and Eastern Europe — lacked the instincts and training to qualify as citizens. “Americanizers” sought to prepare the children of these “new immigrants” for citizenship through instruction in English, basic civics and a history that celebrated the country’s political institutions, downplayed its shortcomings and implanted in them “the Anglo-Saxon conception of righteousness, law and order, and popular government.” Eager to become citizens, most immigrants did not object. But some resisted the effacing of their linguistic, cultural and religious heritage.

During World War I, former president Theodore Roosevelt demanded that schools discontinue instruction in the German language and declared that “there is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans.” In New York, state legislators banned textbooks containing material “disloyal to the United States.” In response, nascent cultural pluralists proposed that the metaphor for “transnational America” should not be a melting pot, but a “symphony orchestra,” where “each ethnic group is the natural instrument.”

After the nation took stock of the blood and treasure expended in war, isolationist sentiment took root alongside an anti-communist red scare, overriding pluralist sentiment in the 1920s. Congress implemented strict quotas in 1924 that dramatically reduced immigration, especially from the non-English-speaking world.

World War II accelerated a backlash against progressive educators like John Dewey who, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, advocated that students “critically examine” the nation’s institutions and economic inequality. Instead, with America at war again by the end of 1941, politicians demanded that teachers promote “an abiding love of American institutions.”

In the Cold War that followed, elected officials again used the nation’s schools as a space to pit the virtues of U.S. democracy against the evils of communism — this time to an even greater degree than before. Congress created the “Zeal for American Democracy” program in 1947, which encouraged educators in public schools to exalt U.S. democracy, while glossing over McCarthy-era violations of free speech and freedom of association.

Throughout the century following the Civil War, teachers instructed White students in the South that the conflict was a struggle over states’ rights, fought by gallant Confederate soldiers. They learned that during the brief period of Reconstruction after the war, corrupt northern carpetbaggers and formerly enslaved men now eligible to vote drove basic civic and governmental institutions into the ground — and that race mixing was contrary to the law of man and God. As late as 1961, an Alabama textbook maintained that “slavery was the earliest form of social security in the United States.”

But the civil rights and women’s and gay and lesbian rights movements, as well as opposition to the Vietnam War, called into question the dominant vision of U.S. civics and history that had long prevailed in American classrooms. Demands for immigrants to assimilate were recast by underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as “cultural imperialism,” as questions increasingly arose about the desirability of building a common civic culture. Advocates created a pluralist, multicultural curriculum that featured voices seldom before included in history and civics curriculums, such as Frederick Douglass’s oration, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” and the proceedings of the 1848 Women’s Rights Convention.

A conservative movement soon grew in opposition, with activists warning that “secular humanism” was creeping into schools and usurping religious, traditional family-centered values taught at home. The fact that the Supreme Court had outlawed school-sponsored prayer in public schools in 1962 — seen as a potential antidote to this trend — only fueled their ire.

By the 1980s, opponents began decrying multicultural education and ethnic studies as “political correctness,” and in 1992, they successfully derailed an attempt to establish national history standards and adopt the voluntary guidelines developed by dozens of civic organizations and educators. Lynne Cheney, chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities from 1986-1992, derided these efforts as a politicized, “grim and gloomy portrayal” of American history, focused excessively on women, ethnic and racial groups. The standards were rejected by the U.S. Senate in a 99-1 vote.

At the beginning of this century, concerns about American economic competitiveness prompted a renewed focus on reading and math under President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act and then on STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) subjects under President Barack Obama’s Educate to Innovate campaign. Both came at the expense of civics, history and related subjects.

As political polarization in the United States escalated, President Donald Trump denounced the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which put enslavement and discrimination at the center of the history of the United States. Trump claimed that such efforts taught children “to hate their own country.” He established the Advisory 1776 Commission, which declared that U.S. history, when properly taught, reveals the United States to be “the most just and glorious country in all of human history.”

In 2021, in an attempt to bridge these divides, over 300 experts with diverse political views recommended new guidelines for civics education. Their Roadmap To Educating for American Democracy calls for treating disagreement “as a feature, not a bug of democracy,” and an account of U.S. history “that is honest about the wrongs of the past without falling into cynicism, and appreciative of the founding of the United States without tipping into adulation.” Supported by six former secretaries of education, Republicans and Democrats and over 120 civic organizations, it was attacked by conservatives, who distorted its purpose and content and gave it an “F+.”

The bipartisan Roadmap has gone nowhere, and many states are going their own way. This is unsurprising. Efforts to establish national history and civics guidelines have always been subjected to withering criticism — just as attempts to ignore contested aspects of our past to foster national unity have only produced partisan divisions.

Understanding this history may well be the most important civics lesson of all.

Behind the Numbers: A Discussion for Social Studies & Sociology Students on the Future of Religion in America

Behind the Numbers: A Traditional Church Faces a New America

A Discussion for Social Studies & Sociology Students on the Future of Religion in America

Hank Bitten, Executive Director, NJ Council for the Social Studies

The free exercise of religious beliefs is written into our constitution and has been part of the framework of our democratic society and American identity since the Pilgrims arrived in 1620. The principle of the separation of church and state prevented America from having a religious institution or denomination supported by the state, it has enabled the proliferation of houses of worship, the establishment of colleges to train clergy, the dissemination of religious beliefs into our culture through art, literature, and music, and prayers in public places. Religious beliefs and the practices of denominational churches are part of the tapestry of America.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (First Amendment)

This is clearly evident in the First and Second Great Awakening, the Sunday School movement, and the missionary zeal in the 19th century to convert people to the Christian faith. The names of Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles and John Wesley, Francis Asbury, Billy Sunday, Billy and Franklin Graham, Dwight Moody, Phoebe Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, James Dobson, Tim Keller, Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson are just a few names that are part of several high school history textbooks.

In the first two chapters of the dissertation, “Behind the Numbers: A Traditional Church Faces a New America”, Rev. Larry Vogel, presents us with a turning point in the first two decades of the 21st century that is an opportunity for discussion, debate, and discernment.  The dissertation provides a sociological, anthropological, and theological perspective that is insightful in how evidence is used to support a claim or thesis.

The data from the U.S. Census Bureau presents a vision of America that is as influential today as Jean de Crèvecoeur’s “Letters from an American Farmer” were in 1782. Crèvecoeur tried to describe the ‘new American’ as industrious and religious. The experiences of living during and after the American Revolution changed the colonists from Europeans to Americans.  The ‘new American’ following the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 is from global origins and the ‘new American’ is Hispanic, African, and Asian.

By analyzing the census data in this dissertation, high school students will be able to make a claim regarding the importance of religion in American by 2050, the impact of immigration on society, the consequences of a society that is changing over time, and make predictions for the future. In a Sociology class, students can also survey their own community and compare the data with the national data in the U.S. Census.

“As for ethnicity, 61.6% of the US population is White alone (204.3 million), a decline from 223.6 million and 72.4% in 2010. Blacks who self-identified without any other racial combination increased slightly in number between 2010 and 2020 (from 38.9 to 41.1 million), but declined very slightly as a percentage of the population (from 12.6% to 12.4%). The Asian alone population of the US increased both numerically and proportionately. In 2010 14.7 M (4.8%) Americans identified as Asian alone. In 2020 that number swelled to 19.9 M (6%).” The Asian population is projected to more than double, from 15.9 million in 2012 to 34.4 million in 2060, with its share of nation’s total population climbing from 5.1 percent to 8.2 percent in the same period. (p. 58)

In the table below, the majority population in the United States declined 11% in ten years from 2010-2020. Will this trend continue to fall another 10% or will it be greater than 10% in this decade?

In high school social studies classes, teachers ask questions about our American identity. Students look at this over time by discussing how each century defined the emerging American identity? The demographics of what is happening to the religious beliefs of the ‘new American’ are important to our culture, economy, education, families, and government. Religion is perhaps the largest service industry in the United States with more than 100 million people attending worship regularly. The number of subscribers to weekly worship experiences is declining but this change is likely disguised as the ‘new American’ still believes in a supreme deity but expresses this belief differently than the way Crèvecoeur’s ‘American’ did. The insights in “Behind the Numbers: A Traditional Church Faces a New America” encourages the debate in the classroom and in the chancel. The analysis of the data provides a perspective of what life will be like in the United States at mid-century. Some will see this as an opportunity and others as a threat.

To begin our inquiry into the data, examine the population profile of the top ten states with the highest immigrant populations. (pp.66) Half of these states are in the Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Baltimore- Washington, D.C. corridor.  A third of these states are in the western region of the United States.

One of the striking observations in the census report is that these changes have occurred after 2000.

“The continued growth of the US population is due to immigration rather than to immigrant birth rates. All-in-all, the foreign-born US population in 2018 was nearly 14% of the total US population and their second-generation children were an additional 12.3% of the total population. This means that fully 25% of the current US population is the result of immigration and that the changing racial-ethnic profile of the US is due almost entirely to immigration in recent decades. As Taylor puts it: “Immigration is driving our national makeover.” (p. 67)

As you review the data in the graph below, consider the implications of this decline in your community and state.

Here are some questions to ask regarding this data?

  1. Will these demographic trends continue on the same trajectory over the next three decades or escalate?
  2. Will external events (i.e., climate, artificial intelligence, economic conditions, etc.) have a direct effect on immigration trends?
  3. Will the immigrant population move to other states as they have in the past?
  4. As the immigrant population of 2020 ages, how will this influence the ‘new American’ identity?
  5. As immigrants assimilate into American culture, will they be influenced by the religious institutions in America?

The Census Bureau predicts that the trend toward racial-ethnic diversity will continue: The non-Hispanic White population is projected to shrink over coming decades, from 199 million in 2020 to 179 million people in 2060—even as the U.S. population continues to grow. Their decline is driven by falling birth rates and a rising number of deaths over time as the non-Hispanic White population ages. In comparison, the White population, regardless of Hispanic origin, is projected to grow from 253 million to 275 million over the same period. (p. 236)

Dr. Vogel’s thesis claims that “the underlying support and stimulus for Global Christianity’s surge is the Bible translated into the vernacular. The Bible in whole or in part is available in over 1500 languages, including more than 650 African tongues. With the Bible in their own tongue, Christians in Africa and throughout the globe “can claim not just the biblical story, but their own culture and lore in addition.” (p. 82) However, his thesis also raises the counterargument that the Millennial generation (birth years 1981-1996) is leading the shift away from organized religion, specifically, Christian denominations. According to the Pew research from 2019, 40% of the Millennials (also Generation Y) identify as unaffiliated with 9% claiming a faith other than Christianity. The trend for Generation Z (birth years 1996-2010) will likely be higher.

The perspective of Dr. Mark Chaves of Duke University (and high school student of the author of this article), is that America will likely continue its religious identity in this century. The diversity of the American population will lead to changes, notably that non-Christian beliefs also lead to eternal life. Church membership and worship practices will likely change.  A new subculture within the religious and worshipping population may emerge in the 21st century.  The ‘new American’ will likely continue helping others in need by donating food, working in a soup kitchen, providing assistance after a disaster, building homes for the homeless, as the volunteer spirit will likely continue throughout this century. But this ‘new American’ may also be influenced by social media and artificial intelligence. Engage your students in exploring answers to these questions and possibilities.

George Hawley of the University of Alabama presents a strong counter argument regarding the demographics of the denominational church in 2022. He cites that 23 percent (almost one-fourth) of the population affiliated with a Christian denominational church are over the age of 65. He also observed that only 13 percent who attend church regularly are under the age of 30. This is not sustainable beyond 2050. Non-Christian religious traditions increased from 5% percent to 7% since 2010. In terms of actual numbers, 13 million Americans identify as atheists and 33 million or 10 percent) have no particular religious affiliation.  To place this in perspective, the populations of 49 states are less than 33 million people. The population of Texas is 31 million.

To add a second layer of analysis to our scaffold is the research of the Barna Group which used three factors in determining affiliation with a Christian Church.

  1. Christian identity with a denominational church
  2. Regular worship attendance
  3. Placing faith as a high priority

The data reports that 25% of the American population of 330 million people are practicing Christians. In 2000, the number was 45%!  (p. 113) Although weekly church attendance continues to decrease in both Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, the diversity of Roman Catholic congregations appears positive, especially if the United States will continue as a Christian country.  “Nearly 40% of Catholic churches are either predominantly or very much non-White. In 2014, The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) study of RCC parishes, 323 out of 846 responding parishes could be identified as multi-cultural parishes.

By using the data below, ask this question: ‘Why is Roman Catholic weekly attendance decreasing in the first quarter of this century and Protestant weekly attendance showing a slight increase?’  (Note: the years on the y axis appear to have 1983-1986 reversed with 1995-1996)

This article reflects the data in Chapters 1 and 2 of the dissertation. Chapters 3, 4, 5 include prescriptive information on a case study of the Lutheran Church and information about other denominations. Chapters 4 and 5 include a theological analysis of church history and the inclusion of all people.

https://scholar.csl.edu/phd/146/

Behind the Numbers: A Traditional Church Faces a New America

Larry Vogel, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis

Date of Award  5-19-2023

Abstract

The dissertation examines membership data for The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) from the mid-1970s to the present. It considers the analysis of LCMS decline by two scholars, George Hawley and Ryan MacPherson, who independently proposed that LCMS membership decline was internal in causation due to diminished birthrates and fewer young families. While acknowledging the reality of such internal decline, this dissertation argues that the lack of external growth is a greater cause for LCMS decline. Its lack of external growth is due primarily to the racial and ethnic homogeneity of the LCMS and its failure effectively to evangelize the increasingly diverse American population. This indicates a theological weakness: a failure to teach and emphasize the catholicity of the church adequately in LCMS catechesis and dogmatic theology.

Recommended Citation

Vogel, Larry, “Behind the Numbers: A Traditional Church Faces a New America” (2023). Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. 146.     https://scholar.csl.edu/phd/146

CHAPTER ONE………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN THEORY, REALITY, AND APPLICATION …………………..12

THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION—A GLOBAL PHENOMENON………………………….. 12

Demographics Defined ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

The First Demographic Transition ………………………………………………………………………………… 13

The Second Demographic Transition……………………………………………………………………………… 17

Cause of the Demographic Transition …………………………………………………………………………… 23

US DEMOGRAPHICS ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24

EFFECTS OF THE DT ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27

Primary Effects: Declining Births, Increasing Age………………………………………………………….. 27

Secondary Effects: Changes in Female Life Patterns and Family Formation …………………….. 32

RESPONSES TO DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE………………………………………………………………40

Responses to the Demographic Transition: A Survey………………………………………………………..41

China’s Response to Demographic Transition………………………………………………………………… 42

Brazil’s Response to Demographic Transition………………………………………………………………… 45

The European Response to Demographic Transition ………………………………………………………. 47

The North American Response to Demographic Transition……………………………………………… 50

THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE……………………………………………………………. 57

New America: Older and More Female………………………………………………………………….. … 58

New America: Greater Diversity…………………………………………………………………………… …. 58

CHAPTER TWO …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 68

THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHALLENGE AND RELIGION……………………………………………….. 68

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND RELIGIOSITY—A WORLD TOUR …………………………. 68

DT and Religion in Asia ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 68

DT and Religion in Latin America………………………………………………………………………………… 74

DT and Religion in Africa …………………………………………………………………………………………… 78

DT and Religion in Europe …………………………………………………………………………………………. 85

DT and Religion in the United States: Six Trends…………………………………………………………… 92

The Millennial Challenge……………………………………………………………………………………………. 96

The Challenge of Multiethnic America ………………………………………………………………………. 100

The Challenge of Family Decline……………………………………………………………………………….. 102

The Challenge of Income Inequity …………………………………………………………………………….. 104

Conclusion: DT and Religion in America…………………………………………………………………….. 106

DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION AND DECLINE IN AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY…….108

Rise of the Religiously Unaffiliated and the DT……………………………………………………………. 109

The Healthiest Churches……………………………………………………………………………………………. 118

THE NEW AMERICA IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH…………………………………. 123

A Church in Crisis: Flight from the Roman Church …………………………………………………….. 125

A Church’s Hidden Strength: The Diversity of American Roman Catholics…………………….. 127

THE NEW AMERICA IN THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA ……………….. 133

A History of Struggle ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 133

Growth in the PCA through Doctrinal Fidelity and Outreach ……………………………………….. 142

Reflection and Redirection ………………………………………………………………………………………. 144

My Story: Rev. John Brainerd, Cumberland County 1751-1781

My Story: Rev. John Brainerd

Exploring Native American Sources Over a 30 Year Period

John Brainerd was born on February 28, 1720 in Haddam, CT. He had a vision to educate Native Americans in the colonies of New England and the Mid-Atlantic, including New Jersey. He graduated from Yale College in 1746 and received a Masters Degree from The College of New Jersey (Princeton) in 1749. He was a Presbyterian minister in Newark and New York before the French and Indian War. Her served as a chaplain in the Colonial Army during the French and Indian War, possibly between 1756 and 1759. He ministered to Christian Indian villages in Cranbury, Bridgetown, Mount Holly, Newark, and Deerfield in New Jersey. He also ministered to Native American communities in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. His brother David also ministered to Native Americans but died before John graduated from Yale.  John Brainerd was married twice. His first wife, Experience Lyon died in 1757, while John Brainerd was with the Colonial Army. The two children she gave birth to, died in their first year. He remarried Hannah Spencer from Lynn, MA (also Haddam, MA) in 1664.

These were the years of the Great Awakening and prominent clergy such as John and Charles Wesley, George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards preached the Bible, wrote songs, started schools, and ministered to colonial populations.

The French and Indian War, tough economic times after the French and Indian War, and the separation from England following the Declaration of Independence had a significant impact on the clergy who were supported by the Anglican Church of England, the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. Most clergy returned to England after the Declaration of Independence. John Brainerd, Samson Occum, and Francis Asbury are prominent clergy who ministered to people in New Jersey.

“IN the year1777, at fifty-seven years of age, Mr.-Brainerd removed from Brotherton to Deerfield, in Cumberland County, N.J., and took charge of the church there. He still seems to have retained some oversight of the mission. In 1778, 1779, and1780, up to the year of his death, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia voted that ”the interest on the Indian fund be paid to Mr. Brainerd for his services among the Indians. “To the last of life he seems to have clung to his little flock, his first love, and his brethren did their best in a time of war to sustain him. Brotherton, the Indian settlement which he had aided to build up, and where for fifteen years he had resided, was situated in what is now a prosperous and pleasant rural neighborhood, near the present Shamong station, on the Raritan and Delaware Bay Railroad, about forty miles from Philadelphia. The “Historical Collections of New Jersey “give the following description:

“Edgepelick (or Indian Mills) is the name of a locality about three miles north of Atsion, where was the last Indian settlement in the State. The remnant of the tribe, consisting of about one hundred souls, emigrated to the West nearly half a century since. There is, however, a single family, but of mixed breed, residing in the vicinity ,in a log hut. Brainerd, the missionary, for a time resided among the Indians at this place. His dwelling-house stood about eight rods south of the saw-mill of Godfrey Hancock, on rising ground,  the site of which is still marked by depression, showing the precise spot where the cellar was. Within a few rods is the spring from which the family obtained water. The natives had a saw-mill on the site of Nicholas. Thompson’s mill, a quarter of a mile northeast of Brainerd’s house. Their burying-ground was on the edge of the pond about forty rods northwest of the same dwelling. In the vicinity stood their church, built of logs, and destroyed about thirty-five years since. After the Indians left, it was used by the whites for public worship.” (pp. 413, 14)

Use the sources below to discuss the following and debate the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed decision.

  1. What motivated young men from notable families to serve rural and Native American populations?  Was this the result of their college education, financial incentives, or personal motivation?
  2. How did conflict and war present barriers to the clergy who wanted to minister to people in a congregation or community?
  3. Was their motivation to preach the Word of God, educate Native American populations, or develop a larger church organization similar to what was established in Europe?
  4. Discuss the barriers John Brainerd faced in his travels, family life, with decisions of colonial governments, livelihood, and in ministering to people in need.

Decision: If you were John Brainerd, would you continue your ministry to Native Americans in New Jersey, or accept a position at an established congregation in a populated New Jersey community? (i.e. Newark, Princeton, Perth Amboy, New Brunswick, etc.)

Journal of John Brainerd (January 1761 – October 1762)

The Life of John Brainerd (1720-1781)  (Read pp. 409-420)

All related documents

Eleazar Wheelock, letter, to Mr. Whitefield, 1759 November 3

Manuscript Number 759603

Date 3 November 1759

Abstract: Eleazar Wheelock writes of the progress at his school, and of the conditions under which he looks for more Indian pupils as well as public charity. He also mentions the ordination of Occom.

Eleazar Wheelock, letter, to George Whitefield, 1761 July 4

Manuscript Number 761404

Date 4 July 1761

Abstract: Eleazar Wheelock writes to George Whitefield about first Occom’s mission to the Oneidas, and about the difficulties of teaching Indian students. He mentions the idea of appealing to the Earl of Dartmouth for charity.

Eleazar Wheelock, letter, to John Brainerd, 1765 January 14

Manuscript Number 765114.3

Date 14 January 1765

Abstract: Wheelock writes to Brainerd about setting up a meeting with the Connecticut Board of Commissioners, and the proposed fundraising trip to England, which is complicated by a renewal of the Mason Land Case.

John Brainerd, letter, to Eleazar Wheelock, 1766 September 16

Manuscript Number 766516.1

Date 16 September 1766

Abstract: Brainerd writes about the apprehension of the murderers of two Indian women, includes letters from Francis Alison and John Ewing recommending John G. Kals as a teacher and missionary, and gives his own recommendation of Kals, with reservations.

Eleazar Wheelock, letter, to Samson Occom, 1772 May 26

Manuscript Number 772326.2

Date 26 May 1772

Abstract: Wheelock asks Occom to join the mission of McClure and Frisbie to Muskingum.

Searching for Native Americans Living in New Jersey During the American Revolution

Searching for Native Americans Living in New Jersey During the American Revolution

By Robert Fenster

In a typical high school U.S. History course, the study of Native Americans is relegated to the initial encounters with a couple of interruptions to the timeline to focus on atrocities like the Trail of Tears and Wounded Knee. In the Advanced Placement curriculum, the chronology starts in 1491, with a single thematic focus titled “Native American Societies Before European Contact.” The remaining handful of references to Native Americans are all in relation to their interactions with Europeans, often focusing on their victimization.[1]

Cognizant of my own complicity in this historical injustice, I seized the opportunity to take part in Telling Our Story: Living in New Jersey Before and During the American Revolution. My initial goal was to learn more about the Lenape in New Jersey around the time of the American Revolution. Unfortunately, I learned that the vast majority of the Lenape had left the state by the 1770s. Finding Native Americans in New Jersey who served in the war was going to prove difficult. Although I might have had more success finding Native Americans who fought in a New Jersey battle — on either side — my preference was to learn about those who lived here at the time, whether they served or not.

My initial search turned up three soldiers from New Jersey listed as Native Americans in government documents — William Cuffey, William Holmes, and Oliver Cromwell.[2] All three were most likely Black men who might have had some Native ancestry, but the documentation is sketchy at best. I didn’t feel comfortable with the evidence I had to conclusively state any were of Native American descent, so I turned my focus elsewhere.

As part of the participation in the grant, the goal was to find two distinct individuals to focus on. It would turn out that although the men who I profiled led very different lives, they had a considerable amount in common, including spending time at The College of New Jersey (now Princeton) and suffering unfortunate treatment from those of European descent, one worse than the other. Despite the negative outcomes for each, I was able to focus on their exercise of agency to provide a greater perspective on their life experiences.

The first individual I researched was George Morgan White Eyes, whose larger story required an examination of the life of his father Koquethagechton (aka White Eyes). As spokesman for his people, Koquethagechton addressed the Continental Congress in 1776 and ultimately negotiated a unique treaty at Fort Pitt in 1778, promising the creation of a Lenape state in Ohio Country and representation in Congress in exchange for hosting and guiding U.S. troops battling the British and Native American enemies in the war. Ultimately the land was granted, but not the other provisions. The premature death of White Eyes at the age of 48 was initially falsified as being the result of smallpox, but the truth ultimately came out that he had been assassinated by a member of the American militia in Michigan.

Young White Eyes’ mother, Rachel Doddridge, had her own compelling story. A British-born white woman who was kidnapped and raised by the Lenape, was given multiple chances to leave and live among Americans or British people once more, but opted to stay living among the Lenape. She too would be murdered by white men, a decade after her husband’s demise.

Care of their young son went to George Morgan, a U.S. Indian agent and a close friend. Young George Morgan White Eyes had, of course, been named after Morgan. After showing tremendous academic skill, Young White Eyes would be sent to study in New Jersey, with his expenses being paid by the Continental Congress after George Morgan exhorted the Congress for “a continuance of the patronage of Congress to this worthy orphan whose father was treacherously put to death at the moment of his greatest exertions to serve the United States.”[3]

Young White Eyes would receive assistance for a number of years, but ran into trouble at Princeton more than once, and evidently became somewhat disillusioned after learning the truth about his parents’ deaths. In a remarkable series of letters, he wrote directly to President George Washington about his needs and wishes for his future which ranged from wanting to finish his education elsewhere to getting a job to finally returning to his people.[4] Although it took some time, Washington did intercede on his behalf and helped fulfill that final wish. Unfortunately, the life of George Morgan White Eyes ended in tragedy as he drunkenly picked a fight with a young white man who, in self defense, killed his attacker.

The violent deaths of all three of the members of the White Eyes family is a triple tragedy, but not without moments of achievement and agency — Koquethagechton’s advocacy for his people, Rachel Doddridge’s decision to remain living as a Native American, and George Morgan White Eyes’ participation in the direction of his life make them more than mere victims.

Although the family’s story was absolutely worth telling, I was hoping to find someone who lived in New Jersey for a longer period of time. In my research I found a number of interesting events that happened up to and during the Seven Years’ War, including diplomatic conferences held in Crosswicks, New Jersey and Easton, Pennsylvania in the mid 1750s, leading to the significant reduction of Native lands. When I learned that Brotherton, the first Native American reservation in the colonies, was created in South Jersey in 1759, I was hopeful I could find a person who lived there between its creation and dissolution in 1802.

The person who I focused on was Shawuskukhkung or Bartholomew Scott Calvin. Once again the story needs to start at least a generation earlier (and in his case could go back several generations and be historically powerful). His father Stephen Calvin chose his name as a tribute to his conversion to Presbyterian theology. Stephen was integral in the aforementioned negotiations that led to the creation of Brotherton. Bartholomew was only three years old, but among the 200 Native Americans who settled there. Like George Morgan White Eyes, he attended Princeton for a time, but with his bills being paid by the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge. The outbreak of the American Revolution terminated his studies, and at some point he enlisted in the military, serving in the Pennsylvania Line. I was only able to determine that he saw active duty in 1780, but further records or writings were elusive.

            After the war, Bartholomew would become a teacher, educating not only children from the reservation, but white children from the surrounding towns. Unfortunately, Brotherton’s life was short-lived due to a combination of bad luck, bad environment, and bad neighbors. By 1801, only 63 adult residents were left in Brotherton. Bartholomew and other leaders on the reservation made the difficult decision to accept an invitation to merge with the Stockridge Indians near Oneida Lake in New York. Two decades later the merged groups of Native Americans would move to Michigan finding life on the east coast no longer desirable.

Bartholomew would eventually return to New Jersey at age 76 to address thestate legislature asking to sell their retained rights of hunting and fishing on their lands to the State of New Jersey. He said the following:

“My brethren, I am old, and weak and poor, and therefore a fit representative of my people. You are young and strong, and rich, and therefore fit representatives of your people, but let me beg you for a moment to lay aside the recollections of your strength and our weakness that your minds may be prepared to examine with candor the subject of our claims… We consider the State Legislature the proper purchaser, and throw ourselves upon its benevolence and magnanimity, trusting that feelings of justice and liberality will induce you to give us what you deem a compensation.”[5]

In the end the State of New Jersey paid $2,000 (rough equivalent of $70,000 in modern currency) to officially end any Native American claims in New Jersey. I found the speech fascinating. Did Bartholomew Calvin genuinely believe what he was saying about the fair and equitable treatment by the state of New Jersey or did he choose a strategy he thought most likely to result in a positive outcome? Either way, he advocated for his people and was able to bring them something in the waning days of his life.

There are undoubtedly many more stories of New Jersey Native Americans from this time period that can be told, whether they are among those living in Brotherton, those who assimilated into New Jersey life, or those who served on either side of the American Revolution. There is ample work to be done by historians here.

[1] https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap-us-history-course-and-exam-description.pdf

[2] https://www.dar.org/library/forgotten-patriots/forgotten-patriots-book

[3] http://ppolinks.com/bartlesvillehistory/1960725601.pdf

[4] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-02-02-0318

[5] Barber, J. W., Howe, H. (1868). Historical Collections of New Jersey: Past and Present, Containing a General Collection of the Most Interesting Facts, Traditions, Biographical Sketches, Anecdotes, Etc., Relating to the History and Antiquities…. United States: J.W. Barber.

Vietnam Protests at New Jersey Universities

Vietnam Protests at New Jersey Universities

Dan Hamlin

For many, Princeton is a place of prestige and cultural and educational exceptionalism that only the best of the Ivy League can offer. A university such as this is on the cutting edge of tomorrow, where great minds assemble to become future presidents and Nobel laureates. Such has been Princeton’s tradition since colonial times. From founders being founding fathers to multiple presidents, Nobel laureates, and world-renowned physicists, one would be remiss to say that Princeton is not one of the most important and influential schools in the United States, let alone the world. One also cannot overstate the importance of tradition at Princeton University. At a university showcasing James Madison as a notable alumnus on its website,[1]It is clear that Princeton is a place of prestige.

The 1960s and 70s are a particular time in American history where education and student activism became particularly important to the American public. Students were the loudest advocates for change during this time and serve as an excellent example of the value of students taking advocacy in their educational careers. Students in this time would protest in many different ways and about many different things. Issues that concerned students in the 1960s and 70s included civil rights campus issues and the war in Vietnam; these protests would look different at each university depending on the culture and the history of it. So, one would likely expect Princeton: a place of deep and rich American tradition, to be where liberal protest dies, especially in the late 1960s and early 1970s when such protests were well beyond the norm. However, this is not the case. During the Anti-Vietnam War movement, Princeton University experienced an explosion of support from students and faculty sympathetic to the movement. It even boasted its Students for a Democratic Society chapter, which garnered massive student support. However, as the movement got bigger and bigger, tradition started to derail the movement at Princeton University in favor of more modest ways to protest the War in Vietnam. Princeton University is one of New Jersey’s most influential colleges and will provide enormously valuable insight into the Student protest movement in New Jersey, as it is representative of how long-established universities in New Jersey were impacted by the student protest movement. Whereas Rider University provided insight into how smaller less established universities in New Jersey were impacted by the movements, Princeton will illustrate “Established Universities” coped with the movement, illustrating how colleges impacted the broader movement.

Princeton University, where future leaders begin their journeys, was one of the earliest universities in New Jersey to speak outright against the war in Vietnam. Although the war in Vietnam began much earlier, in 1955, opposition to the war was minimal at best, and no sources spoke critically of the war. It was in 1962 that the evidence of discontent began to show. It was in April of 1962 that the School newspaper, The Daily Princetonian published an opinion piece about the war after the release of images of the conflict in Vietnam that Princeton began to show some opposition to the war. The article argues that “unless we base our policy on a response to the fundamental problems of the country and thus end the discontent on which the Communists thrive, we will see many more pictures of bodies in fields, ending only in an ignominious withdrawal from a country in which we will have forfeited the popular support without which victory is impossible. The article questions the need for American involvement at home; Americans face many more present dangers.”[2]Here, one can see the Princeton students first asking questions about the war and the merit upon which America is involved as time goes on.

However, these questions become action. In the ensuing years, discontent at Princeton will begin to fester, on par with that of other Universities from across the nation.[3]However, on October 8th of 1965, Students for a Democratic society officially arrive at the Princeton campus, signaling a massive upgrade in student support for the Anti-war movement.[4]Despite the step forward, not all campus is united in this mission. Very early on, there were instances of resistance to SDS and increased support against the war in Vietnam. In December of 1965, an SDS banner saying “Even Princeton” was stolen, and at an SDS demonstration, “some came to heckle, some came to argue, some came to support,” said the SDS chairman Johnathan M. Wiener. Wiener also later says how “unprecedented” the support has been, especially considering the “traditional Princeton apathy.”[5]Later in early 1966, a conservative teach-in about American military strategy occurred, led by the Conservative club and directed by conservative faculty on campus.[6]These instances are undoubtedly reactionary to the more significant campus-wide attitudes but merit inclusion as they are evidence of Princeton’s traditional values combatting this liberal movement on campus.

In 1966 the movement began hitting its stride as the protest became a standard fixture on campus. As the movement grew, students’ voices grew. In a march 1966 article polling students about the issues they are most concerned about, the Anti-war protest polled near the top however was outshined by campus-related issues, such as food and living conditions.[7] While this says little about the student protest of the war in Vietnam, it reveals two critical things about Princeton at the time. Firstly, Princeton students were incredibly active on campus at this time, inspired by the enthusiasm caused by the Anti-war protest. Secondly, this shows that the most significant external issue to Princeton students was the war in Vietnam, suggesting growth in support for anti-war protests.

As protests grow and time progresses, and anti-movements grow, so too does student involvement in SDS. By May of 1968, SDS had grown to massive heights,  leading The Daily Princetonian to raise the question, “SDS or UGA?” The UGA is the student government association elected by students and meant to represent the students. As the article reads, “There is no other strong political interest group on campus, and the UGA has proven itself to be an impotent governing body capable only of reacting to events and unable to cause creative change where change is needed. The SDS has easily and naturally taken over the vacuum in student leadership. There is now a genuine danger that relevant student issues and the entire student power concept will be identified with the SDS banner and that as these issues come of age, the SDS will increasingly be taken as the voice of the Princeton student body.” This speaks to the incredible power that SDS had by 1968. This article suggests that SDS was the governing body of Princeton University at the time. As the article states there are “nearly 150 members and well over 200 sympathizers.”8 making it the largest student organization on campus. This article illustrates the effect of the anti-war movement on Princeton university, as the SDS, an organization founded to oppose the war in Vietnam, has committed a quasi-coup of the student government, crippling their effectiveness. Princeton is fully invested, and SDS is at the peak of its power on campus. Nevertheless, this success is short-lived.

As students returned in the fall of ‘68, SDS had a significant setback. At a meeting about protesting the new student government in UGA, SDS had an ideological setback, causing a split into two camps. The “revolutionary” who intended on a walk-out at the UGA meetings, vs. the “Liberal politics” camp who decided for a more moderate course of action. The division “threaten[ed] to cripple the effectiveness of that organization and to interrupt the workings of the student-faculty Committee on the Structure of the University”[8]This ideological the split was the beginning of a slow and unceremonious decline in SDS’s popularity on campus. This ideological split was one typical among SDS chapters as the organization progressed into more radical and less palatable avenues.[9]nevertheless, students at Princeton were still appalled by the War in Vietnam and continued protesting the war. However, with the ideological split, this came in different forms.

By April 1969, the radicals are performing more radical actions, fiercely attacking conservative opponents and blocking marine recruiters. These actions cause SDS to be seen as “not working against “the authorities” alone but against other students. This position cuts much of their sympathetic support.”[10]SDS is losing traction at Princeton University, and campus life is becoming more volatile. What that does not mean, however, is that students’ opinions on the war are changing. It is just saying that they disagree with the extreme methods of one organization. In fact, by this point, Princeton and its faculty are united in a front against the anti-war movement as evidenced by the history department’s united efforts to publish an anti-war resolve and include it into their curriculum.[11][12]The splintered movement is a confusing time for Princeton university, as radical acts persist on campus, yet the anti-war movement continues to grow.

Just as Rider had severe reactions to the Kent State killings, Princeton, too, reeled from the national outcry. Over 900 students marched around campus in protest, eventually ending up at the Institute for Defense Analysis. A peaceful protest broke out, protesting the military presence on campus. At the same time, Faculty endorsed a strike of Princeton’s involvement with the Department of Defense after the “senseless killing of four students at Kent State.” Princeton deciding to cut ties with the military is a significant step for the University, as the government undoubtedly relied on Princeton’s prestige to foster new and innovative military thinkers and ideas; an example of Princeton’s prestige and culture influencing their protests, as very few other colleges can take this kind of meaningful action against the government, nor can students from many other universities find a place on campus to focus their anger.

Over the next few years and despite SDS’s ideological split, the movement does not simmer. As more and more opposition against the Nixon administration occurred, the student body became more and more independent against the war in Vietnam, culminating in massive campus-wide strikes and walkouts in 1972. At this time, the Nixon administration was in the exaggeratedly long process of withdrawing troops, and at Princeton, the anger boiled into legitimate action. The April 20th, 1972 edition of The Daily Princetonian almost entirely talks about the organization of strikes and walkouts due to current events. Peace pamphlets are hung around campus, and important board members resign due to mounting pressure. A “Frivolous spring parade around campus turned into an anti-war protest” that raised around “300 students” marching around campus and breaking into smaller protests late at night. The campus was very active at this time. There are also mentions of a picketing schedule for the upcoming week.[13]after these sporadic instances of protest occurred for the remainder of the war until 1975; This is perhaps because the movement as a whole got bigger and became a national issue, one that was now in the halls of congress.[14]

Princeton is a trailblazing school, one where the undergrads move on to do monumental things post-graduation. This was no different in the late 60s and early 70s; however, the student body had more of a fire lit under them to get motivated—the student body at Princeton University was incredibly active during the Anti-war/social movements around the time of the Vietnam war. However, Princeton, having the tradition and strong minds, never reached the full extent of the protest and demonstrations as a more prominent school. So, as a result, Princeton was greatly affected by these movements, but never to the entirely extreme end that a school like Rutgers experienced.

[1] Princeton University Alumni, ed. “Notable Alumni.” Princeton University.

https://princetoniana.princeton.edu/people/alumni/government-and-public-affairs.

[2] Slocombe, W. B. “The Political Side.” The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ),  April 27, 1962. https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgibin/imageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian19 620427-01&getpdf=true.

[3] Kennedy, Patrick D. “Reactions against the Vietnam War and Military-Related Targets on Campus: The University of Illinois as a Case Study, 1965-1972.” Illinois Historical Journal 84, no. 2 (1991): 101–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40192359.

[4] The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ). “Liberal Activist Group to Open Local Chapter.” October 4, 1965. https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgibin/imageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian19 651004-01&getpdf=true.

[5] The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ). “SDS Banner Tempts Thief, Draws Crowd.” December 3, 1965. https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgi-bin/imageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian19 651203-01&getpdf=true.

[6] Durkee, Robert. “Conservatives Stress Military Victory: Teach-ins Urges Vietnam Action.” The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ), January 7, 1966. https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgi-bin/imageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian19 660107-01&getpdf=true.

[7] Miller, Damon. “Student Protests: What Are the Issues?” The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ), March 11, 1966.

[8] Balfor, Richard. “SDS Walk-out Threatens Structure Committee.” The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ), October 2, 1968. https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgi-binimageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian196 81002-01&getpdf=true.

[9] Isserman, Maurice, and Michael Kazin. America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.

[10] Buckner, Bruce. “Campus Braces for Upcoming Radical Action.” The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ), April 23, 1969. https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgi-bin/imageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian19 690423-01&getpdf=true.

[11] Berkowitz, Ed. “Historians Circulate Anti-War Resolve.” The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ), October 2, 1969.

[13] The Daily Princetonian (Princeton, NJ), April 20, 1972. https://papersofprinceton.princeton.edu/princetonperiodicals/cgi-bin/imageserver.pl?oid=Princetonian19 720420-01&getpdf=true.

[14] Isserman, Maurice, and Michael Kazin. America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Misjudging Adolf Hitler

Misjudging Adolf Hitler

Alan Singer, Janice Chopyk, and Debra Willett

The 21st century has witnessed a resurgence in authoritarian and potentially fascist movements in many parts of the world including in the United States. As a result of Congressional hearings and judicial action we know that armed militias like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers were active participants in the January 6, 2021 assault on the United States Capitol Building. They wanted to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election and threatened to murder the Vice-President of the United States. Commentators like Madeleine Albright (2018) and Timothy Snyder (2017; 2018) make the point that Fascists pretend to respond to public sentiment and populist movements, but that is really just a strategy to achieve power by stirring popular discontent, resentment and fear to undermine democratic institutions. Snyder believes that in the twenty-first century, the gravest threat to democracy is virulent nationalist populism and sees the potential for the rise of authoritarianism in the United States as a response to a real or perceived danger. He quotes Hannah Arendt, who wrote that after the Reichstag fire in Germany, “I was no longer of the opinion that one can simply be a bystander” (Snyder, 2017: 110; Arendt, 2003: 6). Arendt’s statement highlights the need for an activist component in civics education as well as a deeper understanding of how fascists came to power in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. During that period in the west many commentators misjudged the threat of fascism to world peace. Snyder and Albright call for promoting active citizenship and resistance against tyranny by educators committed to democracy and liberty, important goals in the National Council for the Social Studies College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards.

Adolf Hitler was born in 1889 to a German speaking family in a region that was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and later became part of Austria. He did not become an actual German citizen until February 1932. In 1913, Hitler moved from Vienna in Austria to Munich in Germany and with the outbreak of World War I he enlisted in the German Army. In the army Hitler rose to the rank of corporal and received the Iron Cross for service on the Western Front. Just before an armistice was signed in November 1918, Hitler was temporarily blinded and hospitalized following a British gas attack on German troops in occupied Belgium.

While still in the army, Hitler became part of the military’s propaganda department, and was assigned to speak to troops promoting nationalism and anti-Socialism. He also joined an anti-communist, anti-Semitic right wing political party. Under Hitler’s direction the party changed its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party or Nazi Party and in 1921 Hitler became its official leader. In 1923, Hitler participated in the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch that tried to take over the government of the German state of Bavaria. He was captured, convicted of treason, and spent nine months in prison where he wrote Mein Kampf (My Struggle), a manifesto of Nazi ideology. In a September 1930 election, the Nazi Party increased its representation in the German parliament, the Reichstag, from 14 to 107 seats, making Hitler the leader of the second largest party in Germany. In January 1933, with the Nazis Party holding a third of the seats in parliament, Adolf Hitler became chancellor, or Prime Minister, of a coalition government. Once in office, Hitler quickly moved to ban all opposition and in July 1934 he proclaimed himself “Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.”

Dorothy Thompson of the United States and Gareth Jones of Wales were two of the earliest western reporters to meet with and speak to Adolf Hitler. In their reports, they misjudged his threat to democracy, world peace, and human rights in their reporting. In 1931, the Nazi Party invited Thompson to interview Hitler for Cosmopolitan magazine and in 1932, Thompson republished the interview as part of a book, I Saw Hitler! (New York: Farrar & Rinehart). Much of the article and book are dismissive of Hitler as a person. Thompson described him as a man of “startling insignificance,” “inconsequent and voluble,” and “the very prototype of the Little Man” (13-14). She characterized the interview with Hitler as “difficult, because one cannot carry on a conversation with Adolf Hitler. He speaks always as though he were addressing a mass meeting . . . a hysterical note creeps into his voice, which rises sometimes almost to a scream. He gives the impression of a man in a trance” (16).

Hitler, not surprisingly, was offended by his depiction in the Cosmopolitan article and Thompson was forced to leave Germany. In the foreword to the book, Thompson wrote. “My offense was to think that Hitler was just an ordinary man, after all. That is a crime in the reigning cult in Germany, which says Mr. Hitler is a Messiah sent by God to save the German people” (v). To her credit, Thompson later became an anti-Nazi activist in the United States, denouncing fascism in public addresses, her magazine and newspaper columns, and on radio broadcasts.

In a February 1933 article for The Western Mail & South Wales News, Gareth Jones described his meeting with Adolf Hitler during a shared airplane ride. Jones, like Thompson, was not initially impressed with Hitler, writing “When his car arrived on the airfield about half an hour ago and he stepped out, a slight figure in a shapeless black hat, wearing a light mackintosh, and when he raised his arm flabbily to greet those who had assembled to see him, I was mystified. How had this ordinary-looking man succeeded in becoming deified by fourteen million people?” Later on the flight, Jones discovered what he considered the other Hitler and reevaluated him. “Hitler steps out of the aeroplane. But he is now a man spiritually transformed. His eyes have a certain fixed purpose. Here is a different Hitler. There are two Hitlers – the natural boyish Hitler, and the Hitler who is inspired by tremendous national force, a great Hitler. It is the second Hitler who has stirred Germany to an awakening.” Jones had just completed a tour of the famine-ravished Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, and viewed Hitler and Germany positively in comparison.

The West’s uncertainty about Hitler’s threat to world peace comes across in Time magazine’s selection of him as its 1938 “Man of the Year.” It conveyed a sense that Americans should be impressed by the figure of Adolf Hitler as he strides “over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror.” Hitler, in five years, “lifted the nation from post-War defeatism” and transformed it into “one of the great military powers of the world today.” Time editors considered Nazi rule in Germany “no ordinary dictatorship, but rather one of great energy and magnificent planning.” The article was published in January 1939, eight months before Germany invaded Poland igniting World War II.

In November 1938, during a parliamentary debate, future British Prime Minister Winston Churchill stated: “I have always said that if Great Britain were defeated in war I hoped we should find a Hitler to lead us back to our rightful position among the nations . . . Hitler is Fuehrer because he exemplifies and enshrines the will of Germany.” As closure for lessons on the rise to power of fascists in Europe on the 1920s and 1930s, students should discuss why Churchill, Jones, Time magazine, and Thompson, at least initially, seemed to misunderstand and minimized Hitler’s threat to democracy in Germany and world peace.

References

Albright, M. 2018. Fascism: A Warning. New York: HarperCollins.

Arendt, H. 2003. The Portable Hannah Arendt. New York: Penguin Books.

Snyder, T. 2017. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York: Penguin.

Snyder, T. 2018. The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. New York: Penguin.

Online sources for this article include: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/hitlers-rise-and-fall-timeline


Document 1: “I Saw Hitler!” by Dorothy Thompson (Farrar & Rinehart, 1932) (Excerpts)

Instructions: Dorothy Thompson interviewed Adolf Hitler in 1931 for an article in Cosmopolitan magazine. Read excerpts A, B, C and D and answer questions 1 – 3. (Note: Hitler spelled his first name Adolf. Thompson wrote his name as Adolph in the magazine and book.)

A. “When finally I walked into Adolph Hitler’s salon in the Kaiserhof Hotel, I was convinced that I was meeting the future dictator of Germany. In something less than fifty seconds I was quite sure that I was not. It took just about that time to measure the startling insignificance of this man who has set the world agog. He is formless, almost faceless, a man whose countenance is a caricature, a man whose framework seems cartilaginous, without bones. He is inconsequent and voluble, ill-poised, insecure. He is the very prototype of the Little Man. A lock of lank hair falls over an insignificant and slightly retreating forehead. The back head is shallow. The face is broad in the cheek-bones. The nose is large, but badly shaped and without character. His movements are awkward, almost undignified and most un-martial. There is in his face no trace of any inner conflict or self-discipline” (13-14).   B. “And yet, he is not without a certain charm. But it is the soft, almost feminine charm of the Austrian! When he talks it is with a broad Austrian dialect. The eyes alone are notable. Dark gray and hyperthyroid—they have the peculiar shine which often distinguishes geniuses, alcoholics, and hysterics. There is something irritatingly refined about him. I bet he crooks his little finger when he drinks a cup of tea. His is an actor’s face. Capable of being pushed out or in, expanded or contracted at will, in order to register facile emotions” (14).   C. “The interview was difficult, because one cannot carry on a conversation with Adolph Hitler. He speaks always, as though he were addressing a mass meeting. In personal intercourse he is shy, almost embarrassed. In every question he seeks for a theme that will set him off. Then his eyes focus in some far corner of the room; a hysterical note creeps into his voice which rises sometimes almost to a scream. He gives the impression of a man in a trance. He bangs the table. ‘Not yet is the whole working class with us…we need a new spirit…Marxism has undermined the masses…rebirth in a new ideology…not workers, not employers, not socialists, not Catholics…But Germans!’ This, in answer to the question: What will you do for the working masses when you come to power?” (16-17)   D. “It is an important question. Millions of Germans follow Hitler because he has proclaimed war upon the banks, upon the trusts, upon “loan-capital.” He has asserted time and time again that he will abolish the rule of one class by another. What actually do these statements mean, in terms of practical politics? I couldn’t find out, and anyone who can is a better interviewer than I. When I dared to interrupt the stream of eloquence by bluntly repeating my question, he replied (rather coyly) that he didn’t intend to hand his program over to his enemies (the German Chancellor) for them to ‘steal’” (17).  

Questions:

  1. What was Thompson’s initial reaction to Adolf Hitler?
  2. Why does Thompson describe the interview as difficult?
  3. In your view, why would Adolf Hitler be annoyed or angry at his portrayal by Thompson?
  4. In your view, based on these excerpts and your knowledge of German history between World War I and World War II, should Thompson have issued a warning about the Adolf Hitler? Explain.

Document 2. “A Welshman Looks At Europe, With Hitler Across Germany” by Gareth Jones (Excerpts), The Western Mail And South Wales News, February 28, 1933

Instructions: Gareth Jones met Adolf Hitler in February 1933 a month after Hitler became German Chancellor. Read excerpts A, B and C and answer questions 1 – 3.

A. “If this aeroplane should crash then the whole history of Europe would be changed. For a few feet away sits Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Germany and leader of the most volcanic nationalist awakening which the world has seen. Six thousand feet beneath us, hidden by a sea of rolling white clouds, is the land which he has roused to a frenzy. We are rushing along at a speed of 142 miles per hour from Berlin to Frankfurt-on-Main, where Hitler is to begin his lightning election campaign. The occupants of the aeroplane are, indeed, a mass of human dynamite. I can see Hitler studying the map and then reading a number of blue reports. He does not look impressive. When his car arrived on the airfield about half an hour ago and he stepped out, a slight figure in a shapeless black hat, wearing a light mackintosh, and when he raised his arm flabbily to greet those who had assembled to see him, I was mystified.”    B. “How had this ordinary-looking man succeeded in becoming deified by fourteen million people? He was more natural and less of a poseur than I had expected; there was something boyish about him as he saw a new motor-car and immediately displayed a great interest in it. He shook hands with the Nazi chief and with those others of us who were to fly with him in the famous “Richthofen,” the fastest and most powerful three-motored aeroplane in Germany.  His handshake was firm, but his large, outstanding eyes seemed emotionless as he greeted me. Standing around in the snow were members of his bodyguard in their black uniform with silver brocade. On their hats there is a silver skull and crossbones, the cavities of the eyes in the skull being bright red.”    C. “We are now descending, however. Frankfurt is beneath us. A crowd is gathered below. Thousands of faces look up at us. We make a smooth landing. Nazi leaders, some in brown, some in black and silver, all with a red swastika arm-band, await their chief. Hitler steps out of the aeroplane. But he is now a man spiritually transformed. His eyes have a certain fixed purpose. Here is a different Hitler. There are two Hitlers – the natural boyish Hitler, and the Hitler who is inspired by tremendous national force, a great Hitler. It is the second Hitler who has stirred Germany to an awakening.”  

Questions

  1. What was Jones’ initial reaction to Adolf Hitler?
  2. Why does Jones decide there are two Hitlers?
  3. In your view, based on these excerpts and your knowledge of German history between World War I and World War II, should Jones have issued a warning about the second Hitler? Explain.

Document 3. Time Magazine’s Man of the Year (1938), January 2, 1939 (Excerpt)

Instructions: For it’s January, 1939 edition, Time magazine selected Adolf Hitler as its 1938 “Man of the Year. “Read excerpts A and B and answer questions 1 – 3.

A. Adolf Hitler without doubt became 1938’s Man of the Year . . . [T]he figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror . . . Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today . . . Rant as he might against the machinations of international Communism and international Jewry, or rave as he would that he was just a Pan-German trying to get all the Germans back in one nation, Fuehrer Hitler had himself become the world’s No. 1 International Revolutionist.   B. That the German people love uniforms, parades, military formations, and submit easily to authority is no secret . . . What Adolph Hitler & Co. did to Germany in less than six years was applauded wildly and ecstatically by most Germans. He lifted the nation from post-War defeatism. Under the swastika Germany was unified. His was no ordinary dictatorship, but rather one of great energy and magnificent planning . . . Germany has become a nation of uniforms, goose-stepping to Hitler’s tune, where boys of ten are taught to throw hand grenades, where women are regarded as breeding machines. In five years under the Man of 1938, regimented Germany had made itself one of the great military powers of the world today.  

Questions:

  1. According to this article, what are the key achievements of Adolf Hitler?
  2. Based on these achievements, do you think Hitler merited selection as “Man of the Year“? Explain.
  3. Write a Letter-to-the-Editor of Time explaining your point of view.

Why Should War Criminals Operate with Impunity?

Why Should War Criminals Operate with Impunity?

Lawrence Wittner

(Republished from History News Network)

The issue of alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine highlights the decades-long reluctance of today’s major military powers to support the International Criminal Court. In 1998, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established by an international treaty, the Rome Statute. Coming into force in 2002 and with 123 nations now parties to it, the treaty provides the ICC, headquartered at the Hague, may investigate and prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. As a court of last resort, the ICC may only initiate proceedings when a country is unwilling or unable to take such action against its nationals or anyone else on its territory. In addition, although the ICC is authorized to initiate investigations anywhere, it may only try nationals or residents of nations that are parties to the treaty, unless it is authorized to investigate by the nation where the crimes occurred.

The development of a permanent international court dealing with severe violations of human rights has already produced some important results. Thirty-one criminal cases have been brought before the ICC, resulting, thus far, in ten convictions and four acquittals. The first ICC conviction occurred in 2012, when a Congolese warlord was found guilty of using conscripted child soldiers in his nation. In 2020, the ICC began trying a former Islamist militant alleged to have forced hundreds of women into sexual slavery in Mali. This April, the ICC opened the trial of a militia leader charged with 31 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur, Sudan. Parliamentarians from around the world have lauded “the ICC’s pivotal role in the prevention of atrocities, the fight against impunity, the support for victims’ rights, and the guarantee of long-lasting justice.”

Despite these advances, the ICC faces some serious problems. Often years after criminal transgressions, it must locate the criminals and people willing to testify in their cases. Furthermore, lacking a police force, it is forced to rely upon national governments, some with a minimal commitment to justice, to capture and deport suspected criminals for trial. Governments also occasionally withdrew from the ICC, when angered, as the Philippines did after its president, Rodrigo Duterte, came under investigation.

The ICC’s most serious problem, however, is that 70 nations, including the world’s major military powers, have refused to become parties to the treaty. The governments of China, India, and Saudi Arabia never signed the Rome Statute. Although the governments of the United States, Russia, and Israel did sign it, they never ratified it. Subsequently, in fact, they withdrew their signatures. 

The motive for these holdouts is clear enough. In 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the withdrawal of his nation from the process of joining the ICC. This action occurred in response to the ICC ruling that Russia’s seizure of Crimea amounted to an “ongoing occupation.” Such a position, said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, “contradicts reality” and the Russian foreign ministry dismissed the court as “one-sided and inefficient.” Understandably, governments harboring current and future war criminals would rather not face investigations and possible prosecutions.

The skittishness of the U.S. government toward the ICC is illustrative. Even as he signed the treaty, President Bill Clinton cited “concerns about significant flaws” in it, notably the inability to “protect US officials from unfounded charges.” Thus, he did not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification and recommended that his successor, George W. Bush, continue this policy “until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.” Bush, in turn, “unsigned” the treaty in 2002, pressured other governments into bilateral agreements that required them to refuse surrender of U.S. nationals to the ICC, and signed the American Servicemembers Protection Act (sometimes called the “Hague Invasion Act”), which authorized the use of military force to liberate any American being held by the ICC. 

Although subsequently the Bush and Obama administrations grew more cooperative with the court, aiding it in the prosecution of African warlords, the Trump administration adopted the most hostile stance toward it yet. In September 2018, Donald Trump told the UN General Assembly that the United States would provide “no support” to the ICC, which had “no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority.” In 2020, the Trump administration imposed economic sanctions and visa restrictions on top ICC officials for any efforts to investigate the actions of U.S. personnel in Afghanistan.

Under the Biden administration, however, U.S. policy swung back toward support. Soon after taking office, Biden—in line with his more welcoming approach to international institutions ― dropped the Trump sanctions against ICC officials. Then, in March 2022, when the Russian invasion of Ukraine produced widely reported atrocities in the Ukrainian town of Bucha, the U.S. president labeled Putin a “war criminal” and called for a “war crimes trial.”

The ICC was the obvious institution for action. That March, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution backing an investigation into Russian war crimes in Ukraine and praising the ICC. Weeks before this, in fact, the ICC did open an investigation.

Even so, it is unclear what the U.S. government can or is willing to do to aid the ICC in Ukraine. After all, U.S. legislation, still on the books, bars substantial U.S. assistance to the ICC. Also, Pentagon officials are reportedly opposed to action, based on the U.S. government’s long-time fear that U.S. troops might some day be prosecuted for war crimes.

For their part, Russian officials have claimed that the widely-recognized atrocities were a complete “fake,” a “fabrication,” and a “provocation.” In Bucha, stated the Russian defense ministry, “not a single local resident has suffered from any violent action.” Not surprisingly, Russian authorities have refused to cooperate with the ICC investigation.

Isn’t it time for the major military powers to give up the notion that their war criminals should be allowed to operate with impunity? Isn’t it time these countries joined the ICC?