Education, Social Studies, History, Civics, Current Issues

Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Association

Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Association

Brandon Lopez

Cesar Chavez, a Mexican American, is the president of the National Farm Workers Association, an organization of farm workers fighting for more benefits and equality. Cesar Chavez’s goals for his fellow farm workers were to create a Union, an insurance program for farm workers, higher wages and contracts for farm workers, and equality. Cesar Chavez’s historic strike, the Delano Grape Strike, is one of the many strikes he takes pride in for expressing his unwavering conviction that he is on the right side of history and that the violence and humiliation that the growers are showing towards the workers will only fuel them more with conviction and determination to strike until they receive the benefit they are entitled to because of their hard work. Thousands of supporters helped Cesar Chavez in their fight for unionizing by participating in strikes, boycotting the companies’ products, and much more. This constant fight for equality painted a bad image for the company. The companies were both Schenley Industries and the DiGiorgio Corporation. This nonviolent approach and fight for equality was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who also had peaceful protests. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the many prominent figures throughout Cesar Chavez’s career who supported Cesar Chavez and was able to inspire him to take a peaceful approach in order to achieve his goals for these strikes, which are being able to Unionize insurance programs to better benefits for farm workers.

This research dives into the challenges and struggles Cesar Chavez, and the National Farm Workers Association faced as they tirelessly worked to achieve fundamental rights and improved working conditions for marginalized and exploited farm laborers by shedding light on the strategies used by Cesar Chavez and his National Farm Workers Association in their fight against the obstacles standing in the way of their equality. Cesar Chavez’s legacy as a labor leader and civil rights activist is a testament to how hard he fought in the face of adversity.

Cesar Chavez was influenced by his own experiences in a migrant farm-working family, he then decided to face the injustices prevalent in his community. Working under Fred Ross Jr. Cesar Chavez learned about the rights of Hispanic, specifically Mexican, farmworkers and was empowered by his community and the injustices to fight against discrimination. Cesar Chavez’s journey in building a labor movement, started with grassroots efforts in his community. Challenges such as fear of reprisal and deportation scared and made people reject Cesar Chavez, Cesar Chavez successfully recruited supporters, including religious figures and community organizers. The lack of unity and coordination within the United Farm Workers is also an obstacle the organization had to overcome, as well as the violence and intimidation faced by supporters from anti-union groups. Cesar Chavez’s goals included creating a union, insurance programs, higher wages, and contracts for farmworkers to improve their living conditions. The success of the United Farm Workers is thanks to various strategies, including boycotts, strikes, and protests, which pressured large companies like Di Giorgio to negotiate with Cesar Chavez and the organization. Cesar Chavez’s leadership and organizational skills, played an important role in advancing the cause for farmworker justice.

Through the movement Cesar Chavez was supported by a diverse group of people. It highlights Cesar Chavez’s ability to connect with various groups, such as the Mexican Pentecostal church, religious leaders, college students, and workers from different ethnic backgrounds such as Mexican Americans, Filipinos, and Puerto Ricans. The Mexican Pentecostal community provided moral and financial support, while college students actively participated in protests, strikes, and fundraising efforts. The teamwork among different ethnic groups in the civil rights movement, notably influenced by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., contributed to the movement’s strength. Despite facing hardships and sacrifices, the labor movement achieved its goals, in succeeding in getting contracts with major growing companies and paving the way for the Agricultural Labor Relations Act to govern farm workers’ rights and union activities. Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers faced hardships and challenges in their mission to better the rights and working conditions of farm laborers, facing industry resistance, violent opposition, and internal struggles. Despite the obstacles faced, Cesar Chavez’s strategic approach, marked by nonviolent protests, strikes, and boycotts, garnered crucial attention and support for the movement. The community, including Mexican Americans, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, college students, and religious leaders, emerged as a pivotal force in achieving the movement’s goals. Cesar Chavez’s dedication, inspired by personal experiences and the struggles of farm workers, led to the success of the United Farm Workers.

This article provides a summary of Cesar Chavez’s activism, the challenges faced by the National Farm Workers Association, and the broader labor movement in the southwest. Some reasons why Cesar Chavez should be taught in school is because it sheds light on the historical context of the labor movement in the southwest, providing students with insights into the challenges faced by marginalized and exploited farm laborers during that time. Cesar Chavez’s connection with the civil rights movement, particularly his inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., offers an opportunity to explore the different social justice movements during the 20th century. Students can also analyze how Cesar Chavez adapted nonviolent protest strategies from the civil rights movement to advocate for the rights of farm workers. Students can learn about the challenges and criticisms faced by Chavez and analyze how he overcame them to achieve the goals of the United Farm Workers. Highlighting the diverse support of the labor movement, showing the unity between different ethnic groups, religious communities, and college students. Students can explore how diverse communities came together to support a common cause and the role of solidarity in achieving social justice goals. By incorporating this article into the classroom, teachers can help provide a diverse perspective about social justice, labor rights, leadership, and the unity of historical movements. It encourages critical thinking, analysis of historical events, and reflection on the ongoing struggles for equality and justice.

Forgotten Trails: Unmasking the Legacy of Native American Removal and its Contemporary Implications

Forgotten Trails: Unmasking the Legacy of Native American Removal and Its Contemporary Implications

Rachel Burnett

Once, in the vast and untamed lands of what is now known as the United States, there thrived a multitude of Native American communities. These diverse and vibrant nations had cultivated rich cultures, deep-rooted traditions, and an intricate understanding of their surroundings. However, as the 19th century unfolded, a dark cloud loomed over these indigenous peoples. In the late 19th century, following a series of conflicts and broken treaties, Native American communities faced forced complete removal from their ancestral lands. The government policies aimed at assimilation and expansion systematically uprooted these communities, displacing them from their homes and severing their ties to their traditions and in 1890, a turning point occurred in Native American history with the forced removal of their communities from their ancestral lands. This displacement was not merely an isolated event but rather part of a broader pattern of marginalization that had persisted for centuries and continues to persist. Yet, despite its undeniable significance, this chapter of American history has largely been forgotten or intentionally overlooked.

The historical marginalization and lack of mainstream attention to the forced removal of Native American communities in U.S. history after 1890 has had profound effects on their social, economic, and political development in contemporary society. This study aims to explore how this neglect and amnesia surrounding the forced removals have contributed to ongoing disparities, underrepresentation, and challenges faced by Native Americans. By relegating this significant chapter of American history to obscurity, society unintentionally perpetuates the cycle of neglect and underrepresentation experienced by Native Americans. The absence of acknowledgment and understanding of the removal policies and their consequences has hindered the recognition of indigenous rights, cultural contributions, and the unique challenges faced by these communities. This research seeks to shed light on this historical oversight and highlight its implications for present-day disparities within Native American communities. By recognizing the impact of historical marginalization, it becomes possible to address current challenges effectively and foster development within these marginalized communities. Through an exploration of relevant literature, primary sources, and historiography, this research will provide a comprehensive understanding of how historical amnesia has shaped the experiences of Native Americans today. By uncovering the underlying causes of ongoing disparities, underrepresentation, and challenges they face, this study aims to contribute to broader efforts towards achieving equity and justice for Native American populations.

The study of the removal of Native Americans after 1890 has long been approached from various perspectives, often reflecting prevailing societal attitudes and biases. Traditional approaches to this topic have tended to focus on a few main ideas namely the notion that Native Americans desired urbanization and the belief that non-Native Americans were providing assistance in their transition. One common argument put forth by traditional studies is that Native Americans willingly sought relocation to urban areas. Proponents of this perspective suggest that indigenous communities recognized the benefits of modernity and sought opportunities for economic advancement through urbanization
Another idea frequently emphasized in traditional approaches is the assumption that Native Americans were uneducated or culturally deficient compared to non-Native Americans. This perspective suggests that native cultures were inherently inferior and needed intervention from more advanced societies to progress. Consequently, it portrays non-Native American efforts as benevolent attempts to elevate indigenous populations through education, religious conversion, and exposure to Western technologies. In these traditional interpretations, non-Native American involvement was often depicted as an act of assistance rather than forced displacement. Advocates argue that government policies such as the Dawes Act of 1887 aimed at breaking up tribal landholdings into individual allotments were well-intentioned steps toward promoting private property ownership among Native Americans. Similarly, boarding schools designed to eradicate indigenous languages and cultural practices were presented as educational endeavors meant to “civilize” Native American children.

Lastly, the final common approach seen with the study of Native Americans on a broader scale is that Native American history stopped after 1890. Traditional approaches to the study of Native Americans have often treated Native American history as if it came to a standstill after the infamous Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, perpetuating a skewed and incomplete narrative. This historical tunnel vision neglects the rich and complex tapestry of Native American experiences and contributions beyond that point. It wrongly reinforces the notion that Native Americans exist solely in a historical context, overlooking their vibrant and evolving cultures, traditions, and communities. This approach inadvertently marginalizes contemporary Native voices and their ongoing struggles, creating an inaccurate portrayal of their identity and relevance in modern America.

Overall, the approaches described, in addition to the obvious are problematic because they contribute to historical amnesia surrounding the removal of Native Americans by perpetuating a narrative that downplays the systemic injustices and challenges faced by Native communities during the process of urbanization and relocation. These traditional approaches tend to obscure the agency and resistance of Native Americans, portraying them as passive actors who willingly embraced modernity and external intervention. By emphasizing the supposed benefits of urbanization and the alleged cultural deficiencies of Native cultures, these narratives silence the historical reality of forced displacement, loss of land, and the violation of treaties. They fail to acknowledge the broader context of Native American history, including their resilience and efforts to preserve their cultures in the face of relocation and its effects.

With all of these mentioned ideas in mind imagine having your land taken away, your culture suppressed, and your way of life disrupted. This is the harsh reality that Native Americans faced following the tumultuous period of removal and relocation, particularly after 1890. As the dust settled on a nation rapidly expanding westward, it became increasingly clear that indigenous communities were bearing the brunt of this progress. Following this period marked by forced removals and relocations, these indigenous peoples found themselves grappling with an array of disparities that continued to persist long after their displacement. To begin this study, we will delve into the disparities experienced by Native Americans as a consequence of forced removal and relocation policies implemented during the late 19th century.

The late 19th century marked a pivotal period in the history of Native Americans in the United States, a time when government policies and actions began to create enduring disparities within indigenous communities. At the forefront of these policies was the Dawes Act of 1887, legislation with far-reaching consequences. With the aim of assimilating Native Americans into American society, the Dawes Act of 1887 symbolizes significant inequities and unjust policies imposed on them. This legislation had devastating consequences for indigenous groups by removing essential tribal lands necessary for survival, cultural practices, and economic stability under its allotment system. [1]As a result of inadequate inheritance in land resources, many families suffered from economic challenges leading to loss or dispossession over time. Furthermore, traditional languages and customs were interrupted through mandatory enrolment in boarding schools designed to wipe out native identities entirely. Furthermore, the act crippled governance structures within tribes creating complications when advocating their rights among native communities – currently manifesting itself today as disparities experienced daily by native Americans including poverty levels that remain high, lack quality healthcare access and education along with political under-representation all of which are core legacies felt as a result of the Dawes Act.

Continuing, the Dawes Act’s repercussions would later shape the 1950s’ relocation policies. One of its main outcomes was the relinquishment of valuable tribal lands, frequently transferred to non-Native settlers, limiting Native Americans’ entry into their traditional domains. This deprivation contributed significantly to various economic challenges faced by numerous indigenous communities for years afterward. As a result, decreased land ownership resulted in struggling tribal economies that made Native Americans susceptible and prone to hardships. The Dawes Act and the relocation policies in the 1950s both had assimilation as a central concept. The former sought to do so through land ownership while the latter aimed for urbanization, but their underlying goal was similar: making Native Americans conform to mainstream American society’s ideals. This reflected how federal authorities wanted to alter identities and lifestyles within Indigenous communities at that time. Basically, the Dawes Act set the stage for economic fragility and property deprivation which led to some policymakers finding urban relocation policies in the 1950s more desirable. The act’s effects of taking away land from Native Americans and interfering with their customary way of life established a foundation for inequalities and difficulties encountered by these communities. This ultimately made them easier targets for future initiatives focused on promoting urbanization or moving elsewhere during the 1950s.

Moving forward, in the 1950s, Native Americans were coerced into relocating to urban areas in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency and assimilate into mainstream society. Commissioned by Bureau of Indian Affairs commissioner Dillon S. Myer the relocation program was launched with the aim of relocating reservation-based Native Americans to urban environments, providing promises such as educational and occupational opportunities, transportation services, housing provisions and everyday necessities. Although this lured over thirty thousand participants; inadequate funding led to poor execution which left many re-locators facing inferior living conditions coupled with gender-segregated low-level jobs that eventually forced them back home. [2] Despite its shortcomings however it can’t be ignored that some relocated Native Americans thrived in cities securing upward socioeconomic mobility by being pro-active in the process of organizing and establishing themselves. As a result, these Native Americans were able to advocate for better livelihoods on reserves, but this was not a common happening. Ultimately, the 1950’s relocation policies failed to fulfill their objectives as many individuals lacked the necessary skills for city life due to emphasis on quantity over quality during recruitment. Consequently, they experienced racial discrimination and limited job opportunities while residing in low-income neighborhoods despite some meager benefits of relocation that favored those with initial job expertise. [3] This historic instance highlights disparities encountered by Native American communities through government policies that lacked adequate support which would eventually lead them towards developing pan-Indian social institutions amidst harsh living situations. These occurrences are consistent with the historical experiences of Native Americans within urban environments illustrating the overlooked complexities faced historically across the developmental stages of these regions.

Furthermore, after the failure of the relocation act and the increasing issues it caused in its attempt to force urbanization on to Native Americans the disparities they faced as result only increased. After the relocation act of the 1950’s, the 1960’s brought new hope to the Native Americans with the emergence of the Civil Rights movement. Despite the promises of social and political change during the Civil Rights era, Native American communities continued to face significant challenges. The termination policy, which aimed to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream society, led to the loss of tribal sovereignty and the dispossession of lands. This policy resulted in economic instability and the erosion of traditional cultural practices. Additionally, the forced relocation of many Native American families from reservations to urban areas disrupted their social fabric and often led to poverty and social marginalization. These challenges and the disparities faced by Native Americans would cease to end even as changes came about for other minority groups this is evident by the “Longest Walk” protest. In the 1970s, Native American activists staged a protest in Washington D.C. called the “Longest Walk,” which brought to light the longstanding disparities faced by their communities. These inequalities were largely impacted by governmental policies and legislation that threatened fundamental rights such as land ownership, access to water and fishing resources, treaty alteration or elimination of reservation systems. These protesters understood that these legal provisions weren’t just mere abstractions but intricately woven into cultural identity and economic sustenance for indigenous people’s survival.[4] Even though this was a peaceful demonstration it highlighted many unaddressed issues inherent with historical wrongdoings towards Indigenous peoples. This event serves as evidence of an ongoing struggle against oppression where multifaceted disparities continue to exist related not only within educational attainment gaps but also unequal healthcare opportunities due mainly because race-based discrimination persists even today. Additionally, the fact that such legislative proposals were considered as late as the 1970s emphasizes that even in modern times, Native Americans grapple with legislative threats that have the potential to perpetuate their marginalization, illustrating that these disparities remain relevant and pressing issues in the present day.

The disparities outlined in this section strongly demonstrate how the neglect and historical amnesia surrounding the forced removals have played a pivotal role in perpetuating the ongoing challenges faced by Native Americans. The Dawes Act of 1887 and the 1950s relocation policies, both driven by the goal of assimilation into mainstream American society, inflicted lasting damage on indigenous communities. These policies resulted in the loss of tribal lands, economic instability, cultural erosion, and social marginalization, creating a foundation of inequality that continues to shape Native American experiences. The subsequent civil rights era did not bring significant relief, as termination policies persisted, further undermining tribal sovereignty and land ownership. The “Longest Walk” protest of the 1970s highlighted the enduring disparities related to land, resources, and cultural identity that continue to plague Native communities. These historical injustices, neglected for so long, have left a lasting imprint, contributing to the disparities in education, healthcare, and political representation still experienced by Native Americans today, underscoring the argument that acknowledging and addressing this historical legacy is crucial to addressing these ongoing challenges.

Moving forward, in the previous section, we delved into the significant disparities that Native Americans experience across various domains, including healthcare, education, and socioeconomic status. However, it is important to recognize that these disparities are not isolated incidents but rather part of a larger pattern of underrepresentation faced by Native Americans in contemporary society. This section aims to shed light on this critical issue and explore how Native Americans continue to be marginalized and overlooked within systems that shape their lives. By examining the various aspects of underrepresentation, such as inadequate political representation, limited media visibility, and exclusion from decision-making processes, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted challenges faced by Native American communities today. Through an analysis of these underrepresented perspectives, we can contribute to ongoing efforts towards achieving greater equity and inclusivity for all individuals in our diverse society including the Native Americans.

To start off, the history of Native Americans has suffered from a consistent pattern of marginalization and misrepresentation in dominant societal narratives. This regrettable circumstance has resulted in many prevalent misunderstandings, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps when it comes to essential aspects related to the rich cultural heritage that defines each tribe’s unique traditions and experiences. Furthermore, this persistent systemic under-representation issue is not limited only to these crucial historical elements but also encompasses an immediate threat regarding indigenous languages’ endangered status along with their respective rituals or customary practices. Consequently, there exists a critical risk linked with the disappearing traditional elements integral towards forming Native identity amidst modern times – making preservation efforts necessary for combating culture erasure as well as safeguarding ancient customs vital toward uniquely defining those who still maintain them today. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that the underrepresentation of Native Americans in modern discourse and media coverage not only pertains to historical injustices but also extends towards contemporary challenges faced by Indigenous communities. These adversities encompass issues such as poverty, healthcare disparities, and political obstacles which are oftentimes disregarded or downplayed within public discussions. The failure to adequately report on these matters impedes progress towards enacting effective policy changes and support systems for Native American peoples who continue to suffer from systemic marginalization.

An emblematic example of this broader issue of Native American underrepresentation in the United States is found in an examination of the lack of acknowledgement of Native American communities within the state by the state of Pennsylvania. The historical denial of the existence of Native Americans in Pennsylvania serves as a noteworthy example of underrepresentation perpetuated by public institutions. This denial results in Native American communities not receiving official recognition or acknowledgment, therefore rendering them largely invisible within the state’s records and narratives. The absence of official status places these groups at a disadvantage – lacking legal rights, resources and opportunities that come with full acknowledgement. Moreover, this lack further contributes to their underrepresentation. Denying their cultural contributions creates an even greater disconnection from history, amplifying this invisibility throughout public awareness about Pennsylvania’s past[5]. Furthermore, it is distressing to recount how societal pressure forced many members of Native American tribes in Pennsylvania into concealing ancestry leading towards the erasure of cultural identity – ultimately creating another form of ongoing-under-representation for Native Americans.

Moving forward, we will be focusing primarily on the political underrepresentation of the Native Americans. However, it is important to understand that the underrepresentation of Native Americans is a multifaceted issue that transcends the and extends deep into various aspects of American society. While the lack of political representation is a significant concern, it is important to note that it is just one facet of a broader pattern of systemic inequity and marginalization that Native American communities grapple with. Recognizing that underrepresentation is not confined solely to the political arena, is crucial to adopt a thorough approach that addresses these interconnected issues.

Continuing on, the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a time of significant political transformation for the United States. As the nation grappled with industrialization, urbanization, and the expansion of democratic ideals, various marginalized groups strove to gain representation within the political arena. However, one group that often remains overlooked in this narrative is Native Americans. Despite their rich cultural heritage deeply intertwined with the American landscape, Native Americans found themselves systematically excluded from meaningful participation in the political process. Continuing into this section we will dive into an examination of how Native Americans experienced political underrepresentation during this crucial period. By shedding light on this lesser-known aspect of American history, we can better understand the complexities surrounding democracy’s development and confront enduring issues related to Indigenous rights and representation.

To truly gain and understand the development of the intense political underrepresentation of Native Americans we have to take step back in time, particular to the year 1878 when the Washington Constitutional Convention would convene. The Washington Constitutional Convention of 1878 stands as a pivotal moment in American history, particularly concerning the political underrepresentation of Native Americans. Held during a time when the nation was grappling with issues of equality and inclusion, this convention shed light on the deep-rooted injustices faced by indigenous communities. The proceedings not only highlighted the systemic marginalization of Native Americans but also sparked conversations that would shape future legislation and advocacy efforts aimed at rectifying these longstanding disparities. During this era, Native Americans across the United States were consistently denied their basic rights to political participation. Discriminatory policies and practices had effectively silenced their voices and hindered their ability to influence decisions that directly impacted their lives. This disenfranchisement was acutely felt in Washington state, where tribal nations faced numerous challenges in asserting their political power.

At the convention, the creators of Washington State’s Constitution made significant choices that directly impacted Native American involvement in politics and representation. One such choice was excluding non-citizens from voting, which affected many Natives as their tribal affiliations rendered them ineligible for citizenship. This exclusion prevented a large portion of Native Americans from participating until 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed. Furthermore, although there were Indigenous representatives present at this meeting, they did not have any power to vote which resulted in inadequately considering native perspectives during constitution drafting – leading to underrepresentation within political processes across the state. In addition, the 1878 constitution confirmed Washington’s indigenous tribes’ limited sovereignty by placing them under strict jurisdiction where self-governance could be undermined. Additionally, voting restrictions imposed disproportionate property requirements on natives impeding fair opportunities towards meaningful participation or political representation. [6] Notably, these decisions continue impacting today’s policies & governance locally with these communities still facing challenges asserting rightful political rights while maintaining sufficient influence over local affairs.

Furthermore, after the convention in 1878, a significant period of political underrepresentation was set off in the United States. This era was characterized by a combination of legal, cultural, and socio-political factors that marginalized Native American voices in the national political landscape. As mentioned previously, after the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, Native American lands were dramatically reduced through allotment, often leading to the loss of tribal communal ownership and self-governance. The imposition of citizenship and land ownership requirements for voting further disenfranchised Native Americans, as many were deemed unfit to vote due to their tribal affiliations or lack of individual property. For example, various state constitutions, such as North Dakota’s in 1889, introduced clauses demanding that Native Americans sever tribal ties to be eligible to vote. This effectively disconnected them from their tribal communities and cultural identities. Not only did this impact their involvement in tribal governance, but it also hindered their political representation in state and national politics. Additionally, the federal government’s policies of forced assimilation and the establishment of Indian boarding schools which aimed to eradicate Native cultures and languages also dealt a serious blow to the political representation of Native Americans. This cultural assault hindered Native Americans’ political participation by disconnecting them from their traditional forms of governance and communal decision-making. Native Americans were also not afforded equal opportunities for education and employment, which further in return additionally limited their political influence. [7] Continuing, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 represented a partial shift in federal policy, allowing tribes to reconstitute their governments and regain some measure of self-determination. This brief positive shift after 1934, however, wouldn’t be long lived as it following the trend would be undermined by the shift that would occur in the 1940’s.

The 1940s would mark a critical turning point in Native American policy in the United States, heralding a shift that significantly deepened political underrepresentation of Indigenous peoples. This era was characterized by a series of policy changes and legislative actions that not only neglected the voices and interests of Native American communities but actively marginalized them. During the 1940s, there was a significant transformation in government policies towards Native Americans. These changes led to a reduction of tribal sovereignty and autonomy as the government began considering terminating its responsibilities to these communities[8]. Influential members of Congress advocated for assimilating Native Americans into mainstream society while seeking to shift decision-making authority away from them. Simultaneously, states were pressuring federal authorities to withdraw their obligations regarding indigenous populations. The overarching objective was economic and social rehabilitation; however, such policies often disregarded unique cultural and political needs required by these communities. [9] This era is marked by a pivotal shift in Native American policy that had long-lasting consequences on their political representation and self-determination.

This shift would continue through the 1950’s with the previously mentioned relocation policies put in place. However, as we enter the 1960’s another shift occurs with the emergence of the African American Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Movement brought about a significant change in Native American political representation. Initially aimed at addressing the rights of African Americans, its principles resonated with other marginalized groups such as Native Americans, who also sought equal treatment and non-discrimination. The passing of two legislative acts – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 facilitated greater access to voting for minorities by eliminating discriminatory practices like voter literacy tests and poll taxes that had long plagued native communities. Inspired by these changes, activists emerged from within local tribes seeking self-determination which ultimately led to increased participation in politics resulting in greater engagement on all levels-locally statewide and even federally.

Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to eradicate racial discrimination in voting and grant Native Americans full participation in elections, their communities still faced political underrepresentation due to various challenges. These obstacles encompassed issues such as gerrymandering, voter identification requirements, and limited access to polling places on reservations or rural areas. These circumstances adversely impacted Native American voters’ capacity for exercising their democratic rights effectively. [10] Furthermore, a lack of representation at both state legislatures and federal levels persisted throughout subsequent elections — underscoring an ongoing struggle toward inclusive politics that continues today. Even with advancements made through the Voting Rights Act, these barriers demonstrate how deep-seated inequities continue denying fair political representation for Indigenous peoples across America. A prime example of the continuing political underrepresentation that followed the Voting Rights Act is the campaigns for the election of 1972. The campaigns for the election of 1972 underscore the persistent lack of political representation for Native Americans, even in the aftermath of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It is evident that Native American concerns remained marginalized as both presidential candidates in the 1972 election, George McGovern and Richard Nixon, primarily focused on broader national issues like foreign policy and economic reforms, neglecting specific Native American issues. The campaigns further highlight a historical pattern of unfulfilled promises and pledges of support, further indicating that Native American voices were not adequately heard or represented in the political discourse. Furthermore, Nixon’s decision to reduce the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget by nearly $50 million exemplifies a lack of commitment to addressing the unique challenges and needs of Native American communities. Additionally, the campaigns brought attention to the historical trust-based relationship between the United States and Native Americans, which has often been unfulfilling and marked by neglected promises. [11] Overall, despite the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the political underrepresentation of Native Americans persisted, as demonstrated by the government’s ongoing failure to address their specific concerns and needs as evidenced by the 1972 election campaigns.

Before we bring this study to an end, in order to provide a more comprehensive picture, it is important to acknowledge the rise of movement for Native American rights that began to develop during the end of the time frame discussed here. Serving as a culmination of the enduring disparities and underrepresentation faced by Native Americans for centuries the Red Power Movement developed in the late 1960s and 1970s. Emerging as a response to these long-standing injustices, the movement sought to address issues such as tribal sovereignty, land rights, cultural preservation, and political activism. The Red Power Movement played a crucial role in raising awareness and advocating for the rights of Native Americans in contemporary American society. While it paved the way for significant progress, Indigenous communities continue to grapple with ongoing challenges, including poverty, healthcare disparities, and political obstacles. [12]These disparities persist, emphasizing the need for continued advocacy and change. However, it’s important to note that the comprehensive examination of the Red Power Movement and its contemporary implications lies beyond the scope of this study, which primarily focuses on the historical context and challenges faced by Native Americans during earlier periods.

Ultimately, the underrepresentation both politically and in general detailed in this section intensely shines a light on how the neglect and amnesia surrounding the forced removals of Native Americans have played a significant role in perpetuating the disparities and challenges faced by these communities. The historical narrative reveals how Native Americans have consistently been excluded from meaningful participation in various aspects of American society, including politics, despite their rich cultural heritage and contributions to the nation. This exclusion extends to the denial of basic rights, voting restrictions, and the erosion of tribal sovereignty. Even after legislative efforts like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was aimed at ensuring equal political participation, barriers persisted such as gerrymandering and limited polling access, demonstrating ongoing obstacles to representation. In addition, the focus in the 1972 election campaigns serves as a poignant example of how Native American concerns have been marginalized in national politics. This pattern culminated in the emergence of the Red Power Movement in the late 1960s and 1970s which further pushed the need for advocacy and change in response to deep-rooted disparities. Additionally, this historical underrepresentation and discrimination contribute to the idea that acknowledging and addressing these past injustices and the pattern of underrepresentation are crucial steps toward rectifying the ongoing challenges faced by Native American communities and achieving greater equity and inclusivity.

In conclusion, the involuntary displacement of Native American communities from their traditional lands during the late 19th century and subsequent ignorance about this period in U.S. history have had significant repercussions that still impact Indigenous people today. The marginalization and lack of acknowledgment these occurrences received has contributed to ongoing inequalities, limited representation, and hardships faced by Native Americans and neglecting past injustices has continued a pattern of disregard for indigenous peoples’ rights which perpetuates further neglect and subordination meant toward them.

Furthermore, the research has highlighted that government policies, such as the Dawes Act and relocation policies of the 1950s, had profound and lasting effects on Native American communities. These policies aimed at assimilation and urbanization disrupted traditional ways of life, eroded tribal sovereignty, and contributed to economic instability. The consequences of these policies are high poverty levels with limited access to quality healthcare and education and political underrepresentation which affects Native Americans even today. Moreover, along with these consequences, light is shed on the matter of political underrepresentation faced by Native Americans throughout history. Starting from exclusionary policies adopted at Washington Constitutional Convention in 1878 to harmful transformations in federal policy during the 1940s; Native Americans have been systemically oppressed within political procedures. Continuing, despite having The Voting Rights Act introduced in 1965, hindrances such as gerrymandering, and voter ID requirements still hinder their impact over politics.

Additionally, the research has also highlighted how the underrepresentation of Native Americans extends beyond politics and encompasses various aspects of American society, including education, healthcare, employment, and media representation. Recognizing the impact of historical amnesia and underrepresentation, it becomes clear that addressing current challenges and fostering development within Native American communities is essential. By shedding light on these historical oversights and their implications for present-day disparities, this research aims to contribute to broader efforts toward achieving equity and justice for Native American populations. Acknowledging their rich cultural heritage, enduring resilience, ongoing struggle for rights and representation are crucial steps towards rectifying past injustices while building a more inclusive society equitable for everyone including the Native Americans.

References

Burt, Larry W. “Roots of the Native American Urban Experience: Relocation Policy in the 1950s.” American Indian Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1986): 85–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1183982.

“Dawes Act of 1887.” National Archives Catalog , 2016. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5641587.

Jacobs, Michelle R. Indigenous memory, urban reality stories of American Indian relocation and reclamation. New York: New York University Press, 2023.

Legislative Review 1, no. 12 (1972). https://jstor-org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/community.28145368.

Minderhout, David, and Andrea Frantz. “Invisible Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania.” Human Organization 67, no. 1 (2008): 61–67. http://www.jstor.org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/44127040.

“Resolution Regarding Native Americans Adopted at the Washington Territory Constitutional Convention, July 17, 1878.” University of Washington Libraries. Special Collections Division. ; Washington Territory Records. Accession No. 4284-001, Box 3. Accessed September 26, 2023. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.73849FE4&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Treuer, David. “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present.” Amazon, 2020. https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.

Tyler, S. Lyman. A history of indian policy. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973.

Wolfley, Jeanette. “Jim Crow, Indian Style: The Disenfranchisement of Native Americans.” American Indian Law Review 16, no. 1 (1991): 167–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/20068694. “‘Longest Walk,’ Protest March to Oppose Abrogation of All Native American Treaties and the Genocide of Indian People.” Accessed September 26, 2023. https://jstor.org/stable/community.34557616

[1] “Dawes Act of 1887,” National Archives Catalog , 2016, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5641587.

[2] Larry W. Burt, “Roots of the Native American Urban Experience: Relocation Policy in the 1950s,” American Indian Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1986): 85–99, https://doi.org/10.2307/1183982.

[3] Michelle R. Jacobs, Indigenous Memory, Urban Reality Stories of American Indian Relocation and Reclamation (New York: New York University Press, 2023).

[4] “‘Longest Walk,’ Protest March to Oppose Abrogation of All Native American Treaties and the Genocide of Indian People,” accessed September 26, 2023, https://jstor.org/stable/community.34557616 .

[5] David Minderhout and Andrea Frantz, “Invisible Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania,” Human Organization 67, no. 1 (2008): 61–67, http://www.jstor.org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/44127040.

[6] “Resolution Regarding Native Americans Adopted at the Washington Territory Constitutional Convention, July 17, 1878,” University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections Division, Washington Territory Records, Accession No. 4284-001, Box 3, accessed September 26, 2023.”

[7] S. Lyman Tyler, A History of Indian Policy (Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973).

[8] David Treuer, “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present,” Amazon, 2020, https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.

[9] S. Lyman Tyler, A History of Indian Policy (Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973).

[10] Jeanette Wolfley, “Jim Crow, Indian Style: The Disenfranchisement of Native Americans,” American Indian Law Review 16, no. 1 (1991): 167–202, https://doi.org/10.2307/20068694.

[11] Legislative Review 1, no. 12 (1972), https://jstor-org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/community.28145368.

[12] David Treuer, “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present,” Amazon, 2020, https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.

The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

Norman Markowitz

Rage and confusion over the recent Supreme Court decisions is sweeping the nation. The Roe v. Wade decision (1973) establishing women’s reproductive rights has been repealed. A New York State law prohibiting the carrying of concealed guns, passed in response to escalating shootings and deaths, has been declared unconstitutional. The court has sharply reduced the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, established in 1970. This comes after decades of scientific research showing the dangers of climate change and global warming.

What is the logic behind this? There is a standard used in philosophy which should be applied to the Court’s recent decisions. Statements, or assertions, should be judged by their “validity and reliability.” Are they true statements in terms of logic, reason, and consistency (validity)? Is the evidence (facts, data) used to support the statement true (reliability)? I will use this standard to look at the Court’s rulings.

The Court doctrine of original intent is not valid

The Constitution was a political compromise among merchant capitalists, landlords, slaveholders, creditors, and debtors on a variety of issues — slavery, the payment of debts, and the regulation of trade. It cannot be interpreted like the Jewish Torah, the Christian Gospels, or the Muslim Koran — sacred, unchanging texts. And the Supreme Court has no right to interpret legislation passed by Congress or the directives of the president, since the Constitution did not give the Court the power of judicial review.

However, that power was in effect taken by the Court in 1805 in a brilliant maneuver by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The court has maintained the power of judicial review for over two centuries, often adjusting its interpretations to major changes in society.

The representatives who drafted and approved the Constitution, much less the former colonies/states which ratified it, all rejected the principle of universal suffrage. The leaders of the revolution associated the term “democracy” with mob rule. Property qualifications for voting in federal elections was the established rule. If one took the original intent seriously, the Court would have the power to establish property qualifications for voting, since there is no constitutional amendment abolishing property qualifications for voting, just as there are constitutional amendments abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions are not reliable

When the Constitution was drafted and enacted, English common law defined life as existing when a fetus could be felt moving or kicking in the mother’s womb, called “quickening.” If the mother claimed that the fetus had been aborted before this “quickening,” she was held harmless. Laws banning abortion and contraception, and pamphlets and manuals about both in the mails, were enacted at the state and federal levels in the late 19th century as part of a movement led by the Reverend Anthony Comstock, organizer of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. These laws were part of a backlash against the growing movement for women’s civil rights, equality under the law, and the right to vote. The women’s rights/women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, following in the path of the civil rights/Black liberation movement, led the successful campaign to repeal these laws, which finally resulted in Roe v. Wade, a century after they began to be enacted.

The Court’s decision invalidating a New York state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns is also unreliable. Here the evidence is direct and incontrovertible. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But in English law and in colonial theory and practice, as Joshua Zeitz in an excellent analysis argues, the amendment never meant that all citizens had the right to bear arms. This right “was inextricably connected to the citizen’s obligation to serve in a militia and to protect the community from enemies domestic and foreign.” And “well-regulated militias” meant militias constituted by legitimate authorities, not private groups like the later KKK, Nazi storm troopers, or self-proclaimed state militias.

Zeitz makes the important point that James Madison, a major author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, had earlier drafted legislation in the Virginia legislature barring individuals from openly carrying and displaying guns, like the present New York State law that the Court has declared unconstitutional. The purpose of the amendment was clearly to prevent a government from doing what Britain did in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party: disperse the colonial legislature and its militia and in effect declare martial law. Also, the guns in question fired single “balls,” not bullets, and had very limited range and accuracy. Today’s AR-15 rifles, for example, used in recent mass shootings, have greater fire power and accuracy than the assault rifles used during World War II and the Korean War.

The Supreme Court’s other decisions on the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the right of a school employee to engage in religious action, are neither valid in their relationship to the Constitution nor reliable in regard to their factual assertions. They are a repudiation of more than a century of law and policy of the federal regulation of industry and the post–Civil War 14th Amendment defending the civil rights and liberties of citizens from their infringement and/or denial by the states.

The revival of “original intent”

The Supreme Court and the judiciary have been the most conservative section of the federal government throughout most of U.S. history. The fact that the justices are not elected and can be removed only through impeachment, resignation, or death explains this.

The courts have in the past and once more in recent decades used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to declare unconstitutional legislation that regulates business and promotes social welfare. Beginning in the 1880s, they declared corporations “persons” to give them 14th Amendment protections from regulation and taxation by the states, and have over and over again used the 10th Amendment to support states’ rights.

The political nature of the Supreme Court from its very inception is indisputable. The Court, for example, represented the interests of the slaveholder class from the administration of George Washington (himself a slaveholder) up to the Civil War. But as the nation changed, industrial capitalism grew, and the anti-slavery movement became broader, the demands of the slaveholders and the actions of their Supreme Court became more extreme. The Dred Scott decision (1857), which in effect repealed the earlier restrictions on the expansion of slavery in the Western territories, supporting legislation advanced by pro-slavery congresses and presidents, reflected this development. As an afterthought, the slaveholder-dominated Supreme Court claimed that the authors of the Constitution had not intended any Black person, slave or free, to have the rights of an American citizen, an expression of “original intent” which both enraged and strengthened the increasingly militant anti-slavery national coalition.

With the defeat of the Confederacy, slavery was abolished through constitutional amendment in all the states, and the former Confederate states now under Union army occupation had to ratify the amendment to regain admission to the Union. With the support of President Andrew Johnson, a pro-Union former senator from Tennessee (and himself a former slaveholder), they did so while enacting labor codes that in effect declared the former slaves to be unemployed vagrants and returned them to the “custodial care” of their former owners.

In response to these acts, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and other militant anti-slavery leaders of the Republican Party proposed a second constitutional amendment to establish national citizenship and protect the civil rights and civil liberties of the nearly 4 million former slaves. They did this for two reasons. They feared that President Johnson would veto the civil rights legislation they were advancing in Congress. And even if they were able to override his veto, they feared that the Supreme Court, where the now former slaveholders remained a powerful force, would declare such legislation unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment establishing national citizenship was passed, followed by the 15th, which extended the right to vote. However, the war was a victory for the industrial capitalists and their banker allies, who within a generation betrayed both the former slaves and the workers and farmers who saw Civil War policies like the Homestead Act and the creation of land grant colleges as advancing their class interests.

The Supreme Court as the defender of unregulated monopoly/finance capital, 1877–1937

The Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Civil War fiercely defended the interests of “big business” against organized farmers, workers, state governments, and the federal government. In the 1880s, the Supreme Court in a series of decisions invalidated the civil rights acts of the Reconstruction era and the 14th Amendment’s protection of citizenship rights from state government policies. States were permitted to ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned exclusion and discrimination in public accommodations. That protection would only be restored by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after a century of de jure segregation.

In 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision gave states the right to establish segregation by law, using as a cover the principle of “separate but equal” under such laws, although it was clear to everyone that the systematic exclusion of African Americans from public schools, public employment, public transportation, and commercial establishments was crudely unequal. The courts also endorsed state laws which denied the overwhelming majority of Black people the right to vote; the convict lease system, a form of slave labor for prisoners; and state “poll taxes,” which primarily discriminated against poor whites (in most places African Americans had been already disenfranchised).

At the same time, the Court in the 1880s took the 14th Amendment’s defense of the rights of “persons” and applied it to business and corporations, declaring state laws regulating business to be unconstitutional. At the time the 14th Amendment was proposed and enacted, everyone understood that the “persons” referred to were the 4 million former slaves, no longer under law, but not yet citizens.

But this was just the beginning. An early modest federal income tax (a surcharge on high incomes) was declared unconstitutional in the Pollock case. It negated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) by declaring that the federal government and the states could only regulate commerce — not manufacture — under the Constitution. In an industrial society, regulation became a farce.

Decades later, a constitutional amendment gave the federal government the right to levy income taxes, and Congress passed legislation that, to a limited extent, regulated trade and restructured the banking system. However, the Court routinely declared unconstitutional state laws protecting the right of workers to organize unions, providing for the health and safety regulation of workplaces, minimum wages, and the 1916 federal law outlawing child labor.

It was not until the Great Depression of the 1930s, which saw the great upsurge of labor with the Communist Party playing a central role, that the New Deal government enacted the most important labor and social welfare legislation since the abolition of slavery and battled to compel the judiciary to accept these major reforms in the interests of the working class and the whole people.

The Supreme Court and government as the protector and defender of the general welfare, 1937–78

The struggle for major judicial reform went back to the late 19th century. It sought to de-emphasize precedence, the “dead hand” of previous decisions, and make the law respond to social changes and realities, to connect the “facts” as they existed in the present with past decisions under the law. Law professor Roscoe Pound and attorney Louis Brandeis were the champions of this approach to law, called “legal realism.” Brandeis especially popularized the doctrine in leading campaigns against corporate monopolistic price fixing and business corruption of public officials, which earned him the name “the People’s Attorney.”

He also developed a legal brief which incorporated social research (the Brandeis brief) in arguing cases. His fame in the early 20th-century Progressive movement led Woodrow Wilson to appoint him to the Supreme Court, where he joined with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to represent a minority that supported the regulation of industry, social legislation, and the defense of First Amendment civil liberties. Regarding civil liberties, the minority supported freedom of speech, assembly, and association unless, in Holmes’s language, there was a “clear and present danger” to society, and not just a “dangerous tendency” that certain acts might lead to others, which was the conservative position.

In the 1936 elections, Roosevelt campaigned against the old-guard Court and the “economic royalists” whom they represented, reviving the language of the American revolution in his and the New Deal’s sweeping victory. Roosevelt sought to expand the court for every justice over the age of 70, which would have increased its size to 15 justices.

Conservatives fought back, wrapping the Court in the Constitution, attacking his court reorganization plan as “court packing.” In the Court fight, conservative Southern Democrats, including many who had worked behind the scenes against the New Deal like senators Tom Connally of Texas and Walter George of Georgia, along with the vice president, John Nance Garner, turned against Roosevelt. The weakened GOP let the Democrats carry the ball, but it was from this court fight that the informal conservative coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans began to take shape.

Faced with the attack, the Court, which had four Coolidge/Hoover “Business of America is Business” conservatives, three urban liberals, and two moderate conservatives, shifted. In 1936 the Court had voted 6-3 against the New York minimum wage law. But in 1937 the Court upheld by a vote of 5 to 4 a similar Washington State minimum wage law, ruled in favor of the Wagner Act in the Jones and Laughlin Steel case, and upheld the Social Security Act and unemployment insurance. In all these rulings, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes changed their votes to side with Roosevelt.

By the end of 1937, as the old-guard conservatives began to retire, Roosevelt, defeated in the reorganization fight, began to replace them with New Dealers and by the time of the Pearl Harbor attack had forged a New Deal majority. The new Court moved away from the old doctrines of constitutional original intent associated with the corporate-dominated courts of the post–Civil War era toward a view that the Court must change with changing economic and social conditions. Most of all, the Court retreated from its support for business and its defense of the absolute right of freedom of contract. Instead, a law was to be “presumed constitutional” on questions concerning economic power and government regulation — constitutional regulation came to be seen, as one decision put it, as regulation for the “public good.” Economic freedom was no longer the preferred freedom of the court, and economic activity was no longer local and thus not regulatable.

The court also upheld in the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wages for all citizens, whereas later it vetoed state minimum wage legislation for women, refused to apply the anti-trust laws to unions, and outlawed the sit-down strike in 1939 (NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.), but in a decision that defended and established peaceful picketing.

At the same time, the Court under New Deal leadership began to develop a new doctrine of preferred freedoms, a doctrine that stressed the need to protect the rights of political dissenters and minorities. In late 1937, the Court declared unconstitutional state laws barring speech and assembly that had been used to convict and imprison Communist Party activists like Angelo Herndon in Georgia, later explicitly defended religious freedom in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal to swear allegiance to the flag and revived the clear and present danger criteria to protect free speech and assembly. In 1938 the Court, for the first time since the end of Reconstruction, enforced some civil rights claims when it contended that the state of Missouri, by not supplying legal education for Black students had violated the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy (Missouri had offered to pay part of their tuition). While the decision didn’t challenge segregation, it pressured Southern states to increase educational programs under segregation for African Americans.

In the Hague case, the Court declared unconstitutional a local Jersey City ordinance against picketing and demonstrations which had been used for mass arrests — subsequently, this was defined to mean peaceful picketing. In U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938), the majority ruled that the court would no longer apply “heightened scrutiny” to economic legislation; however, in a footnote, Harlan Fiske Stone added that the Court was obligated to apply a “more exacting judicial scrutiny” in cases where laws or regulations contradicted the Bill of Rights or adversely affected minorities. The famous “footnote 4” had important implications for Bill of Rights freedoms for dissenters and minorities.

Following the recession of 1937 and the business-conservative counterattack and backlash of 1938, the New Deal was politically stalemated in Congress and without a clear program. However, by this time, the labor social welfare program was consolidated, at least for the short term. Further, the great fortress of conservative power protected from the electoral process — the Supreme Court — was overthrown.

Democratic President Harry Truman’s appointees set back the Court’s support for civil liberties, especially in the 1950–51 Eugene Dennis case, where the Court upheld the convictions and imprisonment of the leadership of the CPUSA under the 1940 Smith Act. The appointments of Earl Warren as Chief Justice and William Brennan by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, however, greatly strengthened the Court’s progressive majority at a time when Cold War policies moved Congress and the president to the right.

In the Brown decision (1954), the Court declared school segregation unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also in the Yates and other decisions made illegal some of the worst aspects of state and federal anti-Communist policies, leading the FBI to establish its secret Cointelpro program. In the later Miranda and Gideon decisions the Court limited police power to interrogate and hold suspects without formally charging them and reading them their rights, including their right to legal representation or a court-appointed attorney to represent them. The Court also rejected early challenges to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. Although Richard Nixon’s election to the presidency and his appointments moved the Court in a more conservative direction over time, Court decisions in the early 1970s effectively abolished the death penalty in the U.S. and, in Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion.

The empire strikes back: The Court’s long march to the right, 1978–present

Even before Ronald Reagan gained the presidency, the Nixon-influenced Court began to move to the right. In 1976, the court gave states the right to reestablish the death penalty (subsequently the death penalty would be established at the federal level in a more extensive way than at the state level). In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld an amendment to the funding of Medicaid in 1976 which barred the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, a cruel blow to the rights of low-income and poor women.

Over the following four decades, a series of decisions chipped away at civil rights and civil liberties; weakened the regulation of commerce, industry, and finance; and removed restrictions on the use of money in elections. The Court’s conservative majority became more militantly reactionary, destroying earlier compromise decisions brokered by conservatives. Donald Trump, who gained the presidency in large part because of the deeply undemocratic nature of U.S. politics, failed to implement his far-right domestic policies, which both large numbers of Americans and people throughout the world saw as “neofascism.” However, his “success” in appointing three Supreme Court judges is now his “legacy,” in that they are doing what he failed to accomplish.

What we can and should do now

First, we must understand that a large majority of the people oppose these decisions, just as in 1857 and 1936 a large majority of the people opposed the Supreme Court’s pro-slavery Dred Scott decision and its decisions declaring New Deal regulatory and social legislation unconstitutional. The Republican Party mobilized opposition to the Dred Scott decision to win the 1858 congressional elections. More than 70 years later, the Democratic Party mobilized opposition to the conservative Court’s decisions to propel Roosevelt to an overwhelming victory in the 1936 national elections. The same kind of united opposition must be organized now. We must point out that the present Court has set the nation back and may continue to block progress regarding immediate issues such as inflation, health care, or the cost of energy and transportation. Were the government to attempt, for example, to establish price controls, create a national public health system, and expand public transportation, the Court would not be on the people’s side.

The trade union movement, all civil rights and women’s rights organizations, and all environmental organizations must mobilize supporters and communities throughout the nation to vote against the Republican senators and congresspeople who over decades have created this judiciary. Such an electoral victory is necessary but not in itself sufficient. Many today are calling for an expansion of the Court. Congress and the president have the power to do that, since the number 9 is not in the Constitution. We should begin to think about a larger expansion of the federal judiciary itself. Since the 1980s, the conservative Federalist Society has advanced the doctrine of original intent as a cover to restore Court rulings opposing federal regulation of business and social welfare legislation. A government committed to restoring what the Court had represented in the New Deal–Great Society era should actively appoint attorneys who support those positions.

Finally, the question of judicial review itself could be formally ended by Congress and the president. As was contended earlier, it is not a part of the Constitution, and there is no evidence that the Constitutional Convention intended it to be established. The Court has acted to strike down and take away from the people major social protections and rights. As such its power of judicial review can and should be taken away from it.

Book Review: Longing and Belonging: Parents, Children, and Consumer Culture, by Allison J. Pugh

Longing and Belonging: Parents, Children, and Consumer Culture, by Allison J. Pugh (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009)

This is a very important book for teachers, teacher trainers, and teacher candidates to read because it offers an explanation of the desires of children and the interesting way the desires are met, or not met, by their parents. In this day of increasing demand for newer and better toys and technology, children ask for more and more expensive items.

Allison Pugh uses a qualitative research approach from the side of sociology to look at the phenomenon, namely the decision to reward children with gifts or to withhold them, and why or why not. Pugh looks at the desires and needs of kids from very disparate family backgrounds, socioeconomic class, and racial and cultural experiences in a region of southern California.

The pivotal point is the school, the type of school, including whether it is public or private, and the ways that having technology and other assets are viewed by the students. The author interviews several parents to find out how the decision is made as to whether the kids will receive something they want. In some cases, the parents do buy the items so that the kids will not stand out as being too different from others, so that the kids will be able to participate with others in their school and be able to “save face.”

Not all parents immediately purchase items for their child, however, sometimes waiting to make sure it is a wise choice or until the family can afford it. In other cases, the parents can indeed afford the time but wait before buying it. The author uses the term “symbolic deprivation” to describe parents waiting until the child truly deserves the item or it is somehow time to go ahead and purchase the gift, toy, or technology.

In this ethnographic study, the author discovers some surprising aspects many people do not consider. Parents often want their children to fit in, so buying them fruit snacks or certain kinds of lunch items is very important as they help their kids to be part of the scene. Some parents consider the social life at school to be as important or even more important than what the kids are learning. Sometimes parents do try to get children to adopt better eating habits, but they agree to help them fit in better by purchasing trendy snacks or desserts for the lunchbox.

For a variety of reasons, parents do or do not buy certain items. Parents of all income levels explained it was a struggle to know when to say enough is enough. In many cases, the parents say they try to buy the majority of the things the kids want, and sometimes that means kids do have to wait so the family will not wind up “in trouble” financially. Still, though, kids in this study tended to eventually get the lion’s share of what they had on their conscious wish list.

Important reading for educators, this book shows the social and family side of the desires and needs of children in three very different kinds of schools. Other factors such as class and race place interesting roles in the decision process employed by parents. It is essential to better understand the kinds of pressures on kids and their parents in terms of the technology and toys so much of the kid landscape these days. Understanding what is going on behind the scenes, in the lunchroom, and in the playground can be very helpful in comprehending a little more of the kid’s world and that of the parents raising them.

It will be interesting to study these patterns and decisions after COVID-19 has come to a more secure stop at the end of the road.

Book Review: The Sewing Girl’s Tale: A Story of Crime and Consequences in Revolutionary America by John Wood

The Sewing Girl’s Tale: A Story of Crime and Consequences in Revolutionary America by John Wood

Sweet (Henry Holt) uses the trial of the accused rapist, Harry Bedlow, of a seventeen-year-old seamstress named Lanah Sawyer in 1793 to analyze New York City’s social hierarchy during the early republic. Alexander Hamilton was part of Bedlow’s legal team. Bedlow’s acquittal[1] after the jury deliberated for only fifteen minutes sparked riots in the streets and ignited a vigorous debate about class privilege and sexual double standards. Sawyer received some justice when her stepfather won a civil suit against Bedlow and the family was awarded a significant sum. The book received a Bancroft Award from the American Historical Association.

The Evolution of Disability Rights Movements: Great Britain and the United States

The Evolution of Disability Rights Movements: Great Britain and the United States

Joseph Staszak

“Know your limits, but never stop trying to break them,” said Kyle Maynard, a man born with congenital amputation, which means that his arms stopped forming at his elbows and his legs stopped forming at his knees. This however did not stop him from a motivational speaker, best selling author, entrepreneur, award-winning extreme athlete, and the first man to crawl to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro^[1]. The rights of people with disabilities have evolved rapidly over the past hundred years, specifically in the last thirty years, both within the United States and Great Britain. These two movements have similarities connecting the two, but appear to develop independently of one another.

It is important to understand two different things when discussing the history of disability rights and the discourse as a whole. The first is the two different models of disability, one being the medical model of disability and the other being the social model of disability. The medical model contends that individuals with disabilities are broken and that they need to be fixed or cured, whereas this social model contends that individuals with disabilities are not broken but instead handicapped by their environment. An example of the medical model would be certain very dangerous medical procedures such as chelation.^[2] Since there is no actual “cure” for autism these medical procedures can cause a lot of damage to the individual that is receiving them. An example of the social model would be if a building does not have a ramp or elevator for an individual who uses a wheelchair. These two models have been used to define “disability” throughout U.S. disability history and separate the latter stages of the movement.

The second thing is the language that is used throughout history is very offensive and outdated and while these words are used in this paper they are not meant to be used in a harmful and demeaning way, but instead to give the reader a greater context to the way the individuals with disabilities have been treated throughout history.

Historically disability history focuses on learning about the different laws and acts, and how these ideas progress. However, not much time has been spent looking more in depth into the larger discourse of disability rights as well as how this discourse progressed and how it led to effective change. This fostered interest in if there might be any connection or similarities between the way that the disability rights movement progresses in the United States to how it developed overseas, and more specifically in a country relatively similar to the United States, Great Britain. More specifically, how did the disability rights movement with the United States evolve? How did the disability rights movement in Great Britain evolve over time? And were there any connections between these two movements, and if so what are they?

There is not a large variety of literature about the history of the disability rights movements in both the United States and Great Britain as they are relatively recent movements, only having progressed in the last fifty or so years. There is some literature regarding theories of disability, and the normalcy of disability. People, such Elizabeth Barnes^[3] who writes about the social model of disability, and Lennard J Davis,^[4] who writes about how normalization of individuals with disabilities within society has led to positive changes being brought about. These books, along with speeches by famous disability rights activists such as Judith Heumann and the Netflix documentary Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution, have all aided in the research process in defining the evolution of these movements and how they compare to one another.^[5]

The disability rights movement in the United States has evolved much more rapidly than the subsequent movement in Great Britain, with landmark legislation such as the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Developmentally Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (DD Act) of 1975, The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and many others coming before the major landmark decisions in the United Kingdom. The United States and Great Britain both see the beginning of their disability rights movements begin with a heavy focus on physically disabled veterans after World War two. However, the exposure of the Willowbrook Institution ushers in a new wave of disability rights within the United States, one that focuses on individuals with neurological disabilities, before the subsequent movement evolution inside Great Britain. The U.S. remains ahead of Great Britain with its evolution of disability rights for the remainder of the 20th century and into the 21st century.

This paper will begin to dive deeper into the progression of the disability rights movement within the United States and then look towards Great Britain and its evolution. It will discuss the different waves of the movement and how the discourse present in the United States during the 20th century leading up to the passage of the ADA. Next this paper will look at the way that the disability rights Movement within Great Britain develops, from mainly focusing on ex-service men with physical disabilities, to then sudden shift to focusing on individuals with more neurological and mental disabilities.

Disability rights movement within the United States

United States history is filled with many different rights movements that all seemingly overlap with one another. The Disability Rights movement is one of these, finding its beginning in the middle part of the 20th century, with a heavy focus on the veterans that had been disabled in World War 2. Laws and organizations form to help these individuals reintegrate back into society after the war and begin the normalization of individuals with physical disabilities, which leads to the eventual story of the Willowbrook institution. This story begins to shine the light on individuals with cerebral disabilities, such as autism, down syndrome, and many others. From the outcry of these individuals and more specifically their families the attention becomes on how they can be “cured” or “fixed” and brought back into society. It is not until these individuals begin to speak up on their own, that there is a real shift not only in policy but attitude and mindset within society. This continues with the discussion around independent living, which will begin the third and final era of disability rights within the United States, the self-advocacy era. This all culminates in the passing of the ADA in 1990, which marks a new beginning for individuals with disabilities in speaking up for themselves and how they can be integrated into society as a whole.

One of the key areas of overlap that the United States has in its disability rights movement with Great Britain is the early focus on veterans and ex-service men that had become physically disabled following World War two. This is where we see some of the first rhetoric of the medical model of disability, in an article published in the New York Times in 1946, Howard A. Rusk M.D. writes “Today public attention is focused on the young men of America who are returning from war disabled and handicapped. They number in the thousands.”^[6] This highlights just how much of a focus this was during this time, it was a large part of the discussion happening, so much so that it was a full page article within the New York Times. Rusk makes it known how important it is to have systems in place that can help physically disabled veterans, who were the main group that was being advocated for during this time.

We see some of this help that had been put into place in the form of the Purple Heart Unit, also known as the Military Order of the Purple Heart, which is a national veterans organization. In an article about the Purple Heart Unit, the New York Times writes:

“The Military Order of the Purple Heart, nation-wide veterans’ organization, will embark on a peacetime program to speed veterans housing and to provide additional benefits for disabled servicemen, it was announced yesterday by the order’s new national commander Ray Dorris of Portland Ore…The housing program will take precedence over all other programs, Mr. Dorris said, adding that he would confer this week with Housing Expedite Wilson W. Wyatt and officials of the War Assets Administration in Washington on the granting of priorities on surplus equipment needed to complete the partially constructed housing projects.”^[7]

This is one of the key organizations at the time putting a focus on helping disabled veterans. This is such a big and important undertaking that the organization is working with the U.S. government to try and get the necessary funding and supplies as quickly as possible. This is their paramount objective, surpassing all others, showing just how important the rights of the disabled veterans were during this time. After this there is a steady amount of legislation that is passed and signed to help disabled veterans, but the next evolution in the disability rights movement begins in the mid-1960s.

In 1965 Senator Robert F. Kennedy made an unannounced visit to one of the biggest institutions for individuals with neurological disabilities at the time, Willowbrook located in upstate New York. While there, Senator Kennedy observed some of the most inhumane and deplorable living conditions imaginable. After his visit to Willowbrook, Senator Kennedy testified at a committee hearing, which resulted in an investigation in the state institution. When speaking on the institution Kennedy had this to say “We hear a great deal these days about civil rights and civil liberties and equality of opportunity and justice … But there are no civil rights for young retarded adults when they are denied the protection of the State Education Law, which commands that all other children must receive an education.”^[8] This was the first time that a major public figure spoke up in regards to disability rights in the United States. This would not be the last time that Willowbrook was public news, as around five years later a reporter named Geraldo Rivera ran a documentary that showed the deplorable conditions within Willowbrook. This would spark major outrage, and lead to a new nationwide conversation about the effectiveness and moral need for these large state institutions.

While it would take another five years for state institutions to begin to change with their unimaginable conditions, the interview of Bernard Carabello, this would mark the 1970s, the next evolution of the disability rights movement. The United States enters into its second wave of its Disability Rights Movement, which is the Parent wave, which sees the parents of the individuals with disabilities to be the advocates for their children, and puts the emphasis on helping and “fixing” individuals with disabilities. While this is a step in the right direction it still creates numerous problems and harmful stereotypes. The medical model of disability, which paints individuals with disabilities as “broken” and in need of being “fixed”, is still very much prevalent during this time. This period was very short as it only lasted a few years, but it is a crucial step in the evolution of the disability rights movement within the United States, as it moves the spotlight closer to the individuals with disabilities themselves which ultimately marks the final evolution of this movement.

While the independent living model was the first time that the idea of things such as civil rights would be discussed in regards to individuals with disabilities, a few years before this there was discourse around hiring individuals with disabilities into the workforce. In an article about how the year the employment market for individuals with disabilities is starting to become more normalized in society, Howard Rusk writes, “Throughout the country, community programs for the mentally retarded have been slowly demonstrating the truth of the slogan of the National Association for Retarded Children – ‘the retarded can be helped.”^[9] While Robert Kennedy’s visit to Willowbrook was mainly about individuals living there and the inhumane conditions of the state institutions, this discourse is clearly more geared towards helping adults, people who are out of these state institutions, and how they can start to become included within society as a large.

This in turn would create a space for a lot of people such as self-advocates and the families of individuals with disabilities to begin talking about similar issues in regards to disabilities. In their article Romel Mackelprand and Richard Slasgiver talk about the shift that occurred at the beginning of the 1970s, “The disability movement matures with the development of the independent living concept in the early 1970s. Initially led by people such Lex Frieden, Judy Heumann, and Ed Roberts, independent living applied the minority model as the foundation of the political process of gaining the civil rights of peoples with disabilities.”^[10] These are just some of the prominent figures that come about and make names for themselves as Disability Rights activists during the early parts of the movement. The minority model, also known as the social model of disability, is something that is very important to modern disability rights activists, as it states that people with disabilities are not “disabled” by their bodies but by the “able-bodied” society that they live in. This is also referred to as the Social Model of Disability and provides a pivotal framework for discussing changes surrounding disability. This is the first large step into a new evolution of the disability rights movement, where the individuals with disabilities themselves are the ones advocating for change and what is best for them.

One of the major issues that was seen in these institutions was forced sterilization, in which individuals with disabilities were viewed by the public as not being able to contribute to society. An interesting case of this is seen outside of institutions, where parents of three kids all with disabilities are fighting to have them sterilized, however no hospital or medical facility near them would perform the procedure, since there were massive gains made by individuals in protecting others with disabilities from being forcefully sterilized. The parents took their argument to court and “thwarting them, either directly or indirectly, have been the tremendous gains made by the champions of individual freedoms and rights who have won many successes in trying to protect the mentally retarded who are capable of functioning independently in society.”^[11] This is the perfect example of how the parent wave of disability and the medical model of disability which arose from the professional wave had very negative impacts on individuals with disabilities. This does however cause massive shifts that are happening during this time, as forced sterilizations, especially for those under the age of 21, were being rejected and more control and rights were being given to those with disabilities.

In the area of education, there are also discussions happening during the 1970s about making sure that students with disabilities are more included. In 1974 the New Jersey legislature began debating the idea of passing legislation that would improve the conditions of students with disabilities in schools. In an article published by the New York Times an unnamed author writes “But proponents of improved education for the retarded children contend that the special session also provides the lawmakers with an ideal chance to require local school districts to install programs for youngsters with severe mental handicaps.”^[12] Here it becomes clear just how inclusive the conversation has become. In just a few short years the narrative has switched from individuals with disabilities needing to be kept aside and isolated, to know there is a push for them to become integrated into schools, and as this article states, the push is for even those with neurological disabilities as well as just physical disabilities. This highlights just how much it took for people to fight for more protections for students with disabilities, specifically within schools.

We continue to see the push for protections for individuals with disabilities at the state level, specifically in New Jersey. In his article titled Disabled Children Get New State Aid, Martin Whaldron writes, “This new policy is only one of several that reflect the quiet revolution underway in the state to protect the rights of New Jersey’s mentally ill, handicapped and ‘developmentally impaired’ residents. Some of these policies reflect an almost complete change in attitudes.”^[13] This sudden shift in attitude comes from the work of many activists such but in particular, Judith Huemann is the most prominent of them, especially as she becomes famous for her work in New York City. She became famous for her self-advocacy in being the first person in a wheelchair to obtain a teaching license in New York, something that she had to fight very hard to get.

There are also efforts at a national level as well to help give rights to individuals with disabilities, especially the right to education. In her article for the New York Times, Judy Glass writes about the changes that are arising out of the conversations about individuals with more neurological disabilities, such as learning disabilities. She writes, “Ten or 15 years ago, the term ‘learning disabled’ as a handicap was largely unheard of… five years ago, the learning disabled children were defined more by exclusion than by objective criteria.”^[14] This is another example of the rapid change that occurred in this time frame, as the movement evolves more and more individuals begin to become involved in the movement. The term disability has not crossed over into the realm of education adding another step in ensuring the rights for those with disabilities.

There were also some setbacks that accompanied the disability rights movement, one of the biggest came in April of 1981, in which the Supreme Court ruled:

“that a Federal “bill of rights” for the mentally retarded enacted six years ago, did not oblige states to provide any particular level of care or training for retarded people in state institutions… In the case involving the retarded, the appeals court had ruled that the 1200 residents of Pennhurst, a state institution, were being deprived of their right to treatment.”^[15]

This was a huge deal at the time as it further restricted the rights of individuals with disabilities who were still living within these institutions. These institutions were mistreating these individuals and with these laws saying that individuals with disabilities did not need to have their caretakers properly trained, it would only further their mistreatment. It is an unfortunate step backwards in this movement, but it contributes to the continued movement to get these institutions shut down and to get individuals with disabilities out of them and living on their own.

The representation of individuals with disabilities in public spaces went a very long way in helping the Disability Rights Movement within the United States. It gave those with disabilities someone that they could see themselves in, and feel like they were a part of society as a whole. This representation really started to take shape as we head into the late 1980s and early 1990s. One prominent figure at this time was Bob Dole, the Senate Republican leader who made it known that he was an individual with a disability, which was something that had not been discussed before. In an article from 1986, Dole is quoted as saying:

“I can’t do buttons like you do, just feel and push them in there… I’ve got to be able to see the hole and sort of push the button in. The trouble is these buttons on this shirt are just about a fraction too high, so it’s very hard to do that. So every day you get a little test; you’re tested.”^[16]

Dole at the time dealt with many physical disabilities, the main one being all the damage that he has suffered to his right arm. This was one of the first times that someone this prominent and well known within the United States government began advocating for himself as an individual with a disability. This is where we begin to enter into the final stage of the evolution of the disability rights movement, where these issues are not something that is being discussed within the federal government, and changes being implemented on a national scale, whereas before changes were often made on a smaller scale, either by state or even more local.

As the disability rights movement enters into its final stages there is now an even bigger push to help get individuals with disabilities normalized and integrated into society. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in late 1989 and was set into law in 1990. The New York Times wrote this when discussing the new act, “The act was considered by its supporters to be one of the most sweeping pieces of civil rights legislation in decades. It extended throughout private industry a prohibition against discrimination toward the disabled by government agencies and companies that receive government contracts.”^[17] The ADA was a monumental piece of legislation in regards to the disability rights movement in the United States resulting in federal mandates that made every aspect of society more accessible to those with a disability. It comes after years of hard work by many people and paved the road for the future legislation that would be passed in the years to come.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) marked a true turning point in the American disability rights movement, as it is one of the first acts passed that was focused on helping individuals with disabilities be able to feel a part of larger society. Steve Holmes a writer for the New York Times, described the ADA in the following way:

“The public accommodations provisions of the law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, mean more than merely providing adequate parking spaces or ramps for the handicapped. Restaurants may have to provide Braille or large-type menus for the blind or visually impaired people,… space for customers with wheelchairs and ensure that their friends and family may sit with them.”^[18]

These are some of the major changes that came about as a result of the ADA, and they highlight just how little people with disabilities were seen in society, and how powerful the ADA was in shining a light on them. We see things today such as ramps, handicap parking spaces, and other inclusive infrastructure and think of it as common and something that has always been there, but for many people it has not. This time back into the social model of disability, showing how an individual can be disabled and handicapped, because there is no ramp to help them access a building.

There were numerous people that played a large role in helping to get the act passed, many of whom were famous disability rights activists within the United States at the time, including a man named Justin Dart Jr. “Mr. Dart was best known as one of the primary forces behind the Amercians with Disabilities Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Georgre Bush with Mr. Dart as his side, in 1990.”^[19] Justin Dart Jr. was one of the most influential Disability Rights activists within the United States, he was constantly arguing and advocating for the passage of this act. He became very well known among those serving during this time, simply for how much he was around and speaking with people about how important this act was.

Disability rights movement Within Great Britain

The disability rights movement within Great Britain is rooted in highlighting the conditions of the physically disabled, specifically wounded veterans. Much of the early discussion that takes place within Great Britain deals with this select group of people with disabilities. It was not until more recently that the conversation has shifted to be more inclusive of people with neurological disabilities, along with people with more visible physical disabilities. The movement moved towards the focus on group homes, which were similar to the institutions within the United States, before leading to Great Britain’s own version of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Disability Discrimination Act in 2005.

An early example of Great Britain’s focus on veterans can be seen when the Parliament is discussing a new finance bill that would have been used to raise money in 1951, Lieutenant-Commander Braithwaite said that “it would also adversely affect disabled ex-service men.”^[20] His argument was that the petrol tax that was included in the new finance bill would increase the cost of road transport, and would force more people into using public transport, which was used a lot by disabled individuals at the time. Also when discussing this bill Sir Ian Fraser said that disabled individuals should be excused from the extra petrol duty. This shows how much people were thinking about the physically disabled veterans, as a part of society as a whole, similar to the conversation in the United States.

Disabled veterans dominated a lot of the early discussion of disability rights within Great Britain as they were the most visible individuals with disabilities that were actively trying to be included into society. When discussing the approach to the idea of the economic situation post war, Mr. King of Southampton urged “for an increase in the basic rate for disability pensions of disability pensions for disabled ex-service men.”^[21] This is a good start for the conversation about disability rights in Great Britain and provides a solid foundation for the future.

The idea of working and labor was also something that came up in discussions when discussing how to best include them in the labor force. When discussing the idea of defense-workers, looking specifically at summer resorts during the winter time. There is a group of workers that were used to help advance the “national effort”. The argument that these disabled workers could be employed to help in other aspects of the country, was taken before the Ministry of labor, and the position of disabled men specifically was brought up by a man named Mr. E. Evans, stating that it can be difficult for them to find work at times.^[22] Mr. Evans is one of the first people that begins to speak out for those with physical disabilities within Great Britain, that is not speaking solely for disabled veterans, advancing the disability rights movement further.

The infantilization and idea that individuals with disabilities need to be helped and cared for by others, even when they may be perfectly able to take care of themselves, is something that is present. For example, the London times published a newspaper article entitled, Debate on employment of disabled and elder persons^[23]. Having people with disabilities be associated with the elderly shows how they were seen by larger society. People with disabilities and specifically in this case, those with physical disabilities are seen as weak and in need of someone to be helping them at all times even though there are things that they still might be able to do by themselves. In this case a lot of them are former veterans, specifically men, so they would most likely still be in good physical condition, only needing help in the area of their handicap. This is a very early argument describing the Social Model of Disability, where the individuals themselves are perfectly fine, it is society and their environment that is handicapping them.

At the start of the 1960s we began to see the conversation in Great Britain evolve to begin to include individuals with neurological disabilities, alongside those with physical disabilities. Similar to the pattern in the United States at this time, it appears that Great Britain thought its best course of action was to have these individuals placed into group homes. In March of 1961 there was discussion about the construction of a new home in Bognor Regis, near the southern British Coast. The issue that was brought up was about whether or not that project had been abandoned because two local private schools apparently rejected the idea as they felt that the location was too close to their location, and they did not think it would be able to be the proper size necessary.. When talking about the issue Mr. Kenneth Robinson, who was a representative in Parliament during this time had this to say “Projects of this kind are constantly being frustrated by local difficulties being raised about sitting. Is there nothing the Minister can do, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in trying to influence local authorities to be a little more sympathetic towards this type of development.”^[24] This shows some of the issues that the disability rights movement in Great Britain faced in its early stages, with many doubting if it was even necessary to have these group homes.

Similar to the United States, in Great Britain these individuals with neurological disabilities are subjected to being separated from the larger part of society by being placed into these group homes. These group homes similar to the institutions in the United States seem to be mistreating the individuals with disabilities as well. Unfortunately, at this time individuals with neurological disabilities are seen as “rejects” and “outcasts”. This also led to the mistreatment of these individuals as they were seen as needing to be removed from society, including many horrible things being done to them such as Euthanasia.

One of the most prominent people in both England and the United States was C. Killick Millard, who was mainly working between 1930-1955 but was the main figure and was a very well known and respected doctor during this time. Ian Dowbiggin writes about Millaird describing him as having “dedicated much of his life to legalizing the right to die, he was likewise motivated by the conviction that an educated, rational and mentally competent person would consent to mercy-killing if suffering from a painful, terminal illness or disability.”^[25] This gives insight into how individuals with disabilities were viewed as not able to be educated the same way as their non-disabled counterparts, and how having a disability was seen as something that would not make you of use to the larger part of society. This is another aspect of the disability rights movement in Great Britain that has a parallel to the United States, which is the way that both of these movements had a time where they looked to medical professionals for the answers.

One of the first major pieces of legislation to come from Great Britain in the realm of disability rights is the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act of 1970. This bill established welfare for those who were disabled or for those who suffered from chronic illness. This is an important part of the Disability Rights movement in Great Britain because while there may have been support for the bill, the speaker, who themselves identified as disabled, thought that the bill needed to be stronger. An article written in the London Times “Under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, builders had to provide access facilities where it was ‘in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable. There have been instances in the past 11 years when such facilities were not provided, mainly because nobody has enforced the law.”^[26] The prolonged and delayed enforcement of laws is something that is far too common in disability law in particular, with vague and non-descript wording allowing companies and others to get away with not fully giving people with disabilities the accommodations they need. As mentioned in the London Times article it took almost eleven years for something to be done about this, and it is one of the reasons why disability rights are still an active fight.

Prolonged enforcement of laws and regulations can be tied back to an issue that was brought up almost twenty years prior to this incident, which involved giving disabled drivers a badge that would help identify them. In March of 1961, in response to the increasing parking problems of disabled drivers, a man named Mr Dobbs, who was a member of Parliament proposed “to provide a badge to be displayed by disabled drivers to help them and to assist police in using their discretion in dealing with traffic problems.”^[27]It would take almost ten more years for this idea to become mainstream and implemented in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act in 1970. The idea of these badges being used to assist police is very interesting because it speaks to a debate that is happening right now in the United States about how to best aid individuals with disabilities, specifically those with more “invisible disabilities” in regards to things such as traffic stops, and their interactions with police officers. For individuals with disabilities, especially those who may have neurological disabilities, understanding social cues and following directions can often be a tough task, and unfortunately in the United States, police officers can at times give conflicting directions. This can lead to individuals with disabilities being treated harmfully by police officers and not fully understanding why.

We began to see a mindset shift in Great Britain in the late 1990s and one example of this comes from a man Lee Duffin, who although he spent most of his life working in sales and marketing, joined a charity that helped young adults with disabilities to become more self-reliant and independent. Although his main job was fundraising, he said “I had no experiences in fund-raising or the mentally handicapped, but I was so impressed by the charity’s philosophy of helping the young adults to lead a fairly independent and fulfilled life that I wanted to help.”^[28] This is a massive shift from just thirty years prior where individuals with disabilities, specifically those with neurological disabilities, were seen as needing to be kept away from society and kept in group homes. This comes in the years following the United States and the idea of independent living that was introduced by disability rights activists there.

As we enter into the 21st century we see the last of the group homes or “long-stay care homes” that were prominent in the late 60s and early 70s and began to become less prominent into the late 80s and 90s. The last of these homes shut down in Great Britain in 2004 and was a part of the effort to help people with disabilities become larger members of society. John Hutton the public health minister had this to say “people in Britain with learning disabilities were among the most socially excluded in the country. Only one of them has a friend outside the immediate circle of their family or paid-for carers.”^[29] This is one of the biggest shifts and evolutions in the direction of fostering independence for those with disabilities. In 2001, there were an estimated 1.4 million people living with disabilities in Britain. Around this time as well, there were schools in Britain that received investments in communication aids for students who would need them. This is similar to what happens in the United States, which is that if schools receive federal funding that they have to provide students with the accommodations that they need.

In the United States the Americans with Disabilities Act (or the ADA) in the 1990s provided people with disabilities the rights to access society and for changes to be made to help them it is not until the early 2000s that Great Britain enacts something similar. In 2004 the British government passed the Disability Discrimination Act which acts similar to the ADA. it was described by the media as:

“The most significant aspect of the new provisions is the duty of service providers to make reasonable adjustments to any physical features that are a barrier to the enjoyment of goods and services by disabled people … includes widening a doorway; providing a permanent ramp for a wheelchair user; relocating light switches, for someone who has difficulty reaching;… and providing tactile buttons in lifts’.’^[30]

This directly connects to what the ADA did for Americans with disabilities and relates back to the social model, contending that in order for individuals with disabilities to be included within society there needed to be changes made to the environment as well.

Another piece of legislation that was passed in Great Britain that is similar to the ADA is the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which was passed in 2005. This act made it illegal to discriminate against individuals with disabilities within the workplace and to make the necessary accommodations to allow these individuals to succeed in the workplace. “Employing disabled people can attract disabled customers.”^[31] This is a great way to think about how it feels to include individuals with disabilities within not only the workplace but society as a whole. Seeing people that represent who you are and how you view yourself is very important in helping people feel safe in society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the disability rights movements of both the United States and Great Britain have some connections with one another but it was mainly the United States setting the precedent for and leading the way. Both of these movements have their foundations in the way that society began to see and treat veterans with disabilities following World War II. The care and thought that was given to these veterans opened the door for disability rights activists in each country to begin to further the conversation on disability rights. While the United States had its focused turn to institutions by parents, Great Britain began to look at group homes. In 1990 the United States passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, which provided comprehensive changes that would grant individuals with disabilities a chance to participate in society. 15 years later Great Britain would pass the Disability Discrimination Act, which would act similarly to the ADA. Ultimately showing how, even though the two movements evolve similarly over time, it is the United States that has its evolutions before Great Britain.

The significance of this capstone paper is that it allows for the start of a discussion on the history of disability rights not only in the United States but in Great Britain as well. It is important to just study the history of one nation’s evolution as it can close you off to possible ideas and changes that have been made in other nations that can be adopted in one’s own country. Individuals with disabilities have been mistreated throughout history in many different parts of the world and it is important to begin to understand how this happens and how different nations are able to move forward and away from this awful mindset and treatment of individuals with disabilities.

This capstone paper is significant for education as it allows for students to learn about a history and a movement that has rarely been discussed before. Much of the activism that occurs during the disability rights movement occurs during the late 1970s and 1980s, a time that is just now being discussed more and more in schools, particularly in secondary education. Individuals with disabilities have been treated inhumanely and as outsiders, but if we allow for their story to become a part of our taught history, we can work towards people accepting them for who they are. The disability rights movement also has connections to other historical events, including how the disability rights activists used tactics of other civil rights groups to help fight for their cause. There is also great opportunity for current events with this topic, as this movement is still going today, as many disability rights activists fight to have individuals with disabilities seen by the rest of society.

References

Alambritis, Stephen. “The Business View.” Times, March 4, 2008, 4[S3]. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.co m/apps/doc/IF0503625387/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=b85a4ad4.

“An equal workforce, not forced.” Times, October 17, 1985, 12. The Times Digital Archive (accessed September 25, 2022). -https://link-gale com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/CS201822545/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=book—-mark-TTDA&xid=f91d7aa7.

Barnes, Elizabeth. The Minority Body a Theory of Disability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

“Benefits defeats in Lords.” Times, May 22, 1990, 7. The Times Digital Archive (accessed October 17, 2022). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/IF0501825665/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=c3331e85.

Burch, Susan, and Ian Sutherland. “Who’s Not Yet Here? American Disability History.” Radical History Review 2006, no. 94 (2006): 127–47. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-2006-94-127.

Cragg, Stephen. “Legislation Update.” Times, September 7, 2004, 7[S1]. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/IF0502698209/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=ec9de613.

Cooper, Jeremy. Law, Rights, and Disability. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2003.

Davis, Lennard J. Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body. London: Verso, 1995.

Dearlove, Desmond. “A fight for the right to work.” Times, September 10, 1992, 19[S]. The Times Digital Archive (accessed September 25, 2022). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/IF0503341113/TTDA?u=tconj _ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=36a91163.

Diane Henry, Special to The New York Times. 1977. “Parents of 3 Retarded Girls Fight Hospital Refusal to Sterilize them: Parents Press Bid to Sterilize Retarded Girls.” New York Times (1923-), Oct 02, 1. https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/parents-3-retar ded-girls-fight-hospital-refusal/docview/123174722/se-2.

“Diary Of Next Week’s Events.” Times, July 8, 1961, 11. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS184901864/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=5718e179.

Dowbiggin, Ian. “‘A Prey on Normal People’: C. Killick Millard and the Euthanasia Movement in Great Britain, 1930-55.” Journal of Contemporary History 36, no. 1 (2001): 59–85. http://www.jstor.org/s table/261131.

Evans, Richard. “Law will ensure access for disabled in new buildings.” Times, June 2, 1981, 3. The Times Digital Archive (accessed October 17, 2022). https://lin k-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/CS50694338/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=7a585a9f.

Frean, Alexandra. “Care homes for the mentally disabled to shut.” Times, March 21, 2001, 4. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/IF0502655359/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=caf 8b513.

From Our Correspondent. “Assisting The Disabled.” Times, December 4, 1951, 5. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS85675396/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=8da0813e.

Heumann, Judith. Being Heumann. S.l.: WH. Allen, 2021.

Hobson, Rodney. “Working at a different pace.” Times, July 31, 1990, 17. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). https://link.gale.co m/apps/doc/IF0503253499/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=476c1f07.

“House Of Commons.” Times, June 6, 1951, 4. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). —-https://link.gale.co m/apps/doc/CS67456198/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=f90b3-07e.

“House Of Commons.” Times, November 7, 1951, 7. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). —-https://link.gale.co m/apps/doc/CS117788007/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=20fbf67

Howard A Rusk, MD Formerly Chief, Convalescent Services Division, Office of, Air Surgeon. 1946. “Hope for our Disabled Millions: They can be Rehabilitated, Says a Physician, if we Apply Methods used in Restoring Handicapped Veterans. our Disabled Millions our Disabled Millions.” New York Times (1923-), Jan 27, 1946. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.ed u/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/hope-our-—-disabled-millions/docview/107574818/se-2.

Howard A. Rusk, M.D. 1964. “Hiring the Retarded: ‘ 63 Marked Employment Turning Point for Mentally Handicapped in the U.S.” New York Times (1923-), Jan 06, 121. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/lo gin?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/hiring-ret—-arded/docview/115529793/se-2..

John Sibley. 1965. “Kennedy Charges Neglect in State Care of Retarded: KENNEDY ASSAILS CARE OF RETARDED.” New York Times (1923-), Sep 10, 1. —-https://ezp roxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/kennedy-charges-neglect-state-care-retarded/docview/116840893/se-2.

Jonathan Fuerbringer Special to The New York Times. 1986. “To Dole, it was an Education to Get Past Disability.” New York Times (1923-), Jun 16, 1. —-_https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/dole-was-edu cation-get-past-disability/docview/110931546/se-2.

Judy Glass. 1980. “New Efforts to Assist ‘Learning Disabled’ Debated Across L.I.: New Efforts to Assist ‘Learning Disabled’ New Efforts to Assist ‘Learning Disabled’.” New York Times (1923-), Nov 23, 4. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu /login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/new-effor—-ts-assist-learning-disabled-debated/docview/121268082/se-2.

“Legal Appointments.” Times, May 7, 1985, 29. The Times Digital Archive (accessed September 25, 2022). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/CS486772903/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=boo——kmark-TTDA&xid=28b1fa67.

Linda Greenhouse, Special to The NewYork Times. 1981. “Justices Restrict A ‘Bill of Rights’ for the Retarded: High Court Calls U.S. Law Only Advisory for States Release of Retarded People ‘Findings’ in ‘Bill of Rights’ Court Restricts ‘Rights’ of Retarded Right to Refuse Medication.” New York Times (1923-), Apr 21, 2. —–https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-n ewspapers/justices-restrict-bill-rights-retarded/docview/121615394/se-2.

Mackelprang, Romel W. and Richard O. Salsgiver. “People with Disabilities and Social Work: Historical and Contemporary Issues.” Social Work 41, no. 1 (01, 1996): 7-14. —https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/people-with–disabilities-social-work-historical/docview/215272364/se-2.

Martin Waldron. 1978. “Disabled Children Get New State Aid: Disabled Children are Getting New Help from the State.” New York Times (1923-), Mar 05, 3. —-https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/disabled-children-get-n ew-state-aid/docview/123790595/se-2.

Noyes, Hugh. “Disabled peers put aid plea.” Times, April 10, 1970, 1. The Times Digital Archive (accessed October 17, 2022). —- https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.tcnj.edu/apps/doc/CS17134218/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=book mark-TTDA&xid=8a9252f9.

“Parliament.” Times, August 3, 1951, 3. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). Retrieved from —https://link.gale.com/app s/doc/CS50547971/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xi—d=92465—-b0b.

“Purple Heart Unit To Act On Housing: Order Back Speed-Up Of U.S. Efforts To Aid Veterans–Also To Help Disabled Men.” 1946. New York Times (1923-), Sep 08, 40. –https://ezproxy.tcnj.e du/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/purple-h eart-unit-act-on-housing/docview/107403078/se-2.

Special to The NewYork Times. 1974. “Improved Education Urged for Retarded: Disparities seen Resulting.” New York Times (1923-), Jun 23, 78. —–https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/improved-educ ation-urged-retarded/docview/120059739/se-2.

Steven A. Holmes. “Sweeping U.S. Law To Help Disabled Goes Into Effect: Gains Seen For Millions Statute May Force Businesses To Alter Buildings And Offer Specialized Services Sweeping U.S. Law To Help Millions Of The Disabled Goes Into Effect New Anti-Bias Legislation Could Bring Changes To Many Businesses.” Jan 27, 1992. New York Times ——https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/sweeping-u-s-law-help-disabled-goes-into-effect/docview/109037130/se-2.

Stevenson, Richard W. “Justin Dart Jr., 71, Advocate for Rights of Disabled People.” New York Times (1923-), Jun 24, 2002. —https://ezproxy.tcnj.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/justin-dart-jr-71-advocate-rights-disabled-people/docview/92295369/se-2.

“Subsidy Rate In Airport Charges.” Times, March 7, 1961, 4. The Times Digital Archive (accessed November 21, 2022). —-https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS67723367/TTDA?u=tconj_ca&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=7df135cc.

Walker Alan and Peter Townsend. 1981. Disability in Britain: A Manifesto of Rights. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

^[1] GDA Podcasts, GDA Podcasts, April 26, 2017.

^[2] NHS, “Treatments That Are Not Recommended for Autism,” NHS choices (NHS, December 16, 2022),

^[3] Elizabeth Barnes, The Minority Body: A Theory of Disability (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2018).

^[4] Lennard J. Davis, Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body (London: Verso, 1995).

^[5] Crip Camp: A revolution, Netflix, 2020.

^[6] Howard A Rusk, “Hope for our Disabled Millions”, New York Times, January 27th, 1946.

^[7] “Purple Heart Unit To Act On Housing: Order Back Speed-Up Of U.S. Efforts To Aid Veterans–Also To Help Disabled Men.”, 1946, New York Times.

^[8]John Sibley, “Kennedy Charges Neglect in State Care of Retarded. September 10, 1965. New York Times

^[9] Howard A. Rusk, “Hiring the Retarded”, January 6, 1963, New York Times.

^[10]Romel W. Mackeprang, and Richard O. Salsgiver, “People with disabilities and Social Work: Historical and Contemporary Issues”.1996, Social Work.

^[11] Diane Henry, “Parents of 3 Retarded Girls Fight Hospital Refusal to Sterilize Them”, October 2, 1977, New York Times.

^[12] “Improved Education Urged for Retarded”, June 23, 1978, New York Times.

^[13] Martin Waldron, “Disabled Children Get New State Aid”, March 5, 1978, New York Times.

^[14] Judy Glass, “New Efforts to Assist ‘Learning Disabled’ Debated Across L.I.” November 23, 1980, New York Times.

^[15] Linda Greenhouse, “Justices Restrict A ‘Bill of Rights’ For the Retarded”, April 21, 1981, New York Times

^[16] Jonathan Fuerbringer, “To Dole, It Was An Education to Get Past Disability”, June 16, 1986, New York Times.

^[17]Richard, “Justin Dart Jr., 71, June 14, 2002.

^[18] Steven A. Holmes, “Sweeping U.S. Law To Help Disabled Goes Into Effect: Gains Seen For Millions Statute May Force Businesses To Alter Buildings And Offer Specialized Services Sweeping U.S. Law To Help Millions Of The DisabledI Goes Into Effect New AntI-Bias Legislation Could Bring Changes To Many Businesses.” Jan 27, 1992, New York Times.

^[19] Richard W Stevenson, “Justin Dart Jr., 71, Advocate for Rights of Disabled People”, June 14, 2002.

^[20] “House of Commons”, Times, June 6,1951, The Times Digital Archive.

^[21] “House of Commons”, Times, November 7, 1951, The Time Digital Archive.

^[22] “Parliament”, Times, August 3, 1951, The Times Digital Archive.

^[23] “Diary Of Next Week’s Events”, Times, July 8, 1961, The Times Digital Archive.

^[24] “Subsidy Rate In Airport Changes”, Times, March 7, 1961, The Time Digital Archive.

^[25]Ian Dowbiggin, “A Prey on Normal People”, Journal of Contemporary History, (2001), 65.

^[26] Richard Evans, “Law will ensure access for disabled in new buildings”, Times, June 2, 1981, The Times Digital Archive.

^[27] “Launchers For Research in Space”, Times, March 14, 1961, The Times Digital Archive.

^[28] Rodney Hobson, “Working at a different pace”, Times, July 31, 1990, The Times Digital Archive.

^[29] Alexandra Frean, “Care homes for the mentally disabled to shut”, Times, March 21, 2001, The Times Digital Archive.

^[30] Stephen Cragg,“Legislation Update”, Times, September 7th, 2004, The Times Digital Archive.

^[31]^{Stephen Alambritis, “The Business View”, Times, March 4, 2008, The Times Digital Archive.}

Disciplinary Literacy, Trade Books, and Culturally Responsive Teaching in Middle Grades Social Studies

Disciplinary Literacy, Trade Books, and Culturally Responsive Teaching in Middle Grades Social Studies

Dr. Caroline Sheffield & Dr. Jeremiah Clabough

Disciplinary literacy, which emphasizes teaching students the skills and strategies used by practitioners, has become more prevalent in U.S. schools over the last 15 years. Therefore, teachers need to be deliberate as they assist students to think and write like practitioners (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). The National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) has placed an emphasis on disciplinary literacy in its College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards (NCSS, 2013a).

Emphasizing disciplinary literacy means social studies teachers need to give careful thought and consideration in designing learning experiences to develop their students’ historical, civic, economic, and geographic thinking skills (NCSS, 2013a). For some, this will mean redefining their classroom practices. Incorporating disciplinary literacy practices is complicated by the fact that many students are not reading on grade level.

Our intervention is centered on using trade books focusing on civil rights activists that address the racial discrimination Black Americans faced immediately after the U.S. Civil War. Students read excerpts of the trade books and additional sources as a whole class and in groups. They utilized these texts to answer analysis prompts where they used evidence to support their arguments. In this article, we share both our intervention and the successes from the project.

Culturally responsive teaching

The demographics in U.S. public schools have dramatically changed in the 21^st century. White majorities in schools have given way to student populations that are more diverse. This is due in part to immigration patterns to the United States. With the changing demographics in the United States, social studies teachers need to reconsider how they design classroom instruction. One approach is to incorporate culturally responsive teaching, which is defined by Geneva Gay (2000) as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse student to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them” (pg. 29). Additionally, culturally responsive teaching emphasizes the need for high expectations and academic achievement for culturally diverse students, which reflects the empowered school culture described by Banks (2019).

Gay (2000) calls for teachers to scaffold and connect ethnically and culturally diverse students with the curriculum of the varied academic subjects. Doing so helps teachers to achieve the transformative approach to multicultural education described by Banks (2019). In the transformative approach, “the structure of the curriculum is changed to enable students to view concepts, issues, events, and themes from the perspective of diverse ethnic and cultural groups” (Banks, 2019, p. 64). If social studies teachers are to move beyond the additive and contributions approaches to multicultural education, it is necessary to consider how to incorporate the experiences and viewpoints of minorities beyond a single month in the year (King & Brown, 2014). In the social studies, this would entail using a variety of resources to authentically represent different groups’ values and perspectives throughout the curriculum. Texts that reflect students’ cultures act as mirrors. This allows students to see themselves in their U.S. history curriculum (Bishop, 1990).

There are several key components of culturally responsive teaching for social studies teachers to consider. Effective instruction in the social studies includes primary and secondary sources that allow students to analyze different groups’ perspectives and beliefs about historical and contemporary issues. Doing so provides students with the information to develop a nuanced understanding of an issue and helps to prepare them to work with people from different backgrounds in our pluralistic democratic society (Banks, 2019; Gay, 1994). By focusing on their culture through reading assignments, students can also analyze and critique historical and contemporary power structures in U.S. society and thus equip them with the knowledge to take civic action to address social, cultural, economic, and political inequities (Ochoa-Becker, 1996). One of the approaches to addressing ethnic and cultural diversity in the classroom identified by Gay (2000) is the use of trade books as instructional tools.

Using trade books in the social studies

The term trade book refers to books, other than textbooks, that are available in retail establishments. Trade books include informational texts, picture books, and graphic novels (McGowan & Guzzetti, 1991). Not only are trade books more engaging than the typical social studies textbook, but they are also better written (Palmer & Stewart, 1997). Trade books highlight individuals and events frequently excluded from traditional textbooks (Chick, 2008). Trade books are not shallow in content and difficult to read (Berkeley et al., 2016; Tracy, 2003).

Trade books enable teachers to focus on a specific individual or event in depth. Diverse perspectives can be accessed by using several trade books in a curated text set about a specific event or time (Palmer & Stewart, 1997). The diversity of available trade books, in content, format, and readability, offers teachers an opportunity to select texts that best match their students’ reading and learning needs (Liang, 2002; Saul & Dieckman, 2005).

For social studies teachers, trade books offer students a chance to step into a new time or place (Beck & McKeown, 1991) to meet lesser-known historical figures and make emotional connections to the events depicted (Chisholm et al., 2017). It is through this emotional connection that trade books can be used as tools to develop students’ historical empathy skills, which is the effort to better understand historical figures, their actions, decisions, and lived experiences (Endacott & Brooks, 2013). Trade books also offer social studies teachers a way to teach disciplinary literacy by requiring students to analyze for perspective, bias, and purpose (Shanahan & Shanahan 2008).

As mentioned previously, in culturally responsive pedagogy, teachers employ varied sources that celebrate the history and lived experiences of the culturally diverse students in the classroom. Trade books are an excellent way to do this. For students of color, historical figures who look like them are often portrayed as victims, with little agency and impact on U.S. history (King, 2020). This is not the mirror we want our students to see. To counter this image, teachers should use texts that present people of color impacting their world. This is the framework we utilized to design our study.

Project background and setting

We designed a year-long project for the 2021-2022 academic year in which a sixth-grade teacher would use trade books to thematically teach the concept of civil rights in the United States from Reconstruction to the present. We envisioned thematic teaching to be the examination of a specific concept, in this case civil rights, while still teaching U.S. history chronologically. Thus, the thematic teaching approach was embedded into the existing content taught in the grade level. We chose to focus on the civil rights theme because we wanted students to recognize that the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s did not exist in a vacuum. There were events, individuals, and groups who strove for civil rights long before Dr. King.

We determined that trade books would be an effective way to address this theme, as there are books written for young people that address all of the eras of U.S. history. Many of them highlight the struggles and achievements of culturally diverse individuals. To identify high quality trade books aligned with the sixth-grade curriculum and the civil rights theme, we first referred to the NCSS Notable Trade Book lists. All trade books were read, evaluated with regard to both project goals and text quality, and were agreed upon by the two researchers and the teacher.

The thematic teaching through our project was conducted at the Academy (a pseudonym), a new public charter school located in a medium-size city in the Southern United States. At the time of this project, there is only a sixth-grade class of 100 students at the time of our project. The Academy’s mission statement is clearly aligned with the principles of culturally responsive teaching. The school mission is socially justice oriented, seeking to empower their students to be agents of change.

Black students represent 93% of the Academy’s sixth grade class. The remaining 7% include students who identify as Latinx, white, and Asian. The social studies teacher, Ms. Edwards (a pseudonym), identifies as a white female and has more than ten years of experience teaching social studies in both middle school and high school settings. We should acknowledge that both researchers identify as white, one a white male and the other a white female.

The learning activities were co-constructed with the participating teacher. The three of us crafted an instructional plan that was both reflective of content that addressed the state standards, incorporated the selected trade book, reflected both the school’s mission, and the teacher’s understanding of the students’ learning needs. We helped the teacher monitor student work and aided with instruction, when requested. Based on the fact that the students’ completed work when we were present did not greatly differ from their work when we were not in the classroom, we posit that our participation in class instruction had little impact on the students’ performance.

Intervention

This paper explores the results of the first two eras addressed in curriculum: Reconstruction and the Progressive Era. The trade books chosen for these units included Henry Louis Gates, Jr.’s (2019) Dark Sky Rising: Reconstruction and the Dawn of Jim Crow and Walter Dean Myers and Bonnie Christensen’s (2008) Ida B. Wells: Let the Truth Be Told. Dark Sky Rising, a non-fiction chapter book, is written for the young adolescent reader and contains numerous primary sources embedded into the narrative. It explores the rise and fall of African American civil liberties during the Reconstruction era. Ida B. Wells: Let the Truth Be Told (Myers & Christensen, 2008) is a 2009 NCSS Notable Trade Book. It is a picture biography of Ida B. Wells’s life and includes her childhood, education, work as a journalist and suffragette, as well as her efforts fighting the lynching of Black Americans.

We used the trade books as anchor texts in the two units. In the Reconstruction unit, Dark Sky Rising (Gates, Jr., 2019). was used to explore literacy tests, poll tax, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Jim Crow segregation laws designed to keep African Americans second-class citizens in the latter 1800s. During the second unit, students read the trade book Ida B. Wells (Myers & Christensen, 2008) and watched videos about Wells to examine how violence was used as a tool to maintain white hegemony in the South.

Excerpts from Dark Sky Rising (Gates Jr., 2019) were used due to the book’s length. A whole class read-aloud strategy was used for both Dark Sky Rising (Gates Jr., 2019) and Ida B. Wells (Myers & Christensen, 2008). Students also did partner readings of sections from both trade books. They worked together to complete tasks that required them to synthesize information found in the trade books to explain how policies were created to disenfranchise African Americans and how violence was used to maintain these social inequalities.

Findings

There was evidence that two years’ worth of disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the students’ literacy skills. It was apparent in the interactions between the teacher and students that there was also a discrepancy between expectations in the middle school and the elementary school. Students were initially resistant to reading informational texts, synthesizing information, and writing to convey their understanding. Over the course of the year, the students’ resistance was reduced, and their work reflected improved literacy skills.

It was clear that they were not used to completing tasks like the ones assigned. Their written responses were short and rarely in complete sentences (see Figure 1):

Figure 1: Student Example 1, Impact of Plessy vs. Ferguson

Despite the brevity of the students’ answers, the majority of students’ responses were correct, indicating that they were able to successfully read the trade books and articulate responses to questions focusing on the obstacles African Americans faced.

There were encouraging signs from the first two handouts that with simple modeling from the teacher and researchers, some of the students included references from the trade book and primary sources to support their arguments. Students would add the page number where they found their answers to the questions (See Figure 2):

Figure 2: Student Example 2, Impact of Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests

By the end of the first two units, almost all students were consistently using evidence from sources to support their arguments, and they were doing so in complete sentences. Additionally, students made subtle thematic arguments regarding how different civil rights activists worked to address racial discrimination.

One other item of note was that in addition to strengthening students’ disciplinary literacy and historical thinking skills, they also started to discuss historical figures in three dimensional terms. Often, middle school students see historical figures as dead characters who lacked hopes and dreams (Clabough et al., 2017). These students started talking about the historical figures, Frederick Douglass from the first project and Ida B. Wells from the second project, in three dimensional terms in the second unit’s summative assessment. That assignment tasked students with drawing a Janus figure for Frederick Douglass and Ida B. Wells while also answering questions about these two individuals’ backgrounds and advocacies. The trade books and resources selected through the first two units were designed to highlight how and why both historical figures advocated for civil rights.

The students’ writing showed tremendous progress within the course of a month. Most were writing in complete sentences by the end of the Janus figure activity (See Figure 3):

Figure 3: Student Example 3, Janus Figure Assessment

The majority of the students cited evidence at the end of the sentences from the trade books and the resources used. The students consistently wrote about Frederick Douglass and Ida B. Wells in three dimensional terms by capturing events in their childhood and family life, as well as their values and beliefs about civil rights issues.

Thematic vs. chronological teaching

When social studies teachers talk about thematic teaching, they often speak of a dichotomy between chronological instruction and thematic instruction (Turan, 2020). Our work in this project suggests a different approach, one where teachers do not have to sacrifice chronological teaching to embrace thematic instruction. The units highlighted in this project were taught in a chronological order. However, they both included a focus on the struggle for African American civil rights, using the selected trade books as anchor texts. As demonstrated in their Janus figures, the students were able to make thematic connections between the two individuals. The theme was not diluted by teaching the units chronologically, and the chronology of the content was not lost in examining a theme. This project demonstrates that, at least in thematic teaching, you can have your cake and eat it too.

Trade books in middle grades social studies

Social studies education has long embraced using trade books as instructional tools. There are quite a few articles describing the potential benefits of using trade books in the middle grades social studies class (Clabough & Sheffield, 2022; Wilkins et al., 2008). However, there is little research within the last twenty years that outlines how these potential benefits play out in the middle school classroom.

We found in our work at the Academy that using the trade books was an effective method to engage students in disciplinary literacy. The students demonstrated the ability to gather information from sources and draw informed and supported conclusions. They also began to employ historical empathy, a highly complex skill, with regard to the African American leaders studied in the Reconstruction and Progressive Era units. The results from this project indicate that the articles extolling the potential benefits of trade books in the social studies classroom were well-founded.

Culturally responsive trade books in social studies

Students need opportunities to explore their culture in meaningful ways (Gay, 2000). The exploration of culturally responsive trade books offers students a way to empathize with varied groups’ lived experiences, which is also an important aspect of historical empathy (Endacott & Brooks, 2013). Additionally, drawing on trade books that address diverse cultures helps to cultivate an inclusive learning environment that values all students.

The sixth-grade students were actively engaged in our project through class discussions during read alouds and group work analyzing trade books and supplementary sources. The content being explored focused on African Americans’ lived experiences with racial discrimination. Students were able to see how historical figures analyzed public policies and took civic action, thus demonstrating for the students the practical necessity of being able to complete complex reading tasks. Finally, students gained the skills needed as future democratic citizens to take civic action as change agents to address social injustices (NCSS, 2013b).

Conclusion

During our time with the students at the Academy, the importance of starting small with building students’ disciplinary literacy skills and giving them space to grow became increasingly obvious. Within a month, the students went from writing sentence fragment responses in the first two tasks to consistently articulating their answers in complete sentences with references to support their arguments. This transformation was accomplished from support and modeling by the teacher and researchers. The exploration of culturally responsive trade books also allowed the students’ historical empathy skills to be strengthened as they could articulate historical figures’ values, beliefs, and advocacies. Social studies teachers need to strive for students to engage in disciplinary literacy in order to examine the experiences and achievements of marginalized groups and to explore complex topics within the U.S. history curriculum. Avoid the assumption that just because students are not reading on grade level, or struggle with writing, that they cannot engage in historical analysis. The students’ growth and engagement with the content that we observed in the first month of school suggests that with the right support, students can successfully grapple with complex historical content.

References

Banks, J. (2019). An introduction to multicultural education (6^th ed.). Pearson.

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M.G. (1991). Research directions: Social studies texts are hard to understanding: Mediating some of the difficulties. Language Arts, 68(6), 482-490.

Berkeley, S., King-Sears, M.E., Vilbas, J., & Conklin, S. (2016). Textbook characteristics that support or thwart comprehension: The current state of social studies texts. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 32(3), 247-272.

Bishop, R.S. (1990). Windows and mirrors: Children’s books and parallel cultures. In K. Holmes (Ed.), Perspectives on teaching and assessing language arts (pp. 83-92). Illinois Association of Teachers of English.

Chick, K.A. (2008). Teaching women’s history through literature: Standards-based lesson plans for grades K-12. NCSS.

Chisholm, J.S., Shelton, A.L., & Sheffield, C.C. (2017). Mediating emotive empathy with informational text: Three students’ think-aloud protocols of Gettysburg: The Graphic Novel. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61(3), 289-298.

Clabough, J., & Sheffield, C. (2022). An unspeakable act: Disciplinary literacy, racial literacy, and the Tulsa Race Massacre. Research Issues in Contemporary Education, 7(3), 67-103.

Clabough, J., Turner, T., & Carano, K. (2017). When the lion roars everyone listens: Scary good middle school social studies. Association for Middle Level Education.

Endacott, J., & Brooks, S. (2013). An updated theoretical practical model for promoting historical empathy. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 41-58.

Gates Jr., H.L. (2019). Dark sky rising: Reconstruction and the dawn of Jim Crow. Scholastic Focus.

Gay, G. (1994). At the essence of learning: Multicultural education. Kappa Delta Pi.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

King, L.J. (2020). Black history is not American history: Toward a framework of Black historical consciousness. Social Education, 84(6), 335-341.

King, L.J., & Brown, K. (2014). Once a year to be black: Fighting against typical Black History Month Pedagogies. The Negro Educational Review, 65(1-4), 23-43.

Liang, L.A. (2002). On the shelves of the local library: High-interest, easy reading trade books for struggling middle and high school readers. Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 183-188.

McGowan, T., & Guzzetti, B. (1991). Promoting social studies understanding through literature-based instruction. The Social Studies, 82(1), 16.

Myers, W.D., & Christensen, B. (2008). Ida B. Wells: Let the truth be told. Amistad.

NCSS. (2013a). The College, Career, and Civic Life Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history. Author.

NCSS. (2013b). Revitalizing civic learning in our schools. Retrieved from https://www.socialstudies.org/position-statements/revitalizing-civic-learning-our-schools

Ochoa-Becker, A. (1996). Building a rationale for issues centered education. In R. Evans & D.W. Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 6–13). NCSS.

Palmer, R.G., & Stewart, R.A. (1997). Nonfiction trade books in content area instruction: Realities and potential. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(8), 630-641.

Saul, E.W., & Dieckman, D. (2005). Choosing and using information trade books. Theory and Research into Practice, 40(4), 502-513.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.

Tracy, J. (2003). Racing through history. Journal of Education, 184(2), 63-68.

Turan, B. (2020). Thematic vs. chronological history teaching debate: A social media research. Journal of Education and Learning, 9(1), 205-216.

Wilkins, K.H., Sheffield, C.C., Ford, M.B. & Cruz, B.C. (2008). Images of struggle and triumph: Using picture books to teach about the civil rights movement in the secondary classroom. Social Education, 72(4), 177-180.

My Story: Shawuskuuhkung – Bartholomew Scott Calvin, Burlington County, 1756 to 1840

My Story: Shawuskukhkung / Bartholomew Scott Calvin

Burlington County, NJ, 1756 to 1840

Shawuskukhkung or Bartholomew Scott Calvin was born around 1756 in Crosswicks, New Jersey. His father Stephen Calvin, was the first generation of his family to adopt a Western name, most likely for the convenience of white people he interacted with, choosing a surname befitting the family’s recent conversion to Presbyterianism. Many of their fellow Lenape (or Delaware) kin had left New Jersey years prior, resettling in Ohio, but a number of families opted to stay and attempt to live among the European settlers.

In 1758, Stephen Calvin was involved in the negotiations in Crosswicks that resulted in Native Americans giving up all land claims south of the Raritan River. At the same time, the remaining Delaware were given 3,284 acres of land in modern day Shamong, New Jersey. Brotherton, as it was called, would be the first Indian Reservation. Whites were prohibited from settling, hunting, or fishing in their territory. The colony and later state of New Jersey would help with enforcement and in fact, would subsidize the community economically for many years.

The Brotherton Reservation was settled in 1759 by 200 Indians. Children were frequently sent to schools for the training of missionaries, which often included forced assimilation into the white culture. The Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge took an interest in Bartholomew Calvin and began paying his way to the College of New Jersey (later Princeton). However, by 1775 with increasing hostilities arising between the colonies and the government of Great Britain, their funds were needed elsewhere and the young student was left with a difficult decision.

Decision Activity #1

Consider Bartholomew Calvin’s situation. What are the pros and cons of each of the following possible choices?

Look for another source of funding for completing his education.
Return to his home in Brotherton and figure out what to do with the rest of his life without his degree.
Join the military to resist the British government in the hopes that the new country will offer gratitude to the Native Americans who supported the cause (or because he genuinely believed in their fight).
Join the military to fight for the British government in the hopes that they win and offer some kind of benefit to his people in exchange for military service.

Little is known about Calvin’s military service. While it is possible that he enlisted as early as 1775, the only fixed date we know is that he was in service for the Pennsylvania Line in September of 1780 and saw active duty.

Meanwhile, conditions were deteriorating in Brotherton. Most of the inhabitants were living in abject poverty while harassment from white locals increased over time. In 1767 and again in 1771, members of the Ohio Delaware tribe, their kinsmen, invited the Brotherton Indians to join them. Apparently, this offer was not to their liking as they instead sought permission from the government of New Jersey to lease some of their land to whites. Despite the rejection of this economic lifeline, the Brotherton Indians opted to stay.

After Bartholomew Calvin’s service in the Revolution concluded, he returned to Brotherton where he became schoolmaster, following in his father’s footsteps. Apparently, many of his students were white locals who he welcomed into his rolls.

But by 1801, only 63 adult residents (down from the original 200) were left in Brotherton. At this time, a group of Mohican Indians living in New Stockbridge near Oneida Lake in the state of New York offered them an unusual invitation: “Kinsmen! Our necks are stretched as long as cranes looking toward your firesides! Pack up your mat and come eat out of our dish!”

Decision Activity #2

Anyone who has moved understands how disruptive and difficult the experience can be financially and emotionally. To move an entire community with the additional uncertainty of joining another group must have been a daunting consideration. That being said, things were looking very bleak for the remaining Delaware in New Jersey. Weigh the consequences of the following choices faced by Bartholomew Calvin and the other people at Brotherton:

Stay put. After all, this is the land your father negotiated for. Times may be tough, but who knows what would await us in New York?
Take the Stockbridge Indians up on their offer. Although they are not direct relatives, you have enough in common with them that you can make it work.
Reconsider the offer from Ohio. Life in the state of New York is not likely to be much better than life in New Jersey.

Calvin and other leaders of the community petitioned the State of New Jersey to allow them to sell their lands to finance the journey. The legislature would allow it, provided that three quarters of the adults in the community consented. It appears that they fell short of the required supermajority, but the sale proceeded in 1802 regardless. A few of the inhabitants of Brotherton chose not to make the journey to New York and became integrated into white communities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Calvin continued as schoolmaster in Stockbridge.

In 1824 most of the community of Stockbridge Indians, which now included at least four different Native groups, moved to a tract of land near Green Bay in what was then considered Michigan Territory. A small number of people who had moved from Brotherton to New York opted to return to New Jersey. Calvin, however, made the trek to the new homeland, but he wasn’t quite done with New Jersey.

In 1832, at the age of 76, he returned to New Jersey as the delegate of the “original people” and addressed the state legislature. Although they had sold the reservation land back in 1802, the right to hunt and fish on that land was still theirs. Perhaps the State of New Jersey would consider buying those rights, and thereby help the remaining Delaware who had gone through so much.

What is the likelihood of success for each of the following strategies:

Based on the principles in the Declaration of Independence, demand just compensation for the rights to hunt and fish as well as money for the trouble the Delaware people experienced.
Make a speech that is highly complementary of the New Jersey government in the hopes that they’ll be more willing to give the Delaware something for their troubles.
Don’t bother. The idea of the government doing anything for the Delaware at this point in time is very unlikely.

In his address to the Legislature, Calvin 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.”

Perhaps understanding that his bargaining power was rather limited, Calvin left the determination of an amount up to the Legislature, which in turn provided a modest $2,000 purchasing price, the rough equivalent of $70,000 in present day currency.

Coming Out of the Streets: LGBTQ Youth Experiencing Homelessness

Coming Out to the Streets: LGBTQ Youth Experiencing Homelessness, by Brandon Andrew Robinson (Oakland: University of California Press)

Review by Thomas Hansen

This is the story of a qualitative research study in which the professor was an observer who was able to get a great deal of trust and information from the subjects interviewed. Volunteering at the shelter where the subjects were housed temporarily, the professor conducted this ethnographic study by using in-depth interviews to look at the lives and goals of young homeless persons.

I disagree with the author making the clear point throughout the book that the family does not shoulder much of the blame for the young people becoming disenfranchised or bullied or shunned by society. The author hopes people will move beyond simply blaming the family for all the difficulties youth must conquer in order to survive the young-adult years. The author insists it is “the system” that needs to be fixed—not the youth and not the family. There would be many people who disagree with this author on this point, including many people who have battled through those difficult years and somehow made it to the other side.

While I leaf back through the book and thought again about what I had recently read, two young gay men at the next table are telling of the terrible experiences they had growing up, coming out, and finally escaping a damning and hateful family—in both of their cases. I keep moving away from them, but I can still hear every word they are saying and do not want to listen. However, they get louder and louder as they share their experiences and hopes out loud.

I am embarrassed I can hear all this—at the same time I am thankful I am hearing such a timely discussion when I am trying to write some notes that will lead to a review of this book.

They share a common story about the oppressive life they have lead “at their family’s house.” I know very little–if anything—about these two young men. I do not know their names or where they are from or what their parents are like. I do not know if anything they are sharing very loudly is true or not. But most everything they are saying is similar to a story I have heard from many young people for years.

It is true that different people, in different situations and cities, will have disparate realities as they “come out” into whatever sexuality or personality they take on as adults. I would argue with this author that it is the great majority of young LGBTQ persons who have had the most difficulties at home—the very people who should be loving, supporting, and protecting the youths are instead perhaps the biggest challenge facing them.

Children’s families often abandon them and turn them off. Without the support of the very people who should be helping, these youth often have to make sure very hard decisions and face some terrible dangers to survive. In the meantime, the family continues to withhold their assistance.

The professor who conducted this study insists it is society—not the family—that is the culprit in the destruction of young people who are meant to come out and live the responsible gay lives they should be allowed to live. The professor attempts to show how blame for the young people’s stress can be levied against several different pieces of the system. Teachers, school administrators, the courts, the police, and mainstream society in general are all to blame for presenting the young persons with great challenges and judgment. The author makes the point that the family is not the main problem and she does this strongly in the book.

Maybe in this particular shelter where the author interviewed young people, and throughout this study, and elsewhere in this book, the family is not to blame. However, I maintain the family is one of the most guilty parties in the oppression, judgment, and ostracizing of the young people who wind up out on the streets and facing terrible choices.

I know it is the average families, including the parents without much cultural and educational understanding, who have no idea how much they are contributing to creating a whole population of young adults in stress. These are young persons who are struggling to gain their independence and who have to make difficult decisions to do so. Young LGBTQ persons become involved in prostitution, selling drugs, using drugs, shoplifting and other sorts of crimes.

The book does a good and typical glimpse of the young people who have been damaged by their families (and church and school and neighbors and etc.). There is so much wasted time. Instead of transitioning easily from being children to being adults, these young people have to use a huge amount of energy to survive, learn, begin to work, and then establish new goals later in life, and become adults “later” than they wanted to in some ways, and “way too early” in other ways.

Much as these young persons are still children, they are thrust into the rougher realities of an adult world not very interested in protecting them. While I agree society can be one of the culprits, I maintain it is principally the family who bears the responsibility for making life difficult for the young people.

There is plenty of evidence in the literature of the family’s negative role in the lives of such young adults.

Engaging Students with Poverty in Mind: Practical Strategies for Raising Achievement

Engaging Students with Poverty in Mind: Practical Strategies for Raising Achievement, by Eric Jensen (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development)

Review by Thomas Hansen

Eric Jensen provides good hints and strategies for dealing with the special and difficult problems our poorer students bring to the classroom. The number of students living in poverty has grown exponentially, yet many educators are not aware of the realities. Jensen shows a good understanding of some of the difficulties and challenges students face, and he uses a research basis in this text.

Published in 2013, this book paints a bleak picture of a bleak nation. I am sure Jensen had NO idea there would be worse days, COVID-19, and a burgeoning homeless population in this country. Fresh after the New Great Depression, this book was timeless then—and is timeless now.

This text appeared years ago but is still relevant because the number of persons on the streets has risen, a huge number of families rely on food stamps and free lunches, and the homes of many families have been boarded up for a number of years, with most people not able to afford a house and the original occupants of those dwellings now living with relatives, in shelters, or in their cars.

A huge challenge today is how to afford a place to live. Struggling families can tell you this. Housing is expensive. In many cities, very few people have any interest at all in providing affordable homes or apartments for poorer people to live in. You can count on one hand the cities that have actually addressed the problem of “where to put the poor people.

The question remains: “How do we begin to help students who face the stressors of hunger, despair, and stigma each day?” It is important to serve and protect the students now, while they are poor, and deal with housing and other services later. But how do we teach them? Feed them? Encourage them?

Jensen includes the data from research on these students, starting with health and nutrition issues and ranging to the stress levels and daily hassles students face. These and five other areas constitute the seven types of challenges facing students living in poverty, though I would suggest many of our students, in addition to teachers and teacher candidates, face many of these same difficulties. Jensen calls these “the seven engagement factors,” and the other ones are: vocabulary; effort and energy; mind-set; cognitive capacity; and relationships.

Jensen bases his approach here more on the stressors facing poor students and less on technical information about the poverty numbers and facts out there. For that technical data, we would have to go to other sources.

Jensen proposes “five rules for engagement” for teachers to employ in the classroom as a means of getting poorer students involved: upgrade your attitude; build relationships & respect; get buy-in; embrace clarity; and show your passion. Though I think these are good to use with any student, they seem to make sense in dealing with students who face the hassles and challenges of living with poverty on a daily basis, a seemingly unrelenting set of difficulties. Clarity is important, for example, because students living in poverty are often hungry and tired, and they need straightforward definitions and examples, in addition to encouragement and a positive learning environment.

Jensen acknowledges hunger and stress and the power they hold over students. He reminds us that students should be treated with dignity, and that they are the reason we have a job. The students are the future of our country, Jensen reminds us, not prison inmates.

Students living in poverty, especially, come to school wondering if someone there cares about them, wondering if they are important. They may have difficulty concentrating, and difficulty feeling that the school day may offer something interesting and relevant in a world that may have forgotten them, they may feel. Younger people, especially, have trouble making sense of a world in which there is so much hunger.

I can think of some other texts from years ago that are still relevant. If Jensen’s older book is to be used in a topics class on dealing with poverty issues or other such use, including professional development meetings or retreats, I would definitely recommend one or more additional texts—both of them older/older editions fine—with more specific information on poverty be included. One good additional text would be: Poverty in America: A Handbook, Third Edition, 2013, by John Iceland.

Another good text would be: Someplace Like America: Tales from the New Great Depression, Updated Edition, 2013, by Dale Maharidge, Photographs by Michael S. Williamson. These could both provide more of the technical information not included in the Jensen text.

To summarize, I recommend this text because of the good teaching strategies and scenarios included. I think most of what Jensen includes is good information for working with any student, and certainly any student facing stressful situations.