Academic Translation

      Nygren, Thomas, and Brian Johnsrud. “What Would Martin Luther King Jr. Say? Teaching the Historical and Practical Past to Promote Human Rights in Education.” Journal of Human Rights Practice, vol. 10, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 287–306. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1093/jhuman/huy013.

        For my academic translation, since I am also an American Studies major with a minor in Political Science and History, I went with the article What Would Martin Luther King Jr. Say? Teaching the Historical and Practical Past to Promote Human Rights in Education by Thomas Nygren and Brian Johnsrud, which was found using the databases the Trible library uses at Christopher Newport University.  Those who I interviewed for this assignment include Dr. Charles Ford, a professor of History at Norfolk State University (NSU) and historian; and Dr. Elizabeth Wood, a lecturer at Christopher Newport Univerity (CNU) in the Department of History and historian. 

        In the set up of the article, Thomas Nygren and Brain Johnsrud split it into different sections. Sections that include an abstract; background/introduction; theoretical considerations: the historical past versus the practical past; the setting, and participants; data and methodology; teacher perspectives; MLK in preconceptions, textbooks, and primary sources; MLK and the Ferguson unrest; MLK's social, political, and economic views; MLK in students' final essays; students' perspectives immediately after teaching; students' perspectives a year later; discussion of findings; conclusions; and acknowledgments, funding, references. For the questions that I had for Dr. Ford and Dr. Wood, it mostly came from the abstract and the theoretical considerations sections, since it was more focussed on what historians and professors had to say about some of the issues they are trying to study so they could compare it to the results of the study. 

       The purpose of the study was to examine ongoing history education where U.S. History public school teachers would promote a more radical human rights perspective on the history and legacy of MLK by contrasting contemporary uses of history with primary sources from the era of the Civil Rights Movement. In the study, the students in Grade 11 is supposed to engage with the 'historical' and 'practical past" by using these two questions. "Is it possible in practice for students to critically engage with less dominant perceptions of MLK to support human rights education in the history classroom?", and "how can history teachers engage students with contemporary issues in a manner that still represents norms and values of the historical discipline?" 

       Beginning with the introduction, the first point has to do with history education guidelines saying that these "guidelines should stimulate students to think like historians, while also inspiring them to actively engage with contemporary issues." This means according to the article that "students should learn about human rights in the past and present which should be conducted through transformative pedagogies supporting empathy and solidarity, and that it should students' critical mindsets to work for furthering human rights in the world." The question that both professors answered, about the quote, was seeing if they did anything similar to the guidelines referenced in the article. Dr. Wood said absolutely because in the classes she teaches she naturally go towards a human rights perspective. She also noted that her activism allows her to teach these kinds of courses. The classes she refers to include a historical survey, history of US south, comparative slavery, African American women's history, and medicine in the African American experience, which she expects her students to use historical thinking and analytical skills in their works. On the other side, Dr. Ford referenced the thirty-year-old World History curriculum/discipline in which Norfolk State University was one of the first to adopt instead of Western Civilization. Dr. Ford also noted that he was apart of the process that developed the standards to teaching and learning for the discipline, which he been continuing to finetune as he teaching World History. 

         Another thing with noting is the statement that is referenced in the article about many historians. The referenced statement is that "many historians find the contemporary myth of MLK as an entirely peaceful, moderate leader conceals MLK's radical messages, concealment that serves to support a grand narrative of a contemporary nation that has moved racial inequalities. Dr. Wood agreed with the statement. The question that was then asked was if the ongoing struggle for Civil Rights is visible. Both Dr. Wood and Dr. Ford agreed that it was still visible. Dr. Ford referenced his research on the Civil Rights Movement in Norfolk Virginia and the struggle to have integrated schools. Dr. Ford said that some would accommodate themselves to the system like the NAACP's follow the courtroom approach, which came in after World War II, meaning that the courtroom would decide everything believing that everything else like boycotts was distractions from the courthouse. On the other side, Dr. Wood referenced life after the President Obama era about how some folks think we're good and everything is equal since we've had an African American president. Dr. Wood mentioned that this summer we're seeing the ongoing struggle of Civil Rights more visible in regards to race and hopes that it can stay visible. 

       As the article concludes this section, there are some other questions they ask. Questions like how might teachers implement a more active and radical perspective of MLK, will the teaching yield the intended learning results in a meaningful and lasting manner, and is it possible in practice for students to critically engage with less dominant perceptions of MLK to support human rights education in the history classroom. These questions went into the considerations of the historical past versus the practical past. The difference expressed in the article is that Michael Oakeshott, a historian, said that the historical past is as something tied to a 'critical inquiry of a certain sort.... assembled in answer to a historical question', meaning the focus is on primary sources, "thinking like a historian", and the evidence that supports Sam Wineburg, a professor at Stanford University, calling of historical thinking; and the practical past refers to understanding the past with the present in a way that relates to ways of knowing and actively engaging with our daily decisions, contextualization of present social surroundings or the navigation of individual/group identifies today, which goes more what scholars refer as human rights education, the knowledge of skills and attitudes that help students understand and actively engage with democratic issues regarding political, economic and social equity today, and in the future. The questions that came out of this include how can history teachers engage students with contemporary issues in a manner that still represents norms and values of the historical discipline, and how can teachers and students navigate these dual goals and perspectives on the past, especially when learning pivotal issues like human rights in a democratic society. 

     The question of the historical past versus the practical past was something that was asked to both professors along with asking if they believed that the practical past is in line with human rights education. Dr. Wood said that the difference between the historical and the practical past or useable past is that the historical past is simply confronting the past and asking questions about it and that the useable/practical past is trying to relate information to something that is happening today. 

      The study itself included two teachers, one male and one female, and their students who were juniors, ages 16-17. The Civil Rights Movement unit those teachers were expected to cover in four weeks began with the Jim Crow Laws before the movement ending with the legacy of MLK and his perceptions. The last part of the unit is writing a final essay. Due to a lack of time the initial plan to focus on black, indigenous, and queer people and women didn't happen because of exam dates. But, they decided to focus on the rights of black Americans and women. 

       The method they conducted the study was through an interactive case study approach that led a focus on teacher's attempts to problematize dominant perspectives on MLK's views on non-violence. Something that the teachers were trying to address is the critical thinking about the historical past while also showing their students how human rights education makes the past 'practical' for understanding civic engagement in the present. They then limited the analysis to a certain section of the unit to "better capture the richness of the educational practice and also to investigate and reflect upon possibilities and challenges in practice as a constructive way to develop research and teaching." By using this approach, they would learn from a smaller scale and find important patterns that may also be observed on a larger scale. Before the unit, they interviewed both teachers about what their goals and plans are. These plans had a mix of primary and secondary sources. The perspectives of students were also done in an interview style, before and after. Then after the unit was over and one year after, they interviewed as a follow-up. The time the students and teachers were observed was for 1,280 minutes in a time frame of March 9 to March 26, 2015. The analysis and findings were only based on 155 minutes of that time frame. 

         Something interesting that the teachers said goes with history education. They said that it involves teaching a complicated mix of values closely connected to teaching critical thinking about the historical past, alongside contemporary human rights issues that make the past practical for understanding the present. The two teachers come from different backgrounds and ways of teaching. They both wanted to highlight the lasting legacy of the movement. They also empathized that disciplinary thinking on the historical past is central adding that it is as important for giving students a more complex image of the past so they can be more critical towards uses of history. Another thing worth noting is what the female teacher said. She said that students need to know 'the story' of MLK, so they can learn to critically evaluate and deconstruct narratives on the past and become aware of their own confirmation bias regarding the life and deeds of MLK and other historical figures. This reminds me of what is going on today with the talk on race. 

        When it comes to preconceptions, textbooks, and primary sources the analysis said that the instructors first asked what they know. Things the students know were pretty common like the assassination, the 'I Have a Dream' speech, marched in Selma, a civil rights activist, a reverend, had kids but two things stood out. Those were "had a white friend and his dad wouldn't let him hang out" and "had a love affair."  Another thing that stood out was how the students described non-violence. They described it using Gandhi's methods of "everyone can walk hand in hand together" and " if you get hit, don't hit back". When they looked at the textbook the students saw the notion of "non-violent resistance" but when they looked at primary sources which included "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and "the other America", their perspectives changed due to confirmation bias which is the tendency that people have for looking for information confirming one's point of view. One thing that this reminds me of what Dr. Wood said the students are more likely to lean to textbooks as the authority than the primary sources.  

        Next, the students looked at the Ferguson unrest and what MLK would say. This is similar to what is happening now in the summer of 2020. The teachers told the students to highlight what MLK would say about the unrest. One student responded with a statement into a question. He said "you are supposed to treat everyone equal, and here you are shooting at black people. How can you justify racism?" Students also considered how King would understand the unrest in contemporary Ferguson. Another student found that King justified that riots are taking place and that freedom is never voluntarily given by the compressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.  As a way of contrast to the issue, the teachers presented a video of what MLK's oldest said on the violence. Once the video was over, the teachers asked the students if they agree with MLK III's interpretation? One used a style of debate and the other used reflections and allowing them to share.  One thing with noting is how the authors of the study said. What they said was the following. "Assignments like these, along with the critical responses they elected in students, model a successful way in which students are capable of challenging dominant narratives and engaging with primary sources, while also attending to contemporary notions of civil rights and comparative thinking about the past and the present." This assignment that the students did I think helped them in the long run because of the skills they learned by completing the assignment. 

       The last content related exercise the teachers did with the students was on MLK's social, political, and economic views. Both teachers asked students to read and reflect on excerpts of MLK's speeches and quotes from his memorial to stimulate the reflection on his beliefs. The purpose of the assignment was to discuss historical documents in light of contemporary uses of history. The final assessment of the students was given was an essay discussing the strategies, achievements, and setbacks of the civil rights and women's rights movements. The overall findings from the essays reflect on what Dr. Wood said about students leaning into the textbook more than the primary sources.  Immediately after the unit was over and the student interviews were done, something to take note is how many saw MLK in a new light and from a different perspective. One year later many students saw a more active and radical image of MLK.  

      In the discussion of findings, the authors found that when students came into the classroom they already had preconceptions that are in line with the textbook narrative which was criticized for simplifying and hiding the narrative of "America's most radical and controversial leaders". They also found with primary documents that students were surprised with want MLK actually wanted. Another thing deals with the CNN video of MLK III talking about the violence in Ferguson. Even though the activity was aimed to promote the radical view, the predominant view still prevailed. Something else to note comes from the interviews where the authors found that the majority of students failed to retain a counter-or radical view one year after the original lecture and that a more complex and radical view is at least among the large minority. With all of the data, the study authors contrast found that it was indeed possible to make students rethink their historical beliefs when the teachers combine the historical and practical approach to the past. On a different level, something that the authors learned was how it was hard for teachers to make students investigate all human rights in an engaging way. It also showed that teachers were also limited to study the other movements that are included with the Civil Rights like LGBTQ, Native American rights. Finally, the results from the study encouraged to authors to ask another question of what combinations of methods, materials, and instructions best support students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes. 

     The final thing to take note comes from the conclusions of what the authors learned. The first was how they found by engaging students with the practical past, it made the past struggle seem more relevant today; by stimulating students to reflect and care upon the past and present helping them understand democratic and social issues. Secondly, they found that engaging with the historical past gave students a sense of authenticity and it stimulated them to evaluate historical sources, compare different historical accounts, and how these accounts may influence information. Thirdly, both researchers and teachers suggest combining both approaches can promote a more accurate and active perspective on a central issue in the history of human rights. Finally, the authors conclude that we need to confront history more than just a story, but also more complex than a body of solid facts meaning that we need to think history as a habit of mind essential for students to defend their freedoms.