Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Sacrifice


I couldn’t, can’t sleep from the outrage and grief.

How many Americans are staying home right now?

The most patriotic thing most of us have ever done.

Sacrificing our livelihoods, our pleasures, our visits to our parents’ sickbeds, our children’s births

Working without PPE, without knowledge of the disease

To save the lives of the unknown, beloved stranger—our nurses and doctors, our teachers, our first responders, our neighbors.

Some powerful few suggest that for the sake of the economy, we should turn ourselves into unwitting bullets that will kill hundreds of thousands of other Americans,

To render pointless what we have already done and will keep doing.

I never want to hear again that “All Lives Matter,” that they are “pro-life.”

How can I persuade you that freedom should not murder?

Saturday, March 14, 2020

Awaiting Pandemic: March 12, 2020


Awaiting Pandemic: March 12, 2020
Amanda I. Seligman

In June 1992, my classmate and I drove west. The Great Plains terrified me. Fresh out of our first year of graduate school, where I studied the changes that had shaped the North American landscape, my mind’s eye could recreate the vast herds of bison that used to thunder over the American grasslands. Under skies broader than I had ever imagined, horizon unbroken in all directions, you could see them coming for miles but never get out of their way. No matter how fast you tried to run, they would trample you. I knew that nineteenth-century American hunters had shot the bison herds to the brink of extinction, destroying the animals and imperiling the indigenous cultures wrapped around them. But the curse of the historian is to conjure up the past and the future into the present moment. I could almost hear the imminent hooves, and I could not dodge them. I trembled.

I feel that way again, sitting in my living room, letting the internet unreel COVID-19’s spread across the planet into my historical imagination. It’s easy to lose an hour flipping among multiple news outlets, Twitter, and Facebook. I have been preparing in a low key, non-freakout way over the past month. In February, I dipped into Max Brooks’s World War Z, checking whether he had placed the origin of the zombie apocalypse in Hubei province (he had, if I read Chinese geography correctly). On every trip to the grocery store, I bought a few extra essentials to set against the looming lockdown: toilet paper, two dozen cans of soup, ten pounds of flour, five pounds of rice, soap, toothpaste. At each restaurant and school event, I asked myself if this was the last one before we all go into our bunkers. But today I can hear the ground rumbling, and I know things have shifted. Instead of bison, it’s contagion. It might be a while before my next trip to the store.

I send an email to the school superintendent and repost it on the middle school parents’ Facebook page. My university is extending spring break to give instructors time to transform their in-person classes to remote learning. I ask the schools to do the same. My fellow parents’ responses run mostly along predictable lines. Some folks are 100% on board with my mildly phrased suggestion. Others quite rightly point out the hardships closing schools will cause for working parents and families that rely on free lunches. A few are dismayed at the prospect of a couple weeks of alone time with their children. I order myself not to write a rebuttal essay about how public health is undervalued because its effects are invisible. I refrain from explaining that because none of us has lived through a comparable emergency their complaints that not everyone learns well online are off-base. But I do remind myself about the basic stats of the 1918 influenza outbreak: 50 million dead from a planetary population of less than 2 billion people, or somewhere a bit above 2% of the global population. And I choke back the anger of my gut response to my more reluctant internet neighbors: so you want your children to be the bullets that kill your elderly parents and cause the health care system to break down?

Distracting myself from my work with quick hits of current information worsens my mood, exhausting me. I’m on sabbatical this semester, preparing new classes. My colleagues are swamped trying to move their classes online for the duration, but I lack their focus and keep dipping back into the river of news. It reminds me of what happened after 9/11. Psychologists warned us to turn off our TV sets so that our children would not think that new planes were hitting those towers over and over again. I suspect I am traumatizing myself in a similar way by watching the crisis continually unveil itself in my news feed. But I don’t know how to adjust my inner balance: how much information helps me understand the present moment vs. repeated input that will overwhelm me so thoroughly I crumble into an anxious heap? I try closing tabs, putting an extra step and a deliberate choice between me and the news. I set up rules about when I can look to the present and when I must focus on the past. They don’t last long.

I wonder about the other rules that we are supposed to be following now, the ones implied in the idea of “social distancing.” I understand that we should keep some physical space from other people. But what other rules apply, and how do we know when to implement them? How do we recognize the moment to reduce our outside activities? Is today it? Is it already too late? The Unitarian Universalist Association, offices closed for the duration, is recasting “social distancing” as “community care.” But in practical terms, how do I implement the important idea that it’s my responsibility not to become infected so that I don’t pass on the virus to people who are more vulnerable than my family? Should I bother trying to keep my own kids at home if the schools stay in session? I’m not worried about them getting sick, since children seem less affected than adults. I don’t want them to be vectors infecting others, but what’s the point if everyone else is still merrily out in public? Should I skip church, where last week we already substituted bowing “Namaste” for our usual handshakes and hugs? I probably shouldn’t go to yoga, but can I swim in the pool or walk on the track? Can I go to the grocery store at times when it’s likely to be uncrowded, or is now the time to forego fresh foods?

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s resulted in part from the absence of bison doing their part for the ecosystem of the Great Plains. Pandemic mutates our economic and medical ecosystems. I know that I don’t need to buy clothes in person, but I have $40 in Kohl’s cash that will expire soon. Is OK to spend it online? Does doing so put the packer in the warehouse and the delivery driver in jeopardy or protect their jobs in a time of economic crash? I’m hanging out at home today because a pre-existing cold combined with an adverse reaction to a shingles vaccination to make me feel pretty crummy. Ought I postpone the second shingles injection until after the crisis is over, so that my clinic can focus on more urgent needs?

When someone asks me to identify the worst natural disaster in history, I point to the flu outbreak in 1918. Sitting in my PJs at home a century plus two years after, I can hear it on the horizon again. It’s not the thunder of bison hooves I can imagine, but the planetary echoes of the whoosh of a bat or the scritching of a pangolin somewhere in Hubei province. There are eight identified cases of COVID-19 in Wisconsin today, with one recovery, no deaths, and an unknown number of untested infections circulating or quietly self-quarantined in our community. The disaster isn’t here yet, but I am hunkering down as if for a long series of blizzards. I read a few weeks ago about the utter exhaustion of the nurses in Wuhan and today about the terrible choices of the doctors in Lombardy. I define medical triage for my increasingly less innocent child: quite literally dividing patients into those you can save, those you can only comfort, and those to treat later. I cannot calibrate my emotions or my actions. We will know only if we succeed or fail in tamping down the disease collectively, not individually. I am exhausted from knowing the past and reeling from the anguish of a future we are trying to prevent. The bison are coming up over the planet’s curve. I imagine if we lie very still, they might evaporate into a figment of the past, leaving only the dust they kicked up, making us wonder what all the upset was about, because the worst didn’t happen after all.

Monday, November 18, 2019

A Letter to My Future Self: How to Get Ready for a New Career Or, How Teaching Career Diversity for Historians Opened the Door Leading out of the Academy




If you’re reading this missive, it means that you’ve started to give serious consideration to leaving the professoriate. I might say, “Congratulations,” but I don’t know the circumstances. Maybe you’ve stopped looking forward to being in the classroom. Maybe you’ve run out of research ideas (I know, this sounds unlikely). Maybe you can’t stand your colleagues any longer but know the odds against lateral move. Or maybe the state government has succeeded in destroying the public university system. I don’t know what’s brought you to this point, but I do have confidence that you can make this transition to a new career.

Do you remember when we decided to pursue a doctorate? Super-Past Amanda decided to go to graduate school when she was a young pup of 20. Super-Past Amanda really enjoyed her first US history classes and thought she’d like to learn more. Although she gave herself permission to drop out if so inclined, once she got to graduate school she just kept going. When she finished the PhD in 1999, landing an academic job was a crapshoot with even odds. The “jobs crisis” dating to the 1970s hadn’t yet turned into the structural divide of the twenty-first century academic job market. When she lucked into an academic position that the first choice candidate turned down, she settled into the job and built a life around it. A good life, until now, when you’re considering whether to leave the faculty.

You don’t have to be trapped by Super-Past Amanda’s myopic decision-making. You aren’t less competent than she was. You know from parenting your daughters that you can’t map out your whole life. You should make the next right choice. Perhaps that means it’s time to leave the academy.

It might have been a while since you taught a course on Career Diversity, so I want to remind you some of what Past Amanda learned this spring semester teaching graduate students about planning their own professional paths.

There are plenty of resources for PhDs seeking careers outside the academy. I know that you know about Imagine PhD, Basalla and Debelius’s “So What Are You Going to Do with That ?,”[1] the AHA’s first-person essays from a broad range of historians, VersatilePhD, and Beyond the Professoriate. I won’t try to summarize their insights. Instead, here are some personal suggestions to lay the groundwork for your next steps. Hopefully you are still cultivating these practices, but in case you forgot about them, here’s a reminder from your past self about why they are worthwhile.

First, you should use your energies for your community, outside your formal job. Volunteering for the public good helps you recognize your existing skills that non-academics see as valuable. Is the mayor of your small city (himself a former humanities professor turned politician) still giving you opportunities to participate in local government? Past Amanda has already worked her way up from chairing a short-term task force on the city’s housing code to membership on the relatively relaxed Architectural Review Board and now the city’s Plan Commission. Keep it up and build your local network. When your neighbors know what you can do, they might open professional doors for you.

Second, you should deliberately undertake professional development, even though professors generally don’t use that term. The PhD is a terminal degree, but it shouldn’t be the end of your education. Obviously your teaching and research have taught you more about history. But you should also keeping learning new skills. Remember that writing project that introduced you to WordPress? The time you put in then paid off when your digital history project ended up on a WordPress platform. You started playing with coding after a visit to your daughter’s middle school Tech Ed class; how far did you get on Code.org? I’m not saying you ever have to penetrate the mysteries of the photocopier—there are limits after all—but do welcome the possibilities that intrigue you.

Finally, keep up those connections with your students. Your decades in the classroom mean that you have already built relationships with students who are now embedded in work environments that welcome historians. Other professors probably won’t be helpful building your new career, but the students who remember you fondly might be excited to have the chance to return your service with an informational interview or an entrĂ©e to a position. Your students already know you respect them as whole people whom you want to help for their own sake. They might welcome the chance to see you as a whole person as well.

Know that your PhD is not an anvil weighing down your job search. Rather, like other forms of education, a PhD is a battery: it powers you, and it fits a wide variety of machines. Whether you want to leave your career or are feeling forced to, you can adapt your PhD to many different applications. To be sure, your PhD is a C battery—suited for flashlights, radios, toys, and tools. To fulfill your childhood dream of a seat on the Supreme Court, you will need to earn that (J)D battery instead. But your PhD is never wasted, even if it is time to try it out somewhere new.

Love,

Present Amanda




[1] Susan Basalla and Maggie DeBelius, “So What Are You Going to Do with That?’: Finding Careers Outside Academia, 3rd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015; originally published 2001 by Farrar Straus and Giroux).

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Russian Bots, a found poem




When we planned the Encyclopediaof Milwaukee (EMKE) in the late 2000s, we wanted to invite user comments. But also we wanted to be able to moderate the comments. The quality of user comments on news stories was notoriously low, and we were warned that we would spend a lot of time deleting Viagra ads and other spam. So our IT team set up our site so that users have to register before they can comment. A moderator has to release a comment before it is visible to the public. We’ve been open for comments since our first entries went live in March of 2016.
The project is having a long and slow soft launch while we get all 700 entries through our workflow. So it’s not surprising that we did not get a lot of registrations, much less comments, to start off. But beginning around September 2016, we had a noticeable uptick in newly registered accounts.
The Encyclopedia of Milwaukee is a locally-oriented digital history project. We expected that most of the people who wanted to register and leave comments would be from the Milwaukee area. But the handles and domain names of our new registrations did not look like we expected. Many were nonsense words; the extensions weren’t the familiar .com and .orgs; some were clearly spammers; and, fascinatingly, many ended with .ru. As in Russia. These new registrants didn’t leave comments. They just signed up and vanished again. Mysterious, eh?
For a while we just watched the registrations mount. Because digital history projects are collaborative, a whole team of people keeps tabs on site use. We want to make sure we don’t miss a legitimate comment, so I felt obliged to look at all the new user notifications and forward them to my colleagues with a note that I was ignoring this one or that one. Eventually process this got tiresome, especially given the ratio of legitimate users to spammers. So in 2018, we had our IT team install a Stop Spammers plug-in to filter out bots. Between June 20, 2018 and May 20, 2019, it stopped 35,231 registrations.
But I couldn’t get the Russian registrations out of my head. What did they mean? Why did they target the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee? We all know about “Russian interference in the 2016 US election.” But how did the apparently harmless effort to sign up with my digital history project fit in to this picture? Was it a side effect of a fundamentally political project, or was the interference in the election itself a piece of a larger effort? Whatever their political views, historians are intellectually conservative folk. We know that to see the big picture, we need to have all the pieces to look at—or at least enough pieces to be confident that we aren’t missing something huge. I would like to know what these registrations mean, but I’m not ready to pronounce a historical analysis of them.
Instead, I decided to write a poem, to share a sense of the experience and throw out to the world my piece of the picture. That’s why I wrote “Russian bots, a found poem.”

How did I compose this poem? While my students were taking their final exam last week, I found all the user notifications for the EMKE and manually pulled out every username and email address that looked to me like spam. I didn’t think to harvest the time stamps on the registrations so that I could make some inferences about whether they might have originated with people working in other time zones, and I don’t have the technical chops to scrape the data out of my email. I ended up with a list of 214 distinct registrations. I then separated each registration into three component parts: user registration name, the email handle, and the domain name of each email address. Just for fun, I visualized each set of components using WordClouds.com.
Here are the domains. I wanted to keep the @ signs with the domains, but again I am not technically proficient enough to stop the word cloud generator from deleting them.



 Here are the email handles:

Here are the usernames registered on the EMKE website:

To compose the poem, I compiled all three lists back into one dataset and alphabetized them using Excel. My plan was to make an acrostic poem using the first letter of the elements (excluding the @ signs). Based on my dataset, I had the entire English alphabet at my disposal—except Q and X—and many choices within some letter groups. Next I posed the question “Why were so many Encyclopedia of Milwaukee registrations Russian?” and arranged it vertically to create the acrostic. Then I inspected my list of usernames, handles, and domains and chose the ones that seemed most interesting and appealing, matching each to an appropriate letter in the acrostic. I was careful only to use a given option once in the poem even if it appeared multiple times on my list. I’m a humanist, so I felt perfectly comfortable making impressionistic rather than systematic selections. I retained the original capitalization and punctuation. Each of these “words” then became its own line in the poem, which ends with my inserted question mark. I visualized the poem as a picture using Branah.com’stext-to-image converter.

Saturday, September 1, 2018

Admit Ivy League Students by Lottery


The time has come to say this aloud. Admission to the most selective colleges and universities in the United States simply is not an academic meritocracy. The current lawsuit against Harvard—accused of discriminating against Asian Americans—charges that admissions staff use not just grades and test scores, not just records of extracurricular activity, but also intangible factors of personality to decide who gets in and access to the treasury of Croesus. How those readings of applicants’ personalities shade over into culture and race seems to be the core of the case. The underlying logic is that applicants who are better students are being passed over because the portraits their portfolios paint are not sparkly enough.
            But for decades it has been the case that the nation’s most selective colleges make their admission decisions not solely on the basis of academic merit. When I was admitted to Princeton back in 1986, getting in was relatively easy—only 80% of applicants were rejected, compared to the 95% routinely rejected today. At some point in the distant past there was an academic cutoff—if your scores were good enough, you got in.* Now there are always fewer seats available than there are valedictorians, people with perfect test scores, and students with flawless GPAs bolstered by extra points for AP and honors classes in the applicant pool. In short, there are far more students who could clearly benefit from the rigorous academics of elite institutions than can be admitted. If you wanted an entering class that was nothing but wrestlers, you could surely build one from the qualified applicants.
            We also know that university admission is not an academic meritocracy because the faculty’s preferences are not the ones used to make most of the decisions. I am haunted by a scene in Jean Hanff Korelitz’s novel Admission, based on her experience on the decision-making staff at Princeton. Unable to make sense of an applicant’s essay about zombies, the protagonist sends it to a philosophy professor asking whether it is the real deal. The professor responds “Definitely. Absolutely. Yes, please.” A student like this is admitted as a rare “one for the faculty.” The balance of the applicant pool can certainly do the work required to earn an Ivy League degree, as testified by graduation rates, but it is their potential contributions to the rest of the university’s community life that tips the scales toward their admission: their prowess in fencing, their French horn, their entrepreneurial spirit, their proven leadership in student government.
There does exist an admissions meritocracy in American universities, one that culminates in the PhD. If you want to go to an academic (as opposed to professional) graduate school, you apply to a department and the faculty of that program decide whether to take you (assuming you meet the minimum criteria set by the university). Although faculty selection processes are surely far from perfect, they are skewed much more to the question of academic achievement than to a holistic view of an applicant’s potential community contributions. But imagine if you will what would happen if faculty got to select as the entering class at Harvard the students with the most potential for earning a PhD. They would pick the people most like themselves. You would get a yard full of nerdy gifted kids gleefully oriented to lab and library and a football team the size of the basketball squad. If Harvard wants to graduate a class that influences every corner of society, then it cannot leave admissions up to a faculty-based predilection for outstanding academic potential.
            So, what is an elite university to do? I suggest a more randomized approach to admissions. Use the admissions staff to identify everyone who is capable of thriving academically at Harvard and its peers. Then hold a lottery for admission among those applicants. Assuming the university doesn’t put its thumb on the scale—for the children of alumni, for “one for the faculty,” for tuba players, for underrepresented minorities, for first-generation college students—you would probably end up with a student body that looked pretty much like the applicant pool AND that would spread itself out into a broad range of post-graduation endeavors. The universities could even put their thumb on the scale for some percentage of the class that it needed politically or socially—or as an experiment to see how this idea works out—and leave the rest up to the lottery admissions. At a 5% admissions rate, it already feels like a lottery from the outside. Maybe it’s time to make it one on the inside as well.

*Unless, of course, you were a member of a group that was systematically excluded (women, African Americans) or capped (Jews). The history of the intersection of inclusive admission criteria and the cranking up of competition to get in is unclear to me. It is simple to say that with the widening of the applicant pools, standards went up and competition became more intense. But without inside information about actual admissions practices, it is hard to when the use of cutoffs shifted to evaluation of non-academic criteria.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Tara Westover’s EDUCATED: A MEMOIR


Tara Westover’s Educated is marketed as 2018’s Hillbilly Elegy. The surface level plot is about how your family—in Westover’s case, insular Mormon survivalists in Idaho—can mess you up, and how education can save you. Westover’s publisher won endorsements from J.D. Vance as well as Vance’s Yale Law School mentor Amy Chua. It is centrally about the redemptive power of education.
Educated’s effectiveness, though, lies in charting the path of education and its political significance. Hillbilly Elegy’s power is in J. D. Vance’s intimate descriptions of the chaos in his family, especially the ever-shifting cast of boyfriends in his mother’s life. Vance grew out of that experience into a moderate Republican, convinced of the power of the disciplined individual to move into a stable and gratifying personal life. Educated’s politics are more basic, not partisan, but about the polis. Westover’s political message lies in her unpacking of how education works. For her first sixteen years, Westover had no formal education. Although she was nominally homeschooled, her formal teaching was limited to reading and basic arithmetic. In its etymological Latin sense, to educate someone is to “lead them out.” Westover’s education leads her inexorably away from her natal family by teaching her how to see the world from multiple perspectives. While education permanently fractures her family, it also liberates her.
            Drawing on the tools from her doctoral studies in history, Westover’s primary sources for reconstructing her escape are her journals and emails and the memories of some of her siblings, as well as her own recollections. It takes some three quarters of the memoir for Westover to unfold the horror at the core of her family. Her father’s extremist stance against public education, the government, and the “Medical Establishment” animate the book from the start. But it is not his beliefs themselves that are the core problem for his daughter. What Westover ultimately cannot live with are the physical and emotional abuse from her brother, her father’s prioritization of his patriarchy and business over his children’s well-being, and her mother’s willful blindness.
Overlapping with her slow recognition of her willingness to rupture the family bond is Westover’s narrative how accessing a formal education allowed her to see the world entirely differently from the paternal indoctrination that shaped her childhood. In the second three quarters of Educated, we slowly watch the scales drift from Westover’s eyes. As she realizes that her new educated worldview will permanently sever her from her family, she falls into a temporary madness, wasting her a fellowship at Harvard binge-watching television instead of working on her scholarship. But by the end Westover has triumphantly earned a PhD with a dissertation that includes, inter alia, an analytical reading of the Mormon sacred texts that she grew up studying with religious eyes—a radical break.
            Westover never went to school until she was seventeen. After teaching herself enough mathematics to win a high-enough ACT score to be admitted to Brigham Young University, Westover begins to learn about events that her parents never bothered to let her know existed, starting with the Holocaust. More important than her ever-increasing knowledge, though, Westover shows herself moving through three essential epistemological problems. First, she has to learn how to distinguish what is true. The process starts in her dormitory, where she is astonished that the roommate with “Juicy” written on her backside goes to church. Initially, most of the other (similarly immodest) Mormon students at BYU seem to be what her family would have called “gentiles.” After several false starts, Westover learns that her roommates and new friends can teach her valuable things about how to get along in the world—including the importance of washing one’s hands after using the bathroom and that you have read the art history textbook, not just look at the images.
            Next, Westover reveals herself discovering the existence and value of perspectives other than the sole view cultivated by her family. That there is more than one way to see the world comes home to her most dramatically when her abusive older brother mocks her face blackened with dirt from summer work and spends months calling her the N-word. Westover narrates how she suddenly connected his taunts with the images of Civil Rights demonstrators she had learned about in a history class at BYU. Recognizing that her family “had lent our voices to a discourse whose sole purpose was to dehumanize and brutalize others,” Westover stops laughing along; “The word and the way Shawn said it hadn’t changed; only my ears were different.” (pp. 180-181).
            Finally, Westover explores whether one’s own memories can be trusted. In the book, she narrates several events whose exact sequence and details she remains unsure of, even when she was present as a witness to their aftermath—one brother’s burn, and another’s brain injury. Rather than just accept her own versions, historian that she became, Westover consults with the siblings who are still speaking to her to reconstruct what probably happened. She also flags those narratives as potentially unreliable and what the uncertainty over the exact details means for what kind of man her father actually is, softening his portrayal from a dictator to a fallible and flawed man. As further testimony to her intellectual honesty, Westover also marks passages where she has paraphrased emails instead of quoting them directly.
In short, Westover’s memor shows how far she has come from the certainties of the single worldview of her childhood. While there are things that are true, there is also more than one way to see the world, and a careful person acknowledges the limitations of her vision.
In these senses, Educated is a paean to the value of a liberal arts education. The education Westover received at conservative Brigham Young University, and then the venerable University of Cambridge and Harvard University, was not indoctrination in politically liberal values like tolerance, compassion, and the Democratic party—not the brainwashing of “liberal professors” (p. 134) that her father railed against. Instead, it was liberal in its fundamental (again etymological) sense: liberal as free. Westover’s education literally freed her from the bonds (=chains) of her family, whose patriarch systematically forced them to acknowledge only a single point of view—his. Westover shows us that education that is liberal—literally liberal—sets you free.
This praise for education is a vital political message for 2018, which perhaps explains why this book is resonating so deeply with American audiences.[1] If Hillbilly Elegy gives us insight into Trump voters, then Westover’s memoir reminds us how the skills embedded in liberal education—delivered with nuance, modesty, and skepticism—matter in securing American freedom and democracy.

Tara Westover, Educated: A Memoir (New York: Random House, 2018).


[1] As of this writing, Educated is #44 on Amazon’s bestselling books list, with 906 customer reviews. There are a few negative reviews, including one that doubts Educated’s credibility and compares it to James Frey’s A Million Little Pieces.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

What I Witnessed at the Walkout


I. I witnessed hundreds of children—fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth graders—exit the building in complete silence at 10 in the morning.
2. I witnessed my own tall daughter, earlier enraged and drowning in tears, calmly lead off the speakers at the podium and loudly proclaim her right to safety and education.
3. I witnessed children, one two three at a time, realize that they had something to say and discover the courage to say it.
4. I witnessed a snowplow carefully placed at the entrance to the blacktop and city police stationed around the perimeter of the field.
5. I witnessed a child whose mother died of cancer demand safe schools.
6. I witnessed a child whose mother teaches math renounce all guns in schools, his face stretched in passion.
7. I witnessed the principal nervously checking his watch as the allotted twenty minutes ticked past and decide not to silence any child who wished to speak.
8. I witnessed scores of children recognize their need to speak, respectfully duck around their speaking classmates, and wait patiently in line for their turn.
9. I witnessed recording equipment for posterity but no microphones for the speakers.
10. I witnessed the crowd cheer every child who spoke, even the ones whose words I could not make out.
11. I witnessed a child in a T-shirt and no coat decide to watch everything without complaint, for an hour, in 30 degree cold.
12. I witnessed a child stop speaking, overcome by tears, and other children rush up to stand with her to help her finish.
13. I witnessed my own grief blossom into pride, love, and hope.
14. I witnessed a black girl and a white girl, hands clasped, declare themselves best friends and call for everyone’s safety.
15. I witnessed a few planned remarks and scores of impromptu speeches.
16. I witnessed the best thing I have ever seen in a school.
17. I witnessed more than one hundred children find their voices.