To kill the bank itself. Watch as they explore whether history impacts contemporary rights. Voting they also answer audience questions on how to keep in the voting d process. His discussion was part of a 15thsium, 150 years of the amendment. Of the south hosted this event. Weve here now. Had this wonderful 24 learning uess, of opportunities from this rilliant panel of individuals and were now here for the wrapup, and they have to us all day and yesterday are now going to have collaborate with each other. That i did not introduce myself so let me back up. My name is jodie allen and im a isiting assistant professor here at swanee and im also consultant on the slavery project. Oing back to the panel, im asking them to answer the question thats in our program that is, does history matter of the 15th amendment . A going to talk about that little bit and then well open with the audience. Okay . Who would like to start. Okay. Thank you. I think about history and it me of the african word sancofa. It means you have to know your past to understand the present your future. So when it comes to the 15th amendment what weve learned today and ive learned a great from these wonderful panelists, that we have to therstand the intent behind 15th amendment. The history that gave rise to it. The effect of those people who opposed it and he mechanisms that were put in place as obstacles so we can better understand today the suppression were dealing with. He need for White Supremacy, the mechanisms to attempt to maintain White Supremacy, an as forward into the future, by 2045, this country will be color. Y people of and some of the mechanisms, put ical mechanisms being in place give me concerns about state in which would you have the minority, uropean americans, who are still in political power, and have put a structure together to a White Supremacy despite what is happening all around us in this country. To be the beacon on the hill hat this country claims it is supposed to be, to be that democracy requires that we have to r obstacles to the right vote. Were one of seven nations that were one of seven nations that takes away the right to vote for life because of the felony conviction. Were are so many issues that have to overcome and if we look see this is can not the first go around. Machination in the guys of the 21st century to suppression, into what happened in the 18th and 19th centuries. Thank you. Yeah, i would just add, will affect on the amendment . He 15th probably not, considering the composition of the Supreme Court. Affect how the amendment is viewed and mplemented, yes, but my pessimistic first is, many jurists, including members of the Supreme Court and others, have a very history ofiew of the reconstruction. What all ed view of those amendments were intended o accomplish, and as ive eached i mentioned last night, they are still beholden to the old Dunning School of econstruction which saw it as kind of, you know, a big mistake fundamentally. And i think a very narrow vision attempted, what was trying to be accomplished in the era is still kind of dominant in much of the we have ence that including current or recent, that is to say, decision that is e heard about today decisions that weve heard about, i hope that a more history comesw of to dominate Supreme Court thinking about this, but so far evidence that ch thats been happening. Just add a word. There is one limited sense in hich history is relevant to constitutional interpretation, so there are very occasional Supreme Court cases where be able to l challenge a Current Practice ased on an uncovering of the history behind that practice, so 1980s reme court in the struck down a particular gerrymandering of the crimes hat would exclude you from voting in alabama, and the upreme court, i think, without dissent, said weve now seen the evidence that in 1901 when when i say racial gerrymandering, they excluded voting, not from murder because they assumed somebody whites do nd the Supreme Court said you cant mandate the felony exclusion. Other than that im pretty that cal of the idea history will affect how people feel about contemporary issues. Said justices have a truncated view of reconstruction. Sure thats true but i ask myself, you know, if they had a in on the sit professors reconstruction class do you think it would change on the s vote constitutionality of racebased affirmative action . Ts not inconceivable but it seems to me unlikely so think about confederate monuments. Weve learned from most People Fairly recently send when these things were put up and what their social meaning was. These were not adopted in 1866 o commemorate confederate par heroes. They were often put up, the one in charlottesville, actually hotographed in the daily progress, the local newspaper, showing the ku klux klan emonstrating around the newly erected robert e. Lee monument in the 1920s. Percentage what of the population do you think knowing that, would affect their view whether we should take down con pedestrian rat monuments . I dont say no one would be ffected by it but im very skeptical that a large segment of the population. Lot. Think about this a i teach a class about constitutional history and my of ents are always kind surprised at how bad how recently things were really bad. You know, we talk about the workers f civil rights in the 1960s. S and nchings in the 1950 they are surprised by that. I wondered if everybody took history class how many peoples views would it change about some contemporary issue of the constitutionality racebased affirmative action . I just think answer not very many people. I dont think thats how people think. Their views are not going to be influenced by learning some new history so i guess im pretty skeptical about this and its not just because as the says, they have a duming School Interpretation of reconstruction. Of if they had his view reconstruction i doubt it would many views. If i could try and add a little bit to this. Skepticalle more less i would say, particularly after to hanks students. I think history is shouldnt 15th matter for the amendment, it should matter for all the amendments. About the war powers act, Federal Reserve or anything else. You to think critically. Structurally, to understand that the world wasnt created that it developed. There was change over time. And it helped you to start in terms of evidence. Will it change the world overnight . Maybe not, but like i was particularly struck by hanks tudents today and my own, once you ask a question and get out of their way students can find by edible things these days doing research. The kind of undergraduate research you can do, or that do quite frankly with their phone or anything else, is revolutionary. But it helps to start thinking in a different way which is what istory allows us to do so thats why i would say yes, it matters. Much more m optimistic as well. Istory, obviously history is about lessons. History is about opportunity. About changing the learning howry and ometimes fate and sometimes circumstances led to who we became but more often, it was a who did what, Decision Makers moving in a moving direction or not in a certain direction. And i think through the study of history, we can define those moments, where a single difference. Made a or a single individual followed Movement Made a difference. And im hopeful that those days over. T it is more challenging now anduse its hard to discern to teach discernment to students today. There is just so much swirling think and sometimes i they are walking into this contradictory information and part of our job not to lean on them with a political philosophy or ideology or but just to straighten out and help them clear all the to h from the path knowledge. And i think it works. The other thing i would say is, he students are hungry for that. I think the American People are hungry for this. I dont think everybody wakes all, no one is born idiotogue. People come what they become through their association with and friends, with a a tor or a teacher, or with buddy. Sometimes that can be a pretty intellectuallyul Challenging Group and sometimes sultry, you know, awful group that you wouldnt want your kids to be with, but something art of larger than just ourselves. And so its our job as would say as d i journalists, and everybody, to as many opportunities for life than outlook on the limited outlook, and the best way we can do sit to become knowledgeable ourselves, and just share that knowledge the se, you know to avoid cliche that ill never use, like the avoid cliches plague, you know, knowledge is job is to thats our empower the next generation so to can find those paths truth. And to i believe history is it will and i believe i do ue to inform us, but have a slight twist on the is power comment. For those of you who you hands ave to raise your and admit it but for those of thrones,atch game of there is a marvelous moment when a very bad character says to an character, i know something, and knowledge is power. And the very bad character, who well just call little finger, himself surrounded by guards and the very, very bad who well call sercy, seize him, turn him around, cut no, wait, step back, leans ound, and she forward and she says, knowledge knowledge. Power. S im very optimistic. Weve had an africanamerican president. Three women on the United StatesSupreme Court. Of whom says three down, six to go. Optimistic. But then again, i was born in raised if yvesant, Public Housing optimistic. Proj. Wall street for 33 years, served as a commissioner on the civilian Complaint Review board reviewing allegations of isconducts and worked for adelman before anybody had heard of that and the childrens two summers for litigation liberties for children. Im very optimistic. Thinking back to the question Supreme Court and the ry, i think with appointment of Justice Gorsuch who, like his predecessor, scalea, claims to be an originalist, there will at least an opportunity to educate the Supreme Court on the history of amendment. One of the things thats striking about originalism, ive researching justice scalea, s how little how much all goes back to the founding. 1789 is there all the time. The 1860s and 1870s very much if his discussion. Had this opportunity, i agree with michael, trying to persuade votes, but at least the record be made and people can hear those arguments and learn from them. Missed an opportunity to point with a scientific experiment because when Justice Gorsuch was an at columbia i was took my but he never course on the civil war reconstruction. Test had, we would have a on the impactta it had on his decisionmaking, but unfortunately, he didnt. So well just have to say where he learns this from. Thank you. You. K everyone for answering that question. Want to open it up now to the questions see what you might have for the panel. May i just raise one point while they are thinking. I do it to my students. Looks like you really want to ask a question. Make e point i wanted to and i spoke about earlier talk about int to history how you have these conflicting interests. 1898 in wilmington, North Carolina, black politicians won a majority of offices. They were in positions of power, and there was this underlining simmering hatred, but it was riggered through this conflict with not just the white general white ion, but with suffrage, and one particular rebekah, wrote an editorial in which she it reads, if it requires lynching to protect a dearest procession from drunken human beasts, i say negroes a week, end quote. There was a response in the there was an r, uprising, hundreds of blacks the duly elected were chased out of office. Omes were burned and it was on record, the First Political coup in the United States. A number of interests, you have women who desire the cant o vote, yet they see the interest of the africanamericans. You have people who believe in cant see yet they that people who are duly elected to determine some outcomes and they may or may not agree with them. I see so many of these dueling interests of that time period, extent but ame getting seriously deadly during this time period. An we as a democracy, as a country, have dueling interests without it ending in some deadly way . And as were now in the 21st century and we feel so very much we did aisticated than hundred or so years ago that these things couldnt possibly to beg yet i would have the question, if were going to learn from history, have we lessons, and the how can we learn these lessons if most people dont even know happened . If they dont even know in this country in this democracy, hings like this can happen, so then how can we learn from our past to know more about whats on in this time period of so ling, dueling interests, that we can do better in the future . Or 15th amendment, the 14th, any other laws. Pick up on that point. Yes. Eric, this may be a softball question. Has f the things that impressed me, and i think has has ssed everyone who similar posium, important,f have made fundamental historical questions accessible to a general audience. It seems to me that a part of the answer to the question posed at the start of this discussion requires us to think about the way in which that history is presented and its access abilities. Go home last night after x talk and there was a chernos biography of grant in the new york times. Its over a thousand pages. Reviewer, who was on balance really quite charitable towards book admitted the that there is a whole lot more most peopleere than would really care to read or to know about. Meant to be a cheap shot at the academic establishment. You can bet no, it will be on the bestseller list. Will. Course it but how the public, as opposed our students get their history and learn it ago, when was president of the American Historical Association in his address its time to reassemble the narrative. Yet managed weve to do that. But if were going to answer question effectively, it seems to me a lot of it has to with the way in which not just how history is understood but how its presented. Question for anyone on the panel. I it wont be a surprise that obviously agree that we need to find ways to tell these stories. We need to tell this history. Need to tell it through the people who are affected. Benefitted. Who the people who were hurt. Its one extra step in the giant one t its a and well worth it so there is no that. , i agree with and that is sort of, how do you how do you word, but market history as vital to who we are . Do have a concern that goes deeper than that, and that is what is our default knowledge about, about who we are as a people and how our works . Ment and i dont think there is any of us who will find this at all surprising, you know, weve seen deterioration in the knowledge of that. As simple something as civics died in junior high and high school. Take civics. Is there even a textbook out there published anymore that has cartoon on how a bill becomes a law . We remember that little guy with bill to arrying the drop it in the hopper, right . Okay. And i always thought when former Justice Sandra day oconnor was cause of civic literacy, that she was on to something very strong. Also match ould beautifully with this new ovement across the country, in colleges and universities, toward developing News Literacy programs. What is news . How to discern, how to read news you know, if ee, the National Federation for the same d vendors is organization as the lefthanded vendors association. They are oftense very different and they are created just to make political eople look like they are on your side. And we need, i think, a national bothign that would combine those. Because as much as i do think convert us here, we can everything we know into compelling stories about how changed or could be changed through the people, here has to be some default baseline on how our government works, and which i think would a great way toward reducing the cynicism toward government come in withpeople a previous position to dislike their government, they are going to e very close minded understanding how so much of important, d is functions. I agree. Were one of the few professors which the word exhaustive is compliment. In reconnecting it to the first question, when you make things students youve got them in a heartbeat. F they see it as just a potpourri of interesting things that really arent related to lives, and this is beyond, udents, its well beyond that, like i said, i a way oftory is really empowering yourself. I may understand something now than i did yesterday, but whether it will change he world i cant promise that but we all start, whether its a scientist, an engineer, a research, with the basic question and youve got to allow evidence to take you where its going to take you and sometimes you in ng to take uncomfortable places, but i default weterms of a think history happened somehow, that its somehow written and people like the professor come in and revise it, right . Bad. D thats and thats very bad to think about something anew. Finding ways to make history more relevant is really our one werei think its easily capable of doing because to come up t hard with a question that will mmediately engage a large audience. So i want to express a more alarmist view. It doesnt seem to me, certainly its a good thing for historians their ble to present views in accessible ways and more knowledge about history is good thing but we live in a world where people dont agree about basic facts and people basic facts. They believe in alternative facts. They believe in things that rent true and thats such an enormous problem and i dont think historians writing in more accessible ways is really going able to solve that problem. So in the last 10 years, we have suppression, and anyone who has studied the history of the 15th amendment or anyone who alive for the last 50 years would be astonished in the of what went on with Voting Rights act, that in the last two years one of the two