From Adam Rome:

• Climate scientist Mike Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change (2009).
• Historian Joshua Howe’s Behind the Curve: Science and the Politics of Global Warming (2014).
• Psychologist Mary Pipher’s The Green Boat: Reviving Ourselves in Our Capsized Culture (2013).
• Howe also has edited a wonderful collection of documents, Making Climate Change: Documents from Global Warming’s Past (2017).
• The documentary I mentioned about the implications of climate change for national security and international order is “The Age of Consequences” (2017).
• For a sense of the likely impacts of climate change more generally, I still like a 2008 book by journalist Mark Lynas, Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet.
• My book about the first Earth Day, The Genius of Earth Day: How a 1970 Teach-In Unexpectedly Made the First Green Generation (2013) also might inspire folks thinking about how to build a stronger movement for change.

From Ryan McPherson, follow @RyMcPherson:

• Climate of Hope (by Michael Bloomberg and Carl Pope)

From Elizabeth Mazzolini:

• Rob Nixon’s Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor.
• Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming might be relevant to the audience’s interest in this topic.
• The book I co-edited with Stephanie Foote, Histories of the Dustheap: Waste, Material Cultures, Social Justice is about garbage from a number of disciplinary and activist perspectives, including a chapter on Love Canal.
• My book The Everest Effect: Nature, Culture, Ideology is about Mount Everest, but is really about how various kinds of technologies (communicative, visual, even financial) have helped shape relations between people and nonhuman nature over the twentieth century.

 

---

You can find these books and more at the Buffalo and Erie Public Library as their currently featured selections https://www.buffalolib.org/

 

In 2017 the Buffalo Humanities Festival’s theme was “Environments;” HNY’s panel event “Turning the Tide: Communicating Climate Science” included Adam Rome, Professor of History at the University at Buffalo and the author of The Genius of Earth Day.  Humanities New York provided initial funds for the Buffalo Humanities Festival in 2014 and has been a proud sponsor for each year since. The Festival is produced by the Humanities Institute at the University at Buffalo in cooperation with Buffalo State College, Canisius College, Niagara University, and SUNY Fredonia as well as cultural institutions including the Albright-Knox Art Gallery and the Burchfield Penney Arts Center.

---

Rome, Adam. “Postscript.” The Genius of Earth Day: How a 1970 Teach-in Unexpectedly Made the First Green Generation, Hill & Wang, 2014.

I realized early in my work on this book that Earth Day made a green generation, yet I don’t think I really understood why until I was nearly done. Now—belatedly—the explanation seems obvious. Earth Day was an educational experience as well as a political demonstration. That rare combination enabled Earth Day to have both a long-term and short-term impact.

The educational experience was most intense for the thousands of Earth Day organizers. They often devoted months to their task, and they had to answer question after question as they worked out what kind of event Earth Day would be. The assignment for the thousands of Earth Day speakers was easier but still challenging. Few could repeat talks they had given before; the rest had to figure out what to say. Earth Day also challenged attendees to decide where they stood on difficult and important issues, and many took that challenge seriously.

Of course, the Earth Day education was informal. No one graded Earth Day organizers or speakers or participants. The educational process was self-motivated and self-directed. As a result, many people learned something about themselves. How much did they care about pollution or population growth? What were they willing to sacrifice to help the environmental cause? And what might they find fulfilling and even exciting to do? Those questions often proved empowering, even transformative.

None of that was inevitable. Few political demonstrations are powerful educations. Though a rally or a protest march might teach participants something about solidarity or entrenched power, demonstrations rarely are occasions for debate or soul-searching. Their goal is not to educate: Most demonstrations aim instead to inspire action, to channel anger, to give hope, and to express a common will.

Earth Day was different because Gaylord Nelson made two inspired decisions that allowed the event to be a life-changing education for many people. Even Nelson’s greatest admirers have not appreciated how inspired those decisions were. Indeed, the most common way of crediting Nelson as the man behind Earth Day, calling him “Earth Day founder,” actually obscures Nelson’s true achievement. “Earth Day” was not Nelson’s name for the event, and acknowledging that neglected fact is critical to appreciating what Nelson did to make Earth Day so transformative. Nelson envisioned a “nationwide environmental teach-in”—a politically charged educational event—and the teach-in model allowed Earth Day to be far more powerful that a traditional political demonstration. Nelson also decided not to be a micromanager—he did not even object when the national teach-in staff renamed the event—and Nelson’s willingness to let others take ownership of the teach-in made Earth Day even more powerful.

The teach-in model encouraged an entrepreneurial approach to problem solving. That might have been a drawback. The open-ended discussion at most Earth Day events meant that participants did not end up agreeing on a specific agenda. They were not all ready to lobby for antipollution laws or press corporations to account for environmental costs or reconsider the nature of the good life. But the environmental crisis had many causes, which required many kinds of solutions: No single piece of legislation or change in business practice or new way of thinking could address all the issues of the day. The educational structure of Earth Day allowed participants to decide for themselves how they might make a difference—and then to act, in whatever way they saw fit.

The teach-in model also made Earth Day a youthful event, and again that was a potential weakness that proved to be a source of strength. In 1970, students were not a compelling constituency for most politicians: The voting age still was twenty-one, and student protesters had become a cliché. But young people were ideal participants in a do-it-yourself educational event. They were more likely than their elders to internalize what they learned. They still were forming their values, their priorities, even their sense of themselves. They tended to believe that anything was possible. Because they weren’t as constrained by responsibilities, they often could change their plans abruptly without burdening or even disappointing anyone. Earth Day ultimately pointed thousands of young people in new directions.

Nelson might have limited the scope of the Earth Day education, but he chose instead to do the opposite. He let local organizers determine the curriculum. He did not insist that the teach-ins focus on specific issues. Though he was a legislator eager to pass new environmental legislation, he did not insist that the teach-ins promote a specific set of solutions to environmental problems. As a result, Earth Day became a remarkably capacious event, able to attract and inspire a range of people.

Nelson’s decision not to micromanage the teach-in also made the local organizing effort more empowering. Because Earth Day events could take any form, the local organizers were more like small-business owners than franchise managers. They did not just implement a business plan devised by higher-ups. They were responsible for everything, and the breadth of their responsibility ensured that they were tested in many ways.

I did not fully appreciate the genius of the first Earth Day until I compared the 1970 event with the twentieth-anniversary celebration in 1990. The 1990 celebration was organized nationally—the only time that has happened since 1970—and the organizers had ambitious goals. They hoped, in the words of lead organizer Denis Hayes, “to galvanize a new outpouring of public support for environmental values and to enlist a new generation of activists in the environmental struggle.” The 1990 organizers also sought to make Earth Day a global event, and they managed that brilliantly. In the United States, however, the twentieth anniversary celebration accomplished less than Earth Day 1970, and the reasons why the 1990 effort fell short are instructive (1).

Hayes proposed a national organizing effort for Earth Day 1990 in a short essay in the Environmental Protection Agency journal in late 1988. At the time, he was a lawyer in California, but he had worked for years on environmental issues, especially energy. His call to arms immediately impressed the leaders of the major national environmental organizations, who offered their support. Hayes then established a not-for-profit organization to promote Earth Day 1990. He took a leave of absence from his law firm to serve as the organization’s CEO, and he hired a thirty-five-year-old lawyer and political strategist, Christina Desser, as executive director. A $3 million budget allowed Desser to run a remarkably professional operation. In addition to a sizable staff, Desser had the help of a talented group of consultants—and most donated their time or worked at reduced rates. The coordinator of television, print, and radio advertising had created the “Everything you always wanted in a beer. And less” campaign for Miller Lite. Other consultants brought expertise in direct-mail fund-raising, polling, publicity, lobbying, event planning, and merchandising (2).

Desser envisioned the organizational effort as “a national political campaign without the politicians.” The staff used focus groups and test mailings to hone the Earth Day 1990 message. The event had a logo and slogan: “Who says you can’t change the world?” The promotional campaign aimed to match Hollywood’s prerelease hype for blockbusters. “I want Earth Day to be as well known on April 22 as ‘Batman’ was the day it opened,” consultant Josh Baran said. To counter the stereotype that environmentalism only appealed to the privileged, the organizing effort included outreach to labor unions and social-justice groups. Field operatives worked with grassroots groups to produce local events that served the national mission. Though the organizers encouraged students to celebrate Earth Day, they put much more effort into off-campus events: Big turnouts at attention-getting celebrations in community venues would demonstrate the breadth of support for the environmental cause (3).

The organizers stressed the need for direct action. A test of the direct-mail operation, for example, asked a million people to take the Earth Day Green Pledge. Would they promise to recycle, conserve energy, buy products with smaller environmental impacts, and vote for pro-environment candidates? Of course the mailing also asked recipients to support the Earth Day 1990 campaign with a contribution. Though the pledge did not become a major part of the organizing effort, the basic message of the national campaign did not change. “We are trying to generate as much interest as we can for people to start doing things immediately—at home, at work and at school,” communications director Diana Aldridge said (4).

The Earth Day 1990 organizers accomplished all of their immediate goals. The turnout at Earth Day events in many major cities was far greater than in 1970. More than a million people attended the celebration in Central Park in New York City, and a rally and concert on the steps of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., drew 200,000. The media gave “saturation coverage” to the environment in the run-up to Earth Day, and the subject continued to receive unprecedented media attention for the next two years. Membership in many national environmental organizations reached all-time highs in the early 1990s. Earth Day 1990 also encouraged millions of people to think about how they could reduce their environmental footprint. The most conspicuous example of the heightened interest in individual eco-action was the astonishing success of 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, a privately published pamphlet that came out just before Earth Day 1990 and soon sold more than 5 million copies (5).

But Earth Day 1990 did not match the long-term impact of the 1970 event. Even Denis Hayes acknowledges that. Though circumstances seemed to be favorable for national legislation to address climate change, biodiversity, and other pressing issues, Earth Day 1990 did not lead to a second “environmental decade.” I am less sure about the institutional and individual legacies, but Earth Day 1990 evidently did not engender the same kind of entrepreneurial activism as the 1970 event. The young people inspired by Earth Day 1990 mostly joined established environmental organizations, agencies, and professions (6).

Why was Earth Day 1990 less successful than the 1970 event, despite a much bigger and more professional organizing effort?

Perhaps the limited long-term impact of Earth Day 1990 was inevitable. Because the idea was not new, the organizing effort largely lacked the freshness of discovery. Some of the national organizers were veterans of Earth Day 1970, and all already had a sense of what an Earth Day event should be. The local organizing effort relied on established organizations, not ad-hoc groups formed to plan Earth Day events.

But the problem went beyond the difficulty of making a sequel more compelling than the original. The organizational effort in 1990 was more top-down and more directive than in 1970. The models were political and marketing campaigns, which fail if they prompt lots of questions. In politics and marketing, the goal is yes or no—a vote for or against a candidate or a decision to buy one product rather than another. Though the Earth Day 1990 organizers did not promote a specific policy agenda, they framed the event in ways that pushed people to make simple, immediate, and conspicuous demonstrations of commitment to the environmental cause. They sought to “enlist” people in a well-defined movement, not to empower them to work out their own vision of how they might make a difference. No one called the discussions at Earth Day 1990 events “soul-searching.”

That was not an accident. Desser argued that Earth Day 1990 needed to be about action, not education. “The challenge in 1970 was educating people that the environment was an issue,” she explained. “The challenge now is: What are we going to do about it? How can I change my behavior? How can I get corporations, the government, to change their behavior?” (7).

Of course, that contrast derived from a serious misreading of what the first Earth Day accomplished. The first Earth Day was about action as well as awareness, and the two were related in ways that the 1990 organizers failed to appreciate. People only change because they have learned something important—and hard-won lessons are the most transformative.

Desser’s suggestion that the time for education had passed also speaks to a more profound misunderstanding. For the 1990 organizers, the only important question was whether people had the will to “change the world.” Yet a willingness to act only is meaningful if people have a clear goal, and the goal of eco-action never is a given. Though human existence ultimately depends on the health of natural systems, humans can survive and even thrive in many kinds of environments, so the kind of environment people prefer always will be a complicated question of individual values, social circumstances, and cultural traditions. Whose preferences count the most also is a critical question. The simple exhortation to save the planet avoids the hard questions that are the foundation of true commitment.

I take no pleasure in criticizing the 1990 organizers. Hayes and Desser have continued to work on environmental issues, and I appreciate their dedication. But understanding the short-comings of the twentieth-anniversary celebration is not just useful in appreciating the genius of Earth Day 1970. The differences in the two great Earth Day celebrations offer insight into the predicaments of the contemporary environmental movement.

Like the Earth Day 1990 organizers, the professionals on the staffs of the major environmental organizations today are much better at leading campaigns than asking questions. They are adept at marshaling scientific evidence, making legal arguments, framing messages, and assessing environmental costs. They also know how to raise money—the sine qua non of not-for-profit advocacy. But they seldom inspire the deep reflection that might make the environmental movement dramatically bigger and stronger.

That sort of reflection begins with questions. What are the most important reasons why we have environmental problems? What environments do we value most? Who should decide how best to use the resources of the earth? What are the most effective ways to build a more sustainable future? As Earth Day 1970 demonstrated, those questions really can change the world. We need to ask them more often.

Photo: Approximately one million people participated in the first Earth Day celebrations in New York City.  NYC Dept. of Records and Information Services.

1. Robert Cahn and Patricia Cahn, “Did Earth Day Change the World?” Environment 32 (September 1990): 19.
2. Cahn and Cahn, “Did Earth Day Change the World?” 19– 20, 36; New York Times (November 12, 1989): F4; Los Angeles Times (October 26, 1989) (online).
3. Cahn and Cahn, “Did Earth Day Change the World?” 20, 36; New York Times (November 12, 1989): F4.
4. Cahn and Cahn, “Did Earth Day Change the World?” 20; Los Angeles Times (October 26, 1989) (online).
5. Cahn and Cahn, “Did Earth Day Change the World?” 37; Ronald G. Shaiko, Voices and Echoes for the Environment: Public Interest Representation in the 1990s and Beyond (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 36, 42; Joel Makower, “The Death and Rebirth of ‘50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth,’ ” http://makower.typepad.com/joel_makower/2008/03/the-death-and-r.html.
6. For a critical view of Earth Day 1990’s accomplishments, see Robert Gottlieb, Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1993), 201– 4. Cahn and Cahn offer a more positive spin in “Did Earth Day Change the World?” 39– 40. In an April 25, 2012, comment on a Web blog, Denis Hayes wrote: “In 1990, Earth Day was larger domestically than in 1970— though its impact was not as great.” See http://alltagsgeschichte.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/who-actually-founded-earth-day/.
7. Los Angeles Times (October 26, 1989) (online).

Formed in 2016, The Rochester Area Suffrage Centennial Alliance (RASCA) is a network of institutions that are coordinating celebrations for the anniversary of women gaining the right to vote in New York State. The Friends & Foundation of the Rochester Public Library received a Humanities New York (HNY) Vision Grant to support the RASCA planning process. They also received an Action Grant for the “Because of Women Like Her” exhibit, which is on display at the Central Library of Rochester & Monroe County through October 14, 2017.

---

HNY: RASCA involves a large network of institutions in the Rochester area. What was the inspiration for forming this alliance, and how did that conversation get started?

Michelle: Going back to the summer of 2015, there was a meeting [about the upcoming women’s suffrage centennials] at the University of Rochester in the Rare Books, Special Collections and Preservation department of their library. They invited me as a representative of the City Historian’s Office and the Rochester Public Library, also there were representatives from Rare Books, from the National Susan B. Anthony Museum & House, and the Rochester Museum & Science Center. We walked away with a bunch of energy and ideas, and then nothing happened. Or at least I wasn’t aware of any follow up to that specific meeting. The following February, I reached back out to that group and included some others and said, “This was a good idea, let’s not abandon it. Let’s expand it. Let’s get more players involved, more stakeholders at the table.” Our first official RASCA meeting was in February 2016. We had representatives from about twenty different organizations. Juilee, were you able to be at that meeting?

Juilee: I was. I think it’s important to point out that Michelle really took the initiative to get things going. That’s so different than the way academia often functions, which is we do our own thing, we work in our silos, and then we come together and report out. The RASCA collaboration is so different from the age-old academic model. This exhibition project worked much more like the way that museums, libraries, and archives function in the twenty-first century. It’s much more collaborative and kind of seeing who has something to offer and how they can contribute. Kudos to those who had the first meeting, but kudos to Michelle for saying, “OK, let’s follow up, let’s get this going.” I think it’s really important to note that just because one meeting didn’t result in something doesn’t mean that it can’t be picked up later.

Michelle: The point that you just made about the silos is key as well. This history was worth coming out of those silos for. We knew there would be various institutions and organizations that would be interested in celebrating this historic moment. Rochester played such an important role in New York State’s suffrage movement that it really warranted a monumental commemoration, above and beyond the usual. I think that idea of collaborating and pooling resources and ideas and audiences was really the impetus behind forming the group in the first place.

Juilee: My understanding of the way the suffrage movement occurred is that there were significant figures, these pillars, and then people who were doing grassroots work. That’s the way I also think of this project. We had significant institutions who were the anchors, what we called Tier 1, who met every two weeks and moved forward the exhibition planning and its related publicity and so on. Then we had other people who were contributing along the way. Everything is equally valued. Yes, some people worked really long and hard all along, and others popped in and popped out—but all of that contributed to the project and to the product. That to me, metaphorically, is the way that the networking and organizing and the structuring of the suffrage movement led to 1917 for New York State.

Michelle: At that first meeting, we weren’t really sure what the group was going to be. We just knew we wanted to be able to communicate with each other, help each other, and be supportive of each other’s efforts inasmuch as we could be. We realized funding is key to the success of getting something like this off the ground. At that meeting we decided we would apply for a Vision Grant from Humanities New York, which we received. The Vision Grant allowed us to hold a retreat in August 2016 where we really homed in on the idea of a community-wide exhibition, of bringing these institutional resources that we had at our various repositories together in a central place to tell the full story that no one organization would have been able to tell on its own.

 

HNY: Throughout the planning process, how did you balance the input from so many different partners?

Juilee: We had a “Tier 1” group of institutions, which included the University of Rochester, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester Museum & Science Center, Rochester Public Library, Rochester Historical Society, and the National Susan B. Anthony Museum & House. Tier 1 would meet every couple of weeks and someone would take minutes, someone would send them out, and then we would ask questions. We put everything on Google Drive, we would use Google Docs and email communications. It was important to value what people said they could do and hold them accountable to doing it. It was very much forward thinking and forward moving on the timeline. We kept to deadlines as best we could. I don’t mean to make it sound so Susie Sunshine, but it actually worked really well. People kind of carved out their spots and did what they were good at, and we valued that contribution.

Michelle: Exactly. Working with the group, you did learn each other’s strengths and how you could rely on, for example, Travis [Johansen, from UR Rare Books] to handle the design and so on. We have a basic respect for each other. When a leader was needed, someone would step up. When there were too many cooks, people knew to step back. That idea of forward motion really was key. We were on a pretty tight timeline, so we didn’t have much of an option of going backwards.

Juilee: Everyone on Tier 1 had previously worked together with another institution, but not all six of us had worked together on one project. There was that level of trust. So it’s like, oh, we’ve had interns who have worked at Rochester Public Library in the Local History & Genealogy division with Michelle and Christine [Ridarsky]. We value them as partners. They’ve lent things to our exhibits at RIT. We already had a relationship.

 

HNY: It sounds like you had the climate among the cultural organizations where the groundwork was laid for a collaboration such as this. The suffrage centennial created the perfect moment to tap into all these great partnerships, so now all those Tier 1 institutions have all worked together.

Michelle: I would agree with that. It wasn’t that hard to bring these partners to the same table and get them on board with this project.

 

HNY: Some members of RASCA were based at academic institutions and others were not. I’m curious, what role did undergraduate students play in developing the exhibit?

Juilee: Starting in the fall of 2016, I thought of a couple of things my students could be involved in. Most of the work that I do at RIT with the program of Museum Studies and Public History is the idea of theory and practice. Everything is applied. I want the students to have a sense of how museums and other institutions operate in the real world. One of the contributions my students made was interviewing peers about voting and voting rights. My students went out and each interviewed five people, mainly younger people. Ultimately some of those interviews appear along with the interviews that Dan Cody [of the Rochester Historical Society] and I did at nursing homes in the area. This idea of what voting is and what it means was compiled into a video of about six minutes. That’s on view in the exhibit. Students were working on something way far in advance, not necessarily knowing how that will end up in the final project, and that’s the reality of museum work and collections work. In the spring, students conducted several surveys about the exhibit plans. Some of the revelations were that people were excited, people were encouraged. Other responses expressed thoughts about maybe we don’t need to celebrate this, maybe there’s too much celebration, or that someone anticipated going to see a “Yay, woman!” kind of thing. That was startling for me to read, but it was also a reality that this is our public. The public is not monolithic. It’s multivocal. That was really helpful to remind us that this exhibit is for a public that has a multiplicity of viewpoints.

 

HNY: Michelle, what was your experience of working with students, and what did they bring to the project?

Michelle: I worked with two interns over the course of developing the exhibit. They were both instrumental in moving us toward our goals. Both were from SUNY Brockport. The first, Stephanie, who was hired as a result of our receiving the Vision Grant, was able to help us identify objects within each of the various institutions’ collections. She helped us compile a master list, an inventory of what is out there that we could pull from in curating the content of the exhibit. That was necessary. She had the energy and the ability to work independently and get on board with what we were trying to accomplish. She really had to do a lot of decision-making and interpretation and apply her knowledge of history to her work. Stephanie was a valuable partner in her time with us and contributed to essential aspects of the project.

The second intern was Jennifer, our social media guru. Jennifer helped us to market what we were doing. For example, the Rochester Regional Library Council created a WordPress site for us [http://rocsuffrage.org] and on it there is a calendar of events that anyone offering suffrage-related programs in and around Rochester can post to. Jenn took those events and created notifications about them on social media. She posted regularly on Facebook and Twitter using our #RocSuffrage hashtag, keeping our local suffrage-related activity in the public eye. I don’t think any of the rest of us had time to focus on doing it properly. I’m not totally inept at social media, but I wouldn’t consider myself an expert. I’m not on it that regularly. Having input from someone younger who really gets social media and knows how to use it effectively was invaluable in helping us to promote the project.

Juilee: Part of the benefit is that students take ownership of this. There is a connection to something that is bigger than an assignment, or bigger than a classroom experience. To me, that’s really gratifying.

 

HNY: The exhibit opened in early June. Do you have a sense of what the response has been so far and what aspects of the exhibit are resonating the most?

Michelle: We have a guest book that we hope people sign. Every day I go and I look at it and I get this boost of encouragement from the public, which really seems to be responding very positively to the exhibit as a whole. We also have an exit interactive component where we ask people: If you could send a postcard to one of the figures that you met in the exhibit, what would you want to tell that person? People leave notes like “Thank you,” and “Because of you we now have all these rights,” and “I’m so proud to be a feminist,” and “You laid the groundwork.” All the inspirational stuff you would hope to see. Visitors make connections to the world today. The message resonates. That’s the takeaway: people see this history and find relevance in what they’ve learned here. They see how it influenced and has led to where we are today and find inspiration for how to move forward to where we still want to get. I feel very satisfied in seeing people make that connection.

Content wise, I’m seeing a lot of positive reactions to the scope that the exhibit covers. It’s not just about winning the right to vote, per se, but all of the other issues that went along with it. Suffragists had many different reform agendas, like temperance, abolition, co-education, workers’ rights and labor issues. The exhibit ties all of those social justice and inequality issues together and shows how they related to the suffrage movement. Women saw the vote as a tool to help them accomplish these other goals that they had, as well as a goal in and of itself. People are often impressed by that scope of the women’s rights movement writ large, beyond suffrage.

 

They are also getting a kick out of learning about these historical figures. Everybody knows who Susan B. Anthony is, and that’s great. She was a leader, and she deserves recognition, but she didn’t do it by herself. People appreciate learning about some of the lesser known historical figures that really contributed to this effort. I have a friend who got a new dog and named her “Tillie” after Martha Matilda Harper [a successful entrepreneur and pioneer of the hair salon business]. She found a new hero from our exhibit. That’s great. If we can bring this history to people in a way that inspires them, I think we’ve done our job.

Juilee: A friend of mine at RIT, Sharrita Gross-Smith, who works in the Multicultural Center for Academic Success, participated in recording the suffrage speeches for the exhibit. She took on the personality of Fannie Barrier Williams, who gave a speech in 1893 at the Columbian World’s Fair about the place and status of women of color. She had selected this speech, had read through it, and recorded it. I made a point to accompany her to the exhibit after it opened. As we were going down the timeline hall, she saw a picture of Fannie Barrier Williams. She said, “Oh, well that’s me!” She saw the picture and the name and literally identified with this person. We went down to the section where you can hear the recording of Fannie’s words, and Sharitta heard herself. When she heard the final product, she was really moved. She realized that that hour’s worth of work was lasting. Not only is it in the exhibit, not only is she personally connecting with this history, but she also knows that they’re on Soundcloud and people are liking them and favoriting them. People all over are responding to these speeches. It’s awesome the way in which an onsite exhibit has this digital life and these tentacles that have spread out. People are connecting to this content beyond Rochester and the public library.

 

HNY: The exhibit really impacts people at a personal level, and in general the suffrage centennial in New York State is helping people connect with their own local history. How will you measure this impact? What are you tracking for evaluation?

Michelle: This again is where the power of partnership comes into play. I personally would not know how to go about that in an official, meaningful way. Our museum partners do. Rochester Museum & Science Center has someone on staff whose job it is to evaluate exhibits. They have students that they work with. They are taking the lead to do some on-site monitoring. They have people come and observe visitors’ interaction with the exhibit and take various measurements like dwell time, how long someone stands in front of a case, whether or not they’re engaging with the content. We believe we can get analytics from the interactive stations to tell how many times people have come up and used it and accessed the information. Both the observation and data collection will inform our post-exhibit assessment. Also the feedback we’re getting from the exit interactive piece with the postcard responses and the guest book that people are signing gives us more of that qualitative experience. Those are the tools that we’re planning on relying on to help us assess how successful the exhibit was.

 

HNY: What is an exciting or surprising outcome of the RASCA alliance?

Juilee: One of the outcomes has been friendship and admiration for colleagues in the field. I want to say that with such emphasis. We worked well together. We were able to keep our eyes on the prize, that being the exhibit, and have forged friendships through this. We even participated in some bar trivia together. We’re already thinking towards 2020 and other ancillaries. At RIT in this coming fall we’re going to be doing a variation on a theme of this exhibit. It will be a very small version of what’s at the library. That’s a benefit of having done the partnership and this exhibit. We have content that we can use and shape and mold, maybe to make it more RIT-focused. That’s something we can benefit from as a result of this. I find both the friendships and further collaborations rewarding.

 

HNY: Well, the conversation started in 2015 and you persisted in helping to put together the collaboration the following year. I know it’s been a long journey to get to this exhibit. Seeing so many celebrations come to fruition this summer has been very exciting, and it must be very gratifying for you.

Michelle: Even in Rochester it’s not just the exhibit. There’s so much else going on. There are the banners at the public market, the VoteTilla festivities. It’s been great to feel connected throughout the state. Humanities New York has been instrumental in helping foster that connection. This isn’t just about Rochester. We want to emphasize our accomplishments and our statewide role, but it does help you feel connected to people throughout the state when you see all the stuff that’s going on. We’re all in it together. Inasmuch as it’s brought members from our community together, I think it’s brought people statewide together. It’s been an exciting year!

Interview of Juilee Decker & Michelle Finn conducted by Scarlett Rebman, Humanities New York

---

• Follow RASCA on their website, on Twitter @RocSuffrage, and on Facebook@RocSuffrage
• Go here to listen to the #RocSuffrage speeches
• For more information about VoteTilla see their website
• For #NY4Suffrage Stories and more visit our Suffrage Centennial page

 

 

Juilee Decker, Ph.D. is an associate professor of Museum Studies at Rochester Institute of Technology. Since 2008, Decker has served as editor of Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals. Her most recent publication, a revision of Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums, was published in February 2017 by AASLH. Decker serves as a juror for the Education Committee of the American Alliance of Museums. She earned her Ph.D. in 2003 from the joint program in Art History and Museum Studies at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Museum of Art. She joined the faculty of RIT in 2014 and has enjoyed learning about her new city through collaborations such as the suffrage exhibition planning.

Michelle Finn, Ph.D. is the Deputy Historian for the City of Rochester and Historical Researcher for the Rochester Public Library. She heads the library’s local history exhibits team, manages the development of the Rochester Voices digital humanities project, and sits on the editorial board for the Rochester History journal. She is also a member of the Association of Public Historians of New York State and the New York Library Association. Finn earned her Ph.D. in American History and a Graduate Certificate in Gender and Women’s Studies from the University of Rochester in 2012 and she teaches a course in U.S. Women’s History at Monroe Community College. A native Rochesterian, Finn finds her career as a public historian in her hometown extremely rewarding.

The original version of this post appeared here on June 19, 2017, by NYU.

Women’s Suffrage and the Media,” an online database and resource site launched this month, includes primary and secondary sources that chronicle and examine the suffrage movement as portrayed in news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment, and other aspects of public life.

The database, hosted by New York University’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute and conceived by NYU journalism professor Brooke Kroeger and a group of American Journalism Historians Association members, aims to serve a diverse group of users—from middle schoolers and life-long learners to academic researchers and journalists.

“Our purpose in launching now is not only to add value to the New York suffrage centennial celebrations by providing wide access to actual material from the period and the most astute reflections about it, but also to start an ongoing showcase of the impact of media—pro or con, in all its form—on social and political movements,” explains Kroeger. “Undoubtedly, much of the media of the suffrage campaign period was New York-born and New York-borne.”

“Women’s Suffrage and the Media” (suffrageandthemedia.org), launched in the run-up to the 100th anniversary (Nov. 6) of the winning of the right to vote for the women of New York State, is being populated daily. It currently includes materials ranging from contemporary pro-suffrage essays written by W.E.B. DuBois for the Crisis, anti-suffrage cartoons, and Nellie Bly’s seminal New York World profile of Susan B. Anthony as well as a summary of Jill Lepore’s The Suffrage Roots of Wonder Woman (2014) and a 2013 C-SPAN roundtable on the topic.

A team of researchers will add to the site’s resources throughout the centennial celebration period. Its editors are accepting summaries, documents, academic papers, and images. For submission guidelines, please click here. To submit materials, please click here.

The website also serves as a multimedia resource companion to a forthcoming special suffrage issue of American Journalism: A Journal of Media History, which will be published in 2019.

The project, backed by funding from Humanities New York and the Carter Journalism Institute, also includes the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland and the Department of Journalism of the Klein College of Media and Communication at Temple University.

For questions about the site, please email [email protected].

Photo credit: “A pro-suffrage essay written by journalist George Creel in 1915,” New York University.

Interview conducted by Nicholas MacDonald, Humanities New York

---

HNY: How did you each get started with the League of Women Voters?

Laura: I joined the League in 1982, when I moved from Washington D.C. to Albany. I was worried about not being as involved in politics, that turned out to not be a concern!

Dare: I was pretty apolitical for the first 25 years of my life, but then I accidentally got a job teaching middle school social studies. Having to teach the Constitution really opened my eyes to civic responsibility; after that, I became involved with the League of Women Voters.

HNY: Historically, I know the League was created to educate women in connection with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. How has that role changed over the years?

Laura: The League really was more than just getting people to pull the lever. Initially we focused on educating women about the issues so that they could make an informed choice. It’s still about education now, but with a focus on good governance, and on educating all citizens to be able to be informed voters.

Dare: I think that the issues have changed considerably. Women back then were very concerned with issues that affected women and children. Fairly quickly they broadened out to many other issues including world peace.

HNY: With fifty chapters in New York State I imagine when you meet up, it’s quite the discussion! What are NY chapters focused on most these days?

Laura: The League is a three tiered organization with a national League, state League and local Leagues. One of the primary roles of the New York State League is to support all of the local groups in what they want to do. Each chapter has its own issues that it’s passionate about. New York is very diverse! We encourage them to become active on local issues and ask for their help when we want to influence the state legislature by contacting their own representatives. We also help to keep the local Leagues strong with assistance in management, membership recruitment,technology and social media usage, and education of the public on important current issues.

Dare: We also provide guidance for running local events. We don’t tell them what to do, that’s up to them, as Laura mentioned.  Each group is independent, which is really fantastic, because every community is different. But, we can offer guidance and assistance to ensure programs are nonpartisan.

HNY: Humanities New York faces the same challenges as a statewide organization.  It’s a big task to be embedded in so many communities across New York State. What are your biggest challenges right now?

Laura: The state League will be celebrating our anniversary in 2019, and then the national League’s anniversary in 2020. As the times have changed, we’ve changed. Did you know that starting in 1974, the League allowed men to join? We’ve adapted. Similar to many volunteer organizations, the League is struggling to engage members as people have much less time these days, between raising children, work, and other demands. Our members tend to be older, because they have more time to contribute, but they also bring with them a lot of experience that they can share.

HNY: Do you also see yourselves as building leadership?

Dare: Speaking for myself, the organization really prepared me for other jobs, so yes. I not only learned about issues and got comfortable speaking in public, but I was trained in fundraising, publicity, and other transferable skills. As independent chapters, a lot of the work requires us to be learning all the time and many League leaders end up running an  agency or a non-profit.

Laura: Our strength is in our local chapters.  They engage with their communities and really know a lot about what is going on in their area. We hold Conventions every other year, and conference calls regularly, to keep the local Leagues and our members informed and engaged. We also do build leadership and many members have gone on to become locally elected public officials, state legislators, and school board members, like myself..

HNY: The League of Women Voters of NY developed a “Women’s Suffrage Resource Kit,” and it’s going to be distributed nationally. Congrats! What led you to create these materials?

Laura: Local chapters were asking about what they could do [for the NYS Women’s Suffrage Centennial in 2017] so we put together a committee. They developed the kit that included a wealth of resources (books, films, speakers, historic sites, etc) for programs, events and forums.. The kit is posted on the state League website for all to review and utilize. Since NYS passed suffrage legislation three years before the nation did, we were ahead of the game in terms of thinking about the next anniversary. The national League and other states have appreciated our kit and will be replicating it for their own programs. The national League also celebrates its own 100th anniversary in 2020, so we have a lot going on!

HNY: Do you have a personal role-model from the movement?

Laura: Not one from the suffrage movement in particular, but when I was growing up I was inspired by Ella Grasso. I was a high school intern in the CT Legislature when she was Governor. She was the first female Governor of Connecticut, and the first female governor who wasn’t following her husband. That was really inspiring for me at the time.

Dare: My great aunt was a real intellectual and she marched in a suffrage parade. She died when I was a teen and wish I had been able to spend more years talking to her. Even in that short time she had a big influence on me.

HNY: How can people get involved with their local chapter?

Laura: If you visit our website you can find a local chapter to join, or join at the state level if there isn’t a local League in your area. Meetings happen usually monthly and anyone is welcome to come. You don’t have to be a member to get involved.

HNY: Thanks for talking to us during Women’s History Month during the NYS Women’s Suffrage Centennial—we look forward to hearing more about all of the work you do in New York.

---

The League’s Mission

The League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.

• More about the League of Women Voters for New York’s Women’s Suffrage Centennial Celebrations and their Women’s Suffrage Resource Kit.
• Follow the League on Twitter @LWVNYS
• LWVNYS is a valued Centennial Partner in Humanities NY’s Suffrage Centennial initiative.

Laura Ladd Bierman

Laura joined the State League staff as Executive Director in July 2008. She has been a member of the League for 30 years, with membership in four different local leagues in three states. She has served in a number of positions in local leagues, including study chair, editor of the newsletter, board member, Vice President and President. Laura has a BA in political science from Colgate University and a Masters Degree in public administration from the University of Virginia. She spent much of her early professional career in the area of health care planning. From 1998-2008, she maintained a home business providing financial and consulting services to a national membership organization. Laura has taken her league experience and training to practical use, serving for over 8 years as a member, and 2 years as Vice President, of a school board in Glenview, IL. She was also elected in 2008 and served until 2013 as a member of the school board for the Bethlehem Central School District in Delmar, NY.

Dare Thompson

Dare Thompson has a BA in English Literature from Swarthmore College and an MAT from Oberlin College. After beginning her work life as a teacher of secondary school English and sixth and seventh grade social studies, Dare spent a quarter century as an executive director of several small to mid-size arts organizations. They include the Kirkland Art Center in Clinton, NY (near Utica), Ohio Citizens for the Arts in Columbus, OH which worked closely with the Ohio Arts Council, and The Hudson Valley Writers’ Center in Sleepy Hollow, NY. Her primary volunteer activity since 1972 has been with the League of Women Voters, including service as the state president in Rhode Island, first vice president in Ohio, and two stints on the New York state board, currently as president. She has also been president of four local Leagues – Swarthmore, PA; Delaware County, OH; Utica-Rome, NY; and the Mid Hudson Region, NY — and has served on several national LWV committees. She is also an active volunteer with the Quakers, both locally and statewide.

 

Dear Friend,

Thank you for participating in the work of Humanities New York!  Like you, I am dismayed by reports that the initial budget being proposed in D.C. calls for the elimination of the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, among others.  The NEH is the largest source of HNY’s revenue and provides the funds for our popular grants program.  Our second largest funding source is New York State, also crucially important to defend.

So we ask you to add your voice to the chorus of support for the NEH nationwide, and as a New Yorker, to defend the cultural identity of our state to our legislators. Tell your story to your member of Congress, Senators, and your NYS Assembly Member and Senator by using our web form.

I also want to remind you that another way to show your support is to donate to Humanities New York — and become a Member.  Your donations directly enhance our benefits to New Yorkers and add heft to our communications to lawmakers.  Finally, participate over social media to #SupportNEH and join the national conversation.

Thank you for your support.

Yours,

Sara Ogger
Executive Director

#SupportNEH
@HumanitiesNY               

Photo courtesy of Queens Library, by the Five Boro Story Project.

Dear Friend,

On the occasion of our 40th anniversary, the New York Council for the Humanities is updating our brand, look, and name: we are now “Humanities New York.” A new website contains links to our programs, grants, and events–which have been changing all along to keep up with our changing communities. Now these resources are even more user-friendly. The site also features some of the luminaries whose work we have supported through 40 years of leadership in the public humanities.

Creating a graphic identity for the organization presented a challenge, as the humanities are not easily boiled down to a recognizable mark. Increasingly among our peer institutions, it’s the vital role of the humanities in our culture that gets expressed. Chat bubbles, exclamation points, and quotation marks help stake the claim that the humanities are, at their core, about conversation, connection, and dialogue.

The amazing team at Design Agency came up with a new logo that references both a speech bubble and the place where conversation is being sparked–New York State. Its clean modern design refers to the accessible, open, and participatory values of Humanities New York.

We invite you to explore the new website and take a look at our discussion programs, grant categories, and special initiatives such as the Centennials of Women’s Suffrage (2017-2020), our partnership with Pulitzer, and Democracy in Dialogue events. And finally, be sure to check out the interactive events calendar featuring grantee and partner organizations’ events.

Yours,

Sara Ogger
Executive Director

GLENS FALLS – A program celebrating the 1916 presidential campaign of Glens Falls native Charles Evans Hughes is scheduled for 1 p.m. Saturday at The Hyde Collection, 161 Warren St. in Glens Falls.

Exactly 100 years ago, Hughes — a former New York governor and U.S. Supreme Court justice — ran against, and was narrowly defeated by, incumbent President Woodrow Wilson.

Hughes, the Republican Party’s nominee, will be portrayed by biographer William Loughrey, who will talk about Hughes’s career during an interview with Saratogian reporter Paul Post.

After the 1916 election, Hughes later became U.S. Secretary of State and was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a decade, into the early 1940s.

The free program will also include music, a state Legislative proclamation read by Assemblyman Dan Stec, R-Queensbury, and an official Congressional Record entry honoring Hughes from U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-Willsboro.

Assemblywoman Carrier Woerner, D-Round Lake, will also take part along with James B. Kobak, principal of the New York City law firm, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, which Charles Hughes founded in 1888.

At 11 and 3 p.m., the Chapman Historical Museum will offer free walking tours starting at The Hyde. Space is limited. Reservations can be made by calling (518) 793-2831 or going to www.chapmanmuseum.org.

At present, Crandall Public Library’s Folklife Center has an exhibit about Hughes called “Charles Evans Hughes, A Native Son,” which will run through Dec. 31.

Many local restaurants are offering $19.16 dinner specials, to commemorate the 1916 election, through this Saturday. They are: 190 Grille; Cooper’s Cave; Gourmet Cafe; The Bullpen; Siam Thai Sushi; Raul’s; The Queensbury Hotel; Morgan and Co.; and The Grateful Den.

Davidson Brothers Brewing has specials through this Sunday, while Samantha’s Cafe is offering buy one-get one gift certificates for $19.16.

Glens Falls brewers are also raising their glasses to Hughes’ memory with special brews. Davidson Brothers Brewing is offering a “Hughes Ale,” a British derivative American ale; Cooper’s Cave is offering a first-ever Black IPA; and Mean Max Brew Works is offering a “Charlie’s Lager.”

The Hyde Collection is offering free admission throughout the day on Saturday.

Charles Evans Hughes Day is sponsored in part by Glens Falls National Bank & Trust Company and the New York Council for the Humanities.

For more information go to: www.hydecollection.org or call (518) 792-1761.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

By Roger Green
October 10, 2016
The Times Union

The New York State Museum will be offering a six-week lecture/discussion series on Presidential campaign history at every Thursday, 6 to 8 pm, from October 13 until November 17. The discussion is being led by local author Giacomo Calabria, and it is sponsored by the New York Council for the Humanities.

The series is free, open to the public, and you are most welcome to join! You can find the full details, including links to the syllabus here.

Please register with Nicole LaFountain at [email protected] or call (518) 474-0575.

“This series invites participants to examine, discuss, and enjoy the history of the United States through its presidential elections just in time for the 2016 elections. We will read about every presidential campaign from 1789 to 2012, track changes within the nation from the presidency down to the voter, study some of the most famous speeches, political ads, and political cartoons ever devised, delight over misadventures and anecdotes, listen to recordings from the phonograph to the digital era, and ultimately transform the last 240 years of US history into a lens for better appreciating and understanding the nation we live in today. Audience participation is both welcome and encouraged. Please feel free to bring questions for open discussion.”

Presidential Campaigns: An Election Year History: 1789 – 1824: Introduction / George Washington to John Q.
October 13, 2016
6-8 p.m.
Huxley Theater

Presidential Campaigns: An Election Year History: 1828 – 1864: Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln
October 20, 2016
6-8 p.m.
Huxley Theater

Presidential Campaigns: An Election Year History: 1868 – 1904: From Reconstruction to Roosevelt
October 27, 2016
6-8 p.m.
Huxley Theater

Presidential Campaigns: An Election Year History: 1908 – 1944: From TR to FDR
November 3, 2016
6-8 p.m.
Huxley Theater

Presidential Campaigns: An Election Year History: 1948 – 1984: From Truman to Reagan
November 10, 2016
6-8 p.m.
Huxley Theater

Presidential Campaigns: An Election Year History: 1988 – 2016: The Modern Era
November 17, 2016
6-8 p.m.
Huxley Theater