Search results

The purpose of this paper is to empower teachers to engage in a process of curricular transformation to integrate a social justice framework, even if it means starting with small steps.

The authors present a set of guiding principles on which social studies teachers can draw to transform their curriculum to embody a social justice framework within and across units of historical inquiry. The principles are anchored in an example historical unit, the Chicago Haymarket Affair of 1886, and an analogous contemporary sub-unit, The Exonerated Five (formerly The Central Park Five incident of 1989).

The guiding principles represent an accessible approach educators can flexibly apply to their process of curricular transformation. The authors provide a balanced approach of emphasizing the need for educators to restructure social studies curriculum with the feasibility of this process at larger or smaller scales according to educators' readiness for change.

The authors outline a process to empower teachers to change the status quo of their social studies teaching, at a scale determined by the teacher. The authors provide a practical, concrete set of guiding principles for educators to make changes that represent social justice integration aligned with existing social studies curriculum and standards. The authors encourage teachers to reflect on their readiness for and progress toward transforming their curriculum to integrate a social justice framework.

Preservice teachers (n = 39) described their definitions of patriotism and to what extent they believed statements from The 1619 Project (2019) and The 1776 Commission Report (2021) were patriotic.

This study employed a mixed-method survey including open-ended prompts requesting participants’ descriptions of patriotism and Likert scale prompts asking participants to agree/disagree with deidentified statements from The 1619 Project and the 1776 Commission Report. In vivo words reflecting emotional responses to patriotism and the statements informed the categorization process in a second round of coding.

Four categories of patriotism definition were identified. Identified were relationships between groups’ conceptualizations of patriotism and whether statements from history narratives were viewed as patriotic.

This article contributes to the field by exploring the intersectionality of the concept of patriotism with competing narratives regarding the foundation and growth of the United States.

The use of six non-fiction graphic novels to teach historical agency in a social studies methods course was examined in a critical action research study. Pre-service social studies teachers were asked to read one graphic novel and to discuss it with classmates, first in literature circles, then as a whole class. Data revealed graphic novels engaged pre-service teachers in thinking about historical agency, and helped them make connections between historical agency and their own agency. There were three overlapping ways pre-service teachers connected to historical agency in all six graphic novels: upbringing and personal experience, unpredictability of historical situations, and injustice. The findings highlight the value of graphic novels for teaching about historical agency in social studies courses because of their focus on historical agents’ positionality.

In Virginia, former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder accused the state’s library agency of racism for “its slow pace in processing and publicly presenting records from his tenure as the nation’s first elected Black governor” (Associated Press, 2020). The State Librarian responded that this was just a lapse in protocols and framed it as a budget issue and staff turnover. However, “Library of Virginia has been processing papers from his gubernatorial successors before finishing work on his” (Associated Press, 2020). Recently, the Alabama State Department of Archives and History acknowledged their participation in systemic racism, epistemicide, and their history of privileging White voices over those of Alabama African-Americans.

Epistemicide is the killing, silencing, annihilation, or devaluing of a way of knowing (Patin, Sebastian, Yeon, & Bertolini, 2020). Conceptualization and analytic application of epistemicide has an established tradition in a number of social science fields, but information scientists have only recently acknowledged epistemicide (Oliphant, 2021; Patin et al., 2020; Patin, Sebastian, Yeon, Bertolini, & Grimm, 2021). Building from our recent identification of the existence of epistemicide within the IS field (Patin et al., 2020), this work challenges the information field to become an epistemologically just space working to correct the systemic silencing of certain ways of knowing.

This chapter examines the four types of epistemic injustices—testimonial, hermeneutical, participatory, and curricular—occurring within libraries and archives and argues for a path forward to address these injustices within our programs, services, and curricula. It looks to digital humanities and to reevaluations of professional standards and LIS education to stop epistemicide and its harms. This chapter demonstrates how to affirm the power and experience of Black lives and highlight their experiences through the careful acquisition, collection, documentation, and publishing of relevant historical materials. Addressing epistemicide is critical for information professionals because we task ourselves with handling knowledge from every field. There has to be a reckoning before the paradigm can truly shift; if there is no acknowledgment of injustice, there is no room for justice.

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention towards how religious beliefs are linked to today's accounting principles and legitimating exploitation.

The poem is a critical thought.

Religious concepts have been widely used to justify various historical social injustices. Four basic accounting principles; matching, accrual, going concern and reporting cycle perfectly correspond with life cycles, the acts and rewards of such lives, and “balancing” the pains and gains of individuals and society. These concepts, which have now become the foundation of accounting, were in existence millennia ago.

Accounting is broader than has been widely perceived. Accounting researchers should pay more attention to how accounting helped sustain social injustices.

This poem provokes thoughts on the origin of basic accounting principles and their historical roles in sustaining social injustices.

In his article, “Modes of Repair: Reparations and Citizenship in the Dawn of the New Millennium,” John Torpey argues that reparations claims are mere extensions of identity politics and its preoccupation with group victimization and historical injustice. This essay takes another view, arguing that reparations politics is both a tactic used by groups to enhance their citizenship and a response to government's failure to address enduring and deeply rooted inequalities. Historical grievances are part of the political toolbox that groups employ to advance their interests. Reparations claims are pluralist politics by another name. Why would we expect them to be otherwise?

This paper introduces key themes and debates in education and educational history that engage education's complicity in injustice and violence, as well as those that continue to position education as a vehicle for positive change and possibility. The paper introduces the papers that comprise the special issue “Challenges of Contested Spaces: Constructing Difference and its Legacies in Educational History”.

The paper canvasses pertinent historiographical, theoretical and methodological debates that shed light on education's dual capacity to empower and oppress.

Papers in this collection reveal the many ways that agendas justified in the name of education, training and reform have often invoked that name as justification for actions that harmed, discriminated or oppressed, and yet also, how despite this, education can still be imagined as a space of possibility and transformation.

The paper offers a summative introduction to the themes and papers of the special issue.

In this paper, the authors propose a new lens to examine international humanitarian organizations' responsibilities in the context of project closure, what authors call “an ethics of the temporary”. The authors offer this as an orienting ethical ideal to facilitate the moral imagination of humanitarian planners, practitioners and stakeholders.

The authors drew on recent philosophical work on responsibilities for global justice to analyze an ethical concern inherent to humanitarian practice, the proper scope of responsibility in the context of closure of humanitarian projects.

The ethics of the temporary includes four elements: situating humanitarian action temporally with attention to the past and how it shapes a current crisis and crisis response, focusing attention on anticipating and seeking to mitigate potential harm, promoting sustainability and greater equity going forward and emphasizing inclusive, collaborative approaches. The authors propose a set of questions that can foster discussion and reflection about the scope of humanitarian responsibilities at project closure.

Although the authors' work is primarily conceptual, it has many practical implications for humanitarian policy and practice. It can support critical reflection and offers a process for considering the scope of responsibility at project closure and decisions around how to close a given intervention in a manner that avoids causing harm and advances equity.

Very little work has been done on ethical closure of humanitarian projects. Most literature offers critiques. This essay contributes a new approach to closure, the ethical ideal and practice of an ethics of the temporary.

The late twentieth-century spread of interest in the notion of “reparations” cannot be understood apart from the semantic meanings of the word itself. The term is one of the “re-words” that Charles Maier has identified as the object of rising interest among various groups in recent years.⁶ The first thing that must be said is that the word came to be transformed, sometime after World War II, from its earlier connotation of “war reparations” into something much broader. Before the Second World War, the use of “war” as a modifier here would have been nearly redundant; in that era, it went without saying that “reparations” were an outgrowth of war. The paradigmatic case of reparations, perhaps, was that mandated by the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I and imposed heavy obligations on the Germans to compensate the Allies for their wartime losses. In cases such as this, the term was synonymous with “indemnities”; again, the use of “war” to modify the main term would have been largely superfluous. It went without saying – in English at least – that “reparations” was an exaction imposed by the winners of a war on the losers, who were said to have been responsible for the damage caused by the conflict.⁷