This Teaching Guide is part of a series. Each of the four total teaching guides speaks to one aspect of the history of free speech. Although they work together to tell different parts of this history, it is not necessary to teach all of the guides or to teach them in a certain order. Each guide is a self-contained lesson.
(A PDF version of this teaching guide is also available for download-see left) 

Other guides in the series:
Free Speech Teaching Guide 1: The Birth of the Modern First Amendment: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind
Free Speech Teaching Guide 3: The Problem of National Security Secrets
Free Speech Teaching Guide 4: Mandel v. Kleindienst (1972): Censorship via Visa

Recommended for:

• 11th Grade US History
• 12th Grade Government
• Undergraduate History

Table of Contents

Guide Introduction:
This introduction briefly previews the how this guide will cover Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 and why that case is useful in teaching students about the basic legal principles of free speech in the United States.

Classroom Activities:
Exercise 1: How to read a court case. A structured guide on how to explain the case to students and facilitate classroom conversation. Includes a link to the original case and relevant Constitutional Amendments.
Exercise 2: Thinking about free speech principles, not politics. A full-class group activity on the white board. What makes some forms of speech so "harmful" that they fall outside of the First Amendment's protection?
Exercise 3: What's the harm in hateful speech? An exercise intended to invite and address questions of how violence is defined. It includes questions alongside arguments in favor of either restricting or tolerating speech.

Appendix:
Excerpt of the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio to refer to during the Classroom Activities. The entire source (external) is linked here.

Guide Introduction

        This case from the late 1960s, about the right of Ku Klux Klan members to call for racial violence, marks an important turning point in the law of free speech.  The court firmly and finally rejected the notion that one could be punished for publicly advocating for a crime – closing the books on the long period in which left-wing advocacy for revolution had been criminalized.  And it announced a new rule that was very protective of even the right to advocate for crime – a rule that still guides the law today, and that embodies, for many commentators, the essence of modern free speech law.
       The case is therefore a good one to teach to show students the basics of free speech law.  It is also a short decision issued by a unanimous court (rather than being signed by one judge, the decision was issued per curiam, or for the court, normally a sign that it is non-controversial). Leaving out the two concurrences, the decision runs for only about five pages, and its reasoning is fairly straightforward. It thus serves as a useful case to teach students how to read a supreme court decision.

This teaching guide includes:

1. A structured guide to explaining the case to students
2. A classroom exercise on the value of tolerating hateful speech
3. A classroom exercise to think about the harms of hateful speech

Note: there are links throughout this guide to the end of the document where an appendix houses excerpts of the Supreme Court decision and an external link to the entire resource.

Classroom Exercise I: How to read a court case

Contents:
Overview
Introduction & Context
Hypotheticals
Final Context & Wrap Up

Overview:
This exercise will introduce students to the Brandenburg case itself and help them begin to grapple with its main debates. It works best as a whole classroom activity, although the reading may be assigned as homework to be reviewed before class. The goal of this lesson is for students to be able to draw connections between Brandenburg and the relevant constitutional amendments, as well as understand the complexity of free speech logic as seen in the case. 

Introduction & Context:
        The place to begin is by having students read the decision and asking them to identify the facts in the case. This can be assigned as homework or conducted as a guided reading in the classroom. In clear prose, the court outlines the essential facts on pp.444-447 of the decision. The key details for students to grasp are that Clarence Brandenburg was a member of the KKK in Ohio, and late in the June of 1964 he was filmed at a meeting of about a dozen Klansmen making racist statements and suggesting that if the U.S. continues to “suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.” He then proposed marching on Washington DC on July 4.
       The next question is how Brandenburg was charged.  The court tells us in the opening sentences of its decision – he was convicted under an Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for advocating the “duty, necessity or propriety” of crime or violence.  The law dated from 1919, one of a series of state laws – 20, the courts tells us on p.447 – passed during the First Red Scare in an effort to criminalize revolutionary socialist and anarchist parties.
       So what question is the Supreme Court answering in this case? Whether the Ohio Syndicalism law is constitutional, or whether it violates Brandenburg’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights (p.444). The First Amendment issue is straightforward – he was sentenced to jail and fined for his speech. 
        But you might want to explain the 14th Amendment piece to your students, particularly if it is a more advanced class, or if you have spent time discussing federalism. The First Amendment says only that “Congress shall make no law”– in the 19th century, it was understood that it did not apply to state laws, like the Ohio law in question here, it only applied to the federal government. (To the extent that one wanted to challenge state laws, you had to rely on whatever bills of rights were included in state constitutions.) But beginning in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began to hold that the First Amendment did apply to the states – they did so by ruling that the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of “due process” included the First Amendment right to free speech and free press, and thus that the First Amendment applied to state as well as federal laws. This process is known as incorporation. One needn’t get into this with students unless they are curious – the upshot is that there is no discrete 14th Amendment issue at stake in this case; the 14th Amendment is being cited as a way to activate the free speech issues.
       And what did the Supreme Court rule? In the final paragraph, the court outlines that the law is unconstitutional, because it punishes “mere advocacy.” This, it suggests, is too broad. In the highlighted section on p.447, the Court argues that previous decisions have made clear that you can only bar advocacy of crime if it the speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Find the text of the First Amendment Here

Find the text of the Fourteenth Amendment Here

        This is known as the Brandenburg test, and it still guides the law today. The idea is that if someone is advocating that a crime should be committed, then that should be protected speech unless the crime is likely to be committed right away. Only in that case is it appropriate to criminalize speech to prevent the crime from happening, to treat the speech as causing the crime in some direct sense.  In all other cases, if a crime is committed, we hold the person committing the crime accountable. We give the speaker wide latitude to express their point of view to encourage full expression; and we trust that people are not easily persuaded to commit crimes. Rather than run the risk of repressing politically valuable speech, we trust in the deterrent power of the criminal laws. And we trust, too, that in the interim between the speech and the criminal act, there is plenty of time for individuals to reconsider and there is plenty of time for others to speak out against committing the crime.

Hypotheticals:
To illustrate this point, I use a little sequence of hypotheticals:

• If I hate a building on campus – I think it is named for someone whose politics I abhor; I find it aesthetically awful; I have some other extreme gripe – and I say it should be torn down, does that meet the standard?
  • Students should see that it doesn’t, and for obvious reasons – it is not directed to inciting lawless action, that action is not imminent, and it is not likely to produce the action. And by calling for destruction in this more abstract way, I am expressing the strength of my political feelings about the building.
• What if I say someone should dynamite it overnight in a few months, over the school break?
  • That is explicitly directed to a crime, but is neither imminent nor likely, and so doesn’t meet the standard.
• But what if there is a protest outside the building, I have a megaphone, and I tell the crowd to smash the building right now?
  • Well, if the crowd is angry, and the crime looks likely to happen, and I am explicit that I want the crowd to break the law, I might have a problem. But as students should see, this is a very hard standard to prove, and so the Brandenburg test is very protective of free speech.

At this point, I normally need to clarify that this is about public advocacy for law-breaking. Conspiring to commit a crime is an entirely different matter – we don’t consider it a matter of free speech because it is done privately. There are no communicative benefits to the planning of the crime – there is no risk that we will chill public discussion or critique or the venting of anger – and so the same First Amendment issues do not arise. Conspiring to commit a crime is, of itself, a crime.

Final Context & Wrap Up:
        The final question to explore is how did the court get to this conclusion? It reviewed a series of previous cases in which it had ruled on criminal advocacy cases, and distilled from them its test, which had not previously been stated so plainly. The cases are listed on 447-448, and two things are important to draw out. The first is that there was a case on the books from 1927 – Whitney v. California – in which the law in question was very similar to the Ohio law (they were passed around the same time). In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to punish a woman – Anita Whitney – for joining an organization – the Communist Party – that advocated revolution.  The decision was part of a long sequence of cases in which the Court had ruled that it was constitutional to criminalize Communist speech. This approach led to McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare. In the Dennis case in 1951, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional to send 11 Communist Party leaders to jail for “conspiring to advocate” revolution – for teaching that revolution is an ultimate end-goal of the Communist movement (a decision that falls far short of the test established in Brandenburg!).
        But, and this is the second piece of context to provide, over the late 1950s and early 1960s, as the fears of the McCarthy period cooled, the Court began to rethink these decisions, and to outline new tests that protected much more speech. These are the cases cited on 447-448, and which form the basis for the test newly elaborated in Brandenburg. And making that the standard required also overturning the Whitney decision from four decades earlier – an example of how the law evolves, and earlier precedent is overturned.
      That explains the internal logic of the case. The remainder of class can be devoted to asking students to work through how they think about this decision. Normally, students find themselves quite uncomfortable with the fact that the Court has ruled in favor of a KKK member, and that it seemed to treat the case as the culmination of its tortured relationship with Communist speech rather than confronting directly the fact that this was a Klansman advocating racial violence.

The following two exercises can be useful for helping students work through these questions. 

Classroom Exercise II: Thinking about free speech principles, not politics

Contents:
Overview
Context & Questions

Overview:
To help students grapple with the complexity of the Brandenburg case, I provide them with information about who his legal team was and what their motivations were for representing him. Included in this exercise is an interview with one of Brandenburg’s lawyers and a series of questions I find useful in prompting student discussion about this complicated topic.

Context & Questions:
        Take students to the top of the case and ask them to identify the lawyers representing Brandenburg. The first lawyer named is Allen Brown – he was a Jewish lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The other lawyers were also civil libertarians, including the fourth name: Eleanor Holmes Norton. Norton worked for the ACLU at the time, and later went on to serve for decades as Washington DC’s congressional representative. These were not, in other words, lawyers who shared Brandenburg’s politics. Here is a short clip of Norton explaining her role in the case:

Link to Video: C-SPAN- Supreme Court Landmark Case Brandenburg v. Ohio

       I ask students what they think of Norton’s idea that she has a duty to defend the speech of speakers who would not defend her speech? There is no easy answer to this question, which will be deeply personal to individual students – the key is just to let students begin to work through their ideas about the importance of neutrality in speech rights.
      I often pose some additional questions to prompt more discussion. Do students share Norton’s concerns about governments deciding which sorts of speech to prosecute? Do they share her faith that a “free for all” will produce a decent outcome? Do they share her faith that courts will apply neutral principles to protect all speech? Is it smart politics for liberals like the ACLU to defend groups that would not respect their rights? Or is it naïve?

Classroom Exercise III: What's the harm in hateful speech?

Contents:
Overview
Toleration Arguments
Restriction Arguments

Overview:
       Students can be surprised to see that nowhere in the Court’s opinion does the court discuss Brandenburg’s speech as hateful or racist speech. As it seeks to assess whether Brandenburg’s speech might cause a harm that would justify punishment, the court focuses exclusively on the harm that the specific violence Brandenburg advocates – “revengeance” after the July 4 march – might actually come to pass. This is because of the Ohio law under which Brandenburg was charged (making it illegal to advocate crime) – and underlining this point can be a useful moment to discuss with students the Supreme Court’s role as an appeals court, limited to hearing the specifics of the cases that come before it.
        But what if there had been a law barring Brandenburg’s speech because it was racist? Many other countries have hate speech laws, which criminalize speech because it is racist or derogatory. The U.S. does not; American free speech law protects the right to say even racist or hateful things.
        The facts of Brandenburg offer an opportunity for students to think through how they feel about this controversial free speech question. As with Exercise II, the goal is not to lead students to a “correct” answer, but to help them understand some of the ways that the arguments have been made, and to begin to develop their own philosophies of free speech.

Toleration Arguments:
         The arguments for tolerating even hateful speech flow from Eleanor Holmes Norton’s perspective on free speech that we looked at in Exercise II; they also flow from the idea of a “marketplace of ideas” that was established in the 1919 Abrams v. United States case, which is dealt with in the Free Speech Teaching Guide 1 In short, they are that that any standards that could be established will be vague and open to abuse, that there is much risk in allowing governments to pick and choose which speech to censor, and that there are benefits to society for allowing the airing out of controversial ideas – where they can be critiqued, rebutted, and, where necessary, debated – rather than driving them underground, where they may gain the mystique of “secret knowledge.”
       The arguments against tolerating such speech require identifying harms that would be sufficient to justify censorship. In Brandenburg, the Court measured the likelihood that Brandenburg’s speech would cause the sort of mob violence on July 4 that he called for; the court found that such an outcome was not sufficiently imminent, likely, and explicit to punish the speech. But that is not the only harm one could imagine wanting to regulate.
Next, I provide two important examples of such arguments for restricting racist speech to avoid different types of harm.

Restriction Arguments:
       An argument could be made that racist speech can lead to crimes in a more general sense, by heightening racial animosity, and degrading the status of some members of the community so much that they seem legitimate targets for violence. Brandenburg was decided in 1969, but the case began with Brandenburg’s speech 1964 at a time when the conflict over civil rights was causing very real political violence: in the September before Brandenburg’s speech, for instance, a splinter group of the Ku Klux Klan bombed the 16th Street church in Alabama, killing four Black girls. One obviously cannot hold Brandenburg himself accountable for these crimes – they happened before his speech – but do students think that censoring hateful, violent speech like his would make such crimes less likely? And what about the risks of such censorship? And is it sufficient that bombing is outlawed?
       The second argument, as made by philosopher Jeremy Waldron, argues that the harm of hate speech is not that it will lead to crime, but that hateful speech is, of itself, an attack on the dignity of particular groups of people and denies them of full inclusion in the political community. Whether or not this sort of speech leads to a crime, Waldron suggests, this is itself harmful enough to justify censorship. After all, it is illegal to defame individual people under U.S. law – though in the case of individual libel charges there are complex rules intended to balance this principle with the First Amendment; and any similar group defamation law would need to be similarly complex. But one can ask students whether the sorts of statements Brandenburg made in the footnote on p.446 are sufficiently harmful to the respect and status of members of the community that they fall outside the protections of the First Amendment. 
       In Brandenburg, the court did not consider these issues. But thinking about the case in these contexts helps students better understand the stakes of the free speech questions involved and also helps them think about how the court identifies the harms it analyzes in its decisions.

Appendix

Available in the PDF version of this guide, downloadable on the left of this page. 

This Teaching Guide is part of a series. Each of the four total teaching guides speaks to one aspect of the history of free speech. Although they work together to tell different parts of this history, it is not necessary to teach all of the guides or to teach them in a certain order. Each guide is a self-contained lesson.
(A PDF version of this teaching guide is also available for download-see left) 

Other guides in the series:
Free Speech Teaching Guide 2: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): Defining and Arguing Hate Speech
Free Speech Teaching Guide 3: The Problem of National Security Secrets
Free Speech Teaching Guide 4: Mandel v. Kleindienst (1972): Censorship via Visa

"Eugene V. Debs Making a Speech," c.1912-1918, Library of Congress

Recommended for:

• 11th Grade US History
• 12th Grade Government
• Undergraduate History

Table of Contents

Framing Essay:
This essay provides historical background on modern ideas about free speech and the First Amendment through analysis of two 1919 Supreme Court cases:
       Selection: Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
        Selection: Abrams and others v. United States 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Classroom Activities
Exercise 1: What does Freedom of Speech Mean? A guided reading of the Holmes opinion in Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Why did the Supreme Court decide it was acceptable to limit certain forms of speech?
Exercise 2: What Kinds of Speech are Protected? A full class group activity on the white board. What makes certain forms of speech so harmful that they fall outside First Amendment protection?
Exercise 3: Holmes Reconsiders. A detailed reading of Abrams and others v. United States 250 U.S. 616 (1919) and a comparison to Schenk. How might judges apply or avoid precedent?

Annotated Primary Sources
A section of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. majority opinion in the Schenck case.
A section of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. dissenting opinion in the Abrams case.

Homework Activity

Framing Essay

When I teach students the history of the First Amendment, the most basic thing I want them to learn is that the First Amendment has a history. Free speech seems like an enduring American value. After all, it is protected in the First Amendment to the constitution. But the idea that we should protect the "marketplace of ideas," that all sorts of speech should be protected from punishment, is barely more than a century old. In fact, its emergence can be traced to one year: 1919.

This guide focuses on the history of free speech in one crucial year (1919), exploring how one influential Supreme Court justice changed his mind about the value of antiwar speech and in the process wrote opinions that have shaped our attitudes to free speech ever since. It provides students an opportunity to see the First Amendment evolve at a crucial hinge in its history, and it also provides them an opportunity to think about how far the rights to free speech should extend during wartime.

During World War I, the US government sent critics of the war to jail. The Espionage Act of 1917 made it illegal to interfere with the draft, and government prosecutors successfully claimed that criticism of the war was a form of interference with the draft – if drafted soldiers thought the US should not be fighting the war, wouldn’t they be less likely to comply with the draft? On this theory, more than a thousand Americans were imprisoned for speech crimes. The most famous of them was Eugene Debs, the labor organizer and perennial Socialist presidential candidate, who was convicted for a Socialist stump speech in an Ohio park in the summer of 1918.

Find the text of the First Amendment Here

"Eugene V. Debs Making a Speech," c.1912-1918, Library of Congress

Eugene Debs Speaking in Canton, Ohio, c.1918, National Archives

"Eugene Debs Mug Shot," c.1912-1929, New York Public Library

During class, I project the above images of Eugene Debs to force students to think about the human character at the center of this story. Debs was a noted orator, but we have no videos of him speaking.

We have to rely instead on photographs and the words of his audience, who described him as a captivating, moving speaker, who had the ability to make everyone in the crowd feel like he was addressing them directly.

Look Closer:
One technique Debs used was to lean out over the crowd – as you can see in the photo of his speech in Canton, Ohio.
You can find a transcript of Debs’ Canton Speech here: Eugene V. Debs' Canton Speech, 1918, Internet Archive

After the end of the war, in the Spring of 1919, the Supreme Court heard appeals from a number of the socialists prosecuted under the Espionage Act. The socialists claimed that the First Amendment protected their right to criticize the war. In unanimous decisions, the Supreme Court rejected their claims. During war time, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote for the court, it was perfectly acceptable for the government to criminalize speech that could interfere with the draft. The first classroom exercise will explore Holmes’s decision in this case: Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47.
 
Victor L. Burger Campaign Poster, 1918, Wisconsin Historical Society

This campaign poster for Victor Berger reveals the centrality of free speech to the Socialist party and the connection between the right to free speech and opposition to the war.

Berger himself was prosecuted for speech crimes — a fascinating history that is well documented Wisconsin Historical Society site linked below.

Victor L. Berger Campaign Poster, 1918, Wisconsin Historical Society

Classroom Exercise I: What does Freedom of Speech Mean?

Contents:
Overview
Schenck WWI Anti-Draft Pamphlet, 1917
Excerpt of Schenck v. U.S.(1919)
Annotated excerpt of Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
Conclusion and Takeaways: What does free speech really mean?

Overview:
Holmes’ understanding of free speech was explained most clearly in the Schenck v. U.S. (1919) case, which concerned a pamphlet (pictured below) sent to drafted soldiers which encouraged them to protest the draft by writing to their congressional representatives.

It is useful to walk students through this excerpt from Holmes’ decision closely in class explaining the relevant steps of the logic. I do so by:

1. Have students read the dense legal text of the Holmes’ decision out loud.
2. Paraphrase and explain each sentence. My annotations provide the context and explanation I use. The following pages provide an annotated exploration of an excerpt of the Schenck decision.

Charles Schenck, WWI Anti-Draft Pamphlet, 1917, National Archives

Primary Source: Schenck v. U.S.​ (1919):

“It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 462. We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced. The statute of 1917 in § 4 punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. If the act, (speaking or circulating a paper,) its tendency and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474, 477.”
For the Full Decision see: U.S. Reports: Schenck v.US 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Library of Congress.

Annotated excerpt of Schenck v. U.S.:

"It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454, 462."

Previous or Prior Restraint:

• A particularly dangerous form of censorship because it prevents one from speaking at all without approval.
• In the 19th century, it was well understood that the First Amendment prevented this kind of licensing system - Holmes sees this as the "main purpose" of the First Amendment.

Patterson v. Colorado was a 1907 Supreme Court case in which a newspaper was punished for criticizing a court in Colorado. The newspaper claimed that the First Amendment protected their right to criticize the judiciary, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was acceptable to punish speech if it would interfere with the "course of justice." Holmes wrote the opinion for the court; two judges dissented.

Holmes cites this decision for two purposes:

1. FIRST: in the sentence prior to the citation, he says that the main purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the establishment of a censorship board that can approve or deny the right to speak or publish before one has spoken.
   1. The question at stake was whether the First Amendment also protected you from punishment after you have spoken.
   2. Holmes here begins by conceding that the First Amendment might offer some protections to post-speech punishment - it is not only limited to a ban on prior restraint.
2. SECOND: the implication is that the First Amendment offers fewer protections against post-speech punishment than it does against prior restraint.

“We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants ... circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205–206 (Volume, Publication Name, Page Numbers)...

This is an opportunity to explain to students how to read Supreme Court decisions. The citation of cases, followed by the numbers, is placed in the text which will be new to many students.
The citation is the equivalent of a footnote or parenthetical reference. If you just want to read the substance of the opinion, students can jump over the citation, which will make the opinion easier to follow. I often explain to students, familiar with finding material online, how bound volumes of cases look on library shelves, and why such a reference system is helpful.

Holmes cites an opinion from a 1904 case about unfair trade practices. The Aikens case established that the decision to sign or not sign a business contract might be protected in some cases, but not if it is part of a criminal conspiracy to harm a competitor.

The details are not directly relevant to the speech context; he is citing the case to support the abstract proposition that acts which can be constitutionally protected in some cases may not be constitutionally protected in different contexts.

In Schenck - the right to say what was said in the pamphlet might be protected in some contexts, but that doesn't resolve the question of whether it is in this case.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic.”

• This is a famous metaphor. But how does it work in this case?
• Holmes is arguing that you do not have a right to falsely shout fire in a theater - this will cause a panic, a harm which societies would reasonably want to prevent.
• But it matters that he assumes that the shout of "fire" is false - if there actually was a fire in the theater, you definitely want someone to yell!
• The metaphor seems to have been introduced into case history by the federal lawyer prosecuting Eugene Debs. When Debs's lawyers claimed a right to free speech, the prosecutor said that this was the same thing as claiming the right to "go into a crowded theater...and yell 'fire' when there was no fire and people [would be] trampled to death."
• It seems likely that the prosecutor was thinking of a recent incident in Calumet, Michigan, where striking copper workers had organized a children's Christmas party on the second floor of a hall in 1913. During the party, someone yelled fire, and there was a stampede which killed 73 people. It made the front-page of the New York Times and entered the political culture. Woody Guthrie's 1939 ballad  “1913 Massacre" is about the event - and captures the assumption by left-wing Americans that the false shout of fire had come from an anti-union vigilante.
• If this is the origin of Holmes' metaphor, it is deeply ironic that the socialists in these World War I cases were being accused of a "false shout of fire."

Questions for Students:
Is it fair to compare Schenck’s pamphlet to a false shout of fire?
Is the harm of the pamphlet as immediate as a stampede?
Is the pamphlet ‘false’ in the same way as the shout in the theater?
If the alarmist shout about the draft is the equivalent of a true fire, might there be benefit in hearing it?
What might the merits be of debating the pamphlet, even if it is difficult to establish whether or not it is true?
Why might Holmes have chosen this metaphor?
Why do courts use analogy, metaphors, and comparisons in their decisions?

Find the song here: Woody Guthrie, “1913 Massacre,” Smithsonian Folkways Recordings.

“It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effect might be enforced.”

• Samuel Gompers was a union leader organizing a consumer boycott of Buck’s Stove, an anti-union company. A court ruled that this kind of boycott was an illegal interference with commerce, and Gompers claimed that the ban violated his rights to free speech.
• In 1911, the Supreme Court rejected the claim, saying Gompers’ speech was a "verbal act...exceeding any possible right of speech which a single individual might have."
• Here, Holmes is saying that it is possible to consider Schenck's pamphlet in the same way - as a verbal act which has such effects in the world that they should be treated as acts, not as part of freedom of speech.
• Holmes here assumes that constitutional rights during wartime are different, and this is crucial to his decision. This is a useful place to discuss with students whether they agree.

Questions for Students:

1. What constitutes a “war”?
   1. US fought the Vietnam War, for instance, without a formal declaration of war.
2. If the right to free speech should be limited during wartime, how do we define a war?
3. Does a national security emergency count, or only when congress formally declares war?
   1. For a useful discussion of the ambiguities of the legal term "wartime," see Mary L. Dudziak, Wartime: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences. (Oxford, 2012).

“The statute of 1917 in § 4 punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. If the act, (speaking or circulating a paper,) its tendency and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success, alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U. S. 474, 477.” 

• Goldman was a case from 1918 about a conspiracy to interfere with the draft - it cited "settled doctrine" that conspiring to do an illegal act is a crime whether or not it is successful.
• This is another citation similar to Aikens. Students don't need to know the details of the case to grasp the general point: for certain crimes we punish attempts as well as successes. Attempted murder is the most obvious example.
• In some of his earlier writings on the law, Holmes had explained that we punish attempts as well as successes because we want to prevent certain dangerous outcomes - "the danger becomes so great that the law steps in" See G. Edward White, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self, 261-262.

Conclusion and Takeaways:

• To modern eyes, the decision seems to make a mockery of the First Amendment.
• If you can be jailed for telling people to write to their congressional representatives, what does freedom of speech even mean?
• But Holmes’ decision reflected prevailing understandings of the First Amendment. Throughout the nineteenth century, it was understood that freedom of speech had limits – that there were some sorts of speech acts – such as obscenity, or certain forms of criticism of public officials – that fell outside the protection of the First Amendment.
• In his influential 1833 treatise on Constitutional law, the Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story put it like this: “that this amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please, without any responsibility, public or private therefore, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man.” “Freedom of speech” didn’t mean you could say anything at all, with no consequences. Speakers could be held responsible—could be punished—for speech acts that went beyond the pale.
  • The amendment being referred to here is the First.
• Even today, in fact, we still criminalize some sorts of speech which we believe to be outside of the “freedom of speech”: no-one can claim First Amendment rights to insider trading, to conspiring to commit a crime, to blackmail, to breaching patient or client confidentiality.

Classroom Exercise 2: What Types of Speech are Protected?

Contents
Overview
Group Activity Directions
Group Activity Example

Overview:
To help students grasp the nuances of free speech, I often do a classroom exercise exploring the differences between speech-acts which are considered protected parts of freedom of speech and which are considered verbal acts not warranting protection. After completing the exercises below, students should be able to better grasp the following ideas:

• In the spring of 1919, Holmes was simply saying that war criticism was a sort of speech that fell outside the meaning of “freedom of speech” under the First Amendment.
• Speech that created a “clear and present” danger to the war effort could be regulated – and criticism of the war effort created such a danger.
• Eugene Debs' appeal was denied along with that of Schenck He ran for president in the 1920 election from jail, where he received 913,000 votes.
• But the legal meaning of free speech did not end with Schenck and Debs. As we will see in the final exercise (and additional teaching guides in this series), classifications of free speech would continue to be debated throughout the rest of the twentieth century.

Group Activity Directions:

• Step 1:
  • Use the language from the Gompers decision to create two categories on the board: speech protected by “freedom of speech” and “verbal acts” that are unprotected. It might be helpful to explain that this means that simply because words are used is not enough to make it “Speech” that is protected under the First Amendment.
• Step 2:
  • Ask students to name some sorts of speech that are protected by the First Amendment. Depending on their level of awareness, it is normally not too hard to generate a few examples: political speech; criticizing a government official; profanity; and so forth. This should only take a minute – you just want a few examples.
• Step 3:
  • Ask students what types of verbal acts can they think of that are not protected by free speech? They often struggle for a while, naming hard cases but ones implicated by free speech rights – for instance, pornography. You can put these in the middle of the two categories, as you can for anything you are not sure of. But some sorts of speech are clearly just verbal acts that raise no First Amendment concerns- insider trading, conspiring to commit a crime, blackmail, breaching patient or client confidentiality. If students are struggling, I give them one (insider trading) and see if they can come up with others. It normally only takes about 5 minutes or so, but it usually produces a fairly animated discussion, and helps clarify the conceptual issue by having students practice applying it.
• Step 4:
  • After outlining the two categories, ask the students where Holmes was putting Schenck’s pamphlet. This one has a correct answer: He was saying it wasn’t like a piece of political speech; it was an act of interfering with the draft – one that just happened to be verbal, to take the form of speech – that could be regulated.

Classroom Exercise 3: Holmes Reconsiders

Content:
Overview & Primary Source: Abrams Pamphlet
Context
Holmes' Dissent Annotated
Group Questions
Conclusions and Key Takeaways

Overview:
If desired, you could assign the Abrams Pamphlet or the case dissent as homework reading. First, review the Context for yourself, then break students into groups for the activity.

1. Have students read the Abrams dissent if they have not already.
2. Have groups discuss the questions listed in the annotation.
3. Provide students with information in the Context and Conclusion 

Jacob Abrams Pamphlet and Transcript

“The Hypocrisy of the United States and her Allies,” August 1918, National Archives.

"THE HYPOCRISY OF THE UNITED STATES AND HER ALLIES

“Our” President Wilson, with his beautiful phraseology, has hypnotized the people of America to such an extent that they do not see his hypocrisy.
Know, you people of America, that a frank enemy is always preferable to a concealed friend. When we say the people of America, we do not mean the few Kaisers of America, we mean the “People of America.” You people of America were deceived by the wonderful speeches of the masked President Wilson. His shameful, cowardly silence about the intervention in Russia reveals the hypocrisy of the plutocratic gang in Washington and vicinity.
The President was afraid to announce to the American people the intervention in Russia. He is too much of a coward to come out openly and say: “We capitalistic nations cannot afford to have a proletarian republic in Russia.” Instead, he uttered beautiful phrases about Russia, which, as you see, he did not mean, and secretly, cowardly, sent troops to crush the Russian Revolution. Do you see now how German militarism combined with allied capitalism to crush the Russian revolution?
This is not new. The tyrants of the world fight each other until they see a common enemy — WORKING CLASS — ENLIGHTENMENT as soon as they find a common enemy, they combine to crush it.
In 1815 monarchic nations combined under the name of the “Holy Alliance” to crush the French Revolution. Now militarism and capitalism combined, though not openly, to crush the Russian revolution. What have you to say about it?
Will you allow the Russian Revolution to be crushed? YOU: yes, we mean, YOU the people of America!
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION CALLS TO THE WORKERS OF THE WORLD FOR HELP.
The Russian Revolution cries: “WORKERS OF THE WORLD! AWAKE! RISE! PUT DOWN YOUR ENEMY AND MINE!”
Yes friends, there is only one enemy of the workers of the world and that is CAPITALISM.
It is a crime, that workers of America, workers of Germany, workers of Japan, etc., to fight THE WORKERS’ REPUBLIC OF RUSSIA.
AWAKE! AWAKE, YOU WORKERS OF THE WORLD! REVOLUTIONISTS
P.S. It is absurd to call us pro-German. We hate and despise German militarism more than do your hypocritical tyrants. We have more reasons for denouncing German militarism than has the coward of the White House."

“The Hypocrisy of the United States and her Allies,” August 1918, National Archives

Context

• In the fall of 1919, six months after the Schenck decision, another group of radicals appealed their conviction for wartime dissent. This time, the case concerned anarchists who had distributed a pamphlet calling for a general strike in New York City in an effort to prevent the production of war materials. They had been charged under a different section of the Espionage Act, one which made it illegal to interfere with wartime production.
• In the Abrams case, seven of the justices simply applied the Schenck precedent from the spring and dismissed their appeal. As your class discussion might reveal, that seems sensible enough—if it had been illegal to advocate writing to a congressman, then calling for a general strike seemed even more of a “clear and present danger.”
• But then Holmes did a surprising thing. Rather than applying his own precedent from only six months prior, he dissented – arguing that the anarchists had a First Amendment right to call for a general strike. What had happened?
• Over the summer, Holmes’ decisions in the Schenck and Debs cases had been criticized by a newly emerging group of free speech advocates – intellectuals, lawyers and journalists that Holmes respected, and who were often friends. In particular, Harold Laski, a British-born academic teaching at Harvard and a close confidant of Holmes, waged a subtle influence campaign: sending Holmes reading material on the history and philosophy of free speech; arranging for Holmes to meet with a Harvard Law professor who had criticized the Debs decision. At the same time, Laski and other friends of Holmes at Harvard faced their own free speech crisis – they had spoken out in support of a strike of Boston police in 1919, and many were calling for them to be fired from the university.
• These experiences changed Holmes’ mind about the value of free speech, and his dissent in Abrams reflected this new understanding. 

Holmes' Dissent Annotated:
Abrams v. U.S.​ Dissent
“Persecution for the expressions of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

• The first thing to point to in this passage is that Holmes is not citing any cases. This is a sign that he is thinking more philosophically about what free speech should mean; and also that he is venturing into new territory, not covered by previous cases.
• Classroom Discussion (Advanced Classes):
  • Does the role of judges only apply to already-existing law when deciding cases?
  • Or are judges creating law when they judge particular cases?
• "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."
  • This sentence more or less sums up the approach Holmes took in the Schenck case six months prior - if you want to stop interference with the draft, why not ban speech that seeks to interfere with the draft?
• "...ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-..."
  • This is a crucial passage in the history of the First Amendment, where Holmes introduces the idea that there is a "Free trade in ideas" and that the best test of truth is whether it succeeds in the "competition of the market." While he doesn't use the exact phrase, this would come to be known as the "marketplace of ideas" - and the idea is closely related to his relativistic theory of truth: there are no guarantees that you can realize absolute truths, but the best method is to let all ideas be expressed, and see which becomes the most popular.
  • It is ironic that this defense of the free speech rights of radical socialists and anarchists is expressed in the language of the free market - for they were critics of the market. But Holmes had translated their calls for free speech into his own language, influenced by his reading of 19th century liberal philosophy.
• "That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution..."
  • Holmes here warns us that there is no promise that truth will emerge from the competition of the market - you can't be sure that the best or most correct ideas will catch on.
  • But what it means to live in the American democracy, he says, is that you have to believe in that process of experimentation and trial and error, and that public opinion - even if based on imperfect knowledge - should be the guide to determining what is correct.
• If it is true that the democratic experiment relies on the free formation of public opinion, Holmes suggests, then it is a dangerous thing to let governments block any expressions of opinion, even those we hate.

Compare Frameworks: Schenck & Abrams

Schenck:

• Holmes says it is legitimate to police speech that might cause something you believe to be an evil.

Abrams:

• Holmes warns against such censorship.
• Censorship should be allowed only when it threatens "imminent" and "immediate" interference with a "pressing purpose."

Find the Abrams dissent here: Abrams v. United States (1919), National Constitution Center 

Group Questions:

1.  Is the harm to the war effort here more or less severe than that in Schenck?
   1. In Schenck, the pamphlet asked people to write to their congresspeople to protest the draft; here the pamphlet calls for a general strike. Students should be able to see that a general strike would interfere with production more directly than a criticism of the war would interfere with the draft.
2. Is the danger more "clear and present" in Abrams ​ or Schenck?
   1. Arguably, throwing leaflets out to workers is more direct than mailing them to soldiers or speaking to a picnic – you are directly addressing the audience you want to act, and asking them to act soon.

“Holmes, Oliver W. Justice,” c. 1905-1945, Library of Congress 

Conclusions and Key Takeaways:

• Holmes was not a radical, and he had no sympathy for the anarchists at the heart of the case – he thought they were advocating a “creed of ignorance and immaturity.” But he had come to believe that it was important to democracy to protect their rights to speech.
• In the short-term, of course, that didn’t matter to the defendants in Abrams. A dissent doesn’t have any impact on the outcome of the case, which is determined by the majority decision – the anarchists were sent to jail, and later deported, for their pamphlet. But a dissenting opinion in a Supreme Court case also creates a record of the fact that some Justices disagreed with the opinion of the majority – and Holmes’s dissent in Abrams would become so famous and influential that it would end up becoming the legal consensus.
• Over the twentieth century, Holmes’ dissent would guide the development of First Amendment law and philosophy, playing a crucial role in the rise of our contemporary right to free speech. Following from Holmes’ Abrams dissent, Americans today tend to speak of a “marketplace of ideas,” in which there is value to hearing from a diverse range of voices, even if you disagree with them, even if you think they might cause some harm you would prefer to avoid. But it wasn’t inevitable that this would be the way Americans came to think about the First Amendment.
• It came out of a particular moment of history – the clashes between socialists and the government in World War I, the police strike at Harvard, and the influence of a small group of civil libertarians seeking to change the mind of one Supreme Court justice.

Optional Classroom or Homework Exercise:

1. Ask students to identify a sort of speech today that they believe could be treated as a “verbal act” outside of the protection of the First Amendment.
2. Ask them to make two arguments, one on either side of the question:
   1. If they had to make the case that it creates a “clear and present danger,” how would they do so?
   2. What are the benefits of protecting that speech as part of the marketplace of ideas? 

Remember: The goal here is not for students to necessarily decide on a complicated question, nor to correctly understand the current state of First Amendment law on these issues, but to practice applying the two different visions of free speech implicit in the Schenck decision and the Abrams dissent – one which focuses on regulating harms, the other on the democratic value of hearing all speech.

This Teaching Guide is part of a series. Each of the four total teaching guides speaks to one aspect of the history of free speech. Although they work together to tell different parts of this history, it is not necessary to teach all of the guides or to teach them in a certain order. Each guide is a self-contained lesson.
(A PDF version of this teaching guide is also available for download-see left) 

Other guides in the series:
Free Speech Teaching Guide 1: The Birth of the Modern First Amendment: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind
Free Speech Teaching Guide 2: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): Defining and Arguing Hate Speech 
Free Speech Teaching Guide 3: The Problem of National Security Secrets

"Male Immigrants at Ellis Island," Library of Congress

Recommended for:

• 11th Grade US History
• 12th Grade US History
• Undergraduate History

Table of Contents

Guide Introduction:
This introduction briefly previews the topics included in this guide that spans the twentieth century and ends with a 1972 Supreme Court Case.

Classroom Activities
Exercise 1: "The unrestricted dumping-ground" (1903). A guided analysis of a 1903 political cartoon with annotations and questions. Why was immigration a heated debate in the early twentieth century?
Exercise 2: Who gets a Visa? A close reading of an excerpted 1984 article with guiding questions, notes, and class discussion options. Why deny visas?
Optional Exercise: Visa Waivers. Ask students to consider the more complicated reality of the visa law. How did waivers work and did they undermine political exclusion?

Framing Essay
Scholarly Context: How do visa laws and the First Amendment connect? An introduction to the Mandel Supreme Court case.
Annotated Decision: Notes on the Mandel SCOTUS decision for context or to help guide a close reading.
Key Takeaways: Concluding connections between immigration law and free speech law and prompts for class discussion.

Guide Introduction

        Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. government has denied visas to individuals because of their politics: anarchists in the early 20th century, communists in the Cold War, those it deemed advocates of terrorism in the 1990s and early 2000s. In the first half of 2025, the Second Trump Administration began seeking to deny visas to students and others engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy during the war in Gaza.
        To be denied a visa means either that you can’t enter the country, or that you can be deported. Governments claim that this use of the visa regulations is simply a part of their control over immigration policy – they have a right to determine who can enter the country. Critics and civil liberties activists argue that it is a form of censorship, one that should be barred by the First Amendment. The relationship between visa laws and free speech was most closely examined in a 1972 case Mandel v. Kleindeinst. The case is also significant because it focused on a neglected aspect of the right to free speech – not the rights of the speakers to say what they want, but the rights of listeners and audiences to hear what they want.
        This guide traces the history of ideological visa denial to explore the intersection between immigration law and the right to free speech. It includes:

1.  An overview of the history of visa denial in early 20th century, which allows students to assess historical fears of radical immigrants through the close reading of a political cartoon.
2. A discussion of the denial of visas to communists and alleged radicals in the Cold War, through a classroom exercise and discussion of an excerpted newspaper article.
3. An assessment of the role of the First Amendment in challenging visa restrictions through a close reading of a Supreme Court decision in 1972.

Classroom Exercise I: "the unrestricted dumping-ground" (1903)

Contents:
Overview
Annotated Cartoon
Questions for Students & Extended Context

Overview:
       The first efforts to exclude radicals from the United States came in 1903, when Congress passed a law barring anarchists from entering the country. This was a response to the assassination of President McKinley in 1901, which played into widespread anxieties that radical ideologies and crime were being brought to the country by immigrants. This 1903 cartoon captures the mood. The following pages include my annotations, as well as questions I use.

1. Have students examine the cartoon individually or in groups.
2. Invite students to share what they notice and ask more specific questions to guide conversation. This should mimic a close reading.

For the Printable Image See: linked source

Image Source Here

Annotations:

• McKinley assassination
  • McKinley (or McKinley’s ghost) is depicted in the top-left.
  • Leon Czolgosz, the gunman, was born in Detroit, but was the child of immigrants.
  • The cartoon, however, suggests the threat of anarchism is coming from immigrants, a widespread assumption at the time. “There is no such thing as an American anarchist,” said one newspaper column.
• Both the container label “direct from the slums of Europe daily” and the title of the cartoon advocate for immigration restriction.
• Depiction of Immigrants
  • McKinley and Uncle Sam are depicted as white, compared to the darker-skinned immigrants. At the time, most concern was about immigration from the south and east of Europe – groups that would later be considered white, but which were then treated as distinct races.
  • Immigrants are drawn to be animalistic, communicating an idea that they were less human and more threatening than white Americans.
• Politics & crime:
  • Three migrants at the bottom are labeled “socialist,” “anarchist,” and “mafia,” associating socialists and anarchists with crime. The socialist carries a gun labelled “murder;” the anarchist a knife labelled “assassination,” further associating these political ideologies with violence.
  • There were radical leftists committed to political violence at the time. One wing of the anarchist movement, for instance, engaged in what it called “propaganda by the deed” – symbolic acts of political violence. Between 1880 and 1910, anarchists assassinated heads of state in Austria, Italy, Greece, France, Spain, Russia (twice), and Portugal – as well as McKinley in the U.S.
  • While many radical leftists rejected political violence, this cartoon suggests they were all criminals.

By the early Cold War, the bar on anarchists entering the country remained, and had been expanded to include Communists and advocates of communist revolution. The visa had also become a more powerful bureaucratic instrument. During World War I, for the first time the U.S. began requiring all visitors to the U.S. to receive a visa, which allowed a new degree of oversight and examination of applicants. A new Visa Division was created in the State Department to do this work.

Questions for Students:

1. How are immigrants depicted?
2. What is this cartoon arguing?
3. Would immigration restriction be a useful remedy to the problems revealed by McKinley’s Assassination? What would have to be true for it to be effective for this purpose? What other remedies might be available?

Classroom Exercise II: Who gets a Visa?

Contents:
Overview
Excerpted Newspaper Article
Guiding Questions, Notes, & Class Discussion

Overview:
       A close reading of a later news article brings the topic of immigration and citizenship closer to the modern day for students. This exercise is centered around an excerpted 1984 newspaper article that discusses some individuals who were denied visas as well as efforts to reform the law. The article, like the cartoon in exercise 1, thus reveals some of the political dynamics involved.
        The next page includes some reading questions (as well as additional notes I might add), followed by a question for in-class discussion.

Excerpted Newspaper Article:
Kristin Helmore, “Would William Shakespeare get a Visa?” Christian Science Monitor, May 30, 1984.
       WALK into any bookstore in the United States and the works of Nobel Prize-winners Gabriel Garcia Marquez of Colombia and Pablo Neruda of Chile will be easily available. Anyone who wants to can buy Mexican novelist Carlos Fuentes's works or those of Italian writers Alberto Moravia and Dario Fo. And the titles of books by English novelist Graham Greene are almost household words in this country. Yet each of these acclaimed writers, and many others as well, has on at least one occasion been denied an entry visa to visit the United States.
        The law responsible for this policy is a section of the McCarran-Walter Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which some people would like to change. A bill has been introduced in Congress to do just that.
        ''Section 28,'' as it is called, empowers consular officials to refuse non-immigrant visas to foreigners who are or have been members of ''communist'' or ''anarchist'' organizations, as well as those who merely ''write, publish . . . circulate, display, or distribute . . . any written or printed matter advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government.'...
       The exclusion of writers from the US on ideological grounds can take place for a number of specific reasons. According to data collected by PEN, an international association of writers with offices in 55 countries, Gabriel Garcia Marquez was denied entry to the US from 1963 to '71 because of his affiliation with the leftist news agency La Prensa. Since that time, he has been granted entry only on presentation of a formal letter inviting him to a specific event. Last month, Mr. Garcia Marquez was denied entry into the US to speak at a meeting in New York on US policies in Latin America. Finally, in late April, he was granted a multiple-entry visa for one year.
        Pablo Neruda, the late Chilean poet and diplomat, was denied entry on the basis of his membership in the Chilean Communist Party. This ruling was waived on two occasions, in 1966 and '72, as a result of petitions put forward by PEN. ...
       Since 1961, Carlos Fuentes, the Mexican author and politician (who virtually grew up in Washington where his father was Mexican ambassador), has either been denied a visa to the US or issued restricted visas, even though he has been invited on numerous occasions to make public appearances under the auspices of respected institutions. He has received an honorary degree from Harvard University and was recently a visiting scholar at Princeton University. ...
        ''It's a scandal and a hateful thing for a democracy to perpetuate this kind of exclusionary policy,'' [novelist William] Styron said. ''It allows the United States to be branded as a bigoted nation filled with hysteria about communism.'
        Both Arthur Miller and John Irving raised the specter of McCarthyism. ''I doubt strongly that this law could have been passed before 1952, the wildest time of McCarthyism . . . but it's hung on the books because most people aren't aware of it,'' Mr. Miller said.
        ''I hope it's clear that we would improve our national character by ridding ourselves of these vestiges of McCarthyism which shame us today,'' Mr. Irving said.
        Carolyn Forche remarked, ''I am puzzled as to why my government is afraid of a free exchange of ideas. I would hope that my country and its institutions are strong enough to endure freedom of expression.' ...
        Support for the existing law was recently expressed on ABC's ''Nightline'' by Roy Cohn, counsel in the early 1950s to the Senate's Permanent Investigations Subcommittee headed by the late Joseph R. McCarthy: ''This law is aimed at people who present a threat to national security. Under various circumstances they should not be let in. They have access to courts where their visa denial can be overruled.' ….
        Opposition to Section 28 of the McCarran-Walter Act has a long history. In 1952, President Harry S. Truman vetoed the act, remarking, ''Seldom has a bill exhibited the distrust evidenced here for aliens and citizens alike.'
        Congress overrode Mr. Truman's veto."

Guiding Questions, Notes & Class Discussion:

1. Who are some individuals who have been denied visas?
   1. Besides those named in the article, some famous individuals (though perhaps not famous to students today) include Charlie Chaplin, Pablo Picasso, Dorris Lessing, Nazim Hikmet, Czeslaw Milosz, C.L.R. James.
2. What law was used to deny their visas?
   1. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act consolidated all previous immigration laws – including the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903 and an Internal Security Act of 1950.
   2. It was passed over Truman’s veto – a place to discuss the veto power with students if you think appropriate.
3. Why do civil liberties groups want to reform the law?
   1. Beyond discussions of the impact of the law on the individuals involved, I make sure to draw student attention to William Styron’s argument that the law makes America look bigoted and intolerant.
4. Why does Roy Cohn say we need such a law?
   1. How does this perspective complicate or affirm students’ thoughts on this debate?

Class Discussion:

• Do students think denying visas under this law is a good or a bad thing?
• Do they agree that there are national security grounds under which someone should be denied entry to the country? Do those grounds extend to political beliefs?
  • If you have used the other Free Speech Teaching Guides that cover Schenk v. US and Brandenburg v. Ohio, this is an opportunity to discuss what "harm" the law is intended to prevent.

Optional Exercise: Visa Waivers

        The visa law had a waiver process. If you were denied a visa because you were a member of a communist party, the Attorney-General could issue a “waiver” – letting you into the country just this time.

If students are opposed to the law, you can ask them if this waiver process is enough to satisfy them?

        There was some dispute over how frequently this process was delayed, and how many waivers were granted. But many were granted waivers. However, an additional concern was that the Attorney-General could attach conditions to the waiver – saying visitors could not travel to certain areas, or engage in certain types of activities. (we will see an example of these conditions in the Mandel case).

Framing Essay

Scholarly Context:
       How did these visa laws intersect with the First Amendment? They are clearly a form of punishment for political speech. As early as 1903, an anarchist being deported under the anarchist exclusion law claimed that his First Amendment rights were being violated. The Supreme Court ruled that foreigners could not claim First Amendment rights to stay in the country. As we discussed in the guide, Schenk v. U.S. (1919): The Birth of the Modern First Amendment, this was typical of the narrow way that the Supreme Court protected First Amendment rights before the mid-twentieth century. And in 1945, in a case concerning an attempt to deport an Australian labor leader, the Supreme Court said that noncitizens in the U.S. have the same First Amendment rights as citizens. Of course, in the early 1950s, American citizens didn’t have the right to advocate for Communism, and so many communists were deported in the McCarthy period, just as many Americans citizens were jailed. Today, the standards would be different.

Find the text of the First Amendment Here

       But what about the rights of the foreigner to enter the country? Here, courts have rejected the notion that foreigners can claim a First Amendment right to come into the U.S. if the U.S. has a law that would exclude them. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to determine who can and can’t enter the country is what it calls the “Plenary Power” – part of what it means to be a government of a nation-state is the right to choose who can enter the country, and no court can interfere with those decisions.
        That has meant that foreigners can’t claim a First Amendment right to enter the country (they can claim such a right if they are being deported after entering, though the law is complex in this area.) But in the late 1960s, a group of university professors tried a different strategy to challenge the visa laws. They had invited Ernest Mandel, a Belgian Marxist theorist, to come to their campuses to give talks and engage in debates. Mandel was denied a visa because he advocated world communism.

Note (if you discussed the waiver program earlier):
       Mandel had been given waivers to enter the country in 1962 and 1968. But in 1969 he was denied a waiver. This was because 1) in 1968 he spoke at more universities than his waiver granted, and 2) after one of these talks, students auctioned posters to send money to French protestors – which violated a condition attached to Mandel’s waiver that he not speak at events where funds were raised for political causes. Mandel had not been told that these conditions were attached to his waiver. This can be a place to return to your discussion of the waiver program, to see if these details change or reinforce students’ earlier attitudes.

Annotated Decision:
       Mandel, as a foreigner, couldn’t claim his First Amendment rights were violated by his exclusion from the country. But the university professors argued that their rights were violated by his exclusion from the country – they wanted to listen to him, to talk to him, to meet with him. A lower court agreed with them, ruling that Mandel’s exclusion violated the First Amendment. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 that Mandel’s exclusion was constitutional. Here’s what the Supreme Court said, along with some notes I use to teach the decision:

The decision text:
"The case…comes down to the narrow issue whether the First Amendment confers upon the appellee professors, because they wish to hear, speak, and debate with Mandel in person, the ability to determine that Mandel should be permitted to enter the country or, in other words, to compel the Attorney General to allow Mandel's admission. ….
The Government also suggests that the First Amendment is inapplicable because appellees have free access to Mandel's ideas through his books and speeches, and because 'technological developments,' such as tapes or telephone hook-ups, readily supplant his physical presence. This argument overlooks what may be particular qualities inherent in sustained, face-to-face debate, discussion and questioning. While alternative means of access to Mandel's ideas might be a relevant factor were we called upon to balance First Amendment rights against governmental regulatory interests—a balance we find unnecessary here in light of the discussion that follows in Part V—we are loath to hold on this record that existence of other alternatives extinguishes altogether any constitutional interest on the part of the appellees in this particular form of access."
Recognition that First Amendment rights are implicated, however, is not dispositive of our inquiry here. In accord with ancient principles of the international law of nation-states, the Court in The Chinese Exclusion Case 1889, and in Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), held broadly…that the power to exclude aliens is 'inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers—a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government.' ...

In summary, plenary congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens has long been firmly established. In the case of an alien excludable under § 212(a)(28), Congress has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive. We hold that when the Executive exercises this power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant. What First Amendment or other grounds may be available for attacking exercise of discretion for which no justification whatsoever is advanced is a question we neither address or decide in this case.”

Annotations:

• ["This argument overlooks what may be particular qualities inherent in sustained, face-to-face debate, discussion and questioning."]
  • The Government was claiming that the professors could speak to Mandel just as easily by telephone, and so his presence was not necessary. The court is skeptical of this claim.
    • In the era of zoom, do students think there is any benefit to in-person conversation? or is online discussion good enough?
• ["Recognition that First Amendment rights are implicated..."]
  • The Supreme Court concedes here that there is a First Amendment right to hear Mandel. There are a number of other cases in the period which emphasize that the right to speak matters not for the speaker, but for the audience - that the First Amendment is important for its role in preserving a broader culture of debate and exchange.
  • Many students will think only about the rights of the speaker, so this is an important place to slow down and demonstrate how many more rights are involved.
• ["The Chinese Exclusion Case 1889, and in Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893)..."]
  • These are important late nineteenth century cases which established the Plenary Power. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, barring Chinese entry to the country. In these legal cases, courts said that they could not overrule political decisions made by Congress as to who could enter the country.
• ["facially legitimate and bona fide reason..."]
  • This is a very deferential standard. In other first amendment cases, the Supreme Court has carefully scrutinized the government's rationale for a law, to make sure it isn't a cover for political discrimination. But here, the court says explicitly that if the government offers a justification that seems reasonable, the courts will not look any closer, or consider the First Amendment.
  • In dissent, Justice Marshall was very critical of this approach:
    • "I do not understand the source of this unusual standard. Merely 'legitimate' governmental interests cannot override constitutional rights. Moreover, the majority demands only 'facial' legitimacy and good faith, by which it means that this Court will never 'look behind' any reason the Attorney General gives. No citation is given for this kind of unprecedented deference to the Executive nor can I imagine (nor am I told) the slightest justification for such a rule."
• ["What First Amendment or other grounds may be available for attacking exercise of..."]
  • This is an ambiguous final sentence, which can be used to help students understand the difficulty in working out how much precedent a given case is setting.
  • This sentence seems to leave open the possibility that there are some instances of visa denial which would raise First Amendment concerns - those in "which no justification whatsoever is advanced." But under what circumstances would a justification fail to be "facially legitimate and bona fide"?
  • The Court has never revisited the visa denial process, so the meaning of these sentences remains unresolved.

Key Takeaways:

• Visa denial is at the crossroads of two discrete fields of the law: immigration law and free speech law.
  • In immigration law, courts have been very deferential to the power of the government to decide who can enter the country; in free speech law, courts have been very skeptical of government claims that it needs to regulate debate and discussion.

Do students think cases like Mandel’s – or more recent cases, if there have been some in the news – are better treated as First Amendment or immigration cases? Or do they think that these two areas of the law should be combined?

• This can be an interesting place to leave the class discussion – asking students both to consider their own values in this complex area, and also to show them how the answers to legal questions are often shaped by the ways that courts and lawyers sort them into different doctrinal domains.

Introduction: How to Use this Guide

Organization

• Sources are sorted into four thematic sections, arranged chronologically.
• Each section begins with an overview and index of sources.
• Primary sources are curated alongside questions, videos, and podcasts to help contextualize each source.

Links

• Many sources are linked to their hosting websites (external to this site).

Environmentalism in the Progressive Era & WWI, c. 1890-1920

Overview

The primary source documents and videos in this section illustrate the growing environmental ethos evident in the early twentieth century, from the Progressive Era through Wold War I.

The Progressive Era, spanning roughly from 1890-1920, can be understood as a period of reform movements formed in response to rapid industrialization, urbanization, and commercialization. Among these reform movements were two early environmental movements known as preservationism and conservationism. Preservationists believed that natural landscapes should be left exactly as they were, and conservationists sought to maintain natural resources in order for them to be best used and enjoyed. John Muir was known as the most prominent preservationist, whereas Gifford Pinchot was known as the most prominent conservationist.

This growing environmental ethos continued into World War I, as Americans conserved and rationed resources in order to support the war effort. Through their participation in garden clubs and local victory gardens, American women and children on the home front used agricultural practices to support soldiers abroad.

The sources in this section exemplify the many perspectives among Americans fostering connections to the environment in the early twentieth century.

Sources

• US Forest Service Video, "Gifford Pinchot Birthday Card"
• National Parks Service Video, "Happy Birthday National Park Service!" 
• National Parks Service Video, "Brigadier General Charles Young, Early Park Superintendent."  
• "Everybody Plant a Garden," Richmond Times Dispatch, April 22, 1917.
  • Political cartoon, J.N. Darling, in the New York Tribune, 1919.
• "Yule Exhibits in Portsmouth, Virginia Pilot, December 11, 1941.
  • Smithsonian Gardens Video.
• "Will you have a part in Victory?" 1918, poster.
• "The Gardens of Victory," poster.
  • Victory Gardens Video.

US Forest Service, "Gifford Pinchot Birthday Card" 

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgFlbQiG3j0.

Background:

• Gifford Pinchot (1865-1946) was known as the “father of American forestry.” He was an influential Progressive Era conservationist who advocated for the protection of natural resources in the United States.

Discussion Questions:

• The Grey Towers National Historic Site commemorates Pinchot. 
• What does commemorate mean?
• How might physical sites commemorate people?
• Why might the Forest service want to tell Pinchot’s story?
• What is scientific forestry?
• Why might Pinchot have wanted to bring forestry to the United States?
• What kinds of local and national political influence did Pinchot garner?

National Parks Service Video, "Happy Birthday National Park Service!" 

Link: https://www.nps.gov/media/video/view.htm?id=F4CA333A-E487-498D-BB0A-4E3D3729B9B7. 

Background:

• President Woodrow Wilson established the NPS into law through the 1916 “Organic Act.”
• Now, there are sixty-three National Parks across the country, serving millions of people each year. 

Discussion Questions 

• What do you think of when you hear “National Parks”?
• What is a Park Ranger?
  • Where do the Park Rangers in this video work?
• List some of the National Parks described by these Park Rangers.
  • Do any of these places surprise you?
• If you could make a site you know a National Park, which site would you choose? Why?

Brigadier General Charles Young, Early Park Superintendent

Link: https://home.nps.gov/seki/learn/historyculture/young.htm.

Background:

• Brigadier General Charles Young was the first Black National Park Superintendent of Sequoia National Park. He had a prolific military career despite segregation of US armed forces and the larger discrimination he faced in Jim Crow America.
• See the guide supplementary guide for more teaching resources: https://home.nps.gov/articles/000/-h-our-history-lesson-fit-for-service-colonel-charles-young-s-protest-ride.htm.

“Everybody Plant a Garden,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 22, 1917.

Background

• As a newspaper, this was intended for a wide audience and was published just weeks after the US declared war on Germany during WWI. Victory Gardens were encouraged as a way to help with food shortages and rations during the war. Gardening also gave people something to do and a way to participate that would ease anxieties about the war, food, and the threat of inflation.
• While Garden Clubs were primarily run by women, men and children were also encouraged to join so the whole family could be involved.
• War took millions of men away from their jobs which included agriculture and transportation. Imports of goods from other countries including fertilizer also slowed or stopped. With decreased home grown food and decreased imports of foreign food, shortages occurred which caused increased prices and hoarding.
• The bank invested in the Garden Club in support of the war effort and the local economy.

Political cartoon, J.N. Darling, in the New York Tribune, 1919

Link: https://virginiahistory.org/learn/victory-gardens.

Discussion Questions:

• What do you see?
• How might Cabbage Worms “enemy plotters” like our enemies in war?
• Who do you think this cartoon is for?

“Yule Exhibits in Portsmouth,” Virginian-Pilot, December 11, 1941. 

Background

• As a newspaper, this was intended for a wide public audience. The date reveals that this Yule Exhibit was held the weekend after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
• A Federation of Garden Clubs through the County indicates that Garden club work was important to the government. Even on the local level, there was institutional support of the war effort.
• This exhibit attempted to make conservation interesting to a wide audience by connecting it to Christmas, and hoped to encourage families to reduce waste and decorate using recycled materials at home. Reducing waste was important during war time when money and resources were scarce.
• All of the club’s leaders were women which shows that conservation was seen as a “women’s activity.” Garden Clubs provided women leadership opportunities. Also note that they were all listed by their husbands’ names.
• Garden Clubs were often made exclusive to only wealthy white women. This article shows that in spite of segregation, Black women organized their own Garden Clubs and advocated for conservation.

Smithsonian Gardens Video

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtrlcLslK5w. 

Discussion Questions

• Are the photos you see in this video in Black and White?
• What might that mean?
• What are some reasons people have gardens today?
• What are some reason why people had gardens back then?
• Why is gardening good?
• Why is reducing waste good?
• What did the women in Garden Clubs do besides garden?
• How might Garden Clubs have benefited communities?

Will you have a part in Victory? 1918

Link: https://www.loc.gov/item/2002712327/

Background

• This was published by the National War Garden Commission, a temporary department created to encourage gardening during WWI.
• Dressed in the American flag, this woman, beautiful and innocent looking, represents the country. She appears delicate and yet powerful, but ultimately worthy of
  protection. She walks with a purpose and sows seeds that presumably will allow the nation to win the war. This imagery is often used for America or American ideals (think Statue of Liberty). The image conjures an emotional attachment to the nation, but also inspires women to join her in the garden or farm fields.
• “Every Garden a Munition Plant” communicates that growing food is just as important as manufacturing guns and ammunition.

Discussion Questions:

• What do you see? What do you wonder about this image?
• Why is the woman dressed in an American flag?
• Is this similar to other propaganda images?
• Why was food important during the war?

The Gardens of Victory Video

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBg1ND5X3tA

Discussion Questions:

• What do you notice about this video?
• When do you think this video was made? Why?
• What are some reasons why people have gardens today?
• Why might people have had gardens back then?
• What is a ration?
• Do you have questions about the video?

The Great Depression and the New Deal (c. 1929-1945)

Overview

The sources in this section chronicle the environmental aspects of the Great Depression and the New Deal. This period can be studied for both its environmental disaster and federal initiatives toward conservation and reforestation.

In the early 1930s, as the Great Depression wreaked havoc on the economy, the Dust Bowl hit in the Great Plains and the eastern US. The Dust Bowl became known as the largest human caused environmental disaster in US history and is largely attributed to the poor use of agricultural lands as well that were intensified by a long drought in the region. The disaster would lead to mass migration from the Great Plains to Wester states, including California. Primary source photographs, an interview, and a PBS video illustrate the toll the Dust Bowl had on the environment and the people living there.

President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal ushered in a series of federally funded programs to alleviate financial burdens of the Great Depression, while also focusing on environmental projects. Notably, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) employed young men to work on conservation initiatives and reforestation projects. Their work would benefit the National Park Service, as well as State Parks around the country.

Sources

• The Dust Bowl & The Great Depression
  • Photo: Arthur Rothstein, “Abandoned farm in the dust bowl area, Oklahoma,” April 1936, Farm Security Administration.
  • Photo: Dorothea Lange, “Migrant Mother: Birth of an Icon,” Nipomo, 1936.
  • Video: A Man-Made Ecological Disaster
  • Interview with Flora Robertson, 1940
• Civilian Conservation Corps & the New Deal
  • Video: Zion National Park Ranger Minute
  • NPS, Civilian Conservation Corps Article
  • Video: Civilian Conservation Corps | Oregon Experience, Oregon Public Broadcasting

The Dust Bowl and the Great Depression

Background:

• In the early 1930s, extreme drought hit the Great Plains. For decades, farmers in the region had been over-plowing and depleting the soil through a lack of crop rotation.
• The drought, combined with high winds, caused massive
  dust storms that blew across the plains, further stripping topsoil.
• Along with environmental damage, the Dust Bowl caused
  further economic hardship and health issues.
• The Dust Bowl would also cause a mass migration of
  farmers out of states like Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas
  and to California as they searched for better opportunities.

Discussion Questions:

• What do you see in these photos?
• What people and objects do you see?
• When do you think these photos were taken?
• Why do you think the photo was taken?
• How might the Dust Bowl have affected women and children?
• How might the Dust Bowl have affected the environment?

Civilian Conservation Corps & the New Deal

National Park Service Ranger Minute Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPvnXG8qSTs

National Park Service CCC Article Link: https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-civilian-conservation-corps.htm

Oregon Public Broadcasting CCC Video (28 min) Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZArEDEVo4s

Analyzing Photographs & Discussion Questions:

• What do you see in these photos?
• What people and objects do you see?
• When do you think these photos were taken?
• Why do you think the photo was taken?
• How did the Civilian Conservation Corps help people? How did it help the earth?
• Would you join the CCC? Why or why not?

Segregation and Jim Crow in the Environment

Overview

In the early twentieth century, Jim Crow segregation relegated Black Americans to separate and often unequal environmental spaces. In spite of this, Black Americans had robust relationships to the environment through recreation, and commercial or personal ownership.

The sources in this section highlight the specific ways outdoor spaces were segregated through law and social custom. The sources also reveal how Black Americans maintained connection to the outdoors despite the segregation they actively fought, creating spaces of joy and environmental connection for their communities. By exploring these not so distant stories, students will also be able to consider what effects of environmental segregation and racism are still present today.

Sources

• Ownership and Segregation of Beaches
  • Photo: “YWCA camp for girls. Highland Beach, Maryland,” 1930, Scurlock Studio Records, Box 41, Archives Center, Smithsonian National Museum of American History.
  • Newspaper: “Police on Guard at Wade-In,” Chicago Tribune, July 9, 1961

Ownership and Segregation of Beaches

Annotation:

• Incorporated in 1922, Highland Beach was the first African American municipality in Maryland. It was also the first African American Summer Resort in the Country.
• Many very wealthy African Americans including Mary Church Terrell and Charles Douglass.
• In the late 1800s and early 1900s, most beaches and coastal properties were owned by Black people, particularly formerly enslaved folks and their descendants because the weather and sandy soil made the land less valuable. In the 20th century, predatory white land developers started trying to take these properties and monetize them as segregated beaches and resorts.
• The car and clothing hint at when this was taken, and reveal the presence of Black people in outdoor spaces, specifically beaches, long before desegregation.
• This photo is of a YWCA camp for girls. Recreation, specifically in the outdoors, was not limited to just boys.

Annotation:

• Wade-ins were just like sit-in protests happening at lunch
  counters during the civil rights movement. Instead of sitting down in restaurants, activists were visiting the beach and swimming in the ocean.
• Many of the beaches where wade-ins occurred, including Rainbow Beach, were not legally segregated, but were “segregated by custom,” meaning that only white people had been welcome there for many years, they were dangerous places for Black people to go.
• Wade-ins advocated for integration. Many communities ended up getting designated Black beaches rather than equal access to all beaches.
• The police are facing the group of protestors. This stance indicates that the protestors were seen as the threat of violence rather than the racist mob.
• Although no violence was reported, ten people were arrested for “unlawful assembly.” This charge is meant for people who enter a space illegally or who threaten public safety. Since there was no legal segregation of Rainbow Beach, neither one of these things was the case.

Discussion Questions:

• What or who do you see in these photos?
• When do you think these photos were taken?
• Why do you think the photos were taken?
• Did anything in the photos surprise you?
• What questions do you have for the photos?

The Environmental Movement of the 1960s and 1970s

Overview

By the 1960s, decades of industrialization, resource over-extraction, and use of harmful chemicals had taken a noticeable environmental toll. The sources in this section explore the environmental movements of the 1960s and 1970s and pieces of federal legislation passed in response to the growing popular movement to protect the environment.

By the early 1960s and 1970s, what had been a burgeoning environmental movement grew into the mainstream as activists and scholars alike noticed an intensifying environmental crisis. Some key issues included deforestation, air and water pollution, and species extinction. A few key moments in this growing environmental movement include: the fight against DDT, made popular by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring; the first Earth Day in 1970; and the American Indian Movement’s March to Wounded Knee in 1973. Important pieces of legislation include the Wilderness Act (1964), Clean Air Act (1970), the Endangered Species Act (1973).

Sources

• “DDT is good for me-e-e” Advertisement, Time Magazine, June 30, 1947.
• Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring
  • Video: Rachel Carson and the Origin of Scientific Environmentalism
• Earth Day & March to Wounded Knee
  • Walter Cronkite, Earth Day CBS News Broadcast, April 22, 1970
  • “World Pilgrimage: Wounded Knee,” Poster, April 22, 1970.
  • Video: PBS, “All About Holidays: Earth Day”
• Environmental Movement: Legislation
  • Video: Endangered Species Act Overview, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

"DDT is good for me-e-e," Advertisement, Time Magazine, June 30, 1947

Link: https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/1831ck18w

Background:

• Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) was developed in the late nineteenth century, but became commercially available by the 1940s.
• The US military initially used DDT to stop the spread of diseases, like malaria, that spread through insects.
• DDT became commercially available in the 1940s as a pesticide that everyday Americans and famers could use to keep insects off of crops.
• Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring has been credited with exposing the harms of DDT on human, animal, and plant health.
• The movement against DDT can be seen as one of the main signifiers of the modern environmental movement, which had already started to take shape by the early 1960s.

Annotation:

• Created by the Penn Salt Chemicals company
• Published in Time Magazine, June 1947
• Touts the multiple uses and benefits of DDT for different audiences, including commercial farmers and in the home.

Discussion Questions:

• What kind of document is this? (Is it a newspaper article, an advertisement, a letter, etc.)
• Who created this document?
• Who might the intended audience be for this document?
• Choose three of the photographs and text blurbs. What do these sections argue?
• Taking the document as a whole, what do you think the argument of this document is?
• Given what has been discussed about DDT, how might this document be misleading?

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring

Rachel Carson and the Origin of Scientific Environmentalism Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCYEElzrK64

Discussion Questions:

• What were some of Carson’s “unique talents”?
• How did Carson communicate her findings to the public, and why might her message have been important?
• Why might Carson’s writings appeal to us today?

The First Earth Day & March to Wounded Knee, 1970 & 1973

Background:

• The growing popular movements aimed at environmental protection led to a major moment in 1970 with the first Earth Day.
• Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin is credited with organizing the first Earth Day, wherein activists from across the country, protested the environmental degradation caused by unchecked industrial pollution.
• The American Indian Movement (AIM) used Earth Day as a focal point of the 73-day Wounded Knee occupation in 1973.
  • AIM protested the US government’s broken promises and exploitation of American Indian land and human rights. Activists protested on the site of the 1890 Wounded Knee Massacre.

Walter Cronkite, Earth Day, CBS News Broadcast, April 22,1970. Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbwC281uzUs

Discussion Questions:

• What are some of the environmental issues Earth Day might have remedied?
• Who participated in the first Earth Day?
  • Why might Kronkite have said Earth Day “failed?”
• What role do the media play in shaping public awareness and action on environmental issues?
• How do you think the environmental movement has evolved since 1970?
  • In what ways do you think it has succeeded, and where do challenges remain?

Discussion Questions:

• Who created this poster, and when?
• Why was this poster made?
• What is on the poster, and what might these symbols represent?
• How might the goals of Earth Day align with those of AIM?

PBS, All About Holidays: Earth Day Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuhpygdNmcQ&feature=youtu.be

Video: Endangered Species Act Overview, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OAIlM1EFHc.