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.

What is it?

Housing disparity is still a challenge many people, including students, face today. This guide provides historical context and primary sources so that students can better understand housing issues in the present-day U.S. 

Key points:

• This activity will take one 90-minute period or two 45-minute periods. It is appropriate for a high school U.S. history classroom, but the sources can also inform a government class looking at the policy issue of housing.
• Students will analyze, interpret, and evaluate primary sources related to housing. 
• Students will gain a better understanding of the defining characteristics of housing and the historical actors and policies that determine these factors 
• Guiding Question: How has housing been provided for people in the U.S. and how has that changed over time? 

Introduction

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, initially enacted in 1987 but reauthorized in 2015, ensures that youth facing homelessness can still access quality education and provides resources and assistance for students facing homelessness to succeed in their education. While there is a consensus that education is a fundamental right, housing is still an issue under debate. The purpose of this lesson is to indicate that the concept of housing as a basic right has changed over time. Students should take away that access to housing has not been solely based on individual actions or motives. It is based on various people, laws, ideas, and institutions.

This lesson aims to provide students with an understanding of the defining characteristics of housing and the historical actors and policies that determine these factors. The students should begin formulating the lesson's introduction about the foundations of a home. Have students think about what made those individuals’ houses homes. Another critical objective that teachers should have students think about is the interrelatedness of housing and houselessness. As the lesson will illustrate, housing development is usually coupled with the displacement of groups of people. This should prompt students to think about what happens to individuals when they are removed from places. To explore this interdependency of housing and houselessness, it is best to look at housing reform, which was emphasized during the New Deal. Educators should briefly reference the Great Depression and economic crisis to provide students with a starting point on how housing reform and public housing shifted into the present. The New Deal era demonstrates that concerns surrounding housing and the response to those concerns are displayed through policy and legislation. The reaction to those policies and legislation is through activism and lobbying. By the end of the lesson, students should be able to comprehend this cycle of development and reform, along with its various actors. 

Background/Context

While housing has been an issue throughout history, the first federal action to address housing came as a response to the Great Depression in the 1930s. The Great Depression brought about a massive housing crisis and high unemployment rates across the United States. Progressive reformers, as a response, initiated housing reform. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 provided government funding to build regulated public housing, creating affordable living arrangements for low-income citizens. These new housing structures had racial segregation embedded in their design and coupled with urban renewal initiatives, the deterioration of public housing initiatives would begin after World War II. The Great Migration brought many African Americans to urban areas in the Northeast, West, and Midwest, searching for new opportunities. Due to the increasing number of African Americans in the urban centers and changes in legislation such as Brown v. Board in 1954 and the soon-to-come Civil Rights Act of 1964, housing authorities could no longer preserve the separatist vision of their progressive architects. Policymakers and white residents began to use de facto methods to maintain segregation. Leaving public housing areas in droves as a response, creating a need for more suburban neighborhoods designed to maintain segregation. Additionally, federal subsidies could no longer support the costs of maintaining these public housing buildings. As a result of tenant rent adjustments, housing authorities could no longer sustain quality conditions for tenants, and these buildings often became neglected. 

The 1970s and 1980s ushered in significant changes to housing policy in the United States. Concerns about private versus public funding for public housing and a resurgence in attention to homelessness created new policies that shifted American perspectives across racial and class lines. In the 1970s, urban renewal initiatives and policies such as the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 shifted funding for affordable housing from federal responsibility to corporate opportunity. This act established Section 8 housing, which provided housing vouchers that allowed low-income individuals to get government subsidies to live in privately owned properties. However, because of this new shift, many public housing buildings were neglected, and many African Americans and other minority groups, like Latino communities, were still residing in them.  In the late 1970s and 1980s, there was an effort to move these residents out of public housing and into new privately owned neighborhoods. The 1986 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) incentivized private developers to build new housing developments regulated by the state but relieved the federal government from fiscal responsibility. These initiatives, while alleviating the responsibility of the state and federal governments, did not lessen the ongoing poverty issues. By the 1990s, the HOPE VI program was created by Congress to demolish abandoned and neglected public housing and create new “mixed-income” housing developments. 

Throughout these efforts, the demolishing of housing and the creation of new neighborhoods always come with the displacement of people. These efforts not only created housing opportunities but also created homelessness. During the 1960s and 1970s, there were areas of placeless people, commonly known as “skid row.” These areas were filled with liquor stores, poorly managed hotels, crime, and disorder. During the 1950s and 1960s, homelessness and these areas were mainly populated by males, but as policy changed over time, there was a rise in women and children facing homelessness in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1987, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness was created to respond to these changes in homelessness. Continuing these efforts in the 1990s and early 2000s, advocacy increased in combatting homelessness. Many non-profit organizations were forming to relieve issues concerning homelessness and federal policy, such as the Homeless Emergency Assistance Transition to Housing Act, enacted in 2009, to provide funding for homelessness prevention and re-housing. Place and placeness are interdependent. Examining housing and homelessness in the history of the United States involves examining policies, the individuals who create them, and the individuals who are affected by them. 

Activity

Bell Ringer  

To begin the lesson, students should consider the foundational elements of what constitutes a home. Using a textbook, a selection of reference materials, or even an internet search have students find examples of different homes throughout history; think of Indigenous housing structures, homes of the settlers-colonists during the Westward expansion, or the elaborate houses built by the elite class during the Gilded Age. Students should be able to express commonalities and indicators of defining “home” by the end of the discussion. 

Educators should allow students to consider whether housing structures are defined by their permanence and sustainability. Have students name the factors that could have led to temporary housing during earlier periods in U.S. history, such as migrating due to low food sources or natural disasters like fires or floods. There could also have been a lack of safety. Educators should guide students to determine that these first livable structures were built out of a necessity to survive, sheltering individuals and providing protection from elements that would compromise safety. Their permanence was yet to be determined. 

Homes began to form when people had the proper devices to ensure their structure could shield them from primary threats and cultivate sustenance. Examples are the ability to farm and raise animals. Most importantly, there was no longer a need to uproot quickly. Have students name a few activities individuals can do when they no longer must worry about these threats. Ask students what some ways these individuals could manage these threats are. 

Another significant development in creating permanent housing was property rights and land claims. People began to obtain documentation, such as deeds and titles, contracts, and leases, to represent their residences legally. Due to this, housing is now codified, but the right to housing is still in question. Federal and state governments create policies on how these laws can be enforced. Prompt students to consider the difference between a right to housing versus a right to shelter. 

After this brief discussion, this activity will allow students to begin rationalizing their definitions of what constitutes a home.  

To clarify the exercise, offer definitions for home. Here are a few definitions:  

Example: 

A home is a permanent structure used for habitation, procured through legal processes. 

Oxford Dictionary 

House 

• (noun) A building for human habitation, typically and historically one that is the ordinary place of residence. 

Home 

• (noun/adj.) A dwelling place is a person’s house or abode, the fixed residence of a family or household, and the seat of domestic life and interests. 

There are many definitions of house and home. Michael Allen Fox’s chapter “The Many Faces of Home” in Home: A Very Short Introduction suggests that the definition of home depends on linguistics, region, and cultural norms. Fox concludes that the definition of home is flexible and dependent on circumstance. Educators that would like additional information on how to define home should reference Fox’s chapter. 

For additional resources on defining home, Habitat for Humanity’s “What Does Home Mean to You” voices the definition of home through various perspectives. This resource can be used as a preliminary source for educators to tie in themes from the discussion.  

Step One 

First, ask the class: What do you think defines a home? 

Step Two 

As an entire class or in small groups, use the images below in the Primary Sources section and ask students what characteristics define these types of houses. These images can be printed and put on a board or provided to students. The images can also be projected on the board, or if students have their own digital devices (i.e., laptops, tablets, desktop computers), provide them the links and have them pull the images up on their devices. Students can work individually or in groups according to the teacher's preference. 

Educators can arrange these images in any order; however, they should refrain from telling the students what category they would be placed in. 

Step Three 

Create a list on a whiteboard or have students in groups write down characteristics for each image they think creates a home. For example, in Image #1, students can identify that there are curtains and other items displaying that people reside in the residence. 

Conclusion

During the activity, students have become the decision-makers on defining what constitutes a home. This is a common theme throughout the lesson: who defines housing, and who decides who gets to have housing? Historically, actors have been policymakers, activists, and legal apparatuses. 

Housing and homelessness are determined by permanence, which is determined by legislation. Legislation establishes ownership and protects residents, enforcing codes and policies to ensure the structure is livable. The policies determine housing rights. Throughout the lesson, students should continue to inquire about how these rights change over time. 

Ask students: Who decides what constitutes a home?  

Primary Sources: Housing Examples

1. Typical Housing in Greenbelt, Maryland- https://www.loc.gov/item/2018699737/ 

Annotation: These houses should be categorized as homes. Students should be able to identify residency in both homes by examining them. A satellite dish, curtains, and other identifiers provide proof of occupancy. The individual in this home is either the owner or renter, and the structure has gone through a legal process to become a permanent structure. Housing communities in the Greenbelt District were developed during the New Deal Era in 1935 under the United States Resettlement Administration. This administration was designed to resettle farmers and migrant workers affected by the Dust Bowl.  

2. One of Many Small Ponds Surrounded By Housing Developments in Gilbert, Arizona, a Southern Suburb of Phoenix, Arizona- https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2018702325/ 

Annotation: The homes in this picture are recently built. This picture was taken in 2018. Students should recognize that these are permanent structures and think about what these homes do to the environment and homes of other organisms. This picture shows a pond and clear signs of human manipulation of this environment. Teachers should guide students to conclude that homes that are this way permanently displace other living things and their habitats while creating new ones for others. 

3. Housing Development Around a Private Lake in the Northern Reaches of Indianapolis, Indiana-   https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2016631680/ 

Annotation: This image is an aerial view of housing development. Have students notice the exclusiveness of this property. It is essential to identify this lake as private. Some indicators show that there are very few entry points into this neighborhood. This is designed for the safety of the community. Students should reference the previous discussion that safety and community building are critical to creating permanence. Also, the concept of privatizing property, such as the lake, relates to the debate on property rights. This lesson will discuss the conversations between policymakers and citizens on whether housing initiatives should depend on government subsidies or become a private corporate venture. Students should begin to acknowledge the differences and outcomes between the two.  

4. Abandoned Public-Housing Units in the Liberty City Neighborhood of Miami, Florida- https://www.loc.gov/resource/highsm.62362/ 

Annotation: The housing units in this image were a government-subsidized public housing project built in the 1930s. The housing units, while no longer in use, are the physical representation of the changes in housing reform. These units were once heavily populated during the early stages of housing reform. However, they are vacant over time due to many policy changes.

Primary Source Analysis Activity: Housing Policy 

To analyze these sources, divide students into groups and create a station for each primary source, a total of four stations that students will rotate. Students should spend 10 to 15 minutes at each station examining the sources, answering associated questions, and recording them on paper. Each group should have one document to share their answers at the end of this activity. The questions are designed to have students not only think about the material from a historical perspective but also prompt students to think about historical actors involved in creating housing policy changes and homeless assistance reforms. These sources are in chronological order to aid students in analyzing how housing changes over time. During this activity, ensure that students contemplate the relationship of each source and whether it adds to the continuity or change in housing policies and public sentiments. At the end of the activity, reassemble the class and discuss each group’s answers. 

A computer or tablet will be needed for this activity. 

Step One 

To begin this activity, additional information should be provided to frame the required con, specifically with Sources #3 and #4, due to the nature of the sources. As the entire class, educators should review each source, provide background information, and review the specific questions on each source.

Step Two 

Divide students into groups, set a timer for 10 minutes, and begin the timer at the start of each rotation. Each station should have instructions for the students, including how to use the source and the associated questions. Students should write a 3-5 sentence answer for each station’s question. 

Step Three

After all student groups have completed the activity, the class should reconvene, review each question, and have students share their answers. Educators should revisit the information provided at the start of the activity as needed. 

Station One 

Educators should print out the Library of Congress’s Public Improvement map and use a computer or tablet to display Mapping Segregation DC’s “Restricted Housing and Racial Change, 1940-1970” map for students to interact. 

Source #1 

Program objectives diagram 1: 1967-1985 public improvement program priorities (partial accounting) : [District of Columbia]. - https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3851g.ct010988/?r=-0.279,0.116,1.856,0.957,0 

This city-planning map displays urban renewal plans in Washington, D.C., created in 1967 to illustrate development plans from 1967-1985. This map shows where new schools will be built, transit systems, parks, and other infrastructure for public improvement. Have students pay attention to where these activities are located. In tandem with this source, have students examine Mapping Segregation DC’s, Restricted Housing and Racial Change, 1940-1970 map, and have students identify who lives in the neighborhoods that will be affected. Choose the layers of the map that coordinate with the time of this development plan. ‘

Questions 

1. What does “public improvement” mean according to this map? 
2. What places are being added to the neighborhood? 
3. What neighborhoods and residents are being affected based on both maps? 

Station Two

Educators can print out this source or display it digitally. 

Source #2

The Housing Struggle in Crisis, National Tenant Organization Poster, 1973- https://www.loc.gov/item/2016649888/ 

This source is a poster for the National Tenant Organization’s National Convention in 1973, held in Chicago, Illinois. The poster shows an apartment building being demolished. The National Tenant Organization was formed in 1969 to help with tenants' rights issues. The National Tenants Organization vs. HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) determined that HUD’s restriction in deductions to secondary wage earners resulted in overcharging those tenants. The courts determined that this was a violation and that HUD must carry out the deductions. Students examining this source should contemplate the types and levels of advocacy during housing reform. 

Questions 

1. How does this poster depict issues surrounding housing during the 1970s? 

Station 3 

Educators should print or display digitally the first page of this source and highlight the excerpt or print out the excerpt of the source placed below. 

Source #3

U.S. Reports: Hills, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development v. Gautreaux et al., 425 U.S. 284 (1976). - https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep425284/ 
 

Hills vs. Gautreaux was a defining moment in housing reform. This case shows that racial discrimination remained active after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It prompted housing authorities to create new non-discriminatory housing programs, including Section 8 and integrating Black and White residents. Students should use the excerpt below, and educators should prompt a discussion about the magnitude of why the integration of residence was essential to Americans. This case is twelve years after the Civil Rights Act and in Chicago, which is often not associated with racism as in the American South. Students should identify that racism was nationwide and that the Civil Rights Act, a federal law, did not solve the problem of segregation. While segregation was now illegal, de facto segregation was still prevalent. 

Excerpt: 

“Respondents, Negro tenants in or applicants for public housing in Chicago, brought separate class actions against the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), alleging that CHA had deliberately selected family public housing sites in Chicago to ‘avoid the placement of Negro families in white neighborhoods’ in violation of federal statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment, and that HUD had assisted in that policy by providing financial assistance and other support for CHA's discriminatory housing projects. The District Court on the basis of the evidence entered summary judgment against CHA, which was ordered to take remedial action. The court then granted a motion to dismiss the HUD action, which meanwhile had been held in abeyance. The Court of Appeals reversed, having found that HUD had committed constitutional and statutory violations by sanctioning and assisting CHA's discriminatory program.”

Questions

1. What does this case say about race in public housing during the 1970s? 
    

Station 4 

This station should center on the preservation of communities. Educators should be permanently present at this station to guide conversations and answer questions. 

Source #4

Bulletin board at Johnson Houses, E. 115th St. at Lexington Ave., Harlem, 1989 digital file from original- https://www.loc.gov/resource/vrg.07713/ 

This is a bulletin board in a public housing project in Harlem, NY. It is filled with advertisements about drug prevention and bulletins that encourage Black success. There is also a sign in Spanish. This primary source shows what some public housing communities faced during this time in these housing projects. This source also shows the dichotomy of the needs of Black and Brown community members. It shows the upliftment and success of the Black and Brown communities while protecting their communities from crime. 

During the 1980s, many members of the public believed minority communities were responsible for crime and poor living conditions. The most crucial portion of this source is that it shows an effort of community members to preserve their communities so that they won’t be subjected to urban renewal initiatives. It is also essential for students to note that there wasn’t much improvement in housing between the 1960s and 1980s. Have students identify why that is. 

Questions 

1. How do the posters on this bulletin board speak to the preservation of public housing in the 1980s? 

Wrap Up 

To conclude this lesson, have students reflect on the difficulty of decision-making and consider who determines housing and houselessness. 

Revisit the question in the Bellringer exercise and discuss how answers may have changed or have stayed consistent. 

Question: What defines housing? Who decides these defining attributes? 

General Tips for Teaching Controversial Subjects

• Center activities on primary sources. Primary sources are tangible evidence that allow students to engage directly with history. These primary sources in particular were preserved and digitized by the Library of Congress because they were deemed important to the history of the United States.
• Discussion and analysis of these sources can be wide ranging, but within each class those discussions can always be turned back to the source itself.
• The sources are also, by definition, only pieces of a puzzle. They bring us closer to understanding the past but there is always room for doubt and uncertainty.  
• Questions, Observations, and Reflections should come from students. These are primarily student-directed learning activities. It is the instructor's role to create a space for inquiry and empower students to drive the inquiry.
• It may help to remind students at the outset that it is normal for different individuals to come to different conclusions, even when we are looking at the same sources. Further, it would be strange if we all agreed completely on our interpretations. This can normalize the strong reactions that can come up and enables educators to discuss the goal of historical research, which is to hopefully go beyond the realm of individual  perspective to access a fuller understanding of the past that takes multiple perspectives into account.
• Teaching historical topics that involve violence and other trauma can be traumatic for some students as well. Providing students with previews of what content will be covered and space to process their emotions can be helpful. The following video series from the University of Minnesota contains further tips for teaching potentially traumatic topics: https://extension.umn.edu/trauma-and-healing/historical-trauma-and-cultural-healing.