Teaching History

Daniel Story

Hey, it’s Daniel. Before we get started, I want to point out our new History in Focus listener survey. Now that we have a season of episodes under our belt, we’d love to hear what you think. What do you like? What do you not like so much? What topics would you like to see us cover in future episodes—that sort of thing. We want your perspective so we can continue to improve what we do, making a podcast that we hope is engaging and useful for a variety of listeners interested in the study and practice of history. So if you’re up for it, go to www.historians.org/history-in-focus, click on listener survey, and give us your feedback. And if you do that before October 15th, you can sign up to win some AHA swag. Again, you’ll find the survey at www.historians.org/history-in-focus. We’re really looking forward to hearing from you.

Welcome to Season 2 of History in Focus. I’m Daniel Story, host, senior producer, and on behalf of the whole team, thank you for tuning back in. And if this is your first time, a big welcome. We’ve got some exciting episodes coming up this Fall on topics like history and AI, monuments and historical markers, and new approaches to collaborative historical research, just to name a few. We’ll also be piloting a new form of engagement with the journal’s “History Unclassified” section, which I’m really excited about. But today we’re talking about teaching history. To be more precise, we’re highlighting a new feature in the AHR which, for the first time, starting in this September’s issue, will include material directly aimed at supporting history teachers, from the college to the high school level and perhaps even beyond. It’s something we’re calling the #AHRSyllabus project. And to kick things off, we’re talking with some of the folks who helped organize it, in particular two historians—Laura McEnaney, and Katharina Matro—who played a vital role early on in probing the questions of if, why, and how the AHR should more directly engage with teaching. We’ll also hear from two of the first syllabus contributors: Saniya Lee Ghanoui on behalf of the team from the podcast Sexing History and William Tullett representing the historical smells research group Odeuropa. As you’ll soon hear, the AHA’s Teaching Division played an important role in developing #AHRSyllabus. So to start things off, I got in touch with current Teaching Division vice president, Kathleen Hilliard.

Actually, first of all, would you mind just introducing yourself: state your name, your affiliation, you know, where you’re at institutionally, and then also, you know, what you’re currently doing for the AHA?

 

Kathleen Hilliard

I’m Kathy Hilliard. I’m an Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Education at Iowa State University. And I am in my second year as vice president for the Teaching Division for the American Historical Association.

 

Daniel Story

So I want to get a little bit more into what the Teaching Division is, thinking in particular of people who maybe know a bit about the AHA, may not know anything at all about the Teaching Division and what that team of people do. Can you describe a little bit the kinds of initiatives that are maybe currently taking place or on the horizon that you’re especially excited about?

 

Kathleen Hilliard

Sure. So when I was nominated to the office of Vice President, I was sent the Teaching Division’s charge, and I actually just brought it up to remind myself what my official, what my official duties are. And quite simply, we’re responsible for the council’s work relating to history education. So that’s it, you know, in its simplest form. And that, as you might imagine, covers a range of topics. We’ve had a number of ongoing projects we’re still invested in. Probably the first and one of the most important has been History Gateways, which is a project that was initiated in 2019 in response to a survey that said that students in introductory college history courses were failing at really high rates. And more distressingly, the students that were failing tended to be from underrepresented groups or from first generation students. And even more distressingly, that those students who failed their intro courses in history and in some other intro courses too, some of the sciences and math, for example, that they didn’t just fail the course and have to retake it, but they ended up dropping out of college altogether. So the AHA got together with the John Gardner Institute, and they were funded by the Mellon Foundation to develop a multiyear project to really reconsider how we teach the intro history course, is there a way that we can recapture and embrace the students that we are bluntly failing. But we got a lot of good qualitative data on how to engage with these students and really think about their skill sets and how to cultivate those skills as they kind of go through their their college career. Another big focus of our effort is AHA’s Teaching with Integrity initiative, and there are really two prongs to that. First is our advocacy work, you know, advocating on behalf of history educators, so that they can teach with integrity without challenge, without harassment in the classroom. So that’s a lot of talking to our members about how to talk to school boards. How do you engage with a politician? Sending a lot of letters and advocacy statements to state legislatures and, and others. How do you mobilize our really energetic membership, to work effectively and speak effectively about the work we do in the classroom? And then the other, of course, is to think about how we can support teachers who are working under restrictive legislation. You know, how do you teach if you’re in Florida right now, right?

How do you, how do you teach if you’re in Iowa, where I am? And what can we do to help teachers operate in a way that is both effective, and allows them to teach honest and inclusive history under legislative restriction that might prevent them from doing so. And then finally, and most recently, the AHA Council has authorized the creation of a couple of committees on AI in teaching and history instruction. So we are developing a charge for the committee to really think about these issues, because we know that’s what’s on students minds. That’s what’s on faculty’s minds right now, as they’re going back into Fall 2023. We know what’s out there. And we know there are incredible possibilities out there. We know their incredible dangers out there, too. So what can the AHA do to help teachers think about the presence of ChatGPT and other AI technologies in the classroom?

 

Daniel Story

It’s clear that there’s a wide range of, of things that the AHA and the Teaching Division are involved in. I think it’s also accurate to say that the AHR, the American Historical Review, hasn’t always been so engaged with the topic of teaching history.

 

Kathleen Hilliard

Yeah, there has been very little discussion of teaching in the AHR. There just hasn’t been a space for it. And really, the only bit you’ve seen has been kind of ancillary. Certainly the scholarship has an effect on all of our teaching, you know, we bring that to the classroom and our own unique ways. But we haven’t had a forum to really share those techniques and those pedagogies with the membership and with a broader public. So AHR Syllabus is a real opportunity. And I think what’s really exciting about this is that, you know, editor, Mark Bradley and the people who originally developed this idea—in particular, Laura McEnaney, my predecessor as VP of the Teaching Division—they really wanted to think about what AHR’s specific contribution might be, right? We didn’t want to just say, okay, we probably need to have a space for teaching now. Right? We really wanted to think about purpose. Why did we want teaching there? And what is the specific connection to the work of the journal? And over the course of a couple years and many meetings, we really came around to the idea that what we thought our contribution could be was to allow students, to allow faculty, to allow K through 12 teachers to really get a look under the hood of historical work. You know, we really believe that some of the best scholarship out there is being published in the American Historical Review. What AHR Syllabus does is pulls back the curtain, gets under the hood of that work, and helps teachers and help students understand how history operates, how history works, and then takes it a step further, and explicitly talks about how we can share that process with our students.

 

Daniel Story

And involve them in the process. Right?

 

Kathleen Hilliard

Exactly, exactly. So, AHR Syllabus, or #AHRSyllabus, evolved from kind of the concept of a multi week syllabus to an actual space in the journal that’s going to be ongoing I don’t know from here to perpetuity, right, in which the work of history scholars could be shared and disseminated and discussed and analyzed by teachers and students alike.

 

Laura McEnaney

My name is Laura McEnaney. I’m currently the Vice President for Research and Education at the Newberry Library. And I was the Vice President of the Teaching Division from 2019 to 2022.

 

Katharina Matro

I’m Katharina Matro, I teach social studies at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda, Maryland. And I am currently serving as a counselor on the Teaching Division of the AHA until January. I can’t believe it’s over.

 

Laura McEnaney

I came in when Mark became the editor of the AHR. At that time, I was vice president of the Teaching Division, and I wanted to open up a conversation about using the AHR to amplify the teaching that most of our members do. And it seemed like an opportunity with new leadership at the AHR to probe the possibility of increasing the presence of teaching discussions in the AHR. Those discussions are, of course, in Perspectives, those discussions are in the other publications of the AHA. But I felt it was important to explore how we could integrate teaching conversations into the AHR, which is our flagship professional journal.

 

Katharina Matro

And for me, it was also not just talking about issues around teaching, which is of course, what the Teaching Division is, there for, to amplify those conversations, to be there as a thought partner for the members. But for me, it was also because I had seen the difference between teaching at the college level and teaching at the high school level. And since I’m teaching 11th graders and 12th graders, often one of the big differences is that we do such little work with secondary literature. We don’t actually really look at how historians do the work that they do.

In the history classroom, in high school, we teach content, but we don’t really encourage the students to sort of think about, well, how did we even get that content? How did this even end up in the textbook? And I always think of journals as a place where historians try out ideas, are in conversation with each other. High school students don’t know what a journal is. And so for me, this was an opportunity to have the flagship journal be a teaching tool in the classroom, even for high school students, and maybe have access to an author of a recent journal article and then, you know, have them help provide teaching materials or be open to a conversation with high school students. How did you get these ideas? Where did you find the sources?

What did you think when you first stepped into an archive? Those are not questions that are widely asked in a high school history classroom because we march through the narrative, but we don’t ever talk about how the narrative came to be. The moment you hit college, you are expected to ask those questions and I think we could do more to bridge those two classrooms.

 

Daniel Story

That’s terrific. One of the questions I was going to ask, which you’ve already beautifully answered, is why the AHR if the AHA has done so much great work around teaching history. But I don’t know if you want to say anything more about it. I mean, the AHR, let’s face it, has not had a good track record with engaging with teaching history.

 

Laura McEnaney

Yes. And Mark Bradley and I convened five Zoom focus groups that brought together 25 faculty from regional public universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, and high schools.

And what they all said essentially was some version of the AHA legitimates teaching when it talks about teaching. It elevates the importance of this to what we do every day. And this was said particularly by faculty at community colleges, liberal arts colleges and regional publics. And so to amplify that work that is being done every day in our classrooms, we thought it was time to have that conversation in the most important journal in the field. And when we asked them should teaching be part of what the AHR does, there was just an overwhelming, yes.

And here’s why. And really, it went to being seen and recognized for the labor of teaching.

 

Katharina Matro

And I think for me, it was, you know, having access to scholars who are willing and good at engaging both high school teachers and high school students. So if the AHR can give me access to the scholars that publish in its pages, and I can have high school students somehow engage with their material directly, then high school students get a much better sense of what contemporary historians do and how excited they are about their work and how hard they work. Making contemporary, current scholarship accessible so that students see that this is a

contemporary, intellectual work, you know, we care about the world. And this is how we work through the problems that we have set ourselves, and problems that we want to solve, which I don’t think a student gets through reading a textbook, for example, or taking notes on a timeline, that connection between a human who works in this particular field and ask questions and does work. I don’t think students get that. And I think a journal is such a great place to showcase that.

 

Laura McEnaney

And I think, to build on what Katarina just said is the AHR is also a place for students, college and high school students, to see historians disagreeing with one another, and changing their mind. There’s this notion that when we come to a conclusion, it will stay, it will be fixed, it will endure. And we know that’s not true about our discipline. But our students think it is. And so the value added of the AHR was the ability for our students to see historians arguing with one another, changing interpretations, asking new questions, bringing new frames to familiar evidence. One of the teachers talked about looking under the hood, to understand how historians do what they do. And the power of that, in terms of modeling what a democracy requires, what civic discourse requires, cannot be underestimated. Most of our courses focus on a time, a place, a theme, or a topic. And if we create a syllabus project, or a way of enabling the AHR to understand the architecture of a syllabus, we can go beyond time, place, and topic, and help students understand all times, all places, all topics, because they’re seeing a method. And they’re seeing a set of questions that historians use to explore those times and places and topics.

 

Katharina Matro

Right, which I think will come out well with these first two. Right? The notion that talking about sex, and how we talk about sex, that obviously, you know, spans the existence of humanity. And you can imagine those conversations happening and those narratives being constructed in all kinds of areas and time periods. And smells is the same, same thing really. So really, I think how Laura phases it that this is about method, and how historians do work. And here are some examples of the questions they might ask, the ways in which they might investigate, again, I think opens up the discipline for students in surprising ways.

 

Saniya Lee Ghanoui

My name is Saniya Lee Ghanoui. I am Senior Producer for the podcast called Sexing History, and our contribution to the #AHRSyllabus Project is a teaching syllabus for the accompanying episode called “A Sacred Calling.” In this syllabus, we consciously crafted it so that teachers, and that includes teachers from high school up to the collegiate level, could really work with the syllabus in different ways. They could use it to teach the podcast in the classroom so students could engage with it in critical ways and learn how to examine a podcast through the historical lens. But we’ve also included extracurricular assignments, so students could actually create their own podcasts in the classroom. So it’s two different ways of teaching about and by podcast in historical settings. So the background of this episode is a collaboration we have done with the American Historical Review. And it tells the story of two abortion providers in Texas who have devoted their lives to providing safe and affirming abortion care. The accompanying syllabus asks questions about the history of abortion and what abortion providers have sought to provide to patients, and also how religious beliefs and institutions have played into the understanding of abortion in the United States. We have no desire to change someone’s minds around abortion rights, that’s not the point of the syllabus. Rather, the goal is to really encourage students to bring a critical lens to the historical understanding of abortion and challenge students to think critically about presumed narratives of abortion and religion. Students engage with letters, they engage with lectures and religious teachings. And they also hear directly from abortion providers and what they’ve had to go through. So the goal of the syllabus is to really get students to examine a complex, complicated, and controversial part of American history to bring a critical understanding to it. At the same time, we’ve also provided a supplementary aspect to this syllabus that outlines how to create a podcast. The good thing about creating podcast is overall, it’s a very short learning curve.

There is one, but it’s quite modest. And a lot of material is freely available online or free of charge. So students can engage with it without having to pay anything, and is available in a good number of classroom settings. This is really to get students learning new skills about how to edit audio, how to conduct interviews, how to think about crafting oral history questions. And so the tools that historians use to conduct history—How do they get into the archive? How do they respond to someone you know, how do they conduct an interview? How do they ask follow up questions? And then how do you analyze raw audio footage?—the students will engage with those questions as well to create a three to five minute podcast by the end of the lesson. Bringing in audio sources, including music, interviews, news, broadcast television, or radio broadcasts, for example, really serve to augment our understanding of the past and create a fuller picture of what the history and what the past is actually telling us. It also engages students in a different form of analysis. When they have the written text in front of them, they can read it, obviously, highlight, engage with the words in a visual way. But bringing in audio into the classroom really challenges students to think about their own relationships with listening, and how they can bring a critical eye to what they listen to, and how they consume media. Because I think that’s also an important aspect to understand. In the world of tick tock and social media, we are consuming media in different forms. And it’s important that we know how to analyze it. So we understand myths or disinformation, for example. So we understand origins, and how media can be manipulated. Bringing in podcast is a way of getting at that analysis and getting at that learning technique that isn’t always easily accessible when you’re only engaging with textual sources.

 

William Tullett

My name is Dr. William Tullett. I’m a lecturer in Early Modern History at the University of York. And I am one of the work package leads on the Odeuropa project to have had a really exciting collaboration with the American Historical Review over the last year or so. We’ve done several fun things, including publishing the first ever smell in a historical journal, which was incredibly exciting. So what we wanted to do then is to take some of the stuff we’ve been doing with the American Historical Review and take that more into the context of pedagogy and teaching. And so as part of their kind of exciting new initiative, the American Historical Association asked us if we wanted to develop an online teaching module around smell. And so that’s what we’ve done, and it’s called “Knowing by Sensing: How to Teach the History of Smell. We found in our work with museums and galleries and heritage sites, in particular, that smell is a really nice way of getting people engaged with the past. It’s a great conversation starter, it’s a great thing to think with, and to prompt ideas about what the past may or may not have been like. And a great way to get people to kind of unpick and criticize some of the assumptions, actually, that they might have had about past environments or past bodies and spaces, right. So kind of unpicking the kind of myth that the past smelled very, very bad. We start off with a couple of introductory lectures first from Professor Inger Leemans, who’s the principal investigator on the Odeuropa project, to really introduces both the project and the module and kind of starts with an example of a recreation that Inger made of William of Orange’s embalming scent, that was used when the Dutch stadtholder died to embalm his corpse in the early modern period.

And that’s a kind of good smell to introduce the project, because it’s made from lots of ingredients that are very, very common. So one of the things we’re keen to do is to get people sniffing things around them, that they might have in their home, that they might have, you know, in their neighborhood, in shops nearby. And to use that as an entry into thinking about the past. In the second lecture, we then begin to give people a bit more historical context. So that’s a lecture from me, and I talk about some of the kind of broader narratives and ideas we have about the history of smell. So one of those is the idea that over time the Western world has become more deodorized, that we’ve been taught to fear smell, and that we’ve tried to get smells out of public spaces, out of our homes, off of our bodies, and get people to start thinking about whether that’s really the case or not. And kind of linking that to more contemporary concerns. So one of the things we talked about at the end is kind of the way in which things like the use of sniffer dogs, for example, for stop and search, which are very controversial in the present, has a much longer history that’s connected to the history of smell. And then the rest of the sessions are really about teaching people to smell and to use their nose. So we have sessions on how you can do various experiments to kind of teach people to smell in different ways. So there’s one example that’s based around frankincense. There’s another that’s based around what’s called the Jelly Bean experiment, which is about teaching you about how smell and taste interrelate to each other, and also how smell and temperature work. And then just thinking about some of the practical things about like, where do you get smells from to bring them into the classroom, and how might we source and then use them. The final lecture is much more interactive in that it’s trying to get people to think about how they might do smelled walks. That’s a method that Kate McLean, who’s in the UK, has really pioneered and that session is with Kate, Cecilia Bembibre who’s at University College, London, and Victoriaictoria-Anne Michel, who’s my PhD student, about how to do smell walks, so what to record, what to sniff, how to make sense of that data after you’ve kind of done a smell walk.

And I think smell walking is a really nice thing to do with students because it gets them to think about the longer histories of a place, because often the smells that are present, or indeed are not present, are present or not present because of a longer historical trajectory in terms of how their space has been managed, and who lives in that neighborhood, and all that kind of thing. So it’s set in the present, but it’s really interesting way of thinking about the past. The tools that we’ve provided in this lesson, I think, are really useful, actually, for a really big range of audiences. So whether that’s university teaching, and I’ve done some of this kind of work with university students before, or whether that’s in high schools and with younger students as well. Because often, we simply do not educate people on how to use their sense of smell. And in a world where the humanities and history are often under attack as being less relevant.

Actually, I think kind of bringing the senses back into the way that we talk about the past and the way we teach history is a really good way of making them feel much more relevant, because they’re doing the kind of educational work with the senses that students are never going to get any other way. It’s very rare that you’ll be in a high school classroom, and somebody will be teaching you how to smell. So I think that’s a really distinctive and interesting thing that we can offer. And finally, I think a lot of these tools for thinking about smell, things like smell walks, are really useful for community history or public history projects, actually. They’re a really nice route into extracting people’s memories and people’s experiences about their local neighborhood, or a particular place or building. And it’s something that we’ve used to kind of great success in that context. If you want to explore some of these ideas immediately. Then there are two things I can recommend. One is a freely open access book by Anna Harris called “A Sensory Education” that’s available from Routledge, which is all about how different subjects, including history, both currently do and could use the senses in the classroom, and not just smell. But I think the other thing I suggest is just smell stuff around you. You do not need specialist products, specialist smells stuff, made by perfumers and fragrance manufacturers to be able to engage with the smells of the past. And in fact, many of the smells that are most interesting are the kinds of things that are around you, and that we’ve become quite used to. So I think, yeah, go do a bit of reading and just open your nose. That’s the best thing you could do.

 

Daniel Story

I wanted to ask you both, What are the key challenges, but also opportunities, that history teachers are facing right now? And I’m curious, you know, given that each of you are in slightly different contexts, how you would respond to that question?

 

Laura McEnaney

That’s a big and broad and wonderful question. I think a big challenge right now for teachers from K through 16, is that they are not operating in a political culture that values evidence based analysis. There has been a fundamental challenge about knowledge, how knowledge is produced, about journalism, about science. And I think it’s very difficult to teach in an evidence based discipline in a political culture that is questioning every discipline that asks how do we know what we know. And I think that goes deeper than politics, partisan politics. I think another challenge is, how to teach the students we have. We’re at a stage now where we have a really wonderful, complex literature on teaching methodologies, in particular teaching history. If you’re a curious teacher now looking for evidence-based literature on what works, you can find it. And that was not true, or maybe I wasn’t looking hard enough, when I was a younger professor. And so I think we’re equipped with a lot more literature from the world of education, cognitive development, inclusive practices. But there is still the trip, the long, lonely walk from the professional development seminar that rejuvenates you back to your classroom. And you’re alone. And there you are with your beautiful, wonderful human variables. And you’re trying to figure out how this thing you learned is working or not working in your classroom. So the time, right, that a teacher needs to do big thinking, deep thinking. And this is true for higher ed professors as well. There is a tug of war between our teaching and scholarship. In K12, there are tugs of war between parent meetings, curriculum meetings—meetings, meetings, meetings—and grading. And so I think even though we have more tools now and more literature about how to improve our practice, I still think we’re trying to navigate the schedules and the priorities.

 

Katharina Matro

I think similar to what Laura just said, I sort of see two sets of challenges. One is the culture in which we operate. And it’s very politicized. I am very lucky that I teach in Maryland in a district that’s very progressive and has very clear guidelines for us for what to say when a parent complains about something that’s in the curriculum that the district has given us. So I feel very protected by my district and by my administration. But I know for other teachers, that is not at all the case. You can’t teach in the social studies classroom anymore, the things that you think should be taught. And that’s dispiriting. And that’s not why we’re doing what we’re doing. So that’s the one big challenge. I think the other struggle that I have, and this sounds like such a teacher thing to say, but there’s a lot of anxiety on the parts of parents and families about what comes next. Right? So after I graduate here, what happens? And what you’re doing here with me and my child, does that benefit afterwards? Because high school is just the thing that we pass through, and after that it’s the college or the career that we go into, and how does high school history fit in? It’s actually doesn’t fit in. It’s just an obstacle that you throw in my way.

And that, I think, to me, given that I don’t face the political challenges that many of my colleagues around the country face, to me that is the most dispiriting part, because I think history is so important. And my standing there and making you read this thing, and making you think about this thing, and making you write about this thing, all the things that you don’t want to do, because you think they’re all an obstacle to your future success. I feel such urgency about these questions now. And yet, they don’t buy in, or they don’t see the same urgency. And that that to me is, I think, the sort of biggest struggle.

 

Laura McEnaney

Yeah, and I would say that college students are feeling the same way. I mean, that pessimism about what comes next or that fear about what comes next. What is college for? But I feel like what we do every day in the classroom is sacred. And what I mean by that is, we’re inviting people into a wider world. We are demystifying how knowledge is created in order to democratize it, so that they can do it too. Teaching is the work of democracy, if done well. It can also reproduce hierarchies and disenfranchise people. But when I feel despair, I also feel the sense of urgency and the importance of what teachers do every day, and it lifts me. And then what I need to do is look for my crowd, so that I can infuse students with the kind of optimism that I feel after I’ve gotten a wonderful experience talking to other teachers about what they do, how they do it, and why it matters. But I think every chance we get, we should be talking with teachers about content and about methods, inclusive pedagogies, all of that. But I think we have to keep talking to teachers, especially now, about how are you feeling about what you’re doing? What is feeling challenging? What have you tried that works? When you get pessimistic, who’s your first call? What do you do? We have to see them and make space for them to talk about themselves as teachers, not just practitioners. We have to speak to their teacher identity and their sense of self, because we need to take care of them. Whether it’s K12 or higher ed, it’s hard work. And I really appreciate that we’re having this conversation, because we are seeing our teachers.

And I think also you know, again, this comes back to how we started, you know, why the AHR, right, out of all places? I think that is fundamental. If the AHR tells all the teachers what you do is vital, or as Laura just said, is sacred, I think that like hearing that and having the legitimacy of the AHR and the AHA behind that, like that is what is needed right now. Right? Because teachers are afraid, some for their livelihoods. Teachers are afraid to teach what they know is right. Teachers are despondent because the kids are not responding, or they’re not interested, you know, because they don’t have time, they have too much work, they are not getting paid enough. But to then have somebody affirm that what they do is important, and is the foundation of democracy, I think is important.

 

Daniel Story

Well, I haven’t felt emotional in many of these interviews, but you guys got to me there I think. I think also too, I have a senior in high school who actually just last year did AP US History.

And so these things are very much on the forefront of my mind, the questions of what is history, particularly at the high school level, and then what is next. Questions that my family is asking.

 

Laura McEnaney

Interesting. Yeah.

 

Daniel Story

Well, Laura, Katharina, thank you very much for talking with me. Thank you for your time, and thank you for your contribution to the AHR Syllabus Project.

 

Laura McEnaney

You are so welcome. It was a pleasure to talk with you both.

 

Katharina Matro

Yes, thank you and thank you for your questions.

 

Daniel Story

That was Laura McEnaney and Katharina Matro on the new #AHRSyllabus Project. We also heard from current AHA Teaching Division chair Kathleen Hilliard and from two of our syllabus contributors: Saniya Lee Ghanoui from the podcast Sexing History and William Tullet of Odeuropa. You’ll find Odeuropa’s syllabus contribution in the September 2023 issue and the Sexing History syllabus in December. History in Focus is a production of the American Historical Review, in partnership with the American Historical Association and the University Library at the University of California, Santa Cruz. This episode was produced by me, Daniel Story. You can find out more about this and other episodes at americanhistoricalreview.org. And finally, if you’re a listener, and if you’re hearing this now, I guess you are, we’d really love to hear from you. So if you would, take a moment and fill out our brief listener survey, which you can find at www.historians.org/history-in-focus. And if you get there before October 15th, you can enter a drawing for some AHA swag. Again, that’s www.historians.org/history-in-focus. We’d really appreciate it. Thanks again for joining us for the kickoff of this new season. We hope we’ll see you next time.