Student Spotlight
Interview with Levine Research Prize Winner Jaclyn Becker
(Posted April 2008)
Jaclyn Becker received the Spring 2008 Levine Research Prize for her paper, "The Berkeley Syndrome: Free Speech and Protest, September-December 1964". Jaclyn is a History/Elementary Education major graduating this spring. The History Department recently posed the following questions to Jaclyn about her prize-winning paper.
1: Why did you choose this topic? How did you refine it?
My primary focus of study at Rider has been in European history and I decided that the senior paper would be a wonderful opportunity to expand my horizons. I have always had a flare for Sixties culture, being a huge Beatles and Bob Dylan fan, and knew that a special topic might lie in this time period for me. I just had to find one. Originally, I planned to focus on Vietnam War protests on college campuses. The idea of people my age changing history excited and motivated me. I had my general theme chosen, but I was stuck when it came to narrowing it. I truthfully was not that knowledgeable about the history of this era so Dr. Hillje encouraged me to speak with Dr. Gowaskie. I went to Dr. Gowaskie desperately seeking help, but still planned on a Vietnam War related topic. He asked me if I had heard of “The Free Speech Movement” at Berkeley University and I said no. Within a few brief minutes of conversation, he told me that I would find this movement fascinating beyond belief. I took his word for it and now owe him such gratitude for helping me find the topic my heart was searching for.
2: What is the nature of the existing scholarship on the subject, and how does your work contribute to what is already known?
While I found the scholarship compelling, I was surprised by how little historians have written on the subject. This may be because it is a relatively recent event, I am honestly not sure. In general, historians writing about the Free Speech Movement (FSM) have tended to agree with one another. I relied most on Van Gosse's concise explanation of the Free Speech Movement in Rethinking the New Left: An Interpretive History (Palgrave Macmillian, 2005) and an older article by Kathleen E. Gates, “A Campus Revolution,” The British Journal of Sociology 17 (Mar. 1966): 1-19. Though my work concurs with existing scholarship, it takes a more in-depth look at the reasons for the success of the FSM. This topic merits further analysis by historians.
3: What is your argument? How did you reach this conclusion?
My paper focused on explaining why the Free Speech Movement was one of the most successful student protests of the Sixties. I argued that success resulted from the unified student body at Berkeley, its colorful leadership, and its clear ideology based on a strong understanding of the American principles of democracy. The Free Speech Movement attained its goals largely by combining the ideals of the American Revolution, specifically the First Amendment, with non-violent protest. I reached this conclusion through reading dozens of personal memoirs from FSM leaders and members. These passionate memoirs revealed both FSM methods and beliefs. FSM students demanded their right of free speech as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
4: What was your most important primary source and why?
One of the benefits of studying modern history is that primary sources are often more abundant and more accessible. I discovered that I loved using microfilm. However, my most important primary sources came from the book The Free Speech Movement by David Lance Goines (pictured third from right). Goines himself participated in the movement and was one of the original eight students arrested for ignoring the Bancroft sidewalk ban. This collection of interviews, speeches, newspaper articles, photographs, and memoirs became my most important resource because of its focus on student protest techniques and motives. The memoirs especially allowed me to get into the minds of the students who participated in the movement.
5: What was the most interesting or surprising piece of information you learned from doing your research?
My answer is the arrest of FSM member Jack Weinberg and the police car sit-in on October 1, 1964. Weinberg was working at a distribution table for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) when he was asked to leave by two Berkeley deans. When he refused to comply, Weinberg was taken by police. Within a few seconds of entering the police car, someone shouted, “sit down” and within ten seconds two hundred students surrounded the police car. For 32 hours students blocked the police car from moving and its roof became a soapbox for whoever felt compelled to speak. The photographs of Weinberg and the sit-in were unbelievable. The dedication and organization shown by FSM students inspired me. It proved that young people can make a difference. 
6: What research advice would you give to other students?
It is simple; the choice is yours so choose a topic that you are passionate about. Passion allows anyone to research for hours upon end, give up social outings, and forgo sleep with the greatest of ease. The personal satisfaction you gain at the end of a dedicated research paper makes it all worth it. Next, learn how to use your resources wisely. Professors are your greatest motivators and mentors especially if researching topics you are not familiar with. They are brilliant and will always steer you in the right direction. Also, become acquainted with the library at Rider. Before researching for this paper, I honestly did not realize how many good sources were there. Finally, pay attention during all those “library sessions” you sit through so many times, they help! Using the correct Boolean search can narrow down your sources tremendously, saving you hours of weeding through articles that are not relevant to your topic.
Photographs:
1) FSM rally, November 20, 1964 from the Free Speech Movement Digital Archive at UC Berkeley Bancroft Library.
2) "End Cal's Shame: Give Free Speech Now" photo by Gary Moretti from The Free Speech Movement at the Online Archive of California.
3) "Students Suspended From UC" newspaper clipping from the The Free Speech Movement at the Online Archive of California.
4) Car Top Rally, Ariel Kaye, The Berkeley Free Speech Movement, The College of New Jersey.
5) Car Top Rally with Jack Weinberg, photo by Howard Harawitz from Free Speech Movement Archives.
Digging Into History at Monticello
(Posted January 2008)
Chris Mazur, a junior history and secondary education major, has always been interested in archaeology so when he heard about the Monticello-University of Virginia Archaeological Field School he applied. He was thrilled when an acceptance letter arrived in the mail a few months later. The six-week field school, held every summer, provides undergraduate and graduate students with a multidisciplinary and hands-on introduction to archaeology. The faculty includes leading specialists from the fields of archaeology, anthropology, environmental science and history. Students spend about an hour in the classroom and five hours in the field each day. Students study a variety of topics including macro- and micro-botanical remains, dendrochronology, zooarchaeology (including foodways), slave life in the Chesapeake, and surveying. Field trips fill out the curriculum. On one excursion Mazur’s class visited Jamestown Fort and Colonial Williamsburg where they met William Kelso, one of the most renowned archaeologists in the United States.
Each summer the Field School explores a particular Plantation Survey site in connection to their larger research project on changing land use patterns at Monticello from 1750 to 1860 and their ecological and social causes and consequences. Since 1997, researchers and students have excavated over 150 plots and discovered 30,000 artifacts. Mazur and the other ten Field School students of the class of 2007 worked on Site 8, an area developed by Thomas Jefferson when he took over Monticello Plantation from his father around 1770.
(Mazur is pictured in the striped shirt, bottom row and third from the left. Source: Monticello-University of Virginia Archaeology Field School website)
The Field School set a number of goals for students at Site 8 starting with dating the occupation of the site. Mazur learned how to determine an approximate date range by analyzing mean ceramic dates and the bore sizes of tobacco pipes. Second, students worked on determining the boundaries of the site by studying the artifact densities around the site. Third, students searched for additional structures. Mazur learned how archaeologists locate where buildings once stood by studying artifact densities in certain areas of the site and discovering sub-floor pits (holes in the ground constructed by slaves to store prized possessions). Discoveries made by the Field School are incorporated into the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS). DAACS is a path-breaking resource for the study of slavery allowing scholars to research and compare regional trends in slave life across the Atlantic world.
(Mazur excavating a quadrat at Monticello)
Mazur will tell you that archaeology is more challenging than you might think. The process begins with 5x5 quadrats (plotted by random sampling). The dirt removed is carefully sifted for small artifacts using ¼ inch mesh screens. Once the archaeologist begins to see a change in the color or the texture of the soil, he cleans up the context (a name determined by the archaeologist and given to each layer during excavation). After each context, the archaeologist seals each bag of artifacts and completes a context record (which includes the elevation of the context, artifacts found, soil descriptions, stratigraphic relationships, and a drawing). The artifacts are sent to the lab for cleaning, sorting, and documentation. The process is repeated for all contexts (unless there is a feature, in which case the process becomes more complex) until the archaeologist reaches subsoil. Archaeology is painstaking and back-breaking work. And, as Mazur learned in the Chesapeake, made even more difficult by hot & humid temperatures, snakes, chiggers, & ticks, and tree roots.
Mazur expanded his historical understanding of slavery in early America by learning how to read archaeological evidence. A common misperception is that slaves were unable to buy their own goods. The truth, according to the artifacts discovered, is that they did purchase wares. The artifacts found at Site 8 include ceramics (such as dishes and mugs), tobacco pipes and wine bottles. The Field School also provided Mazur with the opportunity to study a watershed moment in the history of the Chesapeake region- the transition from tobacco to grain. Changes in transatlantic markets prompted planters to abandon tobacco as a staple crop in favor of grain, largely wheat, at the end of the 18th century. Field School researchers date this shift at Monticello to the 1790s. One of the key areas of current research is the impact of the transition from tobacco to grain on the lives of enslaved people at Monticello. Preliminary findings reveal important changes in slave life as a result of this transition. Research shows that overseers supervised gang labor (all slaves doing the same task) during the tobacco cultivation period and often used punishment as a means to extract work. Also, slaves lived in large houses with people that they did not necessarily trust (as can be seen by the use of sub-floor pits to secure prized possessions such as food, liquor, and ceramics). With the transition to wheat cultivation, though, slave life changed dramatically. Agricultural diversification required specialization. The need of overseers decreased and the use of incentives (family-based housing and private livestock) began to replace punishment. Field research indicates that the distance between individual slave houses and between slave houses and overseer houses increased during the 1790s. Experts believe that the Revolutionary era slave quarter investigated by Mazur’s Field School class at Site 8 was burned down and plowed under to make room for wheat fields during the mid-1790s. 
(Mazur studying artifacts)
The Archaeological Field School at Monticello was an experience of a lifetime for Mazur. He learned the basic skills of an archaeologist and can now name and date colonial artifacts. He made new friends and established professional contacts with people from around the United States. He also used his free time to explore the beautiful and historic places around Virginia including the grave sites of Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe as well as Confederate leaders Jefferson Davis, George Picket, Jeb Stuart, and the arm of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.
Mazur strongly urges other history majors to participate in programs such as the Archaeological Field School at Monticello. It is one thing to read about the past, but quite another to hold it in your hands. Also, it is exciting to know that you can walk into a museum and see an artifact that you once dug up. Lastly, and most importantly for Mazur, is the satisfaction of making a contribution to the study of History.
(Mazur gives Monticello and the Archaeological Field School a Thumbs Up)
