History, as ever, stands at a crossroads. The twenty-first century demands more from historians than mere scholarship etched in dusty tomes. It calls for voices that resonate amidst the clamor of new media, for educators who do more than teach—they must inspire, engage, and even compete. The refrain, “history is boring,” is as old as the subject itself, but today it carries new weight. In an age where attention is currency, the hard skills of analysis, argument, and writing are not simply academic exercises—they are civic duties. Public engagement is not an optional adornment to historical work; it is essential.
Consider the spirit of inquiry that guided our nation’s founders, who saw history not as a static record but as a guidepost for civic life. Patrick Henry once said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.” As historians, we must now carry that lamp into the digital age, using our experience and expertise to illuminate the past for a world that desperately needs it. How, then, do we teach history in such times? In 2018, Sam Wineburg posed a piercing question in the title of his book: Why Learn History (When It’s Already on Your Phone). The query is not rhetorical.
Why, indeed, seek the measured insights of historians when podcasts, films, and even fleeting headlines seem to satisfy the curious mind and provide information faster, all while the host guzzles down a brew or choo-choos smoke now available in many forms? Is there room for traditional history when voices like Howard Zinn’s, through A People’s History, echo across generations—once dismissed, now undeniably woven into our cultural fabric?
Historians may have erred by overlooking figures like Zinn. This brings me to what Mark Twain observed: the past does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Today, that rhyme reverberates through voices like Nikole Hannah-Jones, Joe Rogan, and Tom Hanks—individuals who, though not historians, have captured the public imagination and the narrative threads of our shared past. They speak to millions, shaping perceptions while historians’ voices fade into the background. This retreat by historians carries consequences.
Historical thinking grows faint when we cede the public square, replaced by confident assertions unmoored from rigorous inquiry. With its boundless reach, the internet teaches history with a fervor matched only by its biases. Consider The 1619 Project, launched by The New York Times —a bold reimagining of America’s founding narrative that has garnered more attention than many history classrooms combined (at least this was the thinking in 2021 when I wrote this piece). It is compelling for its content and the vast network amplifying its message—even though no genuine citations of materials are in sight.
When Gordon Wood, a titan of early American history, voiced his concerns in an interview with The World Socialist Website (YES! That one, the one you were thinking), his words carried the gravitas of a Pulitzer Prize winner, yet struggled to find footing in the mainstream (surprised?). Here was a scholar of rare distinction, reduced to a voice on some obscure website at the level of a very good school newspaper rather than commanding the discourse as he probably expected. Why wouldn't the New York Post or some other competitor leverage Wood against their competitors? That is something all of us should probe and wonder exactly why there was zero pushback.
Wood lamented, “None of the leading scholars of the whole period from the Revolution to the Civil War, as far as I know, have been consulted [on The 1619 Project],” a sobering admission that heralds a precarious era—one where new creators of public knowledge operate beyond the scrutiny of academic rigor or even the scrutiny of their supposed competition. In some ways, it is hard to feel bad for Wood and those like him, especially if you've felt the sting of rejection from that Ivory Tower for not being enough at one point or another.
Even within Academia’s walls, dissent finds little refuge. Historian Leslie M. Harris, who fact-checked The 1619 Project, found her corrections largely ignored. In a candid op-ed for Politico (at least Politico is a known publication), she wrote, “The debates playing out now on social media and in op-eds between supporters and detractors of The 1619 Project misrepresent both the historical record and the historical profession.”
How did we reach a point where historians are relegated to the margins while media outlets define the contours of our past? And to say "margins" is generous; historians are as close to the margins as Rudy Ruettiger of Rudy was to Notre Dame's starting lineup. And yes, we all know the New York Times as the "paper of record." But, if we cannot publicly lay sources side by side, as Sam Wineburg urges—examining discrepancies, questioning motives both conscious and unconscious—then what is the role of the historian?
Wood and Harris’s experiences underscore a painful truth: credentials and accuracy are often eclipsed by the simple power of reach. This is a reach the Academy does not have, not because they do not have the ability, but because they lack the desire to change. As the Notre Dame football coach Ara Parseghian told a young Vince Vaughn—playing a fictional character named Jamie O'Hara in a true story?
"You just summed up your entire sorry career here in one sentence! If you had a tenth of the heart of Ruettiger, you'd have made All-American by now! As it is, you just went from third team to the prep team! Get out of here!"
The challenge, then, is clear. History cannot remain cloistered in the Ivory Tower. It must stride confidently into the public sphere, not with arrogance, but with the conviction that truth matters. The stakes are not merely academic theory; they are civic practice. For in the stories we tell about our past, we shape the very foundation of our history and culture.
SOURCES | BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hannah-Jones, Nikole. “Our Founding Ideals of Liberty and Equality Were False When They Were Written. Black Americans Fought to Make Them True. Without This Struggle, America Would Have No Democracy at All." New York Times Magazine, August 18, 2019.
The 1619 Project. Edited by Nikole Hannah-Jones. New York Times Magazine, August 18, 2019.
Note: The 1619 Project has evolved from magazine to curriculum in the classroom with reading guides, law school initiatives, with complete lesson plans in conjunction with Pulitzer Center Education. Its creator, Nikole Hannah-Jones, was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for commentary for her introductory essay to the chagrin of many in Academia, who sent their reply to the New York Times, which did little to change the project’s trajectory into the curriculum of many school districts.
Mackaman, Tom. "An Interview with Historian Gordon Wood on the New York Times’ 1619 Project." World Socialist Website, November 29, 2019.
Harris, Leslie M. "I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me." Politico, March 6, 2020.
Wineburg, Sam. Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts. p. 119.