what is being an american essay

• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Get New Issue Alerts
• American Academy of Arts 
and Sciences

What does it mean to be an American?

Sarah Song, a Visiting Scholar at the Academy in 2005–2006, is an assistant professor of law and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism (2007). She is at work on a book about immigration and citizenship in the United States.

It is often said that being an American means sharing a commitment to a set of values and ideals. 1 Writing about the relationship of ethnicity and American identity, the historian Philip Gleason put it this way:

To be or to become an American, a person did not have to be any particular national, linguistic, religious, or ethnic background. All he had to do was to commit himself to the political ideology centered on the abstract ideals of liberty, equality, and republicanism. Thus the universalist ideological character of American nationality meant that it was open to anyone who willed to become an American. 2

To take the motto of the Great Seal of the United States, E pluribus unum – "From many, one" – in this context suggests not that manyness should be melted down into one, as in Israel Zangwill's image of the melting pot, but that, as the Great Seal's sheaf of arrows suggests, there should be a coexistence of many-in-one under a unified citizenship based on shared ideals.

Of course, the story is not so simple, as Gleason himself went on to note. America's history of racial and ethnic exclusions has undercut the universalist stance; for being an American has also meant sharing a national culture, one largely defined in racial, ethnic, and religious terms. And while solidarity can be understood as "an experience of willed affiliation," some forms of American solidarity have been less inclusive than others, demanding much more than simply the desire to affiliate. 3 In this essay, I explore different ideals of civic solidarity with an eye toward what they imply for newcomers who wish to become American citizens.

Why does civic solidarity matter? First, it is integral to the pursuit of distributive justice. The institutions of the welfare state serve as redistributive mechanisms that can offset the inequalities of life chances that a capitalist economy creates, and they raise the position of the worst-off members of society to a level where they are able to participate as equal citizens. While self-interest alone may motivate people to support social insurance schemes that protect them against unpredictable circumstances, solidarity is understood to be required to support redistribution from the rich to aid the poor, including housing subsidies, income supplements, and long-term unemployment benefits. 4 The underlying idea is that people are more likely to support redistributive schemes when they trust one another, and they are more likely to trust one another when they regard others as like themselves in some meaningful sense.

Second, genuine democracy demands solidarity. If democratic activity involves not just voting, but also deliberation, then people must make an effort to listen to and understand one another. Moreover, they must be willing to moderate their claims in the hope of finding common ground on which to base political decisions. Such democratic activity cannot be realized by individuals pursuing their own interests; it requires some concern for the common good. A sense of solidarity can help foster mutual sympathy and respect, which in turn support citizens' orientation toward the common good.

Third, civic solidarity offers more inclusive alternatives to chauvinist models that often prevail in political life around the world. For example, the alternative to the Nehru-Gandhi secular definition of Indian national identity is the Hindu chauvinism of the Bharatiya Janata Party, not a cosmopolitan model of belonging. "And what in the end can defeat this chauvinism," asks Charles Taylor, "but some reinvention of India as a secular republic with which people can identify?" 5 It is not enough to articulate accounts of solidarity and belonging only at the subnational or transnational levels while ignoring senses of belonging to the political community. One might believe that people have a deep need for belonging in communities, perhaps grounded in even deeper human needs for recognition and freedom, but even those skeptical of such claims might recognize the importance of articulating more inclusive models of political community as an alternative to the racial, ethnic, or religious narratives that have permeated political life. 6  The challenge, then, is to develop a model of civic solidarity that is "thick" enough to motivate support for justice and democracy while also "thin" enough to accommodate racial, ethnic, and religious diversity.

We might look first to Habermas's idea of constitutional patriotism (Verfassungspatriotismus). The idea emerged from a particular national history, to denote attachment to the liberal democratic institutions of the postwar Federal Republic of Germany, but Habermas and others have taken it to be a generalizable vision for liberal democratic societies, as well as for supranational communities such as the European Union. On this view, what binds citizens together is their common allegiance to the ideals embodied in a shared political culture. The only "common denominator for a constitutional patriotism" is that "every citizen be socialized into a common political culture." 7

Habermas points to the United States as a leading example of a multicultural society where constitutional principles have taken root in a political culture without depending on "all citizens' sharing the same language or the same ethnic and cultural origins." 8  The basis of American solidarity is not any particular racial or ethnic identity or religious beliefs, but universal moral ideals embodied in American political culture and set forth in such seminal texts as the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. Based on a minimal commonality of shared ideals, constitutional patriotism is attractive for the agnosticism toward particular moral and religious outlooks and ethnocultural identities to which it aspires.

What does constitutional patriotism suggest for the sort of reception immigrants should receive? There has been a general shift in Western Europe and North America in the standards governing access to citizenship from cultural markers to values, and this is a development that constitutional patriots would applaud. In the United States those seeking to become citizens must demonstrate basic knowledge of U.S. government and history. A newly revised U.S. citizenship test was instituted in October 2008 with the hope that it will serve, in the words of the chief of the Office of Citizenship, Alfonso Aguilar, as "an instrument to promote civic learning and patriotism." 9 The revised test attempts to move away from civics trivia to emphasize political ideas and concepts. (There is still a fair amount of trivia: "How many amendments does the Constitution have?" "What is the capital of your state?") The new test asks more open-ended questions about government powers and political concepts: "What does the judicial branch do?" "What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful?" "What is freedom of religion?" "What is the 'rule of law'?" 10

Constitutional patriots would endorse this focus on values and principles. In Habermas's view, legal principles are anchored in the "political culture," which he suggests is separable from "ethical-cultural" forms of life. Acknowledging that in many countries the "ethical-cultural" form of life of the majority is "fused" with the "political culture," he argues that the "level of the shared political culture must be uncoupled from the level of subcultures and their prepolitical identities." 11  All that should be expected of immigrants is that they embrace the constitutional principles as interpreted by the political culture, not that they necessarily embrace the majority's ethical-cultural forms.

Yet language is a key aspect of "ethical-cultural" forms of life, shaping people's worldviews and experiences. It is through language that individuals become who they are. Since a political community must conduct its affairs in at least one language, the ethical-cultural and political cannot be completely "uncoupled." As theorists of multiculturalism have stressed, complete separation of state and particularistic identities is impossible; government decisions about the language of public institutions, public holidays, and state symbols unavoidably involve recognizing and supporting particular ethnic and religious groups over others. 12 In the United States, English language ability has been a statutory qualification for naturalization since 1906, originally as a requirement of oral ability and later as a requirement of English literacy. Indeed, support for the principles of the Constitution has been interpreted as requiring English literacy. 13 The language requirement might be justified as a practical matter (we need some language to be the common language of schools, government, and the workplace, so why not the language of the majority?), but for a great many citizens, the language requirement is also viewed as a key marker of national identity. The continuing centrality of language in naturalization policy prevents us from saying that what it means to be an American is purely a matter of shared values.

Another misconception about constitutional patriotism is that it is necessarily more inclusive of newcomers than cultural nationalist models of solidarity. Its inclusiveness depends on which principles are held up as the polity's shared principles, and its normative substance depends on and must be evaluated in light of a background theory of justice, freedom, or democracy; it does not by itself provide such a theory. Consider ideological requirements for naturalization in U.S. history. The first naturalization law of 1790 required nothing more than an oath to support the U.S. Constitution. The second naturalization act added two ideological elements: the renunciation of titles or orders of nobility and the requirement that one be found to have "behaved as a man . . . attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States." 14  This attachment requirement was revised in 1940 from a behavioral qualification to a personal attribute, but this did not help clarify what attachment to constitutional principles requires. 15 Not surprisingly, the "attachment to constitutional principles" requirement has been interpreted as requiring a belief in representative government, federalism, separation of powers, and constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. It has also been interpreted as disqualifying anarchists, polygamists, and conscientious objectors for citizenship. In 1950, support for communism was added to the list of grounds for disqualification from naturalization – as well as grounds for exclusion and deportation. 16 The 1990 Immigration Act retained the McCarthy-era ideological qualifications for naturalization; current law disqualifies those who advocate or affiliate with an organization that advocates communism or opposition to all organized government. 17 Patriotism, like nationalism, is capable of excess and pathology, as evidenced by loyalty oaths and campaigns against "un-American" activities.

In contrast to constitutional patriots, liberal nationalists acknowledge that states cannot be culturally neutral even if they tried. States cannot avoid coercing citizens into preserving a national culture of some kind because state institutions and laws define a political culture, which in turn shapes the range of customs and practices of daily life that constitute a national culture. David Miller, a leading theorist of liberal nationalism, defines national identity according to the following elements: a shared belief among a group of individuals that they belong together, historical continuity stretching across generations, connection to a particular territory, and a shared set of characteristics constituting a national culture. 18  It is not enough to share a common identity rooted in a shared history or a shared territory; a shared national culture is a necessary feature of national identity. I share a national culture with someone, even if we never meet, if each of us has been initiated into the traditions and customs of a national culture.

What sort of content makes up a national culture? Miller says more about what a national culture does not entail. It need not be based on biological descent. Even if nationalist doctrines have historically been based on notions of biological descent and race, Miller emphasizes that sharing a national culture is, in principle, compatible with people belonging to a diversity of racial and ethnic groups. In addition, every member need not have been born in the homeland. Thus, "immigration need not pose problems, provided only that the immigrants come to share a common national identity, to which they may contribute their own distinctive ingredients." 19

Liberal nationalists focus on the idea of culture, as opposed to ethnicity or descent, in order to reconcile nationalism with liberalism. Thicker than constitutional patriotism, liberal nationalism, Miller maintains, is thinner than ethnic models of belonging. Both nationality and ethnicity have cultural components, but what is said to distinguish "civic" nations from "ethnic" nations is that the latter are exclusionary and closed on grounds of biological descent; the former are, in principle, open to anyone willing to adopt the national culture. 20

Yet the civic-ethnic distinction is not so clear-cut in practice. Every nation has an "ethnic core." As Anthony Smith observes

[M]odern "civic" nations have not in practice really transcended ethnicity or ethnic sentiments. This is a Western mirage, reality-as-wish; closer examination always reveals the ethnic core of civic nations, in practice, even in immigrant societies with their early pioneering and dominant (English and Spanish) culture in America, Australia, or Argentina, a culture that provided the myths and language of the would-be nation. 21

This blurring of the civic-ethnic distinction is reflected throughout U.S. history with the national culture often defined in ethnic, racial, and religious terms. 22

Why, then, if all national cultures have ethnic cores, should those outside this core embrace the national culture? Miller acknowledges that national cultures have typically been formed around the ethnic group that is dominant in a particular territory and therefore bear "the hallmarks of that group: language, religion, cultural identity." Muslim identity in contemporary Britain becomes politicized when British national identity is conceived as containing "an Anglo-Saxon bias which discriminates against Muslims (and other ethnic minorities)." But he maintains that his idea of nationality can be made "democratic in so far as it insists that everyone should take part in this debate [about what constitutes the national identity] on an equal footing, and sees the formal arenas of politics as the main (though not the only) place where the debate occurs." 23

The major difficulty here is that national cultures are not typically the product of collective deliberation in which all have the opportunity to participate. The challenge is to ensure that historically marginalized groups, as well as new groups of immigrants, have genuine opportunities to contribute "on an equal footing" to shaping the national culture. Without such opportunities, liberal nationalism collapses into conservative nationalism of the kind defended by Samuel Huntington. He calls for immigrants to assimilate into America's "Anglo- Protestant culture." Like Miller, Huntington views ideology as "a weak glue to hold together people otherwise lacking in racial, ethnic, or cultural sources of community," and he rejects race and ethnicity as constituent elements of national identity. 24 Instead, he calls on Americans of all races and ethnicities to "reinvigorate their core culture." Yet his "cultural" vision of America is pervaded by ethnic and religious elements: it is not only of a country "committed to the principles of the Creed," but also of "a deeply religious and primarily Christian country, encompassing several religious minorities, adhering to Anglo- Protestant values, speaking English, maintaining its European cultural heritage." 25 That the cultural core of the United States is the culture of its historically dominant groups is a point that Huntington unabashedly accepts.

Cultural nationalist visions of solidarity would lend support to immigration and immigrant policies that give weight to linguistic and ethnic preferences and impose special requirements on individuals from groups deemed to be outside the nation's "core culture." One example is the practice in postwar Germany of giving priority in immigration and naturalization policy to ethnic Germans; they were the only foreign nationals who were accepted as permanent residents set on the path toward citizenship. They were treated not as immigrants but "resettlers" (Aussiedler) who acted on their constitutional right to return to their country of origin. In contrast, non-ethnically German guestworkers (Gastarbeiter) were designated as "aliens" (Auslander) under the 1965 German Alien Law and excluded from German citizenship. 26 Another example is the Japanese naturalization policy that, until the late 1980s, required naturalized citizens to adopt a Japanese family name. The language requirement in contemporary naturalization policies in the West is the leading remaining example of a cultural nationalist integration policy; it reflects not only a concern with the economic and political integration of immigrants but also a nationalist concern with preserving a distinctive national culture.

Constitutional patriotism and liberal nationalism are accounts of civic solidarity that deal with what one might call first-level diversity. Individuals have different group identities and hold divergent moral and religious outlooks, yet they are expected to share the same idea of what it means to be American: either patriots committed to the same set of ideals or co-nationals sharing the relevant cultural attributes. Charles Taylor suggests an alternative approach, the idea of "deep diversity." Rather than trying to fix some minimal content as the basis of solidarity, Taylor acknowledges not only the fact of a diversity of group identities and outlooks (first-level diversity), but also the fact of a diversity of ways of belonging to the political community (second-level or deep diversity). Taylor introduces the idea of deep diversity in the context of discussing what it means to be Canadian:

Someone of, say, Italian extraction in Toronto or Ukrainian extraction in Edmonton might indeed feel Canadian as a bearer of individual rights in a multicultural mosaic. . . . But this person might nevertheless accept that a Québécois or a Cree or a Déné might belong in a very different way, that these persons were Canadian through being members of their national communities. Reciprocally, the Québécois, Cree, or Déné would accept the perfect legitimacy of the "mosaic" identity.

Civic solidarity or political identity is not "defined according to a concrete content," but, rather, "by the fact that everybody is attached to that identity in his or her own fashion, that everybody wants to continue that history and proposes to make that community progress." 27 What leads people to support second-level diversity is both the desire to be a member of the political community and the recognition of disagreement about what it means to be a member. In our world, membership in a political community provides goods we cannot do without; this, above all, may be the source of our desire for political community.

Even though Taylor contrasts Canada with the United States, accepting the myth of America as a nation of immigrants, the United States also has a need for acknowledgment of diverse modes of belonging based on the distinctive histories of different groups. Native Americans, African Americans, Irish Americans, Vietnamese Americans, and Mexican Americans: across these communities of people, we can find not only distinctive group identities, but also distinctive ways of belonging to the political community.

Deep diversity is not a recapitulation of the idea of cultural pluralism first developed in the United States by Horace Kallen, who argued for assimilation "in matters economic and political" and preservation of differences "in cultural consciousness." 28  In Kallen's view, hyphenated Americans lived their spiritual lives in private, on the left side of the hyphen, while being culturally anonymous on the right side of the hyphen. The ethnic-political distinction maps onto a private-public dichotomy; the two spheres are to be kept separate, such that Irish Americans, for example, are culturally Irish and politically American. In contrast, the idea of deep diversity recognizes that Irish Americans are culturally Irish American and politically Irish American. As Michael Walzer put it in his discussion of American identity almost twenty years ago, the culture of hyphenated Americans has been shaped by American culture, and their politics is significantly ethnic in style and substance. 29  The idea of deep or second-level diversity is not just about immigrant ethnics, which is the focus of both Kallen's and Walzer's analyses, but also racial minorities, who, based on their distinctive experiences of exclusion and struggles toward inclusion, have distinctive ways of belonging to America.

While attractive for its inclusiveness, the deep diversity model may be too thin a basis for civic solidarity in a democratic society. Can there be civic solidarity without citizens already sharing a set of values or a culture in the first place? In writing elsewhere about how different groups within democracy might "share identity space," Taylor himself suggests that the "basic principles of republican constitutions – democracy itself and human rights, among them" constitute a "non-negotiable" minimum. Yet, what distinguishes Taylor's deep diversity model of solidarity from Habermas's constitutional patriotism is the recognition that "historic identities cannot be just abstracted from." The minimal commonality of shared principles is "accompanied by a recognition that these principles can be realized in a number of different ways, and can never be applied neutrally without some confronting of the substantive religious ethnic-cultural differences in societies." 30 And in contrast to liberal nationalism, deep diversity does not aim at specifying a common national culture that must be shared by all. What matters is not so much the content of solidarity, but the ethos generated by making the effort at mutual understanding and respect.

Canada's approach to the integration of immigrants may be the closest thing there is to "deep diversity." Canadian naturalization policy is not so different from that of the United States: a short required residency period, relatively low application fees, a test of history and civics knowledge, and a language exam. 31 Where the United States and Canada diverge is in their public commitment to diversity. Through its official multiculturalism policies, Canada expresses a commitment to the value of diversity among immigrant communities through funding for ethnic associations and supporting heritage language schools. 32 Constitutional patriots and liberal nationalists say that immigrant integration should be a two-way process, that immigrants should shape the host society's dominant culture just as they are shaped by it. Multicultural accommodations actually provide the conditions under which immigrant integration might genuinely become a two-way process. Such policies send a strong message that immigrants are a welcome part of the political community and should play an active role in shaping its future evolution.

The question of solidarity may not be the most urgent task Americans face today; war and economic crisis loom larger. But the question of solidarity remains important in the face of ongoing large-scale immigration and its effects on intergroup relations, which in turn affect our ability to deal with issues of economic inequality and democracy. I hope to have shown that patriotism is not easily separated from nationalism, that nationalism needs to be evaluated in light of shared principles, and that respect for deep diversity presupposes a commitment to some shared values, including perhaps diversity itself. Rather than viewing the three models of civic solidarity I have discussed as mutually exclusive – as the proponents of each sometimes seem to suggest – we should think about how they might be made to work together with each model tempering the excesses of the others.

What is now formally required of immigrants seeking to become American citizens most clearly reflects the first two models of solidarity: professed allegiance to the principles of the Constitution (constitutional patriotism) and adoption of a shared culture by demonstrating the ability to read, write, and speak English (liberal nationalism). The revised citizenship test makes gestures toward respect for first-level diversity and inclusion of historically marginalized groups with questions such as, "Who lived in America before the Europeans arrived?" "What group of people was taken to America and sold as slaves?" "What did Susan B. Anthony do?" "What did Martin Luther King, Jr. do?" The election of the first African American president of the United States is a significant step forward. A more inclusive American solidarity requires the recognition not only of the fact that Americans are a diverse people, but also that they have distinctive ways of belonging to America.

• 1 For comments on earlier versions of this essay, I am grateful to participants in the Kadish Center Workshop on Law, Philosophy, and Political Theory at Berkeley Law School; the Penn Program on Democracy, Citizenship, and Constitutionalism; and the UCLA Legal Theory Workshop. I am especially grateful to Christopher Kutz, Sarah Paoletti, Eric Rakowski, Samuel Scheffler, Seana Shiffrin, and Rogers Smith.
• 2 Philip Gleason, "American Identity and Americanization," in Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups , ed. Stephan Thernstrom (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1980), 31–32, 56–57.
• 3 David Hollinger, "From Identity to Solidarity," Dædalus 135 (4) (Fall 2006): 24.
• 4 David Miller, "Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Theoretical Reflections," in Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies , ed. Keith Banting and Will Kymlicka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 328, 334.
• 5 Charles Taylor, "Why Democracy Needs Patriotism," in For Love of Country? ed. Joshua Cohen (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996), 121.
• 6 On the purpose and varieties of narratives of collective identity and membership that have been and should be articulated not only for subnational and transnational, but also for national communities, see Rogers M. Smith, Stories of Peoplehood: The Politics and Morals of Political Membership (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
• 7 Jürgen Habermas, "Citizenship and National Identity," in Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy , trans. William Rehg (Cambridge, Mass.: mit Press, 1996), 500.
• 9 Edward Rothstein, "Connections: Refining the Tests That Confer Citizenship," The New York Times , January 23, 2006.
• 10 See http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/100q.pdf (accessed November 28, 2008).
• 11 Habermas, "The European Nation-State," in Between Facts and Norms , trans. Rehg, 118.
• 12 Charles Taylor, "The Politics of Recognition," in Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition , ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994); Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
• 13 8 U.S.C., section 1423 (1988); In re Katz , 21 F.2d 867 (E.D. Mich. 1927) (attachment to principles of Constitution implies English literacy requirement).
• 14 Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat., 103 and Act of Jan. 29, 1795, ch. 20, section 1, 1 Stat., 414. See James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship , 1608–1870 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 239–243. James Madison opposed the second requirement: "It was hard to make a man swear that he preferred the Constitution of the United States, or to give any general opinion, because he may, in his own private judgment, think Monarchy or Aristocracy better, and yet be honestly determined to support his Government as he finds it"; Annals of Cong. 1, 1022–1023.
• 15 8 U.S.C., section 1427(a)(3). See also Schneiderman v. United States , 320 U.S. 118, 133 n.12 (1943), which notes the change from behaving as a person attached to constitutional principles to being a person attached to constitutional principles.
• 16 Internal Security Act of 1950, ch. 1024, sections 22, 25, 64 Stat. 987, 1006–1010, 1013–1015. The Internal Security Act provisions were included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, sections 212(a)(28), 241(a)(6), 313, 66 Stat. 163, 184–186, 205–206, 240–241.
• 17 Gerald L. Neuman, "Justifying U.S. Naturalization Policies," Virginia Journal of International Law 35 (1994): 255.
• 18 David Miller, On Nationality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 25.
• 19 Ibid., 25–26.
• 20 On the civic-ethnic distinction, see W. Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992); David Hollinger, Post-Ethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1995); Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
• 21 Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), 216.
• 22 See Rogers M. Smith, Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).
• 23 Miller, On Nationality , 122–123, 153–154.
• 24 Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 12. In his earlier book, American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1981), Huntington defended a "civic" view of American identity based on the "political ideas of the American creed," which include liberty, equality, democracy, individualism, and private property (46). His change in view seems to have been motivated in part by his belief that principles and ideology are too weak to unite a political community, and also by his fears about immigrants maintaining transnational identities and loyalties – in particular, Mexican immigrants whom he sees as creating bilingual, bicultural, and potentially separatist regions; Who Are We? 205.
• 25 Huntington, Who Are We? 31, 20.
• 26 Christian Joppke, "The Evolution of Alien Rights in the United States, Germany, and the European Union," Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices , ed. T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001), 44. In 2000, the German government moved from a strictly jus sanguinis rule toward one that combines jus sanguinis and jus soli , which opens up access to citizenship to non-ethnically German migrants, including Turkish migrant workers and their descendants. A minimum length of residency of eight (down from ten) years is also required, and dual citizenship is not formally recognized. While more inclusive than before, German citizenship laws remain the least inclusive among Western European and North American countries, with inclusiveness measured by the following criteria: whether citizenship is granted by jus soli (whether children of non-citizens who are born in a country's territory can acquire citizenship), the length of residency required for naturalization, and whether naturalized immigrants are permitted to hold dual citizenship. See Marc Morjé Howard, "Comparative Citizenship: An Agenda for Cross-National Research," Perspectives on Politics 4 (2006): 443–455.
• 27 Charles Taylor, "Shared and Divergent Values," in Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism , ed. Guy Laforest (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993), 183, 130.
• 28 Horace M. Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United States (New York: Boni & Liveright, 1924), 114–115.
• 29 Michael Walzer, "What Does It Mean to Be an 'American'?" (1974); reprinted in What It Means to Be an American: Essays on the American Experience (New York: Marsilio, 1990), 46.
• 30 Charles Taylor, "Democratic Exclusion (and Its Remedies?)," in Multiculturalism, Liberalism, and Democracy , ed. Rajeev Bhargava et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 163.
• 31 The differences in naturalization policy are a slightly longer residency requirement in the United States (five years in contrast to Canada's three) and Canada's official acceptance of dual citizenship.
• 32 See Irene Bloemraad, Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.

What Does it Mean to be an American? Reexamining the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship

What Does it Mean to Be American?

• Posted November 18, 2019
• By Jill Anderson

It started with a simple and yet difficult question for Lowell High School students in teacher Jessica Lander’s Seminar in American Diversity: What does it mean to be American?

Over the course of a year, the students delved into their identity for the class project that was soon dubbed We Are America . Now, that project has grown into a national phenomenon inspiring thousands of students around the country to share stories about their unique identities.

“This project opens the door to students wanting to share and be vulnerable…,” said Lander, Ed.M.’15, during a recent workshop at Gutman Library at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Is that a dangerous space to bring students to? I think as an educator what I try to do in class is open doors and create space; if students want to share a particular story, they can navigate a way to share that story. I’m not going to push anyone to share a happy story, a sad story, a big story or a small story. It’s the story you want to share.”

Safiya Al Samarrai's story is one of the many on display at Gutman Library's We Are America exhibit.

From the onset, Lander’s students were aware that their stories would be shared publicly, and potentially beyond their school. During the yearlong project, the students wrote many drafts of their deeply personal essays, often about immigrating to America or about certain aspects of their American experience — from mental health challenges to learning to accept the color of their skin. Those stories culminated in the book We Are America, which features portraits alongside the students’ stories.

A collection of the portraits and stories are now being exhibited at Gutman Library, where Lander and several of the students spoke about how the project came together and how other educators can explore similar topics with their own students.

“Many students were very courageous in sharing stories that are vulnerable,” Lander said. “In that space as an educator it’s [about] being there to support.”

Almost a year after the project began, it was the students – many now graduated and moved on to college – who expressed interest in scaling it beyond their school.

“On the last day of school, we had the idea: Let’s make the project a national project,” said Safiya Al Samarrai, noting that at first they weren’t sure how to make that happen but jumped at the opportunity to take the project to the next level. “It’s very exciting and powerful.”

Now, in collaboration with Facing History and Ourselves , Reimagining Migration , and New York’s Tenement Museum , the project has expanded to 23 states, involving 36 teachers and 1,300 students. At the end of next year, those new stories will be collected into different volumes based on the regions.

Robert Aliganyira, whose story is among those on display at Gutman Library's We Are America exhibit, participates in the panel discussion.

“We are breathing in a really toxic air right now …. As educators, how do we push this out, how do we filter the air, empower young people so they actually have a chance to change the conversation?” said Adam Strom, director of the education initiative at Reimagining Migration. “I think where Reimaging Migration and Jessica Lander … intersect is we believe very much in the power of young people and the power of children to enter these conversations and change these conversations. In the middle of a toxic environment when everyone is talking about you, how powerful for people to reach out and say, ‘This is actually who we are.’”

For Philly Marte, one of the students from Lander’s class who continues to work on the project as a college freshman, the stories are important. “I believe this project and these stories will create a sense of unity within this country for the people writing these stories and reading these stories,” he said. “Your story matters. Your voice matters and there’s someone else that’s gone through what you have and understands. I believe it will create more peace and more understanding across everyone who comes in contact with this project and this book. I’m not just saying that because I’m one of the people leading it but I honestly believe these stories could change a few lives.”

The latest research, perspectives, and highlights from the Harvard Graduate School of Education

Related Articles

Educating in an Era of Mass Migration

How to Help Kids Become Skilled Citizens

An exploration of ways in which educators can instill civic identity in students

The Greatest Battle in History

• Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance. 

• The Hoover Story
• Hoover Timeline & History
• Mission Statement
• Vision of the Institution Today
• Key Focus Areas
• About our Fellows
• Research Programs
• Annual Reports
• Hoover in DC
• Fellowship Opportunities
• Visit Hoover
• David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
• Newsletter Subscriptions
• Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

• Scott Atlas
• Thomas Sargent
• Stephen Kotkin
• Michael McConnell
• Morris P. Fiorina
• John F. Cogan
• China's Global Sharp Power Project
• Economic Policy Group
• History Working Group
• Hoover Education Success Initiative
• National Security Task Force
• National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
• Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
• Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
• Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
• State & Local Governance
• Strengthening US-India Relations
• Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
• Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

• Hoover Fellows Program
• National Fellows Program
• Student Fellowship Program
• Veteran Fellowship Program
• Congressional Fellowship Program
• Media Fellowship Program
• Silas Palmer Fellowship
• Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

• Determining America’s Role in the World
• Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
• Empowering State and Local Governance
• Revitalizing History
• Confronting and Competing with China
• Revitalizing American Institutions
• Reforming K-12 Education
• Understanding Public Opinion
• Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
• Energy & Environment
• Health Care
• Immigration
• International Affairs
• Key Countries / Regions
• Law & Policy
• Politics & Public Opinion
• Science & Technology
• Security & Defense
• State & Local
• Books by Fellows
• Published Works by Fellows
• Working Papers
• Congressional Testimony
• Hoover Press
• PERIODICALS
• The Caravan
• China's Global Sharp Power
• Economic Policy
• History Lab
• Hoover Education
• Global Policy & Strategy
• National Security, Technology & Law
• Middle East and the Islamic World
• Military History & Contemporary Conflict
• Renewing Indigenous Economies
• State and Local Governance
• Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

• China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
• Email newsletters
• Hoover Daily Report
• Subscription to Email Alerts
• Periodicals
• California on Your Mind
• Defining Ideas
• Hoover Digest
• Video Series
• Uncommon Knowledge
• Battlegrounds
• GoodFellows
• Hoover Events
• Capital Conversations
• Hoover Book Club
• AUDIO PODCASTS
• Matters of Policy & Politics
• Economics, Applied
• Free Speech Unmuted
• Secrets of Statecraft
• Pacific Century
• Libertarian
• Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at  Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

• Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
• Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
• Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

• About Hoover Institution
• Meet Our Fellows
• Focus Areas
• Research Teams
• Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

To Be An American In The 21st Century

The question of what it means to be American has been debated since the founding of our republic, and we are at another moment when the question has taken on a new urgency.

In The Federalist Papers No. 2: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence for the Independent Journal , John Jay wrote to the people of New York arguing for the ratification of the US Constitution around the issue of cultural unity. He reasoned for unity because Americans were “a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general liberty and independence.”

In 1787, Jay was nuanced in that he argued an important part of American identity was also a belief in the American creed such as equality, liberty, individualism, and independence, which are enshrined in both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution he was working to ratify.

Others have interpreted Jay’s emphasis on culture more narrowly, arguing for a more tribal American identity. The late Samuel Huntington , a Harvard professor of political science, writes in his book Who are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, “the single most immediate and most serious challenge to America’s traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially Mexico.” Huntington argues that unlike past immigrant groups, Mexicans and other Latinos have not assimilated into US culture, thereby rejecting the Anglo-Protestant values that built America. Huntington then warns this persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples, two cultures, and two languages, and we ignore it at our own peril.

Huntington’s nationalism, and parochial extension of John Jay’s line of reasoning, is in direct conflict with the American identity Abraham Lincoln espoused against the anti-immigrant sentiment of his day. In a speech the future president gave in Chicago on July 10, 1858, as part of the Lincoln-Douglas debates , Lincoln discussed how on every 4 th of July Americans celebrate our Founding Fathers. However, he argues brilliantly that those who have immigrated to the United States from Germany, Ireland, France, and Scandinavia are every bit as American as those who trace their ancestry back to the founding of our republic because the principles of the Declaration of Independence serve as an electric chord running through all our hearts.

In embracing an ideal and principle that was meant to be taken literally, namely that all men are created equal, Lincoln also rejects Douglas’s beliefs that the ideals of the Declaration were reserved solely for descendants of the American Revolution and not later arrivals.

Remnants of these disagreements continue today. In his presidential farewell address , Ronald Reagan discussed the renewal that immigration brings to our identity and nation. “Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity,” said Reagan, “we’re a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost.”

Reagan views align with those of Abraham Lincoln that beliefs in our founding principles and the common American culture being continually enriched is what makes our identity.

In sharp contrast, President Trump today attacks Hispanics and Muslims as being different than other Americans and a threat to our nation. This nativist sense of national identity calls to mind the nationalism of Samuel Huntington and the most parochial reading of Federalist 2. The irony that Trump holds up the Norwegian immigrant as an ideal while Lincoln had to argue Scandinavians should be part of the American family in his 1858 speech is lost on him.

Like then-Senate candidate Lincoln and President Reagan, I believe Americans share in our nation’s principles and political culture set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

I also believe there has been and remains a cultural expectation and responsibility that immigrants will not only bring diverse perspectives but also join their new country as citizens. Jürgen Habermas , a German sociologist and philosopher, wrote of an Iranian immigrant to Germany who chooses to stand with other Germans at a concentration camp to participate in the acknowledgment of the nation’s collective guilt, even though his ancestors were not part of those crimes.

We honor our achievements as a sense of American culture, such as winning World Wars I and II, putting a man on the moon, prevailing in the Cold War, securing civil rights, and ushering in the digital age. We acknowledge the sacrifices of the generations of men and women who spilled blood, whether in places like Normandy or Selma’s Edmund Pettus Bridge , so we can have opportunity. We also, regardless of background, have common national traditions such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, Veteran’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Halloween; and sports such as baseball, basketball, and American football that bind us. We engage in philanthropy, like following the rules, are generally neighborly and friendly, and keep public places clean. Yet, a hallmark of being an American is also carrying on the cultural traditions of our ancestors whether by bringing soccer, our native cuisines, our ethnic dances, or holidays like Diwali and Eid al-Adha to this country.

In the twenty-first century, Americans are more ethnically and racially diverse than we have ever been. Much of this change has been driven by immigration. In 1960, Europeans accounted for seven of eight immigrants in the United States. By 2010, nine out of ten were from outside Europe. In 1965, 84 percent of the country was non-Hispanic white, compared with 62 percent today. Nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the United States in the past fifty years, mostly from Latin America and Asia. This immigration has brought young workers who help offset the large-scale retirement of the baby boomers. Today, a near-record 14 percent of the country’s population is foreign born compared with just 5 percent in 1965. This diversity strengthens our country and makes it a better place to live.

At a time when growth in the US economy and those of other developed nations is slowing, immigration is vitally important to our economy. Immigrants today are more than twice as likely to start a new business. In fact, 43 percent of companies in the 2017 Fortune 500, including several technology firms in Silicon Valley, were launched by foreign-born entrepreneurs , many arriving on family visas. Immigrants also take out patents at two-to-three times the rate of native-born citizens, benefiting our entire country. Family and skilled-based visas complement each other: America would become less attractive to those who come on skills-based visas without the chance for their families to join them.

However, it is important to ensure that these economic benefits help Americans. For too long, some corporations have abused H-1B, L-1, and H-2B visas as a cheap way to displace American workers. To close these loopholes and overhaul the visa programs to protect workers and crack down on foreign outsourcing companies that deprive qualified Americans of high-skill jobs, I have cointroduced bipartisan legislation to restore the H-1B visa program back to its original intent, protect American workers, and make sure we are also providing opportunities for STEM and developing talent here at home.

When done right—as John Feinblatt, chairman of the New American Economy, stated—“The data shows it, and nearly 1,500 economists know it: immigration means more talent, more jobs, and broad economic benefits for American workers and companies alike.”

For many immigrants to this nation, a challenge in the American identity is finding a balance and respect for some of our existing American traditions, while also being proud of one’s own heritage.

I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. It is fairly suburban, rural, and was 98 percent Caucasian in the 1980s. When my family moved onto Amsterdam Avenue, there was a little bit of chatter and concern on our street that the Khannas were moving in. My parents finally figured out what the fuss was about: On Christmas Eve, everyone on our street would put candle lights on the street. We are of Hindu faith, and there was concern that we wouldn’t. My Dad said that we would be happy to put the candle lights on the street, and we put out lights every year. We were always invited to and attended all the Christmas Eve parties. I also loved playing touch football in my neighbors’ backyards, participating in the same Little League games, avoiding cars while hitting hockey pucks on the road, and going to neighbors’ homes during school candy sales to raise money for charity.

But I never associated my childhood in anyway with giving up my core identity. Let me explain. Years later as a twenty-three-year-old, when I was interning for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (daughter of Robert Kennedy), her aide told me to go work on the Hill because I had an aptitude for policy. You cannot ever get elected, her aide said to me in a matter-of-fact tone, given your faith and heritage. I refrained from writing to him when I won, pointing out that while his boss lost her race for Congress, I ended up winning mine by 20 points . 

But I do remember talking to my parents back then about identity. They told me I will make it in this country if I just keep working hard and was ethical. It is a good and decent country, they assured me. But my Mom made me promise, given my grandfather’s struggle in jail during Gandhi’s independence movement, that I will never give up who I am. I never did.

Today, the grandson of a freedom fighter who remembers seeing his parents have their green cards stamped, represents the most economically powerful Congressional District in the world.

That is the story of America. That represents the hope of American immigrant families.

In many ways my story—born in Philadelphia on the bicentennial year of America’s founding in 1976 and growing up to represent Silicon Valley—is a testament to how open our nation still is to the dreams and aspirations of freedom-loving people who trace their lineage to every corner of the world.

We are still steps away from Lincoln’s hope of becoming a nation that lives up to our founding principles and ushers in a just and lasting peace. But here is what I know: we can be open to the voices of new immigrants without losing our core values or American culture—if anything, the new immigrants will only enrich our exceptional nation.   

Rep. Ro Khanna represents Silicon Valley and California’s 17 th Congressional District. Chris Schloesser, his legislative director, assisted with research for this piece.

Speaking of California and immigration, here’s how the Golden State’s population breaks down (the following numbers all courtesy of a May 2018 report by the Public Policy Institute of California). The nation state of 39.5 million residents is home to more than 10 million immigrants. In 2016, approximately 27% of California’s population was foreign-born (about twice the national percentage), with immigrants born in Latin America (51%) and Asia (39%) leading the way. Nearly eight in ten California immigrants are working-age adults (age 18 to 64)—that’s more than one-third of the entire states’ working-age population. A major concern for California’s future: the immigrant education gap. As recently as 2016, one-third (34%) of California’s immigrants hadn’t completed high school—more than four times that of US-born California residents (just 8%). Twenty-eight percent of California’s foreign-born residents hold at least a college bachelor’s degrees—again, less than California’s US-born residents (36%). Why that matters: the less education, the greater the challenge for immigrants to climb the economic ladder and make a go of it in California, home to high taxes, expensive housing, and a crushing cost of living .

[[{"fid":"257121","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_file_attr[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"1":{"format":"default","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_file_attr[und][0][value]":""}},"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default","data-delta":"1"}}]]

[[{"fid":"257126","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_file_attr[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"2":{"format":"default","alignment":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_file_attr[und][0][value]":""}},"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default","data-delta":"2"}}]]

Source: "Almost half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by American immigrants or their children" via Brookings

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — American Identity — What is an American: Defining the Identity

What is an American: Defining The Identity

• Categories: American Identity Native American

About this sample

Words: 489 |

Published: Sep 5, 2023

Words: 489 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, fundamentals of american identity.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 454 words

1 pages / 678 words

3 pages / 1578 words

5 pages / 2295 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on American Identity

What does it mean to be American? This question has been the subject of debate and discussion for centuries as the United States has evolved and grown. In this essay, we will explore the development of the American identity, the [...]

The question of what makes someone an American is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been debated and discussed for centuries. The United States of America is a diverse and dynamic country, comprised of individuals from [...]

America, a land of opportunity, freedom, and diversity, has captured the hearts of many individuals throughout history. From its stunning landscapes to its vibrant cities, America has a unique charm that draws people from all [...]

American identity is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been shaped by a variety of factors throughout history. In her short story "Mericans," Sandra Cisneros explores the theme of American identity through the eyes of [...]

‘Slaughterhouse-Five’ is a science fiction novel written by Kurt Vonnegut. The author of this novel wrote about the bombing in Dresden during the World War II. The author of this novel witnessed as American Prisoner of War and [...]

America is a country that allows me to vote when I’m 18, I’ll have a say in who I want for as the next president, or governor of my state. America is a country where I have to follow laws for everyone’s safety. America is the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Research: What Is American Identity and Why Does It Matter?

Why Does the American Identity Matter?

The most important reason for understanding American identity is related to white racial identification. It may not be prevalent in U.S. political attitudes, but it’s still an issue. A survey from 2012 asked white respondents to indicate if whiteness represented the way they thought of themselves most of the time, as opposed to identifying themselves as Americans . One fifth of the survey’s white respondents said that they preferred the term white to American when identifying themselves.

How to Analyze American Identity

• There’s no such thing as a universal identity, especially for an omni-cultural country such as the USA.
• Everyone has their own understanding of what it means to be American today, as citizens come from different religious, ethnic, ideological, and geographical backgrounds.
• Explaining the concept of American identity calls for an inclusive approach based on solidarity.
• Depending on how you discuss the concept, an academic essay may require arguments on modern-day immigration and immigrant policies. How do they fit within the common understanding of American identity?

Who Are We?

Guest Contributor

The most important good news and events of the day.

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox!

Alexandria Gets Another New Mural!

Say hello to the turkish coffee lady, related articles.

La’Baik Mediterranean Restaurant Opens in Del Ray Neighborhood

Volunteers Needed for Jones Point Marsh Cleanup April 21

Get Caffeinated On The Old Town Coffee Crawl

VIDEO and PHOTOS: Alexandria City Students and Leaders Celebrate and Honor Essential Workers

Being an American

How do the founding

The newly updated Being an American curriculum has been modified to accommodate middle school grade levels and ESL students. Lessons contain vocabulary glossaries and shortened versions of primary sources that hold students’ attention while fostering critical thinking.

Want to create your own playlists, save resources to your library, and access answer keys sign up for an educator account.

American Principles and Virtues

Lesson 1 outlines the main themes of the Being an American curriculum and introduces the final capstone project, in which students will capture and synthesize ideas from the lessons.

American Civic Virtues

American history is filled with examples of the nation’s leaders and other citizens demonstrating civic virtues.

The Enlightenment and Social Contract Theory

What were the major ideas of the Enlightenment? How did the Enlightenment influence the United States’ Founding?

The Declaration of Independence

What were the philosophical bases and practical purposes of the Declaration of Independence?

The Guiding Star of Equality: The Declaration of Independence and Equality in U.S. History

How has the Declaration of Independence inspired Americans throughout history to help the country live up to its Founding Principles?

An “Apple of Gold” in a “Picture of Silver”: The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution

What is the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? How do these Founding documents reflect common republican principles?

“A Glorious Liberty Document”: The U.S. Constitution and Its Principles

How are the republican principles of limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances reflected in the U.S. Constitution?

The Creation of the Bill of Rights

How does the Bill of Rights protect individual liberties and limit the power of government? How is this seen in our everyday lives?

The Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights

How has the Supreme Court decided cases in controversies related to the Bill of Rights?

American Heroes, Past and Present

How have Americans shown civic virtues throughout history?

Capstone Project: What Does “Being an American” Mean to Me?

This project provides students with an opportunity to apply and showcase what they have learned throughout their study of the Being an American curriculum. Students will identify a topic related to the curriculum that they wish to learn more about, research that topic, and then develop a product to share with the class on an assigned date.

What Does it Mean to be American?

To me, being American is much more than just being an American citizen or living in American.

To me, being American is much more than just being an American citizen or living in American. It seems people in America have a responsibility, and an obligation to be the best person they can be. It’s part of being an American, and another part is doing your part to keep society running properly. One of the best things about this place we call home, is that the country is basically run completely by the people inside it. Another great thing about being an American is the ability to have the American dream. In an American Creed article by Forbes, the American dream is described as “anyone, through gumption and hard work, can achieve any degree of financial success.” But, a survey ran by Erik Sherman of Forbes magazine said that only 23% of people thought it was common for someone to start poor, and get rich, even though that is categorized by many people as the American dream. A different study by Pew Research center, said that 36% of U.S. adults say their family has achieved the American dream, while another 46% say they are “on their way” to achieving it. This study defined the American dream as “freedom of choice in how to live, having a good family life and retiring comfortably.” Part of the reason Americans feel they haven’t achieved the American Dream and don’t have a chance to, is because our country has gotten so far from its ideals.

In Tribe, Sebastian Junger says, “For humans to be happy, they need autonomy, competence, and community.” People need to feel competent at what they do, authentic in their lives, and they need to be connected to others. Right now, in America people don’t live in tight knit communities, and most people don’t like what they do for a living. This leads to depression, and makes it almost impossible to achieve the American dream. Junger says, “It’s also why when people come back from war they suffer from PTSD and depression.” In order for everyone to get the American Dream, America needs to go back to it’s ideals, that every man is created equal. Another problem is that our prison systems are dominated by minorities. The Federal Bureau of Prisons shows, around 50% of people in prison are minorities. That statistic alone proves to me that the American dream is far from where it needs to be. Right now, everyone doesn’t have the same opportunity to achieve the American Dream.

America was built on the idea that all men are created equal, and that there shall be liberty and justice for all. However, today our country is split into multiple sections, from our politics, races, and lifestyles. In the past, we still had close to the same diversity, but we were closer as a nation, and didn’t let problems split us apart, rather bring us closer together. Junger, in Tribe, also says, “intact communities are more likely to survive than fragmented ones.” Our nation needs to get back to how people lived community wise, at the beginning of time, where there was tight knit communities.

Being American means to be free and have equal opportunity. Also to have the ability to do what you want, how you want, and where you want. The amendments are what give us those freedoms, like the freedom of speech, and the freedom of religion. We’ve strayed from our ideals created by the founding fathers, and became more individualistic, and selfish. America needs to get back to the idea that everyone is created equal.

• Written by Eddie F.
• From Columbus High School
• Group 7 Created with Sketch Beta. Upvote
• citizenship
• Report a problem

Columbus High School What It Means To Be American

This group is comprised of Columbus High School students in Columbus, Montana. They have written arguments with the National Writing Project's C3WP materials to answer the question "What does it mean to be American?" posed by Mark Meckler in the documentary film American Creed.

More responses from What It Means To Be American

More responses from columbus high school, more responses from "citizenship", "dream", and "work".

• Craft and Criticism
• Fiction and Poetry
• News and Culture
• Lit Hub Radio
• Reading Lists

• Literary Criticism
• Craft and Advice
• In Conversation
• On Translation
• Short Story
• From the Novel
• Bookstores and Libraries
• Film and TV
• Art and Photography
• Freeman’s
• The Virtual Book Channel
• Behind the Mic
• Beyond the Page
• The Cosmic Library
• The Critic and Her Publics
• Emergence Magazine
• Fiction/Non/Fiction
• First Draft: A Dialogue on Writing
• Future Fables
• The History of Literature
• I’m a Writer But
• Just the Right Book
• Lit Century
• The Literary Life with Mitchell Kaplan
• New Books Network
• Tor Presents: Voyage Into Genre
• Windham-Campbell Prizes Podcast
• Write-minded
• The Best of the Decade
• Best Reviewed Books
• BookMarks Daily Giveaway
• The Daily Thrill
• CrimeReads Daily Giveaway

What Makes a Great American Essay?

Talking to phillip lopate about thwarted expectations, emerson, and the 21st-century essay boom.

Phillip Lopate spoke to Literary Hub about the new anthology he has edited, The Glorious American Essay . He recounts his own development from an “unpatriotic” young man to someone, later in life, who would embrace such writers as Ralph Waldo Emerson, who personified the simultaneous darkness and optimism underlying the history of the United States. Lopate looks back to the Puritans and forward to writers like Wesley Yang and Jia Tolentino. What is the next face of the essay form?

Literary Hub: We’re at a point, politically speaking, when disagreements about the meaning of the word “American” are particularly vehement. What does the term mean to you in 2020? How has your understanding of the word evolved?

Phillip Lopate : First of all, I am fully aware that even using the word “American” to refer only to the United States is something of an insult to Latin American countries, and if I had said “North American” to signify the US, that might have offended Canadians. Still, I went ahead and put “American” in the title as a synonym for the United States, because I wanted to invoke that powerful positive myth of America as an idea, a democratic aspiration for the world, as well as an imperialist juggernaut replete with many unresolved social inequities, in negative terms.

I will admit that when I was younger, I tended to be very unpatriotic and critical of my country, although once I started to travel abroad and witness authoritarian regimes like Spain under Franco, I could never sign on to the fear that a fascist US was just around the corner.  I came to the conclusion that we have our faults, but our virtues as well.

The more I’ve become interested in American history, the more I’ve seen how today’s problems and possible solutions are nothing new, but keep returning in cycles: economic booms and recessions, anti-immigrant sentiment, regional competition, racist Jim Crow policies followed by human rights advances, vigorous federal regulations and pendulum swings away from governmental intervention.

Part of the thrill in putting together this anthology was to see it operating simultaneously on two tracks: first, it would record the development of a literary form that I loved, the essay, as it evolved over 400 years in this country. At the same time, it would be a running account of the history of the United States, in the hands of these essayists who were contending, directly or indirectly, with the pressing problems of their day. The promise of America was always being weighed against its failure to live up to that standard.

For instance, we have the educator John Dewey arguing for a more democratic schoolhouse, the founder of the settlement house movement Jane Addams analyzing the alienation of young people in big cities, the progressive writer Randolph Bourne describing his own harsh experiences as a disabled person, the feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton advocating for women’s rights, and W. E. B. Dubois and James Weldon Johnson eloquently addressing racial injustice.

Issues of identity, gender and intersectionality were explored by writers such as Richard Rodriguez, Audre Lorde, Leonard Michaels and N. Scott Momaday, sometimes with touches of irony and self-scrutiny, which have always been assets of the essay form.

LH : If a publisher had asked us to compile an anthology of 100 representative American essays, we wouldn’t know where to start. How did you? What were your criteria?

PL : I thought I knew the field fairly well to begin with, having edited the best-selling Art of the Personal Essay in 1994, taught the form for decades, served on book award juries and so on. But once I started researching and collecting material, I discovered that I had lots of gaps, partly because the mandate I had set for myself was so sweeping.

This time I would not restrict myself to personal essays but would include critical essays, impersonal essays, speeches that were in essence essays (such as George Washington’s Farewell Address or Martin Luther King, Jr’s sermon on Vietnam), letters that functioned as essays (Frederick Douglass’s Letter to His Master).

I wanted to expand the notion of what is  an essay, to include, for instance, polemics such as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense , or one of the Federalist Papers; newspaper columnists (Fanny Fern, Christopher Morley); humorists (James Thurber, Finley Peter Dunne, Dorothy Parker).

But it also occurred to me that fine essayists must exist in every discipline, not only literature, which sent me on a hunt that took me to cultural criticism (Clement Greenberg, Kenneth Burke), theology (Paul Tillich), food writing (M.F. K. Fisher), geography (John Brinkerhoff Jackson), nature writing (John Muir, John Burroughs, Edward Abbey), science writing (Loren Eiseley, Lewis Thomas), philosophy (George Santayana). My one consistent criterion was that the essay be lively, engaging and intelligently written. In short, I had to like it myself.

Of course I would need to include the best-known practitioners of the American essay—Emerson, Thoreau, Mencken, Baldwin, Sontag, etc.—and was happy to do so.  As it turned out, most of the masters of American fiction and poetry also tried their hand successfully at essay-writing, which meant including Nathaniel Hawthorne, Walt Whitman, Theodore Dreiser, Willa Cather, Flannery O’Connor, Ralph Ellison. . .

But I was also eager to uncover powerful if almost forgotten voices such as John Jay Chapman, Agnes Repplier, Randolph Bourne, Mary Austin, or buried treasures such as William Dean Howells’ memoir essay of his days working in his father’s printing shop.

Finally, I wanted to show a wide variety of formal approaches, since the essay is by its very nature and nomenclature an experiment, which brought me to Gertrude Stein and Wayne Koestenbaum. Equally important, I was aided in all these searches by colleagues and friends who kept suggesting other names. For every fertile lead, probably four resulted in dead ends.  Meanwhile, I was having a real learning adventure.

LH: Do you have a personal favorite among American essayists? If so, what appeals to you the most about them?

PL : I do. It’s Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was the one who cleared the ground for US essayists, in his famous piece, “The American Scholar,” which called on us to free ourselves from slavish imitation of European models and to think for ourselves.  So much American thought grows out of Emerson, or is in contention with Emerson, even if that debt is sometimes unacknowledged or unconscious.

What I love about Emerson is his density of thought, and the surprising twists and turns that result from it. I can read an essay of his like “Experience” (the one I included in this anthology) a hundred times and never know where it’s going next.  If it was said of Emily Dickenson that her poems made you feel like the top of your head was spinning, that’s what I feel in reading Emerson. He has a playful skepticism, a knack for thinking against himself.  Each sentence starts a new rabbit of thought scampering off. He’s difficult but worth the trouble.

I once asked Susan Sontag who her favorite American essayist was, and she replied “Emerson, of course.” It’s no surprise that Nietzsche revered Emerson, as did Carlyle, and in our own time, Harold Bloom, Stanley Cavell, Richard Poirier. But here’s a confession: it took me awhile to come around to him.

I found his preacher’s manner and abstractions initially off-putting, I wasn’t sure about the character of the man who was speaking to me. Then I read his Notebooks and the mystery was cracked: suddenly I was able to follow essays such as “Circles” with pure pleasure, seeing as I could the darkness and complexity underneath the optimism.

LH: You make the interesting decision to open the anthology with an essay written in 1726, 50 years before the founding of the republic. Why?

PL : I wanted to start the anthology with the first fully-formed essayistic voices in this land, which turned out to belong to the Puritans. Regardless of the negative associations of zealous prudishness that have come to attach to the adjective “puritanical,” those American colonies founded as religious settlements were spearheaded by some remarkably learned and articulate spokespersons, whose robust prose enriched the American literary canon.

Cotton Mather and Jonathan Edwards were highly cultivated readers, familiar with the traditions of essay-writing, Montaigne and the English, and with the latest science, even as they inveighed against witchcraft. I will admit that it also amused me to open the book with Cotton Mather, a prescriptive, strait-is-the-gate character, and end it with Zadie Smith, who is not only bi-racial but bi-national, dividing her year between London and New York, and whose openness to self-doubt is signaled by her essay collection title, Changing My Mind .

The next group of writers I focused on were the Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and a foundational feminist, Judith Sargent Murray, who wrote the 1790 essay “On the Equality of the Sexes.” These authors, whose essays preceded, occurred during or immediately followed the founding of the republic, were in some ways the opposite of the Puritans, being for the most part Deists or secular followers of the Enlightenment.

Their attraction to reasoned argument and willingness to entertain possible objections to their points of view inspired a vigorous strand of American essay-writing. So, while we may fix the founding of the United States to a specific year, the actual culture and literature of the country book-ended that date.

LH: You end with Zadie Smith’s “Speaking in Tongues,” published in 2008. Which essay in the last 12 years would be your 101st selection?

PL : Funny you should ask. As it happens, I am currently putting the finishing touches on another anthology, this one entirely devoted to the Contemporary (i.e., 21st century) American Essay. I have been immersed in reading younger, up-and-coming writers, established mid-career writers, and some oldsters who are still going strong (Janet Malcolm, Vivian Gornick, Barry Lopez, John McPhee, for example).

It would be impossible for me to single out any one contemporary essayist, as they are all in different ways contributing to the stew, but just to name some I’ve been tracking recently: Meghan Daum, Maggie Nelson, Sloane Crosley, Eula Biss, Charles D’Ambrosio, Teju Cole, Lia Purpura, John D’Agata, Samantha Irby, Anne Carson, Alexander Chee, Aleksander Hemon, Hilton Als, Mary Cappello, Bernard Cooper, Leslie Jamison, Laura Kipnis, Rivka Galchen, Emily Fox Gordon, Darryl Pinckney, Yiyun Li, David Lazar, Lynn Freed, Ander Monson, David Shields, Rebecca Solnit, John Jeremiah Sullivan, Eileen Myles, Amy Tan, Jonathan Lethem, Chelsea Hodson, Ross Gay, Jia Tolentino, Jenny Boully, Durga Chew-Bose, Brian Blanchfield, Thomas Beller, Terry Castle, Wesley Yang, Floyd Skloot, David Sedaris. . .

Such a banquet of names speaks to the intergenerational appeal of the form. We’re going through a particularly rich time for American essays: especially compared to, 20 years ago, when editors wouldn’t even dare put the word “essays” on the cover, but kept trying to package these variegated assortments as single-theme discourses, we’ve seen many collections that have been commercially successful and attracted considerable critical attention.

It has something to do with the current moment, which has everyone more than a little confused and therefore trusting more than ever those strong individual voices that are willing to cop to their subjective fears, anxieties, doubts and ecstasies.

__________________________________

The Glorious American Essay , edited by Phillip Lopate, is available now.

• Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

Phillip Lopate

Previous article, next article, support lit hub..

Join our community of readers.

to the Lithub Daily

Popular posts.

Follow us on Twitter

Recent History: Lessons From Obama, Both Cautionary and Hopeful

• RSS - Posts

Literary Hub

Created by Grove Atlantic and Electric Literature

Sign Up For Our Newsletters

How to Pitch Lit Hub

Advertisers: Contact Us

Privacy Policy

Support Lit Hub - Become A Member

Stanford University

SPICE is a program of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

What Does It Mean to Be an American?: Reflections from Students (Part 10)

• Sabrina Ishimatsu

The following is Part 10 of a multiple-part series. To read previous installments in this series, please visit the following articles: Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 , Part 4 , Part 5 , Part 6 , Part 7 , Part 8 and Part 9 . 

Since December 8, 2020, SPICE has posted nine articles that highlight reflections from 72 students on the question, “What does it mean to be an American?” Part 10 features eight additional reflections. The reflections below do not necessarily reflect those of the SPICE staff.

The free educational website “ What Does It Mean to Be an American? ” offers six lessons on immigration, civic engagement, leadership, civil liberties & equity, justice & reconciliation, and U.S.–Japan relations. The lessons encourage critical thinking through class activities and discussions. On March 24, 2021, SPICE’s Rylan Sekiguchi was honored by the Association for Asian Studies for his authorship of the lessons that are featured on the website, which was developed by the Mineta Legacy Project in partnership with SPICE.

Tai Brown, Oregon  When I think about what being an American means to me, in my mind, it’s about how I am able to voice my opinion and be heard by others. This is a reality that many people take for granted. The ability that I, and all other Americans have, to influence the people around us with our voices and our individual opinions is something which I feel many Americans think of as more of a right, and don’t realize it is such a privilege. I recognize that I have this privilege, so even when I don’t get my way, I’m able to realize how people in some countries aren’t able to say what they want. Being aware of this freedom makes me realize how lucky I am to be an American. 

Thea Louise Dai, California  When I think of the term “American,” my mind immediately drifts toward the American dream: a promise of opportunity and freedom that drew my parents—and so many others like them—to this country. But the United States, as I’ve grown to learn, is far from perfect. In the past few years alone, I’ve witnessed that inequalities can divide our country, violence can terrorize our communities, and systemic racism can cripple our institutions. In the classroom, I’ve read about racist housing policies, discriminatory immigration practices, and failed U.S. military missions. To me, being American means seeing the United States with all its blemishes and imperfections, and still believing in the possibility of change. Americans actively invest in the U.S.’s future by celebrating our successes and values, acknowledging our shortcomings, and fighting for the prospect of a better country.

Tadeusz Jose, California  There is something abstract about America. Being so vast in the experiences of its people, America is hugely interpretable. And each interpretation, however contradictory to another, is justifiable and valid. To many, America has been a land of safety and success. To many, America has been a cruel home, a source of pain and anguish on the individual to the societal level. So then, how can a common identity exist between people without a common experience? How can people who live in such different Americas have a common American identity? Because our identity lies in the American ideal, not the American reality. Every American believes in this country’s promise of opportunity, freedom, and equality. I think someone who came to America ten minutes ago believing in those ideals is just as American as a founding father. Being American is believing in America.

Kai Kaplinsky, California  I do not have a short and clear answer. I was born in Israel and raised in Tel Aviv, Tokyo, and now California. My family is both Japanese and Israeli/Jewish, and my upbringing and nationalities are filled with diversity. When I think of the United States or being an American, it means having opportunities; viewing failure as not trying or an incentive to try harder; appreciating differences; and having an impact as an immigrant. Like any other place, differences in gender, race, and ethnicity can make life as a minority challenging in the United States. But I feel that the United States, as a country, is represented by people who are vocal and trying to execute changes and are constantly moving in a better direction. I feel that what it means to be an American depends on us, and how we live our lives.

Abigail Kim, California  To me, the American identity is like the inside of a mixing pot. I cannot think of one culture that ties us all together. We are the product of so many different cultures and people from all over the world interacting and learning from one another, eventually evolving into a broad identity labeled as “American.” As the daughter of two Korean immigrants, it’s hard for me to feel “American.” Being American in its very essence is not limited to my own experience. Even though the American identity is so inclusive, I feel as though knowing only one culture—my Korean American culture—and knowing less about the other cultures that mix into being American limits my ability to truly be an American. Thus, I think that being American is really about education: how keenly aware one is of the people who make up this country and the individual experiences we have as we intermingle with each other.

Joshua Koo, California  I am fully Korean by birth and spend every summer there.  So do I feel fully “American”?  That is something I’ve always wondered. Sometimes I feel like a stranger in a strange land in both countries, despite having dual citizenship. People always ask me in what country I will choose to live my adult life, and, to be honest, I don’t know. But that is the beauty of America. America does not make me choose. America allows everyone to find out who they are and live for that. I can live in Korea for twenty years and still return as a U.S. citizen, and I will feel at home. That is the dream of America: to make everyone feel at home. Not everyone does, of course, but America is the one place whose ideal is to always try.

Elise Lamb, Oregon  To me, being an American means having the rights I am entitled to while being confident in my ability to take a stand against any who attempt to strip them away from me. Looking at the patriotism of those around me, it often feels as though the privileges of being an American get drowned out in the negative aspects of the country. However, unlike the vast majority of the world, America not only allows, but encourages independence and self-determination, placing importance on those finding their own identity and success. Of course, America is far from perfect, but it’s essential that Americans acknowledge the liberties and opportunities allotted to them, especially in a setting where those privileges are hard to find.

Alyssa Wang, California  To me, being American means being free. This concept is shown throughout our history, from the First Amendment (the right to freedom of speech and religion), to America’s icon of Lady Liberty, and so much more. Being Japanese on my mother’s side and Chinese and European on my father’s, I have heard stories from my maternal grandparents about the Japanese American internment camps and stories about my paternal grandparents’ experiences in New York. Looking back, I feel incredibly grateful for the freedoms that we have today. Even though the United States is not perfect, we are doing our best to provide liberty and opportunities that aren’t possible in some other countries. We, as Americans, have the freedom to pursue our dreams and make our own choices. We have the freedom to determine our government, to decide our beliefs, and to define our own future.

What Does It Mean to Be an American?

What does it mean to be an american: reflections from students (part 9), what does it mean to be an american: reflections from students (part 8), what does it mean to be an american: reflections from students (part 7).

What Does It Mean To Be an American Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on January 4, 2021 January 4, 2021

Do you have a paper due tomorrow and don’t understand all the requirements given? Our world history homework help is here to ensure you receive a quality paper within the deadline given and at an affordable price. Below is; what does it mean to be an American essay with an outline.

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

What does it Mean to be an American Essay Outline

Introduction

Being an American means enjoying the right to freedom of speech, embracing diversity, embracing the American way of life, and having equal rights of determining the country’s leadership.

Paragraph 1:

An American is free to speak their mind because of the right to freedom of speech.

• This freedom makes it easy for American citizens to serve their country.
• The stand up for what is just and right.
• Free speech is based on the country’s creed which encompasses peace, freedom, and security.

Paragraph 2:

Being an American means one is part of one of the most diverse cultures in the world.

• In the U.S., nationality may not possibly be defined by religion, ancestry, or race.
• The country has many different religions and cultures.
• Rather than religion, race, or ancestry, Americans are defined by their unique social, economic, and political values.

Paragraph 3:

Being an American means leading the American way of life .

• This way of life emanated from the system of the limited government and personal liberty.
• It is rooted in the traditions of equal justice to all, respect for the rule of law, merit-based achievement, freedom of contract, private property, entrepreneurism, personal responsibility, and self-reliance.

Paragraph 4:

Americans have equal rights of determining the political leadership of the country.

• Citizens elect leaders from state legislators, Congress members, to the president.
• Even the president is just a representative of the people.
• Bills passed by state legislators and Congressmen and women should be ones geared towards bettering the life of the common American.

Paragraph 5:

Some people may argue that a true American should profess the Christian faith.

• This is an argument that is majorly fronted by members of Native American communities who are largely Christian.
• America should be open to everyone who believes in the American spirit of hard work and lives by American ideals.
• An American knows that they are free to speak freely and that they live in a diverse-cultured country with a certain way of life.
• It means being in a position to determine who leads in whatever position in the country.
• An American is entitled to economic and social rights.
• Americans should resist at all costs anyone who might try to interfere with their freedoms and rights.

Insights on  what makes you unique essay with examples.

What is an American Essay

What it means to be an American goes beyond the legal definition of an American citizen. According to Philip Gleason , a renowned historian, a person did not have to be of any particular ethnic background, religion, language, or nationality in order to become or be an American. All one had to do was to live by the political ideology pegged on the abstract ideals of republicanism, equality, and liberty. American nationality was based on a Universalist ideological character which meant that anyone who willed to become an American was free to do so. One must act as an American to be an American by for instance paying taxes, voting in elections, and serving their country at home or abroad. Thus, being an American means enjoying the right to freedom of speech, embracing diversity, embracing the American way of life, and having equal rights of determining the country’s leadership.

As an American, one is free to speak their mind because of the right to freedom of speech. This freedom makes it easy for American citizens to serve their country by standing up for what is just and right. In this spirit, it would be better and greater for an American to say a “no” from their inner conviction than say a “yes” to please anyone or worse off, to avoid getting into trouble. Free speech in America is based on the country’s creed which encompasses peace, freedom, and security. It also means that Americans have the opportunity to come together and overcome their challenges by finding befitting solutions, a possibility that might not be achievable in other countries. That is why as pointed out by Grant (2012), the freedom to worship God in different religions and communities is a great source of pride and does not undermine the oneness of Americans.

Order Now We will write a custom essay on what it means to be an American written according to your requirements. From only $16   $12/page 

Being an American also means one is part of one of the most diverse, if not the most diverse, cultures in the world. The United States is one of the very few world countries where nationality may not possibly be defined by religion, ancestry, or race. It is a melting pot of many different religions and cultures and it is near impossible to come across anyone whose ancestral roots are not tied to immigrant bloodlines from Africa and Europe (Grant, 2012). Rather than religion, race, or ancestry, Americans are defined by their unique social, economic, and political values. The Great Seal of the United States which reads “E pluribus unum” further drives home the fact that Americans are from all manners of backgrounds. In English, this translates to “From many, one” implying that one may even become and American without being born in the country as long as they embrace what the country stands for.

Third, being an American means leading the American way of life. This way of life emanated from the system of the limited government and personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution as well as the ideals proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. It is also rooted in the traditions of equal justice to all, respect for the rule of law, merit-based achievement, freedom of contract, private property, entrepreneurism, personal responsibility, and self-reliance (Raymond, 2014). However, with these freedoms also comes the need for deliberation whereby people must listen to and understand one another. In addition, they need to have the will to moderate their claims with a view to achieving a common ground especially when it comes to making political decisions. With a sense of solidarity, Americans can show one another mutual respect and sympathy which in turn cultivates common good for all.

Further, Americans have equal rights of determining the political leaders in whose hands the governance of the country rests. Every citizen has one vote and has the responsibility of casting it every four years in order to choose their leaders (Grant, 2008). This involves the election of leaders from state legislators, Congress members, to the president. As such, even the president is just a representative of the great people of the United States and any decisions he makes pertaining the presidency should be for the good of all. Similarly, bills passed by state legislators and Congressmen and women should be ones geared towards bettering the life of the common American. This is because they represent the interests of the electorate from whom they get the power to legislate.

Some people may bring in the issue of religion into being an American and argue that a true American should profess the Christian faith. In a certain survey, one quarter of the respondents indicated that one factor essential to being an American is being Christian (Elfenbein & Hanson, 2019). However, this is an argument that is majorly fronted by members of Native American communities who are largely Christian. What they forget is that they too were not U.S. citizens until in 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act was adopted (Elfenbein & Hanson, 2019). America should be open to everyone who believes in the American spirit of hard work, lives by American ideals as provided for in the Constitution, and vehemently fights for the country’s flag, regardless of their religious affiliation.

To be an American is to be someone who knows that they are free to speak freely and that they live in a diverse-cultured country with a certain way of life. It means being in a position to determine who leads in whatever position in the country. An American has the opportunity to achieve upward economic mobility and cherishes freedom from slavery, freedom to fight for America, and freedom of speech. These ideals were established by the country’s Constitution and are rooted in its Declaration of Independence. No one can take them away from Americans or replace them with oppressive ones because they are the very pillars that distinguish America from other countries. It implies that Americans should resist at all costs anyone who might try to interfere with their freedoms and rights.

Elfenbein, C., & Hanson, P. (2019). “What does it mean to be a ‘real’ American?”.  The Washington Post . Retrieved June 16, 2020 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/03/what-does-it-mean-be-real-american/

Grant, J. A. (2008). The new American social compact: rights and responsibilities in the twenty-first century . Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Grant, S. (2012). A concise history of the United States of America . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Raymond, T. (2014). Rights and responsibilities of citizens: first grade social science lesson, activities, discussion questions and quizzes. HomeSchool Brew Press .

Get a free quote from our professional essay writing service and an idea of how much the paper will cost before it even begins. If the price is satisfactory, accept the bid and watch your concerns slowly fade away! Try our automatic essay generator to get quality and plagiarism free essays fast.

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

Find anything you save across the site in your account

What Makes an Essay American

By Vinson Cunningham

About a month ago, on a trip to Dallas, Texas, I had dinner with a young d.j. whose renown as a producer and engineer is steadily growing. We talked about life and music and art and money, and how he’d arrived at this juncture in his still-short career. Out of the blue, he asked me what I thought about the pastor and televangelist T. D. Jakes, whose megachurch, The Potter’s House, is located in Dallas. I hedged, said something about how Jakes—whose books and cassettes and, later, DVDs littered the bookshelves and bedside tables of the apartments I grew up in—has long struck me as a religious corollary to Oprah Winfrey, a vaguely more devout avatar of that now-pervasive gospel of good feeling and well-directed energy.

“I love him,” the d.j. said, with surprising conviction, and I couldn’t help but ask why.

His appreciation, it turned out, was born of a kind of artistic recognition. He loves to listen to preachers, he said, because a great sermon is like a great d.j. set. Each achieves its purpose via a slowly but strategically earned trust. At a party, this is straightforward: you play familiar songs at the outset, stuff certain to get the crowd moving and on your side. If, later on, you plan to play anything newer, or headier, or more esoteric, you’ll need this reservoir of goodwill. The preacher makes a similar calculation—those first tentative movements away from the safety of the text and into the wilds of exegesis and analysis need to be friendly, kind, “relatable.” Any hope of sneaking in some bold or challenging theological notion, or moral proposition, rests on the benignity of this initial encounter.

This made me think about what I do for a living. After all, the essay, in its American incarnation, is a direct outgrowth of the sermon: argumentative, insistent, not infrequently irritating. Americans, in my observation—and despite our fetish for the beauties of individuality and personal freedom—are always, however smilingly, trying to convince somebody, somewhere, of something, and our essayistic tradition bears this out.

Consider, as just one recent example, Claire Vaye Watkins’s essay “ On Pandering ,” published online by Tin House last November and discussed heatedly for weeks, even months, thereafter. Watkins begins by innocuously, if with a bit of bite, describing the ruralia that surrounds Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where, “until recently,” as she writes, she taught at Bucknell University. She invites readers to think of Lewisburg as the convergence of a tripartite Venn diagram: “label circle #1 Amish country, label circle #2 coal country, label circle #3 fracking country.”

“During the time I lived in central Pennsylvania,” she writes, “the adjective I used most to describe the place to faraway friends was ‘murdersome.’ ” So far, so charmingly free of argument. Then Watkins weaves an insight about the inherent falsity of the college town—the feeling one gets of its having been created for students and their parents, as a kind of “country-mouse theme park”—into a sly statement of her theme: “I lived in a landscape of pandering.”

Then comes a cascade of anecdotes: a humiliating, sexist run-in with the literary “P. T. Barnum figure” Stephen Elliott; a quick history of what Watkins describes as a youthful pastime: “watching boys do stuff”; and then, least convincingly, her own epiphany that smoking pot might be more dangerous for a non-white friend than for her. Each story inches the reader closer to an understanding of what worries Watkins, what she at first searchingly fingers, and then, with gathering directness, fights against: that “the white supremacist patriarchy determines what I write.” By the essay’s end, Watkins has shrugged off any pretense of disinterest or mere observational curiosity, instead offering “some ideas” that gather a force akin to the preacher’s fire. It is impossible to read the essay’s last sentence—“Let us burn this motherfucking system to the ground and build something better”—without hearing a raised voice, or a chorus of answering amens.

It’s important to note that Watkins first delivered “On Pandering” as a speech, at Tin House ’ s Summer Writers’ Workshop. The document’s shift in purpose, from one-time rhetorical set-piece to widely disseminated tract, is reminiscent of Ralph Waldo Emerson, to whose famous addresses—secular sermons without exception—every American essayist, for good or ill, owes one thing or another. Emerson’s prose style could only have been developed out loud, and for the purpose of persuading (or, at least, entertaining) an audience—he careens back and forth in playful, liquid, rollicking sentences of varying lengths; he runs cool, then hot, then affectedly bored, sometimes within the space of a single phrase. He’s pushy, impulsive, impetuous, self-refuting, sort of causelessly rebellious and irreverent. If the Internet sometimes seems sodden with argument and counter-argument, with provocation enough to stretch on beyond the death of the republic (which, granted, hasn’t seemed that far off, lately), this, Emerson’s essays remind us, is nothing new.

As much as one might wish to lay claim to the sensibility of, say, Montaigne—the ruminative philosopher’s ideal, the notion of the essay as neutral attempt—most of us Americans are Emersons: artful sermonizers, pathological point-makers, turntablists spinning the hits with future mischief in mind.

Toward the end of the introduction to his latest anthology, “The Making of the American Essay,” published earlier this year, the essay-evangelist John D’Agata recounts the creation myth of the Cahto, a Native American people indigenous to coastal California. The world, in their telling, was meticulously constructed by two deities and then arbitrarily washed away by an enormous flood. “But before they reconstruct the world they lost in their creation story,” D’Agata writes, “the Cahto make a point of lingering on the details of the flood’s devastation, noting how it methodically disassembled the world around them by erasing each part of it, piece by piece by piece: the mountains, trees, birds, people, weather, dirt, and light.” D’Agata reads this chronicle of annihilation as a celebration of nothingness itself, an indication of the excitement of the artist before a blank canvas—in the presence of pure potential. Into this void steps the essay, situated as it is “between the given and the made.” The world, he says, “provides nonfiction, and humans provide the rest.” This—“the rest”—is D’Agata’s definition of the essay, which leaves him room to trace the genre’s American flowering with a striking, and, in the end, unconvincing, breadth.

D’Agata’s liberties are legion: “Blood Burning Moon,” a fictional sketch from Jean Toomer’s modernist work “Cane,” appears in the anthology; so does “The Whiteness of the Whale,” a chapter from “Moby-Dick”; so does “If I Told Him: A Completed Portrait of Picasso,” a poem by Gertrude Stein. None of these is an essay, and D’Agata’s insistence on recasting them—and, in so doing, flouting the interests and intentions of their creators—is evidence of the flawed idea that underpins his effort. Just as telling is the inclusion of harmless belletristic exercises from artists otherwise known for their pugilistic talents. James Baldwin, the most preacherly American writer of the past century, is represented by his pleasant but ultimately aimless recounting of a fight between Floyd Patterson and Sonny Liston. Renata Adler, whose lethal essayistic style is best indicated by her famous excoriation of Pauline Kael, appears by way of “Brownstone,” which, again, is not an essay but rather a short story ( first published in The New Yorker ) that appeared in “Speedboat,” Adler’s first novel, as a vignette. Emerson’s “Nature” is rightly present, as is one of its direct precursors, Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”—but amid so much fiddling around, so many exceptions that prove the rule of our nonfiction tradition, the importance and lasting influence of these foundational texts is lost.

All of this has to do with D’Agata’s career-long intellectual project, which has been to “radically redefine” the essay—that phrase is from a recent interview, published in Guernica —by deëmphasizing the form’s fealty to fact , and, instead, insisting on its status as art for art’s sake, equal in its florid otherworldliness to any novel or poem. In the same interview, explaining the apolitical eccentricity of his compilations (“The Making of the American Essay” marks the completion of a triptych, together comprising what he calls a “New History” of the form), D’Agata speaks of his desire to “divorce the essay from being read exclusively as a form that’s tied to its subject matter, or that is propelled by its subject matter.” But what, really, can this mean? Writing is communication, and form is only meaningful—only artful—insofar as it aids and inflects the travel of a thought from one mind to the next. What is literature without the propulsion of a subject: fallen king, Grecian urn, eaten plums, or national travesty? What D’Agata describes, and what “The Making of the American Essay” presents—form unbothered by the roilings of the world, the essay untethered from its fiery American roots—is a beautiful house, unfurnished forever. Nothing political, provocative, or argumentative breaches his walls, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that little fun does, either.

Of course, the relationship between idea and expressive vehicle is looser, if not quite nonexistent, in other arts, especially the visual ones—often excitingly so. It’s interesting, then, to observe the steadily increasing prominence of frankly polemical work within the walls of the museum. In a recent essay, for New York magazine , on how identity politics have come to “constitute a real aesthetic movement,” on the same scale of art-historical significance as Impressionism or Cubism, the art critic Jerry Saltz recalls the still-settling impact of the “so-called multi-cultural, identity-politics, political, or just bad” Whitney Biennial of 1993. The show—which was helped into the world by Thelma Golden , now the director of the Studio Museum in Harlem—featured commentary on contemporary troubles such as the Rodney King beating and the AIDS crisis, and, along the way, earned the ire of the critical class. Saltz regards the show as ground zero in the creation of today’s artistic culture, in which “biography, history, the plight of the marginalized, institutional politics, context, sociologies, anthropologies, and privilege have all been recognized as ‘forms,’ ‘genres,’ and ‘materials’ in art.”

One way to see this sea change is as a final rebuke of later Modernism’s tendency toward solipsistic enclosure: there is, after all, a point beyond which a painting about paintings about painting becomes a symptom of the world’s absurdity, not a tonic or a refuge. Another way to see it is that our visual art has become more essayistic in nature—which is to say: sermonic, assertive, usefully relevant to a polity ever more prone to the bizarre . Perhaps more artists have realized what becomes apparent after leafing through “The Making of the American Essay”: that conflict is elemental to America and to its creative expression; that a well-crafted argument is art, not its opposite; that beautiful, harmless things are best left on the shelf and out of reach; that the more fiercely—and, yes, sometimes annoyingly—our sensibilities clash, the better off our country might be.

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Inkoo Kang

By Adam Douglas Thompson

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

David Folkenflik

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust.

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

NPR names tech executive Katherine Maher to lead in turbulent era

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.

Praised by NPR's critics

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Berliner's essay , titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust," was published by The Free Press, a website that has welcomed journalists who have concluded that mainstream news outlets have become reflexively liberal.

Berliner writes that as a Subaru-driving, Sarah Lawrence College graduate who "was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother ," he fits the mold of a loyal NPR fan.

Yet Berliner says NPR's news coverage has fallen short on some of the most controversial stories of recent years, from the question of whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, to the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19, to the significance and provenance of emails leaked from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election. In addition, he blasted NPR's coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

On each of these stories, Berliner asserts, NPR has suffered from groupthink due to too little diversity of viewpoints in the newsroom.

The essay ricocheted Tuesday around conservative media , with some labeling Berliner a whistleblower . Others picked it up on social media, including Elon Musk, who has lambasted NPR for leaving his social media site, X. (Musk emailed another NPR reporter a link to Berliner's article with a gibe that the reporter was a "quisling" — a World War II reference to someone who collaborates with the enemy.)

When asked for further comment late Tuesday, Berliner declined, saying the essay spoke for itself.

The arguments he raises — and counters — have percolated across U.S. newsrooms in recent years. The #MeToo sexual harassment scandals of 2016 and 2017 forced newsrooms to listen to and heed more junior colleagues. The social justice movement prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 inspired a reckoning in many places. Newsroom leaders often appeared to stand on shaky ground.

Leaders at many newsrooms, including top editors at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times , lost their jobs. Legendary Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron wrote in his memoir that he feared his bonds with the staff were "frayed beyond repair," especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media, before he decided to step down in early 2021.

Since then, Baron and others — including leaders of some of these newsrooms — have suggested that the pendulum has swung too far.

Author Interviews

Legendary editor marty baron describes his 'collision of power' with trump and bezos.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warned last year against journalists embracing a stance of what he calls "one-side-ism": "where journalists are demonstrating that they're on the side of the righteous."

"I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers," he said.

Internal arguments at The Times over the strength of its reporting on accusations that Hamas engaged in sexual assaults as part of a strategy for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel erupted publicly . The paper conducted an investigation to determine the source of a leak over a planned episode of the paper's podcast The Daily on the subject, which months later has not been released. The newsroom guild accused the paper of "targeted interrogation" of journalists of Middle Eastern descent.

Heated pushback in NPR's newsroom

Given Berliner's account of private conversations, several NPR journalists question whether they can now trust him with unguarded assessments about stories in real time. Others express frustration that he had not sought out comment in advance of publication. Berliner acknowledged to me that for this story, he did not seek NPR's approval to publish the piece, nor did he give the network advance notice.

Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.

Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Questions of diversity

Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

Berliner cited audience estimates that suggested a concurrent falloff in listening by Republicans. (The number of people listening to NPR broadcasts and terrestrial radio broadly has declined since the start of the pandemic.)

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted , "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Others questioned Berliner's logic. "This probably gets causality somewhat backward," tweeted Semafor Washington editor Jordan Weissmann . "I'd guess that a lot of NPR listeners who voted for [Mitt] Romney have changed how they identify politically."

Similarly, Nieman Lab founder Joshua Benton suggested the rise of Trump alienated many NPR-appreciating Republicans from the GOP.

In recent years, NPR has greatly enhanced the percentage of people of color in its workforce and its executive ranks. Four out of 10 staffers are people of color; nearly half of NPR's leadership team identifies as Black, Asian or Latino.

"The philosophy is: Do you want to serve all of America and make sure it sounds like all of America, or not?" Lansing, who stepped down last month, says in response to Berliner's piece. "I'd welcome the argument against that."

"On radio, we were really lagging in our representation of an audience that makes us look like what America looks like today," Lansing says. The U.S. looks and sounds a lot different than it did in 1971, when NPR's first show was broadcast, Lansing says.

A network spokesperson says new NPR CEO Katherine Maher supports Chapin and her response to Berliner's critique.

The spokesperson says that Maher "believes that it's a healthy thing for a public service newsroom to engage in rigorous consideration of the needs of our audiences, including where we serve our mission well and where we can serve it better."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Does the US college essay still have value?

Now that it has moved so far from its original purpose – and is often written by AI or a ghostwriter – what purpose does the US college application essay actually serve?

Warren Emanuel

• More on this topic

You may also like

AI will change the world. Already, we can see ways in which widely available AI tools are shaping education , from enhanced curricular design to renewed focus on academic integrity in schools and universities.

So it stands to reason that the link between these institutions – the college application – would be similarly affected. And yet AI is hardly the only force acting upon the college application. The United States Supreme Court’s decision to ban the use of race in admissions decisions too will reshape what information universities request from applicants and how students choose to provide it.

Given the dynamics at play, it seems an appropriate time to re-evaluate the college essay and its intended purpose. 

The US college essay: a brief history

For the purposes of this exercise, let’s consider the college essay as the primary essay or personal statement required by the Common Application or by individual universities as part of the university application in the US.

It is important to note, however, that the term “college essay” is an oversimplification. In the US alone, there are myriad forms that the college essay or personal statement can take, including the Common Application essay. Yet not every applicant will use the Common Application to apply to university, or there might be university-specific supplemental essays required along with a personal statement.

Furthermore, there are key differences between the US college essay and the UK personal statement. 

An inauspicious beginning

The origin of the application essay is not one that reflects well on US universities. The application essay traces its roots to early 20th-century antisemitism, with the “character-based application” used predominantly as a tool to keep unwanted minority groups out of prestigious institutions. Those curious to learn more might read The Chosen ,  by sociology professor Jerome Karabel.

The college application essay, of course, evolved. And so for several decades, along with a combination of academic transcript, standardised testing and letter of recommendation, it remained a tool by which admissions offices throughout the US could assess an applicant’s preparedness to succeed at that particular institution.

Embracing the mass

Marketing guru and social thinker Seth Godin frequently writes about our historical movement towards the mass: mass production, mass communication, mass marketing. Perhaps curiously, the college essay was included in this shift.

The Common Application, a convenient and free application form accepted by more than 1,000 schools globally, requires one primary college essay. It offers students a choice of six essay prompts, and a seventh, “topic of your choice”, each with a word limit of 650 words.

Until somewhat recently, there were only five prompts, and a limit of merely 500 words. Applicants thus had to embrace the mass, to find a way to stand out slightly within a rather rigid mass-market application structure.

For decades it worked. It was imperfect, but it worked. The college essay retained a dual purpose of articulating academic and intellectual preparedness through the use of grammar, syntax, styles and mechanics, along with values and interests (drivers of fit) through content.

Tipping point

Like so many practices and processes before it, the college-admissions process reached a tipping point fuelled by the confluence of globalisation, ranking systems, cost, prestige and shifting cultural values.

Colleges and universities no longer had to sort through applicants to assess who was qualified to attend. Instead, they had to sort through the qualified applicants to determine which of them fit the institutional values and needs in that particular year, all while shaping (somewhat) diverse communities.

Preparedness remained an integral purpose of the college essay. Yet more than ever, an applicant’s voice, interests and values needed to shine through, so that admissions offices could assess the nebulous concept of fit.

Increasingly, applicants were instructed to “be unique” – which, while well intentioned, is not particularly helpful advice. The college essay peaked in importance, required to convey so much more than perhaps originally intended.

The college essay, disrupted

The US Merriam-Webster dictionary should consider “disrupt” the word of the year, to reflect the current infatuation with disrupting absolutely everything. Of course, sometimes we need a little disruptive behaviour. Other times, disruption occurs before we fully consider the implications.

It was fascinating to read that Duke  University – and likely other institutions – no longer assumes that applicants write their own college essays . This invites many questions:

• Is it OK if applicants are not writing their own essays?
• Who (ghostwriters) or what (AI) is writing them?
• How does an admissions committee assess preparedness if essays are inauthentic and testing is optional?
• What is the new purpose of the essay?

Contrary to any inclination towards fear or scepticism, there is ample reason to believe that the college essay, which has undergone multiple evolutions already, can still be beneficial to both applicant and admissions office. Consider the following questions:

• Is the applicant able to use modern tools, including AI, with integrity?
• Does the applicant share meaningful lived experience in a thoughtful and reflective way?
• Can the applicant convey authentic personal values and interests?

Within these rhetorical questions, the current purpose of the college essay is found. Certainly many applicants will continue to pen their own essays without AI assistance for years to come.

But even for those who use AI or rely on a ghostwriter, it is worth remembering that the shift away from preparedness as the primary purpose of the college essay began long ago, and that values, interests and voice still have merit. 

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

The Troubling Trend in Teenage Sex

By Peggy Orenstein

Ms. Orenstein is the author of “Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent and Navigating the New Masculinity” and “Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape.”

Debby Herbenick is one of the foremost researchers on American sexual behavior. The director of the Center for Sexual Health Promotion at Indiana University and the author of the pointedly titled book “Yes, Your Kid,” she usually shares her data, no matter how explicit, without judgment. So I was surprised by how concerned she seemed when we checked in on Zoom recently: “I haven’t often felt so strongly about getting research out there,” she told me. “But this is lifesaving.”

For the past four years, Dr. Herbenick has been tracking the rapid rise of “rough sex” among college students, particularly sexual strangulation, or what is colloquially referred to as choking. Nearly two-thirds of women in her most recent campus-representative survey of 5,000 students at an anonymized “major Midwestern university” said a partner had choked them during sex (one-third in their most recent encounter). The rate of those women who said they were between the ages 12 and 17 the first time that happened had shot up to 40 percent from one in four.

As someone who’s been writing for well over a decade about young people’s attitudes and early experience with sex in all its forms, I’d also begun clocking this phenomenon. I was initially startled in early 2020 when, during a post-talk Q. and A. at an independent high school, a 16-year-old girl asked, “How come boys all want to choke you?” In a different class, a 15-year-old boy wanted to know, “Why do girls all want to be choked?” They do? Not long after, a college sophomore (and longtime interview subject) contacted me after her roommate came home in tears because a hookup partner, without warning, had put both hands on her throat and squeezed.

I started to ask more, and the stories piled up. Another sophomore confided that she enjoyed being choked by her boyfriend, though it was important for a partner to be “properly educated” — pressing on the sides of the neck, for example, rather than the trachea. (Note: There is no safe way to strangle someone.) A male freshman said “girls expected” to be choked and, even though he didn’t want to do it, refusing would make him seem like a “simp.” And a senior in high school was angry that her friends called her “vanilla” when she complained that her boyfriend had choked her.

Sexual strangulation, nearly always of women in heterosexual pornography, has long been a staple on free sites, those default sources of sex ed for teens . As with anything else, repeat exposure can render the once appalling appealing. It’s not uncommon for behaviors to be normalized in porn, move within a few years to mainstream media, then, in what may become a feedback loop, be adopted in the bedroom or the dorm room.

Choking, Dr. Herbenick said, seems to have made that first leap in a 2008 episode of Showtime’s “Californication,” where it was still depicted as outré, then accelerated after the success of “Fifty Shades of Grey.” By 2019, when a high school girl was choked in the pilot of HBO’s “Euphoria,” it was standard fare. A young woman was choked in the opener of “The Idol” (again on HBO and also, like “Euphoria,” created by Sam Levinson; what’s with him ?). Ali Wong plays the proclivity for laughs in a Netflix special, and it’s a punchline in Tina Fey’s new “Mean Girls.” The chorus of Jack Harlow’s “Lovin On Me,” which topped Billboard’s Hot 100 chart for six nonconsecutive weeks this winter and has been viewed over 99 million times on YouTube, starts with, “I’m vanilla, baby, I’ll choke you, but I ain’t no killer, baby.” How-to articles abound on the internet, and social media algorithms feed young people (but typically not their unsuspecting parents) hundreds of #chokemedaddy memes along with memes that mock — even celebrate — the potential for hurting or killing female partners.

I’m not here to kink-shame (or anything-shame). And, anyway, many experienced BDSM practitioners discourage choking, believing it to be too dangerous. There are still relatively few studies on the subject, and most have been done by Dr. Herbenick and her colleagues. Reports among adolescents are now trickling out from the United Kingdom , Australia , Iceland , New Zealand and Italy .

Twenty years ago, sexual asphyxiation appears to have been unusual among any demographic, let alone young people who were new to sex and iffy at communication. That’s changed radically in a short time, with health consequences that parents, educators, medical professionals, sexual consent advocates and teens themselves urgently need to understand.

Sexual trends can spread quickly on campus and, to an extent, in every direction. But, at least among straight kids, I’ve sometimes noticed a pattern: Those that involve basic physical gratification — like receiving oral sex in hookups — tend to favor men. Those that might entail pain or submission, like choking, are generally more for women.

So, while undergrads of all genders and sexualities in Dr. Herbenick’s surveys report both choking and being choked, straight and bisexual young women are far more likely to have been the subjects of the behavior; the gap widens with greater occurrences. (In a separate study , Dr. Herbenick and her colleagues found the behavior repeated across the United States, particularly for adults under 40, and not just among college students.) Alcohol may well be involved, and while the act is often engaged in with a steady partner, a quarter of young women said partners they’d had sex with on the day they’d met also choked them.

Either way, most say that their partners never or only sometimes asked before grabbing their necks. For many, there had been moments when they couldn’t breathe or speak, compromising the ability to withdraw consent, if they’d given it. No wonder that, in a separate study by Dr. Herbenick, choking was among the most frequently listed sex acts young women said had scared them, reporting that it sometimes made them worry whether they’d survive.

Among girls and women I’ve spoken with, many did not want or like to be sexually strangled, though in an otherwise desired encounter they didn’t name it as assault . Still, a sizable number were enthusiastic; they requested it. It is exciting to feel so vulnerable, a college junior explained. The power dynamic turns her on; oxygen deprivation to the brain can trigger euphoria.

That same young woman, incidentally, had never climaxed with a partner: While the prevalence of choking has skyrocketed, rates of orgasm among young women have not increased, nor has the “orgasm gap” disappeared among heterosexual couples. “It indicates they’re not doing other things to enhance female arousal or pleasure,” Dr. Herbenick said.

When, for instance, she asked one male student who said he choked his partner whether he’d ever tried using a vibrator instead, he recoiled. “Why would I do that?” he asked.

Perhaps, she responded, because it would be more likely to produce orgasm without risking, you know, death.

In my interviews, college students have seen male orgasm as a given; women’s is nice if it happens, but certainly not expected or necessarily prioritized (by either partner). It makes sense, then, that fulfillment would be less the motivator for choking than appearing adventurous or kinky. Such performances don’t always feel good.

“Personally, my hypothesis is that this is one of the reasons young people are delaying or having less sex,” Dr. Herbenick said. “Because it’s uncomfortable and weird and scary. At times some of them literally think someone is assaulting them but they don’t know. Those are the only sexual experiences for some people. And it’s not just once they’ve gotten naked. They’ll say things like, ‘I’ve only tried to make out with someone once because he started choking and hitting me.’”

Keisuke Kawata, a neuroscientist at Indiana University’s School of Public Health, was one of the first researchers to sound the alarm on how the cumulative, seemingly inconsequential, sub-concussive hits football players sustain (as opposed to the occasional hard blow) were key to triggering C.T.E., the degenerative brain disease. He’s a good judge of serious threats to the brain. In response to Dr. Herbenick’s work, he’s turning his attention to sexual strangulation. “I see a similarity” to C.T.E., he told me, “though the mechanism of injury is very different.” In this case, it is oxygen-blocking pressure to the throat, frequently in light, repeated bursts of a few seconds each.

Strangulation — sexual or otherwise — often leaves few visible marks and can be easily overlooked as a cause of death. Those whose experiences are nonlethal rarely seek medical attention, because any injuries seem minor: Young women Dr. Herbenick studied mostly reported lightheadedness, headaches, neck pain, temporary loss of coordination and ear ringing. The symptoms resolve, and all seems well. But, as with those N.F.L. players, the true effects are silent, potentially not showing up for days, weeks, even years.

According to the American Academy of Neurology, restricting blood flow to the brain, even briefly, can cause permanent injury, including stroke and cognitive impairment. In M.R.I.s conducted by Dr. Kawata and his colleagues (including Dr. Herbenick, who is a co-author of his papers on strangulation), undergraduate women who have been repeatedly choked show a reduction in cortical folding in the brain compared with a never-choked control group. They also showed widespread cortical thickening, an inflammation response that is associated with elevated risk of later-onset mental illness. In completing simple memory tasks, their brains had to work far harder than the control group, recruiting from more regions to achieve the same level of accuracy.

The hemispheres in the choked group’s brains, too, were badly skewed, with the right side hyperactive and the left underperforming. A similar imbalance is associated with mood disorders — and indeed in Dr. Herbenick’s surveys girls and women who had been choked were more likely than others (or choked men) to have experienced overwhelming anxiety, as well as sadness and loneliness, with the effect more pronounced as the incidence rose: Women who had experienced more than five instances of choking were two and a half times as likely as those who had never been choked to say they had been so depressed within the previous 30 days they couldn’t function. Whether girls and women with mental health challenges are more likely to seek out (or be subjected to) choking, choking causes mood disorders, or some combination of the two is still unclear. But hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation — judging by what research has shown about other types of traumatic brain injury — could be a contributing factor. Given the soaring rates of depression and anxiety among young women, that warrants concern.

Now consider that every year Dr. Herbenick has done her survey, the number of females reporting extreme effects from strangulation (neck swelling, loss of consciousness, losing control of urinary function) has crept up. Among those who’ve been choked, the rate of becoming what students call “cloudy” — close to passing out, but not crossing the line — is now one in five, a huge proportion. All of this indicates partners are pressing on necks longer and harder.

The physical, cognitive and psychological impacts of sexual choking are disturbing. So is the idea that at a time when women’s social, economic, educational and political power are in ascent (even if some of those rights may be in jeopardy), when #MeToo has made progress against harassment and assault, there has been the popularization of a sex act that can damage our brains, impair intellectual functioning, undermine mental health, even kill us. Nonfatal strangulation, one of the most significant indicators that a man will murder his female partner (strangulation is also one of the most common methods used for doing so), has somehow been eroticized and made consensual, at least consensual enough. Yet, the outcomes are largely the same: Women’s brains and bodies don’t distinguish whether they are being harmed out of hate or out of love.

By now I’m guessing that parents are curled under their chairs in a fetal position. Or perhaps thinking, “No, not my kid!” (see: title of Dr. Herbenick’s book above, which, by the way, contains an entire chapter on how to talk to your teen about “rough sex”).

I get it. It’s scary stuff. Dr. Herbenick is worried; I am, too. And we are hardly some anti-sex, wait-till-marriage crusaders. But I don’t think our only option is to wring our hands over what young people are doing.

Parents should take a beat and consider how they might give their children relevant information in a way that they can hear it. Maybe reiterate that they want them to have a pleasurable sex life — you have already said that, right? — and also want them to be safe. Tell them that misinformation about certain practices, including choking, is rampant, that in reality it has grave health consequences. Plus, whether or not a partner initially requested it, if things go wrong, you’re generally criminally on the hook.

Dr. Herbenick suggests reminding them that there are other, lower-risk ways to be exploratory or adventurous if that is what they are after, but it would be wisest to delay any “rough sex” until they are older and more skilled at communicating. She offers language when negotiating with a new partner, such as, “By the way, I’m not comfortable with” — choking, or other escalating behaviors such as name-calling, spitting and genital slapping — “so please don’t do it/don’t ask me to do it to you.” They could also add what they are into and want to do together.

I’d like to point high school health teachers to evidence-based porn literacy curricula, but I realize that incorporating such lessons into their classrooms could cost them their jobs. Shafia Zaloom, a lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, recommends, if that’s the case, grounding discussions in mainstream and social media. There are plenty of opportunities. “You can use it to deconstruct gender norms, power dynamics in relationships, ‘performative’ trends that don’t represent most people’s healthy behaviors,” she said, “especially depictions of people putting pressure on someone’s neck or chest.”

I also know that pediatricians, like other adults, struggle when talking to adolescents about sex (the typical conversation, if it happens, lasts 40 seconds). Then again, they already caution younger children to use a helmet when they ride a bike (because heads and necks are delicate!); they can mention that teens might hear about things people do in sexual situations, including choking, then explain the impact on brain health and why such behavior is best avoided. They should emphasize that if, for any reason — a fall, a sports mishap or anything else — a young person develops symptoms of head trauma, they should come in immediately, no judgment, for help in healing.

The role and responsibility of the entertainment industry is a tangled knot: Media reflects behavior but also drives it, either expanding possibilities or increasing risks. There is precedent for accountability. The European Union now requires age verification on the world’s largest porn sites (in ways that preserve user privacy, whatever that means on the internet); that discussion, unsurprisingly, had been politicized here. Social media platforms have already been pushed to ban content promoting eating disorders, self-harm and suicide — they should likewise be pressured to ban content promoting choking. Traditional formats can stop glamorizing strangulation, making light of it, spreading false information, using it to signal female characters’ complexity or sexual awakening. Young people’s sexual scripts are shaped by what they watch, scroll by and listen to — unprecedentedly so. They deserve, and desperately need, models of interactions that are respectful, communicative, mutual and, at the very least, safe.

Peggy Orenstein is the author of “Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent and Navigating the New Masculinity” and “Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

An earlier version of this article misstated the network on which “Californication” first appeared. It is Showtime, not HBO. The article also misspelled a book and film title. It is “Fifty Shades of Grey,” not “Fifty Shades of Gray.”

How we handle corrections

•   Weather

Search location by ZIP code

Wnba fashionistas expected to showcase their styles at the draft with spotlight on women's hoops.

• Copy Link Copy {copyShortcut} to copy Link copied!

GET LOCAL BREAKING NEWS ALERTS

The latest breaking updates, delivered straight to your email inbox.

Caitlin Clark. Cameron Brink. Kamilla Cordoso. Angel Reese.

All will step into the glaring spotlight of Monday night's WNBA's draft having faced the challenge essentially every woman can identify with: Wearing just the right outfit for a special occasion.

Related video above: What Caitlin Clark's rise to stardom means for future of women's sports

When a woman finds what she wants, it’s not a question of whether alterations are needed, but how much. The taller the woman, the bigger the challenge.

This draft, thanks to Clark and others, more people should be watching than ever before.

“There’s never been a bigger spotlight on women’s basketball, thanks in large part to players like Caitlin Clark, and coaches like Dawn Staley," Rose Minutaglio, ELLE senor editor of features and special projects, wrote in an email to The Associated Press.

That makes it the perfect time to make a fashionable splash.

“With more eyes on the league, players recognize the opportunity to showcase their personalities through their style,” Minutaglio said. "Because of glaring pay discrepancies, fashion partnerships and brand sponsorships will continue to play a big role for female athletes.”

Staley and her South Carolina Gamecocks' victory over Clark and Iowa for the women’s national championship game outdrew the men in television ratings, and this is shaping up to be the WNBA's most-watched draft.

The 6-foot-1 Clark will be joined in New York by the 6-7 Cordoso, 6-5 Brink and 6-3 Reese, among others. They've been busy since the NCAA Tournament too, especially Clark, who made a surprise appearance on "Saturday Night Live."

Clark wouldn't tip her hand Sunday about what she's wearing Monday night, saying it's always tough picking out what to wear. Luckily, she has had people helping her prepare.

"I haven’t had to do it all myself, so it’s been a little less stressful," Clark said.

Finding glam looks off the rack can be a challenge for most women.

Being tall, however, actually can be an advantage and not a hindrance for WNBA players. Models who grace the runways during fashion week and the covers of fashion magazines also stand at least 6 feet and taller.

The league's own growing popularity in recent years also has helped.

"Players are also starting to work directly with designers, who help outfit them, and stylists, who focus on game-day drip," Minutaglio wrote.

This will be only the second WNBA draft with fans in attendance, and 1,000 tickets sold out in February to attend Monday night at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. Fans got to attend the 2016 draft at the Mohegan Sun when former UConn All-American Breanna Stewart was the top pick.

Shakira Austin, the third overall pick in 2022 by the Washington Mystics, understands the angst Clark and others face. While the 6-5 center was playing in college at Mississippi, Austin was forced to be creative as she struggled to find pants that fit or any clothing that fit her style.

So she got busy with a sewing machine and became her own designer. Now that Austin is in the pros, she's a fashionista tapping into her creativity by doing more than just pants, leggings and shirts. Austin told the AP earlier this year that it's a great time to dive into both modeling and clothing design.

She sees no reason to wait until her playing career is over.

"I've always wanted my own brand, and I think this time right now allows me to really build off that and also collab with different brands and talk to people who add their own styles," Austin said.

On her way to becoming the NCAA Division I all-time leading scorer, Clark was surprised by designer Kristin Juszczyk, whose husband Kyle plays for NFC champion San Francisco in the NFL. She created a puffer vest with Clark's No. 22 in Iowa black and gold, putting the player in select company with the likes of entertainer Taylor Swift.

Minutaglio said several brands work with female athletes with Glossier and SKIMS teaming up with the WNBA specifically. She noted sports brands like PUMA, Adidas, and NIKE all work with women in basketball.

"What's interesting is we're seeing players and teams branch out into high-fashion, wearing Dior and Louis Vuitton and Gucci," Minutaglio said.

Staley herself was decked out on the sideline of the title game in Louis Vuitton from her silver jacket down to her sneakers, grabbing attention for her look far beyond the sports pages. Minutaglio noted New York-based women's wear brand M.M. LaFleur has a multi-year deal with the New York Liberty.

"I wrote a story for ELLE in 2022 predicting the rise of WNBA game-day fashion, and since then, the looks just keep getting better and better," Minutaglio wrote. "The fashion set is excited to see where it goes from here."

AP Basketball Writer Doug Feinberg contributed to this report.

My dying wife hoped to inspire people with her essay. They ended up inspiring her.

Not everyone has moments of clarity when they find out they are dying. My wife did.

The letters began arriving months ago at our house and in our inboxes. By my count there are more than 500 of them, and that’s just from strangers.

People were writing to my wife, Amy Ettinger, who died last month at age 49. You might know Amy from her words in these pages about the end of her life .

Her aggressive cancer had winnowed her body, and her strength was so limited that she dictated the essay to me in a sunlit glass-lined reading room at the University of California at Santa Cruz rather than typing it out herself.

As we overlooked a redwood forest, Amy had no way of predicting that the lines she composed on the spot would be calls to action for readers from all over the United States, as well as Canada, Poland, France and Greece.

She was flooded with responses to her essay, which essentially asked: What would your life look like if you cared much less about what other people think of you?

Could life be “a series of moments,” and not the endless pursuit of stability over bliss, or working for some long-delayed dream of post-retirement fulfillment?

Amy had a history of embracing creative risk and adventure, and wrote how putting friends and family first allowed her to face her terminal cancer diagnosis with a deep gratitude for the life she loved.

“Lasting love is about finding someone who will show up for you,” Amy wrote.

And also: “I’ve always tried to say ‘yes’ to the voice that tells me I should go out and do something now, even when that decision seems wildly impractical.”

Her essay touched people near and very far, and for reasons that surprised us, strangers wanted to connect with her before she died. They wanted to share their own stories and gratitude with her.

It offered her a comfort she did not know she needed.

Here are some of the ones that moved her the most.

“I live in a small town in Idaho that is full of hate, and after reading your story, I need to sell and move!” one message read.

Another reader wrote that he felt trapped on a corporate career ladder and was feeling anxious, which was stressing his mental health and close relationships.

“I have 10 chapters of a weird and wonderful novel and haven’t done anything with that in months even though it would probably only take a few solid weeks to finish writing it,” he wrote. “I will carry a tiny piece of your intrepid creative spirit with me as I rearrange my priorities in honor of remembering what’s truly important in life (which … isn’t corporate America).”

For one Los Angeles-based reader, Amy’s column was the tipping point that made him go ahead and book an endlessly postponed trip and reunion with loved ones.

“You helped me to realize I have said NO to too many life-affirming memories, even as our family has experienced a lot of loss over the years,” the reader said. “I am going to let my wife, daughter and son know that I will take that trip to Kastoria, Greece, home of their paternal ancestors, most of whom were taken to the camps during World War II. We will spend wonderful family time in a beautiful place and thank our family who came before us for their sacrifices. And I will think of you and say a prayer and send my eternal gratitude.”

Other readers spoke of lives crammed with tedious complications, from high-maintenance people to useless possessions.

One such reader thanked Amy for “really driving home [the] message to stop faffing around with crap that doesn’t matter and make the most of whatever time I have left. During the past few years of loss, dislocation, and general global craziness, I’ve forgotten this and come pretty close to giving up—on writing, yes, but more than that, on living. Sure, I drag through the motions for the sake of the people I love, but in a way that thumbs a nose at the monumental gift that life truly is. Your story and, again, your utmost humanity in sharing it have flipped a switch in me, and for that, I sincerely and ardently thank you.”

Some readers said the essay helped them realize that moments of joy and repose can lead to resilience in the midst of suffering. If Amy was dealing with Stage 4 cancer and could find so much light in her life, what was their excuse, anyway?

“Oh, how I cried and cried,” one reader said about reading Amy’s essay. “I then printed it out and placed it in my Bible. It’ll stay there so when I’m ready to give up on life again, I’ll read it and keep going.”

But the message that touched Amy beyond the others came from someone she knew, journalist Dania Akkad , who remembered an intervention Amy made on her behalf while working as a reporter for a California newspaper in the early 2000s. Akkad was an intern at the paper .

“We had a writing coach visit that summer,” Akkad recalled. “Long story short, you overheard me in the bathroom saying he’d made a pass at me when I had a meeting to discuss my reporting career (well at least that’s what I thought it was!). You came out of the bathroom stall and you said if I didn’t report this to management, you would.”

“It all felt so embarrassing and awkward and, well, my fault!” Akkad wrote. “Anyway, I did go to management largely because you put the pressure on. However many years later, I am so glad to have done that - and so grateful you interceded in that moment. It’s a fork-in-the-road event that has informed how I respond to this kind of crap. A real teaching moment. So thank you so very much. And thank you too for writing so lucidly about your experience now.”

Not all the notes were that lovely. Inevitably, a few were unwelcome, including missives from ultrareligious people wanting my proudly Jewish wife to get saved to spare herself from hellfire. And she smiled at the messages promoting quack remedies.

The many grateful responses prove that even now, in this era of online trolls and fake feedback generated by bots, engaged and thoughtful people really can make a difference by reaching out, human to human.

She carried this with her in her final weeks as she’d sit with me watching a great blue heron circling the sky over Santa Cruz Harbor. Or pulling up her favorite chair and watching the skateboarders, dog walkers and street basketball players on the other side of her picture window.

In this way, she embodied the spirit of her words. “I have never had a bucket list,” she wrote. “Instead, I said ‘yes’ to life.”

Dan White is the author of “ Under The Stars: How America Fell In Love With Camping ” and “ The Cactus Eaters: How I Lost My Mind And Almost Found Myself On The Pacific Crest Trail .” His website is www.danwhitebooks.com .

• Stray pigeon flies to animal shelter, is adopted out, will wear diaper April 10, 2024 Stray pigeon flies to animal shelter, is adopted out, will wear diaper April 10, 2024
• They were bitter rivals. Then one of them needed a kidney. April 9, 2024 They were bitter rivals. Then one of them needed a kidney. April 9, 2024
• ‘This is Cecil. He has never done anything bad in his life until he ate $4,000.’ January 3, 2024 ‘This is Cecil. He has never done anything bad in his life until he ate $4,000.’ January 3, 2024