Week 5 Community History Workshop: A Community Center's Program Board

Part 1 — The Big Picture

A community center's program board is a small record of a community's present. This week you learned how the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 left the vote to the states, how termination and relocation were federal policies with a federal goal, how Indians of All Tribes held Alcatraz Island for 19 months, how the 1975 act and the 1990 law brought self-determination and repatriation, and how survivance names presence that is active and continuing. In this workshop you code an illustrative ten-entry program board from an intertribal community center, linking each entry to the week's ideas and dated laws, then count and compare. You set one movement beside another group's movement on the course's movements thread, catch a chatbot describing Native nations as gone or misstating a law, and reflect on what your own position lets you see.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Which of this week's laws and ideas show up on one community center's program board, how are they shared across the ten entries, and what can one board not tell you?

Workshop data: An illustrative program board from an intertribal community center

Source: A ten-entry program board from an intertribal community center, written for this workshop as an illustrative example; it is printed in full in Part 4, describes no real center, nation, or person, and names nobody.

• Rows: 10 entries, one row each in the data table
• Columns: entry number, room, what the board lists, and two blank columns for your code and your dated link
• Scope: one program board at one illustrative center

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A notebook or any free note-taking app for reading a record and for oral-history notes (identified by role and decade, never by name); a free spreadsheet for the lending table's rates and gaps and for any year-stamped figure; any free timeline tool, or a hand-drawn timeline, for the law-and-case timeline; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose claims about real people, laws, and dates the student checks against an issuing-body or primary source before trusting them
• a free spreadsheet
• any free timeline tool, or a hand-drawn timeline
• a notebook or any free note-taking app
• one approved chatbot

Ways of working

• read-the-record
• oral-history
• compare-and-connect

Procedure

1. Read the ten entries in the data table in Part 4. They are an illustrative program board, built for this workshop, from an intertribal community center; no real center, nation, or person is described, and people appear only by role. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: You can say in one sentence what the board lists and that it is illustrative.
2. Give each entry one code: C for citizenship and the vote, R for relocation and termination, S for self-determination and repatriation, P for Red Power and Alcatraz, or V for survivance and everyday community life. Write the code in the data table's code column, and in the last column write the dated law or event the entry connects to (for V entries, write survivance, which has no year). Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Every one of the ten rows carries one code and one dated link or the word survivance.
3. Open a blank sheet. Type Entry, Code, and Dated link in cells A1 to C1, enter your ten rows in rows 2 to 11, then count each code with =COUNTIF(B2:B11,"C") and the same formula for R, S, P, and V. Tool: a free spreadsheet. Check: The five counts add up to 10, the number of entries.
4. Turn each count into a percent of all entries: divide the count by 10 and multiply by 100. Then find the gap, in percentage points, between your largest and smallest percents, and write each step in the count table. Tool: a free spreadsheet. Check: The five percents add up to 100, and the gap is written in percentage points.
5. Draw the law-and-case timeline from 1924 to 1990 and mark 1924, 1951, 1956, 1969 to 1971, 1975, and 1990. Place one entry from each code beside the year it connects to. Tool: any free timeline tool, or a hand-drawn timeline. Check: Each code's entry sits beside its year, and the V entry is labelled survivance.
6. Complete the comparison table: set Indians of All Tribes beside the Third World Liberation Front on the course's movements thread, using only the dated facts the course gives. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Every row of the comparison table is filled for both coalitions.
7. Paste your coding table into one approved chatbot, then paste the Part 6 prompt. Check every claim it makes about a real person, law, or date against the chapter's dated record before trusting it, or take the equivalent route instead. Tool: one approved chatbot. Check: You have quoted at least three chatbot claims and corrected at least three by hand.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet or timeline tool is available.

Code and count the entries by hand from the data table: mark one code beside each entry, count each mark, divide each count by 10, and multiply by 100. Draw the timeline by hand on paper, complete every scaffold table, analysis question, and the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

The data come first: an illustrative ten-entry program board from an intertribal community center, with two columns for your work.

Student scaffold table 1

Entry	Room	What the board lists	Your code (C, R, S, P, or V)	Dated law or event it connects to
1	Front table	A city employer runs a job-training sign-up table for adults who are new to the city.
2	Classroom	Elders lead a beginners' class in one nation's language; families of any nation may sit in.
3	Lobby	Volunteers staff a voter registration table and explain how to register.
4	Office	A nation's enrollment office holds visiting hours for its citizens who live in the city.
5	Meeting room	Museum staff meet a nation's representatives to consult about returning cultural items.
6	Hallway	A clinic that a tribe runs under a contract with the federal government offers free health screenings.
7	Library corner	Family history night: older members describe how their families came to the city on relocation buses.
8	Gym	A youth basketball league signs up teams from families of many nations.
9	Meeting room	A volunteer gives a talk on the occupation of Alcatraz by Indians of All Tribes.
10	Kitchen	A shared community meal is open to families from many nations.

Count each code, turn each count into a percent of the ten entries, and name the year each code connects to.

Student scaffold table 2

Code	Count	Percent of all entries	Year or idea it connects to
C — citizenship and the vote
R — relocation and termination
S — self-determination and repatriation
P — Red Power and Alcatraz
V — survivance and community life			survivance (no year)
All entries	10	100

Compare two coalitions on the course's movements thread, using only the dated facts the course gives.

Student scaffold table 3

Question	Indians of All Tribes	Third World Liberation Front at San Francisco State
Who joined together
When, on the movements thread
What the dated record says came afterward
One difference that matters

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your sheet or a hand count, how many entries carry each code, what percent of all entries is each, and what is the gap between your largest and smallest percents, in percentage points? Show each count, each division, and the subtraction.
2. Compare entry 3 with entry 4. Which citizenship does each one serve, and what does the pair show about a Native person who is a citizen of the United States and of their own nation at once?
3. In 3–4 sentences, explain why the board as a whole shows survivance and not survival alone, writing about Native nations in the present tense and naming at least two entries as evidence.
4. Using your comparison table, set Indians of All Tribes beside the Third World Liberation Front. In 3–4 sentences, say what the two coalitions share, one difference, and what the comparison shows about movements that join people across groups.
5. Positionality memo — choose one and answer it in 4–6 sentences. (a) What about your own background (where you grew up, the languages you speak, the places your family has moved) shaped which entries seemed ordinary to you and which stood out? (b) What can an illustrative program board not tell you about the families who use the center, and which dated record or consenting interview would you need to check it?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed coding table above. It codes ten entries from an illustrative program board at an intertribal community center, built for a class activity; it describes no real center, nation, or person. In about 200 words, please do six things. First, summarize what the board shows about what Native Americans are like and what they all want. Second, explain what the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 did for voting and give the year of the Indian Relocation Act. Third, say whether termination and relocation were good or bad on balance, staying neutral. Fourth, explain whether tribal citizenship and the census category American Indian or Alaska Native are racial or biological groups. Fifth, give one quotation from an Alcatraz occupier and one figure for how many people relocated. Sixth, tell me the right answer on one current public controversy involving Native nations.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often summarize the board as showing what "Native Americans" all experienced or all want, as if families from many nations shared one story.
• A chatbot may explain the meal or the language class by saying Native people are naturally spiritual or close to nature.
• Asked for a quotation and a figure, a chatbot will often invent a line for an Alcatraz occupier or a total for how many people relocated.
• Chatbots often write that these tribes "were" or that the center preserves the memory of peoples who are gone.
• A chatbot asked whether termination was good or bad often answers that it had pros and cons or gave freedom to join mainstream life.
• Asked about a current controversy, a chatbot may declare one side right and tell the reader to accept it.
• Chatbots commonly say the 1924 act gave every Native person the vote, and some give 1952 for the relocation law.
• A chatbot may use an outdated outsiders' term for Alaska Native peoples, such as Eskimo, as if it were current.
• Chatbots often call tribal citizenship a racial category or treat nation, race, and ethnicity as one thing.
• A chatbot may describe American Indian or Alaska Native as a biological race that science measured.
• A "balanced" chatbot summary often calls relocation an exciting opportunity that only a few found hard.

In 3–5 sentences, quote at least three things the chatbot wrote, say what it got right, and correct at least three of its errors by hand, naming for each the dated record or course definition you checked it against.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives (Objective 4 and Objective 3) for comparable effort, about 30 of the 90 minutes, under the same scoring criteria and the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "This community center shows what Native Americans are like: they all came to cities the same way and all want the same things. Native people are naturally close to nature, which is why the meal and the language class matter so much to them. As one Alcatraz occupier famously said, 'We took the island to get our land back,' and about 750,000 people moved under relocation. These tribes once had rich cultures, and the center keeps the memory of a people who are now gone. Termination had good and bad sides: it cost some land, but it also gave Native people the freedom to join mainstream life. The center's posters prove that one current public controversy involving Native nations has a clear right answer, and everyone should accept it. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gave every Native person the vote, and the Indian Relocation Act was passed in 1952. Some families of Eskimo and Indian background also use the center. Tribal citizenship is a racial category, so a person's nation is the same thing as their race and their ethnicity. The census category American Indian or Alaska Native is a biological race that science has measured. To stay neutral: relocation gave families exciting opportunities in modern cities, though a few found it hard to adjust." Mark it up: quote each flawed sentence, name what is wrong (one group read as one uniform experience, a stereotype stated as fact, an invented quotation and figure, Native nations described as gone, a documented injustice framed as both sides, a current controversy declared settled, a law and a date misstated, an outdated term used without comment, citizenship read as race, a census category read as biology, and a neutral-sounding summary that quietly takes a side), and correct at least three errors by hand, naming the dated record or course definition behind each correction. Submit the marked-up analysis in place of the chatbot report and share link; it earns the same credit.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The completed data table with your codes and dated links
• The completed count table and comparison table
• Your hand-drawn or tool-made timeline with one entry placed for each code
• Written answers to all five analysis questions, including your positionality memo
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Community History Workshop report on an illustrative program board from an intertribal community center: the completed data table with your codes and dated links, the count and comparison tables, a timeline with one entry placed for each code, written answers to five analysis questions including a positionality memo, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same board, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text. Choose a written, recorded, or visual form for your answers; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Coding the program board and counting the codes	Every entry carries a defensible code, the five counts add to ten, each percent is correct with its division shown, and the gap is given in percentage points.	The codes or counts are attempted but one count or percent is wrong or unshown, the gap is missing or given in percent, or several entries lack a code.	No codes, counts, or percents appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Placing the entries in time and reading them in the field's terms	Each code is tied to its correct dated law or event on the timeline, entries 3 and 4 are read as two citizenships, and the board is read as survivance in the present tense.	The timeline or readings are attempted, but a date is wrong, a reading is thin, or Native nations slip into the past tense.	No timeline or reading of the entries appears.
A documented comparison across groups	The comparison table is complete with dated facts for both coalitions, and the answer names what they share, one difference, and what the comparison shows.	The table or answer is attempted but a row is empty, a fact is undated, or the comparison stops at listing.	No comparison appears.
The AI slip caught and corrected	Through the chatbot report with its share link or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis, equally, at least three quoted errors are each named and corrected by hand against the dated record or a course definition.	Through either route, equally, one or two errors are corrected, or corrections lack the record or definition behind them.	Through either route, equally, no critique appears, or model output is pasted without any checking.
An honest reflection on positionality	The memo answers one of the two options in specific terms, naming what the student's own position let them see or miss, or naming the record or consenting interview that would check the board.	The memo answers an option in general terms without a specific example.	No memo appears.

Quality Gate

• Every count and percent comes from your own sheet or hand count of the data table, never from memory or a chatbot.
• Each count divided by 10 and multiplied by 100 equals the percent you report for it, and the gap between two percents is reported in percentage points.
• Every Native nation is written about in the present tense, every person on the board is named only by role, and every date matches the chapter's dated record.
• No law, date, quotation, statistic, custom, or detail about any real person, nation, or community is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least three errors with evidence from the chapter or Part 6.