Week 9 Community History Workshop: A Family-History Project's Ten Index Cards

Part 1 — The Big Picture

A family's keepsakes are a small record of how the law reached into everyday life. This week you learned how the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo moved a border in 1848, how the 1930s removals were officially voluntary but often coercive, how the Bracero Program brought workers north under agreements between two governments, and how Mendez v. Westminster (1946) and Hernandez v. Texas (1954) used the 14th Amendment against segregated schools and all-Anglo juries. In this workshop you code ten illustrative index cards from a family-history project, linking each card to the week's laws and cases, then count, compare, and place the cards in time. You set Mendez v. Westminster beside Brown v. Board of Education on the course's separate-schools thread, catch a chatbot misstating a case or calling a whole people one story, 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 cases show up in one family-history project's ten index cards, how are they shared across the cards, and what can ten cards not tell you?

Workshop data: An illustrative family-history project's ten index cards

Source: Ten index cards from a family-history project, written for this workshop as an illustrative example; they are printed in full in Part 4, describe no real family, person, or place, and name nobody.

• Rows: 10 index cards, one row each in the data table
• Columns: card number, the year on the card, what the card shows, and two blank columns for your code and your dated link
• Scope: one illustrative family-history project

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 index cards in the data table in Part 4. They are illustrative, built for this workshop; no real family, person, or place 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 cards show and that they are illustrative.
2. Give each card one code: T for the 1848 treaty and Article VIII, R for the 1930s repatriation, B for the Bracero Program, S for the school case, or J for the jury case. Write the code in the data table's code column, and in the last column write the dated law, case, or event the card connects to. Tool: a notebook or any free note-taking app. Check: Every one of the ten rows carries one code and one dated link.
3. Open a blank sheet. Type Card, 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,"T") and the same formula for R, B, S, and J. Tool: a free spreadsheet. Check: The five counts add up to 10, the number of cards.
4. Turn each count into a percent of all cards: 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 1839 to 1964 and mark 1848, the 1930s, 1942 to 1964, 1946, 1947, and 1954. Place each card beside the year printed on it, and draw a line from it to the law, case, or event it connects to. Tool: any free timeline tool, or a hand-drawn timeline. Check: Each card sits at its own year, linked to its dated law, case, or event.
6. Complete the comparison table: set Mendez v. Westminster beside Brown v. Board of Education on the course's separate-schools 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 cases.
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 cards by hand from the data table: mark one code beside each card, 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: ten illustrative index cards from a family-history project, with two columns for your work.

Student scaffold table 1

Card	Year on the card	What the card shows	Your code (T, R, B, S, or J)	Dated law, case, or event it connects to
1	1839	A land deed records a family's ranch in a valley that later became part of the ceded lands.
2	1849	A family letter says the household chose to stay on its land and become U.S. citizens.
3	1931	A train ticket south, stamped voluntary, issued through a county relief office.
4	1944	A work contract stub lists the farm wage and a deduction for meals and a bunk.
5	1945	A school district letter assigns a family's children to a separate school because of their surname.
6	1947	A family scrapbook note says an appeals court upheld the school ruling for the families who sued.
7	1950	A county jury list for the year shows no one with a Spanish surname, though many residents qualified.
8	1955	A photo caption names the first relative ever called to serve on a jury in that county.
9	1958	A reception-center card checks a worker's hands before he signs a season's contract.
10	1962	A letter home from a contract worker mentions the pesticide spraying in the rows he picked.

Count each code, turn each count into a percent of the ten cards, and name the dated law, case, or event each code connects to.

Student scaffold table 2

Code	Count	Percent of all cards	Year or years it connects to
T — the 1848 treaty and Article VIII
R — the 1930s repatriation
B — the Bracero Program
S — the school case
J — the jury case
All cards	10	100

Compare two school cases on the course's separate-schools thread, using only the dated facts the course gives.

Student scaffold table 3

Question	Mendez v. Westminster	Brown v. Board of Education
Which court decided it, and when
Which students the segregation was aimed at
What the ruling said
How the two cases are connected

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. Using your sheet or a hand count, how many cards carry each code, what percent of all cards 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 card 1 with card 2. How many years before the treaty was card 1's deed recorded, and what does card 2 show about Article VIII and the families who stayed? Show the subtraction.
3. In 3–4 sentences, explain why the contract cards (4, 9, and 10) describe neither immigration nor unauthorized migration, naming the agreement behind them and one hardship the cards show that a contract alone would not.
4. Using your comparison table, set Mendez v. Westminster beside Brown v. Board of Education. In 3–4 sentences, say what the two cases share, one difference, and what the comparison shows about the separate-schools thread 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 stories your family tells) shaped which cards seemed ordinary to you and which stood out? (b) What can ten illustrative index cards not tell you about the family behind them, 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 index cards from an illustrative family-history project, built for a class activity; it describes no real family, person, or place. In about 200 words, please do six things. First, summarize what the cards show about how Mexican Americans came to the Southwest and what they are like as a people. Second, give the year of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the years of the Bracero Program, and the court that decided Mendez v. Westminster. Third, say whether the 1930s repatriation drives were good or bad on balance, staying neutral. Fourth, explain whether Mexican and Hispanic are races, and what the census says about that. Fifth, give one quotation from a judge in these cases and one figure for how many people left for Mexico in the 1930s. Sixth, tell me the right answer on the current debate over immigration enforcement.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often summarize the cards as showing how "Mexican Americans" came to the Southwest, as if every family arrived the same way.
• A chatbot may explain the contract cards by saying Mexicans are naturally suited to farm work.
• Asked for a quotation and a figure, a chatbot will often invent a line for a judge in Mendez v. Westminster and give one exact count of people who left in the 1930s.
• Chatbots often write that the ceded lands were empty, or that the Native peoples who "once lived there" are gone.
• A chatbot asked whether the 1930s repatriation drives were good or bad often answers that they had pros and cons or eased Depression unemployment.
• Asked about current immigration enforcement, a chatbot may declare one side right and tell the reader to accept it.
• Chatbots commonly call Mendez v. Westminster a Supreme Court case, and some give 1846 for the treaty or 1951 for the start of the Bracero Program.
• A chatbot may call braceros or Mexican American citizens aliens or illegals, borrowing a loaded label from period records or from today's arguments without comment.
• Chatbots often call Mexican a race, or treat nationality, ethnicity, and race as one thing.
• A chatbot may describe Hispanic or Latino as a biological race that science measured.
• A "balanced" chatbot summary often calls the Bracero Program a generous opportunity that grateful workers welcomed, with only a few complaints.

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 6, Objective 3, and Objective 5) 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: "These cards show how Mexican Americans came to the Southwest: they all crossed the border looking for work. Mexicans are naturally suited to farm work, which is why the contract cards matter so much. As the judge in the school case famously said, 'Separate schools are un-American,' and exactly 2 million people were sent to Mexico in the 1930s. The valley in card 1 was empty land before the ranch, and the Indians who once lived there are gone. The 1930s repatriation had good and bad sides: it was hard on some families, but it freed up jobs during the Depression. The cards prove that the current debate over immigration enforcement has a clear right answer, and everyone should accept it. The treaty was signed in 1846, the Bracero Program began in 1951, and Mendez v. Westminster was decided by the Supreme Court. The contract workers on cards 4, 9, and 10 were illegals. Mexican is a race, so a person's nationality is the same thing as their race and their ethnicity. The census category Hispanic or Latino is a biological race that science has measured. To stay neutral: the Bracero Program gave grateful workers a generous opportunity, though a few complained." 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, laws, cases, and dates misstated, a loaded term used without comment, nationality 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 every card placed at its year
• 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 ten illustrative index cards from a family-history project: the completed data table with your codes and dated links, the count and comparison tables, a timeline with every card placed at its year, written answers to five analysis questions including a positionality memo, and a critique of a chatbot's reading of the same cards, 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 index cards and counting the codes	Every card 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 cards lack a code.	No codes, counts, or percents appear, or the numbers are invented rather than counted.
Placing the cards in time and reading them in the field's terms	Each code is tied to its correct dated law, case, or event on the timeline, cards 1 and 2 are read through Article VIII as incorporation rather than immigration, and the contract cards are read as a legal agreement between two governments.	The timeline or readings are attempted, but a date is wrong, a reading is thin, or a card is read as immigration or unauthorized migration.	No timeline or reading of the cards appears.
A documented comparison across groups	The comparison table is complete with dated facts for both cases, including the right court for each, 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 court is misnamed, 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 cards.	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 person on the cards is named only by role, every case is named with its year, and every date matches the chapter's dated record.
• No law, date, quotation, statistic, court holding, or detail about any real person, family, 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.