I read the volume with a growing sense of pleasure, as the articles reflected on what it means to transform archival authority through undergraduate engagement with archives while covering a range of histories, communities, and methodologies. In the introduction, Gustavson and Nunes remind readers of Jarret Drake’s 2018 piece “Seismic Shifts: On Archival Facts and Fictions,” stating that “a more multifaceted, less hegemonic sense of the past produces a more equitable future” (p. 1). This multifaceted sense of the past is fostered in undergraduate classrooms at the intersection of critical archives, digital humanities, and community archives. While trauma-filled histories and archival absences make work in archives difficult, the possibility of this process to “manifest the ‘seismic shifts’ in society” (p. 2) is of increasing importance, especially as those working in the United States navigate present and intersecting crises. At the core of the collection is the recognition and valuation of students in the archives as equal partners. Students are named in the opening acknowledgements; they participate by contributing chapters and sections of chapters, to great effect; and they are framed throughout as partners in reciprocal engagement (p. 2). In my own learning journey with teaching and transforming archival authority, it is the students who have shown me most plainly and generously what works and what does not. Their treatment in this volume as equal partners, and the recognition of the value they bring, in and of itself enacts a non-hierarchical, radical reordering of archival authority. The introduction outlines a series of questions that guided the editorial process, each connected to a broad inquiry concerning “new roles for archives in undergraduate pedagogy and new roles for undergraduates in archives” (p. 2). In my archival practice, I am often asked to design one-off lessons introducing students to archives over durations of a few hours or less. Refreshingly, the projects described in the essays in this volume go beyond one-shot instruction to, instead, engage students “in the manifold challenges of building, stewarding, and communicating about collections” (p. 2), suggesting to the reader that inviting students into transformative engagement with the archives will require more long-lasting relationships and well-resourced projects. And although this “going beyond” relies on strong relationships, funding models, and resources that will not be available to all archives and archivists, the essays present different options for engaging in this work, inspiring a sense of what might be possible. Each of the book’s three sections – “Archives and Trauma,” “Confronting Institutional Power,” and “Beyond the Campus” – introduce the reader to a key aspect of teaching with archival collections. I appreciated the co-editors’ care in starting with “Archives and Trauma,” as histories with the potential to retraumatize and/or expose students to vicarious trauma are ever-present in archives. In “The Ethics of Teaching Undergraduates Using Digital Archives,” Hannah Alpert-Abrams and Andi Gustavson present a practical overview of how to address the traumatic histories archives hold and the ethical dilemmas associated with teaching them. If busy practitioners had time to read only one chapter, this might be the one I would recommend. Gustavson and Abrams provide a framework, principles, and case studies, using best practices to work toward meaningful and ethical student engagement with archives and providing clear recommendations and guidelines based on the challenges and successes they have encountered. In subsequent sections, we see the ways in which these guidelines and ethical considerations play out in the lived experiences of archivists, instructors, and students. For example, in “Preparing, Practicing, Sustaining: Archives of Student Protest as Critical Archive Pedagogy,” Temitayo Wolff reflects on setbacks and challenges encountered in the Conney M. Kimbo Black Cultural …
