The citizenship test — hint: It’s about a lot more than just voting

It’s the ongoing dynamic of membership and participation

I commend Jeff Jacoby and thank him for his Nov. 23 Opinion column, “What makes a good citizen?” We may disagree on some details, but we both understand that citizenship is more complex than simply casting a vote.

At the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School, our reflection years ago on the Dred Scott decision led us to understand citizenship as the ongoing dynamic of membership and participation.

As a Black man who appreciates the sacrifices of so many who fought to realize the constitutional guarantee of the

15th Amendment, I also realize that measuring citizenship — whether “good” or ordinary — by voting is, for those long denied both membership and participation, cynical bordering on cruel.

Indeed, in a society in which rights of citizenship seem to accrue to corporations, it is reasonable to understand participation can take many forms, including protest and dissent. Demanding full membership by these means is a form of participation in civic life.

This is forever evolving, from the first experiment in representative democracy on July 30,

1619, with an election by white, propertied men — excluding women, anyone who did not own property, native people, and Africans who did not arrive until what’s often recorded only as

“sometime in August 1619.”

Jacoby’s formulation limits membership to those who claim to be citizens, thus denying the participation and contributions of those worthy residents who do not have such status. In this sense, I prefer to think of “community members” rather than citizens. But by whatever name, being a full member of society includes so much more than voting.

Measuring citizenship — whether ‘good’ or ordinary — by voting is, for those long denied both membership and participation, cynical bordering on cruel.

The writer is retired managing director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice.