The year is 2068. The lakes in the Adirondack Mountain region in New York State have experienced flooding over the last several years. Three Syracuse University faculty members decided to visit Minnowbrook Lodge (a structure in the Adirondacks that is owned by the University) to determine whether the lodge withstood the flooding. 

​They found that the Lodge itself was intact but the ground around the structure was in turmoil. There were so many objects poking out of the ground that they thought that the area had been used as some sort of a cemetery. The faculty members contacted colleagues from the archeology department and asked them to visit the area to make sure that professionals were involved in exploring these ruins.

The archeologists’ dig uncovered graves of pets, remnants of garbage, and what seemed to be a sealed time capsule. The faculty group opened the capsule carefully and discovered a stack of papers inside as well as a newspaper. They found an agenda for a conference titled Minnowbrook at 50 that was attended by approximately 50 people.
 
According to the newspaper that was included in the capsule the conference took place in a very turbulent time in U.S. history. There seemed to be a concern that a leader was in place who was challenging many of the principles in the US political and administrative system. As they examined the papers they discovered that the conference was the fourth in a series of conferences organized by the Maxwell School in Syracuse – the public administration school. First held in 1968, the 2018 meeting (like its predecessors) brought scholars in public administration and management together to discuss the state of the field and its future.

The bulk of the papers in the capsule seemed to be quite short (usually about 3 or 4 pages long). They were written by the attendees at the conference before the meeting was held and were defined as “concept papers” that discussed a critical issue or topic that was important to both the participant and to the field. 

One of the archeologists in the group was fascinated by this array of papers. He was interested in the historical development of academic fields and looked for ruins of both universities and libraries for evidence of patterns in the way that academic programs were conceptualized. These papers, by contrast, allowed him to move beyond the ruins of buildings and to use the papers to glimpse both the status and uncertainties contained in an important intellectual field. 

Because the authorship of the papers was identifiable, it was possible for the archeologist to make some generalizations about the participants. He noted that it seemed that 50% of the paper writers were men and 50% were women. He couldn’t determine the nationality or race of many of the authors but did note that a few people had Middle Eastern names and a few had Hispanic names. He did not find anyone among the authors with an Asian name. Other names suggested European family backgrounds. 

After he read and reread the papers more than five times, he emerged with a picture of the field of public administration in 2018. He was able to produce a document that listed his observations about the papers. As he wrote, he found that the observations were similar to what he thought were the assumptions of the current people in that field in 2068. 

Here is his list:

1. Participants in the conference did not appear to share similar views of problems, opportunities, and constraints. It was clear that the group was not able to describe the field as a unified intellectual enterprise with agreement on its parameters or values. In fact, it seemed that the intellectual divisions within the field kept participants from developing shared agendas.

2. The cast of characters in the field (both the players and leaders) included a number of people representing institutions, individual views, politicians, professionals, experts and citizens. But it was not clear who played leadership roles in the field or even whether all those listed were considered to be appropriate players.

3. The issues that were discussed in the papers often relied on past meetings and discussions. There was a sense of nostalgia about the past but a feeling of fear about the future. One could see that the participants were overwhelmed by the current set of pressures in the US at that time.

4. A significant number of the papers were concerned about issues of equity and diversity facing individuals in the field. It seemed that some of the participants believed that there had been some progress over the years but still continued to highlight disparities. It appeared that these issues had been raised at earlier conferences but it was not clear whether much progress had been made in the field since then. Others did not focus on equity values but highlighted efficiency norms, often relying on private sector (rather than public) approaches.

5. Some of the participants described the public administration field through analytic approaches that provided a sense of neutrality. Several defined their expectations through reliance on data. Others commented on the general benefits of technology. 

6. It was difficult to get a sense of the causes of the problems that were facing the field and the society at large. Some participants seemed to fear politics and sought ways to avoid it. Others highlighted the role of citizens in the public administration sphere. 

7. Although a few of the papers were written by practitioners of public administration (bureaucrats or relevant non-government organizations), the relationship between academics and practitioners was not clear. Was the purpose of the meeting to develop ways to warn decisionmakers about issues or to help them deal with them?
​
The archeologist had tried to find other information about the three previous Minnowbrook conferences but the on-line sources did not provide him with relevant information. Were the other conferences successful? And he wondered what had happened in the public administration field in the past 50 years? He was intrigued about its development. Perhaps he would find another time capsule that would help him understand this important field of study.

There are many ways to describe the impact of the passage of time. Many of us mark our experiences through births, deaths, marriages and other family related events. Years pass by and it is usual for us to be aware of patterns that have developed clearly within the family as the months progress. Sometimes these patterns seem to be interrupted as dramatic changes in the society move into the world that had appeared to be personal and somewhat insulated from broader shifts.

I have recently been faced with such a collision. Ironically, I finished writing a personal memoir just about the time that Donald Trump was elected president. I reached the age of 80 when my memoir was published. The title summarizes its focus: Leaving South Dakota: A Memoir of a Jewish Feminist Academic. I tried to tell the story of a Jewish girl growing up in South Dakota, leaving home at a time of immense change in the US, and trying to find a way to make sense of a constantly changing environment.

The memoir dealt with three themes. The first shows that people change but usually maintain attributes of their early life. The second highlights the contradictions and conflicts that continued throughout my life. And the third acknowledges that change comes in unexpected ways as a result of unanticipated experiences.

Clearly, I did not anticipate the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump challenged many of my basic beliefs. His election not only tested my political and social beliefs but has actually confronted the story that I have told about my life. I look at the memoir today and start questioning my interpretation of the basic parameters of my life. Was I really a Jewish girl who described herself always living in multiple worlds, balancing change and tradition, operating outside and inside the system, being both a practitioner and an academic, and an advocate and an analyst?

Like many of the people I know, Trump’s presidency has contributed to my daily personal problems. I am uncertain about the future. This uncertainty seems to have contributed to health issues that limit my mobility and (even though I am over 80) makes me worry about my professional and personal future. And it causes me to worry about the younger members of the family and how they will survive this depressing environment. What should my twin great-nieces expect for their future?

This is not surprising. But I do find myself wondering how people I knew escaped from the suicides of the Stock Market crash of 1929 or learned how to deal with their shifting role in the world (as did UK citizens when the British empire diminished in size and impact in the post-World War II period). But those comparisons are largely theoretical or at least abstract.

Its when I pick up a copy of my memoir today that I am struck by the Trump impact. Writing the memoir had allowed me to reexamine my experience. But it didn’t give me a hint about the disjuncture between my assumptions and those that emerged from Trump. I told the story of a family of immigrants (I was a first generation American) who found a way to be proud Americans and contribute to all of the ways available to the US society. My parents lived through the depression, continued to identify as Jews to the broader society, valued education, and – interesting enough – were good citizens in a small city in South Dakota. The term “immigrant” evokes a different reaction today than it did as I was growing up.

My memoir did include the description of some experiences that showed that anti-Semitism was not dead but when it did surface it did not control our lives. As I have subsequently learned since the publication of the memoir, my experiences growing up in Aberdeen, South Dakota were both familiar and yet different from those of my colleagues. While those colleagues do seem to have differentiated between our experiences, it did not take the classic forms of anti-Semitism.
What would I say if I were writing that memoir today? 

Would I emphasize the experiences that had anti-Semitic overlays? Would I spend more time on the experiences that made me skeptical of traditional Judaism? Would I believe that J Street could withstand the pressures both inside the US and in Israel that ignored the values of Judaism that I had supported? 

Would I characterize my experience as more of that of an outsider than an insider? Would I note that I didn’t have a desire to return to Aberdeen and instead explore the world and find friendships and experiences across the globe? Would I have become an academic who valued information, research and the ability to be skeptical about “truths”, especially those masquerading as “fake news”? 

Would I believe in the ability of the US democratic system to withstand challenges to its way of sharing power across sectors and deal with complexity? And perhaps most importantly, would I calculate cost and profit margins as my single measure of success, ignoring values of equity and effectiveness?

History is always written in new ways as historians deal with the realities of the present as they present the past. That can happen in one’s personal history as well.