Abstract
Abstract This commentary on the preceding six articles identifies those elements that contributed to Baltimore '68: Riot and Rebirth's success as a public history program, even as it raises questions about the program's long-term impact. It pays particular attention to the way the oral history interviews conducted as part of the program created a more inclusive public conversation about the Baltimore riot. It also recognizes the importance of the University of Baltimore's commitment to what is often termed the scholarship of engagement by marshalling institution-wide resources for the program; and suggests commonalities between engaged scholarship and public history. Finally, this commentary suggests that while Baltimore '68 was enormously successful as a public humanities program, the depth and duration of its civic impact are less certain, and as a consequence, it raises issues simultaneously organizational, conceptual, and social.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
