CHAPTER V

DISLOYALTY CHARGES AGAINST TEACHERS SINCE 1917

Great events occasion diverse opinions, and it is not strange that the World War and its aftermath often tempted public school teachers to enter the area of controversial issues. Thus the question of whether the teacher should be permitted free and open expression of opinion became a point of contention between the upholders and opponents of unrestricted speech. It became a matter of considerable concern whether the teacher be allowed to sow the seed of an idea alien to that held by the child’s parents, or, perhaps, in disagreement with that of the school’s administrators. It was not a new question nor unexpected.

The great mass of public school teachers were conscious of the censorious eye fixed upon them and realized that “the wise man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself, but the foolish pass on and are punished.” Diligent search in public records and through personal inquiry reveals few occasions where actual charges of disloyalty were lodged against teachers in the public schools. Indeed, the superintendents of public instruction in thirty-two states report that from 1917 to 1924 no accusations involving the loyalty of teachers were brought to the attention of their offices.[344] One is disposed to concur in a statement made by the Lusk Committee of New York investigating seditious activities that “on the whole, it may safely be said that our public school system is comparatively free from the taint of revolutionary teaching.”[345] Yet some teachers faced accusations impugning loyalty. Doubtless there were others whose utterances were considered disloyal or ill-advised, but who escaped with little or no publicity attending their dismissal from service.

In the city of New York, the trials of teachers for disloyalty were most numerous, for it was here that legislation to restrain the speech of the teacher was most rigorously applied. Under the Lusk Law persons failing to secure a certificate of loyalty were forbidden to teach in the schools of New York, the Commissioner of Education having the sole right to refuse such a certificate.[346]

In general, charges of disloyalty were preferred against six groups of teachers: those objecting to sign the pledge of loyalty, those whose sympathies in the War were pro-German, the pacifists, those whose speech was considered disloyal, those who opposed and obstructed the draft, and those who held membership in a political party which advocated a change in the established form of government.[347]

In the eyes of the school administrators an unwillingness to sign pledges of loyalty without qualification was but the evidence of a hybrid patriotism. In no other light did they believe could be considered the objection to a pledge which declared an “unqualified allegiance to the Government of the United States,” and which promised by “word and example” to “teach and impress” upon “the pupils the duty of loyal obedience and patriotic service as the highest ideal of American citizenship.”[348]

Opposition to signing the pledges under compulsion was led by the Teachers’ Union, and their protest against an implication of disloyalty was endorsed by eighty-seven teachers.[349] Among those refusing at first to sign a pledge were Miss Isabel Davenport of the New York Training School for Teachers and Harrison C. Thomas of the De Witt Clinton High School. The examination started to determine their fitness to teach was discontinued when they agreed to sign the pledge.[350]

In March, 1918, the charge of pro-Germanism was lodged against Miss Gertrude A. M. Pignol, a teacher in the Manual Training High School in Brooklyn, and her suspension was asked by the Board of Superintendents. Miss Pignol, a native of Berlin, had been a resident of the United States since 1905. In 1911 she had taken out citizenship papers.[351] When questioned by secret service agents, it developed that, although her sympathies were with Germany, she had in no way been connected with German activities in this country. In the hope that her views might undergo a change Miss Pignol was given a leave of absence for three months. In May, 1918, however, Associate Superintendent Tildsley preferred the following charges against her before a committee of the Board of Education: that she did not believe in war, that she was under the impression that it was not necessary for the United States to be engaged in the War, that she would not pledge her coöperation in every way in her power to the United States government in its measures for the prosecution of the War against Germany.[352]

In Miss Pignol’s trial, statements from fellow-teachers were cited as proof of her pro-German bias. A remark, alleged to have been made eleven years prior, that she would be ashamed to be an American citizen, was adduced as evidence. Further proof was found in a statement that she doubted the accuracy of the accounts regarding German outrages; that she had attempted to dissuade a German woman from returning to Germany because she would eat food needed by the Germans; that she objected to the posting of a food card by the school librarian; and that she was deeply touched by the slaughter of the War. The possession of a locket, engraved by her father and carrying the picture of the Kaiser’s grandfather on one side and the cornflower on the other, was put in evidence as additional proof of her hostility to the cause of the United States.[353] Although she asserted her desire for an American victory, the confession that she did not want her native land crushed militated against her.[354] On June 26, she was dismissed from service by the Board of Education.[355]

On October 24, 1918, Fritz A. E. Leuchs was suspended from duty in the schools, charged with “conduct unbecoming a teacher.” His suspension was confirmed on October 30 by the Board of Education. According to his own testimony, he had tried for four years to enlist in the German army, but on October 25 had entered upon military service in this country. Under the circumstances the Board of Education resorted to suspension in order that he could not claim the difference in pay as a teacher and a soldier.[356]

Similar treatment was accorded pacifists serving in the schools. In this group was Miss Mary McDowell, a Quakeress, employed in the schools of Brooklyn, who was suspended from duty on March 12, 1918. She based her defense in the unrestricted exercise of religious faith as a birthright, her previous contributions to relief for American sufferers to the Red Cross and other charitable projects, as well as the distribution of thrift stamp circulars in the schools. Miss McDowell’s retention as a public school teacher was opposed on the ground that her pacifist views were ill-advised at a time when patriotism should be taught in act as well as in speech.[357] On June 19, 1918, she was dismissed from service by the Board of Education.[358] Following the close of the War Miss McDowell’s case was reopened, which resulted in her reinstatement on July 11, 1923. On reviewing the causes for Miss McDowell’s dismissal, Commissioner Bowe declared: “After full consideration of the case, the committee has decided that the punishment meted out to Miss McDowell was too severe. She was tried at a time of great public excitement. Since then public feeling has undergone considerable modification. For thirteen years she had done excellent work as a teacher....”[359]

An unwillingness to engage in active service resulted likewise in the suspension of Louis H. Blumenthal, a teacher of history and civics in Public School 148, Brooklyn, on June 19, 1918.

Nor were all teachers willing to obey a law precluding criticism of the government. To secure permanency of tenure through silent assent was to some but a bribe against their convictions. And not all were agreed that it was wise to refrain from teaching what they held true because others saw in the same belief the germs of disloyalty.

Such a disagreement as to how freely a teacher could express opinions led to investigations of the loyalty of Florence Levine, Samuel D. Schmalhausen, Thomas Mufson, and A. Henry Schneer. In the case of Miss Levine, a teacher in Public School 168, Brooklyn, the Teachers’ Council, to whom the case had been referred, recommended that she be admonished by the Acting Superintendent of Schools so that thereafter she be careful in her public utterances, but no charges were preferred against her.[360]

It was quite different in the cases of Mr. Schmalhausen, Mr. Mufson, and Mr. Schneer. On November 13, 1917, they were suspended from the faculty of the De Witt Clinton High School for holding views considered not only subversive to discipline in the schools but injurious to good citizenship.[361] Their trials took place before a committee of the Board of Education on December third, at which they were represented by counsel. The charges against Mr. Schmalhausen involved the writing of essays by his students, in which, it was said, an unpatriotic attitude was permitted to pass unchallenged by the teacher. According to the testimony, the pupils were directed to write “An open letter to the President” commenting frankly within the limits of their knowledge upon his conduct of the War against the German Government.[362] Mr. Schmalhausen was also accused of asserting that he did not consider it his duty “to develop in the students under his control instinctive respect for the President of the United States as such, for the Governor of the State of New York as such, and other Federal, State and Municipal officers as such.”[363]

One of the themes, upon which attention at the trial was focused, had been written by Hyman Herman, a Jewish student sixteen years of age. It was addressed “to the Defender of Humanity and Champion of Democracy, Woodrow Wilson.” In his testimony Mr. Schmalhausen asserted complete ignorance of this essay until it was called to his attention in an interview with Associate Superintendent Tildsley two weeks after it had been written.[364]

In the theme the writer propounded such questions as the following: “But how is it that the United States, a country far from democratic (and daily proving itself to be such) and England, the imperial and selfish (and we exclude all minor participants) undertake to slam democracy upon a nation whether it likes it or not? What unparalleled audacity to attempt to force 70,000,000 people to adopt a certain kind of government. If we mean their benefit, then the Germans surely know what they want and need us not....

“... Finally if our aim be the annihilation of Prussianism, then why in the name of Heaven have you refused the offer made by Germany, which included the evacuation of Belgium, disarmament of nations and freedom of the seas? Surely then your purpose is to get supreme domination and to crush Germany for no reason it seems, except a mad desire for murder, meanwhile making us the goats.”[365]

Mr. Schmalhausen had annotated the theme, after it had been placed in his hands by Dr. Tildsley, with such statements as “irrelevant,” “not accurately presented,” and “for a thoughtful student this statement sounds irrational.”[366] The defense contended that such annotations were sufficient to prove Mr. Schmalhausen’s disapproval of the sentiments expressed, but the prosecution argued that his failure to denounce them openly indicated his lack of loyalty.

As a witness for Mr. Schmalhausen, Herman, the author of the theme, testified that he had not received his impressions of this country’s attitude toward war questions in any sense from Mr. Schmalhausen, although since the time of writing the theme he had changed his attitude due to a study of his history textbook[367] and the attitude of his history teacher.[368]

In turn, Mr. Schmalhausen, defending his own patriotism, declared that President Wilson’s “interpretation, his attitude, his points of view in relation to the war for democracy” met with his “complete intellectual approval,” and that, although he had opposed the policy of conscription instead of a volunteer system, when adopted, he had complied with the request of the Government, as did others within the proper ages.[369]

The second instructor in the De Witt Clinton High School who was arraigned before the Board of Education on December third was Thomas Mufson, charged with thinking it proper to be neutral while his class debated such subjects as the purchase of Liberty Bonds, the active support of the Government in various measures for carrying on the War, the wisdom of an early peace, and the relative merits of anarchism and the form of the government of the United States.[370]

Mr. Mufson defended himself against these charges on the ground that he was not justified in imposing personal views upon his classes on controversial subjects. Furthermore, he said that he would not permit a discussion of anarchism in his classroom, a topic he held far too difficult for immature minds.[371]

The specific charges brought against Mr. Schneer arose from statements it was alleged he had made regarding patriotism and the wearing of the uniform of the United States army. It was held that he was opposed to discussing patriotism in the schoolroom and that he objected to persons wearing the uniform when speaking before the school, because it tended to encourage militarism.[372] All of the charges Mr. Schneer denied, protesting his loyalty to school and national authorities, and citing as proof, among other things, the signing of the loyalty pledge of the Board of Education.

Considerable discussion by the public and by teachers attended these trials. Among those commending the Board of Education for their vigilance were the Schoolmasters’ Association of New York and Vicinity, who adopted a resolution expressing the hope that efforts to suppress disloyal influences in the schools would be energetically sustained.[373] On the other hand, the Teachers’ Union voted to give the teachers on trial their “legal, moral and financial support,”[374] and eleven college teachers requested that the decision against them be delayed for further investigation.[375] Professor John Dewey was reported to have likened the trial to “the Inquisition,”[376] and the New York _Evening Post_ editorially declared that “the case not only was prejudiced from the beginning, but was disingenuous in inception, unfair in method and un-American in spirit.”[377] On December 19, 1917, these teachers were dismissed by the Board of Education.[378] Later their appeal for reinstatement was denied by the Commissioner of Education.[379]

In November, 1917, six other teachers of the De Witt Clinton High School were transferred to other schools because lacking a positive loyalty. Friends of the teachers ascribed their transfer to their “independence” and not to a lack of loyalty.[380] The absence of academic freedom and democracy in school organization, an indefiniteness in the charges preferred against them, were all advanced by the teachers themselves in extenuation of their acts.[381] According to a statement of _The New York Times_, in the inquiry to determine their fitness to teach, the teachers declared they had been asked such questions as the following: “Should not a teacher inculcate instinctive obedience to supervisors, no matter what the acts of the superior officers may be? What is your opinion of the Bolsheviki? Do you believe in revolution? Are teachers qualified to criticise superiors? Do you believe in internationalism? Do you think a teacher ought to impose his views on pupils? Is there not a presumption that whatever is, is right? Would you rather have Hillquit or Roosevelt for mayor? What would you do if a boy called President Wilson a murderer? Do you accept Hillquit’s treasonable utterances? Does not the critical attitude in children need suppression? Would you be willing for the boys in your class to discuss Liberty Bonds pro and con? In the matter of the longer day should the teachers have been consulted?”[382] That the teachers were asked these questions was stoutly denied by Superintendent William L. Ettinger.[383]

Closely allied with charges of disloyal speech were those growing out of attempts to obstruct the government in its prosecution of the War. Of such a nature was the charge brought against Miss Fannie Ross, a teacher in Public School 88, Brooklyn, who, while acting as a registrar in the state census, was reported to have expressed opposition to the draft, to have given advice outside her line of duty, and to have gone so far as to influence a man to claim exemption.[384] On December 26, 1917, Miss Ross was suspended from service for six months because of “conduct unbecoming a teacher,” due “to tactless remarks.”[385]

The apprehension of the school authorities of New York City was further reflected in the trial of teachers who were suspected of radical views. This anxiety expressed itself in the withholding of certificates of loyalty and morality at least during the investigation. Following the War, membership in the Socialist Party, advocacy of Communism, and a sympathetic attitude toward the Bolshevist program of Russia were the chief charges preferred in the trials.

Among the first teachers summoned before the high school committee of the Board of Education because of radical views was Harrison C. Thomas, a teacher in the De Witt Clinton High School. Mr. Thomas was an advocate of internationalism and of socialism, a conscientious objector who had been excused from the draft, and avowedly not enthusiastic over wartime enterprises like Liberty Bonds. When questioned regarding his attitude in the classroom, he confessed that he would not conceal the fact that he was an objector; that he believed resistance to aggressiveness by force wrong; and that if Germany wanted to rule this country submission would be better than forceful resistance. Yet he declared that he had tried to get into reconstruction work in France and that he would do anything except fight. As a result, his certificate of morality and loyalty was withheld.[386] Similar action was taken in the case of Bernard M. Parelhoff, of the George Washington High School, who maintained that a nation which “teaches patriotism in its schools is merely driving nails into its own coffin,” and because he believed there should be no reverence for the uniform as such.[387]

Licenses were likewise withheld from other teachers, among whom were Eugene Jackson, Austin M. Works, Garibaldi Lapolla, Abraham Lefkowitz, Edward Delaney, and Wilmer T. Stone of the De Witt Clinton High School; Ruth G. Hardy of the Girls’ Commercial High School; John J. Donohue, Louis A. Goldman, Felix Sper and John J. Shipley of the Stuyvesant High School; Max Rosenhaus of the Bushwick High School; Alexander Fichlander of Public School 165, Brooklyn; and Henrietta Rodman, Benjamin Gruenberg, and Benjamin Mandel of the Julia Richman High School.[388]

The action of the authorities in withholding certificates of loyalty from some of these teachers called forth a protest from Dr. Henry Linville of the Teachers’ Union, of which many of the accused were members. Dr. Linville assailed the methods employed in the investigations and the reasons for which certificates were being withheld. He asserted that during the War these teachers had been unmolested by the federal government and had not been summoned to face charges of disloyalty by the school authorities. Although non-conformists in relation “to static views of society and politics,” he declared that “most of them actively supported all war enterprises, a minority only being pacifist in belief and action.”[389] Moreover, in denial of the charge that teachers of alleged radical views were indoctrinating their pupils with minority and undesirable opinions, he declared that none of these teachers had ever maintained the right of a teacher to press upon the pupils the political views that he himself held.[390]

But the authorities throughout were insistent in their desire to rid the schools of all teachers holding a political belief which to them was anathema. To this end in November, 1919, a permanent license was denied Miss Sonia Ginsberg, of Public School 170, because she admitted membership in the Communist Party;[391] for the same reason action was taken against Miss Rachel (Ray) Ragozin, in February, 1921;[392] and in February, 1922, resolutions were adopted by the Board of Education directing the Superintendent of Schools to reprimand Miss Sarah Hyams for signing the membership card of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party.[393] For advocating the reading of an article on Bolshevism, in November, 1919, Associate Superintendent Tildsley recommended that a permanent license be refused Benjamin Horwitz, a teacher of English in the De Witt Clinton High School.[394]

The suspicion that Benjamin Glassberg, a teacher of history in the Brooklyn Commercial High School, was preaching the doctrines of Bolshevism led to his suspension from service in January, 1919. Among the objections raised against Mr. Glassberg as a teacher were statements alleged to have been made by him to the effect that a teacher in the public schools was not allowed to tell the truth, that the State Department did not permit true reports to be given about conditions in Russia, and that Red Cross workers were forbidden to express true opinions regarding that country.[395]

At his trial before the Board of Education on May 9, 1919, Mr. Glassberg confessed that he had quoted from several noted Bolshevists in reply to a question whether Lenine and Trotsky were German spies. He declared that the statements with which he was charged were in answer to questions asked by his class and not as “a lecture laudatory of the Bolsheviki and severely critical of the Government of the United States.” In regard to the remark about freedom of speech in the public schools he asserted complete innocence.[396] On May 29, 1919, Mr. Glassberg was dismissed from service.[397]

Considerable discussion attended the trials of the New York City teachers. To some there was no substantial foundation upon which to base charges of disloyalty, and the question resolved itself into whether a teacher need forfeit his rights to a political faith in which he believed. The answer of the school authorities came in the statement of Dr. John L. Tildsley, Associate Superintendent of Schools: “No person who adheres to the Marxian program, the program of the Left Wing of the Socialist Party in this country, should be allowed to become a teacher in the public school system, and if discovered to be a teacher, should be compelled to sever his connection with the school system, for it is impossible for such a person to carry out the purpose of the public schools ... [the purpose] that the public schools of any country should be the expression of the country’s ideals, the purpose of its institutions, and the philosophy of its life and government.”[398]

But even in the eyes of the New York City school authorities the great mass of public school teachers were loyal, for out of approximately twenty-five thousand employed in the system less than half a hundred were called to account for the views they held.[399]

Outside of the city of New York other cases of alleged infringement of the Lusk Law occurred. Among these was that of P. Hiram Mattingly, of Poughkeepsie, dismissed from the schools because at a Socialist meeting he characterized the Espionage Law as a measure of despotism, and declared that it was time that the republic be restored to this country, a first step toward which would be the acceptance of a Socialist administration in that city.[400]

Membership in the Communist Party cost Miss Julia D. Pratt her position as a music teacher in Buffalo in 1921. In passing upon her case, Frank B. Gilbert, deputy commissioner and counsel of the State Department of Education, set forth the opinion of those with whom final judgment rested when he declared: “A teacher in the public schools is a member of a state system and a servant of the people of the state. A teacher cannot properly perform the duties of her position and give expression, either verbally or by affiliation with any political or other organization, to her belief that our present government should be overthrown by revolution or by force and violence through direct action by any group or class....”[401]

Teachers beyond the confines of New York suffered similar penalties, although the hand of the law did not press so heavily upon them. They, too, found it necessary to guard their speech and to abstain from proscribed political tenets, or else pay the price of reprimand or dismissal. Precisely this kind of a condition was brought forcibly upon the teachers of Washington, D. C., in the spring of 1919, when one of their members--Miss Alice Wood--was suspended for a week without a hearing, charged with discussing “Bolshevism and other heresies” in her classroom. Among the topics which Miss Wood later found forbidden was that of the League of Nations.[402]

The suggestion made by a supervisor of primary education in Des Moines, Iowa, that a blind patriotism might be fostered through the selection of songs and poems narrowly patriotic led to an investigation of her Americanism by the commander of the Sons of Veterans.[403]

Since 1917, however, in only twelve states besides New York cases involving disloyalty charges have been brought before the office of the state department of education. In Delaware, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina and South Dakota the charges resulted in the dismissal of teachers. In California, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota and South Dakota, although charges were preferred against teachers the cases were dismissed for insufficient evidence.[404]

In Montana, school authorities in some cases failed to reappoint teachers at the end of the year because of alleged objectionable “utterances,” although “no proof of disloyalty was ever made positive.” The Department of Public Instruction of Indiana reported “a few instances” in that state where positions were lost because of disloyalty charges.[405]

In Louisiana, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction reported the revocation of a man’s certificate because “he capitalized the patriotism which ran high in his community, to lend money to a number of small farmers in the community for use in purchasing War Savings Stamps and Liberty Bonds, and for the use of which he charged an exorbitant rate of interest.” The teacher was said to have bought “no stamps or Liberty Bonds,” and boasted that he could make more money by lending to “the suckers in the community than by buying the low-interest paying Federal obligations.” This state also revoked the certificate of a woman whose religious scruples forbade her endorsement of the War and whose zeal led her to advise against the purchase of Liberty Bonds.[406]

North Carolina’s case of dismissal was that of a county superintendent charged with pro-Germanism shortly after the entrance of the United States into the War. Although most of the pro-German utterances of this man had been made prior to the declaration of war by the United States, the County Board of Education held that his influence and usefulness had been lessened and therefore asked his resignation.[407]

In Rhode Island “disclosures of thoroughly organized preparation to cultivate in the United States a public opinion favorable to Pan-Germanic aspirations for world empire led, during the War, to several investigations for the purpose of determining to what extent and through what agencies propaganda either hostile to America and to American ideals, or tending insidiously to undermine democratic institutions, had been conducted.”[408] At the request of the Governor, the Commissioner of the Public Schools undertook an investigation of the loyalty of public and private school teachers. Questionnaires containing the following questions were dispatched to the proper authorities:

“To what extent, if any, have teachers under your observation, in the classroom or out of it, been

(_a_) Active in promoting German propaganda?

(_b_) Active in promoting anti-American propaganda?

(_c_) Disloyal in word, deed, or manner to nation or state?

(_d_) Disrespectful of law and public authority?

(_e_) Passive or indifferent with reference to patriotism?

(_f_) Cynical in their discussion of democracy, or in their discussions of history, or in their general attitude toward American public probity?

(_g_) Teaching that democracy and democratic institutions are crude and inefficient?”

In turn, the Commissioner of the Public Schools pointed out that “while a few teachers have not fully recognized their civic obligations in giving instruction, or have failed to realize the relation of public education to loyal citizenship, or have been remiss in upholding American ideals, the ardent patriotism of the many and their larger

## activities as noted by the committee of inquiry attest the civic

loyalty of our teachers in our schools.” He assured the public that “no disloyal teacher” would “be suffered to teach.”[409]

This insistence upon conformity among teachers bounded on all sides their freedom of speech. It was readily and unquestioningly accepted by the great majority. It sprang from the belief that the teacher as an employee of the government should always agree with the government. The advocate of repression and control held that the public school should never be a haven where personal opinions could leaven the book-lore which was prescribed by authority. Others agreed with Zechariah Chafee that there was not only an individual but a social interest in free speech, that between that individual interest and the social interest, the former should always give way, that freedom of speech meant liberty, not license; but that freedom of speech in itself was a social interest, and that one of the purposes for the existence of society was the discovery and spread of truth, a purpose which could be accomplished only by permitting teachers to think for themselves.[410]

FOOTNOTES:

[344] Personal letters to the author under the date of December, 1923, and January, 1924. All states but Ohio and Illinois responded to the inquiry of the author. The Superintendent of Public Instruction in Washington (Mrs. Josephine C. Preston) refused to furnish information for that state.

[345] _Revolutionary Radicalism_, Vol. I, p. 1118.

[346] At the suggestion of the Teachers’ Council, an advisory committee to sift charges was appointed who reported cases to the Commissioner of Education should they need his attention. The investigations of this committee aroused much criticism, especially from the Teachers’ Union, whose members were frequently the principals in the trials conducted. The advisory committee was composed of Condé Pallen, editor of the _Catholic Encyclopedia_, Olivia Leventritt, a former member of the Board of Education, Hugh Frayne, New York representative of the American Federation of Labor, Archibald Stevenson, counsel of the Lusk Committee, and Finley J. Shepard as chairman. _The New York Times_, May 17, 1922; _ibid._, May 25, 1922; _ibid._, June 4, 1922.

[347] Instances of local friction tending to obscure the issues alleged to be involved frequently entered into the evidence presented in some of the trials. This was true in the trials of Schmalhausen, Schneer, and Mufson (see pages 116-120), where opposition to the so-called Whalen resolution for longer school hours was alleged by the defense to be a cause for their dismissal.

[348] The pledge of the Board of Education. Other pledges, including that of Mayor John Puroy Mitchell, also were presented for signing. See _Toward the New Education: The Case Against Autocracy in Our Public Schools_ (The Teachers’ Union of the City of New York), p. 23.

[349] _Ibid._ The Teachers’ Union charged that the loyalty pledges were introduced for political purposes into a controversy between the Board of Education and the teaching staff. The Teachers’ Union wrote President Wilson asking him to frame a pledge which teachers could sign “without violating their consciences.” _The New York Times_, December 2, 1917.

[350] See page 122 for a further discussion of the loyalty of Mr. Thomas.

[351] _The New York Times_, May 18, 1918.

[352] “More Educational Inquisition,” _The New Republic_, Vol. XVII (January 11, 1919), pp. 305-307.

[353] _Ibid._

[354] _The New York Times_, _loc. cit._

[355] _Ibid._, June 27, 1919.

[356] _Ibid._, October 31, 1918.

[357] _Ibid._, May 16, 1918.

[358] _Ibid._, June 20, 1918.

[359] _Ibid._, July 12, 1923.

[360] _Ibid._, March 16, 1918.

[361] _Ibid._, November 14, 1917.

[362] _The Trial of the Three Suspended Teachers of the De Witt Clinton High School_ (New York), p. 26.

[363] _Ibid._, p. 64; _The New York Times_, December 4, 1917.

[364] The theme (in the form of a letter) had been collected by Miss Ellen Garrigues, head of the English Department, in a visit to Mr. Schmalhausen’s class. During her visit, Miss Garrigues became angry at the “lack of spirit of love of country among the boys who had read themes,” and asked that the themes be handed to her. _The Trial of the Three Suspended Teachers of the De Witt Clinton High School_, p. 22.

[365] _The Trial_, pp. 42-43; Dotey, Aaron I., _The Exploitation of the Public School System of New York_ (Teachers’ Council, New York), LXXXV.

[366] _The Trial_, pp. 46-47.

[367] Robinson and Beard’s history. See _Toward the New Education_, p. 72.

[368] _The Trial_, pp. 135, 141.

[369] _Ibid._, pp. 119-120.

[370] _Ibid._, p. 158. Mr. Mufson was a teacher of English.

[371] _Ibid._, pp. 174-175.

[372] _The New York Times_, November 20, 1917. _The Trial_, p. 200. In addition to these charges a bibliography on recent literature compiled by Mr. Schneer was introduced as evidence of his unfitness to teach. The “characterizations” of books in the bibliography, read at the trial, in general pertained to the relations of the sexes. See _ibid._, pp. 203-204.

[373] _Ibid._, November 17, 1917; also “New York’s Disloyal School Teachers,” _Literary Digest_, Vol. LV (December 8, 1917), pp. 32-33.

[374] _The New York Times_, _loc. cit._

[375] _Ibid._, December 20, 1917. Among these were John Dewey, James Harvey Robinson, David Snedden, Carlton J. H. Hayes, H. A. Overstreet, W. P. Montague, Thomas Reed Powell, M. R. Cohen, A. J. Goldfort, N. P. Mead, and J. P. Turner.

[376] “Charges against New York City Teachers,” _School and Society_, Vol. VI (December 22, 1917), p. 733.

[377] The New York _Evening Post_ quoted in _School and Society_, _loc. cit._

[378] _The New York Times_, December 20, 1917.

[379] _Ibid._, November 5, 1918. In reviewing their cases, _Toward the New Education_, a publication of the Teachers’ Union, ascribed the dismissal of these teachers not to disloyalty, but to their opposition to the “autocracy” of superior officials and to an anti-Semitic bias of these officials. All three teachers were Russian Jews.

[380] _Ibid._, December 1, 1917. Dotey, _op. cit._, LXXXVI; _The New York Times_, November 15, 1917.

[381] The Central Federated Union, November 17, 1917, resolved “in the interest of justice and of the schools that the charges made against the teachers be definitely formulated by a committee of responsible officials, and that a copy of the charges be given to each of the teachers transferred or suspended and that the charges be heard in public.” _Ibid._

[382] _Ibid._, November 15, 1917.

[383] _Ibid._, November 16, 1917.

[384] _Ibid._, November 29, 1917; _ibid._, December 25, 1917.

[385] _Ibid._, December 27, 1917.

[386] Dotey, _op. cit._, LXXVIII, XCVII. Mr. Thomas was called in November, 1917.

[387] _Ibid._, LXXVIII. Mr. Parelhoff was questioned regarding his opinions in November, 1917.

[388] According to Dr. Henry Linville of the Teachers’ Union. _The New York Times_ of January 24, 1918, reported that twenty-four teachers in School 62 of New York had been questioned about their war views. Although assurances had been given the teachers that no charges against them were contemplated, the Teachers’ Union called it a “fishing expedition” to obtain evidence against Philip Perlstein, a teacher who had been suspended two weeks before. In November, 1919, sixteen “radical” teachers were reported to have been called by Deputy Attorney-General Samuel A. Berger, because of their connection with radical propaganda. _The New York Times_, November 20, 1919.

[389] _The New York Times_, October 23, 1922. The teachers whom Dr. Linville was reported to have mentioned were Austin M. Works, Eugene Jackson, Wilmer T. Stone, John F. Donohue, Louis Goldman, Joseph J. Shipley, Felix Sper, Ruth Hardy, Henrietta Rodman, Jessie Hughan, Abraham Lefkowitz, and Max Rosenhaus.

[390] _Ibid._

[391] Dotey, _op. cit._, LXXXVIII; also _The New York Times_, November 18, 1919.

[392] Dotey, _op. cit._

[393] _Ibid._

[394] _Ibid._, CXII. Mr. Horwitz resigned his position in 1920.

[395] “Freedom of Teaching in the New York City Schools,” _School and Society_, Vol. IX (February 1, 1919), pp. 142-143; also Dotey, _op. cit._, LXXXVII.

[396] _The New York Times_, January 19, 1919. Also Department of Education of the City of New York, _In the Matter of the Trial of Charges of Conduct Unbecoming a teacher and to the prejudice of good order, efficiency and discipline preferred against Benjamin Glassberg.... Brief and Argument of Gilbert E. Roe in Behalf of Benjamin Glassberg, Teacher_ (New York), pp. 7-8.

[397] _Ibid._ Mr. Gilbert E. Roe, counsel for Mr. Glassberg, intimated that the boys who had been selected to testify against Mr. Glassberg had been chosen “according to race and religion,” that Mr. Glassberg, a Socialist and a Jew, had “guided his classes along the road of true Americanism” during the War and had received from his superiors “the highest ratings possible for his work.” See also Dotey, _op. cit._, LXXXVII.

[398] Trachtenberg, Alexander, ed., _The American Labor Year Book 1919-1920_ (New York, 1920), Vol. III, p. 89.

[399] _The New York Times_, May 25, 1922. According to a statement of Superintendent William L. Ettinger.

[400] Trachtenberg, _op. cit._, p. 88.

[401] _The New York Times_, January 19, 1921.

[402] Trachtenberg, _op. cit._, p. 88; also “Other Heresies,” _The New Republic_, Vol. XVIII (April 12, 1919), pp. 330-331; also McAndrew, William, “American Liberty More or Less,” _The World’s Work_, Vol. XLVII (December, 1923), p. 180. Miss Wood declared that she gave definitions only, and referred to current magazine literature when questions were raised by a pupil concerning Bolshevism and anarchism. She also asserted that she had not discussed the Russian situation, nor had she defended Bolshevism.

[403] “The War is Over in Iowa,” _The Survey_, Vol. XLVIII (September 15, 1922), p. 712; also _The Des Moines Register_, April 6, 1922. The name of the teacher was Miss Kate Kelly. She was completely exonerated of “anti-Americanism.”

[404] Personal letters from the Superintendents of Public Instruction: Delaware, under date of January 30, 1924; Louisiana, December 6, 1923; Minnesota, December 1, 1923; Montana, December 3, 1923; Nevada, December 3, 1923; North Carolina, December 3, 1923; South Dakota, December 5, 1923; California, December 8, 1923; Maine, December 1, 1923; New Hampshire, December 5, 1923; North Dakota, December 20, 1923.

[405] Letter from the Department of Public Instruction, December 7, 1923.

[406] Letters from the Department of Education, November 30, 1923, and December 6, 1923.

[407] Letter from State Superintendent of Public Instruction, December 11, 1923.

[408] _Forty-Ninth Annual Report of the State Board of Education ... of Rhode Island_, January, 1919, p. 75.

[409] _Ibid._, pp. 78-79.

[410] See Chafee, Zechariah, “Freedom and Initiative in the Schools,” _The Public and the Schools_ (New York, 1919).

## PART II

THE ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGANDIST AGENCIES

“... for it is the business and duty of historians to be exact, truthful, and wholly free from passion, and neither interest nor fear, hatred nor love, should make them swerve from the path of truth, whose mother is history, rival of time, storehouse of deeds, witness for the past, example and counsel for the present, and warning for the future.”

CERVANTES, _Don Quixote_.

## PART II

THE ACTIVITIES OF PROPAGANDIST AGENCIES

##