Imágenes de páginas

Reed in the Congressional Record under date of December 20, 1927. I only wish the address had been said over the radio, as well as printed in the Record. It is worthy of a wide hearing.

I subscribe whole-heartedly also to the creed of Mr. Reed's predecessor, Judge Towner:

I believe that the creation of a department of education with its chief a secretary in the President's Cabinet, will express for the first time in our history the Nation's real interest in education; that it will promote by research, investigations, and reports, the practical operation of our public-school system throughout the United States; that it will by leadership and service stir the States and the people to a greater interest in educational work, and to a more comprehensive knowledge of educational needs, and that it will mark the commencement of a new era of educational progress throughout the whole country.

The recent approval by this committee of an increased appropriation of $6,000,000 for vocational education shows that Congress has not lost its interest in the creation and diffusion of knowledge as a proper function of the National Government. Why then is Congress so reluctant to set up a department of education?

There seems to be a presumption, apparently quite general among members of Congress, that to add a department is abnormal. The old argument was the oligarchic cry, no room at the table; but we have not heard so much of that since the Republican platform, the reorganization committee of the last Congress, and the President all declared for a department of education and relief. If experience teaches anything, it teaches that additions to the Cabinet may be looked for as a matter of course in the ordinary routine of governmental evolution.

Has the United States stopped growing? Do we take a sort of first chapter of Genesis view of the Government and believe that now it has added seven departments to the original three, a period of eternal rest has set in? Are we not infected enough with the evolutionary

? hypothesis to believe that increasing differentiation of function is creation's universal law of progress? If the Government has found it necessary to add a new department on an average once in every 18 years, and if 14 years have passed since the last one was added, then an addition to the President's official family within the next 4 years is normally to be expected. That, I should say, ought to be the normal expectation is spite of all that is being said these days in favor of economy, companionate marriage, and birth control. The next addition may be triplets-education, health, public works—or twins with two of the three combined; or the three may come along, one after the other, in orderly fashion during the next 50 years, but that they will come, one way or the other, I have no question.

Just which will come first may depend on our impending choice of presidential nominees. With Lowden we would certainly get departmental reorganization by a pastmaster of the art of reorganization, and along with it our new department of education or perhaps education and health. With Hoover, an engineer, and authority from Congress to spend a billion and a half on flood relief, a department of public works might get sympathetic preference; while with Smith, Senator Copeland's pet hobby of a department of health would forge to the front.

But at all events we ought all of us to start with the presumption that the United States has not stopped growing, that changes are inevitable, that the Cabinet table is no celibate refectory bench, or



Procrustean rack, but the ordinary family extension table of the typical American home.

Education to my mind has first claim to the next Cabinet seat. It is the most important single interest of our civilization not represented.

It not only bulks large in economic importance, with its five billions of property and annual budget of two and a half billions, but large also in man power the chief business of nearly a quarter of our population being school, and teachers six times as numerous as doctors.

More important still, education represents the whole field of man's spiritual interests, so far as that field can be represented with our divorce of church and state in government. Man does not live by bread alone. Governments exist that men may live, and may live well, according to Aristotle. If this Government is to survive you must find a place in it for that element of the good life which can not be valued in economic terms. We all agree that democracy can not exist without some education. Is it not true also that the best possible democracy can only come with the best possible education?

The proposed work of the new department meets the tests laid down for functions of the Federal Government by Pelatiah Webster in his first draft of the Constitution:

"The supreme power" (Congress), wrote Webster, "must have the power of making war and peace, etc., in short, of doing everything which the well-being of the Commonwealth may require, and which is not compatible to any particular State-All of which require money and can not possibly be made effectual without it.

The well-being of the Nation requires that the collection of educational facts be done by somebody. It can not be done by any particular State. The work requires money and can not possibly be made effective without it.

State education is good as far as it goes, but State education, to be effective, must be able to resort for models and materials to a workshop outside State lines, but not in a foreign country, where all materials of all States are available, which is national in vision and spirit, and which is under obligation to no individual or group of individuals for support.

Just before coming to Washington I read over the objections to this measure brought forward at the hearing last year.

There seem to be six main objections, most of them forebodings or prophecies based on fear of what might happen:

(1) That a department would control. (2) That it would standardize. (3) That it would put the schools in politics or politics into schools.

(4) That it would interfere with and diminish the freedom of church and private initiative and enterprise in education.

(5) That it would increase the tendency to rely on Government instead of on self exertion. And,

(6) That it would not do anything anyway that the present bureau of education can not do equally well.

Now foreboding is a difficult thing to deal with, particularly the fear of the unknown. Lindberghs are not made by arguments nor nations out of fears.

It is very much as if my wife had said to me, “Don't go to Washington; (1) You might be killed in a train wreck; (2) you might get influenza from the dining car; (3) it will cost money; (4) it is not your responsibility anyway." You can not deny the truth of the arguments—men do get killed in train wrecks, they do get influenza, travel does cost money, and if I had not come, somebody else would be using this time perhaps to better advantage. And yet the arguments would not keep me home. Why? Well over against arguments which have some truth in them, we weigh probabilities. We also weigh the significance of our purpose, and we take the risk. We challenge the timorous souls who view a department with foreboding to show by analogy or as a result of similar experiments that there is objective basis for these fears. If they can show that the farmers hate the Department of Agriculture for its tyranny, that the labor unions would like to see the Department of Labor abolished because it standardizes, or that the business men are anxious to rid themselves of the Department of Commerce because it discourages self-reliance, then we may lend a more sympathetic ear to their fears.

And then there are the objections voiced by my friend, Mr. Black, who suspects something diabolic and sinister in that phrase, “research shall be undertaken." Apparently he pictures some agent of the new department walking down Fordham Road in New York. The agent's eye is caught by the new stone biology building of Fordham University, which is so much handsomer than the new Theodore Roosevelt High School across the street-and waterproof besides. The agent interested in school buildings may enter without an invitation to inquire what it cost to build so handsome a building.

Ever since John Purroy Mitchell's supercilious agents went a-ledgerhunting among the Catholic charitable agencies of the Bronx there has been a certain suspicion and resentment against governmental research. But municipal trespasses ought not to be treasured up against the Federal Government which has its own sins to answer for. During the war I served as an official of the War Department charged with certain powers with reference to all colleges and universities of Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of ColumbiaState, Catholic, and Protestant. Part of my duty was to learn enough about the institutions to classify them. I had on my staff my good friend Father Guilday, of this city, and we never had any difficulty working together in the common cause. But one thing I learned in that service was that there could be quite as much suspicion, jealousy, and misrepresentation between institutions conducted by different orders of the same church as between State and church institutions or between Catholic and Protestant, and that a neutral Federal officer with no ax to grind might be very helpful to all concerned.

The great achievement of America in the religious and educational world so far is that we have succeeded in living together in mutual respect and toleration, and I think we can continue to do so.

I only wish Mr. Black were as willing to have Fordham, his alma mater, play the great American game of human betterment by knowledge with us as he is to have its students play football. Fordham is on the opposite side of the street geographically and otherwise from the Theodore Roosevelt High School, but why not emphasize what we have in common as well as our particular peculiarities?

Mr. BLACK. I want you to leave both of them alone Theodore Roosevelt High School as well as Fordham.



Doctor MacCRACKEN. Personally, I think the real situation in this country, the existence of voluntary educational enterprises by government consent and authority, side by side with tax-supported schools, ought to receive recognition of some sort in the pending bill. I would go a long way to make Fordham University feel that a secretary of education would be their secretary of education, as well as the Theodore Roosevelt High School secretary.

The very fact that our public education is a State function, not primarily a Federal function, makes it possible for us to have a secretary less closely tied to government education than in other countries, and one who would hold himself the secretary of all enterprises in education, authorized by competent authority, both tax supported and voluntary. For this purpose the national council created in section 10 might be made a real clearing house by expanding it to include not only representatives of tax-supported education, but certain representatives of church and voluntary education to be appointed by the President. It is not the dominance or glory of one system over against another that we seek in a department but the common good of all.

So far as the work of the proposed department is done in a scientific way, it will be useful to private and parochial schools as well as to public schools. We may interpret the facts differently but if we are interested in knowledge at all, we all want to know the facts.

I recall a story told me by my friend, the late Senator Blewitt of Scranton, a loyal son of the church.

Somehow he had strayed as a boy into Lafayette, a Presbyterian college, and when he found a required course in biblical geography interfering with his leisure time, he began, he told me, to have concientious scruples about attending a course in biblical geography taught by a Protestant. So he went to the president of the college and told his story, and the president said, “Let's go and consult your local priest.” So they went together to the priest's home, and laid the matter before him, and the wise old priest said, “Well, my son, I don't think it will make much difference in the location of Jerusalem, whether it is taught you, by a Protestant or a Catholic; you may feel free to continue the course.”

The knowledge that is common to us all forms so large a part of the stuff of education, that if we are granted tolerance in other fields, we can without risk to cherished principles cooperate on the ground that is common to us all.

Commissioner Graves of New York, who is the greatest invader of State rights in education that I know, having himself taught in nine different States and held important administrative positions in seven different State universities, recently delivered an address on the theme, “Agriculture and education, the most fundamental and indispensable of all the arts and sciences, and he quoted Daniel Webster's remark, “Where tillage begins, other arts follow.” The maxim applies to the question before us. If agriculture had not been made a department, we should have had a hard time proving the case for education, Agriculture is a welfare department established not because Uncle Sam was himself a farmer, or because he intended to go into the business of farming, but because Uncle Sam's children in the various States were farmers, and their interests and welfare, were his interests and welfare.

[ocr errors]

In the same way if we establish a department of education it will be not because Uncle Sam is himself a teacher, or owns schools, but because his children in the various States are teachers and scholars, are interested in education, and their interests must inevitably find expression with him, if their supreme loyalty is to find adequate expression in the Nation.

"Where tillage begins, other arts follow," and one place into which education will follow tillage will be into the President's Cabinet.

When the Duchess of Athol, who holds a position as a parliamentary secretary of the British Department of Education, was in New York last month, she took the pains to visit one of our large public schools on the lower East Side, one of those enormous crucibles into which we are continually feeding the children of the foreign born by the thousands, hopeful that by some miracle they will emerge American citizens, and she stopped to talk to the children. I am told it made a great impression on the children that this great and rich lady from Scotland should be enough interested in their school to come and speak to them. It quite altered their attitude toward the whole British Empire. I do not know what Mayor Thompson would say to that, but it set me wondering whether, if we want intelligent patriotism, Uncle Sam too, ought not to have somebody who could go direct from the presence of the President, even though he had no more authority or power in a New York school than the Duchess of Athol had, to show the interest of Uncle Sam in his teachers and students.

Mr. BLACK. How do you feel about Federal aid?

Doctor MACCRACKEN. I do not like to see the United States do indirectly what it will not do directly. I am very glad to see Congress aid education. I am glad to see you voted $6,000,000 for vocational education the other day.

Mr. BLACK. Do not charge me with that?
Doctor MACCRACKEN. It was before this committee.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The gentleman asked the question why Congress was reluctant to set up a department of education. Is there an answer to that?

Doctor MacCRACKEN. The objections voiced by Mr. Black have a great deal to do with it.

Mr. FLETCHER. Does the fact that there seems to be no demand for it from any of the constituencies or districts have anything to do with it?

Doctor MacCRACKEN. No, sir; I do not think that has anything to do with it.

Mr. FLETCHER. Do you know of any Congressman who has had particular requests by any large group of constituents for such a measure?

Doctor MACCRACKEN. The National Education Association is a very large group.

Nr. FLETCHER. They are not in agreement about this measure, are they?

Doctor MacCRACKEN. The great bulk of them are. They are practically unanimous, 180,000 members.

Mr. FENN. How about the laymen? That is the question asked by my colleague, the people generally in our districts, those who are not engaged as educators.

« AnteriorContinuar »