PRESIDENT'S OFFICE HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Hon. HENRY L. BOWLES, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. BOWLES: I have been asked to express my opinion about the creation of a department of education with a member of the Cabinet at its head. It seems to me that this would be unfortunate for three reasons: First, because appointment to a Cabinet position, particularly after the first enthusiasm is over, is almost certain to be made on political grounds, and as this is sure to be one of the minor positions in the Cabinet, it is likely to go to a man not of the first grade; second, because public education in this country has a very strong tendency already to become bureaucratic; and third, because the educational needs of the different parts of the country vary very greatly, and public education in each part ought to be adapted to the needs of that part, and therefore a tendency towards centralization, which would be the result of such an office, does not seem to me desirable. Yours very truly, A. LAWRENCE LOWELL. STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES S. MOORE, REPRESENTING MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC INTERESTS LEAGUE, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in the first place I want to say whom I represent. I was asked to come here by the Massachusetts Public Interests League. That is an organization of women, with men associate members, whose object is the defending of the Constitution of the United States, and opposing bureaucratic and socialist legislation. Its work is largely educational, through the press, lectures, pamphlets, and is directed to enlightened public opinion concerning the many attempts to destroy our Government and to break down morale, so far as many of these attempts being accomplished under the misleading guise of humanitarianism and progress. Schools, colleges, and women's organizations are permeated with such propaganda. Unless firmly checked the coming generation of young Americans will be so filled with alien standards and ideals that neither our free country nor Christian civilization can be expected to endure. The size of this organization is approximately 800 members; it having members throughout some 23 States of the Union. But that does not mean simply that its members are 800, or that it has members in only 23 States of the Union. The members in these other States, that have not formed themselves into sub-branches or subcommittees, are almost entirely heads of other organizations, regents of the D. A. R., presidents of women's clubs, and, of course, by that, I mean to give you the impression that it is well established, that it is influential beyond the mere numerical totality of its members. It has a definite influence in educating public opinion as to the danger of subversive propaganda and bureaucracy. I presume it is on that last ground that they asked me to come down, as I came two years ago to express what were my views, and what they knew from experience were my views, coincident with their own. I was interested in one of the speakers this morning who was allowed to speak on our time, so to speak, saying that the college men were in favor of this bill. That interested me, because I have two communications from college men who are not in favor of it. This first one is from Prof. Wilbur C. Abbott, of Harvard University. It reads as follows: 74 SPARKS STREET, Cambridge, April 24, 1928. Many years ago the great French publicist, Alexis de Tocqueville, who wrote one of the most penetrating studies of the United States which has ever been written, gave it as his opinion that the greatest danger which democracy faced was centralization. From that danger, he believed, the United States would escape by the perpetuation of the power of the States. With that opinion I entirely agree, and I am therefore wholly opposed to the centralization of education in the United States which would inevitably_follow the establishment of a bureau which would extend the powers of the Federal Government in a field which ought, to my mind, be left as it is, in the power of States and communities. WILBUR C. ABBOTT (Harvard University). Then I have a telegram from Professor Ernest Bernbaum, head of the English department of the University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill., reading: "Am strongly opposed to Federal control of educational standards, institutions, and methods." I want to say with regard to these men that they did not write and telegraph upon a general comprehension of the situation but upon a direct knowledge. They have had the bills, they have studied them, and their reference to the tendency of Federal control is an expression of their belief that inevitably through human nature, and based upon the experience of this country, this bill would have a tendency to that control. Another gentleman is Mr. Herbert Parker-the Hon. Herbert Parker who was formerly attorney general of Massachusetts. He writes as follows: CHARLES S. MOORE, Esq., 910-919 BARRISTERS' HALL, Boston, April 26, 1928. Congress Hall Hotel, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. MOORE: After conference with Mrs. Proctor, and others of our fellow citizens who are very deeply concerned by the too frequent enactments, or attempts at enactment, of the Congress invading the field of State responsibilities, as I think of them, I am now told by her that you are contemplating another visit to Washington, at the invitation of the Public Interests League, to oppose enactment by the Congress looking to the federalization of our public schools, or to their control by Federal policies or agencies. I remember that you most effectively presented our viewpoints upon this subject when you went to Washington two years ago. I am therefore very much gratified and reassured by the thought that you are to represent us again. I hope the teachers, especially those of the elementary schools, may be consulted and heard upon these matters of predominant public interest. There can be no field of governmental administration more peculiarly within the responsible, conscientious, and immediate care and knowledge of the States and of their several communities than that of compulsory public education. There is no function of governmental authority which is viewed by our people with more jealous scrutiny than that which so nearly approaches their homes and threatens intrusion upon their parental responsibilities and their relations of home life. Federal domination over the family or home sanctuaries will be intolerable, and, I think, universally resented. We protest not merely against a violation of State rights, but more against usurpation of State responsibilities and duties. Very respectfully yours, HERBERT PARKER. The Boston school committee, I understand, has memorialized Congress against this bill. I was in communication with a member of the school board, Mr. Sullivan, and he told me that he expected to appear at this hearing; but if he found that he could not be, he would ask me to speak for the school committee in backing up their memorialization of Congress against this bill; and Miss Ellard, who was the president of the Boston Elementary School Teachers' Association, which numbers very nearly 1,900 teachers, also told me that if Mr. Sullivan did not come, and officially present the matter, she would ask me to put in her point of view which, I can do very briefly, for it is opposition to this bill. I am the more pleased to do that last, because there has been a very grave misconception with regard to the group of people who support this bill. In a little catechism which the National Education Association got out, this question is asked: "By what organization is the proposal for a department of education supported?" It is a catechism of questions and answers. So many organizations are now working for a department of education, and new additions are being made so rapidly that it is not possible to keep any list up to date. In addition to local and State groups, there are many organizations of Nationwide influence, and then it gives a list of 29, if I count right. When I ran up against a statement of that kind some two years ago I wrote to the secretary of the first one mentioned, the National Education Association, asking for information as to when that organization had gone on record in favor of this bill. I got no reply. About that same time the secretary had come out in public with the statement that the National Education Association was solidly back of the bill. So I wrote a second letter, and asked him again if he would kindly furnish me dates and figures, because that representation ought not to go upon a general statement, it ought to be based on facts. Then I got no reply; and two of my friends, who wrote in similar vein, got no reply. The second organization on the list is the American Federation of Teachers. Now, it would be implied that it is a very different organization, but they interlink. I should suppose that the greater number of the American Federation of Teachers are members of the National Education Association; and so, going down the list, and among the organizations that I found is the Osteopathic Women's National Association. Two years ago I wrote to all of the list, which was not quite what this is to-day, asking similar questions: "Will you have the kindness to tell me by what process your officials ascertained the will of your organization as being in support of the Federal department, or Federal bill at that time?" I was able to discover only one where there had been a careful effort to express not merely general talk, but definite discussion and action on the part of the organization. Most of the others failed to answer, as did the National Education Association secretary. The National Education Association, I think, states that its membership is not far from 150,000. That is a goodly number. It is probably the largest educational organization in the world. But not all those 150,000 are in favor of this bill by any manner of means. I have been a teacher for over 50 years, and I have a great many friends, not only in Boston and Massachusetts, but all over the country, and it interested me two years ago, and has recently interested me, to write here, there, and everywhere, and out of about 50 letters of that sort that I wrote, I found one friend who was in favor of the bill; and they were all members of this National Educational Association. The National Education Association has gone on record year after year as being solidly behind whatever education bill happened to be in vogue that year. They have to-day stated that they have ceaselessly and consistently been behind this whole bill. Apparently from their statements, the form of the bill, what it included, or what it left out, is a matter of more or less indifference. The point is, they are behind the bill. Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Moore, your 15 minutes have almost expired, and perhaps some members of the committee would like to ask you some questions. Mr. MOORE. I will hurry up. Mr. ROBSION. I hope you will adjust your remarks so that if some of the members may want to ask you a question they will have time in which to ask it. Mr. DOUGLASS. Just one question: Do I understand you and I think you are right-that the Boston school committee officially, by vote, has memorialized Congress in opposition to this department of education? Mr. MOORE. Yes. Mr. DOUGLASS. I know that to be the fact. Mr. MOORE. And this Elementary School Teachers' Association of one thousand seven hundred and odd members voted against it, which, of course, shows that the National Education Association is not solidly, unanimously, behind it. Further than that, even though the 150,000 members of the National Education Association were solidly behind it, what are they with regard to the whole number of teachers of the country? I think they number about one-sixth of the entire body of teachers of this country, including the private-school teachers. Mr. ROBSION. Your organization was against the vocational education bill before Congress, and the maternity act, and the nineteenth amendment, and so on, were they not? Mr. MOORE. They were behind all those things which were, in their judgment, vicious. Mr. ROBSION. They were not behind them; you mean they were opposed to all of them, do you not? Mr. MOORE. Yes; they were opposed to them all. Mr. ROBSION. Yes. In fact, your organization is opposed to Federal aid for roads, is it not? Mr. MOORE. What? Mr. ROBSION. Federal aid for roads. Mr. MOORE. I do not know, I am sure, with reference to that. Mr. ROBSION. How long have they been organized? Mr. MOORE. It struck me forcibly when a friend of mine who came over to this country and wanted to make a study of the educational system here, and he ran up against the proposition of this bill. His first question was: "What is the matter? Has there been a crisis? Has there been a disaster? Has there been a slump?" And I referred him to the enthusiastic comments of the members of the National Education Association as to the remarkable progress which education had been making steadily in this country. He did not understand then why there should be such a proposition, and his comment was: "Why is there any need of it when illiteracy is gradually diminishing and has been steadily diminishing?" Mr. ROBSION. Mr. Moore, you have used 20 minutes. Mr. ROBSION. If you have something else you wanted to put in the record, you might submit it to the clerk or incorporate it into your remarks. Mr. MOORE. I think not, sir. I think I can just as well stop where I am. Mr. ROBSION. I am sorry to have to interrupt you, but we have many witnesses to be heard. Mr. MOORE. I am sorry I have overrun my time. (The statement of Mr. Moore is as follows:) When the chief proponents of the bill state that some 29 "organizations of nation-wide influence are now working for the department of education," and that the opposition "is confined to groups which opposed the woman sufferage and prohibition amendments,' it would seem fitting, and perhaps in the line of duty, for your Committee on Education to require evidence of the truth of statements so sweeping. As a member of two of the largest of these organizations, whose membership, by the way, largely overlaps, I can affirm that no vote of the members on this question has ever been taken and that a request made to the officers of about 12 others for evidence that their members had ever so voted brought no response. I present the article from the Sun to be incorporated in the records. THE PEDAGOGUES' LOBBY [By Gerald W. Johnson, in the Baltimore Evening Sun of Thursday, January 5, 1928] President Coolidge in his recent message to Congress came out in favor of the movement to establish a department of education, the head of which should be a member of the President's Cabinet. The chief advocate of this measure is the National Education Association, an organization of school teachers, which was originally a sort of cross between a labor union and a professional society such as the American Medical Association, but which has of late developed into a Federal lobby hardly less formidable than the Anti-Saloon League itself. The National Education Association has not for years had much claim to be considered a professional society interested mainly in the maintenance of high professional standards and the improvement of professional methods. But such claims as it might have had it surrendered at the last meeting, when the presidency was given over to a pedagogue who, after years of service, has never risen higher than the rank of elementary school teacher. A professional society is always in theory, if not always in fact, headed by a particularly distinguished member of the profession. The teachers, on the contrary, deliberately chose a 1 From a catechism on the new education bill, distributed by the National Education Association, which body, in the Baltimore Sun of Jan. 5, 1928, is called, on very good grounds, "The pedagogues' lobby.' By what organizations is the proposal for a department of education supported? So many organizations are now working for a department of education and new additions are being made so rapidly that it is not possible to keep any list up to date. In addition to local and State groups, there are many organizations of nation-wide influence, among them the following: National Education Association; American Federation of Teachers; American Federation of Labor; National Committee for a Department of Education; National Council of Women; National Congress of Parents and Teachers; General Federation of Women's Clubs; National League of Women Voters; Supreme Council, Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Southern Jurisdiction, United States; International Council of Religious Education; National Council of Jewish Women; National Women's Christian Temperance Union; American Association of University Women; National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs; General Grand Chapter, Order of Eastern Star; National Women's Trade Union League; National Board of the Young Womens Christian Associations; National Federation of Music Clubs; American Library Association; American Vocational Association; Women's Relief Corps; Federal Council of the Churches of Chirst in America; National Kindergarten Association; American Home Economics Association; American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association; American Nurses' Association; Osteopathic Women's National Association; National Council, Junior Order of United American Mechanics of the United States of North America; Service Star Legion, Inc.; Educational Press Association of America. By whom is the new education bill opposed? Very little open opposition has developed. Most of this is confined to groups which opposed the woman sufferage and prohibition amendments. Much of this opposition vanishes when persons who have a misimpression as to the purpose of the measure read the bill itself. |