THE VIEWS OF SELECTED AMERICAN HISTORIANS ON ISSUES BEARING UPON THE TEACHING OF HISTORY Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State U niversity By Katharine Garza Jones, B.S., MA . The Ohio S tate U niversity 1955 Approved by* Adviser TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 I I THE METHOD OF THE STUDY......................................................................... 21 I I I THE VIEWS OF ALBERT BUSHNELL HART ON ISSUES BEARING UPON THE TEACHING OF HISTORY..................................................................... 38 IV THE VIEWS OF CARL LOTUS BECKER ON ISSUES BEARING UPON THE TEACHING OF HISTORY................................................. 81* V THE VIEWS OF CHARLES AUSTIN BEARD ON ISSUES BEARING UPON THE TEACHING OF HISTORY........................................................................120 VI THE VIEWS OF ARTHUR MEIER SCHLESINGER ON ISSUES BEARING UPON THE TEACHING OF HISTORY.............................................................168 V II THE VIEWS OF ALLAN NEVINS ON ISSUES BEARING UPON THE TEACHING OF HISTORY.............................. 191 V III CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................229 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......... 2$2 APPENDIX........................................................................................................................ 281 i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One of the most effective devices in modern propaganda is the practice of making assertions which purport to represent the views of a whole group, that is, of the entire membership of an organization, a profession, a racial or interest group, or even a nation, but which, in fact, carry only the opinions of the person speaking. In an era which is characterized by organizations that classify very large numbers of people under a single label, this technique has become a particularly powerful means of affecting opinions and attitudes. The effectiveness of the device may be explained by the fact that most of those being "spoken for" do not often have occasion to "compare notes" or to confront the self-styled "spokesman". The writer or speaker, then, who, although stating no one*s position but his own, acts as if he represents the unanimous judgment of a group, may never be called to account by those he presumes to speak for. Furthermore, if he is not held accountable by the group for whom he claims to speak, he is not likely to be challenged by the members of his general audience, many of whom may not be in the least organized in relation to the area of life to which his words relate. He, therefore, often is left free to propagandize with little fear of exposure. 1 2 The problem posed by the practice of making one's words count for more than they do has come to affect a number of aspects of Ameri­ can life. Spokesmen for special interest organizations and professions of all kinds represent their words as those of the entire membership of their groups When, in fact, they are speaking only for themselves or for segments of their organizations. Clem Whitaker, director of the American Medical A ssociations campaign against the Truman- sponsored national health insurance b ill a few years ago, for instance, made the following statement* "This isn 't going to be any pantywaist complaint. The cirtics of the medical profession have had their field day—and they'll continue to have it until American medicine strikes back and strikes hard . .W e're going to attack—and 1 attack—and attack.” Mr. Whitaker's statement in the name of American medicine seems to discount the thousands of doctors who have chosen to stay out of the American Medical Association, the numerous Negro doctors of the South who are not members because of the organization's membership policies, and the many doctors within the American Medical Association who openly supported the Truman health plan. Another organization, the American Legion, has a lobbyist in Washington who promotes views as if the millions of Legion members endorsed them. Yet, the indirect election system and the process by which a few top officials determine the issues around which lobbying 1. Howard Whitman, "Doctors in an Uproar", C ollier's, 123 (May lit, 19ii9), p . 21. ~ 3 activities center mean that the vast majority of Legionnaires are not asked to express a view about the various proposals officially spon- 2 sored by the Legion. In education, the field of the writer's professional interest, the "spokesman technique" has been used as freely as in other groups. References to "what the modern school is trying to do" or to "the pur­ poses of education today" are often substituted for what a particular writer wants schools to do or to attempt. The practice of speaking for a whole group as if there were agree­ ment within the group has manifested itself, also, at a number of points in the series of attacks which have been made on the schools in recent years. In Scarsdale, New York, for example, a minister who was one of the leaders of a group that wanted to censor the books used in the communityrs school system reacted to the school board's decision to keep Howard Fast's Citigeri Tom Paine on the shelves by claiming that •the board had gone on record in direct contradiction to the teachings of the church." Reverend Edward C. Boynton, popular minister of the Congregationalist Church in the city, responded to this charge, saying, "It is not clear from Mr. Kaman's use of the words *the Church* exact­ ly for whom he speaks authoritatively. To avoid any misunderstanding, because of my profession as a minister, I state simply, Mr. Kernan does 3 not speak for me." 2. Amy Porter, "The Legion Eats »Ein Alive," C ollier's, Volume 118 (October 5 , 19U6) pp. 52-53. 3. C. Winfield Scott and Clyde M. H ill, Public Education Under C riti­ cism . New York* P re n tic e -H a ll, I n c ., p. 332. k The field secretary of the National Education Association* s Defense Commission reports that the Conference of American Small Business Organizations is one of ten agencies whose good intentions are doubted. This latter organization, which purports to speak for those engaged in small business, campaigns for permission to evaluate textbooks and supplementary material used in public schools. In 1950, the House o f R e p rese n tativ es' s e le c t committee on lobbying made a report on its special study of this organization. In the final para­ graphs of the report, the Congressional group repudiates the organi­ zation's elaira as the spokesman of small business: "As for CASB0*s claim that it voices the *deliberated opinion* of small business, its methods of ascertaining and formulating such opinion, sometimes through loaded questionnaires, prepared resolutions, and otherwise should make the Congress wary of any figures which CASBO offers on a measure of small business opinion. This thesis is concerned with an important aspect of the problem of attacks on the schools, and especially spokesmen's claims of total agreement within the groups they say they represent. It does not deal with the attacks in general, but focuses on a particular set of criti­ cisms of school practices and of professional educators madeby scholars in the liberal arts and sciences. Those scholars who have been outspokenly critical of the schools have tended to make the general charge that the educationist?—dominated 1±. I b id . pp. 2U0-U2 5 public schools of the United States are being permeated by an anti- intellectual spirit. This attitude, they claim, results in substitu­ tion of "life adjustment" for intellectual development as the major goal of the schools. In teachers1 training, it leads to replacement of work in the subjects to be taught by "professional education courses". In addition it fosters organization around "current life problems" or "areas of interest" the content from which the school curriculum is made instead of retaining as school subjects the system­ atically organized fields of knowledge, such as English, science, mathematics and history.^ Some of the critics make no claim that they are speaking for any­ one but themselves. They simply are dissatisfied with the way the schools are operating. Bernard Iddings Bell, for example, points out that there is neglect of intellectual training in the schools in favor of education for adjustment, and he indicates disapproval of the state of affairs that he describes as follows* 5>. For purposes of clarity and convenience, the term scholar will be used as it is by the liberal arts and science scholars to denote only that segment of the scholarly world which specializes in the arts and sciences. This in no way signifies acceptance of the apparent assumption of this group that its members have exclusive title to the term. Rather, the writer is convinced that there are thorough, painstaking men of knowledge specializing in say, phil­ osophy of education as well as there are learned botanists who merit this name. Also in the interest of clarity, the term educationist. which is used by a number of the scholar-critics, w ill usually be employed to refer to those who have responsibility for pedagogical instruc­ tion in the training of teachers. The opprobrium often attached to the term by these critics is not accepted, however. 6 In former days I told myself, it was assumed by every­ body that the primary business of schools is the training of minds to function effectively. It was assumed that people with trained minds can be entrusted to acquire information and practical techniques on their own hook. These ladies and gentlemen [members of a well known association of secondary schools] apparently believed nothing of the sort. They were all for broadening, what they called ,rorientating,” evidently on the assumption that this was not only the school’s first business but almost its only business; they took it as a matter of course that their young charges would mature auto­ matically.