Bums, Revolutionaries, or Citizens? A Political History of Youth in Twentieth-Century America Allison D. Rank A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: Mark A. Smith, Chair Leah M. Ceccarelli Jack Turner, III Naomi D. Murakawa Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Political Science 1 ©Copyright 2014 Allison D. Rank 2 University of Washington Abstract Bums, Revolutionaries, or Citizens? A Political History of Youth in Twentieth-Century America Allison D. Rank Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Mark A. Smith Political Science Under what conditions do political elites begin to fear that young people will fail to become responsible citizens? What do these conditions and the solutions adopted tell us about the values and skills associated with American citizenship at specific points in time? What types of young people does the state try to develop into desirable citizens, and how has the state’s approach to youth who lie on the margins and are at risk of failing to adequately take on the role of citizen changed over time? How do changing beliefs, practices, and policies around youth and citizenship intersect with issues of race and state-building in America? To answer these questions, I examine key debates and policies from the Progressive Era through the 1970s. I focus on legislative initiatives, statements political actors made in support and opposition, and public and media reactions. I attend specifically to restrictions on child labor (1900s-1920s), the Civilian Conservation Corps (1934) and National Youth Administration (1935) during the New Deal, the G.I. Bill (1944), and youth voting through the 1970 Voting Rights Act (1970) and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1972). Ostensibly designed to benefit youth, these policies reflected fears of youth apathy, radicalism, and criminality and the desire to 3 craft a malleable, disciplined workforce. The resulting youth-oriented legislation, including child labor laws, employment and education programs, and a lower voting age, sought to redirect young people into traditional means of political and economic activity. Through this redirection, each policy – implicitly or explicitly – defined what it meant to be an adult citizen. This project, then, is not simply a study of American youth. Rather, I use academic works, government documents, and popular and elite media to examine how elites constructed and reconstructed norms of American citizenship during the twentieth century. 4 Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to four people: Tobie Hurst entered my world just when I began this project in earnest and has improved my life in ways I could not have imagined. I have benefited enormously from his encouragement, his pride in my work, and his reminders of the world outside of academia. My parents, Bill and Judy, have always encouraged my education whether that meant driving me to debate camp in Michigan, flying to a ceremony in Missouri, or moving me to Washington. They have found my career path perplexing but have never wavered in their support. Finally, I dedicate this piece to my grandfather, Rev. Dr. Frederick D. Hill. A history professor at a liberal arts college in Indiana, his sharp but humble intellect and dedication to undergraduate education set a standard I strive to live up to. 5 Acknowledgements I have been incredibly lucky to have conducted my graduate work alongside a collection of supportive mentors and colleagues. In his role as committee chair, Mark Smith paid attention to my project at a level above and beyond my expectations. He constantly pushed me to strengthen my claims through clear writing and rigorous methodology. The instructor for my first graduate seminar, Chip Turner has offered incisive commentary on my writing and thinking from day one. His refusal to pull his punches made me a better scholar. Naomi Murakawa provided a model for how to talk to colleagues about their work. Thanks to her ability to simultaneously praise and identify the flaws in my work, I left each of our meetings with a better project and more confidence. It is a skill I am actively working to develop. While not a member of my committee, Christine DiStefano provided valuable support from my earliest days at the UW. I want to extend a special thank you to my grad school colleagues for taking time away from their own work to read and comment on mine. The intellect, generosity, and humor of Katie Banks, Betsy Cooper, Jennifer Fredette, Heather Pool, Kirstine Taylor, and Hannah Walker improved my time in graduate school and this project. 6 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Youth as a Site for Political Analysis 8 Youth as a Unique Site of Analysis 9 The Lens of Youth 12 Constructing Citizenship in Response to Capacity and Ideological Failures of Youth 17 Conclusion 23 Chapter 2: America’s Natural Resource: The Value of Progressive Era Youth 24 The Changing Nature of Labor in America 26 The Diverging Experiences of Youth in Early Twentieth-Century America 32 In Their Interest: The Role of Unions and Women’s Groups 38 Compulsory Education: The Answer to Idle Hands 43 The Push for Legislation 45 Conclusion 51 Chapter 3: “The Big Trouble Came”: Youth and Citizenship in the 1930s–1940s 52 Youth and the Great Depression 55 Transforming Youth into Citizens through New Deal Programs 67 The G.I. Bill: Legislation for Youth 77 Conclusion 89 Chapter 4: Thwarting the Radicals: Moderate Youth as Political Targets in the 1960s 91 Youth Suffrage in American History 93 Perceiving Young Voters as a Threat to American Stability 99 Youth Riots at the Gates 101 The Critical Role of Moderate Youth 109 The Logics of Enfranchisement 115 Conclusion 126 Chapter 5: To Incorporate or Contain? Questioning the Contemporary Approach to Youth 127 Work Cited 134 7 Chapter 1: Youth as a Site for Political Analysis It is a truism that adults frequently view members of younger generations as less moral and less capable than their own cohort. That concern reflects little more than an older generation’s discomfort with changing norms. Several times during the twentieth century, however, political and social elites have constructed specific fears about the inability of young Americans to successfully take on the mantle of citizenship. I examine moments in American history when elites transformed fears of youth into major pieces of legislation: anti-child labor debates (1900s-1920s), two New Deal programs: the Civilian Conservation Corps (1934) and National Youth Administration (1935), the G.I. Bill (1944), and youth voting through the 1970 Voting Rights Act (1970) and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1972). By taking what Paul Pierson calls a “moving picture” as opposed to a “snapshot” approach to understanding these events, this project covers more than just the young people who experienced each policy.1 Rather, I examine youth as a site from which to question our understandings of citizenship, state-building, fear, and race as political issues in twentieth- century America. This chapter begins by discussing two criteria that make youth a unique site from which to consider American politics. I then turn to a targeted discussion of how this project speaks to important concepts in the field of American political development, including citizenship, race, and state-building. Finally, I offer a brief summary of each subsequent chapter. 1 Paul Pierson, Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 2. 8 I. Youth as a Unique Site of Analysis A focus on the developmental and inclusive nature of youth provides a valuable perspective from which to consider American politics. Yet, to the extent it has addressed youth, the discipline of political science has treated the category in one of two ways. First, scholars focus on the political participation of those in a fixed ‘youth’ demographic typically ranging from 18 to 26 or 29 years of age.2 For example, various studies examine the size and composition of, as well as trends within, the “youth vote.” Second, scholars limit their examination of youth in American politics to subsections (such as black youth) or a single historical period.3 These research strategies have yielded valuable insights, but their narrow scope means that no one has yet used youth as a lens through which to view all of American politics. I argue that attending to the developmental nature of youth as well as its inherent inclusivity allows us to track the shifting relationships between the state and its citizens. Developmental Nature of Youth In 1904, psychologist G. Stanley Hall conceived of a category of development between childhood and adulthood. Drawing on well-established theories such as the Great Chain of Being and recapitulation, Hall proposed adolescence as a turning point when youth either “jumped to a developed, superior, Western selfhood or remained arrested in a savage state. Adolescence became the dividing line between rational, autonomous, and moral white bourgeois men, those 2 Daniel M. Shea and John C. Green, Fountain of Youth: Strategies and Tactics for Mobilizing America’s Young Voters (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007).Other examples include Michael Connery, Youth to Power: How Today’s Young Voters are Building Tomorrow’s Progressive Majority (New York: Ig Publishing, 2008); Tony Kelso and Brian Cogan, eds., Youth Voters, Popular Culture and Democratic Engagement (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008). 3 E.g. Cathy J. Cohen, Democracy Remixed: Black Youth and the Future of American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010) and Paula S. Fass, The Damned and the Beautiful: American Youth in the 1920s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977). 9 civilized men who would continue the evolution of the race, and emotional, conforming, sentimental or mythical others, namely primitives, women, and children.”4 In other words, youth is a transition point between the civilized and the uncivilized–or, the incorporated citizen and the marginal citizen.