A document from the CQ Researcher archives: Report Outline
Education and Anti-Communist Agitation
Communist Teachers and Academic Freedom
Recent Cases Involving Academic Freedom
New Movement for Teacher Loyalty Oaths Education and Anti-Communist Agitation Question Rised by Moves Against Red Infiltration Extension of anti-Communist agitation into the educational sphere has brought the question of academic freedom to the front and raised, in yet another field, the problem of how to combat possible dangers to the democratic way of life without at the same time doing violence to cherished democratic principles. Increasing resort to extreme measures designed to keep Communists and Communist influence out of American schools and colleges has been a cause of concern to persons who fear that such measures, by impairing or threatening to impair the tradition of academic freedom, entail greater risks than those they are intended to meet. Handling of the problem of preventing possible Communist infiltration into educational institutions involves various practical and theoretical questions to which there are no ready answers. In the first place, is the danger of subversive activity by teachers sufficiently real to warrant singling them out as a group and requiring them to take special loyalty oaths? Are loyalty oaths, in any case, an effective deterrent to Communists? A party member, adhering to the doctrine that the end justifies the means, presumably would not scruple to take such an oath. The oath in its usual form, moreover, requires the individual who subscribes to it, not to forswear that he is a Communist, but to deny that he believes in or belongs to an organization advocating overthrow of the government by force or violence. And the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that the tenets of the Communist Party of the United States necessarily imply advocacy of the forcible overthrow of the government. Another question concerns the effect of Communist Party membership on the professional qualifications of a teacher, and on this question educators themselves are divided. One group holds that party membership, with assumed obedience to Communist dogma in all things, compromises the intellectual integrity of a teacher and automatically renders him unfit to discharge the high responsibilities of his profession. But another group opposes any blanket condemnation and insists that each individual should be judged by actual performance. If party members are to be barred outright, there is the further question of what to do about Communist sympathizers and fellow-travellers. And if bans of this sort are imposed, is there danger that they will be used as cloaks for disciplining teachers who express unconventional or unpopular, but not subversive, opinions? Discussion of these and related questions has been generated by a series of recent incidents and actions, of which prominent examples have been the dismissal of two members of the faculty of the University of Washington in January on the ground of membership in the Communist Party; dismissal of an Oregon State University professor in February for supporting the genetics theories of the Soviet scientist Lysenko; enactment of new and particularly restrictive anti-subversion laws in several states; and, finally, a call by the House Un-American Activities Committee in June for lists of textbooks used by colleges and public school systems in various parts of the country. Go to top Communist Teachers and Academic Freedom Changing Aspect of Confict Over Teacher Freedom Controversies over academic freedom, now revolving largely around the subject of Communism, resulted primarily from differences over theological dogma in the days when sectarian influence was strong in American colleges and universities. Later, the Darwinian theory of evolution caused trouble for natural science teachers. And toward the end of the 19th century the principle of academic freedom was subjected to new strains by development of the political and social sciences. College teachers who advocated government regulation of economic enterprises, favored low tariffs, criticized industry policies toward labor, or expressed what were then considered advanced views on other questions came under pressure from conservative alumni or boards of trustees and in some instances were dismissed. Political radicalism became a source of conflict over academic freedom during World War I. Charges of socialism figured in a celebrated controversy over the removal of Scott Nearing from the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania in 1915, and charges of sedition and disloyalty in an equally celebrated controversy over the expulsion of several members of the faculty of Columbia University two years later. This period saw also the enactment of New York's drastic Lusk Laws, repealed in 1923, which required teachers to obtain certificates of loyalty, provided for removal of teachers “for the utterance of any treasonable or seditious act,” and prohibited the employment of teachers who had criticized the United States government. Subsidence of the post-World War I red scare gave guardians of academic freedom a breathing spell, but the depression and opposition to the New Deal gave rise to fresh charges of radicalism in educational institutions and brought a revival of the movement for teachers' loyalty oaths. Current controversies over academic freedom, as they relate to the question of Communism, raise particularly puzzling problems because of the nature of the Communist movement and the methods and tactics which it employs. The fact that the movement is organized as a political party, and claims the rights accorded other political parties, makes for doubt about restraints which might be construed as violative of constitutional safeguards or of the American tradition of political freedom. Yet it has come to be widely recognized in the postwar period that Communism is much more than a political movement, that it has the aspects of a religious cause in that it is capable of inspiring in its adherents a loyalty transcending all other loyalties. Attraction of some persons of high intelligence to a movement which not only commands zeal of this sort but which, in addition, places devotion to the interests of a foreign country above any duties of national citizenship, which encourages disregard for the truth where the truth is inexpedient, and which operates to a great extent in secrecy has been profoundly disturbing to citizens who have been brought up in the democratic tradition and who have taken love of country and the usual moral standards for granted. Principle of Academic Freedom: Rights and Duties The principle of academic freedom carries with it both rights and duties. Broadly stated, it is supposed to assure a teacher liberty to pursue his appointed tasks without fear or favor, free of non-academic interference or of restraints imposed in response to non-academic pressures. On the other side, it is inherent in the principle that the teacher or research scholar enjoying such rights shall maintain independence of judgment, honestly seek the truth, and expound his subject fairly and frankly to the best of his ability. From its founding in 1915, the American Association of University Professors has maintained a Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which has been active in promoting and defending observance of academic freedom in colleges and universities. The original committee formulated an extensive “Declaration of Principles.” This was supplemented in 1925 by a “Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure,” drawn up by representatives of the A.A.U.P. and of a number of other associations in the field of higher education, and the 1925 statement was in turn revised 15 years later. The so-called “1940 Statement of Principles” defines the rights and duties of teachers as follows: The teacher is entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of his other academic duties … The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing his subject, but he should be careful not to introduce into his teaching controversial matter which has no relation to his subject … The college or university teacher is a citizen, a member of a learned profession, and an officer of an educational institution. When he speaks or writes as a citizen, he should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but his special position in the community imposes special obligations. As a man of learning and an educational officer, he should remember that the public may judge his profession and his institution by his utterances. Hence he should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he is not an institutional spokesman. The A.A.U.P. uses these principles as a basic guide in investigating dismissal cases in which a charge of violation of academic freedom has been made. Opposition to Blanket Ban on Communist Teachers Foreseeing that Communism was likely to become an issue in situations which it would be called upon to consider, the A.A.U.P.'s Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure discussed in its annual report for 1947 the question of whether a college or university would be justified in dismissing a faculty member for admitted membership in the Communist Party. The committee was then of the unanimous opinion that “In the light of present facts … there is nothing now apparent in reference to the Communist Party in the United States, or to international conditions, that calls for a departure from the principles of freedom and tenure by which the Association has been guided throughout its history.” On the basis of those principles, it said it would regard “any attempt to subject college teachers to civic limitations not imposed upon other citizens as a threat against the academic profession, and against the society which that profession serves.” Taking up the question first from the standpoint of the rights of teachers as citizens, the committee pointed out that the Communist Party was a legal political party and that membership therein was the right of a citizen of the United States. It saw no reason to deny this civic right to teachers so long as the Communist Party had not been declared illegal by the courts or Congress and membership outlawed for all citizens. It asserted that the evidence that the American Communist Party was subservient to Soviet dictates was “not conclusive,” but that “Whatever the intentions of the directorate of the Communist Party in Soviet Russia or of the leaders of the Communist Party in the United States, it does not follow that every member of the party under all circumstances would assent to and follow the plans of these leaders.” Adherence to a third party often is only a gesture of protest against a specific abuse or injustice, and “it does not follow that all those who join or support the Communist Party do so with subversive intent, or that as individuals they are subversive.” In any case, the committee felt that denial of the right to belong to the party was the function of courts or legislatures, not of college administrative authorities. At the same time, it recognized that many persons believed “that a teacher who joins the Communist Party is already so committed to fixed views that he is incapable of objective scholarship,” and “that the zeal of protest which leads him to join the party is sure to manifest itself in his teaching.” But the committee contended that “To each of these contentions this Association should apply the touchstone of individual culpability.” The principle that guilt is personal, that it does not arise from association, that it cannot be attributed to the holding of an opinion or even to intent in the absence of an overt act is fundamental in Anglo-American jurisprudence. If a teacher as an individual should advocate the forcible overthrow of the government or should incite others to do so; if he should use his classes as a forum for Communism, or otherwise abuse his relationship with his students for that purpose; if his thinking should show more than normal bias or he so uncritical as to evidence professional unfitness, these are the charges that should be brought against him. If these charges should be established by evidence adduced at a hearing, the teacher should be dismissed because of his acts of disloyalty or because of professional unfitness, and not because he is a Communist. The committee cautioned, finally, that automatic exclusion of Communists from the teaching profession “would readily lead to discrimination against teachers with other unorthodox political views,” and that “the acceptance of political discrimination might well be the wolf's paw in the door,” opening the way for extension of discrimination to other types of heterodoxy. It warned that if higher education surrendered its “function of criticism and improvement” and retained only its “function of preservation and transmission,” it would be “ready to become an instrument of indoctrination for an authoritarian society.” Argument for Barring Party Members as Teachers Advocates of the opposite viewpoint—that Communist party members as such should be barred as teachers—recently received strong support from the Educational Policies Commission. This group, sponsored by the National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators, comprises a prominent cross-section of university presidents (including Eisenhower of Columbia and Conant of Harvard), college and high school teachers, superintendents of schools, and school principals. In a report on June 8 the commission declared without qualification that “Members of the Communist Party of the United States should not be employed as teachers.” Such membership, in the opinion of the Educational Policies Commission, involves adherence to doctrines and discipline completely inconsistent with the principles of freedom on which American education depends. Such membership, and the accompanying surrender of intellectual integrity, render an individual unfit to discharge the duties of a teacher in this country. At the same time we condemn the careless, incorrect, and unjust use of such words as “Red” and “Communist” to attack teachers and other persons who in point of fact are not Communists, but who merely have views different from those of their accusers. The whole spirit of free American education will be subverted unless teachers are free to think for themselves. It is because members of the Communist Party are required to surrender this right, as a consequence of becoming part of a movement characterized by conspiracy and calculated deceit, that they should be excluded from employment as teachers. The commission noted that “Teaching about Communism or any other form of dictatorship does not mean advocacy of these doctrines.” While it said that such advocacy should not be permitted in American schools, it took the position that “Young citizens should have an opportunity to learn about the principles and practices of totalitarianism, including those represented by the Soviet Union and by the Communist Party in the United States.” At a press conference, June 9, President Truman voiced agreement with the commission's conclusion that Communists should not be accepted as teachers. He commented that no one who believed in the destruction of this country ought to be employed to instruct the youth of America. Teacher Integrity Vs. Demands of Party Discipline The view that Communist Party membership destroys intellectual integrity and automatically renders an individual unfit to serve as a teacher is based on the belief that party discipline requires a member to follow the party line without deviation and actively serve the party as its doctrines or its leaders demand. As evidence that there are “no ‘sleepers’ or passive members of the Communist Party,” Sidney Hook, New York University professor, has pointed out that the party's statutes of membership “define a party member as one who not only ‘accepts the party program, attends the regular meetings of the membership branch of his place of work’ but ‘who is active in party work.’ And the concluding sentence of the pledge exacted of all persons joining the party in this country since 1935 reads: “I pledge myself to remain at all times a vigilant and firm defender of the Leninist line of the party, the only line that insures the triumph of Soviet power in the United States.” Hook noted also that directives to teacher comrades, published in the May 1937 issue of the official party organ, The Communist, stated that “Marxist-Leninist analysis must be injected into every class” and that “Communist teachers must take advantage of their positions, without exposing themselves, to give their students to the best of their ability working-class education.” Those who oppose employment of Communists as teachers assert that party membership disqualifies a teacher of English or one of the natural sciences, for example, as fully as it does a teacher of the political or social sciences. Objectivity is no more to be expected in the one case than in the other. According to the Communist Party itself, politics is bound up, through the class struggle, with every field of knowledge. On the basis of its philosophy of dialectical materialism, a party line is laid down for every area of thought from art to zoology. No person who is known to hold a view incompatible with the party line is accepted as a member. For example, if he is a historian, he can-not become a member if he teaches that the economic factor is not the most decisive factor in history or, if a political scientist, that the state is not the executive committee of the ruling class or that the Soviet Union is not a democracy … If a physicist or mathematician becomes a member of the Communist Party, he is required, wherever it is possible for him to do so, to relate his subject to the growth of technology, its impact upon social divisions, the class uses to which discovery is put, and the liberating role it can play in a Communist economy… English teachers who have been members of the Communist Party during the last few years have had to reverse their judgments about the same novelists, and sometimes even about the same books, … because of changes in the party line toward these authors. Party members who refuse to follow the party line, or changes in the party line, must resign or face expulsion. Testimony to the rigidity of party discipline in this respect was given by Granville Hicks, who resigned from the party in 1939 when he was denied the right to suspend judgment on the Nazi-Stalin pact. In a public explanation of his action, he said: “If the party had left any room for doubt, I could go along with it … But they made it clear that if I eventually found it impossible to defend the pact, and defend it in their terms, there was nothing for me to do but resign.” Alexander Meiklejohn, former president of Amherst College and former chairman of the Experimental College at the University of Wisconsin, has sought to minimize the significance of Communist Party discipline where, as in this country, members are free to resign and the extreme sanction is dismissal from the party. “Under that form of control,” he said in a recent article, “a man's acceptance of doctrines and policies is not ‘required.’ It is voluntary.” Meiklejohn suggested that the only explanation of why scholars choose party membership is that they are “moved by a passionate determination to follow the truth where it seems to lead, no matter what may be the cost to themselves and their families.” He observed that the American doctrine of intellectual freedom expressed “our confidence that whenever, in the field of ideas, the advocates of freedom and the advocates of suppression meet in fair and unabridged discussion, freedom will win.” Communists and Tsst of “Clear and Present Danger” It has been suggested elsewhere that blanket disqualification of Communists as teachers, at least in institutions of higher education, may violate the civil liberties tradition that curtailment of free speech is justified only upon demonstration of “clear and present danger.” The phrase “clear and present danger” has a rather specific meaning. As Justice Holmes once observed, it does not mean a clear and present danger of changing the nation's mind by argument. It does not mean a clear and present danger of offending somebody's principles or prejudices. It means a clear and present danger of inciting overt acts in violation of law. Our civil liberties tradition is therefore not a tradition of unlimited vulnerability before all forms of provocation: when free speech leads to overt illegal acts, free society may take steps to repress such speech. But the finding of clear and present danger is & delicate decision, to be taken by the courts on the basis of overwhelming evidence. In Brandeis's words, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression.” On the other hand, Prof. Childs of Teachers College, Columbia University, has cautioned that the “new and stubborn problem” introduced into public affairs by the practices of the Communist Party “will not be resolved in a democratic manner so long as liberals are unable to confront it because they are enthralled by the notion that liberty is an absolute value.” Addressing the proposition that Communist teachers should not be judged as Communists but by their individual performance as teachers, Childs said: “To pronounce a member of this party unfit to teach is not to find him guilty by the principle of association. Membership in the Communist Party is a definite act an act that repudiates both the canons of scholarship and the kind of conduct that is basic in the work of a teacher in a democracy.” Problem of Fellow Travellers and Sympathizers One critic of the University of Washington's action in dismissing Communist professors, apprehensive over the ultimate results of such a policy, has expressed the opinion that Communist party pressures and discipline are less potent at the present time than the pressures; from conservative interests to which liberal teachers are subject. He has suggested that “the next major case will involve faculty members who, although admittedly not members of the Communist Party, will be charged with holding beliefs substantially similar to those of Communists,” and that “the distinction, now sought to be maintained between an ‘act,’ that is, joining the Communist Party, and a belief will then crumble, and the interrogation will center on personal beliefs and convictions.” Action already has been taken in certain states to close teaching positions in the public schools, not only to Communists, but also to members of Communist-front or other organizations regarded as subversive. Such a program involves the difficulty of defining and identifying subversive organizations and brings up the possibility of injuring persons who have joined them with no subversive intent. To thoughtful advocates of a ban on Communist teachers, the impairment of intellectual integrity resulting from party membership and submission to party discipline is a controlling consideration. They put fellow-travellers in a different category. Sidney Hook has asserted that the problem which they raise “must be left entirely to the enlightened good sense of the academic community, which can apply various sanctions short of dismissal.” The term “fellow-traveller” is hopelessly vague. “Fellow-travellers” come and go. They are of all varieties. No one is wise enough to pick out the dumb, innocent sheep from the cunning and dishonest goats. So long as they are not under the discipline of the Communist Party, they may still be sensitive to the results of honest inquiry. Whatever harm they do is incomparably less than the harm that would result from any attempt to purge them. President Allen of the University of Washington, denying that his institution had penalized professors for holding unpopular opinions, ha& pointed out that it has kept on its faculty “men who believe in the Marxist philosophy.” In the recommendations accepted by the Washington regents I argued that: “Such philosophies, honestly held and divorced from the dogmas of the Communist Party, are something quite different from active and secret membership in the party. I think it is necessary that we maintain a place in the university for the holding of such philosophies, regardless of how strongly we disagree with them, the only condition being that they not be subject to dictation from outside the mind of the holder.” It is clear, howover, that agitation against Communist teachers will not stop at party members but will be directed also against philosophical Communists and against fellow-travellers in general. A recent instance was provided by the complaint registered with the Harvard authorities by Frank B. Ober of Baltimore, chairman of the commission which drafted Maryland's new anti-subversion law, against Prof. Harlow Shapley's participation in the meeting of the Cultural and Scientific Conference for World Peace last spring in New York, and against the appearance of another Harvard professor at a Progressive Party meeting in Maryland called to protest passage of the so-called Ober bill. In his reply President Conant reaffirmed Harvard's long-standing policy of non-interference in the extra-curricular activities of its professors and referred to a statement of that policy by his predecessor, President Lowell, in his annual report for 1916–17. In that statement Lowell noted that the gravest questions about academic freedom arose from “action by a professor beyond his chosen field and outside of his classroom.” He vigorously defended the right of teachers to speak as citizens, free of censorship by a board of trustees. And he pointed out that a weighty objection to any restraint on freedom of speech from the standpoint of the institution was that “If a university or college censors what its professors may say, if it restrains them from uttering something that it does not approve, it thereby assumes responsibility for that which it permits them to say.” Go to top Recent Cases Involving Academic Freedom Dismissal of Teachears at Univercity of Washington The case of the University of Washington teachers is significant in the current debate on academic freedom because it directly involved the issue of membership in the Communist Party as a ground for dismissal. Other charges, including an accusation that the teachers had failed to observe proper standards of objectivity in the classroom, were dropped by the university administration, so that the question of whether or not party membership in and of itself is a disqualification for teaching was squarely presented to the faculty committee which heard the case. Proceedings at the university grew out of an inquiry into Communist influence on the campus, conducted in July 1948 by a state legislative un-American activities committee known as the Canwell committee. In the course of that inquiry three teachers testified that they had previously belonged to the Communist Party but had severed all connections with it. Three other teachers refused to answer questions concerning party membership. At subsequent hearings before the faculty committee on tenure and academic freedom, one of the latter three—Ralph H. Gundlach—continued to refuse to say whether or not he was a party member. The two others—Joseph Butterworth, associate in English since 1929, and Herbert J. Phillips, assistant professor of philosophy who had been on the faculty since 1920—admitted that they had joined the Communist Party in 1935 and were still active members. Action on Communist Issue at University of Washington Although the issue in the Butterworth and Phillips cases was thus clear-cut, action on it was complicated by the fact that the university's tenure code was silent on the matter of Communist Party membership. Incompetence was listed as a ground for dismissal, but did membership in the Communist Party render a teacher incompetent within the meaning of the code? Division of the faculty committee on that question gave rise to confusion as to its findings. Three members of the 11-man committee found that party membership did not constitute grounds for dismissal under the code, and they insisted that the hearings were not a “trial of Communism” but of individual teachers; three others recommended dismissal; and the remaining five members, while suggesting that party membership be made specifically a reason for dismissal, held that dismissal would not be justified under the existing code. Hence there was actually a majority of 8 to 3 against dismissal, but there would have been a majority of at least 8 to 3 for dismissal if the code had clearly covered the issue. President Allen, subordinating technicalities, considered that a majority of the committee had agreed as a matter of policy that Communist Party membership was disqualifying for a teacher and had invited the establishment of such a policy. He accordingly recommended, and the board of regents on Jan. 22 approved, the dismissal of Butterworth and Phillips. Gundlach, whose discharge the faculty committee had recommended on grounds of evasiveness and non-cooperation with the university administration, also was dismissed. The three teachers who had admitted past membership in the Communist Party were placed on probation for two years. Cases of Oregon Scientist and Wallace Supporters A month after the decision at the University of Washington, Oregon State University dismissed an associate chemistry professor who, in a letter to a professional journal, had supported the party-line contentions of the Russian, Lysenko, in behalf of the theory of environment as opposed to the generally accepted Mendelian theory of heredity in determination of individual characteristics. Oregon State's president said that “Any scientist who has such poor power of discrimination as to choose to support Lysenko's genetics against all the weight of evidence against it is not much of a scientist or has lost the freedom that an instructor or investigator should possess.” Meeting in annual convention, Feb. 27, the American Association of University Professors adopted a resolution which, with obvious reference to the Oregon case, pointed out that scientific thought admits of no absolute unrevisable truths. The resolution declared that no scientific theory should be raised to the status of a dogma or counter-dogma which a teacher must support or reject on pain of dismissal. At the same meeting the A.A.U.P. announced that it was undertaking an investigation of the cases of the three dismissed University of Washington teachers. Completion of that investigation, now in progress, is not expected until autumn. The A.A.U.P. is investigating also the cases of eight teachers who have complained that they were dismissed because they openly supported Henry Wallace's campaign for the presidency in 1948. One of the cases involves a teacher at Evansville College, Evansville, Ind., who was chairman of a county Citizens for Wallace Committee and who was asked to resign from the college faculty in April 1948. It became known in April 1949 that Yale University had refused reappointment to John M. Marsalka, assistant professor of history and Russian studies, who had been an organizer of the Progressive Party in Connecticut and one of its candidates for Congress, and who last spring had been denied use of university property for a “peace rally and concert” to which he had invited the Russian composer Shostakovich. Marsalka called himself a victim of thought control, but university authorities insisted that failure to measure up to Yale teaching standards was solely responsible for his not being reappointed. Un-American Activities Committee's Textbook Probe Debate over a different aspect of academic freedom was stimulated by an announcement, June 8, that the House Un-American Activities Committee was requesting the authorities of a substantial number of grade and high schools, colleges and universities, and teachers' colleges to supply it with lists of textbooks and supplementary reading material in use in their institutions. The request, prompted by a petition from the Sons of the American Revolution, was made as the initial step in a projected spot check to ferret out any Communist or subversive propaganda in school and college textbooks. The committee's action brought immediate protests from the educational world. President Zook of the American Council on Education said the survey raised “very grave issues.” President Day of Cornell denounced it as a “witch hunt.” President Horton of Wellesley asserted that “We are surrounded by red-baiters and black-haters.” Maryland's state superintendent of schools expressed concern about “the casting of suspicion on teachers as a group” and said the House committee's probe “could lead to censorship.” And President Seymour of Yale declared that if the federal government were to dictate “what books our students should read, we had better close our doors.” Chairman Wood (D., Ga.), who had made the original request without formal committee authorization, professed surprise at the adverse reaction and sent a follow-up letter stating that the Un-American Activities Committee “does not desire to interfere in any way with academic freedom, nor does it intend to censor textbooks.” Three Republican members of the committee nevertheless urged abandonment of the whole project, June 20, observing that it “could be justifiably charged that the committee was proceeding down the same road which led the Nazis to the infamous book burnings in Germany.” At the same time, the minority spokesmen said they recognized “that our educational system and our school textbooks are a high-priority target of the Communist conspiracy.” Declaring that “Unquestionably an exhaustive [textbook] inquiry by a qualified non-political body is needed,” they suggested that the Educational Policies Commission undertake the task. In its recent report the Educational Policies Commission, while opposing employment of Communists as teachers, remarked also that if charges against schools and teachers, “with their usual accompaniment of ‘investigations,’ book-banning, and efforts at intimidation, become too frequent, violent, and widespread, they can seriously impair the efficiency of the school system in discharging its essential functions in American life.” Go to top New Movement for Teacher Loyalty Oaths Current anti-communist agitation has been accompanied by a new movement for teacher loyalty oaths. During the period of similar agitation in the 1930s, ten states were added to the list of those imposing an oath requirement on teachers. In January 1945, when the National Education Association made its most recent compilation of such requirements, teacher oaths were prescribed by law or by state board regulation in 22 states and the District of Columbia. Since then, Florida and Maryland and possibly a few other states have joined the group, and several states have enacted new laws or tightened existing legislation against subversive activities on the part of public employees, including teachers. Most teachers have not objected to a requirement that they take a simple oath of office, particularly if the same oath is required of other public employees. They have objected, however, to being subjected to special oath requirements and to “the use of oath-of-office laws as threats against the right of children to learn the truth and the freedom of the teacher to speak the truth.” A resolution adopted by the N.E.A.'s Defense Commission in February 1949 deplored “the constantly increasing legislation appearing in the various states which impugns the integrity of the teaching profession by requiring teachers to take oaths other than those required by all officeholders.” It asserted that “These laws requiring teachers to take so-called anti-Communist oaths not taken by other groups of the citizenry constitute class legislation.” Requirements of Oath and Anti-Subversive Laws Nevada and West Virginia have prescribed oaths for teachers since a few years after the Civil War, but most present oath requirements date from the World War I or depression periods. Teachers in public elementary and secondary schools must take the oath in all states which have oath' requirements. In the larger number of such states the requirement applies also to teachers in public normal schools and public colleges and universities. In 11 or 12 states oaths are required as well of teachers in private and parochial schools and all colleges and universities, but in most cases only when the institution is partly supported by public funds. The simplest form of oath, involving no more than a pledge to support the constitutions of the United States and the state, is prescribed in half a dozen states. Certain other states require an additional promise “to discharge faithfully” the duties of a teacher. Still others exact a pledge “to teach by precept and example” respect and allegiance to the flag, law and order, the government, or American institutions. A Georgia law of 1935 went farther by requiring teachers to swear that they would refrain from “subscribing to or teaching any theory of government, of economics, or of social relations which is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of patriotism and high ideals of Americanism.” The Texas law of 1941, while not including the subject specifically in the prescribed oath, made advocacy of subversive doctrines cause for dismissal. Most of the recent state legislation subjecting teachers to restrictions has applied also to other public employees, has been aimed directly at the holding of subversive views or membership in subversive organizations, and generally has taken the form of setting up eligibility standards for public employment with or without oath requirements. In most cases the ban imposed by the statutes is against persons who advocate, or belong to an organization which advocates, overthrow of the federal or state governments by force, violence, or other unlawful means. The Communist Party is specified by name in only a few cases. Under a new Georgia law enacted last February, every person on any public payroll in the state, including even per diem workers, has to take an oath stating “that I am not a member of the Communist Party and that I have no sympathy for the doctrines of Communism and will not lend my aid, my support, my advice, my counsel nor my influence to the Communist Party or to the teachings of Communism.” The words “Communist” or “Communist Party” are found also in Arkansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, and Texas statutes. Generally, however, the indirect form is preferred. Advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force, or membership in an organization so advocating, was made a specific disqualification for teaching or other public employment by New York in 1939 and by Arkansas and Pennsylvania in 1941. Similar laws, applying to teachers only or to all public employees, were subsequently enacted by other states, including California and Tennessee in 1947, Massachusetts in 1948, and Maryland in 1949. The Maryland law and a New York statute, signed by Gov. Dewey on Apr. 1, 1949, are noteworthy in that they set up special enforcement procedures. The Ober act in Maryland, the preamble of which declares that the Communist movement “plainly presents a clear and present danger to the United States Government and to the State of Maryland,” provides for appointment of a special Assistant Attorney General to devote full time to enforcement of the law. The Feinberg act in New York, aimed at purging the school system of Communist teachers and fellow travellers, directs the state board of regents to compile a list of subversive organizations and draw up regulations making membership in a listed organization cause for dismissal of a teacher. The University of California recently announced that it had reluctantly decided to require its full-time faculty members and administrators to take, in addition to the oath of allegiance required by the state, a special oath disavowing membership in the Communist Party. This voluntary action, admittedly taken as a concession to the prevailing “cold war hysteria,” contrasted with the position of numerous other universities. In commencement pronouncements, for example, the presidents of the University of Chicago and Yale declared that they would impose no loyalty oaths on members of their faculties. Harvard's president took an equally strong stand against faculty loyalty investigations. At the same time, in conformity with the position which he had taken as a member of the Educational Policies Commission, President Conant said that “card-holding members of the Communist Party are out of bounds as members of the teaching profession.” He maintained that “with this single exception, which is the unique product of our century, … a professor's political views, social philosophy, or religion are of no concern to the university; nor are his activities within the law as a private citizen.” Go to top
Footnotes
Go to top
Document APA Citation
Patch, B. W. (1949). Academic freedom. Editorial research reports 1949 (Vol. II). http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1949070500
Document ID: cqresrre1949070500
Document URL: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1949070500
|
|
|
 |
Aug. 02, 2011 |
Communism Today |
|
Mar. 04, 1988 |
Communist Reformers Look West |
|
Dec. 28, 1984 |
Communist Economies |
|
Sep. 21, 1984 |
Southern European Socialism |
|
Feb. 09, 1979 |
Communist Indochina and the Big Powers |
|
Apr. 23, 1976 |
Western European Communism |
|
May 28, 1969 |
World Communist Summit |
|
Nov. 20, 1968 |
Intellectuals in Communist Countries |
|
Aug. 28, 1968 |
Scandinavia and Socialism |
|
Oct. 18, 1967 |
Soviet Communism After Fifty Years |
|
Sep. 21, 1966 |
Soviet Economy: Incentives Under Communism |
|
Sep. 15, 1965 |
Thailand: New Red Target |
|
Dec. 18, 1963 |
Communist Schisms |
|
Mar. 13, 1963 |
Venezuela: Target for Reds |
|
Apr. 25, 1962 |
Teaching About Communism |
|
Dec. 01, 1960 |
Farming and Food in Communist Lands |
|
Apr. 27, 1960 |
Communist Party, U.S.A. |
|
Nov. 07, 1956 |
Reds and Redefection |
|
Apr. 11, 1956 |
Communists and Popular Fronts |
|
Dec. 07, 1955 |
Religion Behind the Iron Curtain |
|
Nov. 12, 1954 |
Communist Controls |
|
Feb. 11, 1953 |
Red Teachers and Educational Freedom |
|
Apr. 04, 1950 |
Loyalty and Security |
|
Aug. 19, 1949 |
Church and Communism |
|
Jul. 22, 1949 |
Reds in Trade Unions |
|
Jul. 05, 1949 |
Academic Freedom |
|
Feb. 11, 1948 |
Control of Communism in the United States |
|
Feb. 05, 1947 |
Investigations of Un-Americanism |
|
Nov. 13, 1946 |
Communism in America |
|
Mar. 28, 1935 |
Anti-Radical Agitation |
|
Oct. 19, 1932 |
The Socialist Vote in 1932 |
|
Aug. 08, 1931 |
National Economic Councils Abroad |
| | | | |
|
|
