It has long been, and still is, a marked attribute of America, and history texts should expound it. They should show its manifestations (or at times the lack of it), (a) in the spirit of compromise that minorities may not be oppressed by majorities; (b) in our relations with other countries; (c) in our industrial disputes. Especially in foreign relations the text should seek to present fairly the view opposed to American contention in order that the justice of our action may be weighed.

(7) A Will to Defend these Principles.

This is an essential result of American history teaching which should bring out the sacrifice, devotion and patriotism of Americans in the past as regards: (a) our relations with other nations; and (b) our domestic relations, either political, religious or social. But in neither field should old and dead controversy be treated in such a way as to perpetuate animosities....

Finally, the text should seek to be strictly unbiased as regards both expression and content. It should narrate truthfully the important facts of American history in such a way as to make clear the principles and ideals which have been developed in America and for which she stands.

Examining the texts submitted, it can not be said that any one of them neglects, absolutely, these principles of “the best patriotism of American tradition.”...

Your committee wishes further to point out the progressive nature of history teaching in the schools of California. The high school does not attempt to cover the same ground in American History courses as the elementary, nor in the same manner. It is left to the elementary schools to emphasize especially the biographical element, while the high school texts develop the institutional side of our nation’s growth. Hence we commend the omission by some authors of many names of those who have contributed something worth while to American progress, but whose deeds and significance can best be presented by the elementary school text. This leaves room for the high school text to include those matters of social and economic development which are essential to give our young people the proper historical background for understanding our present complex problems.

Your committee finds no text wholly objectionable under the instructions of the State Board of Education. This is not to say, however, that in our opinion the texts are equally worthy. They vary in exactness of statement, in clearness of presentation, in grasp of principles, and, what is more serious, in fairness of language and view....

With this report approving all of the texts submitted to us, further comment may be regarded as superfluous. It seems to us, however, that we have a duty in directing your attention to the apparent sources of some of the attacks on various texts. During the recent World War you appointed a committee (upon which two of the members of your present committee also served) to examine all history texts in use in the California schools with instructions to report whether they “were pro-German or were unduly friendly to our allies.” All of the American history texts then reviewed were reported as approved, but with some minor criticisms made privately to the publishing firms or authors. It appears to your present committee that many of the attacks now being made on certain texts are emanating from persons or organizations dissatisfied with the friendly relations established between America and our allies in the great war, and desirous of destroying that better understanding created by the war. Some of the attacks appear to be due to a revival of pro-German sentiment; some to an ineradicable Irish anti-British sentiment; some to an element of political reaction against the domestic legislation of recent years; some of journalistic opposition to Great Britain. Generally the method used in such attacks is to print sentences objected to without including the context. This deprives the reader of the opportunity to judge whether the criticism is just or not. Such criticism is in itself unfair and unscientific. A book must be judged by its general tone and spirit rather than by isolating words or phrases from their context and thus conveying a false impression of the author’s meaning.

The point which we would make is, that attacks of this nature, though requiring consideration, are not worthy of serious respect, since usually they conceal real motives under the mantle of “traditional American patriotism.” It is an age of propaganda and in substance most of these attacks are propaganda, having an ulterior purpose. Honest criticism by one who sincerely feels that a text fails to teach American patriotism should always be listened to and his criticisms weighed. But propaganda criticism deserves no respect either by school boards or the authors of texts. As to such propaganda assertion that any American history text now in use in California high schools and junior colleges “treats any part of the American history in a disloyal or unpatriotic manner, or minimizes the best patriotism of American tradition,” your committee reports in the negative.

(Signed) E. D. Adams, Chairman
E. I. Mccormac
A. H. Abbott
J. A. Nowell
W. W. Mather