[338] Laws of Utah, 1919, ch. 93, sec. 4, p. 285. Approved March 20, 1919. This law was added to in 1921 with a provision for fees.
[339] Laws of Montana, 1919, ch. 38, sec. 1, p. 91. Approved February 21, 1919.
[340] Acts of New Jersey, 1920, ch. 197, p. 387.
[341] General Laws of Ohio, 1921, sec. 7761-3, p. 101; General Laws of Idaho, 1921, p. 418; Session Laws of Wyoming, ch. 127, sec. 1, p. 188; General Laws of Oregon, 1921, ch. 87, sec. 1, p. 139 (S. B. 171).
[342] Ibid. New York and Arizona also have laws in 1921. See page 106.
[343] State of Michigan, Department of Public Instruction, Explanation of School Laws of Michigan, Supplement to Bulletin No. 13. Published 1921, p. 7.
CHAPTER V
Disloyalty Charges Against Teachers Since 1917
Great events occasion diverse opinions, and it is not strange that the World War and its aftermath often tempted public school teachers to enter the area of controversial issues. Thus the question of whether the teacher should be permitted free and open expression of opinion became a point of contention between the upholders and opponents of unrestricted speech. It became a matter of considerable concern whether the teacher be allowed to sow the seed of an idea alien to that held by the child’s parents, or, perhaps, in disagreement with that of the school’s administrators. It was not a new question nor unexpected.
The great mass of public school teachers were conscious of the censorious eye fixed upon them and realized that “the wise man foreseeth the evil and hideth himself, but the foolish pass on and are punished.” Diligent search in public records and through personal inquiry reveals few occasions where actual charges of disloyalty were lodged against teachers in the public schools. Indeed, the superintendents of public instruction in thirty-two states report that from 1917 to 1924 no accusations involving the loyalty of teachers were brought to the attention of their offices.[344] One is disposed to concur in a statement made by the Lusk Committee of New York investigating seditious activities that “on the whole, it may safely be said that our public school system is comparatively free from the taint of revolutionary teaching.”[345] Yet some teachers faced accusations impugning loyalty. Doubtless there were others whose utterances were considered disloyal or ill-advised, but who escaped with little or no publicity attending their dismissal from service.
In the city of New York, the trials of teachers for disloyalty were most numerous, for it was here that legislation to restrain the speech of the teacher was most rigorously applied. Under the Lusk Law persons failing to secure a certificate of loyalty were forbidden to teach in the schools of New York, the Commissioner of Education having the sole right to refuse such a certificate.[346]