Public opinion and the teaching of history in the United States

by Bessie Louise Pierce

It was quite different in the cases of Mr. Schmalhausen, Mr. Mufson, and Mr. Schneer. On November 13, 1917, they were suspended from the faculty of the De Witt Clinton High School for holding views considered not only subversive to discipline in the schools but injurious to good citizenship.[361] Their trials took place before a committee of the Board of Education on December third, at which they were represented by counsel. The charges against Mr. Schmalhausen involved the writing of essays by his students, in which, it was said, an unpatriotic attitude was permitted to pass unchallenged by the teacher. According to the testimony, the pupils were directed to write “An open letter to the President” commenting frankly within the limits of their knowledge upon his conduct of the War against the German Government.[362] Mr. Schmalhausen was also accused of asserting that he did not consider it his duty “to develop in the students under his control instinctive respect for the President of the United States as such, for the Governor of the State of New York as such, and other Federal, State and Municipal officers as such.”[363]

One of the themes, upon which attention at the trial was focused, had been written by Hyman Herman, a Jewish student sixteen years of age. It was addressed “to the Defender of Humanity and Champion of Democracy, Woodrow Wilson.” In his testimony Mr. Schmalhausen asserted complete ignorance of this essay until it was called to his attention in an interview with Associate Superintendent Tildsley two weeks after it had been written.[364]

In the theme the writer propounded such questions as the following: “But how is it that the United States, a country far from democratic (and daily proving itself to be such) and England, the imperial and selfish (and we exclude all minor participants) undertake to slam democracy upon a nation whether it likes it or not? What unparalleled audacity to attempt to force 70,000,000 people to adopt a certain kind of government. If we mean their benefit, then the Germans surely know what they want and need us not....

“... Finally if our aim be the annihilation of Prussianism, then why in the name of Heaven have you refused the offer made by Germany, which included the evacuation of Belgium, disarmament of nations and freedom of the seas? Surely then your purpose is to get supreme domination and to crush Germany for no reason it seems, except a mad desire for murder, meanwhile making us the goats.”[365]

Mr. Schmalhausen had annotated the theme, after it had been placed in his hands by Dr. Tildsley, with such statements as “irrelevant,” “not accurately presented,” and “for a thoughtful student this statement sounds irrational.”[366] The defense contended that such annotations were sufficient to prove Mr. Schmalhausen’s disapproval of the sentiments expressed, but the prosecution argued that his failure to denounce them openly indicated his lack of loyalty.

As a witness for Mr. Schmalhausen, Herman, the author of the theme, testified that he had not received his impressions of this country’s attitude toward war questions in any sense from Mr. Schmalhausen, although since the time of writing the theme he had changed his attitude due to a study of his history textbook[367] and the attitude of his history teacher.[368]

In turn, Mr. Schmalhausen, defending his own patriotism, declared that President Wilson’s “interpretation, his attitude, his points of view in relation to the war for democracy” met with his “complete intellectual approval,” and that, although he had opposed the policy of conscription instead of a volunteer system, when adopted, he had complied with the request of the Government, as did others within the proper ages.[369]

The second instructor in the De Witt Clinton High School who was arraigned before the Board of Education on December third was Thomas Mufson, charged with thinking it proper to be neutral while his class debated such subjects as the purchase of Liberty Bonds, the active support of the Government in various measures for carrying on the War, the wisdom of an early peace, and the relative merits of anarchism and the form of the government of the United States.[370]

Mr. Mufson defended himself against these charges on the ground that he was not justified in imposing personal views upon his classes on controversial subjects. Furthermore, he said that he would not permit a discussion of anarchism in his classroom, a topic he held far too difficult for immature minds.[371]

The specific charges brought against Mr. Schneer arose from statements it was alleged he had made regarding patriotism and the wearing of the uniform of the United States army. It was held that he was opposed to discussing patriotism in the schoolroom and that he objected to persons wearing the uniform when speaking before the school, because it tended to encourage militarism.[372] All of the charges Mr. Schneer denied, protesting his loyalty to school and national authorities, and citing as proof, among other things, the signing of the loyalty pledge of the Board of Education.