In the consideration of the textbooks most commonly used in the public schools, the Federation’s committee held it “obvious that old-fashioned didactic methods of teaching are not suitable to the new treatment,” that “subjects should be presented not in the form of finished judgments and dogmatic rules ... but rather as observations of the world about us, concerning which the pupil must to a great extent exercise his own judgments;” and that “in the case of highly controversial subjects, important dissenting views should be fairly and adequately presented.”[615] Although special pleaders for some change in common educational practice, they asserted that “the labor movement, unlike selfish interests, does not and cannot depend for public favor upon narrow propaganda; what it wants and needs is the light of day and freedom of opinion. The more people know, and the more they think, the better in the long run for working men and women, and for all our citizenship.”
As a consequence of their premises, the Committee applied to the textbooks considered the following tests: “In the first place, is the book of old, narrow type, or of the newer and broader type? In the second place, is its general method that which inculcates certain fixed principles which may have been acceptable some time in the past, or, on the other hand, that which portrays society as a group of growing and changing institutions? In the third place, does it include adequate information about important subjects, particularly subjects of concern to the wage-earning population, such as trade-unionism, collective bargaining, standards of living, hours of work, safety and sanitation, housing, unemployment, civil liberty, and the judicial power? And in its treatment of these subjects, does it fairly present labor’s point of view as well as that of others?”[616]
The application of these tests to one hundred twenty-three textbooks—forty-seven histories, forty-seven civics, twenty-five economics, and four sociologies, revealed that fifty-five per cent were of “the newer type dealing with the broader aspects of government, and the social and industrial life of the people rather than with forms of organization, military events and abstract themes.” Sixty per cent were found to be “dynamic rather than static in their method of treatment” in that they recognized “to a greater or less degree the power for growth in our institutions.”
On the other hand, the Committee decided that “a majority of texts fell short of the standards in one or more important respects,”[617] although, on the whole, “the newer type of text” attempted “to give the labor movement in the problem of industry adequate and just consideration.”[618] Failure to do so the Committee attributed either “to ignorance of the author or to a hesitancy to deal with this difficult subject, rather than to a deliberate attempt to keep the facts of industry out of the schools.” The survey found “no evidence that text books are being used for propaganda purposes.”[619]
The Public Service Institute through its chairman also has urged a more extensive study of “labor civics,” and commended the New York course in civics for older grammar grade children and first year high school pupils.[620]
Still others have become censors of the character of social study instruction in the public schools. Books treating the modern problems of race, labor and capital, immigration, private property, and topics of like nature have been examined with a critical eye. The portrayal of facts relating to races and nationalities in the United States has proved a fruitful source of attack. Authors have been asked to omit or make colorless references to controversial topics in the preparation or the revision of textbooks which would discuss, for example, the Chinese and Japanese in America, the Italians and the Jews. In one city the negroes protested the use of a textbook because of a statement to the effect that the Southern white man tried to keep the negro from voting, the protest carrying enough weight to cause a special edition of the book to be printed for use in that city.
Its presentation of the subject of private property was the source of an attack upon Berry and Howe’s Actual Democracy, “an elementary discussion” of present-day problems in America. Exception was taken to children being taught that “private property is one of the fundamental institutions of American democracy ... an unmistakable index of social progress ... [which] cannot be destroyed without destroying also the ideals of liberty and democracy in which Americans believe.”[621]
Its method of discussing trade-unionism[622] and immigration likewise met disfavor. In the case of the latter subject, the critics were disturbed because, among other things, the authors concluded “that the immigration situation has rendered necessary a profound change in the very structure of our government. [For] in order to control the turbulent non-American elements, we have been compelled to modify many of our earlier democratic ideals and to adopt centralization of authority, which is far different in spirit from American traditions ... [and] that [due to immigration] American democracy is facing a life and death struggle with Marxian socialism.”[623]
In treating freedom of speech the author of the secondary school textbook is to no less degree upon slippery ground, for here again critics have acclaimed partisanship and bias evident in discussions. On this charge A. T. Southworth has been adjudged guilty in his The Common Sense of the Constitution of the United States in that he says, “This amendment [the first amendment] also guarantees the right of free speech. There can, of course, be no such thing as absolute free speech. The only persons who say exactly what they think every minute of the day are babies and fools.... There is reason in all things, and on general principles a person may say in this country anything he pleases, provided what he says is not libelous or slanderous, or contrary to the public morals; and provided that he does not advocate the overthrow of the government by force. In this country where we have a government, not of men but of laws, it is not reasonable that anyone should preach the overthrow of the government by force. If B says, ‘Murder A, throw him out of office, and let me rule,’ then it is perfectly logical for C to advocate the murder of B after B has set himself up as a ruler. This is anarchy.”[624]
The allegation that textbook-making has been directed by “Big Business” has also been made. As a case in point, Hughes’s Text-Book in Citizenship has been cited as one which carries many illustrations printed “by courtesy” of such corporations as the Carnegie Steel Company, the International Harvester Company and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.[625] “And,” according to the critic, “it is not pictures of blast furnaces with sweating men ... but pictures of Americanization schools ... factory gardens ... model factory buildings ... and a group of twenty-four elderly men, who having labored for thirty-five years each in the employ of the Carnegie Steel Company are posed at the annual picnic given to the employees as a reward for services rendered.”[626] A section in the same textbook, “Employers of the Right Sort,” in which is discussed profit sharing by the employees of the United States Steel Company, also met with disapproval. Equally disliked was Mr. Hughes’s discussion of the I. W. W. because he said: “It is hard to see how a right-thinking American can possibly indulge in such performances or hold such theories. A decent man finds it difficult to sympathize with even oppressed people who use any such means to have their grievances corrected.”[627] The textbook was further adjudged biased in its discussion of Lenin and Trotsky as “two able and unscrupulous leaders” and of the anarchists whom “no civilized people can tolerate.”[628] On the other hand, the same author’s book Economic Civics was attacked by a member of the American Car Company of Berwick, Pennsylvania, on the ground of being “Bolshevistic.”