And it will be changed; by women—who are mothers.
Aside from this, and admitting that most married teachers who are in this dreaded "condition" do rapidly remove themselves from school, and do not come back for a year or more, the next objection is "the continued absence" of the married woman teachers.
Since there is a long array of substitutes, excellent substitutes (often married women, these!) who are paid less than the salary the absent one does not draw, it is difficult to see the evil of this. Unless indeed the merits of the married teacher are so supreme that even her temporary absence is a real loss. If that be so, then she is worth keeping, it would seem, at any cost.
In all this tissue of injustice and absurdity is there no thread of explanation, no reason better than these for such arbitrary interference with personal rights? There is a veritable cable; enough to hang the whole case on. It is shown in this provision:
If the married woman teacher can bring a doctor's certificate showing that her husband is sick—then she can hold her place and draw her pay, undisturbed!
The plain ordinary un-male mind will say, "What has that to do with it?"
It has nothing to do with it. The position in question is that of the teacher; the relation one between the teacher and pupil on the one side, and teacher and governing officers on the other side. Whether teacher, pupil or official is married or unmarried had nothing to do with the case, unless it can be shown to interfere with the legitimate work involved. Are we to suppose that the unseen extraneous husband has, when well, a malign influence on his wife's proficiency as a teacher, and, when ill, a beneficent one? Not at all; there is no such subtlety involved. It is not in the least a question of professional efficiency; it is a question of money.
Money is for men—who should use some of it to take care of their women. When a woman marries, she has a claim for support, and no further use for money of her own, no right to it, in fact!
Now let us temporarily admit that this is so—what has it to do with the action of school boards? Is our public school system an institution for the regulation of married women's property rights? Does it make inquiries as to the family relations of men teachers and pay them according to the number of dependents they have to support? Among the unmarried women, are those who are putting brothers through college, or maintaining invalid sisters or aged parents, paid more than the young lady living at home and not "having to work" at all? If there is no discrimination made in this matter among men teachers, nor among unmarried women teachers, why does it instantly enter into consideration in the case of married teachers?
All "systems" grow stiff, case-hardened, difficult to change; but in America we have the newest and most pliable, and we are bravely used to altering things. It is high time we altered our system of education. The very crown and flower of our best minds and noblest characters are called for to bring up children: