Mars and Minerva: World War I and the Uses of the Higher Learning in America

151 Pages·1975·5.999 MB·English

by  Carol S. Gruber

MARS
AND
MINERVA
World War I and the
Uses of the Higher Learning
in America
CAROL S. GRUBER
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS/BATON ROUGE
For the memory of my father,
Selig Signer,
who thought of others to the very end.
ISBN 0-8071-0096-X
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 74—82004
Copyright © 1975 by Louisiana State University Press
All rights reserved
Manufactured in the United States of America
Designed by Albert R. Crochet
Grateful acknowledgment is made for permission
to quote from material owned by the following institutions
Bentley Historical Library, Michigan Historical
Collections, University of Michigan
Columbia University Archives
Columbia University Libraries
Harvard University Archives
Harvard College Library
President and Fellows of Harvard College
State Historical Society of Wisconsin
University of Chicago Archives
University of Minnesota Libraries
University of Oklahoma Library
Yale University Library
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
I Backdrop 10
II Neutrality Years 46
III On the Bandwagon 81
IV Scholars in the Service of the State 118
V Academic Freedom Under Fire 163
VI Colleges and Commandants 213
Conclusion 253
Selected Bibliography 261
Index 283
Acknowledgments
SCHOLARSHIP IS a collective as well as a solitary enterprise, and the
preparation of this book has put me in the debt of many individuals and
institutions whose assistance it is a pleasure to acknowledge.
This study began as a doctoral dissertation at Columbia University.
My interest in the history of higher education and the academic profes­
sion grew out of my work as Professor Richard Hofstadter’s research as­
sistant. As sponsor of my dissertation, Professor Hofstadter provided in­
tellectual stimulation and personal encouragement and support that
helped me maintain confidence in a study that proved to be more con­
troversial and problematic than I had supposed at the start. I was fortu­
nate in having Professors Walter P. Metzger, Lawrence Cremin, and
Sigmund Diamond on my dissertation examining board. Their careful
and constructive criticism was an invaluable aid in revising the
manuscript for publication.
I have profited from the expertise, cooperation, and friendliness of
archivists and librarians at many institutions, particularly at the William
L. Clements Library of the University of Michigan, Columbia Univer­
sity Archives, Harvard University Archives, Houghton Library of Har­
vard University, Library of Congress, Michigan Historical Collections
of the University of Michigan, National Archives, Special Collections of
IX
X Acknowledgments
Columbia University, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, University
Introduction
of Chicago Archives, University of Minnesota Archives, University of
Oklahoma Library, University of Pennsylvania Archives, University of
Wisconsin Archives, and Historical Manuscripts Collection of the Yale
University Library.
A grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities made it
possible for me to take a year off from teaching and begin revising the
manuscript. The revisions were accomplished with the aid of many indi­
viduals whose thoughtful comments helped me rethink my approach to
the book’s fundamental issues. Three friends, in particular, deserve spe­
cial mention. Eugene Genovese, Christopher Lasch, and Warren
Susman read this book in both its original and revised manuscript ver­
sions. Each in his own way subjected the study to penetrating criticism
and analysis; if I have not been entirely successful in implementing their
suggestions for improvement, it is not because of their lack of effort or IN THE SUMMER of 1927 the American Mercury printed two articles
ability. I am grateful to Robert McCaughey, Dorothy Ross, and excoriating American college professors, particularly historians, for the
Michael Wreszin for useful criticisms of the entire manuscript and to role they had played during World War I.1 The pages of the journal
Ann Lane, David Lowenthal, and Michael Sokal for reading and com­ fairly bristled with indignation at the legion of learned men who had en­
menting on individual chapters. My editor Marie Carmichael worked gaged in “shouting maledictions upon the Hun” and who had prosti­
very hard to eliminate errors and infelicities from my writing style. tuted themselves by offering “their intellectual gifts upon the altar of the
I am indebted to Helmut Gruber more than to anyone else. He has nation.”2 Both articles were sprinkled liberally with samples of mindless
been a sounding board for my ideas and a critic of the various versions and hate-filled imprecations against Germany. “The Higher Learning
of this book; more important, however, have been his commitment and Goes to War” presented example upon example of witch-hunts conduct­
contribution to our shared sense of the seriousness and joy of the life of ed against professors who were suspected of disbelief in the Holy
the mind. Cause, witch-hunts which had been undertaken with the sanction of
their colleagues and the academic freedom committee of the American
C. S. G.
Association of University Professors (AAUP).3 “The Historians Cut
New York City, 1975
Loose” indicted practitioners of the historical discipline in particular for
accepting as truth the most violently distorted fulminations of war pro­
pagandists and for themselves becoming propagandists for the govern­
ment’s “information” agency as well as for private and semiofficial pro-
1. Charles Angoff, “The Higher Learning Goes to War,” American Mercury,
XI (June, 1927), 179-91; C. Hartley Grattan, “The Historians Cut Loose,”
American Mercury, XI (August, 1927), 414-30.
2. Angoff, “The Higher Learning Goes to War,” 178, 181.
3. Ibid., especially 187-91.
I
2 Mars and Minerva Introduction 3
tributes of the life of the mind and the manner in which American pro­
paganda organizations. These men, C. Hartley Grattan argued, most of
fessors rallied to the flag in wartime, a contradiction that was given a
whom had received their Ph.D. degrees from German universities and
slightly obscene tinge by the use of sexual imagery. More specifically,
whose professional lives hitherto had been models of “immaculate taste”
repeated reference to the professors’ German training implies that their
and gentlemanly etiquette, had distinguished themselves by hurling ana­
professional and personal experience should have made them immune to
thema against the Germans and thereby becoming fit subjects for stu­
prevailing vulgar, stereotypic characterizations of the enemy. The refer­
dents of pathology.4 Not only did the historians read Germany out of
ences to academic freedom suggest that professors violated the essence
civilization, Grattan continued, they rewrote history from an Anglo-
of intellectual life by insisting upon absolute conformity of opinion and
Saxon perspective as part of a deliberate campaign “to promote amorous
that their acquiescence in outright persecution of nonconformists was
embraces between the eagle and the lion.” Finally, Grattan made the
the ultimate shame. The charge against the historians was more con­
historians (who had been well represented on the Inquiry, the group of
crete. The methodology that made history a science, Grattan argued, de­
scholars that helped formulate American policy for the peace confer­
manded objectivity, close scrutiny of evidence, and eschewal of racial
ence) personally responsible for what he characterized as “some of the
and national bias; clearly, the conduct of historians during the war cost
most vicious and imbecile schemes adopted at Versailles.” The “new
them their claim to professionalism. In general, Angoff and Grattan por­
map of Europe,” he concluded, as well as the files of unofficial and offi­
trayed a twofold contradiction: the obvious contradiction expressed in
cial propaganda agencies, was shameful evidence of “Clio’s debauch in
the arms of Uncle Sam.”5 the loss of reason by men whose professional lives were characterized by
Charles Angoff and C. Hartley Grattan were writing in the takeoff critical analysis and the more subtle contradiction involved in the
period of the revisionist controversy about the war,6 and their hyperbol­ wholehearted devotion of men, who professionally exemplified human
ic articles, neither of which was a comprehensive or scholarly treatment rationality, to the purpose of war, the most irrational of human activi­
of its subject, are of interest chiefly to illustrate how the Great Crusade ties.
could come to appear tawdry in the revisionist aftermath. But, to the ex­ But there was another kind of contradiction that might help to ex­
tent that they describe conditions that did in fact exist, while suggesting plain the behavior of American professors during the war, a contradic­
but not providing reasons for a profound disapproval of them, the ar­ tion between the role of disinterested scholars dedicated to the pursuit of
ticles provoke thought. truth and that of patriotic citizens committed to supporting their country
It is clear that Angoff and Grattan expected of professors a very dif­ in a time of grave national crisis. The process by which these roles came
ferent response to the challenge of war, but precisely what they expected into conflict and the capacity of professors to recognize and resolve the
must be inferred, since they never stated explicitly why the professors’ conflict are as important to the story of their response to the war as are
behavior offended them so deeply. Underlying both articles is the plain Angoff’s and Grattan’s chronicles of their mental collapse.
assumption that there was an awful contradiction between ideal at- In the early stages of American involvement in World War II, Merle
Curti wrote an article examining the role of scholarship in previous
4. Grattan, “The Historians Cut Loose,” 414-15, 423. Describing the
American wars. His conclusions about the First World War were sub­
decorum that ordinarily characterized the American Historical Association, Grat­
tan observed that “a Rotary Club session was a congress of hyenas compared to stantially the same as those of Angoff and Grattan. He, too, described
its business meetings and sectional dinners.”
the enthusiasm with which war was greeted by scholars, an enthusiasm
5. Ibid., 427, 430.
6. For World War I revisionism see Warren I. Cohen, The American so overwhelming that it drowned out contrary opinion.
Revisionists: The Lessons on Intervention in World War I (Chicago, 1967).
4 Mars and Minerva Introduction 5
Before we formally entered the war American scholars by and large
If at times I appear, like Angoff and Grattan, to disapprove of the be­
were already in it. . . . Thus, before the final decision of April 5, 1917,
havior of professors, I would like to make it clear at the outset that I
American intellectuals had for the most part chosen their places and
used such influence as they possessed to launch their fellow-citizens on am fully aware that the choices imposed on the academic community by
the great crusade to make the world safe for democracy.... The voices the challenge of war were, in fact, problematic ones. Institutions of
of those who dissented, who urged adherence to the scholarly canons of higher learning were faced with a particular kind of challenge. Imbued,
judicious and reasonable analysis, were unheard amidst the blare of as they were, with an ideal of social service—which had been expressed
trumpets.
for years in the donation of faculty as expert advisers to municipal,
state, and federal agencies and in the establishment of experimental sta­
Curti proceeded to describe the toll taken by war on scholarship and the
tions and extension divisions for service to the surrounding commu­
search for truth, on academic tolerance and fair play, on intellectual val­
nity—their service to the state at war was not a departure from the past
ues. But he introduced a subject that added a new dimension to the
practice but a logical culmination of what had gone before. Yet, because
problem. By devoting themselves to the purposes of the warfare state,
of the uniqueness of the social crisis of war, there were new dangers to
Curti argued, scholars helped to break down “the traditional gulf be­
the institutions of higher learning in performing a customary service
tween the thinker and the actor, between idea and practice.” He con­
role.
cluded that the role of scholarship in war, particularly in the First
Because the very life of a nation is threatened in time of war, military
World War, was important “in promoting the ideal of the scholar as a
victory becomes a first priority to which other social goals are bent. So­
servant of society.”7 By putting his finger on the service ideal in Ameri­
cial service in time of peace posed no threat to the institutions of higher
can scholarship, Curti was pointing to yet another possible area of ex­
learning; indeed, it may have contributed to their health and vitality.
ploration for understanding the response of American professors to the
But, in wartime, that vitality was threatened by the universities be­
challenge of the Great War.
coming a resource to accomplish the overriding goal of victory. The
That response is the subject of this book. In dealing with it, I have
problem that confronted the universities was a real one, which beggared
broadened the focus to include the institutional context within which
simple solutions: they could not have been expected to remain aloof
professors worked; otherwise, explanations for their attitudes and activi­
from the social crisis of war; yet, to the extent that they inevitably be­
ties would be incomplete. The subject is an important part of the history
came “instruments” at the disposal of the government, their own health
of America during the First World War and deserves to be studied for
was endangered and so, ultimately, was the health of the society that, in
that reason alone; but it derives an even greater significance from what
the broadest sense, they served. Service to society was a mutually benefi­
it reveals about the relationship between the higher learning and society cial goal; service to the state contained the danger of becoming servi­
in modern America. The challenge of war evoked a response that ex­ tude, to the detriment of both the institutions of higher learning and the
posed basic assumptions about the uses of knowledge and of the univer­ society at large. Unfortunately, during war the ordinarily thin line be­
sity that remain live issues today. tween society and state seems to disappear, and confusing the two is the
trap the institutions of higher learning were unable to avoid.
7. Merle Curti, “The American Scholar in Three Wars,” Journal of the His­
tory of Ideas, III (June, 1942), 241-64. Curti applauds this ideal and regards For professors as individuals, the war posed equally difficult choices,
closing the gap between scholarship and life as one of the essential tasks of Amer­ because it placed them in roles that were conflicting and at times contra­
ican democracy. See his “Intellectuals and Other People,” American Historical
dictory. The critical detachment and independence that are the hall­
Review, LX (January, 1955), 259-82, and his American Paradox: The Conflict
of Thought and Action (New Brunswick, 1956), especially 93, 102-103. marks of the scholar could appear to be peacetime luxuries when war
6 Mars and Minerva Introduction 7
demanded dedication and total commitment from citizens. This is not to purposes of the state is an important but only partial service; to under­
say that the roles of scholar and citizen during the war were always, or stand the sources of the contradiction requires an analytic rather than a
necessarily, mutually exclusive, but the inherent conflicts and contradic­ descriptive approach. The same holds true for the subject of the Ameri­
tions were real enough to demand close scrutiny and analysis if profes­ can professors’ response to the war. The method of critics like Angoff
sors, too, were not to fall into a trap. The trap for them was not so and Grattan leaves us with the choice of being charitably disappointed
much having to decide to sacrifice scholarly detachment to patriotic or smugly indignant. When the subject is probed deeper, it is apparent
commitment as it was denying that a conflict between the roles existed that the response of professors to American intervention in the First
and making a virtue of what might have been seen as a necessity. World War was neither so simple nor so surprising as such critics would
In studying the apparent contradiction between the ideal characteris­ have us believe.
tics of men of knowledge and their behavior during the war, it is in­ This book is not based on a quantitative survey of professors’ opin­
structive to look at a similar charge of contradiction leveled against the ions and responses to the war and does not pretend to portray the reac­
American clergy, whose martial fervor was so much at odds with their tion of the entire academic community to the war itself and the prob­
avowed principles that the obvious conclusion seemed to be that the lems it raised. The study is concerned, instead, with the impact of the
men of God suffered a psychic lapse under the extreme pressure of war­ war as a crisis situation that brought to the surface key problems of de­
time. That is the explanation suggested by Ray Abrams’ study, Preach­ fining the nature, function, and social value of higher learning in Amer­
ers Present Arms.8 The contradiction between the clergy’s principles ica. Those professors who did not see in the war a challenge of this sort,
and practice was real indeed; but a glance at the history of the Western who proceeded with business as usual, have been ignored. This is not to
world, which shows war and religion marching hand in hand from the say that it is unimportant to understand what sorts of social, intellectual,
time of the Crusades, suggests that the incompatibility between them is and institutional factors influenced those who were able to keep their
only skin-deep. Abrams himself provides material for a less superficial professional lives in a separate compartment and who went quietly
interpretation when he demonstrates that the American clergy’s whole­ about their business during the war. But that is a subject for another
hearted participation in the war effort accomplished a rapprochement book. Nor does this study explore in depth the cases of those who
between church and state, increased the prestige of the clergy, and in­ clearly opposed the prevalent views, concerning either the justification
fused the pulpit with new life and vigor.9 Other writers perceptively for the war itself and American participation in it or the appropriate re­
have noted the similarity between the psychological states engendered sponse of the higher learning to the challenge. To have slighted the dis­
by war and religion, such as exaltation, millennialism, mysticism, fatal­ sidents in no way reflects a judgment on the significance or worthiness
ism, and self-sacrifice.10 To call attention to the unbecoming contradic­ of their position. They play a small role in this book partly because of
the difficulty of studying their views, which were submerged in the con­
tion between Christian doctrine and the clerics’ devotion to the martial
sensus of opinion that supported the American cause and the idea that
8. Ray H. Abrams, Preachers Present Arms (New York, 1933). the intellectual and physical resources of the higher learning should be
9. Ibid., 79.
mobilized in its behalf, and largely because it is the consensus itself that
10. See Caroline E. Playne, Society at War, 1914-1916 (Boston and New
York, 1931), 188, and John Dewey, “The Post-War Mind,” New Republic, XVII interests me.
(December 7, 1918), 157-58. See also Benjamin W. van Riper, “War and
One may question whether the consensus can be established by study­
Religion,” Unpopular Review, VIII (October-December, 1917), 235-42. Carlton
J. H. Hayes makes a similar point when he characterizes nationalism as the dom­ ing those individuals who were most vocal and visible in devoting their
inant religion of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. See his Nationalism: A
talents and energy to the prosecution of the war. Even if these men had
Religion (New York, 1960).
8 Mars and Minerva Introduction 9
stood alone, their wartime attitudes and activities are important, because The Great Crusade was not the first war to pose the issue of the pub­
most of them were leaders in their disciplines, in their institutions, and lic role of men of knowledge in America.11 But it was the first war in
in the academic profession. They included among their numbers depart­ which there occurred a conjunction of the needs dictated by a tech­
ment chairmen; founders, presidents, and future presidents of profes­ nological, total war and of the universities, scholarly disciplines, and
sional associations; and editors and future editors of professional jour­ academic professionalism that were sufficiently developed and defined to
nals. They represented leading public and private institutions of higher be considered resources for serving those needs. The response of the
learning in the country. Certainly, the wartime role of Richard T. Ely, higher learning to the First World War must be seen against the back­
for example, a founder of the American Economic Association, charter ground of its emergence into its modern form. This book begins with
member of the AAUP, and head of the Department of Economics, Po­ that background.
litical Science, and History at the University of Wisconsin, is of interest
in itself. The same can be said about many of the other subjects of this
study, among them George Burton Adams, Charles A. Beard, Carl L.
Becker, John Dewey, William E. Dodd, Henry W. Farnam, Guy Stan­
ton Ford, Albert Bushnell Hart, J. Franklin Jameson, Arthur O.
Lovejoy, Andrew C. McLaughlin, and Frederick Jackson Turner. How­
ever, although these individuals were outstanding among their col­
leagues, the record indicates that they were representative of them in
their response to the war. Their correspondence, the observations of
contemporaries, and the files of various associations and war agencies
reveal that less prominent colleagues, who did not have their contacts
or access to national publications and places of power, were performing
similar wartime roles on a local level throughout the country. So, too, it
is possible to get an overall picture of the response of the nation’s institu­
tions of higher learning to the challenge of war from observations by
contemporary spokesmen, policies and statements of national educa­
tional associations, reports by the AAUP, and the history of the govern­
ment’s Students’ Army Training Corps (SATC).
Historians figure prominently in the study because their talents lent
themselves to explaining and publicizing the background and issues of
the war; thus their kind of service made them especially visible. Beyond
this reason, the role of historians during the war is interesting because it
exposed tensions within the discipline surrounding an issue that contin­
ues to be a subject of debate: is history valuable for what it teaches 11. See, for example, Curti, “The American Scholar in Three Wars”; George
about the past or mainly because it is a tool, even a weapon, for under­ M. Fredrickson, The Inner Civil War: Northern Intellectuals and the Crisis
of the Union (New York, 1965); and Robert L. Beisner, Twelve Against Em­
standing the present and for manipulating and changing it? pire: The Anti-Imperialists, 1898—1900 (New York, 1968).
Backdrop n
I creation, not capture or redirection.”2 To be sure, the ideas and institu­
tional devices were imported from abroad, but not before the social and
material preconditions were established in the United States, and the
Backdrop product that resulted was stamped with the unmistakable imprint of the
American environment.
The old liberal arts college that dated from colonial times was an
adaptation of the English model. Its inspiration came from Oxbridge;
but, because the American land was so vast and financial resources were
so few and because of local and sectarian rivalries, the English pattern
of great universities composed of clusters of independent, autonomous
colleges never was duplicated. Instead, the American college assumed its
own character, which it retained, not unchallenged but essentially
unchanged, until the university revolution of the late nineteenth century.
The American liberal arts college was a sectarian institution designed
to perpetuate a class of educated gentlemen. Staff members either al­
IT IS COMMONPLACE to describe the emergence of the modern uni­ ready wore the cloth or were in training for the ministry. Its curriculum
versity in post-Civil War America as a phenomenon of revolutionary was prescribed and reflected the view that knowledge was a fixed body
proportions, marked not only by the erection of great new institutions of of truth to be acquired by rote through the discipline of the faculties of
higher learning but by the thorough transformation of the existing lib­ which the human mind was held to be composed: reason, memory,
eral arts college as well. The decades from the late 1860s to the turn of imagination, judgment, and attention. It was thought that these faculties
the century saw the rise of new universities, the construction of universi­ could be developed best by drill in the classics, which consequently
ties on the base of existing colleges, the founding of centers of profes­ made up the heart of the curriculum. Because the course of study was
sional, technical, and graduate training, and the invasion and profound fixed and because teaching chiefly was by recitation, there was no need
alteration of the curriculum of the college itself.1 “By contrast with En­ for teachers to be specialists, and it was not uncommon for a tutor to
gland and the Continent, the problem [in America] was one of take his students through the whole curriculum for the year (or longer,
if he remained at the institution). Discipline, also under the tutor’s
1. The indispensable source for the subject is Laurence R. Veysey, The charge, was enforced rigorously; attendance in class and chapel was
Emergence of the American University (Chicago, 1965). See also Richard compulsory and a tight rein was held on the students’ behavior. The col­
Hofstadter, “The Revolution in Higher Education,” in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.,
and Morton White (eds.), Paths of American Thought (Boston, 1963), 269-90; lege, with its rigidly prescribed general education, its tone of moral pi­
Frederick Rudolph, The American College and University: A History (New ety, and its exclusive constituency, was isolated from the world around
York, 1962); John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education in Tran­
it. There was little, if any, articulation between college and career,
sition: A History of American Colleges and Universities, 1636-1968 (New
York, 1958); George W. Pierson, “American Universities in the Nineteenth Cen­ school and society. Richard Shryock has observed that, in their educa­
tury: The Formative Period,” in Margaret Clapp (ed.), The Modern University
tional level, their isolation from each other, and their pattern of lay gov­
(Ithaca, 1950), 59-94; and Richard J. Storr, The Beginnings of Graduate Edu­
cation in America (Chicago, 1953). The following account is based largely on ernment, pre-Civil War American colleges resembled the public schools
these sources; citations will be given only in the case of quotations or if otherwise
indicated. 2. Pierson, “American Universities in the Nineteenth Century,” 62-63.
io