THE ADMINISTRATION OF RESTRAINTS ON ALLEGED SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSONNEL

164 Pages·06.697 MB·English

by  REUTTER, E. EDMUND, JR

COPYRIGHTED
by
E. EDMUND REUTTER, Jr.
1950
THE ADMINISTRATION OF RESTRAINTS ON ALLEGED SUBVERSIVE
ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL PERSONNEL
E, Edmund Reutter, Jr.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy,
Columbia University.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express his deep appreci­
ation to Professor Willard S. Elsbree, Chairman
of his Dissertation Committee, for kind under­
standing and patient help, and to Professors
George S* Counts and Daniel R, Davies, members
of the Committee, for generous cooperation and
assistance* He is in addition grateful to
Professor John K. Norton for many valuable and
stimulating contributions to the study.
Sincere thanks are due also to the hundreds
of men and women in different phases of the
education enterprise who supplied data and
information in person and in writing.
E0 Edmund Reutter, Jr0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. Introduction............................................. 1
II* Historical Background..................................... 8
Legislative Experiences................................ 8
Administrative Experiences............................. 14
III, State Laws and Administration on the State Level............ 17
Loyalty Oaths for Public School Personnel............... 17
Laws to Exclude Disloyal Public School Personnel (Other
Than Oath Laws)..................................... 23
State Legislative Action in 1949*.......................30
Administration on the State Level.......................39
IV. Local Board of Education Policies and Administration on the
Local Level.............................................47
Analysis of Board of Education Official Policies........49
Administration on the Local Level.......................53
V. Judicial Decisions and Precedents.......................... 60
Decisions Concerning Loyalty Oaths......................60
Decisions Concerning Dismissal for Alleged Subversive
Influences and Teachings............................. 63
Decisions Concerning Membership in the Communist Party.... 67
Decisions Concerning the Feinberg Law in New York........71
Decisions Concerning the Ober Law in Maryland........... 73
VI* Administrative Practices Preferred by Leading Educators......75
General Administrative Concept......................... 76
General Policies and Laws..............................77
Executing Responsibility for Loyalty of Staff........... 80
Determining Loyalty of Applicants for Bnployment.........80
Reactions to Requirements of Sworn Statements........... 81
Initial Handling of Charges............................ 82
The Trial Body........................................ 82
Conduct of the Trial...................................84
Percent of Vote Required for Dismissal..................86
Appeal Procedure.................... £6
Disposition of Accused Personnel Pending Trial.......... 87
Disposition of Personnel Cleared of Charges............. 88
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Chapter Page
VII. Administrative Experiences with Alleged Subversive
Activities in Higher Education and in Federal Civil
Service.................................................102
Higher Education...................................... 102
Federal Civil Service..................................112
VIII. Policies and Administrative Procedures Subscribed to by
Some Professional Groups of Public Educators.............. 116
The National Education Association......................116
The American Federation of Teachers.....................119
The American Association of School Administrators........120
The Committee on Academic Freedom of the American Civil
Liberties Union..................................... 120
State Education Associations........................... 121
IX. Conclusions and Proposals................................. 123
General Considerations.................................123
Specific Recommendations...............................130
Bibliography
Selected Books and Pamphlets...............................139
Selected Articles from Periodicals......................... 142
Judicial Decisions Referred to in This Study............... 145
Appendix
Questionnaire A...........................................148
Questionnaire B........................................... 152
Questionnaire C...........................................154
Questionnaire D...........................................156
LIST OF TABLES
Table
I............. Dates of Enactment of State Legislation .
Concerning Teacher Loyalty
2. Analysis of Teacher Oaths............
Required by States
3................... References to State Laws.............
Prescribing Oaths for Teachers
4.................... Analysis of State Laws.............
Providing for Dismissal of "Subversive” Teachers
(Other Than Oath Laws)
5.................... References to State Laws...........
Providing for Dismissal of "Subversive” Teachers
(Other Than Oath Laws)
6.........State Legislative Proposals and Enactments in 1949
Relating to Alleged Subversive Activities
of Public School Personnel
7................. General Administrative Concept.........
8.................... General Policies and Laws..........
9.................... General Policies and Laws..........
10.................... General Policies and Laws..........
I I.................... General Policies and Laws..........
1 2..........Executing Responsibility for Loyalty of Staff....
13 ........Determining Loyalty of Applicants for Enployment...
1 4.......... Reactions to Requirements of Sworn Statements....
15 .................. Initial Handling of Charges...........
16 .................. Initial Handling of Charges...........
1 7.........................The Trial Body................
18 .........................The Trial Body................
1 9.........................The Trial Body................
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table
20 ....................... The Tidal Body...............
2 1....................... The Trial Body.............. .
2 2...................... Conduct of the Trial.......... .
23.. ....Conduct of the Trial......... .
2 4...................... Conduct of the Trial..........
2 5 Percent of Vote Required for Dismissal....
2 6 Appeal Procedure.............
2 7.........Disposition of Accused Personnel Pending Trial
28 Disposition Of Personnel Cleared of Charges
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Twenty-six states require loyalty oaths of all public school
teachers, nineteen states have statutes disqualifying disloyal teachers
(other than by violation of an oath), thirteen states forbid teachers to
join "subversive” groups, eighteen states restrain teachers from advocating
or teaching "subversive” doctrines in general, six states specifically bar
Communist Party members from teaching in the public schools, five of the
seven largest cities have adopted specific policies concerning alleged
subversive activities of public school personnel—— in short, the teaching
profession in general is not only morally, but also legally bound to up­
hold the government of the United States.
To carry out the spirit and the intent of such legislative acts
is the often difficult and many times unpleasant province of the administrator.
During the half decade since the cessation of aimed hostilities
in World War II an unprecedented wave of apprehensions concerning "subversive"
activities has swept the United States. Various ramifications of the situation
have appeared in many areas of our national life and have furnished copious
material for newspapers, periodicals, radio programs, and discussions in
general.
Recent legislative and administrative proposals and actions mirror
the anxieties of many citizens, and opposition to these steps reflects the
fears of others. Many who agree on ends differ vigorously on means.
Understandably, but regrettably, in this period of domestic and foreign
tensions, emotion has supplanted reason to an alarming extent with resultant
rash and ill-considered statements and actions.
It is not surprising under such circumstances that much of the
current furor concerning alleged subversive activities in our country i3
being focused on the public schools and on the personnel who are in charge
of educating our future citizens. How the schools meet this challenge may
well determine the future of American democracy.
It does not require detailed study in the general area embracing
academic freedom and teacher loyalty in the public schools to perceive that
much of the heated controversy revolves not so much about legislative re­
strictions per se as about the administration of the restraints, and
furthermore, not so much about the present administration as about the
possible administration.
One of many examples of the first point can be found in the
case of the statute enacted in 1949 in New York State for the”elimination
of subversive persons from the public school system".^ This law, widely
publicized in various media with different emphases for diverse purposes,
has served as a focal point for recent clashes in the area of alleged
subversive activities of public school personnel. Yet the enactment
represents an innovation in New York legislation only in that it requires
certain "affirmative” administrative actions to be taken to carry out
two existing laws which enunciated the restrictions in 1917 and in 1939
respectively.
The second point can be demonstrated by considering the fact
that since 1917 teachers in Rhode Island have been required to take a
pledge which includes a prohibition against expressing "opinions that
conflict with honor to country, loyalty to American ideals, and
p
obedience to and respect for the laws of Nation and Statb".
^New York Laws of 1949> c. 36O.
Rhode Island State Department of Education, Teacher !s Pledge of Loyalty.
That it is possible for the provisions of this oath to be administered as
a millstone on teachers in Rhode Island has frequently been pointed out.
That the provisions have actually been administered so as to hamper the
teaching profession in that state has never been shown.
The examples noted must not be construed as favorable endorsement
of restrictive legislation. Nor should they be interpreted as revealing
a naive faith that such legislation is harmless if properly administered.
They were given in an effort not to minimize the effects of legislation,
but rather to emphasize the role of administration, which many spokesmen
in this area have tended to overlook.
Even in the absence of specific laws in a state or community
regarding any phase of teacher loyalty, the superintendent bears a
responsibility for keeping the children entrusted to the schools free
of influences inimical to democracy and a concurrent responsibility for
keeping the schools unhampered by the whims of pressure groups which would
abrogate academic freedom and would dictate what is to be taught. It is
in the light of this dual obligation of the school administrator that the
following study should be interpreted.
No imputation on the loyalty of teachers is implied, for the
author is firmly convinced of the unswerving allegiance of the profession
as a whole.
Indeed, it is just that faith in the profession that makes a
look at administrative procedures all the more important at this time of
public anxiety. Great delicacy is required to find ways of assuaging
misgivings concerning the ability or the willingness of public educators
to see and to cope with the problem of alleged subversive activities of
public school personnel, and at the same time to insure for teachers civil