The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-09
THE RESPONSIBILITY FIXED.

The more the question of the suppression
of history in the public schools is discussed
by members and officers of the school
board the less creditable it becomes and the
more i'll temper is displayed According to Prof
Millss last statement it appears that when he
spoke of the suppression to Mr.. Tarbell, some
time ago, the superintendent thought it proper
that the suppressed history should be taught;
that afterward Mr.. Mills spoke to Mr.. Austin
H. Brown, who replied that he was in doubt
about the propriety it, as teachers were not
always judicious in treating questions upon
which public sentiment is divided" This re-
mark Mr.. Mills repeated to Mr. Tarbell who
replied: eff Mr. Brown says we had better
not teach it, 1 guess we had better not" Now
here are facts in a nutshell, and they do
away with all the fancies which have
been spun about the matter by the school au-
thorities and by Professor George 2. Brown in
his published card. The latter has authority
to speak for himself, and it is conclusive, so
of the civil war been taught in the schools
since Professor Brown retiredR Professor
Mills explains why. When he asked the super
intendent about the matter Mr.. Tarbell
thought it well to have it done. Mr.. Mills
did not consider that sufficient authority, but
consulted Mr.. Brown, who was the president
of the board, and had before that for years
been not only member of the board, but a
member Of the committee on text books and
course of instruction. That gentleman
thought it not advisable to teach the history,
because public sentiment was divided, and
teachers were not always judiciousp When
Mr. Mills repeated this to Mr.. Tarbell the
latter acquiesced in the judgment of his su-
perior officer, the president of the board, and
who, from his long connection with the board
and with the committee on course of instruc
ton, might very properly be supposed to know
the feelings and Judgment of his colleagues.
When the scandal was first preached, and
began to unwind itself, the Journal expressed
the opinion that Mr. Tarbells sin, if
any he had, was that of weak acquiescence.
Professor Mills gives the proof to sustain that
criticism. The responsibility for the first sup
preston of the history of the civil war is with
Professor Geo p Brown, who manfully as
sumes it, because he did not like the textbook
then in use The responsibility for the continu-
ance of the suppression, according to the story
of Prof Mills under whose charge the study of
history has been conducted, is with President
Brown, who did not want the history taught
because 'public sentiment was divided" The
fault of Mr.. Tarbell is, that he consented to
the suppression upon the advice of the presi-
dent-according to Mr.. Mills-and the fault of
Mr. Mills is, that he did not at once reorganize
his chart when he thought it proper to do So
and had received the concurrence of his super
intendent. But, whatever the faults, the fact
remains that the history of the civil war has
not been taught in the public schools of Indi-
annapolis for some time at least, for the alleged
reason that the president of the board did not
think it advisable to commit the work to pos
sibly injudicious teachers because public
sentiment was divided" Is public sentiment
divided upon the proposition that the history
shall be taught hereafter
The school board, last night, ordered the
suppressed history to be hereafter taught ac-
cording to the text book now in use. Presi-
dent Brown asked for a committee of investi-
cation, but the board thought it unnecessary.