The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1889-08-08
Mr.. P1EpER in his last communication

Mr.. PIEPER in his last communication
intimates that the editor of the Pilot is
particularly hostile to the Luthe,an paro-
chial schools. In these days OF disregard |
for truth in public utterances a denial
does not count for much. And it'll Mr.. |
Pieper is offered the assurance taat the
editor of this paper is in no ws con-
scious of any feeling of hostility oward
any denomination. This statement is
not made to placate any one as neither
The Pilot or its editor appeals t. any
church, society or party for counteaance
or support. The article from whica Mr.. |
Pieper drew his inference was in reply |
to what appeared in a Milwaukee paper |
which seemed decidedly unjust to the |
Catholic parochial schools, in duomi- |
national sense.
One other matter which needs exrlana-
nation: Mr.. Pieper has apparentl, mis-
interpreted the statement that society, in
self Defense has the right to demand that
the rising generation be educated. From
this the less general proposition was
drawn, that the schools which give this
education should seek to give the child
what is most advantageous Ito hin as an
individual. 1t was not meant that the
parochial schools taught anything sub
versive of good government, but that in
neglecting English the child was de-
prived of something essential to his sue
cess IN country in which English is the
prevailing language. Reference is made
in these articles to the Lutheran schools
for the reason it is these school,; which
are beng defended by Mr.. Pieper. The
action of the synods, likewise, was chal-
lenge which could not be ignored.
Mr.. Pieper complains that conclusions
unfavorable to the parochial schools are
drawn from insufficient data. But if all
the facts which come under observation,
granting they are meager,-leadt to one
conclusion, do the memorable laws of
logic make proper deduction at variance
with the facts? Mr.. Pieper has selected
one sentence in Pilot article, deprived
it of context, and builds an argument on
the fragment. He argues if English is
taught in any Lutheran parochial school,
if it is taught even poorly in some, these
schools are indicated. The writer is by
| no means convinced that the statement
made that English is not taught in one
tenth of the parochial schools of this
state is untrue. In communities in which
| a foreign language is used almost exclu-
sively in the county, 1t is difficult mat
| ter to prevent the entire suppression of
| English in many of the public schools.
| Parents are not aware of this. The teach
| ers find it easier to give instruction in
the language with which the pupils are
most conversant and this soon leads to
the entire disuse of the language sp oxen
with the least facility. A few years ago
| the superintendent encountered teach
er in public school who asked questions
| and received responses in the German
language in every recitation he conduct
ed. That teacher had previously taught
in parochial schools. This fact is men,
toned to show the tendency toward the
prevailing language of community.
There are two clergymen, whom the
writer personally knows, who are en-
gagged In teaching in this county who are
unable to converse in English. A gentle
man informs the writer that a clergyman
| is teaching parochial school at Witten-
berg, who has no knowledge of English,
and is resident of this country for two
years, only. He has personal knowledge
OF similar case at Ashland. These facts
do not need to be put in syllogistic form
to have their force felt.
Mr.. Pieper admits the necessity of a
knowledge of English; the writer, admits
the advantage of being able to converse
IN German. But there can be no choice
between necessi ty and convenience. No
doubt Mr.. Pieper believes the parochial
schools are doing their full duty-and is
impatient of criticism. But is it possible
they can be with the teachers employed
IN many of them? Mr.. Pieper is an &C
complished linguist and is no doubt fully
aware of the importance of teaching a
language IN its purity. No man ever
fully corrected the errors of speech to
which he became addicted in his youth.
Is it not clearly the duty of all to do
what is possible to increase the efficiency
OF our schools, whether public or paro-
chial, and particularly to raise the stand
ard of the English taught? Why will
Mr.. Pieper object to the assistance of the
state In sitting out the unworthy teachers
IN the schools under his charge and thus
obvlate the criticism which has force only
because of these teachers? Mr.. Pieper
invites inspection of the school in this
city under his immediate supervision.
Can he with equal confidence direct at
tentlon to other Lutheran schools within
his district? If some of them are not
teaching English, if they are teaching it
as Mr.. Pieper would not have his children
taught, will he denounce them as I'M
faithful to their duty?