The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1916-12-28
NO PERSONAL ATTACK
ON PROF. JONES BACK
OF THIS AGITATION
Attorney Rodee Points Out That Issue Is One of
Principle Whether Pupils Should Yield to Sug-
gestion Of Unwarranted Physical Examina-
tions.---Wm. McGrath Expresses AS
constituent.


ney II. A. Rodee of this city, in dis
GUESSING the physical examinations of
school children made by Professor
Jones of the state university, EN-
phasizes the thought that the recent
agitation is not a personal attack on
Prof. Jones but an effort to secure
consideration of the principle involv-
ed.
MIR Rodec points out that since the
law forbids compulsory physical ex-
aminations. those who submitted to
Prof. Jones clinics" did so volun-
tarily but surely on the suggestion
of the professor and not of the stu
dent.
Mi Rodee's letter follows:
MIR. Rotlec's Letter.
To the Editor of The Republican:
When you first extended your in
vitation to the public to use the coll
umns of your paper for expressions
of opinion in regard to the situation
revealed at the Watertown teachers
meeting, had no intention OF avail
ing myself OF the privilege. But from
the communication that have since
appeared and from conversations on
the street, it appears to rae that this
discussion has gone far adrift of the
real point at issue: and in the hope
of being able to clarity the issue to
some extent | submit the following:
Despite the statements in Your ed
ltoria columns TO the contrary. some
persons seem to be laboring under
IL, Il;
a personal attack on Professor Icnoe
Such is not the case. as l see ii. To
my mind there is a principle involved
that far overshadows the personality
of any man, ! care not what his posi-
ton may be- The standing of the Yer
million educator may be freely grant
ed, but this does not give him any
rights or privileges superior to the
humblast citizen. And the fact that
others, possibly less qualified, may
claim the same rights and privileges
which no asserts. makes this an i'm
personal matter. and legitimate sub
iect for public comment.
Moreover, l am very certain that
no real harm can come to Professor
Jones or the cause of education on
account of the discussion since nc
Watcrtown meeting. No man whose
work is passed on truth negG fear pub
licity. We are told By tho greatest
authority of all time that oily "they
love the darkness whose ways are
evil" If Professor Jones is 4 pioneer
i'm a great twentieth century educn
tional movement, he need only bide
his time until the value OF his work
shall be recognized. In the meantime
he can comfort himself by reviewing
the lives of countless men and wo-
men in all ages who have Travelled
ahead of the processiaN
cannot but feel ov-cver. that
his cause would haze prospered bet
ter had he confined his work to more
limited experimentation until the
value of his theory was more fully
established and the necessity for its
practice more generally conceded.
And if he does think that his idea
is worthy of general propaganda,
surely some method can easily be
found for less Objectionable than the
one he has been following.
The Body Sacred.
The mere fact that many of the
examinations that nave been made
were of a sexual nature does not APP
peal to me as being so very import
ant Whether it be an examination of
the sexual organs, the pulmonary or
gans or some other organs, the prin-
ciple at stake is the same. and that
is the right of the child under the
guardianship of it's parents to the un-
disturbed possession of its own body
TAo eanet:tv of the person has been
recognized and jealousy guarded
.rcm tho foundation of our govern
rnent The law throws around the
human body every possible safeguard
and n-otection. He who injuries it or
iHtrudss upon it without due cause
does so at his peril. For this reason
no court in the land, where the is
sue has been fairly presented, has
ever sanctioned the compulsory eN-
animation Of school children, except
on the ground OF preventing ccntag-
iouS disease.
Hence, the only .eeal defense that
can be made to the work of Professor
Jones is, that his subjects submitted
"voiuntarily". But in a broader sense
is this satisfactory defense under
the circumstances? How was this
''voluntary" consent obtained? l
0annot believe that any school girl in
our state has ever spoken the first
word that has lead Nm 10 such an ex-
amination | am confident that in each
I'd every instance the necessary slug
-estions car from the professor
Question.
So her. question to consider,
Shall IL - allowed to go into
oar public school, and accomplish
by the power of suggestion that
which tie law 'o.hids him to do by
compuision9 Z is wrong for q man
10 make . shvsiaai examination of a
pupil without her consent, is it right
Tor him to go into such school and
use any form of mental aggression
" persua Oh to gain such consent?
This is the real issue, as see it. Here
is something for thoughtful people
TO think ahout.
Should the time ever come, sni
hope it never will, whom the legisla-
ture of our state shall declare that
all school children must be subject
ed TO physical examinations, and such