Evening star., 1921-05-28
Editorial Digest
A Department of Education.

DSPoA @lAeAG VI GOuCdt1oA'
A situation. which might be called.
IN trade union parlance, a "jurisdic-
hetwaen uoaa u'spu.e th seems to have ar, arisen IN
establish department of educa-
tion.' and those who are sponsoring
the movement to create depart.
ment of public welfare" Editorial
comment is inclined to support the
contention of the educators that the
vital needs of education cannot be
properly met by an organization in
/ which that field is subordinate. In
TACT. the entire scheme for a depart
! ment OF public welfare is given scant
, welcome in the press as a whole.
While it has some warm supporters,
the majority of writer's view it more
or less as a step in the dark which
should not be considered until reor-
SaniZation has made possible a more
efficient grouping of federal activities.
AS an immediate measure the pro-
poSal. as regarded by most papers.
does not square with the demand for
retr"nchment in government expenses.
AS at present outlined. the depart
ment of public welfare. which. the
Detroit Free Press GndepcndcnD
states. "the President desires to es-
| tablish." will contain the present gov
ernment organizations having juris-
diction over education. workmen's
compensation, child welfare and pub
i
| notes. the teachers who want de
partment of education are persistent
ly inquiring what education has TO
do with public health. while the doc
tors insist that the subject of public
health ought not to be buried in a
department which will be absorbed in
the great subject of education.' The
"lukewarmneSS, not to say hostility,
OF the educational forces of the coun-
try" toward the proposal. the New
York Post independently finds read
lily understandable" The very real
difference" between the plans for Il
department of education and a de-
partment of public welfare, as the
Post sees it. is that
''The first is perfectly definite
plan which has grown out OF "a long
history of increasing federal activi-
ty in education: the second has no
such history behind it. The substan-
tial character Of the argument for the
department of education is INDICATED
by the fact that President Harding
uses this argument almost solely in
his advocacy of the department OF
welfare"
There is Il measure of plausibility,
the Christian Science Monitor tBos-
ton. independently comedies. in group
ing into one organization Education.
public health. social service and vet
erans' service" but it expresses a fear
that the Presidents selection OF Dr.
Sawyer as the means OF carrying out
his idea suggests that he "favors a
medical man as head of the new de-
partment." If that is the case. the
Monitor believes. "it means that the
President has allowed himself to be
persuaded that the public health tail
should be authorized to Wag the edu-
cation dog" and since education is
by far the most predominant inter-
est in this group" it should be given
first consideration.
1t is pretty certain, the New York
Herald independently thinks. that
two new cabinet departments will not
be created, and also that there is far
more likely to be one of the public
welfare than of education" But IT
insists that in any case the work OF
the bureau Of education should re-
main just as purely and dlstlnctiVeiy
educational as it is now"
However, the Indianapolis News
independently is convinced that there
is no wide demand" for such de-
partment as the Presidents physician
proposes. and the South Bend Tribune
independent republican, adds that
the name. department of welfare.
does not recommend it to thinking
people," as that word has been
roughly abused" Any premature
legislation on the subject which does
not afford the public a chance to dis
cuss and consider the matter will be
a very unwise move. in the opinion OF
the Detroit News independently. be-
cause mo one understands the needs
of public welfare better than the
public" and while there are undoubt-
edly some good reasons for the addi-
tion Of department of public well
fare" the Wilmington IN. CO Star
(democratic) agrees that III there
are any bad reasons. they should be
brought out"
The sentimental argument for It,,
the New York Times Gndependent
democratic) says. "is easy to make;
the essential question to answer Is,
viii it work? viii it pay% While
the Louisville Post Independently has
no disposition to condemn the Gre
alton of this new department "un-
qualifiedly," it is Interested in know
ing, before the scheme goes further.
"how far it will lead in me matter OF
appropriations from Congress. From
the point of view Of the taxpayers.
who do not want a single cent OF
extra expense" the Spokane Spokes-
man-Review independent republican,
is inclined to feel that the proposed
new department is superhuous. and
that the most Immediately necessary
thing is reform and reorganization
of the present departments, not Gre
alton Of new ones" Until reorgani-
cation is effected, the Chicago News
Undependent) holds that "the creation
Of new department would be
blunder," since it would probably
only increase the duplication which
must be eliminated.