Evening star., 1936-05-29

such restraint is gratuitous, ungen-
erous and unworthy of the Congress. -
Unfair to Board.
Third. because it is unfair to the
Board of Education. adding: This
agency has the responsibility of pro-
. tecting the pupils against doctrines
in the class room which are contrary
to morality. patriotism or the law of
the land. No evidence has been pro-
duced tending to show that the School
Board has been unfaithful to this
responsibility. The contrary assump-
ton which Is carried in the Red rider
Is a gratuitous insult to the board"
Fourth, because the rider is out of
harmony with the American tradi-
tion of freedom Of speech and teach
ing. According to this tradition, the
freedom to express and teach wrong
doctrines is lesser evil than a policy
Of repression; that is to say, it is a
smaller practical evil. The policy of
repression can easily be extended to
cover doctrines which are beneficial
to public welfare, merely on the
ground that they are new or radical "
Fifth, because the rider is futile,
since teachers who believe in COM
munism lif there be any such in the
public schools of the District of Co.
lumbia) will have no scruple against
teaching communism in the schools and
then taking an oath that they have
not done So"
Sixth, "as long as this astounding
enactment remains unrepealed it will
constitute bad example for the Leg
1slatures Of our several States"
Hit Patriotism by Oath.
Continuing, the report sets forth:
1.-The greatest danger to education
lies in the attempt, under the guise
Of patriotism, to suppress freedom OF
teaching, inquiry, and discussion. II
statutes such as this are to be enacted
1t would not be long before similar
encroachments were imposed upon
teachers in private schools. and ther
' extended to require that such teachers
shall not teach any particular kind
of religion, or the principles of any
political parties, such as the Demo-
cratic, Republican, and the Farmer
Labor parties. AS has been pointed out
by DR.. Robert M. Hutchins, president
of the University of Chicago, any
attempt to insure patriotism by oaths
would have to require not only teach
ers, but preachers, radio performers
newspaper men, movie directors, comic
artists, and, most, certainly, parents
themselves to swear fealty."
Summing up the arguments of ad-
vocates of repeal, the report stated:
"If the Senate supports the view Of
the committee and this law is repealed.
the Board of Education will have full
responsibility. which it should mill
tantly exercise in preventing the use
Of radical text books in the schools
and the employment of teachers in
culcating subversive doctrines into the
minds of the school children of Wash
ington.
1.-THE committee have not overlooked
the fact that the minds of pupils are
impressionable and that they may be
easily influenced by the crusading
spirit of one who teaches subversive
doctrines. Undoubtedly there are
throughout the country students In
colleges and universities, and perhaps
in some high schools, who have oeen
induced to join organizations where
communistic policies are advocated.
Such organizations and practices are
&egrettable and should be stamped out,
but requiring an oath win not do It.