To Teach: to Advocate?

Last June Congress passed a law denying pay checks to any District of Columbia public school teacher who should "teach or advocate" Communism. Followed loud arguments as to what "teaching" Communism meant. To William Randolph Hearst the issue was perfectly simple. Explained his New York American: "The word 'teaching' as used in the statutes in conjunction with the word 'advocating' covers the whole field and PROHIBITS INSTRUCTION AS WELL AS ADVOCACY." But to E. Barrett Prettyman, corporation counsel for the District of Columbia, "teaching" meant outright advocacy, did not mean a factual, unbiased treatment of the subject. Acting on Counsel Prettyman's interpretation, the Board of Education refused to stop teachers from at least mentioning and explaining Communism in classrooms.

Leading a group of outraged citizens was Major General Amos A. Fries, one-time head of the Chemical Warfare Service, now an indignant critic of Washington's Board of Education and of School Superintendent Frank W. Ballou. Told that a study of Russia might turn children against Communism, he retorted, "Why not teach children about robbery, murder?", proposed that a committee pass on a long list of high school textbooks.

Last week Comptroller General John Raymond McCarl ruled that hereafter the 4.000 employes of District of Columbia public schools must swear every month that they have not "taught or advocated" Communism, otherwise go without pay checks. Since the ruling failed to define the exact meaning of "teach," school officials were in a worse quandary than ever. Not so Major General Fries. Said he: "Three cheers for McCarl! That's just fine. When the law reads so clearly there's nothing else to do but observe it."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.