Reading, 'Riting & Reds

Five years ago, a high school teacher who taught his class about Communism often had to fear assorted legal and social penalties; under Georgia law, for example, he might have been accused of breaking his oath to refrain from "teaching any theory of government or economics or of social relations which is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of patriotism and high ideals of Americanism." Last week the same teacher might have been at a summer seminar learning how best to present Communist history and theory to his twelfth-graders next fall. Growing up to the cold realities of the cold war, Americans have undergone a complete reversal of opinion on the formerly taboo subject of teaching about Communism in the schools.

Florida and Louisiana require classes on Communism in every high school. An amendment to state law by the New York legislature authorizes courses on Communism. Virginia has authorized a course since April 1961. California has set up a committee to suggest a course of study. The American Legion, which once vigorously opposed any mention of Communism around schoolchildren, passed a resolution in 1957 calling for a course on the "fallacies of Communism," has now joined the National Education Association in producing a manual on the subject. Most local school boards, sometimes nudged along by resolutions from the state legislature and suggestions from the state board of education, now weave facts about Communism into regular courses such as history, social studies and geography. Teaching about Communism in the schools has become widespread and widely discussed, and the only controversy left is how to teach it.

The Scholarly Approach. There is general agreement that Communism should be studied within the context of other subjects rather than in a separate course. Most schools try to maintain a scholarly approach, agreeing with an American Bar Association report that "the subject of Communism (like any other subject) should be taught factually, thoroughly and objectively." In Atlanta, where students are now introduced to the massive fact of Russia in sixth grade, a board of education directive says: "The teacher should keep in mind that the classroom is a forum and not a committee for producing resolutions or dogmatic pronouncements. The class should feel no responsibility for reaching an agreement." Says San Francisco Superintendent Harold Spears: "I think the story of Russia speaks for itself. All you've got to do is teach the facts. You don't have to indoctrinate." Teachers often depend on a parallel study of American institutions: Chicago students are exposed to contrasting quotes on the same subject, such as Stalin and Thomas Jefferson on the rights of the minority. A sixth-grade class in

Oconomowoc, Wis., transformed itself into a mock Soviet classroom for a week last year. St. Paul high school students are taught about early experiments in Communism, "so when we come to Russia and its Communism, it's not a shock." Denver maintains a committee of teachers to decide how to handle touchy subjects.

On the other side, William J. Reid, head of the history department at Boston's Dorchester High School, says flatly: "I don't think any high school youngsters know enough history to refute Marxist arguments. For most people, you have to say that this is wrong and it doesn't work, and cite examples from history to prove it." The seminars taught in Louisiana schools are charged by the state board of education with "exposing the deceitful character and dangers of the international Communist conspiracy," and "outlining the superior characteristics and advantages of a free economy as compared with the controlled collectivist economy of socialism and communism." Dallas titles its program. "The Principles of American Freedom in Contrast to the Tyranny of Communism." In Florida each school must offer at least 30 hours of "Americanism v. Communism," and the teacher's guide warns that in contact with parents, "emphasis should be made that students are studying about the evils, fallacies and contradictions of communism, rather than 'studying communism.' "

Textbook Shortage. Until lately, texts have consisted mostly of J. Edgar Hoover's Masters of Deceit, the writings of Marx and Lenin, assorted serious explanations of Communism by authorities, and a range of less scholarly books down to paperbacks with scary titles and bloody hammers and sickles on the covers. Established textbook publishers are now beginning to enter the field with professional treatment. (TIME Inc.'s Silver Burdett will publish The Meaning of Communism this winter.)

For students, the endless dialectic of Communism can be as boring as living under Communism is for millions of Russians and Chinese. Citizens who worry about the new teaching freedom producing a generation of Bolsheviks can be cheered by the findings of John Richard Skretting, a Florida State University professor who tried out Florida's course in a laboratory school: "Some kids don't like Communism because they've had to sit through six weeks of the dull stuff."

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