Chapter 11
Education For Citizenship

Education for citizenship requires more emphasis upon the advantages and blessings of the American Way of Life . . . . why should we not see to it that every child in America is taught the superiority of our Constitution and the sacredness of the freedom of the individual? . . . God and individual freedom are fundamental principles in our glorious Republic, and our obligation is to keep in our schools a reverence for Deity and respect for the dignity of the individual man . . . . I believe that only through a truly educated citizenry can the ideals that inspired the Founding Fathers of our nation be preserved and perpetuated. President David O. McKay, CN-3/13/54

      True Education. Speaking of public schools, the government has the right to say to every one of its teachers that your purpose is to teach those children to be loyal citizens, to be honest in their dealings with their fellow men—to impress children with the other attributes named in the list of virtues I quoted at the beginning of my talk.

      In other words, as already stated this morning, the whole purpose of education is to train the child in uprightness. Train him to live as a social being and to be a contributive influence for progress in our republican form of government. (President David O. McKay, CN-9/26/53)

      No system of education can be perfect which does not teach the principles of righteousness and faith in God. Learning has not saved the world, neither can it save it. No man by wisdom ever found out God, and men may study all their lives and acquire all the knowledge and worldly wisdom that is within the reach of the human mind, and yet be utterly destitute of the true knowledge of God.

      It is of the utmost importance that our children should, in the first place, be taught faith in God. This cannot be left out of our system of education. Every child in our midst should be taught how to obtain a knowledge of God. This should be made the corner stone and the foundation of all education. (George Q. Cannon, 1890, JI-25:243) [p. 179]

      If parents and grandparents would wipe their eyes clear of the mirage that every child they have is a pure mixture of angel and genius, and then would, with the child, try to find out his real self—non-angel and non-genius—we should have made the first move forward to establish the education to which our challenge bids us.

      Perhaps I might, at this point adventure a definition: To me, true education is that teaching, training, and experience which best fits a man to do the useful things in his Church, in society and in the public service, for the doing of which Nature, that is, God, has best endowed him. It seems to me this is the education that is the world-wide challenge we speak of.(1) (J. Reuben Clark, 5/18/38)

      True Purpose of Schools. The duty of the school is to instill patriotism and loyalty to the government and society. I think the real purpose of the school is to develop character! . . . Educators say it is to teach the three “R’s”, science, social science, etc. That is why schools are maintained, but the main purpose (and I wish it were instilled in the heart of every teacher throughout this great country), is to develop character, loyalty to God, to the government, loyalty to the home, and loyalty to the individual himself. “Character is higher than intellect; a great soul will be fit to live, as well as to think.” (President David O. McKay, CN-8/24/63)

      Schools to Preserve Freedom. We expect our schools to be preservers of the principles of human welfare; bulwarks against every insidious, subversive foe of human freedom; defenses against all invaders of human rights; teachers of the way from war to peace, from poverty to prosperity. In times of moral, social or economic upheaval, our schools, ideal-builders, must be among the nation’s most powerful defenses . . . . We [p. 180] teach with easy precision protection against communicable diseases. It is more important to teach immunity against untruth; to show how the fruits of our civilization may be preserved and increased. Among the many instruments of democracy, the schools must stand foremost in preparing the people against coming evils, and for a better future day. (John A. Widtsoe, CR-10/40:63)

      Education for Citizenship. Education for citizenship requires more emphasis upon the advantages and blessings of the American Way of Life. Next to life itself freedom is man’s most cherished possession . . . .

      Communism is antagonistic to the American Way of Life. Its avowed purpose is to destroy belief in God and free enterprise. In education for citizenship, therefore, why should we not see to it that every child in America is taught the superiority of our way of life, of our Constitution and the sacredness of the freedom of the individual. Such definite instruction is not in violation of either the federal or the state constitution. Teach that free enterprise is the right to open a gas station or a grocery store, or to buy a farm if you want to be your own boss, or to change your job if you do not like the man for whom you work. Under Communism you work where you are told, and you live and die bossed by hardfisted bureaucrats who tell you every move you dare make. Free enterprise is the right to lock your door at night. In Communist countries the dread secret police can break it down any time they like . . . .

      Education for citizenship demands more emphasis upon moral and spiritual values. Our government was founded on faith in a Supreme Being as evidenced by the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, by George Washington and Benjamin Franklin in the Constitutional Convention, and by a hundred other incidents prior to, during, and following the birth of this Republic. Said the Father of our Country: “We have raised a standard to which the good and wise can repair; the event is in the hands of God.”

      God and individual freedom are fundamental principles in our glorious Republic, and our obligation is to keep in our schools a reverence for Deity and respect for [p. 181] the dignity of the individual man.

      I love the Stars and Stripes, and the American Way of Life. I have faith in the Constitution of the United States. I believe that only through a truly educated citizenry can the ideals that inspired the Founding Fathers of our Nation be preserved and perpetuated.

      I believe that four fundamental elements in such an education are:

      1. The basic essentials of oral and written composi-tion-arithmetic, social studies and science.

      2. Loyal leadership as found in men who “cannot be bought or sold, men who will scorn to violate truth, genuine gold.”

      3. Open and forcible teaching of facts regarding communism as an enemy to God and to individual freedom.(2)

      4. More emphasis on moral and spiritual values. (President David O. McKay, CN- 3/13/54)

      Irreligion Not To Be Taught. I fully agree with and concur in the statutory and constitutional provisions which forbid the teaching of the religion of any creed in the public schools. But I should like respectfully to suggest that the same laws which prohibit the teaching of the tenets of any religious faith in the public schools, by every fair intendment, and in any just appraisal of the spirit and purpose of them, forbid with equally imperious authority the criticizing of such tenets or undermining belief in them either by direct disapprobation or by veiled innuendo. [p. 182]

      If a teacher may not teach religion he certainly is not authorized to teach irreligion.(3) Neither denominational belief, nor religion itself, nor faith in God, about whom all religious thought and action must revolve, may with propriety be, with intent, undermined, nor in any degree whatsoever subjected to any sort of disparagement. There is much wisdom in the dictum of James Russell Lowell that “the worst kind of religion is no religion at all.” (Albert E. Bowen, 1944, Constancy Amid Change, Page 111)

      I believe that the conditions which we see prevalent in the country today are a natural and logical outgrowth of much that has prevailed in our systems of education, in our system of ethics, and in the very manner in which the affairs of this country have, from time to time, been carried on. Throughout the past half century at least, our educational processes have been largely, if not entirely devoid of anything pertaining to the divine, of anything pertaining to the spiritual, or anything pertaining to the truly religious. There has been a studied effort on the part of those who have controlled the educational systems of the day, to avoid even the appearance of religion in any way, shape or form.(4) I take it that there has come, as a natural consequence, from that kind of education, a total disregard for the religious in man’s life. There has come an absolute disregard and disrespect for things divine. God has been left out of consideration; [p. 183] the methods of men alone have prevailed, and everywhere and under all conditions the things that have pertained to this world, the things that have pertained to our temporal life have been made paramount and have predominated over the things that have pertained to our souls and the welfare of our souls. (Stephen L Richards, CR-10/19:102)

      Christian Education. While I am thoroughly sympathetic with the separation of church and state, I cannot feel that we shall ever have a Godly nation with Godless education. I know that there are many who think that religious training should be left exclusively to the home and the church. That is undoubtedly the best policy with reference to denominational or sectarian teaching, but it is a very strained interpretation of that policy to assume that the church and the home may not have the sympathetic co- operation of the schools in teaching faith in a Supreme Being.

      I note that there has been considerable agitation recently for making courses in American history imperative in school curriculums. I think there is wisdom in this movement and I hope it will succeed. When American history is taught, cannot all the facts be given? Is it not a fact that this nation had its inception, and that its fundamental principles were laid in Christian righteousness and morality? Is it not a fact that its founders were Christian men and that their concepts of liberty, equity and justice were derived from the Christian gospel? Is it not a fact that assemblies of the representatives of the people provided by the Constitution from the beginning until the present time have ever been opened with prayer and supplication to Almighty God to grant protection and wisdom and that all officers, juries, and witnesses make their solemn oaths of allegiance, fidelity and integrity on the basis of fealty and reverence for God? Is it not a fact that divine pronouncements of right and wrong, including the Ten Commandments, have become the basis of and incorporated into our laws and statutes, and have not our outstanding leaders throughout the history of the republic acknowledged the supremacy of the divine will? [p. 184]

      Now if these are facts in American history, would it not contribute greatly, not only to a correct understanding of the foundations and ideals of our country, but also to a wholesome, legitimate, and very necessary spiritual awakening in America to have these salient facts of our history taught sympathetically and patriotically to the youth of the land? (Stephen L Richards, 1943, The Church in War and Peace, pp. 102-103)

      Supreme Court Decision Criticized. And today you have met together for the first time since the Supreme Court of the United States has re-emphasized or has passed on the rule of re-emphasizing your divine obligation to teach the word of the Lord to your children. Since you last held a conference of this kind, the Supreme Court of the United States has made it unpatriotic for public schools to teach your children to pray . . . .(5)

      In 1850, the character and culture of the American people commanded the respect of the entire world. European parents sent their sons and daughters to our institutions that they might imbibe this faith-inspiring atmosphere. The Sabbath was nationally recognized and observed. The churches were well attended. Divorces were rare.

      Today, according to the latest figures available, lawlessness is on the increase, the cost of crime at all levels in the United States is $22 billion, over $4 billion more than is spent for education. It represents a cost of $128 last year for every person in the United States.

      The crime rate has increased thirty-four per cent in the past five years, while the population has increased seven per cent. In other words, the rate of growth of crime outstrips the rate of growth of the population by nearly five to one.

      Sisters, what has happened to change this Christian concord of 1850 into this criminal chaos of 1962?

      One hundred years ago, Americans were still being reared in public schools which included religious instruction. [p. 185] The great New England Primer, which for more than a hundred and fifty years had been the textbook of the American schools, was just passing into discard. Eighty-seven per cent of the contents of this remarkable book, which had built the sturdy character of fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers was the Bible. But from that time on, the Book of books ceased to be an important factor in public instruction.

      The lawmakers in Washington were intent, and commendably so, to make effective the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”(6) to which we all subscribe.

      Ostensibly to make more restrictive this amendment, last June, the Supreme Court of the United States, by a vote of six to one, made unconstitutional the repeating of the following brief prayer written and recommended by the board of regents for use in the New York public schools. And this is their prayer:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.

      By making that unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States severs the connecting cord between the public schools of the United States and the source of divine intelligence, the Creator himself, “in whom we live and move and have our being.”

      Mr. Justice Black points out in his personal note added to the decision of the Supreme Court that “It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave the purely religious function to the people themselves, [p. 186] and to those the people choose to look for religious guidance.”

      To me, the ruling is surprising, when we realize that the noblest purpose of the public schools as a function of government should be to teach loyalty and obedience to the laws of the country.

      Our country’s greatest asset is its manhood, upon which depends not only the survival of the individual freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and all other ideals for which the founders of the Republic fought and died, but the survival of the best that we cherish in present-day civilization.

      Only through proper education can these fundamental principles become fixed and guiding influence in the lives of human beings. Our educational system will radiate such principles only to the extent that we employ in our elementary schools, high schools, colleges, and universities, men and women who are not only eminent in their chosen professions, but loyal to the Constitution of our land; influential as leaders, noble in character. The most potent influence in training youth to cherish life, to have increased respect for human kind, to keep their word of honor, to love justice, is the life and personality of the teacher.

      He who reputedly was the wisest American (Emerson) said: “Character is higher than intellect; a noble soul will be fit to live as well as to think.”

      By law, the public schools of the United States must be non-denominational. They can have no part in securing acceptance of any one of the numerous systems of belief regarding God and the relation of mankind thereto. Now let us remember and emphasize that restriction applies to the atheist as well as to the believer in God.

      Last June that ruling called attention to my feeling, which I wish to emphasize today—attention to the responsibility of revitalizing religion in the Church and in the home, making prayer much more important than it has been in the lives of our children. To members of the Church such admonition is but a re-emphasis of the word as given in the divine commandments to parents who have children in Zion, “or in any of her stakes which are [p. 187] organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents. For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized” (D. & C. 68:25-26).

      The real tragedy in America is not that we have permitted the Bible to slip out of our public schools, but that we have so openly neglected to teach it in either the home or the Church.

      Never before was there such need of revitalizing the teaching of faith and repentance on the part of parents. Never before in the history of our country was the state in greater need of young men and young women who cherish the higher life in preference to the sordid, the selfish, and the obscene. (President David O. McKay, 1962, RS-49:877)

      Supreme Court Leading America Down Road to Atheism.      For a hundred years boys and girls born in America, and they who later obtained citizenship in this great country, have felt that they are “endowed by their Creator, with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and that these rights are endowed by our Creator.

      Recent rulings of the Supreme Court would have all reference to a Creator eliminated from our public schools and public offices.(7)

      It is a sad day when the Supreme Court of the United States would discourage all reference in our schools to the influence of the phrase “divine providence” as used by our founders of the Declaration of Independence.

      Evidently the Supreme Court misinterprets the true meaning of the First Amendment, and are now leading a [p. 188] Christian nation down the road to atheism.(8) (President David O. McKay, CN-6/22/63)

      Academic Freedom. It does seem to me that we parents have not only lost all control as to what our own flesh and blood—I use that term instead of children because I should like to make the ugly fact as poignant as possible—I say we have lost all control as to what our own are taught and to be taught, but further and also we are not even consulted about these matters.

      Now as a matter of principle, surely we who pay the costs and furnish the students might with propriety have some voice in what they whom we pay shall teach to those students.

      I quite appreciate I am now moving close to this much-clamored question of academic freedom. But I am not frightened. No one holds higher the sacred rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience, than I hold them. I am willing that every man shall believe what he wishes, print what he wishes, and say what he wishes within his Constitutional rights, but I am not willing that he shall exploit all his idiosyncracies in teaching my flesh and blood while I pay the bill. I insist that he shall have all the personal freedom he can carry, but I am not willing to extend that full and complete freedom into a gross license and then pay him to abuse that license to distort and debase the minds and hearts and bodies of those who belong to me and who are dearer to me than life itself.

      There is a wide difference between academic freedom and academic license.(9)

      For example, the public teacher has perfect academic freedom to believe opium is a food and good for humans. [p. 189] He can talk about it, he can write about it, but he must not teach that to my children. And so with anything which adversely touches the bodily health, the moral welfare, the civic virtue, belief in our Constitutional form of government, and the spiritual growth and development of my children and the youth of America.

      May I urgently say at this point, the teacher may not take the place of the parent, and parent as well as teacher must bear this in mind.

      May I take another point on this same matter? In my view no single principle of our governmental system is wiser than that which forbids the teaching of religious dogma and cult in our public schools. I shall not now go into the reasons I see for the soundness of this principle further than to say that one obvious reason is that you are not willing to tax yourselves and to pay teachers to give instructions to your children in my particular re ligion. I have the same feeling about your religion. This is so well settled that no one raises any cry about the abridgment of academic freedom in proscribing religious teaching, for there is no abridgment.

      But this in principle is no different, and scarcely more important, than teaching dogma, creed, or cult, or view, involving any question of morals in a way contrary to Christian standards. And the same principle applies to any political creed that is alien or hostile to the American system of government. The control of the teaching of these latter is no more an infringement upon academic freedom than is the control over religious teaching. I am aware there are border line cases in this field, but they are not important to our present consideration.

      As to the teaching of religion in schools, there is to that rule a corollary, too often overlooked, either innocently or maliciously, and that is that no anti-religion dogmas or beliefs or theories should be taught in the [p. 190] schools either, and he who abuses this principle has no place teaching our youth.

      May I say in passing that some of our colleges, both State and privately endowed, including among them some of the best known and of widest reputation, are become hotbeds for the propagating of un-American theories of government(10) and for the ridicule and undermining of our Constitution and the American form of government built there-under.

      Under the principle I have just stated these matters could and should be controlled and such control would not be an interference with any true academic freedom. The public school teacher is a public servant; he is part of our governmental system. Like all public servants he owes a firm allegiance to his government, which he serves, and activities or propaganda against his government are in their essence treasonable. True education must cover this also.

      This principle of freedom versus license applies also to the press, the radio, and the movies, great educational instrumentalities. It appears that the doctrine of freedom of speech and of the press had its origin in the determination to preserve the right to criticize political personages and governmental purposes and policies, and it is not seen how, subject to the laws of libel and slander, there is any necessity for any abridgment here, nor any wisdom in curtailment of the fullest liberty. But this has not been and should not be construed to cover treasonable activities, nor activities that were designed to bring about a revolution and overthrow of government, certainly of a free government. (J. Reuben Clark, 5/18/38) [p. 191]

      Academic License. In the scholastic world no man’s faith is respected. From one end of the land to the other it is assumed by most teachers with scholastic degrees, that these degrees place those who bear them in a superior class with academic freedom to teach what they will and to criticize and condemn, by virtue of this freedom, any doctrine or theory . . . . This idea that the teacher belongs to a superior class and his learning grants him immunity from showing respect for religious doctrines is a fallacy not sustained by justice nor constitutional law. Most of the textbooks written today boldly and impudently contradict the doctrines of the Bible and its history. Instead thereof, the students are confounded with unproved, and in many cases, unprovable theories. In truth, no number of scholastic degrees convey the right on the part of teachers to attack religion in the public schools. (Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, Man: His Origin and Destiny, Page 4)

      No Communist Teachers. The most potent influence in training our youth to cherish life, to keep their word of honor, to have increased respect for human kind, and love of justice, is the life and personality of the teacher. If the people of the United States would have the highest returns for their financial investment in education, they must as a matter of sound business judgment have in all our schools, teachers of outstanding leadership and wholesome influence. Dr. Ralph MacDonald rightly portrays as follows the high class of men and women whom you should have as leaders and exemplars:

The teachers of our young must be strong and vigorous, keen of intellect, balanced in outlook, superior in personality traits, deep-rooted in their spiritual foundations. They must have a passionate devotion to human freedom, and be an chored to an abiding faith in the improvability of man. To such an outstanding personality must be added education and the heritage of the human race, with a loving understanding of human growth and development in the precepts of democracy, in the lure of the school and in the skills of teaching.

      And that eliminates from our faculties of colleges in the United States—Communists . . . . (11) (President David O. McKay, CN-3/12/52) [p. 192]

      Teacher’s Salaries.      Let every one spend every hour, day, week and month in some useful and profitable employment, and then all will have . . . means to pay teachers, and pay them well. Not that they should receive more pay than others. If men have learning, and they have the faculty of imparting it to others, and can teach children to read and write, and grammar and arithmetic, and all the ordinary branches of a common school education, what better are they than the man that plows, hoes, shoves the plane, handles the trowel and the axe, and hews the stone? Are they any better? I do not know that they are. What better is the man that can dress himself nicely and labor in a school house six hours a day, than the man who works ten or twelve hours a day hewing rock? Is he any better? No, he is not. (President Brigham Young, 1873, JD-16:19)

      Federal Aid to Education. (Church News Editor’s Note;—The following letter from President David O. McKay to Representative Ralph R. Harding of Idaho, sets forth the Church’s view on the subject of Federal Aid to Education, and is published by permission of the First Presidency.)

Honorable Ralph R. Harding
House of Representatives
Washington D.C.

Dear Brother Harding:

      Re: Federal Aid to Education

      I appreciate your letter of May 31, 1961 and the spirit in which it was written . . . .

      Regarding your inquiry as to whether the Church has taken an official stand against a general program of federal aid to education as embodied in the bill already passed by the Senate, please be advised that this matter was discussed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of [p. 193] the Twelve sitting as members of the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University and the Board of Education of the Church. We were unanimously of the opinion that the proposed legislation before the Congress is unnecessary and unwise. In accordance therewith President Wilkinson was requested to prepare and forward to Washington the statement, which I understand was placed in the Congressional Record by Senator Bennett . . . .

      In our deliberations, . . . we approach the matter entirely from what we considered to be right from the standpoint of the nation, for we have no personal interest to serve. While our record shows our dedicated interest in education, we are not on educational payrolls . . . .

      Local communities and the states are doing a pretty good job in taking care of school teachers’ salaries. We have noted, for instance, that over the last thirty years (from 1929 to 1959) the increase in teachers salaries was 106 percent in constant dollars. During the same period other state and local employees had an increase of only 58 percent and federal civilian employees only 73 percent.

      We noted further that the average annual salary of school teachers rose from $3,126 in 1950-51 to $5,389 in 1960-61 (or 72.4 percent in a decade). The number of teachers with salaries below $3,500 decreased from 62 per cent in 1952-53 to 9.6 percent in 1960-61, and the number with salaries of $4,500 or more rose from 13 per cent to 63 per cent during the same period. The significant aspect of the matter is that the teachers’ salaries rose sharpest in the states where they have been lowest. Between 1938 and 1954, for instance, teachers’ salaries rose 101 per cent in dollars of constant value in the 12 lowest income states as compared with 28 per cent in the 12 top income states. The difference in salaries in different parts of the country are narrowing perceptibly each year.

      With respect to the so-called building shortage . . . as shown by Mr. Freeman, the “incontestable fact is that over the past decade more than 600,000 classrooms were completed while the increased attendance required the addition of only 400,000. This means that over 200,000 new classrooms were made available to replace old ones and to reduce class sizes. This record is the result of [p. 194] thousands of communities voting bond issues and higher taxes year after year. It may be well to note that the new public schools, built in the postwar period, now house close to 20 million American children compared with schools for 9 million children which, according to their own claims, the Russians built in the same span of time . . . .”

      . . . On the whole, the record has been excellent, and it demonstrates there is no justifiable basis for the present drive for general federal aid for schoolhouse construction. To the extent there was an emergency, that emergency is passed, for there will be only one-half the increase in school attendance over the next ten years. If, therefore, we keep building as many classrooms as we have built over the last ten years (which is probable), we shall build double the number we need for new students.(12)

      Consequently, we finally came to the conclusion that federal aid, unless of mammoth proportions, might slow down, rather than accelerate the construction of needed buildings . . . .

      We agree completely that this matter is non-partisan, which is the reason we believe it proper for us to take a position on the matter. We are frankly gravely concerned over the increasing tendency of the Federal Government to assume more responsibilities with an everlasting indebtedness. In this respect we note your statement that the Federal Government controls most of the revenue in this nation through the federal income tax, and that you, therefore, think that the Federal Government should take on this new burden. In our judgment, the tendency of the Federal Government to more and more control the revenue of the country should be reversed, not increased.(13) [p. 195]

      It goes without saying that we are not attempting to control your vote in this matter, which should be determined by you in the clear exercise of your own conscience. But we have given to you our best advice based on no little study on our part . . . .

/s/ David O. McKay (President) (CN-11/10/62)

      False Educational Ideas. During the past several years many of our institutions of learning have been turning out an increasing number of students schooled in amorality, relativity and atheism—students., without., an understanding of our constitutional republic . . . .

      Some alumni of various schools have expressed concern. One alumnus from Yale wrote a book a few years ago entitled God and Man at Yale. Another group . . . from Harvard University, established the Veritas Foundation and wrote a book, Keynes at Harvard . . Concerned educators have begun to write books. Professor E. Merrill Root authored Collectivism on the Campus and Brain Washing in the High Schools. Dr. Max Rafferty, now state superintendent of schools in California wrote Suffer Little Children and What They Are Doing to Your Children. In the school history text books of recent years, some of the greatest phrases in American history have been dropped. This Week Magazine recently surveyed history books issued before 1920 and those since 1920. Patrick Henry’s famous words, “Give me liberty or give me death,” appeared in twelve out of the fourteen earlier texts, but in only two out of the forty-five recent texts . . . .

      Now these false educational ideas are prevalent in the world, and we have not entirely escaped them among teachers in our own System. There are a few teachers within the Church who while courting apostasy still want to remain members in the Church. For being a member makes them more effective in misleading the saints. But their day of judgment is coming . . . (Ezra Taft Benson, CR-10/64)

1.       “Man’s highest purpose in life is the unfolding of his own personality, the realization, as nearly as possible, of his potential, his emergence. Such achievement presupposes that the educational process will go on through all of adulthood, as well as through childhood. Indeed, school for the child, if it is to have any meaning, is but the preparation for a dynamic, continuing process of education. The test of whether any primary and secondary educational system is meeting the requirements of education is: Does it set the stage for adult learning?” (Leonard Read, Government—An Ideal Concept, p. 121)

2.       “Communism should be taught in the schools but it should be taught with a moral directive. It should not be taught as an alternative economic philosophy but as a system of tyranny. The object of the teaching should be to protect the students against the deceptive subleties of Communist dialectics and to promote within them a greater devotion to freedom. It should be taught as a medical school teaches cancer or tuberculosis—as an aid to its elimination.
      “Teaching that merely compares and contrasts certain features of Capitalist and Communist economics is dangerous indeed. In a free society, the students continuously enjoy the privileges of freedom and it is difficult for them to conceive of a system where these values do not prevail. Isolated aspects of Communist economics assume a glittering luster when illuminated by the radiance of the star of liberty. In the environment of Communist tyranny, they are tawdry and repulsive . . . . At an early age, each student should be taught that the issue is clear cut—freedom versus slavery. They then should be taught the techniques by which Communism seeks to deceive, conquer, and enslave.” (Fred Schwarz, You Can Trust the Communists, p. 176)

3.       “There can be no doubt that the great majority of American teachers are loyal citizens, yet a witness who formerly held a high position in the Communist Party recently testified that the Party has members at work in every kind of educational institution, from nursery schools to the universities.
      “For example, Communist teachers or fellow travelers are subtly persuading children aged 2 to 5 not to believe in religion, and are poisoning their minds with contempt or dislike for other ‘Capitalistic institutions’ . . . .
      “Being good tacticians, the Communists realize that one concealed Party member in education may be worth a dozen in less strategic fields, and some of their more successful propagandists in this area have influenced and are influencing, the ideas of thousands of impressionable young people.” (J. Edgar Hoover, American Magazine, Oct., 1954)

4.       “A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body.” (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, V)

5.       “Jesus, according to St. Luke, remonstrated with his disciples and said: ‘Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.’ Little children may not approach Him, however, through the public schools of New York. Six Justices of the Supreme Court have forbidden it.” (Washington Evening Star, 6/26/62)

6.       “Congress has made no such law, and there was nothing on that subject on which the Supreme Court could properly rule.
      “The Supreme Court ruling against the saying of a simple, non-sectarian prayer in the schools of New York was an act ‘prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)’ and is therefore a flagrant violation of the Constitution.
      “The New York teachers and the public had not violated the Constitution in saying the prayer, but the Supreme Court in ruling that they had no right to do so did flagrantly violate that great document which it is their supreme duty to uphold.” (Howard E. Kershner, Christian Economics, 10/30/62)

7.       “It was impossible that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendency, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice and the State constitutions. “” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:609)

8.       “Power feeds on power. And the Warren Court has equaled, if not exceeded, the executive branch in usurping and centralizing power in the Federal Government. It has handed down two decisions telling schoolchildren when and where to pray. Decisions by the federal Supreme Court have been usurping more and more power for years. They have invaded homes, handicapped police protection, disregarded State sovereignty, interferred with executive authority, and assumed legislative powers . . . .
      “And, in the face of all of this, Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, in a speech before the American Bar Association, August 12, told the nation’s lawyers and judges they should ‘put aside discredited theories of the constitutional law’ and support the Warren Court.” (Senator Harry F. Byrd, U. S. News & World Report, Sept. 9, 1963, p. 51)

9.       “The scholar must be granted the broadest freedom to teach, but the right of academic freedom is balanced by the obligation to be honest and forthright in that which is taught. The student assumes that statements made by a teacher are accurate and factual. By no perversion of reasoning can the right of academic freedom be warped to encompass the right to feed distortions and falsehoods to students. Academic freedom presupposes moral integrity and professional objectivity based on a fair and impartial appraisal of facts.” (J. Edgar Hoover, Communism—The Incredible Swindle, p. 10)

10.       “World Communist leaders have made schools and colleges of the United States a target of infiltration and activity as part of their program to destroy the United States. A Communist educator, because of his submission to a totalitarian organization, cannot maintain the standards of academic freedom and objective scholarship and be loyal to the regulations of local authorities.
      “Communist teachers use their positions in the classroom and in extra-curricular activities to subvert students and other teachers and the public to promote the objectives of communism. Communist teachers exercise as part of an organized conspiracy an influence far more extensive than their numbers would indicate. Communist penetration of the schools is becoming more covert, and Communist teachers are being organized into a secret underground more difficult to detect.” (Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, Subversive Influence in the Educational Process, p. 28)

11.       “The sound answer—the only acceptable answer, one compatible with national security and academic freedom-responsibility—to the question: ‘Permit Communist- conspirators to be teachers?’ is this. Membership in the conspiracy, in and of itself, must be an automatic and absolute bar to homing any position as a teacher. The word ‘conspiracy’ here embraces not only any Communist organization such as the so-called ‘Communist Party’ but the entire Communist movement and its apparatus—under-ground as well as in the open. The word ‘membership’ here involves the overt act of joining the conspiracy and thereby submitting to its discipline and control.” (House Document No. 213, Permit Communist-Conspirators To Be Teachers? p. 5)

12.       “You say: ‘There are persons who lack education,’ and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.” (Frederic Bastiat, The Law, p. 31)

13.       “Federal aid to education is comparable to carrying water in a leaky bucket from your own reservoir to a big central well. What is left of the water is poured into the well, and then those in charge apportion you some water in that same leaky bucket and you bring it home. Besides losing what water is spilled on the two-way trip, you eventually find yourself being told what to do with the water that remains—although it was your own water in the beginning.
      “Education means learning. And the principal lesson one learns about federal aid to education is that you end up with considerably less than you started out with. Wouldn’t it be wiser to keep the water at home in the first place?” (Life Line, quoted in The Freeman, Feb., 1961, p. 45) [p. 196]

Previous pageNext Page