It should surprise no one that many of the early advocates of teachers’ unions were radicals with a radical vision of public education.One of the leading figures in the unionization of educators, Henry R. Linville was co-founder and later President of the American Federation of Teachers.

‘Bringing Democracy Into the Schools’ by Henry R. Linville from Labor Age. Vol. 11 No. 11. December, 1922.

The Battle of the Teachers Unions for Freedom and New Ideas

WHY there should be a union movement among teachers is not clear to most educators.

Teachers don’t need the Union to get jobs. It is easier to get a job if you don’t belong to the Union. You hold your job more securely once you have it, if you cease to be a member, or keep still about belonging. It is safest of all if you never heard of the Union.

There are other reasons why joining a union is improper, if not unprofitable. Unions represent special sections of the great public with interests that seem to clash with what is understood by many to be the welfare of that public.

Even where there is no serious interference with the existence of trade unions, there is strong objection to teachers’ unions.

Calvin Coolidge broke up several teachers’ unions in Massachusetts when he crushed the strike of the policemen. For this act in behalf of the public he won the vice-presidency. The Better American Federation in California has represented the public in an attempt to destroy the teachers’ unions in that state. But teachers’ unions still exist and carry on effective work there.

In the State of Pennsylvania the Commissioner of Education, Thomas E. Finnegan, has rendered a decision which has brought about the disbanding of every teachers’ union in the State. This decision was rendered on the ground that teachers have no right to ally themselves with a special group against the interests of all the people.

The Supreme Court of Illinois decided that the Board of Education of Chicago was right when it forced the Chicago Teachers’ Federation to sever its affiliation with Organized Labor. Here again the interests of the teachers conflicted with those of the public.

Another state where teachers’ unions have engaged in activities that have appeared to the authorities to be against the interests of the public is New York. In that state Senator Clayton R. Lusk endeavored to protect the welfare of the people by having his educational bills passed. One of these laws was designed to destroy the Rand School of Social Science and other radical or progressive educational institutions. The other law was intended to bring about the dismissal of public school teachers whose ideas did not conform to those of the general public. Some of the teachers who have these notions are or have been members of the Teachers Union of New York, known in the Union movement as Local No. 5, American Federation of Teachers.

The Department of Education of the City of New York has on many occasions indicated its opposition to the teachers union movement by dismissing certain members, by charging the whole organization with sedition, and by excluding the Union from holding meetings in school buildings. In all this the Board of Education maintains the position of protecting the public.

“Sedition”!

Thus, in the states of New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois and California, teachers who join unions are guilty of various | offenses against the public, ranging from “insubordination” to “disloyalty”, and “sedition”. They are also likely to be called, and have been called, “undignified” and “unprofessional” for joining with organized labor, and “foolish” for not playing the game of education according to the rules.

Although it is a simple matter for a professional educator to show that teachers’ unions are unnecessary and that teachers who join unions may be classed with other dangerous persons, this leaves untouched the fact that within the ranks of a timid and docile profession there is a steadfast body of a few thousand teachers in this country who do belong to teachers’ unions. These maintain their membership rather openly, also they do their work and give publicity to their successes with a measure of confidence in their undertaking.

To a socially-minded person, there is a ready reason for this. Here are some of the facts which give rise to the teachers’ unions. It is with these things that the unions are dealing, and are striving to make right.

As a social agency education is in a low state. It is ineffective, vocationally, morally, politically and intellectually. It is inflexible and machine-like. There is no need of an intelligent person in the teachers’ position. If he can follow directions and obey orders, if he is moderately literate, if he can maintain a respectful attitude toward men and established institutions, he is a good teacher. Nay, he is a better teacher than an intelligent person would be, because it is possible to predict what he will do.

Education in a Low State

The administration of education is in the hands of Mediocrity. What is needed by the powers-that-control is security for the things and ideas that time have shown are acceptable. What we get is autocracy, dogma, closed minds. If experimentation with new plans is tried, it is generally for the purpose of making old ideas work better. Those in control in the schools are bound to stand guard against a new idealism, for that idealism would menace the continuance of the administration itself and of its own idealism. The new ideal is called “disloyal” or “seditious”, and really is so.

Little need be said to the socially-minded person brought up in the public schools regarding the attitude of children toward the schools. These institutions operate under a compulsory system. This is to protect the state, but it also protects the educational system. The system can do what it pleases to the children, and it does what it pleases rather than put itself out to study the way by which children learn, or develop power and capacities. The community desires to avoid paying heavy taxes—and three score children must be herded under one teacher. The resistance to the demand for saving money on children is not great enough to offset the tendency to skimp on providing funds for education.

Bankruptcy of the Schools

And yet, we must grant the existence of a clumsy wisdom on the part of the reluctant taxpayer who objects to spending endless millions on public education when so little is seen in returns. If he expects children to be trained in the rudiments of knowledge, there is small satisfaction in what is turned out. If he expects good citizens to be produced, they are rare indeed. The schools make no pretense of preparing for adult life. They certainly are not thinking of developing intelligent leadership in the community.

If any city council representing “hardheaded tax-payers” should demand to be shown by the public schools the worth-while work they are doing, or suffer the penalty of a withdrawal of funds, there would be a terrible panic.

The panic would be caused as much by the fact that there would be little to show as by the fact that neither the administrators, nor the professional supervisors and the  teachers, clearly understand what they are about. Enough has been said to indicate the dire confusion of public education. The fact that the public in general cares little about public education and what happens to it might appear to indicate that little can be done.

But the War gave a new urge to education. We learned then how to use the schools for propaganda purposes. We had always been using them for teaching as best we could our views of good and evil, to the importance of material success, and to the greatness of our country and its heroes. The War stirred the schools and all who controlled them directly and indirectly to far greater activity than they ever had shown before in the teaching of favored ideas of life and duty. The propaganda of the schools seemed at times actually to be in charge of such organizations as the National Security League, the Better America Federation and the National Civic Federation. All of these organizations, however, “represented the public” in everything they did!

Lusk

Out of the state of mind created by these propagandists for things-as-they-are came the Lusk Committee of the New York State Legislature. One of the by-products of the work of this committee was the Lusk educational bills. The position of the Lusk committee on the function of the teacher is thus clearly stated:

“The public school teacher is a representative and officer of the state as it now exists. He is employed by the state to teach loyalty to its institutions and obedience to its laws. In entering the public school system the teacher assumes certain obligations and must of necessity surrender some of his intellectual freedom. If he does not approve of the present social system or the structure of our government, he is at liberty to entertain those ideas, but must: surrender his public office…”

The Lusk bills were passed by the Legislature of 1920, but were vetoed by Governor Smith in one of the most enlightened messages of the period. But the bills came before the Legislature of 1921, were passed by both bodies and signed by Governor Miller.

The Lusk law applying to public school teachers has been “enforced” with great severity by the State Department of Education. An oath was required of teachers, although not provided for in the law. The oath, quoting from the law, states:

“That I have not while a citizen of the United States advocated, either by word of mouth, or in writing, a form of government other than the government of the United States and of this state, nor have I advocated, either by word of mouth, or in writing, a change in the form of government of the United States or of this state by force, violence or any unlawful means.”

The principals of the schools, or the district superintendents of rural schools, were asked to give their own opinions of the loyalty and the morality of the teachers under their jurisdiction. The State Department of Education had given notice of its intention to require an oath, but it made no announcement of requiring a report from the principal. This report thus apparently was to be made as a secret report. It operated as such until the Teachers Union made known to the public its existence. General condemnation followed. The picture on this page indicates the power of a single official over the character and the livelihood of a teacher whose chance for successful defense under the law was small. Especially since the law gives the Commissioner of Education the right to dismiss a teacher without a trial or hearing!

A few months after the reports of the principal were filed an “Advisory Council on the Qualifications of Teachers” was appointed by Commissioner of Education, Frank P. Graves. This Council was composed of five persons, at least four of whom were members of the National Civic Federation. The Lusk law contained no provision for this Council. The Council undertook to summon teachers and to question them in secret, but its authority and | methods were challenged by the Teachers Union in a manner so effective that practically every metropolitan newspaper condemned the Advisory Council. The President of the Board of Education of New York advised the teachers that they were not compelled to obey the summons of the Advisory Council.

The movement for the repeal of both Lusk laws has grown strong, especially since Alfred E. Smith will become Governor again on January 1, 1928.

The Teachers’ Union

The American Federation of Teachers was organized in 1916. At the present time it consists of barely 5,000 members in a nation of over 800,000 teachers. Yet, no other teachers’ organization in this country stands pledged to resist reaction and the control of opinion through special or favored propaganda. No other organization has developed a thoroughgoing purpose to strive for the real improvement of public education along lines which are so necessary.

The union teachers admit the possibility of non-union groups of teachers trying to improve the conditions under which the people try. to educate their children. But if non-union teachers do attempt to prepare themselves for this great task, it is certain that they must think of their duty to the real public that serves and produces rather than to the fictitious “public” that is only the mask for those who prey upon all of us.

Labor Age was a left-labor monthly magazine with origins in Socialist Review, journal of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Published by the Labor Publication Society from 1921-1933 aligned with the League for Industrial Democracy of left-wing trade unionists across industries. During 1929-33 the magazine was affiliated with the Conference for Progressive Labor Action (CPLA) led by A. J. Muste. James Maurer, Harry W. Laidler, and Louis Budenz were also writers. The orientation of the magazine was industrial unionism, planning, nationalization, and was illustrated with photos and cartoons. With its stress on worker education, social unionism and rank and file activism, it is one of the essential journals of the radical US labor socialist movement of its time.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/laborage/v11n11-dec-1922-LA-.pdf