CHAPTER XI

LIES FOR CHILDREN

Needless to say, those who run this school machine for the Black Hand

are vigilant to keep modern ideas from the children. They excluded the

“Nation” and the “New Republic” from the high school libraries shortly

after the war; and they have recently refused to rescind this action.

There was a debate on the subject before the Friday Morning Club, a

ladies’ organization, and Mrs. Chester C. Ashley, ex-member of the board

of education, waved before the eyes of the horrified ladies the current

issue of the “Nation,” June 6, 1923: let them inspect the cover and see

what poison was prepared for the minds of their children:

UPTON SINCLAIR DEFENDS THE LAW

HIS LETTER TO THE LAW-BREAKING CHIEF OF POLICE OF LOS ANGELES

The Better America Federation picked out as its text-book of patriotism

for the schools a work called “Vanishing Landmarks” by Leslie Shaw,

ex-secretary of the treasury, a comical old Tory who glorifies the

Constitution as a bulwark of special privilege. “Only Socialists, near

Socialists, and Bolsheviki clamor for democracy,” declares Mr. Shaw; and

he says it is wise for representatives of capital to be permitted to

organize, and the only danger begins when federations of unions are

formed. Incidentally he denounces, as part of the revolutionary program,

the woman’s suffrage amendment! The Better America Federation spent

twenty thousand dollars to put a copy of this book into the hands of

every school teacher; they wanted it adopted as a text-book in all

elementary schools—and this in a state where the women have had the

ballot for twelve years! As one teacher remarked to me, the slogan,

“Votes for Women,” is to be changed to “Lies for Children”!

For the Pilgrim Tri-Centennial the Better America Federation prepared a

beautiful text-book for the schools, full of reactionary propaganda;

this they gave away, and they had a list of eloquent orators, also to be

given away. Then they produced a text-book “Back to the Republic,” by

Harry Atwood, denouncing the initiative and referendum as treason to our

forefathers. The publishers announce this as “The Outstanding Book of

the Age,” and it was distributed to every teacher. Let me quote you a

few of its theses: “Promiscuity, or free-love, is to the domestic world

what democracy is to government.... What gluttony is to the individual,

democracy is to government.... What drunkenness is to the individual,

democracy is to government.... What discord is to music, democracy is to

government.... What insanity is to thought, democracy is to government,”

etc., etc. And understand, this in a _text-book_! Teachers were expected

to compel little children to learn this by heart, and to recite it!

Next came “The Citadel of Freedom,” by Randolph Leigh, a product of

Nicholas Murray Butler’s educational machine. It was written as a

Columbia doctor’s thesis, and is a panegyric of the Constitution, in

which every reactionary influence in our history is glorified, and every

popular influence sneered at. I have read the galley proofs of this

book, as submitted to the school board of Los Angeles, and they bear at

the top the tell-tale label, “TIMES.” Mr. Leigh appeared personally

before the board of education, offering to put a copy of this book into

the hands of every student orator. He was backed by a committee,

including Chandler of the “Times” and Haldeman of the Better America

Federation, who offered a prize of fifteen hundred dollars, or “a de

luxe summer tour of the Mediterranean country,” for the best oration by

any high school student using this book and its references as source

material. A liberal representative on the school board objected, saying

that the students should have an opportunity to hear both sides. Mr.

Leigh said that he had done all the research work. The board member

answered: “Our students are trained to do their own research work.” And

Mrs. Dorsey sat there and did not say one word in defense of her school

system!

Reactionary teachers are appointed for the express purpose of repressing

originality and independence in the students. What are their standards

and ideals was charmingly revealed by one of them who was discussing a

certain pupil with a friend of mine. This pupil was a “leader,” said the

teacher; “I know she’s a good leader—you give her something to do and

she’ll do it beautifully.” The consequences of such training are seen in

the so-called “Ephebian Society,” an organization formed to interest the

high school alumni in public service. The choicest of the high school

graduates are picked out each year, and this is a great honor—while you

are graduating. After that you discover it to be a farce; because the

members of the society meet and the authorities in control forbid them

to take up any vital subject whatever. The Ephebians meet in the rooms

of the board of education, and are permitted to spend their time raising

money for the Travelers’ Aid Society, or superintending the Newsboys’

Christmas Dinner! I talked with this year’s president of the society,

Lee Payne; they will never get him again, he said.

This same young man told me of his experiences when he was selected to

deliver the valedictory of his class. He asked to have a liberal teacher

as his guide, but was compelled to have a reactionary teacher. She

assigned to him a commonplace theme, and he rejected it, and wrote on

the subject of “Labor’s Right to a Share in Industry.” When he brought

in his address, the teacher refused to let him deliver it; it was “too

Bolsheviki,” she said, and told him that when he went into a garden he

must see the beautiful red roses, and not the thorns. She practically

rewrote the address for the student, and he took it off and wrote it

again. The controversy continued up to a day or two before commencement,

when the boy finally had to deliver an address which did not represent

his own convictions.

I have mentioned favoritism among the principals and teachers; needless

to say, also, that children who come from poor homes, and especially the

children of foreigners, are slighted. A boy came to see me, Clarence

Alpert by name, a sensitive lad, conscientious and idealistic; with

tears in his eyes he told me how he had been turned out of Lincoln High

School by the principal, Miss Andrus. I was familiar with the name of

this lady. In an address to the school assembly she had referred to

“that notorious disloyalist and traitor, Upton Sinclair.” I wrote a

letter to the lady in which I mentioned my support of the war—you may

find it in “The Brass Check,” pages 205-7. I served notice upon her that

she would make a retraction of her statements or face a libel suit, and

she preferred the former alternative.

The boy whom she had now expelled had refused to salute the flag. He was

a Socialist, and believed that the flag stood for capitalism. Miss

Andrus sent for him, and stormed at him; he was a Russian Jew, and she

knew his kind from her experience at Hull House. They were dirty, rotten

scoundrels; they were people with no ideals and no country; they were

cheap material, who could not be made into good citizens and were not

entitled to an education. Miss Andrus tried her best to get young Alpert

to name some of the teachers who had encouraged him in his ideas; the

boy was threatened with immediate dismissal if he refused to name them,

but in spite of the fact that he had “no ideals,” he stood firm! Finally

he was given three days in which to make up his mind and salute the

flag.

Then—so the boy explained to me—one of his teachers labored with him,

explaining to him that he was under a misapprehension about the flag. To

be sure it was used by capitalism at the present time, but that was only

because it had been stolen; in reality the flag stood for the highest

ideals ever conceived by mankind, and it was our business to preserve it

for those ideals, and to take it away from the exploiters and rascals.

Alpert agreed to that, and went back to Miss Andrus and told her that he

had realized his mistake, and that he was now ready to salute the flag

as she required. But she declared that he was a hypocrite and a coward,

and should not stay in the school. I went to a friend of mine, a wealthy

man who happens to be a liberal. He called up a member of the school

board, who went to see Miss Andrus; so in two or three days the boy was

restored to school, from which he has since been graduated.

The schools are starting in this fall with what they call “codified

patriotism”; a whole outfit of flummery contrived by the American Legion

and the professional hundred percenters. The flag must be exactly at the

top of the staff, and you must raise it briskly, and lower it slowly and

reverently; you must raise your hat with your right hand, and women must

put their right hand over the heart. The legislature has passed a bill,

requiring that American history shall be taught “from the American

viewpoint”; no longer is it to be taught from the viewpoint of truth!

The children are to learn that Alexander Hamilton was a good American,

but the soft pedal will be put on Thomas Jefferson. They will not be

taught that the Mexican War was a disgraceful foray of greed, and that

Abraham Lincoln denounced it in Congress. Instead, they will be taught

all about the “Red” menace—with the columns of the “Times” for source

material. At last commencement time at least six addresses by students,

dealing with this subject, were featured by the “Times” in its radio

service, which is devoutly followed by hundreds of thousands of

wage-slaves in our community. All these addresses, of course, had been

carefully censored; one or two of them were “repeated by request,” and

the announcement was made that you could have a printed copy of them by

application to the “Times.”

The Goslings: A Study of the American Schools · 第 11 / 55 章