QUESTION OF THE CHARITY CONNECTION OF SCHOOLS
INSTITUTIONS SOMETIMES REGARDED AS EDUCATIONAL: SOMETIMES AS CHARITABLE
In considering the relation of the state to its schools for the deaf,
the question is raised as to the way they are regarded by the state, and
in what scheme of classification they have been assigned. We find that
with many of the states the institutions are held to be charitable, and
the further question is presented as to whether this is proper and just.
In times past this has been the usual classification, but of late years
an increasing number of states have made a change and now regard the
institutions as merely educational. It would be difficult to say with
precision to what scheme of classification the schools in the several
states should be ascribed; and in quite a number the lines shade off one
into the other. From what has been said in the preceding chapters and
also from certain legislative classification, it would seem that the
schools in the following states are regarded largely, if not entirely,
as educational: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia. In
about half of the states, however, the institutions continue to be
regarded as charitable to a greater or less extent from their connection
with charity boards or from some other classification. Some are
recognized as educational, but at the same time not held altogether free
from the charitable touch.[507]
CHARITY IN CONNECTION WITH SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF
Considerable difficulty at the outset rests with the word charity. In
its best sense, it is the finest word in our language, and from its
springs flow all benevolence, material and spiritual: when looked upon
scientifically much of the repugnance and prejudice felt toward it is
lost, and it becomes the touchstone for the remedy of human ills. In
one sense, education is most surely and deeply charitable, whether or
not it is held to be but the equipment of the state for its
self-preservation. This has long been accepted, and so unanimously have
the states undertaken the instruction of their children that its very
discussion is now unknown.
But popularly conceived, charity is still something doled out and
granted by the giver as a matter of grace, and to the recipient are
carried associations that do not comport with independence and manliness
of character. Besides, education has long ceased to be thought of as
charitable, and only such institutions as are for the education of the
deaf and blind are left with the undesirable signification of the word.
In addition, the state maintains institutions for certain of its
classes, as the insane, the feeble-minded and the infirm, which as a
rule are in no sense educational from our standpoint, and other
institutions of a reformatory, corrective or punitive character, and
with them have to be classed the institutions for the deaf, all being
known as the state's "charitable institutions," or "state institutions;"
while the public rarely makes discrimination, or notes the distinctions
involved.
The chief trouble, then, in classifying the schools for the deaf as
charitable is this connection of the word charity, and the grouping of
the deaf with certain other parts of the state's population which other
children do not have to share. The deaf are thus differentiated from
children who have no defect of sense, and the education of the one is
thus education, and of the other charity. Schools in which the deaf are
educated would thus seem not to be given their just status. They are
misrepresented by being aligned, on the one hand, with people of
defective or diseased minds, and on the other, with the state's
delinquent and criminal classes. The deaf thus become wards of the
state, and constitute one of its dependent classes. They are "inmates"
of an "eleemosynary" institution, and the fact that it is all for
education is lost sight of.[508]
But, we are told, the treatment of deaf children should rest upon an
altogether different basis, and they should, even in appearance, receive
an education as a right and as nothing else. Education as the paramount
privilege of American children is so deeply established in American
institutions and character that it would seem to be a principle to be
applied to all the children of the state. Admission into schools for
the deaf has become more and more like that in the regular schools.[509]
The schools are open, as a general rule, only to those able and fitted
to be educated, and the mentally and physically disqualified are often
rejected. When a child has completed the prescribed number of years of
attendance, he can be provided for no longer, and at vacation time in
nearly all schools he must depart. The schools, as we are to see, have
become free to all, while compulsory education laws have also been made
to apply. Hence if schools for the deaf are educational, they can be
regarded as charitable only to the extent that all schools are so
considered; they should not be looked upon in a different light, and the
public should be as fully alive to their claims.[510]
ARGUMENTS FOR THE CONNECTION WITH THE BOARDS OF CHARITIES
Hitherto we have been discussing the theory in regard to the proper
place in which the institutions are to be held, but we are now to see
what are the actual grounds upon which the connection with the state
board of charities is to be justified. Much might be said of the
practical workings of schools in connection with such boards, and it is
claimed that the schools get the substance at least in the way of
beneficial treatment. By one superintendent it has been stated thus: "In
theory it is all wrong, but in practice it could not be improved upon."
Where the boards are composed of capable, broad-minded, sympathetic men,
the needs of the schools can be satisfactorily looked into, and their
experience with other institutions, where the problems are akin in the
way of housing a large number of people, can be utilized to great
advantage, especially in connection with sanitary, hospital and other
arrangements.[511] Such boards may secure supplies on more favorable
terms, may systematize all the institutions, may properly apportion the
appropriations to be asked of the legislature, may exercise a wider
supervision, and may correlate all the means of the state for the
maintenance of certain classes of its population. These boards may also
have peculiar opportunities for coming across poor and neglected
children and of getting them in the schools. Lastly, and most important
of all, even though the institutions are educational, there is much also
to be considered besides education alone, for a home and board are
furnished during the school year, and usually transportation and
clothing as well to those in need of them.[512]
By the boards of charity themselves the institutions are not necessarily
regarded as charitable.[513] Many of them hold the institutions to be
educational, despite the charity connection, and few are unwilling to
give recognition to their educational features. In none is there a
desire to injure or stigmatize the deaf. The aim is to consider the
matter in its practical bearings, and the question is held to be largely
one of classification and administration. With all the fact weighs that
board, lodging, etc., are given entirely free.[514] The clearest and
fullest presentation of the point of view of the charity boards is given
in the following extract from a letter by one board:[515]
The institutions are doubtless both educational and charitable, or
at least ought to be, using these words in their ordinary
application. It is not a question of merit or demerit on the part of
the unfortunates or their families. It is not a question whether
they are entitled to an education as much as normal children. So far
as there is any real issue, it is one of classification for purposes
of administration. The question seems to be whether the institutions
that care for the above mentioned classes can best be administered
under the department of charities that has charge of public
institutions, or the department of education that usually has to do
with institutions that furnish education only in the limited
technical sense, where pupils attend school a few hours a day, but
are not boarded at the institutions. Because an institution is an
educational institution, I think it may be none the less a
charitable institution. For example, it would hardly be denied that
an orphan asylum is a charitable institution; yet an orphan asylum
that was not an educational institution would be deplorable. In the
state institutions for the deaf and the blind, throughout the
country, the educational side is very properly emphasized.... These
inmates would properly be classed as public dependents as they
usually have been.... The whole trouble seems to arise from a
feeling of aversion to the word "charity", and probably the word has
been degraded.... To refer to the institutions under consideration
as "educational institutions", without any qualification, would not
be in the interest of clearness of thought, and would either lead to
confusion or to some qualifying phrases, because the deaf and the
blind are certainly different enough from the normal child to be
considered, for many purposes, in a separate class, and the
institutions which educate and support them, it would seem to me,
need some term by which they can be designated, which would
distinguish them from the educational institutions designed for the
normal child.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE CONNECTION
Yet over against all the arguments for the connection with the boards of
charities the voice of the educators of the deaf is in unison that the
connection of the schools be completely severed with whatever is of
charitable signification.[516] This feeling cannot all be ascribed to
the prejudice regarding the words employed. In the dissolving of the
charity connection an issue not to be disregarded is the moral effect on
the public. A right conception is to be obtained respecting the
education of the deaf, and while in the schools and in after life they
are entitled to the recognition of the true character of this education
and of their status in the community. If the deaf after they have left
the schools have shown that they are capable of wrestling unaided with
the difficulties of life, and are really not objects of charity at all,
then they should be spared all discriminating associations. Indeed, as
our new view of charity is the making of men capable of standing alone,
and economic units of gain in society, so the deaf should not be
considered as a distinct or dependent class, when by the use of certain
expressions this is done; and we should hold that if their work in the
world has justified them, then no barriers should be raised which their
fellows in society do not have to meet, and that their education should
be offered to them without discrimination or stigma.
The benefits derived from the relation with the board of charities may
be more than offset by the connection with educational agencies, where
the school is recognized as part of the state's educational system. In
respect to the providing of maintenance for the pupils, this can be
regarded as but an incidence, when any other plan would be
impracticable. The main, overshadowing purpose in the work of the
institutions is education, and what are supplied beyond are only to
render this the more effective. But after all this is said, the
opponents of the charity connection insist that the burden of proof is
upon those who advocate the connection. Why, they ask, should the deaf
children of the state who are as capable of being educated as others be
considered objects of the state's charity? Why any more than other
children?
The feeling in the matter may be indicated by two declarations on the
subject, one by the educators of the deaf, and the other by the deaf
themselves. The first is in the form of a resolution adopted by the
Convention of American Instructors:[517]
_Resolved_, that the deaf youth of our land unquestionably deserve,
and are lawfully entitled to, the same educational care and aid as
their more fortunate brothers and sisters; and that this education,
the constitutional duty of the state, should be accorded them as a
matter of right, not of charity, standing in the law, as it is in
fact, a part of the common school system.
The second is a resolution adopted by the National Association of the
Deaf:[518]
_Whereas_, the privilege of an education is the birthright of every
American child ...; and
_Whereas_, the deaf child ... has the same inalienable right to the
same education as his more fortunate hearing brother; and
_Whereas_, ... the [modern] movement ... [is] giving schools for the
deaf their proper place as part of the public school system of the
country; and
_Whereas_, ... eighty-one per cent [of the deaf are] gainfully
employed of those who have had schooling, thus indicating the value
of education ...; therefore be it
_Resolved_, ... that education of the deaf on the part of the state
is simply fulfillment of its duty as a matter of right and justice,
not sympathetic charity and benevolence to the deaf; ... that
schools for the deaf should not be known and regarded, nor
classified, as benevolent or charitable institutions, ... [but] as
strictly educational institutions, a part of the common school
system ... [and not with such associations as] tend to foster a
spirit of dependence in the pupils and mark them as the objects of
charity of the state....
CONCLUSIONS IN RESPECT TO THE CHARITY CONNECTION OF SCHOOLS FOR THE DEAF
Certain inferences or conclusions may now be reached regarding our
question as to whether schools for the deaf may be regarded and
classified as charitable.
1. In America the schools have been regarded both as educational and
charitable, but there is an increasing tendency to consider them as
purely educational. At present about half of the states hold them
entirely or in the main as educational.
2. The state boards or public authorities that regard the schools as
charitable are in no wise prompted by any desire to discriminate against
the deaf, or to deny that they are less capable or worthy of education
than others. The question is held to be mainly one of administration.
3. Inasmuch as board and a home are provided in the institutions, and in
some cases clothing and transportation also, the charitable element is
present, and in point of fact the schools must be regarded _ad hoc_ as
charitable.
4. This charitable feature, however, plays a slight and almost
negligible part in the work of the schools, being in fact only
incidental, and the educational aims take precedence over all else.
5. Because of the associations involved in the charity connection, which
are not shared in by the regular schools, and because of the little to
suggest charity in the after lives of the deaf, the schools for the
deaf have reason to protest against the connection. As education is the
one purpose of the schools, and as their operations are conducted solely
to this end, they are entitled to an educational classification.
6. That the schools for the deaf should thus be held and treated, to the
farthest possible extent, as purely educational, is demanded both by
justice and by the regard for the proper effect on the deaf and on the
public.
FOOTNOTES:
[507] Thus, in addition to the states named above, in the constitutions
of Michigan, Oklahoma and Virginia the institutions are designated
educational. In certain states also, as we have seen, the state
superintendent of public instruction is _ex-officio_ member of the
governing board, and in a few other states report is made to the
department of education. In New York and North Carolina the schools are
visited by this department. In a number also an educational
classification is found in some of the statutory references or captions.
See in particular on this subject, _Annals_, xlviii., 1903, p. 348;
lviii., 1913, p. 327.
[508] The earlier conception of the schools is in part illustrated by
the name "asylum" given. British schools were often called asylums or
hospitals, and were largely founded and supported by charity. Likewise
in America the term "asylum" was frequently given to the schools when
first started. But the name has now been generally discarded, and in but
one state is the title retained, New Mexico. "School" is now mostly
used, while in a few "institution" is employed. See _Annals_, _loc.
cit._ See also Report of Board of Penal, Pauper and Charitable
Institutions of Michigan, 1878, p. 41.
[509] In Massachusetts appropriations were once "for beneficiaries in
asylums for the deaf and dumb", but now they are "for the education of
deaf pupils in schools designated by law".
[510] In a legal sense, nearly all educational institutions can be
called charitable, especially if they are private affairs, and gifts for
such purposes are held in the law as for charitable purposes. See 4
Wheaton, 518; 2 How. (U. S.), 227; 14 How., 277; 44 Mo., 570; 25 O. St.,
229. Not many cases have arisen in regard to the status of institutions
for the deaf. In 1900 the Columbia Institution was held in the opinion
of the Attorney-General to be under the department of charities, but
Congress the next year declared it to be educational. See _Annals_,
xlvi., 1901, p. 345. In Colorado an opinion was rendered that the school
was educational alone, and not subject to the civil service rules, and
this was later ratified in the constitution and by the legislature. Some
of the courts have been inclined to view the institutions as charitable.
In Nebraska the school for the deaf was at first considered an asylum
and in the same class with almshouses, rather than educational. 6 Neb.,
286. See also 43 Neb., 184. In New York the provision of the law
allowing the State Board of Charities to inspect the Institution for the
Blind was attacked, and it was held that, though the institution was
partly educational and was visited by the department of education, yet
the word charity was to be taken in its usual meaning, and if the
institution as a private body educated, clothed and maintained indigent
pupils, it was charitable. 154 New York, 14 (1897).
[511] See Report of Illinois Board of Charities, 1872, pp. 13ff., 32ff.
[512] In a few cases a home during vacation is afforded to the indigent
or unprotected.
[513] In order to discover how these institutions are regarded by the
departments of charities, letters of inquiry were sent by the writer to
all the states of the Union. Replies were received in 45 out of 49
cases, coming from boards of charities, boards of control, or in their
absence from commissioners of education or other state officials,--and
in a few cases from individuals or societies to whom the communication
was turned over. In the answers, the institutions were called charitable
by 6, educational by 13, both charitable and educational by 12, while by
14 the question was not specifically answered. In some instances, these
replies were only private opinions, but they represent none the less the
views of those most in touch with the charity activities of the states.
In a few cases the replies were at variance with what has been accepted
regarding certain states. It was also found that boards of control do
not necessarily consider the institutions as charitable.
[514] By one board, while such schools are admitted to be partly
educational, they are held "charitable in that they afford a home for
certain defective persons during the time of their dependence". By one
board the pupils are called "charity patients".
[515] The District of Columbia.
[516] Many of the schools in their reports take pains to disclaim any
but a strictly educational character. Of the Michigan school it is
expressly stated that it is "not an asylum, reformatory or hospital"; of
the Colorado that it is "not an 'asylum' or 'home' for the afflicted; it
is not a hospital for the care and treatment of the eyes and ears; and
it is not a place for the detention and care of imbeciles"; of the
Illinois that it is "not a reformatory, poor house, hospital or asylum";
of the Indiana that it is "not an asylum, place of refuge, reform
school, almshouse, children's home or hospital"; of the Georgia that it
is "in no sense an asylum ... or charitable institution"; and of the
Mississippi that it is "in no sense an asylum ... a home ... [nor a
place] for medical treatment." See also Report of Commissioner of Public
Lands and Buildings of Nebraska, 1896, p. 356; Education Department of
New York, 1912, p. 81.
[517] Proceedings, xvii., 1905, p. 168. See also _ibid._, xv., 1898, p.
216; _Annals_, lv., 1910, p. 133. The schools are also said to be
"maintained solely for the instruction of a large and interesting class
of children who, by reason of a physical infirmity, the loss of hearing,
are denied instruction in the public schools". Dr. A. L. E. Crouter,
Proceedings of National Conference of Charities and Corrections, 1906,
p. 249. See also Report of Kentucky School, 1909, p. 17.
[518] Proceedings, viii., 1907, p. 40. See also _ibid._, v., 1896, p.
47.