¹ Kirdendall, Richard S., “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Service Intellectual,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 49 (Dec. 1962): 456–71; see also John McDiarmid, “The Mobilization of Social Scientists,” in Civil Service in Wartime, ed. Leonard D. White (Chicago, Ill., 1945), 73-80.Google Scholar

² On the notion of “applied” social science as seen by those who practiced it, see John H. Provinse, “Anthropology in Program Planning,” Applied Anthropology 3 (Dec. 1943): 1–5; Alexander H. Leighton, “ ‘Applied’ Research and ‘Pure’ Research,” American Anthropologist 48 (Oct.-Dec. 1946): 667-68; and Homer G. Barnett, Anthropology in Administration (Evanston, Ill., 1956). For a striking but not atypical view of the power of social science to make American society more socially efficient, see Eliot D. Chappie, “Anthropological Engineering: Its Use to Administrators,” Applied Anthropology 2 (Jan.-Mar. 1943): 23-32.Google Scholar

³ Taylor, Theodore, The Bureau of Indian Affairs (Boulder, Colo., 1984), 35, tracing the growth of the agency: 108 employees in 1852; 1,725 in 1888; 6,000 in 1911; 5,000 in 1933; 12,000 in 1934; and from 11,000 to 16,000 since 1934. Clyde Kluckhohn and Robert Hackenberg, “Social Science Principles and the Indian Reorganization Act,” in Indian Affairs and the Indian Reorganization Act: The Twenty-Year Record, ed. William H. Kelly (Tucson, Ariz., 1954), 29. On the use of anthropologists, see David L. Marden, “Anthropologists and Federal Indian Policy Prior to 1940,” Indian Historian 5 (Winter 1972): 19-26; Graham D. Taylor, “Anthropologists, Reformers, and the Indian New Deal,” Prologue 7 (Fall 1975): 151-62; Lawrence C. Kelly, “Anthropology and Anthropologists in the Indian New Deal,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16 (Jan. 1980): 6-24; and D'Arcy McNickle, “Anthropology and the Indian Reorganization Act,” in The Uses of Anthropology, ed. Walter Goldschmidt (Washington, D.C., 1979), 51-60.Google Scholar

⁴ Carson Ryan, W. Jr., and Brandt, Rose K., “Indian Education Today,” Progressive Education 9 (Feb. 1932): 83. Included in this issue are other articles on the subject as well as numerous photographs of teachers and students in schools on reservations.Google Scholar

⁵ Kluckhohn and Hackenberg, “Social Science Principles,” 29.Google Scholar

⁶ Redfield, Robert, Linton, Ralph, and Herskovits, Melville J., “Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation,” American Anthropologist 38 (Jan.-Mar. 1936): 149–52, quote on 149; see also George W. Stocking, Jr., “Ideas and Institutions in American Anthropology: Toward a History of the Interwar Period,” in Selected Papers from the American Anthropologists, 1921–1945, ed. Stocking (Washington, D.C., 1976), 1-49. Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr., offers an illuminating discussion of the “scientific image” of the Indian in The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present (New York, 1978).Google Scholar

⁷ Kluckhohn, Clyde, “Covert Culture and Administrative Problems,” American Anthropologist 45 (Apr.-June 1943): 213–27; the quotation is from Kluckhohn and Hackenberg, “Social Science Principles,” 29; for a skeptical reaction to these developments in the 1930s, see Melville J. Herskovits, “Applied Anthropology and the American Anthropologists,” Science, 6 (March 1936): 215-22.Google Scholar

⁸ Collier, John, “United States Indian Administration as a Laboratory of Ethnic Relations,” Social Research 12 (Sept. 1945): 265–303. On the act itself, see Graham D. Taylor, The New Deal and American Indian Tribalism: The Administration of the Indian Reorganization Act, 1934–45 (Lincoln, Neb., 1980). For background on the career and philosophy of Collier, see Stephen J. Kunitz, “The Social Philosophy of John Collier,” Ethnohistory 18 (Summer 1971): 213-29; Kenneth R. Philp, John Collier's Crusade for Indian Reform, 1920–1954 (Tucson, Ariz., 1977); Lawrence C. Kelly, The Assault on Assimilation: John Collier and the Origins of Indian Policy Reform (Albuquerque, N.M., 1983); and Frederick J. Stefon, “The Indian's Zarathustra: An Investigation into the Philosophical Roots of John Collier's Indian New Deal Educational and Administrative Policies,” Parts I and II, Journal of Ethnic Studies 11 (Fall 1983): 1-28; and 11 (Winter 1984): 28-45.Google Scholar

⁹ For a discussion of the broader context of this duality in American thought, see Walter Feinberg, Reason and Rhetoric: The Intellectual Foundations of Twentieth-Century Liberal Educational Policy (New York, 1975). Philp, Kenneth R., “Termination: A Legacy of the Indian New Deal,” Western Historical Quarterly 14 (Apr. 1983): 165-80; see also Lawrence C. Kelly, “The Indian Reorganization Act: The Dream and the Reality,” Pacific Historical Review 44 (Aug. 1975): 291-312.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council, Tuba City, Arizona, 30 Oct. 1933, U.S. Department of the Interior Library, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar

¹¹ Parman, Donald L., The Navajos and the New Deal (New Haven, 1976), 1930 study of overgrazing on 22; see also Lawrence C. Kelly, The Navajo Indians and Federal Indian Policy, 1900–1935 (Tucson, Ariz., 1968); and Graham D. Taylor, The New Deal and American Indian Tribalism. Google Scholar

¹² Parman, , The Navajos and the New Deal attitudes toward sheep and goats on 65-67; according to Katherine Jensen (“Teachers and Progressives: The Navajo Day-School Experiment, 1935–1945,” Arizona and the West 25 [Spring 1983]: 60), the resentment against stock reduction remained so strong in the tribe that even decades later “Navajos would refer to the thin mangy horses which roamed their land as ‘john colliers'.”Google Scholar

¹³ Scudder Mekeel, H., “Social Science and Reservation Programs,” Indians at Work 4, No. 7 (1936): 24. Mekeel's field work was on the Pine Ridge Reservation of the Sioux Indians in South Dakota. On the Applied Anthropology Unit, see Kelly, “Anthropology and Anthropologists in the Indian New Deal”; Graham D. Taylor, “Anthropologists, Reformers, and the Indian New Deal”; McNickle, “Anthropology and the Indian Reorganization Act”; and Philleo Nash, “Applied Anthropology and the Concept of ‘Guided Acculturation',” in Anthropology and the American Indian (San Francisco, 1973), 23-31. On anthropologists and the conservation program, see Lawrence C. Kelly, “Anthropology in the Soil Conservation Service,” Agricultural History 59 (Apr. 1985): 136-47.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Kimball, Solon T., The Range Resource and Its Relation to the Subsistence Economy of the Navajo People (Window Rock, Ariz., 1938), U.S. Department of the Interior Library; Kimball, Solon T. and Provinse, John H., “Navajo Social Organization in Land Use Planning,” Applied Anthropology 1 (July-Aug.-Sept. 1942): 18-25; John H. Provinse, “Cultural Factors in Land Use Planning,” in The Changing Indian, ed. Oliver LaFarge (Norman, Okla., 1942), 55-71; Solon T. Kimball, “Land Use Management: The Navajo Reservation,” in The Uses of Anthropology, ed. Goldschmidt, 61-78.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Kimball and Provinse, “Navajo Social Organization and Land Use Planning.” For classic statements of functionalist theory applied to colonial administration, see Bronislaw Malinowski, “Practical Anthropology,” in Applied Anthropology: Readings in the Uses of the Science of Man, ed. James A. Clifton (Boston, 1970), 12–25; and A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, “On the Concept of Function in the Social Sciences,” American Anthropologist 37 (July-Sept. 1935): 396; see also Stocking, “Ideas and Institutions in American Anthropology,” for a discussion of how these British functionalists influenced the training of anthropologists in the United States during the interwar years. On the relation of functionalism to the development of American social science, see Cynthia E. Russett, The Concept of Equilibrium in American Social Thought (New Haven, Conn., 1966); and David Goddard, “Anthropology: The Limits of Functionalism,” in Ideology in Social Sciences: Readings in Critical Social Theory, ed. Robin Blackburn (New York, 1972), 61-75.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Institute for Governmental Research, The Problem of Indian Administration [Lewis Meriam, Technical Director] (Baltimore, 1928), esp. 11-14, 32-37, 346-429; see also “Lewis Meriam, Expertise and Indian Reform” in Donald T. Critchlow, The Brookings Institution, 1916–1952: Expertise and the Public Interest in a Democratic Society (Dekalb, Ill., 1985), 82-104. Frederick E. Hoxie interprets the background of earlier policies and reform proposals on Indian education in A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920 (Lincoln, Neb., 1984), 189-210; see also Margaret Szasz, Education and the American Indian: The Road to Self-Determination, 1928–1973 (Albuquerque, N.M., 1974), 8-36.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Johnston, Denis F., “Trends in Navajo Population and Education, 1870–1955,” in Aberle, David F., The Peyote Religion among the Navajo, 2d ed. (Chicago, 1966), Table 43 on 362 (enrollments do not include 295 pupils under 6 or over 18 years of age). According to Johnston's figures, which take into account rates of natural increase to revise the federally reported totals, there were 13,731 Navajos in this age group in 1930, out of a total of 38,787 Navajos. Hildegard Thompson, The Navajo's Long Walk for Education: A History of Navajo Education (Tsaile, Ariz., 1975), number of college degrees on 36; see also Willard W. Beatty, “History of Navajo Education,” America Indigena 21 (Jan. 1961): 7-31. Report of the Secretary of the Interior 1934, p. 87, reel 31, #546, John Collier Papers, Yale University.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Collier, John, “New Policies in Indian Education,” New Mexico Quarterly 3 (Nov. 1933): 202–6; Collier, “Indians at Work,” Survey Graphic 23 (June 1934): 261-65, 297, 299-302, quote on 263; Ryan quote from Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council, Tuba City, Arizona, 31 Oct. 1933, U.S. Department of the Interior Library.Google Scholar

¹⁹ On the progressive education movement, see Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876–1957 (New York, 1961); Patricia Albjerg Graham, Progressive Education from Arcady to Academe: A History of the Progressive Education Association, 1919–1955 (New York, 1967); C. A. Bowers, The Progressive Educator and the Depression: The Radical Years (New York, 1969); and Ronald K. Goodenow, “The Progressive Educator, Race and Ethnicity in the Depression Years: An Overview,” History of Education Quarterly 15 (Winter 1975): 365-94.Google Scholar

²⁰ Collier, , “New Policies in Indian Education”; Bureau, Indian, “Navajo Policies and Program,” 1 May 1935, U.S. Department of the Interior Library [document signed by John Collier]; Allan Hulsizer, “Developing Community Living among the Indians,” in The Community School, ed. Samuel Everett (New York, 1938), 217-64; Willard W. Beatty, “Uncle Sam Develops a New Kind of Rural School,” Elementary School Journal 41 (Nov. 1940): 185-94. For recent literature on education and the Indian New Deal, see Szasz, Education and the American Indian, 50-59; Katherine Iverson, “Progressive Education for Native Americans: Washington Ideology and Navajo Reservation Implementation,” Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science 3 (Winter 1978): 231-55; Jensen, “Teachers and Progressives”; Parman, The Navajos and the New Deal, 193-216; and Brian W. Dippie, The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. Indian Policy (Middletown, Conn., 1982), 322-32.Google Scholar

²¹ Collier, John, “Mexico: A Challenge,” Progressive Education 9 (Feb. 1932): 95–98; Oliver LaFarge, “An Experimental School for Indians,” Progressive Education 9 (Feb. 1932): 87-94; Moíses Saénz, “The School and Culture,” Progressive Education 9 (Feb. 1932): 99-111; John Collier, “Mexico's Rural Schools and Our Indian Schools,” Indians at Work 1 (1 Dec. 1933): 10-15; and Beatty, “Uncle Sam Develops a New Kind of Rural School.” On the ideology and implementation of the Mexican rural schools, see Fernando Solana, Raúl Cardiel Reyes, and Raúl Bola$nTos, Historia de la Educación Pública en México (Mexico City, 1982), 1: 202-209.Google Scholar

²² On friction between administrators and anthropologists, see Lawrence Kelly, “Anthropology and Anthropologists in the Indian New Deal,” 11-12. Beatty, “Uncle Sam Develops a New Kind of Rural School,” quote on 194.Google Scholar

²³ An example of white opposition is Flora W. Seymour, “The Pedagogues Hunt Indians,” American Mercury 29 (Aug. 1933): 437–45; Davida Woerner emphasizes such opposition in “Education among the Navajo: An Historical Study” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1941).Google Scholar

²⁴ Morgan quote in Virginia Hoffman and Broderick H. Johnson, Navajo Biographies (Chinle, Ariz., 1970), 233; see also Donald L. Parman, “J. C. Morgan: Navajo Apostle of Assimilation,” Prologue 4 (Summer 1972): 83-98. On the proposal to use Navajo teachers, see Collier's speech to the tribal council, Navajo Tribal Council Minutes, 61-65, Fort Wingate, N.M., 7-8 July 1933, U.S. Department of the Interior Library; see also letter from Orpha McPherson (a Caucasian teacher) in Thompson, The Navajo's Long Walk for Education, 64-68.Google Scholar

²⁵ Morgan quote from Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council, Keams Canyon, Arizona, 11 July 1934, U.S. Department of the Interior Library. On the influence of pan-Indian organizations in resisting federal policy, see Philp, “Termination: A Legacy of the New Deal,” 170-72; and Parman, “J. C. Morgan.” See also Laurence M. Hauptman, “The American Indian Federation and the Indian New Deal: A Reinterpretation,” Pacific Historical Review 52 (Nov. 1983): 378-402.Google Scholar

²⁶ On Morgan's constituency-building strategy, see Parman, The Navajos and the New Deal, 71-77.Google Scholar

²⁷ Chee Dodge and J. C. Morgan quotations from Minutes of the Navajo Tribal Council, Keams Canyon, Arizona, 12 July 1934, U.S. Department of the Interior Library.Google Scholar

²⁸ “Teachers Training, Indian Service Schools,” 1936, Entry 121, General Services, Navajos 806, Record Group 75, National Archives, Washington, D.C.; Louvica Wyman, “Social Studies Course for Indian Schools,” 1936, ibid.; John Collier, “Circular Letter-Summer Session: Special Opportunities for Summer Study,” 1936, ibid., Navajos 810; William Zimmerman, Jr., “Memorandum to the Secretary,” 12 July 1936, ibid., Navajos 806. Thompson, The Navajo's Long Walk for Education, quote about “no fixed course of study” on 56. See also Willard W. Beatty, “Fitting Education to Life,” in Education for Action: Selected Articles from Indian Education, 1936–43, ed. Beatty et al. (Chilocco, Okla., 1944), 101-4.Google Scholar

²⁹ Letter from John Collier to E. R. Fryer, 21 May 1936, regarding Fryer's circular letter on the summer school at Wingate, Reel 13, Collier Papers.Google Scholar

³⁰ Werner, Ruth E., Novice in Navajoland (Scottsdale, Ariz., 1972), 43; Jenkins quoted in Helen M. Bannan, “Newcomers to Navajoland: Transculturation in the Memoirs of Anglo Women, 1900–1945,” New Mexico Historical Review 59 (Apr. 1984): 175.Google Scholar

³¹ Beatty, , “History of Navajo Education,” 13.Google Scholar

³² Lawhead, Helen E., “Teaching Navajo Children to Read,” Progressive Education 9 (Feb. 1932): 135; see also Nancy Irene Heger, “Before Books in an Indian School,” ibid., 138-43. For an account that looks at teachers and Indian education nationally during this period, see Szasz, Education and the American Indian, 60-80.Google Scholar

³³ Saénz, , “The School and Culture,” 110. Enrollment figures calculated from table 43 in Johnston, “Trends in Navajo Population and Education,” 362; the number of children in school increased from 5260 to 5756 over this decade, but the total number of children in the age group increased from 13,731 to 18,162 according to Johnston's figures, a veritable baby boom that outstripped the efforts to build schools. It was not until the 1950s that schooling expanded to nearly universal rates of attendance for Navajo children, and then it was driven by policies distinctly different from those of the New Deal and war years; see Thompson, The Navajo's Long Walk for Education. For a quantitative history of the growth of formal education among Navajos during the century after captivity at Fort Sumner in 1864, see Denis F. Johnston, An Analysis of Sources of Information on the Population of the Navajo, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, bulletin 197 (Washington, D.C., 1966), 46-60.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bailey, Garrick and Glenn Bailey, Roberta, A History of the Navajos: The Reservation Years (Santa Fe, N.M., 1986), 223.Google Scholar

³⁵ Adams, Lucy W., “Navajos Go to School,” Journal of Adult Education 10 (Apr. 1938): 152 for first two quotes; idem, “A Navajo Education Program,” Indians at Work 5 (1 Nov. 1937): 12-13.Google Scholar

³⁶ Adams, , “Navajo Education Program,” 13; see also the writings of her successor, George A. Boyce, Economic Education for the Navajo Indians: The Report of a Type B Project (Window Rock, Ariz., 1941) and When Navajos Had Too Many Sheep: The 1940's (San Francisco, 1974). The last quotation is from “The Community Day School Program on the Navajo” [sic], Navajo Service Broadcast, Station KTGM, 21 Feb. 1939, typescript in Richard Van Valkenburgh Papers, Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona. The two before it are from Lucy W. Adams, “What the Government Is Doing on the Navajo: Navajo Schools,” Navajo Medical News 7 (25 Nov. 1940): 13, Record Group 75, Central Classified Files-50979-Navajo-1938-760, Pt. 1, National Archives.Google Scholar

³⁷ Spicer, Edward H., “John H. Provinse” [obituary], American Anthropologist 68 (Aug. 1966): 990–93; John H. Provinse, “Methods of Promoting the Spread and Better Utilization of the Social Sciences,” in Industrialization and Society, ed. B. F. Hoselitz and W. E. Moore (Paris, 1963). Provinse's functionalist credentials were impeccable; he wrote his doctoral dissertation under A. R. Radcliffe-Brown on “The Underlying Sanctions of Plains Indian Culture: An Approach to the Study of Primitive Law” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1934).Google Scholar

³⁸ “Biographical Note” accompanying the papers of Richard F. Van Valkenburgh (1904-1957) in the Arizona Historical Society, Tucson, Arizona; see also the correspondence with Willard Beatty regarding the gazetteer and collection of folk tales. Richard F. Van Valkenburgh, Navajo Sacred Places, ed. Clyde Kluckhohn, in Navajo Indians III, ed. David Agee Horr (New York, 1974), 9–199; and A Short History of the Navajo People [1938], in ibid., 201-67.Google Scholar

³⁹ On Boasian versus functionalist orientations see Stocking, “Ideas and Institutions in American Anthropology,” 3-9, 31-33. James Clifford, Person and Myth: Maurice Leenhardt in the Melanesian World (Berkeley, 1982).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Kluckhohn and Hackenberg, “Social Science Principles,” 31.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For varying interpretations of the failute of the day schools, see Philp, John Collier's Crusade for Indian Reform, 129; Szasz, Education and the American Indian, 60-80; and Jensen, “Teachers and Progressives.” Letter from E. R. Fryer to Willard Beatty, 5 Aug. 1938, Entry 21, Navajos 854, Record Group 75, National Archives. On alcoholism and falling income, Donald A. Grinde, Jr., “Navajo Opposition to the Indian New Deal,” Integrated Education 19 (May-Dec. 1981): 86, 83; see also Jerrold E. Levy and Stephen J. Kunitz, “Indian Reservations, Anomie, and Social Pathology,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 27 (Summer 1971): 97-128; and Stephen J. Kunitz, “Underdevelopment and Social Services on the Navajo Reservation,” Human Organization 36 (Winter 1977): 398-405.Google Scholar

⁴² On the personality study, Kluckhohn and Hackenberg, “Social Science Principles,” 34; and Nash, “Applied Anthropology and the Concept of ‘Guided Acculturation',” 25; files of the project are in Entry 178, Files of John Collier, boxes 11-12, Record Group 75, National Archives. Clyde Kluckhohn and Dorothea Leighton, The Navajo (Cambridge, Mass., 1947). On the closing of day schools, Thompson, The Navajo's Long Walk for Education, 74. The movement of professionals and policy ideas into the camps for Japanese Americans receives close attention in Thomas James, Exile Within: The Schooling of Japanese Americans, 1942–1945 (Cambridge, Mass., 1987).Google Scholar

⁴³ Spicer, Edward H., ed., Human Problems in Technological Change: A Casebook (New York, 1952); see also Alexander H. Leighton, The Governing of Men: General Principles and Recommendations Based on Experience at a Japanese Relocation Camp (Princeton, 1945); and Conrad M. Arensberg and Arthur H. Niehoff, Introducing Social Change: A Manual for Americans Overseas (Chicago, 1964; 2d ed., 1971).Google Scholar