¹ Museum of Television and Radio in New York City and Los Angeles is the repository for over 120,000 programs dating back 85 years. Both archives house the exact same material. Consult the following: Curtis, Anna L., Mary S. McDowell: A Biographical Sketch (New York: Religious Society of Friends, 1960); Morrison, Mary Lee, “Mary Stone McDowell: Gentle Persuader and Loyal Friend.” Friends Journal 50, no. 8 (August 2004): 16–18; and Howlett, Charles F., “Quaker Conscience in the Classroom: the McDowell, Mary S. Case.” Quaker History 83, no. 2 (1994): 99–116. The last article cited, written by the co-author, is a narrow examination of McDowell's life as a Quaker and her trial. The present work is a far more expansive look at the effects of war on academic freedom with the assistance of a legal expert. It fleshes out why this particular case is significant from both a legal and historical perspective. This approach is largely a result of our referencing Richard Altenbaugh, ed., The Teacher's Voice: A Social History of Teaching in Twentieth-Century America (London: Falmer, 1992). The contributions by Patricia Carter, Altenbaugh, and Richard A. Quantz provided the constructive framework necessary for a proper examination of the legal issues through the lens of history in order to make McDowell “live and breathe.”Google Scholar

² Lewis, Lionel, The Cold War and Academic Governance: The Lattimore Case at Johns Hopkins (Albany: SUNY Press, 1993). In this particular work, he lashes out at the “moral entrepreneurs” who are “Driven by the conviction that the only way to stop their opponents is to purge them … They are energized by the belief that when consensus is lacking, social control will restablish it … By trying to organize and manage the social conscience they become entrepreneurs,” 41. Lewis’ Cold War on Campus: A Study of the Politics of Organizational Control (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988) is an impressive study of 126 cases at 58 colleges whose appointments were threatened or lost between 1947 and 1956 because of their controversial political beliefs or actions. Perhaps the best study of the virulent effects of McCarthyism on higher education is Schrecker, Ellen W., No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

³ Curti, Merle, “The American Scholar in Three Wars.” Journal of the History of Ideas III (June 1942): 255–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Peterson, H.C. & Fite, Gilbert. Opponents of War, 1917–1918 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957), 103–104; Metzger, Walter P., Academic Freedom in the Age of the University (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), 194–225; Howlett, Charles F., Troubled Philosopher: John Dewey and the Struggle for World Peace (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1977), 20–42.Google Scholar

⁵ Nass, David L., “American Federation of Teachers,” in Labor Unions, ed. Fink, Gary M. (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1977), 367–69; Walker, Samuel, In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the ACLU (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 11–29. See also, Murphy, Marjorie, Blackboard Unions: The AFT and the NEA, 1900–1980 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), passim.Google Scholar

⁶ Hopkins v. Bucksport III Atlantic Reporter 119 Me 734 (1920); Kammann v. U.S. 259 F. 192 (1919); Beale, Howard K., Are American Teachers Free? (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), 17–34; Stone, Geoffrey R., Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2004), 234–257; Polenberg, Richard, Fighting Faiths: The Abrams Case, the Supreme Court, and Free Speech (New York: Viking Press, 1987), passim; Howlett, Charles F., “Case Law Historiography in American Peace History.” Peace and Change 22, no. 1 (1997): 49–75.Google Scholar

⁷ Beale, , Are American Teachers Free?, 17, 22.Google Scholar

⁸ Kennedy, Kathleen, Disloyal Mothers and Scurrilous Citizens: Women and Subversion during World War I (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), 100–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Cited in Kennedy, Disloyal Mothers, 100. Another important work to consult on this issue is Frances Early, A World Without War: How U.S. Feminists and Pacifists Resisted World War I (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997), 42–51.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The School and Society, 28 April 1917, 495; Beale, Are American Teachers Free?, 24.Google Scholar

¹¹ For an interesting historical overview on American loyalty consult, Curti, Merle, The Roots of American Loyalty (New York: Columbia University Press 1946), passim. On the issue of freedom of speech consult the following: Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Free Speech in the United States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941), passim and Chafee, “Freedom of Speech in War Time.” Harvard Law Review 32 (1919): 928–41; Prude, Jonathan, “Portrait of a Civil Libertarian: The Faith and Fear of Zechariah Chafee, Jr.” Journal of American History 60, no. 2 (1973): 633–656; and Johnson, Donald, The Challenge to American Freedoms: World War I and the Rise of the American Civil Liberties Union (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1963), 57–87.Google Scholar

¹² Beale, , Are American Teachers Free?, 33–34; Peterson and Fite, Opponents of War, chapter 10, passim.Google Scholar

¹³ The Trial of Three Suspended Teachers of DeWitt Clinton H.S., passim (1919), copy located in American Civil Liberties Union Papers, Firestone Library, Princeton University, and noted in Peterson and Fite, Opponents of War, 109–110.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Beale, , Are American Teachers Free?, 34–35; Peterson and Fite, Opponents of War, 109–111.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Kennedy, , Disloyal Mothers, 102–103.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., 105–107; Early, A World Without War, 27–59. On teacher activism as agents of social change consult the essays in Crocco, Margaret Smith, Munro, Petra, and Kathleen Weiler, eds. Pedagogies of Resistance: Women Educator Activists, 1880–1960 (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999). The various individuals profiled in this book point out that “Their experiences sparked a sense of education's possibilities for all marginalized groups … [T]hey encountered like-minded women and men with whom they began an exchange of ideas and strategies for social, educational, and political resistance to the established order. They capitalized on the proliferating number of female voluntary associations and professional organizations of their day intent on revisiting notions of democracy and citizenship in light of progressive education's ideas,” 9.Google Scholar

¹⁸ On this matter refer to Metzger, Academic Freedom in the Age of the University, passim.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Murray, Robert K., Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 171.Google Scholar

²⁰ Quoted in Morrison, “Mary Stone McDowell,” 16.Google Scholar

²¹ The Loyalty Oath for teachers originated during World War I. It became an effective instrument for purging teachers suspected of disloyalty. Of course, it went much further than that. During the Cold War/McCarthyism of the late 1940s and early 1950s, many teachers were fired due to allegations of communist sympathy or opposition to American policies. Finally, in Keyishian et al. v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York et al (1967) the oath to support federal and state constitutions was favorably amended. Consult, McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, Book 16, 379.Google Scholar

²² Curtis, , Mary Stone McDowell, 1–2; In the Matter of Mary S. McDowell 104 Misc. 564, 172 N.Y. Supp 590 (1918), Respondent Brief, 9–10 (1918) (hereinafter Respondent Brief).Google Scholar

²³ Berrol, Selma, Immigrants at School, New York City, 1898–1914 (New York: Arno Press, 1978), passim; Berrol, “The Schools of New York in Transition, 1898–1914.” Urban Review 1 (1966): 15–20.Google Scholar

²⁴ Berrol, , Immigrants at School, 187–194; Lawrence Cremin, The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876–1957 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), 72. In class, Cremin was always fond of reminding his students that historical works in education should foster opportunities for using the past to promote educational policy. He considered Transformation an important work linking the progressive education movement to the humanitarian efforts facing the new urban-industrial society (a personal reminiscence by the co-author).Google Scholar

²⁵ Respondent Brief, supra at 7–9.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid., 8.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid., 7–8.Google Scholar

²⁸ Curtis, , Mary Stone McDowell, 5–6.Google Scholar

²⁹ Perrillo, Jonna, “Beyond ‘Progressive’ Reform: Bodies, Disciplines, and the Construction of the Professional Teacher in Interwar America.” History of Education Quarterly 44, no. 3 (2004): 337–364. One of the more interesting observations Perrillo alludes to is the “widespread use of teaching evaluations after World War I.” In some respects this was a double-edged sword. The development of teacher unions called for more professionalism and evaluations were one way to reach that goal. It also served to counter the divisive atmosphere during the war when teachers were brought up on charges of disloyalty, which had nothing to do with their competency in the classroom. On the other hand, it also gave supervisors greater control over the thoughts and actions of teachers during performance of their duties. According to Perrillo: “one of the most stabilizing factors within the flux of political, structural, and sociological changes that public schools experienced before and after World War I was the limited autonomy most teachers held … Women teachers were expected to give more to their job … to abide by cultural norms, and to conform their lives … and their ideas to the public will,” 364. Also consult, Crocco et al., Pedagogies of Resistance, 26–37.Google Scholar

³⁰ Curtis, , Mary Stone McDowell, 10–12; Schott, Linda, “The Women's Peace Party and the Moral Basis for Women's Pacifism.” Frontiers 8 (1985): 18–24; Cook, Blanche W., “The Women's Peace Party: Collaboration and Non-Cooperation.” Peace and Change 1, no. 1 (1972): 36–42; Alonso, Harriet Hyman, Peace as a Women's Issue: A History of the U.S. Movement for World Peace and Women's Rights (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1993), 56–84. Alonso's work is an excellent survey and contributes extensively to our understanding of the relationship between women's rights and the peace movement. For histories of the peace movement consult: Howlett, Charles F., The American Peace Movement: References and Resources (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1991), xxxvii and ff; Chatfield, Charles, For Peace and Justice: Pacifism in America, 1914-1941 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1971), 53–55; DeBenedetti, Charles, Origins of the Modern American Peace Movement, 1915–1929 (Millwood, NY: KTO Press, 1978), passim; and Marchand, C. Roland, The American Peace Movement and Social Reform, 1898–1918 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), 223–265.Google Scholar

³¹ Hirst, Margaret E., The Quakers in War and Peace (London: The Swarthmore Press, 1923), 116.Google Scholar

³² Tyack, David, The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), 275–76.Google Scholar

³³ Respondent Brief, 3. Original emphasis in quoted legal brief.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid., 4. Original emphasis in quoted material.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid., 4. Original emphasis in quoted material.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., 5. Original emphasis in quoted legal brief.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., 1–2. Original emphasis in quoted legal brief.Google Scholar

³⁸ Peterson, and Fite, , Opponents at War, 102.Google Scholar

³⁹ New York Evening Post, 23 January 1918, photocopy from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Dean, Arthur D., Our Schools in War Time—And After (New York: Ginn & Co., 1918), 5, 8.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Beale, , Are American Teachers Free?, 28–33, 68–71.Google Scholar

⁴² New York Times, 23 January 1918; New York Times 14 March 1918, photocopy from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁴³ McDowell v. Board of Education, supra, 590.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ New York Evening Post, 16 May 1918, photocopy from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ New York Times, 16 May 1918, photocopy from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ New York Evening Post, 16 May 1918; New York Times, 16 May 1918, photocopies from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid., photocopies from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Respondent Brief, supra at 9; McDowell v. Board of Education, supra at 590–93; Curtis, Mary Stone McDowell, 5–7, 16–18, 33; New York Evening Post, 16 May 1918; New York Times, 16 May 1918, photocopies from Swarthmore College Peace Collection; Respondent Brief, p. 24; Howlett, “Quaker Conscience in the Classroom,” 106–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ New York Evening Post, 16 May 1918, photocopy from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ New York Times, 20 June 1918.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Beale, , Are American Teachers Free?, 29.Google Scholar

⁵² Dean, , Our Schools in War Time, 38.Google Scholar

⁵³ Beale, , Are American Teachers Free?, 29; New York Times, 20 June 1918: 24; New York Tribune, 19 June 1918, photocopy from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ McDowell v. Board of Education, supra, 592–93.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) the First Amendment was extended to protect the right not to say something because of religious beliefs. Interestingly, the correct spelling, “Barnett,” was never amended in court papers and remains misspelled to this very day.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Stone, Perilous Times, 158–59.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Curtis, , Mary Stone McDowell, 22–23; Beale, Are American Teachers Free?, 29; New York Times, 14 June 1923: 10; New York Times 12 July 1923, photocopies from Swarthmore College Peace Collection.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Stone, Perilous Times, 236.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Curtis, , Mary Stone McDowell, 10.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., 22-23.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid., 4, 21.Google Scholar

⁶² Consult her writings: A Democratic Program for Durable Peace, 20; What Shall Be the Future of Our Country? (Philadelphia: American Friends Service Committee, 1954), 3; “Political Pacifists May Still Be Religious.” Friends Intelligencer (28 March 1964); “Concrete Ways of Living Our Quaker Message.” Friends Intelligencer (6 July 1952); “Winning the War Does Not Win the ‘Argument.'” Friends Intelligencer (19 March 1950). Copies found in McDowell Papers, Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe College.Google Scholar

⁶³ Curtis, , Mary Stone McDowell, 21–22.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Chatfield, , For Peace and Justice, 17–34; Wittner, Lawrence S., Rebels Against War, 1933–1983 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984), 62–96; Jr, Arthur A. Ekirch, “A Political Prisoner in Wartime.” Peace and Change 12, nos. 1&2 (1987): 72–92; Sibley, Mulford Q. & Jacob, Philip, Conscription of Conscience: The American State and the Conscientious Objector, 1940–1947 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1952), passim. The Sibley and Jacob book is considered one of the definitive works on the subject of the role of the government and wartime conscientious objection.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ State ex rel., Schweitzer v. Turner et al., Member of the Board of Instruction, 155 Fla. 270, 19 Southern Reporter 2d 833 (1944).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Joyce v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 325 III. App. 543, 60 N.E. 2d 431 (1942), cert den, 327 U.S. 786, 66 S.Ct 702 (1943).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Tinker v. Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1969). See also, Howlett, Charles F., “Black Armbands and Student Protest: The Legal Meaning of Tinker v. Des Moines.” Social Science Docket 4, no. 2 (2004): 74–77.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ James v. Board of Education of Addison, New York 461 F. 2d. 566 (1972); Nat Hentoff, The First Freedom: The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in America (New York: Dell Publishers, 1980), 46–53; New York Times, 5 December 1972, cited in Hentoff, at 48–50.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Stolberg v. Board of Trustees, 474 F. 2d 485 (2d Cir. 1973). At the higher education level, Lionel Lewis argued that during the Cold War era “academic authorities failed to afford faculty due process and to defend academic freedom. Faculty who were not fully open and cooperative with institutional committees established to inquire into their political beliefs and activities, or with institutional authorities, were invariably fired. Senior administrators seemed to act out of concern that they and their institution would be harmed by unfavorable public attention.” Lewis, The Cold War and Academic Governance, 6-7. The same may be said for some academic leaders in the early years of the Vietnam War.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Tyell, van Gell, The Courts and American Law (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1987), 210–213.Google Scholar

⁷¹ The following teacher's contract statement on academic freedom is typical of most: “The Board and the Association [union] agree that basic to all education is the quest for truth. The professional staff pledges to continue to search with diligence and integrity. The Board pledges to continue its long-standing policy of encouragement of this laudable purpose.” Amityville Teachers Association Contract (July 1, 2002–June 30, 2005), 23. A noble statement, indeed! But a key word is interposed in the statement, “diligence.” What does that word actually imply? And who determines the “diligence”? One might even question the meaning of “integrity.” Clearly, the statement is wide open and can mean many different things to many different people. Who really controls what academic freedom means in this instant case?Google Scholar

⁷² Morrison, , “Mary Stone McDowell,” 16; Curtis, Mary Stone McDowell, 19.Google Scholar

⁷³ Morrison, , “Mary Stone McDowell,” 16. McDowell's legacy lives on. A school in Brooklyn, 40 Benson Street, is named in her honor: Mary McDowell Center for Learning. It is a school devoted to helping children with learning disabilities.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Teacher academic freedom and war is still ongoing. According to Joel Westheimer: “In New Mexico, five teachers were recently suspended or disciplined for promoting discussion among students about the Iraq War and for expressing, among a range of views, antiwar sentiments. One teacher refused to remove art posters created by students that reflected their views on the war and was suspended without pay. Alan Cooper, a teacher from Albuquerque, was suspended for refusing to remove student-designed posters that his principal labeled “not sufficiently pro-war.” Two other teachers, Rio Grande High School's Carmelita Roybal and Albuquerque High School's Ken Tabish, posted signs about the war, at least one of which opposed military action. And a teacher at Highland Hills High School was placed on administrative leave because she refused to remove a flier from her wall advertising a peace rally. Royal and Tabish were suspended, and all the teachers in these cases were docked two to four days’ pay by the Albuquerque Public Schools. Each of these schools posts military recruitment posters and photographs of soldiers in Iraq.” There are many other examples of teacher oppression in other schools, including New York, where one teacher was ordered by his principal to discontinue a lesson comparing the Sedition Acts of 1798 and Sedition Act of 1918 to the Patriot Act today. For more information consult Westheimer, Joel, “Politics and Patriotism in Education.” Phi Delta Kappan 87 (2006): 608–612, and his recently published edited work, Pledging Allegiance: The Politics of Patriotism in America's Schools (New York: Teachers College Press, 2007), passim.Google Scholar