sing when those belonging to some traditionally hostile corporation sang.

In depicting the brutalizing aspects of the university ideal as revealed in student life little has been said regarding the paradox. It has been assumed that the paradox was self evident. In her scientific conceptions, achievements and ideals, in her university, municipal, and national methods and policies, in her modes of warfare and engines of war, Germany stands in the first rank of twentieth century progress. But when the social motives and ideals inspiring these policies, and methods, and achievements, are sought, and when they are measured by the social standards of the present generation, they are found to be primitive and barbarous. Not in the calumnies circulated by a credulous or at least an uncritical press, but rather in Germany's attitude toward, and in her obtuse violation of the loftiest social ideal of the twentieth century, lies the evidence against her. Thruout her victorious pursuit of the highest honors in the realms of esthetics, theology, philosophy, and science, and education she has kept apart her social and her intellectual conceptions. As a nation she has fostered science, the force that has gradually lifted Christendom out of medievalism and its accompanying political and social abuses. But she has brutalized the men and the nation she has bred to handle and direct this force. To know and appreciate the finest in music, philosophy, literature, and science, to acquire the ability to steep oneself in beer, to learn to go cheerfully into a bloodfest of swinish brutality, this is the ideal, as paradoxical as it is debased, which for generations has dominated and which still dominates in what is the most formative period of their lives, a large portion of those whom the German educational system selects to become her military leaders, her scientists, her scholars, and her teachers.

In a state famous thruout the world for its rigid enforcement of law the practises growing out of this ideal still continue despite the fact that they have been declared unlawful. This continuance can be explained on no other

grounds than the two already presented: first, that these practises are in harmony with the ideals of a privileged class which lives outside the pale of the law; second, that they are regarded by this class as in some way serving the ends of the state.

The very character of the ideal results in attracting to it in the land where it is tolerated and defended, the more aggressive and consequently the more potentially influential spirits. It is presented to the youth by the most attractive of his peers as a distinctly national ideal, surrounded with romantic traditions, and steeped in the sentiment of the centuries. In it he seems to behold in epitome the great moral and social ideal and standards of his fatherland. It is offered to him at a time when his whole adolescent nature craves just such an ideal, an ideal embodying a great social and a great national purpose. It brings with it the opportunity for cultivating and for public testing and display of the qualities of manhood set up by his group. What wonder then that it becomes almost irresistible, and that once accepted, it renders those trained according to it incapable of understanding the picture they present to those nations of the world which have endeavored to open their doors to a greater or less degree to the world-wide trend of democracy and humanity.

From many utterances that have appeared in the public press of late it would appear that Germany is sincerely as much at loss to understand the attitude of the nations of the world toward her, as these same nations are to understand the attitude of Germany toward the situation which they charge her with having created. Many attempted explanations have been given, ethnic, economic, historical, and political. Each and all of these must be taken into account. But those who would discover the basic cause of the enigma which Germany appears to foreign eyes, and which she is bound to appear sooner or later to many of her own citizens, must look to the paradoxical ideal which still holds the balance of power over every aspect of her national life. It is only thru recognizing and ap

preciating the paradox of this ideal that Germany's position will become intelligible to herself as well as to outsiders. It must not be supposed that the entire German nation is blind to the real character of this ideal.

On the

contrary, there have long been at work social forces and political and student associations definitely and courageously opposing it. The present war represents, not only outside Germany but within Germany itself, a conflict between this paradoxical ideal and an ideal consistent with the social progress and social ideals of the twentieth century. To condemn the old and still entrenched ideal is not to condemn the people maintaining it. False and invidious as it is, it is at its worst the mistaken ideal of a gifted and noble people.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

F. H. SWIFT

VI

THE TEACHER-MOTHER QUESTION IN NEW YORK

[On account of the importance of the questions involved, the EDUCATIONAL REVIEW prints in full the decision of Commissioner Finley on the so-called Teacher-Mother question which has arisen in the New York City Schools. ]

In the Matter of the Appeal of Bridget C. Peixotto from a resolution of the Board of Education of the City of New York

ALFRED J. TALLEY, Attor

ney for Appellant (Denis R. O'Brien, of Counsel) FRANK L. POLK, Corporation Counsel, Attorney for Respondent (Charles McIntyre, of Counsel)

The Appellant, Bridget C. Peixotto, was a teacher in the public schools of the City of New York for a period of nearly eighteen years. In February, 1913, she held the position of teacher in charge of Public School No. 14, Borough of the Bronx, which position she had held for a number of years. On February 3, 1913, the appellant left her position and notified her immediate superior of her absence, stating that the cause thereof was some affection of her ears and nose and submitted, with this notification, a physician's certificate describing her condition. It appears to have been sufficiently established by the evidence that she was ill from the causes specified at the commencement of her absence from her duties, and she testifies that she was under medical attention from such time until April 22, 1913, when she was suspended from her position.

The appellant was married in February, 1912. When she left her position in February, 1913, she was pregnant. She gave birth to a child on April 7, 1913. She was suspended from her position on April 22, by District Superintendent Taylor, acting under the direction of the City Superintendent "and in accordance with Section 39, Par. 18, of the by-laws of the board of education." A notice of such

suspension was submitted to the board of education in which charges of "neglect of duty" were preferred against the appellant and the reason for the supension was stated to be "the continuous absence of Mrs. Peixotto from duty since February 3, 1913, for the purpose of bearing a child." At the same time the appellant was notified of her suspension by the district superintendent and in the letter to her he stated that he had preferred charges against her to the board of education for "neglect of duty." Subsequently on May 6, 1913, charges of neglect of duty were preferred against the appellant to the board of education in which it was stated:

"The specifications of said charges are as follows: That she has been absent from duty without leave since on or about February 3, 1913."

Such charges were referred by the board to its committee on elementary schools, in accordance with the practise in such cases. A copy of the charges was served upon the appellant on May 8, 1913, and she was notified to appear before the committee to answer such charges on May 27, 1913. The hearing was postponed to June 10, 1913, when the committee met and testimony was received in support and defense of such charges. Such committee submitted a report to the board on June 25, 1913, in which it stated that Mrs. Peixotto was guilty of the charges of neglect of duty and recommended that she be dismist from the service of the board. The board considered such report and at a meeting held October 8, 1913, adopted a resolution sustaining the suspension of the appellant, confirming the action of its committee on elementary schools, finding the appellant guilty of the charges of neglect of duty preferred against her by the district superintendent, and dismissing her from the service of the board. This appeal is brought from such resolution. The petition on appeal was filed in this Department October 31, 1914.

There is some confusion or conflict as to the grounds relied upon by the board in dismissing the appellant, caused by a difference in the language used by the district superin