










































Publication Draft – SSCH – 2004


This Happened in America: 
Harold Rugg and the Censure of Social Studies  

Ronald W. Evans 
San Diego State University 

 
Abstract:  This article provides a brief overview of the 
Rugg story, but focuses primarily on the Rugg 
textbook controversy (1939-1941), the firestorm of 
criticism that led to the demise of the bestselling Rugg 
social science textbook series and served as a prelude 
to what was to become a broader and longer lasting 
series of attacks on progressive education generally, 
and social studies in particular.  In the late 1930s and 
early 1940s Rugg was censured by a media storm fed 
by conservative patriotic and business groups who, in 
an un-American fashion, did not want school children, 
or their parents for that matter, raising questions about 
the basic structures of American life and the capitalist 
economic system.  Among the implications discussed 
is the author’s belief that it is especially important to 
keep alternative visions of social studies alive and to 
make sure that critics of a liberal or issues-centered 
curriculum are met with a stout defense. 
 
 Harold O. Rugg was one of a small group of 
leaders of the Progressive education movement 
centered at Teachers College, Columbia University, 
and a leader among the Social Frontier group that 
emerged in the 1930s to argue that schools should 
play a stronger role in helping to reconstruct the 
society.  He was the author of an innovative and best 
selling series of social studies textbooks which 
ultimately came under attack from patriotic and 
business groups in the prelude to the United States 
involvement in World War II.  The story of his rise 
and fall encapsulates a significant and central story in 
the history of American education.  The Rugg story 
reveals a great deal about the direction of schooling in 
American life, the many alternative roads not taken, 
and the possibilities for the future. 
 Rugg's story remains important today chiefly 
because it reminds us that social studies as a broad and 
integrated field of study has potential for the 
development of thoughtful and caring citizens, and 
that it is possible for a social studies reformer to 
influence the course of events.  Rugg's work had a real 
impact, not only on rhetoric among theorists but on 
schools.  His work brought an integrated and issues-
centered approach to the field and to a large segment 
of U.S. school children during the 1930s, and thus 
influenced the education of a generation of U.S. 
citizens.  His textbooks and materials sold millions of 
copies and ultimately inspired a controversy that 
changed the course of the curriculum. 
 Rugg created an avant-garde social studies 
program which was pedagogically advanced, 
instructive for those with an interest in issues-centered 
education and/or in teaching for social justice.  He 
developed an approach that integrated the social 
sciences and history in an issues-centered program 

focusing on understanding and social transformation.  
To this day his program serves as a useful prototype 
for a unified social studies program focused on issues 
and societal problems and aimed at education for 
social justice.   
 Rugg envisioned an entire social studies 
curriculum centered around "The American Problem," 
and aimed at leading a thousand year march to a 
"cooperative commonwealth."  Rugg's story is a 
reminder of the potential power of social studies 
reform  --  his materials were pedagogically 
sophisticated and somewhat daring, and they asked 
tough questions on topics that need to be addressed in 
a democratic society: the role of business in 
controlling government, the role of government in 
regulating business, the influence of men of wealth 
and property on the constitution and our form of 
government, the role of government in providing for 
the general social welfare, immigration, issues related 
to racial diversity, the role of the United States in 
world affairs, and a myriad of others.  Furthermore, 
Rugg's work was built on a thoughtful rationale that 
combined student interest with social worth—a 
powerful combination that still has appeal. 
 The Rugg story is also important today 
because social studies as a broad, interdisciplinary and 
issues-centered field is currently endangered: reports 
on classroom practice find a pattern of instruction 
focused on content acquisition and a fact-myth-legend 
approach to history; the revival of history and mania 
for standards and high stakes tests are increasing an 
emphasis upon traditional history and narrowing the 
range of issues and questions discussed in schools.   
 In the late 1930s and early 1940s Rugg was 
censured by a media storm fed by conservative 
patriotic and business groups who, in an un-American 
fashion, did not want school children, or their parents 
for that matter, raising questions about the basic 
structures of American life and the capitalist economic 
system.  The attack on Rugg, on his ideas, textbooks 
and school materials was perhaps the first major battle 
of what I have termed "the war on social studies" 
(Evans 2004).  It is a war many educators of 
progressive mind are still fighting.  
 Recent literature on Rugg illustrates a 
continuing interest in the Rugg story and focuses 
mainly on various aspects of the textbook controversy 
(i. e., Poland and Boesenberg, 2001; Riley & Slater-
Stern, 2002; Zimmerman, 2002).  The Rugg textbook 
controversy is of continuing interest for at least two 
reasons.  It embodied several of the major strands of 
curriculum reform and influences, and, it was a major 
watershed in the history of social studies education in 
this country.  As I have argued elsewhere, prior to the 
Rugg textbook controversy it seemed that reflective 



 

 16 

and critical approaches to social studies were in 
ascendance (Evans, 2004).  The Rugg dust up marked 
the start of a long decline for progressive education 
and the beginning of a return to the disciplines. 
 Revisiting Rugg’s story will underline 
several of the main themes of his work and highlight 
the fact that Rugg was instrumental, a seminal thinker 
in the world of social studies theory and practice.  In 
short, we can learn a great deal from his rationale, his 
program, and his experiences, all of which came to a 
head in the conflagration over the Rugg textbooks.  
 
The Rugg Social Studies Program 
 Rugg's theory of social studies, which 
melded history and the social sciences into one 
continuous course, focused on helping students 
develop a deeper understanding of the industrialized 
world.  In his initial publication after arriving at 
Teachers College, Rugg wrote that material should be 
selected by the criterion of “social worth.”  To be 
included in the course material must contribute, “… to 
an interest in and appreciation of the outstanding 
‘problems’ and ‘issues’ of contemporary civilization” 
(Rugg, 1921a, p. 189). 
 

Rugg argued that the vast majority of our 
people rarely deliberate thoughtfully on 
political and social matters, and that “critical 
judgment, instead of impulse, must be the 
basis upon which our social and political 
decisions are made.”  It was, Rugg held, the 
primary responsibility of the social studies 
curriculum to provide students with 
“knowledge about the issues of 
contemporary life and how they came to be 
what they are ... translated into tendencies to 
act intelligently upon them” (Rugg, 1923, p. 
1-2). 

 
 In the early 1920s Rugg and his entourage 
developed a series of junior high social science 
pamphlets which embodied these ideas.  The 
pamphlets were problem-centered and pedagogically 
advanced: virtually every topic was introduced 
through a contemporary issue or problem connected to 
students' lives; the writing was lively and engaging; 
open-ended discussion questions were prominently 
featured in "open forum" and "group discussions"; the 
pamphlets made frequent use of photos, drawings, and 
cartoons; and, provocative topics were given full 
coverage, including potentially controversial topics 
such as the influence of business on government, and 
the influence of men of property on the development 
of the U.S. Constitution. 
 The pamphlets were revised and published in 
textbook form beginning in 1929. For the ten-year 
period from 1929 to 1939, the series sold 1,317,960 
copies at approximately $2.00 each, and over 
2,687,000 workbooks.  Rugg and his associates had 

created a unified social studies program and his books 
attracted worldwide attention and imitation.  Through 
force of will, brilliance, hard work and fortunate 
timing he had become the leading social studies 
educator in the United States (Winters 1967).  At their 
peak, the Rugg materials were being used in more 
than 4,000 school districts nationwide (Bagenstos 
1977).  The series had become a huge financial 
success, and represents the zenith of issues-centered 
social studies materials entrée into classrooms in the 
twentieth century. 
 
The Gathering Storm 
 Rugg's writings underwent a shift in the early 
1930s with a more pointed advocacy of social 
reconstructionism and the goal of moving toward 
some form of "collectivism."  It was, in part, these 
writings and subsequent media coverage of his 
speaking engagements which attracted the attention of 
self-appointed censors to Rugg's work.  His success as 
an author, combined with his affiliation with 
unpopular causes, made him a target for criticism.  In 
1934, Rugg was listed as a "Communist" in Elizabeth 
Dilling's (1934) The Red Network.  During 1935 Rugg 
spoke out against American Legion attempts to censor 
a classroom magazine, Scholastic, because of its 
perceived liberal bias.  For the balance of the decade, 
in a series of major speeches, Rugg attacked patriotic 
societies, the Advertising Federation of America, the 
National Association of Manufacturers, the United 
States Chamber of Commerce, and the New Deal 
itself. 
 By 1939, against the backdrop of dictatorship 
and war, controversies over the Rugg textbooks spread 
like wildfire, and the American public was treated to a 
spectacle that received continuing national media 
coverage.  The bulk of the attacks came from a 
combine of business writers and publicists, retired 
military of the American Legion, professional 
journalists, and a few loose cannons.  The flames were 
fanned by extensive coverage in the Hearst press.
 Bertie C.  Forbes, in his own magazine, 
attacked the Rugg textbooks in an article titled 
"Treacherous Teachings" in which he charged Rugg 
with being against private enterprise and urged boards 
of education to "cast out" the Rugg books (Forbes, 
1939).  The Advertising Federation of America, led by 
Alfred T.  Falk, attacked the books for carrying "anti-
advertising propaganda."  Merwin K.  Hart, president 
of the New York State Economic Council, charged 
Rugg with "making a subtle sugar-coated effort to 
convert youth to Communism," and suggesting that 
capitalism "has been a failure and that socialism 
should be substituted in its place" (Myers, 1940, p. 
17).   
 Controversies over the books in a number of 
cities and towns followed a typical pattern: a 
complaint, followed by the appointment of a 
committee to investigate, then debate and, frequently, 



 

 17

public hearings.  In a number of well-publicized cases, 
Rugg appeared in person to defend the textbook 
series.  The outcome of the controversy varied from 
place to place.  Binghamton, New York, and 
Englewood, New Jersey, had major controversies 
covered extensively by local and national media.  In a 
number of cities and towns, including Binghamton, 
the books were removed.  In Bradner, Ohio, the 
Superintendent ordered the books taken down to the 
furnace room and burned.  
 The next round of controversy was generated 
by two articles which appeared in widely read, 
nationally circulated magazines.  The first of these 
was an article by Augustin G. Rudd published in the 
April, 1940, issue of Nation’s Business, titled, "Our 
'Reconstructed' Educational System." Rudd posited 
that the "entire educational system" had been 
"reconstructed" with textbooks and courses teaching 
"that our economic and political institutions are 
decadent" (Rudd, 1940, p. 27).  He blamed the 
widespread teaching of "social science," ...  [instead 
of] ...  history, geography and U.  S.  Government" 
and cited the Rugg textbooks as the major culprit.  He 
argued that Rugg "subtly but surely implied a need for 
a state-planned economy and socialism" and aimed "to 
undermine the faith of children in the American way 
of life" (Rudd 1940, p. 94). 
 The second article, by Orlen K. Armstrong, 
titled, "Treason in the Textbooks," appeared in the 
American Legion Magazine  for September, 1940, and 
was distributed to one million homes.  The article 
contained a bitter denunciation of the writers and 
teachers of the "new history," and charged that Rugg 
sought to "cast doubt" upon the "patriotism" of the 
founding fathers and the constitution and "to condemn 
the American system" of private enterprise and 
inculcate "collectivism" (Armstrong, 1940, pp. 51, 
70).  Armstrong attacked fused courses like Rugg's 
and described them as "propaganda for a change in 
our political, economic, and social order" (Armstrong, 
1940, p. 9). 
 Meanwhile the entire controversy garnered 
increasing national attention.  According to an article 
in Time  magazine, by the end of the Spring term in 
1940, the Rugg textbooks had been banned from a 
half-dozen school systems.  Critics objected to the 
Rugg texts, the article reported, "for picturing the U.S. 
as a land of unequal opportunity, and giving a class 
conscious account of the framing of the U.S.  
Constitution" (Book Burnings, 1940, pp. 64-65). 
 
The Storm Unleashed 
 The next major development in the Rugg 
story raised the stakes considerably as it involved the 
activities of the National Association of 
Manufacturers (NAM), a mainstream organization 
with considerable resources.  On December 11, 1940, 
The New York Times  reported that the NAM 
announced that it would initiate a survey of textbooks 

then in use in the schools to see if it could find 
evidence of subversive teaching.  Ralph Robey, an 
assistant professor of banking at Columbia University, 
and a columnist for Newsweek, was hired by the NAM 
to prepare a series of abstracts of some 800 current 
social studies textbooks to show the author's attitudes 
toward government and business. 
 On Saturday, February 22, 1941, a headline 
at the top of the front page of The New York Times  
read:  "UN-AMERICAN TONE SEEN IN 
TEXTBOOKS ON SOCIAL SCIENCES: Survey of 
600 Used in Schools, Finds a Distorted Emphasis on 
Defects of Democracy, ONLY A FEW CALLED 
RED." The article reported that a "substantial portion" 
of the social science textbooks used in schools "tend 
to criticize our form of government and the system of 
private enterprise" (Fine, 1941, p. 1).  The article cited 
the controversy over the Rugg textbooks and noted 
that several school systems had banned his books from 
the classroom (Fine, 1941, pp. 1, 6).  The story, 
including the reference to the Rugg controversy, 
appeared on the front page.  
 Internal memoranda from the files of the 
NAM suggest that many in the organization's offices 
were rather squeamish about the entire enterprise, and 
feared that it could result in negative publicity for 
business and the NAM.  As it turned out, these worries 
were well founded.  Protests, corrections, and replies 
to Dr. Robey's findings came quickly.  Leaders of the 
National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) made 
immediate contact with leaders of the NAM asking 
whether it "repudiates or endorses" Robey's statement 
(Hunt, 1941a).  NAM President, Walter D. Fuller 
responded that Robey's criticisms were his "personal 
opinion only" (Fuller, 1941).  Later, after a storm of 
stories and editorials in the press, the NAM attempted 
to further distance itself from the controversy (Hunt, 
1941b, p. 328).    
 
The Aftermath 
 The defense against the attacks on the Rugg 
textbooks was mounted on several fronts.  The 
Academic Freedom Committee of NCSS issued a 
statement and prepared "a packet … on freedom of 
teaching in the social studies area," which included a 
66 page booklet on fending off attacks on textbooks 
(Curti, 1941).  The Council of the American Historical 
Association asked Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger to 
draft a statement regarding controversial issues in 
textbooks.  The statement, approved by the Council, 
gave strong support for the inclusion of controversial 
questions in "the historical account," and for 
encouraging a "spirit of inquiry" in young people 
(American Historical Association, 1941, p. 488). 
 Rugg himself was undoubtedly the chief 
advocate for the defense of social studies, and the 
Rugg textbooks, against the attackers.  Numerous 
friends and colleagues also rushed to his defense.  One 
of the most active groups were the American 



 

 18 

Committee on Democracy and Intellectual Freedom 
(ACDIF, 1941), the Association of Textbook 
Publishers, and Rugg's associates on the journal 
Frontiers of Democracy.  Even John Dewey came to 
Rugg's defense in an opinion editorial which appeared 
in The New York Times  (Dewey, 1940).  Dewey 
defended Rugg on the grounds of intellectual freedom 
even though he didn't always agree with Rugg's ideas 
or actions, and clearly did not think of Rugg as a 
major thinker (Dewey, 1944). 
 Rugg gave an able defense of his work, and 
attempted to meet every attack directly, appearing in 
person whenever it was possible.  Rugg's 
confrontations with his accusers followed a familiar 
pattern.  First, he would be accused of being a 
Communist, then he would be criticized over his plan 
for a “socialistic” society in The Great Technology 
(1933).  When pressed, critic after critic would admit 
that they had not read the books.  Under siege on 
every side, Rugg wrote an autobiographical work to 
tell his side of the story.  Based on a confidential 
memo (Rugg, 1940), That Men May Understand was 
published in April, 1941, and received generally 
favorable reviews.  Publishers Weekly endorsed the 
book and joined Rugg in attacking his critics, accusing 
Dilling, Forbes, and Hart of working on "the 
prejudices of the American people" and calling Rugg's 
book "a vigorous and adequate reply to his critics" 
(Publishers Weekly, 1941, p. 1533). 
 Discussion of the attacks continued in the 
professional literature.  One article, written by a 
school superintendent, argued that many of the attacks 
were part of a deliberate effort to undermine "public 
confidence in the schools so that school appropriations 
may be reduced" (Dannelly, 1941, p. 32).  Another 
author provided a larger historical context for the 
attacks and suggested that they were part of a larger 
"War on Social Studies" (Gould, 1941, pp. 83-91). 
The real animus of the critics, he wrote, "is against the 
whole modern conception of the social studies as a 
realistic approach to life" (Gould, 1941, p. 90).  In 
opposition to the critics, he argued that young people 
have "the right to know what the world is all about 
and to learn what can be done about it" (Gould, 1941, 
p. 91). 
 As it turned out, February 22, 1941, the date 
of the Robey story, was a watershed in the war on 
social studies. Tension had been building while the 
movement for integrated social studies and a focus on 
issues and problems with a meliorist or 
reconstructionist purpose gathered steam.  After the 
Robey article, the tide turned. By 1943 American 
Legion officers believed they had ousted Rugg’s 
textbooks from approximately 1500 communities 
(Shumaker, 1943).  By the middle of the decade, the 
Rugg textbook series had virtually disappeared.   
 Though he never admitted it publicly or with 
colleagues, the loss of his textbook series and the 
leadership and prestige it had given him left Rugg 

deeply hurt, largely alone, ostracized from his 
previous leadership role (Evers, 2003; Alling, 2005).  
Rugg continued to teach and write but focused on 
scholarly work and college level textbooks, giving up 
his efforts to revolutionize social studies in schools.  
Many years later, Rugg briefly commented on the 
“diabolical” and “fascist groups” behind the textbook 
controversy such as Merwin K. Hart and the New 
York Economic Council.  He noted that it was only 
when extremist groups “got the American Legion to 
work with them” that they “succeeded, in three years 
time, in putting my books out of the schools” (Rugg, 
1956). 
 Despite the controversy, Rugg continued to 
maintain his beliefs, and continued to support 
education for social reconstruction, though his public 
profile was forever altered and subdued.  On May 17, 
1960, Rugg died of a heart attack at his home in 
Woodstock.   
 
Reflections 
 Several questions deserve further comment.  
Previous reviewers of the Rugg materials have 
disagreed over the degree to which the textbooks 
reflected Rugg’s social vision.  One writer called the 
text series “quite moderate,” and suggests that they 
did not reflect his “more radical views” (Stanley, 
1982).  Another pair of authors concluded that, “there 
can be little doubt that the books clearly echo his own 
socioeconomic orientation” (Carbone & Wilson, 
1995).  My own look at the Rugg texts suggests that 
they were progressive in orientation and relatively 
moderate in outlook, given the rhetoric of the times.  
They also contained a great deal of narrative history 
and dramatic stories well told, as well as stimulating 
photos and cartoons.  They were, decidedly, oriented 
toward raising serious questions in the minds of 
students about the social and economic institutions of 
the nation.  Yet they were typical of many progressive 
texts of the era. 
 It is also interesting to consider the origins 
and true nature of the controversy. Though at least one 
scholar has argued that there was a grassroots 
rebellion against the Rugg textbooks (Zimmerman, 
2002), my research strongly suggests that the 
movement to oust Rugg’s texts from schools was 
orchestrated by a small group of interconnected 
critics, led by the American Legion and business 
leaders.  Perhaps a more important question is, What 
was behind the textbook critics’ animus toward Rugg?  
What would motivate such a sustained, expensive and 
determined campaign?  Criticism of the Rugg social 
studies textbooks and program materialized from the 
concerns of several individuals and groups who held a 
competing definition of “the American way” and a 
vision of America’s future quite different from the one 
advanced by Harold Rugg and other “frontier 
thinkers.”  The American Legion’s critics and their 
campaign against Rugg perhaps best exemplifies this.  



 

 19

Rudd, Marshall, West, Fries, Shumaker, Chaillaux, 
Armstrong and other Legionnaires had a sincere belief 
in a traditional and conservative version of the 
American way, one that lionized America’s founders 
and heroes, one that perpetuated and celebrated the 
cultural mythology of the nation they loved and had 
fought for.  
 It is important to keep in mind that the 
context of the depression, the advent of the New Deal, 
the rise of totalitarianism in various forms, and the 
general tensions generated by all of these factors were 
instrumental in the focus of critics on social and 
economic issues in “subversive” textbooks.  During 
the early and middle parts of the 1930s, in the depths 
of the depression, American capitalism was coming 
under fire and was seriously questioned like never 
before.  Rugg’s books seemed to exemplify that 
questioning stance.  By the late 1930s the context for 
questioning American institutions, and capitalism in 
particular, shifted dramatically.  What had been 
permitted during the heights of the nation’s economic 
misery was suddenly out-of-place in a world in which 
survival itself was in question.  Patriotic Americans 
became more concerned about the threat of 
subversion.  The Rugg textbooks were a convenient 
sacrificial lamb. 
  Moreover, the forces supporting educational 
reaction were well-entrenched, highly organized, and 
quite powerful.  Several of Rugg’s critics exemplified 
and frequently expressed the ideological and cultural 
fundamentalism that lay behind their attacks.  The 
American Legion had a long history of promoting 
their fundamentalist view of “Americanism” which 
stressed a rather extreme faith in traditional American 
institutions, as if they should remain constant and 
unchanging, and fear of any perceived threats to the 
status quo (Gellerman, 1938).  An equally strong 
example of reactionary thought, the National Republic 
magazine, reads as a primer on cultural 
fundamentalism, supporting traditional American 
institutions including constitutional representative 
government, laissez-faire capitalism, Christianity, and 
traditional education, and opposing any movements 
“Inimical to American Ideals, Traditions and 
Institutions.”  Among these “inimical” movements 
were socialism, communism, atheism, subversion, and 
“Ruggism” or any other form of non-traditional social 
studies.    
 Aside from the question of its origins and its 
focus primarily on Rugg, the textbook controversy 
also raised troubling questions about academic 
freedom, about the role and influence of textbook 
criticism, and about the supposed “neutrality” of 
education on social questions.  To be sure, schools and 
school textbooks had never been neutral.  Since the 
founding of the American common school they had 
advanced a traditional love of country, support for 
American institutions, and a conservative patriotism 
(Elson 1964).  One of the questions raised by the 

Rugg textbooks was whether schools and textbooks 
should raise difficult fundamental questions about 
American structures and institutions?  It was clear that 
many critics did not want alternative or critical ideas 
presented or discussed in schools.  The controversy 
also raised difficult questions about the fine line 
between balanced discussion of issues and social 
criticism, about the relationship between a textbook 
author’s point-of-view and the portrayal of issues and 
institutions, past and present, contained in texts.  
Indoctrination of some sort was inevitable, especially 
in the early grades.  But how far should it go, and 
what were its limits? 
 The Rugg textbook controversy also 
brought the social studies wars over curricular issues 
to the forefront.  Critics and patrioteers were unified in 
their condemnation of the new approach to social 
studies represented by the Rugg program and 
textbooks.  Instead of an integrated, “omnibus” social 
studies that opened the door to the social sciences and 
allowed space in the curriculum for some discussion 
of critical questions, they wanted a return to 
traditional history, taught in a traditional manner and 
centered on developing an appreciation for the 
American past and a deep love and respect for 
American institutions. 
 The Rugg textbook controversy also raised 
key questions of curricular hegemony.  Was the 
curriculum the sovereign province of teachers, 
administrators, curriculum supervisors, professors of 
education, textbook authors and other “experts,” was 
it something to be decided by parents, taxpayers, and 
the American public, or would it ultimately be 
controlled, or at least framed or hemmed in, by the 
most persistent, vocal, well organized and financed 
critics?  To what extent would it be limited by clouds 
of suspicion, hearsay and innuendo?  This question in 
particular, the question of who controls the 
curriculum, was deeply related to the broad 
progressive challenge to give experts increased control 
in a variety of areas of American life, while at the 
same time giving the average citizen leverage and 
access in both political and cultural institutions.  
 Some years after his retirement, Rugg 
captured the essence of his attempt to change social 
studies in schools, suggesting that the schools should 
insist on a curriculum that asks children, “What do 
you think?”  In reflecting on that question, he mused, 
“Why, it’s revolutionary! … An authoritarian world 
will not allow that question to be asked” (Rugg, 
1956).  In this brief statement, Rugg summarized both 
the pedagogical move at the very heart of his social 
science curriculum, and the essence of his critics’ 
perspective. 
 In the present era, it is especially important to 
keep alternative visions alive, to nurture deep dreams 
of justice and fair play, and to make sure that critics of 
a liberal or issues-centered social studies are met with 
a stout defense.  The attacks on Rugg, and especially 



 

 20 

the sustained campaign carried on by the American 
Legion, present early examples of the power of 
interest group financing and organization.  Recently, 
the revival of traditional history, supported by similar 
forms of interest group financing, has had a significant 
influence on the direction of the social studies 
curriculum (Evans, 2004; Ross & Marker, 2005; 
Stehle, 1997; Selden, 2004; Singer, 2005). 
 Given the interest strong interest among the 
professoriate in critical and social justice approaches 
to education, the current context of continuing 
national support for standards, centralized curriculum 
making, and high-stakes testing, and the present 
climate of national and international crisis, it behooves 
us to be aware of, or be defeated by, the successes, the 
failures, and the mistakes—the "lessons”—of Harold 
Rugg. 
 

REFERENCES 
 

ACDIF Press Release (1941). "A Committee of Ten 
Outstanding Social Scientists." Sunday, February 
23, American Committee for Democracy and 
Intellectual Freedom, New York, Franz Boas 
Professional Papers, B61p, sub collection 2, box 
A-Bend, ACDIF folder, American Philosophical 
Society, Philadelphia.   

Alling, K. (2005). Interview with Katherine Alling, 
Harold Rugg's stepdaughter, January, 21, 2005, 
conducted by the author. 

American Historical Association (1941). "Freedom of 
Textbooks." Social Education, 5 (7): 487-488. 

Armstrong, O. K. (1940, September). Treason in the 
textbooks. American Legion Magazine, pp. 8, 9, 
51, 70-72. 

Bagenstos, N. T. (1977). Social reconstruction: The 
controversy over the textbooks of 

Harold Rugg. Theory and Research in Social 
Education, 5 (3): 29. 

Boesenberg, E. & Poland, K. S. (2001). Struggle at the 
frontier of curriculum: The Rugg textbook 
controversy in Binghamton, N. Y. Theory and 
Research in Social Education, 29, 4: 640-71. 

Book Burnings.  (1940, September 9). Time, 64-5. 
Carbone, P. F. Jr. and Wilson, V. S. (1995). Harold 

Rugg’s Social Reconstructionism. In Michael 
James. (Ed.). (1995). Social Reconstructionism 
Through Education.  Norwood, NJ: Ablex 
Publishing, pp. 57-88.  

Curti, M. (1941). Merle Curti to Wilbur Murra, 14 
October 1941, file 1, box 2, series 7,Committee 
Records, Academic Freedom Correspondence, 
NCSS Archives, Milbank Memorial Library, 
Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Dannelly, C. M. (1941). "Facing a Major Threat." The 
School Executive, 60 (10): 32.  

Dewey, J. (1940). "Investigating Education." The New 
York Times, 6 May, p. 16. 

 

Dewey, J. (1944). John Dewey to Sidney Hook, 25 
April 1944, Correspondence with Sidney Hook, 
John Dewey Collection, box 10, series 1, Dewey 
Papers, Dewey Center, University of Southern 
Illinois at Carbondale. 

Dilling, E. (1934). The red network. Kenilworth, IL: 
Author. 

Elson, R. M. (1964). Guardians of tradition: 
American schoolbooks of the 19th century. 
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 

Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What 
should we teach the children? NewYork: 
Teachers College Press. 

Evers, A. (2003). Interview with Alf Evers, 
Woodstock resident, town historian and author, 
and a personal friend of Rugg, Woodstock, New 
York, June 14, 2003, conducted by the author. 

Fine, B. (1941). "UN-AMERICAN TONE SEEN IN 
TEXTBOOKS ON SOCIAL SCIENCES." The 
New York Times, 22 February (Late City Edition), 
pp. 1, 6.   

Forbes, B. C. (1939). "Treacherous Teaching." Forbes  
(15 August), p. 8. 

Fuller, W. D. (1941). Walter D. Fuller telegram to 
Wilbur Murra, 24 February 1941, file 1, box 2, 
series 7, Committee Records, Academic Freedom 
CommitteeCorrespondence, NCSS Archives, 
Milbank Memorial Library, Teachers College,  
Columbia University. 

Gellerman, W. (1938). The American Legion as 
educator. New York: Teachers College, 
Columbia University. 

Gould, K. M. (1941). "The War on Social Studies." 
Common Ground  (Autumn): 83-91. 

Hunt, E. M. (1941a).  "Dr. Robey Versus the NAM?" 
Social Education, 5 (4): 288-292.  

Hunt, E. M. (1941b).  "The NAM Restates Its Policy." 
Social Education, 5 (5): 328. 

Myers, A. F. (1940). "The Attacks on the Rugg 
Books." Frontiers of Democracy, 7 (55): 17 21. 

Nelson, M. R. (1977). "The Development of the Rugg 
Social Studies Materials." Theory And Research 
in Social Education, 5 (1): 64-83.  

Publishers’ Weekly. (1941). “Editorial: Rugg Serves 
Freedom of Education,” Publishers Weekly, 139, 
(April 12, 1941), p. 1533. 

Riley, K. L. & Stern, B. S. (2003/2004). ‘A 
Bootlegged Curriculum’: The American Legion 
versus Harold Rugg. International Journal of 
Social Education, 18, no. 2: 62-75. 

Ross, E. W. & Marker, P. M. (Eds.) (2005). Social 
studies: Wrong, right, or left?: A critical response 
to the Fordham Institute’s Where did social 
studies go wrong? The Social Studies, 96 (4, 5). 

Rudd, A. G. (1940). "Our "Reconstructed" 
Educational System." Nation's Business, April pp. 
27-28, 93-94. 

 



 

 21

 
 
Rugg, H.  O.  (1921a). How shall we reconstruct the 

social studies curriculum? An open letter to 
professor Henry Johnson commenting on 
committee procedure as illustrated by the report 
of the joint committee on history and education 
for citizenship, Historical Outlook, 7 (no. 5, 
May), pp. 184-189.  

Rugg, H. O. (1923). Problems of contemporary life as 
the basis for curriculum-making in Social 
studies. In H. O. Rugg (Ed.). The social studies in 
the elementary and secondary school.  Twenty-
second Yearbook of the National Society for the 
Study of Education, Part II. Bloomington, IL: 
Public School Publishing Co. 

Rugg, H. O. (1933). The great technology: Social 
chaos and the public mind. New York: John Day. 

Rugg, H. O. (1940). Confidential analysis of the 
current (1939-1940) attacks on the Rugg Social 
Science Series, prepared by Harold Rugg in May-
June 1940,“ Harold Rugg” folder, box 58, 
William F. Russell Papers, Milbank Memorial 
Library, Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Rugg, H. O. (1941). That men may understand: An 
American in the long armistice.  New York: 
Doubleday and Doran. 

Rugg, H. O. (1956). Rugg Speaking at the New York 
Geriatric Society, Cold Spring, New York, June 
15, 1956, Cold Spring Tapes, Tape #1, Side 1. 

Selden, S. (2004).  "The Neo-conservative Assault on 
the Undergraduate Curriculum." Paper presented 
at the annual meeting of the American 
Educational Research Association, San Diego, 
April, 2004. 

Shumaker, R. W. (1943). R. Worth Shumaker to John 
E. Thomas, August 4, 1943, Legion dead-letter 
files.  Cited in Jones, O. E. (1959). Activities of 
the American Legion in textbook analysis and 
Criticism. Doctoral dissertation, University of 
Oklahoma, Norman, p. 82. 

Singer, A. (2005). Strange bedfellows: The 
contradictory goals of the coalition making war 
on social studies. The Social Studies, 96 (5): 199-
205. 

Stanley, W. B. (1982). A reinterpretation of Harold 
Rugg’s role in the foundation of modern social 
education. Journal of Thought, 17, 85-94. 

Stehle, V. (1997). "Righting philanthropy." The 
Nation, 30 June, pp. 15-20. 

Winters, E. A. (1967). Man and his changing society: 
The textbooks of Harold Rugg. History of 
Education Quarterly, 7, 509-510. 

Zimmerman, J. (2002). Whose America?: Culture 
wars in the public schools. Cambridge: Harvard 
University Press, 2002. 


