Ron Evans-Rugg


   

The Rugg Story:  

Lessons on the Promise and Perils of Curriculum Innovation 
1
 

 

Ronald W. Evans 

San Diego State University 

 

 

Abstract 

 This article examines Harold Rugg‟s 

social studies program, controversies he inspired, 

and lessons of his life as an activist.  Rugg was a 

leading educator during the first half of the 

twentieth century and author of an avante-garde 

social studies textbook series.  Rugg‟s work 

resides at the center of the roiling curricular 

debates of the 20
th

 century, and illustrates both the 

potential and perils of innovation as seen through 

the life of one man. 

 

Introduction 

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 possibilities for the future. 

As Kliebard and Wegner noted, Rugg‟s 

career “virtually represents in miniature the 

panorama of educational ideologies that 

characterized twentieth century curriculum reform 

in America: scientific curriculum making, child-

centered education, and most notably, social 

reconstructionism” (1987, 269). Moreover, 

Rugg‟s career, and the ideas of his detractors, 

embody elements of the entire spectrum of social 

studies ideologies that influenced the making of 

the curriculum in the twentieth century: education 

for social efficiency in the form of scientific 

curriculum making, social studies as social 

science inquiry, social studies as traditional 

history and civics, social studies as an issues-

oriented and integrated field of study, and social 

studies as education for social reconstructionism 

(Evans 2004). 

 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 also on schools.  His 

work brought an issues-centered approach to the 

field to a large segment of U.S. schoolchildren 

during the 1930s, and thus influenced the 

education of a generation of U.S. citizens.  His 

textbooks and workbooks together sold more than 

four million copies during the decade from 1929 

to 1939.  At the height of their popularity, they 

were used by an estimated one-third to one-half 

of the children in junior high schools.  Ultimately, 

they inspired a controversy that changed the 

course of the curriculum (Winters 1967; Evans 

2007). 

 Rugg‟s social studies program was 

pedagogically advanced, integrating the social 

sciences and history in an issues-centered 

program focusing on understanding and social 



 

   

57 

 

transformation.  To this day, the Rugg social 

science materials serve as a useful prototype for a 

unified social studies focused on issues and 

societal problems and aimed at education for 

social justice (Evans 2007).   

 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 

1939, 140-41).  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 issues and 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 policy, issues related to racial 

diversity, the role of the United States in world 

affairs, and myriad 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. 

 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 

schoolchildren, 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 

progressive educators are still fighting, and, 

unfortunately, still losing.  Rugg's story illustrates 

the point that being a social critic or progressive 

reformer can be dangerous, especially so in 

education.  To openly declare allegiance to ideas 

that challenge capitalism and its most basic 

assumptions can, and has—on many occasions—

led to serious repercussions.  

 Rugg's life and work have great resonance 

today, in the 21st century.  The Rugg story raises 

serious questions about the rationale and purposes 

for schooling: What kind of citizens and citizen 

education do we want?  How far should schools 

go in providing opportunities for social criticism?  

What kinds of activities and materials are 

appropriate in support of education for social 

justice?  What are its limits, if any?  And, behind 

all of these questions, whose version of “the 

American way” should schools support? 

 Teaching for social justice has had many 

advocates over the years and seems a permanent 

interest group in the panoply of educational 

thought.  The literature on social justice oriented 

schooling has mushroomed since the 1970s, an 

offshoot of critiques of society, and of schooling, 

developed during the 1960s and later (Ayers, 

Hunt and Quinn 1998).  To a greater degree than 

many recent advocates of teaching for social 

justice, Rugg's work achieved a strong presence 

in schools.  Thus, most importantly, the Rugg 

story, his life and his work, challenges us to make 

a difference in schools.   

 

Framework 

This article provides a brief overview of 

the Rugg story, but is focused primarily on 

Rugg‟s life as an educational activist and the 

“other” Rugg controversy, which occurred some 

ten years after the Rugg textbook controversy.  It 

includes an overview of Rugg‟s social studies 

ideas, the development of the Rugg pamphlet and 

textbook series, and a brief description of the 

major national controversy they inspired.  An 



 

   

58 

 

examination of Rugg‟s rationale for social 

studies, the Rugg social studies program, and the 

controversies that resulted is of continuing 

interest for several reasons.  First, rationales are 

important, and are too often neglected (Shaver 

1977; Ochoa-Becker 1996).  Social studies 

professionals at all levels have an obligation to 

consider the foundations of social studies theory 

embodied in the multiple rationales and 

orientations to the field.  In recent years, rationale 

deliberations have been largely pre-empted by the 

rush of support for history, geography, and civics 

as the core of social studies, driven by a neo-

conservative standards and testing agenda for 

schooling and supported by the nexus of power 

and money (Singer 2005; Ross and Marker 2005; 

Evans 2004).  These recent trends have undercut 

thoughtful deliberation on rationales.  As a result, 

much of the current research on teaching in social 

studies is focused on the teaching of history.  In 

too many instances, it assumes and benefits from 

a “history as core” orientation, without the 

thorough deliberations necessary to arrive at a 

well-grounded rationale for democratic education 

in schools.  Thus, Rugg‟s rationale and program 

are important because they provide a thought-

provoking alternative, and a seminal vision of 

education for democratic citizenship. 

 Second, recent literature on Rugg 

illustrates continuing interest in the Rugg story 

but focuses mainly on various aspects of the 

textbook controversy (i. e., Poland and 

Boesenberg 2001; Riley and Slater-Stern 2003).  

While this work adds to our knowledge, it is 

important to affirm that Rugg‟s success stemmed 

from his development of an innovative vision for 

social studies, which was embodied in the Rugg 

social science program. 

 Third, we have a long history of 

contributions to the literature on issues-centered 

social studies from a number of scholars over 

many years (Hunt and Metcalf 1955 & 1968; 

Oliver and Shaver 1966; Newmann and Oliver 

1970; Engle and Ochoa 1988; Evans and Saxe 

1996).  The closely related literature on 

democratic education has also grown 

exponentially (Apple and Beane 1995; Ochoa-

Becker 2007; Gutmann 1999; Ayers, Hunt and 

Quinn 1998).  And, a younger generation of 

scholars is emerging with similar interests and 

affinities (i. e., Caron 2005; Koeppen 1999).  The 

literature on issues-centered and democratic 

education, whether it is explicitly acknowledged 

or not, is built upon the foundation established by 

Harold Rugg and other great progressives during 

the first half of the 20
th

 century.   

 Revisiting Rugg‟s vision 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.  A full understanding 

requires that we briefly examine the origins of his 

ideas, his developing theory, his critique of the 

standard practices in schools, the key principles 

and explicit rationale under girding his social 

science program, and the controversy he 

inspired.
2 
 

 Perhaps most poignantly, this article also 

examines the influence of the textbook 

controversy on Rugg‟s persona and the fracas that 

ensued after Rugg was invited to speak at Ohio 

State University in the early 1950s, nearly ten 

years after the propaganda campaign and media 

frenzy that engulfed Rugg and his books.  Finally, 

the author places Rugg‟s life and career in 

perspective, focusing on both the lasting benefits 

and perils of innovation as seen through the life 

and work of one man. 

 

Origins 



 

   

59 

 

 Harold Ordway Rugg was born in 

Fitchburg, Massachusetts on January 17, 1886.  

He attended Fitchburg public schools, worked in 

a textile mill, and, through good fortune and his 

own initiative, attended Dartmouth College.  He 

studied civil engineering and worked as a railroad 

surveyor, then taught civil engineering for two 

years and became interested in how students 

learn.  His engineering background would later 

influence his penchant for social engineering as 

embodied in his evolving ideas for education.  He 

earned a Ph.D. in Education at the University of 

Illinois under the mentorship of William C. 

Bagley in 1915, then held a teaching post in 

educational psychology and statistics at the 

University of Chicago, engaging in what he 

would later describe as “an orgy of tabulation” 

(Rugg 1941, 182). 

 Rugg was raised in modest circumstances 

in Fitchburg, always it seemed, with "not enough" 

of the material goods of life.  As a carpenter and 

cabinet-maker with a fiercely independent streak, 

his father struggled at times to hold a job.  Rugg's 

sense of deprivation was heightened by his 

observation of the wealthy among Fitchburg—

their power, influence, and luxurious lifestyle.  

Rugg grew up holding many conventional 

attitudes, sympathy for the underdog, and an 

exceptionally strong drive for financial and career 

success. 

 It was during his tenure at the University 

of Chicago that Rugg was called upon to serve on 

the Army's Committee on the Classification of 

Personnel during World War I.  The Committee 

was charged with aptitude and intelligence testing 

and sorting of personnel during the Army‟s large-

scale expansion.  During his service, Rugg went 

through a transformation in his world-view.  He 

embraced a progressive ideology that planted the 

seed for his conversion from the field of 

educational psychology and statistics to social 

studies.  This dramatic transformation was 

precipitated through his interaction and friendship 

with others on the Committee, including Arthur 

Upham Pope, John Coss, and Walter Lippman, 

and by his introduction through these contacts to 

contemporary social critics—including Van 

Wyck Brooks, Waldo Frank, and Randolph 

Bourne who held an aesthetic orientation and who 

had written for The Seven Arts, a highly regarded 

literary journal.    

 Behind Rugg's conversion to social studies 

and focus on social issues was a new awareness 

of the displacement and human suffering caused 

by industrialism and its allied developments, 

modern warfare, and colonialism.  Rather than 

focus on any one issue, his vision encompassed 

the broad nexus of forces, issues, and problems 

that needed to be understood, and overcome, in 

order to ameliorate human suffering in the world. 

 In January 1920, Rugg joined the faculty 

at Teachers College, Columbia University, where 

he also served as school psychologist for the 

Lincoln School, one of the leading progressive 

private schools in the nation, founded with the 

intention of changing the face of American 

education.  It was at the Lincoln School that Rugg 

found a laboratory for working out his ideas for 

the social studies curriculum with a handful of 

teachers and students.  His contact with John 

Dewey, William H. Kilpatrick, George S. Counts, 

John L. Childs, Jesse Newlon, R. Bruce Raup and 

others at Teachers College had a profound 

influence on his intellectual development, as did 

his association with the avant-garde in the New 

York area including creative artists such as Alfred 

Stieglitz and Georgia O'Keefe in Greenwich 

Village, and his later residence in the arts 

community of Woodstock, New York, which 



 

   

60 

 

inspired Rugg‟s interest in the arts, in imagination 

and creativity.  

 Given time to read and think as per his 

agreement with his new employers, Rugg set to 

work exploring the seminal works in history and 

the social sciences of the late 19th and early 20th 

century.  He read historians such as Frederick 

Jackson Turner, Charles A. Beard, and James 

Harvey Robinson, and social scientists including 

Thorsten Veblen, Charles Horton Cooley, and 

John Maynard Keynes.  As a result of these 

contacts and of his reading, a new understanding 

of the problems of modern industrial society, and 

"a new vista of possibilities,” opened before him.   

 Rugg was strongly influenced by these 

"frontier thinkers" on the cutting edge of modern 

scholarship.  Moreover, he was profoundly 

affected by the work and thought of John Dewey, 

by various forms of social criticism, by the social 

experiment of Soviet Russia, and by the 

movement for Technocracy, especially the 

thought of Howard Scott, who promoted a vision 

of a society of shared abundance in which the 

industrial economy would be run by expert 

technicians in order to end the hardships and class 

conflict associated with industrial society. 

 Following this period of intense study, 

Rugg's conversion to social studies was more or 

less complete.  It was during and shortly after this 

time that Rugg developed the core of his idea for 

a “unified” social studies curriculum, crossing but 

not obliterating disciplinary boundaries, focused 

on issues and problems and presenting history and 

the social sciences through the lens of persistent 

societal issues. 

Rugg‟s notion of a composite or “unified” 

course was not an entirely original idea, though it 

was a relatively new development and 

undoubtedly received its greatest boost from his 

work.  In Rugg‟s case, it was an idea instigated, in 

part, by his old friend, John Coss, with whom he 

served on the Army‟s Committee on the 

Classification of Personnel.  Though Rugg‟s 

worldview was strongly influenced by his 

association with other members of that 

Committee, and by the social criticism contained 

in the The Seven Arts, it was Coss who most 

directly influenced Rugg‟s vision for social 

studies.  Coss planned to develop a unified course 

in Contemporary Civilizations at Columbia 

College upon his return to his teaching post there 

after World War I, and he had discussed this 

intention with Rugg (Rugg 1941, 170). Rugg later 

attributed many of the core ideas for his unified 

social science course to Coss (Coss 1923) and 

adapted them to the secondary level (Winters 

1967, 20). 

 

A Developing Theory 

Rugg‟s ideas on social studies began to 

emerge more fully in the early 1920s in 

monographs written by Rugg and his research 

associates and appeared in Rugg‟s publications in 

journals and books.  Development of his social 

studies theory occurred in relative synchronicity 

with the writing and publication of the Rugg 

Social Science Pamphlets, which would be used 

to implement his vision in schools.  Although 

Rugg did not publish a single, unified statement 

of his theory during the early years of his career 

at Teachers College, his writings provide strong 

evidence of his developing approach.  As it 

emerged over time, the basic skeletal frame 

remained relatively constant.  Yet, Rugg‟s 

continuing intellectual growth at Teachers 

College, and in the cultural richness of New York 

City, led to the gradual evolution of a more fully 

developed rationale. 

 Rugg‟s first published articles describing 

his vision for a new and innovative social studies 



 

   

61 

 

began to appear not long after his arrival at the 

Lincoln School and Teachers College.  In two 

similar articles, which were published in The 

Historical Outlook and The Elementary School 

Journal in May of 1921, Rugg critiqued the work 

of the Committee on History and Education for 

Citizenship, known as the Second Committee of 

Eight of the American Historical Association.  

Although he defended the need for national 

committees in developing curricula, he was 

extremely critical of the Eight for failing to take a 

“scientific approach” and for neglecting to 

provide necessary national leadership (Rugg 

1921a, 186).  Perhaps its most serious deficiency, 

according to Rugg, was that it “failed to acquaint 

children with the development of current 

institutions and problems” (Rugg 1921a, 185). 

 Rugg proposed that future committees 

“sweep the board clean” and start anew, 

developing “carefully thought-out hypotheses of 

selection ... based upon a principle of social worth 

“leading inexorably to study of the outstanding 

“problems” and “issues” of contemporary 

civilization.  Later, in the same article, Rugg 

critiqued the “encyclopedic presentation of facts, 

with little or no emphasis upon application of 

these facts to the understanding of great 

fundamental relationships.”  He then proposed 

that, “to develop a real power of thought” we 

should give students “constant practice in 

generalization,” helping them to understand great 

movements and causal connections, acquiring 

information by “gradual accretion” through 

“making … interconnections—not mere drill 

upon isolated topics, events, conditions, 

personages, etc.” (1921a, 189).  These were 

pointed criticisms of the common curricular and 

classroom practice of the day that went right to 

the heart of its deficiency. 

 In his next publication, which appeared in 

The Historical Outlook in October of 1921, Rugg 

provided a more fully developed and cogent 

statement of his emerging theory of social studies.  

He framed his theory in the context of seven 

“hypotheses,” which his newly formed research 

team aimed to either confirm or refute.  The 

hypotheses included emphasis on problem-

solving, development of a unified course, student 

examination of evidence in various forms, current 

affairs as a window to relevant episodes from the 

past, and a spiraling or layering of complexity 

(Rugg 1921b, 252).  

 

The Problem with the Old Order 

In the first chapter of the 1923 NSSE 

yearbook, Rugg asked, in his title: “Do the Social 

Studies Prepare Pupils Adequately for Life 

Activities?”  He answered, “they do not,” then set 

out to describe and critique the present curriculum 

in some detail.  First, Rugg argued that the vast 

majority of our people rarely deliberate 

thoughtfully on political and social matters.  He 

hypothesized that “critical judgment, instead of 

impulse, must be the basis upon which our social 

and political decisions are made...” and that it was 

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, 1-2). 

 “History instruction,” Rugg wrote, “spans 

six or seven school years from fourth through 

twelfth grade.”  He summarized the present focus 

of historical study as “international, legalistic, and 

militaristic” with students expected to learn a 

great deal of “minutiae” about the past.  History 

instruction deals, he wrote, “with the growth of 

our nation as a legal and political organization” 



 

   

62 

 

but largely ignores the “social, industrial, and 

intellectual aspects...” (Rugg 1923, 5).   

 From the fifth grade on, geography 

exhibits a focus on “countless facts ... learned by 

rote” from textbooks which are “veritable 

encyclopedias” organized by continent and 

country, containing “a multiplicity of detail” and 

trying to “cover too much territory” (Rugg 1923, 

5-6). 

 While acknowledging improvements and 

innovations contained in the new and rapidly 

growing course in “Community Civics,” 

including greater focus on community welfare 

and conditions in cities, Rugg lamented the fact 

that “few such innovations” had reached the 

elementary or junior high school.  In those years, 

and in most government courses at higher levels, 

the schools continued to “drill students” on the 

Constitution, and the branches and powers of the 

federal government, using what was frequently 

called a structure-of-government approach. Rugg 

went on, “Our social sciences are dominated by 

reading courses which stress the acquisition of 

information.  The schools are following the path 

of least resistance ... based upon „no theories at 

all.‟”  “The practice implicitly assumes … that 

clear thinking and right conduct will issue from 

the mere acquiring of information” (Rugg 1923, 

6-7). 

Remarkably, Rugg‟s description of the 

standard practices in social studies of the 1920s 

bears an eerie resemblance to the modal practice 

today.  Moreover, his criticisms and remedies 

continue to resonate, and may serve as a potential 

source for reflection and new directions.   

 

Key Principles of Rugg Social Studies   

Rugg‟s proposed social science course for 

the junior high school was built upon eight 

hypotheses: 

 

First: Contemporary problems and their 

historical backgrounds can be learned 

more effectively through one unified 

social science curriculum than through 

the separate school subjects. 

 

Second: Each major topic of the course 

must be of established social value to the 

rank and file of our people.  Unless a 

topic contributes to an understanding of 

contemporary life, it can find no place in 

such a course.   

 

Third:  An objective analysis of social 

needs facilitates the assignment—to each 

of the major phases of life—its proper 

amount of attention in the curriculum. 

 

Fourth: Problems shall be based on 

common experiences of children using 

personal appeals (e.  g “What would you 

do if—?”), alternative proposals, and 

intellectual opposition to obtain interest, 

and should be illustrated by detailed 

episodes and by a wealth of maps, 

graphs, and pictorial material. 

 

Fifth: Reading materials and exercises 

should be established to stimulate 

analysis and reasoning.  Thus, all units 

of work shall be presented definitely in 

problem-solving form. 

 

Sixth: Problem-situations shall be 

presented first through current affairs. 

Only those historical backgrounds shall 

be developed which are crucial for clear 

thinking about contemporary matters, 

presented through “sharp contrasts.” 

 

Seventh:  Historical backgrounds will be 

clearer if the history of only one set of 

related topics is traced at one time.  We 

should teach history longitudinally, 



 

   

63 

 

tracing development of a particular topic 

or activity to the present. 

 

Eighth:  One problem or topic should be 

considered definitely and thoroughly at 

one time. (an admonition to go for depth) 

(adapted from Rugg 1921a; Rugg 1921b; 

Rugg 1923).
3
 

 

 And so, by 1923 Rugg had fleshed out the 

core ideas that were at the heart of his vision for 

social studies.  It was, in essence, a progressive 

and issues-centered vision centered on curriculum 

integration.  It focused on issues and “problem-

situations,” appealed to the interests of the child, 

balanced with social need and a curriculum that 

was to be designed in advance of instruction.  It 

also contained a theory on the use of historical 

material as background to contemporary 

understanding rather than as content per se.  

These were innovative ideas that provided a 

foundation for the further development of Rugg‟s 

social studies materials 

 

Behind Rugg’s Theory: A Rationale  

At the heart of his rationale, Rugg posited 

that development of a curriculum for “a troubled 

society” required confronting young people with 

“the most critical problems of that society.” Rugg 

viewed our society as “troubled” and “faced with 

big and insistent problems.”  He argued that 

society was also “dynamic” and that the 

curriculum must be dynamic as well.  Hence, 

there were two fundamental mandates in creating 

a curriculum: first, selection of “insistent and 

permanent problems,” and second, to 

continuously adapt the curriculum to “the 

problems which experts predict will continue to 

be insistent in the adult life of the growing 

generation.”  Finally, Rugg held, even at this 

early date, that the school is “our most important 

agency for the improvement of society” (Rugg 

1923, 261-262). 

To locate these “insistent problems,” Rugg 

argued that no one was better equipped than the 

group of writers he labeled “frontier thinkers.”  

These frontier thinkers included scholars from a 

variety of fields “out on the firing line of social 

analysis.” Rugg and his research assistants drew 

on the “matured statements” contained in more 

than 150 books of several score of these frontier 

thinkers.  The books were selected using a four-

part procedure.  First, drawing from Book Review 

Digest, they selected only those works referred to 

as “books of distinct merit, irrespective of 

economic or political faith.” Second, they chose 

books characterized as “important” in book 

reviews of six weekly and several monthly 

journals.  Third, the list was supplemented by “a 

canvass” of several thousand books held at 

Columbia University Library. And fourth, eighty 

specialists were solicited for “a list of ten books 

in his own field ... which he would use to obtain 

statements of problems in his field,” reflecting 

“deep insight and balanced vision” and chosen 

“irrespective of economic or political faith” 

(Rugg 1923, 267). 

Rugg‟s vision for social studies contained 

both social theory and psychological theory, 

although the social theory was dominant, even 

early on.  The social theory held that social 

studies subjects in schools existed in the context 

of a troubled society, and that by becoming aware 

of issues and problems, students would develop a 

commitment to active citizenship aimed at social 

improvement.  Social value would be the litmus 

test for selection and inclusion of topics in the 

curriculum, and social improvement was to be the 

teleological goal. 

The psychological theory held that students 

were interested in present life conditions and its 



 

   

64 

 

related issues and problems; that persistent and 

relatively permanent issues and problems should 

be at the heart of the curriculum; and, that history 

and much of the other social science content 

should be taught in such a way that these 

traditional sources of knowledge would interest 

and illuminate students lives in the present.  And, 

more importantly for Rugg, it should prepare 

them for lives as active and concerned citizens 

who would help to improve conditions in a 

“troubled society.” Thus, while the interests of the 

child were an important part of Rugg‟s theory, he 

clearly subordinated student interest to social 

need and the larger goal of social improvement. 

Rugg‟s thinking, as expressed in the teacher 

guides he developed in the late 1920s to 

accompany his textbooks, also emphasized the 

importance of active learning and student 

participation that would go far beyond a passive 

“reading” curriculum.  The “active” school would 

replace the traditional “listening” school (Rugg 

1929).  Learning through active participation 

meant that the course would involve a stream of 

activities rather than students simply reading a 

textbook, answering questions at the back of the 

chapter, and listening to the teacher speak.  

Participation would involve a wide range of 

activities and formats, including student research 

in books, magazines, and newspapers; discussion 

through open forums and debate; preparation of 

outlines, briefs, and critiques as needed; and, use 

of new tools of graphic and pictorial display.  As 

Rugg put it, the materials should be arranged in 

“thought provoking form.” The student must not 

only gather and “absorb facts,” but must be given 

constant practice in “making decisions with facts” 

(Rugg 1929, 5). 

To make learning more meaningful, Rugg 

emphasized selection of a relatively small number 

of problems, studied in depth, rather than the 

superficial treatment of many topics.  Selection of 

topics and materials would be based on social 

worth.  Rugg believed that an understanding of 

the modern world could best be achieved through 

a focus on “a few hundred” of the concepts of the 

social sciences.  Finally, Rugg emphasized that 

students should concentrate on one topic at a time 

and one particular task (Winters 1968, 36-41; 

Rugg 1929, 3-12). 

 

The Rugg Social Science Materials 

 Development of the Rugg social science 

pamphlets began during the early 1920s.  Rugg 

and his assistants (eventually including his 

brother Earle Rugg and an assortment of graduate 

students, editors, and other collaborators) 

contacted former students and asked them to 

subscribe, sight unseen, to the social science 

pamphlet series that he and his entourage had 

developed experimentally at the Lincoln school.  

The response was overwhelming.  By June 1922, 

he had received orders for 4,000 copies of each.  

The second edition of the pamphlet series resulted 

in about 100,000 copies of each issue being 

shipped to schools (Nelson 1977; Kay 1969). 

 The Rugg social science 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.”  They also 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. 



 

   

65 

 

 The Rugg-developed pamphlets were 

revised and published in textbook form by Ginn 

and Company—two texts per grade (seventh, 

eighth and ninth) for junior high schools—

beginning in August of 1929, with publication of 

another volume in the series published every six 

months thereafter.  The series, Man and His 

Changing Society, became a huge financial 

success, and represents the zenith of issues-

centered social studies materials entre into 

classrooms in the twentieth century. 

 During the 1930s, sales of Rugg's 

textbook series skyrocketed.  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 fortuitous 

timing he had clearly become the leading social 

studies educator in the United States (Winters 

1967).  At their peak, the Rugg program materials 

were used in more than 4,000 school districts 

nationwide (Bagenstos 1977). 

 The six volumes of the junior high school 

program were "designed to provide a 

comprehensive introduction to modes of living 

and insistent problems of the modern world" 

(Rugg, 1931, p. vi) with the purpose of 

"introducing young people to the chief conditions 

and problems which will confront them as 

citizens of the world," (vi).  Rugg defended his 

development of a "unified" course-of-study by 

alluding to students‟ need to "utilize facts, 

meanings, generalizations, and historical 

movement" (vi) in understanding modern 

institutions. He wrote, “Whenever history is 

needed to understand the present, history is 

presented.”   The same is true with “geographic 

relationship” and economic and social facts and 

principles (vi-vii).  Although these books 

contained a great deal of historical narrative, not 

unlike many other texts, the overarching aim was 

to make the study of history and the social 

sciences relevant, interesting, and meaningful to 

students in service of the ultimate goal of social 

melioration.  In both the pamphlet series and the 

textbooks, material from history and the social 

sciences was frequently framed with issues and 

problems of present concern.  

 

The Gathering Storm 

 Rugg's scholarly writing 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," 

reflecting concerns spurred by the era of the great 

depression.  It was, in part, these writings and 

subsequent media coverage of his speaking 

engagements that 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 The Red Network (1934).  

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.  

His comments and outspoken views critical of the 

American Legion and other groups made him the 

chief target of their attacks. 

 By 1939, against the backdrop of 

dictatorship in Europe and the beginning of 

World War II, controversies over the Rugg 

textbooks spread like wildfire, and the American 



 

   

66 

 

public was treated to a spectacle that received 

continuing national media coverage.  The attacks 

centered in the New York metropolitan area and 

represented an intense campaign orchestrated by 

relatively few people.  The bulk of the attacks 

came from a combination 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.  Attacks on the 

Rugg materials began as part of a blanket attack 

on American writers and texts, with Rugg 

gradually becoming the chief target. 

 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, a native Fascist 

and 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, 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, 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.  

 Two articles that appeared in widely read 

and nationally circulated magazines generated the 

next round of controversy.  The first of these was 

an article by Augustin G. Rudd that was 

published in the April 1940, issue of Nation’s 

Business, and was 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, 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, 94). 

 The second article, by Orlen K. 

Armstrong, was titled, "Treason in the 

Textbooks," and appeared in the American Legion 

Magazine  for September 1940, and was 

distributed to one million homes.  The American 

Legion had a long history of trying to persuade 

the nation‟s citizens to support its brand of true 

“Americanism” by distributing pamphlets, 

suppressing “subversive elements,” and 

supporting textbook criticism (Gellerman 1938).  

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, 51-70).  



 

   

67 

 

Armstrong attacked fused courses like Rugg's, 

and described them as "propaganda for a change 

in our political, economic, and social order" (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, 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 business organization 

with a long history of propaganda campaigns 

aimed at organized labor, the New Deal, and 

school curricula.  During the 1930s the “brass 

hats” of big business reclaimed leadership of the 

NAM and launched a campaign aimed at 

“business salvation,” flooding the nation with 

propaganda aimed at manufacturing favorable 

public opinion.  They popularized the term “free 

enterprise” as a replacement for “capitalism,” 

adopting the term at their 1932 convention 

(Seldes 1968, 112-113).  Involvement in the Rugg 

textbook controversy was part of their larger 

propaganda campaign.  On December 11, 1940, 

The New York Times reported that the NAM 

announced that it would initiate a survey of 

textbooks used in 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 currently used social studies 

textbooks to show the authors‟ 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."  The article cited the 

controversy over the Rugg textbooks and noted 

that several school systems had banned his books 

from the classroom (Fine 1941, 1, 6). 

 The story, including the reference to the 

Rugg controversy, appeared on the front page. 

The abstracts provided provocative selected 

quotations from the texts, which raised questions 

about the functioning of government, the 

distribution of wealth and incidence of poverty, or 

the interplay of power and wealth.  The 

quotations were provided without any sense of the 

remainder of each text, much of which would be 

found utterly innocuous. 

 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.
4
 

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).  The NAM 

President, Walter D. Fuller, responded with a 

press release stating that Robey's criticisms were 



 

   

68 

 

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 and expressed regret that 

"distorted" impressions of the project had been 

given such wide currency (Hunt 1941b, 328).    

 

The Defense 

 A defense against the attacks on the Rugg 

textbooks was mounted on several fronts.  The 

Academic Freedom Committee of NCSS issued a 

statement supporting academic freedom, and later 

prepared "a packet of reading matter 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, which was 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, 

488). 

 Rugg himself was undoubtedly the chief 

advocate for the defense of social studies, and the 

Rugg textbooks, against the attackers.  Likewise, 

numerous friends and colleagues rushed to his 

defense.  One of the most active groups was the 

American Committee on Democracy and 

Intellectual Freedom, organized in the late 1930s 

to address a range of intellectual freedom issues, 

and chaired by Franz Boaz at Columbia 

University (ACDIF 1941).  Among other groups 

that furnished support were the Association of 

Textbook Publishers, and Rugg's associates at the 

journal Frontiers of Democracy.  Even John 

Dewey came to Rugg's defense in an opinion 

editorial piece which appeared in The New York 

Times (Dewey 1940).  Like several groups and 

individuals, Dewey defended Rugg on the 

grounds of intellectual freedom even though he 

did not 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 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.  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. 

That Men May Understand was published in 

April of 1941, and received generally favorable 

reviews (Rugg 1941).  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" (Melcher 1941, 

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, 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, 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" (90).  In opposition to 

the critics, he argued that young people have "the 



 

   

69 

 

right to know what the world is all about and to 

learn what can be done about it" (91).  As was 

clear to a number of observers at the time, many 

of Rugg‟s critics had links to Fascism—defined 

as dictatorship of the corporate elite.  According 

to independent journalist George Seldes, 

publisher of the newsletter In fact, the NAM was 

“the center of American Fascism” (Seldes 1943, 

80, 100).   It was the “the peak association of big 

business … [and] … the most powerful private 

organization in the country,” and it was 

organizing a great propaganda campaign aimed at 

“manufacturing public opinion” that suited its 

interests (Seldes 1947, 43, 61).  

 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 

within the movement for integrated social studies, 

and a focus on issues and problems with a 

meliorist or reconstructionist purpose gathered 

steam.  The tide turned after the Robey article. By 

1943, American Legion officers believed they had 

ousted the textbooks from approximately 1500 

communities (Shumaker 1943, cited in Jones 

1957).  By the middle of the decade, the Rugg 

textbook series and program had fallen from 

prominence and had virtually disappeared.   

 

The Aftermath 

 By the fall of 1942, it was clear that 

Rugg‟s struggle to maintain a presence for his 

textbooks in the schools was over, and that his 

efforts had largely failed.  Even in the schools 

that had decided to keep the Rugg program, it 

would only be used until money was available to 

purchase the next set of books.  The impact of the 

textbook controversy on Rugg‟s fortunes as a 

scholar and as a leader among progressive 

educators was enormous.  As late as 1939, it 

seemed that everything he touched in his 

professional life turned to gold.  His school 

materials (quite literally) created a small personal 

fortune.  After the fall of the Rugg textbooks, 

however, Rugg‟s leadership in social studies and 

his visions of a large personal fortune were 

finished.   

The impact of all of this on him must have 

been immense, although he never admitted it 

publicly.  Rugg‟s friends and colleagues 

expressed somewhat contradictory opinions about 

how this affected him (Nelson 1975).  Two 

younger colleagues, Paul Hanna and R. Freeman 

Butts, believed that the fight left Rugg feeling 

embittered.  Butts remarked in an interview, 

“Harold became much more embittered after the 

American Legion thing” (Butts 1974, cited in 

Nelson 1975).  However, one close personal 

friend of Rugg‟s, Frederick L. Redefer, who lived 

an hour‟s drive from Woodstock, and visited 

frequently until Rugg‟s death, thought that Rugg 

still wanted recognition, and said “Rugg‟s ego 

was so enormous that even after 1942, he felt he 

could sell new books and come back” (Redefer 

1974, cited in Nelson 1975).  One former student, 

who returned to Teachers College after the war, 

described Rugg as being “somewhat withdrawn,” 

while another described him as “disillusioned” by 

his friends‟ and colleagues‟ failure to support him 

during the controversy (Winters 1968, 192).  

Rugg himself later expressed disappointment over 

the same phenomena (Davis 2006).  Although 

most of Rugg‟s close friends and colleagues 

publicly supported his defense, at least one 

anonymous colleague communicated his disdain 

for Rugg to Dean Russell (Confidential undated).  

Another friend of Rugg‟s, Alf Evers, a writer who 

lived in Woodstock and saw him frequently 

during Rugg‟s later years, supports the theory that 

the controversy affected him deeply, and stated in 

a recent interview, “He felt very keenly that 



 

   

70 

 

rejection,” but that Rugg “took it well.”   “It was 

all very fresh in his mind.  Rugg said he „lived 

through it.‟  He didn‟t seem embittered,” though 

“he did feel that he hadn‟t been treated very well 

… and he never went back to social studies” 

(Evers 2003).  

Another friend, Florence Cramer, wife of 

painter Konrad Cramer, noted in her journal, a 

party at the Rugg home that the couple attended 

on Saturday, June 7, 1941. The party was given in 

honor of Waldo Frank, whom she talked with for 

a while.  She described Frank as “an unusually 

simple man and sincere person with a quiet kingly 

manner that was disarming.”  She noted that the 

Rugg‟s “son Harold is handsome—a blond four 

year old—he was playing with a toy bow and 

arrow when we arrived,” and that “the Rugg‟s 

looked well—Harold seems happier than last year 

and Louise said her school (she was Director of 

the Walt Whitman School) has done well” 

(Cramer 1941). 

Family members recall a somewhat more 

severe impact on Rugg‟s persona.  Rugg‟s 

nephew, who visited Rugg in Woodstock with 

Earle Rugg (Harold‟s brother) and his family a 

few times during those years, thought that the 

episode “dealt a severe blow to Harold” (Rugg 

2003).   Katharine Alling, Rugg‟s step-daughter 

who knew Rugg from the early 1940s and lived 

with him much of the time from 1947 until her 

marriage to Norman Alling in 1957, stated that he 

was deeply hurt by the controversy and seemed at 

times, “rather bitter about it … He had a very nice 

income from the textbooks, and he lost that.  He 

believed that he was viciously and unjustly 

attacked.”  Whenever the topic came up in later 

years, there would be an “edge in his voice” 

(Alling 2005). 

 Although Rugg suffered some financial 

hardship when his texts were withdrawn from the 

market, he was able to retain ownership of his 

country estate in Woodstock and maintain an 

apartment in Manhattan.  While a significant 

downsizing in his vision of personal fortune was 

apparent, and must have been a difficult blow 

given his affinities, the loss of audience and of his 

position of leadership in the school curriculum 

surely must have been even more devastating.  He 

was still a prominent figure, and more famous 

than ever because of the attacks on his work, but 

his influence on the public schools was greatly 

weakened. 

Some years later, Rugg was interviewed 

for a story on progressive education that appeared 

in Colliers Magazine.  Asked where he stood 

ideologically, Rugg replied, “I am a New Dealer, 

but they [people who have taken exception to 

school textbooks he has written] object to me.”  

He went on, “They don‟t call me Communist 

anymore though, because I‟ve threatened to sue.”  

From the 1930s and for the remainder of his life, 

Rugg was suspected by conservatives and 

admired by liberals.  Always, he remained a 

controversial progressive educator (Whitman 

1954, 36). 

Several close colleagues and former 

students later remarked on his gallantry and 

perseverance in standing up for his beliefs 

regardless of the costs.  One in particular captured 

Rugg‟s outward approach to the controversy 

when he wrote that Rugg was “…setting a 

precedent for writers.  Pull no punches—hold 

your ground!”  Moreover, he went on, Rugg was 

widely admired for standing up to the attacks.  

“Liberals and forward-looking men the country 

over have always identified themselves with you 

as an honest, courageous educator” (Fox 1951). 

Years later, when asked about the impact 

of the textbook controversy on his work, Rugg 

responded: 



 

   

71 

 

 

I‟m doing now what I should have been 

doing 20 years ago … I was very much, 

my work was very much interfered with 

about the beginning of World War Two 

by the various reactionary groups in the 

country who destroyed my earlier work 

in the social sciences.  The American 

Legion, for example. 

 

I gave four or five years of my life to 

that, which I ought not to have had to do 

… Even though I hadn‟t retired from 

Teachers College, I more or less 

withdrew from all sorts of things.  It 

took another four or five years to get 

going.   

 

See, I gave twenty years to the work in 

the social sciences, and I‟d say that was 

ten years more than I should have given.  

I ought to have done my work at 

Lincoln, and put the stuff together once 

and then quit, but I couldn‟t.  I was a 

slave to the books.  I had so many of 

them, you see.  And it was a treadmill, 

until they got me off.  After a while I 

recognized, that‟s a good thing, 

probably, because I was free, I was 

really free (Rugg 1957). 

 

Although he was able to regroup and 

continued his writing and professional activities, 

in some important ways Rugg was never the 

same.  His marriage of thirteen years to Louise 

Krueger ended in 1943.  Louise Kruger Rugg was 

not only his wife but also his partner in writing a 

set of elementary school social studies texts and 

the mother of his son, Harald, born in 1936.  

Young Harald would have been about seven years 

old at the time of the divorce.  Simply from the 

timing of the divorce, one suspects that this 

change in his personal life, occurring in the wake 

of the textbook controversy, was somehow related 

to his emotional state.   Moreover, unlike his 

previous divorce and re-marriage, this time he 

would spend several years as a single divorcee, as 

if those years were needed to help him through 

his most difficult passage.  

If nothing else, despite the many charges 

and claims made by Rugg‟s detractors, the Rugg 

Social Science series was an expression of a 

grand vision in the progressive tradition—that 

social studies education in schools could prepare 

students for social life with an honest and 

comprehensive look at social realities of the past 

and present, and imbue them with a desire to 

make the world a better place.  That vision was 

shattered.  Rugg‟s leadership in social studies had 

ended.  Though he referred to, and critiqued his 

attackers in some of his later works (Rugg 1943; 

Rugg 1952), and even joked about the 

controversy in a letter to his brother Earle in later 

years (Rugg 1958, cited in Nelson 1975), he 

never attempted another textbook series for public 

school use, nor did he write any new materials on 

the social studies curriculum.  Instead, he turned 

the page of life to a new chapter and turned his 

attention to new topics of interest.  However, he 

never gave up his either his progressive ideals or 

his social reconstructionist beliefs, and continued 

to uphold them in his writing and professional 

involvements to the end. 

That Rugg remained true to his beliefs is a 

testimony to his make-up.  The textbook 

controversy and attacks on the social frontier 

group had at least two immediate effects.  First, 

the attacks led many of Rugg‟s colleagues to back 

down.  Counts and Childs were motivated by the 

attacks to state, in unequivocal terms, their 

commitment to American ideals.  They no longer 

believed that education had a revolutionary role to 

perform or that schools should serve on the 

forefront of social change (Childs 1950; Counts 



 

   

72 

 

1945).  Second, the broad hysteria over 

subversion in schools and textbooks “fused 

together in the conservative mind progressive 

education and the ideology of the radical 

educationists” (Bowers 1970, 49).  From that 

point forward, many conservatives would begin to 

regard the entire frontier group as part of a 

Marxist conspiracy to undermine national 

security.  The result was a continuing drumbeat of 

conservative zealots, throughout the 1950s and 

beyond, imbued with the mission of extinguishing 

progressive education in the schools. 

Though progressive education writ large 

was not quite dead, it was clearly under siege.  

That the siege would be lifted temporarily during 

and immediately after World War Two is 

understandable in hindsight, given the enormous 

focus on the war effort.  The Rugg controversy 

was perhaps the first major battle in what I have 

previously described as the war on social studies, 

and it signaled the beginning of the end for 

progressive education.  Though it would take 

another decade for the looming deluge of attacks 

on progressive education to begin in earnest, the 

general trend had shifted; a line had been crossed.  

In hindsight, it is apparent that the attacks on 

Rugg marked an important turning point in the 

nation‟s educational history. 

 

The Ohio State Controversy 

With Rugg, it seemed controversy was 

never far away.  Shortly after his retirement from 

Teachers College in May 1951, he gave lectures 

at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, on 

July 10 and 11, 1951, at the annual Boyd H. Bode 

Educational Conference.  The speeches were 

given before an audience of 500 graduate 

students, most of whom were school teachers 

from around the nation.  In his address to the 

audience on July 10, Rugg described his approach 

to teaching as the “good life” and the “new 

concept.”  He stated that the enemies of the “good 

life” are ever present, and cited the “cheap 

Americanism” of patriotic groups such as the 

Daughters of the American Revolution and Sons 

of the American Revolution.  He also reportedly 

said: 

 

…I see no hope for the “good life” if 

business is carried on by private 

enterprise.  It will be the will of the 

minority… 

 

…We‟ve let the Un-American Activities 

Committee frighten us.  [They argue] 

We should abandon democracy, awake 

from the dark ages and be prepared to 

lose our little area of freedom (FBI 

Memo 1951, 4). 

 

Rugg also reportedly said that a serious 

depression might actually help reawaken the 

American people to their responsibilities and 

benefits (Rugg Assailed 1951). 

In his July 11 speech, Rugg reportedly 

expressed hope for eventual “world control of 

power production.”  He stated that he did not 

believe his predicted depression would 

materialize in the near future, but that through a 

future nationwide period of unemployment people 

would be made to think.  He also reportedly 

spoke of the growing systems of limitless atomic 

power production (FBI Memo 1951, 4). 

Finally, referring to the controversy 

surrounding himself and his writings, Rugg was 

quoted as saying: 

 

The names of the patrioteers and 

organizations change, but their devilish 

motives never change.  Most of them are 

crooked and subversive of the American 

way.  The appalling fact is that parents 

and teachers of middle age stand and do 



 

   

73 

 

nothing after the bigoted attacks of the 

late 30‟s and early 40‟s.  The Un-

American committees have got us 

backed right out of the ring.  They‟re in 

every town in America, led by 

professional rabble-rousers and backed 

by large sums of money.  They are 

merchants of conflict—yellow 

newspapers with disgruntled editors, the 

commentator with a yen for the 

microphone, lap-dog women, business 

men‟s clubs, Rotary, the American 

Legion, chronic letter writers and the 

prestige hunters.  These are the real 

enemies—and the active ones—of 

education (FBI Memo 1951, 4-5). 

 

Although Donald P. Cottrell, dean of the 

College of Education, came to Rugg‟s defense, 

supporting his appearance on the grounds of 

academic freedom and the need for diversity of 

viewpoints, the University President, Dr. Howard 

L. Bevis, issued a statement stating that Rugg‟s 

lectures on the campus implied no sponsorship of 

Rugg‟s views by the University.  President Bevis 

also stated that he disagreed with much of what 

Rugg reportedly said, but that “freedom of speech 

allows wide latitude of expression” (FBI Memo 

1951).  The speech touched off yet another 

controversy over Rugg, although this time the 

most heated controversy was largely confined to 

the Columbus, Ohio, area and its vicinity.  The 

speech also spurred a renewed investigation of 

Rugg by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Stirred by media reports and a local 

campaign launched by Rugg opponents, readers 

of the local papers wrote to express their concerns 

over Rugg‟s appearance.  Some attacked Rugg 

and his ideas, while others decried the use of tax 

dollars to support such a radical guest speaker.  

Several letters attacked the leadership and faculty 

of the graduate school of the College of 

Education who were responsible for, and funded 

Rugg‟s appearance.  Among the letters were the 

following: 

 

…We vehemently protest the appearance 

of Dr. Rugg, author of the controversial 

Rugg textbooks which have been 

eliminated from numbers of schools and 

which have been the target of numerous 

patriotic organizations … The Ohio 

State University is supported by the 

people of Ohio.  Let the people speak!  

Do we want Harold G. Rugg at our 

University? (FBI Memo 1951, 1). 

 

… [Rugg] is a notorious left-wing writer 

of Socialistic textbooks and one of the 

original group of collectivist teachers 

who have warped the minds of American 

schoolchildren for two decades … 

Harold Rugg is a socialist.  He has been 

the leading part of the undermining 

apparatus of our education philosophy.  

He should not have been invited to speak 

at the OSU conference … (FBI Memo 

1951, 2). 

 

…Will teachers attending this 

conference bring this so-called “new 

concept” to our children next fall?  Ohio 

State University needs a thorough 

investigation by the people of Ohio for 

bringing speakers of this type to the 

campus (FBI Memo 1951, 4). 

 

… If our nation is to be destroyed by 

teachers indoctrinated by a bunch of 

fuzzy-minded, hair-brained, so-called 

educators, I for one protest having my 

hard-earned tax dollars pay for that 

destruction (Student‟s Mother 1951). 

 

Following what appeared to be a genuine 

public outcry over Rugg‟s appearance, on July 17, 

1951, Ohio Governor Frank J. Lausche asked the 

trustees of Ohio State University to check into the 



 

   

74 

 

matter.  The previous day, two members of the 

state‟s newly formed Un-American Activities 

Committee of the Ohio Legislature and an OSU 

trustee stated that Rugg‟s conference appearance 

would be investigated.   

An editorial in the Columbus Dispatch on 

July 23 supported an investigation of Rugg‟s 

appearance, “its sponsorship, financing and the 

political philosophies being fostered in the 

College of Education.”  The editors stated, “These 

moves are in order …The question is whether or 

not (teachers) are being indoctrinated with the 

subversive political ideas advocated by a 

notorious and discredited propagandist” (Campus 

Probe 1951).  A much longer editorial expressing 

similar sentiments appeared in the Columbus 

State Journal on August 31, identifying Rugg as 

“the nation‟s most notorious Marxist educator” 

and reading: 

 

The Rugg episode cannot be laughed off.  

Somebody or a group brought him here 

for a purpose, if none other than to 

provide an audience of potential 

missionaries and to give them the 

opportunity to hear and see the fountain 

head, the master, the messiah of the 

movement to build through the school 

system a new body of American 

citizenry, receptive and reconciled and 

blindly eager to accept an American 

counterpart of Soviet totalitarianism… 

(Rugg Episode 1951). 

 

The editorial went on to state that it 

suspected the College of Education at OSU had 

been “substantially infiltrated,” and that many 

boards of education had avoided employing 

graduates from the school, especially in social 

studies. 

 On August 12, it was reported in the 

Cincinnati Enquirer that the Ohio American 

Legion had called for the removal of the Rugg 

textbooks from Ohio schools, repeating their 

usual charges that the books were “biased in their 

presentation by advocating socialistic government 

for the United States” (FBI Memo 1951, 13). 

Most of the letters on the controversy 

called for an investigation of university policies, 

but a few defended Rugg‟s appearance under the 

idea that one of the functions of a university is to 

provide a forum for all ideas, even those which 

are unpopular, so that each may be judged on its 

merits.  Therefore, unpopular persons and ideas 

should be given a hearing.  A number of faculty 

members apparently expressed this defense of the 

Rugg appearance, maintaining that a university 

faculty, within a democracy, has the right to 

select the program to be presented to its students. 

Also coming to Rugg‟s defense was the 

Communist Party of Ohio, which circulated 250 

copies of a mimeographed circular entitled, “The 

Luxury of Silence,” to certain members of the 

OSU faculty and others.  The circular blasted the 

acquiescence of campus liberals to the will of the 

“DISPATCH gang” in the witch-hunt, and “the 

reality of TRUMAN‟s bi-partisan police state” 

(FBI Memo 1951, 11). 

Then, on September 4, the New York 

Times reported, in its back pages, that the Ohio 

State University Board of Trustees had attacked 

Rugg‟s speech as “un-American” and condemned 

the invitation given Rugg to speak at the 

university.  In its statement, the Board of Trustees 

said, “the function of the university is teaching, 

not indoctrination.  The university must not be 

used as an agency of un-American propaganda.  

Every effort will be made to carry out these 

purposes.”  The article also noted, “Dr. Rugg has 

not been listed by any Government agency as un-

American” (Trustees Assail 1951, 29).  A similar 

article, appearing in the Cincinnati Times-Star, 



 

   

75 

 

reported that the invitation was “not in 

accordance with the traditions and objectives of 

Ohio State University,” and noted that in order to 

avoid a recurrence of such an incident, all future 

speakers would have to be cleared through the 

office of the University president (FBI Memo 

1951, 12). 

The FBI Investigates.   

FBI surveillance of Rugg, which covered 

the Ohio State controversy in great detail, actually 

began many years earlier, when the Bureau began 

receiving unsolicited materials on Rugg in 1942.  

The bureau did not begin its Rugg file on its own, 

but started the file when the Washington Field 

Office was given materials “gratuitously” by Mr. 

Walter Steele, publisher of the National Republic 

magazine.  One of the earliest items in the file 

was a manuscript on Rugg by Augustin G. Rudd, 

titled, “What is the Rugg Social System?”  This 

manuscript had appeared in the National Republic 

magazine and was subsequently reprinted in Rugg 

Philosophy Analyzed and circulated by the 

American Legion.  In addition, the file contained 

an article published in the April 1938 issue of The 

Beacon Light, a periodical printed by a right wing 

California group, titled, “Atheistic Communism 

in Our Schools” (FBI 2003).  The files also 

reportedly contained reprints of articles by many 

of Rugg‟s most determined critics.  Despite 

opening a file, the Bureau apparently did little 

else to investigate Rugg during the war years 

(Nelson and Singleton 1977).   

However, by the early 1950s, the climate 

had changed, the cold war was intensifying, the 

McCarthy era was in full bloom (Shrecker 1998), 

and the Bureau was apparently moved to launch a 

security investigation of Rugg following the 

controversy over his speaking engagement at 

Ohio State University.  A lengthy report was filed 

by the Bureau‟s office in Cincinnati on October 1, 

1951, detailing the controversy and summarizing 

several other “pamphlets, books, and leaflets” 

furnished by a local informant—materials “which 

she had accumulated over a number of years,” 

including Rugg Philosphy Analyzed, Vol. III 

(National Americanism Commission 1941), and 

the pamphlet, Undermining Our Republic: Do 

you know what the children are being taught in 

our public schools? You’ll be surprised..., 

published by the Guardians of American 

Education (Rudd, Hicks and Falk 1941).   

Apparently no further action was taken by 

the Bureau at that time, but on April 30, 1953, the 

head of the New York Bureau requested authority 

“to conduct the necessary investigation of this 

person (Harold O. Rugg) to determine whether he 

should or should not be included in the Security 

Index.”  The request referenced the letter of 

October 1, 1951, from the Cincinnati office.  The 

Director of the New York Office was given 

authorization on May 15, 1953, by the Bureau‟s 

Director, J. Edgar Hoover (FBI file 2003).   

The subsequent investigation led to 

reports by the Boston and New York Bureaus of 

the FBI.  Agents in Boston prepared a detailed 

report based on their contact with Dartmouth 

College where they viewed his records, including 

his alumni file which contained a good deal of 

biographical information on Rugg‟s life and 

career.  The alumni file included a number of 

articles critical of Rugg as well as his defense 

published in the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine of 

January, 1941, titled, “That Men May 

Understand.”  In the article, as in his book of the 

same title, Rugg categorically denied ever being a 

Communist or Socialist (Rugg 1941).  The FBI 

report also contained a report on Rugg‟s address 

to the Progressive Education Association meeting 

in Cleveland, Ohio, on March 2, 1934, in which 

he reportedly stated that efforts would be made 



 

   

76 

 

“to organize 14,000,000 persons into a „pressure 

group‟ to force more radical changes in the 

economic system” (FBI file 2003).   

Agents in New York City prepared a 

detailed, 14-page report that advised the Director 

on Rugg‟s residences, his professional 

affiliations, his voting registration, and included 

reports from a variety of informants—many “of 

unknown reliability” and a few who were deemed 

“reliable informants.”  The synopsis of facts of 

the report read, in part:  

 

Reliable informant advised Rugg not a 

Communist but “one of CP‟s 

favorites…” Reliable informants advised 

subj. associated with persons known to 

be members of Communist front 

organizations, 1949 to 1950. (FBI File 

2003) 

 

 The report contained a good deal of 

information and misinformation about Rugg 

gathered from miscellaneous informants.  At one 

point he is cited by an informant for being 

“openly sympathetic with Communist theories” 

and for his “lack of morals.”  Throughout the 

report, Rugg‟s activities and professional and 

political affiliations were subjected to close 

scrutiny, including his involvement with The 

Progressive Citizens of America, and the 

International Judicial Association, both deemed 

“communist front organizations.”  One dossier 

cited in the report, “Red-ucators at Columbia 

University,” published by Allen Zoll‟s National 

Council for American Education, listed Rugg as 

“un-American.”  However, the FBI report stated, 

“It is not to be assumed that because a professor 

or teacher is included in this list, it is conclusive 

evidence that he is a Communist.  He may be 

simply naïve” (FBI Memo 1953, 4). 

 The report also included references to 

selected speeches and writings, reported on 

charges from the usual critics, and included new 

allegations from a few loose cannons.  In June of 

1954, a recommendation was made that a 

Security Index Card be prepared because Rugg 

was a Communist.  However, in July, Director J. 

Edgar Hoover rejected the nomination of Rugg to 

the Security Index because there was insufficient 

information to warrant the recommendation.  

Hoover advised the New York office to “remain 

alert to report any additional information 

indicating subject‟s affiliation with the 

Communist Party or Communist front 

organizations…” (Nelson and Singleton 1977, 

20).  From the time of the authorization in 1953, 

until his death in 1960, whether he knew it or not, 

Rugg was under continuing, but apparently 

sporadic, surveillance by the FBI.  Three reports 

were filed on Rugg in 1959, but they apparently 

led to no further action (Nelson and Singleton 

1977).   

 Although the controversy surrounding 

Rugg‟s appearance at Ohio State in 1951 was the 

last major conflagration in which Rugg was 

actively involved, during the McCarthy era, and 

even later, there was a continuing series of attacks 

and critical commentary on the Rugg textbook 

series and Rugg‟s educational, political, and 

social ideas.  During the deluge of attacks on 

progressive education that occurred during the 

1950s, Rugg and other frontier thinkers, 

especially Counts and Dewey, were subjected to a 

revival of those attacks.  The American Legion 

used the Rugg controversy as an ongoing warning 

to progressives and published articles during the 

1950s recalling their victory over Rugg (Kuhn 

1958).  Furthermore, one of Rugg‟s chief critics, 

Augustin G. Rudd, published a memoir recalling 

his role in the Rugg controversy and renewing his 

allegations (1957).   



 

   

77 

 

 Despite the controversies and the 

unfortunate fate that befell him, Rugg continued 

to maintain his beliefs, and persisted in 

supporting education for social reconstruction, 

although his public profile was forever altered 

and subdued.  On May 17, 1960, Rugg died of a 

heart attack at his home in Woodstock.   

 

Conclusion 

 What can we learn from an account of 

Harold Rugg's story, and by examining his vision 

and rationale for social studies?  A number of 

implications might be drawn from Rugg's life and 

his work on social studies.  First, and perhaps 

most important, Rugg's example illustrates the 

importance, and the potential impact, of dreaming 

big and bold visions of reform, not only as a well-

spring for inspiration, but as a source of ideas for 

practical action and praxis, with the aim of social 

improvement.  Rugg‟s social studies materials 

were innovative, engaging, well written, and 

pedagogically advanced.  They went beyond 

narrative and description to pose challenging 

questions and issues—frequently framing 

narrative with a problem to be solved, and by 

inserting “open forum” discussion questions at 

key points in the text.  Many subsequent scholars 

in social studies have drawn on Rugg and 

developed similar ideas; although none have had 

as much impact on classrooms (Hunt and Metcalf 

1955; Oliver and Shaver 1966; Engle and Ochoa 

1988; Evans and Saxe 1996).  

 Rugg had a worthy social and pedagogical 

vision combined with a bold personality and the 

courage to persist in upholding his convictions.  

His educational vision was pedagogically 

advanced and forward-looking.  He seriously 

questioned capitalism and its apparatus and 

influences.  Moreover, Rugg‟s basic critique is 

largely still relevant.  We need a renewed 

questioning of capitalism and of the mainstream 

institutions in American life.  It is healthy to ask 

such questions, and to ask schoolchildren, 

beginning at a fairly early age, to wrestle with 

these questions and the difficult issues they raise.  

 At its heart, the progressive approach to 

schooling championed by Rugg and others held 

that students must be challenged to confront 

social realities, to understand how the problems 

and dilemmas of the contemporary world came to 

be what they are and to think about what might be 

done about it.  Thus, Rugg‟s work was, in a 

modest way, revolutionary in character.  It was a 

call to action, a call to confront the persistent 

issues at the heart of our social and economic 

structures, issues that are typically left out of 

school.  He called for students to find their own 

individual voices, “to say what I think, my way,” 

as they wrestle with the social dilemmas of our 

times (Rugg 1956). 

 Second, though his textbooks and ideas 

were sure to inspire some criticism, Harold Rugg 

did not deserve his fate.  Rugg was a seminal 

thinker—fully worthy of the recognition and 

financial fortune that sometimes accompanies a 

brilliant idea combined with hard work.  The 

controversy that engulfed Rugg, and the defense 

offered by him and those who rose to support 

him, implies that some dreams are worth fighting 

for, even though the struggle may take its toll.  It 

is particularly vital to keep Rugg‟s curricular 

vision alive—to recognize the personal costs of 

educational controversy, and to honor his 

integrity and courage in continuing to stand up for 

his beliefs, no matter the costs.  Rugg lived his 

convictions and set an example that can serve as a 

continuing inspiration for today‟s scholar and 

citizen. 

 In the present era, it is especially 

important to keep alternative visions alive, to 



 

   

78 

 

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, particularly the 

sustained campaigns carried on by the American 

Legion and the NAM, present early examples of 

the financial power of interest group and 

organization (Evans 2007).  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, in effect, purchasing a conservative 

vision for the future of schooling and society 

(Evans 2004; Stehle 1997; Selden 2004; Singer 

2005).   This trend runs counter to the notion of a 

social studies focused on questions, and is leading 

to what Paulo Freire once called “the castration of 

curiosity” (Freire and Macedo 1998,  222).  It 

must be challenged, openly confronted, by those 

supporting a progressive vision of social studies 

education and of democratic life. 

 Third, Rugg did make a few mistakes.  

Education for social justice can take many forms.  

There was some justification for the charge that 

Rugg presented more evidence in his textbooks 

and school materials on the side of the questions 

that he supported.  So, it seems, in order to 

survive in schools, we must learn to include a 

balance of materials, sources, and interpretations, 

and challenge students to make up their own 

minds about the meaning of past and present 

institutions and societal dilemmas.  Although this 

may not silence all critics, it is more easily 

defensible as part of the "American way," and as 

a clear example of John Dewey's method of 

intelligence applied to the social studies arena.   

Moreover, by examining the Rugg 

textbook controversy in some depth, we can learn 

a great deal about the fine line between engaging 

in social criticism and incurring the wrath of 

critics.  Curricula cannot be neutral.  However, it 

can strive to present multiple alternatives and to 

be fair to a full range of perspectives.  Given 

current trends reflecting a conservative restoration 

in schools and society, we need greater emphasis 

on social criticism in social studies.  Questions of 

social justice seem especially pertinent today, 

given the economic stratification and hegemonic 

power of elites in our nation and the world.  In the 

United States, wealth is highly concentrated:  the 

top one percent control 40 percent of the financial 

wealth, and the top 20 percent control 84 percent 

of total wealth.  Moreover, numerous studies 

show that the distribution of wealth has been 

extremely concentrated throughout U.S. history 

(Domhoff 2006).  Raising questions about this 

ongoing reality should be an important part of 

social studies curricula today, just as it was in the 

materials created by Harold Rugg. 

 Rugg‟s vision and social studies program 

remain a compelling prototype, a model of 

education for democracy.  One can imagine a 

slightly revised version of the Rugg program, 

updated for the 21
st
 century, making education in 

social studies more vibrant and meaningful.  

However, given the interest among many social 

studies leaders in progressive, critical, and social 

justice approaches to education, given the context 

of an era of standards, centralized curriculum 

making, and high-stakes testing, and given 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. 

 

Notes 

 
1
 This manuscript is drawn from a recent book, 

Ronald W. Evans, This Happened in America: 

Harold Rugg and the Censure of Social 

Studies (Charlotte, NC: Information Age 



 

   

79 

 

Publishing, 2007).  Portions of the manuscript 

also appeared in recent articles and book 

chapters with a different emphasis, including: 

Ronald W. Evans, “The Rugg Prototype for 

Democratic Education,” International Journal 

of Social Education 22 (2): 101-127; Ronald 

W. Evans, “Social studies vs. the United 

States of America: Harold Rugg and teaching 

for social justice,” in K. L. Riley. ed. Social 

Reconstruction: People, Politics, 

Perspectives, pp. 45-68 (Greenwich, CT: 

Information Age Publishing, 2006); and 

Ronald W. Evans, “Harold Rugg: Apostle of 

the modern social studies curriculum,” In 

S.Totten, and J. Pedersen, eds., Addressing 

Social Issues in the Classroom and Beyond: 

The Pedagogical Efforts of Pioneers in the 

Field (Charlotte, NC: Information Age 

Publishing 2007). 
2
 Although Rugg‟s advocacy of education for 

social reconstructionism became more strident 

in the early 1930s, his rationale for social 

studies instruction and his social studies 

program changed little over time.  It is also 

important to point out that his social studies 

vision and program developed long before his 

bold advocacy of social reconstructionism, a 

point that was largely lost on his critics. 
3
 This listing of Rugg‟s “hypotheses” is a 

composite based on the two works cited. 
4
 See especially, C. E. Harrison, inter-office 

memo. to W. B. Weisenburger, 25 July 1940; 

C. E. Harrison to H. W. Prentis, 10 January 

1941, and attached inter-office memo., C. E. 

Harrison to W. B. Weisenburger, 10 January 

1941; C. E. Harrison to H. W. Prentis, 19 

March 1941, all contained in “Robey 

Textbook Survey” folder, National Industrial 

Information Committee, Subject Files, box 

847, series 111, National Association of 

Manufacturers Papers, Hagley Museum and 

Library, Wilmington, Delaware. 

 

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 step-daughter, January 

20, 2005; letter to the author, January 26, 

2005. 

American Historical Association. 1941.  Freedom 

of textbooks. Social Education 5, 487-488. 

Apple, M. W. & Beane, J. A.  1995.  Democratic 

schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for 

Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Armstrong, O. K.  1940.  Treason in the 

textbooks. American Legion Magazine, 

September,  8-9, 51, 70-72. 

Ayers, W., J. A. Hunt, and T. Quinn.  eds.  1998.  

Teaching for social justice: A democracy and 

 education reader.  New York: The New 

Press and Teachers College Press. Distributed 

by W. W. Norton. 

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. and Poland, K.  2001.  Struggle at 

the frontier of curriculum: The Rugg  

textbook controversy in Binghamton, New 

York.  Theory and Research in Social 

Education  29 (4): 640-71. 

Book Burnings.  1940.  Time, September 9, 64-5. 

Bowers, C. A. 1970. Social reconstructionism: 

Views from the left and the right, 1932-1942.  

History of Education Quarterly 10 (1): 22-52. 

Butts, R. F.  1974.  Murry R. Nelson Interview 

with R. Freeman Butts, November 20, 1974 

(cited in Nelson, 1975, 184). 



 

   

80 

 

Campus Probe.  1951.  Campus Probe in Order, 

Columbus Dispatch, July 23, 1951, “Rugg” 

folder, box 69, faculty files, Public Relations 

Office, Archives, Gottesman Libraries, 

Teachers College, Columbia University. 

Caron, E. J.  2005.  What leads to the fall of a 

great empire? Using central questions to 

design issues-based history units. The Social 

Studies 96 (2): 51-60. 

Childs, J. L.  1950.  Education and morals. New 

York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 

Confidental.  Undated.  There once was a 

professor named Rugg… (poem), “Harold 

Rugg” folder, box 58, William F. Russell 

papers, Teachers College Archives, 

Gottesman Libraries, Teachers College, 

Columbia University. 

Coss, J.  1923.  A collegiate survey course in the 

social sciences.  The social studies in the 

elementary and secondary school, ed. H. O. 

Rugg, 208-215.  Twenty-Second Yearbook, 

National Society for the Study of Education, 

Part II. Bloomington, IL: Public School. 

Counts, G. S.  1945.  Education and the promise 

of America. New York: Macmillan. 

Cramer, F. B.  1941.  Personal journal of Florence 

Ballin Cramer, wife of painter Konrad  

Cramer  and Woodstock resident, June 7, 

1941. Photocopy obtained from Aileen 

Cramer, Woodstock, New York. 

Curti, M.  1941.  Merle Curti to Wilbur Murra, 

October 14. File 1, Box 2, Series 7. 

Committee Records, Academic Freedom 

Correspondence, NCSS Archive, Gottesman 

Libraries, Teachers College, Columbia 

University.  

Dannelly, C. M.  1941.  Facing a major threat. 

The School Executive  60: 32. 

Davis, O. L.  2006.  O. L. Davis memories of 

seminar discussion with Harold Rugg at 

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 

in 1959.  

Dewey, J.  1940.  Investigating education, New 

York Times, May 6, 16. 

 Dewey, J.  1944.  John Dewey to Sidney Hook, 

April 25.  Accession #13116, series 1, box 10, 

Correspondence with Sidney Hook, John 

Dewey Papers, Southern Illinois University, 

Carbondale. 

Dilling, E.  1934.  The red network: A who’s who 

of radicalism for patriots. Kenilworth, IL: 

Author. 

Domhoff, G. W.  2006.  Wealth, income, and 

power.<http://sociology.ucsc.edu/ 

whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html> 

Engle, S. H. and A. S. Ochoa.  1988.  Education 

for democratic citizenship: Decision making 

in the social studies. New York: Teachers 

College. 

Evans, R. W. and D. W. Saxe.  eds.  1996.  

Handbook on teaching social issues.  

Washington, DC: National Council for the 

Social Studies, Bulletin #93. 

Evans, R. W.  2004.  The social studies wars: 

What should we teach the children?  New 

York: Teachers College Press. 

Evans, R. W.  2007.  This happened in America: 

Harold Rugg and the censure of social 

studies. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. 

Evers, A.  2003.  Interview with Alf Evers, 

Woodstock, New York, June 14, 2003, 

 conducted by the author. 

FBI.  2003.  Rugg FBI File.  Unpublished papers.  

Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. Material unclassified, 

November 6, 2003.  Obtained by the author 

under  the Freedom of Information Act. 

FBI Memorandum.  1951.  Office Memorandum, 

SAC, Cincinnati, to Director, FBI (J. Edgar 

Hoover), October 1, 1951, Rugg FBI file. 



 

   

81 

 

Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

FBI Memorandum.  1953. Office Memorandum, 

SAC, New York to Director, FBI (J. Edgar 

Hoover), November 25, 1953, Rugg FBI file.  

Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation. 

Fine, B.  1941.  Un-American tone seen in 

textbooks on social sciences.  New York 

Times,  February, 22, 1, 6 (Late City 

Edition). 

Forbes, B. C.  1939. Treacherous teaching.  

Forbes, August 15, 8. 

Fox, L. K.  1951.  Lorene K. Fox, Queens 

College, to Harold O. Rugg, April 16. In 

Harold Rugg: Letters in appreciation of his 

frontier work, ed. Teachers College. 

Unpublished manuscript. New York: Teachers 

College. 

Freire, M. A. and D. Macedo.  eds.  1998.  The 

Paulo Freire reader.  New York: Continuum. 

Gellerman, W.  1938.  The American Legion as 

educator. New York: The John Day 

Company. 

Gould, K. M.  1941.  The war on social studies. 

Common Ground, Autumn, 83-91. 

Gutmann, A.  1999.  Democratic education. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Hunt, E. M.  1941a. Dr. Robey versus the NAM? 

Social Education 5: 288-292. 

Hunt, E. M.  1941b. The NAM restates its policy. 

Social Education 5: 328. 

Hunt, M. P. and L. E. Metcalf.  1955 & 1968.  

Teaching high school social studies: 

Problems in reflective thinking and social 

understanding. New York: Harper & 

Brothers. 

Jones, O.  E.  1957.  Activities of the American 

Legion in textbook analysis and criticism 

1938-1951. Ph.D. dissertation, University of 

Oklahoma.   

Kay, G. A. (1969).  Harold Rugg: Social 

reconstructionist and educational statesman. 

Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New 

York, Buffalo.  

Kliebard, H. M. and G. Wegner.  1987.  Harold 

Rugg and the reconstruction of the social 

studies  curriculum: The treatment of the 

„great war‟ in his textbook series. In The 

formation of the school subjects: The struggle 

for  creating an American institution, ed. T. S. 

Popkewitz, 268-287.  New York: Falmer. 

Koeppen, K. E.  1999.  It threw me for a loop! 

Pre-service teachers‟ reactions to issues-

centered social studies in the primary grades. 

Orlando: Paper presented at the annual 

meeting of the American Educational 

Research Association. 

Kuhn, I.  C.  1958.  Battle over books, American 

Legion Magazine, October,  20-21, 37-40. 

Melcher, F. G.  1941.  Editorial: Rugg deserves 

freedom of education. Publishers Weekly, 

April 12, 1533. 

Myers, A.  F.  1940.  Attacks on the Rugg books.  

Frontiers of Democracy 7 (October): 17-22. 

National Americanism Commission.  1941.  Rugg 

philosophy analyzed, Volume 3: Textbook 

abstracts. Indianapolis, IN: The American 

Legion. 

Nelson, M. R.  1975.  Building a science of 

society: The social studies and Harold O. 

Rugg. Ph.D. diss., Stanford University. 

Nelson, M. R.  1977.  The development of the 

Rugg social studies materials. Theory And 

Research in Social Education 5 (1): 64-83.  

Nelson, M. R. and H. W. Singleton.  1977.  FBI 

surveillance of three progressive educators: 

Curricular aspects. Paper presented at the 



 

   

82 

 

Society for the Study of Curriculum History, 

Annual Conference. 

Newmann, F. M. and D. W. Oliver.  1970.  

Clarifying public controversy: An approach to 

teaching social studies. Boston, MA: Little, 

Brown. 

Ochoa-Becker, A. S.  1996.  Building a rationale 

for issues-centered education. In Handbook 

on teaching  social issues, ed. R. W. Evans 

and D. W. Saxe, 6-13.  Washington, DC: 

National Council for the Social Studies, 

Bulletin #93. 

Ochoa-Becker, A. S. 2007. Democratic education 

for social studies: An issues-centered decision 

making curriculum. Charlotte, NC: 

Information Age. 

Oliver, D. W. & Shaver, J. P.  1966.  Teaching 

public issues in the high school. Boston: 

Houghton Mifflin Company.  

Redefer, F. L.  1974.  Murry R. Nelson‟s 

Interview with Frederick L. Redefer, 

November 20 (cited in Nelson, 1975, p. 184). 

Riley, K. L. & Stern, B. S.  2003.  A bootlegged 

curriculum: The American Legion versus 

Harold Rugg.  International Journal of Social 

Education 18 (2): 62-75. 

Ross, E. W. and P. M. Marker.  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 (5): 187-188. 

Rudd, A. G.  1940.  Our „reconstructed‟ 

educational system.  Nation’s Business, April, 

27-8,  93-4. 

Rudd, A. G.  1957.  Bending the twig: The 

revolution in education and its effect on our 

children. New York: New York Chapter of 

the Sons of the American Revolution. 

Rudd, A. G., H. Hicks, and A. T. Falk.  eds.  

1941.  Undermining our republic: Do you 

 know what the children are being taught in 

our public schools?  You’ll be surprised. New 

York: Guardians of American Education, Inc. 

Rugg Assailed.  1951.  Ohio State Trustees Assail 

Rugg Speech, New York Times, September 5,  

29. 

Rugg Episode.  1951.  Rugg episode calls for 

thorough stock taking, Columbus State 

Journal,  August 31, editorial page, “Rugg” 

folder, faculty files, box 39, Public Relations 

Office  Papers, Gottesman Libraries, 

Teachers College, Columbia University.  

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.  The Historical 

Outlook 7 (5): 184-189.  

Rugg, H. O.  1921b. On reconstructing the social 

studies: Comments on Mr. Schafer's letter.  

Historical Outlook  12 (7): 249-252. 

Rugg, H. O.  Ed.  1923.  The social studies in the 

elementary and secondary school.  Twenty-

Second Yearbook, National Society for the 

Study of Education, Part II. Bloomington, IL: 

Public School. 

Rugg, H. O.  1929.  Teachers guide to accompany 

A history of American civilization. Boston, 

MA: Ginn and Company. 

Rugg, H. O.  1931. An introduction to problems 

of American culture.  Boston, MA: Ginn  and 

Company. 

Rugg, H. O.  1933. Changing governments and 

changing cultures. Boston, MA: Ginn and 

Company. 

Rugg, H. O.  1939.  The social studies: What I 

believe…In The  future of the social studies, 

ed. J. A. Michener.  Washington, DC: 

National Council for the Social Studies. 



 

   

83 

 

Rugg, H. O. 1941. That men may understand: an 

American in the long armistice. New York: 

Doubleday, Doran.   

Rugg, H. O.  1943.  Now is the moment.  New 

York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce. 

Rugg, H. O.  1952.  Harold O. Rugg to R. 

Freeman Butts, January 15 (Cited in Nelson, 

1975, 199). 

Rugg, H. O.  1956.  Harold O. Rugg Speaking at 

New York Geriatric Society, Cold Spring, 

New York, June 15. Cold Spring Tapes, tape 

2, side 1. Tapes obtained from George S. Kay, 

in possession of the author. 

Rugg, H. O.  1957. Harold O. Rugg Speaking at 

New York Geriatric Society, Cold Spring, 

New York, Cold Spring Tapes, tape 5, side 2, 

June 22, Cold Spring, New York. Tapes 

obtained from George S. Kay, in possession 

of the author. 

 Rugg, H. O.  1958.  Harold O. Rugg to Earle U. 

Rugg, Christmas, 1958. Rugg noted he, 

“stayed younger than ever by having this 

absorbing search for new ideas through my 

books. No  textbooks!” (cited in Nelson, 1975,  

181). 

Rugg, J. E.  2003.  Interview with John E. Rugg, 

Denver, Colorado, nephew of Harold O. Rugg 

and son of Earle U. Rugg, conducted by the 

author. 

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. 

Seldes, G.  1943.  Facts and fascism.  New York: 

In Fact. 

Seldes, G.  1947.  One thousand Americans.  New 

York: Boni & Gaer. 

Seldes, G.  1968.  Never tire of protesting.  New 

York: Lyle Stuart, Inc. 

Shaver, J. P.  ed.  1977.  Building rationales for 

citizenship education. Washington, DC: 

National Council for the Social Studies. 

Shrecker, E.  1998.  Many are the crimes: 

McCarthyism in America.  Boston: Little, 

Brown. 

Shumaker, R. W.  1943. R. Worth Shumaker to 

John E. Thomas, August 4, Legion dead-letter 

files (cited in Jones, 1957, 82).  

Singer, A.  2005.  Strange bedfellows: The 

contradictory goals of the coalition making 

war on  social studies.  The Social Studies  

96 (5): 199-205. 

Stehle, V.  1997.  Righting philanthropy. The 

Nation, June 30, 15-20. 

Students Mother.  1951.  The Dispatch Mail Bag: 

Readers Indignant About Dr. Rugg‟s OSU 

Appearance. Columbus Dispatch, Week of 

July 11. 

Tyack, D. & Hansot, E.  1982.  Managers of 

virtue: Public school leadership in America, 

1820-1980.  New York: Basic Books. 

Whitman, H.  1954.  Progressive education—

Which way forward?  Colliers, May 14, 32-

36. 

Winters, E. A.  1967.  Man and his changing 

society: The textbooks of Harold Rugg. 

History of  Education Quarterly 7 (4): 509-

510. 

Winters, E. A.  1968. Harold Rugg and education 

for social reconstruction.  Ph.D. diss., 

University of Wisconsin.