Promises Made: The Truman Commission Report at 75

Q2 Social Sciences Peabody Journal of Education Pub Date : 2023-05-27 DOI:10.1080/0161956x.2023.2216078
Ethan W. Ris, Eddie R. Cole
{"title":"Promises Made: The Truman Commission Report at 75","authors":"Ethan W. Ris, Eddie R. Cole","doi":"10.1080/0161956x.2023.2216078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some anniversaries are moving targets. This issue could have been published 2 years ago, timed to President Harry Truman’s 1946 convening of the nation’s first blue-ribbon panel on higher education. Or it could have been in recognition of 1947, when the first two volumes of the Truman commission’s report, Higher Education for American Democracy, were first published—because these volumes were the most radical and most cited of all. Or it could have been tied to the 1948 publication of the report’s final four volumes, completing the panel’s work. This issue indeed commemorates 75 years since 1948 but for a different reason. That summer, the New York publishing giant Harper & Brothers issued its own edition of Higher Education for American Democracy (President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1948). The initial versions of the report had come from the Government Printing Office in Washington, where it shared company with texts like the 1947 treatise The Design and Methods of Construction of Welded Steel Merchant Vessels (U.S. Navy, 1948). But the acquisition by Harper & Brothers meant the report suddenly had a place in the storied publishing house that issued first editions of famed authors like Herman Melville, Mark Twain, and Richard Wright. Harper & Brothers’ decision to sell a mass market version of the report, which became known as the Truman Commission Report, indicated a contemporary understanding about the text’s momentousness. One commentator wrote: “It seems a reasonable prophecy that the publication of the Report of the President’s Commission on Higher Education will mark a transitional period in American college and university development. . . . The American college can never be the same again” (Tead, 1949). Another implored, “Workers in, and thinkers for, higher educational institutions are under an obligation to read, to reflect, and to react” to the report (Elliott, 1948). The New York Times’ education editor argued that “these proposals are certain to have a profound effect on the future pattern of higher education in this country. . . . [The report is] of inestimable value to educators and laymen alike as a blueprint for the future development of our colleges and universities” (Fine, 1948). Higher Education for American Democracy is an astonishing text to read retrospectively. It called for full desegregation of all educational institutions 7 years before the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. It anticipated the crucial role that community colleges would play in the nation’s higher education infrastructure 13 years before the widely celebrated 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education established that concept as state law and a national model. It proposed federally funded need-based scholarships 17 years before the earliest version of what we now call Pell Grants. It decried “antifeminism in higher education” 25 years before the Title IX amendment to the Higher Education Act. It demanded that “leaders and institutions should take positive steps to overcome” educational inequity 30 years before the high point of affirmative action policies in higher education. It suggested that 49% of traditional-age students should be enrolled in college 41 years before the nation attained that percentage. And it called for the first 2 years of college to be made free for all students, without ability testing or means testing, 7 decades before that idea became a central plank of the current progressive political platform.","PeriodicalId":39777,"journal":{"name":"Peabody Journal of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peabody Journal of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2023.2216078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Some anniversaries are moving targets. This issue could have been published 2 years ago, timed to President Harry Truman’s 1946 convening of the nation’s first blue-ribbon panel on higher education. Or it could have been in recognition of 1947, when the first two volumes of the Truman commission’s report, Higher Education for American Democracy, were first published—because these volumes were the most radical and most cited of all. Or it could have been tied to the 1948 publication of the report’s final four volumes, completing the panel’s work. This issue indeed commemorates 75 years since 1948 but for a different reason. That summer, the New York publishing giant Harper & Brothers issued its own edition of Higher Education for American Democracy (President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1948). The initial versions of the report had come from the Government Printing Office in Washington, where it shared company with texts like the 1947 treatise The Design and Methods of Construction of Welded Steel Merchant Vessels (U.S. Navy, 1948). But the acquisition by Harper & Brothers meant the report suddenly had a place in the storied publishing house that issued first editions of famed authors like Herman Melville, Mark Twain, and Richard Wright. Harper & Brothers’ decision to sell a mass market version of the report, which became known as the Truman Commission Report, indicated a contemporary understanding about the text’s momentousness. One commentator wrote: “It seems a reasonable prophecy that the publication of the Report of the President’s Commission on Higher Education will mark a transitional period in American college and university development. . . . The American college can never be the same again” (Tead, 1949). Another implored, “Workers in, and thinkers for, higher educational institutions are under an obligation to read, to reflect, and to react” to the report (Elliott, 1948). The New York Times’ education editor argued that “these proposals are certain to have a profound effect on the future pattern of higher education in this country. . . . [The report is] of inestimable value to educators and laymen alike as a blueprint for the future development of our colleges and universities” (Fine, 1948). Higher Education for American Democracy is an astonishing text to read retrospectively. It called for full desegregation of all educational institutions 7 years before the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. It anticipated the crucial role that community colleges would play in the nation’s higher education infrastructure 13 years before the widely celebrated 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education established that concept as state law and a national model. It proposed federally funded need-based scholarships 17 years before the earliest version of what we now call Pell Grants. It decried “antifeminism in higher education” 25 years before the Title IX amendment to the Higher Education Act. It demanded that “leaders and institutions should take positive steps to overcome” educational inequity 30 years before the high point of affirmative action policies in higher education. It suggested that 49% of traditional-age students should be enrolled in college 41 years before the nation attained that percentage. And it called for the first 2 years of college to be made free for all students, without ability testing or means testing, 7 decades before that idea became a central plank of the current progressive political platform.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
许下的承诺:杜鲁门委员会75岁的报告
有些周年纪念日是移动的目标。这期杂志本可以在两年前出版,当时正值哈里·杜鲁门总统1946年召开全国第一个高等教育蓝丝带小组会议。或者,这可能是对1947年杜鲁门委员会报告的前两卷《美国民主的高等教育》的认可,因为这两卷是所有报告中最激进、引用最多的。或者,它可能与1948年该报告最后四卷的出版有关,完成了小组的工作。这个问题确实是为了纪念1948年以来的75年,但原因不同。那年夏天,纽约出版巨头哈珀兄弟出版了自己的《美国民主高等教育》(总统高等教育委员会,1948年)。该报告的最初版本来自华盛顿的政府印刷局,在那里它与1947年的论文《焊接钢商船的设计和建造方法》(美国海军,1948年)等文本共享。但Harper&Brothers的收购意味着该报告突然在出版赫尔曼·梅尔维尔、马克·吐温和理查德·赖特等著名作家初版的传奇出版社中占有一席之地。Harper&Brothers决定出售该报告的大众市场版本,后来被称为《杜鲁门委员会报告》,这表明了当代人对该文本重要性的理解。一位评论员写道:“总统高等教育委员会报告的发表将标志着美国大学和大学发展的过渡期,这似乎是一个合理的预言……美国大学再也不可能是原来的了”(Tead,1949)。另一位恳求道,“高等教育机构的工作人员和思想家有义务阅读、反思和做出反应”(Elliott,1948)。《纽约时报》的教育编辑认为,“这些建议肯定会对这个国家未来的高等教育模式产生深远影响……[该报告]作为我们学院和大学未来发展的蓝图,对教育工作者和外行来说都具有不可估量的价值”(Fine,1948)。《美国民主的高等教育》是一本回顾性阅读的惊人文本。在最高法院1954年布朗诉教育委员会案作出裁决的7年前,它呼吁全面废除所有教育机构的种族隔离。在1960年广受赞誉的《加州高等教育总体规划》将这一概念确立为州法律和国家模式的13年前,它预计社区大学将在国家高等教育基础设施中发挥关键作用。它提出了由联邦政府资助的基于需求的奖学金,比我们现在所说的佩尔助学金的最早版本早了17年。在《高等教育法》第九条修正案出台25年前,它谴责了“高等教育中的反部长主义”。它要求“领导人和机构应采取积极措施,在高等教育平权行动政策达到高潮30年前克服”教育不平等现象。它建议,49%的传统年龄段学生应该在国家达到这一比例的41年前进入大学。它还呼吁,在这一想法成为当前进步政治纲领的核心内容70年前,所有学生都可以免费上大学的前两年,无需进行能力测试或经济状况调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Peabody Journal of Education
Peabody Journal of Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Peabody Journal of Education (PJE) publishes quarterly symposia in the broad area of education, including but not limited to topics related to formal institutions serving students in early childhood, pre-school, primary, elementary, intermediate, secondary, post-secondary, and tertiary education. The scope of the journal includes special kinds of educational institutions, such as those providing vocational training or the schooling for students with disabilities. PJE also welcomes manuscript submissions that concentrate on informal education dynamics, those outside the immediate framework of institutions, and education matters that are important to nations outside the United States.
期刊最新文献
Should Religious Schools Be Publicly Funded? Issues of Religion, Discrimination, and Equity New York City Catholic Schools Operating in the Public Space in a Post- Makin World Education Research-Practice Partnerships: Impacts and Dynamics Broadening our Understanding of how Research-Practice Partnerships Support Educational Improvement and Equitable Transformation Embedding Racialized Selves into the Creation of Research-Practice Partnerships
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1