Follow-up Letter to Washington

Follow-up Letter to Washington

June 9, 1919

President Palmer

After President Palmer met with Dr. S.P. Capen, higher education specialist at the U.S. Bureau of Education, he followed up with an impassioned letter that reveals details about their exchange in Montgomery. The document encapsulates President Palmer's fervor to turn the Alabama Girls Technical Institute into a four-year college. It is clear from the document that Capen had doubts about the "literary education" Dr. Palmer championed. This letter illustrates Dr. Palmer's passion and some of the challenges he faced. For instance, he would need the resources to pay salaries to a college level faculty, increased staff, and an increased number of credit hours. The paper also states that though his school did indeed attract many poor women to its doors, it should not be labeled a poor women's school, so as not to detract wealthier women and their family's purses from attendance. This is a brilliant play from Doctor Palmer, and a seemingly successful one.

en-US

1919-1923

University of Montevallo

Transitioning to Alabama College

Doctor Palmer's Presidential Papers

Jess Gould

University of Montevallo

.pdf

Text

June 9, 1919.

Dr. S.P. Capen,
Gay-Teague Hotel,
Montgomery, Alabama,
Dear Dr. Capen:-

I tried to call you yesterday and today over the telephone but failed to reach you.

One statement of fact I wish to suggest to you concerning the A.G.T.I. is that you failed to make any mention of our strong work in music - a technical subject. We have developed unusual strength in Home Economics as your report stated. We have done perhaps equally as much in music, but this was not mentioned. I called your attention to the omission of our Summer School work.

Concerning the matter of continuing a purely technical school, I wish to state that was always our purpose, but we did wish to raise it to a technical school of college standard. It was not our intention to make it a literary college, but to develop along technical lines young women, as Auburn has done for men. For that reason, we thought we should do both the Smith-Lever and the Smith-Hughes work. However, I realize that it takes considerable money to develop such an institution, and under present conditions, it may not be possible for us to get the proper amount of money.

I should like very much to discuss this feature with the Board. You will understand that I do not think, and I hope you did not get the opinion from me that I though, that you and your associates had any idea of injuring this Institute, for I did not intend to convey such an impression. I did think that the recommendations you made would injure the school, however much you might intend to do otherwise.

I have thought more about the statement you made in regard to our work here. I can see there is a good opening for such a school, provided it is not narrowed down too much. You cannot have good technical work without a good substratus of literary work. In other words, there must be good work in English, History, Foreign Languages, Education, Sociology, and Mathematics in addition to the allied sciences. It is because of this broad training that we have insisted upon that we have been enabled to do as much as we have done.

There are some excellent people in the state who believe that this institution should be narrowed down solely for poor girls, and for that reason, it should be a poor school. I am very thankful that we have been able to draw a large number of students of limited means, and I trust that we shall always do so, but because these girls have limited means is no reason why they should have limited opportunities, but a very strong reason why they should have the highest opportunities. The rich girls should not be excluded because I firmly believe that the education we have given is as much needed by the rich as by the poor. I shall always be opposed to a state institution for classes; that is, the poor against the rich or the rich against the poor.

If you can, put in a statement to the effect that the form of education that we give, or should give, is an expensive one, and will require considerable money for presenting it properly. Our Professors and Associate Professors should be paid salaries equal to those given college professors in our state University. Unless we offer such salaries, we can never draw to us the stronger talent. I hope you can see your way clear to get in a statement of this kind for us.

There are many forms of technical instruction that should be presented and we can bring them in splendidly provided we have the means to do it. We should not be limited to a two-year college course. As I stated to you the other day, our work had been increased in efficiency nearly one per cent. by adding the three-year college course. We should be allowed to bring on the three-year college course in technical work, or four years in course of desirable four or five years from today. For my part, I should like to discontinue the training of teachers for elementary schools. I never wanted it to begin with, but there was such a demand for teachers trained as we trained them here that we fell into it by degrees. The fact is, the courses of study that we have offered are, in my opinion, the very best for teachers. The success of our pupils has shown that we have trained them properly. As to the training of high school teachers, if arrangements could be made with the Education Department for us to train teachers in Home Economics, Music, Commercial subjects, and in other technical lines, it would suit us very well indeed. Many of the high schools with to present Stenography, Typewriting, and Bookkeeping. We could easily train teachers for these subjects.

If I could go before the Commission, I think I could make all these points clear, and I believe you would agree with what I have to suggest to them. I will appreciate it if you will show this letter to the Commission.
Very truly yours,
President.

Letter