University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Political Science And General Education In California'S Community Colleges: A Study In Compatibility

(USC Thesis Other)

Political Science And General Education In California'S Community Colleges: A Study In Compatibility

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content POLITICAL SCIENCE AND GENERAL EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA’S COMMUNITY COLLEGES: A STUDY IN COMPATIBILITY by Louis Charles Reichman A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) September 1973 INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original docum ent. While the m ost advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original subm itted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "targ et" for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you com plete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black m ark, it is an indication th a t the photographer suspected th at the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a m ap, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite m ethod in "sectioning" the m aterial. It is custom ary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until com plete. 4. The m ajority of users indicate th at the textual content is of greatest value, however, a som ew hat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order D epartm ent, giving the catalog num ber, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages m ay have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 N orth Z eeb R oad Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 I I 73-31,665 REICHMAN, Louis Charles, 1935- POLITICAL SCIENCE AND GENERAL EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES: A STUDY IN COMPATIBILITY. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1973 Education, general University Microfilms, A X ER O X Com pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANG ELES. C A LIFORN IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by Laula..JCJiarlia5..JReichmaR............ under the direction of hi§.... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y Dtaa DISSERTATION COMMITTEE DEDICATION In memory of Martin Abraham Reichman, M.D. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROBLEM............................ 1 Introduction The Problem Situation Specific Purposes of the Study Hypotheses Background of the Study Assumptions Definitions of Terms Political Science General Education California Community College Introductory American Government— Politics Course Scope and Limitations Summary of Procedures Organization of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE .... 25 Definitions of General Education General Education Trends to 1945 General Education Trends Since 1945 The Study of American Government— Politics to 1945 The Study of American Government— Politics Since 1945 Recent Studies of Community College Students III. REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF LEADING INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT— POLITICS BOOKS AND CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT— POLITICS REQUIREMENTS .......................... 62 Review and Critique of Leading Introductory American Government— Politics Books California Community College Introductory American Government— Politics Requirements iii Chapter IV. MODEL INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT— POLITICS COURSE OUTLINE AND MODEL INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT— POLITICS TEXT ........................ V. RESPONSES OF THE JURY ................ The Role of the Jury General Qualifications of the Jury Members Responses of the Jury VI. IMPLICATIONS OF THE JURY RESPONSES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATION, AND POLITICAL SCIENCE .................. VII. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. Summary Statement of the Problem Procedure Findings General findings Hypotheses General Conclusions Recommendations for Further Study BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................ , APPENDIX , 82 140 151 160 178 201 iv TABLE Table Page 1. California Community College Social Science Requirements to Qualify for the Associate in Arts Degree.............................. 77 v CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction By the end of 1972 California's community colleges were struggling with problems that tried the patience and ability of students, teachers, administrators, politicians, interest groups, and the California citizenry at large. A partial listing of these problems would include: Levels of state financial support. Articulation and compatibility between community colleges and four-year institutions. Educational programs for the academically and/or culturally disadvantaged. Effects of the new age of majority on residency requirements. New evaluation and tenure procedures. (190) Along with, and in some instances related to, these problems was that of defining, categorizing and implementing the areas of education with which California's community colleges were charged: (1) trans fer education, (2) occupational education, (3) general education, (4) remedial education, (3) guidance and counseling, (6) community services. (31:14) The enormity of the challenge of successfully educating in such a multiplicity of educational areas is further expanded by a consideration of the community 1 2 colleges' educational objectives: (1) Comprehensive curricula, (2) Open Door Principle, (3) Community Orientation. (101:26-29) Monroe also summarizes the basic philosophy of the community college movement, which includes success fully educating in the above areas and toward the above objectives, as the logical and natural outcome of a long history in which the opportunities for increasingly more education, even universal education at public expense, have been vastly extended. Opportunities for universal education beyond high school can be realized only through (the above three objectives). (101:32) At stake in California's community colleges are the capacity for balanced organization and synthesis among the above six areas and three objectives of community college education. Of these areas and objec tives, the most controversial redefinitions and reorgani zations are in the field of General Education. The Problem Situation From the Fall of 1972 on, California's community college Social Science divisions were faced with urgent practical and theoretical problems. Practically, challenges concerning teacher qualifications, problems concerning faculty adjustment to possible implications and ramifications of the changes in the General Education requirements, and problems of divisional harmony were to be faced. Theoretically, a rethinking of the relation ships of General Education and Social Science seemed imperative. Specific to this study was the problem of building bridges from General Education to Political Science— American Government that could serve as two-way bridges. Involved here is the necessity of communicating to the students taking these General Education— Political Science— American Government courses a sense of relation ship to the "real world"— generally referred to as relevancy— along with reasonable academic standards which would allow the student to respect the course for its educational challenges while developing personal interests and concerns in the course. These reconciliations would place very large demands on all teachers. Those community college teachers of the intro ductory Political Science— American Government courses would find the demands compounded by the heterogeneous composition of their classes. "Higher Education's Newest Student" included students with such labels as "Undecideds," "Part-Time students," or "Extended-Day students," "Vocational" or "Technical Education students," "Nursing students," "Business students," "Education students," "Humanities students," "Fine Arts students," "Math and Science students," and even some "Social Science students" who, for one reason or another at this stage of their lives, were not committed social scientists. The 4 wide variety of abilities, interests and concerns of these students is obvious. However, almost all of them share a common political and governmental bond: they are citizens. The basic problem of this study can be briefly stated as follows: Can an introductory Political Science — American Government course be devised for these students which will fulfill their desires for course "relevancy," while at the same time fulfilling General Education objectives, Political Science objectives, and California's General Education— Social Science requirements? Specific Purposes of the Study The purposes of this study can be summarized as follows: 1. To review the role of General Education throughout the history of higher education, especially after World War II 2. To review the development of the Political Science discipline, especially since World War II 3. To consider the objectives of the community college in the United States, particularly stressing post-World War II community college trends 4. To examine the "Newest Student" in higher education, the community college student 3. To study the books that have been used to teach introductory American Government— Politics courses, 5 especially emphasizing the post World War II period 6. To review the General Education— American Government— Politics requirements of California’s community colleges 7. To examine the California Education Code requirements related to General Education and introductory American Government— Politics courses S. To develop an introductory American Government— Politics course which will successfully merge General Education, Political Science, the abilities and interests of community college students and instructors, and California’s new General Education— Social Science requirements 9. To develop an introductory American Government— Politics book that will facilitate this General Education— Political Science— student relevancy— California requirements compatibility Hypotheses The following hypotheses helped to guide the investigation: 1. General Education in the post World War II period of American higher education has not satisfied the goals set for it by the Harvard Faculty Committee Study. These goals can be stated generally as a synthesis of rational humanism and educational pragmatism. 2. "The enduring goal of undergraduate instruc tion in political science . . ., conceptual analysis" (191:351), is incompatible with the abilities and needs of a large majority of California community college intro ductory American Government— Politics students. 3. Community colleges have not established an identity which allows them to function effectively as non-high school and non-four year institutions. 4. The lack of an established identity for community colleges is related to the inability of community colleges to successfully educate the "Newest Student" attending these community colleges. 5. The American Government— Politics books used as the main instructional tools for higher educationTs "Newest Student" are lacking in their failure to merge relevancy with theories and data. 6. California’s community colleges, in their pre-1972 General Education— American Government— Politics requirements, generally avoided a consideration of the needs and abilities of a large majority of students. 7. California’s new (Post 1972) General Education — American Government— Politics requirements offer an important impetus to resolving the previous incompati bility between student needs and abilities and course requirements. 3. Despite the obstacles listed in hypotheses 7 one through seven, there can be a compatibility among student needs and interests, instructor ability and goals, General Education goals, Political Science goals, and California’s new General Education— American Government— Politics requirements. This compatibility can be achieved through a properly designed introductory American Government— Politics course utilizing appropriate reading material in conjunction with other pertinent educational material. Background of the Study The focus of this study was on one particular part of General Education, that of Political Science— American Government. A student of Political Science— American Government can readily find the expressed relationships to General Education in such definitions of General Education objectives as Exercising the privileges and responsibilities of democratic citizenship. (73:21) General education refers to programs of education specifically designed to prepare young people for the responsibilities that they share in common as citizens of a free society .... (133:193) (General Education is) that part of education which is concerned with the common knowledge, skills and attitudes needed by each individual to be effective as ... a citizen. (73:20) Such definitions as the above suggest a natural fusion of General Education and Political Science— American Government based on a commonly shared character istic of virtually all students: citizenship. Is this a perspective shared by political scientists as opposed to general educationists in considering the major objectives of their discipline? . . . the enduring goal of undergraduate instruction in political science is conceptual analysis— to make the student conscious of and provide training in modes of analysis, so that he is able to think analytically about politics. Just as the case method in law and experimental investigation in natural science provide students with modes of analysis, so undergraduate instruction in political science should develop a conceptually rich and analytically skilled mind, whose capacities can be applied to the problems of governing society. . . . Political science should go beyond substantive description, philosophical analysis and the teaching of research techniques, to the application of concepts and skills to interesting and important political problems. Consequently we feel that political science should teach transferable skills. . . . Thus the introductory (political science) course— and any other course— might have a variety of topics but at the core will have an identical purpose and result for both majors and non-majors. The substance, complexity and scope will vary according to the student clientele, the time available, and the type of institution. (191:351) Taking a more teacher-oriented point of view, Fein states the introductory Political Science— American Government teacher should imply to his students: Watch me and listen to me, for I am a scholar, and you must come to think as I do. You need not agree with what I think, but you should be alert to How I think differently from you and how the differ ence is what scholarship and science are about. (165: 305) Although the above definitions and descriptions of objectives by general educationists and political 9 scientists are broad enough that compatibility is possible, there are also obvious possible contradictions: Can an introductory Political Science— American Government course offer a valuable citizenship education to a student of low analytical and conceptual ability? Or, should such a student be failed for failing to meet analytical and conceptual standards? Can this problem be resolved by simply doing away with rigorous standards for ’ ’low ability’ ’ students? These kinds of questions extend the scope of any investigation into General Education and Political Science— American Government from specialist-generalist objectives and relationships which have been debated throughout higher educational history to a more direct concern of this study: ’ ’Higher Education's Newest Student." (159:38) This "Newest Student" is attending the community colleges. He is significantly different from the tradi tional college student for whom higher education’s present system is planned. Generally, he is from a lower socio economic bracket than his counterpart in a non community college higher educational institution. His father is much less likely to have begun or completed a college education. The cultural environment in which the community college student lives is less likely to have provided him with good books and magazines, a private 10 room, and discussions of world affairs at the dinner table. This community college student is less likely to have received parental encouragement to attend college than the student attending a four-year institution. Practical considerations such as "low cost" and "close to home" rather than "academic reputation" influence his decision to attend a nearby community college. He places a much greater emphasis on vocational education. His expressed confidence in his ability to do college work is almost twice lower than the expressed confidence of the student entering a four-year institution. In short, this "Newest Student" of higher education "differs in kind, or in pattern of abilities, rather than in Degree from the traditional college student." (159:3^-42) Who are the introductory Political Science— American Government teachers of "Higher Education’s Newest Student?" What do they believe is important to their success? A mail survey questioning members of the American Political Science Association on the attributes which most contribute to a successful career found that out of ten attributes quantity of publications ranked first, quality of publications ranked fifth, and teaching tenth. (126:S0-Sl) Of course many community college introductory Political Science— American Government teachers are not members of the American Political Science Association. More importantly, the demands of "publish or 11 perish" are not imposed upon them. On the other hand, most of them never attended community colleges as students, never took a single college course on community colleges, and many of them "have little appreciation either for their institution's unique mission or for the problems and aspirations of its 'open door' clientele." (132:1-4) Such teachers might reject the community college educational responsibility for "low" or "marginal-ability" students. A general statistical description of community college teachers reported that one-third of them came from public high schools, 22 percent from graduate schools, about 11 percent from the senior institutions, and about 10 percent from business and other sources. (99:39) Monroe further reviews the statistical descriptions of community college teachers as student-centered, in the process of developing their own status, becoming more satisfied about their own positions, and becoming more inclined to view community college teaching as a lifetime career. (101:246-243) Such descriptions of community college teachers as the one above must be qualified with the limitation that the available research does not segregate community college Political Science— American Government teachers. It is a fair assumption, however, that community college teaching realities contrasted to four-year institutions' teaching realities tend to link community college 12 Political Science— American Government teachers together with their fellow community college teachers in the above characteristics. What kinds of books are used in the introductory Political Science— American Government courses in the community colleges? Lowi has argued that from 1933-1963 the most widely used Political Science and American Government texts for students in higher education were, for the most part, failures because of their encyclopedic dimensions and styles, indiscriminate lumping together of facts and values, and overall failure to encourage argumentation, inquiry and commitment by candidly pre senting and vigorously defending theoretical rationales within which textual presentations of Political Science— American Government should proceed. (169:5^9-599) Whether one agrees or not with Lowi’s indictment, the period during which he studied Political Science— American Government texts saw a very heavy emphasis on encyclopedia or catalog style texts and reading books. From the middle f60Ts on "relevancy," conceptualized critiques, and a focus on problems and issues became more pronounced in many introductory Political Science— American Government texts and readers. These books emphasized a wide range of orientations including "contemporaneousness," (12:v) deep criticism of the way 13 American politics is practiced (122), (#5), and a return to a "high-powered” approach which militates against "boring students by understating their capabilities. . ." (42) A directly antithetical approach to Ducat’s is illustrated by Rosenbaum who describes his book’s major purpose as instructing "neophyte students about the political character and significance of the most intimate, commonplace, and routine aspects of their daily lives . . ." (lid) Included in Rosenbaum’s Table of Contents were "The Pillow" and "The Bathroom and Beyond." Examples of attempts to balance and synthesize factual presentation, conceptual framework, point of view presentations, and relevancy included Richard A. Watson’s Promise and Performance of American Democracy (137), and James MacGregor Burns’ and Jack W. Peltason’s Government by the People (20). Lowi’s previously mentioned critique of Political Science— American Government texts labeled the Burns and Peltason text as "the Lucky Strike of teaching books," and it remained the largest selling Political Science— American Government text on the market. Up to this point the "Introduction" and "Back ground of the Problem" have briefly described community college problems, areas and objectives of education, General Education and Political Science educational objectives, the "new" community college student, his teachers, and his books. In order that the setting for 14 this study be complete it is necessary to add one more dimension: The 1972 changes in California’s Community College General Education— Social Science requirements. California law required students seeking an associate in arts degree from a California community college to take Three semester hours in the Constitution of the United States, and in American history, including the study of American institutions and ideals, and in the principles of state and local government established under the Constitution of this State and the satisfactory passing of an examination on these subjects. (192:619-620) Also specified as course requirements were personal hygiene, physical education, and English. Since the law required sixty to sixty-four semester hours of work and a major consisting of at least twenty semester hours in a specified field of study for an associate in arts degree, the balance of forty to forty-four semester hours (minus the hours of the above required courses) were to be in elective subjects, with the qualifications that the dis trict governing board might set its own course require ments and transfer institutions, within certain limits, might set their own course requirements. Associate in arts degree requirements were changed, effective September 1, 1973* The area of this change most pertinent to this study reads as follows: (For an associate in arts degree there shall be a minimum requirement of) 15 semester units of general education which shall include at least one course in 15 each of the following areas: (1) Natural sciences. . . (2) Social sciences. The body of knowledge that relates to man as a member of society or component of society, such as the state, family, or any systematized human institution (e.g., economics, political sciency, sociology). (3) Humanities. Those courses of study having primarily a cultural char acter (e.g., languages, literature, philosophy, fine arts). (4) Learning skills .... (192:620.1-620.2) In practice, most of California’s community colleges interpreted the old requirement to mean that at least two courses— generally one in United States History and one in Political Science— American Government— were required. In such cases it seemed as though the number of required courses wider the new law was being lowered from two to one. The districts were still allowed to make their own requirements of courses, and transfer institutions still had their requirements. Despite protestations from some concerned Social Science teachers concerning the de-emphasis of Social Science and possible attendant employment ramifications, the basic justifica tion for the change seemed to be the position that what specific courses should be mandated as part of the curriculum or for graduation should be left to the local district board for final determination. (This position is) based on the principle of maximum autonomy for the local district and based on the concept that faculties of the individual districts and campuses should have the opportunity through the Academic Senates and departmental structure of proposing program content that meets their students (sic) unique needs. (201) Further elaboration of the purposes for the change in California's community college General Education 16 requirements was offered by Gus Guichard, the California Community Colleges' Assistant Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs: The Board of Governors had several objectives in mind in the adoption of the requirements of 15 units of general education with at least one course in each of the following areas: (1) natural sciences, (2) social sciences, (3) humanities, and (4) learning skills. These objectives were: (1) to give the local district greater flexibility in determining its AA Degree requirements through elimination of all specific mandated courses in Title 5> (2) to broaden a student's education by requiring that courses be taken in several areas, (3) at the same time, the transfer student will be required to take some of the 40 semester units of general education courses required of State College students. These also will satisfy some of the breadth requirements needed by University of California transferees. I want to stress that these are minimum require ments . There is no limitation on any extra courses a local board can mandate. For example, if the local board wanted to keep . . . three semester hours of the Constitution, History and American Institutions and California Constitution, History and Government as a specific degree requirement, they may do so. As the regulation was designed to allow maximum local control, no strict division was made as to how the courses are to be divided .... In closing, I can only reiterate the sense of this letter, that as difficult as decisions may be in final determinations of which specific courses are to be included and which excluded, the only appropriate place for that kind of decision is with local faculty and staff. (199) Important questions for introductory Political Science— American Government courses based on the above changes in California General Education— Social Science requirements can be summarized as follows: Should faculties and staffs, working primarily 17 through academic senates and instruction divisions, attempt to influence local governing districts to mandate an introductory Political Science— American Government course in the absence of such a state requirement? Should complete discretion as to which of a variety of Social Science courses is to be taken to meet the ’ ’one course in each of the following areas" require ments be left to the students? From the perspective of General Education objec tives, are there better justifications for requiring an introductory Political Science— American Government course than requiring any other Social Science course, or than allowing students to select the Social Science course they wish in order to meet the new Social Science— General Education requirement? Should this change influence Social Science divisions to place more emphasis on "interdisciplinary" courses which combine such major areas of Social Science as Political Science, History, Sociology, etc.? Similarly, should there be efforts to influence local governing dis tricts to require one such "interdisciplinary" course? Does this change pose the problem of cut-backs in Social Science teachers who were hired primarily to teach the state required Political Science— American Government course under the old state requirements? Is the above fear unfounded because most beginning 18 community college students, even though statistically they will not actually transfer to a four-year institu tion, begin their community college education on the assumption that they will or might transfer, therefore taking the Social Science courses (generally eight to nine units, including an introductory Political Science— American Government course) required by the transfer institutions? Should efforts be initiated to restore state mandated American Government— Political Science courses for California community colleges? This study includes the following assumptions: 1. California’s problems of merging student needs and interests, instructor ability and goals, General Education goals, Political Science goals, and California's new General Education— American Government— Politics requirements are generally similar to nationwide community college problems in these areas. 2. The most generally accepted goals of the academic discipline of "Political Science" are those defined and explained by the American Political Science Association. 3. The Harvard University Faculty Committee’s recommendation to synthesize rational humanism and 19 educational pragmatism is a generally acceptable goal for General Education courses. 4. Next to the instructor, the books used in an introductory American Government— Politics course are the most important educational resource. 5. This kind of conceptualized study, which includes submission of a "model” introductory American Government— Politics course and book to a Jury of experts in General Education and Political Science, can be an important method of gathering evidence and making recommendations. 6. The hypotheses of this study, although not confirmed or disconfirmed by strictly empirical data, can still be dealt with in a valuable educational manner, provided it is clearly understood that general and con ceptual evidence is being employed rather than thoroughly specific and quantifiable evidence. Definitions of Terms Political Science.— The academic discipline which studies the allocation of benefits and rewards for a society that is based on or related to governmental authority. General Education.— Education directed toward completeness as a human being and citizenship fulfillment. This education stresses the abilities of effective 20 thinking, communication of thought, the making of relevant judgments, and discrimination among values. It is dis tinguished from specialized education in terms of method and outlook, both of which look to the development of the whole man insofar as his life is presided over by his reason. California Community College.— Any public two-year college under the governance of a local board of trustees and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Introductory American Government— Politics Course.— The first course in American Government and Politics taken by a college student. In terms more specific to this study, the first such course taken by a student in one of California’s community colleges. Prior to 1973 California law required students seeking an associate in arts degree from a California community college to take: "Three semester hours in the Constitution of the United States . . . and in the principles of state and local government established under the Constitution of this State ..." (192:619-620) New legislation, effective from 1973 on, did away with the above requirement. From 1973 on, California community college students seeking an associate in arts degree need to complete fifteen units of General Education courses 21 divided among four areas of Instructional disciplines, one of which is Social Sciences. Therefore, the phrase "Introductory American Government— Politics Course" takes on a different meaning in reference to California community colleges' new General Education— Social Science require ments . Scope and Limitations This study concentrates mainly on post World War II General Education and Political Science developments, with enough historical overview to place both in under standable perspectives. In specific terms, it is limited to California's community colleges. The Jury reflects a variety of expertise, approaches to and attitudes about introductory American Government— Politics courses. It was selected on the basis of proximity, availability, and qualifications. The "model" course and book sample to be submitted to the Jury are to be developed by this study's author, and the modifications proposed by the Jury are to be included in this study. Summary of Procedures A review of the literature was completed. This review focused on definitions of General Education, General Education trends to 1945> General Education trends since 1945, the study of American Government— Politics to 1945, the study of American Government— Politics since 22 1945, and recent studies of community college students. Leading Introductory American Government— Politics books were reviewed and critiqued. They were placed In three categories: Behavioral, Normative, and Critique kinds of books. Variations within these categories were discussed. Seventy-three such books were examined, and of these seventy-three introductory American Government— Politics texts and readings books, some of the most popular in each of the above three categories were reviewed in some detail as to their orientations, inclu sions, exclusions, and styles. A table listing California community college intro ductory American Government— Politics requirements was constructed. This table was based on a study of ninety- four California Community College catalogs' listings of Social Science— American Government— Politics requirements. A model introductory American Government— Politics course outline was developed and coordinated with a model introductory American Government— Politics text-reader. This course outline and book attempted to achieve compatibility between conflicting motivations, orienta tions, and abilities which were present in higher educa tion's "Newest Student" and the teachers who taught him introductory American Government— Politics. The above course outline and sample text-reader were submitted to a Jury of experts in the fields of 23 General Education and Political Science. The nine members of this Jury offered their responses to these proposals which were then summarized by this study. The author's reactions to and evaluations of the Jury responses were listed and related to their implica tions for higher education, General Education, and intro ductory American Government— Politics courses. In his reactions to the Jury comments the author included his statements of how he would modify his course outline and sample text-reader in light of these Jury responses. A summary of the problems, procedures, and con clusions was offered. Recommendations for further study were made. Organization of the Study The following order of chapters was adopted: Chapter II is a review of the literature emphasizing definitions of General Education, General Education trends to 1945, General Education trends since 1945, the study of American Government— Politics to 1945, the study of American Government— Politics since 1945, and recent studies of community college students. Chapter III is a review and critique of leading introductory American Government— Politics books, and a table of California community college introductory American Government— Politics requirements as they existed before July of 1973* 24 Chapter IV consists of a "model" introductory American Government— Politics course outline, and a sample of a "model" introductory American Government— Politics book. Chapter V is a review of the responses given to the above "models" by a Jury of experts in the fields of General Education and American Government— Political Science. Chapter VI is the author's discussion of the implications for higher education, General Education, and introductory American Government— Politics education which the responses of the Jury hold. Chapter VII is a summary of the problems, procedures, and conclusions of the study, and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE This Review of the Literature section has been divided into the following sections: (1) Definitions of General Education, (2) General Education Trends to 1945» (3) General Education Trends Since 1945 > (4) The Study of American Government— Politics to 1945, (5) The Study of American Government— Politics Since 1945, (6) Recent Studies of Community College Students. Definitions of General Education Finding definitions of General Education is no problem. The literature of higher education is replete with insightful, comprehensive, redundant, and contra- dictive definitions. Bell unfolds his definition of General Education as a battling against specialization, professionalism and pluralism. He proposes a three-tiered plan for General Education which begins with a history of western civilization plus a major in a discipline or disciplines, ascends to a subject within the discipline (s), and culminates with a type of General Education ’ ’ where the students acquire self-consciousness, historical consciousness, and methodological consciousness." (3:7-3) 25 26 Placing their definition of General Education in a historical context, Brubacher and Rudy viewed it as education that did not differ in kind from liberal education. But it did make an important difference in emphasis. Like liberal education, it sought to make a man by drawing on the rich heritage of the race. Yet, while liberal education tended to draw on heritage by studying it as an end in itself, general education drew on it as a means for understanding problems of current living. The former selected values hallowed by the past, the latter values made significant by issues of the day. (IB:254-355) More typical than the above are the more functional definitions of Genera.1 Education, which stress goals or objectives. Cosand describes General Education as that which provides indirectly in all courses and directly in specific courses . . . expreiences which will lead to the development of a broadly educated person who has a grasp of the interrelationship of knowledge, and who is able, through learning, to think effectively, communicate his thoughts, make relevant judgments, discriminate among values, and make appropriate applications of what he has learned. {57:147) Ikenberry views General Education as referring "to those phases of non-specialized and non-vocational education that should be the common denominator, so to speak, of educated persons as individuals and as citizens in a free society." (16B:175) Another one sentence definition of General Education is given by McGrath: In a sentence, general education consists of the corpus of knowledge, the complement of intellectual skills, and the cluster of personal traits and atti tudes which all human beings, regardless of their 27 special interests or occupations, must have to live a civically enlightened and a personally satisfying life. (172:3) The theme of commonality in General Education is further elaborated by Nelson-Jones: The term general education is defined here as that part of an undergraduate education which constitutes a common intellectual requirement, though not necessarily common courses, for all non transfer students at an institution (of higher education) . . . and which emphasizes breadth rather than specialization. (175:332) Porter developed categories of General Education which included, but were not limited to, its being viewed as a common denominator. His study lists these categories as "nonspecialized and nonvocational education," . . . "personal adjustment," "development of the whole person or personality," "development of the intellectual processes," and "means for developing responsible citizen ship." (200:24-32) Smith also stresses categories of General Education, including them in the title of his article as "Relativity," "Breadth," "Integration," "Fruitfulness," and "Individuality." (130:153) The same author, writing one year later, extended his definition of General Education as a set of experiences and opportunities for learning that tends to optimize simultaneously the breadth, integration, and fruitfulness of an individual's knowledge, experiences, emotions, motives, and related mental phenomena, within the limits and circumstances provided by his own intellectual and developmental potentials, the surrounding society, and the non-human environment. (131:231) 28 Thomas develops an historical setting for his definition of General Education which merges objectives and historical development: Historically, the term ’ 'general education" has stood for the idea of a common learning, a knowledge of man’s achievements and of the processes by which he has achieved greatness in intellectual inquiry, in social institutions, and in the products of the arts. The belief in the necessity of this common learning— this general education— rests upon the belief that no man realizes himself as an individual man except as he comes to understand through the breadth of his knowledge his identity with all men. Historically, "general education" has proved itself a useful term to denote this goal. (132:301) Another kind of General Education definition and perspective is developed by Pullias, Whitehead, and Gardner. These authors stress higher educational goals which are in the realm of General Education without specifying their definitions, objectives, and examples under the formal label of "General Education." Pullias writes: The essence of the higher learning is the search for truth and its relation to all of life: a search expressed through (a) the study of the experience and achievement of man, especially the best he has achieved, (b) the "imaginative consideration" of the implications of that achievement for the present and future, and (c) the persistent study of all aspects of reality by direct observation. This interaction among students, teachers, and the records of man's experience goes on in an atmosphere characterized in some degree by freedom, adventure, imagination, endless inquiry, and Socratic humility. The central goal is the full development of the whole person and involves knowledge, attitudes, values, and skills. The man so educated will be somewhat wiser than he would have been because of what he learns and what he is, but perhaps even more because of his awareness 29 of what he does not know and has not become; he catches the vision of man as he can be and should be. (Ill:IS) Whitehead writes of the overall "justification for a university" which preserves the connexion between knowledge and the zest of life, by uniting the young and the old in the imaginative consideration of learning .... This atmosphere of excitement, arising from imaginative consideration, transforms knowledge. A fact is no longer a bare fact: it is invested with all its possibilities. It is no longer a burden on the memory: it is energizing as the poet of our dreams, and as the architect of our purposes .... Fools act on imagination without knowledge; pedants act on knowledge without imagination. The task of a university is to weld together imagination and experience. (142:93-94) Gardner, in an oft-quoted passage, explores the very far reaching demands of excellence which are not solely relegated to formal higher education: We must learn to honor excellence (indeed to demand it) in every socially accepted human activity, however humble the activity, and to scorn shoddiness, however exalted the activity . . . . An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent philosopher. The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water. (60:&L) As these definitions and descriptions of General Education indicate, it is an area of education that attempts to synthesize those qualities of education which maximize an individual's potentials in terms of individual fulfillment and societal responsibility. 30 General_Edacation Trends to 1945 One good touchstone for a review of literature dealing with General Educational trends throughout United States history is the "Yale Report" of 1626. This report looked back at approximately two-hundred years of higher educational development in the colonies and young United States. It logically and coherently upheld traditional higher educational goals that have been aptly summarized by Brubacher and Rudy: The colonial American college was in many ways a blood brother to its English model. Like the latter, it upheld the tradition of a prescribed liberal-arts curriculum, based upon a primarily classical pre paratory course; it was more deeply concerned with the forming of character than the fostering of research; it placed great value on a residential pattern of life for students (what Cotton Mather called the "collegiate way of living"); and it was concerned primarily with training a special elite for community leadership. To those fundamental policies it held steadfastly and without important change for nearly 200 years. (16:25) By the 1620's, serious challenges developed to this model of higher education. Advocates of science courses clamored for recognition. Arguments were advanced for eliminating Greek and Latin graduation requirements. Earlier specialization in a student's major field of concentration was urged. The answer of the "Yale Report" was "that a prescribed curriculum, featuring 'the thorough study of the ancient languages,' was the only proper system for a college." The report stressed that the aim of college was to offer a common foundation to all students 31 through liberal learning. "The student could then go on from there to secure whatever advanced training he might require." This specialization would be after the student had obtained "that expansion and balance of mental powers, that liberal and comprehensive view of life, which would serve him in good stead no matter what he later decided to do." The immature undergraduate could not be expected to realize that "every liberally educated man must come to know certain branches of knowledge which 'are the common foundation of all high intellectual attain ments.'" (IS:101) It can be stated in overview terms that this college ideal of developing the "gentleman scholar" remained the most important higher educational ideal until the rise of the universities in the late nineteenth century. In light of the above, it would not be too gross an over-simplification to view pre-lS50 higher education in the United States as "General Education." The defini tions and descriptions offered at the beginning of this chapter bear out this comparison. The higher educational prescriptions of the "Yale Report" came under fire from educational reformers through out the lS30's and '40's; its most publicized challenge was by Francis Wayland, president of Brown University, in 1650. In what has come to be known as the "Wayland 32 Report,” Wayland outlined the proposals which he offered to the Brown Corporation under threat of resignation if they were not accepted. This ’ ’report proposed a system under which 'every student might study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose."' There was to be an increase in the science offerings, a kind of university extension program was to be established, and a new degree structure was to be formed. (13:103) In spite of Wayland's lack of success, fertile seeds of higher educational restructuring had been planted. From mid-nineteenth through the twentieth century two higher educational forms, the land grant college and the university, accomplished educational reforms that had previously been swallowed up by the strength of the hold the "Christian-gentleman-scholar” ideal had on pre nineteenth century American higher education. The American Council on Education describes the influences of these two new forms of higher education as follows: The land-grant colleges and universities have exerted considerable influence on the structure and curriculum of American higher education. They gave official academic recognition to disciplines that had previously been isolated in separate professional schools; they assumed that if education was to be offered to the agricultural and industrial classes it must be placed within their economic means; and they contributed to the development of a peculiarly American concept of the university - what Ezra Cornell called "an institution where any person can find instruction in any study." (4:23) The imposition of land-grant college and German 33 university modeled higher educational institutions into the "Christian-gentleman-scholar" ideal of British- influenced American higher education produced a unique hybrid: "The compromise produced a peculiarly American structure unlike any other existing university system. An essentially German graduate school emphasizing research was placed structurally on the top of an English college devoted to general education." (4:24) Ikenberry develops a review of "evolution in higher education curricula" which stresses two major defined and one yet undefined stage of growth. During the first quarter of the century . . . many college curricula aimed at developing the liberally educated gentleman, tutoring future leaders and potential opinion setters in a democracy . . . .The attempts of general education to strive for an ideological consensus, to concentrate on Western civilization, to emphasize the humanities, and to integrate and synthesize knowledge were perhaps most appropriate and successful in this era. A second period . . . emerged in tandem with the growth of the modern industrial state, certainly in evidence prior to World War II, but overwhelmingly present since that time. This period was, and is, an era of production and performance . . . .(This period emphasizes) such characteristics as self- discipline, a prudent and foresightful orientation toward the future, work and economic success, and competitive striving . . . .The common denominator that general education sought to provide not only made better engineers, businessmen, clergymen, physicians, scientists, journalists, and lawyers, but also provided the "standardization" and inter changeability that has proved so immensely functional in the modern industrial state. (163:131-132) IkenberryTs third stage, which is undefined and unclear, began in the late 1950fs and early 1960’s. It will be 34 described in the next section of this study. In their review of early twentieth century General Education, Jencks and Riesman state that like most academic innovations of the past century, the general education movement found its first char acteristically modern expression at a university: Columbia after World War I. In many respects it was a reaction against the emphasis on graduate professional training and the spread of the elective system at the undergraduate level that had been the major academic achievements of the previous thirty years— especially at universities like Columbia. Even in the 1920fs the feeling was abroad that specialization had gotten out of hand, that knowledge was becoming too fragmented, that research was being overemphasized, and that the transcendent truths and eternal verities were being lost in the process .... (76:494) Jencks and Reisman's review of trends in General Education from the turn of the twentieth century through World War II also emphasizes the influence of Hutchins1 educational innovations at the University of Chicago: The arrival of Hutchins in 1929 marked the beginning of an era in which the shapers of the College sought to blend the omnivorous curiosity of avant-garde culture with the technical rigor of the academic disciplines. They also amalgamated the disciplines into somewhat novel shapes and sizes. The Chicago program included sequences in the natural sciences, the humanities, and the social sciences, which were supposed to integrate past and present work within these divisions of knowledge. These sequences were capped by work in philosophy and history. Pedagogically, the emphasis was on small group discussion; lectures were not forbidden but were less highly regarded. In order to retain high academic standards and contact with the ’ ’ frontiers of knowledge,” the Chicago pedagogy also stressed reading ’ ’original sources.”. . . .It also employed multiple-choice tests on which purely forensic or rhetorical skills were of limited value . . . (76:494-4950) 35 The pre-1945 period of developments in higher education and General Education awaited a synthesis of goals and rationales in the face of tradition, innovation, and diversity. General Education Trends Since 1945 The most important General Education study in modern American history was conducted by a Harvard faculty committee during World War II. This study, entitled General Education in a Free Society, attempted a synthesis of "an aesthetically motivated mode of education for which the classics had set the pattern and a pragmatically motivated type for which the sciences set the style.” (1^:294) This study concluded that ”The true task of education is therefore . . . to reconcile the sense of pattern and direction deriving from heritage with the sense of experiment and innovation deriving from science that they may exist fruitfully together . . . ." (69:50) The significance and influence of this landmark in the history of General Education are summarized by Brubacher and Rudy: Although not planned to be so, the Harvard Report was Aristotelian in spirit. It took the two regnant theories of Hutchins and Adler on the one hand and Dewey on the other and tried to strike a mean between them. As a matter of fact, few were satisfied with the balance the committee struck. The defenders of "heritage” regarded the report as too brash and the defenders of the "experiment" regarded it as too 36 mild. Some regarded the language of the report as leaving the chasm between the two philosophies as unbridgeable as ever . . . .Trying to weave such incompatible strands of doctrine (rational humanism vs. pragmatism) together balked any idea of real synthesis. The best that could result was an eclectism and a rather contradictory one at that. It was probably of most significance at mid-twentieth century that in one way or another many people were seeking a both/and rather than an either/or answer to the philosophical problems of higher education. (13:294-295) Another very significant early post-war study of General Education was published by the American Council on Education in 1952. This study was based on a workshop focused on General Education in the California community colleges, and it arrived at the following set of goals: Students in California Public Junior Colleges differ greatly in experiences, needs, capacities, aspirations, and interests. The general education program aims to help each student increase his competence in 1. Exercising the privileges and responsibilities of democratic citizenship. 2. Developing a set of sound moral and spiritual values by which he guides his life. 3. Expressing his thoughts clearly in speaking and writing and in reading and listening with under standing. 4* Using the basic mathematical and mechanical skills necessary in everyday life. 5. Using methods of critical thinking for the solution of problems and for the discrimination among values. 6. Understanding his cultural heritage so that he may gain a perspective of his time and place in the world. 37 7. Understanding his interaction with his biological and physical environment so that he may better adjust to and improve that environment. 3. Maintaining good mental and physical health for himself, his family and his community. 9. Developing a balanced personal and social adjustment. 10. Sharing in the development of a satisfactory home and family life. 11. Taking part in some form of satisfying creative activity and in appreciating the creative activities of others. (73:21-22) Nelson-Jones ennumerated and discussed eight recent trends in General Education from 1955 to 1965: 1. The first trend was the decline in the importance of functional education, and especially of courses in the area of personal adjustment .... This was partly caused by the state colleges' wishing to lay increasing emphasis on a more narrowly defined concept of intellectual work than was implied by the term personal adjustment. 2. The second trend was an increase in the amount of general education . . . 3. The third trend was a movement away from concentrating general education in the first two years of college . . . Though it is the outcome of the overall under graduate educational program that really counts, it is nevertheless probable that the extension of general education into the junior and senior years represents a strengthening of general education . . . 4. The fourth trend was a movement toward greater election and specialization within general education programs, especially in the natural science area . . . .Intellectual difficulties in the composition of survey courses and the charge of superficiality leveled at the end-products were both reasons making for greater specialization . . . Another factor making for specialization was the improved preparation students were receiving in the 33 high schools . . . .This improved preparation was most noticeable in the natural sciences, thus making intro ductory science survey courses superfluous to the needs of increased numbers of students. The faculty also created a pressure for special ization . . . At the present moment it is hard to identify effective forces which will counteract the trend toward a more specialized approach to general education .... All (the) countervailing forces . . . are nebulous, whereas the pressures making for specialization and election are relatively concrete. 5. The fifth trend was a greater emphasis on English composition and comprehension . . . 6. The sixth trend was an increase in education for international awareness . . . 7. The seventh trend was the consolidation of the position of the social sciences as the third major area in which all students would be required to study, the other two areas being the natural sciences and the humanities . . . A further social science development was the addition of individual subjects to general education curricula . . . S. The eighth and final trend was that general education remained firmly entrenched as an integral part of American higher education. What occurred was a mutation of form which reflected a changed set of conditions . . . . If, as some thought, general education was at a period of crisis by the end of the 1945-53 decade, the evidence here indicates that it weathered it during the 1955-65 decade. (175:332-335) Ikenberry, already cited for his descriptions of pre-1945 higher educational trends relative to General Education, discusses "The outlines of a third period, presently emerging," which are unclear, but which seem to stress "developing autonomy, managing emotions, and establishing identity." (163:132) In a similar vein, 39 Shoben has written of A new revolution, the post-industrial revolution, (which) has struck. For large numbers of Americans, relative affluence and basic political freedoms are no longer goals to be striven for; they are estab lished and can be taken for granted. The ethic of production has lost its force, and the institutions, the norms and the reward systems of industrialism seem antiquated and constrictive. What matters is less success and security and much more the experi ence of joy, the stretching of personal conscious ness, the free expression of self. (179:33-34) The problems of post-1945 General Education are well summarized by Ikenberry in the form of questions: Can general education programs reasonably be expected to achieve an ideological consensus in a period of growing societal pluralism? Can general education continue to emphasize the tradi tions of Western civilization when it is obvious to all, especially the young, that contemporary culture extends far beyond these restricted boundar ies? Must the humanities be the instrument for striking out against science and technology, or should the humanities aim toward infusing our technological culture and its scientists with more genuine humanness? (163:132-163) Most recent writing about General Education is pessimistic. Jencks and Reisman characterize it as floundering. They state that It is mainly in the more backward reaches of higher education that general education is being introduced as a new idea . . . Most professional scholars are profoundly offended by the sight of another man they regard as a charlatan talking to impressionable students about their discipline. (Strangely they feel no such outrage at the idea of a pedantic bore turning hundreds of freshmen entirely against their subject) . . . .This intolerance provides a rationale for a good deal of departmental imperialism. A department may, for example, have a man it would like to keep on but has no money to pay. The general education 40 program, the experimental college, or whatever it may be, has a budget line but does not want the depart ments man. It has another candidate of its own whom the department thinks demonstrably weaker, at least on the scholarly side. The department therefore concludes that the general educationists are without judgment and uses the next available opportunity to curtail their power to saddle the university with what seem semicompetent faculty. A cynic might also note that the result of such maneuvers is usually to increase the number of slots the department can fill. (76:493-499) Mayhew shares this pessimism. He states that General Education has greatly declined in recent years. He argues that One way of accommodating lip service to general education and pressures for specialization is the tendency to label so many courses as satisfying general education requirements that no integrated educational experience even for a plurality of students is possible. To suggest that Introduction to Business, Economics, Principles of Sociology, • and Social Psychology are of equal value in achieving social science outcomes of general education strains even the most flexible of logics. This tendency seems especially characteristic of junior colleges, which must accept many students with little or no success in academic type courses, yet which must, because of state law, include general education in the experience of those who will receive an associate of arts degree. (95:200) Mayhew lists the reasons for the failure of General Education as the low level of implementation, the effects of such courses being required leading to students1 view ing them simply as obstacles to be overcome on the road to a degree, the great emphasis on research, and the drive by higher education institutions to become known as graduate centers of excellence. (95:207-203) In his conclusion Mayhew suggests that a search "should be made 41 for some broad principles that will allow general educa tion to flourish." (95:212) Porter, in his study of General Education in California community colleges, made several recommendations applicable to General Education reform in the post-war period. These include the necessity for evaluation of existing General Education programs; the need for experi mentation; the assistance of students in planning and evaluating such education; the emphasis on relevancy; the necessity of careful study of the nature, purposes, and significance of General Education by all community college instructors; and the need for Teachers’ colleges and schools of education to offer courses and seminars in General Education. (200:219-221) Ikenberry offers a short and clear review state ment of General Education’s recent failures coupled with his prescription for reform: Professionalism has so captured colleges and universities, including the liberal arts, that general education has no chance in its fight against "specialism." Those in the disciplines and pro fessions must finally decide whether they really wish a curricular monopoly and, if not, they must move to support a redefinition and revitalization of general education. In turn, the current closed market in general education— single source suppliers— must also be broken with the introduction of a wider range of competitive and attractive alternatives. In the future, programs of general education must a itk the question: Whose interests are to be served? Let us hope the answer is congruent with a commitment to the youth of future generations and 42 to the society of which they, as well as the institutions they attend, will be a part. (166:163- 164) The Study of American Government— Politics to 1945 A "Historical Perspective" for the study of politics and government prior to 1945 is offered by Easton: Historically . . . all social knowledge was originally one and indivisible; the intellectual specialization of labor appears late upon the scholarly scene in the Western world. For almost two thousand years, from the early classical Greek period to somewhere in the eighteenth century, men basically saw each other not as specialists but as general seekers after wisdom and knowledge, as philosophers in the original sense of the word. It is true as early as the Middle Ages that law, theology, and medicine stood as separate and coordinate fields of learning and teaching in the universities, but philosophy still embraced the bulk of human knowledge about man in society. . . .(H)owever, this general corpus gradually began to break up into specialized segments. By the eighteenth century . . . we can already dis tinguish what came to be called natural philosophy from moral philosophy, and, as knowledge in both these fields increased remarkably during that century, their names underwent a further subtle modification. Under the heightening prestige of chemistry, physics, and biology, they acquired the names natural and moral sciences. With further elaboration during the nineteenth century, especially under the impetus of Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte with their sharp focus on human relationships in society, the moral sciences finally became known by the contemporary phrase, social sciences. . . .Each transition— from philosophy to natural and moral philosophy, to moral and natural sciences, then to the social sciences, and now to behavioral sciences— signals a stage in a truly linear movement in the nature and assumptions about our understanding of man in society. We may well 43 suspect that some fundamental transformations have taken place today or are in mid-process. (2d:20-21) This evolution has developed further, according to Easton: . . .(N)ever before has there been so great a demand for self-conscious attention to empirical theory at all levels of generality— middle range as well as general— that, in principle, can be reduced to testable propositions. In the second place, as part of this, the social sciences have been compelled to face up to the problem of locating stable units of analysis which might possibly play the role in social research that the particles of matter do in the physical sciences. (2d:22) Easton further characterizes the complexities of the discipline of Political Science in its attempts to merge "relevance," "understanding,” and "broad theory” in such a way that the "crude empiricism" of the disciplines of psychology and sociology were avoided but in such a way also that subjective values were not mistaken for scientifically validated data. (2d:26) Miller offers an organizing perspective for political science in this pre-1945 period which views the study of politics as torn between historicist and positiv ist approaches. Historicism, according to Miller is "the view that all human knowledge is essentially relative to time and place." (173:797) On the other hand, positivism emphasizes "scientific principles (that) have an objective basis in sensory experience, (therefore) they can be true independently of time, place, and circumstance, although they are always subject to revision in light of subsequent 44 experience." (173:79#) Most of the epistemological debates about the nature of the discipline of Political Science, according to Miller, stressed a relatively dichotomized dialogue between traditional political philosophy which searched for the good or just political order and an empirical approach which emphasized the scientific method. The basic problem in this orientation is that many behavioralists have assumed— and a generation of political scientists has been taught to believe— that there exists within the philosophy of science a consensus favoring a positivistic conception of scientific inquiry .... (H)owever, . . . there is a basic conflict about the nature of science within the philosophy of science itself .... (173:#07) Miller's main point is that many scientific positivists were historical relativists (historicists), but many behavioral political scientists overlook or reject this admission of historical and cultural relativism in claim ing a value free, scientifically objective quality for behavioral political science. Writing of twentieth century transformations in the discipline of Political Science, Lowi considers the three theoretical stages it has gone through . . . from a naive Jeffersonianism to a mongrelized Madisonianism to a kind of liberal Burkeanism. It has been going through still another transformation in methodology. The failure of one democratic institution after another has bred uncertainty, and uncertainty has encouraged a vast expansion of the apparatus of inquiry. Even if all the questions might be found in the Great Books, the quest is new— for conditions rather than truths, for degrees rather I 45 than absolutes. (169J539) Addressing himself primarily to American Government— Politics textbooks written from 1933 to 1963, Lowi asserts that there is a great need in the discipline of Political Science generally and in its textbooks specifically for an integration of theory and research. He offers the following examples of textbook shortcomings in failing to accomplish this kind of integration in the pre-1945 period: 1. Post World War I texts which were more inventories and catechisms than theory-research books. 2. Between wars texts which were long on faith in democracy and short on analysis and assessment. Munro's Government of the United States (1931) and Ogg and Ray’s Introduction to American Government (1926) are examples of this tendency. Beard's American Government and Politics (1935) continued this emphasis on an inventory, encyclopedic type text. Faith in our system, in the face of enormous challenges, continued to be the tone of these texts. (169:539-591) Lowi's highly critical review of American Government-Politics texts of the Ogg and Ray variety is refuted by Irish who states: Introduction to American Government, which Professor Ogg wrote with P. Orman Ray, was the leading textbook in American government for at least three decades. ... (In 1952 when the tenth edition was being prepared) his colleagues observed that "it is probable that no single systematic book on the nature and meaning of American political ideas and institu tions has been read by so many people." In 1933 the "Oggenray" was already in its sixth edition. From a 1963 standpoint the approach may appear "institu tional" and "factladen." But the authors view their 46 quite differently: "The ultimate aim is not so much to fill the student's mind with facts about mechanisms and processes as to develop a lively appreciation of the functions, problems, techniques, and tendencies of American government in the dynamic and challenging millieu in which it operates today." Indeed, the Preface to the 193$ edition could well be used to advertise today's most advanced textbook in "systems analysis" of American Government. Chapter 1 examines American government in a rapidly changing world environment and discusses "government's proper role in our contemporary society." . . . Ogg's behavior- alism was rooted in history and in humanistic studies rather than in sociology and statistics. (75:5) Lowi's criticism and Irish's defense of the "Oggenray" textual approach to American Government— Politics is better understood in the context of the follow ing statement by Lowi: Irish and Prothro's book, (Politics of American Democracy. 1962) the most modern of the leading texts, presents the ultimate example of the split personality of teaching books. Alas, all its worthy attempts to integrate theory with conventional materials as well as new research are vitiated by the responsibility to include everything and to be authoritative. (169:596) This Lowi vs. "Oggenray" and Irish debate is placed in a much broader historical and philosophical perspective by Brecht, tie discusses the fundamental prob lem of pre-1945 Political Science as the problem of scientific value relativism which created a void in fact- value debates. Brecht cites statements from Dewey and Einstein stressing the obligation of ethical neutrality among those who would claim any kind of "scientific" credentials. Such statements, Brecht contends, seemed acceptable into the 1930's because of the great consensus 47 of values in the western world. The theories and prac tices of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini abruptly ended this consensus! (15) The Study of American Government— Politics Since 1945 There is no one written source comparable to the Harvard faculty committee report entitled General Education in a Free Society which can separate pre-1945 and post- 1945 Political Science as that report separated pre-1945 and post-1945 General Education. One very able, interesting, and controversial political scientist does offer, through his writing, teaching and Political Science leadership, some keys to understanding the discipline of Political Science and what it was about in the immediately pre and post 1945 period. Lasswell, a psychologist turned political scientist, characterized Political Science as the study of . . Who Gets What, When, How." (S3) He developed a very broad social and psychological perspec tive for the study of politics, concentrating on kinds of power and influence. As indicated by the very broad title Politics: Who Gets What. When. How, the subject matter of politics was not confined to formal political and governmental institutions and behavior. Lasswell indicates the breadth of his views about the subject matter of Political Science in the following passage: 4S . . . five questions are pertinent to every political situation: What goal values are to be sought? What are the trends in the realization of values? What factors condition trends? What projections charac terize the probable cause of future developments? What policy alternatives will bring the greatest net realization of values? (S3:lS7) Lasswell further generalizes to the "eight value cate gories" which all people in all societies and under all political-governmental systems struggle to achieve. These values include power, respect, affection, and justice. (83:203) Lasswell wished to apply the vocabulary and methodology of Social Science, especially the Social Science of Psychology, to the study of politics. During the time of LasswellTs main influence over the discipline of Political Science, the 1930*s, critics charged that his approach was too all-inclusive and relied too much on non-empirical information and ideas. The post-Lasswell school of political scientists stressed the shift from the institutional to the behavioral approach, an approach which calls for empirical data, attention to observable phenomena, accurate measure ment , emphasis on theory, systematic analysis, sophisticated methodology— in short, a rigorous discipline. (74:17) Although most modern behavioral political scientists qualify their regard for Lasswell*s contribu tions with the above kinds of criticisms, his role of merging theory and research cannot be underestimated. Easton describes this role as follows: "... Until the 49 1940's Lasswell, virtually alone, had carried the burden of seeking to weave together theory and empirical research." (23:23) By the end of World War II, Lasswell was joined by Herbert Simon who furthered Lasswell's contributions to the development of empirical theory. Simon's works stressed as their main unit of analysis the decision, and The use of this variable as a central unit quickly spread to other areas of political science, aided as it was by its prevalence in other fields of social research as well. Today, decision-making has become the most generalized new concept in political research. (23:23-29) Another approach to post-1945 Political Science is offered by Irish who reviews a "post-1945 roll of honor" in a survey done by political scientists Albert Somit and Joseph Tanenhaus: V. 0. Key, who heads the post-1945 roll of honor ... is the very model of a modern political scientist, in contrast to traditional types of the pre-war era. His mentor, and the director of his doctoral dissertation at Chicago, was Charles Merriam, whose name is at the top of the pre-1945 honor list, which suggests a continuum in creative scholarship. (74:15) A footnote to the above statement describes . . . the seventeen political scientists ranked as "the great men in the profession" post-1945, (of whom) six took their Ph.D.s at Chicago (Leonard White 1921, Harold Lasswell 192o, V. 0. Key 1934> Gabriel Almond 193G, David Truman 1939 and Herbert Simon 1943)• Harold Lasswell and Leonard White also appear on the pre-1945 "honor roll," colleagues of Charles Merriam. David Truman and Herbert Simon did their doctoral dissertations under Leonard White, and Gabriel Almond wrote his 50 under Harold Lasswell. Three of the post-1945 "greats" pursued their doctoral work at Columbia (Peter Odegard 1926. E. E. Schattschneider 1934, Richard Snyder 1945)* Three took their Ph.D.s at Harvard (James Burns and David Easton 1947, Karl Deutsch 1951), two at Yale (Robert Dahl 1940, Dwight Waldo 1942). Both Dahl and Waldo were students of Frank Coker, whose name appears on the pre-1945 list. Charles Hyneman (Illinois 1929) and Heinz Eulau (California 1941) complete the list of American Ph.D.s on the post-1945 list. Three of the seventeen have German doctorates (Carl Friedrich, Heidelberg 1925; Leo Strauss, Hamburg 1921; and Hans Morgenthau, Frankfurt 1929). Whatever the listing may suggest (some critics feel the sampling was skewed to favor "one postwar strand of political science thinking," i.e., political behavioralism), it does not point to any sharp break in the development of the discipline before and after 1945. To the contrary, there is remarkable continuity in the threads of instruction. (74*. 15-16) The academic discipline of Political Science has been racked by the problems associated with primary responsibilities of political scientists. Are they mainly teachers or mainly researchers? Of course this same kind of dilemma is faced by the other academic dis ciplines, but it seems a deeper problem for Political Science viewed as General Education. The dilemma unfolds as follows: Most citizens can not-will not be academic specialists in Political Science. But most citizens will be participants— at one level or another— in political- governmental behavior. Do political scientists have an equal, greater, or lesser responsibility to these citizen non-specialists in government— politics, or to their peers in the academic discipline and students who are 51 committed to the formal academic discipline of Political Science? Benjamin did a study which reviewed American Political Science Association Committee reports on the necessity to prepare Political Science graduate students for teaching. These reports were given from 1916-1965. They all emphasize the dual responsibility of the politi cal scientist to teach and research. In practice, how ever, as Benjamin indicates, research is much better rewarded in quantifiable terms than teaching. The reason for this is that (Teaching) is invisible because, traditionally, what goes on in the classroom is the professor's business; his colleagues enter only when invited. It has not been quantifiable in its results because it has not occurred to us to try to measure a teacher's success by his output; that is, by his effect on his students and by their evaluation of him. Lacking these two qualities, "teaching ability" has not been used as a basic criterion on which political scientists (read "teachers of politics") have been judged. And without such a criterion at hand, members of the profession could easily ignore the problem of learning and transmitting teaching skills. It simply was not necessary . . . Learning about teaching, and about learning must become well established in major political science departments if the preparation of young political scientists for teaching is to improve. The appear ance of new courses . . . within some departments is therefore encouraging, for through such efforts it can be demonstrated to the profession that concern for teaching methods and problems is not an exercise in the study of "form without content," but rather may be a way of anticipating and confronting the ethical and professional questions that arise in the early stages of a political science teaching career. 52 But, valuable as they are, courses in teaching political science are simply not enough. For teaching really to become ("Upperclass") a more fundamental change in the profession’s perception of legitimate ancillary fields of study is necessary. Only when political scientists come to recognize that courses in the "psychology of learning" or "teaching methods," properly taught, are as basic as minor fields for persons who will spend their lives teaching politics as are courses in elementary or advanced statistics will this part of the problem of preparing political scientists for teaching be on the road to solution. (152:45-47) Hadley further elaborates this centrality of research in terms of tangible rewards: "The message is clear; political scientists remain divided over teaching and research; and those reaping the rewards have the highest scholarly output. Tangible benefits, with regards to teaching, remain few." (166:270) Political Science in the post-war period, as has been described above, was dominated by an approach described as behavioralism. Easton, one of the most influential (if not the most influential) behavioralist political scientists discusses "political behavioralism" in the following terms: I am quite puzzled by the use of (the adjective behavioristic rather than the adjective behavioral). As far as I know, there is probably no one in political science who would consider himself a behaviorist, however elastic his imagination, or who would wish to be so designated, at least if the term is used in its rigorous and proper sense. In origin, as associated with J. B. Watson, it is a psychological concept which was adopted to help exercise from scientific research all reference to such subjective data as purposes, intentions, desires, or ideas. Only those observations obtained 53 through the use of the sense organs or mechanical equipment were to be admitted as data. Observable behavior generated by external stimuli rather than inferences about the subjective state of the mind of the person being observed was to constitute the subject matter of research. In the intervening years since behaviorism was first enunciated, most psychologists have come to recognize that, between external stimulus and observable response, subjective experiences occur that influence the interpretation and effect of the stimulus and, thereby, the nature of the response. The original behavioristic paradigm, S-R (stimulus- response) has yielded to the more intelligible one of S-O-R (stimulus-organism-response) in which feelings, motivations, and all the other aspects of the subjective awareness and reaction of the organ ism are taken into account as potentially useful data. This has, of course, spelled the doom of pristine behaviorism, and as a tern, although not necessarily as a point of view, it has just about disappeared from psychology. ... .1 know of no one associated with political research who has advocated a position that even begins to approximate so rigid an exclusion of subjective data (as the early practitioners of "pristine behaviorism" advocated). Ideas, motives, feelings, attitudes, all appear as important variables. By design at least, students of political behavior have given no indication of intending to adopt a behavioristic posture. . . . . (Although there are many different emphases in the behavioral approach to political science) closer inspection does reveal that (most behavioral political scientists) are . . . looking ahead towards the same region in space— a science of politics modeled after the methodological assumptions of the natural sciences . . . (2S:12-17) Sibley offers a non-polemical criticism of behavioral Political Science. He writes that We are not questioning the proposition that behavioralism in its several forms has an important contribution to make in the study of political things. We do question, however, whether the 54 behavioral approach is adequate in itself for an understanding of politics. The politicist, we are maintaining, must be much more than a behavioralist— he must be a historian, a lawyer, and an ethicist as well. Much will turn, of course, on what one means by ’ 'understanding" the political sphere. Here it will be suggested that to understand politics implies the kind of insight characteristic of the artist as well as the precision which we usually associate with science— the comprehension of interrelations of parts to wholes in addition to the analysis of parts themselves. Essentially, we shall examine the major elements which are involved in an understanding of the political world and, in the process, endeavor to show what part behavioralism can and can not play. The main propositions assert that (1) the very selection of subjects for investigation is shaped by values which are not derivable from the investiga tion; (2) in the end, the concepts and values which do determine what and how one studies are related to one’s judgments of the goals which one identifies with political life and to one’s general "life experience"; (3) once the investigation is launched, there are definite limits to what one can expect from behavioral studies; (4) behaviorally oriented study will remove one from the stuff of everyday politics and cannot be related to that stuff except by means which would usually be regarded as non- behavioral; and (5) if clarification about policy making is one objective of the politicist, behavior alism, although destined to play a significant role, is restricted in what it can be expected to do. (23:52-53) Baker, et al. discuss Easton’s defense of behavioralism and the variety of criticisms being lodged against it. They write that there is less criticism of behavioralism and more criticism of what they term "post-behavioralism" among those political scientists who are forty years old or older. The article reviewed Easton’s criticisms of the "post-behavioral revolution" as follows: 55 This revolution} which he (Easton) labelled the post-behavioral revolution, is motivated by a "deep dissatisfaction with political research and teaching, especially of the kind that is striving to convert the study of politics into a more rigorously scientific discipline modeled on the methodology of the natural sciences." (footnote excluded) Specifically, post-behavioralists, according to Easton, attack the abstractness, irrelevance, "methodological purity" and conservatism of the existing literature, and argue that political scientists as well as the associations of which they are a part, must take a more active role in the solution of contemporary social problems. In short, post-behavioralists seek to "help create a new political science that will not be trivial or mis leading." (footnote excluded) (1*>1:271-273) Recent Studies of Community College Students Community college students have been referred to as "Higher Education's Newest Student." (159) In a modern historical sense, the newest students of higher education have been appearing on campuses since the mid-1960's and into the 1970's. A reflective considera tion of the amount of articles, books, studies, etc. based on "campus youth" might well lead one to conclude that this is the most studied and least understood college generation in world history! The Hazen Foundation, studying "The New Students," offered the following con clusions appropriate to this study: We . . . know that the freshman, whatever his faults and weaknesses, generally has an open mind, is eager to work, and willing to learn. Yet our impersonal and mechanical instruction for freshmen seems to extinguish curiosity and to lower intellectual aspirations . . . 56 Our basic models for higher education are still aimed at an intellectual elite; our best programs are geared to those whose I.Q.’s are 120 or over. Those of less intelligence are refused admission, filtered out, relegated to inferior schools, or forced to undergo the pre professional training of the career academician— a training which is of little interest to them and has little to do with the development of any of the qualities liberal education is supposed to promote. In our eagerness to train more professional scholars, we are increasingly turning our liberal arts programs into pre-professional academies which demand early specialization and permit little room for free-wheeling, wide-ranging curiosity . . . Our schools are grimly serious and competitive. The tyranny of the grade point average, the class rank, and the score on the graduate record exam leave little time in the life of the serious student for fun or relaxation. We are then astonished when a student turns to sex or drugs or alcohol or violence as an escape from the academic grind . . . We do little to help students in their search for commitment, despite our knowledge that they are at precisely the age when commitment is of critical importance. Instead, we stand idly by while young people search fruitlessly for propositions and commitments which will explain the chaos and con fusion of life, and worse, we fail to indicate the possibility of a meaningful bridge between the private and the public conscience. Some of us are more responsible than others for the neglect of the student in American higher education, but all of us must share the responsi bility to remedy it. For all the vast and expensive sprawl of American higher education, for all its personnel and capital goods, it is already in serious trouble because of this neglect. (34:14-15) The above remarks are general enough to include both four-year institution and community college students. Addressing itself specifically to the students of "The 57 Open Door Colleges” the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education profiles them as . . . almost two million (by 1969), including both full-time and part-time students . . . Community college students are more representa tive of the college-age population of the United States than are students in any other major segment of higher education. They tend to be almost equally divided between students of above-average and below- average ability, and the great majority come from families that may be classified as "moderate” or "high” in terms of occupational level . . . .They are predominantly from families with average incomes. . . Community college students are also representa tive of their communities in racial composition . . . Approximately half of the students in two-year colleges are adults, ranging in age from 22 to 70 or more, with a median age of about 25 years. . . . These students’ objectives are predominantly professional or vocational, and in most cases they are attending college in order to qualify for a better job. About 45 percent of the students in two-year institutions are enrolled on a part-time basis. These include both college-age students who hold jobs and adults enrolled part-time in day or evening classes. On a full-time equivalent basis, total enrollment in two-year institutions amounted to about 1.3 million in 196$, or about 22 percent of all enrollment in higher education counted on this basis. There is no doubt that community college enrollment will continue to grow rapidly in the 1970’s. (194:3-6) Probably the best synthesis available of the research on "new students” is the work of Cross. In developing a "composite profile” of these students, she claims that they "are challenging the traditional practices of higher education." (161:2) According to 5$ Cross Two-thirds of the new students are first- generation college students; their fathers have never attended college. About the same proportion of fathers . . . are blue-collar workers. Over half of the group are Caucasians with about a fourth Black and about 15 percent other minorities . . . . . . the new student is more likely to be female than male . . . (Those students are) passive . . . (and have a relative) lack of interest in intellectual pursuits . . . (N)ew students express a preference for noncognitive activities . . . ... On the Autonomy Scale new students express the attitudes of the broader public as opposed to those of students and faculty on more traditional college campuses. Fifty-eight percent of the new students show an inclination to respect the authority of American institutions and to agree with statements that make virtues of hard work and determination, in contrast to 15 percent of the traditional students. . . (161:2-3) The study quoted above defined "New Students" as "those scoring in the lowest third on tests of academic aptitude, (while on the other hand) 'traditional* students were considered to be those in the top third— the group that has traditionally been considered ’college material!" (161:1) Because community college students are not clear-cut "lowest third" students, it would be an unfair generalization that community college students are Cross’ "Newest Student." However, it would be a fair generalization that there are many more of these "Newest Students" in the community colleges than in the four-year institutions. 59 Cross offers a more specific description of the community college student: . . . America's newest college student has spent the first seventeen years of his life in a different cultural environment from that of the students we're accustomed to teaching in college. He is less likely to have seen good books and magazines around the home, less likely to have been able to retreat to a room of his own, and less likely to have been exposed to discussions of world affairs at the dinner table. Research to date indicates that students reflect rather faithfully the interests and concerns of their parents. . . . (S)tudents who entered four-year colleges were much more likely to receive parental encouragement than either those who did not enter college or those who entered junior colleges. . . .(T)he junior college student is forced to rely more heavily on his own (financial) resources. The presence of a junior college more than doubled the likelihood of college for bright students whose fathers were employed at the lower occupational levels ... Most research is in agreement that students entering junior colleges are influenced more by P ractical considerations and less by intellectual nterests than are their peers in four-year colleges. "Academic reputation" is the most common reason for the selection of a university, whereas "low cost" and "close to home" frequently lead all other reasons given for attending a junior college. . . The business-practical orientation of the junior college student is . . . illustrated by the personal objectives which he considers "essential or very important". . . .Whereas young people from the upper socioeconomic levels tend to see the college experi ence as an opportunity for intellectual stimulation and the development of the mind, the children from lower socioeconomic families are more likely to see a college education as the pathway to better jobs and upward social mobility. . . .Larger proportions of senior college students 60 rated themselves above average on traits such as academic ability, drive to achieve, leadership ability, mathematical ability, intellectual self- confidence, and writing ability. The only traits on which larger proportions of junior college students than four-year college students rated themselves above average were: athletic ability, artistic ability, defensiveness, and mechanical ability. . . .The inevitable result (of findings such as the above) is that we picture America’s newest college student as being less adequate than his peers at the tasks of higher education— as those tasks have developed over the years for a different type of student. . . (159:39-42) The same author provides a fitting, even eloquent, review statement of a new perspective that must be developed for "The New Learners" by educators: The full meaning of universal postsecondary education has probably not been understood, and certainly not accepted by the majority of people whose life work is education. The most common position among faculty who consider themselves enlightened is that higher education should be open to all those able and willing to do the work in the manner and form in which it is now offered. A second position is taken by a growing minority of misguided liberals who are willing to "lower the standards" of academic education in order to get credentials in the hands of the "disadvantaged" so that they can obtain the material and social benefits of society. Neither position is adequate for these times. The purpose of education is not to certify (especially not falsely) nor is it to prepare a band of elite intellectual leaders (except perhaps in graduate education). It is to maximize the potential of each person to live a fulfilled and constructive life. And to accomplish that end, we need not lower standards. Quite the contrary, we should organize education around the premise that we must demand of each student the highest standards of performance in the utilization of his or her talents. (160:34) In terras of this study, the most difficult dilemma to resolve is how "the highest standards of performance" can be maintained for "The New Learners" by their teachers who have been educated vocationally and professionally in Political Science. Moreover, what kinds of books are most appropriate for these students? If Cross is correct in her assessments of higher educa tion’s "Newest Students"— and based on his community college teaching experience this author believes she is— new orientations, methods, and standards are impera tive for introductory American Government— Politics courses to successfully educate these students in both a General Education and a Political Science context. CHAPTER III REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF LEADING INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT— POLITICS BOOKS AND CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT— POLITICS REQUIREMENTS This part of Chapter III categorizes the leading introductory American Government— Politics books, and reviews and critiques their approaches to the study of American Government— Politics. Review and Critique of Leading Introductory American Government— Politics Books The leading introductory American Government— Politics texts reflect the previously mentioned behavioral vs. post-behavioral debate. With respect to this debate, this study divides the leading introductory texts into three categories: (1) Behavioral, (2) Normative, (3) Critique. The examples of texts which fit these cate gories indicate the important diversities and overlaps within these groupings. The biggest selling post-World War II American Government— Politics text is Government bv the People by 62 63 James MacGregor Burns and Jack W. Peltason. This is essentially an inventory or "seed-catalog" text with a behavioral orientation. It avoids offering a clear point of view by the authors, and despite its essential behavioral approach, it recognizes the other varieties of orientations to the study of politics which it describes as theological, historical, engineering, anecdotal, and behavioralist. (20:24-26) With its success attested to by its fifth edition in 1966, (the Burns and Peltason text was in its tenth edition in 1971). Essentials of American Democracy by Robert K. Carr, Marver H. Bernstein, and Walter F. Murphy "offers an analytical framework to provide an understanding of recent events." (24:viii). It was also an essentially behavioral and descriptive text. The Politics of American Democracy by Marian D. Irish and James W. Protho was in its fifth edition in 1971. More sophisticated and behaviorally self-conscious than the above two texts, it sets out its objective "To describe, analyze, and explain the American political system as it actually is . . ." (75:ix). The American Political Process by Charles R. Adrian and Charles Press avoids an endorsement of "any of the general theories of politics currently in vogue among the Avant Garde, for none has adequate empirical support 64 or professional acceptance.” Believing that Political Science is not a discipline in a technical sense, the authors state that it "is moving toward becoming one." Addressing themselves to the qualifications and responsi bilities of the students using this text, Adrian and Press write that Any person who can understand the processes of elementary college algebra, or follow an explanation of a conditioned response in a beginning psychology course, or keep reasonably well sorted the legion of characters in a Russian novel, can also under stand that courts make public policy as well as adjudicate claims, that democratic elections can function with a relatively small cadre of informed voters, that Congress is a vital stabilizer for the political system rather than a center for innovation, and that the Presidency can be simultaneously a powerful and a weak institution. The reader is probably capable of understanding as much as political science currently has to offer, provided he is given some guide to the significance of the data. Tl:v) The above texts, with the exception of the Irish Protho text, avoid any such assertion as "This is a strictly behavioralistic text." This study has charac terized them as "behavioral," however, on the grounds that this orientation seems to be their main organizing theme. It should be noted that some texts do not fit this study’s three categories of behavioral, normative, and critique. For example, P. Allan Dionisopoulos states in his preface that he is using an "historic-structural- legal approach in describing the institutions, functions, and process of governments within the United States . . 65 . ." (42:vii) Despite the non-all inclusiveness of the above three classifications, as illustrated by the Dionisopoulos text, they do provide descriptions of a general kind for most introductory American Government— Politics books. Another kind of "behavioral" text— as this study uses that term— could be termed "eclectic, synthesis behavioral." Although the Burns and Peltason; Carr, Bernstein, Murphy; and Adrian and Press texts are all efforts at eclecticism and synthesis to a degree, these next three texts are more self-conscious efforts at being descriptive, but not with as much of a behavioral orienta tion as the above three texts, and certainly with not as much behavioral orientation as the Irish and Protho text. Richard A. Watson stresses the qualifications that his twenty years of first hand teaching experience in Political Science have given him for his text. He states his view of the three purposes of an introductory course in American Government— Politics as offering the facts, explaining basic concepts, and attempting to stimulate critical thinking as well as assessment and evaluation re. our political system. Offering a critique of what he sees as the three main orientations of introductory American Government— Politics texts— factual, conceptual framework (usually that of the "Political System" or "behavioral") and "point of view" texts— Watson states his text is an 66 effort to balance all three. (137:vii) G. Peter Magrath, Elmer E. Cornwell, and Jay S. Goodman try to impart both feeling and fact in their text. This book offers a generally favorable assessment of American democracy, and sets out case studies before each chapter. The authors state in their Preface that they are attempting to incorporate the best of the traditional with the best of the behavioral. (93:vii) Another example of an eclectic, synthesis behavioral text is Jewel Cass Phillips, Henry J. Cass, and Cortez Ewing's Essentials of National Government. These authors assert in their Preface that this multi purpose text is designed for use in basic as well as in advanced courses in American Government and general Political Science, for either one or two semesters. The extensive subject matter is treated in both expository and analytical fashion, and . . . serves not only as a teaching and learning tool but also as a reference work. (110) ’ 'Relevancy’ ' texts and readings books in intro ductory American Government— Politics abound. They do not fit the categories of this study— behavioral, normative, critique— but they generally are premised on the authors’ or editors' belief that the interest of the student must be aroused before he is ready to move into the discipline of Political Science on a more formal basis. A stern rebuttal to this type of book is offered by Craig R. Ducat in the Preface to his The Government of 67 the United States— StudentTs Workbook and Readings: Doubtless there will be some instructors who will find the readings and thought questions too high-powered. However, it has been my observation that much of our approach in introductory political courses has been far too pedestrian. In large part my selection of materials for this volume has been centered about the belief that we have been boring students by underestimating their capabilities for dealing with the important questions in this field. Perhaps the most sophisticated eclectic, synthesis behavioral text is that by Karl W. Deutsch, ex-President (1970-1971) of the American Political Science Association. Deutsch states that . . . politics involves both knowledge and action. It is . . .in part a science, in part an art, in some small part a gift, and in part a matter of personal decision. But most of it can be learned and taught . . . The purpose of this book is to help people begin the study of politics. It is written in simple language, in order to make facts plain and ideas clear. It offers a set of basic concepts, like a box of tools, to be used rather than exhibited . . . Insofar as political science is a science, it is an applied one. Its tasks are practical, and its theories are both challenged and nourished by practice. In these respects, political science resembles such other applied sciences as medicine and engineering . . . .Political scientists. . .call on all sciences of human behavior, such as psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, history and the theory of communication. They do so in order to help people keep themselves at peace, free, and able to cooperate, manage their conflicts, and make common decisions. . . This book is divided in three parts. (These are) (1) a set of basic concepts for analysis, together with some comparative data and some classic theories of politics. . . (2) historical and current analysis (of) five major political systems: the United 68 States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and the German Federal Republic. (3) The final part is brief — a concluding chapter looking to the unfinished business of politics which confronts us now and will confront us tomorrow. (40:xii) Despite the political science credentials of Deutsch, the extensive inclusion of comparative government material broadened the book's scope more than what was considered acceptable by many introductory American Government— Politics instructors. A much more successful (in terms of sales) introductory text of a synthesis- eclectic persuasion was Democracy Under Pressure. (36) Emphasizing less in the way of early American historical foundations and principles, Democracy Under Pressure seeks "to relate politics and government to contemporary issues ... to focus on gaps, when they exist between American myths and American realities," and to be authoritative and readable by combining the efforts of a political scientist and a political writer based in Washington. (36:v-vi) The normative text, as this study uses this term, is William H. Riker's Democracy in the United States. Lowi proposes "a moratorium on (political science) teach ing books" because "bad texts read in place of good studies are worse than no texts at all." (169:59#) As an example of how it is possible to blend theory and research Lowi cites Riker's text. As Lowi indicates, Riker states his purpose in his Preface "to interpret our political institutions on the basis of an internally consistent 69 theory of the democratic ideal." (Il6:vii) Using selected documents as examples of what democracy means in his opinion, Riker proceeds to test the world of American Government— Politics according to whether it meets this democratic ideal. This ideal, as Riker describes it, is embodied in the following documents which are reprinted verbatim in an appendix: "Pericles’ Funeral Oration," "The Agreement of the People," "The Declaration of Independence," "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen," "The Gettysburg Address." The theoretical ideal of democracy embodied in these documents is explained as follows: Democracy is self-respect for everybody. Within this simple phrase is all that is and ought to be the democratic ideal. Man's self-respect is an under standing of his dignity. It is the value he sets on his own full development, the condition and result of his self-realization. It is his recognition, with neither pride nor groveling, of his indispensability to society and his insignificance in the universe. Most of all, within the limits society allows, it is a function of his self-direction and self-control, of the choice and living of the good life he thinks best. If self-respect is the democratic good, then all things that prevent its attainment are democratic evils. Servility, which is the essence of self contempt, and the subordination which engenders it are, therefore, the ultimate evils in the democratic scheme. Servility and pride— for pride feeds on the servility of the humble and is nought but servility expressed in the person who exacts it from others— are the antithesis of democratic self-respect. By them men devalue their persons and disfigure their souls. (116:17) Although the Lowi definition and example of the 70 ideal normative text would not be met by it, Democracy in the United States: Promise and Performance by Robert A. Dahl might be referred to as an eclectic-normative text. As the author puts it in his Preface, . . . this book is deliberately and enthusiastically eclectic. No single experiment, or even several approaches, can deal adequately with the major questions created by democracy as an ideal and the American polyarchy as an incomplete achievement. Consequently, where I have felt it appropriate I have drawn freely on history, political philosophy, empirical theory, institutional description, political behavior, and comparative studies. (37:viii) In spite of this reliance on eclecticism, Dahl gives this description of the kind of normative character istics he offers: Unfortunately, evaluating a political system is an enterprise of extraordinary difficulty. Con sequently I would not want anyone to expect to find anything like a definitive answer here. Nonetheless, in what follows I want to explore these questions: 1. What standards or goals can we reasonably apply to the American political system? What obstacles to achieving these goals can we expect to arise?. . . 2. How does the American political system operate, and why? The answer to this question is the substance of this book . . . 3. Given the way the American political system operates, and causes, how can citizens influence the conduct of the government? . . . 4. How does the operation of the American political system measure up to the standards discussed in Part 1? In the concluding chapter, I offer what is unavoidably a rather personal answer . . . . (37:6) Another variation of the normative text, as this 71 study uses that classification, is The Irony of Democracy. This very successful recent text sets out not to be balanced, facts-oriented, or eclectic, but rather to explain "American political life based on an elitist theory of democracy." One of the authors generally admires the contributions of elitism; the other disparages elitism's militating against democracy’s fulfillment; both disagree with Dahl's description of pluralist democracy or "polyarchy." They claim it is a less substantiated view of how American politics and government operate than the elitist view. (53:v-vi) Besides behavioral and normative American Government— Politics texts, this study has classified critique texts. As classified and exemplified here, these are texts which are critical, in one degree or another, of American Government and Politics. This kind of criticism in the critique books is deeper than that in the normative books because it assumes that something is wrong in the American governmental-political system that can and should be remedied according to the authors' prescriptions. Daniel M. Berman and Louis S. Loeb's Laws and Men: The Challenge of American Politics offers an example of a modified critique text. The authors write of the American "creed" which exists in the ideal but is not practiced in reality. They state that In specific political terms, the creed consists 72 of notions such as the following: 1. Democracy is the best form of government. 2. Public officials should be chosen by majority vote. 3. Every citizen should have an equal chance to influence government policy. 4. The minority should be free to criticize majority decisions. 5. People in the minority should be free to try to win majority support for their opinions. The fact that Americans have found it difficult to live up to the noble precepts of the creed has often, in the past, been a source of tension and anxiety. The basic problem stems from the inability of people to see the implications of general ideals in concrete situations. Nearly 100 percent agreement was found to exist on a series of five general propositions. Yet, when translated into specific questions, consensus on some of them melts away. When asked, for example, whether a Communist should be allowed to speak, only 44 percent of a sample in one survey gave a genuinely democratic response. And less than two thirds of the group gave a similar response thwn asked whether an antireligious speech should be allowed. (9:5) The kind of critique offered by Berman and Loeb does not include a new or complex theory by which to view the world of American Government— Politics. In essence, it prescribes the living up to the best ideals of American Government and Politics as the best way to overcome American shortcomings. A much more negative critique is that by Robert Sherrill, Why They Call It Politics— A Guide to America^ Government. In his Preface, the author asserts "Disenchantment is widespread, cynicism is epidemic, dis illusionment is a way of life among the electorate." (122:ix) The "text" reads much like a series of essays 73 about the shortcomings of American Government and Politics. In fact, the author candidly sets forth his assertion that ’ 'This book is critical of politics ..." (122:xii) Kenneth M. Dolbeare and Murray J. Edelman offer "a different kind of text" that "has a central theme: power in the United States is concentrated in such a way that large numbers of people have relatively little concrete effect on public policies." (44) The authors further state in their Preface that it is their basic purpose "to help citizens acquire the skills of analysis and evaluation that will enable them to make themselves felt in the political system, and not incidentally to show them that the concepts and techniques of political science are relevant to such goals." The Preface also declares that "there is more of the authors’ own perspectives and value judgments than in most beginning books." (44) John C. Livingston and Robert G. Thompson offer a conceptual framework of "unreconstructed majoritarian leanings" as opposed to the "comprehensively descriptive seed-catalog-style book." They write that they don’t "know what democracy means," are skeptical of "the politics of group compromise," and are very distressed at the "professional manipulation of political preferences." (&5:vii) The depth of their critical tone is indicated by the following passage: 74 What are the implications (of various forms of public disorder the authors have described in their first twenty pages) for democratic politics? On the one side are the apparently growing numbers of citizens who are morally apathetic, dispassionate spectators who retreat from involvement and public responsibility or whose interest in politics is confined to considerations of "What's in it for me?" On the other side, also in apparently growing numbers, are the new political activists who enter the political arena with their fangs bared and with a lust for the blood and reputations of those who oppose them. In this crush between the retreat from political responsibility and the politics of the spleen, between dispassionate withdrawal and unrestrained passion in politics, where is the ideal of the citizen who is both passionate and responsible, committed and reasonable? . . . .To some significant extent (the Jeffersonian) model of civic decency in the relations of citizens with one another has been rendered irrelevant by those who renounce civic obligation, and it has been destroyed by those who regard decency as weakness or appeasement. As a result it becomes possible for us to speak of a crisis in the obligations of democratic citizenship. (*5:21) As illustrated by these examples, there is a great diversity of views among American Government— Politics text authors. This diversity extends not only to how they evaluate American Government and Politics, but also to what responsibility they feel toward General Education students, a large majority of whom will not major in Political Science. The concerns of the authors cited above might be very different than the concerns of introductory American Government— Politics students taking their first and only higher education course in this field to meet one of the California Community College introductory American Government— Politics requirements listed in the next section of this study. 75 California Community College Introductory American Government— Politics Requirements This section of the study describes, in table form, the introductory American Government— Politics requirements of California’s community colleges. These were the requirements before the changes in California's General Education requirements discussed in Chapter I of this study. Because of the lower division and General Education nature of these requirements, they are in the context of Social Science rather than specific American Government— Political Science requirements. The follow ing table needs the qualification that counselor advice to students in the arranging of a class schedule quite often modifies and supplements what is listed in the community college catalog. The purpose of tabling the "old” requirements in American Government— Politics is to indicate, in one measurable manner of expression, the importance placed upon introductory American Government— Politics as General Education. This table needs the further qualification that it describes how the Social Science requirement (before the change effective in the Fall, 1973 which is discussed in this study's Chapter I was met simply to qualify for the Associate in Arts degree. Transfer requirements 76 generally specified an introductory American Government— Politics course, although some colleges and universities simply required a specified number of units in Social Science courses— generally eight semester units for transfer to California State Colleges and Universities, and nine semester units for transfer to one of the universities in the University of California system. The multiplicity of acceptable ways to meet the Social Science requirement is greatly modified by the fact that a large majority of California community college students take the transfer program rather than simply meeting minimum requirements for the Associate in Arts degree. This table does demonstrate clearly, however, the myriad patterns of classifications and patterns in California's community colleges concerning the relation ships of American Government— Politics, Social Science, and General Education requirements. The information for this table was gathered from the catalogs of almost all of California’s community colleges. Ninety-four such catalogs were examined. As the table indicates, the following number of community colleges out of the ninety-four studied listed the follow ing courses which met their Social Science requirements: An American Government— Politics course of two or three semester units required ............ 34 77 A General Social Science course of two or three semester units required . . . .............. 19 Either a Political Science or a Social Science course of two or three semester units required ....................................... 5 Either an American History or an American Government course of two or three semester units required .........................................30 Either one course in Social Science and one course in American History or one course in American Government of two or three semester units required................................... 6 TABLE 1 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SOCIAL SCIENCE REQUIREMENTS TO QUALIFY FOR THE ASSOCIATE IN ARTS DEGREE . • P . . CJ1 a tj V i> a 6 a ) C V D P O O C O 0 ) © a > P<H P O P •H O p o C O C O o o P -H • •H •H . to o cm d 0 ) < D C O . C J -P pa •H pa .(UP a4 C O P-H a p 0 ) ■H a •H C O ‘ H • cp 0 ) i - HU X) co V i Td o L P 0 ) O V i . o o o a > o a > CO P P •H O d •a a a Ok P P o K«t0 o p a-H © <0 p 1CM O CM -H • O • C O p P -a* C O •Hp 1 3. O P H a • P © © o © • < p C T * CO CH C T * O • © a P P P • P C O PA V i co a P O © o a > O. -H C O «= U O p O -H -H 0 ) > V l <H P O O O d P i —l V i o a ) a j a ) p CO PA V i • V i CO © O O a s•H o C l) C D P C O 0 1 © < U . a < D c o O •H Ed40 P p ,P • p .P P 0 ) rP • P CM O a1 • P P -H P O O P > C O p o p < 1 ) Name of College ! Am o p o p a ) o p O O P •H O W co oj • rl O W O PA •H O O W CO O PCH O O College of Alameda X American River College X required TABLE 1— Continued 7S Name of College B • • 0 1< o XJ S hH H •H a a a 0 1 a > O O U O • • = $ 0 3 •H • C O o C O 0 3 0 3C O C O P • r H •H # 0 )p 0 3P o i a•H£ • r H O S 3 •HC O m C O h ° •H o " \ a > H f nxJ COS Ha* O U c 0 1u c 3 XJ o O O a > O a s CO 3 p •H3 3 OxJ • 0 3 E l 0 3 a P* CM U • S h o sco O E ia C O OSh a >p 1 •H oCM • o • o • c c S< a * M "H • r l 1 H 2< o C O rH a • a 0 3 Bcmcs O 0 3 • CJ1 COH P O • 0 ) B •0 3 C4 • o o4 CO a if O a > o•H C L , •H C O <0P 0 1 XJ O *H•H OH 0 3 a > r » rH C o > 0 3 O OEi H u o a > c c Sa > 3 S HCO u o < * \C h E l CO 0 30 3 c c $•H a C O C O f - tC O 0 3 0 )o •H 0 ) C OC i *C0 •H 2, L ■P a > • X } • u • A S h 3 Jp • O PP O O4 • 3 •H a 3 a p o o a4 P • o a4 P C 3 3 o a > a o d a >o a s •H o a > •H a a > •H O o E i ori CO Pd <d o 3 o o C O W coCM U W < i !CM b M C O o OOP Antelope Valley College X Bakersfield College Barstow College X Butte Community College X Cabrillo College X Canada College X College of the Canyons X Cerritos College X Chabot College X Chaffey College X Citrus College X Coalinga College X Columbia Junior College Compton College X Contra Costa College X Crafton Hills College X Cuesta College X Cypress College DeAnza College X College of the Desert X Diablo Valley College X East Los Angeles College X El Camino College X Feather River College X Foothill College X TABLE 1— Continued 79 Name of College • • C N 1 • a C'V u s a a • < U 3 o o 0) a) a ) o a 4 O TO • rl a p o 01 0) o o a> u a) • • rl • rl • (4 oot u a> a> 0) • 3 P •rl • a> •H a) 3 • rl a 3 •rl O • rl 01 01 • 3 9 0 0 3 <U a> rl ^ TO CO U tO O 9 P 01 o a 4 • o O o a> O a> c o •rl a> O TO 0 3 a s 0 4 U • U o d a ) k O 9 e - r l 0) a> +> 1 CV *rl O O* t • o p 0) < 3 5 0) • rl 3 1 3 o rH • S 3 a> 0) o a) • < * H a* CO a 4 O • • a 3 • 3 oi c*\ c o e $ O a> o a> 04 •rH a O-rl o • r l• r l 9 tO a) U rH k O Q) O 3 O u a> i — i u o a> as a> SH CO 01 SH 3 S h CO a> o o (H as * h C 5 0) 01 f-4 01 01 0) a> • Q > 0) o • r l •rH a % • u P • r l a> 3 % p • r l X p • o r^v XI p S s X p • O u < D OJ 9* o a> S o d a> o ri • r l o SH • r l o a ) o o a> CO 05 o 3 o o 3 W CO O M O O ) W CO o O o IH Fresno City College X Fullerton College X Gavilan College Glendale College X Golden West College X Grossmont College Grove Street College X Allan Hancock College X Hartnell College X Imperial Valley College X Indian Valley College X Laney College X Lassen College X Long Beach City College X Los Angeles City College X Los Angeles Harbor College X Los Angeles Trade Technical College X Los Angeles Valley College X College of Marin X Merced College X Merritt College X Mira Costa College X TABLE 1— Continued a > o c 0) P • rl (3 O CD co s CD H U CD vH •H d o a* Name of College o cd co us • • CM • E 0 T \ 2 E E • u a o o t o C O0 ) cd a* O Td •H CJ P o to to o O 0 ) a ) • • r l •H • ! h O CM * < Ua )C O •c P • r l C T \ • d ) C Oa £ E • r l C J • r lC O to • d o < 3 j r - | co h -d O p C O o u4 • O o 0 ) o a > CO • r l • r l C D O xl • s d E 0* u • u o n S3a ) o B - r la > 1CM•H O CM• r l • C J t o C O 1 o 1 —1 • C O a > c u • C T * CO a* o • • S p a • a to o r v 2 o cd o CD • r l E <4 o • r l o • r l•r l % xl U i —1 u O a > o S C J u C D o d ) t t l cd M COC O u k CO CD o o CJC O t o u C O t o a ) a > • a > C OC J • rl u P a ) u p Si • OA Si P • si • CMd • •H •H p O p > s p C J C D a* E o d a >o § •H o u • r l o d > • r l o O C<P CD < o P CJ o WCO o W CJC O WCO o o o U Modesto Junior College X Monterey Penninsula College X Moorpark College X Mount San Antonio College X Mt. San Jacinto College X Napa College X Ohlone College X Orange Coast College X Palomar College X Palo Verde College X Pasadena City College X Pierce College X Porterville College X College of the Redwoods X Reedley College X Rio Hondo College X Riverside City College X Sacramento City College X Saddleback College X San Bernardino Valley College X San Diego City College X San Diego Evening College X TABLE 1— Continued a > o £ cd p •h r t o a > co 6 a ) 1 - 1 (h c tf-H • H 3 O C J * Name of College • • CH • a c ^ c C i12 a a • C j JC i £ o o C O C Oa > cd Ci<+H C T 1 O T* • r l O P O C O C O O o a > C D • •H • r l m u O OHC l ( DC DC O •q P <n •H r ^ v • C D • r l C OC J• r la q •H O •HC OC O • 3 9 O K < c j rHC i tJ CO O h p C OO C T1 • O o a ) o a ) CO • r l • r l C D o • C J a Hi U • Cl o 9 C D U o 9 a-rl C D 1<M *H O OH• r l • o C O < l j C O 1 3 o i —1 • § C O C D C D • cT CO C H C T « o • • a P cj • c !C O 0^ • 12 O cd o cd Oh• r l a - = dO iH o• r l•H 9 xJ Cl i —1 U O C D O c O Cl C D o cd c dcd Cl COC O c i p M COC Do o Ci o t oC O U C OC O C D C D • C D C Oo •H • U p •H a > a u p •H XI P • o c\ Xl P t • a X I p • O u C D OH & a o § cdo q •Ho u •Ho C D • r lo o CJC h C D o a o 3 W CO o w o C O M COo O O Ci San Diego Mesa College City College of San Francisco San Joaquin Delta College San Jose City College College of San Mateo Santa Ana College Santa Barbara City College Santa Monica College Santa Rosa Junior College College of the Sequoias Shasta College Sierra College College of the Siskiyous Skyline College Solano College Southwestern College Taft College Ventura College Victor Valley College West Mills College West Los Angeles College West Valley College Yuba College X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CHAPTER IV MODEL INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT— POLITICS COURSE OUTLINE AND MODEL INTRODUCTORY AMERICAN GOVERNMENT— POLITICS TEXT Seventy-three leading introductory American Government— Politics books have been reviewed and critiqued. "Higher Education’s Newest Student" has been described. Differences of opinion about the meaning of Political Science and what should be emphasized in an introductory American Government— Politics course have been studied. The backgrounds and qualifications of the teachers of introductory American Government— Politics courses have been considered. The following model introductory American Government— Politics course outline and sample text-reader attempt reconciliations among the many divergencies and incompatibilities noted in the above earlier parts of this study. This model course outline and sample text-reader were sent to a Jury of nine members, all of whom are experienced in the fields of General Education and Political Science. Their responses are reviewed and responded to by this study’s author in Chapters V and VI & 2 S3 of this study. Model Introductory American Government— Politics Course Outline Instructor's name: Instructor's office, telephone extension, and office hours: Schedule of classes taught during present semester: Brief review statement of the purposes of the course in terms of the State requirements, the District require ments, and the Social Science division requirements: American Government 1 is a three unit introductory American Government— Politics course. It meets part of the California requirement which specifies that in order to qualify for an Associate in Arts Degree a student must successfully complete 15 semester units of General Education, with a minimum of 2 units each in "Natural Sciences," "Social Sciences," "Humanities," and "Learning Skills." (192:620.1-620.2) Students who plan to transfer to a four-year institution should consult the requirements of their particular institution. Brief review statement of the instructor's philosophy and educational approaches pertinent to this course: This is both a General Education and an American Government— Politics course. I understand General Education to mean that education which is directed toward fulfilling man's best potentials. One of the most concise and valuable summaries of man's best potentials related to government and politics is to know the truth and to will the just. These educational ideals are necessarily caught up in unavoidable interminglings of subjectivity and objectivity, of facts and values, of opinions and ideas. The ideals are made more complex in this course because of the vast differences between public and private ethics and behavior. An understanding and practice of these ideals is the work of an educational lifetime. Our beginning in this course will include the necessity of distinguishing between general levels of objectivity and subjectivity, between facts and values, and between contrasting points of view relative to our subject. I will attempt to clearly express my value judgments when pertinent, and when it can be done without artificiality, to distinguish between these value judgments and empirically provable facts. I will attempt to exemplify educated thinking in the context of seeking the truth and willing the just. But I will fall short because of my weaknesses and because in practical matters as well as philosophical systems, ideals like these are never fully achieved. You will also fall short in your efforts to learn what this course attempts to teach you. Our mutual weaknesses should give us a basis for understanding and B5 tolerating each other; our mutual efforts toward knowing the truth and willing the just— as far as these are possible in the educational realm of American Government and Politics— should provide us with the respect necessary both for educational and citizenship success. Our success will be in the educated struggle. And if this is too small a success, was Robert Browning wrong when he wrote: "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?" Educational tools of this course: 1. Attendance: To begin with, we must make a commitment of time and concentration. No more than five absences are permitted in the three times a week class, no more than two absences in the once a week class. Our concentration during class time will enhance the fulfill ment of our General Education and American Government— Politics objectives. 2. Available time: Each student should plan for an average of at least one— two hours of reading and reviewing as well as other class related activity outside of class for every hour of time spent in class. 3. Text-Reader: American Government and Politics: Ideals. Institutions and Issues, Louis Reichman. The "Ideals" part of this book reviews selected governmental— political ideals throughout history, with 36 a special emphasis on modern democratic ideals. It attempts to describe these ideals and give examples of them rather than prescribe new ideals or concentrate on the shortcomings of American democracy in not living up to these ideals. The "Institutions" part of the book offers a simplified and modified version of the American political system. History, culture, institutions (governmental and non-governmental), inputs, outputs, and feedbacks are considered as these terms are generally used by behavioralist political scientists. This approach is offered as a "construct" or a "model," therefore a simplification and modification of reality, rather than a "theory." The "Issues" section of the book will focus on readings from relatively "popular" periodicals such as Time. Newsweek. U. S. News and World Report. World. etc. The relevant issues from these sources will be divided as follows: 1. Public opinion defines the issues: Studies of public opinion concerning political governmental issues by Gallup, Harris, Sindlinger, Lubell, and others. 2. The "experts" define the issues: These readings will clarify and illustrate the following group ings and their respective evaluations concerning American government and politics: 67 A. The Richard Scammon, Ben Wattenberg "centrist” perspective based on their book The Real Majority. B. The Kevin Phillips’ "Nixon Republican" perspective based on his book The Emerging Republican Majority. C. The Fred Dutton "McGovern Democrat" perspective based on his book The Changing Sources of Power• D. The Samuel Lubell "Free-Floating Voter" perspective based on his book The Hidden Crisis in American Politics. E. The 1972 "Democratic" perspective based on the Democratic party’s 1972 platform. F. The 1972 "American Independent" perspective based on the A.I.P.’s 1972 platform. G. The 1972 "Republican" perspective based on the Republican party’s 1972 platform. H. The 1973 study of the American Political Science Review offering the political scientists’ perspective based on their study of the issues, personalities, parties, and 1972 presidential campaign. The concluding part of the "Issues" section is a s concerned with "Answers for the Issues: A Citizenship Perspective." This part will be divided as follows: 1. Articles by and about Ralph Nader and his "Center for the Study of Responsive Law." 2. Articles by and about "Common Cause." 3. Articles by and about "Consumers’ Union" and other consumer-citizen groups. The book will conclude with a section entitled "Epilogue: The Ideals in Retrospect." A subjective review of American Government and Politics in terms of its ideals, institutions, and issues will be offered here. 4. Supplementary books: There is a large list of books and magazine articles on two-hour reserve under my name in the library. These are for students who feel a need for more "fundamentals" than are covered during class time, and for students who wish to go deeper into governmental-political topics than we do with the normal class time and assignments. Consultation with the instructor is very important here. Instructor recommenda tions will be made at appropriate times in the course directing those students who are interested to these supplementary sources in whole or in part. 5. Lectures and discussions: Lectures and discussions will center around the assigned readings. Three or four students per class hour will be assigned S9 two three-minute reports which will necessitate relating the text-reader information to subjective value-oriented responses. The lectures will be structured to further develop and elucidate these topics. 6. Tests: There will be five throughout the course. They will each be 2/3 objective and 1/3 essay. The essays will be the ’ ’take home" kind with the ques tions handed out from one to three class days before they are due. The essays are to be turned in with the objec tive sections of the tests. All students are expected to fulfill their test responsibilities at the time assigned for the test for the whole class. Since all work must be completed to successfully complete the course, no test can be missed. If a student unavoidably misses taking a test at an assigned time, he should consult with the instructor. By definition, any "Make-up" test assigned will be more difficult in terms of grading standards than the standards for the regularly scheduled test. In other words, it is definitely in the advantage of all students to budget their time in such a way that they can meet their responsibilities to the course. Your instructor also will strive to budget his time to meet his class responsibilities. 7. Audio-visual media: These will be included as "educational tools" together with tests, lectures, 90 discussions, student reports, supplementary books, and the text-reader. The major media presentations are listed below: A. Movie, "The Time Story of an Election" B. Video-tape of CBS TV’s "Hunger in the United States" C. Video-tape of CBS TV’s "Case Study of a Rumor" D. Video-tape of CBS TV’s "The Selling of the Pentagon" E. Video-tape of NBC TV’s "Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed?" These presentations will be offered in the context of the American Government-Politics unit that is being studied in such a way that they are a basic part of the course's development rather than a "break" from the contents of the course. S. Political issues notebook: Each student is required to keep a political issues notebrook. These notebooks are to include pertinent excerpts from current events articles from at least two or three of the following sources: the Los Angeles Times. Time. Newsweek. U. S. News and World Report. World. Atlantic. Hamer’s. New Republic. National Review, and other sources that can be discussed with the instructor. The article excerpts are to be on one area of American Government— Politics directly related to the title of one of the 91 chapters in the text-reader. Two to three articles per week is the minimum number of articles for this assign ment. The brief excerpt should be placed neatly in the notebook, and next to each excerpt should be the following information: A. Source: Author, Article title, Journal (or newspaper), Date. B. Your very brief review of the relationship this article has to the chapter from the text-reader that you have selected. C. Your brief listing of two or three concrete facts from the article. D. Your brief listing of two or three subjective value judgments from the article. E. Your brief statement of whether this is, in your opinion, a "fair" or an "unfair1 ' article. The first five articles in all students' note books, preceding the two to three articles per week on the chapter related heading that each student can select, are to be the following: A. William Stringer, "Whose Facts Do You Read?" The Christian Science Monitor. December 26, 1967. B. Bill Moyers, "The Election in the Year of Decay," Saturday Review. August 9> 1969. 92 C. Stewart Alsop, "The New Snobbism," Newsweek, September S, 1969* D. Eric Sevaried (interview), "In Defense of TV News," T.V. Guide. March 14, 1970• E. Edith Efron, "There Is a Network Bias," T.V. Guide. February 2S, 1970. All of the above five articles are found on two- hour reserve, under my name. Although providing no exact answer to the fifth question for every notebook article— Is the article "fair" or "unfair?"— these five articles will provide some basis for an informed and thoughtful, though necessarily subjec tive response. These notebooks are a very important part of the course and will be rated "excellent," "acceptable," or "unacceptable." They will be collected twice during the semester— once at mid-semester and once about two weeks before the end of the course. 9. Objectives of the course: A. To help develop an understanding and appreciation of citizenship responsibilities and the difference between public and private ethics. B. To help develop an awareness of how American history and' American culture influence American Government and Politics: An explanation of what the political scientist terms "The political system," how it functions, and how it is influenced by history, culture, and institutions other than governmental and political. C. To explain different methodologies for studying politics. D. To foster a concern about current events related to politics and government, including a knowledge of sources, and the levels of their political-governmental interpretations and "fairness." E. To help develop an appreciation of the necessity to ask good questions. F. To expose students to some of the major theoretical and practical authorities in the area of government and politics. G. To present through lectures, student reports, readings, movies, video-tapes, discussions, and guests, basic facts, opinions, and ideas about American Government and Politics. H. To share and clarify my value judgments concerning American Government and Politics, especially with respect to the meaning of "American Democracy." 94 Model Introductory American Government— Politics Book Preface This is a deliberately short and selective text- reader written primarily for a group of introductory American politics and government students that I think of as a kind of academic "Silent Majority." These students are described by such labels as "Undecideds," "Part-Time students," "Night-School students," "Education majors," "Humanities majors," "Fine Arts majors," "Math and Science majors," "Nursing majors," "Business majors," "Vocational- Technical majors," and even some "Social Science majors," who, for one reason or another are not committed social scientists at this stage of their lives. The wide variety of abilities, interests and concerns of these students is obvious. However, almost all of them share a common political and governmental bond: They are citizens. As citizens, what should students who will not in large percentages major in social science expect from an introductory American politics and government text? The answer to this question is worked out through the objec tives of the book's three major sections. Section One is labeled "Ideals." Here the student is confronted with the complexity of studying 95 politics and government historically, philosophically, factually, and evaluatively. He is reminded that the citizen’s politics must he approached by all these avenues. The premise here is that the academic debates over "givens," "assumptions,” and "subjective values," as opposed to "first principles," "universals," and "self- evident truths," necessarily comprise a basic part of the introductory student’s learning. The review of this debate is combined with suggestions for important reconciliations. The purpose is to present a review statement of democratic ideals which the student can then use as a basis for assessing whether American political- governmental institutions are desirably implementing their fulfillment. Section Two considers American political- governmental "Institutions" as interrelated parts of the American political-governmental system. The modified "systems" are diagrammed and described with some labels familiar to the behavioral political scientist— "inputs" and "outputs," for example— but with clearly spelled-out modifications, limitations and examples to aid the intro ductory student-citizen. The objective of Section Two is to describe the American political-governmental system and its value-laden interrelationships while avoiding both the extremes of dryness and rhetoric. The "Issues" of Section Three combine current 96 articles from modern interpreters of American politics and government. The introduction to each article reviews the interrelationships of the article to "Ideals” and "Institutions.” Opportunities for citizen participation are also discussed. The objective in Section Three is to provide current issue and participation relevancy for the "Ideals” and "Institutions” foundations that were established in the first two sections of the book. So this introductory book is both a text and a readings book. The organization, approaches, inclusions and exclusions are the result of the author's fourteen years experience as a teacher of introductory American Government and Politics courses. Out of these happy, rewarding, and challenging years some simple yet critical learnings have evolved. One of these learnings is that the best teaching is of subjects that can be taught well to most of the students. Another is that, with only a few exceptions, most students in an introductory American Government and Politics course begin the course eager to both understand American Government and Politics and practice personal citizenship responsibility. And finally, it has been the author’s abundant experience, often at the expense of futile hours spent in lecture preparation, development of course outlines, and accumulation of impressive bibliography, that students 97 learn best what they wish to learn, what is made interesting for them to learn, and what they are able to learn. A dedicated and able teacher can, by a wise combination of his talents and tools, almost always reach the overwhelming majority of students in his class once he ascertains what they want to learn, how it can be made interesting for them, and what they are able to learn. I have found the topics which have been selected for this book to meet these tests with my students. It is my belief that there need be no contradiction between academic significance and student relevancy in intro ductory courses about American Government and Politics. It is my hope that teachers and students using this book will find the topics and their development both signifi cant and relevant. It is admitted at the outset that the author professes a kind of eclectic pluralism that holders of tightly organized, highly consistent political- governmental conceptual frameworks might find highly indefensible. On balance, I find teaching in one of "Democracy's Colleges" the kind of human and professional experience that pleasantly militates against the ivory tower insulation of neatly developed theories and models which can be accompanied by smug, esoteric, professional elitism. In fact, in traveling at least part of the path away from ivory tower Political Science professionalism I have frequently mulled over the constructively offered suggestion one of my students offered me on her course evaluation: "Mr. Reichman, you try hard as a teacher, but you sure do like to hear yourself talk!" Rather than hearing myself talk about a tightly organized conceptual framework, or a dispassionate objective analysis, I have tried to develop an intro ductory American Government and Politics book that keeps students interested while presenting some of the most important facts, opinions, ideas and ideals that have value for student-citizens. 99 Table of Contents Section I Ideals Chapter One: Definitions and Dilemmas Chapter Two: After the Greeks: Important Redefinitions and Shifting Views for Government and Politics Chapter Three: United States Revolutionary and Constitutional Heritage: Conservative Liberals and Liberal Conservatives Chapter Four: The Growth of Democracy Chapter Five: The Ideals Refocused: Politics, Sex, and Religion Chapter Six: Values or Givens and Selective Perception Chapter Seven: Democracy: What's in a Word? Chapter Eight: The Democratic Ideal: A Modern Perspective Section II Institutions Chapter One: A Construct of the American Political System Chapter Two: The Input Institutions of the American Political System Chapter Three: The Output Institutions of the American Political System Section III Issues Readings One-Five: The American Public Defines and Interprets the Issues: Selected Articles from George Gallup, Louis Harris, and other Organizations Readings Six-Fifteen: The Experts Define and Interpret the Issues: Selected Articles and Book Excerpts from The American Independent Party Platform, The Democratic Party 100 Platform, The Republican Party- Platform, Fred Dutton, John Gardner, Samuel Lubell, Ralph Nader, Kevin Phillips, Richard Scammon, Ben Watt enb erg Answers for the Issues: A Citizenship Perspective Epilogue: The Ideals in Retrospect Definitions and Dilemmas 101 "When I use a word . .. it means just what I choose it to mean— neither more or less." (25:94) Humpty Dumpty's method of defining terms would be rejected in theory by all of us. In practice, however, we all run this risk in everyday conversation as well as in our education. We use words— perhaps a bit more complex than the word "glory" that Humpty Dumpty was defining— and assume our meaning for the words is accepted by others. The vocabulary of American Government and Politics is made up of Humpty Dumpty words. It should not be too difficult for us to understand why this problem of word-meanings exists in government and politics if we consider the important words in our everyday lives. What more important word for us is there than "love?" How precisely can we define "security," "acceptance," "happiness," "pleasure," "loyalty," "honesty?" Our attempts to define words as important to our day by day living as these words are will necessarily include many examples. Our efforts will also rely on what the terms have meant in the past, and how the changing situations and circumstances of history have influenced what the terms mean in the present. This is what we will attempt to do with some of the most important words of government and politics. 102 The saying that "The Greeks had a word for it" has a special meaning for government and politics. The writings of Plato and Aristotle emphasize the comparison between governing and steering a ship. In fact, the roots of the term government derive from the Greek word "kybernetes" which means a ship’s helmsman. The aptness of the "ship of state" analogy is apparent in light of the helmsman concept of government and governing. The term politics derives from the Greek word "polis" which means city-state. To the Greeks this was a part of an organic hierarchy where men as rational, social, and political beings developed the necessary rules for living peacefully and justly with each other. Just as man was an individual and a family member, so also was he a member of his "polis." The "citizen" of his polis was a property owning member of the organic hier archy. Women, artisans, laborers, and slaves were excluded from citizenship. As Aristotle saw it, all citizens were qualified to govern the polis. (134:40-41) Plato, contrary to Aristotle, taught that men could be placed in categories with special privileges for certain classes. Men of "brass and iron" could defend the gates against invaders, but certainly not exercise the responsibilities of governing. These responsibilities were reserved for men of "gold and silver." All of the classes were led by the "philosopher-king" who embodied a 103 combination of political talents epitomizing wisdom and power. (134:41) Although neither Aristotle's or Plato's approach to government would be called "democratic" by modern definitions, they were "democratic" in a progressive, evolutionary sense during fourth and fifty century B.C. Greek history. The approaches were democratic in the sense that both required those who governed to seek justice for those who were governed. Therefore, "non democratic" approaches to government based on sheer tyranical power without responsibility of the ruler to those ruled were no longer justified. Along with "government" and "politics," the term "democracy" also developed from Greek origins. It stems from "demos" meaning the people and "kratia" meaning authority. The importance of Aristotle's and Plato's differences on the question of which people were to govern have already been indicated. In Aristotle's view, those who governed were bound by the same laws they developed for the demos. In Plato's view, the "philosopher-king" was "above the law" because of his special virtue, intelligence and power. But it is important to remember that both Plato and Aristotle emphasized a similar purpose for government: justice. 104 After the Greeks: Important Redefinitions and Shifting Views for Government and Politics Just because the Greeks had a word for it does not mean they had the last word. However, it is difficult to exaggerate the influence and pervasiveness of the two Greeks who have been emphasized here. All the ideas current during the whole (fifth to the fifteenth centuries) stem from these two philosophers. Gilbert and Sullivan once wrote that every boy that is born alive is either a little liberal, or else a little conservative. For a thousand years of European history, everybody who thought at all was either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. (59:xi) Any overview of post-Greek political and governmental philosophers is bound to do a disservice to many while providing an overemphasized role for others. But this risk must be run if we are to set the necessary founda tions for the study of American government and politics. During the period between the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. and fifth century A.D., Roman and Christian influences extended and mofified the thinking of Aristotle and Plato. The Romans, exemplified at their best under the leadership of the Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius, were guided by the vision of the "cosmopolis" or Empire rather than the "polis" or city-state of the Greeks. A student has only to consider the New Testament references by Paul to his Roman citizenship and the protections given to him because of this citizenship in 105 order to grasp the benefits of the ideal imperialism. These Romans at their best were the most efficient states men and administrators of universal order and justice in world history. At their worst, they were barbarous tyrants, enslaving weaker peoples and nations. "Christian thinkers during antiquity and the Middle Ages were if anything more universalist than the Stoics, for they envisioned mankind as united not only by natural law and political order but also by universal sinfulness and the mercy of God." (134:29) For Christians of the Middle Ages the realities of government and politics were directed by the realities of man's relationship to God. Because of his sinfulness, man could not accomplish perfection on his own. His religious and his governmental responsibil ity was obedience. In religion, this meant obedience to the will of God. In government, this meant obedience to the will of God's authority on earth. Man was the subject; God was the ruler; God’s Kings ruled by "Divine Right." God's grace was necessary to bring the original sin-cursed appetites of man tinder control; patience, resignation, and obedience were needed to fulfill one's temporal responsibilities. The equality of men was in the sight of God. Their dignity was a spiritual attribute because they were God's children, irrespective of station in life. 106 Three crucial opposition views to the Roman- Christian ideals of government and politics developed from the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries. The fifteenth century philosopher and advisor, Nicholo Machiavelli described his ideal politician— The Prince— as a "lion and a fox" who based his success on results achieved by the prudent use of power. These results were obtained by practicing the science of political power rather than by emphasizing religious, ethical, or philosophical considerations. Machiavelli1s pessimistic— he would call it realistic— appraisal of mankind was that they were selfish, fickle, unstable, and in constant need of the order that could be obtained only by the skill of political leaders who were masters of the techniques and devices of the political and military art. "If there is a central teaching in Machiavelli, it is the concept implicit in his pessimistic appraisal of man: that order, and hence civilization, rests not on human goodness but on the political sagacity of rulers." (134:57) The second modification to the Roman-Christian governmental political ideal was a modification more of geography and scale than of an ideal. During the six teenth century the unity of Roman Catholic Christianity was shattered by the Protestant Reformation. This necessitated serious modifications of the Divine Right, Church-State governmental principles of the Middle Ages. 107 How was a Catholic to be obedient to a Lutheran or other Protestant ruler? The governing principle of "eius religo, cuius regio"— the region is to be governed by the religion of the ruler— developed from this Reformation dilemma. Further developments of this principle led to the "nation- state" philosophy which has so dominated recent history. Thomas Hobbes provided the third modification. The natural condition of man . .. is one of war 'of every man, against every man.' If there is no strong central government 'to over-awe them all,' then 'men have no pleasure but on the contrary a great deal of grief, in keeping company.' Life in such a state must be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' (134:14) United States Revolutionary and Constitutional Heritage: Conservative Liberals and Liberal Conservatives By the late eighteenth century the American colonists, as their European English cousins had been doing at home for a century, rebelled against what they described as English tyranny. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence detailed the long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object (evincing) a design to reduce (the colonists) under absolute Despotism . . . . The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. These abuses were used to justify colonial revolution, and the revolutionists supported the Declaration with their "Lives . . . Fortunes and . . . sacred Honor." 103 Coupled with the abuses of King George III was a philo sophical rationale with which Thomas Jefferson managed to blend the "social contract" theories of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rosseau: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its founda tion on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are suffer able, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. This Declaration of Independence, despite its practical and public relations aspects— one of its major purposes was to convince the French and Spanish that the colonists were more anti-British than radical revolution ists— was the most philosophical document of early United States political history. After winning the revolutionary war, the political leaders of the new United States attempted a government under the Articles of Confederation. It is interesting to note that of all the difficult times in American history, the period from 1731 to 17^7, during which the young United States were governed by the Articles, has 109 been characterized by many historians as "The Critical Period." The Articles of Confederation provided for a loose confederation of states in a "League of Friendship" and granted little or no mandatory power to the national Congress. The two most notable weaknesses of the Articles were the lack of power to tax and to control commerce. United States government under the Articles was unable to remedy conditions of economic chaos. Some states placed tariffs on goods "imported" from other states, and violence was flaring between creditors and debtors. In international affairs, the young United States was mocked and insulted. To remedy these conditions a convention was called for by the Congress "for the sole and express purpose of revising" the Articles of Confederation. Fifty-five delegates were selected by all of the thirteen states' legislatures except Rhode Island’s. These dele gates decided early in the convention to disregard the very specific limited purpose of revising the Articles, and to draw up a new Constitution instead. Generally speaking, the delegates attending the Constitutional Convention were conservatives, and the document they drew up in secrecy, from May through September of 17^7, was generally a conservative document. Though deserving the description of "a bundle of compromises," the new Constitution held few compromises for the extreme states’ righters, back-country debtor 110 farmers, mechanics, unskilled laborers, and uneducated groups. The document was in considerable measure a product of lawyers, merchants, land speculators, shippers and moneylenders, many of whom had loaned money to the government by buying its bonds, and who therefore stood to make personal economic gains if a stronger national government honored its debts. These delegates had been selected by state legislators who were elected by those in the states with enough property to qualify as voters. The ratification of this Constitution was decided by conventions comprised of delegates elected by the voters of the states, and only in New York was there universal suffrage. Although property qualifications were required in all of the other states before the vote could be exercised, modern research has indicated far more Americans than originally thought actually did own enough property to qualify to vote. Ratifying conventions were held in all of the states except Rhode Island. By June of 17^3, nine states had ratified the Constitution. This was enough for its technical adoption because the dele gates to the Constitutional Convention had taken another liberty with the letter of the law under the Articles of Confederation, and had provided for adoption if only nine states ratified rather than all thirteen as required by the Articles. Ill Even in the nine states which ratified the Constitution rather quickly there were heated debates in the conventions. New York's and Virginia's ratifying conventions, held after formal adoption of the Constitu tion, were even more heated. Finally, influenced by the difficulty of remaining outside of the new, nine state United States, and by the persuasiveness of the brilliant Federalist Papers penned by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, New York's and Virginia's conventions ratified the new Constitution by very close votes. A famous modern American political scientist, Clinton Rossiter, described these Federalist Papers as "the most important work in political science that has ever been written, or is likely to be written, in the United States." (62:vii) Although not all political scientists would agree with Rossiter's ranking of The Federalist Papers, there is no doubt that it was a very important document. These papers, collected together only after the constitution's ratification, provided an explanation of the blessings of federal government, an indictment of the Articles of Confederation for their failure to provide such government, or indeed to provide much in the way of government at all; an analysis and defense of the new Constitution as an instrument of federalism and constitutionalism; and, lighting up these more practical subjects with sudden bursts of brilliance, an exposition of certain enduring truths that provide an understanding of both the dangers and the delights of free government. (62:xii) Further, states Rossiter, the document mixes candor and hope, realism and idealism, in a message to all friends of liberty wherever they ply their honorable trade. And the message of The Federalist reads: no happiness without liberty, no liberty without self-government, no self-government without constitutionalism, no constitutionalism without morality— and none of these great goods without stability and order. (62:xvi) The Constitution itself, despite the economic self-interest and anti-democratic persuasions of most of its writers, was the product of what might well have been the most educated, governmentally experienced, tempered, pragmatic and farsighted group of men ever to be assembled together for the purpose of writing a basic governing document. Its basic principles can be reviewed as follows: 1. A division of powers between the national and state governments: The Constitution grants to the national government expressed and implied powers. It grants to the states reserved powers meaning those powers which are not delegated to the national government nor denied by the Constitution to the states. 2. A separation of powers and a check and balance system: Governmental power is not only divided between national and state levels, it is separated among three branches: legislative, executive, and judiciary. The delegated and implied powers of these three branches will provide for the necessary degree of governmental power. The checks and balances— such as presidential 113 veto, congressional override, 2/3*s senatorial ratifica tion of treaties, etc.— allow the efficient exercise of legitimate governmental power, but protect against abused governmental power. 3. Judicial review: Although unclear in specific terms in the Constitution, this principle has developed to mean that the main interpreters of what the Constitu tion means in controversial fact situations are the national courts. These are the District Courts of Appeal, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court. In fact, the principle of judicial review has become the doctrine of judicial supremacy in the sense that the United States Supreme Court has become the final inter preter of the Constitution. Of course, it is necessary to make a qualification to the term "final," since Presidents are elected by the electorate— balanced by the functions of the electoral college. 4. Popular sovereignty: The government under this Constitution is to be "democratic" with the following reservations: ". . . (Tjhe public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose." (62:S2) The "consent of the governed" is required, but this is not to be interpreted to mean "pure democracy" examples of 114 which "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." (62:&L) Over and above these qualifica tions on "pure democracy," the president is not elected directly by the people, and the United States senators— until the seventeenth amendment ratified in 1913— were selected by state senates. And if these limitations on "pure democracy" were not enough, the Supreme Court's judicial review, and the property restrictions on suffrage in every state except New York would provide other protections! 5. Limited government: Along with the limitations on popular sovereignty listed above, there are other limitations on governmental power. These limitations exist along with the functional limitations imposed by the separation of powers and division of powers. The most identifiable set of limitations is found in the Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to the Constitution protect certain specific and general areas of individual and group liberties of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition, liberties related to fair trials and fair trial procedures. The limitations on the national government have been extended by United States Supreme Court decisions to apply, when "fundamental liberties" 115 are in question, against state as well as national govern ment violation. 6. Admission of new states: Congress decides upon admission of new states, based upon the state consti tution the applying state proposes. Once admitted, however, each state is on an equal footing with the other states in the union. 7. Changes in the Constitution: Four processes of formal amendment to the Constitution exist, but only two of these processes have been used. The most commonly used method of constitutional amendment has been that achieved by 2/3 proposal of the national Congress, and 3/4 ratification by the state legislatures. Informal changes to the Constitution can come about in a variety of ways, such as political party practices and customs. In fact, American political party practices have developed in an extra-constitutional fashion since the Constitution did not provide for them. Most of the Constitution writers feared political parties with a fear related to what they felt about "pure democracy." Pluralistic economic functionalism strained through the principles of divided and separated powers would provide a much more beneficient governmental system than the divisive ideological rigidity of parties. By now the introductory student of American 116 Government and Politics might conclude that the Constitu tion was devised as a living set of governmental prin ciples, not as an easily grasped educational document. It was hammered out by men who had an image of themselves as moderate republicans standing between political extremes .... They were impelled by class motives more than pietistic writers like to admit, but they were also controlled . . . by a statesmanlike sense of moderation and a scrupulously republican philosophy . . . They thought man was a creature of rapacious self- interest, and yet they wanted him to be free— free . . . to contend, to engage in an umpired strife, to use property to get property. They accepted the mercantile image of life as an eternal battleground, and assumed the Hobbesian war of each against all; they did not propose to put an end to this war, but merely to stabilize it and make it less murderous. They had no hope and they offered none for any ultimate organic change in the way men conduct them selves. The result was that while they thought self- interest the most dangerous and unbrookable quality of man, they necessarily underwrote it in trying to control it. They succeeded in both respects: under the competitive capitalism of the nineteenth century America continued to be an arena for various grasping and contending interests, and the federal government continued to provide a stable and acceptable medium within which they could contend; further, it usually showed the wholesome bias on behalf of property which the Fathers expected . . . .(71: 15-16) The march of United States history has changed these principles too much for some, not enough for others. But despite the changes, the marks made by the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and the Constitu tion have remained as indelibly imprinted on the charac ter of American Government and Politics as the genetic heredity of a mother’s child. The Growth of Democracy 117 A vast frontier migration which was unparalleled in world history, massive industrialization and accompany ing urbanization, territorial expansion that extended by more than ten-fold the original United States, immigration and absorption on a scale unknown in world history--these and other important factors failed to radically alter the framework of early United States principles and ideals. The detailing of nineteenth and twentieth century addi tions and modifications to these ideals and principles falls more properly to a United States History course, but the following chart reviews the development of the most important ideal of United States Government and Politics. 11S The Growth of Democracy in America Legal Base Executive Power The Royal Charter Legal Base Governor appointed by King or Proprietor Legislative Power Colonial Assembly, elected by voters Restricted Vote Religious, Property, Racial and Bex Restrictions The United States in 1739 Restricted Vote Executive Power Legislative Power The President Representatives Property, Constitution indirectly directly Racial and elected elected, Senators Sex directly elected Restrictions The United States in 1B50 Legal Base Executive Power The President Constitution directly elected— Electoral College and popular vote system Legislative Power Elections as in 17#9 Restricted Vote Racial and Sex Restrictions The United States Today Legal Base Executive Power Legislative Power Universal Vote The President Representatives All adult Constitution directly and Senators citizens, elected— Electoral directly IB years and College and elected older popular vote system (114:95) 119 Political equalization in terms of suffrage expansion does not answer the deep questions of exercising power and influence between the "elite" and "mass." This kind of problem will be discussed further in the next section. Along with this kind of political equalization, a significant— although political scientists and politicians debate how significant— economic equalization in the United States has also occurred. At the turn of the twentieth century, 10 percent of the United States' population possessed 90 percent of the wealth. Since the 1950*s, 25 percent of the population have held 75 percent of the country's wealth. While some might argue that this is not a desirable shift, and others feel the distribution is still overwhelmingly inequitable, such a redistribution is a very significant factor in economic and other related aspects of American Government and Politics. The most significant recent shift in American governmental-political ideals and principles occurred during the "New Deal" of the 1930’s. Since the con ventional wisdom of laissez-faire economics was obviously not working at the time of the Depression, experiment rather than reaffirmation of traditional principles was necessary. The previous kind of democratic-capitalistic politics and economic policies which had been so concerned with freedom to do certain things now became concerned with freedom from fear and economic insecurity. These 120 freedoms were to be obtained using the democratic politi cal process and the machinery of government. New Deal ideals and principles held, in effect, that a government which was never actually laissez-faire when it came to policies that promoted the interests of business, industry, and farming should actively move into promoting the rights and security of the majority. The same government which was now to become more active in promoting majority rights and security was also to become more active in protecting against economic abuses. Social security, and labor rights legislation are examples of the former; laws con trolling the operations of the stock market and laws establishing governmental commissions are examples of the latter. A new philosophical basis for the study of politics and government in the United States also developed in the 1930's. John Dewey and his followers proposed that the scientific method be used to resolve society's problems. The Dewey school criticized the application of rationalistic philosophical principles— especially the rationalist's view of man's nature in terms of his potentials, and their use of universals to describe what every man's behavior could be and ought to be. To Dewey's followers, no truths were "self-evident." Scientifically formulated evidence would need to be assembled before it could be asserted that "all men are 121 created equal," that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and . . . among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The scientific method begins with a definition of the problem confronted and a statement of an hypothesis by which to examine it. For example: "If a man's political system secures and enhances his basic rights, then he will respect and support that system." Next, the researcher begins to investigate— to determine whether men do, in fact, respect and support systems that enhance their basic rights. The researcher exercises great care to eliminate any personal bias in his findings. The careful, unbiased research should either verify or disconfirm the hypothesis. The findings are then published for other researchers to study, criticize, and extend further. From the 1950's on, the study of American Government and Politics was dominated by behavioralists who extended and applied Dewey's approach, and joined it with sociological interpretations of societal groups. The behavioralists saw politics and government as systems operating within an interrelated galaxy of systems. In this view, the political-governmental system provides "inputs" in the form of demands and supports by political parties, individuals, and organized groups— including the media— through the process of cooperation and/or conflict. These inputs are (or should be) translated into "outputs" i I I 122 by the machinery of government, in the form of laws, policies, and regulations. These laws, policies, and regulations have a distinctive kind of authority which is theoretically for the benefit of society as a whole. "Feedback," usually provided by the media, of what the governmental outputs are and their effect reaches the individuals and groups of the input category. These indi viduals and groups then support the outputs or demand changes in them. Critics of this "political system" approach to describing politics and government claimed the method demoted political scientists to sterile observers and input-output calculators who had defined themselves out of the human meanings and values of politics. Since the mid- 1960's this kind of criticism has attempted to shift the study of politics and government away from the behavioral/ descriptive orientation to a more humanistic, value oriented perspective. The political arena has also seen an important shift in ideals and principles. The problems of rights and economic security for the majority seem to have been resolved in a more or less satisfactory way. Social security, legally protected labor rights, governmentally backed home mortgages, and governmentally regulated stock market practices— these are but a few examples of govern ment programs that benefit the majority of Americans. By 123 the mid-1960,s, the United States was being asked to extend this approach to its minorities through the "War on Poverty," assurance of equality of rights— especially voting and education rights— and "positive" or "reverse" discrimination measures which recognized the effects of discrimination against minority groups and attempted to compensate for them. By the late 1960's and early 1970's there was mixed evidence as to whether most Americans and their political-governmental leaders were prepared to authorize such an extension of the New Deal. President Richard Nixon spoke of dismantling the wasteful and inefficient bureaucracies of the New Deal and subsequent Democratic administrations. The old voting blocs, once so relatively tidy and predictable, seemed to be shifting. Intellectuals and union members were not as solidly wedded to the Democratic party as they had once been. Nor were the relatively well-off suburban dwellers as predictably Republican. Factors of income seemed to be less predictive of Republican or Democratic voting than factors of how the income was earned. Economically well-off learners and communicators— college professors, researchers, media executives and producers, writers, entertainers and pro viders of leisure services were not generally Republicans because they were "rich." Union members and Southerners were no longer predictably Democrats because they were 124 "poor" or voting as they shot in the Civil War. "The Silent Majority" seemed worried enough about what they considered radicalism, permissiveness, lack of realism, and ignoring traditional strengths that in 1972 they elected a President and rejected a presidential candidate by one of the largest margins in American presidential voting history. Recently, such factors as the political influence of television, the Vietnam War and the manner of United States extrication, racial issues, student nonconformity, governmental-political corruption, and simultaneous inflation and depression have caused an even greater loss of party-line predictability. The shifting center of American politics appears to be struggling for something less simplistic and more pragmatic than what the "New Left" and the "New Right" offer. Recent election results and poll-surveys seem to indicate that the country is searching for a new politics which reapplies the old strengths of moderation, tolerance, pluralism, and compromise to meet the perplexing challenges of the 1970’s. The Ideals Refocused: Politics, Sex, and Religion The overview of governmental-political principles and ideals through history has demonstrated the overlap of 12 5 fact and value in the study of government and politics. It has also shown the necessity, especially for students taking their first higher education course in American Government and Politics, to achieve an early organiza tional framework for their study. History and philosophy can provide one kind of organizational framework. Modern history and personal values related to the study of government and politics offer another approach. Since personal values are deeply involved in the study of politics and government, like sex and religion, everybody "knows" the topic. Especially in a democracy, we are quite often reluctant to admit to ignorance on a topic that seems like second nature to us. After all, we are the "demos" of democracy, aren't we? In some ways this is similar to parenthood. Few would deny that parenthood is immensely important and difficult. Most adults will be parents. Yet how many parents received formal education for their enormous responsibilities? In this respect, there might be some grounds for the con clusion that the two most important jobs in the world have been left to amateurs: citizenship and parenthood. As citizens in a representative democracy, how many of us receive the formal education toward theoretical understanding and practical participation that is required for ideal citizens? This course and perhaps other parts of your formal education will be part of that 126 education, but a comparatively small part for most students. There are some obstacles to governmental-political- citizenship education. It requires students to view reality on a different level than the most commonly experi enced level of personal and social relationships. Instead of the relatively simple level of family, friend, and neighborhood interrelationships familiar to all, the citizen-student must confront a vast many-faced and yet faceless public. The old questions of discovering reality and making choices between right and wrong take on new dimensions when they are transferred from the realm of private relationships to public relationships. The numbers involved in public decisions, the struggle for the authority to make these decisions, and the beliefs (or rationalizations) that these are decisions not just for the interests of mere special groups but for all of society— these are but a few of the dilemmas that shade considerations of "good" and "bad," "right" and "wrong" in hues much grayer than black or white. Woodrow Wilson, while he was a teacher, expressed this division between public or social and private ethics in the following way: Wilson taught his classes at Princeton that there were two moralities, one individual and one social, with quite different rules: (1) Individual Ethics are not based upon 127 expediency— they are based upon some absolute standard of right and wrong. Individual ethics are based upon the relationship between God and man. Principle of morals is the principle of self-abnegation and not that of the survival of the fittest. (2) Social Ethics— Each individual must give up some point in his own view in order to make a compro mise, in order that any body of men may agree. In bettering society, all of society including the great majority of ignorance, must be advanced. The impracticable man who will not compromise, may be right according to individual ethics, yet he is no use whatever to society. Practicality is the law of social amelioration. (Footnote excluded) Personal sin was the violation of God's command ments, whereas "Political Sin is the transgression of the law of political progress." Wilson was aware of, but undisturbed by, the fact that the two might conflict. In a lecture series in Philadelphia in 1S95 he included Machiavelli as one of six "Leaders of Political Thought." Miachiavelli, as he told his audience, was "not so bad a man as he has been painted." The Florentine's great contribution to mankind was to erect statecraft into "a distinct science, unencumbered by ethical considerations." He erred in leaving morality out of his calculations and having regard only to craft and courage, but "his purpose and ideal were nevertheless exalted. His lifelong effort was to give Italy national freedom and an ordered and beneficient government." (14:262-263) Another teacher and politician, Stephen K. Bailey who was the mayor of Middletown, Connecticut and who has been a political science teacher and administrator, con fronted dilemmas of private vs. public ethics from the perspective of an ethics of action which is normally far more compelling than the urge to balance with precision the ethical niceties of pressing public issues. There are times when the good of the community demands firmness and decision at the expense of marginal injustice. Those who would make justice 128 the sole criterion of the good society are not only, in my judgment, myopic in their ethical vision, they establish an impossible operating norm for adminis trators. Justice, in the sense of "just deserts," presumes omnipotence and omniscience . . . (Often) what is necessary overrides what is just. (115:108- 109) Bailey illustrates the ease with which the moralist labels words like "bribery, favoritism, spoils, patronage, graft." But as George Bernard Shaw once stated, the inability to make relativistic decisions and compromise on issues when necessary is an affliction of "moral dandies." Shaw recollects: When I think of my own unfortunate character, smirched with compromise, rotted with opportunism, mildewed by expediency, dragged through the mud of borough council and Battersea elections, stretched out of shape with wire-pulling, putrefied by permeation, worn out by twenty-five years pushing to gain an inch here, or straining to stem a backrush, I do think Joe might have put up with just a speck or two on those white robes of his for the sake of the millions of poor devils who cannot afford any character at all because they have no friend in Parliament. Oh, these moral dandies, these spiritual toffs, these superior persons. Who is Joe, anyhow, that he should not risk his soul occasionally like the rest of us? (115:112) Bailey further reflects that nothing in his own system told him what was right, but there was something in his system that told him to search for what was right. The most helpful single question I could ask myself seemed to be, "What do you want Middletown to be like ten years from now?" Against this, many things fell into place. I wanted more beauty, fewer slums, less bigotry, more recreation, more community spirit, a more sustained sense of public responsi bility, a more dynamic and prosperous economy, better education, a stronger and more truly competitive 129 two-party system, and a heightened sense of personal dignity for all. These were some of the benchmarks against which specific ethical issues were measured or rationalized. They were not my marks. They were the marks of the civilization of which I was a miniscule and clouded reflection. (115:117) Robert Maclver, a famous political scientist of the 1920’s, ’30’s, and ’40’s, devoted a large proportion of his writing to the dilemmas of politics and ethics. He wrote of the "Golden Rule"— "Do to others as you would have them do to you"— as "the only rule that stands by itself in the light of its own reason, the only rule that can stand by itself in the naked, warring universe, in the face of the contending values of men and groups." This rule requires the leavening of difficult political decisions with empathy. As Maclver saw it, The central virtue of the democratic political process . . . is that it asks each individual to require of himself no more but no less than he expects of others. It asks that he adhere to the outcome of the procedure whereby a choice between conflicting courses of action is made on the basis of popular preference. The democratic political process does not demand that he change his views on what is the best decision, or abandon his efforts to get a decision reversed, only that he accept the outcome of the basic procedure, and rely on the same basic procedure to gain a different outcome. (115:232) A more modern political scientist, William Riker, also addressed himself to the complex value judgments involved in political ethics and democracy. He identified five democratic qualities that are means toward the end of realizing the democratic ideal. These democratic means 130 are "Popularness, Liberty, Equality, Tolerance, and Obedience" (to the law). Behind all of (the above means) is an ethical judgment, a judgment of what constitutes a good life. Democrats value each of them because they think each can help produce it. What is this democratic vision? Democracy is self-respect for everybody. Within this simple phrase is all that is and ought to be the democratic ideal . . . If self-respect is the democratic good, then all things that prevent its attainment are democratic evils. Servility, which is the essence of self contempt, and the subordination which engenders it are, therefore, the ultimate evils in the democratic scheme. Servility and pride . . . are the antithesis of democratic self-respect. (116:16-17) Values or "Givens" and Selective Perception Political-governmental practitioners and scholars such as the above— Woodrow Wilson, Stephen K. Bailey, Robert Maclver, and William Riker— invariably bring their values into their decisions and writings. Social scientists often refer to such values as "givens." This means the values are simply accepted values which are outside of the realm of confirmation or disconfirmation by the methods of social science. Some social scientists claim these "givens" are in the realm of other "systems" in which man organizes and carries on his knowledge and behavior. There is a very serious intellectual debate about whether such "givens" can be verified or proved at all. One camp claims they cannot since the scientific 131 method, as the only basis for tentatively correct intellectual conclusions, can neither prove nor disprove such philosophical, religious, and personal values. The other camp claims the "givens" can be proved by reasoning processes other than the scientific method which is the only one of a variety of methods by which objective truths can be determined. Almost all members of both these camps treasure the ethical ideals of democratic politics and government. Whether they must be accepted on faith as "givens" or can be proved by intellectual processes beyond the scientific method is what divides them. Perhaps of most value to the introductory American Government— Politics student is a regard for the consensus of agree ment among almost all political scientists and political practitioners in a democracy about the desirability of democratic ideals. But the gap between ideals, defini tions, and practices is often a wide one. In many respects the biggest problem confronted by students, teachers, and practitioners of government and politics is that of "selective perception." This is practiced, in one degree or another, by all fallible human beings. It involves organizing old and new know ledge in such a way that it still (somehow!) manages to bear out what we already believed to be true. A noted historian and student of politics, Andrew Hacker, consid ers this as what we do when we "see only what we want to 132 see and . . . believe only what we want to believe.” Illustrating this problem, Hacker writes An academic setting is the best place to dispel these illusions. For the college student is, for all intents and purposes, in a period of suspended animation. Father’s dinner-table dicta on the latest mischiefs perpetrated by the men who govern us must now face competition from other sources. The Sunday visits of Uncle Jim, a successful businessman who seems to know about what Congress should do and the Supreme Court not do, seem less authoritative. For confronting Father and Uncle Jim are professors— men and women with new ideas that are bound to run counter to those that prevailed at home. Furthermore, the college student has several years of freedom before he must begin to support himself by earning a living. This is a welcome respite, not least for developing an understanding of politics. For once one is in possession of a wife (or a husband) and a family (or a job), the inevitable tendency is to view politics as it affects one’s immediate interests. The citizen who is weighed down with personal ambitions and responsi bilities is apt to extrapolate political generaliza tions from his immediate experiences. In other words, he is apt to assume that policies which benefit him are best for the entire nation . • . The college setting is, to be sure, a sheltered one. But it is a shelter from the prejudices of the family dinner table and interests that become ingrained later in life. (61:3-4) About the best students of American Government and Politics can strive for is to realize the pervasiveness of selective perception, to recognize the many influences on the formation of our values by which we arrange and interpret information, and to avoid calculated blocking out or distorting of new information and ideas because it contradicts our beliefs. "Democracy": What1s in a Word? 133 Thinking about selective perception and "Democracy" at the same time poses a dilemma for students of govern ment and politics that seems irreconcilable: What if Riker and Maclver, in their previously discussed elabora tions of the concept of "Democracy's" ideals of self- respect for all and the "Golden Rule" were confronted with entirely different definitions, interpretations, and ideals? Whose definitions, interpretations, and ideals would be correct? Or would each be equally correct if sincerely believed by those who offered the definition? Consider the following perspective on "Democracy" for example: .... All the experiences of the Chinese people accumulated in the course of many successive decades, tell us to carry out a people’s democratic dictator ship . . . "You are not benevolent." Exactly. We definitely have no benevolent policies toward the reactionaries or the reactionary deeds of such classes. Our benevolent policy does not apply to such deeds or to such persons, who are outside the ranks of the people; it applies only to the people Our party is entirely different from the political parties of the bourgeoisie. They are afraid to speak of the elimination of classes, state power, and parties. We, however, openly declare that we are energetically striving to set up conditions just for the sake of eliminating these things. The Communist Party and the state power of the people's dictator ship constitute such conditions. . . . .Communists everywhere are more competent than 134 the bourgeoisie. They understand the laws governing the existence and development of things. They understand the dialectics and can see further ahead . . . (19:35-36) Riker, Maclver, and Mao Tse-Tung are defining and inter preting ’ 'Democracy” in obviously different ways. The answer to the question ’ ’ Which is the correct definition of ’Democracy’?” is another question: What is the purpose of the question? If the question is asked to elicit a self-righteous condemnation of another governmental political system, and a concurrent simplistic prescription of "Our kind of Democracy" for that system, or if the question is asked in the savored anticipation of receiving technically improvable value-assertions masquerading as empirical facts, then no answer is better than these kinds of answers. If, on the other hand, the question seeks a recognizably general guideline statement of the best of democratic principles— though imperfectly realized in practice— throughout history, then historian Carl Becker has a pertinent answer that admirably interrelates William Riker's democratic ideal of "self-respect for everybody" and Robert Maclver’s "Golden Rule" as "The central virtue of the democratic political process": To have faith in the dignity and worth of the individual man as an end in himself; to believe that it is better to be governed by persuasion than by coercion; to believe that fraternal goodwill is more worthy than a selfish and contentious spirit; to believe that in the long run all values are insepar able from the love of truth and disinterested search 135 for it; to believe that knowledge and the power it confers should be used to promote the welfare and happiness of all men rather than to serve the interests of those individuals and classes whom fortune and intelligence endow with temporary advantage— these are the values which are affirmed by the traditional democratic ideology .... They are the values which since the time of Buddha and Confucius, Solomon and Zoroaster, Plato and Aristotle, Socrates and Jesus, men have commonly employed to measure the advance or decline of civilization, the values they have celebrated in the saints and sages whom they have agreed to canonize. They are the values which readily lend themselves to rational justification, yet need no justification. (115:117) The Democratic Ideal: A Modern Perspective In a statement entitled "The Prospects for Democracy," Adlai Stevenson recollected that the Western world had tried to evolve a society with enough legal, social, and political rights and opportunities that man could truly be free. The enemies of freedom, however, propose that man be used as a means to achieve a greater social purpose. In Stevenson's view, these enemies of freedom "miss . . . this essential point: that man is greater than the social purposes to which he can be put. He must not be kicked about even with the most high-minded objectives. He is not a means or an instrument. He is an end in himself. (72:3#7-3SS) Stevenson sees this dedication to the dignity of man as perhaps mankind's most audacious experiment. This dignity, this equality of the human person, could hardly be further-removed from the existential facts of human existence. There is precious little dignity, 136 precious little equality, in our natural state. Most human beings have to spend their lives in utter vulnerability, all are murderable, all are torturable, and survive only through the restraint shown by more powerful neighbors. All are born unequal in terms of capacity or of strength. All are born to the inherent frailty of the human condition, naked and helpless, vulnerable all through life to the will of others, limited by ignorance, limited by physical weakness, limited by fear, limited by the phobias that fear engenders . . . For nearly 3,000 years, the political and social genius of what we can permissibly call "Western man" has struggled with these brute facts of our unsatis factory existence. Ever since the Hebrews discovered personal moral responsibility, and the Greeks dis covered the autonomy of the citizen, the effort has been made, with setbacks and defeats, with dark ages and interregnums, to create a social order in which weak, fallible, obstinate, silly, magnificent man can maintain his dignity and exercise his free and responsible choice. The task has never been easy. Each step has been a groping in the dark, the dark of violence, of brute power, and of overweening arrogance. What we seek to defend today against new critics and new adversaries is essentially a great body of experience, not theories or untried ideals, but a solid mass of lived-through facts. (72:3SB) This section on democratic ideals concludes with what the author considers the most eloquent and meaningful "defense" of democracy offered in modern history. It is a defense offered by a man who had at least as much justification for despairing that democracy's ideals could not be fulfilled as the most bitter and alienated modern critics of democracy reflecting on Vietnam, race bitterness, inequality and a host of other assorted modern testimonies to the shortcomings of democracy in practice. The setting for David E. Lilienthalrs 137 statement was a Senate hearing on his confirmation for Chairmanship of the Atomic Energy Commission in February of 1947* Because of his devoted and necessarily contro versial leadership during the New Deal— especially as head of the Tennessee Valley Authority— Lilienthal’s patriotism and motivations were questioned by those who quite often self-righteously and simplistically believed New Deal liberalism was suspect as socialistic or even communistic. It was necessary, in the view of these defenders of "Americanism,” to be properly anti-Communist. One such questioner of Mr. Lilienthal demanded his views on communistic doctrine. Lilienthal responded . . . This I do carry in my head. And I will do my best to make it clear . . . . . . My convictions are not so much concerned with what I am against as what I am for— and that excludes a lot of things automatically. Traditionally, democracy has been an affirmative doctrine rather than merely a negative one. I believe in— and I conceive the Constitution of the United States to rest, as does religion, upon— the fundamental proposition of the integrity of the individual; and that all Government and all private institutions must be designed to promote and protect and defend the integrity and the dignity of the individual; and that is the essential meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it is essentially the meaning of religion. Any forms of government, therefore, and any other institutions, which make men means rather than ends in themselves, which exalt the state or any other institutions above the importance of men, which place arbitrary power over men as a fundamental tenet of government, are contrary to this conception; and therefore I am deeply opposed to them. 133 The communistic philosophy, as well as the communistic form of government, falls within this category, for its fundamental tenet is quite to the contrary. The fundamental tenet of communism is that the state is an end in itself, and that therefore the powers which the state exercises over the individual are without any ethical standards to limit them. That I deeply disbelieve. It is very easy simply to say one is not a Communist. And, of course, if depite my record it is necessary for me to state this very affirmatively, then this is a great disappointment to me. It is very easy to talk about being against communism. It is equally important to believe those things which provide a satisfactory affirmative alternative. And its hope in the world is that it is an affirmative belief, rather than simply a belief against something else, and nothing more. One of the tenets of democracy that grow out of this central core of a belief that the individual comes first, that all men are the children of God and their personalities are therefore sacred, is a deep belief in civil liberties and their protection; and a repugnance to anyone who would steal from a human being that which is most precious to him, his good name, by imputing things to him, by innuendo, or by insinuation. And it is especially an unhappy circumstance that occasionally that is done in the name of democracy. This I think is something that can tear our country apart and destroy it— if we carry it further. I deeply believe in the capacity of democracy to surmount any trials that may lie ahead provided only we practice it in our daily lives. And among the things that we must practice is this: that while we seek fervently to ferret out the subversive and anti-democratic forces in the country, we do not at the same time, by hysteria, by resort to innuendo and sneers and other unfortunate tactics, besmirch the very cause we believe in, and cause a separation among our people, cause one group and one individual to hate another, 139 based upon mere attacks, mere unsubstantiated attacks upon their loyalty. I want also to add that part of my conviction is based upon my training as an Anglo-American common lawyer. It is the very basis and the great heritage of the English people to this country, which we have maintained, that the strictest rules of credibility of witnesses and of the avoidance of hearsay and gossip shall be excluded in courts of justice. And that, too, is an essential of our democracy. And whether by administrative agencies acting arbitrarily against business organizations, or whether by investigating activities of the legislative branches, whenever those principles fail, those principles of the protection of an individual and his good name against besmirchment by gossip, hearsay, and the statements of witnesses who are not subject to cross-examination: then, too, we have failed in carrying forward our ideals in respect to democracy. This I deeply believe. (36:647-64#) CHAPTER V RESPONSES OF THE JURY The Role of the Jury A review has been offered of differing approaches to the study of Political Science. California Community College Social Science— American Government— Politics requirements have been tabled and described. Seventy- three leading introductory American Government— Politics books have been categorized and critiqued. A model intro ductory American Government— Politics course outline and sample of a text-reader have been presented by this study's author. This model course outline and sample book were presented to a Jury for their evaluations and responses. General Qualifications of the The Jury for this study was comprised of nine members. Six are Ph.D.'s; three are Ed.D.'s; and five are full-time teachers. Two are Social Science Chairmen— one in a community college, one in a state university. Two are administrators at community colleges. One of the members received his doctorate in European History, five in Education, two in Political Science, and one in 140 141 International Relations. Five of the members received their Doctor’s degrees from the University of Southern California, one from Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, one from Stanford, one from the University of California at Santa Barbara, and one received his Ed.D. from Ball State University. The Jury members were selected based on proximity and qualifications of teaching and administra tive experience related to introductory American Government — Politics courses and students. Responses of the Jury The above Jury members were asked to respond to the following question: "Based on your experience and background, do you believe the enclosed introductory American Government— Politics course outline and a sample of a proposed introductory American Government— Politics text-reader fulfills the needs of introductory American Government— Politics students?" The outline and text- reader comprise Chapter IV of this study. The responses of the Jury members are as follows: Charles G. Bell, Ph.D. (Political Science— University of Southern California), Chairman, Political Science, California State University at Fullerton: Dr. Bell made helpful organizational comments about the listing of the course objectives and "Educational tools.” He cautioned against using words and phrases "beyond the 142 grasp of the students.” His response indicated his view that the American Political Science Review— from which one of the proposed readings for the readings section of the text-reader was to be excerpted— was ’ ’ heavy going for most J.C. students." The need for a list of supplementary books was mentioned by Dr. Bell. On a more substantive level of response, Dr. Bell thought that students would feel comfortable with this "essentially traditional" text which had a "Centrist approach to current issues." He commented that "It has a strong ’good citizen’ orientation," and that there was a necessity to mix together the ideals, issues, and institu tions in their presentation to give them "context" and a "life of their own." Addressing himself to the concepts of the text- reader, Dr. Bell suggested "that the system concept is too hard for most students in an introduction American (Government and Politics) course." He recommended other possible approaches than the system approach, such as "pluralism," "conflict resolution," or "elitism." The section on methodology seemed to Dr. Bell to lack "great importance in the introduction course." He was concerned about the "rather narrow" range of issues which did not include radical left or right points of view. In his concluding comments and summary statement Dr. Bell reiterated his concern "about the use of a 143 systems format,” indicated that he assumed the "Institutions" section of the text "would be fairly tradi tional within a systems concept," and suggested ” a presentation of processes— opinion formation, administra tion and policy." John H. Cashin, Ed.D. (University of Southern California), Instructor, Political Science, El Camino College: Dr. Cashin found the outline and sample of the text-reader "most inspirational." He thought they would "provide an excellent introduction to an instructor’s handbook," and that "We should all subscribe to such principles as a basis for our teaching." The essence of Dr. Cashin’s response was a deep reservation that the proposed course and sample of a text- reader were "appropriate for a text in American Government for use in college in general, or community college in particular." He observed that "The students are not motivated by philosophical introductions," and he did not believe "such introductions, even if they are taken very seriously by the students, do or can do much good for their objectives or for the preservation or improvement of the American System." As a kind of counter-proposal, Dr. Cashin felt this type of course "should move much more toward an experiencial type of method" in which concepts would be introduced by lecture and assigned reading. He "would 144 drill in as many as possible important facts, and (t)hen . . . turn to lifelike experiencial situations." At the conclusion of the course Dr. Cashin would discuss with his students: 1. How the present system operates and why. 2. What they as individuals feel the system should be like. 3. Based on numbers 1 and 2, set forth what should be done within the system. 4. Based on numbers 1, 2, and 3, what is their philosophy. Perhaps indicating a major reservation with this study's proposed outline and text-reader, Dr. Cashin con cluded his response with the comment that "Hopefully, through this approach (Dr. Cashin's) they would evolve their own philosophy rather than simply a variation of mine." Wallace F. Cohen, Ed.D. (University of Southern California), Vice President— Instruction, El Camino College: Dr. Cohen's response indicated that "Developing the course in three parts ("Ideals," "Institutions," and "Issues,") should provide a frame of reference that students could be comfortable with." Brevity was suggested to keep the text-reader from ending up "with a three volume (bulk) instead of one with three parts." Dr. Cohen's major response was concerning the 145 "real value in developing course objectives in what has come to be known as ’instructional’ or ’behavioral’ mode.’ ’ He thought that the ’ ’ objectives (of the proposed course’s outline) would be clearer . .. if they were to be recast in terms of what the student will be doing and what is expected of him rather than in terms of what the instruc tor will be doing." Robert F. Galbreath, Ph.D. (International Relations— Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy), Instructor, Political Science, Cypress College: Dr. Galbreath sees ’ ’ The most obvious advantage" (of the pro posed course outline) to be "the clear definition." He stresses "the basic analytical framework adopted to achieve" (the objectives of the course outline). His response indicates an agreement with the emphasis on "learning how to learn" through challenging the student "to reach his own correlation of facts and values within the democratic environment." Dr. Galbreath looks upon the combination of ideas of major thinkers in history as a strength of the proposed text-reader. He states that "The emphasis which (is placed on) respect for the individual as a value in himself . . . (is) a most important contribution to the beginning student's understanding of democratic ideology." The "generality" of the course's approach is 146 singled out as a possible weakness of the course, leading Dr. Galbreath to be concerned that possible omissions of necessary details about American Government— Politics could "raise questions as to how well a student can analyze his government if he does not have extensive knowledge of its actual makeup." Dr. Galbreath's response concludes with a cogent point of clarification about the need to learn the differ ence between private values and public realities without "discouraging students from believing in the importance of (their) personal ideals for a good political order.” William H. Klaustermeyer, Ph.D. (History— Stanford University), Social Science Division Chairman, Fullerton College: Dr. Klaustermeyer's response indicated "The statement describing the objectives of the course is especially well done." He thought the explanation of the students' and teacher's mutual weaknesses offered by the proposed course outline to be "a good idea." In his view, the reading assignments were possibly "a little heavy for beginning students." Dr. Klaustermeyer concludes his response by observing that "Although American government is not my field of academic preparation, I believe that the text is well designed for Lower Division students, especially those who have to be encouraged to study politics. The section on 'Ideals' in the preface is especially well done." 147 James A. Phillips, Ph.D. (Education— University of Southern California), Instructor, Economics, Cypress College: Dr. Phillips’ response emphasized the importance of ’ ’the philosophical and ethical issues involved in the conduct of political decision-making." He commended this effort in the proposed course outline and text-reader sample while reminding about how difficult it is to strive for "student comprehension of such values" rather than "simple memorization of institutional structure." Dr. Phillips thought that "Given (the) course objectives, your text-reader appears excellent ..." Overall, he saw the "text-reader as of high quality and most suited to course design." The "only criticism" offered by Dr. Phillips "is that the objectives stated on page 8 (of the course outline) are quite general and vague, and I wonder how you might seek to evaluate them." Dr. Phillips, as did Dr. Cohen, recommended consulting certain authorities on objective measurement "to determine if these objectives are in fact achieved by students, and to what level of proficiency." Carl Schwarz, Ph.D. (Political Science— University of California, Santa Barbara), Instructor, Political Science, Fullerton College: Most of Dr. Schwarz' remarks were in the nature of notes made in the text of the 14S proposed course outline and sample text-reader. Very valuable criticisms and suggestions were offered about specific parts of the text-reader. In general Dr. Schwarz comments that "this segment of your text-reader would be of value to the introductory student in American Government. You seem to accomplish what you set out to do; i.e., to interest and inform the beginning student as to the basic ’ideals,T ’institutions,’ and 'issues’ of American politics and government." Dr. Schwarz indicated that "On the other hand, there were several places wherein the draft needed major re-working (in terms of) polishing, tightening, and clarification. . ." Donald Singer, Ph.D. (Education— University of Southern California), Vice President of Academic Affairs, Southwestern College: Most of Dr. Singer's response was made up of very helpful criticisms and suggestions which were written into the proposed course outline and sample section of the text-reader. Generally, Dr. Singer thought that the text-reader "will most definitely meet the needs of introductory students of political science provided that you give recent and contemporary examples of the principles of which you speak. Nothing turns a student off more than high-sounding philosophical statements standing alone." He indicated, "If you combine principle 149 and example I would feel that you have a splendid text.” K. Larry Tomlinson, Ed.D. (Social Science— Ball State University), Assistant Professor of Government, Idaho State University: Dr. Tomlinson believes that "By emphasizing the necessity of distinguishing value judg ments and empirical facts, Mr. Reichman begins the course where every political science course ought to start." He sees this text-reader as filling "a drastic need for a simplified explanation of the behavioralist perspective on American politics." In his view, one importance of the book is the alerting of "the reader to the biases of the experts," and Dr. Tomlinson indicated that he was pleased to see Ralph Nader and Consumer's Union included as "experts." The "basic format" of the course was seen as "perhaps more conventional than I prefer," and an apprec iation was expressed by Dr. Tomlinson for the media presentations. The political issues notebook was described as "an especially inspired idea." The course objectives were seen as "consistent with the proposed reader and with Mr. Reichman1s basic approach." Dr. Tomlinson believed that the overall course content was that which "ought to be covered in every government course." Dr. Tomlinson found fault with the strictness of 150 the proposed attendance regulations. His experience with class discussions has led him to the conclusion that "lectures and student reports are 'counter-productive' if true inquiry is sought." He indicated that the "take b home" test was a good idea, and he wished that a sample test question would be included in the model course outline. Dr. Tomlinson concluded his response with the statement "I must commend Mr. Reichman for developing and proposing a mofel course and I plan to have copies of it distributed to candidates for the Doctor of Arts degree in government here at Idaho State." CHAPTER VI IMPLICATIONS OF THE JURY RESPONSES FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATION, AND POLITICAL SCIENCE This section of the study is the author's dis cussion of Chapter V's Jury responses in terms of their implications for higher education, General Education, and Political Science. Due to the conceptual rather than statistical framework of this study, this discussion is not based on quantifiable data and precise relationships. It is the author’s contention that in assessing methodol ogy and materials related to teaching, any authoritative conclusions of meaningful educational significance premised solely on objective data are highly suspect. In this respect the author agrees with Sibley's previously mentioned review of the limitations inherent in the behavioralistic approach: 1. (T)he very selection of subjects for investi gation is shaped by values which are not derivable from the investigation . . . 2. (I)n the end, the concepts and values which do determine what and how one studies are related to one's judgments of the goals which one identifies with political (for "political" substitute "educa tional") life and to one's general life experience. • • 151 152 3. (O)nce the investigation is launched, there are definite limits to what one can expect from behavioral studies . . . 4« (B)ehaviorally oriented study will remove one from the stuff of everyday politics (for "politics" substitute "education"; and cannot be related to that stuff except by means which would usually be regarded as non-behavioral . • . (2S:53) The Jury responses, though non-representative and not based on a large sample, do lead to two relatively clear conclusions: There is a need for a clarification of the course’s objectives (Dr. Cohen’s and Dr. Phillips’ responses), and there is an overall tendency by all of the Jury members with the exception of Dr. Cashin to be generally positive though somewhat critical in certain specifics about the proposed course outline and sample of the proposed text-reader. A teacher of any course except vocational, technical, or professional courses— and quite often even in these areas— is enmeshed in an inextricable web of facts, values, opinions, ideas, and ideals. There is no debate of any significant proportions in the General Education— Political Science field about this reality. The debate about "value laden" vs. "objective" teaching is actually a procedural rather than a substantive one. Since virtually all General Education— Political Science teachers impart values with their teaching, what should be the manner in which they accomplish this? All of the Jury responses, with the possible 153 exception of Dr. Cashin's, indicated the recognition of the importance of focusing on values and ideals in an introductory American Government— Politics course. In Dr. Cashin’s instance, his reservation about values and ideals seemed to be that the way they were developed in the proposed course outline and sample of the text-reader would be meaningless to introductory American Government— Politics students because they did not have enough facts to philosophize about. In sloganeering terms, this might be labeled the "Facts first, then philosophy" approach. The last stage of Dr. Cashin's approach to teaching introductory American Government— Politics would focus on the students developing their own philosophy after having learned how the present system operates and why, what the students feel the system should be, and what reforms would be necessary to implement the ideal political- governmental system. This "experiencial" approach would, in Dr. Cashin's words, allow the students to "evolve their own philosophy rather than simply a variation of mine." Contrary to Dr. Cashin, this study's author believes that such a "Facts first, then philosophy" teaching procedure runs the risk of "slipping in" values and ideals under the guise of "facts," and the related risk of dichotomizing facts and values when in reality they are inseparable, if the study is anything more significant than, say, generalizing to the number of damaged pencils from a 154 representative small sample of damaged pencils. The qualification should be made that no important conclusion about teaching procedures in general or with respect to the presentation of facts and values can be made without allowances for the individual teacher’s character, personality, and intelligence. Formal and informal student evaluations of teacher performance are consistent in bearing out an indefinable characteristic that might tenuously be referred to as "strength" which influences their evaluations of excellence, mediocrity, and poorness in teaching. The large majority of the other responses— six out of eight— were understandably hedged evaluations. Implicit in these six responses was the attitude "This does not look bad overall, but I would wish to see the rest of it, and especially I would want to see if he practices what he preaches in the classroom." Along with this attitude, cautions were raised, specific criticisms were offered, and specific praise was meted out. The author of this study would describe this as the generally "prevailing majority" position on course and book proposals in the area of General Education. Most evaluators quite understandably leaven charity, empathy, and humane considerations into their evaluations, unless of course the evaluator perceives a professional, technical, or vocational harm might arise from the proposal. If such 155 harm was envisioned, then the evaluator might respond with the "My God, if he does that the patient will die!" response. The more the course moves away from the technical, professional, or vocational areas, the more the tendency is to reserve and qualify both criticism and praise because of the incompleteness or outright unavail ability of the evidence indicating how the teacher utilized his character, personality, and intelligence to implement his proposal. Two of the responses, Dr. Phillips’ and Dr. Tomlinson's, were very positive in their evaluations of the course outline and sample American Government— Politics text-reader. In both evaluations important and helpful reservations and criticisms were offered, but overall these were very favorable evaluations. Two observations might be generalized from these responses: Perhaps these two Jury members use the same kind of approach in their teaching and are therefore disposed to a positive evalua tion of this approach. Perhaps the background and experi ence of these two Jury members has convinced them that the approach of the proposed course outline and sample text- reader is best suited to introductory American Government— Politics students. Earlier in this study, two approaches to the study of introductory American Government and Politics were reviewed: Attempt a clear distinction between facts and 156 values while describing and analyzing American Government and Politics. Assert and develop your models, theories, and concepts and "test the world" of reality against these ideals. It is the author’s contention that there is no significant difference in these approaches; the only signi ficant differences are in the characters, personalities, and abilities of the teachers employing these approaches. It is further contended that almost no teacher in either of these categories is so much an abstract intellectual purist that he really does not concern himself with whether his students subscribe to his opinions and ideals. If Teacher X is a dedicated liberal Democrat teaching introductory American Government and Politics to college students, Teacher X will implicitly or explicitly give a better light to his position than the other competitor positions. This contention does not charge "Brainwashing," nor does it imply sinister conspiratorial efforts at imposing values on helpless and innocent college youth. Neither does this contention allege that most introductory American Government— Politics teachers do not respect intellectual and volitional strength in students of opposite persuasion. In fact, it might be counterproposed that most introductory American Government— Politics teachers would prefer a thoughtfully developed, strongly defended opposite position to a simplistically mimicked student point of view. ("With that kind of strength, 157 Student X is bound to come around to my values after sufficient experience and intellectual maturity!") What the above contention does signify, in the author's view, is that subscribed-to teaching approaches should not cover up the essence of the fact-value dilemma in teaching introductory American Government— Politics: A teacher’s methodology can never take precedence over his character, personality, and general range of educational abilities, including his subject matter mastery. If the author’s contention is correct, this is not as self-evident a point as it seems on the surface. While there are many indications of academic subject matter mastery that can be tapped by potential employers, how should these potential employers assess character and personality? The question assumes they should. The nebulous ’ ’evidence” of both formal and informal teacher evaluations indicates they should. They should because essentially the teacher is the course. But the character and personality are comparatively intangible. Academic and academically related accomplishments are tangible. Employers of teachers are busy people. Employers of teachers are also aware of the fine line between character and personality assessment as contrasted to applicant agreement with employer values: ”As a co-religionist (fellow Republican, brother lodge member, etc.) this applicant must be the right man for the job I” How to draw 153 the line? These observations are at the heart of the Jury responses. In almost every response there was the implicit message that the Jury member could not be con clusive because of the need for that quantifiably elusive, eclectic mixture of factors which, together with a course outline and a sample of a text-reader, are essential to a course and teacher evaluation. Whether a course outline and book sample are responded to in quantifiable or conceptual terms, the value of such responses must be forged out of speculation, assumption, and dialogue. And this realization is not so very different from what almost all authorities on General Education and introductory American Government— Politics teaching see as the essential ingredients of General Education and Political Science. The Jury’s responses all, directly or indirectly, indicate a need for innovative approaches in the teaching of introductory American Government— Politics. This study’s author intends to incorporate the outline of the model introductory American Government— Politics course and the sample chapter of the model American Government text-reader into his introductory American Government classes at Fullerton College. In response to the comments of Dr. Cohen and Dr. Phillips the reworked course outline which will be utilized by the author in his future intro ductory American Government classes will feature clearer 159 course objectives written in terms of expected student outcomes rather than descriptions of instructor defini tions and approaches* The text-reader will maintain its "Centrist" approach to the study of American Government— Politics, and in keeping with one of Dr. Bell’s sugges tions, it will not separate "Institutions" from "Issues." Rather, the readings illustrating the "Issues" will directly follow the textual material of the "Institutions." Dr. Galbreath’s reminders about the necessity of the "Institutions" section imparting the necessary details of American Government— Politics will be kept in mind. The need for relevant contemporary "Issues" as indicated by Dr. Singer will also be remembered. Dr. Tomlinson's, Dr. Phillips] and Dr. Klaustermeyer's positive evaluations will be referred to for their expressions of confidence in what they evaluated, and Dr. Cashin’s sincere and clearly expressed reservations and criticisms will be utilized as reminders that wide diversities of approaches to the teaching of introductory American Government— Politics exist. Over and above the use of the "Ideals" section of this study with this author's introductory American Government students, the possibility of proposing this section plus the "Institutions" and "Issues" sections as a manuscript for publication will be entertained. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The previous chapters have considered the back ground for the study, developed a review of the pertinent literature, overviewed and critiqued introductory American Government— Politics texts and readers, categorized in table form California Community College Social Science requirements prior to the Fall of 1973> proposed a model introductory American Government— Politics course outline and sample text-reader, reviewed the responses to this model introductory American Government— Politics course outline and sample text-reader of a Jury of nine members, and discussed the author's views on the implications of these Jury responses for higher education, General Education, and Political Science. This final chapter reviews the problem and pro cedure, relates the hypotheses which helped to guide the investigation to the findings and conclusions, and proposes recommendations for further study based on the findings and conclusions of this study. 160 161 Summary Statement of the Problem California Community Colleges Social Science requirements have changed as of Fall, 1973. The effect of this change pertinent to this study is that for those students seeking an Associate in Arts degree there is no longer a required introductory American Government— Politics course as there was under the old requirements. This effect will be modified by the continuing necessity of Community College students who transfer to four year institutions to meet the Social Science requirements of these transfer institutions which, in most cases, include an introductory American Government— Politics course. Since the change in the California Community College Social Science requirements allows students seeking an Associate in Arts degree to select only one course— and that of their own choice— in the area of Social Science, there could be a drop in number of students selecting the introductory American Government— Politics course. This possibility, coupled with the need for relevancy which many see as a necessary reform for General Education— American Government— Politics courses, presents a situation in which a new kind of introductory American Government— Politics course, including a new kind of text-reader, are desirable. This conclusion is warranted by a study of the 162 contents, styles, inclusions, and exclusions of the introductory American Government— Politics texts and readers which have been in use from 1945 to the present. However, many political scientists see their dis cipline as a formal, rigorous, and professional discipline rather than as General Education with the primary objec tive of citizenship education. This problem is exacerbated in community colleges because of the special characteristics of "Higher Education's Newest Student" who is much less likely to be "college material" as this type of student has been described in the past, and who is likely to be taught his introductory American Government— Politics course at the community college by a teacher who was "college material" and then some— he received a Master's Degree and perhaps a Doctor's Degree in one of the Social Science areas. The above kind of student and teacher need a compatibility before the educational goals of an intro ductory course in American Government— Politics can be accomplished. An effort to achieve this compatibility was undertaken by this study in the form of a model intro ductory American Government— Politics course outline, and a model introductory American Government— Politics sample text-readings book. These were submitted to a Jury of nine experts in the fields of General Education and Political Science, and the responses of these experts were 163 summarized. The author then offered his responses to the Jury comments, including his statements of how he would modify his course outline and sample text-reader in light of the Jury responses. Procedure A review of the literature was completed. This review focused on definitions of General Education, General Education trends to 1945, General Education trends since 1945, the study of American Government— Politics to 1945, the study of American Government— Politics since 1945, and recent studies of community college students. Leading introductory American Government— Politics books were reviewed and critiqued. They were placed in three categories: Behavioral, Normative, and Critique kinds of books. Variations within these categories were discussed. Seventy-three such books were examined, and of these seventy-three introductory American Government— Politics texts and readings books, some of the most popular in each of the above three categories were reviewed in some detail as to their orientations, inclu sions, exclusions, and styles. A table listing California Community College introductory American Government— Politics requirements was constructed. This table was based on a study of ninety-four California Community College catalogs’ listings 164 of Social Science— American Government— Politics require ments . A model introductory American Government— Politics course outline was developed and coordinated with a model introductory American Government— Politics text-reader. This course outline and book attempted to achieve compati bility between conflicting motivations, orientations, and abilities which were present in higher education's "Newest Students" and the teachers who taught them intro ductory American Government— Politics. The above course outline and sample text-reader were submitted to a Jury of experts in the fields of General Education and Political Science. The nine members of this Jury offered their responses to these proposals which were then summarized by this study. The author's responses to and evaluations of the Jury responses were listed and related to their implica tions for higher education, General Education, and intro ductory American Government— Politics. In his response to the Jury comments the author included his statements of how he would modify his course outline and sample text- reader in light of these Jury responses. A summary of the problems, procedures, and conclusions was offered. Recommendations for further study were made. 165 Findings General findings.— The seventy-three introductory American Government— Politics hooks which were reviewed were found to leave generally unresolved the gaps between student needs, abilities, and motivations, and the academic requirements of the Political Science discipline. The study of the California Community College introductory American Government— Politics requirements indicated such a variegated array of courses and course combinations involving Social Science and Political Science that they denied generalization. The Table of California Community College introductory American Government— Politics requirements indicated the require ments of each of ninety-four California Community Colleges. The findings of the Jury responses to the proposed model introductory American Government— Politics course outline and sample introductory American Government— Politics book indicated a generally favorable view to these proposals. However, one of the responses was not favorable. In the favorable responses, many specific and helpful criticisms were offered. Two of the responses were very favorable, indicating a very great need for this kind of course and book. Overall, the responses of the nine member Jury indicated many of the same kinds of concerns and disagreements which were reflected by political scientists and general educationists in the earlier parts of this study. 166 Hypotheses.— This section of the study restates the hypotheses which helped to guide the investigation, and offers the findings and conclusions of this study regarding these hypotheses. 1. General Education in the post Second World War period of American higher education has not satisfied the goals set for it by the Harvard Faculty Committee Study. These goals can be stated generally as a synthesis of rational humanism and educational pragmatism. 2. "The enduring goal of undergraduate instruc tion in political science . . • conceptual analysis" (191:351), is incompatible with the abilities and needs of a large majority of California community college intro ductory American Government— Politics students. 3* Community colleges have not established an identity which allows them to function effectively as non-high school and non-four year institutions. 4. The lack of an established identity for community colleges is related to the inability of community colleges to successfully educate the "Newest Student" attending these community colleges. 5. The American Government— Politics books used as the main instructional tools for higher education’s "Newest Student" are lacking in their failure to merge relevancy with theories and data. 6. California's community colleges, in their pre-1972 General Education— American Government— Politics requirements, generally avoided a consideration of the needs and abilities of a large majority of students. 7. California's new (Post 1972) General Education — American Government— Politics requirements offer an important impetus to resolving the previous incompatibil ity between student needs and abilities and course requirements. 8. Despite the obstacles listed in hypotheses one through seven, there can be a compatibility among student needs and interests, instructor ability and goals, General Education goals, Political Science goals, and California's new General Education— American Government— Politics requirements. This compatibility can be achieved through a properly designed introductory American Govern ment— Politics course utilizing appropriate reading material in conjunction with other pertinent educational material. The following is a summary of findings with respect to hypotheses one through four: The synthesis of rational humanism and educational pragmatism which was postulated as the ideal of General Education by the Harvard Faculty Committee Study in 1945 has its counterpart in the area of American Government— Politics and General Education. "Conceptual analysis” as "The enduring goal of undergraduate instruction in political science" is incompatible with the abilities and needs of a large majority of California community college introductory American Government— Politics students. As indicated by the studies of Cross, the community college students in particular are in need of higher educational efforts which recognize them as different not "in degree," but "in kind" from four-year institution students. These efforts should include a citizenship and relevancy orientation in the ideal introductory American Government— Politics course and text. Community college American Government— Politics teachers are especially equipped to accomplish this merger of citizenship education and relevant education because of the lack of publishing pressures and the emphasis at the community college on teaching. However, there is the drawback that most community college introductory American Government Politics teachers were trained in the "conceptual analysis" model as graduate students, and often teach as they were taught. The following is a summary of findings with respect to hypothesis five: These books generally can be classified as Behavioral, Normative, and Critique. The Behavioral texts are quite often too dry, too sophisticated, and too extensive in their approach which develops details in 169 catalog fashion. Although the overwhelming majority of students using these texts will not major in American Government— Politics, these texts are generally written for "Political Scientists" rather than "citizen-students." The Normative texts are also generally too sophisticated in their "theory to test the world by" approach. The Critique category of introductory American Government— Politics book is more lively, but all too often achieves a type of relevancy through a simplistic orientation which expresses the writer’s criticisms and suggestions for reform in shallow and unrealistic terms. The following is a summary of findings with respect to hypotheses six and seven: As the table in Chapter III indicates, there was no agreed upon pattern for the introductory American Government— Politics course requirements in California’s community colleges. These courses were not geared to "Higher Education’s Newest Student." Instead, as the table implies, they were seen as an admixture of lower division and General Education requirements, with no precise role for Political Science education by itself or in relationship to other Social Science courses. California's new (post-1972) General Education— Social Science requirements offer an important impetus toward relevancy in introductory American Government— Politics courses because under this new requirement those students 170 who do not seek to transfer will not be required to take an introductory American Government— Politics course, only to take a Social Science course. Although explained by California Community College Board of Governors officials as being directed toward allowing local community colleges much more autonomy in their course offerings, this change in the Social Science requirements could also act as an influence toward making introductory American Government— Politics courses more "attractive” in order to gain students for these courses and the teachers who teach them. The following is a summary of findings with respect to hypothesis eight: The Jury responses to the proposed model course outline and sample introductory American Government— Politics book indicate a generally positive view toward an introductory American Government— Politics teaching approach which interrelates "Ideals," "Institutions," and "Issues." Although the Jury responses indicated important reservations concerning the proposals, this kind of an approach was generally seen to be valuable. The Jury responses indicate the possibility of the hypothesized ideals of "compatibility among student needs and interests, instructor ability and goals, General Education's goals, Political Science goals, and California's new General Education— American Government— Politics requirements" being realized. 171 General Conclusions This study has generated the following general conclusions stated in the form of principles concerning General Education, introductory American Government— Politics courses, the students in these courses, the teachers of these courses, and the types of books used in these courses: 1. The status of General Education has had both its peaks and valleys. It is presently in a high valley. The specialists still prevail, but they are not totally dominant. Signs of life for General Education abound. Many students are demanding relevancy in their General Education courses, and evaluation influence over the teachers of these courses. Although vocationalism and professionalism still prevail as basic motivations for college attendance, there is no inherent contradiction between this observation and student desire for General Education as well. The contradiction occurs when General Education is presented vocationally or professionally (in the narrow definition of that term) in such a way that the General Education student feels an incongruity of irrelevance. 2. The above incongruity of irrelevance can be overcome without compromising academic standards. In fact, standards are not really at issue. Teachers of General Education courses have an obligation to their 172 students as well as an educational responsibility to society that should direct them to gear these courses to their needs, motivations, and abilities of their students. At issue is whether teachers who, in large majority, learned their subjects in preparation for their pro fessions or vocations can teach these subjects effectively to students who generally do not have professional or vocational reasons for taking these courses. 3. Introductory American Government— Politics courses are especially important as blends of academic respectability and citizenship education. High standards can be maintained for General Education students taking introductory American Government— Politics courses without attempting the same specific kind of high standards that the teachers of these courses were expected to conform to in order to qualify for their profession and vocation. This realization on the part of political science teachers is more rewarding than frustrating when it is realized that there is great potential for successful teaching and learning in American Government— Politics to serve educational ends in an academic sense and citizenship ideals in the civic sense. This kind of endeavor, though enormously complex, can offer the same kind of satisfac tion— despite its constant imperfection— as politically and governmentally taking part in hard-fought, incremental fulfillment of the United States’ loftiest ideals. 173 4* Books that are being used for primarily General Education students should reflect a General Education identity and approach. Such books can be academically respectable without being written for academic peers. There seems to be a tendency on the part of many introductory American Government— Politics authors to concern themselves lest they play to the galleries in what they write and how they write it. Most of the citizenry must be reached where they are— in the galleries. They must be reached in terms they can understand and by methods with which they can identify. They cannot be spoken down to, neither can their intelligence and motivation be overestimated. This kind of writing and teaching is the responsibility of teachers who are engaged not to direct graduate study in the academic discipline to which they are committed, but to teach General Education — American Government— Politics courses to student- citizens. Recommendations for Further Study The most obvious quantifiable study that could be undertaken related to this study's proposals, findings, and conclusions is a description of the California Community College Social Science— American Government— Politics requirements as they exist one year after the initiation of the changes in the Social Science— General 174 Education requirements found in the California Adminis trative Code, Title 5, Chapter 7« In a similar context, questionnaire studies and case studies could be employed to determine whether hypothesis seven of this study was confirmed in that there was "an important impetus to resolving the previous incompatibility between student needs and abilities and course requirements." There is a need in this area of General Education- -American Government— Politics for quantifiable student and teacher interview-questionnaires which compare and contrast student and teacher points of view on "What comprises the ideal General Education— American Government — Politics course?" This kind of statistical study could be related to the stated objectives for General Education and Political Science reviewed in this study. This study suggests the possibility that similar reviews and proposals related to the other Social Science areas of community college courses might be undertaken. Are there incompatibilities and, if so, should they be reconciled in the gaps between General Education and Philosophy, Economics, History, Sociology, Psychology, etc.? This study’s differentiation between "new" (Community College) and traditional college students needs further investigation. Is the difference as pronounced as this study indicates? If so, can there be course 175 proposals, especially in General Education courses, which maintain higher educational standards while at the same time are viewed positively by community college students? The Jury responses in this study suggest the possibility for further studies in the following areas: 1. Can course proposals be developed which employ quantifiably measurable course objectives at the same time as emphasizing General Educational values and ideals? 2. Can political and governmental analysis, synthesis, and value formation be merged productively in Political Science— General Education courses? This study included Jury responses to one such effort. Further studies might propose other model course outlines and sample books to accomplish this. 3. The possibility for further study in the above area could be carried out using a model course outline and sample book as responded to by a representative sample of nationwide or statewide General Education— Political Science teachers, rather than a Jury. These recommendations, as well as the general results of this study, underscore the undefined role of the Community College curriculum as it is confronted with the perennial conflicts between generalist and specialist education. What might be seen on the one hand as the frustrations of time-honored unresolvable educational issues, might be viewed on the other hand as challenges worthy of the best minds and the best intentions of higher education as well as of society in general. BIBLIOGRAPHY 177 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adrian, Charles R., and Press, Charles. The American Political Process. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 19o5. Almond, Gabriel, and Verba, Sidney. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes D^ocracv in Five Nations. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963. American Council on Education. A Design for General Education: For Members of the Armed Forces. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1944. American Council on Education. Higher Education in the TJm'ted States. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. American Political Science Association, Committee for the Advancement of Teaching. Goals for Political Science. New York: Sloane, 1951. Beard, Charles. American Government and Politics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935* Becker, Theodore L., and Murray, Vernon G., eds. Government Lawlessness In America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. Bell, Daniel. The Reforming of General Education. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. Berman, Daniel M., and Loeb, Louis S. Laws and Men: The Challenge of American Politics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970. Binkley, Wilfred E., and Moos, Malcolm C. A Grammar of American Politics— the National Government. New York: Knopf, 1950. 179 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. IS. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Bishop, Hillman M., and Hendel, Samuel, eds. Basic Issues of American Democracy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963. Blackmore, Charles P., and Yeselson, Abraham, eds. The Fabric of Democracy. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 19&9• Boyd, Maurice, and Worcester, Donald. Contemporary America: Issues and Problems. Boston, Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon, 1963. Bragdon, Henry W. Woodrow Wilson— The Academic Years. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1967. Brecht, Arnold. Political Theory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1959. Brown, Bernard E., and Wahlke, John C., eds. The American Political System— Notes and Readings. Homewood, Illinois:The Dorsey Press, 1967. Brubacher, John S. Bases for Policy in Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19^ 5. Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1953. Burkhart, James A., Krislov, Samuel, and Lee, Raymond L. The Clash of Issues. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. Burns, James MacGregor, and Peltason, Jack W. Government by the People. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966. Carlin, Edward A., and Blackman, Edward B., eds. CuTriculnm Building in General Education. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, I960. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Reform on Campus: Changing Students. Changing Academic Programs. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972. Carpenter, Marjorie. The Larger Learning. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, 19o0. lao 24. Carr, Robert K., Bernstein, Marver H., and Murphy, Walter F. Essentials of American Democracy* New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. 25. Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. New York: Random House, 1946. 26. Carter, Gwendolyn, and Herz, John H. Government and Politics in the Twentieth Century. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965. 27. Catlin, George E. A Study of the Principles of Politics. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930. 23. Charlesworth, James C., ed. Contemporary Political Analysis. New York: The Free Press, 1967. 29. Chickering, Arthur W. Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. 30. Christenson, Reo M. Challenge and Decision— Political Issues of Our Time. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. 31. Cohen, Arthur M. Dateline *79: Heretical Concepts for the Community College. Beverly Hills, California: Glencoe Press, 1969. 32. Cohen, Carl. Democracy. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1971* 33. Coleman, James. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. 34. Committee on the Student in Higher Education. The Student in Higher Education. New Haven: The Hazen Foundation, 1963. 35. Conant, James B. The American High School Today. New York: Signet, 1964* 36. Cummings, Milton C., and Wise, David. Democracy Under Pressure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971* 37• Dahl, Robert A. Democracy in the United States: Promise and Performance. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972. 33. Dahl, Robert A. A Preface to Democratic Theory. 1S1 Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. 39. Danielson, Michael N., and Murphy, Walter F., eds. Modern American Democracy— Readings. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 19&9. 40. Deutsch, Karl W. Politics and Government. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1970. 41. De Young, Chris A., and Wynn, Richard. American Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972. 42. Dionisopoulos, P. Allan. The Government of the United States. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970. 43. Dishman, Robert B., ed. The State of the Union. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965. 44. Dolbeare, Kenneth M., and Edelman, Murray J. American Politics— Policies, Power, and Change. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath, 1971* 45. Domhoff, G. William. Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967. 46. Dressel, Paul L. College and University Curriculum. Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 19oW, 47* Dressel, Paul L., and De Lisle, Frederick H. Undergraduate Curriculum Trends. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1969. 4S. Ducat, Craig R., ed. The Government of the United States— Student’s Workbooks and Readings. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970* 49. Durant, Will. The Lessons of History. New York: Simon and Schuster, 196$• 50. Dutton, Frederick G. Changing Sources of Power. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971. 51. Dvorin, Eugene P., and Misner, Arthur J., eds. Government in American Society. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 196S. 52. Dye, Thomas R., ed. American Public Policy— Documents and Essays. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969. 162 53. Dye, Thomas R. and Zeigler, L. Harmon. The Irony of Democracy. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1970. 54* Easton, David. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Knopf, 1953. 55. Eliot, Thomas H. Governing America: The Politics of a Free People. New York: Dodd-Mead, 1961. 56. Eulau, Heinz, Eldersveld, Samuel J., and Janowitz, Morris, eds. Political Behavior: A Reader in Theory and Research. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956. 57. Eurich, Alvin C., ed. Campus I960. New York: Dell, 1966. 56. Frankel, Charles. Education and the Barricades. New York: Norton, 1966. 59. Fremantle, Anne, ed. The Age of Belief. New York: Mentor, 1954. 60. Gardner, John W. Excellence. New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1961. 61. Hacker, Andrew. The Study of Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973. 62. Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, Jay, John. The Federalist Papers. New York: Mentor, 1961. 63. Handler, Edward, ed. The American Political Experience: What Is the Kev? Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath, 1966. 64* Harvard Educational Review. Educational Opportunity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 19o9. 65. Harvard University Faculty Committee. General Education in a Free Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945. 66. Hathorn, Guy B., Penniman, Howard R., Zink, Harold. Government and Politics in the United States. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1963. 133 67. Havard, William C., and Mayhew, David R., eds. Institutions and Practices of American Government. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 19&7. ~ 63. de la Haye, John A., Bader, Helmut, Carney, John P., Love, Edgar F. Governments of the United States and of California. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, 1972. 69. Henry, Nelson B., ed. Fifty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Part I - General Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952. 70. Hofstadter, Richard, ed. Ten Ma.ior Issues in American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 19^3. 71. Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition. New York: Vintage, 1943. 72. Hunt, Elgin F., and Karlin, Jules, eds. Society Today and Tomorrow. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967. 73. Hyneman, Charles S. The Study of Politics. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1959. 74. Irish, Marian D., ed. Political Science: Advance of the Discipline. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. 75. Irish, Marian D., and Protho, James W. The Politics of American Democracy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971. 76. Jencks, Christopher, and Riesman, David. The Academic Revolution. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 19&9. 77. Jencks, Christopher. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. 73. Johnson, Byron S. General Education in Action. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1952. 79. Johnson, Claudius 0., Ogden, Daniel M., Jr., Castleberry, H. Paul, and Swanson, Thor. American State and Local Government. New York: Thomas Y. 134 Crowell, 1972. 30. Heighton, Robert L«, with Sutton, Martin P. One Nation. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath, 1972. 31. Kelley, Win, and Wilbur, Leslie. Teaching in the Community Junior College. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1970. 32. Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963* 33. Lasswell, Harold. Politics: Who Gets What. When. How. Cleveland, Ohio: Meridian, 1953. 34. Levine, Erwin L., and Cornwell, Elmer, Jr. An Introduction to American Government. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972. 35. Livingston, John C., and Thompson, Robert G. The Consent of the Governed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972• 36. Lilienthal, David E. The Journals of Lilienthal. Vol. II. New York: Harper and Row, 1964* 37. Lipset, Seymour Martin. Political Man. New York: Doubleday, i960. 33. Lipsitz, Lewis, ed. American Government— Behavior and Controversy. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, 1967. 39. Longaker, Richard P., ed. Issues in Politics and Government. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1970. 90. Lowi, Theodore J., ed. Private Life and Public Order. New York: W. W. Norton, 1963. 91• Lubell, Samuel. The Hidden Crisis in American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971» 92. Macdonald, H. Malcolm, Webb, Wilfred D., Lewis, Edward G., and Strauss, William L., eds. Readings in American Government. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1963* 93- Magrath, C. Peter, Cornwell, Elmer E., and Goodman, Jay S. The American Democracy. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969* 94. 95. 96. 97. 93. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 135 Magrath, C. Peter, ed. Constitutionalism and Politics: Conflict and Consensus. Glenview, Illinois: Scott-Foresman, 1963. Mayhew, Lewis B. Colleges Today and Tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 19o9. Mayhew, Lewis B. Social Science in General Education. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, i960. McCoy, Charles A., and Wolfe, Alan. Political Analysis— An Unorthodox Approach. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972. Mead, Margaret. Culture and Commitment. A Study of the Generation Gap. Garden City, New York: Natural History Press, 1969. Medsker, Leland L., and Tillery, David. Breaking the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-Year Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1972. Medsker, Leland L., and Trent, James W. The Influence of Different Types of Public Higher Institutions on College Attendance from Varying Socioeconomic Levels. Berkeley, California: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California, 1965, 1967. Monroe, Charles R. Profile of the Community College. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Morgan, Richard E«, and Connor, James E., eds. The American Political System— Introductory Readings. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971. Morse, Horace T., and Dressel, Paul L., eds. General Education for Personal Maturity• Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, i960. Munro, William B. Government of the United States. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1931. Nelson, William R., ed. American Government and Political Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970, 186 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. Nimmo, Dan, and Ungs, Thomas. American Political Patterns— Conflict and Consensus. Boston: Little Brown, I9S9T Ogg, Frederick A., and Ray, P. Orman. Introduction to American Government. New York: Century, 1928. Oliver, Robert T. Becoming an Informed Citizen. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964. Ortega y Gasset, Jose. The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W. W. Norton, 1944. Phillips, Jewell Cass, Abraham, Henry J., and Ewing, Cortez, A. M. Essentials of National Government. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971. Pullias, Earl V. A Search for Understanding. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, 19&5* Pye, Lucian W., and Verba, Sidney, eds. Political Culture and Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 19^5. Quade, Quentin L., and Bennett, Thomas J. American Politics: Effective and Responsible? New York: American Book Company, 1969. Reichman, Louis C., and Wishart, Barry J., eds. Issues 4: Critical Questions for the 70*s. Beverly Hills, California: Glencoe Press, 1972. Reichman, Louis C., and Wishart, Barry J., eds. American Politics and Its Interpreters. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown, 1971. Riker, William H. Democracy in the United States. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953* Rodee, Carlton C., Anderson, Totton J., and Christol, Carl Q. Introduction to Political Science. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1957. Rosenbaum, Herbert D. A First Book in Politics and Government. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, 1972. Sanford, Nevitt, ed. The American College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 12S. 129. 130. 131. 132. ia7 Scammon, Richard M., and Wattenberg, Ben J. The Real Majority. New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan, 1971. Schwab, Joseph J. College Curriculum and Student Protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Sherrill, Robert. Why They Call it Politics— A Guide to America's Government. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Sigler, Jay A., and Getz, Robert S. Contemporary American Government: Problems and Prospects. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972. Silberman, Charles. Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Random House, 1970. Sindler, Allan P., ed. American Political Institutions and Public Policy— Five Contemporary Studies. Boston: Little Brown, 19^9• Somit, Albert, and Tanenhaus, Joseph. American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline. New York: Atherton Press, 1964. Sprout, Harold, and Sprout, Margaret. Toward a Politics of the Planet Earth. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971. Spurr, Stephen H. Academic Degree Structures: Innovative Approaches. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1970. Stedman, Murray S., Jr., ed. Modernizing American Government. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall ■ , Inc •, I96S. Stowizh, Gerald, and Lerner, Ralph, eds. Readings in American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959. Strum, Philippa, and Shmidman, Michael. On Studying Political Science. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear, 19o9. Thomas, Russell. The Search for a Common Learning: General Education. 1306-1966JNew York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1962. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 13d. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. 1SS Thornton, James W. The Community Junior College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Tinder, Glenn. Political Thinking. Boston: Little Brown, 1970. Trent, James W., and Medsker, Leland L. Bevond High School. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 196S. Tussman, Joseph. Experiment at Berkeley. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. Watson, Richard A. Promise and Performance of American Democracy. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1972. Westin, Alan F., ed. The Centers of Power - 3 Cases in American National Government. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 19o4. White, Theodore H. The Making of the President I960. New York: Atheneum, 1961. White, Theodore H. The Making of the President 1964. New York: Signet, 1965. White, Theodore H. The Making of the President 1965. New York: Pobket Books, 1969. Whitehead, Alfred North. The Aims of Education. New York: Mentor, 1929. Wildavsky, Aaron, and Polsby, Nelson, eds. American Governmental Institutions. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968. Wilson, Logan. The Academic Man: A Study in the Sociology of a Profession. New York: Oxford University Press, 1952. Wise, Sidney, ed. Issues 66-67. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1966. Woll, Peter, ed. American Government— Readings and Cases. Boston: Little Brown, 1969. Yinger, Jon Anthony, and Zaharopoulos, George K. United States Government and Politics. San Francisco, California: Chandler, 1969. 139 143. Young, Roland, ed. Approaches to the Study of Politics. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1953. tlaumalg 149* Arrowsmith, William. "The Future of Teaching, the Molding of Men." The Journal of Higher Education. XXXVIII (1967), 136-141. 150. Baker, Earl M. "The Political Science Profession in 1970: Basic Characteristics." PS, IV (1971)> 33-39. 151. Baker, Kendall L., Hajjar, Sami G., and Schenker, Alan Evan. "A Note on Behavioralists and Post- Behavioralists in Contemporary Political Science." PS, V (1972), 270-271. 152. Benjamin, Gerald. "Teaching Notes on Making Teaching »U.’» PS, IV (1971), 41-47. 153. Bane, Mary Jo, and Jencks, Christopher. "The Schools and Equal Opportunity." Saturday Review. LV (1972), 37-42. 154. Bowen, Howard. "Liberal Education in the Complex University: An Introduction." Educational Record. L (1969), 76-100. 155. Chapman, James L. "Three Programs in General Educ at ion." The Journal of General Education, XX (1963), 29-45. 156. Christ-Janer, Albert F. "Approaches to Curricular Revision." The Journal of General Education. XIX (1967), 71-63. 157. Cooley, William W.3 and Becker, Samuel J. "The Junior College Student." Personnel and Guidance Journal. XLIV (1966), 464-45^ 153. Corcoran, Thomas B. "Community Colleges: The Coming Slums of Higher Education?" Change. IV (1972), 30-35. 159. Cross, K. Patricia. "High Education’s Newest Student." Junior College Journal. XXXIX (1963), 36-42. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 163. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 190 Gross, K. Patricia. "The New Learners." Change. V (1973), 31-34. Cross, K. Patricia. "New Students of the '70's." The Research Reporter. The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education. Berkeley: The University of California, VI (1971), 1-5* Easton, David. "The New Revolution in Political Science." The American Political Science Review. LXIII (1969), 1051-1065. Eble, Kenneth A. "A New Program for General Education." Educational Record. L (1969), 200- 205. Edwards, Scott. "An Academic Chairman Looks at Governance." Change. IV (1972), 24-29. Fein, Leonard J. "Teaching Political Science." PS, II (1969), 303-307. Hadley, Charles D. "Teaching Political Scientists: The Centrality of Research." PS, V (1972), 262- 270. Humphreys, Lloyd G. "Transfer of Training in General Education." The Journal of General Education. V (1951), 210-216. Ikenberry, Stanley 0. "The Academy and General Education." The Journal of General Education. XXIII (1971), 175-189. Lowi, Theodore J. "American Government, 1933-1963: Fission and Confusion in Theory and Research." The American Political Science Review. LVIII (1964)7589-599. Marland, Sidney P. "Accountability in Education." Teachers College Record. LXXIII (1972), 339-345. Mayhew, Lewis B. "The Liberal Arts and the Changing Structure of Higher Education." Liberal Education. LI (1965), 366-378. McGrath, Earl J. "Bring Back General Education!" Change. IV (1972), S-9. Miller, Eugene F. "Positivism, Historicism, and Political Inquiry." The American Political 174. 175. 176. 177. 176 • 179. ISO. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 191 Science Review. LXVI (1972), 796-317. Morison, Robert S. "Some Aspects of Policy-Making in the American University." Daedalus. XCIX (1972), 609-644. Nelson-Jones, Richard. "Recent Trends in General Education.” The Journal of Higher Education. XXXII (1963), 332-335. Parente, William, McCleery, Mickey. "Campus Radicalism and a Relevant Political Science." The Journal of Higher Education. XXXIX (1963), _ g _ Purcell, John M. "A Liberal Education in the United States." The Journal of General Education. XXIII (1971), 55-63. Rogow, Arnold. "A Short Note on U and Non-U in Political Science." Western Political Quarterly. XIII (1961), 1064-1065T Shoben, Edward J., Jr. "The Liberal Arts and Contemporary Society." Liberal Education. LVI (1970), 23-33. Smith, David Horton. "Defining General Education: Relativity, Breadth, Integration, Fruitfulness, and Individuality." The Journal of General Education. XXII (1970), 153-l6l. Smith, David Horton. "General Education After the Academic Revolution." The Journal of General Education. XXII (1971), 231-233. Van Dyne, Larry A. "Big Effort Urged to Train Staff for Nation's Community Colleges." The Chronicle of Higher Education. VII (1972), 1-4. Vallance, Theodore R. "The Guiding Assumptions of Liberal Arts Programming." The Journal of Higher Education. XXXIII (1963), l3l-190. Walker, Kevin R. "Problems in General Education in State-Supported Colleges." The Journal of General Education. XIII (1961), 123-1447 Weidlein, Edward R. "'Relevance' Is Pressed in Poli Sci." The Chronicle of Higher Education. VII (1972), 5. 192 136. 137. 133. 139. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. Weisinger, Harold. "In Criticism of General Education." The Journal of General Education. XV (1963), 161-174. Reports and Pamphlets American Council on Education. Accredited Institutions of Higher Education. 1970-1971. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1970. Astin, Alexander W., Panos, Robert J., and Craeger, James A. "National Norms for Entering College Freshman - Fall 1966." ACE Research Reports. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967. Baird, Leonard L. "Family Income and the Characteristics of College-Bound Students." ACT Research Reports, Iowa City: American College Testing Program, 1967* Board of Governors California Community Colleges. "Interim Legislative Report, August 31, 1972." Sacramento, California, 1972. Buchanan, William, Adams, Russell L., Daniels, William J., Earle, Valerie A., Fleming, Jr., Theodore B., Havard, William C., Huckshorn, Robert J., and Orgonski, A.F.K. "Conceptual Analysis: Report of the APSA Committee on Undergraduate Instruction." PS, (1970) 35. California Administrative Code. "California Community Colleges." Title 5, Chapter 7. Sacramento, California, n.d. 619-620, 620.1 and 620.2. California Community Colleges Bulletin. "State Board Members Consider Proposal on Mandated Courses." September, 1971, p. 1. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. The Open Door Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970. Knoell, Dorothy M., and Medsker, Leland L. Articulation Between Two-Year and Four-Year Colleges. US0E Cooperative Research Project No. 21o7. Berkeley: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of 196. 197. 196. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 20$ . 193 California, 1964. Marland, Sidney P., Jr. What Is Career Education? Washington* D.C.: Council for Basic Education, 1973. Richards, James M., Jr., and Braskamp, Lloyd A. "Who Goes Where to Junior College?" ACT Research Reports. Iowa City: American College Testing Program, 1967. Wood, Lynn, and Wilson, Robert C. "Teachers with Impact." The Research Reporter. VII, 1-4. Berkeley: The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, University of California, 1972. Unpublished Materials Guichard, Gus. Letter of June 13, 1972. Sacramento, California, Office of the Chancellor, California Community Colleges. Porter, Samuel T. "Attitudes of Selected California Community Junior College Faculty Toward Student-Centered and Intellectually-Centered Concepts of General Education." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971. Smith, Jr., William P. Letter dated October 20, 1972. Sacramento, California, Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, Inc. California Community College Catalogs College of Alameda. College of Alameda 1972-73 Catalog. Alameda, California, 1972. American River College. American River College 1971-72 Catalog. Sacramento, California, 1971. Antelope Valley College. Antelope Valiev College 1972-73 Catalog. Lancaster, California, 1972. Bakersfield College. Bakersfield College Catalog 1972-73. Bakersfield, California, 1972. 194 206. Barstow College. Barstow College Catalog 1972-73. Barstow, California, 1972. 207. Butte Community College. Butte Community College Catalog 1972-73. Durham, California, 1972. 20S. Cabrillo College. Cabrillo College Catalog 1972-73. Aptos, California, 1972. 209. Canada College. Canada College Catalog 1972-73. Redwood City, California, 1972. 210. College of the Canyons. College of the Canyons Catalog 1972-73. Valencia, California, 1972. 211. Cerritos College. Cerritos College Catalog 1972-73. Norwalk, California, 1972. 212. Chabot College. Chabot College Catalog 1972-73. Hayward, California, 1972. 213. Chaffey College. Chaffev College Catalog 1972-73. Alta Loma, California, 1972. 214. Citrus College. Citrus College Catalog 1972-73. Azusa, California, 1972. 215. Coalinga College. Coalinga College Bulletin 196S-69. Coalinga, California, 1963• 216. Columbia Junior College. Columbia Junior College Catalog 1972-73. Columbia, California, 1972. 217. Compton College. Compton College Catalog 1971-73. Compton, California, 1971- 2lS. Contra Costa College. Contra Costa College Catalog 1971-72. San Pablo, California, 1971* 219. Crafton Hills College. Crafton Hills College Catalog 1972-73. Yucaipa, California, 1972. 220. Cuesta College. Cuesta College Catalog. San Luis Obispo, California, 1972. 221. Cypress College. General Catalog and Announcement of Courses 1971-72. Cypress, California, 1972. 222. De Anza College. De Anza College Catalog. Cupertino, California, 1972. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 226. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 236. 195 College of the Desert. Catalog and Announcement of Courses. Palm Desert, California, 1972. Diablo Valley College. Diablo Valiev College Catalog. Pleasant Hill, California, 1972. East Los Angeles College. East Los Angeles College General Catalog. 72-73. Los Angeles, California, 1972. El Camino College. El Camino College Catalog, 1972-73. Torrance, California, 1972. Feather River College. Feather River College Catalog. 1972-73. Quincy, California, 1972. Foothill College. Foothill College Catalog 1972-73. Los Altos, California, 1972. Fresno City College. Fresno City College Catalog. 1972-73. Fresno, California, 1972. Fullerton Junior College. Fullerton Junior College Catalog. Fullerton, California, 1972. Gavilan College. Gavilan College 1972-73 Catalog. Gavilan, California, 1972. Glendale College. Glendale College Catalog. 1972-73. Glendale, California, 1972. Golden West College. Golden West College Catalog 72-73. Huntington Beach, California, 1972. Grossmont College. Grossmont College Catalog and Announcement Academic Year 1972-73. El Cajon, California, 1972• Grove Street College. Grove Street College Catalog 1972-73. Oakland, California, 1972. Allan Hancock College. Allan Hancock College Catalog of Information and Courses. 1971-72. Santa Maria, California, 1971* Hartnell College. Hartnell College Catalog 1971-72. Salinas, California, 1971. Imperial Valley College. Imperial Valiev College General Catalog 1972-73. Imperial, California, 1972. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 24$. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 196 Indian Valley College. Indian Valiev College Catalog 1972-73. Novato, California, 1972. Laney College. Lanev College Catalog 1972-73. Oakland, California, 1972. Lassen College. Lassen College 1972-73 Catalog. Susanville, California, 1972. Long Beach City College. Long Beach City College Catalog 1972-73. Long Beach, California, 1972. Los Angeles City College. Los Angeles City College Catalog 1972-74. Los Angeles, California, 1972. Los Angeles Harbor College. Los Angeles Harbor General Catalog 1972-73. Wilmington, California, 1972. Los Angeles Trade Technical College. Los Angeles Trade Technical College Catalog 1971-72. Los Angeles, California, 1971. Los Angeles Valley College. Los Angeles Valiev College Catalog 1972-73. Van Nuys, California, 1972. College of Marin. College of Marin Catalog 1972-73. Kentfield, California, 1972. Merced College. Merced College Catalog 1972-73. Merced, California, 1972. Merritt College. Merritt College Catalog 1972-73. Oakland, California, 1972. Mira Costa College. Mira Costa College Catalog 1972-73♦ Oceanside, California, 1972. Modesto Junior College. Modesto Junior College Catalog. Modesto, California, 1972. Monterey Penninsula College. Monterey Penninsula College Catalog 1972-73. Monterey, California, 1972. Moorpark College. Moorpark College Catalog 1972-73. Mo orpark, California, 1972. Mount San Antonio College. Mount San Antonio College Catalog 1972-73. Walnut, California, 256. 257. 256. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 197 1972. Napa College. Napa College Almanac and Survival Manual 1972-73. Napa, California, 1972. Ohlone College. Ohlone College Catalog 1972-73. Fremont, California, 1972. Orange Coast College. Orange Coast College Catalog 1972-73. Costa Mesa, California, 1972. Palomar College. Palomar College Catalog 1972-73. San Marcos, California, 1972. Palo Verde College. Palo Verde College Catalog 1972-73. Blythe, California. Pasadena City College. Bulletin of Pasadena City College. April 1972. Pasadena, California, 1972. Pierce College. Pierce College Catalog 1972-73. Woodland Hills, California, 1972. Porterville College. Porterville College General Catalog 72-73. Porterville, California, 1972. College of the Redwoods. College of the Redwoods Catalog 1972-73. Eureke, California, 1972. Reedley College. Reedlev College Catalog 1972-73. Reedley, California, 1972. Rio Hondo College. Rio Hondo College Catalog 1972- 73. Whittier, California, 1972. Riverside City College. Riverside City College Catalog 1972-73. Riverside, California, 1972. Sacramento City College. The General Catalog Edition of Sacramento City College for the Academic Year 1972-73. Sacramento, California, 1972. Saddleback College. Saddleback College Catalog and Announcement of Courses 1972-73. Mission Viejo, California, 1972. San Bernardino Valley College. San Bernardino Valiev College Catalog. 1971-72. San Bernardino, California, 1971. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 273. 279. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 193 San Diego City College. San Diego City College Catalog. 1972-73. San Diego, California, 1972. San Diego Evening College. San Diego Evening College Catalog. 1972-73. San Diego, California, 1972. San Diego Mesa College. San Diego Mesa College Catalog. 1972-73. San Diego, California, 1972. City College of San Francisco. City College of San Francisco General Catalog 1971-72. San Francisco, California, 1971. San Joaquin Delta College. San Joaquin Delta College Catalog. 72-73. Stockton, California, 1972. San Jose City College. San Jose City College 1972- 73 Catalog. San Jose, California, 1972. College of San Mateo. College of San Mateo 1972-73 Catalog. San Mateo, California, 1972. Santa Ana College. Santa Ana College General Information and Announcement of Courses 1972-73. Santa Ana, California, 1972. Santa Barbara City College. Santa Barbara City College Catalog 1972-73. Santa Barbara, California, 1972. Santa Monica College. Santa Monica College Catalog 1972-73. Santa Monica, California, 1972. Santa Rosa Junior College. Santa Rosa Junior College Catalog 1971-73. "Santa Rosa, California, 1971* College of the Sequoias. College of the Sequoias 1972-73 General Catalog. Visalia, California, 1972. Shasta College. Shasta College Catalog. 1972-73. Redding, California, 1972. Sierra College. Sierra College Catalog 1972-73. Rocklin, California, 1972. College of the Siskiyous. College of the Siskivous Catalog 1972-73. Weed, California, 1972. 236. 237. 233. 239. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 199 Skyline College. Skyline College Catalog 1972-73. San Bruno, California, 1972. Solano Community College. Solano Community College 1971-72 Bulletin. Suisun City, California, 1971. Southwestern College. Southwestern College Catalog 1972-73. Chula Vista, California, 1972. Taft Coilege. Taft College Catalog 1970-72. Taft, California, 1970. Ventura College. Ventura College Catalog 1972-73. Ventura, California, 1972. Victor Valley College. Victor Valiev College Catalog 1972-73. Victorville, California, 1972. West Hills College. West Hills College Catalog 1972-73. Coalinga, California, 1972. West Los Angeles College. West Los Angeles College Catalog 1972-73. Culver City, California, 1972. West Valley College. West Valiev College Catalog 1972-73. Campbell, California, 1972. Yuba College. Yuba College Catalog 1972-73. Marysville, California, 1972. APPENDIX 200 MEMBERS OF THE JURY 201 1. Dr. Charles G. Bell, Ph.D. (Political Science, University of Southern California), Chairman, Political Science, California State University at Fullerton 2. Dr. John H. Cashin, Ed.D. (Education, University of Southern California), Instructor, Political Science, El Camino College 3. Dr. Wallace F. Cohen, Ed.D. (Education, University of Southern California), Vice President, Instruction, El Camino College 4. Dr. Robert F. Galbreath, Ph.D. (International Relations, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy), Instructor, Political Science, Cypress College 5. Dr. William H. Klaustermeyer, Ph.D. (History, Stanford University), Social Science Division Chairman, Fullerton College 6. Dr. James A. Phillips, Ph.D. (Education, University of Southern California), Instructor, Economics, Cypress College 7. Dr. Carl Schwarz, Ph.D. (Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara), Instructor, Political Science, Fullerton College S. Dr. Donald Singer, Ph.D. (Education, University of Southern California), Vice President of Academic Affairs, Southwestern College 9. Dr. K. Larry Tomlinson, Ed.D. (Social Science, Ball State University), Assistant Professor of Government, Idaho State University

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Use Of Masterpieces Of World Literature In California Public Community Colleges: A Study In Purposes And Trends

PDF

A Study Of Freshman Orientation Programs Of Selected Southern California Community Colleges

PDF

A California Community College Student Government Model Based On Defined Constituencies

PDF

English Programs In Selected Two-Year Community Colleges, Private Liberalarts Colleges, And State Colleges In California

PDF

The Doctor Of Arts Degree: Its Role And Status In Graduate Education

PDF

A Proposed Model For Predicting Success In A First Course Of College Calculus In The Community Junior College

PDF

Religious Studies In California Public Higher Education With Special Reference To Community Colleges

PDF

Changes In The Education Of Roman Catholic Religious Sisters In The United States From 1952 To 1967

PDF

A Study Of Church-Sponsored Programs Adjacent To Selected Colleges And Universities

PDF

Educational Programs For Physically Handicapped Students In California Community Colleges

PDF

An Analysis Of The Campus Environment Of A Church-Related Liberal Arts College, With Student Enrollment Implications

PDF

Chief administrators of community service programs in California public community colleges

PDF

Higher Education In The Republic Of China (Taiwan)

PDF

Higher Education Programs For American Indians At Selected Southwestern Colleges And Universities

PDF

Perceived student role effectiveness in the governance process at three selected state colleges

PDF

A Suggested Journalism Curriculum For California Junior Colleges

PDF

The Impact On Community College Students Of An Orientation Course Emphasizing The Nature, Functions, And Purposes Of Higher Education

PDF

A Study Of Fringe Benefits For Full-Time Faculty In Bible Colleges

PDF

The Effectiveness Of Remedial Arithmetic Courses In Three Selected California Community Colleges As Measured By Improvement In Arithmetic Skills And Attitudes Toward Mathematics

PDF

A cues assessment of the perceived environment of a small church related liberal arts college by the various groups pertinent to its life

Asset Metadata

Creator Reichman, Louis Charles (author)

Core Title Political Science And General Education In California'S Community Colleges: A Study In Compatibility

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, general,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee chair), Grafton, Clive L. (committee member), Kooker, Arthur R. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-866917

Unique identifier UC11364223

Identifier 7331665.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-866917 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7331665

Dmrecord 866917

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Reichman, Louis Charles

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA