Edward A Gallagher. Michigan Academician. Volume 33, Issue 3, Fall 2001.
By 1930, California had established an educational network providing a variety of opportunities for youths and adults. The most distinguishing feature of this network consisted of forty-six junior colleges, thirty-three of them public. The Great Depression caused educators to broaden their thinking about the purposes and functions of junior colleges, emphasizing “community needs.” Adult education was discussed increasingly by junior college educators when “youthful idlers,” unable to find jobs, were being admitted back into high schools and junior colleges. Two-year institutions needed to devote more finances to vocational/technical programs, but less money was available.
The California junior colleges were devoted to expanding educational opportunities, but there was growing opposition to them from major taxpayers—utilities, banks, insurance companies, large farmers, the State Chamber of Commerce, and the California Taxpayers Association. Opponents argued that there was too much duplication in courses offered at universities, teachers’ colleges, and junior colleges. Some critics wanted to end vocational/technical programs and adult education while others wanted to abolish the colleges altogether.
The California Teachers Association built a coalition to protect the junior colleges during the Great Depression. It included a university president, California Progressives, some labor leaders, New Deal Democrats, and several civic organizations. They were able to defend the organization, curriculum, and financing of the junior colleges against great odds, including conservative governments. While the Socialist writer Upton Sinclair failed to win the governorship in 1934, his End Poverty in California movement aided the cause of tax reform. Tax reform enabled California junior colleges to have the financial backing to become comprehensive community colleges with vocational technical programs, adult education, and community services. After World War II, community junior colleges became models for two-year institutions in other states. The Great Depression was a blessing in disguise to California junior colleges because the political events of the period resulted in a diversified funding base that supported California’s evolving education system.
Could California Afford Junior Colleges?
Before the Depression, one of the most serious problems faced by California junior colleges was inadequate funds. Under the 1929 Junior College Law, district-type schools received $2,000 plus $100 per student based on average daily attendance. The junior college district financed all additional costs. The extended high school-type junior college received $30 per student from the state and $60 from its local county with the school district assuming additional obligations. About 75 percent of all public junior college students attended district-type schools. A provision of the 1931 Junior College Law permitted the governing board of a junior college district to levy a tax of up to 20 cents on each $100 of assessed property valuation in the district to support junior colleges. Thus, financing public junior colleges in California was primarily a local responsibility rather than a state obligation. As property values declined during the Great Depression, junior college finances decreased.
How could California junior colleges continue to meet “community needs” with limited funds? According to big business spokesmen, community needs were best met by the tax relief and educational retrenchment. The California Taxpayers Association referred to the expansion of education in the state since 1900 as an “orgy.” Expansion “has been in progress from kindergarten to junior college, the increase of costs in each case being out of proportion to the increase in population or the increase in taxable wealth of the state.” While there had been cutbacks in industry and agriculture due to the economic decline, there were few corresponding cuts in California education. The Taxpayer Association suggested large cuts and the elimination of adult education and vocational-technical courses: “The whole progress of vocational education is a fearsome one and if not given careful consideration in the next decade will either bankrupt the communities that are carrying it on or else handicap the regular educational program.” Both adult education and vocational-technical programs were considered to be contributing to higher costs. “The question arises as to how far society is obligated to make up to its citizens for the handicaps of their youth, probably incurred in other states.” A sound junior college was an institution where “there will probably be little variation from the narrow traditional curriculum.” This criticism of the California junior college was “not only because of its cost but because its educational value is questioned.”
The Taxpayers Association, largely financed by utilities, the Southern Pacific Railroad, insurance companies, large banks, and the State Chamber of Commerce, attempted to divide educators by appealing to the President of the University of California for support. Knowing that former President Barrows had lobbied against the 1921 Junior College Law, the Taxpayers Association wrote a series of letters to University of California President Robert Sproul urging him to join in a campaign to curtail California junior colleges. The head of the taxpayer organization sent two hundred copies of a report to Sproul with a letter stating that “it is much better to continue to throw our support to the University of California than it is to spread ourselves so thin over many smallerilly supported institutions that will necessarily have to gain their support at the expense of the University of California.” The taxpayer spokesperson repeatedly stressed that continued support for the junior colleges could only continue at the expense of the University. “I think I have repeatedly called the attention of you and Dr. Campbell to the very great danger that the University is confronted with in the growth of the Junior and Teachers’ Colleges throughout the state.”
But President Sproul had no intention of joining the big business-Taxpayers Association alliance against the junior colleges. In fact, he went out of his way to praise junior colleges. He was aware that 60 to 70 percent of all junior college transfers to the University of California were graduated. And 27 percent of the Berkeley students admitted to Phi Beta Kappa membership were junior college transfers. Furthermore, President Sproul noted that the taxpayer data on junior college costs failed to reveal an adequate understanding of junior college financial problems. As the junior colleges grew, the costs per student declined. Ultimately, it would cost less to educate students in a junior college than in other schools. California junior college leaders of the Southern California Junior College Association elected Sproul an honorary member because they appreciated “very much the unfailing support and cooperation they have received from [him] as a university educator.”
Governor Rolph Versus the Junior Colleges
Probably the most serious threat to the California junior colleges came from James Rolph who defeated Clement C. Young in the 1930 gubernatorial election. As the Great Depression deepened, Rolph grew closer to the coalition of big business, the California State Chamber of Commerce, and the Taxpayers Association. He advocated a reduction in fixed costs in the state government budget—including the $58.4 million for high schools and junior colleges.
Many businessmen, especially noncollege graduates, frowned on college attendance—especially at junior colleges. They believed that all but the brightest high school students should seek employment after graduation rather than more formal education. While the governor made few public statements on education, he indicated that “all comparatively useless subjects should be eliminated from the curricula of the elementary and high schools.” Rolph was particularly critical of what he called … the overlapping of services by various groups of educational institutions. This overlapping has been brought about by the growth of the junior colleges, the addition of a fourth year to the courses in the Teachers’ College, and the expansion of the State University.”
Governor Rolph and his conservative allies in the California legislature vowed not to increase taxes as an alternative to cuts in government expenditures. He labeled all proposals to increase taxes as “soak-the-rich” and “socialist” schemes. While Rolph signed a bill increasing the sales tax, he vetoed an income tax bill and condemned any person suggesting corporation tax increases as an “enemy of the people.” Rolph’s actions made budget cuts appear necessary, but educators were determined to prevent them.
The California Junior College Federation had been organized in 1929 to encourage junior colleges to become more community-oriented in carrying out their functions. The most frequently discussed topics at Federation meetings were semiprofessional education, guidance, adult education, and legislation. Grace V. Bird, first female head of a California junior college and second president of the California Junior College Federation, noted that calling junior colleges “community colleges” was discussed at annual meetings before 1930, but was opposed by California communities with “fairly large populations of right-wingers.” Such persons thought the word “community” suggested “communism” and therefore was vigorously denounced. The California Junior College Federation worked closely with the State Congress of Parents and Teachers, the League of Women Voters, business and professional women’s clubs, the California Federation of Women’s Clubs, the American Legion, and the California Teachers Association, lobbying state legislators to protect junior college interests.
This education coalition succeeded in defending California schools from nearly three hundred hostile bills. Some of the bills would have reduced or eliminated state financial support and thrown the whole tax burden for junior colleges on the local school districts. Other bills would have abolished kindergarten, vocational education, and adult education. Still other bills would have required tuition in the junior colleges as well as limit their functions. These anti-junior college bills were openly supported by the State Chamber of Commerce, the California Taxpayers Association, and Governor Rolph’s Director of Finance.
Rather than just defend education, the leaders of the California Teachers Association went on the attack against big business, arguing that there are not as “many empty school rooms as there are offices [nor] as many unnecessary school buildings as there are idle factories, the result of over-expansion and unwise management in good times.” The California Teachers Association stated: “These attackers of the schools should set their own houses in order and not attempt to divert public attention from themselves and their own stupid management of business….” To the assertion that schools were teaching useless subjects with numerous fads and frills, the California Teachers Association leadership responded that business and industry were far more guilty of that: “Have they not produced goods for which there is no market and other goods at a cost in excess of values? Are there not tremendously more of stocks and bonds of no value than there are of subjects in the curriculum of no or little value?”
The State Chamber of Commerce complained to conservative state legislators about the “aggressive” tactics of the “education lobbying” in defeating efforts toward greater school efficiency. “Businessmen have been intimidated and driven through fear to a point where they are afraid to take a stand on school economies; as boycotts are threatened and in some cases have actually been applied.., it is time businessmen and taxpayers rally in support of a movement to combat the vicious tactics … [of] the school lobby.”
Prospects for Fairness in Taxation
A growing concern for local government and school officials was the increasing difficulty that businessmen and homeowners had paying their property taxes. In 1932, downtown Los Angeles merchants and manufacturers stormed the office of the County Board of Supervisors and got tax reductions. Similarly, Oakland business merchants complained, and the city assessor responded by assessing business property values in the city at a fraction of their real value. California homeowners, on the other hand, were defaulting at a rate of 13 percent in 1933. Property values declined over 35 percent during the early thirties, and continued to do so until 1935.
A group of older Progressive Republicans and liberal Democrats believed that public utilities, banks, and oil companies received the most favorable tax treatment in California. Progressive Republican senator Herbert C. Jones led the movement to raise state taxes on large corporations. Jones served twenty years in the California senate and in the 1914 election he received more votes from socialists than the Socialist Party candidate. He was the junior college leaders’ best friend in the legislature, as the prime mover in the passage of the 1921 Junior College Law. He was also a leader in organizing the Progressive Voters League that defeated the Conservative Republican governor Richardson in 1926. Jones continued to denounce the big business coalition attack on the schools throughout the Great Depression, working closely with the leaders of the California Teachers Association. Willard Givens, president of the CTA, encouraged the Progressive Republican to seek the governorship in 1934, but Jones was hesitant. He had alienated Southern Californian businessmen over the years, and his wife threatened to divorce him if he ran.
Unable to draft Senator Jones, the California Teachers Association remained undecided regarding whom to support for governor in 1934. The 1933 legislature session was most difficult for educators because of the onslaught of tax reduction bills. Most of their energies were devoted to letter-writing campaigns, sending telegrams, and making personal visits to legislators’ offices. Among legislators, no one worked harder to defeat anti-education bills than Senator Jones. In an essay appearing in several education publications, Jones attacked the taxpayer coalition which “aimed to take control of school budgets from Boards of Education and turn them over to non-educational political groups such as Boards of Supervisors.” Moreover, the coalition “proposed to close up whole departments of our schools, or put them on the fee basis, charging heavy tuition, first in Teachers Colleges, then in the junior colleges and finally in high schools.” Jones and other Progressives took great pride in the construction of California’s education system whereby about 20 percent of California’s college-age population attended a higher educational institution, more than double the national average.
Socialists to the Rescue: Upton Sinclair and the Epic Program
On most issues Governor James Rolph, Jr. appeared to be a committed “reactionary.” He cut budgets drastically, vetoed an income tax bill, but signed a bill providing a sales tax. He unsuccessfully attempted to return relief and other government services to counties and other local government units already bankrupt because of their reliance on the property tax. Rolph alienated so many suffering Californians that in 1933 a statewide movement attempted to recall him. While the political efforts to change governors failed, the stresses of the office succeeded, as Rolph died of cardiac arrest in June 1934. He was succeeded by Lieutenant Governor Frank Merriam, another conservative Republican, who was expected to oppose all progressive and New Deal proposals. Progressive Republicans had fought against conservative Republicans throughout the 1920s and now once more they had to support a conservative or desert the party. Chester Rowell, a progressive and junior college supporter, had argued ardently against Merriam’s nomination as Republican candidate for governor. He stated that “Merriam’s whole record, and the lack of it will be flung at him constantly. Some of that record is bad; much of it is negative, and all of it is reactionary….” Rowell stated that “Merriam was so anti-union he thought strikes might justify shooting pickets.” Finally, Rowell feared that Merriam “would appoint Southern California pinheads to the Regents.” Eventually Rowell would support Merriam, but only after teaming with his friend Herbert Hoover in writing a moderate reform platform and demanding that Merriam campaign on it.
The Democrats failed to take advantage of the split among Republican ranks when they selected Upton Sinclair who had unsuccessfully run twice before as a socialist candidate for governor. A widely read novelist and radical pamphleteer; Sinclair had decided to run as a Democrat, shocking the party regulars with his upset primary victory. The miseries of the great Depression made many people hostile toward business leadership and conventional politicians with their pleas for patience. Sinclair claimed that his election would “End Poverty in California,” a slogan abbreviated to the EPIC program. Sinclair had published a brief book, I, Governor of California, and How I Ended Poverty: A True Story of the Future, prior to his filing as a candidate in the Democratic primary election. Sinclair advocated a number of proposals favored by Progressives and New Deal Democrats such as abolishing the sales tax, initiating a state income tax, increasing the state inheritance tax, increasing taxes on public utility corporations and banks, and eliminating taxes on all homes assessed at less than three thousands dollars. The California Teachers Association (CTA) had unsuccessfully proposed most of these ideas earlier to better finance the anticipated growth of California higher education. The EPIC proposals, however, went beyond the CTA as the graduated income tax would rise to 30 percent on incomes over $50,000, and the graduated inheritance tax would rise to 50 percent on all estates of about $50,000. Even more “radical” was Sinclair’s proposal for state land colonies and self-sufficient factories where the unemployed might operate them independent of the capitalist order. A state tax on all “unused” lands and a $300 million bond proposal would finance the state acquisition of land and closed industrial plants. Conservative Democrats and Republicans called the EPIC program a Bolshevik plot to destroy the California economy while communists declared it to be a “sell out” to save the capitalist order. Actually, it was largely a utopian scheme in a state noted for dreamers. Sinclair’s proposals had considerable attraction for the unemployed, the underemployed, the dispossessed, and the growing ranks of the poor; united by a growing disillusionment with government inaction.
The business community was effectively united against the election of Upton Sinclair for California governor. It raised enormous funds for advertising designed to portray Sinclair as a “quack.” The campaign against Sinclair would change from week to week. A blackout of EPIC activities would be followed by Ridicule Sinclair Week, Distort EPIC Week, Sidetrack Sinclair Week, Minimize Sinclair Week, and Discredit Sinclair Week. Newspaper ads, billboards, and circulars proclaimed “It’s Merriam or Moscow.” EPIC was said to be abbreviations for “Elect Parties Indorsing Communism,” “End Pleasure in California,” and “Empty Promises in California.” EPIC was dubbed a “SEPTIC Plan—soak every possible taxpayer in California.” Cartoonists pictured smiling hoboes riding boxcars into the state, expecting “Easy Pickings in California” or singing “California, Here I Bum.” Thousands of billboards across the state featured a distorted quotation of Sinclair saying, “I expect half the unemployed in the U. S. to flock to California if I am elected.”
To offset the superior power of business interest groups in California, Sinclair sought the support of the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Although FDR had earlier announced a “hands-off” policy in “local” elections during a factional conflict among Democrats in New York, Sinclair traveled to Hyde Park to visit the president hoping for some kind of endorsement. While their meeting was amiable, FDR regarded parts of the EPIC plan as “impossible” as a statewide experiment. Furthermore, Democratic Party regulars such as Senator William C. McAdoo, George Creel, J. F. T. O’Connor, and William Jennings Bryan, Jr. discouraged Roosevelt’s support and openly opposed Sinclair and his EPIC program.
Rejecting Sinclair, Democrat O’Connor approached Republican Frank Merriam about making an agreement. In return for Democratic support, the Republican would support certain Democratic goals. Hoping to prevent a possible FDR endorsement of Sinclair close to the 1934 election, Merriam promised support for New Deal objectives and even proclaimed himself “a New Dealer” as his campaign manager, Earl Warren, devised a nonpartisan pre-election strategy. Merriam repeatedly promised to work with New Dealers, Progressive Republicans, and others interested in “responsible” reforms.
Disgruntled Democrats were not the only ones willing to make a bargain with Governor Merriam. Leaders of the California Junior College Federation and the California Teachers Association were as well. As noted earlier, the CTA leadership had tried unsuccessfully to recruit the Progressive Republican state senator, Herbert C. Jones, to seek the governorship. The continuous introduction of “anti-education” bills in the California legislature inspired by a coalition of the State Chamber of Commerce, the California Taxpayers Association, and the California State Department of Finance made education groups determined to ally with the next governor. While educators believed that as governor, Sinclair would resist the retrenchment efforts in the legislature, they did not expect him to be elected. It is noteworthy that, in the year preceding the 1934 election, none of the issues of the Sierra Educational News devoted space to the Sinclair candidacy. Governor Merriam, never a friend of educators in the past, received no attention in the CTA publication either. While the CTA journal remained publicly silent, CTA officials privately met with Merriam expressing a willingness not to endorse Sinclair even though they agreed with most tax reform goals in the EPIC program. Merriam was asked to promise that educational retrenchment in Michigan and in other states would not occur in California. In Michigan, 90 percent of schools had reduced hours, salaries were decreased, humanities programs were eliminated, teaching vacancies were unfilled, and fifteen school districts defaulted on their debts. Merriam assured the CTA leaders he would support increased funding for California schools. A pamphlet was soon widely distributed throughout the state addressed “to the Educators and Teachers” promising to make the welfare of the schools a paramount consideration. Educational opportunities would “not only be maintained at their present high standard but they may reach heights not yet attained.”
The Election of 1934 and Junior College Consequences
Through the initiatives of long-term Progressive Chester Rowell and the emerging Republican moderate Earl Warren, the Republican Party made many concessions to distressed interest groups rather than placate the big business/ Taxpayers Association Coalition. Merriam, a past player in the California conservative tradition, was now portrayed by Republican “handlers” as a pragmatic moderate. The revised Republican Party platform promised unemployment relief, collective bargaining for workers, a reduced workweek, and old-age pensions. General discontent among the California masses and the growing popularity of EPIC socialism made liberalism respectable in California politics.
At Merriam’s inaugural address, he declared that “what we do … will determine whether we can have social justice without socialism.” “We must recognize the fact that unless the causes of radicalism are removed… we shall reap the whirlwind of our own callous… inadequacy.” Consistent with his many campaign promises to distressed groups, the governor acknowledged the need for new tax sources, and he presented a budget to the California legislature requiring $155 million of additional revenue to finance expenditures of $400 million. The California Teachers Association had informed Merriam that the failure to enact tax reform would probably result in closing some high schools while placing others on a five-month academic year. Perhaps twelve hundred primary schools out of three thousand would also be shut down and at least one half of the junior colleges would close.
Education lobbyists approached legislators arguing that a fair system of taxation would levy “upon the citizens of the state in proportion to their respective abilities to pay.” “Probably no tax is fairer or more justifiable from a social standpoint than the inheritance tax…. Properly applied and progressively graduated… it also serves the further social purpose of breaking down to some extent huge accumulations of wealth in the hands of a few individuals and families.” “The personal income tax, with proper exemptions, and appropriately graduated in progressive rate increments, offers the nearest approach to the ideal tax that has yet been devised.” California Teachers Association leaders also stressed the need to raise taxes on corporations.
When Merriam announced his tax program, William Randolph Hearst ordered his newspaper editors to criticize the governor. “I do not think people want a secondhand Sinclair,” they declared. This newspaper smear was a flagrant distortion of the situation.
Actually, Merriam hoped to placate conservative Republicans with a budget emphasis on “fiscal responsibility.” Disappointed with the governor, tax reformers developed their own program. The EPIC Socialist, new Deal Democrat, and the Progressive Republican Coalition in the assembly effectively bargained with Merriam on taxes and government expenditures. The result through numerous compromises, made California more committed to tax “fairness” and support for education and other government services. The new state income tax took only one percent of the adjusted income from low incomes while taking fifteen percent from people earning over $250,000. This graduated state income tax became California’s largest revenue source. The second largest revenue source was the state sales tax, which had been enacted in 1933 to provide support for education and assistance for local government suffering from declining revenues from property taxes. The EPIC Socialists had hoped to repeal the sales tax because of its disproportionate burden on lower income families, but they failed to get the necessary votes in the assembly. California’s third largest source of revenue would come from taxes on banks and corporations. By 1986, the preceding taxes were providing over 91 percent of California’s total state revenue.
Upton Sinclair and the EPIC Campaign helped turn California away from reactionary politics back to its progressive roots. After the 1934 election, the state would have a diversified tax base that would grow as the population and the economy grew. Education and other public services would be better financed—especially junior colleges. Increased finances meant not only the establishment of new junior colleges, but that existing schools could become “community colleges.” Such comprehensive two-year colleges could finance expanded vocational-technical programs, adult education, and community services.
The 1935 tax reform also enabled California junior colleges to be accessible to working class youths and adults as well as to members of middle class families. California community junior colleges remained tuition-free—a distinguishing feature of the state’s two-year college system today. Junior college promoters in other states would visit California in later decades to learn about the most advanced community college system in the nation. Community junior colleges were established nationwide nearly every week during the 1960s, largely inspired by the California model. The financial reform encouraged by the California Teachers Association, and accomplished by the EPIC Socialists, the New Deal Democrats, and the Progressive Republicans, had important consequences for the nation.