First Class Page 8

  Not only were her life’s work and professional reputation on trial, so was Cooper’s reputation. Leading up to the proceedings, rumors spread about the widowed principal having a romantic relationship with a man named John Love, one of her teachers. If that allegation was not damaging enough on its own, what made it worse was that John Love and his sister Lula were two of the foster children Cooper had taken in years earlier. They continued to live with her as young adults, as did four other teachers. Her champions constantly referred to her character and Christian values in a likely effort to neutralize all the rumblings. And while these charges never appeared in any official board of education notes, the rumors had circulated around town. Her credibility had been compromised.

  With all the testimony—rumors, facts, and otherwise—in the ether, the board of education returned its verdict after twelve days of deliberation.

  Monday, October 30, 1905. The Board of Education of the District of Columbia came to its decision. Present that evening were board members Mr. Gordon, Dr. Kingsman, Mrs. West, Mrs. Francis, Mr. Bundy, Mr. Parker, and Dr. Needham. The report read as follows:

  From the Board of Education of the District of Columbia,

  The committee of the whole Board, having heard the testimony of many witnesses regarding the condition in the M Street High School reports as follows:

  1. Bearing in mind that it has been and is the policy of the Board of Education to maintain the M Street High School for colored children at the same grade and with the same standards in every particular as prevail in the other high schools of the District, the committee has examined officers, teachers, and records to ascertain whether this requirement of the Board has been observed. We find that in one instance where a text book on English history had been adopted by the board for all high schools, some of the faculty of the M Street High School, with the consent of the principal, requested and secured a change of this text book and resorted the use of a former one on the ground that it was easier for their students. This was in violation of the action and policy of the Board and should not have been permitted.

  2. We also find that in the year 1903–04 a rule of practice which had prevailed for some time in the Central, Eastern, and Western High Schools, of examining the first year students at about the end of the first quarter to ascertain their qualifications and fitness to continue high school work was put in force in the M Street High School and the same examination required in the other high schools was held. The result of this examination by the teacher of the M Street High School found that about sixteen students were deficient or weak, and that four students were entirely unqualified for the work. Upon this report, the Director of High Schools, with the approval of the Superintendent issued an order which was sent to the principal of the M Street High School in the same form as to the principals of the other high schools, directing the four unqualified pupils be sent back to the grades for further preparation. The principal acknowledged receipt of this communication and replied that she would follow the order, but, on the contrary, she immediately appealed to the colored Assistant Superintendent and to the colored representatives on this board, to have this order revoked on the ground it was a new procedure in the M Street High School and that the parents would be offended to have their children sent back. In response to the appeal, the Superintendent directed that the order be revoked, thus excepting the M Street High School from the operation of a wholesome practice prevailing in the other high schools. We find, first, that the action of the principal in this matter was irregular, improper, and not conductive [sic] to the policy of maintaining the high standard of education work in this school required by the Board; and secondly, that this order to return these four pupils to the grades should not have been revoked; on the contrary, the principal should have promptly put the order in force.

  3. We further find that too large a number of pupils have been kept in the M Street High School who are not qualified to do the work and we cannot agree with the principal in what she terms “sympathetic” methods and conduct on the part of the teachers to enable unqualified pupils to purse studies in the High School. These methods have resulted in too many and too frequent reexaminations of weak students in order to enable them to pass from one grade to another and to graduate, while in a few instances conditions have not been passed as required. We do not believe that this conduct is conducive to the best interest of the child and the race for which the school is maintained. We believe that a fewer number of well qualified students, able to pursue the courses in high school, and a fewer number of well educated graduates, will do more for the reputation of this school and also the race than will a larger number of students and graduates with a considerable portion of the unqualified students among them. We therefore insist that the officers of the Board and the faculty of the M Street High School maintain a proper standard of work, a thorough and discriminating system of grading the students, with no attempt to force students beyond their ability to do the work, and that the practice of frequent reexaminations of students without proper intervals in which to make up their deficiencies be discontinued.

  4. Evidence was presented, showing that on a single occasion two students were presented to the principal for discipline who had been drinking intoxicating liquors and who showed some effects of the intoxicants at the time. These students were disciplined for misconduct in being absent from the school. Later the principal was called upon for a report as to whether there were any drinking habits among the pupils. She reported that she had not been able to find any evidence that such practices prevailed. While it clearly appears that these two students had been drinking, yet we are satisfied that it was a single instance and that there is no ground for the general charge that has been made that there has been drinking among the pupils of this high school; on the contrary, it appears that the students are generally well-behaved, orderly, and studious.

  5. While we criticize the work as set forth, we believe that the principal, Mrs. A. J. Cooper, is a woman of good intellectual attainment, of high moral character, and of excellent reputation among her people. The errors complained of are a result mainly of her too sympathetic feeling or the weak pupils under her care; and while this sentiment may be commended in itself and prevail to some extent in the grades, we are clearly of the opinion that it should not prevail to the prejudice of proper standards of work in a high school. We find that the principal has not maintained that proper official relation, that strict loyalty to the director of high schools that should prevail in a well organized system.

  6. We further find that here is not a proper spirit of unity and loyalty to the work among all the members of the faculty of the M Street High School that should prevail. This want of unity has manifested itself in exaggerated and unfriendly criticism in the interest of and also against the principal. Some teachers have been guilty of writing and instigating articles for the public press tending to create dissatisfaction and disorganization in the work. This disorganization has been extended to the student body and produced some improper conduct on the part of the students.

  7. We further find that as a result of the disinclination of the faculty and officers of the M Street School to enforce the same methods and standards prevailing in the other high schools, the Director and superintendent have yielded in a few instances to these demands, we do not approve of this action. We believe that the Director should continue to keep a close and careful observation of the work in this high school, and strictly maintain the regular standard of work; that the Superintendent should call the faculty and present the conclusion of this report and insist upon unity of effort, loyalty to superiors, and a maintenance of the standards of work prevailing in the other high schools.

  8. The Committee expresses its full confidence in the integrity and conscientious purpose of Mr. Percy M. Hughes, director of high schools, and believe that in all matters pertaining to the M Street High School he has been guided by a sense of his high responsibility as director and with the object of securin
g the best scholarship and discipline in the school; that the superintendent, Mr. Alexander T. Stuart, and the director are in hearty accord with the Board of Education in its policy to maintain the same standards, curriculum, text books, and education work in the M Street High School that prevail in the other three high schools in the District, and we are pleased to say that all the representatives of the colored race who have appeared before the committee concur and have expressed their strong desire that the same standard of work and ratings prevails in the M Street High School that prevail in the other high schools.

  9. In view of all the facts and conclusions and the very strong desire by a large proportion of the colored race in the District to have Mrs. Cooper retained as principal, we recommend her retention with the express direction however that the standard work, the grading of students, and the recommendation of students for graduation be conducted distinctly in accordance with the policy of the Board of Education and the conclusion of this report, and that in her official conduct she shall recognize the authority of her superior officer, the Director of the High Schools, and conform in her office conduct in all respects to the rules of the Board of Education

  10. In conclusion the committee recommends that a strict observance be made of the work in the M Street High School with a view of maintaining the standard of work herein set forth, preventing any improper conduct on the part of the teacher and student to create disaffection, securing a strict observance of that discipline, official recognition of superior officers, and conduct essential to the best and highest education results in this important school, and that stated reports of these observations be made to the Board for proper actions.

  On Motion the Board adjourned to meet on Wednesday, November 8, 1905.

  Safe, but not sound. Anna Julia Cooper kept her job but was put on notice that she would be watched closely. The board of education failed to realize that it too had been watched through this process by both the white and colored communities. Neither group liked what it saw. Cooper’s status didn’t change, but the board’s would.

  Four months later, the same cast of characters—Director Hughes, Superintendent Stuart, Dr. Atwood, and Professor Miller—testified about Cooper and the board of education, only this time they did so in front of a congressional committee. The subject was ostensibly the reorganization of school oversight in light of the havoc that had surrounded the Cooper inquiry. But the discussion returned again and again to M Street. The proceeding was a de facto retrial of Anna Julia Cooper. This time Director Hughes had an audience with more power: congressional representatives who were not from Washington. And his testimony featured a bombshell about the board, its colored members, and Mrs. Cooper.

  MR. HUGHES; Just before the time of graduation last year about middle of June the high school committee one night had laid, I think by Mr. Bundy, a request for a graduation of two whose records were not clear, a Miss Grace Daniels and a boy the name of Jackson. His first name I have forgotten. The committee was ready at that time before it had received full information in the matter to recommend that the diplomas be granted. I suggested that the teachers who had these pupils should be asked as to their records in the subjects taken and the committee determined on that course. The matter was referred to Doctor Montgomery, the colored assistant superintendent of schools. Officially under the rules it should come to me as director of high schools. Doctor Montgomery looked into the matter and then called up over the phone and asked whether the pupils ought to be graduated. I told him I did not think that they should be graduated; that their records were not clear; that the marks were marks showing the judgment of teachers who knew the pupils and that no superior officer or the board of education itself could properly set aside a mark which meant the judgment of the teacher upon the work done. Montgomery nevertheless recommended the graduation of pupils and they were graduated. I at that time protested to superintendent against my having to sign the diplomas which I knew were not earned.

  REP. MORRELL (R-PA): Was that protest made in writing?

  MR. HUGHES: No, not at that time. I finally turned over to the M Street School the unsigned the diplomas. They were given to the graduates the night of graduation in June and after the event they were gotten from the graduates by Mrs. Cooper…. The parents of the students came to the principal of the school who stated to them that the papers did not have all of the signatures upon them and she would secure them. They were left at the Franklin School and I had notice from one of the clerks there that the papers were there awaiting my signature. I told him that I had protested that matter and did not feel I ought to sign those diplomas knowing that they had not been earned. The matter went on until about the 24th or 25th of July I received a statement saying that Mr. Daniel was anxious to secure the diploma of his daughter who had been graduated in the M Street High School and that the board of education ordered that I sign those diplomas. It was then I called upon Mr. Gordon, president of the board of education, and talked the matter over with him and immediately afterwards called upon Mr. Stuart, the superintendent.

  REP. MORRELL: One minute—in what manner were these directions of the board conveyed to you, in writing?

  MR. HUGHES: Yes, sir.

  REP. MORRELL: Have you a copy of that?

  MR. HUGHES: Yes, I have a copy of it.

  REP. MORRELL: Do you mean to tell me that these two pupils whose diplomas you refused to sign stood up or whatever the ceremony is with the other pupils whose diplomas you did sign and were to go through the form, whatever it may be, of graduation? What form have you?

  MR. HUGHES: The graduation last summer took the form of a concerted graduation of the high and normal and manual. The exercises consisted of music, an introductory address by Mr. Washington, and I think presentation of scholarships came in; and then the pupils by schools came up and received their diplomas.

  REP. MORRELL; Whom did they receive those from?

  MR. HUGHES; I am not sure; I think one of the commissioners presented the diplomas.

  REP. MORRELL; Do you mean to say that two unsigned diplomas were, with the knowledge of the board of education and the superintendent of schools, handed to two pupils and by that form they were graduated from the high school?

  MR. HUGHES; Not with the knowledge of the board so far as at that time Mr. Stuart the superintendent was aware of it. I had given up the diplomas without the signatures after conference with him. His position was—

  REP. MORRELL; How long before graduation did you refuse to sign diplomas?

  MR. HUGHES; I think perhaps three or four days.

  REP. MORRELL; Three or four days.

  MR. HUGHES; I think perhaps that time elapsed between my talking with Mr. Stuart and the time they were graduated.

  REP. MORRELL [addressing Superintendent Stuart]: Mr. Stuart, I would like to ask you after the conversation you had with Mr. Hughes. Did you immediately notify the school board?

  MR. STUART; Do you refer to Mr. Hughes’s protest?

  REP. MORRELL; Yes.

  MR. STUART; That of course I transmitted.

  REP. MORRELL; You transmitted that at once?

  MR. STUART; At once, oh yes.

  REP. MORRELL; Then the board must have been aware that those pupils did not have signed certificates if they knew that those pupils were to go through the form of graduation and you transmitted that information to them at once.

  MR. STUART; Yes, sir.

  REP. MORRELL; There is no other conclusion that I can see. May I ask that connection by whose orders those pupils who did not receive signed certificates took their place among the other pupils who were properly graduated?

  MR. HUGHES: I presume that Mrs. Cooper simply assumed they were to have the diplomas. They were properly in line with others.

  REP. MORRELL: How could she assume that was so?

  MR. HUGHES: She knew the board of education had acted upon and granted these diplomas.

  REP. MORRELL: In spite of …

  MR. HUGHES: Not in spi
te of my official protest at that time for it had not come to me it had passed through the hands of Dr. Montgomery. I was passed over and Doctor Montgomery was given the whole case to investigate and report upon and he reported with the recommendation that these pupils should graduate.

  It became clear that Hughes’s crushing description of an inept board and a sneaky group of colored educators would go unchallenged in the permanent government record. Cooper’s supporters tried to course correct. Even Dr. O. M. Atwood came around and realized that colored schools and their educators were treated inequitably. He tried to engage a congressman on the issue.

  MR. GREENE: You claim there is discrimination against the colored people?

  DR. ATWOOD: I do not claim that.

  MR. GREENE: What do you mean then?

  DR. ATWOOD: I mean simply that whenever there are any evils in the white schools, they get to them immediately but not so with the colored schools.

  MR. GREENE: Then you mean to say there is discrimination against colored schools?

  DR. ATWOOD: If you desire to put it that way.

  MR. GREENE: I ask you that.

  DR. ATWOOD: It seems the disposition of the board of education to refer all these matters in the colored schools to the colored trustees and they make their report and then they let it go and that is end of it.

  MR. GREENE: Why should not that be a fair proposition? Do you to have those matters sent to the white trustees?

  DR. ATWOOD: I think the entire board should consider them. I told the commissioners. I said we do not want any two-sevenths of the people as represented by the board to govern the colored schools. We want the whole seven-sevenths to give their management control of the colored schools. No two-sevenths is sufficient. They are not put there for that purpose.