1934 Controversy
1934 was a tumultuous year not just for the Summer School for Women Workers, but for America at large. In the thick of the Great Depression, unemployment was at an all-time high, with strikes and protests happening often as workers expressed their discontent. This was paired with the growing fear of communist and anarchist presence in the United States, turning many Americans against the labor movement and developments for the fear of socialist ideology hiding beneath the surface. The Summer School was not immune to this controversy, and found itself under the watchful eye of many—with people uneasy at the idea of an institution which could so easily spread Marxist propaganda with their well-established platform to reach workers.
Tensions reached a head with the June and July 1934 Seabrook Strikes in Bridgeton, New Jersey. At Seabrook Farms, workers striking for more fair working conditions were met with threats, tear gas, and outright violence from vigilantes hired by the Seabrook Company to keep protests suppressed and prevent a perceived communist threat—this group of vigilantes included officers of the local police force and deputized members of the Klu Klux Klan, who were devoted to squashing an apparent communist uprising among the workers. Multiple faculty members of the Summer School had been present as witnesses to the protest and ensuing violence, but could not interact, participate, or intervene in any capacity per the Summer School’s rules. In speaking to the press at the site of the event, these professors admitted that they were in the region due to teaching at the Bryn Mawr Summer School, having traveled from their home institutions. Their presence at Seabrook was intended to be simply informational, and no students had traveled with those in attendance.
However, after retaliation to the protests turned violent, the faculty in attendance could not stand idly by as day after day of injustice unfolded before them. Concerned at the brutality that was being enacted onto the workers, including groups of women and children, the professors used the College phone to attempt to obtain medical help for those affected. Professors were careful to make sure that no actions taken were done in the name of the School or College to comply with regulations. Despite their efforts, newspapers reporting on the strikes ran headlines decrying the fact that Bryn Mawr professors were in attendance. The Summer School, an institution that took pride in its goal to provide an unbiased education, was suddenly put into the national spotlight for the ways in which its educators were implicated in what was deemed a labor uprising. If the School’s instructors supported what was seen as socialist ideology, who could say that they were not attempting to employ propaganda in their classes? Who could say that the School did not have an agenda, educating the students not by providing them the tools to empower themselves, but instead by instilling seemingly anti-American sentiments through their lessons?
Other elements of on-campus life during the summer did not help the administration’s defense of the School under scrutiny. Students were encouraged to discuss their personally held ideologies and were encouraged to listen to others, creating an atmosphere where students who believed in socialist ideals could stand confident in their viewpoints and discuss with others. Several students recalled groups of workers, often first or second generation immigrants from European countries, gathering to discuss and debate with their common interests. A Marxist reading group, started by students in secret, had been found out by the director of the program, but rather than dismissing those students and condemning their activity, Smith took their organization as a sign of interest, and had the Marxist extracurricular reading group codified as an elective taught by an English professor every consecutive year. Smith had acted as an invaluable figure in smoothing out discontent on campus, emphasizing the fact that all students were seen and welcome, and making them feel as though their voices were heard and understood as a core component of their education. When she resigned as Director to take up a position in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration to develop workers’ education programs during the Depression, the School lost an invaluable spark, alongside a proponent of self-expression.