Muskingum College Student Rebels in the "Jazz Age"
by A. WILLIAM HOGLUND
During the 1920's Muskingum College of New Concord, Ohio, experienced student unrest similar to that which engulfed many campuses. Never be- fore had the student body challenged so threateningly the school's traditional code of behavior, which embodied certain prescribed social, moral, and spiritual values known as the "Muskingum Spirit." Originally founded by Presbyterians as a small liberal arts college with- out formal church sponsorship ih 1837, the institution had developed its code in line with the religious heritage left by Scotch-Irish settlers in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The founders were among those Presbyterians who achieved unusual prominence on the frontier before the Civil War in setting up colleges to prepare men for both the ministry and the missionary fields.1 Later, Muskingum became coeducational and was administered by the United Presbyterian Church of North America, which had been formed by the
NOTES ARE ON PAGES 178-179 |
STUDENT REBELS IN THE JAZZ AGE 147 |
union of various splinter groups in 1858. While loyally serving the leader- ship needs of the church, the college concerned itself also with the moral aspects of small town life. In the 1920's the school officials affirmed their moral principles and admonished students more firmly than ever to follow a code of behavior which did not offend the townspeople. Unlike their pred- ecessors, however, these Jazz Age students openly defied enforcement of what they considered an outmoded code. During the decade social mores were rapidly changing throughout the nation, and even students from small towns accepted these changes in spite of the school regulations. But when the Muskingum College administration defied change and reiterated its traditional policies, it aroused more student unrest. Ultimately, however, belated administrative concessions had to be made so that more positive faculty-student relationships could be maintained. Like other academic institutions in the 1920's, Muskingum experienced unprecedented growth. Under the leadership of John Knox Montgomery, a clergyman who became its president in 1904, the pace of growth had accelerated. Through vigorous promotional efforts, he had secured financial support and had actively recruited students in order to ensure the school's future. When President Warren G. Harding stopped in New Concord to re- ceive an honorary degree in 1922, however, one Philadelphia paper said that the institution had been put "on the map -- temporarily."2 In effect, |
148 OHIO HISTORY
Montgomery rejected such disparagements
by pointing out how the college
continued to become more attractive and
successful. After World War I,
student enrollments exceeded the prewar
peak of 298, which had been
attained in 1914. By the academic year
1929-1930, the enrollment totalled
863 men and women. About one-half of the
students were United Presby-
terians, while the others were mainly
Methodists and Presbyterians. On
the campus, which had expanded from
about two acres to over 100, new
buildings were constructed. In the
1920's, the first dormitory and two build-
ings with classrooms and offices were
completed. The new stadium was dedi-
cated in 1925. Pointing with pride, in
1922 one bulletin described the beauti-
fication of the campus and the
development of
A beautiful lake, which offers
recreation to the swimmer, fisher,
boatman and skater. Early in the fall,
during the first months of the
school year, newcomers relieve the
monotony of study, by fishing and
boat riding, to say nothing of the
picnics and hikes, through the woods
and across the rolling grassy slopes of
the campus. Later, when winter
blankets the hills, and hardens the
lake, that most invigorating of all
sports, skating, becomes the fad, and
through the dark and busy months,
the main relief from the school routine
is skating, tobogganing and sleigh
riding. Then comes spring, with birds,
and flowers in the woods, when
everyone strolls with their books and
cameras for a close to nature jaunt,
and then back for an evening swim in the
lake.3
In addition to the physical
improvements, academic progress was also
reported. While the faculty reaffirmed
the required program in the liberal
arts for graduation, more new courses
were organized, notably in the fields
of science. The Department of Home
Economics as well as the short-lived
School of Agriculture were set up in the
1920's. In summarizing the aca-
demic program in 1927, the college warned
that, as elsewhere, loafers were
unwelcome since more emphasis was being
placed on "intellectual appli-
cation."4 Throughout the
decade, Muskingum was generally advertised as
an institution with many attractions and
equal to any other place of higher
education in its standards and modern
facilities.
If Muskingum's spokesmen were to be
believed, in 1921 the institution
was located in "an ideal college
town," nestling among picturesque hills in
southeastern Ohio. New Concord boasted
of having paved streets, electric
lights, and a water works. Above all,
the town was regarded as ideal for
students because of its rural setting,
moral atmosphere, and "freedom from
temptation." It had four churches.5
But the claims that it had never had
a saloon ignored the fact that a local
churchman and college benefactor
had willed to a son his "brick
Tavern house" in the nineteenth century.6
Other claims were also made in regard to
the moral character of the towns-
people. Authorities had never arrested
for crime anyone born in the town.
Local citizens had participated
patriotically in the Civil War. Also, there
were many retired ministers and
missionaries who lived in the area, and
some even taught at the college. When
trains stopped to discharge passengers,
conductors acknowledged the moral image
of New Concord in their own
way by announcing it as, "Saints'
Rest."7
STUDENT REBELS IN THE JAZZ AGE 149
President Montgomery piously boasted
that Muskingum College itself
was morally safe. From the time of his
arrival, the president had shown
extreme devotion to matters of
morality.8 He was active in the United
Presbyterian Church which had ordained
him a minister, as well as in the
Anti-Saloon League of America and the
Anti-Cigarette Alliance of America.
Most of his moral crusading, however, was
devoted to the guardianship of
youth in loco parentis. After his
arrival, a special bulletin announced that
learning subject matter in the classroom
was only "a part, and often the less
important part, of a college
'education.'" Forming moral standards was, in-
stead, more important.9 "The chief
treasure of Muskingum, more valuable
than rich endowments or costly
buildings," college publications repeatedly
said after 1905, "is the character
of her student body and the traditions
of honor, morality, and religion which
pervade the life of her campus."10
New emphasis was given periodically to
the statement as regulations were
formulated for student conduct.
Compulsory chapel attendance and courses
in religion were prescribed. Students
were also expected to attend one of
the local churches on Sunday. Social
dancing, card playing, and drinking
alcoholic beverages were forbidden. The
use of tobacco in any form was
not permitted on campus or in rooming houses.
But while the smoking of
pipes and cigars was only discouraged,
the use of cigarettes was banned at
all times and in all places. Most
importantly, the coed was enmeshed in a
maze of rules that were designed to
protect her honor. Dating was forbidden
on Sunday, but permitted under certain
conditions on other days. Couples
could stroll in the daytime if they did
not frequent "secluded places."
Mixed swimming was not allowed in the
lake, and swimmers who were out
of the water had to wear raincoats or topcoats.
Chaperones, of course, at-
tended all organized social functions.
Landladies were required to help en-
force these regulations since most
students lived in private homes.11 Because
it had the cooperation of townspeople,
the college believed that it was well
qualified to train youth in the
development of good habits and high ideals
as well as to protect them from
temptation when away from parental super-
vision. In line with these objectives,
President Montgomery more than once
referred to his college as "a
character factory."12
After World War I, faculty members were
not all in full agreement with
the president in regard to institutional
goals. New instructors, in particular,
expressed doubts. Although faculty
disagreements were rarely made public,
the alumni bulletin suggested their
existence in 1925. The increase in faculty
numbers, explained the publication, had
resulted in the introduction of
crosscurrents of opinion about educational
objectives.13 President Montgom-
ery indicated that it was increasingly
more difficult to find the ideal teacher
who shared values embodied by the
Muskingum Spirit. In a period of teacher
shortages after the war the president
complained that there was a lack of
instructors with high standards of
scholarship and strong commitments to
the moral values of the college. He
reported that, because some teachers
were judged not fully qualified on all
counts, they were not invited to re-
turn in 1922.14 After three years of
service, reported one of those teachers,
150 OHIO HISTORY
he was not rehired because of his
rejection of the dominant educational aim
which tried to cram students "into
a certain tight mold."15 By and large in
the 1920's most permanent faculty
members accepted Muskingum's values,
or, at least, they muffled their
criticism of them.
The students, however, were more openly
alienated by the strict regula-
tions than were the faculty members.
Throughout the 1920's, the gulf
widened between students and their
elders who ran the college. The president
felt the reason for this difference of
opinion was that the influx of new stu-
dents had introduced "a spirit that
was not altogether in harmony" with his
institutional aims. Such an impact was
not surprising, he added, because stu-
dents came, in general, from a world
that had little regard for law and order
and, in particular, from high schools
that did not foster Muskingum's values.
Thus, he said, students failed to share
"those deep spiritual currents running
through the college that have been
characteristic in other years." But, he
noted, the problem was not just peculiar
to his institution.16 This was little
consolation in the face of the
increasing student unrest. The president of the
alumni association also reported sensing
a new spirit. He concluded "that
students are more cosmopolitan and less
provincial than formerly."17 By
1927, even the college trustees
recognized this point. After studying student
life in New Concord, they observed that
"we are living in a day when per-
haps a majority of young people have
been accustomed to such practices in
their own community as are not
countenanced by the college."18 Although
aware of the dissension, the trustees
and others in authority were not yet
ready to make any substantial
concessions to those who rejected their
policies.
Among the students,
"intellectuals" tried to formulate the case against
the academic and social life of the
campus. Sharing the widely-held cynicism
of their classmates, they even
questioned claims made in the college catalog
regarding "wonderful
opportunities" that were supposedly available at Mus-
kingum. Much concern was expressed over
the failure of the campus com-
munity to foster what was called
"independent thinking" and "individual
self-expression." This concern was
shared in 1925 by the student who was
the most honored orator of the year. In his
address on conformity, he de-
nounced American colleges for shaping
the average student into a common
thoughtless mold, for holding him down
by authority and tradition, and
teaching him only "the amazing
rightness of things as they now are." Be-
cause of this practice, the instructors
failed to reveal to him the sterner
realities of life, such as the wrongs
found in religious, political, and economic
institutions.19 In examining
conditions at Muskingum, the campus weekly
echoed the orator's case. One of its
writers satirized the student who culti-
vated "the satisfied attitude with
life" and was never "guilty of the sin of
Individual Thinking."20 But such an outlook, suggested other writers, re-
sulted partly from the institutional
failure to develop "academic quality." As
long as academic standards were so low,
said one writer, the average student
developed a lighthearted regard for
scholarship since he could participate
excessively in extracurricular
activities without danger of "flunking out"
STUDENT REBELS IN THE JAZZ AGE 151
of school.21 As a result of the many
restrictions and requirements of the
American college system, argued another,
conformity was developed among
students. Even campus rebels conformed
to whatever was the current form
of protest.22 Dismayed by
what were regarded as anti-intellectual forces
at work on the campus, these observers
necessarily made the intellectual
synonymous with the critic.
In making their case, the critics
welcomed F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel,
This Side of Paradise, which had appeared in 1920 and portrayed the col-
legiate mood of unbelief in the social,
moral, and intellectual values of the
older generations. Students read his
books and shared with him not only
an interest in flappers, parties, and
Bohemian behavior but also the dream
of intellectual independence. Reviewing
favorably Fitzgerald's novel on the
student, one writer in the campus
yearbook contended that "the conserva-
tive, reactionary classes" of
"the orthodox world" had blindly damned the
novelist. In defending the book, the
critic wrote that everything in it pic-
tured honestly and realistically a very
"distinctive type of honest-seeking,
hard-thinking young men of today. . .
."23 Indeed, campus rebels
everywhere
could identify themselves with such men
for one reason or another. Even in
New Concord their representatives
complained that the academic institution
frustrated their social, intellectual,
and vocational ambitions.
By offering added opportunities for
vocational preparation in the 1920's,
Muskingum recruited more students whose
ambitions made them impatient
with the required study in the
traditional liberal arts. Many came from low-
income families without previous
collegiate connections and were anxious
to secure the "practical"
training needed in industry, business, or profes-
sional work. In 1927, two-thirds of the
students reported earning part or
all of their own expenses.24 Their
vocational goals were undoubtedly more
personal and secular than were those of
the ones who had enrolled before
them. In 1921, over one-half of all male
graduates entered the ministry, but
by 1930 the percentage was less than
one-third.25 Sensing this trend, the
student weekly suggested that chapel
speakers should include representatives
of different vocations, since clergymen
and missionaries could at best help
only those with ministerial
inclinations.26 More students were by 1930 less
interested in a liberal arts program
designed primarily to prepare them for
the ministerial and academic professions
than in the vocations that were
higher paid as well as less demanding in
self-sacrifice and moral dedication.
Consequently, faculty members and
administrators complained about the
erosion of the interest in classical
studies and about the low regard for
scholarship. In 1926, for instance, the
academic dean bewailed the fact that
students did not "value scholarship
for its own sake" and concluded that
perhaps everyone was not worth
educating.27 But the faculty did not modify
its academic requirements. Very
probably, this failure, ironically, increased
student involvement with non-academic
matters.
Even in their extracurricular
activities, students gave evidence of dis-
satisfaction with the college. They
showed displeasure notably with the
officially-sponsored literary and
religious societies that had been developed
before World War I and were designed to provide opportunities to socialize as well as to develop talents useful in the classroom and pulpit. Since the nineteenth century, all men were expected to join one of the two literary societies set up for them. The same expectation also applied to women, who had their own two societies. Each society was given the use of a room where its members could debate, recite, declaim, sing, present plays, and arrange parties. Even though associated somewhat with classroom activities, the societies could not escape the general discontent with the academic program that was evident after the war. The result was by 1925 all of these "official" societies had disappeared, after spending their final years in relative inac- tivity.28 Although the Young Men's and Women's Christian Associations still arranged parties and held midweek meetings, they aroused less enthusiasm than before. To increase support for these organizations, in February 1926 the executive faculty reaffirmed the rule that no college activity could be conducted during the meetings of the religious associations. But this action did not prevent students from developing new organizational loyalties. As the old organizations became less vital as a foci of extracurricular life, campus homogeneity was weakened. Even students spoke of the decline of the "family atmosphere" which had pervaded the school community before the war.29 College spokesmen explained that increased enrollments made all- campus parties and social functions less feasible than before, (They were |
STUDENT REBELS IN THE JAZZ AGE 153
undoubtedly thinking of those sponsored
by the literary and religious so-
cieties.)30 To restore
identity with the campus community, the administra-
tion encouraged student pride in
competitive sports. In 1921, Muskingum
consequently joined the Ohio Athletic
Conference. The organization of the
student council in 1922 was officially
initiated as an attempt both to
control student behavior and to arouse a
sense of loyalty to the college
through pep rallies and other
activities. By institutionalizing the "rah rah
spirit" and by sanctioning student
participation in campus government,
officialdom expected much more vigorous
support for activities which had
been relatively unimportant before the
war.31 In turn, however, the older
forms of organizational activity were
further weakened.
The tempo of extracurricular life
increased as other new organizations
proliferated, revealing the varied
special interests of students. The prewar
groups that survived included the glee
clubs and debate teams which had
existed alongside the literary and
religious societies. The weekly, called
the Black and Magenta, and the yearbook,
entitled the Muscoljuan, were
still published. But the new
organizations, including vocational, cultural,
and honorary clubs, became more and more
numerous. The most important
new ones were the social clubs. These,
however, could not join national
sororities and fraternities because of
the college's traditional opposition to
Greek-letter and secret societies. Two
local clubs were formed in 1918
and four others were set up in the
mid-1920's to compete with the three
organized before the war. The social
clubs increasingly found student favor
and provided the highspots of campus
party life. In 1925, the college be-
came concerned that the clubs had grown
unduly large under the pressure
of increased student enrollment and
otherwise had disturbed campus life.
It therefore devised special regulations
which the clubs had to accept in
order to continue their activities.32
In surveying the direction of extracur-
ricular life and the appearance of many
new organizations each year, a
student editor concluded that college
life had become "one continuous series
of meetings interrupted occasionally by
classes."33
No doubt, the drive to organize various
extracurricular activities was in-
tensified by the increased
self-conscious desire to promote social mingling
between the sexes with more freedom from
supervision by the older genera-
tion. The new social clubs merely
highlighted this desire. In the past, campus
organizations had given men and women
some opportunity to meet socially
by merging social with academic and
religious purposes. In the 1920's,
however, students insisted more strongly
that they should be freer to date
and to be relieved of a tradition which
protected women from unsupervised
contact with men. Avant-garde women
asserted their freedom by copying
the flapper, whose bobbed hair, shorter
dresses, and silk hose were featured
by advertisements in the campus paper.
These advertisements showed female
models boldly exposing their legs and
knees more than was generally thought
proper.34 Avant-garde men
found in the automobile their symbol of freedom,
and both men and girls of the new order
gave vogue to the practice of
"dating" that replaced the
older one called "strolling."
154 OHIO HISTORY |
Underlying this new insistence on freedom was the franker recognition of the role played by sex in human relationships. Student wits were par- ticularly suggestive about "it," that is, sex, in their publications. Automobile accidents, said one writer, occurred at night because of sex. Another ob- served: "Some women operate on the basis that it is better to be naughty than to be neglected."35 Sex was also suggested by amorous scenes in movies like "The Flapper" and "Sinners in Heaven," which were shown in the chapel building. Sexual discussion was stimulated even during the chapel hour by speakers who showed charts in connection with talks on human body func- tions and social hygiene.36 Listeners were thus left merely to find practical applications of the knowledge presented. In pursuing their extracurricular interests, students more and more violated the college's social regulations during the 1920's. Never before had President Montgomery spent so much time in dealing with violators. Every year both men and women were suspended from school or reprimanded, especially for smoking. Others were punished for going on dates without permission and riding at night in unchaperoned cars. On one occasion in 1924, about thirty couples were caught dancing at an off-campus establishment. Dancing was even reported on the campus. Of course, not all violators were appre- hended by officials or reported by landladies and informers. No complete record of the violations exists, but there still remain recollections of the "bar mop" who liked liquor and the girls' club house whose rooms were "blue with cigarette smoke on weekends."37 These violators probably shared the view of the campus wit who wrote that "the sin of being found out" was abominable.38 Beginning in 1926, violations became even more numerous than earlier in the decade. During the semester that started in September 1926, President |
STUDENT REBELS IN THE JAZZ AGE 155
Montgomery reported suspending more
violators than he had suspended
in all the years since his inauguration
as president in 1904.39 In spite of
his action, the flagrant violation of
rules continued to scandalize the campus.
The infractions also drew special
attention in cases involving students who
were prominent in various capacities,
such as editor, athlete, or class official.
During the summer session of 1927, the
major scandal was created by two
students who were expelled after the
local constable entered their boarding
club and seized a dishpan of home brew
containing sixteen percent alcohol.
in January 1928, dancing occurred at the
carnival sponsored by the student
religious associations in the chapel
basement.40 Two years later a group
of prominent students were punished for
going in unchaperoned cars to a
dinner dance. Such dates were frequently
reported after the mid-1920's,
and fellow students tolerated those who
were caught. When two girls were
penalized for dating without permission
in 1926, "a large number of girls"
were reported signing a petition in
their behalf. In the early 1930's this
widespread defiance of the rules was
suggested by a survey of over 500
students. The survey indicated that 44
percent danced while under college
supervision and 66 percent did so while
not under surveillance.41 Since
other rules were also usually broken by
students going to dances, the survey
displayed proof of the failure of the
school to enforce obedience to its re-
strictive code.
While violations in general increased
after 1926, more protests were or-
ganized in opposition to the
institution's social policies than to any other
phase of campus life. In 1926, the
Campus Rules and Regulations Commit-
tee was formed as an ad hoc group
with a reported membership of 189. It
issued a leaflet saying, "The
present situation of stringent regulations and
heavy penalties encourages an individual
to compromise his own honor."
Consequently, the leaflet asked for
revision of the rules on dating, motoring,
and other matters.42 In the
student forum conducted by the student council,
the committee secured "a standing
vote which showed almost unanimous
opinion against 'the existing rules and
their enforcement.'"43 As a result,
the council was compelled to work with
the ad hoc committee in asking
for faculty modification of the rules.
Two years later, at the suggestion of
the college president, the forum
supported its demands by conducting a poll.
It reported that 411 favored and 282
opposed social dancing and that 400
supported and 252 rejected card playing.44
The council then petitioned the
trustees of the college to change the
policies on campus behavior. In 1927,
the council's president testified to the
faculty that, like other students, he
was unsympathetic towards the rules and
did not feel very responsible for
enforcing them. As if to underscore this
point in 1928, the student council
rejected a motion to condemn the dancing
that had occurred at the campus
carnival.45 Other student
groups also continued to petition the faculty for
changes. Their opposition was kept alive
by the college's insistence on en-
forcing the policy which had been
announced in 1926.
During the summer of 1926, the social
regulations for women were codified,
strengthened, and published without
advance notice by the administrative
committee of the faculty. The published
code brought together for the first
156 OHIO HISTORY Muskingum College CAMPUS |
|
REGULATIONS Title page of handbook which motivated widespread protest in 1926-1927 New Concord, Ohio August, 1926 time various rules which had evolved out of efforts to deal with specific matters, such as marriages and automobile rides. Although the basic poli- cies were not new, the code provided more specific regulations to ensure compliance with them.46 Each student who expected to return in the fall received not only a copy of the rules but also a letter emphasizing that ad- mission would be granted only to those who agreed with Muskingum's ideals and regulations.47 In the same spirit, the handbook for 1927 told those de- siring entrance that attendance was voluntary, and, hence, applicants should have "the clear understanding that the ideals and traditions of the college are to be maintained, and that their enrollment is to be reckoned as expressing their purpose to heartily support the institution while they are a part of it." Finally, the handbook reminded the applicant that he should feel privileged to enter the college and to identify himself with its interests, for only in this way could one be "comfortable in his surroundings and happy in his work."48 In response to the continued student challenge in the late nineteen twen- ties, officials renewed the institution's commitment to the code that was published in 1926. Reporting that students did not believe the trustees were in accord with the rules, President Montgomery asked the board for a definite statement.49 Following their special committee's visit to the campus in the spring of 1927, the trustees were announced as undisposed "to change |
STUDENT REBELS IN THE JAZZ AGE 157
the standards governing the social
conduct of students...." 50 One year later
they applied this policy by rejecting a
petition on dancing and card playing.51
To cope with the campus unrest,
President Montgomery insisted "that
a strong hand must be shown" toward
the dissidents.52 Such students, he
said, believed that originality
consisted in having "a critical attitude toward
what now is" and avoiding "any
reasonable constructive ideas or program
that has a forward and upward
look."53 To deal with the most serious of-
fenders, the president fell back upon
the policy of expulsion and suspension
that was formulated in 1926. To handle
the less offensive ones, he denied
social privileges and restricted them to
their rooms each evening. On more
than one occasion during the chapel
hour, offenders were compelled to con-
fess their guilt publicly in order to
avoid expulsion. When confessions were
heard from those who participated in the
dance scandal of 1928, the presi-
dent berated his listeners because of
their disrespect for the rules and ad-
vised them "to avoid the negative
attitude that is dominant, and get into
a happier and more constructive
one."54 In addition to his chapel talks on
discipline and the avoidance of liquor
and tobacco, he counselled individual
students and particularly tried to meet
with each newcomer admitted at the
start of the academic year.
During this period of unrest, President
Montgomery and his faculty tried
to cultivate student confidence by
granting some concessions to petitioners
who sought changes in the rules by
instituting the pre-school indoctrination
program for freshmen. In 1926, for
instance, couples were permitted to at-
tend church together on Sunday. One year
later senior class women were
given broader discretion as to conduct.
To make social regulations less of-
fensive, women were encouraged to
support a special organization that was
set up in 1927 to share responsibility
for the enforcement of the regulations.
In the fall of 1928, the faculty
welcomed and counselled the freshman
students before anyone else arrived.
This reception, reported the president,
enabled the newcomers "to form
their own estimate without being prejudiced
by the attitude of some disgruntled
upperclassman toward this or that Pro-
fessor." The new arrivals, he
added, thus developed "such a spirit of en-
thusiastic devotion" to the college
ideals that upper-class students were
impressed and created fewer disturbances
than in previous years.55 There-
after, each fall freshmen arrived in
advance of the others. By working in
these and other ways to improve campus
relations, President Montgomery
with his faculty slowly helped pave the way for the
overall reassessment of
the institution's social policies that
was made in the 1930's by one of his
sons who succeeded him as president.
Eventually such activities as dancing
and smoking were permitted.
But the trustees, president, and faculty
would not officially concede a
place for the student rebel in the
campus community, and, having the
power to discipline an offender, they
probably were confident of their ability
even to eliminate him. Student generations were
shortlived, moreover, while
officials and instructors lingered much
longer on the campus. The admin-
istrators expected hopefully that the
incoming generations would be easier
158 OHIO HISTORY
to handle. But their hope was frustrated
because the newcomers came from
a world that was increasingly less and
less in harmony with Muskingum's
traditional values. To undermine the
rebel's case, therefore, those in authority
slowly learned to make modest changes in
the social policies, although at
no time was he given any credit for
contributing to campus life, as was a
football hero or debate team. Also, the
authorities did not acknowledge
publicly his role in teaching them to
recognize the nationwide development
of youth as a self-conscious group.
The rebels of the 1920's, by not
maintaining their identity in a clearcut
manner, were partly responsible
themselves for their failure to secure ac-
ceptance by the college authorities.
Although their aims were generally de-
fined in terms of intellectual
independence and social freedom, their criticism
was diffuse and disorganized. Without
going so far as to question the assump-
tions on which the campus environment
was built (since many of them had
been brought up in a milieu which had
long cherished Muskingum's values),
their protest activities often
represented only a tortured and incomplete
break with the past. In other words, the
untutored dissenters drifted and
wavered without developing a new frame
of reference with which to guide
their criticism systematically.
Advancing no further than F. Scott Fitzgerald
in the 1920's, they, too, did not commit
themselves to any major new in-
tellectual enthusiasms. Instead, they
were largely without direction, such
as their fellow student who wrote in
1921, "We don't have a very clear idea
of what Bohemian is, but we know that we
are going to be it or bust."56 No
rebel who lacked clear guidelines,
therefore, could easily withstand the
pressures of elders, who at least had
taken the time to define their own goals.
In general, both campus rebels and
authorities behaved at Muskingum
in a similar manner as their
counterparts elsewhere during the 1920's.57
Everywhere students flouted what were
known as "middle-class proprieties,"
especially in regard to the relations
between men and women. The more
venturesome even challenged other values
cherished by their elders. Although
failing to secure official approval on
campuses, the rebels were effective in an
unintentional way. After the earliest
outbursts of protest, the authorities
became fearful of organized student
power. Much of the administrator's time
and energy thereafter was devoted to the
prevention of potential unrest. If
outbursts did occur, they were ready to
employ disciplinary measures. But
they also learned to appreciate the
value of conciliatory measures as well
as subtle forms of control. More deans
of students and dormitory supervisors
were employed to maintain orderly
behavior. To help accomplish their pur-
pose, more emphasis was placed on
extracurricular activities, such as team
sports and student government. Through
these and similar measures, above
all else, colleges hoped to preserve
their traditional commitments within a
framework of change. More slowly than
some institutions, Muskingum College
was able to adjust its values to the
changing mores of the times.
THE AUTHOR: A. William Hoglund is
Associate Professor of History at The
Uni-
versity of Connecticut.
Muskingum College Student Rebels in the "Jazz Age"
by A. WILLIAM HOGLUND
During the 1920's Muskingum College of New Concord, Ohio, experienced student unrest similar to that which engulfed many campuses. Never be- fore had the student body challenged so threateningly the school's traditional code of behavior, which embodied certain prescribed social, moral, and spiritual values known as the "Muskingum Spirit." Originally founded by Presbyterians as a small liberal arts college with- out formal church sponsorship ih 1837, the institution had developed its code in line with the religious heritage left by Scotch-Irish settlers in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The founders were among those Presbyterians who achieved unusual prominence on the frontier before the Civil War in setting up colleges to prepare men for both the ministry and the missionary fields.1 Later, Muskingum became coeducational and was administered by the United Presbyterian Church of North America, which had been formed by the
NOTES ARE ON PAGES 178-179 |