367.1164 Brusa School Trial/43
The Ambassador in Turkey (Grew) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 23.]
Sir: I have the honor regretfully to confirm my telegram No. 64 of April 30, 8 p.m.,59 reporting that all three of the American teachers under trial at Brussa for conducting alleged religious propaganda [Page 975] in the American school in that city, Miss Jillson, Miss Sanderson and Miss Day, were, on April 30, convicted and sentenced to three days imprisonment and a fine of three lira each. The application for suspension of the sentence was denied, but in view of the fact that the accused were women and that this was their first offense, permission was given to serve their term of imprisonment in their own residence. I enclose herewith a translation of the verdict.60
The lawyer of the Turkey Mission promptly appealed the case to the Court of Appeals at Eski Shehir, this action of course delaying the serving of the sentences until the appeal shall have been heard. In the meantime Miss Sanderson, with the entire approval of her lawyers, has left Turkey for the United States where she expects to study nursing. Apparently, should the verdict be confirmed by the Court of Appeals, she would be expected to serve her sentence only if she should return to Turkey. An interesting sidelight on the case is that one of the Judges of the Court of Appeals who will probably deal with the case, had a daughter at the American school at Brussa and has expressed his earnest hope that the school will be reopened! I enclose herewith a summary of the document prepared by Ali Haidar Bey, the lawyer, presenting the case to the Court of Appeals, as well as certain other pertinent documents and press articles listed below.60
It seems to me quite clear that the teachers were not fairly convicted on the evidence and that the verdict was a foregone conclusion, due either to direct instructions from Angora or to the unwillingness of the Judge to place the Ministry of Public Instruction in an embarrassing position by an acquittal. I am not aware to what extent, if any, these considerations may influence the Court of Appeals.
Looking back at the closing of the Brussa school and the prosecution of the teachers, one may well ask why all this fuss by a Government which was then on the point of complete laicization. Primarily, no doubt Tewfik Rushdi Bey’s frank explanation to me was sincere: the Government was obliged in self-defense to take drastic steps against alleged Christian propaganda in a locality which is well-known for its opposition to the Government on religious grounds—a fanatically Moslem community. Possibly if the incident had happened anywhere else than in Brussa, it might have been hushed up and passed over. But I doubt it. The incident represented to the Turks a matter of more far-reaching significance and importance than the mere interest of a few minor Turkish pupils in Christianity, with the possibility of ultimate conversion. The religious issue was subordinate and in itself of little consequence, but [Page 976] the interpretation of the religious issue as an anti-nationalistic tendency was of serious moment and called forth the Government’s drastic action. The real explanation is perhaps best expressed in the three articles in the Turkish magazine Hayat of February 2, 9 and 16, translations of which were enclosed with my despatches No. 174 of February 15 and No. 191 of February 29,62 lucidly and logically setting forth the Turkish point of view. Cultural-nationalism was the underlying cause and determining factor. Christianity in itself is of little consequence to an an irreligious Government; Christianity—even “unnamed Christianity”—as an educational influence held to be contrary to Turkish culture and Turkish nationalism, and therefore in effect essentially anti-Turkish, is quite a different matter. In the eyes of the Government and indeed of the Turkish people, the mere discussion of Christianity with minor Turkish pupils, even the application of so-called “unnamed Christianity”, let alone attempted conversion, is the weaning-away of impressionable youth from spiritual allegiance to the Turkish State. “The influence of the foreign school upon the naturally more sensitive and more romantic-spirited young girls”, says Mehmed Emin Bey, “is more penetrating. The Sister, looking and talking like a Madonna, and the Miss, acting like Mary and named Mary are attractive in such degree as easily to capture the soul of the young Turkish girl who is seeking an ideal and is made fancy-loving by her age.” “The foreign school is a political influence over youth; it teaches history from foreign sources and from foreign view points.”
“In a word these schools are institutions which by their lessons, by their training turn Turkish youth away from the society to which they belong to another society and carry them toward a foreign ideal.” “Another evil of foreign schools not less important than others is the fact that because of high rates they are institutions exclusively for the children of wealthy and high families. There is nothing so harmful for a democracy as class education. The education of the children of the wealthy classes in a different way from the general public is a sociological error whose result is very dangerous.” “The educational ideals of some of those who belong to the high class can be turned exactly to these three points: a foreign language, piano, social manners.” “The outer splendor of the foreign school is also one of the factors which attract parents. Even think of the effect on rich but simple parents of a very immaculately dressed, very elegant man or woman teacher.” “Look at the greatest leaders of the country. Has a single one studied a single hour in a foreign school?” “Character is very much a matter of nationality. It takes shape only in a national environment, and only with the good and bad actions and reactions of that environment. [Page 977] I stress the phrase both the good and the bad. Character cannot be brought in from outside, for it is not an external, a corporeal thing. The foreign school moulds a character only according to foreign ideals; as for this character be it in a religious form or in a political form, it is harmful for the national Turkish ideals.” “Should not the families who are giving their children to foreign schools think that they are by their own hands doing away with the probability that their children may become great Turks in the future?”
In such an issue, according to the Turks, there can be no compromise. Cultural-nationalism. That is quite clearly the underlying basis of the whole matter, reduced to its simplest terms.
An opposite theory which I have heard expressed is that there is a pronounced inclination on the part of those now in power in Turkey to adopt to Turkish uses the methods of instruction and general education which are in vogue in America and Northern Europe. The proponents of this theory believe that the trend towards these forms of instruction has been emphasized by the realization of the importance of Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic commercial enterprise and of Turkey’s need of adopting modern methods of commercial instruction for the sake of the economic well-being of the country. It is said that Falih Rifki Bey (whose position as Deputy and journalist enables him to give wide currency to his views), as a result of his visit to Rio de Janeiro last year, has been particularly impressed by the character of American and British commercial enterprise in Brazil, as contrasted with the easy-going methods in vogue among the Latin natives of the country. In short, Turkey, according to this view, is veering from its admiration of Latin culture to emulate the culture of North America and Northwest Europe. Examples are cited in the increased interest in the study of the English language latterly manifested by certain prominent deputies, such as Safvet and Rouschen Eshref Beys. Whether this theory is well founded (as seems not unreasonable in view of Turkey’s need for economic development and of the predominance of Anglo-Saxon and Teutonic peoples in that field of expansion) and whether it will have any effect upon the future of Anglo-Saxon schools in Turkey remains to be seen and cannot yet be accurately determined.
While in my opinion Nedjati Bey, the Minister of Public Instruction … is fundamentally opposed to foreign institutions in Turkey, I do not now interpret the Brussa case as a calculated step towards the imminent progressive closing of the foreign schools as a whole. Even Nedjati Bey cannot blind himself to the patent fact that, for the present at least, these schools are needed in Turkey and will be needed [Page 978] for some time to come. While progress is slowly being made in developing the educational system of the country, inadequate funds are available for the establishment of sufficient schools to care for all the nation’s youth; trained teachers are inadequate to staff them.
With reference to the assurance given me by Tewfik Rushdi Bey on April 19 that he would arrange to fulfil his former promise to re-open an American school either by obtaining the surrender by the Ministry of Public Works of the lease of the school building at Sivas or else by authorizing the re-opening of a school at some other place, (see my telegram No. 60 of April 20, noon63) I suggested to Mr. Patterson,64 when the adverse verdict was handed down in Brussa, that now was the psychological moment for the Minister to carry out his promise, because the announcement in the United States of the re-opening of another school might in some small measure offset the adverse impression caused by the sentencing of three American women to terms of imprisonment, and would indicate to the American people that the Turkish Government was not conducting a campaign against American institutions in Turkey as a whole. I however instructed Mr. Patterson that I did not wish him to make any formal representations and that should he mention the matter it should be done on his own initiative. Mr. Patterson accordingly has had two or three informal talks with Ennis Bey on this subject, pointing out that such a step at this particular moment would be in Turkey’s own interest, but beyond a promise from Ennis Bey that he would discuss the matter with his Chief and with Nedjati Bey, no results have been forthcoming, and I am not optimistic that prompt action will be taken, although it is hoped that Tewfik Rushdi Bey will carry out his concrete promise eventually.
In a recent address to the girls of the American school at Scutari I included the following statement:
“The purpose of this school is to train you to go out into life as useful citizens of your own country; to be better able to contribute your share in the splendid progress which your country is making; to be patriotic and to be able to express your patriotism in the future in a practical way by contributing every ounce of energy and ability which you are developing here, through fundamental education and broadening culture, to your country’s continued welfare and success.”
Since writing the foregoing I have talked with Mr. Goodsell who is deeply discouraged at the Brussa verdict and is already turning over in his mind the question of the possible withdrawal of The Turkey Mission from this country. The matter will be discussed at the [Page 979] annual meeting of the Mission at the end of June. In the meantime, the Mission is beset by various requirements and restrictions by the Turkish authorities, some of which are regarded as mere pin-pricks but others are considered to be major issues. Among the latter is the requirement that the school at Merzifoun shall conduct its classes on Sundays. This applies only to certain grades in which there are only Turkish teachers and is believed to be only a local regulation as it has not been applied to other schools. The situation will be tolerated for the time being but, in Mr. Goodsell’s opinion, it cannot be permitted to continue indefinitely. Other points are the requirement in certain localities that Turkish teachers in the American schools shall be paid at the same rate as the American teachers themselves, in spite of the different standards of living to which they are accustomed, as well as the inclination of the authorities in certain localities to assign the Turkish teachers arbitrarily without permitting the schools to choose them themselves and submit their names for approval. I have advised Mr. Goodsell that the proper procedure is for him to go to Angora himself accompanied by his lawyer and to take up these various questions directly with the Ministry of Public Instruction. I have also told him that I see no present indications of a Government campaign against the schools as a whole which would justify the withdrawal of The Turkey Mission at this time.
Dr. Nilson of Talas reports that Djavid Bey, an official of the Ministry of Public Instruction in Angora, recently visited Talas and, after going over the American school building with Dr. Nilson, stated that, in his opinion, it ought to be reopened immediately and that he would so recommend to the Ministry of Public Instruction. He also advised Dr. Nilson to try to get the local Kaimakam to make a similar recommendation. It seems to me not impossible that Djavid Bey may have been sent to investigate the situation in Talas with a view to the possible reopening of that school as a result of my conference with Tewfik Rushdi Bey on April 19.
Mr. Goodsell further reports that the attitude of the public in Brussa towards the American teachers had completely altered since the beginning of the trial and that, as the date for the announcement for the verdict approached, every evidence was shown of friendship and sympathy, several of the Turkish friends of the teachers stating that they were praying for their acquittal.
I have [etc.]