From Past Issues

Chemical Education Today

From Past Issues

1942

W

by Kathryn R. Williams

As a post-WWII baby (born one week after the signing of the UN charter), I grew up watching wartime action movies, and I remember my mother’s tales of her experiences on the home front—the shocking radio announcement of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the strain of being sole parent to my brothers while Dad was in the Navy, the tearful joy of V-E and V-J days “without a drop of liquor in the house”. But I had little insight into the vital relationships of the chemist and the teacher to the war effort until I paged through this Journal’s issues of that era. For this month’s look at the past, I focus on 1942. From reading Editor Norris Rakestraw’s rather mundane “Outlook” on the abiding problem of high school teachers lacking knowledge of chemistry (p 1), I surmised that the January 1942 issue of JCE was already in the advanced production stages at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The only pointed reference to the war effort occurred in “Out of the Editor’s Basket”, a monthly hodgepodge of miscellany, which debuted in September 1940. Two columns in the January 1942 “Basket” described considerations of the Selective Service, reinstated in late 1940, regarding occupational deferments for chemists. All this was rather moot, as explained in an editor’s addendum (p 46) because: “Since this was written the situation has of course changed so radically that it is a question whether much of the above discussion is any longer pertinent.” With one exception, all of the remaining 1942 editorials addressed wartime issues, especially the need for techni-

cally competent workers in the defense industry. In February, Rakestraw wrote (p 51), “…look at it any way you like, there will be a powerful lot of new places for chemists very shortly.” To satisfy this need, “colleges and universities all over the country are rearranging their curricula and calendars so as to telescope four years of college into three, or less.” But this “forced instruction” would be ineffective with the uncertain draft situation: “All the struggle to train…more chemists in…less time is of no avail if [they] are then drafted into military service…Every potential chemist who decides to enlist in the navy, because he doesn’t want to be drafted into the army, is a loss to the country.” The February issue also contained a page (p 90) of “Ten Questions that Students of Chemistry Will Be Asking—and their Answers,” which addressed the personal concerns of many males of draft age. Several revealing examples are reproduced in the margins. Such arguments were recurring themes in subsequent editorials. In March (pp 101–102), Rakestraw promoted the idea of a “Professional Training Reserve, which was intended to have as reputable a standing as that of the Army and Naval Reserve Corps” and would provide “a tangible and respectable way in which a student might choose to serve, without requiring any apology to his conscience or to others.” And in July (p 301), he criticized the Selective Service for “cracking down on occupational deferments” and giving the impression “that any man will be more valuable with a gun in his hand tomorrow than with a wrench or test tube two years from now.”

Questions that Students of Chemistry Will Be Asking—and their Answers If I ask for deferment will I not be considered a “slacker”? No. The draft system is selective, and occupational selection is an indispensable part of it. If you are convinced that you are best fitted to serve in a technical capacity in production, persevere, no matter what the unenlightened opinions of others may be. This is not a slacker’s escape. If you do not have the ability to become a competent chemist or chemical engineer, your instructors will not recommend your deferment, and you had better forget all about it. Why should I not go into active military service as soon as possible, when so many of my friends are doing so? Great as the need is for more men in the army, navy, and air force, there is an even greater need—a positive shortage— of technically trained men to fill “officer” positions in the

great “production army”. The training for these positions is longer and more exacting than that required for military posts. Every candidate for such a position must be conserved. Is it right that we should stay in school for two or three years, preparing ourselves for production services so far ahead in the future, when there is crying need for action now? We must look forward to our needs two, three, perhaps eight years from now. If we do not assure ourselves of a continuous supply of chemists and chemical engineers, we will most certainly come to regret it. It is insurance for the “production and supply” side of our war effort. The training of a chemist or engineer for production requires much more time than does that of an artillery officer or airplane pilot—important as the latter two may be.

Ten Questions that Students of Chemistry Will Be Asking—and Their Answers J. Chem. Educ. 1942, 19, 90.

1056

Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 76 No. 8 August 1999 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu

Rakestraw’s September “Outlook” (p 401) began with an apology for “bringing up again the old issue of the effective use of trained scientists and technical personnel in the war.” The editorial continued by quoting the findings and recommendations of the Philadelphia Regional Committee on Science and Mathematics Teaching in its report on “the future needs of the armed forces and industry, in numbers of trained men and women”. In October (p 451), Rakestraw criticized the Army’s “premise that all men are alike except in point of age and term of military service” and again stressed that the work force “must have its officers as well as its enlisted men. And the officers’ training schools for the production army are in our universities and technical schools.” The shortsighted attitudes of industry and the Army were subjects of further rebuke in Rakestraw’s November and December editorials (pp 503 and 555): “…industry has been too content to allow the Army and no one else to say what shall be done with manpower. It has been too preoccupied with the pressing job of production…to think who is going to do the producing, particularly day after tomorrow.” Not all of Rakestraw’s comments dwelled on the deferment issue. In his April “Outlook” (p 151), he pointed to the responsibilities of scientists as informed citizens: “The science teacher should regard himself as particularly qualified to face the problems of war, and by his attitude toward them should set an example to others. If teachers, scientists, and engineers cannot see their way clearly in a war which is so largely technological there is little hope for others to do so.” And in May (p 201) he wrote, “Perhaps now…is really a good time to make resolutions for the future. At any rate, we must be sure that this war teaches us the fatal dangers of isolationism, unpreparedness, and overconfidence.” Even without these consistent reminders of the importance of technical education, the JCE reader of 1942 could not ignore the relevance of chemistry in the war effort. Reports on explosives (pp 30–32, 109–115), war gases (pp 360– 365, 402) and the Chemical Warfare Service (pp 474–477) appeared throughout the year, as well as articles on rubber production and reclamation (pp 420–427, 522–530) and military uses of ceramics (pp 510–512). And who could fail to be startled by the May frontispiece—a training chart on chemical warfare agents, which has been reproduced on JCE Online at http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/Issues/1999/Aug/ abs1056.html. If something from a JCE from decades past strikes your fancy, consider letting other readers know. Write it up for the From Past Issues page. Send your ideas or submissions to Kathryn R. Williams, Department of Chemistry, University of Florida, P. O. Box 117200, Gainesville, FL 32611-7200, email: [email protected].

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 76 No. 8 August 1999 • Journal of Chemical Education

1057