Youth Delinquency

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28550, 1 April 1958, Page 3

Youth Delinquency

Sir, —“G.H.D ’’ has not sustained his original points: that it is the psychologists who have harmed American education and that therefore we should ignore Dr Ausubel’s comments on the pos- ( sible causes of juvenile delinouency. He may be interested to know that Dr. Ausubel would associate himself with other reoutable American psychologists in granting that in American education there is a need for more adequate provision for pupils. f?s«ecially the brighter ones, to progress at th°ir own best rate As “GHD” himself points out, this need is usually considered to have resulted from the work of educational experts—not of psychologists. In linking juvenile delinquency with the “New Education.” “G.HD” interprets his cited air hors to his own satisfaction But these men. concerned with charring that, under the direction of educational experts social values took precedence over intellectual matters in American schools, would not necessarily agree with “G.H.D.’s” analysis of their writings.—Yours, etc., J.J.S. March 31, 1958. Sir, —“J J.S.” does not seem to have understood that education, if it is a science at all, is a derivative science. Professional educationists get their notions of the human soul and its operative powers from the psychologists Hen- e an attack on the professional educationists is by implication an attack on the psychologists. I have not misread my authors. In crediting me with an implied definition of juvenile delinquency as purelv a moralreligious issue. “J J.S.” has smoothed his dialectical path Unfortunately. I nowhere defined juvenile delinquency in this way. T have said, and will maintain that it is primarily a moralreligious issue, but “primarily” is not the same as “nurely.” A psychiatrist can make a useful contribution to the subject, provided he knows his place. Not many of them do. Freud being one of the worst offenders. My quarrel with Dr Ausubel is that nrobablv without being aware of it, he held forth on moral and religious issues a* 5 if he had some authority in these matters.— Yours, etc., G.H.D. March 31. 1958. Sir,—“G.H.D.s” assertion that I favour abolition of “the Commandment that forbids adultery’’ seems uncalled for, if not unprincipled. Surely the amorous adventures of the unmarried are not forms of adultery. Nor does a belief that circumstance have I

changed imply any sympathy with moral anarchy. As for competence to discuss morals and the aims of life, psychologists are probably as competent as anyone else. For there are no experts in philosophy. There are only men of greater or lesser experience and thoughtfulness. If a philosopher like Bertrand Russell can conclude that “the radical cure for the troubles of the young lies in a change of public morals," I think, he is as much to be listened to as “G.H.D.” There is little merit in condemning whatever is new in a world where supporters of old philosophies have lost their influence on young people through inability to adapt to changes.—Yours, etc., M.D.S. March 31, 1958.

Sir,—l wonder how many who write so virtuously about American psychology have, like myself, studied the problems of youth through Professor Hanley Hall’s two monumental works, “Psychology of Adolescence’’ and “Studies In Education.” Hall was the founder of American psychological education, and ranks equal to the British Havelock Ellis for most potent influence in correct methods. Ellis beautifully sums up all his tremendous works in one small volume, “Task of Social Hygiene.’’ In it Ellis sharply portrays how the credit of the teacher is entirely lost through exaggerations and distorted pictures. And from the standpoint that it is the educated who are themselves untaught. Ellis quotes the rules for education in social psychology. And how many, indeed, of our educated could qualifv?—Yours, etc., ESMERALDA. March 31, 1958.