Another of the unwritten laws of Baltimore decrees that woman’s place is the home. Woman is now permitted to leave the home to teach the children in classrooms, but she is not permitted to come out of the classrooms to discuss the conduct of the schools. In this company, with which I spent a couple of hours, I counted ten men and seventeen women, and all of the men said their say about the Baltimore schools and about education in general. But only three out of the seventeen women had anything to say at all; and one of these was the hostess, while the other two were directly called upon by the hostess to answer a question. Such is the state of the feminist movement in Baltimore! I found upon inquiry that the same condition prevailed in the schools. Although the women teachers in the schools outnumbered the men seven to one, they were practically unrepresented on the teachers’ councils. Among nineteen representatives of the white teachers’ training schools there was only one woman representative; from the girls’ high schools there was only one woman representative out of thirty. From the colored schools there was no woman representative, and many groups of the white teachers had no woman representative. It was interesting to note that the twenty-one hundred elementary teachers were represented as follows: four principals, one kindergartner, one teacher in a secondary high school, and three members of the Schoolmasters’ Club. You can imagine how easy it is to handle the teachers in Baltimore! One of the things they need is a Henrietta Rodman in their city; for they have the old Tammany system of “mother-baiting.” When the women teachers marry they automatically resign; if they have a “pull” they may get themselves re-employed as substitutes, at a lower salary—the advantage in handling substitutes being that they may be immediately dismissed without excuse. The women teachers in Baltimore have never dared to have anything to do with the move for equal pay; this fight has been carried on by the woman’s clubs. The city council was induced to appropriate money to abolish discriminations between men and women teachers; but the school board refused to spend the money, and the issue has now been carried to the court of appeals. When I asked my impolite question about “economic control,” a former school board member who was in the company told me how he had taken up the fight for an increased tax to make possible better schools; he had found one rich man to whom this increase would mean ten thousand dollars per year, yet this man was willing to support the program. Surely that disproved my idea of economic control! I answered patiently that I knew there were individual rich people capable of generosity; but it was different with classes, and especially when it came to anything which threatened class control. Would this rich man have been willing for the teachers of Baltimore to form a union?