It is doubtful, however, if members of the advertising profession are the worst sinners in this respect. Nearly everyone with a cause to promote does the same. We often hear single-taxers, socialists, patriotic societies, or vegetarians, speak of their propaganda as education. In the report on the prohibition situation issued by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, the suggestion is made that there be a campaign of “education” in the interest of the enforcement of the Volstead Act. Although the educator and the propagandist are both concerned with the dissemination of information, they have nothing else in common. They use contrary methods and they strive for opposite goals. The propagandist is interested in _what_ people think; the educator in _how_ they think. The propagandist has a definite aim. He strives to convert, to sell, to secure assent, to prove a case, to support one side of an issue. He is striving for an _effect_. He wishes people to come to a conclusion; to accept his case and close their minds and act. The educator strives for the open mind. He has no case to prove, which may not later be reversed. He is willing to reconsider, to be experimental, to hold his conclusions tentatively. The result for which he strives is a type of student who will not jump at the propagandist’s hasty conclusions or be taken in by his catchwords. To the one “learning” is passively accepting something; criticism of the matter offered is not encouraged. To the other, learning comes by examining. The propagandist need have no respect for the personalities of those he manipulates. The educator must respect his student, since the development of personality is his aim. In the end the question is whether people are to be _used_ for purposes other than their own. This is the sole object of the propagandist; its successful achievement is the defeat of the educator.