STATEMENT OF MILES D. KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Miles D. Kennedy follows:) STATEMENT OF MILES D. KENNEDY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864) was approved September 2, 1958. Its purpose, in brief, was to provide substantial assistance in various forms to individuals, and to States and their subdivisions, in order to insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States, and to assure that no student of ability would be denied an opportunity for higher education because of financial need. (Sec. 101.)

The American Legion strongly supported the provisions of section 1001 (f) of the law (page 23), which reads as follows:

"SEC. 1001 (f). No part of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available for expenditure under authority of this Act shall be used to make payments or loans to any individual unless such individual (1) has executed and filed with the Commissioner an affidavit that he does not believe in, and is not a member of and does not support any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods, and (2) has taken and subscribed to an oath or affirmation in the following form: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America and will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all its enemies, foreign and domestic.' The provisions of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall be applicable with respect to such affidavits."

The bill S. 1726 introduced by Senator Hill on April 27, 1961, would extend the National Defense Education Act, above referred to.

The American Legion is mainly concerned with the provisions of sec. 9(c) page 20, lines 15 to 23 of S. 1726, because they would eliminate subdivision “(1)" of sec. 1001 (f), of P.L. 85-864 above set forth, calling for the execution by the student-applicant of the so-called disclaimer affidavit, and no part of (f) would remain in the proposed new law except the present subdivision “(2)", which calls for the student to take and subscribe to an oath of allegiance to the United States of America.

THE AMERICAN LEGION'S OBJECTIONS

Attached hereto, and made a part hereof, is a copy of a statement issued by Mr. Martin B. McKneally, the immediate past national commander of the American Legion, setting forth the position of our organization concerning the loyaltyoath provisions of the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

Permission is requested, Mr. Chairman, for Mr. McKneally's statement to be incorporated in the record at this point. I also respectfully urge that the members of the subcommittee, during their deliberations on this proposed legislation, give consideration to the arguments advanced by Past National Commander McKneally.

The American Legion strongly objects to the elimination of the disclaimer affidavit from the present law, as proposed in S. 1726, or any other bill, for the following additional reasons:

1. The American taxpayer has a moral and ethical right to this protection of his money. The minority of educators have no right to force their opinions upon their students. Let the individual beneficiaries make the choice.

2. No patriotic American should object to swearing his allegiance to his country under any circumstances.

3. What about the young men at Annapolis and West Point-they gladly execute all affidavits required of them.

4. It is not the students who must sign who are waging this active cold war of anti-Americanism, but rather the college presidents, the professors and their followers. On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that many students have formed organizations to support retention of the disclaimer affidavit.

5. It is hard to find justification in the argument that the affidavit requirement interferes with freedom of belief. Applicants for assistance under the act

are free to choose between pledging their support to the Government or doing without that aid; it forces nothing upon them. It is as simple as that.

6. From the point of view of those students who do wish to sign the affidavit, it would appear to be arbitrary and dogmatic for their colleges to withdraw from the program, thereby preventing the students from obtaining needed loans. 7. The purpose of the disclaimer affidavit is not to expose Communist infiltration into our intellectual circles (which is not impossible), but to ascertain that the beneficiary of a national defense educational grant is either a loyal citizen of the United States or-if he swears falsely-a perjurer subject to criminal prosecution.

In addition to the foregoing objections we subscribe, without qualification, to the arguments advanced by some Senators during the debate on this matter before the bill S. 2929 (86th Cong.), as amended, was passed by the Senate on June 15, 1960. I refer especially to arguments and statements in opposition to the bill S. 2929 by:

(a) Senator Bridges, of New Hampshire (pp. 11782-11783 of the Record of June 15, 1960), where he inserted his fine statement, in answer to each and every argument advanced by the proponents of the bill S. 2929.

(b) Senator Russell, of Georgia at page 11743 of the Record on June 15, 1960, where he said, in part:

"In this critical hour of American history, I shall oppose the taking of any affirmative action by the Senate of the United States which could be considered anywhere on the face of the earth as constituting a protest by the young people of this country against reaffirming their faith in the American system and against stating their abhorrence of the system of collectivism and communism that prevails behind the Iron Curtain."

Continuing, on page 11744, Senator Russell also had this to say:

"I cannot understand, and I totally reject the idea, that there is any impropriety in asking a loyal American to affirm his allegiance and to avow his loyalty to his country. I say that, whether it be a benefit to a farmer, a doctor, a merchant, or a small loan to a manufacturing enterprise.

"Mr. President, in today's world, it behooves all of us who believe in the American system, which has given us the greatest culture and the highest standard of living the world has ever known, to welcome the opportunity to express our faith in that system. And it will be a sad and sorry day in this country if it ever becomes generally considered improper for one not only to pledge allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, but to avow one's faith in the American system.

"I hope, Mr. President, that I never see the day when the majority of the American people believe that it is improper for an American citizen to denounce the Communist system and to extol the American system of government. If that day ever comes, we will have suddenly lost the contest which is being waged today for the minds and hearts of men and women all over the world."

(c) Senator Dodd (Connecticut), at page 11,765 of the Record of June 15, 1960, said, in part, in referring to the tactics of colleges and educational spokesmen seeking the removal of the disclaimer affidavit:

"Had the representatives of that group come to the Congress in a reasonable manner and quietly sought to work out their differences, I have little doubt but that the Congress would have gone very far to meet their objections.

"But instead they chose to repudiate a Government program. Instead they chose to stir up the students against this act which was aimed to benefit them and the nation's defense. Instead they chose to liken our Government to the Nazi regime of Hitler, to shed crocodile tears, and to put on an air of persecution. "If there is friction between the academic world and the Government as a result of this oath controversy, it is the academic world which must take the major blame."

For the reasons above set forth, the American Legion strongly opposes the approval of section 9(c) (p. 20) of S. 1726 or any similar bill, and I respectfully urge and request the subcommittee to strike out the provisions of section 9(c) of the bill which would eliminate the disclaimer affidavit as now contained in Public Law 85-864 approved September 2, 1958,

Mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the American Legion, I desire to express to you my sincere thanks and appreciation for the privilege of appearing before you. I also wish you well in your efforts to solve the serious problem which confronts you and the other Members of the Congress in connection with this controversial provision of the proposed legislation.

STATEMENT BY MARTIN B. MCKNEALLY, NATIONAL COMMANDER OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, SETTING FORTH THE POSITION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION CONCERNING THE LOYALTY-OATH PROVISION OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958

WHAT IS A LOYALTY OATH?

A question of much moment before the American people is the one concerning what is called the loyalty oath.

The American Legion, by resolution of its 1959 convention, supports the loyaltyoath provision of the National Defense Education Act. It does so on this theory: The National Defense Education Act is a part of the enactments of Congress providing for the security of the United States and, as such, those receiving benefits under it are special persons; they are singled out as special beneficiaries for a special reason and, as such, their loyalty to the United States and their freedom from the taint of disloyalty is properly an issue.

To read the debate on the Kennedy-Clark bill which sought, at the last session of Congress to repeal the section of the act which required every student-beneficiary to sign an affidavit to the effect that he does not believe in and is not a member of and does not support any organization that believes in or teaches the overthrow of the U.S. Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional means is to take an exercise, a lengthy exercise, in evasion, begging the question, and missing the point. One would think that loyalty to the Sovereign state is the exaction of an onerous, burdensome thing to the average American. One would think that subversion was not the Communist business. One would think that freedom, in this desolate age, was not dying all over the world. One would have to conclude that the great states that have been overthrown, since 1945, were not helped to disaster by certain disloyal citizens within their boundaries. The fact of the matter is that loyalty is an issue and the United States must be protected against disloyalty.

The fact of the matter is that those of us who support this affidavit, and have ourselves taken such an oath gladly, find in it no reflection on our integrity and our loyalty. When we insist upon our position we are disdained as anti-intellectual and as descendants of those who called for a religious test in the Middle Ages. This is specious nonsense.

A man's traffic with his God is a personal affair and is answerable in a forum over which we have no control. Treason to one's country is another story. A tightly organized society such as our own, exists by virtue of certain understandings, certain compacts, man to man. We are all participants in it and every man is affected by the deeds of his fellows. This principle is indeed part of the tradition of the common law. For instance, I must so use my property that it does not do injury to my neighbor. I may speak freely, but I may not expect my freedom to extend to me the right to shout fire in a theater and thereby cause panic and injury to my fellows. Freedom, indeed, is a qualified thing. I cannot in any case commit injury to my fellow citizens without penalty. This is purely a social responsibility and its violation throws me out of step.

Treason or betrayal of the common good as constituted in a duly authorized way is an act which violates the responsibility of one citizen to another. The average American is unable to follow the tenuous reasoning which identifies a religious test in the Middle Ages with a loyalty affidavit of today, except insofar as it identifies the loyalty oath with something admittedly bad for the purpose of destroying it.

I have said to you that around the world, in this age of brainwashing technique and indoctrination, loyalty is in issue. "With every dawn," Camus tells us of our time, "masked assasins slip into some cell." "Murder is the question before us." This is the solemn keynote of our time. Shall we fail to heed it? According to the overanxious reasoning of certain college presidents? And in this connection it is worth noting that the hearings in the Senate catered to the opponents of the loyalty oath and entertained not a voice in support of it. It is interesting, further, to note that not one student voice was heard. After all, this bill provides for a relationship between government and student, and those university boards and presidents who have withdrawn their institutions from it have deprived thousands of American youths of the personal benefits of this program and the benefits to the Nation, by summary action based upon unsubstantial reasoning may charge us with anti-intellectualism (and I am not sure what that term really means) but I do know this: they inspire me with no great admiration for their position.

The battle against communism is a struggle for men's minds, and in this struggle we shall not win by the mounting confusion of words that surround great issues. It has been argued that if the loyalty oath is to be included in a security measure then it should also be included in a farm subsidy law. This is, in effect, to say that a farmer raising corn is in the same position as a man working in the field of molding men's minds. Let us recognize that teachers and intellectuals occupy an exalted place in our society. They are the ones to whom we look for leadership and for light in this complex world. In short it may be said that they are the ones upon whom we ordinary people must ultimately depend. Are we asking more than they are willing to give in requiring this simple affirmation of loyalty to our country? Surely, no one in his right mind interprets this as a slander or a reflection upon them as a practical proposition. Teachers operating under the New York school system have been taking such an oath for years. No one has thought less of them for taking it.

Now the subject of this discourse has been in defense of the loyalty affidavit and opposed to the reasoning used in an effort to defeat it. I would give the opponents of the loyalty oath a large measure of credit if they would base their case on the fact that the oath has little practical use in protecting the Nation against subversion instead of trailing off into vaporish, thinskinned expressions of injured pride. Perhaps it is nothing more than a symbol of loyalty. Is symbolism bad? When a man tips his hat to a lady, he uses a symbol of respect; his head bowed in prayer is a symbol of his reverence. His use of the term "his excellency," to a Governor, is a symbol of his submission to the authority of the law. Are these bad? Do we think more of a man if he fails to observe them? The loyalty oath is probably nothing but an expression of devotion to one's country in this day of its darkest peril. But even if this is all that it is, who can deny that such an expression does some good? I have said to you that the battle of communism is one for the minds of men. It must be fought in the classroom.

But the battle against communism must also be fought on the level of faith, not only across the plains of economic and scientific achievements. Communism proposes that life is material and a man is a product of nature with no purpose, no will, and no soul. This is a harsh doctrine but because they have succeeded in dressing it up with appeals to ideals and equality, they have succeeded in winning, in many instances, the battle for the heart and the minds of men. Ours is a society and a system based upon ideals. Our job as Legionnaires is to keep the eyes of all Americans focused on the ideals of our country and our job as Americans is constantly to translate the image of America abroad in terms of its ideals.

We, as members of the American Legion, must keep alive the spirit of patriotism, love of country. This is our challenge. To those who have grown listless in their appreciation of individual freedom and a great gift of citizenship in this country, let us constantly recount their blessings. They are neatly summed up in a passage written by a refugee-one who came to these shores from Herr Hitler's concentration camps and eventually became a citizen of these United States. He wrote:

"I am an American citizen a member of the greatest fraternity on earth. *** The brotherhood of freemen because a million American citizens have died and millions have suffered in the wars of our Republic. I have greater freedom than any other citizen of any other nation in any other period of mankind. I have greater freedom to work, to worship, to love, to learn, and to play. Mine is the freedom to compete, to invent, to save, to invest, to create, to promote, to own. I have freedom to choose, to join, to vote, to speak, to travel, and to walk erect with head high. I am free to be my own self as an individual human soul. I am free to glorify God."

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, Senator Case, my name is Miles D. Kennedy. I am the national director of the American Legion. I have a statement, Mr. Chairman, which I respectfully request to be incorporated in the record in full, and our statement

Senator YARBOROUGH. The statement will be incorporated in full in the record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, sir. Our statement is addressed mainly to the provisions of section 9(c) on page 20 of S. 1726, and the same also carries over to the bills S. 1228 and S. 1411.

On that point, Mr. Chairman, it has to do with the so-called disclaimer affidavit. Now, I appreciate the fact that many highly important and high Government officials have testified and are in support of knocking out the so-called disclaimer affidavit which now appears in the law. However, with your permission, I would like to recite just a few of our objections to the exclusion of the disclaimer affidavit in the new bill.

I have one attachment to my statement, Mr. Chairman. It is a very fine statement, made by Mr. Martin B. McKneally, who is the immediate past national commander of the American Legion and who has made an extensive study of this subject. That is attached in printed form and I respectfully request that that also be incorporated in the printed matter.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It will be incorporated in the record.

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, sir. In addition to the statements contained in Mr. McKneally's statement, we submit the following objections to the bill S. 1726 and the others I have just referred to:

1. The American taxpayer has a moral and ethical right to this protection of his money. The minority of educators have no right to force their opinions upon their students. Let the individual beneficiaries make the choice.

2. No patriotic American should object to swearing his allegiance to his country under any circumstances.

3. What about the young men at Annapolis and West Point-they gladly execute all affidavits required of them.

4. It is not the students who must sign who are waging this active cold war of anti-Americanism, but rather the college presidents, the professors, and their followers. On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that many students have formed organizations to support retention of the disclaimer affidavit.

5. It is hard to find justification in the argument that the affidavit requirement interferes with freedom of belief. Applicants for assistance under the act are free to choose between pledging their support to the Government, or doing without that aid; it forces nothing upon them. It is as simple as that.

6. From the point of view of those students who do wish to sign. the affidavit, it would appear to be arbitrary and dogmatic for their colleges to withdraw from the program, thereby preventing the students from obtaining needed loans.

7. The purpose of the disclaimer affidavit is not to expose Communist infiltration into our intellectual circles (which is not impossible), but to ascertain that the beneficiary of a national defense educational grant is either a loyal citizen of the United States, or-if he swears falsely-a perjurer subject to criminal prosecution.

The balance of the statement is devoted to statements made by Members of the U.S. Senate when the bill S. 2929 came up on the floor for consideration around June 15 or 16, 1960, and there was considerable debate on it on both sides of the aisle, and both sides of the question. And I have excepted some of these statements, which were made by prominent Senators at that time.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

For those reasons, we would like to see the provisions of section 9(e) omitted from the bill S. 1726 and any others that may come up for your consideration during these hearings.