to be used by the Commissioner to establish, in institutions of higher education, institutes in the new educational media.

And, Mr. Chairman, may I thank you for the opportunity of appearing here, and thank Congress for NDEA.

Senator MORSE. We thank you very much for your very fine contribution. That was a very fine statement.

Senator Yarborough?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Sullivan, I want to congratulate California on its excellent educational system.

You do, I believe, have 60 percent of all of the young people in California between the ages of 18 and 21 in school and college. I believe the only State which exceeds you is Utah with 64 percent.

Mr. SULLIVAN. And may I add to that, 73 percent of those are in junior colleges, 73 percent of all those in college before the 14th grade are in junior colleges.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That is 73 of all of those below the junior level?

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. But you do not mean 73 percent of the total? Mr. SULLIVAN. No; below the junior level. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. My own State has a percentage of about 312 percent of students in that age in college, which is about 1 percentage point, or maybe a half percentage point above the national level.

The national level is about 30 or 31 percent. As you know, as an educator, it goes down to 16 percent in some States.

California, I feel, is showing the rest of the Nation that at least 60 percent of our young people have the intellectual capacity to receive a college education in competition with a vast number of other students, with benefit to themselves, their families, our country, the economy, and the whole human race.

I want to thank you for that demonstration you have given of the mass capacity of human intelligence.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you.

Senator CASE. I was much interested and appreciate, as my colleagues on the subcommittee do, your judgment as to the general effects of the National Defense Education Act in your State.

I wonder if you have any comment on this. You generally say that it has shaken you all up and provided a stimulus to improving the methods of teaching, the curricula and all the rest, and generally moved things forward in these particular areas. I wonder, do you have any comment as to what it has done in areas not specifically the subject of the National Defense Education Act, such as humanities and English, too.

Has the interest and stimulation you specifically mentioned on those subjects hurt or helped those things on the general instruction in those other areas which all of us regard as equally important?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Senator Case, if I had had the opportunity to ask you to ask me a question, this would have been the question I would have asked you to ask me. So I am pleased to respond to it.

And I have a statement from a local school superintendent in Palo Alto, Calif., just a brief paragraph that I am going to refer to in direct response to your question.

The impact of NDEA has been felt throughout the curriculum in California, quite the contrary to some statements which have been made that it has tended to take attention away from these other areas.

I think that we would say that that is not true. The realities of the situation are you cannot look at your curriculum and evaluate and appraise it and develop an improved curriculum by only looking at segments or at one segment at one time. You have to look at the overall picture. So the impact has covered all of the areas of instruction in California.

Here is a statement from Jack Rand, associate superintendent in Palo Alto:

The impact of title III of the National Defense Education Act in Palo Alto has been immediate and far reaching. It has given added impetus to a host of projects already under way in the development of the curriculum and improvement of the instruction.

Moreover, it has made available to all teachers the new and better truths of instruction, which have been born of technological revolutions since World War II. Since our requests for equipment had been named in terms of specific and well-defined projects, the NDEA has forced us to be more sensitive to national needs and national projects, revolutionizing the curriculum and methodology in several subject fields.

In the field of mathematics, for example, the NDEA has encouraged our participation in the development and use of the new school mathematics study group materials. Several members of our staff have served on writing teams that created these materials, or have participated in pilot trials of the materials themselves. The addition of libraries of mathematics books has begun to transform mathematics from a classroom skill into a research enterprise that encourages independent study and thought; allows for more individualized instruction, and the development of mathmatical aptitude and talent. The introduction of overhead projectors as visual teaching aids has begun the transition of mathematics from a textbook subject to a living experience.

In foreign language, the new electronic equipment has made it possible for our teachers to come a step closer to realizing their philosophy that the only reason for learning a language is to be able to communicate in it. Now, for the first time, many of our students can listen to a foreign tongue as it is spoken by a native speaker. Though all questions are not resolved about the best approach to teaching foreign language, the installation of this equipment with the aid of NDEA funds has made possible the experimentation that is essential to the ultimate resolution these questions.

In science, the advent of NDEA funds has accelerated our local efforts in the revision of our curriculum from kindergarten to the 12th grade. It has permitted the installation of new apparatus that is a part of such programs as the physical sciences study committee course in physics, and will support our entry into the new materials being developed nationally in biology and chemistry. It has, for example, placed microscopes in our junior high schools in sufficient quantity to permit our accelerated science students to complete a biology course in grade 9 that is fully equivalent to the regular course in grade 10; it has permitted their counterparts in grade 12 to pursue a college chemistry course as part of the advanced placement program with all the sensitive balances and other equipment necessary for the more careful and accurate work of the college level.

So the answer to your question is, it has helped. It had an overall impact.

Senator CASE. Thank you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH (presiding pro tempore). Thank you for a fine statement.

Is Mr. Kennedy here, representing the American Legion?

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.