tions of the AFL-CIO regarding the necessary change in language referring to the training of highly skilled technicians.

Obviously, those who prepared the report as well as those who prepared the language for the Bush amendment were not professionally trained educators. Had they been they would not have failed to recognize that "learning on the job" and "learning by doing" applies in practice as well as in any theoretical book on teaching methods. Surely, in a national defense program we as a nation want to avail ourselves of the knowledge, wisdom, and experience of the expert, particularly of the expert who has worked and will continue to work in his specialized field.

We submit our position as professional teachers in support of the statement which will be more adequately presented by Mr. Schoemann, chairman of the Committee on Education of the AFL-CIO, tomorrow. You have probably heard of our determination to get rid of the Bush amendment. It is a very unfortunate part of the law as it now stands.

We are in accord with the proposals set forth in title X regarding the development of a sound statistical nationwide program. That is, there should be a much-better coordinated program for gathering and interpreting statistics data in and through the Office of Education, and we are happy to see such a provision included here.

We note with interest the recommendation that there be established the

National Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Commissioner of Education for the award of grants designed to improve instruction in specific subject matter areas.

That is a good recommendation.

We recommend strongly that there be statutory provision that such an advisory committee shall include not less than two classroom teachers.

Senator, do you realize that the committee that prepared this report had not one teacher on it, and then we find an appeal that we must raise the status of the teachers.

What does that mean?

When we say anything dealing with teaching we couldn't sink to the level of asking a question of just the teachers to comment or advise.

Do you realize that on the task force on education there wasn't one classroom teacher from any level? We think unless there is explicit. provision for recognition of classroom teachers in a committee, which is to discuss teaching, that there will not be teachers added, I don't think. There should be, and we say there should be two, one to make a motion and one to second it, at least, to get a question before an advisory board.

We believe that teachers should be called upon to discuss teaching. We believe better teachers would be developed if teachers helped shape such programs.

Similarly, we believe that the recommendation for studies to strengthen educational administration should include not less than two classroom teachers. Today, every wise and experienced school educational administrator favors a program of cooperative supervision.

The authoritarian approach is no longer tolerated in most of the classrooms. Administration should not be so completely divorced from supervision and performance as to ignore the contribution which in every good school system is made in the field of administration through teacher organizations and those elected to speak for them.

With these special observations and recommendations we urge the immediate enactment of legislation providing for the extension of the National Defense Education Act as presented in S. 1726. This is in itself an essential piece of emergency legislation and should on its own merits be adopted at the earliest possible moment.

Senator MORSE. Miss Borchardt

Miss BORCHARDT. Senator, you have always been most patient and most kind and your own record, as one who has worked in the field of cooperative administrative procedures as well as one who has worked in the idea of bringing about industry-labor relations, would recognize the essential need for having all of the elements that contribute to an education program represented in planning to improve it.

Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Miss Borchardt, we appreciate very much this statement.

It is of the same high quality as your statement on Senate bill 1021 and I am sure your statement on the higher education will be of the same high quality in the near future when you appear before us again to testify on that bill.

I will see to it that the various recommendations that you make in this statement are very carefully considered by the subcommittee in executive session.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. FIDLER, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

Senator MORSE. The next witness is Dr. William P. Fidler, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors. Dr. Fidler, we are delighted to have you. You may proceed in your

own way.

Dr. FIDLER. Thank you, Senator Morse.

(The prepared statement of Dr. William P. Fidler follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. FIDLER, GENERAL SECRETARY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

May I introduce myself as William P. Fidler, the general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, the national professional organization of college and university faculty members of all disciplines? We are particularly grateful for this opportunity to appear before your committee, because we know and appreciate how limited is the time that is available, and how pressing and difficult the task is that is before you.

Paradoxically, perhaps, it is exactly because we do deeply appreciate this, that we were constrained to request this opportunity to appear directly before you. For we want very much to indicate how strong and clear is our concern with respect to one of the basic issues presented by the bill (S. 1726) presently under consideration.

I have specific reference to the disclaimer affidavit requirement of the National Defense Education Act as presently in force. This association, as does also the community of higher education generally, strongly opposes this requirement as

being undesirable in principle, inconsistent with the basic objectives and constitutional concepts of our American heritage, productive of distrust of Government aids, and unfair to our young people who make up our college and university student community. I cannot tell you how heartwarming it was to the association to find that S. 1726, through its section 9(c), would delete this requirement from the National Defense Education Act. On behalf of the association, I want very much to indicate our deep gratitude to the sponsors of the bill, and to indicate to your committee and the Congress generally, our unreserved support of the provisions of this section. It is our hope that they will be enacted in the form as presently stated in the bill.

I believe the basic reasons for the deep concern of the academic profession with respect to the disclaimer affidavit requirement have been indicated to the Congress over the past several years, and I would not want to press this matter in view of the limitations of time. But I hope I can obtain at this time the permission of your committee to have placed in the full record and for your consideration, a copy of the letter sent by the association to the then members of your committee as its first formal protest against the affidavit, and the several resolutions adopted by the annual meetings of the association, including the one adopted at the meeting in Boston just several weeks ago. I should like also to offer in this connection, the letter of June 14, 1960, of Prof. Bentley Glass to Governor Tawes of Maryland which sets forth clearly and luminously, and much better than I can, the mistaken nature of test-oath laws, no matter how sincere the objectives of their sponsors.

Also, I should like to develop two special points in the time available to me. With respect to the first, I quote an excerpt from a speech made recently by Dean Erwin N. Griswold, of the Harvard Law School, as printed in the January 23, 1961, issue of the Washington Post:

"Academic freedom and civil liberties are woven deeply into the fabric of our constitutional history. At the present time, all is relatively quiet on the academic front, though we are not doing too well in the field of civil liberties. But the memory of attacks on academic freedom is still with us, and has surely left its scars and its effects.

"Perhaps the immediacy of this background has made us very much aware of the problems as well as the opportunities which are bound to come with increased public support for education.

"Where this takes the form of outright grants, without conditions, there are problems enough, but perhaps they can be safely surmounted. But the risk, where money is offered, is that there will be strings attached.

"I do not argue that the imposition of any condition is unacceptable, but the universities may be right in worrying that once they agree to accept money 'on condition,' they have thereby surrendered a principle-and it then becomes difficult to draw the line when an important academic freedom or right is threatened. "This question has been recently presented under the loan provisions of the National Defense Education Act. Congress has determined that these loans, which the universities must administer and partially finance, can be granted only to students who file an affidavit of disbelief reminiscent of the test oaths whose baneful influence darken many pages of our history.

"The affidavit in question is not of itself a major matter, but colleges and universities may rightly think of it as an entering wedge. It is not a question of power, but of wisdom.

"If the Government can appropriately impose such a condition, it can attach further strings to further grants. The time to preserve freedom is at the point where it is first impaired.”

The other point I would like to make is this: I know there are many groups and individuals who also out of a sense of principle favor the retention of the disclaimer affidavit requirement. I can tell you in all sincerity that the association recognizes and respects the honest difference of opinion and judgment involved. But I do not think it unfair to suggest the special significance and force of the striking sense of agreement among those groups and individuals who are perhaps in the best position to observe and evaluate the effects, implications, and results in actual fact of the disclaimer affidavit requirement. Thus, within the educational world itself-as indicated by positions already taken by the American Council on Education, the Association of American Colleges, the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities, the State Universities Association, the Association of American Law Schools, the National Education Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Student Association, and the many individual institu

tions, educators, and students-there is active agreement as to the undesirability of the requirement. Within our own association, even with the wide diversity of disciplines, perspective, and judgments represented, the basic and continued unanimity of opinion has likewise been striking. We think it more than coincidence that the agency in charge of administering the act and having an intimate knowledge of the requirement in actual operation has, whatever the administration, favored its repeal. And we would hope that you would be impressed, as we are, by the fact that those who are in the best position to appraise the requirement from the overall and broadest of perspectives-whether it be President Eisenhower or President Kennedy, whether it be the Republican candidate for President or the Democratic-have likewise all recommended its repeal.

In closing, let me reiterate our appreciation for the opportunity to present this testimony.

[From the Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, Autumn 1960]

BENTLEY GLASS ON TEST OATHS

Prof. Bentley Glass, author of the letter to Gov. J. Millard Tawes which follows, is the past president of the American Association of University Professors and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He is a member of the Committee on the Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation of the National Academy of Sciences and of the Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine of the Atomic Energy Commission. In May 1960, he was asked to accept an appointment to the new Radiation Control Advisory Board of the State of Maryland. After accepting the appointment, the Johns Hopkins scholar learned that he would be required, under the Ober law of 1949, to take a test oath. Professor Glass' reasons for refusing to take the test oath are set forth in his letter of June 14, 1960, to Governor Tawes. This document, so vibrant with conviction and so luminously appreciative of the essences of a free society, received widespread notice in newspapers and magazines, and columnist Gerald W. Johnson was moved to write admiringly in the New Republic (June 27, 1960): "This man isn't a Communist, he is a Jeffersonian, the one political type that is more terrible than the Gorgon's head to Communist and Fascist alike."

DEAR MR. TAWES: When I recently accepted appointment by you to serve a 3-year term on the Radiation Control Advisory Board of Maryland, I was unaware of the fact, of which I was apprised in your letter of May 27, that I would be required to sign the affidavit established under the Subversive Activities Act of 1949. I evidently failed to distinguish between membership on a statutory committee and on such other advisory committees as the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Energy to which I have been appointed. I have seriously considered the matter, over the past 10 days, and conclude that I cannot sign this affidavit. I would like to explain my reason for not doing so.

I have of course as a citizen of this country on numerous occasions taken the oath of allegiance, and will never hesitate to do so. Loyalty, like love, is a positive thing. But to be forced to swear that one is not disloyal or subversive to one's country is like being forced to swear that one is not disloyal in marriage. For that the loyal need no oath; the disloyal swear anything. An examination of the record of the enforcement of the Ober Act in this State proves amply that it is ineffective and inefficient, and a waste of the State's money. There are far better ways to catch conspirators, and there are adequate laws to punish them. Nevertheless, if it were merely a matter of personal repugnance to signing the required affidavit, I would swallow my distaste and quite honestly do so. Far weightier reasons compel me to refuse.

I am deeply convinced that these United States owe their greatest strength to our people's love of freedom. This love of freedom was expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights making up the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence proudly declared the right of being subversive of constituted government when sufficient need arises; and the Bill of Rights grew directly out of generations of experience with various sorts of test oaths which had become generally abhorrent. The test acts were passed in England to keep Roman Catholics and dissenters from holding public office, but the evils of requiring a political oath or test to exclude

C

*,་,,་

persons from public office because of creed or social belief, or membership in some association or political party, became so apparent that the British bill of rights, upon which our own was modeled, was a result. It was for this reason that the constitution of Maryland requires that no oath other than the simple oath of allegiance can be required. As Justice Black has said, "Centuries of experience testify that laws aimed at one religious or political group, however rational these laws may be in their beginnings, generate hatreds and prejudices which spread rapidly beyond control." I believe that when we revert to the snoopery of the test act or affidavit of political purity, we are insidiously paving the way to the very kind of police-dominated regime that has made the words Gestapo and NKVD terms that make men's blood run cold. As Alan Barth has said so well, "The national loyalty of free men is not so much to their government as the purposes for which their government was created."

I regard the law which requires officeholders of the State of Maryland to sign this nonsubversive affidavit as an affront to the Declaration of Independence and a violation of the spirit of both the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of the State of Maryland. If the time should ever come, in the aftermath of war or by foreign machination, when by constitutional means any party gains power in the United States which pursues intolerance and suppression as its means to nullify our political freedom, as the Nazis did in their own land and later in Austria and Czechoslovakia, and as the Communists have done in Czechoslovakia and Hungary and Poland, among other countries, then I shall regard it as my highest patriotic duty to be subversive of the recognized constitutional Government of this country or this State and to undertake by whatever means are necessary to overthrow it, in order to restore our civil liberties. But if it is said that the affidavit does not apply to constitutional political dominance by Nazis or Communists, I ask whether it applies to dominance by Ku Kluxers, White Supremacists, or still unborn parties that might, once in power, destroy our liberties. And if it be said that these things can never happen in our land, I point silently to France during the Vichy regime, to Czechoslovakia and Hungary today, to the Union of South Africa; and I remind Americans of the dark days of 1930-32, when, to many of us, revolution seemed no far-off thing. Nuclear war is a frightful possibility in today's uneasy balance of power; and the political sequel of such a catastrophe cannot be predicted.

I am also profoundly convinced that this law has done Maryland great harm already, and will do even more in the future, by preventing our State from securing the ablest leaders in education and political life. I know for a fact that some, and perhaps many, of our finest scientists and teachers chafe under the continuing insult to their integrity imposed by this requirement, and will leave at the first good opportunity. And I know also that it has proved a severe hindrance in recruiting to State service able young men of independent mind and a love of freedom. The end of this road cannot lead anywhere but to an amassing of mediocrity in our colleges and universities and other schools, where daring original thought and courageous leadership are so vitally important to the public welfare. This requirement sets a price on timidity and conformity, at a time when we can no longer compete on equal terms with Soviet Russia or even survive as a democracy on a capitalist basis, unless we are willing to outthink as well as outdare our Socialist competitors in pioneering in the scientific and technological changes that must have the greatest conceivable effect upon our ways of life. We cannot turn the clock back, and we cannot stand still. The tempo of scientific and technological change is so rapid, and is accelerating so rapidly, that profound social changes are made necessary. In the present temper of America, any advocate of social change is quite certain to be labeled a Communist. Yet it is only by finding the right new ideas that our society can defend itself against communism and can prevent itself from being engulfed by communism. I assert that we are doing almost everything we can to prevent America from arming herself with ideas. This Ober Act, and specifically the antisubversive requirement, is a prime example of the unwisdom of our actions. Feeling strongly as I do that this law is pernicious and inimical to the highest interests of the United States and the State of Maryland, I wish to register my protest in the only way open to a citizen, by public refusal to comply with the requirement to sign the antisubversive affidavit, even though such refusal prevents me immediately from serving my State on the Radiation Control Advisory Board. It is my hope that this protest may do something to get the law repealed. It was enacted in a time of high emotion and great national fear. With the passage of time and the disappearance from the national scene of some of the primary proponents of such measures, it has become clear to most political lead