made by 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 quite 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 become 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 or 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 sincereity 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 institutions, 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. Senator MORSE. Dr. Fidler, this is a very helpful statement. I want you to know that I shall lean very heavily on it in my arguments against the affidavit and the oath both in committee and on the floor of the Senate. Should I lose in committee, I want the record to show today I will press forward on the floor of the Senate, because I quite agree with you and I have consulted the best qualified witnesses in the country on this matter, namely, the educators themselves. With all of their diversities-and how well I know what those diversities are when you find this kind of unanimity, we, in Congress, better take a long, hard look at any proposal that seeks to continue the affidavit disclaimer which, to my own knowledge, is causing so much internal difficulty on campus after campus. I certainly hope that the Congress, in its wisdom, this year will see fit to follow the recommendations of those who drafted the legislation in the first instance, and not reenact in this bill the amendment that I have heretofore opposed, because it seemed to me from the very beginning that the preponderance of evidence and opinion was against the affidavit. I want to thank you very much. Dr. FIDLER. Thank you, Senator Morse. We deeply appreciate your support. Senator MORSE. All right. Our next witness will be Miss Bell, of the legislative staff-I understand that Miss Bell will not be with us, but let the record show that she will be notified and the statement she wishes to file for the record will be incorporated in the record. Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mr. Richard Shipman, assistant director of legislative service of the National Farmers' Union. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Shipman. You may proceed when you are ready. STATEMENT OF RICHARD SHIPMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION Mr. SHIPMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we appreciate very much this opportunity to express ourselves this afternoon on this piece of legislation. The National Farmers' Union strongly urges extension of the National Defense Education Act as provided in S. 1726, but with one amendment. We urge an amendment to title VIII, section 303 (2) (3) which limits the use of funds to the training of— Highly skilled technicians in recognized occupations requiring scientific knowledge *** in fields necessary for national defense. This language in section 303 has been interpreted in such a way as to seriously restrict the use of funds, so that they have not been used for programs which we believe are vitally necessary and which can best be carried on in rural areas as vocational training programs. There is no definition in the law of the phrase "fields necessary to national defense" and no definition of the words "highly skilled technician." However, the policy has been to leave their interpretation to Federal administrators who have interpreted them in such a way as to preclude the use of funds for technical and scientific vocational training programs of great importance to American agriculture. We believe these Federal administrative interpretations are unwarranted Federal controls. We believe in State and local control. We, therefore, urge that the act be amended to place the discretion as to the use of funds in the State and local administrators as was done in the older vocational education acts. The subcommittee, we are sure, knows the history of this legislation better than we do, but it is our understanding that these Federal controls in the act came about as the result of the Bush amendment at the request of the Eisenhower administration. We feel sure the present administration favors the repeal of the Bush amendment and the placing of control of these funds in State and local authorities. We are confident of this because of a letter which the then Senator Kennedy wrote to teachers of vocational agriculture, October 24, 1960. We would like at this point to have the whole letter placed in the record, but we quote one sentence from the letter: I favor the repeal of the Bush amendment so that funds for area vocational programs may be used for all phases of vocational education. We do not believe it is necessary for us to prove to this committee that agriculture is important to our national defense. In two World Wars and a number of brush wars, food and fiber have been proven to be highly strategic materials. It seems to us that it matters little whether we are fighting a hot war, or cold war, or just the age-old war against the hunger of mankind, food remains the most important of all defensive materials. We are still ahead of our international competition in the field of agriculture. We want to stay ahead. The opposition has boasted that they will surpass us in this field, and well they might if we starve our vocational education programs for the funds they badly need. Senator MORSE. The entire letter will be inserted in the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) U.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR PRESIDENT, To Teachers of Vocational Agriculture: In vocational education, as elsewhere, nothing short of the best will meet the challenge of the sixties. For years I have sponsored and supported measures designed to strengthen and expand the program of vocational agriculture. This program has been of inestimable value to millions of individuals and to our whole Nation's economy. The Democratic Party has a long record of support of vocational education The Smith-Hughes Act was passed during the Wilson administration, the George Deen Act during Roosevelt's administration, and the George-Barden Act during the Truman administration. I wholeheartedly support the pledge in the 1960 Democratic platform for "further Federal support for all phases of vocational education for both youth and adults." On the other hand, the present administration, on at least two occasions, has recommended that the legislation authorizing Federal aid for vocational agriculture as well as for other phases of vocational education, should be repealed; and in the 1961 budget the administration recommended a decrease in Federal assistance for training in agriculture, home economics, industrial trades, and distributive occupations. Only the refusal of the Democratic Congress to enact the administration proposals has prevented vocational agriculture from being seriously crippled. The Bush amendment to title VIII of the National Defense Education Act, which severely limits the use of funds for vocational education under that title, was offered at the request of the present administration. I favor the repeal of the Bush amendment so that funds for area vocational education programs may be used for all phases of vocational education. Thinking Americans are proud of the record established by vocational educa tors. Sincerely, JOHN F. KENNEDY. Senator MORSE. I thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Shipman, and I have given my assignment to the Department of Education. I want them to prepare me a brief memorandum commenting upon the policy problems raised by Mr. Shipman's testimony. Specifically, I would like to have a memorandum dealing with the Department's suggestions with regard to the Bush amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Shipman. Is there any witness in the room who is planning to testify tomorrow morning who might be ready to testify this afternoon? (There was no response.) Senator MORSE. Is there any witness in the room who was scheduled to testify but who was not present when I previously called his or her name and who is ready to testify now? (There was no response.) Senator MORSE. Is there any person in the room who wishes to briefly testify? (There was no response.) Senator MORSE. I may say to the staff that I do everything I can to maintain my reputation adequately, and take all opportunities to make a legal record. There being no further witnesses we stand in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Saturday, May 13, 1961.) STATEMENT BY BARRY MORRIS, CONSULTANT, AUDIOVISUAL EDUCATION, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-FLORIDA Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Barry Morris, con sultant, audiovisual education, State department of education of Florida. Tallahassee. It is an honor for me to appear before you today as the representative of 5,300 members of the department of audiovisual instruction, National Education Association. I would like to preface my testimony on the legislation before your subcommittee today with the statement that the educators whom I represent are keenly aware of and endorse the Federal support bill for public elementary and sec ondary education, S. 1021, which your full committee on Labor and Public Welfare reported for Senate consideration May 11. We feel the Federal Government must play a greater role in the support of general education. At the same time, we feel the Federal Government has a responsibility to stimulate development in special areas of education such as those contained in the measure before you. I will limit my testimony on S. 1726 to titles III and VII of the proposed extension and improvement of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 be-cause these are areas of special concern to the department of audiovisual instruction and are areas in which we feel a competence. May I say that the recommendations which I will present for your consideration were developed after serious discussion and an exchange of experiences under this act by our members meeting in national convention recently in Miami Beach, Fla. The department of audiovisual instruction is seeking to improve educationthe process by which we communicate information and understanding and appreciation from those who understand to those who would learn. But more than this we are seeking to develop in the student an understandingof his own which must eventually surpass the understanding of his teacher. For it is only to the degree that we do this that progress can be made in man's total knowledge or in his capability to master his environment. To do this a teacher must have unusual skill in the basic media and techniques of communication. Such skill is rare. Indeed, Kahlil Gibran has said, in effect, that we cannot teach anything to anyone-we can only lead a student to the threshold of his own understanding. Education has long suffered from an overdependence upon abstract symbols. Words, both printed and spoken, are highly abstract symbols which have meaning only if the student already knows their meaning. And even then there is often confusion. The single word "run" has more than 150 definitions in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, and it has many more when used as part of various common idioms. With such a cumbersome language we must reinforce our words and at times replace them with more meaningful representations. We do this by using concrete symbols-by editing reality rather than abstracting it. Thus, we set up model demonstrations in which we can examine certain phenonema under ideal conditions. We produce instructional motion pictures-editedTM versions of reality which permit us to slow down processes which are otherwise too fast to see, or to look through telescopes or to look inside a blast furnace or to observe the life processes within a living cell. And we provide manipulative devices which permit students to experiment, to practice, and to invent. The National Defense Education Act has provided a tremendous stimulus to the acquisition and use of such devices by our schools and some people have raised the question of whether we will have enough of this stimulus after 4 years. The answer is no. For example, the recent great awakening in foreign language teaching has been based in good measure upon the use of electronic practice facilities for mastery of a foreign language as a medium of communication rather than as a subject for dissection and conjugation. Under the aegis of National Defense Education Act the number of language laboratories in my home State of Florida has grown from 1 in 1959 to nearly 100 today. But the point is, Florida still has 800 high schools with no such facilities for foreign language practice. The physical science study committee with its new course in high school physics has made much of the traditional physics laboratory equipment obsolete. Of course it was really obsolete long before Physical Science Study Committee appeared, but it remained for National Defense Education Act to provide the funds for retooling 90 percent of the physics laboratories in Florida to permit the teaching of this new course. The new course began in 1956 as a concerted effort by some of the Nation's top physicists and science educators to approach the subject of physics from modern understandings rather than the outdated classical ones in common school use. This effort involved the writing of complete new textbooks and laboratory manuals, the devising of new kinds of laboratory apparatus and experiences, and the development of a series of some seventy motion pictures to bring meaning and impact to the communication of basic ideas. Although my State is 90 percent converted to the use of this new physics course, only a handful of its schools have direct access to the expensive films: which constitute a very vital part of the program. 69660-61- -16 |