Page images

Unfortunately, some of the presidents of the private colleges have not given their approval of this legislation but they should bear in mind that this is a great injury to the residents of the District of Columbia who cannot afford to go away to college or to attend the privately endowed colleges in the area. I feel the importance of this widening of the opportunities for higher education in the District so deeply that I would have appeared in person today if, on the date you assigned to me, it were not necessary for me to be in Baltimore.

The Committee on Higher Education, after an exhaustive study of conditions and needs in the District, came to the conclusion that both of the two institutions proposed in the bills before this committee were urgently needed in the District. Since our report in June 1964, the situation has become ever more critical.

A recent study of juniors and seniors in the high schools of the District of Columbia, conducted by the Superintendent of Schools and his staff, emphasizes the urgency of this need. A total of 3,891 high school seniors responded to a questionnaire. Of these, 2,540 plan to continue their education in a college or university next year; 771 are undecided; and only 580 do not plan to continue their formal education beyond the secondary school level. A total of 4,150 juniors who will graduate from high school in 1967 responded, and 2,635 of these have definitely decided to go to college; another 1,034 have not reached a decision, and only 481 have decided not to continue school after they complete high school.

Most of the high school juniors and seniors (2,640 juniors and 2,586 seniors) indicate that they are definitely interested in attending either the public community college or the public college of arts and sciences provided by the legislation before this committee. A total of 1,946 juniors and 1,711 seniors indicated that they would apply for admission to one of these institutions if they were unable to attend the college or universiy of their choice. Increased enrollments are placing a heavy strain upon the facilities of public and private institutions in the 50 States and the public institutions, in particular, are under heavy pressure to exclude nonresidents of the States in which they are located until all residents of the State have been accommodated. These pressures will undoubtedly result in the rejection of the applications of many of the graduates of the high schools of the District of Columbia.

All available evidence at the present time, then, indicates that there is a definite need for both of these institutions now, and that this need will become more urgent progressively as more and more residents of the District of Columbia complete secondary education and desire to prepare themselves for professional and semiprofessional occupations that require some college education as preparation for the activities in which they will engage. The residents of the States should not be expected to assume the financial burden involved in providing the facilities for higher public education for the youth of the District. Furthermore, I do not believe that the citizens of the District or the Members of Congress would expect them to do so.

I should like to comment in passing that the transfer of the U.S. Bureau of Standards from its present location on Connecticut Avenue to its new site in nearby Maryland will make available a large tract of publicly owned land which would be an excellent site for the two institutions of higher education proposed in the legislation before your committee. I wish to go on record as endorsing the use of all or a large portion of this tract of land as a campus for the two institutions presently under discussion. It is my sincere hope that the President of the United States and the executive branch of the Government will take steps immediately to reserve this property to meet the needs of the District for a site for these institutions of higher education.

I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to express by appreciation for the privilege of appearing before your committee. I also want to commend you and the members of your committee for the insight you have shown into the problems faced by the youth of the District. The insight you have shown and the energy you have displayed in attempting to find a solution to these problems gives me confidence that this Congress will make provision for adequate programs of higher education for the youth of the District of Columbia.

March 15, 1966.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Education and Labor, Senate District Committee,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I understand that your subcommittee is now considering S. 293 introduced by you and S. 1612 introduced by Senator Bible. These bills proposed the establishment of a public 4-year liberal arts college and a 2-year community college in the District of Columbia. I have for a long time been concerned about the fact that there is no public college in the District of Columbia offering higher education without cost to the students. As you know Senator, many of the people living in the District are financially unable to take advantage of the several fine private institutions of higher learning located here, they must therefore do without higher education. Certainly, many of these residents of our Federal Capital could profit from higher education, and their chances of becoming productive and responsible citizens would be bettered thereby. I am convinced if the District of Columbia had its own local governmental structure there would have been established by now adequate facilities for higher education. I do not believe that the establishment of higher educational facilities in the District ought to be made to wait on the solution of the larger problem of home rule for the District of Columbia.

It is often said that anyone who wants a college education in America can get one, but we know that unfortunately this is not true. According to figures supplied by the Bureau of the Census, the District of Columbia spent nothing for capital outlay on institutions of higher learning during 1963–64. This is true in spite of the fact that the District of Columbia has a larger population than 11 of our States. The only existing higher education facility in the District, so far as I know, is a Teachers' College which is housed in a physically dilapidated structure and which is institutionally incapable of providing the educational services which could be so important here.

I believe that the need for a comprehensive community college to serve the people of the District of Columbia, and eventually for a 4-year college of liberal arts and sciences, is evident. I hope that no youngster growing up in the District of Columbia will be denied the opportunity to develop himself to the fullest intellectually and vocationally because he or his family lack the means to take advantage of private educational institutions. I want the committee to know of my interest in and support for S. 293 and S. 1612. With best wishes. Faithfully yours,





March 15, 1966.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Education and Labor, Committee on the District of Columbia, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have enclosed my statement supporting legislation to establish a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia.

I would appreciate your including this statement in the record of public hearings on this legislation.

Best wishes.




Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommitte, I wish to take this opportunity to express my support of legislation establishing a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia.

In our age, the application of technology to virtually all fields of endeavor inevitably has resulted in a demand for increasingly higher skills and specialized training. As the need for unskilled labor has decreased, some training above the high school level has become more and more a prerequisite for em

ployment. And, of course, the better trained and educated hold the better jobs and face brighter futures.

Within recent years, the Federal Government has become increasingly aware of the pressing need to expand the scope of our educational programs and to upgrade the quality of our educational training, services, and facilities. The enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act last year are notable examples of the strides we have made in this field.

It seems to me, however, that we have neglected to support adequately one type of educational institution which is particularly well suited for the job of preparing students to participate in and contribute to community life. I refer to the public community college.

The District of Columbia is particularly unfortunate in not having an institution of higher education which can adequately provide advanced education and training to those residents of the area who need it most.

Although there are several fine universities in the area, none of them is oriented prmarily toward meeting the educational needs of the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia Teachers College is oriented in this direction. It was established, however, to meet the District's educational needs when Washington had less than one-half its present population. The college has done a commendable job—in 1963, one-third of all public school teachers were graduates of the college. But it has suffered from congressional and public indifference. Its facilities are woefully inadequate, and the number of graduates dropped 44 percent between 1958 and 1963.

Legislation is desperately needed to correct these inequities within the District and to provide District of Columbia residents with the educational opportunities to which they are entitled. I would hope, therefore, that this subcommittee will approve legislation for a public community college and a public college of liberal arts and sciences.

Senator MORSE. I am pleased to call on our first witness, an old friend of this committee, who has been of great help to the chairman for a good many years as we have struggled away to try to improve and solve problems in the District of Columbia.

I refer to Mr. J. C. Turner who is accompanied by another very fine friend of the chairman, Miss Selma Borchardt, chairman of the Committee on Education, Greater Washington Central Labor Council. Would you people come to the witness chairs and we will be delighted to hear you.


Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, we are most pleased that you have caused these hearings to be convened and to move forward on this most important problem to our community.

We do not wish to be repetitious and since the record of these hearings is very full, we shall be very brief.

We endorse and urge the early passage of S. 293.

However, in the matter of method of selection of the Board of Higher Education, we support an elected board. The size should be nine members, with staggered 4-year terms. The elections should be held every 2 years and should be nonpartisan.

We support Senator Yarborough's proposal of no tuition for the community college and not more than $100 tuition for the college of arts and sciences.

60-755 0-66- -16

We know that the citizens of the District have made an unanswerable case for passage of this legislation and we hope most sincerely for early passage.

Miss Selma Borchardt, the chairman of our education committee, has some other remarks to make and with your indulgence she will go ahead.

Senator MORSE. Go right ahead, Miss Borchardt.

I want to say, Mr. Turner, that I am leaning very heavily toward an elected board of education. I have gone along with the appointing provision, as you know, for a trial period.

In connection with the home rule legislation, may I say, for the benefit of counsel for the Civil Liberties Union, that I couldn't disagree with him more in the pronouncement of the Civil Liberties Union that they are willing to sacrifice the Senate home rule bill for this city in order to get this meaningless hybrid of a charter program, but that is another matter.

Mr. TURNER. So glad to hear you say that.
Senator MORSE. Beg your pardon.

Mr. TURNER. I am so glad to hear you say that.

Senator MORSE. I am at a loss as one who fought so hard for civil liberties in this country to hear the counsel of the Civil Liberties Union in the District of Columbia propose that we jeopardize the rights of first-class citizenship in this city, of the Sisk charter proposal. There was a time in 1959 when we were all working together, we thought, because of the parliamentary situation that existed then, that we might have a form of a charter program, and they got me to introduce such a bill. That bill was a far cry from the Sisk charter bill passed by the House of Representatives, may I say, but the Democrats happen to be in control over the House of Representatives supposedly; or are they? And if they are, then may I say to the counsel for the Civil Liberties Union, Mr. Freedman, he had better familiarize himself with parliamentary responsibilities that the Democratic Party and the President of the United States has in regard to home rule legislation in the House of Representatives and give us true home rule.

The reason I made these comments is because of the point that you make here about an elected board of education.

As you know, we have talked many times about whether or not it should be an elected board of education or an appointed board of education. We have had in old home rule bills an appointment procedure and I have always been perfectly willing to have an elected procedure. I am not so sure that it isn't preferable and, therefore, I would have no objections to this recommendation contained here in your statement this morning.

Likewise, of course, I would like to have free tuition, if we wouldn't handicap getting the legislation passed.

But as I said the other day I seriously doubt if you can get a bill through Congress without providing for the payment of some tuition. I think it ought to be kept as low as possible. There is something that can be said for tuitions, provided the tuition isn't so high that it simply bars these needy students, and we are dealing here in this legislation with students most of whom can't go to college if they have to go to out-of-State colleges or have to go to private colleges within the Dis

trict of Columbia because they can't afford the costs that those colleges must necessarily impose upon their students because most of them are private schools.

Mr. TURNER. Particularly the community college, Senator, we would hope that the could be free of tuition. In many counties and many States I am certain that the community colleges are free of tuition. When you get to the 4-year college possibly some tuition will be


Even New York City I think with City College of New York has now decided to charge some tuition.

Senator MORSE. Now I will be delighted to hear Miss Borchardt on this bill.

Miss BORCHARDT. Thank you.

Senator, we are awfully glad to come before you because we know that you are a friend of the principals, you are a friend of the labor, you are a friend of the working people throughout the country, and always stood for the protection of the interests of the people in every possible way and we are very, very grateful to you.

May I say that I was very happy to see the cordial reception that you received, that standing ovation, in New York City last Saturday, and it shows that you are appreciated for the contributions you have made in the field of education and related fields.

In this bill, of course, we support the principle as Jay has said. We have long been working for the two colleges here. We are calling to your attention two places where we should like to have the language, the one on page 6 where the duties of the presidents of the colleges are set forth.

We are not offering specific language for the amendment because we know of no one who could better phrase such amendment, who could better interpret any legislative act, than you, Senator.

So we simply call to your attention what is in that section and trust you to bring it out in a way in which we think it will protect the interests of the employees. This gives the presidents of the colleges complete and unrestricted control over the employees, but makes no reference to the necessity for preserving tenure and the right of hearing, the right of appeal, for those employees.

Senator MORSE. What page is it on, Miss Borchardt?

Miss BORCHARDT. On page 6, No. 5, at the bottom of the page, line 24.

Senator MORSE. I see it.

Miss BORCHARDT. And we are asking you to phrase our amendment to protect the teachers' interests in that place.

Then a little later there is another section to which we would direct your attention and that is the place of the laboratory schools. The teachers in the laboratory schools are now a part of the college faculty and we believe that the status of those teachers should remain as a part of an arts and science faculty.

This is particularly important when today the trend is away from teacher colleges with the idea that the teacher must have the broad social knowledge to be able to teach and should, therefore, be continued in the teachers college as a part of the program through which to better prepare the teachers for the work they are to undertake.

« PreviousContinue »