Page images

during these last 11 years now I do not believe personally that it will become a completely integrated institution until we have centralized facilities, for now we still have the bastions of the past, the Wilson building and the Minor building, and these are still very old—not really stately but at least permanent symbols of previous segregation. The faculty in the school of the Teachers College cannot be completely integrated, I believe, until we have a centralized institution.

With that, sir, I would like to close. I think you very much.

Senator MORSE. The full statement of Mr. Baumgart will go in the record at the very close of your testimony because I want the printed statement in the record without change.

Thank you very much.

Mr. BAUMGART. Thank you.

(The statement referred to follows:)


My name is Merle D. Baumgart and I am here today representing the Capitol Hill Council, an integrated civic organization composed of approximately 500 Capitol Hill residents. We wholeheartedly support the recommendations put forth in the report of the President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia. We think that the President's committee report is by far the most accurate, detailed, objective, and yet also the most comprehensive study of higher education needs ever undertaken in Washington, D.C. It is a model of lucidity and candor, and we think that it ought to be adopted by the District of Columbia government and the Congress as the official blueprint for immediate action concerning higher education in the District. Specifically, we support "the immediate creation of a comprehensive community college, publicly supported ***"; "the immediate creation of a college of liberal arts and sciences, also publicly supported ***"; and "the prompt establishment of a system of noncompetitive scholarships, publicly supported, to enable qualified District students, who wish, after 2 years' work in the Community College, to pursue special courses of study not offered at the outset by the proposed public college of liberal arts and sciences ***."

Toward these goals we support S. 1612 and/or S. 293, although concerning S. 293 we believe that the method of selecting the Board of Higher Education by the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has failed in the past, and is an inferior method to that proposed by S. 1612; i.e., appointment by way of a citizens nominating committee and the District of Columbia Commissioners. Perhaps an elected Board of Public Higher Education would be the best method of all.

Mr. Chairman, it painfully has become evident over the years that the District Teachers College does not enjoy the confidence or the support of a majority of District citizens, nor especially of the U.S. Congress. Due to congressional parsimony, District government timidity, and public school administration ineptitude, it has been dying on the vine for years. All the same the Teachers College represents the last hope for any kind of higher education to approximately 1,500 District residents annually, and when we speak in terms of the actual human needs that are at stake we find it incongruous in the extreme to see Congress so horrified over the District's rising crime rate, and yet so uninclined, over the years, to offer the same higher education opportunities that the great majority of other Americans matter of factly enjoy.

Let us look at the record. As far back as 1948 it was recognized generally that the then two segregated teachers colleges had fallen behind national averages in higher education. Accordingly, the House District Committee appropriated $100,000 for a study that resulted in the George D. Strayer report, which recommended an expenditure of $10 million for two new teachers colleges. Nothing happened. By 1955 Miner Teachers College and Wilson Teachers College were integrated and amalgamated into the District of Columbia Teachers College. It was new only in name and racial composition since the outmoded physical plants

were taken over, as was the outmoded and narrow concept of a 4-year normal school leading to only one possible degree, a B.S. certificate in teacher education. That was 11 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, in 1958 the Board of Education sponsored a report that strongly advised the building of a new physical plant. Nothing happened.

In 1959 the management consultant firm of Booz, Allen, & Hamilton was engaged by the Board of Education to study public higher education needs of District residents. They advocated the immediate establishment of a junior college, and the U.S. Senate followed through by passing the first of three junior college bills that it has approved between then and now. As we all know the House District Committee has sat on all public higher education bills the same way that they have sat on the District of Columbia home rule bills, and consequently we still do not enjoy the existence of a junior college, let alone a 4-year liberal arts college.

In 1962 the District of Columbia public school officials addressed a questionnaire to all graduating seniors in an effort to gage prospective interest in a public junior college. No less than 55 percent (1,782 students) registered their


Since then the President's Committee has reported that besides the 1,782 interested students, an additional 720 seniors who did not plan to go to college would change their minds if a public junior college existed. Moreover, the committee found that "at least 600" college able graduating seniors "who can afford to continue school only in a publicly supported institution" would be attracted to the 4-year liberal arts college yearly. The present freshman classes at the Teachers College average from 150 to 250 students yearly.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, there is a clear and immediate need for all the recommendations of the President's Committee report to be quickly acted upon, and toward that end the Capital Hill Community Council pledges its support to the earliest possible establishment of a public junior college, and a 4-year liberal arts college.

Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Now as the chairman brings this public hearing to a close it will be understood that the hearing record will be left open until 5 p.m. next Tuesday, March 29, 1966. In closing the hearing the chairman wants the record to show his thanks to every witness that has appeared before us, his thanks to those who have filed statements, and his thanks to those who will file statements between now and the final disposal of the bill by this subcommittee.

I desire to have Mr. Smith and Mr. Judd to arrange to have executive sessions of this committee for the markup on this bill at the earliest possible date consonant with the convenience of the members of the subcommittee. I am very anxious to get this bill reported to the full committee so that we can have prompt action there in order to get it to the floor of the Senate at the earliest possible date.

I think we do have reason to be encouraged as to the prospects for a District of Columbia College bill this year as was indicated in the story in last night's Evening Star by Shirley Elder entitled "Prospects Brighten for Public College in District." I am going to ask to have that story inserted in the record at this point. (The article referred to follows:)

[From the Evening Star, Mar. 23, 1966]


(By Shirley Elder, Star staff writer)

Prospects for both a junior college and a 4-year liberal arts school here were looking up today as traditional House District Committee opposition appeared to be softening.

First Representative Joel T. Broyhill, Republican of Virginia, called the need for public colleges here urgent.

Then, the chairman of the District subcommittee in charge of the higher education bills, Representative Thomas Abernethy, Democrat of Mississippi, said he will set a precedent and schedule hearings as soon as possible after the Senate acts.

In the Senate, hearings will continue tomorrow on the two measures sponsored by Senator Wayne Morse, Democrat of Oregon, which have drawn wide community support. Final Senate action could come later this spring. Identical bills have been introduced in the House by Representative B. F. Sisk, Democrat of California.

Three times in the past the Senate has approved a public college for the District, only to have the proposal die silently for lack of a hearing, in the House committee.

In announcing his stand, Broyhill called for relaxation of the committee's longstanding opposition to the college idea. He asked for prompt hearings.

"The District of Columbia enjoys the second-highest per capita income among the States," Broyhill said, "and yet it has the lowest per capita expenditure for higher education."

For example, he said, the District spends an average of $1.22 per person on college education while Maryland spends $21.23 and Virginia, $19.40.

Senator MORSE. I think that is a very fitting note on which to close these public hearings. The hearings are hereby closed. We await now the submission of further statements. Mr. Smith and Mr. Judd, we want you to know that the parties to the hearings should understand that we may call them back for further consultation at the hearings.

The hearings are closed.

(Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was closed.)

(The following statements were subsequently supplied for the record :)


My name is Mrs. Edward Ryan and I am submitting this statement today on behalf of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers. I am a vice president

of the national PTA and chairman of the legislation action committee.

The national PTA, on behalf of its 12 million members in every State, endorses the efforts to provide an extension of educational opportunities beyond high school to the children of the District of Columbia. PTA has long evidenced its concern for the improvement of school facilities in the District of Columbia and the sections of its national program giving such authorization are supported by PTA members throughout the country.

The situation in the District of Columbia is unique and, at the same time, deplorable. In no State in the Union, and in few large urban centers, is there such a complete lack of any publicly supported and controlled college or university. Children with ability but without funds are completely cut off from any facility offering general courses. The continuing lack of such a facility severely limits the horizons of students who are aware of the substantial fees charged by the private institutions in the city. Those who are especially gifted may benefit from scholarships, but then what of the average able student? With no incentive to do well in high school so that he may continue on in free public facilities of higher education, such a student is effectively blocked from the contribution which he might make to his city and to his Nation by pursuing the greatest amount of education from which he can benefit. At a time when we urge more intensive education for all children, the situation in the District of Columbia is difficult to justify.

The District of Columbia PTA has detailed in its remarks to this committee a thorough discussion of the higher education needs of the District of Columbia. May we simply underscore this statement and reiterate the support of the national PTA for a prompt and adequate solution to these very pressing needs. May we also express our appreciation to the members of this committee for the opportunity to express our views, and indicate our firm commitment on the part

of our national membership to do as much as we can to bring opportunity for the children of the District of Columbia up to the opportunity of educational advancement enjoyed by every other child in the country.

Washington, D.C., January 15, 1965.


U.S. Senator,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: I see that you have proposed legislation (S. 293) which will establish a community college and public college of arts and sciences for the District. I am in hearty agreement with this. I know you have long proposed better education for the citizens of the District. In my opinion this is the best answer to most of the socioeconomic problems in the District of Columbia. If we could only improve the elementary and secondary schools and add your new programs, what a difference it would make.

If our association or I can be of any assistance please call on us.

I have been and am still serving on the Vocational Education Advisory Committee for the District of Columbia and also on the MDTA Advisory Committee here. My effort and interest here lies in improving the vocational schools of the District.



Washington, D.C., March 28, 1966.

U.S. Senator,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: It was a pleasure to sit in briefly on your hearings regarding public higher education for the District of Columbia last Thursday. I was particularly pleased to hear the testimony of the four high school students. The need for a public junior college and a 4-year liberal arts university is obvious and we appreciate your work in helping to bring about the necessary legislation in Congress.



Wheaton, Md., March 18, 1966.


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

DEAR SIR: I am writing to you as a Christian minister who is deeply concerned about higher education.

I urge you to give vigorous support to the pending legislation on the establishment of a junior college and a 4-year college of liberal arts and sciences in the District of Columbia.

Sincerely yours,


BETHESDA, MD., March 15, 1966.

Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I read with interest of the hearings your subcommittee of the Senate District Committee concerning the establishment of a public institution of higher learning in the District of Columbia.

I agree that college-age youth in the District are deprived of the privilege of taking advantage of publicly supported higher education. This is a privilege enjoyed by residents of the 50 States and should be extended to District of Columbia residents as soon as possible.

The organization and establishment of an institution of higher learning will take some time. This complex process is quite time consuming under normal conditions. I'm sure you would agree with me that the participation of the U.S. Congress in this process will not expedite matters at all. In the meantime, while facilities are being acquired or built, and faculty and staff are recruited, more and more District of Columbia students will miss the advantage of a publicly supported education. Even after a District of Columbia university or college could open its doors, it would take more years for it to develop a truly quality curriculum. As a result more students would miss their full opportunity.

Therefore, I would propose as an immediate measure, a tuition subsidy program for District of Columbia residents attending local universities. The District of Columbia boasts five excellent universities whose collective excellence covers a spectrum of academic disciplines from art and drama to medicine and dentistry. The only area of study not covered is the agricultural sciences, which are not relevant to an urban population. These five universities have recognized their relative strengths and weaknesses and organized a graduate consortium to provide for an exchange of students and class credits. A tuition subsidy program would aid District of Columbia residents to take immediate advantage of excellent educational institutions in being within their community, and would probably cost the District less than acquiring and supporting a separate physical plant and faculty.

This subsidy program would reimburse local universities for all but a fraction of local residents' tuitions. The District of Columbia resident would pay the balance himself. Therefore, a District of Columbia resident attending George Washington University as a full-time undergraduate would pay $100 or more per semester; while out-of-District of Columbia students would pay the regular tuition. Similar reimbursements could be made on credit-hour charges for parttime and graduate students. The amount the student is required to pay himself would be comparable to other State colleges and universities in the Nation. Charges for room and board would not have to be subsidized because eligible students would live within commuting distance. In addition to the direct per capita tuition reimbursements, the District could also make an indirect cost payment to the participating universities to assist in the expansion of their facilities to meet increased enrollments, and to defray their costs of administering the program. This indirect cost payment could be paid on a formula basis worked out in advance.

This proposal would in no way give long-term relief to the continually growing pressure for more higher education facilities in the Washington, D.C., area. Rather it is a measure which would put into more or less immediate operation a public higher education program for the residents of the District of Columbia. I offer this suggestion simply for your consideration and possibly comment by officials of the government of the District of Columbia. As you can see by my address I am not a District of Columbia resident, neither am I an employee of the District Government or of one of the five District of Columbia-located universities. Sincerely yours,




Washington, D.C., February 23, 1966.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Congratulations on your extensive efforts to provide residents of the District of Columbia with even more educational facilities than now exist. While I heartily concur that additional, low-cost facilities are required, I do, however, disagree with the approach currently being taken by Congress.

The creation of a new city college for the District of Columbia will only serve to more clearly delineate the difference between those who are financially able to select their school and those who are unable to do so.

It is my contention that assistance to an existing educational institution will serve better to obtain the mix of backgrounds which is so vital to full university life a life where the student is not only educated in specifics, but is also broadened personally because of his constant exposure to opinions and interests which

« PreviousContinue »