It seems to me a major premise we must not lose sight of, we just don't have the facilities sufficient to serve the young men and women in this country that are seeking college admission. Therefore, as I have said so many times, who is being sacrificed? The average student. The scholarships, by and large, are based upon so-called superior ability. We cannot afford to throw away the potential power of the average student, many of whom, interestingly enough, after graduation from high school developed the interest in college so that they cease to be average students in college after they have been there for a while. The reason I don't buy the scholarship approach is that you just don't have the facilities. These private colleges in the District of Columbia could not take on this group of students if you give each one of them a scholarship without sacrificing other students. These private colleges all have a very important service to perform in higher education and I am for helping them. You get some criticisms for that, you know. I have battled for aid to private colleges within the first amendment and I think we have met the constitutional test. Millions of dollars of aid has gone to them and some of these private institutions in the District of Columbia are the recipients of some of that aid. I am all for that. As far as my position is concerned, I am not going to in any way jeopardize what I consider to be as a right. We come to the point where we better start talking about rights in matter of education. I am not going to jeopardize the right that 1 think these young men and women in the District of Columbia have coming to them by way of being given a guaranteed opportunity to receive at a public institution a higher education on the basis of any substitute of having the Howard University seek to take on an additional burden that in my judgment means it has to sacrifice services that it is already rendering or have private institutions take on the burden even by being the recipient of scholarships to be granted to these students when these private institutions cannot begin to meet the needs here or anywhere else in the country. You have heard me say before, Dr. Haworth, that I want this record to show, because it bears directly on this point, the testimony before my Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare which shows that we are going to have to build so many more colleges between now and 1980 to answer the knocks on the doors of the colleges of this country from young men and women who have the capacity to do satisfactory college work. To talk about trying to meet this problem by providing scholarships for students to go to existing colleges and universities is just ignoring the realities of the situation. That would be no help in solving the need from the standpoint of numbers who are qualified to go to college and want to go to college. So, let's face it; we do have a brick and mortar problem. We have many other problems connected with higher education, but you can't do very much with the higher education problem until you provide the brick and mortar facilities. What is needed in the District of Columbia is brick and mortar first, and this means you have to authorize the physical structure and that is what these bills are about. Mr. HAWORTH. And also that is why we advocated a large site because we figure it would take a lot of buildings. You will notice we are in agreement with your suggestions regarding the admission of C students which will be flexible and appropriate to the various programs offered by the institution which would take care of things of this sort, we feel. I had a conversation several weeks ago with a woman who has had a lot of experience teaching Sunday school classes in her church to classes of young people of junior and senior high school age. It bears upon the questions that you asked the school students who appeared before you a few moments ago. This woman told me many of the students in her class came from families of exceedingly limited income, that they had intended to become dropouts from the junior-senior high school as soon as they got old enough to drop out because they felt that the sort of thing that the future had for them was not available in the way of college opportunity; therefore, they could not hope to get the kind of jobs they would like to get so that their future was just a hopeless dead end for them. This new institution that is proposed in these bills, especially if you broaden it to be a university, would offer them a goal within the ambitions and desires of every young person no matter what his interest would be if his ambition could be ultimately satisfied. Senator MORSE. That is what I think. Mr. HAWORTH. We would like to close by pointing out that although you have sponsored a great many significant bills in the field of education and welfare and so on, we feel that this bill would probably be of greater significance to this community and to the country at large than any of the other legislation in your National Congress. We feel that, if created, it would affect generations now unborn for years to come and that they would flower in an institution nurtured in a way that would add to the welfare of our community and to the Nation and to themselves as individuals. We hope you will help us. Senator MORSE. Thank you very much. Mr. HAWORTH. Thank you. Senator MORSE. Our next witness is Mr. Daniel B. Lloyd, chairman on education, American University Park Citizens Association. We are pleased to welcome you, Mr. Lloyd. STATEMENT OF DANIEL B. LLOYD, CHAIRMAN ON EDUCATION, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PARK CITIZENS ASSOCIATION Mr. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I am Daniel B. Lloyd, chairman on education of the American University Park Citizens Association which of course is a member of the Federation of Citizens Association. Our association represents an area of some 2,000 families within the section of the District of Columbia north of Massachusetts Avenue and west of Wisconsin Avenue NW., which has recently gone on record endorsing the pending bills on the junior college and liberal arts college for the District of Columbia. It is our sincere hope that these will be enacted into law at this session. As taxpayers we have always taken a careful look at expenditures for higher public education. We have this year focused our attention on this particular phase of educational programs. Individuals who are in need of such an institution or the parents and friends of these young people and of us, the average citizens of the District of Columbia, will be paying the bill. We believe that the expense will be a sound investment, not an expense on the community. In the past some of the universities have proposed higher public education feeling that it would step on the toes of these larger institutions. This is no longer the case, as the universities themselves have recently stated. Naturally the several universities surrounding us are ever anxious to serve a variety of educationally related functions of both basic and applied research, of preservice, inservice, and postservice training programs directed toward a myriad of governmental or other functions and operations. There should be a clear distinction between Federal training programs and education responsibilities as contrasted to municipal institutions and their educational responsibilities. The point I wish to make is that there is a widening breach between the type of functions of the universities and those of a communitytype college, and this is becoming more pronounced daily. For instance, the consortium that any university combine recently organized between the several universities in the area to pool their resources with its emphasis on the postgraduate level program has created even more of a vacuum on the undergraduate level and a consequently increased need for the city college type of institution, the latter being the widely accepted type of institution in the typical urban community throughout our Nation. We strongly favor the present appointive system for Board of Education members. We take here the view of responsible, conservative, professional educators that the schools are best served by responsibly appointed Board members. An adequate program of courses which will upgrade our teaching staff to the highest possible level of proficiency should be included in the program. In other words, there should be an adequate organized postgraduate inservice program included as a department of the liberal arts college which will provide the kind of program that is actually required by the schools already. Failure to provide this is really an inconsistency with existing law concerning the upgrading of the teachers. Of course as encompassed by the previous speaker in the larger program, a long-range program, we feel this will be adequately cared for and we go along with that very, very strongly. We have not gone in depth as he has done, as his association has done, but we believe that this will be in the long run the economical approach to this very, very large and growing increasingly important program for the District. The present old college, referring now to the District of Columbia. College plant, consists of two widely separated buildings located nearly a half mile apart. As an emergency measure these old buildings were adapted to this makeshift use about 11 years ago. This bifurcated arrangement necessitates a shuttling back and forth between these two educational islands. Between the 50-minute classes, which range from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., the students and faculty alike shuttle back and forth, the interval between classes being extended to 15 minutes to accommodate this pilgrimage. The more agile students perform the hike on foot while a sizable colony of automobiles emerges to a honeycomb of narrow sidestreets to battle the traffic of three heavily traveled thoroughfares. This pitiful parade enacted hourly throughout the college day presents a nerve racking, dangerous, and probably grotesque spectacle and unbecoming to an educational institution on any level. The District of Columbia stands among the bottom of the list in providing higher educational opportunities though it tops the list in its per capita income among the States. This inconsistency is further heightened by the fact that its sole effort is confined to the perpetuation of a 19th century model institution. The present single-purpose college is reminiscent of a bygone age when all the employed young women became schoolteachers and the young men went off to theological seminaries. Thus, straitjacketed, it stands proudly on the hill with one foot in the past and the other bravely struggling to gain a 20th century status. It is one of the few remaining survivors of a rapidly vanishing band of normal schools, most of which have long since converted their curriculums to become responsive to modern 20th century multipurpose requirements. We hope that the ancient philosophy, now nearly extinct throughout the Nation, will not be further perpetuated by this Congress and that the Nation's Capital, a community of high average income, will come alive in this important aspect of its educational program. Thank you very much, sir. Senator MORSE. Thank you very very much, Mr. Lloyd. That is a very helpful statement. I am going to have follow your statement a letter that Mr. John T. Collier, president of the American University Park Citizens Association, sent to Senator Bible dated March 1, 1966. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. ALAN BIBLE, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PARK CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR SENATOR BIBLE: This association, representing an area of some 2,000 families within the section of the District of Columbia north of Massachusetts Avenue and west of Wisconsin Avenue, Northwest, has recently gone on record endorsing the pending bills on the junior college and liberal arts college for the District of Columbia. It is our sincere hope that these will be enacted into law at this session. The present old college plant consists of two widely separated buildings located over a half mile apart. As an emergency measure these old buildings were adapted to this makeshift use about 11 years ago. This bifurcated arrangement necessitates a shuttling back and forth between these two educational islands. Between the 50-minute classes which range from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. the students and faculty alike shift back and forth, the interval between classes being extended to 15 minutes to accommodate this pilgrimage. The more agile students perform the hike on foot, while a sizable colony forms automobile pools, and emerges through a honeycomb of narrow side streets to battle the traffic of three heavily traveled thoroughfares. This pitiful parade, reenacted hourly throughout the college day, presents a nerve racking, hazardous, and palpably grotesque spectacle, highly wasteful and unbecoming an educational institution on any level. The District of Columbia stands at the bottom of the list among the States in providing higher public education, although it tops the list in its per capita income. This inconsistency is further heightened by the fact that its sole effort is confined to the perpetuation of a 19th-century-model institution. The present single-purpose teachers college is reminiscent of a bygone age, when all the employed young women became schoolteachers, and the young men went off to 60-755-66-22 theological seminaries. Thus straitjacketed, it stands proudly on the hill, with one foot in the past, and the other bravely struggling to gain a 20th-century status. It is one of the few remaining survivors of a rapidly vanishing band of normal schools, most of which have long since converted their curriculums to become responsibe to modern, 20th-century, multipurpose requirements. We hope that the ancient philosophy, now nearly extinct throughout the Nation, will not be further perpetuated by this Congress, and that the Nation's capital, a community of high average income, will "come alive" in this important aspect of its educational program. JOHN T. COLLIER, President. Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mr. Burke E. Dorworth, Director, Commission on Religion and Race, Washington City Presbytery, United Presbyterian Church. Mr. Dorworth, I am delighted that you are here. STATEMENT OF BURKE E. DORWORTH, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON RELIGION AND RACE, WASHINGTON CITY PRESBYTERY, UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH Mr. DORWORTH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, as you stated I am appearing before your committee on behalf of the Commission on Religion and Race of the Washington City Presbytery, the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. We make this witness for public institutions of higher education to add our endorsement for the passage of legislation that will make this educational opportunity a reality in the District of Columbia. We know that the facts are in and commend the President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia for its conclusions based on these facts. We know other church organizations have brought their support and we stand with that support as it is reflected in the Milton C. Mapes' report presented by the Council of Churches of Greater Washington. And we also know that recommendations for such an institution from outstanding educators are before this committee, We cannot add to this wealth of information. The only justification for our witness is to be a part of the higher vision of this committee and add our voice to the collective support that we might help provide the will for Congress to pass legislation for public institutions of higher education at all deliberate speed. When one reviews just a few of the facts and conclusions, it almost seems like an exercise in gamemanship, that we are making and you are receiving statements to support this concept of education for the District of Columbia. It seems incredulous that in 1966 hearings such as this on this subject are necessary. That $2.26 per capita was spent for higher education in the District of Columbia in 1963-64 as compared to a national average of $28.27 seems indicative of the incredulity. To see where that $2.26 is spent and to therefore understand the declining enrollment rate at District of Columbia Teachers College does not bring restraint to one's mounting wonderment about the situation. Then to learn that this jurisdiction alone in the entire United States is without such opportunity adds to a sense of frustration. One is forced to consider how many more embarrassments will emerge to show once again how far back in time are the accomplishments for the District of Columbia. Still, |