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 :) STATEMENT OF MRS. EDWARD RYAN, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS 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. RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, INC., Hon. WAYNE MORSE, 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. Sincerely, JOHN S. COCKRELL. DIVISION OF ALCOHOL PROBLEMS AND GENERAL WELFARE, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, 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. Sincerely, RICHARD P. EDGAR. WHEATON PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Senate District Subcommittee on Education and Labor, 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, PAUL R. EDWARDS. BETHESDA, MD., March 15, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, 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, PAUL G. WAUGAMAN. THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, Washington, D.C., February 23, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, 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 are not common to the ethnic group to which he belongs. Only in this fashion are we able to contribute to the development of the complete man. Southeastern University, a small business-oriented university has been training relatively small numbers of such well-rounded persons since 1879. The student body is composed of those from all walks of life. The university is coeducational, integrated, and has a faculty composed of those who practice the subjects they teach. Southeastern University has not obtained regional accreditation. The board of trustees decided that the community could best be served if the university could offer high-quality, low-cost education. Accordingly, the university is housed on the third floor of the central YMCA Building at 1736 G Street NW. These quarters are shared with Woodward Preparatory School which conducts classes in the same classrooms which are used by Southeastern in the evening. As a result of this management decision of the board of trustees, the university does not have the physical plant facilities to conduct full-time day school and is not accredited. The tuition rates reflect the plus side of the board's decision, they are still fixed at $17 per credit hour. The high quality of the education offered and the low tuition rates have attracted those who earnestly seek an education offered and the low tuition rates have attracted those who earnestly seek an education but are forced to earn a living at the same time. In this context, Southeastern University has been serving as the District of Columbia community college since 1879. As I understand the intent of Congress, it is to provide District of Columbia residents with the opportunity to obtain high-quality, low-cost education-not to establish another governmental activity. Assuming that my understanding is correct, any educational institution (whether private or public) will need certain things to accomplish this task, as follows: 1. Land. 2. Buildings and equipment. 3. Faculty. Since these requirements will apply equally to either public or private institutions, I urge you to consider the use of an existing private institution to accomplish your goal, namely, Southeastern University. Southeastern University presently has a professional administrator, President John Maurer. It also has an impressive nucleus of the faculty necessary to conduct the important evening programs. The university does not have adequate physical plant. As with any new public institution, physical plant, and the land upon which to build it, must be provided. The obtaining of additional faculty for the day portion of the curriculum should provide no more problems to Southeastern than it would to a new, public institution. It will take either Southeastern or any new public institution the same period of time to achieve full regional accreditation. We who still believe in private enterprise do not deny that there are areas in which only the massive resources of the Federal Government are sufficient to obtain the desired result within the shortest period of time. We do, however, believe that the contribution of the Federal Government should be substantially one of assistance to individuals, rather than the creation of more public institutions which, for all practical purposes, either have no financial responsibility placed upon them, or like District of Columbia Teachers College, are abandoned and allowed to deteriorate because of the inability of those responsible to properly support the institution. I would urge you to consider the building of an educational plant on public land, which could then be made available to Southeastern University for the conduct of an approved curriculum. Full responsibility for maintenance of the land and buildings, as well as responsibility for maintenance and replacement of all furniture and equipment would remain with the university. A comprehensive program of tuition assistance could be used to provide all the guarantees necessary to assure a high-quality, low-cost education for all desiring it. Please give the foregoing your most serious consideration. As you, above all others, are well aware, the pouring of more and more public funds into public educational institutions while supposedly providing high-quality education, seems to result in the deterioration of education. It spawns fine research staffs, but doesn't seem to answer the problem of educating the individual. Most of the larger institutions, both in this area and nationally, are now conducting so-called lecture classes for 200 to 300 students. We of Southeastern don't believe in that type of education. We maintain that each student should have ready access to his instructor and that classes should be small enough to allow dialog both between professor and student and also among the students. Only in this manner is a student truly a participant in, and a contributor to, the class he is attending. Your fellow Member of the U.S. Senate, Jennings Randolph, has served the university in various capacities since 1936. Having served as an instructor and also in an administrative capacity, Senator Randolph is currently a member of the board of trustees. I feel sure that Senator Randolph would be pleased to answer any question which you would have regarding the university, its background, its contributions to the community, or its competence to undertake this most important task. I also feel certain that both President John P. Maurer and Mr. Royal E. Jackson, president of the board of trustees would consider it a privilege and honor to testify at your subcommittee hearings. Please have this letter read into and made a part of the official subcommittee hearings record. Sincerely yours, EUGENE F. CARBONNEAU, President. THE PRESIDENT'S COMMENTS It seems to be the fad nowadays for legislators at all levels to jump on the educational bandwagon. Vast sums of money are being poured into new branches of State universities and new community colleges. While the intent of these legislators is above question, their approaches to the problem are not. In many areas, including Washington, D.C., there are nonprofit educational institutions which for many years have served the function of the community college. Southeastern University has, since 1879, served as the community college in this area. It would seem that many purposes could be served better by using existing institutions and know-how rather than pouring almost unlimited funds into establishing an entirely new administration and staff, housed in modern facilities to offer low-cost education to the local populace. Undoubtedly, millions of dollars could be saved each year if such an approach was taken. We of Southeastern are exceptionally fortunate. We have professional administration which is presently capable of offering high-quality education at only $17 per credit hour. We do need modern facilities, but a new public institution would also require land and builidngs. Given governmental assistance only in the area of physical plant, the university most likely could continue to offer education at this low cost and, in addition, could also provide an unlimited curriculum. The U.S. Congress is in the midst of discussions as to whether it should support a 2-year community college or a 4-year liberal arts college, as proposed in separate bills by Senator Wayne Morse, Democrat, of Oregon, and Senator Alan Bible, Democrat, of Nevada. These bills are scheduled to be presented to subcommittee hearings on February 23, 1966. Any new public programs of education in the District of Columbia should be conducted through the local institutions currently chartered for that purpose by the U.S. Congress, preferably Southeastern University. New colleges and universities are not required. It is time legislators considered the effects of their actions upon existing educational institutions. Each time a new Governmentsponsored institution is created it enters into what is no more than a price war with the existing educational institutions. It takes no special skill on the part of university administrators to offer education below cost-as long as there is a governmental group handy to provide funds for operations. I know of one instance where a public institution has agreed to conduct classes at a U.S. Army installation for $14 per credit hour, $42 per course. No person familiar with the expenses of educational institutions in this day and age would seriously categorize that arrangement as anything but below-cost education. Now is the time for Southeasterners to rally to the cause. Contact your Congressman, your Senator, and the subcommittee. Apprise them of the facts. While the truth is sometimes more difficult to accept than attractively decorated half-truths, your legislator should be interested in the relative costs of each approach. Encourage them to investigate the possibility of supporting Southeastern University as the community college of Washington, D.C. Tell them of the successes of our graduates-we have an impressive list the alumni association will be happy to make available to one and all. |