STATEMENT OF DON HOFF, PRESIDENT, WEST VIRGINIA Mr. HOFF. My name is Don Hoff. I am currently president of the Charleston School of Commerce in Charleston, W. Va., and also the Mountain State College in Parkersburg, W. Va. I do not have, as I mentioned before a complete prepared statement other than what notes I could throw together before traintime and during traintime. But I presume that my colleagues who have previously appeared before this committee have compiled all the statistics that I would normally have liked to have brought with me. I would suggest if these would be of benefit, I feel that I could prepare statistics that would be quite convincing relative to those points that I would like to make mention of now. For several good reasons, we in the West Virginia Business College Association consider this to be a good bill. First it is an investment in the youth of our country, which will pay off in excellent returns in the future. Since the beginning of the Readjustment Act for Veterans starting with World War II and throughout the Korean campaign, our association, or schools of our association, have trained thousands of young veterans. It is highly questionable whether or not a reasonable percentage of these ex-GIs who served their country in the prime of their life would have been able to find much more than unskilled labor were it not for the educational benefits of the GI bill at that time. Presently I believe that as these GIs return to their homes the vast majority will do nothing more than swell the unemployment rolls of our country, thus causing greater economic distress. Contrasted to this, however, several thousand veterans in the State of West Virginia, after World War II, and the Korean campaign, availed themselves of the educational benefits provided by Congress, and not only did they through this education obtain excellent employment but also because of the additional earnings, in my opinion, paid back to their Government far more than the cost of their training through additional income taxes paid. This is a good bill not only in that it is a good investment which Ican and will be returned to our Government through the income tax on higher earnings, but at the same time education assists in social adjustment and is certainly conducive toward making good, responsible, and dependable citizens of these young people returning from the service. In my opinion, no prudent person would suggest that this is a giveaway program. It is an investment that will be returned many times over in additional income taxes. Morally, it is an investment in the success of our youth and business vocation, science, and other professions. It is an investment toward developing and stabilizing our economy. And it is a positive move toward holding down the unemployment rolls. I feel that the youth of our country who are serving through the Selective Service Act deserve some consideration by their Government. So I would suggest that the bill serves a moral responsibility. That, sir, is the end of the few statements I had to make. And I certainly am pleased to be here. Senator WILLIAMS. Well, again we thank you. And I know that your testimony and comments will be very useful in further consideration of the bill. Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Hoff, my name is Fred Blackwell. I am counsel of the subcommittee. I have one point which I would like to cover with you. One of the objections made by opponents of the bill, in contending that there is no need for it, is that the present Selective Service System is designed so that the youth of the Nation can synchronize their educational plans and careers with their military obligation. Now, other educators who have testified before the subcommittee have stated that that contention assumes an ideal situation which exists only rarely, that when you get down to the practicalities of what happens in the country, that the draft as applied to actual situations does not permit individuals to work out their educational plans and also their military obligation. The specifics of this is that young people quite often have to work for a year or a year and a half before they can even get the tuition fee to enter school. And it is these people who, while they are trying to work and save tuition money, are being called by the draft. Because they cannot show that they are then enrolled in school, they are not entitled to deferment. In light of your experience in the State of West Virginia, what would your comment be on this situation? Mr. HOFF. I concur with you that as far as trying to work and earn enough for tuition for any school is very difficult. And in the instance of West Virginia particularly, industry and business alike is quite reluctant to accept people in employment who have not been in service primarily because there is a certain amount of supervision and training that they feel they need on the job. And as soon as they have a certain investment in them and they are able to do a job properly, they then are drafted and taken out. I feel that again there is some merit in this bill in that because of the Selective Service Act they are taken away from what normally would be a chance of their education or employment, profitable employment. They are at a standstill until they are drafted, in a lot of cases. But even then, without benefit of proper education, unskilled labor is about the only thing available to them. Mr. BLACKWELL. Then the experience in your State is that the effects of the draft begins to be felt by the young man as soon as he finishes high school. Mr. HOFF. Right. Mr. BLACKWELL. If he does not have the financial means to enter college immediately and stay there, the traditional situation of working awhile is denied him because employers are reluctant to employ an individual who, in their judgment, will be with them only a short time. Mr. HOFF. That is true. And particularly considering the economic state and unemployment in the State of West Virginia. It is very difficult for them to find employment where there is not this case possibly. But it is a reluctance primarily. And I am told daily by industry that a young person coming out of high school may be able to work a year for them and then be subject to the draft, and they have it all to do over again. Particularly in business and industry, each youngster going into clerical work of any sort requires a certain amount of supervision which is expensive to the company that employs him. Consequently, if he loses this young man at the end of a year, he has not only lost the investment, but he is right back where he started from. And, consequently, the next time they are a little reluctant to take a boy who is subject to the draft. Yes, that is a situation felt quite emphatically in the State of West Virginia. Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you. Senator WILLIAMS. I have no further questions, Mr. Hoff. Again, we thank you. (Subsequent to Mr. Hoff's appearance, the National Association and Council of Business Schools submitted the following endorsement of S. 1138:) Senator RALPH YARBOROUGH, WASHINGTON, D.C., May 14, 1959. DEAR SENATOR YARBOROUGH: I am writing to you on behalf of the National Association and Council of Business Schools, an organization composed of over 450 private business schools throughout the country whose standards and ethics are well recognized and accepted. The Accrediting Commission for Business Schools was founded by the organization and has been recognized by the U.S. Office of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency. We are indeed sorry that we could not testify before your committee in connection with the recent hearings on S. 1138. We could not do so because there had been no official action taken by our board of directors. Last Friday and Saturday the board met in Washington and considered this question, and went over S. 1138 very carefully. I was instructed by the board to write to you that we are in agreement with the objectives of S. 1138 which will provide readjustment assistance to veterans who serve in the Armed Forces between January 31, 1955, to July 1, 1963. Many of our schools have participated in the GI bills and it is our belief a substantial contribution has been made as a result of these bills. Some figures we have seen on this indicate that because of this additional educational training of veterans, they are now paying a billion dollars a year more in taxes than they would have ordinarily paid. We believe that in your bill you are providing for a citizenry trained for freedom, dignity, and democracy. This is our best weapon against communism-an adequate and enlightened American people able to increase the future with adult knowledge, understanding, and skill. We are particularly pleased that your bill, as written, will enable veterans to secure additional training in any school of their choice. We salute you for the work you are doing on behalf of the young men and women of this country who have served and will continue to serve in our Armed Forces. Cordially, Mr. Reginald Green is our next witness. BERNARD H. EHRLICH. I understand you are the educational affairs vice president of the U.S. National Student Association? Mr. GREEN. That is correct. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much for coming here today. 40408-59- -17 STATEMENT OF REGINALD GREEN, EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS VICE PRESIDENT, U.S. NATIONAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION Mr. GREEN. The U.S. National Student Association is happy to have this opportunity to express its support for proposals providing for the reestablishment of educational benefits for those serving in our Armed Forces. The question of veterans' education has been of major concern to the national student congresses of the association; first in terms of World War II veterans, then in regard to those who served during the Korean emergency, and now in regard to the men affected by the present selective service machinery and universal service program. USNSA has consistently supported educational benefits as a proper and desirable means of minimizing the unfavorable effects of military service on the lives of the individuals involved and of assuring that maximum volunteering and minimum drafting would reduce educational dislocations resulting from the draft. USNSA is a confederation of approximately 400 college and university student bodies represented through their democratically elected student-governing bodies. They include over 1,300,000 students in 45 States, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia, comprising a majority of the undergraduates registered in accredited 4-year institutions. Association policy is determined by the delegates of member campuses, meeting in the annual National Student Congress and, in the interim between congresses, by the elected regional representatives of the member student bodies, meeting as the national executive committee of the association. Policies and programs are administered by the national officers elected by and from the delegates to the National Student Congress. USNSA's policies and programs are constitutionally limited to those directly affecting students and formal education as such. Therefore, this testimony will confine itself to the educational benefits proposals contained in S. 1138, S. 270, and 930. The 400 delegates to the Tenth National Student Congress at the University of Michigan in August 1957 declared: A manpower policy consistent with our democratic tradition, the requirements of national defense, and the variety of needs related to the development of our society must contain the following principles: * * * 4. USNSA calls for the reinstatement of all benefits that contribute to an individual's education during and upon termination of military service. We would urge strict enforcement of academic standards for those who attend college under such compensation. The basic question in regard to the bills now before this subcommittee, as was brought out at similar hearings in 1957, is whether or not the educational benefits granted to wartime veterans should be made available to the millions of Americans who are required to serve in the peacetime Armed Forces under the Selective Service Act. This is a new question in that large peacetime Armed Forces, substantial overseas and outpost service in peacetime, and compulsory service other than in time of war are all phenomena new to the United States. A very important factor which must be considered in answering the question is the actual, as opposed to the theoretical, universality of the present selective service system. It is far harder to deny that spe cial benefits are justified if only some rather than all individuals are actually required to serve. Senator Francis Case of South Dakota presented this very clearly in his 1957 testimony when he said: Under the current situation, it is obvious that a very large proportion of our young men are not providing military service. I think the average draft age in my State, at the present time, is about 22 years which means that, with the numbers required for selective service for the calls as they are, a very large number of young men do not provide any military service. And, of course, those who do not serve have the opportunity to get established in business or go on to college or to earn their livelihood that will put them through college. I should like to add to the written statement at this point the fact that in 1957 General Hershey pointed out that between 1953 and 1957 about 4,237,000 individuals had registered for the draft. Only 760,000 had been inducted. And only 1,600,000 had volunteered. So that during that period of larger Armed Forces than those now maintained, only half of those registering had actually been required to serve either through enlistment or drafting. It is true that many who do not serve are deferred as fathers, as physically unfit for military service, or as pursuing critically needed Occupations. These are all valid reasons for not requiring military service but it must be recognized that they tend to place the physically fit, single individuals at a definite career disadvantage. To give a specific example I can compare the two authors of this testimony. The president of the association, Robert Kiley and I are both 24. We are both college graduates who need to pursue graduate study in order to pursue our future occupations, he as a lawyer and I as a college professor. Both of us this year are not in college because of our service with the National Student Association. Because of the fact that he is 6 feet 1 inch tall, he will be serving in the Armed Forces next year because he is 1-A._Because of the fact that basically, I am 6 feet 7 inches tall, I am 4-F. Now, this is perhaps perfectly valid from a military point of view. But it does not deny the fact that there is a definite advantage to me in the fact that I am 6 feet 7 inches tall, which in no way hinders my educational or career objectives. USNSA feels that the adoption of legislation providing educational benefits for veterans as provided in the bills before this subcommittee would serve two important purposes. First; it would help to offset the disadvantages and disturbances in educational and career plans necessarily involved in service in the Armed Forces, and, thereby, would tend to equalize opportunity and reduce unnecessary inequality between those who do and do not serve; Second; it would tend to increase enlistments and thereby reduce the need for us of the draft. Since, on the whole, those who will choose to enlist will be individuals likely to suffer fewer dislocations and interruptions of plans than those who would otherwise be drafted, this tendency would reduce the harmful effects of compulsory service to a minimum. Opposition to proposals for reestablishing educational benefits seems to have centered around five contentions: that currently mili |