etters and telegrams-Continued Breen, Quirinus, professor of history, University of Oregon, letter Page dated February 10, 1959, to Senator Neuberger__ 100 Case, Everett, Colgate University, letter dated February 3, 1959, to 13 Clark, Robert D., dean, University of Oregon, letter dated February 26 Clark, Robert D., dean, University of Oregon, letter dated February 71 Cole, Charles W., Northampton, Mass., letter dated April 23, 1959, 7 Cowan, J. Ritchie, Oregon State College, letter dated March 12, 1959, 24 Creese, James, Drexel Institute of Technology, letter dated April 24, Cronyn, M. W., Reed College, letter dated February 28, 1959, to Con- Davies, W. R., president, Wisconsin State College, letter dated Febru- Fidler, William P., general secretary, American Association of Univer- Franchere, Hoyt C., Portland State College, letter dated January 30, Goheen, Robert F., president, Princeton University, letter dated April Griswold, A. Whitney, Yale University, letter dated December 19, 1958, Johnson, Hon. Lester, a Representative from the State of Wisconsin, Johnson, Paul B., corresponding secretary, Chicago Area Council, Kiley, Robert R., president, U.S. National Student Association, letter Containing special resolution dated February 2, 1959-- 7 Lockmiller, David A., Chattanooga, Tenn., letter dated April 27, 1959, 7 Love, Donald M., secretary, Oberlin College, letter dated February 6, 70 MacCracken, Elliott, Southern Oregon College, letter dated February 99 59 Mayberry, Robert W., president, Student Council, Swarthmore College, Peterson, E. N., president, American Association of University Pro- 56 10 Letters and telegrams-Continued Pusey, Nathan M., president, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., Pa letter dated April 28, 1959, to Senator Kennedy__ 5 Reynolds, Helen E., Baldwin-Wallace College, letter dated March 1, 1959, to Senator Kennedy--- Strand, A. L., president, Oregon State College, letter dated February 25, 1959, to Senator Neuberger__ Tucker, Richard P., chairman, Oberlin College, letter dated April 20, 1959, to Members of the Senate--- Wilson, O. Meredith, president, University of Oregon, letter dated March 11, 1959, to Senator Neuberger, containing resolution adopted. Members of the Association of American Colleges___ Membership of Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government Radio broadcast of Senator Morse, February 10, 1959_- Resolution adopted by River Falls Chapter, American Association of University Professors, dated April 9, 1959- Resolutions of the faculty senate of the University of Pennsylvania.... AMENDING LOYALTY PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kennedy presiding. Present: Senators Kennedy (presiding) and Clark, members of the committee; and Congresswoman Green. Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk, and John S. Forsythe, general counsel. Senator KENNEDY. The subcommittee will come to order. The first witness this morning will be Dr. Everett Case, president of Colgate University in Hamilton, N.Y., and chairman of the Committee on Relationships of Higher Education to the Federal Government of the American Council on Education. Dr. Case, are you accompanied by Father Walsh or is he going to give a separate statement? Mr. CASE. I think Father Walsh is representing the Association of American Colleges. Senator KENNEDY. Before you start, the subcommittee has a brief statement, so just make yourself comfortable for a moment. STATEMENTS OF HON. JOHN F. KENNEDY AND HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, U.S. SENATORS FROM THE STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS AND PENNSYLVANIA, RESPECTIVELY Senator Murray, who is chairman of the Education Subcommittee, is testifying this morning before the Appropriations Committee. He has asked me to express his regret at being unable to hear the testimony upon S. 819. At his suggestion, I have agreed to act as chairman of this subcommittee during the hearings on this bill. Senator Clark, who has joined me in sponsoring the bill which is the subject of our hearings today, also joins me in the following statement. The bill eliminates from the National Defense Education Act of 1958, section 1001 (f)—the so-called loyalty oath provision. This provision presently requires those scholars, scientists, teachers, mathematicians, and other students who apply for a loan or grant under this program to sign an oath of loyalty and to execute an affidavit declaring that they do not believe in, belong to, or support any organization which believes in or teaches the overthrow of the U.S. Government by force or by any illegal method. This subsection received very little attention when the National Defense Education Act passed the Congress last year. We understand it was inserted by the committee in a more limited form before the bill was reported out. When the provisions of the act to which it applied were stricken, however, it was suggested on the Senate floor that this provision be made applicable to every section of the act and that suggestion was accepted without any discussion. No thought was given to the question of how the section would be enforced, who would investigate the veracity of the affidavits, who would determine whether the students who did not belong to any subversize organization might have some proscribed belief, what constituted the belief of an organization, and under what circumstances a method of overthrowing the Government was illegal. Nor was there any discussion of what danger to the Nation was being avoided by this requirement or why Congress was singling out recipients of Federal loans for educational purposes and not those who received old-age benefits, crop loans, or other unrelated payments. We believe that the loyalty oath has no place in a program designed to encourage education. It is at variance with the declared purposes of the act in which it appears; it acts as a barrier to prospective students; and it is distasteful, humiliating, and unwork able to those who must administer it. No one can quarrel with the principle that all Americans should be loyal citizens and should be willing to swear allegiance. But this is quite different from a doctrine which singles out students, who seek only to borrow money, as a group which must sign a rather vague affidavit as to their beliefs as well as their acts. Such an affidavit is superfluous at best and discriminatory and subversive of the purposes of the act at worst. Entirely apart from these policy considerations, the section of the National Defense Education Act imposing the loyalty oath and affidavit requirement is defective in that (1) It imposes an impossible burden upon our educational institutions to interpret the section, for each school may have a different concept of what is necessary to prove a "belief" in an organization which "believes" in the overthrow of the U.S. Government by "unconstitutional methods." (2) It raises serious constitutional questions concerning its validity, for it seems to approve the concept that "belief" as opposed to overt action may be a basis for sanctions. (3) It creates grave problems of Federal control over the educa tional process. For all these reasons, which go to the heart of the purpose, scope, and effect of our effort to improve our intellectual attainments, we are convinced it is in the best interests of our Nation to eliminate the loyalty oath provision from the National Defense Education Act. There is no precise way in which we can measure the harm this section is causing. At least seven colleges have refused to participate in the student loan program solely because of the affidavit requirement. These colleges are Reed College in Oregon, Antioch College in Ohio, Goucher College in Maryland, Wilmington College in Ohio, Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, Haverford College in Pennsylvania, Bryn Mawr in Pennsylvania, and Sarah Lawrence College in New York. In addition, the provision is illustrative of an alarming tendency to legislate conformity. Several years ago in an address at New York University, Judge Learned Hand, one of the great jurists of our time, pointed out some of the considerations involved when inquiries based upon vague notions of security are permitted to affect our individual liberties. He said: * Risk for risk, for myself I had rather take my chance that some traitors will escape detection than spread abroad a spirit of general suspicion and distrust, which accepts rumor and gossip in place of undismayed and unintimidated inquiry. I believe that that community is already in process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where nonconformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification of backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose. Such fears as these are a solvent which can eat out the cement that binds the stones together; they may in the end subject us to a despotism as evil as any that we dread; and they can be allayed only in so far as we refuse to proceed on suspicion, and trust one another until we have tangible ground for misgiving. The mutual confidence on which all else depends can be maintained only by an open mind and a brave reliance upon free discussion. I do not say that these will suffice; who knows but we may be on a slope which leads down to aboriginal savagery. But of this I am sure: If we are to escape, we must not yield a foot upon demanding a fair field and an honest race to all ideas. The sole justification for this requirement seems to be that it might prevent a card-carrying member of the Communist Party from benefiting from a loan for educational purposes made by the school and the Federal Government. I would doubt, however, that any member of a truly subversive organization would have the slightest hesitancy in perjuring himself. This provision does not keep such persons out of the program. But it may well eliminate those who resent the requirement, those who find it inconsistent with their ideals, those who are overapprehensive in their interpretation, those who are conscientiously opposed to test oaths, those who believe that there should be no restriction upon freedom of thought and freedom of belief. And those who are willing to sign such an affidavit are not always by that act necessarily proven to be more loyal or more talented than those who do not sign. Our hope is that these hearings will permit us to examine whether this oath has helped achieve or has hindered the objectives of the National Defense Education Act. If the result has been the latter, we urge the approval of this bill by the committee and its early enactment. I offer for inclusion in the record at this point the bill itself, S. 819. (The bill and departmental reports thereon follow:) [S. 819, 86th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To amend the National Defense Education Act of 1958 in order to repeal certain provisions requiring affidavits of loyalty and allegiance Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1001 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended by striking out subsection (f). |