[From the Pittsfield (Mass.) Berkshire Eagle, Feb. 3, 1959]

EDITORIAL

It is good to find Senator Kennedy adding his voice to the scattered but articulate chorus criticizing the loyalty oath provision of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. His statement that the provision is "an unnecessary, futile gesture toward the memory of an earlier age" that might defeat the very purpose of the education bill by discouraging "the most inquiring minds" is a well-phrased indictment of this latest restriction upon academic freedoms.

Senator Kennedy thus joins a goodly company, including the presidents of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Bryn Mawr, Swarthmore, Haverford, Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby. Along with the Association of American Colleges and the 40,000-member American Association of University Professors, these educational leaders have taken the most serious exception to the oath provision, which requires any applicant for financial aid under the act to sign a non-Communist affidavit and swear his allegiance to the United States.

As Dr. Hugh Borton, president of Haverford, declared 2 weeks ago, filing the disclaimer is "tantamount to signing away one's right to freedom of thought as well as endorsing a Government action which makes the individual's opportunity for education contingent upon his personal beliefs." Dr. Borton's Pennsylvania Quaker institution will refuse to take part in the program until the oath provision is removed, but will make loans to students at comparable rates. The academic atmosphere induced by such a provision was the particular target of the presidents of the three Maine institutions-Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby-who asserted that it would replace "a fearless and honest search for truth" with "a feeling of hesitancy and fear and a consequent restriction on the free inquiry and association that are the heart of academic freedom."

Moreover, they noted, to require such an oath solely of young people who are studying at institutions of higher learning is invidious, since it implies that they are members of a suspect group.

And, of course, all who have considered the practical side of the matter, apart from its vote-winning aspects, agree that the disclaimer does not do what it pretends to do: It does not separate the subversives from the loyal citizens. For as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Arthur S. Flemming admitted in a discussion of the Republican-sponsored bill December 15, real subversives "have no scruples about signing such an affidavit and taking such an oath."

At the moment there are at least three bills in Congress, introduced by Republicans as well as Democrats, aimed at excising the loyalty-oath provision from the Defense Education Act. It is to be hoped that our representatives in Washington will lend their weight to the move before this futile gesture toward the memory of an earlier age causes any of the trouble that has been so eloquently foreseen.

[From the Williamson (W. Va.) News, Feb. 11, 1959]

SHAM SECURITY

This newspaper never has had much sympathy for the attitude that the man of science is a person apart; that because of the type of mind he possesses and the work in which he is engaged he should be freed of the fetters of conformity which restrain lesser beings. We believe, specifically, that a man can be a scientist or an educator and a patriot at the same time, and that the requirements of good ctizenship need not interfere with his work.

Nevertheless, we agree with those who would strike from the National Defense Education Act a requirement that those receiving Federal aid under it take a loyalty oath. Leading educators and associations of educators have denounced the provison, and at least two institutions, Harvard and Bryn Mawr, have declined to participate in the program unless the requirement is dropped.

In proposing legislation to delete the oath provision, Senator Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, points out that it might defeat the very purpose of stimulating scientific progress by excluding some of the most inquiring minds, by

40388-59-6

repelling nonconformists and dissenters and those who find oaths distasteful r who are opposed to them for reasons of conscience.

This newspaper is not too much impressed by this argument and is inclined t suspect that some educators take themselves and their academic freedom a br too seriously. But is is impressed by the other argument of Senator Kennedy that the oath provision should be eliminated because the really disloyal wout have no hesitancy about perjuring themselves.

The loyalty provision should be dropped-and this goes for labor relations as well as for educational aid-not so much because some sensibilities might be offended, but because it is worthless as a security measure.

[From the Asheville (N.C.) Times, Feb. 7, 1959]

LOYALTY OATH ISN'T HELP TO EDUCATION

As the new National Defense Education Act goes into full operation, Senator Kennedy, of Massachusetts, is moving to divest it of a feature that could hmi: its effectiveness. With the cosponsorship of Senator Clark, of Pennsylvania. Kennedy is introducing a bill to repeal a requirement of a loyalty oath by recipients of Federal aid under the act.

The loyalty oath provision was tagged onto the bill from the floor at the last moment before passage, with scant debate and little publicity. Since its exis ence has become more widely known, it has been criticized by Arthur S. Fiem ming, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and by the presidents of quite a number of the Nation's outstanding institutions of higher learning, including Harvard, Yale, and Princeton Universities.

The American Association of University Professors has called for elimination of the oath, and several colleges have refused to participate in the education aid program unless the requirement is dropped.

Senator Kennedy stated the reasons for repeal clearly and forcefully. He said it would not keep out actual members of the Communist Party because they would have no hesitancy about perjuring themselves. At the same time, he added, it might defeat the very purposes of the act by excluding the most inquiring minds, by repelling nonconformists and dissenters and those who find test oaths distasteful or who are against them for reasons of conscience

Now that it has had time to reconsider what it adopted so hastily, Congress should abolish the unnecessary and offending oath.

Senator KENNEDY. I want to express appreciation to all those who came and testified today, as their testimony was illuminating.

Senator Clark and I and the members of the subcommittee would be delighted if any person who is interested in this legislation, either pro or con, would appear on May 5. If that date is not satisfactory, the members of the subcommittee will adjust their schedule to suit anyone who wants to appear. We want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak on this before the committee votes on the legislation.

Senator CLARK. I would like to amplify that by saying I am sure Senator Kennedy agrees with me that we do not want to confine this hearing to proponents of the bill. If there are any opponents who wish to be heard, they will be given equal opportunity.

(Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene on May 5, 1959.)

AMENDING LOYALTY PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 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: 10 a. m., in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kennedy presiding. Present: Senator Kennedy (presiding) member of the committee. Also present: Hon. Karl Mundt, U.S. Senator from South Dakota, and Hon. Richard Neuberger, U.S. Senator from Oregon.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; John S. Forsythe, general counsel; Raymond Hurley, professional staff member.

Senator KENNEDY. The subcommittee will come to order.

The first witness this morning, in view of the fact that neither Senator Mundt, Senator Neuberger, nor Mr. Flemming is present as yet, the next witness will be Dr. Courtney Smith, president of Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa.

I would like to welcome you here, Doctor. We are very appreciative of your coming down this morning.

STATEMENT OF COURTNEY SMITH, PRESIDENT OF SWARTHMORE COLLEGE, SWARTHMORE, PA.

Dr. SMITH. I should like to speak in support of S. 819. I feel that the National Defense Education Act of 1958 would be a stronger act, a more beneficial act in behalf of American education, if title X, section 1001 (f) were repealed.

There are two parts to section 1001 (f). Part 2, which I would call the loyalty oath of allegiance, Swarthmore College does not find unacceptable, though it does feel that it is unnecessary and undesirable in an act to aid education. Part 1, which I would call the disclaimer affidavit of belief, seems to me, and to the institution I represent, so shortsighted and unwise that Swarthmore College, on the action of its board of managers and faculty, has voted not to participate in the student loan program of the act unless section 1001 (f) (1) is repealed. The college opposes this disclaimer affidavit of belief as being contrary to American principles and to the principles of sound education procedure.

Swarthmore College is opposed to the requiring of any commitment from students as to belief or disbelief as a condition to their receiving loans made in aid of their education. The freedom, privacy, and in

tegrity of individual beliefs is a crucial aspect of America's constitutional tradition, and these aspects of belief were precisely what the men who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended to protect. The disclaimer affidavit of belief is negative in spirit, in a way which destroys democracy. For surely democracy depends upon faith in the individual trusting in one another, the presumption of nonguilt until proved otherwise.

Those who sought the inclusion of section 1001 (f) in the act were impelled, I should imagine, by the understandable desire to see that no Federal funds under this act were transmitted to those who may believe in the overthrow of the U.S. Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. And I know of no educator who would seek Federal funds for those who support the violent overthrow of our Government. But I also know of no one who really believes that those who seek the violent overthrow of our Government would hesitate to swear to this disclaimer and this oath as a condition of benefiting under the National Defense Education Act. The disclaimer and the oath are, in other words, impractical: they would not be effective in discovering those who are genuinely disloyal, and might in fact lull us into a false sense of security.

Is not our real question, the fundamental question, the question with which those who favor section 1001 (f) would surely agree, how are strong and capable and constructive citizens produced in a democratic society? Section 1001 (f) is not, in my judgment as an educator, conducive to this end. The preamble to the act declares the importance for our Nation of "the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men and women," and "the discovery and development of new principles, new techniques, and new knowledge." I would declare that these qualities depend now, and always have depended, upon the maintenance of freedom in fact as well as in theory. As an educational institution Swarthmore College believes that strong citizens in a democratic society are produced in an atmosphere of freedom where ideas do not need to be forbidden or protected. The college has confidence in its students and in the educational process itself, confidence in the efficacy of free inquiry and debate to reveal error.

Section 1001 (f) is, therefore, in my opinion, contrary to the intent and the spirit of the act as a whole, contrary to anything I know about the proper and effective atmosphere for an institution of learning. contrary to traditional American principles.

Senator KENNEDY. A very effective statement, Doctor.

Could you tell me why you think those who might want to thwart the purposes of this legislation might be willing to sign the affidavit ! In your statement you say:

But I also know of no one who really believes that those who seek the violent overthrow of our Government would hesitate to swear to this disclaimer and this oath as a condition of benefiting under the National Defense Education Act. The disclaimer and the oath are, in other words, impractical.

I am wondering if a member of the Communist Party would be hesitant about signing this? Would it be your opinion that he would sign it?

Dr. SMITH. I think the very nature of his feeling about it would give him no hesitancy about signing it. I think his feeling that the nd justifies the means would encourage him to sign it.

Senator KENNEDY. The National Science Foundation Act has had a similar provision for 8 or 9 years. No prosecutions have arisen under that. Do you think that would indicate that it is not very useful in protecting the national security?

Dr. SMITH. I would think it not useful. In fact, I go beyond that and think it would give us a false sense of security which could actually damage us.

Senator KENNEDY. I would like to make two points:

First, I think it would be well for us to make some legal determination as to whether someone who professed to believe in the Communist beliefs but was not a formal member of the Communist Party would be covered by the affidavit. It would seem to be difficult to get a conviction under the act, even assuming some responsible parties would move to prosecute him. Unless he was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party I am not sure the affidavit would apply, even in the mind of those who are supporting it strongly.

The other point, Dr. Smith, deals with your statement that Swarthmore College would not accept money unless section 1001 (f) (1) is repealed.

Dr. SMITH. I have tried to define the rather strong position of refusing to participate in the act until the section is repealed. We regard it as unnecessary and undesirable.

Senator KENNEDY. There is nothing objectionable about the oath when you solemnly swear or affirm that:

I,

do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America and will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all its enemies, foreign and domestic.

We take a comparable oath.

Dr. SMITH. This is the oath which public officeholders take, similar to the oaths most of us have taken in getting passports, similar to the one which I took in the Navy, but it has no place in education, it serves no purpose to show this mistrust of students of the age of 17. Senator KENNEDY. In addition, it requires the oath only of those who happen to be in need financially and not of the other students. Thank you very much.

The next witness will be Dr. Hugh Borton, president of Haverford College, Haverford, Pa.

Doctor, I am glad to welcome you. I am sure if Senator Clark were here he would be particularly glad to have both you and Dr. Smith here.

STATEMENT OF DR. HUGH BORTON, PRESIDENT, HAVERFORD COLLEGE, HAVERFORD, PA.

Dr. BORTON. At the outset I would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Senate bill 819 and for the elimination of title 10, section 1001, subsection (f) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. I appreciate this opportunity for two reasons. In the first place, as a private citizen I am convinced that a basic question of principle is involved in this matter. In the second place, as an educator I believe the Nation Defense Education Act as now written will in fact be more of a hindrance than an aid to