higher education in this country. With the revisions contemplated, however, it should be a strong force toward achieving its objective of the discovery and development of new principles, new techniques and new knowledge.

I need not belabor the fact that freedom of religious beliefs and thought, which has long been cherished and was clearly recognized by the drafters of our Constitution and its earliest amendments, is an essential element of our democracy. In fact, it was largely because restrictions had been placed on thought and belief by the governments of the countries in which they were living that many of our forefathers left England and Europe to settle in the American colonies. It is not surprising, therefore, that practices such as thought control and brainwashing which unfortunately have become prevalent in other parts of the world during the past two decades, are so abhorrent to us. Thus my first objection to the act is that it appears to be contrary to our basic principle of freedom of thought. The act assumes that the Federal Government has a right to make a person's belief a condition of participation in the use of the funds provided under the act.

At this point, I should like to make it clear that my opposition to the act is in no way indicative of approval of persons who wish to overthrow the U.S. Government by force, violence, or any other method. My objection is rather to a law which requires a person applying for funds under it first to state what he does or does not believe. The content of that belief is far less important than the principle involved.

There is clearly another objection to the section in the act requiring a disclaimer affidavit. This concerns the wording of the law whereby a student applying for a loan under the act must make an expression of judgment, not a statement of fact. The applicant is thus open at any time in the future to political harrassment or to have criminal proceedings started against him because of mistaken judgment on his part. Students, even more so than perhaps any other single group. cannot be coerced into believing a certain set of beliefs or dogma. The greatest assurance we have that their beliefs will conform to those we hold sacred is to refrain from placing restrictions upon them or stating dogmatically what we believe their beliefs should be.

In the National Defense Education Act, the Congress has declared that the security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the resources and skills of our young men and women and demands making additional educational opportunities available to them. With this purpose I am in complete accord. In fact, these same purposes. as well as the methods which should be used to attain them were expressed by William Penn, over two and a half centuries ago, in these words:

If we would preserve our Government we must endear it to the people. To do this, besides the necessity of present, just and wise things, we must secure the youth: This is not to be done but by the amendment of the way of their education and that with all convenient speed and diligence. I say the Govern ment is highly obliged: It is a sort of trustee for the youth of the kingdom: who, though now minors, yet will have the Government when we are gone.

A serious question arises, however, as to whether some of the methods advocated by the National Defense Education Act do not, in fact, defeat its purpose. Specifically, paragraph (f) of section 1001 assumes that an applicant for funds under the act may be guilty of

disloyalty to his Government or may harbor sinister designs to overthrow it. This atmosphere of suspicion, this apparent basic mistrust and this indication of a lack of confidence in our young men and women may result in their being alienated from our Government rather than "securing our youth" as Penn expressed it. Since it is the avowed purpose of the act to develop our educational resources and to encourage students to continue their studies, such a purpose becomes that much more difficult to achieve if we take a negative approach toward them. These are the very people upon whom our spiritual, intellectual, and physical survival depend. Either we have faith that in their search for truth, truth will prevail over evil dogma and vicious propaganda or we are admitting that we have already lost faith in ourselves and in our youth and the future which is in their hands. If we are fearful that our youth should not study or question certain ideas because they are evil and may defeat us, we have lost something sacred in our tradition.

Finally, it seems of highly questionable value to attach to the National Defense Education Act provisions which will not achieve their purpose of preventing subversives, whether Communist or otherwise, from planning to overthrow the Government or being disloyal to it. Such persons do not have the slightest objection to signing oaths or filing affidavits which they know to be false. In fact, the mere membership in a bona fide subversive organization is an assurance that they will willingly sign anything so long as it protects them from being identified with such a group. In other words, the use of such devices as affidavits and loyalty oaths as a means of trying to identify those who are disloyal to our Government would seem to be ineffective, to say the least. Nothing vital would seem to be lost, therefore, by omitting these provisions.

I should like to turn for a moment to the position taken by Haverford College toward the use of funds under the National Defense Education Act. In view of the fact that applicants for funds under the act are required by section 1001 (f) (1) of title X to file a disclaimer affidavit and the further fact that active participation in the loan program is required by the institutions as well as the Federal Government as provided in title II, section 204, and elsewhere, the college considered itself obliged to take its own stand on the question of participation and not leave the matter solely to the discretion of the applicant. Consequently, the board of managers, the faculty, and the administration of the college decided as a matter of principle not to apply for funds under the act. In view of the undergraduate character of the college it seemed obvious that those portions of the act most likely to be applicable to the college were the provisions for student loans. Hence when the college announced, on January 20, 1959, its decision not to participate in the program, emphasis was placed on the student loan aspect of the act. At that time, I stated that the college believed the requirement for filing a disclaimer affidavit was tantamount to asking a student to sign away his right to freedom of thought as well as endorsing a Federal law which makes the individual's opportunity for higher education contingent upon his personal beliefs. Thus, the college intends to continue to refuse to participate in the program authorized by the act so long as the disclaimer affidavit requirement remains a part of that law.

While the college did not take a similarly categorical position concerning retention of subsection (f) (2) of section 1001 which requires an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the United States, deletion of which is provided for in Senate bill 819, many faculty and board members believe that this subsection also weakens the act for the same reasons mentioned above. Thus, I am happy to add my support to Senate bill 819.

In closing, I should like to point to the favorable editorial comment which was received following the announcement of the position taken by us and other colleges. If they have not already been submitted for the record of these hearings, I should like to file herewith some of these editorials: The Des Moines Tribune editorial entitled "Useless Loyalty Oath," the San Francisco Chronicle editorial of January 29, 1959, entitled "Colleges Reject Student Loan Act," the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin editorial of January 23, 1959, entitled "The Loyalty Test," the Boston Globe editorial of January 23, 1959, called "A Useless Disclaimer," and the Binghamton (N.Y.) Press editorial of February 6, 1959.

Senator KENNEDY. Yes; I would like to have these editorials filed at this point.

(The editorials referred to follow :)

[From the Philadelphia (Pa.) Evening Bulletin, Jan. 23, 1959]

THE LOYALTY TEST

A Quaker devotion to freedom of opinion may be the background for the protest of Swarthmore, Haverford, and Bryn Mawr against the requirement of a loyalty oath from students who are applicants for Federal loans. But it is not necessary to have the point of view of the Society of Friends to object. The presidents and the faculties of three Maine colleges-Bate, Colby, and Bowdoin-have also registered their protests.

An inquiry by college authorities into the beliefs of students who are applicants for higher education runs contrary to our American tradition of freedom. If a beginning is made by probing into loyalty, other tests could easily follow. The process could end by compelling students to conform in religious and economic views to that of the college, government, and the community.

The aim of any institution of higher learning in the United States is not to promote conformity.

If a teenage boy or girl has already become a hardened Communist, believing in the overthrow of our Government by force and violence, he or she will not scruple to take any oath. An affidavit means nothing to them. The requirement is an exercise in futility.

[From the Boston (Mass.) Evening Globe, Jan. 23, 1959]

A USELESS DISCLAIMER

The refusal of Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges to accept student loans under the National Defense Act of 1958 because of the oaths required by the law, should help focus attention on the senselessness of the so-called "disclaimer.” The act requires not only an oath of allegiance to the country, which the colleges do not oppose, but also an affidavit swearing the applicant does not believe in the violent overthrow of the United States Government.

The presidents of three Main colleges also have expressed their opposition to the disclaimer. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Arthur S Flemming has declared it his opinion that persons who seek the overthrow of the United States Government by force or unconstitutional means "would have no scruples about signing such an affidavit and taking such an oath." The logic seems cogent enough. The result is that the affidavit fails to achieve the purpose for which it was intended.

On the other hand, the insistence on it affends countless educators who feel that any system that hinges benefits on the beliefs of the applicants is open to endless abuse and in the case of student loans impinges on the sensitive area of academic freedom. The affidavit ends up a laughing matter, all Government oaths are brought into disrespect, and the prestige, accorded our own affirmations of belief in the strength of freedom, is lowered.

It would make as much sense for the Government to require such affidavits from welfare recipients and officers of companies doing business with the Government. The practice falls of its own weight and achieves nothing.

[From the Binghamton (N.Y.) Press, Feb. 6, 1959]

FEDERAL STUDENT LOANS POPULAR

Federally supported student loans, under the National Defense Education Act of 1958, are popular among students, not so popular among college teachers and administrators. Harpur College receives a $5,026 allotment.

The national program launched this week with a $6 million allotment is due to be greatly expanded. Congress will receive a supplemental appropriations bill, asking among other funds, an additional $25 million for student loans, $4,500,000 for more graduate fellowships, and an additional $37 million for purchase of equipment to improve science, mathematics, and foreign language instruction.

Each college must put up $1 for every Federal $9 received for the student loan program. A student may borrow up to $1,000 an academic year on his signature up to a limit of $5,000 for his college career.

The borrower starts repaying the loan 1 year after he or she stops attending college on a full-time basis. The repayment period is 10 years, and the interest rate is 3 percent levied only after repayment begins.

Generating heat on campuses is a provision requiring a disclaimer of subversive activities. Dr. Hugh Borton, president of Haverford, recently announced that his administration felt that to file the disclaimer would be "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."

The Association of American Colleges has joined the 40,000-member American Association of University Professors in protest, and individual complaints have been addressed to Arthur C. Flemming, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Protesting are the presidents of Yale, Harvard, Princeton, and Wisconsin among others. Flemming himself has said that the disclaimer would do little or no good, inasmuch as real subversives "have no scruples about signing such an affidavit and taking such an oath."

[From the Des Moines (Iowa) Tribune]

USELESS LOYALTY OATH

Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges in Pennsylvania have announced they will refuse to participate in the new Federal loan program for college students unless the requirement that applicants sign a non-Communist affidavit is removed from the law. A third school-Swarthmore-is giving serious consideration to boycotting the program.

These protests are part of a growing concern over the affidavit requirement. The Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors have urged its repeal. The presidents of Yale, Princeton, and Harvard recently wrote to Arthur S. Flemming, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, condemning the requirement. Yale's Dr. A. Whitney Griswold denounced the oath as "at best odious, at worst a potential threat to our profession."

The applicant for a loan under the program must swear that he "does not believe in, and is not a member of and does not support any organization that believes in or teachers the overthrow of the U.S. Government by force of violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional means.' Critics have pointed out that no organizations are named and the word "support" is nowhere defined.

Secretary Flemming declared last month that the loyalty oath "will make it necessary for educators and students to go through a procedure that results in unnecessary expenditures on the part of the Government without making a contribution to national security."

Congress adopted the provision last year after scarcely any deliberation or discussion. It should lose little time at this session in repealing this useless oath.

[From the San Francisco (Calif.) Chronicle, Jan. 29, 1959]

COLLEGES REJECT STUDENT LOAN ACT

A provision of the National Education Act of 1958, under which applicants for student loans are required to sign a non-Communist affidavit as well as an oath of allegiance, has come under heavy and widespread attack in academic circles.

The Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors (membership 40,000) have both called for its repeal. Six colleges in Maine and Pennsylvania have asked for its immediate elimination. and two of these-Bryn Mawr and Haverford-are refusing to apply for loans under this provision. In addition to these, Swarthmore in Pennsylvania, and Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby in Maine, have come forward with denunciation of the affidavit and a call for its repeal at the earliest opportunity.

Nowhere in this formidable array of opposition is there objection to the oath of allegiance. Such an oath, it is conceded, is a necessary accompaniment of citizenship and a government's right to ask it is beyond dispute. The sturdy resistance is confined to the requirement for a non-Communist affidavit or dis‐ claimer.

This requirement is properly denounced as a restriction upon free inquiry and association; it is tantamount to a demand that the student sign away his right to freedom of thought; it is a direct and serious threat to academic freedom.

Like other special oaths of similar intent, it is worse than useless. It has no deterrent effect, whatever, upon a dedicated Communist whose code of morals confers no respect upon an oath. On the other hand, it tends in this instance to the ironic end of foreclosing a needy student with Communist leanings or associations from the very education in American ideals and ideology that would lead him away from such leanings and associations.

Haverford, one of the colleges which will not apply for loans which require the disclaimer, has taken steps to prevent hardship for students thus deprived of needed assistance. The act makes available loans of $1,000 a year for 5 years with interest at 3 percent-principal and interest to be repaid in 10 years after the student leaves school. Haverford will make student loans on identical terms. All other colleges ought, wherever possible, offer similar arrangements to students who cannot conscientiously sign the required disclaimer.

Meanwhile, Congress ought to act speedily to repeal a provision that is so offensive to American educational ideals.

Senator KENNEDY. In your statement you say:

There is clearly another objection to the section in the act requiring a dis claimer affidavit. This concerns the wording of the law whereby a student applying for a loan under the act must make an expression of judgment, not a statement of fact.

In looking over the affidavit, it really says these words, which are of uncertain definition:

I solemnly swear that I do not believe in an organization that believes in the overthrow of the Government by illegal methods.

There are other words, but I would like to call your attention particularly to the words "belief in an organization that believes in the overthrow of the Government by illegal methods." That is extremely vague for an affidavit.