This in very brief summary is the content of the general extension bill. It is in no sense antagonistic to S. 3187 but is supplementary to legislation of this sort. It covers an area of educational services which has been omitted so far as we are aware from other proposed legislation, and I must again emphasize my thorough agreement with President Caldwell in pointing out that this is a shocking omission. During World War II in the great production crisis caused by the necessity of bringing up to a much higher standard of productive efficiency our entire industrial establishment, the emergency program of war training in science and management was conducted through the services of the institutions which I have the honor to represent and almost entirely under the administration offices of the general extension divisions of these institutions. ESMWT, as it was called, is assuredly one of the most successful examples of a rapid and effective emergency program ever conceived and carried out, and for our country in a similar emergency to neglect the services available through this widespread, well-conceived, and efficiently operated means of bringing our production up to the required level seems to me inconceivable. Adding to this immediate objec tive and looking toward the future, the program suggested in H. R. 9170, however desirable now, will become increasingly valuable as time brings into greater prominence the necessity of thorough training and greater adaptability in the members of our national life. S. 3163 makes no provision for extension education as is stipulated in S. 3187, title 6. Therefore, I direct my remarks to S. 3187 in proposing that consideration be given by this committee to broadening the provisions of this title to include the conditions set forth in S. 1731, or pass the separate bill S. 1731. For the institutions in the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State universities and in the National University Extension Association as well as for myself, I should like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you and of your courtesy in giving me such a respectful hearing. NORTH CAROLINA BRANCH, Hon. LISTER HILL, MY DEAR SENATOR: Reference is made to S. 3163 and S. 3187, currently being considered by your committee. During the annual meeting of the North Carolina Vocational Guidance Association on March 15, 1958, the members of the organization unanimously passed a resolution requesting its executive committee to convey to you and members of the committee its thanks for your support of the provisions of the reference bills. The members of the organization sincerely hope that appropriate action will be continued toward implementing the provisions of these bills. The executive committee, speaking for the total membership, would like to emphasize their feeling of urgency of this aid to education, especially the need for increased guidance, counseling, and testing in schools. If we can provide any information that would be of assistance to you, please let me know. Hon. LISTER HILL, ROBERT M. COLVER, President NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL OF AMERICA, Chairman, Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. HILL: This letter is directed to you and to others in positions of national leadership to call attention to the grave danger of unbalance in scientific development and education in the United States. The danger lies in the current and understandable public fascination with nuclear power, missiles, and space travel. It lies in the likelihood of governmental action overemphasizing and encouraging the physical sciences and engineering, to the neglect of the equally important life (biological and social) sciences. We do not mean to imply that you are unaware of this danger. However, the organizations making up the Natural Resources Council of America wish to add their voices in an effort to offset what appears to be a definite trend toward unbalance. We see this trend in many bills pending in Congress for scholarships and other devices aimed at accelerating research and the training of technicians and engineers. Most of the pending bills place the greater emphasis on the physical sciences. Some would exclude the life sciences entirely from the benefits and incentives. Present and future development in public health, agriculture, forestry, and the management of other natural resources rest basically upon the biological sciences. So do vast and essential segments of modern industry. The national danger from present overemphasis of the physical sciences is not necessarily an immediate one, although certain programs in public health, agriculture, and conservation may soon face administrative difficulties and shortages of personnel. The gravest danger lies in the future. It will result if Government incentives and programs serve to draw a disproportionate share of the Nation's bright youngsters into the physical sciences and away from the life sciences. It is in the future-10, 20, and 30 years hence that loss of the critical and essential balance in scientific advancement may jeopardize the national security and welfare. In the words of Dr. Paul B. Sears, of Yale University, immediate past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: "To be specific, our very proper concern with the applications of mathematics, physics, and chemistry may be clouding the fact that we need biology, in general, and ecology, in particular, to illuminate man's relation to his environment. At present, the biological sciences are largely sustained as utilities in medicine and agriculture, the social sciences for dealing with immediate ills. But we must not forget that all science is needed to guide the process of future evolution-cultural and physical-now so largely in our own hands." We offer the following points for the thoughtful consideration of national policymakers: 1. We do not face a short-term crisis as to who can throw the most into space the quickest, but rather a long-term cold war between two ways of life. Success will depend upon total national strength and staying power. 2. Americans have in the past demonstrated ability to meet an immediate and pressing crisis but, after having passed it, we have always demonstrated an appalling complacency. 3. The current outcry for a crash program in the training of engineers and physicists is an inadequate and ill-considered approach to the goal of achieving greater advancement in science. Such a crash program ignores the real nature of the needed advancement in scientific knowledge and development; even more basically, it can be said to misinterpret the role of science in contributing to the total strength and staying power of America and the free world. 4. Science is accumulated knowledge systematized and formulated with refence to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws. The more we learn the more we appreciate that its fields are intricately related. Science cannot be advanced piecemeal with any more than short-term gains. 5. America's rapid population growth, industrial and urban expansion, and ever-increasing needs for new transportation facilities present our Nation with pressing and complex problems. These problems can be solved only by planning that utilizes the social and biological sciences in balanced measure with engineering skill. 6. The inequities involved in recent salary increases for Government employees in certain fields, mostly in the physical sciences and engineering, without regard to other fields, add to the trend toward unbalance. Moreover, they are bound to result in administrative difficulties. The increases were made under a 1954 act of Congress that is based on the scarcity principle. In other words, if technicians in certain fields are hard to find, the pay scales in those fields are increased, but similar positions in other fields are not adjusted. We recommended this law be changed for the following reasons: (a) The present law encourages personnel not affected to leave Government, however essential such personnel, in themselves, may be. (b) The law implies a low value on selected, currently nonscarce professions, thus tending to discourage students from entering college training for those professions. (c) The law creates unfavorable employee relations in Government agencies where an employee, because he is in a scarce category, may automatically receive a higher salary than his coworkers or even his immediate supervisor. (d) In land and water management, the proper utilization of the plant sciences often reduces or eliminates the need to utilize engineering sciences to solve a problem; thus, the need for engineering sciences should not be construed as paramount. The organizations currently making up the membership of the Natural Resources Council are listed on the attached sheet. We are directing similar letters to the White House, members of the President's Cabinet; the Director of the National Science Foundation, the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, and the chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Copies are being released to the press. Respectfully submitted. CHARLES H. CALLISON, Chairman. COMMITTEE ON BALANCE IN SCIENCE Dr. Edward H. Graham, Soil Conservation Society of America Mr. Arthur B. Meyer, Society of American Foresters Dr. Howard Zahniser, the Wilderness Society NATURAL RESOURCES. COUNCIL OF AMERICA, WASHINGTON, D. C. American Alpine Club American Fisheries Society American Museum of Natural History American Society of Zoologists Conservation Foundation Society of American Foresters Soil Conservation Society of America Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs Sport Fishing Institute Ecological Society of America Friends of the Land Garden Clubs of America Grassland Research Foundation Wild Flower Preservation Society Wildlife Management Institute Izaak Walton League of America, The Wildlife Society, The National Association of Biology Teach ers STATEMENT FILED BY PROTESTANTS AND OTHER AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (The statement relates to the Hill-Elliott bill (S. 3187) and the administration bill (S. 3163) before the committee) We are not concerned in the testimony we shall offer to favor or oppose any particular program of Federal-aid to education. We are concerned only, as our name suggests, that in any program of such aid which may be approved, the principle of the separation of church and state shall be meticulously respected. This principle is set forth in the first amendment to the Federal Constitution. We accept that enunciation of the principle given by Mr. Justice Black in the prevailing opinion in the Everson v. Board of Education (330 U. S. I, 1947): "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the first amendment means at least this: Neither a State nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion * * *. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion ***. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state."" Not only is church-state separation contained in the Federal Constitution, Mr. Chairman, it also appears in the constitutions or statutes of at least 46 of our States. Here it has been carefully spelled out that no aid from tax sources is to go to the support of sectarian worship or sectarian educational enterprises. We believe that the first amendment and these State constitutions should be diligently respected in any program of Federal-aid to education. Our testimony will bear directly upon this concern. May I say, initially, that H. R. 10763, the Murray-Metcalf bill appears to be unexceptionable. It does not attempt to bypass State laws as others do. It would seem to be the bill which most nearly embodies the American tradition of public money for public education. It is significant, we think, that this bill is being actively supported by the men and women who know at first hand the problems of our schools—the educators themselves. We refer to the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Education Association. In regard to the other bills we have certain apprehensions. Let us consider, first, the scholarship grants which are provided in both the administration bill and in the Hill-Elliott bill. We understand that these scholarships provided at public expense would be usable in sectarian colleges as well as in public and private, nonsectarian colleges. We do not oppose scholarships usable in sectarian colleges as such at the present time--provided that there is a fair and genuine system of examinations to determine recipients. Our apprehension about these grants is prompted by the fact that they will assuredly be cited as precedent for similar scholarships in lower schools operated by sectarian groups. We believe that the scholarship grants should be safeguarded against such misuse by specific language inserted in any Federal-aid bill. Strong demands for scholarship aid at the elementary and secondary level have already been voiced. John Francis Cardinal McIntyre, of Los Angeles, speaking at Dallas, Tex., December 9, 1956, urged a program of public grants to all pupils in sectarian schools, with the aid "to all children directly as it did to our returned heros" under the GI bills. In the October 25, 1957, issue of U. S. News & World Report, Father Virgil C. Blum, of Marquette University, set forth a program calling for scholarship certificates issued by the Federal Government that would be cashable for education in sectarian elementary and high schools. The plan of these two ranking churchmen has been widely publicized and inserted in the Congressional Record. Their plan repeatedly cites as precedent the scholarship grants in the GI bills. We cannot doubt that the scholarship grants contemplated in the legislation before us here would provide additional precedent and stimulus for sectarian demands at the elementary and secondary ⚫ level. We should like to delineate and underline our stand on this issue since it represents the focal point of our concern. During the 10 years of its existence POAU has diligently sought to educate the American public as to the dangers of any program which would divert tax dollars to sectarian schools. The charge has been made that we are discriminating against such schools when we urge that they be denied tax funds. The fact is, however, that such discrimination is simply the historic public policy which, under our laws, denies tax funds for the support of church enterprise, and carefully relegates all churches to the status of free and voluntary societies. It is a far more serious discrimination against taxpayers to use their funds to support sectarian enterprises in which they do not believe. There is no difference either in principle or in practice between tax support of a school integrally related to a church and tax support of the church itself. The school exists to teach and propagate the doctrines of the church which operates it. The school exists by and for the church. The school is the church; the church is the school. We have consistently opposed tax support of sectarian schools at the lower levels because of the inevitable proliferation of our educational system that is bound to result should Congress or the States commence such support. Dr. Rolfe Lanier Hunt, executive director of the department of religion and public education of the National Council of Churches, in an address in Omaha, Nebr., February 11, 1958, has, we believe, accurately forecast the kind of chaos that will obtain in education should we resort to tax support of sectarian schools. A former superintendent of schools in Mississippi, Dr. Hunt points out that in a Nation of 250 religious denominations, a small town with 2,000 population might be called upon to support a dozen sectarian school systems, while in a large city like New York or Los Angeles there could conceivably be a couple of hundred. "Ardent teachers would teach that only in their schools was the truth," Dr. Hunt said. "Would we wish our tax money to support these schools?" In his address Dr. Hunt also warned the Nation that sectarian segregation of school children could do more damage to American unity than has been done by racial segregation in public schools. We concur in these statements, Mr. Chairman, and we believe that the Congress concurs in them. We do not believe that it is the intent of the Congress to give the remotest encouragement to any course which might result in the weakening or eventual proliferation of our system of public education. We respectfully suggest, therefore, that a section of any Federal-aid bill providing for a scholarship program should be written to include an explicit denial that such legislation is intended in any sense as a precedent to scholarship aid for private or sectarian schools of less than collegiate rank, and also reasserting our constitutional provisions on this issue. We are apprehensive, also, about those sections of the Hill-Elliott bill and the administration bill which would make possible other forms of aid to sectarian institutions at the college level. For example, in section 552 of the HillElliott bill we find that Federal funds for certain teaching, equipment, and materials would be made available to sectarian, higher institutions of learning. Again, under section 1031 of this bill we find a provision of Federal funds for certain materials and equipment for sectarian institutions. The administration bill, while less objectionable at this point, also contains provision for such aid to sectarian institutions at the graduate level. Our feeling is that direct grants of the kind envisaged here would constitute far too dangerous a precedent for the complete public support of all sectarian schools. According to our information, no previous bill-and this includes the GI bills-has ever appropriated Federal funds for equipment for sectarian institutions in the direct manner contemplated in these bills. Both the Hill-Elliott and the administration bill go farther in the direction of sectarian grants than any previous legislation. In the past, all appropriations of this nature for equipment have been under specialized headings such as research in diseases. atomic energy, and military work. They represented a specific grant for which there was to be a specific return. There is no such pledge or safeguard in these bills. For these reasons, we suggest elimination from Federal aid of expenditures for equipment, teachers' salaries, materials, or buildings in sectarian institutions of higher learning. The administration bill has one provision which we find particularly ominous so far as the maintenance of church-state separation is concerned. The bill provides in section 103 (1) that funds shall be provided for a testing of students in private elementary or secondary schools. There is, of course, always the danger that any such grant of public funds to sectarian schools will be made to serve as precedent for more substantive grants. But our especial concern here is the stipulation in section 103 (b) that where the State is not permitted by its laws to provide its half of the expense for the program in private or sectarian schools, the Federal Government shall, in effect, override the law of the State by setting up and carrying out its own program in such States. We feel that this provision of the bill is inconsistent with others which seem to indicate a determination not to override State and community control of education. We believe, as most of these Federal-aid bills declare, that State and community control of education is desirable and should be preserved. We believe that such a conspicuous violation of this principle should not be included in any Federal-aid legislation. We respectfully suggest its elimination from this program. To state our conviction positively, we believe that all Federal legislation in aid to education should observe State laws and constitutions in the matter of churchstate separation. We should like to consider, next, the matter of definitions in the bills before this committee. We believe that the American tradition of public funds for public education makes it highly desirable that the word "public" as referring to tax-supported, community-controlled schools shall be used consistently throughout the legislation. We consider the administration bill faulty at this point since it defines "elementary school" and "secondary school" so loosely that the terms would include private and sectarian schools. In this respect the HillElliott bill is superior since it defines the terms as applying specifically to public institutions. Wherever there are to be exceptions in the practice of tax support for public schools only, then these exceptions should be carefully spelled out. |