Calls particular attention to the statement on the church and public schools adopted by the 169th General Assembly, which commits this church to wholehearted support of public education in our country; Urges that this full statement be studied thoughtfully at this time by appropriate groups and individuals in the church and elsewhere; Affirms that if the Federal Government extends aid to public education, Federal funds be made available only under the following conditions: (a) that the funds be administered by the States with provision for report by them to the U.S. Commissioner of Education on the use of the funds; (b) that there be no discrimination among children on the basis of race, religion, class, or national origin; (c) that there be adequate safeguards against Federal control of educational policy, which conditions are those recently adopted by the representa tives of Protestant and Orthodox Churches in the General Board of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America; and Commends the President of the United States for his statements upholding the constitutional guarantees against government support of sectarian education at primary and secondary levels. MARCH 16, 1961. BOARD OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION, Mr. BAILEY. I also have communications here from the American Humanist Association and Thomas W. Crews of Wheaton, Md., and a telegram from Harry B. Browne, president, Saginaw Labor Council, AFL-CIO, which I will offer for inclusion in the record in the same place. (The statements and telegram referred to follow :) STATEMENT BY JAMES HUTCHINSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON CHURCH AND STATE OF THE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION My name is James Hutchinson and I am chairman of the Committee on Church and State of the American Humanist Association. The AHA is a national organization with headquarters in Yellow Springs, Ohio, which publishes the well-known magazine, the Humanist. We have among our members many dis tinguished leaders in academic and scientific life. Our object is education in behalf of moral concepts and ethical values divorced from supernaturalism and dogmatic creeds. Our particular interest in appearing at this hearing is to emphasize the interests of the unchurched population of this country in the separation of church and state in education. We believe that the unchurched people have not yet been properly represented in congressional hearings, These hearings and the hearings on parallel educational bills in the Senate have produced many spirited discussions about Federal aid to church schools at the elementary and secondary level. Our organization, which includes macy professors of education, is enthusiastically in favor of the President's educa tional program for aid to public elementary and high schools. We have some reservations about his college program, but not his program for elementary and high schools. We recognize the desperate need of Federal help for elementary schools and we believe that the Federal Government is best able to supply that help because it controls the best mechanisms for taxation. We hope that no controversy about church and state will be permitted to reduce or obstruct the President's program for aid to public schools.. We look upon the public schools as the most logical instruments for educating our children They are open to the children of all creeds and they are not controlled by the representatives of any one creed. The public school is the place where all American children can learn tolerance by living together without creedal divisions. We think, therefore, that there is a double reason for confining public appropriations to public schools. They are in need of our help and they are the most logical agencies to preserve our society as a tolerant society. It would be a tragedy if our national policy of the separation of church and state in education should be altered in such a way as to weaken the creedless and nonsectarian public school system. It is now being proposed by at least one church group that the financial machinery of the Federal Government should be used to lend money at low interest rates for sectarian schools. It is said that sn financial aid for sectarian schools is a matter of fair play to parents who send their children to such schools. We sympathize with those parents who choose sectarian schools for their children, but we wish to stress fair play for the 70 million people in the United States who do not belong to any church. They are the second largest bloc in our society, second only to the Protestant bloc and larger than the Catholic bloc. Nobody seems to be paying any attention to them in the violent arguments about aid to parochial schools. The newspapers talk about Protestants, Jews, and Catholics opposing each other on this issue. They remain silent about the rest of the people, the creedless millions who also have a great stake in this debate. These creedless millions do not want their tax dollars to be used to promote any dogmas which they do not accept. They regard the freedom to disbelieve as one of the most vital American freedoms, and they recall that the Supreme Court has said: "The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect." As taxpayers and parents we do not want to see either our dollars or our children used by religious organizations for their own sectarian ends. Of course, religion should be free, and every church has a right to operate its own school system if the system observes minimum standards. But freedom to operate a church school system does not carry with it the right to make unbelievers pay for it. This country was in part founded by independent thinkers who did not belong to any church or accept any standard creed. The great majority of our people at the time of the writing of the Constitution did not belong to any church. Many of our foremost early statesmen were completely unorthodox in their religious attitudes. The society they sought to build rejected all establishments of religion in favor of a new and more tolerant way of life which we now call the separation of church and state. Under that way of life we have prospered. The churches have grown strong in freedom and independence, and the unchurched people have not been coerced into membership. We believe that they should not now be coerced into paying for a religious school system whose teachings they reject. If we start subsidizing religious schools with either loans or grants we will destroy the spirit as well as the letter of the first amendment. Our schools will be plunged into bitter sectarian strife. The public schools will be weakened and decimated. Most of the religious schools today are owned by religious orders which are organic parts of a great sectarian system. We cannot contribute our dollars to those schools without giving those dollars to a church, since the treasuries of the schools and the church are essentially fused. Shall we destroy the right of 80 percent of our people to be free from assessments for religion in order to appease the 20 percent who want our money for their denominational ends? We do not think that is sound social policy, and in addition it is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said that: "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious articles or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion." In that same decision the Court has flatly forbidden "aid" to religion. Certainly low-interest loans are aid to religion. That is why one great church in America is asking for them. We are happy that the Supreme Court has spoken out specifically against direct financial aid to religion. It has permitted some public funds to be spent for parochial school buses and other personal fringe benefits for welfare aid to children but it has admonished us to protect Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. That wall, we believe, should separate the public treasury from any general grants or loans to sectarian schools. STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. CREWS, WHEATON, MD. Federal aid to education has been discussed and debated for many years, and there is going to be no simple solution to this highly complex problem. A totalitarian government could dispose of the problem very easily and save the people from a lot of worry and fret. In our Federal Republic, however, we, the people, must concern ourselves with the problem. We, the people, must learn what the problem is. We, the people, must understand the various alternative solutions and the effect that each solution would have on our lives and the lives of our children. We, the people, cannot assume that government-any government— is an omniscient God and therefore incapable of unwise actions. The respon sibility is ours. We are being told by our National Government that there is a crisis in education. We are being told that our educational facilities are inadequate. We are being told that there is a shortage of more than 140,000 classrooms in our primary and secondary public schools. We are being told that there is a shortage of teachers. We are being told that our teachers are grossly underpaid. These things may be true or they may be only partially true. Who is responsible for deciding what should be done? Under our republican form of government, the elected representatives of the people decide what, if anything, must be done. A controversy arises when consideration is given to determining at what level of government-local, State, or National-our elected representatives decide questions related to public education. The Constitution under which our Federa! system of government is established, does not provide a clear answer. The National Government has not been delegated the power to establish, or to help to maintain, a public school system. On the other hand, the National Government does have the power to use tax revenues to provide for the general welfare of the Nation. The National Government may decide that the general welfare is being threatened because of the difficulties of State and local governments in raising revenues and enact a law that will provide aid to the States for the purpose of strengthening the Nation's public school system. It is debatable whether or not this would be constitutional. An amendment to the Constitution would settle the argument. It is obvious that any aid to the States must come from either taxation or borrowing-that is, future taxation. A responsible government would propose to increase taxes to pay for the cost of the aid program. It could be argued that increased revenues from an expanding economy would pay for the aid program and increased tax rates would not be necessary; however, it should be pointed out that such revenues are needed to offset deficits which occur during periods of business recessions. An irresponsible Government, fearful that an enlightened public would reject a proposed program, tries to sell the program to the people by giving extensive information on benefits and not on cost to each State. The people are apt to be misled into believing that they will be getting something for nothing or, at least, getting back what is being taken out by Federal taxation. The people of every State should know not only what they would be getting but also what they would be paying. They might then decide that they would prefer either to have Federal taxes reduced or to have the national debt reduced. The latter would. in turn, reduce the amount of interest that is paid on the national debt each year. The question of Federal control has been bandied about to a great extent. It is obvious that the National Government would not take over complete control ! of the public school system by virtue of its less-than-5-per-cent support. But it is also obvious that some control, or establishment of minimum standards would be necessary, assuming that the Government is really interested in improving education and not merely in shelling out money. It is absurd to claim ¦ that nobody wants Federal control of education. Anyone interested in improving education would want some kind of controls-subtle or otherwise. And certainly the taxpayer should want controls. Public officials should not seek to mislead the people merely to gain acceptance of a program. The advocates of Federal aid to education contend that many States have no more tax revenues available and that, because of this, the National Govern- . ment has the responsibility of establishing an aid to education program. The first contention is an admission that the National Government has imposed burdensome income tax on the people and thereby seriously impaired the abilities of most States to meet their governmental responsibilities. The second contention is a classic non sequitur. Consider the following anecdote: The cook imposes on the waiter and causes him to fall behind in his work. The cook, noticing that some of the customers are getting impatient at the lack of service, leaves the kitchen and takes a customer's order. In the meantime back at the range, the soup boils over and the hamburger burns. Was it the cook's responsibility to stop imposing on the waiter and tend to ¦ the cooking or to wait on tables and thereby cause the food to be ruined? The whole philosophy of Federal aid is a greater menace to the general we?.. fare of the Nation than whatever deficiencies there might be in our public education system. When one distressed group receives Federal revenues, ther is an invitation for other groups to look to the National Government for aid whenever they feel that they are distressed. The result is that public clamors are heard in Washingon and the National Government responds to the calls by providing for the general welfare through the Federal aid route. Presumably everyone gets something, so presumably everyone should be happy. But everyone thinks that they are two steps behind everyone else in getting their share. This is a race to economic and moral disaster sponsored and encouraged by the National Government. The decline of individual responsibility is the cancer within us. We do not have a crisis in education. We have probably both misused our available resources and misapplied our educational potential, but these are not the result of any basic deficiency in our public educational system. Let us attack the root of our troubles and not magnify the side issue of Federal aid to education. We, individually, are morally irresponsible. We sit back and do nothing while our National Government establishes program after program which result in deepening attiudes of "Let George do it," "Let the Government pay for it," and "If I don't take it somebody else will." We put too high a value on pleasures and comforts and too low a value on things that money cannot buy. In order to make or save a dollar, we come as close as we can to evading the law without legally breaking it. Or we consciously break the law and comfort ourselves with the thought that "Everyone else is doing it." This is our crises. I request that this subcommittee adopt the following resolution: "EIGHTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "Whereas our Nation is in a moral and spiritual crisis; "Resolved, by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress take immediate steps to reform the tax laws of the National Government so that individuals and State and local governments can fully meet the responsibilities that are theirs ; "That State governments demonstrate their faith in the republican form of government by granting to their citizens equal representation in their State legislatures and the Congress; "That every member of our economic complex consider his operations and objectives in light of the needs of mankind; "That the religious institutions of our country examine their effectiveness in developing the moral and spiritual character of their members; and "That each individual ask not what the country can do for him but what he can do for his country." SAGINAW, MICH., March 17, 1961. Congressman JAMES HARVEY, The Saginaw Labor Council, AFL-CIO, representing 18,000 working members and their families wish to inform you that Saginaw Board of Education does not speak for our people and that we are solidly behind President Kennedy's proposals of Federal aid to education. Request that this be inserted in the record of the hearings. HARRY B. BROWNE, President, Saginaw Labor Council, AFL-CIO. Mr. BAILEY. The committee will now stand in adjournment until 10 o'clock Monday morning. (Thereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, March 20, 1961.) |