Mr. WESTON. Sir? Mr. Dowdy. That mission has been repealed. It is illegal now, because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mr. WESTON. Well, no, it is no more Mr. DOWDY. You ask the Office of Education. They say it is illegal, so it cannot be Howard's mission now. Mr. WESTON. Well, let us say that certainly Howard has Mr. DowDY. You are going to get yourself in trouble downtown with the Office of Education. Mr. WESTON. Howard, as I say, is certainly integrated in all respects, and they have a hard time sometimes to perform what they regard as one of their missions, to uplift the educational standards of the colored race, which was a gloss on the legislation at the time Howard's charter was brought forward. In other words, everyone knew that Howard was put here in the District of Columbia to help the ex-slaves who had no proper education, to bring them up, and Howard has, of course, achieved that mission superbly well. I just want to add one thing. I have been helping in the effort to get public higher education in the District of Columbia for at least 15 years. We have here, as I say, all of the substantive material that was introduced before the Senate. We have a tight squeeze timewise. If this Congress adjourns without doing something about higher education we have to start all over again next year, and I know, as the community coordinator for about 30 organizations, that there have been thousands and tens of thousands of hours of time of some of our most prominent local citizens spent on this mission; we have a completely unanimous community, we have the board of trade, we have the ecumenical statement of the Jewish, Catholic, and the Protestant faith, making this a matter of morals; we have everything going for this bill. But unless the committee comes to its conclusions in the relatively near future we won't get it passed this session, and there are tens of thousands of hours of time and thousands of dollars, thousands and thousands of dollars, of money that have been spent combining these statistics, and they will all go right down the drain. Mr. Dowdy. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to finish up the hearings today. Mr. WESTON. I would plead with you to do it as expeditiously as possible. (Subsequently, Mr. Weston submitted the following letter:) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITIZENS Re H.R. 16958 establishing public colleges for District of Columbia. Hon. JOHN Dowdy, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. DOWDY: In order to place firmly on record the reasons D.C. Citizens for Better Public Education, Inc. feels that Howard University could not appropriately assume the function of a D.C. college of liberal arts and sciences, I am taking the liberty of extending my remarks in this brief letter. 1. Howard University is a quasi-public, quasi-private institution chartered by Congress to serve the nation; largely supported by Congressional appropriations, directed by a Board of Trustees which has developed and maintained Howard's status as a national university. We do not believe that the administration of this large university can efficiently undertake the additional and unfamiliar duty of organizing and running a sizeable and ever-growing city college for Washington except through some form of subsidiary to which Howard could not devote major attention. In contrast, under H.R. 16958, a new board will be drafted by the White House specifically to administer the new city colleges. This board and its administration will not have to divide its time to serve other educational interests. Its funds and its responsibilities will be primarily those of the District of Columbia. It will be responsive to the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Committees of Congress. 2. The tuition differential between Howard qua University qua city college would be administratively infeasible. 3. Because of its size, Howard University would be at a disadvantage in working with other local "city" colleges (in the suburbs) in planning efficient curricula apportionments, practiced elsewhere by a growing number of neighboring colleges. 4. Each new unit added to our institutions of higher education has, in the experience of recent years, contributed something original and vital to the educational process. We would expect the new D. C. city college to make its own contribution under the kind of leadership to be expected from the Board of Higher Education. 5. The careful reasoning of the President's Committee on Higher Education in the District of Columbia in its Report expresses the conviction of top-level educational experts that the new city college must be separate from and not a part of any existing university. 6. There is no reason to expect that expense would actually be saved if Howard took over the city college job. Presumably, Howard would need the same new facilities and faculty that the new Board of Education will project. Howard is now barely able to keep up its own requirements in its present status, and has no idle buildings, land or faculty. We hope this further information will prove of assistance in your presentation of this matter to the Congress. Most respectfully, ROBERT M. WESTON, Chairman, Higher Education Committee. STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR A. HAUCK, VICE CHAIRMAN, HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE Mr. HAUCK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I really have a distinct honor, I think, in presenting for two of our great education associations and presenting for the record a statement that would have been given by Earle T. Hawkins, who is president of Towson State College of Baltimore. This statement is submitted in behalf of the Association of State Colleges and Universities, which has a membership of 198 colleges and universities; and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, of which there are 97. Mr. Dowdy. It will be made a part of the record. (The prepared statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF EARLE T. HAWKINS, PRESIDENT OF TowSON STATE COLLEGE, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES My name is Earle Hawkins. I am President of Towson State College, Baltimore, Maryland, and also President of the Association of State Colleges and Universities (ASCU). In the annual convention of the ASCU in Chicago, February 14-16, 1966, a formal resolution was adopted to give strong support to the establishment of a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia as proposed by H.R. 7395 and other bills of similar import. The executive committee of the National Association of State Colleges and LandGrant Universities (NASULGC) has adopted a similar position. The ASCU now, has in its membership 198 colleges and universities which are wholly or partially state owned and state controlled. There are approximately one million students enrolled in our type of institution. This is one-fifth of all the students in degree-granting institutions in the country. The NASULGC is a voluntary association of 97 state and land-grant institutions of higher education, with at least one located in every state and in Puerto Rico. Together, the member institutions of these two Associations enroll over two and a half million students, or almost half of these enrolled in all higher education in this country. The action of the ASCU was prompted by such considerations as the following: 1. There is a growing recognition throughout the country that in our age of increasing technology there is a vast need for our young people to acquire higher skills and training than ever before, and that there are rapidly diminishing opportunities for those with limited education. The situation is summarized well in the report submitted to President Johnson in June, 1964, by the Committee appointed by President Kennedy to study the need for public higher education in the District of Columbia. You are of course familiar with this report. It contained the following significant statement: "We are building massive problems for the future-in welfare, unemployment, poverty and crime-unless we provide a maximum of opportunity for the youth of today to achieve the highest level of education of which they are capable." 2. The provisions for public higher education in the District of Columbia are woefully inadequate. This has been reported by others who have appeared before this committee, but I shall emphasize one or two facts: a. The young people in every State in the Union are provided a choice among a variety of programs in public colleges and universities. Only in the District of Columbia are they limited to a program in teacher education in a public college and that in an institution which is housed in an antiquated plant, and which has not had adequate financial support for years. If you have any doubt about this latter statement, I suggest you consult the 1962 report of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education which reads in part, "The prospects of improving the facilities, maintaining a competent faculty and attracting an able student body were not good enough to justify its continuation ***" credited by the Council. as ac b. Even the Island of Guam, with a population in 1960 of less than 70,000 has a public college with a general program. The College of Guam is a member of our Association. If we can provide a public college with a general program for that island in the Pacific, surely we can do it for this island in the United States. 3. The private colleges and universities in the District of Columbia cannot provide the opportunities for higher education needed by Washington's young men and women. A study made by Selma J. Mushkin and Eugene P. McLoone for the Council of State Governments (published by the Council in February, 1965) reveals that there were 56,000 students in all degree-credit programs in all colleges and universities in the District in 1963, and the report contains a prediction that this number will rise to 86,800 by 1970. It is inconceivable that the private institutions can absorb this increase. What is even more important, the state colleges (and we would place a public college for the District of Columbia in this group) serve a special purpose which cannot be expected from other colleges and universities. The state colleges are traditionally the people's colleges. They serve (among others) the young people from the lower income groups, and they do this proudly. Largely because of this, and especially in view of the fact that increasing numbers of men and women from the lower income brackets are seeking a college education, the state colleges and universities are the fastest growing degree-granting institutions in the country. It will be little short of tragic if the District of Columbia continues to deny the young people of Washington the kinds of opportunities that can be offered in a public college of arts and sciences. 4. What I have said about the need for a general college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia applies with equal force to the need for a public community college in our nation's capital. Experience throughout the country has demonstrated that the community colleges are tremendously effective and popular in helping those young people who are not interested in a full four-year college program to acquire the skills and training and insights needed for a vast array of occupations in our society. There is almost no provision at present in the District for meeting this need. The President's Committee on Higher Education in the District found that in 1964 more than 700 high school seniors who did not plan to continue their education would have changed their plans and would have attended a community college if one had been available. Failure to give them this opportunity resulted in a distinct economic loss to our society. It should be emphasized of course that establishing a community college alone will not be enough. The longer programs in a college of arts and sciences are quite as important in order to provide the much needed opportunities for young men and women who are qualified and who desire to prepare for positions open only to college graduates. Also, it is inevitable that many of the students who complete programs in the community college will find that they want to continue their education and work for a degree or degrees in the college of arts and sciences. The two institutions will complement each other, and the opportunity for transfer should be available. 5. Finally, may I point out that the people of the District of Columbia are quite able to pay for increased opportunities for higher education for their children, and the number of citizens' groups urging the increase indicates that they are eager to do so. I shall quote only a few figures. According to the publication, "Governmental Finances in 1963-64," published by the United States Bureau of the Census, the per capita expenditure for higher education in the District of Columbia that year was $2.26. I understand that if the cost op operating the laboratory schools is deducted (because they are really public schools in the Washington system) the figure would be much lower-little more than one-half that amount. The corresponding expenditure in my State of Maryland was $21.23. This was in the face of the fact that the per-capita income in the District of Columbia is higher than in Maryland. According to the 1962 data published by the United States Department of Commerce in "Survey of Current Business" (August 1963) the per capita income in the District was $3219, and in Maryland, $2683. Comparisons with other neighboring states are similarly convincing. At this point I emphasize what other witnesses have reported, that there are hundreds of families in Washington whose incomes are not anywhere near to the $3219 per capita average many of them (one-fifth of the total) with incomes for each entire family of less than $3000 per year. Members of these families are the ones who especially need the opportunities offered by public colleges. In order that the maximum number of them may receive the benefits, we urge that no tuition be charged in the public colleges or that it be held at the lowest possible figure. The cost of providing higher education for these young people is inescapable. Either we pay for the establishment and operation of public colleges or society pays indirectly through the economic loss resulting from depriving them of the more extended education they are capable of completing. These considerations have convinced our officers and the representatives of our member institutions that the young people of Washington should no longer be denied the kinds of opportunities provided by public colleges in all of the states we serve. Our Association does not normally adopt a resolution nor take a position with regard to legislation affecting only one locality, but we are keenly aware that the decision with regard to public higher education in the District of Columbia will be made by the Senators and Congressmen who represent us in the Congress. We believe, therefore, that we must let you know how strongly we support the kinds of provisions contained in HR 7395 and the other similar bills you are considering. We urge approval of a bill which will incorporate the essential elements of these bills and which will result soon in establishing both a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia. In addition to supporting this legislation, we stand ready to assist in the development of the programs of the two colleges by calling upon the resources and experience of our members. We can make available all the knowledge acquired in the development of similar institutions throughout the country. We appreciate much this opportunity to present our convictions and our recommendations. It includes Dr. HAUCK. I shall not read Dr. Hawkins' statement. the argument, I think, or the facts that prompted these two associations to do something that is very unusual, and that is to make a statement in regard to an educational matter relating to a local community. I want to state in their behalf that their resources, based on their experience and their histories, would very gladly be made available to this committee, or to anyone planning the institutions contemplated in the bills. Thank you very much. Mr. NELSEN. No questions. Thank you. Mr. DOWDY. We appreciate your coming. Dr. HAUCK. May I also present this resolution, adopted by the Association of State Colleges & Universities at their annual meeting on February 16, 1966. Mr. DOWDY. Yes. It will be included in the record. (The resolution referred to follows:) ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT ANNUAL MEETING, FEBRUARY 16, 1966 Whereas we are convinced that public colleges and universities provide opportunities for young people not available in other institutions, and Whereas public higher education in Washington, D.C., is now restricted to teacher education, and the young people of the Nation's Capital are therefore denied the wider opportunities available in every one of the States, and Whereas the situation in Washington is unique in that a greater variety of opportunities for higher education in a public college can be made available only by an act of Congress, and Whereas we believe that the people served by our State colleges and universities would want the young people of Washington to have opportunities similar to their own: Be it Resolved, That this Association of State Colleges and Universities give strong support to the establishment of both public community college and college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia as soon as possible as recommended by the President's Committee on Higher Education in the District of Columbia and as proposed in S 293 and S 1612 and H.R. 7395, and That the Officers of this Association bring this action effectively to the attention of the appropriate Committees in both Houses of the Congress. Mr. Dowdy. Mrs. Anthony Schwartz, president, League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia. Mrs. Schwartz, your statement in its entirety will be presented for the record. STATEMENT OF MRS. ANTHONY SCHWARTZ, PRESIDENT, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mrs. SCHWARTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just run through it, if I may. For the League of Women Voters of the District of Columbia, I certainly wish to express appreciation to be able to speak this morning and to lend our strongest support for the establishment of District of Columbia colleges, both a 2-year community college and a college of liberal arts. In the establishment of such schools, we will realize the objectives central to the league's concerns for at least the past 15 years, and we do consider this legislation to be one of the most important ever to come before this committee. Much has been said about the need of today's labor market for technical and professional skills. I certainly won't reiterate that, or any other facts and figures which have been so well documented on the need for public colleges in the District. In the Senate hearings, it was very well summarized in the Senate District Committee's report. We do support H.R. 16958 in general, but do wish to comment on some specific provisions. |