appears to meet the question raised and we should like it incorporated in the amendment proposed for the Committee's consideration. The new wording simply adds the phrase ", other than personnel costs," in the proposed new sub-paragraph (6) which then reads as follows: "The Commissioner determines that the institution will expend from current funds for instructional and library purposes, other than personnel costs, during the fiscal year in which the project application is submitted an amount at least equal to the amount expended by such institution for such purposes during the previous fiscal year." It would be much appreciated if the above re-wording for sub-paragraph (6) could be substituted for the wording presented for that sub-paragraph on page 6 of my prepared statement as submitted to your Committee on July 13. Respectfully yours, CHARLES F. SCHULLER, Director, Instructional Media Center. Senator MORSE. At this point in the record I direct that a communication from the Department of Audio-Visual Instruction of NEA, dated July 21, 1966, be inserted in the hearing record. (The communication referred to follows:) Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF AUDIO-VISUAL INSTRUCTION DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Although Dr. Charles F. Schuller of Michigan State University presented testimony on S. 3047 for our organization on July 13, 1966 before the Senate Education Subcommittee, I respectfully request that this letter be made a part of the record since it deals with several matters of concern to our members, matters which Dr. Schuller did not have an opportunity to include in his remarks. First of all, we would like to point out that during its first year Title VI of Public Law 89-329 shows signs of suffering from "hardening of the categories." Already about $400,000 in requests for funds under Title VI, Sec. 601(b) have been disallowed on a technicality; for, although closed-circuit television may be an integral part of a proposed institutional improvement, at present requests for CCTV funds must be discrete and funded through a separate proposal. See Title VI, Sec. 601(c). These separate categories, one limited to traditional audiovisual equipment and the other to television, have imposed a serious limitation on institutions that have presented well integrated proposals to improve college instruction with systems that embody both audivisual equipment and closed-circuit television-a promising and innovative instructional trend that was brought to the attention of the Senate Education Subcommittee by our Panel on Educational Technology on June 2, 1965. Experience to date would indicate that this situation, basically an administrative problem, can be resolved by combining Sec. 601 (b) and (c) with the existing ratio of funds for audiovisual equipment and television equipment. We would also like to point out (as we did in June 1965) that computer assisted instruction is already being used successfully at a number of institutions as an important part of instruction in a wide range of courses. Since this very significant instructional innovation is not mentioned in P.L. 89-329, we urge that it be added to Sec. 603(2)(A) so that "special equipment" can be interpreted to include "individual student terminal equipment, intra-campus connecting facilities, and instructional programs for use with computer assisted instruction." Such computer uses are instructional and not administrative uses of computer services. Another "categorical" problem is emerging in Title VI B where the terms "workshop" and "institute" are used. It is already apparent that the Faculty Development Programs authorized under this title should and will be quite different from the institute concept that is working so well with high school teachers. This legislation, of course, is concerned with a unique in-service training program that will in some cases include deans, department chairmen, full professors and other distinguished members of academic communities. As a former member of this community, Senator Morse, I am sure you can appreciate the great opportunity presented by Title VI B which at the same time will require careful and sensitive administration. Rather than the terms now used in Title VI B, "workshop" and "institute," we urge that the term, "faculty development program," be substituted. We would also like to urge you and the distinguished Senate Education Subcommittee to take what steps you can to restore full funding to Title VI B as originally authorized. Trained manpower, as you well know, is essential to the success of any technology-and the educational technology provided by Title VI is no exception. If Title VI B does not have priority over Title VI A in the minds of those who administer and those who benefit from this legislation, then we have put the cart before the horse! Thank you for this opportunity to extend our suggestions for strengthening the Higher Education Act of 1965. Sincerely yours, ANNA L. HYER, Executive Secretary. Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mr. W. B. Hicks, executive secretary of the Liberty Lobby. We are delighted to have you, Mr. Hicks. I am going to turn the chair over to Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a member of the full committee, who is obliging the chairman by conducting the hearings for the rest of the morning while I go to the Labor Subcommittee meeting on minimum wages markup to help make a quorum. STATEMENT OF W. B. HICKS, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LIBERTY LOBBY Mr. HICKS. Mr. Chairman, I am W. B. Hicks, Jr., executive secretary of Liberty Lobby. I appear today on behalf of the 185,000 subscribers to our legislative report. PURPOSE Mr. Chairman, we are here because Liberty Lobby wishes the record of these hearings to show two things: (1) That even at this late stage in the development of the Federal Government's role in higher education, there are still those who object to the principles involved; and (2) that there are some, at least, who came before you to warn of grave dangers inherent in the long-term authorization of funds proposed by both Senate bill 3047 and House bill 14644. FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION The Federal Government's role in financing the colleges and universities of this Nation can have but one resolution, and that is the ultimate dependency of these institutions on Federal favor as well as Federal support, which in turn will destroy the diversity and independence of thought on which the past, present, and future intellectual competence of the whole Nation is based. There is no need to support the foregoing statement with extensive documentation. The logic on which the statement is based is selfevident, and history will have the last word. NEED FOR ANNUAL REVIEW Aside from the principle of Federal aid to education to which Liberty Lobby objects, both bills propose to authorize expenditures far into the future, and Liberty Lobby strongly opposes this aspect of the bills. The Congress should never attempt to legislate so far in advance, because to do so is both impractical and improper. Impractical, because who on this subcommittee can honestly say that he can accurately judge the requirements of the various programs covered in these bills even for 1968, much less for 1970? Improper, because these long-term authorizations deprive the American people of their right to full and fair consideration of future expenditures; a consideration that should be made on the basis of conditions that actually exist in 1968 and 1970; not on the basis of mere guesswork and projections drawn up in 1965 and 1966. Improper, also, because this kind of long-term legislation handicaps future representatives of the people by forcing them to work within limitations not of their own making. Liberty Lobby realizes that the Appropriations Committees of both Houses will continue annual review of the expenditures here authorized. We would not agree, however, that review by the Appropriations Committee would constitute a full and fair consideration of the expenditures. The members of the Appropriations Committees are not specialists in education. This committee is the proper place for review of this program. We recommend that you reject the proposed long-term authorizations contained in these bills, and provide instead for a more frequent review of Federal aid to education in the future. Thank you. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts (presiding pro tempore). I want to thank you very much, Mr. Hicks, for taking the time to come here this morning. I know that you have given a good deal of thought to your position in representing Liberty Lobby and I want to express on behalf of the members of the subcommittee my appreciation for your attendance and for your presentation. I know they will consider your comments along with the other comments as expressive of a group who are deeply interested in this question and this problem. I want to thank you very much for coming to the hearing. Mr. HICKS. Thank you, sir. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Our next witness is Mr. Edd Doerr. Mr. Doerr is representing the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. STATEMENT OF EDD DOERR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZATION, PROTESTANTS AND OTHER AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE Mr. DOERR. I would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Edd Doerr. I represent and serve on the staff of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational organization, dedicated solely to the preservation of religious liberty through the observance of the principle of church-state separation embodied in the first amendment. I will try to orally summarize my testimony and keep it very brief. As a public school teacher until recently, when I joined the staff of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, I am personally gratified for all the support that Congress has been giving to education, or I should say public education on all levels in the country. Although our members, that I am representing here today, have vastly differing views on the basic subject of Federal aid to education, and, of course, have no objection whatever to sectarian colleges as long as they do not receive tax funds, they are united in being deeply disturbed by the following. SECTARIAN COLLEGE-JUDICIAL REVIEW Under the 1963 Higher Education Facilities Act, a great many millions of dollars have been channeled to sectarian religious colleges. Second, the 1963 act did not make any provision for judicial review. The Senate did pass a judicial review amendment on this which was introduced, I believe, by Senator Ervin, but it was weeded out in the conference committee with the House. Further, we are disturbed by the fact that the Higher Education Amendments of 1966 make no provision either for judicial review or for the elimination of benefits to sectarian institutions under this legislation. We see no constitutional objection to grants or loans to public colleges, to nonsectarian private colleges, or even perhaps to those colleges which have only a nominal connection with a church. We believe, however, that grants or loans to sectarian colleges, even with the sectarian disclaimer used in the present legislation, are of very doubtful constitutionality. I need not remind the subcommittee the language the Supreme Court has used on numerous occasions on this subject to the effect that 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. "SCHEMPP" OPINION We further feel that Justice Douglas spelled out the meaning of the first amendment very well in his concurring opinion in Schempp 3 years ago when he said. The most effective way to establish any institution is to finance it; and this truth is reflected in the appeals by church groups for public funds to finance their religious schools. Mr. Justice Douglas went on to say: Financing a church either in its strictly religious activities or in its other activities is equally unconstitutional *** budgets for one activity may be technically separable from budgets for others. But the institution is an inseparable whole, a living organism, which is strengthened in proselytizing when it is strengthened in any department by contributions from other than it own members. Mr. Justice Douglas also pointed out that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, lest the establishment clause of the first amendment become a mockery. HORACE MANN LEAGUE V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS At this point, I think it is relevant to call attention to an important ruling handed down just 6 weeks ago on June 2, 1966, by the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland in the case of Horace Mann League v. Board of Public Works. In this case, Maryland's highest court struck down, as violating the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, three special Mary 66-396 0-66-14 land laws providing grants of taxpayer funds to three church-related colleges. The decision itself is appended by my testimony. The Maryland Court of Appeals' decision in this case certainly cast grave doubt upon the constitutionality of all Federal grants to sectarian institutions, since the decision was based upon several earlier rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Horace Mann ruling, further, I think would be useful to this committee for it furnishes a set of criteria for differentiating between religious colleges which may not be constitutionally granted aid from tax funds and other private colleges to which Government grants may constitutionally be given. I need not quote from the Maryland court decision, as it is in my written testimony. In applying these criteria to the Maryland laws granting funds to four colleges, the court of appeals found that one of them, Hood College, was not run by or slanted to any church and, therefore, it could constitutionally receive grants from the State of Maryland; but the court ruled, using the same criteria, that the other three colleges were so obviously religious and sectarian that a State grant to them would be an aid to religion prohibited by the first amendment. SECTARIAN AND PRIVATE COLLEGES It would be, we believe, useful to Congress to bear in mind this important distinction between sectarian colleges and private colleges which are only nominally sponsored by a church and have only the most tenuous connection with a church. It might be noted that the Maryland Court of Appeals based its ruling on the U.S. Constitution rather than the Maryland constitution because the Maryland constitution is not violated by State grants to religious institutions. It is too early for us to tell whether or not the Horace Mann case will be appealed to the Supreme Court and it would be foolish to attempt to guess what the Supreme Court would do if the case is appealed. But we find it difficult to imagine that the Supreme Court would reverse the Maryland high court. It is also interesting to note that shortly after the Maryland court ruled unconstitutional a State grant of $500,000 to Western Maryland College, a Methodist institution, the Department of HEW announced that this very same institution would be the recipient of a $278,730 grant under the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, which the present legislation is seeking to extend. This situation highlights the ambiguities and contradictions of the present situation in regard to Federal aid to education programs and vividly demonstrates the need for Constitutional clarification, either by Congress or by the Federal courts. SAFEGUARDS We appreciate the problems of the Nation's colleges and universities and realize the difficulties of administering grants and loans to hundreds of institutions. To clarify the law and simplify Congress' task, we believe Congress should include safeguards in the Higher Education Amendments of 1966, to bar grants or loans to sectarian colleges and thereby protect the citizens' first amendment right not to be taxed for the support of religion-his own or anyone else's. We |