veterans, 80 percent were married, and 50 percent had children. Those had gone to school under the GI bill. In other professional schools, there were comparable statistical averages. It shows what that bill did for the education of America.

Mr. FELDMAN. Statistically, I am sure, those figures would fit my law school class perfectly.

Senator MORSE. Due to the fact you mentioned this field of education, I must yield to temptation briefly.

There is a great misrepresentation afloat in the country that we have too many lawyers. Let me point out two things.

Of course, legal training is excellent training for a whole variety of civic activities-Government, civil service, and even business. But this is something my profession does not like to face up to. That is, if we really provided those many in our population that need legal service, that do not get legal service, with the legal service they ought to have you would have a shortage of lawyers in America. The time has come when my profession has to be faced with a tremendous public demand for providing the American public with the legal service that they really ought to be getting, which they are not getting now because we have so many in the population that frequently do not know that they ought to have legal service. We have too many millions in our country that are really a lost segment in our population still in regard to the full protection of our legal rights, because they do not know they have those legal rights.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I had not thought to refer again to the subject matter with which we had concern, following the forthright statement by Mr. Stover. But since Mr. Feldman, on behalf of the American Veterans Committee, has read into his statement a paragraph in which that organization favors the elimination of the present disclaimer requirement, I would respectfully suggest to the witness that I believe the word "insulting" is an unhappy choice of a word. I am not sure, upon reflection, that you would want to retain it. But I ask you if I am incorrect in that assumption?

Mr. FELDMAN. Upon a moment's reflection, as a matter of fact, in reading this just before I got up here, I thought that my language in originally writing this thing was possibly a little bit too strong. I respectfully submit to the Senator from West Virginia that he is absolutely correct in saying that this was a bad choice of a word. I cannot off the top of my head think of an adequate synonym. Senator MORSE. I suggest "irritating."

Mr. FELDMAN. "Irritating" is excellent, Senator.

Senator RANDOLPH. I fully concur in the use of such a word. To some persons it could well be just that. I will not attempt to lessen your conviction on the matter, because this is your position.

Mr. FELDMAN. That is right.

Senator RANDOLPH. But I feel that it will do your cause no value to use such a charge.

Mr. FELDMAN. I agree with you, Senator.

Senator RANDOLPH. I would also suggest that when you say that those who generally advocate such a position as I have indicated, that we would subvert rather than protect-I doubt if you would want the word to stand, with the membership of the Congress having in its mature judgment-it might be a mistake in judgment-have included this provision in the legislation.

Mr. FELDMAN. If I might, Senator, I was not referring to the Congress as such. I was thinking generally of those who take the lead in advocating the necessity for such disclaimers. I was referring to the people who generally take the lead in advocating such disclaimers, and I personally would stand on my original language in relation to these people. I do not question their motives at all. I think these people genuinely think that they are protecting our best interests. But I find that these are almost always the same people-and this is why I put the qualifying word "generally" in-these are almost always the same people who would limit our freedom of speech in one way or another. These are generally the people who advocate censorship of one type or another. This is what I meant. I was not referring to people who think it is a good idea or a bad idea to have the disclaimer. I was generally thinking of the people who take the lead in promoting it.

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Feldman, I regret to hear you make that statement, because I think it is very important for you to realize that when the Congress passes such a law, there must have been valid advocacy behind the enactment of the legislation. This would come, not from some who flamboyantly expressed an opinion, but by men, who upon study and also upon responsibility, recorded their votes, either in the affirmative or in the negative; and they based those determinations upon what they believed to be the fundamental matters at issue.

I, of course, cannot go further in suggesting to you what you should or should not say. I respect what you have said, insofar as what you believe should be placed into legislation. However, not today alone, but on many occasions, I have cautioned witnesses that we should be very careful in attributing a mismotive to any person or to any organization.

I remember in the consideration of our aid to education bill, I took a position that parochial and church and private schools should not have the use of public funds. Yet I had to take issue, I felt, properly, with a person who held the same viewpoint as did I. He attributed to those who disagreed with him an "un-American" attitude. I at that time publicly, as the record will indicate, disagreed, even though the witness was stating the position which I adhered to in the matter of aid to public education and possibly to other segments of our educational structure.

What I have indicated here is in nowise a carping criticism, because I have no desire to have it so understood. I feel, however, that you do not bolster your case with me, you weaken it by a generalized attack.

Senator MORSE. Anything further, Mr. Feldman?

Mr. FELDMAN. I would say this that possibly it covers too many people. But I certainly think that some of the people who advocate the retention of this kind of thing, despite their good motives, attempt to subvert the very thing they are for. If the Senator feels, and I think it would be possibly even more accurate if we said that such requirements are sometimes advocated by those.

Senator RANDOLPH. I would be in agreement again.

Mr. FELDMAN. I yield to the wisdom of the Senator from West Virginia.

69660-61-13

Senator RANDOLPH. It is not a wisdom which I possess. It is only as a student, not as an expert, but I have counseled.

Senator MORSE. I want to thank you for your testimony. I want to thank you for dealing with this controversial issue. There are many who feel that this should be eliminated. Again, I want to say that your statement, just as Mr. Stover's before you, is going to be the basis of a great deal of discussion in executive committee sessions. Thank you very much.

Mr. FELDMAN. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. The next witness is Mr. Lawrence Speiser, the director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union. Mr. Speiser, I am delighted to have you with us. You may proceed in your own way. Your full statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence Speiser follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE SPEISER, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

I am the director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the repeal of the loyalty oath and disclaimer affidavit requirements of the National Defense Education Act. The union reiterates its warning that those requirements-as well as the broad powers granted by the act to the Commissioner of Education— represent a present threat and a potentially far-reaching interference by the Federal Government in the development of the Nation's first line of defensethe education of freemen.

The affidavit and oath requirement appear in title X, section 1001 (f) : "No part of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available for expenditure under authority of this act shall be used to make payments or loans to any individual unless such individual (1) has executed and filed with the Commissioner an affidavit that he does not believe in, and is not a member of, and does not support any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the U.S. Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods, and (2) has taken and subscribed to an oath or affirmation in the following form: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America and will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all its enemies, foreign and domestic.' The provisions of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall be applicable with respect to such affidavits."

The ACLU believes that the disclaimer oath is in violation of the first amendment. It believes that the affirmative oath is unnecessary and discriminatory as a condition in applications for scholarship aid.

Of the two provisions, the disclaimer is most intolerable. It attacks the foundation of civil liberties, in the constitutional provisions for freedom of thought, speech and association, the legal tradition of assuming the innocence of the individual until he is proved guilty, and the general belief of our citizens that the National Government shall not interfere in the management of schools and the right of teachers and students to seek the truth.

The affirmative oath, while it may be traditional in the induction of Government officers, is now applied in a discriminatory way to those teachers and students who apply for funds under the National Defense Education Act. The act seems to say, at one and the same time: "The Nation depends on the fullest possible development of its intellectuals, but it has no confidence in their loyalty." Furthermore, as President Griswold, of Yale (one of the institutions which has rejected the use of funds so long as oath and disclaimer provisions were required), has pointed out, a double standard is set up within a student body. Those who need financial assistance are required to affirm loyalty and disclaim membership or support of certain organizations, while others are not.

The history of oaths, from the first oath of fealty to a ruling monarch to the similar oath which Hitler used as a basis for his purges, is one repugnant to a nation which prizes individual liberty. It seems to announce a condition of

national insecurity and mistrust. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that either oath or disclaimer will be serious obstacles to such persons as wish to do harm to our Nation.

Former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Arthur S. Flemming (with the agreement of Lawrence G. Derthick, former Commissioner of Education) put the case quite properly:

"[This provision] will not uncover any persons who seek, or who belong to organizations that believe in or teach, the overthrow of the Government by force or violence. Such persons have no scruples about signing such an affidavit and taking such an oath. [The provision] will make it necessary for educators and students to go through a procedure that results in unnecessary expenditures on the part of Government without making a contribution to national security." Other recipients of Federal benefits such as officials and employees of transportation lines and social security beneficiaries have never had to make a disclaimer affidavit. In 1959 it was dropped out of the Taft-Hartley Act, from which the idea originated. This leaves students and teachers as the only group to which suspicion is directed by such a requirement.

Congress signified in the National Defense Education Act that education is a prime contributor to the strength and development of our country. Yet as President John F. Kennedy pointed out last year, the oath and disclaimer provision might "defeat the very purposes" of the act by excluding "the most inquiring minds."

The ACLU believes that the Federal Government has not only the right but the duty to withhold funds under any act from persons who actually use them against the purpose of the act. But it must conclude that oath taking is at best a superficially attractive catchall attempt which actually does not accomplish its aim, and which has most harmful implications and effects, especially in education where freedom of thought and association should be most protected and encouraged.

As former President Eisenhower said, with reference to educational research, in his budget message for 1961, "Our Nation seeks to foster a climate of freedom and creativity in which education, the arts, and fundamental science can flourish." He continued, "I am recommending repeal of the provision of the National Defense Education Act that prohibits payments or loans from being made to any individual unless he executes an affidavit that he does not believe in or belong to any organization that teaches the illegal overthrow of the Government. This affidavit requirement is unwarranted and justifiably resented by a large part of our educational community which feels that it is being singled out for this requirement."

The ACLU applauds this statement, and will support all legislative efforts to eliminate those provisions of the act which violate civil liberties principles on which the Nation and American education depend for their strength.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE SPEISER, WASHINGTON DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Mr. SPEISER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I am the director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union. The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the repeal of the loyalty-oath and disclaimer-affidavit requirements of the National Defense Education Act. The union reiterates its warning that those requirements-as well as the broad powers granted by the act to the Commissioner of Education-represent a present threat and a potentially far-reaching interference by the Federal Government in the development of the Nation's first line of defense-the education of freemen.

The affidavit and oath requirement appears in title X, section 1001 (f):

No part of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available for expenditure under authority of this act shall be used to make payments or loans to any individual unless such individual (1) has executed and filed with the Commissioner an affidavit that he does not believe in, and is not a member of, and

does not support any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods, and (2) has taken and subscribed to an oath or affirmation in the following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America and will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all its enemies, foreign and domestic." The provisions of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall be applicable with respect to such affidavits.

The ACLU believes that the disclaimer oath is in violation of the first amendment. It believes that the affirmative oath is unnecessary and discriminatory as a condition in applications for scholarship aid. Of the two provisions, the disclaimer is most intolerable. It attacks the foundation of civil liberties, in the constitutional provisions for freedom of thought, speech and association, the legal tradition of assuming the innocence of the individual until he is proved guilty; and the general belief of our citizens that the national Government shall not interfere in the management of schools and the right of teachers and students to seek the truth.

The affirmative oath, while it may be traditional in the induction of Government officers, is now applied in a discriminatory way to those teachers and students who apply for funds under the National Defense Education Act. The act seems to say, at one and the same time: "The Nation depends on the fullest possible development of its intellectuals, but it has no confidence in their loyalty."

Furthermore, as President Griswold, of Yale (one of the institutions which has rejected the use of funds so long as oath and disclaimer provisions were required), has pointed out, a double standard is set up within a student body.

I would like to have entered in the record, Mr. Chairman, an article by President Griswold, of Yale, which appeared in the New York Times, December 20, 1959, entitled "Loyalty: An Issue of Academic Freedom."

Senator MORSE. It will be inserted in the record at the close of the witness' testimony.

Mr. SPEISER. Those who need financial assistance are required to affirm loyalty and disclaim membership or support of certain organizations, while others are not.

The history of oaths, from the first oath of fealty to a ruling monarch to the similar oath which Hitler used as a basis for his purges, is one repugnant, to a nation which prizes individual liberty. It seems to announce a condition of national insecurity and mistrust. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that either oath or disclaimer will be serious obstacles to such persons as wish to do harm to our Nation.

Former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Arthur S. Flemming (with the agreement of Lawrence G. Derthick, former Commissioner of Education) put the case quite properly:

This provision will not uncover any persons who seek, or who belong to organizations that believe in or teach, the overthrow of the Government by force or violence. Such persons have no scruples about signing such an affidavit and taking such an oath. The provision will make it necessary for educators and students to go through a procedure that results in unnecessary expenditures on the part of Government without making a contribution to national security. Other recipients of Federal benefits such as officials and employees of transportation lines and social security beneficiaries have never had