cation, and serves no useful purpose in protecting the security of the United States. Mr. Tweed's three-part summary of my college's position seems to me hard to improve upon. To require the disclaimer affidavit of only one group is to point the finger of doubt in a way that strikes. deep. As President Kennedy said in 1959, after the debate on his bill to eliminate the disclaimer affidavit: Such an affidavit was not required of farmers who received crop loans, businessmen who received loans from the Small Business Administration, or any other segment of the population. It was students, who so needed and were so anxious to obtain an education that they were willing to borrow money to pay their tuition, who were singled out for this special treatment. I have been quoting President Kennedy. From my personal experience as college teacher of history, I feel particularly keenly the threat to academic freedom embodied here. Good teaching involves helping the student to grasp for himself the seriousness and full meaning of the basic issues put before him, the issues of our Western heritage and of our present world with which he will have to live and toward which he should bear himself responsibly. Requiring that he disclaim some vaguely specified beliefs, as a condition of his continuing as student, strikes at the roots of his readiness to take seriously the questions that fill the public world of responsible thought and citizenship. Our education can too easily fall back to the level of teaching tricks to young people who care little about anything above or outside themselves. This is what makes academic freedom indispensable. If we are to produce responsible thinkers and citizens, whose sound judgment can triumph over the confusions and setbacks of the present cold war, we need full respect for the honest pursuit of understanding and truth as a normal characteristic of our students. I hardly have to add that all this might be seen in a different light if the disclaimer affidavit were an effective means of uncovering persons secretly dedicated to the overthrow of our Governments by force or violence. Everything I know convinces me that these people are quite ready to misrepresent their views, and that the disclaimer affidavit serves, therefore, only to suggest that education is unworthy of our Government's confidence nad not to be taken seriously by students. Senator MORSE. Are there any questions, Senator Yarborough? Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Ward, I thought that you said that there is virtual unanimity of opinion among the students, faculty, and staff at your college in favor of the eliminating of the disclaimer affidavit. Is that correct? Dr. WARD. That is correct. Senator YARBOROUGH. I take it from that statement that your college is not a very fertile recruiting ground for the John Birch Society? Dr. WARD. I think I must say that our college includes students of all opinions on all major national issues. We have had a lively discussion of matters that concern the John Birch Society and different points of view on those things have been represented. Virtual unanimity is my guess on this issue. I believe it is something like 9 to 1. Senator YARBOROUGH. I want to congratulate you at the excellence of your statement and the force that you pack into these two brief pages, double or triple spaced as it is. Congratulations. Dr. WARD. Thank you. Senator MORSE. Senator Case? Senator MORSE. Senator Pell? Senator PELL. Sir, I noticed you omitted the resolutions of the faculty and students and the staff. Was that an omission? Dr. WARD. This is simply because I have not had a chance since these hearings the possibility of a hearing here was brought to my attention too late to check with the trustees. We had a busy meeting last Tuesday at which this matter did not come up. Senator MORSE. I only wanted to make this quick comment: Noting that Dr. Ward did not discuss the subject matter on how the students are selected for fellowships and scholarships in the first place, I think the record ought to show that it is common practice, of course, for a faculty fellowship or scholarship committee to make a very careful study of the qualifications of the students before they are ever recommended for the fellowship or scholarship. In some institutions the scholarship and fellowship committee has to report to the full faculty for the faculty's approval of the committee report. And, therefore, there are many faculty people who consider it also a reflection on them because they have great voice in the decision in the first place, and they interpret it as a lack of confidence on the part of the Federal Government in their ability to select qualified, patriotic young men and women to be the recipients of these fellowships and scholarships. Furthermore, I want to point out that there is a psychological handicap, I think, or psychological factor that is raised by the requirement too. Many students sometimes go through a period of intellectual rebellion in college and when you raise this kind of requirement, that they feel is purely discriminatory, they tend to resent it, as we see the student resolutions show the resentment. And, furthermore, it seems to me, at least sometimes, that they sometimes give emphasis to the very points of view that we should not want to emphasize. I only want to say that on the basis of 21 years of teaching college students that this provision does not take into account student psychology. If, every time I had a student with a problem come into my office, where I was dealing with a very intelligent young man or woman, who was going through that stage of what I have always referred to as "intellectual rebellion," and I tried to throw roadblocks in the way of that student, I really would have created a problem student. On the contrary, I always expressed the confidence that the student is capable of resolving his own problems once you give him all of the facts involved in connection with the problem. I think you make a great mistake in thinking that you are going to resolve the problem that the advocates of the affidavit have in mind by imposing a punitive clause. It is interpreted as a punitive discriminatory restriction. And I sincerely hope that in this session of Congress we will profit from the leadership that Senator Kennedy tried to have the Congress follow when he was still a Senator, because I think the quotation you have cited from the President is unanswerable and expresses, as clearly as I could, the chairman's point of view. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question? Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Ward, you quote President Kennedy, in 1959, as saying that such an affidavit is not required of farmers who received crop loans. I note from your statement that professionally you are a historian. Dr. WARD. That is right. Senator YARBOROUGH. You are a teacher of college history. Is there anything, in your experience or from your studies, as a historian, viewed in the historical perspective, that would lead you to believe that college students are less patriotic than our farmers? Dr. WARD. There is nothing in my own experience. Senator YARBOROUGH. The next thing that President Kennedy said in 1959 is about businessmen who received loans from the Small Business Administration. Is there anything in your experience or view, in the historical perspective of Americans, that would lead you to believe that college students are less patriotic, less willing to serve their country than businessmen? Dr. WARD. There is not. Senator YARBOROUGH. And he also said "any other segment of the population," that these affidavits were not required of other segments of the population. Do you think that from your experience as a historian or your knowledge of history that any Americans or anything in your own personal experience viewed in the historical perspective, is there anything that would lead you to believe that college students were less patriotic or less trustworthy than the general segments of the population viewed in toto? Dr. WARD. Senator Yarborough, you touch me at a sensitive point. As a teacher of history, particularly of constitutional history and the background of our constitutional liberties and our rule of laws, I have cherished the feeling that teaching is one of the best ways of giving a strong foundation to patriotism and to the ability to maintain sound judgment in the face of the issues, such as confront us now. Therefore, I believe, and there is no evidence that has come directly to my attention that has qualified or countered this belief, I believed that students properly taught, tend to be outstandingly patriotic and dependable. Senator YARBOROUGH. And does not the record in our national struggles in war, the most primitive of all types of national struggles, does not the experience there prove that college students are second to no other group in their patriotism and their willingness to serve their country? 69660-61-24 Dr. WARD. I believe so; yes, sir. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator MORSE. I appreciate the discussion, for the record, that the Senator from Texas just engaged in. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you. Dr. WARD. Thank you. (The prepared statement of Dr. Paul L. Ward follows:) STATEMENT BY PAUL WARD, SARAH LAWRENCE COLLEGE As president of Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, N.Y., I have requested a chance to speak in support of the section of bill S. 1726 that seeks to strike out the disclaimer affidavit provision of the National Defense Education Act. Ás early as March 4, 1959, our board of trustees voted to accept the recommendations from our faculty expressing opposition to this provision and urging that the college refuse to accept funds under the act so long as the disclaimer affidavit should be part of it. Our student council adopted a similar resolution at almost the same time. As newly installed president I have been impressed with the strength and virtual unanimity of opinion to this effect among students, faculty, and staff at our college. Dr. Harold Taylor, who was the college's president at the time, summed up his views in his communication to the board of trustees late in February 1959 by saying: "There is no doubt in my mind that the provision should be eliminated from the National Defense Education Act because of the danger it creates for the freedom of the country's educational system." Mr. Harrison Tweed, the distinguished senior member of the New York bar who succeeded him as college president, in a response in December of 1959 to a college newspaper in Baltimore, explained: "The basic reasons for the decision were that a disclaimer affidavit is discriminatory because not required in the case of any other Government grant, is a threat to academic freedom in that it imposes conditions upon aid to education, and serves no useful purpose in protecting the security of the United States." Mr. Tweed's three-part summary of my college's position seems to me hard to improve upon. To require the disclaimer affidavit of only one group is to point the finger of doubt in a way that strikes deep. As President Kennedy said in 1959, after the debate on his bill to eliminate the disclaimer affidavit, "Such an affidavit was not required of farmers who received crop loans, businessmen who received loans from the Small Business Administration, or any other segment of the population. It was students, who so needed and were so anxious to obtain an education that they were willing to borrow money to pay their tuition, who were singled out for this special treatment." From my personal experience as college teacher of history, I feel particularly keenly the threat to academic freedom embodied here. Good teaching involves helping the student to grasp for himself the seriousness and full meaning of the basic issues put before him, the issues of our western heritage, and of our present world with which he will have to live and toward which he should bear himself responsibly. Requiring that he disclaim some vaguely specified beliefs, as a condition of his continuing as student, strikes at the roots of his readiness to take seriously the questions that fill the public world of responsible thought and citizenship. Our education can too easily fall back to the level of teaching tricks to young people who care little about anything above or outside themselves. This is what makes academic freedom indispensable. If we are to produce responsible thinkers and citizens, whose sound judgment can triumph over the confusions and setbacks of the present cold war, we need full respect for the honest pursuit of understanding and truth as a normal characteristic of our students. I hardly have to add that all this might be seen in a different light if the disclaimer affidavit were an effective means of uncovering persons secretly dedicated to the overthrow of our Government by force or violence. Everything I know convinces me that these people are quite ready to misrepresent their views, and that the disclaimer affidavit serves therefore only to suggest that education is unworthy of our Government's confidence and not to be taken seriously by students. STATEMENT OF EDWARD E. BOOHER, PAST PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS INSTITUTE, AND PRESIDENT, MCGRAW-HILL BOOK CO. Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mr. Edward E. Booher, and I want to apologize to you if I mispronounced your name. Mr. BоOHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have not. My name is Edward E. Booher and I am president of the McGrawHill Book Co. I am appearing here today on behalf of the American Textbook Publishers Institute, of which I am the immediate pastpresident, and the American Book Publishers Council, of which my company is a member. The firms in the two associations produce over 90 percent of the books of all kinds distributed in the United States, including the publications of university presses, religious institutions, and so forth. These firms also produce the vast bulk of the educational material used in the schools and colleges of this country-not only textbooks but reference books, books used in libraries, and the so-called newer media of instruction such as educational films, film strips, programs for teaching machines, and so forth. These companies do not as a rule, however, engage in the manufacture of the "hardware" part of educational materials such as cameras, projectors, and television sets. My own company produces textbooks, reference books, and more general books used in school and college libraries and a wide variety of the so-called newer educational media-sound motion pictures, film strips, recordings, magnetic tapes, programed materials for teaching machines and in book form. As a matter of fact, this morning in my hotel room I watched an educational television program that was prepared and was using the materials which we prepare at our company. We heartily approve of the extension of the National Defense Education Act proposed in the bill before you and hope that it will be enacted. We believe that the National Defense Educational Act has been an effective and well-administered program that has greatly served the public interest and will continue to do so. We wish very briefly to propose two changes in the legislation. Title VII of the existing act, which would be extended unchanged (except for removal of appropriation limitation) by the bill before you, authorizes the appropriation of Federal funds for research in the use of the so-called newer educational media and for the dissemination of information about those media. It has served a very useful purpose in increasing the information of teachers as to the range and variety of educational materials available to them. The rigid limitation to one specific group of educational media, defined in terms of their physical characteristics, places unfortunate restrictions on effective administration of the entire program envisioned by the National Defense Education Act. All the media which, in the professional judgment of the administrators of the program, are critical and significant should be included. This is our feeling. All educational authorities now agree that the well-equipped school or teacher must have available for use a range of educational materials confined to no particular physical form or other characteristics. Textbooks, supplemental library books, maps, charts, globes, classroom periodicals, tests, teaching films, television, teaching machines, |