III. Southern States: Duke University Emory University Southern Methodist Univer- Texas Technological College Tuskegee Institute* IV. Middle West: Antioch College* Michigan State University St. Louis University V. Mountain and Pacific: University of Mississippi University of North Carolina University of South Carolina University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Colorado (Ber University of Hawaii California Institute of Tech University of Nevada nology* University of Oregon Mills College* University of Utah Montana State University versity Occidental College University of Washington New Mexico Highlands Uni Reed College* Stanford University University of Wyoming Washington State University VI. Canada : McGill University* University of British Columbia⭑ University of Manitoba⭑ University of Alaska University of Toronto* University of Arizona York University* NEW ENCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES Three publishers, Macmillan, Collier's Encyclopedia, and the Free Press of Glencoe, Ill., are combining resources to publish a new encyclodedia of the social sciences, the first in its field in more than a quarter of a century. W. Allen Wallis, professor of economics and statistics and dean of the Graduate School of Business of the University of Chicago, has been appointed chairman of the editorial board of the new encyclopedia. He will be assisted by an advisory council of distinguished scholars. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF IDEAS The International Society for the History of Ideas was established in 1959, sponsored by the Journal of the History of Ideas published in New York City, at the occasion of its 20th anniversary. Its officers are: honorary president, Arthur O. Lovejoy, professor emeritus of Johns Hopkins University; president, Prof. Hans Kohn, of the City College of New York; vice presidents, Prof. Herbert Butterfield, master of Peterhouse, Cambridge University, Professor Jean-Baptiste Duroselle of Paris, Prof. Howard Mumford Jones, of Harvard University, and Prof. Philip P. Wiener, of the City College of New York and executive editor of the Journal of the History of Ideas. The society held its first international meeting at Peterhouse, Cambridge University, from August 31 to September 3, 1960. Fifty-five scholars from thirteen countries participated in the six sessions, which were devoted to the presentation of papers and their discussion on the following subjects: Problems and Methods of the History of Ideas; Individualism in Art; Individualism in Eastern Cultures; Individualism in Literature; Individualism in Social and Political Thought; Individualism in Religious Thought. Most of the papers * presented will be printed in the forthcoming issues of the Journal of the History of Ideas. Membership in the society is be invitation and is limited to 150 individual scholars so that the meetings may provide intimate and sustained contact and personal exchange of ideas and views. Hon. LISTER HILL, AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HILL: I am gratified that you are proposing in S. 1726 to prolong the National Defense Education Act of 1958, and are including foreign languages among the subjects to be supported by it. I am disturbed, however, by the failure of the act, as now framed, to include also the classical languages (ancient Greek and Latin). That the purpose of the act is to increase the number of Americans well trained in certain areas of immediate importance (science and modern languages) is understood, and is to be commended. What is not sufficiently realized by those who are considering the act is that for the long-range welfare of our country, the education of leaders in public affairs and foreign relations, it is essential that support be given also to the training of a certain proportion of Americans in those classical languages which are of unique value in the study of any language (especially, of course, of the modern languages which are descended from them), and in the ancient literatures that have influenced the minds of people with whom we need to have sympathetic relations. To omit Greek and Latin from the act is therefore to deny Federal support of an essential part of American education, and is so far discriminatory and unwise. I urge you and the members of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare to redress the balance by including Greek and Latin among the foreign languages to be supported by the act. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM C. GREENE, Former President, American Philological Association, Senator LISTER HILL, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. COLLEGE OF THE HOLY CROSS, DEAR SENATOR: The undersigned feels very strongly that bill S. 1726 should read not "modern foreign languages" but "foreign languages." This occurs in title III and title VI, section 611 of the NDEA. The reason for my opinion is that the Latin and Greek languages are in the bloodstream of our civilization and if we must take a purely "practical" attitude, Latin especially can contribute immeasurably to the learning of all the Romance languages. May I point out to you, sir, that our Communist adversaries have increased the hours of study of Greek and Latin 53 percent. They at least are rightly convinced of the importance of these disciplines. When the United States is committed to renewed efforts in Latin America it is my considered judgment that the omission of Latin and Greek is a deplorable deficiency. Very truly yours, Rev. JOSEPH M. F. MARIQUE, S.J.,1 Director, Hellenic Tradition Seminar, The name is not of Greek origin. It is of Spanish origin via Belgium. HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Hon. LISTER HILL, THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR HILL: Naturally, as a humanist I'm delighted that your bill, S. 1726, includes English among the languages proposed for support. This is commendable progress and I'm happy over the addition. Now, since I'm a dyed-in-the-wool classicist, you can see what's coming, and I dare say your secretary by now is roundly cursing all classicists. But might not the bill be amended so as to delete the word "modern"? I urge this, I truly believe, not because Greek and Latin are dear to my heart or because of any vested interest, but because, as we all know, the classical languages occupy a very key and pivotal point in our whole Western humane tradition, and if we are to know for the future the virtues and vices of the past, then study of those two languages should go on and with Federal support. Don't let me seem by this request to be unappreciative of the magnificent work that you and Congressman Elliott have done. It is a minor matter, and I suppose merely shows that man is never, thank heaven, fully satisfied. With all best personal regards, Sincerely yours, J. P. ELDER, Professor of Greek and Latin, and Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, MY DEAR SENATOR: In this era of urgent need to improve and to expand America's educational resources, I wish to express my support of the proposed legislation to extend the National Defense Education Act. Both in philosophy and in practice, this act has proven itself to be wise and effective in almost all of its applications in the relatively short time that it has been in effect. It has provided sorely needed financial support for many promising students who, I am certain, will be making important contributions to our society in the years to come. However, I would like to express my views on the question of whether the so-called disclaimer affidavit for student loan grantees should be retained in the act. I have no serious objection to the oath of loyalty required of students seeking assistance under the act. I have no objection to any oath to uphold and obey the law of the land. I see no reason why, for example, a student applying for a National Defense Education Act loan should not be required to state that he recognizes that it is unlawful to advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and that he is prepared to accept the consequences if he does so. But, to me, and to many other men and women in American intellectual life, the disclaimer of belief is an entirely different matter. The trustees of the University of Chicago, in common with many other institutions, have declined to participate in the loan program because of this requirement. This oath challenges the freedom of the mind-freedom to search for the truth wherever that search may lead. That freedom is closely related to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. One cannot search for the truth with a closed mind or without the right to question and doubt at every step. Any injunction to close the mind, to restrict one's beliefs arbitrarily, or to accept on authority without doubt violates the very concept of freedom of the mind. This, to me, is the compelling argument against disclaimer affidavits involving belief. I am aware that many contend that any person who receives Government funds should not object to stating that he does not believe in communism, a system which, among other things, denies to the individual the freedoms we defend. The answer is that a disclaimer of belief of any kind closes the mind. It is a way of saying, "I will not think about this subject." If we are to object to totalitarian nations suppressing freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry, we ourselves must not be guilty of doing the same. One cannot be free to think unless, at the same time, one is prepared to accept the risk of believing. To me, it is quite wrong for an academic institution dedicated to the uninhibited search for the truth to help students finance an education on the condition that they promise to close their minds about any subject. As a scientist I know that man's search for knowledge about himself and his universe requires freedom of the mind-freedom to search for the truth wherever that search may lead. Often that freedom has involved challenges to beliefs long accepted and supported by great authorities. There is another objection to the NDEA disclaimer affidavit, important to me. I know that a significant number of students who apply for NDEA loans assent to the disclaimer affidavit with tongue-in-cheek. They feel that it "does not mean anything" so why not go through the motions and accept the funds. In offering loans to students who take such an attitude, while denying them to those who refuse to compromise the principle of freedom of belief, do we not do a serious disservice to both the individual and the Nation? In the third decade of this century, a brilliant young Italian scientist. increasingly restive and dissatisfied with the restraints of Fascist Italy, used the occasion and funds of his Nobel Prize to come to this country. He sought the freedom to believe as his conscience dictated and I believe we can say he found it here. These are the circumstances under which the late and revered Enrico Fermi came to the United States and, eventually, to the University of Chicago, where he led the nuclear research effort that was to give our Nation leadership and power. The consequent benefit to this Nation of Fermi's search for both academic and political freedom is a monument to intelligent public policy. America's research and engineering centers, whether for space or cancer investigations, must continue to hold intellectual attraction for scientists from all over the free world if we are to retain our scientific status. I would hope that the committee would join with Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower in recommending elimination of the onerous affidavit of disclaimer restraint upon American education. If we are to enjoy the fruits of a free society, we must retain a healthy climate for open minds on our campuses. I deeply appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to voice my views as to the extension of the National Defense Education Act. Sincerely yours, GEORGE W. BEADLE. Senator WAYNE MORSE, THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I understand that your committee is now considering amendments to the National Defense Education Act. It has seemed to me from the beginning that we have omitted a tremendously important field in that legislation. The law provided aid to science, mathematics and foreign languages, but made no provision for including American history. I think this is a serious deficiency in the law and I would appreciate it very much if you would give this matter your careful consideration when amendments to the NDEA are being considered. Specifically I have in mind title III which provides financial assistance for the above mentioned fields. In S. 1726, now under consideration, "physical fitness" has been added. I think we are all in favor of physical fitness, but this is not a very dynamic aspect of the New Frontier. I would strongly urge that American history be added as an area of study for special consideration under title III and also that American history be added to section 611 which provides funds for institutes for improving instruction in foreign languages. S. 1726 has already added "English." I have been working closely with our high school teachers of American history in Oklahoma during the past 3 or 4 years and I have also acted as a consultant for the American Historical Association at various meetings in surrounding States. I have become very much aware of the need for better instruction in American history. I believe that federally supported institutes for secondary teachers of American history would be of great help as this would bring them back to the universities and colleges for additional study and contact with professional historians who, we believe, are keeping up with the latest developments in teaching, interpretation, and source materials. I would appreciate it very much if you would give careful consideration to adding American history to the fields of science, mathematics and foreign languages which are already provided for under the NDEA. Sincerely yours, GILBERT C. FITE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Eugene, Oreg. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am sure you will be interested in the following letter concerning the disclaimer affidavit requirement of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 which this chapter is sending to American Association of University Professors chapters in State universities and colleges throughout the country: "On behalf of the University of Oregon Chapter, American Association of University Professors, I enclose for your information copies of official statements expressing vigorous opposition to the disclaimer affidavit requirement of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 which have been made by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education, the faculty of the University of Oregon, and by this chapter. "More recently, the Pacific Northwest Assembly, a regional meeting of the American Assembly established in 1950 by Dwight D. Eisenhower, while president of Columbia University, has expressed its opposition to this requirement. At its meeting in Cottage Grove, Oreg., December 1-4, 1960, the assembly adopted a recommendation that the National Defense Education Act be amended to remove the requirement of the disclaimer affidavit. Participants in the Pacific Northwest Assembly included community leaders from business, labor, agriculture, government, and the professions in five Western States. "We are encouraged by these affirmations of steadfast support for American traditions of free inquiry and fair play. We feel strongly the faculties, governing boards, and AAUP chapters must act now, as the 87th Congress begins, to make plain their opposition to the unjustly discriminatory disclaimer affidavit requirement and to work for its immediate repeal. "We believe that our opinions will be more effective if we act in concert, and if we express them at strategic moments when they will be relevant to proposed congressional action. To accomplish this, our faculties ought to have some ready and continuing channel of communication. We believe that the AAUP chapters can serve that role. "We respectfully request that you keep us informed of the actions taken in this direction by your faculty, governing board, AAUP chapter, and your representatives in Congress." Sincerely yours, HOWARD E. DEAN, Secretary. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON MEMORIAL ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISBELIEF REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT AND BY THE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS OF OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES The faculty of the University of Oregon expresses to the president of the university its grave concern that certain recipients of funds under the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the fellowship programs of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and other Federal agencies are required to file an affidavit of disbelief repugnant alike to the principles of American citizenship and to the traditions of the University of Oregon. The affidavit of disbelief serves no useful purpose. It violates the settled doctrine of American jurisprudence that an American citizen is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. It is contrary to the sound principles of academic freedom to |