which the University of Oregon is committed. It singles out as objects of suspicion among all recipients of Federal funds one group-members of the academic community-as special objects of distrust. In his budget message of January 18, 1960, President Eisenhower stated: "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 and 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 requirement of the affidavit of disbelief in the National Defense Education Act is opposed by the Oregon delegation in the Congress of the United States. It has been condemned by faculties and governing boards of the leading educational organizations of the United States, including the American Council on Education and the American Association of University Professors. Although individual members of the faculty of the University of Oregon may differ somewhat in the degree of their abhorrence for the affidavit of disbelief, not a single member is known to have risen to its defense. The people of the State of Oregon have been hostile to discriminatory legislation that reflects upon the loyalty of a small minority of public employees or recipients of public funds. The faculty recalls with pride that a decade ago, when several great universities of this country were torn by dissension over negative loyalty oaths imposed by well-meaning but misguided legislatures, the Oregon State Grange, the Oregon Department of the American Legion, and the chancellor of the Oregon State System of Higher Education, with the support of the State board of higher education, went on record as opposed to such oaths, and the legislature itself declined to pass the discriminatory legislation. If the requirement of the affidavit of disbelief remains in effect, it will tend to fix itself on higher education and to flourish as additional Federal funds are appropriated. It will, as President Robert Goheen of Princeton University has pointed out, in discussing the National Defense Education Act, restrict the university's "right to choose its own students and to accord them aid upon principles which it determines," and it thus involves a principle of great importance, that of "assuring the self-directing integrity of long-established and responsible educational institutions": Therefore be it Resolved, That the faculty of the University of Oregon recommend: (1) That the president of the university express for the university its official disapproval of the requirement of the affidavit of disbelief in the National Defense Education Act, and concert appropriate action with other university administrators, faculties, and governing boards-notably those of Pacific University, Reed College, the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, Yale University, and Princeton University-to the end that a sustained presentation of the views of many universities and colleges shall be presented to the Congress. (2) That the president of the university, with the advice of the advisory council, appoint an ad hoc committee of the faculty to work vigorously toward the elimination of the requirement of the affidavit of disbelief from the National Defense Education Act and the fellowship programs of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and other Federal agencies; be it further Resolved (3) That the ad hoc committee on the affidavit of disbelief be requested to make periodic reports to the faculty on progress being made toward the elimination of the requirement of the affidavit of disbelief. (4) That the faculty, recognizing the obligation to honor the fellowships and loans now in force, records its deep reluctance to continue participation in those programs of the National Defense Education Act and the fellowship programs of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and other Federal agencies which require the filing of the affidavit of disbelief; and that it therefore recommends: (a) That, in order to concert action, it communicate these sentiments to the faculties of the several State universities, the communicating agent to be the ad hoc committee on the affidavit of disbelief. (b) That it recommend to the faculties of the universities joint action to effect the removal of the requirement of the affidavit of disbelief. (c) That the basis of joint action shall be determined through negotiation and, for the University of Oregon, on recommendation of the ad hoc committee on the affidavit of disbelief and by vote of the faculty. To Members of the Faculty: ОСТОВЕВ 4, 1960. The ad hoc committee on the affidavit of disbelief is, with the permission of Acting President Jones, herewith transmitting to you Dr. Jones' letter of August 2, 1960, to Dr. Earl M. Pallett, secretary of the State board of higher education. The letter contains both the resolutions of the State board on the affidavit of disbelief and Dr. Jones' expression, on behalf of the faculty, of thanks to the board. Dr. EARL M. PALLETT, THE DISCLAIMER OATH COMMITTEE, GRACE GRAHAM. VAL LORWIN. MARTIN SCHMITT. ROBERT CLARK, Chairman. Secretary, State Board of Higher Education, Johnson Hall, Campus DEAR Dr. PALLETT: The minutes of the June 14, 1960, meeting of the State board of higher education recorded the passage, by unanimous vote of the board, of the following resolution: "RESOLUTION OPPOSING DISCLAIMER CLAUSE IN NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958 "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 provide that the recipients of funds under these acts shall file, in addition to a loyalty oath, an affidavit of disbelief. "Members of the Oregon State Board of Higher Education willingly accept the requirement for the pledge of loyalty to our country, but they believe that the affidavit of disbelief serves no useful purpose; it violates the established doctrine of American jurisprudence; it singles out members of the academic community as special objects of distrust; and generally it is inconsistent with the principles of American citizenship and with the traditions of higher education. The people of the State of Oregon have been hostile to discriminatory legislation that reflects on the loyalty of public employees or recipients of public funds. Therefore be it "Resolved, That the State board of higher education express its disagreement with the requirement of the affidavit of disbelief in the National Defense Education Act; that this sentiment be transmitted to Oregon Representatives and Senators in Congress; and that they be requested to exert their influence to the end that the affidavit of disbelief shall be eliminated from the National Defense Education Act." I am instructed by the faculty of the University of Oregon to express their thanks to the State board for this action-and I ask that these be conveyed to the members of the board at their next meeting. us. The University of Oregon proudly bears the name of State university. We expect our students and alumni to be good Americans and they do not disappoint We have no objection to the affirmative oath of allegiance which all students sign to receive governmental loans. It appears unwise and unfair to us, however, to single out young American college students, from all the number of American citizens who receive governmental benefits, to put under the disclaimer oath. We reaffirm our feeling that such disclaimer oath serves no good purpose and is an affront to one who aspires to be a worthy citizen of our country. We express our sincere appreciation of this forthright action of the State board. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM C. JONES, RESOLUTION ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ÖREGON AAUP CHAPTER MEMBERSHIP, NOVEMBER 23, 1959 Whereas on the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure, and with the unanimous approval of the executive committee, the University of Oregon chapter has requested that the University of Oregon shall decline to administer funds under the National Defense Education Act while the recipients of these funds are required to file a disclaimer affidavit; and Whereas this request has been held in abeyance by the administration of the University of Oregon pending action by the 86th Congress; and Whereas the 86th Congress has adjourned without taking action concerning the offending sections of the National Defense Education Act: Therefore be it Resolved, That the University of Oregon chapter of the American Association of University Professors respectfully petition the administration of the University of Oregon to recommend to the Board of Higher Education of the State of Oregon that, on the expiration of present agreements, no further awards shall be made and no further administration of funds under the National Defense Education Act shall be undertaken under the auspices of the board of higher education while the offending disclaimer affidavit is a requirement for loans, grants, or scholarships. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF GRADUATE SCHOOLS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Boulder, Colo., April 4, 1961. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: At their annual meeting in Phoenix, Ariz., February 27-28, the members of the Western Association of Graduate Schools unanimously passed the following resolution which I was asked to send to you: "Whereas the requirement of affidavits of disbelief or disclaimer oaths as a condition for receiving fellowships or loans is an unwarranted interference of freedom of expression, is discriminatory, and is ineffective: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That the WAGS urge the Congress of the United States to eliminate the affidavits of disbelief or disclaimer oaths which appear in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 and the National Defense Education Act of 1958; and be it further "Resolved, That the secretary be requested to send copies of this resolution to each Senator and Representative of the 13 States in the WAGS area." Sincerely, DAYTON D. MCKEAN, Secretary-Treasurer, Western Association of Graduate Schools. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, KNOX COLLEGE, Galesburg, Ill., May 12, 1961. Chairman of the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The faculty of Knox College reaffirms its strong opposition to the disclaimer affidavit as a condition for granting loans to students under the National Defense Education Act. The faculty opposes the affidavit because it is a denial of privacy and freedom of thought and belief as protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The faculty of Knox College hopes that, when the question of the appropriation of funds for this program comes up in the Congress, serious consideration will be given to the disclaimer affidavit, and that you will take an active part in effecting its deletion. Sincerely yours, SAMUEL MOON, Faculty Secretary. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, HOOD RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I would like to give you my impression on how the National Defense Education Act has tended to work in Oregon. I feel that, as it has been administered in Oregon, the expenditures of a given amount of money has brought about improvements in the general level of education, fairly consistent with the amount of money expended. The acceptance plan in Oregon, which puts it on a matching basis for above and beyond the existing level of the program, has brought some significant gains. Frankly, we in education are being urged by firms who are selling materials and in a favorite position on the National Defense Education Act, to write you seeking renewal of this act. I cannot wholeheartedly endorse these requests, because it seems to me that most districts have been letting national defense take care of the program in those areas that were appropriated under the program, and then diverting their own funds toward other areas of the program or planning to do so in the future. Let me give you an example of how this has effected our district. We have annually, over the past several years, appropriated some expenditure to build a film library of visual materials. When the National Defense Education Act became applicable, it was obvious to us, that with the same expenditure, we could purchase more materials if we concentrated on the areas acceptable under the act. The effect of this has been that our library has become greatly skewed with science materials. If the programs runs out or if the program is changed, the obvious method for our future expenditures would be to entirely neglect science, and make up for the areas other than science, in selecting curriculum materials. Where purchase has tended to be concentrated under a few specific suppliers, those suppliers in this favorite position, because of suddenly increased demand, have raised prices so that it has not all been gained. I would urge extension of the act. However, I would urge that it not be so limited to a few specific areas of the curriculum. I think that portion of the act that pertains to higher education through college loan funds for students doing acceptable work should definitely be expanded and continued. Personally, I have always been of the opinion that the GI bill approach to education has been a good thing for the economy of this country. I was somewhat critical of the GI bill in that it extended educational opportunities on the basis of a service bonus, rather than the true ability to benefit from the results of it, which would put it on a basis of an educational talent, and further that it should have had a minimum of acceptable performance to continue in participation under the program. I appreciate this opportunity to inform you of my attitudes toward this legislation on education. Sincerely yours, DONALD K. SHELTON, Superintendent. SALEM, OREG., May 15, 1961. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O.: Statewide membership of Oregon Audio-Visual Association reports great need for wide range of dissemination demonstration and stimulation activities parallel to program proposed by educational media commission under title VII of NDEA. Executive Board wishes to record strong support for educational media commission proposal, hopes for your personal interest and aid in establishing their program which can become a great milestone for the strengthening of American instruction as the original title III action, which now providing special new media equipment and materials as tools for teachers at the local level. Action to build better education with these tools depends largely on local interest and understanding-prime objectives of the educational media council proposal CLARENCE STRONG, President, OAVA, Director Audio-Visual Center, Springfield Public Schools. Hon. WAYNE L. MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. HARVARD UNIVERSITY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Cambridge, Mass., May 10, 1961. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am sorry that my schedule makes it impossible for me to appear personally before your committee in behalf of Senate bill 1726. I should have welcomed the opportunity to endorse in principle both on my own behalf and that of Harvard University the widened scope of the bill. But in still another capacity I would appreciate being recorded on this bill. This is as the authorized representative of the Association of American Universities, an organization composed of the largest American institutions of higher learning preparing men and women at the graduate as well as the undergraduate level for teaching, government service, medicine, public health, and other professional careers upon which the future leadership of this Nation depends. These institutions, which I represent, were much distressed in the past 2 years when their requests for modification of the loyalty requirements in the National Defense Education Act were not acted upon by Congress. Our membership is delighted, therefore, to observe that the present draft measure provides for striking out the disclaimer affidavit requirement, to which we have strongly objected in the past. For myself, personally, and in this instance as spokesman for the Association of American Universities, I urge favorable action by your committee on this change in the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Sincerely yours, NATHAN M. PUSEY. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Labor and Public Welfare Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We respectfully request that the attached statement be made a part of the hearing record with regard to S. 1726, a bill to extend the National Defense Education Act. Sincerely yours, JOHN C. LYNN, Legislative Director. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION TO THE EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE WITH REGARD TO THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT (By John C. Lynn, legislative director) MAY 12, 1961. The American Farm Bureau Federation, an organization of 1,600,792 farm families, located in 2,674 counties and in 49 States and Puerto Rico, would like to express its views with regard to the National Defense Education Act and the provisions of S. 1726, a bill to extend this act. We opposed the original enactment of this legislation. You will recall we indicated at that time that, even though the program being proposed was billed as a temporary measure, this would be a "foot in the door" piece of legislation which would lead to permanent activity on the part of the Federal Government in the field of education. It seems that our concern was well founded. The provisions of S. 1726, introduced by Senator Hill of Alabama, are of major concern to us because the changes proposed in Public Law 85-864 tend to make this legislation permanent and remove the ceilings and limitations that were made a part of this legislation when originally passed. We shall not comment on each separate title of S. 1726; however, we should like to point out some of the provisions that seem to us to justify our continued opposition to this legislation. Title II of the original act authorized funds for loans to students in institutions of higher education, with specific limitation on the amounts authorized for each fiscal year, ending June 30, 1962. The legislation now under consideration by your subcommittee makes permanent the student loan program and removes |