Page images
PDF
EPUB

of probable costs. For example, a recently published U.S. Office of Education study, "College and University Facilities Survey," shows that colleges and universities have estimated that during 1956-70 they plan to spend slightly more than $300 million on the erection or alteration of library buildings. It is reasonable to assume that this figure does not represent fully the actual need. Studies also indicate that far too many library facilities are so inadequate or unsuitable for service that they actually hamper, in many cases, the use of a good book collection and efforts of a well-trained staff.

College and university library building programs are facing serious difficulties and the situation will grow worse in the next decade, unless counteracting measures are taken immediately.

There are a number of reasons for this plight:

1. The sheer increase in the number of the students and in the size of the higher education staff is one cause. Conservative estimates place the increase in students from 3.4 million in 1959 to 6 million in 1970; and the increase in staff from 232,000 in 1959 to 322,000 in 1970. These increases place added burdens on the buildings and equipment of the libraries.

2. The teaching program of today depends more and more on books, periodicals, scientific journals, and documents. From the first courses in history and economics to the most advanced seminars in nuclear physics, every course is dependent on libraries. This situation means that among other things greater facilities for the shelving and utilization of books are required.

3. Increased seating capacity is needed not only because of the mere increase in students, but by virtue of the fact that students must have facilities for more independent and related reading within the library.

4. Extensive research programs, many of which are financed by Government contracts and are involved in the national defense, rely heavily on libraries. In this connection, the National Science Foundation reported the expenditures for organized research in our universities increased from $450 million in 1953-54 to $1 billion in 1959-60.

Certainly the need for additional library building facilities is an urgent one in every section of the Nation; indeed, it is most unusual for a college or university these days to have a library adequate for its needs, and this applies even to institutions which have erected new library buildings in the past few years.

The effect of the strain on the capacity of a university library building has been demonstrated at the University of Michigan, where the new undergraduate library was completed about 3 years ago. Attendance was estimated beforehand at 3,000 to 4,000 per day; actually it has jumped to 8,000 to 10,000, completely swamping their facilities. I have had an opportunity to serve as a consultant on several library buildings in recent years and in not a single case has there been money enough to build an adequate building. Each time it has been a case of taking the money available and building as best we could, trying to plan so that additions could be made later when more money was available, but realizing that the building would be inadequate from the moment it was opened.

My own university, Oklahoma State, completed a library building in 1953 at a cost of $4 million (it would cost over $5 million today). When it was planned, we anticipated peak library attendance of some 3,000 students a day and, on that basis and the expected growth of book stock, estimated it would be adequate for at least 15 or probably 20 years. Now instead of a peak attendance of 3,000 a day, we have over 7,000 a day. Seats are available for only a part of these students; they sit on the floor, go to classrooms close by (if any can be found vacant) or to the lawn in the milder weather, or just give up and go away with their needs unmet.

Although the American Library Association approves of the intent of S. 1241 in general, it does feel compelled to point out that loans for college and university libraries will not meet the needs of all institutions. In some States, public colleges and universities will probably find it impossible, by reason of State laws, to utilize Federal loans in the case of non-revenue-producing buildings, such as a library. The fiscal policy of some private institutions likewise prevents their borrowing money for non-revenue-producing buildings. We hope, therefore, that the proposed legislation may go further and also provide matching grants for accredited institutions as recommended in H.R. 7215.

In regard to "Title II: Scholarships for College Students," the American Library Association is wholly in accord with the intent of the legislation. Any

effort to assist needy and qualified students in obtaining 4 years of undergraduate work is desirable and essential. The Joint Committee on Librarianship as a Career, which represents a number of national organizations and on which ALA has an official representative, reports: "Our crisis is the acute shortage of library school graduates. Thousands of positions are now vacant. * * Library school enrollment is down and shows no signs of increasing." Since entrance into professional library training programs normally requires a bachelor's degree, any measure will be helpful which will add to the pool of college graduates who may go on to professional library schools.

Much depends on higher education today-the men and women it trains, the role they play in our society, the research they do, the discoveries they make— and higher education depends so much on its libraries. We urgently recommend, therefore, legislation which will bring improved college and university facilities to greater numbers of students.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I thank you for the privilege of appearing before this committee.

(The following communication was subsequently received:)

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., August 21, 1961.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: On behalf of Mr. Edmon Low, librarian, Oklahoma State University, and myself I should like to express our appreciation for the opportunity you gave us to present the views of the American Library Association on S. 1241 before your Education Subcommittee on August 21. It was a matter of regret to us that necessary business prevented your being present at this hearing. Subsequent to our testimony, a matter came up on which we would like to make our views known in this letter. We would appreciate it if this letter could be included in the printed record of the hearings and also considered by your subcommittee when it meets to mark up the bill.

In section 106, academic facilities which may be built under the bill are defined to include not only actual structures such as classrooms and libraries but also equipment and furnishings. However, books are specifically excluded by the language of this section of the bill.

While Senator Randolph was presiding there was discussion between him and a witness which suggested that certain audiovisual instructional materials such as educational films might possibly be eligible for purchase with Federal funds under the present language of section 106 of S. 1241. If the bill is to be interpreted in this way so as to permit the purchase of instructional materials we would urge that the words "except books" in section 106 (p. 12, line 15) be stricken from the bill.

Books are directly comparable to audiovisual instructional materials such as educational films, tape recordings, records, and filmstrips and should not be discriminated against. Either both printed and audiovisual instructional materials should be included or both excluded. It is just as important, for example, for a library being built for a new junior college to have an initial minimum stock of books as that it be equipped with certain educational films and other audiovisual materials.

The American Library Association will continue to lend its support to this pending legislation in the hope an adequate measure can be enacted in this Congress to assist institutions of higher education in financing the construction, rehabilitation, or improvement of needed academic facilities, including libraries, and to authorize scholarships for undergraduate study in such institutions. Sincerely yours,

GERMAINE KRETTEK, Director, ALA Washington Office.

Senator HILL. Now Mr. Patrick Murphy Malin, executive director, of the American Civil Liberties Union. All right, sir, do you want to read your statement or file it?

STATEMENT OF PATRICK MURPHY MALIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Mr. MALIN. No, Senator.

The subcommittee has been supplied with statements of the American Civil Liberties Union on both S. 1241 and S. 585 and, with your permission I shall not read them.

Senator HILL. All right, sir. We will have them appear in full in the record.

Mr. MALIN. Thank you very much indeed.

Senator HILL. And then you proceed, sir, in your own way.

Mr. MALIN. I should explain that I am testifying as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, but I ought to, perhaps, say that I am not testifying against the background of my former experience as professor of economics at Swarthmore College which, in its beginning, in 1864 was a church-related college of the Society of Friends, but became in 1910 not related officially to that body; nor am I testifying against the background or the foreground of my prospective position as president of the American-operated Robert Colleges in Istanbul, Kurkey, to which I go next April. Senator HILL. You go to Istanbul next April, do you? Mr. MALIN. Yes, next April.

It was, as you probably know, the first foreign-soil American college, founded in 1863. It was founded not as most of the other foreignsoil American-operated colleges were founded, as a missionary institution but as a non-church-related college from the beginning. But that is simply by way of aside.

I am testifying on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union with respect not to the problems that lie beyond our province, namely, the financial need of American colleges and universities, nor the propriety of the Federal aid in meeting that need, but simply on one aspect which falls within the civil liberties domain, namely, the question of how to make sure that the consititutional provision against the establishment of religion is to be fulfilled in the course of watever provision may be made for Federal aid for American colleges and universities, generally.

I should say that at the outset it is important to recognize there is no such thing as an automatic interpretation of that constitutional provision, especially in the light of changing circumstances.

We have the problem of how to apply the no-establishment clause of the first amendment to the Federal Constitution in the midst of a now very complex interrelation between government and religion, and to find what the separation of church and state actually requires in the practical circumstances of modern life.

Church institutions are engaged in a number of other activities beside religious activities. The problem is to discover the nature of the activity rather than the nature of the sponsorship.

The construction of churches or the maintenance of theological seminaries is obviously at one extreme a religious function and not susceptible of congressional support or restriction. Then you come to the question of the nonreligious functions of church-related colleges and universities; for example, in the maintenance and development of scientific research facilities.

We have testified in previous hearings on other bills that in our view the elementary and secondary schools maintained by church organizations are themselves arms of the churches, designed specifically for the maintenance and encouragement of religious faith, and may be thought of, must indeed be thought of, as religious enterprises.

The question with regard to colleges and universities maintained by religious organizations is whether there is sufficient difference in degree to allow for a difference in kind of treatment in Federal legislation.

We think that the provisions of 1241 in respect of qualification of institutions need to be amended in order to take account of the differences within church-related colleges and universities.

Senator HILL. You suggest some amendments there, do you, sir? Mr. MALIN. How is that?

Senator HILL. Do you suggest certain language?

Mr. MALIN. Yes. Let me recite, first

Senator HILL. Go ahead, I did not mean to interrupt you.

Mr. MALIN. Let me recite or summarize, first, the language in 106 in S. 1241. There it is specified that to qualify for the proposed Federal aid, an institution of higher education must (1) admit as regular students only individuals who have a certificate of graduation from a secondary school or its equivalent; (2) be authorized by the State government to provide education beyond the secondary level; (3) provide an educational program leading to a bachelor's degree; and (4) have been accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency listed by the Commissioner of Education.

We have no right organizationally to comment on those apparently quite proper educational requirements.

Our judgment relates simply to the needs for adding something in order to take care of this problem of the separation of church and state.

S. 1241 in that section sets down now no guidelines to aid the Commissioner in determining whether a loan may be granted to a particular church-related institution of higher education without violating the no-establishment provision.

We believe that such guidelines are needed. We think in order to recognize both the difference in degree between a church-related institution of higher learning, on the one hand, and the churchgoverned elementary, secondary schools, on the other, and to make sure that the similarities in religious governments are recognized, that something like this is required as an amendment.

We propose a three-part amendment that institutions of higher education ought to be tested by three criteria:

One: Are students and faculty members required to be adherents of the religious group maintaining the college or university in question. If they are so required to be inherents of that religious group, then it would seem to us that the college or university in question is part of the religious enterprise.

If they are not so required, then the college or university in question begins at least to be properly an educational institution rather than a religious institution.

The second criterion which we suggest as an amendment or part of an amendment is the requirement that there be no indoctrination in the tenets of the particular faith as a required part of the curriculum toward the earning of the degree.

This is not to say, of course, that the church-related institution shall not present its view of religion to anyone who will listen and who may elect to take courses designed to substantiate that religious group of religion.

But it is to say that if the institution is to qualify as an educational institution rather than as a religious institution, for purposes of public funds aid, then such indoctrination should not be required as a part of the curriculum for the degree.

The third criterion which we suggest should be incorporated in an amendment to section 106 is that the determination of the instructional program of the institution should be committed to the hands of those charged with educational responsibility rather than those on the outside of the educational process charged with ecclesiastical administration.

Now, none of these criteria are watertight; none of them can be applied automatically. But we suggest that their incorporation within the qualifications for Federal aid is a highly important benchmark in order that the Commissioner of Education may have a way of distinguishing between what is proper under our system of government in the allocation of Federal aid, and what is, from the standpoint of separation of church and state in our view, improper.

The one other point which I should like to highlight against the background of the already filed statements is that it seems to us that there should be provided in any legislation proposed and passed a specific way by which a taxpayer could get into the courts to test the constitutionality of enacted law or administrative rules and regulations promulgated under the authority of such a law.

In Senator Clark's bill, 1482, there was last spring provided a specific arrangement whereby a taxpayer could bring such a question before the courts.

In S. 1241, section 105 (c) (2) there is a provision that the Commissioner may

be sued in any court of record of a State having general jurisdiction or in any district court of the United States, and such district court shall have jurisdiction of civil actions arising under this title without regard to the amount in controversy.

We have studied that provision, our lawyers have studied it, particularly, and they have this misgiving that under it only an institution that has a contract with the Commissioner can come into court under its provision.

We think that it is indispensable in this very troublesome realm. of church and state to have a provision whereby a taxpayer, a group of taxpayers, can themselves be provided with standing legally to come into court and challenge both the provisions of the act and the regulations applying to that act.

Senator HILL. Do you think a provision of the Clark bill will meet the requirement that you would like to see in this legislation? Mr. MALIN. It seems to us that the provisions of the Clark bill or

« PreviousContinue »