Page images

and reform.

Furthermore, the church-state issue and integration are still formidable rocks not far below the surface.

In the preparation of this legislation the American Council on Education has played a leading role. In fact, it has acted as the spokesman of all higher education. In his testimony before the Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives, Charles E. Odegaard, president of the University of Washington and chairman of the ACE made this point very clear. Representing the council he said in part, "The American Council on Education is, as its name implies, a council of national organizations in education and of institutions of higher education. Our membership of 175 organizations includes, therefore, such major national groups as the Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the Association of American Colleges, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Higher Education, and the American Association of Junior Colleges, to name but a few. Nearly all of the accredited 4-year institutions of higher education in the United States are members of the council. Together with such accredited 2-year junior colleges, and institutions which are a complex of colleges and professional schools, and small colleges enrolling a few hundred students together with institutions that number their students in the tens of thousands. Thus, no other organization in the United States represents so broad and diverse a constituency in higher education."

CASC is a constituent member of the council and a number of past and present CASC colleges hold membership in the ACE. The council has cooperated with CASC in many instances. Its former president, Arthur S. Adams, is a consultant to CASC; A. T. Hill, the executive secretary of CASC, has been included for several years as a consultant to the Commission on Federal Relations of the ACE. Thus, it is clear that CASC and its members have a considerable concern about any public position taken by the ACE purporting to represent all segments of higher education.

In his concluding remarks, President Odegaard observed that the broad variety of educational programs proposed by the bill "is designed to meet needs of all levels of education. If adopted it will give substantial assistance to the college students of this decade and will profoundly affect the preparation of those who will enter college in the 1970's and beyond. It should be pointed out that the programs proposed in H.R. 3000 are directed not simply to increasing the quantity of education available to American children and youth-they are directed with equal emphasis to sustaining and improving the quality of American education. On behalf of the American Council on Education I respectfully urge the committee to recognize the need for a comprehensive approach to educational needs, which is the basis for H.R. 3000. *** What all of us are seeking are effective steps now, and we believe H.R. 3000 is long step in the right direction. We hope the committee will give prompt and favorable consideration to enactment of a major education bill this year."


The ACE has published a statement called Higher Education as a National Resource which proposes many of the features included in the present bill. The following statements of principle quoted from this document would probably be endorsed by the majority of CASC presidents: "The American Council on Education believes that the problems confronting higher education transcend State and local concerns, and thus have become an urgent national concern. We believe that, to maintain and develop higher education as a national resource, the Federal Government must supplement other sources of support. The Federal Government should do this, not to ‘aid' higher education, but to meet a national obligation to conserve and strengthen a national resource * Such a program should meet the needs of institutions ranging in complexity from small colleges to large universities comprising many divisions and professional schools in size from a few hundred students to many thousands, and in control from private to public ***. For more than 100 years the United States has supported and taken pride in a dual system of higher education which affords our youth the freedom to choose how and where to pursue their advance learning. The American Council on Education believes in the soundness of this educational tradition and urges the American people through Federal Government, to support and develop it to meet the Nation's growing needs."

One ray of optimism can be seen in the fact that the testimony of the National Education Association, which opposed the higher education bill in the 87th Congress, was "supporting this bill in its entirety because of the great good that can come from this comprehensive approach."

Testimony of particular interest to CASC members was presented to the committee by John R. Howard, president of Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oreg. Dr. Howard said, "I shall speak from the viewpoint of the type of institution I know best-the relatively small independent or church-related college like my own ***. They have been reluctant to accept direct aid from public funds, and are still wary of any kind of aid that might entail the slightest risk of governmental interference with the performance of their mission *. Like the American Council on Education, the Association of American Colleges believes *** that the areas of need that are of the highest priority are the supply of qualified teachers and the construction of academic facilities * * *. We believe that every reputable institution of higher learning, regardless of its affiliation, should have the right to obtain a loan or a matching grant, at its own option * * *. We would like to be assured that, with the proper exclusion of facilities for sectarian instruction and religious worship, the grant option will be open to all colleges for all types of academic buildings." This position is supported by the Association of American Colleges and it is presumed that most CASC presidents would endorse this statement.

Significant excerpts from President Kennedy's message introducing the National Education Improvement Act are as follows: "I do not say that the Federal Government should take over responsibility for education. That is neither desirable nor feasible. Instead, its participation should be selective, stimulative and, where possible, transitional. For this country reserves its highest honors for only one kind of aristocracy-that which Founding Fathers called an “aristocracy of achievement arising out of a democracy of opportunity" *. The necessity of this program does not rest on the course of the cold war. Improvement in education is essential to our Nation's development without respect to what others are doing. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile noting that the Soviet Union recognizes that educational effort in the 1960's will have a major effect on a nation's powers, progress, and status in the 1970's and 1980's.

"According to a recent report prepared for the National Science Foundation, Soviet institutions of higher education are graduating three times as many engineers and four times as many physicians as the United States. While training far behind this country in aggregate annual numbers of higher education graduates the Soviets are maintaining an annual flow of scientific and technical professional manpower more than twice as large as our own This Nation's devotion to education is surely sufficient to exceed the achievements of any other nation or system."

So there you have it-an immense and long-range program increasing the impact of Federal funds upon all aspects of higher education for years to come. The bill is supported by the ACE, the NEA, and many other associations representing specialized interests in education at all levels. However, the forces of opposition are varied and powerful. The CASC office will endeavor to keep in touch with the progress of this proposed legislation and to keep its members informed through the pages of the newsletter.

In the meantime we urge all CASC presidents to read this bill, to express their views to their Senators and Representatives with copies to the CASC office so that we may have a guide to the opinion of the small college on this vital subject. It would also be appropriate for CASC presidents to invite their Senators and Representatives to visit their campuses during the spring recess when these legislators will be in their home States.


In the October 1962 issue of the newsletter we printed the text of a letter from Roger C. Gay, president of Nasson College in Springvale, Maine, in which he lauded Mrs. Edith Green, Congresswoman from Oregon, for her strong support of Federal aid to higher education. In this issue we print the text of a letter from Everett L. Cattell, president of Malone College in Canton, Ohio. His is another view of the issue of Federal aid to education in which he proposes a possible solution to the church-state problem and Federal control of educational institutions. His letter was addressed to the Honorable Frank J. Lausche, Senator from Ohio.

"First of all. I should like to register protest against Federal aid to education in general," writes Dr. Cattell. "This is simply part of my total concept of government and the feeling that we very much need to reduce the quantity of

handout from Washington and reinstate a large degree of local responsibility in not only education, but many other fields. In saying this, I am aware that it is an unpopular view in our day and that the pressures are such that in all probability some kind of educational bill is going to pass almost inevitably."

Dr. Cattell further comments on H.R. 3000 and S. 580, the National Education Improvement Act of 1963 currently pending before congressional committees. "Digests of the current bill which have come to hand seem to me to raise a great many questions beyond the financial one as to the relation of church and state. My personal feeling is that this whole problem needs a new look. The Constitution not only guarantees that there be no establishment of religion, but also that there be no interference with the free exercise of religion. It seems that no one is making a point of the fact that Government subsidy is currently being used to give special advantages to the State institutions whose dedication to secularism amounts to the establishment of a certain kind of religion, or should we say, the lack of religion. In our great care to avoid helping any particular denomination, we have given all the advantages to secularism. There ought to be strong protests raised against this. Through Government subsidy, low tuition is made possible in the State-supported institutions and a very material advantage is given to them which has come to mean that the majority of students now seek their facilities.

"To balance this situation out, the only really fair solution, it would seem to me, is through Government scholarships given to the individuals rather than to the institutions," Dr. Cattell continues. "This could then preserve the freedom of the individual to choose the kind of education he prefers. It seems to me, this lends itself to a solution to both sides of this problem and is one to which I could subscribe. The size of these scholarships ought to be adequate to pay the cost of education and thus be of real assistance to the institution involved whether it be private or public. To me this would be the most satisfactory solution of the church-state problem and it would have the further advantage of providing both State and Federal aid without the dangers of control of educational institutions that are so frightening in an omnibus bill such as is now before us. Any attempt to provide aid on the rather loose base that the present bill suggests is nearly bound to create situations which will call for further regulation and before we know it there will be a large measure of Federal control of the process of education."

The letter of Dr. Roger C. Gay, of Nasson College follows:

"Our hats are off to you for your strong support of H.R. 8900. There are a great many of us across the country concerned with the future of our young people who are still hoping and praying that the bill will survive the opposition with which it is faced.

"From some research which I have been doing in this area, I am led to wonder whether some Members of the House were not shying away from strawmen when they responded to alleged opposition to this bill by educators and parents. Certainly by now it should be apparent that the American Council on Education does not concur with Mr. Carr's purported NEA stand.

"Some time ago I was interested in rereading some of Washington's papers, to come again on his first annual address to the Congress, a portion of which I shared with our faculty members. I hope this will be of interest to you as it was to me.

"Federal aid to higher education has had pretty distinguished sponsorship since the very inception of our country. Furthermore, you will recall, of course, that all of the institutions of higher learning in this country during Washington's administration were privately controlled institutions and, what is more, largely church-related institutions.

"Washington was still close enough to the adoption of our Constitution to know what was meant in the first amendment, and I have sufficient faith in Washington's integrity and intelligence, both of which are amply documented in the pages of history, to feel that he would not have made such recommendations for support to provide higher education, except in good conscience.

"For this bill to become a political football is a disservice to our young people, the effects of which may not become immediately apparent, but will be felt by this country in many future years to come. Thank you again for your support."


*Barrington College, Barrington, R.I., | Miltonvale Wesleyan College, MiltonHoward W. Ferrin, president vale, Kans., Wesley L. Knapp, president

Bethel College, Mishawaka, Ind., Ray
P. Pannabecker, president
Bryan College, Dayton, Tenn., Theo-
dore C. Mercer, president
*California Baptist College, Riverside,
Calif., Loyed R. Simmons, president
Campbellsville College, Campbellsville,
Ky., John M. Carter, president
Cedarville College, Cedarville, Ohio,
James T. Jeremiah, president
Central Wesleyan College, Central,
S.C., R. C. Mullinax, president
Covenant College, St. Louis, Mo., Robert
G. Rayburn, president
Cumberland College, Williamsburg, Ky.,
James M. Boswell, president
*Detroit Institute of Technology, De-
troit, Mich., Dewey F. Barich, presi-

*Dominican College, Racine, Wis., Sis-
ter M. Rosita, president

*Eastern Mennonite College, Harrison-
burg, Va., John R. Mumaw, president
*Eureka College, Eureka, Ill., Ira W.
Langston, president

Fort Wayne Bible College, Fort Wayne,
Ind., J. F. Gerig, president
*Goddard College, Plainfield, Vt., Royce
S. Pitkin, president
*Gordon College, Beverly Farms, Mass.,
James Forrester, president
Grace College, Winona Lake, Ind., Her-
man A. Hoyt, president
Grand Canyon College, Phoenix, Ariz.,
Eugene N. Patterson, president
*Huntington College, Huntington, Ind.,
Elmer Becker, president
*John Brown

University, Siloam Springs, Ark., John E. Brown, Jr., president

The King's College, Briarcliff Manor,
N.Y., Robert A. Cook, president
Le Tourneau College, Longview, Tex.,
Richard H. Le Tourneau, president
*Los Angeles Pacific College, Los
Angeles, Calif., Robert J. Cox, presi-

McKendree College, Lebanon, Ill., Max
P. Allen, president

Malone College, Canton, Ohio, Everett
L. Cattell, president

College, Palos Verdes
Estates, Calif., Mother M. du Sacre
Caeur, president
Messiah College, Grantham, Pa., Arthur
M. Climenhaga, president
*Migan College, Milligan College,
Tenn.. Dean E. Walker, president
Milton College, Milton, Wis., Percy L.
Dunn, president

*Indientes accredited institution.

Morris College, Sumter, S.C., O. R.
Reuben, president

*Nasson College, Springvale, Maine,
Roger C. Gay, president
Nathaniel Hawthorne College, Antrim,
N.H., William F. Shea, chancellor
National College, Kansas City, Mo.,
Harold E. Wallace, acting president
New England College, Henniker, N.H.,
H. Raymond Danforth, president
Nichols College of Business Administra-
tion, Dudley, Mass., James L. Conrad,

*Northwest Christian college, Eugene,
Oreg., Ross J. Griffeth, president
Oakland City College, Oakland City,
Ind., Onis G. Chapman, president
Oklahoma Christian College, Oklahoma

City, Okla., James O. Baird, president
Owosso College, Owosso, Mich., Paul F.
Elliott, president

Paul Quinn College, Waco, Tex., L. H.
McCloney, president

Piedmont College, Demorest, Ga., James
E. Walter, president

*Pikeville College, Pikeville, Ky., Bur-
nice H. Jarman, president

Ricker College, Houlton, Maine, C.
Worth Howard, president

Rio Grande College, Rio Grande, Ohio,
Alphus R. Christensen, president
Roberts Wesleyan College, North Chili,
N.Y., Ellwood A. Voller, president
Sacred Heart College, Wichita, Kans.,
Sister M. Sylvia Gorges, president
St. Francis College, Biddeford, Maine,
Rev. Clarence Laplante, president
*St. Mary of the Plains College, Dodge
City, Kans., Sister M. Cecilia, presi-

St. Michael's College, Santa Fe, N. Mex.,
Brother C. Luke, president
*Salem College, Salem, W. Va., K.
Duane Hurley, president

California College, Costa Mesa, Calif., O. Cope Budge, president *Spring Arbor College, Spring Arbor,

Mich., David L. McKenna, president
Tabor College, Hillsboro, Kans., Wesley
J. Prieb, president

Texas College, Tyler, Tex., Robert L.
Potts, president

Trinity College, Chicago, Ill., H. Wilbert
Norton, president

*Upland College, Upland, Calif., John Z.
Martin, president

Walsh College, Canton, Ohio, Bro.
Thomas S. Farrell, president


Ohio, Rembert E. Stokes, president Windham College, Putney, Vt., Walter Hendricks, president

*Warner Pacific College, Portland, | *Wilberforce University, Wilberforce, Oreg., Louis F. Gough, president Western New England College, Springfield, Mass., Beaumont A. Herman, president Westminster Choir College, Princeton, N.J., Lee H. Bristol, Jr., president *Westmont College, Santa Barbara, Calif., Roger J. Voskuyl, president

Indicates accredited institution.

*Lakeland College, Sheboygan, Wis., John B. Morland, president

*La Sierra College, La Sierra, Calif.,
F. A. Meier, president

Urbana College, Urbana, Ohio, Ralph
E. Gauvey, president

Dr. HILL. I am Alfred T. Hill, executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges.

I have been invited here to testify on S. 580.

I appreciate very much this opportunity to do so and I want to express particular thanks to Senator Randolph. Senator Randolph is an alumnus and a trustee of Salem College, which was really the founding college of this council. He has been a member of the board of advisers of the council and has helped us on numerous occasions and I appreciate this.

Gentlemen, this is the smallest small college subcommittee that I have ever heard of and I think you might be interested in what I have found out.


Senator Goldwater, of this subcommittee, really wins first prize, because when he attended the University of Arizona in 1928, Arizona had 233 students.

Today the University of Arizona has 16,275 students. So in the 35year period, it has increased by 70 times.

Senator Morse wins a second first prize, because we do not ordinarily think of the University of Wisconsin as a small college. But when he went there in 1923, they had only 1,391 students. Today it has over 35,000. So it has multiplied 25 times in those 40 years.

Senator Hill of Alabama attended the University of Alabama when it had 726 students. Today it has over 14,000.

Senator Prouty went to Lafayette when it had 1,098 students. Today it still has less than 2,000, so he wins first prize for going to a small college which is still a small college.

Senator CLARK. We believe in quality in Pennsylvania.

Dr. HILL. I appreciate that very much.

Senator Yarborough went to West Point when it had 922 students, and it still only has 2,940 students.

Senator Clark, you win first prize because you went to Harvard.
Senator CLARK. This usually gives you the booby prize.

Dr. HILL. No; you win first prize. Anybody who goes to Harvard automatically wins first prize. When you were there in 1923, it had 3,435 students. Today it has 12,400 students.

But today, with 12,000 students-when you went to Harvard, it was exclusive and it has only 12,000 out of 42 million students in the United States today.

I am going to let you finish that sentence, Senator Clark.

« PreviousContinue »