history required and justified exclusion of primary and secondary sectarian education from receiving tax-raised funds, applies today and will apply tomorrow equally to college and university education.

3

Another argument often urged rests on the difficulty of defining sectarian or church-related colleges. It is easy to distinguish between public and parochial schools but it is often difficult if not impossible to distinguish between sectarian and secular colleges. Yale and Harvard, for example, were founded by the Congregationalist Church, Columbia by Episcopalians, and Princeton by the Presbyterians. Are these for that reason to be barred from Federal aid as sectarian institutions? The impossibility of distinction in definition requires that there be no distinction in treatment and either all should receive Federal funds or none.

It should be noted, in the first place, that at the lower level the distinction in respect to Federal aid is not between sectarian and secular schools, but between public and private schools. The entire problem of drawing a line would be eliminated if the pattern of the bills for Federal aid on the lower levels were followed by limiting such aid to public schools and universities. After all, this is the pattern in the overwhelming majority of States, where tax-raised funds are granted exclusively for public colleges.

But even if private secular colleges are to be included, the problem of drawing a dividing line is not insurmountable. The religious origin of Columbia does not make it a sectarian institution any more than the religious origins of our public school system make it sectarian. The Supreme Court has ruled that the test under the first amendment's requirement of church-state separation is not the origin of an institution but whether it is today sectarian or secular in operation and control.

Many States have laws forbidding discrimination in employment or in education. Practically all exempt sectarian institutions in whole or in part. These States appear to have experienced no great difficulties in administering the exemptions. The constitution of Pennsylvania forbids grants to sectarian institutions but permits grants to secular ones. Under this provision, millions of dollars annually are appropriated to such private institutions as the University of Pennsylvania, Drexel, and Temple, but none is given to Villanova, St. Joseph, or Dropsie. There is no evidence of any difficulty in administering the constitutional provision. The fact is that in 95 percent of the cases there will be no difficulty in deciding whether a particular college is sectarian or secular. (The World Almanac and the various college guides have for years designated colleges as denominational and nondenominational.) In the remaining 5 percent borderline cases, the Commissioner of Education can be empowered to make the initial determination, and provision can be made in the law for an appeal to the courts from his decision.

Finally, if the difficulty of drawing a line between what is constitutional and what is not justifies all governmental action, then there will be nothing left to the Bill of Rights. It is, for example, difficult to draw a line between speech protected by the first amendment and speech which may constitutionally be prohibited or restricted; the numerous sharply split Supreme Court decisions in free speech cases show this. But should we for that reason adopt a policy that all speech is subject to prohibition or restriction?

Certainly, it would be simpler to administer a college aid law which does not distinguish between sectarian and nonsectarian institutions and grants tax-raised funds to all. Simplicity of administration, however, is not the highest of values in a democratic society. It should not be purchased at the expense of a fundamental guarantee of the Bill of Rights.

4

We are, it is argued, now engaged in a great ideological conflict with the Communist nations. The cold war may at any time break out into a hot war in which our very survival will be at stake. Necessity demands that in preparation for a total war we mobilize the totality of our resources, including our church-related colleges and universities.

This is the most dangerous argument of all. It is, in effect, that in the interest of what the Government deems to be our defense, anything goes. It assumes that the Constitution may be scrapped not only in time of war,

I edi

in

the

ing per 1

ting

arg

ance

educ

relig child

Since

the a stron The

elemen schools and the achieve

young in

ISTAL as to other Dit staat no educasmesi is oper ass of me or of

128 17 paid by all ni the benefit of

Falemi aid measure

mat:|:ཀr Tse of te nos or secrevices on the

begimą, Ve Joose the use of FedPsicon. The reasons he is the former. Our Miss it me position on FedVisi 70 acre here is that we ms and to that extent, imits the Federal funds on subtle schools in line with burt in this brief, we approve

that principle, specifically ve an not accept it. the limitation of governIt is our val institutions on the elemenable to educational institu

now, no court I have come across has ever indicated that there iny constitutional distinction based on the level of education, the of the institution. Every one of the State constitutions which ds the use of public funds for sectarian institutions makes no nction between elementary and secondary schools. The State of asylvania, for example, grants public funds to private secular cols and universities, but withholds them from sectarian universities colleges. It is not our position that Government funds, Federal ds, should be granted to private secular colleges and universities. S is a matter for the Congress to decide. But within the framerk of the Constitution, the principle that we set forth, we assert that vernment funds should not be applied for church-controlled instiions at any level.

"JUSTIFICATION" FOR ABANDONING THE PRINCIPLE

We want to make this one point rather strongly. We are deeply ncerned with the justification so often expressed for the use of Fedal funds for sectarian institutions, the justification that this is necesry for national defense and the extension of the National Defense Act to justify and to include such expenditures.

If such expenditure is, as we believe them to be, inconsistent with he first amendment of the Constitution, then we think a very dangerus precedent would be established if extension were granted, were justified on the grounds of the needs for national defense.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional provisions are equally applicable in times of war and times of peace. We quote from Justice Goldberg's latest opinion on that in our statement.

Unfortunately, in the past, particularly during the Second World War, there have been rather deplorable violations of the Bill of Rights, in the name of the necessity of war, particularly the Japanese Exclusion Acts in the 1940's. But whatever may be said for that, whatever may be said for defense in defense of such, perhaps going beyond constitutional provisions where it is deemed by the military to be required by the exigencies of war, it would be a very dangerous precedent to say that this is equally applicable not when we are at war but when we are preparing for war in the need of national defense during the time of peace. Were that philosophy accepted, Mr. Chairman, it would mean there would be very little left to the Constitution. For unfortunately, for now and the indefinite future, we are going to be in a continual state of preparation for war. A major part of the national budget is in defense. In effect, this would mean that constitutional limitations are obsolete. This, we believe, would be a most dangerous road to travel. If Federal aid to educational institutions which are controlled by a church are inconsistent with the principles of the first amendment regarding the establishment of a religion, I do not believe they can justify it on the ground that the needs of defense during the present period require a disregard of the constitutional

limitation.

Thank you, sir.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very, very much for this very scholarly presentation of your point of view.

The next witness will be Mr. Richard Cortright, director of education, the Laubach Literacy Fund, Inc., Washington, D.C.

I wanted to say, Mr. Cortright, that Senator Randolph desired to be here when you testified. He seems to have been detained. His office has been called to tell them you are testifying.

If he cannot make it, it may be that he finds himself in the position in which I find myself so often. He cannot be in two places at once.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD W. CORTRIGHT, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OF THE LAUBACH LITERACY FUND, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. On behalf of Dr. Frank C. Laubach, who is president of the board of trustees of the Laubach Literacy Fund, I would like to submit this statement.

Doctor Laubach is extremely sorry he could not be here this morning and he wished me to extend his apologies to you this morning and also to say he hopes he may again have the opportunity to appear before you.

NEED FOR ADULT EDUCATION

If there is anything true in this world it is that we need greater aid for adult education in this country. It is a national disgrace that at least 8 million of Americans are functionally illiterate. With Russia, China, and Cuba all pressing ruthlessly for complete literacy, we are asking for defeat on the educational front in the eyes of mankind unless and until we liquidate our own illiteracy.

There is another and equally cogent reason for support of the adult education section of S. 580. Communities are beginning to require adults on relief to study until they are literate enough to be employable. A new term often used today is "employment literacy." It expresses the first reason why we should educate our illiterates, educate them to fill useful and remunerative jobs. Illiteracy is expensive both because it causes the loss of the productive capacity of millions and because we must then support these millions. Teaching them to fill a job is not an expense but an economy.

If one scans the newspapers or listens to the radio about jobs which are unfilled, every one of them is for people who are literate. Every new machine introduced into industry makes the need for educated or at least functionally literate people more urgent. Machines can take the place of the illiterates.

We need these bills passed not only to provide for education for all illiterate adults, but also to make possible a drastic adjustment of adult education training to job requirements. There ought to be an office which constantly studies present and future job requirements and directs adults into those channels.

Since youth now presents the greatest problem of unemployment, there needs to be a vigorous and comprehensive study of the education which these young people need in order to fill a job requirement.

I believe there should be a law requiring all unemployed people to become literate and then to learn a skill which the country needs. I support S. 580.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. If I may, sir, I would like to continue a supple

yesterday, we read in the Washington Post the statement of our Vice President, in which he stated that the United States must counter illiteracy within its own borders if it is to fulfill its responsibilities, both to itself and to the world. I believe that has been the Vice President who himself has taken particular leadership in trying to acquaint the people of our own country with this problem, not only here, but abroad.

To that end, I would like to make three points: First, a brief statement about our own organization; second, to put into historical perspective, perhaps, this problem of illiteracy as it relates to our own country; and finally, to suggest what we mean by "each one teach one," what it might mean in helping to combat the problem here at home.

FUNCTIONS OF THE FUND

The Laubach Literacy Fund is a nonprofit educational foundation. We have three primary purposes:

The first is teaching adult illiterates to read and write in their own language, because that is the language they want to learn to read and write in.

Second, training teachers and writers for new literates, because we have discovered that it is not enough just to make a person literate. If there are not the followup materials, what we call lateral literacy, then this cannot be successful.

And third, our purpose is to provide teaching materials and followup, such as our friends in the National Education Association have just presented.

Now, it is interesting that the problem of illiteracy has generally been considered to be a problem abroad. For instance, in our own work, we are now working in Pakistan, India, Mexico, Kenya, Nigeria, Guatemala, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Cogo, and in the United States.

Up until the war, the primary emphasis seemed to be on illiteracy abroad, did it not? For that reason, organizations like our own continued to work over there because of these countries having the problems of illiteracy. But since that time, suddenly the perspective, it seems to me, has changed and we have become aware of this problem as a problem right on our own doorstep. To that end, the Laubach Literacy Fund is now developing a new series of materials for adults to learn to read in English, along with a newspaper for adults, so that there can be a continuation of the use of the skill of being able to read and write.

We are interested in providing scholarship aid to universities. abroad and in this country so that there can be a continuing flow of specialists in this field to take care of the problem here and abroad. And perhaps of particular significance, the fact of the volunteer in the literacy program. Since World War II, literacy workshops of volunteers have become interested in nearly 20 States, not all States as fortunate as the State of Oregon having greater problems of illiteracy, and have tried in a modest way to combat this problem. We feel this is a great resource which can be drawn on by the leaders in our country in combating the problem here.