The above compilation represents approximately half of the States and is sufficient coverage to show the complete lack of any relationship between school loan fund allocations and enrollments. Mr. Muirhead indicated that he had tried to set up some method to determine the reasonableness of requests, but according to the standards which he gave me over the phone, Montana State College would have had to have requested in excess of $330,000 (the total State allotment for all institutions was only $23,549) before the request, according to the indexes used by the Commissioner of Education's Office, would have looked unreasonable. I understand this past week the supplemental appropriation for the National Defense Education Act was considered by the House Appropriations Committee. A note which I have received from a neighboring institution indicates that so far Congressmen have received very little mail indicating public interest in this matter. Now that the allocations are out with the results as indicated above, I am sure there will be a great deal of interest on the part of educators and others. We would like to request that you demand a full review and investigation of the allocations of the $6 million of national defense student loan program funds. We would also recommend that any further supplemental appropriations be postponed until the basic problems growing out of the present allocations are reconciled, since additional appropriations with the present policy followed by the Office of the Commissioner of Education would simply make a very bad situation much worse. When Acting President Gordon Castle, of Montana State University, saw the results of the allocations and then checked his requests, he found that he had interpreted column C-3 of Budget Bureau Form 51-4276 “Institutional application to participate in the national defense student loan program, January 1 to June 30, 1959," as being an indication of need for the academic year 1959-60 and requested $50,000 in this column, but only $10,000 in column C-1, "For disbursal during the balance of academic year 1958-59." He called Mr. Muirhead on the phone and asked that he be permitted to submit an adjusted application since he had erred in interpreting the application form and did not feel that his large allocation was fair to an institution like Montana State College where the enrollment is some 500 students larger with an allocation of only about one-fourth as much. He was told by Mr. Muirhead that the allocation had been made and could not be changed. If there seems to be no other way to clear up this very bad situation which has been bungled miserably, we sincerely request an amendment of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, section 203, so that allocations to institutions within a State are based on enrollments along the same lines as allocations to the States as now provided for in section 202. We trust there will be a complete investigation and review of this whole matter because the way it is now being administered it gives Federal aid to education a very black eye and is not accomplishing its objectives. Certainly all allocations should be held up pending this complete investigation, and if the allocations cannot be corrected to correspond more directly with student loan needs, the act should be amended to assure reasonable allocations, including the $6 million already made available. The present procedure puts a premium on irresponsible requests and is unfair to all institutions which try to keep their requests reasonable and in keeping with their student enrollments relative to the total of the State allocations. The State allocations were known prior to submission of institutional requests. We understand from Commissioner Derthick that actual checks are to be sent to the institutions in the next 10 days covering the allocations that have been made. The actual distribution of the funds should certainly be frozen until this matter is properly cleared up. Sincerely yours, ROLAND R. RENNE, President. Mr. METCALF. They are all going to apply for $330,000. Mr. FLYNT. As Mr. Metcalf recalls, there are two provisions, one that the institution itself may voluntarily return moneys unneeded or the Commissioner may in his discretion ask for the return of moneys on loan. Naturally we would not do that this early on our volition. He might, of course, say he has too much money and return it. The law provided for that. Mr. BABBIDGE. I think it should be made clear, Mr. Chairman, that while we may have advised, I do not think any of us talked with the president of the university and Mr. Muirhead did not Mr. METCALF. I only brought this up as an example. I am sure this can be worked out within the various units of the Montana State University. I bring it up because Dr. Renne brings up this whole question. I do not know whether this is a typical example, but it does bring to a head some of the problems. It would be ridiculous for any institution in the State of Montana, when you had only a State allocation of $30,000, to apply and say we have a need for $330,000 out of this fund. But an institution that is responsible and trying to participate and cooperate in the whole allocation is penalized when some other institution makes an irresponsible request. Mr. BAILEY. Now I think, Dr. Derthick, you said two of your assistants would like to handle their assignments under this program. Mr. METCALF. Could I have an answer as to the suggestion of a ceiling and a floor based maybe on attendance or enrollment? Mr. MUIRHEAD. The statute does now provide a ceiling of $250,000. Mr. BAILEY. No minimum is fixed? Mr. MUIRHEAD. That is right. It was felt here that the intent of the committee was that the institution should determine its own minimum, that the institution itself is the best judge of that. Mr. METCALF. Except that we have discussed, as I go through here, what I believe the sense of the committee was and what we have written into the statute is not working. Will not this condition be compounded if you get more money? Mr. DERTHICK. May I say, Mr. Metcalf, that the judgment of the advisers we have had on this subject and that includes the executive secretaries of the higher education associations and also the Federal Relations Committee on Legislation of the American Council on Legislation, is that we should not make any changes at this time. I think they concur in our feeling that time and experience and additional appropriations will correct this problem. They feel that we are on a sound basis. Of course, if the committee decided after more experience that there should be a floor as well as a ceiling, why that would be something for the committee to act on. Mr. Chairman, may I say this: I brought up for the record a copy of the oath and affidavit that is being used for the loan title. This happens to be applicable to the loan title only, but it will be the same general affidavit that will be used in the other title. Mr. BAILEY. If there is no objection, the Chair will direct the clerk to include it in the proceedings of the committee at this point. (The material referred to follows:) NDEA-11-5(59) NATIONAL DEFENSE STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM OATH AND AFFIDAVIT Section 1001(f) of the National Defense Education Act provides as follows: "No part of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available for expenditure under authority of this Act shall be used to make payments or loans to any individual unless such individual (1) has executed and filed with the Commissioner an affidavit that he does not believe in, and is not a member of and does not support any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods, and (2) has taken and subscribed to an oath or affirmation in the following form: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America and will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all its enemies, foreign and domestic.' The provisions of Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall be applicable with respect to such affidavits." Each student borrower from a National Defense Student Loan must, therefore, execute the affidavit and oath provided below. This affidavit and oath must be executed and sworn to before a Notary Public or other officer authorized by State law to administer caths and affidavits. This form must be deposited in the mail before loan funds may be made available to student borrowers. When properly completed, it should be attached to a copy of Form NDEA-II-7(59) and transmitted to: Student Loan Section, Financial Aid Branch, Division of Higher Education, Office of Education, NOTE: The nature and effect of the following oath is such that it should be taken only by individuals who are nationals of the United States or who are in the United States of America for other than a temporary purpose and intend to be permanent residents thereof. OATH 1, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and Type or print full name of applicant) allegiance to the United States of America and will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all its enemies, foreign and domestic. AFFIDAVIT I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I do not believe in, and (Type or print full name of applicant) am not a member of and do not support any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. I hereby authorize and cause this affidavit to be filed with the United States Commissioner of Education, in conformity with Section 1001 (f) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, and certify that the statements made by me herein are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 [From New York Times, Jan. 25, 1959] UNIVERSITY HEADS HIT LOYALTY OATH-PRESIDENTS OF YALE, HARVARD, AND PRINCETON PROTEST CLAUSES IN U.S. ACT The presidents of Yale, Harvard, and Princeton Universities have protested loyalty-oath provisions contained in the National Defense Education Act. The act, passed by Congress last year, set up a $900 million Federal-aid program including loans for undergraduates and grants for graduate study. It was intended chiefly to spur science education. An applicant for a loan or grant under the act would be required to sign an oath pledging allegiance to the Government and the Constitution, and an affidavit declaring that he did not believe in or support any subversive organization. Such measures "are at best odious, at worst a potential threat to our profession," said A. Whitney Griswold, president of Yale University. A LETTER TO FLEMMING Dr. Griswold made his position in a letter to Arthur S. Flemming, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The letter was dated December 19. Dr. Nathan H. Pusey, president of Harvard, wrote to Mr. Flemming on December 23. Princeton's president, Dr. Robert Francis Goheen, sent a third letter to Mr. Flemming on December 30. The letters from Dr. Pusey and Dr. Goheen were brief endorsements of Dr. Griswold's comments. Loyalty oaths "are worse than futile," Dr. Griswold said. He continued: "They tend to alienate the good will of the loyal citizen without gaining a corresponding advantage in protecting the public against the actions or intentions of the disloyal." The Yale president declared that "oaths and affidavits of this sort are especially distasteful when they are required of young people who are just entering upon the most important phase of their educational experience." REPEAL OF OATH URGED Loyalty oath requirements "seem to represent a lack of confidence in those young people and in their future, as well as in the educational process itself," Dr. Griswold wrote. Repeal of the loyalty oath provisions in the act was urged by the three educators. They commended Mr. Flemming, who opposed the oath requirement as unnecessary and expensive. The 40,000-member American Association of University Professors has announced that it will send letters to Congressmen urging repeal of the "humiliat ing" provision. The Association of American Colleges has voted to poll its 750member institutions on the question of demanding repeal of the loyalty oath requirements. An official at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Washington said on Thursday that the Agency had not received many protests to the loyalty oath. Mr. DERTHICK. After the first allocations were made and there were these reactions and expressions of concern about the distribution of funds, we prepared a memorandum that went to every college president, that highlights some of these issues. May I have the privilege of supplying a copy of these to each member of the committee? Mr. BAILEY. You may. Mr. LAFORE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I can refer back to the question that Mr. Metcalf asked. I think it is a very important question. Do I understand that you, Mr. Commissioner, believe that the trouble will be compounded as far as distribution with more money? Mr. DERTHICK. No, I am sorry I did not make myself understood. I think time and experience and more money will solve these problems. Mr. LAFORE. Thank you very much. |