Thank you very much. Mrs. GREEN. Dr. Babbidge, I think you gave the figure of 300 colleges asked to voluntarily reduce their requests. Did you give the total number of colleges participating in the loan program? Dr. BABBIDGE. We had initially 1,227 institutions submit applications. Mrs. GREEN. And how many have withdrawn? Dr. BABBIDGE. Twenty-eight institutions. Mrs. GREEN. On what basis? Dr. BABBIDGE. They give a variety of reasons, Mrs. Green. I can present for the record today a list of the 28 institutions that have withdrawn. Mrs. GREEN. You are speaking only of the loan program? Dr. BABBIDGE. Only of the student loan program authorized by this act. If it is the wish of the chairman, I will submit this list for the record. If you would like me to read it, I would be happy to do that. There are, as I say, 28 institutions. Seven of the institutions that have withdrawn since they submitted their initial applications have cited as a reason for withdrawing their protest against the loyalty oath and affidavit provisions of the act. Another group of about equal size have indicated that the initial amount of money made available to them under the distribution procedures was insufficient to warrant the establishment of a loan fund this year. Mrs. GREEN. How many? Dr. BABBIDGE. I would have to count them. Mrs. GREEN. Go ahead. Dr. BABBIDGE. In other instances, after administrative officials of the institutions had elected to participate, their boards of trustees, for reasons not reported to us, have elected to disapprove that action and to take steps that had the effect of withdrawing the institution from participation in the program. I would be happy to give you illustrations, or to read the entire list. I must say that the reasons as stated on this list are extremely brief and may not do justice to the attitude and feelings of the institutions themselves. Mrs. GREEN. You say over seven have withdrawn for the specific reason of objections to the loyalty oath? Dr. BABBIDGE. Only seven have withdrawn and have cited that to us as a reason. Mrs. GREEN. How many refused to apply because of the loyalty oath provision? Dr. BABBIDGE. Well, as I indicated to you the last time we met, Mrs. Green, we know only of those institutions that took the trouble to tell us why they were not participating. And I think any figure we could give you would not necessarily be a fair reflection of the number of institutions that elected not to participate for this reason. Mrs. GREEN. Of the ones that did inform you, how many? Dr. BABBIDGE. I would think about a half dozen. Mr. Muirhead may have a more precise recollection. Dr. MUIRHEAD. There were three that informed us they are not now participating, and they informed us prior to participation that they did not wish to participate, because of the loyalty affidavit provision. Mrs. GREEN. And then is it fair to say that there are 10 who have specifically said they would not participate because of this reason? Dr. MUIRHEAD. That is a fair statement. I think I should underscore what Dr. Babbidge has said, however, that we have no way of assessing why perhaps 800 institutions are not now participating. There are perhaps 2,000 institutions in the country, and about 1,200 are participating. Of the 800 not participating, of course, we cannot assess the reason why they are not. Mrs. GREEN. How many are participating but have specifically said to you that they object to the provisions of the loyalty oath? Dr. BABBIDGE. Again I will have to defer to Mr. Muirhead, to see if he has any information on that. Dr. MUIRHEAD. Of those participating and withdrawing, on account of the oath, the total is Mrs. GREEN. No. My question is: Of those who are continuing to participate but have nevertheless voiced an objection to the loyalty oath, how many, in addition to these 10 we have just mentioned? Dr. MUIRHEAD. To the best of my knowledge, we have no record of an institution officially objecting to the loyalty oath and continuing to participate. Mrs. GREEN. I do not understand that, because I have letters in my file in which they have indicated they have sent you copies, in which they have objected to the loyalty oath but are participating. Dr. MUIRHEAD. I will qualify by saying that we shall check our files for any institutions which are now participating but which have indicated officially that they are not in favor of the loyalty oath. Mrs. GREEN. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that that be made part of the record at this point. I would like specifically the number who did not apply because they objected to it, the number who applied and then withdrew because of the loyalty oath provisions, the ones who are participating but still object to the loyalty oath provisions. Dr. MUIRHEAD. We will be very happy to provide that. Mr. ELLIOTT. Without objection, such part of that information as your files reflect will be made part of the record at this point. (The information referred to is as follows:) Institutions which did not apply for participation because of affidavit provision: Bryn Mawr College, Pennsylvania. Swathmore College, Pennsylvania. Haverford College, Pennsylvania. Institutions which withdrew because of affidavit provision. Official expressions of objection to the oath and affidavit provisions of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 have been received by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from the presidents of the following institutions presently participating in the national defense student loan program: Brown University, Providence, R.I. University of Pennsylvania, Phila University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Mrs. GREEN. And then, Mr. Chairman, one other question to Dr. Babbidge. I notice you said there were 13,000 oath forms that had been received. Dr. BABBIDGE. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. Has your office made any estimate of the cost of administering this particular section? Dr. BABBIDGE. No, we have not. Mrs. GREEN. Would it be possible? Dr. BABBIDGE. May I ask Mr. Hughes, our executive officer, here, whether he thinks it would be feasible? Mr. HUGHES. Are you thinking, Mrs. Green, of the administrative cost to the Office of Education of applying loyalty oath provisions? Mrs. GREEN. No; I would like the total cost, not only the cost to the Office of Education, but the additional cost to the participating universities, and as I understand it each one of these oaths has to be notarized, which would also involve a basic first cost. Mr. HUGHES. We would have, of course, no information directly on that score, as a result of our administration of the student loan program. But we can endeavor to find out what experience has been gained by other agencies who have administered similar oaths and determined what cost factors they might have accumulated, which would enable us to give you such an estimate. Mrs. GREEN. May I ask for that, Mr. Chairman, for my own files? I do not care whether it is part of the record or not. Mr. ELLIOTT. Would you furnish that for our files? Mr. HUGHES. I would be happy to do so. Mrs. GREEN. I would like to, with your permission, change it to "for the record" instead of just for the files. I think it would fit in with the record of today. Mr. ELLIOTT. I thought you wanted it for the files. Mrs. GREEN. May I change it, then? Mr. ELLIOTT. Without objection, the information sought will be furnished for the record at this point. (The information referred to is as follows:) COST OF ADMINISTERING OATHS AND AFFIDAVITS In appraising the estimated cost to higher education institutions of administering oaths and affidavits for various Federal agencies we have found in most cases the oath and affidavit form is accomplished by the individual and returned by him to the appropriate agency. In such cases there would be no expense to the institutions. We know of one State which requires an oath and affidavit to be executed and notarized by each person each time they register for attendance in any Statesupported college or university. The law further requires the institution to retain and preserve such oath and affidavit until the person filing the same shall have graduated or withdrawn from the institution. The cost for this State requirement is considered a part of the regular registration cost; but a review indicates, in the majority of cases, the cost is less than 50 cents per student, which includes the cost of filing and maintaining the form, in fact, in many instances, the cost is less than 25 cents per student. It can be assumed, therefore, that institutions participating in the National Defense Education Act are incurring costs averaging approximately one-half dollar per student participant. The cost to the Office of duplicating the oath and affidavit form has been about $6 per 1,000 copies. Total printing costs to date under the National Defense Education Act would thus amount to about $550. Dr. DERTHICK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is well known what the position of our Department is on the loyalty oath. And I do not offer this information in defense of it at all, but simply from the point of view of putting the whole discussion in perspective. Despite the loyalty oath, it is a fact that our people anticipated-we had no way of knowing, but we guessed, we estimated-that there might be perhaps 700 colleges that would participate in this loan program at the outset. And we were surprised at the number, 1,227, that did participate. So although there are 2,000 institutions, I think the participation in the loan program is much more than we anticipated at the outset. Mrs. GREEN. Knowing your position on the loyalty oath, you are not for one minute suggesting that this is in defense of it? Dr. DERTHICK. Oh, no. Mrs. GREEN. That the loyalty oath is not as bad Dr. DERTHICK. No; I prefaced my remarks by reminding you of our position on the loyalty oath. And I simply make this comment to add perspective to the discussion. Mr. ELLIOTT. May I ask a question, also, in an attempt to add perspective at this point: Do you have any applications by institutions on file who desire to install a loan program in the coming year in addition to the 1,200 that are on the list now? Dr. BABBIDGE. We fully expect to have some, Mr. Chairman, but the application forms, copies of which I have for you here today, have just within the last 48 hours been mailed out to the institutions. So they have had no opportunity to return them to us. Mr. ELLIOTT. When we have another report, that will be a good question for me to ask you. Now you may proceed, Mr. Babbidge. Dr. BABBIDGE. Mr. Chairman, the second development in the student loan program which I would like to report to the committee this morning concerns procedures for distributing funds from the fiscal year 1960 appropriation. We have informed each institution participating in the program that since student enrollment is generally considered to be the most important single factor in determining an institution's need for student loan funds, and that since the reasonableness of an institutional request can in part be determined by the amount requested per full-time student enrolled, an institutional request amounting to $20 or less per full-time student enrolled will normally be considered reasonable and not subject to the same critical review as that reserved for institutional requests in excess of that figure. The application materials which we are sending to the institutions were mailed either today or yesterday. Dr. MUIRHEAD. Both. Dr. BABBIDGE. It takes more than 1 day-they explain in some detail the criteria employed for determining the reasonableness of an institutional request and the procedures followed for making such adjustments as seem necessary in these institutional requests. And if you would like, I would be happy to distribute to members of the committee copies of the application form and instructions. Mr. ELLIOTT. We would be happy to have copies, to be made part of the record. (Application form and instructions referred to follow :) 40011-59-3 Application for Federal funds under Title II of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864) is hereby made by the above named institution of higher education. It is understood and agreed by the applying institution that: 1. These funds shall be used exclusively for the establishment of a National Defense Student Loan Program or for adding to a previously established National Defense Student Loan Program at the applicant institution. 2. This program shall be administered in accordance with the regulations of the Commissioner of Education and the terms of an agreement with the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Section 204 of the Act. 3. The amount of the Federal Capital Contribution requested for establishing or adding to a National 4. At the time of this application, all requirements for eligibility for a Federal Capital Contribution are met as outlined in Section 103(b) of the National Defense Education Act for participation in the National Defense Student Loan Program. TITLE OF INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORIZING OFFICER SIGNATURE - INSTITUTIONAL AUTHORIZING OFFICER DATE INSTRUCTIONS Submit an original and one copy not later than June 30, 1959. In order to provide funds to institutions for the period July 1, 1959 to June 30, 1960, it is necessary that applications be received by June 30, 1959. Please read the application instruc tions carefully before preparing this application. Please type. Sign the original and one copy and return them to the STUDENT LOAN SECTION Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare - Washington 25, D. C. ACTION FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION (Do not write below this line) Approved for Federal Capital Contribution FEDERAL LOAN FOR THE COMMISSIONER 1 DATE |