Government nor to accept a coerced taxpayer support were thus encouraged to participate. In the meantime, the same loans were described by some congressional leaders as being essentially grants, and accordingly, as being proper precedents for additional such legislation.

We seem to be dealing here with some simple facts, which are viewed differently for different purposes. The resolving of these differences within Government circles would considerably clarify a much controverted point of church-state relations. Such clarification becomes doubly important if the principle is to be extended.

We are aware that longer term loans draw higher interest rates but apparently the Treasury Department is able to offset what seems to be an interest differential by a rotation of shorter term loans. This could still be subject to criticism because no banking institution could afford to take such risks. I would hope that in future drafts of this legislation this controverted point may become clear.

We must also note that section 205 of title II lays down the purposes for which Federal loans may be extended. By implication this expresses a public claim on the facilities so developed, and accordingly implies an "aid" rather than a "loan."

In our opinion, loans to church-related institutions should be clearly nonsubsidized, otherwise the tensions referred to become unavoidable. 3. Title II, part D, proposes Federal funds for library books and construction of college libraries, without differentiation of those institutions which are an integral part of church programs for distinctly religious objectives from those that contain a large sector of public concern. The provisions of this part (D) do not attempt to find their rationale in the principle of a public interest. This compels me to inquire regarding justification of these particular proposals.

In my own school experience I not only spoke of the library as being the heart of the academic program, but I gave major attention to its adequacy. I am, therefore, unable to find a basis on which to look upon the library as some special purpose that represents the public concern and remains unrelated to the institution's reason for being.

In view of grant proposals of this type, I am confident that our Baptist public would be interested in knowing what attempts have been made to identify the criteria which might differentiate the churchrelated institution from the public and from the private college which exists purely for public purposes.

Several of our conference groups have struggled with this question, and have ordinarily defined "church related" approximately as follows:

An institution is church related when both the denomination and the institution have affirmed their relationship to one or more of the following:

1. Control of the institution.

2. Financial support.

3. Curriculum and its objective.

4. A statement of relationship.

5. Charter relationship.

The priorities proposed in section 262 under title II take cogzance of need but take no cognizance of what the purposes or com

mitments of the institution may be. In brief, there are no limitations which protect the public interest or define the public sector in connection with these particular grants. While the educative process at the higher level may be somewhat different from what it is at the secondary level, we cannot assume the absence of vital church relationships in institutions of higher learning.

As recently as May 7, 1963, the Southern Baptist Convention gave precise expression of position on this point. The resolution adopted by the full convention on recommendation of a special committee from the executive committee said:

Whereas several proposals have been made in the Congress of the United States that Federal public funds be granted to church-related colleges and universities for the construction of academic facilities; and

Whereas reports are now current regarding active sponsorship for proposals granting tax funds to church colleges for the construction of basic educational facilities, such as libraries, laboratories, and classrooms; and

Whereas Baptists are committed to the principle of supporting taxation for public purposes only, leaving church institutions to the voluntary support of persons desiring to participate in the support of and maintenance of those institutions; and

Whereas we see in these principles the meaning of the "no establishment" clause of the first amendment to the Federal Constitution as well as that of the "free exercise" clause of that same amendment; it is recommended now, there fore:

1. The Southern Baptist Convention strongly opposes all legislation, Federal and State, which would provide public grants to church colleges and universities for the construction of academic facilities, and

2. That the Southern Baptist Convention inform each Member of Congress of this action taken, and

3. That our messengers and members be urged to support this action by personal and group communications and other appropriate contacts with their respective Congressmen and all other Government officials involved.

4. As the discussion of the use of the public welfare principle for educational support has progressed, our people have become increasingly clear that public welfare needs to be publicly administered if public policy is to prevail over particular institutional interests. Our conventions and consultations have not attempted to define what the scope and function of government ought to be in undergirding people in times of special need. However, our conversations have indicated. that the extension of the welfare concept to people generally who want an education would change our social policy in the direction of special purpose doles. Such a shift would erode both the free competence of the people and the solidarity and effectiveness of educational programs and standards. The emergency needs of people should, of course, be met but these provisions should be carefully administered by people who are publicly responsible for the application of sound social policy.

(The following was submitted as an addendum to the testimony of Mr. C. Emanuel Carlson :)

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Renate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C., July 12, 1963.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: In its recent 1963 sessions at Kansas City, Mo., the Southern Baptist Convention voted a significant expression of its policy with reference to the financing of education. The convention requested that this

information be made available to all who are concerned with the making of public policy in this field. Accordingly, I have attached a copy of the convention's action.

If this office can be of any assistance in the clarification of public opinion along these lines, please feel free to let me know.

Respectfully yours,

Enclosure

C. EMANUEL CARLSON,

Executive Director.

STATEMENT APPROVED BY THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION, IN ANNUAL SESSION AT KANSAS CITY, Mo., MAY 8, 1963

Whereas several proposals have been made in the Congress of the United States, that Federal public funds be granted to church-related colleges and universities for the construction of academic facilities; and

Whereas reports are now current regarding active sponsorship for proposals granting tax funds to church colleges for the construction of basic educational facilities, such as libraries, laboratories, and classrooms; and

Whereas Baptists are committed to the principle of supporting taxation for public purposes only, leaving church institutions to the voluntary support of persons desiring to participate in the support of and maintenance of those institutions; and

Whereas we see in these principles the meaning of the "no establishment" clause of the first amendment to the Federal Constitution as well as that of the "free exercise" clause of that same amendment; it is recommended, now, therefore:

1. The Southern Baptist Convention strongly opposes all legislation, Federal and State, which would provide public grants to church colleges and universities for the construction of academic facilities; and

2. That the Southern Baptist Convention inform each Member of Congress of this action taken; and

3. That our messengers and members be urged to support this action by personal and group communications and other appropriate contacts with their respective Congressmen and all other Government officials involved.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you very much, Dr. Carlson for your most helpful testimony.

The next witness is Dr. R. Jean Brownlee, chairman of the Higher Education Committee of the American Association of University Women and dean of the College of Liberal Arts for Women of the University of Pennsylvania.

Dr. Brownlee has set up a voluntary commitment to make her statement in 3 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MISS R. JEAN BROWNLEE, CHAIRMAN OF HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, AND DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS FOR WOMEN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Brownlee, I congratulate you and we will see how you fare with your coworker in the field of English, when you challenge him by promising that you could make your statement in 1 minute less time.

Miss BROWNLEE. Thank you, Senator Yarborough.

I have the statement of the viewpoint of the American Association of University Women and may I-could it be entered in the record? Senator YARBOROUGH. Yes; your statement will be considered as having been read in full.

(The prepared statement of Miss Brownlee follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. R. JEAN BROWNLEE, CHAIRMAN, HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

I am Dr. R. Jean Brownlee, chairman of the Committee on Higher Education of the American Association of University Women. This statement is presented on behalf of the two education committees, the Mass Media and the Legislative Program Committees of the American Association of University Women.

The association has a membership of approximately 150,000 college graduates organized into 1,512 branches in the 50 States, Guam, and the District of Columbia.

The association greatly appreciates the opportunity of appearing before this committee in support of Federal participation in improving educational opportunities in these United States which we, in this association of university graduates, regard as vital to this Nation's continued economic, political, and cultural growth as well as to its security.

At its last meeting, February 7, 1963, the board of directors of the American Association of University Women again demonstrated its interest in improving, equalizing, and expanding educational opportunities in this country by adopting the following resolution:

That the board of the American Association of University Women approve the overall approach to American educational needs taken by the President of the United States in his message to Congress on January 29, 1963, with emphasis on the preservation of local and State control.

Witnesses from the Office of Education, the National Education Association, the American Council on Education, the Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and from a number of other educational groups have outlized current and projected enrollments. They have described present demands at all educational levels for physical facilities and teaching staff and projected these demands over the next several years on the basis of children already born or currently enrolled in the country's school system. They have also pointed out the discrepancy between the number of teachers at all levels, now graduating or preparing for teaching careers, and the need for teachers that will be created by these projected enrollments.

Since these current and foreseeable needs have been so well stated by others, we will not discuss them further in detail.

As the work of the association's education committees has been chiefly in the felds of elementary and secondary education, we cannot speak with equal knowledge to all parts of S. 580. Nonetheless, AAUW committees are aware of mounting unemployment problems, particularly among the uneducated and unskilled, of the need for basic adult education opportunities, for retraining programs, and of needs created by the world's political situation and by this technological age which are not necessarily met by our traditional patterns of education. Our mmittees are also gravely concerned over this Nation's school dropout problem and about those of great ability who do not go on from high school to college. For these reasons, the association is pleased that an overall picture of these needs has been presented in the President's education message and in S. 580. It is our earnest hope that collateral issues will not be allowed to cloud the real issue improvement of education in this country.

But at the same time the AAUW wishes to express its fear that some parts of this legislation may be enacted while other and possibly more basic parts may be ignored at this time.

We are pleased to see that titles of the National Defense Education Act have been included in S. 580 which will be of assistance in teaching languages, science, and mathematics; which will aid in providing guidance, counseling, and testing services in our public schools; and which will provide for teacher institutes and teacher-preparation programs. These are programs which are useful in combating the dropout rate of 1 out of 3 students who leave without graduating from high school, and who, as uneducated and unskilled, add to our unemployment relief rolls. Better teaching and more counseling can also contribute to stimulating interest in that large group which does not now go to college, but whose ability to undertake college work is unquestioned.

We would not like to see perpetuation of aid to the so-called federally impacted school districts, under which 1 out of 4 American school children benefits

(which we view as a discrimination against the other 3 of the 4) unless som plan for assistance is provided for districts not so impacted. It is true, unfor tunately, as this committee knows, that some of the poorest school districts it this country in income per child are not among those considered to be federally impacted, while some of the wealthiest receive substantial aid under Public Law. 815 and 874.

Because of the association's interest in recent years in the educational use of mass media, we are gratified that it is proposed that title VII of the Nationa Defense Education Act be extended in S. 580. New media have made significan contributions toward improvement of education and extension of educational op portunities. But the potentialities of these new mediums are just beginning to be tapped. If our school system is to benefit fully from our technological advances, a broad and continuing program of research and experimentation is needed to determine the most effective educational uses of new mediums.

We would like to speak of the opportunities provided in the student loan pro gram of the National Defense Education Act and to support the proposed exper sion of this program and an increase in the graduate fellowships now covere in title IV of the National Defense Education Act.

We in AAUW are firmly committed to the idea that the availability of ai quate library resources are basic to education at all levels and wish to go o record in support of the assistance to libraries proposed in this legislation. Many members of this committee will remember that the AAUW supportel both grants and loans for construction of academic facilities when we appear d before this committee last year.

We note that part A of title II of S. 580 provides for loans while other pr posals before other committees in this session offer construction assistance for specific programs. Our concern is over the growing number of educational, b "categorical" programs being provided through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, by the National Science Foundation, by the Commerce Department, the Agriculture Department, and in programs providing for costruction of teaching facilities in medicine, dentistry, and the related health professions. Will these programs, administered by different agencies, be or ordinated into an effective whole? In our opinion, these programs when conplemented by the provisions of S. 580, could provide a frontal attack upon our educational problems. But if these programs, and not the help provided through the several titles of S. 580, are enacted we will suffer a serious educational inbalance between the sciences and general education.

In conclusion, we should like to draw the attention of this committee to the situation with which we will soon find ourselves face to face unless steps to resolve these mounting educational problems are taken immediately. In illus tration, we refer to a Census Bureau projection made a year and a half ago which is appended to this statement. Even more alarming projections are related to the fact that by 1965 the war babies born in the mid-forties will be coming of age. Many of them will be enrolled in our colleges-if they can find an instit tion in which to enroll; others will be marrying, setting up new homes, and providing candidates for our elementary and secondary schools. If, as has been predicted, we have an estimated increase of 51 percent in new households between 1962 and 1970, there is very little time to lose before we find ways to finance school construction and means of attracting, educating, and then retaining teachers at all levels of education.

Miss BROWNLEE. In my few remaining minutes, I would like to point out some of the concerns that we have concerning the educa tion of women in relation to these bills. First, we have a concern on the general level of education. As part of the work of the Committee on Higher Education, we review at some of our sessions, 50 or 80 sets of credentials from institutions on the general level of their education. We find that, recently, there has been a definite improvement, but, in many cases, it should be by multiples of 10, perhaps multiples of 100. This bill aims toward raising the general level. We are interested.