The development of moral and spiritual values is basic to all other educational objectives. Education uninspired by moral and spiritual values is directionless. * * * That educational purposes rest on moral and spiritual values has been generally recognized in the public school system. The Educational Policies Commission has previously declared: "Every statement of educational purposes. including this one, depends upon the judgment of some person or group as to what is good and what is bad, what is true and what is false, what is ugly and what is beautiful, what is valuable and what is worthless, in the conduct of human affairs."-National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators, Educational Policies Commission. "Moral and Spiritual Values in the Public Schools," 1951, page 7.

Senator MORSE. I have one or two questions for you to comment on. You listened to our hearings this morning. I am awaiting with great interest the cold type of those hearings, for I think there was a meeting of the minds among the witnesses and the chairman on the testimony. Whether or not the cold type shows it I am not so sure, but I feel that this morning's session may have been the most important session we have had during my years of chairmanship of the subcommittee on this very controversial, as you well know, religions issue in connection with educational legislation.

IS A GENERAL AID BILL TO CHURCH SCHOOL CONSTITUTIONAL

I have sought to resolve it within the framework of the Constitution, as I believe that Constitution reads. I recognize, as a lawyer. that people who are as sincere as I am hold opposite opinions. In the last analysis there is only one place where this is going to be resolved judicially, and that is by the Supreme Court itself, leaving it then up to the American people under our amending processes to check the Supreme Court by amendment if sufficient constitutional majority so provides.

But I would like to have your view as a Protestant minister, on the problems I raised this morning. I think that record will show, at least, there was a recognition on the part of Mr. Cusack, the attorney for Cardinal Spellman, that as the Constitution has been interpre thus far by the Supreme Court through the clear implications of adjudicated cases, a general Federal aid to education bill, applying to church-related schools, would be unconstitutional. By a general Federal aid to education bill, I mean a bill which will provide Federal aid funds on the same basis to church schools as to public school, leaving to the administrators of the church schools, as to the public schools, the discretionary authority to decide in what manner, within the framework of the bill itself, they propose to spend the funds.

I have always taken the position that such a bill would be uneonstitutional. My question to you is, Is that your position?

Mr. PALMER. Our position would be that there are various ways in which aid could be given for education. One would be by giving direct subsidy to various schools. That is the way the Dutch do it. I think they have solved this problem admirably.

I think for myself there would be no problem involved. In the light of the history of the United States and these interpretations you have mentioned, there would be no problems that would be raised.

However, Citizens for Educational Freedom, has taken the stand that if we would follow the pattern of granting scholarships the way

New York State does to the university students, any student or such as the GI bill of rights does, or such as Congress does to the pageboys or such as Congress has already done for the war orphans of the Korean war, that then there would not be a problem of the separation of church and state. There would not be a problem of constitutional violation, for we have a good precedent already here.

I myself went to Westminister Seminary and the Free University of Amsterdam 5 years altogether upon the assistance of the GI bill of rights, and yet that has not been questioned so far, and we are wondering if that might not be a good precedent for this junior GI bill of rights.

Senator MORSE. I am not disagreeing with you on the proposition of whether or not the Federal Government, through legislation, cannot provide aid to individuals which can be used in connection with their getting an education. That is why last year, as chairman of the House-Senate Conference Committee, I even went so far as to take the position that a grant to a private school, including a church-reated school, for a categorical use would be constitutional.

PRECEDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Of course, we are doing that to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. We have built, through the contract approach, a radiation chemistry laboratory for Notre Dame. Catholic University in this own, has been given contracts or what amount to contracts by the Federal Government whereby the university undertakes to provide ervices. The Federal Government, in various fields of science, medieine, has operated in ways which I do not think raise a constitutional question.

There are a whole variety of aids that, in my judgment, can meet the first amendment.

But my question goes to the same one that I put to Mr. Cusack this morning. All those aside, what about a general Federal aid to educaon bill which draws no lines of demarcation between public and church-related schools under which legislation, money is turned over to the institution which, in my hypothetical, is a church school, to be spent for whatever purposes the church school proposes to spend it in connection with the school's program.

My question is-so that I am sure I understand your position-Do You think that such a Federal aid to educationl bill would be constitutional?

Mr. PALMER. I am not a constitutional expert, and I would not want to take your time on that, sir.

Senator MORSE. That is all right. That is a perfectly satisfactory answer. I wanted to raise it because I need not tell you that we get any Protestant groups who come before us who do not go as nearly, Learly as far, as you are going this afternoon on this matter. They ertainly do not go as far as I go, but I want you to know that, as airman, which I say only half jocularly, I have all the Protestants, all the Catholics, and all the Jews against me. This only proves that I am right as far as I am concerned, for this is one controversy you tannot win on, I want to tell you. You cannot win on this one, but I have the duty here, as chairman, to do what I can to help lead the subcommittee and the Senate to do what can be done to lead the Congress to pass constitutional legislation which will help to solve what

I think is a very critical problem intensifying in its nature year by year, in the field of education.

As long as we are confronted with the drive, as we are, for a general bill, I want, as I tried to do this morning, to try to narrow the areas or differences wherever I can. I think we narrowed them considerably this morning, at least I hope the cold type shows that.

My ears recall it, and I am very much interested in seeing what my eyes show after I read it.

Mr. PALMER. There is just one other statement which I would like to make supplemental to some of the remarks of the witnesses this morning which, I think, bears upon a certain area of differences which you have already mentioned, and that centers upon the problem of the so-called neutrality of the State schools over against the religious instruction of the others.

With your permission, I would like later on this week to submit a supplementary statement by the National Education Association which, in a remarkable statement 2 weeks ago or 2 months ago, has stated that there is no such thing as neutral education, but that indirectly or directly in every sphere or life, in every subject, whether it be English or mathematics or literature or history or social studies. there is a governing philosophy of life that reveals itself, and that means that the whole of education coming through the State education of the State schools, are also philosophically governed, and I believe that this is an important facet when we think of the differences between the so-called private schools and the independent schools and the state schools, on the other hand, that all are governed by a basic philosophy of life, even though it might not be explicit at all times and, therefore, one type of philosophy of life should not be discriminated against over against another type.

Senator MORSE. You certainly have permission to file that supplemental statement.

Mr. PALMER. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator MORSE. You have permission to file up until the end of the 2-week period following the official closing of the public hearings.

So that there will be no basis for confusion in the record, on the comments the chairman made just a few minutes ago, counsel to the subcommittee has handed me a note suggesting that I should make clear that categorical-use program that I supported last year was in S. 1241, which was the higher education bill, and we did not cross the bridge in that, in connection with that bill, as to whether or not the same categorical-use grants might be made available constitutionally for elementary and secondary schools. We will be crossing that bridge this year.

Mr. PALMER. Right.

Senator MORSE. I am raising the point now and calling upon witnesses to make any comments that they care to make.

We supply, through loans, teaching aids for foreign languages in private schools, including church-related schools, on the theory that from the standapoint of American security, which is very much desired, that we should train as rapidly as possible the younger generation, making them proficient in as many foreign languages as possible. We also provide grants to public secondary and elementary schools to assist them in that program.

At the present time, under the National Defense Education Act, we provide grants only for public schools and loans to private schools. I believe in raising the tough ones. Let us assume it is proposed that we provide grants to private schools, too. Would that be

Inconstitutional?

I am too good a lawyer to curbstone until I have exhausted the books. I have always felt uncomfortable with the legal briefs that I have received that seem to have no difficulty in seeing the line of constitutional distinction between categorical grants to a higher education institution and no categorical grant to an elementary and secondary school.

There may be a distinction. I am perfectly willing to reserve judgment, but I need help on it if anybody wants to help me.

I want to thank you very much, Mr. Palmer.

Mr. Valente, do you have anything you wish to add?

Mr. VALENTE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add my thanks for the opportunity to be here and also, with your permission, just a comment since I am a lawyer, but not a lawyer of your capacity or experience or scholastic background.

We in CEF do not challenge your judgment. We know what a ine constitutional lawyer the chairman of this subcommittee is, and

we agree

Senator MORSE. I wish I could convince myself of that.

Mr. VALENTE. Well, you do not have to convince this group, Mr. Chairman.

We agree that the complex of the Supreme Court decisions has creared sufficient uncertainty to warrant statesmanship on the part of our legislators to formulate aid in a way that will have a reasonable probality of passing the judicial test.

Personally, I think that the question just has not been answered by The Supreme Court as declared by Professor Kurland of the University of Chicago in his recent publication, even on the wide-open grant. If I may say, I think it is high statesmanship on your part to avoid unnecessary judicial risks by espousing wide-open grants. I perSonally would subscribe to a qualification that would remove what may be a theoretical objection, but nevertheless a widely held one.

With that, I think I answered your question, sir; I wanted to answer it on behalf of our organization.

Senator MORSE. A very good statement, a very good statement ndeed. Thank you very much.

Mr. VALENTE. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PALMER. Thank you.

(The following addendum to the statement of Mr. Valente was subsequently received and is printed at this point by direction of the chairman.)

PUBLIC ADDRESS TO ANNUAL MINISTERIAL INSTITUTE, ALUMNI OF WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, MAY 29, 1963, BY WILLIAM D. VALENTINE, ESQ., PHILADELPHIA, PA.

FREEDOM IN EDUCATION

In his 1962 congressional message President Kennedy quoted the proverb that vilization is a race between education and catastrophe." In his 1963 message declared that "today the choice in the world is not between communism and capitalism; it is between compulsion and freedom of choice." It would be for

tunate if the direct relationship between both statements were made clear to the people; if they could recognize that without freedom of choice, the condition of liberty, in the microcosm of the intellect, civil life among men is a hope without foundation. Were intellectual freedom of parents and children guarded as jealously as the academic freedom of professors and scientists; were we to discontinue futile exercises in the semantics of stereotyped group rationaliza tions exemplified by phrases such as "public funds and private schools" and "religion and education"; were we to address ourselves to the essential issnes of individual freedom in seeking to harness fully the intellectual assets of America's children, taking care not to ignore civil liberties in our rush to "do something" about education; then we might move apace toward fulfillment in freedom. The impact of varied forms of government aid to education upon personal freedom should be assessed in the spirit reflected by the President's messages; namely, that Western civilization must be true to freedom of choice in education, as well as in other areas-if we are to remain a civil people "e pluribus unum." In referring to government aid I mean only aid for study in "secular subjects" and for the physical welfare of the student, identical in scope to the area of aid proposed for the government schools.

A speech in this field is necessarily only a start, but I have the privilege and advantage tonight of an audience of disciplined minds. Concentrating on the essential question of academic freedom—freedom of mind and of belief-—I sha". avoid collateral issues such as the liberal-conservative dispute concerning the need for government aid; the relative merits of government as against private schools; the vague problems in educational economics, administration, or methods; and the political arrangements in other Western democracies whose experience in fashioning educational aid for all citizens are considerably more advanced than ours. It will also be necessary to confine comment to the Federal level, inasmuch as State constitutions involve numerous, and in my view unfortunate variations. Civil rights in this age should not vary with geography, but this anomaly of civil right variations under State constitutions must be left to another discussion. I shall refer to all nongovernment schools, whether church related or nondenominational, as private schools.

We might begin with a brief scan of the cultural background in which contemporary education develops. Our industrially advanced society encourages increased specialization and regulation which requires a corresponding retraction in the latitude of individual freedom. Group interdependence in labor, in commerce, and in art and entertainment forms, has cultivated patterns of conformity for large numbers of our citizens. The effortless transfer of responsibility from the individual to the expert, or to the institution or the State, tends to dull initiative. The power of amoral corporate decision impelled by appeals to "efficiency" and to the demands of the perennial crisis engender worrisome restraints upon the exercise of personal responsibility.

The educational process is not immune to this cultural ferment. The trend toward devising educational arrangements almost exclusively in institutional terms, at the expense of parental control and responsibility presents a serious peril. Shall then the malleable child, by a subtle evolution, be subjected in his very education, to the dominant patterns of the mass? It is not difficult to imagine educational technicians becoming so enamored of their operational plans for schools that every child will be expected to learn somehow to be "fitted in." The education of the young is and should remain highly personal. Where the minds and creeds of impressionable children are involved the natural, God-given, inalienable, and constitutionally protected right of their parents to develop their offsprings' view of life-must be free of unwarranted pressures by the State. These rights are prior and paramount to any government power, and were enshrined in the supreme law of our land in 1925 after the State of Oregon attempted to dictate by law that parents must send all children to the “public” school. The U.S. Supreme Court nullified the Oregon law in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters with a ringing declaration that it: "Unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children ***. Rights protected by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation. The fundamental theory of liberty *** excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruetion from public school teachers."

This basic liberty is universally acknowledged by the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, article 26, which declares that parental rights in elementary education are prior to the rights of the state.