བད

der the provisions of the Act, all these universities were required to er "new or expanded" programs. This means that every program that s approved had been more or less carefully planned by the department d scrutinized more or less carefully by an administrator.

When the "new or expanded" feature was written into Title IV, the rpose of the Congress was merely to create more opportunities for gradte study. Many educators objected to this feature; some still do. hat actually resulted was the creation not only of more programs but better programs. There is a good deal of evidence in the responses to e questionnaire that the Title IV Fellows received more personal attenon from their professors than graduate students ordinarily do. Not ily were the programs laid out with some care in order to provide logical urse sequences; they were, in most instances, designed to permit the udent to begin his research as early as possible. It is also apparent at doctoral committees acted on dissertations more promptly than is ometimes the case.

It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the attitude of departents toward their new or expanded programs had a good deal to do with he success of their students. They were, in a sense, on trial. First of ll, they had to propose a program. Then they had to lay it out in etail. They were competing against a dozen other departments on their wn campus. Finally they were competing against a hundred or more. roposals from other universities. Having won in the competition, it is nly natural that the department should have felt a strong obligation to how itself to the best advantage. This, quite apparently, resulted in omewhat preferential attention to the progress of Title IV Fellows.

F

INALLY, the questionnaire brings out very clearly three points that deserve most serious consideration on the part of those who will estify before Congressional committees in this year when amendments o the National Defense Education Act are being proposed. The first of these has to do with the initial attrition of fellows. Of 1,096 appointees, 341 resigned early in the program. While these students were not all necessarily lost to academic careers, the fellowships were definitely lost, because the Act did not permit the appointment of replacements for vacated fellowships. The first priority amendment, therefore, should be provision for replacing resigned fellows. This should have a higher priority than an increase in the total number of fellowships. Without provision for replacements, a larger total number means only a larger total loss of fellowships and of money.

The second point emerges from the fact, clearly brought out in responses to the questionnaire, that the respondents worked around the calendar for three years. There were no summer vacations. Some of the students were hard pressed to earn their maintenance through the summers while still preparing for examinations or working on research.

doctorate can be attained in three calendar years. It is quite unrealistic to believe that it can be done in three academic years. The individal stipends should therefore be increased to provide twelve months a year of support instead of nine. The National Science Foundation has found that its summer fellowship program has become one of its most popu ones. If speedy completion of the doctorate becomes increasingly inportant, fellowship support on a twelve-month basis is essential.

The third and final point comes only indirectly out of the questionnaire. Of 755 students who completed three years of fellowship tenure, only 1: have so far earned the doctorate. That leaves 653 who did not. Many of these are still in graduate schools, hoping to finish this year. Bu many of them have joined the great army of ABD's, the Legion of the Lost Ones, whose financial support has run out and who, in all probability, will never complete their degrees. They represent what is probably the most tragic waste both of human resources and of money in all of higher education. They have invested three years of their lives and their own financial reserves, in addition to some $10,000 of federal money and a much larger sum of university money, and neither they nor society has much to show for it. Many, if not all, of these persons could be salvage: by the judicious investment of one more year of fellowship money deserving cases. The amendments to the Act should therefore include a provision for a small number of fourth-year fellowships, to be awarded in rare cases upon recommendation of the student's doctoral committee and with a virtual guarantee that, in the committee's opinion, the stu dent will be able to finish within a year. This is not throwing good money after bad but, rather, using a trifling sum to save a very much larger investment.

To conclude on a cheerful note: It is highly gratifying that 73 of the 89 doctors who obtained employment are in academic careers. This means that not only all of those in the humanities and social sciences (45), who are normally expected to go into teaching, did so, but also that more than half of those in the natural sciences (28 out of 51) became teachers. Moreover, several doctors in industrial research added with a touch of pride that they were also teaching evening extension courses in near-by colleges. It is to be hoped that any members of Congress who are not greatly impressed with the record of completion of doctorates thus far will at least find satisfaction in the knowledge that 75 per cent

Ion WAYNE MORSE,

7.8. Senate, Washington, D.C.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
New York, N.Y., June 24, 1963.

DEAR SIR: As has been the case in past years the issue of Federal aid to education seems to have bogged down in the present Congress. However, in recent weeks the press has reported that this issue may be revived by separating the various parts of the administration's legislative package so that action might be taken on different parts of the program. It is in this context that we express our kdeep concern about one section of S. 580, the bill dealing with aid to higher education.

We refer to the section on fellowships for study in graduate programs, including fellowships stipends. We note that no exception is made for students wishing to pursue advanced studies at theological seminaries and schools of divinity. This seems to the American Civil Liberties Union a direct violation of the first amendment's prohibition against governmental aid to religion. No matter what dfferences of opinion exist over other parts of the aid-to-education bill because of the varied interpretations of what "separation of church and state" means, aid to theological students is a clear invasion of the separation principle. Indeed you recognized this point on June 6, 1961, when you wrote us with respect to our comments on renewal of the National Defense Education Act: "With respect to the following provision of title IV of the bill as it was reported from subcommittee, it occurs to me that the language of section 403 (e) which states: 'No fellowship shall be awarded to any individual under this title for study at a school or department of divinity. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "school or department of divinity" means a divinity school, theological seminary, or other institution, or department or branch of an institution, whose program is for the education of students to prepare them to become ministers of religion or to enter upon some other religious vocation' would be one In accord with the objectives of the American Civil Liberties Union."

We agree wholeheartedly that such language would provide an adequate guarantee that the principle of separation of church and state is recognized, and we hope that the Education Subcommittee will see fit to include such language again in S. 580.

We are aware of the language in the limitation set forth in section 271 which would amend title IV of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, by inserting section 426 stating, "No grant may be made under this part to any school of divinity or for any sectarian instruction or religious workship." However, this language would seem to be only applicable to construction grants and would not limit the program of fellowships. We therefore urge either amending this section to make it applicable to the entire bill, or including the language you suggested 2 years ago.

Such action would provide assurance to millions of Americans who find it difficult to support Federal aid to education because of the deep feeling concern about the church-state issue that in this particular instance their constitutional concern is recognized.

DEAR SENATOR: Legislation is now pending in the House and Senate that would authorize Federal grants to church-related colleges for the construction of academic facilities. On several occasions during the last session of Congress I contacted you with reference to my strong personal opposition and that of the great majority of Alabama Baptists to the passage of such legislation. I be lieve you will be interested in knowing that the Southern Baptist Convention at its annual meeting in Kansas City earlier this month adopted a resolution expressing the convention's opposition to such legislation.

Our opposition is based on our conviction that the granting of Federal tar funds to church-related colleges would constitute Government support of 295 gious denominations and would violate the first amendment's injunction aga establishment of religion. Furthermore, it is our belief that such grants w be in direct conflict with the long-established American principle of church state separation.

As I have indicated to you previously, we do not believe that the exclusion of any facility used or to be used for sectarian instruction or as a place for rell gious worship, or any facility which is used in connection with a school er department of divinity from the definition of the term "academic facilities lessens the violation in any way whatsoever. The mere fact that church-related colleges accepting grants could not use such funds for the construction of these particular facilities in no sense lessens the violation of the principle of churchstate separation.

The theory that a church-owned or a church-controlled college could sere gate secular education from religious education and say, "This building repre sents a nonreligious activity of this college and that building represents a reli gious activity of this college" and obtain grants for the construction of the first class, is precisely what the Supreme Court has said could not be done. The reason we have church-owned and church-controlled colleges is so that ther can teach both religion and secular courses. When they do so, they are barred from the right to receive Government tax aid by the first amendment to the Constitution. By granting tax dollars to a church college the Federal Govern ment would be unavoidably assisting in the "establishment of religion."

In passing H.R. 12, the Health Profession's Educational Assistance Act, las month, the House approved a program that would authorize Federal grants to church-related colleges for the construction of academic facilities. We believe that in so doing the House violated the principle of church-state separation set forth in the preceding paragraphs. It is my hope that no bill containing such a provision will be passed by the Congress.

In its fiscal 1964 budget proposal as contained in the independent offices appropriation bill, the administration has recommended a very large increase in the appropriation to the National Science Foundation. News releases indicate that the increased funds are being requested for the purpose of making grants for the construction of academic facilities at both public and private institutions of higher learning, including church-related institutions. Statements have bee released to the effect that by utilizing the National Science Foundation prograr for this purpose, the administration hopes to avoid a dispute over Federal aid to church-related colleges. It is our conviction that regardless of the agency or department used as a channel for the distribution of Federal grants, the principle remains the same and such grants should not be made to churchrelated institutions.

In your consideration of any legislation that may come before the Congress providing Federal aid to education. I hope you will oppose any provisions that would provide grants of Federal tax funds to church-related institutions. With kindest personal regards and all good wishes, I am,

Sincerely your friend.

Hon. PAT MCNAMARA,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

LESLIE S. WRIGHT, President.

UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD,
Hartford, Conn., June 6, 1963.

DEAR SENATOR MCNAMARA: I am writing to urge you as strongly as I can to support the Senate measure of the divided measure 8. 580 to provide grants to independent institutions of higher education for construction of academi buildings

This measure is needed to provide immediate assistance to many independen nonsectarian institutions which find it impossible to raise sufficient philanthropi funds to keep up with the double burden of higher costs of construction and the already heavy indux of college students.

Grants for desperately needed teaching facilities would be a major step it serving the young people of our Nation. It should be kept in mind that improved facilities for higher ednation would be an asset whether or not there is ever

summers for their tuition to prepare themselves for a life of service to this Nation and the world.

Please keep in mind that tax-supported institutions already have access to public funds for this purpose, while the independent colleges do not. It is in he province of your committee to accelerate the passage of this measure. I urge you to do so.

Sincerely,

ALAN S. WILSON,
Vice Chancellor for Administration.

(An identical letter addressed to the Honorable Wayne Morse, may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

EXHIBIT XI

[Excerpts from the 1963 "Report on the National Defense Education Act, Fiscal Years 1961 and 1962," compiled by the U.S. Office of Education]

TITLE X (SEC. 1001 (d)). SURVEY OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN
HIGHER EDUCATION

Provisions: The Secretary shall advise and consult with the heads of departments and agencies of the Federal Government responsible for the administration of scholarship, fellowship, or other educational programs with a view to securing full information concerning all specialized scholarship, fellowship, or other educational programs administered by or under any such department or agency and to developing policies and procedures which will strengthen the educational programs and objectives of the institutions of higher education utilized for such purposes by any such department or agency.

The number and volume of Federal programs that involve the specialized resources of colleges and universities have been growing to meet new demands for the development of technical and professional manpower, for creative research and invention, and for that broad-based and advancing measure of general and technical intelligence required to maintain national security and the capacity for self-government. Because of their size and complexity, it is important to have comprehensive information about the nature and range of federally sponsored programs and to assess their impact on the development of the Nation's higher education resources.

The U.S. Commissioner of Education in 1960 appointed Dr. J. Kenneth Little, professor of education at the University of Wisconsin and associate director of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation of the Big Ten Universities and the University of Chicago, to be director of a survey of Federal programs in higher education. The Commissioner also appointed a 12-member advisory committee with 4 representatives from each of the fields of natural science, social science, and the humanities.

The survey, a major attempt to gather extensive data on the Federal involvement in higher education and to assess the future of Federal activity in this area, consisted of three parts: (1) A description of the Federal programs and the characteristics and relative involvement of participating institutions; (2) a study of the effect of such programs on higher education; and (3) observations, conclusions, and recommendations concerning future Federal programs in higher education.

The first part, a report on Federal programs and participating institutions, analyzes the activities of the various agencies by the following categories: (1) Financial assistance to students, (2) loans and grants to institutions for capital improvement, (3) contracts and grants-in-aid for research, (4) the support of training and instructional programs, and (5) the participation of colleges and universities in international programs. It shows the relative and aggregate magnitude of the different agencies' programs for each activity. The report also lists the participating colleges and universities, indicates their number, type (private, public, junior college, university, etc.), and geographic location. The data for the report were gathered from Federal agencies and departments. Perhaps the most difficult and important task of the survey was assessment of For this the impact of Federal programs on institutions of higher education. part of the survey, the Office of Education contracted with the Brookings Institution for an independent evaluation of this impact. The Brookings study was addressed to three issues: (1) What have been the effects of Federal programs upon the quality of higher education, particularly at the undergraduate level?