Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

people who do not like the bill. A great many people do not like it; let them say they do not like it. But when they say it means Federal control, I say it does not mean Federal control; it does not mean bureaucracy, and they know it. It does not, above everything, mean interference with the parochial schools, public schools, or any other kind of schools. If it did I would fight it with my last breath. It does not do, can not do, and never will do that, and I do hope you gentlemen will throw this open to the United States and see what would happen. You will find a response which will show you that all these millions of people and these people's organizations mean what they say and I do wish that you would give it your honest thought and try it out anyhow. If it fails all well and good, but I do not think it will fail and I hope you will give it a chance.

I should like to file in the record several statements that have come to me from various parts of the country, indicating support for the education bill.

Mrs. FREDERICK P. BAGLEY,

General FEDERATION OF WOMEN'S CLUBS,
Indianapolis, Ind., April 10, 1928.

Buston, Mass.

MY DEAR MRS. BAGLEY: I can not be present at the hearing on April 25, but you are at liberty to use the following as a brief statement of my views on the subject of the adoption of the Curtis-Reed education bill.

I do not see how there can be a valid constitutional objection to the establishment of a department of education in the Cabinet. Any such objection would clearly be quite as valid to existing bureaus and other agencies which are expending Government money in the interests of education. And any such objection would apply with equal force to the Departments of Labor, Commerce, and Agriculture. It is their business to promote and conserve the economic resources of our country. Literate adults constitute our greatest economic resource.

I do not see how there can be any valid financial objection to the adoption of this program. We are already. appropriating by States, or Nation, a sum which is clearly inadequate, for it leaves us with a per cent of illiteracy greater than France, England, Scotland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, or Germany. Objection to an increased appropriation means that we are satisfied with our present high rate of illiteracy. To be more thorough and efficient always costs more.

Objection to this program of placing education in a department of the Government, with a secretary in the Cabinet, because it places education in politics, is not well placed. To be consistent such an objection should be aimed at our whole system of common-school control, for in practically every State schools are already in politics to some extent as they would be under this plan. Superintendents of public instruction are elected by political parties and for short terms. The system may be wrong, but is the best we have, and the proposal now under consideration is by no means a departure from the system but stands a much better chance of being nonpartisan because national in scope.

Yours very sincerely,

Mrs. EDWARD FRANKLIN WHITE.

STATEMENT OF LUCY LEWIS, CHAIRMAN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP COMMISSION, PHILADELPHIA LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

The power of the Federal Government has been expended in many directions since the adoption of the Constitution. A department of education is no more unconstitutional than a department of commerce or a department of agriculture. The very high percentage of illiteracy in the United States clearly shows that some States can not or will not unaided solve the educational problem. A minimum standard for all States is certainly to be desired..

105682-28- -26

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
Washington, D. C., April 9, 1928.

In re department of education.

Mrs. GRACE H. BAGLEY,

3 West Cedar Street, Boston, Mass.

DEAR MADAM: As to whether the educational conditions of the young men of this country are a national problem or not will enable anyone to determine in his own mind the problem of a national department of education.

The late President Wilson stated: "The future of the Nation depends upon the proper training of its youth." In my opinion, no other subject carries equal importance. Divided responsibility is impractical. Every civilized government, so far as I know, agrees to this. Why should anyone be called upon to make apologies for Uncle Sam?

Yours very truly,

JOHN DOLPH,

Manager, 412 Homer Building, 601 Thirteenth St., NW.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

MY DEAR MRS. BAGLEY: Your letter of April 3 is at hand. I am sorry that it will be impossible for me to be present at the hearing of the education bill in Washington on April 25. In response to your request, I have written to Representative Reed.

It seems to me that if there were no other reason for establishing a Federal department of education it would be fully justified on the basis of the economy which would result from correlating and condensing the many educational undertakings of the Federal Government now scattered through many Federal bureaus. The objections that the expenditure of government funds for educational purposes would interfere with States' privileges seems very little short of ludicrous in face of the facts that the government is now spending these sums in many avenues and under many names and by methods which seriously overlap and are wastefully extravagant.

It seems to me that were the citizens of the country really awake to the situation that they would demand the prompt passage of the bill and the more economical administration of our Federal educational business.

Cordially yours,

ELLA VICTORIA DOBBS, Member N. E. A. Legislative Committee.

The CHAIRMAN. As far as I am personally concerned, I am willing to continue with these hearings until all the witnesses are heard, even if it means staying here late. It is now after 12 o'clock, and we will recess until 1.30 o'clock p. m.

(Thereupon, at 12.10 o'clock p. m., the committee recessed until 1.30 o'clock p. m. of the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

The committee met at 1.30 o'clock p. m., pursuant to recess, Chairman Reed presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The next witness is Mr. Edward S. Dore.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD S. DORE, PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL CATHOLIC ALUMNI FEDERATION

Mr. DORE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I represent the National Catholic Federation, which is a federation of alumni associations, embracing now about 46 colleges and university alumni bodies in the United States. The constituent associations are all alumni groups that have graduated from various Catholic colleges and universities throughout the United States. We have affiliated associations all the way from Boston College, Massachusetts; Holy Cross, Massachusetts; Fordham University, Manhattan College, St. Johns, St. Francis, and other colleges, New York; Notre Dame, Indiana; St. Louis University, St. Louis; De Paul University, Chicago; St. Mary's College, Kansas; Gonzaga University, Spokane; Loyola University, Los Angeles; St. Mary's College and St. Ignatius's College, California; St. Edward's College, Texas; Georgetown University, the Catholic University, Washington, D. C.; Spring Hill College, Alabama; Villanova College, Pennsylvania; 46 in all. I mention the above-named organizations only to show you that the organization is genuinely national in its scope. Its officers are all laymen, alumni of colleges affiliated with the federation and under the constitution all of its officers serve wholly without compensation. The federation, in other words, is a voluntary association of alumni interested in their colleges and in higher education in the United States. Through membership in affiliated associations our federation represents upward of 200,000 Catholic college men in the United States.

Three years ago we made a survey, and there were 234,000 reported members of the constituent alumni associations that are affiliated with the federation.

May I say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I will conform myself to your time, as I realize how long you have been in these hearings, and it is Saturday afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, what I am interested particularly in is that you are in a hurry to get away.

Mr. DORE. No, no; I will give you all the time you can afford to let me have.

The CHAIRMAN. And also the committee wishes to accommodate the rest of the people on your side.

Mr. DORE. Yes, sir. You can let me know when you think you have heard enough.

I might say at the outset that our federation is not given to appearing before legislative boards or passing resolutions expressing what we think National or State legislators should do. In fact, the only time we have ever appeared before a legislative committee was two years ago, before the joint committee of the House and Senate on the Federal educational bill. I am here with Mr. John C. Kelly, the vice president of the federation and the president of Villanova Alumni Association, Pennsylvania, at the express wish of the executive committee of the association, first, out of respect to this distinguished committee, which has asked that the views of those who are interested in this bill be expressed, and, secondly, because of the importance of the proposed legislation now before you. Our federation, as a group of alumni associations of college men, has very direct

interest in what we deemed to be a radical departure from the settled principles of our country, with regard to the control of education, and therefore at our convention in Philadelphia we passed a resolution, a copy of which I will submit for filing with the record, which in part said:

RESOLUTION ON THE FEDERAL EDUCATION BILL ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC ALUMNI FEDERATION

Recognizing the inviolable rights of the individual State, we oppose any legislation that would create a department of education, with a secretary as a member of the President's Cabinet.

Such legislation is paternalistic and bureaucratic and can lead only to the undue capitalization of racial and religious prejudices for political purposes. It is opposed to the representative form of government guaranteed by our Constitution. Our Nation is a union of States, not an empire. "In order to form a more perfect union"—of States, is clearly set forth as the first purpose of our Constitution.

We consider the schools to be the proper problem of the States. The State is the political union of families, and the family is the foundation of society. A bureaucratic enactment of the kind proposed would tend to deprive parents of all rights to say how their children should be educated. Next to the home and the church there is nothing so dear to the average individual as the school.

Education is a local function and should be vital, dynamic and progressive. With the growth of such bureaucracy, the schools would become standardized and the authority of local communities and the States weakened as that of the Federal Government increased. With the habit of receiving Federal aid would go the growing power from Washington over courses of study, methods of teaching, training, and certification of teachers.

We are in complete sympathy with all efforts of organized educators to improve the school system.

As, a federation of Catholic alumni we pledge our personal interest and support to use every means within our power to oppose any legislation the purpose of which is any change in the present function of the present Bureau of Education or the creation of a department of education, with a Cabinet officer, to the end that State rights may be preserved and the growth of our educational system assured.

That resolution was passed unanimously and approved again in 1928 by the executive committee of the association. We are opposed to this legislation, first, because we feel it is a departure, not in practice, but far more important, in principle, from the very concept of our American Government. We believe that the control of schools, direct or indirect, is not one of the enumerated rights of the Federal Government. We believe that such legislation, if enacted into law, might well be held unconstitutional, in that it attempts to place in the Federal Government powers which were not enumerated by the Constitution. More important than that, because the interpretation by our Supreme Court of the United States has always been in the light of the historic development and growth of whatever aspect of the country's activities was being passed upon by it. We believe that the background of our country with regard to education, the attitude of the fathers of the Republic with regard to it, and the constant practice with regard to it, is such that this bill would be a total departure from those fundamental American principles.

Everybody admits, even the proponents of this bill, that education is essentially a local thing. When I oppose the proponents of this bill, representing the National Catholic Alumni Federation, I do not impugn to them any motives less noble than our own. I do not questtion their good faith. It is their good judgment that I question. I believe they are quite sincere when they say that this bill, which is a very much attenuated measure in contrast with the first bill proposed, will not lead to Federal control of education. I have read the bill. I must say in passing that in its present form it must be a delight to the eye of legislators. It is so charmingly brief. But it contains the germ of a Federal control of education. It consolidates, even in its initial state, the various Federal bureaus into one, a they under the power of the new department of education. It gives the executive officer of that department the power to recommend systems of improving the educational work of the Federal Government and it creates a Federal conference on education. It suggests that to aid the several States in establishing efficient schools a central educational department which is to be created, and that in financing those schools and in improving the methods of teaching and developing more adequate curricula, research shall be undertaken in about 10 different specific fields, and adds an eleventh, "Such other fields as in the judgment of the secretary, may require attention and study. The CHAIRMAN. The purpose of the research, if you will pardon me, is to bring out the facts with reference to all those items enumerated there, the schools to use the material that is accumulated as the result of this research if they care to, or leave it, as they please. There is nothing compulsory about it. It is just a sort of reservoir of accurate information.

Mr. DORE. Well, there is certainly no objection to the collating of accurate information.

The CHAIRMAN. You wouldn't object to that?

Mr. DORE. Certainly not.

The CHAIRMAN. How do you feel toward the present bureau? Mr. DORE. We feel the present bureau is a sufficient fact-finding agency to collect the facts.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you or your organization, if the Bureau of Education were to have up for consideration a larger appropriation to carry on research work, be inclined to support that appropriation? Mr. DORE. I would not. The Federal Educational Bureau, I believe, has been in existence since about 1867

The CHAIRMAN. Your organization has benefited by that?

Mr. DORE. Certainly. And the expense of running that bureau has undoubtedly increased. I assume that its appropriations have also increased.

The CHAIRMAN. Not very much, unfortunately, because it is a bureau.

Mr. DORE. I would see no objection whatever to increasing the appropriations for that bureau to do the work of that bureau, but this bill goes a good bit further, and you gentlemen know better than I, although as an ordinary citizen I myself have observed it, that a

« AnteriorContinuar »