4. my an, . 4:. {f .E' W"- 1.." V 77.11;; 1.7.1. 97472 '— ..t.?v. ‘. v V .1 .. ._.,:z.r.r......._ .. . 1 :23: . V . I:..1:.....: V. Z. r 2.3:}. V 3??! V V . . . . . . . . : V_-_:;v..n . V . . n V . . _ . 1 . V l e . 2. .rpflur..e..... yawn“. .. . 7.5. . . ‘ y. . ,5. V . V , . . . : ,. , _ {T ,..H . V . . _ , . i}. V ‘ V ,2... 535. .91 s , .. €1.95 .9?f,ev T. «Wflré/w my 1, Lvrurmw...’ y 9.4 1 .r. ’TV\¢UV.P_IV I. I a V. ;V-:.‘.. ... . u . 1‘; r .1... I . r. 1 . :lérri. I» .. .rn: . if V. ‘r1;v.yv_.r 13::va .v... .v‘ . .. C .|.. .vn‘Fv‘r. n7! r. FI‘ 3| .1 .153....vuv.v.€.4rr.;r,..rv.pxu..unflv nutrv r V . :. hp .V. .1: 2.1». t .v... V . TI , , . , . . V . . . V . 4.1; l Alan-Y: .1. , .4. . A V .>Y..Vp..r‘ :IJIVK: flj‘ircfl :2 ..xv...ax. L332... V _.,., ,. v . 71:7: .1!» Warm? V .fiufififi 3% V. 531.12.:..4&.§....u.u.r. In. t... ..:..uu.._<.u.z xnwmmhm?i 19:75:, THESfii This is to certifg that the thesis entitled An Examination of the Views of Senator Wayne Morse on Federal Aid to Higher Education presented by James Richard Davis has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Education Major professor Date November 13, 1969 0-169 ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS OF SENATOR WAYNE MORSE ON FEDERAL AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION By James Richard Davis In recent years Federal aid to higher education has increased in volume and SOOpe at an unprecedented rate through a variety of new, comprehensive programs. A crucial figure in the passage of recent legislation affecting higher education was Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon. From 1961 until his defeat for re—election in 1968 Senator Morse served on the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and as Chairman of its Subcommittee on Education. Senator Morse has been a prominent advocate of programs of federal aid for higher education. The purpose Of this study was to examine his views on that subject. Chapters II through IV provide background for the study and include a brief examination of the history of federal aid to higher education, a description of Morse's experiences as an educator prior to his election to the Senate, and an investigation of Morse's role in the legis- lative process. While each of these tOpics has been James Richard Davis exanfined in some detail, the primary purpose of the study was to set forth the positions which he took and to discover whether there is consistency and coherence in the statements he made. The method of research was descriptive and historical. Although selected secondary sources on federal aid to edu— cation and the legislative process were examined, as well as the one biography of Wayne Morse, the major primary sources were those available in what Congressmen regard as the official legislative history. Primary sources were limited to those official documents, with chief emphasis placed on the Congressional Record. The views of Senator Morse were examined on five crucial issues: 1) National Purpose and the Aims Of Education, 2) Church and State, 3) Academic Freedom and Federal Control, 4) The Democratization of Educational Opportunity, and 5) The Future Shape of Federal Aid to Higher Education. These topics are discussed in Chapters V through IX, which together comprise an exposition of the central themes Of Morse's thought. The following questions were asked repeatedly as Morse's views were examined: 1. Does Senator Morse have a consistent position on Federal aid to higher education? 2. Are the developments and changes in his position minor or radical? 3. Are the accomodations of principle rare or frequent? James Richard Davis A. Is his position coherent, i.e., are his attitudes about certain issues clearly related to his positions on other issues? 5. Does he have a ”liberal“ political position which undergirds his thought? It was discovered that Morse's views on Federal aid to higher education form a consistent and coherent position based on the following fundamental principles underlying his thought: 1) an abiding belief in the value and goodness of the individual, 2) an Optimistic faith in the perfecti— bility of society, 3) a firm trust in reason operating in an atmosphere of freedom, and H) devotion to the principles of constitutional government. Except for minor changes, the positions Morse took were predictable expressions of a liberal political philosophy. There is evidence that Morse's ideas grew naturally out of his own academic background, were a conscious expression of an intellectual tradition of political liberalism, and were often the result of the social context in which he spoke. In the larger context of the history of ideas, Morse's thoughts on higher education function not as an original philOSOphy of education, but as practical, rational tools which serve the legislative process primarily by blasting away obstructions with the dynamite of facts and ideas. Scholars doing research on the relationship of the Federal Government and higher education may wish to pursue further the question raised at the end of the study: Are James Richard Davis the main tenets of liberal political philosophy an adequate base upon which future programs of Federal aid to higher education can be built? AN EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS OF SENATOR WAYNE MORSE ON FEDERAL AID TO' HIGHER EDUCATION By James Richard Davis A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1969 t C 0V72i2’ PLEASE NOTE: Not original copy. Some-pages have very light type. Filmed as received. University Microfilms DEDICATION To Dr. Rembert Stokes, President Wilberforce University Wilberforce, Ohio who appointed me to my first administrative assignment in higher education, who entrusted large tasks to my tender years, who encouraged my efforts to Obtain Federal support for programs at Wilberforce University, and who introduced me to Senator Wayne Morse. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the thoughtful criticism and patient guidance of the Chairman of my Doctoral Committee, Dr. Edward Blackman. I am also indebted to the other members of the Committee, Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. Vandel Johnson, and Dr. Harry Kimber. I wish to thank the personnel of the Public Documents sections of the Michigan State University Library and the Yale University Library for their assistance in locating source materials. Mrs. Edward Blackman was of great assist— ance in proof—reading and supervising the printing and distribution of materials during my absence from East Lansing. During the period of study which made possible this research I was partially supported by a Fellowship from the Southern Fellowship Fund and a loan from Wilberforce Uni— versity. Wilberforce, Ohio. In addition to the usual patient support and encourage— ment which a good Wife may be counted upon to give, Nancilee Davis contributed her special talents to locating cource material in the Index to the Congressional Record and to proof—reading of drafts of the text. New Haven, Connecticut November 21, 1969 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . PART I. METHODOLOGY AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT Chapter I. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY. . . . . II. THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT . PART II. MORSE AS EDUCATOR AND LEGISLATOR III. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION. IV. THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS PART III. MORSE AS ADVOCATE OF FEDERAL AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION V. NATIONAL PURPOSE AND THE AIMS OF EDUCATION. VI. CHURCH AND STATE VII. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND FEDERAL CONTROL. VIII. DEMOCRATIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IX. THE FUTURE SHAPE OF FEDERAL AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION iv Page ii 11 2O 32 50 7A 89 110 132 Chapter Page PART IV. CONCLUSIONS X. REVIEW OF MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS . . 141 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 PART I METHODOLOGY AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT CHAPTER I PURPOSE, SCOPE AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY The Context Federal aid to higher education has existed in various forms since the beginning of the Republic. The pattern of aid has varied throughout the years and has consisted mainly of a variety of uncoordinated programs. In recent years, however, Federal aid to higher education has increased in volume and scope at an unprecedented rate through a variety of new, comprehensive programs. Beginning with the GI Bill of Rights in 19AM, Congress established a host of new programs, including among others the 1950 Housing Act, the establishment of the National Science Foundation in 1952, and The National Defense Education Act of 1958. The most significant breakthroughs for higher education came with the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the Higher Education Amendments of 1966 and 1968. A crucial figure in the passage of all this legis— lation was Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon. Senator Morse served as a member of the Senate Committee on Labor and and Public Welfare and as Chairman of its Subcommittee on Education, through which all important education legislation passes. Senator Morse functioned as a skilled politician in guiding this major legislation through the intricate processes by which a bill becomes law, an idea becomes a functioning program. Even more important, perhaps, Senator Morse has been an articulate spokesman for the interests of the academic community. Purpose of The Study The purpose of this study was to examine Wayne Morse's articulation of the crucial issues involved in Federal aid to higher education. The study can best be defined, perhaps, by stating first what it does not include. The research was not primarily an examination of the history of Federal aid to higher education. That history is an interesting topic for research, but it would involve the study of the efforts of several men over a long period of time. Although Wayne Morse has played a prominent role in the history of Federal aid to education, viewing that history by focussing on the work Of a single Senator would necessarily involve distortions. The history of Federal aid to education is examined briefly in this study, but only as the context in which Senator Morse worked out his ideas about Federal aid. Secondly, the study is not primarily biographical, i.e., it does not attempt to trace the relationship of Morse's thought to specific experiences and events in his educational career. Morse's experience as an educator prior to coming to the Senate has been examined and has been found to have had a general impact on his career in the Senate, but it is difficult to trace the specific gen- esis of his ideas about education without engaging in speculation. Thirdly, this study does not attempt to focus pri— marily on Morse's role in the legislative process. The political environment through which a bill passes from the time it is first conceived until the time it becomes law is extremely complex. The specific contributions of a particular legislator, even one so prominent as Senator Morse, are nearly impossible to unravel from the compli- cated network of decisions which produce legislation. Many of the important decisions are made behind the scenes, even before a bill reaches a committee. The information needed to credit a particular Senator with having created a specific policy is simply not available or is available only in fragments to those intimately involved in the process. Although the examination of the history of Federal aid to education, Morse's experiences as educator, and his role in the legislative process hold forth interesting pos— sibilities for research, each is problematic and invites Speculation and undocumented conclusions. While each of these topics has some bearing on this research and has been examined in some detail, the major focus of the study lies elsewhere. The primary purpose of the study is to set forth the positions Wayne Morse has taken with regard to Federal aid to higher education and to discover whether there is con— sistency, coherence, and integration in the statements he made. Specifically, research was undertaken on Morse's position on the issues listed under Part III of the outline below. The investigation is a study of ideas and as such focuses primarily on the content and internal relation— ships of concepts. Justification of The Study The primary task of the historian of ideas is to re— count accurately the central concepts of an individual's thought. The task of condensing and bringing together the diverse utterances of an individual in order to discover the degree of consistency, coherence, and integrity in that man's thought is a justifiable act of scholarship in itself. When that thought emanates from one who is per— haps the most articulate contemporary spokesman for Federal aid to higher education, the study takes on added relevance. Those who favor or oppose such aid will find in the thought 9f Wayne Morse a lucid exposition of the issues. An underlying assumption of the study is that men who sePve in political life are not simply motivated by political pressures and considerations of power. At the same time that they struggle to balance the con— flicting political pressures which impinge on their daily lives, they are engaged in a struggle to explain, to rationalize, and to account for their activity. At that point, ideas become a significant factor in the political process and a man of superior intellectual skills enjoys a certain advantage. Methods, Procedures, and Sources The method of research was descriptive and histor— ical. Although selected secondary sources on Federal aid to education and the legislative process have been examined, as well as the one biography of Wayne Morse, the major primary sources were those available in what Congressmen regard as the official legislative history. That literature includes the Congressional Record, the recorded transcripts of committee hearings, and the official committee reports. Primary sources were limited to those official documents, with chief emphasis placed on the Congressional Record. Committee reports are help— ful in understanding the thought of the committee, but do not necessarily reflect the views of the chairman. The transcripts of committee hearings are helpful in some instances, but in most cases Morse's role as chairman prevented his making major speeches or expressing per— sonal opinions during hearings. It should be noted that the entries in the Congres- sional Record include all remarks made by Wayne Morse on the Senate floor as well as anything which Senator Morse entered in the Record, such as speeches he made, articles he and others wrote, correspondence——anything which Sen— ator Morse deemed relevant to consideration of the issues at hand in the Senate. In Senator Morse's case that material is extensive, as indicated by the fact that cer— tain Senators once inquired publicly about Senator Morse's possible abuse of the Congressional Record by his volum— inous entries. The relevant sources were examined and Morse's position on Federal aid to higher education was reconstructed around selected topics. Issues Examined In historical research, a full elaboration of hypotheses is not always possible at the outset, as is often customary in other types of research. The histor— ian formulates initial ideas about issues to be explored while remaining open to the examination of additional issues which may emerge naturally from the primary sources. Indeed, one unique characteristic of historical research is that hypotheses are formed concurrently with the actual examination of sources. Eventually certain issues emerge, and particular questions recur again and again. The following questions were raised frequently as the sources were examined: 1. Does Senator Morse have a consistent position on Federal aid to education, one which is reliable from time to time and place to place, a view which becomes predictable? 2. Are the developments and changes in Sen— ator Morse's position minor or radical, and are they an elaboration of more fundamental principles or a response to external events and pressures? 3. Are the accommodations which require an eclipse of principles rare or frequent? How are they rationalized and explained? A. Is Senator Morse's position coherent, i.e., are his attitudes about certain issues clearly related to other issues so that no issue is treated in isolation from all others? 5. Does Senator Morse have a ”liberal” polit— ical position which undergirds his thought about Federal aid to education? Does that ”liberal” position include predictable attitudes about academic freedom, national— ism, church and state relations, civil rights and the disadvantaged? Design The design of the study is as follows: Part I. Methodology and Historical Context Chapter 1. Purpose, Scope and Justification of the Study The Context. Purpose of the study. Justification of the study. Methods, procedures and sources. Issues examined. Design. Chapter 2. The Historical Context Historical summary of Federal aid to higher education. Major legis— lation with which Morse was associated. Part II. Morse as Educator and Legislator Chapter 3, Biographical Information A. Robert Smith's Tiger in the Senate. Morse's educational baCkground. Morse's career as educator prior to entering the Senate. Morse's political career. Chapter A. The Legislative Process Summary of the legislative process based on Eidenberg and Morey, An Act of Congress: The Legislative PrOcess and the Mgking of Educational POlicy. The role of MorseIin the legislative process. Part III. Morse as Advocate of Federal Aid to Higher Education Chapter 5. National Purpose and the Aims of Education Education and national defense. Education and national resources. Economic benefits of education. Full development of human potential. Inter— national education. Domestic priorities and the Vietnam War. Chapter 6. Church and State The Constitutional issue. Loans to church—related colleges. Categorical use grants. Exclusion provisions. Judicial review. Chapter 7. Academic Freedom and Federal Control The fear of Federal control, Legis— lated safeguards against Federal control. Loyalty oaths. Student protests. Academic freedom in government—sponsored research. 0) Chapter Democratization of Educational Opportunity Expanding enrollments and facilities. Student aid. The C—student. Broadening the scope of subjects studied. The disadvantaged student. The Teachers Corps. \O The Future Shape of Federal Aid to Higher Education Consolidation and codification. Review and supervision. Relationships of executive and legislative branches of 1 Chapter ' 10 government. More equitable distribu— tion of Federal aid. Reordering of basic priorities. Unanswered questions. Part IV. COnclusions Chapter 10. Review of Major Issues and Conclusions Consistency and cOherence. The role of ideas in shaping history. An academic man in the Senate. Political liberalism. The rationale for legis— lation. The adequacy of liberalism. The goodness of the individual. The perfectibility of society. The efficacy of human reason. Constitu— tional government. CHAPTER II THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT On October 2, 1968, Senator Mike Mansfield, major— ity leader of the Senate, rose to pay tribute to his colleague, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon: Mr. President, as majority leader it has been my privilege and my pleasure in connection with the passage of major legislation, to commend to the Senate the man whose work results in laws for the benefit of the public. Rarely have I spoken with more seriousness and with such a deep conviction than upon those occasions that I have commended the senior Senator from Oregon (Mr. Morse) for his work on educational statutes. Senator Mansfield then reminded that Senate of another tribute which he had paid Senator Morse in 1965 during which he said of Senator Morse: He is a man who if any Member of this body is entitled to the name, could well be called "Mr. Education." Mansfield then listed ten major laws affecting education for which Senator Morse had had direct responsibility during his tenure as Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Education.1 The presence of Senator Morse in the Senate coin— cides with a period of legislative activity in Congress now widely hailed as a ”breakthrough" in Federal aid to education. Between 1963 and 1968 more Federal aid legis— 11 12 lation was passed than in the preceding 100 years.2 Sen— ator Wayne Morse, more than any other single figure in the Federal Government, was responsible for that dramatic increase in Federal aid to education. The Federal aid to education legislation which was passed after 1963, though it represents a vast increase in the scope and level of Federal support, is not with— out historical precedent. Contrary to popular misinfor- mation, there is, in fact, a long tradition of Federal aid to education in the United States. Although it is not the intent of this study to trace the history of Federal aid to education, it is useful to examine the historical context out of which the efforts of Senator Morse grew. The first "Federal aid" occurred before the Ameri— can Revolution when the Congress of Confederation passed the Survey Ordinance of 1785, which provided for the dis— posal of public lands in the Western Territory and reserved one section of every township for the endow— ment of schools within that township.3 For many years, Federal aid to higher education followed that plan, i.e., the granting of land. In 1787 a contract between the government and the Ohio Company provided for two town— ships of land to be set aside for the development of a university. While the provision was included more to encourage the sale of land than to encourage education, 13 a precedent was set, out of which grew further provisions for land-grants for universities in the sale of public lands. Ohio University and Miami University were the first institutions to be so established and eventually all states had universities resulting from the sale of public lands, with the exception of Texas, Maine, and West Virginia, where the Federal government never owned public lands.u Following in this tradition, the Morrill Act of 1862 provided for land—grants, which could be sold for endowment for specialized institutions providing instruction in agriculture and mechanic arts.5 During the great depression Of the 1930's a sub- stantial program of Federal aid to students was developed. Although it is seldom mentioned today, the Federal govern- ment spent over $93 million on the higher education of 620,000 students between 1935 and 1943 through the National Youth Administration.6 Better known is the G.I. Bill, formally the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 19uA.7 Federal aid for university research goes back to the Hatch Act of 1887, which provided for agricultural experiment stations.8 By 1950 more than a dozen agencies were spending over $150 million a year for contract research at American colleges and universities.9 IIII.IIlIII-IIIIIIIIIIlIII:—__________________________T_I__'——r7IIIIIIII7' 1A The Federal government has also supported various specialized institutions and programs of direct interest to the government. Although a National University has never been established, the government supports directly the military service academies, Galludet College for the deaf, and Howard University. Similarly, the government has used the facilities of various colleges and univer— sities for the in—service training of its employees.10 For the most part, programs of Federal support have developed piecemeal, without overall coherence, and have often been the result of national crises, particularly the pressures of war. There is no central Ministry of Education in the United States, and consequently no national plan for Federal support of higher education. In spite of the existence of substantial programs of Federal aid at various points in our national history, the popular mythology holds that Federal aid is gener— ally bad, that it leads to Federal control, and that it ought not be extended to institutions related to a church. Extensive programs of Federal aid for higher education have been slow in developing, therefore, and it is only in recent times that a major breakthrough has been pos- sible. That breakthrough is due, at least in part, to the expert articulation of the major issues by Senator Wayne Morse. 15 Senator Morse voted for, and had a minor role in, the passage of some education legislation before the period of major breakthrough. He supported the Service— men's Readjustment Act in 19AM, the establishment of the National Science Foundation in 1950, and the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Senator Morse's greater contribution was in the passage of each of the following: The Morse—Green Higher Education Facilities Act, Public Law 88—2OA, 1963. Provides for a three—year program of $1.1 billion for loans and grants to colleges, community colleges, and universities to finance construction of academic and related facil— ities. The Morse—Dent Act, Public Law 88—269, 196A. Extends the Library Services Act to urban libraries and provides $A5 million for construction of library buildings. The Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89—329. Provides funds to extend the community services of colleges and universities, establishes a National Teachers Corps, aids developing insti— tutions, and establishes scholarships for especially needy students. The International Education Act of 1966, Public Law 89—689. Authorizes a five—year program to estab— lish and strengthen foreign language and area study centers. The Higher Education Amendments of 1966, Public Law 89-752. Extends the Higher Education Facil— ities Act of 1963 and provides loans for under— graduate and graduate students. The Higher Education Amendments of 1968, Public Law 90—575. Extends and co—ordinates existing pro— grams.1 In addition to the above legislation affecting higher edu— cation, Morse was instrumental in the passage of several bills affecting elementary and secondary education, par- l6 ticularly the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and its Amendments of 1966 and 1967. The monetary impact of all this legislation, and the resultant human welfare it produced, was enormous. In 1968 the Director of the Budget and Manpower Division of the Office of Education reported $3.9 million avail— able for fiscal 1968 under Office of Education programs, an amount almost 13 times the level of support 10 years before.12 In fiscal 1969 the Office of Education listed its programs under four groups by type of assistance. Ten programs were listed for construction, 62 programs for programs, instruction, and administration, 31 pro— grams for teacher and other professional training and student assistance, and 15 programs for research.13 In addition, a wide variety Of programs was funded through the Departments of Defense, Labor, Agriculture, and Interior. Several specialized agencies, such as The Agency for International Development, The National Aero— nautics and Space Administration, and The National Science Foundation, carry on extensive educational programs sup— ported by Federal funds. The establishment of so many new programs of proven worth in the span of so few years represents a major leg— islative achievement. That achievement was in part polit— ical, i.e., it was the result of tireless effort to weld competing pressure groups into a unified bloc capable of l7 exploiting a national mood favorable to education. The achievement was also ideological and was the result of extensive efforts to articulate, justify, and rational— ize the need for Federal aid to education. To that extent the task was intellectual. It is appropriate that at the proper moment, an academic man came to a position of leadership in the Senate in the person of Wayne Morse. FOOTNOTES — CHAPTER II 1U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Mansfield paying tribute to Senator Morse, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 2, 1968, Congressional Record, CXIV, 11871. 2U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Education Amendments Of 1966, Hearings, before The Subcommittee on Education of The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 3047, H.R. 1N6AA, 89th Cong., 2nd. sess., 1966, p. 188. 3Congressional Quarterly Service, Federal Role in Education (Washington: The Congressional Quarterly, 1967), p. 16. “Frederick Rudolph, The American College and Univer— city, A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965) p. 276. 5John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Educa— tion in Transition (New York: Harper & Row, 1958), p. 225. 6Ibid., p. 228. 7Ibid. 8Frederick Rudolph, American College, p. 261. ..____.._s)_ 9John S. Brubacher and Willis Rudy, Higher Education, p. 228. lOIbid., p. 229. llU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Mansfield paying tribute to Senator Morse, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 2, 1958, Congressional Record, CXIV, 11871. 12U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse entering article by Joe G. Keen, ”Federal Funds: State Allot— ments for Funded Programs, Fiscal Year 1968,” 90th Cong., 2nd sess., April 29, 1968, Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 3AA6. (Daily Edition.) l3"Federal Money for Education: Programs Adminis- tsred by the U.S. Office of Education,” American Educa— Elaa, Feb. 1969, pp. 20—24. ‘_'““__ ““““‘ 18 PART II MORSE AS EDUCATOR AND LEGISLATOR 19 CHAPTER III BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Although the primary concern of this study is not biographical, some biographical information relating to the academic career of Wayne Morse is helpful in under— standing the ideas about higher education which he was later to develop in the Senate. It would be inadvisable to attempt to trace particular concepts to their origin in specific, formative life experiences, for there is seldom a direct cause-and—effect relationship between adult ideas and childhood experiences. Mature ideas emerge gradually from the crucible of life in which cru— cial experiences, academic training, and personal reac— tion to both become so intermixed as to frustrate all attempts to sort out the origin of a specific concept. Nevertheless, acquaintance with the academic career of Wayne Morse prior to his election to the Senate contrib— utes to an appreciation of the way his ideas about higher education have been influenced generally by his educational background. Apart from the bits of public biographical informa— tion scattered about in newspapers and magazines, there is aVailable only one source of collected biographical data 20 21 on Wayne Morse: The Tiger in The Senate by A. Robert Smith. That book attempts to cover the entire career of Wayne Morse up to 1962, the date of its publication. Unfortunately the book has no footnotes and its sources of information are undocumented. Furthermore, the author attempts to make judgments about Morse‘s personal motives and tries to judge the balance of good and evil in Morse’s public and personal life. The arrangement of the material is popical, not chronological, and the net result is a disorganized and ponderous volume. The author's peculiar alternation of fact and personal judgment casts doubt on the overall authenticity of the biography. Morse himself was very displeased with the book and interrupted a Senate debate to notify his colleagues that he had issued a press release about The Tiger in The Senate. In that statement Morse said, This character assasination book is full of untruths, half—truths, out—of—context distortions, and oft~repeated Republican misrepresentations. Its author is the Washington correspondent of sev— eral anti—Morse newspapers in Oregon. The fact that the book's publishers did not submit the manuscript to me in advance of publication so that I could have pointed out to them its misstatements and slanted journalism is indication of the political purposes of vthe book.1 Th (‘D exchange which followed between Senator Morse and Sena— tor Humphrey is delightful: Mr. HUMPHREY. There are times when the distinguished Senator from Oregon is ready to "mix it up" in the Senate, but none of us would care to meet him head on. I think the title of the book is appropriate, IIIIIII:—___________________________________________________’_—T—IIIIII'IIIIIII 22 but what the text or the context of the book is I am uncertain. However, if there is any man who has the strength, the vitality, the courage, and the astuteness of the tiger, it is the senior Sen— ator from Oregon. Mr. MORSE. May I say good naturedly that it was not my purpose to have Senators make the book a bestseller. However appropriate the title, Morse's one biography lacks objectivity and invites controversy which by its very nature will never be resolved. The book does contain the essential facts concerning Morse's educational experiences, ‘ however, and is a sufficient source for sketching his aca— ‘ demic career. V Wayne Morse was the second child of Wilbur and Jessie White Morse. Wayne‘s grandfather came from Pennsylvania in 1848 and settled a homestead ten miles west of Madison, Wisconsin.3 Wayne's father grew up on that farm, his for— mal education ending with high school. Wayne's mother went to Downer College at Milwaukee before marrying Wilbur at eighteen.“ Wayne's father had been an amateur boxer, and he taught Wayne that a man must stand up for his rights. His mother was a church organist and taught Wayne the im— portance of firm convictions.5 It is not surprising that such parents produced a man dedicated to fighting for high principles. Wayne had an older sister, Mabel, twin brothers, Grant and Harry, and a younger sister, Caryl, with whom he has had a close relationship. Except for Caryl, whose husband 23 is a professor, Wayne was the only child to be intimately involved with the academic world. Wayne's parents understood and stressed the impor— tance of education. Finding the one—room schoolhouse near the farm inadequate, Wayne's mother sent her children to Madison schools, a distance of ten miles each way, which Wayne traveled on horseback every day.6 The Longfellow Grade School in Madison was an interesting mixture of Negroes, Italians, Greeks, and Jews. Through the efforts of a creative teacher who capitalized on this rich ethnic mixture, Wayne became acquainted with foreigners through his schoolmates.7 An abiding interest in foreign affairs and a broad—minded internationalism may have begun in the Madison schools. Wayne was a good but not outstanding student in high school. Mildred Downie, affectionately known as Midge, who was later to become his wife, surpassed him in schol— arship; she was the class valedictorian.8 Morse went to the University of Wisconsin, where he maJOred in philosophy and established a reputation as an orator and political activist.9 He earned a Master's Degree in Speech at Wisconsin, where he concurrently completed 27 credits in law.10 He then went to the University of Min— nesota where he earned a law degree with a B average. He tauSht argumentation full—time at the University of Min— nesota, coached the debate team, and taught a course at a 2A Catholic Seminary in nearby St. Paul.11 Midge supplemented the family income by teaching home economics.12 A $1,500 scholarship lured Morse to Columbia, where he studied under John Dewey and Raymond Moley and earned a Doctor of Juris— prudence degree.l3 Wayne Morse learned first—hand the im— portance of financial assistance to students pursuing high— er education. From Columbia Morse went directly to the University of Oregon, where he became an assistant professor of law in l929.ll‘l The struggling law school at Eugene had only six teachers and occupied the top floor of one building when he arrived.15 In two years the Dean left for the University of Southern California, and at age 30 Wayne Morse became one of the country's youngest law school 16 deans. He experienced directly the struggles of a small, developing institution. Wayne Morse was a textbook lawyer, a scholar of the law, not a practitioner. He is an expert in labor law, but his teaching specialties at the University were criminal law and legislation.17 He contributed regularly to the Oregon Law Review and other journals—-twentv articles and 18 twenty—four book reviews in all. From his experiences as teacher—scholar he learned to understand the peculiar world of the academic man, his need for freedom to pursue abstract matters in an atmosphere conducive to the pursuit Of truth. 25 No sooner had Morse become Dean than he became in— volved in a conflict over the relationship of Oregon State at Corvallis with the University of Oregon at Eugene. The former President of Oregon State, William Jasper Kerr, then State Chancellor of Higher Education, made overtures to consolidate the two schools. When the governor's new ap— pointee as head of the State Board of Higher Education, Roscoe C. Nelson, made speeches criticizing the University of Oregon and the small group there sabotaging the Chan— cellor's efforts, Wayne Morse took the podium at an Alumni Homecoming affair and demanded Nelson's resignation for creating a crisis and challenging basic principles of aca— demic freedom. Kerr, who happened to be present, fled the hall amid thunderous applause, and two days later Nelson resigned. It was not the last time that Morse was to speak on behalf of academic freedom in the university.19 However much he loved the academic world, Wayne Morse was also a man of practical affairs. In 1934 he helped draft a crime survey of Oregon. In 1936 he served as Spe— cial Assistant to the Attorney General in Washington to complete work on a five volume national survey of prison release procedures.2O On leave of absence from his aca— demic duties, he served on the War Labor Board where his scholarship found fulfillment through application to prac- tical problems. 26 These early educational experiences gave Wayne Morse an academic background which only a few men have been priv- ileged to bring to the Senate. From these early formative experiences Morse learned the importance of education in developing human potential, the success of cultural and ethnic interaction in producing educational benefits, the need to develop the average as well as the outstanding stu—. dent, the crucial impact of adequate financial assistance for students, the significance of strengthening smaller institutions, the necessity of respecting the integrity of scholars and providing for their academic freedom, and the significance of applying trained intelligence to the prac— tical affairs of daily life. These and other interests appear again and again as motifs in the elaborate pattern of Morse's concern for higher education, which emerges from the halls of the Senate. In 1944, fresh from his experiences on the War Labor Board while on leave from the University of Oregon, Wayne Morse ran for the Senate as a Republican against a weak Democratic candidate, Rufus Holman. Morse's liberal views were not displayed in that initial election, and he won on a conservative stance which repudiated the New Deal.21 He was re-elected on the Republican ticket in 1950.22 In 1951 Harry Truman offered him the Cabinet post of Attorney Gen— eral, but with five years left in Morse's Senate term and only one year left in Truman's Presidential term, accep— 27 tance of the offer involved too great a risk to his polit— ical career. Ten months later in the midst of the EisenhOWer—Stevenson presidential campaign, he left the Republican Party and became an Independent.23 Smith re— ports in his biography of Morse: As a result of the 1954 elections, the Senate was so evenly divided between Republicans and Demo— crats that the Independent Senator acquired the momentary power to decide which party should take control of the Senate, elect the committee chair— men, and hold a majority of seats on each commit— tee. By siding with the Democrats, Wayne Morse gave Lyndon B. Johnson the chance to become the Sen— ate's majority leader for the first time. John— son, in turn, give Morse the grand prize which Taft had always withhfild, a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee.2 Morse not only obtained a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee; he regained his seat on the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Morse became Chairman of its influ- ential Subcommittee on Education in 1961. On February 17, 1955, Senator Wayne Morse became a Democrat.25 Re—elected in 1956 as a Democrat he became an official, but unsuccessful, presidential contender in 1960.26 Seeking a way to rebound from temporary politi— cal doldrums, Morse was delighted to accept President Eisenhower's appointment as United States delegate to the fall session of the United Nations General Assembly.27 He We Pe—elected in 1962 and during that final term made some Of his most important legislative contributions. Senator Morse was defeated by the narrow margin of 3,500 votes by 28 Robert Lockwood in the 1968 race for re—election.28 At 68 years of age and after 24 years in the Senate, his career in the United States Congress had come to a close. Senator Morse was a liberal Democrat. Even as a Republican his principles were consonant with those of the typical liberal Democrat. He enjoyed the label and often shamed his colleagues for their "half—a—loaf" or "phony" liberalism.29 He frequently invoked the ”general welfare" clause of the Constitution in support of broad programs of public welfare.30 He stood for the ”advance- ment of the public good in the progressive LaFollette tradition."3l As Smith says in Tigea in The Senate, "Wayne Morse, the legendary fighter, is Everyman's Senator, fighting Everyman's battles.”32 If Senator Morse was a liberal Democrat in polit— ical matters, on issues affecting education he was, first and foremost, an academician. In the Senate he spoke frequently of his service on college student loan com— mittees, or his participation on student disciplinary committees. He often began his remarks with the phrase "as a former teacher." He referred to himself as a "student" of Constitutional law, and he often referred to the hearings of the Education Subcommittee as a "seminar." When his remarks ran overtime, he often aD01Ogized for "lecturing.” For academic men in count— 29 less colleges and universities across the land, he became the articulate Senator—professor, the Senate's chief advocate of broad Federal support for higher education. FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER III lU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse critic— izing his Biography, Tiger lg The Senate, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., May 7, 1962, Congressional Record, 108, 7874. 2Ibid. 3A. Robert Smith, The Tiger la The Senate (Gar- den City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1962), p.22. u;pgg., p. 23- 5;p;g., p. 72. 6w” p. 75. 7;p;g., p. 86. 8;p;g., p. 166. 9;p;g., p. 23. lo;p;g., p. 232. llgpig., p. 232. 12gp;g., p. 167. l3;p;g., p. 24. l4l§ig' l5;p;g., p. 75. l5;p;g., p. 76. l7;p;g., p. 235. 18ipig., p. 233. 1911.49, pp. 38-40. 20;g;g., p. 24. 1 21Ibid., p. 10a 1 30 2212s., 231219, “flu 251129. 262101., 27%., 28Ian E. p. 123. p- 133- p. 124. p. 219. p. 258. p. 416. McNett, 31 "Wayne Morse Defeat Called 'Griev- ous Loss' to Education," The Chronicle 93 Higher Educa— tion, Nov. 25, 1968, pp. 1-2. 29A. Robert Smith, 92. cit., p. 106. i i 301bid., 311bid., ‘ _ 32Ibid., p. p. p. 236. 21. 20. CHAPTER IV THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Although it is not the primary intent of this study to recount the activities of Wayne Morse within the legis— lative process, some understanding of that process and the role of Senator Morse in it is necessary to appreciate fully the significance of what he thought about Federal aid to higher education. Woodrow Wilson, another great scholar-statesman, once wrote: Nobody stands sponsor for the policies of govern— ment. A dozen men originate it; a dozen compro- mises twist and alter it; a dozen offices whose names are scarcely known outside of Washington put it into effect . . . (Legislation) is an aggr- _ gate, not a simple production. It is impossible to tell how many persons, opinionsi and influences have entered into its composition. It Would be futile, therefore, to attempt to document the influence of a single senator. Although the impact of a man's career in a specific area may well be assessed as significant——as is surely the case with Wayne Morse in the area of aid to higher education-—it would be foolish to cPedit a single senator with an entire bill or even a spe— cific provision contained in it. The problem of collecting Such evidence is inherent in the complexity of the legis— lative process. 32 33 Much has been written about the legislative process. In addition to the general textbooks used in courses in American Government, there is a vast literature on speci— fic aspects of the process and particular pieces of leg— islation. For those interested in education the most help— ful source is a very recent book entitled An Act of Con— ggess: The Legislative Process and the Making of Education Policy. The authors, Eugene Eidenberg and Roy D. Morey, examined in detail the legislative process which produced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.2 The brief description of the legislative process which follows is based on their work. Decisions about proposed legislation are made in both the external political world and in the internal environ— ment of Congress. Since most kinds of federal aid to edu— cation are highly controversial, there are many lobbies and pressure groups both for and against such legislation. The external world which impinges on Congress when issues affecting education are at stake includes a host of organ— izations. Those generally opposed to federal aid include among others the following: The United States Chamber of COmmerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Southern States Industrial Council, the National Economic Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Conference of State Taxpayers Association, and the Daugh— tEPS of the American Revolution.3 When the Church—State F_——’ 34 issue is involved, as it almost always is, additional oppo— ' sition can be expected from the following: Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Council of Churches of Christ, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the American Jewish Congress, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the American Civil Liberties Union.L1 The last two are strange compan— ions and underscore the fact that opposition is often for very different reasons. The National Education Associa— tion has led the fight for Federal aid to education and is one of the twenty-five largest spenders among registered lobbyists, well ahead of the American Medical Association.5 Other groups favoring federal aid include among others the following: The AFL—CIO and its American Federation of Teachers, the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, the National Farmer's Union, the American Association of University Professors, the American Association of Univer— sity Women, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Americans for Democratic Action, and the American Library Association.6 Where aid to some aspect of higher educa— tion is the issue various professional associations, such as the American Council on Education and the Association Of Amerfiican Colleges, exert pressure along with countless individual colleges and universities. The external environment includes not only elite pressure groups but the Congressman's constituency. Most 35 Congressmen feel that only a few issues can affect their chances of re-election, and education is not usually regarded as a constituency issue.7 Nevertheless, the continual bombardment of communications from home helps shape a Congressman's attitudes. The local and national press is also a factor, but its editorializing is less important than its selection, timing and presentation of the issues.8 Although Senator Morse has a reputation for inde— pendence of action, his opinions were formulated through intense dialogue with relevant interest groups and con— stituents. The Congressional Record is filled with speeches, reports, monographs, and telegrams from impor— tant professional organizations, nationally—known edu- cators, and officers of Oregon colleges and universities. He received frequent communications from state colleges in Oregon as well as private colleges such as Reed and Wilamette. Morse played an important role in bringing the competing interests of these various pressure groups into a workable unity. When a representative of the community colleges suggested that special bills with provisions solely for community colleges were needed, Morse retorted: If one were to ask me to name the one major reason why we have been able in recent years to have this breakthrough in education legislation quantitatively and qualitatively . . . I would 36 tell you that it is because at long last the educational segment of our country moved for— ward as a united body in support of all the various pieces of education legislation. Before that the elementary—secondary school people through their national associations were not enthusiastic in supporting higher education legislation. The higher education people were not enthusiastic in supporting elementary and secondary education. There was a split involving the vocational people. There was a split between public and private school people. The result was, as I said to them, at many of their meetings, that they themselves were more responsible then any other force for not getting legislation passed.9 The internal legislative environment, i.e., the dynamic structures within Congress itself, is influenced, first of all, by the general political climate. Congress may be controlled by Democrats or Republicans, by a nar— row or a large margin, with or without similar control of the administration. For example, the elections of 1964 gave a large margin of control to the Democrats at the expense of Republicans opposed to Federal aid and provided an overall climate favorable to new education legislation.lo Party control, in turn, determines com— mittee composition and chairmanship as well as overall party leadership. In addition to this formal internal structure, informal groups develop, such as the Demo— cratic Study Group, formed in 1959 by a group of North— ern and Western Democrats to stimulate liberal legis- lation.ll Beyond these formal and informal divisions along party lines, political and regional divisions Within the parties take on significance. 37 Morse was a master of the internal legislative environment. He knew the various sub—divisions within Congress, and he knew where to go for support at the right time. He knew how to cast legislation so that it would receive the votes needed for passage; he knew what would not be supported. Seldom was he defeated on a major issue. 'This was not always true, of course, espe— cially in the early days of his Senate career. His early efforts to engage the Federal government in compre— hensive educational planning were soundly rejected. In 1958 he attempted to add a provision to the National Defense Education Bill which would authorize direct institutional grants of $500 per student per year for each student recipient of National Defense Scholarships. Not only was that provision defeated 69 to 20, but the entire scholarship provision was dropped by the House as well.12 Morse soon learned to weigh the chances of passage against his hopes for eventual Federal support of education on a major scale. This was especially true when Morse guided through the Senate the Kennedy and Johnson education legislation. Again and again, Morse I‘equested that amendments not be added from the floor, that the proposed legislation be passed intact, so that at least some important laws affecting education would be passed. Morse extended that same restriction to him— \ self, and often fought for the passage of some bills, 38 knowing they were inadequate, yet foregoing amendments so that some legislation would be passed. Speaking on behalf of categorical grants to church—related institu— tions during the debate on the Higher Education Facil— ities Bill, Morse remarked: American public opinion at present is not ready to accept the proposal for a general grant bill I am a strong believer in making progress in keeping with principle. Known primarily as an idealist and a man of principle, Morse was equally the cool pragmatist skilled in calcu— lating progress in small steps. In short, he was a mas— ter of the art of the possible. The internal legislative environment stretches beyond Capitol Hill to the White House. Most legis— lation is proposed by the Administration, through a Presidential message, request, or bill. Although all legislation must be introduced by Congressmen, legis— lators often serve as sponsors of a bill fully worked out by members of an administrative task force.lu Con— gress may accept, reject or modify the administration's prOposal-—Congress passes less than one—half of such bills—-but the initial provisions of a bill may come from the administration.15 Some of the most important deci— sions about the provisions of a bill——are thus focused at the White House. Senator Morse was conversant with the President whom he served, and except for President Eisenhower, with whom 39 relations were less cordial, he responded well to Presi- dential leadership in initiating education legislation. He served as sponsor to bills for President Kennedy and President Johnson and often fought for the passage of their legislation without introducing his personal pre— dilections. At times Presidents called him to the White House for advice. The following anecdote was revealed during Hearings on library legislation before the Education Subcommittee: I do not know whether all the people in the library world know what the first bill was that was passed by the Congress back in 1963 that caused the breakthrough in this whole matter of Federal education legislation . . . President Kennedy called me down to the White House for a briefing on the legislative situation. This happened to be just 10 days before his assassin— ation, to give you the time factor. We had worked hard during the year to get the legisla— tion through committee. Presidents always call you down for such brief— ings to decide where the legislation will be taken up, where the amendments are going to come from, what the areas of opposition are, so that they, at the executive level, can do their legislative work, too. We all know this is done, and pro— perly so. President Kennedy said to me, ”Which bill do you think you ought to start with?" I said to the President, “I recommend the library bill. Who could be against library aid? Just those that are against all Federal aid." I said, ”You know, Mr. President, nothing breeds success like success. I think we can put the library bill through with an overwhelming vote. I think that will help pave the way for the next bill." Well, he completely agreed. ”I think that is a good idea, let's start with the library bill. I was taking the library bill through the Senate as the manager of the bill . Well, as the record will show, 1 had just yielded to Senator Prouty of Vermont for a question to make legislative history, when a staff member rushed to 40 me and asked me to call for an emergency quorum, giving the shocking news that the President had been shot. The President's brother, the Senator from Massa— chuetts, Senator Edward Kennedy, was in the chair presiding over the Senate at that tragic moment in the history of the country . . . That bill was the first great breakthrough in Federal education legislation.l Senator Morse also played an important role as Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Education, a sub— committee of the larger Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Once a bill has been drafted, whether it is the administration's bill or the bill of an individual Senator, it goes to a subcommittee for hearings, where external forces again come into play. Traditions of the Senate dictate that a subcommittee be autonomous, so that no chairman would attempt to take control of a subcom— mittee.17 Yet the chairman remains a dominant figure and an important communications link with the full committee.18 After hearings are complete and an executive mark—up ses— sion has been held, the bill goes to the full committee. The full committee usually accepts the major decisions of the subcommittee.19 Morse was careful to maintain an atmosphere of Objectivity in subcommittee hearings and seldom entered into a discussion of issues during the hearings. This is not to say that he did not play an important role behind the scenes selecting witnesses, choosing particular iS°ues for examination, and setting limits to the dis— cussion. As Chairman of the Education Subcommittee, he Ml was the chief leader of Senate floor debate on education legislation and chief negotiator on the Senate~House conference committees. Actual floor debate may be extensive or quite limited and is usually dominated by the members of the standing committee and subcommittee, particularly the chairman. Members are encouraged to participate only when they are knowledgeable on the issues involved.20 The expertise of the individual senator is crucial at this point. Senator Morse was an expert in floor debate, and his training in the skills of argumentation is evident. He believed deeply in the process of debate and thought that men could reach the truth by considering the pros and cons of an issue. In 1961 he had the Legislative Reference Service prepare a document entitled, ”Pro— posed Federal Aid for Education, A Collection of Pro and Con Excerpts.”21 Although such a volume now might be regarded as symptomatic of an earlier unfounded Optimism, it is not surprising that the former debate coach would develop such an instrument for his col- leagues. In later years Morse discovered, to his dismay, the stubborn recurrence of opposition arguments which he had long since demolished in public debate. For the most part, Morse was extremely convincing and there were few A2 senators--Senator Lausche of Ohio was a notable excep- tion—-who were willing to risk a public confrontation on the Senate floor, with the formidable Senator from Oregon. After a bill passes both Houses of Congress, dif— ferences between House and Senate bills must be resolved. If a bill is amended in the second house, the first house may consent to the amendments. If not, the bill goes to an ad Egg conference committee. The chairmen of the standing subcommittee and full committee play a key role in working out compromises in the conference committee.22 When differences are ironed out, the bill is returned to both houses and is generally passed. Its legislative history is not yet complete at that point, however. As Eidenberg and Morey point out: Once a proposal has cleared this obstacle course it still can be destroyed or modified by a Pres— idential veto, an adverse decision by the courts, the manner in which it is administered by an exec— utive agency, subsequent repeal by Congress, or it may die for lack of funds. Morse did not forget about education legislation once it had become law. He maintained close relations with the Office of Education and carefully reviewed the amounts of appropriations and actual expenditures. In his final term he grew increasingly impatient with the JOhnson Administration's attempts to pay for the Vietnam war by curtailment of expenditures for education through Subtle administrative controls. He was clearly opposed to such practices as the Department of Housing and Urban ’43 Development's refusal to receive applications for college housing loans. He interrupted hearings on the Education Professions Development Bill to make this statement: The Constitutional fathers wrote into the Consti— tution the checking power to appropriate It clearly implied that once the money was appro- priated, it is to be spent unless the President went to the Congress and asked them to freeze the funds. The Constitution does not give the impounding and freezing power to the executive branch of government Do not forget that Congress ha:3 always resisted the attempt of President after President to get a so— called iBem by item veto power in appropri— ation bi_lls. It is evident that Senator Morse was deeply involved in the passage of education legislation at every step of the way, from the moment of a bill‘s first con- ception to the supervision of the expenditure of actual appropriations. What can be said of the individual impact of a single senator, such as Senator Morse? The difficulty of pinpointing the specific contri— butions of Senator Morse was mentioned above. One can infer, however, that Senator Morse's oratorical brilliance, legal expertise, legislative skill, and acquaintance with education had a great general impact on much of the legis— lation passed. In attempting to assess the role of the ideas of a single senator in the legislative process, the evidence which one would like to have for proof is not available in the neat, quantitative forms which social scientists respect. It is impossible to establish a AA direct cause-and—effect relationship between the ideas of Senator Morse and the final form of the legislation which became law. It is possible to say, however, that in some instan— ces the correlation between what Senator Morse thought and the final form of the legislation is extremely high. Indeed, social scientists would be delighted to get such correlations and would not hesitate to make extensive inferences about the nature of the relationship. An excellent example of this high correlation of Morse's thought and the final form of the legislation is to be found in the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. Morse favored a bill which gave categorical grants to private and public colleges. Senator Prouty intro— duced an amendment which would substitute for the Senate's categorical grants the House provision for general grants. The Prouty Amendment was defeated, and the Conference report contained provisions for categorical grants. Sen— ator Keating wanted to amend the bill to provide tax ben- efits for parents of college students. Morse opposed the Keating amendment as social class legislation which discriminated against low—income taxpayers. The Keating Amendment was withdrawn. Senator Goldwater wanted to limit the bill to provisions for loans and took the posi— tion that colleges could meet their own needs adequately and, if anything, were likely to build too many facilities 45 for future enrollments. Morse responded with a reiter— ation of the facts supporting the need to double college facilities by 1980. The Goldwater amendment was defeated. Senator Ervin proposed a judicial review amendment to facilitate testing of the church—state issue in the courts. His amendment passed the Senate, but when the Conference Report came back, the Ervin provision was conspicuously absent. Morse pointed out that the House Conference Com— mittee would never accept such a provision as an amend— ment, but that judicial review legislation was being introduced in the House by Edith Green and in the Senate in the Clark-Morse bill, and that such legislation would pass through the Judiciary Committee, which was its pro— per channel. The Higher Education Facilities Act in its final form corresponded precisely to the positions Morse had taken in consideration of each of its crucial issues. To borrow the terms of the statistician, there was a per- fect positive (+1) correlation between what Morse thought and the final provisions of Public Law 88—20A, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. It is surely accurate to say that Senator Morse played an important role in the passage of legislation affecting higher education. The significance of his overall contribution is indisputable. Given the com— us plexity of the legislative process, however, the pin— pointing of his specific contributions is best left to those closest to him or to the memoirs of the Senator himself. FOOTNOTES — CHAPTER IV 1Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government (Boston: Houghton—Mifflin Co., 1885), pp. 318, 320. 2Eugene Eidenberg and Roy D. Morey, An Act of Con— gress: The Legislative Process And The Making of Educa— tion Policy (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1969), Preface. 3;g;g., p. 13. “1222': p. 1A. Siggg , p. 62. 6;g;g., p. 1A. 7;g;g., pp. 218—219. 8;§;§., p. 221. 9U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Higher Education Amendments of 1966, Hearings, before The Subcommittee on Education of The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S- 3047, H.R. 1A6AA, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 1966, p. 188. 10Eugene Eidenberg and Roy D. Morey, op. cit., p. 3A. llIbid., p. 36. 1-2U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for his Amendment to the National Defense Education Hill, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 13, 1958, Congressional Record, 104, 17307—17312. l3U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for the Higher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 10, 1963, Congressional Record, 109, 19218. luEugene Eidenberg and Roy D. Morey, op. cit., p. 1A8. 151bid., p. 228. 47 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII------:————————T*TT' 48 l6U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Education Legislation, Hearings, before The Subcommittee on Education of The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 3098, S. 3099, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., 1968, pp. 1126—1127. l7Eugene Eidenberg and Roy D. Morey, op. cit.,p. 120. 181616., p. 1A9. 191bid., p. 160. 2OIbid., p. 1A3. 21U.S., Congress, Senate, Proposed Federal Aid for Education, A. Collection of Pro and Con Excerpts, S. Doc. Al, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 1961. 22Eugene Eidenberg and Roy D. Morey, op. cit., p. 170. 23Ibid., p. 168. 2“U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Pub— lic Welfare, Education Legislation, Hearings, before The Subcommittee on Education of The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 3098, S. 3099, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., 1968, p. 829. 25U.S., Congress, Senate, Debate on The Higher Educa— tion Facilities Bill of 1963, 88th Cong , lot sess., vari— ous dates, Congressional Record, 109, 19339~19892 and 2u048—2u069. FII-——————————————————————————______m==aflmaW_‘i PART III MORSE AS ADVOCATE OE FEDERAL AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION “9 CHAPTER V NATIONAL PURPOSE AND THE AIMS OF EDUCATION In October 1957 the Soviet Union launched the first successful earth satellite, known as Sputnik. Having now. guit the first man on the moon, Americans have nearly for— gotrten the wave of agonizing reappraisal which the first Splltnik produced, particularly in the area of education. Thee Soviet Sputnik was a direct challenge to the adequacy of‘ the American educational enterprise, and those who wixshed to improve our national defense appealed directly to the important role of education. Wayne Morse was among those who argued the impor- taiice of education to defense. When Senator Cannon spoke to ‘the Senate on "Education As A National Policy" and QULited Admiral Rickover on the role of education in naisional defense, Wayne Morse rose to support the remarks Of Senator Cannon and said, " . . . there is no better place to spend defense dollars than on the education of American youth."1 The mood of fear resulting from the first Sputnik persisted for many years, well after the passage of the National Defense Education Act in 1958. 50 51 ‘As late as 1961 Senator Morse opened the hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Education with these words: We are meeting under the shadow of a scientific achievement of the first magnitude, the multiple encirclement of the globe by a young military man educated under the Soviet system. This challenge to our society, including our educational system, is one which should not be dismissed lightly. We should not forget that the exploration of space, now initiated under alien auspices, is based upon a strong and thorough educational discipline reaching from the grammar school through the grad— uate studies. Although we do not like and will not accept the restrictions inherent in the author— itarian system of the Soviets, we must admit the stubborn, brutal facts with which we are faced. Through emphasis upon training and education, the U.S.S.R. has produced a technology and a theoret— ical apparatus which can and does sustain their space flight effort. The achievement is great, yet it is but a symbol of the more important aspect. The testimony we are to hear today, and in the later days of the hearing, I hope will provide the subcommittee with the sound, factual basis we need if we are to draft effective legislation to accomplish our purposes. Senator Morse, like most of his colleagues at the time, was caught up in the national mood which saw the United States and Russia engaged in fierce competition, With an outcome as yet uncertain, but with increasing Signs that the United States was falling behind. Morse understood the importance of education in that race and Often remarked, "We cannot keep ahead of the Communist Segment of the world in manpower, but we must keep ahead 0f it in brainpower.”3 It is difficult to know to what extent Morse was deeply troubled, as many Senators were, about the appar— 52 ent lag in national defense preparation, and to what degree he simply exploited that national mood to press the case for greater Federal involvement in education. In supporting a bill for Federal financial assistance to students in 1961 he said: Mr. President, the enlightment of the human brain does not exclude the Communists. The evidence and the data presented to our committee last year——in fact, in the last several years——1eave no room for doubt about the fact that the Communist segment of the world considers the bringing of educational enlightenment to the young of the countries of the world to be one of its major foreign policies. I do not think we are going in any way to help in this debate by spending much time on a comparison of education in the United States with education in the Soviet Union. I simply want the Record to note that we cannot afford, in my judgement, to permit the educational process of Russia to surpass those of the United States. There is an emergency need, Mr. President, for us to recognize that the problem of raising educational standards in the United Stages is a national problem as well as a State problem. The interesting aspect of this statement is that it is not so much a statement about national defense needs as it is an exploitation of that concern to make a case for Fed- eral aid to education on the grounds that education is a national concern as well as a concern of the individual States. Another clue to the relative weight which Morse gave to the concern for national defense and the need for gen— eral improvements in education is found in his attitude tOWard the emphasis given to science as compared with the SOCial sciences and humanities. Speaking about the National Science Foundation in 1958 he said: 53 I am also proud of the role I have had in sup— porting the programs of the National Science Foundation, and especially its activities in behalf of the social sciences. My colleagues in the Senate may recall that during the early debates on the national science legislation, I received assurance from the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that the newly proposed National Science Foundation would have specific, unquestionable authorization to move in the social science fields I believe that continued support of training, research, and education in the social sciences will help redress, in some measure, the unfor— tunate imbalance in our educational system which may result from undue emphasis on the physical sciences. Nor can we ignore at this particular time, the liberal arts and human— istic studies which help to give expression to the spiritual values of man. As the New York Times noted in an editorial last fall, the wider lesson of the sputniks involves not only education in the field of missiles or the nat— ural sciences alone, but also our ability to examine ourselves and our institutions and to improve our knowledge and methodology in the sciences dealing with man's social behavior.5 Morse shared the concern of his colleagues for national defense, as any sensitive representative of the people would at a time when the world was seemingly being divided into East and West, but he was also able to articulate the broader implications of sputnik for education. He was able to see that education served many national purposes which ranged far beyond a narrow concern for national defense. Morse saw that education played a crucial role in awakening the nation's total resources. In commenting on President Kennedy's State of the Union Message in 1963 he said: 5“ (Education) not only improves the quality of the labor force, but also creates the potential for finding new goods, new technologies, new instru- ments of social policy, and new understanding of domestic and world problems. Therefore, mobil— ization of our intellectual resources in this decade can be more crucial to the Nation's future than was mobi%ization of physical resources in World War II. Morse compared human resources to the nation's natural resources: We must stop wasting the most valuable resources this Nation has, namely, its human resources. It is bad enough when we waste God's gift of natural resources, which we are doing at a plundering rate in our forests, mountains, streams, fast eroding lands, and falling water tables in many parts of our country. However, the waste of human resources in the United States today is nothing short of tragic.7 A pragmatic nation is able to evaluate adequately, the strengths and weaknesses of existing educational pro— grams. A different sort of insight is required to pro- ject the benefits of programs not yet conceived. Morse was less concerned about the shortcomings of existing programs than the errors of omission, which would leave precious resources untapped. Supporting the Higher Edu— cation Facilities Bill, he said: Our economy is grounded upon the principle that the fruits of scientific research shall be brought through improved technology as quickly as possible to the American public. There has been in the last two decades in the words of witnesses before the committee ”a veritable explosion of knowledge.” Unless we can learn to live with and come to terms with the technological revolution we are under— going, there are going to be vast social disjoint- ures which will strain almost to the breaking point, the fabric of our political and legal institutions. The social problems of automation are but one aspect of this situation. Unless we can train well and 55 quickly the men and women who will be making the judgments in our business communities, in our labor unions, in our legislatures, in the exec— utive departments of the Government, including Defense, in the Congress and the courts, we may not be able to harness the egergies which know— ledge enables us to command. If Morse was aware of the vast, untapped energies which knowledge enables us to commend, he was also aware of the dangers of new knowledge. Speaking on behalf of the Higher Education Bill of 1965 he said: We live in an era of promise and danger. It offers promise because science, technology, business, and general understanding of life have made such rapid and striking advances that man has within his grasp the greatest opportunities ever known. At the same time, it presents grave dangers because man must learn how to utilize the electrons, the mechanical devices, the new way of life, and the altered view of the universe, or else he is overwhelmed and demolished by them.9 For Morse, then, one of the chief aims of education is the service of national purposes. Those purposes range far beyond national defense,and include not only the up—grading of the present labor force, but the more dynamic creation of new technologies and new knowledge. The creation of new knowledge, in turn, carries with it the national responsibility to utilize that knowledge responsibly for human betterment. Senator Morse also identified other aims of edu— cation, among them those which are purely economic. He was fond of presenting statistics on the economic benefits Of education to the nation and to the individual. During IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-----::T———————=Tfite~n~ 56 the Senate debate on the establishment of public colleges in the District of Columbia he presented these figures: It is estimated that advances in new knowledge and technology are responsible for 20 percent of the growth rate of the national income, and for 36 percent of the individual's income. As a rule, the lifetime earnings of a man who has completed four or more years of college, will exceed by at least $180,000 those of a person whose studies end in high school. When the pupils now in the first grade graduate from high school in 1978, it is predicted that more than 60 percent of all employment opportunities will be in professional, managerial, or skilled technical occupations requiring postsecondary or higher education. Looking at the reverse side of the picture, low educational attainment has a clear correlation with high rates of unemployment, dependency, delinquency, crime, ill health, disruption of homes through divorce and desertion——in short, with all the social ills that hobble the economic potential of the Nation, and demand of all of us direct, out—of—pocket expenditures which do not lead to basic advances but merely shore up a leaky dike. In 196A, the national unemployment rate for those with eight or less years of education was 7.6 percent, while the rate for high school grad— uates was A.7 percent and for college graduates was only 1.7 percent.10 In 1961 Morse entered into the Congressional Record a table listing lifetime income by age and total years of school completed. As might be expected, the table demon- strates dramatically the correlation of years of educa— tion and increased income.11 Although educators have doubtless overemphasized this correlation, an apparent correlation, indeed, exists. In recent years it has been pointed out that other factors beside education may help to account for the correlation. Some critics point out that the persons who elect further schooling already 57 possess personal qualities which would enable them to accumulate greater earnings apart from their additional schooling. Others regard the economic argument as irrel- evant since the purposes of education, for them, range far beyond increased earning power. To acknowledge that Senator Morse frequently pointed out the economic benefits of education is not to assume that he was unaware of the limitations of such arguments. Senator Morse knew that for the vast majority of Americans, life is still an economic struggle. Even more important, he was aware that his colleagues in the Senate and the practical men of affairs whom they repre- sented were greatly impressed with economic arguments, especially those which demonstrated that education pro— duced increased personal income and greater aggregate wealth. Morse was skillful in using the economic argu— ment in support of Federal aid to education. In sup- porting legislation for student scholarships as opposed to student loans he argued as follows: Let us remember that what I am really proposing is a loan when I propose a scholarship. It is only a long term loan. Senators ask, Who is going to pay the taxes for the scholarship program? Let me tell them who it will be. It will be the recipients of the pro— gram. There is no question about the fact that, if we give these scholarships and we get these students into college, they then can leave college and earn money far in excess of what they would have been able to obtain without a college educa— tion. They will repay to the Treasury of the United States in taxes during the next 15 or 20 58 years after they leave college 100 times the ben— efits they received under the scholarship program. That is why I say this scholarship program is a true long—term loan program which will strengthen the security of the Republic.12 Morse was cognizant of the long tradition in Amer— ican education which stressed the application of knowledge to practical problems, a tradition best represented in higher education by the land—grant movement. In asserting that education has certain practical, economic benefits Morse identified one of the classical aims of education. Educators, to be sure, would be disappointed in any list of the aims of education which did not go beyond the service of economic ends and national purposes. In addition to the more practical arguments which Morse pre— sents to his colleagues, there emerges also from his many utterances deep concern for the individual qga human being. Speaking on behalf of the Teachers Corps he said that the amount in question was like a "widow's mite” com— n13 pared with ”the human values involved. He was fond of quoting Jefferson, and in 1959, while most were just beginning to think of education as an instrument of national defense, Morse said: Jefferson said, "Democracy cannot be stronger than the enlightenment of its people.” I know of no better way to keep a people enlightened than to provide our people with educational opportunities so that they have a chance to develfip to the max- imum their intellectual potential.l —_——— 59 The interest which Morse had in individuals was doubtless born of his own experiences in the academic world. He once said: As one who taught college students for 21 years, I just cannot yield to anyone in my interest for the welfare of the individual student. This young man or woman is the most important element in the educational process. He or she is the end the whole educational process is supposed to be seek— ing to serve. Perhaps the best example of this concern for indi— vidual human beings which undergirded Morse's philosophy of education is found in a speech which he delivered at the joint convention of the National Association of State Universities and Land—Grant Colleges, and the Association of State Colleges and Universities at Columbus, Ohio, on November 1A, 1967. One might expect that an address to such a group might take the form of an elaboration of some of the more practical, economic goals and national purposes mentioned above. Instead, Morse makes the fol— lowing remarks in an address entitled: ”Questions as Big as the World and as Enduring as Eternity:" It is fitting that a prophetic voice of forty years ago should again be heard on an occasion such as this: Does the metal of it still ring true? ”Secondary education is asleep. It is dream— ing of I.Q.'s, of discipline as against super— vision, of conformity to the requirements for college, of methodologies, of pedagogies, of the isness of many inconsequential whys — but for questions as big as the world and as endur— ing as eternity, she has neither eye nor ear. Human relationships, the struggle against war, the economic chaos of the world, hate between races and religions, the moral delapidation of 6O mankind, the disintegration of the fireside, the apparent triumph of the material over the spir— itual——all these receive but a passing glance." John Dewey spoke of secondary education but in a sense, it applies, or should apply to all edu— cational endeavor. These larger questions are your grist for milling. Your primary function is to equip each generation of your students with the intellectual tools they need to fashion their answers based upon principle, to these eternal questions. So although I recognize the necessity of setting forth on a value—free basis, that which is, I regard this only as a prerequisite for the more vital measurement, the assessment of tTg existing against the model of what ought to be. Those who cherish the humanistic emphasis of the liberal arts would find in this statement an articula— tion of educational aims with which they would be well—pleased. There is no doubt that Wayne Morse under— stood the broader educational purposes which academic men defend with fervor, often against uninformed public opinion. Wayne Morse used whatever arguments he needed to bring about more adequate financing of educational programs through Federal funding. Beneath these argu— ments was manifest from time to time an underlying humanism, which counted among the purposes of education the exploration of the larger questions fundamental to man's existence as a human being. In later years this humanism was expressed in a growing interest in international education. He took pride in his efforts in helping to pass the Interna- tional Education Act, which provided for, among other things, the establishment of international studies 61 centers, visiting international faculty, and student work—study—travel programs.17 Supporting the Inter- national Education Act, he said this: When we proceed today to enact this education bill, in my judgment we are striking a blow for world peace, because as we prepare our- selves to bring literacy to the world, we increase the chances, in my judgment, of mankind living in peace. Out of literacy will come that support for the programs that are necessary to improve the economic stan— dards of the masses of the people of the world, who, because of their illiteracy are or have been victims of communism and other forms of totalitarianism.l Veiled appeals to national self—interest are still pre— sent, but the major emphasis in his argument is on the role of education in the positive search for peace. Unlike some, who saw international education as chiefly a matter of bringing American know—how to the "backward” nations of the world, Morse was sensitive to the need for developing programs which truly served the needs of other nations. Speaking on behalf of the Inter— national Education Act, he relates this interesting con- versation with Prime Minister Nehru: In 1957 when I went with a Senate delegation to the British Commonwealth Parliamentary Con— ference in New Delhi, India, at his request I met and had a long conference with the Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Nehru. Of the various things that he took up with me in that conference, the thing that con— cerned him the most, and gave rise to a little pique on his part, were the various devices and subterfuge that we permitted to develop in this country whereby Indian students remained here after they received their degrees, including, in many instances, their graduate Ph.D. degrees. 62 He said that he was almost ready to prohibit any more Indian students from coming to the United States because he felt that we were not giving to India the cooperation as a Government that we ought to give to India in stopping what he termed as a pirating practice. Morse continues his statement and enunciates his philos- ophy of international education as follows: I am for student exchanges. I am for bring- ing the foreign students here, but I want to raise a signal of warning because I am afraid that this bringing of foreign students here may well have had the effect of replacing assistance in building the educational strength of the countries from which the students come It could add to what I think is already a bad situation, wherein we bring foreign stu— dents to this country for their education to the exclusion of helping them build their edu— cational institutions at home. Morse was able to view the educational needs of other nations not only in terms of our national purposes but in terms of that country's national interest as well. He wanted to broaden the International Education Act to include support for educational institutions in other Countries, and he was interested in developing bina- tional institutions.20 The interest which Morse showed in developing pro— graflw of mutual benefit was based on an underlying belief that we had something to learn as well as teach in inter— national studies. He said: We have much to learn from others, as well as to teach them of the best which has been thought and said in the centuries past which necessarily con— dition the international relationships of today. Comity among nations must be based on a two—way 63 exchange of information which in turn can lead to common understandings.21 In his last year in the Senate Morse sponsored a bill, along with Senator Yarborough, to establish an international health, education, and labor program. Speaking on its behalf he said: The need is now greater than ever before for programs of cultural relations to promote inter— national understanding and develop free insti— tutions in new nations. Such programs are in our national interest for we do have an integest in a stable and socially progressive world.“ Morse also endorsed the concept of a National Graduate University which, in addition to training skilled per— sonnel to solve urban and other domestic problems, would include an international conference center for meetings of experts concerned with problems faced by persons around the world.23 If Morse spoke with serene optimism of bringing world peace through international education, when he rose on the Senate floor to criticize the Vietnam war, his remarks took on the indignant tone of a Hebrew prophet. Senator Morse was among the first to denounce publicly United States policies in Vietnam. He became an ardent opponent of the war and filled the Congressional Record with articles, editorials, letters, and speeches opposed to the war, and on several occasions himself made speeches against the war. Struggling as he did to achieve often inadequate funding of educational programs, he was 6A shocked at the cost of the war and entered into the Record figures which dramatized that cost: The usual figure now used for the cost of the war is $70 million a day, which adds up to $25 l/2 billion a year. That is the pub— lished, Administration figure. Many others, including Mr. Janeway, (economic columnist Elliot Janeway), think the cost is much higher. Janeway puts the price tag at £36 billion a year, or $100 million a day.2 Morse objected not only to the Vietnam war in par- ticular, but to the world—wide extension of the United States military establishment based on a policy of acting as policeman to the world. A confirmed internationalist, Morse saw the limitations of achieving peace through the unilateral activities of a single nation, however power- ful. Using a literary device reminiscent of Amos or Jeremiah, Morse suggests that we consider what it might be like to live in a world policed by some other nation: As a final thought, I cannot help but wonder what our citizens would think and do if some country other than our own had proclaimed itself as policeman "with a world to guard," as did our President a few days ago. Suppose South Vietnam appointed itself policeman to the world, or China, or Brazil? We would have seen Viet— namese or Chinese or Brazilian troops land in Newark and Detroit; their hordes of aid spe— cialists would appear in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon, together with a goodly number of intelligence agents organizing pac— ification teams to win the hearts and minds of Albina district citizens for the Johnson Admin— istration. They would have shown our National Guard and police departments how to deal with riots; they would have advised the mayors and governors on how to draw political dissidents into the rul— ing circles; and certainly these foreign advisers , 65 would have been able to tell Congress what laws to pass to improve the conditions that gave rise to the disorders. I suppose the Brazilians and Chinese and Vietnamese would know more about these things than American mayors and governors and leg— islators, since a policeman to the world always has to know more than the people in the countries he is policing. The Administration's policies on the war had dras— tic affects on the educational programs which Morse advo— cated. In making the choice between supporting the war and further support of domestic programs we were already, Morse pointed out, making the choice between guns and butter.26 He saw the support of the war as a confusion of priorities. In attaching President Johnson's rhetoric on the need for continued progress for American education Morse said: What are we thinking of--if we intend to meet the needs of America's boys and girls? I agree with the President that priorities should be established, that first things should come first. In my judgment, the first priority is the edu— cation of our children. Let there be savings but let the savings come in other areas. What can be of greater importance in meeting the prob— lems with which we are being faced in ever~increasing numbers, than the education of the citizens who will have to resolve them? Given fixed income and unusually large expenses abroad, someone gets short—changed. Morse was not afraid to identify those who were really bearing the cost of the war in Vietnam. Breaking custom, he delivered these GXtemporaneous remarks at the hearings on the Higher Edu— cation Amendments of 1966: 66 I think the American people are entitled to know what the Administration's representations in regard to a tight budget situation mean to the Great Society Programs. This is a part of the Great Society program and this is one fur— ther evidence that, of course, the students in America are paying for part of the war in Viet- nam. The poor in America are paying for part of the war in Vietnam. The Negroes in America through the denial of the rights they are enti— tled to receive now, not tomorrow, and which they are going to insist on now and not tomor— row, are paying for the war in Vietnam. The profit takers aren't paying for the war in Vietnam. Labor isn't paying for the war in Vietnam. The chief weapon of the Administration in meeting the added expenses of the war was a curtailed domestic bud— get. The amounts budgeted for educational programs were far below the amounts authorized by Congress. Morse mar— shalled the facts and presented them in a speech to the people of Oregon. Examples of fiscal 1968 budget cuts affecting higher education in millions of dollars are as follows: Authorized Budgeted Direct loans to college students 225 190 Construction of facilities 728 390 Construction of graduate schools 120 50 Library assistance 50 25 Library training29 15 11.8 MOr’se led an unsuccessful fight to restore full funding at the authorization level for the Teachers Corps pro— gram, one of Morse's most cherished plans to reach dis— advantaged ghetto youth. In supporting his amendment to 67 the 1967 Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations Bill he said: Here is the place to spend our money. When I think of the waste of money of which we are guilty, in the face of the human needs that exist on the domestic front; when I think how easy it would be to take $7.5 million off of the moon project, which can certainly wait; when I think how easy it would be to take $7.5 million off of the shocking amount we are pouring down international ratholes by way of wasteful foreign aid programs in many parts of the world, and bring that additional $7.5 mil- lion to the benefit of the little American boys and girls. The Morse Amendment was defeated by the close vote of A3 to 45.31 Fighting for the restoration of funding at the full authorization level became a common Morse stance against the Administration, and he adopted a familiar non-violent technique, non-cooperation: Until the administration restores those funds—— and I shall fight hard to have them restored——and until the administration keeps faith with those of us who have put the past legislation through, I shall oppose the administration at every step on education legislation this year. Morse not only denounced the Administration for budget CUts, but all educators as well who complacently accepted such cuts. He sharply rebuked a representative of the American Council on Education for presenting requests based on what could be realistically obtained rather than 0n actual needs: Let me say also to the institutions of higher learning in this country, you start this program of asking for less than you know the young men and women of this country have coming to them by way of their right to the full development of 68 their educational potential, and you will have to assume the responsibility for setting back for years education legislation. For Senator Morse the aims of education are closely related to national purposes. Education plays a key role in achieving peace as well as keeping the nation prepared for war. Education has an important role in producing economic benefits for the nation and the individual, but 'these are never more important than developing the full Exatential of each person's talents. In later years Morse relied less and less on argu- nuents based on national self—interest and turned instead tC) those aims of education which promise a fuller flower- iJig of the individual and a richer human community. He ocxzasionally compromised high principles to get legisla— tixan passed, but sternly rejected efforts to curtail or. alfizer programs contained in the legislation which Congress hati enacted. His optimism about achieving the betterment of man- kirui at home and throughout the world through education diti not wane even in the face of a war which for many Lumierscored the absurdity of life and the underlying alienation of man from his fellow men. He read in the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution a mandate for strengthening the Republic through the enlightenment of its citizens. But for Wayne Morse education, in the 69 last analysis, is not a means to an end but a celebra— tion of man's humanity. FOOTNOTES — CHAPTER V 1U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse supporting remarks by Mr. Cannon on Education As A National Policy, 86th Cong., lst sess., July 30, 1959, Congressional Record, CV, 1A688. 2U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Pub- lic Welfare, Aid for Higher Education, Hearingfi, before The Subcommittee on Education of The Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on s. 585, s. 635, s. 11uo, S. 1232, S. 12Al, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 1961, p. l. 3U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for S. 1241, College Academic Facilities and Scholarship Act, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 2, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 1525. ”U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse commenting on President Kennedy's Message to Congress on Education, 87th Cong., lst sess., Feb. 20, 1961, Congressional Record, CVII, 2391. 5U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on Role of the National Science Foundation, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. A, 1958, Congressional Record, CIV, 163“. 60.8., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for S. 12Al, College Academic Facilities and Scholarship Act, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 2, 1962, Congressional Record, cv111, 1520. 7U.S., Congress, Senate, Speech by Senator Morse given at Annual Convention of the American Federation of Teachers, 87th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 22, 1961, Congres— sional Record, CVII, 16717. 8U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 10, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 19218. 9U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Bill of 1965, 89th Cong., lst sess., Sept. 2, 1965, Congressional Record, CXI, 22661. 10U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Establishment of a Public Community College of Arts and Sciences in the District of Columbia, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., SEPt. 21, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 23596. 70 71 llU.S., Congress, Senate, Table entered by Senator Morse on Lifetime Income by Level of Education, 87th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 1961, Congressional Record, CVII, 8217. l2U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Lausche Amendment to S. 12A1, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 6, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 1809. l3U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for the National Teachers Corps., 89th Cong., 2nd sess., April 27, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 9106. l“U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Federal Aid to Education, 86th Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 5, 1959, Congressional Record, CV, 18231. 15U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 10, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 19216. 16U.S.. Congress, Senate, Senator Morse addressing the General Session of the Joint Convention, National Association of State Universities and Land—Grant Col- leges and Universities, Nov. 1U, 1967, Columbus, Ohio, 90th Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 29, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 3&189. l7U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for International Education Act, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 13, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 2655A. 18U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Imiternational Education Act., 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 21, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 28AA2. 19U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for International Education Act Amendment, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 13, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 26559. 2OU.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Pub— lic IVelfare, International Education Act., Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 287A, H.R. 1A6A3, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 1966, p. 249. 21U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for International Education Act., 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 3, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 2058. 72 22U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for IInternational Health, Education, and Labor Program, 90tr1 Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 8, 1968, Congressional Reccxrd, CXIV, S862. (Daily Edition.) 23U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for: the National Graduate University, 90th Cong., 2nd sesss., March 7, 1968, Congressional Record, CXIV, S2A2l. (Daily Edition.) 2“U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking ageuinst Crippling Cuts in Domestic Programs at Portland Citxy Club, Portland, Oregon, Aug. 4, 1967, 90th Cong., lst: sess., Aug. 10, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 223.65% 251bid., 22167. 2619111.. 27U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on Prensident Johnson's Education Message, 90th Cong., 2nd sesws., Feb. 5, 1968, Congressional Record, CXIV, S863. (Dagily Edition.) 28U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Publric Welfare, Higher Education Amendments of 1966, Hea1°ings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Conunittee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 30U7, H.R. 146UU, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 1966, p. 2A6. 29U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking agairist Crippling Cuts in Domestic Programs at Portland City' Club, Portland, Oregon, Aug. 4, 1967, 90th Cong., lst ESGSS., Aug. 10, 1967, Congressional Record, CXII, 22166. ‘ 3OU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Ifiicreases in Departments of Labor, and Health, Edu— catiori, and Welfare Appropriation Bill, 1967, 89th Cong., 2nguseess., Sept. 26, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 23 l. 31U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Increased Appropriations for Teachers Corps, 90th Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 2, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 21009. 32U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Ribicoff-Dominick Amendment to Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 61U9. — .1...~¢‘. ‘ 73 33U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Publgic Welfare, Higher Education Amendments of 1966, Hearfiings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Conunittee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on s. 30147, H.R. 1246M, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 1966, p. 2146. CHAPTER VI CHURCH AND STATE Two issues have continually created serious obsta- clezs to the passage of legislation providing Federal aid fOI° education. The first is the fear of Federal control of eeducation. The second is the problem of providing aid to <3hurch-re1ated institutions within the framework of thee Constitution. Like most Senators, Morse was con— ceruaed about both issues, but he was even more concerned abcnit preventing either issue from becoming a permanent obsizacle to the passage of any legislation. The First Amendment to the United States Consti- tutixon provides peculiar arrangements for the separation of cfldurch and state. It insists that Congress ”shall pass :no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohilaiting the free exercise thereof.” Through the Four- teentri Amendment the same prohibitions are applied to the states;. On the surface the language appears to be quite clear; but upon further reflection an inherent contra- diction becomes apparent. If a policy meets the test of not aiding an establishment of religion, it often fails the second test by somehow penalizing religious institu- tions by withholding such aid. On the other hand, when 7U 75 a policy encourages free exercise of religion, it often goes too far by aiding religion. Thus the framers of the Constitution provided a tight rope, which succeeding generations have walked with awkward gait and occasional stumbles. It is not surprising, then, that Supreme Court decisions involving an interpretation of the First Amend- ment are often by a decision of 5 to U and that the pos- ition taken seems to vary from case to case, now stress- ing one clause, now the other. The series of landmark decisions from the Gobitis case through the Shempp and Murray cases represents an attempt to do justice to the full meaning of both clauses of the First Amendment. As a student of Constitutional law Senator Morse was well aware of the dual requirements of the First Amendment. He respected the authority of the Constitu— tion and Opposed those who took extreme positions on the question of aid to church—related institutions. To the presidents and deans of church—related colleges and uni- versities he once said: If you continue to insist on the all—or—none approach to this problem—-that either there be general grants to Catholic, Presbyterian, Bap— tist, and other religious colleges or no legis— lation at all - there will be no legislation at all in my judgment.1 Morse saw himself not as a special pleader, but as one who must balance competing interests justly. Reflecting on 76 the unpopularity of his position among the special pleaders, Morse said: I know fully well the result of my position. It has meant that I now have all the Catholics against me, and all the Protestants against me, and all the Jews against me; but so far as I am concerned, that only proves that I am abso— lutely correct. What Morse sought was neither general aid nor denial of all aid to church-related institutions. He sought a Inodus vivendi, a way of aiding church-related institutions through arrangements which were clearly within the frame— ‘NOPK of the Constitution: I do not intend to walk out on my understand— ing and teachings of constitutional law just because I walked into politics. I am satisfied that the Federal Government can be of assistance to non—religious activities of private schools within the framework of our recognized constitu— tional limitations if all groups in our society will face up to the constitutional realities involved and substitute their obligations of citizen—statesmanship for personal feeling, self— ish interests and religious bias. TVinding the precise way in which the Federal Government could be of assistance to church—related colleges was a difficult task. During his search for the best vehicle the position which Morse took was gradually modified. At first Morse supported only loans to church—related institutions and was firmly opposed to grants. He felt that a loan program for construction of facilities was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and in no way violated the separation of church and state.“ Because loans bear interest, he felt that there was no 77 expense to the taxpayer. In fact he went to great lengths to see that the interest rate charged was low enough to aid the borrowing institutions, yet high enough to insure that the loans did not involve a subsidy. Speaking on the Senate's failure to pass a higher education act in 1962, Morse said: I think there is no question that loans to pri— vate colleges are constitutional, provided the interest rate charged is sufficiently high so that no subsidy is inherent in the interest charge. This is the Morse formula, worked out with the Treasury of the United States. I have always stood for loans to private schools, if they were made on the basis of an interest rate which would cover the cost of the use of the money——in other words, so the taxpayers of the Nation would not be subsidizing the religious schools by giving them interest—free money _5 Nkarse supported construction loans but vigorously opposed gurants for such purposes. In 1962 he opposed the House veersion of proposed Federal aid providing grants, and he Iweiterated once again his support of loan programs: I should like to make the record clear as to my own position . . . I have felt that no funds should be appropriated by Congress for the purpose of making grants to private or parochial or church schools, regardless of the level of education involved. By 1963 he had modified that position. He began to support Federal grants for construction for church—related colleges, but again he sought a way to make such grants through methods which would meet the tests of the Consti— tution. He supported "categorical use grants," aid for clearly specified purposes unrelated to ecclesiastical 78 functions. In clarifying the provisions of the Senate version of the bill for his colleagues he said: The issue is the form of the assistance which can be provided to our private church-related institutions of higher education in the light of the Constitution of the United States Mr. President, here is the issue . . . The House bill is an across-the—board grant bill., The Sen— ate bill is a categorical grant bill. The House bill would make general grants to private insti- tutions of higher education, including colleges affiliated with the religious denominations. The Senate bill would allow to the private insti— tutions of higher education, including those affiliated with religious denomination, only cat— egorical grants for specific purposes which are related to defense objectives. lie argued that the categorical use grant is constitutional taecause it is in the nature of a contract: Underlying it is the contract agency relation- ship whereby the Government in effect is enter— ing into a contract or an agency relationship with a private institution to perform certain specific services essentigl to the defense and security of this country. By 1965 Morse had modified his position again. He zaccepted categorical grants which contained an exclusion Ixrovision. Instead of specifying a specific use for the Inoney, such grants merely excluded using it for religious purposes. Interestingly enough, the language used to eXpress that exclusion had been brought forward from the Morse—Hill Amendment, which attempted to define "academic facilities" in an earlier loan bill.9 The exclusion clauses simply prevented the use of the grant money for facilities used for "sectarian instruction or as a place of worship" or for facilities used primarily for "the 79 program of a school or department of divinity."lO The Higher Education Bill of 1965 provided for grants to church—related institutions by incorporating this exclusion provision. The bill was passed with little debate on the church—state issue, whereas only a few years before, the provisions of the bill would have aroused a storm of dissent from Morse and from others.11 ,What explains Morse's change of position? It is evident that he was searching for the precise vehicle through which Federal assistance could be granted to church—related institutions within the framework of the Constitution. As time passed and America's institutions of higher learning experienced greater pressures to serve expanding enrollments, Morse became increasingly doubtful about the possibility of writing legislation which was free of all ambiguity on the church—state issue. His increasing willingness to make Federal aid more readily available to church—related institutions was coupled with a growing hope for some clear guidelines from the judicial branch of the Federal Government. Some educators thought that one way of simplifying the issue would be to pass an Amendment to the Constitu- tion. Morse was opposed to that method: But, in my judgment, it would be quite improper for the Congress to advocate . . . a constitutional amendment when there is great conflict among constitutional lawyers as to whether or not the proposal is or is not uncon- stitutional. That is, the amendment procedure 80 of the Constitution did not contemplate on the part of our forefathers that constitutional amendments should be offered in instances in which constitutionality is in doubt; that a constitutional amendment, in a situation such as this, should be offered when unconstitu- tionality has been determined and directly determined, and unconstitutionality can only be determined by a decision of the Supreme Court. Morse hoped instead for a decision from the courts which would define an acceptable vehicle for Federal aid to church—related institutions. To encourage such a decision Morse sponsored, along with Senator Ervin, a judicial review provision to facil- itate bringing the issues before the courts. Morse argued against Ervin's amendment in 1963, but primarily for tac- tical reasons.13 Morse knew that the House conferees would not agree to a judicial review amendment at that time because in the House such an amendment would have to go through the Judiciary Committee.lu In 1967 Morse sup- ported a separate bill providing for judicial review pro— cedures. Recalling his earlier opposition he said: My pledge was that if they would offer a separate bill, I would be a sponsor of it; that it should be a general judicial review bill that would be applicable not only to the matter of education legislation, but would apply as much to higher education facilities, public health, and all the other areas of such legislation in which some question might be raised as to the constitution— ality of the bill. Such a bill was introduced. We passed it today.15 Morse waited in vain for a decision by the Supreme Court. He had hoped that the Supreme Court would take 81 jurisdiction in the Maryland case, and he was disap— pointed in the Opportunity which had been missed.16 What he hoped for was: ‘ . as we lawyers say, a "decision on the nose," from the Supreme Court, laying down an interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution that would settle once and for all the degree to which the Congress of the United States, under the Constitution, could make funds available to private schools with a religious background.1 In the absence of such a decision Morse sought increas— ingly subtle vehicles for bringing aid to church—related institutions. His desire to operate strictly within the framework of the Constitution came into conflict with an equally strong desire to see that individual students received the educational benefits available only through adequately supported institutions. His primary concern was the individual student: I am going to keep my eyes on the interest of the boy and girl. Legislation can be so drafted that the money really goes primarily to the boy and girl, although I would be the first to admit ——as I have many times—~one must take a look at where it is spent, too. Legislation can be so drafted that the money can be said to remain really in the control of the student rather than the institution where it is to be spent. You might find the Supreme Court handing down some guidelines that would help us. But who knows? I am not going to sit up here as an oracle and see§8to foretell what the final decision will be. Morse was aware that the absence of clear-cut guide- lines from the judiciary sometimes led to the development 82 of dubious vehicles for channeling aid to church—related institutions. Speaking for the judicial review bill he said: Until we get a decision on how far Congress can go under the first amendment of the Consti— tution by way of Federal aid to private schools with religious backgrounds, we shall have to continue, as I described in the debates on edu— cation legislation, to go through the back door and the side door rather than the front door, to use an allegorical argument, in aid to edu- cation. Sometimes the vehicles which Morse proposed seemed to suggest going in a basement door or an attic window. A master of the principles of argumentation, Morse oCca- sionally pulled out the church-state issue to muddy the waters and confound an opponent. Morse vehemently opposed tax-credits for the parents of college students. He believed that it was social class legislation, i.e., aid which discriminated against low income families. When Senator Ribicoff presented his plan for tax credits as primarily a plan to aid parents, Morse responded as follows: The Senator can console himself by such a statement, but if the tax credit is given to the parents, it will be given to the Catholic schools or the Presbyterian schools or the Baptist schools. Whose money is it? It is the public money which would be given to the parent under the amendment. The Senator should not try to kid me by such logic . Those dollars are not the student's dollars. They are public dollars. We are indirectly giving those dollars to the schools from the Treasury of the United States.20 83 Perhaps Senator Morse is doing the kidding and using the fantastic logic at this point. This becomes even more apparent when Morse's argument is compared with an argu— ment he himself once used to support institutional grants to supplement scholarship aid. He proposed that Federal funds in the amount of $350 be granted directly to each institution to pay part of the extra cost which the insti— tution would incur by enrolling students with Federal loans and scholarships. When the church—state issue emerged, Morse argued as follows: We feel that the money is really following the student. The money is contributed to the insti- tution through the conduit of the student. The decision as to which institution will get the money will be left up to the voluntary judg— ment of the student, who will select the school at which he wishes to get his training.21 This time the argument has been neatly reversed to support a program which Morse favored. The arguments for and against Federal aid to church—related institutions become even more complicated as one examines the effects of such aid. It can be argued that all forms of aid which in any way impinge on such ‘institutions, whether in the form of scholarhips to stu— dents or loans for construction, free other funds which, in turn, may be used for religious purposes. Morse was Well aware of that problem and brought it to the attention Of his colleagues during the debate on the Higher Educa~ tion Facilities Bill in 19633 8A If the private Catholic university or private Presbyterian university or any other religious university, received the matching grant money for the physics building or the chemistry build— ing or the library, we all know that its own funds would be available for other buildings, such as an economics or business administration building or a liberal arts building or a social science building, or for that matter—-and we have to honestl admit it—-for a strictly religious building.2 Morse's awareness and use of such arguments indi- cate his appreciation of the essential ambiguity involved in all attempts to resolve the church—state issue justly. He knew that similar arguments could be employed for con- trary purposes, and that every vehicle developed to "go in the back door" was imperfect. He knew that the inher— ent weakness of whatever position he and others might take stemmed from the dual prohibitions of the first amendment and the absence of a clear interpretation by the courts. What can be said of Morse's position on Federal aid to church-related colleges and universities? Was he basically consistent? Do the positions he takes grow out of more fundamental beliefs about education? Apart from the minor adventures in obfuscation men— tioned above, Senator Morse was engaged in a persistent struggle to discover the proper vehicle for aiding church—related institutions within the framework of the Constitution. Although his position seems to have changed, the changes were minor and were the results of his search for a more adequate method. 85 The positions which Morse took were the outgrowths of two, more fundamental beliefs. The first was a strong belief in the processes of constitutional government. His lawyer's respect for the Constitution is evident as he asks again and again: What can be done consistent with the Constitution? His personal religious beliefs or his feelings about the work of church—related institutions enter in only in minor ways. The special pleadings of various religious groups make little impact on him. The fundamental problem is the constitutional problem. The positions which Morse took on the church-state question were greatly influenced by a second belief as well: a firm conviction that individual students, quite apart from their religious affiliations, need all the help they can obtain in developing their full potential through education. Morse's position on the church-state question is clearly related to his fundamental concern for individual human beings described in the previous chapter. In the earlier years the constitutional problem is in ascendence. The vehicles developed seem to do more to meet the demands of the Constitution than to channel large amounts of aid to students. In later years concern for students begins to overpower the concern for finding the DPOper vehicle, and the constitutional question is passed to the courts. 86 When Senator Morse left the Senate the church—state question had not been resolved. It may yet be resolved, but it is more likely that the murky waters will go uncharted for several years to come. The Supreme Court may make a landmark decision, but if the past is any teacher, such a decision holds forth the possibility of both further clarification and further confusion. The wording of the First Amendment may itself preclude the possibility of the "on—the—nose” decision which Morse sought. Senator Morse has been known as an idealist, as a man of uncompromising principle. His strong belief in the principles of constitutional government and the importance of education in the development of the indi— vidual are evident in his effort to resolve satisfac- torily the church—state issue. Here, perhaps more than at any other point in Morse's career, one sees the hand of a skilled legislator struggling to fashion in each successive earthen vessel a more perfect embodiment of cherished principles. FOOTNOTES — CHAPTER VI lU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., 1st sess., Octo. 11, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 19399. 2Ibid. 3U.S., Congress, Senate, Speech by Senator Morse given at Annual Convention of the American Federation of Teachers, 87th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 22, 1961, Congres— sional Record, CVII, 16719. “U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse commenting on President Kennedy's Message to Congress on Education, 87th Cong., 1st sess., Feb. 20, 1961, Congressional Rec— 93d, CVII, 239A. 5U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on Failure to Pass Higher Education Act., 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 3, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 22091. 6U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for S. 1241, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 5, 1962, Congressional Record, CVII, 1668. 7U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 10, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 19218. 8U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Judicial Review Amendment, 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 15, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 19A80. 9U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse offering Morse-Hill Amendment to S. 12Al, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 5, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 16A1. loU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Bill of 1965, 89th Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 2, 1965, Congressional Record, CXI, 2271A. llIbid., 22715. l2U.S., Congress, Senate, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, National Defense Education Act, Hear- ings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Commit— tee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 622, S. 1227, 8.1228, S. 1271, S. lAll, S. 1562, S. 1726, 87th Cong., lst sess., 1961, p. 343. 87 88 l3U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Judicial Review Amendment, 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 15, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 19478. l”U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Adoption of Conference Report on Higher Education Facil— ities Bill, 88th Cong., lst sess., Dec. 10, 1963, Con— gressional Record, CIX, 24065. _—_ 15U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Judicial Review Bill, 90th Cong., 1st sess., April 11, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 8923. l6U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Education Legislation, Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 1125, H.R. 7819, 90th Cong., lst sess., 1967, p. 1910. l7U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Judicial Review Bill, 90th Cong., 1st sess., April 11, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 8923. l8U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Education Legislation, Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 1125, H.R. 7819, 90th Cong., lst sess., 1967, p. 1910. 19U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Judicial Review Bill, 90th Cong. 1st sess., April 11, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 8923. 20U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Ribicoff Amendment to Revenue Act of 1964, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 3, 1964, Congressional Record, cx, 179a. 21U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for S. 1241, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 5, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 19218. _ 22U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for ngher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 10, 1963, Congressional Record, 19218. CHAPTER VII ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND FEDERAL CONTROL The belief that Federal aid to education inevitably leads to Federal control is deeply imbedded in the pop- ular wisdom of American life. If finding an adequate resolution of the church—state question proved difficult, Morse faced an even larger task in convincing his fellow Senators, and the people whom they represent, that fears of Federal control are unfounded. He attacked those fears directly while at the same time using every avail— able device to develop safeguards against Federal control. Morse believed that the fear of Federal control of education has no foundation in fact.1 He deemed it an irrational fear, present as a stubborn reality in the minds of countless men of good will, but unrelated to the actual circumstances which pertain to the relation— ship of the Federal Government to education. As early as 1958 he had analyzed the irrational base of arguments warning against Federal control: It is a fear argument. It is a scarecrow that is being built up in the communities of America, with the result that timid politicians too frequently are following this propaganda line, and unwittingly, I am sure, but nevertheless effectively, denying to American boys and girls the educational opportuni— ties that I think are their heritage. 89 90 Morse combatted the Federal control argument by pointing out other examples of extensive Federal programs which have not lead to the control of the persons or institutions being aided. In a discussion with Senator Lausche he said: Does the Senator take the position that the money that goes to subsidize and pay the Federal-State employees across the country engenders Federal control? Does the Senator think that the great land—grant colleges of this country, and those professors who are the beneficiaries of that kind of Federal subsidy, constitute an educational threat to the Government? The extent to which irrational fears of Federal control gripped the mind of his colleagues is demonstrated in the debate on the National Teachers Corps. The plan was simple enough: to prepare a group of teachers specially—trained in working with urban youth. Such teachers would be trained in colleges and universities in established teacher—training programs and would be on call to serve at the request of local school districts. The name, "Teachers Corps,” seemed harmless and appropriate. But when the bill came to the floor of the Senate, Morse found himself locked in debate with Senator Lausche over the issue of Federal control: Mr. LAUSCHE. I do not hesitate to say that I have a deep apprehension about the initiation of a program that will give to the Federal Govern— ment the power to send an army of teachers to the communities. Mr. MORSE. But it is not doing that. 91 Lausche pursued the argument by insisting that the estab— lishment of such programs not only carried the threat of Federal control, but that once established, even on a modest basis at first, such programs inevitably grow to unmanageable proportions. Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, in response to what has just been said, I have been here for nine years, and I cannot recall a single pro— gram of grants in those nine years which, once instituted, has been either reduced or canceled. Mr. MORSE. They are working so well; that is wh . - Mr. LAUSCHE. The grants are increased each year. They grow and grow. And I think we can ‘lay it down axiomatically that this is a $9.5 million program for the fiscal year of 1966, but in 1975 it will still be here, and the amount wi_1l have increased greatly . Mr. MORSE. I wish to tarry with the Senator for just a moment, because I always like to thank someone who has been particularly kind in behalf of my committee. I thank the Senator from Ohio for what I think is one of the finest compliments ever paid the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and its Education Sub— committee, that because we have done the job so well, apparently, in all the nine years to which the Senator refers, and our authorization pro— posals show the great care we have taken in pro— posing sound programs, there has been no need for reducing grants, but they have been increased year by year because they are clearly so much needed. Morse responded facetiously to the arguments that Federal aid leads inevitably to Federal control and that Federal control necessarily expands geometrically each year. Beneath the humor can be found Morse's belief that Fed— eral aid to education is what Congress makes it, that nothing happens inevitably, and that adequate safeguards against Federal control can be devised through careful 92 formulation and review of each piece of legislation. To that end, Morse developed several devices for insuring the continuing freedom of those who receive Federal aid. The first of these devices was the insertion of special language in the legislation to guard against Fed— eral control. Morse insisted that at some point all edu— cation legislation should include the usual special lan— guage: prohibiting any department, agency, official, or employee of the United States from exercising any direct supervision or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or per— sonnel of any educational institution 5 A second device used to insure protection against Federal control was the channeling of aid through the States. Drawing on a principle established by a former colleague, Senator Taft, Morse often sought ways of making direct grants to States, leaving policy decisions about the expenditure of the funds at the State level.6 Still another device sought to establish primary control in matters of policy at the local level. In the Teachers Corps program Morse insisted that local school districts be able to request and select the specially—trained teachers needed by the local district. Speaking on behalf of the Teachers Corps he said: I want to see the maximum of administrative power, consistent with the protection of Federal funds in the carrying out of congressional responsibility, vested at the local level, because I believe that is also the best guarantee that the policies will be determined at the local level. 93 Another device provided for the locus of policy control in individual institutions. Morse was particu- larly eager to have programs of student financial aid administered by the colleges and universities themselves, and not by a Federal Bureau in Washington.8 Finally, where possible, Morse hoped to provide Federal aid directly to the individual. Morse was aware of the subtle influences which derive from Government support of certain programs and non—support of other pro— grams. Students tend to enter those programs where sup— port is available. Morse hoped to develop financial aid programs which would provide direct support of the stu— dent, leaving with the student complete freedom of choice as to the institutions attended and the programs followed.9 For Morse Federal control was both an irrational fear and a potential reality. He sought to allay ground- less fears while building in to all education legislation adequate safeguards against real threats to individual freedom and the freedom of educational institutions. Higher education has enjoyed a long tradition of academic freedom and is particularly sensitive to encroach— ments on that freedom by government agencies. In partic— ular, faculties of colleges and universities have jeal- ously guarded l) the freedom to express or not to express political and patriotic loyalties, 2) the freedom to dis- sent, including the liberty to criticize government policy 94 and practice, and 3) the freedom to engage in research without predispositions as to the results. If general fears of Federal control were unwarranted, fears of specific threats to academic freedom were not. Thus the former professor became the Senate's chief watchdog of academic freedom. Many educators saw the first of these freedoms threatened by the loyalty oath provisions of the National Defense Education Act. Morse seems not to have expressed a position at the time when the bill was originally before the Senate, but as his mailbox filled with objec— tions from scores of colleges and universities, he became one of the Senate's chief interpreters of these objections. He entered into the Congressional Record statements from the American Association of University Professors; letters from colleges and universities, such as the University of Oregon, Lewis and Clark, and Oberlin; letters from non—academic organizations such as the American Civil Lib— erties Union; and editorials from national newspapers such as the St. Louis Post Dis_atch.lo Like others in the aca— demic world, Morse objected to the assumption of guilt implicit in the disclaimer affadavit. He found oaths of affirmation, such as the one he took as a Senator, "less objectionable.” His main objection to the disclaimer affadavit was that it put colleges and universities in the position of law enforcement officers. He believed that 95 the problem of Communist infiltration could be handled through enforcement of the Smith Act, which makes it a crime to teach or advocate the overthrow of the United States by force or violence. A good summary of his position appears in a statement made just after the Sen- ate's decision to recommit to committee some proposed modfications of the disclaimer affadavit: When university administrators and faculties assume the responsibilities entrusted to them under such legislation as the National Defense Education Act, they can be counted on to carry out the objectives and purposes of that act. They do not need the Congress of the United States to be administering the details of the operation of a college or a university. But, beyond that, I think it a shocking thing that anyone should try to make educators, stu— dents, and college administrators a part of the national police network. It is the job of the Justice Department and the FBI to seek out and catch Communists; personally, I think they do a good job of it because that is their business. It is not a business that should be imposed on an institution of higher learning. And the requirement of these oaths cannot be expected to leave any effect upon the Communist conspiracy in America. It is a requirement that does nothing to stop, hinder, or forestall Communist conspirators. It is nothing more than a statement of suspicion and distrust of the academic world. I think it is very sad that the Senate yesterday said, in effect, "We are going to single out col— lege people and stigmatize them with suspicion that they are disloyal to the United States unless they take these oaths prior to getting an educa— tional loan.” The loyalty oaths were eventually modified, partly because the fear of Communists engendered by the McCarthy Era grad— ually subsided, and partly through the efforts of men such as Wayne Morse. 96 Academic men have also carefully guarded the right to protest and dissent. The issue is complicated, and the right of free speech often conflicts with the larger responsibility of maintaining the orderly processes of constitutional government. Morse vigorously defended the right of peaceful protest and understood how it was cher- ished by the academic community. He was particularly moved by the forms of peaceful protest which had been developed in the civilrights movement. Having watched on TV the brutality of Alabama police during the Selma march, Morse went to the floor of the Senate the next day to say these words: The Negroes will have to give consideration to peaceful resistance within the law, to peaceful petition with the law, to peaceful demonstration within the law, and therefore, in many parts of America the feet of Negroes must march and march and march until the tramp of those feet can be heard across this Nation, until the American people come to realize that human rights, civil rights, and legal rights, including the consti— tutional rights of Negroes, must be respected, even by Alabama bigots and racists. The tramp, tramp, tramp, of Negro feet on the highways and the byways and the streets of America will con- tinue to,increase in the months ahead——and should.15 Morse viewed the peaceful demonstration as an extension of free speech, a way of speaking with actions as well as words.lu In his support of the right to dissent Morse was always quick to add that such protests must be lawful and peaceful. When students in Oregon proposed a sit—in in 97 violation of the law at the Federal Building in Port- land, Morse advised against it. Commenting later on his advice he said: In that statement I pointed out that it is one thing to petition and protest lawfully. It is another thing to petition and protest illegally. I pointed out that in that instance in my judg— ment, those students were following a mistaken course of action, for they could not justify their course of action on the basis of so—called peaceful resistance. Even though we may not like the provisions of an existing law, we do not help the cause of government by law, as I pointed out, in effect, by violating it, even though we think the cause in which we are interested is a justi— fiable and admirable cause. I share the view of those students who sought to protest U. S. war— making in South Vietnam. But I could not condone what was obviously their illegal course of action. When the U. S. district attorney, Mr. Lezak, appealed to them to obey the law and leave the Federal Building, he was their best friend. But they had the right peacefully to march. They had the right peacefully to picket.15 Morse had the opportunity to respond to a student protest carried out by some of the staff of his own office. Many Congressmen have student interns working in their offices. The intern programs are sponsored by various organizations, such as the Political Science Association, and provide students the opportunity to gain experience in political science by working in the office of a Con— gressman. During the summer of 1967 a group of interns planned to boycott a reception and speech customarily given on their behalf by the President. The students planned the boycott and a token picket line in front of the White House to protest the war in Vietnam. The 98 aa$ns of the interns were two students working in the Tdce of Senator Morse. By the time Morse became aware 'Ldmt was happening an article describing the plans of ezhmerns had already appeared in the Washington Post. imbiting the understanding of a college professor or an, Morse went to the Senate floor so that these words uld be entered in the Record: The senior Senator from Oregon would be the last to seek to impose any restriction on the indepen— dence of interns or the exercise of the indepen— dent judgment of interns, no matter how I might disagree with their conclusions. If I had been consulted in regard to the advisability of such a program, I would have strongly advised against it, because of a deep philosophical tenet of mine. I just believe in the full exchange of ideas. That includes listening, as well as expressing oneself. I believe in untrammeled free speech in this Republic. I am against any attempt to restrict it or any attempt to censor it; and attempts to restrict or censor it can take a variety of forms. Even the program that is referred to in this arti— cle, when one stops to analyze it, is, in part, an attempt to follow a behavior manifestation that would express in advance disapproval of even the President of the United States seeking to talk to interns . One of the precious rights of our democratic form of government—-and really one of the basic safeguards of our freedoms——is the availability of a President of the United States to commune with the people of the United States and groups in the United States. And so I would welcome an opmxyrtunity to hear my President, at any time, on arm] subject, and then reserve to myself the right txa be the judge of whether or not the views he texpressed were, in my opinion, sound views. That its the way democracy is kept strong and vital in tfliis Republic. IWr. President, I wanted the Record to show that, aliflqough the interns made clear that they were fkillowing a course of action without any knowledge of‘IWembers of Congress, as to what they purported to (MD, it is their right to do it as long as they 99 annuct themselVes in an orderly and decgrous nmnner. I do not question their right.1 urmesupported dissent as one aspect of academic freedom. tlkahad firm beliefs about the limitations within which ssmfizcould take place. Verbal protest and the exten— on of free speech in the form of demonstrations were ceptable to Morse if carried on through lawful and peace- 1 means. But for Morse the freedom to express one's own int of view must never abridge the free speech of others. )se who protest must themselves remain open to new ideas 1 must listen as well as speak, so that the truth may erge through the dialectic of debate. In his final year in the Senate, Senator Morse ;aged in a protracted battle which may have been his .est hour in defense of academic freedom. During the 7-68 academic year a series of violent confrontations pted on college campuses across the land. The worst at Columbia University and involved the occupation of versity buildings and ultimately the resignation of President, Dr. Grayson Kirk. Protest of this sort, 3e sure, did not meet Morse's criteria of peaceful— ; and lawfulness. His lack of sympathy for such dis— mws is evident in his projection of how he would have [led the situation: If“the students had tried to take over the build- irmg when I was dean of the law school, one of two tlkfngs would have happened: either the police lOO forces of our State would have removed them forthwithi or they would have had a new dean by night. 7 The mood of the nation had grown angry, and the embers of Congress, like their counterparts in count- ess State Legislatures, sought some way to put a stop 3 violent outbursts of student unrest. There was rought before the Senate an appropriations bill for 1e Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which antained a clause which would prevent student pro- esters from receiving Federal loans or scholarships. 1e pertinent section of the bill is as follows: No part of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to provide a loan, guarantee of a loan or a grant to any applicant who has been convicted by any court of general juris— diction of any crime which involves the use of or the assistance to others in the use of force, trespass or the seizure of property under con- trol of an institution of higher education to prevent officials or students at such an insti— tution from engaging in their duties or pursu— ing their studies.1 )rse objected to that provision on legal grounds and cgued that there was no precise definition of what was eant by a conviction. He believed that the provision 1vited arbitrary enforcement. But more important he alt that the responsibility for coping with student 2otests lay with the institutions of higher education id not with the Federal Government. Morse supported anator Javits' amendment which made alternate provi- Lons as follows: 101 Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit any institution of higher education from refusing to award, continue, or extend any financial assistance to any individual because of any misconduct which in its judg— ment bears adversely on his fitness for such assistance.1 arse wanted to leave the actual denials of aid in the ands of the institutions. Knowing full well the con— ervative stance of those who favored the original word- 1g of the bill, Morse appealed for their support of the ivits amendment on the grounds of States' rights: This is of great importance to the States' righters, and I have heard them speak over the years. I say to them now: "If you believe in States' rights, practice it this afternoon and pass the Javits amendment, because we are merely saying we will leave it to the local authorities and universities."20 a raised the issue of Federal control: I have heard many Senators talk about how we are going to have the Federal Government run educa— tional policy in our States. That is exactly what the language of the Appropriations Committee refers to. Who will step in and make the deter- mination? Who will make the determination? Some— body in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare? Somebody in the Department of Justice?21 1 spite of these appeals the Javits Amendment was defeated 5 to 35. Thirty—nine members of the Senate were absent. 3 was early September in a Presidential election year and Lready many Senators were campaigning. In retrospect >rse probably should have been campaigning, too, but istead he was on the floor of the Senate fighting for the iuse of academic freedom. 102 The fight did not end there. No sooner had the 'avits Amendment been defeated than Morse introduced his »wn Amendment. It was a compromise amendment which used .ome of the stern language of the original bill, but rhich placed upon the local institution the responsibility 'or determining the effect of the student misconduct. It ;ave the colleges and universities the freedom to decide hether the student's conduct "was of a serious nature, nd contributed to a substantial disruption of the admin— stration" of the institution.22 The Morse Amendment arely passed 28 to 26. However much Morse may have pposed the personal conduct of students engaged in unlaw— ul protests, he saw also the greater danger of Federal ntrusion on the academic freedom of all colleges and uni— ersities. Senator Morse was also concerned about the freedom f those in higher education who carry on research. He hared the professor's traditional concern for academic reedom, and he saw new threats to that freedom in the rowing complexity of relationships among government, usiness, and the academic world. As Government came to ely more and more on the expertise of the university and he university came to rely more and more on the contract esearch provided by government, new temptations chal— enged the integrity of those engaged in research. In a peech before the International Studies Association Morse emarked: 103 Indeed, one man who has been in and out of the Defense Department, the academic world, and private institutes, explains that the relation— ship is so incestuous that it scarcely matters which payroll he is on.2 The problem arises not so much in matters of policy ormulation as in matters of policy evaluation. Academic xperts are often called upon to advise in the formulation f policy. If the same experts are called upon to evalu- te that policy, there is good reason to believe that the valuations may be positive. Even if those who evaluate alicy are different individuals from those who help for— ilate policy, subtle pressures in the form of sizable :ipends and potential future contracts, thwart indepen— ance of judgment and critical appraisals. In the bear— igs on the International Education Act Morse said: The American people have just got to be con— cerned that no segment of our institutions of higher education become propaganda centers for governmental policies, sources therefore ratio— nalizing a Government policy that may be subject to great dispute and controversy within the body politic. We have seen this happen to some foreign uni- versities which became the tools and agents of government. And I think now is the time in con— nection with this bill to adopt whatever controls and checks and procedures are necessary to give every American complete justification for believ— ing that our institutions of higher learning are completely free of any political manipulation in connection with any segment of their research activity.2 Morse was an enthusiastic supporter of Federal aid higher education through Office of Education programs, .t he had serious doubts about the extensive involvement ' many universities in contract research supported by the 104 efense Department or the Central Intelligence Agency. e was especially disturbed by research supported secretly y such agencies: What I should like to emphasize above all is the problem of public knowledge of the source of these Federal funds, and the purpose for which they were advanced. It is the acceptance of published findings and opinions by a people——and a Congress -—unaware of their financial backing that I feel constitutes the danger to foreign policy formu— 1ation.25 arse found equally dangerous the failure to disclose the Tfiliations and associations of those doing research. 3 cited as an instance an article on Vietnam policy pub- -shed in Foreign Affairs Quarterly. The author of the ‘ticle was listed as a "student of Asia,” but his rela— .onship with the Central Intelligence Agency was not :ntioned.26 Morse felt that extensive involvement of univer— .ties in the governmental policy process ca ses serious ’ordering of priorities in the life of the university self. Extensive research involvements, he argued, lead an "emphasis and preoccupation with operations rather an scholarship and teaching."27 The practice of asking ucational institutions to become ”operating arms of reign policy is leading to bad practices and bad sults."28 The worst results of such violations of the academic 'eedom of the university were not those which accrued to dividual research scholars, but to the academic world 105 as a whole. What Morse feared more than occasional lapses in the independent judgment of certain individuals was the general crisis of confidence which such lapses created. Morse concluded his speech before the International Studies Association with these words: The "credibility gap” between Government and governed is already wider than is safe for our free institutions. More than any others, the academic community should be on guard against this gap because the efficacy of intellectual freedom requires not only a speaker but a listener. The audience of the academic com~ munity consists of the student and the public. To the extent that either audience becomes cynical and unbelieving, academic research will lose its impact on the formulation of foreign policy.29 .Did Senator Morse have a coherent position on mat— ters affecting academic freedom? On the one hand, he scoffed at those who feared Federal control of education. (hi the other hand, he appears to be a staunch defender of acadenflc freedom. The inconsistency is only apparent. erxyas no less concerned about Federal control than were 1is cxalleagues. As was the case on the church—state issue, 1e vwished to avoid extreme positions. He did not believe ;tmmz Federal control resulted inevitably from Federal sup- >ort. Nor was he willing to forego all Federal aid because .ome Ixrograms involved potential threats to academic free- .omJ lie knew that there were, indeed, very real threats to cadenflx: freedom, but he sought rational devices and legis— atiyma safeguards for their control. 106 The position which Morse took on loyalty oaths "eflects an underlying faith in academic men, and in luman beings generally, to manage their own affairs and ;ustain their own institutions. His advocacy of dissent lithin the limits of law reflects his abiding belief in ;he efficacy of constitutional government. He was less :oncerned about the excesses of student protests than he ras about the older generations' increasingly frequent .apses of integrity. Of far greater concern to him than .mmediate threats to academic freedom was the growing .ecay of the underlying trust upon which the academic nterprise is based. ‘ FOOTNOTES — CHAPTER VII 1U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse remarking NlAddress by Secretary Ribicoff, "Federal Aid to Edu— 3ation,” 87th Cong., lst sess., July 12, 1961, Congress— ipnal Record, CVII, 12376. 2U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on \merica's Education Needs, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 1958, Congressional Record, CIV, 4142. 3U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Increases in Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, Lnd Welfare Appropriation Bill, 1967, 89th Cong., 2nd :ess., Sept. 26, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 23843. “U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for he National Teachers Corps, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., pril 27, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 9105. 50.8., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for nternational Education Act, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., ct. 13, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 26554. 6U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for onstruction Loans to Private Nonprofit Elementary and econdary Schools, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 4, 1960, gngressional Record, CVI, 2053. 7U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for mendment of Title V of Higher Education Act of 1965, 90th ong., lst sess., June 28, 1967, Congressional RecordJ x11, 17713. 8U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for igher Education Amendments of 1966, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 3t. 7, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 25809. 90.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking ;ainst Lausche Amendment to S. 1241, 87th Cong., 2nd 38s., Feb. 6, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 1807. loU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking ;ainst Oath and Affidavit Provision of National Defense lucation Act, 86th Cong., lst sess., Feb. 16, 1959, 993- ggssional Record, CV, 2361—2365. llU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for termhnents to National Science Foundation Act of 1950, 87th dug., 2nd sess., Sept. 27, 1962, Congressional Record, 'III, 21022. 107 108 l2U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Recommital of S. 819, Relating to Affidavits of Loyalty and Allegiance, 86th Cong., lst sess., July 24, 1959, Congressional Record, CV, 14223. l3U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on Civil Rights Crisis in Alabama, 89th Cong., lst sess., March 9, 1965, Congressional Record, CXI, 4563. luU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Capitol Interns Plan to Boycott L.B.J. Talk, 90th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 25, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 24172. 15U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on Civil Rights Crisis in Alabama, 89th Cong., lst sess., Warch 9, 1965, Congressional Record, CXI, 4563. l6U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Capitol Interns Plan to Boycott L.B.J. Talk, 90th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 25, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 24172. l7U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on Questions of Student Misconduct with Reference to Depart- nents of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare Appro— )riations, 1969, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 6, 1968, ;ongressional Record, CXIV, S. 10399. (Daily Edition.) l81bid., s. 10395. (Daily Edition.) 19Ibid. 2OIbid., s. 10398. (Daily Edition.) 2libid. 221bid., s. 10u02. (Daily Edition.) 23U.S., Congress, Senate, Remarks of Senator Morse 'efore International Studies Association, Wayne State 'niversity, Detroit, Michigan, May 5, 1966, Congressional ,ecord, CXII, 10104. 214U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Pub- ic Welfare, International Education Act, Hearings, before he Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor nd Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 2874, H.R. 14643, 89th ong., 2nd sess., 1966, p. 260. 109 25U.S., Congress, Senate, Remarks of Senator Morse >efore International Studies Association, Wayne State Iniversity, Detroit, Michigan, May 5, 1966, Congressional iecord, CXII, 10105. 26Ibid., 10106. 27Ibid., 10105. 281bid., 10106. 29Ibid. CHAPTER VIII THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY The Colonial college prepared competent magistrates for the state, learned clergy for the Church, and cultured nen for society.1 The privilege of obtaining higher edu— 3ation was gradually extended to students preparing for >ther occupations (most notably by the Morrill Act in -862), to women, and to Negroes. After the Civil War specialized training in agriculture and mechanical arts ras made available in most States through land—grant uni— ’ersities. Today, through community colleges and special Irograms for disadvantaged youth, new efforts are being ,ade to provide opportunities for higher education to reater and greater numbers and types of students. John ope Franklin, perhaps the Negro American's greatest his- orian, has labeled this process "the democratization of iucational opportunity."2 After World War II the democratization of educa- ional opportunity had a twofold thrust: providing higher iucation for a rapidly eXpanding population of college ;e students born in the post—war baby boom, and extend— u; new opportunities to students previously judged 110 111 unqualified for college. Senator Morse helped design programs of Federal aid to meet both needs. Providing facilities for the sheer increase in num— DGPS of students was the first priority. Morse often quoted the figures given in testimony in subcommittee iearings by Dr. Logan Wilson of the American Council on Education: We shall have to double the size of every uni- versity and college in this country by 1980, and beyond that the need is to establish a thousand new universities and colleges, with an average enrollment of 2,500 students, if we are to meet the facilities' needs by 1980.3 lo convince his colleagues of the urgent need to expand ’acilities Morse entered into the Record a table of pro— ected enrollments by State, the testimony of the Presi— lent of the American Association of Junior Colleges and xhe representative of the Association of State Univer- ities and Land-Grant Colleges.“ The evidence pointed o a crisis in higher education which could no longer be gnored. Efforts to provide major Federal aid programs for igher education had failed in 1962. By thelfollowing ear time was running out. If facilities were to be xpanded in time to meet increased enrollments, an aid ill had to be passed in 1963. Compromising his princi— les in order to get some legislation passed, Morse sup- arted a facilities bill stripped of student assistance 112 provisions.5 The result was the Higher Education Facil— ities Act of 1963. Morse was aware that providing facilities was only part of the answer. Additional funds must also be pro— vided for student assistance. Morse favored direct aid :o students through loans and grants and opposed other . Jrograms designed to aid students indirectly. One indir— ect proposal appeared again and again in amendment form: Senator Ribicoff's program of tax benefits for the par- ints of college students. The Ribicoff program would have enabled parents of :ollege students to deduct college expenses from gross .ncome in computing income tax. Morse believed that the ax benefit program would be extremely costly and would imply encourage colleges and universities to increase heir charges. But more importantly, Morse opposed the ax benefit program as social class legislation. His rguments against the tax benefit proposal reveal his upport of the graduated income tax as an instrument of ocial policy. First of all, Morse argued that tax deductions would e larger for high income families: Deductions from gross income for tuition pay— ments tend to favor the high—income groups. A high—income taxpayer might have a tax saving of 50 percent or more; a taxpayer at the bottom of I the income—tax brackets would have a maximum tax savings of 20 percent. 113 Ekcondly, the tax benefit program discriminated against taxpayers without children: The parents of young people who wanted to go to college would have a smaller tax to pay. How— ever, the necessary revenue must be raised. This means that taxpayers who are not the parents of prospective college students would in essence, have to pay an additional amount in taxes. But the most convincing argument was that tax benefits were of very little help to low—income families: Senators know that parents with an adjusted gross income of $5,000 or less will have no taxable income against which this credit can be applied. They will gain nothing from it. Like so many other tax features, you have to have considerable income to begin with before you get preferred treatment. The Bible refers to this system as one of: ”To them that hath, it shall be given,” which in American parlance is called: "Them as has, gits . . ." This is the kind of inequity that we should be elimigating from the revenue code instead of adding. [n 1966, when President Johnson began to curtail Federal )rograms through budget cuts, Morse contemplated support— ing the tax benefit program. He viewed the tax benefit >rogram as a last resort, however, as a means of chan— leling aid to students when direct aid programs proved .nsufficient.9 Although Morse favored loans for the construction f facilities and only gradually accepted the concept of ategorical grants, he favored direct scholarship grants 0 students and reluctantly accepted loan programs as eccmui best. Since the church—state issue was not avolved, he was astonished at his colleagues' resistance 0 sctuilarship programs for the sake of economy: 114 I am surprised that we get so economy minded all at once on the floor of the Senate. When a com— mittee or an individual comes forward with a great bill to perform a great service for the welfare of this country, by putting boys in col— lege, we become so economy minded that it is said, "We will loan them the money; we will not give it to them."1 In arguing against loan programs Morse pointed out that private investors were not inclined to make loans to stu- dents and that students were reluctant to borrow: It cannot be assumed that the private economy would lend sufficient money to individuals who need it, since the capital created by education is within the mind - not a separate piece of machinery upon which the lender can foreclose . . . It should be recognized that an 18—year-old may be least ' impressed by the long—run returns on educational investment, to himself and to society, and most sensitive to both the educational hinderences and the alternative lures of the private economy. Morse further supported his point by recalling his own mental state at age 18, how he almost lost interest in going to college, and how a high school biology teacher loaned him the money which made college attendance pos— sible. Such operations of the law of chance are obsolete, he argued, and should be supplanted by scholarships financed by the Federal Government.12 When opponents of Federal aid argued that scholarship aid should be granted through private institutions and State programs, Morse simply pointed out the facts: in 1961 three percent of the colleges in the Nation granted more than one—third of all institutional scholarships and 94 percent of the funds available through State programs were found in four of the a13 50 States. 115 Morse's support of scholarships as opposed to loans is evident in his efforts to turn existing loan programs into scholarship programs by extending so—called forgive- ness provisions. Morse supported the provisions of the National Defense Education Act which permitted as much as a 50 percent cancellation of the loan for students who actually became teachers. Similar provisions were made for nurses in the Nurses Training Act of 1964. In 1967 Morse introduced legislation to allow for the for- giveness of a loan to a college student who left college to take up arms for his country. He proposed eventual forgiveness of the entire loan at the rate of 25 percent for each year of service.114 It is not correct to say that Morse was opposed to loans or forms of student assistance other than scholar- ships. He simply favored scholarships. In actual prac— tice he supported various forms of direct student assis— tance. He was aware that students from low-income fam— ilies would need every form of support available: In my judgment, given the costs of college edu- cation today we need to have scholarships as a base, full utilization of all student loans, and in addition, if these youngsters are to achieve their goal they must be amply supplied with work opportunities while they are going to college. All three of these financial resources will have to be used in the overwhelming preponderance of the cases since by definition the youngsters selected can expect no help from family resources.15 Before Morse left the Senate the Federal Government had assumed a major responsibility in all three areas. 116 Democratization of educational opportunity was the goal which Morse was pursuing in his support of various programs of student assistance. To provide the oppor— tunity for higher education directly to each individual student, Morse sought to destroy the barriers of income and social class which denied opportunity. Although he was deeply concerned about students from low—income fam— ilies, he was also aware of the subtle barriers to oppor- tunity which may develop in families of moderate and above average incomes. During hearings on the Higher Education Bill of 1965 Morse issued this warning: I think we have to be very careful that we do not lay down a rule of thumb, an automatic rule would bind a scholarship committee on a local campus, or a State scholarship committee. We should be very careful that we do not restrict them, in the grant— ing of scholarships, to only children that come from families, we will say, with an income of not more than $5,000, although I think income might be one of the guidelines. The reason I say that is that you will be sur— prised at the number of young men and women who come from homes where the annual income is $7,000 or $10,000 or $15,000, but where, for various rea- sons, the parents do not have the slightest inter- est in sending children on to college. That is hard to believe, but I tell you it is true. There are family domestic problems in many homes that create this situation. A growing young man may have developed a conflict with his father, who says, ”The last thing I will do is spend a nickel on him for school." We need some discretion, it seems to me, on the part of the scholarship committee to determine the real financial status of the student rather than that of the parent. You may have a parent that could, if he wanted to, send the boy to college, but he is not going to do it. Now, I want to help that boy get to college, irresggctive of the fact that his father earns $10,000. 117 By making family income only one measure of need, Morse focused primary attention on the needs of the student. If the democratization of opportunity was to be complete, no barrier—-neither wealth nor poverty-—should be per— mitted to stand in the way of a student seeking higher education. If Morse was interested in broadening educational opportunities for students from various economic back- grounds, he was also interested in providing increased opportunities for students of varying academic abilities. Although Morse shared the typical college professor's commitment to excellence, he often rose on the Senate floor to defend the average student: The C student, when all is said and done,is the backbone of American education. The C student, the average student, is the backbone of American educated citizenry. We must stop denying to the C student an opportunity to attend college. Morse believed in giving students a second chance and was dubious about the great weight traditionally given to a high school transcript: But I want to point out that time and time again, so many times that I am not going to accept a high school transcript as an exclusive criterion for admission to college, the high school C student and low B student can make a satisfactory record in college. Frequently, greater maturity, the passage of time, a devel— oping sense of values, a new—found ambition, and other similar factors cause a boy or girl to find himself or herself upon entrance to college. To deny such students admission to college, I think, is wrong, Mr. Chairman, from the standBoint of what it does to the individual student.1 118 Morse knew that decisions to expand or limit facil— ities for higher education had great implications for the education of the average student. If total resources remained constant during an explosion of the college—age population, the average student would be excluded through selective admissions procedures. During his futile efforts to get Congress to pass a major facilities and scholarship act in 1962, Morse said this about the C student: The C student, the average man and woman who graduates from the colleges of America, makes such a great contribution to the development of America that we cannot justify supporting the kind of discriminatory policy that would result if we should take the easy way out and say, "After all, we will settle this problem, not by giving the necessary financial support to the colleges, not by developing new colleges, not by aiding the development of the community college. We will merely limit attendance at colleges to meet the physical facilities now present, and those students who cannot meet the entrance requirements will have to do something else."19 It is not surprising to find Morse showing partic— ular interest in institutions which seek to serve the average student as a matter of policy. He often noted in the Record those institutions which showed special con— cern for the C student. He praised the efforts of Florida Atlantic University in challenging the average student,20 and lauded the Federal City College for its ”open—door" policy.21 He was a strong advocate of the community col— lege and was proud of the efforts of his home State of Oregon in establishing community colleges across the state. 119 He understood the importance of dispersing community col— leges geographically to spread the availability of facil- ities throughout the State.22 Morse made certain that Federal programs for facilities and student assistance always included provisions for community colleges.23 He was especially enthusiastic about the establishment of a community college in his home—town, Eugene, through grass-roots efforts and under adverse conditions.214 Senator Morse was particularly interested in estab- lishing a community college and a public four-year college in the District of Columbia. Morse was an early advocate of home rule for the District of Columbia and even attached a home rule rider to the Higher Education Amend- ments of 1966.25 He was deeply troubled by the urban decay of Washington, and fought for the establishment of public colleges as an instrument for releasing Washington's youth from the chains of the ghetto. Unlike the existing colleges in the Washington area whose concerns were national and international in scope, the public colleges would focus on the particular needs of the Washington community in an effort to close the gap between employment skills needed and the skills avai1ab1e.26 He believed that there should be no tuition charge for the public colleges in the District of Columbia and advocated their geographical separation to insure greater availablity of Opportunity.27 In all these programs further efforts 120 toward the democratization of educational opportunity can be seen. If educational opportunities can be broadened by extending them to students of diverse economic back— grounds and academic abilities, they can also be extended by encouraging programs in a variety of subjects and disciplines. On the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Morrill Act, Senator Morse paid tribute to the land-grant movement in American higher education. He showed how the single classical curriculum of the Colonial college was gradually broadened to include training in a variety of specialties leading to a wide range of careers. Morse referred to the land-grant colleges as "peoples colleges” and viewed their founding as a protest against "limited opportunities in both courses and acceptance of students."28 Land—grant institutions extended these opportunities even further through university extension programs. "This is the program,” said Morse, "which keeps the colleges and universities in touch with the people today through provisions of classes in a great variety of disciplines in a great many of our smaller towns and cities throughout the country.”29 Unlike many of his colleaguesin the academic world Morse had no prejudices about which subjects were "respect- able" fields of study. He had equal respect for theoret— ical research and applied technologies, the sciences and 121 the humanities, the useful and the enjoyable. His rich appreciation for all fields of study is evident by his quotation of an excerpt from a letter by John Adams writ- ten to his wife from Paris in 1780: I must study politics and war that my sons have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philos— ophy, geography, natural history, and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agri- culture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, archi- tecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. The democratization of educational opportunity results from broadening the scope of the subjects studied as well as from increasing the numbers and types of students who study them. Morse supported both efforts. The most recent chapter in the history of the dem~ ocratization of educational opportunity, and perhaps the most complex, is the account of efforts to extend oppor- tunities for higher education to the disadvantaged. In recent years great attention has been given to students of high potential who, through some previous denial of educational opportunity, have exhibited only modest achievement. Morse was among that group of legislators who tried to devise programs for such students. Speaking on behalf of the Higher Education Amendments of 1966, he said: One of the hypotheticals that we kept talking about was the case of the boy or girl from the home of the sharecropper in areas of this country where we are trying to get young people in the South, or the ghettos of the North, or 122 poverty—stricken areas anywhere in the country, who have the mental capacity and desire to go to college, to go to college.31 Morse realized that for most Senators, this hypothetical student was just that, a hypothetical abstraction, some— one men. far removed from the daily experiences of Congress— He admonished his colleagues: We do not have boys and girls of our own in these ghetto schools. Most Members of Congress have not had the personal experiences which characterize the children who sorely need this kind of extra educational help. I think we ought to give more thought to what we are doing to these boys and girls. For Senator Morse the disadvantaged child was more than an abstraction. He had walked the streets of Wash— ington, D.C., to get a first—hand impression of the ghetto. He was shocked at what he saw: I know of no ghettos anywhere in America——in Harlem, Chicago, Los Angeles, or any other great metropolitan area——that are as shock— ing in their awfulness as the ghettos of the Capital City of the Republic. As chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee on Pub- lic Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety, the subcommittee that has surveillance over the schools, I am shocked by what I see in the schools of the District of Columbia . . . Con- gress knows that as recently as 1957, when the Senator from Pennsylvania was a member of my subcommittee, we found more than 200 little boys and girls in the District of Columbia who were dependent 100 percent for their daily food supply, on garbage cans and backdoor handouts, in the shocking Negro areas of this city, in the alleys in this city, which at that time were lined with outdoor toilets. There has been some improvement since what became known as the Morse hungry children report of my subcommittee; but we have a long way to go before we take Washington3 D.C., out of the depths of national disgrace. 123 If Morse was dismayed by what he saw, his faith in the power of education was undaunted. He believed that the ghetto could be transformed through the initiation of appropriate educational programs. Properly trained teachers could reach over the depressing conditions of the immediate environment and touch the hearts and minds of individual students. Morse placed his greatest hopes in the Teachers Corps, a program to place specially trained teachers in ghetto areas. The Teachers Corps was first proposed by Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Nelson of Wiscon— sin.314 The plan called for special programs of teacher education to prepare teachers for ghetto schools and, in turn, provided ghetto schools with the funds to recruit the specially trained teachers. In Spite of the apparent intrinsic merit of the program, appropriations were reluc— tantly approved at levels below the amount authorized.35 The unique aspect of the Teachers Corps program was its recognition that broadening opportunities for higher education depended upon similar broadening of educational oppcmfindnities at lower levels. It recognized what Morse had said.as early as 1959: . thousands upon thousands of American boys and gfirls are denied a college education today because of no fault of their own. They go to grade schools and high schools so low in sta — dards that they cannot qualify for college.3 . 124 The Teachers Corps program also recognized that responsibility for a student's failure lay with the teacher and the educational program and not the student. Morse once recalled: in all my years of teaching I used to take the position that if a boy or girl of nor- mal intelligence failed out of the law school it was my failure and my faculty's failure and not the boy's or girl's. It simply meant that we had failed some way, somehow, to find out where that particular student's best aptitudes lay. Morse was aware that there would always be a certain group of students who have no intention of doing satis— factory work, but in general he placed the primary responsibility on the teacher. It is that philosophy which was incorporated into the Teachers Corps program, and for that reason Morse was one of its greatest defend— ers. The Teachers Corps program also recognized the importance of reaching beyond the school to other aspects of the environment which shape the child's mind and atti— tudes. Commenting on this aspect of the program Morse said: There is not even a book in their (ghetto) homes that we can really consider to be an educational book. There may be some comic books. There may be some other books of very questionable nature that should not be in their homes, but there is not a literary book. Why? Because they come from illiterate parents, poverty—stricken parents. Do not forget that you have a whole group of teachers in this country besides the teacher in the classroom. The home has to be a great 125 teacher. The Sunday School has to be a great teacher. The people in the community in which children live must be teachers. That is all part of the educational process. Education is not ladled out only in the classroom. Here is a group of teachers-—part of the Teacherg Corps program——that works with the home, too.3 What the Coleman report confirmed through objective obser— vation Morse intuited as a former teacher: the educational environment extends far beyond the classroom. Morse real— ized that the democratization of educational opportunity for disadvantaged youth had to begin long before their admission to college. To make higher education truly available to disadvantaged youth, colleges and univer— sities must turn their attention to the total educational environment of the ghetto. By the end of the summer of 1967 countless ghettos had been disturbed by rioting, destroyed by flames, and ravaged by looting. White Americans, growing frustrated with a problem which daily seemed more insoluble, were quick to point out the futility of programs such as the Teachers Corps. Others, such as Senator Morse, remained unshaken in their conviction that the problems of the cities could be solved, through substantial Government programs. Facing the issue of the riots head—on Morse said: I know the attitude of some who say, "Well, I certainly won't vote for it now at all, because of what they have done." Well, they are just forgetting the little boys and girls. They are taking it out on the bad judgment of some of the adults and are not 126 paying any attention to the cause of the bad judgment. I don't support the bad judgment. I have made that perfectly clear. But I think it is pretty shocking to be reading in the papers these days, as we have in the last few days, the comments of people in and out of government that say, "Now, we have got to show them." And all they are saying is, "Now, we have got to do further damage to little boys and girls who are going to develop not into good citizens, but bad citizens, because of this attitude that is being expressed."3 Instead of focusing on the manifest symptoms of the sickness of the ghetto, Morse preferred instead to seek out the underlying causes. While others were condemning the riots, Morse continued to condemn, as he had in the past, the causes of the riots. Referring to James Conant's study of urban schools, Slgmg gng Suburbs, Morse asked: More important, are we going to continue sitting on what James Conant of Harvard described six years ago as "social dynamite?" The explosion in our cities this summer cannot come as any sur— prise to any average citizen. Nothing has hap- pened that was not expected, calculated, measured, and fully reported by the nation's most reliable social authorities. When he surveyed the big cities in 1961, Dr. Conant found large numbers of young males who were dropouts from the job market. It was then he warned us that these restless, unskilled, unemployable youths constituted "social dynamite" that could blow up our cities. It is easy now to blame the riots on outside agitators, on Communists, on this or that individ— ual. But a lighted match does not produce an explosion without the dynamite being there first; what are we going to do about that? O E:Zhe ultimate challenge to a fuller democratization of edu— c: ational opportunity was found in the urban ghetto. A 1_<3ng historical tradition indicated that the challenge c <::u1d be met. If educational opportunity could be 127 extended to greater numbers and types of students through a greater variety of studies, then surely some way could be found to extend the opportunity for higher education to America's most disadvantaged students. Much of what Senator Morse said about extending educational opportunities was in response to external pressures and events: to increasing enrollments, to rising costs, and to the growing crisis in the ghetto. His consistent response was an articulate appeal to make the academic world inclusive rather than exclusive. Except in the single instance where he was forced to delete student assistance programs from the Higher Edu— cation Facilities Bill, he argued insistently for broad financial aid programs with scholarships at their core. He believed that expanded educational opportunity would enrich individuals as well as American society generally. His concern for education in the ghetto was but another expression of his wider concern for all human life. Nowhere was his liberalism more evident than in his abid- ing belief that the problems of the ghetto could be cured through education and government programs, properly funded and intelligently conceived. One of his greatest dis— appointments was to watch the democratization of educa— tional opportunity come to a standstill through neglect as his country's energies were consumed in war. FOOTNOTES — CHAPTER VII lFrederick Rudolph, The American College and Uni- versity, A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19655, p. 6. 2John Hope Franklin, "The Democratization of Edu- cational Opportunity," in Issues i3 University Education, ed. by Charles Frankel (New York: Harper & Bros., 1959) 3U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. ll, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, l9AOO. “U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 10, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 19217. 5Ibid., 19216. 6U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Keating Amendment for Tax Benefits, 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 21, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 1986A. 7lbld. 8U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Ribicoff Amendment to Revenue Bill of 1964, 88th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 3, 1964, Congressional Record, CX, 1795. 9U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Ribicoff-Dominick Amendment to Tax Adjustment Act of 1966, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., March 17, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 6150. loU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Federal Grants for College Students, 86th Cong., lst sess., July 21, 1959, Congressional Record, CV, 13822. llU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for College Academic Facilities and Scholarship Bill, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 2, l962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 152A. 12Ibid. 13Ibid. 128 129 15U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Lausche Amendment to College Academic Facilities and Scholarship Bill, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 6, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 1807. l6U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Pub— lic Welfare, Higher Education Act of 1965, Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 600, 89th Cong., lst sess., 1965, p. 995. l7U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill, 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 11, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 19399-19AOO. l8U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on America's Education Needs, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 1958, Congressional Record, CIV, Alul. 19U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for College Academic Facilities and Scholarship Act, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 2, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 1521. 2OU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse entering Article about Florida Atlantic University, 88th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 13, 1963, Congressional Record, CIX, 1A825. 21U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for the Federal City College, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., March 1, 1968, Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 19878. (Daily Edition.) 22U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Establishment of a Public Community College and a Public College of Arts and Sciences in the District of Columbia, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 12, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 19268. 23U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on Failure to Pass Higher Education Act, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 3, 1962, Congressional Record, CVIII, 22091. 2uU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia, 90th Cong., lst sess., Jan. 12, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, NON. 25U.S., Congress, Senate, Floor Debate on Higher Edu— cation Amendments of 1966, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 7—10, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 25807—25918. 130 26U. 8., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Establishment of a Public Community College and a Public College of Arts and Sciences in the District of Columbia, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 21, 1966, Congressional Rec— gg, CXII, 23595. 27Ibid. 28U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse introducing S. 3A77, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., June 27, 1962, Congress— ional Record, CVIII, 11803. 29Ibid., 11800. 30Ibid. 31U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Amendments of 1966, 89th Cong., 2nd sess. Oct. 7, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 25810. 32U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Increases in Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriation Bill, 1967, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 26, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, 23841. 33U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia, 90th Cong., lst sess., Jan. 12, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, AOA. 34U 8., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Bill of 1965, 89th Cong., lst sess., Sept. 2, 1965, Congressional Record, CXI, 22659. 35U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Amendment of Title V of Higher Education Act of 1965, 90th Cong., lst sess., June 28, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 17713. 36U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Federal Aid to Education, 86th Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 5, 1959, Congressional Record, CV, 18231. 37U.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking on v America's Education Needs, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 1958, Congressional Record, CIV, AlAl. 380.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Increased Appropriations for Teachers Corps, 90th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 2, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 21009. 131 39U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Education Legislation, Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 1125, H.R. 7819, 90th Cong., lst sess., 1967, pp. 1A56—1A57. ”OU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking against Crippling Cuts in Domestic Programs at Portland City Club, Portland, Oregon, Aug. A, 1967, 90th Cong., lst6sess., Aug. 10, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 221 7. - CHAPTER IX THE FUTURE SHAPE OF FEDERAL AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION By the time Wayne Morse left the Senate the extent of Federal support for higher education had become prodi— gious. In total dollars spent and number of programs funded, Federal aid to higher education had reached an unprecedented level through the proliferation of pro- grams Morse had supported. Unlike his colleagues in the Senate who continued to worry about the old "scarecrow" of Federal control, Morse turned to the future to con— template the new and more complex problems arising from the developing partnership of education and the Federal Government. One of these problems was the development of a coherent and integrated program of Federal aid. Morse was aware that heretofore education legislation had been passed in bits and pieces. No one knew better than Morse the technique of passing acceptable programs today while holding more controversial programs for tomorrow. Such pragmatism resulted in the eventual passage of an unpre— cedented number of laws, but the coordination of one Fed- eral aid program with another was largely left to chance. 132 133 As colleges and universities across the land added coor— dinators of Federal programs to their staffs to better understand the Federal "monster" which had been created, Morse grew increasingly concerned about the problem of integrating existing programs. He presented the Higher Education Amendments of 1968 as a bill "mainly concerned with perfecting the statutory authorities for higher education now on the books."1 Of that legislation he said: This measure, unlike many of its forerunners gives evidence that we have heeded the request of the educational community and the American public that we bring into the whole field of educational legislation elements which will permit the consolidation and the mutual rein— forcement of our existing authorities. The problem was now not so much the creation of new programs and the development of new ideas as it was the consolidation of older programs and the perfection of established techniques. Morse also expressed concern about the ability of Congress to adequately exercise its responsibility to review and evaluate existing programs. The Subcommittee on Education spent increasing amounts of time each year just in reviewing existing programs. Morse saw the need for establishing regular routines for review and proposed the following: If we are to have orderly consideration of all aspects of legislation, I think it imperative that we arrive at a cycle of consideration which would allow each session of the Congress to devote its attention to a major area. _ _.....—-—. l3u I would hope ultimately that we could arrive at a cycle which would permit in one year con— gressional review of the field of elementary and secondary education, and review in the sec— ond year of higher education, and in the third year a review of vocational and special educa- tion statutes. If this can be ultimately achieved, I think it will go far to improving the depth of the legislative oversight functions which in our committee we feel to be a very important part of our responsibilities in the consideration of proposals which come before us. The process of initiating new legislation was now inti- mately bound up with careful review of existing stat- utes. If the review and coordination of legislation had grown problematic, an even greater problem, in Morse's opinion, was the relationship of the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government. Programs which Congress had authorized were often greatly reduced in the fiscal recommendations of the Bureau of the Budget. To provide funds for the Vietnam war and curb domestic inflation, the executive branch had exploited its powers of fiscal control to the fullest, so much so, thought Morse, that the legislative prerogatives of Congress had been seriously usurped. During his final year in the Senate Morse frequently stated his objections to the grow- ing power of the executive to distort and curtail the pro- grams developed by Congress: May I say parenthetically that for some years this chairman has expressed, both in committee and on the floor of the Senate, his growing con- cern about the power that is being given more and more each year to the Bureau of the Budget. 135 It begins to look as though the Bureau of the Budget is taking on legislative responsibility . . . I think we ought to appropriate the money. That is decided by the Congress. It ought to be spent for educational needs, and if the President signs the bill, then the money should be spent. His check is not to impound or freeze the money. His check is to veto the bill, and then let Congress decide whether or not it wants to override his veto. Congressional efforts to create an integrated and coherent program of Federal aid were increasingly being confounded by intervention from the executive branch. As the total amount of Federal aid to higher educa- tion increased dramatically, the equitable distribution of that aid became a greater and greater problem. Morse believed that higher education was a National concern, and he regarded proposals to return Federal tax dollars to the States as absurd.5 Yet Morse was conscious of the need to find ways of distributing Federal aid equitably among various levels and types of institutions in all regions of the country. In a major address to the leaders of the State colleges and universities Morse proposed a five-point program to insure a fairer distribution of Fed— eral aid as follows: 1. Federal aid should go to private as well as public institutions. 2. All types of institutions—-two-year, four-year, and graduate degree granting—-should receive Fed- eral aid. 3. Federal aid should go to all geographical areas of the country. A. Certain areas of higher education, such as more costly research programs, should receive greater funding than other areas. 136 5. A maximum ceiling should be placed on grants to a single institution in any one year. Morse was evidently searching for ways to effect a more just distribution of Federal aid. If Morse was seeking ways to distribute Federal aid more equitably, he was also trying to weigh the total involvement of the Federal Government in education against its other priorities and commitments. Morse had always believed that Federal support of education was inadequate, but in his last years in the Senate he grew impatient to the point of indignation with what he considered to be an alarmingly unbalanced commitment of national resources to military programs. Attacking the budget planning system at the Bureau of the Budget he said: If the PPBS system works the way that I am told it does, there must be some kind of measuring device down in the Bureau of the Budget where they measure the value of the life of one American boy against the lives of a number of Vietcong, the education of the boys and girls of this country against the present regime in South Vietnam, and the future of the lives of our boys and girls against national prestige. I call upon the Bureau of the Budget to supply it.7 Having developed a variety of workable structures for chan— neling Federal aid to American colleges and universities, Morse now saw the need to raise the over—all level of sup- port far above present efforts. To do so would require a fundamental reshaping of national priorities. Morse was sensitive to all of the above problems and many more as well. He entered into the Record an 137 article by the Director of the Commission on Federal Relations of the American Council on Education. In addi— tion to some of the problems already mentioned, that article raised a series of questions about the future form of Federal aid. A sampling of those questions follows: Would a sharp increase in the Federal share in grants for the construction of academic facilities assist in stabilizing student fees? Has the time come when cost—sharing in government supported research should be the exception rather than the norm? Has the time come for higher education to reject cer— tain tasks now thrust upon it? What will be the division of labor among institutions? Who will determine it? Should basic decisions rest with the states? or with groupings of states? Would it be desirable for the government to expand greatly and extend broadly the "endowment of instruc- tion" concept of the Morrill—Nelson Act? Might an alternative approach be the payment of a Federal "cost—of—education" subsidy to the institu—' tion in which each student enrolls? The questions are not answered in the article, nor did Morse answer them elsewhere. They are interesting pri— marily as evidence that Morse was raising fundamental questions about the future shape of Federal aid to higher education. Morse never spelled out the precise forms which Fed— eral aid would take in the future. He left the Senate before he was given that opportunity. But there is 138 evidence that Morse was searching for a new approach. Morse was aware that old forms once adequate for the past were no longer sufficient for the future. FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER IX lU.S., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Amendments of 1968, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., July 15, 1968, Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 8638. (Daily Edition). 21bid. 31bid. “U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Education Legislation, Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 3098, S. 3099, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., 1968, pp. A78 and 829. 5U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Higher Education Amendments of 1966, Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Education for the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 3047, H.R. 1A6UA, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 1966, p. 24“. 60.8., Congress, Senate, Senator Morse addressing the General Session of the Joint Convention, National Association of State Universities and Land—Grant Colleges and the Association of State Colleges and Universities, Nov. 14, 1967, Columbus, Ohio, 90th Cong., lst sess., Nov. 29, 1967, Congressional Record, CXIII, 3A190. 7U.S., Congress, Senate, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Education Legislation, Hearings, before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 3098, S. 3099, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., 1968, p. U79. 8U.S., Congress, Senate, Article by Dr. John F. Morse, "The Federal Government and Higher Education," Educational Record, Fall 1966, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Nov. 10, 1966, Congressional Record, CXII, A569A—5696. PART IV CONCLUSIONS 140 CHAPTER X REVIEW OF MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCLUSIONS It is never possible to know precisely what a man thinks, for what he thinks can only be inferred from what he says and does. In the case of a United States Senator, even one so outspoken as Senator Morse, what is said and done is prescribed to a great extent by the role of the Office. Words are chosen carefully and ideas are pre- sented selectively with a watchful eye cast continually toward the consequences. One ought not risk the claim, therefore, of knowing a Senator's mind. The conclusions drawn from this study are based on what Morse has chosen to make a matter of public record. Most of what Senator Morse has said about Federal aid to higher education has grown out of four fundamental assumptions. In almost all that Morse said and did there is; evidence of 1) an abiding belief in the value and good— ruess of the individual, 2) an optimistic faith in the per— fecrtibility of society, 3) a firm trust in reason operat— ira; in an atmosphere of freedom, and A) a devotion to the priuiciples of constitutional government. 1A1 1A2 Morse's abiding faith in the value and goodness of the individual is evident in his determination to develop the full potential of each student, in his desire to resolve the church-state issue in order to aid individual students, and in his efforts to extend educational oppor- tunity to students of various economic backgrounds and abilities. He was opposed to all schemes, such as tax exemption provisions, which tend to give advantages to some while withholding them from others. His concern for individuals knew no national boundaries, and he believed that all men could find a way to live together in peace. Morse's faith in the perfectibility of society is evident in his optimism about resolving the urban crisis at home and the establishment of a peaceful international order. He believed that the ghetto could be transformed, that men could live without war, and that education was the primary resource for perfecting human society. He saw in the Teachers Corps program the way to transform the ghetto and in programs of world literacy the path to iriternational understanding. Morse's trust in reason operating in an atmosphere of‘ freedom is evident in his efforts to develop adequate seufeguards against the Federal control of education and irl his firm defense of academic freedom. His objection to loyalty oaths and his support of peaceful and lawful 1A3 dissent are undergirded by a fundamental confidence in man's ability to manage his own affairs and reform his institutions. He sought an atmosphere of freedom for research and debate and believed that reason would lead eventually to the truth. Morse's devotion to the principles of constitu- tional government are evident in his persistent efforts to develop more adequate vehicles of Federal aid within the framework of the Constitution. The evolution of his position on the church—state question is not so much a series of fundamental changes as it is a search for a form of aid which best reflects the principles of the First Amendment. His objections to unlawful protest were primarily on Constitutional grounds. It may be concluded that Morse had a consistent position on Federal aid to higher education. Based as it was on more fundamental principles, his position was reliable and coherent. Except for minor changes, the positions he took were predictable expressions of a lib— eral political philosophy. The term "liberal" has been put to various uses, arid is, therefore, difficult to define. It once referred tc) the political philosophy of Locke and Mill and has scnnetimes been used as a label for a set of principles vnlich today are often called "conservative." Max Lerner has defined the American tradition of political liberal— ism as follows: 1AA Its credo has been progress, its mood optimist, its view of human nature rationalist and plas— tic; it has used human rights rather than prop— erty rights as its ends but has concentrated on social action as its means. It has made "exped— ient change" an integral part of its methods and has taken from science the belief in the tools of reason and the tests of validity. It has kept its fighting edge through the emotional force of the reformist impulse. This definition of liberalism coincides almost precisely with the four basic principles described above. What Wayne Morse said about higher education is best charac— terized as a consistent expression of a liberal politi— cal philosophy. If Morse's thought on higher education can be said to be consistent and logical, a coherent expression of political liberalism, what is its role and function in making history? Justice Holmes once said, "A page of 2 history is worth a volume of logic." Holmes also had this to say about law: The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevelant moral and political theories, institutions of public policy, avowed or uncon— scious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellowmen, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. If” what Holmes says about law applies equally to its leg— isilative and judicial aspects, the logic of a Senator's ttnaught may not be as important as its general impact on the legislative process. Although a certain coherence has been discovered in Morse's thought, the larger task 1A5 remains: assessing the role of his ideas in shaping the relationship of the Federal Government and educa— tion. Reflection on the role of one man's ideas in shap- ing some aspect of history inevitably leads to further reflection on the meaning of history and the process by which it is shaped. Scholars disagree on the relative importance of the various dynamic forces which shape his— tory. Kant saw reason at work in history leading man progressively to the perfection of the race. Marx saw history as a class struggle born of economic determinants. Toynbee viewed history as the cyclical rise and fall of civilizations. Carlyle believed that history was made primarily by great men. Others have given more weight to the importance of ideas. In a book entitled Ideas Are Weapons, Max Lerner recalls the words of one of his teachers, Hermann Kantor— owicz who said, "Men possess thoughts but ideas possess men."u' Lerner points out that recent history has been shaped in large part by ideas such as racism, individual— isnn, Nazism, communism, and democracy. The rest of his tmaok is an examination of some of the important ideas Munich have shaped American civilization. If Lerner is correct--that is, if ideas do in fact Eilay an important role in shaping history—-how does the 1A6 historian of ideas proceed? Lerner proposes the follow— ing method for studying ideas: The Copernican revolution in intellectual his— tory will not have borne fruit until we adopt a completely naturalistic approach to them. The meaning of an idea must be seen as the focus of four principal converging strains: the man and his biography; the intellectual tradition; the social context, or the age and its biography; the historical consequences of the idea, or the successive audiences that receive it. This four—fold schema is a workable outline for examin— ing further the impact of Morse's ideas about higher education. The biography of Wayne Morse is the account of an academic man who became a United States Senator. It is not surprising that the ideas he set forth usually expressed the concerns of the academic community gener- ally. In his experiences as student, teacher, and dean, he assimilated an appreciation for the life style, con- flicts, and pressures of the academic world. His belief in the integrity of institutions of higher learning, his appreciation of the need for academic freedom, and his recognition of the need for increased financial support for facilities and students were natural expressions of his familiarity with the academic world. His ideas are a natural extension of his life experiences, and it is not surprising that his colleagues named him "Mister Education." His ideas were of great importance in 1A7 shaping the emerging partnership between the Federal Government and education largely because he was an aca- demic man in the Senate. The intellectual tradition which Morse represented and gave expression to was the philosophy of political liberalism. The chief characteristics of liberalism have been described above. Morse consciously represented that tradition and sought to articulate its basic principles in education legislation. Morse was what one might call an orthodox liberal, one who prided himself in consis— tently taking a liberal position and one who was quick to mark the heresies of those who chose "half-a-loaf" lib— eralism. Morse's ideas were an effective vehicle for translating orthodox liberal political philosophy into public policy in the field of education. His ideas represent a brilliant attempt to apply the concepts of a liberal political philosophy to a well-defined area of public policy. The social context out of which Morse's ideas grew accounts for the problems he selected to address himself to and imposed certain limitations on the range of solu— tions he was able to propose. Morse was deeply sensitive to important national and international problems long before they erupted as major crises. He knew that the nation's efforts were lagging in education before Sput— nik appeared in 1957. He knew that education in the 1A8 ghetto was inadequate well before major cities erupted in riots. He was among the first to see the folly in the Vietnam war and its disruption of national priori— ties. His ideas were shaped not only by the problems he confronted but also by those people whom he had to convince. If his arguments occasionally involved hyper— bole, it was because of a formidably obstinate oppos— ition. The arguments which he developed to justify his position on Federal control, the church-state issue, and tax benefits to parents of college students all are marked by occasional logical fallacies and inconsisten— cies. What he said in the context of debate on the Senate floor was often defined by the enormous pressures of his role as Subcommittee Chairman. His ideas serve as an important articulation of contemporary national problems as well as examples of solutions to those prob— lems forged under great heat with the materials at hand. The historical consequences of Morse's thought are still being determined. His departure from the Senate has been too recent to allow any long—range assessment of his contribution. Nor is it helpful to speculate on how his ideas may be used by those who follow after him. It is possible, however, to make a more modest assess— ment of the impact of Morse's ideas during the time he served the Senate. 1A9 In describing political liberalism Max Lerner has said: Its basic premise has been in a majority will capable of organizing itself effectively when the obstructions are blagted away by the dyna— mite of facts and ideas. If one were to single out the most important impact of Morse's thought on Federal aid to higher education, it would be its power to blast away obstructions with the dynamite of facts and ideas. Morse is not an original creative thinker; he is not a philosopher of education. His ideas are not the Ideas which possess men, but should be more modestly described as thoughts. His thoughts do not sum up an age, nor do they portend some new climate of opinion. Their function is political, in the best sense of the word, in that they serve the art of the possible. If history is moved by great ideas, it is also moved by modest ones. If great ideas inspire men to action, modest thoughts enable men to take action, to justify their actions, and to establish the structures to carry out their intentions. Human beings need ideas to explain, to rationalize, and to give meaning to their actions. Politicians are not likely to be moved to action unless they can explain their actions. If they have real or irrational fears, they need to be reassured. If they are mistaken, they need facts. If they do not understand the problems they encounter, they need inter— 150 pretations. Once convinced of a need to act, they must have the appropriate vehicles for action. The thought of Senator Morse was superbly adequate to that task. If modest as well as great ideas shape history, Wayne Morse helped to fashion American higher education in one of its hours of greatest need. One question remains: If Morse's ideas were ade— quate in implementing legislation, were they adequate in themselves? Apart from their efficacy in creating an expanded partnership between the Federal Government and higher education, were the forms of that partnership adequate to the task? To inquire about the adequacy of the programs which_ Morse sponsored is to question the adequacy of political liberalism. If Morse is to be criticized it is not for the consistency of his arguments but for their underlying assumptions. Each of those assumptions is vulnerable to criticism. Morse may have placed too much emphasis on the innate goodness of the individual. In a manner reminis— cent of Rousseau, he placed the locus of evil in society, while maintaining the goodness of individual boys and girls. It is society that makes men bad; therefore, he thought, if we can only reach children with education soon enough, the problems of society will be resolved. Morse saw in the TeaChers Corps program a way of hurdling 151 the conditions of the ghetto and getting to the indivi— dual child before it was too late. He believed that granting scholarship aid would overcome the most serious obstacle to higher learning and overlooked the motiva— tional and personal problems which also obstruct learn— ing. His efforts to broaden educational opportunity assume that students are generally highly—motivated and self—directed, and that all they really need is a fair chance. His efforts in international education pre— suppose an atmosphere of good will and overlook the equally natural tendency of Americans and foreign nation— als alike toward exploitation. In failing to recognize individual limitations as well as identifying human poten— tial, Federal aid programs have been open to abuse by individual recipients and institutions. The liberal political philosophy which Morse expressed was utopian in its assessment of human nature. Reinhold Niebuhr's criticism of modern utopianism is relevant at this point: There was little difference between the religious and the secular versions of modern utopianism. Both were informed by a common interpretation of human nature, which failed to see the darker side of human conduct and of historical possibilities, being persuaded that men would espouse the common good if only their minds were enlightened by education and their hearts warmed by a vital piety. The secular portion of the culture took these perfectionist ideas from the Enlightenment's conception of human per— fectibility, and the church inherited the same optimism from the sectarian perfectionist notions which grew on the frontier. Thus evangelical piety and rational enlightenment combined to give Ameri- can life a curious air of unreality; they failed to 152 Iprepare the country for wrestling with problems of domestic justice in a technical age and prob— lems of international justice in an age of tyranny. Morse's overestimate of the goodness of the indi— vidual led to an undue optimism about the perfectibility of society. He had, perhaps, hoped for too much to result from education. Nowhere is this more evident than in Morse's hope for world peace through world literacy. The factors which define the power relations among coun- tries are extremely complex, and international under— standing will doubtless not be brought about simply through education. The liberal hope is that the prob— lems of society can be resolved if only the right pro— gram can be developed. The results of the search are inevitably inadequate, so that still another program must be created. When the search for the right program is combined with an undue reliance on the efficacy of education, the result is a proliferation of educational programs which have little relationship to one another but which all have as their goal the salvation of society. It is not surprising that Morse grew uneasy about the problems of oversight and review which his Committee faced in his final years in the Senate. Commenting on the ten— dency of the American to subscribe to the indefinite per— feCtibility of man, Alexis de Toqueville wrote these words over 100 years ago: 153 Thus, forever seeking, forever falling to rise again-—often disappointed, but not discouraged, —-he tends unceasingly towards that unmeasured greatness so indistinctly visible at the end of the long track which humanity has yet to tread . . . Aristocratic nations are naturally too apt to narrow the scope of human perfecti— bility; democratic nations, to expand it beyond reason. In his last years in the Senate the optimistic faith which Morse shared with his fellow Americans was begin— ning to crumble under the weight of the absurdity of the Vietnam war. He was beginning to wonder if it was per— haps too late for the liberal dream, if America had indeed passed a point of no return, and if the urban crisis was the result of a series of fatal mistakes with irredeemable consequences. He had not given up his search for a way out, but that search seemed now to be directed less toward the right program than toward discovering a way of effecting a fundamental reordering of national priorities. If the liberal political tradition has been unduly optimistic about the perfectibility of society through the unbeatable combination of education and money, it has also placed unwarranted emphasis on human reason. Morse believed too strongly, perhaps, that truth would emerge from open debate and that social change would take place when the fact of injustice was made known through peace- ful demonstrations. He rightly supported the establish— ment of safeguards to protect academic freedom, but he 15“ too readily concluded that academic men are always rea— sonable. His faith in the ability of colleges and uni- versities to manage their affairs reasonably given ade— quate support and an atmosphere of freedom has been chal— lenged by violent eruptions on countless campuses across the land. Only in his later years did Morse begin to see how self—interest and concern for institutional success can corrupt the results of research, making a mockery of both freedom and reason. Commenting on the rationalism of social scientists and behavioral engineers Reinhold Niebuhr has said: They all forget that, though man has a limited freedom over the historical process, he remains immersed in it. None of them deal profoundly with the complex "self" whether in its individ— ual or in its collective form. This self has a reason; but its reason is more intimately related to the anxieties and fears, the hopes and ambitions of the self as spirit and the immediate necessities of the self as natural organism than the "pure" reason of the natural scientist; for he observes forces of nature which do not essentially challenge the hopes and fears of the self. If political liberalism establishes too large a place for reason in human affairs, it has also relied too heavily on the special gifts of reason granted to the founding fathers who drafted the Constitution. Liberal— ism has become synonymous with change, but for liberals change must always be within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. As a student of Constitutional law, Wayne MCDrse had an even greater devotion to the principles of 155 constitutional government than many of his liberal col- leagues. Although he interpreted the Constitution's "general welfare" clause broadly, he was in many ways a "strict constructionist." In his search for adequate vehicles for channeling Federal aid to church—related institutions Morse was guided primarily by his desire to find a method which would satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. He accepted as given the dictates of the First Amendment as if its provisions were somehow abso— lute and eternal, unconditioned by the historical con- text of their origin. Carl Becker has criticized uncrit- ical reliance on the Constitution as follows: We are rather too apt to regard our constitutions as sacred tables handed down from Mount Sinai—— documents revealing those fundamental principles of government which, being universally applicable, need never be re—examined. It is as if in the eighteenth century we discovered and labeled our liberties, locked them safely away in oak—ribbed and riveted constitutions, placed the key under the mat, and then went cheerfully about our pri- vate affairs with a feeling of complete security . . . We feel that our civil liberties are safe because they are enumerated in the constitutions, and that our political freedom is safe because the government is so bitted and bridled and hob— bled that it can't run away with the reins. We feel safe because, the fundamentals having been settled once for all, we feel that we have a foolproof and enduring g0vernment--in short, a government of laws and not of men . . . Having a government of laws, and so many laws makes us a legally minded people, predisposed to think that adherence to the letter of the law, if only we can be sure the law is constitutional, is sufficient for salvation. Efforts to develop fool—proof forms for aiding church-related institutions within the framework of the 156 First Amendment inevitably lead to both casuistry and inadequate programs. Taking account of current prac- tice and actual need may be more important than making strict interpretations of constitutional restrictions. The crisis which liberal political philosophy con— fronts today is part of the larger crisis confronting constitutional government generally. The desire for change has outstripped reverence for tradition. Young people today regard the checks and balances once insti— tuted to protect fundamental liberties as having so ”bitted and bridled and hobbled" the political process as to render it ineffective. They see the Constitution used to obstruct as well as uphold justice, to serve the status qgg as well as to set legitimate boundaries for change. They abridge the free speech of others because their cries of injustice have not been heard, and they engage in unlawful protest to change unjust laws. They grow impa— tient with the piecemeal passage of new programs when what is needed is a reordering of fundamental priorities. Fol— lowing the example of those who pursue national selféinterest through Violence abroad, they reject admoni— tions to seek change through peaceful means at home. For such as these, the Constitution becomes one more artifact of the establishment and a "liberal" is someone who is opposed to radical change. 157 The Achilles heel of liberal political philosophy is its view of human nature. If men were good and rea— sonable, society might be perfectible through constitu— . tional government. Given human egoism, liberal programs always fall short of fulfilling their promises. Yet is there another practical alternative? Lerner reminds us: “However vulnerable, liberalism has nevertheless emerged as the central expression of the democratic faith."11 The conservative Right is adequate to the challenge of current problems only insofar as it incorporates into itself a modified liberal philosophy. However impressive the rhetoric of the Radical Left, revolution and radical change have no broad political support in America. The last hope of America is liberalism and the last hope of liberalism is its ability to reform itself. If its pre— sent forms are inadequate and its underlying assumptions too utopian, its concern for human welfare is unsurpassed. It is not so much inadequate as untried. Senator Morse's departure from the Senate marks the end of an era. Advocates of Federal aid search the hori— zon in vain for a new approach. Disillusioned liberals search without satisfaction for new roads to their dreams. Meanwhile the problems of the colleges and universities are compounded by confrontations between formidable repre- sentatives of tradition and innovation. The programs of Federal aid established while Morse was in the Senate were 158 a monumental achievement but were far less than the weal— thiest nation in the world could offer its people. Senator Morse will miss the Senate. For him it was more than a job, more than a way of serving his country, more than a forum for espousing liberal causes. Serving in the Senate was for Morse a religious vocation, a call— ing. In a rare moment of personal self—disclosure in a speech to a group of teachers Morse once said: Education forms the purposes of men and provides the tools with which to realize these purposes. In Proverbs 8:17—20 we are told of wisdom that: "I love them that love me and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honor are with me, yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver. I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. " Your job, the inculcation of wisdom through edu- cation, is a sanctified work. When those of us in the Congress through legislation try to equip you with the necessary environment, we feel we, too, are working in the vineyard of the Lord. Wayne Morse will miss working in the vineyard of the Lord, and the voice of "Mr. Education" will be missed in the Senate. 159 FOOTNOTES - CHAPTER X lMax Lerner, America as a Civilization, I (New York: Simon and Schuster, 19635, 57 729. 2Oliver Wendell Holmes, New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 3u5, 349, (1921). 3Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law (Boston. Little, Brown, and Co. , 1881), p. l. “Max Lerner, Ideas Are Weapons (New York: Viking Press, 1940), p. 3. 5Ibid., p. 6. 6Max Lerner, America as a Civilization, I (New York. Simon and Schuster, 1963), p. 731. 7Reinhold Niebuhr, Pious and Secular America (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), p. 33. 8Alexis de Tocqueville, Democrac in America (New York: The New American Library, 195 ), p. ~—l5 9Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952), p. 82. 10Carl L. Becker, Freedom and Responsibility 33 the American Way 9: Life (New York: Vintage Books, 1945), pp. 84-85- 11Max Lerner, America as a Civilization, I (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963), p. 730. l2U.S., Congress, Senate, Speech by Senator Morse given at Annual Convention of the American Federation of Teachers, Philadelphia, Pa., Aug. 14, 1961, 87th Cong., igt gess., Aug. 22, 1961, Congressional Record, CVII, 71 . BIBLIOGRAPHY 160 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Becker, Carl L. Freedom and Responsibility in the Ameri— can Way of Life. New York: Vintage Books, 1945. Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. New York: Harper & Row, 195 . Congressional Quarterly Service. Federal Role in Educa— tion. Washington: The Congressional Quarterly, 1967. De Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958. Eidenberg, Eugene, and Morey, Roy D. An Act of Congress: The Legislative Process and the Making of Education Policy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1969. Franklin, John Hope. "The Democratization of Educational Opportunity." Issues in University Education. Ed. by Charles Frankel. New York: Harper & Bros., 1959- Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1881. Lerner, Max. America As Civilization. Vol. I. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1963. Ideas Are Weapons. New York: Viking Press, 1940 Niebuhr, Reinhold. Pious and Secular America. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958. . The Irony of American History. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and Universit , A History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965. Smith, A. Robert. The Tiger in the Senate. Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1962. 161 162 Wilson, Woodrow. Congressional Government. Boston: Houghton—Miflin Co., 1885‘ Periodicals McNett, Ian E. "Wayne Morse Defeat Called 'Grievious Loss' to Education." The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 25, 1968, pp. 1—2. ”Federal Money for Education: Programs Administered by the U.S. Office of Education." American Education, February 1969, pp. 20—24. Congressional Record: Remarks by Senator Wayne Morse 85th Congress, 2nd Session U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking on Role of the National Science Foundation. 85th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 4, 1958. Congressional Record, 01v, 163A. . U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking on Amer- ica's Education Needs. 85th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 1958. Congressional Record, CIV, 4141—4146. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for McNamara Amendment to National Defense Educa— tion Bill. 85th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 13, 1958. Congressional Record, CIV, 17287—17288. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for His Amendment to National Defense Education Bill. 85th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 13, 1958. Congressional Record, CIV, pp. 17307—17312. 86th Congress, lst Session U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Oath and Affidavit Provisions of the National Defense Education Act. 86th Cong., lst sess., Feb. 16, 1959. Congressional Record, CV, 2361—2365. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Fed— eral Grants for College Students. 86th Cong., lst sess., July 21, 1959. Congressional Record, CV, 13821—13822. U.S. U.S. U.S. 163 Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Recommital of S. 819 Relating to Affidavits of Loyalty and Allegiance. 86th Cong., lst sess., July 24, 1959. Congressional Record, CV, 14223. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse supporting remarks by Mr. Cannon on Education as a National Policy. 86th Cong., lst sess., July 30, 1959. Congressional Record, CV, 14687-14688. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Fed— eral Aid to Education. 86th Cong., lst sess., Sept. 5, 1959. Congressional Record, CV, 18231. 86th Congress, 2nd Session U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Con— struction Loans to Private Nonprofit Elementary and Secondary Schools. 86th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 4, 1960. Congressioggl Record, CVI, 2053. 87th Congress, lst Session U.S. U.S. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse commenting on President Kennedy's Message to Congress on_Edu— cation. 87th Cong., lst sess., February 20, 1961. Congressional Record, CVII, 2390—2397. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse remarking on Address by Secretary Ribicoff "Federal Aid to Education." 87th Cong., lst sess., July 12, 1961. Congressional Record, CVII, 12376. Congress. Senate. Speech by Senator Morse given at Annual Convention of the American Federation of Teachers. 87th Cong., lst sess., August 22, 1961. Congressional Record, CVII, 16717-16719. 87th Congress, 2nd Session U.S. U.S. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Col— lege Academic Facilities and Scholarship Bill, 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 2, 1962. Congressional Rec— ggg, CVIII, 1519—1525. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse offering Morse—Hill Amendment to S. 1241. 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 5, 1962. Congressional Record, CVIII, 1641. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for S. 1241. 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 5, 1962. Congressional Record, CVIII, 1662-1671. 164 U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Lausche Amendment to S. 1241. 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 6, 1962. Congressional Record, CVIII, 1807—1808. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse criticizing His Biography, Tiger in the Senate. 87th Cong., 2nd sess., May 7, 1962. Congressional Record, CVIII, 7874. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse introducing 8.3477. 87th Cong., 2nd sess., June 27, 1962. Congressional Record, CVIII, 11800. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Amend— ments to National Science Foundation Act of 1950. 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 27, 1962. Congressional Record, CVIII, 21022. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking on Failure to Pass Higher Education Bill. 87th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 3, 1962. Congressional Record, CVIII, 22090- 22091. 88th Congress, lst Session U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill. 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 10, 1963. Congressional Record, CIX, 19215— 19220. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Facilities Bill. 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 11, 1963. Congressional Record, CIX, 19399- 19403. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Judicial Review. 88th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 15, 1963. Congressional Record, CIX, 19478—19480. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Keating Amendment for Tax Benefits. 88th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 21, 1963. Congressional Record, CIX, 19864—19867. U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Adop— tion of Conference Report on Higher Education Facil— ities Bill. 88th Cong., lst sess., Dec. 10, 1963. Congressional Record, CIX, 24049, 24065. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Ribicoff Amendment to Revenue Bill of 1964. 88th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 3, 1964. Congressional Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Bill of 1965. 89th Cong., lst sess., Sept. 2, 1965. Congressional Record, CXI, Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking on Civil Rights Crisis in Alabama. 89th Cong., 1st sess., March 9, 1965. Congressional Record, CXI, 4562— Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Inter- national Education Bill. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 3, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, 2058. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Ribicoff—Dominick Amendment to Tax Adjustment Act of 1966. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., March 17, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, 6149—6150. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for National Teachers Corps. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., April 27, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, 9102, Congress. Senate. Remarks of Senator Morse before International Studies Association, Wayne State Uni— versity, Detroit, Michigan, May 5, 1966. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., May 9, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Estab— lishment of a Public Community College and a Public College of Arts and Sciences in the District of Columbia. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Aug. 12, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, 19267—19268. 88th Congress, 2nd Session U.S. Record, CX, 1793—1798. 89th Congress, lst Session U.S. 22656-22661, 22714-22715. U.S ”5630 89th Congress, 2nd Session U.S. U.S. U.S 9105—9106. U.S 10104—10106. U.S U.S Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Estab— lishment of a Public Community College and a Public College of Arts and Sciences in the District of Columbia. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 21, 1966. Congressionsl Record, CXII, 23595—23596. 166 Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Increases in Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriation Bill, 1967. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 26, 1966. Congres— Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Inter— national Education Act. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 13, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, 26554, Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for International Education Act. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 21, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, 28442. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia. 90th Cong., lst sess., Jan. 12, 1967. Congressional Rec- Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Judi— cial Review Bill. 90th Cong., 1st sess., April 11, 1967. Congressional Record, CXII, 8922—8923. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Amend- ment of Title V of Higher Education Act of 1965. 90th Cong., 1st sess., June 28, 1967. Congressional Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Increased Appropriations for Teachers Corps. 90th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 2, 1967. Congressional Rec— Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Crippling Cuts in Domestic Programs at Portland City Club, Portland, Oregon, Aug. 4, 1967. 90th Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 10, 1967. Congressional Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Can— cellation of Education Loans to College Students Who Enter Armed Services. 90th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 23, 1967. Conggessional Record, CXIII, U.S sional Record, CXII, 23841—23843. U.S. 26559. U.S. 90th Congress, lst Session U.S. ord, CXIII, 404. U.S U.S Record, CXIII, 17713. U.S ord, CXIII, 21009. U.S Record, CXIII, 22165—22167. U.S 23802—23803. U.S Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking against Capitol Interns Plan to Boycott L.B.J. Talk. 90th Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 25, 1967. Congressional Record, CXIII, 24172. 167 U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse addressing General Session of the Joint Convention, National Associa- tion of State Universities and Land—Grant Colleges and the Association of State Colleges and Universi— ties, Nov. 14, 1967, Columbus, Ohio. 90th Cong., lst sess., Nov. 29, 1967. Congressional Record, CXIII, 34188—34190. 90th Congress, 2nd Session U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking on Pres— ident Johnson's Education Message. 90th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 5, 1968. Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 862. (Daily Edition.) U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Inter- national Health, Education, and Labor Program. 90th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. , 1968. Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 862. (Daily Edition.) U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for the Federal City College. 90th Cong., 2nd sess., March 1, 1968. Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 1978. (Daily Edition.) U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for the National Graduate University. 90th Cong., 2nd sess., March 7, 1968. Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 2421. (Daily Edition.) U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking for Higher Education Amendments of 1968. 90th Cong., 2nd sess., July 15, 1968. Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 8638. (Daily Edition.) U.S. Congress. Senate. Senator Morse speaking on Ques— tions of Student Misconduct with Reference to Depart— ments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations, 1969. 90th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 6, 1968. Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 10395—10404. (Daily Edition.) Congressional Record: Tables, Articles and Miscellaneous Documents U.S. Congress. Senate. Table entered by Senator Morse on Lifetime Income by Level of Education. 87th Cong., 1st sess., May 17, 1961. Congressional Record, CVII, 8217. 168 Congress. Senate. Senator Morse entering Article about Florida Atlantic University. 88th Cong., lst sess., Aug. 13, 1963. Congressional Record, 01x, 14825. Congress. Senate. Debate on Higher Education Facilities Bill of 1963. 88th Cong., lst sess., various dates. Congressional Record, CIX, 19339— 19892 and 24048—24069. Congress. Senate. Senator Mansfield congratu- lating Senator Morse on Passage of Higher Educa— tion Bill of 1965. 89th Cong., lst sess., Oct. 20, 1965. Congressional Record, CXI, 27609. Congress. Senate. The Budget: Special Analysis G. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 3, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, 2020—2022. Congress. Senate. Debate on Higher Education Amend— ments of 1966. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 7—10, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, 25807—25918. Congress. Senate. Article by Dr. John F. Morse, "The Federal Government and Higher Education," Educational Record, Fall 1966. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., Nov. 10, 1966. Congressional Record, CXII, A5694—5696. Congress. Senate. Article by Joe G. Keen, "Federal Funds: State Allotments for Funded Programs, Fis— cal Year 1968." 90th Cong., 2nd sess., April 29, 1968. Congressional Record, CXIV, S. 3446. (Daily Edition.) Congress. Senate. Senator Mansfield paying Tribute to Senator Morse. 90th Cong., 2nd sess., Oct. 2, 1968. Congressional Record, CXIV, 11871. Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Education Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Aid for Higher Education. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 585, S. 635, S. 1140, S. 1232, S. 1241, 87th Cong., lst sess., 1961. 169 Congress. Senate. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. National Defense Education Act. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 622, S. 1227, S. 1228, S. 1271, S. 1411, S. 1562, S. 1726, 87th Cong., lst sess., 1961. Congress. Senate. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Higher Education Act of 1965. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 600, 89th Cong., lst sess., 1965. Congress. Senate. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Higher Education Amendments of 1966. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Educa— tion of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 3047, H.R. 14644, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 1966. Congress. Senate. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. International Education Act. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on62. 2874, H.R. 14643, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 19 . Congress. Senate. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Education Legislation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Com— mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 1125, H.R. 7819, 90th Cong., 1st sess., 1967. Congress. Senate. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Education Legislation. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate, on S. 3098, S. 3099, 90th Cong., 2nd sess., 1968. Senate Document Congress. Senate. Proposed Federal Aid for Educa— tion, A Collection of Pro and Con Excerpts. S. Doc. 41, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 1961. Supreme Court Decision Holmes, Oliver Wendell. New York Trust Co. V. Eisner. 256 U.S. 345, 349, (1921).