uuu -- III III III III !II III III—1I'__‘Ir-' THE LEGISLATIVE HIST-ORV OF EDUCATlON-AL TELEVISION FACILmES PRQPOSALS EN THE UNiTED STATES CONGRESS -- A RHETQRICAL- CRWICAL STUDY Thesis: far the Degte-e 0.3? Ph. D. MICHIGAN” MATE UNIVERSRY T964 £01m F. PRICE LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FACILITIES PROPOSALS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS - A RHETORICSIPCRITICAL STUDY presented by JOHN F . PRICE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph' D‘ degree in Speed} L “1'1“ \ Major professor Date August 21, 19614 0-169 R0052} [.2 03-45; L '1 rn Roe-:5 use on ABSTRACT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FACILITIES PROPOSALS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS—- A RHETORICAL-CRITICAL STLDY by John F. Price The purpose of this study was to analyze the history of educational television as it was the subject of Congres- sional discourse which led to the enactment of Public Law 87-447, The Educational Television Facilities Act of 1962. The period covered (1950—1962) embraces the first decade of the educational television movement in the United States; the primary focus, however, is on the five—year period be- tween 1957 and 1962, when specific educational television legislation was before Congress. The study attempted to describe, interpret, and analyze interrelated issues and developments in four areas affecting the national educational television movement in, general, and the Congressional concern with it: (1) the general affairs of the nation, with particular emphasis on the American educational scene; (2) the activities and con— cerns of the television broadcasting industry; (3) the edu— cational television movement itself, and the issues which i0 John F. Price its progress generated; and (4) the investigation, discus- sion, debate, and other legislative activity in Congress as they related to educational television. The rhetorical-critical aspects of the study focused on the "public" discourse as it developed in Congress through committee hearings, colloquies, and floor debate in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and included the identification and description of the issues, lines of thought surrounding the issues, and the "climate" of fact and opinion within which the discourse took place. The results of this investigation indicate that the attitude of Congress toward educational television was, throughout the entire period, consonant with the attitude of Congress toward the development of natural resources in the public interest. Congressional discussion regarding the development of television for broad educational purposes preceded the 1952 action by the Federal Communications Com- mission, which reserved Specific television channels for noncommercial educational use, and continued during the following decade. This Congressional discourse related throughout, for the most part, to activities within the edu- cational television movement itself and to the educational issues confronting the nation. Of particular concern to Congress was the slow growth in the number of educational television broadcasting facili- ties; and, five years after the noncommercial channels had been reserved, it was realized that reservation alone was 3 John F. Price not sufficient to guarantee the activation of enough channels to assure the development of a nation—wide educa~ tional television service. Legislation reflecting this concern was, therefore, proposed to assist the respective States in establishing noncommercial educational television stations. Bills were introduced in Congress in the Eighty-Fifth, Eighty-Sixth, and Eighty-Seventh Congresses. In the Senate the same pro- posal was passed each time with little opposition; but in the House of Representatives, of the sixteen bills introduced (embodying essentially the same principle as the Senate pro- posals, but differing widely in details), only one reached the House floor, where it was debated and passed in March, 1962. The differences between the Senate and House legis- lation were resolved in conference and P.L. 87—447 was enacted. The issues involved were discussed by Congress in eight public hearings in Washington, ten field hearings, four floor debates, and on other occasions. The topics of the discussion included both "external" materials (i.e. materials derived from events and issues extant in the na- tion at large) and "internal" materials (considerations originating within and having as their foci the concerns of Congress itself). The former category included the dimen- sions of the educational "crisis," the efficacy of tele- ‘vision in meeting education's needs, and the urgent need to idevelop noncommercial television as a national resource; the 4 John F. Price latter included budgetary considerations, the Federal Govern— ment's role in the area of television with respect to States' Rights and interstate commerce, and particulars of language, administration, and intent of the specific bills discussed. In general, the proponents of the legislation argued in terms of "external" considerations and the opponents in terms of "internal." The House of Representatives showed much greater concern than the Senate for "internal" details. The final Act was evolved out of a nexus of legislative com— promises, recognized national needs, changes in the politi— cal complexion of the Federal Government, and strong Congres- sional leadership in both Houses. Copyright by JOHN FOSTER PRICE 1965 THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FACILITIES PROPOSALS IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS-- A RHETORICAL—CRITICAL STUDY by JOHN F. PRICE A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech 1964 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes gratefully to acknowledge the contributions made to this study by many individuals, only a few of whom can be recognized here. In particular, the writer expresses appreciation to the following: Dr. Kenneth G. Hance, Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, who directed this thesis; Dr. Walter B. Emery, Professor of Radio and Television, Michigan State University, whose personal experience and relationships with many of the events and persons involved in the educa- tional television movement during the period under investi- gation provided the basis for wise and generous counsel on the substantive portions of the study; the several govern- ment officials and other authorities noted specifically in the bibliography, who took time from busy schedules to dis— cuss freely their first-hand understanding of the circum- stances surrounding the discussion of educational television in the Congress; Miss Eleanor Boyles, Document Librarian, Michigan State University, and her staff, who were of great assistance in locating and obtaining many of the materials used in the investigation; Mrs. Mary Ann Lance, who typed the final manuscript; and, above all, the writer's wife and family, who endured many inconveniences and some travail *while this project was underway, and to whom this manuscript is dedicated. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PREFACE O O Q C O O Q C O O I O O O O O O I O 0 Chapter 1. AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Rationale and Definition . . . Justification as a Rhetorical Study Justification of the Scope . . . . . Physical Settings and Audience The Speakers . . . Textual Accuracy . Delivery . . . . . Style . . . . . Invention . . . . O O O Q 0 O 0 Issues . . . . . . . . . . Lines of Thought . . . . . . . . Supporting Material . . . . . . Social Setting . . . . . . . . . . smary O O O I O O O O O O I O Justification of Methodology . . . . Justification of Previous Rhetorical Studies O O C O . C O O O O I O 0 Analysis of Graduate Studies of Congressional Speech . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . Justification as History . . . . . . Precedent Studies in Broadcasting . . The Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggested Hypotheses . . . . . . . . Scope and Limitations . . . . . . . Subject and Time . . . . . . . . . Area of Emphasis . . . . . . . . . iii Page ii xi 19 21 23 25 26 26 28 28 28 Chapter Resources and Materials . . . . . The Speakers . . . Historical Background and "Climate" Methodology . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Report . . . . II. THE BACKGROUND OF EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Early Period of Television-- 1930‘1935 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Educational Broadcasters . . . . . . Commercial Developments . . . . . . . Congressional Concern . . . . . . . . Development and Change — 1935-1945 . . Television Emerges . . . . . . . . . A "Second Chance" for Educational Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . Congressional Interest in Educational Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . An Alternate System . . . . . . . . . The Post-War Boom —— 1945—1949 . . . . The FCC Activity . . Congressional Interest . . . . Education and Television . . . . . . The ETV "Movement" . . . . . . . . The "Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making" . . . . . . . . . . The Mobilization of Educational Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . The State of Television Development "The End of the Beginning"--l950 . . . The Status of Educational Broadcasting The Educational Television Movement . Industry Opposition . . . . . . . Formation of the JCET . . . . . . . Education's United Front . . . . . iv Page 29 31 32 33 35 38 38 38 38 41 42 45 45 45 47 48 49 49 50 53 54 58 58 59 65 67 68 69 7O Chapter Congress and the ETV Movement . . . . . The Television Year-~1950 in Retrospect Issues Remaining at Large . . . . . . . . III. EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION AND THE EIGHTY— SECOND CONGRESS: 1951 . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The National "Climate" - 1951 . . . . . . The Year in Brief . . . . . . . . . . . Television and Education . . . . . . . The Beginnings of Instructional Television (ITV) . . . . . . . Training and Program Development The Formation of ETV Attitudes . The "Crisis" in Education . . . . National Television Developments . . . Broadcasting Technology and Programming . . . . . . . . . . . . Educational Television and the FCC . . . The "Third Notice" . . . . . . . . Commercial Opposition to ETV . . . . Formal Recognition of the JCET . . Educational Television and Congress . . . The Bricker Proposals . . . . . . . . . Other ETV Proposals . . . . . . . . . . The Benton Proposals . . . . . . . . . S. Res. 127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Senator Benton and the IERT . Benton's Speech in the Senate May 1.5, 1951 O O O O O O O O O 0 Senate Hearings on the Benton Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Res. 127 . . . . . . . . . . . Hearing on General Matters . . . . Page 73 74 75 77 77 77 77 79 79 as 89 9o 90 92 92 96 97 98 99 102 103 103 109 110 113 113 117 Chapter Page Benton's Speeches in the Senate — August 13 and 27, 1951 . . . . . . . 122 Senate Hearings on S. 1579 . . . . . . 126 NARTB Reaction to the Hearing . . . 128 The End of the Benton Proposals . . . 129 The Issues of the Period . . . . . . . . . 133 Issues Related to Hypotheses . . . . . . 134 Speaking in the Senate . . . . . . . . . 136 Postscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 IV. THE GERMINATION PERIOD, 1952-1956 . . . . . 139 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 The "Climate" and Television Development . 139 Educational Concerns of the Period . . . 139 The Increased School Population . . . 140 The Adult Education Movement . . . . . 141 New Concepts in Educational Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Television Broadcasting Developments . . 142 Broadcasting's Major Problems . . . . 143 Progress in Educational Television . . . . 144 Unfavorable Conditions . . . . . . . . 146 Lack of Momentum . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Diversifying Influences . . . . . . . 153 Educational Television and Congress . . . 155 The Tobey Hearings . . . . . . . . . . . 156 The Potter Hearings . . . . . . . . . . 159 The Period in Retrospect . . . . . . . . . 162 The Significance of Television . . . . 162 Television's Role in Education . . . . 163 Various Approaches to Educational Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 vi Chapter The Educational Television Reservations . . . . . . . . . . Interpretative Summary . . . . . . . V. THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FACILITIES PROPOSALS . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . The National "Climate" . . . . . . . The Educational Scene, 1957-1958 . The Television Industry . . . . . . The Development of Educational Television, 1957-1958 . . . . . Educational Television Research . . Educational Television Broadcasting Commercial "ITV" . . . . . . . . Noncommercial Educational Stations The Issues of Educational Television Educational Television and The Eighty- Fifth Congress . . . . . . . . . . . The First Session——A Threat to the Reserved Channels . . . . . . The Magnuson Proposa1--S. 2l19 . . . Warren Magnuson and Educational Television . . . . . . . . . . S. 2119 in the Senate . . . . . Magnuson's Speech to the Senate The Second Session . . . . . . . . . The National Defense Education Act Of 1958 O O O O O O C O O 0 Senate Hearings on S. 2119 . . . . Senate Passage of S. 2119 . . . . Educational Television Legislation in the House of Representatives House Hearings . . . . . . . . . vii Page 165 166 169 169 169 171 173 175 176 177 178 181 182 184 185 188 188 192 193 197 197 199 202 204 206 Chapter VI. 8. 2119 in Summary and Interpretation The Period in Retrospect the House The Congressional Discourse Senate Consideration House Consideration Conclusion EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION FACILITIES LEGIS- LATION IN THE EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS Introduction The "Climate" of 1959- 1960 The Educational Scene Television's Influence on the Society Educational Television Developments Commercial Support Noncommercial Educational Developments . . Closed—Circuit Educational Television . . . Objections to the Movement Educational Television and the Eighty— Sixth Congress . . . Educational Television and the Senate—- First Session Senate Hearings on 8. Committee Action on S. Senate Debate on S. Speech Speech Speech Speech Speech Lines of by Senator by Senator by Senator by Senator by Senator Discourse viii Thought in 12 Magnuson Schoeppel Dirksen Yarborough Williams the Senate 12 12' Page 209 211 211 213 214 218 221 222 222 222 223 228 231 231 233 235 237 240 240 241 245 246 247 249 251 252 254 254 Chapter Educational Television Legislation in the House of Representatives . . . . House Committee Hearings on Educa— tional Television . Further Committee Action on tional Television Educa- Educational Television Field Hearings . . . . Issues and Questions Before the Committee . . . . . A Committee Bill . . . Educational Television and Committee . . . . An Interpretative Summary . General Considerations . . Congressional Activity . The Senate Discourse on ETV The House Discoure on ETV VII. EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION AND THE SEVENTH CONGRESS . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . The National Climate . . . The Educational Scene . . The Broadcasting Scene . . the Rules EIGHTY- Educational Television Developments . . Educational Television and the Seventh Congress . . . . The Senate--First Session Hearings on S. 205 . . . Senate Debate on S. 205 The House--First Session . Eighty— Educational Television Hearings Analysis of H.R. 132, As Amended . ix Page 256 259 267 267 270 273 277 279 279 281 282 284 287 287 287 288 290 292 295 297 298 302 310 312 320 Chapter Page The House-~Second Session . . . . . . . 323 House Debate on H.R. 132 . . . . . . . 323 Issues of the Debate . . . . . . . . 333 Conference Committee on S. 205 . . . . . 337 Passage of S. 205 . . . . . . . . . . . 340 Summary and Interpretation . . . . . . . . 342 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 352 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 Summary of the Legislative History of Educational Television Proposals . . . . 352 Comparative Analysis of Senate and House Discourse . . . . . . . . . . . 365 The Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 The House of Representatives . . . . . 369 Tests of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 373 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393 PREFACE In 1952, the Federal Communications Commission ended a four-year "freeze" on television broadcasting development in the United States, and announced a plan for the orderly growth of a nation—wide television service, with the re— lease of its "Sixth Report and Order." Included among the more than two-thousand television frequency channel alloca~ tions of the directive's Table of Assignments were 242 channels which were reserved for the exclusive "noncommer— cial" use of educational television broadcasters. Educators and educational groups were urged to make plans for the utilization of the reserved channels with all due speed, and to develop a national television service for education and public enlightenment. The educational tele— vision movement received, therefore, very early in its life- time, the sanction of the Federal Government and its protec- tion in an area which was otherwise a sometimes fiercely competitive commercial sphere-~the television frequency spectrum. Ten years later, on May 1, 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed into law The Educational Television Facili- ties Act of 1962, legislation by which the Federal Govern- ment established a program of direct financial assistance to xi the States to aid them in establishing educational televi— sion stations throughout the nation. The events of the decade between the "Sixth Report and Order" and the enactment of The Educational Television Facilities Act comprise an important chapter in the history of educational television in the United States--perhaps one of the most significant chapters of what will probably be a long history-~and the changes which occurred in the atti— tude of the Federal Government from the beginning to the end of the period (as epitomized by the two Federal actions) are among the most interesting and significant aspects of that history. The 1952 action of the Federal Communications Com— mission was a recognition by the Federal Government that the television frequency spectrum was a vital natural resource, a portion of which should be reserved and developed for the broad purposes of the public welfare. The 1962 inauguration of a Federal assistance program for the educational tele~ vision movement reflected the extension of that attitude along much more progressive lines: namely, that the Federal Government had an obligation beyond the mere reservation of television channels for education; it had the additional obligation to support, through direct, tangible aid, the establishment of a nation-wide noncommercial educational television service. xii The study of how that attitude evolved in the col— lective mind of Congress throughout educational television's first decade is the subject of this investigation. The focus of the study is on the speaking which occured in both Houses of Congress, in a variety of situations, throughout that period. The object herein is to analyze the Congres- sional discourse on educational television, to determine (1) the issues which were discussed and (2) the ways in which they were developed, supported, and resolved, in help— ing to shape the Congressional attitude toward educational television manifested by The Educational Television Facili- ties Act. xiii CHAPTER I AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY The Problem A Rationale and Definition Educational television, a subject which Congress discussed from time to time over the course of more than a decade, was not generally considered to be a matter of "vital" national importance, even during the period when educational television legislative proposals were most prom- inent in the National Legislature. Except for a relatively few educators, broadcasters, critics, and "amateur" service groups, who chose to champion the cause of educational tele- vision, it did not appear that the nation as a whole was very much concerned with such legislation during the decade of the fifties and early sixties. "ETV" was not a "page one" issue in the public press. Consequently, the Congressional discussion of edu- cational television cannot be likened to the debates on The League of Nations, or on neutrality legislation, or on the Selective Service Act, or on certain statehood bills (to cite only a few of the "recognized" national issues which have been studied recently by Speech students). Educational television legislation was "seemingly" a relately minor concern of Congress. And yet, the central question concerning the role of the Federal Government in the development of educational television was kept alive for more than ten years, under three Administrations and six Congresses, before a determin- ation was finalized. The conditions, influences, proposals, and subsequent developments relating to that question are the focal points of this study. This study may be defined as an investigation of one facet of the educational television movement during a cru- cial decade in its development, namely, the concern of Con- gress with educational television facilities legislation. It may be further classified as an "historical-rhetorical- critical" investigation, by virtue of the emphasis through- out on the oral discourse--the speaking in Congress--which occured with reference to educational television. As an historical undertaking its focus is on an area of educa- tional television development which has been given little attention by other chroniclers of the movement. As rhetori- cal criticism it continues the study of the role and in- fluence of Speech in American legislative assemblies, the emphasis in this case being on speaking in the United States Congress, during a contemporary period, relative to an issue of national significance. Justification as a Rhetorical Study The expression of free men through the spoken word is one of the fundamental principles on which the American form of democracy rests. As the late Alben W. Barkley once noted: The Congress remains the one great forum for the debate of legislation and for the working out of the democratic process among the nations of the world. It will be a sad day in the history of this country if the United States Senate--or, for that matter, the House of Representatives--ceases to be the forum where men express their opinions and advocate whatever appeals to their judgment and their conscience in the process of making our Nation a greater example of democracy and self- government. The study of those principles and practices, by which the democratic process operates, should always be a worthwhile endeavor of those who are concerned for the demo- cratic form of government; and since the national Congress, the central structure of American democratic government, conducts much of its public business through the medium of speech, it would seem that a study of Congressional speaking should be a legitimate and worthwhile undertaking. Justification of the Scope It is the opinion of some scholars that the rhetori— cal critic should be concerned primarily with the ultimate In a speech to the Senate, January 3, 1949, U.S., .Qfiflflzgggional_Record, 8lst Cong., lst Sess., 1949, XC, Part I, p. 4 O purposes of speech—~the effects sought by the speaker or Speakers--within the democratic sphere.1 The nature and effect of any speech are determined by various factors, which together comprise the total speech situation. Among these may be listed the social setting, the physical setting, the speaker, the audience (determined by various systems of classification), the issues discussed, the structure of the speech-—including the various forms of support, and lines of argument-~the style of language with which it is phrased, the delivery, and finally the immediate and ultimate response made to the speech by the audience (or an "ultimate" audience). In short, the speech situation may include a multitude of variables, all of which may have some influence in producing an "effect" in a speech situation. While all of these elements may be considered to lie within the legitimate province of the rhetorical critic, some practical limits--which are discussed below as they relate to this study--must usually be set. Rhetorical crit- ics, it has been noted, . . . however discerning cannot embrace a study of the universe, of the total pattern of learning, in the evaluation of a speech. They must rely chiefly upon assumptions, hypotheses, and fixed points of reference derived from principal areas of inquiry; and then they must examine available and germane facts in the light of these conceptions. See Lester Thonssen and A. Craig Baird Speech (Criticign (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1948), 467-.6, gassim. i—< H L. |'\ . J p . IO . This "common-sense" philoSOphy of limitation is particularly appropriate when the sc0pe of investigation is larger than a single speech situation. The need for cer» tain limitations is apparent in the present study-~the speak- ing in Congress, relative to an issue which was before that body for more than a decade. It is appropriate to discuss, therefore, the "principal areas of inquiry" which pertain to such a study, to determine which, in the present case, are relevant and/or practicable. Physical Settings and Audience The physical settings of the speeches and remarks vmuld seem to be of little significance to this study. They are, first of all, common factors, remaining relatively con- stant from the beginning of talks to the end--the halls of Congress do not change materially, nor do the Congressional cmmmittee rooms. Second, the immediate intended audiences are, likewise, more or less similar audiences, if not sub- stantially the same audiences in the respective settings, Vhether the discourse took place in the chambers of Congress, or in the relatively less formal sessions of committee hear— ings--namely, the Members of Congress, acting as representa- tives rather than individuals. There is, of course, by the implication of a printed mflflic record of Congressional proceedings, a much wider huended audience for all such discourse. But as far as the sut>J'ect of educational television was concerned, the national public seemed to evince little interest, and is, therefore, not being considered here. It is recognized in other cases, however, that public opinion--the activity by forces within the broader public-~is often both an effect and a cause of some Congressional discourse. The Speakegg Those individual Members of Congress who spoke re- garding educational television legislation while the matter was pending before the Congress will be recognized according to their influence and roles. It must be understood, how- ever, that their remarks are not necessarily true indica- tions of an individual's belief or disbelief in educational television, and may stem from other considerations. The Congressman who speaks among his peers in the Congress may be expressing views determined by his politi- cal commitments, his seniority and committee status within the Congressional hierarchy, or the climate of opinion of the State or region which he represents, rather than his personal convictions or what he believes to be in the national interest. It would, therefore, be difficult to attempt to assess the interrelated factors of personality, integrity, political commitment, expediency, idealism, practicality, and so on, which might have influenced the 1In this regard see the corroborating views of Earl Cain, "Is Senate Debate Significant," Today's Speech, III CApril, 1955), No. 2, pp. 10-12; and James Bryce, The Ameri- W, 3rd, 11, (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1 95, pp. 247-54. course of the discussion of educational television in the Congress. The positions taken and statements made by certain individuals do, however, "stand out," in the record of educational television proceedings in Congress, and biogra- phical references will be made to them as they seem to be pertinent to the study. Textual Accuracy Two considerations must be recognized in a study which deals with the critical analysis of speeches and other remarks in Congress: first, the authenticity of the texts of speeches on the floor and in the committees of Congress, and second, the degree to which these reports truly reflect oral discourse. It has been well established that the "official" organ, The Congressional Record, in which the proceedings of Congress are reported in detail, does not (in spite of appearances) necessarily provide a verbatim transcript of each daily session of Congress.1 The situation has been a 1See, in this regard, the following: Waldo W. Braden, "The Senate Debate on the League of Nations," Southegn Speech Journal, XXV (1960), pp. 273-81. Earl R. Cain, "13 Senate Debate Significant?" Today's Speech, 111 (April, 1955), p. lOff. Giraud Chester, "Contemporary Senate Debate," Quarterly figurnal of Speech, XXXI (1945), pp. 407-11. R.1u Duffus, "Putting the Congressional Record to Bed," New York Times Ma azine, March 19, 1933, Sec. V1, p. 19. matter of concern both within and outside Congress for some time. Numerous exchanges have taken place, on the floors of Congress and in the press, in attempts to alter (or at least publicly acknowledge) the fact that The Record is changed, edited, and extended prior to publication as a matter of routine privilege and tradition by most Members of Congress. John R. Fitzpatrick, "Congressional Debating," anrterly Journal of Speech, XXVII (1941), pp. 251—55. Elizabeth Gregory McPherson, "Reporting the Debates of Con- gress," Quarterly Journa1_9f Speech, XXVIII (1942), pp. 141-48. Richard L. Neuberger (U.S.S.), "The Congressional Record is Not a Record," New York Times Magazine, April 20, 1958, Sec. VI, pp. l4ff. Zon Robinson, "Are Speeches in Congress Reported Accurately?" Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII (1942), pp. 8-12. Jerry Voorhis, "Effective Speaking in Congress," Ibid., XXXIV (1948), pp. 462-63. "Words as Spoken" (editorial) New York Times, March 6, 1928, p. 26:3. The writer was privileged to observe at first hand the preparation and editing of the verbatim transcript of Senate proceedings, prior to the publication of the Record and can also attest to the conclusions reached by the above. 1In addition to the footnote references cited imme- diately above, see the following recent observations: A.colloquy in the Senate, July 16, 1957, Conggessional Re- cord, CIII, Part 9, 85th Cong., lst Sess., pp. 11799-802. .Remarks in the Senate by Senator R. Neuberger, on the intro- duction of a bill to reform Senate reporting procedures (S.Rea.l93, 85th Congress), August 22, 1957, Ibid., Part 12, pp. 15565-66. IX colloquy in the House of Representatives relative to the "Integrity of the Congressional Forum," April 16, 1958, 1bid,, CIV, Part 5, pp. 6594-97. There are recognizable limitations, therefore, to the value of the Record as a source of transcripts, and there are problems inherent in drawing inferences from the statement of the Record with respect to other factors of the speaking situation, such as characteristics of delivery, or the audience, or the effects. The reports of Congressional committee hearings, on the other hand, contain, usually, the verbatim transcripts of the proceedings as they actually took place, and are only slightly edited for grammatical purposes prior to their publication. But not all committee meetings are public, and not all public meetings are reported in published hearing records. And, even in the records, much of what appears as testimony or evidence is introduced into the hearing as printed or visual material rather than oral statement. An attempt has been made in this study to separate those materials which are insertions in the record from those which appear as 'verbatim transcribed oral testimony.1 The printed records of public committee hearings comprise the sources of most of the "raw material" of this —* Remarks in the Senate by Senator Allott, relative to the Neuberger resolution (above) and the latter's New York Times article, April 21, 1958, Ibid., pp. 6816-18. 1Various "cues" contained in the record provide a basis for arriving at these distinctions: the labeling of "exhibits," "statements submitted for the record," and "com- nnnucations," and a reduced type-face, on the one hand, and internal cues expressed in the dialogue and flow of direct testimony and questioning, on the other. 10 study, for while Congressional committees play a major role in the development of any piece of legislation, they played a particularly important one in the matter of educational television legislation. The amount of committee discussion on educational television exceeded that on the floor of Con- gress by better than ten to one. The issues were exploredix1 eight public hearings (during four Congresses), additional executive sessions , and a joint conference committee meeting.1 Deiivery This study is not concerned with the delivery of speeches and other oral discourse on educational television in the Congress as such. The consideration of factors of delivery creates many problems which are difficult to remedy except under conditions where observations can be con- trolled. 1The hearings having greatest relevance were held during the following Congresses: 82nd, lst Session: 8. Res. 127 (May 31, 1951); 83rd, lst Session: Senate Hearings on Educational Television (April 16 and 21, 1953); 84th, 2d Session: 8.3095 (May 19 20, 21 and June 15, 15, 17, 18, and 22, 1954 ; 85th, 2d Session: 8.2119 (April 24 25, 1958), 3.2119, H.R.13297, H.R. 12177 (July 15,16, 1958); 86th, lst Session: $.12 (January 27, 28, 1959), H.R. 32, H.R.198l H.R.3723 H.R.4248, H.R.4572, H.R.2926, 11.11.3045, and 8.12 (May 12, 13,and again November 3, 12, 14, 16, December 1, 3, 4, 7, and 8, 1959); 87th, lst Session: 8.205 (March 1, 2, 1961), H.R.132, H.R.5099, H.R.5536, H.R.5602, H.R.645, H.R.965, 11 Since Congressional discourse of all types (except on special occasions, such as Presidental addresses to Con- gress, or public hearings on specific issues which merit national public attention) is recorded only by stenographic transcription, direct observation is the only way to authen- ticate aspects of delivery. The electronic news media are not usually permitted to record Congressional proceedings, and they could not record all relevant aspects of delivery in any case because of their technical limitations.1 There- fore, the characteristics of delivery of past Congressional discourse cannot be described or evaluated except through the use of secondary sources. Turning to another aspect of delivery, that of the degree of spontaneity displayed by the respective speakers-- along the "manuscripted~impromptu" continuum--it is similarly not possible to obtain sufficient reliable information by which to develop a thorough investigation of this facet of H.R. 2910, and S. 205 (March 20, 21, 22, 23, May 17, 18, 1961). Hearings before the House Rules Committee were held May 12, 1960 and February 26, 1962. A joint Conference Committee met and resolved dif- ferences between the two Houses on April 12, 1962. 11n the case of radio, obviously, no visual aspects of delivery could be recorded, except through commentary by a narrator; television, on the other hand, has the choice of being either non-selective, to the point of meaningless- ness, or editorially selective, at the whim of the director, or cameraman, or both. Either medium, of and by itself, is a "reproducer," not an "evaluator;" and both media, therefore, are dependent on and influenced by the critical faculties of the "operator." 12 delivery as it might relate to the Congressional discourse on educational television. First of all, for the same reasons noted above, it is difficult to determine the manner by which speeches were presented (with respect to this particular characteristic) except through secondary sources. And second, as Thompson and Linkugel, for instance, have noted, there is apt to be no consistency in the Senate (or in the House) regarding a particular method of delivering speeches (along the manuscript- ianmomptu continuum); at various times and for various pur- gxases, they point out, Senators use combinations of notes, manuscript, memory, or spur—of-the-moment impulse, in ex- pressing themselves on particular issues before that body.1 Stzle Style (in the traditional rhetorical concept of "language") is not treated in this study as a "principal area of inquiry," but is discussed here and there in the framework of specific speeches and particular instances. The types of speaking, as well as the time-span COvered by this study, would make consideration of style a Very difficult undertaking since most of the Congressional discussion of educational television took place in commit- t988, where dialogue, rather than public address, is the more common mode of expression. \ "S 1Philip K. Thompkins and Wilmer A. Linkugel, Pgech in the Senate," Today's Speech, VII (February, 1959), 13 In addition, some evidence indicates that the "style of floor speaking" in general (including style and other factors such as delivery) does not affect voting behavior in most Congressional debate, or, as one critic has put it: neither the manner or delivery nor the eloquence of the language nor the quality of the speaker's voice nor many of the other factors that make for victory in oratorical contests and even in political cam- paigns make any very great contribution to the ef- fectiveness of a Congressional Speech.1 Even on the floor, however, where speaking is more formal, and style is therefore more evident, it has been ruated that the style which once typified Congressional address is no longer prevalent. Charles Beard has pointed out that oratory of the "grand style" is no longer appropriate to or useful in the dis- cussion of the complicated questions of our day These observations seem to justify the position taken here, that the most meaningful treatment of style (and other factors of the speech situation as well) can be developed by considering them as supplemental to the ex- Pression of ideas and lines of thought within a Congressional referent. \ 1Voorhis, Quarterinyournal of Speech, xxx1v (1948), Po 463. See also David S. Broder, "Great Speeches Aren't 2ecessarily Good Politics," New York Times Magazine, March 9 1964, pp. 7ff, passim. 2Charles A. Beard, "In Defense of Congress," Ameri- Efl&_flgggg£y, LV (1942), p. 530. 14 Invention Three very significant aspects of Speech which are of great importance to this study may be classified under the general classification heading of Invention: The issues, or central themes, which emerged during Congressional dis- course on educational television legislation; the lines of thought and/or argument developed within the discussion; and the supporting materials--including the structure of nuaterials within a speech referent-~by which the respective [nasitions were evolved and maintained. These three inter- dependent factors do comprise a "princip'ai area of inquiry," with which sections of this study will be concerned. Their significance is as follows: Issues The issues are of paramount importance in this in- vestigation because they reveal several other variables, Whose influence was felt in one quarter or another of the PUblic or private sector during the period under study. Locating and identifying, classifying, and interpreting the issues which concerned Congress, with respect to educational television, will lead to a recognition of the currents of PUblic opinion and private interest (as well as Congres— Sional sensitivity to these) as the discussion ebbed, eddied, and flowed during the period. It is with reference to the issues, principally, that other objects of investigation-- 8Peakers, events, and attendant social circumstances among 15 them-~have their relative significance. Lines of Thought Following from, and closely related to, the issues which may be perceived are the lines of thought, and in some cases arguments, which were developed both in favor or and in opposition to the Federal Government's support of educa— tional television. An analysis of these factors of the dis- course will reveal not only (1) information about the pre- valent attitudes of the Congress with respect to the educa- tional television movement, at various times, and what Members of the Congress perceived to be the most significant issues at stake, but also (2) something of the strategy of the Congressional debate which took place to effect legisla- tion in the area. Supporting Materials Finally, and again closely related to both of the preceding, supporting materials are considered to be impor- tant-~those facts, opinions, and other testimonials from diverse sources which were interjected into the continuing discourse. The analysis of these again, will not only reflect what the Congressional speakers themselves deemed to be important to their consideration of the subject, but also (and in a broader sense) reveal much about the climate of opinion in a circle of immediate concern with educational television and television in education. To some extent these 16 may also indicate, by inference, the outcome of legislative deliberations. Social Setting The social setting--or "climate of opinion" is of equal significance to the above area. In treating a specific speech, under specific condi- tions, at a particular moment in time-~"freezing," as it were, the attendant forces which impinged upon that speech act it may be sufficient th consider the "climate," or social setting, within which the speech occurred as a "con- stant," or of a certain fixed magnitude. But the social setting within which a movement occurs (such as the educa- tional television movement) is most appropriately character- ized by the changes which are constantly taking place. Conditions and events in the world at large, espe- cially in the areas most closely related to the topic under investigation-~such as education, for instance, and the broad aspects of telecommunications--did exert specific in- fluences on the Congressional activity. It is especially important to note the changes in the social and political "climate" which may have had an influence on the specific outcome of the discourse. Specifically, this study is concerned with the changes in four interrelated areas: the educational scene in general, as it was influenced by exter- nal events and technological developments; the development 17 of television on the American scene; the specific growth and the development of the educational television movement; and the political and social concerns of the Congress. Summary This study can be justified as rhetorical research, therefore, since it deals analytically with some aspects of a discontinuous, but recurrent, discourse in the Congress of the United States, relating to educational television legislation. The following "areas of principal concern," are components of this discourse: 1. The principal issues directly related to the sub- ject of educational television legislation during the time encompassed by the study. 2. The positions established and lines of thought developed during the course of Congressional consideration of the subject. 3. The supporting materials used to substantiate those positions. 4. The social setting and "climate" within which the discourse took place, and specifically in the areas relevant to the central tOpic under study. Justification by Methodology This study can also be justified by the means used to treat the various speech elements and factors discussed 18 above. These fall into three phases of rhetorical criti- cism:1 l. Description--the narration of events as they oc— curred, issues as they arose, attitudes as they were expressed, and persuasive appeals as they were deve10ped throughout the period under in- vestigation. 2. Interpretation--the attempt to relate issues, positions, and supports on the one hand, and events, attitudes, and the changing "climate," on the other, to one another, within the nexus of relevant factors. 3. Analysis--the attempt to explain the causal or associational relationships which appear to have existed between the variables. Justification by Prwsvious Rhetorical Studies There have been a number of studies in the field of Speech which have dealt with Congressional speaking relative to a particular issue. There have also been many other .rhetorical studies which have dealt with speaking in the Congress in a general way. In addition, there have been a few'studies which have included Congressional speaking within 1A more complete discussion of the relationships of these areas of research to the Historical-Critical speech study may be found in Kenneth G. Hance, "The Historical- Critical Type of Research: A Re-examination," Centrai States 8 ecitJournal, XIII, No. 3 (Spring, 1962), p. 169. 19 the larger framework of public discussion on a national issue. And there have been a great many rhetorical-biogra- phical studies concerned with individuals who were, or are, legislators. The speaking in the Congress of those indivi- duals is, of course, a part, and in some cases the whole focus, of those studies. Analysis of Graduate Studies of CongresgionaiiSpeech A review of theses and dissertations, completed or in progress, as reported or abstracted in the Knower, Dow, and Auer indices of Speech Monographg, reveals that out of thirty-five studies dealing with Congressional speaking in one phase or another (excluding those rhetorical-biographi- cal studies which have a legislator as their subject of inquiry), twenty-four deal with Congressional speaking within the framework of a specific issue before the National Con— gress. Nine are concerned with specific characteristics, or "modes," of speaking in the Congress, but without refer- ence to a particular subject under discussion.1 A review of the available abstracts of the twenty— four studies which focused on a particular issue, reveals the following: 1. At least ten of these studies included biogra— phical materials relative to some speakers. 1The studies referred to are listed in detail under particularized headings in the Appendix. 10. 20 Fourteen or more emphasized the historical setting, or context, of the Congressional dis— course. About twenty studies laid a heavy emphasis on the description, analysis, and interpretation of debate, or argumentative techniques, used in the Congress. At least six studies (but probably not many more) attempted to evaluate the significance of Congressional discourse relative to legis— lative procedure, public opinion, and/or national welfare. Perhaps as few as four studies attempted to show a continuity, development, or evolution, of argumentative techniques, or issues, through— out a period of Congressional discourse on a single issue. Three studies dealt with Congressional hearings. Eighteen studies dealt with speaking on the floor of Congress. Three studies considered speaking in the House of Representatives (or its committees) only. Twelve studies considered speaking in the Senate (or its committees) only. Nine studies included speaking relative to an issue in both the House of Representatives and the Senate (and/or the committees of both). 21 Conclusion It may be concluded, on the basis of the previous analysis, that: 1. Congressional speaking relative to an issue af- fecting the national welfare (even if not of public- ly recognized. significance) is an accepted area of graduate study in departments of Speech throughout the country. It seems, furthermore, that this type of speaking, as an area of study, has greater acceptance than Congressional speak- ing disengaged from particular topics (twenty- four studies in the former category, compared with nine in the latter). More than half the studies reviewed dealt with the social or historical context within which the Congressional discourse took place, indi- cating that Congressional speaking does not occur in a legislative vacuum-~it has rele— vance and significance within a framework of larger national scope. The fact that so few studies (six) have at- tempted to define the actual influence of Con- gressional discourse on legislative outcome may stand as mute testimony to the complexity of the legislative process. It may be difficult, if not altogether impossible, to determine which elements-~committee hearings, caucuses, 22 lobbying, floor speaking, paired-voting, pa- tronage, and the like—~p1ay what roles in the outcome of legislative concerns. 3. Nearly all of the studies dealt with (l) the analysis of argument, and (2) the relationships between Congressional speaking and the issues at hand. This would seem to indicate that des- cription, interpretation, and analysis, as applied to Congressional speaking, are acceptable, perhaps even desirable, elements of rhetorical studies in this area. 4. The fact that only a few studies (four) covered any extended period of time may indicate that more studies of that type are needed, to add to the body of available research relative to Con- gressional speaking. Only a few studies covered an issue over several years; most were concerned with one series of debates, or one particular session of Congress, or one legislative pro- posal. 1Several published articles corroborate this point Of"View. See especially, Cain, TodayigySpeech, 111, No. 2 (April, 1955) pp. 11, 26; Chester, @arteriy Journai of §Ififlishu XXXI (1945) p. 410; Thompkins and Linkugel, Today's m, VII, No. 1 (February, 1959), p. 30; and Voorhis, W Joggnal of Speech, XXXIV (1948), p. 463. 23 5. The Senate, and particularly the speaking on the floor of the Senate (that is, excluding committee hearings), has received most of the attention of Speech students to date. This seems to indicate that there exists a gap in the body of Speech research with respect to both committee hear- ings and speaking in the House of Representa- tives.1 This study, therefore--which includes the descrip- tion, interpretation,and analysis of Congressional speaking in committees and on the floors of the House of Representa~ tives and the Senate, concerning an issue of National welfare, and over an extended period of time-~can be justified by the precedents which may be found in previous graduate Speech research programs. Justification as History The "raw material," as it were, from which this study grew, came from many sources. Most of it is fragmen- tary'and limited in its view. Some of the published 1It has been pointed out by Cain, however, that the Senate is "easier to study," for one thing, and that the baSiC principles and practices which are evident in Senate Speech are similarly evident in the House. This view may, °r'lnay'not, be a warranted assumption. In any case, the HOUSe of Representatives has been overlooked in most Speech research to date. See Earl R. Cain, "A Method for Rhetori- cal Analysis of Congressional Debate," Western Speech, 29,111 (1954), p. 91; also "ls Senate Debate Significant," “9981's Speech, 111, No. 2 (April, 1955), p. 10; and "Why “naiyze Congressional Debate?" Speaker, XXXVII (May, 1955), ' Q 24 materials are now out of print, and hence no longer readily available to students of Broadcasting and Speech. Other materials, including unpublished manuscripts, uncatalogued pamphlets, correspondence, and information developed from meetings with individuals who participated in the educa- tional television movement during the period under study, will become increasingly difficult to obtain as time goes on. There is justification, therefore, for bringing to- gether some of the many elements which are a part of the legislative history of the educational television movement in the United States, which this study purports to do. There are several treatments of the history of educational television to which the writer is more than a little indebted,1 but few of these deal with the activities cm the Congress and its concern with educational television. 1Among the more prominent are the following: Franklin Dunham, Ronald R. Lowdermilk and Gertrude G. Brode- rick, Television in Education, (Washington: U.S. De- partment of Health, Education and Welfare, 1957), Bulletin No. 21. The Ford Foundation, A Ten Year Report of thg,Fund for Adult Education (New York: privately published by the Founda- tion, 1962). __1 , Teaching by Television, (New York: May, 1959 and January, 1961). ‘HaIKDId E. Hill, The NAEB: A History (Urbana: National Asso- ciation of Educational Broadcasters, 1954), mimeographed. Rirfliard B. Hull, "A Note on the History Behind ETV," in Educational Television. The Next Ten Years (Stanford, Institute for Communications Research, 1962), 334-45. "The History Behind ETV," NAEB Jougnal, XVII 1958), 3-6ff. .i 25 There is, therefore, a need for a history of educational television which emphasizes the role of the Federal Con- gress in the movement. Precedent Studies in Broadcasting Not many studies have been concerned with Congres- sional broadcasting legislation activity in the same sense with which this study is concerned--that is, the analysis of issues in a continuing movement. Most broadcasting studies in the Speech discipline which have been concerned with Congress or the government have centered on the broad— casting speaking of an individual Member of Congress, or on administrative procedures of a regulatory agency, such as the FCC. Among those studies conducted at the Master's or Doctoral level which have treated broadcasting from an his- torical-critical standpoint, the majority have dealt with specific broadcasting installations and innovations, such as stations, or program developments.1 It does not appear that ¥ JOhn Walker Powell, Channels of Learning (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1962). Donald G. Tarbet, Television and Cu; School§_ (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1961). ‘HaIRDId E. Wigren "ETV: The Story Up to Now," NAEB Journal, XVIII (19595, pp. 3—6ff. ‘Anifllony W. Zaitz "The History of Educational Television: 1932-1958" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Speech, University of Wisconsin, 1960). 1See the Appendix for a list of specific studies of the Se types . 26 there has been any significant research attempt in the spe- cific area which this study encompasses. The Design Suggested Hypotheses1 To aid in the study and analysis of the role of Cone gress and its concern with educational television during the first decade of the movement, certain hypotheses have been formulated. These provide referents by which, it is hoped, information developed will have greater significance than might be the case with a random analysis. The hypotheses of this study are: 1. The issues in the Congressional discussion and de- bate regarding educational television tended to follow, rather than lead, the issues concerning educational television which developed outside Congress (i.e. in the press and in public opinion). 2. Congressional discussion and debate on the subject of educational television tended to rely heavily on "external" materials (i.e. materials developed or prepared and presented to the Congress by agencies or individuals outside the Congressional ranks), rather than "internal" materials (those developed within Congress itself). 1The term "hypothesis" as used in this and subsequent Secflrions is taken to mean "a preliminary guess at the truth, aged on limited evidence or even on mere suspicion. . . ." 6339 Edwin L. Clarke, The Art of Straight Thinking [New York: - Appleton & Co., 1929], p. 210. 3. 4. J 5. . 6. it 3 K“ \ 7. 27 The issues which were developed in committee sessions of the Congress tended to set the limits of the floor discussions which followed. In the floor discussions and debates on educa- tional television legislation, the principal spokesmen on the respective bills (represent- ing both sides of the question) tended to be members of the committees which previously handled the bills. The House of Representatives contributed little to the discussion of the issues pertaining to educational television which had not previously been generated in the Senate. The fact that educational television facilities legislation was being discussed in the Congress served as a deterrent to the development of educational television facilities throughout the country during those periods when such legislative proposals were prominent. The Congressional discourse-~that is, the speaking which took place in the Congress-~had relatively little influence on the outcome of the legislation at stake. That is to say, pri- vate influence played a greater part in bring- ing about the passage of enabling legislation than public discussion. 28 Scope and Limitations Subject and Tips This study has one area of Federal legislative con- cern as its frame of reference: the proposed enactment of appropriate measures designed to help establish educational television facilities throughout the nation. "Educational television" includes those closed- or open-circuit installa- tions owned, operated, and utilized by, and for the exclu- sive purposes of, educational organizations and institutions, and television programs of an educational nature. From a chronological standpoint, this study embraces a period of slightly more than ten years--extending from 1951 into l962--culminating in the enactment of the Educa- tional Television Facilities Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-447), an act permitting the Federal Government to aid the States in establishing educational television facilities. Area of Emphasis This study is primarily concerned with the principal PUblic issues deveIOped through oral discourse during the official meetings of Congress and its committees. Such dis course includes speeches and debate in the respective Cimnnbers of Congress and in committee hearings, as re- Ported in official Congressional documents. Less euqflnasis will be directed toward private discussion, execu- tive sessions, political meetings, and the like, because (1) the chief concern of the study is on the "public" issues, 29 and (2) because there is a lack of documentary or authori- tative evidence to support statements which might be made about these meetings. Resources and Materials The public records of Congress (i.e. The Congres— pional Recppg, and the official, published transcripts of Congressional hearings) constitute the main sources used to establish what was said in Congress relative to educational television. Textual accuracy is not of paramount concern here, inasmuch as the emphasis is on the issues generally rather than the words specifically. It is assumed, on the evidence presented by other researchers, that the above sources are reasonably accurate accounts of the actual dis- course, barring the reservations made in certain instances. Besides, the public record is all that is available of a substantive nature regarding Congress's discussions of edu- cational television. In the absence of the public record, it would be virtually impossible to obtain specific and de- tailed information on the actual proceedings. __ 1Cain, for instance, notes that the Record is pretty much a representative transcript of what really happens on the floor of Congress (Cain, Western Speech, XVIII, 1954, EL. 95). Even Neuberger concedes that, by and large, the m reflects the intent, if not the verbatim expression, 0f the respective speakers on the floor (Neuberger, Np! W. April 20, 1958, p. 14). ' It has also been observed by the writer that the Ptflilished hearings of Congressional committees are as near toverbatim transcripts (excepting grammatical corrections 2::L1PUnctuation) as it is possible to reproduce. See also PP 133:3, Qparterly Journal of Spgggh, XXVIII (1942), 30 An attempt has been made to exercise some degree of control over the quantity of material, and to establish its validity relative to the issues of the discussion. Hence, only those materials which were spoken for the record have been considered as oral discourse. This includes speeches, oral exchanges in discussion, questions, cross-examination of witnesses, and statements for the record which were delivered orally. Materials which have been excluded from considera- tion (even though they may appear in the narrative in another context) include such items as "extension of remarks" in the Record, articles, charts, letters, reprints of testi- mony, and other materials which, while they appear as part of the public record on educational television cannot be classified as part of the oral discourse. It is difficult in any case to determine the influ— ence of those ideas which were presented orally. The Record gives very little indication of the audience present on the floor of Congress during a colloquy or a speech, and com- mittee hearings are often conducted before a very few Members Of the designated committee (and even this audience changes—- mim-Ite by minute in some instances). It is impossible, to datelflnine, furthermore, with any degree of certainty, how much 0f the Record is read by any one Member of Congress on any sPecific day, or how much of the committee transcript 13 read by any Member not present at the actual hearing. 31 It will be assumed for the purposes of this study that oral presentation carries greater weight with the actual hearers of a statement than a later reading of the written transcript by those who did not hear it. It will also be assumed that the transcript of oral questioning and rebuttal, has a greater impact on the reader of such a document than 'etatements for the record" and miscellaneous materials submitted as supplementary information. The Speakegp While this study is primarily concerned with Congress (and therefore, the Members of Congress who spoke on the edu- cational television issues command the greatest attention), cnflier individuals also appeared as spokesmen of particular views during the discussion. Generally, they were witnesses before the committees of Congress itself, and as such they are: treated within the framework of the legislative refer- entx. It is not possible, however, to overlook completely the activities of other, non-Congressional agencies (such as the Government agencies of the Administration-~the Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, for instance) and educational teleVision groups, industry organizations, and private Citizens, who indirectly influenced the developments taking place in Congress. Materials stemming from these sources have been considered where appropriate. 32 Histgricai_§pckground and "Climate" The historical aspects of the educational television movement outside Congress have been treated only in broad general terms. This study is not to be considered a history of the movement itself, but rather a history and analysis of one facet of it. Naturally, certain developments, modes of thought, and forceful contributions by outstanding per- sonalities influenced the activities of Congress. These are referred to as it is deemed necessary, and fall into the following categories: 1. DevelOpments within the educational television movement itself such as the establishment of educational television stations and closed-cir- cuit installations, and the general growth of television as a medium for education and en- richment. 2. Issues relating to the educational television movement, including the opinions and attitudes of educators and other groups toward the de- velopment of educational television. Included in this category are such topics as the best means of financing educational television; the degrees and agencies of control over edu- cational television operations; and the "legiti— macy" of reserved television channels for educational purposes (as opposed to educational services by other television outlets). 33 3. Issues concerning the television industry generally, including the continuing discus- sions about frequency allocations; various financial bases of operation; the public re- ception of various television services and types of programs; and the responsibilities of broadcasters. 4. Issues affecting the broad sc0pe of education in the United States, including the challenges to the educational system posed by technolo- gical change, an expanding school population, and the "Cold War" competition with the Soviet powers in education and technology. 5. General public issues of national concern to the Congress and the public at large during the period under study. Methodology The method by which this study was conducted re- senflales that suggested by earlier rhetorical-critical studies in Speech, but does not follow any one of them exactly. 'Uxis is due more to the particular character of the topic, and the emphasis of the design, rather than to any deliber- ape attempt to develOp new methodology for the criticism of C°n8ressional rhetoric. The steps by which the research was conducted may beat be summarized as follows: 1. 34 A general and comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken, to discover the significant developments which took place in the area of television generally, and speci- fically in the educational television move- ment during the "post-freeze" decade. An attempt was made to relate these developments to the various climates of opinion and larger national issues developing simultaneously. A dossier was assembled, which included all available public records of Congressional activity with respect to educational televi- sion. The information obtained from these printed sources was supplemented, verified, or clarified, by correspondence and inter- views with persons who had direct, personal knowledge of the Congressional activity con- cerning the educational television discussions. Much of this work was done on a field trip to Washington, D.C., in May, 1963, where those persons who were closest to the issues could be found. The materials were analyzed to isolate the "principal" issues which attended the Congres- sional discourse on educational television. The issues were related to the historical and social framework in which they occurred. An -_-. ~—.—---v- 35 attempt was made to determine the origin of the issues and to identify the respective sources of various points of view on those issues which subsequently became a part of the Congressional dialogue. 5. Finally, an attempt was made to relate the Congressional discourse on educational tele- vision to the relevant "external" and "inter— nal" issues. The oral argument on educational television legislative proposals was analyzed in an attempt to isolate the significant lines of thought or influence, and to explain and evaluate these in terms of their importance and relevance to other developments, opinions, or policies, both within and without Congress. Organization of the Report The remainder of this report is divided into chapters, alJL'but the last of which deal with a chronological period. 3hapters three through seven are divided into sections deal- ing reapectively with (l) a survey of the general "climate" and television developments of the period, (2) the issues and developments of the period specifically relating to awncational television, (3) an analysis of the Congressional activity and discourse, with respect to educational televi- Sion legislation and legislation affecting educational tele- Vison during the period, and (4) an interpretative summary of the period. 36 The chapters and the periods they cover are as follows: Chapter Two is devoted to an historical overview of educational television developments, and Federal activities in that area through 1950. The period covered includes early educational television developments and the earliest attempts by the Congress to recognize educational television legislatively. Chapter Three is devoted to a discussion of the events of 1951 and 1952 which led to the reservation of specific channels for educational television, and the acti- “vities of the Eighty-Second Congress affecting the movement. Chapter Four covers that period between the "Sixth Report and Order" of 1952, and 1957, when the first legis- lative attempt was made to provide funds for educational television facilities construction. Chapter Five deals with the educational television issue during the period embraced by the Eighty-Fifth Con- gress (1957-1958). Chapter Six treats the events and developments which °°C11rred during the period of the Eighty-Sixth Congress (1959-1950), Chapter Seven is concerned with the educational tele- Viaon developments occurring during the Eighty-Seventh Con- gress, concluding with the final passage and enactment of Public Law 87-447 (1961- May 1, 1962). 37 Chapter Eight contains a summary of highlights of the study and conclusions derived from it. CHAPTER II THE BACKGROUND OF EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION Introduction his chapter contains a general and comprehensive background on the history and development of educational broadcasting, and especially educational television, from its beginnings to the point at which educational television -pp£,pp_achieved significancee-the point at which an educa- tional television "movement" can be recognized as an organ- ized, active force oriented toward a positive outcome. The period covered by this chapter spans the twenty-year period enflxracing the beginnings of television programming through 1950. The Ear1y Period of Television--l930-1935 Educational Broadcasters The history of educational television is almost as long as the history of television itself; and the history of television.is as long as, or longer than that of radio. k 1As early as 1880 a system of transmission of light images to a distant point was prOposed, and by 1893 a me- chanical, disc-scanning system which incorporated broadcast 1mPulses had been developed by the Austrian physicist Nipkow. It Was not until the early 1930's that interest in the 38 39 The first educational programming probably took place at the State University of Iowa, where, between 1932 and 1939, more than 400 programs, including lectures on art and science, public service programs, and entertainment, were broadcast through the facilities of the University's experimental station W9XK.l But the motivation behind these early television ex- periments at Iowa, as at other universities, was less for the programming service to viewers (what there were of them) than for research purposes and investigation of the trans- mdssion and propagation of television signals. In this re- gard the early development of television in education paral- 1e lled the early development of radio broadcasting by educational interests. As one of the leading engineer-de- Signers of early broadcasting outlets observed later, g “Kaczhanical scanning device pioneered by Nipkow declined in félxror of electronic systems of transmission and reproduc- tion of light images by means of cathode-ray tubes. An interesting, non-technical discussion of these £u1c1 other points may be found in a speech by Allen B. [hlbiont, "Educational Television," A Television Policy for _ educational institutions devoted eight per cent of their e to "educational" programs, whereas commercial broad- ctesters were at that time devoting ten per cent of their tlJne to "educational" programming. Ibid., p. 170. ILQLQ‘, p. 170. See alsolLEL, Con ressional Record, {$1618Cong” lst Sess., 1932, LXXV, Part 2, pp. 1412, 1759, 3Broadcasting, October 15, 1956, p. 172. H Sydne W. Head Broadcasting in America (Boston: °u8hton-M ffl n Co., 1956), p. 401. T "' 43 Some segments of the industry felt that reservation of up to twenty-five per cent of the radio frequency spec— trum for educational purposes (a figure proposed in some quarters) would wreak havoc on the commercial broadcasting industry. More than that, it would establish a precedent which would undoubtedly have far-reaching effects on the commercial development of television, which was then in the final stages of laboratory experimentation.l With the fate of the Communications Act hanging in the balance, a compromise was arranged: educational reserva- tions were not included as a part of the Act, but a para- graph -- Sec. 307 (c) -— was inserted which stipulated that tune Federal Communications Commission, instituted under the provisions of the Act, should study the proposal that Congress by statute allocate fixed percentages of radio broadcasting facilities to particular types or kinds of non-profit activi- ties, and shall report to Congress, not later than February 1, 1935, its recpmmendations together with the reasons for the same. That report, filed by the FCC on January 22-23, 1935, In:Lght well be considered a benchmark in the history of edu- Céitional broadcasting in America, for it sealed the door against reserved frequencies for educational broadcasting ffmr thirteen years. In part the report noted: k Ibid. 2U.S.,Communications Act of 1934, Sec. 307 (c). if 44 It would appear that the interests of the nonpro- fit organizations may be better served by the use of the existing facilities, thus giving them access to costly and efficient equipment and to established audiences. Cooperation in good faith by the broadcasters is required. Such coopera- tion should, therefore, be under the direction and supervision of the Commission. It is our firm intention to assist the nonprofit organiza- tions to obtain the fullest opportunities for expression.1 And so, in 1935, commercial broadcasting interests were left in clear possession of the broadcasting field. Mindful of their victory, and of their public service respon- sibilities, they provided, generally, a well-balanced sched- ule of programming fare, including (especially at the net- ‘work level) some truly outstanding educational programs and services to education.2 Gradually, however, commercial pressure and industry cuompetition forced organized radio to terminate much of its educational programming; and educational broadcasting was ILairgely left to the "hard core" of mid-west state university 1>Iroadcasters, such as WHA (University of Wisconsin), WKAR (Edichigan State College), and WOI (State University of Iowa). 1U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Report to Shangress Re: Sec. 307 (c), Communications Act of 1934, 76th Chang. lst Sess., January, 1935, as quoted in Llewellyn “Unite, The_American:Radio (Chicago: University of Chicago PI'ess, 1947), p. 158; U.S. Congressionai Record, 76th Cong., 1St:Sess., Vol. LXXIX, Part 1, pp. 761, 859. n 2For instance, "The Chicago Round Table of the Air," The American Town Meeting of the Air," and Blevins Davis's Great Plays" series, to cite only three out of many. 45 Development and Change - 1935-1945 Television Emerges By 1935, television was being seriously considered in some areas as the broadcasting medium of the future.1 The FCC first recognized television as a broadcasting ser- vice in 1937.2 The public got its first good look at the new service in 1939.3 A "Second Chance" for Educational Broadcasting In a development which parallelled television re— search, Dr. Lee W. DeForest invented and patented the system of'frequency modulation broadcasting -- FM, as it came to toe known. Educational broadcasters were not long in recogniz— iong the potentials of the FM service as a "second chance" flar non-commercial educational radio, and the NAEB led the ‘ 1In Great Britain, the British Broadcasting Corpora- ttion began the first regularly scheduled television program service in 1935, preceding American efforts by four years. See Gordon Ross, Television Jubilee (London: British Broad- Clasting Corp., 1961), a colorful history of 25 years of BBC television. See especially Ch. 1., pp. 13-32. 2Broadcasting, October 15, 1956, p. 186. 3President Franklin D. Roosevelt opened the 1939 wOrld's Fair in New York--an event which was broadcast "live" bYNBC to inaugurate its regular, commercial television 8eI'Vice. Ibid., p. 190. 46 movement to have a limited portion of the broadcast spectrum reserved for such a purpose. The outbreak of World War II temporarily halted the further development of educational broadcasting facilities. However, NAEB's relationship with the FCC continued; and when, in 1943, that agency proceeded to discuss potential developments for the post-war period, the NAEB proposed, in addition to frequency reservations for educational FM broad- casting, spectrum space for microwave relay systems to con- nect educational transmitters and an across-the-board reser- 'vation of two television frequency channels for educational purposes. After hearings and some further staff study, the FTZC announced, in 1945, a new broadcasting allocations plan, ‘vtiich allocated twenty channels in the FM frequency band .fcax'noncommercial, educational broadcasting (FM); but no reservations of television frequencies were made at that tIiJme. Educational interests were encouraged to "get into FFi," and many of them did. The movement was led by the NAEB and the same, large, mid-west state universities which \ 1Five UHF channels were reserved for the educational development of FM by the FCC in 1938. John Walker Powell, SEE§£§2L§_QQ_Lg§£gigg (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1962 , p. 33. See also Charles A. Siepmann, Radio's Second 011429; (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1946). 2Powell, p. 33. 47 had hitherto comprised the backbone of educational broad— casting in America. By 1948 the number of educational stations on the air (both AM and FM) had grown to fifty, located in thirty-one states.1 Congressional Interest in Educational Broadcasting In the meantime, educational broadcasting and the principles on which it was based were getting indirect as- sistance from some members of Congress and other influential persons. Typical of the concern voiced by these individuals 'was the proposal of Representative Emanuel Celler, in a letter to then FCC Chairman Paul Walker, that the FCC should scrutinize more closely the practices of the commer— cxial broadcasting industry, in terms of the balance between <2<1mmercial programs and sustaining, entertainment, and taciucational programs, and reassess the public service respon— £31.bilities of broadcasters in general. Representative Celler recommended specifically that the FCC designate certain blocks of time, on a daily basis, preferably in the "prime" 'eNIening hours, when broadcasters should be required to pre— Sent "sustaining" programs of an "educational, cultural, and forens ic nature . "2 ‘ lRichard B. Hull, "The History Behind ETV," NAEB :QZEEEEL, XVII (February, 1958), p. 5. 2Broadcastin , August 13, 1945, p. 24. 48 An Alternate System At about the same time, but from a different quarter, a proposal was advanced to provide an "alternative" broad» casting system through the medium of "subscription radio." The chief proponent of the plan, as well as a potential entrepreneur, was William Benton, publisher of the Encyclo- pedia Britangica, later Assistant Secretary of State, and still later United States Senator from Connecticut. The Benton proposal was dropped before it reached the stage of trial operation, but the similarity between his subscrip— tion-radio concept of 1945 and a subscription-television proposal introduced in the Senate by Benton in 1951 is striking. Both of these proposals, while not directed exclu— sibvely toward educational broadcasting systems, nevertheless attempted to provide an alternative means of establishing tries financial base of broadcasting operations. Benton Cmaritended that, if broadcasting could be supported by sub- 8<=It‘:1.ptions, rather than by commercial advertising revenues, ifit' ‘vould enable educational and other non-profit institu- t3343113 to operate stations on funds derived from the services rel“Idered directly to the listener-viewer; such a plan would, he thought, free educational interests (among others) from ha"ing to rely on commercial revenues to support educational \ 1Broadcasting, September 24, 1945, pp. 20, 81. 49 programs. That was the dream, at least, of the supporters of both the Benton proposals. And, of course, most commer— cial broadcasters resisted them vigorously.l \ The Post-War Boom -- 1945-1949 \ The FCC Activity : The end of the war brought with it a resurgent interest in the educational potentials of all mass media—- especially of broadcasting-~and at the same time a "mush— room" growth in the number of commercial television, FM, and AM stations. Late in 1945 the FCC announced tentative allocation ,proposals providing for more than 1500 FM stations, and Inore than fifty were on the air by the year's end.2 Six tealevision stations were licensed and operating commercially; several others were operating on an experimental basis. Color television was being developed in the laboratory and 2111 limited experimental demonstrations. And the FCC, mind- ifilil. of increasing pressure from the public, and particularly V, JEITCDHn Congress, was in the midst of a general reevaluation 0f the public service responsibilities incumbent on all bro adcasters .3 \ 11 1.1.1231... May - December, 1951, w. Infra, Chap. 1 . pp. 103-116, assim. 2Broadcasting, October 15, 1956, pp. 210, 130. li_t: 3The famous "Blue Book"--Public Service Responsibi- Ma 188 of Broadcast Licensees--was released by the FCC in “h?:<=t1 of 1946, bringing the rejoinder from the NAB that the OcaSic freedoms of radio are at stake." See Broadcasting, tober 15, 1956, p. 210. SO Congressional Interest Congress began to take a renewed interest in the broadcasting situation in April of 1948. The Senate Com- merce Committee, which, with its counterpart committee of the House of Representatives, oversees the operations of the FCC, held hearings on a bill(S.2231 80th Congress) spon- sored by Senator Edwin Johnson (a longtime supporter of commercial broadcasting interests, and especially local radio interests), which aimed at controlling what the Senator alleged were the "clear-channel monopolies." The testimony developed in the hearings was such that the Acting Chairman, Senator Charles W. Tobey, felt that the best interests of all parties would be served if a broader in- ‘vestigation were undertaken. Accordingly, he called for new hearings to investigate broadcast allocations, regula- trixon, and patent ownership in all broadcasting media, in- czljading FM and television.1 Spurred on by Congressional pressures, and by its (”Fifi increasing awareness of mounting problems confronting ‘t11<3 growth of American broadcasting, the FCC held its own he arings soon after, beginning in June, 1948.2 That phase of the investigation which dealt with the television alloca- tions problem began on September 20, 1948, and on Septem- ber 30, the Commission issued a "freeze" order, in effect \ 11bid., p. 218. off 20.8., Federal Communications Commission, "Notice PIr-‘cpozaed Rule Making" (FCC 48-1569), May 6, 1948, et.seg. 51 halting the further development of television broadcasting (while permitting those stations already underway to con- tinue) until problems of tropospheric propagation and co- channel interference could be worked out.1 The freeze was to continue in effect until April, 1952, in spite of almost continuous pressure from industry sources and the Congress to mitigate the situation and bring on a "thaw." Education and Television As the end of the War brought thousands of veterans back to college campuses for training under the "G.I. Bill" (P.L. 79-16), and as the floodcnf"war babies" began to reach the school ages, educators toyed with a variety of innova— ‘tions in educational "methods," hopeful that they could avoid being engulfed by the tidal wave of enrollments which threatened the existing educational facilities and resources. There were some tentative efforts in television 13)? «educational institutions, but many of these were largely 'iE>I1131ic relations" ventures of a general, informative néitllre, very often instigated by commercial television broadcasters or networks as part of their responsibility for public enlightenment and interest.2 \ 1U.S. Federal Communications Commission, Report and SlElélsag; (FCC 48-2182), September 30, 1948. 8c: 2White reports that as of mid 1946 there were "a 111c>1?<3 of noncommercial applicants" -- universities and other ( 8titutions experimenting with educational television unite, p. 107). Probably the most significant of these p1‘<>gzl:~ams, and one which, in some ways set a standard emulated A ,1 52 In 1948, the NAEB, having a membership of ninety- five educational institutions, which operated fifty—one educational radio stations in thirty-one states, began to focus its attention more specifically on the educational potentials of television.1 Its representations before the FCC were the beginnings of direct, overt attempts by educa- tional interests to obtain reserved channel allocations in both the FM and television portions of the broadcast spectrum. In the spring hearings of 1948, before the FCC, the NAEB advocated (l) liberalizing the licensing requirements for FM broadcasting by educational interests and (2) the reser— vation of specific channels in the television spectrum for .future use by educational interests.2 But neither the FCC loor educators generally seemed to be very much interested 111 the educational potential of television. The NAEB News- letter of July 31, 1948 noted that astonishingly few educators appear to be interested in television operation, considering the fact that once the television channels are filled there is likely to be no second chance. The significant factor here is cost of installation and operation ‘which is prohibitive for most . . . L ‘ 33’ many of its successors was the "Johns Hopkins Science Re- un Gator " produced through the facilities of a Baltimore com— tgrcial television station, in 1948, and later broadcast by ‘3 IDuMont network (Cumming, pp. lO-ll). 1Hull, NAEB Journal (February, 1958), p. 5. 2Zaitz, p. 16. 3Cited in Zaitz, Ibid. 53 FCC Chairman Wayne Coy attempted to stir up the ed- ucators to some kind of concerted action in making use of the existing reserved FM channels, and he also urged them to "get aboard the TV bandwagon" and to turn out in force to request the FCC to set aside channels for educational television.1 But progress was slow. The ETV "Movement" The year 1949 has been recognized as the year when the educational television movement began in earnest.2 Two major developments coupled with the prevailing conditions seem to give credence to this contention: The FCC's "Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making" (FCC 49-948) which proposed .a tentative television allocation plan for the entire nation (Jaut which excluded reserved channels for education); the first Allerton House Seminar, at which leading educators from the United States and foreign nations contemplated the I>fli.losophy and strategy of securing educational television out lets; and the prevailing educational climate in which :iriczzreased enrollments and consequent shortages of educa- ti Onal resources began to reach a stage of crisis. * ‘ 11bid., p. 20. 2Hull, Educational Television, pp. 339-40; Powell, p- 35 O 54 The "Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making" Early in 1949, Senator Edwin C. Johnson, Chairman of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, reintroduced his bill (8.491, 8lst Cong.) to limit the power of broadcasting stations (a continuation of his pro- posed program to restrict the "monopoly" of the clear— channel Operators). In speaking on the bill, Senator Johnson castigated the FCC, calling it a "deplorable quasi— judicial and quasi-legislative agency of our Government."1 The act of criticism itself is not particularly significant-~the FCC had been under almost constant criti- cism by various Members of Congress since its very inception-- but the nature of the charges, and the manner and detail of their presentation by the most powerful member of the Senate <:ommittee to which the FCC was beholden, place this parti- anlar attack on the Commission in a class by itself. .Jkahnson was particularlyconcerned with bringing about an eaéxriy’disposition of the pending proposals for a nationwide 17€3£illocation of television channels on an equitable and C=<>nnpetitive basis. His final statement included a plea for an end to the "freeze": 1U.S., Congressional Record, 8lst Cong., lst Sess., 1949, xcv, Part 4, p. 4781. 55 In the final analysis the Commission has one overriding duty--to push the development of the art. It has data and skilled engineering advice in its own files which say that color is ready, that the higher frequencies can be used. It may be that Senator Johnson's diatribe had no particular influence on the subsequent action by the FCC. But it is more probable that Johnson's outburst--which had a good reception in the Senate and in the press--precipi- tated the "Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making" somewhat sooner than might otherwise have been the case. Here was the powerful chairman of the powerful Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee issuing what was, in no uncertain terms, an ultimatum—-get moving on a television allocation plan, or else . . . ! It would be interesting to speculate on what might 11ave been included in the subsequent FCC "Notice" had Senator Johnson mentioned the educational potential of television <31: specifically included educational programs within the concept of public service responsibilities. But he did 11<>t::mention education, or even imply that any such aspect (>15 broadcasting existed. The "Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making" of 91‘15L37 ll, I949, satisfied most of the conditions called for ERDV' t:he Senator (it opened up the UHF band, it provided for cc>10r transmission, it provided widespread coverage through- (3‘11: .rural as well as urban areas), but it did not include a \ 11bid., p. 4790. 56 single reference to the needs of education for either speci- fic channel allocations or reserved frequencies within the broadcasting spectrum. It was the very omission of a reference to educa— tional broadcasting in this "Notice", however, which, in a wax,made the further development of the educational tele- vision movement possible at the legislative-administrative level. For, in a notable lone dissent, FCC Commissioner Frieda Hennock drew attention to the inadequacy of the pro- posed table of allocations to meet the needs of educational broadcasters, both present and future.2' Hennock's statement, in Hull's phrase, issued "a plea for ETV reservations, thereby providing the legal and moral basis for the educa- tzion protests and petititons which followed." In her dissenting opinion Commissioner Hennock noted, ill part, that the decision to exclude educational interests fdrom the development of television nationally was "premature," 811d that there was an urgent need for the development of none cforumercial educational television stations in addition to a nationwide system of competitive commercial stations. She Preposed-u-or rather reiterated the proposal voiced by the NAEB earlier-~that spectrum space in the UHF band (470-890 mc) F‘ 1U.S., Federal Communications Commission, "Notice of 'UUC12her Proposed Rule Making" (FCC 49-948 , JulyMl‘k3 i232; U.S-, Federal Register, XIV (JUIY 19: 194 2 PP” 21bid., p. 4485; Powell, p. 22. 3Hull, NAEB Journal (February, 1958), p. 27. 57 be reserved for these kinds of stations, in accordance with the precedent established for educational FM broadcasting outlets.1 The FCC set a late summer deadline for the filing of petitions relative to the "Notice," with hearings scheduled for August 29. The NAEB filed a petition with the FCC ask- ing for permanent reservations for educational stations in the UHF band, a position supported soon after by co-filings from the Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities, ‘the Association of State University Presidents, and the [Qational University Extension Association. In addition, the United States Office of Education, joined by the IVational Education Association, filed its own petition with time FCC for the reservation of VHF as well as UHF channels. As the hearing date approached, the FCC announced a 3Y8 tem of priorities, by which the color controversy was to be discussed first, to be followed by general hearings on “tile: educational television proposals, "polycasting," strato- Vision (a deve10pment by Westinghouse which was later to have a tremendous impact on educational television through the Midwest Program on Airborne Television Instruction-~MPATI), and mobile, broad-band, point-to-point transmission.3 Broadcasting ventured the opinion that the hearings would Pi 1New York Times, May 27, 1949, p. 44:1; Federal W. x1v ZJuly 19, 1949), pp. 4483-4995; Supra, p. 46. tii. 2Hull, "A Note on the History Behind ETV," Educa_ “-S!1§J.Television, p. 341, "———— 3Broadcasting, July 18, 1949, p. 45. 58 last six weeks to two months, and that the lifting of the television "freeze" would follow soon after.1 Actually, the hearings were recessed in November, resumed in February of 1950, and continued sporadically through 1950 and into 1951.2 The Mobiligggion of Educational Forces In June and July of 1949, a positive movement in educational broadcasting began to stir, sparked, according to several of the men actually involved, by the first group <>f Allerton House Seminars, held at the University of .Illinois. Thirty prominent educators and educational broad- <3asters from Canada, Great Britain, and the United States rust and evolved the outline of a functional plan for a ruationwide system of educational broadcasting facilities, ‘Wfilich later provided the basic concept of a national educa- tional television network and a programming center. The State of Television Development The year 1949 closed with the FCC hearings bogged dOWn, and it seemed unlikely that an early Commission de- cision on the future of television development in the United 11bid., September 19, 1949, p. 4. 2A summary of these proceedings and additional refer- ence to specific sources of issue and testimony may be found ’53;‘the FCC, "Sixth Report and Order," Federal Register, 1:1, No. 87 (May 2, 1952), Part II, pp. 3095—4100. 3Hull, Educational Television, p. 340. 59 States would be forthcoming. The state of the "art," how— ever, was far from frozen by this circumstance. Ninety-eight television stations were operating at the year's end, and other significant developments had been taking place. In New York City some 4000 students had watched sessions of the United Nations General Assembly by ‘way of closed-circuit television--the precursor of a later popular application of educational television. The American 'Telephone and Telegraph Company had extended its microwave 11nd coaxial-cable networking facilities as far west as ESt. Louis, Chicago, and Milwaukee, thereby linking the mid- sweet with the major network hub of New York City. Some eXperiments with large-screen "theatre-vision" were underway, as theatre owners attemped to meet the emerging competition fix: audiences posed by television. And doctors were react- ing enthusiastically to medical—convention demonstrations <>f' color television, the forerunner of what would be a major development in the use of television in medical education 3111 the United States.1 "The End of the Beginning"-gl950 The Educational "Facts of Life"2 The year 1950 brought an end to the decade of Ameri- ‘ziirl education which, in the opinion of the New York Times' \ 1Encyclopedia Britannica: Book of the Year, 1950, pp - 664-66 , passim. General education developments are here derived Erom Enc clo edia Britannica: Book of the Year. 4951, p, 2 - , ass m. 60 education editor, bore two historic stamps: the G.I. Bill of Rights, which stretched the country's college aspirations beyond all the conventional limitations, and the beginning ofla vast citizen movement in support of the schools. As elementary school enrollments soared above 32.9 million pupils (an increase of 920,000 over the previous year), the result of the "war-baby" explosion of the early- and mid-forties, school administrators found themselves almost literally "with their backs to the wall." An in- crease of 15.9% over the 1949 number of teacher graduates was still not enough to offset the tremendous growth in elementary school enrollment, and there remained a shortage of more than 90,000 teachers. College and high school enrollments, however, were not yet affected by the burgeoning school population at the lower grades. In spite of the fact that teachers' Salary levels were extremely low (well below the purchasing POWer of pre-World War II levels), there was an abundance of high school teaching applicants (nearly 85,000) and rela- tiVe 1y few vacancies (an estimated 30,000). The colleges were in the midst of a frustrating "bind" wl'lich saw a rapid decrease in enrollments as the wave of Wolf: 1d War II veterans attending college under the provisions °f the "G.I. Bill" began to graduate (the number of veterans ClecIllned about seven per cent from the previous year). At \ '1‘ 1Fred M. Hechinger, "Education in Review," New York \ilues, August 9, 1959, Sec. IV, p. 9:1. 61 the same time, college operating costs were rising; and there was deep concern over the further drain on college student populations brought on by the twin threats of poten- tial universal-military-training legislation and the out- break of the Korean conflict. Colleges, which had exhausted virtually every resource in order to handle the returning- veteran "explosion," were now faced with the necessity of retrenching for a limited time until the flood of students now entering the lower grades should reach college age. Another far-reaching development which began to mush- room by 1950 was the adult education movement, embracing an unprecedented thirty million participants, concentrated principally in metropolitan and urban areas. Faced with grim shortages of personnel and funds, the American Association of School Administrators met early in 1950 for their annual convention at Atlantic City, Where they discussed television as it might apply to the needs of education. This was the first time a "national" eCilucational group representing "grass roots" policy and Practice had seriously considered the medium. At that meeting, the educators were told by Charles A- Siepmann that television was "likely to be geared to the l<3‘-~7est common denominator of public taste," and should, con- se studies, succinctly stated the case for the pro-tele- vi 8 ion-in-education bloc: The statistics . . . make it abundantly clear that television represents a new problem.for the world of education, but their implications obviously ex- tend far beyond the classroom itself. Any medium \ 1New York Times, March 7, 1950, p. 29:2. 2Ibid. 64 which can command such a high proportion of a child's waking hours no longer can be regarded merely as a novel form of entertainment. It is a social force with enormous potentialities for good or bad, and the course which television fol- lows in the future quite properly should be the concern of the community as a whole. 0 C C O O C O C O I O . C Q I O C O D O O O O O I The teacher can explore the very great possibi— lities of using television directly in the field of education . . . An awareness of the influence of television and of what it is putting on the air should be displayed by any school system alert to today's needs. The broadcaster . . . must recognize his continuing responsibility not only to cater to mass entertainment tastes but also to fill the more specialized needs of his audience one of which is the educational program.,1 As the year 1950 continued, the conflict of Opinion between the advocates and opponents of television in educa- tion develOped as follows: the advocates saw in television an opportunity to give students "a sense of participation in current events that would otherwise be impossible," par- ticularly "immediate" events, such as political conventions or United Nations sessions; the opponents argued that the costs involved in using television in education were exces- sive, and that other visual aids, such as motion pictures, had greater advantages for the teacher. The New York Times observed, however, that Despite objections, . . . the feeling is wide- spread that television offers great advantages for the future of education and that it will become an increasingly important tool for schools and colleges. 1New York Times, March 19, 1950, Sec. IV, p. 8:2. 21bid., August 20, 1950, Sec. IV, p. 9:1. 65 The Status of Educational Broadcasting Lest there be a misunderstanding of the significant issues at this point, it must be reiterated that broadcasting and education were not total strangers in 1950. Broadcasters had always paid "lip-service" (at the very least, and in many cases they had made some quite significant contribu- tions) to educational interests, all as a condition of their licensed responsibilities. In March it was reported that at that time there were eighteen colleges and more than twenty-five school systems broadcasting "educational " pro- grams over existing commercial television stations.1 Many of these, of course, could be classified as "educational" only to the extent that the producing agency (school or college) was a recognized educational institution. In addition, programs featuring distinguished experts in various fields, or programs of a general public-interest nature, might also be classified as "educational" by telecasters. There were also at this time some quasi-educational pro- grams broadcast by commercial operators in cooperation with local school systems or universities which more closely fit the general description of educational television as it emerged by the end of 1950.2 11bid., March 12, 1950, p. 11:3. 2One of the most outstanding of these was the series of programs produced by the Philadelphia public schools. These programs, designed for in-school viewing, were in- tended as supplements to the curriculum of the schools, as well as public relations vehicles. Philadelphia became in 66 Specific developments in the acquisition and use of television broadcasting facilities by educational institu- tions began when WOl-TV (Ames, Iowa),owned and operated by Iowa State College, began regular operations on February 21, 1950.1 A construction permit had been obtained from the FCC in 1947, prior to the "freeze" on television licenses. WOI-TV operated as the only station in the state of Iowa until 1952, and the only station operated by an educational institution until 1953.2 WOl-TV also established the prece- dent of an educational institution operating commercial television facilities. At about the same time, Syracuse University inaugurated a cooperative arrangement with a local commercial television station, whereby the university programmed up to four hours per week using that station's transmitter facilities, the 1951 a pioneer, to some extent, in what was later to be known as "instructional television." For details, see Egg York Times, May 4, 1950, p. 22:2, December 20, p. 49:1 and January 8, 1951, p. 20:1. See also Cumming, pp. 32-33, and Tarbet, pp. 2,3. 1It was the one-hundredth television station to be licensed by the FCC, and the first such station to be li- censed to an educational institution. Since there were at that time no provisions for licensing non-commercial educa- tional television stations, the station began, and has con- tinued to operate, as a commercial station, offering its viewers network programs as well as educational fare. For details, see Cumming, pp. 37-38, and Powell,p. 44. 2Not to be confused with non-commercial operation on a "non-reserved" channel. See Tarbet, pp. 3-4. 67 broadcasts originated in the completely equipped university— owned studios.1 As interest in television spread,other plans began to develop in educational institutions, until in August, 1950, it was estimated by the Office of Education that at least forty-five colleges and universities, twenty-one school systems, and five medical schools were preparing or presenting television series through existing commercial facilities. Moreover, the report went on, more than 250 such institutions were "definitely interested."2 The Educational Television Movement Even among the prOponents of educational television there were wide differences of opinion as to the course to be followed in the matter of obtaining Federal assistance. Several national educational groups were preparing to file separate petitions with the FCC asking for the reservation of frequencies or specific channels in the VHF spectrum, 1The arrangement was conceived as a training device in an intensive graduate curriculum, and included both educational and commercial programs (New York Times, May 21, 1950, Sec. II, p. 9:2). See also Cumming, pp. 20-24, assim. 2Typical of these developments were proposed series originating with the University of Michigan, the University of Texas, and the University of Miami. There were occasional programs prepared by Harvard, Cornell, Johns HOpkins, North- western, The University of Chicago, Purdue, Boston University, and others (New York Times, August 20, 1950, Sec. IV, p. 9:1). See also, Cumming, Chapter ii, pp. 9-35, assim. 68 the UHF spectrum, or both, to be operated by a variety of means, and with diverse goals and purposes. Some groups were holding out for non-commercial educational television, some for non-profit operation, and some for both. Hull ob- serves that diversity, in this sense, created a problem: These differences were sharp enough, if publicly voiced, to split any common educational effort in the pending FCC hearings.1 Industry Opposition Moreover, since the educational television movement was slow in gaining momentum toward very definite goals, some segments of the commercial broadcasting industry began to take the initiative in a "kind of structured Opposition" against the educators. The issues were no longer hypothetical ones. Ex- ploitation of the UHF band in an indefinite tele- vision future was one thing. Actual and immediate designation of commercially valuable VHF channels for educational use was quite another . . . . The industry took steps along a broad front to em- phasize the existing virtues of commercial broadcasting and to minimize the contributions which non-commercial educa- tional broadcasters might make on their own. It was reit- erated by broadcasters that the industry was sensitive to the educational needs of the public, and that these needs were being met through existing broadcasters' facilities; 1Hu11, NAEB Journal (February, 1958), p. 28. 2Hull, Educational Television, p. 341. 69 that educational broadcasters had abrogated their responsi- bilities and their opportunities in the early days of radio broadcasting, and would probably do likewise with television; that, after all, television was not essentially an educa- tional medium but an entertainment medium, and neither com- mercial nor educational broadcasters could control the edu- cational potential of the medium save as the viewers them- selves indicated their preferences in programming; and finally, that television was an expensive enterprise and an exacting art, and not something that any school system or college could "take up" and expect to operate with any degree of success as a matter of course.1 The industry arguments reached a climax with the filing of petitions by the National Association of Radio and Television Broad- casters' Television Board, the Allen B. DuMont Laboratories, Inc., and others, relative to the FCC's investigation of the total television picture (FCC Docket 8736 g; gi). Formation oi_the JCET Franklin H. Dunham, Chief of the U.S. Office of Education's Educational Television and Radio Branch (and one of the most vocal advocates of the educational televi- sion movement until his death in 1960) recognized the need for a concerted and unambiguous effort on the part of 1See, regarding these contentions, New York Times, :MEY'4, 1950, p. 22:2; and Harvey J. Levin, "The Logic of Ekhacational Television," Public Opinion Quarteriy, XX (1956), PP. 675-90. 70 educational interests seeking to be heard by the FCC. In October of 1950 he called a meeting of educational repre- sentatives, hosted jointly by the Office of Education and the NAEB, in an attempt to reconcile the differences exist- ing among potential educational television applicants. This meeting was truly a milestone in the history of the educational television movement, for there resulted not only a unified concept of educational television among the educational representatives present, but also the for- mation of an §g_hgg Joint Committee on Educational Televi- sion (JCET), to present the case for educational television before the FCC. The gg_hgg_committee, subsequently formalized under the auspices of the American Council on Education, later known as the Joint Council on Educational Television (now called the Joint Council on Educational Broadcasting--JCEB), was to become the principal motivating force and instrument in the drive by educational interests to secure reserved channels and to activate them. Education's United Front The very day on which the educators convened their meeting at the Office of Education (October 16, 1950) the ‘ 1The history of the accomplishments of the JCET is chronicled in its own periodic releases from 1951 to the Present. For its relationship with the Fund for Adult Edu- cation see: Fund for Adult Education, A Ten-Year Report: 1951-1961 (published by the Ford Foundation, 1962), pp. 14-25; and Powell, Chapter 6, pp. 41-52 g£_ segi, passim. 71 FCC opened that phase of its continued hearings on various television matters relating to the proposals of July 11, 1949 (FCC 49-948: "Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making"1), and began to receive the testimony of the interested parties who had filed comments relative to the general issues--in— cluding educational reservations.2 By mid-November the JCET had announced that it would seek channel reservations for educational purposes, and it won the right to represent the educational interests. Brig- adier General Telford Taylor (formerly an FCC counsel and the American chief prosecuter at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials) began to present JCET's case for educational tele- vision reservations on November 27, 1950. A stream of the nation's distinguished educators, beginning with Earl J. McGrath, U.S. Commissioner of Education, appeared as witness in hearings before the FCC gg_b§ng which lasted intermittently until January 31, 1951.3 In all, seventy-six witnesses testified, all but three of them appearing, either individually or at the behest of the JCET, in support of the principle of reservation 1Supra, chap ii, pp. 57-58. 2Powell, p. 45. A summary of this phase of the hear- ing is to be found in U.S. Federal Communications Commission, "Sixth Report and Order" (FCC Dockets 8736, et.gi.), April 3916 1952, Federal Register, XVII (May 2, 1952)“, pp. 3905, 8-909. 3A report of the highlights of testimony may be found in New York Times, November 21, 1950, p. 46:2; November 26, Sec, II, . ll:l° November 28, . 33:1; November 29, p. 35:8; November 50, p. 52:4; January 22, 1951, p. 29:8; January 25, P. 27:8; January 26, p. 25:8; and January 27, p. 15:1. 72 of television channels for the exclusive use of non—commer- cial educational stations. The parade of impressive wit- nesses included Senators and Representatives, university presidents, deans, and professors, state and city superintendents of schools, and representatives of educational, library, labor and parent associations. The marshaling of these witnesses was accomplished by nationwide publicity, Washington press confer— ences--and a severe inflation of the JCET's budget. Two specific proposals were advanced by the JCET in the course of the hearings: (1) that at least one channel be reserved in the VHF spectrum "in each metropolitan or educational center and twenty per cent of the UHF channels ‘when they were put to use," and (2) that in areas where all channels were presently occupied (such as in New York City) the licensees of those stations be required to devote a specified portion of their broadcasting time to non-commer- cial educational television programs. lPowell, p. 48. 2New Yoik Times, November 21, 1950, p. 46:2. Another proposal, which had been unanimously approved by the JCET membership, was not presented to the FCC: That both "non- profit" as well as "non-commercial" reservations be made. That prOposal, thoroughly debated by the membership, was drapped because of the opinions of the JCET counsel, Telford Taylor, and Federal Communications Commissioner Frieda B. Hennock, that'most outspoken of any member of the Commission on behalf of educational television, both of whom thought "that any 'non-profit' concept would 'muddy' education's appeal before the Commission and complicate educational tele- vision's future relations with business, industry, labor, and philanthrOpic foundations." (Hull, EducationaifiTelevision, P. 341, 342.) See also: Joint Council on Educational Tele- Vision, Four Years ongrogrggs in EducationaigTelevision, p. 22; Powell, pp. 48-51, assim. A summary of the signifi- cant arguments, as viewed by the FCC, may be found in the -_.— -—-—~ tang—M 73 Following these educational representations, the FCC, in announcing a new set of proposed allocations in March, 1951, reserved 209 channels for educational appli- cants 0 Congress and the ETV Movement While the FCC hearings were in progress, at almost the exact time when the educators first began to testify, Senator John W. Bricker (Ohio) introduced a bill (S.J. Res. 208, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess., Nov. 29, 1950). To direct the Federal Communications Com- mission to make a study of the problems of allocat— ing television frequencies for use by educational institutions for the purpose of non-profit educa- tional programming. In a press release of the same date, Senator Bricker called for at least one frequency in each state to be re- served for educational, non-profit broadcasting, and an overall investigation of the entire television allocation question by Congress. It was his further contention that every educational institution should have its own television facility.3 FCC's "Third Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making," Federal Re ister, XVI, (April 7, 1951), Appendix A, part vi, pp. 3079-3080. 1Federal Communications Commission, "Third Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making," (FCC 51-244), Federal Re ister, XVI, (April 7, 1951), pp. 3072-3090. 2 U.S., Congressional Record, XCVI, Part 12 (1950), p. 15943. 3New York Times, November 30, 1950, p. 52:4. " ~—..-— 74 While Bricker's bill, which was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, died without a hearing, the in- troduction of the bill is significant, for it marks the first time when a Member of Congress specifically introduced legislation pertaining to educational television. Senator Bricker's influence in subsequent Congressional activity relative to television generally, and educational television specifically, may be said to have begun with this relative inconsequential piece of proposed legislation. The Television Year--l950 in Retrospect The growth of television broadcasting increased at a snail's pace in 1950, due largely to the "freeze" on new licenses--only nine stations went on the air, bringing the total up to 107 stations located in fifty-eight areas. The popularity of television showed no signs of abating, how- ever, the number of receivers produced during the year being more than double that of the: previous year, and the Ameri— can Telephone and Telegraph Company's microwave relay and coaxial cable networking facilities continuing to expand.1 At the year's end, commercial broadcasters were bending every effort to build an acceptable image of them- selves in the eyes of the public and of the FCC, especially ‘ 1At the year's end the network extended from Boston south to Jacksonville, Florida, and west from the East coast to Minneapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, Missouri, and Memphis, Tennessee (Encyclopedia Britannica: Book of the YearLi95i, Pp. 667-68) . w". _._* .— -....—4 —_..._-——-—~ - 75 with regard to educational television. Major networks and manufacturers (such as RCA and DuMont) announced cooperative educational ventures with school systems and institutions of higher education.1 With the FCC hearings recessed for the holidays, and the educational television movement "gathering steam," educators continued to rally support and witnesses for the continuation of hearings in January, 1951.2 Issues Remaining At Large The year 1950 came to a close with the educational television "question" still very much unanswered, and a host of issues of various magnitudes swirling about the vortex of an emerging television service of national scope. The most prevalent questions seem to have been the following: 1. Was television really a social force of any serious dimensions, and, if so, was it intrinsically ori- ented toward the good or evil of society? 1New York Times, November 23, 1950, p. 37:7; and November 29, p. 50:3. The television Broadcasters Associa- tion, of New York City, considered the idea of initiating "educational" programs on the teaching of first aid and the training of air-raid wardens, as well as promoting the sale of defense bonds, as part of its contribution to the Korean emergency, acknowledging at least tacitly, the potential educational value of the medium. (New York Timgg, December 9, 1950, p. 19:1). 2One such testimonial was the precedent-shattering "monitoring" report on New York Television by Dallas W. Snwthe and Donald Horton. See New York Times, January 11, 1951, p. 27:3; January 24, p. 29:8; and January 25, p. 27:8. 76 2. Did television have any inherent value as an educa- tional tool, and, if so, had educational interests an inherent right to a portion of this "natural resource?" 3. What action could, or should, be taken to protect the continuously growing school population from a decline in the quality of education? 4. With whom did the responsibility for public interest, public service, and public enlightenment broad- casting lie, and what could or should be done to improve it? Fairly conclusive answers to some of these questions, particularly the first two, were formulated with astonish- ing clarity in the next few months; the answers to others drifted elusively, always out of the reach of administrators, planners, and lawmakers, for a decade. With the end of 1950, three decades of technological development and a chapter in the history of American broad- casting came to a close. The chapter of a new decade would find increased emphasis on social, legal, and philosophical developments in the efforts of America to make the best use of what technology had created. CHAPTER III EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION AND THE EIGHTY-SECOND CONGRESS: 1951 Introduction This chapter deals with the continued development of the educational television movement and the first major Con— gressional interest in the problems and potentials of tele- vision's relationship with education. A brief chronology of events is followed by an analysis of Congressional legisla- tive activities (primarily those centered in the Senate), and the issues which were engendered by the first attempts at educational television facilities legislation. The period covered by this chapter is the year 1951, and specifically the first session of the Eighty-Second Congress. The National"Ciimate"- i951 The Year in Brief The year 1951 was, in many respects, the most auspi- cious year to date in the development of educational tele- vision and in the recognition of television as an educational nedium. It was a year which saw progress being made in the use of television for instructional purposes, both open- and 77 78 closed-circuit, in a variety of school systems, universities, and related institutions. It was a year which saw more training programs in television production being offered for credit at colleges and universities, with an "educational" rather than commercial emphasis. It was a year which saw increased interest in the educational potentials of televi- sion by state legislatures and by school boards, some of which began to make specific plans for the operation of ed- ucational television stations. In 1951 a truce was negotiated in the Korean con— flict, and thus began the return to the campuses of the nation those students who had been called into military ser- vice for that emergency. Of greater immediate concern, how- ever, were the growing enrollments in the elementary grades, which, combined with an increasing shortage of teachers and teacher-trainees, added to the "crisis" in American educa- tion. Educators at all levels began to search for new media and new methods of alleviating the shortages of space and personnel and of improving the quality of education. The year 1951 saw the completion of the coast-to- coast microwave and coaxial-cable linkage which permitted live "nationwide" television for the first time. This, to- gether with a host of technological and programming develop- ments,increased the importance and the influence of tele- 'vision on the American public. The year 1951 brought to the nation's television screens the most spectacular live 79 documentaries to date--the Kefauver crime investigation com- mittee hearings, and the signing Of the peace treaty with Japan. Finally, 1951 saw the organized activities of educa— tional television interests merged and focused into a strong, national program, complete with financial support from some of the nation's largest philantropic organizations, includ- ing fund-raising, publicity, legislative liaison, and tech- nical agencies among its components. It was a year which saw the FCC reverse its previous position with regard to educational reservations for television channels, and which saw concerted and militant Opposition to that change taken by the commercial broadcasters of the nation. And it was a year which saw the Congress Of the United States enter the lists on the side of educational television for the first time with a definite purpose and specific Objectives in mind. Television and Education The Beginnings Of Inggguctionai Television (ITV) In the closing days of 1950,the management Of New York City television station WPIX Offered the City Board of Education time and facilities on a regular daily basis for instructional television programming.1 The Offer was ac- cepted; and by the end of 1951 the New York City Board of 1New York Times, December 9, 1950, 19:1. -...__. __—. _ 80 Education was presenting a daily program called "The Living Blackboard," geared to high-schOOl-level courses and prin- cipally intended for "shut—in" students and adults who other— wise would be denied formal high school instruction.1 This development was typical of a number Of situa- tions across the Nation in which educational organizations and institutions "teamed up," as it were, with commercial broadcasters to present direct instruction through the video medium, and a new term emerged: Instructional Television-- ITV. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, a janitors' strike closed all the schools in the city and brought about the start of a daily instructional television program, broadcast through the facilities of a commercial station to the "locked-out" school children. Nearly twenty per cent of all television sets in the area were tuned to the impromptu instructional series, and the results were said to be "very satisfactory."2 In Memphis, Tennessee, a blizzard caused the large, county school system to close its doors, but regular lessons were broadcast through the facilities Of a commercial tele- vision outlet to the largest "class" in Memphis school his- tory.3 k 1Ibid., January 17, 1951, 34:4; July 5, 27:2, Octo- ber 10, 31:1; October 16, 33:6; October 26, 34:3. 2Ibid., January, 26, 1951, 32:2. 31bid., February 11, 1951, Sec. 11, 11:1. 81 Both the Army and the Navy reported success in the use of television for instructional purposes. The Navy broadcast instruction to reservists assembled at regular meeting places throughout the New York metropolitan area, and experimented with variations in format and procedure to find the most effective instructional television mode.1 The Army, using a different approach to televised instruction, reported considerable success with closed-circuit instruc- tion in its Signal Corps training school at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, particularly in magnifying small parts and pieces Of electronic equipment.2 In Philadelphia, after several years of quasi-educa- tional public relations broadcasting, the Board Of Education applied to the FCC, on behalf Of eighty-four educational institutions in the metropolitan and suburban area, for an exclusive television channel for "teaching."3 Meanwhile, the New York State Board of Regents, whose responsibility extends to all phases Of public and private education at all levels in the State, completed a study of television developments and filed a plan with the FCC for the establishment of a state-wide network of "state- Operated" educational television stations, at a proposed _¥ llbid., February 18, 1951, Pt. 11, 9:3. 21bid,, August 19, 1951, 37:1. 3161a,, May 8, 1951, 40:8. 82 cost of $3.3 million plus $2.5 million annual Operating costs. An announcement included the statement that It is as important for the educational system to have television channels as schoolhouses. . . . , The television channels are the most valuable i natural resource the peOple possess today. The significance Of the Regents' proposal, and the challenge posed by the costs involved, was recognized by the Times' critic, who wrote: [The Board of Regents' action is anfl in- stance Of real leadership which, it must be hoped, will be followed by similar bodies in many other States 0 i O O O O O O O D I C Q . Q I D f O Q I Q C C Q Q [If the Regents' plan fails, commercial broadcasters will regard it as] prima facie evi- dence that the HOOper rating is the accepted stan- dard Of contemporary culture. In Cleveland, Ohio, Western Reserve University, in cooperation with a commercial television broadcaster, pre- sented the first college-level, TV home-study courses to carry full university credit in the nation-~in psychology and comparative literature. The New Jersey Television Council of Higher Educa- tion, representing twenty colleges and several consulting agencies, began an experimental series of programs through a commercial television outlet,in an effort to explore the K . 1Ibid“ May 8, 1951, 1:1; see also, May 26, 21:1. 1 ZJaCk Gould, "Regents' Proposal Raises ETV Issue," ~bi\d_._, May 13, 1951, Sec. 11, 9:1, 3 Ibid,, July 22, 1951, Sec. IV, 9:4. 83 potentials Of various modes of televised instruction.1 The University of Southern California began construc- tion Of the first complete television studio facilities on a western college campus, at a cost exceeding $100,000, and announced plans to launch experimental educational tele- vision programs early in 1952.2 Finally, the medical school at the University of Kansas began to use closed-circuit color television as an integral part Of its teaching procedure.3 Training and Program Development Colleges and universities recognized the need for trained television personnel and cooperated with commercial broadcasters to set up curricula and workshops in television production, many of them carrying college credit.4 These selected developments illustrate the emergent awareness Of the educational potentials Of television by some institutions and groups who were in a position to take positive action during 1951.5 —__. 1Ibid“ October 14, 1951, Sec. 11, 11:2. 21bid,, October 28, 1951, Sec. IV, 9:3. 3Encyciopedingitannica: Book Of the Year. 1952, P. 238. 4Reports Of some Of those may be found in the pages (If The New York Times as follows: NBC and Barnard College (elenuary22, 1951, 23:8); several commercial broadcasters and Johns Hopkins University (February 15, 37:3)° Brooklyn c>11ege's two-year degree program in television (July 1, 34:4). t: A more complete review of the entire range Of educa- mional television developments preceding and following 1951 Bay be found in the files of the Joint ouncil on Educational l3p venture. See New York Times, May 5, 1951, 19:2; I,‘1€§ust 19, Sec. 11, 9:1; September 30, Sec. IV, 8:5; and (D‘Vell, pp. 55- 64, assim, and p. 69. 86 We see television as a powerful aid for small group higher education in the home, with or without credit as the individual case may dictate. Telford Taylor, writing as a spokesman for five national educational organizations, noted that while tele- vision was undoubtedly Of importance within the classrooms, it is equally clear and far more significant that education is a vital necessity for television. It Offers the best and perhaps the only hope that American television can fulfill at least part Of its potentiality and responsibility and avoid the dreary routine and utter lack of distinction to, which American radio has long since succumbed. Mayor David L. Lawrence, of Pittsburgh, as President of the Conference of Mayors, endorsed the policy of reserv- ing television channels for education, and spoke out against commercial monopoly and eXplOitation of television. If channels were not reserved for education, he warned, they would be "forever lost to education."3 The NAEB, with the support Of educational groups and the American Medical Association, organized a "Public Interest Committee" Of educational leaders to make the public aware of the need for an adequate number Of television outlets for educational purposes.4 ——l v 1New Yogk Times, January 8, 1951, 19:8, 23:5. 2Telford Taylor, "Finding a Place for Education on TV," New York Times Magazine. January 28, 1951, Sec. V1, p.9. 3New York Times, April 26, 1951, 43:2. 41616,, April 29, 1951, Sec. IV, 9:2. 87 The Southern California Association for Better Radio and Television, a viewer protest group, obtained enough national recognition to enable it to expand its scope of Operations, changing its name (and function) to the National Association for Better Radio and Television (NAFBRAT).1 Finally, a series Of articles assaying the influence of television on American life, compiled by The Nengggg Tiggg staff, reported the Opinion of many educators through- out the country that television was "a new tool of learning that has vast potentialities for shaping democracy's future," and their assertion that television channels ought to be regarded as a "natural resource to which education has a priority."2 Educators seemed to be undecided, however, as to the best way Of developing television for education. Some, like Dr. J.C. Warner, President Of Carnegie Institute of Technology, worried about educational resources: Without a national program to utilize the facili- ties Of many educational institutions and organi- zations, confusion Of purpose and unnecessary duplication could deal this important medium a telling blow. Others, like Dr. Raymond B. Allen, President of the University Of Washington, worried about techniques: 11bid., August 9, 1951, Sec. 11, 9:6. 2Jack Gould, "Video is Assayed in Cultural Value," -££Ligi,, June 30, 1951, 19:1. 88 How educational television can earn and hold audi— ence in competition with commercial programs is a challenging problem that must be solved. Subject matter alone will not do it. Techniques for pre— senting educational programs in an interesting manner must be developed. Most educators seemed to recognize the financial obstacles to any widespread national use Of television in education; and several methods of financing were proposed, including government subsidy. [Norman N. Royall, Jr., Dean, College of Liberal Arts, University of Kansas City (MO.):] Ninety per cent of television is educationally worthless entertainment or advertising. This result is in- evitable from the system Of financing by advertis- ing. Government or private subsidy to purchase time on regular stations for educational programs or to construct educational stations in many areas is probably the only solution, but probably will not be achieved. My conclusion is that positive educational value will be trivial for years or indefinitely. [Dr. Francis H. Horn, Chairman, Department of Edu- cation, Johns Hopkins University:] Television's future must be guided by those within the indus— try in close cooperation with educators. [Dr. Clifford Kirkpatrick, Chairman, Department of Sociology, Indiana University:] The expensive- ness of television as a medium of mass education is a bar to expression Of the views of minorities. [Dean Ford P. Hall, Director of Adult Education, Indiana University:] The cost Of preparing live television programs is likely to stagger college officials who are not accustomed to Operating on the financial scale needed to present good educa- tional television.1 [Telford Taylor, Counsel for the JCET: The economic base Of educational television should stem from the taxpayer's dollar] through state or municipal educa- tional authorities, without raising the fear Of Ibid. 89 Government control Of programming. Private endow- ment through the great universities and founda- tions is the other major potential source Of funds. The "Crisis" in Education2 Behind the statements of these distinguished spokes- men loomed the harsh statistics pointing to the fact that American education was "in a bad way." An increase Of 420,000 students over the 1950 enrollment figure (most Of them in the elementary grades) brought the total school population of 1951 to more than 33.1 million in spite of a 7.8 per cent decline in the number of college students. A decrease in enrollments in teacher training colleges Of 10.9 per cent nationally was potentially much more serious than the increased school population. Even more alarming was the 15.9 per cent decrease in the number Of freshmen entering teacher training colleges. Only 32,000 elementary school teachers entered the teaching service, less than half the 80,000 needed; and the future outlook seemed even more grim. A survey of the national school systems called at- tention to the "second-rate" quality of most rural schools, which did not adequately prepare up to sixty per cent Of the non-college-bound high school students, thereby foster- ing delinquency and encouraging "dropouts." \ g 1,. 1Telford Taylor, "Finding a Place . . . ," New York 1 ~4L£ges Magazine, January 28, 1951, Sec. V1, p. 15. | (:1‘ 2Information in this section is developed from En y- r-c£2pedia Britannica: Book of the Year, 1952, pp. 236—24 . 90 In the light of these revelations and their implica- tions for the future, it should not be wondered that educa- tors looked toward any educational innovations which seemed tO have the potential for relieving some of their problems—- and television seemed to be one of them. National Television Developments A number of technical and programming developments took place during 1951 which increased the significance of later developments in the educational television movement. BroadcastinggTechnOlogy and Programmigg In January, the Zenith Radio Corporation, under a 1950 authorization by the FCC, began a ninety-day experi- mental program service tO three hundred Chicago area homes which was known as "Phonevision." It was one of several "subscription-television" services proposed as alternatives to "free" or advertising-supported, commercial television broadcasting which then dominated the American scene. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company extended its $40 million microwave-relay and coaxial-cable network ‘_ 1Broadcagting'g derogation for all "fee television" Was "Pig-squeal Video," a phrase which connotes the industry's attitude toward all subscription-television plans down to e present. Other proposed subscriber services, or "pay- 33-you-see" television included Skiatron Corporation's E“lbscriber Vision," theatre television, and innumerable t?°1'l'lmunity-cable antenna systems in "fringe reception" areas lgroughout the country. See Broadcasting, September 10, . B €51, p. 90; October 15, 1956, pp. 236,7238; and Encyclopedia -5:£annnica: Book Of the Year, 1952, pp. 672-73. saw-”w ‘ - 91 system over the Rocky Mountains to the west coast, linking New York with San Francisco and fifty—two cities in between, for the first time in American television history.1 The introduction of color television seemed imminent, and the sale of regular receivers declined slightly as viewers awaited the newer development. The CBS Network broadcast some programs in color until the Office of Defense Mobilization denied CBS the materials needed to manufacture color receivers, whereupon these "colorcasts" were discon- tinued.2 One of the major events in television programming was the "live" broadcasting of the proceedings of the Senate Crime Committee Hearings in New York City and Washington, Lnnder the chairmanship of Senator Estes Kefauver. For several weeks audience surveys taken during these proceedings indicated a television audience in excess of eighteen times the size Of the average weekday morning audience, and even higher figures in the afternoon and evening. This viewing phenomenon was to have a direct influence or: subsequent activity in Congress with respect to educa— tional television support. In the meantime, there were other developments on the Governments's part in the area of te Jtevision, particularly as it related to educational tele- Vi 8 ion. \ TI: 1This system was inaugurated with President Harry Séi‘JUnnan's address to the Japanese Peace Treaty Conference at tc)‘:l Francisco on September 8, l951--the first "live" coast- ls;“'<:oast television broadcast. (Broadcasting, October 15, 3 6, p. 242). 2Encyclopedia Britannica: Book of the Year, 1952, p. 670. 3Ibid., p. 672. 92 Educational Television and the FCC The FCC's actions during 1951 gave impetus to the organized movement for educational television channel reser- vations, and, at the same time, depicted in sharp relief some of the issues which were later to be of considerable significance in developmental and legislative proposals. The "Third Nogice" On January 31, 1951, the FCC concluded its hearing on the "general issues" (including the educational tele- vision question) contained in its 1949 "Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making" (FCC-49-948) and recessed "in order to study the record and determine whether it should proceed with the hearings . . . [on other phases] in the light of the evidence adduced on the general issues." On March 22, 1951, the FCC issued its "Third Notice of .Further Proposed Rule Making" (FCC-51-244), setting foxrth its conclusions based on the hearing record with res- to the general issues. The new proposal included a pect Pliirl to "open up" fifty-two television channels in the UHF band Of frequencies, which would permit a total of about ZCKDC) television stations to broadcast in 1200 communities throughout the nation. It was further proposed that 209 \ 1 FCC "Sixth Report and Order " par. 5 Federal W, XVIII, No. 17 (May 2, 1952): Part II: p. 3905. 2FCC, "Third Notice of Further Proposed Rule Making," A (git)13ted March 21, 1951, Federal Register, XVI, NO. 68 I>1=i1 7, 1951), pp. 3072-3090. 93 channels, scattered throughout the country in metropolitan areas and educational-cultural centers, be reserved for educational applicants. The rationale for this action, based on evidence presented in the hearings, was as follows: In general, the need for non-commercial educa- tional television stations was based upon the important contributions which non-commercial ed- ucational television stations can make in educat- ing the people both in school-~at all levels-- and also the adult public. The need for such stations was justified upon the high quality type of programming which would be available on such stations--programming Of an entirely different character from that available on most commercial stations. The need for reservation was based upon the fact that educational institutions of neces- sity proceed more slowly in applying for broad- cast stations than commercial stations. Hence, if there is no reservation, the available channels are all assigned to commercial interests long be- fore the educational institutions are ready to apply for them.1 In a separate Opinion accompanying the "Notice," FCC Chairman Wayne Coy supported the principle of educational reservations, but emphasized that the reservation of channels for educational purposes did not relieve the commercial broadcasters of their responsibilities to serve the public interest through worthwhile educational and cultural pro- grams. Coy also commented on the length of time educational reservations ought to be withheld from general applicants, contending that 1Ibid., Appendix A, V1, p. 3079. 94 the reasonably near future is the time required for educational institutions to make up their minds as to whether or not they will utilize tele- vision in their educational program and in so doing decide to become an operator or a joint operator of a non-commercial educational televi- sion station . . . . It does not seem unreason- able to expect boards of trustees and administra— tive officials of educational institutions to declare their intentions at an early date, subject to action by state legislatures.1 Commissioner Frieda Hennock, also in a separate opinion, called the FCC plan "inadequate and ineffective" in meeting the needs of educational television, because of a failure to give education "a sufficient share" of the television spectrum. (Miss Hennock, in many speeches and statements, had been advocating the reservation of twenty- five per cent of all frequencies and/or time on existing television stations for educational uses.) In pointing out that in three-fourths of the 168 standard metropolitan areas of the United States there was no frequency reserved for education, nor were there reserved frequencies in many cities "where important colleges and universities and suc- cessful educational broadcasters are located," she main- tained that the reservoir Of channels was being exhausted and that future provision for educational television devel- opment was "now being foreclosed."2 ¥ 1Additional Views of Chairman Wayne C. Coy, quoted in Broadcastin , March 26, 1951, p. 27. Separate views of Commissioner Frieda B. Hennock, quoted, Ibid., p. 31. 95 The FCC scheduled hearings on its "Third Notice"; but successively postponed these and finally cancelled them altogether as being unnecessary. Comments from interested parties, were accepted, however, including 838 petitions in support of educational television reservations from educa- tional institutions, public bodies, and civic and public service agencies. The principal issue at stake in the proposal of the "Third Notice" was whether television channels, considered as a "natural resource," the use of which ought to be pre- dicated on the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number (in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity") should be held in a reserved state until such time as they should be activated by educational and cultural organiza- tions and/or institutions; or whether these channels ought to be activated quickly, at the hands of commercial entre- preneurs, committed by the terms of their licenses to "the public interest, convenience and necessity," but, at the same time, to the free-enterprise, profit motives of business operations, in order to provide a nation-wide television service for the entire population. ~ 1Hull, Educational Televigion, p. 343. See also Powell, 22-23, and Broadcasting, July 16, 1951, 58ff. Included among these were the plans submitted by the New York State Board of Regents and the Philadelphia Board of Education for specific station develOpment, as Previously noted. The New York Regents signified their in- tzent to activate immediately eight of the ten reserved Cl'lannels. See above, chap. iii, p. 82. 96 Commercial Opposition to ETV The commercial television industry launched a "give- no-quarter" attack on the educators in general, on specific proposed educational television installations, and on the FCC proposal itself, in a series Of legal and public-rela- tions moves which can best be described as "lamentable." The industry, speaking largely through its Official organi- zation, the National Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters (NARTB, now NAB), revived all the arguments of the 1950-51 FCC hearings, charging that: (l) the educators would waste the television channels through disuse, misuse, or limited and arbitrary "special- audience" use; (2) that the FCC had no legal power to allocate for specific cities, or to set aside any specific frequency in the broadcasting Spectrum for use by a "preferred" licensee; (3) that the 1950-51 FCC hearing record did not itself justify any such "blanket reservation" as ten per cent of all potential frequencies, as the "Third Notice" proposed; (4) that the organized educational "front" represented by the JCET was "vague, confused and generally contradic- tory" in its presentation before the Commission respecting its objectives; and (5) that educators generally had an "unrealistic view" of the cost of television Operations and had not advanced, irl their case before the Commission, a feasible plan by 97 which a "stable" television channel utilization could be effected.1 The kind of opposition which the broadcasters brought to bear on educational television interests was typified in the resolution adopted by the Illinois Broadcasters Associa- tion (IBA) condemning the University Of Illinois for spending tax funds in support of the Joint Com- mittee on Educational Television's proposals for reservation of channels, when the state univer- sity could, to much greater advantage, use the taxpayers' money to produce programs for use on commercial stations which will provide time with- out charge for worthwhile educational programs Of general interest and which will assure statewide television coverage for the state university.2 FormaiiRecognition Of the JCET At about the same time that the FCC's "Third Notice" was released, the 3g hoc Joint Television was reorganized and the administrative sanction of cation, as a fully independent Committee on Educational formally constituted, under the American Council on Edu- "organization of organiza- tions." It was recognized by the FCC as the "legal voice of educational broadcasting," whose membership included the "full spectrum of United States education." Henceforward ‘1 1See Ngw York Times, May 10, 1951, p. 33:4; June 29, P. 27:3; and Broadcastin , July 2, 1951, pp. 23ff; July 16, Pp. 58ff; September 10, pp 90. 2Text of Resolution adopted by IBA, August 3, 1951, reproduced in Broadcastigg, August 13, 1951, p. 67. See :fiflner allegations and activities of this sort in Edwin James, E:ducational Dilemma," Ibid., July 16, 1951, pp. 58ff. and b\id_._, September 10, p. 8'4. 98 the cause of educational television was Officially advanced in all Government spheres, and in other areas as well, by the JCET.1 With strong financial backing from the FAE, the JCET obtained a staff and developed a two-pronged program of (l) representation of educational television interests before the FCC, and (2) assistance to interested educational institutions and organizations willing to establish educa- tional television stations. It is probably no exaggeration to say that, except for financial support, the development of educational television, and the growth of the movement, was "sparked" and principally guided by the JCET throughout the first decade. Educationai Televigion and Congress It might have been expected that as more activity took place in the area of television--i.e. the Kefauver hearings, the expanded networks, the "Third Notice," and the controversy between commercial and educational television interests-~that Congress would begin to take an interest in the new developments as they related to the regulation of the medium. SO it is not surprising to note that an 1Powell gives a very colorful, personal narrative of the evolution of the JCET, the timing of various events, and the personalities involved (Powell, pp. 51, 65-69, passim). In April, 1951, the Fund for Adult Education granted the JCET an initial subsidy of $90,000, the first grant of a series by that donor which would amount to more than $11 million for educational television by 1956, of which the JCET would receive nearly $.5 million (FAE, Ten Year Report, p. 101). 99 interest in the educational potentials Of television was generated in the Senate almost collaterally with the FCC's "Notice" discussed above. The Bricker Proposals On February 1, 1951, early in the First Session of the Eighty-Second Congress, and the day following the close of the FCC hearings, Senator John W. Bricker reintroduced his joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) of the previous Congress: To direct the FCC to make a study of the problem Of allocating television frequencies for use by educational institutions for the purposes of non- profit educational programming, [and] to give consideration to the allocation of at least one frequency within each State . . . to educational institutipns for the purposes of educational pro- gramning . In a speech introducing the resolution, Senator Bricker cited the precedents by whidh, from time to time, the National Government had assisted the states in provid— ing free public education. These included the land-grant policies for the admission of new states (1803), the Morrill acts of 1862 and 1890, which fostered the growth of the land—grant colleges, and other grants, loans and matching-funds programs, all of which supported Bricker's contention that education is the "cornerstone of democracy." He then drew a parallel between 1Congressional Recogg, 82nd Cong., lst Sess., XCVII, 1951, Part 1, p. 869. 100 the principle of setting aside grants of land for educational purposes . . . [and] the well established principle of reserving a part of our national resources for future needs. . . . In a world of crisis, we must rely entirely and completely on these two assets, and, in my judgment we cannot survive without judicious attention to our resources in nature and in the minds of Americans.1 With these two concepts as premises, Senator Bricker recalled the history of educational radio to show that in the earliest allocation of radio frequencies--a "natural resource" the principle of reserving part of the spectrum for educational purposes had, indeed, been considered, but had not been adopted until 1949, when the FCC established a precedent by reserving channels for educational broad— casters in the FM spectrum. Turning to television, Bricker argued that on the basis of present evaluations of the educational potential of the medium (citing several unspecified educational sources), it was the responsibility Of Congress and the Commission to insure that at least a proportionate part of this great and newly develOped resource is reserved for the use of all the peOple. . . . It is further the duty of the Congress to indicate to the Commission its deep interest in the problem of the interrelationship of education and television. The structure of the speech up to this point, as revealed by the Record, was remarkable for its simplicity and clarity. The successive lines of argument, each stemming from the conclusion of the one preceding it, were almost __ 11bid,, pp. 868-69. 101 syllogistic; yet each of the premises was embellished slightly, or supported with such a variety of proofs--his- toric precedent, generalized examples, specific instances, or personal proof—~that the speech did not have the "for- mality" Of a tightly reasoned legal tract, but was rather more like a strong current, moving irresistably toward its Objective, with flashes of contrast and a new freshness in each new idea. Having presented his argument for the "need" of Congressional concern with educational television, the Senator then introduced his solution (the resolution) and indicated how its passage would resolve the question raised: The adaption of this resolution . . . will lend an added impetus to the action of the Commission [in its hearings and investigation], and will impress upon the Commission the necessity for affording the American people . . . the choice of using at least an equitable part of this re- source for educational purposes. In his peroration Sen. Bricker reiterated the tra- ditional American affinity between education and democracy, and the consistency of the principle of reserving natural resources for the benefit of all citizens. The bill was subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce where it, un- fortunately, died.1 1The Objective toward which the bill was directed, however, the allocation of reserved channels for educational interests, was a subject which was discussed at length in two separate Senate Commerce Committee hearings later in the session. Infra, chap. iii, pp. 113-117 and 126-128. 102 Bricker's contribution to the educational television movement in this speech was that he sounded an affirmative note on two of the five major issues confronting the move- ment as it had developed up to that time: (1) that tele- vision was a potential educational force of some as yet unknown magnitude, and (2) that television frequencies were a "natural resource" which should be conserved in a manner similar to other natural resources. Other ETV Proposals The next day, February 2, a bill identical to the Bricker resolution was submitted in the House Of Represen- tatives by Representative James Dolliver (H.J.Res. 148). In a statement accompanying the resolution, he called the attention of the House to the achievements Of WOI-TV as illustrations of what benefits might accrue to the nation if educational television allocations were reserved on a nationwide basis.1 The bill was referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House, but no further action on it was taken. Soon after the release Of the FCC's "Third Notice," Representative Emanuel Celler introduced a bill in the House (H.R. 3542) which would require all commercial tele- vision stations tO earmark twenty—five per cent of their broadcasting time for noncommercial educational programs. 1Ibid., p. 892. 103 It was Celler's contention that the proposal of FCC Com- missioner Frieda Hennock (that twenty-five per cent of all channels be allocated to noncommercial educational tele- vision stations) was "both unworkable and undesirable," since it tended toward extremes in programming between the two types of stations ("highbrow" and "lowbrow"). Celler's own proposal, he alleged, was more practical and would re- sultixl"less frenzy and more finesse in television."1 Celler's bill was Opposed in the press by the newly— formed NAEB Public Interest Committee, which argued that pas- sage ‘would give the commercial broadcasters a monopoly on the "natural resource" of television frequencies, that it would militate against those educational institutions which needed educational television facilities most--colleges, universities and school systems--and that the bill would be impossible to administer.2 Celler's bill subsequently died in the files of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The Benton Proposals On April 13, Senator William Benton called the at- tention of the Senate to the importance of television to 1Ibid., Part 2, p. 3398. J. New York Timgg, April 6, 1951, p. 37:2; May 4, p. 26:6. 2In a letter from Edward L. Bernays, published in New York Timgg, May 9, 1951, p. 32:6. 104 the national welfare in a major address and resolution (S. Res. 127) which had far reaching implications, and which proved to be the major legislative proposal of the Eighty- Second Congress affecting television.1 Senator Benton's frame of reference, and the point of departure of the introduction of his address, was the impact of the televised Kefauver Crime Committee Hearings of a month previous, and the phenomenal number of viewers which those televised hearings had attracted (twenty—five per cent of all television homes in the New York area, com- pared with a normal viewing audience of one and one-half per cent, on one occasion cited by the Senator).2 Senator Benton concluded his introduction by suggesting that long after the names of the gangsters, the racke- teers--yes, and even the experts on constitu- tional law who paraded before the television cameras, have been forgotten, . . . March 1951 will be remembered as the month in which our American people began to awaken to the potentiali- ties of television as a servant of society. After a brief documentation of this contention, Senator Benton proceeded to a statement of his thesis: Because the Kefauver hearings have dramatized for all of us the astonishing power of television to serve good ends as well as trivial or even bad ends, I believe that Congress should at once take a sharp "new look" at television in relation to our national life. 1CongressionaiRecord, XCVII, Part 3, pp. 3821-26. 2Report of March 19, 1951, refereed to by Senator Benton, Ibid., p. 3822. 105 The argument proceeded from the premise that Con- gress has the responsibility to establish general policies for the FCC to follow in administering broadcasting matters. This was followed by a discussion, heavily weighted with personal experience (the Senator had been formerly a lead- ing radio advertising executive), of the medium's political potentialities, to a conclusion that Congress owes a duty to the FCC, as well as the American people not only now to inform itself on current developments but at once to consider policy in this field--and with the utmost serious- ness. Senator Benton then shifted the focus of his remarks to the recently-released "Third Notice" and called attention to the inadequacy of the prOposal, which reserved only ten per cent of the available channels for educational stations, contrasted with twenty-five per cent asked for by many educators who are interested in developing the medium for the edu- cation and betterment of all the American people. I imagine the ten per cent is a pre-Kefauver per- centage. Does it accurately reflect the faith of the American people in education? I do not think it does . . . . I do not believe Congress should now let such an urgent question of public policy be decided by its own default, without so much as a day of hearings or a page of debate in the Congressional Record. He met one of the charges of the commercial broad- casters (namely: that educators had not made good use of radio in the past, hence could not be expected to make good use of television in the future) by advancing the counter- charge that tremendous effort and much money have been expended to keep them out of broadcasting, and to keep them quiet. . . . The educators have not been seriously asked to try to do a job with radio broadcasting. ‘W‘ . “$4411 . 106 Then, referring back to the FCC proposal, Benton concluded the section by attacking the logic of the broad— casters' contention: I do not agree that because it is said that today there are only forty educational institutions which may seek allocations of frequencies for television stations--that it therefore follows that two hundred nine possible allocations, or ten per cent of the total, are necessarily enough. Mr. President, if it takes the educators ten years to learn how to use five hundred channels-- or twenty-five per cent of the tota1-—perhaps they should be given the ten years to develop their resources and their techniques. I do not say that this is true. I merely say that the alleged record of the educators is not sufficient grounds for claiming that it is not true. Then Senator Benton changed the focus of his remarks and developed a line of information (including exhibits which were appended to his remarks in the Record) concerning the recent developments of Phonevision and Subscriber Vision, calling attention to the tremendous values to television and radio which would accrue to the American public with the devel- Opment of a competitive system which sells its service to the public, without benefit of advertis- ing, and which, like the magazines and newspapers, must depend for its circulation on its capacity to attract money from its subscribers. The speech concluded with some personal remarks support of the Phonevision enterprise (similar, in some respects, to Benton's own earlier proposals, for a sub- in scription-radio service), and the introduction of the reso- lution jointly sponsored by Senators Benton and Hunt, which called for 107 an immediate inquiry by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce into the whole issue of the impact of television on American society and what we should now do about it. In substance, the Benton speech, like the Bricker speech cited earlier, underscored some of the significant issues of the 1951 phase of the educational television movement. Benton first asserted that television was a medium of great power and influence, and he used the ratings of the televised Kefauver hearings as evidence of its magni- tude (in contrast to Bricker's speculation as to tele- vision's potential). Second, Senator Benton attempted to refute the industry-voiced argument that educators would waste the television channels as they had radio, by alleging that educators had not had a fair chance with radio. Finally, he affirmed his support of the principle of twenty-five per cent reservation of channels for education. The information developed regarding subscription television was not particularly relevant to the main issues of the period, though that aspect of the speech was "picked up" and denounced thoroughly and vindictively in the trade press. The speech as a whole was rather "free wheeling" in structure (particularly when compared with Senator Bricker's tightly organized address), and Senator Benton seems to have lacked a logically cohesive arrangement. 1See particularly the articles and editorials in Broadcastin during the remainder of the year, Vols. XL, XLI (1951), passim. 108 On the other hand, Benton's speech was "full of Benton," and had an obvious emphasis on the authority of Benton to speak on communications matters. It contained repeated references to personal experience and personal communication (characteristics which seem to have been typical of many of the Senator's remarks in the Senate). No one, at least no one in the Senate, would deny Senator Benton's qualifications and experience in the media areas, and there seems to be every indication that the Senator was using this ethos factor as much as any other form of sup- port to carry the proof of his remarks. The bill which his speech introduced, and which was referred to the Commerce Committee for hearings, specified five areas for investigation by that committee, four of which related directly to educational television develop- ment: Section 1. (a) Current television programming trends, . . . with reference particularly. . . to the proportion and adequacy Of time allowed for public service and educational programs and to the criteria by which these are judged; (b) The criteria now being used by the Federal Communications Commission for the assignment of television channels, . . . with respect to assur- ing suitable time for present and prospective public service and educational programs; (d) The prospect for the financing of public service and educational television programming from local, State, and Federal government sources, through educational institutions and other non- profit organizations, or other sources; 109 (e) The character of legislation necessary to insure maximum development of the educational and public-service potentialities of tele- vision.1 Senator Benton and the IERT A few weeks later, Senator Benton addressed the opening meeting of the 1951 Institute for Education by Radio and Television (IERT) at Columbus. He raised several "leading" questions regarding the future Of educational television and the relationship of Congress to the movement, such as the need for changes in the Communications Act of 1934 to require licensees to devote a portion of their daily broadcast hours to education, and the possibility of establishing an educational division within the FCC, or perhaps a national commission advisory to the FCC, to strengthen the hands of that agency and help it gauge the Educational promises and performances of licensees. The proposal to amend the Communications Act had, of course,been suggested by Representative Celler (and had 1Text of S.Res. 127, Congressional Record, 82nd Cong., lst Sess. (April 13, 1951), XCVII, Part 3, p. 3824. The resolution also stipulated a time-limit of ninety days for the conduct of the investigation and provided a mandate to the FCC that no action be taken to lift the television "freeze" until the Senate had had the opportunity to act on the Committee's report (Secs. 11, IV, Ibid.). 2Text of an address by Senator Benton to the Insti- tute for Education by Radio and Television, Columbus, Ohio, May 3, 1951, reproduced in the Appendix to "Congressional Record, Ibid., Part 12, pp. A2708-10. It is interesting to note that the first suggestion-~an educational division within the FCC--finally materialized in 1963. 110 been rejected by the NAEB); Benton's other proposal hinted at what was to become the most controversial piece of pro- posed broadcasting legislation of the year. Senator Benton's own solution to the educational television problem was clear, as he concluded: The FCC already has broad powers. But in view of the pressures it must COpe with daily, it cannot be expected to exercise those powers vigor- ously in behalf of education without renewed sup- port and guidance by the Congress, whose instru— mentality it is. The issues are too big, too important, to be left wholly in the hands of a single agency, no matter how competent it may be. Benton's Speech in the Senate - May 15, 1951 On May 15, Senator Benton again rose in the Senate to deliver a speech in support of his (and Senator Hunt's) resolution, still pending before the Commerce Committee.2 The ostensible "catalysts" which precipitated this speech were two articles in The New York Times concerning the pro- testations of the NARTB over the FCC's ten per cent educa- tional channel reservation proposal, and the New York State Regents' proposal to activate eleven channels and establish a state-operated educational television network. Senator Benton alleged that a portion of his resolution (Sec. 1 (b)) related to the issue discussed by the two articles—— namely,whether or not television channels should be set aside for educational purposes. 1Ibid., p. A2710. 2Ibid., Part 4, pp. 5301—06. 111 His concern, he said, was over the urgency of the matter: The issue cannot wait . . . . Within the coming weeks the FCC will . . . . begin to make its pre- sent tentative allocations of last March definite and final. . . . Then we shall see, I fear, Mr. President, a new kind of freeze--a kind of "freeze in reverse"--with all or almost all avail- able TV channels finally assigned. Yes, this freeze will set the pattern of American tele- vision for decades and even generations to come. Following a brief resume of the two articles, Benton selected three (of four) allegations raised by the NARTB in its protest to the FCC (the subject of one article) and at- tempted to refute them in terms of the Regents' proposed ac— tions (the subject of the second article), with additional elaborations of the Senator's own views, to wit: 1. The NARTB contended that educational reservations were reservations for a "special class of applicants." Benton responded: Mr. Jacob L. Holtzmann, chairman of the regents committee on the subject, said: "It is as important for the educational system to have tele- vision channels as schoolhouses, and I don't know in the future which will be more important." 0 O O O O O O O O O C ’ C C O O O O O O O O I O 9 I ask: Are the educators not indeed a "very special class of applicants"? Do our schoolhouses have to be kept open twenty-four hours a day in order to be a great national asset? Can we indeed judge adverse— ly the potential value of television to all Ameri- can citizens because as much as ten per cent of its channels are to be "limited" to educational insti- tutions? 2. The NARTB alleged that the educational reservations might be wasted through "nonuse, or limited use, or use for the benefit of a limited audience." Said Benton: 112 The potential use of television in the field of adult education is far, far greater, though perhaps less self-evident than in the field of formal education. . . . The board of regents of New York State are addressing themselves only to formal education, and not at all to the major field in which television can achieve its greatest poten- tial public use, which is the field of adult educa— tion. 3. The NARTB implied that educators were unaware of the expenses involved and unable to cope with the costs Of establishing educational television outlets. Senator Benton affirmed: One of the taunts which has been hurled at the small number of hopeful educators who are aroused to the potential educational importance of television is "where is the money coming from?" . . . My comment is now, as was the comment at that time of the defenders of free education for all children, that the American people believe in edu- cation. They have fought for it and will continue to fight for it. They will find the money, and they will not deny educational television to them- selves or their children once they have seen its power continually exerted, as we all saw it so dramatically in the Kefauver hearings. In the past three months three private foundations have appropriated a total of more than $1,000,000 for educational radio and educational television. No one could have anticipated that action even six months ago. Now comes the action of the New York regents. This is the most dramatic action so far. . . . I should like to hope that this action may serve as a model for the entire Nation. When these points had been made, the speech seemed to lose its "headway." Several Senators raised questions or made comments on Senator Bricker's remarks. Finally, he yielded the floor after restating the proposals contained in S.Res. 127 and concluding with the statement that 113 all Senators should assist these men of good will the educators], and others like them, who appre- ciate the vast potentialities of television, and who wish to see this great new medium devoted to the welfare of mankind. The speech was interlarded with personal reminis- cences, bits of generalized information (largely undocu- mented), and "free-wheeling" assertions of patriotic flavor which seem to be characteristic Of most of Senator Benton's remarks on this subject. While there was enough logical argument to substantiate the contentions, most of the supports could be classified as purely "personal." The issues were substantially the same (with only minor variations in emphasis) as those developed in Benton's earlier speech on the same subject: the efficacy of tele- vision for educational uses; the resources available to educators for operating educational outlets; and the philo- sophical "right" of special classes of applicants to re- ceive preferential treatment with regard to television channels in the public domain. §enate Hearings on the Benton Pgoposals S. Res. 127 Two weeks later, on May 31, S.Res. 127 was the sub- ject of a one-day hearing before a subcommittee of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, presided f all those he gave on the television question during the Esession. It reflected, in some measure, the lateness of the flour and the mood of the Senate in its press for adjourn- nnent. It contributed nothing new in the way Of issues, and i.t reflected even more than its predecessors the "personal <:rusade" of William Benton to take care of education's best ignterests, whether education knew what those best interests VVere or not. k 1Supra, chap. iii, pp. 121-122. 133 Benton's speech "closed the books" on S. 1579 in the Senate. No further hearings were held; no more Congres- sional speeches were made. The entire question of a National Citizens Advisory Board faded from the Congressional arena for more than a decade. In fact, the entire question of educational television pp; §p_seems to have disappeared from the mind of the Congress with the adjournment of the First Session of the Eighty-Second Congress.1 The Issues of the Period The issues and related questions which arose in various quarters during the year 1951 were these: 1. How could the powerfully demonstrated educational and social potentials of television be best utilized in the public interest? (The question of whether television had such potentials had ceased to be an issue by the end of the year.)2 2. Could commercial broadcasters effectively fulfill their statutory responsibility for programming in education and the public interest? 1The matter of public interest responsibility, how- ever, has remained as a recurring object of Congressional concern even to the present. During the forgoing period, in the House of Representatives, a resolution (H. Res. 278, 82nd Cong.) was unanimously passed calling for a full and complete investigation of programs of an "immoral and Offen- sive nature," and extensive hearings pursuant to that reso- lution were conducted before a House subcommittee throughout 1952. See Congressional Digest, XCVIII, passim. 2Supra, chap. ii, pp. 75-76, 134 3. What resources or Opportunities were or should be available to educators wishing to use television for educational purposes? 4. What disposition of the television frequencies, considered as a "natural resource," should be made by the FCC? 5. Should or could (legally) specified television channels be allocated and reserved for any "special" class of licensees, such as educational institu- tions? A partial answer to all but the first of these issues was offered by the FCC's decision to allocate 242 television channels for "reserved" use by educational appli- cants in April, 1952; that issue continued through the following years. Issues Related to Hypotheses The nature of these questions,considered in terms of the hypotheses structured in Chapter I, may be summarized with respect to the Congressional (Senate) concern with edu- cational television in 1951 as follows:1 1. No clear picture can be discerned with respect to the "internal" (within Congress) or "external" (out- side Congress) origin Of the issues. Senator Benton, for instance, relied heavily on issues introduced by events —_i 1Supra, chap. 1, pp. 26—27. 135 occurring outside Congress, while Senator Bricker, on the other hand, in his single address to the Senate on the subject of educational television, raised the issue of government responsibility in the preservation of "this natural resource" in quite a different way from the manner in which the issue had been raised previously in the FCC hear- ings.1 Similarly, the question of Federal support of education had not previously been raised in the context of educational television as Senator Bricker raised it in his speech. The materials used to support the lines of thought and argument in the Senate tended to be events which occurred outside the halls of Congress, although at least one contention (that of Senator Benton that the television industry had influenced the FCC rules to mitigate against educational broadcasters) appears to have arisen in the course of a Senate hearing. There is no indication on the basis of the above discourse that the committee discussions set limits on the scope of subsequent floor discussion. The principal spokesmen for educational television during the First Session of the Eighty-Second Con- gress were, generally speaking, members of the committee which treated the issue. Senator Benton p. 11:1. 1 f. New York Times, November 22, 1950, Sec. II, 136 was not a member of the committee to which his prO- posals were referred, but he was extended the tra- ditional courtesy of being invited to join the com- mittee in its meetings (other than executive sessions), and he participated both as a witness and as a questioner. Hence, for all practical purposes,Benton was a member of the committee during the period of the discussion. Senator Bricker (a member of the committee) did not regularly attend meetings on the television subject during this Session. There is not enough evidence, based on the events of 1951 alone, to warrant any conclusions with respect to the other hypotheses. Speaking in the Senate Discourse in the Senate on educational television, limited though it was, was conducted on a fairly sophisti- cated level. The two major spokesmen on the subject (Sena- tors Bricker and Benton) expressed themselves in character- istically distinctive and different ways--that is, no recog- nizable "Senate mode" of address was apparent in their re- marks. Bricker's single speech was typically a deductive argument, proceeding from well-established premises to logical conclusions. Benton's Speeches tended more toward argument by refutation, and argument by induction from specific instances (in some cases using only one such 137 instance to support a generalization). Furthermore, Senator Benton's speeches, in all instances, relied heavily on his personal prestige and authority in the field of mass media, and on personal experience and/or personal communications from his associates and correspondents. Therefore, it would be premature to attempt to describe any particular approach taken in the Senate discourse on the educational television question. Postscript In December, 1951, the NARTB adopted an industry- wide Television Code (effective March 1, 1952 and revised since that time) by which it was hOped much of the public and Congressional criticism of the industry would be assuaged.1 The Eighty-Second Congress, returning in January, remained silent on the subject of educational television generally throughout the Second Session. Except for a few isolated urgings by some educators that the educational camp show a more positive intention of using the prospective reserved channels, there was little activity within the educational television movement pending the release of the FCC's final allocations for a national television service. That event occurred on April 14, 1952, , 1For a complete text of the Coce as it was adopted, see Bipadcasting, December 10, 1951, pp. 23ff., 81-89. 138 in the famous "Sixth Report and Order," which was a bench— mark from which all future educational television develop- ments on a national scale proceeded.1 1FCC, "Sixth Report and Order" (April 14 1952), U.S. Federal Register, XVII, No. 87 (May 2, 1952 , Pt. II, pp. 3905-4100. CHAPTER IV THE GERMINATION PERIOD, 1952-1956 Introductipp, This chapter includes a discussion of the'hlimater develOpments, and issues relating to the educational tele- vison movement during the period between the FCC's "Sixth Report and Order" (April, 1952) and the session of Congress which produced the first piece of proposed Federal legisla- tion specifically intended to assist financiaiiy the educa- tional television movement (S. 2119, 85th Congress, lst Session). Attention will be directed to the Congress's concern with television during this period, with special reference to educational television. The'Climate'and Television Deveiopment Educational Concerns of the Period The general educational climate in the United States during the nearly five-year span covered by this chapter (as it relates to the educational television movement) was chacterized by the continuation of a trend which had begun in the early post-war period and which reached new stages of "crisis" with each passing year. There were two major aspects to the situation, which engendered a host of 139 140 subsidiary issues, large and small: (1) an ever increasing rate of growth in the formally-structured school population; and (2) a broadening of the traditional concept of education to include adult, or continuing, education both within and outside the formally structured system. The Increa§ed School Populatipp The "pOpulation explosion" in the schools created many continuing problems, few of which could be solved easily. Among the more important among these were a con- tinuing shortage of teachers (and the corollary problem of a decline in the qualifications of teachers); a shortage of funds for teacher salaries, construction, and maintenance of the physical plant, and the development of needed educa- tional resources; a decline in the quality of education (due to the increased number of students and the resultant pressures on existing educational resources and facilities) in some areas; and a genuine concern for the future of American education and its relations with other aspects of the American democratic society.1 "Competition" with the educational system of the Soviet Union was not a major concern of American educational 1Discussion of these problems was widespread through- out the period under consideration here, but they were sharply focused and analyzed at the White House Conference on Education held in Washington, D. C., in November and December of 1955. See The New York Times, November 27,1955, p. 69:1; and U. S. Committee for the White House Conference on Education, Report to the President (Washington, D. C. April, 1956). 141 leaders at the time, although the first seeds of that issue, which was to "explode" into prominence late in 1957, were planted in 1955 by (at this time) former Senator William Benton.1 The Adult Education Movement The second major condition which affected the edu- cational climate during the 1952-1956 period was that of the continuation in educational activities by the general public beyond and outside the formal educational structure. This movement raised questions of a less urgent, but no less important, nature. With an estimated fifty million adults (slightly less than one-third of the total U.S. popu- lation) actively involved in some kind of formal or infor- mal continuing education programz, educational leaders were beset with the problem of how best to serve the diverse needs of this vast body Of students. New Coppepts in Educagipnaiglnnovapipp Both of the above developments aroused educational theorists to consider "new" modes of teaching, based on a reevaluation of the learning process (emphasizing "visuali- zation" of concepts and materials) and non-traditional approaches to school and classroom organization. "Specialists" 1Reporting on an extensive educational tour of the Soviet Union the Britannica publisher emphasized the chal- lenge to the American educational system posed by the Soviet educational system, and he called for a radical reassessment of the aims, objectives, and implementation of the American educational establishment. See particularly New York Times, November 30, 1955, p. 39:4; and also April 1, 1956, Sec. VI., p. 44:4. 142 in curricular and service areas of education began to devel— op programs to foster more "self-learning"; and a host of technical innovations, ranging from correspondence courses and the "large lecture," through "teaching machines," to formal televised instruction were introduced here and there.1 Representatives of, and spokesmen for, the organized educa- tional television agencies were active in establishing liaison between educators in general and the television-for- education movement. Discussions and speakers on the subject of television as a partial remedy for the persistent pro- blems of education were common at educational meetings throughout this period.2 Television Broadcasting Developments3 The release of the "Sixth Report and Order" (April, 1952), which made more than two thousand television channels available in the VHF and UHF frequency bands, brought about the expected surge in broadcasting development. Between the 1See the continuing reports of educational develop- ments in The New York Times, for instance, throughout the period, especially the following: January 26, 1953, p. 26:1; January 31, p. 12:8; December 22, p. 36:8; February 18, 1954, p. 27:2; March 7, p. 33:1; March 11 Sec. V1, p. 11:1; July 18, Sec. IV, p. 9:3; February 5, 1956, p. 85:3; February 5, 1957, p. 25:2; February 10, p. 79:5; and March 10, p. 34:1. 2In a major effort along these lines, the ACE estab- lished a committee, in March, 1953, supported by an FAE grant to strengthen the support of educational television among educators through information and persuasion (New York Times, April 1, 1953, p. 41:1; November 15, p. 75:1). 3Information in this section is developed from FCC sources as reported in Broadcastin , October 15, 1956, assim. 143 end of the "freeze" and the beginning of 1957 the FCC pro— cessed and granted construction permits for more than 1400 television licensee applicants. More than one-third of these were Operating under commercial licenses at the end of 1956. The broadcasting industry had nearly doubled its commercial revenues, to well over $700 million annually, by 1957; three-fourths of all American homes had at least one television receiver; and the future promised "to be even more exciting than the tumultuous, productive past."1 Broadcas t ing's Magpi:Prob 16113 The commercial broadcasting industry's main concern was its relationship with the Federal Government (i.e., both the FCC and Congress), particularly with regard to allocations, programming practices, and monopoly control of media outlets. The possibility that the FCC might authorize the use of television channels for subscription television, in competition with the established advertising-supported "free" television service, was, in the industry's view, the most far reaching and most controversial issue of the period. It aroused, in Broadcasting's opinion, "more public reac- tion than any TV issue since [the:]color hearings in 1950."2 But the problem of greatest importance to educa- tional television broadcasters was that of the "incompati- bility" of UHF frequency band transmission and VHF. 1Ibid., p. 107. 2Ibid., p. 260. 144 Broadcasters large and small, commercial and noncommercial, licensed and prospective licensees, network affiliates and "independents," all encountered the same problem-~UHF tele- vision could not effectively compete with VHF television in technical quality or cost. Hence, commercial UHF stations could not compete economically with VHF stations in the same area, and educational UHF stations could not muster audience support for their noncommercial service in areas where commercial VHF stations were already established. In such "mixed" areas viewers had to "convert" their receivers and install special antennae to receive the UHF signals. Both the FCC and Congress studied the UHF problem in a continuing series of investigations beginning in 1954 and extending into the 1960's; and several proposals were advanced, some of which will be discussed later. Progress in Educational Televigion For the educational television movement the period between 1952 and the end of 1956 was a period of gestation and germination. To the leaders of the movement the alloca- tion of the initial 242 reserved educational channels (which number was increased from time to time to more than 270 by the end of 1962) might be said to represent the "soil" in which they hoped to nurture the educational television "seeds" into strong productive "organisms."1 Healthy "sprinklings" 1A comparison was often made by spokesmen of the ETV movement during this early period between the FCC grant of ETV reservations and the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 145 from the fund reservoirs of philanthropic organizations and other donors were applied, and the prospective new service basked in the warmth Of an increasing fervor among its advocates and a slowly emerging public acceptance. To some extent germination did take place. Twenty- four noncommercial educational television stations were broadcasting by the end of 1956, and more than forty other Operations were in advanced states Of planning and develOp- ment--ready to serve, all told, an audience of more than which promoted the growth of state universities. To the ex- tent that the FCC allocations reserving a portion of the public domain to educational interests may be compared to the allocation of public lands to be transferred to the States for educational uses the simile is justified. How- ever, the Morrill Acts did not provide land (in the sense of space) on which to establish educational institutions, but rather land (in the sense of negotiable assets) which was intended to be used as a source of revenue, the pro- ceeds from the sale of which were to be invested. The re- turns from this investment were intended to be used to pro- vide a financial base for the establishment and operation of educational institutions, according to broadly specified characteristics. The FCC allocations of 1952 provided only frequencies (space) on which to establish broadcasting services, but did not provide a means of encouraging the establishment or maintenance of educational television facilities. In fact, the prospective educational television licensee was, by the FCC's action (and is still), at a greater operating disad- vantage than his commercial counterpart because, under the terms of the "Sixth Report and Order," all ETV operations on the reserved channels must be noncommercial. Hence, all operative financing must come from sources other than from services performed by the television operation. This is a far cry from the principle of the Morrill Acts. _§i, JCET, Four Years Of Progress (Washington, 1956), 1; U.S. Statutes at Large. George P. Sanger, ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1865), Vol. XII, Chapter 137, 37th Cong., 2nd Sess. (July 2, 1862), pp. 503-505. 146 fifty million viewers.1 There is little doubt, however, that the "on-air" activation of fewer than ten per cent of the reserved 258 channels (by the end of 1956) in more than four years was somewhat of a disappointment to the educa- tional television leadership and observers with an interest in the movement. There seem to be three main reasons why educational television burgeoned, but did not achieve "full bloom": l. The conditions were not as favorable as had been anticipated. 2. The movement took longer to develOp momentum than had been thought originally. 3. There was a weakening of purpose in the movement caused by other developments during the period. Unfavorable Conditions It became evident soon after the "Sixth Report and Order" that the allocated frequencies reserved for educa- tional television were not really as desirable, in terms of educators' potential plans for them as had been thought originally. Of the 242 channels initially allocated for educational television, fully two-thirds (162) were UHF channels, while the remainder (80) were located in the VHF band. It became apparant that prospective educational 1See JCET, Four Years of Progress, 2-75, passim; New York Times, February 11, 1955, 16:1. 147 broadcasters who had been assigned UHF frequencies were confronted with the same problems Of difficult transmission and poor audience support as potential commercial broad- casters wishing to utilize UHF channels. The plight of the UHF educational broadcaster was summarized clearly by Dr. Armand Hunter, Director of Broadcasting Services, Michigan State College (now University) in 1954: The problem facing Michigan State College and its educational UHF television station is no different from that facing most of the UHF stations, educational or commercial. What is true for the majority of the educational reservations and for a large number of the commercial UHF stations is true for us. We are in the immediate danger of being the only UHF island in a sea of VHF service. Under these conditions, the highest Of towers, the highest of powers, and the finest of local and live program service are not sufficient in themselves to motivate or develop a general ac- ceptance of UHF and its services by the general public. We have no final answer to the problem at issue . . . . However, we do suggest that somehow the differences must be eliminated and the condi- tions be made equivalent and truly competitive if UHF is to survive. Somehow, and some way, all television stations must be put on an equal and equivalent footing in terms of transmission, recep— tion, and access to the audience, if UHF is to have any truly competitive opportunity to survive, and if a truly national television service is to exist. We do not ask for subsidy, for privilege, for advantage, or for sympathy. We ask only that we have a fair and equitable opportunity to reach the public with our educafional service through the medium of television. 1Statement of Armand Hunter, June 17, 1954, before Subcommittee #2, of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Com— merce Committee, U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce, Subcommittee No. 2, Communica— tions, Hearings: Status of UHF and Multiple Ownership of TV Stations, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1954, p. 716. 148 Furthermore, as Commissioner Hennock had noted in a partial dissent to the "Sixth Report and Order," the table of allocations provided "at best for haphazard and inequit- able educational development of the medium," and placed educators at a "fundamental disadvantage" by assigning UHF channels to education in cities in which "commercial tele- vision has already made substantial inroads."1 Further inequities existing between UHF and VHF operation of educational television facilities were indi- cated in a statement by Ralph Steetle, Chairman of the JCET, in 1956: It is no accident that, in the largest twenty markets, seven of the ten VHF reservations are already in use and the other three soon will be, while Of the 172 UHF reservations, only four-- Cincinnati, Columbus, Madison, and Detroit-~are presently in use. True, noncommercial UHF sta- tions, unlike the commercial stations, do not suffer from lack of advertising income which they do not and cannot receive or depend upon. But the educational UHF stations do suffer, just as do the commercial stations, from lack of re- ceivers and audience; for this discourages both the educational broadcaster and his potential subsidizers.2 1She also pointed out that nearly one-fourth of all the metro olitan communities of the nation had been assigned no educat onal television fre uency, and many states and re- gional areas had received an nsufflcient number of reserved channels. New York City, for example, with a population of elev- en lmillion, received one UHF channel; the states of Massa- chusetts, Maryland, Kentucky, Wyoming, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Vermont received one educational reservation each out of a total of 114 channels assigned to those areas; Youngstown Ohio, with a population of 5 5,000, received no educational channel ("Sixth Report and Order," Part VIII Federal Register, XVII, NO. 87, p. 4090). See also New York Times, April 14, 1952, p. 1:8. 2Ralph Steetle, statement before the Senate Commerce Committee, Februarg 29, 1956, U.S. Congress, Senate, Inter- state and Foreign ommerce Committee, earings: Television In uir , 84th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1956, p. 5337 149 Another possible reason for the slowness of the development of educational television facilities, apart from the UHF problem, was the lack of adequate financial support for a nationwide educational television service. Since the very beginning of the movement in 1951, the Ford Foundation, through its subsidiary funding agencies, had been educational television's principal benefactor on a nationwide bais. By 1957 the Foundation had contributed more than $10 million in support of various phases Of the movement, about one- third of that amount in the form of matching funds going directly to aid in the establishment of new educational television stations. The Fund for Adult Education (FAE), which adminis— tered most of the television funds during this early period, was extremely careful in its selection of beneficiaries. The Fund selected only those prospective educational tele- vision outlets which had, in its opinion, a high probability of successful Operation to receive its philanthropy. To assure such success, the FAE limited the amount of funds and imposed conditions on the prospective recipients. In most cases the Fund agreed to donate funds up to a limit of one-hundred to one—hundred fifty thousand dollars on a one-for-two matching basis. The prospective television ap- plicant, therfore, provided two-thirds of the financing. A further condition was attached: that the proposed educa— tional television facility aided by FAE would agree to par- ticipate in the FAE-subsidized project of a national 150 educational television network and program exchange service. Thus, the widely publicized "seed money" of the FAE, while of unquestioned value in aiding in the establishment of early educational television stations, was not readily available to potential educational telecasters on an "all- comers" basis. Educational television interests, therefore, turned to other potential benefactors, including their commercial brethren, for additional support. They were not disap- pointed. Large amounts of money, equipment, and other less tangible forms of support--valued at more than $10 million over a five-year period, according to one estimate--was donated to prospective educational television licensees by commercial broadcasters.2 The recipients no doubt welcomed this generous spirit of "commercial" cooperation, but some critics felt that commercial stations assisted educational outlets out of "enlightened self-interest"; that is, they helped the noncommercial facility in order to keep a com- mercial competitor from obtaining the channel.3 1See in this regard, Zaitz, p. 60; Ford Foundation, Ten Year Report, pp. 20-21; Powell, pp. 85-90, passim; and New York Times, January 8, 1952, p. 16:2. 2"ETV: 5 Years and $60 Million Later," Broadcasting, November 11, 1957, pp. 94, 98-101, assim. 3It was generally true that the educational stations receiving assistance from commercial broadcasters during this period were located in highly competitive major tele- vision markets, where existing broadcasters would much pre- fer a noncommercial to a commercial television neighbor Ibid. . 151 Lack of Momentum A display of public opinion favoring educational television which, it was hoped, would lead to a widespread, grass-roots movement to establish stations failed largely to materialize during this period, in Spite of the efforts of the FAE-subsidized National Citizens Committee on Educa- tional Television (NCCET).1 While the NCCET, between 1952 and 1956, obtained the endorsement of more than one hundred organizations of national stature for the principles of educational tele- vision, the establishment of facilities, and the activation of specific reserved channels,2 there was a noticeable gap at all levels between the proclamations and tangible support. Nowhere was the distinction between "principle" and "practice" more evident than in the activities by State governors and legislatures. The JCET reported in 1953 that the study of educational television had been undertaken at the State government level in three-fourths of the States. Numerous conferences, study commissions, and legislative hearings had already taken place.3 Two years later a simi- lar report noted that various state agencies had been 1FAE, Ten Year Report, p. 20. 2Ibid., 20-22, assim. 3Ralph Steetle, "The States and Educational Tele- vision," State Government, XXVI (1953), pp. 43—44, 54. See also: "Excerpts from Governors' Messages to Their Legisla- tures," Ibid., pp. 72, 96; and "Among the States," Ibid., pp. 110, 209, 253. 152 prominent in developing and financing the then existing thirteen educational television outlets. But the greater part of State government interest remained largely in the tacit, vocal, "special commissions," which supported ETV but which were powerless, of themselves, to act.1 In some states the educational television proposals became political "footballs," much to the regret of the educational leaders of the movement, and what should properly have been nonpar- tisan, or at best bipartisan, efforts to establish educa- tional television facilities became conflicts between poli- tical parties, governors and legislators, and factions.2 Many educators themselves were reluctant to endorse television as being significant for education. The chair- man of the JCET noted in his testimony before a Congres- sional committee that one of the "special problems" involved in formulating national educational policy toward something (such as television) which involved the expenditure of large sums of money, was determining "whether or not this is im- portant to education."3 1Walter B. Emery and Ralph Steetle, "State Progress in Educational Television," State Government, XXVIII (1955), pp. 63-66, 74. See also JCET, Four Years of Progress . . ., pp. 53—63, 66—75. 2Especially the situations which developed in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and California. 3Statement of Ralph Steetle before the Senate Com— merce Committee Hearing: Television Inquiry, 1956, p. 537. 153 Five million dollars of FAE funds were allocated to study the problem of inducing educational institutions and groups to become aware of educational television, and to encourage them in efforts to raise the necessary funds.1 Divergifyingglnfluences A number of innovations, attitudes, and events tended to "fragment" the educational television movement, thus mak- ing a "united effort" to establish stations on a broad scale impossible. One development, which undoubtedly "blunted" the edge of the movement was the "invasion" of the educa- tional television field by commercial broadcasters.2 A considerable number of licensed television stations cooperated with educational interests and institutions in a wide range of educational television endeavors, as if to prove their oft-cited contention that educational interests could achieve better results with greater efficiency through the use Of existing commercial facilities than they could by operating their own stations.3 Furthermore, the appeal of operating educational television stations faded in the minds of some educators as 1New York Times, September 8, 1952, p. 30:2. 2"ETV: 5 Years . . . . Later," Broadcasting, pp. 98‘101. 3The most elaborate proposal was revealed late in 1956, when NBC announced that it would provide a daily net- work service on a noncommercial basis to educational stations then on the air as well as its own affiliates, the bulk of programming and transmission costs to be borne by the net- work. See Robert W. Sarnoff, "Network Broadcasting," an 154 technological and educational developments continued to take place. Even among those whose belief in the educational value of television was strong there were many different Opinions about the particular values of the medium. Much of the divergence of views about educational television seems to have come about as more and more indi- xiduals and institutions became familiar with the medium, and as increased utilization and experimentation took place. Such dispersion of interests was not unlike the factionalism which had threatened to weaken education's position before the FCC at the time when the reservation of channels was being considered in 1950. The principal points of view which seem to have brought on this "branching" were created by the development of the concept of instructional television (ITV), particu- larly on a closed-circuit basis. The ITV concept generated a philosophy of educational television which placed propor- tionately greater emphasis on "in-school" television ser- vices (ITV services which could be rendered through closed- circuit systems or with the aid of cooperating commercial broadcasters) and proportionately less emphasis on the older, address before the 30th Anniversary Meeting of NBC, Miami, Florida, December 13, 1956 (NBC Release); New York Times, December 16, 1956, Sec. II, p. 11:1. 155 more established concept of television for adult education and general educative purposes. Furthermore, as more groups became interested in the educational potentials of television, and as more re- search in the area was promulgated, the questions of "what can television do, and do best, for education?" were aired more frequently in discussions and symposia throughout the country.2 As more conferences were held to discuss the problem, the number of differing points of view likewise increased, until the educational television movement was characterized by two distinct "camps"--those who favored instructional television and those who favored enrichment television.3 All of the above factors seem to have had some influence on the rate at which the educational television movement progressed from 1952 through 1956. Educational Television and Congress Throughout the period under discussion (1952-1956) Congress, through its appropriate committees and its 1See for instance New York Times, December 20 1952, p. 13:3; March 1, 1953, ,p. ’56w‘4 ‘March 15, Sec. IV, E. ; November 15 . anuary 25, 1954, p. 1:1; ovember 13, 1955, Sec. IV,1 p. 9: . 2Ibid., November 28, 1952, p. 34:6; December 15, p. 20:1; February 15, 1953, p. 74:3; and Zaitz, pp. 158-159. 3The JCET reported in 1956 that instructional tele- vision programs had increased in popularity to the point where 8500 such offerings were broadcast between 1952 and 1956 (Survey of School Programs in Educational Television, (Washington: JCET,1956], mimeo. ). 156 individual Members, maintained an almost continual interest in broadcasting, and especially television--the newest and "brightest" medium of influence. However, only two Congres- sional proceedings were directly concerned with educational television: the so-called Tobey Hearings and the so—called Potter Hearings. The Tobey Hearings In 1953, a two-day hearing was held by the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, under the chair- manship of Senator Charles W. Tobey, to determine the in- tentions of the FCC regarding the reserved educational allo- cations of the "Sixth Report and Order."1 Members of the FCC were the only witnesses. Testimony and inquiry centered on the question of whether the "Report's" one-year period, during which no petitions pertaining to reconsideration of the educational reservations would be entertained by the Commission, would or would not be extended beyond the June 2, l953,termina- tion date.2 FCC Chairman Paul A. Walker-~to whom the desig- nation of this one-year period as the "year of decision" is attributed—~conceded that his speeches during the preceding 1U.S. Congress, Senate, Interstate and Foreign Com- merce Committee, Hearings: Educational Television, 83rd Cong., lst Sess., April 16, 21, 1953; Also New Yopk Times, April 17, 1953, p. 22:5. 2See "Sixth Report and Order," paras. 209-214. 157 year (in which he had urged educators to activate the re- served channels expeditiously) might have caused many edu- cational interests to believe that the educational alloca- tions would be reserved for only that one-year period. He told the Committee that such was not, in fact, the case-- that the reservations were permanent until altered by action of the FCC--but that petitions requesting alterations in the table of assignments, including addition or deletion of educational (as well as commercial) channels, would be accepted by the Commission after June 2, 1953. Mr. Walker suggested that Congress should legislate an extension of the period of unchallengeable reservations. He feared that an FCC extension, without specific direction from Congress, would be challenged in the courts under the existing appeals procedure.1 At the time of the 1953 hearing, fourteen construc- tion permits had been granted by the FCC to educational ap- plicants, but no stations had as yet been finally licensed to operate.2 The Committee was naturally concerned with the prospects for the future utilization of the reserved channels. Chairman Walker said that he thought that the educators had begun to move with "reasonable speed," but 1Testimony of Paul A. Walker, April 16, 1953, Hear- ings: Educational Television, 1953, pp. 1-5, assim. 2KUHT, The University of Houston (Texas), began its operation within the following month, on May 25, l953--the first educational station to operate on one of the reserved channels. See JCET Four Years of Progress, p. 4. 158 that he was not sure whether or not the problem of raising initial capital and operating funds, or a "disbelief in the philosophy" of educational television was responsible for the recognized "slowness" with which educational interests were moving in some parts of the country. The Hearing concluded after several of the Commis- sioners' views had been heard on the matter of the extension of the educational reservations. The Committee was appar- ently in agreement with its chairman, Senator Tobey, that the reservations for education ought to be retained per- manently, and it seemed convinced that the FCC's "Sixth Report and Order" certified that condition. Both Senator Tobey and Chairman Walker later at— tempted to clarify the somewhat "cloudy" question about the permanence of the reservations. Walker issued a statement which stated, in part: Under the existing rules all the assignments con- tained in the Commission's table of assignments, both the commercial as well as the educational, continue without any limitation on their duration. Senator Tobey said, for the Senate Committee's part: The one-year rule, it must be emphasized, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the length of time for which the educational reserva- tions will remain available. 1Statement of Paul A. Walker May 11, 1953, repro- duced in Congressional Record, XCIX (May 12, 1953), p. A2514. 159 1 [Senator Tobey and the Committee:]shall keep a watchful eye on each and every one of these 242 channels for education, and upon the slightest evidence that the FCC is about to weaken and to delete one of them or substitute a substantially less valuable channel for one of them, I shall call for a full-scale investigation. Thus, early in 1953, both the FCC and the Senate, speaking through its appropriate committee, clearly enunciat— ed the policy that the educational television frequencies would remain in reserved status until such a time as educa— tional interests could activate them. The Potter Hearings The Second set of hearings which bore directly on the educational television movement occurred a year later, in May and June of 1954. The Senate Subcommittee on Com- munications, chaired by Senator Charles E. Potter, held ex- tensive hearings at that time on what was by then a major problem affecting the entire national television scene--UHF development.2 These hearings did not have educational television as a specific concern, but, as noted above, educational television development was inextricably involved with the 1Statement of Senator Charles W. Tobey, May 11, 1953, reproduced in Congressional Record, Ibid., p. A2515. 2U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Interstate and .Foreign Commerce, Subcommittee No. 2--Communications, Hear- ;ings: Status of UHF and Muitiple Ownership of TV Stations (S. 3095), 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. , May 19, 20, 21, June 15, 16, l7, 18, 22, 1954. 160 general development of UHF, by virtue of the number and proportion of reserved channels in the UHF spectrum. Con— sequently, the hearings went far beyond the limits of the specific proposed legislation (S. 3095; which was the cause pg; accidens of the inquiry) and considerable testimony was developed about the present status and future potential development of educational as well as commercial UHF faci— lities.1 Even though no specific proposals, such as a recom- mendation or subcommittee report, emerged from the Hearings, Senator Potter's investigation nevertheless reiterated the earlier precedent of Congressional concern with,and support of, educational television. Subsequent proposals of later years for direct Federal aid to educational television may be said to have had their roots in these Hearings. The Potter Hearings of 1954 established and affirmed as public policy the principle filat the Federal government would not sacrifice educational television on the alter of commercial expediency, even 1S. 3095 (83rd Congress) was a proposal submitted by Senator Edwin Johnson to amend the Communications Act so as to provide for a flexible ownership policy with respect to television stations in the UHF and VHF frequency bands, excluding reserved educational channels. Under Johnson's proposal, single owners would be permitted to operate up to ten UHF stations, or up to five VHF stations, or combina- tions of VHF and UHF stations on a two-U-equals-one-V basis. The move was intended to provide a stimulus to commercial broadcasters to make greater use of the UHF frequencies by increasing one potential commercial value of a broadcaster's holdings. 161 though a nationwide television service might hang in the balance.1 The Hearings had the effect of reinforcing Chairman Walker's FCC policy statement of a year previous, and went beyond merely guaranteeing the permanent reservation of the educational channels; they publicized educational televi— sion within the context of a nation-wide television service. This concept had not been developed publicly before in so forceful a fashion, and educators could find in the testi- mony and discussion of the Hearings some real assurance that Congress was vitally interested in the active development of educational television--not merely the potential or pos- sible development-~and intended to keep the progress of the educational television movement among its serious concerns.2 As has been noted, no specific congressional acti- vity resulted from the Potter hearings of 1954, but both Houses of Congress seemed to take renewed interest in tele- vision matters from that point onward. Hearings have con- tinued, almost uninterruptedly, in virtually every session of Congress, on various phases of the UHF problem, sub- scription television systems, monopoly controls, ratings, 1See especially the testimony of Raymond F. Kohn, June 15, 1954, Hearings: UHF, pp. 491-523; Dr. Armand Hunter, June 17, 1954, pp. 711-718; and FCC Commissioner Frieda B. Hennock, June 22, 1954, pp. 1060-1070. See comments of the New York Times on the subcom- mittee activities, May 20, 1954, p. 47:4; May 21, 1954, p. 23:2; May 22, 1954, p. 6:7. 162 and programming, as well as (from 1958 on) the educational television movement. The Period in Retrospect Educational Television Issues, 1952-1956 As the educational television movement progressed from 1952, four major questions or issues of concern to the movement stood out at various times. Stripped of their verbiage (which usually pertained to specific referents), these issues centered on one or more of the following ques- tions: 1. What was the significance of television in the edu- cational and cultural life of the United States? How could television best fulfill the needs and requirements of education in its (then) present state? What plan should be adopted as the best method of assuring the successful development of educational television? What should be done with those television channels allocated and reserved for educational use but not as yet activated? _Ihe Signiiicance of Television The question of television's significance to educa- tion and the cultural life of the nation was raised often