« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
able to obtain all of the benefits he is justly entitled to as a coming American citizen.
We feel that equally as important as giving good schooling is giving this work-opportunity to the poor, pauperized families, to their children, so that they can earn the necessary amount of money at least to clothe them sufficiently for them to appear decently in the public school system.
The ÅFL thinks it is sound for tax money to be used for the purpost of giving work opportunities to this type of children. We think it is good, sound, Americanism.
Now, gentlemen, once again on behalf of labor I want to issue a warning: These boys coming back from service will want jobs and I put the question to you-are you going to flood the labor market with high-school girls and boys, or are you going to help keep these girls and boys in school, where they belong? The answer rests with you gentlemen, for this bill provides the means to help keep them in school.
The answer rests with you gentlemen, for this bill provides the means to help keep them in school by giving them the necessary work opportunities in conjunction with their school education.
The American Federation of Labor membership in the South has no fear whatever about giving the necessary assistance to children in nonprofit private sectarian schools. I happen to be a Baptist. I cannot speak for my denomination, but I can speak for the members of the American Federation of Labor-1,800,000 in the South-and I can assure that there has been no religious intolerance or prejudice in the ranks of the trade-union movement in this country, particularly in the ranks of the trade-union movement in the South.
We feel that the families of all workers, that all children should be given equal benefits under the law.
Yes; it is true that there has been a tragic amount of prejudice manifest in certain areas of every State in this Union, but I want you to know that that prejudice is not characteristic of the American labor movement, and we hope and pray that it never will be.
Let us approach this question of the aid to the schools in a critical and philosophical way.
There are three fundamental principles which must be safeguarded in any bill giving Federal aid to education. The first is basic in our democratic philosophy; that is the right of the individual human being; the preservation of the dignity of man.
The second is basic in our form of government; the preservation of the autonomy of each of the several States in our Federal Union.
The third is essential in any free state: The prohibition of any legislative control of the educational content.
On the second and third of these points the Federation finds itself in agreement with practically all who ask for Federal aid for education.
On the first, however, there is a growing difference of opinion. In relation to this bill the principle manifests itself in the question: How much and what kind of power does government have over the individual human being? The American Federation of Labor believes this to be the most fundamental and indeed the most pertinent question confronting this Nation and every free nation today.
I should like at this point to express our deepest thanks to the two Senators who have introduced this bill, not only for what the bill proposes for America's children but even more for their courage and vision in setting out the principles that (1) the child belongs to the parent and not to the State; (2) that it is the duty of the State to regulate conduct and actions of all for the common good and to assist wherever necessary to promote the common good; that it is the duty of the State to implement effectively the rights of citizens which it recognizes.
Under this bill the Federal Government aids the several States in maintaining the public school systems; it protects the rights of minorities; it assures an equitable distribution of funds for the common good; it recognizes the right of the parent to determine the kind of education the child is to have under State law; it implements that right as the needs may determine.
This bill does implement for all children the law of each State requiring the child to go to school, and recognizes the right of the parent to select any school which meets the minimum educational standards of the State.
On that point there is marked difference of opinion. There is a group in this country which infers that any implementation of the parent's right to send his child to a sectarian school is a union of churchand state. But our Supreme Court has ruled otherwise on a number of occasions.
Mr. Woll has referred to the Oregon school case in which a perfectly good southern gentleman, Mr. Justice McReynolds, of Tennessee, rendered the majority opinion of the Court and held that sectarian schools have a right to function in this country.
Shibboleths have been used : "Union of church and state." "Breakdown of the American public schools.” “Destruction of the free public school system.' These are empty phrases. When the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Government could give funds for sectarian institutions did it unite church and state? Certainly not.
When the ROTC was placed in colleges of every denomination did it break down the free public school? Certainly not.
When this Congress enacted the GI bill last year-unanimouslymaking available Federal funds for use in every sectarian school in the country which maintains educational standards, did this Congress unite church and state? Did you gentlemen destroy the public school? Or did you give to every human being who wore the American uniform, to serve his country, the right to chose where and how he, as an individual human being, would exercise his rights, in the light of his own convictions and his own conscience.
You gentlemen who voted for the GI bill have your own answers to make to your own conscience and to your own constituents.
But I want to sound a note of warning. Today there is a far more threatening danger confronting America than a threat of having any one church take us over. That's no real threat today. The threat is the growing power of the state over the conduct of the individual human being.
Stateism-a pure Hegelian concept-is the very basis of nazismis on the march in this country. I wish to distinguish “stateism" from the state's proper and inherent right and duty to regulate con
duct for the common good. I feel that we in the American Federation of Labor have a right to speak on this point.
We have crusaded for legislative regulation and protection for human rights. Our record on that is one to give us a just pride. We are still fighting for that right. Harder than ever, we believe.
And the vote of the Senate in opposition to the slave-labor bill is proof that we are working together for proper restrictive laws and against slave-making laws. We do I repeat, look to the state; National, State, and local, to make laws restricting and regulating human conduct. We look to the state at all levels for funds to implement the rights that are granted us.
But we resist to the utmost laws which deny human freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of sacred and solemn personal relations to all men.
Today the right of the parent to determine absolutely-within the precepts of law, to be sure, as enunciated in the Constitution and interpreted by the Supreme Court—how their child is to be educated, must be zealously safeguarded.
And I am deeply grateful to Senator Mead, whose illness we deeply deplore, and Senator Aiken for saying that the parent's right to educate his child must remain supreme, and that the right must be implemented in every possible way.
We think labor's bill is morally and socially sound and absolutely necessary for the Nation's welfare.
Senator Walsh. I am sorry, gentlemen, but we will have to answer the quorum call. We will suspend for 15 minutes.
(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
Senator Walsh. The acting chairman regrets that the delay has been caused by the attendance of the Senators on the floor of the Senate. A controversy arose that required the presence of all the Senators.
Now, Mr. Googe, you gave some statistics about the illiteracy, I think, in North Carolina and Alabama.
That was discovered when they were inducted into the armed services?
Mr. GoogE. Yes, sir.
Senator Walsh. You gave those figures broken down between the whites and Negroes, did you?
Mr. GOOGE. Yes, sir,
Senator Walsh. How does it compare! You spoke about 50 whites, I think, in North Carolina, out of 1,000.
Mr. Googe. The South had a much greater number of rejections of men than there were from the Northern States, but it parallels the amount of money available in each State per child for educational opportunities. There may be a slight variation in some particular States, but generally it parallels the amount of funds available for public education.
Senator Walsh. What were the rejections in New York on account of illiteracy?
Mr. Googe. In New York, 4.4 whites per thousand; and Negroes, 25.1 per 1,000.
Senator CHAVEZ. Even there it was reduced.
Senator WALSH. Have you got it for New Jersey?
Mr. Googe. New Jersey, white, 8.4 per 1,000; and Negroes, 45.3 per 1,000.
Senator WALSH. And Massachusetts?
Mr. Googe. North Carolina, white, 36 per 1,000, and 258.7 per 1,000 Negroes.
Senator CHAVEZ. May I ask this witness one question? I believe you mentioned the situation that arose in the States you have cited, that went to the Suprem Court. Was that the Oregon case ?
Mr. Googe. Yes. I just mention the fact that it was a southern justice of the Supreme Court that wrote and rendered that opinion.
Senator CHAVEZ. There was another case that went to the Supreme Court on a similar issue.
Mr. Googe. The Louisiana free textbooks.
Miss BORCHARDT. I should like, Mr. Chairman, to insert not only the citations, if I may, but an excerpt from the opinion of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice McReynolds' opinion in rendering the decision.
Senator WALSH. That may go in the record.
Miss BORCHARDT. And Mr. Justice Hughes' opinion in rendering the decision in the Louisiana case.
Senator WALSH. That may go in the record. (The opinions referred to are as follows:)
Pierce v. Society of Şisters (268 U. S. 510)
Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska (262 U. S. 300), we think it entirely plain that the act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all government in this Union reposes includes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creation of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.
Cochran V. Louisiana State Board of Education (281 U. S. 370)
Mr. Justice Hughes in his opinion (pp. 374-375) states:
“The intention of the appellant under the fourteenth amendment is that taxation for the purchase of schoolbooks constituted a taking of private property for a private purpose (Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655). The purpose is said to be private, religious, sectarian, and other schools not embraced in the public educational system of the State by furnishing textbooks free to the children attending such private schools. The operation and effect of the legislation in question were described by the Supreme Court of the State as follows (168 La., p. 1020) :
" "Öne may scan the acts in vain to ascertain where any money is appropriated for the purchase of school books for the use of any church, private, sectarian, or even public school. The appropriations were made for the specific purpose of purchasing schoolbooks for the use of the children of the State, free of cost to them. It was for their benefit and the resulting benefit to the State that the appropriations were made. True, these children attend some school, public or private, the latter, sectarian or nonsectarian, and that the books are to be furnished them for their use, free of cost, whichever they attend. The schools, however, are not the beneficiaries of this appropriation. They obtain nothing from them, nor are they relieved of a single obligation, because of them. The school children not the State alone are the beneficiaries. It is clear then that
the sectarian schools, which some of the children attend, instruct their pupils in religion, and books are used for that purpose, but one may search diligently the acts, though without result, in an effort to find anything to the effect that it is the purpose of the State to furnish religious books for the use of such children
What the States contemplate is that the same books that are furnished children attending public schools shall be furnished children attending private schools. This is the only practical way of interpreting and executing the statutes, and this is what the State board of education is doing. Among these books, nat lly, none is to be cted, adopted to religious instruction.'"
Viewing the statute as having the effect thus attributed to it, we cannot doubt that the taxing power of the States is exerted for a public purpose. The legislation does not segregate private schools, or their pupils, as its beneficiaries or attempt to interfere with any matters of exclusive private concern. Its interest is education, broadly; its method comprehensive. Individual interests are aided only as the common interest is safeguarded.
Senator Walsh. Did you notice the corresponding increase in educational facilities in recent years!
Mr. GoogE. Oh, yes.
Mr. GCOGE. They are steadily improving all the time particularly for the Negroes. We find in our union the American Federation of Labor has over 100,000 members who are Negroes under closed-shop contracts in the South today.
Senator CHAVEZ. Are these confined to the ones who get the minimum wages, such as the hod carriers and workers of that kind, or do they go into the trades that pay a low wage!
Mr. GCOGE. Senator, we have to organize them on a job or their own. For your information, for instance, the shipyard in Brunswick, Ga., they have hundreds of skilled mechanics that are Negroes getting the maximum scale.
Senator DONNELL. Mr. Googe, I did want to ask some questions. As I understand it, this bill, S. 717, is a bill that is offered by the American Federation of Labor and its affiliate, the American Federation of Teachers; is that correct !
Mr. Googe. The bill was offered as the result of the standing committee of the American Federation of Labor on education and it reported to the AFL executive council. The AFL executive council in turn made a report and recommendation to the 1944 convention of the American Federation of Labor, and the convention in turn adopted that recommendation, which instructed the American Federation of Labor to have this bill drafted and introduced.
That is strictly the American Federation of Labor bill. An officer of the Teachers Union is here. I am not intimately familiar with what their proceedings were in their conventions, but I understand their conventions did adopt the report of the Permanent Committee on Education of the American Federation of Labor.
I think they adopted it in toto. If they did not, I am sure they adopted the general principles outlined there.
Senator DONNELL. Now, is the American Federation of Teachers an integral part of the American Federation of Labor?
Mr. GOOGE. It is an affiliated national union and it is an organization of teachers. It is an affiliated and chartered national union of the American Federation of Labor.
Senator DONNELL. How large an organization is the American Federation of Teachers, the membership?