Statements From Other Schools on Loyalty Oath

Princeton

... I firmly believe that the imposition of these two oaths, but particularly the disclaimer clause, strongly infers, first, that American institutions of higher learning have not fulfilled their centuries-old responsibility to select and and support students of loyalty and integrity, and second, that American college students, as a group, are particularly suspect of disloyalty as opposed to the general citizenry....

... The government of the United States has made a great step forward in the recognition of its role assuring opportunity for all who can profit by higher education. It seems unfortunate that such a forward step should be the occasion of doubt--doubt concerning the responsibility of our institutions of higher education, and doubt concerning the loyalty of those they seek to help along the road to greater service to their country. Robert F. Goheen, President

Bryn Mawr College

We ... decided not to apply for a loan under title II, even though our failure to apply would mean a financial handicap to a certain number of students. We believe that the handicap to the whole student group, through invading our justified trust of them would be a great less.   Katherine E. McBride, President

University of Pennsylvania

... this affidavit is odious, an unwarranted restriction upon academic freedom of discussion within the educational process, a dangerous precedent for action on the part of the Federal Government, and unnecessary for the protection of the security of our country...   Resolution of The Faculty Senate

Amherst

The faculty of Amherst College has voted unanimous disapproval of the controversial disclaimer oath ... and recommended to the Trustees of the College that Amherst accept no further Federal loan funds until the disclaimer is no longer required...

Amherst News Bureau, April 20 U. S. Office of Education officials in Washington said that they had opposed inclusion of the clause and received Amherst's notification with sympathy....   UPI despatch, April 23

Antioch

... We cannot accept the idea that young men and women of college age should be singled out from all other citizens of the country to sign special affidavits and take oaths of allegiance, in order to benefit by the provisions of the Act. The lack of confidence this shows in young people of our country as well as in education generally is an insult. Finally, of course, the provisions of the disclaimer section of the Act will not be any way effective in discovering who is disloyal to our country. For these reasons Antoich ... has elected not to participate at present.... For the time being we will endeavor to meet our student's loan needs through our own loan funds; but should this need increase sharply, we will not be able to meet it. We sincerely hope, therefore, that the protests of such organizations as the AAC and the AAUP and the complaints of most of the presidents of the finest colleges and universities of the country will be heard, and will result in the removal of the disclaimer provision so that Antoich can participate in the Act.--Reasons Why Antioch College Is Not Participating in the NDEA of 1958, by Samuel B. Gould, President. Issued by Antioch College News Bureau, February 25, 1959.

Reed

January saw action at Reed when the student council, the faculty and the Reed unit of the AAUP urged the president and trustees to reject participation in this program as long as the disclaimer was required for participation. The trustees meeting on January 31 gave authorization to the president to act as he saw fit in the matter. Consequently, President Sullivan wired the U.S. Commissioner of Education on February 2 that Reed would not participate in the program as long as the requirement of a negative affidavit was demanded.

Bowdoin College

Members of the Faculty of Bowdoin College have adopted resolutions in which they urge amendments of the NDEA by the removal of a section which requires participants under the Act to execute a so-called "disclaimer oath" and affidavit, believing it to be an infringement of academic freedom....

The "Statment" incorporated as part of the preceding resolution: We, the faculty of Bowdoin College, strongly object to the affidavit for the following reasons: First, it will restrict the exercise of academic freedom by both students and teachers. This effect arises because the affidavit constitutes an inquiry into belief and association and because its meaning is extremely vague. No objective criteria are given for identifying the organizations alluded to, and what constitutes support is not specified

The requirement of the oath in the NDEA seems to us to present completely different problems. Allegiance is a necessary accompaniment of citizenship. The usual form for the expression of such allegiance is by oath. The oath in the NDEA is such an oath in its traditional form. To require such an oath is the right of the government. We believe, however, that it is useless and invidious to require it on this occasion, useless because disloyalty is not eliminated by formalities, and invidious since it selects the beneficiaries of government assistance in one area and not in others. We therefore believe that the Act would be strengthened by the elimination of the oath requirement.--press release issued by Robert M. Cross, Adm. Ass't to the Vice President, Jan. 20, 1959.