TRANSFER OF ASSETS

Senator PELL. Much comment is being heard about the transfer of public assets to private schools.

Do you have any statistical information on the frequency of this activity?

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. The growth of private segregated schools in the last years has been something very, very great, and the Commission has been very concerned about that over the years.

A number of years ago, in our 1966-67 school report, we urged that the tax-exempt status be withdrawn from such schools, and that contributions to those schools not be tax deductible.

We have pressed this issue over the years. As you probably know, a three-judge court in the District of Columbia here recently enjoined the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, from according additional tax exemptions to such private segregated schools in Mississippi. We certainly support that decision.

We hope that is the way it will ultimately turn out. Unfortunately, the Department of Justice is opposing the court's decision. I think that is very poor policy.

There has been a growth of private segregated schools. There has been a diversion of State funds and other benefits to these schools. That should be stopped.

Senator PELL. It is interesting, too, from the tax viewpoint, how you handle this problem because some of the greatest advances in integrated schools have been in the private schools in the North.

You would not want to hurt their tax position. They have been out in front in this activity before the public schools were.

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. I think the court's order in the District of Columbia three-judge court case that I referred to was careful to make certain that it was framed in such a way that it would not hurt the type of schools that you suggest.

Senator PELL. Speaking in a very parochial way, you mentioned a report coming out shortly on the experience of Providence, R.I., in desegregation. When will that report be out?

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. Sometime in the fall, I believe.

Senator PELL. I don't want to infringe in any way, but if you have a preliminary draft or anything of that sort, it would certainly be interesting to me.

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. That certainly would be possible.

TREATMENT OF BLACK TEACHERS

Senator PELL. We have heard much about the plight of black teachers in the South upon the advent of desegregation.

This is a question asked of Mr. Lumley earlier. Have you had any experience with regard to these instances?

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. The Commission has investigated that particular problem somewhat peripherally. I am fairly familiar with the literature in the field, and what other people have done. That is a problem. It has happened. I think safeguards should be taken to insure that that does not happen.

I think that funds under this bill probably could be used to prevent something like that from happening.

Senator PELL. What does happen with the legacy of the past? You perhaps have in some of the Southern schools a level of teaching not up to what it is in the white schools, and you may have the principal of the school who perhaps is not as well trained as a white principal in a white school.

How do you handle that? Is there any way of testing objectively the teaching ability of principals and teachers?

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. I think in those cases, and I am not sure it is as extensive as some people believe, that the black teachers are not up to the white teachers. There is money currently available under legislation to provide for educational programs, and there would be money under this bill to permit those teachers to take the necessary additional courses, brush-up courses, or what have you, to bring them up to the appropriate level.

JENSEN REPORT

Senator PELL. I would be interested in your views of the Jensen Report.

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. I tried to file through Professor Jensen's thesis in the Harvard Educational Review, I think, and my own instinctive feeling—and it is a pretty complicated thesis-is that it is not correct. I think we have demonstrated over and over again that we can obtain high achievement from people regardless of their race, color, religion, or national origin, if we provide the necessary facilities, resources and environment to do that.

Senator PELL. I think the greatest weakness was the source of the

test.

I congratulate you on the specific recommendations for tightening up the legislation. I think it is a little late to be applied to the appropriations legislation that may be passed this afternoon, but we will take them under serious advice for the major share of the program.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, may I say that the amendment to be presented will contain the limitations on expenditure which Senator Mondale attempted to put on the legislation. The other matters I am sure we can give consideration to.

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. May I make one further comment?

Senator PELL. Certainly.

NECESSITY OF LEGISLATION

Mr. GLICKSTEIN. You asked the previous witness whether he would support this bill if none of these proposed amendments were added. My answer to that question is yes.

In 1957, when the first civil rights act since Reconstruction was proposed, a lot of people felt it was weak, it didn't go far enough, that it just touched on voting, and not even significantly. There were people then who said, "Let us not pass this. Nothing is better than

But in 1957, Congress acted; in 1960, Congress acted; in 1964, Congress acted, and in 1965, Congress acted.

We are all familiar with the revolution that has occurred, especially since 1965. One million new Negroes are registered to vote. The number of Negro elected officials in the South has gone from less than 50 to over 400 or 500.

I think it is time to start on this and to push ahead, to attempt to deal with this problem once and for all rather than waiting for the millennium.

Senator PELL. I guess it goes to the old phrase of putting the nose of the camel under the tent. It is very important in all of these things to keep moving forward.

But the thing we have to be careful about with this legislation is that it doesn't reward retrogression. This is the concern that I have about it.

If it did reward retrogression and that was its major effect then on balance, I think we shouldn't pass it. These tightening-up measures that Senators Mondale and Javits have offered would mean that it would go ahead, though maybe not as much as we would like. Also, there is a question of tightening up the formulas.

I am a cosponsor of the basic legislation, and I do think we must

move.

The subcommittee will recess subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.)

EMERGENCY SCHOOL AID ACT OF 1970

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1970

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Claiborne Pell (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Pell (presiding), Randolph, Mondale, Javits, and Dominick.

Staff members present: Stephen J. Wexler, counsel; Richard D. Smith, assistant counsel; Roy H. Millenson, minority professional staff member; and William C. Smith, staff director and Leonard P. Strickman, minority professional staff member, the Senate Select Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities.

Senator PELL. The Subcommittee on Education will come to order. We are continuing our hearing on S. 3883, the Emergency School Aid Act of 1970. The witnesses this morning are Mrs. Marian Wright Edelman of the Washington Research Project Action Council and Miss Frances Sussna, director of the Multi-Culture Institute in San Francisco, Calif.

We will hear first from Mrs. Edelman.

STATEMENT OF MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN, WASHINGTON RESEARCH PROJECT ACTION COUNCIL

Senator PELL. I notice you have quite a long statement here. You might care to put it in the record and summarize.

Mrs. EDELMAN. Fine, because it is much too long to read, I think. I will just try to go through in chronological order and pick out the main points that I would like to make this morning.

I am Marian Edelman and I am director of the Washington Research Project which is a group primarily of lawyers engaged in administrative negotiations and research on administrative agency programs and in litigation in order to try to enforce the rights of the poor and minority groups and to insure that Federal programs work on their behalf as they are supposed to. Before that I was with the NAACP legal defense fund in Jackson, Miss., where the main part of our office burden was school desegregation suits.

The issue this morning is Senate 3883, the Emergency School Aid Act of 1970, as it relates to the problems incident to desegregation and racial isolation. I strongly support now, and always have, Federal aid

to education, and I strongly support Federal financial aid to quality integrated education. To the extent that this bill stands for these principles, I support it; however, in its present form I oppose

it.

This is based primarily on our experience with title I and with what I see as a lack of a defined goal in this drafted legislation, a lack of a well-developed mechanism for review of project applications and dispersal of money, the lack of an established monitoring system with tough sanctions, and the lack of an operational system of evaluation. Unless these things are cleared up with appropriate safeguards written in the bill, I would continue to oppose it.

I think the first point I would like to make is that I don't think any amount of money that this Congress appropriates is a substitute for strong Federal enforcement policies in the school desegregation area. The absence of a strong stance both in word and in deed by this administration in favor of school desegregation, particularly in the South, which follows the mandates of the Supreme Court in title VI of the Civil Rights Act cannot be rectified by money. This Congress can put in $50 billion and it is not going to make any difference in the amount or the quality of integration that can be achieved.

We simply have to have a stronger enforcement policy at the Federal level which means using title VI fund cutoffs to insure the school districts are brought into line. It means the cessation of sympathizing with the recalcitrant districts, it means tolerating no more delays, it means not coming up with any new rules which are going to result in a situation similar to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg rule.

Senator DOMINICK. I don't mean to be difficult. I previously supported amendments to various civil rights acts which had the effect of cutting off all funds if they were being administered improperly. I woke up one night at about 1 o'clock in the morning with the sudden thought, What are we accomplishing? How are we aiding education for the kids by cutting off the money by which their education is supplied?

Can you give me a little insight on your feeling on this?

Mrs. EDELMAN. Yes; I think there are short-term and long-term goals. Those districts which are most recalcitrant are usually the very districts that have not taken advantage of all the Federal programs such as Federal school lunch, title I, and other programs designed to help the poor and minorities. On the other hand, we put a premium on desegregated education. Some vehicle must be established to insure that the students in those districts get the advantage of a desegregated education, and the most effective tool to do this is title VI cutoffs.

While I do not favor cutting off just for the sake of cutting off, I believe in the short-term sanction here which will hopefully be followed if we have the kind of policies that I advocate by losses by the Department of Justice to bring these districts into compliance. One of the things I recommend very strongly is apportioning this money in this bill and that it be set aside for

Senator DOMINICK. That is all very good in theory but we are dealing with kids who are trying to get an education. Now if you cut off the money, how are you helping the kids?

Mrs. EDELMAN. In the short term you are not but on the whole, Senator, my point is the districts.