ele for rich p*
t to such insfr
ment is do*»
n, so oflen ••
idily rising I
3 making it '
diildren of 1»
i the benefits'
i adults in
1,000 men 4
r of the Kore*
i in sel Is ■'
. in most ca*
otter schoolhouses which are drastically
h-?i'0r m a" resPects- Bringing Negro
cnildren into schools heretofore reserved
°r white children will necessitate trans-
'e"ing some of the white children out
sn 61!rfnools to provide the required
Pace I his would mean inferior facili-
inrf • the transferred white children
' id, m many cases, resentment and bitterness.'
is not the American way to raise
|"e group by pulling another group
fo/'V'.'- , traflitions call for attractive
^aulittes for all. It is the duty of Con-
Fund' ,re fore' t0 appropriate adequate
.. s for unsegregated classrooms,
'ch will mean an improvement for all
tne children and a harm to none.7
In 1930 we spent 3.0 per cent of our
"at'onal income for schools: in 1951,
e spent only 2.5 per cent of our national
income on schools.
EDUCATION SECURES FREEDOM
America is built upon the faith of the
,|encan People in education. Among
m„ e. y Enelisl' colonist* the first com-
"'"I? undertaking in each settlement
lieved fi i "ial scho°'- The colonists be-
of A .?- as succeeding generations
,, . *mer,cans have beHeved af|cr |h|.|n
sonlht political freedom which the)
Ihrn ,cou,d be made secure only
rough widespread popular education.
' °mas Jefferson said, "If a nation ex-
exne i l 'gnorant and free . . . il
DeSr8cts what never was and never will
This basic idea that only the educated
g0" Ca" be tru|y free> and that self-
edue ?Tnt is P°ssib'e only with an
Ame • c,ltize,"7> pervades all early
the rfTi" h,story and underlies all of
('„„,ae"berations of the Constitutional
reco?" T The fou»ders of this nation
the gni2e" a vali(l national interest in
educPtr0m0tion and encouragement of
mav 10n~a national interest which
in\L '"?es transcend the more limited
n,erest of the individual states.8
dear \rT "l™6 &ae' they made !t efuall>'
leave ■ e nati°nal government would
eomm ■ y t0 the states and the local
lion I"-"'"65 the c°n>ml of their educa-
state" j i two foundation stones-
assist ' contro1' with federal
tjon ,ance and support where the na-
an ed mte.test requires—we have built
in ., aucational system which is unique
theevt ' Sense of the word' Avoiding
forei m° centralization found in many
othergi! coun,ries — yet avoiding, on the
federal " i- 'he eviIs of a "do-nothing"
'atin ,pollcy concerning national edu-
coon .prob|ems—we have evolved a
shin -rat,ye local-state-federal partner-
BWP m education."
ableeaCtiL°1na,ries in Co"gress have been
10 block constructive federal legis
lation which would have fulfilled the
promise of this partnership. It is inconceivable that they should have succeeded
thus far; it will be disastrous to our educational future if they continue to succeed.
A free people whose heritage and hope
of freedom are in the equal opportunities
of their children must not be deterred
by the misplaced cries of "states' rights''
—must not be frightened by the false
cries of communism raised against ever)
movement to deepen lhe meaning of
America for all Americans and to extend
freedom and opportunity to the people
in all areas—rural or urban: prosperous
Helping lei guarantee equal and ade-
control of the children for educational
purposes . . . [the State] deprives the
father of the sacred rights of parentage. . ..
"Whence does the State derive the
right to take charge of my children and
say when, where, what, and by whom
they shall be taught? Whence does . . .
[the State] derive the right to take another man's money and devote it to the
education of my child? . . .
"If the State may upon the plea of
'necessary to the general welfare' take
under its control the education of the
people, it mav, upon the same plea . . .
take charge of their religion, for if edu-
cation be necessary to the maintenance
„. . ... —Wid. World Photo
Kindergarten room with fence-enclosed play-yard at streamlined school in Beilflower, Calif.
quate educational opportunities for all
the nation's children is a federal responsibility. We must insist that our federal
government assume it.
That was one side of the question.
Here, now, is the opposite side —
arguments of some who DO NOT
approve of federal aid to education.
ON September 29, 1875, a Mr. San-
som, whom history has forgotten,
addressed the Texas Constitutional Convention, expressing opposition to a proposal that Texas set up a public school
"Mr. President. . . .
"How dare a government professing
to be free ruthlessly invade the sacred
domain of private duty and private
right? What right has .. .[government ]
to lay violent hands upon . . . American
citizens who have not attained their
majority to force them to attend particular schools, study particular books under
a particular teacher? ... By assuming
FACTS FORUM NEWS, February,
of good government.. . religion is more
so. .. .
"Friends of public education [say]
thai if we do not provide a good system
of public schools, emigrants will not
come .. .[to Texas] to settle and develop
the wealth of this great State. Very well,
sir, let them stay where they are, or go
somewhere else. For one, I do not want
men to come ... [to Texas] who are
moved to do so by the desire to have the
hard-earned dollars of other men applied
to the support of their families. And I
should think, sir. that men who are too
lazy to educate their own children, and
mean enough to want other men to be
forced to do it for them, would be a
long time in developing the wealth or
greatness of any state."9
Mr. Sansom, of course, lost his battle.
Texas has a public school system.
But notice Mr. Sansom was talking in
1875. At that time, Texas was economically the poorest state in the Union—
the very poorest. Yet nowhere in these
debates is there one word about asking
the federal government for help.
Today, when Texas is among the most