Senator INOUYE. The committee will stand in adjournment; however, the files will be open for 2 weeks to receive further statements if witnesses so desire to submit them; and until then, the committee will not act. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

[Subsequent to the hearing the following material was received:]

PREPARED STAtement of PAUL PHILLIPS COOKE, NATIONAL BOARD MEMBER, AMERICAN VETERANS Committee (Retired President, District of COLUMBIA TEACHERS COLLEGE)

Members of the Senate District Committee,

My name is Paul Phillips Cooke, speaking as a citizen and representing the American Veterans Committee (AVC) as former National Chairman and currently member of the National Board. I am also a former President of the District of Columbia Teachers College, having served in that position for eight years (1966– 74) and an additional twenty-two years at the institution, including assignments as Dean of the College (Acting) and Professor of English.

May I commend the Committee for consideration of authorization of a University of the District of Columbia, I offer the following statement for the consideration of the Committee.

1. Need in the District. This city needs and will benefit greatly from the proposed University of the District of Columbia.

2. Public and Private. Creation of a public university, such as the University of the District of Columbia, is not a threat to the private universities in the District of Columbia.

3. The College of Education. The District of Columbia Teachers College should develop into a college of education in the University.

4. A single board. One board of governance for higher education in the District of Columbia is essential and is properly provided for in the legislation before the Committee.

5. The Composition of the Board of governance. The Board should have and will benefit from a membership of fifteen persons including one student, one faculty member, one alumnus.

1. NEED FOR A UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The District of Columbia needs and will benefit greatly from the proposed University of the District of Columbia.

The University of the District of Columbia is needed to pull together the existing three institutions of higher education-the District of Columbia Teachers College, the Federal City College, and the Washington Technical Institute. The University is also needed to provide broader public higher education for men and women who do not and ordinarily would not turn to the private universities. The University is needed in the Nation's Capital as all the fifty states have also concluded.

In testimony before the District of Columbia City Council in 1970, I recommended a university structure. (A copy of the statement is attached.) I have every reason after four years to conclude that the city continues to require a university structure and program unity to accomplish, among other things, the elimination of unnecessary duplication and to provide the broadest possible offering.

2. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

Creation of a public university, such as the University of the District of Columbia, is not a threat to private universities in the District of Columbia.

Primarily because the students to be served in the great majority by the proposed University of the District of Columbia are not the students enrolled in the private universities. The public and private universities will not conflict. The University of the District of Columbia will not adversely affect the private universities and colleges. The great number of students now who are not served and who should be served by higher education in the Nation's Capital will be served by the new University of the District of Columbia.

The private universities will continue to draw from all over the nation, indeed from all over the world. The private universities will continue to enroll students with financial resources making it possible for them to enroll in the high-tuition institutions.

Although increasingly conscious of the urban problems and needs of urban students, the private institutions have not in the past enrolled any substantial number of students from Washington, D.C. The University of the District of Columbia will attract those students.

There is a place for both the public and private institutions.

3. TEACHERS COLLEGE AS THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

The University of the District of Columbia should include a college of education, which should be developed from the District of Columbia Teachers College.

H.R. 15643 provides that the existing colleges-District of Columbia Teachers College, Federal City College, and Washington Technical Institute-be abolished; these institutions would then constitute the basic structure of the University of the District of Columbia. The Board of Higher Education has proposed that the Teachers College be the nucleus of the College of Education, Federal City College the nucleus of the College of Liberal And Fine Arts, and the Washngton Technical Institute nucleus of the College of Science and Technology. The Board of Vocational Education has accepted that recommendation.

My conviction is that the now existing institutions should become the college structures in the University. The current action of the Board of Higher Education to merge the Teachers College and Federal City College, however, may prevent that development from taking place.

The Board should not now merge the two institutions. Whether the Board has authority to end the existence of the Teachers College, which was established by the Congress in 1929, is a question. Whether in the absence of specific authority the Board can merge the institutions is also a question. Equally important is the matter of logic and common sense raised by an action to merge the two institutions, which within a year would be the nucleus colleges for education and arts. This statement is an expression of hope that the Subcommittee will review the merger, or absorption, effort of the Board.

4. ONE BOARD OF GOVERNANCE

One board of governance for higher education in the District of Columbia is an essential and is properly provided for in H.R. 15643.

H.R. 15643 provided for one board to replace the present two boards. That provision is good, justifiable in view of the one institution, a proposed university, and necessary in light of the history of two boards.

It is regrettable that the intent of the Committee Rough Discussion Draft to bring together all public education cannot at this time be achieved.

The one board is necessary to set policy for a university. Although the different colleges proposed to compose the university have different content and objectives, one board will serve to unify the entire institution, coordinate program, sharpen management and administration, provide for expansion where appropriate and eliminate duplication that is unnecessary.

In 1969 and 1970 the present boards with the District of Columbia Board of Education did establish a "Liaison Committee" organized to accomplish some of the goals noted in the previous sentence. That group, which included the three college presidents and the school superintendent, however, had not met since 1970. Representatives of the two college boards have held meetings in 1973-74. The group was able to reach accord on the need for the University of the District of Columbia.

Nevertheless, I conclude that one board is a valid instrument for setting policy for the new university.

5. COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

The composition of the board of governance should have and will benefit from a membership of fifteen persons including one student, one faculty member, one alumnus. A fifteen-member board would benefit from inclusion of one student, one faculty member, one alumnus. The board would have twelve members from other areas of life, if concern exists over the possibility of board control by studentfaculty-alumnus vested interest.

For several years now the Board of Higher Education has functioned with faculty representatives and student representatives from the District of Columbia Teachers College and Federal City College. Their service has been of value to the Board and to their respective student bodies and faculties. The Teachers College during this span of years has had three Faculty Representatives-Professors Elgy S. Johnson, Sarah M. Pereira, and Estelle W. Taylor. Each has served on the Board without vote and on Board subcommittees. The Board is the better for their contribution. Similarly, the three Teachers College student representatives— Vincent S. Jones, Linda Price, and Vernon Sewell-have also so served that the Board benefits.

Legislation should authorize their membership on the Board of Trustees.

Congress should act now to authorize the new University. The House has acted; the legislation process is moving. Opportunity for a new public university now exists. The process should not be delayed; the matter should not be referred to the mayor and a City Council, which will have so much to do for the city. The City Council does not need to have the city university as another issue. The Senate District Committee should move now to approve legislation for the new university.

In summary, I urge the Subcommittee to support the legislation for the new University of the District of Columbia.

О