program, because the National Defense Education Act experience shows a delinquency of up to 16 percent.

With private enterprise administering the loan program, it is much more likely to be lower in cost than when the Federal Government administers it. I am sure I am sure that will be the actuarial record which we shall see as a result of this historymaking program of guaranteed private loans for college education.

Another point which I believe to be worthy of note is the scholarship portion of the bill. Let us not be deceived by the word "scholarship." This is a scholarship for needy students. The scholarships would range from $200 to $800 a year, with a special provision-of which I am proud to be the author, incidentally-adding $200 to that scholarship, making a maximum of a thousand dollars, to students from low-income families, who place in the upper half of their classes. This is the first time that we have recognized scholastic excellence while the student is going to college. In connection with scholarships we have generally recognized the student's preceding record. Here is a provision by which we give a bonus to the student who maintains a high level of scholarship while he is attending college.

Senator MORSE has spoken of the amendment, of which I am proud to have been the author, providing for 15 percent of the allocation of scholarship aid to colleges and universities within a State to go directly to the State's own scholarship fund on an even-matching basis, to be used for needy but meritorious students. This offers a kind of "carrot" to the State to increase its scholarship fund for needy students.

There are many other amendments which are worthy of note. I shall mention only a few. I am proud that the minority has been responsible for so many. They are all detailed in the addi

tional views, carried in the committee report. I hope they will have the atten

tion of every Senator.

I should like to point to a provision

and is one of the most commendable aspects of this very commendable

measure.

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROUTY] is in the Chamber, and I should like to say a word especially about him, as he is the ranking minority member on the Education Subcommittee and led the minority side on the key work of the subcommittee in this field. A little research demonstrates that Senator PROUTY represents the same State that was represented by Senator Justin S. Morrill, of Vermont, the author of the pioneering Morrill Act of 1862, which allotted substantial land grants to the States for the establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges. It is therefore entirely in this great tradition that Senator PROUTY was responsible for so many constructive amendments to the bill, among them extending National Defense Education Act loan forgiveness to teachers in poverty impacted areas, broadening the Higher Education Facilities Act to include arts and humanities, broadening the title V fellowship program to include nonpublic school teachers, adding industrial arts to title IX of the National Defense Education Act, and adding economics to titles III and IX of the National Defense Education Act, to name a few.

Those are some of the enormous contributions the Senator from Vermont has made.

I should like also to note the extraordinarily fine contribution made by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK], a new Senator, who has already proved his great worth, especially in the area of library services, in which he rendered extraordinary service in his amendment postponing the cutoff of the National Defense Education Act Institutes for School Libraries, for example, and in many other respects improved the bill.

Finally, Mr. President, a word of commendation on behalf of the minority for the constructive and helpful cooperation

received from the Office of Education and its representatives, Dr. Samuel Halperin,

Jersey [Mr. CASE], as well as by the Senator from Texas [Mr. TowER], making more flexible the use of funds for construction grants to public community colleges and public technical institutes under the Higher Education Facilities Act. This has helped in materially improving the amounts which will effectively be made available for this kind of help.

I should also like to take special note of the provision in title II to help improve library services. There are great deficiencies in the library services, even in such big and relatively wealthy States as my own State of New York. There are many institutions with inadequate libraries in the 134 4-year institutions with libraries in the State of New York. Notwithstanding, despite the great munificence of alumni, it is almost impossible to obtain from private sources necessary contributions to support the libraries.

The great incentive which will be given by the aid contained in this bill will be of extraordinary help in that regard,

Chester Relyea of the Office of the Gen

eral Counsel.

There has been great praise, and quite properly, for the majority staff, which did such a fine job. I should like to say a word for the minority staff. Roy Millenson, minority clerk, and Stephen Kurzman, minority counsel, have done a service of inestimable benefit to the bill and to the Nation, as well as to the minority. Without these dedicated staff members, and without the brilliant efforts of Charles Lee and Jack Forsythe of the majority staff, I do not believe we would be here today in such an effective posture for a historic advance in meeting the Nation's obligations to its own future in the higher education field. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. RANDOLPH subsequently said: Mr. President, as stated earlier in the debate, I enthusiastically support H.R. 9567, a bill designed to strengthen the educational resources of our colleges and universities and to provide financial asuniversities and to provide financial assistance for students in postsecondary sistance for students in postsecondary and higher education. It was my reand higher education. It was my re

sponsibility to be a cosponsor of this measure approved unanimously by our Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, and the full committee.

In his educational message to the Congress, President Johnson clearly described the status of higher education in the United States and recommended remedies for alleviating some of its deficiencies. Unparalleled change and expansion in science and technology, cultural achievement, and in enhancing the lives of all citizens has placed a heavy responsibility on colleges and universities. They must train men and women to cope with the serious problems confronting this Nation and the world. Our institutions must do this in the face of rapidly expanding enrollments, enlarged faculties, the mounting number and complexity of courses, and increased cost.

An essential bulwark in the higher educational program is the library. As one authoritative statement stresses it:

The library should be the most important

intellectual resource of the academic community. Its services, given by a competent staff of adequate size, should be geared to implement the purposes of the college's general program and to meet the specific educational objectives of the institution ***. Beyond supporting the instructional program to the fullest extent, the library should endeavor to meet the legitimate demands of all its patrons, from the senior professor engaged in advanced research to the freshman just entering upon the threshold of higher learning.

Mr. President, the effectiveness of the

library in fulfilling its functions to the college program may be measured 'in terms of books and journals, personnel, buildings, and finances.

From the national viewpoint, when we look at some of these factors, we discover serious deficiencies. For instance, when

the national standards are applied with respect to the 4-year institutions, approximately 50 percent fall below the minimum, as do 80 percent of the 2-year

institutions.

In the United States, only 129 libraries

One of

in institutions of higher education contain 300,000 or more volumes. these, I am gratified to state, is West Virginia University, with over half a million volumes. However, of the sixteen 4-year institutions in our State with libraries of under 300,000 volumes, 15 do not meet standards. In the case of the 2-year institutions, three in number, none meet the standards for books. It is evident, therefore, that prompt attention must be given to ways of increasing these sorely needed library resources.

Libraries must have adequate financial support. After careful consideration of the matter, competent authorities have decided that 5 percent is the reasonable proportion of the total educational and general budget to be devoted to the adequate operation of the library. Actually, the present average expenditure for all colleges in the United States is only 3.5

percent, instead of the recommended 5 percent.

In West Virginia, of the seventeen 4year institutions of higher education, 14 do not meet the national support standard for their libraries. Of the three 2year institutions in my State, two spend less than the recommended 5 percent of the total operating budget of the college. These shortcomings will be remedied in part by the three types of grants provided in S. 600: Basic, supplemental, and special purpose.

Of special satisfaction to me are the provisions in S. 600 for training and research in the field of librarianship. The shortage of 125,000 trained librarians, which was repeatedly called to our attention while considering this bill, is not just another statistic to be taken lightly. To ignore the lack of librarians means we are crippling our Nation's forward

stride toward quality education to meet

(See exhibit 1.)

Senator from Illinois.
Mr. ERVIN. I thank the distinguished

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, when the Senate was considering the Civil

Mr. DIRKSEN. I have read the language of the 1964 act. The language that I now propose is identical with that act, and it is identical with the language that was adopted by the House of Representatives. There can be no doubt that the meaning behind H.R. 10486 was to clarify the congressional intent that the Civil Rights Act was not to be construed in such manner as to interfere with membership and internal practices of social and fraternal organizations.

It is my belief that the provision merely gave recognition to the announced proposition of the Supreme Court that the right of our citizens to associate privately for a lawful purpose without interference is a right protected by the Constitution under the 1st and 14th amendments.

ability of every citizen.

President Johnson stressed in his message that higher education was a necessity, not a luxury. By passing the Higher

Education Act of 1965, we are making a progressive step toward providing increased opportunity and excellence in education for our people.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I offer an amendment and ask that it be read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. amendment will be stated.

The

The legislative clerk read as follows: On page 212, line 15, insert "or any other

Act" after the word “Act”.

On page 212, line 21, immediately before

able discussion on enlarging and amplifying the powers of the Civil Rights Commission, over the matter of certain exclusions and exemptions of private clubs,

fraternities, sororities, and religious groups. The exclusion was finally included in title VI of the Civil Rights Act; and when the instant bill was under consideration in the House of Representatives, language identical with that in the Civil Rights Act was incorporated in the higher education bill.

ers, the chairman of the House ComIt had general support. Among othmittee on Education and Labor, Repre

Apparently because title VII of the Civil Rights Act fails to contain a protective provision under title V, the power has been brought to bear against our colleges and universities by the threat of withholding from them any form of Federal assistance. This has been clearly

shown through correspondence with the Commissioner of Education, Mr. Francis Keppel. I ask unanimous consent that certain correspondence bearing upon this point be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. objection, it is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

(See exhibit 3.)

clear that the Congress must act now to Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, it is insure the continuation of our fraternity

following:

"or the membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, fraternity or sorority, any private club or any religious organization of any institution of higher education".

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. TOWER. With the permission of the Senator from Illinois, I should like my name to be added as a cosponsor of

the amendment.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I am pleased to have the Senator from Texas as a cosponsor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With out objection, it is so ordered.

corded on page 21947 of the RECORD, corded on page

said:

We discussed that amendment and I hesitate to say something complimentary concerning the gentleman from Louisiana which may get back to his constituents but I would because I was the author, as my colleagues like to say that we accept this amendment know, of the Powell amendment in 1954, which at that time was very unpopular, the withholding of funds from any educational institution that did not comply with the decision of the Supreme Court. As the years came and went, this became a part of the Civil Rights Act. But in my original view then, and I hold that view now, I do not believe that there should be any withholding of funds from any institution of higher education because of discriminatory praceducation because of discriminatory practices on the campus by private clubs and,

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the therefore, I agree with the gentleman from

Senator yield further?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY], the Senator from Mississippi from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] and I had prepared an amendment we intended to offer to this bill, which is substantially similar to the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois.

For that reason, we shall withhold the submission of the amendment which we prepared, and I ask the Senator from Illinois if he would be so gracious as to permit the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from Mississippi, and myself to become cosponsors of his amendment.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I should be delighted to have them do so.

Louisiana.

The amendment, incidentally, was offered by the Representative from Louisiana, Mr. WAGGONNER, and in the remarks by the chairman of the committee marks by the chairman of the committee is his concurrence in the amendment.

The amendment, in my opinion, is necessary to insure the independence and freedom of our fraternal and social organizations. It is unfortunate that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is apparently being used against the express intent of the Congress.

I ask unanimous consent, at this point, that there be printed at the end of my remarks various articles and other items that have a bearing upon this point.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 2.)

69 percent of the membership of the Senate and approximately 35 percent of the membership of the House of Representatives serving in the 89th Congress are members of college social fraternities and sororities.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Shield & Diamond of the Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity entitled "Fraternity Folks in the 89th Congress," be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 4.)

Mr. DIRKSEN. I think my distinguished friend, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE] is a ПIKA, if I remember correctly as is also the distinguished Sen

ator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN]. The minority leader, too, is a member of IIKA.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that we may ask for clarification of what he is trying to accomplish?

Mr. DIRKSEN. Let me clarify the point.

Mr. President, bearing on this point, the Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF), on the 7th of June, wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Education with respect to this matter, which is exhibit 3. I read one paragraph of the Commissioner's letter wherein he says:

This language makes it apparent that an institution which maintains a fraternity system as a part of its activities and overall program is responsible to the Civil Rights

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Illinois yield?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.

hibited. However, it is my impression that college fraternities and sororities are tolerated rather than maintained at the various institutions. These private social organizations are financed by private contributions subject only to certain general college restrictions that are placed upon all students.

Thus far, I have been unable to get a reply to this letter, in which I raised the

point that most college fraternities and sororities are financed privately, and, thus, are constituted as private organizations, and that they are not maintained in any respect by the university or college authority. Most fraternities in North Carolina own their own fraternity

the colleges or universities.

Mr. METCALF. The reason why I houses which are not connected with wrote the letter, as is apparent from the letter itself, which is to be printed in the RECORD at the request of the Senator from Illinois, was that the Stanford University chapter of Sigma Chi pledged a

Negro.

As a result of that action, the National Chapter of Sigma Chi expelled the local chapter. I am fortunate and proud

to be a member of the Stanford Chapter of Sigma Chi.

This Negro was an outstanding individual. It is difficult to get into a Stanford University fraternity, in any event. The blackball system is in operation there. Many fraternal associations have such a rule, so that any member can blackball an individual.

On the Stanford campus, all the fraternity houses are located on university land. All the fraternity houses are owned by the university. Many other fraternity houses are a part of the dormitory system. They are financed by loans from the Federal Government.

I am sure that is what Commissioner Keppel meant when he said, "maintained as a part of the activities and the overall program." That was the specific question I asked Mr. Keppel. I said:

When you have a fraternity that is located on university land, or when you have a fraternity house which is owned by a university and the fraternity house premises are

maintained by the university, does the Civil

Rights Act apply?

Mr. Keppel specifically and carefully answered that question and stated that it did apply.

I would assume from his answer that it would not apply to premises located off campus owned by building corporations, or by local fraternities. I wish to make that distinction crystal clear.

I hope to speak on the amendment

later.

Mr. DIRKSEN. I was about to get to that point.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for an observation in response to this point?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I am glad to yield.

I invited the attention of the Commissioner to the case of Gibson v. Florida, sioner to the case of Gibson v. Florida, 372 U.S. 539, 83 S. Ct. 889, March 25, 1965, 372 U.S. 539, 83 S. Ct. 889, March 25, 1965, in which the Supreme Court of the

United States held that Government is

powerless to legislate with respect to membership in a lawful organization.

I cannot get a reply from the Commissioner on the subject, but it seems to me that if the Government is powerless to legislate in respect to membership in a lawful organization, then an agency of the executive branch cannot legally go the executive branch cannot legally go beyond the law as passed by Congress and legislate on its own behalf in respect and legislate on its own behalf in respect to the membership requirements of prito the membership requirements of private organizations which are perfectly lawful.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for yielding to me.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Let me say to my friend the Senator from North Carolina that we have had a long discussion on this matter, when title VI, dealing with the authority and powers of the Civil Rights Commission, came before the Senate in 1964. I have the language before me. Paragraph 6, section 104 reads as

follows:

Nothing in this or any other Act shall be construed as authorizing the Commission, its Advisory Committees, or any person under its supervision or control to inquire into or

investigate any membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, any college or university fraternity or sorority, any private club or any religious organization.

That was approved by the Senate and the House and that has been on the statute books for more than a year.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

and then I shall be glad to yield.

Mr. DIRKSEN. One more observation

With respect to the question raised by my friend the Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF] as to the expulsion of a person from Sigma Chi, there was an answer to it, as I understand, that that was not the reason for suspending the Stanford chapter at all. They had in

Mr. ERVIN. On August 17, 1965, Ivestigated the language and the conduct

wrote to Mr. Keppel, Commissioner of Education, a letter in which I stated:

In your letter to Senator METCALF, you justify the action of your office by stating that fraternities are maintained by universities and institutions as a part of its activities and overall programs. If the college fraternities were financed and maintained as a part of the educational purposes of a particular institution, a case might be made for your requirement that discrimination be pro

of that chapter and it showed real contempt for the national organization. That was the basis for the suspension. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield?

fact that if the amendment is adopted, the matter will not be in conference.

Mr. DIRKSEN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. JAVITS. It will be locked into the final bill as it is now in the House bill.

However, let me ask the Senator this question: Is what the Senator is seeking to correct the fact that the Commissioner of Education has, in the Senator's judgment, not complied with title V of the Civil Rights Act? That is what the Senator has just read from and it appears to relate to the powers and duties of the Civil Rights Commission, whereas the substantive authority to deny Federal funds to a program or activity is contained in title VI. Is it the Senator's contention here that the law is inadequate, or that the administration runs counter to the law which we already have; namely, the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Mr. DIRKSEN. The answer is simple. First, the language I recited is from title VI of the Civil Rights Act and does not involve the question of Federal assistance and what might happen thereafter.

The distinguished Senator from Texas, I am informed, was advised by telephone by the Assistant Commissioner of Education, that they intended to make that general principle apply with respect to Federal funds to an institution where there were sororities and fraternities over which, actually, they had no control; because, after all, they are national nonprofit corporations, strictly private in nature. It is only that they are identified with the schools that they would undertake to make that a basis for withholding Federal funds.

I cannot, for one moment, conceive or contemplate that that was ever in the minds of Congress at any time, in view of the interdiction that we placed upon the Civil Rights Commission.

I wish to be sure, where Federal assistance to a school is involved, that they do not come in and say, "Sorry, you can have no scholarship money. You can have no grant. You can have no loan. You can have no project. You cannot have anything, because of the internal operation and the rule under which sororities and fraternities, strictly private, may operate."

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.

Mr. JAVITS. I wish to express my op

position to any sorority or fraternity which discriminates against Negroes, Jews, or anybody else. However, leaving that aside, I am a lawyer, and I realize that this is private activity, and that Congress has no power to regulate it

unless it is assisted by Federal or State funds.

Mr. JAVITS. In the first place, I am sure that the Senator is aware of the

reach it?

Mr. DIRKSEN. That is not what the amendment provides. And that is not

what title VI of the Civil Rights Act provides. The language there is, "to inquire into or investigate any membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, any college or university, fraternity, or sorority, any private club, or any religious organization."

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the Senator is under a misapprehension of fact. The Senator is not reading title VI. The Senator is reading paragraph 6 of section 104 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as amended by the 1964 act.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Of title VI.
Mr. JAVITS. No.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Of title V.

Mr. JAVITS. That is different.

rect.

Mr. JAVITS. Title VI provides something very different. Reading from sec

tion 602.

Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity, by way of grant, loan, or contract other than a contract of insurance or guarantee, is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 601 with respect to such program or activity.

In short, it is only when a Federal department or agency is helping a program or activity that it has any authority in this field. That is the reason why

I asked the Senator what the reach of his amendment was, whether he was correcting the Commissioner because he was administering title VI of the Civil Rights Act wrongly, or whether the Senator intended to change the substantive law.

I say to the Senator that if he can demonstrate that the Commissioner is wrongly administering a section, I would want to do everything I could to see that he correctly administered it. However, I certainly will not be a party to changing title VI of the Civil Rights Act when it comes to allowing Federal money to go to any fraternity or sorority-I do not care how private it is—which would use that Federal money to deny rights to a Negro or to somebody else that that fraternity or sorority does not like because of race, color, or national origin.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, the money might go to a school and an alleged act of discrimination on the part of a fraternity or sorority might be discovered. Is the school to be punished? It would be punished if that were the

case.

I want to be sure that we are clear on that point.

I believe that the Senator from Texas, who is on the committee, has had some conversation that will clear that matter

up.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, one other point, so that we do not pass each other like ships in the night. If sorority A conducts a dormitory and that dormitory is helped by Federal funds, that sorority may not, if it is going to continue to conduct that dormitory, discriminate against Negroes. It can remain as a sorority on that campus for 150 years, but it has to give up conducting its dormitory with the aid of Federal funds. That is all that I say, and nothing else.

CXI-1430

porations. Usually the property on which the houses are located is owned by such a corporation. In some cases, it is a leasehold that the fraternity or sorority enjoys for a period of 99 years. I do not believe that this would put restrictions on such practices from that point of view merely because the university leases property to them and receives a stipend for it.

This would not be a part of the university operation. The fraternities and sororities supplement the housing that is currently provided by many colleges and universities.

The fraternities and sororities help to

keep up with the housing demands on the campus. I believe that, in that sense, they make a general contribution to the field of education. I can think of many other things other than the provision read by the Senator that would refer to civil rights activities. I believe refer to civil rights activities. I believe that the same opportunity would carry over into other titles of the act.

I supported title VI of the act. I opposed, I believe, every attempt to weaken title VI of the Civil Rights Act. I do not believe that Federal money should be used to finance any college or university in which discrimination is practiced. However, I believe that we need to preserve the right of private, social, fraternal, and religious organizations to determine their own membership.

To carry this to its logical extension, this could mean that Federal funds could be denied to a college which, let us say, allowed the Westminister Club, the Norman Club, or the Baptist Student Movement, or any other club with a religious affiliation, to use the rooms and facilities of the college.

There could be complaints of violations of the Civil Rights Act. I point out

that if this amendment were not agreed to, it could mean that many universities would be harmed. They want to preserve the fraternities and sororities.

Money comes to fraternities and sororities from the contributions of the alumni to a college or university. It would in effect remove university supervision from fraternities and sorority housing and activities to the extent that there would be no supervision of affairs, whereas currently we do have the affairs supervised by responsible national organizations.

If we were to do away with this system, we would still have private clubs

choose their own associates. They will have less supervision, control, and direction.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, this amendment would apply to any fraternal organization. It would apply to a fraternal organization that has quarters and dormitories. It would apply to a fraternal organization such as that which I suggested at Stanford University where they borrow money from the Federal Government and build a fraternity house and lease it to the fraternity. It would apply to a fraternity whether they are living in dormitories off campus, or wherever it is.

It is my interpretation of Mr. Keppel's letter, and I am sure that the Senator from Illinois can read the pertinent part of the letter and interpret it in the same way, that it refers only to those fraternities in which the university maintains the facilities that are covered by title VI, and only such a situation.

My letter specifically said that what I spoke of was a situation such as exists versity maintains a fraternity system. at Stanford University, where the uniIt owns the land. It owns the houses. It borrows money from the Federal Gov

ernment to build the houses under the

Dormitory Act.

What happens then, when there is discrimination? Mr. Keppel answered that question on the narrow issue. He said that when there is discrimination in that nance of the fraternity, title VI of the situation, in which there is the mainteCivil Rights Act would apply.

I agree with the Senator from Texas that the fraternities and sororities located off campus, owned by a building corporation, by the fraternity house, or privately owned, are not under title VI. However, as I understand the amendhe covers the whole waterfront, all frament offered by the Senator from Illinois, ternities, sororities, and fraternal orga

nizations.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I just read the language of the amendment. It is as clear as crystal. It is identical with what was in the House bill. It reads:

Any membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, any

college or university fraternity or sorority, any private club or any religious organization

of any institution of higher learning

Mr. METCALF. There is no equivocation. It covers the whole waterfront.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes; it covers everything which concerns internal operations and practices. It is wholly that and As the Senator from nothing more. North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN] pointed out, all that is involved is the right of freedom of association, as passed upon by the Supreme Court on many occasions.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I may suggest a way out of this problem. I urge the Senator from Texas to think about this during a short quorum call to see if we cannot add to the amendment which the Senator has submitted the following language: "Except in the conduct

of any program of activity receiving Federal assistance referred to in section 602 of Public Law 88-352."

I am making an effort to separate what is valid from what is not. I do not like discrimination in any form, but that is another matter. At least let us reach any practice which comes within the flow of Federal funds assisting activities of higher education. I believe this suggestion will do it. I submit it to the mover of the amendment only as a suggestion, and as a way of expressing in law what we are trying to express in discussion and in an area in which there is no material disagreement.

Mr. DIRKSEN. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina had some language he wished to submit. Perhaps he would be interested in doing it at the present time.

Mr. ERVIN. I did not intend to submit this

educational institutions which have fraternities or sororities are not eligible for Federal funds if those fraternities and sororities

practice what is in the Commissioner's opinand bylaws of these organizations do not contain a clause which excludes members on the grounds of race or color. In other words, if it is found that one of the small private fraternal organizations which is located on the campus of one of our great universities has excluded an individual, allegedly because of his race, then Federal funds are cut off from the entire university.

ion discrimination, even if the constitution

However, the action of the Office of Education not only exceeds the authority granted to it under section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but also violates the very spirit of that act as embodied in section 504(a) (6)

which states:

"(6) Nothing in this or any other act shall be construed as authorizing the Commission, its advisory committee, or any person under its supervision or control to inquire into or investigate any membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organiza

Mr. ERVIN. I believe the amendment would meet the objection raised by the Senator from Montana [Mr. METCALF] and the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS), if it were agreed to add this language at the end of the amendment: "whose facilities are not owned by the institution of higher education and whose activities are financed by funds derived from private sources."

Mr. DIRKSEN. In other words, no private money would be involved.

Mr. ERVIN. There would be no Government property used and no Government money involved. I believe in the I believe in the greatest amount of liberty for people. I would accord the Senator the right to form an organization discriminating against me

Mr. JAVITS. I would not do it. Mr. ERVIN. People should have the right to do it if it is a private organization. One of the greatest rights of the people is the right to select their own associates.

For that reason, if the Senator from Illinois will modify his amendment by adding those words, it would meet the objection raised.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll.

The

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

sorority, any private club, or any religious organization."

Commissioner Keppel justifies the action of his Office by stating that fraternities are maintained by universities and institutions as a part of their "activities and overall program." If the college fraternities were financed and maintained as a part of the educational purposes of a particular institution, a case might be made for the requirement that discrimination be prohibited. However, it is my impression that college fraternities

and sororities are tolerated rather than maintained at the various institutions. These private social organizations are financed by private contributions subject only to certain general college restrictions that are placed upon all students.

The action of the Office of Education is also in direct violation of the decision in Gibson v. Florida, 372 U.S. 539 (1965), holding that government is "powerless to *** legislate with respect to membership in a lawful organization." I know of no decision that has come down in the 6 months since this opinion was announced that overrules the case.

This amendment only restates the traditional American principle of freedom of association that has time and again been sustained by the Supreme Court and has never, as far as I know, until now, been challenged by the Federal Government.

Mr. President, when the day comes when we no longer have the freedom to choose our associates in purely private social organizations, we have reached the day when we have no freedom at all.

EXHIBIT 2

[From the New York Times, June 18, 1965] COLLEGES FACE U.S. AID CUTOFF IF THEY PERMIT FRATERNITY BIAS

(By Wallace Turner)

EXHIBIT 1

On page 212, line 15, after the word "Act" insert the words "or any other Act", and on page 212, line 21, strike out the period, insert a semicolon, and add the following language: "or the membership practices or internal operations of any fraternal organization, any college or university fraternity or sorority, any private club or any religious organization at any institution of higher education."

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ERVIN As Senators may know, Commissioner of Education Keppel recently decided that

pel, Commissioner of Education, declared today.

His statement was in a letter to Senator LEE METCALF, Democrat, of Montana, who had asked about the situation involved in the suspension last April of the Sigma Chi Chapter at Stanford University.

The suspension came in a letter from the national fraternity dated 4 days after a Negro student had accepted a bid to pledge the Stanford chapter.

The issue touches on the entire system of Federal grants to colleges and universities.

If Mr. Keppel found that a fraternity was practicing racial discrimination, he would

then question the "assurances of compliance" filed by the schools under title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The schools would be required to end the discrimination, either by changing the practices of the fraternity or by removing the offending chapter from the campus.

The alternative would be a procedure initiated by Mr. Keppel under which all Federal grants could be shut off to the colleges where the fraternity operated chapters.

Harry V. Wade, national president of Sigma Chi, has denied that the pledging of Kenneth M. Washington, a Negro freshman who is the son of a Denver physician, was the reason for the suspension of the Stanford chapter.

He said recently that "the reason we suspended the chapter was because of its contemptuous attitude toward the fraternity and the other Sigma Chi chapters in its area."

Mr. Wade is an executive of the Standard Life Insurance Co. of Indiana.

After the national Sigma Chi fraternity acted against the Stanford chapter, the Board of Regents at the University of Colorado voted to place the Sigma Chi chapter at Boulder on probation.

Sigma Chi's national convention opened here last night. A delegation from the Stanford chapter is in attendance, accompanied by legal advisers.

The Stanford students refused today to discuss their situation. They have made it clear, however, that they believe the chapter was suspended because it pledged Mr. Washington.

Senator METCALF recently called Mr. Keppel's attention to the dispute between the national fraternity and its Stanford chapter of which the Senator is an alumnus.

It was pointed out that while the fraternity has no discriminatory clause in its constitution, it does have a clause that forbids a chapter to propose for membership anyone "who for any reason is likely to be considered personally unacceptable as a brother by any chapter or any member anywhere."

Senator METCALF said the national fraternity's action "may endanger Sigma Chi on every campus in America."

Mr. Keppel's letter appeared to bear this out. He pointed out that regulations issued under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require schools to give assurances that there is no racial discrimination "in admission practices or any other practices of the institution relating to the treatment of students."

[From the Washington (D.C.) Star, June 20,

1965]

COLLEGES GET U.S. WARNING ABOUT BIAS IN FRATERNITIES

The Nation's colleges must make certain that fraternities on their campuses do not practice racial discrimination if they want to continue receiving Federal grants, according to the Office of Education.

This interpretation of Civil Rights Act requirements was made by Commissioner of Education Francis Keppel in connection with a report that Sigma Chi national fraternity had suspended its Stanford University chapmember. ter shortly after the group pledged a Negro

Keppel said: "An institution which maintains a fraternity system as part of its activities and overall program is responsible under the Civil Rights Act requirements for assuring that discrimination is not practiced by fraternities in the system."

An HEW spokesman added that regardless of the formalities between a local chapter and its parent organization, the terms of the act make it necessary for individual colleges to be sure that racial discrimination is not practiced.

He said a finding that a fraternity practices racial discrimination could result in requirements that most colleges end the dis