THE UNDERGRADUATE CHAIR

As this issue goes to press, the petition being circulated for the Undergraduate Council by its Academic Committee, opposing the disclaimer affidavit of the National Defense Education Act, has been signed by some 500 undergraduates. Five hundred more signatures are expected by the time it has been circulated to the entire student body.

The petition, drawn up by committee members Saul Baernstein '60 and Dave Blake '61, supports the stand taken by the UGC at the suggestion of the Academic Committee in mid-January. By signing the petition, a student indicates that he is opposed to the loyalty affidavit contained in Section 1001(f) of the NDEA* and urges Congress to remove the affidavit requirement. As-far as we know, this is one of the first such movements conducted solely by students on any American college campus. The circulation of this petition shows the interest that Dartmouth students have in the vital issues of education. At other Eastern colleges, the faculty and administration took the lead, while the students idly sat by.

The Undergraduate Council is not alone in its work for the removal of this affidavit. The Human Rights Society and the Dartmouth Christian Union, under the direction of hockey star Tom Wahman '60, have indicated a more radical opposition to the affidavit by urging complete withdrawal from the program. Only ten days ago, less than one-third of the faculty voted 44-41 to drop out of the program, until the disclaimer affidavit was removed from the National Defense Education Act.

Let's look briefly at the action that has been taken by the UGC, Dartmouth's student governing body.

When controversy broke on the national scene last fall, the UGC sent the problem to the Academic Committee for study, anticipating that a suggested line of action for Dartmouth would eventually be proposed. The problem remained in committee for about five weeks, while the members talked to officials from Dartmouth College, including President Dickey, the federal government and Oberlin College.

In early January, after a 2½-hour debate and a 37-22 vote, the UGC resolved to "(1) Condemn the affidavit of Section 1001(f) of the NDEA, (2) Urge the College to remain in the program, giving the individual student the right to accept or reject the funds and (3) Work for the removal of this objectionable affidavit." Under the NDEA loan program, the College has received almost $124,000 from the government for student loans. This amount must be matched by College funds, at the rate of one dollar for every nine of the government's. A student must sign the oath and affidavit before receiving any money; all opposition has arisen over the disclaimer affidavit of section 1001(f) of the act.

The oath differs from the affidavit in that the former simply affirms one's allegiance to the country, while the affidavit is held to be a negative statement of beliefs. The big objection to the affidavit has been that it fails to accomplish the purpose for which it is intended. An avowed Communist would not hesitate to sign such an affidavit and, in fact, would probably be glad for the opportunity. The Academic Committee feels that such a requirement has no direct relationship to the loan or eventual use of the money.

The affidavit has been found to discriminate against students as a group and, in particular, those poorer students who need the use of such funds. One final complaint against it, the committee found, was future possibility of further federal control of independent, private colleges.

The committee considered impractical any plan to reject the whole program. Over 200 students, including freshmen, have benefited from these funds. In fact, almost 64% of all College loans this year have been from government money. Robert K. Hage '35, Dartmouth's financial aid officer, indicated that he could not see where other funds would come from. The committee opposed trying to obtain them from capital gifts money.

Finally it is held that the problem is basically an individual matter; and one for the borrower to decide for himself. It is felt that the College has no right to reject these funds, denying the individual Dartmouth undergraduate the right to say whether he would accept or reject the money on idealistic or moralistic grounds.

Two major stands have emerged from all the discussion. On one side is the non- representative stand of the faculty to reject the funds until the affidavit is removed; and, on the other side, the unanimous stand of the Academic Committee and majority stand of the Undergraduate Council to condemn the affidavit and work for its removal but stay in the program, giving the individual student the right to choose.

* Sec. 1001(f): No part of any funds appropriated or otherwise made available for expenditure under authority of this ACT shall be used to make payments or loans to any individual unless such individual (1) has executed and filed with the Commissioner an affidavit that he does not believe in, and is not a member of and does not support any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods, and (2) has taken and subscribed to an oath or affirmation in the following form: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America and will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all its enemies, foreign and domestic." The provisions of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, shall be applicable with respect to such affidavits.

William G. Batt '60 of Indianapolis, chairman of the UGC Academic Committee, writesof intense student interest in the affidavitrule of the National Defense Education Act.