ustxtxb_obs_1961_04_15_50_00003-00000_000.pdf

MARTIN ELFANT Sun Life of Canada Houston, Texas CA 4-0686 :B 0 X Soloists JOHN BURKE and CLYDE HAGER Also Stereo .. . Presenting Classical and Show Music and Folk Songs 2703 S. Shepherd, Houston Grady Price and John Burke Owners UT’ers Fight Tuition Boost Demos Hesitant On Blakley-Tower AUSTIN Reps. Frank McGregor of Waco and Reed Quilliam of Lubbock offered two bills to the House revenue committee this week with the hard-sell pitch that although on the surface their bills appeared to double the tuition in statesupported colleges and universities, actually they put the needier students in a better position than they now are. On hand were half a dozen student leaders from the University of Texas who refused to believe them and, in fact, vigorously pleaded with the committee to turn down both propositions. McGregor was carrying the governor’s bill, and he carried it with all the vigor of a samurai cadet, harking back to his own student days at Baylor when he worked for 14 cents an hour but managed to pay $225 a year tuition, and arguing that any youngster with “that spark” could certainly pay $200 a year tuition at today’s wages. Resident students now pay $100 a year tuition in state schools. Three years ago the tuition rate, then $50 a year, was doubled. The governor now asks that the process be repeated. McGregor claims it would raise $10 million a year extra. McGregor’s bill has an amendment, however, which would allow needy students to borrow their full tuition for four years, to be repaid within four years after graduation at four percent interest. McGregor took the position that instead of demanding that a needy student come up with twice as much money as at present, his bill would let him through college without any money. Quilliam’s is also a doubling bill, but with two modifications that make it “less objectionable than a straight across the board increase,” he said. Non-resident students would pay $250 a year tuition, instead of the present $200. There would be no change for medical school tuition. The modifications Quilliam offers are: needy students could receive $50 tuition scholarships; students maintaining a “higher semester grade average than the over-all grade average in his college” would receive an incentive scholarship of up to $50. Non-resident students could receive incentive scholarships but not tuition scholarships. Needy students could receive both tuition and incentive scholarships, but where both are awarded the school at its discretion could limit the incentive scholarship to $25 a semester “if the school needs the money,” said Quilliam. He estimated about 40 percent of the students would be eligible for incentive rebates. He estimated his type of tuition raise would bring , the state an extra $6 million a year. Tech Mystery Said Quilliam: “Since 1935 personal income has gone up fivefold. Tuition in the same time has only doubled. This bill would only triple it. Thus, income would still outpace tuition five to three. The cost of running the University of Texas has increased 1,000 percent since 1935. “Texas ranks 43rd in the nation this increase we would still tie Missouri, Arkansas, and Florida for 40th place.” Rep. B. H. Dewey Jr., Bryan, an opponent of the tuition increase and a sharp counterpuncher in questioning, asked Quilliam: “Do you think there is anyone at Texas Tech \(in Quilliam’s homeing the present $50 tuition?” Quilliam: “Yes, I would think there certainly must be a number.” Dewey: “Then why do you suppose Tech awarded no tuition scholarships for the school year 1959-60–the last year I have figures forwhen the University of Texas was awarding 663 tuition scholarships? Sam Houston State awarded none. Neither did Texas Western. Neither did East Texas State, or Texas A&I, or West Texas State, or Stephen F. Austin State? How do you account for that?” Quilliam: “It sounds like there is a difference of administration. I would certainly take an amendment to this bill that would make the awarding of a tuition scholarship mandatory if need were definitely shown.” Quilliam added: “The opponents of these bills say that society benefits from college graduates and therefore should welcome the burden of turning them out. But the average college graduate earns $200,000 more in a lifetime than the average high school graduate, so he certainly benefits too and should , help society pay for his education.” McGregor contributed to Quilliam’s argument: “Even with this increase, tuition would pay only 16 percent of the cost of running the college. I don’t think that’s asking the student to assume too much of a burden.” The only student witness backing McGregor’s billJerome Hill III, a UT law studentalso cited motoring as ability to pay. He scoffed at the idea the “T-bird driving, all-night partying, champagne drinking students” at UT couldn’t afford to pay more tuition. Rep. George Hinson, Mineola: “Do you think there will be any of these champagne drinking, Tbird driving students here to testify against the bill?” Hill: “I see some in this room now who live pretty high on the hog.” AUSTIN The hotly disputed bill that would require all public school teachers, including those on the college and university level, to swear they believe in a “supreme being” is destined to reappear soon perhaps this Monday, but more likely next Mondayunder conditions that would require only a simple majority to get it brought up for a vote in the House. Monday’s are regular “calendar days,” the day when with the permission of Speaker James Turman members can get legislation moved up from its normal place on the calendar and considered for immediate debate. Some of the most ardent foes of this bill, sponsored by deep East Texas’ Rep. W. T. Oliver, claim that Oliver will use Rep. Bill Hollowell’s friendship with Speaker Turman to assure the bill’s consideration on an upcoming calendar day. Hollowell, chairman of state affairs, ‘ is among those who favor the Oliver bill and he was a strong supporter of Turman in his race for the speakersh ip. The Observer asked Oliver if he intended to make use of Hollowell’s strength for this purpose and Oliver nodded assent. But Hollowell a few minutes later denied that he was taking part in the maneuver. Turman said that he would “hardly try to deny to any member the traditional right to one suspension o the rules,” which means that Oliver needs no one’s help in getting the supreme be The first student opponent, Cameron Hightower, senior law student and former president of the UT student body, said: “I believe I can speak more effectively for University of Texas students than can Mr. Hill, since I got both my undergraduate and graduate training at UT, and did not share his advantages in studying at a private Eastern university,” He went on, “If Texas has one of the lowest tuition rates in the country, this is something the state should be proud of, not ashamed of. Granted, this cannot be argued in a vacuum. We cannot argue for no tuition in the face of the state’s financial difficulties. But an increase in tuition would be a step in the direction of admitting students according to their ability to pay, rather than according to their ability to learn.” Jimmy Dannenbaum, Houston, vice-president of the student body at UT, testified: “I do not own a Thunderbird. I drive an Oldsmobile. I belong to a fraternity, and I have membership in the Deck Club, and I’ve had the privilege of seeing many of you there. “I am subsidized very well from home. “When I graduated from high school I was offered full tuition scholarships at Tulane and MIT, but I came to Texas because I didn’t need help. “But I assure you, I am in a small minority. Many brilliant but needy students would have to accept the scholarship I turned down, if you raise the tuition in this state. They could not afford to stay here and go to school. You would be driving out of the state much precious labor raw material.” He added that “unless my slide rule fails me, and it seldom does, the student would be paying 28.6 percent of burden” of operating a university, not 16 percent as McGregor had testified. B.S. * ing oath bill brought up on a calendar day. Once approved for consideration by the speaker, debate is opened on the approval of only a simple majority of the House members. On ordinary days legislation can be brought up early for debate only after a two-thirds vote approving the move. Oliver, however, said that if need be he is confident he could win such a two-thirds vote and, if the bill reaches the floor, he said he is dead certain of its passage. Explaining his optimism, Oliver said: “You can come up here and vote for horse racing or for drinking and maybe get by with it, but if you vote against God oh oh! I’d just like to see that record vote.” Oliver said he would try to get it to the floor this Monday, but Turman \(who insisted on “no comment” about his attitude tolooked like it would be too full, and the earliest it could probably be considered would be Monday, April 24. Recently speeded through the House state affairs committee when advocates of the bill suddenly found they were in the mawould require that teachers affirm their belief in the existence of a supreme being before being put on the payroll. If a teacher were later caught teaching what some unspecified by the billtribunal considered to be atheism, he would be fired. B.S. Earlier the same day, Blakley had indicated to reporters that he had not considered soliciting the President’s aid. Reporters asked Blakley if he intended seeking the help of John Bailey, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and Blakley replied, “Who’s he?” At this writing, only Attorney General Will Wilson, of the losing Democratic candidates in the primary, has announced his support of Blakley. And in Washington, the only outstanding voice heard in Blakley’s behalf is that of House Speaker Sam Rayburn, who said: “Bill Blakley and I have been personal friends for many years. He is a very able citizen and a good American. I shall give him my support in this race 100 percent.” But the final tabulation by the Texas Election Bureau showed Tower polling 326,394 votes as compared to Blakley’s 191,104, which means that Blakley cannot afford to lose many moderates and liberals either to the stayhome apathy or to the philosophy that two parties would be good for Texas. But already both trends are seen in the liberal camp. Maury Maverick Jr., the liberal’s strongest contender in the primary, announced in San Antonio: “I am against John Tower and will not vote for him. As for Blakley, I don’t know what I’m going to do. Throughout the campaign Blakley disavowed the New Frontier, implied he would fight John Kennedy, reiterated his stand against Dr. Weaver \(National in racial bigotry, said he would get out of the UN and implied that young people serving in the Peace Corps might not be quite loyal. “Considering the above, I don’t know what to do. Maybe I’ll go fishing and take along a copy of The Nation and The New Republic.” The final count for Maverick was 104,896 votes. In Houston, Mrs. R. D. Randolph, former Democratic national committeewoman and a weathervane in liberal politics, said: * “I do not regard William Blakley as the nominee of the Democratic party. The . . . election was not a primary. I am not going to encourage anybody to vote for either candidate.” She added: “A two-party Texas would result in a much healthier political situation than we now have. I have long been interested in seeing Texas as a two-party state. . . . It would help the liberals for it would keep people who are not Democrats from running as Democrats.” There was unabashed joy in the Houston press at the thought of a two-party eventuality, and much quoting of unidentified liberals echoing joy at the prospect. On the practical side, Guy Johnson, of Houston, who was also in the 71-man Senate primary, said the extremist anti-communist group supporting him has raised $22,500 to give to the support of THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 3 April 15, 1961 CLASSIFIED Visit THE MUSIC BOX in Houston. 2305 S. Shepherd. Classical and show music, folk songs. Owned ‘by Grady Price and John Burke. OATH BILL READY the candidate they like best, but they aren’t sure which man that is yet. Tower, who clung to the political coattails of Sen. Barry Goldwater on the far Republican right during the primary, was asked by Abilene Reporter-News reporter Lane Talburt this week if he intended to –go after the moderate and liberal vote. Tower’s reply: “I am not making any change in my position. Any appeal that I make will be on a broad basis that I am sincere, honest, and conscientious.” Tower tried to coax Blakley into a television debate series, but was turned down this week by the interim senator, who groused, “I don’t expect to arrange my schedule to accommodate the television stations.” Speculation on the outcome of a hypothetical debate series briefly brightened what otherwise was a rather drab pastime for political observers. It was conceded that college-educated ex-professor Tower would have had the edge on Blakley in polish, but the self-educated multi-millionaire would have scuttled Tower in experience. Meanwhile, Congressman Jim Wright, who polled 170,000 votes for a surprisingly strong third place in the primary, said in Washington he was considering running for the office of governor. Wright said he wasn’t sure he was qualified for the job and that he would rather be a good representative than a mediocre governor. At President Kennedy’s news conference this week, Observer columnist Robert Spivak asked: