|
submitted, is not only desirable, but neces-
sary to give the maximum assurance that
boards will be able to speak independently
as to needs free from partisan politics,
rather than serve as mere insulators from
the public for local elected officials who ap-
pointed them in areas which become con-
troversial.
In conclusion, we claim that those who
would claim that is mere excess verbiage
would do well to ask themselves this ques-
tion: is the local board of education that
can be changed by referendum and which
for over a century has proven its worth,
less important and therefore not mentioned
in the same constitution that mandates non-
judicial commissions or nominating com-
missions which have yet to be tried and can
only be changed by constitutional amend-
ment. Ask yourselves that question in de-
termining whether this is mere excess ver-
biage. The citizens of this State through
their PTA's, lay boards and civic groups
would certainly give a resounding yes in
preference for the mentioning of local
boards. They are aware that it is this sys-
tem that influences their most precious
possession, their children. I have two chil-
dren in this system and I can tell you that
there is nothing more precious to me than
their future. They are affected on a daily
basis, not occasionally, as in other areas of
government. Their minds are molded for
better or for worse. Their futures are di-
rectly at stake in the type of education
they receive. The majority further suggests
that the real answer to the question which
I pose is not an either/or choice, but rather
one that would say that both are desirable,
that it might be desirable to have the
delegates of this Convention prove, as has
been stated by many, that it is not merely
a majority of lawyers only interested in
providing a judicial system free of politics
but rather an educational system which
is more sensitive to political abuse, and
that this educational system has also been
recognized without freezing it in abso-
lute terms. The principle at issue is a guar-
antee of local boards of education composed
of nonprofessional members. This is not a
protection of the establishment. Those are
nonprofessional members. Professionals can-
not serve on them or do not serve on them.
We suggest it is important to assure that
the people have the right to be represented
on these boards; that it is a board that is
checked by another organ of the govern-
ment from overzealous action; that this
balance between those who are not profees-
sional educators and those who are not the
officials responsible for running the entire
|
county should be placed inbetween to val-
iantly assess the need without fear of re-
prisal and yet to be required to go to the
elected officials of the entire county and
raise the money for the entire county and
thereby get their needs recognized in pro-
portion to other needs of the county. The
boards were first established by local refer-
endum in 1826.
Next we move to the section on higher
education. There is a basic reason for de-
bating them in this order. It is part of the
recognition of the tripartite concept which
has so recently been adopted in many states
of the country. What is autonomy? Is it a
blank check? No.
Is a power grab? No.
It can best be summarized by several
quotations from the Eisenhower Committee
which expresses it much more eloquently
than I could.
I would like at this point just to briefly
quote a few of the observations made by
the Eisenhower Committee on "The Effici-
ency of Freedom" concerning autonomy.
The people who composed this Commission,
included the Chairman, Milton S. Eisen-
hower, names like Father Kavanaugh,
James B. Conant, Herbert R. O'Conor, Sar-
gent Shriver and many others.
"The founders of our colleges and uni-
versities, both public and private, sensi-
tive to this need of intellectual freedom
and the desirability of protecting faculty,
students and administrations of institu-
tions created governing boards of laymen
to whom the responsibility for the welfare
and perpetuation of the institutions we
entrusted."
This tradition of trusteeship carried into
the establishment of the land grant colleges.
In creating their state universities, six
states and now more have given constitu-
tional autonomy to the institution for the
purpose of protecting it from the freeze of
public or political interference and having
to accept staff appointments on the basis of
political patronage. And yet in other states,
autonomy has been given to the universities
by legislative act as it has been at this
point in Maryland. The courts have been
eloquent in supporting such devices and I
quote the case of Chase v. Maryland in
which the court speaks on this:
"It was put to the management of the
greatest state educational institution, it
put them beyond the dangers of vacilla-
tion policy, ill-informed or careless med-
dling and partisan ambition that would be
|
