|
ion are greater than the sins of com-
mission.
I think there is no greater sin than to
put a stumbling block in the footpaths of
those who want to learn. The point here,
a very simple one, is a philosophy; wheth-
er we pass it or not, is not going to make
too much difference, I think, because some
day some of these pages or some of these
children who have been visiting us are
going to bring suit against the State of
Maryland and say, I was denied it because
I could not afford it, and yet my people
for centuries have been paying taxes to
maintain a public institution, which denies
a citizen the right of admission.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-half
minute.
DELEGATE PULLEN: I do not need
any more, sir. All I say is this: let us get
the point of view. What we are driving at
here is nondiscrimination against any citi-
zen for any reason in God's world. That is
democracy.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: Mr. Chairman, I
will yield about two minutes of my re-
maining time and yield back the rest to the
Chair.
This amendment, as you know, is to de-
lete section 2 in its entirety. I arn not sure
of the posture of that amendment because
I am not sure whether officially the word
"promote" has been substituted for the
word "provide". I will assume that it has.
THE CHAIRMAN: It has not. What you
have before you is a statement of intent
by Delegate Wheatley, that if Amendment
No. 3 fails, he will offer an amendment to
section 2 to change the word in the manner
indicated. Delegate Lord.
DELEGATE LORD: I anticipated that
amendment to some extent. I do not think
it adds anything because I think it further
muddies the water. I think the point has
been made clear by Delegates Raley,
Borom, Winslow, and Cardin, that no one
knows what this clause means. Certainly
the majority in the short space of two
weeks from November 9 to November 27,
when it submitted its memorandum, has
changed its position entirely. Everyone in
the majority is quite clear that it meant
free tuition for as long as the child wanted
to go to school. Now they disavow this in-
tention and say that the words are "in-
capable of precise definition".
|
Now, if this confusion exists in the body,
I submit that this confusion is going to be
compounded when this language is in-
corporated into a document that is to go to
the people for application. I submit that it
is a litigation breeder of the worst sort;
even without this language in the State of
Virginia there is a pending lawsuit brought
by a county of the type that was described
by Dr. Pullen that receives small amounts
of money from the state to equalize that
amount of money that is received by other
counties.
Now, even without this language, we
are going to have these problems. With the
language, there are going to be consider-
ably more problems, and for these reasons,
I would urge that you would support the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man —
THE CHAIRMAN : You have three min-
utes, Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Mr. Chair-
man and ladies and gentlement of the Con-
vention, three minutes will be ample time
for me to make my point very clear. I sug-
gested that we all amend this to strike out
the words "provided by law" to "promote",
which I think alleviates some of the tech-
nical problems; and being an attorney, I
feel I am free to say we are discussing this
article more like attorneys than educators.
It is quite clear that the Committee did not,
quite contrary to the minority, ever vote
that this was free education for everybody
as long as they want to go. Quite to the
contrary. I would suggest the due process
and many of the other lofty-sounding prin-
ciples we have, have been interpreted from
year to year and are placed in this con-
stitution. The reasonableness doctrine is
the one that would be used on this; if
there were any question about it, one could
ask, is it reasonable? What is the redress
we ask, not that the State may maintain
neutrality, not equal protection under the
law. Protection is a negative term. We are
saying the State has an affirmative re-
sponsibility, not as suggested by those who
are not now present and spoke against this,
that the State will stultify or stop equal
educational opportunities, not to stop head-
start programs, but to encourage them; so
when you vote for this amendment or
against it, do not cast your vote behind
some subtle technicality. I want to make
the record clear now: when you vote on
this amendment, you are voting either for
|
