Behind The Scenes: A Personal Report to Pledged Freemen from W. Cleon Skousen

May 1979

An almost unbelievable victory for President Carter and the National Education Association occurred on April 30, 1979, when the Senate voted 72 to 21 to approve a monstrous 14-billion-dollar Department of Education with its chief executive sitting on the President’s cabinet. The proposed department will employ 22,000 people the first year, according to the Government Operations Committee of the House.

Americans on the homefront who love their children and have already seen what a contaminating influence federal funds and federal meddling has had on the schools, were dismayed.

Bill Violates Carter Pledge and Republican Platform

It was bad enough for President Carter to sponsor this gigantic addition to the burden of taxpayers, because he campaigned for the Presidency on the ground that he would “cut bureaucracy.” But it was even worse for the Republicans as the “loyal opposition” to Carter’s proposal because this violated a specific provision of the Republican platform. It reads: “Primary responsibility for education, particularly on the elementary and secondary levels, belongs to local communities and parents. Intrusion by the Federal government must be avoided…”

How can the local schools possibly avoid “intrusion” by a 14 billion-dollar federal agency manned by 22,000 people?

Republican Senators who voted for this massive new government agency were:

Baker, Bellmon, Boschwitz, Chaffee, Cochran, Danforth, Domenici, Durenberger, Garn, Hatch, Hatfield, Heinz, Javits, Mathias, McClure, Packwood, Percy, Pressler, Roth, Simpson, Stevens,

Thurmond, Weicker, and Young. This makes a total of 24.

Republican Senators Who Voted Against the Bill

Those Senators who held to their campaign commitments and voted against this bill were:

Armstrong, Cohen, Dole, Goldwater, Hayakawa, Helms, Humphrey, Jepsen, Kassebaum, Laxalt, Lugar, Schmitt, Schweiker, Tower, Wallop, and Warner. This makes a total of 16. In addition, there were four Democrats and one independent who voted against the bill: Byrd of Virginia, Exon, Morgan, Moynihan and Proxmire.

Had the 24 Republican Senators who voted for the bill combined their strength with the 21 who voted against it, the final tally would have been 48 to 45. The bill would still have passed but the approval would have been by such a narrow margin that it would have given tremendous courage to the resistance forces in the House. One can imagine what the Senate’s overwhelming vote of 72 to 21 did to the morale of the resistance forces who must now handle this bill in the House of Representatives.

Senator Hatch Comments on His Vote

Because Senators Jake Garn and Orrin Hatch have been such stalwarts in holding the line in the past, I put through a telephone call to Senator Hatch to see what in the world had happened. He said, “I now realize that vote was a terrible mistake.” When asked how it happened, he said the NEA people came to him back in 1976 when he first ran for the Senate and convinced him that the hodgepodge of federal agencies administering educational funds should be put under one department and thereby get educational funding out in the sunshine by removing it from the mess in HEW.” He therefore committed himself to support what he says “I naively thought at that time would be an improvement.” He said, “Back here things move so fast that while trying to keep past commitments you sometimes make a mistake and this was one of mine.”

Senator Hayakawa Points Out Dangers of Federal Funding to Schools

During the debates on an amendment to the bill which would have made the Department of Education merely a 6-year experiment rather than a permanent department (but which was defeated), Senator Hayakawa of California said:

“I was an educator for 43 years before coming to the Senate. During those years, I saw our educational system grow and develop. But progress was in the hands of the teachers, the local school boards, and the states. Teachers taught; children learned. But in recent years, Washington has pushed its foot into the schoolhouse door and created new, sophisticated priorities. Teachers have been given new rules, regulations and mandates to deal with. They have had to expand from the basics to include sex education, bilingual education, driver education, health education, and Washington-knows-best education.” He said that as a result we now see many “semi-illiterates” applying for admission to our colleges or seeking employment in the business world. (Human Events, May 12, 1979, p. 5)

NEA Engaged in a Powerful Drive to Federalize American Education

When Joseph J. Standa of the National Education Association Political Action Committee was asked about the top priorities of his organization, he replied: “The major legislative goals are a cabinet-level department of education, increased federal funding for education, and a national collective-bargaining law for public employees.” (Freemen Digest, Sept. 1978, p. 38)

The NEA interprets the creation of a federal Department of Education as recognition by the government’s of its legal right and responsibility to be involved in education.

Commenting on this, NEA president, John Ryor, said: “Creating a Department of Education, is, indeed, a profound step in which the federal government will be recognizing, for the first time, that it has a responsibility for education in and of itself.” (Conservative Digest, October, 1978, p. 38, emphasis added)

American Founding Fathers Warned Against Federal Funding of Education

Federal funding of the schools was specifically looked upon by the founders as an abhorrent violation of the rights of the people of the States and an illegal intrusion into the local control of the schools.

In the first session of Congress, following the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison pointed out the absolute necessity of preventing the national government from using the Welfare Clause to finance projects which were outside the authority of the federal government. He used education as an example, and said:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare … they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish, and pay them out of their public treasure. … Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

But ever since the astonishing dictum of the Butler case in 1936, the Supreme Court has twisted the meaning of the Welfare Clause to allow the looting of the U.S. Treasury to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars for just such projects. It is the announced intention of the NEA to get a substantial quantity of these billions and fund at least “one-third of the cost” of all education throughout the United States. (Freemen Digest, Sept. 1978, p. 4)

The NEA Has Become One of the Most Powerful Lobbies in America

In 1978, Michael Loyd Chadwick, Editor of the Freemen Digest, went to Washington to interview the top officers of the NEA and study their official policy papers. His findings  were published in the Freemen Digest for September, 1978, and constitute one of the best documentaries on the NEA in print. Copies of this issue may be obtained for $2.00 by writing to the Freemen Institute, P.O. Box G, Provo, Utah, 84601. Here are some of the facts taken from the interviews with NEA officers and from their official publications:

The NEA is a private organization to which teachers and educators are required by State law to pay dues if they join their State education association. The NEA is supported by a 1978 budget of $56,628,495 and has a membership of 1.8 million. It is not only the largest professional organization in the country but has become one of the most powerful and best-financed lobbies on Capitol Hill.

The NEA Drive For Political Power

Terry Herndon, NEA executive director, has stated, “We desire NEA leaders to be so powerful that they might shake the White House and command the attention of each member of the press.” (Freemen Digest, Sept. 1978, p. (11) John Ryor, President of the NEA, wrote: “We must become the foremost political power in the nation. Anything less than that would be unsufficient to place education at the top of the nation’s priorities.” (Todays Education, Nov.-Dec. 1975, p. 5)

The announced policy of the NEA is to work for the defeat of any candidate for President, the Senate, the House or local and State offices, who do not subscribe to NEA’s educational goals. That this has had an intimidating effect on some candidates can be assumed from the fact that among the 350 Senatorial and Congressional candidates who were supported by the NEA in 1976, 83% were elected. (Freemen Digest, Sept., 1978, p. 38)

In the 1976 election, the NEA broke a 119 year-old tradition in educational circles by publicly endorsing Carter and Mondale because they had both come out for a federal Department of Education. That year 265 teachers were delegates to the Democratic National Convention and 55 teachers were delegates to the Republican Convention. (Ibid.)

NEA Educational Goals Disturbing to Many Parents and Teachers

As the long-range policies and goals of the NEA are becoming better known, many parents and teachers find them genuinely disturbing. Here are some of those which were revealed in the official NEA literature and interviews with NEA’s top leaders:

At least one-third of all educational costs must come from the federal government. (Ibid., p. 54)

Educate youth for a global community. (Ibid., p. 61-62)

Promote a stronger United Nations. (Ibid., p. 15)

Promote the Declaration of Interdependence. (Ibid., p. 72)

Promote the adoption of the metric system. (Ibid., p. 72)

Insure freedom of educators in setting policies for sex education. (Ibid., p. 18)

Use the schools to promote “social change.” (Ibid., p. 5)

Eliminate standardized intelligence and aptitude tests. (Ibid., p. 12)

Oppose Tuition Tax Credits. (Ibid., p. 12; 57-58)

Oppose voucher plans allowing students to select the school of their choice. (Ibid., p. 15)

Reject tests to evaluate teachers. (Ibid., p. 13)

Continue using forced bussing to insure proportional integration. (Ibid., p. 31)

All responsibilities for public welfare should be assumed by the federal government. (Ibid., p. 15)

Oppose legislation to reduce federal control of broadcasting. (Ibid., p. 17)

Decriminalize marijuana. (Ibid., p. 18)

NEA or some non-governmental agency should have exclusive authority to grant accreditation to teacher-training institutions. (Ibid., p. 19)

Eliminate laws which restrict the schools in deciding what books will be placed in libraries and used in classes. (Ibid., p. 20)

Promote adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. (Ibid.,p. 22)

Establish a federal Department of Education. (Ibid., p. 50-51)

NEA should appoint the panel which selects or screens all “Presidential appointments of federal education officials.” (Ibid., p. 23)

NEA should “control the qualifications for entrance into the profession and for the privilege of remaining in the profession.” (Ibid., p. 25)

NEA President urges public education for all children beginning at age 3. (Ibid., p. 25) Others say age 2.

Schools should operate day and night, seven days a week, all year long. (Ibid., p. 25)

There must be a new monetary system. (Ibid., p. 32)

“In certain areas National sovereignty is not that important.” (Ibid., p. 34)

NEA supports the drive for a National Health Plan. (Ibid., p. 39-40, 52-53)

NEA will oppose any legislation designed to benefit private schools. (Ibid., p. 46)

NEA supported the Carter-Mondale ticket because “the GOP platform opposed the right of the federal government to enact a federal collective bargaining bill for public employees or set a minimum wage and working conditions for teachers and public employees.” (Ibid., p. 49)

Basics (the three R’s, history, civics, and geography) should not occupy more than one-fourth of the student’s time. (Ibid., p. 12)

NEA disciplinary control should be established over local educational organizations through an “unbreakable compact” so as to guarantee adherence to NEA policies. (Ibid., p. 12)

Strong Opposition Developing Toward NEA Policies

The NEA has dramatically demonstrated what an organized minority can accomplish in capturing political power. However, it was undoubtedly the warm support which Americans feel toward education in general which allowed the NEA to operate without challenge for so long. No doubt that will now change.

The NEA boasts 4,000 to 6,000 members in each Congressional district, but there is a rapidly growing number of citizens who have been trained in Constitutional principles and when these are combined with the number of parents and teachers who have become alarmed by the unhealthy zeal and ambitions of the NEA, their voting strength is beginning to outnumber the forces of the NEA several times over.

Conservative Senators Were Elected to Oppose These Policies

It is obvious from a review of these principles and policies that the leadership of NEA is out of focus with traditional American values and the best interests of teachers and educators who want to maintain local control of the American educational system.

Many of us who are teachers and parents have been fighting against these NEA trends for many years. We fought against federal funding of education when it first began, and we have watched the corruptive influence of federal intervention in the nation’s schools ever since. Many of us have worked hard and contributed more than we could afford in order to elect people into office who would stand up and fight against this creeping contamination of our schools. The worst thing that could happen in this struggle would be the creation of a massive bureaucratic Department of Education on the federal level. That is why, regardless of the explanation, the vote on April 30 was such a tremendous let-down.

The Political Fiber of the American People Must be Strengthened

It is important for those in elected positions to realize what has been happening to the political climate of the nation. When men and women have expressed their trust in a candidate and elected him to office, a breach of that trust does something to their souls. It breaks their political spirit. It causes many of them to phase out of political activity altogether.

That is why it is a tragic mistake for any conservative politician to do what some are known to have done, and that is to compromise his position for a few liberal votes on the assumption that he will be able to retain the backing of conservative voters because “they have nowhere else to go.” They do have somewhere else to go. OUT! And that is where millions of them have gone. They completely fade out of the picture – frustrated, disillusioned and disappointed. I can point to dozens of them in my own neighborhood who were once front-line political participants, but not any longer. They lost heart. They were let down too many times.

Today it is difficult to get a creditable number of Americans to even get out and vote. In a  recent election in Salt Lake City where the people were asked to vote on a completely different type of municipal government, it was expected that the importance of the issue would bring out a heavy vote. In fact, the newspapers called it a “heavy vote.” And how many were there? Less than 17% of the registered voters participated. That, of course, is not democracy. At least, it is not decision-making by a majority. It is government by a mini-minority. And our politicians of the past must assume the blame for creating such a scandallous credibility gap between the people and their government.

It is the task of our present politicians to demonstrate that it does make a difference whether or not we put Constitutionalists in office. More than anything else in the world right now, people want leaders they can really depend upon.

Sincerely,

W. Cleon Skousen