That, of course, is one theory for building the leadership of any national institution, to have the constituency representations developed in detail. We thought that was the wrong way to go about it. I think that attitude is also mirrored in the legislation developed by the committee. We are looking for strong individuals: women, minorities, for sure, but strong individuals who have both the intellectual qualifications and the experience and the desire to protect a national institution they see of immense value to the society. We want a mechanism that will find them, and we do not accept defeat. If we haven't done it thus far, we haven't done it well. Perhaps the time has come to reform the system in the way you Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Thanks so very much to you for the time you have spent with us today. It has been extremely helpful. I believe next we have a panel on educational aspects of public broadcasting. I wonder if that panel would find it convenient to regroup at 1 o'clock. Is there anyone who would find that inconvenient. [No response.] Mr. VAN DEERLIN. All right, fine. We will meet here at 1 o'clock. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 1 p.m. the same day.] AFTER RECESS [The subcommittee reconvened at 1 p.m., Hon. Lionel Van Deerlin, chairman, presiding.] Mr. VAN DEERLIN. We move now to a panel on the educational aspects public broadcasting and telecommunications, including such questions as what role formal education and instruction play in the existing structure of public broadcasting; how well does H.R. 3333 reflect the needs of the educational community; and what changes would you suggest in the approach taken by this bill? Our panelists, who will be speaking in order, are Mr. Jay Barton, provost, West Virginia University, in the district of Harley Staggers; Mr. Edwin Cohen, executive director for the Agency for Instructional Television in Bloomington, Ind.; Ms. Pat Conner, deputy director of Development for Research and Planning in the South Carolina Educational Television and Radio Network; Mr. J. Terence Kelly, vice president for Educational Services at Miami-Dade Community College in Miami; and Mr. Harold E. Morse, director of the Appalachian education satellite program. Would you lead off, Mr. Barton? STATEMENTS OF JAY BARTON, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT AND SUPPORT OF EDUCATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES; EDWIN G. COHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AGENCY FOR INSTRUCTIONAL TELEVISION; PATRICIA A. CONNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH, AND PLANNING, SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION AND RADIO NETWORK; J. TERRENCE KELLY, CHAIRPERSON, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES' TASK FORCE ON THE USES OF MASS MEDIA FOR LEARNING; AND HAROLD E. MORSE, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, APPALACHIAN EDUCATION SATELLITE PROGRAM, APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. Let me give you a brief identification first, if I might. I am vice president and provost for academic affairs at West Virginia University. I now wear a second hat. I am president-elect of the University of Alaska. Both Alaska and West Virginia have strong demands on telecommunications, and both give me encouragement for coming to speak with you today. I speak also today as a representative of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, for the American Council on Education, and for the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, a group concerned primarily with fundraising and development. All of these institutions are deeply involved in telecommunications. More than 95 percent of our National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges use telecommunications, TV and radio for big pieces of their instruction. More than two-thirds are licensees of radio or TV licenses, and one-third hold public broadcast licenses for TV stations. This year I am also chairman of the Council on Academic Affairs for the National Land Grant Association. This is a council of the chief academic officers of the 142 constituent institutions of this national land-grant group. This group some years ago established a committee of the association on telecommunications, recognizing the great need that universities have for access to telecommunications media. Finally, my most dubious distinction for being before you is that at WVU in 1967, I organized and taught the first TV course there. Shortly after that, they took me out of instruction and put me in administration. I think our primary message for you is we are very pleased with the general thrust of the bill. We believe and concur with you that a rewrite of the Communications Act is necessary. We would say very briefly that we do not feel that CPB or PBS are now responding to the needs of education as they might. Our major concern is that education, and in particular, instruction, be strongly emphasized in the rewrite, and we have some comments on how that might be accomplished. We think in the next two decades that education will absolutely require high tech nology telecommunications in order to reach part-time learners, learners who simply cannot get to campuses, in continuing professional and vocational education and in education for leisure. The outreach efforts of universities to reach citizens who previously have not been able to take advantage of higher education, including groups such as the native groups in Alaska, disadvantaged groups in big cities, house-bound men and women, and handicapped individuals, really demand technology in order to take full advantage of educational opportunities. We think the energy shortage will point up the need to move words and ideas rather than people, and that, again, telecommunications are the answer. We hope that the ability to reach isolated populations will help to insure that education gets a very strong emphasis indeed in the final rewrite language. Universities and colleges, in particular, really cannot compete with entertainment. We could come out second best in most such competitions. I think that we would like to see the bill insulate stations and programs from the pressures of the marketplace, from the magnetism of mass audiences, so that it is instruction and education that comes through for the good of society rather than just entertainment. I think that you probably saw in the Wall Street Journal recently a little article which stressed how public TV as it is now constituted seeks to expand its audiences by adding programs with wider appeal, such as the reruns of the "Munsters," "Lassie," and things like this, elements that we do not really believe further the educational goals of our society. Our second point we would like to make along with President McGill this morning, is to ask that the bill recognize the diversity of licensees. There really are a whole variety of people, interests and institutions involved in public broadcasting and it might be well not to lump them under one group but to make, either in a rulemaking process or in the legislation, some distinction between a university as a licensee and the city of Pittsburgh as a licensee, or a school system as a licensee. All of them have somewhat different objectives in the uses to which they would like to see such stations put. More than one-third, as I mentioned, of our national land-grant institutions are licensees of public broadcast stations. The remainder, however, need some kind of access to these stations. It is not sufficient only to allow for a diversity of licensees. We would like to add our brief comments on the multiple ownership rule in instruction and education. In particular, it is of tremendous advantage to be able to develop a statewide system interlocking a series of FM stations-a series of radio stations. Although a grandfather clause in the Act would protect those States who have already done so, it would prevent other States from gaining the educational efficiency as well as the economic efficiency from having a series of outlets rather than one or two. I have added to the formal testimony we have submitted to the committee a statement that the National Land Grant Association filed with the Federal Communications Commission in a recent rulemaking hearing stating our position opposing an attempt to restrict multiple ownerships of FM and radio stations, at least for instructional purposes. We would also like to ask you to consider continued Federal interest in the research and development on the technology side, with the implication that as technology develops, continued support for facilities might become available. On this I think our position is very much as President McGill's this morning, in which he urged you not bluntly to close the door on facilities support, recognizing that technology is moving so rapidly it might be important to come back to it some day. Finally, we welcome the whole move toward deregulation, and as a university administrator, I can do nothing but "Bless you," for these efforts. But we are concerned that certain vehicles such as cable companies, such as satellites, might be inclined to push aside educational and instructional uses without some pattern of regulation or some pattern of injunction which would allow access for education rather than entertainment. In most of the States which have the greatest need for telecommunications, for access to cable systems and satellites in particular, the markets are indeed the thinnest, such as Alaska and West Virginia. It would be a little hard to trust the competition of the marketplace to provide access without some kind of regulation of what would be, in this case, a monopoly. We would also propose that the funding formulas which are designed as a function of population seem a little too reminiscent of Nielsen ratings, and I think I might say that even were I to come from California. It, again, would put funding into areas where perhaps a need for telecommunications is even less than, say, in States such as Wyoming, Montana, Alaska and so on. Educational television is a highly capital-intensive operation, and the costs of operating KUAC in Fairbanks are essentially the same as the cost of installing and operating KCET in Los Angeles. Hence, a simple formula based upon the number of people might not really represent the needs of the public broadcast stations. I do not have an alternative funding pattern. There are any number we could invent, I am sure, overnight if you felt that would be appropriate. Let us add our concern over the possibility of opening public broadcasting to commercials. My own station manager feels we would jeopardize our basic support in West Virginia were we to move toward commercial support even on a cluster basis. The last item I would like to bring to your attention is that we believe that in the past, education, especially higher education, has been well-served by public service announcements on commercial channels, and the implicit termination of such announcements in the proposed rewrite might be to our society's long-term disadvantage. I have added also to the formal testimony a statement from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education speaking just to this point. That concludes my brief comments for you, Congressman. [Testimony resumes on p. 442.] [Mr. Barton's prepared statement and attachments follow:] STATEMENT OF JAY BARTON VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT-ELECT UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT AND SUPPORT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES I am pleased to be here today speaking on behalf of postsecondary four-year colleges on H.R. 3333, the Communications Act of 1979. I am representing the associations noted on the cover sheet, who by their membership represent much of the breadth and scope of postsecondary education in America. We commend the Committee and in particular Congressman Van Deerlin for their diligent efforts to review and revise the Communications Act of 1934 so as to take cognizance of the manifold changes that have occurred in communications and education in recent years. ་་ It is important to note that within the past decade substantial advances in telecommunications have affected higher education, setting the stage for the further impact of telecommunications on the future of most educational institutions. Initially we witnessed federal legislation establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and subsequently the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, accompanied by increased financial support for "educational television." The second advance consisted of the application of satellite technology and communications. The third is the reduction of control of cable television by the FCC, which signaled a rapid expansion of cable systems and support systems. Lastly the refinement of electronic components has led to relatively low cost video tape, video disc, and related display devices which has been directed toward effective educational application. A substantial number of television and radio licenses are held by higher education institutions. Within the membership of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, there are 231 institutions which operate noncommercial broadcasting stations. These institutions hold |