Whenever the topic of federal aid to education pops up in the halls of Congress, the two hottest issues usually are aid to private schools, and discrimination. These two questions, of course, involve prejudices of a stronger nature than the traditional and often rhetorical fear that if states are forced to meet national administrative standards, they will be crawling into a federal ambush.

The Taft bill, which passed the Senate with a comfortable margin last year, but never reached the House floor, neatly sat on the fence in the public vs. private school aid controversy. Taft left it up to the states. "It is a home-rule provision," he said, admitting that he had "received criticism both from those interested in private schools and from those who think there should be no assistance to private schools of any kind."

Private schools, of course, mean Catholic schools, for the most part. If a program of high-powered federal aid goes to public schools only, the parochial system could not maintain equal educational standards. Catholic organizations are, therefore, deeply concerned with getting a share of any federal funds. Under the Taft kind of compromise, parochial schools would get stronger in some states, and weaker in others, depending on the power of local Catholic pressure groups. Supporters of aid to private schools (not Catholic alone) say that the basis of federal grants should not be public control, but public service. They maintain that Catholic schools turn out educated citizens too, and should receive equal support.

The opposition puts it this way; the government has a heavy responsibility to public schools, and no money should be diverted to bolster private educational systems. And this way: America operates on the separation of church and state; the parochial schools have no right to ask for public aid. Let them shift for themselves.

The President's Commission on Higher Education, recommending a giant plan of federal aid a year ago, left a loophole for private colleges. On the premise that states should have complete administrative control, the Commission advised that states should also be able to decide what college is private and what college isn't, which is a bit subtler than the Taft arrangement, but essentially the same.

Segregation in the South

The issue of discrimination raises an even louder howl, mostly from the South. The southern states operate a wasteful segregation system--one set of schools for whites, one for Negroes--which helps to make southern education the worst in the country. Assuming that federal aid will go where it is most needed, the South stands to receive the biggest share, and citizens in the north ask why they should pay taxes to support a wasteful and repugnant system of "dual education."

Dixiecrats have their own philosophical objections to any program that would seek to end segregated education. Less hidebound Southerners propound the familiar slow-and-easy thesis. The South desperately wants hard cash, but within its existing "cultural framework." The North wants to test the southern devotion to principle: can the South refuse federal aid on the segregation issue? Perhaps Jim Crow in education may prove too expensive a luxury.

The main discrimination in higher education, according to Truman's Commission, is economic. Too many qualified students cannot pay their own way. The Commission asked for federal scholarships and fellowships, as well as generous grants to the states to enable colleges to roll back tuition charges. It appears, however, that elementary and secondary schools are going to be served first by the present Congress. Colleges will have to limp along, and the sizzling issues of aid to private schools and southern segregated education will doubtless be finessed at the present too. But if the Administration really wants to toss a lot of money into the states' school systems this year, it will probably have little trouble. David E. Lillenthal, Jr.

(This is the last in a series of three articles on federal aid to education.)