TECHNOS

July 27, 2008

TECHNOS QUARTERLY Fall 1996 Vol. 5 No. 3

Interview with Gerald R. Ford

By Mardell Raney

Gerald Rudolph Ford was born in Omaha, Nebraska, on July 14,1913, and grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He graduated from the University of Michigan, and earned a law degree from Yale in 1941. In 1965, he became House Republican Leader, and was chosen by President Richard Nixon as Vice President to succeed Spiro Agnew. On August 9, 1974, following the resignation of Nixon, Ford became the 38th President of the United States, serving from 1974-1977. During the 1976 campaign, he narrowly defeated Ronald Reagan to win the Republican nomination, choosing Senator Robert Dole of Kansas as his running mate. Gerald Ford's political philosophy is best summarized by one of his favorite speech lines, “A government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we have.”

During your administration, education was under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, isn't that correct?

Right. HEW was the parent of the Department of Education. In my administration, I chose David Mathews, who had previously been president of the University of Alabama, to be Secretary of HEW. Terrel Bell served under Mathews as the nation's 21st U.S. Commissioner of Education. [Bell, former Superintendent of Public Instruction in Idaho, was later appointed Secretary of Education under President Reagan and served from 1981-84.]

What was the emphasis of education during your administration?

Under the leadership of Mathews and Bell, our emphasis was to stimulate local involvement in education, not only in terms of money, but also in increased parental and community activity.

Some candidates in this 1996 Presidential campaign propose abolishing the Department of Education. Do you agree with that proposal?

I'm not certain that's desirable or necessary, although I was very satisfied when I was President with the setup that existed, which consisted of a Commissioner of Education within the Department of HEW. From my personal observation, that system worked, but I'm not convinced that it's necessary to go back.

In general, what do you think of the state of education today in the United States? Has it improved or declined?

I'm more optimistic than most of the skeptics. My exposure comes primarily from involvement with my granddaughters. Three of them go to public schools in Winston Salem, North Carolina; and our daughter in Tulsa has two daughters who attend private schools. I'm convinced that education today is doing a better job than all of the cynics are trying to convince us. While I'm not up-to-date on test scores and new standards, my experience is very positive. I know that my granddaughters are getting a better education than I did.

School reform is a very real and ongoing issue today, of course. For instance, in your home state of Michigan, Governor John Engler has instituted some massive school changes in which he's changed the focus from the local level to the state level, away from teacher unions and so forth. What are your ideas on that?

Basically, I support Governor Engler's changes. He got a statewide referendum that drastically changed the funding. In Michigan, local real estate taxes were a major part of the funding for education. He got Michigan voters to add to the sales tax by an overwhelming margin, and in that way to change the funding focus.

Was this a positive move?

Yes, it was a step in the right direction because real estate taxes had gotten way out of line in Michigan, and then there was the add on of sales tax. In my judgement, an increase in the income tax is a better approach.

Who should be primarily responsible for quality and accountability in education?

I'm an old traditionalist. I still think that local school boards should be the place where primary responsibility lies, and I like the idea of voters picking school board members. It may not be a perfect method, but I don't see any better alternative.

What role should education play in a democracy? Do citizens need to be educated about rights, responsibilities, and benefits?

No question about it: If you don't get the general public interested in the broad scope of education, you've failed in a democratic society.

How might this be accomplished? Should schools stress the study of civics and government more?

I think we must. I was shocked at a report several months ago on how badly informed today's students are about government. That was sad. Somehow we've got to offer more and better courses on what government is at the local, state, and national level. If people don't know about their government, they can't be constructive participants.

I agree. Only 57.5 percent of our 18-year-old high school graduates voted in the 1992 Presidential election. How can we encourage young people to vote and to participate in government? And can we somehow restore public service as a noble calling and respected occupation?

I was one of the leaders in getting the constitutional amendment permitting 18-year-olds to vote in federal elections [Article XXVI, ratified July 1, 1971]. Therefore, I am terribly disappointed with the poor performance record of 18-year-olds in voting for officials—from the President on down. I think the generation that has the biggest stake in the future of this country has a moral obligation to participate in all federal, as well as state and local, elections. I don't have the answer, except I think we've got to push and prod and encourage young people to vote. They have a big stake in the end result of every election at all levels of government.

Should the federal government be involved in curricular decisions—what our children are taught in school—and is it qualified to make such decisions? What kind of responsibility and authority should it have in this area?

I have a broad view. I don't want ideological groups interfering with the general curriculum. I resent special interest groups trying to impose curricula or their own limited vision or agenda. I think we must have a broad view, and we shouldn't let ideologues dictate what education should be.

What about equality of learning opportunities for all students, regardless of race, gender, culture, or socioeconomic condition? Does everyone today have equal opportunity to learn? And how do you feel about efforts such as school busing?

I went to a school system in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where there was no problem with integration. It was totally integrated—in the classroom, in sports, in every way. So I grew up in a society and a school environment where integration was accepted and endorsed. I've always had reservations about court-mandated busing, and I think courts are backing off because that kind of program wasn't successful.

President and Mrs. Ford and Susan walk with Liberty at Camp David. August 7, 1976.

In your opinion, what's the greatest problem facing young people today?

Young people today need more discipline. They need more direction. They need encouragement. They've got to understand what a great and blessed country we have, and that they can be a part of it if they discipline themselves, if they organize themselves, if they work at it.

As you know, newer and more powerful technologies are being developed every day that offer the potential for fantastic learning opportunities. However, technology costs are escalating at a time when school funding is declining. What's the solution for helping schools exploit these new technologies, this environment in which students will live and work?

I envy our granddaughters who were exposed to computers in the first grade. I think it's a wonderful opportunity, and they will be the beneficiaries. Because our youth will eventually compete with young people around the world, we've got to find a way to give them the equipment that puts them in a position to compete in this technological world that we're living in. How you raise the money or allocate the funds, I can't answer. But somehow our young people have to have the best equipment available, because that's the only way they can learn to compete on a global basis.

Several huge companies and private industries are key players in national telecommunication, deregulation, and related activities. Do these groups have any responsibility toward schools and the public, to try to give everyone access?

Yes, they have two reasons. Number one is a selfish interest: if they don't do something to enhance educational opportunities for young people, they in turn will be the losers. Secondly, they ought to have a national interest in doing something in this area for the country as a whole. I feel very strongly about that.

Today cyberspace is our newest frontier. We know what exciting and unlimited potential the World Wide Web offers; however, unrestricted content and access may be a mixed blessing. Who do you think should be in control? How do you feel about censorship and policing, particularly of material that children have access to?

Well, this is a close call. I think, for example in television, we need some self-censorship by the industry. Certainly some of the things we see on TV and in movies are offensive to me. Self-censorship would be the better approach. But if the industry doesn't do the job there and in the areas you're talking about, then inevitably the government will stick its hand in the pot. This presents a controversial issue. I believe in the First Amendment and freedom of speech, and I resent the kind of censorship that some people would like to impose. So somewhere between protecting a right of free speech and having responsible limitation on what is produced is a very tough dividing line that I hope we can resolve.

Arthur Burns, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, said, “Ford had a better grasp for economics than any other President that I served.” What do you think about our present economic situation? Will we be able to balance the federal budget, and what are the implications of either doing or not doing so?

We can and must have a program to achieve a balanced budget within the next seven years. It's not only doable, but it's necessary. And that means we have to do several things. Number one, we have to put limitations on the growth of entitlement programs. Entitlements are 51 percent of our cash flow, about $800 billion a year. We've got to restrict the growth. Notice that I didn't say cut, but restrict the growth. Secondly, we have to stimulate our economy so that it grows at about a three percent level each year. If we do that, we'll generate new revenue without increasing taxes. So we have to limit the growth of expenditures, particularly in entitlements, and we have to stimulate the economy so there's more tax money coming in without a tax increase. I'm against any tax reduction at this time.

If you could make any major reallocations of funds in the federal budget, what areas might these changes cover and how?

Overall, I think we have to tighten the belt and restrain the growth of virtually every program in the federal budget, with a few exceptions. The defense department undoubtedly needs some additional funds, not as much as the Pentagon would like, but more than some of the anti-defense people would recommend. I also believe that we have to make certain that our environmental resources are protected, so I would be cautious in that regard. And certainly we have to do the best we can with education and technology funds. Other than these four areas, I think we have to hold the line and restrain growth. (In 1976, the final year of Ford's administration, the federal budget was $76.7 billion; in 1994, it was $203.7 billion [U.S. Bureau of Census]. Alan Greenspan, current Federal Reserve Board Chairman, was Chairman of Ford's Council of Economic Advisers.)

What do you consider to be the most important characteristics voters should seek in a President?

Fundamental experience, leadership, and character.

I know you're a great student of history; how would you like your own Presidency to be remembered?

I would hope that historians in the future will remember the Ford Presidency as one that restored public confidence in the integrity and competence of the federal government. When I became President, the public was disillusioned because of Watergate and the war in Vietnam. There was great, great uncertainty about whether government was honest and responsible. In my judgment, the Ford administration restored integrity and confidence in our form of government to the American people.

Our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule.

President Ford's remarks upon taking the oath of office, August 9, 1974.

The Ford family photo is courtesy of the Gerald R. Ford Library.

Click here to access The Ford Library and Museum Sidebar that accompanied this article.