Health and Human Services, Oral Roberts University, School of Medicine, Grant Application for Residency Training in Family Medicine

The text is a series of letters regarding a problem with a family medicine grant for the University of Oklahoma Tulsa Medical College. There is a complicated situation involving conflicting instructions in the appropriations bill regarding funding for dentistry. Several court cases are pending, and the outcome will determine whether the grant for the family medicine program will be fully funded, partially funded, or not funded at all. The author of the letters is seeking clarification on the situation and expresses their concerns about the potential lack of funding for their program.

The text is a notification from the Department of Education regarding the approval, partial approval, or denial of federal student financial aid programs for Oral Roberts University for the award period of 1981-1982. The university's appeal for an increase in funds is based on enrollment changes and increases in tuition costs in their graduate and professional schools. They express concern that a reduction in funds could result in students being unable to return to the university. The appeal also highlights the increase in enrollment in the graduate programs and the need for increased loan funds for medical, dental, and other graduate students. The text includes data showing the number of students and amount of funds received in previous years.

The text is a combination of various documents, including a letter, information about the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and a summary of a court case called Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland. The case involves the constitutionality of public aid to church-related colleges. The Supreme Court upheld a state program that provided non-categorical aid to private colleges, including church-related ones. The court found that there are differences between church-related colleges and church-related elementary and secondary schools when it comes to public aid programs. The text provides background information on the case and analyzes its constitutional implications.

The memorandum is a response to a letter from Dr. Garrett of Oral Roberts University requesting clarification on the rejection of their application for Graduate Training in Family Medicine. The memorandum explains the review process of the National Advisory Council and states that the staff of the Health Resources Administration does not review applications for merit. It also mentions that the university was provided with application kits and offered technical assistance in the preparation of their application. The memorandum concludes that there is no reconsideration or appeal available for the application and includes an additional application kit for the next grant cycle.

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has refused to consider a grant application from Oral Roberts University for residency training. The departments grants management officer, John Westcott, stated that the university's pervasively religious nature violated the separation of church and state. ORU officials were unaware that their application would not be considered and expressed hope that they could still receive the funding. However, Westcott said that his decision only applied to his office and it was uncertain if other branches of the government would take the same position.