(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations - 1954 - Robber Baron Hijacking of the USA"

\ 






K 



\ 






The 



DODD REPORT 

to the 

Rcece Committee on Foundations 



® 




J^iUiJ^ 



fVLAAdA^I^ 






THE REPORT 

of 

NORMAN DODD, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH 

covering his direction of the Staff 

of 

THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE 

of 

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

*° 

INVESTIGATE TAX EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS 

for 

the six months* period 

November 1, 1953— April 30, 1954 



Prepared in accordance with the suggestion which the Director of Research 
made to the Committee at its meeting in Washington, D. C. on Thursday, 
the 29th of April, 1954 for submission to: 

HON. B. CARROLL REECE (TENN.), CHAIRMAN 

HON. JESSE P. WOLCOTT (MICH.) 

HON. ANGIER L. GOODWIN (MASS.) 

HON. WAYNE L. HAYS (OHIO) 

HON. GRACIE PFOST (IDAHO) 



This is the original Dodd Report, in full. 
It ends with the following words : 

"I assume it is the purpose of this inquiry 
to gather and weigh the facts." 



COPYRIGHT 1»M 

THE LONG HOI SE, INC. 

NEW YOKK, N Y. 

Library of Cun*rw* Catalog Card N;:iuber: 54-11186 



Printed and bound wt the I uttcd states of America 



%. 



< 



FOREWORD 



As the report which follows may appear to have stressed one 
aspect of Foundation-giving to the exclusion of others, I take this 
opportunity to call attention to the fact that innumerable public 
benefits are traceable to the philanthropy in which Foundations have 
been engaged. Both in volume and kind these benefits must appear 
to any student of this subject to have been without parallel. And in 
the vast majority of instances they must be regarded as beyond 
question either from the standpoint of their conformity to the in- 
tentions of their donors or from the standpoint of the truly Amer- 
ican quality of their consequences. 

I also wish to acknowledge the cooperation which, without ex- 
ception, has been extended by Foundations to the staff whenever it 
was found necessary to solicit information from them either di- 
rectly or in writing. 

Finally, I take this opportunity to state that in the degree the 
following report appears to be critical, I sincerely hope it will be 
deemed by the Committee, Foundations, and the public alike to be 
CQnstructively so. It was in this spirit that the work of which this 
report is a description was undertaken and completed. 

Norman Dodd 
Research Direc 



•^^/A' 

>"-"" s* 



Finally, I found that the subject included a myriad of Fellow- 
ships awarded to scholars and artists active in fields too numerous 
to mention, let alone classify for the purpose of accurate evaluation. 

DEFINITIONS 

These studies also enabled me to settle upon the following defi- 
nitions: 

Foundations — Those organizations resulting from the capitalization 
of the desire on the part of an individual, or a group 
of individuals, to divert his or their wealth from private use to 
public purpose. 

Un-American and Subversive — Any action having as its purpose 

the alteration of either the prin- 
ciple or the form of the United States Government by other than 

* constitutional means. (This definition is derived from a study of 

* this subject made by the Brookings Institute at the request of the 
\ House Un-American Activities Committee.) 

j Political — Any action favoring either a candidacy for public office, 

I or legislation or attitudes normally expected to lead to 

* legislative action. 

J „ Propaganda — Action having as its purpose the spread of a particu- 

j I lar doctrine or a specifically identifiable system of 

j % principles. (In use this word has come to infer half-truths, incom- 

plete truths, as well as techniques of a covert nature.) 

CHARTER PROVISIONS 

The purposes of Foundations were revealed by these studies 
to be generally of a permissive, rather than a mandatory character. 
Customarily, they were expressed to place the burden of interpre- 
tation on either trustees or directors. Such words as "educational", 
"charitable", "welfare**, "scientific", "religious", were used pre- 
dominantly to indicate the areas in which grants were permitted. 
Phrases such as "for the good of humanity" and "for the benefit of 
mankind" occurred frequently. The advancement of such general 
concepts as "peace" and either "international accord" or "interna- 
tional understanding" was noticeable as a purpose for which Foun- 
dations had been established. 

To illustrate the extent to which the burden of interpretation 
is frequently placed upon trustees of Foundations, I cite the 
following : 

"... administered and operated by the trustees exclusively 
for the benefit of, . . , [the] income therefrom shall be dis- 
tributed by the trustees exclusively in the aid of, such re- 
ligious, educational, charitable and scientific uses and pur- 
poses as, in the judgment of the trustees, shall be in 
furtherance of the public welfare and tend to assist, 



encourage and promote the well-doing or well-being of man- 
kind, or of any community." 

COX COMMITTEE CRITICISMS 

There were eight criticisms leveled at the Cox Committee: 

1) Time and facilities were inadequate. 

2) Excuses concerning grants to Communists were too 
readily acceptable. 

3) Trustees and officers were not under oath. 
U) Only a few Foundations were investigated. 

5) The propaganda activities of Foundations were not in- 
vestigated. 

6) Foundations were not asked why they did not support 
projects of a pro- American type, 

7) Extensive evidence was not used. 

8) The Ford Foundation was not investigated. 

FOUNDATION CRITICISMS 

Our studies indicated very clearly how and why a critical atti- 
tude could have developed from the assumption that Foundations 
operating within the sphere of education had been guilty of fav- 
oritism in making their grants. After having analyzed responses 
relating to this subject from nearly 1,000 colleges in the United 
States, it became evident that only _a fewj iave participated in the 
grants made. 

However, when the uniqueness of the projects supported by 
Foundations was considered, it became understandable why insti- 
tutions such as Columbia, Harvard, Chicago and the University of j 
California h ad received monies in amounts far greater than had 
been distributed to others. Originally, scholars capable of handling 
these unique subjects were few. Most of them were members of 
these seemingly favored institutions. 

Now that these subjects no longer appear to be regarded as 
unique and sufficient time has elapsed within which to train such 
competent specialists, the tendency of Foundations to distribute 
grants over a wider area has become ndticeable. 

The purported deterioration in scholarship and in the tech- 
niques of teaching which, lately, has attracted the attention of the 
American public, has apparently been caused primarily by a prema- 
ture effort to reduce our meagre knowledge of social phenomena 
to the level of an applied science. 

APPROACH 

As this report will hereafter contain many statements which 
appear to be conclusive, I emphasize here that each one of them 
must be understood to have resulted from studies which were essen- 
tially exploratory. In no sense should they be considered proved. I 
mention this in order to avoid the necessity of qualifying each as 
made. 



Confronted with the foregoing seemingly justifiable conclusions 
and with the task of assisting the Committee to discharge its duties 
as set forth in H. Res. 217, within the seventeen month period, 
August 1, 1953-December 31, 1954, it became obvious to me that it 
would be impossible to perform t£is task if the staff were to con- 
centrate on the internal practices and the grant-making policies of 
Foundations themselves. It also became obvious that if the staff 
was to render the service for which it had been assembled, it must 
expose those factors which w r ere common to all Foundations, and 
reduce them to terms which would permit their effects to be com- 
pared with the purposes set forth in Foundation charters, the 
principles and the form of the United States Government, and the 
! means provided by the Constitution for altering either these prin- 

^ ciples or this form. 

\ In addition, these common factors w T ould have to be expressed 

■t in terms which would permit a comparison of their effects with the 

o activities and interests connoted by the word "political", and also 

;1 with those ordinarily meant by the word "propaganda". 

3 Our effort to expose these common factors revealed only one, 

ri namely — "the public interest". It further revealed that if this find- 

i ing were to prove useful to the Committee, it would be necessary to 

J ; define "the public interest". We believe this would be found in the 

{* principles and form of the Federal Government, as expressed in 

our Constitution and in our other basic founding documents. 

This will explain why subsequent studies were made by the 
staff of the size, scope, form and functions of the Federal Govern- 
ment for the period 1903-1953, the results of which are set forth 
in detail in a report by Thomas M. McNiece, Assistant Research 
Director, entitled, The Economics of the Public Interest. 
' These original studies of "the public interest" disclosed that 

during the four years, 1933-1936. a cha&gf took place which was so 
drastic as to constitute a "revolution" . They also indicated conclu- 
sively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the Amer- 
ican people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of 
the Federal Government; that a corresponding change in education 
hud taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, 
-and that this "revolution" had occurred without violence and with 
the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate. 

EDUCATION 

In seeking to explain this unprecedented phenomenon, subse- 
quent studies pursued by the staff clearly showed it could not have 
occurred peacefully, or with the consent of the majority, unless 
education in the United States had been prepared i n advanrp tn en- 
dorse it. 

These findings appeared to justify two postulates : 

1) that the policies and practices of institutions purporting 
or obliged by statute to serve "the public interest" would 
reflect this phenomenon, and 




2) that Foundations whose trustees were empowered to 
make grants for educational purposes would be no ex- 
ception, 

on the basis of which, after consultation with Counsel. I directed 
the staff to explore Foundation practices, educational procedures, and 
th e operations of the Executive branch of the Federal Government 
since iyi)3 ior reasonable evidence'61 a purposelul relationship be- 
tween therrT 

Its ensuing studies disclosed such a relationship and that it 
had existed continuously since the beginning of this 50-year period. 
In addition, these studies seem to give evidence of a response to our 
involvement in international affairs. Likewise, they seemed to re- 
veal that grants had been made by Foundations (chiefly by Car- 
negie and Rockefeller) which were used to further this purpose by: 

/"Directing education in the United States toward an inter- , 
national view-point and discrediting the traditions to which 
jt [formerly] had been dedicated.* ' 

Training individuals and servicing agencies to render ad- 
vice to the Executive branch of the Federal Government. 

Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources 
of the local community and freeing it from many of the 
natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition. 

Changing both school and college curricula to the point 
where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the 
American way of life. 

Financing experiments designed to determine the most effec- 
tive means by which education could be pressed into service 
iof a political nature. 

At this point the staff became concerned with : 

Identifying all the elements comprising the operational re- 
lationship between Foundations, education and government, 
and determining the objective to which this relationship had 
been dedicated and the functions performed by each of its 
parts. 

Estimating the costs of this relationship and discovering 
how these costs were financed. 

Understanding the administration of this relationship and 
the methods by which it was controlled. 

Evaluating the effect of this operational relationship upon 
"the public interest" and upon the social structure of the 
United States. 

Comparing the practices of Foundations actively involved 
in this relationship with the purposes for which they were 

• This itory. fully UoruuiPDted, Is toM In The Turning of thr Tides, by Paul W 
Sharer and John Ho* laud 8dow (The Long Burse, Inc., 1B53. Library 
Edition, $3.00. 1'apertHJiii.il, $2.00) 



i 



established and with the premises upon which their exemp- 
tion from taxation by the Federal Government is based. 

In substance, this approach to the problem of providing the 
Committee with a clear understanding of Foundation operations 
can best be described as one of reasoning from total effect to pri- 
mary and secondary causes. -.•; 

We have used the scientific method and included both inductive 
and deductive reasoning as a check against the possibility that a 
reliance upon only one of these might lead to an erroneous set of 
conclusions. 

Neither the formal books and records maintained by Founda- 
tions operating within the educational sphere, nor any of their sup- 
plemental or less formal reports to the public, make it possible to 
appraise the effect of their grants with any degree of accuracy. We 
needed to turn to the grantees — rather than the grantors — for the 
information required by the Committee to make the specific deter- 
minations requested by the Congress in H. Res. 217, namely: 

Have Foundations — used their resources for purposes contrary 
to those for which they were established? 

—used their resources for purposes which can be classed as 

1 - ;'-■ l~~4iaed their resources for purposes which can be regarded 

*s wbYOTJYeT 

J '.-' v, / — *xsed their resources for political purposes?, 

— resorted to propaganda in order to achieve the objectives 
for which they have made grants? 7 

re -<r~ :.;.* To insure these determinations being Inade on the basis of im- 
;^>telpMl facts, 1 directed the staff to mak? a study of the develop- 
".l*>- - ^ ffircf -irf ■American education smce the torn of the century and of 
i?: : ;s ^Ifae^renaji tnl^niqn^p of teaching and of the development of cur- 

J£V -^Yfcnfr mince thA^ timp A« * T»«n1t., it h«>inv> qnit* wn^t flip* fW 

■■fe-V J?itudy would have to be enlarged to include the accessory agencies to 
^^S^ 1 ^ 1 ^ 1 fh^ developments and trends had been traced. 
■^ ?^i; - c The work of tne ataff was then expanded to intrude an investi- 

'^^=^atioO of such Agencies as: " v ^ ^\ t - 

^M^% "'":" WTbe American Council of Learned Societies, the National 

^^r>/rv*>>- ^Research Council, the Social Science Research Council, the 

->'~:>C s ---y American Council on Education, the National Education As- 

aociation, the League for Industrial Democracy, the Progres- 

" sive Education Association, the American Historical Asso- 

V ciation, John Dewey Society, and the Anti-Defamation 

^ : League. 









T fcL , 



I 



I 



part n 

ACCESSORY AGENCIES 

To characterize some of these briefly: 

The American Council of Learned Societies was founded in 1919 to 
encourage humanistic studies, including some which today are re- 
garded as social sciences. It is comprised of 24 constituent member 
associations. In its entirety, it appears to dominate this division of 
scholarship in the United States. 

The National Research Council was established in 1916, originally, 
as a preparedness measure in connection with World War I. Its 
charter was renewed in 1919, since which time, on behalf of its 8 
member associations, it has been devoted to the promotion of re- 
search within the most essential areas ordinarily referred to as the 
exact and applied sciences. 

The Social Science Research Council was established in 1928 to ad- 
vance research in the social sciences. It acts as spokesman for 7 
constituent member associations representing all of the subdivisions 
of this new field of knowledge, ue., history, economics, sociology, 
psychology, political science, statistics, and anthropology. 

The American Council on Education was founded in 1918 "to co- 
ordinate the services which educational institutions and organiza- 
tions could contribute to the Government in the national crisis 
brought about by World War I." Starting with 14 constituent or 
founding organizations, this formidable and influential agency has 
steadily expanded until today its membership is reported to con- 
sist of: 

79 constituent members (national and regional educational 
associations), 

64 associate members (national organizations in fields re- 
lated to education), 
954 institutional members (universities, colleges, selected 
private school systems, educational departments of in- 
dustrial concerns, voluntary associations of colleges and 
universities within the states, large public libraries, 
etc.) 

The National Education Association was established in 1857 to ele- 
vate character, advance the interests of the teaching profession and 
to promote the cause of popular education in the United States. 
Broadly speaking, this powerful entity concentrates on primary and 
secondary schools. Its membership is reported to consist of 520,000 
individuals who include in addition to teachers — superintendents, 
school administrators and school secretaries. It boasts that it is 
"the only organization that represents or has the possibility of rep- 
resenting the great body of teachers in the United States", thus 
inferring a monopolistic aim. 

9 



i 



The League for Industrial Democracy came into being in 1905, 
when it was known as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, for the 
purpose of awakening the intellectuals of this country to the ideas 
and benefits of socialism. This organization might be compared to 
the Fabian Society in England, which was established in 1884 to 
spread socialism by peaceful means, V' 

The Progressive Education Association was established around 
1880. Since then it has been active in introducing radical ideas to 
education which are now being questioned by many. They include 
the idea that the individual must be adjusted to the group as a re- 
sult of his or her educational experience, and that democracy is 
little more than a system for cooperative living. 

The American Historical Association was established in 1889 to 
promote historical studies. It is interesting to note that after giving 
careful consideration, in 1926, to the social sciences, a report was 
» published under its auspices in 1934 which concluded that the dav 

* \ of the individual in the United States had come to an end and that 
j '~r the future would be characterized, inevitably, by some form of col- 
3 lectiviam and an inc rease in the authority of the State. 

The John Dewey Society was formed in February 1936, apparently 
i for the two-fold purpose of conducting research in the field of edu- 

| cation and promoting the educational philosophy of John Dewey, 

j -■ in honor of whom the society was named. It could be supposed that 

I those who were members of this orgaiiization would be devoted to the 

premises upon which Dr. Dewey had based his experiments in edu- 
cation since 1896. Basically, there were pragmatic and a stimulus 
to empirical thinking. He held that ideas were instruments and 
that their truth or falsity depended upon whether or not they 
worked successfully. 

._ The broad study which called our attention to the activities of 
these organizations has revealed not only their support by Founda- 
tion^ b ut has disclosed a degree of cooperation between them which 
Jhey nave referred to as "an interlock", thus indicating a concen- 
tration of influence and power. By this phrase they indicate they 
■?;■■ *re bound by a common interest rather tnan a dependency upon a 
> ,:- : single source for capital funds. It is difficult to study their relation- 
fl A ihip without confirming this. likewise, it is difficult to avoid the 
v;^* feeling that their common interest has led them to cooperate closely 
*? frj^with one another and that this c ommon fo terest lies in lh*> planning 
* :vJ **>and control of certai n aspects of American life through ft g wnfrinjV 
v •-! fiono Tthe FederaTGovernment and education . 

This may explain why the Foundations have played such an 
active role in the promotion of the social sciences, why they have 
favored so strongly the employment of social scientists by the Fed- 
eral Government and why they seem to have used their influence to 
fry»«f nnn education into an instrument for social change. 

We wish to stress the importance of questioning change only 

jrhen it might involve developments .detrimental to the interests of 

2ie, or when it is promoted by a relatively email 

10 



<A- 



yfc 



and tightly knit group backed by disproportionately large amounts 
of money which could threaten the American ideal of competition. 

In summary, our study of these entities and their relationship 
to each other seems to warrant the inference that they constitute a 
highly efficient, functioning whole. Its product is apparently an 
educational curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American stu- 
dent from matriculation to the consummation of his education. I t 
.contrasts sharply with the freedom of the individual as the corner- 
stone of our sociaTstructure. For this freedom, it seems to substi- 
tute the group, the will of the majority, and a centralized power to 
ehforce this will — presumably in the interest of all, its develop- 
ment and production seems to have been largely the work of those" 
orga nizations engaged in research, such as the Social Science Re-~ 
search"UounciJ an d the National Research Council? 

The demand for their product seems to come from such strong 
and sizeable aggregations of interests as the National Education 
Association and the American Council on Education, whose author- 
ities seem to see in it the means by which education can render a 
national service. They make frequent reference to this service as 
synonymous with "the cause of education" and tend to criticize 
strongly anyone who dares to doubt the validity of their conclusions. 

Its promotion appears to have been managed by such organiza- 
tions as the Progressive Education Association, the American His- 
torical Association, the League for Industrial Democracy, the John 
Dewey Society and the Anti-Defamation League. Supplementing 
their efforts were others, such as: the Parent-Teachers Association, ^ ^ 
the National Council of Churches, and the Committee for Economic C*& M 
Development, each of which )ias, pl ayed some part in adjusting the l4t i q]c«/^.K 
minds of American dtizens^totRe idea of planning and to" the v *L— - j 7 f — 

marked changes w hich have taken place in "the public interest" . D4LntA ci oO'fa 

Others, too, are engaged in the dissemination of this idea as be- h r #1 f/ 
ing essential to the security of this country. Neither time nor funds ** '^ " *-" ' / ? ^ 
have permitted me to direct the attention of the staff to the oper- yy {^t^UCjllft ^9 
tions and influence of any but a few of these, beyond taking notice ' < ->^ r < 4 

of their existence and the purposes which they serve. 

From our studies, it appears that the overall administration of 
this functioning whole and the careful selection of its personnel 
seem to have been the peculiar interest of the American Council 
pf Learned Societies. It is interesting to note that, by legislative 
action recently, another entity has been brought into being known 
as the National Science Foundation, whose purpose is to develop a 
national policy with respect to science. Its additional purpose is to 
serve our Government in an advisory capacity in connection with 
the huge appropriations now being made for research in the inter- 
est of effective controls. Evidence exists of close cooperation be - 
tween privately endowed > oundation s7the agencies through which 
they Have "operated ancTfhe educ^o naTTnstitutions through whicE 
Ihey have been accustomed~tb make grants for research. This prnr- 
ess may contribute to an undesirable degree of concentrated power. 

11 



It is also interesting to note that by comparison with funds for 
research provided by Foundations, those now flowing from our 
Government are so large that they dwarf Foundation contributions. 
This promises to be true for some time to come and indicates that 
Foundations may extend their influence over a wider area than in 
the past. 

The result of the development and operation of the network in 
which Foundations have played such a significant role seems to have 
provided this country with what is tantamount to a national system . 
of educa tion under the tiffht control of organizations and persons, 
IittleTcnown to the American public. Its operations and ideas are 
so complex as to be beyond public understanding or control. It also 
seems to have resulted in an educational product which can be, 
traced to research of a predominantly empirical character in the 
inexact or social sciences. 



j? In these fields the specialists, more often than not, seem to have 

3 been concerned with the production of empirical data and with its 
fe? application, principles and their truth or falsity seem to have con- 

: cerned them very little. 

j In what appears from our studies to have been zeal for a rad- 

ically new social order in the United States, many of these social 
.,-.■ science specialists apparently gave little thought to either the 
- opinions or the warnings of those who were convinced that a whole- 
sale acceptance of knowledge acquired almost entirely by empiricaJT 
meth ods would result in a deterioration of moral standards and a 
disrespect for principles. Even past experience which indicated 
"that such" an approach to the problems of society could lead to 
-£>/ : . tyranny, appears to have been disregarded. 

5 " ^ V ■■-■■IFor these reasons, it has been difficult for us to dismiss the 

V v *sspku>n that, latent in the minds of many of the social scientists 

3ias lain the belief that/given sufficient authority and enough funds . 

4 -":-.: \ Jmman behavior caii toe controlled, and that this control can be~ex- 
V " -gjriaed without risk to either ethical principles or spiritual values 

t?;v : and that, therefore, the solution to aJl social problems should be 
jC s'W;-.* entrusted to th em, ■ ~" " : ^ 

;:■ ;4 ■ ; In fee light of this suspicion and the evidence which supports 

l fi v v ^t> ft has been difficult to avoid the conclusion that social scientists 

■ ; L tif the persuasion I have been discussing have been accepted by 

:.. Foundations, Government and education as though their claims 

were true — this in the face of the fact that their validity has been 

disputed by men well trained in these same disciplines. 

In spite of this dispute within his own ranks, the social scien- 
tist is gradually becoming dignified by the title "Social Engineer". 
This title implies that the objective viewpoint of the pure scientist 
is about t o become obsolete in favor o f tec hnioi| |ffl «f "V?**^ Tf ^T^ 
*lso suggest tKaT bar traditional concept 'ol freedom asiheiunc- 
faon #i natural and constitutions] law has already been abandoned 

•' : * 12 



by the "social engineer" and brings to mind our native fear of con- 
trols—however well intended. 

In the face of this, it seems strange that Foundations made no 
referenggj n their reporCTto tne consequences to be expected from 
a new science or society founded upon empiricism and undisciplined 
by^lth^r^n^r of principles or proved experiments. Apparently 
tfiey were content to operate on the theory that they would produce 
usable data for others to emplpy and rely upon them to account for 
the effects. It may not have occurred to their- trustees that the 
power to produce data in volume might stimulate others to use it 
in an undisciplined fashion without first checking it against prin- 
ciples discovered through the deductive process. 

Their position that they need not closely follow the effects of 
their support of such grants also seems strange. Their reports 
often show that they were supporting such a new "science". The 
descriptions, however, made it very difficult to judge the ultimate 
purposes for which this support was being given. 

To summarize, both the general and the specific studies pur- 
sued by the staff during the past six months lead me to the tenta- 
tive conclusion that, within the social science division of education, 
the Foundations have neglected 'the public interest" to a severe 
d egree. 

In my judgment, this neglect may be found by the Committee 
to have stemmed from : 

The willingness of Foundations — 
to support experiments in fields which defied control ; 

to support these uncontrollable experiments without first 
having proved them to be w in the public interest" ; and 

to extend this support without reporting its purpose in lan- 
guage which could be readily understood. 

I suggest that the Committee give consideration to the ten- 
dency of Foundation trustees to abdicate responsibility. To illus- 
trate : The following statement has been taken from An American 
Dilemma, The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, by Gunnar 
Myrdal, with the assistance of Richard Sterner and Arnold Rose, 
Volume II: 

"This study was made possible by funds granted by Car- 
negie Corporation of New* York. That corporation is not, 
however, the author, owner, publisher, or proprietor of this 
publication, and is not to be understood as approving by 
virtue of its grant any of the statements made or views ex- 
pressed therein." 

While this refers to but one project out of many, it becomes signi- 
ficant when it is realized that the project to which these books 
relate involves some $250,000. and led to the publication of RtAt»- 
ment s which we re most critical of our Coyi&titutinnj 

13 



J 



The similar tendency to delegate responsibility will be seen in 
the support given by Foundations to agencies such as the Social 
Science Research Council, which disregards the legal concept: "He 
who acts through an agent, acts himself." 

THE FORD FOUNDATION 

Finally, I suggest that the Committee give special consideration 
to the Ford Foundation. This Foundation gives ample evidence of 
having taken the initiative in selecting purposes of its own. ^ Being 
of recent origin, it should not be held responsible for the actions or 
accomplishments of any of its predecessors. It is without precedent 
as to size, and it is the first Foundation to dedicate itself openly to 
"problem solving" on a world scale. 

In a sense, Ford appears to be capitalizing on developments 
which took place long before it was founded, and which have en- 
abled it to take advantage of: 

the wholesale dedication of education to a social purpose — 

the need to defend this dedication against criticism — 

-; the need to indoctrinate adults along these lines — 

the acceptance by the Executive branch of the Federal Gov - 
ernment o f responsibility for planning on a national and 

internatio nal scale— 

the diminishing importance of the Congress and the states 
and the growing power of the Executive branch of the Fed- 
'' eral government— and 

'.- the seeming indispensability of gPfa gpl o ygr human behavior . 

*V W-, A& if they had been influenced directly by these developments, 

the trustees established separate funds for use in the fields of edu- 

i: cation, national planning, and politics. They set up a division de- 

V V -*oted to the ^Behavioral Sciences, w hich includes a Center for Ad- 

%Vanced Study, a program ol Research and Training Abroac^ an In- 

. ^titutional Exchange Program, and miscellaneous grants-in-aid. 

V ^V ^Supplementing these major interests are such varied activities 

- las: a TV Radio Work Shop, "external grants", inter-cultural pub- 
> ;- Ecations, and an operation called the East European Fund, wnich 

- *; is about to be terminated. - 

When it is considered that the capital resources of this Founda- 
tion approach, or may exceed, 1500,000,000, and that its income 
* Approximates $30,000,000, each year, it is obvious that before em- 

i fcarking upon the solution of "problems", some effort should be 

\ made by tne trustees to make certain that tEelr solution is "in the" 

J tmblic interest" . 

i 

| >_ -It is significant that the policies of this Foundation include 

B&aJdng funds available for certain aspects of ty- Tf*- M i] itary re- 

14 



search and for the education of the Armed Forces . It becomes even 
more significant when it is realized that the responsibility for the 
selection of the personnel engaged in these projects is known to rest 
on the Foundation itself — subject as it may be to screening by our 
Military authorities. 

In this connection, it has been interesting to examine what the 
educational aspect of these unprecedented Foundation activities 
can be expected to produce. The first example is a pamphlet in 
whid? t he Declaration of Independence is discussed as thoughTis 
importance lay in the fact that it had raiseatwo, as yet unanswered. 
questions : 

1) Are men equal ? and do we demonstrate this equality ? 

2) What constitutes "the consent of the governed"? and 
what does this phrase imply in practice? 

By inference, the first question is subtly answered in the nega- 
tive. By direct statement; the second is explained as submitting to 
maj ority rule— but the restriction of the majority by the Conatltur 
lion is no t mentioned. Uniy an abridged version of the Declaration 
is printed nt is interesting that this should omit the fet of griev - 
ances which o rigin ally madelhe general concepts of this Document 
reasonable. 

CONCLUSION 

It seems incredible that the trustees of typically American for- 
tune-created foundations should have permitted them to be used 
to finance ideas and practices incompatible with the fundamental 
concepts of our Constitution. Yet there seems evidence that this 
may have occurred. 

I assume it is the purpose of this inquiry to gather and weigh 
the facts. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Norman Dodd, Director of Research 

Special Committee to Investigate 
Tax Exempt Foundations 



May 10, 19 5 It 



15 



THE KEED FOR A PERMANENT STANDING COMMITTEE 

The effect of the Dodd Report was electric. Moves were 
launched within a matter of hours to block an effective probe. On 
Capitol Hill, the Committee found itself confronted with obstacles 
at every turn; the Nation itself was deluged with stories which 
openly or by inference suggested that the investigation was futile, 
if not worse. The national board of Americans for Democratic 
Action (the A.D.A.) formally urged the House to disband its own 
committee — it was conducting "a frontal attack on learning itself." 

Many citizens, on the other hand, believe that such a commit- 
tee should be made a permanent Standing Committee of the House 
— "to gather and weigh the facta." 

Two quick, effective steps can bring this about. These are: 

1) Immediate, widespread reading of this Report — through 
friends, clubs, organizations; 

2) A steady flood of mail to Congress, including, specifically, 
formal Resolutions from organizations of every kind. 



Address : Hon ; , 

House Office Building, 
Washington, D. C. 



The Dodd Report is available at Jb€ following Quantity Prices. 
Plain white envelopfes^^for mailingfare included in all shipments 
of five or more copies. lOt i^more convenient to have us "mil 
them separately for you, weViH do so to whatever list you supply*. 
Gift cards will be enclose£4i yofrsend them to us. 



Single copys: Twenty-fiwsents 

5 copies $ 1.00 

J^copies 5.00 

'oO copies 9.00 

100 copies 17.50 



•Sent individually 
to your list : 



Ion g 4- 4 o u s e 

PUBLISHERS 



I N C 



P. O. Box 11 03, Grand Central Annex, 
New York 17, N Y.