Mr. WORMSER. We would just as soon have Mr. Dodd go on. The CHAIRMAN. I am inclined to think Mr. McNiece has a statement to make and my reaction would be it would be best for him to make the statement and then we ought to have the rest of the period of the day for questioning. Mr. Dodd can come on first and then if we want to question Mr. McNiece we would proceed, if that is agreeable. Mr. HAYS. I have no objection except I understand I will be able to interrupt Mr. McNiece. The CHAIRMAN. That is all right. We will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 3:55 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m. Thursday, May 20, 1954.) TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1954 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL COMMITTEEE TO INVESTIGATE Washington, D. C. The special subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Carroll Reece (chairman of the special subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Reece (presiding), Hays, and Pfost. Also present: Rene A. Wormser, general counsel; Arnold T. Koch, associate counsel; Norman Dodd, research director; Kathryn Casey, legal analyst. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Mr. WORMSER. We will continue with Professor Hobbs. TESTIMONY OF DR. A. H. HOBBS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA-Resumed The CHAIRMAN. Do you have an additional statement to make, Professor Hobbs, or are you submitting yourself for questioning at this time? Dr. HOBBS. I believe Mr. Wormser indicated that he had some questions to ask of me. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Wormser. Mr. WORMSER. Dr. Hobbs, you testified in some detail about a few particular books. You don't mean to leave any inference that your general opinions concerning what you call scientism relate only to those few books? Dr. HOBBS. No, sir. This is a very widespread situation. It is contained in dozens and dozens of books. I cited those which I did cite only to illustrate the point. Many other books could be cited. But, of course, most of those other books, in fact, would have no connection with foundations. Mr. WORMSER. Doctor, I hand you this morning an advertisement of Dr. Kinsey's second book. I think it is very important to illustrate the extent to which that book has resulted in a discussion of changes of law in the area of marriage and sex. Would you read the material on that ad and describe it? It appeared in the New York Times on May 11. Dr. HOBBS. This is an advertisement for the second volume in the Kinsey series, the volume on Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The advertisement reads: What do you care about sex laws? It goes on: Maybe you ought to think a little bit about our laws concerning sex and sex offenders. These laws are supposed to protect you; they don't always do that, and they are sometimes turned against ordinary citizens like yourself. The Kinsey report cites instances of how and when and where. Shouldn't you read it? Mr. WORMSER. Have you read the entire ad? Dr. HOBBS. Except the price of the book and the publisher. Mr. WORMSER. Would the committee like to see the ad? I would like to offer it in evidence and you might wish to see it. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it is so ordered. (The material referred to is as follows:) Maybe you ought to think a little bit about our These laws are supposed to protect you: they 842 pages, $8.00. At any bookseller, or send order with remittance to W. B. Saunders Company W. Washington Square, Philadelphia 5, Pa. THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW MAY 16, 1954 Mr. WORMSER. Dr. Hobbs, would you express your own opinion, please, as to whether the production of a book of this type, advertised in this manner, is a desirable activity of a foundation? Dr. HOBBS. I would say that they are encroaching, as in the instance of the encroachment in the military area, in areas in, in this case, legal areas, as well as moralistic areas, where they should be extremely cautious. I don't mean to imply that no investigation should be made, nor that the findings should be suppressed, or anything of that kind. But a great deal of caution should be used in connection with these extrascientific areas, if you wish to call them such, and that degree of caution certainly has not been exercised. Mr. WORMSER. Dr. Hobbs, do I express your opinion correctly by this statement? The foundations, or some of them, in the Cox hearings last year, maintained that the best use of their funds would be in experiment in reaching out for new horizons, in considering their precious funds in what they call risk capital. You would approve of experiment in the sense of trying to reach new horizons, but you would caution, I assume, against experiment as such where it relates to the relationship of human beings and basic factors in our society? Dr. HOBBS. Yes, sir; a great deal of caution, I think, should be applied in those areas. For one thing, because of the points I tried to establish yesterday, that the mere fact that the thing is being studied can change the situation; and secondly, because the findings of a study can affect human behavior and we should be extremely cautious when we are entering into areas of that sort. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Wormser, would you go back to the question just immediately preceding this? Could we have the question read? (The question referred to was read by the reporter as recorded above.) Mr. WORMSER. Dr. Hobbs, I would like you to extend your remarks somewhat on the subject of empiricism. The material has been used by witnesses several times. I would like you to discuss this aspect of empiricism; whether or not it is safe to be used in consideration of human problems by itself, or whether it must not always be related to any other pertinent material in the social sciences, such as basic moral codes and so forth? Dr. HOBBS. I would feel very definitely that so-called empirical findings must be fitted into a framework of the legal precepts, the traditions, the history, the moral codes, the military principles of the area in which they are applied. That in and of themselves, by their very nature, they exclude the intangibles which may be not only important but may be crucial in a final decision. Mr. HAYS. Dr. Hobbs, right there, do you mean to imply that all the studies by foundations in this field of social science are empirical studies and that they have no relation or are not fitted in in any way, shape, or form with the other things you mentioned? Dr. HOBBS. No, sir; I don't mean to imply that at all. There are studies fostered which are other than empirical. But it is my impression, and not only mine but the impression of quite a number of other professors with whom I correspond, that there is coming to be an overemphasis on what is called empiricism. Empiricism itself, of course, is a thoroughly acceptable technique of investigation. Like other techniques it has to be included within the overall framework of the scientific approach, but it is thoroughly respectable and desirable as an approach in and of itself. Two things, however, seem to be occurring. One, that it is not really empiricism which is being sponsored. It is more nearly statistical manipulation without any real background of the numbers which are being manipulated. Those numbers usually represent people. Mr. HAYS. Right there, I want to ask you about that before we go any further. The word "manipulate" usually has a connotation meaning that you decide what the answer is going to be first and then manipulate the figures. Do you mean to imply that? Dr. HOBBS. No, sir; I didn't mean to imply that at all. Mr. HAYS. Maybe we ought to use some other term. Dr. HOBBS. Statistical computations if you wish. Mr. HAYS. I think that means what you want to say and the other had a different meaning. Dr. HOBBS. I am very glad you mentioned that because I had absolutely no intent to imply that. Mr. HAYS. In other words, these people decide what the answer is to be and then set out to make it come out that way? Dr. HOBBS. I didn't mean that; no, sir. Mr. WORMSER. Dr. Hobbs, I would like your opinion and whatever discussion you can give us on the general influence that foundations have had on research in the colleges and universities. Dr. HOBBS. I don't think I could speak as to the overall general influence. I have made no separate study of that. But from my own experience, and as I indicated from the experience of others, some of whom are prominent within their respective fields, there are, myself included, and others, who are becoming increasingly concerned about what is or what seems to be-perhaps we are wrong in this-an overemphasis upon this so-called empiricism. Unfortunately, as I said before, it is a respectable and acceptable technique, but it is only one part of a very large pattern, if you want to approach a better understanding of human behavior. Particularly where large grants are involved, the grants tend to be geared into programs of "empiricism"-and I wish the word would be kept in quotes whenever it is used here-and then graduate students receive their training through these grants. I don't mean to imply in any sense that the foundations have organized their grants for this purpose, or that they are promoting intentionally and purposefully the type of thing I am going to describe. I merely wish to point it out as a situation which does arise and which I believe is quite unfortunate. These graduate students, who, of course, will be the researchers and the teachers of the future, are subjected by the very nature of the situation to enter in disproportionate numbers into this one small area, an important area, to be sure, but just one area of their training. They are encouraged through the situation to embark upon study projects which are extremely narrow, and with the aid of the grant, the persons running the research are able to employ professional interviewers, for example. One part of graduate training should be some acquaintance with people. The graduate student, I would feel, |