Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

In view of the opinion of participants of the broadcast, where is the capitalist, anti-Communist and anti-Socialist viewpoint?

The March 14, 1948, broadcast, entitled "The Communist Manifesto, 1848 to 1948," had the following participants: Herman Finer, a British Socialist, Abram Harris of the University of Chicago, and Malcolm Sharp, professor of law at the University of Chicago, who was associate attorney for the Rosenbergs, executed Communist spies, has numerous Communist-front affiliations, and was quoted by the Chicago Maroon as saying that Communist professors should not only be hired, but should be sought after.

The December 17, 1950, broadcast, entitled "Freedom in an Age of Danger," had the following participants: Robert Horn, William R. Ming, Jr., and Louis Wirth, all of the University of Chicago. All three participants criticized the Attorney General's list of Communist organizations and the McCarran Internal Security Act. Since no one who recognized the patriotic purpose of this list or of the act participated in the program, it was definitely unbalanced and slanted to the left. The June 29, 1952, broadcast, a discussion of how to deal with Communist subversion, had as participants Daniel Bell of Columbia University, Dwight MacDonald, a journalist, and Quincy Wright of the University of Chicago. MacDonald attacked the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations, Senators McCarthy and McCarran, and the Smith Act. Bell also attacked the Smith Act. Wright attacked Senator McCarthy and the McCarran committee. No one participated in the program who had anything to say in favor of Senators McCarthy and McCarran, the Smith Act, or the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations.

I also found that on such controversial issues as the human-rights program of the United Nations, American foreign policy, and political and economic questions, little chance was given to conservative and nationalist views. Had the ideological balance of the program's participants alternated from week to week, we would not be forced to the suspicion that this was a propaganda sounding board.

C. The citizenship education project is slanted toward the left

Between 1949 and 1951, the Carnegie Corp. has granted to the Teacher's College of Columbia University for its citizenship-education project the sum of $1,417,550. Examination of this project indicates that, like the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences and the University of Chicago roundtable broadcasts, it is slanted toward the left. One of the main accomplishments of the citizenship education project was a card file of 1,046 index cards which are sold to high schools for use of civics teachers. Each of the cards contains a summary and annotation of a book or pamphlet on political and social issues for the teacher's guidance in presenting a social problem to a class.

Examination of the 1950 card file shows that the great majority of books and other items selected for summary and annotation are leftist, liberal, and internationalist in their viewpoint and only a few are conservative and nationalist in their outlook. Actually there are only about 2 dozen cards which refer to material that is conservative in outlook-this is a very small percentage out of over 1,000 cards. Thus, the teacher who uses this card file has very few items to contrast against the liberal, leftwing, and internationalist items in the file.

In addition, leftist materials in the card file are most often annotated as "factual," and the few rightist materials are most often annotated as "opinionated." For example, card No. 554 refers to We Are the Government, by Elting and Gossett, and describes it as "factual, entertaining, descriptive, illustrative," while the book in reality is pro-Communist. Card No. 249 refers to a Mask for Privilege, by Carey McWilliams, and is described as "historical, descriptive." MeWilliams is a notorious Communist. Card No. 901 refers to Building for Peace at Home and Abroad, by Maxwell Stewart, and is described as "factual, dramatic." Stewart has been named as a Communist. Card No. 1020 refers to The American, by Howard Fast, another notorious Communist who actually went to jail for contempt of this House, and is described as "historical, biographical."

The following are examples of how conservative works are torn down by the annotations: Card No. 809 refers to the Road to Serfdom, by Frederick A. Hayek, and is described as "factual, strongly opinionated, logical." Card No. 730 refers to Be Glad You're a Real Liberal, by Earl Bunting, diector of the National Association of Manufacturers, and is described as "opinionated, biased, descrip

tive." While the works of Communists and fellow travelers are often referred to as factual, this pamphlet by Bunting is called opinionated. In addition, on the card, where the summary is given, the synopsis starts out by saying:

"Meaning of the word 'liberal' (as defined by the National Association of Manufacturers)."

While Communists and fellow travelers are not identified as such, this item is clearly labeled as to its political orientation. I shudder to think about the fate of those thousands of schoolchildren who are given this kind of misleading instruction, financed by a tax-exempt foundation.

D. The public affairs pamphlets edited by a Communist

The public affairs pamphlets have received support in the amounts of several hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. These pamphlets are prominently displayed and sold in many public libraries and are frequently used in high schools. Many hundreds of thousands of copies of these pamphlets are distributed annually. For numerous years Maxwell S. Stewart has been the editor of the public affairs pamphlets, which are published by the public affairs committee. He has been an associate editor of the Moscow News, and has taught in Moscow. Dr. Louis F. Budenz has identified Stewart as a member of the Communist Party in sworn testimony given before the McCarran committee.

The House Military Subcommittee charged in 1949 that the publications of the Public Affairs Committee, Inc., "are recommended by the Affiliated Schools for Workers"-Communist-"and sold by Communist bookstores." George Seldes, in his pro-Communist publication called In Fact, offered a free public affairs pamphlet as a bonus for renewal subscription for In Fact. Seldes said, in part: "These pamphlets prepared by the Public Affairs Committee are, though popularly written, authoritative. You will find them an excellent source for dependable information."

One of the public affairs pamphlets, entitled "The Races of Mankind," by Ruth Benedict and Gene Weltfish, published in 1943, was banned by the USO and the Army. Ruth Benedict had Communist-front organization affiliations, and recently Weltfish refused to answer the question whether she has been a Communist, before a Senate committee. Maxwell Stewart has written numerous pamphlets, such as Industrial Price Policy, which is slanted toward the left; the American Way, which casts grave doubt on the value of the free-enterprise system; Income and Economic Progress, which follows a similar line of argument; and the Negro in America, in which he lauds such undoubted Communists as Paul Robeson, Langston Hughes, and W. E. B. DuBois, and does not consider anti-Communist Negroes as outstanding Negroes. Charles Edward Amory Winslow's pamphlet, Health Care for Americans, was recommended as supplementary reading in the Jefferson School of Social Science. Carey McWilliams, who has been named a Communist, also write such pamphlets as Small Farm and Big Farm, What About Our Japanese-Americans. Louis Adamic, an admitted Communist, wrote a pamphlet called America and the Refugees.

E. The NEA and PEA propagandize for socialism

The National Education Association and the Progressive Education Association have received major contributions from the General Education Board, one of the foundations dispersing Rockefeller tax-exempt money. The National Education Association and Progressive Education Association are very important because through them the foundations are reaching right into the public schools and are affecting millions of schoolchildren. By 1947, some $8 million was spent by the General Education Board on new educational goals and procedures, and among others the National Education Association and Progressive Education Association were generously supported in educational reorganization and experimentation. During the 1930's these 2 educational organizations received particularly large sums of money, and by 1940 the National Education Association received a total of $456,100 and the Progressive Education Association a total of $1,635,941. Just what kind of educational reorganization and experimentation was supported by the tax-exempt funds of the General Education Board?

The Progressive Education Association-PEA-in its official magazine called Progressive Education, on page 257 of the November 1947 issue, had a lead article by John J. DeBoer, president, American Education Fellowship-the American Education Fellowship is the present name of the PEA. DeBoer has extensive Communist-front affiliations. In his lead article, DeBoer said that the 1947 con

vention of the American Education Fellowship-AEF-had such speakers as Langston Hughes and W. E. B. DuBois, whose affiliation with communism has already been indicated, and Curtis McDougall, who was a senatorial candidate on the Communist-dominated Wallace-Taylor-Kremlin ticket.

In the same magazine, on page 258, there is an article by Theodore Brameld, entitled "A New Policy for AEF." This article is a resolution for the American Education Fellowship, which was adopted at the 1947 convention to which DeBoer referred. The platform proposed by Brameld says on page 260 of the magazine:

"The two great constructive purposes which should now govern the American Education Fellowship follow directly from this brief analysis. They are:

"I. To channel the energies of education toward the reconstruction of the economic system, a system which should be geared with the increasing socializations and public controls now developing in England, Sweden, New Zealand, and other countries; a system in which national and international planning of production and distribution replaces the chaotic planlessness of traditional free enterprise: *** a system in which the interests, wants, and needs of the consumer dominate those of the producer; a system in which natural resources, such as coal and iron ore, are owned and controlled by the people; a system in which public corporations replace monopolistic enterprises and privately owned 'public' utilities.

*

"II. To channel the energies of education toward the establishment of genuine international authority in all crucial issues affecting peace and security; an order in which international economic planning of trade, resources, labor distribution and standards, is practiced, parallel with the best standards of individnal nations *** an order in which world citizenship thus assumes at least equal status with national citizenship."

Is this an educational program or is it propoganda in favor of socialism and world government?

The ideology of the National Education Association was stated in 1934 by Willard E. Givens, who at that time was superintendent of schools at Oakland, Calif., and subsequently become executive secretary of the NEA, a post which he held for 18 years. Under the title "Education for the New America," in the Proceedings of the 72d Annual Meeting of the NEA, Givens said in 1934: "This report comes directly from the thinking together of more thna 1,000 members of the department of superintendents (school superintendents). * * “A dying laissez-faire must be completely destroyed and all of us, including the owners, must be subjected to a large amount of social control. A large section of our discussion group, accepting the conclusions of distinguished students, maintain that in our fragile, interdependent society, the credit agencies, the basic industries, and utilities cannot be centrally planned and operated under private ownership.

"Hence they will join in creating a swift nationwide campaign of adult education which will support President Roosevelt in taking these over and operating them at full capacity as a unified national system in the interests of all of the people."

Is this an educational program or is it propaganda in favor of socialism? And why should the General Education Board, whose funds came from Rockefeller, who made his money under the free-enterprise system, support such propaganda? In 1940 the General Education Board gave $17,500 to the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National Council for the Social Studies, both divisions of the National Education Association, to prepare several teaching units which would provide teachers with resource material on social problems. One of these units was prepared by Oscar Lange and Abba P. Lerner and was called the American Way of Business. Both Lange and Lerner have been socialists for a long time, and Lange eventually renounced his American citizenship in order to become the Kremlin's Ambassador for Communist Poland to the United Nations. The American Way of Business, which was published by the National Education Association, is not an analysis of American business, but a propaganda tract for communism. Why should tax-exempt funds be used to enable two Socialists to write a propaganda piece on American business enterprise?

I also want to raise the significant question whether it is a coincidence that during the time when the National Education Association and the Progressive Education Association received particularly large grants and the American Way of Business was financed, the director for General Education, the division of the

General Education Board under which these grants were made, was Robert J. Havighurst, who has extensive affiliations with Communist fronts.

The five examples I have given of the use of tax-exempt funds are just indications of the kind of problems which a committee of the 83d Congress should thoroughly explore. These few examples are in my mind sufficient to justify a thorough inquiry. These examples do not involve just a grant of a few thousand dollars to a person who happens to be a Communist, but involve giving millions of dollars for many years to pro-Socialist and pro-Communist propaganda projects that are vitally affecting our children in our schools and have a tremendous influence over the public mind.

SUBVERSIVE AND PRO-COMMUNIST AND PRO-SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA ACTIVITIES OF THE FORD FOUNDATION

To illustrate the dubious staff and the many subversive and propaganda activities of the Ford Foundation, I offer the following examples from the extensive documentary evidence which I have in my possession:

1. Dubious staff of Ford Foundation

A. The record of Messrs. Berelson and Moseley: Bernard Berelson is the director of the Ford Foundation's Behavioral Sciences Division, which has just been allotted $3,500,000 for the creation of a center for advanced study in behavioral sciences, which will consider social relations in human behavior. Berelson, while on the faculty of the University of Chicago, served on a committee to welcome the Red dean of Canterbury, the Very Reverend Hewlett Johnson, world renowned apologist for communism who sports a Soviet decoration for his work in behalf of his Kremlin masters. The welcoming committee for the Red dean of Canterbury was organized under the auspices of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, an agency which has been cited as subversive and Communist by the Attorney General of the United States.

The East European fund was established by the Ford Foundation, is financed by it and deals with issues relating to the Soviet Union and its European satellites, and particularly with the settlement and adjustment of Soviet refugees who have come to the United States. The president of this fund is Philip E. Moseley, who is also director of the Russian Institute at Columbia University. Some years ago Professor Moseley made the following evaluation of the Soviet Union in a pamphlet he wrote for the Foreign Policy Association, also supported by foundations:

"Over the long run, great numbers of people will judge both the Soviet and American systems, not by how much individual freedom they preserve but by how much they contribute, in freedom or without it, to develop a better livelihood and a greater feeling of social fulfillment."

Garet Garett, editor of American Affairs, said that this is straight Communist Party ideology:

"It means only that pure Communist ideology may be thus imparted by Columbia University's Russian Institute through the Foreign Policy Association." Philip C. Jessup and Ernest J. Simmons are members of the administrative board of the Russian Institute at Columbia University, which is headed by Moseley. Professor Simmons is the editor of a book entitled "U. S. S. R.," which grew out of studies at Cornell University that were financed by the Rockefeller Foundation. At least 15 of the 20 contributors of this symposium edited by Simmons are pro-Soviet and none of the other 5 has ever been known as critics of the Soviet Union. Moreover, Professor Simmons has affiliations with Communist fronts.

B. The record of Mr. Gladieux: Another officer of the Ford Foundation is Bernard Louis Gladieux, former secretary to and protege of Henry Wallace. Gladieux entered Federal service in 1938 in Chicago with the Federal Works Agency, transferred to the Labor Department, Wage and Hour Administration, from there to the Bureau of the Budget, then to War Production Board, leaving the WPB on November 23, 1944, to go with UNRRA. On March 2, 1945, Henry Wallace was sworn in as Secretary of Commerce, and on April 30, 1945, he named Bernard L. Gladieux as his executive assistant. Gladieux remained in the Department of Commerce until October 1, 1951, when he was appointed as an officer of the Ford Foundation in charge of the New York office and as assistant to the president of the Ford Foundation.

I have been advised by a reliable and responsible source that Bernard L. Gladieux, while in Government service in Washington, had in addition to official

association in the ordinary course of business, social contacts with the following persons: William W. Remington, Michael J. Lee, Harry Samuel Magdoff, Philip M. Hauser. Magdoff was identified before a committee of the House in 1948 as a member of a Soviet spy ring. He recently appeared before the Senate Internal Security Committee and dived behind the fifth amendment when asked the $64 question. William W. Remington is in jail serving a term for denying that he was a Communist Party member while in the secret cell of Communists in the Tennessee Valley Authority. Michael J. Lee was fired from the Department of Commerce for disloyalty. Dr. Philip M. Hauser, a former professor at the University of Chicago, who wrote pro-Russian speeches for Henry Wallace, has not as yet been called as a witness by the committees who have investigated him and his activities.

Advice was also furnished to me that no investigation of Bernard L. Gladieux' loyalty had even been requested or made while he was in Federal service. But a review of hearings held pursuant to Senate Resolution 230, 81st Congress, 2d session, by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, certainly indicated that Gladieux' loyalty should have been investigated. A Member of the Senate took the witness stand before the committee and, after first being duly sworn as a witness, testified as follows:

"I understand that one Bernard L. Gladieux, of the Secretary's office, who is a protege of Henry Wallace, has exercised the power of nullifying decisions of the so-called loyalty board. In other words, if it found he was cleared of actual disloyalty but recommended as a poor security risk, not a good security risk, then someone overruled that finding."

Now, I am informed that it could be, probably is, Mr. Gladieux.

Mr. Gladieux never appeared before the Senate committee to answer the changes against him which were made on March 28, 30, and April 4, 1950. However, Mr. Gladieux was a witness on February 27, 1950, before a House Appropriations Subcommittee, of which the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rooney, was chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Flood, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Preston, the late Hon. Karl Stefan, of Nebraska, and the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Cliff Clevenger, were members.

At page 2341 the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rooney) stated:

"The story this year is that the Department of Commerce has taken the place of the State Department; that the Department of Commerce is the outfit in Government which is honeycombed with people belonging to the Communist Party."

Mr. Flood, on page 2346, made the following statement:

"You are executive assistant to the Secretary of Commerce, and after 2 hours of examination and cross-examination here I have not the faintest idea of your personal attitude toward this kind of case, which is a borderline case, or frankly on a case where anything else is concerned. I am very unhappy about your own point of view. Do you appreciate that?"

On page 2362, Mr. Gladieux, as the hearings were about to close, made a lengthy statement, to which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rooney), on page 2363, replied as follows:

"That is all so much nice language. To me it does not mean a thing. You have come up here this afternoon to acquaint us with the situation in the Department of Commerce. The results have been nil. We have not had the cooperation from you that we have had from the Department of State.

"You refused to take us into your confidence with regard to these things, and I have tried to handle it in an amicable way so that if questions were raised on the floor we might have the answers to them. You have reacted in the other direction, away from us. So now we are far apart, and we will have to stay that way. There is nothing that I can see that we can do about it."

Senator Karl Mundt, speaking before the Senate, made the remark that— "In 1950 the junior Senator from Nevada (Mr. Malone) rose on this floor to suggest that certain persons in the Department of Commerce were dangerous security risks."

Senator Mundt went on to say that a committee was created to investigate the charges made by Senator Malone, but that "after 3 or 4 days' hearing, Secretary of Commerce Sawyer rushed up to the Hill and agreed to fire the two men whom I had drawn into the net-Lee and Remington-if the hearing could be stopped." Continuing, Senator Mundt stated:

"I did not hear that agreement, but I know it was made, because I could never get the committee together again.

"I was really after Mr. Gladieux, secretary to the Secretary of Commerce, and

« ÎnapoiContinuă »