Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Mr. MCNIECE. One more statement I would like to make that concerns procedure. This report, as is indicated, is the initial staff report on relationships between foundations and education. It is dated May 20, 1954, because this was originally scheduled for presentation at that date, and upon that date copies of this document were given to all members of the committee.

This presentation will concern largely, if we follow the diagram, the area encompassed by foundations and the suspended educational units in the center, and then swinging around to the left. In other words, through the field of education. Later, a section of the report will cover the relationships principally between foundations and government as shown on the chart and then just a few moments devoted to closing the triangle by swinging across horizontally through the Federal or United States Office of Education.

Mr. KOCH. Does your present report only deal with the educational matter?

Mr. MCNIECE. That is right. This section of the report.

That brings up the next statement I would like to make. We have prepared and ready for distribution to the members of the committee, and the only copies we have, of the so-called Economic Report and the Public Interest. They are ready today. The short intermediate section referring to relations between foundations and the government is in the course of preparation and mimeographing at this moment, because we have included data right up to the last minute. It is supposed that they will be ready for us by noon.

I want to make that statement in explanation of the fact that the whole thing is not ready for the committee as of this moment. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS M. McNIECE, ASSISTANT RESEARCH DIRECTOR, SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Mr. MCNIECE. From the jungle of semantics various people may derive different interpretations from the same statement. In the simplest terms possible, we wish to say that in this report, regardless of other interpretations, we intend to draw no conclusions, but rather to portray such available facts as we have been able to gather on this complex subject. This report covers but one phase of the larger work that is being done.

Furthermore, we are not criticizing change as such. Rather does the evidence which will be offered seem to show that the pattern is one of evolving collectivism, the ultimate aim of several varieties of political thought with different names and a common objective.

To explain our reference to a common objective, we wish to quote from the sources indicated a number of statements on this subject. Report of the Joint Legislative Committee Investigating Seditious Activities, filed in New York State, 1920. I believe that was known as the Lusk committee.

In the report here presented the committee seeks to give a clear, unbiased statement and history of the purposes and objects, tactics and methods, of the various forces now at work in the United States . . . which are seeking to undermine and destroy, not only the government under which we live, but also the very structure of American society;

In the section of this report dealing with American conditions, the committee has attempted to describe in detail the various organizations masquerading as political parties, giving the principles and objects for which they stand, as well as methods and tactics they employ in order to bring about the social revolution.

In every instance the committee has relied upon the so-called party or organization's own statements with respect to these matters.

Those (organizations) representing the Socialist point of view are the Socialist Party of America, the Communist Party of America, the Communist Labor Party, and the Socialist Labor Party. Each of these groups claim to be the most modern and aggressive body representing Marxian theories.

A study of their platforms and official pronouncements shows that they do not differ fundamentally in their objectives.

These organizations differ but slightly in the means advocated to bring about the social revolution . . . they differ slightly in the matter of emphasis . . .

League for Industrial Democracy: Definition of "Democracy", New Frontiers, Vol. IV, No. 4, June 1936:

The fight for democracy is at one and the same time also a fight for socialism, democracy, to be sure, rests on liberty, but its substance is equality

But finally, equality is social equality. All political institutions of democracy are perverted by private property in the means of production. Personal, legal, political equality-they all can be fully realized only when private property is abolished, when men have an equal control over property.

Democratic Socialism by Roger Payne and George W. Hartman, 1948, page 77.

These men are English authors.

In the socialist society of the future there will be two things in which it will be fundamentally different from the present society. One of these is collective ownership of the means of production and distribution; the other is a complete democracy under which the political, economic, social and international life will be complete democratized.

The Socialist Call (official Organ of the Socialist Party) April 1954, page 5:

Socialists regard the capitalist system of private property relations, with its complex, disputable, sometimes unfathomable inner economic laws and relationships, as a wall that stands between humanity and its goals in economic affairs, between man and his bread and peace of mind.

THE INTRODUCTION

On page A1161 of the appendix of the Congressional Record of February 15, 1954, there appears the copy of an article by Seymour E. Harris, professor of economics at Harvard University. This article is entitled, "The Old Deal," and appeared originally in the magazine Progressive in the issue of December 1953. We are quoting the first paragraph of this article:

In the 20 years between 1933 and 1953 the politicians, college professors, and lawyers, with a little help from business, wrought a revolution in the economic policies of the United States. They repudiated laissez-faire. They saw the simple fact that if capitalism were to survive, Government must take some responsibility for developing the Nation's resources, putting a floor under spending, achieving a more equitable distribution of income, and protecting the weak against the strong. The price of continuing the free society was to be limited intervention by Government.

Stepping backward for a span of 9 years, we wish to submit another quotation, this time from the issue of October 15, 1943, of the magazine Frontiers of Democracy, the successor to an earlier one to which reference will be made later and which was called "Social Frontier," Dr. Harold Rugg of teachers college, Columbia University, was the editor of the latter magazine and the author of the article from which this excerpt is made.

Thirteen months will elapse between the publication of this issue of Frontiers and the national election of 1944. In those months the American people must make one of the great decisions in their history. They will elect the President and the Congress that will make the peace and that will carry on the national productive system in the transition years. The decisions made by that Government, in collaboration with the British and Russian Governments, will set the mold of political and economic life for a generation to come. * * * We have suddenly come out upon a new frontier and must chart a new course. It is a psychological frontier, an unmarked wilderness of competing desires and possessions, of property ownerships and power complexes. On such a frontier wisdom is the supreme need, rather than technological efficiency and physical strength in which our people are so competent.

We are strong enough but are we wise enough? We shall soon see for the testing moment is now. Our measure will be taken in these 13 months. The test is whether enough of our people-perhaps a compact minority of 10 million will be enough-can grasp the established fact that, in company with other industrializing peoples, we are living in a worldwide social revolution.

We propose to offer evidence which seems to indicate that this "revolution" has been promoted. Included within this supporting evidence will be documented records that will show how the flow of money, men, and ideas combined to promote this so-called revolution just mentioned.

The money in large part came from the foundations. Men and ideas in a great measure came from the intellectual groups or societies supported by this money and found their way into the powerful agencies of education and Government. Here in these pivotal centers were combined the professors, the politicians, and the lawyers mentioned a moment ago.

Foundations, education, and Government form a triangle of influences, natural under the circumstances and certainly without criticism in itself as long as the three entities exist and the liaison is not abused or misused in the furtherance of questionable activities.

THE ORGANIZATION CHART

The nature of these threefold relationships can be most clearly and quickly illustrated by reference to the chart prepared for the purpose and entitled, "Relationships Between Foundations, Education, and Government." Let it be emphasized again that there is no element of criticism or condemnation to be inferred from this chart. It is what is commonly considered as a functional organization chart, and its purpose is to display graphically what it is difficult to describe, to see and to understand by verbal description only.

As previously suggested, the chart is basically in the form of a triangle with appended rectangles to indicate the functional activities in their relationship to each other. At the apex we have placed the foundations. At the lateral or base angles, on the left and right, respectively, are the educational and governmental members of the triad. Suspended from the rectangle representing the foundations are those representing the intellectual groups which are dependent to a large extent upon the foundations for their support.

The relationships between and among these organized intellectual groups are far more complex than is indicated on the chart. Some of these organizations have many constituent member groups. The American Council of Learned Societies has 24 constituent societies, the Social Science Research Council 7, the American Council on Education 79 constituent members, 64 associate members, and 954 institutional members. In numbers and interlocking combinations they are too numerous and complex to picture on this chart.

Mr. KоCH. May I suggest that this chart he refers to should be deemed in evidence and part of the record?

The CHAIRMAN. I so understood.

Mr. KоCH. Go ahead.

Mr. HAYS. Where will it be inserted, not that it makes any difference. Will it be at the end of his statement or at the middle?

Mr. KOCH. I should think right here where he is talking about it. The CHAIRMAN. Under the caption "Organization Chart."

Mr. McNIECE. I would think that would be the natural place for it. Mr. Kocн. Go ahead.

Mr. MCNIECE. These types of intellectual societies may be considered as clearing houses or perhaps as wholesalers of money received from foundations inasmuch as they are frequently the recipients of relatively large grants which they often distribute in subdivided amounts to member groups and individuals.

For illustrative purposes, the following four societies are listed: American Council of Learned Societies, including the American His

[graphic][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »