The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT) was established in 1905 and endowed with $15 million. (As of June 30, 1966, it had assets of $23 million.) The announced purposes of the CFAT have been varied: retirement allowances for college professors and pensions for their widows (the list of eligible professors was closed in 1931); educational enquiry; publication; consultative services; cooperation with other similar agencies in projects, studies and research, and in other activities which tend to encourage, uphold and dignify the profession of the teacher and the cause of higher education.
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) was established in 1910 and endowed with $10 million. (As of June 30, 1965, it had assets of $42 million.) The announced purposes of the CEIP have been "to advance the cause of peace among nations; to hasten the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy; to encourage and promote methods for the peaceful settlement of international differences and for the increase of international understanding and accord; to aid in the development of international law and the acceptance by all nations of the principles underlying such law." The CEIP has described the methodology of promoting its purposes as including the publication of books and pamphlets; the subsidization of study clubs in colleges and universities for the study of international relations; the encouragement (by subsidization) of discussion on international subjects through institutes and international exchange programs of professors and students; the promotion (by subsidization) of better understanding between nations by international visits of representative individuals and groups; the improvement of teaching and the increase of study of international law through fellowships and other financial grants; and, the maintenance of what may be termed a laboratory of observation of the contemporary phenomenon of war and the results of war.
The Carnegie Corporation (CC) was established in 1911 and endowed with $135 million. (As of September 30, 1966, it had assets of $289 million.) It describes its purposes and activities as: "The advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding among the peoples of the United States and of the British Commonwealth, excluding India, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. In the United States, grants are made to colleges, universities, professional associations, and other educational organizations for studies of critical problems facing American education, the improvement of teaching, and research and training programs in public and international affairs."
In 1953, the Carnegie group (CFAT, CEIP, and CC) — along with other foundations and organizations — came under the scrutiny of the Congress which created a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations (the Reece Committee). The Reece Committee was "authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete investigation and study of educational and philanthropic foundations and other comparable organizations which are exempt from Federal income taxation to determine if any foundations and organizations are using their resources for purposes other than the purposes for which they were established, and especially to determine which such foundations and organizations are using their resources for un-American and subversive activities; for political purposes; propaganda, or attempts to influence legislation."
|Rep. Wayne L. Hays (D-OH)|
study." From the beginning, it was hampered by the lack of adequate appropriations and a lack of complete cooperation from the Executive branch and foundation officials. Within the Committee itself, there was marked dissension, exemplified by the obstructionist and disruptive tactics of the ranking minority member, Wayne L. Hays (D. -Ohio). Nevertheless, the Committee did hold sixteen public hearings before the Chairman and the two majority (Republican) members finally voted to discontinue the hearings because they believed that Hays’ harassment made it impossible to conduct orderly hearings. Chairman Reece charged that Hays intended all along to frustrate the investigation and to whitewash the foundations. Indeed, Reece went so far as to say that Hays worked hand-in-hand with some of the foundations to prevent the Committee from making the full and complete investigation as authorized and directed by the House.
Chairman Carroll Reece later wrote: "The most difficult assignment of my thirty years in the Congress of the United States was the chairmanship of the Special Committee . . . This investigation required embarrassingly close scrutiny of the intellectual activities supported by the great and highly respected names of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford... [and] I had sensed the power that would spring up in opposition to a complete investigation.
"The obstacles were obvious from the first. We knew that the influential ‘liberal’ press, characterized by the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, and the Washington Post-Times Herald, would throw its editorial power against the Committee. We knew that even the bulk of the conservative press could not be unmindful of the enormous power of these foundations. We knew that many prominent educators, regardless of what they felt, could not be unmindful of the dependency of their institutions upon continued largess from the foundations involved. We knew that the group of prominent men whose decisions would have to be judged extended even to intimates of the White House." (Preface to Rene A. Wormser's Foundations: Their Power and Influence, Devin-Adair, 1958.)
Columnist John O’Donnell, writing in the New York Daily News (December 21, 1954), described the Reece Committee as having an "almost impossible task" of telling "the taxpayers that the incredible was, in fact, the truth. The incredible fact was that the huge fortunes piled up by such industrial giants as John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Henry Ford were today being used to destroy or discredit the free-enterprise system which gave them birth."
B. Carroll Reece
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Tennessee's 1st district
(2.)"The power of the individual large foundation is enormous. It can exercise various forms of patronage which carry with them elements of thought control. It can exert immense influence on educational institutions, upon the educational process, and upon educators. It is capable of invisible coercion through the power of its purse. It can materially predetermine the development of social and political concepts and courses of action through the process of granting and withholding foundation awards upon a selective basis, and by designing and promulgating projects which propel researchers in selected directions. It can play a powerful part in the determination of academic opinion, and, through this thought leadership, materially influence public opinion."
(3.) "The power to influence national policy is amplified tremendously when foundations act in concert. There is such a concentration of foundation power in the United States, operating in the social sciences and education. It consists basically of a group of major foundations, representing a gigantic aggregate of capital and income. There is no conclusive evidence that this interlock, this concentration of power, having some of the characteristics of an intellectual cartel, came into being as the result of an over-all, conscious plan. Nevertheless, it exists. It operates in part through certain intermediary organizations supported by the foundations. It has ramifications in almost every phase of research and education, in communications and even in government. Such a concentration of power is highly undesirable, whether the net result of its operations is benign or not."
(4.) "A professional class of administrators of foundation funds has emerged, intent upon creating and maintaining personal prestige and independence of action, and upon preserving its position and emoluments. This informed ‘guild’ has already fallen into many of the vices of a bureaucratic system, involving vast opportunities for selective patronage, preference and privilege. It has already come to exercise a very extensive, practical control over most research in the social sciences, much of our educational process, and a good part of government administration in these and related fields. The aggregate thought-control power of this foundation and foundation-supported bureaucracy can hardly be exaggerated. A system has thus arisen (without its significance being realized by foundation trustees) which gives enormous power to a relatively small group of individuals, having at their virtual command, huge sums in public trust funds. It is a system which is antithetical to American principles."
(5.) "Research in the social sciences plays a key part in the evolution of our society. Such research is now almost wholly in the control of the professional employees of the large foundations and their obedient satellites. Even the great sums allotted by the Federal Government for social science research have come into the virtual control of this professional group."
(6.) "The impact of foundation money upon education has been very heavy, largely tending to promote uniformity in approach and method, tending to induce the educator to become an agent for social change and a protagonist for the development of our society in the direction of some form of collectivism. Foundations have supported text books (and books intended for inclusion in collateral reading lists) which are destructive of our basic governmental and social principles and highly critical of our cherished institutions."
(7.) "In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda, by supplying executives and advisers to government and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote ‘internationalism’ in a particular sense — a form directed toward ‘world government’ and a derogation of American ‘nationalism. Foundations have supported a conscious distortion of history, propagandized blindly for the United Nations as the hope of the world, supported that organization’s agencies to an extent beyond general public acceptance, and leaned toward a generally ‘leftist’ approach to international problems."
The Carnegie group was culpable of each charge contained in the findings of the Reece Committee. (The same was true of the Rockefeller and Ford foundations but the effectiveness of these groups was neither as long-lived nor as consistent as the Carnegie group.)
|Nicholas Murray Butler (1862-1947)|
During World War I, Butler — worried about the fate of Britain —forsook "international peace" in favor of propagandizing for the entrance of the United States into the European war, with the result that the first major project of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was an expenditure of funds for intervention. Once the war was over and Britain was safe, Butler led his fellow Trustees toward support of the League of Nations along with a widespread campaign directed toward making Americans international-minded. (Incidentally, one of Butler’s books was entitled The International Mind.)
From 1910 until 1925, Elihu Root was president of the CEIP. Root, an internationalist, went along with Butler’s ideas. From 1925 until 1945, Butler was president and it was during his tenure that the CEIP became the nation’s prime propagandist for internationalism. In its 1925 Yearbook, the CEIP said: "Underneath and behind all these undertakings there remains the task to instruct and to enlighten public opinion so that it may not only guide but compel the action of governments and public officers in the direction of constructive progress." Constructive progress in the lexicon of the CEIP meant success in the promotion of internationalism.
The Reece Committee summarized the CEIP's program: "An extremely powerful propaganda machine was created. It spent many millions of dollars in: The production of masses of material for distribution; the creation and support of large numbers of international polity clubs, and other local organizations at colleges and elsewhere; the Underwriting and dissemination of many books on various subjects, through the ‘International Mind Alcoves’ and the ‘International Relations Clubs and Centers’ which it organized all over the country; the collaboration with agents of publicity, such as newspaper editors, the preparation of material to be used in school text books, and cooperation with publishers of text books to incorporate this material; the establishing of professorships at the colleges and the training and indoctrination of teachers; the financing of lecturers and the importation of foreign lecturers and exchange professors; the support of outside agencies touching the international field, such as the Institution of International Education, the Foreign Policy Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Council on Education, the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, the American Association of International Conciliation, the Institute of Pacific Relations, the International Parliamentary Union and others, and acting as mid-wife at the birth of some of them."
Through the "International Mind Alcoves," the CEIP distributed books written by Communists, Socialists, pro-Communists, and left-wing internationalists. To the "International Relations Clubs and Centers," the CEIP sent a wide assortment of leftwing literature published by the Foreign Policy Association, the Institute of Pacific Relations, and the American-Russian Institute with the result that university and college students in International Relations Clubs were exposed to a barrage of Communist or pro-Communist literature represented as objective scholarship.
While the CEIP was contaminating campuses with leftwing propaganda, it was also exerting powerful influence upon the State Department. As early as 1934 in its Yearbook, the CEIP boasted that it was "becoming an unofficial instrument of international policy, taking up here and there the ends and threads of international problems and questions which the governments find it difficult to handle, and through private initiative reaching conclusions which are not of a formal nature but which officially find their way into the policies of governments." It was no idle boast. Personnel from the CEIP and the Council on Foreign Relations, which was subsidized by the CEIP, took consultative and administrative positions in the State Department during the 1930’s and 1940’s.
The successor to Butler as president of the CEIP was Alger Hiss who took office in 1947. Hiss, whose subversive reputation was already an open secret in governmental circles, had played a key role in the establishment of the United Nations as director of the Office of Special Political Affairs in the State Department. He moved directly from the State Department to the presidency of CEIP and immediately began to promote the United Nations as a top priority project for the CEW.
In the 1947 Yearbook of the CEIP, Hiss told the Trustees that the presence of the UN in New York meant that "the opportunity for an endowed American institution having the objectives, tradition and prestige of the Endowment, to support and serve the United Nations is very great." lie recommended that the CEIP focus its work on aiding the UN in every way possible. He mentioned a "widely educational" program directed at the general public and he encouraged the Trustees to "aid in the adoption of wise policies, both by our own government in its capacity as a member of the United Nations, and by the United Nations Organization as a whole."
|Alger Hiss - Convicted of Purjury & Espionage for Soviet Union|
"Of particular importance is the unusual opportunity of reaching large segments of the population by establishing relations of a rather novel sort with the large national organizations which today are desirous of supplying their members with objective information on public affairs, including international issues.
These organizations — designed to Serve, respectively, the broad interests of business, church, women’s, farm, labor, veterans’, educational, and other large groups of our citizens — are not equipped to set up foreign policy research staffs of their own. The Endowment should supply these organizations with basic information about the United Nations and should assist them both in selecting topics of interest to their members and in presenting those topics so as to be most readily understood by their members. We should urge The Foreign Policy Association and The Institute of Pacific Relations to supply similar service on other topics of international significance.
"Exploration should also be made by the Endowment as to the possibilities of increasing the effectiveness of the radio and motion pictures in public education on world affairs."
Hiss’ successor as president of the CEIP was James T. Shotwell, emeritus professor of international relations from Columbia University and a trustee of CEIP since 1924. His internationalism dated back to his experience on Edward Mandell House’s "Inquiry," at the Paris Peace Conference. Shotwell's tenure lasted but a year and, in 1950, he was succeeded by Joseph E. Johnson who had been Hiss’ chief assistant in the State Department. Johnson was also an official of the leftwing pacifist World Peace Foundation, the leftwing-internationalist Council on Foreign Relations, and the soft-on-Communism Foreign Policy Association.
Since Johnson became president, the CEIP has continued and in-creased its work on behalf of the United Nations. In 1953, the Carnegie International Center was built opposite the United Nations headquarters in New York City. In 1957, the CEIP and the Foreign Policy Association founded the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center where corporation executives, educators, civic leaders, and journalists could be briefed (or brainwashed) on the virtues of the United Nations.
One of the CEIP’s major projects during the 1950’s was a massive propaganda effort on behalf of a United Nations "Peace" Force. But Johnson’s most important work as president of the CEIP has been his overseership of Apartheid and United Nations, a blueprint for a United Nations military invasion and conquest of the Republic of South Africa, a member-nation of the UN. According to CEIP’s analysts, the conquest of South Africa could be accomplished within four months because the United States and the Soviet Union would be supporting the "massive direct military intervention." (As of January, 1967, Apartheid and United Nations had gone through three printings.) Other officials of the CEIP in the period, who must have shared Johnson’s penchant for wanton aggression against South Africa, included: Andrew Cordier, Ernest Gross, Gabriel Hauge, William L. Langer, Ralph McGill, Whitney North Seymour, George N. Shuster, and Arthur K. Watson.
While the CEIP has labored to subvert America’s nationalist interests in favor of a collectivist one-world, the Carnegie Corporation and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching have been corrupting educational processes.
Alone or in combination, the CC and the CFAT have heavily subsidized the American Council on Education, the National Education Association, the Progressive Education Association, the National Council on Parent Education, and the American Youth Commission which serve as clearing-houses for progressive-modernist-permissive educationist techniques and materials in higher, secondary, primary, and adult education.
One of the Carnegie group’s major strokes in education came about when the Carnegie Corporation granted $340,000 to the American Historical Association for the production of a study by the AHA's Commission on Social Studies. The Commission published its study in sixteen sections, the last of which appeared in 1934 under the title Conclusions and Recommendations.
Without regret, Conclusions and Recommendations stated that "a new age of collectivism is emerging" in the United States, replacing "the age of individualism and laissez faire in economy and government." The study continued:
"10. As to the specific form which this "collectivism," this integration and interdependence, is taking and will take in the future, the evidence at hand is by no means clear or unequivocal. It may involve the limiting or supplanting of private property by public property or it may entail the preservation of private property, extended and distributed among the masses. Most likely, it will issue from a process of experimentation and will represent a composite of historic doctrines and social conceptions yet to appear. Almost certainly it will involve a larger measure of compulsory as well as voluntary cooperation of citizens in the conduct of the complex national economy, a corresponding enlargement of the functions of government, and an increasing state intervention in fundamental branches of economy previously left to the individual discretion and initiative — a state intervention that in some instances may be direct and mandatory and in others indirect and facilitative. In any event the Commission is convinced by its interpretation of available empirical data that the actually integrating economy of the present day is the forerunner of a consciously integrated society in which individual economic actions and individual property rights will be altered and abridged.
"11. The emerging age is particularly an age of transition. It is marked by numerous and severe tensions arising out of the conflict between the actual trend toward integrated economy and society, on the one side, and the traditional practices. dispositions, ideas, and institutional arrangements inherited from the passing age of individualism, on the other. In all the recommendations that follow the transitional character of the present epoch is recognized.
"12. Underlying and illustrative of these tensions are privation in the midst of plenty, violations of fiduciary trust, gross inequalities in income and wealth, widespread racketeering and banditry, wasteful use of natural resources, unbalanced distribution and organization of labor and leisure, the harnessing of science to individualism in business enterprise, the artificiality of political boundaries and divisions, the subjection of public welfare to the egoism of private interests, the maladjustment of production and consumption, persistent tendencies toward economic instability, disproportionate growth of debt and property claims in relations to production. deliberate destruction of goods and withdrawal of efficiency from production. accelerating tempo of panics. crises, and depressions attended by ever wider destruction of capital and demoralization of labor, struggles among nations for markets and raw materials leading to international conflicts and wars.
"13. If historical knowledge is any guide, these tensions, accompanied by oscillations in popular opinion, public policy, and the fortunes of the struggle for power, will continue until some approximate adjustment is made between social thought. social practice. and economic realities, or until society, exhausted by the conflict and at the end of its spiritual and inventive resources, sinks back into a more primitive order of economy and life. Such is the long-run view of social development in general, and of American life in particular, which must form the background for any educational program designed to prepare either children or adults for their coming trials, opportunities, and responsibilities."
The study then continued with a discussion of "redistribution" that was indisputably Marxian. Under the heading, "Choices Deemed Possible and Desirable," it was stated: "Within the limits of the broad trend toward social integration the possible forms of economic and political life are many and varied, involving wide differences in modes of distributing wealth, income, and cultural opportunity, embracing various conceptions of the State and of the rights, duties, and privileges of the ordinary citizen, and representing the most diverse ideals concerning the relations of sexes, classes, religions, nations, and races. . -
Then, under the heading, " The Redistribution of Power." The nation's educators were told how they might prepare to conduct themselves in a collectivist society: "I . If the teacher is to achieve these conditions of improved status and thus free the school from the domination of special interests and convert, it into a truly enlightening force in society, there must he a redistribution of power in the general conduct of education the board of education will have to he made more representative. the administration of the school will have to be conceived more broadly and the teaching profession as a whole will have to organize, develop a theory of its social function and create certain instrumentalities indispensable to the realization of its aims.
"2. The ordinary board of education in the United States, with the exception of the rural district board, is composed for the most part of business and professional men; the ordinary rural district board is composed almost altogether of landholders. In the former case the board is not fully representative of the supporting population and thus tends to impose upon the school time social ideas of a special class; in both instances its membership is apt to be peculiarly rooted in the economic individualism of the 19th century.
"3. If the board of education is to support a school program conceived in terms of the general welfare and adjusted to the needs of an epoch marked by transition to some form of socialized economy, it should include in its membership adequate representation of points of view other than those of private business.
"4. With the expansion of education and the growth of large school systems, involving the coordination of the efforts of tens, hundreds and even thousands of professional workers and the expenditure of vast sums of money on grounds, buildings and equipment, the function of administration has become increasingly important amid indispensable."
The AHA’s Commission on Social Studies seemed to leave nothing to chance in its recommendations for the collectivization of education, There was to be a consolidation of traditional subjects (history, civics, political science, sociology, geography, and economics) into the single and amorphous category of "social sciences." The American Historical Association was to take over The Historical Outlook, a journal for social science teachers, and rename it The Social Sciences. Textbook authors were "expected to revamp and rewrite their old works in accordance with this frame of reference and new writers in the field of the social sciences will undoubtedly attack the central problem here conceived" — the problem being: how to educate a collectivist society. "Makers of programs in the social sciences in cities, towns and states" would "recast existing syllabi and schemes of instruction." Colleges and teachers’ schools would revise their programs and conform to the "frame of reference" so that there would be a guarantee of "a supply of teachers more competent to carry out the philosophy [collectivism] and purpose here presented."
When Harold Laski read the AHA’s Conclusions and Recommendations, he said: "At bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases, the report is an educational program for a socialist America." The Carnegie Corporation hailed the "educational program for a socialist America" in its 1933-1934 Annual Report: "That its [the Commission’s] findings were not unanimously supported within the Commission itself, and that they are already the subject of vigorous debate outside it, does not detract from their importance, and both the educational world and the public at large owe a debt of gratitude both to the [American Historical] Association for having sponsored this important and timely study in a field of peculiar difficulty, and to the distinguished men and women who served upon the Commission."
The Carnegie group was not content to promote socialist education merely through the AHA’s Conclusions and Recommendations. Along with the Rockefeller and Russell Sage Foundations, the Carnegie Corporation subsidized the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, the most widely used reference for the "social sciences." The major portion of the editorial work was done on the Encyclopedia by Alvin Johnson whose flair for Socialism had been made evident when he was editor of New Republic and through his directorship of the ultra-radical New School for Social Research. (Two of Johnson’s assistant editors were known to him as Socialists.) For the major articles in the Encyclopedia, Johnson chose as authors Socialists, Marxists, pro-Communists, Communist fronters, and other radicals. This group included British Socialists Harold Laski and G - D. H. Cole; a Hungarian Socialist, Oscar Jassi; a German Socialist, Werner Sombart; a German Marxist, Max Beer; Communist-fronters Robert Morss Lovett, J. B. S. Hardman, Horace M. Kallen, Max Lerner, Roger Baldwin, Philip Klein, George Soule, John Fitch, Bernhard Stem; and such radicals as Gardiner Means, Adolf A. Berle Jr., George Counts, and Myron Watkins. The net effect was a massive collection of articles praising Socialism, Communism, and other collectivisms. As the Reece Committee indicated: "What is amazingly characteristic of the Encyclopedia is the extent to which articles on ‘left’ subjects have been assigned to leftists; in the case of subjects to the ‘right,’ leftists again have been selected to describe and expound them."
The Carnegie Corporation and the Carnegie Foundation for the’ Advancement of Teaching have contributed heavily to the financial support of the Social Science Research Council which has served as a central agency to promote conformity of so-called research in the so-called social sciences. The SSRC's thirty-member board of directors has twenty-one designated by the American Anthropological Association, the American Economic Association, the American Historical Association, the American Political Science Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, and the American Statistical Association. The SSRC also cooperates with time National Research Council, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the American Council on Education, and there exists between these four clearing houses an interlock of members which helps to constitute a virtual monopoly in the matter of research in the various disciplines included under the heading of social sciences.
The Carnegie Corporation, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have all heavily subsidized the American Council on Education. The ACE is the council of national and regional education associations and colleges and universities. It is a clearing house for the exchange of information and opinion; it establishes policy and acts as a distributing agent for foundations who make grants in the field of education; it is a liaison agent between educational institutions and federal departments and agencies; it distributes literature produced by a selected group of individuals on social and educational problems; and, it strives for a conformist educational policy on a national level and holds virtually totalitarian control over accreditation standards for universities and colleges.
One of the Carnegie Corporation's most notorious and consequential projects was the financing ($250,000) of Gunnar Myrdal's An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem in Modern Democracy. Myrdal, a Swedish Socialist of the Marxian variety, called upon the services of a host of Communists and fellow travelers to write on race problems in the South. What Myrdal produced was a vicious diatribe against the American people, the United States and its Constitution, and, especially, against the people of the Southern states. In 1954, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Earl Warren cited Myrdal’s An American Dilemma in its entirety as an authority for his rabble-rousing decision on the matter of segregation in local schools.
In recent years and currently, the Carnegie group has expanded its influence into every facet of education: educational television, international exchanges of students, remedial studies, aptitude tests, college newspapers, surveys of parochial schools, rehabilitation of drop-outs, Negroes’ schools, and teachers’ education. At the same time, the group has not neglected its promotion of pacifism and internationalism.