Education: We Pay Our Way

In spite of the fact that the tax-exempf foundations were denied their day in court, they have nevertheless put up a strong defense against the mishmash of charges made before the Reece committee (TIME, June 21 et seq.). Both the Carnegie and the Ford Foundations have submitted sworn statements. Last week, on behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation and the General Education Board, President Dean Rusk sent in his. Among the “bizarre innuendoes” he chose to refute:

¶ That the foundations were responsible for some sort of “revolution” that began in the early ‘303. This charge was made by the committee’s research director, Norman Dodd, who, says Rusk, blandly ignored the influence of the Great Depression and two world wars. “Since the foundations have been charged with some undefined responsibility for an increase in the powers and functions of government, surely it is relevant that war and depression brought about an increased exercise of power by both the executive and legislative arms of the national Government under the Constitution. Surely it is also relevant that, while some measures adopted by government during these decades were abandoned, others have continued, despite changes in party control … In any event, a number of allegations heard in the course of these hearings appear to be directed, not at foundations, but at the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Government and at the electorate. We must strongly protest any attempt to involve our two non-political organizations in questions which are so basically political . . .” ¶ That the foundations have not adequately supported “pro-American” projects and organizations. “If we think,” says Rusk, “not of institutions, but of the kinds of work performed or supported, again we believe that our two foundations have contributed immeasurable benefits to our country. We mention, but do not emphasize, that a very large portion of our funds has been spent in the United States. We would suppose that a 35-year campaign against yellow fever was pro-American and that those who gave their lives in the foundation’s successful fight against this pestilence served America, as well as the rest of mankind, as truly as did the soldier who gave his life in battle … It does not diminish America’s gain to know that others benefitted as well, nor does it subtract from the end result to know that the impetus came from a desire to ‘promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world.’ ” ¶ That the foundations have an “internationalist” bias. “We find it puzzling to be called upon to defend what seems to us to be so obvious, that American scholarship should encompass other cultures and that educated Americans should know something about the world in which they live.” ¶ That the foundations have placed too much emphasis on “empirical” studies and the social sciences. “The relation between empirical studies and fundamental or general principle is an intellectual issue which is as old as man himself . . . It is not a question which any foundation . . . can or should referee or decide . . . Nor is it, we submit, a matter under the jurisdiction of the Congress.” ¶ That the foundations deprive the Government of too much tax revenue. “The activities of such agencies as endowed foundations make an important contribution to the economic structure upon which Government finance must rest. If, for example, the support of economic research makes it possible for both business leadership and Government to … sustain a high and steady national production, the benefit to the public purse is obvious. It is even more obvious that the virtual elimination of yellow fever, the sharp reduction in malaria and hookworm, have direct economic benefits . . . The Rockefeller Foundation and the General Education Board are large net contributors to, and not charges upon, our national wealth and public treasury. We believe that we clearly pay our way.”