Foundations: Their Power and Influence

This 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. (p. 326)

The giant foundation can exercise enormous power through the direct use of its funds. Moreover, it materially increases this power and its influence by building collateral alliances which serve greatly to insulate it against criticism. (p. 65)

Associated with the excessive support of the empirical method, the concentration of power has tended to support the dangerous “‘cultural lag” theory and to promote “moral relativity,” to the detriment of our basic moral, religious, and governmental principles. It has tended to support the concept of “social engineering”—that “social scientists” and they alone are capable of guiding us into better ways of living and improved or substituted fundamental principles. of action. (p. 328)

a new age of collectivism is emerging (p. 170)

It might be necessary paradoxically for us to control our press as the Russian press is controlled and as the Nazi press is controlled (p. 178)

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 [...] 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. (p. 327)

These foundations and their intermediaries engage extensively in political activity, not in the form of direct support of political candidates or political parties, but in the conscious promotion of carefully calculated political concepts. (p. 328)

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 processes, 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. (p. 326)

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. (p. 327)

Education must be used to condition the people to accept social change [...] the chief function [of schools is], to plan the future of society. (p. 180)

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 propagandist for the development of our society in the direction of some form of collectivism. (p. 328)

Our task is to create swiftly a compact body of minority opinion for the scientific reconstruction of our social order. (p. 183)

All its connections and associations, plus the often sycophantic adulation of the many institutions and individuals who had received largess from the foundation, give it an enormous aggregate of power and influence. This power extends beyond its immediate circle of associations, to those who hope to benefit from its bounty. (p. 65)

This power team has promoted a great excess of empirical research, as contrasted with theoretical research. It has promoted what has been called an irresponsible “fact finding mania.” [...] all too frequently to what has been termed “scientism” or fake science, seriously endangering our society upon subsequent general acceptance as “scientific” fact. (p. 327)

Almost certainly [...] a larger measure of compulsory as well as voluntary cooperation of citizen [...] a corresponding enlargement of the functions of government, and an increasing state intervention [...] rights will be altered and abridged. (p. 171)

Thefar-reaching power of the large foundations and of the interlock, has so influenced the press, the radio, and even the government that it has become extremely difficult for objective criticism of foundation practices to get into news channels without having first been distorted, slanted, discredited, and at times ridiculed. (p. 327)

As often repeated, the first step is to awaken and consolidate leadership around the philosophy and purpose of education herein expounded (p. 173)

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.” (p. 328)