Was This the Beginning of the Deep State?

In 1953, the House of Representatives’ Cox Committee was re-formed into the Reece Committee, established by House Resolution 561 of the 82nd Congress to investigate whether tax-exempt organizations were using their funds to support communism. Banker Norman Dodd was selected to lead the investigation and accepted the consultancy as research director for the House of Representatives Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations. The chairman of this panel was Representative Carroll Reece (R-TN) who decided to focus on the twelve largest foundations (Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, etc.) since they represented 70 percent of the assets of all foundations at that time. Rene Wormser was hired as counsel on September 1, 1953, and Dodd hired, among others, attorney Kathryn Casey as a legal analyst.

Wormser was the senior member of the law firm of Myles, Wormser, & Koch, and a first-hand witness to the intense and powerful opposition to this investigation by these multi-billion-dollar trusts. The committee members were virtually hamstrung from the beginning of the investigation. In his 1958 book Foundations: Their Power and Influence, Wormser states:

An unparalleled amount of power is concentrated increasingly in the hands of an interlocking and self-perpetuating group. Unlike the power of corporate management, it is unchecked by stockholders; unlike the power of government, it is unchecked by the people; unlike the power of churches, it is unchecked by any firmly established canons of value.4

. . . When such foundations do good, they justify the tax-exempt status which the people grant them. When they do harm, it can be immense harm—there is virtually no counterforce to oppose them.⁵

According to the Dodd Report, the committee was to investigate whether the foundations had used their resources for purposes contrary to those for which they were established:

• As Un-American?

• Subversive?

• Political purposes?

• Resorted to propaganda in order to achieve the objectives for which they have made grants?

Dodd further stated, “To insure these determinations being made on the basis of impersonal facts, I directed the staff to make a study of the development of American Education since the turn of the century and of the trends and techniques of teaching and of the development of curricula since that time.”⁶

It should be noted that on page five of Dodd’s final report, he states, “As this report will hereafter contain many statements which appear to be conclusive, I emphasize here that each one of them must be understood to have resulted from studies which were essentially exploratory. In no sense should they be considered proved. I mention this in order to avoid the necessity of qualifying each as made.”

It is also critical to point out, though, that there is no refuting the facts presented in both the interviews of Norman Dodd and the committee’s final report, and that these findings are the direct result of a professionally conducted congressional committee and part of the congressional record for well over a half century. The report’s conclusion states, “It seems incredible that the trustees of typically American fortune-created foundations should have permitted them to be used to finance ideas and practices incompatible with the fundamental concepts of our Constitution. Yet there seems evidence that this may have occurred.”

Dodd began his investigation by sending the twelve largest foundations a letter, which included a list of specific questions. He soon received a response from Dr. Joseph Johnson, the recently appointed president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP). A meeting with Johnson, Dodd, and the CEIP counsel was arranged. Johnson proceeded to tell Dodd that it would be almost impossible to answer the questions since all their pre–World War II records had been warehoused, as they were scheduled to move into new headquarters. Johnson offered to have the CEIP minutes made available to the committee in the CEIP library. Dodd promptly accepted and instructed attorney Kathryn Casey to concentrate on the years 1910 to 1920. Casey was perfect for the job as she saw no reason to criticize the foundations and no need for the committee investigation. Apparently, the foundation’s new president had no idea of the incriminating evidence that was contained in those minutes. Shocked, Casey returned with findings that proved frightening.

William H. McIlhany II conducted an extensive interview with Norman Dodd for his 1980 book The Tax-Exempt Foundations. From McIlhany’s interview transcript:

[In the minutes, about 1911] the trustees raised a question. And they discussed the question and the question was specific, “Is there any means known to man more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they discussed this and at the end of a year they came to the conclusion that there was no more effective means to that end known to man. So, then they raised question number two, and the question was, “How do we involve the United States in a war?”⁷

And then they raised the question, “How do we control the diplomatic machinery of the United States?” And the answer came out, “We must control the State Department. . . .”⁸

To summarize Dodd’s subsequent comments:⁹

• Every high appointment in the State Department was to be cleared through an agency that the CEIP set up. [S. H. Note: Was this the beginning of the nation’s most influential policy-making think tank—the Council on Foreign Relations?] From the early 1900s, high appointees to each president’s State Department, responsible for America’s foreign policy, were apparently cleared by a 501c tax-exempt private foundation.

• Upon the United States entry into World War I, these same trustees in a meeting in 1917 congratulated themselves on the wisdom of their original decision, because already the impact of war had indicated it would—and can—alter life in this country. They even had the audacity to dispatch a telegram to President Wilson, cautioning him to see that the war did not end too quickly. [Italics inserted by S. H. to add emphasis.]

• The war was now over. Then the concern became, as expressed by the trustees, seeing to it that there was no reversion to life in this country as it existed prior to 1914. And they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, they must control education. [Italics inserted by S. H. to add emphasis.]

• Approaching the Rockefeller Foundation, the CEIP (Carnegie Foundation) asked, “Will you take on the acquisition of control of education as it involves subjects that are domestic in their significance? We’ll take it on the basis of subjects that have an international significance.”

• The trustees then decided that the key to controlling education is the teaching of American history, but they were unsuccessful in getting historians to commit to this. The Guggenheim, though, agreed to grant scholarships to selected candidates who were going on to graduate degrees. And so it began.

As McIlhany points out next, “Not only did some of America’s most respected historians swallow the line that Germany was completely responsible for World War I, but . . . [the CEIP] organized the National Board for Historical Service which was designed to line up all the historians in the Allied cause and in support of Wilson’s interventionist policies.”¹⁰ World War I was actually started by Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, with countries aligned in treaties with the two countries joining. Germany entered on the side of Austria-Hungary.

Dodd directed his staff to explore foundation practices, educational procedures, and the operations of the executive branch of the federal government since 1903 for reasonable evidence of a purposeful relationship between them. Its ensuing studies disclosed such a relationship, and that it had existed continuously since the beginning of this fifty-year period. In addition, these studies seem to give evidence of a response to our involvement in international affairs. Grants had been made by foundations (chiefly by Carnegie and Rockefeller) which were used to further this purpose by:

• Directing education in the United States toward an international viewpoint and discrediting the traditions to which it had been dedicated.

• Training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the executive branch of the federal government.

• Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition.

• Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.

• Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature.

Dodd realized that the committee had to study the development of American education since the turn of the century, including the trends of techniques of teaching and the curriculum, so he directed his staff to investigate the following agencies where the developments and trends had been traced: the American Council of Learned Societies, the Social Science Research Council, the American Council on Education, the National Education Association, the League for Industrial Democracy, the Progressive Education Association, the American Historical Association, the John Dewey Society, the Anti-Defamation League, and the National Research Council.

After identifying the above foundation-funded groups, Dodd stated that his investigation “has revealed not only their support by foundations but has disclosed a degree of cooperation between them which they have referred to as ‘an interlock,’ thus indicating a concentration of influence and power. By this phrase they indicate they are bound by a common interest rather than a dependency upon a single source for capital funds. It is difficult to study their relationship without confirming this. Likewise, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that their common interest . . . lies in the planning and control of certain aspects of American life through a combination of the federal government and education.”¹¹ [Italics inserted by S. H. to add emphasis.]

Other significant observations from the final report:

• “Some of the larger foundations have directly supported ‘subversion’ in the true meaning of that term—namely, the process of undermining some of our vitally protective concepts and principles. They have actively supported attacks upon our social and governmental system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas.”

• “In summary: Our study of these entities and their relationship to each other seems to warrant the inference that they constitute a highly efficient, functioning whole. Its product is apparently an educational curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American student from matriculation to the consummation of his education. It contrasts sharply with the freedom of the individual as the cornerstone of our social structure. For this freedom, it seems to substitute the group, the will of the majority, and a centralized power to enforce this will—presumably in the interest of all.” [Italics inserted by S. H. to add emphasis.]

• “The result of this network in which Foundations have played such a significant role seems to have provided this country with what is tantamount to a national system of education under the tight control of organizations and persons little known to the American public.”

• “Principles and their truth or falsity seem to have concerned them very little.”

• “In what appears from our studies to have been zeal for a radically new social order in the United States, many of these social science specialists apparently gave little thought to either the opinions or the warnings of those who were convinced that a wholesale acceptance of knowledge acquired almost entirely by empirical methods would result in a deterioration of moral standards and a disrespect for principles. Even past experience which indicated that such an approach to the problems of society could lead to tyranny, appears to have been disregarded.” [Italics inserted by S. H. to add emphasis.]

The latter point deserves further thought. Though President Donald Trump’s political base seems to be solidly behind him, certainly representing a very large percentage of the country’s voice, his political foes lend credence to the belief that many of the administration’s policies reflect an unrestrained exercise of power. Sixty-four years earlier, did Norman Dodd’s final report to the Reese Committee’s Congressional investigation of tax-exempt foundations contain a foreboding warning?

In conclusion, presumably charitable and philanthropical foundations sought to control your and your ancestors’ education, requested that the president of the United States unnecessarily continue to keep our soldiers in harm’s way, and directed the presidential cabinet responsible for American foreign policy. Singling out the Ford Foundation, Dodd notes, “It is significant that the policies of this foundation include making funds available for certain aspects of secret military research and for the education of the Armed Forces. It becomes even more significant when it is realized that the responsibility for the selection of the personnel engaged in these projects is known to rest on the foundation itself—subject as it may be to screening by our military authorities.”¹²

Not surprisingly, a report revealing that nonprofit foundations were controlling US education and our State Department, and instigating internationalism and collectivism, did not sit too well within certain government circles. The attacks came from both liberal and conservative influences, including the New York Times. The committee was quickly dissolved, and the report quietly banished to the congressional file room.

As McIlhany says, “Under the weight of media and, possibly, White House pressure . . . the minority report submitted by Hays and Pfost was a masterpiece of self-righteous indignation that depended for its credibility on the fact that most of those who read it or media reports of its contents had read none of the hearings. . . . Perhaps the most revealing fact about the frightened elite’s attack on the Reece Committee was their frantic effort to discredit or belittle the witnesses who testified against them as men . . . ‘of dubious standing.’”¹³ As McIlhany’s notes show, “Reece managed to answer the few specific things Hutchins had actually said, including the fact that the witnesses ‘of dubious standing’ had been faculty members of Columbia University, Yale University, Harvard University, Northwestern University, and the University of Pennsylvania.”¹⁴

Between May 10 and July 9, 1954, the Reece Committee on Tax-Exempt Foundations produced 2,086 pages of testimony. On June 3, Assistant Research Director Thomas M. McNiece made his presentation before the committee, and it clearly shows how deep the foundation reach went into American life. From the June 3rd transcript:

McNiece presented the following chart which he headed, “Inter-Relationships Between Foundations, Education, and Government,” and in which he said, “This chart as a whole will be useful in locating the areas in which we have found evidence of questionable procedure against what we deem to be public interest . . .”¹⁵

This May 1954 Congressional Committee chart tracks the flow of money, men, and ideas from the tax-exempt foundations into critical sectors of American life.

The ensuing financial data will give some idea of the great amount of funds and their distribution made, available in the educational field by a few of the larger foundations. The statement is by no means complete. In fact it contains the contributions of only six of the larger foundations where the specific beneficiaries are named. These six are as follows: The Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, The Rockefeller Foundation, The General Education Board, [and] The Ford Foundation (two instances only). . . .

McNiece then listed the following associations and the grant amounts that each has received from the above six foundations totaling over $60 million: American Council on Education, American Historical Association, American Council of Learned Societies, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy Association, Institute of International Education, Institute of Pacific Relations, National Academy of Sciences (including National Research Council), National Education Association, Progressive Education Association, Social Science Research Council.

Great benefit has unquestionably resulted to all mankind from the contributions of these and other foundations and there is no intention to gainsay or minimize this or to detract from the credit due the foundations for these benefits . . . What this investigation does seem to indicate is that many small grants have found their way into questionable hands and many large ones in points of concentrated use have been devoted to purposes that are promoting a departure from the fundamental concepts of education and government under our Constitution. That this may be recognized by those engaged in such activities is indicated by the frequent references in their own literature to the “age of transition” through which we are passing, and the responsibility that must be assumed by educators in leading the way. No one in full possession of his faculties should oppose change for the better but change for the sake of change alone may prove to be a dangerous delusion. . . . [Italics inserted by S. H. to add emphasis.]

According to our compilations, the Carnegie Corp. has contributed to all educational purposes, from 1911 to 1950, approximately $25,300,000 . . . from 1902 to 1951, the Rockefeller Foundation and the General Education Board combined to universities and including only the totals to the ten largest beneficiaries of each of the two foundations in each State of the United States contributed over $290 million. . . .”

“We find that the responsibilities of the leaders and teachers in the world of education are especially emphasized during this age of transition, as demonstrated in the final report, 16th volume, of the Commission on Social Studies as previously quoted on page 15. In the mid-forties, the president appointed a Commission on Higher Education. Their conclusions and recommendations were reported in a series of six pamphlets in December 1947. Mr. George F. Zook, president of the American Council of Learned Societies, was chairman of this Commission. In the Commission’s reports they gave credit to the following organizations for aid received: American Council of Learned Societies, American Council on Education, National Research Council, Social Science Research Council, American Association of University Professors, and Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities. The following quotations are taken from the pages indicated in volume I of the Report of the President’s Commission on Higher Education Page 6: Education: Perhaps its most important role is to serve as an instrument of social transition, and its responsibilities are defined in terms of the kind of civilization society hopes to build. Page 84: Higher education must be alert to anticipate new social and economic needs, and to keep its programs of professional training in step with the requirements of a changing and expanding cultural, social, and economic order. . . .”¹⁶ [Italics inserted by S. H. to add emphasis.]

Americans presumably send their children to school to learn English grammar and spelling, foreign languages, arithmetic, American and World history, science, etc. The nonprofit and tax-exempt foundations apparently have other visions of educating America’s children: Collectivism. Internationalism. Social transition. Age of transition.