"I have been driven to the conclusion that the University is really under the control of a small and active group of Trustees who have no standing in the world of education, who are reactionary and visionless in politics, narrow and medieval in religion. Their conduct betrays a profound misconception of the true function of a university in the advancement of learning."
Charles A. Beard
Upon His Resignation From Columbia University
Oct. 9, 1917
Who Rules Columbia?
|The Real Estate Establishment||3|
|International Corporations/ Administering the Empire||8|
|Columbia and the U.S. Intelligence Network||13|
|The Defense-Research Nexus||20|
|National Corporations/ Administering the Home Country||26|
There has been a failure to understand the real issues behind the Columbia uprising. The press has put forth a variety of misleading theories to explain the rebellion: the generational gap, the plotted leftist putsch, the failure of the university to respond to current and changing student needs, breakdown in communication, impatience, a sort of Rite of Spring, general anxiety over the Vietnam war ... theories which obfuscated the truth.
This pamphlet has been produced to clarify and explain the central issues. It will attempt to show concretely how Columbia University is set up not to service the needs of its own constituency -- faculty and students -- but rather to service outside interests which, by controlling Columbia finances, effectively control its policy. These outside interests, represented on the Board of Trustees, have organized the university as a "factory" designed to produce the skilled technicians and management personnel which the U.S. industrial and defense apparatus needs. The millions channeled into the university coffers by the agents of these interests are, for them, essentially an investment in people which, like any investment, is expected to yield certain returns.
The concept of the university as an investment determines the nature of grading systems and scholarship mechanisms which provide the rewards and punishments that channel human talents into specified occupations. The examination system does not test learning as such. Creativity and originality are sacrificed; testing is geared to show the ability to perform under pressure and to function in an hierarchy which channels instructions from the top down.
Our analysis focuses upon two sources outside the university from which Columbia trustees and key, administrators derive their power: 1) the control of money (we will show how Columbia's dependence on outside sources of income effects its internal policy); and 2) the control of strategic decision-making positions maintained by their corporate, defense and foundation connections (we will examine the organizational associations of the trustees to show that the interests they represent are those which the university curriculum and finances are manipulated to serve).
This control by non-indigenous and non-academic interests is the crucial issue behind the student rebellion. The student contention that the trustees represent illegitimate power is based on a concept fundamental to democracy: that the authority of the rulers is legitimate only insofar as it represents the ruled. By seizing the university buildings, the students sought to dramatize the illegitimacy of the authority of the trustees and to effect, if only briefly, a redistribution of power. The student action shattered two fundamental aspects of control: property was seized, violating one of the most sacred of ideas; and, with the exposure of Kirk's files, the veil of secrecy was torn away (secrecy has always been one of the strongest weapons of control).
Heretofore, we have derived our analysis from open sources: Standard & Poor's Directory, Who's Who in America, The New York Times, financial magazines and corporation prospectuses. We assumed that major power decisions were made at board meetings and that from an analysis of the interests represented therein, we could predict what would happen in a given situation. The documents liberated from Grayson Kirk's office clearly substantiate our theories. They are in fact the proto-textbook which negates everything the students were being taught at Columbia; the courses were irrelevant or themselves a form of pacification; what they taught was abstract, misleading, calculated to conceal the roles for which students were being trained.
The history of Columbia, while unique and marked by special features, parallels the growth of America. The changes Columbia went through are also the changes our country went through -- continuous, accelerating expansion at the expense of internal maturation. Overriding policy placed investment in the future ahead of satisfying current needs. The Columbia uprising is the direct result of unresolved domestic problems conflicting with such an investment policy.
Columbia has not always been located in Morningside Heights. The first Columbia campus was situated an lower Broadway, in accordance with a charter issued by the King of England (Kings College) in 1754. As an exclusive boys' school educating the sons of nobility, it placed heavy emphasis on a broad, liberal education based on the classics. By mid-1850, lower Manhattan was a thriving commercial and financial center unfit for a growing college campus. So, in 1857, the school moved to a deaf and dumb asylum located in midtown Manhattan.
The change in residence was accompanied by a wave of expansion and reform that signaled the ascendancy of a new commercial elite. Business elements throughout the East were becoming dominant in this period of history and were supplanting the old-line nobility as new fortunes were being accumulated from westward expansion and increased trade. The new commercial elite encouraged, a broadening in Columbia's social base and the establishment of professional schools for training highly specialized managers and technicians; the Law School was founded in 1859 and the School of Mines six years later.
By 1890, the city's expansion and turmoil had caught up with the campus and the trustees again decided to move northward. With funds donated by J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Willis James, A. A. Low and others, an 18-acre site consisting of four undivided city blocks nobly situated on the crown of Manhattan was acquired. At that time, the area was relatively undeveloped and free of slums. An authoritative history of Columbia published at the turn of the century noted, however, that the Morningside Heights site was of "historic interest. It was in this immediate vicinity and partly upon this very ground that the revolutionary battle of Harlem Heights was fought and for the first time in that contest, the raw, undisciplined American volunteers showed that their valor and persistence could successfully withstand the loyal troops and the ground was fitly consecrated to high purposes by the blood of early martyrs to the cause of rational freedom."
As with Columbia's former move, its relocation to Morningside coincided With a wave of expansion -- both for the nation and for Columbia. The continent had been settled by this time and a new direction was sought. The Great Depression of 1893 mirrored the indecisiveness about where to go; confronted by domestic ills and popular unrest caused by rapid industrialization, America had the alternative of either facing and curing their ills, or burying them in a new burst of expansion beyond her frontiers. The renewed business drive for markets and strategic resources set a new course which triggered the Spanish-American war. After each succeeding war, domestic needs were further submerged beneath the priorities of overseas expansion.
Both the construction of the Morningside campus and the transformation of Columbia College into a university marked a new era in the school's development. Graduate faculties emerged (Political Science, 1880; Philosophy, 1890; and Pure Science, 1892), and the professional schools were enlarged. Requirements for additional space dictated the construction of a massive campus, a campus which in its architecture and landscaping intentionally glorified expansion and empire. The architectural firm of McKim, Mean & White, noted for its design of monumental public buildings modeled after the imperial Roman period (such as the recently demolished Pennsylvania Station in New York), drew up a master plan that cut the campus off from the surrounding neighborhood and emphasized the hierarchical, authoritarian structure of the University. Low Library (modeled after the most outstanding example of Roman imperial architecture -- the Pantheon) was specifically designed to humble all those who approached its imposing edifice and focus attention on the seat of legal power.
During the unusually long presidency of. Nicholas Murray Butler (1902-1945), Columbia reached what has been called the Augustan Age. It was the age of the great humanist teachers, an age when the professional schools, though ascendant, were still not dominant. Butler set the theme for the new era when, he dedicated Columbia to "the international-mind." With funds collected from upper-class associates he expanded the University's size and national prestige. Yet he failed to mobilize financial support outside his close associates and upon his retirement crisis developed.
Like, the state of the whole nation, the post WW II period was a time of, confusion and indecision for Columbia. Again, the central question was internal consolidation versus accelerated expansion. A new president was not inaugurated for three years and the final selection, five star General Dwight D. Eisenhower, represented at best a public relations man with military contacts for contracts. The real power gravitated toward Grayson Kirk, an international affairs expert who served as a top State Department officer during the War. According to McGeorge Bundy, Columbia [along with Harvard] is now one of the "two great internationalist" universities in the United States.
Under Kirk's direction, the size of the student body as a whole remained constant while the budget increased five fold. An analysis of the University's financial base reveals, that government contracting and gifts have greatly increased their contribution to overall operating expenses, while student tuition and return on investments have declined. As a result, programs geared toward serving external institutions -- and concentrated in the professional schools and research centers -- greatly overshadow the commitment to student education.
For over a hundred years, Columbia's holdings in New York City real estate have provided lucrative returns. An authoritative history of Columbia notes:
The silent key to Columbia's increasing academic power was its growing financial strength. Barnard [President, 1857-1889] said in 1866 he needed $15 million to make Columbia an internationally great university; and he battled for funds. Owing to the appreciation of its land holdings, the College cleared its debts in 1872 and went on to improve faculty salaries and offer scholarships to dispel its reputation as a rich man's college. [Cort]
When Columbia moved to Morningside Heights campus it retained its former campus sites in lower [World. Trade Center Area] and mid-Manhattan [Rockefeller Center Area]. With the post World War II real estate boom these strategically located properties became a much sought after prize by real estate speculators and developers. These realtors were attracted to the Columbia board of trustees and now constitute a significant portion of the board. [see chart] The positions which these men hold offer them lucrative opportunities to manipulate university land holdings and finances for their own private gain.
On Columbia's Board we may identify at least one clearly definable community of interest which has done just that: Percy Uris and Adrian Massie of Uris Buildings Corporation, Peterson of Irving Trust Co., Alan Temple of First National City Bank, Maurice T. Moore of the law firm, Cravath, Swaine and Moore, and Benjamin Buttenweiser of the investment firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.
In order to operate profitably in the New York real estate business a company has to meet three major prerequisites:
Anyone having a position on the Columbia Board would have a clear advantage over his competitors in meeting these prerequisites for he would have access to both the financial resources of the university and the corporate connections of its other board members. This is clearly demonstrated by how Percy Uris as Chairman of the Finance Committee used Columbia finances to assemble sites which his company then leased from Columbia; and how he used his contacts on the Board to attain not only tenants and creditors but also top notch legal and financial advice.
Wall St. Lease
Toward the and of 1966, Percy Uris as Chairman of the Finance Committee used University finances to assemble an entire block [Front St., South St., Gouverneui Lane and Wall St.] at 111 Wall St. On January 17, 1967, Columbia leased the land to Uris Buildings corporation on a long term basis [until April 2009, with two 30 year renewal options] for an annual rent of $400,000.
A few months prior to leasing the land from Columbia, UBC secured a tenant for the building which it planned to build on the site. The tenant was the First National City Bank of which Columbia trustee Alan Temple is a director and vice president.
Percy Uris was able to secure short term financing for the building from the bank of another Columbia trustee, William E. Peterson [at that time an alumni trustee -- life trustee since January, 1968]. On June 13, 1967, Irving Trust Co. of which Peterson is president loaned UBC $22,500,000 for the construction of the building.
Two other Columbia trustees provided Percy Uris with topnotch financial and legal advice when he and his brother, Harold Uris, reorganized their real estate holdings into a public corporation in March, 1960. Benjamin J. Buttenweiser, a long time Columbia University trustee and partner of the prestigious investment firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., received a $250,000 commission from UBC as its financial advisor. This company has underwritten every stock and bond issue which UBC has floated since. Maurice T. Moore, likewise a longtime Columbia University trustee, and partner of the law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore as well as a former Chairman of the Board of Time Inc. functioned as UBC's legal advisor.
Rockland County Purchase
Another example of Percy Uris's use of his position as a Columbia trustee to the advantage of his company is the Rockland County purchase which he made in August, 1967. On October 5, 1967, an article in the Columbia student newspaper, The Spectator, revealed that UBC had purchased a 220 acre plot in Orangetown, Rockland County, which Columbia University had an option to buy, but rejected. As Chairman of the Finance Committee which oversees the management of University funds, Uris was in a strategic position to influence Columbia's decision not to buy the site and to arrange for its acquisition by his own company. The executor of the will of the estate which offered the land for sale was conveniently, Irving Trust Co., UBC's major creditor whose president, William Peterson, sits of the Columbia Board of Trustees.
The likelihood of a tri-cornered deal between Columbia University, UBC and Irving Trust Co. is suggested by subsequent events. In the winter of 1968 Columbia University bought a 545 acre site in Rockland County near that purchased by UBC. UBC has announced that it plans to build a complex of office research buildings on its site while Columbia has announced that it plans to construct 1,000 faculty homes on its site. The two projects may well be interrelated -- that is, designed to accommodate an industrial spin-off from Columbia University itself.
The rise' of Percy Uris to such an influential position on the Columbia University Board of Trustees was due primarily to his formal alliance with the Rockefeller interests. A review of the sequence of events surrounding Uris's rise makes the provisions of this alliance clear. In 1960 the Uris Brothers who had built up a substantial realty and construction business -- building 14% of the office space constructed in New York City since World War II -- entered into a series of deals with Rockefeller Center Inc. The formal alliance began when Lawrance Rockefeller, head of Rockefeller Center Inc. allied with Percy Uris in order to undercut another realtor,Zeckendorf of Webb & Knapp, who held a site between 51st Street and the Avenue of the Americas. Lawrance Rockefeller undermined Zeckendorf's plans for a luxury hotel on the site by refusing to back him. By withholding his endorsement Rockefeller ensured that Zeckendorf would not find the creditors who alone would make his project a success.
Uris Buildings Corp. promptly picked up the site which Zeckendorf was forced to sell and announced a joint venture between his company and Rockefeller Center Inc. to build an office building. Lawrance Rockefeller's endorsement enabled Percy Uris to land a prestigious tenant, Sperry Rand (a Rockefeller associated business). Uris owns 50% of the building and Rockefeller Center Inc. the other 50%. Shortly afterwards the two concluded another lucrative deal with Hilton Hotels Inc. They arranged for the building of a New York Hilton, which is 25% owned by Rockefeller Center Inc., 25% by Hilton Hotels, Inc. and 50% by UBC.
Uris' appointment as a life trustee of Columbia University in 1960 was undoubtedly due, in considerable part, to his business partnership with the Rockefellers, (just as was the appointment of Percy's brother, Harold, to the board of Cornell University by Governor Rockefeller in August 1962). The Rockefeller family, though not directly represented on the Columbia board, plays a strong indirect role in the formulation of university policies through their extensive contributions and through their representatives on the board and in the administration.
Rockefeller controlled corporations (such as Rockefeller Center Inc., Chase Manhattan Bank, The Bank of New York, and Standard Oil of New Jersey and the American Express Company) and the Rockefeller Foundation contribute a significant percentage of Columbia's finances. Both post-World War II Columbia presidents, Eisenhower and Kirk, have been closely linked with the Rockefellers. Eisenhower's political base, the Wall Street Republican establishment, includes among its main components the Rockefeller family. The primary corporate connection of President Kirk is Socony Mobil Oil Co; Kirk was the first director chosen outside the management of his Rockefeller controlled firm. Besides Uris the main representative of Rockefeller interests on Columbia's board is Frederick Kappel. Kappel is the former Chairman of the Board of A.T&T in which the Rockefeller family has a strong interest and is a director of Chase Manhattan Bank and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, both Rockefeller controlled financial institutions. (See the section on Institutional Expansion for a discussion of the Rockefeller influence over other Morningside Heights institutions.) The Rockefeller family also has a longstanding business relationship with Columbia. Since the 1930's Rockefeller Center Inc. has leased the land for its buildings, a former Columbia campus site, from the university.
Uris proved to be an ambitious ally. He quickly established an independent base of power by exerting, control over the treasurer's office -- an operation separate from the central campus on Liberty Street -- which handles Columbia's portfolio. The office is headed by William Bloor (whose brother James Bloor is head of the Central Savings Bank of N.Y.) who, according to inside sources makes-investment decisions only in close consultation with Uris. Uris used his influence over Bloor to arrange for a purchase of a large block of his corporation's stock -- 33,422 shares. (in addition to donating, along with his brother, 75,000 shares).
Uris established a secondary base of power in the Business School. By 1964, he had donated at least $3 million to a new graduate school of Business building named after himself (Uris Hall) and architecturally influenced by his philistine motto: "a good looking or beautiful building is one that does its work well." To solidify his influence with the Business School he appointed its dean, Courtney C. Brown, director of Uris Business Corporation in April 1960. Brown along with his wife holds 1,566 shares of UBC stock worth approximately $59,508. Uris's associate, a major stockholder of UBC, Charles Beneson, is also a large donor to the Business School.
A further indication of Uris' power was the appointment of Adrian Massie, Chemical Bank, N.Y. Trust Co. official, to the Board of Directors of Uris company nine months after Massie joined the Columbia. Board of Trustees (January 1962). Massie was given the option to buy 4,650 shares of common stock at the adjusted price of $15.53 per share at a time when the market price was $38.00 -- a profit of $84,000.
The close alliance between Uris, Chairman of the Trustees' Finance Committee, Brown, Dean of the Business School, and Bloor, University Treasurer represents what may be considered the clique which presently controls university finances, and hence has a strong hand in university policy. The major role they played in planning the Piers Area Development Project indicates the strength of their hold over university funds. This project (to cover ten city blocks from 125th Street to 135th Street), is modeled after the Stanford Industrial Park in which satellite industries take advantage of university research facilities. As such, the project constitutes a major innovation for Columbia University. Among the major inhabitants of the project will be the Riverside Research Institute, a university associated agency which handles numerous defense contracts (see the Defense Research Nexus section). Uris Buildings Corp., of course, is scheduled to build the complex.
Evidence indicates that, though the Rockefellers were instrumental in Uris's rise to power, they have, in fact, lost control of him. The student rebellion appears to have aggravated a split which has been developing in the Board. 'Those most closely associated with the Rockefellers, particularly Kappel and Paley (a close friend of the family), espouse a more flexible policy towards student protests than that which the Uris clique in power has administered. Governor Rockefeller's recent speech (May 24, 1968) in which he rejected Nixon's interpretation of rebellion as insurrectional is a further indication of the split. Sources reveal that Rockefeller associates are trying to wrest control over Columbia's funds from the Uris clique. Given the institutional power of the Rockefellers Uris' chances of survival are slim.
ADDENDA TO REAL ESTATE SECTION
P. 5, para. 5. The second sentence of this paragraph should be replaced by:
In the winter of 1967, Columbia acquired the option to buy a 545 acre site close to Uris' tract. The site is located on Clausland Mountain, which a nearby community wants to turn into a public park. Columbia, however, is thwarting community plans by pressuring the present site owner, Irving Maidman, to accept as payment cancellation of a mortgage Columbia holds on Maidman's Alcoa plant in Edgewater, New Jersey.
P. 6, para. 5
The mysterious, and for some, the most powerful, administrator in the Columbia hierarchy is Treasurer William Bloor. While his name appears on Columbia's eviction notices, he refuses to grant interviews and remains absent from the standard reference books. Yet he occupies the strategic position inside the administration that permits Uris to manipulate Columbia's fortune to his own advantage. Others in the Uris Clique include Treasurer Bloor's brother, James Bloor (President of the Irving Trust Co. which owns the controlling interest in Rockland National Bank, frequently acts as Uris' banking ally and most probably owes his Columbia position to Uris), and the other Uris-Columbia business associates, Andrian Massie and Courtney C. Brown.
P. 7, Para. 1
Under the Piers Area Development plan (yet to be approved by the Board of Estimate and other City agencies), the City will first condemn and assemble the land and then resell it to Columbia University. Courtney Brown, Dean of the Business School, is presently raising the needed funds. The University will contract with Uris Building Corp. (of which Brown is a director and stockholder) to construct a building with three million square feet of flat industrial space (most suitable for high-technology firms) and 800,000 square feet of research space. Though Columbia has yet to secure any specific commitments from prospective tenants, IBM (whose founder, Chairman and ex-CU trustee, Thomas J. Watson, was a substantial contributor to the construction of Uris Hall) has indicated an interest in leasing space for the manufacture and utilization of computers.
Columbia plans to lease the platform space above the industrial section to the Negro Labor Committee, which will build 2700 units of middle-income housing - 1000 of which will be reserved for Columbia faculty. The Negro Labor Committee, headed by Harlem Negro Joseph Overton, was founded in the early 1950's by the AFL to counter alleged Communist propaganda directed at black laborers. Largely a paper organization, the NLC recently ran out of money and is presently financially beholden to Columbia. The NLC will conveniently serve as a black front for the University's interests and thereby, it is hoped, fend off reaction to another takeover in Harlem.
After World War II heavy surplus profits from consolidated industries and the saturation of home markets created a need for either heavy investments domestically (which would have to be. financed through a radical restructuring of the capitalist organization of the economy) or heavy investment expansion abroad. The larger corporations chose to extend their foreign frontiers and today we find such giants as Standard Oil (N.J.), Texaco, Colgate-Palmolive, Singer and National Cash Register deriving over half their profits from foreign sales. Direct investments (outright U.S. holdings in plants and equipment) have skyrocketed from $5 billion to $55 billion between 1945 and the present. Between 1960 and 1965 alone nearly 2,200 companies engaged in about 6,000 separate activities -- primarily construction of new plants and the expansion of existing operations.
As the corporations have extended their overseas operations they have required greatly increased numbers of men to manage their investments: men trained in international law, international business management, diplomacy, languages, public relations and social scientists who are experts in foreign cultures. The corporate financial interests turned to the university to fulfill these needs, offering generous amounts of money, privileges for university administrators and high-level access to the prestigious, exciting world of international affairs in return. Columbia's School of International Affairs was created in 1945 to fulfill these needs.
As indicated on the "Top 22" chart, seven of Columbia's rulers have primary ties to either U.S. corporations or non-profit organizations with an international domain. Grayson Kirk was the first director to join Mobil Oil's board from outside its corporate ranks (in 1950). Mobil Oil is heavily dependent on foreign reserves in North Africa and the Near East for its survival. Frederick Kappel is a director of Standard Oil Company which, derives over half its profits from foreign sales. William Burden's American Metals Climax has extensive mining interests in Southern Africa.
Several of the "Top 22" occupy prominent positions in the cultural penetration winning converts to the American way which facilitates corporate expansion abroad. Kirk and Lawrence Wien are both trustees of the Institute of International Education which handles all U. S. student exchanges and channels foreign students to meet the needs of U. S. business abroad. Other trustees and administrators play key roles in organizations financing foreign cultural and intellectual programs such as the Asia Foundation, African-American Institute, America-Korea Foundation and the Near East Foundation. .
Since the most enlightened elements in the corporate and financial elite (among others) wish to avoid as much as possible the tensions and dislocations caused by war and direct confrontation, they backed the creation of a diplomatic and intelligence apparatus for channeling and manipulating events to make conflict less disruptive. President Kirk's previous contact with the international diplomatic and intelligence community through his academic posts in international affairs and the State Department's security section facilitated Columbia's training of diplomats and intelligence personnel at the School of International Affairs. The role of Columbia administrators and trustees in such foreign policy-making and intelligence organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations, Asia Foundation and CIA are discussed below.
Columbia University also trains specialized technicians and produces some of the new technology needed by these international corporations. For example, the booming offshore oil industry benefits directly from the technology developed at Columbia's Lamont Geological Observatory.
With the recent increase in foreign investments in the Third World and the increased threat (more and more overshadowing the previous "threat" of Soviet communism) of Third World nationalism, U.S. corporate and financial interests have stressed nation-building in the poor countries. By nation-building they mean creating a favorable infrastructure for capital investment. This involves, among other things, penetration and manipulation of those more "primitive" and esoteric societies, and co-opting indigenous elites, and requires anthropologists, sociologists, linguists, political theorists, journalists and psychologists familiar with these societies. The SIA accommodated these needs by adding institutes in Third World studies.
The School of International Affairs (SIA) has become, in the space of a. few years, one of Columbia's largest, and most important divisions. When founded in 1946, the School operated on a total budget of $60,000; by 1964 the School's annual budget was well over a million dollars, and the Regional Institutes each accounted for hundreds of thousands of dollars more. In 1967, the School listed a Faculty and staff of over 150 members, which included sane of the most prestigious -- and powerful -- figures in the Columbia community. President Grayson Kirk and Vice-President Truman both hold academic positions on the SIA's Faculty.
Originally composed of the School itself and the Russian Institute, the SIA's empire now encompasses eight Regional Institutes (each representing a major segment of the world), and several dozen research projects and institutes. In 1964, the School launched a $32 million fund-raising campaign to expand its activities further, and to finance a new building for the School. The building, named the Edward John Noble Building after the School's heaviest contributor, is now under construction at 118th Street and Amsterdam Ave., on a site once occupied by apartments.
The purpose of the SIA has never been in doubt: to train experts in international affairs and foreign areas for administrative positions in America's expanding overseas empire. This function is set forth clearly in a description of the School which appears in the Columbia University Bulletin: "The School of International Affairs is a professional school which was established in 1946 with the purpose of training, in conjunction with the regional institutes, a select group of students for staff and administrative programs in international fields." That this task is being realized can be shown by statistics on the activities of SIA alumni: in 1967, Dean Andrew Cordier estimated that 40 percent of the School's graduates worked in the international agencies of the U.S. Government, while another large segment worked for corporations, foundations or law firms engaged in international activities.
Long before the School of International Affairs was founded, the University had offered courses in diplomatic history, international law, and supranational organizations. Students, preparing for a career in diplomacy or foreign trade could arrange a "concentration" in these courses, many of which were given by the Department of Public Law and Government. This department later provided the impetus for the establishment of the SIA, and constituted, the nucleus of its staff.
Columbia's interest in international affairs is often attributed to Nicholas Murray Butler, President of Columbia University from 1902 to 1945. Butler's description of the White Man's Burden is quoted in the preface to a publication on The International Activities of Columbia University, 1960- 1961: Butler defined "The International Mind" as that habit of thinking and dealing with "the several nations of the civilized world as friendly and cooperating equals in aiding the progress of civilization, in developing commerce and industry, and in spreading enlightenment and culture throughout the world." Butler's statement was made in 1912, two years before the competing imperial ambitions of the "civilized nations" led to the catastrophe of World War I.
The study of international relations did not, however, attain an independent status in the University until World War II. Like many other components of the University-Military complex, the SIA was first set up as a temporary institution during the War, and then converted into a permanent installation during the Cold War.
In its embryonic stage, the SIA was known as the Naval School Of Military Government and Administration, a wartime expedient created to train officers for the administration of occupied territories in the Pacific area, and in Southeast Asia. The Naval School commenced operation on August 17, 1942, with the arrival of the first contingent of officers from the U.S. Naval Reserve. According to L. Gray Cowan's History of the SIA, "the express purpose of this program was the instruction of naval personnel in the discharge of duties of an administrative nature in such territories as the Navy might occupy. Altogether, Columbia trained some 280 officers and 30 civilians during the 42 months the Naval School was in existence, from 1942 to 1945. Professor Schuyler C. Wallace of Columbia served as Director of the School.
The curriculum, of the Naval School comprised courses in native languages, the study of native customs, the history of governmental institutions in the Southwest Pacific and Southeast Asia, and training in the technical and legal aspects of military government. Since the program was intended to train administrative officials in the shortest time possible, the staff of the Naval School was under considerable pressure to abandon traditional academic procedures in the interests of expediency. The techniques developed in this period for the training of experts in international administration and in foreign area studies subsequently provided the basis for instruction in the School of International Affairs.
Columbia learned a valuable lesson from its wartime experience: the traditional organization of the University into various academic departments was inadequate for the rapid training of specialists in foreign affairs. Consequently, professors from many departments would be assembled in an independent, Faculty of International Affairs for the specific purpose of training such experts. Reminiscing on this period, Vice President Lawrence Chamberlain wrote in 1965 that "About the same time that university science departments were co-opted for purposes of war, the knowledge and skills of the social sciences and to a lesser extent the humanities departments were also conscripted for military service. The need for applying a blend of disciplines and skills to the problems of little-known areas -- for purposes of warfare, governmental administration and diplomacy -- precipitated the establishment of new research and instructional patterns because the conventional departmental structures were simply not adequate to meet the demands of the job." (Columbia Envoy, Fall 1965) Thus the academic community was to be modified and perverted for the interests of the State.
At the end of the Second World War, it was sufficiently clear to all concerned that the United States would continue to exert its hegemony over the large portions of the world that it had occupied or entered during the war. The U.S. power elite recognized, moreover, that there would be a continuing need for trained experts to administer the overseas operations of their now expanded empire. Consequently, considerable resources were made available (usually through major foundations) for the establishment of professional schools in international administration. Columbia was one of the first institutions to embark upon such a program.
In its report on the proposed School of International Affairs, the select Faculty Committee set up to consider such a program explained that "The increased efficiency and rapidity of transportation and communication have ended for this country the possibility of isolation, either as a physical factor or as a national policy. As a result, those responsible for the management of the interests of the United States, whether in governmental or nongovernmental capacity, will of necessity be increasingly concerned with the institutions, mores, and policies of other nations and peoples. There must therefore be developed within the United States a body of men and women with a broad understanding of international affairs, who have, in addition, training as functional or regional specialists. Only a body of men and women so trained will provide a reservoir from which experts capable of handling the increasingly complex and intricate problems of international modus affairs can be drawn." This statement, established both the raison d'etre of the SIA, and its modus operandi: Columbia would offer a two-year professional program leading to a Master of International Affairs degree (MIA), to satisfy the power elite's need for trained experts in this field. The MIA program would include a year of area specialization (courses in history, economy, government and culture of a given area, and intensive training in foreign languages), followed by a year of functional specialization (courses in international trade and finance, international law, governmental administration, or `supranational organizations). On this basis, the School of International Affairs was created by the Trustees, of Columbia University on April 2, 1945, as an autonomous professional school with' its own Faculty and administrative apparatus.
The School's official historian, L. Gray Cowan, asserts that Columbia was "among the first of the American universities to work out this combination of intensive training for professional work in the field combined with an area of specialization ... Programs similar in structure although differing in details have been worked out by Cornell, Harvard, Michigan, and other universities ... However, Columbia is the only institution to have worked out on such a broad scale the combination of professional work and area study." Cowan applauds the fact that the School "represents a significant instance of the fashion in which the modern American university has sought to adapt its skills and resources to the pressing needs of the times." Cowan goes so far to suggest that "the future of the United States as a world power may well in part depend upon the soundness of judgment and adequacy of background given to the future policy makers in such institutions as Columbia's School of International Affairs." (Emphasis added.)
In the 22 years of the School's existence, it has evolved a variety of programs for enhancing its ability to train experts in international affairs. The School has consistently modified its programs to accord with the changing needs of the American Empire. The development of the Regional Institutes, for example, is a perfect mirror of changing U.S. interests abroad. In the immediate postwar era, when U.S. interests were concentrated in Europe and the Soviet Union was regarded as our preeminent challenger, Columbia created the Russian Institute (later subdivided to create the European Institute and the Institute on East Central Europe). In 1949, when the American involvement in mainland Chinese affairs reached its peak, the SIA created the East Asian Institute. In the 1950's, when the crises, precipitated by nationalism and anti-colonialism in North Africa and the Middle East received worldwide attention, the SIA responded by creating the Middle East Institute. In the 1960's, while the U.S. power elite had been preoccupied with the problem of protecting its hegemony in the underdeveloped areas, the SIA created the Institutes of Latin America Studies and African studies. Not surprisingly, the latest addition to this same complex is the South Asia Institute, formed in 1967 to coordinate programs on South and Southeast Asian affairs.
In addition to training experts in international administration, the SIA provides specialized services to the U.S. power elite in the form of research Programs on vanguard problems of international relations and in the formulation of ideological justifications for U.S. foreign policy. The Russian Institute -- oldest of the SIA's Regional Institutes -- is a case in point. The Russian Institute (RI) is a demonstration, par excellence, of the way in which university intellectuals contributed to the legitimization of Cold War ideology.
An independent Russian Institute was first proposed in 1944 by Professor Geroid T. Robinson (then on leave to the Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA), who suggested that "There is every reason to believe that Russia will hold a very powerful place in the world after the war, and that as a direct result American academic activity in the field of Russian studies will show a considerable expansion." When founded a year later, the Institute was given the joint task of advancing research on Russian (and East European) affairs, and of training new specialists in the Russian field. In 1964, the Institute's Director, Alexander Dallin, could boast that the 500 Russian Institute alumni constitute a majority of all American experts on Soviet Affairs.
Although many Russian Institute graduates went into teaching or enrolled in the diplomatic service, many others became part of the surrealistic world of émigrés, ex-Nazis, CIA agents and professional anti-Communists which constituted the Cold War Establishment. Early issues of the Institute Alumni Newsletter indicate that RI graduates were working for organizations like Radio Free Europe (and its parent organization, the Free Europe Committee), the American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism the U.S. Psychological Warfare Center, Army intelligence, and especially, the Central Intelligence Agency.
The Russian Institute itself was inextricably bound up in the affairs of these agencies. The Institute profited from a $55,000 grant to the SIA from the Free Europe Committee for "teaching and research an Eastern Europe." In the early 1950's, the Institute was very closely associated with an organization known as the East European Fund, Inc. (also known as the Free Russia Fund). Philip Mosely, Director of the Russian Institute, was also President of the Board of Directors of the East European Fund. Other officials of the Institute, including Alexander Dallin, were also associated with this organization, which collected information on the Soviet Union from Russian émigrés.
The Russian Institute's studies on national income and-product in the USSR and the communist nations of Eastern Europe, which became the Research Project on National Income in East Central Europe, was secretly financed by the CIA.
The Institute's faculty and staff contributed significantly to the literature of anti-Communism. Early editions of the report on Publications and Research of the Russian Institute list many contributions to Encounter and other publications of the CIA-financed Congress for Cultural Freedom, for the Army Psychological Warfare Journal, for the Government's Problems of Communism journal and its foreign editions, and for publications of émigré organizations.
The Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law
The Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law, originally known as the Institute of International Affairs, was created in 1931. The Parker School's primary purpose today is, according to University statutes, "to cooperate with the School of Law and the School of International Affairs in equipping a limited number of advanced students to render practical service of a high order to the government of the United States in its international relations, or to financial and industrial institutions engaged in international trade or commerce whose activities indirectly affect international relations." The school offers courses on European and Latin American legal systems, seminars on Russian law, Near Eastern legal institutions, and on international commercial transactions. Each summer in June it offers a Summer Program in Foreign Law for American lawyers who are counseling U.S. businesses with interests abroad.
The Parker School maintains an ambitious program of research on international law. Its International Legal Research program concluded in 1961 a comparative study, "Joint International Business Ventures." This was undertaken cooperatively with the Graduate School of Business, and analyzed the legal basis and managerial structure of public, private, and mixed investments in twelve countries. These studies are in fact economic intelligence reports for U.S. businessmen. Publications included: Burma, Mexico, India, Turkey, Pakistan, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Philippines; as well as studies of the foreign investments of Japan and Germany. The project was financed by a Ford Foundation grant.
Columbia offers a special MIA-LL.B. program whereby students can enroll in a 4-year course leading to the Bachelor of Laws and Master of International Affairs (MIA) degree. The program is administered by the Parker School, and the School of International Affairs.
The Graduate School of Business
During the summer of 1960, and 1961 the school's business management program offered corporation executives a chance to study policy determination in Latin America. "Using the case-study method, experts from the University, industry, government, and other universities illustrated the principles governing business conduct in Latin America." This was called the course on International Operations in. Latin America. (The International Activities of Columbia University, 1960-61) It was proposed in 1961 that the program be expanded to Europe and Asia. The Business School was also receiving money from ICA (International Cooperation Administration -- predecessor to AID) to boost business education at the University of Buenos Aires.
The Business School and the School of International Affairs offer a joint three-year program leading to the Master of International Affairs and the Master of Business Administration degrees (MIA/MBA). Students spend two years in the business school, one in the School of International Affairs. The Business School and the School of International Affairs (SIA) tend to think of each other as complementary organizations -- i.e., both train specialists for management of America's overseas operations. When the SIA was created in 1945, the administrative committee for its curriculum wrote that; "the basic change required in this training was the separation of the managerial or administrative side of the work from its purely scholarly aspects. Just as training for managerial posts in business had been separated in the School of Business from the research aspects of the Dept. of Economics, similarly professional training in international affairs would be differentiated from the scholarly emphasis of the Departments of History or Public Law and Government." (L. Gray A Cowan, A History of the School of International Affairs and Associated Area Institutes, New York: 1954 p. 29.)
Teachers College (TC) is an autonomous institution with its own corporate structure, associated with Columbia since 1898; TC is nevertheless an important part of the Columbia-Morningside Heights complex. TC maintains an ambitious international program. Its program in comparative education prepares students for teaching posts abroad: Through the Afro-Anglo-American program TC is working with the University of London and seven colleges in Africa to develop teacher education in Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika. The program is financed by Carnegie Corporation.
Through ICA, TC helped establish the National Institute of Education in India, to strengthen teacher education and professional services to schools in that country.
According to the Agency for International Development's Current Technical Service Contracts As of June 30, 1967, TC had a contract worth $1,449,571 "for "Professional consulting services to improve and expand education in Peru;" and another contract worth $6,874,700 to "assist the cooperating countries in providing an adequate supply of secondary school teachers." This latter program, which covers the area of former British East Africa (Tanganyika, Kenya, Uganda), is coordinated with Makerere College in Uganda.
The very nature of the Cold War struggle against Communism and the drive for empire require extensive non-military resources. The U.S. intelligence community, under the direction of the Central Intelligence Agency, is in charge of enlisting the expertise and the cover of non-governmental organizations. Through covert penetration of civilian branches of the government, voluntary groups, corporations, law firms, research centers, cultural projects, foundations and universities, the CIA is able to mobilize and coordinate for government service much of the seemingly a-political work of U.S. civilian society.
The primary tasks of the U.S. intelligence community are gathering and analyzing strategic information for decision-makers and positioning trained personnel in key locations to manipulate the course of events. (For a history and discussions of the CIA see, Wise and Ross, The Invisible Government.) Like several large universities, Columbia offers excellent opportunities for achieving these goals. Most of the evidence points to indirect relationships, but because the CIA is closed and secret and because the Columbia Administration "refuses to discuss its CIA relations, it is quite possible that CIA-CU ties are far more direct and pervasive than the public data now indicates. In fact, our own information indicates that these ties are so direct as to involve a highly influential group of men in dual positions of leadership inside Columbia and in the CIA itself.
One level of association involves individuals connected with Columbia who are also affiliated with CIA-related organizations. Three types of CIA-relationships are identified in the following table.
|CIA-Related Organization||Position in CIA-Related Organization||Name and Columbia Position|
|I. ORGANIZATION HEAVILY FUNDED BY CIA:|
|Asia Foundation||(Tr)||Grayson Kirk, President|
|African-American Institute||(Tr)||Arthur Krim, Trustee|
|(Tr)||L. Gray Cowan, Dir. SIA African Institute|
|(Tr)||Louis G. Cowan, Dir. Special Prog. Grad. School of Journalism|
|American Society of African Culture||(Ed. Bd.)||L. Gray Cowan, Dir. SIA African Institute|
|Committee of Correspondence||(former Pres)||Anna Lord Strauss, SIA contributor|
|(Mem)||Alice Stetten; SIA Adv.|
|Free Europe Committee||(Mem)||Frank Altschul, SIA Adv.|
|(Mem)||Adolf A. Berle, Prof., SIA Adv.|
|(Mem)||Ernest A. Gross, SIA Adv., Past Trustee, Barnard College|
|II. ORGANIZATIONS WHICH RECEIVED SOME FUNDS FROM THE CIA:|
|Institute for Int'l Education||(Tr)||Grayson Kirk, President|
|(Tr)||Lawrence Wien, Trustee|
|(Pres)||Kenneth Holland, SIA Adv.|
|John H. Whitney Trust||(Tr)||Walter N. Thayer, Trustee|
|American Council for Émigrés in the Professions||(Pres)||Harry J. Carman, Dn. Emer.|
|(Dr)||Horace L. Friess, Prof.|
|(Dr)||Wesley J. Hennessy, Assoc. Dn School of Engineering|
|(Dr)||Frank Tannenbaum, Prof. Emer.|
|(Dr)||Rosemary Parks, Former Pres. Barnard College|
|(Exec. Dr)||Joe Jefferson, former Dean of Administration|
|(Adv)||Millicent C. McIntosh, Pres Emer., Barnard College.|
|III. COVERTLY PASSED CIA FUNDS:|
|Farfield Foundation||(Dr)||William A M. Burden, Trustee|
|(Dr)||Gardner Cowles, SIA Adv., Trustee|
|Foundation for Youth and Student Affairs||(Dr)||Francis T.P. Plimpton, Trustee Barnard; College|
|Cleveland H. Dodge Foundation||(Pres)||Cleveland E. Dodge, Trustee, Teachers College|
|Edward John Noble Foundation||(Dr)||Eugene G. Bewkes, SIA Adv.|
|(Dr)||Alger B. Chapman, SIA Adv.|
|(Dr)||David S. Smith, SIA Assoc.|
|David, Josephine and Winfield Baird Foundation, Inc.||financial contributor to Columbia|
|William Benton Foundation||" " "|
|Catherwood Foundation||" " "|
|W. Alton Jones Foundation||" " "|
|J.M. Kaplan Fund, Inc.||" " "|
|Lucius N. Littauer Foundation||" " "|
|Aaron E. Norman Fund, Inc.||" " "|
|Rubicon Foundation||" " "|
|Dr=Director; Tr=Trustee; Dn=Dean; Ed. Bd.=Editorial Board; Adv=Advisor.; Emer=Emeritus; SIA=School of International Affairs; Men=Member|
Another indirect connection between the CIA and the SIA is demonstrated by the presence of Eugene G. Bewkes and Alger B. Chapman, as advisory council members of SIA, and David S. Smith, Associate Dean of SIA, Director of the International Fellows Program and a member of the Administrative Board of the Research Institute on Communist Affairs. All three men are directors of the Edward John Noble Foundation, which besides passing money for the CIA, has also given over $2 million to SIA. Smith is also tied to the intelligence community through his past position as Asst. Sec. of the Air Force where he was involved with the CIA's U-2 flights over the Soviet Union.
The Farfield Foundation, which was a large contributor to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, the American Society of African Culture and the American Council for Émigrés in the Professions, is well represented at Columbia through Gardner Cowles [Teachers College Trustee] and Columbia College Trustee William A.M. Burden, both of whom are directors of the foundation. Burden, one of the foundation's founders, is also a director of Lockheed Aircraft which served as a CIA front for the U-2 flights. Farfield made contributions in 1962 and 1964 to Columbia for travel and study fellowships.
Another important member of SIA's Advisory Council and a major SIA contributor is Sigurd Larmon, president of the advertising firm Young and Rubicam, which is rapidly increasing the number of its overseas accounts. Mr. Larmon was one of a nine-member committee chosen by Eisenhower in 1953 to help perfect the country's psychological warfare program. According to The New York Times, the "committee presumably would study means of improving the organization and techniques of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Psychological Strategy Board, the Voice of America, the Information Services of the State and other departments, and the psychological operations of the Army in Korea."
In February, 1967, many students and faculty began an inquiry into the School of International Affairs to see if it was funded through conduits, or indirectly by the CIA. Andrew W. Cordier, Dean of the SIA, responded by saying, "There is no indication that any of the foundations which have supported the school and its associated institutes have in turn been financed by the CIA."
The investigation was continued by Professor Serge Lang of the Mathematics Department, who was denied access to the School's budget. When Lang asked if Columbia held any contract the existence of which was classified, Warren Goodell, Associate Director of Projects and Grants, said he was not at liberty to comment. Ralph S. Halford, then Dean of Graduate Faculties (now a special asst. to Kirk) stated the Administration's official policy on CIA funding: "University policy would not preclude the acceptance of project support from the CIA." He went on to say that if a project was in line with regular academic duty, endorsed by the chairman or dean of the division in which it would be conducted, and approved by the Office of Projects and Grants as being appropriate to a University, "the University would not hesitate to accept ... an offer by the CIA to furnish funds in support of the project."
The student-professor investigation concentrated on the research projects of SIA, and late in 1967 a source that indicated that the Research Project on National Income in East Central Europe had been CIA-funded since 1961, receiving $125,000 a year. Columbia acknowledged that his charge was accurate, and indicated that the project was financed by the CIA's Office of Economic Research. Cordier immediately revealed that Dr. Thad P. Alton, Director of the National Income Project, had contracted for funds directly with the CIA, without going through the dean.
Alton and his staff were required to produce reports of their findings. Four books concerning the national income and product of Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland were financed by the CIA and published by Columbia University Press.
After students exposed it, the Columbia administration admitted that the Research Project on National Income in East Central Europe in the SIA was CIA sponsored. At least two of the researchers on this project, Claus Wittich and Vaclav Holesovsky, had worked for Radio Free Europe, just prior to their Columbia-CIA work. The CIA was still, funding the National Income. Project until the recent strike when pressure from students and faculty forced the University to take steps to sever this tie.
The SIA deals with areas of study which interest the CIA. At least three of the members of the Advisory Council, Frank Altschul, Adolf A. Berle and Ernest A. Gross have served with the Free Europe Committee (FEC) which administers Radio Free Europe (RFE). The FEC-RFE complex draws on CIA funds for the radio operations and, more important, supports Eastern European exile groups which serve as an important source of intelligence for the CIA. The relationship between SIA and FEC goes much deeper than is indicated by the ties of these three advisory members to both groups. In 1955, FEC contributed $55,000 to Columbia's School of International Affairs to be used "to further teaching and research on Eastern Europe." Also, many SIA alumni work for RFE and RFE personnel came to SIA to do research, especially at the Research Institute on Communist Affairs. Another, more indirect tie between Columbia and FEC is indicated by the fact that Grayson Kirk's son, John, was a director of FEC.
As important as direct CIA involvement in SIA research projects, is Columbia's association with two organizations, the Asia Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Asia Foundation has received much if not all of its financial support from the CIA. It has a budget of about $7 million a year to provide "private American assistance to those Asian groups and individuals working for continued social and economic improvement." The foundation has resident representatives in 14 Asian countries, with American offices in New York and San Francisco. At various times, representatives have been kicked out of Cambodia, Indonesia and more recently, India, reputedly for their various intelligence activities.
The person who makes the link between the Asia Foundation and Columbia is Grayson Kirk, president of the University. Kirk has been on the board of the Foundation for many years, and is one of its most influential trustees. In 1962, when Robert Blum, president of the Foundation, resigned, Kirk was appointed Chairman of the Nominating Committee of the Trustees, whose purpose was to select a new president. In his search for suitable candidates for this position, Kirk sought the advice and suggestions of Dean Rusk and Averell Harriman, a move which indicates the importance of the Foundation. He also encouraged recommendations from George S. Moore, President of the First National City Bank of New York, and A.L. Nickerson, Chairman of the board of Socony Mobil Oil Company, Inc., concerning members of the bank and of Socony Mobil, which had experience in Asian affairs. One man who was proposed as a possible choice was Robert Amory, but Kirk himself is reported to have feared that he might bring embarrassment to the Asia foundation. From 1952-1962, Amory was Deputy Director of the CIA.
The relationship between the Asia Foundation and Columbia is a reciprocal one. Since at least 1961, the Foundation has given grants to Columbia's School of Journalism, recently financing the Japanese Science Writers' Project and Fellowships for Asiatic Journalists. Grayson Kirk's long and intimate association with the Asia Foundation suggests what an able and prominent supporter of the CIA this university president really is. It follows that many of his administrative decisions as President of Columbia University have also reflected the interests, priorities and concerns of the CIA. Certainly such decisions would not infringe on these concerns. Consider Kirk's attitude toward the NSA (National Student Association)-CIA exposure: "One shouldn't jump to conclusions that the people in these organizations were being used as spies." The money was donated "more for propaganda purposes than for anything else." Kirk's only complaint about the CIA's funding of non-governmental organizations was that "a certain amount of this seems to have been handled clumsily by people in Washington."
The Council on Foreign Relations is probably the most prestigious and influential organization in the area of international relations and policy. Its members include former government officials, university, administrators and corporate executives. The Council publishes books, holds conferences, hosts foreign dignitaries, advises the government and involves itself in other activities necessary to influence U.S. foreign policy. The following list demonstrates the close relationship between Columbia. University and the Council.
Council on Foreign Relations and Columbia University
|Henry M. Wriston||Pres., 1964||SIA Advisory Council|
|Frank Altschul||VP and Sec'y||SIA Advisory Council|
|Hamilton Fish Armstrong||Director||SIA Advisory Council|
|William A.M. Burden||Director||Trustee, Columbia|
|Joseph E. Johnson||Director||SIA Advisory Council|
|Grayson L. Kirk||Director||President, Columbia|
|David B. Truman||Member||VP and Provost, Columbia|
|Max Ascoli||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|Harding F. Bancroft||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|Adolf A. Berle||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|Charles M. Brinckerhoff||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|Kenneth Holland||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|George S. Moore||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|William I. Nichols||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|Ogden R. Reid||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|Edward L. Tinker||Member||SIA Advisory Council|
|David B. Smith||Member||SIA Associate Dean|
|Prof. Philip E. Mosely||Member||SIA European Inst.|
|Prof. L. Gray Cowan||Member||SIA Inst. of African Studies|
|Prof. Howard Wriggins||Member||SIA Southern Asia Inst.|
|Prof. William T.R. Fox||Member||SIA Inst. of War and Peace Studies|
|Andrew W. Cordier||Member||Dean, Faculty of Int'l Affairs, SIA|
|Arthur Hays Sulzberger||Member||Trustee Emeritus, Columbia|
|Marshall D. Shulman||Member||SIA Russian Inst.|
Although many CIA conduit foundations have given contributions to the Council, it has never been exposed as a recipient of CIA funds. In fact, the Council appears to serve a much more direct and important function for the CIA. Convincing evidence of this is the series of discussion groups on "Intelligence and Foreign Policy" that the Council hosted in late 1967 and early 1968, to which Vice President David Truman was Columbia's representative. A list of the topics discussed is revealing. The list is as follows: "Intelligence and Foreign Policy: The American Experience;" "Intelligence and Policy Making: The Task Ahead;" "Covert Operations;" "Intelligence Operations and Private American Institutions;" and "U.S. Intelligence Organizations in the Future."
The discussions were led by individuals with extensive knowledge of CIA operations. For example, Richard Bissell (former Deputy Director of Plans for the CIA and architect of the Bay of Pigs invasion) reviewed the activities and functions of CIA agents overseas and discussed why it is better to work through nationals when possible; he also discussed when agents should and should not work through and with the knowledge of the U.S. Ambassador. In addition, he spoke of CIA funding of private organizations and the effect on their programs after the use of foundations as conduits for CIA money were exposed. Other known members of the CIA and other intelligence organizations who participated were Robert Amory, Jr., Allen W. Dulles, McGeorge Bundy and Franklin A. Lindsay.
What follows is an informal record from sources close to the University administration of the topics considered in the "Intelligence Operations and Private American Institutions" discussion group:
Short-run view - Advantages and disadvantages of having the CIA fund a private institution:
Types of organizations and relations:
Private U.S. organizations created or used as fronts - e.g. Western Enterprises in Taiwan;
American Universities - Research; Credibility of American scholars abroad?
placement of individuals in private organizations for cover-corporations;
Major propaganda organizations - e.g. Radio Free Europe;
Reasons for covert methods: To protect relationship with friendly governments or groups;
Protection from reprisals;
Use of friendly governments to fake retaliatory actions;
Avoid destroying activity which would occur if done overtly
Increase effect by not being aligned with U.S. source; Avoid, necessity of legal requirements;
Allow plausible denial when cover is exposed;
Avoid public accountability by Congress and Administration for unpopular activity;
Avoid public commitment of U.S. prestige.
Relationship of CIA and Universities;
Tragedy that closer relations have been largely destroyed;
Some way must be found to reestablish relationship;
Overt means of support for NSA-type activities;
Means of control and termination of operations;
How to sense a shift in public attitudes;
How to develop a clearly American style of operations, not patterned after or British;
How to attract the right people and be aware of public opinion;
Is the CIA becoming too much of a career service?
The importance of the relationship between the intelligence community and Columbia is great. The universities and their personnel serve in an advisory capacity and as a feed-back mechanism for intelligence evaluation. Also, by involving academics in intelligence, the CIA is able to create a favorable disposition towards the secrecy and manipulation which has become essential to many government operations in America. Policy initiative during these sessions more often than not comes from the intelligence community - as is clearly the case in many situations where foreign policy is made.
Integration of a major university like Columbia into the ranks of this elite means not only that the CIA is provided with needed scholarship on international affairs and an academic cover for foreign penetration, but, most important, it thereby has the power to enlist America's own intellectual resources in the barren campaigns of the Cold War.
The military plays two roles during the period of empire expansion and consolidation. Since access to foreign markets through trade and investment is essential, the military maintains the trade routes, first with the Navy and now with the Air Force. Secondly, conspicuous U.S. military presence and periodic demonstrations of force serve to dampen the development of national resistance to U.S. penetration.
There has been a shift in U.S. military strategy from massive retaliation to the use of limited war as the Soviet "threat" has declined and the "threat" of third world nationalism has increased. As nationalists increasingly engage in guerrilla warfare [as in Vietnam and Guatemala] the Defense Department is forced to rely on sophisticated technology to readjust the balance of power. It is the role of the University to provide vital technological weaponry.
Columbia's "Top 22" include good examples of defense complex. Lockheed Aircraft and Moore's General Dynamics together received 10% [$3.6 billion] of all. U.S. contracts. Burden is also Chairman of the Board of the Institute for Defense Analyses which specializes in the evaluation of advanced weaponry and counterinsurgency methods, and serves as the idea factory of the Defense Department. The section below on the Institute for Defense Analyses describes its other close relationships with Columbia. John Dunning, a trustee of Columbia's Riverside, Research Institute [RRI], a Defense Department consultant and expert on atomic energy, is a director of three private corporations dependent on military contracts. Dunning's City Investing Corporation, a major subcontractor of Burden's Lockheed Aircraft, manufactures spray defoliant dissemination systems for use in Vietnam. It was General Dwight D. Eisenhower and Grayson Kirk who brought Columbia University's financial support for defense or defense related projects from less than 1% [in 1945] to about 48% in 1968.
Columbia helped develop the atomic bomb. Its Lamont Geological Observatory under contract maintains a seismograph on the ocean bottom of California for detecting nuclear tests. The military research, secret contracting and defense financing of Lamont and several other Columbia-related research centers are described below.
On March 23, 1967, some 300 Columbia professors attended a "Faculty Smoker" to discuss the issue of government-sponsored research at the University. Representing the administration at the meeting, which had been called by the Ad Hoc Committee on Student Life, was Ralph S. Halford, then Dean of the Graduate Faculties and an advisor to President Kirk on matters relating to sponsored research. Dean Halford read a prepared statement on the administration's policies on government sponsored research, and proceeded to give some statistics. As of October 1, 1966, he stated, Columbia held some 770 contracts with various agencies of the Federal government, worth a total of about $58 million (or 46% of Columbia's total budget). The breakdown of these contracts appears below:
|Public Health Service||391||21.1|
|Natl. Science Fdn.||153||7.5|
|Atomic Energy Commn.||23||5.1|
|Off. of Education||26||1.1|
|Off. of Economic Oppty.||7||0.5|
(Source: Columbia University Newsletter, April 17, 1967)
According to Dean Halford, only 18 of these contracts were for classified research; the overwhelming majority of government-sponsored projects were "conducted openly, without concealment either as to the nature and substance of the activity or as to its findings and results of whatever kind." Dean Halford did not, however, indicate, the value of the classified contracts; had he done so, it would have indicated that the 18 secret contracts -- constituting only 2% of all federal contracts -- accounted for $13.9 million or one-fourth of all government income. (The classified contracts were distributed as follows: Lamont Geological Labs, $4.4 million; Electronic Research Labs; $4.8 million; and Hudson Labs, $4.7 million.)
Most of the government sponsored, projects, according to Dean Halford, were for undirected, basic research. The classified projects, however, involved directed research, on problems of interest to the Department of Defense. This distribution of federal funds is quite in accord with statements made earlier by President Kirk on the topic of University-government relations. Responding to demands that the University bar access to recruiters from the Central Intelligence Agency, President Kirk on Nov. 21, 1966, told an audience of 500 students that had gathered in Low Library that "it is not desirable, it is not feasible, it is not possible for the University to attempt to make a value judgment about any division of the federal government." To do so, Kirk asserted, would be to jeopardize the University's autonomy and thus its ability to conduct "free discussion" on matters of national concern. After basing his defense of CIA recruiting on the principle of free inquiry and debate, Kirk acknowledged that the University (i.e., the administration and trustees) occasionally made exceptions to this principle when it was "important to the national defense" that Columbia conduct secret research, Kirk did not list the qualifications for such exceptions.
President Kirk's ambiguous statement concerning secret military research is characteristic of the administration's response to student faculty requests for information on the subject. At the faculty smoker described above, Dean Halford was responsible for at least two major untruths and several more half-truths. According to the official transcript of his speech, published in the Columbia University Newsletter, Dean Halford told his colleagues on the faculty that "There are no government-sponsored projects at Columbia whose existence cannot be disclosed or whose general nature cannot be indicated." It wasn't until Oct. 16, 1967 -- six months later -- that Columbia admitted that the CIA was secretly financing a project on national income in Eastern Europe. In response to a question from the floor, Dean Halford also exclaimed that "Columbia University had no institutional connection with Institute for Defense Analyses." In fact, Columbia had been a member of IDA since 1960. Responding to criticism of these deceptions, Dean Halford later said that "these things are not in the purview of faculty or students." (Columbia Spectator, March 31, 1967.)
sification of submarines by all possible means." (DoD Appropriations for 1968, Hearings, Part III, pp. 108-9.) Columbia has been conducting underwater acoustical and oceanographic research for the Navy at Hudson Labs since 1951. As part of Project Artemis, scientists at the laboratory are seeking to develop an underwater continental sonar warning system. Hudson Labs also developed special electronic equipment to locate the wreckage of the atomic submarine Thresher, lost in 1963 with 129 men aboard.
Most of the research conducted at. Hudson' Labs is financed by the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Last month, the Navy informed Columbia that it would no longer support the work at Hudson. Columbia then announced, on April 9th, that it would be forced to close the Dobbs Ferry facilities by June, 1969 unless new sponsorship could be found for the work performed there. According to Warren Goodell, Jr., the Vice-President for Administration, Columbia is currently studying plans to transfer some of the 300 staff-members at Hudson to other University, divisions.
Lamont Geological Laboratory
Oceanography, the development and use of the ocean and its resources, is being hailed on Wall Street as one of the booming new investment fields. Currently the most dynamic sector in oceanography is the off-shore oil industry (the industry has invested over $6 billion off the U.S. shores and has drilled nearly 9,000 wells). The other major spender in the oceanography field is the Defense Department, the Navy in particular.
Ownership of the sea bottom has never been clearly defined by international. law. Some of the less developed and less powerful nations in the United Nations foreseeing the threat posed by this U.S. military-industrial penetration of the open seas have initiated proposals to prevent arms proliferation in and under the seas. These proposals are being opposed by the Defense Department and the oceanographic sectors of American industry.
Just as U.S. industry and military interests organized to sell the space race to the American public during the last two decades, they are now organizing to sell the race for control of the oceans. In October 1966 Congress passed special legislation to strengthen U.S. capabilities in marine science and technology (National Sea Grant College and Program Act). President Johnson recently appointed a cabinet level Marine Resources Council headed by Hubert Humphrey to oversee the nation's oceanographic operations. One of the main sources of technicians and technology for this new field is the university; and Columbia's Lamont Geological Observatory is among the top three or four university-related oceanographic research centers in the country.
Established in 1949 Lamont Geological Observatory was named for the man who contributed its founding grant, Thomas J. Lamont, late Chairman of the Board of J.P. Morgan & Co. The main 150 acre campus, operated under the Columbia Geology Department, is located on the shores of the Hudson River at Palisades, New York. The Observatory also maintains a station in Bermuda, a geomagnetic field station in southern New Jersey, some labs on drifting ice in the Arctic Ocean and a permanent installation at Punta Arenas, California. Lamont's facilities include four oceanographic research vessels, an IBM-1620 digital computer and the largest collection in the world of deep-sea sediment cores. Its main fields of research include earthquake seismology (read also: nuclear test detection), space physics, marine geophysics, submarine geology and chemical and physical oceanography.
The Observatory's staff of 59 research professionals is headed by Dr. Maurice Ewing. During the four years previous to his joining the Columbia faculty in 1944, Dr. Ewing was a research associate on the National Defense Research Committee at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. He was awarded the Navy's distinguished service medal in 1955.
The Lamont Geological Observatory is, logically enough, primarily financed by those interests which are serviced by its technology and technicians. The heaviest corporate contributors are the oil companies, including Standard Oil (of N.J.), Texaco, Superior, Shell and Continental. But by far, the greatest portion of its financial support -- over 90% according to Dr. Ewing (N.Y. Times, April 11, 1958) -- comes from the government. The National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research are the primary dispensers of this government subsidy. According to Technology Week (June 5, 1967) half of the Navy's '67-'68 $100 million for oceanology research and development was oriented toward anti-submarine warfare. One of Dr. Ewing's main fields of research -- and the subject of his book, The Propagation of Sound in the Ocean -- is particularly relevant to this type of research and development.
The Punta Arenas installation maintained by Lamont is connected with an offshore seismograph on the ocean bottom used for underground nuclear test detection. This project is financed by the Advanced Research Projects Agency through the Office of Naval. Research. According to the Defense Department listing of non-profit institutions receiving military prime contract awards for research, development, test and evaluation work for fiscal year 1967, the Columbia Punta Arenas station and Palisades campus received $90,000 and $510,000 respectively.
As of October 1966 Lamont Geological Observatory had seven classified contracts with the Department of Defense worth $4.4 million (Testimony of Dean Ralph Halford, Columbia's Dean of Graduate Faculties). One final example of the Observatory's financing and function is described in the NY Times of February 14, 1961, two buildings to train personnel for a new research ship the Navy was scheduled to give that year were amortized (for $872,000) by renting the buildings to the Navy.
Atomic Research Facilities
Columbia maintains a number of facilities for research on atomic energy and related subjects. One of the most famous of these, the Columbia Radiation Laboratory (located on the 10th, 11th, and 12th floors of Pupin Hall) was recently designated a National Landmark in recognition of 25 years service to atomic research. The Radiation Lab was established during World War II to conduct research on military programs involving high-frequency radio waves. During the war, the Lab was used to improve military radar systems. After 1945, however, the government authorized the use of the facility for long-range basic research, and several Columbia scientists subsequently received Nobel prized for work performed at the lab. Dr. Charles Townes (now Provost of M.I.T.) received the 1964 Physics Prize for the development at Columbia of the first maser in 1955.
At least one other Columbia facility had received historic recognition: the University's original cyclotron, constructed in 1938 by John R. Dunning (now Dean of the Engineering School). According to the Columbia Research News issue for Spring 1966, this, cyclotron "made possible, on Jan. 25, 1939, the first demonstration in the U.S. of the huge, energy release occurring in nuclear fission -- a critical experiment in the series that led directly to initial formation of the World War II atomic bomb project at Columbia, and eventually to creation of the bomb." This instrument was dismantled in 1966 so, that it could be exhibited in the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C.
Columbia will not miss the 1938 byclotron, for it has just received a $4.4 million grant from the National Science Foundation for the expansion of its powerful synchro-cyclotron at the Nevis Laboratories in Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y. The expansion program will greatly enhance the machine's ability to produce subatomic particles, which are the main research tools of intermediate energy physics. When first constructed in 1950, the Nevis facility was for a time the world's most powerful cyclotron. Since then, the instrument has been used to conduct experiments on the properties and behavior of subatomic particles like pi-mesons and muons.
Columbia's School of Engineering and Applied Science has recently completed installation of a small nuclear reactor in the lower reaches of the Engineering Terrace Building. The facility, technically labeled a TRIGA Mark II reactor, contains safeguards which are intended to shut the machine off automatically before the conditions for a nuclear explosion could develop. Nevertheless, when first proposed, the reactor drew opposition from community residents and some members of the Columbia faculty (including Prof. Seymour Melman of the Engineering School). Although community opposition, acting through the Renewal Council, succeeded in delaying construction of the reactor, it was powerless to halt final activation of the facility.
Columbia scientists who are engaged in experiments which cannot be handled by the Engineering School's small reactor are guaranteed to the $212 million facilities at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island. Columbia University, along with 10 other east coast schools, is a member of Associated Universities, Inc., the consortium that manages the AEC's facilities at Brookhaven.
Columbia University operates several research facilities in conjunction with other universities, with the Federal government, and with a private corporation. The Brookhaven National Laboratory, already mentioned, is one of these joint efforts.
Columbia's Interdepartmental Committee on Space Physics and the National Aeronautical and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies jointly conduct a research program in space physics. The Institute, which occupies facilities in the Interchurch Center at 475 Riverside Drive and in a University-owned building on West 116th Street, is associated with the Goddard Space Center. The program in Space Physics accounts for most of Columbia's $1.5 million contracts with NASA. Prof. Robert Jastrow functions as Director of the Institute and as chairman of the Interdepartmental Committee.
The Watson Laboratory, at 612 West 115th Street, is operated by the International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) in collaboration with the University. It provides extensive facilities for experimental and theoretical research in physics and applied mathematics.. Watson Lab, named for IBM's founder, Thomas J Watson (a former Trustee of Columbia University), is one of several instances of IBM-Columbia association. Grayson Kirk, in addition to his duties as President of Columbia University, serves as a Director of the IBM Corp. Dr. Richard Garwin, a Columbia Physics professor, is director of research at Watson Lab. (Garwin is also a' member of the Jason Division of the Institute for Defense Analyses.)
Columbia University became an institutional member of the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) in 1960. IDA is a defense-oriented "think-tank" which is sponsored by a consortium of twelve universities. Columbia's President Grayson Kirk represents the University on IDA's Board of Trustees, and along with Columbia Trustee William Burden, also serves on the Executive Committee of IDA. This select committee (members must have "Top Secret" security clearance) must approve all IDA projects. Three years ago, the committee named Gen. Maxwell Taylor, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to replace ex-CIA official Richard Bissell as President of IDA.
Since 1960, there has been a constant interaction between IDA's Arlington, Va. headquarters and Columbia's Morningside Heights campus. On March 30, 1967, IDA's Vice-President and General Manager, Norman L. Christeller, told reporters from the Columbia Daily Spectator that "We consider Columbia to be one of the three or four primary university sponsors of the IDA. President Kirk has always been an active member of our board." Kirk himself has not been honest: on May 5, 1968, Kirk told a nation-wide audience on the CBS program "Face the Nation," that "IDA does not contract with the university." Once again, a Columbia administrator lied rather than acknowledge Columbia's ties to IDA. Columbia has, in fact, held contracts from IDA; in 1964, for instance, the Electrical Engineering Department received a contract from, IDA worth $18,950 for a study of missile-tracking radar (the project was conducted by Herbert Dern of the ERL staff under IDA contract no. 50-13).
Several members of the Columbia faculty are associated with IDA on an individual basis, as consultants or part-time researchers. Three professors, Richard Garwin, Leon Lederman and Henry Foley, are members of MA's "Jason Division," an elite group of University scientists who spend weekends and summers working on secret military projects. According to Mr. Christeller, a "classified research center has been established at Columbia" to accommodate the secret work of the Jason members (Columbia Spectator, March 31, 1967). In addition, the following faculty members have been identified as consultants to IDA: I. I. Rabi, retired University Professor; Bernard O. Koopman, Adrian Professor of Mathematics; Bruce L.R. Smith, an Associate Professor of Government; and Lawrence O'Neill, Director of ERL/ RRI and a Professor of Electrical Engineering.
On April 1, 1968, the Trustees of Columbia University adopted a Measure which is intended to end formal University membership in IDA, while still allowing them to select a representative to the Board of. Trustees of IDA. Columbia's Trustees also passed a resolution which contained an affirmation of "the need for continued effective support of IDA."
Since World War II Columbia has maintained close working relations with the U.S. Navy in a number of areas: Hudson Labs and the Lamont Geological Observatory are both largely supported by the Office of Naval Research. Columbia has no Army Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC), but does offer a Naval ROTC program, administered by the Naval Science Department. The program is limited to the men's undergraduate division, Columbia College.
In order to be commissioned as a Reserve Officer, NROTC candidates must take several six-week summer cruises on Naval vessels as well as complete the regular liberal arts program and courses in Naval Science. Instructors in the Naval Science Dept. are officers of the Naval Reserve who are given commensurate academic positions.
The Columbia College Bulletin for 1966-67 lists the following course-offerings in the field of Naval Science: C1011y: Naval History and Seapower, 1815-1966 ("The contribution of seapower to the political and historical development of the United States ... The rationale of strategic decisions; the organization for national security; the mission of the U.S. Navy in the missile age; selected problems of insurgency and counter-insurgency"); C1021x: Weapons Systems Analysis ("The development of a method which, when applied to a weapons system, allows the student to conduct a functional analysis and gain understanding of the system's principles of operation"); C3032y Naval Operations; C3041x: Naval Engineering; C3042y: Principles and Problems of Leadership ("principles of human management and application of these basic principles to naval situations"); C3531: Evolution of the Art of War; C3532: Basic Strategy and Tactics.
NROTC students who wish to enter the Marine Corps must also take course C3541x: Amphibious Warfare ("The history, theory and practice of amphibious warfare from the Gallipoli campaign to Vietnam").
In a time of turmoil and expansion it is important to maintain a healthy mother country. A well-satisfied domestic population is less likely to question overseas ventures and more willing to take part in their prosecution. Two vital preconditions for a 'healthy', smooth-running, industrialized mother country are skilled labor and social stability. The demands of industry are constantly changing and this requires a constantly reeducated the population. At same time some social conflict is inevitable; but the corporate state thinks it has found the means to regulate its direction and intensity.
National corporations' interest and dependency on the university has a long history. The technical-managerial elite that administers private corporations and the government are all products of the universities, particularly their professional schools. To coordinate the complex flow of modern production requires a high degree of professional training. Without engineers and scientists, innovation and adaptation would come to a standstill. Finally, national corporations are most dependent on a consumer-oriented population. Since profit depends on constant expansion it becomes necessary to train more of the population to increasing consumption patterns.
The chart of Columbia's Top 22 reveals primary relationships to leading national corporations (aside from mass media companies) for five of the rulers and several of the others have secondary interests. The Banks which have financial connections with national corporations and hence an interest in their welfare, are also represented on Columbia's Board of Trustees. Because of their business outlook these men have guaranteed the highest priority for the Engineering, Business and Law schools. Consequently, each of these schools has expanded far out of proportion to the other units of Columbia. They spend the most money, maintain the largest plants, and command the most attention from the administration.
While Business provides skilled managers and Engineering supplies innovators, specialized lawyers are increasingly needed to rationalize the system. Growth and interdependence of American industry has encouraged mergers and oligopoly in order to raise efficiency. The delicate task of bringing corporations together while concealing control is initiated and executed more and more by highly trained. lawyers. Moreover, increasing government regulation has made corporate law ever more intricate.
By turning into a service station for corporate interests, the university has become enmeshed in business. The administration and faculty have found private profit more educative than teaching. Most instructive is the case of Professor John R, Dunning, Dean of the Engineering School. Since 1957 Dunning has lied his pedagogical talents to City Investing Co. (CIC), a, real estate holding operation that has diversified into commercial enterprises specializing in defense contracting. As a director of CIC (along with Columbia Trustees Fletcher and Walker, and Morningside Heights' President, James Felt), Dunning reaped the benefits of properties leased to William Burdens Lockheed Aircraft. Furthermore, Dean Dunning profited when CIC acquired an aircraft defense contractor (Hayes International) that has large subcontracts from Lockheed, and manufactures such military weapons as incendiary bombs and a Defoliation Spray System (designed, to disseminate poisonous chemicals in Viet Nam).
Another interesting case of academic business involved Columbia's role in the Strickman filter. President Grayson Kirk, with authorization the Board of Trustees acting as a public relations executive, made the first public announcement of the filter's discovery. Reliable rumors indicate that some of the Trustees bought large blocks of tobacco company stocks on the correct assumption that the filter announcement would drive the stock prices up.
Columbia Trustee and Philadelphia architect Vincent G. Kling has also benefited from his academic association. Soon after he became a Trustee in 1965, he was awarded the closed bid contract for designing Barnard's new classroom (Kling designed the Penn-Central, building' in Philadelphia for which Percy Uris was the general contractor).
Business relationships also arise from the university's investment program. (See the Real Estate section for details on land holdings.) Though the university has refused to make public its investment portfolio, available information demonstrates a concentration of holdings within corporations represented by the Trustees. For instance, it appears that the University has heavy investments in IBM arid Con Edison; the latter represented by Kirk, and the former by Kirk, Wien and Luce. Columbia's Watson Computer Lab is operated for IBM and Con Edison benefits from the University's. land deals and rental policy.
Corporation executives have become increasingly, aware of the need for social controls over potentially disruptive elements, especially those in the ghetto. Since they are not inclined to invest in low-return operations, they have channeled tax-deductible and foundation funds into the creation of pacification teams trained by the University. The School of Social Work turns out personnel whose approach is ostensibly therapeutic. The standard formula is to convince the disadvantaged that their life difficulties stem from inner sickness rather than disruptive social conditions. This approach treats the poor and potentially rebellious as patients. Instead of removing the cause of their discontent -- something that would cost a great deal of money now allocated to overseas priorities -- they pacify through treatment. The origins of this therapeutic social work is charity; the effect is to rob the individual of his dignity by requiring him to adjust to intolerable conditions.
Mass media is another form of pacification. By reaching a vast number of people through a number of sources, it can create an image of the world that is supportive of the system. To distract is to pacify; the mass media transforms reality into symbols that deaden social awareness. The lack of alternatives creates a climate of coercive persuasion.
Columbia has been instrumental in shaping the mass media industry. New York is the industry's capital and Columbia is its favorite university. Eight of the Top 22 are leading figures in major mass communications firms; their influence is mirrored in the size and national status of the Journalism School. The School is well-endowed by the corporations it serves (particularly the New York Times, CBS, Time, and Cowles publications), and in turn shapes its program to satisfy their needs.
Another function of the mass media is the training of people to develop artificial hunger for mass consumption. As consumption habits become ingrained, the home markets expand. Every blatant or subliminal technique is used to convert natural tastes into the unnatural. This growth in consumption creates high turnover of goods and customers work harder to feed their habits, draining potential moneys from those sectors of the population that are already deprived. One of the side effects is to create contempt for property on the part of the already poor minorities. If property is presented as a function of fad, how valuable can it be?
The interdependence between the University and mass media corporations is best exemplified by the New York Times' coverage of the April 27th mass arrests on the Columbia campus. Two leading Times editorial writers (Gelb and Rosenthal) were secretly briefed by the police and prepared their story long before the actual arrests. The news stories of other Times reporters which revealed police brutality were suppressed and the Times published editorials favorable to the administration. This was clearly calculated to project a favorable public image for Columbia. Moreover, in the past, A. M. Rosenthal has offered his services to Kirk when the administration needed to rebuff community leaders that were critical of the proposed gym.
During the, '40's and '50's, the Morningside Heights area, previously a high income white community, gradually became a low income slum composed largely of ethnic minorities. This rapid deterioration of the surrounding neighborhood forced Columbia University for the third time in its history to face the question: to remain or to move to an area more congenial to itself. Eventually the University made the decision to stay and change the environment in its favor.
The formation of Morningside Heights, Inc. in 1947 was the major factor in Columbia's decision to remain and to resist the encroachment of surrounding slums Morningside Heights, Inc. (MHI) constituted a united effort on the part of the religious and educational institutions in Morningside Heights to "redevelop" the area. Its original membership was composed largely of the six educational institutions in the Columbia complex - Columbia, Barnard, Teachers College, Union Theological Seminary, Jewish Theological Seminary and the Juilliard School of Music - and of the three large churches in the area - Riverside Church (Baptist) Corpus Christi Church (Catholic) and the Cathedral of St. John the Divine (Episcopal). The present MHI membership also includes; Home for Old Men and Aged Couples, International House, St. Luke's Hospital Center; Hilda's and St. Hugh's School, St. Luke's Home of Morningside House and the Interchurch Center.
The key person in the. formation of MHI was David Rockefeller; his involvement was crucial in preventing an institutional exodus from the area. As a result of a study of the deterioration of the Morningside Heights area by his former sociology professor at the University of Chicago, David Rockefeller personally persuaded the Morningside Heights institutions to form a. joint planning agency; he provided its initial financing of $104,000. (MHI's annual budget of $250,000 is now provided entirely by member institutions.)
David Rockefeller served as president of MHI from 1947 until December, 1957. At that time Grayson Kirk, President of Columbia and director of the Rockefeller-controlled Socony-Mobil Oil Corp. took over the position. Rockefeller, however, is still the most important policy-maker in MHI, as is illustrated by the following memo from Kirk to his aides, Truman, Goodell and McGoey:
"I talked last Friday with David Rockefeller about the proposal that Warren Lundquist take over the presidency of Morningside Heights, Inc. He was quite frank in saying that such a move would be impossible at this time because Lindy is the president of one of his new and very large developments in San Francisco, is deeply involved with the second project in San Francisco, and is also heavily involved in the Downtown Manhattan Project. Hence, regretfully because of his [David's] interest in Morningside Heights, Inc. he felt that we must look elsewhere.
(reprinted-in the Rat, May 17-30, 1968)
David Rockefeller's role in the formation of Morningside Heights, Inc. stems from his family's large investment both monetary and psychological - in the area. The Rockefeller family has provided a major share of the financing of four of the institutions - Riverside Church, International House, Interchurch Center, and Union Theological Seminary - which function as an important source of the Rockefeller family prestige.
According to a compilation, printed in the N.Y. Herald Tribune, May 12, 1960, David's father, John D. Rockefeller Jr. contributed the following sums to MHI institutions between 1917 and 1959 (this does not include Rockefeller Foundation grants to Columbia University):
Cathedral. of St.. John the Divine, $508,000
Barnard College, $1,231,000.
Riverside Church (founded and built by JDR, Jr. in the '20's), $26,476,000
International House (founded 1921 with a gift of land and $3,000,000 from JDR, Jr.), $6,663,000
Interchurch Center (founded in the '50's with a gift of land from JDR, Jr.), $4,210,000. The Sealantic Fund, a Rockefeller philanthropy, has bought two buildings (49 Claremont and 468 Riverside) for planned expansion of the Interchurch Center.
Union Theological Seminary, $3,713,000
Columbia University, Teacher's College, $225,000
Morningside Heights, Inc., $104,000
A study of the boards of directors of the International House, the Interchurch Center and Union Theological Seminary reveals, as does the accompanying chart of Morningside Heights, Inc.'s board of directors, at persons associated with Rockefeller interests predominate. For example:
John J. McCloy, Chairman of the Board of International House, is former chairman of the Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. He is a partner in the Rockefeller associated law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy.
Dana Creel, Director of Morningside Heights, Inc. and vice president of the Interchurch Center is secretary of the Sealantic Fund and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, both Rockefeller philanthropies, and is a trustee of the Seamen's Bank for Savings, a Rockefeller-associated bank.
Edmund Wagner, President of the Interchurch Center and a director of Morningside Heights, Inc. is on the Executive Committee of the Seamen's Bank for Savings. He is also a director of Uris Buildings Corp.
John N. Irwin, II, Chairman of the Board of Union Theological Seminary trustees and a trustee of the Interchurch Center, is a Director of the Seamen's Bank for Savings, a director of the U.S. Trust. Co. (both Rockefeller-controlled financial institutions) and a member of a Rockefeller-associated law firm, Patterson, Belknap & Webb.
Robert W. Purcell, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the International House, is also Chairman of the Board of the International Basic Economy Corp. (IBEC), a large Rockefeller overseas investment company.
John I. Howell, Treasurer of the International House, is president of the J. Henry Schroeder Banking Corp. and of the Schroeder Trust Co., both Rockefeller banking institutions.
John Foster Dulles, an important Board member of Union Theological Seminary between 1945 and 1953, was a partner of Sullivan & Cromwell, the prestigious Wall Street firm which includes among its clients, Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey. In the '30's Dulles was President of the Rockefeller Foundation.
The first major project MHI undertook to "redevelop" the area was the construction of the middle-income Morningside Gardens apartments on a site previously inhabited largely by lower income families (covering a full block between Amsterdam and Broadway, and La Salle and 123rd Sts.). This project provided the decisive turning-point in the battle of the Morningside institutions against the indigenous inhabitants. As Fortune Magazine put it in February 1955, "the whole community has experienced a psychological and physical turning of the tide.
MHI bought the property (after the city condemned it) through its real estate subsidiary Remedco. It then setup a separate corporation,-the Morningside Housing Corp., to build the apartments. A realtor who is a close personal friend of David Rockefeller, Leonard J. Beck (also a trustee of Inter. ;;national House at the time) headed the corporation and played a key role in raising the $15 million to '..finance the buildings.
Leonard Beck and Glenn McHugh (a present MHI director) handle real estate holdings of Rockefeller controlled institutions. McHugh is real estate vice president of Equitable Life Assurance; Beck manages some of Equitable's real estate acquisitions. Significantly, both played a key role in assembling the site for Equitable, on which Uris Buildings Corp. and Rockefeller Center Inc. built the Sperry Rand Building (see real estate section). The participation of these two men in both the assembling of properties for institutional expansion in Morningside Heights and the assembling of midtown commercial properties for the Rockefeller interests offer one more insight into the intricacies of Rockefeller dominance over Columbia.
Another link between MHI and the Uris-Rockefeller partnership is Edmund Wagner, Chairman of the Executive Committee of Seamen's Bank for Savings (Rockefeller controlled). Wagner is an MHI director (also President of the Interchurch Center). In October 1963, he was appointed a director of Uris Business Corp. (obviously as the Rockefeller representative on the board.) Once on the board he was generously offered an option to purchase 5000 shares of Uris common stock at $18.50 per share while the market price was $38.00 -- a profit of $97,500.
It is no coincidence that the key exponent of Morningside Heights "development" institutional expansion -- i.e. institutional expansion -- is David Rockefeller, the same person who is the key exponent of Third World "development" -- i.e. the expansion of U.S. corporations overseas. The role of his organization, MHI, directly parallels that of AID, which his family (particularly his brother Nelson under Truman and Eisenhower) played a key role in establishing.
The administration of both empires involves the same techniques: national elites are co-opted (as with Overton of the Negro Labor Committee); the news is distorted; irrelevant populations are removed; and finally, a barricaded enclave sustained by military might is set up ($100,000 or over a third of the MHI budget, is allocated for a private police force which cooperates with the city police).
Moreover, pacification programs are instituted to channel the indigenous population into "socially responsible" activities. A case in point is the athletic field which Columbia built in 1955 on land once a public playground in Morningside Park. The gates to this field are locked. The community people can use the facilities only at specified times and when under the supervision of James Young, a Negro hired by MHI.
The student uprising was the logical and necessary culmination of a long struggle between the propertied and the propertyless, between the powerful and the powerless. Community participation against the university was one of the special features of this struggle. The rebellion mirrored perfectly the growing fight against government policy on a national level.
In order to avoid a clash between property and its function and the community-student opposition, it was necessary to satisfy human needs, but, as the gap between the priorities of the powerful and the powerless widened, as the property needs created inhuman demands and the demands of humanity increased, the only thing that could resolve the issue was, finally, an uprising which seized and redistributed property and, in so doing, redistributed power.
From the pronouncements of the administration, it would seem that these rebellions, at Columbia and other campuses, are unprecedented. Actually, Columbia itself has experienced various kinds of opposition, considered as extreme in their day as the riots appear in our own day. The famous riotous commencement of 1811 resulted in a number of arrests; the Civil War period was wracked by violence over the issue of the draft.
The point of no return for Columbia University in its commitment to the war effort and to profit and property was reached in the coup of 1967 when the academic administrators, Barzun and Chamberlin, were ousted in favor of the managerial manipulators (Truman and Goodell), Now in power are men committed to manipulation, financial and real estate speculation, men on the make.
The generalized fight became hardened and objectified by the surfacing of the IDA and the Morningside Park Gym issues; while they seemed separate, they were ineradicably fused, each representing different aspects of property and property drives. The IDA represented commitment to aiding the war, effort which, under its anti-communist guise, hunted for new markets in the Communist and third worlds. The gym represented institutional expansion, creation of a service area for empire-building trainees -- a frozen negation of domestic, irrelevant populations. Colonialized community and colonialized student needs fused; as an unbearable tension was reached, this new community moved to stop the work on the gym and seized the buildings symbolic of their training and rededicated them to new purposes, seized property and rededicated it to anti-property priorities. This action symbolized the need to stop the destructive direction the country was taking.
The students had tried other means before. There had been peaceful demonstrations, pickets, petitions, appeals to debate the issues publicly; there was a questioning of the decision-making rights, appeals to conscience an moral grounds. This earlier stage implied a naive faith in the democratic process or, rather that, the democratic process worked, went deep and was a part of administration and student body. It was believed that misunderstanding, a basic obtuseness rather than greed and power, motivated the administration; that when the issues were debated fairly and openly some kind of rapprochement could be reached. The liberated documents from Grayson Kirk's files revealed that beneath the surface, there had never been democracy and that profit needs, manipulation, were basic to administration behavior.
What were the results of these demands: They were ignored, they were met with aloofness, professionalism and expertise were interjected (the students were neither trained nor fit to decide these weighty problems of state), arrogance was the order of the day, and when pressures were applied by the student body, suspension was threatened. Implicit in this form of coercion was a death threat: once out, of the university, the students were subject to the draft. This process was paralleled in the surrounding community;: The University through Morningside Heights, Inc. acted like the lowest slum lord clearing a building to escalate the value, using threats, coercion through cutting off heat, involving tenants in long legal struggles, refusing to accept rent and then serving dispossesses. And when protest mounted, symbolic community leaders were chosen from the community who would then negotiate with the administration for concessions that were nothing more than holding-actions in an inevitable and total seizure of the community. These leaders had the ground cut out from under them after they had served their purpose ... and while they dickered for minor victories, their base of power. was, slowly being eroded. Not content with the Morningside area, the university was moving further and further into Harlem itself, continuing to carve out a huge training enclave to process students to run the empire.
The peculiar feature of Columbia's policy was its hard-line approach, its refusal to deal the legitimate protest at all. In this, other universities have at least been more sophisticated, granting some of the student demands, willing to hold dialogues which, on the surface, seemed meaningful. There has been a smoother interaction, but the struggle has merely been put off, for the other universities will all come to their Columbia uprisings.
Basic to the students' understanding was their understanding of their university position and what the university meant. More and more, defense research defined scholarship. As the needs of international corporate expansion overseas grew for a pool of technicians who shaped material and minds into the proper use-framework, this operation molded curriculum and, in turn, kept the atmosphere proper in a political sense. The schools would be financed if the empire was to be served and if the schools refused to participate, other more pliable schools with officials on the make for money would be found. On the national level domestic markets had to be serviced and people had to be induced more and more to escalate their consumer needs. What this meant, on the student level was that, in terms of future expansion needs, the student was a raw commodity that had to be processed into usable forms, had to be made into interchangeable parts on an assembly line basis so that there would be a pool for corporate and defense use. The very creation of this pool insured that there would be intense competition among the trainees and part of this process of preparation for fitting in meant that a preliminary process had to be undertaken, the process of dehumanization, alienation, the creation of a proper subservient mood (subservient in the sense that fierce competition for money and property was permitted), but competition with the system was dangerous and must be considered first neurotic and then subversive. It is no accident that the suicide rates are so high in the universities.
Since priorities were given over to expansion, the community, especially the Blacks and Puerto Ricans were considered irrelevant; investment in this area was too prohibitive since there was easier money to be made elsewhere; i.e., in defense contracts and in the manufacture of high turnover easily consumable products, war materiel.
As the tensions mounted, legitimacy (legitimacy of the rulers) became illegitimacy when the conflict between maintaining the old legitimacy and satisfying needs indicated that all efforts would have to go into the turning out of goods and the preservation of the property that turned out these goods.
What other means were there, then, to cut through the illegitimate basis of power than to seize the university? And this seizure of property cut through to the raw nerve of the university. Even this might have been mediated but for the liberated documents in Grayson Kirk's office which exposed once and for all, what a sham the appearance of democracy, or paternalistic expertise was. Here was the truth! Here were the secrets! Here was what really went on. The documents undercut all the need for secrecy justified in the name of national interest. What it was all about was the scramble for money, the fight for markets to make money; what it was all about was manipulation of markets and stock rigging and money plays on the way to power. That the whole defense establishment in all of its manifestations was tied in with corporate interests, tied in with real estate speculation, tied together by contacts, and that the whole process of market escalation was furthered by a series of men on the make who made the decisions that they clothed in the patriotic rhetoric of national security, and sanctification of the cold and hot war fight to free the enslaved world. All this was covered by a sanctified university facade, which, to the financial detriment of students and faculty, permitted high level robbing to go on without let or hindrance.
The meaning of this seizure of property and the codes of behavior in property protection and accumulation was perceived all too clearly by the administration, especially the crude hard liners who know their operations were the shadiest; realizing they had the most, to lose most immediately, the rhetoric gave way to a club. A struggle for survival was mounted by the students and the community as the administration was aided by the overwhelming and ponderous control of almost all the media; history was rewritten as it happened. And, as we have pointed out, it was no coincidence that trustees included Sulzberger of the Times and Paley of CBS.
Beatings and jailings followed. The strike represents the lack of recognition of students and community by the powers who rule the university. Student amnesty is a fundamental precondition to settling the strike; it announces and solidifies that the power has shifted in favor of the students and the community, it justifies their cause and creates the grounds for a more formal surrender of power and even the possibility of reshifting the course of the university. It implies the recognition of community needs and if expansion is needed, it argues that expansion must be begun in a way that services the community, the neglected domestic front, and, solicits their participation.
The administration's response to student demand was another evasion: establishment due process. The establishment position was clearly defined in this statement by Herbert A. Deane, Vice-Dean of Graduate Facilities (Spectator, April 24, 1967). "A university is definitely not a democratic institution. When decisions to be made democratically around here, I will not be here any longer." Spectator quoted Deane as adding, "Whether students vote 'yes' or 'no' on an issue is like telling me they like strawberries." Appearing to take a softer line, it was the same rulers who appointed the Cox Commission and laid down the ground rules for inquiry -- all in an attempt to relegitimize the administrators and the old order. All the members represent the establishment and have establishment hearts. Three are lawyers (Cox, Rifkind, and Amsterdam, a Philadelphia lawyer) committed to due process within the role established by the rulers: no hidden data, such as liberated documents, can enter into the discussion. One, Lewis, is a sociologist whose position, along with the nature of his discipline, presumes objectivity and the viewing of things as they are without moral bias ... which is to say, keep things the way they are. The fifth, Dana L. Farnsworth, is the head of Harvard student health services; he has glorified the role of an establishment agent-informer. He has stated, "The psychiatrist and the college police force must often work closely together." For him and for many other psychiatrists, psychiatry in America is a variation of the police function. Whom they cannot adjust they will call mad.
The rebellion has precipitated cleavages among Columbia's rulers. Uris and some of his supporters have insisted on repression. Rockefeller has come out for student dissent.. The very crudeness of Uris' action delegitimized the university and the more sophisticated forces have recognized this result. The Rockefellers have longer range institutionalized interests and can afford the wait that new money cannot: their interests still lie with an overseas empire and they are intently committed to the mass production of technicians and pacifiers. Furthermore, they realize that the domestic front has reached an incredible turmoil. To show the fist is to negate the idealistic principles on which this country was founded; suspensions of civil rights would bring. people into the fight who, believing that democracy works, wouldn't otherwise join the struggle.
What Columbia meant was that no longer were the weak to be manipulated by the strong, whose revivifying worth was the property they had amassed. They were now open to scrutiny. It became clear that there is a real and legitimate basis for the seizure and redistribution of property to rechannel it into the service of human needs.