Draft of June 8, 1956

(Form of letter designed to be sent to persons
with whom there has been no preliminary oral contact)

Dear __________

I am writing this letter to you as a person uniquely qualified to assist in what I believe to be an important project of long-range planning for the role of the United States in world society.

I think you will agree that the last ten years have seen un-
paralled changes in the position of the United States, both interna-
tional and domestic. The rapid rate of technological changes, the
increases of productivity, the emergence of the United States as the
principal power in the Free World and the Soviet challenge, all have
combined to make many of the ideas we formed in more leisurely periods
out of focus or in need of reexamination in the light of new conditions.

We all know that we are for such things as freedom, independence
of nations and human dignity, but we seem less clear about what these
general purposes mean in the light of the problems that are likely to
confront us over the next twenty years. It may well be that developments
have outstripped our purposes and our concepts.

It has, therefore, seemed to me uniquely important to attempt to
start a series of studies which would look at the problems and opportu-
nities of the United States over a fifteen to twenty year period. The
advice and counsel of people such as yourself would seem to me extremely
important. I would, therefore, be very grateful if I could enlist your

important. I would, therefore, be very grateful if I could express my
satisfaction and concern of people and myself would seem to me extremely
noble of the United States over a fifteen to twenty year period. The
start a series of studies which would look at the problems and opportunities
If so, therefore, seemed to me unduly important to attempt to
have outstripped our purposes and our concepts.

contrary to our next twenty years. It may well be that developments
General purposes mean in the light of the problems that are likely to
of nations and human dignity, but we seem less clear about what these
We all know that we are for such things as freedom, independence
out of love or in need of reexamination in the light of new conditions.
complied to make many of the ideas we formed in more formally periods
brought about in the free world and the Soviet challenge, all have
increases of productivity, the emergence of the United States as the
ficial and domestic. The rapid rate of technological changes, the
broadened changes in the position of the United States, both interna-
tional and domestic. The rapid rate of technological changes, the
I think you will agree that the fast some here have seen un-
branded for the role of the United States in world society.
to assist in what I believe to be an important protect of fourth-range
I am writing this letter to you as a person unduly disinterested
in whom there has been no preliminary or initial contact)
(born of letter sealed to be sent to本人

Draft of June 8, 1955

2

be
aid. I would/particularly grateful if you were to agree to undertake
~~memorandum~~ a memorandum in which you would outline the problems and opportu-
nities you see ahead for the United States in the next twenty years.
I am not thinking of specific policies to deal with these problems —
although, of course, I would be delighted to have your suggestions—
but rather with an identification of the problems and a set of atti-
tudes from which conclusions may flow.

February 19, 1957

Dear Fred:

Pursuant to our very hearty discussion of last week, I am forwarding a copy of Eli Ginzberg's letter to Dr. Killion. In addition, I have taken the liberty of putting down some points of my own on the problems with which Subpanel V might wrestle. These latter you might regard as either too mundane for consideration or incapable of solution, but in any event I pass them on for what they may be worth.

The basic problem to which Ginzberg also refers in his fourth point, is that there has been a basic sociological change in the United States which affects increasingly the choice of careers, particularly those in areas which are less remunerative, hold little social esteem, or involve major family separations. To illustrate my point, I have been told by the Mother Superior of one Catholic order that they are fortunate in having an Italian Mother House as they must obtain from Italy the bulk of their novices, vocations in the United States having fallen off in recent years. A similar problem presents itself, for example, in the armed forces where there is a great disparity between the senior officers, who regard military service as a vocation, if not a duty, and the juniors, who consider it only as a career and frequently only as a job. Under these circumstances, it becomes increasingly insufficient to talk of nebulous incentives such as "patriotism", "loyalty", etc., since these apparently no longer have the same motivating force.

I can cite dozens of statistical and personal illustrations to support this thesis with regard to the military but I am sure this is unnecessary, since it is much more widespread and undoubtedly well known to you. This does not mean that there will no longer be people who are moved by the considerations I have mentioned above but rather that, increasingly, we will have to rely on other motivations unless there is a basic and unforeseen change in the sociological and ideological trends in the United States. Of these other incentives,

Mr. Hechinger

- 2 -

February 19, 1957

one (money) is within certain limits desirable and, again within limits, attainable. However, I question whether the sums needed to attract really first-rate people, as against hicks, can readily be made available, particularly in the educational field. It seems to me that somewhat increased financial inducements must be coupled with an awakening of interest in these professions which in turn implies a considerably greater knowledge of what is required of the professional and what he personally gains in the way of satisfaction from his service. This is a field which I believe needs further consideration.

Secondly, it seems to me that we have barely scratched the surface of problems of utilisation. I am wholly in sympathy with Ginzberg's third point, as was evident from my remarks on the topic at the last meeting. In addition, I think that we might at least note the questions of utilization of the handicapped, of the direct and indirect gains which might result from improving the physical and mental health of our citizens, and of the problems attendant on greater use of minority groups. For example, Lester Granger has pointed out that in some cases graduates from southern Negro colleges possess only the educational equivalent of New England high school students, so that there are practical as well as socio-psychological limits to what can be done in this field. This same holds true with regard to organizational changes in our educational institutions. I must say that after scanning the rosy picture presented in an interview by the President of the Association of School Administrators, I quite favor your view that this is the first group whom we must seek to reform.

In a more minor key, I should like to point out that we have really given no consideration to the problem of military manpower, either in the sense of the total demands placed on our manpower pool for skilled and unskilled labor, or in the sense of a sound basis for criticisms of manpower practices in the armed forces. I do not, by this statement, mean to absolve the services from blame but rather to point out that our criticisms are likely to be shrugged off if they are not soundly grounded in fact. Moreover, there has been only the most cursory mention of the benefits of military training, particularly in the technical fields, and of the offsetting advantages of such measures as the G.I. Bill of Rights. Here again, I could go on at greater length, but I think my major fears have been expressed.

Mr. Mecninger

- 3 -

February 17, 1957

To continue with lesser problems, I think the group has failed to consider the question of non-academic education, both for citizenship and for work. There has been little mention made of either the necessity for or the achievements of our adult education programs nor of our various technical and professional training programs which are conducted either within industry and government or by specialized institutions such as secretarial schools, etc. It would be a mistake to ignore these fields in considering the problem of mass education. Moreover, I agree completely with Ginzberg that we have not considered either the qualities we are seeking to enhance through education or the factors which make people unable to pursue formal academic self-improvement. For example, the report of the Educational Policies Commission mentions that 4 out of 10 of the top 5% of our high school graduates do not go to college; yet, other than in general terms, there is no indication as to why this is so. We badly need data as to the effects of early marriage, of a booming economy, of military service, and of general attitudes concerning education upon our youth. Equally, we need to know why half of those who do enter college never graduate, as this is a tremendous loss and perhaps an even more colossal waste of our academic space.

Finally, I should like to turn to a somewhat more diffuse but not less important topic. I am concerned with the question as to whether the growing centralization in both business and government and the attendant diffusion of responsibility does not result both in over-staffing at all levels and in failure to develop both a sense of personal responsibility for one's actions and a habit of decision-making. This is a somewhat esoteric question, I agree, but one which I think has important repercussions. Eli Ginzberg, in his paper, mentions the loss of job interest among junior officers of the armed forces resulting from over-direction and failure to properly utilize their talents -- with which I completely agree. Correspondingly, there is a tendency to over-utilize the time and talents of the higher-ups in the organization. I cannot vouch for the perhaps apochryphal story that the Joint Chiefs of Staff once met to consider the division of spaces in the Pentagon parking lot, but I can state that the Army Chief of Staff has, among other things, considered the question of what pictures should hang in the Army section of the Pentagon and what color braid should be put on the trousers of uniforms -- which I certainly would not consider worthy of the attention of an individual directing the activities of a million odd men. I have been told on very good authority that only 10% of the problems referred to the Chief of Staff of the Army for his decision were actually seen by that overworked individual, the remainder being handled by rather junior staff officers.

VII - Statement of the Problem

April 3, 1957

ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND, INC.

SPECIAL STUDIES PROJECT

SUBPANEL VII. THE MORAL FRAMEWORK OF NATIONAL PURPOSE

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Richard McKeon

University of Chicago

1. The Relation of Subpanel VII to the Work of the Other Subpanels

The assignment of Subpanel VII is not the discussion of moral purposes in the abstract nor the diagnosis of the moral temper and disorders of our times. It is the analysis of a moral *framework* of *national* purpose. Its frame of reference is political: its problem is to seek ways to improve moral thinking as it is applied in international and internal policy no less than to seek means to increase the influence of moral considerations in framing and executing policy.

The moral problems which arise in the context of political action today have two conspicuous characteristics: they result from an interplay of internal and external influences (the nation and the international situation, the individual and the community, and, as these two develop, international policy and domestic situation) and from an interaction of material opportunity (or danger) and ideal fulfillment (or frustration). The first of these characteristics, the interplay of politics and morals, has been a subject of analysis since the beginning of moral speculation and preachment. The second, the interaction of actual situation and conceived ideal, is not less classical in its

April 3, 1957

- 2 -

basic formulation, but the transformation of the material world during the last
few decades has so altered its operation that policies put into effect have,
on the one hand, been directed to material improvements and assistance
which outrun our moral formulations of positive objectives and have, on the
other hand, been justified as means to obviate transgressions of justice and
rights on a scale and intensity that had not previously been possible.

These characteristic moral problems have been encountered in the work
of each of the six subpanels, and they are reflected in the organization and
distribution of the work of the subpanels. To begin with, the subpanels have
been divided into two groups of three concerned respectively with inter-
national objectives and strategy and with internal objectives, resources,
and processes. The first of international subpanels is concerned with the
nature of American objectives and values in themselves and in relation to
the rest of the world; subpanel II turns to problems of international security --
the strategy of alliances and defense in emerging groupings and oppositions;
subpanel III is engaged in the consideration of problems of international
economic policy -- the development of the American economy in the context
of a developing world economy. No one of these is more fundamental than
the others, since the clarification and extension of American values is
inseparable from survival to pursue those values and from budgeting the costs
of ideals and survival. A moral framework is needed for each of the tasks,
but even more particularly to relate the problems faced in the three tasks.

April 3, 1957

The subpanels assigned to the analysis of problems of internal policy find their subject matter in resources and processes, ideal objectives and motivating incentives. Subpanel IV treats problems of economic and social objectives and policy: they range through problems of economic policy and social welfare; subpanel V turns to problems of utilization of human resources from mass education and the education of high-talent manpower to the effects of changing communities, growing populations, and evolving institutions; subpanel VI is engaged in the consideration of the democratic process, particularly with problems of leadership and opinion. As in the case of the assignments of the three subpanels concerned with international relations, these three sets of problems are organically interrelated. A moral framework is needed not only to relate social and economic objectives, human opportunities and motives, and leadership and public opinion to moral objectives and to the stimulation of creative living, but also to relate policy objectives, human resources, and democratic processes to one another.

Three groups of moral problems become apparent when one explores the fundamental issues raised in the balances and oppositions in international relations, within the national community, and in the influence of the international and the national on each other.

a. The moral framework of international policy. The purposes which have emerged in the preliminary reports on international objectives and policy usually appear in pairs -- order and freedom, cohesion among individuals and groups and growth appropriate to each, justice and the development of