Part 4b: Why don’t political scientists investigate the CFR?

0132_foreign_affairsWe began with the observation that very little academic work exists on the CFR, and that those political scientists who interest themselves in this organization are told by their colleagues that this is not real ‘political science.’ Why might that be? One obvious clue is that the CFR publishes Foreign Affairs, the most prestigious journal in the political science field, which can make academics eager to publish their work in that journal perhaps a bit timid about investigating the CFR itself.

Delving again into history we may find other clues. For example, in 1923, just two years after the creation of the CFR, an agency was created to coordinate the social sciences: the Social Science Research Council (SSRC). This organ was founded by Charles Merriam, professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Merriam was quite important, “and through his students he became the architect of American political science as it developed after World War II.” So it is probably relevant that he “applauded all that was being done in the name of eugenics.”[61]

The main allies of Merriam in the creation of the SSRC were Beardsley Ruml and Wesley Clair Mitchell.[62] Ruml, since 1917, was the director of one of the Rockefeller foundations: the Laura Spellman Rockefeller Memorial (LSRM). Mitchell had created the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), an organ that practically fused itself, like the CFR, with the US government and whose “main source of funds was the Carnegie Corporation. Among foundations the Commonwealth Fund and the Laura Spellman Rockefeller Memorial were also important backers.”[63] While Ruml poured Rockefeller resources into the SSRC, Michell connected the new organization to the NBER. In the first 10 years, the SSRC granted $4 million for social science research, becoming a major force with the power to reward the kind of work that its powerful sponsors wanted.[64] The money of Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Russell Sage “provided the organization with a solid footing through the end of World War II.”[65]

Given that the people with most influence in the development of postwar US political science were eugenicists, this may perhaps explain why there is so much cheerleading for the PLO in Western political science departments, and so many attacks against the State of Israel. It also helps explain why political scientists are reluctant to expose the dark side of the CFR.

But in fact the above is only the tip of the iceberg. Carnegie and Roosevelt, the main financiers of the eugenics movement, spent millions upon millions on universities all over the Western world, but especially in the United States, and creating all sorts of educational policy organizations that affected tremendously the academic world. Just to give a few examples:

“[John D. Rockefeller] Junior’s zeal in footing the bill for the work of eugenicists would be felt around the world. By 1922, he had a personal fortune of half a billion dollars, and ‘a key role to play in a whole set of major philanthropic organizations, a growing circle of trusted and talented advisers, and goals and interests …both overseas and at home, on a wide-ranging scale never before seen and never since equaled.’ In 1921, he helped organize the Council on Foreign Relations, with Elihu Root and AES-member Jerome Greene. Junior made significant contributions to the League of Nations and spent $28 million to establish the International Education Board, which sought to ‘identify scientists and institutions of great quality’ to be ‘centers of inspiration and training’ for an ‘international migration of select students.’ The IEB funded new biology laboratories at a dozen European universities. In the U.S., Junior ensured his influence in academia by spending $41 million between 1922 and 1928 in grants to 25 universities for social-science programs. Five institutions — the University of Chicago, Columbia, the Brookings Institution, and Harvard, along with England’s London School of Economics — received more than half of the money. Others that received ‘substantial sums’ were Yale, Minnesota, Iowa State, Vanderbilt, North Carolina, California, Stanford, and Texas.”[66]

Table of Contents