Changes at the Henry George School
Robert Clancy
[A letter addressed to Ed Dodson, 4 August, 1981]
Dear Ed:
Interesting to hear what you Philadelphians are up to, and I am in
sympathy with your aims. My own tactic is to ignore those who go off
course, and get on with the work I think should be done - but I will
admit that there is a good case for getting after the buzzards.
I enclose two items. One is my Memorandum on the Henry George School,
which I did some years ago to circulate to friends who could not
comprehend what was going on. It was thus done for a specific purpose,
and does not cover all the information you want. But based on it,
perhaps you could ask further questions that I could answer.
In retrospect, the following thoughts occur to me about this
Memorandum: I was too soft on the characters involved, but that was on
purpose, because I was still too close to the events reported therein
and it could too easily be interpreted as "sour grapes" if I
was more critical. Also, the School never did turn into an "academic
showcase," not even a second-rate one. As I now believe, there
never was any plan to become academic, it was all a cover-up for
personal ambitions. Concerning some of the characters mentioned:
Lowell Harriss has for some reason been quite friendly, contributes to
the Institute and sends literature. Repentance for his part in the
debacle? Even Arch Woodruff has become a bit friendly, though he was
hostile at the time.
The second item is a 10-year report on the Lincoln Foundation. (It
was evidently founded in 1947, not 1946 as I stated; however, the
decision was made in 1946.) John C. Lincoln was still alive when this
report was issued. You will read his Statement on page 8 and see what
an uncompromising Georgist he was. Note on page 9 the purpose of the
Foundation.
Note on page 10 the Directors' Interpretation of Purpose. It is very
cleverly done. The shift of emphasis is so slight as to be practically
unnoticeable. I'm certain this "interpretation" was written
by the cunning Raymond Moley. It provided the opening wedge for
veering off the straightforward course set by John C. Lincoln. (I am
reminded of what the playwright Ionesco said of the anti-Nazi liberals
of his country, Romania. They gathered together to resist the Nazi
ideology. But when some one gave in on some very minor point, another
point would be yielded until finally that person became a full-fledged
Nazi.)
Consider this letter for Richard Biddle too. And if either of you has
any further questions, I'll try to answer them.
|