Memorandum on the Henry George School
Robert Clancy
[A memorandum written in February 1972 following his
dismissal as Director of the Henry George School in New York]
The following is a personal account of some of my experiences with
the Henry George School. It is prompted by my long association with
the School, my sudden dismissal as Director in July 1968, and the
bewilderment of many over the situation. I feel I am far enough from
these events to be fairly objective about them (although I realize
this is being presented from my own point of view). Also, I wish to
state that, although I am critical about some things, this is not to
be construed as personal, but rather as lessons to be learned for the
future of the Georgist movement.
I was associated with the Henry George School of Social Science
almost from its founding early in 1932. I studied under the founder,
Oscar H. Geiger, learned the philosophy of Henry George from him, and
shared his enthusiasm for the educational work of the School. Soon
after Geiger's death in 1934 I began working for the School, organized
its library, later taught Classes. I also worked for a while for the
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation and the Georgist periodical Land
and Freedom. After a stint in the Army during World War II, I was
offered a job at the School in December 1945 as Office Manager. (By
that time the School in New York was already located at 50 East 69th
Street.)
At that time Margaret Bateman was Director of the School. She
resigned some six months later and I found myself de facto in
charge of the School. After a while I was given the title Acting
Director, then Executive Director and finally, Director. This last was
prompted by John C. Lincoln, the School's President and largest
contributor, and the Board of Trustees accepted his judgment.
Mr. Lincoln had been contributing to the School as an individual.
However, because of various upsets at the School (about which he would
receive complaints from different factions) he decided to form a
foundation through which his contributions would be channeled. He
thereupon started the Lincoln Foundation in 1946.
Mr. Lincoln seemed rather satisfied with my administration of the
School. He commented that this was the first time he had not been
receiving a stream of complaints. He invited me to serve on his Board
of Directors. Later, Mr. Lincoln, engaged Raymond Moley as adviser.
One of the first things Mr. Moley did was to get me off the Lincoln
Board on the grounds that the School, and therefore, I was benefiting
from Foundation contributions.
In 1954 Mr. Lincoln engaged a Professor of Education, Samuel
Burkhard, to make a survey of the School. Prof. Burkhard spent several
months at the School, attended classes, looked into records, visited
extensions, and rendered an extensive and favorable report on the
School to the Foundation. This was rejected by Mr. Moley on the
grounds that a Professor of Education was not qualified to survey a
school of economics.
When John Lincoln died in 1959, Mr. Moley's influence increased.
John's son David became President of the Lincoln Foundation and wanted
to do a conscientious job, but he relied heavily on Mr. Moley. The
Foundation Board began to be filled up with Mr. Moley's choices, and
through his initiative, a "Lincoln School" was begun at
Claremont College in California.
Later, Prof. Aarch Woodruff came on the Board of the Foundation. He
was connected with the University of Hartford and before long there
was a "Lincoln Institute" there. Later Prof. Woodruff became
head of this University. He was also instrumental in getting a "school
for land reform" started on Taiwan, where large estates have been
split up into small holdings (a reform that is explicitly criticized
by Henry George in Progress and Poverty).
Prof. Woodruff and two other members of the Lincoln Board, Lowell
Harriss (of Columbia University) and Douglas Eldridge (of the National
Bureau of Economic Research) were appointed by the Foundation as a
special academic committee to look into the Henry George School. I
looked forward to their consultation, as a closer connection with the
academic world had long been one of our aims. Such connections were
evolving from our various contacts -- professor friends (many of them
former Henry George School graduates), speaking engagements we had
with various, colleges, papers and theses written by college students,
etc.
After a long delay, Prof. Woodruff and Mr. Eldridge visited the
School in the Spring of 1966, with a small panel of our people. They
spent about an hour with us and it was soon evident that they were not
trying either to learn about the School or to help it, but to
discredit it. They asked such questions as, "Why do you bother
having a Henry George School?" and "What qualifications do
your teachers have to teach economics?"
This session was followed about a week later by a 10-minute visit
from Prof. Harriss, a completely non-committal encounter. The
committee rendered an unfavorable report on the School to the
Foundation. Soon afterwards David Lincoln sent a brisk letter to
Arnold Weinstein (Secretary of the School's Board of Trustees) about
the matter. He acknowledged it and I offered to answer it further at
some length, which I did in a letter to David Lincoln. In it I
justified the work of the School, the program of teaching the full
Georgist philosophy, and I pointed to the influence our educational
work was having. I read this letter to Mr. Weinstein and he approved.
I received a fairly friendly and conciliatory reply from David. (I
sent copies of my letter to all School trustees and all Foundation
-Drectors, but heard from no one else.)
In the Fall of 1966, the School trustees started to hold meetings
without me. These were prompted by one of the trustees, E. C. Harwood
(the most domineering member of the Board) who called them "executive
sessions." The Board held its meetings with me present as usual,
then at a certain point Mr. Harwood (or "Colonel" Harwood)
would announce that the "executive session" should now take
place and this meant I was supposed to leave the room.
I had known Arnold Weinstein a long time and was in frequent touch
with him about affairs of the School. But between the Spring of 1966
when he agreed with me, and the Fall of 1966 when these sessions
started, his attitude changed, and he lost his candor with me from
then on. I began to feel a plot building up.
This development weighed heavily on me but I tried to carry on the
work of the School as well as I could. Classes, correspondence
courses, international work, extensions, lectures, etc., kept going.
Since "academic upgrading" was in the wind, in the Spring of
1968, with the consent of the trustees (given reluctantly, as they had
by now proceeded far with other plans), I engaged Prof. Norma Mewmark
whom I knew from the New York Adult Education Council, for a 3-month
period. Many useful contacts with economics departments of various
colleges were built up in this short period, showing signs of opening
new fields for us. Other interesting developments were taking place,
such as the approval of our correspondence courses by the U.S. State
Department for their overseas personnel.
However, the trustees had already moved too far in another direction.
Mysterious trips around the country were being taken by Arnold
Weinstein, the purpose and nature of which were not confided to me,
although previously all this had been left mostly to me.
By June of 1968 the atmosphere was getting thick. I had the feeling I
was being hit at in the dark. The trustees were evidently trying to
provoke me into resigning. (I still do not know why they did not
explain to me what changes they were contemplating and why they rather
chose this secretive method.) After a series of petty harassments, I
told Mr. Weinstein, "If you are trying to get rid of me, you'll
have to fire me, I won't quit."
The School's annual conference that year was held in Miami in July.
On that occasion Mr. Weinstein steered clear of me and bustled around
getting extension directors into corners for private conversations.
Then at the conference banquet it was announced that Arnold Weinstein
was now President of the School. I had not been officially informed of
this in advance.
On the way back to New York I realized that things had gone too far
and I resolved to get on better terms with the Board. It was too late.
At a Board meeting on July 11, a few days after the Miami conference,
the trustees informed that me that I was to be placed on a two-year
sabbatical leave effective immediately. No explanation was given. None
of my questions were answered and they refused to discuss the matter
with me. They simply said that they decided it was "best for the
School" and told me the Director serves "at the pleasure of
the Board." They refused to reconsider their decision. There was
a strong inference I was through with the School but it was not
stated. (I asked: "At least tell me why you will not explain
anything to me," and was told, "Because you would have an
answer for everything.")
Staff and extension directors were taken aback at the news. It was a
well-guarded secret, executed more like a coup-d'etat than a
business-like decision. People seemed too stunned even to ask
questions. Some friends accepted that it was indeed a sabbatical and
that I would return after two years. But an atmosphere was quickly
created in which Robert Clancy never existed -- or if he did exist he
was no longer to be mentioned. All this was done rather vaguely but
effectively. Nobody was informed of what was going on, except for
general statements about "upgrading" the School.
Thereafter most of the program of the School that had taken so many
years to build up was dismantled bit by bit or allowed to perish from
neglect. A few recognizable things remained and some School people
still came around, although more and more dropped off, feeling out of
place and unwelcome. Eventually, correspondence courses were entirely
discontinued, as well as foreign language programs, most extensions
were closed, and activities such as neighborhood classes, Speakers
Bureau, annual dinners, annual reports, members' activities, etc.,
were dropped, and the Henry George News became a shadow of its
former self. (However, fund appeals were still sent to Georgists.)
Most of the staff were dismissed and a new cast of characters came in,
most of them knowing little or nothing of the Georgist philosophy or
of the background of the School. The emphasis was to be "academic"
with something about "urban renewal" including "a
little more land value taxation" rather than the full Georgist
philosophy. It seemed as though almost anything and anybody that had a
"Ph.D." label were latched onto.
Meanwhile, during my sabbatical, I maintained contact with the
Georgist movement, chiefly via the International Union for Land Value
Taxation and Free Trade whose Newsletter I edited (also writing for
Land and Liberty). Contact with the School was minimal and
discouraged, and I was removed from its mailing list. I also prepared
and issued, during this period, a draft of a manual, "The
Application of Land Value Taxation." At the end of my sabbatical,
I secured a (non-Georgist) job and devoted spare time to Georgist
work. Gathering together with some colleagues who shared my views we
took steps to form a new organization that would continue and develop
a straight Georgist program. We started the Henry George Institute to
this end.
The Henry George School made a great contribution in developing
Georgist education. But there are certain weaknesses and omissions in
the School set-up which should be corrected in further Georgist
efforts. Among them are:
A self-perpetuating Board of Trustees: This enabled a small group of
people who knew little of the workings of the School to have absolute
power forever over the School. The Georgist movement should not be run
thus but needs a more democratic structure.
No protection against subversion: This is in effect what happened
when the trustees depended too much on one source of funds, the
Lincoln foundation, and capitulated to them when pressured.
Emphasis on the wrong things: Instead of devoting attention to the
main purpose for which the School was founded, emphasis was placed by
the Board on money and prestige. This has resulted in the School
becoming a second-rate academic showcase instead of a first-rate
center of the Georgist movement.
Little follow-up on educational work: This has been a long-standing
problem which the School -- being a school -- never got around to
really handling. A continuing program of action is needed.
Many of these weaknesses existed from the founding of the School. I
repeat this is not a personal criticism of the Henry George School
trustees who are by and large sincere and capable persons. Indeed,
though I revere the founder of the School, Oscar Geiger, I recognise
that new efforts will have to avoid the built-in flaws and oversights
of the School's structure. Further, they are flaws which are rather
common in many public service organizations.
I also wish to reiterate that, although critical, I am not "bitter"
or "resentful" as some assume - perhaps because that is the
reaction to be expected. I very early resolved not to be so. I do not
feel committed to a particular building or organization but rather to
an idea -- the Georgist philosophy -- and I want to work for it to the
best of my ability.
I feel that the job ahead is to rebuild the Georgist movement on a
firmer foundation so that the philosophy of Henry George can make
greater progress.
|