Learning should be a lifelong mission. Universities used to be a good place to continue our education, but are they still? For doctors, lawyers, and scientists there is no getting around a college indoctrination. College used to look like a good “investment” because earning a degree was a competitive advantage in landing a job, but success always depended on personal performance rather than educational pedigree. Today, students leave college with relatively few job opportunities and often a distorted or ultra-liberal view of the world while incurring substantial debt. A study by USA Today and the non-profit Education Sector showed that 514 colleges are more likely to produce defaults in student loans than graduates.
College matters less and less to employers these days. The number of degree-less hires is trending way up at Google. President of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Many liberal-arts graduates, even from the best schools, aren’t getting jobs in part because they didn’t learn much in school.”
These days, with the labor market saturated with college graduates, the time and money spent on college is often wasted. What young Americans should think is, “How can I raise my value and demonstrate it?” That might best be done in college, but not necessarily. As Mike Rowe, former TV host of ‘Dirty Jobs’ points out in 2013, “Hell, there are 155,000 janitors with bachelor degrees right now, according to Bob Morse, who is the director of data research at U.S. News and World Report — the magazine that produces its definitive college rankings every year. That’s more people than there are chemists.”
The Daily Caller sat down with Rowe, and he had some strong words on the culture, the government and PETA:
TheDC: The federal government is deeply involved in education. Do you see any role they play, or something you’d like to see from them to try and change in the United States how skills are pursued and how they’re portrayed?
Rowe: You know, not really. Only because I don’t think a big, splashy, traditional approach will work, and I also think the taxpayers have spent enough money. I think there’s enough NGO stuff that can push this forward. I think there’s enough for-profit stuff. Organizations like Tech Shop, which are springing up around the country now. Imagine Thomas Edison’s garage — if it existed today it would be filled with laser cutters and every state-of-the-art machine there is. That’s what they have, and they sell very modest memberships, and the invention that’s coming out of Tech Shop is amazing. Skills USA, it’s kind of like the Boy Scouts only smaller, but it’s focused on school trades. There are chapters all over the country. Just knowing about those organizations would be a huge help. I’d take federal money to buy media if they said, “Here’s some, tell the message in the way you wanna do it,” but that’ll never happen, so I’ll never ask.
Are most Professors Atheist?
In spite of perception, believers actually outnumber atheists and agnostics, a 2006 survey finds, and many professors regularly attend religious services.The abstract for the 2009 academic journal article The Religiosity of American College and University Professors which was published in the journal Sociology of Religion (which is published by the Oxford University Press) indicates:
For more than a century most U.S. colleges and universities have functioned as secular institutions. But how religious are American college and university faculty in their personal lives? We answer this question by analyzing data from a new, nationally representative survey of the American professoriate. Contrary to the view that religious skepticism predominates in the academy, we find that the majority of professors, even at elite research institutions, are religious believers. We go on to examine the distribution of faculty religiosity across institutions, fields, and other variables, and identify a number of issues that future research—sensitive to the fact that religious faith and academic life, at least in the American context, are by no means mutually exclusive—should take up.
Harvard Magazine indicated in 2007:
Though comparatively low, the percentage of nonbelievers in academia is still much higher than the percentage of self-described nonbelievers found among the general public. That figure is only about 7 percent, according to the nationwide General Social Survey, issued by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago…
Just as surprising to the researchers was the range of belief across institutions and fields of research. Although nearly 37 percent of professors at elite research schools like Harvard are atheist or agnostic, about 20 percent of their colleagues have “no doubt that God exists.” At community colleges, in contrast, 15 percent of professors are atheist or agnostic, and 40 percent believe in God. These differences exist because of professors’ backgrounds and inclinations, says Gross. Professors who come from higher socioeconomic classes and are drawn to research over teaching or service—characteristics more common among academics at elite institutions—tend to be less religious.
A professor’s field of research or discipline is also predictive, he adds: psychologists and biologists are most likely to be nonbelievers (61 percent are atheist or agnostic), followed by mechanical engineers, economists, and political scientists. The most likely believers are professors of accounting (63 percent have no doubt that God exists), followed by professors of elementary education, finance, art, criminal justice, and nursing.
So, most professors are not agnostic and Atheist, thus the problem must lie elsewhere because our schools are certainly removing everything Godly about them.
Christian-based Moral Universities Transition to now Atheist Universities
A study of the first American educational institutions will reveal a commitment to spread of the Gospel via Christian academics. One-hundred-six of the first one-hundred-eight colleges formed in America were formed by Christians and built upon Christian principles. Before the Civil War (1861-1865), scarcely half a dozen colleges were established without a commitment to biblical and Christian principles, and most of the presidents of Christian colleges were clergymen.
The deep evangelical convictions of the Christian founders of American education have been etched in various and numerous places, but perhaps none speak more eloquently of their piety and spiritual zeal than the spiritual expectations Harvard had for its young scholars—known as the Rules and Precepts of Harvard. These days, Harvard students are some of the most liberal students in the world and instead of on-campus seminaries, you’ll find the Skull & Bones and other secret societies as well as several Greek fraternities and sororities ( Alpha Epsilon Pi, Sigma Chi, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Kappa Alpha Theta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and Delta Gamma).
The Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations were instrumental in the takeover of education in the US and throughout the world. This is laid out in the page on Education. In 1913, the Walsh Committee was created to review industrial relations and scrutinize US labor laws. In studying labor conditions and the treatment of workers by the major U.S. industrial firms, they eventually examined tax exempt foundations which were interlocked with them. “Starting with a study of labor exploitation, it [the Commission on Industrial Relations or Walsh Committee] went on to investigate concentrations of economic power, interlocking directorates, and the role of the then relatively new large charitable foundations (especially of Carnegie and Rockefeller) as instruments of power concentration,” wrote Rene Wormser, who served as General Counsel to the Reece Committee, which was a congressional committee that investigated the Tax-exempt Foundations from 1953 to 1955.
The final report of the Commission, published in eleven volumes in 1916, contain tens of thousands of pages of testimony from a wide range of witnesses, including scores of ordinary workers, and the titans of capitalism, including Daniel Guggenheim, George Walbridge Perkins, Sr. (of U.S. Steel), Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie. During the tenure of this committee, tax-exempt foundations were also examined. Partial findings were that,
“the lives of millions of wage earners are subject to the dictation of a relatively small number of men… The concentration of ownership and control is greatest in the basic industries upon which the welfare of the country must finally rest. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, herein- after designated “foundations,” by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities, as well as through controlling or influencing the public press (namely, the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations). The following was revealed: “A number of witnesses testified that colleges had surrendered their religious identifications in order to comply with foundation requirements to receive grants…“
25(b). The abandonment by several colleges and universities of sectarian affiliations and charter clauses relating to religion in order to secure endowments from the Carnegie Corporation and pensions for professors from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. It would seem conclusive that if an institution will willingly abandon its religious affiliations through the influence of these foundations, it will even more easily conform to their will any other part of its organization or teaching.
To the support of the militant and aggressive propaganda of organized labor has come, within recent years, a small but rapidly increasing host of ministers of the gospel, college professors, writers, journalists, and others of the professional classes, distinguished in many instances by exceptional talent which they devote to agitation, with no hope of material reward, and a devotion that can be explained only in the light of the fervid religious spirit which animates the organized industrial unrest.
Then in July 1914, the philanthropic agenda of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations was made explicit again when the National Education Association passed a resolution at its annual meeting from July 4-11 in St. Paul, Minnesota. An excerpt follows:
We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.
During the crucial years of the school changeover from academic institution to behavioral modification instrument, the radical nature of the metamorphosis caught the attention of a few national politicians who spoke out, but could never muster enough strength for effective opposition. In the Congressional Record of January 26, 1917, for instance, Senator Kenyon of Iowa related:
There are certain colleges that have sought endowments, and the agent of the Rockefeller Foundation or the General Education Board had gone out and examined the curriculum of these colleges and compelled certain changes….
It seems to me one of the most dangerous things that can go on in a republic is to have an institution of this power apparently trying to shape and mold the thought of the young people of this country.
Professor Richard Vatz of Towson University in Towson, Maryland, says that despite academic world priding itself on “supporting the marketplace of ideas and academic freedom,” there has been “an increasing and unremitting effort to eliminate conservatives” in areas of higher education. The professor added that when he brought up his concerns with the National Communication Association, “they couldn’t care less.”
Professor Vatz, who has taught at Towson University for the past 45 years, said that he is also familiar with universities around the country, as he has been invited to speak at many of them, and has been on the Legislative Assembly at the National Communication Association (NCA), as well as involved with the Eastern Communication Association. “The anti-conservatism is increasing at most national education venues,” said Vatz.
In 1952, following the Senate’s IPR investigation, Representative Eugene E. Cox (D-Ga.) succeeded in establishing a special committee in the House of Representatives to investigate the tax-exempt foundations in the US. The committee heard voluminous damning testimony from former top American Communist Party officials who had defected, such as Maurice Malkin, Louis Budenz, and Manning Johnson, as well as Soviet defector Igor Bogolepov. All told of their knowledge of the tax-exempt foundations’ funding of Moscow’s efforts to subvert our country. However, before the committee could finish its work, Chairman Cox died unexpectedly. Although the Cox Committee hearings took over 800 pages of testimony and evidence, the final report, a mere 15 pages, was essentially a whitewash that unjustifiably concluded the foundations had overwhelmingly conducted themselves in line with their obligations as public trusts. However, at least one member of the committee, Representative B. Carroll Reece (R-Tenn.), was determined to set the record straight.
The following year, Representative Reece headed up the newly formed House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, which became known as the Reece Committee. The final report released 6 months later after efforts by some democrats to frustrate and end the investigation were somewhat successful. The Reece Committee was a Congressional investigation of major tax-exempt foundations linked to the international money cartel and centered on the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and Guggenheim foundations. The committee was unable to attract any attention from the media – controlled by the same cartel. Among those secondary foundations investigated were the National Education Association, the John Dewey Society, the United Nations Association and the Council on Foreign Relations The Rockefeller Foundation was financing Dr. Alfred Kinsey’s studies on sexual behavior through the National Research Council to produce a series of untrue and unscientific reports promoting sexual freedom (promiscuity). The hearings were held for two weeks. Then, without warning, the committee stopped them.
NORMAN DODD: “We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity.
So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”
Well, I doubt at that time if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. Then, finally, they answered that question as follows: “We must control the State Department.” That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.” And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.
Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.
Finally, of course, the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914 when World War I broke out. At that point they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, “we must control education in the United States.” They realize that that’s a pretty big task. It is too big for them alone, so they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that that portion of education which could be considered domestic be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment. They then decide that the key to success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history.
So they approach four of the then-most prominent teachers of American history in the country – people like Charles and Mary Byrd – and their suggestion to them is: will they alter the manner in which they present their subject? And they got turned down flat. So they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, “build our own stable of historians.”
Then they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say: “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American history and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say-so?” And the answer is yes. So, under that condition, eventually they assembled assemble twenty, and they take this twenty potential teachers of American history to London, and there they’re briefed on what is expected of them when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned. That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association.
Toward the end of the 1920’s, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 for a study of our history in a manner which points to what can this country look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is: The future of this country belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency. That’s the story that ultimately grew out of and, of course, was what could have been presented by the members of this Congressional committee to the congress as a whole for just exactly what it said. They never got to that point.”
ED GRIFFIN: How do you see that the purpose and direction of the major foundations has changed over the years to the present? What is it today?
NORMAN DODD: Oh, it’s a hundred percent behind meeting the cost of education such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of the United States on the subject of our history as proving our original ideas to be no longer practicable. The future belongs to collectivistic concepts, and there’s just no disagreement on that.
The Committee shed light on the big foundations’ promotion of empiricism, centralized team research, big universities over small colleges, moral relativism, internationalism, and social engineering.
“In the international field, foundations, and an interlock among some of them and certain intermediary organizations, have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international. This has been accomplished by vast propaganda by supplying executives and advisors to government, and by controlling much research in this area through the power of the purse. The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote ‘internationalism’ in a particular sense – a form directed toward ‘world government’ and a derogation of American ‘nationalism.’
They observed that the major foundations ‘have actively supported attacks upon our social and government system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas.’ The Reece Committee clearly declared that the CFR was ‘in essence an agency of the United States Government’ and that its ‘productions are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting a globalist concept.’”
By the mid-1950s, foundation officials had established a consensus with policymakers and business leaders “regarding the importance of the developing world for the United States.” In Africa, the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations undertook massive programs which led to:
the creation of lead universities located in areas considered of geo-strategic and/or economic importance to the United States; an emphasis within these institutions on social science research and related manpower planning programs; programs to train public administrators; (4) teacher training and curriculum development projects; and training programs which shuttled African nationals to select universities in the United States for advanced training and returned them to assume positions of leadership within local universities, teacher training institutions, or ministries of education.
The establishment of leading universities in Africa was the initial emphasis among the foundations. The Ford Foundation decided to concentrate its efforts in Africa “on the training on elite cadres in public administration, agricultural economics, the applied sciences, and the social sciences, and to strengthen African universities and other postsecondary institutions for this purpose, [as] a logical extension of similar emphases in the foundation’s domestic work,” in relation to the development of Area Studies and the shaping of political science in America, itself. The Ford Foundation’s most important projects in Africa were undertaken in “Nigeria, Ethiopia, Congo/Zaire, and in a combined university scheme linking the East African nations of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. Rockefeller funds were concentrated on the East African interterritorial scheme” in Nigeria and Zaire.
In the 1950s, the Ford Foundation and Carnegie Corporation facilitated the development of African studies in American universities to create an American elite well-trained and educated in being able to manage a more effective foreign policy over the region. Another key project was in developing the Foreign Area Fellowship Program, where American social scientists would have overseas research subsidized by the Ford Foundation. The fellows also became closely tied to the CIA, who saw them as important sources of information to recruit in the field. However, when this information began to surface about CIA connections with foundation-linked academics, the Ford Foundation leadership became furious, as one Ford official later explained that the President of the Foundation had gone to Washington and “raised hell,” where he had to explain to the CIA that, “it was much more in the national interest that we train a bunch of people who at later stages might want to go with the CIA… than it was for them to have one guy they could call their source of information.” It is, perhaps, a truly starting and significant revelation that the president of a foundation has the ability, status, and position to be able to go to Washington and “raise hell,” and no less, lecture the CIA about how to properly conduct operations in a more covert manner.
Between 1958 and 1969, the Ford Foundation spent $25 million in Nigeria, of which $8 million was used to underwrite university development, and $5 million of that went specifically to the University of Ibadan. Between 1963 and 1972, the Rockefeller Foundation allocated roughly $9 million to the University of Ibadan. As one official of the Rockefeller Foundation said, “our dollars will… be able to exert an extraordinary leverage.” The Ford and Rockefeller Foundations then placed enormous emphasis on developing the social sciences at the universities they supported, with the aim to bring about “rationally managed” social change; the same fundamental belief that led to the emergence of the social sciences in creating a “rationally managed” America in the beginning of the 20th century, emphasizing reform over revolution. The logic was that, “the key lay in the creation of technocratically oriented elites with social science competencies which could be applied to the alleviation of the problems of underdevelopment.” As Professor of Education Robert F. Arnove wrote:
The [Ford] Foundation’s fascination with social science research in large part has consisted of support for a certain breed of economists whose quantitative approach to development is safe and respectable. This favoring of economists, particularly in the early sixties, has accorded with the Foundation’s approach to treating development ‘in terms of economic growth, technological competence, and improved managerial competence.’
Continued on next page…