Lapas attēli

of their powers in the urban field. We have supported a training center for the clergy. We continuously seek new ways of engaging trade unions in urban problems and in slum rehabilitation schemes—where excessive wage rates and restrictive rules can often weaken the economic prospects of a venture or prevent the participation of the local unemployed.


We have a particular interest in the work of universities. The foundation has traditionally placed great reliance upon knowledge as a weapon against social evils, and we hold to this same principle in the case of the city, the Negro, and poverty. We are seeking to encourage a wide range of research on urban problems.

To give some specific examples—how can localities forecast their future growth? What have been the successes and failures of urban renewal? How can cost effectiveness principles be applied to municipal budgets? To what extent does the filtering process in housing work? What really is the meaning of the mass of new evidence on segregated schools which is provided by the Coleman report and other documents? These are examples of the dozens of critical questions for the study of which we have given help to universities and colleges.


We have also sought to bring the universities into a more direct service relationship with their home cities and States. Through a series of grants we refer to as the urban extension program, we have supported the efforts of such universities as Wisconsin, Rutgers, and Delaware to establish urban centers and to turn their faculties toward the problems of their neighborhood. We note, again with pride, that our urban extension experiments, which began in 1959, were followed in 1965 by congressional legislation to introduce similar programs in all 50 States.

We strongly believe, too, that universities require a new level of commitment and of quality in their basic arrangements for study and action on urban problems, and we are examining the ways in which this foundation can be responsive to the new stirrings which can be found in the universities themselves, some of them to be found, I think, in the record of your hearings. There is a new generation of scholars and students to whom the problem of the city and its people has overwhelming urgency, and we hope to do our part to encourage that generation.


On the neighborhood level, we are proud of our pioneer experments in what we call the gray areas program which has aimed to find new ways of helping the poor to help themselves and to improve the quality of delivery systems of health and welfare. We are gratified that our pioneer actions in Boston, Philadelphia, Oakland, Washington, and North Carolina have been followed by the national adoption of the principle of community action in OEO. Our own programs had weaknesses and difficulties in getting started, and we are not surprised that there have been some similar difficulties in some of the community action programs under OEO. But our own experience strongly underlines the value of these programs both to the people themselves and to the government agencies at all levels which are trying to help them. Our experience strongly supports the conclusion that on sober second thought even those who have been critical of community action programs come to understand their value.


We have a special interest in problems of population and of family planning, and we think that it is urgent that the Federal Government's involvement in this field should be expanded. Our own commitments both in research and in experimental services to the poor have demonstrated to us that no service is more needed, and none is more relevant to the improvement of the quality of life among the poor, We entirely agree with those who warn against coercion of any kind in this field. But we hold strongly to the view that the withholding of information and the failure to provide effective service is in itself a form of prejudgment of what the people themselves will choose.


In education we have had a lively interest in experiment and innovation, and that interest continues although we now recognize the rapidly growing and financially preponderant role of HEW in this field. What we have learned about the schools of the city is what others have learned and what we think the Coleman report most powerfully indicates: It is not facilities and services in themselves that count, and we will not solve the problem of the ghetto school by mere add-ons. What we must find are the ways and means of transforming the spirit of the ghetto school as a whole institution—through leadership, through community patronage, and through a new sense of common purpose animating leaders, teachers, pupils, and their families. We also believe on the basis of the evidence in exceptional cases that this is just what can be done if we all care about it enough.


Finally, we are working, and we will go on working with a group of citizens' organizations which are committed to the solution of important urban problems and which cannot look to Government for support. Specifically, I have in mind such institutions as the Urban League, the Southern Regional Council, the NAACP, and others whose presence and effectiveness are vital to coping with the racial problems of the city. Similarly, we have given support to citizens organizations engaged in conservation of natural resources, urban and regional planning, crime prevention, and law reform.

We also work with governments, and we give support where we can to the improvement of government. We all know that there are terrible shortages of trained personnel at all levels of government, and we have done our small best to work to that problem. We also engage in constant communication with government at all levels, and in appropriate cases we stand ready to help in independent assessments and evaluations. We believe that a foundation that uses its flexibility and freedom with good judgment can play a useful role in assisting in the assessing of such ongoing Government programs and even in testing some new ways of strengthening them. We at the Ford Foundation are not persuaded that we have yet done that job very well, but as a beginner, I do take pride in the fact that a large number of our officers are heavily engaged as consultants to the Government. Our good offices remain available for promising undertakings in this field.


I have thought it right to spend most of my time today on the work of the Ford Foundation. But you have asked me, also, to comment on what Congress might do. I do not have the background which would be necessary to give you a confident or detailed reply. It does seem to me that since we are engaged in different ways in the same great enterprise, our objectives cannot be very far apart. You, too, must be concerned with bringing private institutions and universities into the urban field more strongly. You, too, will be concerned with improving the capabilities of local government. You, too, must support research study and pilot experiments to test new ideas and methods. You, too, must give a very high priority to jobs and education and housingand in these three great fields the massive power of government brings a special responsibility all of its own.


Let me conclude, if I may, with a few words spoken entirely as a citizen and not as a foundation executive. I believe that America has no more urgent set of social and political problems than the set which connects the city and the poor and the special needs of minorities. In the last 5 years the Congress has made a steadily growing commitment in this area, and I believe that this commitment must continue to grow in the years ahead. I believe that this Nation can meet its great obligations abroad without any slackening of the national effort to bring an end to poverty and prejudice and to open to all our citizens the full opportunities of a truly modern urban society. If additional taxes are needed to met this objective—and I think they are—then I hope that the Congress will enact them.


Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. I think in many ways your presence here is the best example of how far we have come as a nation in our thinking on the problems of our urban society. We hope that our Nation will take on the same commitment.

Mr. Moynihan yesterday said he was disturbed since he did not believe that the American people as a whole felt there was any crisis affecting urban society.

One of my staff showed me the statement of Henry Ford about 44 years ago in the Dearborn Independent, in which he said:

The ultimate solution will be the abandonment of the city, its abandonment as a blunder. We shall solve the city problems by leaving the city.

This is from a book called “The Intellectual Versus the City.” And yet today the Ford Foundation, under your leadership and your predecessor's, is doing as much to make the city viable and to make the city worthwhile and make it workable as anyone in the entire history. Now, that the Ford Foundation has traveled so far, I am sure that we can take the necessary steps too.

Senator Javits. This is strictly Banquo's ghost, Mr. Chairman.
Senator RIBICOFF. No; it just shows how progress is made.

Mr. BUNDY. I have never held the Ford Motor Co. accountable for the activities of the Ford Foundation, Senator, and by the same token I think I had perhaps better not take responsibility for the early statements of the elderly Mr. Ford.

Senator RIBICOFF. I think Henry Ford, if he were still alive today, would admit what he said 44 years ago was probably wrong, too.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show that his grandson is one of the most distinguished leaders in this field, and I think he is a trustee, is he not, Mr. Bundy?

Mr. Bundy. He is a trustee and a very active one. You are quite right, Senator Javits, in emphasizing the understanding and the energy with which Henry Ford II has concerned himself with these problems.

Senator Javits. I am sure our chairman and all of us would want to do that.


Senator RIBICOFF. Certainly. Your presence here is very important to this committee. You have had experience with university life. You have had experience with government at its highest levels, and now you are the head of probably the most forward-looking foundation in the world. All three activities I believe are very necessary in trying to find the answers to some of the problems we have.

Would you, from your accumulated experiences, indicate how you believe the university, government, and the foundations can and should work together in their respective roles in the problems facing us in the cities of America.


Mr. BUNDY. I think the place to begin this, Senator, is to understand that the magnitude here is so large, that the needs are so varied and will in the end require resources on such a scale, that resources outside the government are only auxiliary to those which the people and the people's representatives may choose to assign to urban problems.

There is no getting away from the fact that government—here, I mean all levels of government—the city, the State and the Nationalhas a responsibility here which is new and very large. It is bound to take some time for government to get organized and staffed and operating to discharge this responsibility with the level of efficiency that we would all like to see. That is inevitable.

I fully agree with what David Rockefeller said earlier in your hearings and what others have said, that it is urgent to engage the energies of the private sector, but I do not believe that simple and straightforward operation of the profit motive, without reinforcement and incentive and government activity is going to cope. It has not coped with these problems so far, and indeed, I think one would have to say that without specific and directed National, State, and local attention and energy, the natural forces of the private sector are operating today in many ways to make this problem worse and not better.

So I begin by asserting the new size of governmental responsibility. That necessarily changes in the field of education, for example, it has already changed—the responsibilities of some elements of the private sector.


In the Ford Foundation, for example, in the 1950's it was fair to say that outside the regular budgets of boards of education and of private institutions, the Ford Foundation was very considerably the largest force operating for innovation, alteration, and change in American education—simply in terms of the size of its resources and the proportion of those resources dedicated to that problem. That is not true any more.

You know much better than I of the revolution that has occurred in the responsibilities and in the resources of the department over which you presided, HEW. That creates a new pattern-not a less important role for foundations, but a different one.

I have tried to describe what we think our job is a little bit in my opening statement. I won't take more time on that. Let me turn to the universities, which you also asked about.


I think we would have to say that the universities in this country have been slow in getting themselves properly staffed and organized to play the full part that they should play in the attack on urban problems.

There are lots of reasons for that. College faculties in their organization and in their administrative procedures are conservative bodies. Individual professors may be as liberal as you please, but a department hesitates a long time before it moves energetically into a new field, because of its limited resources and its commitments to traditional subjects. And that has been true in this field-certainly it was true in the first decade or so after the Second War, even though the urgency of these problems was beginning to become very clear.

I remember that at the end of the fifties in Cambridge, Harvard and MIT, together—and I take this just as an example that I was familiar with—set to work to try to organize a center for urban studies, and we did get it going. We went to the Ford Foundation. We did get some support. But I think it is fair to say that it was slewer on the part of the institutions and faculties on the part of those of we who felt we were taking a lead-slower and less bold than it should have been. Now 6 or 8 years later, both in the Cambridge complex and in other great university areas, there is a quite new level of attention and interest.

EDUCATE BY RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION You had an example of it here yesterday I think, if it was yesterday that Mr. Moynihan was here. He is one of the leaders, having come to

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »