Feb 2 1931
At Exec Com. Meeting I made the following comments apropos of the proposed action of the Exec Com to appropriate sums to Red Cross for unemployment relief:--I have seen more misery and suffering than anyone in this room in a Europe during the past six years.  So have the other officers in Europe.  But it is in Europe that the RF has been greatly respected for its tenacious adherence to study, prevention and farsighted constructive programs.  If policy of RF is to be dictated by emotion and sympathy, the RF officers in the less fortunate countries will have some difficulty in adjusting themselves to a new attitude of the Board and in explaining it to applicants for similar aid to local emergencies.  I have lived abroad so long that human misery is human misery regardless of nationality and yet I do not feel that the aid proposed is sound as a policy.
If as is suggested the Officers are to call an Exec Com. Meeting when the need arises what are the criteria for deeming the necessity important? MM stated these (see the record of this meeting)
Debevoise said that the RF is an American corporation and its funds are of American origin and that measures taken by RF to meet American emergencies could hardly be criticized.  I replied that this expression helped to define the attitude of the Exec Com.
As far as Debevoise's statement goes I am in disagreement with its wisdom not with its legality.
No action was taken: I trust it will be permanently postponed.
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
Feb 4th 1931
Took [. . .] with A.F.  His advice is to make a report on medical education in America next Nov and take a definite stand on the funds needed for support of the 6-8 really strong schools--for their completion.  He says I will kill myself if I try to do something everywhere and get in the thick of thin things.
He offered to talk to Fosdick anytime I needed it.  I told him I would never request that.
I asked him if he knew where I stood with the Trustees or other officers and later explained that I had been unsettled by MM's raising the question as to whether there should be any Med Sciences as apart from Natural Sciences.  He said RB. Fosdick was convinced that there should be a continued action of the R.F. boards in association with the development of medicine.  And that he had told Fosdick I was the best man they could get.  No remarks on the other's attitude.
Feb Mar 5
[. . .] said reorganization scheme of all the studies at Chicago was adopted by Univ. Senate in 12 minutes.  The Trustees accepted it the next day with very little discussion.  Then it was released to the Press as a far-reaching and extremely important reform.  The faculty rubbed their eyes, decided they'd had one put over on them and opposed with 2 hour discussions the next two proposals of Hutchins!
[END PAGE TWO]
[BEGIN PAGE THREE]
March 13 1931
On EED's proposal for $15,000 for a Mineral Inquiry.  I said my opinion was that it is a fine thing to be done but that we ought not to do it.  I definitely fear it.  MM says he doesn't fear it at all
April 9 1931
MM Questioned me regarding my interpretation of the decision of the R.F. "to get out of medical education."  I replied that there was no doubt in my mind that the resolutions and documents were clear but that I had not had adequate time to study the circumstances in the U.S. and could not say whether I thought it wise for the G.E.B. to cease support to any and all medical schools for their general institutional needs.  MM said that there need be no fear of being obliged 8 years from now to stick to present policy.  He said we ought to stick to the decisions we made in 1929 to avoid aid to medical schools as such and I replied that it would be more correct to say that we ought to stick to decisions they made in 1929, since none of us were directly responsible for those decisions.
MM also said that he was about ready to quit hoping that [. . .] could work in with the rest of us on a unified and cooperative team work without budgetary declarations.  Odia[?] is too much the head of a wedge, and the pressure is strong.
(MM) He wanted to know if I thought there was anything more important than a study of mentality, personality etc. in a concerted attack.  I said the only policy that in my mind competed closely was picking off the best men and aiding them in whatever field if they are getting good results, and that it sometimes seemed to me that the best way to proceed was to bet on the directors judgment of good men and give the directors rein and responsibility.
I agreed that a request from Stanford for an institutional aid for its medical school--is a new place for EEB programs--must be turned down now.
[END PAGE THREE]
[BEGIN PAGE FOUR]
April 9 1931
It is not easy to see the best course to follow in urging the continued support of the GEB in American medicine.  It is clearly likely without good luck and good management to go glimmering.
For the sake of record and clarifying my own mind I put down the following considerations:
1) I was asked to join the G.E.B. as an officer thereof.  As such I can put in a general recommendation that must be acted upon.  The when of putting in such a report is perhaps very important, as well as what is in the report. Resignation from the G.E.B. would probably be no more effective than waiting for eventual survival of myself as are authority there.
2) It is probably valuable to increase my authority outside the Foundation as someone the RF cannot afford to lose.  The departure of WSC and the prestige of knowledge secured by travel in his field (the East) would make my services less dispensable.
The character of reports and recommendations in the office, and the building up through devoted services to personnel here when requested, would undoubtedly strengthen my position here.  Reports on MS projects of previous years might be very effective.  The confidence and support of RBF, DLE, GHW and RLW and AT are valuable.  Also evidence of organizing ability in the office is important.
3) Day's procedure and mental processes are good but his attitude of reallocation of responsibility to the SSRC for example and his unrestrained expenditure seem to me to be unwise and self-destroying eventually.  Natural that he will have a free hand for a while--needs to be checked later.
4) [. . .] departure will throw Day's lavishness into sharp relief, and make about 1933 a peak for MS undertakings.
[END PAGE FOUR]
[BEGIN PAGE FIVE]
April 16 1931
Augell's speech at the GEB Trustees Meeting on the subject of education in America was good.  The points he made were in the main as follows:
American education suffers from
1. Having such manifold objectives and the lack of a generally accepted philosophy of education.  There is no agreement upon the desirable objectives to be secured.
2. Utterly untrained teaching personnel.
3. Limited means of the institutions
4. Intellectual provincialism--too much local preoccupation [with] local problems and prestige.  Education is not thought of in generous or national terms.
5. Society in America is breaking into new cleavage planes and it is probably natural that any educ. system of 30 yrs ago may be outmoded at the present time.
The problem is whether the GEB can command the services of persons of sufficient prestige and intelligence since possible success depends on getting the services of men who have a sound philosophy of education.  The time required will be considerable.
April 23 Laski said that Oswald G Villard never invited the staff of the Nation to his house--not at least to take up with them socially--so said his son.
April 24 MM said that "if AF had an arrangement with Chicago on the gift well what of it" That is I think a ridiculous position and one of dubious responsibility.