On the matter of references to biased approach, emotional appeal, etc., it would appear that the statements attributed to Mr. Stricker, together with outline of the points covered and material presented in the lectures cover those points adequately.

At this point I would like to read the statement.

The statement was made by the instructor-by Mr. Jacobs, without any reference to the points that have been raised here. I checked the statement with several people who attended the class. They have substantiated it as to accuracy.

If it is thought desirable that these statements be notarized, I shall see that they are notarized and submitted and inserted in the committee's records.

This is headed—

ACCOUNT OF STATEMENT MADE BY ADAM K. STRICKER, JR., TO SAMUEL JACOBS IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES

At the conclusion of the first session, Mr. Stricker introduced himself to the instructor and asked if there was any objection to his attendance at class because of his connection with the GMC.

He was told that he was welcome to attend. However, because of the fact that Mr. Stricker had initiated the discussion on a point that was regarded as being quite remote, the instructor asked that Mr. Stricker help to keep the class discussion on the basic analysis of the President's Economic Report and on the basic presentation of the economic issues involved.

Mr. Stricker said that the discussion that he had initiated involved a point on which he was unusually expert and on which he had been consulted by Dr. Edwin Nourse, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Mr. Stricker then added that he was willing to accept the instructor's statement as to the aim of the course. He stated directly that he thought that the analysis of the report as it was made that evening was absolutely valid, that the presentation was well made, and that the approach to the economic situation which the instructor had characterized as beginning from the point of view of “the disposal of the product of economic activity" was one in which GMC was also very much interested. At no time did Mr. Stricker indicate that he thought the presentation was biased, slanted, or unfair.

The second session was devoted to a presentation of data which showed longterms trends in wages, prices, production, and profits. The data used were all drawn from the accepted Government sources, including the Economic Report of the President, January 1948.

At a number of points, the instructor developed the difference between what the figures showed and what was frequently accepted as true in the labor movement.

At the close of the session, Mr. Stricker stopped at the instructor's desk before leaving and remarked that the class had been very interesting and that he "agreed with practically everything" that the instructor had said that evening. [His emphasis.]

Mr. SCHWABE. When you say that Mr. Stricker agreed, were you there, yourself? You didn't hear him say that, did you?

Mr. ELDER. No: I did not.

Mr. SCHWABE. Where did you get that information?

Mr. ELDER. There has been inserted in the record the roll of those attending the class. Mr. Diemond, who is connected with our service, as I say, was assigned to that class. Another member of our staff attended voluntarily.

Mr. SCHWABE. You are quoting what they told you?

Mr. ELDER. No, no. This is Mr. Jacobs' statement.

Mr. SCHWABE. What you were reading is Mr. Jacobs' statement? Mr. ELDER. That is right, and I have checked with my staff members—as to their accuracy and as to the accuracy of this statement.

Mr. LANDIS. Do you have a copy of the letters given by Mr. Jacobs? Mr. ELDER. I have the outline, yes, which I will be glad to insert in the record. It is rather lengthy. If you wish, I will read it.

Mr. LANDIS. I would like to have it for the record.

Mr. SCHWABE. If it isn't too lengthly I would like to have it read, too.

Mr. LANDIS. I don't care about reading it, but I would like to have it in the record.

Mr. ELDER. May I conclude with my statement?

Mr. GWINN. Mr. Chairman, I would think that we could spend a lot of time in a dispute as to what was said in that class. It seems to me that these pamphlets we have got, which set forth the character and bias better than anything else, would be a subject that we have got tangible evidence on. It would be helpful to get to the points.

Mr. LANDIS. The point is, if we had the copy of the lecture given we could tell whether the material in these pamphlets was given in the lecture.

Mr. ELDER. That is right.

Mr. LANDIS. That is the main point.

Mr. ELDER. As I say, I have Mr. Villavieja here who was also present at those sessions, and he is in a position to give you his impression with regard to the classes.

Mr. McCOWEN. I would not care to have it read but I would like to have you leave a copy with the committee.

Mr. GWINN. This is a copy of the lecture itself?

Mr. ELDER. This is not verbatim. It was made by our staff member. It has not been checked with Mr. Jacobs. The understanding, in giving this class, was that we would draw up an outline. That is, our staff representative would draw up an outline and at the conclusion of the six sessions we would go over that outline, so that we would be in a better position to plan future classes.

Mr. LANDIS. But you do not know whether he had a regular copy of the lecture given?

Mr. ELDER. Verbatim, word by word?

Mr. LANDIS. Yes.

Mr. ELDER. That would be an enormous expense. We just cannot do that.

Mr. LANDIS. I just wondered. I thought maybe he would have it. If he had a copy of his lectures, extra copies could be made.

Mr. ELDER. Most instructors work from outlines and this is an outline that was prepared not by the instructor but by our staff member. Mr. SCHWABE. That outline would not necessarily give Mr. Jacobs' viewpoint; would it?

Mr. ELDER. Oh, yes; it would. It presents the various points. It outlines the data that were presented.

Mr. SCHWABE. But it does not give Mr. Jacobs' interpretation of the issues.

Mr. ELDER. At certain points it does, perhaps not adequately. You have heard Mr. Stricker's statement. I would like to have you hear Mr. Villavieja. They may or may not agree.

Mr. SCHWABE. For example, that outline would not disclose whether Mr. Jacobs believed in the profit system or not; would it?

Mr. ELDER. On that I think the testimony of someone who attended the classes would be much better than mine.

Mr. SCHWABE. My question was whether the outline would disclose Mr. Jacobs' views with respect to the profit system?

Mr. ELDER. Yes; the outline does show that.

Mr. GWINN. It is going to be very difficult to overcome, in my mind, these booklets which were given out apparently without any comments. Mr. ELDER. I have a note on that, Congressman.

Mr. Stricker, I believe, made the statement that he attended two sessions. He has placed in your hands certain of the material that was placed before the class.

Mr. GWINN. That is a little booklet entitled "Prices That Deal With the OPA."

Mr. ELDER. That is right. I have a comment on each item.
Mr. GWINN. And then the economics of the relation?

Mr. ELDER. That is right. Now the question of textbooks has been raised. My understanding, both before the class was initiated and as a result of conversations with Mr. Jacobs during the time when he was preparing his material, was that if it were considered that there was any textbook for this particular series of discussions, it might be considered that the economic report of the President should be considered a textbook, at least in the sense that it was used as the basis for discussion, as the point of departure; but it was not used as a textbook in the sense that so many pages were prescribed.

It was suggested that the pamphlet was available at a cost of 35 cents, and the members of the class were, as I understand it, urged to buy it if they were interested.

Mr. KEARNS. Did that meet with the approval of the trustees of the college?

Mr. ELDER. What is that again?

Mr. KEARNS. Did the selection of the President's report meet with the approval of the trustees of the college?

Mr. ELDER. I do not think that was a question. I suppose that there are a number of textbooks or reference materials that are used from time to time that would not meet with the approval of some people.

Mr. KEARNS. It is about time some of the trustees in these colleges get on the ball on some of these textbooks and other literature. Mr. SCHWABE. Did you, personally, look over the President's economic book?

Mr. ELDER. I have.

Mr. SCHWABE. And did you approve of the content?

Mr. ELDER. I do. As a basis for discussion I think it is excellent.
Mr. McCowEN. Have you read these?

Mr. ELDER. I have; yes.

Mr. McCowEN. Do you approve of those?

Mr. ELDER. Not in their entirety.

Mr. SCHWABE. Do you know whether books similar to these booklets were passed out by any of the other instructors at any classes other than

Mr. ELDER. Do you mean those same pamphlets?

Mr. SCHWABE. No; I mean CIO literature. I asked you that question awhile ago, but I did not get a direct answer.

Mr. ELDER. I will take care of it. We are dealing with workers' groups. Most of these people are organized workers. With relation to matters that we discuss in our classes, certainly, to the extent that

their labor organizations are on record with regard to those matters, we do encourage the use of their materials-at least, we do encourage the instructor.

Mr. SCHWABE. Do you mean to say now that, officially, in your capacity as hiring these instructors, you encourage them to pass out CIO material in the various courses?

Mr. ELDER. We encourage them to pass out any material, whether it is NAM material, chamber of commerce material, Department of Agriculture material-any material that makes a significant contribution to bringing out the various aspects of the subject matter under discussion; yes.

Mr. GWINN. But if the teacher is himself a CIO employee and devoted to a certain leftist notion of economics, he is not going to hand out NAM literature, is he?

Mr. ELDER. Well, it just happens that in this particular case, Congressman, I happen to know that Mr. Jacobs does not agree with various labor points of view, with regard to the subject matter under discussion.

Mr. SCHWABE. Does Mr. Jacobs believe in the capitalistic system? Mr. ELDER. I have never put that question directly to him, but I judge from everything he says that he believes in this system that we are operating under.

Mr. GWINN. In this connection it seems to me this is the nub of the testimony: CIO comes in with its literature and with its board of directors and its teachers to present point of view. The University of Michigan, where these students are attending, employs that same teacher and uses the same literature that CIO puts out. It then becomes the literature approved by the University of Michigan and with the force and influence of the University of Michigan as a source of instruction with collateral reading which it recommends.

It would seem to me that a university that allows this type of literature to be put out is indulging in the loosest kind of instruction.

Mr. ELDER. Congressman, I agree with you thoroughly if it were true that we suggested to our instructors that they hand out only one type of material, or only the material prepared by one organization presenting one point of view.

Mr. GWINN. Suppose there is no other point of view expressed in literature, it does not seem to me that chambers of commerce and NAM spend much time putting literature out and we have got one-sided literature.

Mr. ELDER. On that point I have got two letters here, one with reference to a film produced by the General Moters Co. and used in a university, if it is relevant to introduce that into the record with regard to the question you raised. This is a complaint that came to me. 1 have not gone to the Governor with it nor to the board of regents. I passed it on to my superior officer last week. It is dated May 5:

Realizing that this matter may not come directly under your jurisdiction, I am writing to you first because of the understanding you have shown toward education of association officers and, second, because of your position, that you may be able to assist our organization in protesting a condition that exists at a university. On April 26 I received a call from a university student who informed my office that he had seen a picture in the Personnel Methods Building that was antiforeman's union, and led one to believe that collective bargaining was wrong generally. He also informed me that the picture was produced by General Motors and would be shown again at 1 p. m.

Being busy at the time I requested Herman M. Booth, our marine director, to attend, and his report substantiated what we had been told: that the movie was not only biased but antiunion.

We are surprised at individuals in our educational system being so gullible as to accept a movie produced by General Motors for its use in teaching business administration.

Now, that is enough; but the point is, on the basis of that communication, I do not feel that unless I saw that movie, unless I heard all the discussion, unless I were aware of all of the attendant circumstances. that I would be in a position to criticize that university, which does not happen to be ours, for having used that material.

Similarly, with regard to this material, it may well be in the light of the discussion as it has developed here today, that Mr. Jacobs did an excellent job of handling the course discussion. That, after all, is the matter on which he should be judged. He may have made a mistake in the manner in which he presented and used material. That is a matter for us to decide.

I do not think it is a matter that warrants any general condemnation of our program. For the record, I would like to refer to the several other pamphlets that the members of the class were referred to at various times during the course.

The first was Economic Report of the President, January 1948. The second was the Economics of Inflation, with which you gentlemen have been supplied.

Incidentally, the notation after the Economics of Inflation: It was passed out to students but referred to only as "something written on the subject." It was never referred to again during the course. The pamphlet Prices was never passed out in class.

A small-sized edition was lying on Mr. Jacobs' desk.

Mention was not made of them during class, and persons receiving copies had to ask for them.

The General Motors Corp. report to the university contained a large edition of this particular pamphlet, received from some other source obviously.

The next item was a pamphlet, Unions and Co-ops. It was passed out during the fourth session to those wishing them. It was never used as a text.

Reference was made only to table on page 5.

The fifth item was the April issue of the A. F. of L. Labor's Monthly Survey. It was distributed, not as a text, at the fourth session. That is the full reference to all of the material that I understand was handed out.

Mr. GWINN. I think I would agree with you that somebody has to be responsible for what is taught.

Mr. ELDER. That is right.

Mr. GWINN. That raises the issue squarely which is before this committee: Should not Washington be responsible for what you teach in Michigan?

Mr. ELDER. Congressman, I am delighted that you asked that question. My answer is categorically, "No."

Mr. GWINN. Then it should not be responsible for financing what you teach?

Mr. ELDER. No; now there is a difference between encouraging certain broad purposes.