From Appendix A
Restoring Education Central to American Greatness
Fifteen Principles that Liberated Mankind from the Politics of Tyranny
Grand Jury Presentment
Problems in Higher Education
It was my privilege to chair a Grand Jury for the 11th Judicial District of Iowa that investigated activities at Iowa State University and made several recommendations for changes in higher education.
This study of higher education is even more relevant now than when adopted December 23, 1968. With the imposition of teacher unions and tenure laws, radicals in the soft sciences now dominate lower-level public education.
News reports had made it clear that drugs, immorality, and disrespect for constitutional authority had become an ongoing part of the academic menu in our universities. With about six months left in our term, I suggested to the county attorney, Charles Vanderbur, that the jury investigate what was going on at Iowa State University. He said, “Dave, I’ll do anything I can to help you.” He provided us with tape recordings of campus presentations by radicals. After hearing the first tape, the jury members gave the go-ahead to undertake an investigation. The jury’s chief concern was the education environment and its impact upon the behavioral patterns and decision-making ability of students.
My challenge as the foreman was to obtain unanimous agreement for significant recommendations from three Republican and three Democrat jurors. Several legislative directives for changes in the administration of Iowa’s colleges and universities followed the release of the study. Because of tenured radicals embedded in the system, the impact of the Presentment faded within four or five years. The Grand Jury report received nationwide media attention, and requests for copies of the Presentment came from government officials in Iowa, California, and Washington, DC.
“As one of the tens of thousands who admire the action of your Grand Jury, I wish to commend Foreman Norris and his jury for their courageous and true Americanismin focusing public attention on the perverted minority… who would destroy what we have… in America and deliver us unto our enemies.” (E. Allen, Burlington, North Dakota, letter to the Nevada, Iowa Journal)
“OUT IN IOWA… The jury’s report said ‘there is a need for increased emphasis at all levels of education of the American ideal. Our soldiers have been dying for this ideal. Education as never before should clearly teach it.’ So say we.” (from the Boston Record, printed in the Ames Daily Tribune)
Ames, Iowa–(AP)–The Grand Jury wants “moral pollution”…“and defamation of our country” (in the Humanities curriculum) stopped. (Denver Post)
With prestigious media networks, political, religious, and social studies courses, statewide extension offices, and an adult education outreach, universities possessed (and still possess) immense power to shape public opinion. The president of the university and campus radicals did everything they could to discredit the Grand Jury’s work. Initially, however, news of the Presentment was unimpeded. The university president and all members of the Iowa Board of Regents except one were out of the state during Christmas break when the Presentment became public.
Except for the coverage in the Des Moines Register and a few radical student publications, most news reports were accurate. Those who were critical were very spirited in their objections. A January 8, 1969 Des Moines Register headline read, “ISU President Lashes Out at ‘Distorted’ Report by Jury.” Later, the Iowa State University Press published a book for the Iowa Civil Liberties Union entitled Freedom in Iowa. This publication showered ISU President Robert Parks and the liberal presidents of the other two universities in Iowa with honors and attacked the work and reputation of several Iowa leaders, past and present, including myself.
I was later told that an Iowa State University administrative vice president was briefing the incoming extension course attendees and denigrating the work of the jury. Eventually, a county extension officer attending one of the on-campus short courses stood up and strongly criticized the vice president’s presentation, and his practice of criticizing the jury report ended.
The Grand Jury Presentment itself was well documented. One news article reported that the Iowa Civil Liberties Union had decided they would not sue the Grand Jury. Another paper reported that an ongoing effort had failed to get the new judge, Harvey Uhlenhopp, serving the 11th Judicial District to dismiss the Presentment. Within two years, Judge Uhlenhopp was elevated to the Iowa Supreme Court.
I was concerned that some reporters and editors would misrepresent the Grand Jury Presentment. Consequently, reporters were told that I would respond to inquiries in writing only, and this brought their interest to a halt. I personally received approximately a hundred letters from citizens, all of whom praised the jury’s work.
Arrangements were made for a local print shop to reproduce and handle requests for copies of the Presentment. Later, I received a call from them informing me that the university had purchased the remaining copies, so I instructed them to print five hundred more.
The Grand Jury members all contributed to the report. There was a considerable amount of material to review. A few campus administrators and members of the faculty met with us to give their perspective. Following each meeting, I wrote a brief of what seemed relevant and presented it to the jury members at the next meeting. The members approved most of my draft, which later became the Presentment, unanimously approved by the jury.
Portions of the Presentment follow, with words added for clarification in parentheses. Supplemental ideas are enclosed in boxes.
Grand Jury Presentment Problems in Higher Education
Power to Capture a Nation
Through Indoctrination of Its Youth
For many years, psychologists and educators have recognized the processes by which thought and behavioral patterns acquired in youth become the basis for adult motivation. In modern times, thoughtful observers have become progressively aware that moral, social,and political concepts implanted during the time of mental immaturity not only participate in the conduct later in life, but, once acquired, become dominant and often unalterable in the adult. Thus, captive audiences of immature minds provide powerful and much prized forums for anti-Judeo-Christian, anti-American indoctrination.
Educational environments, left unguarded [by politically active citizens and wise legislators], can easily be captured by alien militants and, in due course, transformed into climates of unquestioned social and political opinion.
Dr. I. L. Kandell, a refugee from Romania and professor at Columbia University, aptly lamented education devoid ofestablished knowledge, calling it “the most Communist feature of the Communist Revolution and the most Nazi expression of the National Socialist Revolution.”
The American Ideal Reflected in the Constitutions of the States
- Preamble: “We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the STATE OF IOWA.”
- Article I, Section 2: “Government is instituted (by the people) for the protection, security and benefit of the people.”
- Article I, Section 1: “All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”
- Article I, Section 2: “All political power is inherent in the people.”
- Article I, Section 2: “They (the people) have the right at all times, to alter or reform the government, whenever the public good may require it.”
- Provision for unrestricted exchange of ideas for education and government policy, no matter how radical, is provided through frequent elections: candidates for office must go before the public and be chosen by mature citizens at the ballot box.
- Article IX, Section 3: “The General Assembly shall encourage by all suitable means the intellectual, scientific, moral and agricultural improvement.“
Observations in the Problem Area
At this point perhaps we should define to some extent what we mean in this report by “radicals” and “militants” in the context of their behavior on campus (and) as expressed in our interviews and investigation.
- Their number one goal, both stated and apparent, is that they desire to control the useful university apparatus for a base to promote and direct their activities. There is no apparent limit; [they want to control the] university news media, selection of guest speakers, extension outlets, et cetera.An example of the power of radicals at ISU was brought to our attention by a citizen who had contacted a department head. He suggested that the coming News Editors’ Seminar might be informed by the University of an Official Pamphlet about the techniques of Communist propaganda in the news media. The citizen was told that it was not the business of the university to get involved in politics. The citizen was later shocked to read in the newspaper that an associate professor of history had lectured the editors on possible future problems with certain [conservative] local political groups.
- They have a general goal of destroying and tearing down traditional values. [Hateful talk leads to hateful acts, and immoral advocacy leads to immoral acts.] Radical salesmen appeal to idealistic students with words calculated to destroy their youthful faith in their heritage. The following quotations [provided by the County Attorney to the jury] are from one of many paid speakers at ISU.
“I spend about 90% of my time now on college campuses. This is the most morally polluted, insane nation on the face of this earth and it is your job to change it.”
“And I say to you youngsters in the process of trying to make this peacefully orderly transition of bringing up the constitution over the capitalists, if they offer you too much resistance, then destroy them.”
“Let’s always remember that flag still ain’t nothing but a rag, like all of the other flags on the face of this earth.”
This was not an isolated example but [was] typical of much of the educational approach we observed.
In the area of society and human nature, such denial, when implemented, detaches future generations from past experience. Oddly enough, that is the very reason taxpayers fund colleges and universities. Tolerating such foolishness gives a teaching license to those who promote illicit sex, the use of decimating drugs, flag burning, and other immoral behavior [which questions] historically known good.
Such a position on fundamental tenets raises a very interesting question. If the desirability of sexual virtue and the undesirability of co-habitation in single student dorms is, as they say, a matter of opinion—if in fact sexual virtue and many other tenets such as basic honesty are not established knowledge suitable for classroom doctrine—what is the good of having humanities [soft science behavioral studies] courses at all? When a radical teacher lectures, what is he accomplishing with taxpayers’ money?
- Radicals use tactics that blatantly ignore the basic teaching standard of honesty. It is not unusual to hear them proclaim the virtues of equality and love, and extol violence, hatred and the use of harmful drugs in the same speech. In their effort to present a one-sided picture, they suppress opposing views. One jury interviewee [a professor] stated his concern—if students hear a lie often enough, some will believe it!
- Radicals’ tactics are aggressive, domineering and, when needed, ruthless in character. In such cases, students and other teachers with average courtesy are no match. The most aggressive [teachers] prevail over those who feel obligated to spend their time teaching and learning rather than contending with and being buffeted by verbal terrorism. One of the radicals’ tactics is rule by policy committee domination. They pressure administrators to relinquish their duty in a specific area and turn it over to a committee.
These practices by employees all fall below what the taxpaying public, in our opinion, expect and have a right to expect of the teachers they hire.
The concrete evidence of failures is well illustrated by the article entitled “New Left’s Boasts: We Are Organizing Sedition.” According to the article, the New York Times asked an Iowa State University student where he picked up his radical ideas. The student referred to a teacher by name and concluded, “He was a history teacher here (Iowa State University) two years ago. I took a course in Ideas of Western Civilization from him. That got me started.” There is no doubt that some teachers are guilty of using their status to effectively subvert or undermine the morals and allegiance of some students.
According to an article in the Ames Tribune, May 12, 2007,”Guillermo Gonzalez…[was] denied tenure this semester by Iowa State University.”In this event that became known to the public,Iowa State University denied tenure to gifted astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez,who made the mistake of writing a book that included academic support for intelligent design. At the same time,the university promoted to full professor with tenure rights in the soft sciences an outspoken leftist, Hector Avalos. As a religious studies professor, he served as the adviser to the ISU Atheist Society.
Our investigation indicates that the main reason for the youthful rebellion and attitude of carelessness in student morals is their loss of confidence in the wisdom embedded in their heritage. Failure to clearly implant these truths detaches future generations from past experience, the very basis of education.
In the field of morality, all basic truths have been apprehended. All the changing conditions we hear so much about do not affect the validity or applicability of the central directives of human conduct. These truths are demonstrated both by their benefits and by the consequences of disregarding them—those who do fall easily into…fascism, lawlessness, drug addiction, et cetera. There is no greater contribution a teaching institution can make to human progress and purpose than to endow students at all levels with this knowledge.
Those who place their present faith and future hope in law enforcement to conduct humanity to brighter times ignore a fundamental psychological truth. Legal and material attempts to correct human conduct resulting from improper training must all end in failure. It is impossible to superimpose an effective code of ethics through compulsion. Police force provides nothing more corrective than temporary control of faulty behavior that is traceable to education’s failure to implant established knowledge of morality and the precepts of individual responsibility.
Where to Go for the Solution
The frustrating inability of the public to correct the distortion of academic freedom is due, in the Grand Jury’s view, to the failure of the people to see the continuation of the atrocious abuses by radicals as the breakdown in the responsibility-authority-control principle that it really is. Any organization, educational or otherwise, is an attempt at cooperation. Cooperation is not possible unless responsibility and authority go hand-in-hand.
The parents and taxpayers delegated a portion of their responsibility and authority, through an administrative chain-of-command, for the selection of educators who want to teach and[who] agree with public policy.
The system of organization varies in the several states, but in Iowa the Board of Regents (chosen by the Governor) is responsible to the public for education at the state universities. It is…the Board of Regents who must lay down corrective policy on behalf of the people. If the problem is not corrected…the public must impose changes as necessary.
The taxpayers, having the final responsibility for the universities, quite properly should have the authority to change the Board of Regents’ membership or take other measures if they find themselves in disagreement with Board policy. If the established procedures for governing at this level leave the Regents insensitive to public interest, then it is time to update governing procedures.
The citizen public, having given the Board of Regents [in this case] the responsibility to implement public policy, must also leave them the authority to go to the university president, who has the executive responsibility of the university. The university president, vested with the responsibility by the Board of Regents, has the authority to [replace] his aides if he believes they are not carrying out his ideas [in the public interest].
Most Important Educational Change Needed
- Regents’ policy changes which will sufficiently define and implement the elimination of moral pollution by faculty and paid speakers will by all suitable means encourage “moral…improvement” (Constitution of the State of Iowa, Article IX, 2nd School…Sec. 3).
- There is a need for increased emphasis on the American ideal at all levels of education. We believe this ideal needs to be a continuing emphasis from kindergarten through maturity. Our revolutionary concepts are a most exciting and important subject.
It seems rather clear that the nerve center for society, the power for social revolution, is inherent in the adult electorate rather than in the schools, and that the radical missionaries should be sent to the electorate, not to the captive audience of youthful minds.
The idea…that the people of this land should not be trusted with the complexities of education is absurd. The greatness of America places the educational and political emphasis under the control of the people. This approach is much safer than providing a haven [tenure guarantees] for…teachers.
Our soldiers have been dying for this ideal. Education, as never before, should clearly teach it. Even in imperfection, it has achieved greatness for Americans unparalleled in history. Every individual is important, and the mature public make the decisions over government—something that atheistic, humanist-based governments do not and cannot provide
Right of Taxpayers to Control Education Challenged
Who has academic freedom, the parent/taxpayer or the teacher? Is the parent, who once had academic freedom, now to be deprived because a teacher was hired? Most agree that anyone can teach what he pleases on his own, but must not [take advantage of his own] academic freedom by robbing taxpayers of their freedom to direct public education in the public’s interest, based upon the learning process and established knowledge.
Problems Compound if Not Corrected
No single level of education should be considered in a vacuum…but it is going on! The students of colleges are, after all, the graduates of American elementary and secondary schools. We, the adults and teachers of today, are the graduates of high schools, colleges, and universities in the recent past. Not only are various levels of American education interrelated, but the problems also feed back upon one another to produce a complex of relationships that affect us all and must be handled wisely. In professions such as medicine or architecture, failures soon become apparent and are corrected. A faulty experiment impacting the socio/political mindset may not be detected for two or three generations, when it is too late to reverse and avoid disaster.
End of Presentment
The purpose of universities was freedom for competition of ideas in search of truth. What has happened is the advocates of atheistic-secular totalitarianism applied their art and removed competition from the soft sciences. When citizen control of universities, colleges,and now virtually all lower-level public schools was hijacked by faculty independence (teachers union mechanization and teacher tenure guarantees),tyranny was bound to follow. What we now have is tyranny against the moral fiber of our youth and nation. This is the inevitable result of [imposing] “German graduate methods [faculty independence] onto American campuses in the late nineteenth century…academic freedom became a cause celebre.”
At the time of the Grand Jury study, we did not realize the linkage between the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and what appears to be their prosecution arm, the leftist American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The book Freedom in Iowa, published by the Iowa State University Press, promoted the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, brought this connection to my attention.
Teacher employee contracts, structured according to ACLU definitions for academic freedom and tenure, shift the decision-making authority for removing radical teachers away from the president of the university, who is hired by the public to superintend the institution. It is now the aggressive tenured faculty, not the president, who have control over who teachesand what is taught. Instead of being an administrator, the university president works full-time quieting campus disputes, promoting campus expansion, and raising money by lobbying alumni and legislators. Sensing this kind of environment, the US Supreme Court held in a dispute that professors at Yeshiva University in New York City were managerial [administrators], not employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and hence the university administrators were not required to bargain with the union that represented the professors. The Court noted:“Budget requests prepared by the senior professor in each subject area receive the ‘perfunctory’ approval of the Dean ‘99 percent’ of the time and have never been rejected by the central administration. The faculty…effectively determine curriculum, grading systems…matriculation standards” (NLRB v. Yeshiva University, 582 F.2d 686, 1978, affd 444 US 672, 1980).
The ACLU/AAUP version of academic freedom and tenure that enables radicals to reject the public standards for what is taught and not taught is not a legal concept. Without the control of the citizens who established the schools and pay the bills, what is taught is wholly dependent upon the internal culture of the faculty at the universities and the government grade schools. This problem is systemic.
“The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure by the American Association of University Professors has no legal effect, but the AAUP publicly censures colleges and universities that they believe have violated [their version of] academic freedom. However, nearly all [not all] of the colleges and universities have adopted this statement or a variation of the statement which is contained in the faculty policy manual of each college or university, and it is incorporated by reference in the employment contract between the university and each individual faculty member” (Dr. Ronald B. Standler,“Academic Freedom in the USA,”http://www.rbs2.com/afree.htm).
The penetrating damage imposed because of tenure laws sheltering radical professors and teachers in the soft sciences must be [reversed]. The authority of taxpayer/parents to control what is taught in government institutions must be restored. By routing education revenues directly to the parents or guardians, sanity will be restored to education. The many thousands of honest and morally upright teachers will again have the unimpeded support of the citizen consensus. Not only will what is taught be cleaned up, but also competition between education suppliers will reduce the cost [and increase the quality] of public education.
The voice in the chorus of concerned citizens is imperative. What confronts the American family and voter electorate is a test of wills. School administrators must be able to fire leftist teachers [without spending] years and…tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars defending education from the [resulting] lawsuits imposed by ACLU lawyers and the imperial arm of radical judges. To effect change, active citizen involvement in the political process must exceed the determination of those who are using political circumvention to destroy the family and liberty.