PARTISAN REVIEW
145
of his criticisms are ones on which all enlightened foundationmen could
probably agree, and for which ready assurances and/or remedies are avail–
able.
Foundations, he tells us, have an "enclave mentality" and suffer
from an "obsession for privacy" as to their purposes, grants, investments,
corporate alliances, and financial interlinkages. Not to worry because
government action - - hesitant in the forties, bolder in the fifties, ef–
fective in the late sixties - - has made for more stringent reporting
requirernen ts.
But "frequently the presidential front end of these foundation re–
ports does not appear to know where the reportorial back end is going."
Not important, really, because "we shouldn't overestimate" the
"potential value" of these reports anyway.
"The boards of the big American foundations," we learn, "are cur–
rently overridden with conflicts of interest incompatible with the objec–
tive and exclusive devotion to philanthropic purposes and the public
interest." Not critical because "apart from occasional lapses .... the big
foundations do not appear to have been guilty of the kinds of self–
dealing and self-aggrandizement that have come to light in the case of
some medium-sized and smaller foundations." Oh, it's true that the
Alfred
I.
du Pont Estate and the Nemours Foundation constitutes "a
scandalous example of the exploitation of a philanthropic facade to give
unfair competitive advantage to associated banks and other profit–
making corporations," but du Pont is the exception. Besides, founda–
tions like Danforth and Kellogg, which have vast business ties too close
for unconflicted comfort, "both ... demonstrate that such linkage is not
necessarily incompatible with effective -- even superb -- philosophic
performance.... " The trend is with the Ford Foundation, which has
diversified. Twenty years ago its holdings were entirely in the form of
Ford Motor Company shares (it owned 88% of those outstanding).
In
the
years since, Ford has disposed of 65% of its shares. Add to that the 1969
tax act which imposes high penalties for self-dealing, and it becomes ap–
parent that concern about conflict of interest shouldn't be exaggerated.
Foundations tend to sit on their assets, and society loses tax reve–
nues without gaining the bargained-for benefits. True in times past, but
recent legislation requires that the equivalent of 6% of a foundation's
assets be given out annually; too soon to know the' results but they look
hopeful.
Foundation boards are unrepresentative - - young people, females,
nonwhites, Catholics, Jews, Mediterraneans, ethnics, intellectuals, artists,
writers. social reformers are rarities. A serious criticism, related to a larger
