Eisenhower, In Work Meant to Bridge the Gap Between His Military Past and Educational Position, Looks to the Future of Warfare and the Emotional Trauma War Inflicts on the Fighting Young Soldiers

The Founding Letter of the Renowned Eisenhower Center for the Conservation of Human Resources

Yet, during the war, rejections and discharges of men for mental defects reached a total of more than two million.

This type of problem would affect industry as well, and Ike sought to establish an entity to research causes and solutions

In December 1948 Eisenhower was called to Washington where he met with Averill Harriman, Omar Bradley and Harry Truman. The leadership of the military had not settled on a plan to counter the rising Soviet threat and wanted Ike’s opinion on fighting force preparedness. He remained in Washington for these meetings in the first two weeks of December. The immediate threat was Russia and a possible attack. The long term threat was to create a more efficient military. He had been assured that such a job, should it require long hours, would be compatible with his new job at Columbia University and so he made that real.

Eisenhower gave thought and consideration on how to present the needs and issues, and introduce the concept and program director. This letter/presentation is a product of that, and in it Eisenhower also speculates on the role played by education and poverty, and ponders whether “industry, trade unions, the school, the church do to help reduce the volume of loss”. The recipient was Henry Ford II, president of the Ford Motor Company, who was one of America’s top industry leaders, and well as a personal acquaintance who would become a friend.

The letter is, at its essence, how to learn from the failures of fighting force recruitment and support during World War II, apply it to the next combat, and see how far that lesson could be taken to workplace life and the reintegration.

Typed letter signed, on his Columbia University letterhead, New York, December 18, 1948, to Ford. “It seems to me that the time has come when the wastage of American resources must be combated along all fronts. There are numbers of organizations directing their efforts toward conservation of natural resources, including the soil. Our future prosperity is going to depend directly upon the success of their achievements. There is another sector of the conservation problem, however, that deserves immediate attention and that, so far, has not been made the subject of widespread intelligent attack. It is the wastage of manpower through mental and emotional failures.

“My own attention was drawn forcibly to the matter during the war, particularly in the late months of 1944, when the country found that its ability to supply replacements for the battleline was badly strained. Units had to fight under truly desperate handicaps by reason of lack of manpower. Yet, during the war, rejections and discharges of men for mental defects reached a total of more than two million. One of the numerous reasons that finally decided me to come to Columbia was the hope of assisting in finding some kind of an answer to this national problem. Obviously, in the event of great emergency our manpower will be in limited supply, but the basic problem is far broader in scope. Manpower losses of this kind imply tremendous costs and inefficiencies for our economy.

“This, I believe, is a particularly propitious time to begin a down-to-earth study of the matter. There exist today the rejection records of the two million men lost in World War II. Most of them are still alive and they provide, therefore, a great body of factual information for any group that can organize itself sufficiently well to dig out and correlate the facts. In addition, there is available in business corporations an important body of personnel information bearing on civilian maladjustments which invites exploration and evaluation.

“It would seem particularly important to find out whether there are common causative factors responsible for these human failures. Numerous questions immediately suggest themselves. Among these are: 1. Are these men generally from the undereducated groups? 2. Are they generally urban or rural in origin? 3. How do these men spend their leisure time? 4, Are they underfed or otherwise definitely underprivileged? 5. Do they show a long history of emotional instability, or do these defects come out only under fear or other stress? 6. What has happened to them? Are they now a charge upon society or are they leading useful lives? 7. How accurate were our war-time yardsticks for measuring “mental deficiency”? 8, What can industry, trade unions, the school, the church do to help reduce the volume of loss? Dozens of other questions suggest themselves, but the foregoing will indicate some of the specific points I have in mind.

“Shortly after coming to Columbia University, I detailed a very able young professor, Eli Ginzberg, to prepare a memorandum which would show the capacity and qualifications of this institution for undertaking a significant study in this area. His report is attached. Although the study of human resources is so important that it would warrant continuing support, I have thought it best to propose a limit of five years on this investigation. My thought is that, regardless of continuing scientific research into the various aspects of the question, we need to develop, at an early date, helpful practical methods that will contribute, much more than past procedures, to the efficient utilization of human resources.

“The Columbia Deans commented on the enclosed proposal and they were unanimously of the belief that the investigation should be undertaken. Now I am particularly anxious to get the opinions of men who are experienced in business, labor, agriculture, finance, the church, etc., and I should, therefore, like to have your reactions to the above suggestions, which are amplified in the accompanying memorandum. It might be that a large percentage of mentally ineffective manpower is inescapable and is a natural result of our particular civilization. This I do not believe, and certainly I will not accept such a conclusion until we have done our best to prove or disprove the case,

“However, until I can gather together a volume of considered opinion that the proposed task is not only worth-while, but that beneficial results should flow out of it, I am neither going to undertake it nor ask for the financial support vital to this particular undertaking. If the replies are predominantly favorable, I shall then request ten or fifteen large organizations to assist in the financing of this project. I wish that you would write to me and give me the benefit of your thoughts on this proposal. If this job is worth doing, the sooner we get it under way, the better.”

It comes with the retained response from Ford and the copy of the report sent by Eisenhower to Ford, being Ford’s copy.

A few of these letters were sent out, and the response was positive, so these words heralded the establishment at Columbia of a project originally called The Conservation of Human Resources, and later renamed The Eisenhower Center for the Conservation of Human Resources. Dr. Ginzberg ran the project, while Eisenhower invigorated it with energy and direction until he left Columbia to run for president. The work provided for a three-pronged approach: (1) a study of inadequacy and maladjustment in civilian and military life, (2) a study of the factors contributing to the development of talent and superior performance, and (3) changing patterns of work in a dynamic economy. Over the years, it has published numerous works, a few of which are “The Ineffective Soldier: Lessons for Management and the Nation”, “The Changing U.S. Labor Market”, “The New Suburbanization: Challenge To The Central City”, and “The physician and the poor”. The Center remains active today.