Two years after its founding, the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) in 1925 stressed that it would be “favoring certain social problems,” with one of its leading research interests being the “problem centering around studies of the Negro.”1Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, August 1925–December 1926, Folder 1764, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. During the following years, the Council created several committees and subcommittees to study black Americans and white-black relations more generally: from an “Advisory Committee on Interracial Relations” (and its two subcommittees on “Governmental and Political Aspects of Interracial Relations” and on “Tests for Race Differences”) to a joint committee with the National Research Council on “Race Problems.”2Minutes of the Meeting Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH—31 August 1928, Folder 1766, Box 308, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
→Minutes of the Meeting Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH—17–30 August 1927, Folder 1765, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.

Curiously, however, the SSRC abruptly discharged all four committees just a few years later in 1930.3Annual Report, 1929–1930 (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1930).
→Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, 14–15 December 1930, Folder 1774, Box 311, Subseries 1, Minutes, SSRC, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.

Aside from its abruptness, the decision also had lasting effects at the Council. The SSRC disengaged from research on black Americans and white-black relations more broadly, with the Council’s leading Committee on Problems and Policy noting in 1933—just as some of its leaders considered and then held back from helping to organize W. E. B. Du Bois’s planned Encyclopedia of the Negro—that it “was of the opinion that the Council has no plans at this time in the field of Interracial Relations.”4Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, 22 January 1933, Folder 1779, Box 312, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. Yet, four years later, the Council decided to help coordinate and staff Gunnar Myrdal’s study of black Americans. Myrdal’s project, in fact, became the vastly influential An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944), famously cited by the US Supreme Court in its 1954 school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education.

What helps explain the SSRC’s vacillating interest in the study of race during the 1920s and 1930s? Research organizations long have, and continue, to mirror the interests of their funders, influencing their research agendas. The SSRC is no exception. This series of events, I argue, is best understood by appreciating the Council’s relationship with the elite philanthropies that funded it, particularly its most prominent funder at the time, the Rockefeller organizations.

Rockefeller and SSRC’s early work on race

In the early years of the twentieth century, Gilded Age oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller founded several private foundations, from the General Education Board in 1903 and the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913 to the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial in 1918, with the Rockefeller Foundation being the wealthiest and most expansive of his philanthropies. In 1929, under a general reorganization plan, the Rockefeller leaders decided to consolidate the Memorial into the Foundation, with the latter and larger organization taking over the Memorial’s social science program. However, until then and throughout the 1920s, the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial was the leading funder of the social sciences in the United States.

“The following year, social scientists came together to organize the Social Science Research Council, and the Council—under the Memorial’s developing agenda—became an early and prominent recipient of Rockefeller support.”

The Memorial started crafting a focus on the social sciences soon after the arrival of psychologist and education scholar Beardsley Ruml in 1922. Appointed director of the Memorial, within months Ruml led the organization to shape a grant-making program in these research fields. The following year, social scientists came together to organize the Social Science Research Council, and the Council—under the Memorial’s developing agenda—became an early and prominent recipient of Rockefeller support. Well into the final years of the Second World War, the Rockefeller funds “provided more than ninety percent of the financing” at the Council.5“Excerpt—Trustees’ Confidential Report,” June 1951, Minutes of SSRC general program, Folder 4738, Box 554, Subseries 200S, RG 1.2, Projects, Rockefeller Foundation records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.

In 1925, the Memorial funded the first Hanover Conference, an event which would become one of the SSRC’s annual highlights for the rest of the decade. At this first Hanover conference, the Council noted that Ruml had brought together “men interested in social science” and “the Committee on Problems and Policy of the Social Science Research Council to meet with them.”6“Social Science Research Council, Hanover Conference, Vol. 1,” Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 9–20 August 1926, Folder 1891, Box 329, Series 5, Hanover Conferences, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. Reflecting the overlapping agendas of the Memorial and the SSRC, Hanover participants, for example, approved further study of black Americans, “recommending to the Council the appointment of a small qualified advisory committee to propose a plan of attack for investigation on the Negro Problem.”7Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, Part I, 31 August–3 September 1925, Folder 1764, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. Similarly, in the Memorial’s 1925 annual report, Ruml had expressed a piqued interest in pursuing an “[a]ctive study of the field of race relations, particularly with respect to the negro.”8Memorandum, “The Executive Committee and Director to the Board of Trustees,” 1 October 1924–30 September 1925, Director’s Reports 1919–25, Folder 15, Box 2, Series 2, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. This ultimately led the SSRC to create an Advisory Committee on Interracial Relations (first called the “Committee on the American Negro”)—and its subsequent subcommittees—that summer.9On the name change, see Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH—2 pm, 27 August 1926, Folder 1764, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.

Two years later in 1927, and further reflecting the research preferences of the Memorial, the SSRC approved a joint committee with the National Research Council (NRC) on the “Negro Question,” to be referred to later as the Joint Committee on Race (or Racial) Problems.10→Minutes of Meetings, Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH, 17–30 August 1927, Section: “Cooperation with National Research Council re Negro Question.”
→Minutes of meeting, Committee on Problems and Policy, Social Science Research Council, Hanover, New Hampshire—20 August 1928, Section: “Report on Joint Committee on Racial Problems with the National Research Council.”
→Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, 30 August 1930, Section “Report on Joint Conference with the National Research Council on Race Problems.”
Noted in the Council’s records, the idea for this joint venture originated with US anthropologist Franz Boas, then chairman of the “subcommittee on Race Mixture” of the NRC’s own “Committee on the American Negro.”11Minutes of the Meeting Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH—17–30 August 1927, Folder 1765, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. As the councils then reasoned, “the biological characteristics of man do not depend solely upon descent but also upon social environment, [so] cooperation between the Negro Committees of the National Research Council and the Social Science Research Council seems indispensable.”12Minutes of Meetings, Hanover, NH, 17–30 August 1927.

For the next three years, the SSRC oversaw these four groups and their committee members. During these years, in fact, the committees confronted some interpersonal challenges, reflecting scholars’ conflicting perspectives on what it meant to study race and who was best situated to study the topic. For example, the Advisory Committee not only changed its name at the urging of SSRC members but encountered “[c]onsiderable difficulty…in securing the membership and especially the Chairman of this Advisory Committee, and the meeting of the Committee, held at Hanover, August 10–13, 1926, had but three members present, not including its Chairman.”13SSRC Problems and Policy Meeting, March 1926. By 1930, the SSRC also reported that the SSRC-NRC committee was “anxious to quit.”14Committee on Problems and Policy, 14–15 December 1930. For further context on the SSRC-NRC joint committee’s internal tensions, please see Evelynn Hammonds, The Logic of Difference: A History of Race in Science and Medicine in the United States, 1850–1990 (in progress).

Yet, such interpersonal tensions do not fully explain why all four committees were simultaneously dissolved in 1930. Adding to this mystery, the Advisory Committee and its two subcommittees at the time were in the midst of making further research inquiries. Even as late as August 1929, for example, the Council reasoned that it was “desirable to have the committee continue.”15Agenda of Committee on Problems and Policy, 19–21 August 1929, Folder 1770, Box 309, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. But, by the following summer, the Advisory Committee and its two subcommittees were discharged, with the joint committee receiving its formal dismissal that December.

Shifting research interests

“In this moment of reorganization, the Foundation did not take as unquestioned the entirety of the Memorial’s grant-making program in the social sciences.”

To understand this abrupt move on the part of the Council, it is critical to note the restructuring of the Rockefeller organizations at the time. When the Rockefeller Foundation in 1929 subsumed the smaller Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, the former took over its grant-making focus in the social sciences. The Foundation thus replaced the Memorial as the principal funder of the SSRC. In this moment of reorganization, the Foundation did not take as unquestioned the entirety of the Memorial’s grant-making program in the social sciences. Indeed, the Foundation’s managers questioned whether they wanted “to include the negro in the social science program.”16Memo, 8 May 1930, Folder 80, “Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, 1930–1931,” Box 9, Series 200, RG 1.1, Projects, Rockefeller Foundation records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
See also, Rockefeller Foundation, RG 3, Series 900, Box 22, Folder 170, “Report of The Committee on Appraisal and Plan” December 11, 1934.

The Rockefeller Foundation deliberated and ultimately declined to continue the Memorial’s advocacy of social science research on black Americans and race relations more broadly, preferring instead to channel its funds for white-black relations through its sister organization, the General Education Board (GEB). A leader in the funding of black education, the GEB was not particularly invested in funding research on race or race relations. Consequently, the Rockefeller organizations throughout the 1930s decreasingly supported social science research on black Americans; and as an informal ancillary of the Rockefeller organizations, so too did the SSRC.17See correspondence between Carter G. Woodson and Rockefeller Foundation Managers, March 1930–April 1932, Folder 80, “Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, 1930–1931” and Folder 81, “Association for the Study of Negro Life and History 1932–1936, ” Box 9, Series 200, RG 1.1, Projects, Rockefeller Foundation records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. Thus, when the Rockefeller organizations were invested in funding social science research on race—as they were from 1924 to 1929—the Council echoed this inclination. And when the Rockefellers lost interest in this field, as it did after 1929, so too did the Council.

That said, it is worth mentioning that by 1934 it had come to the attention of the SSRC that “a fundamental change in attitude is appearing among the negroes of the United States” that might be worthy of further study.18“Report of the Committee on Personality and Culture at the Social Science Research Council,” September 1934, Folder 1479, Reports of the Committee and Minutes 1930–1940, Box 249, Subseries 22, Personality and Culture, Series 1, Committee Projects, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY. Yet, despite this rekindled interest in the study of black Americans, the organization walked away from supporting another prominent project on race: W.E.B. Du Bois’s proposed Encyclopedia of the Negro. Much as with the Council’s decision to disband the four committees in 1930, its reasons reflected to some level interpersonal dynamics, this time among scholars coordinating the Encyclopedia and the project’s potential funders.

The SSRC, like the Rockefeller organizations as well as Carnegie Corporation of New York, had looked favorably at the Encyclopedia project during the initial phase of its development. After the Encyclopedia planners’ first meeting in November of 1931, for example, a SSRC member wrote to the organization’s director that on “first blush it looks as though [the Encyclopedia] were the sort of thing the Council might well sponsor and it is interesting that it is looked to for leadership in this. Offhand I don’t see any reason why it is not in line with our policy.”19William F. Ogburn to Robert T. Crane, 27 November 1931, Folder 3, Box 24, Series 3, Social Science Research Council, Subseries 2, Correspondence, William Fielding Ogburn Papers, 1908–1960, University of Chicago Special Collections Research Center, Chicago. Similarly, philanthropic managers at Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rockefellers’ General Education Board corresponded favorably about possibly funding the project.

In early 1932, however, these managers received word of racial tensions amongst white and black participants. Carnegie Corporation president Frederick P. Keppel learned that the group’s latest meeting in January 1932 was a “considerable waste of time in discussions, underlying which there was unexpressed racial antagonism.”20Carnegie Corporation of New York Memorandum of Interview (from Robert M. Lester to Trustees on the Encyclopedia of the Negro, Preliminary Meeting), 7 November 1931, Folder 11, “Encyclopedia of the Negro 1931–1944,” Box 139, Series 3.A, Grant Files, ca. 1911–1988, CCNY records, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University, NY. Almost immediately, the Rockefeller and Carnegie boards as well as the SSRC began to distance themselves from the Encyclopedia project. Later that year, for example, GEB assistant director Jackson Davis doubted whether Du Bois’s increasingly controversial Encyclopedia was the right project to fund: “I am not sure that at the present time when economic hardships are bearing heavily upon the Negro, anything that looks like an effort to push their claims in an aggressive, bristling manner will have a good effect upon race relations.”21GEB’s Jackson Davis to Anson Phelps Stokes, 10 April 1932, Folder 4386, “Encyclopedia of the Negro 1931–37,” Box 418, Series 1, Subseries 3, GEB records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.

Reflecting this growing impatience sparked by the tense dynamics within the Encyclopedia’s planning committee, SSRC director Donald Young in 1936 complained to Northwestern anthropologist Melville Herskovits that he saw “no hope that the Encyclopedia can be turned into the sort of work in which you and I would be interested,” adding that he would not be attending the group’s next meeting.22Donald Young to Melville Herskovits, 7 April 1936, and Melville Herskovits to Donald Young, 13 April 1936, Folder 3, “Social Science Research Council, 1926–1936,” Box 22, Series 35:6, Melville Herskovits Papers, New York Public Library, NY. Both Young and Herskovits complained of frictions among white and black scholars organizing the Encyclopedia and ultimately walked away from further collaborating on the project. Similarly, Carnegie Corporation and GEB exponentially decreased interest in funding the project in subsequent years. In 1938, Carnegie Corporation president Keppel sent a formal letter of rejection to the Phelps Stokes Fund, a smaller private foundation spearheading the project. Keppel noted “that the trouble in my Board did not rise from memories of Du Bois as a firebrand, but from a general feeling that the idea of a specialized Negro Encyclopedia at all was a mistake.”23Frederick P. Keppel to Anson Phelps Stokes, 17 November 1938, Folder 11, “Encyclopedia of the Negro 1931–1944,” Box 139, Series 3.A, Grant Files, ca. 1911–1988, CCNY records, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University, NY.

Interestingly, as the desire to engage Du Bois’s project was fading, the Council emerged as a lead organizer of Gunnar Myrdal’s study of black Americans that ultimately resulted in the extremely influential volume, An American Dilemma. What helps explain this seeming about-face? For starters, the study was commissioned and funded with a largely open timeline and budget by the only foundation rivaling the Rockefeller Foundation’s wealth at the time: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

“As Myrdal later remembered, ‘Donald Young, then chief of the Social Science Research Council, was also more than skeptical’ that a ‘foreigner’ could say anything meaningful about US race relations in the span of a few years.”

In the fall of 1938, Myrdal and his family arrived in New York City from Stockholm and he soon met with the SSRC’s Donald Young who, at the request of Carnegie Corporation president Keppel, would help coordinate and staff the project. Early in the spring of 1939, Young assisted Myrdal in organizing a three-day conference in order to bring together a key group of staff members, including black political scientist Ralph Bunche, who had just recently returned to the United States after a two-year SSRC fellowship abroad. Indeed, Young would play a critical role in guiding Myrdal through the planning of research projects.24Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1944), x. As Myrdal later remembered, “Donald Young, then chief of the Social Science Research Council, was also more than skeptical” that a “foreigner” could say anything meaningful about US race relations in the span of a few years.25Draft Chapters of Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma Revisited, “Chapter 1: The Old Study” (1983 Draft), Vol. 4.2.11, Box 6, Handlingar från Gunnar Myrdals verksamhet: 1983–1984 (Documents from Gunnar Myrdal’s Work, 1983–1984), Alva och Gunnar Myrdals arkiv (Alva and Gunnar Myrdal Papers), (Arbetarrörelsens Arkiv och Bibliotek) Swedish Labour Movement’s Archive and Library, Stockholm, Sweden. Myrdal did add, however, that Young (and others) “who shared their critical reaction, once I was on the spot and began work, did everything to help me.”26Myrdal, “Chapter 1: The Old Study” (1983 Draft).

Philanthropies and the setting of research agendas

Carnegie Corporation’s full endorsement and funding of Myrdal’s project helps explain why the Council woke from its slumbering interest in the study of race in the 1930s. After all, the SSRC was reliant on private foundations in order to do its work and its principal funder, the Rockefeller Foundation, had lost interest during this period. When a comparably wealthy foundation came along with a project idea with full funding, the SSRC reasonably engaged.

Granted, as the comments from the SSRC and private foundations suggest, the disillusionment of the SSRC, Carnegie, and Rockefeller groups in Du Bois’s project reveals layers of prejudice and shifting priorities in their funding of the social sciences on black Americans at the time, a topic which I have discussed earlier. However, at least from the perspective of the Council, the very fact that Myrdal’s study had been commissioned and fully financed by Carnegie Corporation—whereas Du Bois’s own project was eternally trying to secure necessary support from the Rockefeller and Carnegie groups—made the former study much more attractive than the latter.

Looking at the SSRC’s wavering focus on race in the 1920s and 1930s, it could seem that there was little logic in the Council’s varying moments of piqued and decreased engagement on the topic. Of course, the individual research priorities, preferences, and prejudices of the SSRC’s leadership and teams of scholars help explain the Council’s decisions at these separate junctures. But read together, they also betray the critical influence of another group of actors in shaping research priorities in the social sciences and even more specifically at the Council: leading private foundations. This is to say that the SSRC’s intellectual history should be understood not only as a story about networks of social scientists and these individuals’ idiosyncratic research preferences but also as one about the Council’s developing relationships with philanthropies and these organizations’ varying fortunes and research priorities over the years. For today’s Council, and US social scientists more broadly, this history furthermore should suggest the need for continuing self-reflection on how their own research agendas might be influenced by funders. And this self-reflection is important. After all, we all would benefit from living in a world where social scientists are acutely aware of how their research priorities might be echoing what leading funders want rather than what they as scholars find vitally important to investigate or even what their societies need most from their social scientists.

References:

1
Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, August 1925–December 1926, Folder 1764, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
2
Minutes of the Meeting Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH—31 August 1928, Folder 1766, Box 308, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
→Minutes of the Meeting Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH—17–30 August 1927, Folder 1765, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
3
Annual Report, 1929–1930 (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1930).
→Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, 14–15 December 1930, Folder 1774, Box 311, Subseries 1, Minutes, SSRC, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
4
Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, 22 January 1933, Folder 1779, Box 312, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
5
“Excerpt—Trustees’ Confidential Report,” June 1951, Minutes of SSRC general program, Folder 4738, Box 554, Subseries 200S, RG 1.2, Projects, Rockefeller Foundation records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
6
“Social Science Research Council, Hanover Conference, Vol. 1,” Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 9–20 August 1926, Folder 1891, Box 329, Series 5, Hanover Conferences, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
7
Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, Part I, 31 August–3 September 1925, Folder 1764, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
8
Memorandum, “The Executive Committee and Director to the Board of Trustees,” 1 October 1924–30 September 1925, Director’s Reports 1919–25, Folder 15, Box 2, Series 2, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
9
On the name change, see Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH—2 pm, 27 August 1926, Folder 1764, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
10
→Minutes of Meetings, Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH, 17–30 August 1927, Section: “Cooperation with National Research Council re Negro Question.”
→Minutes of meeting, Committee on Problems and Policy, Social Science Research Council, Hanover, New Hampshire—20 August 1928, Section: “Report on Joint Committee on Racial Problems with the National Research Council.”
→Minutes of the Committee on Problems and Policy, 30 August 1930, Section “Report on Joint Conference with the National Research Council on Race Problems.”
11
Minutes of the Meeting Committee on Problems and Policy, Hanover, NH—17–30 August 1927, Folder 1765, Box 307, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
12
Minutes of Meetings, Hanover, NH, 17–30 August 1927.
13
SSRC Problems and Policy Meeting, March 1926.
14
Committee on Problems and Policy, 14–15 December 1930. For further context on the SSRC-NRC joint committee’s internal tensions, please see Evelynn Hammonds, The Logic of Difference: A History of Race in Science and Medicine in the United States, 1850–1990 (in progress).
15
Agenda of Committee on Problems and Policy, 19–21 August 1929, Folder 1770, Box 309, Subseries 1, Minutes, Series 2, Committee on P&P, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
16
Memo, 8 May 1930, Folder 80, “Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, 1930–1931,” Box 9, Series 200, RG 1.1, Projects, Rockefeller Foundation records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
See also, Rockefeller Foundation, RG 3, Series 900, Box 22, Folder 170, “Report of The Committee on Appraisal and Plan” December 11, 1934.
17
See correspondence between Carter G. Woodson and Rockefeller Foundation Managers, March 1930–April 1932, Folder 80, “Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, 1930–1931” and Folder 81, “Association for the Study of Negro Life and History 1932–1936, ” Box 9, Series 200, RG 1.1, Projects, Rockefeller Foundation records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
18
“Report of the Committee on Personality and Culture at the Social Science Research Council,” September 1934, Folder 1479, Reports of the Committee and Minutes 1930–1940, Box 249, Subseries 22, Personality and Culture, Series 1, Committee Projects, RG 1, SSRC records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
19
William F. Ogburn to Robert T. Crane, 27 November 1931, Folder 3, Box 24, Series 3, Social Science Research Council, Subseries 2, Correspondence, William Fielding Ogburn Papers, 1908–1960, University of Chicago Special Collections Research Center, Chicago.
20
Carnegie Corporation of New York Memorandum of Interview (from Robert M. Lester to Trustees on the Encyclopedia of the Negro, Preliminary Meeting), 7 November 1931, Folder 11, “Encyclopedia of the Negro 1931–1944,” Box 139, Series 3.A, Grant Files, ca. 1911–1988, CCNY records, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University, NY.
21
GEB’s Jackson Davis to Anson Phelps Stokes, 10 April 1932, Folder 4386, “Encyclopedia of the Negro 1931–37,” Box 418, Series 1, Subseries 3, GEB records, Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, NY.
22
Donald Young to Melville Herskovits, 7 April 1936, and Melville Herskovits to Donald Young, 13 April 1936, Folder 3, “Social Science Research Council, 1926–1936,” Box 22, Series 35:6, Melville Herskovits Papers, New York Public Library, NY.
23
Frederick P. Keppel to Anson Phelps Stokes, 17 November 1938, Folder 11, “Encyclopedia of the Negro 1931–1944,” Box 139, Series 3.A, Grant Files, ca. 1911–1988, CCNY records, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Columbia University, NY.
24
Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1944), x.
25
Draft Chapters of Gunnar Myrdal’s An American Dilemma Revisited, “Chapter 1: The Old Study” (1983 Draft), Vol. 4.2.11, Box 6, Handlingar från Gunnar Myrdals verksamhet: 1983–1984 (Documents from Gunnar Myrdal’s Work, 1983–1984), Alva och Gunnar Myrdals arkiv (Alva and Gunnar Myrdal Papers), (Arbetarrörelsens Arkiv och Bibliotek) Swedish Labour Movement’s Archive and Library, Stockholm, Sweden.
26
Myrdal, “Chapter 1: The Old Study” (1983 Draft).