So that T think you have perpetrated—well, E would go so far as to say that you have deceived the public in presenting these reports. com- ing froma high-soundig association, with undoubtedly a good name, and Tam sure you do a lot of good work, by putting out advice to par- ents, when the principal direction and the writing is being done by people who are in the pay of the industry, or publishers themselves, particularly when you do not divulge that fact.
Parents have a right to look at this, and they say, "Well, here this person, Dr. Lauretta Bender, is professor of psychology at the New York University, and member of the advisory board of the children's Child Study Association," whatever she is.
In fanness to the public tt ought to be "paid by the comics," the same is true of Josette Frank, the same is true of other persous.
Of conrse, you would not do that because then they would lose their noupartisan approach to the maiter.
I think this part of your study is a frand and a deceit ta the pub- lic and the pubhe ought to know about it.[1]
The Chairman. The Chair would like to hear from you on that, Mr. Dybwad.
Mr. Dybwad. There are two points. No. 1, Senator, you were in conversation perhaps and did not hear when I very deliberately pomted ont, and T want to repeat this very carefully for the record, that these stushes, as all our work on children's reading, are done by a committee, 1 potuted out very speetlically that this is a ecommit- tee which meets weekly———
Senator Kefauaver. Just one minute here, sir. Here is Woman's Day, September 1945. put out by the Child Study Association. You were so proud of it, sir, you brought it rp here to be pnt in the record. This caxae from you, written by Sidonic Grauonberg and shows a couple of happy children reading I don't know what kind of crime books. That is no study by any committee.
Mr. Dybwad. I am sorry this is not the study 1 referred to, I put in evidence 2 studies; 1 in 1943 and 1 tn 1919. Those are the only studies I referred to here.
Senator Kefauaver. Why do you not get out a study for 1954, and talk about these books?
My conclusion is that you are not doing this for the reason that your people, and perhaps your association, too, are being paid by the industry itself and that you do not want to criticize, very much, anyway, the crime book industry.
Now, I cannot see why, in view of the fact that these horror and crime comics have taken so much a turn for the bad, you would go on and let people quote what you said in 1949 and 1948. Why you do not go out and get another one and bring it up to date and condemn, as
- ↑ The Child Study Association of America, Ing, issued a supplementary statement on the relations of the association to the comnje-hook industry which Included the following: "In 39-4, Mrs. Sidonie M, Gruenberg, whe was for 25 years the director of the Child Studr Association of America, ueted with 2 olher educators as eponsultant to Faweett Pubtien- tions fer a perind of 10 mouths, These dividnals met with writers and artlsis, helped to establish eriteria and to see that these criteria were followed. In 1941 National Comics Publicattons asked the ussociution to help them to fnprove their publications and keop them safe for young readers. The board of directors gave this request serious con- sideration. It then agreed that Miss Josette Frank shoitld accept the major responstbility for working with this publisher. As a part-time member of the association's staff, the hoard felt. that she shonlt be free fo make her own arrangements as to fee. The board aiso decided thut the association, working through iis tatal siaff, and with tle children's hook ecommities, should assume a supervisory relationship to this project. For this service, the ussociatton has reeeived $50 moutbly." An investigator for the subcommittee found that Paweett Publications contributed about $1,500 to the Child Study Assoclation of America, Inc., in 1943, 1944, and 1946, and National Comies contributed $2,500 to the association between October 1947 and November 10, 1932.
