Lieutenant Colonel Donald McLean

Arthur E. Palmer, Jr.

With the surrender of Germany in 1945 and the installation of the international military government for that defeated country the United States Government was faced with a new series of problems. General Eisenhower had a military headquarters in Berlin which included a few officers trained as military governors to supervise the reorganization of captured areas and to provide enough order to make way for military operations. Yet those with vision knew that a primary need for the victors was reconciliation and a return to everyday life, not a continued military government. And the problem of dealing with a defeated Germany was made more difficult the fact that the “civilian” member of theArmed Forces, who had enlisted for the duration, wanted to go home - and go home right away!

As a first step in dealing with the problem of what to do with Germany, General Eisenhower appointed major General Lucius D. Clay, his deputy, to head the United States military occupation part of Berlin and Germany. According to Robert Patterson, the Assistant Secretary of War, Clay was one of the finest Army officers he had ever met - a man with the breadth to identify the necessary goals of the future.

General Clay, as Deputy United states Military Commander stationed in Berlin, took with him Major Donald H. McLean and Major Robert R. Bowie, both civilian lawyers, as a roving team to advise him on policy. McLean’s selection for this position was not by chance; he had worked for General Clay earlier in his Army career, and his service experience since 1942 fitted him admirably for his new post.

He had first served as a Captain in the International Division, Services of Supply, in Washington, where his work was supervised by General Clay; in 1943 he became a member of a General Staff division administering the planning of military governments and the development of policies for conquered or liberated countries, where his work was supervised by Major General John Hildring. 

Sensing the need for closer cooperation between general Hildring.s new command and General Clays supply responsibilities, the latter arranged with the firmer to use Captain McLean as a  personal deputy to each when dealing with common problems, acting as a working member of General Hildring’s office while still a member of general Clay’ command. As a result, he not only got to know both generals, but also learned a good deal about liaison work.

In July 1943 General Hildring’s Civil Affairs Division was given responsibility for all civilian problems in areas jointly controlled by the United States and Great Britain. It was at this point that McLean, now a Major, was appointed to General Hildring’s command. Late that year he wrote a friend: “I have been most fortunate for the past eight months, spending my time on papers concerned with problems presented to the army by the presence of civilian populations in operational areas, for and with Major General John H. Hildring - pleasant and thoroughly competent by any standards.”At the same time, he was also engaged in giving lectures to army trainees in classes in civil affairs problems at Yale University, Northwestern University, and the University of Virginia, the principal army Civill affairs Teaching Center in the U.S. Thus, when the end of the war came, Major McLean was well trained for his new position abroad.

Moving to Germany with General Clay in April 1945, McLean and Bowie watched the celebration at the end of the war in Paris on May 8, 1945. For the next year, the two officers acted as eyes and ears for General Clay, offering him advice on any and all problems of German Military Government. The pair also conducted a seminar for the American staff in Berlin on their functions in connection with Denazification, Demilitarization, Deconcentration, and Democratization, all in line with established Anglo-American policy. McLean described his work as “delving into all phases of the military occupation problems - you swing like a man on a flying trapeze from economics to public relations, to denazification, always hoping there will be a net somewhere.”

On August 15, 1945, while on duty in Germany, McLean, now a Lieutenant Colonel, was decorated with the Legion of Merit for his former services in General Hildring’s office in the Pentagon. On this occasion, he wrote General Hildring to thank him for the decoration as “something I shall always cherish as a tangible token of one of the most stimulating, pleasant, and interesting experiences of my relatively short career - it will always be a reminder of the hectic times we shared during 1943 and 1944.” But he did not stop there. The letter continues in a way that has been typical of McLean  during his career - he made warm friends of all the important men he worked with, treating them as honored equals, a feeling they reciprocated. Wrote McLean:

There is another aspect of which you are not aware. I entered the U.S. Army in the spring of 1942 with considerable misgivings as to weather a civilian of my age (which was 33) with no military background or specialized technical training could be of assistance to the U.S. Army. Working for you removed that doubt. There were times when my confidence was shaken during those early months when the nomenclature, the customs, and even the grammar were something I had never learned at Yale or in the practice of law. The award is more than adequate evidence to me that my original decision to go in was sound and that my wife did not live on the pay of a first lieutenant merely to satisfy the fancy of a confused and curious husband. She now has a tangible reward for her patience and understanding during the course of which she observed the wives of some of my contemporaries profit by the more tangible rewards available to my generation in recent years in the practice of law.

In addition, I received and invaluable supplement to my education. I have come to understand the army, its traditions, and its function in our national life. Our closed-door sessions in the early days were a liberal education few men ever receive. I have come to know, respect, and admire men like yourself and General Clay who have devoted their lives unselfishly to the public service.

At the same time he outlined, in letters to his army friends in the U.S., the personnel situation in Berlin as “impossible.” “The People here are becoming eligible for discharge, but are being held back while their friends in the U.S. are being sent home. What is needed is s first class office here in Berlin and in the U.S. to recruit competent civilian replacements. It is one of the most pressing problems today and the government is doing nothing about it.”

The United States Government in 1947 finally did something about it. It cut the Gordian knot when it made General George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Secretary of State and when he in turn had General Hildring appointed Assistant Secretary of State with the responsibility of transferring administrative responsibility for the occupation of Korea, Japan, and Germany from the War Department to the Department of State.

Shortly after his appointment as Secretary of State in 1947, Marshall wrote a letter to Arthur Milbank, Senior Partner of McLean’s Wall Street law firm, asking that McLean be loaned to the Unites states Government for two months to work on a special project. Secretary of State Marshall wrote of McLean as follows:

Mr. McLean, during his service in the army, was for a considerable period Liaison Officer between General Somervell and General Hildring in their respective capacities as Commanding General, Army Service Forces and as Director, Civil Affairs Division. McLean became thoroughly familiar with the organization of the War Department and its methods of dealing with the planning and operational aspects of Military Government. He personally participated in the formulation of many of these plans and had a hand in working out techniques for their accomplishment. Moreover, throughout this period, Mr. McLean worked closely with the personnel of the Department of State on major policy aspects of occupied areas programming. He later served as an advisor to general Clay in Germany and in that capacity had constant opportunity to observe and participate in the field activities of Military Government.
In view of Mr. McLean’s unique qualifications, and particularly because of the great confidence which General Hildring has in his judgement and tact, I believe that if Mr. McLean were free to work on this project for a period of two months commencing about July 1, he could perform a great public service to the Department and to his Government. Accordingly, I should like to ask you to consider weather Mr. McLean’s services could be made available to the Department for this purpose without substantial impairment to his relationship with the firm and without incurring undue sacrifice on your part.
Faithfully Yours,  

G.C. Marshall 

Secretary of State

Needless to say, McLean’s law firm agreed, and in the summer of 1947 he carried out his mission to everyone’s satisfaction. The Armed Forces were glad to see the last of many, if not most, of the civilians who had served during the war. For the greatest soldier in the country to write and ask the help of one of them was a signal of honor indeed.

Equally as meaningful a tribute to Don came from General Lucius D. Clay who wrote to Don in 1946: “Thank you for your letter of January 8. Your faith and confidence always made me feel as if I could surmount any obstacle.”

As a sort of postscript to Don and the Army, he met and made friends with an unusual number of generals and the correspondence between them made it clear that they respected him, and none were surprised to find him already serving one, or even two other generals. As an army friends said: “He collected generals like a dog collects fleas, but with better results.”

Arthur E. Palmer, New York, New York, was a classmate of McLean in the Yale Law School (class of 1935) and a lifelong friend. He served in the International Division, HQ General Staff, of the Army during World War II. A partner in a New York law firm, he was involved both in investment banking and the administration of transportation for New York City.

Leaving them Alone

Peter J. Johnson

During the 1950’s - a time when John D. Rockefeller, III was most actively engaged in institution-building, sand Don McLean was his chief associate working on problems in connection with the Third World - they concentrated their efforts chiefly on two organizations. Those were the Population Council and the Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs. The latter was the parent body of the Agricultural Development Council and the JDR, 3rd Fund.

There was no simplistic or easy route to their objective, and they deliberately accepted a more complex and difficult way of attacking the problem of world poverty and its concomitants. They followed a policy of patience to allow for the painful accumulation of facts, the development of appropriate policies, and a cooperative effort with the Third World in order to produce change. At the most basic level this involved creating organizations able to deal with the issues, and then leaving them alone to do their work. The need for "leaving alone" is not understood by most people, and Don’s acceptance of the principal was one of his most important contributions to John D Rockefeller, 3rd and to the world.

Don’s primary role was to translate JDR, 3rd ideas into reality, and in doing that he worked most closely with the Population Council and the Agricultural Development Council. He carried out an infinite number of housekeeping tasks, such as providing and staffing offices, gaining tax exemptions, and handling visa problems for fellows. But, more importantly he had to secure strong and innovative leadership.

There were initial leadership problems with both organizations.  Fred Osborn, the leading layman in the population field, was aging and also had his own private agenda. J. Lossing Buck in the agricultural field had somewhat similar handicaps. Don was a strong advocate of Frank Notestein’s demographic approach to population; when the time came to replace Osborne at the Population Council, it was natural for him to turn to Notestein.

For the Agricultural Development Council Arthur Mosher was an absolutely inspired choice to become the head, and Don was the one who persuaded the very reluctant Mosher to accept the job. I heard a story of how it happened from both Art and Don. It's well worth the telling, as follows.

Both JDR, 3rd and Don believed that he exclusively biological approach of the Rockefeller Foundation to the problems of world food supply was both useful and necessary, but did not in itself provide a solution to the overall problem. Using the reasoning of William Myers of Cornell and Ted Schultz of Chicago, they argued for a parallel social science effort that would apply the theoretical breakthroughs of the natural scientists to the reality of Third World agriculture and society. They lost that battle within the Rockefeller Foundation and decided to attempt it on their own.

After creation of the Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs (CECA) JDR, 3rd and Don carried out their search for permanent leadership of the Agricultural Development Council. They eventually settled on Art Mosher as the most qualified candidate because of his long experience in agricultural economics in both Asia and South America. 

Don approached Mosher, who was most hesitant about accepting the position. Don was intrigued by his diffidence because, as he said, most people fell all over themselves when given the chance to work with a Rockefeller. Don pushed Art for an explanation, and he finally confessed his reasons. During his study of United States assistance programs in Latin America, he had looked carefully at IBEC/AIA, the combined business and philanthropic organization created and led by Nelson Rockefeller at the end of World War II. According to Mosher, Nelson would come up with a marvelous new idea  for instance something to do with the marketing of agricultural commodities - that he believed would remake the world in six months. Everybody had to stop but they were doing and go to work on the new project. But when the world was not completely done over in six months, Nelson would become discouraged and shift to some newer scheme. Then everyone would have to go work on that one.

Art Mosher said he could not accept interference from on high in the conduct of his work, and that it was essential his sponsors have the patience to wait for fifteen or twenty years, if necessary, before seeing evidence of progress and change. Don saw the wisdom of that philosophy, reported it to JDR 3rd, and persuaded him to accept it. 

Over the next twenty years both JDR, 3rd and Don we're consistently supportive of Mosher and the ADC, never interfering on matters of policy or personnel. Don's critical role in establishing the creative independence of the ADC may have been one of his greatest contributions to the public interest and to the welfare of millions in the Third World.

Peter J Johnson, New York City, worked with Don McLean in the late 70’s in the compilation of the record of John D Rockefeller 3rd.

To help meet some of the urgent needs

Arthur. T. Mosher

Soon after World War II Mr. John D Rockefeller, 3rd decided that he wanted a major part of his philanthropy to be related to Asia. He was quite clear about what he wanted to accomplish, but less certain about how to go about it. He wanted his activities to help meet some of the urgent needs of people in Asia. He also wanted to recognize, and bring to the attention of Americans, some of the cultural achievements of Asians.

What kind of the program would best serve those purposes? What kind of an organization could create that program?

It was at that point that Don McLean came into the picture and played a unique role. To reflect the breath of Mr. Rockefeller's interests in Asia. Work with Mr. Rockefeller in selecting an appropriate name - The Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs - to reflect the breath Mr. Rockefeller's interest in Asia. He played the leading role in selecting a Board of Trustees composed of persons who had had long-term personal acquaintance with Asia. He made the talent search to identify an appropriate Chief Executive Officer - one who would have the personal support of Mr. Rockefeller and the professional technical standing to develop and direct the council’s activities in Asia

When, after 10 years, Don perceived that it would be better to separate the cultural affairs of the Council from its economic activities and to give the latter a more descriptive name he played a leading role in creating the JDR, 3rd Fund to concentrate on cultural affairs and the Agricultural Development Council to concentrate on economic and human problems in in rural development in Asia.

In these various activities, Don brought a combination of skills not frequently found together. His training as a lawyer enabled him to give appropriate administrative structure to each proposed program. His close rapport with Mr. Rockefeller enabled him to interpret to him the significance of what professional technical people were proposing in the way of programs. His warmth as a human being contributed substantially to a productive camaraderie among staff, officers, and trustees of each organization.

Don became an elected member of the Trustees of the Agricultural Development Council in 1965 and President of the Trustees in 1974. He continued in that position until 1979, when he reached the councils mandatory retirement age for trustees.

Don had strong convictions about how an organization should be run. To him, the responsibility of a Board of Trustees was to select a Chief Executive Officer, and then either back or replace him; it was nothing Trustees role to participate in day-to-day administration.

His concept of his role in those Rockefeller organizations was consistent with that. "I am no expert on that" he frequently said, "but I know how to find and recruit the cooperation of those who are."

He certainly did! 

Art Mosher was Executive Director and the President of the Agricultural Development Council. At the age of 23 he went to India to become instructor in agricultural engineering, developing an extension service serving 500 villages. In the mid-1950s fifties he made an in-depth study of agricultural programs in Latin America. He has written many articles and consulted widely on programs of agricultural development.

Laughter with - but not at

Clifton R. Wharton, Jr.

I first met Don McLean in 1957. He was working with John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, and I had just joined the Agricultural Development Council, an organization Mr. Rockefeller had set up to strengthen the rural social sciences in Asia. During the early days of our friendship I learned that Don was warm, sincere, direct, honest, and unfailingly courteous with people from all walks of life. I marveled at his unassuming personality and his ability to subordinate his ego within the context of his role. He performed superbly, of course, providing wise counsel and advice at all times.

Over the years, a quality I came to appreciate particularly in Don was his great sense of humor. One of my many wonderful memories is of the story he loved to tell, dating from the early 1960’s. On a flight from United States to Asia, he had a chance to sit next to a new ADC visiting professor who was on his way to his university assignments abroad. The professor did not know Don. For the entire flight, Don quizzed and probed the professor about the Agricultural Development Council. What was it? What would the professor's role be? I can still imagine the twinkle must've brightened his eye: "So you say this is one of those do-gooder organizations of the Rockefeller's? Come on - what are they really up to over there? You don't really expect all this academic bushwah to fill peasants stomachs do you?"

And then how Don must have laughed with - but not at - his new acquaintance when he finally confessed who he was.

Don had an incomparable way with people, along with a knack for getting right to the heart of any problem or issue. Once he had made up his mind about something, he liked to put his decisions into action without delay. I would go to him for advice or to sound him out on some proposal proposed solution to a problem. "Okay, Cliff," he would respond. "Are we buying or selling?” And off we would go on our joint crusade. 

Don was with the "natural aristocracy” -the elite of intelligence, energy, and humaneness. He had several careers - with the ADC, the Population Council, the Asia Society, the Magsaysay Foundation, the Leahy Clinic Medical Center, his beloved Andover. In each he unfailingly distinguished himself. In his quiet way he made the world a little better place to live in. 

As for me, I respected Don’s talents, appreciated his support, treasured his friendship. I am the better for having had the privilege to know and work with him. Like so many others whose lives he touched, I miss Don McLean.

Clifton R. Wharton, Jr. was Vice President of the Agricultural Development Council. He has served on the staffs of several universities and agencies around the world, was President of Michigan State University 1970 - 1978 and since then he has been Chancellor of the 64 campus State University of New York system. He has written and spoken widely, and serves on the boards of several corporations as well as the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Rockefeller Foundation of which he is past Chairman.

For 4,500 individuals of forty nationalities

Shigeharu Matsumoto

On October 5, 1982, the International House of Japan celebrated the 30th anniversary of its founding in Tokyo. More than 100 distinguished intellectuals and government and business leaders, all interested in the work of international cultural exchange, were present.

On that occasion, three American friends were our special guest: Blanchette  Rockefeller, representing her late husband John D Rockefeller, 3rd, Donald H McLean,Jr. and Martha, his wife.

The International House of Japan was incorporated under Japanese law on August 27, 1952, as a private organization devoted to the cause of international cultural and academic exchange. For the preceding ten months, a Cultural Center Preparatory Committee, with me as executive secretary, worked hard to find and acquire premises, deliberate on the legal format, devise a program of international cultural exchange, and prepare the financial bases for bringing it about. John D. Rockefeller and Don McLean, his chief associate, came to Tokyo in the autumn of 1951 and again the following spring for the discussions with me and the late professor Yasaka Takagi, my mentor.

Don and I were destined to meet almost every day. We had some twenty close discussions before we finally drafted our initial application to the Rockefeller Foundation for a grant. The planned cultural center, later named the International House of Japan, was something completely new to this country. The Japanese members of the Preparatory Committee were unanimous in insisting that the center must have its own premises, while the Rockefeller Foundation was resolute in rejecting any kind of grant application that included acquisition of real estate. The Foundation had been generous in making grants to universities, as well as the Diet Library, and naturally was particular about the kinds of application would consider. Meeting the requirements of the Foundation on one hand and the express advice of the Japanese committee members on the other, Don and I worked it out by mutual agreement as to the desired land and then secured its purchase. We of course had countless other problems to resolve before eventually agreeing on every point. At length, on May 31, 1953, Don left Tokyo with our application for a grant to the Rockefeller Foundation.

During these discussions, I found Don McLean a person of patience, of foresight, of warm sentiment and shining character. After this initial work was done, Don continued to be deeply interested in the development of the International House, even after he was no longer associated with Rockefeller. Our friendship continued, even deepened, after he became president of the Leahy Clinic Foundation. He was guardian for my son Ken when he was a student at Swarthmore; he was also guardian for my daughter Misao when she was a student at Vassar.

In my office, I have a magnificent picture of Don that greets me every day. I have been affiliated with the International House now for thirty three years. A day rarely passes that I do not think of Don and his friendship and many American friends I value none above him.

The International House of Japan, which in a real sense he help to make, is now well-established. Its membership numbers above 4,500 individuals of 40 nationalities. Its annual budget exceeds ¥1 billion, with income and expenditures in good balance. For a long time to come we shall remember the name of Donald H McLean, Jr. and his distinguished contribution to this organization

Shigeharu Matsumoto, was the principle Japanese citizen involved in the founding of the International House of Japan. An international journalist, lawyer, writer, and executive, he served as the first managing director of the International House.

Uncle Don

Ken Matsumoto

Don McLean begin visiting Tokyo office in the autumn of 1951 because of his work for the Preparatory Committee of the International House of Japan, work in which Doctor Yasaka Takagi and my father were also deeply involved. He occasionally came to our house and shared dinner with our family. His cheerful nature charmed all of us from the beginning. I was allowed to call this frequent guest Uncle Don, a privilege I enjoyed throughout our long relationship. My mother was greatly impressed by Uncle Don, and my father always praised him as one of the most exceptional man he had ever known, regardless of nationality. The three children, Hiroshi, Misao, and myself, could not speak English well but we were delighted when Uncle Don visited.

In the summer of 1954, I traveled from Japan to the United States to enroll at Swarthmore College, Uncle Don and his wife, Martha, invited me to stay at their home in Summit, New Jersey, whenever I want during my four years of college. They asked me to celebrate almost every Thanksgiving and Christmas with them. I also spent many of my summer vacations at their home. Occasionally my mother, my sister Misao, and my high school friend Yuji Ito joined us. The McLeans treated me with love and respect, like a member of their family. Those days were full of rest and enjoyment.

When I stayed in the McLean's home, I saw advice from Uncle Don. It was usually late at night, when he was just about to retire. He was never reluctant to listen and always heard me out with great patience. The problems I needed to discuss included academic matters and my future career. When I finish talking, he often said reassuringly, “Ken, I would not worry about it so much. You are doing okay." His words of encouragement strengthened my resolve to meet future challenges.

Because of my inadequate English, the academic requirements at Swarthmore were difficult. Years later, Uncle Don told me, "I was concerned about you in those early days because your English ability was not very good.” Indeed, without the warm and wise support of Uncle Don and his family, I might have failed in my studies

The McLeans provided me with a valuable introduction to American family life, ways of thinking, and culture. Since I trusted Uncle Don so deeply, I believed I could trust other Americans, too. He made me forget that he was American and I was Japanese. Uncle Don was a truly international man.

Late one afternoon in August 1958, I sat with Uncle Don in his office at Rockefeller Plaza in New York. I was scheduled to board a freighter in Brooklyn bound for Japan at 10 that evening. I had a problem: how to transfer my heavy steamer trunk weighing eighty pounds from McLean's home in Summit to Brooklyn. We had only a few hours before the freighter departed. Uncle Don’s station wagon was at his summer house in Québec, and no taxi driver was willing to transport such a heavy trunk.

Uncle Don called several friends in Summit and tried to borrow a station wagon. It wasn't easy to find, but he was persistent and eventually persuaded a friend to drive us to Brooklyn in his Jeep. Uncle Don accompanied me after work and we hurried to Summit by train. We then drove quickly and arrived at the pier in Brooklyn just in time. We carried the trunk into my cabin on the freighter. Uncle Don took a small box out of his pocket. It contained a set of cufflinks that he had purchased in Japan. “I'll give these to my friend who drove us here, I'll tell him they are a gift from you, so don't worry about any further obligation to thank him," Uncle Don explained quietly. I looked at Uncle Don silently, overwhelmed by his boundless consideration. He was indeed a noble man

One bit of uncle Don's advice that I recall from time to time is "First things first." He told me this when I was a freshman in college. When I attended graduate school in Tokyo five years later, I received a letter from Uncle Don in which she wrote, "I hope you are still putting first things first." He remained concerned with my personal development and achievements even after I returned to Japan.

In March, 1977, my wife Junko and I were preparing to leave Auburn, New York, where we lived for three years. I had worked as a board member of a small Japanese-owned steel mill. To attend our farewell dinner, Uncle Don and Martha flew in from Andover, Massachusetts. Uncle Don gave me a standing ovation for my farewell speech. He also wrote the two page letter describing the occasion to Dr. Takagi in Tokyo. In the letter, Uncle Don told of the good relations I had developed with my American colleagues throughout the company. It was Uncle Don who helped me to understand Americans and to be confident when working with them.

In September 1982, Uncle Don returned to Tokyo with Martha to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the International House of Japan, an organization to which he made immeasurable contributions. On that occasion, he presented me with a magnificent picture of himself upon which she had written, “To Ken, with pleasant memories of your days as a member of our family in summit. Don.”  Written or spoken, his words were always the expressions of sincere affection and encouragement to me.

He exemplified a man of high ideals. He was an inspiration to me and will continue to be so. My life has been influenced and enriched enormously through my association with him. 

I hope that I will be able to treat others in the kind way Uncle Don always treated me. My experiences with him we're blessings.

Ken Matsumoto was in effect of member of the McLean family while he was a student at Swarthmore College. An officer in steel companies in Japan and United States, he has,  since 1984, been director of the Fair Trade Center in Japan.

McCarthyism…the need for some counterforce

Robert W. Van de Velde

The Rockefeller Public Service Awards (RPSA) were a great and useful idea, and it was Donald H. McLean, Jr. who "invented" them.

I first met Don McLean early in 1957 when I became Faculty Secretary of the awards program which was administered by Princeton University. The director of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs introduced Don and me because Don was then, in effect, John D Rockefeller, 3rd’s chief of staff and the man on whom the philanthropist depended on to keep an eye on the program’s activities and progress. We formed, almost it once, a strong friendship and a trusting association. He was like that.

In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s a particularly vicious type of government-criticism and bureaucracy-baiting was taking place. Led by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, the forces of Know-Nothingism rose again and used the Cold War to throw suspicion and distrust on career public servants of the federal government.

Don McLean has seen enough of government and had known enough government people to be convinced that there were many, in all grades and in all agencies, who were intelligent, conscientious, and dedicated to the public interest of the United States. He recognized that  the effort, then beginning to be called McCarthy-ism, was dangerously undermining public confidence in our government and therefore eroding the morale of the men and women who conducted the day-to-day business of government in all his policies, plans, and programs. He was wise enough to see the need for some counterforce. The Rockefeller Public Service Awards were launched in 1952.

Two recipients come quickly to mind as notable examples of the sort of excellence government that the program hoped to recognize.  These two also exemplify the wide variety existing among government bureaucrats and the ways in which time-out from daily routines - a sabbatical - helped both to whet their abilities and to keep them from leaving government careers in the face of tempting monetary rewards in the private sector.

Rufus Miles, an awardee in 1956, was a human generalist administrator and the sort of key executive who keeps an organization going, almost regardless of what its primary function is. He served the United States for over thirty years, much of it in the Department of Health Education and Welfare (under seven secretaries of HEW) and when he retired he had achieved the top career position of Assistant Secretary for Administration. After retirement he became a visiting lecturer with the rank of professor at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Later he became a "senior fellow" there and still serves on its advisory council. He has written several books, including the widely acclaimed Awakening from the American Dream, and a number of articles for professional journals.

Louis M Branscomb, at the time of his award 1957, was in the National Bureau of Standards as the chief of its Atomic Physics Section. A dedicated natural scientist, he spent his year off at University College, London, doing research on physics and astrophysics. Return to NBS and rose in that highly respected agency until, in 1969, he was its overall director. He remained in government service for 15 years after his Rockefeller Public Service Award and retired in 1972. At that time he joined International Business Machines as its chief scientist.

For public consumption, of course, the awards were credited to Mr. Rockefeller. Don was too good a staff man, too supportive of his principal, and too personally loyal to JDR, 3rd ever to give any hint that the public version was not entirely accurate. But in the ten years that my association with these men continued, it became more and more evident to me how fully JDR, 3rd depended on Don’s wisdom and advice in this as in so many other of his good works.

The first phase of RPSA ended in 1959 after the Government Employees Training Act of 1958 began to make possible, with government funds, the sort of sabbatical year of reflection and study, pioneered by RPSA for particularly promising career public servants. The second phase - established to recognize and publicize a few outstanding public servants and to encourage them to write, for publication, on their experiences and satisfactions in the public service — ran from 1960 to 1966. Too many job demands on their time and energies prevented most winners from fully exploiting their awards.

But again, scores of the most highly placed and most thoughtful career bureaucrats, urged Princeton and Mr. Rockefeller not to terminate the program - even if its nature had to change, to keep some privately supported program alive and to continue to call it  Rockefeller awards - to recognize distinguished public service careers. Typical of comments were some made by Philip L. Graham, President of the Washington Post: “Any society maintains only those virtues which it honors and encourages…" and “This awards program was primarily created to remind the public of our democracy, that excellence did in fact exist in the Federal service - and to remind them further that such excellence was imperative to the survival of free government."

John Rockefeller wants both of the qualities he considered essential to greatness in public service. They were, he said, courage, sensitivity, and vision. I wonder if he didn't have his principal associate in mind too, for Don McLean had, and used, all three of those qualities. And in its way, Don's life was also one of public service.

He had more; he had a personal wit that could prick the balloons of pomposity, and he knew when to encourage and when to poke gentle fun at his colleagues - and himself. He was a grand human being to know and a great man to work with.

Robert W Van de Velde was faculty secretary of the Rockefeller Public Service Awards at Princeton University. Active in the United States Army before, during and following World War II, he joined the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton 1957.

Good deeds are not sufficient unto themselves

Belen H. Abreu

On May 1, 1957, a history-making meeting was held in one of the rooms of the old Manila Hotel. Ramon Magsaysay, the much love President of the Philippines had died one and a half months earlier in a tragic airplane crash with twenty four others, and the meeting was to discuss the organization of a board of trustees of a foundation to honor his memory through a program of awards to recognize individuals in Asia who, like him, served their countries and fellowmen with courage and dedication. In the room where Mrs. Albert (Marjorie) Ravenholt, Donald H McLean, Jr., both representing the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Jesus Magsaysay, the brother of the late President and myself, then legal officer of the Philippine Commission on Elections.

That was my first meeting with Don, and his penetrating gaze and serious mien we're unsettling to say the least. That was also my first meeting with Jesus and both of us were eager to get Marjorie's ear to bring her up to date on the political situation, since a number of her dear friends we're running for office in the coming November elections - one for President and another for the Senate. We were, of course, touched by the noble gesture of the Rockefeller family to establish the award program and Don was telling us about the concept of the memorial, the role of the Rockefellers in this venture, and the trustees commitment and responsibility. Marjorie's long acquaintance with the Philippine scene and her equally long exposure to Asia fitted her ideally to be Don's teammate getting the Magsaysay Foundation off the ground. We all had stories we were dying to tell each other, but in deference to Don we desisted. A sharpened pencil and a pad on hand, this lanky American and his regulation striped blue and white seersucker suit was talking just like a lawyer. Since we already had a general idea of what the proposed memorial was all about, whenever there was a lull in the conversation, we would regale Marjorie with tidbits of the political boiling pot. We gradually grew aware of Don walking towards the window air conditioner to turn it on and, being an old appliance, it made a  disturbing racket which prevented us from hearing each other well. So we would stop our storytelling. Don would then put off the air-conditioner and continue with his explanation or questions.

This turning on and off of the air-conditioner went on for some time, until we finally caught on that we had to finish the business on hand before we could talk politics. I said silently to myself, "Thank heavens for Marjorie who understands our penchant for political gossip," as Don with his brusque and businesslike manner would have been hard to take without her. 

That was my impression of Don at our first meeting. It was my good fortune to be associated with him over the next 20 years and a nicer man and more steadfast friend it would be hard to find. When he smiled and executed that footwork of his that was almost a pirouette while bringing his two hands to a resounding clap, and his brown eyes twinkling and a wide grin dominating his face, you just got a feeling that all is well with the world. No longer was that unflinching gaze unsettling, no longer was his businesslike demeanor uncomfortable to take, for we knew that he was trying to get things done in the best way he knew. With our respect grew an affectionate regard for this man, for he gave himself unselfishly, sharing a brilliance of mind that underscored the good deeds are not sufficient onto themselves, they must be anchored to concepts that can endure when we leave the scene. This he has done in the Raymon Magsaysay Award Foundation's is witness to this.

Belen H. Abreu was Executive Trustee of the Raymon Magsaysay Award Foundation, 1957 - 1984. A member of the Philippine bar since 1944 she served as Chief Attorney, Commission on Elections, Philippine Government after World War II.

And then…India

Phillips Talbot

In India, as elsewhere, Don McLean contributed vision, practicality, and precision to the imaginative concepts that illuminated John D. Rockefeller 3rd’s great decade of institutional bridge-building across the Pacific. By 1958 the revived Japan Society along with the new Population Council, International House of Japan, Council on Economic and Cultural Affairs (later to be divided into the Agricultural Development Council and the JDR 3rd Fund), Asia Society, and Magsaysay Award Foundation were all in place and had begun to make the marks that distinguished each of them in the ensuing generation. John and his associates, notably including Don McLean, had tailored each to a specific, recognized need. But as yet they had not directly approached India.

Still newly independent in the 1950’s, India was a very large and obviously important country that had initially drawn John Rockefeller’s interest through its classic arts. In time John had pondered the value that India, which was opening fresh and wide international contacts, might gain from an International House, possibly modeled on the lines of the Tokyo House. He had hesitated to mention his interest to India’s leaders, however, because he knew how the pride of a new nation left them sensitive about foreign involvement in their national life. Thus, during a visit to New Delhi in February 1958, he was particularly pleased when India’s renown philosopher - and Vice President - and later President - Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, described how impressed he and Prime Minister Nehru had been by their earlier visits to the International House of Japan. It would be useful for India to have a similar institution, Dr. Radhakrishnan said. Could Mr. Rockefeller, out of his experience with the Tokyo House, prepare a memorandum outlining some of the functions such an establishment might have in India?

Mr. Rockefeller could and would. He cancelled onward travel plans in order to extend his stay in India and, on the same day, cabled Don McLean asking that he join him in New Delhi as soon as possible. When Don arrived a week later John had completed the memorandum. John and Don then called on Dr. Radhakrishnan, who was enthusiastic about the idea.

Thus was born the conception of what Srimati Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay has recently called “this rare institution,” the India International Center. Over the ensuing decades this Centre has brought together widening circles of Indian and foreign scholars and educators, journalists, diplomats, national planners, and others. Its library, auditorium, and conference facilities, its rooms for visiting residents, its restaurant and lounges and its beautiful gardens on a five-acre plot adjoining the splendid Lodi Gardens have become one of India’s primary intellectual and cultural centers.

For years were to intervene between the original Radhakrishnan/Rockefeller talks and the opening of the India International Centre on January 22, 1962. Throughout those years the principals, including Dr. Radhakrishnan's senior Indian associates, relied heavily on Don McLean's capacity for problem focused analysis, careful and sometimes delicate negotiation, and skilled drafting. But from the early months of Don's relationships in India went beyond those of a lawyer engaging in a constructive negotiation. He and the Indian men and women with whom he worked formed a collegial friendship that endured through later years.

I recall, for example, Don's association with Dr. C.D. Deshmukh, a distinguished educator and at the time head of the Indian University Grants Commission. When Dr. Deshmukh accepted Vice President Radhakrishnan’s request that he take the lead in organizing an international house in New Delhi, Don became his liaison with the Rockefeller interests. Dr. Deshmukh and his associates took Don into their confidence as they discussed the proposed institution’s functions, program patterns, desirable facilities, site and finances. In return he offered his own appraisals passed and along the experiences of other Rockefeller-related organizations in addressing similar matters. In frequent visits to New Delhi he helped them put their dreams and plans in words that would have meaning to international funding organizations, notably the Rockefeller Foundation and the JDR, 3rd Fund. All the time he kept John Rockefeller informed of the progress being made in New Delhi. As a perceptive go-between, he helped each end of this collaboration better to understand the outlook, possibilities, and difficulties of the other. In the process a friendship group and Don and his wife Martha became warm friends of Dr. and Mrs. Deshmukh.

Two images of Don's Indian connection remain strong in my mind. One derives from New Delhi. On announcement of Don’s impending arrival the pace of activity among the planners of the center would pick up. Dr. Deshmukh with his colleagues Dr. P.N. Kirpal, Laxmi Jain, the architect Joseph Stein, and others would ready themselves for discussions. Having come halfway across the world Don would then turn up without apparent travel fatigue, briskly settle down to consideration of one issue after another, offer his suggestions or criticisms or approval, and talk of the tactics of moving onto the next stage. In a country where many things move slowly, he was able at the end of almost every visit to report progress.

My other image is of Don in New York, reporting on the projects development in New Delhi. He would explain everything about the Indian’s achievements and difficulties to John Rockefeller, of course, and to those of us who were trustees of the JDR, 3rd Fund. He would also convey his impressions to officers of the Rockefeller Foundation, and possibly to others. His analyses were always clear-eyed. The Indians were approaching the project differently from the earlier, successful, organizational experience of the International House of Japan. But Indians were not Japanese, and Don would explain how in the Indian context their contrasting ways might also workout successfully. His interpretations of the Indian process had much to do with the acceptance by New York-based trustees, many of whom had little Indian experience, of assistance request from New Delhi.

Throughout the development of the plan for the India International Centre, Don was concerned that the question of appropriate leadership receive adequate attention in New Delhi. The total commitment of Dr. Shigeharu Matsumoto, its director, had been the key ingredient in the strong position attained by the International House of Japan. In India Deshmukh had felt that this other commitments would not permit him to play a similar role, though his interest was deep. Yet the more Don worked with him, the stronger he came to feel that the future of the Centre might well rest on getting Dr. Deshmukh wholly involved not just in the planning stage but in its ongoing operations. John Rockefeller agreed. , and Don arranged with Dr. Matsumoto that Dr. Deshmukh be invited to the International House of Japan as a distinguished lecturer. This experience and the encouragement of his Indian colleagues and American friends resulted in 1961 in Dr. Deshmukh’s taking over full leadership of the Center.

Don's responsibilities in the development of the India International Centre were completed by the time of its opening in 1962. Yet he retained his strong interest in the project. When he traveled to India years later, in 1976, on a mission for the Population Council and the Agricultural Development Council, Don and Martha stayed at the Center for several days. He later reported that he was impressed by the way it was operating, by its seminars and discussion groups, and by its role in India's national cultural and intellectual life. He was pleased also buys widening attraction to international academic and professional visitors to India.

Those of us who have resided in the India International Center in the 1980’s can confirm the value of the institution. The Center functions as a wholly Indian institution whose origins Americans can be proud to have been associated. 

To describe Don McLean’s role in India as that of a technician is accurate, but wholly inadequate. To be sure, he helped put proposals into language that would meet lawyers needs. He could, and did, help structure budgets in ways that could be understood by American foundation executives. He Interpreted Indians’ and Americans’ thought processes to each other.

Yet his real contributions went beyond those formal responsibilities. In India as elsewhere he was a Johnny Appleseed of ideas. He somehow managed to convey what had worked in one situation to those seeking a solution to problems in another. He hacked away at lack of realism in planning yet was able to shore up courage and optimism at the moments of discouragement that inevitably afflicted projects of this size and complexity. Indians paid him the complement of returning the favor.

Phillips Talbot was a fellow trustee of the JDR, 3rd Fund and cooperator in several Asian-related Rockefeller projects.  United States Ambassador to Greece 1965 to 1969, and before that Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and Southeast Asia, he was also an educator and writer who had been a journalist in Asian affairs for nearly 50 years.

Trusteeship…and paying your dues

John U. Monro

In the workaday life of a school or college, trustees are somehow always in the background, behind the scene, dimly perceived by faculty and students, shadowy transient figures that come and go. But trustees can make an enormous difference for good or ill. Trustees decide who will be headmaster or president, and having chosen a head they will back him up in developing and changing the program, monitor closely how things are going, counsel and steer him through major decisions, take issue or urge caution, approve, or suggest other ways to proceed. Trustees are responsible for the hard, detailed work of finances, for helping shape and monitor the budget, and for deciding upon and conducting major fun drives. In days of rapid social, fiscal, and political changes such as our last three decades, trustees, representing the world outside, must bring their outside knowledge to bear on the work and plans of the institution. On major issues trustees, like any strong-minded people, will disagree, often sharply, but for the good of the school they must work together to find consensus on which all can cheerfully agree.

There is no pay for any of this trustee work; It is done out of concern for the institution involved, “non sibi” as our school motto has it. The fact is that trustees are expected to give not only of their time and knowledge, but also of their own substance as a good example to others. And, I have learned over the years there is another element beyond “non sibi" that makes for a good board of trustees, and that is the inspiration one gets from being members of a good team, a successful team that works well together in a worthwhile and demanding institutional effort. Being a member of a great team in a tough game is a rare and ultimately rewarding experience, a joy. 

Donald H McLean was my great mentor and teacher in these matters. He had his own translation of “non sibi” which has haunted and effected my life for thirty years. The way Don put it was, “You pay your dues, meaning each of us owes an enormous debt to the people and institutions that helped to shape us, that we still inhabit and depend on everyday of our lives; and we must never in our time forget to “pay our dues." The value of Don McLean's definition for me, and I expect for others, is that it puts a rational and compelling reason to build the old Latin saw “non sibi" into one's life. It was part of Don McLean's genius to think through complicated ethical and operational problems and translate his conclusions into pithy, workable, earthly metaphors.

I can only begin to sketch here the major elements of change over the past thirty years at Andover in which Donald McLean had a leading role. These were years, as historian Fritz Allis has observed, when Andover "underwent more basic changes then in all its previous history."

Early in his long tenure as Headmaster, John Kemper decided it would add enormously to the strength of the school to build a significant alumni organization and involve its members in the critical business of observing school activities and policies, and giving the management advice. The decision was a major turning point in Andover affairs, and the 1950’s Donald McLean became a leading champion of the plan, one of the first presidents of the new Alumni Council. He and I joined the Charter Trustee group together in 1958 and set together in the far-end freshman seats. I remember well his enthusiasm at the opportunity of bringing new, younger alumni ideas and influence to bear on the Board’s business

Almost at once the board asked Don McLean to direct the huge Andover Program Fund Drive for $7 million to help John Kemper build the new Andover he had in mind, – the new dormitories around Rabbit Pond, the new Evans Science Building, and the Arts and Communication Center linking the museum and the stage in George Washington Hall. The campaign was a demanding three year effort of planning, organizing, and execution, and its success set Andover on its new course for this half-century. I remember that Tim Ireland was McLean's major partner in the alumni section of the drive, and Fred Stott was the key staff person; but Don McLean was the Chief Executive Officer and the chief hitman. And he saw to it that we all “hauled up our socks" and “paid our dues."

In the late 1960’s John Kemper developed two main issues that produced sharp divisions within the Board. He wanted Andover to be out front in joint efforts of the independent schools to provide educational opportunities for black students, and for Andover to direct its own admissions efforts to admit more black students. There were serious reservations within the Board about this proposal, - reservations that the program would be costly, and that it might well bring about a lowering of the schools traditionally high academic standards. That the Board finally reached a consensus to improve and encourage the program owed a great deal to Donald McLean's ability in human relations and one-on-one persuasion.

The most critical division within the board in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s rose on the issue of merging with Abbott Academy. By then the evidence was fairly clear that Andover would follow the national trend and go co-ed. The Abbott trustees could since this possibility for Phillips Academy also, and could foresee the problem such a move would create for Abbott, our neighbor down School Street. Informal conversations began, and John Kemper arrived at the firm conviction that the decent, honorable, gentlemanly course was not the fairly simple one of starting to admit girls to Andover, but the more complex and expensive course of working out a merger between the two schools, thus preserving as much as possible of the identity and tradition of Abbott Academy. Serious members of the board saw no good reason for the merger: it would be a heavy expense on Ancover’s resources, in legal fees and commitments; buildings would require renovation; there would be entanglements of contracts to teachers and staff; and we were under absolutely no legal commitment to Abbott Academy. They saw it as a violation of our fiscal responsibilities as trustees to take on an unnecessary financial and legal burden.

Donald McLean became President of the Board in 1968 and the Abbott issue was certainly the most divisive, difficult, and threatening problem he faced in his new term of responsibility. We did not know it then, but John Kemper had three years to live, and for much of the time he was in failing health. The Board’s division was not resolved; in fact, it hardened, though there was obvious pressure to reach a decision as soon as possible. Donald McLean supported John Kemper’s view, but needed a Board consensus; so the discussions went on, but the vote was postponed, deferred, put off. After John Kemper died, the disagreement and postponements went on for yet another year during Simeon Hyde’s interim tour as Acting Headmaster. 

Meanwhile we looked for a new Headmaster and in 1972 appointed Ted Sizer. His first task was to resolve the Abbott merger  problem, and he set about it with directness, energy, and sense. In his first meeting with us In July 1972, a special meeting of the Board, Sizer stated that it was his clear preference that coeducation be achieved by merging with Abbott. He further crisply outlined a series of steps to be followed which would complete the merger within a year. This intelligent, confident, evaluation was evidently the voice we had all been waiting for. We looked at one another, in relief. Nobody in the room was of a mind to tell this new this able new young Headmaster “no" to his first proposal. So Donald McLean then and there put the question and got the unanimous vote he had waited three years for.

When we acknowledge and cheer the result, we need to remember who it was that kept the issue alive through three agonizing years, who set up the search committee that found in nominated Ted Sizer, who briefed Sizer on the tangled ins and outs of the Abbott issue, and who scheduled a special July meeting so that we could settle the matter, and " get along with it." The happy scenario did not happen by accident. It took a lot of hard thought, and sense, and courage, and doing. And Donald McLean did it.

We all tend to think of Ted Sizer’s nine years at Andover as "glory" years in the life of the school, years of the successful transition to coeducation for student body, faculty, and staff, and with that the incredible transformation of a tough, old, male school; years of the extraordinary Bicentennial Celebration, and it's $52 million fund raising effort; years of an unimaginable expansion of course offerings that would be of interest to both faculty and students; years of academic explorations with short term institutes for high school students and the model M S Squared program for minority students to help them prepare for college; culminating in the selection of Donald and Bridget McNemar to step in confidently and well to carry forward the good work. 

Sizer years, to be sure, but to me these the great years of Sizer and McLean: the Headmaster with an educated genius for working with adolescents, gifted teacher and administrator, with a brisk style of intelligent, infectious, competent optimism; a Headmaster backed up at every turn, advised, prodded, cautioned, encouraged, and supported by the President of the Board, who was a superb judge of people and situations, who kept in touch day in and day out, issue after issue, with his fellow members of the Board, who knew how to state the issue before us, when to put the issue and when to delay it, and finally who somehow knew how to pull the Board of Trustees together as a team, a successful team in the great" worthy" enterprise, a joy to belong to and serve.

Donald McLean gave each of us a living model of what it means to "pay our dues."

John U. Monroe has been a trustee of Phillips Academy since 1957. A writer and educator he was Dean of Harvard College until 1967. Since then he has taught at Miles College and Tougaloo College. He has received honorary degrees from 12 colleges and universities.

A balance of ends and means

John L. Cooper

As President of the Andover Board of Trustees, Don flourished especially in the after-dinner gatherings in his suite at the Andover Inn where, with a glass in hand, he could corner those with a special interest in a given subject and work out a plan for putting across the proper program. He was most in his element when he could talk confidentially to the key people involved in any decision. What he liked was to get things completed once it became clear that a consensus with a reasonable majority of support has been attained. He liked the decisions to be reached first, if possible, by those members of the board who had the most reason to be interested and informed on the subject at hand. Ted Sizer described this best as, “his nicely balanced mixture of well-defined ends and carefully crafted means.” His method of operation worked well, except for the occasional frustrations of those board members who had not been present in the Inn and who arrived at the meeting the following morning to find a fait accompli in an area where they were prepared to launch a learned discourse.

In private conversations our female colleagues were "dollies" to Don. This was just an easy, short form way of referring to ladies, all of whom he liked. Anyone who was misinformed on a subject, especially those who did not share McLean's opinion, was "out to lunch on this one." On one occasion when the merger of Phillips Academy and Abbott Academy was being implemented, one or two "dollies" with intense feelings got into the subject of female representation on the Board of Phillips Academy. They took an extended lunch break on this one, with our President as the focus of their fears about future board discrimination against the Abbot constituency. Don waited patiently, but in vain, for some sort of group opinion to evolve; as our leader he was under siege and beginning to be visibly discomfited. This offered me an opportunity to try to accomplish something which I thought needed doing. I felt that we could make greater use of the Board’s standing committees, especially the nominating committee. The long discussion of future female representation seemed to me to present an opportunity to put the nominating committee to work, as well as to come to the rescue of our embattled standard-bearer. Accordingly, I moved that he refer the matter to the nominating committee. He excepted immediately, with profuse thanks. Over the next couple of years he frequently thanked me for the idea. I thought I had converted him into a regular use of the committee and congratulated myself on introducing a major advance in the governance of the Academy. Then one day, after thanking me one more time for rescuing him, he added, "of course, I had no intention of doing what you suggested. I expected to solve the matter in my own way. But you certainly got me off the hook at that terrible time."

Don was a straight thinker, and for this reason he became a Director of the mutual funds managed by Massachusetts Financial Services Company, where I spent most of my business life. His long and varied legal and business experience did not provide him with an especial interest in individual investments but, just as at Andover, he had an instinct for making sure that someone was doing the right things. As he attained some seniority he quietly assumed the position of spokesman for the “outside directors," those not part of the management. In 1982 Massachusetts Financial Services Company was sold to sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. The transfer of ownership requires the acquiescence of the outside directors of the funds and, as might be expected, these independent minded individuals did not all arrive at parallel conclusions at the same time. This provided the stuff of which McLean’s favorite playing turf was made. It was quite characteristic of Don that he saw this as an interesting challenge and he said to the Chairman of MFS, “I will have to decide how to go about bringing this off.” It was probably not the issue of the sale itself that interested him as much as how to produce a consensus that satisfied everyone.

Don was a "good" man who knew and appreciated the virtues that constituted successful living with one's fellow human beings, but he was not a formalist. He was a practical man and, happily, had a proper touch of wry amusement about his world. In his last months his wife, Martha, adjusted that it would be welcome if he could continue to receive the written material sent to Directors before each monthly meeting. One day when the envelope arrived, he said her her: "It certainly is wonderful to get some mail seeking my advice and counsel, in addition to the notes saying someone is praying for me."

John L Cooper was President and/or Chairman of Massachusetts Financial Services Company Boston, and a Trustee of Phillips Academy. He also served as President of the Trustees of Mount  Holyoke College and as a Trustee of Massachusetts General Hospital.