National Geographic

I wish to take issue with a recent Times review of a book about the National Geographic Society (“National Geographic Is Put on the Spot,” April 7). The reviewer, Lee Dembart, by his own admission acknowledges that he is not only ignorant of the National Geographic, but has an active dislike for it as well. This bias, to my way of thinking, makes him unqualified to review a book that is highly critical of the Society and which is replete with false statements, unsupported conclusions, and a generally careless assessment of the facts.

Dembart has accepted the validity of the book without ever having questioned its accuracy. A reviewer without his preconceptions, at the very least, would have done a little research. Instead, he has passed on to your audience (among them many of our 4 million readers in California) a distorted view of the society.

For example, Dembart parrots the book’s criticism that we view the world through rose-colored glasses. In the past 20 years, we have run numerous articles on world hunger, environmental pollution and apartheid. Last year alone, the National Geographic published stories on displaced South African tribal peoples, World War II internment camps for Japanese-Americans, the immune system and its response to AIDS, the devastating effects of nuclear testing on the peoples of Bikini, the last Jews living in Poland, revolution in the Philippines and the Soviet space program. These are hardly subjects of Pollyanna journalism.

The National Geographic has won many respected awards for its coverage. Dembart goes on to recite the book’s assertion that the society is a major publishing company masquerading as a nonprofit, educational, public-benefit corporation. There is no doubt that a large and loyal membership, attracted by our educational offerings, has made us a major publishing organization. However, I disagree with the insinuation that big must be bad. By that theory one would condemn the University of California, one of the nation’s finest institutions of higher learning.

Nonprofits should not be judged by their size but by their function and contribution. On this our record is distinguished. Last year we contributed $5 million to scientific research and exploration related to geography and awarded $7.5 million in public service grants and subsidies, most of it pertaining to geography and education. In California alone we are underwriting two alliances of geography educators, and last summer we trained 11 California geography teachers here in Washington at our expense.

To hit one more point, your reviewer focused on the book’s criticism of our nonprofit status, stating we could hardly be confused with a charity. The National Geographic is a tax-exempt organization, recognized under the laws of the United States. It receives the same preferential tax and postal treatments as thousands of universities, museums, hospitals, churches and organizations like the National Wildlife Federation and Audubon Society. As the laws are written, this treatment is available to all qualifying organizations--not just to traditional “charities.” We meet all the tests to be a nonprofit educational organization and are audited by the IRS. This information is no secret.

I’ll end by noting that the Harry Abrams Publishing Co. in New York is producing an independently written 100-year history of the National Geographic Society for our centennial in 1988. Our decision not to undertake this project ourselves was made to avoid any charges of biased reporting.

GILBERT M. GROSVENOR

President and chairman

National Geographic Society

Washington