(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The arts & government : questions for the ninties : November 8-11, 1990, Arden House, Harriman, New York"


THE ARTS & 

GOVERNMENT 



QUESTIONS FOR THE NINETIES 




NOVEMBER 8-11, 1990 

ARDEN HOUSE 
HARRIMAN, NEW YORK 



THE AMERICAN ASSEMBLY 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 



mi l' — ■ — ■ ~ ■ ' i i i " i 



The volume, Public Money & the Muse: Essays on Government Funding 
for the Arts, edited by Stephen Benedict, is an American Assembly book 
developed for the American Assembly on "The Arts and Government: 
Questions for the Nineties," the contents of which are listed on the follow- 
ing page. The book will be published in early spring, 1991, by W.W. Norton 
& Company. It is available to you in hardcover at a 15% discount off the list 
price of $22.95. To order, fill out the Coupon below and send with your 
check or credit card order to: 

W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 
500 Fifth Avenue 
New York, NY 10110 



■Coupon -Coupon- 



Please send me copies of Public Money & the Muse: Essays on Gov- 
ernment Funding for the Arts. I am entitled to a discount price of $19.50 per 
copy. I understand that I will receive my hardcover copy in early spring, 
1991. 

["I I enclose my check for $ . 

. ] Charge my 

Q Visa Q AM EX Q MasterCard 

Signature - 



Account # 
Exp. Date. 



CA and NY residents, please add sales tax. 
Name 



Address. 
City 



State Zip __^__ 

For SPRING 1991 
Coupon Coupon 



Additional copies of this report are available free of charge from: The Amer- 
ican Assembly, 412 Altschul Hall, Barnard College, Columbia University, 
New York, NY 10027-6598.Telephone: (212) 854-3456. FAX: (212) 662- 
3655. 



-2- 



PREFACE 

On November 8, 1990, seventy-one men and women 
from government, business, universities, labor, media, the 
law, arts organizations, and the arts met at Arden House in 
Harriman, New York for an American Assembly entitled The 
Arts and Government: Questions for the Nineties. For three 
days, the participants listened to panel discussions, an ad- 
dress by John E. Frohnmayer, chairman of the National En- 
dowment for the Arts, and viewed a performance piece by 
Guillermo Gomez-Pena. In small groups, they also discussed 
in depth the relationships between government and the arts in 
the United States, identified emerging issues that will confront 
the arts in the decade ahead, and suggested policy recom- 
mendations that would address these needs. The participants 
came from all regions of the country and represented a broad 
cross section of views and interests ranging from committed 
arts advocates to one participant who believes the govern- 
ment has no legitimate interest in supporting the arts. 

Stephen Benedict, former director of the Program in Arts 
Administration of Columbia University, and Steven Lavine, 
president of California Institute of the Arts, acted as co- 
directors of this Assembly program. Mr. Benedict supervised 
the preparation of papers used as background reading by the 
participants. Authors and titles of these papers, which will be 
compiled and published in the spring of 1991 as a book by W. 
W. Norton book entitled Public Money and the Muse: Essays 
on Government Funding for the Arts, are: 



Stephen Stamas Preface 

Stephen Benedict Foreword 

Arthur Levitt, Jr. Introduction 

Milton C. Cummings, Jr. Government and the Arts: An Over- 
view 

Kathleen M. Sullivan Artistic Freedom, Public Funding, 

and the Constitution 

Joan Jeffri The Artist in an Integrated Society 

-3- 



Dennie Palmer Wolf More than Minor Disturbances: 

Mary Burger The Piace of the Art in American 

Education 

Steven E. Weil Tax Policy and Private Giving 

Robert Garfias Cultural Diversity and the Arts in 

America 

Gerald D. Yoshitomi Cultural Democracy 

Paul J. DiMaggio Devolution of Arts Funding from the 

Federal Governement to the 
States 



The panel discussions held during the Assembly were: 

"The NEA under Siege: Lessons for the Arts and Gov- 
ernment in the '90s." Doris Dixon, Roy Goodman, Peter 
Kyros, Jr., and Bernice Johnson Reagon were panelists 
and William Strickland served as moderator. 

"1992: Fragments of a Performance," a performance 
piece by Guillermo Gomez-Pena. John Kreidler and 
Bernice Johnson Reagon were discussants and Steven 
Lavine served as moderator. 

"Art and the Public Good: Re-thinking the Case for 
Public Support." Kinshasha Conwill, William D, 
Grampp, and Stephen E. Weil were panelists and Anne 
Hawley served as moderator. 

"Translating the Public Good: Some Enduring Issues 
and the Need for New Approaches." John E. Frohnmay- 
er gave an address followed by a panel discussion with 
Michael O'Hare, Dennie Palmer Wolf, and Gerald D. 
Yoshitomi, moderated by Andrew Heiskell. 

"Who Decides?: The Grantmaking Process, Artistic 
Freedom, and the Right to Apply." Panelists were John 
Brademas, David Mendoza, Kathleen M. Sullivan, and 



J. Mark Davidson Schuster with Schuyler Chapin as 
moderator. 

"Keeping the Arts on the Agenda: Collective Action by a 
Community of Interest." Kitty Carlisle Hart, Charlotte 
Murphy, and Joel Wachs were the panelists, and Arthur 
Levitt, Jr. served as the moderator. 

"The Coming Competition for Resources" was moderat- 
ed by Raymond D. Nasher with Ruth Hirschman, Rob- 
ert Pease, and Michael Woo serving as panelists. 



The complete list of participants with their affiliations appears at 
the end of this report. 

Following the plenary panel sessions and the small group 
meetings, the co-directors and rapporteurs produced a draft of 
this report on November 1 1 , 1990 for discussion at the final ple- 
nary. A revised draft was submitted to all participants for review 
and, after further consultations and revisions, published. 

We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of The 
Rockefeller and AT&T Foundations, which funded this undertak- 
ing. They, as well as The American Assembly, take no position 
on subjects presented here for public discussion. In addition, it 
should be noted that the participants took part in this meeting as 
private individuals, and spoke for themselves rather than for the 
institutions or organizations with which they are affiliated. 



Stephen Stamas 

Chairman 

The American Assembly 



REPORT OF 
THE AMERICAN ASSEMBLY 

on 
The Arts And Government: 
Questions For The Nineties 

At the close of their discussions, the participants in 
The American Assembly on The Arts and Govern- 
ment: Questions for the Nineties, at Arden House, 
Harriman, New York, November 8-11, 1990, re- 
viewed as a group a draft of the following state- 
ment, which was then revised in the light of their 
comments. This statement represents general 
agreement; however, no one was asked to sign it. 
Furthermore, it should be understood that not eve- 
ryone agreed with all of it. 

PREAMBLE 

This American Assembly on The Arts and Government 
met in the immediate aftermath of the most serious challenge 
to direct federal support of the arts in the twenty-five year his- 
tory of the National Endowment for the Arts (N.E.A.). An 
eighteen-month public and congressional conflict had been 
provoked by two exhibitions assisted in part by the N.E.A. 
They included works of art that members of Congress and 
several private organizations seized upon to forward the ar- 
gument that public funds were being misapplied to support 
obscene and blasphemous materials. N.E.A. grant proce- 
dures, some asserted, were obviously not working and need- 
ed to be overhauled. Some of the opponents carried the ar- 
gument a step farther, maintaining that the episode proved 
the federal government has no legitimate role in funding the 
arts. 

This initial phase of the argument in 1989 led the Con- 
gress, for the first time, to impose content guidelines on 
N.E.A. grantmaking procedures. The controversy that fol- 
lowed soon became a lightning rod that exposed the wide 
variances among the American people in political, social, re- 
ligious, and aesthetic values, and raised anew basic ques- 
tions about the rationale for public arts support and the pro- 
cesses for its administration. The unfettered artistic freedom 



-6- 



envisaged in the original N.E.A. legislation could no longer be 
assumed inviolable. 

That government-aided art was not more widely support- 
ed by the general population came as a shock to many arts 
supporters. The realization grew that a much more concen- 
trated effort was needed to convey the positive achievements 
of the N.E.A. to a far wider spectrum of the population, and 
that the arts programs themselves were still reaching only a 
minority of the population. The content restrictions in the leg- 
islation raised their own set of Constitutional questions and 
brought about the direct involvement of a great many individ- 
ual artists, along with others, in political action to oppose the 
new provisions. 

When The American Assembly planned its meeting in the 
fall of 1989, the full extent of the challenge to federal funding 
was yet to unfold. It was clear only that further battles loomed 
and that significant issues were at stake. The spring and 
summer of 1990 witnessed a chain of dramatic and unpre- 
dictable events that left the outcome in constant doubt. The 
Assembly developed an agenda that sought to accommodate 
the fluid situation in Washington, but also to look ahead to is- 
sues of arts policy that would endure beyond the immediate 
crisis. As the calendar would have it, the legislative resolution 
of the controversy occurred only two weeks before the As- 
sembly met. The House and Senate agreed on a bill reau- 
thorizing the N.E.A. for three years and appropriating funds 
for the coming year at approximately the current level. 

Understandably, therefore, the topicality of this Assembly, 
which included participants who were almost all directly in- 
volved in some aspect of the drama just concluded, resulted 
in a lively and sometimes contentious meeting. Even so, a 
degree of consensus emerged, most prominently expressed 
in a statement of basic principles that reflect many of the dis- 
cussions and underlie this report's Findings and Recommen- 
dations. 

PRINCIPLES 

• A flourishing artistic life is in the best interests of 
a democratic society. The arts and the artist 
contribute to the nation's identity and to the edu- 
cation and happiness of its citizens. It is, there- 
fore, appropriate that government at all levels 



-7- 



join with the private sector to further the nation's artis- 
tic life and to provide access to the arts to all citizens. 

Excellence and the defining standards of excellence, 
which exist for every culture and for every art form, 
must be the touchstone of all government funding for 
the arts and artists. 

Constitutional principles of freedom of expression, es- 
sential to a democratic society, are of special impor- 
tance to a thriving artistic climate. Government policies 
and private actions that threaten to curb artistic 
"speech" or to constrict in any way the marketplace of 
ideas for the arts have no place in American society 
and must be vigorously opposed. 

Government arts programs should support new work 
of promise that may prove risky or unpopular. Some 
art has always been controversial and will continue to 
be, especially as cultures and art forms become more 
diverse and the boundaries of art continue to expand. 

Public funding policies must be administered accord- 
ing to the principle that no artist's work may be com- 
promised, suppressed, or unrecognized because of 
race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or political 
or rehgious beliefs. 

With public support goes public responsibility. Artists 
fulfill this responsibility by pursuing the highest quality 
work of which they are capable; arts organizations ful- 
fill it by carrying out their stated missions and by devel- 
oping broader and more critically aware publics for 
their work. 



FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The National Endowment for the Arts 

The National Endowment for the Arts, in its twenty-five 
years of operation, has proved an effective vehicle for promot- 
ing the support and appreciation of the arts in the United 



-8- 



States. It has broadened access, bringing the arts for the first 
■ time to millions of Americans. It has provided encouragement 
and support to institutions old and new, large and small, and 
has become the largest single source of support for the crea- 
tive work of individual artists across the land. 

The N.E.A., from its inception, has emphasized excellence 
in artistic achievement and the promise of achievement as the 
armature which connects all of its activities. The central mech- 
anism for judgements of quality and promise has been the 
grant advisory panels of peers and other professionals. The 
system has generally worked well to identify changing needs 
and develop new programs. Proposals for the improvement of 
the panel system to make it more responsive deserve atten- 
tion and should be examined. But care must be taken that the 
N.E.A.'s integrity as an institution be maintained and efforts 
resisted that would weaken its role as the central vehicle for 
direct federal support for the arts and artists. At this particular 
time, the N.E.A. has a specially compelling responsibility to 
protect freedom of expression, not only for the artists it sup- 
ports but for every artist. 

This Assembly believes the N.E.A. should: 

•Strengthen the institutions through which the arts are 
produced and presented to the public, reflecting in all 
its actions the full range of traditions and artistic forms 
that comprise this country's cultural vitality. 

•Promote greater access to the arts by new and under- 
served communities and assist them in their efforts to 
build and stabilize their own institutions. 

•Continue to support, through grants, fellowships, and 
other assistance, artists of accomplishment and prom- 
ise, whether working in traditional, non-traditional, ex- 
perimental, or innovative forms. 

•Work to increase appropriations to the N.E.A. so as to 
restore, at a minimum, the real purchasing power of its 
budget at the beginning of the 1 980s. 

•Exercise leadership in exploring and developing the 
central issues of cultural policy by strengthening the 
N.E.A.'s research program, funding private research ef- 
forts, and convening conferences on major policy is- 
sues. 

-9- 



Of particular concern to all those who participated in this 
Assembly was the role of the N.E.A. and other levels of gov- 
ernment in furthering the arts in education. Because of the 
special importance of the subject, it is addressed in a later 
section of this report. 

State and Local Arts Support 

As the N.E.A. developed, arts agencies in every state and 
territory became significant partners, encouraged in many in- 
stances by the N.E.A.'s example. In addition, local arts agen- 
cies, both public and private, grew rapidly. They now number 
more than 4,000, and are receiving more than $100 million a 
year in tax funds. Their contribution to promoting cultural plu- 
ralism and nurturing individual artists has become increasingly 
significant. 

While federal appropriations to the N.E.A. stagnated in the 
1980s, state arts agencies experienced dramatic growth. To- 
day total state appropriations are 60 percent greater than the 
N.E.A.'s. The statutory allocation to state arts agencies of at 
least 20 percent of N.E.A. program funds has substantially 
aided the efforts by other levels of government to support the 
arts. 

In the reauthorization of the statute in 1990, a new provi- 
sion was adopted to increase the allocation of N.E.A. program 
funds to state and local arts agencies to 35 percent by Fiscal 
Year 1993. The long-term consequences of this action by 
Congress, part of a last-minute compromise, were not ade- 
quately examined. The action carries the risk of diminishing 
the national leadership role of the N.E.A. and producing ad- 
verse results for artists and arts institutions. State and local 
arts agency funding should continue to be increased, but not 
at the expense of the N.E.A.'s important national role. This 
Assembly recommends that: 

• The new provision increasing the N.E.A. allocation to 
the states should be carefully reviewed by the next 
Congress and modified, if necessary. 

• Any increased federal allocations to the states must 
not be allowed to replace existing state arts agency 
funds. Consideration should be given to requiring 
states to match any increase in federal funds with new 
appropriations. 



10-' 



Advocacy and Political Action 

To keep the arts on the public agenda, a broader constitu- 
ency must be found and developed. The events of the past 
eighteen months forced supporters of the arts to confront the 
political process head-on, but the arts community as a whole 
was not prepared to compete on equal terms with its adver- 
saries. The controversy also revealed vast differences among 
many Americans about the nature of art and the role of the 
artist. 

The steady overall increase in funding in the 1970s and 
1980s from the private and public sectors had tended to ob- 
scure the need to bring about better understanding among 
arts supporters, artists, and the public. In addition, it became 
clear that arts supporters had to become more politically so- 
phisticated in the techniques used by successful claimants to 
public support. 

It was also the case that fractures occurred in the arts 
community itself as a result of differing objectives and per- 
spectives. Arts advocacy can only succeed if all participants in 
the process refrain from asserting their interests at the ex- 
pense of others. Every group must benefit in an equitable 
way. Advocacy is stronger to the extent that coalition is com- 
plete. 

In future, while differences within the arts community must 
be acknowledged, ways must be found to coalesce around 
commonly shared goals and to pursue them in a spirit of 
cooperation. 

To improve the case for the arts and its presentation to the 
public, this Assembly recommends that: 

• Arts advocates improve communication to the public 
about ways that government-supported arts programs 
and projects are benefiting the economies of, and en- 
hancing the quality of life in, cities, towns, and other lo- 
calities. 

• Arts supporters explore more effective ways to involve 
citizens at the grassroots level in articulating and work- 
ing for cultural policies that benefit everyone. 

• Arts communities closely monitor proposed federal, 
state, and local legislation and regulations that have po- 



•11 



tential application to the arts. Artists and arts institutions 
should be prepared to support or oppose specific meas- 
ures, as appropriate. 

Arts communities, including the for-profit arts and enter- 
tainment industry, forge working alliances with other 
groups that intersect with the arts, including labor un- 
ions, educational and religious organizations, chambers 
of commerce, and economic development councils. 

Arts advocates initiate a coalition with corporate chief 
executive officers who understand the central role of 
the arts in communities and are prepared to serve as 
advocates for the arts with all levels of government. 

Arts professionals develop a network of institutions de- 
voted to the basic research, rigorous analysis, and con- 
tinuing exchange of information needed to define and 
reinforce advocacy objectives. 



Cultural Diversity and Government Support 

This country's artistic life has always been distinguished 
by the remarkable range of cultures from which its artists have 
drawn their inspiration. In recent years, these cultures have 
been expanded and enriched by new waves of immigrants. 
The historic problems of adaptation and community accep- 
tance are as challenging and difficult now as they have ever 
been. Our best imagination- and understanding is required to 
minimize the social dislocations and conflicts that always ac- 
company immigrations from other cultures. 

In the clash of cultures, artists have always had a special 
capacity to illuminate the differences among peoples and ex- 
pose the reasons for conflict. They may not provide solutions, 
but their insights can be crucial in helping us understand and 
accommodate diversity and change. 

If the arts and artists from the many specific cultures con- 
tributing to this country's extraordinary diversity are to make 
their full contribution to national life, they need help. Aided by 
a variety of tax incentives to giving, the arts as a whole in the 
United States receive their primary financial support from the 
private sector — individuals, foundations, and corporations. 



-12- 



However, because private giving is voluntary, there is no as- 
surance that every deserving need in the spectrum of need 
will be addressed. 

Some communities, despite the richness and quality of 
their cultural achievements, have yet to gain equal access to 
many private sources of funding. Public agencies, on the oth- 
er hand, are often in a position to identify and assist under- 
served populations. For communities still seeking to share in 
the private philanthropy that is directed primarily toward larger 
and better known institutions, public agencies have a respon- 
sibility to address their unmet needs. Government recognition 
and support may also have the effect of encouraging private 
giving and improving access to private sources. If the cultural 
requirements of underserved communities are to be effective- 
ly addressed by government, this Assembly recommends 
that: 

• Public arts agencies take the steps necessary to ensure 
recognition for every culture in our society. The statuto- 
ry definition of the arts must be revised, if necessary, to 
embrace activities, forms, and expressions that may not 
be eligible for assistance according to current defini- 
tions. 

• Guidelines of public funding agencies be developed, 
and staff and panel members selected, to ensure that 
the criteria of quality and excellence applied to the art of 
all cultures reflect an understanding and awareness of 
their specific values and traditions. 

• Public arts agencies encourage opportunities for the 
professional development of artists and arts administra- 
tors from communities with a history of unequal access. 
Programs should also be developed within such com- 
munities that reflect their special character and 
needs. 

International Cultural Policy 

In the wake of the Cold War, the United States must adopt 
new international cultural policies for a transformed world. 
New needs and opportunities exist for the arts as a means of 
representing this country's national character, its diversity, 



•13- 



ideals, and objectives to the rest of the world. A broad range 
of initiatives by the appropriate federal agencies is required. 
This Assembly recommends: 

• Expanded cooperative public and private programs for 
the full and free exchange of art and artists with other 
countries. 

• Developing exchange programs that tap the abundant 
cultural resources brought by the waves of new immi- 
grants in the past two decades, as well as those of Afri- 
can Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian 
Americans. 

• A comprehensive study of international cultural policy 
by the appropriate federal agencies, drawing on private 
as well as public sector resources and experience and 
recommending specific actions. 

• Careful consideration by the Administration of the ad- 
vantages to the United States of rejoining the United 
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural* Organiza- 
tion (UNESCO). 

Tax Policies 

Tax policies are critical to the stability of the arts in the 
United States. Exemptions, deductions, and other special 
rules affecting taxable income, property, customs, and other 
taxes are indirect forms of aid that dwarf direct support in 
overall amount. Tax provisions that benefit the arts, as well as 
education and other social needs, constitute an enlightened 
approach to public policy that is distinctive to this country. Tax 
law can provide valuable incentives to private giving, decen- 
tralize decision-making, and establish a desirable counter- 
weight to direct support. 

Changes in the tax law often come about in response to 
broad political forces. Frequently the impact on arts and cul- 
ture of such changes is not given sufficient attention. For ex- 
ample, the effect on charitable giving of the dramatic reduc- 
tion in the top marginal tax rate is still unclear. By contrast, it 
soon became evident that changed provisions in the 1986 tax 
code affecting the full deductibility of the market value of gifts 
of appreciated personal property had caused a sudden and 



■14- 



serious decline in gifts of art and manuscripts to museums 
and other institutions. Vigorous advocacy by a coalition of mu- 
seums and charity federations has managed to restore, in 
part, the prior provision, though for only one year. 

A variety of proposals for special tax treatment of the arts 
continues to be advanced, including some new ideas such as 
special assessment districts. More than other forms of aid, 
however, tax-based assistance may set the interests of the 
arts against those of a larger society. 

In light of the above considerations, this Assembly recom- 
mends that appropriate research bodies: 

• Analyze the advantages and disadvantages for the arts 
of present and proposed tax provisions. 

• Identify successful examples of the creative use of tax 
laws by arts institutions and public agencies. 

The Arts in Education 

To those who have worked in the field of arts education, 
the relevance of the arts to human development is unques- 
tionable. Only in recent years, however, has systematic re- 
search established that the arts are, in fact, special ways of 
knowing — ways that are as essential to basic education as 
the mastery of verbal and numerical skills. It is also the case 
that for many children, school-based arts programs provide 
them with their first direct arts experiences and are the begin- 
ning of a lifelong commitment. Arts education, therefore, must 
be a priority for both the arts and education communities and 
should actively engage federal, state, and local arts and edu- 
cation agencies. Sequential arts education must be encour- 
aged, and such programs should be supported by careful re- 
search and adequate resources. This Assembly recommends 
that: 

• The National Endowment for the Arts initiate action to 
achieve a consensus around national goals for arts edu- 
cation. 

• The N.E.A. play an expanded role in the advocacy of arts 
education, using the authority of the Chairman's office to 
raise awareness at the federal, state, and local levels. 



•15- 



• Federal, state, and local agencies identify and fund ex- 
emplary arts education models and recognize outstand- 
ing individual leadership in every area of achievement. 

• All government arts education support be based on 
equal access, especially to people of color and in less 
privileged communities, and reflect an awareness of 
this country's range of cultures and art forms. 

' Government programs at all levels be prepared to pro- 
tect the work of artists, teachers, and other educators 
as they involve students in making and thinking about 
works of art that will sometimes be at variance with 
community values. 

A Final Word 

The Assembly adjourned to an uncertain domestic and in- 
ternational climate. At home, a period of economic stringency 
was underway and hard choices to deal with compelling social 
needs would be required by the country. Abroad, the crisis in 
the Gulf and its potential consequences were casting an omi- 
nous shadow. 

Throughout the discussions, Assembly participants recog- 
nized that in such a climate of scarcity, the structures that 'sus- 
tain the arts will need all the imagination and ingenuity they 
can summon. Already limited resources will need to be 
stretched even farther just to maintain current levels of activi- 
ty. But despite the outlook, the conviction remained that the 
power of the arts to heal and help, teach and question is as 
strong as ever. Now, in fact, may be a time when they are 
needed more than ever. 



-16- 



PARTICIPANTS 



GEORGE H.J. ABRAMS 
Special Assistant to the Director 
National Museum of the 

American Indian 
Smithsonian Institution 
New York, NY 

MARIE ACOSTA-COLON 

Director 

The Mexican Museum 

San Francisco, CA 

ALBERTA ARTHURS 
Director for Arts & Humanities 
The Rockefeller Foundation 
New York, NY 

J. THOMAS BACCHETTI 
Executive Director 
Atlanta Symphony Orchestra 
Atlanta, GA 



STEPHEN BENEDICT 
Founder and Former Director 
Graduate Program in Arts 

Administration 
Columbia University 
New York, NY 

SUSAN S. BLOOM 
Vice President 
Worldwide Cultural Affairs 
American Express Company 
New York, NY 

JOHN BRADEMAS 

President 

New York University 

New York, NY 

CAROL R. BROWN 

President 

The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust 

Pittsburgh, PA 



MARY BURGER 
Research Assistant 
Harvard Project Zero 
Graduate School of Education 
Harvard University 
Cambridge, MA 

CORA CAHAN 

President 

42nd Street Entertainment 

Corporation 
New York, NY 

LUIS R. CANCEL 
Executive Director 
The Bronx Museum of the Arts 
Bronx, NY 

o SCHUYLER G. CHAPIN 
Vice President, 
Worldwide Concert 
& Artist Activities 
Steinway & Sons 
New York, NY 

EUGENE V. CLARK 
Representative of the Vatican 

Museums in the United States, 

Washington, DC 
Archdiocese of New York 
St. Agnes Church 
New York, NY 

DUDLEY COCKE 
Director, Roadside Theater 
Appalshop, Inc. 
Whitesburg, KY 

JAN COLLMER 

President 

Collmer Semiconductor, Inc. 

Dallas, TX 

• KINSHASHA CONWILL 
Executive Director 
The Studio Museum in Harlem 
New York, NY 



-17- 



MILTON C. CUMMINGS, JR. 
Professor of Political Science 
Department of Political Science 
Johns Hopkins University 
Baltimore, MD 

GORDON DAVIS 

Lord, Day, & Lord, Barrett, Smith 

New York, NY 

LEON B. DENMARK 
Executive Director 
Newark Symphony Hall 
Newark, NJ 

VISHAKHA N. DESAI 

Director 

The Asia Society Galleries 

New York, NY 

JOAN DILLON 
Board Member 
American Arts Alliance 
Kansas City, MO 

t PAUL J. DiMAGGIO 
Associate Professor, 

Department of Sociology 
Yale University 
New Haven, CT 

• DORIS DIXON 
Professional Staff Member 
Senate Labor and 

Human Resources Committee 
(Senator Thad Cochran) 
Washington, DC 

x JOHN E. FROHNMAYER 
Chairman 

National Endowment for the Arts 
Washington, DC 

DONALD H. GAREIS 

Trustee 

Robert W. Woodruff 

Arts Center, Inc. 
Atlanta, GA 

* JACKIE GOLDENBERG 
Editor 

Independent Commission Report 
New York, NY 



xxGUILLERMO GOMEZ-PENA 
Performance Artist 
San Diego, CA 

• ROY M.GOODMAN 
New York State Senate 
New York, NY 



• WILLIAM D. GRAMPP 
Professor of Economics 
University of Illinois 
Chicago, IL 

DONALD R. GREENE 

President 

The Coca-Cola Foundation 

Atlanta, GA 

• KITTY CARLISLE HART 

Chairman 

New York State Council 

on the Arts 
New York, NY 

toANNE HAWLEY 
Director 
Isabella Stewart 

Gardner Museum 
Boston, MA 

o ANDREW HEISKELL 
Chairman 

The New York Public Library 
New York, NY 

• RUTH HIRSCHMAN 
General Manager 
KCRW 

Santa Monica, CA 

JOAN JEFFRI 
Director 
Research Center 

for Arts & Culture 
School of the Arts 
Columbia University 
New York, NY 

REATHA CLARK KING 
President & Executive Director 
General Mills Foundation 
Minneapolis, MN 



•18- 



JOHN KREIDLER 
Program Executive 
The San Francisco Foundation 
San Francisco, CA 

PETER N. KYROS, JR. 
General Partner 
Potomac Investment Associates 
Westlake Village, CA 



STEVEN LAVINE 

President 

California Institute of the Arts 

Valencia, CA 

FRED LAZARUS 

President 

The Maryland Institute 

College of Art 
Baltimore, MD 

LEONARD LEIBOWITZ, ESQ. 

Attorney 

New York, NY 

ARTHUR LEVITT, JR. 
Chairman of the Board, 

Levitt Media Company 
Board Member, 

The Rockefeller Foundation 
New York, NY 

HARVEY LICHTENSTEIN 
President and 

Executive Producer 
Brooklyn Academy of Music 
Brooklyn, NY 

VICTOR MASAYESVA, JR. 
Filmmaker-Artist 
Is Productions 
Hotevilla, AZ 

RUTH R. MAYLEAS 
Program Officer, 

Education & Culture Program 
The Ford Foundation 
New York, NY 

TIMOTHY J. McCLIMON 
Vice President 
AT&T Foundation 
New York, NY 



VALA. MclNNES 
Director of Development & 
Director of Judeo-Christian 

Studies, 
Tulane University 
South Dominican Foundation 
New Orleans, LA 

CHARLES L. MEE, JR. 
Playwright and Historian 
New York, NY 

• DAVID MENDOZA 
Executive Director 
Artist Trust 
Seattle, WA 

RICHARD MITTENTHAL 

Partner 

The Conservation Company 

New York, NY 

• ELIZABETH MURFEE 
President 

EMC Company 
New York, NY 

• CHARLOTTE MURPHY 
Executive Director 
National Association 

of Artists' Organizations & 
National Campaign for 

Freedom of Expression 
Washington, DC 

o RAYMOND D.NASHER 
President's Committee 

on the Arts and the Humanitites 
Dallas, TX 

• MICHAEL O'HARE 
Lecturer in Public Policy 
John F, Kennedy 

School of Government 
Harvard University 
Cambridge, MA 

• ROBERT PEASE 
Executive Director 
Allegheny Conference 

Community Development 
Pittsburgh, PA 



-19- 



• BERNICE JOHNSON REAGON 
Curator 

National Museum of 
American History 
Smithsonian Institution 
Washington, DC 

t REBECCA RILEY 
Director 

Special Grants Program 
John D. and Catherine T. 
MacArthur Foundation 
Chicago, IL 

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ 
Executive Director 
Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center 
San Antonio, TX 

STEPHEN L. SALYER 
President & 

Chief Executive Officer 
American Public Radio 
Minneapolis, MN 

* SUZANNE M. SATO 
Associate Director for 

Arts and Humanitites 
The Rockefeller Foundation 
New York, NY 

fJ. MARK DAVIDSON 
SCHUSTER 
Associate Professor 
Department of Urban 

Studies & Planning 
Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology 
Cambridge, MA 

RUTH SHACK 

President 

Dade Community Foundation 

Miami, FL 

| RICHARD E. SHERWOOD 
Partner 

O'Melveny & Myers 
Los Angeles, CA 

o WILLIAM STRICKLAND 
Executive Director 
Manchester Craftman's Guild 
Pittsburgh, PA 



• KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN 
Professor 

Harvard Law School 
Cambridge, MA 

f BARBARA L. TSUMAGARI 
Executive Director 
The Kitchen 
New York, NY 

MARTA VEGA 

President & Executive Director 
Caribbean Cultural Center 
New York, NY 

• JOELWACHS 
Second District 

Los Angeles City Council 
Los Angeles, CA 

LEWIS WALDECK 
Director, Symphonic 

Services Division 
American Federation 

of Musicians 
New York, NY 

• STEPHEN E.WEIL 
Deputy Director 
Hirshhom Museum 

and Sculpture Garden 
Smithsonian Institution 
Washington, DC 

• DENNIE PALMER WOLF 
Senior Research Associate, 
The Development Group 
Harvard Project Zero 
Graduate School of Educaation 
Harvard University 
Cambridge, MA 

• MICHAEL WOO 
Thirteenth District 

Los Angeles City Council 
Los Angeles, CA 

t- GERALD D. YOSHITOMI 
Executive Director 
Japanese American 

Cultural & Community Center 
Los Angeles, CA 



o 

X 
XX 



Discussion Leader 

Rapporteur 

Panelist 

Panel Moderator 

Delivered a Formal Address 

Presented a Pertormance Piece 



-20- 



ABOUT THE AMERICAN ASSEMBLY 

The American Assembly was established by Dwight D. Eisenhower at 
Columbia University in 1950. It holds nonpartisan meetings and publishes 
authoritative books to illuminate issues of United States policy. 

An affiliate of Columbia, with offices in the Helen Goodhart Altschul Hall 
on the Barnard College campus, the Assembly is a national, educational in- 
stitution incorporated in the State of New York. 

The Assembly seeks to provide information, stimulate discussion, and 
evoke independent conclusions on matters of vital public interest. 



American Assembly Sessions 

At least two national programs are initiated each year. Authorities are re- 
tained to write background papers presenting essential data and defining 
the main issues of each subject. 

A group of men and women representing a broad range of experience, 
competence, and American leadership meet for several days to discuss the- 
Assembly topic and consider alternatives for national policy. 

All Assemblies follow the same procedure. The background papers are 
sent to participants in advance of the Assembly. The Assembly meets in 
small groups for four or five lengthy periods. All groups use the same agen- 
da. At the close of these informal sessions participants adopt in plenary 
session a final report of findings and recommendations. 

Regional, state, and local Assemblies are held following the national ses- 
sion at Arden House. Assemblies have also been held in England, Switzer- 
land, Malaysia, Canada, the Caribbean, South America, Central America, 
the Philippines, and Japan. Over one hundred sixty institutions have cospon- 
sored one or more Assemblies. 



Arden House 

Home of The American Assembly and scene of the national sessions is 
Arden House, which was given to Columbia University in 1950 by W. 
Averell Harriman. E. Roland Harriman joined his brother in contributing to- 
ward adaptation of the property for conference purposes. The buildings 
and surrounding land, known as the Harriman Campus of Columbia 
University, are fifty miles north of New York City. 

Arden House is a distinguished conference center. It is self-supporting 
and operates throughout the year for use by organizations with educational 
objectives. The American Assembly is a tenant of this Columbia University 
facility only during Assembly sessions. 



-21 



AMERICAN ASSEMBLY BOOKS 

1951 — U.S. -Western Europe Relationships 

1952 — Inflation 

1953 — Economic Security for Americans 

1954 —The U.S. Stake in the U.N. • The Federal Government Service (revised 1965) 

1955 — United States Agriculture • The Forty-eight States (State Government) 

1956 — The Representation of the United States Abroad (revised 1964) 

— The United States and the Far East (revised 1962) 

1957 — International Stability and Progress • Atoms for Power 

1958 — The United States and Africa (revised 1963) 

— United States Monetary Policy (revised 1964) 

1959 — Wages, Prices, Profits, and Productivity 

— The United States and Latin America (revised 1963) 

1960 — The Federal Government and Higher Education • The Secretary of State 

1 961 — Arms Control: Issues for the Public 

— Outer Space: Prospects for Man and Society (revised 1968) 

1962 — Automation and Technological Change 

— Cultural Affairs and Foreign Relations (revised 1968) 

1963 — The Population Dilemma (revised 1969) • The United States and the Middle East 

1964 — The United States and Canada • The Congress and America's Future (rev. 1973) 

1 965 — The Courts, the Public, and the Law Explosion 

— The United States and Japan (revised 1975) 

1966 — The United States and the Phillippines • State Legislatures in American Politics 

— A World of Nuclear Powers? • Challenges to Collective Bargaining 

1967 — The United States and Eastern Europe • Ombudsmen for American Government? 

1968 — Law in a Changing America • Uses of the Seas • Overcoming World Hunger 

1969 — Black Economic Development • The States and the Urban Crisis 

1970 — The Health of Americans • The United States and the Caribbean 

1971 — The Future of American Transportation • Public Workers and Public Unions 

1972 — The Future of Foundations • Prisoners in America 

1 973 — The Worker and the Job • Choosing the President 

1 974 — The Good Earth of America • On Understanding Art Museums • Global Companies 

1975 — Law and the American Future • Women and the American Economy 

1 976 — The Nuclear Power Controversy • Jobs for Americans 

— Capital for Productivity and Jobs 

1 977 — Ethics of Corporate Conduct • The Performing Arts and American Society 

1978 — Running the American Corporation • Race for the Presidency 

1979 — Energy Conservation and Public Policy • Disorders in Higher Education 

1980 — Youth Employment and Public Policy • The Economy and the President 

— The Farm and the City • Mexico and the United States 

1981 — The China Factor • Military Service in the United States 

— Ethnic Relations in America 

1982 — The Future of American Political Parties • Regrowing the American Economy 

1983 — Financial Services • Technological Innovation in the Eighties 

1 984 — Alcoholism and Related Problems • The Arts and Public Policy in the United States 

— Canada and the United States 

1985 — The Promise of Tax Reform • East-West Tensions in the Third World 

1986 — World Population and U.S. Policy '"Health Care and Its Costs 

1987 — A Workable Government? The U.S. Constitution • Global Competitiveness 

1988 — America's Global Interests • U.S. Global Economic Interests In The 1990s 

1989 — The Global Economy 

1990 — Perserving The Global Environment • Tort Law and the Public Interest 

— Public Money & the Muse (forthcoming) 

1991 — Redefining America's Security (forthcoming) 

Available from The American Assembly 

-22- ' 



lie American Assembly. 



Columbia University 



Trustees 

Arthur G. Altschul 
Charles Benton 
William Block 
Richard Blumenthal 
Henry G. Cisneros 
Jewel Plummer Cobb 
Bradley Currey, Jr. 
Meyer Feldberg 
Robert H. Finch 
Ellen V. Flitter 
Roberto C. Goizueta 
Clifford M. Hardin 
B. R. Inman 
Sol M. Linowitz 
Kathleen H. Mortimer 
Fayez Sarofim 
Isabel V. Sawhill 
Daniel A. Sharp, ex officio 
Eleanor Bernert Sheldon 
Michael I. Sovern, ex officio 

STEPHEN STAMAS, Chairman 

Paul A. Volcker 
Clarence C. Walton 



New York 

Illinois 

Pennsylvania 

Connecticut 

Texas 

California 

Georgia 

New York 

California 

New York 

Georgia 

Missouri 

Texas 

District of Columbia 

New York 

Texas 

District of Columbia 

Connecticut 

New York 

New York 

New York 

New York 

Pennsylvania 



Officers 

Daniel A. Sharp, President 

David H. Mortimer, vice President 

ELEANOR H. TEJIRIAN, Secretary-Treasurer 



Trustee Emeritus 
J. Erik Jonsson 



Texas