NOMINATION
Y4.L 11/4: S.HRG. 103-629
Nonination, S.Hrg. 103-62?, 103-1 H. . .
HEARING
OP THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
SHELDON HACKNEY, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE CHAIRPERSON OF THE
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
JUNE 25, 1993
Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources
*'■>...
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-365 CC WASHINGTON ! 1993
For sale by the IS. Govemmeni Priming Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 2(U()2
ISBN 0-16-044671-6
1
NOMINATION
Y 4.L 1 1/4: S.HRG. 103-629
Nonination, S.Hrg. 103-629, 103-1 H. . .
HEARING
OP THE
COMMITTEE ON
LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
SHELDON HACKNEY, OF PENNSYLVANIA, TO BE CHAIRPERSON OF THE
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
JUNE 25, 1993
Printed for the use of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources
^^
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-355 CC WASHINGTON : 1993
For sale b> the IS Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. \& a-<hineion. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044671-6
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
EDWARD U KENNEDY.
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode laland
HOWARD If. METZENBAUM. Ohio
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticnt
PAUL SIMON, IThno-
TOM HARKTN, Iowa
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI. Maryland
JEFF BINGAMAN. New Mezioo
PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
HARRIS WOFFORD. Pennaytrania
NlCX LrmMTOLD, Staff Director and Chief Cotutoel
SUSAN K Hattan, Minority Staff Director
Chairman
NANCY LANDON KASSEBAUM,
JAMES M JEFFORDS, Vermont
DAN COATS, Indiana
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
STROM THURMOND, Sooth Carohna
ORRIN G. HATCH. Utah
DAVE DURENBERGER, Minn—nta
(ID
CONTENTS
STATEMENTS
Friday, June 26, 1993
Shelby, Hon. Richard C, a UJS. Senator from the State of Alabama 1
Fogbetta, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania _ -..«..«.__ -»^__«^^.^.^. ^._ „.___„.„ 3
Hackney, Sheldon, nominee for the position of Chairman, National Endow-
ment for the Humanities 8
APPENDIX
Hackney, Sheldon, prepared statement 51
Biographical sketch of 56
Weflstone, Hon. Paul D., a US. Senator from the State of Minnesota, pre-
pared statement (with attachment) 64
Blackwell, Hon. Lucien E., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Pennsylvania, prepared statement 65
National Association of Scholars, Stephen H. Balch, president, prepared state-
Setting the record straight, by Eden Jacobowitz 70
Responses of Sheldon Hackney to questions asked by Senator Ka&sebaum 75
A message to the university community, by Alvin V. Shoemaker 77
Letter from Sondra Myers, cultural advisor to the Governor of Pennsylvania,
in support of Sheldon Hackney, to Senator Harris Wofford, dated June
10, 1993 78
Letter from the Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation, in support of Sheldon
Hackney, to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, dated June 16, 1993 79
Penn and Philadelphia: Common Ground, by Sheldon Hackney, report of 81
A Presidential Nomination? Forget It., by John C. Danforth, from the Wash-
ington Post 93
A Dependence on Trust and Civility, by Thomas Ehrlich 94
The Sheldon Haknev I Admire, by Mike Wallace, correspondent, CBS/60
Minutes, from the New York Tunes 94
Letters of support for the Sheldon Hakney nomination 95
OH)
NOMINATION
FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1993
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:36 a.m., in room
SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Edward M. Ken-
nedy (chairman of the committee) presiaing.
Present: Senators Kennedy, Pell, Wofford, Kassebaum, Coats,
and Hatch.
Opening Statement of Senator Kennedy
The CHAffiMAN. Well come to order.
At the outset of the hearing, I thought I would outline the way
we intend to proceed, and that is first, to ask our good friends and
colleagues, Senator Wofford and Congressman Foglietta, to make
introductory comments.
Senator Heflin and Senator Shelby had intended to be here. As
we all know, it was a long evening, and I know they are enthusias-
tic in their support, Mr. Hackney, but as you are well aware, we
were in until the wee hours of the morning, and they asked me to
extend their best wishes, and they will include their comments in
the record itself.
Then, well hear whatever brief opening comments members of
the committee wish to make, and then well hear from you.
[The prepared statements of Senators Heflin and Shelby follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Shelby
Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I introduce Dr. Francis Sheldon
Hackne to this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to make this introduction,
for I believe that Dr. Hackney is exceptionally qualified to serve as the Chairman
of the National Endowment of the Humaities.
Dr. Hackney is a native Alabamian from one of the State's renowned and distin-
fuished families. He received his bachelor's degree from Vanderbilt University in
965. He spent the next 5 years serving his country in the VS. Navy and went on
to earn his MA. and PhJ). degrees from Yale University. Subsequently, be continu-
ously has advanced in an outstanding career in higher education.
It would be difficult, if not impossible because of time constraints, to talk about
all of Dr. Hackney's accomplishments; however, I would like to highlight some of
his achievements which illustrate his fitness to serve in this capacity.
He is a noted hiostorian of the American South who has received numerous hon-
ors and awards for his publications. In 1969, he was the recipient of the Albert J.
Bevridge award for the best book on American History.
Dr. Hackney has chaired and holds membership on a number of boards — the
American Council of Education, the Educational Testing Service, the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the West Philadelphia Partnership,
the Philadelphia Mayors Commission on rthe 21st Century, the Afro-American His-
(1)
torical and Cultural Museum, and the Consortium on financing Higher Education
to name a few of them.
In addition, he activley has participated in professional associations such as the
Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities, the Committee on Rights of Historians
of the American Historical Association, the Association for the Advancement of Men-
tal health, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational fund, the American Friends
of Hebrew University, and the American Philosophical Society.
As the chief executive of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Hackney is respon-
sible for all academic and administrative functions of its 12 schools, its medical cen-
ter, and its more than 20,000 employees. The University has experienced a 347 per-
cent growth in its endowment and a 300 percent increase in annual voluntary con-
tributions under Dr. Hackney's leadership. Almost 4 years ago, the University
launched a 5-year fundraising campaign with a goal of $1 billion. This is the largest
fundraising project undertaken by an Ivy League institution and the second largest
by any American university.
Dr. Hackney obviously is a well-rounded individual with broad experiences. He is
an intelligent and responsible historian and academician who possesses the creden-
tials and skills needed to chair the National Endowment of the Humanities. It is
increasingly difficult to find individuals as talented as Dr. Hackney who are willing
to work and share their expertise as public servants. I am very nappy that he is
involved in this process, and I wholeheartedly express my strong support for Dr.
Hackney's nomination.
The Chairman. Senator Wofford, we are glad to have you here
this morning and look forward to whatever comments you would
like to make in introduction of Mr. Hackney.
Opening Statement of Senator Wofford
Senator Wofford. Mr. Chairman, with great enthusiasm, I in-
troduce Sheldon Hackney to this committee. Sheldon may be a "son
of the South," but he is an adopted son of Pennsylvania. We have
seen him in action in Pennsylvania as the head of one of the great
universities of our State ana this country, not just for the past 12
weeks, but for the past 12 years, during which he has earned our
respect, friendship, and support.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, in a previous life, I spent 12 years
as a college president, and I know something of the challenges of
heading a university, especially in a time of sharp debate in a di-
verse and changing society. We are all aware that there have been
some controversies at the University of Pennsylvania this spring.
But let me tell me from my own experience, hardly a season goes
by without controversy on a college campus.
Most college presidents are charged with being too liberal by
some and too conservative by others, too interventionist by some
and too removed by others. That is the life of a college president.
So if absence of controversy were the standard for confirmation,
then no college president should apply.
In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to submit for the record
our colleague Senator John Danforth's column from today's Wash-
ington Post.
The Chairman. It will be printed.
[ The Washington Post article referred to appears in the appen-
dix.]
Senator Wofford. In considering this nomination, we should
look at Sheldon Hackney's extraordinary record of accomplishments
at the University of Pennsylvania and as an administrator and stu-
dent before that In 12 years at Penn, Sheldon has forged much
closer ties to the community. He has led in developing forms of
community service. He has rebuilt the undergraduate curriculum
and enhanced the university's reputation as one of the leading re-
search institutions in the world.
The chairman of Penn's board of trustees, the former chair of
First Boston, Alan Schumacher, recently said: "Penn's accomplish-
ments since Sheldon's arrival in February 1981 are without par-
allel in higher education. He has clearly been one of Penn's great-
est chief executives."
Sondra Myers, who is Governor Casey's cultural adviser, wrote:
"Dr. Hackney is not an idealogue; he is a pragmatic idealist, in the
tradition of our Founding Fathers, who has a passionate commit-
ment to learning and a profound knowledge of the importance of
learning to the future." .
I would ask also that the full text of Sondra Myers letter be in-
serted in the record.
The Chairman. It will be so included.
[The information referred to appears in the appendix.]
Senator Wofford. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me close on a per-
sonal note. I have known Sheldon Hackney and Lucy Hackney for
many years, and worked together with them on many fronts. Shel-
don Hackney is thoughtful, quiet, gentle. But don't for 1 minute
underestimate the strength and leadership that underlies these
traits. He is steady, strong, and wise.
It is these characteristics, Mr. Chairman, along with this scholar-
ship and experience, that will make Sheldon Hackney an outstand-
ing chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I commend him to the committee.
The Chairman. Congressman Foglietta has been a good personal
friend of mine for many, many years and one of the outstanding
members of the Congress. We are delighted to welcome you, Con-
gressman, and appreciate your taking the time to join us.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. FOGLTETTA, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Foglietta. I thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman and mem-
bers of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you on behalf of my good friend and adopted son of Philadelphia,
Dr. Sheldon Hackney.
Until last year, I represented the University of Pennsylvania and
the diverse community around it Dr. Hackney entered the presi-
dency of the university in 1981, the same year I entered Congress.
Over the last 12 years, we have worked together on many com-
plicated projects and contentious issues.
Throughout the years, in every instance, Sheldon Hackney dealt
with these issues with grace, with sensitivity, with commitment,
with creativity and with deep understanding.
As my friend Harris Wofford testified from first-hand experience,
presiding over a university is a difficult job. Funding crises never
seem to end. Just like managing a big cities, problems of crime,
homelessness. drups, health care and housing dominate the daily
agenda. Civil disobedience is commonplace. Protests and dem-
onstrations are a daily occurrence.
Throughout it all, for 12 years, Sheldon Hackney surmounted
these pressures and led the University of Pennsylvania to bigger
and better things. When Sheldon Hackney came to the University
of Pennsylvania, he encountered a historically contentious relation-
ship between the university community and the surrounding neigh-
borhoods. Dr. Hackney brought the diverse peoples together and
forged a healthy relationship.
Dr. Hackney led the University of Pennsylvania's drive to in-
crease its endowment by 347 percent At the same time, voluntary
contributions increased by 300 percent The university's 5-year
"Campaign for Penn" initiated by Dr. Hackney in 1989 is on track
to raise f 1 billion, making it the second-largest campaign ever for
an American university.
Embattled by crime on campus, Sheldon Hackney has led a
strong war against crime, and the university is now a much safer
place Decause of his efforts.
I also know Sheldon Hackney to be a champion of the First
Amendment, for all students, for all groups, for every issue. You
don't have to take my word for that. Just walk through the campus
on any given school day, as I have done dozens of times. You will
see the leafletting, you'll hear the bullhorns that make the Penn
campus a living, breathing testament to the First Amendment
In Philadelphia, we regard Dr. Hackney as one of the city's
greatest assets — an asset we hate to lose. My colleagues in the
Pennsylvania Congressional Delegation join me in a letter support-
ing Dr. Hackney's nomination. They ail know Dr. Hackney as a
strong leader at one of our State's most prestigious universities.
And may I submit that letter for the record.
The Chairman. It will be included.
[The letter referred to appears in the appendix.]
Mr. Foguetta. Sheldon Hackney is a champion of ideas, a stew-
ard of diverse thought. I am proud to be part of this prestigious
panel introducing Sheldon Hackney to you, a man uniquely quali-
fied to lead the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Congressman. We are de-
lighted to have you join us, and if you wish to remain- we know you
have other responsibilities, and Senator WorTord, obviously, we wel-
come your participation.
The Chairman. Dr. Hackney, we welcome you. You were born in
the South and lived for many years in Pennsylvania, but we too in
Massachusetts take a certain pride in your appointment I know
that you have the good sense and judgment to spend time in Vine-
yard Haven, on Martha's Vineyard.
Mr. Hackney. Yes. I wish I were there now.
The Chairman. Well, later, over the weekend, maybe — we won't
make it too warm for you in here. [Laughter.]
But you have many, many friends up there, some of whom are
here — Art Buchwald and Rose Styron, and others — and they are
very dear and valued friends of yours as well as mine.
I want to welcome Dr. Hackney to the committee this morning
and commend him on his nomination to be Chairman of the Na-
tional Endowment for the Humanities.
I am pleased to see so many members of the Hackney family
here today. We welcome each of you, and 111 ask Dr. Hackney to
introduce you after the comments of members of the committee.
The Endowment is an important Federal agency that provides
support for advanced scholarly research. It plays an effective role
in encouraging academic work in the humanities.
Dr. Hackney's remarkable career and lifelong commitment to
public service give him outstanding professional qualifications for
this position. His integrity, vision, and sense of purpose, and his
strong standing in the academic community demonstrate his ex-
traordinary leadership qualities that will be a great asset to the
Endowment
Few in the academic community have such a record of accom-
plishment and range of achievement Dr. Hackney is an historian
of the first rank. His scholarship has been honored with the South-
ern Historical Association's Prize for Best Work in Southern His-
tory and the Albert Bevridge Prize in American History. He has
served with great distinction as the Provost of Princeton Univer-
sity, the President of Tulane University, and now President of the
University of Pennsylvania.
The humanities along with the sciences are the intellectual foun-
dation of our history and our culture. Universities are at the cut-
ting edge of research and debate in this field, and Dr. Hackney has
been deeply involved in these issues. He has often spoken of the
importance of including all points of view in the humanities. Uni-
versities provide a forum for these disciplines, and outreach brings
greater understanding into neighborhoods and communities across
the country. The Nation as a wnole will benefit from Dr. Hackney's
ability ana leadership in this process of bringing people together
and understanding ourselves more clearly.
Let me also say that Dr. Hackney has demonstrated remarkable
restraint in recent months while critics have unfairly debated his
role in a recent controversy at the University of Pennsylvania. He
was unwilling to intervene in established university procedures for
resolving conflicts on the campus. It might have been expedient for
him to intervene, but he was concerned that to do so would set an
unfortunate precedent for future interference in the university's le-
fitimate procedures. Now that the controversy has been settled, he
as done the right thing again, by directing a comprehensive re-
view of these procedures to see that they meet the needs of the stu-
dents and the university.
Dr. Hackney took a principled stand and demonstrated his strong
character in this controversy. He refused to bend to one side or the
other and deserves credit for doing so. He is a man of outstanding
achievement and integrity, whose commitment to free speech and
respect for diversity is unquestioned.
Finally, Dr. Hackney's eminence as an historian will bring need-
ed perspective and prestige for the Endowment. He has a clear
sense of the Nation's past and an equally clear vision of its future.
President Clinton has made an excellent choice in Dr. Hackney to
head this agency, and I look forward to working with him in the
years ahead.
Senator Kassebaum.
Opening Statement of Senator Kassebaum
Senator Kassebaum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
Dr. Hackney.
6
Mr. Hackney. Thank you. It's good to be here.
Senator Kassebaum. You bring to this position certainly not only
the qualifications of a distinguished scholar, but the head of two
very prestigious universities. And you, perhaps better than anyone,
know the importance of the humanities. The studies of history and
philosophy and literature by their very nature invite debate, and
an examination of differing points of view. You have been chal-
lenged bv that, of course, many times.
I think that the chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities must not only bring the scholarly qualifications to hold
the position, but also a firmness of purpose and a credibility that
is necessary to ensure strong public support and confidence in the
National Endowment for the Humanities. It is a role that combines
a number of talents, and I think that this morning will be an excel-
lent opportunity for you to present your thoughts on this, and I
look forward to hearing them and welcome you here.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kassebaum.
Senator Hatch.
Opening Statement of Senator Hatch
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hear-
ing
Dr. Hackney, we welcome you to the committee. We appreciate
having you here. I certainly want to welcome you, and I want to
acknowledge and mention that we are all aware of your distin-
guished record of scholarship and studies and high understanding
of history, and I want to congratulate you on the fine record that
you have.
There are, however, concerns that have been raised — you have
been a very controversial nominee — with regard to your record, and
these concerns go to the heart of what we might expect in the next
number of years if you become Chairman of the National Endow-
ment for the Humanities.
The purpose of this hearing is to raise some of those concerns
that have been raised and to permit you to explain or give reasons
for whatever has raised those concerns. I will have several ques-
tions for you at the appropriate time, and I just want to say I look
forward to the hearing and I look forward to becoming better ac-
quainted. I appreciated the meeting we had in my office. I was im-
pressed then, and I have been impressed since as I have studied
your record. But I think this is a good time to get some of these
questions behind us and see just where we go from here. And I'll
try to do a good job of getting those aired, along with others here
on the committee.
The Chairman. You always do a good job, Senator.
Senator Hatch. Til do my modest job. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Coats.
Opening Statement of Senator Coats
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hackney, I also welcome you here and echo my colleagues'
comments relative to your impressive academic background and
record, and also indicate, as you and I discussed during your visit,
that I think it is important that we clarify a number of issues that
have been publicly aired and discussed and talked about. You cer-
tainly have the opportunity here today to air your side of a number
of these questions. It is important for us to understand those an-
swers.
Mr. Chairman, the National Endowment for the Humanities
holds an important place in American life. Its goal is to promote
and celebrate those things which humanize ana elevate our lives
and our culture.
The Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities
has two essential duties, in my opinion. The first is to value quality
in thought and expression, and the second is to be scrupulously,
passionately balanced and fair.
By the nature of the humanities, many of its divisions are deep,
and its arguments are bitter. But this is precisely the reason our
Government must be even-handed in the distribution of funds and
grants that come out of the National Endowment for the Human-
ities.
This fairness and balance, we have found, is not easy. It is dif-
ficult because within the academic community, there is a strong
pull — at least, today there is — toward political correctness. An
NEH chairman needs to actively fight that pressure, sometimes, I
think, just to stay neutral.
The former Chairman of the NEH, Lynne Cheney who, in my
opinion, set a very high standard at this job, wrote to me, and I
would like to quote part of that letter: "Balance is not just a pas-
sive task. You actually need to fight against a swift current of po-
litical correctness. If you aren't anchored by a firm belief in fair-
ness, you will quickly drift into the orthodoxy of the day, even with
the best of intentions."
Now, that current has carried many respected institutions of
learning to places that I don't think they ought to be. We have seen
a number of universities adopt the view in which diversity is made
an enemy of dissent They sometimes show a thin and partial toler-
ance that protects only those who share what many view as very
liberal values. But we know, or at least we should know, that there
are no victories for diversity that can be bought by the loss of free-
dom, and we know that the humanities whither and die in an envi-
ronment of intimidation and discrimination.
So I trust that we can address a number of questions that go to
these issues and that we can shed some light on some of the issues
that have been publicly raised regarding yourself, Dr. Hackney,
and particularly your involvement in matters as president of the
University of Pennsylvania. I welcome that opportunity, and I
know you welcome that opportunity.
Mr. Hackney. I do indeed.
Senator Coats. So we look forward to pursuing that this morn-
ing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Coats.
We have been joined by Senator Pell who, especially, in terms of
the development of the National Foundation for the Arts and the
Humanities, has certainly had more to do with these two institu-
8
tions than any other member of the Congress or the Senate or the
administration.
We welcome his comments at this time.
Opening Statement of Senator Pell
Senator Pell. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Chairman. I
would say that I share the kudos with Jack Javits, who really took
a tremendously leading role in this regard.
I believe President Clinton has made a great decision in nomi-
nating you, Dr. Hackney, to chair one of the finest agencies of our
Federal Government. As you know, we have had a long-time inter-
est in the efforts of our Government to support and encourage the
humanities. And one of the authors of the earlier legislation which
established the endowments 28 years ago now, I welcome this op-
portunity to be with you.
My own view is that the chairmanship of the humanities endow-
ment is without a doubt the most powerful position in the human-
ities in the United States. So you have to have a real ability, which
I believe you have, to lead and to inspire. You are man of great
stature and intelligence, and will be an effective chairman.
I congratulate you on your work at two major universities,
Tulane and the University of Pennsylvania, and prior to that as
provost and professor at Princeton University.
I regret the recent flurry of press about two incidents on the
Penn campus, as it skewed what was clearly an enormously suc-
cessful 12-year presidency there, and I congratulate you for Penn's
recent success as one of the beneficiaries of Walter Annenberg's
largess. These incidents have been blown out of proportion and
have generated needless controversy about the nomination.
So our task today is to establish the fact that Dr. Hackney can
and will do the grand job for which he is being nominated, and I
will reserve any nirther comments for later.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Pell.
The Chairman. Dr. Hackney, would you introduce the members
of your family, please; and maybe they would be good enough to
stand?
Mr. Hackney. I would be very pleased to. My wife, Lucy Durr
Hackney; my son, Fain Hackney, a Philadelphia lawyer; my daugh-
ter, Elizabeth McBride, a teacher like her father, from Connecticut,
and her sister-in-law, Shivonne McBride; and Ann Ryan, from Har-
risburg, PA, my sister-in-law.
The Chairman. I am familiar with the trouble remembering
names in a large family. [Laughter.] We welcome all of you, and
we'd be delighted to hear from you at this time.
STATEMENT OF SHELDON HACKNEY, NOMINEE FOR THE POSI-
TION OF CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HU-
MANITIES
Mr. Hackney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to be here to talk about a great range of things and
about the National Endowment for the Humanities. If I may, I
would like to start by telling you something about myself, some-
9
thing about what I have done in my career, and then something
about how I see the National Endowment for the Humanities.
At first glance, my life really does not appear to be one that was
ever in need of transformation. Yet I can bear personal witness to
the sort of personal transformation that I believe the humanities
have the power to accomplish.
I was born and raised in Birmingham, AL, the third son of a
thoroughly Methodist family that eventually included five sons, the
offspring of a marriage that is now in its 64th year.
My childhood was spent during the Great Depression and World
War II, and I was acutely aware that my world was one of scarcity
and vulnerability. Nevertheless, my childhood was actually
unproblematic, at least if you don't count my being continuously
terrorized by my older brothers.
My father was a newspaperman before the war. As that was not
the era of the journalist as hero, and as his family was large, when
he returned from the Navy, he set himself up in business buying
and reselling war surplus material. His business evolved, and he
eventually did very well.
As I went through public school in Birmingham, like most chil-
dren of middle-income families, I could imagine for myself various
futures, each of them honorable and productive, but I never imag-
ined the life that I have actually had. That life was opened up to
me in part because of two superb history teachers at Ramsay High
School in Birmingham, Mary McPhaul and Ellen Callen, and in
part because I loved to read.
My mother read to us a lot when we were young, and when I was
a bit older, I remember listening wondrously to her practicing the
dramatic book readings that she did for literary clubs around the
city, legitimate theater not having a very lively presence in Bir-
mingham then.
Although reading was a bit of magic for me, I was thoroughly im-
prisoned in the myth that real boys did not work very hard in
school, and real men were men of action rather than thought.
The major reason, however, that the world was saved from hav-
ing yet another lawyer was my older brother, Fain, whom I wor-
shipped. He was charismatic and multitalented and very imagina-
tive, so that he was always the leader in the neighborhood and the
one who would organize our play, not only the standard games like
"kick the can" and "hide and seek," but elaborate war games and
a gam we called "town," in which everyone had a role selling some-
thing, and Fain was always the banker because he could draw so
well and make beautiful dollar bills. My other older brother, Mor-
ris, always got the lemonade concession and ended up with all the
money that Fain had issued from the Bank.
Fain was a young man of grandiose projects, usually too grand
ever to finish, but always exciting enough to draw in everyone else.
Despite all his talent, he had an uneven academic record, reflecting
his enthusiasms and his lack of focus, but he had a great time and
made all those around him have a great time also. He went off to
the University of Alabama where, in those days, parties were
known to occur. He had a wonderful time during his freshman
year, and his abysmal grades showed it.
10
Something happened to him in that following summer, and I
really do not know what the transforming event was in his case.
But tie became a different person. He started reading books that
were not required for school. He began to listen to classical music
and to write poetry and to talk about serious subjects.
He transferred then to Birmingham Southern College and start-
ed to work at his courses. I was absolutely fascinated. Part of his
§lan for remaking his life was to become a Navy pilot, which he
id. When I went off to Vanderbilt on a Naval ROtC scholarship,
he was on the West Coast and then in Japan, flying amphibious
patrol planes.
Letters from him were not only reports of adventures in exotic
places, but accounts of what he was reading and thinking, and of
course, guilt-producing questions about my intellectual life which,
even at Vanderbilt, could be as sparse as one wanted it to be.
It was at about this time, because of Fain's example, if not his
specific recommendation, that I was captured by the novels of Wil-
liam Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, and especially Thomas Wolfe.
I am almost embarrassed to remember how much I identified with
Eugene Gant, a young southerner coming of age by trying to read
his way through the Harvard library.
Vanderbilt itself was saturated then, and perhaps now, with the
tradition of the Fugitive poets from the 1920's and the Agrarians,
and I studied them with great appreciation. Although the Agrar-
ians had taken their stand 20 years before, in very different times,
and had since then taken very diverse political paths, the big ques-
tions that they raised — questions about what is the good life, and
what is the value of tradition, and what is the function of Govern-
ment, and what are the perils of modernity — were common and
lively topics of debate among my friends.
We also talked, of course, about race relations, an omnipresent
concern of southerners, black and white, that was intensified by
the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Brown case that put an ex-
planation mark in the middle of my colleague years.
For reasons that I find difficult to explain, but that probably
have to do with my religious training, I had broken away from
southern white orthodoxy even before going to college and had con-
cluded that racial segregation was wrong.
As a historian, I have continued my interest in race because it
is a major factor in American history. As an individual, I have con-
tinued my commitment to racial equality because I believe it is
right and because I believe that group relationships are one of the
major unresolved questions on the domestic scene.
I was devastated by the death of my brother in a military plane
crash in Japan in 1954 during the summer after my sophomore
year. He had meant so many things to me that it was not until
years later that I realized that his most important gift to me was
to give me permission to use my mind in serious ways, to risk pur-
suing a subject that I enjoyed, to spend my life in pursuit of edu-
cation for myself and for others. Watching him change, and being
thereby lured into the pleasures of thought as a way of enhancing
experience, transformed my life and gave it purpose.
After 3 years on a destroy and 2 years teaching weapons at the
United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, I went to Yale to study
11
under C. Vann Woodward, the leading historian of the South and
the man who became the most important influence on my career
as a historian and on my devotion to academic freedom, intellectual
honesty, free speech, and the obligations of collegiality.
I had been attracted to Woodward not only by his reinterpreta-
tion of the history of the South from Reconstruction to World War
I, but by his very subtle exploration in the essays collected in The
Burden of Southern History, of what it means to be a southerner
and what the history of the South means to the Nation and to the
world.
After Yale, I joined the faculty at Princeton, where I worked
away at becoming the best teacher and scholar I could possibly be,
while raising a family and doing the sort of committee assignments
and quasi-administrative tasks that faculty are called upon to do.
My career as a historian in fact was diverted because I kept say-
ing yes to such requests. When William G. Bowen became presi-
dent of Princeton in 1972, he invited me to become his provost. The
slippery slope turned into a water chute. I became president of
Tulane University in 1975 and of the University of Pennsylvania
in 1981. This confirms the truth of the aphorism that life is what
happens to you when you are planning something else.
I believe that my 20 years of major responsibility in universities
has prepared me to lead the National Endowment for the Human-
ities. For the past generation, universities have provided tough en-
vironments. University presidents operate in a sea of powerful and
conflicting currents. To succeed, one must have a very clear sense
of strategic direction, a fundamental commitment to the core values
of the university, the strength to persevere through contentious
times, and the ability to gain and keep the support of a variety of
constituencies. I have not only survived in that environment; I
have prospered, and my institutions have thrived.
Among the values that I hold dear is a belief that a university
ought to be open to all points of view, even if some of those views
expressed are personally abhorrent. I take some pride in having
protected the right to speak of such diverse controversial figures
from William Shockley, when I was at Princeton, to Louis
Farrakhan, when I was at Penn. The university really should be-
long to all of its members, but not be the exclusive domain of any
particular person, group, or point of view.
During my 12V2 years at Penn, I have made the undergraduate
experience my highest priority. Penn has revamped the general
education components oi the curriculum in each of its four under-
graduate schools, provided a livelier sense of community through
the creation of freshman houses within the residential system,
added a reading project that asks freshmen to read a common book
and then to discuss that book in seminars during orientation week
and through the first year, revised our advising system, revitalized
the freshman seminar program, and drawn senior faculty into the
teaching of introductory courses.
I have increased the diversity of the Penn student body and
worked hard to sustain an inclusive and supportive atmosphere on
campus, to provide a campus in which everyone has a very strong
sense of belonging and in which our animated debates are carried
out with civility.
12
I have also created a new sense of partnership with the school
system of the city of Philadelphia, ana a national model program
of volunteerism tiiat I institutionalized a year ago by establishing
the Center of Community Partnerships to stimulate and coordinate
the involvement of faculty, staff and students in off-campus service
activities.
Universities exist, I think, to create new knowledge and to pre-
serve and communicate knowledge. The National Endowment for
the Humanities, as a sort of university without walls, through its
research, education and public programs, is engaged in the same
effort. I am dedicated to the proposition that we can improve the
human condition through knowledge, that our hope for tomorrow in
this troubled world depends on the sort of understanding that can
come through learning.
I have a great deal of respect for the National Endowment for
the Humanities. It is the single most important institution in
American life promoting the humanities, and it has a long record
of accomplishment. I believe there are things that can be done to
extend and broaden the impact of the National Endowment for the
Humanities as it fulfills its statutory task of stimulating the hu-
manities.
I like to think of the humanities as human beings recording and
thinking about human experience and the human condition, pre-
serving the best of the past, and deriving new insights in the
present. One of the things that the National Endowment for the
Humanities can do is to conduct a national conversation around
those very big perennial questions: What is the meaning of life,
what is a just society, what is the nature of duty, and so on. In
this big conversation, it is not the function of NEH to provide an-
swers but to ensure that there is a discussion to create a forum in
which all voices can be heard.
Because they are not just for the few but for everyone, no single
approach to the National Endowment for the Humanities mandate
is adequate. There is a need for balance among research aimed at
creating new knowledge, educational programs to ensure that the
humanities are creatively and invitingly represented in the curric-
ula of our schools and colleges, and public programs to draw every-
one into the big conversation. Those three activities should be re-
lated to each other and should be mutually supportive.
I think the country has never needed the humanities more than
now. We not only face the challenges of a new geopolitical situation
and the problems of adjusting to economic competition in a new
global marketplace, but we face a crisis of values at home. What
is happening to the family and community? Who are we as a Na-
tion, and where are we going? What holds us together as a Nation,
and what do citizens owe to each other? What is the relationship
of the individual to the group in a society whose political order is
based upon individual rights and in which group membership is
still a powerful social influence?
Even more importantly, the humanities have the capacity to
deepen and to extend to new dimensions the meaning of life for
each and every one of us. They have the capacity to transform indi-
vidual lives, not necessarily in the external circumstances of those
lives, but in their internal meaning.
13
Every human experience is enhanced by higher levels of knowl-
edge. When I listen to a piece of music, I may like it and think it
beautiful; but the person who knows the historical context of its
composition and understands what the composer was trying to ac-
complish technically and can compare the composition and even the
performance to others will get infinitely more out of that experi-
ence than I will. That is why I enjoy talking about common experi-
ences with people who will see it through a different lens. The task
of the NEH is to enrich the conversation and to bring more people
into it
The premise of my approach to the tasks of the National Endow-
ment tor the Humanities is simple but profound. The more you
know, the more you hear and see and feel. Knowledge extends and
intensifies experience. The more you know, the more you can know.
Knowledge provides a framework into which experience and knowl-
edge ana more knowledge can cling to and fit into. The more you
know, the more meaningful life is. I think that can be the gift of
the National Endowment for the Humanities to the American peo-
ple.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hackney and biographical sketch
appear in the appendix.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. That was an enormously
creative and insightful comment for the committee.
I was following your statement, and appreciated ayour observa-
tion about how we can listen to a piece of music and like it, "but
the person who knows the historical context of its composition and
understands what the composer was trying to accomplish tech-
nically and can compare the composition and the performance to
others will get infinitely more out of the experience than I will." I
remember talking with Shelby Foote about the Civil War, and he
said that when you are writing that history, you ought to visit
those battlegrounds on the anniversary days that those battles
were fought so that you could see and hear the birds, look at the
trees ana feel the atmosphere of those situations. Your comments
about music echo his thoughts about the Civil War.
Before getting into a discussion of your views on the National
Endowment for the Humanities and what you think are its current
strengths and also areas where it can be strengthened, I want to
give you the opportunity to relate to the committee, and therefore,
really to the Senate and our colleagues, the two incidents which
have been the subject of a good deal of commentary in recent
months, and your own thinking at the time about how to approach
them. Perhaps you could share with us a bit of your own view, with
the benefit of hindsight, about whether you would have handled
those the same way and what you may have learned from those ex-
periences. I think it is important for you to have the opportunity
to describe these events, and we look forward to hearing from you
on that.
Mr. Hackney. I'd be glad to, Senator Kennedy. This has been a
long and very painful spring for the University of Pennsylvania
ana for me and for the students who were caught up in the Eden
Jacobowitz case. For Eden himself, I believe it was a painful expe-
rience, and for the young women who were involved, who were the
14
complainants in that case, it cannot have been a pleasant experi-
ence, and it must have affected their academic work as well, on
both sides. . . „
So I have learned some things from this experience and would
love to share a bit of that with the committee. Perhaps I could say
something about the facts for those here who may not have read
all of the facts. .
This was an incident that occurred m January in which a group
of sorority women were going to celebrate the founding of their so-
rority, and they do that in a ritualistic way, by singing a song and
doing a little dance. They went outside to do that and were appar-
ently making a good deal of noise in the singing of that song, dis-
turbing some students in the dormitory outside of which they were
standing. ,
A group of students began shouting very ugly things at them.
There is no question that racial slurs were hurled at them. They
were I think justifiably angry about that; went up and tried to
identify the students who were hurling those epithets, those hate-
ful epithets. The only student who would admit to saying anything
was Eden Jacobowitz, who said that he had used the term, water
buffalo," and had yelled at the sorority sisters who^ were singing,
"If you want to have a party, there is a zoo nearby." There in fact
is a zoo within about a mile of the university.
I don't want to get into a psychoanalysis of where the term
"water buffalo" came from, but it has become a case of some re-
nown. We do have at the University of Pennsylvania
The Chairman. Excuse me. How is that term used here? I think
we've got to refer to those particular words.
Mr. Hackney. Yes. Eden Jacobowitz is an Israeli who was raised
in Israel, and there is a Hebrew term, "behayma," which is fre-
quently used among people; it is a mild reproach, but used quite
commonly. It sort of means, "Oh, you rude person." And this was,
so their theory goes, sort of a subconscious translation of that very
common term in Hebrew to English. There is no other explanation
that one can think of.
There are some things to realize here that are difficult to get in
the press accounts. One is that the student judicial system at Penn
is set up to be independent of me; I am not involved in it, nor is
the provost. I think that is an error and one of the things that
needs to be corrected next year, when a faculty-student committee
goes back to review the procedures and to reform them. I think
there should be a way for senior officials of the university to be-
come more involved earlier in such cases. But in the current cir-
cumstances, it was not.
We also have a racial harassment policy that is extremely nar-
rowly focused. It is meant to say to students you may say anything
you want, you may express any opinion you want, you may say
even terrible things, but you must not, you should not, use racial
slurs in face-to-face confrontations with other people in a way that
is intended only to hurt, only to do damage. This is really tanta-
mount to assault, if you will, where there is no intention of further-
ing the discussion, but simply to hurt. I have learned something
about that as well, and I'll come back to that later.
The Chairman. Was this a face-to-face confrontation?
15
Mr. Hackney. No. I think this was a misapplication of that pol-
icy in the circumstances, and I think a great mistake to try to pur-
sue it, for several reasons. One, it was not really a face-to-face en-
counter. The other is a matter in equity, if you will. Eden
Jacobowitz was only one of a group of people engaged in this activ-
ity, and maybe the least culpable one, and there is a matter of sort
of fairness in pursuing him and not others. But the judicial inquiry
officer only knew about him and decided that it was a case of suffi-
cient seriousness that it ought to be heard by a faculty-student
panel. So charges were brought after an investigation, and at that
point the procedure was off, and I was not in a position to inter-
vene although I was urged to do so throughout the spring. I think
it would have been perhaps better for me to have intervened in an
extraordinary way, but it would have thrown the university into
turmoil, and it would have undermined the whole judicial system,
and would have been a terrible thing, I think, for the university.
So I did not do that, and I think that was still the correct decision.
Eventually, this became a matter of national note. There was a
great deal of publicity. Our system also allows the respondent in
such student judicial proceedings to talk, to reveal anything he or
she wishes, but it holds other members of the university commu-
nity to respect for the confidentiality of the proceedings, that is, I
and the complainants in this case really were not allowed to speak.
The complainants eventually decided that they could never get
their point of view out unless they withdrew the complaint, which
they eventually did in May and made a statement about their point
of view. I think they did not become convinced of Eden Jacobowitz'
innocence; they simply wanted to get the case over with. It was a
very painful vent for them, ana for everyone, and for Eden
Jacobowitz as well.
So the case is over, and we are now trying to learn what we can
from it. One of the things that I come away with is the fact that
although I believe civility is extremely important on the campus,
and although I think we ought to have a statement of standards,
if you will, a policy, that tells students that we expect them to be-
have with some civility with regard to other people on the campus
and not use racial slurs, I believe it is a mistake to try to enforce
that with punishments that are arrived at through some adversar-
ial student judicial process. It just doesn't work very well and
ought not to be tried.
I have appointed a commission of people from inside and outside
the university— faculty members, some trustees, and distinguished
individuals from outside the university — whose task it will be next
year to engage the entire conversation in a discussion about all the
things that we do to create a campus atmosphere that will support
free inquiry. One of the things that that commission will look at
is the racial harassment policy, but they will be looking at other
things as well.
There will also be a faculty-student committee that will look at
the procedures themselves to see what can be done to make sure
they operate better than they did this spring. This is justice de-
layed is justice denied. It should not take so long to get a discipli-
nary case before a panel and have it disposed of.
16
My own sense through the spring was that if the faculty-student
§anel could have heard the case, they would have reached the right
ecision about it, and it would have been less painful for everyone
involved.
The Chairman. And if I could just ask you to relate the other in-
cident involving the publication.
Mr. Hackney. Yes, the newspaper. In the middle of April, on a
Thursday just before the last week of classes, a group of black stu-
dents, having been increasingly antagonized from their point of
view by the student newspaper throughout the year, thinking that
the student newspaper was not only insensitive in the way it han-
dled matters of interest to African American students, out also
having no black reporters on the staff and seeming not to care
much about the black point of view, confiscated an entire edition
of The Daily Pennsylvania one morning. That was a very large
and contentious crisis at the university.
There are several things that are being repeated in the press
that simply are not true. One is that I did not react strongly on
that occasion and did not condemn the confiscation — but I did. I
did, on the day on which we were going through the crisis, when
feelings were very high, issue a statement in which I said that free
speech and diversity seemed to be in conflict. Now, let me empha-
size the word "seem." Then I go on to say in that statement that
there can be no doubt that free speech is the paramount virtue of
the university; it is the core value of the university. And everything
that I have said through my career in fact emphasizes that. I be-
lieve that very strongly.
I have used every forum at my command since that time to re-
peat my conviction that the confiscation of newspapers is wrong. I
reprinted the university policy that I had promulgated 4 years ear-
lier that it was a violation of university policy to confiscate news-
papers. It is also true that that was a violation of our open expres-
sion guidelines. The open expression committee issued an advisory
opinion earlier the next week or soon thereafter, saying that the
confiscation of newspapers was a violation of the open expression
guidelines.
It has also been suggested that the students who were involved
in that are being let off, that the university does not think it is se-
rious enough to pursue. That is just a misperception. Those stu-
dents involved will face disciplinary procedures when they return
to campus in the fall.
The Chairman. Were their transcripts delayed?
Mr. Hackney. There was one student who was a senior, and his
transcript has been held pending his satisfaction of this discipli-
nary issue.
llie Chairman. We in the Senate are often asked to intervene in
legal proceedings when it appears that an injustice may have been
done. We generally decline to do so because we recognize the im-
portance of allowing the legal proceedings to take their course, and
then when they are concluded, we in the Senate can review those
proceedings to see if reforms are appropriate. So this is what the
Senators do, and it appears to me that is exactly what you did at
the university.
Mr. Hackney. Indeed.
17
The Chairman. Senator Kassebaum.
Senator Kassebaum. Thank you.
Dr. Hackney, I have heard many confirmation statements, and I
would just like to say I don't know that I have ever heard one that
was more beautifully written, and obviously by quite a fine writer.
Mr. Hackney. Thank you very much. It is from the heart, Sen-
ator.
Senator Kassebaum. Well, I think that was very evident.
Also, as you know, and I think in our conversations, I said that
unfortunately, there has been much press that has preceded you,
and I think that there will be tough questions that we have to ask
because they will come on the Senate floor if not asked here, and
I think it is only fair that you have the opportunity to respond.
This morning, the Wall Street Journal editorial page stated that
the question that is before this committee is "whether someone who
has compiled a record of appeasement in line with the prevailing
political winds should sit at the helm of the National Endowment
for the Humanities, disbursing large sums of taxpayer money in
the form of grants."
Do you believe your record is one of appeasement in line with the
prevailing political winds?
Mr. Hackney. Absolutely not. I think throughout my career,
from the very beginning, I have been devoted to free speech on
campus— open inquiry, I would say would be a better term for it —
because I refer here not only to allowing controversial speakers to
speak, but indeed, making sure the campus was open to all points
of view in the free forum mat is there.
But I have also been very concerned about the ethics of teaching,
if you will — that is, teachers, I believe, who are covering sensitive
subjects should make sure that alternative points of view are pre-
sented to the students so the students can make up their own
minds. That is certainly the way I teach, and in a statement of
standards that I helped to draft for the American Historical Asso-
ciation, that was a feature as well.
So I have held this as a core value for myself throughout my ca-
reer. I believe it is the core value for universities in general, and
I am absolutely devoted to it. I have protected the rights of speak-
ers with whom I do not agree on the left and do not agree on the
right I think that is the obligation of a university president The
chairman of NEH I think has a similar obligation to make sure
that the NEH is open to all voices, that people from different points
of view can apply for grants and if their grants are meritorious —
that is, if they are excellent — they should be able to get grants
from the NEH.
As I said, the NEH should not have a social agenda. It should
be very concerned about stimulating the conversation and making
sure the conversation takes place. But it is not a social laboratory.
Senator Kassebaum. When we visited, I asked you, because I
knew you felt quite passionate about First Amendment rights and
freedom of speech, if as the chairman of the National Endowment
for the Humanities, you were faced with a recommendation, actu-
ally, that came to you that was perhaps an obviously questionable
poem, presentation, would you believe that free speech prevailed
over a concern for how taxpayer dollars were being spent?
18
Mr. Hackney. That's a very good question and a very tough one,
I must say. I believe the first une of defense, if you will, is the in-
tegrity of the review process itself. That is, one must make sure at
the NEH that we have very good people on the merit review pan-
els, and those people should include, I think, not only scholars and
professionals in the field, but people who are interested in the hu-
manities who are not professionals at it. That merit review should
be very vigorous. The staff of the National Endowment for the Hu-
manities also, being professionals, adds their advice that comes for-
ward to the National Council, also a sterling body, if you will, of
people in the field who can provide their advice.
But in the end, it is the chairman who makes the decision. And
I realize that using taxpayer money is a very serious matter, and
I will take that responsibility very seriously, and I am prepared to
consider the advice that comes to me but make the appropriate de-
cision.
Senator Kassebaum. I guess I have to preface this next question
with perhaps my own thoughts, but I feel, frankly, that way too
much energy and frequently talent is drained off in worrying about
political correctness. You have been quoted in the past as saying
that the impact of political correctness on American university
campuses is "greatly exaggerated."
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Senator Kassebaum. And I can only say I hope so. Do you believe
that political correctness contributes to the free exchange of ideas
and tolerance of different points of view in American academia
today?
Mr. Hackney. I believe. Senator, that political correctness is
present on campuses, and it can be a problem. And it would be a
serious problem if it were to capture a campus, if it were to become
the orthodoxy, shutting out other points of view. There are various
forms of political correctness; it means different things to different
people. It began, ironically enough, as a term of self-derision used
by people who are politically correct about themselves, and then it
was picked up as a general term.
But I think in general one can think of it as a term that refers
to being overly solicitous of the rights of minority groups and of
fashionable and trendy concerns in the present I think that is one
form that could be quite worrisome because you want to have a
very balanced and fair approach to things on the campus.
The other form I frankly worry about a bit more is that there is
an intellectual form of political correctness that I think is a serious
enough intellectual trend so that it should be represented on the
campus. I am thinking here of deconstructdonism and
poststructuralism, a rather radical form of relativism, if you will,
with the notion that every thought is a political thought and that
every statement is a political statement, so there can be no objec-
tive test for truth.
I myself recognize that relativism exists. We are all affected by
who we are and where we come from and our value system, but
that is not to say that there are not tests for truth that should be
applied. Some answers are always better than others, and if you
use the test of truth that scholars learn, you will get better an-
19
swers than if you simply say this is a political matter and you
ought to live out your politics.
So I think the political correctness is on campuses; it probably
ought to be there in the sense that it needs to be debated. And
what better place to debate the ideas in political correctness than
on a college campus?
It is also worth university presidents being very clear that the
campus must remain open and not captured by any particular
point of view.
Senator Kassebaum. I am only smiling, Dr. Hackney, because I
couldn't help but think as you were talking about this how I am
grateful we don't get into this on the Senate floor. We'd still be on
the budget if that were the case. [Laughter.]
I have other questions, but would just ask one more before I
yield my time. I was some years ago on the Kansas Council of Hu-
manities, and I am a strong supporter of the State's role in the hu-
manities effort. In expanding access for the humanities, I would
just like to hear your thoughts on what you see the role of the
States in relation to the council here.
Mr. Hackney. I think the State humanities councils are a very
important element in the American system for stimulating the hu-
manities. I have not yet reached a firm and fast opinion about how
best to enhance the relationship between the NEH and the State
humanities councils, but I realize there are some serious questions
there, and I will turn my attention to them if I am confirmed, as
soon as I get there.
I do believe that the relationship can be improved, that the State
councils are very important not simply as recipients of funds but
as partners in the enterprise. My general notion is that we can in-
crease the impact of the Federal dollars spend on the humanities
through better coordination among different divisions within the
National Endowment for the Humanities itself, among different de-
partments of Government — the Department of Education, the
Smithsonian, the Library of Congress all do humanities programs.
If we can coordinate those a little better, we'd get more bang, if you
will.
The same is true with the State humanities councils. Through
more lively cooperation between the National Endowment for the
Humanities ana the councils, we should be able to get a better im-
pact, I think.
Senator Kassebaum. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Pell.
Senator Pell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following up on Senator Kassebaum's question, I would comment
on the fact that you have the arts community, all of their council
members, appointed by the Governor. In the humanities. I think
only six are appointed oy the Governor. The result of that nas been
much less involvement with the warp and woof of Government.
They talk about "politization." Well, there should be some
politization in the sense that there should be a relationship be-
tween the humanities and the political public. And in this regard,
I would urge you the next time you take a trip around the United
States to ask the local people who is the chairman of the human-
20
ities endowment and who is the chairman of the arts — you'll find
as a general rule, the arts president is better-known in the State
than the humanities, and the reason for that is because of this in-
volvement of State Government. The State humanities councils re-
sist it very heavily, but I think from the viewpoint of overall bene-
fit to the community, it is to their advantage.
I know when Senator Javits and I started it, we wanted to have
the same rule apply to both, but in those days, we didn't have the
leverage of the humanities, which were then the big political force,
and they were able to resist us.
So I would hope you would keep an open mind on the thought
that the State councils should be involved with the State legisla-
ture and with the Governor so that it is part of the political proc-
ess.
In that regard, to be specific and following up on Senator Kasse-
baum's question, how do you propose to enlarge the relationship be-
tween the general public or the political structure of it and the
local councils?
Mr. Hackney. I take your point about the nature of the State
humanities councils, and I have been aware of your position on
this, and will certainly be very glad to pay some close attention to
it and study the matter. My general impression is that now is prob-
ably not a propitious moment to ask States to take on additional
expenditures, so my guess is we have a little time to study this and
to see if it might work and might improve the situation.
One of the first things that I hope to do is to begin talking with
the Federation of State Humanities Councils, but also with individ-
uals in the field, that is, in State humanities councils, to get a bet-
ter understanding of how they operate and what the partnership
between the NEH and the State humanities councils might be and
how the State humanities councils are related to their local govern-
ments. I think they are, as you say, all now private, self-perpetuat-
ing bodies, with the exception of a handful. But I would be glad to
look at that very carefully.
Senator Pell. I thank you.
The National Endowment for the Humanities was established as
a nonpartisan, impartial institution, but many of us feel that both
the NEA and the NEH have become politicized in recent years.
How would you as the chairman answer that criticism, and also
recognize the fact that "politicize" means different things to dif-
ferent people? I just finished saying I think it should be more po-
liticized, in the sense of being more involved in the warp and woof
of Government; how would you handle that?
Mr. Hackney. I think your point is not that they should be po-
liticized in a partisan sense or an ideological sense, but that they
should be part of the running of the people's business in the State,
which is a very different point of view.
Senator PELL. Exactly.
Mr. Hackney. I feel very strongly — in fact, I don't think I can
say strongly enough — that I think the NEH ought not to be en-
gaged in either partisan or ideological affairs; that it should be con-
ducting the conversation, if you will, and ont weighing in on one
side or the other.
21
So I would be very alert to making sure that the NEH is not en-
gaged in politics in that sense.
Senator Pell. Thank you.
The taxpayers — all of us — are known to object to both NEA and
NEH projects from time to time as being not worthy of the atten-
tion they receive, and the artists and writers in turn rigorously de-
fend their work supported by public funding. How would you as
chairman of the NEH seek to reconcile these two views, because
you will certainly get them because you can't help it, but in the
thousands of grants that are made, there are going to be a few that
turn sour, ana you'll get this criticism.
Mr. Hackney. Well, as I say, I think one needs to start with a
review system that is of absolute integrity and that has the best
possible people in it, reviewing proposals to make sure that they
are the best quality possible. And that is a multilevel review sys-
tem that stops with the chairman exercising his or her own opin-
ion. If that review system is rigorous, as I trunk it should be, then
I think the problems will be minimized, especially if the chairman
is alert and exercises some good common sense.
Senator Pell That is right, and you should not be hesitant in
exercising that common sense, and if a project is truly offense,
don't hesitate to exercise your power in that matter.
Mr. Hackney. I would agree, yes.
Senator Pell. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Pell.
Senator Coats.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hackney. I too was impressed with your opening statement,
the quality of the presentation.
Mr. Hackney. Thank you.
Senator Coats. And, as I was during our visit in our office, I was
impressed with your answers to a number of the questions because
I think you in many instances are clearly grasping the nature of
the debate and the controversy, so I am pleased with some of your
responses.
What I would like to do is try to pursue some questions that
have been raised relative to the consistency of your responses and
some of the decisions or activities that took place at the University
of Pennsylvania surrounding some of these cases.
The now notorious "water buffalo" incident with Eden
Jacobowitz — see if you can help me understand this and reconcile
what appears on the surface to be an inconsistency.
My understanding is that Eden Jacobowitz attempted to change
the date of his initial hearing which was scheduled for April 26th
because his adviser was scheduled to attend a conference in Cali-
fornia and would be unable to attend that hearing. His request ap-
parently was denied. However, at a later time the hearing was in-
definitely postponed only 3 days prior to the hearing at the request
of the complainant. Why did the complainant's request receive dif-
ferent consideration than Eden Jacobowitz' request/
Mr. Hackney. I think it would be a great mistake in general to
think of the university as a place like a corporation, with a CEO
who issued orders every day, or a military organization in which
22
the commanding officer issued orders. It is not a command struc-
ture. And in particular in this case, the student judicial procedures
are not under my command; they are run by a retired faculty mem-
ber who is called a judicial administrator, who has the responsibil-
ity for making the arrangements to which vou refer.
So I cannot really answer on his behall exactly what happened.
I know generally that the young women wanted the case delayed
for a bit because the adviser, who is not a faculty member, actu-
ally, that they had, who was going to help them in the hearing
withdrew from the case, and so they were faced on the day before
the hearing without having a faculty adviser who could take them
through it. And that is, I believe, wny it was postponed the second
time. - , ...
Senator Coats. While that may be true of the way universities
are structured today, no one in ultimate command or in charge
Mr. Hackney. Well, that's not quite what I said, Senator.
Senator Coats. All right. Let me make sure I get that correct,
then — not a command structure similar to the military or similar
to corporations.
Mr. Hackney. Yes, that's right. It is a shared governance system
in which authority is delegated down from the trustees through the
president to other entities in various ways. It is rather subtle.
Senator Coats. How would you apply that same description to
your position and role as chairman 01 the Endowment for the Hu-
manities?
Mr. Hackney. A completely different system. There, the chair-
person has the authority to make the grants. In fact, in the statute,
the chairman is held responsible for those grants. I would be ex-
pecting to be held responsible by the Congress for the grants that
are made, and I would hold the entire structure in the National
Endowment for the Humanities responsible to me for the quality
of the recommendations that come to me.
Senator Coats. For the benefit of trustees of universities across
the land who may be contemplating these types of decisions rel-
ative to their university structures in the future, what would your
recommendation be based on your experience at the University of
Pennsylvania?
Mr. Hackney. The trustees need to be involved. I generally ad-
mire the notion of shared governance in a way. One has to be very
careful in each area where authority is being delegated that it not
be delegated too far.
From my personal experience obviously, in the spring, in the stu-
dent judicial procedures, I think they are structured wrong. We
should learn from that, and we should get the president and the
provost much more involved earlier in the procedures in that. We
have had a similar case, I must say, with regard to faculty mis-
conduct, where the procedure for pursuing faculty members who do
engage in scientific misconduct is also not structured so that the
president and the provost have any role at all. That is in the proc-
ess of being changed at Penn.
My advice to trustees therefore would be to review all of the dele-
gation of authority in the university and make sure it is structured
so that the people who should have authority and should be in-
volved indeea do have it.
23
Senator Coats. There are a number of other questions relative
to the procedure or the process on the Eden Jacobowitz case. I as-
sume your answer woula be the same for each of the questions that
I would ask relative to decisions made leading up to the time that
the complaint was dismissed. Let me just ask this. Was there any
point in that process where your authority as president of the uni-
versity came to bear in the decisions that were made up to the
point where the complaint was dismissed?
Mr. Hackney. My role was first to try to get the case to a hear-
ing panel, because I was relatively confident then that it would
come out right, so I did State my opinion about that to the judicial
administrator that it would be good if this case could be heard by
a panel this spring. I don't think that was intervening in the sub-
stance of it at all; it was just an admonition to him.
I think that was the primary way in which I was involved.
Senator Coats. Can you describe the role of the judicial adminis-
trator, John Brobeck? m m
Mr. Hackney. Yes. The judicial administrator is there simply to
run the process. He recruits the panel members. He instructs them.
He schedules the hearings. He is present at the hearings to make
sure they run properly. That, basically, is his role, and he trans-
mits the results of the hearings to the vice provost for university
life.
Senator Coats. So it was appropriate, then, that Dr. Brobeck in-
tervened, or made a decision relative to Dr. Alan Cours' request for
a delay of the hearing, indicating that it need not be delayed due
to Dr. Cours' travel out of time because it would not be a full hear-
ing with witnesses, only to learn, then, the evening before the hear-
ing that that decision was being reversed. Was that appropriate?
Mr. Hackney. I am not at all sure that was appropriate. I had
set up an inquiry panel again to look at this particular case and
how it was handlea and to find out what went wrong in the proce-
dures. The results of that inquiry board will be given to the faculty-
student committee that will be looking at the procedures next fall
and drafting some reforms of them. So I am not in a position to
judge right now whether each individual decision was appropriate
or not appropriate.
Senator Coats. There was another incident involving Gregory
Pavlik, and it seems to be an inconsistency in terms of how the
process treated Mr. Pavlik versus Mr. Jacobowitz. Would you care
to comment on that?
Mr. Hackney. In what sense were they
Senator Coats. Apparently in March of this year, Gregory
Pavlik, a student columnist, was informed by a phone call that no
less than 31 charges of racial harassment had been filed against
him. Pavlik was notified only 9 days later that the university was
dropping the investigation. According to the March 26th edition of
The Daily Pennsylvanian, "Had it not been for pressure from Dr.
Cours, the judicial inquiry office investigation might have contin-
ued for many more weeks and even could have resulted in the fil-
ing of formal charges." What was the difference between this case
and Mr. Jacobowitz' case, and why would one be resolved within
days and the other take 6 months; and who interceded in Mr.
Pavlik's case to bypass the process?
24
Mr. Hackney. Yes, I did play a role there, but it was completely
appropriate, and that I will leave for you to judge. Professor Cours
did call me when Mr. Pavlik had been approached by the judicial
inquiry officer, and Professor Cours explained to me what was
transpiring. It sounded to me absurd in the extreme that someone
who wrote things in the student newspaper could even be deemed
to be in violation of this policy, that there was no relationship at
all between the policy ana someone who expresses opinions in the
student newspaper.
My assistant then asked the JIO what was going on. This was
during the investigation period. And I think the JIO reassessed the
situation and saw it in a much better light and dropped the
charges, which I think was absolutely appropriate.
Senator Coats. But you did see a distinction between that and
the Eden Jacobowitz case, because you did not intervene.
Mr. Hackney. I really did not know about the Eden Jacobowitz
case until after it was in full cry, so I was not able to do anything
about it.
Senator Coats. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what the time
frame is.
The Chairman. I think if the Senator wants to continue for a few
more minutes, that's fine.
Senator Coats. I would, thank you, if that's appropriate, I would.
Otherwise I'd be happy to wait for a second round.
The Chairman. No. That's fine. Please proceed.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
Questions have also been raised as to whether there has been
equal and fair treatment of the students and the police officer and
museum official involved in The Daily Pennsylvanian incident. Ap-
parently, on May 15th, the New York Times reported that "Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania officials appear to have a double standard in
disciplining minority students involving racial incidents." They go
on to say that "Critics point out that while the university is bring-
ing disciplinary charges against Mr. Jacobowitz, it has taken no ac-
tion against the group of black students who destroyed 14,000 cop-
ies of the student newspaper." You have answered that, and I as-
sume have been in contact with the New York Times, or maybe
they should have been in contact with you.
Mr. Hackney. Senator, I despair about the press.
Senator Coats. At the time of the article, however, a full month
after The Daily Pennsylvanian incident, the university still had
still not brought disciplinary action against the students; yet it was
only 1 day after the event that the university began proceedings
against a police officer and museum official whom the students had
filed charges against for attempting to stop them. Why the incon-
sistency?
Mr. Hackney. In the case of the policeman and the museum,
they are employees of the university so they are subject to the dis-
ciplinary actions that may be meted out by their superiors. There
was a board of inquiry that looked into the behavior there and that
reached conclusions and transmitted those conclusions to the supe-
riors of these two officers. That is an administrative process that
is much quicker and easier to operate than the student judicial pro-
cedures, which are still going. But the students who are involved
25
will be pursued through a different process. We will need a special
judicial inquiry officer to pursue that case, and I think we need a
very strong faculty member to pursue the student case.
Senator Coats. Mr. Chairman, assuming we are going to have a
second round, I will just finish with a brief comment and then
allow other members to ask questions.
I appreciated your answer regarding the whole issue of political
correctness. Fortunately or unfortunately, you have become a sym-
bol of that issue, which I think is unfortunate for you personally,
although I think it is fortunate from the standpoint that our Na-
tion is at least going to have a debate on the issue because I think
it is important to have that debate.
Obviously, it extends far beyond the University of Pennsylvania
and far beyond you, and I don't think it all should laser beam into
your nomination. Nevertheless, we are here talking about it, and
I listened carefully to your answer to a previous question on that.
I would hope that you would be able to bring that perspective to
the National Endowment for the Humanities in terms of the sig-
nificant influence it has across the Nation and particularly in our
universities, because in my opinion, there are few things if any
that are more intellectually dishonest and fraught with hypocrisy
than the whole concept of political correctness, which appears to
deny individual rights and appears to suppress speech, and that is
very intolerant if tnose freedoms are exercised by those of conserv-
ative thought but championed by those of liberal thought.
So I think this is an important debate and one that we ought to
have. Again, I don't think it should center around your nomination;
I think it should be much broader than that. But clearly in your
role, should you be nominated to head up the National Endowment
for the Humanities, you would be playing a central role in that de-
bate.
And as I indicated to you in our visit in my office, there is no
place in America probably more attuned to the concept of political
correctness than the town and the environment in which you are
about to enter. And as the former administrator of that agency has
said, it is easy to be pulled in one direction on that. Finding that
balance and fairness that we talked about earlier I think is very,
very critical, and I would hope that should you be nominated, you
could diligently champion the rights of free speech, the rights of ex-
pression, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it came
from.
Having said that, you are put in the unenviable position of exer-
cising judgment and restraint because we are utilizing taxpayers'
funds, ana that separates it, in my opinion. So that is a tough bal-
ance to find, and I am hopeful that you can walk through that
mine field.
Mr. Hackney. Senator, I think that was extremely well-put. I
have spent my career trying to make sure that I was centered even
as I was being buffeted by pressures. That is what a university
president does. I think I can assure you that if I am the chairman
of the National Endowment for the Humanities and confirmed by
the Senate that I will be doing the same thing there and that I am
up to the task of applying standards and common sense to the deci-
sions about how to use the taxpayers' money.
26
It is a tough job, and it has to be done under pressure, but I
think my 18 years as a university president really has prepared me
to do that, and I am eager to take on the task.
I also am very pleased that you said what you did about the po-
litical correctness and my role in stimulating the debate. If I can
be of service to the Nation in stimulating an important debate,
that's a good thing. But I must say I resent bitterly being victim-
ized and slandered by slogan, and I hope that in the process of the
hearing, which is one of tne reasons that I am glad to be here, is
that I should be able to clear up something about who I am. I am
not just a cardboard figure. I am someone who has spent a career
defending free speech and will do that in the National Endowment
for the Humanities as well.
Senator Coats. And I and others would be violating our own in-
junctions here were we to do that to you, and I dont think that
is appropriate either.
Mr. Hackney. I appreciate that.
The Chairman. I was just going to say that I don't really think
your nomination is a referendum about orthodoxy or political cor-
rectness, and you have responded in your own words about that.
It is about an extraordinary career, academic achievement and
leadership, and an incredible record as an historian, it is also about
one who has been enormously involved in helping to fashion and
shape education policy. Others may define what they perceive this
nomination to be about, but this Senator certainly does not
Senator WofTord.
Senator Wofford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sheldon, I am very glad that from your statement this morning,
people have met the real Sheldon Hackney. You have been
caricatured for some weeks since you were nominated, and your
friends have had to write letters to the editor, and the chairman
of your board, and all kinds of people around the country to answer
the misstatements that you have cleared up this morning, such as
that no action was taken against the students who indefensibly de-
stroyed copies of The Daily Pennsylvanian, and even that you had
initiated tne prosecution of the student in the "water buffalo" inci-
dent But in your statement today, you fully answered our ques-
tions. For those of us who will never despair about the press, I
hope it is played in full or in good part unaer the headline, "Meet
the Real Sheldon Hackney."
I'd like to ask the always real Sheldon Hackney to reflect a little
on one aspect of this. Knowing higher education and what has hap-
pened in universities and colleges, especially the leading ones, all
across this country in developing these very intricate judicial pro-
ceedings about how to deal with students, and the speech codes,
and the diversity statements, having seen them grow up over the
years — and as an expert on this, in no way have you been a leader
or a proponent or an initiator, nor are you responsible for that
process; it has grown like Topsy, all throughout academia. Would
you reflect a little more on whether it has gone too far, whether
the old days of a dean or fellow students dealing with students who
were making too much noise outside, or were shouting offensive
things from windows, whether these speech codes that get all en-
tangled as they go beyond the First Amendment into so many dif-
27
ferent conflicts, whether they have gone too far and whether we
should take a new look, a sharp look, a critical look at them in aca-
demia and go back to something that is closer to the First Amend-
ment?
Mr. Hackney. As I said, Senator, earlier, yes. I have learned
from our experiences this spring, and even though I am still con-
vinced that civility is a very important value for the campus — it
really is one that enables the debates to take place in a vigorous
way and lets everybody take part — I do not now think that a
speech code backed up by punishments that are meted out through
a judicial system is the right way to do that. I think it is counter-
productive, as we have proven this spring.
I might say more generally that university campuses are the
locus for these debates because they are a bit more open. One of
the things that we learned during the 196(ys during tnose turbu-
lent times — not very pleasant times at all, but exciting in some
sense and interesting times— one of the things that we learned was
that when there are conflicts in society, when there are tensions in
society, they will show up on university campuses, and they will
generally show up on university campuses first.
So universities have been struggling with the question of values
in American life, with the question of intergroup relations in Amer-
ican life; they have been struggling with trying to find a new set
of relationships and a new set of rules, some of which were de-
stroyed in the 1960's. So I think it is not surprising that university
campuses are this cauldron of intellectual debate. I hope that we
can come through it in good fashion and get back to a bit more
equanimity.
I agree with your notion that if we could use some of the old
techniques, the real educational techniques of deanly justice, if you
will, calling students who have done something wrong or who are
in conflict with other students together to talk about it. We actu-
ally do a lot of that now in residence halls with peer advising
groups and with resident advisers in residence halls, but we prob-
ably need to do that even more in the future. I think it is a very
good suggestion.
Senator Wofford. Well, I am primarily interested in the future
and your leadership of the National Endowment for the Human-
ities, since I have great respect for your leadership of the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania. Would you wish to comment on whether the
Endowment could play a greater role in our schools? Do you believe
that perhaps more programs should be targeted to children in
schools?
Mr. Hackney. Indeed. I think one of the important matters that
the National Endowment for the Humanities should be and is en-
gaged in is making sure that the knowledge that is being created
on university campuses and by independent scholars is translated
into curricular material in very exciting ways. In this, we should
be in league with the Department of Education, as I think the Na-
tional Endowment for the Humanities is. I would love to pursue
that more vigorously if I am the chairman of the NEH. I think
there is a great deal to be done there.
I believe also that there are ways in which we can link the public
programs — for instance, the Civil War series that was such a tre-
28
mendous hit and contained very powerful visual images of what
war is like and of the conflicts that this Nation went through in
the mid- 19th century — as Senator Kennedy was saying, how those
could be linked up with discussions and conversations in the class-
rooms at the same time; or, now that series is available in video-
cassette, and how that videocassette can be brought into the class-
room to discuss as part of a Civil War course, for instance. There
are things that can be done that are quite exciting and quite imagi-
native, and I think we are up to it
Senator Wofford. The other question related to that, or the
larger question over that, is do you see ways and means in which
the National Endowment for the Humanities could play a role in
expanding the humanities to a broader cross-section of Americans?
Mr. Hackney. Oh, absolutely. In the schools is one place, but to
me, not even the most exciting place, even though I am a teacher,
and I believe also that scholarship is very important, and the Na-
tional Endowment for the Humanities should make sure that
American scholarship in the humanities is still the best in the
world. But the exciting arena for me, I think, is the public arena,
where we can draw more Americans into participation in the hu-
manities in a way that will enhance and maybe even transform in-
dividual lives and that will provide for communities, which really
need an opportunity to discuss their values and where they are
going, provide them that opportunity.
Senator Wofford. Some years ago I was on the State Council for
the Humanities that worked with the National Endowment for the
Humanities. That letter that I read from Sondra Myers, Governor
Casey's cultural adviser, is from someone who chaired for a long
time in a most creative way our Council for the Humanities in the
State and was head of the National Association of Humanities
Councils; and her support for you, and mine, out of my own experi-
ence dealing with the Endowment, comes from experience in think-
ing of how the Endowment could play a much wider role. And I
have a sense that you will give it drive and imagination in doing
so.
Mr. Hackney. Indeed, I have already talked with Sondra Myers
a bit about how to use some of her ideas. One of the nicest about
that letter for me, of course, was that she knows me, so it was dou-
bly nice to hear words of support. She is also quite imaginative,
and I think there are other people who are not professionals in the
humanities who do have very bright and imaginative ideas about
how to do humanities programs in local communities in ways that
are really quite exciting, and I will reach out and bring them into
the process of decisionmaking.
Senator Wofford. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wofford.
Senator Hatch.
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hackney, I have to tell you that I envy you, because when
I was at Brigham Young University, I was a History major, and
had I not gone on a mission for the Mormon Church within the
United States of American confines, I wanted to go to Germany —
Francke being, in my opinion, the greatest historian of all time, al-
29
though I am sure that is subject to dispute — but had I gone there
and spoken German, I probably would have come back and gotten
a Ph.D. in history, and I would not have had to go through these
terrible experiences here in the U.S. Senate. [Laughter.]
Senator Coats. Think how different the chairman's life would
have been had that happened. ,
Senator Hatch. To be honest with you, I think it would have
done the chairman a lot of good. [Laughter.] At the time, I was
working my way through as a janitor— and I might add that many
have felt that that was the highest aspiration I could possibly have
or achieve— but the reason this gets to be so upsetting to people,
and why so many editorials have been written, very critical of you,
is because this very committee rejected Carol Iannone, and it was
done, in my opinion, on a political correctness basis. One of the
leading academic groups in the country, the Modern Language As-
sociation, was the spearhead behind stopping Carol Iannone from
serving as just one member of this very important National Endow-
ment. And that has a lot of people very upset because they feel like
when it comes to political correctness, liberals impose it upon con-
servative ideas, but they don't impose it on liberal ideas that are
out of whack. And frankly, I don't think you should impose it on
any ideas, especially in an academic environment.
On the other hand, I am not president of the University of Penn-
sylvania, either, a very complex and very difficult matter to run.
Let me just take a few minutes, because I think you know that
I am apathetic toward you. You came to my office, I asked you a
number of pointed questions, and we had some time together. I ad-
mire your scholarship. You are a great historian, and you are a
mat human being, and I don't want to see you maligned, either,
just because you may have made some mistakes, if that s what thev
were, or you may not have made the judgment that others think
you should have exercised, or that you may not have pleased people
who may not share your same philosophy or ideology. I think you
have a right to that. .
In the Wall Street Journal today, it does a fairly good job of
bringing up what they consider to be some of the questions, and
I am going to give you an opportunity to answer these, and then
I have some others.
It is entitled, "Mr. Hackney's Nomination."
"It is hardly necessary by now to explain why Mr. Hackney is the
university head who presided over the world-famous] water buffalo'
case, which saw a Penn freshman charged with racial harassment
and Penn's administration in full cry, pressing the case. They did
this, Mr. Hackney told us earlier on, because the administration
had to' abide by the procedures that are in place.' Moreover, he
went on, those procedures were in his view,' just and fair.*"
It goes on to say — and I am just reading some excerpts — "Only
after the publicity — and after the sorority women dropped their
charges--«lid Mr. Hackney conclude that the university's legal ma-
chinery, designed to punish' offensive speech,' needed overhauling."
And then tney say, "No overhauling can fix what is wrong with
university harassment codes" — and they are talking about political
correctness codes when they call them' harassment codes,' I am
sure.
30
They go on to say, "They were produced by compliant university
administrators cut from the same fine cloth as Sheldon Hackney,
who end up arguing that they have no choice but to follow the' pro-
cedures.' Over the past decade, obliging administrators brought
those procedures and' solutions' into being in order to appease the
grievances of activist students and professors."
How do you answer that objection? I know you have done it to
a degree here, but if you want to take a crack at that, I think it
is important to set this record straight once and for all and to let
people know how you feel— and that it is easy to sit back and — how
many years have you been a university president at Tulane and
Penn combined
Mr. Hackney. Eighteen.
Senator Hatch. Eighteen years. It is easy to sit back and pick
some isolated instances where you are dealing with a very, very
tough academic community; you ve got wild-eyed professors on both
sides of the issue; you've got people who are academically unbeliev-
able teaching these kids today — you know it, I know it, everybody
knows it — and you've got a lot of people who really just want that
university to do the very best it can for those students. They are
the vast majority, and I think most university presidents are in
that category; they want to do what is right.
How do you handle that? What about these procedures? Don't
you think you have an obligation to insert yourself and say, "Hey,
look, the procedures is wTong. This is infringing upon free speech.
Yes, it is irritating, it is obnoxious, it is offensive, but on the other
hand we have got to give people the right to speak their minds."
Mr. Hackney. I dori t think one should interfere in those proce-
dures while the case is going forward. That would not be fair, nor
wise for the university. Certainly after the case is over was the op-
portunity for me to speak, and I have also appointed a board of in-
quiry to look into the case itself to learn what it can from the pro-
cedures and where they went wrong, to provide that information to
a faculty-student committee that will meet next year and devise
the reform of the student judicial procedure.
Senator Hatch. Why wait until next year? You know it is a prob-
lem. Why not do something about it?
Mr. Hackney. Well, it is a problem, but on a university campus,
you really must bring everyone else along. There is the consultative
process. Those procedures were set up after a lot
Senator Hatch. Do you mean to tell me if you don't bring every-
body else along, you are going to have even more problems than
if not?
Mr. Hackney. I think it is better, yes, to develop this consensus
here, but I have spoken, and I have exerted some leadership here,
and I think it will go along very well, Senator.
I have already said that the policy itself is one that I believe
should be changed as well, and I believe that will be attended to
next year by the commission.
Senator Hatch. That's good. I hope that is so, and I hope that
Penn sets the example for all the university in this country that
this kind of rubbish should not exist at universities.
Mr. Hackney. I do think this commission has a chance to say
something that is very interesting to higher education in general.
31
Senator Hatch. Well, I think that they are going to be watched
very carefully, certainly by me, and I think everybody who is inter-
ested in universities in this country, because something has to be
done with the outrageous approach toward political correctness on
campus, which generally applies only to one side. I am not saying
in all cases, but generally, it does. m m
The Wall Street Journal continues on — and I think this is a good
editorial from their perspective— they go on to say, The Senators
at today's hearings might begin by asking some hard questions
about Mr. Hackney's response to the seizure, by a group of minor-
ity activities, of an entire press run of the Penn student paper, The
Daily Pennsylvania^ It would tell them volumes about the can-
didate's ability to act in defense of free speech," and so on.
Then they accuse you of this: "What Mr. Hackney in fact did
after the theft was to issue a statement awash in pious
evenhandedness, which repeatedly exculpated the seizure of the pa-
pers as' a protest activity.""
Would you care to answer that?
Mr. Hackney. Yes. I think that is simply wrong. I think my
statement speaks for itself. I found the confiscation of the news-
papers to be a violation of university policy that could not be toler-
ated on the campus, and I said repeatedly that speech is the para-
mount value of the university, and we are proceeding against those
students.
Senator Hatch. I have your statement here, and in your state-
ment— and I am just reading excerpts, and perhaps it is unfair not
to read the whole statement, but let me try to be fair in reading
the excerpts, and it will be even more fair by having you respond
in any way you care to — in your second paragraph, you say: "This
is in instance in which two groups important to the university com-
munity— valued members of Penn's minority community and stu-
dents exercising their rights to freedom of expression— and two im-
portant university values— diversity and open expression — seem to
be in conflict It is unfortunate that earlier attempts to establish
a dialogue regarding these issues were not effective. It is important
that all members of the university understand the circumstances
that surround this conflict."
I think it is a good statement. Then you say at the bottom of the
next paragraph: Of course, any alleged violations of this or other
university policies will be investigated according to established uni-
versity procedures." We come back to the procedures.
And you felt obligated to follow those procedures as university
president.
Mr. Hackney. I did, yes.
Senator Hatch. You felt that if you did not follow those proce-
dures, I presume, that you would be subjected to even greater criti-
cism by, really, everybody at the academic community once they
were established.
Mr. Hackney. Well, it is not only a matter of what people think
of me, Senator, it is a matter of how the university can function.
But if I were to intervene capriciously in cases, I think we could
not have a system that people would respect on the campus, and
it would not work.
32
Senator Hatch. All right If I were the university president, I
might feel a little bit the same way you did. I might want to re-
spect the procedure a little bit, too, realizing it is there, it may not
be right, and we may have to change it — but at least it's there, and
you can't just unilaterally overrule it, since it involves the faculty,
the students, and almost everybody else involved with the institu-
tion; right?
Mr. Hackney. Exactly. Right.
Senator Hatch. It is easy to criticize on isolated instances. I
have no doubt about that And I am not trying to give you an easy
time here.
Mr. Hackney. I have no doubt about that [Laughter.]
Senator Hatch. I am a powder puff, I know that [Laughter.]
You say this in the next paragraph: "In the ensuing altercations
between security personnel ana some of the students involved in
this protest activity against the editorial policies of The Daily
Pennsylvania^ students were handcuffed by university police and
transported to university police headquarters."
Then, in the next couple of paragraphs, you seem to indicate that
you were upset about that and you felt that the police had to be
investigated^ Am I mischaracterizing that?
Mr. Hackney. That is correct We set up a board of inquiry there
as well that has looked at the police response to this incident.
Their task was to use the existing standard operating procedures
of the police and to determine whether the police officer exceeded
his authority under the standard operating procedures — used more
force than was necessary.
Senator Hatch. Well, the minority community on the University
of Pennsylvania, what was it — about 5.6 percent, or 6 percent,
something like that?
Mr. Hackney. A little bit higher, I would think, 6, 6.5 percent
Senator Hatch. But it was below 10 percent
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Senator Hatch. And really below 7 percent
Mr. Hackney. I think sligntly below 7 percent.
Senator Hatch. In other words, they really were a very distinct
minority on campus, but still more as a minority group than any
other Ivy League college; is that right?
Mr. rfACKNEY. That is correct.
Senator Hatch. And you were trying to cultivate having African
American students and other minority students on campus, right?
Mr. Hackney. The task is not simply to cultivate African Amer-
ican students
Senator Hatch. Well, to give them the opportunity to be there
and get an education at Penn
Mr. Hackney. Absolutely.
Senator Hatch, [continuing]. And to show that the Ivy League
schools have some sensitivity in these areas as well — without domg
quotas, I take it
Mr. Hackney. Absolutely right The matter is to create an at-
mosphere on campus in which students can feel free to participate
fully.
Senator Hatch. And minority students, if my experience is cor-
rect— and you can correct me it" it isn't — tend to feel, because they
33
are almost an insular minority at great universities like this, that
maybe they are singled out sometimes even by campus police in
comparison to other students.
Mr. Hackney. That's true.
Senator Hatch. Am I mischaracterizing that?
Mr. HACKNEY. No. That is true, and that is a running theme in
fact
Senator Hatch. And if they get the idea that you are taking the
side of the campus police over what is fair and civil to them, then
what happens?
Mr. Hackney. Well, one must be evenhanded here. I think it is
not simply a matter of my trying to curry favor in the African
American community. I think the obligation is for the president to
be fair and to apply standards of fairness in judging the behavior
of all people from wnatever category— employees, students.
Senator Hatch. And part of that is showing them that they are
part of the community and that their feelings are going to be con-
sidered.
Mr. Hackney. I would think that in general that is true.
Senator Hatch. And some of them do come there because they
have been raised in ghettos or have had lack of opportunities in
their lives, and may sometimes come there with a chip on their
shoulder, feeling that they aren't treated fairly.
Mr. Hackney. I think that is true, Senator
Senator Hatch. Do you think that is a fair statement?
Mr. Hackney. It is not only true of African American students,
who come in great varieties, as you know — some feel very much at
home immediately, others do not — but there are other students
from other groups who come to the campus perhaps as the first
member of tneir family who have gone to college, and they feel a
little uncertain sometimes. And I think we do well to try to make
sure that the campus atmosphere values each individual as an in-
dividual and makes sure that they feel that they belong there so
they can get the most out of the educational experience.
Senator Hatch. It is a matter of great concern to you, isn't it?
Mr. Hackney. Absolutely, it is.
Senator Hatch. It should be. It should be. I think the other Ivy
League schools ought to be concerned, too, and they ought to do it
outside of the realm of quotas and ougnt to be doing it by searching
out the best students and getting them there, and giving them the
opportunity.
Mr. Hackney. I couldn't agree more.
Senator Hatch. But there is no question that that is a reality,
isn't it?
Mr. Hackney. Absolutely, yes.
Senator Hatch. And you have to face it in the inner city of Phila-
delphia, right?
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Senator Hatch. And the University of Pennsylvania is right in
the middle of Philadelphia, isn't it?
Mr. Hackney. It is. It is in
Senator Hatch. It isn't in the elite section of Philadelphia, is it —
and you may feel that it is, but I have been there
Mr. Hackney. It is an urban garden, Senator. [Laughter.]
34
Senator Hatch. Now I can see why it is going to be impossible
to reject you in the Senate because you have such a way with
words. But let me go a little further here.
I don't like the police being singled out, either. They must feel
a little bit insular themselves, because they are always picked on
every time there is a criticism.
Mr. Hackney. We need them.
Senator Hatch. That's right. In other words, having them inves-
tigated doesn't mean you are going to crush them or turn around
and trample on them, does it?
Mr. Hackney. Absolutely not
Senator Hatch. You are going to make sure their rights are pro-
tected.
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Senator Hatch. Well, I have to say I think your statement could
have been a little less mushy.
Mr. Hackney. Others have said the same thing — some members
of my own faculty.
Senator Hatch. Keep in mind that comes from a former janitor,
though, so it is easy for me to say that.
Mr. Hackney, lliat was also done in the heat of combat, if you
will.
Senator Hatch. And it is pretty extensive, too— I mean, there is
a lot of stuff in here that someone could try to split hairs on.
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Senator Hatch. People wouldn't do that to you, I know. But you
do say, as I indicated above, Two important university values now
stand in conflict There can be no compromise regarding the First
Amendment right of an independent publication to express what-
ever views it chooses." Now, I personally would have preferred you
to say, This is abominable, and somebody is going to pay a price
for this, and we are going to punish you, because this is not the
way you treat free expression at this university. We don't care
what race or what nationality or what religion or whatever else you
are; this just doesn't play at the University of Pennsylvania." I'd
have preferred that.
On the other hand, I have seen university presidents across the
country who would have done exactly what you did and would have
handled it, let's massage this, let's take it easy, let's worry about
all of these feelings and so forth, and let's see if we can resolve this
so everybody in the end is happy. That's a good way to do it some-
times, isn't it?
Mr. Hackney. Well, free speech is a fundamental value for a uni-
versity, and I agree in general that keeping the campus together
so that we can learn from those experiences is very valuable. But
I have not, did not, will not compromise on open expression.
Senator Hatch. Well, let me go back to the Wall Street Journal.
I have to admit your statement is good, and it could have been bet-
ter— but that's true of every statement, isn't it?
Mr. Hackney. Yes. I will take that criticism.
Senator Hatch. I imagine even some of your historical writings
could be improved upon, even by you.
Mr. Hackney. Yes. I would love to go back and write my book
again now.
35
Senator Hatch. Fd like to write some of your sections over my-
self. [Laughter.] I think they'd be far more accurate. No, I'm only
kidding.
Here, it says, you emphasize civility and sensitivity. "These are
stellar virtues indeed, but perhaps there is something in the air
breathed around university buildings that disconnects them utterly
from the virtues of courage and leadership." I kind of alluded to
that, but what we consider courage and leadership around here
may not fly at a university, or as a police chief may not fly at a
university, or as a member of the armed services may not fly at a
university. But I still think there is some valid criticism there.
Would you disagree, that you could have handled it a different
way?
Mr. Hackney. Possibly. I certainly might have used stronger
words in the statement. I think if you look at my career from be-
ginning to end, you will find numerous examples of courage, if
courage is making tough decisions and being willing to risk the
criticism that comes from them. I have done that in countless cir-
cumstances.
Senator Hatch. I appreciate it, and I imagine if we could take
the time here today, we could bring all those circumstances out
where you exhibited courage as well as tolerance. And to isolate a
few instances that were difficult, that would have been difficult for
any university president, may not be fair.
They say: But the much more insidious problem with the Shel-
don Hackneys of American university life, and their number is le-
gion, is that instead of courage, we must listen to their casuistry
about' tolerance'; instead of leadership, we must bear their silent
complicity in the suppression of honest opinion." Do you feel that
is a justifiable statement?
Mr. Hackney. That is an absolutely unfair statement.
Senator Hatch. It is a very well-written statement and a won-
derful editorial. What do you think about its accuracy?
Mr. Hackney. I don't really much appreciate it, Senator.
Senator Hatch Well, I can understand why. I think what we are
saying is that it takes a lot of courage to run the National Endow-
ment for the Humanities and to run it right, and to do it fairly,
and to make sure those grants are fair, and to make sure people
are treated fairly, and to make sure that you have true consider-
ation of ideas from across the spectrum, whether or not you agree
or disagree with those. Would you agree that's a fair statement?
Mr. Hackney. I would agree absolutely, and I think I have been
prepared for that, and I am willing to do it
Senator Hatch Let me take one other criticism here — and I
don't mean to take so long, but I think maybe I can get through
a lot of this stuff. One other criticism in this, and then Fd like to
go through two other criticisms before I finish.
"When Penn scholar Murray Dolfman — accused of a ludicrous
charge of racism for trying to bring home the significance of the
13th Amendment — had his classroom invaded by* protesters,' Presi-
dent Hackney had not a word to say in defense of Mr. Dolfman's
academic freedom, nor was he moved to discipline the disrupters.
On the contrary, it was Mr. Dolfman whom' the procedures' forced
36
to make a public apology and to attend a' sensitivity* training
class."
Could you tell me what was involved there and why you did not
come to the aid of Mr. Dolfman and stand up for his academic free-
dom, since he was one of your professors and a scholar of some re-
nown?
Mr. Hackney. He was — well, he was an adjunct professor, and
the incident that led to that was an incident in which he really hu-
miliated black students in his class by finding them at fault for not
knowing what the 13th Amendment held. And it made them not
only humiliated but quite angry.
Senator Hackney. You see, I think that might be a good teaching
method, since the 13th Amendment is so important to their lives.
Maybe it is good for him to challenge them and say, hey, what's
the matter with you people; don't you understand this very impor-
tant section?
Mr. Hackney. I think it is very difficult to know exactly what
went on
Senator Hatch. How he handled it.
Mr. Hackney. — how he handled it, yes. But his colleagues in his
department, which is the legal studies department in the Wharton
School, did investigate that, and
Senator Hatch. They felt that he had handled it in an inappro-
priate way.
Mr. Hackney. — they felt that he had gone beyond his role as a
teacher, and they therefore, with the dean's agreement, did not
renew his contract for a year and required him to do a sensitivity
session.
Senator Hatch. So your approach, since that was the procedure
at the University of Pennsylvania, to allow the faculty to make
these determinations, your approach was not to overrule the
faculty
Mr. Hackney. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Hatch. — without somebody bringing better facts to your
attention.
Mr. Hackney. That's right
Senator Hatch. All right. Now, Dr. Hackney, a group of 16 very
esteemed law school professors wrote what I believe is a very com-
pelling "open letter" to you in connection with the newspaper
confiscation incident. I believe that this letter was in response to
your remarks about one of these incidents and specifically, your
characterization of the incident as "an apparent conflict between
two important university values, diversity and open expression," to
quote you.
I would like to read this brief letter in its entirety because I find
it extremely compelling, and I would like you to answer it.
The undersigned are members of the law faculty. We believe
that the deliberate removal from circulation of 14,000 copies of The
Daily Pennsylvanian calls for us to State three points with un-
equivocal clarity. First, the removal of the newspaper because it
published writings by one columnist which some students found of-
fensive was a flagrant violation of freedom of thought and freedom
of discussion. It was a direct denial of the principle which is most
37
basic to the university's mission. It was conduct which cannot be
excused or tolerated."
"Second, the fact that the newspapers were confiscated as an act
of protest cannot excuse it or make it any less tolerable. Those who
disagree are, of course, entitled to protest, but not by attempting
to silence those with whom they disagree."
'Third, the important university values of diversity and open dis-
cussion were not in conflict here. The offensive columns in no way
prevented the university from carrying out its policy of diversity
and its many programs to promote understanding. Removal of the
newspaper struck at the heart of the most fundamental diversity
which tne university should foster— diversity of thought, views, and
expression."
"It may well be that the university has not done all that should
be done to promote racial diversity, and that must occupy a high
place on the continuing agenda. But we disserve democratic values
if, in our efforts to promote that diversity, we chill diversity of ex-
pression."
"Signed," and I won't read all the names, but they are eminent
professors at your university.
Now, first, do you agree with this letter's observation that "Re-
moval of the newspaper struck at the heart of the most fundamen-
tal value which the university should foster — diversity of thought,
views and expression"?
Mr. Hackney. I do.
Senator Hatch. OK. That is important, because if you did not,
I probably could not support your nomination.
Mr. HACKNEY. I absolutely do. They are absolutely right about
that.
Senator Hatch. And I did not put this in a way that I knew I
would get the right answer, either. I am asking you very
straightforwardly, because I knew that you would give that answer.
And I think it is important for the people of America to know that
you feel that way. I am trying to understand, though, why you de-
scribe this as a conflict between "diversity and open expression."
Could you please explain that description of the newspaper inci-
dent, and also whether you continue to feel that your characteriza-
tion at that time was accurate and/or appropriate?
Mr. Hackney. If I could rewrite it, I certainly would rewrite it
to remove the ambiguity. What I was intending to say there
Senator Hatch. So you admit it was ambiguous, but you didn't
know that at the time.
Mr. Hackney. Well, it was misinterpreted, I think. If it is read
closely, I think it says what I meant it to say.
Senator Hatch. OK
Mr. Hackney. But it is capable of misinterpretation. I was trying
to say that these two values that are important to the university —
diversity and free expression — appear to be in conflict, the word
that you used, but they really should not be, I should have gone
on to say, that we need to accomplish both of those at the same
time, ana they can be accomplished both at the same time. But in
this instance, we did have a conflict on the campus from a group
that felt that its being, its identity, was not appreciated and not
treated well by The Daily Pennsylvanian, and that is why they
38
were motivated to do what was a very unwise and bad thing, to
confiscate the newspapers.
But I do say in that statement that free expression is the para-
mount value, and I now, of course, would like to have said it more
strongly so that people could have recognized it better.
Senator Hatch. Like all of us, in retrospect, we wish we might
have said things a little bit better or a little bit differently— but
that doesn't mean that the point you were making was not valid.
Well, I appreciate that
Let me iust say that if I had the time, I would go into your
speeches about Jesse Helms and about the National Endowment
for the Arts. As one of the people who helped bring about that com-
promise that resolved the problem and kept the National Endow-
ment for the Arts alive, there were plenty of good reasons why Fed-
eral dollars should not be used in reprehensible ways.
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Senator Hatch. And one of your other speeches, you kind of
made that clear that you do agree that there are places where Fed-
eral dollars should not be called upon.
Mr. Hackney. Yes.
Senator Hatch. And I would have brought both of those out. And
I want you to know that had it not been for Senator Helms, we
probably would never debated the matter and never would have
had the controversy, never would have had the knowledge we have
about it, nor would we have the good feelings about the National
Endowment that currently exist today, nor would it be as strong
as it is today, in my opinion.
So in my opinion, you did a great service whether or not you
agreed with the way it was done. And I don't see any redeeming
value in Serano's work that was criticized — and we could go into
others as well.
Let me iust end by saying this. When an academic organization
like the Modern Language Association, filled with wonderful aca-
demics and wonderful thinkers in our society, with people who
ought to be at the forefront of free expression and First Amend-
ment rights and privileges, shoots down a well-published and de-
cent human being like Carol Iannone, and really, it is done politi-
cally, there should have been a lot of academics coming out of the
woodwork saying that's outrageous. There were some, by the way.
And I have to say that one reason that I am doing this is to remind
our colleagues on this committee who shot her down that it was a
pretty rotten thing to do, and that even though they did not agree
with her, even though she was more conservative, she still had aca-
demic credentials and intellectual capacities that deserved recogni-
tion and would have brought some force and some diversity to the
National Endowment.
I think that all too often, some of the tolerance is not found in
those with the liberal persuasion who are constantly criticizing
some with the conservative persuasion for lack of tolerance.
I think there is no excuse for either side to be intolerant or to
be intolerant of free speech rights in our society today, whether you
are conservative or liberal.
And frankly, I do not think you deserve all of the criticism you
have gotten. I think Charles Krauthammer, whom I have a great
39
deal of respect for, has written a very interesting piece, and as he
looks at it, as he has gotten the information, I can see why he
wrote it, and I can see how he feels the way he does. But I hope
that he will look at your total record, the 18 years as president of
two institutions, two great institutions, and the diversity of the fac-
ulty and student bodies that you have had to work with, and the
many, many decisions and difficulties that you have had to resolve,
and I think maybe give you the benefit of the doubt in the end.
And frankly, I don't have to give you the benefit of the doubt. I be-
lieve that you mean what you say. I believe that you are a tolerant
person, and I believe you are going to do the best you can. And you
have been honest here today, saying you wish you could have done
things a little bit differently. To me, that is the most redeeming
thing in these hearings, and I want to compliment you for it and
tell you that I intend to support you in this committee and on the
floor, and I hope that when you get there, assuming that you will,
and I believe you will, I hope that you will be a continual leader
with the best of those 18 years in helping to really do the work of
the Endowment, which everybody on this committee thinks is some
of the most important work that can be done in our society.
I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for taking so long. I had one other
very embarrassing question I was going to ask you, but I think HI
avoid it. [Laughter.]
The Chairman. Just very briefly, Carol Iannone was rejected be-
cause she wasn't qualified.
Senator Hatch. Now, see — see what I mean? There are those
typical liberal remarks.
The Chairman. And all anyone has to do is look at the Citation
Index on the Arts and Humanities and Social Services Citation
Index
Senator Hatch. I looked at it.
The Chairman, [continuing]. And just look through that and
make a list. And at this point, well put a list of her academic
writings in the record. It will be very short, indeed.
Senator Hatch. Free speech always has trouble on this commit-
tee, too.
The Chairman. And to try and pawn that individual off as a
qualified individual is
Senator Hatch. Well, I can give you hundreds of names in the
academic community that would stand up for her
The Chairman. We will be in order.
Senator Hatch. See how we tackle problems?
The Chairman. We listened to your diatribe, and now we are
going to hear the facts.
Senator Hatch. I see.
The Chairman. Dr. Hackney, let me just ask you about your own
outreach programs into the community. Universities today are
much different, certainly, than they were in the lSSCs when I went
to college. At that time, you did not have the representation at
many universities in terms of minorities; you did not have it with
regard to gender, you did not have opportunities for those with
handicaps or disabilities. And as I think you appropriately pointed
out, universities have evolved and changed, and the tempo has
40
changed, obviously and dramatically in these universities to be
much more reflective of what is happening in the communities.
Mr. Hackney. Indeed.
The Chairman. I would be interested to hear what you have
done in terms of outreach programs to the city. As I understand it,
this has been one of the areas that you have initiated and provided
to which you have important leadership, and maybe you could just
outline those briefly.
Mr. Hackney. Surely. As Congressman Foglietta mentioned m
his introduction, when I arrived at Penn, there was not much in
the way of a relationship between the city and the university. In
fact, as I went around early on, speaking to civic groups, I would
frequently see hostility in the comments and the looks of the people
in West Philadelphia, because in the sixties, a large tract of land
was cleared of houses, and the University City Science Center was
build, and the university itself expanded a little bit by incorporat-
ing four more blocks into its campus. And there was a tradition
there of hostility between the city, the neighborhoods around the
university, and the university.
I thought that was unhealthy. I also thought that even though
our primary objective at the university was teaching and the cre-
ation of knowledge for people at the university, that we had re-
sources that could be used to benefit the people who live around
us and who live in the city.
In addition, it is true that the health and vitality of the city of
Philadelphia is very important to the university. So I began early
on trying to create bridges, if you will, in various ways with the
neighborhoods around us and with the city itself. We have been an
extremely good citizen of Philadelphia, and this has increased.
The exciting part really began in 1985 with a seminar that was
taught by me and two other historians on The University and the
City," the tradition of it and the interaction between the univer-
sities and their neighborhoods. One of the students in that seminar
wrote a paper, saying that it would be very good if a youth im-
provement corps could be created in West Philadelphia, drawing
into it young men and women who did not have a lot to do in their
lives. And that was the time of the MOVE incident. In fact, we had
that youth improvement corps up and organized and funded for the
summer when a fire bomb was dropped and burned down 69
houses in West Philadelphia. We immediately expanded that pro-
gram and made places available for each and every teenager in the
affected neighborhood. They spent that summer and are still at
work doing projects to improve their neighborhoods in various
ways, to study about their neighborhoods, to take the desires and
what they learn in their neighborhood activities back into their
schools. We have teachers involved, and this has grown into a very
imaginative effort to create community schools in the neighbor-
hoods. We are operating now in five schools in West Philadelphia.
These neighborhood schools, or community schools, are places
that offer a variety of services and activities in addition to the reg-
ular schooling. There is preschool child care, afterschool child care,
adult programs on the weekends, literacy programs; we do health
screening using University of Pennsylvania medical students and
41
nursing students. A great variety of activities go on in that neigh-
borhood school.
We have expanded that initial effort so that now there are more
than 60 programs at work in West Philadelphia that take Penn fac-
ulty and students out into the community to be of service — and not
in a way that imposes their view of what should happen on the
community, but in response to community efforts. That has now
begun to pay off, so that we have a very healthy sense of coopera-
tion between the residents who live in the neighborhoods around
the university and the university.
To give you a couple of examples, there is a program called
PENN-Links that trains Penn undergraduates in how to do a
science experiment before a 6th grade class and lead a discussion
in what can come out of that, the scientific principles that can be
learned from that experiment. We have about 2,000 Penn students
doing various things in West Philadelphia from tutoring to visiting
senior citizens in their homes.
There is a very interesting program called "Say Yes to Edu-
cation," in which a Penn alumnus and his wife have adopted a 6th
grade class and promised them college tuition if they finish high
school. The first class is just now graduating. There were 112 in
the initial "adoption," if you will, and 40 of them are graduating
on time. There will be at least 30 more graduating next year. It is
a great success story for urban education, and they have provided
not only the promise of college tuition but enrichment activities
and support all the way through those 6 years of middle school and
high school.
Another Penn alumnus and his wife have adopted a 3rd grade
class with the same deal. We have more than 6,000 Penn people
at work in the community around us in volunteer activities. It is
a national model program, and I am very proud of it. We have just
made sure that it continues by setting up a Center of Community
Partnerships, a new position at the university, whose director will
coordinate all university activities and stimulate university activi-
ties, bringing faculty and students together who want to work in
the communities around us.
I am very pleased to say there has been for the last 4 or 5 years
a rising tide of interest in public service and volunteerism, and we
are trying to capture that at the University of Pennsylvania. Sen-
ator Wofford, of course, has been a stellar theorist and champion
of volunteer activity, and I think Penn is a good example of what
can be done through volunteer activity.
The Chairman. That's a wonderful record and an enviable one.
Senator Kassebaum.
Senator Kassebaum. Thank you. I just have one more brief ques-
tion, but again, it is one I think Dr. Hackney is going to be asked
on the floor, and I think it is important.
This raises the question of the use of Federal dollars for other
purposes than research in universities. It has happened at a num-
ber of universities. In 1991, it was reported in the Philadelphia In-
quirer that the University of Pennsylvania had used Federal re-
search money to buy such items as flowers and so forth.
42
Could you elaborate on the statements made in the Philadelphia
Inquirer article and explain if Federal research dollars were in fact
misused?
Mr. Hackney. Yes, Td be glad to do that, Senator. We have been
negotiating research contracts with our cognizant agency, Health
and Human Services, for a good while. There was no reason for
anyone at Penn, and certainly not for me, to think that there was
anything amiss in our research contract operation. When this broke
upon the national scene in early 1991 at another great research
university, I immediately thought that we ought to make sure that
we were not guilty of anything like the same sorts of mistakes that
were being revealed at other places. So our wonderful executive
vice president, Myrna Whittington, and I had a conversation imme-
diately and said that we would start, and we did start, a review
by ourselves of our own procedures. Our principle was that we sim-
ply do not want to have Federal dollars that do not belong to us,
and that we want to make sure that all Federal dollars are spent
appropriately.
We started our own review. The Health and Human Services
auditors came in that spring — I have forgotten the exact date, prob-
ably in March. We cooperated with them aggressively. They were
looking at one part of our operations, the general and administra-
tive expense component of indirect cost recoveries. When they iden-
tified items that were either inappropriate or did not belong there,
we moved right away to agree with them and returned the money
that they said had been overcharged, which we did. About
$930,000, we sent to them immediately.
Before the Health and Human Services auditors came in, though,
we had determined that the president's house, which is a very
small part of the G and A indirect cost pool, a very small part —
the flowers and the ianitorial supplies are an example — even
though those were legal and were known to HHS auditors, we de-
cided that that was not appropriate, and we took those out and still
exclude them from our indirect cost pool.
The great majority of the $930,000 that was identified as inap-
propriate or improper had to do with alumni relations activities.
That should not have been in the indirect cost pool, and as soon
as we knew that it was, we agreed that it was inappropriate and
not proper, and we sent the money back. That $930,000 is a lot of
money, indeed, and I am really upset that we had to send it back
or that we got it in the first place, because it was not appropriate,
but it amounts to one-half of one percent of indirect cost recoveries
over that 5-year program. And I think there is some evidence of our
willingness to attack a problem aggressively and to clear it up in
the fact that the Health and Human Services auditors and the uni-
versity reached an agreement quickly after this settlement on a
new 3-year contract So I think we did what we had to do in that
circumstance.
Senator Kassebaum. Well, as I said, it wasn't just the University
of Pennsylvania. There are many of the larger institutions particu-
larly that have found that this is difficult, and I am pleased that
you have undertaken such a rigid review and procedures regarding
this because it is easy to have those things happen. But it is a
question, and I think clearly it is one that is troubling to the public
43
as they look at and are surprised to find Federal dollars supposedly
going to research and designated for that going elsewhere.
I would just like to close by saying I found it really so interesting
to hear you answering the many questions that have been put for-
ward to you, and I am struck with how one can easily get tied in
a Gordian knot if they don't have a pretty firm direction. And I am
sure you would agree that with all the rights that one has, they
have responsibilities. And I think as I have listened to you that I
am convinced that a university president should not be involved in
handling individual cases that occur at a university. And I am
struck that the board of inquiry and so fortli — at what point did
the university lawyers handle the situation? It would seem to me
that in almost all these situations, it would be counsel for the uni-
versity that would enter in and make a determination of what and
how it should be handled. And this is really not particularly rel-
evant except to, I would suggest, the National Endowment for the
Humanities. It seems to me it is going to be very important to be
sure there are those firm guidelines, and that no matter how one
might personally feel about one case or another, there are those
guidelines that have to be adhered to, whether you might want to
make an exception here or an exception there, because if that oc-
curs, then I think it is very easy to find oneself in real difficulty —
and particularly with the pressures that you know come at the Na-
tional Endowment for the Humanities or the National Endowment
of the Arts, and this has been particularly true through the past
several years, as well as for the new pressures on the universities.
Mr. Hackney. That is excellent advice that I will take.
Senator Kassebaum. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Pell.
Senator Pell. Thank you very much.
I would rust say how great it is to see so many members of your
future staff here for this hearing, and not worrying about coming
up to the Hill and being seen.
Mr. Hackney. It is encouraging.
Senator Pell. A disappointment I have is that the White House
does not have a point person whom those interested in the human-
ities, the arts, the museums, can be in touch with. For the time
being, I guess you will be that point person. But there should be
somebody actually in the White House; there has been in prior ad-
ministrations.
Mr. Hackney. If I am confirmed, Senator, you may call me any
time, and I will respond.
Senator Pell. Thank you. Just in closing, I would be very inter-
ested in your thoughts as to what you hope to see accomplished in
the National Endowment for the Humanities under your steward-
ship.
Mr. Hackney. I would hope to increase the levels of coordination
among the different divisions of the NEH and among the other
Government agencies doing humanities programs in coordination
with tie NEH, and to engage in a real partnership with the State
Humanities Councils to increase the participation of the American
people in humanities activities.
44
I think there are some imaginative ways in which we can go
about that. I do not have a blueprint as yet, as I should not, I
think. I need to talk to a lot of people who are involved and to pick
up their ideas and to learn a bit more about it.
But right now, I would think that one interesting thing to try
with a portion of the NEH activities is to perhaps identify some
themes that the State Humanities Councils and the different divi-
sions of the NEH, and perhaps different agencies of Government,
might create programs around all at the same time, so that we
could pursue a similar theme. Something like this was done on a
special occasion during the celebration of the Bicentennial of the
Constitution in 1986 and 1987, and something like that could be
done again, not waiting for another great anniversary, but simply
picking a thematic area that is of great importance and great inter-
est— perhaps the notion or the question of what is it that holds us
together as a Nation. We are a very diverse people. That is even
recognized in our motto, "E pluribus unum." Well, how do we be-
come one out of many? It is a very fascinating notion, and in a time
when we are becoming more diverse, ethnically and culturally and
every other way, we ought to think very carefully about what do
we owe to each other as citizens. I think the National Endowment
for the Humanities can play a role in creating that conversation
that will allow us to pay some attention to the basic values, the
fundamental values of the country, and I am looking forward to
doing that.
Senator Pell. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Coats.
Senator Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hackney, I have a series of questions to just clarify a couple
of the matters. One, on the question of the investigation and pros-
ecution according to the university procedures of the students in-
volved in the newspaper incident. I want to just get the sequence
of timing.
Did this incident take place right near the end of the academic
year?
Mr. Hackney. Very near the end of the year, yes.
Senator Coats. And that's the basis for waiting until the fall?
Mr. Hackney. By the time the process could get to the point of
having a hearing, the students were mostly gone. We did put a "ju-
dicial hold," as it is called, on the transcript of a student who was
a senior, so he will have to come back and satisfy that disciplinary
hold. The other students will return in the fall, by which time we
will have a special JIO in place and can proceed.
Senator Coats. Was an investigation initiated immediately
after
Mr. Hackney. Yes, there was a — no. We need a special JIO.
There was a sort of investigation. The board of inquiry did look at
some aspects of student behavior, but was mainly focused on the
police and their behavior.
Senator Coats. So one of your recommendations, then, to the
board of trustees — I think you had indicated you would leave some
recommendations for a change in the process — would be a revision
of that process?
45
Mr. Hackney. Absolutely, yes. I am frankly appalled at how long
it takes us to get these cases to a hearing, and that is not good,
and we need to change the process.
Senator Coats. Earlier in your testimony in response to my
questions on the Eden Jacobowitz matter, and comparing that with
Greg Pavlik, you indicated that with Mr. Pavlik, it came to your
attention fairly immediately, and the reason you responded so
quickly was that you felt it was an egregious situation to which you
ought to respond; but you did not nave that same immediacy of
knowledge relative to the Jacobowitz case.
Now, Mr. Jacobowitz has stated that just 2 days after the inci-
dent in fact, that happened late on the night of the 13th— on the
15Ui of January, 1993 — and I am quoting from him now— "On Jan-
uary 15th, I approached President Hackney after an informal ques-
tion and answer session he was holding at the Helail organization,
where I take my kosher meals, and I told him my entire story. ]
told him everything I had said and everything the complainant
said and how I was under investigation for racial harassment. I
asked him for help because I had been told by a professor that
cases labelled' racial harassment' by the university tend to become
big cases, proceeding longer than usual only because of that label.
I could not believe that he, Dr. Hackney, did not remember that
I approached him on January 15th and poured my heart out to him
about how alarmed I was about this incident."
That doesn't seem to square with your earlier answer in terms
of your not having knowledge of the case, and that's the reason you
did not intervene.
Mr. Hackney. I actually do not remember that. I did speak at
Helail, as I do every year, at least- I do remember that evening,
which would have been, I think, 2 days after the incident itself. It
could well have happened, but I iust don't remember it.
What I probably would have done on that is to see where the in-
vestigation was and ask one of my assistants to look into it. At that
point, nothing would have happened. We had just had a similar in-
cident that the JIO also investigated and did not proceed with. So
I probably would have felt that there was no reason to worry that
an injustice was about to be done, and I actually do not remember
speaking
Senator Coats. You have no recollection of the conversation
Mr. Hackney. No.
Senator Coats, —or an association or meeting with Mr.
Jacobowitz?
Mr. Hackney. No, no. Those are really interesting events. I
speak, and then there is sort of a group discussion, and then I
stand around for maybe an hour talking to individual students, and
I simply do not remember that
Senator Coats. Some questions have been raised about the uni-
versity's inequitable treatment of speakers, and I am quoting here
from the Boston Globe, who said in a June 24, 1993 edition: ^Vhen
a student organization invited the counsel general of South Africa
to speak on campus, and black groups threatened disruption, the
administration refused to pay security costs, and the speech was
canceled. But when Louis Farrakhan brought his" — and I am quot-
ing the paper— "Tiate fest' to Penn in 1988, Hackney not only
46
anteed up for extra security, but authorized the payment of part
of the minister's honorarium from mandatory student activity fees."
I wonder if you could explain that and answer the question as
to whether or not this is inconsistent with university policy.
Mr. Hackney. I can explain it The invitation to the ambassador
from South Africa came in the early eighties — I don't recall when,
and it doesn't say there; probably 1983 or somewhere
Senator Coats. I don't have the date.
Mr. Hackney. — it was fairly soon after I got to the university.
The invitation was issued, he agreed to come, and then the student
group that was issuing the invitation was told that the university
policy was for all groups that were hosting a speaker to pay the
security costs. They could not afford that, so they wrote the ambas-
sador and withdrew the invitation. And as soon as I heard that, I
said to myself, and indeed said to the provost, "This isn't right We
really can't have a policy that lets those who can afford it speak
and those who can't afford it not speak." So we changed the policy
right away, and therefore there was a different policy in place — in
fact, we changed the policy so that the university paid the security
costs for speakers who come to the campus. So there was a policy
change between that incident wit regard to the ambassador from
South Africa and Louis Farrakhan's visit.
Senator Coats. Thank you.
I wonder if I could follow up on a question that Senator Hatch
asked you. Some of the more controversial items that we have been
involved in with the National Endowment of the Arts have involved
Mapplethorpe — I am not exactly sure how to pronounce his name —
and the Serano exhibits. Now, I understand the difference between
a university making a decision as to whether or not to exhibit those
and the National Endowment making a decision as to whether or
not to issue a grant. We don't need to pursue that. I am just won-
dering, do you subscribe to the tenet that not awarding a grant
would amount to censorship, or do you see a reason for discretion
in judgment?
Mr. Hackney. No. I think there is room for discretion in judg-
ment and a lot of room for very vigorous and rigorous review of
merit It is a multilayered review process at the NEH, and I will
make sure that that is one of rigor and integrity, and I will not be
afraid to use my own judgment about the merits of proposals that
come to me.
Senator Coats. So you see a distinction between the display of
a crucifix in urine if it is displayed at the University of Pennsylva-
nia and a decision made in the board room of one of the endow-
ments relative to whether taxpayers' funds should be used to dis-
play that?
Mr. Hackney. Well, I would. That's a hypothetical. I think, yes,
I recognize that using taxpayer money is a real responsibility, and
I am prepared to carry that out
Senator Coats. I wonder if I could just finish by getting to the
question of diversity. I would be interested in knowing how you de-
fine "diversity."
Mr. Hackney. We use the Government categories, Senator.
47
Senator Coats. Then it is important that we know how we define
it. [Laughter.] And I can assure you, between now and the time
this reacnes the floor, Til find out [Laughter.]
Mr. Hackney. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
standard forms.
Senator Coats. Let me tell you why I brine this up. As you
know, I am concerned that the Endowment for the Humanities re-
view process be a fair process, and you have indicated that you
have the same concern. I think in order to function fairly, that
process has to be informed by the advice of qualified people who
represent a range of viewpoints.
You may be familiar with an incident at Duke University in
1990, when a Duke University English professor, Stanley Fish,
wrote the provost saying, In my view, members of the National
Association of Scholars should not be appointed to positions on key
academic committees." I am wondering if vou have any particular
opinion about the National Association of Scholars and potential
representatives from that organization being appointed to commit-
tees of the Endowment for the Humanities?
Mr. Hackney. That would not be a disabling factor in their ap-
pointment to the National Endowment for the Humanities so far as
my recommendations might go. Some of my best friends are mem-
bers of the NAS.
Senator Coats. Are you some of their best friend?
Mr. Hackney. That is not yet clear.
Senator Coats. Dr. Hackney, I try to operate on a principle rel-
ative to nominations that the presumption ought to be in favor of
the individual making the appointment, so that U.S. Supreme
Court nominations or Cabinet positions or a position such as yours,
the presumption ought to rest in favor of the President who is mak-
ing the appointment. And I think the burden of proof rests not on
the appointer, but on those who may seek to deny the nomination,
and it takes some clear and convincing evidence indicating that the
individual is not qualified before I would think that presumption
would be overcome.
This really has nothing to do with you, yet in a sense, it has a
lot to do with your nomination because, as Senator Hatch indi-
cated, there are some deep wounds and deep feelings regarding Dr.
Carol Iannone's denial of a position, not as chairman of the Na-
tional Endowment for the Humanities, but as a member of the ad-
visory board.
Now, it seems ironic to me that the acting director of the Na-
tional Endowment for the Humanities is someone who does not
have a Ph.D. I think having a Ph.D. is important for that position,
and I am pleased that you have the academic background and
qualifications that you have. It doesn't seem to me that it would
be critical that an individual have a Ph.D. to serve on the advisory
committee; yet doesn't it seem ironic that the acting director does
not have a Ph.D., and yet someone who did have a Ph.D., Carol
Iannone, was not even qualified to serve on the advisory commit-
tee?
Mr. Hackney. I followed that case in the newspapers, but not
terribly closely. I really don't have a personal position on it now.
The matter of what the qualifications should be for National Coun-
48
cil membership and other positions in the NEH is a serious one,
and I will certainly study it very carefully.
Senator Coats. Well, I ask the question because I think that that
advisory committee ought to have some diversity.
Mr. Hackney. It sure should.
Senator Coats. And that diversity might be obtained by someone
who has less than what would be considered liberal academic cre-
dentials, although I would question a denial of the fact that Dr.
Iannone didn't have adequate credentials when such distinguished
scholars as Jacques Barzun; Edward Shills, a distinguished profes-
sor of social thought at the University of Chicago; Donald Kagan,
dean of Yale College; historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, who was the
1991 Jefferson Lecturer in the Humanities, and Joseph Epstein,
editor of The American Scholar, the journal of Phi Beta Kappa, all
gave very high endorsements for Dr. Iannone. I do not fall in that
category of scholarship, but I think that for a position on an advi-
sory committee, that that ought to be ample qualification, and I
hope that you would exercise some discretion and judgment rel-
ative to appointment of individuals even if they did not necessarily
fit a more rigid ideological background.
Mr. Hackney. I will do that, yes. Ideological rigidity is not me,
frankly. Fairness, I think, is. And I do think that diversity needs
to be represented there.
Senator Coats. And I thank you for your testimony and your pa-
tience this morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hackney. Thank you very much, Senator.
The Chairman. I'm going to leave Carol Iannone alone.
Senator Wofford.
Senator Wofford. Mr. Chairman, thank you for asking those
questions about the ways in which Sheldon Hackney has tied the
University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia community, thank
you Mr. Hackney for your response. And unless you have changed
your mind about the quality of your writing and feel so strongly
you could do better, I would like permission to put your annual re-
port of 1987-88 in the record. It is not very long, but it is very
hard-hitting and eloquent on Penn and Philadelphia common
ground.
Mr. Hackney. I would consent to that.
The Chairman. It will be so included.
[The document referred to appears in the appendix.]
Senator WOFFORD. Just in closing, a quick comment on the three
main thrusts from the outside world right now before us. The Wall
Street Journal proposition, a rather peculiar one, in the "Review
and Outlook" piece on June 9th, says: "As it is, this Democratic
nominee will be voted upon by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Claiborne
Pell, Howard Metzenbaum, Chris Dodd, Paul Simon, Tom Harkin,
Barbara Mikulski, Jeff Bingaman, Paul Wellstone, and Harris
Wofford." This hearing this morning, with the thoughtful, construc-
tive, probing questions from our three Republican colleagues, sug-
gests that there is a bipartisan spirit in this room today, and I am
sure, knowing this committee, that is going to be the way we will
approach your nomination.
49
Then, there was the Charles Krauthammer article today in The
Washington Post, which said that if we on this committee had any
gumption, we would turn this into a debate on political correctness,
and says you are the symbol of political correctness, and I think
you persuasively conveyed that that is not you, and there is no case
for turning this into a debate on political correctness. If it did, I
probably in fact would agree with Charles Krauthammer's critique
of political correctness, and I think, knowing you, that you agree
with a fair amount of it yourself.
Mr. Hackney. Indeed. I have spoken and written about that.
Senator Wofford. And your words are strong on the subject
Nor is it a debate on Carol Iannone, and since I wasn't around,
I have nothing to contribute to that. But to those who would from
the outside try to turn this process into a debate on those other is-
sues, we have the real answer from our colleague — whose article I
am putting in the record and I commend to us— Senator Danforth's
article, "A Presidential Nomination? Forget It" He says that the
American people are tired of the politically lucrative field of divi-
siveness. That thev want us to stop using Presidential nominations
for the purpose of making a political point, or furthering a philo-
sophical position, or establishing our own moral superiority, or em-
barrassing the President of the United States, whatever party may
at the time occupy the White House. His thesis is that it takes
courage to be a nominee. I have seen you engage in acts of courage
over many years, but I am delighted that despite the challenges
Senator Danforthpoints out, you have the courage to be a nominee.
Mr. Hackney. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Just in conclusion, I again want to recognize
your wife, Mrs. Hackney. We know of her by her reputation as an
enormously accomplished, gifted and talented person who has been
very much involved in the university and has been an ombudsman
for the university, and I am sure much more, but she has a very
enviable record. I would note historically that she is the niece of
Justice Hugo Black and so has had enormous interest in terms of
both the public life and political life of the Nation. So we are very
glad that she has joined us here today.
I will include in the record the New York Times editorial.
[The New York Times article appears in the appendix.]
The Chairman. Just on a personal note, you received the
Bevridge Prize in American History, an enormous achievement and
accomplishment If I could just take another moment of your time.
I asked Shelby Foote what part of the Civil War he left out, and
he said the naval engagements, that they did not have the photog-
raphy and so on, so that much of the documentation that was there
for tne other parts of the Civil War were not available, and he said
he thought there were equally interesting manifestations of the
same kind of heroism and bravery in those engagements.
I wonder whether you would agree with nim, or whether you
have any opinion about that?
Mr. Hackney. Actually, that is not my period — but I think he is
right, and it is because of the absence of a photographic record
The Chairman. The Brady pictures and others.
Mr. Hackney, [continuing]. Right, which are so powerful and so
immediate in their impact. It is amazing after 150 years that they
50
really do still have that great impact and brine home the horrors
of war and the bravery on both sides. It would be nice to have the
naval engagements there to complete the record, yes.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Hackney is a superb candidate for this position. President
Clinton has made an excellent choice. The hearing provided an op-
portunity to address all the issues raised by his critics. Dr. Hack-
ney is clearly committed to free expression, and he dealt with that
issue eloquently and convincingly, and he will apply that principle
in a fair and evenhanded way at tne Humanities Endowment
I intend to ask the committee to move the nomination as soon
as possible, and I expect him to be confirmed by a solid bipartisan
majority in the U.S. Senate.
The committee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The appendix follows:]
51
APPENDIX
Prepared Statement of Sheldon Hackney
At first glance, my life does not appear to be one that was ever to need of
transformation, yet I can bear personal witness to the sort of personal transformation that I
believe the humanities have the power to accomplish.
I was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama, the third son of a thoroughly
Methodist family that eventually included five sons, the offspring of a marriage that is now in
its sixry-foarth year. My childhood was spent in the Great Depression and World War n, and
I was acutely aware that my world was one of scarcity and vulnerability. Nevertheless, my
childhood was unproblematic, at least if one doesn't count my being continuously terrorized by
my older brothers.
My father was a newspaperman before the war. As that was not the era of the journalist
as hero, and as his family was large, when he returned from the Navy he set himself np in
business baying and reselling war surplus material. His business evolved, and he eventually
did very well
As I went through public school in Birmingham, like most children of middle-income
families, I could imagine various furores for myself, each of them honorable and productive,
but I never imagined the life I have actually had. That life was opened up for me in part
because of two superb History teachers at Ramsay High School, Mary McPhaul and Ellen
PalUn and in part because I loved to read. My mother read to us a lot when we were young,
and when I was a bit older 1 remember listening wondroosry to ber practicing the dramatic
book readings that she did for literary clubs around the city, legitimate theater not having a
very livery presence in Birmingham then. Although reading was a bit of magic for me, I was
thoroughly imprisoned in the myth that real boys did aoi work very hard in school and real
men were men of action rather than thoughL
The major reason, however, that the world was saved from having yet another lawyer
was my older brother, Fain, whom I worshipped. He was charismatic and multi-talented and
very imaginative, so that he was always the leader in the neighborhood and the one who would
organize our play, not only the standard games like kick-the-can and hide-and-seek, but
elaborate war games and a game we called town' in which everyone bad a role selling
something, and Fain was always the banker because he could draw so well and make beautiful
52
dollar bills. My brother, Morris, always got the lemonade concession and ended up with all the
a*on<-» that Fain had issued from the bank.
Fain was a young man of grandiose projects, usually too grand ever to finish but always
»n-iring enough to draw in everyone else. Despite all his talent, he had an uneven academic
record, reflecting his enthusiasms and his lack of focus, but he had a great time and made all
those aroaad him have a great time also. He went off to the Uuirovitv of Alabama where
parties were then known to occur. He had a wonderful time his freshman year, and his
abysmal grades showed it-
Something happened to him that following summer, and I don't know what the
transforming event or experience was. In any case, he became a different person. He started
reading books that were not required for school. He began to listen to classical music, to write
poetry, and to talk of serious subjects. He transferred to Birmingham Southern College and
started to work at his courses. I was fascinated.
Part of his plan for remaking his life was to become a Nary pilot, which he did. When I
went off to Vanderbilt on a Naval ROTC scholarship, he was on the West Coast an then in
Japan Dying amphibious patrol planes. Letters from him were not only reports of adventures
m exotic places but accounts of what he was reading and thinking and guilt-producing
questions about my intellectual life, which even at Vanderbilt could be as sparse as one wanted
it to be-
lt was at about this time, because of Fain's example, if not bis specific recommendation,
that I was captured by the novels of William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, and especially
Thomas Wolfe. I am almost embarrassed to remember how much I identified with Eugene
Cant, a young Southerner coming of age by trying to read bis way through the Harrard library.
Vanderbilt was saturated, of coarse, with the tradition of the Fugitive poets and the Agrarians,
and I studied them with appreciation. Though the Agrarians had taken their stand twenty
years before in very different times and had since then taken diverse political paths, the big
questions they had raised (about what is the good life, and what is the value of tradition, and
what is the function of government, and what are the perils of modernity) were common and
h vely topics of debate among my friends.
We also talked of race relations, an omnipresent concern of Southerners black and white
that was intensified by the Supreme Court's ruling in the Brown case that put an exclamation
mark in the middle of my college years. For reasons that I find difficult to explain, but that
53
probably have to do with my religions training, I had broken away from southern white
orthodoxy eren before going to college and had concluded that racial segregation was wrong
As a historian, I hare eootinoed my interest in race because it is a major factor in American
history. As an individual, I hare contjnned my commitment to racial equality because I believe
it is right and that gronp relationships are one of the major unresolved questions on the
domestic scene. In the more formal curriculum at Vanderbift, Dewey Grantham, Herb Baily
and Henry Swint in the History Department increased my interest in History.
1 was devastated by the death of my brother in a military plane crash in Japan in 1554
during the summer after my sophomore year. He had meant so many things to me that it was
not until years later that I realized that his most important gift to me was to give me
permission to nse my mind in serious ways, to risk pursuing a subject that I enjoyed, to spend
my life in pursuit of education for myself and for others. Watching him change, and being
lured into the pleasures of thought as a way of enhancing experience, transformed my life and
gave it purpose.
After three years on a destroyer and two years teaching weapons at the United States
Naval Academy in Annapolis, I went to Yale to study under C Vann Woodward, the leading
historian of the South and the man who became the most important influence on my career as
a historian and on my devotion to academic freedom, intellectual honesty, free speech, and the
obligations of coUegiality. I bad been attracted to Woodward not only by bis reinterpreUtion
of the history of the Sooth from Reconstruction to World War I, bat by his subtle exploration,
in the essays collected in The Borden of Son them History, of what it means to be a Southerner
and what the history of the South means to the nation and the world.
After Yale, I joined the faculty of Princeton where I worked sway at becoming the best
teacher and scholar 1 could possibly be while raising a family and doing the sort of committer
assignments and quasi-administrative tasta that faculty are called opon to do. My career as a
historian, in fact, was diverted because I kept saying yes to such requests. When William G.
Bowen became President of Princeton in 1972, he invited me to become Provost. The slippery
slope turned into a water chute. I became President of Tulane University in 1975 and the
University of Pennsylvania in 198 L This confirms the truth of the aphorism that life is what
happens to you while you are planning something else.
54
I believe my twenty years or major responsibility In universities has prepared me to lead
the Naliooal Endowment Tor (he Humanities- For the past generation, universities have
provided tough environments. University presidents operate in a sea of powerful and
conflicting currents. To succeed, one most
have a dear sense of strategic direction, a fundamental commitment to the core values of the
University, the strength to persevere through contentions times, and the ability to gain and
keep the support ■ variety of constituencies. I have not oniy survived in that environment, I
have prospered, and my institutions have thrived.
Among the values that I hold dear is a belief that a university ought to be open to all
points of view, even if some of those views expressed are personally abhorrent. I take some
pride in having protected the right to speak of such diverse controversial figures from William
Shockley at Princeton to Louis Farrakhan at Penn. The university should belong to all of its
members and not be the exclusive domain of any particular person, group, or point of view.
During my twelve and a half years at Penn, I have made the undergraduate experience
my highest priority. Penn has revamped the general education components of the curriculum
in each of its four undergraduate schools, provided a livelier sense of community through the
creation of freshman booses within the residential system, added a reading project that asks
freshmen to read • common book and then to discuss that book in seminars during orientation
week and throughout the year, revised our advising system, revitalized the freshman seminar
program, and drawn senior faculty into the teaching of introductory courses. I have increased
the diversity of the Pens student body an worked hard to sustain an inclusive and supportive
atmosphere on campus, to provide a campus in which everyone has a very strong sense of
belonging and in which our animated debates are carried out with civility. I have also created
a new sense of partnership with the neighborhoods around us, as a close working relationship
with the school system of the City of Philadelphia, and a national model program of
volunteerism that I institutionalized a year ago by establishing the Center for Community
Partnerships to stimulate and coordinate the involvement of faculty, staff and students in off-
campus service activities.
Universities exist to create new knowledge and to preserve and communicate knowledge.
The NEH, as a sort of university without walls, through its research, education, and public
programs, is engaged in the same effort. I am dedicated to the proposition that we CM
improve the human condition through knowledge and that our hope for tomorrow in fth
troubled world depends on the sort of understanding that can come through learning.
55
I have great respect Tor the NEH. It is the single most important institution in
American life promoting the humanities, and it has a long record or accomplishment. I believe
there are things that can be done to extend and broaden the impact of the NEH as it fulfills its
juratory talk of tTifwn|>ring the humanities.
I Mat to think of the humanities as human beings recording and thiwlring about human
experience and the human condition, preserring the best of the past and deriring new insights
in the present. One of the things that the NEH can do is to conduct a national conversation
around the big questions: what is the meaning of life, what is a just sooefr, what is the nature
of daty, and so on. In this big conversation, it is not the function of the NEH to provide
answers bnt to insure a discussion, to create a forum in which all voices can be heard.
Because they are not just for the few but for everyone, no single approach to the NEH
mandate is adequate. There is a need for balance among research aimed at creating new
knowledge, educational programs to insure that the humanities are creatively and invitingly
represented in the curricula of our schools and colleges, and public programs to draw everyone
into the big conversation. Those three activities should be related to each other and should be
mutually supportive.
The country has never needed the humanities more. We not only face the challenges of
a new geopolitical situation and the problems of adjusting to economic competition in a new
global marketplace, but we face a crisis of values at home. What is happening to family and
community? Who are we as a nation and where are we going? What holds us together as a
nation and what do citizens owe to each other? What is the relationship of the individual to
the group in a society whose political order is based upon individual rights and in which group
membership is still a powerful social influence.
Even more importantly, the humanities have the capacity to deepen and extend to new
dimensions the meaning of life for each and everyone of us. They have the capacity to
transform individual lives, not necessarily in the external circumstances of those lives, bnt in
their internal meaning.
Every human experience is enhanced by higher levels of knowledge. When I listen to a
piece of music, I may like it and think it beautiful, bnt the person who knows the historical
context of its composition understands what the composer was trying to accomplish technically
and can compare the composition and the performance to others will get infinitely more oat of
the experience than I wilL That is why I enjoy talking about common experiences with people
56
who will see it through • lens different from mine. The task of the NEH is to enrich the
conversation and bring more people into it
The premise of my approach to the tasks of the NarionaJ Endowment for the Humanities
is simple bat profound. The more you know, the more yon bear and see and feel The more
you know, the more yon can know. The more you know, the more meaningful life is. Such can
be the gift of the NEH to the American people.
STATEMENT FOR COMPLETION BY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES
PART I: ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS PART WILL BE MADE PUBLIC
Name: Hackney Francis Shplrinn
Petition to which chairman. National Endowment for3*1*0*
nominated the Humanities rami
nomination:.
Oat* ol birth: 5-12-33 ^^^ ^ birth: Birmingham, Alabama
Manul status: Married FuB rum* of soouse: I.urv .TnrlV i n«; nnrr H*r-knt»y
Nam* and »r«*
Ot chydran: Virginia Foster Ha^kn^y </?Q/Sfi
ShelHnn Fain Harlrngy 10/4/60
Elizabeth Hackney McBride 1/1B/64
Ifi
yrAr*. nlH
23
years olr!
22
y*> A rs^. Q ]f\ .
Dates D*tra«s D*tn of
Education: institution Ttaodad wowd dajwaa
Birmingham Southern
College 1952 n/a n/a
Vanderbilt University «
12S2 - 135* ba — LSSS.
American University 1959-1961 ' m n/a n/a
Yale Oniversity 1961-1965 MA/ Ph.D. ^tf,^■ lite
Honon and award*: Uat balow alt scholarships. Wtowahipv honorary digr— a, military modal*, honorary aoctotr
anambarahip*, and any «o«ar apociai racofnlUoru tor avtatandlna »«yio* oc aeniavamant.
PLEASE SFF P»nr ia _
Honors and Degrees
Pajf 1-A
57
Honorary Decrees:
Honors and Awards:
Doctor honoris causa. University de Technologic de
Compiegne, 1991
Doctor honoris causa, University of Edinburgh, 1989
Doctor of Philosophy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
1984
Doctor of Laws, Haverford College, 1983
Doctor of Humane Letters, Philadelphia College of
Textiles, 1981
Maimonides Award from the Ano-Defamation League of
B'nai B'ritfa, Philadelphia, 1988
West Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Award of
Merit for service to the community , 1987
Appointed Honorary Professor, Shanghai Jiao Tong
University. 1984
Southern Historical Association's Charles S. Sydnor Prize
for best work in Southern History published during
1968-69
Albert J. Bevridge Prize in American History awarded by
the American Historical Association for the best book
in American History published in 1969
Memberships: List below all memberships and offices held In professional, fraternal, business, scholarly,
one. charitable and other orfamzjtion* lor the last five years and any other prior mem-
berships or offices you consider relevant.
Orfantiatlsrt
Once h*4d
("•«y)
Data
Please see page 2A
wftpvoyitieett records
Us* below an posttkm head since coMfe. Including Use tttt* or description of Job, name of
emptorcr. location of work, and dates of Inclusive employment.
Pniversitv of P»nnCyiv»ni». President and Prnf>«:«:<-n- of
History. 1981 fPlease see attached for inh rl>.;rrirtinni
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania _^^
Tulane Onivprsi t-v. Prpsi dent- »n^ Prnf.ccor nf Rig«-»,-y
1975-1981. Mpwnri»nt '■"'"■='»"»
Princeton Mnivpr^fv. Provost *nrl Prnf>»nr 1QT>.io->c
Associate Professor, 1968-1972: Assistant Prrtf«tnr utc.tp
Princeton. New Jersey
58
P^t 2A - Memberships
Organization
American Council on Education Board
Office Held
American Fnends of Hebrew ...
University. Philaddphu Chapter Member
Worid Affairs Council
Associarioo of Amencan
Universities
Alopecia Areata Research
Foundation
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
American Philosophical Society
National Collegiate Athletic
Asscoabon
Pennsylvania Association of
Colleges and Uoiversines
Board of Advisors. PBS
Documentary 'Making Sense of
theSixbes,"
Philaddphians for Good
Government
Dates
1991— Present
1983— Present
Chairman's Advisory
Commitlrr
1981— Present
Executive Committee
19*4-90
Honorary Member
1984-89
Philadelphia Committee
1986— Present
Member
1988— Present
Presidents Commission
Executive Com mi ace
Secretary-Treasurer
Board of Advisors
Steering Commitlrr
1989-93
1989— Present
1992— Present
1991
1991— Present
Boards
The Carnegie Foundahon for
the Advancement of Teaching
Urban Affairs Partnership
Philadelphia
MoodJ Chemical Senses Center
University City Science Center
Committee to Support Philadelphia
Public Schools
Board of Directors
Chairman
Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Pennsylvania Economic Devdopment
Partnership
Board Member
Bear Steams Companies Inc. Board of Directors
Say Yes to Education Foundation Board Member
Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs
Coalition
Board Member
1976-*4; 1986-
1982-83
1984-91
1981 --Present
1981 — 1985
1983 — Present
1987— Present
1987— Present
1988 — Present
1991— Present
59
Pennsylvania Partnerships for
Children
Campus Compact (Project for
Pubbc and Community Service)
Philadelphia Qty Charter
Reform Committee
The West Philadelphia
Partnership
Board Member
Executive Committee
Member
Chairman
1991— Present
1992— Present
1992— Present
1981 — Present
Memberships
American Historical Association Member
Southern Historical Association Member
Organization of American
Historians Member
The Union League of Philadelphia Member
Page 2B - Employment Record
Life
1991 —
The President shall hold office upon such terms as the Trustees shall determine.
Functions and Duties of the President: As the chief executive officer of the University,
the President is its educational and administrative head. He or she is responsible to the Trustees
for conduct, coordination, and quality of the University's program and for its future
development. The President snaD have the authority to perform all acts which are necessary to
make effective the policies and actions of the Trustees unless a resolution of the Trustees
specifically grants such authority to another person or entity. As a liaison between the Trustees
and the faculty, the President shall inform each of the views and concerns of the other relating
to the programs and administration of the Umversity.
The President shall bold the academic rank of professor, shall be a member of every
Facutly of the University , and may at his or her discretion call a meeting of any Faculty.
G<Tv»mrrtrt
experience:
List any advisory, consultative, honorary or other part-time service or positions with federal.
State, or local governments other than those luted above.
Member, Mayor's Private Sector Task Force nn Manaopmpnt
and Productivity. 1992-1993
Member. Pennsylvania Economir Devplnpinont Partnprihip L587-
Mpmh>r . Phi Ixrlplnhin ?n00
Putoflihed
PuSlKal
ernflattona
List the trues, publishers and date* o> books, artidaa,
|ou have written.
cwpora or other published materials
Please see page 3A
List all memberships and offices hakt In or financial contributions and services rendered to
•II political parties or aiection committees dvrinf the last five years.
Please see page 3B
60
Page 3A - Published Writings
Publications: PoruuSM TO Progressivism IN Alabama. Princeton University
Press. 1969.
"Southern Violence," American Historical Review Vol. LXXTV, pp.
906-925, February 1969.
"Power to the Computers: A Revolution in History?," AFLPS,
Proceedings of the 1970 Spring Joint Computer Conference.
POPULISM: THE Critical ISSUES, Little. Brown and Co., 1971.
'Origins of the New Sooth in Retrospect," Journal of Southern
History, May 1972.
"The South as a Counterculture , " The American Scholar, Spring
1973.
Understanding the American Experience: Recent
Interpretations, 2 vols., ed. with James M. Banner, Jr., and
Barton J. Bernstein, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1973.
Blacks and the Populist Revolt, Gerald H. Gaither
Introduction by Sheldon Hackney. University of Alabama Press,
1977.
Partners in the Research Enterprise: University -Odrporate
Relations in Science and Technology, prologue and co-editor.
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
"Supply, Demand and the University ," The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, January 1984.
The Clay County Origins of Mr. Justice Black: The Populist as
Insider," Alabama Law Review, VoL 36, No. 3, Spring 1985.
"The University and Its Community: Past and Present," The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Nov.
1986.
"Student Financial Aid for Public Service," The Philadelphia
Inquirer, Op-ed page, November 14, 1985
"Angling for red herrings in academe." The Christian Science
kionitor, December 9, 1985
"College shouldn't be just for the rich," The Philadelphia Inquirer
February 9. 1986
Is My Armor Straight? A Year in the Life of a University President,
Richard Berendzen, Adkr &. Adler, 1986 - review in The
Philadelphia Inquirer, June 15. 1986
"Skyrocketing Tuition: Why College Ts So Expensive,* Educational
Record, American Council on Education, Spnng/Summer 1986
"Colleges must not cut quality to curb costs," USA Today, guest
editorial, March 3. 1987
61
"Cutting Student Aid Would Be Unfair," The Washington Post.
guest editorial. May 17, 1987
"Idealism is alive on campus, and it can be lifelong," 77k
Philadelphia Inquirer, Op-ed page, April 8, 1989
"The Helms Amendment Imperils the Basis of Intellectual
Freedom," The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 6, 1989
"Perspectives on Literacy," TMCA Souvadr Journal, October 1990
"Dealing with Campus Rape," Higher Education and National
Affairs, American Council on Education, Vol. 40, Nov. 4, Feb. 25,
1991
"Campuses aren't besieged by politically correct storm troopers,"
Philadelphia Inquirer Op-ed page, October 3. 1991
"Don't relegate education to the marketplace" (with Marvin
Lazerson), Philadelphia Inquirer Op-ed page, July 12, 1992
Page 3B - Political Contributions for Sbeldoo and Lucy Hackney
Reporting Year:
January 28
January 29
February 11
March 22
October 21
October 24
October 30
May 16
1992
Clinton for President (LH)
Foglietta for CongTess
Clinton to President Committee (LH)
Bill Clinton for President (LH)
Marjorie Margolis Mezvinsky (LH)
PA Democratic Committee (LH)
Joe McDade Committee
Lynn Yeakel for Senate (LH)
John Murtha
$500.00
5500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$1000.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
Reporting Year:
March 28
September 19
September 28
November 2
Reporting Y
October 31
November 21
1991
Murtha for Re-election Committee
Citizens for Senator Wofford
RendeUl *91
Harris Wofford for Senate
1990
Foglietta '90
Bill Gray for Congress Committee
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$200.00
$500.00
Reporting Year:
May 25
June 13
October 19
October 30
Reporting Year:
September 20
October 14
November 4
November 4
1989
Citizens for Alien Specter
Citizens for Arien Specter
Foglietta '89
Foglietta *90
1988
Democratic National Committee
Senator John Heinz
Committee for Democratic Opportunity
(Bill Gray)
Murtha for Re-election Committee
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$500.00
$250.00
$250.00
* Specific date unavailable
62
f uiu.. .motor"""' ,„Cieil ^tmtr ,ou -.11 sever ell connections with your present employer, business
reietiotimpi * c^»««t«
tirm. association or organization il you »>• confirmed by tne ienjn
I will be on leave without pay from my position as Professor
of History at the University of Pennsylvania
2 State whether you have «ny plan* after compieting government service to rwuw em-
ployment, affiliation or practice with your previous employer, buuntu firm, essocia
uon or organization
Potential corrfUca
of interest:
I may return to teach History.
3. Hal
■ commitment bc«n made to you lor employment after you leave Federal service?
Policy allows up to four years leave without pay to serve
in federal government in Presidential appointments .
A. Do you intend to serve the tutl Urm for which you have been appointed or until the neat
Presidential election, wtucnever a applicable?
Yes
1. Describe any financial arrangements deferred compensation agreements or other con-
tinuing financial, business or professional dealings w+th business associates, clients
or customers who will be affected by policies which you will influenca in the position
to which you have been nominated.
None .
2- U*t any investments, obligations. UabAltles. or other financial relationships which con-
stitute potential conftcts of interest with tha position to which you have been
nominatad.
None
2 Describe any business relationship, dealing or financial transaction whicn you hive hed
during the last live years whether lor yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an
agent, that constitutes a potential conflict of interest with the position to which you
ha«e been nominated
None
4. list any tofabyW activity during tha past 10 yean In which you have enfant) tor tha
purpose of directly or indiracUy influencing the passage defeat or modificadon ot any
Federal tefolauon or of effecting the administration and execution of federal law or
policy.
As President of the Oniversity, I have spoken from titae to
to time with Senators and members of the Bouse of Represent-
atives about legislation affecting Penn and higher Mnration ,
including Student financial aid. v-oro-T^-H fnnrHnrj pr-ririT-am<;
tax POlicV On giff«;. limit.; on »»v «v«»mpf- hnnHc fnnrtinn
for rssparrh fari)it-i»<: <-»■»■ tr»iMi»nr — nf nrlnsi t inna 1
hom-fut. >fr (Please see Page SAi
5. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of Interest that may be dltctarsorl by
your responses to the above items.
t H,-,r,-f h.ii.v0 ..y °v-ff hnt t win resign from. any
activity that presents an apparent conflict of inff»rr>«;r. —
63
Pajr 5A - Senate and House of Representative Appearances
December 8, 1983
Subcomittee on Postsecondary Education and Subcommittee on Select Education, House
Committee on Education and Labor - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Topic: The relationsip
between the Federal Government and "Research Universities.
March 4, 1985
House Committee on the Judkaary and House Committee on Education and Labor -
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Topic: H.R. TOO. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1985
May 25,1993
Senate Committee on Banking, Hoaxing, and Urban Affairs - Washington, DC. Topic: S.
635. the Anti-Apartheid Act, and Economic Sanctions against South Africa
September 12, 1985
Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities, Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources - Washington, DC. Topic Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, and
Campus-Based Student Aid
64
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL WELLSTONE
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES
HEARING ON NOMINATION OF SHELDON HACKNEY
TO BE CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
June 25, 1993
Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my strong support for the
nomination of Dr. Sheldon Hackney to be the Chairman of the
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
I was very pleased to hear that President Clinton had nominated
such a distinguished member of academia to head the Endowment.
Por the last twelve years, some say that the Endowment has served
as more of a forum on political ideology than an agency with a
mandate to promote the humanities. Vartan Gregorian, President
of Brown University, described Dr. Hackney as having a
■judicious, moderate temperate.' Mr. Chairman, I recently met
Dr. Hackney, and I couldn't agree more with this assessment. I
also think that such a temperament is exactly what NEH needs to
have at its helm.
I have been very disappointed to see some of the recent
criticisms of Dr. Hackney by several national columnists. As you
know, before I was elected to the United States Senate, I was a
college professor and I can tell you that the problems on the
University of Pennsylvania campus are not unique. This
Committee, as you remember, held a hearing which I chaired on
freedom of speech on college campuses last fall. Many students,
faculty, and administrators testified to the fact that an
atmosphere of intolerance is not uncommon on college campuses
nationwide. Some campuses have tried to combat these problems by
imposing so-called speech codes. Whether or not one agrees with
the use of such codes, I don't think it's fair to link Dr.
Hackney's gualif ications to head the Endowment with the
University of Pennsylvania's policies.
Let me say that again: I do not believe that the problems at the
University of Pennsylvania have any impact at all on Dr.
Hackney's suitability to be the Chairman of the NEH. His record
as an outspoken advocate of free speech precedes him. He is a
widely respected southern historian and university president.
The Endowment disburses millions of dollars in grant funding to
promote the humanities in this country. The Chairperson of the
Endowment needs to be a proven administrator with a strong
background in the humanities. Dr. Hackney possesses both of
these qualities.
Mr. Chairman, as our society becomes more complex and diverse, I
don't think we can understate the importance of the Endowment to
making the humanities accessible to all Americans, without
geographic boundaries. I commend the President on his selection
of Dr. Hackney to head this important agency. As the saying
goes, he is a "scholar and a gentleman.'
Responses to Senator Wellstone
Q. Many of those who testified in last fall's hearing described a growing atmosphere of
intolerance on college campuses. Do you agree with this characterization?
A. I agree that there is an increasing amount of tension among raaaJ and ethnic
groups on campus, and this is reflected in rising intolerance.
Q. Do you think that this is still true today, almost a year later?
A Unfortunately it is still true, and it is still a problem.
Q- Do you think that such an atmosphere led to the recent controversial events a the
University of Pennsylvania?
A Yes, the events this spring at Penn are a reflection of the growing atmosphere of
intolerance that your committee explored last falL
65
Prepared Statement of Representative Blackwell
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues from
Pennsylvania in introducing a man who has committed his boundless
energy and unparalleled intellect to improving the quality of our
nation's academic institutions. Sheldon Hackney is a man who
always stands up for what he believes, and he is certainly not
afraid to fight in defense of free speech, and academic freedom.
As the President of Che University of Pennsylvania in the
great City of Philadelphia, Dr. Hackney has presided over one of
the finest schools in the nation with a remarkable sense of
persistence and dedication. His tenure has earned him widespread
and much deserved praise from every corner of the globe, and he
has developed a reputation as a President who is quick to resolve
disputes in the fairest manner possible.
The City of Philadelphia has certainly come to appreciate,
and indeed relv on the leadership of Dr. Hackney. As one of the
city's great academic institutions, the University of
Pennsylvania serves not only as an academic center, but as one of
the great centers of culture in Philadelphia and the entire
nation. Dr. Hackney has always made the greatest effort to reach
out to the community, and involve youths and adults alike in
Penn's multitude of cultural, academic, and athletic programs,
leadership, Penn and Philadelphia have joined together, and
enjoyed a tremendous relationship that has allowed for an
exceptional level of growth, for both town and gown alike.
In this day and age Mr. Chairman, when University presidents
nearly always find themselves under fire. Dr. Hackney has
remained above the fray, and sought to find that small piece of
middle ground that is so essential in any dispute resolution. I
have had the good fortune to work with Dr. Hackney personally on
many occasions, and I have always been struck- by his kindness and
decency. He is a distinguished scholar, and he possesses the
necessary skills to effectively administer the agency charged
with supporting our nation's academic and humanistic livelihood.
Philadelphia's loss will be the nation's gain. In choosing
Dr. Sheldon Hackney, President Clinton has demonstrated the
importance of this vital Agency. I have the greatest confidence
that Sheldon Hackney will serve this Nation with leadership and
outstanding ability. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
66
Prepared Statement of Stephen H. Batch, President,
National Association of Scholars
I would like to thank the United Sates Saute Committee on Labor and Human Resources for
the opportunity to place this statement m the record.
For some time now, American aravt-mir life has been troubled by the issue of Dolinozadon.
Scholars, journalists, and the general public have become increasingly aware of the ertmr to
which the standards that have traditionally governed research, teaching, and campus life are
being distorted by political and ideological pressures, above all in the humanities. With the
nomination of Dr. Sheldon Hackney to the chairmanship of the National Endowment for the
Humanities, this issue and its consequences for federal policy toward the humanity* come
before the United States Senate.
The NEH is unique among federal agencies. Its motion is the enrichment of humanistic
scholarship, a responsibiliry requiring intellectual integrity and liberal vision. Since the
chairman of the NEH oversees the agency's decision-nuking machinery, he must ensure that
its deliberations are governed by considerations of scholarly or cultural merit, and — to the
extent that this is humanly possible — rnsulatwi from political bias or interest-group pressure.
This is true whether the decisions made determine support for highly specialized individual
research, or projects that will receive broad public aye.
Ail those who participate in these decisions, whether NEH staff or outside scholars involved in
peer review, must be able to do their work in full confidence that their judgments will not be
subordinated to ideological prejudice or censorship. Foremost among his duties, the NEH
rhairman must maintain an institutional climate in which such confidence prevails. Because of
his office's visibility, the NEH chairman also bears a general responsibiliry for leadership within
American higher education Thus, be must be a credible and unflagging champion of
intellectual freedom and scholarly integrity in all their aspects.
Sadly, it can no longer be taken for granted that most senior academic leaders have these
qualities In the case of Dr Hackney, a confusing mixture of statements and actions seriously
clouds a record otherwise possessing many merits. Recent events at the University of
Pennsylvania, over which be has presided for twelve years, raise particular doubt that be has
a proper regard for the essential right of free expression in academic life or the determination
to defend it against political assaults. To confirm Dr. Hackney's nomination, the members of
the Senate must satisfy themselves that his reactions to these events have not been so egregious
as to disqualify him for leadership of the NEH. This requires, in rum. that Dr Hackney
appropnaieiy clarify a( least one of his statements, and provide a convincing account — not yet
m the public record — that would correct the impression of many individuals on the Perm
campus that his administration has been impermissibly lax in disciplining students involved in
a major infringement of thle right to free speech.
Despite the satire lately aimed at Dr. Hackney, be is not a figure of fun. Were this so, his
nomination could be lightly dismissed It is precisely because Dr. Hackney is such a well-
known, experienced academic executive that he deserves to have his case scrutinized closely and
bis explanations carefully weighed. Indeed, Dr. Hackney, in both his strengths and weaknesses,
is representative of current American higher education leadership, and any assessment made of
hun will have the added benefit of revealing much about the academy's overall state of mind
Whatever his limitations, Dr. Hackney can point to genuine accomplishments in the course of
a long academic career. He has been the president of two major universities and the provost
of a third. During his tenure at the University of Pennsylvania, be has greatly augmented its
endowment, enhanced the appearance of its campus, generally refrained from inappropriate
interference with faculty self- governance, and displayed a consistent interest in undergraduate
teaching, continuing to offer a course in American history while shouldering heavy
administrative burdens. Though some of the policies pursued at Perm nave, in my opinion, been
very misguided (most notably the introduction of a speech code and the institution of dormitory-
based sensitivity programs that jeopardize the intellectual autonomy and privacy of students),
Dr. Hackney, in some of his most memorable public utterances, has shown that he can be an
eloquent defender of cultural freedom. Moreover, until the events of April, some
knowledgeable observers of Perm believed the Mimai^ 0f intellectual freedom on campus to be
steadily improving For example, faced with strong campus opposition to the institution's first
broadly drafted speech regulations (and the manner in which they were being implemented). Dr.
67
Hackney displayed an admirable willingness to engage the arguments of has critics, inviting one
of the mast persuasive to appear before the University's board of trustees. As a result of the
(H^" which followed, the code was narrowed and refined, limiting the definition of verbal
hanamca to expression only intended "to inflict direct injury on the person ... to whom ...
[k] ... is directed.* While this revision did not prove successful in preventing abuses and
follies, Dr. Hackney's willingness to* undertake it demomrrated that be possessed some
apprehensions about chilling expression of opinion at Penn. Finally, in at least one case. Dr.
Hackney intervened promptly and decisively when informed of harassment charges that were
m transparent violation of University regulations. As a result, the charges were immediately
dropped.
Unfortunately, more recent events at Penn have revived doubt about Dr. Hackney's credibility
and firmness in defending basic academic principles, especially when pressures are acute (which
is, of course, precisely when the most dependable cotnmitrnent to principle is needed). These
incidents have also undermined confidence in his ability to impart to subordinates his own
personal ideals. This is particularly important because the NEH, through its peer review system
and staff recruitment practices, has an intellectual culture thai resembles that of the academy.
■jfa a university, its decision-making processes can easily become tainted in the absence of
lendenbip that is uncompromising in its opposition to pouocization.
To decide whether Dr Hackney can provide appropriate leadership, two recent episodes at Penn
should be examined in detail. The case of Eden Jacobowiiz. an undergraduate accused of racial
harassment for calling noisy sorority members 'water buffalo.- has attracted national and
international attention. To most of the journalists and editorialists — liberal and conservative
— who commented on it. the case demonstrated the self-defeating quality of speech codes in
doing individual justice or reducing intergroup tension. The Jacobowitz case, as well as another
senous episode that received less coverage, also exhibit the abuses that can occur when
harassment codes are implemented by administrator-, with boJe grasp of the value of free
expression or the nature of a university. In addition, they raise questions about the realism of
some of Dr. Hackneys earlier statements that the phenomenon of ■political correctness- had
been ■greatly exaggerated.' An NEH chairman cannot afford to be a PoUyanna. and it would
be well to ask Dr. Hackney whether recent troubles have led him to reconsider his once rosy
view.
It would be particularly helpful to know whether, in the wake of the Jacobowitz case. Dr.
Hackney still believes that the "crirniiialization' of *xusaoous of prejudice, as opposed to
efforts at conciliation involving moral suasion, is wise In the Jacobowitz case, a verbal
exchange — probably involving no more than a lapse of manners and temper — was elevated
into a "high moral crime,' subject to lengthy and cumbersome procedures, and carrying the
possibility of indelibly stigniatizing the accused. The resuh has not done the parties, least of
all Dr. Hackney and his university, any good.
Also disturbing was the reported remark of a student rodioxl officer that the content of
Jacobowitz's utterances was less important than bow rt was perceived by his accusers. The use
of a subjective test renders it impossible to anticipate reliably tnfracooris, the classic definition
of a •chilling effect.' It also shows bow a supposedly •narrow code' can still have mischievous
consequences. Indeed. 77ie Washington Post, on May 2. 1993 (in an editorial, 'Speech Code
Silliness"), argued that the use of such tests "leads to absurd difficulties and injustice," and
specifically cited the Jacobowitz case as "a sobering example "
The second episode, involving a conservative Daily Poauylvanian columnist, Gregory Pavlik,
has even more serious implications for an assessment of Dr Hackney's leadership Pavlik. who
bad written a senes of columns critical of affirmative acooa and Martin Luther King, was
accused of harassment by the leaders of a black student organization. Instead of immediately
><ic-nic<ine the complaint, student judicial officers notified Pavlik that rnoceedings would go
forward. Only when Pavlik enlisted the support of a sympathetic professor, who contacted Dr.
Hackney, were the charges dismissed. Dr. Hackney's personal role in this affair was, of
course, commendable, but the very necessity of his lntervenooo indicates a disturbingly illiberal
mentality on the part of key su rx-rdinates. The Senate should seek an explanation of why
individuals of such limited understanding were entrusted with adjudicating harassment
complaints. Failure to ensure that University middle management is chosen in a manner that
guarantees the reasonable and equitable execution of sensitive policy does not bode well for Dr.
Hackney's stewardship at the NEH.
It would be troubling enough if events only raised questions about Dr Hackneys ability to
choose, guide, and supervise staff Unfortunately, the theft of almost the entire press run of
68
the D<uts Penns>l\wuan on the day of Pavlik s last column OHTipdi considcralion ,.f Df
Hackney < own views aboui the free marketplace of ideas It also raises a mosi senous question
aboul his resolution and evenhandedness in translating principles mio action when pressures
come not from -traditionalists." but from groups with which he has greater personal sympathy
In an essav in the September 6. 1989 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Dr Hackney
was sharply cnucal of legislation sponsored by Senator Jesse Helms that would have prohibited
the National Endowment for the Arts from funding work that -denigrates the objects or beliefs
of the adherents of a particular religion or non-religion.- or that -debases and reviles a group
or class of citizens on the basis of race, creed, sex. handicap, age or nauorul origin. ■ Arguing
against anything smacking of censorship. Dr. Hackney noted percepuvely that art 'is inherently
unsettling because it reorders the world for us. perhaps challenging our assumptions and
beliefs or reaffirming our perceptions for new reasons* (though, strangely, the University of
Pennsylvania's own harassment code, promulgated that same. year, contained quite similar
language explicitly prohibiting "any behavior verbal or physical that stigmatizes or victimizes
individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin'). As Dr. Hackney surely knows,
the justification for unfettered speech is precisely the same as that for unfettered art, and speech,
like art. is also most exposed to the risk of censorship when it conveys a disagreeable view.
In examining Dr Hackneys reactions, some contrasting features of these two episodes might
usefully be kept in mind. The criticism of the NEA emanated from Christians and cultural
conservatives outraged by a federally funded exhibit that included the picture of a crucifix
immersed in urine. In the case of the Daily Pennsylvaman, the outrage was voiced by black
student groups and directed at the opinions of a conservative columnist The controversy over
the Helms amendment centered on whether -offensive- art should be federally subsidized, that
over the Daily Pennsylvaman on whether in "offensive- newspaper could simply be circulated
The action taken by those aggrieved by the NEA was the lawful one of mtroducing legislation,
however misconceived; by contrast, the critics of the Daily Pennsylvaman attempted to obstruct
physically, and probably unlawfully, the distribution of a newspaper
The differences in the origins of these threats to free expression should not have affected Dr.
Hackney's reaction to them, though difFerences in their nature might well have argued for a
more vehement response in the affair of the Daily Pennsylvaman. Surprisingly, however. Dr
Hackney's immediate comment on the confiscation of the Daily Pennsylvaman (printed on April
20th m the University's official publication. Almanac) conveyed an equivocauon and uncertainty
wholly absent from his earlier statements repudiating artistic censorship. Rather than issuing
the simple straightforward condemnation that this atrocious and unacceptable act clearly called
for. Dr. Hackney felt obliged to make his now famous observation that 'two important
university values, diversity and open expression, seem to be in conflict." While be did go on
to affirm that there could be no compromise regarding First Amendment rights, he thought the
context required that he also stress that there should be 'no ignoring the pain that expression
may cause " (Indeed a very large part of his statement consists of apologetic reassurances —
not. as one might expect, to the staff and readership of the Daily Pennsylvaman, but to the
-minority community at Perm" — as to how tensions between the campus security force and
minority students would be investigated and reduced.) Concluding his statement, Dr. Hackney
urged that members of the University of Pennsylvania community work together "to narrow the
distance that now seems to preclude ... [the) ... peaceful coexistence- of diversity and open
expression, arguing that "Penn must be both a diverse and welcoming community for all its
members, and one in which freedom of expression is the supreme common value." How (his
circle might be squared was never explained. Debate, of course, can be sharp and avil, but
to expect that debate be congenial is to misunderstand its nature and. perhaps, subtly to
encourage its constraint.
In an institution devoted to the life of the mind, diversity is not in tension with controversy;
rather, diversity requires that cootroversy flourish. A university agenda devoted to narrowing
differences of opinion in search of a "welcoming community," instead of exploring tbem in the
pursuit of Liberating knowledge, is illegitimate and self-defeating. ' This would be equally and
painfully true at the NEH, where scholars of every outlook must be assured not of a "welcome-
but of statutorily m""^""^ fair, disinterested evaluation.
1 This point was made forcefully in a letter to Dr Hackney signed by the dean of the
University of Pennsylvania Law School and fifteen of its faculty members, who observed that
the "removal of the newspapers struck at the heart of the most fundamental diversity which the
university should foster — diversity of thought, views and expression."
69
As a requirement for approval of his PMBJMlion, Dr. Hackney should be expected to dispel
the ambiguity that now exists regarding his aoderstanding of the nature and consequences
of intff— «"«' freedom, and to provide assurances that he does not utilize a doable
standard when open expression is jeopardized.
Both m his April 20th fltfaal and is another carried on April 22nd in Perm News (an
administrative publication of the University of Pennsylvania), Dr. Hackney assured the Penn
community that violators of University policies would be subject to the provisions of the
University judicial system. To date, however, none of those wynrtrd in the theft of the Daily
Pamsylvanian appears to have faced a hearing, nor does it seem that anyone was actually
charged 13 a complaint was filed by a faculty member — rather than the administration itself
several weeks after the event. Ironically, the one security officer who did detain students
caught in the act of carrying away copies of the Daify Pamsylvanian was reassigned to desk
work, pending an investigation of his actions.
In light of the gravity of the offense, hesitation in identifying and charging suspected
perpetrators would constitute a aerious dereliction of duty. Moreover, since the miviml was
immediately visible to everyone on campus, ensuring a vigorous investigation was from the first
a matter of presidential responsibilrty.
Dr. Hackney must clarify the record. As a requirement for approval of bis nomination,
he should be expected to describe in some detail — and with appropriate chronology — the
actions his administration took to identify and charge the perpetrators of the Daily
Pavuyhanian theft. This description should contain convincing evidence of an
investigation whose vigor and dispatch was commensurate with the severity of the offense.
A university willing to proceed with charges in the case of an ill-tempered remark can
certainly be expected to move swiftly against those who would block the circulation of its
campus newspaper. Unless Dr. Hackney can assure reasonable observers that his
administration has not been uncertain or negligent in this matter, confidence in his ability
to enforce the laws and regulations governing the NEH will be seriously impaired.
It is a decidedly unhappy circumstance when a distinguished educator and leader of one of
America's most esteemed universities must be asked publicly to reaffirm his dedication to
principles that only a few years ago were taken for granted, not only in academic life but in
American society at large. Though Dr. Hackney has significant merits, the events that have
coincided with his nomination require that he explain his seemingly weak and equivocating
response. They particularly require that he remove the impression that his defense of
intellectual freedom and willingness to enforce rules varies with the political winds. The
American people have the right to a National Endowment of the Humanities whose policies are
categorically committed to intrllrrtml freedom and procedural fairness. Can Dr. Hackney
ensure thai be will follow such policies?
70
Eden'Jacobowitz
S2I Jorjcn Strwl L-rtntc NY 1 1559
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
January 13, 1993
On Wednesday night, January 13, between eleven P.M. and
midnight, members of the Delta Sigma Theta sorority were
assembled outside my window stomping their feet, shouting,
screaming and singing. In response to the unusually loud noise
while I was trying to study and my roommate was trying to sleep,
I waited twenty minutes and shouted "shut up I" The noise did
not cease so I shouted "Shut up you water buffalo," and since
the women sang about "looking for a party," I said "If you're
looking for a party there Is a zoo a siile from here." This
is all I shouted.
The women, who later brought charges against me, entered the
building and were directed to my room by 3 women on my floor
who heard what 1 had shouted and who testified that It was not
racial. I was not in my room at the time, but the complainants
still proceeded to shout at my roommate "You white boy! You
white boy! We are going to get you thrown out of school 1
On the same night, the complainants brought their racial
harassment charges and the police immediately began an
investigation in the dormitory. I was visiting the room of
the women who heard me shout out the window when there was a
knock on their door. The police had arrived to ask questions.
They police did not approach me, so I walked up to them, knowing
I had not done anything wrong, and volunteered my Information
to them. I told them what I shoutad, but I certainly did not
think they were there to investigate my actions.
January 14, 199 3
The next morning at approximately 10:15 AM Detective
Forsythe of the University Police knocked on my door and asked
me to come with hie for questioning at campus police
headquarters. 1 skipped class, and went with him, telling him
the entire story. I also asked him whether I would be able
to speak with the women to tell them that I had meant nothing
offensive when 1 shouted "water buffalo." He told me this might
be a possibility later. But I thought the quickest solution
to any "problem" would be to allow me to speak with the
complainants. Later that day, I was shown a police list
containing all the words the complainants claim that they heard
from all the many windows. Nothing on that list matched what
I actually had said. I thought that In a rational judicial system
that if 1 proved I never said anything on that list, and
explained that I never meant anything racial, the charges would
be dropped. But this system, which President Sheldon Hackney
promulgated and defended, was anything but fair and rational.
January IS, 199 J
On January IS, I approached President Hackney after an
Informal question and answer session he was holding at the Hlllel
Organization, where I take my kosher meals, and I told him my
entire story. I told him everything I had said, and everything
the complainants said, and that now I was under Investigation
for racial harassment. I asked him for help because I had been
told by a professor that cases labeled "racial harassment" by
the University tend to become big cases proceeding longer than
usual, only because of that label. He had the opportunity at
this early stage In the process to obtain the information about
the case and to make sure justice was carried out quickly.
But he never offered assistance, even when the judicial system
had failed and the process had been violated. When the University
newspaper interviewed President Hackney they asked him "Couldn't
you... encourage them to settle [the case] and throw It out,
way back when- when you heard about It?" And he responded "But
1 don't even remember now when I heard about it. 1 don't normally
get Involved." I could not believe that he did not remember
that 1 approached him on January 15 and poured my heart out
to him about how alarmed I was about this incident.
71
January 19, 199 3
On January 19 I received a letter from Robin Read notifying
me that a complaint had been filed against me. It also Indicated
that I would have to schedule a meeting with Robin Read
immediately.
January 26, 1993 » M ,.. ,. b
At approximately 9 Aft I met with Robin Read with my first
advisor, Dr. Francine Walker. Director of the Office Student
Life at the university, at my side. At this meeting I ■*?*
it clear to Robin Read that I had absolutely no racial intentions
when I shouted "water buffalo." I also repeatedly explained
that water buffalo was simply a reference to the noise, ana
I asked once again to meet with the complainants. Both Robin
Read and my first advisor, her colleague in the Division of
University Life, insisted that this meeting would not be a good
idea. But I strongly disagreed. I feel that if I had been
allowed to speak with the complainants from the beginning, this
case would not have lasted longer than a few days. But with
the reluctance of the judicial officer to set up this meeting
along with President Hackney's reluctance to intervene, all
communication and "exchange of ideas" was obstructed. President
Hackney, in a letter he has sent responding to the Issue refers
to "the supportive community we seek to create at Penn. But
how can we have a "community" where one student is not permitted
to talk to his accusers in a peaceful, friendly setting?
Racism was the furthest thing from my mind when I shouted
out the window. When Robin Read shockingly asked me if my
thoughts were racist when I shouted, I made that point completely
clear. Yet she still proceeded with these absurd charges and
allowed them to remain for over four months. This is an^
extraordinarily long time to decide whether a word like 'water
buffalo" is racial. For an Israeli-born orthodox Jew raised^
on Hebrew, using the word "behemah," which means "water oxen"
literally and "foolish person" in slang, is certainly not a
racist act. In addition animal references, comnonly usee when
people are making noise at a University, should certainly not
be labeled racist. Indeed, one of the most famous animal
up and make a final decision by a certain date, not to prolong
my ordeal.
January 26-March 22
From January 26-March 22 the Investigation by Robin Read
continued. It was a period during which we had several meetings.
I felt that she had certainly collected enough information to
vindicate me. I asked on numerous occasions to meet with the
complainants to apologize for my unpleasant words and to tell
them that the only reason I shouted was because they made
extremely loud noise. But after I asked for a meeting numerous
times the judicial office finally presented the idea to the
complainants and they rejected it.
March 10-26
During this period I met with Robin Read twice. In the
first meeting she notified me that she decided that I had
violated the Racial Harassment policy based on her incorrect
assumption that "water buffaloes are dark primitive animals
that live in Africa." She also told me that it did not matter
what I meant when I shouted out the window and that all that
mattered was how the women interpreted what I said. This also
should have been grounds for President Hackney s intervention
because it was completely contradictory to the judicial policy
that states that the words have to be intended by the speaker
"only" to "inflict direct injury" in order for them to be
classified as racial harassment. She then proposed a completely
unfair settlement which I could agree to instead of a hearing.
If I agreed to (1) apologize for racial harassment (2) conduct
72
a racial sensitivity seminar In .y building >!•»«" Sormltorv
to be placed on don. probation where any violation of dormitory
rules would lead to eviction and (<) Allow the judicial office
to create a judicial record for me that would be shown to certain
graduate schools- then this case would have ended in M^ch.
a week later at the second meeting Robin Read notified o>e that
because of President Hackney', call for tough "ci** ||a"""?n* ,
policy .he decided to add another provision to my settlement .( S »
"would have a temporary notation on my transcript (till the
beginning of my junior year) stating "violation of racial
harassment code and code of general conduct.
I a"ked her "How can you do this? Does this mean that you're
allowing political pressure, to dictate how you handle an
individual case with individual facts? How can you treat my
case like a general symbol of harassment when you would be
ruining my individual life?" And .he simply responded that
when dev.slng a ..ttlcmer.t she hes to keep in mind the needs
punishment. President Hackney also did not conclude that this
was grounds for ending the proceedings against me.
"*rChAfterPseveral futile attempts to negotiate with Robin Read,
I of course rejected the settlement. Come what may, I was
completely innocent of any racial intent. I also found a new
advisor. Dr. Alan Charles Kors, a history professor at the
Onlversity, whose name I had seen in the school newspaper.
The article I read referred to him as a "champion of freedom
of speech." Dr. Kors, correctly described by that article,
began to question experts in African culture and linguistics
about the meaning and connotations of the term "water buffalo."
He found several professor, who were willing to testify that
the term was not a racial slur, and several willing to testify
to its' meaning in my native Hebrew. He presented Robin Read
with the testimony of these witnesses and asked her if she would
investigate this new evidence and consider dropping the charges.
She agreed to investigate this new evidence, but after
approximately a week and a half, with our trial rapidly
approaching, Dr. Kors spoke to two of the professors and found
that Robin Read had never even called them to investigate their
expert opinions on the term.
When the April 26 hearing was In the process of being
scheduled my advisor called the judicial administrator, Dr.
John Brobeck, and notified hi« that he had an academic conference
in San Diego during that week. Dr. Kors asked what possible
hearing dates could be proposed and Dr. Brobeck said "April
26 i. the only possible date." Dr. Brobeck made It clear that
even if Dr. Kors could not make it the trial would go on. But
on April 23 the original hearing date (April 26) was postponed
because the complainants' advisor left them telling them they
had no case and advising them to drop the charges. I was amazed
at the double standard employed by the University in this case.
The University would not postpone the case if mjr advisor could
not make it, but readily postponed It when the complainants
lost their advisor. This occurred even though there were charges
hanging over my head for an entire semester, and even though
the complainants, who had made disruptive noise and who had
used the term "white boy" an obvious racial epithet, were not
even subjected to an investigation. I did not file counter-
charges, because I happen to believe in their freedom of speech,
even, indeed especially, when they were angry and annoyed.
My advisor and I were fully prepared for a hearing on April
26. We had 20 witnesses students, faculty, and staff, fully
prepared to testify for me on that date. By withdrawing from
the case, the complainants forced the case to be pushed passed
finals week which began on April 28. I had to postpone two
finals in the midst of this ordeal. It was they, not I, who
pulled out from any hearing.
My advisor called President Hackney's office to notify
him about these major violations of procedure and to request
that the charges against me be dropped because of the many
>»
73
orocedural irregularities. Dr. Kors spoKe to Steven Steinberg
from the President's Office who explained the details of the
case to the president. But Dr. Hackney responded that there
was no cause for Intervention even though he was now well
informed about everything that had transpired.
May 3, 1993
on Hay 3, I was notified that a new hearing was toJie -
scheduled for May 14. Along with many University administrators,
the president has always claimed that the Judiciary was
completely independent. At one point we had received the word
of the judicial administrator that this hearing on May 14 would
only be a discussion of the dismissal of charges without any
witnesses. He decided that it should not be a full hearing
because our original hearing that was scheduled for April 26,
when we had 20 witnesses prepared to testify on my behalf was,^
in the words of a top University official- "wrongly postponed,
and now ay witnesses were dispersed. But on the night of May
12 at 10:30 PM, only 33 hours before the scheduled hearing,
University officials forced the judicial administrator to go
back on his word making him change the meeting to a full hearing.
Now 33 hours before the new hearing date, with all our witnesses
whom we had been told not to bring, gone on summer break- We
were instructed to "do (our) best." This was a blatant
interference with the so-called independent judiciary, and my
right to due process. The university only agreed to honor its
word after The American Civil Liberties Onion of Pennsylvania
and Sonia and Arnold Silverstein, my pro-bono lawyers, threatened
to go to court and seek an injunction against this kangaroo
hearing.
soon after, Dr. Kors and I were notified that the
University's lawyers would not allow one of my main witnesses,
my first advisor. Dr. Fran Walker, to testify about a critical
settlement hearing in RoDln Read's office- the evidence of which
clearly would have established my Innocence, and which Dr. Walker
had twice confirmed by telephone to Dr. Kors. All these severe
violations of due process did not appear to concern the judicial
office, the University's administrators, or President Hackney.
1 truly believe that if I did not expose this incident to the
public the scape-goatlng would have continued and the judicial
system would have ruined my future without anyone knowing about
it.
May 14
On May 14, the hearing for the dismissal of charges took
place. At this hearing Dr. Kors and I were allowed to speak
for only a fraction of the time allotted to the complainant's
side. We were also warned by the tribunal consisting of three
faculty members, one graduate student and one undergraduate
all chosen by the judicial office, that we were not to speak
about the case to the press anymore. They had placed a "gag
order" on my advisor and me. within hours we held a press
conference at the offices ef the ACLU with cy lavycrs present
as well, notifying the public about this gag order. Later that
evening we received a call from university officials claiming
that there never really was a gag order and notifying us that
this gag order was lifted.
May 24
On May 24 the University published the findings of the
tribunal of the May 14 hearing. The University decided to
proceed with the case in the fall. But in a surprise press
conference the complainants decided to drop the charges because
they felt that they could not get a fair trial within the
University's corrupt judicial system.
May 28
On nay 28 President Hackney began sending a disturbing
letter to everyone who had written to him. He claims that there
have been many inaccuracies and distortions in the press. I
would like to make it clear that I have always been completely
honest with the press, presenting the evidence as accurately
as 1 could. I believe that he and his politically correct
counterparts did not care that a student was unjustly accused
of racial harassment.
74
in his letter President Hackney has tried to convey the
iapression that many people "do not share the sane sense of
crisis and calunny that has been so much In the news." First
of all, this message Is false. Many noble individuals, primarily
alumni, have written me letters expressing great concern, and
many have felt compelled to* withhold donations from the
university. Most students, black and white, including those
who organized a free speech rally at the University in early
May, have been disgusted by the University's mishandling of
this situation. Second of all, it is abominable that President
Hackney does not share this sense of crisis. Because of serious
racial tensions on campus which should definitely concern
President Hackney, an innocent freshman had an entire semester
ruined by unjust charges. Robin Read attempted to ruin my future
by creating a judicial record for me and adding notations to
■y transcript. These damaging and very serious charges hung
over my head from January till late May and created
extraordinarily painful circumstances . The abuses of a grossly
imperfect judicial system and the unjust suffering of a student
should certainly concern a University President.
President Hackney has also provided false Information
regarding the policies and procedures, by referring to the press
reports as "one-sided media coverage that our current charter
permitted." The current charter clearly allowed the complainants
to respond the moment that I stepped forward, and at their press
conference the complainants finally exercised that right. The
President of a University should accurately present the judicial
policies when writing to such a large group of concerned
individuals .
President Hackney has continuously asked to allow "the
process to run its course." But I gave the process over four
months, far nore time than necessary, to reelue that water
buffalo is not a racial epithet. This process has taken away
sc aethlng irreplaceable- a semester of my freshman year. I
w? ; supposed to learn how to deal with college students this
yt ir, not college judicial officers.
Finally I would like to make It clear that the real issue
here is not racial harassment. The real issue is Freedom of
Speech. I established my innocence from the beginning. The
only reason this case was able to drag on so long is because
the University has a speech code limiting the constitutional
rights of students. By the standards of that speech code I
should have been found innocent, but because it was in the hands
ol incompetent and cruel judicial officers my future was almost
ruined.
75
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD BY SENATOR KASSEBAUM FOR SHELDON
SSnf7. NOMINEE TOR CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT OF THE
HUMANITIES
1. Regarding the Eden Jacobowitz affair, did you think the charge of racial harassment against Mr.
Jacobowia was justified? If so, please explain why.
I did not think the charge of racial harassment was justified. Perm's policy is very
narrowly focused. It applies only in situations in which racial or ethnic slurs are used in face to
face encounters and with no other intent than to inflict harm. The facts of the case do not
meet these criteria. In addinon, because of the misappUcarion of the policy and the confusions
that abound in this case, I have come to feel that even though civility is very important in an
educational setting it is a mistake to try to enforce it among members of the campus community
through rules and penalties administered through a judicial system.
2 In retrospect, do you beheve you should have wenrened m. ^ umm^ fuSdal pnyxss bmu^
against Mr. Jacobowitz, or do you stand by your action not o intervene?
As awful as the spring was, I still think it was not appropriate for me to intervene in the
judicial procedure. There is no provision for the President or for any officer of the University
to intervene. To have intervened would have called into question the legitimacy of the entire
system that handles dozens of cases every year, denied to the complainants their right to have
their complaint adjudicated by a faculty-student hearing panel, and thrown the campus into an
even more divisive crisis than the one through which it actually lived. Had the system worked
properly, and a hearing panel heard the case, I believe that justice would have prevailed. As it
turned out, the case came to a dose when the complainants withdrew their charges.
3. In the episode involving the theft of 14,000 copies of the Daily Pertnsytvanian, the University's
student newspaper, in April, 1993, please explam you reaction at the time of the incident, including
the complete statement issued by your office.
I append the statements issued at the lime of the incident. I believe they make clear
that I recognized the seriousness of the violaoon and emphasized the primacy of free speech on
a university campus.
4. Please describe in detail what your administration did to identify and bring charges against those
responsible for the DaQy Pennsylvania* theft? Has anyone ever been charged in the theft? If so,
what was the resuk in terms of penalties meted out?
The Committee on Open Expression (an important faculty-student committee that
monitors the Open Expression Guidelines) has ruled that the incident was a violation of the
Open Expression Guidelines. thn< mainng dear that charges would be brought. A number of
students apparently involved in the incident have been identified and will face judicial
procedures when they return to campus for the fall term. The one senior involved has bad a
■judicial hold" put on his transcript, meaning that he must dear up his disciplinary status before
receiving ha degree or being able to have his transcript sent to employers or graduate schools.
In view of the seriousness of this case, the Vice Provost for University Life has appointed a
respected senior faculty member to serve as the Special Judicial Inquiry Officer for this case.
5. Do you beheve your response to the incident was appropriate considering the seriousness of the
act in the context of First Amendment rights to free expression?
Yes, although I do wish now that in my original statement I had not used a formulation
that was so easily taken out of context and misrepresented If I could write the document
again I would undoubtedly use language that was even dearer and stronger in condemning the
d Your responses to the Jacobowitz affair and to the newspaper theft incident have been
characterized as employing a double standard on the issue of free expression. What is your response
to that charge.
76
The charge is absolutely false. Throughout my career, I have defended free inquiry, free
speech, and academic freedom for people from all parts of the political spectrum, left, right and
center. I have repeatedly done so when under considerable pressure to cancel appearances of
controrercial speakers or to discipline snirienw or faculty who have earned the disapproval of
persons or groups on the campus and off. The hst of speakers whose security arrangements 1
hare personally supervised is a veritable who's who of controversy over the past 20 years, from
William Shockley to Louis Farrakhan and all shades of opinion between.
One incident m particular has been used to suggest that I am less than even handed In
the carry 1980s, the South African Ambassador to the United States accepted an invitation to
speak from a student group. The student group was then informed that University policy (which
preceded my arrival at Pens) required host groups to pay «0 the costs of invited speakers,
fariudsM security costs. Special security required for the South African Ambassador would
hare incurred substantia] costs. The student group therefore withdrew the invitation. As soon
as I heard of this situation end realized that h was based on a University policy, I changed the
pohey. The University isn't really open to all points of view if a host group is required to be
rich — OMfc to pay the costs involved in keeping opponents of the speaker from disrupting the
event. The new pohcy was thus in effect when all subsequent speakers, including Louis
Farrakhan, have been invited to speak on campus.
7. 77k Wall Street Journal reported that at the time of a speaking mgagenat by artist Andres
Serrano on the University of Perm campus in 1989-90, you refused to order the removal of campus
sidewalk graffiti depicting anti-reagious and graphic sexual symbols. Please explain what occurred.
As with so much that the Wall Street Journal has reported about me, the facts are wrong
in important respects, highly distorted in other respects, and the story presented in a misleading
way. Early on the morning of April 13. 1993. members of Perm's groundskeeping crew arrived
on campus to fi"H written in chalk, graffiti depicting religious and sexually graphic and
offensive symbols and slogans on Locust Walk, the main pedestrian thoroughfare Intersecting
the Penn campus The groundskeeping crew, on its own initiative, immediately washed off this
grarfiti. Later that day the students - members of a gay rights group on campus -- who had
originally done the graffiti writing, protested to Penns Assistant Vice Provost for Student Life
that the erasure of the graffiti violated the University's Guidelines on Open Expression. The
Committee on Open Expression, following precedent, found that the graffiti was protected
speech as long as the graffiti was temporary and did not permanently deface University
property. Members of the group returned the next day and renewed their graffiti writing. The
issue was handled under regular University open expression policies and procedures. I was not
personally involved in it The incident did not relate to Andres Serrano's visit to Penn, which
took place on December 5, 1990.
& Please explain your criticism of the Helms Amendment as it pertained to the work of artists,
Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano.
I did criticize the language of the Senate amendment to the NEA-NEH appropriation
bill for FY90 (the Helms Amendment) because I believed that the language of the bill - which
Congress wisely did not include in the final version of the appropriations legislation - was
impossibly vague and overbroad. The Helms amendment to the FY90 appropriations bill would
have imposed unworkable content restrictions, and I believe that Congress has been wise in its
judgement not to adopt h.
9. The WaB Street Journal reported that you proposed banning ROTC from the University of
Pennsylvania campus in 1990 because of the military's prohibition on gays and lesbians serving in
the rrdhtary. Is this true?
As with a number of other assertions made by the Wall Street Journal, this is simply
untrue. I am a supporter of ROTC on campus. Indeed, I am a product of the NROTC
program at Vanderbflt University, and I have spoken frequently on campus about why I think it
is a good program.
77
10. You have been quoted in the past as stating that the impact of "political correctness' on
American umversay campuses is 'greatly exaggerated. ' Do you believe that 'political correctness'
contributes to the free exchange of ideas and tolerance of different points of view in American
academic today?
The term Apolitical correctness" is 'almost hopelessly vague and Imprecise. It began as a
term of self-derision, and now it has taken on a life of its own as a caricature of a certain kind
of liberal left orthodoxy that is so solicitous of the interests of groups that can dazm the sums
of having been victimized by society that the general interests of the University are of secondary
importance and at times even the search for truth is threatened. Fortunately, "political
correctness* does not dominate American campuses, though it ii tomr thing about which faculty
and academic leaders ought to worry about. I believe that I am representative of the broad
rnam^tTi»«m of the American professoriate that sees danger in any potentially intolerant
orthodoxy, but that may also see partial merit in tome ideas that may be part of a "politically
correct* position.
FROM THE TRUSTEES
Be to*, the Chamnan of the Trustees of the Uiuvtrurt of Pennrttxtuua
shares with the campus hi! menage to the Trustees upon the resrnation
of President Sheldon Hactner
A Message to the University Community
Apnl 16. 1993
Wc were delirbujd to tears artier Out week of Prcstdeat Qintoa's uitenuoo to nomruic
Shddoa Hackney u «ac sai Ghurcuo of toe Nauoaal Endowment (or fee Humanities While it u
<t(TuT»U ndecd to ■— p» tono wubow Shesdoa. am u a magmfjeent opportumry for turn and one
thai reflects welt not onry os bica but uso oo p»imi
Sheldon t arcxuuaoBt. wtacxt a yet nib) in to Senate coofrmauoo. ou acceicralcd what has
been ha iramtino to aep down m the — ■ I "*■' morhnann of (be Campaign for Pmn However, i
along many factors too mnmrn. aadudaag ax Tmnn liming at Ok Senate >»"'"f Sheldon
wf onned me earijer fen wank 9m be intends m resign as prescient of Peno no Uier loan June 30. 1993.
to owe Be Trances «kr taiuiauiy io begin naBaccJaady the search for Peon's next president and to
■dnotsfy an acting preadda to anrve n Che oom. The executive umaitaw ma yesterday on cunpur.
we have began to convene be eoacatuuvc iiamasrr to advne ax oa Peon i next utuadcu and will be
prepared io ■«»»■■■-■ ■ ate acung prcadeot ocxi waes.
Pmn't aecntaphaani ■-■ nose Shdcton's arrival aaPUauary IK I arc wanout parallel in higher
ectoexoon. He has dearly been one of tone's greatest dad executives. l-m/*Tf one of higher
win' imin s most taoroagb and cttocuvc unaanjrjanal r1 **—"*g processes. Wbile DBxntxsntng its strong
regjonal base. Peon's student body has become nanomlly and Tmanoniliy diverse. Looking toward
Peon t long-term fa tare as wdl as ns carrant operauotn. Shrtrlnn has mramiKrl oar trxdjuoo of soud
fiscal management. Has Btaaaanacj has seen ctxajwuxul aacrcaac five-toad to lop SI billno for the frn
havmgrarsedS9iSJmuT*ai toward ate SI bxlaoo goal, and providing nandsng forl22 endowed cnan.
toe highest aombcr a ant bad ~y "/hig*— -fc---«-~"«- aoppnaaalctfcrB
Beyond tacsc tnrrnan. Sheldon leaves be lasting «npnm of hu eankifacaed efforts that
I Peon's repotauon as a teadaog njuatdi autwuaay dial provides a superb undergradujie
. ha hatlngiaji of nanrmilly-tH i fi iiTed actmucs Out ptacc Pcou m the vanguard of
Miwm^iyni1r)yy ninuu ixupi. and hn arm and dear daaawflO io crcanng a >Mtm*,># and a vtl
unaumuuit far all members of Pom's ■■— r
As we look io the moarc. we do so with a stroog fcasndauoo of oatstandiag faatlry. students,
■dsnaaanntors and sufT. a soud nswBOMl base, and a reputation for bong the best managed institution
of htrber aabacasaan m the country Thanks io Shrsrtnn and all of those wbo have been pan of bis team.
the Ucaverjsry of Pcnnsytvinu is well utnauuuad lo eaaaaaai as emergence as. n baa words. The
leading aacmatnoal rtacaiai incBiDmo that really cares about ■ndergraduatc educauoa" As we
move io form toe caosafcanvc cotnrnticc m advise sac Board of Trustees oo ondadaus for tone's
next Brcadent. wc do so wab mnfirtrnrr.. Peno u an cxctnng ptacc to be. and m leadership is one
of higher education's BOB cocopelung posts. I have en doubt that wc will attract an outstanding
group of candidates
Finally. I am sure you join me m wishing Sbeldoo and Lucy die «cry best as they move into
tic next phase of thesr exsaordinary lives
Stacrrefy.
C2l^UL^JL_
Arnn V Shoemaker
78
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE Of THE GOVERNOR
WARRISBURG
SONORA mtERS
Cm'u««i Aoviio* to i-c io»r»«o«
P. O. BOX 1026
Harrisburg, PA
17108-1026
(717) 783-5281
Fax Wo. (717) 783-1073
June 10, 1993
Senator Harris Wof ford
United States Senate
Rooa 283A
Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Harris:
It is with great enthusiasm that I commend to you the
confirmation of Sheldon Hackney as Chairman of the National
Endowment for the Humanities . I bring to this endorsement
extensive knowledge of and experience with the Endowment and
with Dr. Hackney.
As a former chair of the Pennsylvania Humanities
Council and a past president of the Federation of State
Humanities Councils, I have worked with the Endowment for
over twenty years. The agency, although modest in size, is
of primary importance in fostering and supporting research
and dissemination of ideas which are critical to Americans'
Understanding of our own history and of our knowledge of the
world and our place in it.
As a nation we are at a crossroads. We are entering a
new millennium, one which presents us with the challenges of
maintaining our precious legacy of democracy in a climate of
a domestic and international change. The NEH is the leading
federal agency to nurture understanding of ourselves and
others. It requires, more than ever before, the leadership
of one who is deeply grounded in the disciplines of the
humanities and who has the skills, experience and vision to
guide this major agency into the future.
I have had the privilege of knowing Sheldon Hackney
since he came to Pennsylvania to assume the presidency of
one of our premier academic institutions. During his tenure
at the University of Pennsylvania, the institution has made
enormous strides in developing-academically and
economically, and, critically important, too, in its
responsibility to the community.
Dr. Hackney is amply qualified for a position of
national leadership. His intellectual acuity, his integrif.
of character and his overriding concern for the public good
are qualities that insure a well conceived and well managed
79
Endowment, one which will preserve the principles and
purposes which informed its creation by the Congress. It
will be an agency for the people.
Dr. Hackney is not a ideologue; he Is a pragmatic
idealist, in the tradition of our Founding Fathers, who has
a passionate commitment to learning and a profound knowledg
of its importance to the future of American democracy.
I have full confidence that he would serve the Nations
Endowment for the Humanities with" honor and distinction. I
hope and trust that the committee will confirm his
nomination with all due speed and confidence.
Sincerely,
/Sondra Myers
/ Cultural Advisor to the Governor
JJcunfiuluania (LunarcssmnnI Qclciuttmn
.j c»*e »c o«ij».->",B,S
JOSCMl M McOAOC MC
t*UO S»*SSTIA MC
jrn«~cco«Mni( June 16, 1992
Senator Edward Kennedy
Chairman
Committee on Lat>or and Human Resources
Senate Dirksen Office Building, Room 428
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
We vrite to express our unequivocal support for the
appointment of Dr. Sheldon Hackney, President of the University
of Pennsylvania, for the Chairmanship of the National Endowment
for the Humanities.
As members of the Pennsylvania delegation, we have worked
closely with Dr. Hackney and are personally familiar with him and
his impressive work with the University of Pennsylvania. We
believe Dr. Hackney is strongly committed to the Endowment's
mandate to increase our nation's understanding and appreciation
of the humanities. He has served as President of the University
of Pennsylvania since 1981, after serving ma President of Tulane
University, and professor and provost at Princeton University.
Throughout his academic and administrative career. Dr.
Hackney has proven an exceptionally talented scholar and leader.
He is a person of remarkable intelligence, integrity, and sound
judgement who, at Penn, has helped build a university community
of more than 40,000 students, faculty, and staff that is a cross-
section of American life.
In addition. Dr. Hackney is a distinguished scholar of the
American South who has served prominently on such prestigious
bodies as the Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities and the
ACE Commission on Women in Higher Education. He also chaired the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and was
elected to the American Philosophical Society in 1988.
80
He believe Dr. Hackney would make a compelling contribution
•9 part of the Clinton Administration. Indeed, we can think of
no one »ore qualified to heed our nation's lead agency in support
of scholarship and public understanding of our cultural heritage,
■e rtcoaatnd hi* without reservation. »e thank you for your
attention.
k*4-
lohri P. Hurt ha, M.C
£^2'*%*J*~
Lucien t. Blackwell, M.c.
JIS&Zl
IP
KuJL Aj. &JU.
Paul McHale, M.C.
Ron Klink, M.C
81
Penn and Philadelphia: Common Ground
TWctrlinii
high-walled place* huiil for
coniempianon and Mudy. typically
*ei apart from real world mtruaioni
aad the din and daMraruaoa W urban
Be.
But the Uar*«rair» of
Peoaayivania, from n» wr»
beginning, ww caal m a nrw mold,
ph ilea ap hi rally aad pr, v»*c*[K
Our founder. Benjamin
Frankin. ratabHihed an unuwucn
whenr curriculum dcpartnl decidedly
from the itandard foeui on the
diuical text*. H- opted instead for a
mu of ■Bathemaur*. teietw-r. moral
piulaaophy. natural lew and the
•tudy of government— a curriculum
thai itrmed the application of
knowledge. Hu inteni. in the. wordi
of William Smith. Penn'i fint
ProToal. wii thai aitulrntt thouM be
"...rendered capable ofThinking.
Writing and Aronp well, which i> the
jrmd aim of a liberal education
Franklin and hu rollraguct
opied. loo. for an inttiiunnn that
would be a pi»<xi I playrr <ui ihc
urban 1144c Thry art the foundation
for a umveratty whaar tiudrnit and
faculty then. •• now. draw tirenrtri
and *igor a< the* apply their
knowledge— a* thry gl«r and take, in
tile beat acme of the -or<, > from thr
world around them
The foUowuig pegri (ecu* en the
rrynaeate tatcraojon between Peon
today and chrrammunitt nf which it
it a part— the important link* our
L:m«ereuy hat built 10 in munediaie
weightier! and the etuirw Delaware
VaOcy.
In tbeae pegca w deaenbe how
Penn play* a leading role in the
ana*wajajc and cultural life of We*t
PbDadeiphM and throughout the
Oty. We drarrthe. 1L1. h~» IVtin
aerxa aa a hey drawing rani for
iron amir i»r*cionmrni in a rrrmn
that aau) al the hob of the mure
Nonhenat corridor.
J ui at iRanortantK . w •Irwriiw
the uearive aad onorVi«h way* in
which Penn 1 atadeau. f*.-uli « ami
naff atrWe te apply their own nmr
•ad the roaourcra of tht- 1 m *erMi > .
academic aad otherww.-. u. L«-«
umli iimiiltaneouaK eomluruni
their education beyoe-l ihrrlew^—tm
aad coatribuuaf in a m* n**l ••! -• * •
10 the hwee 0/ Penn* nn^il».r»
The following portrait » ai nhU
with the picture drawn by in— f wh..
would ha*< ui beuerr that bmiay •
college atudenl u arlfw^rnirrnl.
uncaring and ameni and m«*nl«
about material comfort*. In«i»a.i iW-
dTort* and program* aimnuntnl
here damnnatratr the ntlrnt i'»twh
to many of uxi* > « Prnn titnteiM*
•hare their turn- ami tali-ni> »«fc
other*.
Further, what Ml.~» •-••ni. •
gbmpae of aome of thr »n;"i(i» • "t<*»»
of UleraUy thousand* of Pmn
•tudenu. faculty anil tiaff
It would be ■ajMwmilti^ 1..
catalogue here each of lhnw .-fi.w\»
grrea the L'ai'eraity't larrr mualrr
of academic department, aad «wUi
•ad faculty group*. Such . tiuLew
easily weald lilt men- than lio
community program* ami prutrci*
cutting aeroaa nearly all uf t*w
liui»u*iiy'i academic dwovbiw* •<wl
lalujai atjch diaparair ha m* a*
^-Hundred* afuwh'MtwoJ — w~
•n-ooe tatoring andbta'-lirMthfWl.**.
aiater aiU'iua* that bnnr mpnare
Pen* anadeata. (aeah) ami *iafl • 0.1
Woat Pauatdclrmia ywungMrrt Man.
of the project* fall »W thr
■mbrcll* of Penn Eamwwo thr
l)ai»«reiry arm wanw ,«1r1-— » w.
dewrlioi and raroura|T v.^unlrrr
orrttre lu liw mmiminiii .
—A ranee of mutative* i"
• iimnUtr wonniunii' an«l liutin«-««
llr««^4*}»ment in thr nn;hi-.rfi.-Mt-
• n.l ntinm-ul *iri|w ^I^MOinc tlir
t'am|Ht*. im-ltxline araite and
Mo"re**ful rfT«in* Ml hin- ^ ^ti
l^ttlailWfthian* anil hi Icrp't ^ ■■•'
IMul«iiH|thl« »rn»ii»c» f«r I ni»rr»n»
|Mtrrhaart. Tarw "lllr.- »«
l*hiUtlrl|ta*a~ aiwl"fl«i« * .-«i
lvhila«IWfthui~ r^Tort* mh lu-i^l m»rr
than ^- mitlHtn th- vrar in I'rnn
|ojrfhatw f nei rw^hUrrh.«Ml
%rrvi(»rv. an t^rrnm" <J nrtrit /i/l
p* mm over laai year; ami .
—A prnexam «h<«r *n^w r«»v^rt
a* manv «. 1 5 000 i<CT*<>n—{hr
I'mn-HUuatnl Uol l'hiU.lrl|.hl*
Mental Health Prujrci. an rffuri m
Iteinc d* ma ra*r4y nrwtlnt
OMinlllUIMI *1*A nwinnwii* lo thr
aaakama*^ariaal «lH«»rTy »{ mm rpmry
and naavauvg mesial health •rrvirw. 10
Wr^l'aatadelpW
In brt» u* w» wvul.i hnd nmri>
wtcliii-ln.ol rwearch. alon* with
atunVnt ami faruhy tfivcJ^emrnt. ui •
82
>r,.y,i !•«.-•: Hi' : *n.l • mi irfll
IHititi' | m.ii.» i*«im • Mrml--f • ••.' lift*
?r«n fjit.ii*. f««T tn-un. . . jrr |-I»mmj
i. r . fwlri m ••* alnaiir.4; th«
furnruhini MM ilr-ifntnu ^a** in
retain iJmlriHl in Philadelphia *
jiul'lif »« h«*«J-. »»ih*T» h«»«- Ipc^-n jt
■ hr «^rt!^r ..I" the ilftvr 10 rWnrm ihr
Stair in ia» • an* I mlurr thr Cm^
»aae t«k . jn.l h«»r l^-cn iKv|M\
,n«>*l*~*l hi >ih n nnifi •- iIm-
Cmn%*mmm ( rnirr. th** Citv'a feiaMv
iliap m<1 • n*«*. ami tin* future >»f llif
ITJKM ma** ;r«n-n iv«irffl.
Thr <h< tun- that rm«T|c* i* on*-
■ •i * r^luii«>nkUi|< •« %»htrh ihr
l ru«*f*m and ihr Cit* are
muMiTiaai i" ***<• anuibrr. Ur «ion«l
..« i-MflinMMi ar»Min«r ••ur future-* »**p
mm i» inirrt%»nir«l.
prnn • [ire***!!!*1 in the C«* •■■
l*Tiilattrl|ihi i hrlpa n» ait ran the l»e-i
:■• ult* J»«i •IBtlrttU. in lw*iK ra»r*
lira** a \\\ thr i|ualiiv i»f ■iff and thr
. uilural. ;irnft— •■■•nil ami rr*earrh
,.i.|M.rtiin<:i*-- that willy a £real bHmII
.»tirr iifiVr* Thr (j#>. i-fln^n^ly
■w^e'it* ;Y.-m the L'ni*«TMi*. **
:.-iirl|rr:u4l jnii pr»fa*wmal pap*rti«e
..n tr-nuii *nt t*«nr«. ami from th«-
i-ijm* :nj: Prnn* rr**arrli
:j;m: »r..i f*»- liitiv* jtujv in iira»m{
rttiRiRrr* ■" <" the re"
M-.:» nf ..tir ••■>r* •* rarri«i ikiI
ir.fiMij;: ojnit'in* |.ivu|vinf the
L -!*■•-- i* . Miir nn^.Klwinnc uatrr
i<t«::(uiMMt«. j:i*I mn»l imjM*rt3niK
:-.«• u*-Aplr »n.« bw an<l *»nra in ^r»t
PhiHulriphia
r««fi"*WMl am*n|j thr»c riialiljon*
.. thr Ur«i Philadelphia Panner*hi|i
i fc'PP*. riim|M»«rd wf the area "a nnn-
pntfil t-ii'jruixmal. health rarr and
arienufir institution*, residential rvrift
lunrnimni anW bu»ine*» interest*.
Tn» «Pr'« "Buv *«t PHiUilrlpliia*
■fid Hire «<.»( pSiimiUlphi,"
camp«ic?>* — ,rt nil"' nfil* t*».i .tf %f
F oo-'t O10 riBtfaaM for tk* Atffvifu' .p«jxn yu/UOr D^fiou- Ctirmonn. 3 ioiwi:«'
•Hrrr««fiil *fTnrt« — be»i defnftn»iratc
h.»^ ihr L'ni»fi'i»'i rwourcc* f •-"
makr • forr.-fui pitaitivc Tipic: »nf
:hr jtikrimn: anil occu»on-»naii:n«
(»ri»n« —ilk « :m^ p«rtnrrtr.t3
Itriwrrn thr Lst»er«l* tnd L1C
. nmrntintt^
U* liriiirau thi» Ajinuai p»pon
in 4V. •*( *un (lyr.nrr* :fi ^e*t
PhdaMirlftnia. -r\H to *U 01' the
Ln^*r»it> '« aiudenu. ftcuit* and
»t«ff mrnkri »-ho ha*r c-can-i a
rrunl "f •ur^^aafui procrajna and
haw#- •hap**i a fnunriaUon of trjat
anj mutual n»ORutnvni to a itronftr
UAi Phila<irl|ihta *f loo* (or*-«rd
tf> buditinf nn that foundation, and to
fnrpna; v*t r*«-n more creative and
pmtlunivr link* *ri:h ih* communrv
in whirh »» live, learn aad wnrlt
jhfldon Kjrunr*
PrrtiCrit
X
83
W r-t lJ!u!.- :• : I ■■•■•■ : ",|.i ..\. •!!!«•! iM "i i
'The Focus l>
On Real Problem*
('. niral In J. I •■' " • I"1 -"-•■"■
llwl link in. I i<'>'f" ■■ *
i iMWiniMH »!» •*»>■«*■ :-"
lUanmuiHi* • ■•■■•■• •"••'
j.i.. an •»■•«■» •• l»J« • ■' "" "• ' ; '
nwkm: ■•-i«'«— •. T.i i-- -;•
l|H- nrr^-..itr> .Imniu: ** M"— ■■
»«rkinS nluli Ii'l"- «- |-".>. • -tin-
HUM >-mM Ul».-'ii it'- L ni».T-ii»
j (i. I thi* .•.•mitimiil- .
Tiifwarw <■■•• "•••-, M
intntmnral !•• |mmi-- ■•-••«'■— •"■
llwl w.ll L..I Uw.n.l l!- : •••:■:-
-rarvalMHi • •> J>l i"1'1"'-'" "*" '
ji.i-.H-. -n.l llw ••■■•■■ -■•••■■•" I"- •-•'•""
inn>l l»r..nii.-i.--t:
_T..j.n ......i.:..^
imrsrmluMi ■" '■'■•* ;•'"<■■■• -"••
1,,-t-..-. n ih.i.rv ai».' !•• '• '■■• ■
rr-unii ••ji|-«rmniln-« •'"••: '••
lillKni -•■>■ •■- • »i- •••'■— -*•"
— T.' ••N-UK* - •»•■ ~-
• icnili. jii. •-.»•*»»• <«»»i- m- :..i.i..:
in»muiMini«iw«- ih»* * -"-v ' - '
\.. . rr..i i Hi i':" ••• ••■•• "• • •
in,-..- ii-rni- -mi '"J- -■■- •• '■ • •■'• "
;ijiii..iui ji»'l ,v"'n "■' "■»■*••■•«'
ill .!a.ni— .ill'i :i - '
,ifin.ni*'.i'.ii. -i tn*' * -■ ■'
,ii. i-.iiu.ir-. .-I'm l :■- ' '■• "• ■
I'h.lu.l. Il'iiu 'nil -"•• •■■ ' •■'-
,U F.PIC. •
kV.m-.m -.•-.. m.»KIMi
wu> inif-n .« u ;"v!i'"i a. " •' " "
m llw >h.«.l "f Vr;« -irul »—.,..-
Tnr r.iiir-^ i" i»«-"' I '" :-* '"
In, Murk.,-*. \...i"> ••• -
J. ,„ PJ.on.WjW- H^n - t P/C norrw.oomi retooi m« •cnoo-'i p.p. or.on
-. l,...i l'-..f.-.iM: Ku:or» L—
it. ii— ii. jr. i !'-»«i.:^n: >Sr..(..r
» l.i. *:*••• lli it;..!!"*" »l«ri»""- * **
- .!■• » :_: 1 1 jrL«»» ^a.U ^
,.in-:i. :.i#:.«r» ar'-nn" r**«r--r
..... "... i.tnj :»r (.r*-:vr-^' t":"»
• •••i-.i .mi »
Ti • nli ii - •««■ *i-j:»-:« :r
.... :.. .in; r.r •icij:» ■•" ■.!••
»|.|U..i. II- »«•• --" "•■' "•>'• ••
,itir* :... .'i ih* Oinr *• •»: Ccw**!*1".?
I »n. -ii.-.i I'.-;.. > ;:;iiii»» »>"i-
i».-,iii . *. ii...;..* \n« jn' **.^r..-*»
From ..nf turn ]>*yrr :hrrc
»r.r« «co . am« - pl«n for ■ iun-.n-.--
»outh ror->» for .l.»«ri»«niirr'. -i?r
.chn..i ..uiirp.li Thr -lion r»vrJ.-.i
mrounc :ne urnt>«»«l iSi: raaiiil'
.rho-->i jnil h::n «-hnni .:jrirr.-. --"
op :o iS<-n noil rnrmiRwren »r«.i.-.i-r
duri.-. ■!:'•• t. ihi- :rtiiii:"njl
cU»«rnnrr. »rttin(: rruir.t •umv-.
act.i'mir.lW if :hr r-iuriiu-n ;"■•» — •
-^rr ini'jri:^" ->lh ■»•!—"•■■«■
rmslO'-nrnl .kill*— -»perS«il-- -■••
ppn.rrn jr«n^l m impm'in: tn<-
conMnuniiy.
Trif rn.i.1 i*uirl» »rrliimri
projtc i h«« lirrn a run-no-.".
.b.nrfnnrrt h««.- •! M)m Ml— I •""
C)««rr l>mu< To rr-m-.3lr lh'
84
Haututg Rekmb U'«i PhdtuUipiua youlkt an • XTZPIC jab ru
Kmik. Harka«7 mad h> Prsn
•ruoVmj brought m»ilni wilii
iV umbrtlU of dw %<■»! rWLaoViphia
Pat uw iahjj> Ifwuwi fraar» P»*u*.
tha School Dutnci of PhUaoripiu*.
the cir>°i Pn»icr lndu<ir-< Ci— ill)
thr U.S. Department •( Lahar. thr
PhiUddphu Urban C— bliaa. ttV
PtnWlHphi* Vr«a Labor
MinifTtornl CaaunHlre. Ih» Stir
Drp.rtnvmu n/ EoWafton and UW
and lndaatrj. the PUaaVaipaaa
Hoooac DwhfW '-.iq-Timin.
• »d anwfii rrprroentinf ihr nt; '•
Icachera. aheetmeul *«irkrr* a««l
plumberi.
Soow 20 *iudrni< front ^r*l
Philadelphia Hirt, Srh.«J vhn uniil
Lhrn had dcmnnMrald) 111 tW- interval
Id math tkiD< found th<«<- akill< l" l«-
much oaiw-r learnml in m«-«»iinn^
«tuil« nr .J^*4jmmfi a •tatrra*'- for ihr
n*-i*hi->r-K.-wl ht»tj*r in^\ Wr^an
rr-halHliiaimjt umlrr thf ilan^-iMm «»f
rtm Icarhrra from thr hutto •rhwni and
Iwtt n-ttr»-«l mrf-rilrr*.
~ I hr ini'lrni. rhunr*~J »a«*
% alt M<-Aul<-\ . ufx- iW thr mlml
raqtrtltrr*. ~l ilnn i km— af it *••
lm-au»r tlvj rorncwtawl thai ««■ + rrr
dminj aomrthinp 10 iff— I thr
rnawilltldt. or In
85
ir«rmnp jnl, .kill. .1 thr «iik iimar.
taut the. hrraatr mnr* .llr-ntix r
They HUlnl U-aro»ne imm uaJ« fn.m
a* buc (r>«« corn olhi-r. ami Ivramr
able in britrr hfurr ~ui pnihli 1 frx-
themerhrrp.-
Al thr •tw umr . If»rh>r» at
I'nt PhiU.W,»hL. Ilirh School
report better -.-r-k halm* aail t
mturrablr nmwi in thr morale of thr
arhonl Mail anil other «lunrnu who
have hern n|ioMnl In VEP1C
«'F.I»I L ha. nm. r.1 from thai
Stm prwjm to the pram where it i*~
m'ni*n nun- than ISO anfhlairhna»J
xixlrnu in brnl~-»|u«c. nFrxrliof.
rlranu|> m-iimi h-» . aniral | ■aiming
■ad tutorma. It baa hrrn iir*ian«iril a
National Drmnnairattnn Project by
lb* U.S. Dquinmrnt of Labor, ami
ha« hrrn rer* •emxril a« an
■ntrrnatinnal iimH by thr German
.Menhall Fund ..f thr United State,
w+u^h ha« <|p«i««nl <tudy taar* to
Europe to >li ■ i niiwair information
al-oul thr pmpim.
ViiminiMrml liy Ihr vTr»t
Ptula.lr)|.hia Partner-hip. «*EP!C
proeranw mo» inriiiiir *tu«leni3 frnm
MX r«r«i ihiIiIk- *«rh*»tr»:
— in thr »iimmrr of 1SWW
•tixIrnL* fnm ihr l»«l Philadelphia
High $ehtv>l r- hal.iluatnl thr «-+vooT>
pipr organ. *»hirh bed mti aoundrd a
Oolr in \r*r». Mrtolier* of Peon •
Cunu Organ R«-«toraiinn Society
voiunlerred l«» i|MMi«ir this rflort
with *"KPIC— «n WTi.rt thai n«
torae 2 -300 |«|r» removed and
cicaoed umirr thr ibrrruon n/l«
Philadelphia 1 lifh Srhml rnuxr
teacher Paul Murphy and nrpan
repair (prriaiuM Pat Murphy. At Ir— I
three af VrPlC'x partvnpaiina:
rtudrnu arr ermaicleruYf, re rem in
orpin rr|iair> •• • mull of the
prnjrrt:
— Other. * EPIC .tudealj
carried wit iandarapuag aad muni
pain mu around the achool and at cb«
Brvaat Dflwnur. School «t 60th
Siren and Order Aveonc;
—At the Lea Dinantiry School
on 4Sth Strm. WTPIC did«n
nifww rWeaing aad panning on
thr nrhoaT* prnpem. bm long «
aanrrsblr inspect m the
nnaW* **•"»!: aad.
— U E P!C youngster* carried
thnr newfound Under* pc erorruac
to Ihr PhUa<Ulpkia Zoo. where ibey
>harprnrd and added to their tluba
thai pa«l MiRMner.
-«"EPIC u the oaaat baporuUt
arxlfaw mmtnuniry projact
umlrrwa* in thr countr->.~ aUia Lee
-On one bead u briap tofrtbar
a imu aartina of dWipoaa to carry
obi arademir-beaed reacarcb that
hrnrhtt a mmamaifr. At the laeae
itav uiii powerful di mnniinrtnn
that Prnn-"- uadet^raduaiet can
raeMnhtttr i« romnranir*
rrvuekaabon."
U. 5. Serrnarrof Labor Aab
MrLaudilin riled VEP1C aa "a new
SMulrl for pannerahlpt. aad aa aa
<-um|>lr of Ihr kind of cooperation
we oml lor the future of oar
country.' She called VEPIC the kind
of partnership "that u crucial m
iniutorauvf at-ciak cbfidras. at-riak
irhooU ami at-riak neighbivbooda."
la addition to VI PI C. joat
utw the ScbuyOdll Br»er ia the
Poial bVrrar ijeijbbocbood aba
anaajarr — •-*-• aaanl etaaante of aa
mrmit mir project that m peyiau;
djTidnwU In rommanity
ai part of a rnurac tiu{iit 07
Profaaaor William Zucker. it haa aern
nnderrraduatc aad graduate
atudenu. thr Unrrrrury'i
DepartBeat of PbyaicaJ Plaai and
tor Point Brroe Federaooa tram up
to tranaforn an abaadonrd.
rundown .beU duo a aiodcra oaele-
famil» dwcHiBf,
"You don't develop an
ondenundiAg of real estate by aittiae
ia a cubicle dota* reereanaa
anajytu.' explanu Zucker.
'Reel rafale u about real life,
about dc ''iiopaw.ni aad taraiTeacnt
with rv»» 1 iiaieul afendea. arade
tuuoiu and nurkeusj (t't about
banda-on eKpentnce."
Zuckcr't atadentj irtrtiwl that
benda-on eaperaiace. uaiae the
guidance of Pran'i Phyaical Plaat
ttaif to da oujeb of tbe rraicalmuoc
ia the bouae theaaterrei. .Aa a reauiu
2220 Latona Street baa a proud new
community owner, and the etudcau
have uaed the pcoceeda from tbeir
•ale of the houae to purcbaar the iheO
next door to atari the proceat all over
again.
Taw *aw- waa dirigntd to Pena "•
Vbanon School Real Eatatc Center.
ITnerw (o coif:
Veai Philodelpkim fayirni— rat
Corp*
(215) U7-IUS
Officm ofCommiuurj Orirmtri f titer
Stud&t
SckoolofArtM wmlSotmett
ttmwermtf tfPtmttytrama
(US) »wlii;j '
Greening Project
86
'..And Before You Know It,
You Have A Community
Going'
Urban pardraiac .. not unatfur
In *<-ai Philaalrlphia. In ruapSbof-
K..-i. all arrna* Phil»«)t-I|ihi* and
otbrr atari. Inral midrnu arr
lurruaf forp*ttrn parrrla of Land into
ft»»n- and ra-rtahlr ajardra*.
Thr «a\ it ha-> aJta|ami up in
*«■»» Ptaaaddnhia. h«»w«-»er. b
aaudtai. It aa urlan sardcnin* and
mi*r+i —l» a iw Wanl for dtizea
IMM—WM and mmrauniry
ayWBB. Il invnrrea the
amhtdiaripltwd naourrej of the
barreroitT. comawniiv raidcnu. the
lot PtuUdrtpKu Partnrnhip.
Philadelphia Crccn. thr dr» and
•mr p— l— mU. and a $750,000
afwaarpM from the J.N. Prw
Qu ritablr Trust.
LuaSa; thr riTan at the
lini*crarr« an- (arohr and students
fmai thr rvparunrni «f Land sea |ar
Arehstcctare and Rcpnnal Planning
in uV Cradaatr S<-h««J ut Finr Arta.
A* thr planning |naf« unfolds in
thr Depaitaaa ill. thr rmnnKnalinn of
arid projects >■ ha-irtf ansa i via»d hy
thr Orpaaur«iKin anal ManapuaUH
Croap. anpnalhr • fhh««i I with
Pean's Fda G-nicr a/ Cnvmuoent.
TVe faculty and students are
-orkinj with local rtnidinm and
Philaddprua Crrco. an aaattaaafc
program af thr P««tn»<r|vania
rlnrbcukim* Soonv tn identify
' uaiianin aaarna and paala.
Topxher. the* s rr aWoipunj; a broad
raap- of landscape and ieapi »■ —a—
P«-a>r-"a tbraaudmut Waal
Ptulaalrtphia. inrliblinf »..rl> at m»r>
loan 60 street and pirttrn aae». »l.-^
BD| aanaatU . (hr» anr IwiLlm- ~-~
■Man* for dnxer* In laiiaii m» .J* "I
01 rtnTwmiTU t~» ISntlCnA r-srarnl .
~On<-r a csrrtVn ta pul mi.i plarv
aa ana- comer, a p->-u| > oWn ibr
arm I -» ma a pardrn jost tkr il."
explains Gary Strain. Adjunrt
Aaaiaunt Profaasar af LanuVapr
mVbjbwPI IUI t .
~Nr«t thry nlant ttrrw aktfaf ikr
atrrrt lu nuiwo thr i».. ssrainu.
and pnapaa «tan pwiime ■"" annalm.
•am. Then before y«*i ksana ii. ami
ha«r a rnaunafulv pain;.
"Onre (he local madrai* havr
arpuuaed around a pinla-n. ibra. rail
Gfy HaO to jrl uV stTen« rrpairril
and the curb* read. Thrn liarv rail l»
art betler Uphtiaf . TkaM hmaaa
mora/" and pnlitaralh aar^nonl •-
a nn*jUMii linoaf.
Annr Whiaton StWrn. I'r> J"™-..r
af l^ndaranr Arrhttrnun- anal
Rcpneial Planning anal rhair ut thai
dVparunmi. aa«> tiiat pnlow UihI hi
proplr working lo-rlhrr a»n lara»T
"Prople «ahn daan'l :
wbolr lot elac cptr can panarninc--
Spirn Bate*. Thr apiril nf *jink-nin;
ia anr of aunuiiny. p in i iaaiv anal
cariaf. Propie p»r a«far> ihrir |mar
laamnn and other thiap< ikn ran'i
oanaoav. The pirden< arr a prat
»•» lo brin{ Druolr loprlhrr In eH
other (hasp accafn^iauhrtL'
For PcBn'a aliadrau. S|»m aa«a.
thr ramtmnutj fanlrn.* tmaranV
vahuMe taachiaii opaaartunttara.
aa I *au^ as Baaadttla for OnaarTa4anarm;
I jaaa •**>•• 1 and uruan d\iuuaar»
Uaanj; aardeaa a* a am wa aaaa fan- ika*
paMMMaJ ■ ika- lla*-*if aoalrriala.aaail
h..^ I*. ».^-i with rlamu and
»-*«ait rarltar*
]i. (..rr In,- |krn aaaajT ^ra<
l'h.l«lrl|ahu Undarofar I1aaa*jl
CavrntOf I'ratarrt «• raaai|H>iruL S<»m
■•Una i..r,,»n.l i(> inn nil, i l|aam i
rrratr-nuaU l»» aanrlun« <«ilh ihr lnl
ChllaaMlJata U|innrmml f -Tt..
.(.» KI'ICj. aahirh aaripnalral an (hr
(lailarpi'nfAna anal S
ralaltlaah a aamaaaa n lal (
"» -in; |"-i^-ir friacn »nal Hah artftia
»ill I**- irainral fin- raaplaH aii m ia
k«*rlarulturr anal lanaWa|ar
man«r,-»aH-n I « n.A\v~r mKr\t in
making ihrpmnnapr"/" I naat aml\
a orilrntnp rffun lain a vrbark- tar
•n>ja«nc»>anmiuniiv.
ik-vrUatai
trafhe patterna. aaaaa*
eaaaraunieaiaan. Al (hr
thrr r-1 handa-aa ti\
■aad
H krrr «. raalf:
•T r.i VkilaiMfittm /^aaoVafar /•lao
at' Crraauayr Pmjrrt
Orynuaiiaa am/ Afaaa/'ooaii
Cfaajn
f2/J'6»W-970:
87
i ronn (itirtienmt i.Jltr Cunfunfhuf'r in <:c i*rt>it* •nrutn. a: Brown S. 49:n Streets, pari o' ;n* C *tt Phdadtlpntc
l^nxtiarim* I* inn ,»rxii Cr+tmng Projtci mt.ati.tna r*en*t i D'parffwo: of Lanascap* 4-^nii^ct-T cic Regional Plcniio^
88
Penn and Public Education
Time to Invest
In Young People'
The rpotli-hl en public school*
emu sharpen or iade with the ebb and
So* of a pobtseaJ cuajwpi. or
perhaps with the thoughl^vukiiu;
statements of a government
oauuiutP star or pi tniiincni
educator.
At Penn. bower, the ipotaght
rrauiu sharply focused, m mrm
-r. • sad for more than one rcaaoa.
Mot the leaat o/ those rraaon* is tbe
University's rrco^nboa of iu ahihry
aad obuganoo to apply iu reassures
to help tbc immediate ronmoairr and
tbc society a(4ar|e to educate yotmr.
people— young people who can
survive and Boorish m our economy
and who can improve the quality of
hfe for everyone.
Tbe moat dramatic of tbcae
rfloru baa bees the Say Ye« To
Edocacion Foundation, made
p~tiit«t» by a generout contribution
of funda and time from Penn
Alumaot Geor** Wesse and baa wife.
Ouuie. George and Diane captured
the City't imaginaboo laat year when
tbey pledged to pay for college or peat
mgh-echool training for all of tbe 112
sixth-graders who were then
graduating fraaa the Belmont
Elementary School a acbool with
one of the highest eoitccntraboM of
at-risk youth m tbe City.
Tbc Weiss family funber
sanhllihaH lbs Say Yea to Education
Foundation (a provide a year-round
program of tutoring and summer
activities to wrrnag. human sexuality
and career df shipment for tbe
•rod cnti Tbc effort now involves
morr tban ISO Penn student
volunteers and communis mmior.
who help tutor the West Philadeliihie
■ arr «loirr£
"One of the raaeon* i
Diane We*
Mill.
that tt u tane to nr»*si in nam;
people. Yea. we know thai many of
the children have cum imxu
problems, and that the uaulr U an
npbiD one Bat we wiU work with all
of tbcae «wb{ people to M]> thmi
achieve tbe airhcsi level they ran.-
The University i cocnnulHH lit to
pubbc edocaboa takes othrr forma:
—Penn waa a founder of the
Coosmjttec to Snpport the
Philadelphia Public SchnoU. an
effort to marshal inabtuubnal and
corporau support and build a
aoonder fin aa rill baae for the Orv «
pubbc school system.
Tbe Committee • efforu inrludr
tbe cerabtntd C.1 muuon
Philadelphia Alliance for Teaching
Huaunnbea (PATHS) and
Philadelphia Reaaisaanre tn Scienrr
and mathematics (PRISM >— pilot
programs aimed at invigorating the
teaching of writing, history *mA
science in the elementary rradrs. The
Cosrarotiee alto sponsors Education
for Eajntoynaeai/Drop-Oal
Pii itaniaa. • jeant effort wtth the
Private Industry Council to rrdurr
drop-oat rotes through carver
guidance tel rstmt and job plsrvroenl.
— Pasm, through rtt presence in
the Wast Phflsrlcrphis Psnnership.
eo-foueded tbc CeDaborsrive for
Tot r^ala^ltlnbia Public Schools, a
cDMorthm of ntsTjruoont and
biisianttrs dedicated to strenelbenin;
tbc araa't poboe tcheolt.
Through the GeDsborauv*.
•sore than 400 local coOcfv. ttudenu
are tutoring children m 24 pubbc
•rkiaili «n.( ronmunn rwiirrv. Thi»
vrar II launchrd an tnlsinu>
ram|»«i£ri In raip«- * 1 h enmissj In
pnrvklr rollevr srhotarvhu* and
advising for atudeau praduataaa frocs
the thrvr hich achneia a9 Urol
Phdadrtprua: Um»»nsry City lli^<
Schawl. Bsnram tinrh S<-b—4 and
«esl Phila.Hphia llith Srhoal:
— T)w Uni»ervet» '• ju«-
rstahushed Center for the SlueS of
Rlark IJleralure aaal Cnhurr is tbr
nation's firti rrsrarch renter to stmh
tkr issue nf Mark Bif-returr tn the
rurnrulum of urlian |iul>tV «rvjnol«.
Founded and Jimsil hy Dr.
HiHiiinn Baker. Prnfnwur of English
and Albert M. CreenneU Prnfessor
of Human Relatxins. the rrntrr't
scholarly mission nehades the
devriofrinrni n( new tonrhinr;
apprnarhes to hterary. dia»»v frtvo
Af n-.Vmenran bteratnrr and
Uleraiurr of other nnaurines
traditionally und» r-re pev*wled in
Amrncan school eurrirmla. The
renter will serve ss a model far other
urban universities and puhitr school
systems, and will pmvidr a ahe far
scholars to shsrr their iniictiu and
study istue* to Carihheon. Latin
.\meriran and African faeralare-:
— Penn's Center fur Information
Rr^ourres pmvitlet trninsng far
students with hajsdieana. sosne 93
prreeni of whom ha«r found
employment after crssluatvuu
TV Center nfTer» trainia; in
eotnputer pioarammuuT and asord
pmressang. ami arrange* uneensnip
for Muclenit that in many ease* leave
them with as much nandh m\
r»|«
— The Umversirv't Srhoal of
Engjnernng and Applied Stsinxt it s
89
5*m YV* )nnnp9i*r* in the Lntver\tt\ * iny Vei /o r.tmrr.tton P -Of ram. led by the Graduate School of Zducction t Df
\rtrninn 1 \»t*6*r». wijttnr; nssort'tt* ;imfe>i$tir 'if r-ttucntton anC consultant to tne program
Sr^.nit: iiitr<Mitti ii«*n f«»r Minnrith**
:«» Knsin-rnns ( PRIMKh y pf»»crnni
:.. »o.n :>r. .!-*»%».. tt^i •i|*|tnrliintf >• -*
f"r rji ui anil >lhnir inin«*r*.ti'*« jimi
*»..m. -ti I'KJMK ■•ff»*i » frr* »-lj«*-- .11
rr.dtli < -ni|iinrr •■ h-iw •■. ^naOii*t-r:a-
jft.j . •it*i:iiutii«*uitt*n akiil" -■' IVmi
jr.. J ji ..n»." jrrj tini*«r*iiif«-
— Tl».- \\ iiji i-«n >t -»••>•! "• »> v i J
iifn-jrsni mil •xIim • * fcmiflf W<*' * jn«i
1 1 1 * : ■ u r» n • »iiM|t*iil« [fi •tjipt.rimutif* ir
!i»Mn." «-jr»--r-» In in** ;•••! ''icnt
»-i.r* I.K \D h«» l»r«Hi:*fll J *•*) MiL*h
wRmh *nitJfTit* from wj« r>>** Itir
Riiii«*n i« Prnn in aiit-ml ria-««*« **uli
in. tt huiiim f«i*ti||v. Mtlfl *4»m» JO
|wmnl K«"»n- niutrn ul.i^.J ■■■ IVnn
«n*i m*n» u|hi*ra li«v>nc j»"»'* «»n !••
•rtluY in|< «'li>Hiii.
— ► «i a I m T-h*~> i jh*i ihi» |«j»i
•-•r lh- * h«n.»n R't-%1 Piiil«.k-l,>m.i
Prwjrtt Uun< n.-il it* \t*un*
Fntrciirrrwiir* si ^'hartnn |»r«»--«m.
« .unr^r — t"f<-»rr ror 36 iocs!
"«.r.i>:rr« *»n«« *nth the fuuunce of
• h«r|AR £raiiu«tr *maeni« *»Ko »*iU
j.r..»i,.. ••••.•.•in; «n*ice. de 11471 en »r.c
,.t**n.-.i ,n*-f. <>*n ix.iil buuncssef:
• .Ml
—Pi nn • GtUr$c of General
%:titii. ■* in rtiHiilmn in nuun.i. me
L »n »••.-•!(» * |.fn;*f3r*)i :'nr i>ar:-ii.nf,
• kr-vi -jrtnn; •lun^nu. offer* a
i *ti;>« -.i" :"•«*. r—iii <n»i non-4-rcdit
. iwitM :n*: m*«« in*> Lnivrnily"*
r^*..tiri-»*« *»^u«i»ic to Ifte •mm!
. ..mr.i.iMUv \l.,n- (nan 12.000
l^-r*i*n* | ij * *.i« i|'*(<*il in ih<- Cuiicgc •
j»r*«t;ra:it« l«*t M-af"» including
|«rnffra*n* ?-«i«ii i« inac the
Lniti-f*ii* • »»»| .rifniirtf r*w«rcri
- » «il***i«- !•• (•rvwni «no potential
- i*-m«- i.-ji'.th; pr*»granu ih«i kdp
inirm«ii'in4 1 •uni^nt» Hc*^top
Kncluh Un.'uace »•. Ji». a program to
. rii Unf<Lv ([limine* Ki;h achoAi
■Ittilrnia in finmite rtrmert m h**lth
I'urt- : ami |*i ■■^rurru (Kal wrieome
■»*nii*r nilis**n« *•• iKr L-m»ep^UT*»
8 <u^» (o cud
Graduate Scnool of Education
L*utfr«irt of P*nr\*« Ivanui
Coii*rr of Cmn^rr.t Sii*tfi#a
C/ute^tif* or" r**on»\-i*.-n«4a
(219,898*732*
Ptnn Extension ' V'oiunieer Center)
(21S)898-X3l
Perm MtMlicim*
90
A Tradition
Of Service
More than • reniur* afci hor»e-
uulkwl wagon* t*rnr.l Prnn . doctor*
lhl"OU»h Philadelphia • • irr-r I • 10 I he
aack aarl injured
Later. the Lni»er«i» '.doctor*
• nd ourac* iriTfllni in • hoipital ear
pulled by honey*"* of a different
lund — thr engmra of tJ"- ..J J
Prnnatli axua Railroad, carreina;
Penn* already reniiwneil health care
aeiexn 10 treat ill peraon* «U along
the eaaiern aea boa rri
.Today, a «tatr-of-ihr-an iwjn
engine hebeopter tpced* ipeciaUy
trained health profeaaionalt 10
enucally ill or injured patient*
throughout a 90-mde radiu* At
apced*of up to 170 md" an hour, the
pejn.nstaj? Flight Server r..P™a,
with emerjency transit noi nru\ to thr
HoapitaJ of the Uni»ertu% of
Pennsylvania (HUP! but toother
repnnal health rarr rrniert
The modei of !ran*|«iri ha»e
ehanjed. but noi thr Lni»rr«it»'«
commitment 10 pro* tdmc hi;h equality
medical rare ami applunc the
benefits of it* mrdiral rrwarrh anri
experuar to the retidenu of U eat
Philadelphia anrl the mtn* Delaware
Valley
Thi* commitment in in modern-
day form take* ae-xeral *hap«*. and
include* free care pruvMietl b» HUP
to thoae unable to afforil aurh care. A
brood range of program* it operated
by Penn • School* of Me«li«-ine.
Nuratng. Den Lai Medicine and
Vctenaurr Medicine. the Uru»erairy "a
Ckrucai Pnaetieea. HUP. Children a
Roapttal of Philadelphia ami the
Philadelphia Child CuiJame Clinic:
Checking a Out w«ai Phiindr/nAi/i roui»> benefit Own n trndumn o/
in* communur b\ Ptnn *au/lr) rnrr perjo.mei
— HealthPASSi. ahealih
maintenance organuaiinne.tj I. Ii«h.n
for Medicaid patient ■ in U e»*i
Philadelphia. It it a ilair-nin
component of the Meriirai«l pnigravn
in >»hich thr School of Mriiirinv.
HUP and Children . H«t*Mul
pamcipate. Some 12.0tWehiltlr.-n ur-
enrolled in HealthPASi ihn.iijrr.
Children* Hoapital'a Di-p.inni.-ni of
Pediatric*, rompriainr the Ian. .i
aingle unit m the Health I' ViS aravrta
HUP. with S.000 enmJIeet. ia ihr
third largest HealthPASS pm»nlrr in
the dty. A* pan of HealihlWSS .
HUP'a Department of Olnlrtrir. an.l
Cenecoloajy work* with a nurain;
iiena to offer home i imi. t< ■
obatctricaJ paoenu
— HIP • Obstrtrv. ami
Cwneeoaoary Department aee^e*
realdenu of Veat Philadelphia
through It* OB/CYN Clinir ami it*
Famii* riaiininc Clini*' Saaaar IH.IOI
klaft* |iee .eii- |ak. |ila'-«- a I lh.- t HI/
(,\ S Cltni. . iiiiluilin* p*n«-nl« w.-n
Ul ii *|*r-t lal Ter-na^e Pi.-^unci
Linn* Th»- Ternap- I'l-r^nam-* I. linn
w.*rL» with ii-enaer miller* an«l tlw-ir
liu.l.an.l* ami pun-nl.. ami hamlU
iiKI ,1,-li.ene- i-»rli ».-ar. \ Italal ..f
■ j»l>r<*«imairU l.'l.tMKt n«ii- rajrh
vrariht-iiral IIVP*« Kamili llynnin^
Clint* . whii-ll mrliiiU-- a «|-inal
T.-i-iuei- Family Planning Clinu Tli.-
Trarttajajr FamiK Planning ("linw *«w^
|iali'-ni> l-'iii at I IL'I' anil at — -i>.».i-
i n i hi- r-immuniiv .
^ Prnn'» Su|i|»ini«i- Chikl/
Adult Network, baanl in the > ur.iru
fcMiit-«iHMi Htiililine. i* teame«l •uli
rlimra) irri-im at C.hiklren •
I liwpital in |ini» wlr moltiili*! nilinan
rmrr fur thi- )iie »i ninm anil
treatmrni of ehilil aliuar ami rxr"~
It ■• lh. Luteal |iro«n-am uf it* t>|' in
Philadelphia, with linka in the
Philaili-lphia ChiUI Cuiilanee Qttur.
the Philadelphia Cininty Chiklrrn
91
and 'l.Milh \crnr\. mn.1 m «uml> r .J
uthrr rnmmunK* p~i«i,« in (Ki* C.uv
The pen-gran in-Hudr-i i»mjj- -
ei-iurred pnilr-rlive aarviMa in (l-*-
hoaw. aortal wnrk, rounariinf .
•"-uirr-irh nur-turif . ami | ■.■ >■ r-h i •*■ -p . » I
tkh i» »HI •• m-numi rare.
— Thr-.u---h llw Di » loon «f
C*rnrml P--iliatnc-i at Children '-•
ll«i*filtaJ. .iu.l--nl» fpnm rmn *
Srh*M,l« .»f .Mrtiii-inr ami Nur-OA*;
ka-rr f.n-nv-,1 alitanm --nth -. h..J. in
*i->t PhilaiMplua In i|«injc-r Mii-h
prnfnnv »•. hrailh fair» al *—t
ChilaiM|>hu lliph Srm>d ami tm-
Turarr MulWU- irK.»4. ami » •erv--- ij"
Saiurtist health r-tlura<i<fn •«— **-^x>
with ur-p-mixr-ii rr-v-tn-aiMm ac ihr
Turnrrr Srm-i-4.
— I'rnii (arutt* ami itudenti
fru*n i h. S--ht-.il* .if Nuniru and
MnUnnr arr -jianriinf a number of
additional iiulialivr--. irx-luriinf AIDS
■ n-mrur |'n-p-imi for pregnant
vn-mrn: a tlruf abuse prevention
urnp-aaiT-ir prrpitni women: a
(■n-a-ra/D tn <rud-> lonr-trrm effect* of
am-mia in rhJrln-n in Weil uid South
HhiUiHphia. a pmjran to mmi-or
ami larpr-t inirrrenoooj an a -ranetv
••f rhiid health mmim: and a •cod* o/
uV IwrrM-r* im— -nuna; pregnane
Mtarti from rr-rr-rruj* prenatal care.
— jiu.N-nL. in Pcnn'i School of
Nurainj wurk -*iih hnmrle-u mothm
and their infanta at »e»rrai >iir-i in
West Phdsilr-iphia. incliulini the
Pf-i.|Mr . f_u» r-i n» ■ ShrilrT at 3Tlh
ajid Cheitnut Streets and a second
nt«rt>v inciter for abused women
The atudeata rnnaull >ruh families,
perfonn b-saar nsrmnitinns and
provide health earr services.
At Studio &S. a n-amwonu;--
health faciltt* en S3(b Street. iNurun;
students teach cUaaea ao hrailh care
for te-m par-rats. And at the West
Philadelphia Cni-aii-iiiy Ceater.
facultv sad •nidcals (ram the School
of Nursing rnadian vision, hrannx.
growth and lao-piage bevesopatcat
aaseaamenu far the Center "a day care
H igk teen. PENHSTAR. th* Uumi acidinoa le it* Umwnkf '« araliA car*
92
3. in «ldloen la pcowdinf
hac btahfc *diiran*n lor the
D*«a
— Pa
Tbi* will b* •ccoaipiukcii
Lhrovigha tIikIc nl*i>ln»v-W b\ CCS:
the Croaur Philadelphia H tilth
Carp*. The Corp* i* werkin*. with
oifcWkh
iiimmcni oi brail*: mJi in
PHiiaddpm* and thou dmi-d*.
Fanned by Ihi Pew CavaruabU Truat*.
that tflan call* far the Inoeirule la
■Beaoiy the extern! efonch pahuc
hteh^prehlea** an AIDS, infant
anertaliTy. drug and nicaaal abiuc.
feenefc preptaney. the batnekea. the
chrecBca&y amtafty 21 and the
■eehcalryaniaaar.rl.Thebuqrote
then «i0 nuke i niaaaeiiiilaiiiani te
Pew an theac una la.
— Anther i a—|ii I 111 nti « a agon
Mine Uatvcrajry a Went Philadelphia
Mental Baaith Project — an effort to
bnnf eoncmarr af OrataMrU to the .
Ml than ISJWO cnroaacaDy
■jentaQy ■ pcreoae bj Vat*
nSmUfiJM who. heretofore ha»e
reaaaed ia and ant of the * re* i rauh>-
aavacied pattern nj ikii »ej ■ of
Headed by Dr. Peter C.
•7bybrew. Chair of Pena "a
Department of Payekaatry . the pre ject
it ni— i i al r*orf*ruxmf PaWtfMCy
•errice* far the aseataOr SI in Wart
Philadelphia : aeeerina, an adecjuate
Dumber of heacatal bed* for
prrchiatnc patienta: and develapiaf a
eat* haae far pabenu ia Wert
PUnMpanl M aa lo pro vide
appropriate foflew-ejp after
dweharea.
— Poan't Gnlnja of Coweral
i(CCS). with the help of a
itheHenrvJ.
lajnjf Faaaflr Finindalimi. ha*
i effort to
nprifv
arodenu eniennr, career* in health
high acbool* that bar»« barer aunont)
popalafie* ii. local ceanmanity
coUeee*. and CCS and other Pean
noptu'vleai ailnnir
raer crplort lion .
ajteenaaepe, ■antoTl . uuPiv
a* atntabon and financial aaypnrl to
bridge the gap btrween the poienaal
and actaal peroapabaa of annaritie*
mtW health &c(d*.
—The liui'tJalii '• Schnta af
Votenaa ry aaedacaa* ■ pla yinr, ihr
Vend role in addreaaing the •rewiaa.
threat of rebara to people and enamel*
ID the Cry.
A anr»cy Una year by the V ri
School fo»n>d lh*i naorr th*n*0
percent of haaacbeid eau ami S3
percent of booatbold doe* in
Phjteirlnha* h*-T irrt fr
raccuaated aeamtt rahie* within the
ajaat three year* — anmberaihat
explain and confirm the grnwin£
i iii mi among bcahh official* that •
dram* ac incttaat m animal rabie*
caeca ia the Philadelphia ruburb*
peae* • aenou* threat to proyle and
pet* in the City .
In reaponae to the Vet Schauta
finding*, the Philadelphia
Department of Health, prorate
vetcrnianana and local bnmane
auiiaoca he»e collaborated with tbe
School on a low-cart rahae*
»aoanaooci procrem far def* and
— The lariat unaJr ne-nvidrrof
denial *erv)cT* foe u/xlrryn »Jrard
peraon* ifitnl Phil*<irJ|Una i*
Pcnn't School of Denial Medicine.
In addition. Pcnn dental etadent*
pros-id* »e rv.ee* la handle a pprd
peraon* and Job
Corpa p< rbctpanu in V r«l
Philadelphia.
WArrr to cmll:
Hotptial o/lhe L «ir»ni/i of
t'ennjy-irunia
(21S) 662-25611
5c*loo/ o/ \ urnnf
Is'aurcram- o/Primirli omo
(21 3) BWS0T4
Be.' PhJodefoAie Nrntal
H-altit Projrtt
(21 5) 662-206
School ofVetomttrr Vojieutr
Laiaerauy o/r'aaaurlrania
(21S) 198.1 47S
Office of Clinic Wuyimxu
ScAaol a/ Demo/ MetfiriiM
Um rer.it » o/Pcauurlaante
(21S)i9i*97S
93
John C. Danforih
A Presidential Nomination? Forget It.
Nominees are now routinely subject to a public trashing.
If tbr preudent cafb to say that he ad aot done ■ pnrat h a mot , antler of
■awt rnwint anra-n to oooaraauoo mnta| coanaz «p paetfl that iioou
t» at Scmu ibs nr k the — w a aaul lor die a* at hand
The orcadest'* cafl dxxud be J cxax a Rather, toe aboie tiaiidr a pu red HI fa (he
great pecaoaal ajQatacaaa; "TraVali *x I (root pages d toe duly area ■duueuqu
(tier — — Mi— to pat anrooe. Thai he has tke rreaaf arwx. Fareaerossre. Ibe es-
•acred too a* aopertaat poaooo m tos mV teemed parai aH be kaaea ts Ibe pcaa adh
aaaarrsooa shoaa tkat a Uetaac of bad tbe aVral bebyauer. aad toe wnter of ackoi-
aark ba* pad oft. Year aUniiuicaa are arty articles <hB bejoaoaa as a Qasta 0«pcb-
aaoeo no to Ibe arcades! of tbe (Jaded Tbe aed uauiwuiid aaataat aH be Set
Stats. Tkaa* tbe preadeai prolaserr tar toe doa Hackery, tbe presdaa's cbaer to cbar tbe
hoaor. Tbca aot «jt ao. rfataaal Caanaraf far Oar II ill I Haek-
Wey rak tbe rtpaMPai too hr«e worked ary o aadcr err tor an •pobootr oorrto "
ao hard 10 earn dt ajtaccuof, row-*ec to van haaoaar of
pa bat— id in i iij ' " " ■"•'— fas areaakacyd lac laaaaaaj at
Tae tare worked a bteuae to bead caa be Oae aoakj hope
wajed an a toe aaacba that aH pan be- woau be eoam a md dacaarae. wfeere real
rweea year aaainmn and toe cooiraBUjai aad abac creeps tar a oopaBar. Bat. aba.
that aay or aery apt aaaar. tkat a ax ahnrrs tbe case. Ycaaf peeate.
Fast yao aal aabaa to toe irhaaaamaa eager la try cat Ibe orw aaaanaaal af freedom
deads about tbe aaat wrom aspects of rear tram parearal coaxal tea Ibe aaao of tbe
tae. Uaar yea eier Booked dope* How abeat aancrary's caaaaaaaat to tree speech. The
year an He? Wast data do yao bekasg at* reaat a apeeck tbat a ■uaaaalj aaaaaaai
Thee, u aastata a tbe abrairniTiaa ted tba aad aOcaanc. aieaaabac. araaben af aaanry
yoo are eat as akataaj csnba a a. yaar rroupm. aeaaure to beaks, rkiflirni tbe
Sea ad be toned over to toe FBI tor a adaoTs akaaa ■ to arove as —it-
Tkat mam tbat Ike FBI sscat to respectast aiairay max
; eafj oa a bag trim iliaaii of it a a aaflkat taaaMW tor aaaerary V ^^-"^fcA (
year aeadbors. fneads aad basnex* aaaocotcx. n atratan to keep tbe peace sacaasano >*--~ Cu)
Wtat tbe FBI aaoaaafl a supposed la be where opraar a aare tbe rale Una Ibe \~s
i laafadi anil P 1 man nn if Ynm fii al aaaaaaj Sat abaaaiti ma i iln tki aifi _Y .anaaa
be raaaraad by toe ■loanmniawi aad toea by better tba* others. Saae aeesa too ready to
a asm oae asetober of each parry a the aapesse oae rroap or aawhrr a toe saae of The real aaae a abetter there are aay
Seaac rnftr.fr are drer oae. wtaae re-o-atr a»eaej-»aa. eaaaaai order. A oae eaa be aaade faaau to bow far ae caa pi a aaar a
aot a case of aaaaaaacaUDP. aay be kahed tbat ilacfcaey aeac too far ta Ua eOorti to n»i uliaul aiaiaiiima far the aarpoae of
is tbe acaa to toe banntatjoa of yea aad placate aatrafed hfadt —— 1~" aad that free aaahaaf a pcaucai poax. or turtherat i puuo-
yeor faaaly. The fact that public aaetaaanj af ».,-—— aatfered. aopbaal aaaauoo. or aaaaadaaa oa an
FBI Sea a a eaaosoa of both federal bra aad But vbat a the poat a radar this aaae a aaral au«n a aa*aaajaja the i
Seaae rdea abooad be of ao oecsfart ts yea. ear naani of Hadoary a aaaaaaooa? Be a aot dent of tbe
Piiiiaaiml aaaaaaa are aot aeuared i bbbi coaaaaered bar a aeo> paaoca a aayers- aay a the txae occopt toe rTbor i
kabaa jahpaasjai afl aerre the porpoae af ty ilia n ad as atatay le oed aah Today there are aa aad) aaao. aad as
deaeacaa; a aanaurwn ateda reeaacao af caapaa eraea aeeaa iiU-iaa ta the jab af iaaB -jl it ikiiakllii aa.i*i il hj rdi nr h
the cat ail ccibb the tarjaen pnoca*3 a rktaaa. Li. jTTJTL Ta pmiiliia: aai km a If there a to he aocae oaoEaaa acatdart at
tkCff *' aaat VaaCD CljtT ? DTOta-CZ IOC aaTSaU^r aaaaa aau> aa. ^a^a^aaaKaraaf *4a* aaaaaaaaaBBd-f-aa^arBa ' a alav^aaav-^ aaaa ■ i i I ' ' I _^____ —
' aa ii ■a-aaaa. -aui "■'/ *■» ■— «—• " ' aa i i, i „ aaaaa, ■aaM Ha ■aTpaOHaTaBL %aaT aaaaBBBBBkBuXaaTaVH • ffaraLak^aaUj Ta*C aw * I tJ 'J TnTmmWT 1 ITI lb ■■bbbbbeCX. M
of Waaaattae, ianaf ba aerfaraaace a afar. Tbe akaaaa af Che Aaaraaa penale tar aba ae arc aaae to
r or aot a raaated tbe fa*. KEH a to '
i kr axhorraal of i n bet* by aaaaa rraaa to aii'i'rhiaa aaato- ry
So a fader to He Social Scenery tn letasaa boat aad arfaaaataaa. Sarerr rfackBeyi hack- aenae toa tbcae «bo haw be
~~~ i . > t) , || | ( >' a u ■ ir ^Uatitbst
ibyapralesaar.Aad.dds: j rf thi Hainan id Tiaapliaai atah aai — — ~rfT
d a* i f ascreCBT at f\ ■ aad 3,aed to cbe aaaaa a dse KEH. a araegy zC
Orfaa
aVrdac/'
ra-CUiaaat £
raaM »7iraracr, a
"» " Caart ----- ■■^-••^ •V.^*","^/*; '
94
A I VjVIUklUV * 'II I nisi ...hi I. W llli >
■ Campus life: Lliniim -
rNHninn* 10 head ilu I Itim-imno
bidowmoii in untjuU hl.inxtl
for a universm »jr of uordv
h- moat v. UtKi mi
Cuntrorrr«» t* »»'ihiMi; new ji ir.
Sjimrui Endowmerr (t*r thr Hni*im«'
bul the attacki ihji Univrnn * of I Vnn. > .
vanu Ptmdfni Srw-ionr, Hx-krv> k likri*
10 laee *■> Pusauent Clinton > nominee in
brad ihr endowment are hound io hr
sneueadang and undeserved
Tiknf a stand tor diatos-ur anri deernrv
m a major roie oi umtrnui* pre*»deiH«
Often we (aid •urselve* *msrk in ihe
middle of a bv/ti. decibel war of word?
That happened io Hacknex «hrn Ihr term
•safer a%ftolo construed b* wnri'incu'
slur targeted htj nvmutMi a- an »oeoia*
cji baiiseground
Penn. h*e other rolie. c fjmptun wa«
csurru up wi a freni* where thr combat
anu were the pohisrallv correct left arte
Ihr Irtmanan" nghi Thr protagonist,
trashed each other ih. institution and ihr
■MBMUaa > leader
Most often turn «prr\*-iri pu> out
within campus bouxunn Bui occasional
l> . UV cudgels are taken up bv mercenar -
its on thr aauonal scene Ariual facia arc
llf.(liSl J' I'li'Li..! *%■'(■
Mfc>1 Kamlm hartf* H • •*.••.
t- f.*r ihr wvvesVn* I.- i -
karsssrassa mMtmM lowti i : •■ ■
Irf.rnliir" .n^-^f, I**P1 ' -I.-, ••^*f
>l nroir«i
Diiriiic :h. «j:t- i«- ■: .i
snnv klurtenl* rUirie*! in* ih . ..-:
in. was in vtoiaimn of tr. IVrm Mialrri:
rone, and a nudrni fuOiru' per. • . - , ■ ~
coon for revolt inr. rharge« of
arxual and racul harassmcni arr <x>mpir.
and not Hansard »m well Thai ■ not
sorwnsang After all. aur country has hern
u lint io make su Meal *v»tem wort
amooUili tor avare Uian 2U0 »ean with
oni t asm in rrvufu. No college or univer ■
at* presadem ahoukl smerierT with the
student sudsctaJ process any more than a
i inpin 1> CEO should mierferc with an
eelipsoyoe grievance proevdurr or a gover ■
nor enta a grand jury nvesufaiion.
Urtfonisnataiy. Uui con. mwi sense ethic
of raiaagiiiiiiii baa keen loat in the sound
and fuTT Across the pages of countless
nrwpassatis. Masts have appeared thai
blame Hackney for the incavni. for the
(act that it was nfeiied io a student
fudaoai process and for ute realiiy thai thr
process look taae In the end the *iudent>
who brought UV grte\ancr a-rr-nrd ■;.
though not without a atarung <r>oi or two o'
their own.
- ■ •'. ih fi.i i it r . ..
•tril. J'i.lj-1 I. . if fr ir ..'"».■.■• • •
II |» ■>. Jll !.■*!»•«■ x Jli nit jl . ^r
**4»i•*•• l^at'SSI'l hi' wi!l .lr.iw- ■
rtbfc»*riM-nt * (.n-v i|.ji nurr»»» ••' •-:•>.
iiiif tiHm-j'N hi mn riununii:N :?**flt»
II- uikJ- tmjiwI IhSI Ihi • i'-iai,t-
nueil lake Ih.- I«hiC ntw f'»r ih«-rr j*-
final *nawrr> to thr Question.* ih. i ash >
tnoAr ourviMKU are thr mnM nn|nru<
with whwh wr must grapplr hr« try
sense of ommy and decener i aeen mm.'
alwars open to new approaches and a fin-
moral compass
These »rt the very Qualities of mind ajv:
heart that define She Mon Harknc) a- ..
htstonan. he has sought cohere ni mrani-i-
in the eomptei happerangs of the Amrrx.r
past He bnngi to that mqury a itro-i,
moraJ rliirn rajpaa, and a canng conrern f>"
the rmpaci of historical evenu on mdivici.
al lives— the same concern that guides far
as a uraversur presadeni
Hackney personally represents :h.
opening words of the Penn poiicm ..
harassment that he promutgated fivr "tir~
ago "Our community depends on trusi ar.o
civility. A wulingneai to recogmir I hi
dignity and worth of each person at ih.
university is llMliml to our mission
Tnaeaas s>ntarJi. prawast af tAr L'anwnui
•f /Vaaapfueass frawi fMf Mrwapn HUT .
prrssdnU a/ /iidarna (/mrarrsuy
Letters to the Editor
The Sheldon Hackney I Admire
The Lam Cuinier batue is over, but
another one sooras. this tune not about a
pTtjrMpTJI at the University off Peonsyin
ua. bat about uv presioeat of that saae
try Larue redoubt. Shettoo Hadtrsey.
wtwm BtU Quuon has nomiruied io dsair
Use NauoroJ Euuuwuitul for the Horaaju-
bcs. wherr Lrnne Cheney tsed to sit.
For Oat past oaten years. Mr. rUdosey
has ran Perm adminbiY itefore tbai be
was prra>oeni of TuUne Unrvernty and
earner. pTovost at Mfatttm He it a
uacbxnt IvstanaB by trade . kas major
fsrftoJirty pTotxjtupatJori his beloved South.
Unlike lis. Cujiuer. n c not bo v/ritinrs
oui have WfjovTs. hostile reaetaan so las
■ornaaaunri Iron the edjtonaj fsTMaTS of
The WaTJ Street JourruJ : msuad. wtol has
rued he antics are recent events at
Perm in wtucti Mr. Hac*a*r<r. you aver.
vent out of his way io coddle mjnon<je
You paint him as the vnmptsh captive of
the fortes of political corretlaess-
I sttouM exnUin thai this man a my
fnend and thai I know him veil etsrsorti to
lai pertaps vou should get Io
him and hrs academic manage-
meni styte better belore you fuhninate
arairtsi him lurthrr. lor Uus a a Strong;,
gentle. quiMrv cnui-ageous man whose
years m academe have been dutirertitshed
and aimcni unrverully applauded
li rs obvsous thai university campuses
today are yeasiv sometimes o^urTeisome
puce-, especialh urban campuses like
Penn. where each vea/ more and more
minonim come io siudy. to etercrse their
intellects and their emotions Each year
new tensions devriup new muscles are
flexed, group lor fToup minonly for mi-
rarity. But Mr Hackney has labored to
make Peon a puce of comity despite Use
oortfUci quotient: and Uus at a time that
Peon's undergraduate musonty eoroO-
ment fats grown from 13% to 3BV
He a about to unuerr-o U>e Waslunglon
ntuaJ of Senate conlu-mabori itearngv
dtB-tat wtuch no doutu be ■ be asked.
ajTsosar- axber Uuiifrs. about Usose recetu
erentt desenberj by one writer as -TaoaJ
umifiiifj tone bayvire." winch called
down on fam the wrath of those liomnen
betwd critics. In the best of a" warMs.
' perhaps. ani*ersary ranawites would
tparwn more Urol, less beat. botOioae-as-
imiflj - are not Use conditions that pre-
vail at many campuses across America
Mr. Hackney has dealt with sanoas
erisptsom over the years. aarJodanc pro-
tests arainsi the predictable spectrum of
invited speakers from Parrakhan to Rea
(an: oaanite all. he has succeeded by and
targe in keepinr the peace at Penn Ad-
dicted to freedom of speech for all comers
be has inevitably stumbled. Who hasn t*
But for fits critics to define him. he
conricfjons and his career in terms of
those virtually solitary fumbles ts unlair
and dishonest
If Sheldon Hackney s fine stewardship
of a great university can be so misrepre-
sented, it is not difficult m tumpitheiid
why capable others who mtghi be called
upon to serve in Washington would think
Uince before subjecting; themselves io sim
ilar misinformed, occasionally malicious
politically motivated calumny
Miser. w*i i.ti'r.
Correspond eni
CBS/SO Minutes
New York
95
Letters of Support for the Sheldon Hackney Nomination
THE WHITE HOUSE
wyTSHlNCTON
June 16, 1993
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Today, I am officially nominating a native of
Alabama, Dr. Sheldon HacJcney, to be the next
Chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities. Dr. HacJcney is among the most
respected leaders in American higher education . He
has served for the past twelve and a half years as
the President of the University of Pennsylvania,
after serving for five years as the President of
Tulane University and three years as Provost of
Princeton University. Dr. HacJcney has a
distinguished record both as a first-rate scholar,
author, and educator and as an astute and temperate
administrator .
Dr. Hackney is uniquely suited for the
challenge of heading the agency and carrying out
its mission to support the humanities public
programs, education and research. Ke was, for
example, a founding member of the Collaborative for
Philadelphia Schools and the Committee to Support
the Public Schools, projects which profoundly
changed the way the humanities are taught in the
Philadelphia public schools.
Dr. HacJcney is one of the leading Southern
historians of his generation. Be has continued to
teach courses in American history while serving as
President of the University of Pennsylvania, an
uncommon practice for executive officers of
universities and a measure of the importance he
places on teaching. His support for undergraduate
education led him to seek a reorientation of the
curriculum at Perm to ensure that the teaching
mission of the university was granted the same
priority as the research mission.
96
"In a democratic society," a recent NEH Report
to the President stated, "the humanities — those
areas of study that bring us the deeds and thoughts
of other times — should be part of every life."
Throughout his twenty-five year career as a
historian and teacher, 'Dr. Hackney has worked
tirelessly to meet that goal, and, when confirmed
by the Senate, will build upon his record of
achievement in advancing the humanities and making
them more accessible to all Americans.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
7W
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
97
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
HARRlSBURG
P. O. Box 1026
sondra mycrs Harrisburg, PA
Cultural Aovisoa 10 IMC GovconOA 1 7 1 08 ~ 1026
(717) 783-5281
Fax No. (717) 783-1073
June 10, 1993
Senator Edward Kennedy
United States Senate
Room 315
Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
It is with great enthusiasm that I commend to you the
confirmation of Sheldon Hackney as Chairman of the National
Endowment for the Humanities. I bring to this endorsement
extensive knowledge of and experience with the Endowment and
with Dr. Hackney.
As a former chair of the Pennsylvania Humanities
Council and a past president of the Federation of State
Humanities Councils, I have worked with the Endowment for
over twenty years. The agency, although modest in size, is
of primary importance in fostering and supporting research^
and dissemination of ideas which are critical to Americans'
understanding of our own history and of our knowledge of the
world and our place in it.
As a nation we are at a crossroads. We are entering a
new millennium, one which presents us with the challenges of
maintaining our precious legacy of democracy in a climate of
a domestic and international change. The NEH is the leading
federal agency to nurture understanding of ourselves and
others. It reguires, more than ever before, the leadership
of one who is deeply grounded in the disciplines of the
humanities and who has the skills, experience and vision to
guide this major agency into the future.
I have had the privilege of knowing Sheldon Hackney
since he came to Pennsylvania to assume the presidency of
one of our premier academic institutions. During his tenure
at the University of Pennsylvania, the institution has made
enormous strides in developing-academically and
economically, and, critically important, too, in its
responsibility to the community.
98
Dr. Hackney is amply qualified for a position of
national leadership. His intellectual acuity, his integrity
of character and his overriding concern for the public good
are qualities that insure a well conceived and well managed
Endowment, one which will preserve the principles and
purposes which informed its creation by the Congress. It
will be an agency for the people.
Dr. Hackney is not a ideologue; he is a pragmatic
idealist, in the tradition of our Founding Fathers, who has
a passionate commitment to learning and a profound knowledge
of its importance to the future of American democracy.
I have full confidence that he would serve the National
Endowment for the Humanities with honor and distinction. I
hope and trust that the committee will confirm his
nomination with all due speed and confidence.
Sincerely,
/
Sondra Myei
Cultural Advisor to the Governor
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
HONOLULU
J°::.r::.cc June is. 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
United States Senate
722 Han Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C 20510-1102
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I join the members of the Hawai'i Committee for the Humanities in urging the
confirmation of Dr. F. Sheldon Hackney as Chairman of the National Endowment for
the Humanities (NEH) and have enclosed a copy of the committee's letter in his
behalf.
President of the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Hackney has a distinguished record
in teaching, public administration, and community service. His accomplishments in
these areas demonstrate the strengths he will bring to the Humanities Endowment.
During his tenure. Dr. Hackney has shown his commitment to the public value of the
humanities by emphasizing community service as an important pan of the University's
mission He has been successful in engaging the public, the neighboring institutions,
and businesses in partnerships with higher education. Dr. Hackney will bring to the
NEH this vision and understanding of the role of educational institutions in
responding to the needs for the humanities in communities across America.
Dr. Hackney can be expected to bring to the NEH the same energy and creativity
with which he led his mosi recent fund-raising effort - Campaign for Perm -- which
successfully raised over $1 billion, 18 months ahead of schedule. His continued
emphasis on forging public/private partnerships will result in greater leveraging of
federal funds and expanded humanities resources nationally.
99
I have every confidence that Dr. F. Sheldon Hackney is eminently qualified to serve
as Chairman of the National Endowment of the Humanities and ask that you give
him every consideration dunng his confirmation hearing.
Your consideration of this matter is deeply appreciated.
With warmest regards.
JOHN WAIHEE
UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA
lht Consultative Committer foi tkt Srlrehon of o President
Box IUO Franklin Building
PliiWelphuL PA I9104-<i280
Tel 215-898 7025 FAX 215-573-2193
June 7, 1993
Mr Aivm V Shoemaker
Ommmm Soardo/T.
Omr of ** Cmmmm
Dr Houston tuirr
AfcrrtM CntJM
tmfmmt •/ b$m
Mi Juo S. Bui( (CM)
Mr Su_p<.. 1 B Burbmni
ftoorrfC hJUr
rrofumr 4 Lmc
Mn Susan W Catherwood
Dr Clara Twine Qusum (Cram
Or Drew C Fault
i wmmt^njmmilfmmn
Mi. Sana* L Carfmkd (CAS)
Dr Peter] Hand
rrvtcm* or ta> .
Mr Stcphea |. Heymaa fw-fl
Dr Dxrid X. Hdaebrand
rVt*owjr cf Saaaaka
Ma Norma P Ulebrew KXU)
Mr
To
IF MuleT.Jr {*"». H11)
>A MonnocT (CN)
Mr RusaelE Palmer
Dr Donald H Sdberbcrf
Pi/mii miOmnfUm^m
Mr Doaadas H Ttimm fUTTS,
Dr P rV~ Vardoi (CM)
A»vS
jxxraary » »V
Mi ShrmDL RosorT
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
SR-315 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy:
President Sheldon Hackney has announced his resignation
as president of the University of Pennsylvania effective June 30, 1993,
following President Clinton's announcement that he would nominate
him as the next Chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
The Trustees are beginning a national search for his
successor and, as Chair of the Committee charged to advise them, I
write to you now to ask your assistance in identifying candidates for
Peon's presidency.
As background for prospective candidates, let me attempt
to provide a very brief, and therefore incomplete, description of the
University of Pennsylvania, from my perspective. Perm, one of eight
Ivy League institutions, is a leading international research university
committed to excellence in undergraduate education. Building on a
legacy rmihli^^ by Benjamin Franklin more that 250 years ago, Perm
is in the vanguard of urban universities that have forged strong
partnerships, through teaching, research and service, with their local
cosununiacs. The University has 12 schools, four of which have
undergraduate degree programs. It also has over 100 centers and
institutes. Perm's Medical Center, which is composed of the School of
Medicine, the faculty practice plan and a 750-bed hospital, is poised to
lead the next generation of medical education, biomedical research and
patient care. Perm's schools share one of the nation's most beautiful
urban campuses; their undergraduate, graduate and professional
programs are characterized by strong interdisciplinary initiatives that
span departmental and school boundaries; their faculties and students
are known for rigorous intellectual inquiry and lively academic and
personal interchange.
100
In the decade ahead, Penn's Trustees seek to build upon the significant
nece— of the past and to enhance Penn's fundamental strengths: the quality of its faculty,
students and academic programs, the international dimensions of the University, and the
management and development of its financial, physical and human resources.
The Trustees believe it will be desirable for the next incumbent to have the
following characteristics:
• Be a strong chief executive responsible for the educational and
administrative leadership of the University.
* Have a distinguished academic career or, if not in education,
strong academic credentials as well as having achieved
distinction in his or ber chosen field.
• Be sensitive to the importance of undergraduate education within
a university with a strong school of arts and sciences and a
range of distinguished graduate and professional schools.
* Be ready to support and advance Penn's focus on its urban
relationships and international reach.
* Be prepared to make difficult choices in this era of fiscal
constraints and organizational change, and to pursue internal
efficiencies and new sources of revenue.
• Demonstrate a strong commitment to and capacity for major
efforts in fundraising from external sources.
" Be forceful in articulating the vision of the University to internal
and external constituencies
* Exhibit imagination, a sense of personal conviction, a strong
appreciation of the mission of a modem research university with
undergraduate educabon at its core, and the foresight to bring
new educational concepts to the University.
• Be sensitive to the needs of and able to work with diverse
constituencies, including faculty, students, staff and other
members of the University community.
The Consultative Committee will be reviewing candidates in the context of the
University's commitment as an equal opportunity and affirmative action employer.
Please send your nominations or recommendations directly to me at the following
address: Box 100, Franldin Building, Philadelphia, Pa. 19104-6280. They will be held in
confidence. The Committee has determined thai it will not reveal the names of any persons
under consideration. In addibon, because of the need for absolute discretion, we ask that
you do not contact candidates yourself. In addibon, if you have other comments and
suggestions about the University of Pennsylvania and our future, I would welcome hearing
from you.
Sincerely,
Alvin V. Shoemaker
Chairman of the Board of
Trustees
101
///// hiJIKAIlON Ol
SlATf Humanities
Councils
• June 21, 1993
Senator Edward F. Kennedy
Chair, Committee on Labor and Human Resources
Russell Senate Office Building
Room 315
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
We are writing on behalf of the Board of Directors
of the Federation of State Humanities Councils to
express our support for the nomination of Dr. Sheldon
Hackney as Chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities. Dr. Hackney has the experience needed to
lead the NEH in carrying out its tripartite mission of
supporting humanities public programs, research, and
education.
His work in building a partnership between the
West Philadelphia community and the University of
Pennsylvania is an important achievement. Dr. Hackney
has also worked with the public school system in
Philadelphia and the state, bringing the considerable
educational resources of Penn to the assistance of
teachers in schools. It is this sensitivity to the
public and to the importance of responding to community
needs that powerfully impresses us. We believe he will
be a strong advocate for the public mission of the
humanities, of making the humanities available to all
the American people, and we look forward to working
with him in these endeavors .
Dr. Hackney is a nationally recognized scholar of
Southern history and is the recipient of one of the
major national scholarly prizes offered in the field of
American history. He is also a dedicated teacher who
has set aside time for the classroom despite the
demanding duties of his presidency. Not surprisingly,
he has devoted a great deal of energy to bringing
undergraduate education to the forefront at Penn. An
institution already distinguished internationally for
its research achievements, Penn is now known as well
for its commitment to teaching.
His achievements in fund raising are
extraordinary. He led Penn through one of the most
successful capital campaigns in the history of higher
education. Penn will achieve its goal of
§1 billion eighteen months ahead of schedule. A person
of Dr. Hackney's accomplishments sitting as Chairman of the NEH
has many advantages, including that of building partnerships
between Federal and private support for the humanities. Dr.
Hackney is perfectly qualified to meet this challenge.
We are aware that some of the events occurring at Penn in
the last few months have been used by some people to cast an
unfavorable light on Dr. Hackney's nomination. In our view, it
would be unfortunate if these criticisms were allowed to obscure
the evidence of his record and his qualifications for heading the
NEH. Running a university is one of the most demanding jobs in
102
the nation. The average tenure of a college president is a
little under four years, according to some reports. Many leave
their jobs involuntarily; some leave burned out. Dr. Hackney has
served as president of two universities spanning a period of
seventeen years. Both his administrations, at Tulane and Perm,
have been judged successful. Indeed, these institutions have
flourished under his tenure and he cones now to the Endowment at
the peak of his career. He has shown himself to be a popular
president, an effective manager, and a sure-footed leader. These
are considerable accomplishments in this day. We think his
commitment to the public value of the humanities, his knowledge
of research, his commitment to education, and his administrative
experience make him an ideal head for the NEH. We look forward
to his confirmation as its next Chairman.
If we can be of any assistance to you or the Committee
during your review of his nomination, we hope you will not
hesitate to call on us.
On behalf of all the humanities councils, we wish to thank
you for your continuing support of the NEH.
Sincerely,
Charles Muscatine /Jamil S. Zainaldin
Chair
cc: Board of Directors
State Humanities Councils
The
[V^ I— I A National Humanities Alliance
22 June 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I write on behalf of the Board of Directors of the National
Humanities Alliance (NHA) to declare our strong support for the
nomination of Sheldon HacJuiey to lead the National Endowment for
the Humanities. We urge you to vote affirmatively for his
confirmation.
The alliance is a rather broad coalition of more than seventy-
five humanities organizations (see attached membership list) and,
as such, rarely takes positions on presidential nominations —
either for or against — because of the diversity of opinion both
among NHA's member organizations and within the individual
memberships of each of our members. Last December, in the wake
of Mrs. Cheney's decision to resign before the end of her second
term, the NHA board developed criteria for the selection of a new
endowment chair (copy attached) which were provided to our
members to assist them in offering the new administration
suggestions for filling the NEH leadership position. The NHA
board decided upon an alliance endorsement because by its own
criteria, if one were to seek the ideal candidate to effectively
lead the National Endowment for the Humanities, it is difficult
to imagine an individual better suited than Sheldon Hackney.
103
Mr. Hackney is a distinguished leader with a record exhibiting
the skills, talents, and knowledge needed to chair the National
Endowment for the Humanities. He has a record of accomplishment
as a historian and as an effective leader of the especially
complex institution that is the urban research university.
We believe that he combines intellect with the political and
diplomatic skills required of an HEH leader and that are likely
to serve him well in building productive working relationships
with the President, Congress, the public, and the academic
community. (Although the University of Pennsylvania is a private
institution, Mr. Hackney has acquired considerable political
experience in working with the Pennsylvania legislature and
executive as well as the city of Philadelphia.)
The endowment is comprised of three major areas of grantmaking
activity — scholarly, educational, and public. Mr. Hackney has
a record of interest and activism in working not only with the
scholarly community, but also with the educational and public
humanities communities.
Mr. Hackney has spoken and written eloquently on freedom of
expression and inquiry. We believe that he understands well the
importance of the humanities in a democracy. We anticipate that
he will use the NEH chair's "bully pulpit" effectively to help
Americans to better understand the value and importance of the
humanities for their own lives and the life of the nation.
Finally, the recent controversy at Penn has been both fueled and
distorted by inaccurate reporting and unfair characterizations of
Sheldon Hackney. The Wall Street Journal editorial writers and
other columnists apparently know little of the realities of the
conflicting forces with which a university president deals. We
are confident that you and your colleagues will consider this
nomination in the context of Mr. Hackney's record of more than
twenty-five years as a distinguished academic leader and
scholar — a strong and inspired choice to lead the endowment.
Sincerely,
Ptote Note New Addreg/PtweffAX ■ E«ect»ve 27 Ftbruvy >993
National Humanities Alliance Tel 202/296-»994
John H. Hammer 21 Dupont Circle. NW - Suae 604 FAX: 202/872-0884
Director Wash.ngton. DC 20036
Enclosures (2)
104
11 December 1992
criteria for the Selection of a Chair of the
Rational Endowment for the Humanities!
This position, vital to the cultural life of the nation,
demands the talents and skills of a distinguished leader who has
compiled an imposing record of accomplishment in the humanities
and significant administrative experience. .The new chair should
fuse intellectual attainments with political and diplomatic
skills of a high order, so as to establish and maintain a cordial
and effective working relationship with the President, the
Congress, the academic community, and the public. He or she
should be a person of demonstrably broad cultural sympathies and
interests, an effective manager, and a persuasive advocate for
the transformative power of the humanities for both individuals
and society, and a catalyst for heightened awareness of the role
the humanities play in a democracy. Finally, the chair must be
committed to the goals of the NEH as presented in the Declaration
of Findings and Purposes in the enabling legislation (copy
attached) .
'Prepared by the Executive Committee of the National
Humanities Alliance as a contribution to the search for a new chair
for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
105
The
]^1"T A National Humanities Alliance
iCTIVT. — S Of THE HATIOIiL HJtillTIES 1LL1AJKE
American Academy of leligion
American Anthropological Association
iiericaii Association of Busetas
American association for State ud Local Iistory
AiericaD Council of Leaned Societies
American Folklore Society
American Historical Association
American Ideological Society
AiericaD Philological issociatioo
Americao Philosophical issociatioo
American Political Science issociatioo
American Society for Aesthetics
iKricao Society for Eigbteenth-Cartnry Studies
iKricao Society for Legal listary
iaericao Sociological issociatioo
iKricao Studies issociatioo
issociatioo for isiao Stodies
issociatioo for Jevisb Stodies
issociatioo of iKricao Colleges
issociatioo of iKricao Geographers
issociatioo of lesearcb Libraries
College Art issociatioo
Conissioo oo Preserratioo aod Access
Shelby oil loo Davis Center for Historical Stodies
Princeton OniTersity
Federation of State Inanities Councils
The George teshington OniTersity
History of Science Society
Independent lesearcb Libraries issociatioo
Linguistic Society of America
ledienl Academy of America
liddle last Stodies issociatioo
loders Language issociatioo
national Oooncii of Teachers of English
latiooal Bnanities Ceater
Organixatioo of American Historians
phi Beta Kappa Society
teaaissance Society of America
lesearcb Libraries Group
Social Science lesearcb Council
Society for the History of Technology
Society of Biblical Literature
Special Libraries issociatioo
Speecb Comicatioo issociatioo
Teachers for a Democratic culture
issKUR anas or te utioul nunms alllaici
African Stodies issociatioo
American Dialect Society
American Library issociatioo
iKricao Bmisiatic Society
iKricao Society for Theatre lesearcb
issociatioo of iaericao Lav Schools
issociatioo of iKricao Otivexsity Presses
Center for the Inanities, Besleyan
OniTersity, Coaoecticat
College English issociatioo
Commonwealth Center for Literary and Cultural
Change, OniTersity of Virginia
Community College Inanities issociatioo
The Council of the inanities, Princeton
OniTersity
The Hastings Center
Institute for idraaced Stody
Institute for the Bnanities, OniTersity
of Hicbigan
Institute for the medical Inanities, OniTersity
of Texas medical Branch, GalTeston
Institute of Early American History and Culture,
College of lilliam and Bary
Uteraatiooal lesearch and Exchanges Board
Hidwst modern Language issociatioo
northeast DocoKOt CoBsexratioa Center
Philological issociatioo of the Pacific Coast
Popular Culture issociatioo
Shakespeare issociatioo of America
Sirteeatb Century Stodies Conference
Society for tthnorsi oology
Society of Architectural Historians
Society of Chxistiao Ethics
South Atlantic modern Language Association
Sooth Central modem language issociatioo
Doreeo B. Towsend Center for the Bnanities
OeiTersity of Calif omia, Berkeley
OniTersity of California Inanities lesearcb
Institute, OniTersity of California, IrriM
Virginia Center for the Bnanities
February 1993
m— nwn oc 20036
Tti. 102/328-71 ?i - f AX. 202M&7 T**3
106
MASS
June 21, 1993
HUMANITIES
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate - SR 315
Washing ton, DC 20310
Dear Senator Kennedy,
I am writing to express the Massachusetts Foundation for the
Humanities' unconditional support for the nomination of Sheldon
Hackney to become Chairman of the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
Despite the attempts by some to caricature Mr. Hackney as
"Mr. Political Correctness," aided and abetted by the Increasingly
irresponsible national press, Mr. Hackney is surely one of the most
distinguished and highly qualified persons ever nominated to head
the HEH. Moreover, he is widely recognized as a leading proponent
of free speech in higher education.
In serving successfully as the president of one of the nation's
leading universities for over a decade, Mr. Hackney has demonstrated
his administrative ability, commitment and skillful leadership on
behalf of «1 1 three parts of the academy's mission — research,
teaching and community service. With the addition of outstanding
credentials in the humanities, he Is the ideal person to lead the
Endowment during the coming era of budgetary restraint and political
reform.
This Foundation has total confidence in Mr. Hackney. We wish
you and him an early, speedy aod trouble-free confirmation.
For the Foundation, I
Tours sincerely,
David Tebaldi
Executive Director
zc: K. Kruse
J. Zainaldin
MASSACHUSETTS FOUNDATION FOR THE HUMANITIES
One Woodbrid»e Street • South HaoVj, HA 0107S • 413a 536 • 1385
107
x^TCc^fvec^a^C. <_/i
exjzd
May 25, 1993
Dear Senator Kennedy,
For twenty years now, I have known Dr. Sheldon Hackney as the
son-in-law of Clifford and Virginia Durr of Alabama — who were,
for many years, leaders in the New Deal ami attar important posts.
ter witK^i*
Dr. Hackney is a man^bf fine character witlf'high integrity and
intelligence, and he is'a supporter of the First Amendment. I hope
you will give him every consideration as Chairman of the National
Endowment for the Humanities. I believe Sheldon is a gentleman, a
scholar and a very able person to head the Humanities.
With high regards,
*x 5#W-
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
315 Senate Russell Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510-2101
cc: Senator Nancy Kassebaum
108
June 3. 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC. 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
As a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania,
I offer the strongest endorsement of Sheldon Hackney for the position of
Chairman of the Nabonal Endowment for the Humanities and I urge the
Smrttr Labor ar.d Humsa Resources Committee to approve his appointment
without reservation.
Since becoming Perm's 21st chief executive in 1981, Dr. Hackney has
focused on a range of institutional needs, including curTicular reform,
research enhancement, development and long-range planning, public
involvement, and intemationalaation, and he has achieved an exceptional
record as a national leader in each of these areas. In spite of this, in
difficult situations, Dr. Hackney has proven that he can bring together
complicating elements to produce a constructive solution. But such
accomplishments are even more meaningful in the context of Dr. Hackney's
deep and abiding commitment to freedom of expression.
In recent months, two incidents on the Penn campus have put Dr.
Hackney's personal and institutional values to the test. In both cases, in
spite of intense media coverage. President Hackney demonstrated not only
remarkable restraint in dealing with the deluge of publicity but also great
integrity in helping to continue a * wholesome and mutually supportive
campus community.'
One episode involved the printing of racially hostile commentaries in the
independently operated campus newspaper and the resulting confiscation of
that publication by some minority students. The second episode involved
a white student's alleged racist slur in response to excessive noise by
several black sorority women. Both incidents raised a host of complicated
legal issues, especially First Amendment protections. In his handling of
these and other incidents throughout his term as president, Sheldon Hackney
has steadfastly articulated freedom of expression, civility, and respect as the
core values of the University. He has made it clear on numerous occasions
that the Bill of Rights provides for certain freedoms but it does not give
people the freedom to abuse that concept.
Walter and I respectfully ask you to give Sheldon Hackney an opportunity
to serve his country with the same strong devotion, energy, and fairness
that has guided his presidency at the University of Pennsylvania.
109
Senator Kennedy, please give this your most careful consideration. I cannot
imagine President Clinton putting forward a better candidate from either the
Republican or Democrat standpoint
Sincerely,
Mrs. Walter H. Annenbexg
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
th hi hitr- Mui.u««TnH».
C" ii immBp, Mmnwai 11 ui> ]•
"^ ^ j 1^3
X l*^ <£U^ &~*~\ £
is
re at U! Arm*, a - /y*/-^
^t^S A *L U. — '■&* ■■ U
110
IVllK'CIOtl L'OIMTMI) Woodrow Wilson Sthool
of Public and Imcrru ul AfTain
Riibrruon Hjll
rniwrion. No> leracv 08S44 1013
l-AX (609; 258 2809
June 10, 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
Washington. DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy.
I write to urge your support for the nomination of Sheldon Hackney to head the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
I have known Sheldon since he was a young memher of Princeton's History Department during
the late 1960s. In those turbulent times he stood out as a junior faculty member who was strongly
supportive of the integrity of the University against assaults from the radical left. He showed then,
as now, a deep commitment to freedom of inquiry and of speech as essential to the well-being of both
the American university and the American society. The attacks made on him in recent months by
certain journalists seem to me to misread badly both the situations at the University of Pennsylvania
with which he has to deal and his response to those situations.
Sheldon Hackney would bring to the leadership of the NEH solid experience as the
administrator of two great research universities, an active concern for the relationship of our
institutions of education to the geoeraJ society, a thoughtful and caring judiciousness, and great
personal integrity. All these are, in my view, qualities that would make him an effective, fair-
minded, principled leader of the NEH.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely.
President Emeritus
Princeton University
Lehigh University
111
iQQjfl Peter Uhns. President
w
Alumni Memorial Building
V Memorial Drwe West
Bethlehem. Pennsylvania 18015-3089
telephone (215)758-3155
fox (715) 758-3154 June 17, 199 3
Senator Edward Kennedy
United States Senate
Rood 315
Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I am pleased to express ay support for the confirmation of
Sheldon Hackney _flS_Cb.ai.rman of £he National Endowment for uie~
JT7i33najiiti_e_s_r Sheldon and I have served as presidents of
Pennsylvania universities for more than a decade, as colleagues
working together on the common challenges that face many elements
of our society. We have worked together on the Commission for
Independent Colleges and Universities in Pennsylvania, and served
together on the Governor's Economic Development Policy Board. We
have been allies in advancing the right kind of principles in
intercollegiate athletics, directing in turn our two sister
athletic leagues: the Ivy League and the Patriot League.
Finally, we have served together on the Board of the Pennsylvania
Partnerships for Children, which was founded by his wife, Lucy.
In all of these diverse activities, over a significant period of
our professional lives together, I have watched this man exercise
a quiet kind of leadership that has impressed me deeply. I an
quite certain that there could be no better leader for the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
As a man of your experience must realize, the president of a
major American university has one of the great challenges of
contemporary America. For eighteen years Sheldon Hackney has
presided over major American universities, first as president of
Tulane for six years, and then as president of the University of
Pennsylvania for twelve. In the latter role he presides over a
billion dollar budget with more than 14,000 faculty and staff and
more importantly has responsibility for more than 20,000
wonderfully independent students, 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. Sheldon has met these crushing responsibilities with
extraordinary grace and civility, with dignity and honor and
tact. Under his leadership, Penn has demonstrated remarkable
capacity to plan for success in a era of extraordinary financial
a
112
pressures, always exercising a quiet, calming influence on those
around hi». There oust be a great deal of steel in this nan, or
he would not have met such extraordinary tests for more than two
decades at Penn, Tulane, and earlier as provost at Princeton.
But he has extraordinary good sense, and accomplishes his worthy
ends through steadfast effort and perseverance. Sheldon is a
strong man, but never an aggressive or belligerent man. He has
remarkable capacity for reconciling differences, and reducing
tensions in stressful situations.
In recent years, there has been a tendency to subject
government officials to ideological tests, and you will find it
difficult to apply such measures to this nan. Sheldon is an
idealist, or he could not persevere in the world of academe. But
he is also a realist, and a pragmatist, or he could not succeed
so well for so long in this environment. He has a high vision of
what ought to be, and the highest standards of quality and
equity. At the same time, he understands the real world as he
finds it, and recognizes the need to work with people with
differing perspectives.
In the final analysis, the word that best defines this
extraordinary man is "balanced." This is not a common quality
among people who share his intellectual powers and academic
distinction. Sheldon Hackney truly is "the man for all seasons,"
and you will do well to enlist his services in guiding the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Thank you for your consideration.
\v\2>
PL/lg
113
- - ' : i I i ■*''■* i\nni'n«».( i, p\ iih ■ •■fcuftt** ir».,
American Jfistorical Association
4OO A 5TIEIT |X. WASMINCTOX, I) C JOOO J | 102-$«4-1a2:
The Honorable Edward Kennedy June 2 I 1993
Chairman
Senate Committee on Labor & Human Resources
United States Senate
Washington. DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy:
After a consultation among its elected leaders, the American
Historical Association, the oldest and largest professional organization of
historians in the United States, has issued the enclosed endorsement of
Dr. Sheldon Hackney to be Chair of the National Endowment for the
Humanities.
The American Historical Association was chartered by Act of
Congress in 1889 and its 16.000 members are a major element in college
and university faculties throughout the United States.
Sincerely.
Samuel R. Gammon
Ambassador (Retired)
Executive Director
The American Histoncal Association strongly endorses the nomination of
Sheldon Hackney to be chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities and
urges the Senate to vote for his confirmation.
As the largest single source of support for the humanities disciplines, the
Endowment is extremely important to any effort to improve the quality and
equity of our educational system, as well as to sustain the intellectual values that
undergird our system of governance and the nation's most cherished goals and
aspirations.
Dr. Hackney is a distinguished historian and teacher, a capable
administrator, and an experienced and successful university president. We are
confident that Dr. Hackney will bring to the Endowment the intellectual
standards, democratic values, and fundamental fairness for which is he justly
reputed To have a scholar-teacher of his eminence, ability, and integrity
guiding the NEH during an increasingly contentious era is a result devoutly to
be sought
(une 1993
114
ASSOCIATION OF RESEARC 1 1 LlliUARIFb
June 9, 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chair, Labor and Human Resources Committee
The United States Senate
Washington, D.C 20510-2101
Dear Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of the Association of Research Libraries, I am writing to express
ARL's strong support for the nomination of Sheldon Hackney as Chairman of the
National Endowment for the Humanities. We believe that throughout his career,
Dr. Hackney has demonstrated a keen understanding of the research mission of
higher education and the humanities which makes him ably suited to assume the
Chairmanship of NEH.
We believe that Dr. Hackney meets several other key qualifications
important to an NEH chair. First and most importantly, the candidate should have a
strong and unwavering commitment to the freedom of inquiry and expression.
Much of Dr. Hackney's professional work has been focused on First Amendment
issues and many hmes, he has spoken out against censorship of the arts. Second, we
believe that a recognition of community service is important. Dr Hackney, as a
founding member and chair of the Collaborative for Philadelphia Schools,
demonstrates an appreciation for working beyond the walls of the university in
promoting and stimulating community-based programs Finally, the NEH requires a
strong and capable administrator. Dr. Hackney's leadership and administrative skills
as president of the University of Pennsylvania and as president of Tulane University
are well known and respected.
As a scholar, leader, and supporter of First Amendment rights. Dr. Hackney is
a truly excellent choice for this critically important post to the humanities, research,
and education communities and to the Nation.
Sincerely,
Duane E. Webster
Executive Director
115
MLA
Z AQTOfl PLACE N£W YORK NY l00°3
MOO€RN LANGUAGE ASSCOA10N C* AMFRCA _ '0 ASTOB PLACE
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 21 June 1993
Chair, Labor and Hiaman Resources Committee
Onlced States Senate
Washington. DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I write on behalf of the Executive Council of the Modern Language
Association of America (MLA) regarding President Clinton's nomination of
Sheldon Hackney to head the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Established in 1883. the MLA is an organization of 32.000 college and
university professors of English and the other modern languages and
literature. Elected by the membership at large, the MLA Executive Council
is responsible for conducting the business of the association.
Meeting on 21 May 1993. the members of the MLA Executive Council
considered the possibility of Sheldon Hackney's nomination and concluded
that he had outstanding qualifications for the position. Our judgment
rests not only on our experience as teachers and scholars but also on our
familiarity with the NEH. both as evaluators of proposals and recipients
of fellowships and other grants.
Because we have strong commitments to scholarship in the humanities,
we place great value on Sheldon Hackney's achievements as a scholar as
well as on his accomplishments as the chief administrative officer of two
large universities that prospered under his direction. Ue know that his
knowledge of intellectual developments in the humanities will serve him
well as head of the endowment as will his understanding of the many
complex problems currently facing higher education. In addition, we value
what we have learned about his character and judgment. Presidents of
colleges and universities throughout the country have demonstrated their
respect for him by electing him to the governing board of the American
Council on Education.
The breadth of Mr. Hackney's interests is noteworthy. As a university
president, he has not only recognized research, he has also emphasized
good teaching, setting the standard for all faculty members by regularly
teaching undergraduate students. Equally admirable has been his
contribution to the improvement of Philadelphia's public schools,
especially the humanities programs. Finally, we point to his
encouragement of the public humanities, about which he has testified
before Congress on several occasions.
We believe that Mr. Hackney has the background. "P"1""- "* _
character needed to provide strong and responsible leadership for the NEH
to tht yea« ah~d. when many new demands are likely to be made not only
on r£ schools and'higher education but also on the ~ny ^L^^„
institutions the HEH serves. We therefore urge you and the "^ J^*
of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to confirm Sheldon Hackney as
chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I thank you for your time and attention. With good wishes.
Sincerely yours.
Elaine Marks
President
Modern Language Association
Chair
Department of French and Italian
University of Wisconsin. Madison
116
HISTORY OF SCIENCE SOCIETY
cnrsermuEh/T of the amekjcan council of learned soamEs
Keith R Benson. Lacutwe Secretary
History of Soence Society Executive Office
University of Washington. DH-05
Settle. WA 98195
(206)543-936*
(206) 685-9544 (FAX)
Department of Media) History and Ethics
UniverSTry of Washington
School of Medicine. SB- 20
Seattle. Wa 96195
(206) 543-5447
18 June 1993
The Honorable Edward M Kennedy
Chair, Labor and Human Resources Committee
United States Senate
Washington. DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kenned)':
m my capacity as Executive Secretary of the History of Science Society, lam
writing you to support with great enthusiasm the norrnnatjon of Sheldon Hackney to
head the National Endowment for the Humanities. Professor Hackney is a first-rate
scholar, a proven and effective administrator, and an individual of utmost integrity.
His academic record speaks to his accomplishments and 1 am extremely confident that
he will continue this same record as head of NEH
like many members of my professional society. 1 am concerned by the number
of pofchdzed debates in the recent past concerning the funding of NEH protects. 1 am
certain that Mr. Hadcney will provide the moderate leadership that the agency needs
to eliminate these contentious issues and restore the scholarly reputation to the NEH
that it deserves and should enjoy
Please do not hesitate to contact me if 1 may be of more assistance in supporting
this important norrnnatian.
Sincerely,
Keith R. Benson
117
AFRICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION
Emory University
Credit Union fckuldint
Adinu. Oeoiga ¥)i22
404/329-6410
Fax: 404-329-6433
June 17. 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chair. Labor and Human Resources Committee
United States Senate
Washington. DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I write to express my personal support for the nomination of Sheldon Hackney as Chair of the
National Endowment for the Humanities.
Mr. Hackney is a well-respecteed scholar with a broad understanding of the research mission of
higher education and the humanities. As president first of Tulane University and later the
University of Pennsylvania, he continued to keep active in his research and to teach, primarily in
the undergraduate classroom.
A successful administrator and university leader. Sheldon Hackney has always done a good deal
of community service in projects for the general public and for precollegiate education. In short,
the range of has experience and interests fully corresponds to the support interests of the NEH.
Mr. Hackney is a man of high personal integrity who is an excellent choice for leading the NEH.
Yours sincerely.
Edna G. Bay
Executive Director
(
118
Society of Biblical Literature
l>UM,i J I ull
I •mmtrd i.i IHHtl /,......,, I h, ......
June 15, 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chair, Labor aod Human Resources Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I am writing in support of the confirmation of Sheldon Hackney as Chair of the National
Endowment for the Humanities. Professor Hackney is a widely respected scholar and has a
broad understanding of the place of the humanities in American society. He has
demonstrated a commitment to undergraduate tnrhing as well as to the research mission of
higher education. As a founding member of the Collaborative for Philadelphia Schools, be
has demonstrated that he believes public service is an integral part of a university's mission.
Professor Hackney has had a distinguished career in university administration. In addition to
being a persuasive fundraiser, he has, in the words of Robert M. O'Neil (professor of law
and former president of University of Virginia), "shown exceptional devotion to free
expression throughout his career . . . His record on free speech is exemplary." In short, be
would bring precisely the kinds of professional experience, life of scholarship, and public
service that the NEH deserves and needs at this stage in its history.
Sincerely,
Dr. David J. Lull
Executive Director
cc: The Honorable Nancy Landon Kassebaum, United States Senate
Mr. John Hammer, Executive Director, National Humanities Alliance
119
The Rational Kalian American I omnia* ion
<W*> tlcwmh liinxl. N W .Sub-Nil • W«*oifi«o«> I) C 2U00M596 • «<Wl KVUKJU
FAX QUI (vUUNKTJ
June 21, 1993
»C Bsv» im 1977
■ A V«*> 1977 IS
Fm* 0 W*. 19BO 1W
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman, Labor and Human • Resources Committee
SD-4 30
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Kennedy:
As Vice-Chairman of the National Italian American
Foundation, I write to offer my unconditional support for
the nomination of Sheldon Hackney to be the next Director
of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I am proud to have known Sheldon Hackney for many years
and consider his a good friend. Yet, obviously that is
not why I write this letter. Sheldon Hackney also
happens to be an extremely we 11 -qualified person to
assume the helm of NEH at this critical time in its
history .
Sheldon Hackney would bring stature, substance and reason
to the NEH as its Director. He has a career in higher
education replete with enduring contributions in several
extremely challenging positions. As a longtime resident
of New Orleans I can attest to Sheldon's great
effectiveness as both President and Professor of History
at Tulane University. Sheldon Hackney demonstrated great
skill as an administrator at Tulane while never
abandoning bis commitment to academics.
Sheldon Hackney possesses many fine qualities which will
serve him well as NEH director. He is a lifelong
academic. He served for two years with great distinction
on the Rockefeller Commission on the Humanities.
The National Endowment for the Humanities needs a leader
with the intellect, integrity, purpose and vision that
Sheldon Hackney represents. He is in a position to
restore the independence of the National Endowment for
the Humanities which was so much a part of the intent of
Congress in the authorizing statute. Sheldon Hackney has
been involved with all of the humanities under the
purview of NEH and would come into the position as
someone already familiar with the programs and
constituencies he would serve.
I am most pleased to offer this support to Sheldon Hackney. He is
a man of principle, passion and purpose. He is a leader not afraid
of new challenges. He is the ideal person for the National
Endowment for the Humanities and I urge his immediate confirmation
for the good of NEH and the nation.
Sincerely,
/jbseph Maselli
Vice-Chairman
120
AMERICAN
ALLIANCE
TIT
Jane 15, 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Raaefl Building 315
Wubmfioo, DC 205 10-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy:
On bekalf of the 2,600 art museums, dance, opera, and theatre companies, performing arts
presenters and symphony orchestras represented by the American Arts Alliance, we are
writing to express oar strong support for Sheldon Hackney as Chairman for the National
Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
The NEH requires a strong and capable leader As President of the University of
Pennsylvania, Dr. Hackney has successfully led the institution in a broad range of pusurts
As a founding member and chair of the Collaborative for Philadelphia Schools, this well
known scholar has demonstrated the importance of service beyond the gates of the
university. At the national level, he has worked with the American Council of Education
and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Furthermore, be has
demonstrated a strong commitment to freedom of expression, a central component of on
democratic system.
We are fuDy confident that Dr. Hackney possesses the necessary qualities to guide this
important agency into the future. His profound knowledge of the disciplines of the
humanities, passionate commitment to learning, leadership capabilities, and overall concern
for the good of all will ensure a weJJ managed and effective Endowment He is truly a
remarkable choice to fill this important post.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Be^pia Judith E Golub
Chair <— *— <» Executive Director
121
THE
Sixteenth
r*ENTURY
^JOURNAL
COITOA: Knlicn n l\«igtfc»t *t*tm,i. bH Mtm^mIi m Uf Humanities ih.1
nuwvwv) I die unntrsan « >« nrui ; ruxii ■rlVMufi mmgm COiTOK
» «oo« acview EttTOa.- Hotiert v >ttnurkrrn n i ivrvinhe**! ntuoun Male
Owen*; : iwtuvttte no SJ»i -rani ASSoCiATt rcMToo mwi a iumi> :
CancontU College I27^n Sjnouie ::» r^ui pm«m EOfToa or SlXTerrrrn
^L^^<'J^*\ W ¥ 1 1 f^J /\ 1 CC7TTt«T EiiATS » STIXKES ( luim t, rv«-n .IHvot) ftciunmcnl I Ui".c^«(
or noaourilColumHa notuii
The Honorable Edward H. Kennedy 6-11-1993
Doited States Senate
Washington. D.C.
I aa writing Cols letter to you as the chief administrative
officer of the 2.300 members of the Sixteenth Century Studies
Conference In support of Or. Sheldon Hackney who has been
nominated to serve as the chairperson of the Rational Endowment
of Che Humanities.
Dr. Hackney's record as a scholar and teacher,, as a top notch
university administrator, as a community leader, and as a strong
defender of Intellectual Inquiry and freedom of expression malms
him a marvelous candidate for Che NEB position.
As a scholar. Dr. Hackney is well known for his articles and
books on southern hiscory particularly his Populism Co
Progresslvlsm In Alabama which won Che Albert J. Heverldge prize
for the best book in American History published in 1969. He is
an excellent teacher and Is one of the rare academic
administrators who has continued Che marvelous nlneceench century
example when college and university presidents taught
undergraduates .
As a community leader, he has been involved In his home community
as well as the nation's community. The former is best seen in
his work to help Improve the Philadelphia school system through a
strengthening of the humanities curriculum. His work at the
national level Includes work with the American Council of
Education and che Carnegie Foundaclon for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Dr. Hackney has been che presldenc of two major universities and
while president at Che university of Pennsylvania, he not only
Improved Che schools reputation buc helped conduct a phenomenal
fmmd raising campaign that should bring la about one billion
dollars over a five year span.
Finally and in contrast to much what one might conclude froa
reading che press the past few weeks. Dr. Hackney Is passionately
committed to freedom of Inquiry and freedom of expression. The
"water buffalo" incident sadly was blown out of proportion and
does not reflect Dr. Hackney's life long support for First
Amendment rights. It is sad to see how the press can take an
incident that would have passed unnoticed except for the fact
that It took j>l»c* on a campus where the president is being
considered for a key position in the government and turn that
incident into something it is not and attempt to destroy in a few
■oments what a person has dedicated his/her life to defending and
achieving.
Dt. Hackney is a terrific choice to head the National Endowment
for the Humanities and you are strongly urged to confirm him for
that position.
Sincerely,
Robert V. Schnucker, Executive Secretary
Sixteenth Century Studies Conference
122
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS
June 23, 1933
The HanaoLhie E<iw*rd M_ Kamecrr
uniinn oacsMA onrin
Wuinngtn. DC JOKL0-Z101
Eg -^■yft" iiUit rffe» nipninCiw rfA—JB— BhtBB— i Tr*1*""***"?
12.000 amnluTT, teaches, and students of Arnrrvm Iwtiaj, to men 70a to wm>it
President Omtga's Tigmm«tinrt rf.Shntdm Hackney, BamkianL id dm Piiiwasii_T of
PamtTlitma, to head tins Nrtjnnd Bad—— t far the 1
A iTKJnifciiithffn Tiitlin im» n» irmJEnl aA»mi«ti»Li» <« jjpm win ■ii«i and 8 laniftane
eaaaaaattB «^V^ y4«ilT4y ■— *■■■!< and the pohHc preaentatia& of the hamamtiaK,
Hadmey paaeaaaei the qaaJftaas thai will enable bin to pBjaHa the NEH with craatxre
■"»— • 1<— <W«Viip AtmtnA flfpaj <i—H — I B^Mi«iiwri — BBg ""^^tTfF £cr OpCD-
mmdedneas and jrvfirionE jadgmenl, he hn, iLiougaoat his career, demonstrated a
iimiiiitiiigit to arnnlnlj agar, <rww"|""t^j and pohbc aerrioe, and the fe»e »n4>«np» of
ideas.
Kjrfcru-T^ first boot:, a prrp^WTnmry «£nriy nf AVuhtrma prirtir^ ynrl ttv» trrm <tf <+r,«
cwiUiij, remains a classic nrrestypEtkai of toe intprplay of xadical pn*ji«4i>» political
rettcra, god agrarian tnrrcst in the Piutigauic era, ffi* ptaajdcnoai of Totene «T** *h*
HirivMiiiv cf a^am jhw—JB hare been ffcatacba '""T hy ■ rnwrwitm^t jn excellence in
BBaaatch and tearfrmg' winlg taaj iiig JBPBCTtWg ways of connecting scholarship with
public aenioB. As a Member of the Aaaacfcaa Wntnrirat AaaacJaiiatfsOoqaaittaBcn.^
Eights rfTBrtnriinir in irr< hr hrlpnri fcafl ■ pa— angatateBMDt it*rmfprnmt?
standards that jdauliGad respect far inteDactnal fjqnBaas, aadthftawtoeli— offtaadon
ofapaacft fa» th* nntw»r»hy eaan— niy, mcW-Ow— %« BfajcaTaaaafefinaaaai
GJrtnOiefa^rqtepLgT^ WtfaeNJBgmprtMmatiaf acfcaandy raaaatd^eaaalanBan
taacbxnc, and pAS<- faaawaBsa }■ agi aaaaaaifi it w taaaofial ftad the Baajg—
bejendfteaittat aaBaayaffaacaatyaaaaaadaacnaaaaaafjala «»*«*— ^i,..-..^.,-
aaaaaw— m 1 aaaaaaanaaa «rf my^far aimaiLy afaaJHaaaa ^fca CajaaajJaajfiBB "*"
Awrrimn ttajadaaai ia eVgataad to anaaaaa toe aaanaattaaa cf Sheldon Hackney. We
urge the Senate to confirm his appointment.
Sincerely.
-2^ fau^*-
KdcFcmt
President,
Qiganiratinn ef Amencan EGatananB
BBAaae
123
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
» FV* *»••«. N~ tat. N—Y*rtlM»4ttt 0U»tTMMO Hi iUO* fmlimam
™EaDKNT June 21. 1933
The Honorable
Edward M. Kennedy
315 Senate Russell Office Building
Wasolngtoa, DC 20510-2101 FAX 224-2417
Oeir Ted,
I am writing you to express support for Sheldon Hackney to be Chairman of the
National Endow at for the Humanities. Your support for his candidacy Is
critical to bis approval by the Senate.
I have known Sheldon veil for 15 years and have watched his entire presidency
it the University of Pennsylvania. Indeed, wy son was one of the aany young
people who were privileged to be at Pern daring Sheldon's tenure. We have seen
Sheldon and his wife on many occasions over these years. We shared 'donors' to
the Net and the University of Pennsylvania so I know hia to be a auch respected
and effective president, fundraiser, and soul aate la the non-profit world.
My sense of Sheldon is based on long years of discussion and observation during
ay year? as American Ambassador to Venezuela, then to Czechoslovakia and for
the last sevea years as a auseua president. He Is a strong, intelligent and
htaane leader, the likes of which the U.S. Covernaent only rarely attracts Into
its service. Throughout his career and Indeed, throughout his life, Sheldon
has advocated and practiced policies that encourage free and open expression of
cocpetiog views.
Sheldon will bring to this iaportant job the humanist tradition of a historian
and a family tradition rooted 1a that same spirit. For more than a decade he
has run one of our finest universities with a sterling record during a diffi-
cult time for the academy. Few university presidents have accomplished as auch
with so little uproar during this past twelve years as Sheldon.
When you look closely at his record, I am sure you will determine that he will
Bake an outstanding leader of the National Eadommeat for the Humanities. I
hope that you will be one of those who welcome his appointment.
W1
124
AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION
OWic* erf ■»» f*****<"
June 23, 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
315 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy:
On behalf of the associations listed below, I wish to express the strong
support of the higher education community for the nomination of Sheldon
Hackney to head the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). We
urge you to give his nomination prompt and favorable consideration.
For the past 18 years, Sheldon Hackney has provided progressive and
vigorous presidential leadership at two major institutions of higher learning,
Tulane University and the University of Pennsylvania. During this time, he
has earned the respect of his colleagues in higher education for the
intelligence, integrity, and judgment he has brought to the task of dealing
with the complex economic, political, and social issues that currently confront
college administrators. At both Tulane University and the University of
Pennsylvania, he has championed and fostered the development of a campus
community that encourages the exploration and debate of a full spectrum of
ideas in an environment of civility and mutual respect.
A distinguished historian. Dr. Hackney is uniquely qualified by both
training and experience for the position to which he has been nominated.
His proven record as a scholar and administrator indicate his readiness to
provide strong leadership and dear direction to the NEH.
A review of Sheldon Hackney's distinguished career can only lead to
the conclusion that he is an exceptional choice for this position. We urge you
and your colleagues on the Labor and Human Resources Committee to
confirm this outstanding nominee as the next chair of the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
lobert H. Atwell
125
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
Council of Independent Colleges
National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education
National Association for Independent Colleges and Uruversiues
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
United Negro College Fund
June 23. 199 3
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chairman
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
428 Dirksen Building
Washington. D.C. 20510
Dear Ted:
I want to add my voice to those supporting Sheldon Hackney
to be Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
The nation is fortunate that an individual of Dr.
Hackney's caliber has been nominated to head the NEH. Dr.
Hackney has served with distinction for the past 12 years as
president of the University of Pennsylvania. He served as
president of Tulane University from 1975 to 1981 and as
provost of Princeton University from 1972 to 1975.
Dr Hackney is a noted scholar of the Southern United
States and an award-winning author. He is also a professor of
history at Penn who regularly teaches undergraduates. He has
conducted one of the most successful fund-raising campaigns in
higher education history at Penn and has been an effective
leader in community activities and education organizations.
Dr. Hackney's efforts have built the University of
Pennsylvania's reputation as a leading research university
that provides a superb undergraduate education. He has
emphasized teaching, research and service as the three central
missions of modem research universities.
I believe his outstanding record and life achievements
make him ideally suited to head the NEH. I have complete
confidence in his abilities and judgment, and I urge you and
the members of the Committee to give his nomination favorable
consideration .
Sine
J^sefoh M. McDade
Member of Congress
;
JMM: }e
126
ia
Popular Culture Association
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green. OH 43403
June 10. 1993
Senator Edward M. Kennedy
United Suits Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy.
I am writing to urge you to vote for the confirmation of Sheldon
Hackney to head the National Endowment for the Humanities. I
believe that Mr. Hackney is receiving undeserved bad press
because of an unfortunate series of events at the University of
Pennsylvania, and the bad-mouthing he has subsequently received
from the press.
All evidence points to the fact that, throughout a distinguished
career as teacher and educator. Dr. Hackney has maintained the
highest integrity about freedom of speech and integrity in pursuing
education's highest goals Those people who have known him
closely and those of us who are familiar with him only through his
words and actions feel thai he represents our foremost goals We
see no evidence thai he has compromised on freedom of speech
under duress or for convenience
I represent 3500 academics who vigorously favor the confirmation
of Mr. Hackney We do not speak as a special interest Rather we
feel that the fate of American education and of the humanities in
general rest to a large extent on the National Endowment for the
Humanities and we therefore deeply support those people who in
turn want to carry out the NEH's purposes.
The Popular Culture Association, for which I speak, therefore
strongly urges you to back the confirmation of this competent and
dedicated man.
Sincerely.
.?•>.&
Ray Browne
Secretary/Treasurer
RBB/llt
rtu-siinw
Nhh Cm|M
f-Ajltth Oeruruncix
I in.. of Nevada
Lm Vegal. WV I9IS4
VICE PRESIDENTS
|)tarCiln»Fnd<
Dean of AmtHiT AJTan
MhM Gcanmurafy CoDege SW
Uaijk, ICY 40772
Gary A. Yagxy
Social Scwnm
Coraaag Coamwanty Caucge
Coraaag, NY l«O0
DoaWal
Engbsh Oparmeat
Carney. WA 99004
SECRETARY. TREASURER
BjiB Bra™
Popular Cataav Anooaooa
Bowapg Gram Suae U»wif|
Bowkog Gram. OH 43*03
rROGRAM COORDOiA TOR
Pal Braww
BGSU Popular Proa
Bowfcng Graeo Suae Uajaajajaj
Bowline Gram. OH 43403
COUNCIL MEMBERS AT LARGE
JoaaG. Kotkcr
Engird) Department
BcUcvuc Comcn. Coucgc
BeUewe. WA 98007
LaCVeLaraaa
Ubrary
v. avrn Oregon State GoOcgc
Momnouex OR 9736 1
Dougias A. Nu'ui
An Thought* Lang.
Michigan Suae Umvcrsry
E_ Lanaanr, Ml 4882*
Keaactfc B. Weal
MM)
Uai» of MrtMgao
Rm.M)*8503
INTL. REPRESENTATIVE
Rlekard GkJ rV«cn
CoBefc of S*ak» Wad
Soam Island. KY 10301
BVTL RES. COORDINATOR
Fradfaaac
1 501 MUvn Sweet
Berkeley. CA 94709
EDITOR KAN
MldaalMmaa
Dean. AtbA Scatim
Northern Madagan Uarocnafy
Marqucac, Ml 49835
PAST PRESIDENT
Marty Kaiaiarr
English Department
Mornings**: CoDege
SraiiCiry IA5I106
127
► •J«V I .mV-i ( ihii|i.imk-
/(•? Finli Awihh-
Now Vort-NY IOISJ
w 2i;s72-»-,ai
Fj» ;i2-<;7.»(>74S
E^1-* LAUDER
0<«4£jmkumO««p *-' «"-'«-^»-« »
COMPANIES
June 24. 1993
The Honorable Edward H Kennedy
united Scares Senate
Washington, DC 20510-2101
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I'm writing you In support of the nomination of Dr. Sheldon
Hackney to head the National Endowment for the Humanities. I
serve on the Board of Trustees of the University of
Pennsylvania, and therefore have known Sheldon Hackney
intimately over the entire time of his tenure at the University.
Simply stated, he is a man of extraordinary talent, brilliance.
and deep humanitarian convictions.
I urge you and your fellow Senators to confirm his
appointment. .. it will be a great step for the Nation.
With warmest personal regards.
Sincerely,
LAL:lm
AMFRlCAN
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION
June 28, 1993
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Chair
Committee on Labor and Human Resources
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6300
Dear Senator Kennedy,
This letter is in reference to the nomination of Sheldon
Hackney to be chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
I was prompted to write for two reasons.
128
First to the extent we will be successful in addressing many
of the critical issues facing our country, from understanding and
celebrating our co»»onalities to making difficult choices among
5~.iti.ate but competing claims on limited resources, we may well
Jtna more useful guidance and ideas from the humanities than we
recei^ fro. ie s^ences. *ven with its relatively s.all budget,
the Endowment can encourage development of important advancements
in understanding ourselves, our society, and our world. Therefore
the guest ion of who heads the Endowment reaches far beyond the
narrow self-interests of the individuals seeking Endowment grants.
Second the concept and practice of -political correctness",
if need they can be defined, are at best troublesome, and at worst
destructive a view which no doubt puts me at odds with many
persons who also consider themselves philosophic ana/or political
liberals The well publicized events at the University of
Pennsylvania concerning Dr. Hackney gave me reason to pause when
evaluating Dr. Hackney's ability to lead the Endowment, even
recognizing that the media was presenting in all likelihood less
than fully accurate reports.
However after reading more about those incidents and Dr.
Hackney's background, I have concluded that he should be confirmed.
Dr Hackney has a distinguished scholarly background, a rich
understanding of the nation's history, has demonstrated a strong
commitment to reaching out beyond the academy, and has experience
administering a large organization. Whatever errors he .ay have
made in the recent incidents at Penn, his overall record for
defending the freedom of speech is strong.
More importantly, he clearly is a person who learns from his
experiences. The tendency to deny that ability in people with whom
we may not entirely agree, or who have had to act in difficult
situations is one of the peculiarities of the current political
climate. We ask such understanding for ourselves, but are slow to
extend it others. The tendency makes it increasingly difficult to
attract gualified persons to public service and runs counter to the
nation's traditional belief that persons can learn from their
experiences. We should beware of the would-be public servant who
claims to have been right from the start.
I urge your support for Dr. Hackney's nomination.
with best wishes.
Sincerely,
rbhn M. Cornman
Executive Director
129
IJKKXKI.
r::.l.'. i: ...
iii ^^ * . .
I a\ ;t\ *•. . 'i j
June 23. 1993
The Honorable Edward Kennedy. Chairman
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee
31S Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
It is my pleasure to write to you concerning the nomination of Sheldon Hackney as chair of the
National Endowment for the Humanities. I am the president of Drexel Universiry, and my campus
is contiguous with that of the University of Pennsylvania where Sheldon Hackney has served with
distinction as president for a number of years. In my five years as President of Drexel, I have
worked closely wiih Sheldon and he has always been a person who has demonstrated a remarkable
concern for the issues affecting higher education and the arts. Indeed, he has been a spokesman
for freedom of speech, freedom of expression and, what we call in the academy, academic
freedom.
What you may want to know. Senator Kennedy, is that Sheldon Hackney has been instrumental in
helping to transform West Philadelphia by the leadership role he has played in our community.
Quite franldy, his leadership will be miwrl in qgnrfirant ways as he has galvanized the largest pan
of his university to be sensitive and responsive to the needs of the West Philadelphia community,
which, in large pan, is minority.
It is important to note thai his leadership was by example and not just by word. Throughout the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Sheldon Hackney is both honored and respected for his stands
on issues impacting the higher education community. His tenure at Penn has been marked by a
remarkable resurgence of Penn as one of the major players in higher education in the country. Not
only has be overseen a remarkable capital rampaign he has also overseen the continuing growth
and development of Penn as one of the nation's elite universities.
Allow me to share with you that Sheldon Hackney ts also a "good guy." He is down to earth and
is known to be a truly civil person. He respects the views of all people and allows them to say
what they think He also says exactly what he itiinir* I believe that he has taken many a difficult
stand, and I have always found him to be a person of both conviction and courage. In other
words, he has a lot of backbone.
When one combines his intellectual interests, his scholarly pursuits, and the broad range of
experience he has had at Princeton, Tulane, and Penn, one can readily see the reason that he is
almost a perfect candidate for chairing the National Endowment for the Humanities. It is my
pleasure to recommend Sheldon Hackney to you without reservation or qualification.
Sincerely yours,
Richard D. Breslin. Ph.D
President
HUSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
130
3 9999 05982 592 5
Hsh«mi »* IMI 1/MrtlSin
Emory Univkrsity
ATiavIa I.i.«i.k K>U.'
June 17. 1993
Dear Senator Kennedy.
As a Trustee of tbe National Humanities Center, a private nonprofit institute
far advanced study, and as a < Mm deeply mmmitTrrl to the well -bang of tbe
humanities in tbe United Stales, I write in support of tbe nomination of Sheldon
Hackney to become Chairman of tbe National Endowment for the Humanities.
Sheldon Hackney would bring to tbe leadership of tbe NEH his valuable
experience as tbe president of two major American universities, an active concern
for the relationship of our institutions of education id society as a whole, a
thoughtful and caring judiciousness, and great personal integrity. All of these
qualities would make him an effective, far-minded, principled leader of tbe NEH.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jimes T. Lsney
fcW
131
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
HANOVER - NEW HAMPSHIRE
037S3
THE rȣSIDCKT
June 4, 1993
Senator Judd Gregg
393 Russell Senate
Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gregg:
I write to endorse the nomination of my friend F.
Sheldon Hackney for Chair of the National Endowment for the
Humanities . The nomination, I believe, will come before the
Senate Committee on Labor and Education within the next
several weeks.
As you of course already know, Dr. Hackney is a dis-
tinguished historian whose scholarship has won major awards
from the historical profession. More than that, he has been
a gifted and decisive academic administrator, serving with
distinction as president of both Tulane University and the
University of Pennsylvania. I have had the privilege of
knowing him for more than fifteen years, and of serving under
him, briefly, as Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law
School. In more recent years, I have had an opportunity to
work closely with him in the Council of Ivy Group Presidents.
These experiences have deepened my appreciation of his
outstanding personal qualities.
Sheldon Hackney will administer the National Endowment
for the Humanities with sensitivity, vision, and good sense.
He brings outstanding qualities of character and mind to the
position and a deep commitment to the role of humanities in
American life. I very much hope that you will find his
nomination worthy of your support.
Sincerely,
£r~^
James O. Freedman
X
^z>
132
Neuu York Council for the Humanities
June 18, 1993
Ron. Daniel Patrick Hoynihan
On l ted States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
^TSr °**r Senator Hoynihan:
I «■ writing to urge you to support the appointment
of Sheldon Hackney to be Chair of the National Endowment
for the Humanities. In making this endorsement, I speak
as a historian who knows Hackney's work and career fairly
well. I speak also as the current Chair of the New York
Council for the Humanities. In both roles I am very much
concerned about enhancing the depth, range, and guantity
of humanistic scholarship on the one hand, and on the
other expanding the role of the humanities in our public
life. Both of these concerns, I assume, are ones I share
with you.
I could describe the virtues of Hackney's
scholarship, but that was a long time ago. More
important are his qualities as a leader in the
humanities. Here I know in detail only one project of
his, and I refer to the "West Philadelphia Partnership."
This is an unprecedented effort by a major national
research university to effectively engage with the
community in which the university is situated. Because
of this project and other of Hackney's urban initiatives,
Penn is of the community as well as in it. That is no
mean achievement for an Ivy League institution.
He is an experienced administrator, one with a
strong commitment to the values of scholarship and a free
society. He represents the commitment of academic
intellect to a role in public life, and I strongly urge
his confirmation.
Sincerely,
Thomas Bender
cc: Senator Edward Kennedy
>*■>!■ l a—— m— ! m m— *■» io» feor n» *>t nv ioom
«* (* It) U3 1 131: *K Ctl?) tii 4607
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11