the costs of insurance. Moreover, increased federal support would enable many of the smaller museums in the least populated areas of the country to be able to defray the costs of bringing works of arts and artifacts to their communities. Sincerely, JOSEPH G. ANASTASI, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF RADIO-TV-FILM, Congressman ALBERT H. QUIE, House Committee on Education and Labor, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Philadelphia, Pa., September 22, 1975. DEAR CONGRESSMAN QUIE: The following resolution was recently submitted by mail ballot to the membership of the Society for Cinema Studies and passed: Be it resolved by the Society for Cinema Studies, an international organization of film educators, that the American Film Institute has failed to provide an effective national program of film education. For this reason, the Society for Cinema Studies wishes to state that it is opposed, at the present time, to any form of direct Federal funding of the American Film Institute, either as a line item in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts or as a direct Congressional appropriation. This resolution should not be construed as a lack of belief in the necessity for an American Film Institute. Enclosed is a list of the current membership of the Society; the members would appreciate receiving advance notice of any hearings to be held on these matters. Sincerely, TIMOTHY J. LYONS, Secretary. OTTO LUENING, New York, N.Y., September 9, 1975. Senator CLAIBORNE PELL, DEAR SENATOR PELL: I am writing in reference to the reauthorization of the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. It seems to me that this foundation has done extremely important work for our country in these very difficult times, and I hope that you will give your important support to see that the Endowment is reauthorized. With best wishes, Sincerely, OTTO LUENING. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR STATE AND LOCAL HISTORY, Hon. JACOB JAVITS, U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: I am writing to request that the enclosed statement be entered on the public record during committee consideration of the Pell-Javits bill (S-1800), the Arts, Humanities, and Cultural Affairs Act of 1975. Thank you for this consideration. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. LOUIS L. TUCKER. STATEMENT BY LOUIS L. TUCKER, SEPTEMBER 15, 1975 In its general aims and many of its specific provisions, the Pell-Javits bill shows a laudable effort to find practical solutions to very real problems. Its provisions for an Artifacts and Antiquities Indemnity Act is a notable example of the kind of constructive help that could only come through federal legislation, and the Senate is to be commended for acting early and favorably on it. The bill also addresses the problem of encouraging a degree of decentralization of initiative and responsibility for programs in the humanities. As the immediate past president of the American Association for State and Local History, I share the authors' concern for recognizing the healthy diversity that is an essential element in our heritage as a nation. It is not from any difference in principle, but entirely on considerations of practicality, that I feel I must take exception to Section 102, on state humanities councils. The practical problem appears to be to find strong independent bases outside of Washington. To seek a solution primarily at the state level is understandable, although the huge disparities in the resources of the various states raises additional problems of efficiency and coherence in the application of federal funds. The irresistible example of disparity is California and its neighbor, Nevada. The population ratio is about forty to one. The centers of resident intellectual leadership are Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area in one state, Las Vegas and Reno in the other. Yet if experience is any guide, California's allocation of funds under this bill would amount to no more than twice the amount going to Nevada. Keeping to the same example, consider what quality of peer group review would be available in Nevada for a proposed project in one of the many highly specialized fields such as comparative linguistics. There may or may not be two competent scholars in this important field in Nevada, one of whom, it could be hoped, would be proposing the project. In California there would be a choice among fifty reviewers of such a proposal simply because that state has many more scholars, as well as many more people of every sort. Such extremes are rare but real. An evaluation of the practicality of statebased groups is difficult partly because it must take extremes into account. It concerns me that the present bill jumps to a conclusion in favor of state-based groups of a particular kind without consulting the experience NEH has accumulated since 1971 with state-based groups of a somewhat different structure. These are volunteer councils, a number of which have been operational now for several years. NEH's own evaluation of their performance and promise is reported to be in preparation. It should not be unduly delayed, and it should not be uncritically received. But it should be studied before a legislative decision of such importance is brought to a vote. Pending a more informed evaluation of the prospects for increased decentralization to the state level, it seems to me that the regional option should not be lost sight of. Given the chronic scarcity of both funding and human resources in the humanities, a strong case might be made for grouping them in ten or twelve regional centers, each of which would have clearly defined obligations to their regional constituency. But this is not the place to advocate or even develop such an alternative. I would prefer to return to the problems of choosing state-based groups and conclude with some observations on them prompted by the bill. The bill permits each governor to select an existing agency to assume the powers and responsibilities of a state humanities council. In the present condition of the states' finances this is an option the governors would in all likelihood take. Any prediction as to the impact of this provision in the bill must start with consideration of the types of existing agencies most likely to be designated. It will probably be agreed that the state arts councils would always be among the logical contenders and often be chosen. In my view they would be unfortunate choices almost by definition. Their whole orientation and mission is defined as arts-centered. Their success has resulted largely from their dedication to the arts. It would be unreasonable to expect them to serve another quite different cause with equal dedication. That would be analogous to expecting a good husband to become a good bigamist. It would also be inconsistent with the history of the two national endowments, neither of which heretofore has been subordinated to the other. Both have flourished in their separate ways, and both have had difficulties of their own. But their difficulties ought to be met in a spirit that recognizes and preserves their identities. Besides the state arts councils, another propspect for designation as a state humanities council would be a state education department. In New York a strong case could be made. The New York State Education Department has a uniquely broad scope of responsibilities, including the State Museum, State Library, State Archives, Office of State History, and a baccalaureate degree program of its own, as well as broad regulatory functions. Moreover, the department's governance through the Board of Regents, gives it an unusual degree of shelter from the shifting political winds. But because New York's situation is unique, its example cannot become the basis for a national policy decision. In summary, I can only say again that the practical question of how to gain the benefit of some decentralization without paying too much for it does not seem to be answered in this bill. The costs are of several kinds, with waste of funds and incoherence of programs the most important among them. If such costs are to be minimized, a further effort will be required. I see no reason to doubt NEH's cooperation in making that effort. They may, in fact, be on the way now to resolving the question without legislation. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, THE SCHOOL OF THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO, Chicago, Ill., September 15, 1975. DEAR SENATOR PELL: It has come to our attention that legislation is pending in the Brademas-Pell Bill on re-authorization of the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities that would set aside 4% of the funds authorized for the art endowment to be specifically earmarked for the American Film Institute. We believe that this would set a dangerous precedent and that it is far better to keep all funding for film and museum activities under the regular processing and quality control of the National Endowment for the Arts. We have been most impressed with the efficiency and comprehensive fairness of the National Endowment for the Arts in all its various programs, particularly the Public Media Program. And the support of a "step child" to be considered separate from the existing programs and procedures seems not only unnecessary but also a real threat to the present scope and fairness of the NEA operation. Thank you for your good attention to this concern. Sincerely, ROGER GILMORE, Dean. MARY COLLEGE, Bismarck, N. Dak., September 18, 1975. Hon. QUENTIN BURDICK, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR BURDICK: Recently I became aware of a bill (S 1800/H.R. 7216) that contains the Pell Amendment, an amendment that would dramatically change the structure and purpose of the state-based humanities programs. As a program participant of the North Dakota Committee for the Humanities and Public Issues, I have strong objections to the Pell Amendment. The consequences of this amendment would negate the very purpose and inspiration of the NDCHPI, non-partisan involvement of concerned citizens. My personal experience with the humanities and public issues program was a truly significant event for both panel and forum attendants. The tremendous interest and response from both sides of the podium demonstrated the need for a "grassroots" theatre of expression. The forum brought together the humanist, the historian, the rancher, the minister, and countless other citizens and afforded us an opportunity to speak, listen, and respond to what we hold as valuable in our lives. I trust that you will not permit the Pell Amendment to undo this valuable human exchange. Thank you for your continuing service. Sincerely, Sister THOMAS WELDER, OSB., Professor of Humanities. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Philadelphia, Pa., September 19, 1975. Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL, U.S. Senate, Russell Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PELL: Reviewing a folder that I prepared last spring in expectation of a conference or hearing with you and your committee. I came across a few notes which still seem of some value and which might remotely be of some service in the legislative year ahead. I hope you will feel entirely free to call upon me for any elaboration or elucidation, or, equally, ignore those ideas which may seem to you immature or old-fashioned. All of these ideas arose from your concern for the humanities so well articulated at lunch. To summarize the contents of the enclosed, I should like to urge additions to the federal program of aid to the humanities. First, encouragement of programs which involve sciences and the humanities and which cross these methodological and bureaucratic boundaries which are tending to separate these two fields of research. Secondly, a serious, perhaps degree, program for older students in the 40-55 year-old age bracket to prepare them for useful careers in the final twenty years of their expected life span. Thirdly, a heritage recording program which widens and deepens the W.P.A. of the 1930s and uses European, Asian, and African techniques which have developed since 1950. Fourth, direct grants for social research needed by the Federal government corresponding to the technological and scientific grants of the 1960s, which would use the substantial expertise available in universities and colleges. I am very hopeful that you and President Meyerson can get together in the near future as indicated in your letter of July 29th, but I felt that I should like as a private person-to send along these thoughts for your review. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. I. ANTHONY N. B. GARVAN, There is little doubt that in the past thirty years humanistic studies have declined in influence, scope and relevance. Humanists have relatively fewer administrative posts, smaller research budgets, and fewer students perhaps even absolutely. At the same time, humanists are consulted less often by outside agencies in the military, diplomatic and publication fields. They do not provide the model for child-rearing or domestic life. Their respective fields have become less and less required areas of study for secondary or college students. Finally, their relevance to modern life is often attacked. Scientists are polite, tolerant and non-committal. Ethnic groups question traditional standards of selection. Women see dangerous continuations of traditional sexual bias in the study of the history of the arts and literature. Humanists are alarmingly close to becoming a literate folk group outside the main stream of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In my view, this trend, however long a possibility was made a manifest probability at the end of World War II. at that moment revulsion against atomic warfare and, at the same time, world-wide dependence upon scientific research separated science from other fields of research and endowed it in the public eye with a love-hate relationship of dependency and guilt. The achievements of scientists in medicine, warfare, computation, space travel, communication, underwater exploration, and a host of other fields became remote crafts clothed for the general public with medieval secrecy. Private language, guildlike programs of instruction, dependency and apprenticeship clothed these achievements with near magical qualities and made their practitioners for all practical purposes sorcerers whose magic had real viable concrete results for the everyday life of everyone. At first the humanities benefited from the sharpening of the boundaries of the sciences. They shared in a new public respect for learning and research and new earnestness of students. But by 1960, these advantages were dwarfed by their manifest disadvantage in research funding which after the development of N.S.F., Department of Defense contracts, and N.I.H. funding probably amounted in most large universities to less than 10% of the total research budgeting. Equally severe consequences followed student and public attack upon universities and colleges for their lack of relevance to the Vietnam War and racial inequities. Once again the humanities not the sciences took the brunt of the criticism. Although they had had little administrative influence after 1950, they were now attacked for a failure to raise protest and a failure to produce "relevant" social studies. Both charges had validity, but both, and much of the general decline of the humanities, resulted from the apparent gentleman's agreement to keep science and the humanities separate. This has produced a generation lag between the two fields. The sciences proceeded on course without the constant reference to the humanities which had characterized the nineteenth century, and the humanities continued to consider as subject matter a world essentially unchanged by twentieth-century science. No such separation between the creative arts and science occurred. In subject matter, technique and philosophy painting and the graphic arts have closely followed and in some instances anticipated scientific developments. Architecture and sculpture have used perhaps less clearly systematic approaches to the development of their forms. Literature and especially music have explored the new techniques and even in the latter case computer technology. Despite these innovations history, philosophy, literature, the history of art and classical studies have officially avoided identification with the development of the sciences. At the same time, individual practitioners have used scientific technology with great effect. Archaeological use of carbon and trace analysis, Linguistic use of the computer, historical employment of statistical techniques and probability theory, micro and spectro analysis of painting by art historians are only a few of the promising examples of this cooperation. Bureaucratically such use of science in the humanities has been discouraged when it should be encouraged. The history of science and technology, the impact of literature upon epistomology, the search in historical or little-known cultures for new attitudes toward time, space and matter are all fields which should be encouraged by virtue of their high potential value for the study of man and which are now separated by acceptance of the C. P. Snow separation of science from other intellectual pursuits. A segment of both N.S.F. and N.E.H. should be devoted to such studies for the simple reason that by the year 2000 there will be no world culture independent of twentieth-century scientific developments. By that time, the great bulk of the arts and literature available will have been created in the twentieth century under the influence of science and scientific development. To continue and encourage a separation of science and the humanities is to condemn the humanities to a harmless but effet role. Opponents to such a proposal will be found chiefly in the foundations and bureaus now based upon this separation. Scientists and humanists whose careers have already peaked will be slow to adopt the proposal, but younger persons will be eager. The public at large will be neutral until the interlocked studies begin an impact upon curricula. Then I would guess they would be enthusiastic and supportive as the program will become more meaningful. II. No governmental official need be told that the life span of Americans has immensely lengthened. A sizeable proportion of our population now lives a full generation after retirement; a small but growing proportion of that population retires in the mid-forties. Such persons desperately need further education to catch up with recent developments, to broaden their skills and to deepen their use of enforced leisure. Special programs of retread can be developed with existing faculty, with appropriate degrees, and with useful employment goals. In all of this the humanities are at least the equal of the sciences and may be significantly more useful. Languages, histories of communities, ethnic groups, occupations, religions, architecture are all of interest and useful. For these the older person may well have an advantage. Oral history, musical recording, photographic records all are of use. White elderly support can be assumed. Minor black opposition because of a lack of prerequisites can be overcome by specially constructed programs. III. A vital program of Heritage recording might be developed and would have a salutary effect. It should be set up on a municipal-county base; have professional archivists, architects, engineers, artists, craftsman, journalists, writers, and historians of all kinds to set standards and maintain quality and draw for 4-6 months of the year from students of all ages to provide in each field the immense amount of work required. County by county direction would make more precise the kind of work done by the WPA during the thirties, and would relate the students to institutions and |