The 1965 legislation that established the National Endowment for the Humanities defined “humanities” as “the study and interpretation of the following: language, both modern and classical; linguistics; literature; history; jurisprudence; philosophy; archeology; comparative religion; ethics; the history, criticism, and theory of the arts; those aspects of the social sciences which have humanistic content and employ humanistic methods; and the study and application of the humanities to the human environment with particular attention to reflecting our diverse heritage, traditions, and history and to the relevance of the humanities to the current conditions of national life.” (See the full text of the opening sections here.)
The NEH was created for “The encouragement and support of national progress and scholarship in the humanities,” the document says, and it reiterates several times the scholarly, “study” side of the agency. At the NEH’s Web site, under “What does NEH do?” we read, “the National Endowment for the Humanities serves and strengthens our Republic by promoting excellence in the humanities and conveying the lessons of history to all Americans. The Endowment accomplishes this mission by providing grants for high-quality humanities projects in four funding areas: preserving and providing access to cultural resources, education, research, and public programs” (see here).
How does that mission square, however, with one of the most visible recent initiatives of the agency, the “Civility Tour” of Chairman Jim Leach. Leach announced it in a speech to the National Press Club in November 2009, justifying it by asserting the steady rise of incivility in recent months. Just a few weeks ago, he provided an update in remarks to a House committee:
“I have begun a 50-state civility tour to try to make clear that coarseness in public manners can jeopardize social cohesion. Civilization requires civility. Words matter. Just as polarizing attitudes can jeopardize social cohesion and even public safety, healing approaches, such as Lincoln’s call in the closing days of the Civil War for a new direction ‘with malice toward none,’ can uplift and help bring society and the world closer together. To some, the connection of ‘civility’ to the humanities may not be immediately apparent. The Oxford English Dictionary helpfully reminds us that among the original definitions of this word is ‘training in the humanities.’ Through humanities studies, it was believed, citizens could acquire a depth of understanding of history and culture that more readily allows civic engagement free of the rancor that often characterizes the expression of ill-informed opinions.
“These notions of civility form the backdrop for the civility tour. Little is more important for the world’s leading democracy in this change-intensive century than establishing an ethos of thoughtfulness and decency of expression in the public square. The exchange of ideas and consideration of other viewpoints are central not only to understanding the disciplines that fall under the rubric of the humanities, but to improving the human condition.
“Thus far, I have traveled from Olympia, Washington to Columbia, South Carolina; from Tallahassee, Florida to Augusta, Maine; from Jackson, Mississippi to Madison, Wisconsin; from Charleston, North Carolina to Detroit, Michigan, and spoken at venues ranging from university and museum lecture halls to hospitals for veterans. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. There is a hunger in America for thoughtful dialogue and balanced debate on the issues of the day.”
Question: Where in the NEH’s mission statements and longstanding practices can one find the staff itself “establishing an ethos of thoughtfulness and decency of expression in the public square”? Why should the chairman assume the job of explaining the meaning and value of civility to the country?
This is not to say that civility isn’t a humanities topic. Of course it is. A proper approach to it, though, isn’t to send the chairman from state to state to deliver the same speech about the importance of listening (if you examine his remarks over the months, the same paragraphs keep surfacing). Rather, it is to open a line of awards that invites scholars, curators, etc. to devote projects to the topic.
The problem of straying from the mission is bad enough, but the political dangers of an NEH Chairman assuming the role of civility-steward are equally worrisome. An example appears here in a speech Leach gave at Wayne State in February. Commenting on the threats to civil discourse in public life, Leach singled out a mind-stretching example:
“Political utterances have consequences. Even, we have found this past week during the State of the Union address, those unheard.
“For the first time in memory a comment mouthed, but not voiced, has sparked a debate about public manners. According to lip readers, a Supreme Court justice silently framed the words ‘not true’ in response to the President’s critique of a Court ruling.
“There are two contrasting takes on the incident. Either the President, inaccurately and inappropriately, criticized the Supreme Court, or a justice injudiciously ruled on an issue fundamental to our political system and perhaps over-reacted to Presidential criticism.”
Even to entertain Justice Alito’s silent two words as an “over-reaction” is itself quite an over-reaction. He terms it “a public manners incident.”
Leach doesn’t stop there, either. He proceeds to denounce the Supreme Court decision to which President Obama objected in his State of the Union speech, the Citizens United ruling. “It is influence-peddling rather than speech that is advanced by this corporatist ruling,” Leach charges. It made its “assertion, in defiance of statutory precedent.” In ruling thus, “now the Court is increasing the access of a moneyed few to the headphones of candidates, especially just after and before elections.”
More follows: “The arc of our history that has bent toward justice has suddenly with this Court decision twisted back to that part of our Constitutional heritage that was self-evidently unjust. Property considerations have again become accentuated in a key aspect of citizenship.” By “that part,” Leach means the Dred Scott decision and slavery.
He goes on, calling Justice Kennedy’s arguments a “gross exaggeration.” But forget about whether Chairman Leach is right or wrong about the decision. Consider, instead, the spectacle of the Chairman of an agency designed to support scholars and educators and curators taking it upon himself to opine at length upon a Supreme Court case that has nothing to do with the advancement of the humanities.
And consider, too, the funding priorities. A 50-state tour is costly and complicated. Travel, lodging, and planning take up gobs of money and staff time. As many readers of The Chronicle know, NEH applications are a laborious process, and many activities applied for can’t make it without Federal support. How many more worthy projects might have been funded if the Civility Tour had never taken place?
32 Responses to The NEH Goes Off Track
luther_blissett - April 15, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Seems like Dana Gioia started a trend in the NEA of pulling these organizations away from their missions. Gioia terminated grants to individual artists, preferring to fund his own initiatives and those of other groups that shared his views. His own initiatives also competed for grant money from corporate and non-profit sponsors, thus taking away from the money available to private arts groups. Gioia seems to me to be the first of these bureaucrats to think of himself as the main focus of the organization, to ignore the mission in favor of his private agenda.
markbauerlein - April 15, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Readers should disregard the previous comment. NEA awards to individual artists (excluding writers and jazz musicians) were eliminated by Congressional mandate in 1996, several years before Gioia arrived.
jffoster - April 15, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I thought ‘Linguistics’ was misincluded in the primary list to begin with way back in ’65. But to the point, there does seem to be a presumption of evidence of a straying NEH.
luther_blissett - April 15, 2010 at 3:24 pm
My error, Mark. But the larger point remains: Gioia was criticized for advocating only for his own group initiatives and for not funding outside grant ideas.
markbauerlein - April 15, 2010 at 5:23 pm
We can speak at length about Gioia’s national initiatives, Luther, and one thing to keep in mind about them is that Gioia designed them not as something “his own” (the money didn’t stay inside the Old Post Office Building), but as an infrastructure that would deliver funding to artists and arts educators in a more efficient manner, coordinating national, state, and local agencies, as well as public and private funding sources. Can you find anybody who criticizes the National Poetry Recitation Contest? Or the Shakespeare initiative, or the expansion of Jazz Masters, or Operation Homecoming . . .? Also, I don’t know what you mean by “outside grant ideas.”And let’s not lose the bigger point. How does the “Civility Tour” support scholars, museum directors, librarians, researchers, and teachers in the humanities? How does it fit the mission of the NEH?
luther_blissett - April 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Mark, I’m not defending the Civility Tour. It’s a stupid idea, not least because incivility is actually quite useful at times. But the problem I and many others have with the Shakespeare and Jazz Programs is that is substituted a very narrow and ideologically-loaded vision of art for anything like a true meritocracy. There were many different ways of getting money to artists and educators than by setting a truly narrow and almost anti-intellectual limit on what constitutes worthwhile art. Gioia, of course, was trying to restore the NEA’s reputation among Congressional Republicans, but the way to do that wasn’t to succumb to their narrow idea of what art is.What I see at work in both the NEA and NEH is a governmental organization not interested in meritocracy, in passing along money to any worthwhile enterprise in the arts or humanities, but rather one that sets up ahead of time its own idea of what art and humanities projects are worth funding. The NEH is just taking this further by funding its own project.
profmomof1 - April 16, 2010 at 6:27 am
Our tax dollars are being used for the NEH to change from being primarily an agency that awards peer-reviewed grants in the humanities into one that is a propaganda arm of the current occupant of the White House. Not a good precedent!
markbauerlein - April 16, 2010 at 7:10 am
Luther, you call Gioia’s vision “a very narrow and ideologically-loaded vision of art,” and that it is even “anti-intellectual.” If you can find one single anti-intellectual statement by Gioia in print or voice, please share it. How Jazz Masters is ideological is beyond me. And it would be interesting to hear names of the “many others” you mention who think so. You question the “meritocracy,” too, so if wonder if you have ever served on NEA panels. And I wonder if you have examined the regulations regarding peer review in the agency.
tappat - April 16, 2010 at 7:59 am
The effect of this post would be that NEH Chairs could do nothing but be managers, not leaders. I don’t like it when people lead in ways I find pernicious, and so I might be tempted to call for the person to be a manager and not a leader, but I don’t want everyone with any public influence to be reduced to management. It seems to me that Mr. Leach is contributing to the fulfillment of NEH mission and goals, certainly in spirit, but even in letter, as quoted by the post. Mr. Leach is garnering increased support — emotional, political, etc. — for funding the Humanities. An individual may not like the way Leach is garnering support, but one should not fail to appreciate that that is what he is achieving.
cambler - April 16, 2010 at 8:05 am
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that through its various award programs, adding up to relatively little money, the NEH has made and continues to make a huge difference for scholars and others interested in the humanities across the country. That said, the civility tour appears to be one more in a series of Chairman “initiatives” that began in the Lynn Cheney period that however well intentioned have tended to make the NEH itself an instrument in humanities debates rather than the instrument for empowering others to engage and shape those debates.
dank48 - April 16, 2010 at 8:53 am
Goofiness at the intersection of federal money and the humanities? The NEH or NEA or both somewhat unfocused? Hard to believe.
7738373863 - April 16, 2010 at 9:25 am
There is a significant difference between debate arising out of differences of opinion and incivility, as instigated by the purveyors of hatred calling itself resistance and sensationalist news and opinion on the airwaves. One would have to have been living under a rock or traveling to Mars on business not to have noticed the decline in the quality of intellectual engagement and debate, and the rise of incivility that have propelled this country’s civic dialogue on a downward spiral since 2000, with several spikes post-9/11 and since the election of our current president. Similar incivility also characterized the antebellum slavery-abolition debate.Jim Leach’s civility tour is at once an attempt to insist, politely but firmly, that those who contest issues and ideas do so civilly and with intellectual substance, and to suggest that he is broadening the base of the NEH’s intellectual mission to include projects that, while not so narrowly specialized as some that have gone before, focus on the problematic of sustaining a civil society in a rancorous time such as ours, in which technology holds the power to mobilize the masses with half truths and sophisms masquerading as principled intellectual engagement.As for the cost of the present road show, I applaud Leach’s effort to dispel resentment begotten of ignorance by putting a human face–and a Republican face at that–on the NEH’s ethos and mission. Hiring a slick PR firm would cost as much, and considering the cost of congressional junkets and other discretionary federal travel, the outlay is modest.
painter33 - April 16, 2010 at 9:44 am
While not the purview of the NEH, the growth of incivility or the decline of civility (the study of that difference might be NEH grant-worthy) has led to a widening gulf between those who would like to listen, but are thwarted by the language and volume of the discontented few. We ought not rule out a “civility czar” who can help illustrate the counter-productivity of the racist and hate-infused screech
tmangum - April 16, 2010 at 9:53 am
Leach’s version of the speech at U of Iowa demonstrated his awareness that “the humanities” are disciplines fighting to sustain their very existence. He carefully defended the value of research others would dismiss as esoteric. But he also argued that in a world faced with the threat of nuclear war and environmental degradation, the humanities offer our best hope for learning the kind of wisdom the country and the world need for survival. That might be idealistic, but what a welcome change. Given that the arts and humanities are so often treated treated as pleasant but impractical areas of study and research that can be cut without serious damage academic missions, many of us found Leach’s speech and thoughtful responses to questions bracing, inspiring, even moving. More importantly, so did the UI Provost and Vice President for Research.
markbauerlein - April 16, 2010 at 9:57 am
A question for 773: What statutory guideline or intent warrants any chairman to engage in “broadening the base of the NEH’s intellectual mission”? Remember that Federal agencies are created with specific purviews, and respecting those limits is essential to separation of powers.And tappat, do you really believe that chastizing the Supreme Court at length and intemperately for its corporate speech decisions builds support for the humanities?Finally, 773 and painter33, if you believe that incivility today is higher than it was in the 1960s, 1930s, 1920s, 1900s, 1890s, 1850s, 1820s, 1800s (just to select some of the more heated decades in US political history), you need to go back and review newspapers during that time.
emdatumn - April 16, 2010 at 9:58 am
In view of the virulent language and violent behavior we’ve seen over the past few years (responses to health care reform are the most recent example), all public leaders from governmental and non- governmental sectors should be taking little civility tours. As for the NEH, Lynne Cheney initiated uncivil discourse and politicized decision making, as is well documented in the Chronicle and scholarship. Such behavior then and now has diminished Americans in the eyes of the world.
jffoster - April 16, 2010 at 10:23 am
Emdautumn (16) says that “Such behavior then and now has diminished Americans in the eyes of the world.”And most of the rest of the world’s disdain for freedom of speech and the press has diminished it in the eye’s of Americans.
willynilly - April 16, 2010 at 11:15 am
This is among the funniest articles that Bauerlein has ever written. He, an arch political animal, trying to call “the kettle” black whe he (Bauerlein) blackens every pot he puts on the stove. Don’t be fooled readers. This article makes the usual Bauerlein attemt to disguise the real purpose in writing in order to completely flummox the reader. His purpose is to defend his far right wing buddies and the Tea Party extremists who use, as a planned strategy, incivil language to inflame the lowest emotions of an angry public. In this instance, he uses the NEH and its president as his overlaying subterfuge. Those of us who know Bauerlein well, are quite familiar with this approach. Note to “luther-blissett”. I am a conservative, but certainly not anywhere near the Bauerlens type. Your comment that “incivility is quite useful at times” doesn’t totally pass my value system. Incivility, when it rises to racism, sexism, threats of violence, and extremely hateful language are all approaches which cause me to leave the parade. I move away rapidly from that approach. That is what Bauerlein is really advocating in this article using his usual “round about” approach to fool the reader. I am at a loss to even understand how you can conclude that such language can be “quite useful”, unless it is based on a “win at all cost” approach regardless of lasting consequences. I realize that Bauerlein subscribes to that theory and this story today is another example of that. Sharply criticize the actions of a well meaning group, then demean their leaders, all for the purpose of protecting the strategy (incivility) you are employing to achieve your political goals.
ddonner641 - April 16, 2010 at 11:39 am
Re: #18You really don’t need to use all that time typing. Just give your screen name and say “ibid.”
markbauerlein - April 16, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Explaining the value of the humanities is precisely what the chairman should do, tmangum. Do you have a link to the text of his speech?
tgroleau - April 16, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Interesting move by the NEH Chair. The NEA is already a favorite whipping boy of the right and this puts the HEH right into their cross hairs too. Where was the NEH Chair civility concerns when Bush was called a Nazi (among other things)? Speaking out now just add fuel to the fire. Expect cuts in NEH funds if there really is a Republican Revolution this fall and in 2012.I’m not saying that the NEH Chair doesn’t have personal free speech rights. I’m just saying that it’s not wise for him to politicize what should be a non-political government agency. It could really come back to bite him.
dank48 - April 16, 2010 at 1:43 pm
To bolster my reputation for irrelevant inanity, I’d like to ask what “civility” means to readers. My guess, it’s about as easy to define as “freedom,” “justice,” or “equality.”Personally, I disagree with Mark’s contention that it’s no worse now than ever. Sure, there was viciousness aplenty, but since (so it seems to me) 1993, when Clinton took office and the GOP cried “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of slander, libel, and utter disregard for truth, it’s spiraled downward.As an instance, if not a definition, of civility that I’ve always found poignant, a couple hundred years ago or so English pistol-makers distinguished their boxed braces of dueling pistols from weapons intended for other purposes: The dueling pistols, though fully functional and quite as deadly as any other firearms of the time, were not provided with sights.Hardly a subtlety for our time.
adamreed - April 16, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Oh delicious irony: A man who directs the re-distribution of property taken from its creators as taxes, by the most uncivil of means, extortion at gunpoint, lectures his victims about “civility.” Who needs The Onion when we have propaganda?
ledzep - April 16, 2010 at 3:14 pm
As a strategy for opposing the incivility of a populist, loosely-organized anti-government movement, having federal bureaucrats run around the country lecturing on civility should rank near the bottom of any list of possible strategies. “We hear your concern about being ruled by an elite class of technocrats, but stop for a second so we can educate you on civility.” I’m not defending people who say hateful or harmful things, but this seems about as counter-productive as anything could be.
goxewu - April 16, 2010 at 3:15 pm
No opinion (or is that in itself an opinion?) on Mr. Leach’s “civility tour,” but re #24:ANYTHING and EVERYTHING a local, state, or national government does is done via “property taken from its creators as taxes, by the most uncivil of means, extortion at gunpoint.”Is this a first–a real, live anarchist on a “Brainstorm” thread? Relative to adamreed, Tea Partiers are socialists.
wrbilledwards - April 16, 2010 at 3:21 pm
I don’t really see why an NEH Chair should not devote some serious effort to promoting more civil discourse among scholars and public figures – that seems to be quite relevant to the mission of his agency. Possibly a “50-state civility tour” is excessive. But Leach gravely weakens his own case when he uses the occasion to present a rigourously partisan view of a Supreme Court decision, which has little to do with civility, but with what protection the First Ammendment gives to for-profit corporations. I would not presume to precisely define civility, but surely it has to do with addressing one’s opponents’ evidence and reasoning rather than attacking their character, and with seeking to persuade those who may not yet agree, rather than cheerleading for those who agree and baiting those who don’t. And we can’t advocate civility without acknowledging that it has limits. One should not expect the NAACP to have a polite debate with a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, or the Anti-Defamation League with a group of skinheads.
adamreed - April 16, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Hi, goxewu. I am not an anarchist; I consider having a government indispensable to protect individual rights by placing the socially sanctioned use of force under objective control. Without a government, a person who might be wrongly accused of a crime would lose his rights to the mob, or to the strongest gang. Since a (very limited) government would be useful, I (and other rational people) would fund it as we fund other useful institutions: by voluntary subscriptions, donations etc. Which – what a radical proposal! – mght also be an entirely civil way to fund the humanities…
goxewu - April 17, 2010 at 8:36 am
RE #28:I know perfectly well adamreed isn’t an anarchist. But his objection to a certain government activity as deriving from “the re-distribution of property taken from its creators as taxes, by the most uncivil of means, extortion at gunpoint” logically amounts to an objection to ALL government activities on those same grounds, which logically amounts to anarchism.His (I’m assuming the masculine in the absence of the pseudonym “evereed”) proposal for funding government–however limited–with “voluntary subscriptions, donations, etc.” is certainly radical. But it’s also impractical to the point of impossible. Why? Some questions:1. Do people who choose not to subscribe or contribute still receive government services? (If I don’t contribute to the United Way, for instance, it would still deliver charitable services to me if and when I needed them.)2. If not, doesn’t this amount to government being a private enterprise, i.e., only people who pay receive the services?3. Is the level of government service distributed according to the amount of the “subscription” or contribution? If not, I might give a penny and adamreed might give $100,000 and we’d get the same level of government service.4. If hardly anybody subscribes or contributes, do we have no government?5. Does the level of government service rise and fall with the level of subscriptions and contributions? (Is it possible to budget, let alone plan for more than the very short term, in a government run with voluntary contributions?)6. Will people be allowed to subscribe or contribute to certain parts of the government and not others? If adamreed objects to the NEH as beyond the pale of a “very limited” government and withholds any contribution from it, may I object to the idiot war in Iraq and the slightly less idiotic war in Afghanistan by withholding my “voluntary subscription and contribution” funds from them?7. Will contributors and subscribers to the government be able to withhold contributions that would go toward the enforcement of particular laws they don’t like?8. Will this government subsisting on voluntary subscriptions and contributions actually enforce laws that involve prison or fines for people who would otherwise voluntarily contribute substantially to it?9. Will the (deregulated) airwaves and privately owned print outlets be glutted with public service announcements pleading for voluntary subscriptions and contributions to the government? 10. Will the government itself have to register with the government as a bona fide charity?One eagerly awaits the answers to these and other intriguing questions concerning the proposed not-quite-anarchy of a voluntarily funded government.In the meantime, I suppose the Republic will just have to hobble along with the old-fashioned idea that the people of it elect representatives who fund the government by passing tax laws which–if the likes of adamreed bunker down in, say, northern Idaho, and refuse to pay any taxes at all–will, as a last resort, be enforced at gunpoint.
nomadic100 - April 17, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Is this about “civility” as practiced by President Obama who said, “If they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun.” Or the same “civility” as practiced by the Black Caucus members who made bogus accusations of racism against tea partiers? Perhaps Mr. Leach should save the taxpayers a lot of money and just stay home.
pjk001 - April 17, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Hello, “willynilly”! Is the following (from your comment) an example of “civility”?:”This article makes the usual Bauerlein attemt to disguise the real purpose in writing in order to completely flummox the reader. His purpose is to defend his far right wing buddies and the Tea Party extremists who use, as a planned strategy, incivil language to inflame the lowest emotions of an angry public.”That’s civil? I must cavil!
goxewu - April 17, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Re #30:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S38VioxnBaI
marka - April 21, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I’m with pjk001, et al – willynilly seems, well, willynilly over the edge, and apparently sees a right wing conspiracy under every bed. And as for civility, is has its place, but so does ‘incivility.’ I’d actually prefer more civility & mutual respect shown in these blogs ;-) Hey folks, I lived thru the 60s, and it was anything but civil – ditto the 70s. And it wasn’t just ‘right wing’ nuts, but ‘left wing’ nuts as well – the Weatherman v. FBI, the Yippies & Chicago 7 v. Daly’s police, the Symbionese Liberation Army, civil rights, race, and antiwar protests & riots. And since then, ‘incivil’ talk & behavior against Ronnie Ray-gun, Star Wars & voodoo economics, the Bush Gulf wars, Cheney’s backroom maneuvers, and, of course, student protests shouting down speakers they don’t want to hear under the guise of protesting ‘hate’ speech. If all this current ‘civility’ talk was sincere, do I hear condemnation of all that incivil protest, regardless of source, from both left & right? … Hmm … I didn’t think so. I suppose UK’s parliamentary procedures would shock, just shock, the conscience of all these ‘civil’ promoters. Yes, democracy can be noisy & irritating, and at times violent.Finally, as to the propriety of the NEH promoting ‘civility’ … well, I think the current calls for civility are largely hypocritical, and aren’t worthy of broad campaigns, much less public time & expense outside the purview of the agency’s legislatively directed mission.