THE ARTS & GOVERNMENT QUESTIONS FOR THE NINETIES NOVEMBER 8-11, 1990 ARDEN HOUSE HARRIMAN, NEW YORK THE AMERICAN ASSEMBLY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY mi l' — ■ — ■ ~ ■ ' i i i " i The volume, Public Money & the Muse: Essays on Government Funding for the Arts, edited by Stephen Benedict, is an American Assembly book developed for the American Assembly on "The Arts and Government: Questions for the Nineties," the contents of which are listed on the follow- ing page. The book will be published in early spring, 1991, by W.W. Norton & Company. It is available to you in hardcover at a 15% discount off the list price of $22.95. To order, fill out the Coupon below and send with your check or credit card order to: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 500 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10110 ■Coupon -Coupon- Please send me copies of Public Money & the Muse: Essays on Gov- ernment Funding for the Arts. I am entitled to a discount price of $19.50 per copy. I understand that I will receive my hardcover copy in early spring, 1991. ["I I enclose my check for $ . . ] Charge my Q Visa Q AM EX Q MasterCard Signature - Account # Exp. Date. CA and NY residents, please add sales tax. Name Address. City State Zip __^__ For SPRING 1991 Coupon Coupon Additional copies of this report are available free of charge from: The Amer- ican Assembly, 412 Altschul Hall, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027-6598.Telephone: (212) 854-3456. FAX: (212) 662- 3655. -2- PREFACE On November 8, 1990, seventy-one men and women from government, business, universities, labor, media, the law, arts organizations, and the arts met at Arden House in Harriman, New York for an American Assembly entitled The Arts and Government: Questions for the Nineties. For three days, the participants listened to panel discussions, an ad- dress by John E. Frohnmayer, chairman of the National En- dowment for the Arts, and viewed a performance piece by Guillermo Gomez-Pena. In small groups, they also discussed in depth the relationships between government and the arts in the United States, identified emerging issues that will confront the arts in the decade ahead, and suggested policy recom- mendations that would address these needs. The participants came from all regions of the country and represented a broad cross section of views and interests ranging from committed arts advocates to one participant who believes the govern- ment has no legitimate interest in supporting the arts. Stephen Benedict, former director of the Program in Arts Administration of Columbia University, and Steven Lavine, president of California Institute of the Arts, acted as co- directors of this Assembly program. Mr. Benedict supervised the preparation of papers used as background reading by the participants. Authors and titles of these papers, which will be compiled and published in the spring of 1991 as a book by W. W. Norton book entitled Public Money and the Muse: Essays on Government Funding for the Arts, are: Stephen Stamas Preface Stephen Benedict Foreword Arthur Levitt, Jr. Introduction Milton C. Cummings, Jr. Government and the Arts: An Over- view Kathleen M. Sullivan Artistic Freedom, Public Funding, and the Constitution Joan Jeffri The Artist in an Integrated Society -3- Dennie Palmer Wolf More than Minor Disturbances: Mary Burger The Piace of the Art in American Education Steven E. Weil Tax Policy and Private Giving Robert Garfias Cultural Diversity and the Arts in America Gerald D. Yoshitomi Cultural Democracy Paul J. DiMaggio Devolution of Arts Funding from the Federal Governement to the States The panel discussions held during the Assembly were: "The NEA under Siege: Lessons for the Arts and Gov- ernment in the '90s." Doris Dixon, Roy Goodman, Peter Kyros, Jr., and Bernice Johnson Reagon were panelists and William Strickland served as moderator. "1992: Fragments of a Performance," a performance piece by Guillermo Gomez-Pena. John Kreidler and Bernice Johnson Reagon were discussants and Steven Lavine served as moderator. "Art and the Public Good: Re-thinking the Case for Public Support." Kinshasha Conwill, William D, Grampp, and Stephen E. Weil were panelists and Anne Hawley served as moderator. "Translating the Public Good: Some Enduring Issues and the Need for New Approaches." John E. Frohnmay- er gave an address followed by a panel discussion with Michael O'Hare, Dennie Palmer Wolf, and Gerald D. Yoshitomi, moderated by Andrew Heiskell. "Who Decides?: The Grantmaking Process, Artistic Freedom, and the Right to Apply." Panelists were John Brademas, David Mendoza, Kathleen M. Sullivan, and J. Mark Davidson Schuster with Schuyler Chapin as moderator. "Keeping the Arts on the Agenda: Collective Action by a Community of Interest." Kitty Carlisle Hart, Charlotte Murphy, and Joel Wachs were the panelists, and Arthur Levitt, Jr. served as the moderator. "The Coming Competition for Resources" was moderat- ed by Raymond D. Nasher with Ruth Hirschman, Rob- ert Pease, and Michael Woo serving as panelists. The complete list of participants with their affiliations appears at the end of this report. Following the plenary panel sessions and the small group meetings, the co-directors and rapporteurs produced a draft of this report on November 1 1 , 1990 for discussion at the final ple- nary. A revised draft was submitted to all participants for review and, after further consultations and revisions, published. We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of The Rockefeller and AT&T Foundations, which funded this undertak- ing. They, as well as The American Assembly, take no position on subjects presented here for public discussion. In addition, it should be noted that the participants took part in this meeting as private individuals, and spoke for themselves rather than for the institutions or organizations with which they are affiliated. Stephen Stamas Chairman The American Assembly REPORT OF THE AMERICAN ASSEMBLY on The Arts And Government: Questions For The Nineties At the close of their discussions, the participants in The American Assembly on The Arts and Govern- ment: Questions for the Nineties, at Arden House, Harriman, New York, November 8-11, 1990, re- viewed as a group a draft of the following state- ment, which was then revised in the light of their comments. This statement represents general agreement; however, no one was asked to sign it. Furthermore, it should be understood that not eve- ryone agreed with all of it. PREAMBLE This American Assembly on The Arts and Government met in the immediate aftermath of the most serious challenge to direct federal support of the arts in the twenty-five year his- tory of the National Endowment for the Arts (N.E.A.). An eighteen-month public and congressional conflict had been provoked by two exhibitions assisted in part by the N.E.A. They included works of art that members of Congress and several private organizations seized upon to forward the ar- gument that public funds were being misapplied to support obscene and blasphemous materials. N.E.A. grant proce- dures, some asserted, were obviously not working and need- ed to be overhauled. Some of the opponents carried the ar- gument a step farther, maintaining that the episode proved the federal government has no legitimate role in funding the arts. This initial phase of the argument in 1989 led the Con- gress, for the first time, to impose content guidelines on N.E.A. grantmaking procedures. The controversy that fol- lowed soon became a lightning rod that exposed the wide variances among the American people in political, social, re- ligious, and aesthetic values, and raised anew basic ques- tions about the rationale for public arts support and the pro- cesses for its administration. The unfettered artistic freedom -6- envisaged in the original N.E.A. legislation could no longer be assumed inviolable. That government-aided art was not more widely support- ed by the general population came as a shock to many arts supporters. The realization grew that a much more concen- trated effort was needed to convey the positive achievements of the N.E.A. to a far wider spectrum of the population, and that the arts programs themselves were still reaching only a minority of the population. The content restrictions in the leg- islation raised their own set of Constitutional questions and brought about the direct involvement of a great many individ- ual artists, along with others, in political action to oppose the new provisions. When The American Assembly planned its meeting in the fall of 1989, the full extent of the challenge to federal funding was yet to unfold. It was clear only that further battles loomed and that significant issues were at stake. The spring and summer of 1990 witnessed a chain of dramatic and unpre- dictable events that left the outcome in constant doubt. The Assembly developed an agenda that sought to accommodate the fluid situation in Washington, but also to look ahead to is- sues of arts policy that would endure beyond the immediate crisis. As the calendar would have it, the legislative resolution of the controversy occurred only two weeks before the As- sembly met. The House and Senate agreed on a bill reau- thorizing the N.E.A. for three years and appropriating funds for the coming year at approximately the current level. Understandably, therefore, the topicality of this Assembly, which included participants who were almost all directly in- volved in some aspect of the drama just concluded, resulted in a lively and sometimes contentious meeting. Even so, a degree of consensus emerged, most prominently expressed in a statement of basic principles that reflect many of the dis- cussions and underlie this report's Findings and Recommen- dations. PRINCIPLES • A flourishing artistic life is in the best interests of a democratic society. The arts and the artist contribute to the nation's identity and to the edu- cation and happiness of its citizens. It is, there- fore, appropriate that government at all levels -7- join with the private sector to further the nation's artis- tic life and to provide access to the arts to all citizens. Excellence and the defining standards of excellence, which exist for every culture and for every art form, must be the touchstone of all government funding for the arts and artists. Constitutional principles of freedom of expression, es- sential to a democratic society, are of special impor- tance to a thriving artistic climate. Government policies and private actions that threaten to curb artistic "speech" or to constrict in any way the marketplace of ideas for the arts have no place in American society and must be vigorously opposed. Government arts programs should support new work of promise that may prove risky or unpopular. Some art has always been controversial and will continue to be, especially as cultures and art forms become more diverse and the boundaries of art continue to expand. Public funding policies must be administered accord- ing to the principle that no artist's work may be com- promised, suppressed, or unrecognized because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or political or rehgious beliefs. With public support goes public responsibility. Artists fulfill this responsibility by pursuing the highest quality work of which they are capable; arts organizations ful- fill it by carrying out their stated missions and by devel- oping broader and more critically aware publics for their work. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The National Endowment for the Arts The National Endowment for the Arts, in its twenty-five years of operation, has proved an effective vehicle for promot- ing the support and appreciation of the arts in the United -8- States. It has broadened access, bringing the arts for the first ■ time to millions of Americans. It has provided encouragement and support to institutions old and new, large and small, and has become the largest single source of support for the crea- tive work of individual artists across the land. The N.E.A., from its inception, has emphasized excellence in artistic achievement and the promise of achievement as the armature which connects all of its activities. The central mech- anism for judgements of quality and promise has been the grant advisory panels of peers and other professionals. The system has generally worked well to identify changing needs and develop new programs. Proposals for the improvement of the panel system to make it more responsive deserve atten- tion and should be examined. But care must be taken that the N.E.A.'s integrity as an institution be maintained and efforts resisted that would weaken its role as the central vehicle for direct federal support for the arts and artists. At this particular time, the N.E.A. has a specially compelling responsibility to protect freedom of expression, not only for the artists it sup- ports but for every artist. This Assembly believes the N.E.A. should: •Strengthen the institutions through which the arts are produced and presented to the public, reflecting in all its actions the full range of traditions and artistic forms that comprise this country's cultural vitality. •Promote greater access to the arts by new and under- served communities and assist them in their efforts to build and stabilize their own institutions. •Continue to support, through grants, fellowships, and other assistance, artists of accomplishment and prom- ise, whether working in traditional, non-traditional, ex- perimental, or innovative forms. •Work to increase appropriations to the N.E.A. so as to restore, at a minimum, the real purchasing power of its budget at the beginning of the 1 980s. •Exercise leadership in exploring and developing the central issues of cultural policy by strengthening the N.E.A.'s research program, funding private research ef- forts, and convening conferences on major policy is- sues. -9- Of particular concern to all those who participated in this Assembly was the role of the N.E.A. and other levels of gov- ernment in furthering the arts in education. Because of the special importance of the subject, it is addressed in a later section of this report. State and Local Arts Support As the N.E.A. developed, arts agencies in every state and territory became significant partners, encouraged in many in- stances by the N.E.A.'s example. In addition, local arts agen- cies, both public and private, grew rapidly. They now number more than 4,000, and are receiving more than $100 million a year in tax funds. Their contribution to promoting cultural plu- ralism and nurturing individual artists has become increasingly significant. While federal appropriations to the N.E.A. stagnated in the 1980s, state arts agencies experienced dramatic growth. To- day total state appropriations are 60 percent greater than the N.E.A.'s. The statutory allocation to state arts agencies of at least 20 percent of N.E.A. program funds has substantially aided the efforts by other levels of government to support the arts. In the reauthorization of the statute in 1990, a new provi- sion was adopted to increase the allocation of N.E.A. program funds to state and local arts agencies to 35 percent by Fiscal Year 1993. The long-term consequences of this action by Congress, part of a last-minute compromise, were not ade- quately examined. The action carries the risk of diminishing the national leadership role of the N.E.A. and producing ad- verse results for artists and arts institutions. State and local arts agency funding should continue to be increased, but not at the expense of the N.E.A.'s important national role. This Assembly recommends that: • The new provision increasing the N.E.A. allocation to the states should be carefully reviewed by the next Congress and modified, if necessary. • Any increased federal allocations to the states must not be allowed to replace existing state arts agency funds. Consideration should be given to requiring states to match any increase in federal funds with new appropriations. 10-' Advocacy and Political Action To keep the arts on the public agenda, a broader constitu- ency must be found and developed. The events of the past eighteen months forced supporters of the arts to confront the political process head-on, but the arts community as a whole was not prepared to compete on equal terms with its adver- saries. The controversy also revealed vast differences among many Americans about the nature of art and the role of the artist. The steady overall increase in funding in the 1970s and 1980s from the private and public sectors had tended to ob- scure the need to bring about better understanding among arts supporters, artists, and the public. In addition, it became clear that arts supporters had to become more politically so- phisticated in the techniques used by successful claimants to public support. It was also the case that fractures occurred in the arts community itself as a result of differing objectives and per- spectives. Arts advocacy can only succeed if all participants in the process refrain from asserting their interests at the ex- pense of others. Every group must benefit in an equitable way. Advocacy is stronger to the extent that coalition is com- plete. In future, while differences within the arts community must be acknowledged, ways must be found to coalesce around commonly shared goals and to pursue them in a spirit of cooperation. To improve the case for the arts and its presentation to the public, this Assembly recommends that: • Arts advocates improve communication to the public about ways that government-supported arts programs and projects are benefiting the economies of, and en- hancing the quality of life in, cities, towns, and other lo- calities. • Arts supporters explore more effective ways to involve citizens at the grassroots level in articulating and work- ing for cultural policies that benefit everyone. • Arts communities closely monitor proposed federal, state, and local legislation and regulations that have po- •11 tential application to the arts. Artists and arts institutions should be prepared to support or oppose specific meas- ures, as appropriate. Arts communities, including the for-profit arts and enter- tainment industry, forge working alliances with other groups that intersect with the arts, including labor un- ions, educational and religious organizations, chambers of commerce, and economic development councils. Arts advocates initiate a coalition with corporate chief executive officers who understand the central role of the arts in communities and are prepared to serve as advocates for the arts with all levels of government. Arts professionals develop a network of institutions de- voted to the basic research, rigorous analysis, and con- tinuing exchange of information needed to define and reinforce advocacy objectives. Cultural Diversity and Government Support This country's artistic life has always been distinguished by the remarkable range of cultures from which its artists have drawn their inspiration. In recent years, these cultures have been expanded and enriched by new waves of immigrants. The historic problems of adaptation and community accep- tance are as challenging and difficult now as they have ever been. Our best imagination- and understanding is required to minimize the social dislocations and conflicts that always ac- company immigrations from other cultures. In the clash of cultures, artists have always had a special capacity to illuminate the differences among peoples and ex- pose the reasons for conflict. They may not provide solutions, but their insights can be crucial in helping us understand and accommodate diversity and change. If the arts and artists from the many specific cultures con- tributing to this country's extraordinary diversity are to make their full contribution to national life, they need help. Aided by a variety of tax incentives to giving, the arts as a whole in the United States receive their primary financial support from the private sector — individuals, foundations, and corporations. -12- However, because private giving is voluntary, there is no as- surance that every deserving need in the spectrum of need will be addressed. Some communities, despite the richness and quality of their cultural achievements, have yet to gain equal access to many private sources of funding. Public agencies, on the oth- er hand, are often in a position to identify and assist under- served populations. For communities still seeking to share in the private philanthropy that is directed primarily toward larger and better known institutions, public agencies have a respon- sibility to address their unmet needs. Government recognition and support may also have the effect of encouraging private giving and improving access to private sources. If the cultural requirements of underserved communities are to be effective- ly addressed by government, this Assembly recommends that: • Public arts agencies take the steps necessary to ensure recognition for every culture in our society. The statuto- ry definition of the arts must be revised, if necessary, to embrace activities, forms, and expressions that may not be eligible for assistance according to current defini- tions. • Guidelines of public funding agencies be developed, and staff and panel members selected, to ensure that the criteria of quality and excellence applied to the art of all cultures reflect an understanding and awareness of their specific values and traditions. • Public arts agencies encourage opportunities for the professional development of artists and arts administra- tors from communities with a history of unequal access. Programs should also be developed within such com- munities that reflect their special character and needs. International Cultural Policy In the wake of the Cold War, the United States must adopt new international cultural policies for a transformed world. New needs and opportunities exist for the arts as a means of representing this country's national character, its diversity, •13- ideals, and objectives to the rest of the world. A broad range of initiatives by the appropriate federal agencies is required. This Assembly recommends: • Expanded cooperative public and private programs for the full and free exchange of art and artists with other countries. • Developing exchange programs that tap the abundant cultural resources brought by the waves of new immi- grants in the past two decades, as well as those of Afri- can Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans. • A comprehensive study of international cultural policy by the appropriate federal agencies, drawing on private as well as public sector resources and experience and recommending specific actions. • Careful consideration by the Administration of the ad- vantages to the United States of rejoining the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural* Organiza- tion (UNESCO). Tax Policies Tax policies are critical to the stability of the arts in the United States. Exemptions, deductions, and other special rules affecting taxable income, property, customs, and other taxes are indirect forms of aid that dwarf direct support in overall amount. Tax provisions that benefit the arts, as well as education and other social needs, constitute an enlightened approach to public policy that is distinctive to this country. Tax law can provide valuable incentives to private giving, decen- tralize decision-making, and establish a desirable counter- weight to direct support. Changes in the tax law often come about in response to broad political forces. Frequently the impact on arts and cul- ture of such changes is not given sufficient attention. For ex- ample, the effect on charitable giving of the dramatic reduc- tion in the top marginal tax rate is still unclear. By contrast, it soon became evident that changed provisions in the 1986 tax code affecting the full deductibility of the market value of gifts of appreciated personal property had caused a sudden and ■14- serious decline in gifts of art and manuscripts to museums and other institutions. Vigorous advocacy by a coalition of mu- seums and charity federations has managed to restore, in part, the prior provision, though for only one year. A variety of proposals for special tax treatment of the arts continues to be advanced, including some new ideas such as special assessment districts. More than other forms of aid, however, tax-based assistance may set the interests of the arts against those of a larger society. In light of the above considerations, this Assembly recom- mends that appropriate research bodies: • Analyze the advantages and disadvantages for the arts of present and proposed tax provisions. • Identify successful examples of the creative use of tax laws by arts institutions and public agencies. The Arts in Education To those who have worked in the field of arts education, the relevance of the arts to human development is unques- tionable. Only in recent years, however, has systematic re- search established that the arts are, in fact, special ways of knowing — ways that are as essential to basic education as the mastery of verbal and numerical skills. It is also the case that for many children, school-based arts programs provide them with their first direct arts experiences and are the begin- ning of a lifelong commitment. Arts education, therefore, must be a priority for both the arts and education communities and should actively engage federal, state, and local arts and edu- cation agencies. Sequential arts education must be encour- aged, and such programs should be supported by careful re- search and adequate resources. This Assembly recommends that: • The National Endowment for the Arts initiate action to achieve a consensus around national goals for arts edu- cation. • The N.E.A. play an expanded role in the advocacy of arts education, using the authority of the Chairman's office to raise awareness at the federal, state, and local levels. •15- • Federal, state, and local agencies identify and fund ex- emplary arts education models and recognize outstand- ing individual leadership in every area of achievement. • All government arts education support be based on equal access, especially to people of color and in less privileged communities, and reflect an awareness of this country's range of cultures and art forms. ' Government programs at all levels be prepared to pro- tect the work of artists, teachers, and other educators as they involve students in making and thinking about works of art that will sometimes be at variance with community values. A Final Word The Assembly adjourned to an uncertain domestic and in- ternational climate. At home, a period of economic stringency was underway and hard choices to deal with compelling social needs would be required by the country. Abroad, the crisis in the Gulf and its potential consequences were casting an omi- nous shadow. Throughout the discussions, Assembly participants recog- nized that in such a climate of scarcity, the structures that 'sus- tain the arts will need all the imagination and ingenuity they can summon. Already limited resources will need to be stretched even farther just to maintain current levels of activi- ty. But despite the outlook, the conviction remained that the power of the arts to heal and help, teach and question is as strong as ever. Now, in fact, may be a time when they are needed more than ever. -16- PARTICIPANTS GEORGE H.J. ABRAMS Special Assistant to the Director National Museum of the American Indian Smithsonian Institution New York, NY MARIE ACOSTA-COLON Director The Mexican Museum San Francisco, CA ALBERTA ARTHURS Director for Arts & Humanities The Rockefeller Foundation New York, NY J. THOMAS BACCHETTI Executive Director Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Atlanta, GA STEPHEN BENEDICT Founder and Former Director Graduate Program in Arts Administration Columbia University New York, NY SUSAN S. BLOOM Vice President Worldwide Cultural Affairs American Express Company New York, NY JOHN BRADEMAS President New York University New York, NY CAROL R. BROWN President The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust Pittsburgh, PA MARY BURGER Research Assistant Harvard Project Zero Graduate School of Education Harvard University Cambridge, MA CORA CAHAN President 42nd Street Entertainment Corporation New York, NY LUIS R. CANCEL Executive Director The Bronx Museum of the Arts Bronx, NY o SCHUYLER G. CHAPIN Vice President, Worldwide Concert & Artist Activities Steinway & Sons New York, NY EUGENE V. CLARK Representative of the Vatican Museums in the United States, Washington, DC Archdiocese of New York St. Agnes Church New York, NY DUDLEY COCKE Director, Roadside Theater Appalshop, Inc. Whitesburg, KY JAN COLLMER President Collmer Semiconductor, Inc. Dallas, TX • KINSHASHA CONWILL Executive Director The Studio Museum in Harlem New York, NY -17- MILTON C. CUMMINGS, JR. Professor of Political Science Department of Political Science Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD GORDON DAVIS Lord, Day, & Lord, Barrett, Smith New York, NY LEON B. DENMARK Executive Director Newark Symphony Hall Newark, NJ VISHAKHA N. DESAI Director The Asia Society Galleries New York, NY JOAN DILLON Board Member American Arts Alliance Kansas City, MO t PAUL J. DiMAGGIO Associate Professor, Department of Sociology Yale University New Haven, CT • DORIS DIXON Professional Staff Member Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee (Senator Thad Cochran) Washington, DC x JOHN E. FROHNMAYER Chairman National Endowment for the Arts Washington, DC DONALD H. GAREIS Trustee Robert W. Woodruff Arts Center, Inc. Atlanta, GA * JACKIE GOLDENBERG Editor Independent Commission Report New York, NY xxGUILLERMO GOMEZ-PENA Performance Artist San Diego, CA • ROY M.GOODMAN New York State Senate New York, NY • WILLIAM D. GRAMPP Professor of Economics University of Illinois Chicago, IL DONALD R. GREENE President The Coca-Cola Foundation Atlanta, GA • KITTY CARLISLE HART Chairman New York State Council on the Arts New York, NY toANNE HAWLEY Director Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum Boston, MA o ANDREW HEISKELL Chairman The New York Public Library New York, NY • RUTH HIRSCHMAN General Manager KCRW Santa Monica, CA JOAN JEFFRI Director Research Center for Arts & Culture School of the Arts Columbia University New York, NY REATHA CLARK KING President & Executive Director General Mills Foundation Minneapolis, MN •18- JOHN KREIDLER Program Executive The San Francisco Foundation San Francisco, CA PETER N. KYROS, JR. General Partner Potomac Investment Associates Westlake Village, CA STEVEN LAVINE President California Institute of the Arts Valencia, CA FRED LAZARUS President The Maryland Institute College of Art Baltimore, MD LEONARD LEIBOWITZ, ESQ. Attorney New York, NY ARTHUR LEVITT, JR. Chairman of the Board, Levitt Media Company Board Member, The Rockefeller Foundation New York, NY HARVEY LICHTENSTEIN President and Executive Producer Brooklyn Academy of Music Brooklyn, NY VICTOR MASAYESVA, JR. Filmmaker-Artist Is Productions Hotevilla, AZ RUTH R. MAYLEAS Program Officer, Education & Culture Program The Ford Foundation New York, NY TIMOTHY J. McCLIMON Vice President AT&T Foundation New York, NY VALA. MclNNES Director of Development & Director of Judeo-Christian Studies, Tulane University South Dominican Foundation New Orleans, LA CHARLES L. MEE, JR. Playwright and Historian New York, NY • DAVID MENDOZA Executive Director Artist Trust Seattle, WA RICHARD MITTENTHAL Partner The Conservation Company New York, NY • ELIZABETH MURFEE President EMC Company New York, NY • CHARLOTTE MURPHY Executive Director National Association of Artists' Organizations & National Campaign for Freedom of Expression Washington, DC o RAYMOND D.NASHER President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanitites Dallas, TX • MICHAEL O'HARE Lecturer in Public Policy John F, Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, MA • ROBERT PEASE Executive Director Allegheny Conference Community Development Pittsburgh, PA -19- • BERNICE JOHNSON REAGON Curator National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC t REBECCA RILEY Director Special Grants Program John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Chicago, IL PEDRO RODRIGUEZ Executive Director Guadalupe Cultural Arts Center San Antonio, TX STEPHEN L. SALYER President & Chief Executive Officer American Public Radio Minneapolis, MN * SUZANNE M. SATO Associate Director for Arts and Humanitites The Rockefeller Foundation New York, NY fJ. MARK DAVIDSON SCHUSTER Associate Professor Department of Urban Studies & Planning Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA RUTH SHACK President Dade Community Foundation Miami, FL | RICHARD E. SHERWOOD Partner O'Melveny & Myers Los Angeles, CA o WILLIAM STRICKLAND Executive Director Manchester Craftman's Guild Pittsburgh, PA • KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN Professor Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA f BARBARA L. TSUMAGARI Executive Director The Kitchen New York, NY MARTA VEGA President & Executive Director Caribbean Cultural Center New York, NY • JOELWACHS Second District Los Angeles City Council Los Angeles, CA LEWIS WALDECK Director, Symphonic Services Division American Federation of Musicians New York, NY • STEPHEN E.WEIL Deputy Director Hirshhom Museum and Sculpture Garden Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC • DENNIE PALMER WOLF Senior Research Associate, The Development Group Harvard Project Zero Graduate School of Educaation Harvard University Cambridge, MA • MICHAEL WOO Thirteenth District Los Angeles City Council Los Angeles, CA t- GERALD D. YOSHITOMI Executive Director Japanese American Cultural & Community Center Los Angeles, CA o X XX Discussion Leader Rapporteur Panelist Panel Moderator Delivered a Formal Address Presented a Pertormance Piece -20- ABOUT THE AMERICAN ASSEMBLY The American Assembly was established by Dwight D. Eisenhower at Columbia University in 1950. It holds nonpartisan meetings and publishes authoritative books to illuminate issues of United States policy. An affiliate of Columbia, with offices in the Helen Goodhart Altschul Hall on the Barnard College campus, the Assembly is a national, educational in- stitution incorporated in the State of New York. The Assembly seeks to provide information, stimulate discussion, and evoke independent conclusions on matters of vital public interest. American Assembly Sessions At least two national programs are initiated each year. Authorities are re- tained to write background papers presenting essential data and defining the main issues of each subject. A group of men and women representing a broad range of experience, competence, and American leadership meet for several days to discuss the- Assembly topic and consider alternatives for national policy. All Assemblies follow the same procedure. The background papers are sent to participants in advance of the Assembly. The Assembly meets in small groups for four or five lengthy periods. All groups use the same agen- da. At the close of these informal sessions participants adopt in plenary session a final report of findings and recommendations. Regional, state, and local Assemblies are held following the national ses- sion at Arden House. Assemblies have also been held in England, Switzer- land, Malaysia, Canada, the Caribbean, South America, Central America, the Philippines, and Japan. Over one hundred sixty institutions have cospon- sored one or more Assemblies. Arden House Home of The American Assembly and scene of the national sessions is Arden House, which was given to Columbia University in 1950 by W. Averell Harriman. E. Roland Harriman joined his brother in contributing to- ward adaptation of the property for conference purposes. The buildings and surrounding land, known as the Harriman Campus of Columbia University, are fifty miles north of New York City. Arden House is a distinguished conference center. It is self-supporting and operates throughout the year for use by organizations with educational objectives. The American Assembly is a tenant of this Columbia University facility only during Assembly sessions. -21 AMERICAN ASSEMBLY BOOKS 1951 — U.S. -Western Europe Relationships 1952 — Inflation 1953 — Economic Security for Americans 1954 —The U.S. Stake in the U.N. • The Federal Government Service (revised 1965) 1955 — United States Agriculture • The Forty-eight States (State Government) 1956 — The Representation of the United States Abroad (revised 1964) — The United States and the Far East (revised 1962) 1957 — International Stability and Progress • Atoms for Power 1958 — The United States and Africa (revised 1963) — United States Monetary Policy (revised 1964) 1959 — Wages, Prices, Profits, and Productivity — The United States and Latin America (revised 1963) 1960 — The Federal Government and Higher Education • The Secretary of State 1 961 — Arms Control: Issues for the Public — Outer Space: Prospects for Man and Society (revised 1968) 1962 — Automation and Technological Change — Cultural Affairs and Foreign Relations (revised 1968) 1963 — The Population Dilemma (revised 1969) • The United States and the Middle East 1964 — The United States and Canada • The Congress and America's Future (rev. 1973) 1 965 — The Courts, the Public, and the Law Explosion — The United States and Japan (revised 1975) 1966 — The United States and the Phillippines • State Legislatures in American Politics — A World of Nuclear Powers? • Challenges to Collective Bargaining 1967 — The United States and Eastern Europe • Ombudsmen for American Government? 1968 — Law in a Changing America • Uses of the Seas • Overcoming World Hunger 1969 — Black Economic Development • The States and the Urban Crisis 1970 — The Health of Americans • The United States and the Caribbean 1971 — The Future of American Transportation • Public Workers and Public Unions 1972 — The Future of Foundations • Prisoners in America 1 973 — The Worker and the Job • Choosing the President 1 974 — The Good Earth of America • On Understanding Art Museums • Global Companies 1975 — Law and the American Future • Women and the American Economy 1 976 — The Nuclear Power Controversy • Jobs for Americans — Capital for Productivity and Jobs 1 977 — Ethics of Corporate Conduct • The Performing Arts and American Society 1978 — Running the American Corporation • Race for the Presidency 1979 — Energy Conservation and Public Policy • Disorders in Higher Education 1980 — Youth Employment and Public Policy • The Economy and the President — The Farm and the City • Mexico and the United States 1981 — The China Factor • Military Service in the United States — Ethnic Relations in America 1982 — The Future of American Political Parties • Regrowing the American Economy 1983 — Financial Services • Technological Innovation in the Eighties 1 984 — Alcoholism and Related Problems • The Arts and Public Policy in the United States — Canada and the United States 1985 — The Promise of Tax Reform • East-West Tensions in the Third World 1986 — World Population and U.S. Policy '"Health Care and Its Costs 1987 — A Workable Government? The U.S. Constitution • Global Competitiveness 1988 — America's Global Interests • U.S. Global Economic Interests In The 1990s 1989 — The Global Economy 1990 — Perserving The Global Environment • Tort Law and the Public Interest — Public Money & the Muse (forthcoming) 1991 — Redefining America's Security (forthcoming) Available from The American Assembly -22- ' lie American Assembly. Columbia University Trustees Arthur G. Altschul Charles Benton William Block Richard Blumenthal Henry G. Cisneros Jewel Plummer Cobb Bradley Currey, Jr. Meyer Feldberg Robert H. Finch Ellen V. Flitter Roberto C. Goizueta Clifford M. Hardin B. R. Inman Sol M. Linowitz Kathleen H. Mortimer Fayez Sarofim Isabel V. Sawhill Daniel A. Sharp, ex officio Eleanor Bernert Sheldon Michael I. Sovern, ex officio STEPHEN STAMAS, Chairman Paul A. Volcker Clarence C. Walton New York Illinois Pennsylvania Connecticut Texas California Georgia New York California New York Georgia Missouri Texas District of Columbia New York Texas District of Columbia Connecticut New York New York New York New York Pennsylvania Officers Daniel A. Sharp, President David H. Mortimer, vice President ELEANOR H. TEJIRIAN, Secretary-Treasurer Trustee Emeritus J. Erik Jonsson Texas