I have followed this discussion for about a week now and have certainly been
provoked to think about new issues. I have also been impressed with the
variety of responses and their content.
 
I say this to, I hope, convince all that I mean no disrespect when I wonder
out loud why congress' proposal to end NEH funding in four years, or
congress' volley against the National Historic Preservation Act, hasn't
engendered as much discussion as what we call ourselves?
 
I feel certain some will, at this juncture, point out the difference between
academic and CRM archaeology. In fact, I recall one post on this topic which
already mentioned that CRM archaeologists would be looking for new jobs,
while those in academia were safe and secure.
 
This may, or may not, be the case. I note, first, that I am seeing an
increasing resistance to tenure with the public perceiving tenured faculty as
lazy dead wood; and second, that without jobs to lure students into
departments, boosting attendance numbers, there may be the need for less
faculty.
 
Regardless, there seems to be a lack of understanding how symbiotic the relati
onship is between academia and CRM. I also wonder if the discipline, as a
whole, truly understands the threat posed by Congress' attack against the
foundations of environmental protection -- including historic preservation.
 
I realize that I am injecting a new thread into the discussions and hope no
one takes offense. I don't mean to imply that the current topic is unworthy
of discussion, only that it seems something akin to discussing how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin when the discipline itself, and the
very need for and worth of historic preservation, is being challenged.
 
Just to shut me up (or humor me), could we have a show of hands of those who
have written, or better yet called, their Representatives and Senators about
NEH and NHPA?
 
Thanks and best wishes,
 
Mike Trinkley
Chicora Foundation
E-mail: [log in to unmask]