Dear Ned,

You're being taken for a ride, if this is indeed the policy of the Delaware
Humanities Forum.  I worked as Associate Director of the Oregon Council
for the Humanities for twelve years.  We also required the active
participation of a bona fide humanities scholar on each project we
funded, but we never restricted this definition to university scholars.  it
meant simply a person with an advanced degree in a discipline
appropriate to the program topic, or lacking an academic credential,
evidence of scholarly work in the field by the person in question.  In
many cases, tribal scholars, etc. were considered as bona fide
humanities scholars because of their community's recognition of their
status as persons with particular and specialized knowledge.

Grant funds were regularly used to pay modest honoraria and stipends
to all participating humanities scholars, not just those from the halls of
academia.  To my knowledge, most state humanities councils define
"humanities scholar" in this fairly inclusive way.  Indeed, I believe the
Minnesota council goes a step farther and regards every person a
humanities scholar, at least in certain contexts.  This seems a bit much to
me.  If every one can be his or her own humanities scholar, what is the
need for professionally trained scholars?  It diminishes the societal value
of the work we do to say that anyone can do it just as well as anyone
else regardless of training, education, experience, etc.

Hope you and others in Delaware will get involved with the state
humanities council's programs and persuade them to broaden their
scholarly participation (and compensation).  It is, after all, your federal
tax dollars!

Best wishes,

Bob Keeler



>>> Ned Heite <[log in to unmask]> 04/16/99 03:33am >>>
I forget who posted it, but I must agree with the observation that
university historians tend to want money for their public utterances, no
matter how inane they may be.

In our state, the NEH funding body (Delaware Humanities Forum) has an
interesting policy for their public round-table events. There must be a
"humanist" on the panel, who gets first dibs on the funding.

And, of course, all "humanists" are, by definition, university history
professors.

As a result of this policy, some university historian gets a stipend, but
the other panelists are expected to donate their time.

Since I have the temerity to assert that I am just as much a professional
"humanist" as any member of the history department, I routinely turn
down
invitations to panels. When I have asked about compensation, I have
been
flatly told that money is reserved for the "humanist" on the panel, and we
peons are expected to work free.

Even though the Secretary's standards classify me as a qualified
historian,
I must agree with most on this thread that the historical profession is a
close-minded, closed shop that is impervious to innovative evidence of
the
sort that we can provide. But it's also a two-way street.


      _____
  ___(_____)
  |Baby the\
  |1969 Land\__===_
  |  ___Rover   ___|o
  |_/ . \______/ . ||

___\_/________\_/____________________________________________
  Ned Heite, Camden, DE  http://home.dmv.com/~eheite/index.html