Barnaby C. Keeney and the NEH final - Brown University and the NEH Jaffe & Betita 3 Barnaby C....

BARNABY KEENEY AND THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

For the 50th Anniversary of the NEH

Complete report and executive summary were prepared by Elana Jaffe and Isabella Betita, undergraduate students at Brown University.

Keeney and the NEH Jaffe & Betita

2

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ………………………………………….………………………....3

II. Keeney and Brown University [1946-1966] ………………………………….4

III. Keeney and Rhode Island ……………………………………………………7

IV. Keeney and the Commission [1963-1964] ..………………………………..10

V. NEH in Historical Context …………………………………………………..12

VI. Keeney and the Role of Educational Institutions….….…….……………..17

VII. NEH in Legislation…………………………………………………………19

VIII. First Years of the NEH.….….…………………………………………….21

IX. NEH and Public Outreach…………………………………………………..23

X. Conclusion.….….….………………………………………………………….24

XI. References.…………………………………………………………………...24

Bibliography ……….….….……………………………………………………....30

Appendix A: Keeney Timeline …….….….……………………………………….32

Appendix B: Barnaby Keeney Quotes About the Humanities ….…………….…...33

Appendix C: Quotes from the 1964 Report of Commission on the Humanities ..…..34

Appendix D: Images ………………………………………………………………35


3

Barnaby C. Keeney and the National Endowment for the Humanities

I. Introduction

Higher education has played a pivotal role in shaping the

national culture of the United States, where a longstanding

tradition of humanistic studies has encouraged independent

thought and free inquiry throughout the civic and personal lives

of its people. In 1955, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower

called for “the advancement of various activities which would

make our civilization endure and flourish,” as well as the

increase of federal recognition for the value of arts and

culture.1 In that same year, Professor of History Barnaby C.

Keeney became president of Brown University,

subsequently bringing a focus on the humanities to a top administrative position in a leading

institution for higher education. Henry Wriston, a former president of the University, was

appointed by Eisenhower several years later to head the 1960 President’s Commission on

National Goals, providing a comprehensive outline of national objectives for the next decade.

This commission argued that the fields of American arts and humanities had fallen behind the

progress of the sciences and technologies, broadly stating that “in the eyes of posterity, the

success of the United States as a civilized society will be largely judged by the creative activities

of its citizens in arts, architecture, literature, music, and the sciences.”2 The idea of a national

foundation of the arts and humanities gained increased support from the White House and

received the unofficial backing of President John F. Kennedy. The national preoccupation with

the development of the arts and humanities led to the formation of the National Commission on

Barnaby Keeney Courtesy of the Office of the President


4

the Humanities in 1963 and the subsequent passage of the National Foundation on the Arts and

the Humanities Act of 1965, to provide both monetary and structural assistance for the

humanities. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) was established to support the

research, education, preservation and public works of individuals and organizations in

humanistic fields. The words and actions of both University presidents –– particularly the

significant role of President Keeney –– emphasize Brown’s historic leadership in the

advancement of humanistic studies not only at institutions of higher learning, but at all levels of

private and public education and at institutions of national culture.

Barnaby Keeney brought many different strengths to his position as Brown University’s

president. He was a historian, a medaled veteran of World War II and a former member of the

Central Intelligence Agency. He rose quickly through the administrative ranks of the University,

first arriving as an assistant professor in 1946, before becoming Dean of the Graduate School in

1949, Dean of the College in 1953 and finally assuming the presidency in 1955. Keeney’s

endeavors to promote ubiquitous humanistic scholarship were met with many obstacles created

by the sociopolitical environment of the 1960s, including Cold War tensions, a high focus on

science and technology, the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and an increase in leisure

time due to technological advancement. His varied professional background prepared him well to

navigate this landscape as he led the fight for sustained federal support of the humanities.

II. Keeney and Brown University [1946-1966]

As a professor of history, Keeney was largely concerned with the lack of institutionalized

support for the humanities compared with the abundance of resources available for research in

sciences and technology.3 To address these concerns, among others, his administration

implemented a period of rapid growth for the University’s student population, academic


5

programming and major campus facilities. Undergraduate enrollment increased by over one

thousand students, the Graduate School tripled in size and new residential and research buildings

were constructed at this time.4 This university-wide expansion included a plan for new

humanities buildings detailed in the Bicentennial Development Program of 1964. The program

had increased in size during the preceding years, and there was an acute need for new facilities

and spaces. One building completed during this period was the John D. Rockefeller Library,

which was built to hold the University’s large humanities collections and named after alumnus

John D. Rockefeller for his public support of the humanities.5 A brochure for the new humanities

center read: “Brown has no intention of permitting the humanities to suffer at the expense of its

programs in science and mathematics. Until now, the humanities program has been able to

function at a highly proficient level.”6 A speech in which Keeney addressed the perils of rising

college tuition garnered national attention when it was published in the U.S. News and World

Report and written about in the Sunday Times. This coverage designated Keeney as a

“spokesman” and “champion” for education, according to the Brown Alumni Monthly –– a role

he was to embrace further in his next position at the NEH.7

Keeney’s years as president of Brown saw curricular overhauls as the University shifted

towards a more flexible academic system. The Keeney administration approved the inclusion of

“University Courses” to the curriculum, a cross-disciplinary program that embraced the idea of

an open and independent liberal education for its individual students.8 This followed a trend in

Brown’s longstanding history of educational reform. In 1850, University President Francis

Wayland first introduced the prototype for Brown’s first “new curriculum,” which stipulated that

“every student might study what he chose, all that he chose, and nothing but what he chose.”9 In

1953, around one hundred years later and two years before Keeney assumed his presidency, the


6

University received a grant from the Carnegie Corporation to experiment with alternative

curricula. The subsequent program that emerged, entitled “The Identification and Criticism of

Ideas” (IC), would become a standard piece of the University system by 1958, three years into

Keeney’s term.10 Keeney reported in 1956 that “there is a feeling of excitement about study

among the undergraduates and about teaching among the Faculty, also partly attributed to the IC

courses.”11 This program established new teaching methods meant to “emphasize discussing

rather than lecturing, analyzing rather than memorizing, and studying an idea rather than

collecting information.”12

Additionally, Keeney’s administration participated in an educational reform experiment

funded by the Ford Foundation. Beginning in 1962, the University admitted students considered

“academic risks” as ten percent of each class for seven years, following their progress throughout

their time at the University. Time magazine reported, “Thus do the Lord and Barnaby Keeney

provide for the Tom Sawyers of the land,”13 further boosting Keeney’s reputation for equalizing

and making accessible the field of academia. Brown instituted what it called a “permissive

curriculum” in the early 1960s, the foundation for what would become the “Open Curriculum” in

1969, which still exists to allow students more academic and curricular freedom at the

University.14 Keeney sought to build the core principles of liberal education into his

administrative plans, stating that “if an intellectual elite is a collection of intelligent people who

dedicate themselves to using their minds as best they can […] I should like to see Brown

University become the home of such a group.”15 Through the University’s unique perspective

and practical application of humanistic studies, Keeney hoped to create a generation of students

whose intellectual life and environment encouraged the possibility of free inquiry and civic


7

engagement. Several years later, Keeney would advocate for similar implementations of liberal

arts programs on a national level.

In the course of his eleven-year term as University president, Keeney referred to the

humanities as “poverty stricken” and prioritized the issue of unequal funding between the

sciences and the humanities. Even at a well-established liberal arts institution like Brown, there

existed a disparity between the salaries of humanities professors and those of faculty in the

sciences, whose success was usually a matter of industry competition and appeal.16 Between

1963 and 1965, in the final years of his presidency, Keeney and thirty-eight other proponents for

the arts and humanities provided testimony to the U.S. Congress, advocating for the necessity of

creating a national foundation for the arts and humanities, in part to combat these discrepancies.

In one congressional hearing, Keeney said that the University “regards the development of

instruction, research, and creative activity in the arts and humanities as one of its prime

functions.”17 He developed his views about the importance of the humanities at a smaller and

more focused scale over the years of his administration at Brown, eventually detailing many of

his ideas in an official proposal for a National Foundation for the Humanities.

Although he resigned in 1966, Brown University and the academic world were never far

from Keeney’s thoughts. He held active correspondences with humanities leaders across the

nation during his time as University president and chairman of the NEH. He maintained many of

his personal relationships with the students and faculty at the University after his retirement,

occasionally asking for advice regarding decisions in the NEH.

III. Keeney and Rhode Island

Under Keeney’s administration, Brown increased its commitment to establishing well-

supported programs and facilities dedicated primarily to the study of the humanities and social


8

sciences. Keeney worked tirelessly to expand his vision beyond the University setting so that

these fields could benefit the rest of the nation, at any and all levels of education. The American

public had long seen a liberal arts education –– especially one focused on the humanistic study of

the self and the world –– as a luxury for the entitled; it was considered by many to be a non-

essential pursuit that has been criticized for its potential elitism and irrelevance for over two

hundred years.18 Americans called for more practical and immediately useful degrees from

colleges and universities in order to meet the demands of the industrializing job market. The

existing rift between the sciences and the humanities grew, and monetary support for the

sciences surged from both public and private sectors. As a result, not only were the humanities

funds diminishing, but those that did exist were often contained within elite institutions of higher

education and the citizens who could afford them.

Keeney rose to this challenge with determination and vigor. As a former professor of

history, he often touched on the universal nature of the humanities in his speeches and lectures.

He believed that their greater dissemination could benefit the American public as a whole,

especially when taken beyond the narrow reach of academic institutions. Keeney advocated for

such dissemination not only for the benefit of the general public, but for the sake of the

humanities as well. He wrote that “until we build a public garden around the ivory tower,

humanists are apt to remain in our towers –– cold, hungry, and alone.”19

This commitment to creating more accessible opportunities for humanistic education was

reflected in Keeney’s collaborations with politicians and entrepreneurs in Rhode Island, most

notably in his longstanding work with Rhode Island Senators Claiborne Pell and John O. Pastore

to present a concerted state effort on developing the humanities. In a speech made to the

American Council of Learned Societies, Keeney joked, “I think it is quite obvious to anyone here


9

from the fact three of five members members of congress who were present are either Rhode

Islanders or graduates of Brown that Providence is the Athens of America.”20 Although Keeney

spoke often on the benefits of federal funding to higher learning institutions like Brown, his

vision did not exclude the future of the state itself. He spoke of the new ballet theatre, the Rhode

Island Symphony Orchestra, the many amateur and repertory dramatic groups in the city of

Providence, the Rhode Island School of Design Art and Archaeology museum and the

anticipated Providence Civic Center — all as possible recipients of federal humanities and arts

funds. According to the Brown Daily Herald, Keeney saw the potential for nationally allocated

money to “provide a better cultural environment for all the people in Rhode Island.”21

One federal initiative in which Brown pioneered followed the urgings of U.S. President

Lyndon B. Johnson to have universities “enter into cooperative relationships” with other

schools.22 Around the time when Johnson first made this suggestion, Brown established an

exchange program with Tougaloo College in Jackson, Mississippi that is still operating to date.

The Brown Daily Herald wrote that Keeney was a “driving force” behind the initiation and

success of this project.23 He envisioned the University as a place where the tools of nation-

building and civic engagement could and would be cultivated in its students, which meant

exposing them to diverse environments and allowing them to build partnerships at other

institutions.

Keeney worked to maintain professional and personal relationships with leaders in the

state, both in local governments and in other institutions. His desire and efforts to incorporate

Brown into the larger framework of the Rhode Island community demonstrate his capacity and

foresight in forming important partnerships, a skill that he would carry over to his efforts in the

public sector. His desire to create public vehicles for humanistic knowledge was essential to his


10

role as chairman for the Commission on the Humanities and the NEH. At a time when many

prestigious institutions were focused on creating highly specialized programs primarily in the

sciences,24 Keeney’s leadership enabled Brown University and the state of Rhode Island to sail at

the forefront of an institutional and cultural revolution in the humanities. Keeney was to retire to

Rhode Island after his tenure at the NEH and other career appointments.

IV. Keeney and the Commission [1963-1964]

Although Keeney’s ideas were initially met with some resistance by members of

congress, his advocacy for the liberal arts was beginning to gain national recognition. Keeney

was asked to chair the 1963 Commission on the Humanities, a joint enterprise between three

important organizations in the field of higher learning: the American Council of Learned

Societies, the Council of Graduate Schools in America and the United Chapters of Phi Beta

Kappa. The Commission took a definitive and public stance in favor of humanistic studies, and

was tasked with reviewing the state of the humanities in America. This project supplemented the

findings and recommendations made by the earlier 1960 Commission on National Goals. Their

efforts culminated in the publication of a 200-page report in April of 1964, which claimed that

the development of the humanities was integral not only to the cultural life of the United States,

but also to its national security. The report prompted the U.S. president and congress to establish

a National Humanities Foundation, in order to rectify for the declining support of the liberal arts

in America.

Keeney and the large cohort of scholars, businessmen and politicians dedicated to

promoting the usefulness of the humanities were concerned with the rhetoric with which they

presented their ideas to a larger public. Keeney was instrumental in directing conversations so

that they stressed the importance and advantages of supporting humanistic education. He took


11

care not to say that the humanities were “weak,” more important than the sciences or even that

the humanities should receive funding equal to the fields of sciences and technologies. Rather, he

emphasized the great potential that many already strong programs and scholarly projects could

realize with increased federal funding and student preparation in those fields. Keeney stated that

“[t]he challenge to American leadership in the humanities and the arts is as vital and significant

in the long run as the challenge we have already strongly met in our advocacy and support of

scientific endeavor.”25 He recommended that a proportionate amount of attention and funding be

given to the humanities in order to match and expand the scope of their programs, enabling them

to reach much larger audiences through improved facilities and expanded programs.

Keeney noted with wry realism that “[h]onesty compels an admission that prestige has

something to do with this. The scientists have their Foundation; the humanists should have

theirs.”26 The Commission promoted the idea that the humanities were relevant to the current

state of the nation, both for their undeniable relationship to the sciences and in their own right.

By making the study of the humanities as essential and consequential to the development of

American civilization as the sciences, Keeney concluded that the defense and protection of free

minds and critical thinking were vital to the national welfare.

The 1964 Commission report, which was drafted and ultimately approved by Keeney,

reflected many of these sentiments. It called for the improved reputation and increased resources

for the arts and humanities, including the construction of new facilities and research libraries.

Keeney insisted on incorporating library support to the earliest recommendations for the National

Humanities Foundation, which complemented one of his major achievements as University

president. The completion of the Rockefeller Library prioritized the development of the liberal

arts within Brown’s administration. When it opened its doors to students in 1964, it became one


12

of the most prominent centers of humanistic study on campus and housed more than 1,250,000

collections relevant to the field. 27 He attributed his advocacy for research library support to his

experiences with the John Carter Brown Library, which is located on Brown’s campus and holds

one of the world’s most valuable collection of rare books and documents. While Keeney did not

write the final report, he later acknowledged that it was an artifact for which “[he] was pretty

much responsible, [he] wrote the first draft, and had a good deal to do with what went into the

rest of it.”28

V. NEH in Historical Context

That the arts and humanities were able to maintain a prominent place on the national

agenda during this decade of intense political turmoil is a mark of the great humanistic

leadership in the United States at that time. Discourse surrounding the arts and humanities was

shaped by the domestic concerns of the era. Scientific and technological research flourished in

the decades after World War II with the creation of the National Science Foundation, a

permanent and well-funded federal agency to support those fields.29 Under the slogan “Big

Science,” applied-science and technology institutions rose in status beyond the ivory towers of

academia to become powerhouses of government and federal research.30 The ultimate trajectory

of higher education shifted from breadth and life-long liberal learning to concentrated fields of

study and technical expertise, in order to compete in the growing competition for government

funding.31

Beginning in 1951, under a policy introduced at the onset of the Korean War, attending a

university or college could result in a draft deferral for young men. Student enrollment rose by 8

percent between 1963 and 1968, the peak year of the Vietnam War draft.32 These higher levels of

enrollment were boosted by several federal legislations, such as the National Defense Education


13

Act of 1958 (signed into law on September 2 by Eisenhower) and the Higher Education Act of

1965 (signed into law on November 8 by Johnson). The number of awarded undergraduate

degrees increased threefold between the years of 1940 and 1970.33 Much of the student

enrollment reinforced programs in the sciences and technology, a national response to the arms

and space race of the Cold War. There was a resurgence of criticism for the humanities in the

1950s and 1960s because these fields were not considered productive to U.S. industry or

technological advancement, the top priorities in the post-war era. To some extent, in a country

that prizes economic success, proponents of liberal education will always be met with criticism,

but these concerns were exacerbated by the fear of being scientifically and technologically

outpaced by the Russians in the 1960s.34

In opposition to these claims humanities scholars and advocates insisted that the

humanities and sciences could gain, rather than detract, from one another. The 1964 Commission

report called for “a [humanities] program to meet a need no less serious than that for national

defense.”35 This sentiment, which opens the 1964 Commission report, appears in both the House

and Senate bills proposing a National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. Not only does

the document speak of protecting the American citizen’s imagination and free mind, it also

draws upon the language of national security to reinforce the value of humanistic and artistic

study, especially in conjunction with advancements made in the sciences and technologies.

Keeney said of the relationship between sciences and humanities, “[t]oday a knowledge [the] of

sciences we must have if we are to live; [but] a knowledge of the humanities we must have if we

are to live well’ –– that is, if we are fully to realize the purposes and satisfactions of living.”36

The NEH continued to support the humanities’ relationship with scientific scholarship –– in

1969, it awarded a grant for a joint project between a professor of physics and a professor of


14

philosophy at the University of Nevada.37 While this cooperation was not common, it became a

method for the NEH to remain both relevant and innovative in their works.

The appeal towards national defense, especially as it pertained to using humanistic

scholarship to “master” new technologies, is an essential and prevalent refrain that reflects the

competitive political atmosphere of the Cold War. President Johnson stated that “armed might is

worthless if we lack the brainpower to build a world of peace.”38 This statement is echoed in a

speech made by Keeney at the 1960 Pembroke College Convocation, where he cautioned that

“[i]f [the United States] or the Russians move from uneasy peace to total war, science will not

make the decision but people will –– advertently or inadvertently.”39 This tension highlights the

significance of the arts and humanities in enriching the national culture of the United States.

Throughout the late 1940s and early 1960s, much of the legislation coming out in federal support

of the arts (though not yet in humanistic studies) focused on the premise that culture was a

weapon of the Cold War40 and that the United States seemed to be falling behind the curve of

other nations. “We are in a critical period of transition in the arts and humanities,” Keeney wrote,

“a period which can lead to cultural achievements of the greatest value for the United States and

for mankind everywhere. On the other hand, wavering purpose or lack of well-conceived support

for the arts and humanities may leave us second-best or worse in a world that would be

correspondingly impoverished by our failure.”41 The U.S. was preoccupied with its image as a

preeminent force within the international community and the American public was beginning to

recognize that, in order for their nation to remain competitive on the global platform, more

public and private support of the arts was necessary. In 1964, the National Defense of Education

Act expanded its program to assist teachers of English, reading, geography and history; subjects


15

that were once viewed as too “politically sensitive” were now integral to national interest and

public welfare.42

Institutions of higher learning like Brown became even more dedicated to the

preservation and improvement of the humanistic studies as a “basis of judgment […] in deciding

important questions” about the nation.43 Studies in the humanities and social sciences proved to

be crucial to the momentum of the Civil Rights Movement, which Keeney said was “more than it

appears to be on the surface. It is a part, and a very present part, of the ancient search for justice

[…Humanistic] studies must inform the forum.”44 Keeney believed that a humanistic approach

was equally vital in foreign conflicts. He wrote that if “the war in Vietnam is indeed a war for

men’s minds, then now is precisely the time to expand the resources which the humanities offer

the nation’s cities to increase their knowledge of the nation’s intellectual heritage and clarify and

refresh their understanding of the nation’s aspirations.”45 Humanities have the power of breaking

down the barriers of miscommunication that inhibit the “peaceful understanding and cooperative

relationships” of people from diverse backgrounds.46

Political practices at the height of the Cold War created an atmosphere of anxiety within

many academic institutions, influencing the process and policies of the soon-to-be established

NEH. U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy’s campaign against communist sympathies deeply affected

those on college and university campuses. Institutional leaders, who had initially believed that

their work upheld and safeguarded the democratic principles of the United States, were caught

off-guard by the onslaught of investigations and accusations of disloyalty.47 As the American

public presumed an increasing threat from Soviet Russia and their communist government, many

became hesitant to support projects that would bring about intensified scrutiny of their academic

freedoms. Moreover, there was a deeply rooted fear that accepting federal support for research


16

programs and academic curricula would impact intellectual autonomy –– many believed that the

knowledge produced in this context would be subject to the pressure of national agendas, rather

than created for its own sake.

In response to this growing concern, Keeney said that, “I have often said and I will say

again that I believe firmly that there will be federal control of education when the people of the

United States decide they wish it […] I do not believe they will wish it.”48 He argued that this

fear could result in a lack of funding, a dangerous consequence for the nation, stating that

“[s]ome think […] that if the humanities are subsidized by the federal government, they will

become corrupt. I do not think that wealth is any more corrupting than poverty.”49 Referring to

ignorance as the “more enduring enemy [of the United States],” Keeney claims that “[u]pon the

humanities and the arts depend the national ethic and morals.”50 However, though Keeney

advocated for increased federal funding, he cautioned that controlled support of the humanities

was more dangerous than having no support at all from the federal government. The federal

government should, therefore, endeavor to support and develop the prestige of these fields but

never direct, limit or otherwise influence their scholarship. It was a balancing act that he would

speak about as chairman of the 1963 Commission and in his succeeding years at the NEH.

Keeney suggested a compromise between these two pervading sociopolitical concerns in

an early draft of the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities Act, emphasizing the

allotment of government funds towards university research grants. This arrangement would

enable researchers to pursue projects not necessarily on the government agenda, even as they

required committee approval to receive funding. One of the first drafts of the 1964 Commission

report contained a clause stipulating that grants could not be given to registered communist

organizations. In the shadow of McCarthyism and the notion that controversial research could be


17

considered unpatriotic, the authors of the Commission report expressed the need for a foundation

that provided monetary support but not strict regulation. Keeney and the Commission proposed

that in order to create this balance of independence and accountability, the foundation should

provide grants to institutions that already had internal systems (based on ideologies of academic

freedom) well-equipped to handle what might otherwise be controversial research. Colleges and

universities played a crucial role in convincing the American public to support a national

foundation on the humanities, for these institutions could usually assure the use of good

judgment on matters of academic freedom without being subject to direct federal agendas.

VI. Keeney and the Role of Educational Institutions

Federal grants have reinforced the place of higher learning institutions as centers of

cultural production, enabling generations of students to learn and work alongside top researchers

in humanistic studies. While the Commission recommended that a national humanities

foundation consider all levels of education under its purview, the emphasis on the university and

college setting has provided countless opportunities for students to pursue life-long tracks in the

humanities. Keeney’s concurrent roles –– as the chairman of the Commission for the Humanities

and the president of Brown University –– became a symbolic union, linking elite higher learning

institutions to the care and development of national interests.

One of the underlying objectives of the NEH is to foster a breadth of intellectual

communities, demonstrating that these subjects are not necessarily restricted to the ivory towers

of academia. The humanities and arts are not solely the property of elites, but are ubiquitous

fields in which the entire nation possesses a cultural stake. In his dual capacity, Keeney’s actions

and words suggested that universities were interested in functioning as part of the national

endeavor of cultural production and extending the intellectual community beyond the scope of


18

their campuses. Francis Keppel, the U.S. Commissioner of Education at the time, testified in

support of this mutual commitment before the Senate, stating that universities “can serve as a

vital link between the interests, resources, and responsibilities of the Federal Government and

those of the States and communities.”51

It is likely that Keeney’s history as a professor and president at Brown University also

contributed to the Commission and the NEH’s attention towards teacher education during his

chairmanship. He had long been concerned with the welfare of humanities educators,

commenting on how the pursuit of teaching had been neglected in light of research prestige. The

Commission report specifically included the instruction of teachers, because Keeney believed

that the improvement of educators at all levels of school should be prioritized if the humanities

faced any chance of survival in the young minds of students. The report laid out many

inadequacies in the teaching of humanities; educators in both primary and secondary schools

were being overworked and undertrained, there was a lack of available resources for students and

there was difficulty in recruiting qualified humanities teachers due to a disparity in pay with their

counterparts in the sciences. In 1966, Keeney wrote that “the greatest need for institutional grants

in the humanities at the present moment is to strengthen those institutions capable of producing

teachers, since lack of first rate teachers and scholars in the humanities must be remedied before

further progress can be made.”52 As an affirmation of the University’s previous commitment to

this issue, the Ford Foundation awarded Brown the largest grant in 1960 when they were one of

fourteen universities funded to start a program for teacher preparation.53

Keeney stated that “we have the opportunity to move forward to a society that is what we

know it should be. A university’s part in this is to learn what is and to conceive what should be

done and, above all, to help the students in that university know what is and believe what they


19

themselves should do.”54 For him, the trajectory of a nation’s future often depended on the

shoulders of its newest generation of students. In a speech made at the University of Indiana,

Keeney claimed that “the key to the future usefulness of the humanist and of the humanities lies

in ‘undergraduate’ education, and I think that is the part of our mission that we have worse

neglected, as humanists.”55 Due to Keeney’s attention, the NEH also focused on three programs

in 1967 that were designed to improve humanistic teaching at all levels of education.

VII. NEH in Legislation

Although the 1964 Commission report was met with an outpouring of public interest and

support, it was the actions of individual men like Barnaby Keeney who convinced lawmakers,

innovators and academic leaders alike to follow through with this presidential directive. Past

attempts to win congressional approval for federal support of the arts had failed to pass in the

House of Representatives. In a letter to Keeney on the passing of a bill, Senator Pell wrote on the

compromises made in drafting the first proposal: “actually, quite a bit of complicated

parliamentary procedure was involved in gaining a version of the legislation which at this time

would receive sufficient support in both House and Senate. Many House members felt that the

bill went too far; and there was a feeling in the Senate that the House-passed bill should not be

accepted because it did not go far enough. Briefly, I think we reached the best solution under

these circumstances.”56

Ultimately, over one hundred bills concerning the Arts-Humanities Act were introduced

in congress between 1964 and 1965.57 In an interview with the New York Times, Senator Pell

remembers the “politicking” process of founding the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)

and the NEH.58 He was focused on establishing a foundation for the visual arts, Senator Jacob

Javits wanted one for the performing arts and Keeney was the primary advocate for the


20

humanities. While the rhetoric of the Act emphasized the inseparability of the two fields,

members of the congress also recognized that the process of dual establishment would be more

efficient and beneficial. Both the NEA and the NEH were proposed upon a single platform, as

Senator Pell acknowledged that although the humanities had more public support than the arts at

the time, the legislation could only benefit from the support of lawmakers pushing for an arts

foundation. While this partnership began as a strategic tactic to fulfill the varied agendas of its

sponsors, the relationship forged from this endeavor brought significant resources that proved to

be a great benefit for the American public.

A handful of victories for the arts and humanities led up to the founding of the NEH,

following the overall national trend for supporting these fields in the twentieth century. The John

F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was introduced in 1958, when the National Cultural

Center Act was signed into law by Eisenhower. The center was named after his successor, who

raised the funds for its construction and made it a reality. Keeney worried that President

Kennedy’s loss would present setbacks for any early action planning on the national humanities

foundation, which had been discussed in private correspondences but not yet actualized in a

proposal.

However, Kennedy’s successor proved to be a great ally to the cause; Johnson himself

endorsed the Commission’s initiative during a speech made at Brown University’s 200th

Anniversary Convocation, where he stated that, “there just simply must be no neglect of

humanities. […] I look with the greatest of favor upon the proposal by your own able President

Keeney's Commission for a National Foundation for the Humanities.”59 After several drafts and

revisions of the bill passed through congress, many of which incorporated the language used

within the 1964 Commission report, the White House took the lead in proposing the National


21

Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965. The Johnson administration requested $20

million in start-up funds for two separate endowments, one for the arts and another for the

humanities. 60 This bill, introduced by Senator Pell in the Senate and Representative Frank

Thompson in the House, quickly gained momentum and co-sponsorships, before being signed

into law by President Johnson at the close of September 1965. Johnson swore Keeney in

personally as the first official chairman of the NEH after he stepped down as University

president in 1966. In a subsequent letter to Johnson, Keeney thanked Johnson for what he called

the president’s way of “dramatizing your regard for the humanities and your hopes for their

endowment.1” 61

VIII. First Years of the NEH

In the years immediately after his appointment as NEH chairman in 1966, Keeney

continued to pursue his vision for the liberal arts and push the organization to work toward the

improvement of the nation via the humanities. In a 1966 memorandum, Keeney wrote that, “one

of our missions is to develop a national policy for the humanities. How do we go about this?

What do we do with a policy if we have one? How do we keep it from becoming oppressive?

How do we arrange it so that it can change as it needs to change? How much of our activity

should be a response to the applications and how much should be programs which we set up and

farm out? How useful is it for us to go around making speeches to various groups?”62

The questions raised by Keeney did not lead to any concrete answers; rather, this letter

brought to light the many challenges which the NEH was to encounter in its early years. As he

did before his chairmanship, Keeney continued to make speeches for increased monetary and

public support for the humanities, emphasizing the relevance of this scholarship to U.S. culture

1 This letter was handwritten, and could have possibly read “endorsement.”


22

and social welfare. In a speech entitled “How to Go Broke Without Even Trying,” Keeney

implored the American public to dedicate more of its time and effort to humanistic studies, for

they were a means of overcoming the mounting social anxieties of the late 1960s. He said “in an

age when we are troubled by the need for solution to many complex problems, of population

management, of war, of justice, of poverty, it seems to me that support for the humanities must

have the highest national priority, for without them our culture is in the deepest sense

impoverished. To neglect the humanities, it seems to me, is to go broke without even trying.”63

President Johnson also asserted that humanistic scholarship provided Americans with

“goals,” as opposed to the “goods” received from the sciences. Speaking to the Council on the

Humanities, Johnson said that “[w]e have the material power to conquer the economic want.

Now we need the will to attack the poverty of man’s spirit –– and you must lead that attack.”64

With Barnaby Keeney at the helm, the NEH attempted to do just that. Keeney reported to

President Johnson that the grants provided by the NEH “were made for the general purposes of

developing knowledge of the humanities and educating the public,”65 and that the entire federal

allocation was redistributed through grants each year thereafter.

The 1963 Commission report headed by Keeney defined the humanities as any “liberal

arts such as literature, history, philosophy, aesthetics, the history and criticism of the arts, the

history and comparison of religions, and those aspects of the social studies which are treated

philosophically rather than quantitatively.”66 The emphasis on breadth resonated with the

ultimate legislation passed by congress, whose definition of the humanities encompassed and

went beyond the fields mentioned in the report. As such, the extensive subjects stipulated by the

Act resulted in applications coming from a wide range of subjects. The NEH declined many

applications during that first year and the organization had to triage or redirect requests, often


23

with the NEA, for projects they felt were worthy but did not have the capacity to fund, either due

to the content of the work or the limits of the NEH budget.

Though the NEH had less than $5,000,000 with which to operate during their first year,

the organization created networks of support for the humanities through three methods.67 The

first focused on the development of individual humanists through fellowships granted at an

equivalent of the postdoctoral level. The second enabled humanists to carry out formal research

projects through grants. The last sought to expand humanities education at all levels. This last

aim included programs in primary, secondary, and postsecondary schools, as well as to the

general public. The distinct lack of funds allocated for the NEH made the successes of this

organization largely symbolic during these initial years. However, the benefits were still clear to

the proponents of the humanities and a deluge of applications flowed in –– far more than the

NEH could realistically approve with the money currently allocated to their organization. In a

statement made before the Committee of Appropriations, Keeney claimed that the NEH had

“received applications at such a volume that we estimate that the total will be about $90 million,

of which we shall be able to fund about 3 percent. It would be desirable to fund about 25 percent.

[…] if the lower level is maintained, the humanities of our society may well abandon their efforts

to find support and we shall lose its benefits.”68 Although the goals of the NEH were much larger

than the amount of federal funding they received, many were pleased with the prestige such an

award granted to their fields of study, as well as to them individually.

IX. NEH and Public Outreach

Many of the NEH’s largest and most successful projects did not necessarily fall under the

capacity of research or fellowships. The organization’s focus on initiating and funding public

programs incorporated a wider American audience into their fold, allowing the public to greatly


24

benefit from increased support of both federal and state museums and historical societies. The

NEH spent over $586,000 on these fronts, including a program that demonstrated the feasibility

of better quality instructional television in the humanities during 1968.69 A sum of $300,000 was

awarded to the Modern Language Association of America to establish the Editions of American

Authors series in 1967.70 Two years later, in 1969, the NEH established two new program

divisions from former projects of the Division of Education and Special projects, focused on

Education Programs and Public Programs. During the 1970s, the thirteen-part BBC history series

Civilization, spanning over 1,600 years of Western culture, was distributed free to two thousand

colleges and universities across the United States.71 Keeney completed his term as chairman in

July of 1970 and Wallace Edgerton, deputy chairman at the time, stepped into the role.

X. Conclusion

Since then, the NEH has expanded its scope — it has initiated and supported innumerable

projects that resulted in the cultural betterment of the nation. The organization has become an

essential source of funding for projects in the humanities, both for scholars at universities like

Brown and for countless other institutions and organizations across the country. Keeney’s vision

for the NEH was that it would “succeed in identifying those fields that are moving forward and

will help to keep them moving forward; that it will identify areas of life in presently stagnant

fields; that it will identify cross-disciplinary researches that may be fertile; and that it will find

tools which must be constructed before more can be accomplished.”72 Building from Keeney’s

success in crafting a strong foundation, the NEH has been able to realize this mission and, fifty

years later, continues to pursue it.

1 Claiborne Pell, “Establishing a National Council on the Arts and the National Arts Foundation,” Report for the 88th Cong., 1st Sess., Washington, DC, December 1963, pp. 2.


25

2 Commission on the Humanities, Report of the Commission on the Humanities, New York: The American Council of Learned Societies, 1964, pp.1. 3 Martha Mitchell, “Barnaby C. Keeney from Martha Mitchell’s Encyclopedia Brunoniana,” 1993, Brown University Library, Accessed July 2015, http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=K0050. 4 Ibid. 5 “University President Honors Rockefeller in Naming of New Library,” Brown Daily Herald, Vol. 93, 1963 October 21. 6 “Why not Humanities, too?” Brown Alumni Monthly, Vol. 62, No. 4, 1963. 7 “The Presidential Goad: How High Should College Tuition Go?” Brown Alumni Monthly, Vol. 66, No. 8, 1966. 8 Taskforce on Undergraduate Education, Office of the Dean of the College, The Curriculum at Forty: A Plan for Strengthening the College Experience at Brown, Report; Brown University, Providence, RI, September 2008, pp. 1. 9 Office of the President, “Francis Wayland: 1827-1855,” Brown University, Accessed July 2015, http://www.brown.edu/about/administration/president/wayland. 10 Brown University Library, “The Quest for Distinction and Relevance,” 2015 February 27, Exhibits@BrownUniversityLibrary, Accessed July 2015, https://library.brown.edu/exhibits/archive/education/quest.html. 11 “The President’s First Report,” Brown Alumni Monthly, Vol. 61, No. 6, 1956. 12 Library, “The Quest for Distinction and Relevance,” Accessed July 2015. 13 Martha Mitchell, “Admission from Martha Mitchell’s Encyclopedia Brunoniana,” 1993, Brown University Library, Accessed July 2015, http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=A0070. 14 Taskforce on Undergraduate Education, The Curriculum at Forty, pp. 1. 15 Barnaby C. Keeney, “For the Honor of the Humanities,” Speech; Senior Chapel Commencement at Brown University, Providence, 1958 December 10, pp. 8; Box 94: 1595, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 16 Clifford Adelman, “Economics of Two Cultures,” Letter to the Editor, Brown Daily Herald, Vol. 93, 1964 March 12. 17 Barnaby C. Keeney, “National Humanities Foundation Hearings and Testimony,” Testimony; Washington, DC, 1965 February 24; Box 117: XIV, 19, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 18 Michael S. Roth, Beyond the University: Why Liberal Education Matters, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014, pp. 7. 19 Barnaby C. Keeney, “The Arts and the Humanities: Their Support and Development,” Speech; Modern Language Association Convention, Chicago, 1963 December 28, pp. 11; Box 94:1593, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI.


26

20 Barnaby C. Keeney, “American Council of Learned Societies Annual Meeting,” Report; 1964 January 17, pp. 65; Box 116: XIV.2, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 21 “Keeney Describes Functions of Humanities Foundation,” Brown Daily Herald, Vol. 94, 1964 November 5. 22 Francis Keppel, Commissioner of Education, “National Humanities Foundation Hearings and Testimony,” Testimony; Washington, DC, 1965 February 1; Box 117: XIV, 19, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 23 “The Semicentennial of Barnaby C. Keeney,” Brown Daily Herald, Vol. 94, 1964 October 16. 24 Roth, Beyond the University, pp. 121. 25 Barnaby C. Keeney, Commission on the Humanities, “The Humanities,” Report; Woodstock College, Maryland, 1964 March 3, pp. 6-7; Box 94: 1592, I, Humanities I, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, RI. 26 Barnaby C. Keeney, “A proposed National Foundation for the Humanities,” Speech; Phi Beta Kappa Meeting at the University of Vermont, Burlington, 1964 August 31, pp. 15; Box 94: 1594, Humanities Foundation, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 27 “University President Honors Rockefeller,” Brown Daily Herald, 1963 October 21. 28 Barnaby C. Keeney to Ambassador Randolph Burgess, 1966 August 9, Letter; Box 2, July 1966-March 1967; Reading Files of the Chairman (“Chronological Files”), December 1965-June 1974; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 29 John R. Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004, pp. 271. 30 Ibid., pp. 272. 31 Roth, Beyond the University, pp. 110-115. 32 David Card and Thomas Lemieux, “Going to College to Avoid the Draft: The Unintended Legacy of the Vietnam War,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 91(2001): pp. 97. 33 Roth, Beyond the University, pp. 135. 34 Ibid., pp. 8. 35 Commission on the Humanities, Report of the Commission, pp. 1. 36 Commission on the Humanities, Report of the Commission, pp. 109. 37 “New Education Grants Recognize Contemporary Issues,” Memorandum; 1969 June 26; Box 1: MLR Entry 14; Office of the Deputy Chairman Memorandums, 1966-1973; Records of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 38 Keppel, “National Humanities Foundation Hearings and Testimony.”


27

39 Barnaby C. Keeney, “Convocation Speech,” Speech; Pembroke College Convocation, Providence, 1960; Box 110: VIII, 31, Notable Quotes from Barnaby Keeney on his Presidency, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 40 James Frank Veninga, “The Civic Function of the Humanities: Reflections on the 25th Anniversary of the NEH,” in The Humanities and the Civic Imagination: Collected Addresses and Essays, 1978-1998, Denton: University of North Texas Press, 1999, pp. 120. 41 Keeney, “The Humanities,” pp. 6-7. 42 Congressman William S. Moorhead, “For the Establishment of a National Foundation for the Humanities,” Speech; Deans of the Graduate Schools of the Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1964 November 9, pp. 3; Box 115: XIII.4, Commission on the Humanities Correspondences, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 43 Barnaby C. Keeney, “Installation of Deans,” Speech; Accession of John Dillon at the University of Louisville, Louisville, 1966 November 22, pp. 1; Box 1, October 1966-May 1968; Speeches of the Chairman, October 1966-August 1970; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 44 Barnaby C. Keeney, “Commencement Address,” Speech; Commencement at George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1967 February 22, pp. 4; Box 1, October 1966-May 1968; Speeches of the Chairman, October 1966-August 1970; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation of the Arts and Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 45 Barnaby C. Keeney to Carl Hayden, Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 1967 April 28, pp. 8, Letter; Box 3, April 1967-January 1968; Reading Files of the Chairman (“Chronological Files”), December 1965-June 1974; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 46 Keeney, “Installation of Deans,” pp. 12. 47 Thelin, A History of American Higher Education, pp. 274. 48 “Keeney on Aid to Education,” Brown Daily Herald, Vol. 93, 1965 February 10. 49 “Keeney Describes Functions of Humanities Foundation,” Brown Daily Herald, Vol. 93, 1964 November 5. 50 Keeney, “The Humanities,” pp. 17. 51 Keppel, “National Humanities Foundation Hearings and Testimony.” 52 Barnaby C. Keeney to William B. Canon, Bureau of the Budget, Memorandum; 1966 December 13; Box 2, July 1966-March 1967; Reading Files of the Chairman (“Chronological Files”), December 1965-June 1974; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 53 Brown Alumni Monthly Volume LXI. No. 2 54 “Keeney address at Meehan Auditorium,” Brown Daily Herald, Vol. 94, 1964 September 22. 55 Barnaby C. Keeney, “Remarks at the University of Indiana,” Speech; United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa Meeting, Indiana, 1970 September 10, pp. 13; Box 110: VIII, 35, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, RI.


28

56 Senator Claiborne Pell to Barnaby C. Keeney, Letter; 1964 August 31; Box 115: XIII.4, Commission on the Humanities Correspondences, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 57 Veninga, “The Civic Function of the Humanities,” pp. 124. 58 William H. Honan, “Reflections of Advocate for Education and Arts,” New York Times, 1996 December 25; Accessed July 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/25/us/reflections-of-advocate-for-education-and-arts.html. 59 President Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks in Providence,” Speech; 200th Anniversary Convocation of Brown University, Providence, 1964 September 24; Accessed July 2015, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26534. 60 Charles R. Wood to Barnaby C. Keeney, Enclosed Clipping, “President’s Bill Asks Arts, Humanities Funds,” Letter; 1965 March 12; Box 115: XIII.7, Commission on the Humanities Correspondences, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI. 61 VIII 29 National Endowment for the Humanities -- Appointment 62 Barnaby C. Keeney, “Possible Future Program Ideas,” Memorandum; 1966 August 5; Box 1: MLR Entry 14; Office of the Deputy Chairman Memorandums, 1966-1973; Records of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 6363 Barnaby C. Keeney, “How to Go Broke Without Even Trying,” Speech; February 1967; Box 2, July 1966-March 1967; Reading Files of the Chairman (“Chronological Files”), December 1965-June 1974; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 64 President Lyndon B. Johnson, “Remarks in Providence.” 65 Barnaby C. Keeney to President Lyndon B. Johnson, Letter; 1966 September 27; Box 2, July 1966-March 1967; Reading Files of the Chairman (“Chronological Files”), December 1965-June 1974; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 66 Keeney, “The Humanities,” pp. 1. 67 Barnaby C. Keeney, “Phi Beta Kappa,” Speech; Phi Beta Kappa Associates, New York, 1966 October 28, pp. 4; Box 1, October 1966-May 1968; Speeches of the Chairman, October 1966-August 1970; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 68 Barnaby C. Keeney, “Statement before the Subcommittee on Interior Department and Related Agencies,” Speech; Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, 1968 March 14, pp. 2; Box 1, October 1966-May 1968; Speeches of the Chairman, October 1966-August 1970; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD. 69 Keeney, “Statement before the Subcommittee,” pp. 3. 70 Barnaby C. Keeney to John Hurt Fisher, Executive Secretary of the MLA, Letter; 1967 July 27; Box 3, April 1967-January 1968; Reading Files of the Chairman (“Chronological Files”), December 1965-June 1974; Office of the Chairman; Records of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, Record Group 288; National Archives Building, College Park, MD.


29

71 “NEH Timeline,” National Endowment for the Humanities, Accessed July 2015, http://www.neh.gov/about/history/timeline. 72 Barnaby C. Keeney, “National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities,” Speech; Council of Graduate Schools, Washington, 1965 December 2, pp. 13; Box 94, 1594, C, Humanities Foundation, Barnaby C. Keeney Files; John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI.


30

Bibliography

Brown Alumni Monthly, Volume 54, No. 1- Vol. 65, No. 3. From the Brown Alumni Monthly Internet Archive, created by Brown University.

Brown Daily Herald Digital Archive. Brown University. Brown Daily Herald. Brown University. John Hay Library, Providence, RI. Brown University Library, “The Quest for Distinction and Relevance,” 2015 February 27,

Exhibits@BrownUniversityLibrary, Accessed July 2015, https://library.brown.edu/exhibits/archive/education/quest.html.

Card, David and Thomas Lemieux, “Going to College to Avoid the Draft: The Unintended

Legacy of the Vietnam War,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 91 (2001). Commission on the Humanities, Report of the Commission on the Humanities, New York: The

American Council of Learned Societies, 1964. Honan, William H. “Reflections of Advocate for Education and Arts,” New York Times, 1996

December 25; Accessed July 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/25/us/reflections-of-advocate-for-education-and-arts.html.

Johnson, President Lyndon B. “Remarks in Providence,” Speech; 200th Anniversary

Convocation of Brown University, Providence, 1964 September 24; Accessed July 2015, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=26534.

Martha Mitchell, “Admission from Martha Mitchell’s Encyclopedia Brunoniana,” 1993, Brown

University Library, Accessed July 2015 http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial

=A0070. Martha Mitchell, “Barnaby C. Keeney from Martha Mitchell’s Encyclopedia Brunoniana,” 1993,

Brown University Library, Accessed July 2015. http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=K0050.

National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. National Endowment for the Arts. Office of the

Chairman. 1965- (most recent). Series: Administrative Files of Nancy Hanks, 1968 – 1977. Record Group 288: Records of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, 1965 – 2007. The U.S. National Archives Building, College Park, MD.

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965; Pub. Law No. 89-209, 89th

Cong., 1st Sess., Washington, DC, 1965 September 29, Government Publishing Office.


31

“NEH Timeline,” National Endowment for the Humanities, Accessed July 2015, http://www.neh.gov/about/history/timeline.

OF-1C-12 Keeney EAD. Keeney, Barnaby C. Files. Series: I. Brown University Files; II.

Presidential correspondence; III. Speech file; IV. Letters of congratulations on election to presidency; V. Personal correspondence 19; VI. Correspondence about speeches; VII. Commission on revision of the Rhode Island Constitution; VIII. Miscellaneous papers; IX. Biographical records; X. Lecture notes; XI. General correspondence; XII. Scrapbook material and miscellaneous personal correspondence; XIII. Commission on the Humanities: Correspondence; XIV. Commission on the Humanities; XV. Appointment books, 1956-1965; XVI. Annual reports. 1568; XVII. Inauguration. John Hay Library Archives, Providence, RI.

Office of the President, “Francis Wayland: 1827-1855,” Brown University, Accessed July 2015,

http://www.brown.edu/about/administration/president/wayland. Pell, Claiborne. “Establishing a National Council on the Arts and the National Arts Foundation,”

Report for the 88th Cong., 1st Sess., Washington, DC, December 1963. Roth, Michael S. Beyond the University: Why Liberal Education Matters, New Haven: Yale

University Press, 2014. Taskforce on Undergraduate Education, Office of the Dean of the College, The Curriculum at

Forty: A Plan for Strengthening the College Experience at Brown, Report; Brown University, Providence, RI, September 2008.

Thelin, John R. A History of American Higher Education, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins

University Press, 2004. “University President Honors Rockefeller in Naming of New Library,” Brown Daily Herald,

Vol. 93, No. 28, 21 October 1963. Veninga, James Frank. “The Civic Function of the Humanities: Reflections on the 25th

Anniversary of the NEH,” in The Humanities and the Civic Imagination: Collected Addresses and Essays, 1978-1998, Denton: University of North Texas Press, 1999.


32

APPENDIX A Keeney Timeline

1914 –– Barnaby C. Keeney is born in Halfway, Oregon on October 17. 1936 –– Graduates from the University of North Carolina at the top of his class. Majors in

history. 1937 –– Keeney earns his master’s degree in medieval history at Harvard University. 1939 –– Keeney earns his doctorate at Harvard University. Begins teaching as a professor of

history until 1941. 1941 –– Keeney enlists in the U.S. army after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Served with the 35th

Infantry as an officer in charge of the intelligence interpreters team. Awarded the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and was discharged as a captain.

1946 –– Keeney arrives at Brown University as an assistant professor of history. 1949 –– Keeney becomes Dean of the Graduate School. 1951 –– Keeney is promoted to full professor of history at Brown. Takes a leave of absence to

work for the Central Intelligence Agency. 1953 –– Keeney becomes Dean of the College. 1955 –– Keeney succeeds Henry Wriston as the twelfth president of Brown University. 1960 –– Henry Wriston is appointed as chair of the President’s Commission on National Goals.

The commission published a completed report on December 12. 1963 –– Keeney is appointed as chair of the National Commission on the Humanities. The John

D. Rockefeller Library is completed. President John F. Kennedy is assassinated on November 22 and is succeeded by Lyndon B. Johnson.

1964 –– The Commission on the Humanities publishes a 200-page report in April. Congressman William Moorhead of Pennsylvania proposes legislation to implement the report’s recommendations in August. Johnson endorses the Commission’s recommendations in a speech at Brown University.

1965 –– Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island introduces the Johnson Administration’s legislation for the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities in March. Johnson signs the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 on September 29. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are established. Keeney is appointed as chairman of the NEH and completes the academic year at Brown University.

1966 –– Johnson appoints 26 members of the National Council on the Humanities in January and Keeney retires as president of Brown University. Keeney begins his four-year term as chairman of the NEH in July. The NEH establishes three operating divisions in Fellowships, Research and Publications, and Education and Special Projects.

1967 –– The first NEH fellowships and 130 summer stipends are awarded. 1970 –– Keeney retires as chairman of the NEH in July. He is succeeded by Wallace Edgerton,

deputy NEH chairman at the time. 1976 –– Keeney officially retires from all positions and moves back to Rhode Island.


33

APPENDIX B

Barnaby Keeney Quotes About the Humanities

! “The humanities are truly relevant, because they provide a firm basis for the development of the intellect –– or at least of the capacity to think straight –– which is undeniably useful. The humanities, therefore, are a sort of teething ring for life –– humble, but useful.” 2

! “I know it is unfashionable to say that they are useful but they are extraordinarily useful

and I do not know anything that is more useful to an individual or to society than the ability to draw together a great deal of information and make a good judgment.”3

! “Knowledge is a huge worm that is very difficult to hold on to; and when someone chops

part of it off, the rest goes running away.”4

! Humanities affect “the lives and well- being of the entire population, not solely as academic disciplines confined to educational institutions […] It is a matter of historical fact that the humanities and the arts over the centuries have sustained men at the deepest level of their living.” 5

! “Our fulfillment as a nation depends on the development of our minds, and our relations

to one another and to our society depend upon our understanding of one another and of our society.” 6

! “Upon the humanities depend the national ethic and morality, the national aesthetic and

beauty or the lack of it, the national use of our environment and our material accomplishments.”7

! Through the humanities men come to know why they are, to understand what has shaped

their beliefs, attitudes, and fortunes, and to develop a critical sense which will allow them as individuals to select and preserve the best in the human tradition […] those who understand and appreciate the humanities also lead more rewarding lives both within their own hearts and minds and in their relations. ”8

2 John Hay Library Keeney Files: Box 96 –– III. 3060, “Relevance and Literacy” 9 March 1960 pp 6 3 John Hay Library Keeney Files Box 116: XIV.2 ‘ACLS Annual Meeting January 17 1964 pp 105 4 Brown Daily Herald September 30 1964 5 John Hay Library Keeney Files: Box 94 1592 I, Humanities I. From Woodstock College, Woodstock Maryland, 3/4/196 6 John Hay Library Keeney Files: Box 94 1594 “Humanities Foundation” 7 John Hay Library Keeney Files: Box 110: VIII 31. Notable Quotes from Barnaby Keeney on his presidency: Before the Florida Education Association March 1965: 8 Commission on Humanities, Subcommission on schools. 1593 F Humanities and Arts, Florida Education Association 3/19/65. Speech at Immaculata College, Immaculata P.A., 3/30/65. 14-15


34

Appendix C

Quotes from the 1964 Report of Commission on the Humanities

! “The arts differ in important ways from the conventional academic disciplines, but the Commission is confident that in any practical matter affecting the two these differences will readily be recognized and appropriate means devise for supporting each. The Commission further considers that science, as a technique and expression of intellect, is in fact closely affiliated with the humanities. Whatever scientists may learn concerning the physical world is or should be of profound interest to the humanist, just as the findings of behavioral scientists––whether they issue in social theories and inspire social action or mere make humans understandable––fall within the humanist’s purview. The natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities are of their nature allies.” (2)

! “During our early history we were largely occupied in mastering the physical environment. No sooner was this mastery within sight than advancing technology opened up a new range of possibilities, putting a new claim on energies which might otherwise have gone into humane and artistic endeavors. The result has often been our social, moral, and aesthetic development lagged behind our material advance.” (3)

! “Traditionally our government has entered areas where there were overt difficulties or where any opportunity had opened for exceptional achievement. The humanities fit both categories, for the potential achievements are enormous while troubles stemming from inadequate support are comparably great.” (7)

! “To the frequent charge that the humanities are impractical and that they must give way in our schools to narrow concern with those studies which seem more immediately connected to economic opportunity for the individual or to survival in a world whose instruments of power are based on the specific applications of science, we would assert that the humanities play a uniquely effective role in determining a man’s behavior and values. Included in the humanities are those studies that help man to find a purpose, that endow him with the ability to criticize intelligently and therefore improve his own society, and that establish for the individual his sense of identity with other men both in his own country and the world at large.” (19)

! “Some thoughtful people will fear the dangers of a national effort to support the humanities. They will see in it the threat of an exclusive agent with potential control of taste, values, and interpretations of all that comprises our cultural heritage. While we understand the sources of concern which produce such arguments, we do not believe that the arguments are valid. Furthermore, we see much to be gained in the pursuit of the suggestions in this report without threat of undesirable control. The fundamental protection of our educational system from domination by any central organization lies in the heritage of our national tradition of freedom.” (30)

! “The task before us in the humanities is no overnight job. For the ills of our schools there is no quick cure. But there is no reason for either dismay or delay. There are practical immediate, and positive courses before us. This report outlines some of them.” (30)


35

Appendix D Images

Barnaby C. Keeney || Photographs courtesy of Brown Alumni Monthly Vol. 66, No. 8. Brown Alumni Monthly

Online Archives


36

Reynolds (Left), Keeney (Center), and U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson (Right) || Courtesy of Brown

Alumni Monthly Vol. 64, No. 3

Keeney (Left) with Walter Reynolds (Right), Mayor of Providence || Courtesy of Brown Alumni Monthly

Vol. 58, No. 9

Keeney || Courtesy of Brown Alumni Monthly Vol. 65, No. 3

Keeney (Left) with Senator G. Ellsworth Gale, Jr. (Right) || Courtesy of Brown Alumni Monthly Vol. 64, No. 7


37

Vice President for the United Chapters Rosemary Park (Left), Keeney (Center) and President of Phi Beta Kappa Bentley Glass (Right) || John Hay Library Keeney Files, Box 110: VIII, 35, Phi Beta

Kappa

Fellow John Nicholas Brown (Right) with Keeney (Left) || Courtesy of Brown

Alumni Monthly Vol. 56, No. 3


38

Sent to Barnaby Keeney by Gustave Arlt, President of the Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S. || John Hay Library Keeney Files, Box

117: XIV. 2, Council of Graduate Schools

New York Times Article, "Aid to Humanities," June 2 1963. NY Times online

archives.

Cartoon || Courtesy of Brown Alumni Monthly Vol. 63, No. 4

Cartoon || Courtesy of Brown Alumni Monthly Vol. 56, No. 3

Barnaby C. Keeney and the NEH final - Brown University and the NEH Jaffe & Betita 3 Barnaby C....

Documents

Transcript of Barnaby C. Keeney and the NEH final - Brown University and the NEH Jaffe & Betita 3 Barnaby C....