2016 ACLS Annual Meeting May 5-7, Arlington, VA 2

3

4 Extending the Reach of the Humanities PhD

Presenters

Adela de la Torre coordinates communication and media outreach efforts for NILC. In this role, she works with others to conduct communications research and helps shape messaging for major legal and policy campaigns. Under her leadership, NILC's media presence has grown, and NILC experts are now sought-after thought leaders who help shape the news. She joined the National Immigration Law Center in 2009 as a communications specialist. Prior to joining NILC in 2009, de la Torre served as a media relations specialist for The George Washington University, where she earned her BA in International Affairs and her MA in Latin American Hemispheric Studies.

Rosemary G. Feal has served as executive director of the Modern Language Association of America since 2002. She administers the business affairs, programs, and governance of the association; is general editor of the association’s publishing and research programs and editor of two association publications; serves as an ex officio member of all committees and commissions of the association; chairs the committee that oversees the planning of the association’s annual convention; and is a member of the MLA Executive Council’s audit and advisory committees, working with the MLA’s trustees in evaluating and implementing investments of the MLA’s endowment funds and chairing the Finance Committee. She is on leave from her position as professor of Spanish at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, where she was chair of the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures. From 1987 to 1998 she was a member of the faculty at the University of Rochester. A member of the Board of Directors of the National Humanities Alliance and a past vice president of that organization, she also served on the Board of Directors of the American Council of Learned Societies. Feal was a 2011-12 American Council on Education Fellow at the Five Colleges, Incorporated (Amherst, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke, and Smith Colleges and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst). Working with the executive director of the Five Colleges consortium and the presidents of Smith and Mount Holyoke Colleges, she participated in all aspects of academic and campus life, including strategic planning, admissions, curriculum, development, and alumnae relations. Coeditor of the SUNY Series in Latin American Iberian Thought and Culture, Feal is also an associate editor of the Afro-Hispanic Review and former senior consulting editor of the Latin American Literary Review. She has published on contemporary Latin American literature, Afro-Hispanic studies, Caribbean women writers, and feminist theory. Her book publications include Isabel Allende Today (coeditor; 2002); Painting on the Page: Interartistic Approaches to Modern Hispanic Texts (coauthor; 1995); and Novel Lives: The Fictional Autobiographies of Guillermo Cabrera Infante and Mario Vargas Llosa (author; 1986). She has written on the majors in English and also other languages and on liberal learning for Liberal Education (2009) as well as on the foreign language teaching community for Modern Language Journal (2008). She earned a PhD in Spanish from the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, and a BA from Allegheny College. Feal also completed the Bachillerato en Letras at the Instituto Belga Guatemalteco (Guatemala) and studied abroad in France and Spain.

5

James Grossman is executive director of the American Historical Association. He was previously vice president for research and education at the Newberry Library, while also teaching graduate courses at the University of Chicago. The author of Land of Hope: Chicago, Black Southerners, and the Great Migration (1989) and A Chance to Make Good: African-Americans, 1900-1929 (1997), Grossman also was project director and coeditor of The Encyclopedia of Chicago (2005; online, 2006) and coeditor of the series “Historical Studies of Urban America” (50 vols, 1992-2015). His articles and short essays have focused on various aspects of American urban history, African American history, ethnicity, higher education, and the place of history in public culture. His book reviews have appeared in the Chicago Tribune and New York Newsday in addition to various academic journals. Land of Hope received awards from the Gustavus Myers Center for Human Rights and the Illinois State Historical Society. A Chance to Make Good won awards from the New York Public Library and the National Council for the Social Studies. Grossman was chosen in 2005 as one of seven “Chicagoans of the Year” by Chicago Magazine. Grossman’s consulting experience includes history-related projects generated by the BBC, Smithsonian, and various theater companies, film makers, museums, and libraries. He serves on the boards of the Association of American Colleges & Universities and National Humanities Alliance.

Sara Guyer is director of the Center for the Humanities and a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a scholar of poetry and rhetoric, with a particular interest in romanticism and its legacies. Her research seeks to demonstrate the ongoing relevance of romanticism and poetry for thinking about the major social and philosophical issues of our time, including survival, the human after humanism, geographic displacement, and public life. She is the author of Romanticism after Auschwitz (Stanford UP, 2007) and Reading with John Clare: Biopoetics, Sovereignty, Romanticism (Fordham UP, 2015). With Steven Miller, she edited “Literature and the Right to Marriage,” a special issue of Diacritics, and with Celeste Langan, she edited a special issue of Romantic Circles on “Romanticism and Materiality.” She also edits LitZ, a new book series published by Fordham University Press. In addition to courses on Romantic and Holocaust literatures, Guyer teaches Public Humanities: Theories, Cases, Methods and with Richard Keller has co-taught a graduate course on biopolitics that eventuated in a Mellon Foundation Sawyer Seminar on Biopolitics: the Politics of Life Itself. At the Center, Guyer has concentrated on imagining a humanities that draws upon the rigors of critical theory, while encouraging both established and emerging scholars to help shape public life. She is committed to research and thinking that reaches across institutional lines both within and beyond the university–and includes the sciences, arts, and professions. This emphasis on the public humanities envisions new audiences for research in literature, history, philosophy, and culture and is part of the reinvention of graduate education in the 21st Century. She is a member of the International Advisory Board of the Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes (CHCI) and serves as Vice-President of the University Club. Prior to her arrival in Madison, Guyer studied at Brandeis, Oxford, Warwick, and Berkeley, and taught at UC-Irvine and the University of Oregon. She is the recipient of WARF Vilas and Romnes Awards, a Howard Foundation Fellowship, and holds the Borghesi Family Faculty Fellowship in the College of Letters & Science.

6 Steven C. Wheatley, vice president of the American Council of Learned Societies, is responsible to the president for the oversight of programs and the administration of the Council’s office. Before joining ACLS 29 years ago as director of the American Studies Program, he taught history at the University of Chicago, where he was also dean of students in the Public Policy Committee and, before that, assistant to the dean of the (graduate) Social Sciences Division. He holds a BA from Columbia University and MA and PhD degrees in history from the University of Chicago. He is the author of, among other works, The Politics of Philanthropy: Abraham Flexner and Medical Education (University of Wisconsin P, 1988), a new introduction to Raymond Fosdick’s The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation (Transaction Books, 1988), and ‘The Partnerships of Foundations and Universities, ‘ in Helmut K. Anhler and David C. Hammack, eds., American Foundations: Roles and Contributions (Brookings Institution Press, 2010). Wheatley is the editor (with Katz, Greenberg, and Oliviero) of Constitutionalism and Democracy: Transitions in the Contemporary World (Oxford UP, 1993). He has been a consultant to the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Lilly Endowment, Inc., and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and a member of the Doctoral Fellows Advisory Committee of the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy and the Task Force on the Artifact of the Council on Library and Information Resources. He has served on the Governing Council of the Rockefeller Archive Center of Rockefeller University and as an adjunct professor at New York University. He is a member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Research Libraries. In 2005, the Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences awarded him the Medal for Social Science Career.

7

Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows Program

Expanding the Reach of Doctoral Education in the Humanities The American Council of Learned Societies is pleased to announce the sixth annual competition of the Public Fellows program. In 2016, ACLS will place up to 21 recent humanities PhDs in two- year positions at diverse organizations in government and the nonprofit sector. This career-building initiative aims to demonstrate that the capacities developed in the advanced study of the humanities have wide application, both within and beyond the academy. The fellowship carries an annual stipend of $65,000, with health insurance for the fellow and up to $3,000 for professional development activities.

The 2016 Public Fellows have the opportunity to join one of the following organizations:  American Friends Service Committee – Communications Analyst  American Public Media Group – Senior Research Analyst, Engagement & Inclusion  Center for Genetics and Society – Project Director on Race, Genetics, and Society  Center for Investigative Reporting – Membership Engagement Manager  City of Atlanta, City Auditor’s Office – Senior Performance Auditor  Chicago Humanities Festival – Digital Programming Strategist  Grand St. Settlement – Community Engagement & Policy Advocate  International Rescue Committee – Impact Evaluation Advisor  Los Angeles County Museum of Art – Digital Content Specialist  Los Angeles County Museum of Art – Executive Communications Specialist  National Park Service – Cultural Resources Public Outreach Coordinator  National Partnership for Women & Families – Workplace Programs Federal Policy Analyst  Philanthropy Northwest – Communities of Practice Manager  Ploughshares Fund – Political Engagement Strategist  Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting – Education Specialist  Rare – Global Philanthropy Specialist  Reinvestment Fund – Policy Analyst  Smithsonian Enterprises – Business Development Associate  Smithsonian Provenance Research Initiative – Program Manager, Scholarly and Public Engagement  Southern Poverty Law Center – Research and Investigations Specialist  The Texas Tribune – Research Analyst

Applicants must possess US citizenship or permanent resident status and have a PhD in the humanities or humanistic social sciences conferred between January 1, 2013 and June 12, 2016. Applicants must have defended and deposited their dissertations no later than the application deadline of March 24, 2016, 8 pm EDT.

Applications will be accepted only through the ACLS online application system (OFA). Applicants should not contact any of the organizations directly. Please visit www.acls.org/programs/ publicfellowscomp for complete position descriptions and application information.

This program is supported by a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. www.acls.org

8

American Council of Learned Societies Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows Program

The Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows program places recent humanities PhDs in two-year staff posi- tions at partnering organizations in government and the nonprofit sector. By demonstrating that the capacities developed in the advanced study of the humanities have wide application, both with- in and beyond the academy, the Public Fellows program aims to expand the reach of doctoral education in the United States. More info at www.acls.org/programs/publicfellows/.

QUICK FACTS

 The fellowship provides a stipend of $65,000 per year as well as individual health insurance and separate funds for professional development.

 Fellows are fully integrated into their host organizations, taking on portfolios of substantive assignments in support of the host agency’s core mission.

 In 2016, the program will place up to 21 recent humanities PhDs in two- year staff positions at partnering organizations in government and the nonprofit sector.

 The program has grown from placing eight fellows in its first year (2011) to an average of 20 fellows each in the last three competitions (2013, 2014, and 2015), for a total of 82 Public Fellows program-wide.

 Over the first five cycles of the program, ACLS has partnered with over 70 organizations, including the Digital Public Library of America, Human Rights Watch, and the Smithsonian Institution.

 The program is made possible by a grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

 Follow our fellows on Twitter: Select ACLS partner organizations @ACLS1919 #publicfellows

9

From the Executive Director Graduate Education Reconsidered James Grossman and Emily Swafford, April 2016

ver the past four years, the AHA has devoted substantial energy to reconsidering the purpose and content of history education in colleges and universities, at both the undergraduate and O graduate levels. More than 200 historians have participated in a set of separate initiatives that share a common approach: taking end points as starting points. If one way of thinking about historical scholarship is to ask, “How did we get here?” (with “here” referring to any point in time and place), then a correlate for history education works backward from a desired outcome. Tuning, for instance, is an AHA project in which historians convene and collaborate to frame what history majors at different types of universities should know, understand, and be able to do upon graduation. While this might seem self-evident as an approach, it requires that we focus less on teaching than on learning: we begin not with what we want to teach but rather with what we want our students to learn. A radical notion indeed. An outcomes-based approach also requires articulating purposes and goals. In the case of undergraduate education, this has meant replacing an emphasis on preparing our majors for graduate study in history with a focus on the role of the history major in liberal education, and replacing the broad rubric of “critical thinking” with the more precise “historical thinking” as our contribution to that education. Those two shifts opened a space for departments to reconsider what they want their students to learn and how both faculty and students can articulate those outcomes. Few of us have thought about graduate education in this way, especially at the PhD level. We take for granted the desired outcome: employment as a faculty member in higher education. And we focus on a limited set of duties related to that professional path, largely scholarly publication along with classroom teaching at the level of the single course. This is hardly surprising: we want our students to be successful, and PhD programs have traditionally defined success as attaining a tenure-track appointment, preferably at a four-year institution of higher education, and if possible in the kind of research environment that enables its faculty to play an active role in the next generation’s production of new knowledge. This definition of success has shaped the graduate curriculum. And if the large majority of our students attained such positions, that curriculum would be appropriate. Anecdotally, it seems that a great proportion of history PhD students anticipate that their degree will be the gateway to lifetime faculty tenure. (The AHA will soon gather survey data to test this assumption.) But what happens if that gate opens only wide enough to accommodate half of all history PhD recipients, sending the rest along different pathways? And what if many of the people thought of as winners find themselves poorly prepared for the actual work of the professoriate? Data compiled by the AHA’s Career Diversity for Historians initiative tell us that only half of our PhDs do indeed make it through that gate (leaving aside those who leave programs before attaining a degree). Even if a history department Preparing PhD students for diverse has dropped the suggestion that those PhDs who pursue different careers is not a distraction from the pathways have failed, the curriculum tells a different story: the normative route is in the direction of research and teaching professorial career path most students environments that consider the individual classroom the locus of apparently still expect and with which accomplishment. The other 50 percent are often left to fend for faculty are most comfortable. themselves. Of those, nearly half pursue careers beyond the professoriate altogether, and a slightly smaller proportion finds employment teaching college off the tenure track.

10

Diversity for Historians began with the imperative of expanding the employment horizons of and opportunities for history PhDs. Graduate programs are still preparing students for jobs that most of our PhD students will never occupy. Perhaps more important, we are squandering opportunities to increase the influence of historical thinking in contexts outside the professoriate. We are also squandering resources by ignoring those alumni who have not followed the route for which they were prepared. We asked those alumni—working in government, business, nonprofits, and higher education administration—what they wish they had learned, either to more easily find employment or to advance more quickly once hired. The responses fell into five broad categories: communication beyond the scholarly and classroom modes, collaboration, quantitative literacy, intellectual self- confidence, and digital literacy/engagement. We hoped that these skills could be easily woven into the existing fabric of doctoral programs and built the Career Diversity initiative on this strategy, supporting pilot programs to try some experiments. At the same time, along another track and with a different funder, we began to explore the implications of new insights into student learning for graduate education in history. These two initiatives in graduate education proceeded simultaneously with the Tuning project. The result is the crucial recognition that the skills history PhDs need for more diverse careers are the same skills they need to become the next generation of college professors. In addition to the 25 percent beyond the professoriate, nearly 60 percent of history PhDs are teaching either off the tenure track or in an environment other than a research university. They would need the same five groups of skills if they were to make valuable contributions to campuses that differed substantially from most PhD-granting institutions, and if their work focused on not only teaching but also curriculum design. Preparing PhD students for careers outside the professoriate does not constitute a distraction from the professorial career path that most students apparently still expect when they enter graduate school, and with which graduate faculty are most comfortable. The demands on teachers of undergraduates have changed. Assessment, student learning outcomes, and other alterations to the curriculum are now the purview of a majority of history faculty. Some of these changes are caused by shifts within academic administration, but it’s also the case that 20th-century pedagogical training is inadequate to the needs of today’s students, who are more diverse than ever before. Graduate students who hope to secure a tenure-track position will have to navigate this new environment. To a large extent, it is not the environment their advisers encountered when embarking on their own careers. History departments that begin not with normative assumptions about their students’ career paths but, instead, with actual data that is easy to compile can draw on the methodologies we have learned in Tuning: working backward from expected outcomes to define what students need to learn and then collaborating in the design and implementation of a curriculum geared toward those outcomes. We can prepare students for the higher education landscape of the future rather than the one we experienced and with which we are comfortable. Not all history PhD programs will teach the same things; not all students will follow identical paths. The Tuning project taught us that outcomes-based curriculum planning yields a variety of approaches, as broad as the range of universities that offer degrees. Reconsidering the goals of those degrees should include open and thorough reviews of the function and form of the dissertation. Thankfully, we don’t have to ask graduate students to decide on day one to pursue a single pathway. Strategically inclined students can figure out how to prepare themselves to travel in more than one direction, depending on how they respond to teaching, where their talents and inclinations lie, and what priorities emerge during their time in graduate school. They can prepare themselves to be better professors and better professionals with broad career options.

The initiatives mentioned in this essay received generous support from Lumina Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the Teagle Foundation. James Grossman is executive director of the AHA. He tweets @JimGrossmanAHA. Emily Swafford is the AHA’s manager of academic affairs. She tweets @elswafford.

11

From the Executive Director

Learning from the Pros in the Connected Academics Proseminar Posted 19 April 2016 by Rosemary G. Feal

Originally published in the Summer 2016 MLA Newsletter

The more of these amazing people I meet, the more I’m convinced that graduate students with a strong alt-ac plan are exactly the sorts of colleagues you want to hire in your departments. (Always assuming, of course, that a great nonprofit or library hasn’t swooped them up already!) —Beth Seltzer

Beth Seltzer, who holds a PhD in English from Temple University, is one of twenty PhD candidates and recent PhD recipients taking part in the inaugural year of the Connected Academicsproseminar on careers in New York City. Connected Academics (connect.commons.mla.org) is an MLA initiative, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, that addresses a concern raised by both the study of career outcomes of 2,200 language and literature PhDs and the Task Force on Doctoral Study: the need to prepare PhDs in language and literature for a range of careers. Proseminar fellows such as Seltzer are connecting with peers from eleven different academic institutions to learn how to apply their research and teaching credentials to articulate transferable skills, create a professional Web presence, and gain an understanding of the humanities workforce beyond the classroom. Perhaps the most distinctive aspect of Connected Academics is the opportunity to meet with humanities PhDs at the organizations where they work, such as the New York Public Library, Ithaka S+R, the American Council of Learned Societies, Bard High School Early College, and the Frick Collection.

Connected Academics is about encouraging language and literature PhDs to recognize the fullest expression of their abilities and to realize that the humanities workforce is not limited to teaching. Seltzer emphasizes in her blog post that she prepared for and

12 pursued multiple career options at once, including tenure-track teaching positions at postsecondary institutions. Indeed, she felt more prepared for the academic job market because of her varied professional experiences. In Seltzer’s case, the outcome of her job search was a full-time position at Bryn Mawr College as an educational technology specialist—a job that will draw heavily on the teaching and research skills she acquired while pursuing her PhD. Her year in the Connected Academics proseminar has made her aware of her capabilities and of the variety of organizations in which she could put them to use.

With an awareness of the many possibilities for employment come energy, optimism, and ambition—and our proseminar fellows possess these in abundance. I invite you to read their blog posts at the Connected Academics Web site, where they have addressed a broad range of topics in a manner sure to provoke further thought. They write with the conviction that their professional training as humanists will serve them well in roles in academia, secondary education, the nonprofit sector, and even the for- profit world. Most of them do not see careers beyond the classroom as an abandonment of the ideals that led them to undertake advanced study in the humanities—quite the opposite. As another member of the current proseminar cohort, Manoah Finston, puts it, “[W]e should not think of employment off or on a tenure line as the sole determinant of success, just as we can no longer permit the distinction of in or out of the academy to decide the legitimacy of our choice of career.”

Most graduate students today, including our proseminar fellows, look to their faculty advisers, chairs, and directors of graduate studies to help guide them on a career path. It’s understandable that those without experience in careers beyond the classroom have been hesitant to endorse students’ desires to explore a breadth of career options, yet those of us involved with Connected Academics believe that things will begin to change as our proseminar fellows share their confidence and enthusiasm with others at their home institutions.

Our three partner institutions are exemplary in the adaptability and innovation they have shown in the face of the breadth of graduate student career ambitions. Georgetown University’s Reinvent the PhD project has, as one of its central goals, the creation of a Georgetown Center for the Public Humanities and a new, interdisciplinary doctoral program in the public humanities. Arizona State University is focusing on enriching the doctoral experience through the incorporation of additional skills—digital, quantitative,

13 and entrepreneurial. Finally, the University of California Humanities Research Institute’s Humanists@Work program provides opportunities for graduate students to expand their professional experience through statewide workshops and paid summer internships.

While participating in the Connected Academics proseminar has convinced participants of the value of their wide-ranging work, it is, of course, the MLA’s core belief that all labor should be fairly compensated. I want to emphasize here, as I have elsewhere, that we will continue to advocate better working conditions for adjuncts and for the creation of more tenure-track positions at universities. Yet the enthusiasm generated around the Connected Academics project demonstrates that our conversations on academic labor and post-PhD humanities work must become broader. The MLA is prepared to work with departments to help graduate students prepare for an expanded range of career opportunities. We owe the next generation of humanities scholars our support for their ambitions as they apply their humanities PhDs to a broad range of satisfying careers.

Note I thank my colleagues Stacy Hartman and Nicky Agate for their assistance with this column.

14

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

Established in 1979, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is one of the leading organizations in the U.S. exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low- income immigrants.

At NILC, we believe that all people who live in the U.S.—regardless of their race, gender, immigration and/or economic status—should have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Over the years, we’ve been at the forefront of many of the country’s greatest challenges when it comes to immigration issues, and play a major leadership role in addressing the real-life impact of polices that affect the ability of low-income immigrants to prosper and thrive.

We use a core set of integrated strategies to advance our mission:

Impact Litigation

NILC engages in lawsuits that defend the fundamental and constitutional rights of all Americans, including low-income immigrants and their families, often in coordination with other local and national civil rights organizations. Our legal victories have secured vital due process rights for detained Salvadorans, challenged government regulations that would have resulted in millions of workers losing their jobs, and stopped unconstitutional state attempts to regulate immigration law that would have led to racial profiling.

Policy Analysis & Advocacy

As experts in the complex interplay between immigration law and public and private economic support programs, access to education, workers’ rights, and other issues affecting low-income

15 immigrant communities, NILC educates decision makers on the impact their policy goals may have on this overlooked population. NILC fact sheets and briefing papers have long been used by policymakers interested in ensuring the future prosperity of their constituents. And our analyses have also helped inform innovative policy solutions to address immigrants’ access to health care, workers’ rights, immigration enforcement reforms, and legal status for immigrant youth.

Strategic communications

NILC plays an increasingly important role in shaping effective messaging and communications strategies on immigration issues. We have led groundbreaking research on messages to promote bold advocacy goals and give advocates, policymakers, and other key spokespeople the tools they need to speak persuasively about the important and positive role that low-income immigrants play in our society. Our communications efforts are deliberately integrated with our efforts to advance legal and policy victories, while also focused on shaping the public narrative on immigration issues for longer lasting social change.

Other strategies We also conduct trainings, publish educational materials, and provide legal counsel and strategic advice to support and strengthen other groups’ advocacy work.

16

Patrick O'Shea F'15 Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows 2015 PhD, Latin American Cultural Studies, University of Manchester, UK Appointed as Content and Research Manager, National Immigration Law Center

Position Description: The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is the primary national organization in the United States exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low-income immigrants. Over the past 35 years, NILC has won landmark legal decisions protecting fundamental human and civil rights, thwarted policies that would have damaged low-income immigrant families’ opportunities, and advanced major policies that reinforce our nation’s values of equality and justice for all. As part of the communications team, the Content and Research Manager will be charged with investigating and developing highly sharable content for our website, social media platforms, and advocacy work. Using individual contacts developed through NILC’s policy and litigation efforts, the ACLS Public Fellow will develop narratives that shine a nuanced light on the issues that particularly impact low-income immigrants and their families, including access to education, immigration enforcement, racial profiling, economic security, and access to health care. The Content and Research Manager will also be responsible for developing a comprehensive media research plan to produce a pro-migrant narrative that supports NILC’s work. More information is available at www.nilc.org.

17

2016 ACLS Annual Meeting

Arlington, VA May 6, 9:00-9:30 am Salon 4

Report of the President

Pauline Yu became president of the American Council of Learned Societies in July 2003, having served as dean of humanities in the College of Letters and Science at the University of California, Los Angeles and professor of East Asian languages and cultures from 1994-2003. Prior to that appointment, she was founding chair of the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the University of California, Irvine (1989- 1994) and on the faculty of Columbia University (1985-89) and the University of Minnesota (1976-85). She received her BA in history and literature from Harvard University and her MA and PhD in comparative literature from Stanford University. She is the author or editor of five books and dozens of articles on classical Chinese poetry, literary theory, comparative poetics, and issues in the humanities and has received fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. She was awarded the William Riley Parker Prize for best PMLA article of 2007. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and an elected member of the American Philosophical Society and Committee of 100, she is on the Academy's national Commission on Language Learning and a member of its board. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange, The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation, and The Teagle Foundation. In addition, she is a trustee of the American Academy in Berlin and the National Humanities Center. She is a member of the Scholars’ Council of the Library of Congress, the Governing Board of the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University, and the Board of Governors of the Hong Kong-America Center. Yu holds three honorary degrees and is a senior research scholar at Columbia University.

19 2016 ACLS Annual Meeting Arlington, VA May 6, 9:30-9:45 am Salon 4

Micro Reports from Five Member Societies

In an effort to make the work of member societies more visible to the broader ACLS community, we will hear micro reports (1-3 minutes) from representatives of five societies as a sampling of the range of issues with which ACLS member societies are engaged. This session will take place early on Friday so the topics presented can be part of the discussion among the participants during the day.

American Anthropological Association Leith Mullings, Delegate; Chair, Executive Committee of the Delegates; ACLS Board of Directors; City University of New York, The Graduate Center

American Antiquarian Society Scott Casper, Delegate; Executive Committee of the Delegates; University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Association for Jewish Studies Rona Sheramy, Executive Director

Modern Language Association Barbara Altmann, Delegate; Executive Committee of the Delegates; Bucknell University

Society for Classical Studies Adam Blistein, Executive Director

20 2016 ANNUAL MEETING of the AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES Arlington, VA, May 5-7 Salon 4 May 6, 9:45-10:30 am

Meeting of the Council Agenda 1. Call to Order – James J. O’Donnell, Chair, ACLS Board of Directors 2. In Memoriam

^ 3. Roll Call: Members of the Council must be in attendance and respond to the roll call to be eligible to vote.

^ 4. Elections to the ACLS Board of Directors – Jonathan Culler, Secretary, ACLS Board of Directors

5. Report to the Delegates – Leith Mullings, American Anthropological Association; Chair, Executive Committee of the Delegates; ACLS Board of Directors

6. Report from the Conference of Administrative Officers – Nancy Kidd, National Communication Association; Chair, Executive Committee of the CAO; ACLS Board of Directors

^ 7. Recommendation of the Board of Directors that the following organization be admitted to constituent membership in the Council: SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF AUTHORSHIP, READING AND PUBLISHING Please bring pink ballot enclosed in your nametag with you to the meeting.

^ 8. Recommendation of the Board of Directors that the name of the Conference of Administrative Officers be changed to: CONFERENCE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Please bring yellow ballot enclosed in your nametag with you to the meeting.

9. Report on the 2015-16 ACLS Fellowship Competition Year – Matthew Goldfeder, Director of Fellowship Programs

^ 10. Report of the Treasurer/Financial Reports (yellow pages) – Nancy J. Vickers, Treasurer, ACLS Board of Directors Vote on Approval of the Proposed Budget for the Fiscal Year 2016-17 (green pages)

11. Consent Agenda

^ Action required

21 Report of the Board Nominating Committee: Jonathan Culler, Chair Nominations for Officers and Members of the ACLS Board of Directors

Under the provisions of the By-laws, any additional nominations by members of the Council must be received at the Executive Offices by the following dates:

nominations for officers of the Council: April 16, 2016 nominations for members of the Board of Directors: April 21, 2016.

Peter Baldwin is professor in the History Department at UCLA and Global Distinguished Professor in the Center for European and Mediterranean Studies at NYU. He is interested especially in the historical development of the modern state––a broad field that has led him in many different directions. Two aspects of his work unify it. First, he has attempted to understand contemporary issues in a long historical perspective, whether that be the class coalitions that cemented the modern welfare state, the nineteenth-century public health strategies that provided the template by which the AIDS epidemic was fought a century later, or the battles over intellectual property stretching back three centuries that inform, indeed determine, our current battles over copyright, downloading and internet piracy. Second, he has studied the development of the state trans-nationally, using detailed and often archival sources in half a dozen languages to marry a broad comparative approach to rigorous empiricism. His books have dealt above all with France, Germany, Britain, Sweden, Denmark and the United States. He has published works on the comparative history of the welfare state, on social policy more broadly and on public health. Other interests have included Nazi Germany and historiography. His latest book is a trans-national political history of copyright from 1710 to the present. He has projects underway on the historical development of privacy, on the history of honor, and also a global history of the state.

Nicola Courtright is the William McCall Vickery 1957 Professor of the History of Art and chair of European Studies at Amherst College. She has taught the art and architecture of early modern Europe in the Department of Art and the History of Art at Amherst College since 1989. She received her BA at Oberlin College, her MA at Yale University, and a PhD at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University in 1990. Courtright has received numerous grants to pursue her research, including a Fulbright, a Rome Prize at the American Academy in Rome, and American Council of Learned Societies and American Association of University Women postdoctoral fellowships. Her book The Papacy and the Art of Reform in Sixteenth-Century Rome: Gregory XIII and the Tower of the Winds in the Vatican (New York: Cambridge UP, 2003) was awarded honorable mention for the Premio Salimbeni per la Storia e la Critica d’Arte. Courtright’s publications span a range of areas within early modern European art history, including the art and architecture of the Vatican Palace, Bernini sculpture, Louis XIV’s bedroom in Versailles, and Rembrandt drawings. Her focus has most often been on the conflicted intersection of Italian and Northern European cultures, in particular the formation of aesthetic or artistic canons used to shape new political agendas. Most recently her research focuses on the construction of authority for early-modern French queens in the art and architecture of royal domiciles. Courtright has been a member of the College Art Association Board of Directors since 2000, vice president of publications from 2004-06, and president from 2006-08. .

22 Carl H. Pforzheimer III is manager of CHIPCO Asset Management, LLC, an SEC- registered investment advisory firm, and of Carl H. Pforzheimer & Co. LLC. He has chaired the boards of the National Humanities Center, Visiting Nurse Service of New York, Pace University, Horace Mann-Barnard School, and Urban Glass, and was president of the Scarsdale Public Schools. A life trustee and past member of the executive committee of The New York Public Library, Pforzheimer also continues his connection with a rare book and manuscript collection focusing on Shelley and the history of English Romanticism collected by his grandfather, owned by and housed at the Library. He is a member of the board of the Corning Museum of Glass and is on its executive committee and is an honorary director and past president of the Harvard Alumni Association. He was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002 and currently serves as treasurer on the Academy’s board of directors, chairman of the Academy’s finance committee, and member of the Academy Council and Trust. He is also a member of the Academy’s Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Michele Moody-Adams is currently Joseph Straus Professor of Political Philosophy and Legal Theory at Columbia University, where she served as dean of Columbia College and vice president for undergraduate education from 2009-2011. Before Columbia, she taught at Cornell University, where she was vice provost for undergraduate education and director of the Program on Ethics and Public Life. She has also taught at Wellesley College, the University of Rochester and Indiana University, where she served as an associate dean.

Moody-Adams has published articles on equality and social justice, moral psychology and the virtues, and the philosophical implications of gender and race. She is also the author of a widely cited book on moral relativism, Fieldwork in Familiar Places: Morality, Culture and Philosophy. Her current work includes articles on academic freedom, equal educational opportunity, and democratic disagreement. She is at work on a book tentatively entitled Renewing Democracy, on the political institutions and political culture essential to achieving justice and promoting stability in multicultural democracies. Moody-Adams has a BA from Wellesley College, a second BA from Oxford University, and earned the MA and PhD in philosophy from Harvard University. She has been a British Marshall Scholar, an NEH Fellow, and is a lifetime Honorary Fellow of Somerville College, Oxford. Richard J. Powell is dean of the humanities and the John Spencer Bassett Professor of Art & Art History at Duke University, where he has taught since 1989. He studied at Morehouse College and Howard University before earning his doctorate in art history at Yale University. Along with teaching courses in American art, the arts of the African Diaspora, and contemporary visual studies, he has written extensively on topics ranging from primitivism to postmodernism, including such titles as Homecoming: The Art and Life of William H. Johnson (1991), Black Art: A Cultural History (1997, 2002), and Cutting a Figure: Fashioning Black Portraiture (2008).

23

Report to the Delegates: Leith Mullings, Chair Elections to the Executive Committee of the Delegates

The Executive Committee is composed of seven Delegates. Members of the Executive Committee serve terms of three years, beginning and ending at the annual meeting each spring. Members elected in spring 2016 will serve until spring 2019. Each year a nominating committee is composed of the outgoing members of the Executive Committee and the ACLS president.

The members of the 2016 Delegates Nominating Committee are Leith Mullings, American Anthropological Association Susan Wells, Rhetoric Society of America Pauline Yu, ACLS

The Nominating Committee proposes the following slate for two openings on the Executive Committee:

1. Vivian Curran, American Society of Comparative Law, University of Pittsburgh 2. Elaine Sisman, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University

The seven current members of the Executive Committee and their terms are Barbara Altmann, Modern Language Association of America, Bucknell University (2018) Scott Casper, American Antiquarian Society, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (2017) Leith Mullings, American Anthropological Association, City University of New York, The Graduate Center (2016) Henry Richardson, American Philosophical Association, Georgetown University (2017) David Vander Meulen, Bibliographical Society of America, University of Virginia (2018) Pamela Robertson Wojcik, Society for Cinema and Media Studies, University of Notre Dame (2018) Susan Wells, Rhetoric Society of America, Temple University (2016)

Scott Casper will serve as chair for 2016-17.

Your attention is called to the following portion of the By-laws (Article III, Sec. 3): There shall be an Executive Committee of the Delegates. The Executive Committee of the Delegates shall serve as the Committee on Admissions for Constituent Societies.

24

Recommendation of the Board of Directors that the following organization be admitted to constituent membership in the Council:

SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF AUTHORSHIP, READING AND PUBLISHING

Applications from organizations seeking constituent membership are recommended for approval by the Executive Committee of the Delegates (acting as the Committee on Admissions) to the Board of Directors which, in turn, recommends approval to the full Council at the Annual Meeting. The members of the Council are the Delegates and the Board of Directors.

A statement from the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing stating how it meets the criteria for admission is attached.

The Executive Committee of the Delegates met on September 30, 2015. The Committee was unanimous in recommending the Society for the History of Authorship, Reading and Publishing for constituent membership. The Board of Directors approved the recommendation for admission at its meeting on October 23, 2015.

Members of the Council (ACLS Board of Directors and Delegates) will be asked to vote on this application at the Meeting of the Council on May 6, 2016.

25 Policy Statement on Admission of New Constituent Societies

Societies seeking admission should be national or international in membership and preference will be given to societies that are broad in their interests. Typically, their membership and interests will significantly differ from those already represented among the Council's constituent societies. A candidate society should make a substantial, distinctive and distinguished contribution to the Council's ability to advance scholarship in the humanities and humanistically oriented social sciences, to represent that scholarship in the academy and in the wider society, and to strengthen the relations among societies dedicated to these purposes. A society's primary focus must be on the advancement and support of scholarship. A substantial proportion of its individual members will be scholars and the society will normally support continuing scholarly research and publication in a way that is distinguished and recognized. The Council may seek the advice of appropriate scholars in evaluating the scholarly strengths of applicant groups. A society seeking admission should be mature and stable. Normally it will have been in existence for a minimum of five years and will hold an annual scholarly meeting. It should possess a sound constitution and by-laws and should be well-administered and financially secure. Copies of the constitution and by-laws and the latest audited financial statement should accompany an application for membership. Although the number of constituent societies is not fixed, maintaining an effective size for the Council and a reasonable distribution among the scholarly interests represented is an important consideration. Each case is considered on its merits and on the contribution it will make. Application Procedures for Admission of New Constituent Societies

The Committee on Admissions asks that each applicant provide the following materials, in ten copies. If other information is necessary, the ACLS will ask for it as consideration as an applications proceeds. All materials must be received by September 1.

1. a letter stating how the society meets the criteria for admission; 2. the program of the society's most recent annual meeting; 3. examples of how the society advances and supports scholarship; 4. the society's principal publication, if applicable; 5. the society's constitution and by-laws; and 6. the society's latest audited financial statement.

When a learned society applies for admission to the ACLS, its application will be submitted to the Executive Committee of the Delegates of the Constituent Societies of the ACLS. That Committee will review the application, consulting (confidentially) as it sees fit, and will submit its recommendation, if favorable, to the Board of Directors, and the Board will submit its recommendation, if favorable, to the Council for a vote at an Annual Meeting. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members in attendance at an Annual Meeting is necessary for admission.

May 9, 2008

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Proposed Name Change of Conference of Administrative Officers (CAO) to Conference of Executive Officers (CEO)

Your attention is called to the following portion of the ACLS Constitution (ARTICLE VIII, Sec. 5): Amendments to this Constitution, provided they are consistent with the laws of the District of Columbia, may be adopted at any annual meeting of the Council by vote of two-thirds of the members in attendance, notice of such proposed amendments having been communicated to the members of the Council and the Administrative Officers of the Constituent Societies forty-five days in advance of the meeting.

At its fall 2015 business meeting, the members of the CAO voted to propose to the Council changing their name to “Conference of Executive Officers,” which they feel better represents the obligations and responsibilities of the role, as well the increasing professionalization of their positions. This change will require amending the following articles of the Constitution.

ARTICLE III, Sec. 4 of the Constitution. There shall be a Conference of Executive Officers, hereinafter termed the CEO. Each Society shall be represented by its principal staff officer, or other individual appointed by the Society. There shall be an Executive Committee of the CEO.

ARTICLE VI, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. The Board of Directors shall establish such committees of the Board as are required by the work of the Council. The Chair of the Board in consultation with the President and the Chairs of the Executive Committees of the CEO and the Delegates shall appoint committee members. At least three of these committees shall also include a representative of the Constituent Societies drawn equitably from the CEO and the Delegates over time.

ARTICLE VII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution. There shall be an annual meeting of the Conference of Executive Officers of the Constituent Societies at the time of the annual meeting of the Council for the consideration of matters of interest to the Societies and of means of cooperation between the Council and the Societies. In addition the Conference of Executive Officers may hold additional meetings for the consideration of matters of interest to the Societies.

ARTICLE VIII, Sec. 5 of the Constitution. Amendments to this Constitution, provided they are consistent with the laws of the District of Columbia, may be adopted at any annual meeting of the Council by vote of two-thirds of the members in attendance, notice of such proposed amendments having been communicated to the members of the Council and the Executive Officers of the Constituent Societies forty-five days in advance of the meeting.

37

Report on the 2015-16 ACLS Fellowship Competition Year

Matthew Goldfeder, Director of Fellowship Programs

Another vigorous year of ACLS fellowship and grant programs is nearing completion. We have announced nearly 200 new fellows in recent months and will announce several additional cohorts of fellows in the next few. In total, ACLS will award over $18 million across all programs for 2015-16. That substantial and growing sum, and the innovative research it goes to fund, is one of the principal means by which ACLS fulfills its mission of advancing humanistic studies. We received over 3,600 applications for funding in more than a dozen distinct programs and recruited more than 600 reviewers and selection committee members to evaluate these proposals. We will name over 300 ACLS fellows and fund additional scholars through grants programs, thereby supporting humanistic work at over 100 US institutions of higher education and at a score more outside the United States.

These numbers reflect the extension of ACLS programs in the past year. We began new programs, including ACLS Digital Extension Grants that support teams of scholars as they enhance existing digital projects with the goal of engaging new audiences. The Luce/ACLS Program in Religion, Journalism & International Affairs announced in December aims to build stronger connections between scholars of religion and journalists covering world affairs. This year, ACLS also joined with 10 universities in the Postdoctoral Partnership Initiative to offer new, well supported postdocs with the larger goal of sharing information and learning more about the impact of postdoctoral fellowships on humanities scholars’ careers.

Existing programs were extended in 2015-16 as well. The number of Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellowships was doubled to include new opportunities designated specifically for liberal arts college faculty to take up residencies at university academic departments and campus humanities centers thereby broadening the institutional and disciplinary bonds that help scholars maintain the momentum of their research post-tenure. The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies added a new set of awards this year for colleges and universities looking to seed new teaching positions with the commitment to maintain them as permanent, tenure-track positions. The Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows Program, placing recent humanities PhDs in career-building positions in government and non-profit organizations, will name its 100th fellow this year, demonstrating the wide applicability of advanced study of the humanities.

With these new programs and initiatives and by strengthening our current ones, ACLS remains committed to our role in supporting the creation of new humanistic knowledge through research in all its forms. This means aiding work in all fields where humanistic research takes place, and in studying cultures, texts, and artifacts across the globe and human history. ACLS’s fellowship and grant programs also enact the principles of scholarly self-governance through rigorous peer review carried out by humanities scholars themselves. The Council owes thanks to these hundreds of good citizens for the generous contribution of their time and expertise, particularly as our portfolio of programs and the number of applications submitted to them have grown over the years. In the hard work of identifying and selecting the best scholarship, these reviewers shape the future course of research in the humanities.

Because this short report cannot convey the full impact of these programs, nor the quality of the scholarship they support, let me invite you to a review the rosters of this year’s fellows on ACLS’s website. The research topics described in the fellows’ abstracts will reveal the vibrancy and broad scope of humanities scholarship today.

38 2015-16 Fellowship Competitions – Panelists

ACLS Fellowships (central program) Behdad, Ali, English, University of California, Los Angeles Beiser, Fred, Philosophy, Syracuse University Brenneis, Donald, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz Canales, Jimena, History, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Davila, Arlene, Anthropology, New York University Desai, Gaurav, English, African Diaspora Studies, Tulane University Edwards, Laura F., History, Duke University Eyerman, Ronald, Sociology, Yale University Gruen, Lori, Philosophy, Wesleyan University Harves, Stephanie, Linguistics, New York University Holsinger, Bruce, English, University of Virginia Khalid, Adeeb, History, Carleton College Khanna, Ranjana, Women’s Studies and English, Duke University Kirsch, Scott L., Geography, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Ko, Dorothy Yin-yee, History, Barnard College Landers, Jane, History, Vanderbilt University Levinson, Bernard M., Classical & Near Eastern Studies, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Lewis, George E., Music, Columbia University Lupton, Julia Reinhard, English, University of California, Irvine Moreira, Isabel A., History, University of Utah Nesbit, Molly, Art, Vassar College Parsons, Timothy H., History, Washington University in St. Louis Rambelli, Fabio, East Asian Languages & Cultural Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara Shapiro, Lisa C., Philosophy, Simon Fraser University Stephen, Lynn, Anthropology, University of Oregon Swayne, Steve, Music, Dartmouth College Wallach, Jeremy, Popular Culture, Bowling Green State University Watson, Timothy P., English, University of Miami Williams, Linda L., Film Studies, University of California, Berkeley Wohl, Victoria, Classics, University of Toronto

ACLS Collaborative Research Fellowships Brownley, Martine Watson, English, Emory University Kulick, Don, Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden McGowan, Mary Kate, Philosophy, Wellesley College Schaberg, David C., Asian Languages & Cultures, University of California, Los Angeles Scharff, Virginia, History, University of New Mexico

African Humanities Program Agbaje, Adigun, Political Science, University of Ibadan, Nigeria Barnes, Sandra, Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania Hendricks, Frederick, Sociology, Rhodes University, South Africa Mapunda, Bertram, History; Archaeology, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Okello-Ogwang, Ernest, Literature, Makerere University, Uganda Tripp, Aili Mari, Political Science; Gender and Women’s Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison Yankah, Kwesi, Linguistics, Central University College, Ghana

1

39 Comparative Perspectives on Chinese Culture and Society Oakes, Tim, Geography, University of Colorado Boulder Szonyi, Michael, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University Yu, Pauline, East Asian Languages & Cultures, American Council of Learned Societies

Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellowships for Recently Tenured Scholars Bork, Robert O., Art and Art History, University of Iowa Chalfin, Brenda, Anthropology, University of Florida Deeb, Lara, Anthropology, Scripps College Marcus, Sharon, English, Columbia University Moran, Richard A., Philosophy, Harvard University Reitter, Paul, Germanic Languages and Literatures, The Ohio State University Saltzman, Lisa R., History of Art, Bryn Mawr College Schmidt, Benjamin, History, University of Washington Steiner, Ann R., Classics, Franklin & Marshall College Tanaka, Stefan, Communication, University of California, San Diego Yu, Pauline, East Asian Languages & Cultures, American Council of Learned Societies

Luce/ACLS Dissertation Fellowships in American Art Bowles, John P., Art History, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Braddock, Alan C., Art History, College of William & Mary Goodyear, Frank H., Museum of Art, Bowdoin College Tolles, Thayer, Marica F. Vilcek Curator of American Paintings & Sculpture, Metropolitan Museum of Art Wallace, Isabelle Loring, Art, University of Georgia

Luce/ACLS Programs in China Studies Bossler, Beverly, History, University of California, Davis Csikszentmihalyi, Mark, International Studies; East Asian Languages and Cultures, University of California, Berkeley Lee, Ching Kwan, Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles Tang, Xiaobing, Modern Chinese Studies and Comparative Literature, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Wasserstrom, Jeffrey, History, University of California, Irvine Zamperini, Paola, Asian Languages and Cultures, Northwestern University

Mellon/ACLS Dissertation Completion Fellowships Barletta, Vincent, Comparative Literature; Iberian and Latin American Cultures, Stanford University Hodgson, Dorothy L., Anthropology, Rutgers University-New Brunswick James, Sharon Lynn, Classics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Keller, Richard, Medical History and the History of Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison Khoury, Dina R., History, The George Washington University McDaniel, Justin T., Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania Ostrow, Steven F., Art History, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Pfau, Thomas, English & German, Duke University Reed, Baron, Philosophy, Northwestern University Rodriguez-Alegria, Enrique, Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin Stangl, Rebecca L., Philosophy, University of Virginia Streeby, Shelley, Literature, University of California, San Diego Watkins, Holly, Musicology, University of Rochester Wedeen, Lisa, Political Science, University of Chicago Wilson, Elizabeth A., Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Emory University Wolfe, Justin, History, Tulane University

2

40

The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Programs in Buddhist Studies Benn, James, Religious Studies, McMaster University, Canada Dolce, Lucia, Study of Religions, SOAS, University of London, United Kingdom Kellner, Birgit, Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria Lopez, Donald, Buddhist Studies; Asian Languages and Cultures, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Rhi, Juhyung, History of Art, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea Teiser, Stephen, Religion, Princeton University

3

41

American Council of Learned Societies Fellowship & Grant Programs

ACLS, a nonprofit federation of 73 national scholarly organizations, is the leading private institution funding research in the humanities and related social sciences at the doctoral and postdoctoral levels. ACLS fellowship and grant programs support scholars as they create knowledge that benefits our understanding of the world—its peoples, histories, and cultures. More than 10,000 scholars have been supported by ACLS.

In the season, 2015-16 ACLS Programs 2015-16 ACLS is on track to award ACLS Fellowships ACLS Collaborative Research Fellowships ACLS Digital Extension Grants $18.1 African Humanities Program million Comparative Perspectives on Chinese Culture to over and Society Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellowships for Recently Tenured Scholars 300 The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program fellows & grantees in Buddhist Studies selected by nearly Luce/ACLS Dissertation Fellowships in American Art Luce/ACLS Program in China Studies 600 scholars serving as Luce/ACLS Program in Religion, Journalism & peer reviewers International Affairs Mellon/ACLS Dissertation Completion Fellowships Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows Program For information about ACLS fellowship programs, and to Postdoctoral Partnership Initiative learn more about the work of recent ACLS fellows, visit www.acls.org

42

43

ACLS Fellowship and Grant Programs Overview, 2016-17

ACLS Fellowships (the central program)  70 endowment-funded awards of $35,000-$70,000.  25 at the assistant professor rank, 25 at the associate professor rank, 20 at the full professor rank (or equivalents).  Awards are $35,000 for assistant professors, $45,000 for associate professors, and $70,000 for full professors.  Term is 6-12 months.  For scholars working in all fields of the humanities and humanities-related social sciences.  Fellows working in international or area studies may be partially funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.  On occasion, a fellow may be funded jointly by ACLS and the New York Public Library (stipend for all ranks: $70,000).

ACLS Collaborative Research Fellowships  8 awards to projects of up to $200,000 per project.  Total period of up to 24 months.  Supports collaborative research in the humanities and related social sciences.  Includes stipends of up to $60,000 for 6-12 continuous months of supported research leave for participants and up to $20,000 in project costs.  Funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

ACLS Digital Extension Grants  Up to 6 awards averaging $125,000 per project.  Total period of 12-18 months.  Supports digitally based research projects in all disciplines of the humanities and related social sciences by helping to extend the reach of existing digital projects to new communities of users.  Provides funds for a range of project costs including, where necessary, salary replacement for faculty or staff; software, equipment, travel, or consultant fees.  Pending renewal of funding from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

African Humanities Program  34 postdoctoral research fellowships of $19,000 for 10-12 months.  14 dissertation fellowships of $12,000 for 10-12 months.  Pending confirmation of funding by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Comparative Perspectives on Chinese Culture and Society  2 awards for conferences at up to $25,000.  2 awards for workshops at up to $15,000.  2 awards for planning meetings at up to $6,000.  For conferences that result in a published conference volume, a publication subsidy is also provided.  Funded by the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange.

44 Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellowships for Recently Tenured Scholars  20 awards of $95,000 plus additional funds for relocation costs and research expenses.  Includes 10 opportunities designated specifically for liberal arts college faculty.  For scholars recently tenured (within the past four years at the time of application), with long- term, unusually ambitious projects in the humanities or humanities-related social sciences.  Term is one academic year.  For residence at one of 13 participating residential research centers. Liberal arts college faculty also have the option of residency at a research university or university-based humanities center.  Funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Luce/ACLS Dissertation Fellowships in American Art  10 fellowships of $30,000, plus up to an additional $4,000 as a research and travel allowance for one year.  For any stage of PhD dissertation research or writing in the art history of the United States.  Funded by the Henry Luce Foundation.

Luce/ACLS Program in China Studies  15 predissertation-summer travel grants of $5,000 for research in China.  10 postdoctoral fellowships of $50,000 to support scholars in preparing their PhD dissertation research for publication or in embarking on new research projects.  4 collaborative reading-workshop awards of up to $15,000 for interdisciplinary investigation of texts that are essential points of entry to Chinese periods, traditions, communities, or events.  Funded by the Henry Luce Foundation (with additional funding from National Endowment for the Humanities for postdoctoral fellowships).

Luce/ACLS Program in Religion, Journalism & International Affairs  3 grants of $60,000 to universities to support interdisciplinary research and programming in religion and journalism.  6 academic-year fellowships of $55,000 plus additional funds for relocation costs and research expenses, for scholars in the humanities and social sciences who study religion in international contexts. These fellowships provide access to resources to help fellows develop capacities to relate their work to conversations in public policy and the media.  Funded by the Henry Luce Foundation.

Mellon/ACLS Dissertation Completion Fellowships  65 awards of $30,000, plus funds for research costs of up to $3,000 and for university fees of up to $5,000 for a one-year term. The fellowship tenure may be carried out in residence at the fellow’s home institution, abroad, or at another appropriate site for the research but may not be held concurrently with any other major fellowship or grant.  Aims to encourage timely completion of the PhD. Applicants must be prepared to complete their dissertations within the period of their fellowship tenure or shortly thereafter.  Funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows  20 awards of $65,000 plus up to $7,000 for health insurance.  For recent PhDs from the humanities and humanistic social sciences to take up two-year staff positions at partnering organizations in government and the nonprofit sector.  Aims to demonstrate that the capacities developed in advanced humanities studies have wide application, and assist PhDs aspiring to careers in administration, management, and public service.  Funded by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

45

The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies  10 dissertation fellowships of $30,000 each.  3 postdoctoral residential fellowships ($120,000 for two years) to recent recipients of the PhD.  5 portable research fellowships ($70,000).  2 collaborative research fellowships ($200,000 each for a two-year period).  2 grants for new professorships ($300,000 each).  Funded by The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation.

46 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES

TREASURER’S REPORT

2016 ANNUAL MEETING

Three objectives guide ACLS financial management: 1) paying fellowship stipends in line with plans developed in 1997 and revised in 2000; 2) controlling administrative expenditures while building a sustainable general fund; and 3) building our asset base in order to enhance ACLS programing and operations.

The year completed. ACLS finished the fiscal year ended 6/30/15 with total support, revenue and investment income of $18,420,885 and total expenses of $27,766,009 for a 5% decrease in net assets of $7,345,124. The investment return for the fiscal year ended 6/30/15 was $798,531, or 0.07% as compared to the 6% that ACLS had budgeted. The audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 are available on ACLS’s website.

The current year (yellow sheets). Financial statements for the first nine months of this fiscal year, July 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016, follow this report. We project that ACLS’s net income (change in net assets) for fiscal year 2016 will be $1,895. The projected surplus represents a 1.4% increase in net assets. Investment income is projected to be $-4,120,000, the results as of March 31. All other income and expense items are projected to be basically in line with the fiscal year 2016 budget.

The year ahead (green sheets). The proposed budget for fiscal year 2017 also follows. Projected receipts are $27,466,000 with program grants managed by ACLS accounting for $17,000,000 in receipts and ACLS’s own endowment income accounting for $6,890,000. The proposed budget projects a return on investments of 6%.

The fiscal year 2017 budget also includes $1.7 million in contributions that a consortium of 34 research universities has pledged to ACLS. These contributions provide the basis for plans to raise our fellowship stipends to keep pace with faculty salaries. Subscriptions from the Council’s College and University Associates have been budgeted at $995,000, and dues from Constituent Societies and Affiliates have been budgeted at $182,000. The proposed fiscal year 2017 budget anticipates that net ACLS administrative costs will remain relatively low, at 12.6% of total expenses.

In summary, the proposed ACLS fiscal year 2017 budget consists of $27,466,000 in receipts and $23,146,000 in expenses, with an increase in net assets of $4,320,000 or 3% of net assets.

In 1991 the Board of Directors divided the total of all ACLS endowment and reserve funds into a fellowship fund (investment earnings pay fellowship stipends and

47 closely related costs of peer-review) and a general fund (investment earnings pay for those activities not supported by external program grants and other income). In October 1997, the Board of Directors approved an Investment Policy that maintains these designations. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2017 provides for a payout rate of 5.3% for the central fellowship fund and 5.1% for the general administrative fund.

Action on this proposed budget for fiscal year 2017 is required at the meeting of the Council.

48 American Council of Learned Societies Income and Expense for the 9-Months Ended 3/31/16 as Compared to the 12-Months Ending 6/30/16 Fiscal Year 2016 Projection ($000's)

FYTD 2016 FY 2016 9-Months 12-Months Ended 3/31/16 Ending 6/30/16 Income and Expense Actual Projection Operating Revenues: Grants - program and administration 11,333 24,500 Investment income (-4% actual for 9-mos., -4% proj. for 12-mos. -4,120 -4,120 Research university consortium 1,700 1,700 Associates 1,057 995 Scholarly publications 640 860 Annual fund 200 250 Campaign contributions 250 250 Learned societies and affiliates 0 175 Royalties and miscellaneous 76 180 Total operating revenues 11,136 24,791

Operating Expenses: Restricted program grants 1,715 15,150 Central fellowship stipends and peer review 62 3,868 General administrative (net of cost recovery) 1,765 2,708 Scholarly publications 725 1,040 Development 128 130 4,396 22,896

Net Change from operating (Net Assets) 6,740 1,895

Non-Operating Items Effect of adoption of SFAS No. 158 - Postretirement Medical Plan 0 0 Reserve to meet future obligations -400 Subtotal Non-operating Items 0 -400

Net assets, beginning of fiscal year 138,426 138,426

Net assets, end of fiscal period 145,166 139,921

Table 1

49 American Council of Learned Societies General Administrative Expense for the 9-Months Ended 3/31/16 as Compared to the 12-months Ending 6/30/16 Fiscal Year 2016 Projection ($000's)

Ended 3/31/16 Ending 6/30/16 General Administrative Expense Actual Projection

Salaries and employee benefits 2,445 3,654 Professional and consultant fees 94 160 Office expense 159 185 Information technology 213 320 Occupancy 107 160 Meetings, conferences and travel 127 260 Interest payments 76 103 Depreciation and amortization 167 222 Printing, publishing and reports 48 60 Dues 59 61 Miscellaneous 6 10 Development 31 130

Total General Admin - Operating Expenses 3,531 5,325

Non-Operating Items Effect of adoption of SFAS No. 158 - Postretirement Medical Plan 0 0 Reserve to meet future obligations 400 400 Subtotal Non-operating Items 400 400

Less: cost recovery from grants and endowment support for peer review -2,165 -2,887

Total general administrative expense net of cost recovery 1,765 2,708

Table 2

50 American Council of Learned Societies Proposed Income and Expense Budget, All Program Funds for the Year Ending June 30, 2017 ($000's)

Donor Central General Restricted Proposed Fellowship Admin. Program Total Income and Expense Fund Fund Fund Budget Operating Revenues: Grants - program 0 0 17,000 17,000 Investment income (+6% return projected for FY 17) 4,260 1,790 0 6,050 Research university consortium 1,700 0 0 1,700 Associates 0 995 0 995 Subscriptions 0 0 860 860 Annual fund 250 0 0 250 Campaign contributions 275 0 0 275 Learned societies and affiliates 0 182 0 182 Royalties 0 154 0 154 Total operating revenues 6,485 3,121 17,860 27,466

Operating expenses: Restricted program grants 0 0 15,000 15,000 Fellowship stipends, peer review and develop. (from end.) 3,975 0 0 3,975 General administrative (net of cost recovery) 0 2,921 0 2,921 Scholarly publications 0 0 1,050 1,050 Development 0 200 0 200 Total operating expenses 3,975 3,121 16,050 23,146

Net Change from operating (Net Assets) 2,510 0 1,810 4,320

Non operating items Effect of adoption of SFAS No. 158 - Postretirement Medical 0 0 0 0 Reserve to meet future obligations 0 -400 0 -400 Subtotal Non-operating Items 0 -400 0 -400

Net assets, beginning of fiscal year 71,529 29,961 39,240 139,921

Net assets, end of fiscal year 74,039 ** 29,561 *** 41,050 143,841

Central General Endowment payout rate based on the average Fellowship Admin. ending net assets for the prior three fiscal years Fund Fund Combined

Proposed FY 2017 payout rate 5.3% 5.2% 5.25%

Board appropriation in endowment funds to be $ 3,701 expended in FY 2017

** Donor and board-designated fellowship endowment *** Donor and board-designated general endowment

TABLE 1

51 American Council of Learned Societies Proposed Income and Expense Budget for the Year Ending June 30, 2017 as Compared to FY 2015 Actual and FY 2016 Projection ($000's)

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 Income and Expense Actual Budget Projected Budget Operating Revenues: Grants - program 13,146 17,650 24,500 17,000 Investment inc. (-4% proj. for FY 16, 6% prop. for FY 17) 798 6,890 -4,119 6,050 Research university consortium 1,700 1,650 1,700 1,700 Associates 1,057 915 995 995 Subscriptions 1,012 860 860 860 Annual fund 271 230 250 250 Campaign contributions 0 0 250 275 Learned societies and affiliates 219 163 175 182 Royalties and miscellaneous 218 180 180 154 Total operating revenues 18,421 28,538 24,791 27,466

Operating Expense: Restricted program grants 18,800 15,150 15,150 15,000 Fellowship stipends, peer review and development 3,654 3,868 3,868 3,975 General administrative (net of cost recovery) 2,056 2,831 2,708 2,921 Scholarly publications 1,205 860 1,040 1,050 Development 188 288 130 200 Total operating expense 25,903 22,997 22,896 23,146

Net Change from operating (Net Assets) -7,482 5,541 1,895 4,320

Non operating items Effect of adoption of SFAS No. 158 - Postretirement Medical Plan 137 0 0 0 Reserve to meet future obligations 0 -400 -400 -400 Subtotal Non-operating Items 137 -400 -400 -400

Net assets, beginning of fiscal year 145,771 138,426 138,426 139,921

Net assets, end of fiscal year 138,426 143,567 139,921 143,841

Table 2

52 American Council of Learned Societies Proposed General Administrative Expense Budget for the Year Ending June 30, 2017 as Compared to FY 2015 Actual and FY 2016 Projection ($000's)

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 General Administrative Expense Actual Budget Projected Budget

Salaries and employee benefits 3,516 3,654 3,654 3,782 Professional and consultant fees 141 160 160 160 Office expense 169 185 185 180 Information Technology 251 320 320 275 Occupancy 145 101 160 165 Meetings, conferences and travel 308 300 260 270 Interest payments 107 103 103 98 Depreciation and amortization 214 192 222 220 Printing, publishing and reports 26 41 60 43 Dues 66 61 61 62 Development 188 200 130 200 Miscellaneous 11 3 10 10

Total General Admin - Operating Expenses 5,142 5,320 5,325 5,465

Non-Operating Items Effect of adoption of SFAS No. 158 - Postretirement Medical Plan 137 0 0 0 Reserve to meet future obligations 0 400 400 400 Subtotal Non-operating Items 137 400 400 400

Less: cost recovery from grants and end. support for peer review -3,223 -2,601 -2,887 -2,744

Total general administrative expense net of cost recovery 2,056 3,119 2,708 3,121

Table 3

53 American Council of Learned Societies Asset Allocation Over Time Through March 31, 2016 Asset Allocation 12/31/2014 12/31/2015 3/31/2016 3/31/2016 Allocation Allocation Allocation Market Value

_ Large Cap Equity 28.09% 24.69% 24.42% $27,760,955 Bristol 15.47% 11.76% 11.84% $13,460,360 Gardner Russo & Gardner 4.55% 4.75% 4.78% $5,429,215 Lone Cascade 8.07% 8.18% 7.81% $8,871,379 Small Cap Equity 4.65% 4.26% 4.33% $4,924,201 Select Equity Offshore Ltd. -- 2.16% 2.24% $2,544,223 Wellington Emerging Cos -- 2.10% 2.09% $2,379,977 **Kalmar Investments 4.65% ------International Equity 20.03% 20.27% 20.50% $23,300,963 Silchester Intl Value Equity Trust 17.55% 15.32% 15.36% $17,460,225 Edgbaston Asian Equity Trust -- 2.68% 2.78% $3,165,041 Capital Guardian 2.49% 2.27% 2.35% $2,675,697 Hedged Equity 2.65% 8.69% 8.36% $9,504,200 Junto Offshore -- 2.20% 2.18% $2,474,240 Lone Pinon 2.65% 2.93% 2.70% $3,068,406 Swiftcurrent Offshore Ltd. -- 3.56% 3.49% $3,961,554 Absolute Return 30.55% 28.49% 28.49% $32,378,749 Davidson Kempner Inst Partners, LP 12.15% 11.36% 11.42% $12,978,342 Farallon Capital Inst Partners, LP 8.91% 9.28% 9.24% $10,496,872 FPA Crescent 9.50% 7.86% 7.83% $8,903,536 Real Assets 2.66% 1.76% 1.92% $2,185,714 Park Street II 0.40% 0.32% 0.28% $315,384 RS Global Natural Resources 2.26% 1.44% 1.65% $1,870,330 Fixed Income 4.29% 4.27% 4.41% $5,017,909 Loomis Sayles 4.29% 4.27% 4.41% $5,017,909 Cash 7.08% 7.57% 7.56% $8,589,790 Treasury only MMF 7.08% 7.57% 7.56% $8,589,790 Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% $113,662,481

XXXXX

54 American Council of Learned Societies Investment Returns by Manager As of March 31, 2016

Investment Returns Fiscal % of 3 Mo 1 Yr 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 7 Yrs Market Value Return Since YTD Portfolio

_ Total Global Equity 0.21% -5.05% -3.84% 6.21% -- -- $55,986,118 49.26% 10.34% Dec-11 MSCI ACWI 0.24% -4.67% -4.34% 5.54% -- -- 9.20% Dec-11 Total Large Cap Equity -0.96% -4.35% -2.84% 7.46% -- -- $27,760,955 24.42% 11.70% Dec-11 S&P 500 1.35% 1.50% 1.78% 11.82% -- -- 14.74% Dec-11 MSCI World -0.35% -3.75% -3.45% 6.82% -- -- 10.37% Dec-11 Bristol 0.86% -0.84% 0.27% 9.25% 9.93% 15.24% $13,460,360 11.84% 5.82% Jun-00 S&P 500 1.35% 1.50% 1.78% 11.82% 11.58% 16.97% 4.24% Jun-00 Gardner Russo & Gardner 0.59% 1.33% 2.33% 5.78% -- -- $5,429,215 4.78% 6.72% Feb-13 MSCI World -0.35% -3.75% -3.45% 6.82% -- -- 7.29% Feb-13 Lone Cascade -4.48% -12.42% -10.07% 5.36% 9.74% 16.57% $8,871,379 7.81% 10.01% Dec-05 MSCI World -0.35% -3.75% -3.45% 6.82% 6.51% 13.12% 4.82% Dec-05 Total Small Cap Equity 1.93% -2.86% -2.79% 6.92% -- -- $4,924,201 4.33% 10.45% Dec-11 Russell 2000 -1.52% -10.14% -9.76% 6.84% -- -- 11.61% Dec-11 Select Equity Offshore Ltd. 3.76% 1.19% 1.46% ------$2,544,223 2.24% 1.63% Feb-15 Russell 2000 -1.52% -10.14% -9.76% ------7.58% Feb-15 Wellington Emerging Cos 0.04% -6.85% -6.96% ------$2,379,977 2.09% -4.44% Feb-15 Russell 2000 -1.52% -10.14% -9.76% ------7.58% Feb-15 Total International Equity 1.26% -6.51% -5.47% 4.26% -- -- $23,300,963 20.50% 8.00% Dec-11 MSCI ACWI ex USA -0.38% -9.66% -9.19% 0.32% -- -- 4.73% Dec-11 Silchester Intl Value Equity Trust 0.40% -6.36% -5.01% 6.05% -- -- $17,460,225 15.36% 6.35% Jun-11 MSCI EAFE -3.01% -8.83% -8.27% 2.23% -- -- 2.08% Jun-11 Edgbaston Asian Equity Trust 4.00% -6.46% -5.92% ------$3,165,041 2.78% -8.61% Mar-15 MSCI AC Asia Pacific ex Japan 1.90% -10.67% -11.58% ------10.96% Mar-15 Capital Guardian 3.89% -7.57% -7.83% -4.40% -- -- $2,675,697 2.35% -1.38% Aug-12 ETOPS Blended Index 6.68% -5.41% -5.10% -3.08% -- -- -0.50% Aug-12 MSCI Emerging Markets 5.71% -12.63% -12.03% -4.50% -- -- -1.22% Aug-12

Fiscal year end is June 30. ETOPS Blended Index consists of 50% MSCI Emerging Markets IMI / 25% JP Morgan EMBI Global / 25% JP Morgan GBI-EM Global Diversified.

55 American Council of Learned Societies Investment Returns by Manager As of March 31, 2016

Fiscal % of 3 Mo 1 Yr 3 Yrs 5 Yrs 7 Yrs Market Value Return Since YTD Portfolio

_ Total Alternative Investments -0.22% -3.22% -2.29% 2.88% -- -- $44,068,664 38.77% 5.25% Dec-11 Total Hedged Equity -3.68% -4.00% -2.11% 3.75% -- -- $9,504,200 8.36% 10.17% Dec-11 MSCI ACWI 0.24% -4.67% -4.34% 5.54% -- -- 9.20% Dec-11 S&P 500 1.35% 1.50% 1.78% 11.82% -- -- 14.74% Dec-11 HFRX Equity Hedge Index -2.93% -7.39% -7.24% 0.53% -- -- 2.70% Dec-11 Junto Offshore -1.03% ------$2,474,240 2.18% -1.03% Dec-15 Lone Pinon -7.88% -8.89% -5.84% 2.41% 7.85% 8.91% $3,068,406 2.70% 10.14% Sep-02 Swiftcurrent Offshore Ltd. -1.86% -1.57% ------$3,961,554 3.49% -0.96% May-15 Total Absolute Return 0.10% -0.96% -0.25% 5.10% -- -- $32,378,749 28.49% 7.05% Dec-11 T-Bills + 5% 1.30% 3.83% 5.11% 5.06% -- -- 5.06% Dec-11 Davidson Kempner Inst Partners, LP 0.65% 0.66% 1.25% 4.49% 4.41% 7.65% $12,978,342 11.42% 5.59% Nov-06 Farallon Capital Inst Partners, LP -0.33% -1.97% -0.59% 4.80% 5.21% 9.90% $10,496,872 9.24% 7.14% Aug-03 FPA Crescent -0.19% -2.25% -1.91% 6.01% -- -- $8,903,536 7.83% 8.10% May-12 Total Real Assets 11.74% -23.86% -23.84% -17.47% -- -- $2,185,714 1.92% -14.06% Dec-11 S&P Global Natural Resources Index TR 9.27% -14.83% -14.73% -8.22% -- -- -4.66% Dec-11 USD Park Street II 0.00% -4.88% -7.31% -6.07% -1.77% 1.82% $315,384 0.28% 2.14% Dec-04 CPI + 5% 1.91% 3.51% 5.89% 5.80% 6.34% 6.70% 7.11% Dec-04 RS Global Natural Resources 14.37% -27.17% -26.81% -19.46% -- -- $1,870,330 1.65% -17.95% Jan-13 S&P Global Natural Resources Index TR 9.27% -14.83% -14.73% -8.22% -- -- -9.27% Jan-13 USD Total Fixed Income 3.48% -0.89% -1.86% 1.62% 3.87% 6.05% $5,017,909 4.41% 5.84% Apr-00 Barclays Aggregate 3.03% 3.71% 1.96% 2.50% 3.78% 4.52% 5.47% Apr-00 Loomis Sayles 3.48% -0.89% -1.86% 2.35% 4.65% -- $5,017,909 4.41% 6.71% Sep-09 Barclays Credit 3.92% 3.93% 0.94% 2.86% 5.00% -- 5.44% Sep-09 Barclays High Yield 3.35% -3.70% -3.69% 1.84% 4.93% -- 7.66% Sep-09 Total Endowment Cash $8,589,790 7.56% Treasury only MMF $8,589,790 7.56%

XXXXX

Fiscal year end is June 30. Park Street statement not available, market value from last quarter +/- cash flows during current quarter used to determine market value.

56 The American Council of Learned Societies Investment Organization and Management as of April, 2016

The ACLS Board of Directors approves the Council's investment policy. The Board Chair appoints an Investment Committee to review investment policy annually and to make appropriate adjustments, clarifications and improvements, subject to ACLS Board review and approval of substantive changes. The Investment Committee currently consists of ten members, five ACLS Board members and five outside investment professionals (see attached listing). Members of the Investment Committee serve pro bono. ACLS has engaged the investment consulting firm, Monticello Associates, to support the work of the Investment Committee.

The Investment Committee meets quarterly, with additional meetings as necessary. Its principal responsibilities include setting of asset allocations within ranges approved by the ACLS Board of Directors, hiring and firing independent investment managers and monitoring investment objectives and results. The Committee has currently allocated ACLS assets among fifteen investment vehicles. The Committee gives each investment manager discretion to manage the Council's assets to achieve the stated investment objectives within the guidelines set forth in the Statement of Investment Policies and Guidelines.

57 American Council of Learned Societies Investment Committee as of April 30, 2016

Dr. Nicola Courtright Dr. James J. O'Donnell Amherst College Arizona State University ACLS Board Member ACLS Board Member

Ms. Lisa Danzig Ms. Heidi Carter Pearlson, Chair Managing Director Managing Partner Post Rock Advisors, LLC Adamas Partners, LLC

Dr. Charlotte Kuh Ms. Carla Skodinski National Research Council (retired) Vice President & Chief Investment Officer ACLS Board Member KCM, LLC

Mr. Herbert Mann Daniel L. Stoddard Group Managing Director (retired) Vice President & Chief Investment Officer TIAA-CREF American Museum of Natural History

Dr. Nancy J. Vickers Dr. Pauline Yu Bryn Mawr College (retired) American Council of Learned Societies ACLS Board Member ACLS Board Member

58 ACLS Investment Committee Heidi Carter Pearlson, Chair

Heidi Carter Pearlson is a founder and managing partner of Adamas Partners, LLC which runs two hedge fund fund-of-funds. Prior to Adamas, from 1996 through May of 2000, she worked at Cambridge Associates. As a consultant at Cambridge Associates, Pearlson worked with numerous not-for-profit colleges and universities, foundations, other endowed institutions and family groups on all asset classes and investment related issues. She was a specialist in marketable alternative assets including hedge funds, risk arbitrage and distressed securities. Pearlson graduated from Brown University with a B.A. in law and public policy in 1991 and from the Yale University School of Management in 1996. Prior to business school, she worked at Cambridge Associates for three years as a senior consulting associate and team leader. Presently, Pearlson serves on the investment committees of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies and the American Council of Learned Societies, and on the Board of Overseers of Children’s Hospital Boston and the Boston Children’s Museum.

59

THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICIES AND GUIDELINES INCLUDING PROPOSED REVISIONS RECOMMENDED TO THE BOARD BY THE INVESTMENT COMMITTTEE – OCTOBER 2015

A. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES The ACLS is committed to a long-term approach with a balanced program of investments to preserve and enhance the real purchasing power of its endowment in order to provide a stable and, in real terms, constant stream of current income for annual operating needs. The ACLS investment objective is to attain a real return, after adjustment for inflation, fees, and administrative costs, of at least 5% per year, measured over rolling five-year periods. In pursuing these objectives, the ACLS intends to select investment managers who are rigorous in the disciplines they utilize to produce returns at acceptable levels of risk.

In managing its financial assets, the ACLS will act in good faith and with the care an ordinarily prudent person in like position would exercise under similar circumstances. When making investment and management decisions, the members of the ACLS Board and the Investment Committee shall consider the ACLS’s charitable purposes, as well as the purposes of the specific funds, and shall consider the following factors, if relevant: (1) general economic conditions; (2) the possible effect of inflation or deflation; (3) the expected tax consequences, if any, of investment decisions or strategies; (4) the role that each investment or course of action plays within the overall investment portfolio of the specific fund; (5) the expected total return from income and the appreciation of its investments; (6) other resources of the ACLS; (7) the needs of the ACLS and the specific fund to make distributions and to preserve capital; and (8) an asset's special relationship or special value, if any, to the charitable purposes of the ACLS.

The ACLS Board and the Investment Committee reporting to it shall not make management and investment decisions regarding an individual asset in isolation but rather in the context of its portfolio of investments as a whole and as part of an overall investment strategy having risk and return objectives reasonably suited to the fund and the ACLS. The ACLS Board shall make reasonable efforts to verify facts relevant to the management and investment of the funds and may incur only costs that are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the assets, the purpose of the ACLS and the skills available to the ACLS.

B. SPENDING POLICY The ACLS Board of Directors supports the policy of limiting annual spending from the endowment for programs and operations to 4.5 to 5.5% of the trailing three-year average market value of the endowment, with the long-term average being 5%, and asked the Investment Committee to pursue investment activities that are consistent with that budgeting and spending policy. With respect to the portion of the ACLS endowment that is restricted for the purpose of underwriting fellowship grants to individuals, ACLS spending practice is today and has long been in-line with the 5% operating limitation.

60 An endowment fund is any fund, or a part of a fund, that, under the terms of the gift instrument, is not wholly expendable by the ACLS on a current basis. Assets that are not restricted as to expenditure under the terms of a gift instrument but have been so restricted by action of the ACLS Board are not endowment funds. All spending from each of the ACLS’s endowment funds will comply with any donor restrictions on spending imposed on such fund and with the District of Columbia Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (“DCUPMIFA”). Decisions to appropriate funds from each endowment for expenditure or to accumulate such funds shall be made only by the ACLS Board. The ACLS Board may authorize a committee of the ACLS Board to assist the ACLS Board in carrying out its responsibilities with respect to the expenditure of ACLS’s endowment funds. Such committee may be authorized to make recommendations to the ACLS Board regarding the expenditure of ACLS’s endowment funds but the final decision as to such matters shall be made by the ACLS Board. The ACLS Board committee, in making a recommendation to appropriate funds from each endowment for expenditure or to accumulate such funds, and the ACLS Board, in making a decision to appropriate funds from each endowment for expenditure or to accumulate such funds, must act in good faith with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances, and must consider (a) the uses, benefits, purposes and duration for which the endowment fund was established and (b) each of the following factors, if relevant:

(1) the duration and preservation of the endowment fund; (2) the purposes of the ACLS and the endowment fund; (3) general economic conditions; (4) the possible effect of inflation or deflation; (5) the expected total return from income and the appreciation of investments; (6) other resources of the ACLS; and (7) the ACLS’s investment policy.

The ACLS Board committee, if any, and the ACLS Board each shall keep a contemporaneous record of its decisions regarding the appropriation of endowment funds for expenditure, describing the nature and extent of the consideration that the committee or the ACLS Board gave to each of the seven factors listed above.

C. PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION AND ASSET ALLOCATION 1. ACLS assets shall be diversified both by asset class (e.g., equities, bonds, etc.) and within each asset class (e.g., within equities by economic sector, industry, size, etc.)

2. Assets shall broadly be divided into three parts, “Equity Allocation, Fixed Income Allocation and Alternative Allocation ”

3. One of the principal responsibilities of the ACLS Investment Committee is asset allocation. The ACLS Investment Committee may change the equity, alternative investments and fixed income ratios within the ranges stated below at its discretion. Changes to the ranges must be reported to, and approved by the ACLS Board.

The current targets and ranges for the investment funds are as follows:

Long-Term Policy Target Range Global Equity 47.5% 40-60% Total Fixed Income 15% 10-20% Alternative Investments 37.5% 30-50%

61

Actual allocations as compared to targets and ranges shall be reviewed by the Investment Committee on a quarterly basis. If an asset class is outside of its range, this shall be discussed by the Committee. The Committee shall either take actions to rebalance the asset class back into range, or shall document the reason for maintaining an allocation outside of range.

D. INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE Independent investment management organizations will invest ACLS endowment assets. Each investment manager has discretion to manage the assets in each particular portfolio to best achieve the stated investment objectives, within the guidelines set forth in this policy statement. It is understood that mutual funds, commingled funds and limited partnerships are not subject to the specific guidelines of this Investment Policy Statement. However, it is expected that each will follow the guidelines and restrictions as specified in their Prospectus on the date of ACLS’ original investment and will exercise reasonable care to comply with the scope and terms of the delegation of management and investment of assets of ACLS. Should changes be made to the original guidelines, ACLS is to be immediately notified. Managers’ performance will be monitored on a continuing basis and evaluated over one, three and five year periods.

The ACLS Board and the Investment Committee reporting to it will act in good faith and with the care an ordinarily prudent person in like position would exercise under similar circumstances in (i) selecting, continuing or terminating any external agent including assessing the agent’s independence, including any conflicts of interest such agent has or may have; (ii) establishing the scope and terms of the delegation, including the compensation to be paid; and (iii) periodically reviewing the agent’s actions in order to monitor the agent’s performance and compliance with the scope and terms of the delegation.

Any external agent to which management and investment authority is delegated owes a duty to the ACLS to exercise reasonable care to comply with the scope and terms of the delegation. The Investment Committee will periodically review and report to the Board on ACLS’s arrangements with any investment managers, investment advisors, custodians and the banks and other entities with which the ACLS maintains its financial assets to ensure that the costs and fees associated with each such arrangement are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the assets, the ACLS’s purposes and the skills available to the ACLS.

E. GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF EQUITY ASSETS Within the overall Global Equity Allocation the Investment Committee may approve allocations to investments in U.S. domestic and International (developed and emerging) common stocks.

1. The objective for the Global Equity Allocation is to outperform the MSCI All Country World stock index (net of fees).

2. The ACLS Equity Allocation overall will be diversified by such economic characteristics as geography, economic sector, industry, capitalization and investment style. In order to achieve its investment objective, ACLS may employ multiple investment managers, each of whom may have focused investment styles. Accordingly, while each manager’s portfolio may not be diversified, the combined equity portfolio will have the characteristic of diversification.

a) Managers with developed markets mandates are permitted to hold assets in emerging markets securities (no more than 25% of their assets).

62 b) A maximum of 15% of total Fund assets are allowed to be invested in managers with primarily emerging markets mandates.

3. Decisions as to individual security selection, number of industries and holdings, current income levels, turnover and the other tools employed by active managers are left to manager discretion, subject to the usual standards of fiduciary prudence.

4. Unless otherwise instructed, an equity manager may at his/her discretion hold investment reserves of either cash equivalents or bonds. Performance will be measured against an agreed upon equity benchmark.

F. GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF FIXED INCOME ASSETS 1. The objective of the Fixed Income Allocation is to outperform the Barclay’s Aggregate Bond Index (net of fees).

2. Money market instruments as well as bonds may be used in the Fixed Income Allocation. Managers are expected to employ active management techniques with respect to the Fixed Income Allocation. The average maturity, duration and portfolio yield, or some equivalent measure, should routinely be communicated to the Investment Committee.

G. GUIDELINES FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ASSETS 1. The objective for Alternative Assets Allocation is to provide either higher returns than those generated by traditional investments and/or to generate lower volatility. It is generally expected that they will also have lower correlation to public equity markets. 2. The Investment Committee shall make decisions as to which types of strategies to allocate to within the Alternative Assets Allocation. Strategies allocated to will generally fall within the sub-strategies of Absolute Return, Hedged Equity or Real Assets. 3. Decisions as to diversification and selection between, and within, “alternative” investment strategies, and the other tools employed by active managers, are left to manager discretion, subject to the usual standards of fiduciary prudence. 4. The ACLS Alternative Asset Allocation will be diversified, as applicable, by such economic characteristics as region, country, economic sector, industry, capitalization, etc. 5. Decisions as to region, individual country, security selection, number of industries and holdings, current income levels, turnover and the other tools employed by active managers are left to manager discretion, subject to the usual standards of fiduciary prudence.

Absolute Return: 1. The objective of Absolute Return is to outperform a benchmark of the risk-free rate plus 5% (net of fees) annualized over a complete market cycle. 2. Absolute Return strategies are expected to have volatility that is substantially lower than that of public equity markets and only moderately higher than fixed income markets. 3. An Absolute Return Hedge Fund manager may at his/her discretion hold investment reserves of cash. Performance will be measured against an agreed upon benchmark. Hedged Equity:

63 1. The objective of Hedged Equity is to outperform the MSCI AC World Index over a complete market cycle with lower volatility. 2. A Hedged Equity Fund manager may at his/her discretion hold investment reserves of either cash equivalents or bonds. Performance will be measured against an agreed upon equity benchmark.

Real Assets: 1. The objective of Real Assets is to provide an inflation hedge and outperform the CPI + 5% over a complete market cycle. 2. A Real Assets Fund manager may at his/her discretion hold investment reserves of either cash equivalents or bonds. Performance will be measured against an agreed upon benchmark.

H. MONITORING OF OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS 1. The portfolios will be monitored on a continuing basis for consistency in investment philosophy, return relative to objectives, investment risk as measured by asset characteristics, exposure to extreme economic conditions and market volatility. The Investment Committee will review portfolios on a quarterly basis. Investment managers will be evaluated on one, three and five year periods.

2. Each investment manager will report the following information monthly: total return net of all commissions and fees. Managers will also provide monthly or quarterly holding and exposure information.

3. The Investment Committee shall arrange to meet with each investment manager on a regular basis. The ACLS staff shall be responsible for scheduling these periodic meetings with investment managers.

4. If at any time a manager believes that any policy guideline inhibits investment performance, it is the manager’s responsibility to clearly communicate this view to the Investment Committee.

5. Another principal responsibility of the Investment Committee is the issue of investment manager selection, and the related question of investment manager separation / termination. These matters require thorough and consistent procedures over time. In addition to assessing the investment performance of those invited to manage ACLS assets, ACLS may resolve to separate managers for reasons related to changed circumstances of the managers themselves, such as:

• changes in firm ownership

• changes in the firm’s key personnel

• changes in the size of the firm as measured by changes in the scale of assets under management

• Changes in investment style including unexplained departures from, or exceptions to previously articulated investment philosophy, strategy or style.

64 I. Periodic Review, Revision and Reconfirmation of this ACLS Statement of Investment Policies and Guidelines The ACLS Investment Committee is resolved, annually, to review this statement of Investment Policies and Guidelines, making adjustments, clarifications and improvements as appropriate, and to seek ACLS Board review and approval of substantive changes. The review of these policies and guidelines will routinely be scheduled at the quarterly meeting of the committee in the first calendar quarter of each year, normally scheduled in late January. The results of the review will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

65

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES CURRENT INVESTMENT MANAGER STRUCTURE AS OF APRIL 28, 2015

Global Equities:

John W. Bristol & Co., Inc. -- Growth at a Reasonable Price: Bristol is a core manager, with a strong bias for stocks with superior long-term growth prospects, as well as sensitivity to valuation issues, when making stock selections. The firm favors companies with above-average long-term earnings and dividend growth. They “arbitrage time horizons” by having a much longer time horizon and holding period than other money managers for the purpose of taking advantage of favorable valuations caused by short term actions taken by those with short time horizons. To determine which stocks display these attributes, the firm analyzes both company-specific (e.g., high research spending, new product creation, participation in growth product markets) and macroeconomic factors (e.g., monetary and fiscal policy, political shifts, consumer and industrial spending habits). With respect to portfolio construction, the firm attempts to maintain portfolio diversity in an attempt to dampen volatility, with the long-term goal of providing clients a growing stream of income while maintaining the purchasing power of their capital. Stocks are generally held for three to five years, and turnover tends to be very low. The portfolio’s return objective is to exceed the S&P 500 Index, net of commissions and management fees, over the long term. In addition, performance is expected to exceed the Madison Portfolio Consultants’ Large Cap Core Manager Sample Median return. Key Personnel: Robert Coviello

Gardner Russo Gardner – Tobacco Free Equity Account: GRG is a concentrated long-only strategy that primarily invests in domestic and foreign, mid- and large cap stocks. The investment style is extremely long-term focused and portfolio companies must be willing to forego quarterly results in favor of long-term wealth creation via logical reinvestment opportunities in developing markets. The strategy seeks to invest in companies earning positive free cash flow and those that have demonstrated the ability to sustain free cash flow and above- average profitability. Other attributes the team looks for include business managers that will align their interests with those of other shareholders and provide them with a consistent method for measuring results against good intentions. Key Personnel: Tom Russo, Co-Owner and Portfolio Manager.

Lone Cascade L.P. – Global Equity Fund: Lone Pine Capital LLC, the portfolio’s investment advisor, manages this long only global equity strategy, which opened on 1/1/05. Its goal is to generate above market returns (vis-à-vis the S&P 500) with below market volatility. This fund is invested with the same style and investment analysis as is used in the long portion of the Lone Kauri Fund (established in 2002). In fact the Lone Cascade portfolio is invested in all or some of the long positions in Long Pine Capital’s Lone Kauri Fund – a long/short global equity investment vehicle. A description of the Lone Kauri Fund is contained in the description of the

66 Lone Pinon Fund under the Long/Short Hedged Equity subsection of the ACLS guidelines. Unlike the Lone Kauri Fund, there is no leverage employed in the Lone Cascade portfolio. Typically, there will be 25 - 50 long positions, with 20 – 50% of the holdings in international assets. The portfolio’s return objective is to exceed the S&P 500 Index, net of commissions and management fees, over the long term. In addition, performance is expected to exceed a sample of similar style funds. Key personnel: Steve Mandel

Select Equity Small/Mid Cap Core Equity Fund: Select Equity Small/Mid Cap Core is a concentrated value-based equity strategy that invest primarily in the equity securities of US based companies with market capitalization of $1 - $10 billion. The investment process is bottom-up and the process is research-intensive. The strategy has a long-term focus and targets quality businesses which Select Equity defines as businesses with strong growth opportunities, high levels of profitability, significant barriers to entry and limited competition. This tends to result in concentration within the industrial, consumer discretionary and healthcare sectors while avoiding industries such as energy, utilities and telecommunications. The firm was founded in 1990 by George Loening. It is independent and owned by its personnel. Key Personnel: George Loening

Wellington Emerging Companies Equity Fund: The Emerging Companies Fund invests primarily in the equity securities of US based companies with markets capitalizations of $200 to $600 million. The process is bottom-up and fundamentally driven focused on purchasing intrinsically undervalued companies. The team attempts to identify dynamic business franchises that are inefficiently priced, under-researched and poorly followed by Wall Street. Key investment characteristics of portfolio holdings: 1) Growing stream of sales/earnings; 2) Assets selling at a discount to current market valuation levels; 3) Undervalued underlying business franchise; and/or 4) Reside in misunderstood industries. The portfolio is highly diversified with approximately 100 stocks. Wellington was founded in 1928 and is an employee-owned partnership. Key Personnel: David Dubard

Silchester International Investors LLP Business Trust: The portfolio’s advisors are bottom- up, international equity value investors who seek quality companies that are cheap relative to their asset values. Their focus is on evaluating financials [the balance sheet, financing policies, liquidity, free cash flow (trailing and normalized)] and the business [competitive advantages (franchise, barriers to competition, etc.) and meeting managements to assess their views of their financial positions and to understand their future plans].

Stock holdings are primarily in developed markets, although up to 20% of portfolio value may be in emerging markets equity. They don’t manage sector weights against an index, but do use common sense controls to spread holdings across countries and to put limits on maximum exposure percentages. In general, country and sector weights are a by-product of their stock picking process, although, typically, they will be invested in all of the countries comprising MSCI EAFE. The portfolio is well diversified, numbering between 90 and 145 stocks. In building the portfolio, their focus is on maximizing its intrinsic value (i.e., earnings, assets and dividends because they have determined there is a high correlation between the growth of intrinsic value and stock market value.

67 Edgbaston Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity Program: The Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity Program is a diversified long-only equity strategy that invests solely in the Asia Pacific region excluding Japan. The team uses a purely bottom-up process, to identify high quality companies trading at discount to their value. Prefers companies with yield to help provide downside protection. The process begins by screening the nearly 6,000 companies in investment universe which includes Australia, New Zealand as well as most Asian frontier market countries. Companies in the least expensive quartile based on P/B, P/E, ROE and yield are selected for further analysis. Fundamental analysis includes consideration of sustainability of earnings and dividends, balance sheet quality, industry and company dynamics, management track record, governance history, corporate strategy and growth opportunities. Portfolio is diversified and holds between 60 and 80 stocks and will normally be fully invested. The firm founded in 2008 by Charu Fernando. The majority of the firm is owned by Edgbaston employees with 50.1%. The remaining 49.9% is owned by Silchester who provided financial and operational support during the initial stages of the firm’s life. Key Personnel: Charu Fernando.

Capital Guardian - Emerging Markets Total Opportunities Fund: The strategy invests in debt and equity securities in emerging markets using an opportunistic approach which considers the relative opportunity set between EM equities and debt. The strategy is benchmark agnostic and has an objective of producing lower volatility than typical EM exposure. The portfolio is managed by three Portfolio Managers, using Capital Guardian’s multiple portfolio management approach. The three managers are each allocated an equal portion of the fund which they manage as individual portfolios. Key personnel: Shaw Wagener, Laurentius Harrer, and Luis Freitas de Oliveira

Fixed Income:

The Loomis, Sayles Credit Asset Fund LLC, a New Hampshire Investment Trust structure, is a credit focused strategy which invests in investment grade corporate bonds, bank loans (aka leveraged loans), high yield corporate bonds and securitized assets, all dollar denominated. No leverage is employed. Derivatives (futures) are allowed for duration and interest rate management purposes only. The Fund will invest in, and be allocated among, four sector focused Loomis funds. The sub-funds, as well as the choice of individual assets within their respective sectors, are managed by experienced Loomis Sayles managers who either run similar products or run one of these sectors within a broader mandated portfolio. Three portfolio managers determine the percentages invested in each sub-fund. Expected macroeconomic outcomes in their “decision matrix” tool will be the key driver of their allocation decisions. They are allowed to invest directly in individual securities, as well, but most of the assets are expected to be placed in the sub-funds. The Fund’s objective is to be in the credit sectors offering the best risk/reward outcome at any point in time. The portfolio has a blended benchmark, which is: 50% BC Corporate index, 25% BC High Yield index and 25% S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan index. These percentages represent the likely long term exposures for the Fund. Loomis Sayles fixed income investing process emphasizes security selection via proprietary, fundamental research. They are known for their credit research capabilities, which is the key to their investment management. Their research analysts are global in scope and are compensated on a par with portfolio managers, enabling them to be career analysts. They employ a proprietary bond rating system that is future oriented and which is focused on determining

68 ratings that will be appropriate for the next 12 to 18 months. By comparing their future ratings to current ratings they look for undervalued issues in which to invest.

Alternative Investments:

Hedged Equity:

Lone Pinon Fund– Long/Short Equity Hedge Fund: Lone Pine Capital LLC, the partnership’s investment advisor, uses a well-diversified long/short global equity strategy in its goal to generate above market returns, net of commissions and management fees, (vis-à-vis the S&P 500) with below market volatility. The primary investment vehicle used is the Lone Kauri Fund. The Lone Kauri Fund (established in 2002) invests with the same style and investments as the Lone Pine Fund (established in 1998), except that it is invested in the more liquid equities that have a minimum daily trading volume of $20 million. Accordingly, Lone Kauri has fewer, more concentrated positions than Lone Pine. Lone Kauri uses a bottom up strategy relying on the expertise of its analysts to detect opportunities, both long and short, primarily within seven sectors: telecom/media, healthcare, industrial, consumer/ retail, business services, technology and financial services. On the long side, they search for attractively priced stocks of: (i) growth companies whose capital investments will produce high rates of return for long periods; (ii) highly cash generative businesses with slow growth whose managements focus on using the cash to benefit shareholders and (iii) poorly managed, fundamentally strong, businesses now run by strong management teams. On the short side, they look for (i) overvalued firms where there are misperceptions about the economies or sustainability of growth; (ii) firms with long term competitive and/or balance sheet problems and (iii) firms with questionable reporting of financial results. Investments are selected and managed to minimize risk exposure. Net long/short exposure is typically 20 – 60%. Portfolio leverage ranges from 1.5X to 2X. Typically, there will be 40 - 60 longs averaging 1-5% allocation (max 10%) and 50 - 75 shorts averaging 0.5-3% (max 5%). Usually, 20 – 40% of the Fund’s gross exposure will be to international assets, although no more than 15% may be in emerging markets issues. In addition to investing in public equity securities of U.S. and non-U.S. issuers, the investment manager is permitted to utilize over-the-counter and exchange traded instruments (including derivative instruments such as options, swaps and futures on equities and equity indices, as well as other equity derivatives) and invest in the high yield and convertible fixed income markets. Cash may be held. (Please note the PPM permits the investment manager to exceed any of the typical ranges above when deemed appropriate by him.) In addition, performance is expected to exceed a sample of similar style funds. Key personnel: Steve Mandel

First Pacific Advisors: FPA Crescent Fund: The Fund’s investment objective is to provide a total return consistent with reasonable investment risk through a combination of income and capital appreciation. The firm employs a strategy of selectively investing across a company’s capital structure with the potential to increase in market value, in order to achieve rates of return with less risk than the broad market indices. The strategy combines bottom-up fundamental analysis with a top-down macro analysis overlay to constructed a concentrated portfolio of investments across the capital structure, including common and preferred stocks, convertible

69 bonds, high-yield bonds, bank debt, and government bonds (on occasion). The fund also has the ability to short stocks. Key personnel: Steven Romick

Bridger Management LLC: Swiftcurrent Partners, Ltd: Swiftcurrent Partners is a diversified portfolio of long and short equity investments. The fund is agnostic on market capitalization and geography, but the bulk of the exposure is generally in the US and in mid and large capitalization stocks. The fund is built based on bottom-up, fundamental research that maintains low net exposure ranging between 0-50% with gross exposure of 100 – 200%. The short book is maintained both as a hedge versus long investments and as a source of alpha. The strategy’s goal is to beat the S&P 500 over longer periods of time, while providing down-market protection and less volatility than the equity markets. Healthcare is a sector where the firm has particular expertise and is generally a significant gross exposure in the strategy. The firm was formed in 2000 by Roberto Mignone. Key personnel: Roberto Mignone

Absolute Return:

Davidson Kempner Institutional Partners, L.P.: Davidson Kempner is the manager of this multi-strategy, event driven fund, which it started in 1996. They engage in distressed securities, merger arbitrage, event driven equities, convertible arbitrage and healthcare strategies; although when nothing appears attractive they put their assets in cash equivalents. They take a bottom-up approach, based on fundamental research, in which each position they invest in is judged on its own relative risk/reward characteristics versus short-term interest rates. It is conservative – they invest in announced deals only (risk arbitrage) and buy senior secured paper (distressed). No leverage is employed. The Fund’s objective is to produce superior risk-adjusted returns with low volatility and low correlation to traditional markets. The principals are highly motivated to succeed, since 90% of their own net worth is invested in their funds. Key personnel: Thomas Kempner.

Farallon Capital Institutional Partners, L.P.: Farallon Capital Management, LLC, manages this Multi Strategy Hedge Fund, started in 1990. They use a multi strategy, event driven approach that invests in risk arbitrage, distressed debt, real estate, distressed convertibles, special situations (equity) and investments involving complex legal and regulatory elements. They adjust allocations opportunistically among those strategies and are global investors. Their objective is to produce an above market rate of return without risk to principal and with lower volatility than equities. The manager has a long track record and experience. Going forward, ACLS will participate in new private, illiquid investments as they are made. The portfolio’s return objective is to exceed, over the long term, the risk-free rate plus 5% annually, net of commissions and management fees. Key personnel: Andrew Spokes

Real Assets:

RS Investments: RS Global Natural Resource Fund: The strategy invests in natural resource equities with advantaged assets that can generate value across commodity cycles. The approach is fundamentally based with a focus on sub-sectors with high marginal cost curves, which enables greater degrees of differentiation between companies. The portfolio is constructed to be diversified by commodity but will be concentrated in the number of holdings. The investment

70 universe for the Fund consists of 750 companies, which are narrowed down to approximately 250 based on RS’s advantaged assets filter of lower cost producers. The 250 investable list is further filtered down to 100 companies through RS’s preference for management teams focused on ROIC rather than production growth. The portfolio is ultimately constructed of 30-40 positions which have more attractive valuation metrics. RS emphasizes those companies trading near or at a discount to NAV. Key personnel: Ken Settles, Mac Davis

Park Street Capital Natural Resources Fund II, LP (NRF II): Park Street Capital is an independent, employee-owned firm that was formed in 2001 during the Royal Bank of Canada’s acquisition of Tucker Anthony. The firm constructs fund of funds investments in private equity and, more recently, natural resources for the institutional market. NRF II is designed to be a high quality core holding of real (“hard”) assets within an institutional portfolio. The fund is primarily focused on timber and energy assets within the U.S., with some allocation to “Other Natural Resources”, such as renewable, wind power, etc. They will invest in 12 to 18 limited partnerships run by professional, experienced managers over the first 2 to 3 years. The term of the partnership is 15 years, with a projected average fee of 50 Bps on committed capital, starting with 75 Bps in the first five years. Carry is 2.5% after money back plus return on CPI. The fund’s objective is to generate returns, over the long-term, which are competitive with U.S. equities. They expect net total returns of 9 to 14%, of which 3 to 5% is expected to be from yield (income) and the balance from capital appreciation. Fund returns are expected to be positively correlated with inflation (inflation hedge) and to have low correlations with stock markets (increasing overall portfolio diversification and lowering risk). The portfolio’s return objective is to exceed, over the long term, the risk-free rate plus 5% plus a liquidity premium of 2% (i.e., RF+7%), annually, net of commissions and management fees. Key personnel: Robert G. Segal.

71

Institution, Person, Employer (Person)

72 Proceedings of the Ninety-eighth Meeting of the Council ACLS Annual Meeting May 7-9, 2015 Philadelphia, PA

The ninety-eighth meeting of the American Council of Learned Societies, its ninety-sixth Annual Meeting and the ninety-fourth meeting of the Corporation, was held on May 6, 2015. Information on the 2015 meeting (including agenda and full participants list) is available at www.acls.org/am2015/.

The chair, James J. O’Donnell, called the Meeting of the Council to order at 11:15 am, on May 8, 2015. Ms. Bradley and Ms. Mueller were appointed recorders. The secretary, Mr. Culler, called the roll.

The chair announced the presence of a quorum of the members of the Council. He welcomed the Conference of Administrative Officers, Affiliates, and guests who were present as observers. He then asked those present to rise and stand in memory of colleagues who had died since the 2014 annual meeting.

Mr. O’Donnell presented the report of the Board Nominating Committee. Serving as members of the 2015 Nominating Committee were Richard Leppert, Chair, member of the board; Jonathan Culler and Ann Fabian, members of the board; Anand Yang, delegate, Association for Asian Studies; and Jack Fitzmier, CAO member, American Academy of Religion.

Nominations for the following offices were put forward: Chair (for a three-year term ending in 2018): James J. O’Donnell, classics, Arizona State University

The following nominations for a member of the Board of Directors for four-year terms ending in 2019 were put forward: Donald Brenneis, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz Terry Castle, English, Stanford University

No nominations having been received in addition to these, which had been presented to the Council 45 days before the meeting as required by the By-laws, it was (2015, AM 1) Voted: To instruct the secretary to cast one ballot for the officers and members of the Board of Directors proposed by the Nominating Committee.

The next item on the agenda was a recommendation of the Board of Directors that the Shakespeare Association of America (SAA) be admitted to constituent membership in the Council. A vote was taken by individual ballot. The chair appointed Mr. Guzman and Mr. Tymowski tellers for the balloting. Later in the meeting the tellers reported on the balloting for admission.

It was (2015, AM 2) Voted: An affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of the Council in attendance having been cast, the Shakespeare Association of America is admitted to constituent membership in the ACLS.

The Council then heard the financial and investment reports. The following financial and investment reports had been distributed to the members of the Council in advance of the meeting:  Treasurer’s Report  FY 15 Income and Expense Statement for the twelve months ended March 31, 2015, as compared to FYTD 14 Actual and FY 15 Budget and FY 15 Projection  2015-16 Proposed Budget  Investment Performance Review, as of March 31, 2015

73 Ms. Vickers presented the Treasurer’s Report and the 2015-16 proposed budget. The complete report was distributed in advance of the meeting.

Action on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2016 is required at the meeting of the Council.

It was (2015, AM 3) Voted: To approve the 2015-16 proposed budget.

Ms. Vickers reported on the performance of the current array of investment managers.

Consent Agenda The consent agenda, which included the items below, was approved after a brief discussion.

1. Approval of the Proceedings of the Ninety-sixth Meeting of the Council at the ACLS Annual Meeting, May 8, 2014. 2. Dates and location of the 2015 Annual Meeting: May 5-7, Arlington VA 3. Announcement of Delegates whose terms expire on December 31, 2015: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Roger Bagnall, New York University American Dialect Society, William Kretzschmar, University of Georgia American Oriental Society, Paul Kroll, University of Colorado Boulder American Philosophical Society, Julia Gaisser, Bryn Mawr College American Society of Comparative Law, John Reitz, University of Iowa Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, William Rosenberg, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies, Janis Chakars, Gwynedd Mercy University Dictionary Society of North America, Edward Finegan, University of Southern California German Studies Association, Patricia Herminghouse, University of Rochester Hispanic Society of America, Mitchell Codding, Hispanic Society of America International Center for Medieval Art, Peter Barnet, Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Cloisters North American Conference on British Studies, Philippa Levine, University of Texas at Austin Organization of American Historians, Thomas Bender, New York University Society for Classical Studies, Dee Clayman, City University of New York, The Graduate Center Society for Ethnomusicology, Beverley Diamond, Memorial University of Newfoundland Society for French Historical Studies, Barry Bergen, Gallaudet University Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study, Thomas DuBois, University of Wisconsin- Madison Society of Biblical Literature, Kent Richards, Society of Biblical Literature World History Association, Laura Mitchell, University of California, Irvine

Council Meeting Attendance Present during all or part of the session on May 8 as voting members of the Corporation were the following: Officers James O'Donnell, Chair Nicola Courtright, Vice Chair Jonathan Culler, Secretary Nancy Vickers, Treasurer Members of the Board of Directors Terry Castle Ann Fabian Richard Leppert Teofilo Ruiz

74

Ex Officiis: Nancy Kidd, chair, Executive Committee of the Conference of Administrative Officers, National Communication Association Philippa Levine, chair, Executive Committee of the Delegates, North American Conference on British Studies Pauline Yu, ACLS

Delegates of Constituent Societies American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Roger Bagnall American Academy of Religion, Jack Fitzmier, acting American Anthropological Association, Leith Mullings American Antiquarian Society, Scott Casper American Association for the History of Medicine, Caroline Hannaway American Comparative Literature Association, Alexander Beecroft, acting American Dialect Society, William Kretzschmar American Economic Association, Charlotte Kuh American Folklore Society, Lee Haring American Historical Association, George Sanchez American Musicological Society, Anne Walters Robertson American Numismatic Society, Andrew Reinhard, acting American Oriental Society, Paul Kroll American Philosophical Association, Henry Richardson American Philosophical Society, Julia Gaisser American Political Science Association, Rogers Smith American Schools of Oriental Research, Susan Ackerman American Society for Aesthetics, Dominic Lopes American Society for Environmental History, John McNeill American Society for Legal History, Constance Backhouse American Society of Church History, Charles Lippy American Society of Comparative Law, John Reitz American Society of International Law, James Nafziger, acting American Sociological Association, Elizabeth Higginbotham American Studies Association, Kandice Chuh Archaeological Institute of America, J. Theodore Peña Association for Asian Studies, Anand Yang Association for Jewish Studies, Carol Bakhos Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies, William Rosenberg Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies, Janis Chakars Association of American Geographers, Nicholas Entrikin Association of American Law Schools, Linda Greene Bibliographical Society of America, David Vander Meulen College Art Association, Anne Goodyear College Forum of the National Council of Teachers of English, Doug Hesse Dictionary Society of North America, Edward Finegan Economic History Association, Daniel Raff German Studies Association, Patricia Herminghouse History of Science Society, Michael Sokal International Center of Medieval Art, Peter Barnet Latin American Studies Association, Gwen Kirkpatrick Law and Society Association, Carol Greenhouse Linguistic Society of America, Sandra Chung Medieval Academy of America, Nancy Partner Middle East Studies Association of North America, Roger Allen, acting Modern Language Association of America, Barbara Altmann

75 National Communication Association, Kristine Muñoz National Council on Public History, Robert Weyeneth North American Conference on British Studies, Philippa Levine Oral History Association, Anne Valk Organization of American Historians, Thomas Bender Renaissance Society of America, James Navitsky Rhetoric Society of America, Susan Wells Sixteenth Century Society and Conference, Donald Harreld, acting Society for American Music, Charles Garrett, acting Society for Classical Studies, Ralph Rosen, acting Society for Ethnomusicology, Beverly Diamond Society for French Historical Studies, Robert Kreiser, acting Society for Military History, Gregory Urwin Society for Music Theory, Edward Jurkowski Society for the History of Technology, W. Bernard Carlson Society of Architectural Historians, Sandy Isenstadt Society of Biblical Literature, Kent Richards Society of Dance History Scholars, Nadine George-Graves World History Association, Laura Mitchell

Also present at times during the meeting, but not voting:

From the Conference of Administrative Officers (CAO) African Studies Association, Suzanne Moyer Baazet American Academy of Religion, Jack R. Fitzmier American Anthropological Association, Edward B. Liebow American Antiquarian Society, Paul J. Erickson American Comparative Literature Association, Alexander Jamieson Beecroft American Dialect Society, Allan Metcalf American Economic Association, Peter Rousseau American Folklore Society, Timothy Lloyd American Historical Association, James Grossman American Philosophical Association, Amy Ferrer American Political Science Association, Betsy Super American Schools of Oriental Research, Andrew G. Vaughn American Society for Aesthetics, Julie C. Van Camp American Society for Legal History, Craig Klafter American Society of Church History, Keith A. Francis American Society of Comparative Law, James A. R. Nafziger American Society of International Law, Mark D. Agrast American Sociological Association, Sally T. Hillsman Archaeological Institute of America, Ann Benbow Association for Jewish Studies, Rona Sheramy Association for the Advancement of Baltic Studies, Irena Blekys Dictionary Society of North America, Rebecca Shapiro German Studies Association, David E. Barclay History of Science Society, Robert (Jay) J. Malone Linguistic Society of America, Alyson Reed Modern Language Association of America, Rosemary G. Feal National Communication Association, Nancy Kidd North American Conference on British Studies, Paul R. Deslandes, Oral History Association, Clifford M. Kuhn Renaissance Society of America, Ann Moyer Sixteenth Century Society and Conference, Donald J. Harreld Society for American Music, Mariana Whitmer Society for Classical Studies, Adam D. Blistein

76 Society for Ethnomusicology, Stephen Stuempfle Society for Music Theory, Victoria L. Long Society for the History of Technology, David Lucsko Society of Architectural Historians, Pauline Saliga Society of Dance History Scholars, Ann Cooper Albright

From Affiliated Institutions Association of College and Research Libraries, Mary Ellen K. Davis Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, Jean-Marc Mangin Community College Humanities Association David A. Berry Federation of State Humanities Councils, Jeff Allen International Society for Third-Sector Research, Margery Berg Daniels

Presidents of ACLS Constituent Societies American Schools of Oriental Research, Susan Ackerman, Dartmouth College American Society of International Law, Lori Damrosch, Columbia University College Art Association, Anne Collins Goodyear, Bowdoin College Society for American Music, Charles Hiroshi Garret, University Of Michigan-Ann Arbor Society for Ethnomusicology, Beverly Diamond, Memorial University of Newfoundland Society for Military History, Gregory J.W. Urwin, Temple University Society of Dance History Scholars, Ann Cooper Albright, Oberlin College

Other Participants William “Bro” Adams, Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities Jane Aikin, Director of the Division of Research Programs, National Endowment for the Humanities Keith Anthony, Associate Director of The Bill and Carol Fox Center for Humanistic Inquiry, Emory University Srinivas Aravamudan F’06, Professor of English, of Romance Studies, and of the Program in Literature, Duke University Sandra T. Barnes, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania Jessica L. Baron, Outreach and Communications Coordinator and Director of Media and Engagement, History of Science Society Peter Berkery, Executive Director, Association of American University Presses Stephen Berry F’13, Co-director, Center for Virtual History; Secretary-Treasurer, Southern Historical Association; and Gregory Professor of the Civil War Era, University of Georgia Deborah Brandt F’86, Professor Emerita of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison Dorothy Chansky, Associate Professor of Theatre and Dance, Texas Tech University Ronald M. Davidson F’10, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Humanities Institute, Fairfield University Bill Davis, Consultant, Bill Davis Consulting LLC Wendy Doniger, Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago Steven Feierman, Professor of History Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania Ana Paula Ferreira, Professor of Portuguese Studies, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Deborah K. Fitzgerald, Professor of the History of Technology and Kenan Sahin Dean of the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Margot J. Fox, Interpreter (French), New York, NY Stephen Gabel, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, University of Chicago Douglas Greenberg, Distinguished Professor of History, Rutgers University-New Brunswick Beatrice Gurwitz, Assistant Director, National Humanities Alliance Geoffrey G. Harpham F’80, President and Director, National Humanities Center Dorothy L. Hodgson F’05, President-elect, African Studies Association; Professor and Graduate Program Director in the Department of Anthropology, and Graduate Faculty in the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University-New Brunswick Sylvia W. Houghteling F’14, Doctoral Candidate in the Department of the History of Art, Yale University

77 Stephen Kidd, Executive Director, National Humanities Alliance Jeanette S. Kreiser, Adjunct Professor in the Undergraduate School, University of Maryland University College Gregg Lambert, Dean’s Professor of the Humanities and Founding Director of the Humanities Center, Syracuse University; and Lead Principal Investigator, The Central New York Humanities Corridor Pier M. Larson F’03, Acting Vice Dean for Humanities and Social Sciences in the Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Director of the Program in International Studies, and Professor of African History, The Johns Hopkins University Joan K. Lippincott, Associate Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information Colin Mably, Executive Director, International Society for Teacher Education Michael Magoulias, Director of Journals, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Carol A. Mandel, Dean of Libraries, New York University Elizabeth C. Mansfield, Vice President for Scholarly Programs, National Humanities Center Deanna B. Marcum, Managing Director, Ithaka S+R Susan K. McClary, Professor of Musicology, Case Western Reserve University Timothy Murray, Director of the Society for the Humanities, Professor of Comparative Literature and of English, and Curator of the Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art in the Cornell Library, Cornell University Grace Ahingula Musila F’11, Senior Lecturer in the English Department and Founding Convenor of the Locations and Locutions Lecture Series of the Graduate School of the Faculty, Stellenbosch University Margaret O’Mara F’14, Associate Professor of History, University of Washington Margaret Plympton, Deputy Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities John Ramsay F’92, Provost, Muhlenberg College Daniel Reid, Executive Director, The Whiting Foundation Kari Roane, Publisher for Journals Acquisitions, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago David M. Robinson F’83, Director of the Center for the Humanities, Distinguished Professor of American Literature, and Professor of English, Oregon State University Alan Rutenberg, Humanities and Faculty Awards Coordinator in the Office of Research and Engagement, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Judith R. Shapiro F’80, President, The Teagle Foundation Carl J. Strikwerda, President, Elizabethtown College Arnold Thackray G’76, G’69, Chancellor and Founder, Chemical Heritage Foundation Dan Turello, Program Specialist at The John W. Kluge Center, Library of Congress Christopher A. Tuttle, Executive Director, Council of American Overseas Research Centers Richard Valelly F’12, Claude C. Smith ’14 Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Matthew Van Hoose, Project Director and Whiting Fellow for the Humanities, National Humanities Alliance Judith E. Vichniac, Associate Dean of the Fellowship Program, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University Robert Walser, Professor of Musicology and Coordinator of Graduate Studies for Musicology, Case Western Reserve University Holly Willis, Research Assistant Professor, Chair of Media Arts + Practice, and Director of the Institute for Multimedia Literacy, University of Southern California Laurie Zierer, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Humanities Council

Members of ACLS Staff Pauline Yu, President Steven C. Wheatley, Vice President Rachel Bernard, Program Officer, ACLS Fellowships and Grants Sandra Bradley, Director of Member Relations John Paul Christy, Director of Public Programs Candace Frede, Director of Web and Information Systems Matthew Goldfeder, Director of Fellowships Simon Guzman, Director of Finance and Senior Accountant Cindy Mueller, Manager, Office of Fellowships and Grants

78 Sarah Peters, Administrative Assistant to the President Katie Smith, Program Assistant, ACLS Fellowships and Grants Andrzej W. Tymowski F’91, F’89, Director of International Programs

79 80 Emerging Themes and Methods of Humanities Research: Discussion with ACLS Fellows

Panel

Donald Brenneis is a linguistic and social anthropologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He studied anthropology as an undergraduate at Stanford and received his PhD from Harvard University. His work has focused on the social life of communicative practices—linguistic, musical, performative, and textual. He worked in a South Asian diasporic community in Fiji over a 20-year period, examining the relationships among language, music, conflict, law, and politics—and considering, among other things, children’s arguments, men’s gossip, and the complexities of managing conflict through indirect speech. More recently he has been doing ethnographic work—both as participant and as observer—on peer review, scholarly publishing, assessment practices, higher education policy, and the ongoing shaping of scholarly and scientific knowledge within and beyond anthropology. He has also served as editor of American Ethnologist (1989-94) and president of the American Anthropological Association (2001-03). He cochaired the editorial committee of the University of California Press (2007-09) and is currently coeditor of Annual Review of Anthropology. In 2007-08 he was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Selected publications include “A Partial View of Contemporary Anthropology: 2003 Presidential Address, American Anthropological Association,” American Anthropologist (2004); “Doing Anthropology in Sound: Steven Feld in conversation with Donald Brenneis” (with Steven Feld), American Ethnologist (2004); and Law and Empire in the Pacific: Fiji and Hawa’'i (edited with Sally Engle Merry; School of American Research Press, 2004).

Kim Gallon is an assistant professor of history at Purdue University. She is also the founder and director of the Black Press Research Collective (blackpressresearchcollective.org) and an ongoing visiting scholar at the Center for Africana Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Her research focuses on discourses and representations of gender and sexuality in the early twentieth century Black Press. She is completing a manuscript titled, “We Are Becoming a Tabloid Race: The Politics of Gender and Sexuality in the Black Press, 1925- 1945.” Her future research focuses on cultural Pan-Africanism in African American and Ghanaian newspapers in the twentieth century. She is also a digital humanist and was recently awarded a NEH Digital Humanities Level 1 Start-Up grant for her work on digitizing scholarship on the Black Press. Her work has been published in History Compass, Journalism History, Transformations, Pennsylvania History and Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. Her writing on Black popular culture and romance is featured on the “Popular Romance Project” web site (popularromanceproject.org). She received her PhD in history from the University of Pennsylvania, with major fields in African American and American history and women, gender and sexuality. She holds graduate certificates in African studies, Africana studies and women’s and gender studies. She also earned a MS in library and information science from Drexel University and a BA in English from Rutgers-Camden University.

81 Brook Danielle Lillehaugen is a linguist who specializes in indigenous languages of Mexico. She is an assistant professor of linguistics at Haverford College and previously worked at the Center for Indigenous Languages at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, in Mexico City. She received her PhD in linguistics in 2006 from the University of California, Los Angeles and has been doing fieldwork with speakers of Zapotec languages since 1999. Lillehaugen’s research profile includes technical grammatical description as well as collaborative language documentation and revitalization projects. She publishes on the grammar of Zapotec languages in both their modern and historical forms (e.g., Anderson & Lillehaugen 2016, Lillehaugen 2014, Lillehaugen & Foreman 2009, Lillehaugen 2006). She has found combining linguistic fieldwork with tools from the digital humanities to be a productive way to collaborate with both Zapotec speaking communities and undergraduate students. She is co-director of Ticha, a digital text explorer for Colonial Zapotec texts (ticha.haverford.edu), and leads several teams in developing online talking dictionaries for Zapotec languages (talkingdictionary.swarthmore.edu/zapotecs/). She is currently supported by fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the American Council of Learned Societies to translate and analyze a corpus of last wills and testaments written in Zapotec in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; these texts will form the basis of a grammar on Zapotec as written in that period, facilitating wider access to these indigenous language historical texts. For more information on her research and teaching, visit her website at brooklillehaugen.weebly.com/.

Michael Penn is William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Religion at Mount Holyoke College. He is a specialist in the history of early Christianity. He explores how ancient Christian communities forged their own identity, especially in the context of religious and ethnic pluralism. Penn’s first book, Kissing Christians: Ritual and Community in the Late Ancient Church was published in 2005 by the University of Pennsylvania Press. In 2015 he published two books on Christian-Muslim relations: Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians in the Early Muslim World (U of Pennsylvania P) and When Christians First Met Muslims: A Source Book of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam (U of California P). For these projects, Penn has received awards from the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Humanities Center, the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, the British Academy, the American Philosophical Association, the American Academy of Religion, and the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning. Penn is currently working on a collaboration with a Smith College computer science professor that uses recent advances in the automated analysis of handwriting to help analyze ancient manuscripts. In addition to this work in the digital humanities, Penn has begun several related projects that focus on the history of middle eastern Christianity and the works they produced.

82

William D. Adams is the tenth chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Adams, president of Colby College in Waterville, Maine from 2000 until his retirement on June 30, 2014, is a committed advocate for liberal arts education and brings to the Endowment a long record of leadership in higher education and the humanities. A native of Birmingham, Michigan, and son of an auto industry executive, Adams earned his undergraduate degree in philosophy at Colorado College and a PhD from the University of California at Santa Cruz History of Consciousness Program. He studied in France as a Fulbright Scholar before beginning his career in higher education with appointments to teach political philosophy at Santa Clara University in California and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He went on to coordinate the Great Works in Western Culture program at Stanford University and to serve as vice president and secretary of Wesleyan University. He became president of Bucknell University in 1995 and president of Colby College in 2000. Adams’s formal education was interrupted by three years of service in the Army, including one year in Vietnam. It was partly that experience, he says, that motivated him to study and teach in the humanities. “It made me serious in a certain way,” he says. “And as a 20-year-old combat infantry advisor, I came face to face, acutely, with questions that writers, artists, philosophers, and musicians examine in their work—starting with, ‘What does it mean to be human?’” In each of his professional roles, Adams has demonstrated a deep understanding of and commitment to the humanities as essential to education and to civic life. At Colby, for example, he led a $376-million capital campaign—the largest in Maine history—that included expansion of the Colby College Museum of Art and the gift of the $100-million Lunder Collection of American Art, the creation of a center for arts and humanities and a film studies program, and expansion of the College’s curriculum in creative writing and writing across the curriculum. He also spearheaded formal collaboration of the College with the Maine Film Center and chaired the Waterville Regional Arts and Community Center. As senior president of the prestigious New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC), Adams has been at the center of the national conversation on the cost and value of liberal arts education. “I see the power of what is happening on our campuses and among the alumni I meet across the country and around the world,” he says. “People who engage in a profound way with a broad range of disciplines—including, and in some cases especially, with the humanities—are preparing to engage the challenges of life. They are creative and flexible thinkers; they acquire the habits of mind needed to find solutions to important problems; they can even appreciate the value of making mistakes and changing their minds. I am convinced that this kind of study is not merely defensible but critical to our national welfare.” Adams, nicknamed Bro by his father in honor of a friend who died in World War Two, is married to Lauren Sterling, philanthropy specialist at Educare Central Maine, and has a daughter and a stepson.

83

Working with Visionaries on the Frontlines of Social Change Worldwide

Darren Walker is president of the Ford Foundation, the second largest philanthropy in the United States with over $11 billion in assets and $500 million in annual giving. The foundation is based in the United States and operates worldwide, with ten offices in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Central and South America.

For more than two decades Darren has been a leader in the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors, starting with a local community and economic development initiative in Harlem, then shifting to global work on an array of social justice issues, including human rights, urban development, free expression, and more. His career in the social sector followed a decade in international law and finance.

Before being named president in 2013, Darren served as the foundation’s vice president for Education, Creativity and Free Expression, where he shaped more than $140 million in annual grant-making around the world, covering areas as diverse as media and journalism, arts and culture, sexuality and reproductive health and rights, educational access and opportunity, and religion.

He was a driving force behind initiatives such as JustFilms, one of the largest documentary film funds in the world, and public-private collaborations such as ArtPlace, which supports cultural development in cities and rural areas in America. He also oversaw the foundation’s regional programming in four offices based in Africa and the Middle East.

Prior to joining the Ford Foundation in 2010, Darren was vice president for foundation initiatives at the Rockefeller Foundation, where he led both domestic and global programs. Beginning in 2002, he helped guide the foundation’s programs in education, civil rights, workforce development and program related investments. He also supervised Rockefeller’s foreign offices, initiated new programming in urban development and arts and culture, and led its post-Katrina New Orleans Recovery Program.

Darren entered the nonprofit sector as chief operating officer for the Abyssinian Development Corporation, a community development organization in Harlem. There he led efforts to develop over 1,000 units of housing for low and moderate-income families, was involved in two of Harlem’s largest privately financed commercial projects in 30 years, and oversaw the development of the first public school built in New York City by a community organization.

Darren began his career in 1986 at the international law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton. In 1988, he joined the Union Bank of Switzerland, where he spent seven years in the capital markets division. After leaving UBS, Darren worked for a year as a full-time volunteer at The Children’s Storefront, an elementary school serving low-income families in Harlem.

He is a 1982 graduate of The University of Texas at Austin and its School of Law in 1986. He is a member of the boards of the Arcus Foundation, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Friends of the High Line, the New York City Ballet, and the Foundation for Art and Preservation in Embassies. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Born in a charity hospital in Lafayette, Louisiana, and raised in Goose Creek, Texas, he benefited tremendously from the leadership of opportunity-building philanthropies like the Ford Foundation that championed ideas like Head Start, the Pell Grant, diversity in higher education and community development corporations.

Passionate about his adopted city of New York, he lives in Manhattan with his partner, David Beitzel, a contemporary art dealer in Chelsea, and their English bulldog, Mary Lou.

84 Toward a new gospel of wealth

October 1, 2015 As I begin my third year at the Ford Foundation’s helm, I am reminded of how privileged I am— and we all are—to serve this institution.

For my colleagues and me, these past 15 months have entailed both deep introspection about this privilege and broad exploration of how we can harness and direct it to advance our mission. For us, what has unfolded is a process of discovery and renewal that has led us to reorganize our programming around the global crisis of inequality. We call this ongoing renewal FordForward.

Next month, I’ll be sharing more details about our thematic areas and the specific grantmaking lines of work through which we will carry out our programming. I look forward to beginning a new phase for the foundation that builds on Ford’s rich and varied history.

Since sharing the news of our focus on inequality, I’ve been encouraged—and, candidly, surprised—by the overwhelming response. As the chasm of inequality widens and deepens in communities around the world, we seem to have struck a nerve.

Yet while inequality certainly merits attention and effort, some have fairly pointed out a tension —if not a contradiction—between philanthropic efforts to address inequality and the structural economic realities that make it possible for foundations to exist at all.

The origins of modern philanthropy This tension stretches back more than a century. In 1889, the American industrialist Andrew Carnegie composed his “Gospel of Wealth,” a short essay with far-reaching impact. It is, in many ways, the intellectual charter of modern philanthropy, and its basic precepts remain the underpinning of US giving and, in turn, have greatly influenced an era of burgeoning philanthropic enterprise around the world.

Carnegie articulated his philosophy at a time when inequality had reached unprecedented levels in the United States. In an age of excess, titans of industry enjoyed lives of startling

85 opulence; ordinary people endured low wages, dangerous working conditions, and overcrowded, unhealthy living quarters. He argued—as some still do—that inequality on this scale is an unavoidable condition of the free market system and that philanthropy is one effective means of ameliorating the conditions the market produces.

Today, in this new period of rising inequality, it is timely that we reflect on the principles of philanthropy as originally set forth in Carnegie’s influential “Gospel of Wealth”—to consider to what degree they point to the realities and responsibilities of philanthropy in our time, and to openly acknowledge and confront the tension inherent in a system that perpetuates vast differences in privilege and then tasks the privileged with improving the system. To be sure, philanthropy today is broader and more diverse than ever before. Its tens of thousands of individual practitioners around the world follow a variety of approaches, as intentional and unique as they are. As ever, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Moreover, philanthropy continues to advance through bold experiments with new models. From the global Giving Pledge initiated by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, to the Robin Hood Foundation in New York City, to major philanthropic communities emerging in China, India, Latin America, Africa, the Gulf States, and elsewhere, a 21st-century style of “giving back” is lifting the lives and lots of millions of people around the world. It is building schools, preserving cultural and natural diversity, and generating new vaccines, agricultural innovation, and the social entrepreneurship of a millennial generation of change agents. In the sheer persistence and proliferation of the philanthropic idea, Carnegie’s “Gospel” reverberates loud and clear— and I deeply admire the leadership and example of philanthropists and foundations around the world that we are honored to work with and learn from.

And yet, despite this vast ledger of undeniable public good, the tension persists. Why, in too many parts of the world have we failed to provide employment, education and health care, decent nutrition and sanitation? What underlying forces drive the very inequality whose manifestations we seek to ameliorate?

Rethinking the gospel of giving My thinking on this issue has been shaped by the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who made a profound statement not long before his death: “Philanthropy is commendable,” he wrote, “but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.”

I hasten to add that it is not solely economic injustice that philanthropy exists to address, and I believe Dr. King had a broader idea at heart: He challenges us still to look at underlying structures and systems, the roots of injustice, the causes of human suffering, and the sources

86 of our own privilege.

In other words, perhaps the time has come to take the radicalism of Carnegie’s 19th-century revolution, mesh it with the courage of Dr. King’s, and make it our own. Perhaps it is time for a reimagined gospel of giving. To borrow a phrase from Carnegie’s “Gospel” itself, we might recognize “the changed conditions of this age,” and adopt “modes of expressing this spirit suitable to the changed conditions under which we live.” We might disentangle the web of conditions that make philanthropy both possible and necessary.

If we’re being honest, we might acknowledge that we are crashing into the limits of what we can do with a 19th-century interpretation of philanthropy’s founding doctrine.

A 21st-century view of inequality First of all, no one in philanthropy has the independent resources to solve our collective problems. In his lifetime, Andrew Carnegie gave away some $350 million. Even in today’s currency, this is a pittance in comparison with the world’s trillions of dollars of needs for food and housing, education, infrastructure, and health care.

What’s more, even though Carnegie understood and set out to address the notion of inequality (though he understood the problem more narrowly as “poverty”), he did so with a very different set of insights and a very different set of conditions within which to work. Compared with 125 years ago, we live in more enlightened, egalitarian, and participatory societies. In part because of what modern philanthropy helped set in motion, our polities have expanded in significant ways, making room to hear and heed more diverse voices and perspectives.

We also have technology, data, and a century of randomized controlled trials, which, together, enable us to broaden our scope and understand increasingly intricate patterns of injustice and how they persist and reproduce over time. In doing so, we are able to cast light on deep- seated, systemic problems—problems that in the absence of these insights would be attributed solely to individual failures or subject to misleading generalization. Where Carnegie might have identified illiteracy as a source of inequality, for example, we now understand that the reverse is true—or, at the very least, that a complex symbiosis is at work. We understand, in a way he did not, that social, cultural, political, and economic inequalities set in place reinforcing conditions from the very start of life—in homes, in neighborhoods, and in schools—that create cycles of poverty, illiteracy, and lack of opportunity.

We also know that inequality is built on antecedents—preexisting conditions ranging from ingrained prejudice and historical racial, gender, and ethnic biases to regressive tax policies

87 that cumulatively define the systems and structures that enable inequality to fester.

Because today we know more and are exposed to a diversity of views and insights, we can engage in a more thorough examination of the underlying barriers that prevent people from advancing in society. We can grapple not just with what is happening but also with how and why. And I believe that change must come in three basic forms.

Three steps toward reducing inequality First, we need to open ourselves up to more critical, honest discussions about deeply rooted cultural norms and structures, including racial, gender, ethnic, and class biases. We have made impressive progress on these issues, but some social and economic progress cannot blind us to the reality that far too many are left behind because of inequality’s asphyxiating grip on the aspirations of people in every corner of every country.

Second, we foundations need to reject inherited, assumed, paternalist instincts—an impulse to put grantmaking rather than change making at the center of our worldview.

For philanthropists working globally, our efforts shouldn’t be a matter of Western institutions directing NGOs in the Global South, or treating our grantees as contract-project managers rather than as valued partners. Instead, we should be strands in the web—South to South, South to North—making connections and modeling the kind of equality we hope to achieve by listening, and learning, and lifting others up.

Furthermore, we’d be well served to recognize that the more excluded people are, the harder it is truly to hear them. We all believe that those most affected by policy ought to have a voice in creating it. So our work should lend agency—and legitimacy—to slum dwellers and rural farmers, incarcerated people and refugees, migrants pursuing a better life and families on public assistance.

Third, we need to interrogate the fundamental root causes of inequality, even, and especially, when it means that we ourselves will be implicated.

It is incumbent upon each of us to dig deeper and relish the dirt beneath our fingernails; what for Carnegie was bedrock, to us has become topsoil. There are obscured root causes buried deep in our history, our institutions, and our cultural practices—causes we have to unearth and evaluate in the harsh light of day.

For one example, when we talk about economic inequality, we might acknowledge an underlying, unspoken hierarchy, in which we relate everything back to capital. In most areas of life, we have raised market-based, monetized thinking over all other disciplines and

88 conceptions of value.

We might ask related questions, too.

Within legacy institutions like ours, we should ask, How does our privilege insulate us from engaging with the most difficult root causes of inequality and the poverty in which it ensnares people?

How does our work—our approach to awarding grants, our hiring and contracting policies, even our behavior toward our partners and grantees—reinforce structural inequality in our society?

Why are we still necessary, and what can we do to build a world where we no longer are as necessary?

For individual philanthropists, it may well be appropriate to ask a similar set of questions: Is the playing field on which I accumulated my wealth level and fair? Does the system privilege people like me in ways that compound my advantages?

Our obligation to capitalism These questions are at the heart of our collective work, but also at the core of our aspiration for an economic system that works for more people.

As Henry Ford II, framer of the modern Ford Foundation, wrote in a 1976 letter to his fellow trustees, the foundation is “in essence, a creature of capitalism.” Therefore, he suggested, we ought to “examine the question of our obligations to our economic systems and to consider how the foundation, as one of the system’s most prominent offspring, might act most wisely to strengthen and improve its progenitor.”

To put it more bluntly, we were established by a market system and endowed by the money of the past century’s 1 percent. We are stewards of enormous resources—participants in and beneficiaries of a market system. As a result, our work is quite literally enabled by returns on capital. In turn, I believe we are obligated “to strengthen and improve” the system of which we are part. My conviction is no anathema to capitalism. Adam Smith himself argued that the “invisible hand” could not be blind to the condition of society, and that “no society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” This from a visionary who was not only the forefather of American capitalism but also the author of Theory of Moral Sentiments, which he regarded as more important than his Wealth of Nations.

Philanthropy’s role is to contribute to the “flourishing” of the “far greater part”—to help foster a

89 stronger safety net and a level playing field. With each generation, we should be guided by our legacy of support for social progress and human achievement in the spirit of the Green Revolution, advances in public health and human rights, social movement building, creative expression and cultural innovation, and so much more.

Ultimately, this reckoning with—this reimagining of—philanthropy’s first principles and its relationship to our market system will not be easy, but this moment requires that we not go easy on ourselves.

Some might see this as a problem or as pressure. To me, however, it is inseparable from our privilege—because with privilege comes responsibility.

In this spirit, let us commit ourselves to proffering, and preaching, and practicing a new gospel —a gospel commensurate with our time.

Let us bridge the philosophies of Smith, and Carnegie, and King, and break the scourge of inequality. For when we do, to paraphrase another of Dr. King’s most powerful insights, we at last will bend the demand curve toward justice.

Topics

90 Save paper and follow @newyorker on Twitter Profiles JANUARY 4, 2016 ISSUE What Money Can Buy Darren Walker and the Ford Foundation set out to conquer inequality.

BY LARISSA MACFARQUHAR

Walker at the Ford headquarters. “In the sixties, when you came to see the president,” he says, “it was meant to be intimidating.” PHOTOGRAPH BY ANDREW MOORE FOR THE NEW YORKER

he urge to change the world is normally thwarted by a near-insurmountable barricade ofT obstacles: failure of imagination, failure of courage, bad governments, bad planning, incompetence, corruption, fecklessness, the laws of nations, the laws of physics, the weight of history, inertia of all sorts, psychological unsuitability on the part of the would- be changer, the resistance of people who would lose from the change, the resistance of people who would benefit from it, the seduction of activities other than world-changing, lack of practical knowledge, lack of political skill, and lack of money. Lack of money is a stubborn obstacle, but not as hopelessly unyielding as some of the others, and so would-be world-changers often set out to overcome it. Some try to raise money, but that can be depressing and futile. Others try to make money, but it’s hard to make enough. There is a third, more reliable way to overcome this obstacle, however, and that is to give away money that has already been made by somebody else, and has already been allocated to world-changing purposes. This is the way of the grant-makers of the Ford Foundation.

Ford’s grant-makers are employed “for the general purpose of advancing human welfare,” so their work requires determining what human welfare consists of and how best to advance it. This being no simple matter, they spend a great deal of time on it and frequently revise their conclusions. Of course, even with money, changing the world is difficult. The grant-makers know that many of their ideas will not work, and that even those which do will only go so far, because of all the other obstacles. Still, compared to others with similar ambitions, they possess a rare and heady blend of power and freedom: they are beholden to no one, neither consumers nor shareholders nor clients nor donors nor voters, and they have half a billion dollars each year to spend on whatever they like.

91 “Good morning, Ford Foundation, and Happy New Year!” Darren Walker cried, to loud “Good morning, Ford Foundation, and Happy New Year!” Darren Walker cried, to loud applause. “How great it is to be at the Ford Foundation on January 6th and doing the work we do!”

Walker, the foundation’s tenth president, who took over in 2013, stood on a stage in the Ford Foundation building, on East Forty-third Street, in New York City, but his beaming face also appeared on screens thousands of miles away, in Ford offices throughout the world: in Mexico City and Rio and Santiago; in Cairo and Lagos, Nairobi and Johannesburg; in Delhi, Beijing, and Jakarta. The auditorium in which he stood was a relic of Ford’s past, still furnished with chocolate tufted-leather seats from 1967, with sliding brass ashtrays under the armrests. To the right of the stage was written a series of words that described Ford’s hoped-for future: Justice, Opportunity, Voice, Dignity, Creativity, Change, Visionaries. Walker himself was beloved for his democratic exuberance, manifested both in his vivacious clothing (his jaunty ties, his pocket squares, his pig cufflinks) and in his untiring enthusiasm.

“There is a lot going on at the Ford Foundation,” he declared. “So fasten your seat belts!”

rriving in his office, Walker found that it was filled with Kenyans. A Kenyan delegation was to meet with Michelle Obama there the following day, and an Aadvance party of ten or twelve people had come to inspect the room. The advance party wanted to determine who would sit where: Would Walker sit at the head of the table, as he usually did, or would he sit at the side of the table, facing the First Lady, so that neither took precedence? And, if the latter, would the chair at the head of the table sit empty, or would it be removed and put somewhere else? The delegation wanted to know how many other chairs there would be around the table and, if more chairs became necessary, whether they would be added to the table, in ambiguous relation to those already there, or placed in an unequivocally secondary tier around the periphery of the room. Being the president of a social-justice foundation, Walker normally considered it his business to disrupt such hierarchical modes of thinking, but he also considered it his business to be sensitive to the differing requirements of other cultures, and, besides, he always liked to be a welcoming host, and so, gently buffeted by these conflicting impulses, he chose the middle path of benevolent passivity and stood, hands clasped, and smiled at the Kenyans as they circled his table.

He had done his best to make his office a place where this sort of hierarchical etiquette was hard to take seriously. He had recently disseminated a short video of himself dancing and leaping about there, with uncommon balletic skill, to the tune of Pharrell Williams’s song “Happy.” On his bookshelves were a furry red Elmo; a yellow cow; a shiny blue miniature Jeff Koons puppy; a miniature yellow-and-green rickshaw from Delhi; a

92 miniature red rickshaw from Jakarta; a large framed portrait of his English bulldog, Mary miniature red rickshaw from Jakarta; a large framed portrait of his English bulldog, Mary Lou; a small framed portrait of his partner, David Beitzel; and a couple of small gold Buddhas, among many other objects that he’d picked up on his nearly constant travels. There were, in addition, things that expressed his deeper commitments: a photograph of Martin Luther King, Jr., marching from Selma to Montgomery, in 1965, but in a quiet moment—King looking off to one side, Ralph Abernathy walking beside him, reading a newspaper. The Ford building was shortly to be renovated, and he had decreed that his splendid presidential suite—which now included a kitchen, a shower, and a conference room that sat forty—should be reduced to half its size. “In the sixties when you came to see the president, it was meant to be intimidating,” Walker says. “It was like you were being presented to the emperor. But it’s not me. I’m not a white guy from the Harvard class of 1955!”

Ford had recently decided, in fact, that inequality was the problem of the times—more than climate change, for instance, or extremism. The foundation had been accused for years of spreading itself too thin. (The budget for 2015 was five hundred and eighteen million, but it was amazing how fast you could run through half a billion dollars with a world to fix.) So now it was going to do something dramatic: it was going to work on inequality and nothing else. The crucial task, everyone agreed, was to “disrupt the drivers of inequality.” In order to do that, it was necessary to ascertain what those drivers were, so program officers all around the world had been instructed to write reports identifying the chief drivers of inequality in their regions. After those reports were collected, many, many meetings were held in the conference rooms of the New York office.

“I spy something red.”

Some big changes that were not negotiable had been made already: the pursuit of “Internet rights” was to be added to Ford’s portfolio, and L.G.B.T. rights in the U.S. was to be subtracted, since that issue had achieved such momentum that Ford’s money could be better spent elsewhere. But there were still dozens of issues the grant-makers wanted to work on, and it was difficult to decide how to characterize the relationships between them. Should Women’s Agency and Racial/Ethnic/Indigenous Justice be grouped under the larger heading of Inclusion? What about Human Rights Architecture and Imagining Inclusive Capitalism? The main category they were working on was “thematic areas,” in which Ford would seek to disrupt drivers of inequality by means of strategies. There was to be a minimum of four and a maximum of eight thematic areas, with a minimum budget of twenty million dollars apiece. But should a thematic area be required to disrupt more than one driver of inequality, or was one enough? Did each thematic area lend itself to a

93 race, class, and gender analysis? Did each strategy support the agency and voice of race, class, and gender analysis? Did each strategy support the agency and voice of marginalized groups? Besides the thematic areas and strategies, there were also “lines of work,” “sets,” “challenges,” and “lenses,” and there was a certain lack of clarity on the difference between these things. The program officers were practical people, but these negotiations had ensnared them for months.

One person wanted to know why they kept talking about “disrupting,” since it was so negative. Negativity in the meetings was rare. There were some disagreements, but on the whole the tone was one of patient encouragement. (“I want to thank you for putting this so clearly, and so well.” “I feel like I heard a number of helpful building blocks.”) It was important to Ford to model, in its way of working, the kind of society it wanted to produce: less unequal, more inclusive—a safe space with enough room for everyone’s questions and problems. It was felt that this was not only intrinsically good but also insured that everyone felt personally invested in the result. On the other hand, the commitment to niceness had a tendency to muffle aggressive criticism. “The culture of overweening politeness in American philanthropy is leading to our ruin,” Albert Ruesga, the president of the Greater New Orleans Foundation, recently fumed to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. “It keeps me from telling you, in the clearest possible terms, that your five- year, $2-million initiative to end homelessness is well-intentioned magical thinking at best and boneheaded ignorance at worst.”

Besides questions of categorization, the program officers debated questions of tactics. For instance, how much money should be devoted to work that helped people right away, such as encouraging self-determination in girls from traditional societies, and how much to long-term, long-shot prospects for change, such as art? Ford believed in supporting art as a means of disrupting dominant narratives, but art didn’t always do what you wanted it to. Was it better to work on issues that people were currently agitated about, or to draw attention to ones that nobody was addressing? Was it better to be bold and risk failure, or to give money to a project that had a good chance of success? And how soon would success have to happen in order to count—five years? Ten? Was it better to be patient or impatient? On the one hand, social justice wasn’t the sort of thing that happened overnight; on the other hand, there had to be some point at which a program could be declared a failure and cut off, or there would be no accountability at all.

his issue of accountability had become more pressing in the previous decade. In the early days, Ford program officers had spent a lot of time coming up with projects Tthat had the potential to be important, or seeking out urgent problems and solutions that seemed as though they ought to work. But, once the money was spent, they didn’t always assess whether the projects had, in fact, turned out to be important, or whether the solutions that ought to have worked had solved the urgent problems or not. This was in part because of a rule of thumb at Ford that program officers should stay in their jobs no more than eight years, lest they become complacent. Thus, by the time a project was established enough to be evaluated, its progenitor had moved on, and the replacement

94 was not usually sufficiently interested in his predecessor’s enterprises to spend time and was not usually sufficiently interested in his predecessor’s enterprises to spend time and money figuring out whether they had succeeded. “The front end is where people spent their time, and the back end they didn’t,” Lincoln Chen, the president of the China Medical Board, who ran Ford’s Delhi office in the nineteen-eighties, says. “Evaluation is very time-demanding and costly. Individual projects were monitored, but they weren’t independently or scientifically evaluated. I can tell you what I thought was successful, but in many cases evaluations require a generation, or a decade or more. For instance, the institute of management in Ahmedabad is a great success, but it would have taken a decade or longer to know that. The model villages were less successful, but we didn’t know they weren’t working for ten or fifteen years.”

Some critics had attempted to address these problems in foundation work by promoting what they called “strategic philanthropy.” Donors ought to behave more like investors, they argued. A prudent investor would never put his money into a company and just leave it there, hoping for the best: he would track his returns, and if they did not meet his expectations he would withdraw his funds and invest them somewhere else. Donors ought likewise to evaluate their programs with precise metrics in order to make sure of a good return on their charitable dollar. “Outcome-oriented philanthropic buyers look for the best service in their areas of interest for the lowest cost,” Paul Brest, the former president of the Hewlett Foundation, wrote in a strategic-philanthropy manifesto. “Philanthropic investors provide risk capital to social entrepreneurs.”

The idea that foundations should evaluate their projects more carefully was not particularly controversial, but how they should do that was far from clear. Should a foundation try to guide and steer its grantees, as venture capitalists did with startups? Or should it trust that grantees, who were actually doing the work in the field, knew best what worked and what didn’t? Most grantees were not startups, and were liable to become resentful if foundation officers started meddling—though of course they would hide that resentment for fear of losing the grant. And, resentment aside, if a foundation started telling its grantees what to do, would it then become an initiative-crushing central planner, stifling the very grassroots innovation and practical know-how that it purported to encourage? On the other hand, if a foundation took a hands-off approach, was it any more than a writer of checks?

One way foundations tended to be hands-on was by sponsoring particular projects. Ford had been criticized for years for giving small project grants rather than larger grants for general operating support that would enable an organization to pay its rent and thrive in the long term. The program officers were determined to do better on that front. On the other hand, they knew that if you gave too large a grant an organization would expand rapidly to take advantage of it, because if the money wasn’t used it wouldn’t be replenished; but then you had created a totally new type of organization that was dependent on grants and, if they were withdrawn, would collapse. You could drown an organization with too much money the way you could drown a plant.

95 In addition to the issue of interference, there were other questions that troubled strategic In addition to the issue of interference, there were other questions that troubled strategic philanthropy. If donors and nonprofits felt that they had to measure their results, might that not lead them to focus on limited sorts of things that could be measured precisely: administering vaccines, for instance, rather than attempting to improve over-all health; or counting missed days of school rather than evaluating student achievement? And what would happen to things that could not properly be measured at all, such as oppression, or justice? What about initiatives whose success could take decades to become evident, such as social movements or the erosion of cultural norms?

All these problems were not so bothersome for development foundations. A development foundation, like Gates or Rockefeller, generally had certain concrete things that it wanted to get done, and these things could often be measured. It might want to drill wells, for instance, or disseminate an improved type of seed; it might want to immunize babies in a given region, or administer deworming medicine. But Ford was not a development foundation: it was a social-justice foundation, and a social-justice foundation was concerned more with amorphous entities such as fairness and exclusion than with material well-being.

There tended to be a slight flaring of the nostrils at Ford at the way some other people used the term “development,” which implied that there was only one way for a country to succeed—and that was to become like the developed world, with its cars and its air- conditioning and its secularism and its nuclear power and its shopping malls. It implied that the developed world got that way through “industrialization,” a largely benign matter of improving technology. There was no reminder, in the optimistic and apolitical notion of “development,” that industrialization had depended upon slavery and colonial plunder in the past, or that it might lead to environmental disaster in the future.

Ford thought of itself as the sort of foundation whose staff did not dictate what its grantees should do but sought out grantees with ideas and methods of their own: that was the social-justice way. But, ironically, this meant that it required far more staff than it would if it came up with its own ideas and hired people to execute them. Coming up with ideas to be executed was the sort of thing that could be done in a meeting at headquarters; but finding small, local N.G.O.s and community leaders and artists and researchers to fund in dozens of countries around the world required offices in those countries, with program staff and administrative staff and maintenance staff and gardeners and drivers, plus money for travel and hosting meetings and all the rest of it. Ford’s expenses were enormous: more than a billion dollars in the past decade. In 2013, it spent around eighty million on personnel (both staff and consultants) and twenty million 96 on office space, travel, and meetings. Its budgets weren’t out of line with those of other on office space, travel, and meetings. Its budgets weren’t out of line with those of other large foundations, and its staff wasn’t more lavishly paid, but, still, the numbers were startling. Humility was expensive.

ne of the reasons that Walker was an ideal president for the Ford Foundation was that his life was an example of just the sort of social transformation that Ford’s Oprograms were intended to produce. He was born in 1959 in a charity hospital in Lafayette, Louisiana. His father had left by that time—the man on his birth certificate was someone else. When he was three or four, his mother moved the family to Ames, Texas, where her Aunt Ida lived, and Aunt Ida babysat the kids while his mother got trained as a nurse’s aide in Liberty, the white town next to Ames. At one point, a young woman with a clipboard knocked on the door looking for poor, rural black children, and asked his mother if she wanted to enroll her son in a new government program called Head Start. She said yes, and he was placed in a preschool in a nearby church, where he learned to read. Sometime later, his mother moved the family again, to Goose Creek, an oil town east of Houston.

His great-uncle Daddy C, who lived near Goose Creek, saw everything in terms of race. He said that white people would never allow a black person to succeed. Daddy C had grown up in a small Texas town where the schools for black kids went only through third grade; after that, you went to work in the fields. When he married Walker’s great-aunt Big, they moved to Houston, and he got a job as a porter and shoeshine at a gas company. Walker’s mother never scolded him, rarely even told him what to do, but Daddy C was more old-fashioned and kept him in line. Walker was always asking questions, always talking, always hyperactive and jumping around, and grownups found all this energy hard to take. If he saw someone get hurt, he would start to cry, and grownups didn’t like that, either—boys weren’t supposed to be so sensitive.

One day when he was in third grade, something happened at school and he got very upset, and was crying and careening around, and his teacher told him to sit down and he didn’t. After class, the teacher, Mrs. Majors, called him over. He remembered what she said to him all his life. “She said, ‘Darren, you are going to have to come to grips with what you want to be. Because if you continue acting out the way you are acting out, you are not going to amount to anything. You’re getting in trouble too much, and little black boys like you who get in trouble a lot are not going to do well in this society. But there is a different road for you, because you are smart, you read well, you have a thirst for learning.’ And I had never heard this term, but she told me, ‘You need to understand self- control.’ And I realized then that I needed an internal mechanism to discipline my natural instincts.” He started telling himself inside his head that he had to have self- control, he had to have self-control, and when he felt like talking non-stop in class, or raising his hand for the fourth time, or getting up out of his seat when he wasn’t supposed to, he didn’t. And as he got older he saw that he was the only black boy in the

97 advanced track at school, and that the black boys who did not get hold of themselves, and advanced track at school, and that the black boys who did not get hold of themselves, and did not have self-control, were banished from the school’s mainstream and put in special ed and never came back.

He had some cousins who lived in Rayne, Louisiana, the small town where his mother was born, and those cousins’ lives turned out very differently from his. He used to visit them in the summer. They lived in the black part of Rayne, which had sewage ditches that ran along the roads; in the white part, there was regular plumbing. When he was little, he would ask his relatives why it smelled so bad there, and they would tell him to mind his own business. His cousins started shoplifting and were caught, and once they got into the criminal-justice system as teen-agers there were no second chances, and six of them ended up in prison. One cousin hanged himself in the Acadia Parish jail. One morning at breakfast, his mother was crying as she poured his cereal, and he found out that another one of his cousins had been in a robbery and had been shot dead by a policeman.

“I’m a-thinkin’, Luke—as long as we’re deliverin’ pizza, why not deliver the mail.”

But that wasn’t going to happen to him. He had self- control, and he worked hard in school, and he always dressed well, in khakis and Brooks Brothers oxford shirts and V-neck sweaters from Neiman Marcus that were hand-me-downs from a white family his great-aunt Big worked for. He looked so good that his teachers were suspicious. They said to him, Did you steal that? Where did you get those clothes? He saw that nice clothes were important, that they changed people’s view of you. If he was going to succeed, he had to suit up, every day. On the other hand, he saw that some richer people resented his dressing the way they did.

He was elected homeroom representative of his sixth-grade class, and that made a big impression on him. He had always felt ambitious; even when he was tiny, he wanted to be in charge of things, and now he knew it could happen. Each time he was elected to one thing, he looked up to the next. In high school, he was elected president of the class. Daddy C was still telling him that a black boy could not succeed in Texas, that white people would never allow it, but now he argued back. He said, I am succeeding, look at me.

All his life, he felt that the world was rooting for him. This was the key to everything. He felt that he was running down the football field of life and at every yard line there was somebody cheering. And it wasn’t just his family and his neighbors who supported him, he noticed. There were always other people, white people, who helped him, too: teachers

98 like Mrs. Majors; parents of white friends; people who told him he was smart, who like Mrs. Majors; parents of white friends; people who told him he was smart, who advised him about what he needed to do to get ahead. Even the government was on his side, he believed: it had helped him with Head Start, and then it helped him again with Pell Grants, which paid for college. There were also white people who did not want him to get ahead, of course—parents who didn’t want him to be friends with their kids, the Klan chapter in Goose Creek, the people who yelled “nigger” at him from the windows of pickup trucks. But he chose not to think about those people as much as the other kind.

Everything at school was going well for him, but his home was chaotic and violent. There was always swearing, always screaming. There were a couple of stepfathers when he was growing up, both of whom beat his mother. His mother was not good at defending herself, and, working the long hours she did, she needed help running things, so even when he was quite young she didn’t feel like a parent to him: he was her partner. He was, in many ways, the man of the house. It was hard not having a father, but it was also liberating. When his mother worked late, he fixed dinner for his two younger sisters, cleaned the kitchen, did the laundry. He held jobs after school and on weekends to bring in money, bagging groceries or working in restaurants. Then one day when he was fifteen he found his stepfather—the father of his sisters—beating up his mother again. He dragged him off her and told his mother that they had to leave, right now, that day.

When he was in high school, black adults told him, Don’t go to the University of Texas, it’s a bad place for black people, but Walker knew that the University of Texas was the best school in the state, it was where prominent Texans went to college, so he wanted to go there, too. He arrived in Austin in the summer of 1978, and for him it was like going to Paris. The wide lawns, the grand plazas, the tower, the fountain, the white buildings, all alike, with the orange tiled roofs! But the dazzling campus was not the half of it. When he talked to teachers in high school about jobs, they told him, You need a trade, you’re smart, how about becoming an accountant? But when he talked to his college adviser the adviser said, You don’t go to college to get a job—you go to college to get an education! You don’t need to learn a trade—you need to read Chaucer! At first, this thought was so foreign to him that he barely understood it.

He wanted to belong to things, he was a joiner, but he didn’t know anybody, so he responded to every flyer he saw. He signed up for the Liberal Arts Council; he joined the Black Student Alliance; he practically lived at the Student Union. He worked at the student-run art gallery, planning shows. He wanted to be part of everything, and he had nothing to lose. He was elected chair of the Student Union and was the first black Abbot of the Friar Society, and he was in the yearbook so much they thought about calling it “The Cactus Yearbook, featuring Darren Walker.”

He never came out as gay explicitly, but he never felt that this was a problem. He sensed that his family had always known that he was different and accepted him as such, even though they never talked about it. At college, he felt that people understood that he was

99 gay, and he knew that there had always been a place in Southern culture for gay men, gay, and he knew that there had always been a place in Southern culture for gay men, even if they weren’t called that. Anyhow, when it came to the barriers he had to leap over just to get out of bed in the morning at the University of Texas, being gay was nothing compared to being black, or being from the kind of place he was from. There were middle-class white people who were gay, but there were no middle-class white people who were black, or poor. No barrier was too high for him, though, because he believed that he could succeed, and when people tried to help him he didn’t feel insulted: he was grateful, he wanted to learn.

“I didn’t grow up coming to the dinner table,” he says. “I remember going home to Dallas with one of my suite-mates for a weekend or a football game or something. His mother had a dinner, and she was a Texan lady, I mean she had the whole dinner setup, and I was mortified—I had no idea there was a salad fork and a regular fork. But they explained it all, and his mother sent me ‘Tiffany’s Table Manners for Teenagers.’ I mean, I had no idea! I had never heard of Emily Post. And I realized, Oh, my God, I have to run out and get this Emily Post book. And I did! Of course I did! Are you kidding? I had to study it, because I didn’t know that you were supposed to wear a navy suit to dinner! I had no idea that during the day you could wear a sports jacket! And all of a sudden I was thrust into this place where these rules mattered.”

“I’m trying to decide between water and sunlight.”

fter college, he enrolled in law school at the University of Texas, because people he Aadmired were lawyers. He knew, too, that when he was done with his education he would need to work for a corporate firm and start earning some serious money, because he had to take care of his mother and he had to send his younger sisters to college. He graduated from law school in 1986 and moved to New York to work at Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, but he found the hours oppressive, so he went to work on the trading floor at UBS selling mortgage-backed securities. He was a good trader, though not a great one; his genius at the time was for friendships and social connections. He knew everyone. He moved in many circles—gay circles, transplanted-Southerner circles, banking circles, African-American circles. He joined boards and committees. He went to society parties on the Upper East Side and appeared in Avenue; he went to parties in Bed-Stuy and Harlem.

When he was in his early thirties, he met David Beitzel. Beitzel was a Wasp from Westchester, but he was not into the uptown life at all. He was an art dealer with a contemporary-art gallery in SoHo; his whole life was south of Fourteenth Street. But

100 they had one mutual friend, and this mutual friend threw a birthday party. Beitzel arrived they had one mutual friend, and this mutual friend threw a birthday party. Beitzel arrived at the party, and as he opened the door he heard a laugh—a big, loud, roaring Texas guffaw—coming from somewhere inside, and he thought, Whoever that is, laughing like that, I have to meet him. He made his way to the back of the room and saw that the laughing man had taken over the bar area and was making Texas margaritas for everyone and holding forth to a circle of people gathered around. The man had a kind of indomitable exuberance about him, as though, whatever he was saying, what he was really saying was, Isn’t this fantastic? Aren’t we having the greatest time? There is nowhere on earth I would rather be than right here at this party with you!

They started talking about art, and later they talked about dance and English bulldogs. Beitzel left his loft on Mercer Street, and Walker left his penthouse on West Forty- seventh Street, and they moved into an apartment in Chelsea. Twenty-two years later, they were still together, living with their English bulldog, named Mary Lou, after Beitzel’s mother—the successor to their previous English bulldog, who was named Beulah, after Walker’s mother. Walker knew that some people found Wasps stiff and reserved, but he loved the reserve of Beitzel’s family. After all the chaos and screaming and violence that he grew up with, all that quiet, all that calm, felt like heaven.

In April, 1991, he was walking by the receptionist on the way to his desk at UBS when he saw the cover of that week’s Economist: a photograph of a young black boy in a baseball cap and the cover line “America’s Wasted Blacks.” He was shocked by it—it was so raw, almost offensive. He brought the magazine back to his desk and read the article and thought, It is time for me to do something about this. He started volunteering at the Children’s Storefront School, in Harlem. He started working for the school more and more, until his boss told him he had to choose between the school and the bank, because he was letting his trading work slide. He had already helped to put his younger sisters through college: he had done his duty to his family. When he was thirty-five, he quit the bank and started volunteering for the school full-time.

A year later, he took a job at the Abyssinian Development Corporation. Even though he was working in a tiny, dark room in the basement of an apartment building on 138th Street, he showed up every day looking as if he were ready to lunch with Mrs. Rockefeller —Hermès tie, pocket square, Belgian loafers. When he started working in Harlem, there were rats everywhere, and most of the brownstones seemed to be either cemented up or taken over as crack houses. The food in the bodegas all seemed to be past its sell-by date. But he was convinced that Harlem could be great again. He saw that the houses were beautiful and the avenues wide, that the major subway lines came through, that it was easy to get to the airport, that there were parks. The trick was how to rejuvenate without displacing all the people who already lived there.

101 Every day at Abyssinian, there was an endless list of small problems to solve—people Every day at Abyssinian, there was an endless list of small problems to solve—people who needed to move from shelters to housing, parents wanting to enroll their kids in Head Start. He campaigned for big things, too, like the Pathmark supermarket that opened on 125th Street in 1999 and changed the neighborhood forever. Harlem, he liked to say, was a place where you could make money; there was no reason there shouldn’t be for-profit businesses as well as charities. But, even so, it was hard going, bringing in the big stores: he campaigned for a bookstore, too, and the representatives of national chains told him that they wouldn’t open a bookstore in Harlem because black people didn’t read.

In between the big things and the small things, he raised lots and lots of money. Raising money from foundations could be humiliating—once, he had to wait forty-five minutes for a program officer to show up, and when she finally arrived she didn’t even apologize for being late. He resolved never to behave like that to someone who needed his help. A lot of the time, when foundation people came to see the work he was doing, he felt like a guide for poverty tourists. A program officer told him he wanted to bring his board uptown, and Walker said, Great, let’s meet at 138th Street and walk around the neighborhood, and the program officer said he didn’t think the board would feel comfortable walking in Harlem—couldn’t they just rent a bus and drive around? He had seen buses like that, visitors from downtown staring out the windows as if they were on safari.

But raising money from individuals was easy; he had so many rich friends, and he had no trouble asking them. He knew that people loved to be part of something exciting, and he was good at making Abyssinian sound like the most exciting thing around. Soon, he had quintupled Abyssinian’s budget. For a long time, he was so gripped by his work in Harlem that he didn’t want to do anything else, but in 2002 he was offered a job at the Rockefeller Foundation, heading up the national urban program, and he left.

The first thing he noticed when he arrived at Rockefeller was a strange sense of calm. There was a slow deliberateness to the way things moved that he wasn’t used to—there was no sense of urgency. There was no sense of urgency, he gradually realized, because the people at Rockefeller had no one to answer to. On Wall Street, he always had clients breathing down his neck, and at Abyssinian there were always people lining up in the office who needed his help that very minute. But at Rockefeller the people who needed help were far away—distant supplicants who communicated through applications and waited months for an answer. The supplicants had no right to demand anything—they took what they could get and were grateful for it. Once, he 102 noticed that a person who reported to him was about to go on vacation leaving a stack of noticed that a person who reported to him was about to go on vacation leaving a stack of grant files on his desk—files that represented more than a million dollars that couldn’t be disbursed to the nonprofits waiting for them until they were processed. He asked how the person could think of going on vacation before the files were dealt with, and the person said that it wasn’t a problem, he would take care of them when he got back.

He was determined not to become an arrogant grant-maker who believed that people were deferential toward him and invited him to things and laughed at his jokes solely because of his own charm and intelligence. When he took over at Ford, he was determined to remember that even though he had half a billion dollars a year at his disposal, and his grantees were compelled to beg him for some, and he could say no to any one of them and that would be the end of it, still, it was those grantees and their work that gave his work meaning. It was a strange and uncomfortable thing to be a social-justice person in a social-justice foundation committed to ending inequality and yet to find yourself every day in relations that could scarcely be less equal.

All week, every week, people pitched ideas at him, and he said yes or no. He knew that he could make mistakes, and that worried him. He liked to remind himself of a letter to Maya Angelou someone had found in the archives, telling her in a very perfunctory way that she could forget about a grant since she had no talent worthy of the Ford Foundation. Of course, he also liked to remember that Ford had been among the first to fund Gloria Steinem and Muhammad Yunus, the microfinance pioneer, and that James Baldwin wrote “Another Country” on a Ford grant. But, no matter how often he checked himself, he knew that in the end it was almost impossible for a grant-maker to be sure that he was doing his job well, because there was no one to tell him the truth: his grantees had to stay on his good side, and his colleagues didn’t know any better than he did. He was perched on the top of a mountain of money so high that he could barely see the bottom.

n 1973, Henry Ford II spoke bitterly and at length to Charles T. Morrissey, an Iinterviewer for the Ford Foundation archives.

FORD: I made a lot of mistakes, but the biggest mistake I ever made was to give up control of the Ford Foundation. It was a horrendous error. I never should have done it.

MORRISSEY: Why? Why do you feel that way?

FORD: Because I think the Foundation’s been a fiasco from my point of view from day one. And it got out of control and it got in the control of a lot of liberals. . . . I’ve tried to break up the Foundation several times and have been unsuccessful. . . . I didn’t have enough confidence in myself at that stage to push and scream and yell and tell them to go fuck themselves, you know, which I should have done. 103 go fuck themselves, you know, which I should have done.

The foundation was established by Henry Ford II’s father, Edsel Ford, the son of Henry Ford, in Michigan in 1936, with a gift of twenty-five thousand dollars. At first, it was a small, local foundation funding mostly small, local things. But, after Edsel Ford died, in 1943, and Henry Ford died, in 1947, and willed to the foundation a large chunk of the nonvoting stock of the Ford Motor Company, it became clear that the foundation was going to become, overnight, the largest philanthropic organization in the world. It was not exactly generosity that inspired the gift: if the stock had gone to the Ford children, they would have owed so much in taxes—more than three hundred million dollars—that, in order to pay, they would have had to sell stock in such quantities as to lose control of the company to the public. In addition, Henry and Edsel Ford instructed in their wills that all inheritance taxes—around forty million dollars—be paid by the foundation. Motives notwithstanding, it was a source of bemusement to conservatives ever after that the money made by the arch-conservative Henry Ford, the publisher of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in a system and spirit of unfettered capitalism, should have fallen into the hands of liberals. When John Olin, the founder of the conservative Olin Foundation, died, in 1982, he decreed that his foundation should not exist in perpetuity, lest it be taken over by the kind of lefty forces that had taken over Ford.

FORD: It got all mixed up at going off in all directions, getting into all kinds of nutty liberal causes. . . . I mean, you know, Mike [Mitchell] Sviridoff; Christ! he’s off doing nutty things with [Cesar] Chavez and all. We got into a lot of trouble back in the old days in the South where the Ford dealers were bitching like hell about all the things we were doing down South. And when you’re in the consumer business and you’ve also got the Foundation around your neck, you’re in trouble almost day and night because they’re always doing something that irritates somebody and why irritate somebody that’s going to buy your product. . . . You know, we only exist because we’re smart enough to sell something for a profit and we can get thrown out or we can go broke; but those people, they’ve got nobody to answer to.

Relations between the Fords and the foundation grew worse and worse, until, finally, in 1977, Henry Ford II resigned as a trustee of the foundation and severed its ties to the family.

MORRISSEY: Has it been hard to maintain this Detroit connection?

104 FORD: Yes, very hard. Very hard all the way along. Ridiculously hard. These people FORD: Yes, very hard. Very hard all the way along. Ridiculously hard. These people always forget where the money came from and I don’t ever forgive them for that.

For nearly forty years, the Ford family and the Ford Foundation had little to do with one another. The foundation, with its fancy building in Manhattan and its global outlook, did not pay much attention to the foundering Midwestern city from which it had come. But Walker hated the idea of all that bad feeling, so when he became president he wrote a letter to Mrs. William Clay Ford, Sr., the former Martha Firestone, of Firestone Tire and Rubber, the widow of Edsel Ford’s son, and, since her husband’s death, the owner of the Detroit Lions. And last year the foundation committed a hundred and twenty-five million dollars to the “grand bargain,” which rescued Detroit from bankruptcy and saved the Detroit Institute of Art.

“Do we even have a garbage disposal?”

The grand bargain was instigated by Gerald E. Rosen, a judge who had been appointed chief mediator in the city’s bankruptcy case. Rosen called a meeting with the heads of some of the richest foundations in the country and asked them to bail out Detroit and the Detroit Institute of Art, so the D.I.A. didn’t have to sell its paintings to pay its debt. It was an unprecedented request: foundations had never bailed out a city before; it wasn’t what they did. But Rosen was persistent, and he found, in Walker, a person who liked to salve old wounds, and who did not find Detroit provincial or insignificant but was moved by the desperation of a formerly great American city. In the early stages of the grand-bargain negotiations, it was said that it was the D.I.A. against the pensioners—rich white art lovers against elderly black city workers—but Walker refused to think in those terms. In his mind, the bargain would be a win for both: the D.I.A. was good for Detroit. It was necessary, perhaps, for the president of the Ford Foundation, which had always given money to both art and social justice, to refuse to see funding one as a decision to deprive the other. In the end, some pensioners took cuts of a few percentage points, and the D.I.A. didn’t sell anything at all. And in June Mrs. William Clay Ford, Sr., hosted a dinner for the Ford Foundation board with several dozen Fords in attendance. It was the first time the board had met in Detroit in sixty years.

n the early days after Henry Ford’s death, the foundation’s chief problem was how to spend its money fast enough, as it gushed into its bank accounts in eye-popping Iquantities. It was suspected in certain quarters, most notably at the I.R.S., that 105 foundations might be little more than tax-avoidance schemes, and the Revenue Act of foundations might be little more than tax-avoidance schemes, and the Revenue Act of 1950 forbade unreasonable amassing of foundation income, so the stuff had to be spent. At the time Ford’s will was executed, it was thought that the yearly expenditure would be around twenty million dollars, but, three years later, it leaped to thirty-eight million, then, a few years after that, sixty-eight million. The problem of how to give so much money away, with no obligations whatsoever, was more troublesome than it sounded. “The first thing you have to do every year is get rid of most of your income in a few very big operations,” a Ford vice-president told Dwight Macdonald in this magazine, in 1955. “Then you’re down to Rockefeller size—around twenty million a year—and you can begin to act like a foundation instead of like the United States Treasury.” The splash made by the foundation was such that shoots of hope sprang up all over the world. Ford received proposals for irrigating the Sahara, for planting a three-mile-wide strip of flowers along the U.S.-Canadian border, and for forcibly melting the ice cap at the South Pole.

It was clear that the newly vast foundation needed to expand its mission far outside Detroit, so Henry Ford II appointed a committee to determine what that mission should be. For more than a year, members of the committee flew all over the place, seeking advice from the great and the good, and in 1949 they produced a lengthy report. The committee’s ambitions were limitless. “At one time the gifts of individuals and benevolent organizations were intended largely to relieve the suffering of ‘the weak, the poor and the unfortunate,’ ” the report noted. “With the establishment of the modern foundation a much greater concept came into being. The aim is no longer merely to treat symptoms . . . but rather to eradicate the causes of suffering. Nor is the modern foundation content to concern itself only with man’s obvious physical needs; it seeks rather to help man achieve his entire well-being—to satisfy his mental, emotional, and spiritual needs as well.”

In order to achieve these grand aims, the committee concluded, it was necessary above all to attain a better understanding of man himself—“what he needs and wants, what incentives are necessary to his productive and socially useful life, what factors influence his development and behavior, how he learns and communicates with other persons, and, finally, what prevents him from living at peace with himself and his fellow men.” The committee had a deep faith that research by top people was the key: if only there were more objective data, it was felt, then many disputes that appeared to be politically intractable would be resolved.

For its first president in this new era, the foundation selected Paul Hoffman, the chairman of Studebaker-Packard and freshly glorious from his successful administration of the Marshall Plan, and began opening offices on several continents. It commissioned and moved into its splendid pink granite-and-steel headquarters, designed in the International Style, on East Forty-third Street, near the U.N. The building contained a garden: a third of an acre, twelve stories high, air-conditioned, and planted with magnolia

106 trees and eucalyptus trees and evergreen pear trees, in addition to dozens of bushes, vines, trees and eucalyptus trees and evergreen pear trees, in addition to dozens of bushes, vines, and flowering plants that would vary with the seasons. The clear glass that made up the south façade both enabled the foliage to flourish and gave the building what the architect felt was a moral structure.

Ford saw itself as the “research and development arm of society,” funding projects that were still too experimental or politically dubious to be taken on by governments, but which, if they proved successful, might be more widely adopted. In its first decades, it was attacked by both the left and the right. The left thought that it was propping up the status quo, and was probably a front for the C.I.A. to boot (and, in fact, the C.I.A. was using other foundations for covert funding). The right was convinced that it was staffed by a bunch of dangerous Communists who were out to annihilate the free-enterprise system. “We will have to start watching these outfits in this strange new development in our affairs lest they use the power of enormous tax-free pools of money to destroy the liberties of the American people,” the anti-New Deal columnist Westbrook Pegler declared in 1952. Some said that if you bought a Ford car you were contributing to the Communists. The rumors of Communist conspiracy got so bad that in the nineteen- fifties there were two congressional investigations of foundations and their purported dedication to undermining the American way of life.

Partly because of this suspicion, and partly because the founders were as conservative as their critics, most foundations’ grants in the early days were not particularly controversial. Rockefeller eliminated hookworm from the rural American South and revolutionized American medical education. Ford gave enormous sums to America’s universities and later funded Head Start. But, starting in the mid-fifties, Ford grew bold. It funded the N.A.A.C.P.’s work on Brown v. Board of Education. It was a time in which “urban renewal” and Robert Moses-style projects were pushing low-income people out of their homes, and black people from the South were moving into white neighborhoods in Northern cities; Ford moved into inner cities, financing community-based organizations that provided social services, and tried to improve local schools. To the left, it now looked like Ford was trying to put a conciliatory face on what was still basically the same urban- renewal program, fostering the interests of developers and excluding activists, particularly black activists, from participation in decision-making. To the right, it looked like Ford was fomenting urban rebellion.

“The atoms are burned on the outside but still ice-cold in the middle.”

When McGeorge Bundy, who had been the national-security adviser to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, was appointed president of the foundation, in 1966, he took even bolder steps, financing trade unions and neighborhood activism. Ford gave millions of dollars to civil-rights groups, and funded the Congress of Racial Equality. Most controversial of all, it funded activists who wanted to take control of their school district,

107 in Brooklyn, in order to be able to fire tenured, in Brooklyn, in order to be able to fire tenured, unionized teachers. This, too, was largely a racial issue, setting mostly black parents and leaders from the Black Power movement against mostly white teachers. The conflict launched the city’s largest-ever teachers’ strike; police barricades and helicopters kept the teachers apart from the activists, some of whom were armed. Once again, this intervention managed to alienate people of all political stripes: liberals and conservatives decried the racial hostility created by the strike—hostility that poisoned the city for decades. The left, having previously accused Ford of excluding activists from its grants, now accused it of trying to co-opt and deradicalize activists by giving them cash.

Ford did not have another president as confrontational as Bundy. But, even so, it was peculiar how, in the decades that followed the New York City teachers’ strike, resistance to foundations, for the most part, melted away. By the time Walker arrived at Ford, the dispensing of money for charitable purposes, even very large sums of money, was generally thought to be at best a generous and at worst an innocuous activity. This was not because foundations had stopped funding big, controversial projects. The Gates Foundation, which had displaced Ford as the largest foundation in the world—its endowment was forty billion dollars to Ford’s twelve—spent around two billion dollars over eight years in an effort to break up big public high schools and form smaller ones— an effort that resulted in around twenty-five hundred schools in forty-five states. (It later decided that the small schools made little difference and dropped the program.) It spent millions more on creating charter schools. The education scholar Diane Ravitch, outraged by what she saw as a serious undermining of the public-school system, called Gates the nation’s unelected school superintendent.

Because foundations tended to fund liberal causes, conservatives were still a little suspicious of them, but outright opposition had been rare since fears of Communism died down—perhaps because conservatives tended to believe that a person ought to be able to spend his money as he chose, and if he chose to spend it on charity rather than on yachts, well, who was to fault him for it? Because foundations tended to fund liberal causes, they were regarded benignly by most liberals, when they were regarded at all. But this liberal approval was odd, because, as Rob Reich, a political scientist at Stanford, pointed out in the Boston Review, foundations were undeniably plutocratic: they were vehicles for the rich to mold society into the shape they thought it ought to be. In this, foundations resembled super PACs: in both cases, money gave rich people the means to exercise an outsized and undemocratic influence on American life. Although foundations were not allowed to fund overtly political activity (which prevented them from addressing the root causes of the conditions they were permitted to alleviate), it was difficult to see why attempting to change American society by lobbying was political

108 while doing the same by funding activists was not. “Why are we . . . hypersensitive to the while doing the same by funding activists was not. “Why are we . . . hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics . . . but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?” Gara LaMarche, formerly of George Soros’s Open Society Institute, wondered in an article in Democracy.

But there was a significant difference between foundations and super PACs: the money that endowed foundations was exempt from taxation, so when foundations attempted to mold society they were doing so at the expense of the taxpayer. When a rich person endowed a foundation, he received, in effect, a substantial subsidy from the government, and in 2012 U.S. foundation assets amounted to more than seven hundred billion dollars.* (#editorsnote) (Of course, the same could be said of any charitable donation given by a person who itemized his tax deductions: in 2013, tax revenue forgone owing to charitable giving amounted to nearly forty billion dollars.) Even the conservative legal theorist Judge Richard Posner could not understand why foundation assets should be tax-exempt. “A perpetual charitable foundation . . . is a completely irresponsible institution, answerable to nobody,” he wrote. “Unlike a hereditary monarch whom such a foundation otherwise resembles, it is subject to no political controls either. . . . The puzzle for economics is why these foundations are not total scandals.”

In fact, a hundred years ago, at the dawn of the foundation era, they were total scandals. When John D. Rockefeller tried to obtain a federal charter to establish his foundation, in 1910, Congress rejected him. In 1915, a Commission on Industrial Relations recommended that the Rockefeller Foundation be regulated by the government, or be shut down altogether by Congress, and its funds distributed to the unemployed, since presumably the reason it had all that surplus money was that the Rockefellers had been too cheap in paying their workers. “The domination by men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and ‘social service’ of the nation,” the commission warned. The puzzle for history was why the scandal went away.

alker took a night flight from Newark to Delhi, fourteen hours. He took Ambien on the plane and slept. After he got to his hotel, at ten o’clock at night WDelhi time but early morning in New York, he had a late dinner in a kind of bizarre disco bar he discovered off the hotel lobby—he realized that probably it wasn’t quite as bizarre as it seemed to him then, in his twilight state—and sat up e-mailing the office until two in the morning. He knew that, because he was president, if he got behind on his e-mails then many people would be held up in their work, waiting for him. On the other hand, he had learned from his executive coach that it was also possible to get too far ahead on his e-mails, as he had done when he first got the job, firing off dozens of enthusiastic queries and thoughts and suggestions on Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings, when other people were trying to enjoy their weekends.

109 He himself was uninterested in leisure. He worked every weekend, and he was out every He himself was uninterested in leisure. He worked every weekend, and he was out every night attending two, three, four, five events—panel discussions, parties, talks, dinners, galas—leaving one with an apology and a smile, leaping into a taxi, on to the next. But he had discovered that his staff needed time off from work, and became distressed and resentful when this time off was denied them, and that when he sent them an e-mail about something on his mind they felt obliged to respond quickly, and this was interfering with their ability to get properly rested before the new week began. Early on, he had talked excitedly in a meeting about some idea that had occurred to him, and then had been startled to find, a week or so later, a detailed report on his desk exploring the idea from several angles—a report that had undoubtedly taken someone, perhaps several someones, many days to produce. He realized then that his employees wished to please him and anticipate his wants, and that therefore a president should not be too spontaneous or promiscuous in his enthusiasms.

NOVEMBER 8, 2010

The most important thing he had to do on this trip to India was pay his respects to a representative of the new Narendra Modi administration. It was particularly important now to establish friendly relations, because Indian politicians had been frustrated by N.G.O. activism for some time, and, since many N.G.O.s received foreign funding, including from Ford, the politicians objected to what looked like foreign interference in domestic affairs. Efforts to build a nuclear power plant in South India, for instance, had been delayed for years by protests, for which the government blamed foreign-funded activists and Christians. It was suspected that safety concerns about the plant were merely window dressing to disguise the real motive behind the protests, which was to insure that India remained dependent on foreign investment. India was a nuclear power and a middle- income country that should rightly be an aid donor, the government felt—not a recipient.

In April, the government froze the bank accounts of Greenpeace India, and in the same month cancelled the registration of nearly nine thousand N.G.O.s that received money from abroad. Then, in May, it announced that, in the interests of national security, Ford would henceforth be required to seek government permission for all of its grants. Since Ford was already required to seek government permission for all of its grants, the message was clear: Ford must be more careful or be shut down like Greenpeace. It was widely supposed that this was payback for Ford’s support, some years earlier, for Gujarat

110 activists who had brought charges against Narendra Modi—then Gujarat’s Hindu- activists who had brought charges against Narendra Modi—then Gujarat’s Hindu- nationalist chief minister—for “enabling” ethnic riots in 2002 that killed around a thousand people, mostly Muslims.

Walker spent a long time talking with government officials, trying to dispel their suspicion. But, he realized, it certainly was a delicate question, what Ford thought it was doing, funding attempts to undermine centuries-old customs in foreign countries. What if some foreign country tried to do that in America? Walker hoped to persuade Indian philanthropists to take an interest in governance and human-rights groups, but, since such groups were often run by people who were given to proclaiming their hatred and contempt for corporate India, it was difficult to persuade corporate India to fund them.

This strained relationship between the foundation and India’s government was relatively new. Ford had been invited to set up shop in the country by India’s first post- independence Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, in 1952. Nehru gave Ford an extraordinary site to build on, in the Lodi Gardens, right in the center of New Delhi, amid trees and lawns, and mosques and tombs from before the Mughal period. Ford built a grand campus and moved in in style: in the sixties, there were several hundred employees in the Delhi office. In addition to the staff, foreign experts were always arriving to serve as consultants, and a guest house was built to accommodate them, next to the swimming pool. The office kept two jet airplanes on hand to transport staff, and Douglas Ensminger, the head of the office, used to drive around town in a horse-drawn carriage, like a viceroy.

Ensminger was close to Nehru, and in the early days Ford funded mostly government projects. It financed grand institutes of management, of public administration, and of design. It trained hundreds of workers who ventured out to hundreds of villages all over the country to teach modern agricultural methods, public health, and techniques of political organization. Along with the Rockefeller Foundation, it financed the Green Revolution, which, by introducing new seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, and methods, enormously increased India’s agricultural production at a time of terrible food shortages —India doubled its rice output in six years. Not everything worked so well: responding to government concerns about overpopulation, Ford funded research that led indirectly to a forced-sterilization program in the mid-seventies that unintentionally killed close to two thousand people owing to botched surgeries. Even the Green Revolution had unintended side effects, bankrupting small farmers and reducing biodiversity.

Then, in the eighties, Ford began to shift its focus from academic institutes and economic development to social justice, and from financing government programs to funding N.G.O.s. This was not just a shift in the Delhi office: in 1979, a new Ford president, Franklin Thomas, had taken over in New York. Thomas had come out of

111 community development and poverty work in Brooklyn, and he was less interested in the community development and poverty work in Brooklyn, and he was less interested in the sort of magisterial institution building that Ford had been doing in India and more interested in civil society.

Many on the Indian left who ran those N.G.O.s had long been suspicious of Ford. It suspected that the foundation was a front for the C.I.A., using civil-society groups to mold India according to an imperialist American agenda. But, more recently, some had come around. They saw that Ford had financed activists, in India and elsewhere, with unimpeachably antiestablishment politics. And they saw that there were genuine activists even among Ford’s staff.

n addition to meetings with activists and grantees in Delhi, Walker was scheduled to visit some village projects that Ford had been funding. He and a delegation from the IDelhi office flew to Ranchi, the capital of the state of Jharkhand. Jharkhand was part of the “tribal belt” in the east of the country. Tribals were outsiders in India: they weren’t even traditionally Hindus; they existed outside the caste system altogether. In recent years, they had won some control over their land, but the tribal population was still one of the poorest in the country.

The first day in Jharkhand, Walker and the delegation were driven in a convoy far out of Ranchi to a village, accompanied by workers from Pradan, a Ford-funded N.G.O. Before Pradan arrived, seventeen years earlier, life in the village had been very difficult. Each year for five or six months, there was nothing to eat, because the crops were all gone; the villagers managed to buy a little food only by foraging firewood and walking for miles to sell it in the town. Armed Maoists roamed about. Pradan taught the villagers how to conserve water and irrigate through a network of pipes so they could grow two crops each year rather than one. It taught them to plant a diversity of crops—wheat, lentils, vegetables—and yields improved. It suggested investing in mango trees, and the mangoes sold for a lot of money. It informed the villagers what government schemes they were entitled to, and helped them to collect what they were owed. The local Maoists disagreed about N.G.O.s like Pradan: some felt that they were doing good work for the people; others felt that by ameliorating conditions in a superficial manner they were delaying the revolution.

Pradan had been co-founded thirty years before by Deep Joshi, who was then a program officer at Ford’s Delhi office with an engineering degree from M.I.T. In the mid- nineteen-seventies, Joshi had come across a couple of Johns Hopkins-trained doctors who’d set up a clinic in a remote village. They had educated local workers in sanitation, hygiene, and hydration, and had raised health standards in the village to levels that wouldn’t be seen in most of India for decades. He thought, If only more professionals— engineers, doctors, agricultural experts, plant biologists—could be persuaded to work in rural areas, then India would really change. Most people thought this was a crazy notion: what engineer or doctor was going to move to the middle of nowhere on a tiny salary

112 when he could be living a comfortable life in the city? And what Indian parent would when he could be living a comfortable life in the city? And what Indian parent would permit his expensively educated child to commit such folly? But Ford gave Joshi a grant to try out his idea, and now Pradan recruited graduates from top universities, just as corporations did, albeit not quite as many.

“Don’t look. It’s the people we steal Wi-Fi from.” OCTOBER 12, 2009

Because Joshi and his co-founder were engineers, at first they were focussed on hardware—irrigation pipes, agricultural equipment. But gradually they realized that persuading people to collaborate with one another was equally crucial to prosperity. Organizing women into groups enabled them to apply for proper credit without becoming slaves to moneylenders, and also emboldened them to take action against local malefactors— schoolteachers who didn’t show up, fathers who didn’t allow daughters to inherit land, husbands who beat their wives.

The convoy stopped at the edge of the village, and Walker emerged from the car’s air- conditioning into the sun. There, waiting to greet him, was a large crowd—practically the entire village. There was a group of women in matching red-and-white saris with white flowers in their hair, and more flowers in metal pots on their heads. Somebody hung an extraordinary garland, a kind of lei constructed entirely of vegetables, around Walker’s neck, which was a little scratchy but smelled deliciously planty and fresh. The sun on his face dimmed, and, looking up, he saw that a woman had come up behind him to hold over his head a giant sunshade of draped blue-and-silver cloth, like those used by maharajas riding on elephants. He was told to process downhill the few dozen yards from the car to the community center, where a presentation would take place.

A man headed the procession, beating time on a drum, leading the crowd along a path through the center of the village, while to Walker’s left and to his right the women in the matching saris formed two lines and started to dance to the rhythm of the drumbeats, waving leafy branches and singing for him. The woman carrying the sunshade walked behind him; in front of him, a photographer walked backward, snapping his photograph. It was a little embarrassing, this maharaja treatment, but what was he to do? It was the nature of the situation. The president of the Ford Foundation had come for a visit! Besides, it was only a little bit embarrassing; it was also fun. His job was to look happy and appreciative, and he did; he turned from side to side, beaming, putting his palms together in a gesture of greeting and thanks. Suddenly a large goat appeared, darted

113 toward him, and snatched a couple of beans out of his garland in its teeth before it was toward him, and snatched a couple of beans out of his garland in its teeth before it was shooed away; he was startled but then delighted—it was all part of the fun, and an excellent addition to the story he would tell later.

The procession came to a halt facing the village’s prized amenity: two brand-new public toilets, housed in a hut painted yellow and green. The drummer stopped, the singers fell silent. Walker was asked to officially open the toilets, which he did, improvising a gesture, joyful but not overly demonstrative—how did one open a toilet? This was the sort of thing the president of the Ford Foundation must be able to do without briefing. His gesture was a success: everyone applauded. The drumbeats resumed, the singing started up again, and the procession carried on. ♦

* (#correctionasterisk)An earlier version of this article overstated the size of the government subsidy for foundations.

Larissa MacFarquhar has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1998.

114 Breakout Sessions

Responding to feedback received from meeting participants, we are trying out a new format for interactive sessions at our annual meeting. Below are six sessions, which will run concurrently. Each session will have a discussion facilitator, but participants are expected to use these sessions as an opportunity to present innovations, air challenges, or learn about the topic. Please feel free to choose one to attend or divide your time between different sessions. After the meeting a summary of the discussions will be posted in the ACLS annual meeting summary on our website.

Constructive Approaches for Adjunct Faculty - Salon 5 Discussion facilitator: Kwame Anthony Appiah, Professor of Philosophy, NYU; ACLS Board of Directors; President, Modern Language Association Instructors working either part time or full time in contingent, non-tenure track positions make up the majority of faculty in American higher education. How can learned societies advocate for and effectively represent the needs of members working as adjunct faculty? What role can societies play in preparing graduate students and recent PhDs for what is increasingly the “new normal” of academic labor?

PhD Career Diversification - Salon 6 Discussion facilitator: Amy Ferrer, Executive Director, American Philosophical Association ACLS and a number of its member societies are exploring ways to highlight the wide range of possible career paths for humanities PhDs. How might scholarly associations better prepare graduates and their faculty advisors to take advantage of career opportunities beyond the academy? How might we make PhDs working in non-academic positions more visible, and integral, to our societies?

Creative Approaches to Annual Meetings - Salon 7 Discussion facilitator: Pamela Robertson Wojcik, Professor of Film, University of Notre Dame; Delegate, Society of Cinema and Media Studies Many learned societies organize their meetings around the standard panel of three to four people presenting 20 minute papers with PowerPoint. How could we envision meetings and panels differently? How might we vary the pattern? Rethink the paper? Incorporate digital technologies? Can we flip the panel?

Inequality and Diversity in the Humanities - Studio A Discussion facilitator: George Sanchez, Vice Dean for Diversity and Strategic Initiatives and Professor of American Studies & Ethnicity, University of Southern California; Delegate, American Historical Association What are the implications of social inequality for the academic humanities? Does the fact that the humanities are most visible in well-resourced colleges and universities foreshadow a future as a cultural luxury good? What are strategies for extending the reach of our work so that the humanities are, in the words of the 1964 Commission on the Humanities, “functioning components of society which affect the lives and well-being of all the population”? How can we develop a humanities professoriate as diverse as the culture and society it seeks to interpret?

Advocating for the Humanities: A New Toolkit for Scholarly Societies - Studio B Presenters: Stephen Kidd, Executive Director and Beatrice Gurwitz, Assistant Director, National Humanities Alliance The National Humanities Alliance works to support scholarly societies’ efforts to engage their members in advocacy for the humanities. We will present new advocacy tools developed to communicate relevant policy issues and offer avenues for scholars to become advocates. We will then open the conversation to discuss: What other resources might aid scholarly societies in their efforts to engage their members in advocacy? What types of resources are most useful for campus-based scholars interested in pursuing advocacy on their campuses?

Democratic Engagement in Teaching and Learning - Studio C Discussion facilitator: Scott Casper, Dean of the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences and Professor of History, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Delegate, American Antiquarian Society. How can colleges and universities deploy the humanities to engage their students in wide and deep thinking on civic responsibilities? The expressive, analytical, and creative capacities stimulated by study of the humanities should be public goods and not just individual resources. These resources will be ever more necessary in a diversifying society interconnected with a complex world.

115 American Council of Learned Societies

The American Council of Learned Societies was founded in 1919 to advance humanistic studies in all fields of learning in the humanities and the social sciences and to maintain and strengthen relations among the national societies devoted to such studies. Organized as a private, nonprofit federation of 73 national scholarly organizations, ACLS is the pre-eminent representative of humanities scholarship in America.

Awarding peer-reviewed fellowships to individuals, and, on occasion, grants to groups and institutions, is at the core of ACLS activity. The intensive peer-review process that results in the selection of ACLS fellows is not just an administrative mechanism: it is an opportunity for distinguished scholars to reach broad consensus on standards of quality in humanities research. Since 1957, over 12,000 scholars have received ACLS fellowships and grants. In 2016, ACLS will award over $18 million in fellowships to over 300 individual scholars.

The international work of ACLS reflects the conviction that knowledge and scholarship are not bounded by political and cultural borders. ACLS programs provide opportunities for American scholars to pursue research on and in world areas outside the United States and to develop productive contacts with overseas colleagues and institutions. Programs also provide support directly to scholars based overseas and promote the development of their networks.

ACLS has long played a role in scholarly communication, with increasing emphasis on exploring the possibilities of new technologies for the humanities, creating a common space for innovation, and coordinating resources and expertise. ACLS Humanities E-Book is a digital, fully searchable collection of nearly 4,700 high-quality books in the humanities, recommended and reviewed by scholars and featuring unlimited multi-user access.

ACLS convenes representatives of its constituent learned societies to discuss innovations and share best practices in research and education in the humanities. ACLS also serves as advocate on behalf of the scholarly humanities in public fora and policy arenas. The Council’s critical role in helping to establish and to reauthorize the National Endowment for the Humanities is perhaps the most notable example of its exercise of this function. ACLS continues to develop programs that demonstrate the valuable and productive connections between the scholarly humanities and the public sphere.

ACLS is supported by income from endowment, annual subscriptions from institutional associates, dues from constituent societies and affiliates, private and public grants, government contracts, and donations from individuals.

116

American Council of Learned Societies Structure and Governance

The ACLS Constitution defines the Council as a Board of Directors of up to 20 members and one Delegate from each constituent society. The Council holds an annual meeting, elects officers and members of the Board of Directors, provides general and fiscal oversight, and, assisted by the Executive Committee of the Delegates, admits new members. Working with the president, the Board of Directors establishes overall direction and policy, allocates funds, oversees investments, and reports on all major decisions to the constituent societies

Selected by their societies, ACLS Delegates serve four-year terms. An elected, seven-member executive committee discharges the major responsibilities of the Delegates. This committee also functions as the advisory committee on admissions of new societies and affiliates. The chair of the Executive Committee of the Delegates serves ex officio as a member of the Board of Directors.

The principal administrator from each of the constituent learned societies serves as a member of the Conference of Administrative Officers (CAO). The CAO similarly elects a seven-member executive committee, whose chair also serves ex officio as a member of the Board of Directors.

117 ACLS Board of Directors Kwame Anthony Appiah is a professor of philosophy and law at New York University. Appiah received his BA and PhD in philosophy from Cambridge University. He is the editor, with Henry Louis Gates Jr., of the Dictionary of Global Culture, Encarta Africana (a CD-ROM encyclopedia), Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African-American Experience, as well as of many collections of criticism of African and African-American writers. Appiah coauthored Bu Me Bé: Proverbs of the Akan (of which his mother is the major author), an annotated edition of 7,500 proverbs in Twi, the language of Asante. He has published three novels and two introductions to philosophy, Necessary Questions and Thinking It Through. In 2005, Princeton University Press published The Ethics of Identity and W.W. Norton published Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers in 2006. In 2008, Harvard University Press published his Experiments in Ethics. In 2010, The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen was published by W.W. Norton. Appiah is also the general editor of the Global Ethics Series, published by W.W. Norton. Lines of Descent: W.E.B. Du Bois and the Emergence of Identity was released by Harvard University Press in February 2014. He is currently a member of the ACLS Board of Directors and served as its chair from 2006-12. He is also on the board of the MLA, ARTstor, and served as chair of the board of the American Philosophical Association. Appiah has served on the boards of the PEN American Center, the American Academy in Berlin, and the National Humanities Center and was once chair of the Joint Committee on African Studies of SSRC, and president of the Society for African Philosophy in North America. His interests range over African and African-American intellectual history and literary studies, ethics and philosophy of mind and language, but his major current work has to do with the philosophical foundations of liberalism and moral epistemology. Appiah was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Obama in 2012

Donald Brenneis is a linguistic and social anthropologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. He studied anthropology as an undergraduate at Stanford and received his PhD from Harvard University. His work has focused on the social life of communicative practices—linguistic, musical, performative, and textual. He worked in a South Asian diasporic community in Fiji over a 20-year period, examining the relationships among language, music, conflict, law, and politics—and considering, among other things, children’s arguments, men’s gossip, and the complexities of managing conflict through indirect speech. More recently he has been doing ethnographic work—both as participant and as observer—on peer review, scholarly publishing, assessment practices, higher education policy, and the ongoing shaping of scholarly and scientific knowledge within and beyond anthropology. He has also served as editor of American Ethnologist (1989-94) and president of the American Anthropological Association (2001-03). He cochaired the editorial committee of the University of California Press (2007-09) and is currently coeditor of Annual Review of Anthropology. In 2007-08 he was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Selected publications include “A Partial View of Contemporary Anthropology: 2003 Presidential Address, American Anthropological Association,” American Anthropologist (2004); “Doing Anthropology in Sound: Steven Feld in conversation with Donald Brenneis” (with Steven Feld), American Ethnologist (2004); and Law and Empire in the Pacific: Fiji and Hawai'i (edited with Sally Engle Merry; School of American Research Press, 2004).

118 Terry Castle has taught English literature at Stanford since 1983. She specializes in the history of the novel, especially the works of Defoe, Richardson, Fielding, and Austen. But she has taught a wide variety of other subjects too: the literature of the First World War; British modernism; Virginia Woolf, Radclyffe Hall, and other twentieth-century women writers; psychoanalytic theory; literature and opera; and gay and lesbian writing. She has written seven books: Clarissa’s Ciphers: Meaning and Disruption in Richardson’s ‘Clarissa’ (1982); Masquerade and Civilization: The Carnivalesque in Eighteenth-Century English Culture and Fiction (1986); The Apparitional Lesbian: Female Homosexuality and Modern Culture (1993); The Female Thermometer: Eighteenth-Century Culture and the Invention of the Uncanny (1995); Noel Coward and Radclyffe Hall: Kindred Spirits (1996); Boss Ladies, Watch Out! Essays on Women, Sex, and Writing (2002); Courage, Mon Amie (2002); and The Professor: A Sentimental Education (2010). She is the editor of a prize-winning anthology, The Literature of Lesbianism: A Historical Anthology from Ariosto to Stonewall (2003). Several of her essays have likewise won individual prizes, including the William Riley Parker Prize awarded annually by the Modern Language Association for the best critical essay of the year. In 1995 her book The Female Thermometer was a finalist for the PEN Spielvogel-Diamondstein Award for the Art of the Essay. Her latest book, The Professor, has likewise been named as a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award. She writes regularly for the London Review of Books, New Republic, Atlantic, and other magazines and journals.

Nicola Courtright is the William McCall Vickery 1957 Professor of the History of Art and chair of European Studies at Amherst College. She has taught the art and architecture of early modern Europe in the Department of Art and the History of Art at Amherst College since 1989. She received her BA at Oberlin College, her MA at Yale University, and a PhD at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University in 1990. Courtright has received numerous grants to pursue her research, including a Fulbright, a Rome Prize at the American Academy in Rome, and American Council of Learned Societies and American Association of University Women postdoctoral fellowships. Her book The Papacy and the Art of Reform in Sixteenth-Century Rome: Gregory XIII and the Tower of the Winds in the Vatican (New York: Cambridge UP, 2003) was awarded honorable mention for the Premio Salimbeni per la Storia e la Critica d’Arte. Courtright’s publications span a range of areas within early modern European art history, including the art and architecture of the Vatican Palace, Bernini sculpture, Louis XIV’s bedroom in Versailles, and Rembrandt drawings. Her focus has most often been on the conflicted intersection of Italian and Northern European cultures, in particular the formation of aesthetic or artistic canons used to shape new political agendas. Most recently her research focuses on the construction of authority for early-modern French queens in the art and architecture of royal domiciles. Courtright has been a member of the College Art Association Board of Directors since 2000, vice president of publications from 2004-06, and president from 2006-08.

119 Jonathan Culler is Class of 1916 Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Cornell University. A 1966 graduate of Harvard, he won a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford, where he took a BPhil in comparative literature and a DPhil in modern languages. He was fellow in French at Selwyn College, Cambridge University, and university lecturer in French at Brasenose College, Oxford University, before moving to Cornell. Culler's first book was Flaubert: The Uses of Uncertainty (1974), but otherwise his publications bear principally on contemporary critical theory, French and English: Structuralist Poetics (winner of the MLA’s 1976 Lowell Prize); Ferdinand de Saussure (1976); The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (1981); On Deconstruction (1982); Roland Barthes (1983); Framing the Sign: Criticism and Its Institutions (1988); Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction (1997); The Literary in Theory (2006). Theory of the Lyric, his latest book, was published by Harvard University Press in 2015. He served as director of the Society for the Humanities at Cornell for nine years. Thereafter, he was chair of comparative literature, chair of English, then senior associate dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. He has been active in a number of professional organizations: president of the American Semiotic Society, chair of the Supervising Committee, trustee of the English Institute, twice a member of the MLA's Executive Council, member of the Board of Directors of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Advisory Board of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, and president of the American Comparative Literature Association. He has been elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. Ann Fabian is a professor of history at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. She studied philosophy as an undergraduate at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and received her PhD in American studies from Yale where she taught for a dozen years before joining the faculty at Rutgers. Her work has explored aspects of the cultural history of the nineteenth-century United States from economics to print culture to race and science. Her books include Card Sharps, Dream Books & Bucket Shops: Gambling in Nineteenth-Century America (1991), The Unvarnished Truth: Personal Narratives in Nineteenth-Century America (2000), and The Skull Collectors: Race, Science, and America’s Unburied Dead (2010). A John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship and a William Y. and Nettie K. Adams Summer Scholar Fellowship from the School of Advanced Research in Santa Fe, New Mexico, supported work on her last book. She has served on the editorial boards of The Journal of American History, Signs, Reviews in American History, Raritan Quarterly Review, The Western Historical Quarterly, the Yale Journal of Criticism, and “Common-place” (http://www.common-place.org). At Rutgers, she chaired the American studies department and, from 2006-10, served as dean of humanities in the School of Arts and Sciences. She has been a member of the Council of the American Studies Association, the Advisory Council of the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic, and served on the boards of Rutgers University Press, the Classic Stage Company of New York and the French American School of Larchmont, New York. She was elected to membership in the American Antiquarian Society in 1998 and has served on the AAS Council since 2001. In 2010, she was elected to the Society of American Historians.

120 Nancy Kidd is the executive director of the National Communication Association. She has a PhD in sociology from Stanford University and a BA from the University of Pennsylvania. Kidd began her career in New York as a program officer for the Russell Sage Foundation, and subsequently moved to Miami to serve as policy director for the South Florida Workforce Board. She then established and led a strategic management consulting group for a Washington, DC-based federal government contractor. Immediately prior to joining the National Communication Association, Kidd ran a division of the Corporate Executive Board that provides strategic research to a membership of senior executives at the world’s leading corporations. Kidd is presently chair of the Executive Committee of the ACLS Conference of Administrative Officers and serves as a member, ex officio, of the ACLS Board of Directors. William C. Kirby is T. M. Chang Professor of China Studies at Harvard University and Spangler Family Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. He is a Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor. He serves as director of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies and chairman of the Harvard China Fund. A historian of modern China, Kirby's work examines China’s business, economic, and political development in an international context. He has written on the evolution of modern Chinese business (state-owned and private); Chinese corporate law and company structure; the history of freedom in China; the international socialist economy of the 1950s; relations across the Taiwan Strait; and China’s relations with Europe and America. His current projects include case studies of contemporary Chinese businesses and a comparative study of higher education in China, Europe, and the United States. Before coming to Harvard in 1992, he was professor of history, director of Asian studies, and dean of University College at Washington University in St. Louis. At Harvard, he has served as chair of the history department, director of the Harvard University Asia Center, and dean of the faculty of arts and sciences. As dean, he led Harvard’s largest school, with 10,000 students, 1,000 faculty members, 2,500 staff, and an annual budget of $1 billion. Kirby holds degrees from Dartmouth College, Harvard University, and (DPhil honoris causa) from the Free University of Berlin and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. He has been named Honorary Professor at Peking University, Nanjing University, Fudan University, Zhejiang University, Chongqing University, East China Normal University, the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, and National Chengchi University. He has held appointments also as visiting professor at University of Heidelberg and the Free University of Berlin. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Richard Leppert is Regents Professor and Morse Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature at the University of Minnesota. His PhD is in musicology, with art history as his cognate field. He holds undergraduate degrees in music, English literature, and German literature. Leppert’s work is concentrated on the relations of music and imagery to social and cultural construction, principally revolving around issues of gender, class, and race. Most of his work concerns European high culture from early modernity to the present, though he has also published on American music and art and popular culture. He has specific interests in critical theories of the arts and culture from the Frankfurt School to postmodernism, Adorno in particular. The more recent of Leppert’s books are The Sight of Sound: Music, Representation, and the History of the Body; Music and Image: Domesticity, Ideology and Socio-Cultural Formation in Eighteenth-Century England; Music and Society: The Politics of Composition, Performance, and Reception (coedited with Susan McClary); an edition of Essays on Music by Theodor W. Adorno; Beyond the Soundtrack: Representing Music in Cinema (coedited with Lawrence

121 Kramer and Daniel Goldmark); Art and the Committed Eye: The Cultural Functions of Imagery; The Nude: The Cultural Rhetoric of the Body in the Art of Western Modernity; and a volume of collected essays, Sound Judgment, for the Ashgate Press series, Contemporary Thinkers on Critical Musicology. Leppert has held senior fellowships from, among others, the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the American Philosophical Society, and the American Council of Learned Societies. He was a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar in 2004-05.

Leith Mullings is a distinguished professor of anthropology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. She received her PhD in anthropology from the University of Chicago. Mullings’ research and writing has focused on structures of inequality and resistance to them. Her research began in Africa and she has written about traditional medicine and religion in postcolonial Ghana, as well as about women’s roles in Africa. In the US, her work has centered on urban communities. Through the lens of feminist and critical race theory, she has analyzed a variety of topics including kinship, representation, gentrification, health disparities, and social movements. She has written and edited several books that include New Social Movements in the African Diaspora: Challenging Global Apartheid, editor (Palgrave MacMillan, 2009); Gender, Race, Class and Health: Intersectional Approaches (Jossey-Bass [coedited with Amy Schulz], 2006); Stress and Resilience: The Social Context of Reproduction in Central Harlem (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers [with Alaka Wali], 2001); On Our Own Terms: Race, Class and Gender in the Lives of African American Women (Routledge, 1997); Cities of the United States: Studies in Urban Anthropology, editor (Columbia UP, 1987), which was selected by Choice as an Outstanding Academic Book of 1988-89; and Therapy, Ideology and Social Change: Mental Healing in Urban Ghana (U of California P, 1984). With Manning Marable, she has compiled Freedom: A Photographic History of the African American Struggle (Phaidon Press, 2002), which was awarded a Krazna-Krausz Foundation Book Prize, and Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices of Resistance, Reform, and Renewal (Rowman and Littlefield, 2000). Several of her projects have utilized the methodological approach of community participation in research. Currently, Mullings is working on an ethnohistory of the African Burial Ground in New York City. Among her recent articles, “Interrogating Racisms: Toward an Antiracist Anthropology” (Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 667-93, 2005) includes an extensive review of academic work on racism and offers a framework for thinking about changing structures of racism in a global context; “Resistance and Resilience: The Sojourner Syndrome and the Social Context of Reproduction in Harlem” (Transforming Anthropology 13.2: 79-91, 2005) presents a model to understand health disparities through consideration of class, race and gender; and ” Losing Ground: The ‘War on Drugs’ and the Prison-Industrial Complex” (Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture and Society 5.2: 22-4) explores illegal drugs, incarceration, and gentrification in Central Harlem. In 2015, Mullings was named an Andrew Carnegie Fellow in the program’s inaugural year. She has received grants from the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Kellogg Foundation. She has been awarded the Society for the Anthropology of North America Prize for Distinguished Achievement in the Critical Study of North America and the French-American Foundation Prize: Chair in American Civilization, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France. In addition she has served on the editorial boards of numerous academic journals and on the executive board of the American Ethnological Society. She also served as president of the American Anthropological Association.

122 She currently serves as delegate of the American Anthropological Association to ACLS, and, for 2015-16, as the chair of the Executive Committee of the Delegates and a member, ex officio, of the ACLS Board of Directors.

James J. O'Donnell became chair of the ACLS Board of Directors on January 1, 2013, having served on the board since 2005 and as its secretary from 2008-12. In February 2015, O'Donnell became University Librarian at Arizona State University. He was previously University Professor at Georgetown University. He received an AB from Princeton University (Latin Salutatorian) in 1972, studied at University College (Dublin) 1972-73, and received his PhD from Yale University in 1975. He has published widely on the cultural history of the late antique Mediterranean world and is a recognized innovator in the application of networked information technology in higher education. In 1990, he cofounded Bryn Mawr Classical Review, the second online scholarly journal in the humanities ever created. He has served as a director and as president of the American Philological Association (renamed Society for Classical Studies in 2014); he has also served as a councillor of the Medieval Academy of America and has been elected a fellow of the Medieval Academy. From 1981-2002, he was a member of the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania. From 2002-12, he was provost of Georgetown University. His most recent books are Augustine: A New Biography (2005) and The Ruin of the Roman Empire(2008), and Pagans (2015). He was named a Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholar for 2011-13.

Katherine Rowe is provost and dean of the faculty at Smith College. She chairs the Committee on Academic Priorities and oversees the long-term composition of the faculty. Prior to coming to Smith, Rowe spent 16 years on the English faculty at Bryn Mawr College, where she helped lead curricular innovation and directed the Katharine Houghton Hepburn Center for leadership and public engagement. A scholar of literature and media history, she is co-founder of Luminary Digital Media, a social reading platform that is bringing literary works to mobile devices, including iPad apps of the Folger Library Shakespeare editions.

Teofilo F. Ruiz is a distinguished professor of history and Peter H. Reill Term Chair in European History at the University of California, Los Angeles. Ruiz received his PhD from Princeton University in 1974 and taught at Brooklyn College, the CUNY Graduate Center, the University of Michigan, the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris), and Princeton University (as 250th Anniversary Visiting Professor for Distinguished Teaching) before joining the Department of History at UCLA in 1998. He has been a frequent lecturer in the United States, Spain, Italy, France, England, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. He served as chair of the history department from 2002-05. He is presently chair of the UCLA Department of Spanish and Portuguese. A scholar of the social and cultural (popular culture) of late medieval and early modern Castile, Ruiz’s publications include Crisis and Continuity: Land and Town in Late Medieval Castile (U of Pennsylvania P, 1994), which was awarded the Premio del Rey Prize by the American Historical Association as the best book in Spanish history before 1580; Spanish Society, 1400-1600 (Longman, 2001; Spanish translation 2002); Spain: Centuries of Crises, 1300-1469 (Blackwell, 2007; Spanish translation 2008); The Terror of History: On the Uncertainties of Life in Western Civilization (Princeton UP, 2011); and Diario de la expedicion de Fray Junipero Serra desde la Misión de Loreto a San Diego, co-edited with Anglel Encinas (Madrid, 2011). Another book, Sites of Encounter and Cultural Production: The Western Mediterranean, c. 450 to the Present, is under contract with Blackwell. Ruiz has been the recipient of fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, the Guggenheim

123 Foundation, and the American Council of Learned Societies. He was selected as one of four Outstanding Teachers of the Year in the United States by the Carnegie Foundation in 1994-94 and as one of UCLA’s Distinguished Teachers in 2008. Ruiz was named a Phi Beta Kappa Scholar for 2011-12, and was awarded the National Humanities Medal by President Barack Obama in 2012. In April 2013, he was elected a fellow the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Nancy J. Vickers is both president emeritus and professor emeritus of French, Italian, and comparative literature at Bryn Mawr College. Before that she was the dean of curriculum and instruction in the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences and professor of French, Italian, and comparative literature at the University of Southern California. Vickers is a scholar in the fields of literary and cultural studies. Her interests range from Dante to Renaissance poetry to the transformations of the lyric genre as a result of changing technologies. She has published numerous articles and was a coeditor of Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Differences in Early Modern Europe and A New History of French Literature, for which she and her colleagues received the Modern Language Association’s James Russell Lowell Prize in 1990. Vickers received her bachelor’s degree from Mount Holyoke College in 1967 and her master’s degree and doctorate from Yale University in 1971 and 1976, respectively. She taught French and Italian at Dartmouth College from 1973 until 1987, when she joined the University of Southern California faculty. Dartmouth awarded her its Presidential Medal for Outstanding Leadership and Achievement in 1991. She has been a visiting professor at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and a visiting fellow at Princeton University. Vickers has received awards for her excellence as a teacher from both Dartmouth College and the University of Southern California. From 2009-2014 she served as president of the Dante Society of America.

Pauline Yu became president of the American Council of Learned Societies in July 2003, having served as dean of humanities in the College of Letters and Science at the University of California, Los Angeles and professor of East Asian languages and cultures from 1994-2003. Prior to that appointment, she was founding chair of the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures at the University of California, Irvine (1989-1994) and on the faculty of Columbia University (1985-89) and the University of Minnesota (1976-85). She received her BA in history and literature from Harvard University and her MA and PhD in comparative literature from Stanford University. She is the author or editor of five books and dozens of articles on classical Chinese poetry, literary theory, comparative poetics, and issues in the humanities and has received fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. She was awarded the William Riley Parker Prize for best PMLA article of 2007. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and an elected member of the American Philosophical Society and Committee of 100, she is on the Academy's national Commission on Language Learning and a member of its board. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange, The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation, and The Teagle Foundation. In addition, she is a trustee of the American Academy in Berlin and the National Humanities Center. She is a member of the Scholars’ Council of the Library of Congress, the Governing Board of the Heyman Center for the Humanities at Columbia University, and the Board of Governors of the Hong Kong-America Center. Yu holds three honorary degrees and is a senior research scholar at Columbia University.

124

American Council of Learned Societies

Staff Report on Program Activities

FELLOWSHIP AND PUBLIC PROGRAMS

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

HUMANITIES E-BOOK

PUBLICATIONS AND ACLS WEB AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

CONFERENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

April 2016

125 FELLOWSHIP AND PUBLIC PROGRAMS

ACLS Fellowships (the central program) Program: General competition for 6-12 months support, open to scholars across all ranks as well as independent researchers in the humanities and related social sciences. Awards: In addition to ACLS Fellowships, this competition awards ACLS/NEH International and Area Studies Fellowships, ACLS/NYPL Residential Fellowships, and ACLS/Oscar Handlin Fellowships. The 2015-16 competition resulted in 69 awards for the academic year 2016-17 (committing up to $3,400,000 in stipends): 24 fellowships for assistant professors at up to $35,000, 25 fellowships for associate professors at up to $45,000, and 20 for full professors at up to $70,000. Funding: The ACLS Fellowship program and its endowment are supported by The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Council’s institutional Associates, and former fellows and individual friends of ACLS. The ACLS/NEH International and Area Studies Fellowships and the ACLS/NYPL Residential Fellowships receive some funding from outside sources.

ACLS/NEH International and Area Studies Fellowships Program: These fellowships offer up to $70,000 for 6-12 months to support postdoctoral scholars conducting humanistic research abroad on the societies and cultures of non-Western countries. Awards: One award was made to a scholar for use in 2016-17. Funding: NEH supports this program through an award of $169,200 for the 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18 competitions.

ACLS/NYPL Residential Fellowships Program: These fellowships offer $70,000 for nine months of residency to support extensive research at the New York Public Library, given in conjunction with the NYPL Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers. Awards: Eight fellows have been named since the program began in 1999. One joint ACLS/NYPL fellowship was awarded in the 2015-16 competition. Funding: Funding for the residential fellowships is shared by the NYPL Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers and ACLS.

ACLS/Oscar Handlin Fellowships Program: These fellowships recognize the work of a scholar pursuing archival research in US history. Up to one fellow may be named each year. Award: One fellow was named an ACLS/Oscar Handlin Fellow in the 2015-16 competition. Funding: This fellowship is supported in part by the ACLS endowment and in part by the Oscar Handlin Fund for Research in American History held at the ACLS.

ACLS/Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr. Fellowship Fund Program: This fund helps support fellowships awarded to scholars pursuing research in Chinese history. Up to one fellow may be named each year. Award: Seven fellows have been named in the past 11 competition years, including one in 2016-17. Funding: This fellowship is supported in part by the ACLS endowment and in part by the Frederic E. Wakeman, Jr. Fund for Research in Chinese History held at the ACLS.

ACLS/Munro Fund for Chinese Thought Program: This fund helps support fellowships awarded to scholars pursuing research on Chinese philosophical and ethical traditions. Up to one fellow may be named each year. Award: The first fellow was named in the 2013-14 competition year. Funding: This fellowship is supported in part by the ACLS endowment and in part by a donation from Professor Emeritus Donald J. Munro.

126

ACLS Collaborative Research Fellowships Program: The 2015-16 competition was the eighth year of this program, which offers teams of two or three scholars the opportunity to collaborate intensively on a single, substantive project. The fellowship provides salary replacement for each collaborator as well as up to $20,000 in collaboration funds (which may be used for such purposes as travel, materials, or research assistance). The amount of the ACLS fellowship for any collaborative project will vary (depending on the number of collaborators and the duration of the research leave) but will not exceed $200,000 for any one project. Awards: Nine collaborative research projects were selected for funding in 2015-16. One additional award beyond the customary eight was made this year due to available funding. Collaborative fellowships can begin between July 2016 and September 2018 and last up to 24 months. Funding: The current grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation supported the program for two competitions (2014-15 and 2015-16). ACLS submitted a proposal to the Mellon Foundation in March 2016 to renew the program for two additional competitions.

ACLS Digital Extension Grants Program: The 2015-16 competition was the inaugural year of this program, which supports digitally based research projects in all disciplines of the humanities and related social sciences. It is hoped that these grants will help advance the digital transformation of humanities scholarship by extending the reach of existing digital projects to new communities of users. Grants of up to $150,000 support teams of scholars as they enhance existing digital projects in ways that engage new audiences across a range of academic communities and institutions. Each grant provides up to $150,000 in funding, which may support a range of project costs, including, where necessary, salary replacement for faculty or staff, software, equipment, travel, or consultant fees. Awards: Five awards were made in the 2015-16 competition year for projects of 12-18 months duration, initiated between July 1 and December 31, 2016. Funding: The current grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation supported the 2015-16 competition.

Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellowships for Recently Tenured Scholars Program: These are residential fellowships for an academic year and are meant to support multi-year projects of wide scope and high significance. Awardees can take up residence at one of 13 selected national and international research centers that partner with ACLS for this program. In addition, starting this year, applicants from liberal arts colleges could propose residencies at university humanities centers or academic departments and programs. Awards: In the 2015-16 competition, 21 fellowships carrying a $75,000 stipend and a $5,000 research budget were awarded. A twenty-first fellowship was made possible this year due to available funding. Ten fellowships were designated specifically for liberal arts college faculty. Fellows selected in 2015- 16 are taking up their awards in 2016-17, 2017-18, or 2018-19. Funding: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation supports this program and has renewed funding (March 2016) for three additional competitions (2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19).

Luce/ACLS Dissertation Fellowships in American Art Program: These fellowships offer a $25,000 stipend, plus up to $2,000 as a travel allowance to support dissertation research in American art. Awards: Eleven awards were made for the 2015-16 competition year. One additional award beyond the customary 10 was made this year due to available funding. In 2015-16 ACLS named the second Ellen Holtzman Fellow, in honor of Ellen Holtzman, who served as the program director for American art at the Henry Luce Foundation for over 20 years before her retirement in 2015. Funding: The Henry Luce Foundation supports this program. ACLS received a grant in November 2015 to support the program for five additional competition cycles through 2020-21.

127 Luce/ACLS Program in Religion, Journalism & International Affairs Program: Launched in 2016, the Luce/ACLS Program in Religion, Journalism & International Affairs is a two-pronged initiative designed to foster new connections between scholars and journalists covering international affairs. The program offers an interrelated set of awards: programming grants for universities and fellowships for scholars in the humanities and social sciences who study religion in international contexts. Awards: The selection process is ongoing. Up to three grants will be made in the 2015-16 competition to universities to support interdisciplinary research and programming in religion and journalism. ACLS will open the competition for fellowships in August of 2016 for scholars to take up academic- year fellowships starting in the fall of 2017. Funding: This initiative is made possible by a grant from the Henry Luce Foundation.

Mellon/ACLS Dissertation Completion Fellowships Program: This program assists graduate students in the humanities and related social sciences in the last year of PhD dissertation writing with the aim of encouraging the timely completion of the degree. Applicants in the 2015-16 competition must be prepared to complete their dissertations within the period of their fellowship tenure and no later than August 31, 2017. In addition to a stipend of $30,000, up to $3,000 is awarded for research costs, and up to $5,000 for university fees and tuition. Awards: The 2015-16 competition resulted in 66 awards for the 2016-17 academic year. One additional fellowship beyond the customary 65 was possible this year due to available funding. Funding: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation renewed the program in December 2015 for three additional competitions in 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows Program Program: This career-building initiative aims to expand the reach of doctoral education in the United States by demonstrating that the capacities developed in the advanced study of the humanities have wide application, both within and beyond the academy. The program targets recent humanities PhDs who wish to start postgraduate careers in administration, management, and public service by choice rather than circumstance and places awardees with host organizations in the nonprofit and government sectors. Awards provide annual stipends of $65,000 plus health insurance coverage for the fellow and up to $3,000 toward professional development activities. Fellows participate in the substantive work of hosting organizations and receive professional mentoring. Awards: The fifth year of this growing program placed 22 fellows in two-year staff positions at partnering agencies. The selection process for the 2015-16 competition is underway and will allow 21 fellows to join a diverse set of partnering organizations for two-year terms. Funding: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation renewed funding for this program in December 2014 for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 competitions.

Postdoctoral Partnership Initiative Program: This new, exploratory program is designed to provide insight into the impact of postdoctoral fellowships on humanities scholars’ careers and the value of such positions to the institutions that host them. ACLS will conduct a research and assessment project to map the humanities postdoc landscape and evaluate the components of postdoctoral fellowships from the perspectives of individuals, institutions, and academia more generally. In addition, ACLS issued an open call for proposals in summer 2015, inviting US institutions of higher education to partner with ACLS to share the costs of an additional postdoctoral fellowship position within an existing program and/or raise the level of support offered with existing postdoc positions for the 2015-16 competition cycle (for tenure to begin in 2016-17). Awards: Ten institutional partners were selected in the 2015-16 cycle. Funding: The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation supports this program.

128 INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

Luce/ACLS Program in China Studies Program: This program supports the development of China studies in the United States and Canada through predissertation-summer travel grants for preliminary investigation of research sites in China prior to the start of dissertation research ($5,000 each for a minimum of three consecutive months), postdoctoral fellowships (up to $50,000 each for one academic year), and grants for collaborative reading workshops (up to $15,000 each). Awards: The 2015-16 selection committee nominated 17 applicants for predissertation-summer grants, eight for postdoctoral fellowships (with six alternates), and five for workshop grants (with two alternates), committing up to $560,000 in stipends. Awards are in the process of being formally accepted. Funding: The Luce/ACLS Program in China Studies is supported by the Henry Luce Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. (NEH provides funding for postdoctoral fellowships, which supplements Luce funding). Prospects: The Luce Foundation has approved a two-year renewal grant in the amount of $1.5 million to ACLS for a two-year period, 2016-18. The NEH has awarded $257,625 over three years, beginning with the 2013-14 competition.

ACLS African Humanities Program Program: Now in its eighth year, the African Humanities Program (AHP) provides dissertation- completion and postdoctoral fellowships to early career scholars in Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda. The best manuscripts resulting from AHP fellowships are published in the African Humanities Series, a partnership between AHP and UNISA Press in South Africa. The first three books of the series were released in June 2014. Awards: The selection meeting (held from April 15-17, 2016) nominated 30 postdoctoral fellowships, 12 dissertation fellowships, and 19 travel grants. Funding: $5,450,000 over five-and-a-half years, July 2012 to December 2017, from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Prospects: Carnegie support is assured through December 2017.

ACLS Program in East Europe Studies Program: The US Department of State’s Title VIII Program, which supported ACLS fellowships in East Europe studies since 1984, did not provide funding to ACLS in 2015-16. ACLS continues to sponsor the financially independent quarterly journal East European Politics & Societies and Cultures (EEPS), launched by the ACLS Joint Committee on East European Studies in 1987. The journal plays a learned-society role for the field of East Europe studies by organizing an annual conference to survey developments in the field. In November 2015, EEPS supported a conference on “Eastern Europe without borders/Area studies without borders.” Prospects: The potential for funding from the US State Department remains uncertain. The continued publication of EEPS and associated meetings is assured by a steady income from subscriptions and royalties.

Comparative Perspectives on Chinese Culture and Society Program: This program awards funds in support of planning meetings, workshops, and conferences leading to publications. In the 2015-16 cycle of competitions, proposals were solicited in the humanities and related social sciences that adopt an explicitly cross-cultural or comparative perspective. The program invites projects that, for example, compare aspects of Chinese history and culture with those of other nations and civilizations, explore the interaction of these nations and civilizations, or engage in cross-cultural research on the relations among the diverse and shifting populations of China. Proposals are expected to be empirically grounded, theoretically informed, and methodologically explicit.

129 Awards: The selection committee nominated three proposals for conference grants; one for a workshop grant; and one for a planning meeting grant. The awards are in the process of being accepted. Funding: Approximately $150,000 per year. Prospects: Support from the Chiang Ching-kuo (CCK) Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange is assured through December 2017.

The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies Program: This is a global program. Applications are accepted without regard to the citizenship of the applicants, the location of their proposed work, or the language of the scholarly products that result. The program offers dissertation fellowships ($30,000 each), residential postdoctoral fellowships (two- year awards, $120,000 each); collaborative research fellowships (two-year awards, up to $200,000 each); postdoctoral research fellowships ($70,000 each); and institutional grants for new professorships in Buddhist studies (two grants at $300,000 each). Awards: The selection committee for the RHNHFF Program in Buddhist Studies nominated 14 proposals for dissertation fellowships: three for two-year residential postdoctoral fellowships, two for collaborative research fellowships, seven for postdoctoral research fellowships, and two institutions for new professorship grants. The awards are in the process of being accepted. The foundation will issue official award letters. Funding: $2,244,936 for the 2015-16 competitions. Prospects: The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation has approved a three-year renewal of funding for 2015-18 ($6,748,964 over three years).

Center for Educational Exchange with Vietnam (CEEVN) Summary: An ACLS subsidiary that carries out university exchanges, high-level contacts, and fellowship programs. Budget: In 2015-16, CEEVN will expend $500,000. Prospects: The Center is now a well-established agency working effectively with both American and Vietnamese partners. ACLS holds almost $2 million in funds for CEEVN’s work.

ACLS HUMANITIES E-BOOK

Summary: ACLS Humanities E-Book (HEB) is a collaborative enterprise among university presses, learned societies, and libraries aimed at fostering a sustainable not-for-profit space for scholarly publishing in the digital environment. HEB works with 122 publishers, including both university presses and several commercial publishers (see www.humanitiesebook.org/about-us/publishers.html), to make available to its subscribers books of time-tested intellectual importance and pedagogical value, as well as innovative works in new fields of scholarship. The HEB collection, originally launched online in 2002, contains monographs, collections of essays, archival materials, and some primary sources, including born-digital works that go beyond traditional print forms. Among other sources, title recommendations are provided by 31 of ACLS’s constituent societies (see www.humanitiesebook.org/about-us/societies.html). HEB’s technical partner and collection host is the University of Michigan Library’s Michigan Publishing division.

Funding: HEB was funded as the ACLS History E-Book Project in June 1999 with a $3 million grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and a $30,000 grant from the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation. It became self-sustaining in 2005, and continues to sustain all operations primarily through institutional subscriptions, as well as other regular revenues. Among these are individual subscriptions (offered to all members of ACLS’s constituent learned societies) and sales of print-on- demand (POD) and downloadable handheld titles.

HEB pays out royalties to participating copyright holders—both publishers and individual authors— on a semi-annual basis. Royalty payments are derived from subscriptions income.

130 Collection Status: As of spring 2016, HEB includes nearly 4,700 titles, with the latest round of 371 books having been released in September 2015. HEB typically adds between 300 and 400 titles a year from across the humanities and humanistic social sciences. The next title release is scheduled for fall 2016.

HEB titles now register over nine million page hits a year. The collection has over 760 subscribing libraries, including 160 international subscribers (see www.humanitiesebook.org/subscriptions- pricing/subscribing-institutions.html). Its readership has a combined FTE of over 6.5 million.

Prospects: HEB continues its efforts to reach additional prospective subscribers, including academic librarians, university administrators, and individual faculty members by attending and exhibiting at conferences such as the ALA Annual Meeting, the Association of College and Research Libraries Meeting, numerous regional society meetings, as well as conducting visits to and presentations at individual colleges and consortia.

PUBLICATIONS AND ACLS WEB AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

American National Biography Summary: The American National Biography (ANB) was published by Oxford University Press in 24 volumes in 1999. Its online counterpart, the American National Biography Online (www.anb.org), is a regularly updated resource currently offering over 18,700 biographies and more than 80,000 hyper- linked cross-references. A twenty-fifth volume of ANB was published in 2002, including entries originally published in the ANB Online. Susan Ware was appointed the general editor of the ANB in April 2012. Funding: ACLS editorial costs of the print edition were supported by grants from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, NEH, and the Rockefeller Foundation. The online ANB is funded from royalties from the print edition of the ANB. Prospects: Royalties from the ANB will continue to fund the operations of the website.

Edition of The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Summary: This project was begun in 1975 under the direction of ACLS President Emeritus Frederick Burkhardt. James Secord has been director since 2006. Cambridge University Press publishes the series. Twenty-three volumes of the edition have been published, along with two editions of a calendar of the correspondence, a calendar of Darwin’s correspondence with German scientists, and a volume of selected letters. In 2003, Queen Elizabeth II presented the project with the Queen’s Anniversary Prize for Higher and Further Learning. The project maintains a website—which was redesigned and relaunched in February 2016 - (www.darwinproject.ac.uk) with searchable texts of more than 7,000 of Darwin’s letters and information on another 8,000. Funding: The project has support in the United States from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Past support from NSF and NEH ended in 2013. In the United Kingdom, long-term funding has been secured that will ensure the completion of this massive project in 2022. Prospects: ACLS holds a reserve fund derived from grants from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation of more than $1 million.

ACLS Publications and Web and Information Systems

Summary: ACLS annual reports and Haskins Prize Lectures are published in print and made available as pdfs on the ACLS website (www.acls.org). Videos of the lectures are posted in our growing website media collection (www.acls.org/media/), which features annual meeting sessions (fellows’ research presentations and plenary sessions) and the president’s Report to the Council. In 2014, we added “The Humanities Interviews” (www.acls.org/media/humanities_interviews), three-minute clips from

131 interviews conducted with scholars at the 2014 and 2015 annual meetings. Raw footage of the interviews is available for use in centennial-related projects. ACLS maintains a lively presence on many social media feeds (www.acls.org/connect) and employs email “blasts” to synergize our online presence and draw users to website news and resources.

Activity: The annual report for 2014-15 is in preparation. Work continues on two projects: 1) the migration of the website to a new CMS (Content Management System) and 2) implementing the recommendations coming out of a year-long cybersecurity assessment completed in 2015.

CONFERENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

Program Focus: The Conference of Administrative Officers (CAO) serves as the primary vehicle for maintaining and enhancing relationships among the societies. It convenes twice each year to address the concerns of the community of humanistic scholars, especially issues related to maintaining and improving conditions for research, education, and communication among scholars.

Data Collection The data collection effort was revived in 2013 with a 40+ question survey, the results of which were presented at the 2014 ACLS Annual Meeting in Philadelphia. The summary findings of the subsequent 2014 survey were presented in a pamphlet entitled “Learned Societies by the Numbers,” which was made available at the 2015 annual meeting and distributed to media outlets. An updated “Learned Societies by the Numbers” presenting 2015 survey findings will be available at the 2016 annual meeting. Accompanying the updated pamphlet is a qualitative piece, “Learned Societies Beyond the Numbers: 2015,” which includes illustrative case studies from four member societies as well as notable project and developments from a wider sampling.

Fall 2015 Meeting The principal gathering of the CAO each year is a fall meeting hosted by the convention bureau of a particular city. The fall 2015 meeting, hosted by Tourisme Montreal, had two foci: scholarly publishing and public engagement. It included presentations on each topic by outside speakers as well as CAO members. The customary grab-bag session was restricted to operational issues, as expanded informal sharing on other topics took place in separate sessions. The group shared programmatic initiatives, and breakouts by size of association addressed diversity challenges and members retention. Over the past year the CAO initiated a discussion on changing its name. The CAO Executive Committee discussed the issue further over the summer and decided that the change would be timely. It proposed the “Conference of Executive Officers,” as better representing the obligations and responsibilities of the role, as well the increasing professionalization of the position. The name of the body exists in ACLS governing documents; therefore, a name change will be formally proposed to the Council at the ACLS Annual Meeting in 2016. Information on the 2015 meeting and on previous CAO meetings is available on the ACLS website at www.acls.org/societies/cao_mtgs.

CAO Executive Committee The CAO Executive Committee is composed of seven members who plan ongoing CAO activities and meeting agendas. The current members of the committee are Nancy Kidd, National Communication Association, chair; Paul Erickson, American Antiquarian Society; Amy Ferrer, American Philosophical Association; Keith Francis, American Society for Church History; Craig Klafter, American Society for Legal History; Timothy Lloyd, American Folklore Society; and Milagros Pererya-Rojas, Latin American Studies Association.

132 Learned Society Leadership Seminars ACLS hosts a seminar for constituent society presidents and chief administrative officers. During the day-long workshop, participants examine the dynamics of voluntary leadership associations, member leader and staff leader relationships and responsibilities, and knowledge-based governance; they also have an opportunity to discuss common concerns informally. Twelve societies participated in the tenth leadership seminar, which took place on September 11, 2015. The seminar was conducted by Bruce Lesley, a senior governance consultant with BoardSource with more than 30 years of experience in nonprofit board best practices, with a particular emphasis on the board’s role in strategic planning and innovation. The 2016 seminar will be held on Monday, September 12.

Future CAO Meetings 2016 Fall Meeting: November 2-5 Host: St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission (airfare subsidy)

133 THE 2016 CHARLES HOMER HASKINS PRIZE LECTURE

Cynthia Enloe Research Professor, Department of International Development, Community, and Environment Clark University

Cynthia Enloe is Research Professor in the Department of International Development, Community, and Environment at Clark University. Her career has included Fulbrights in Malaysia and Guyana; guest professorships in Japan, Britain, and Canada; and lectures in Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Germany, Vietnam, Korea, Turkey, and at universities around the US. Her writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Turkish, Portuguese, Japanese, Korean, Swedish, Icelandic, and German. She has published in Ms. Magazine and appeared on National Public Radio, Al Jazeera, C- Span, and the BBC. Professor Enloe’s 14 books include Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives (2004), The Curious Feminist (2004) and Globalization and Militarism (2007, updated new edition, 2016), as well as Nimo’s War, Emma’s War: Making Feminist Sense of the Iraq War (2011), The Real State of America: Mapping the Myths and Truths about the United States (co-authored with Joni Seager) (2011), and Seriously! Investigating Crashes and Crises as if Women Mattered (2013). Her new, totally updated and revised second edition of Bananas, Beaches and Bases was published by University of California Press in June 2014. Professor Enloe has been awarded honorary doctorates by Union College (2005), the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (2009), Connecticut College (2010), the University of Lund, Sweden (2012), and Clark University (2014). At Clark University, Enloe has served as chair of the Department of Political Science and as director of Women’s Studies. She has served on the university’s Committee on Personnel and its Planning and Budget Review Committee, and has been awarded its Outstanding Teacher Award three times. She currently serves on the editorial boards of five academic journals, including International Feminist Journal of Politics; Security Dialogue; Women, Politics and Policy; International Political Sociology; and Politics and Gender. Professor Enloe’s feminist teaching and research have focused on the interplay of gendered politics in the national and international arenas, with special attention to how women’s labor is made cheap in globalized factories (especially sneaker factories) and how women’s emotional and physical labor has been used to support many governments’ war-waging policies—and how diverse women have tried to resist both of those efforts. Racial, class, ethnic and national identities, as well as pressures shaping ideas about femininities and masculinities, are common threads throughout her studies. Enloe was awarded the International Studies Association’s Susan Strange Award in 2007, in recognition of “a person whose singular intellect, assertiveness, and insight most challenge conventional wisdom and organizational complacency in the international studies community during the previous year.” In 2008, she was awarded the Susan Northcutt Award, presented annually by the Women’s Caucus for International Studies of the International Studies Association, to recognize ”a person who actively works towards recruiting and advancing women and other minorities in the profession, and whose spirit is inclusive, generous and conscientious.” In 2010, Cynthia Enloe was awarded the Peace and Justice Studies Association’s Howard Zinn Lifetime Achievement Award.

134 Floor Plans

Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel Phone: +1-703-413-1300 2800 South Potomac Ave Sales: +1-877-255-0200 Arlington, Virginia 22202 USA Fax: +1-703-413-3648 Toll-Free Reservation 1-888-236-2427 Center:

135 ACLS FINANCE USE ONLY Vendor:______

TRAVEL & EXPENSE VOUCHER

American Council of Learned Societies 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6795 Please submit within one month and attach all original receipts. Please print legibly.

Date: Name: Address:

Purpose/Itinerary: 2016 ACLS Annual Meeting Arlington, VA

Period: May 5-7, 2016

Expenditures: Air (coach/economy rate), Train, Bus fare NOT booked through Valerie Wilson Travel Agency $ Auto (allowable at $. 54 mile ______miles NOT to exceed coach/economy air fare $ Taxis, Limousine, Local bus fare, etc. Itemize dates and destinations on reverse side $ Hotel LESS Personal Charges (NOT paid by ACLS directly) $ Meals if not on hotel bill. Itemize on reverse side $ Tips $ Other Expenses – Itemize on reverse side $

TOTAL EXPENDITURES: $

$ $

TOTAL $ SIGNED:

ACLS – PROGRAM USE ONLY Dep Grnt/Proj Yr FS GL Code Amount 15 1002 0 00 702 15 1002 0 00 702

Approved by______Date______

CK#______Amount______Date Mailed Out______

136 FINAL

2016 ANNUAL MEETING of the AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES

Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel Arlington, VA May 5-7

PARTICIPANTS

ACLS fellows (F) and grantees (G) are designated in italics with their award year(s). ACLS institutional Associates are designated in bold.

Representatives of ACLS Constituent Societies

AFRICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION CAO: Suzanne Moyer Baazet, Rutgers University-New Brunswick, Livingston Campus Delegate: Judith A. Byfield, Cornell University

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES Delegate: Elaine Sisman, Columbia University

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION CAO: Jack Fitzmier, Emory University Delegate: David Harrington Watt, Temple University

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION CAO: Edward B. Liebow, Arlington, VA Delegate: Leith Mullings, City University of New York, The Graduate Center

AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY CAO: Paul J. Erickson, Worcester, MA Delegate: Scott E. Casper, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE Delegate: Caroline Hannaway, Baltimore, MD

AMERICAN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE ASSOCIATION CAO: Alexander J. Beecroft F’11, University of South Carolina Delegate: Yopie Prins, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

AMERICAN DIALECT SOCIETY CAO: Allan Metcalf, MacMurray College Delegate: Luanne von Schneidemesser, University of Wisconsin-Madison

AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION CAO: Peter Rousseau, Vanderbilt University Delegate: Charlotte V. Kuh, National Academy of Sciences (retired)

AMERICAN FOLKLORE SOCIETY CAO: Timothy Lloyd, Indiana University Bloomington Delegate: Lee Haring, City University of New York, Brooklyn College, Emeritus

AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION CAO: James Grossman, Washington, DC Delegate: George J. Sanchez, University of Southern California

AMERICAN MUSICOLOGICAL SOCIETY CAO: Robert F. Judd, New York, NY Delegate: Anne Walters Robertson G’88, University of Chicago

1

FINAL

AMERICAN NUMISMATIC SOCIETY Delegate (Acting): Andrew Reinhard, New York, NY

AMERICAN ORIENTAL SOCIETY Delegate: Paul W. Kroll F’96, F’85, F’79, University of Colorado Boulder

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION CAO: Amy Ferrer, University of Delaware Delegate: Henry S. Richardson, Georgetown University

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY Delegate: Julia Haig Gaisser F’89, Bryn Mawr College, Emeritus

AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION CAO: Steven Rathgeb Smith, Washington, DC Delegate: Richard Boyd, Georgetown University

AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH CAO: Andrew G. Vaughn, Boston University Delegate: Susan Ackerman, Dartmouth College

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR AESTHETICS CAO: Julie C. Van Camp, Denver, CO Delegate: Dominic McIver Lopes, University of British Columbia

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY CAO: Lisa Mighetto, University of Washington Delegate: John R. McNeill, Georgetown University

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY CAO: Craig Klafter, Harvard Law School Delegate: Constance Backhouse, University of Ottawa

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THEATRE RESEARCH Delegate (Acting): Daphne Lei, University of California, Irvine

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CHURCH HISTORY CAO: Keith A. Francis, Santa Rosa, CA Delegate: Charles H. Lippy, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF COMPARATIVE LAW CAO: James A. R. Nafziger G’91, Willamette University Delegate: Vivian Curran, University of Pittsburgh

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CAO: Mark D. Agrast, Washington, DC Delegate: Gregory C. Shaffer, University of California, Irvine

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION CAO: Sally T. Hillsman, Washington, DC Delegate: Elizabeth Higginbotham, University of Delaware

AMERICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION Delegate: Kandice Chuh, City University of New York, The Graduate Center

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA Delegate: J. Theodore Peña, University of California, Berkeley

ASSOCIATION FOR ASIAN STUDIES Delegate: Anand A. Yang G’77, University of Washington

2

FINAL

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES CAO: Rona Sheramy, Center for Jewish History Delegate (Acting): Pamela S. Nadell, American University

ASSOCIATION FOR SLAVIC, EAST EUROPEAN, AND EURASIAN STUDIES CAO: Lynda Park, University of Pittsburgh Delegate: Katherine Verdery F’04, F’97, F’79, City University of New York, The Graduate Center

ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF BALTIC STUDIES CAO: Olavi Arens, Armstrong Atlantic State University Delegate: Mara Lazda, City University of New York, Bronx Community College

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS CAO: Douglas Richardson, Washington, DC Delegate: J. Nicholas Entrikin, University of Notre Dame

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS CAO: Judith Areen, Washington, DC Delegate: Linda S. Greene, University of Wisconsin-Madison

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA CAO: Michele E. Randall, New York, NY Delegate: David L. Vander Meulen, University of Virginia

COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION Delegate (Acting): DeWitt Godfrey, Colgate University

COLLEGE FORUM OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH CAO: Emily Kirkpatrick, Urbana, IL Delegate: Doug Hesse, University of Denver

DICTIONARY SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA CAO: Rebecca Shapiro, City University of New York, New York City College of Technology Delegate: Edward Finegan, University of Southern California, Emeritus

ECONOMIC HISTORY ASSOCIATION Delegate (Acting): David F. Mitch, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

GERMAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION CAO: David E. Barclay, Kalamazoo College Delegate (Acting): Jeffrey Herf, University of Maryland, College Park

HISTORY OF SCIENCE SOCIETY CAO: Robert (Jay) J. Malone, University of Notre Dame Delegate: Michael M. Sokal, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Emeritus

INTERNATIONAL CENTER OF MEDIEVAL ART Delegate: Lawrence Nees G’84, University of Delaware

LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION Delegate: Gwen Kirkpatrick, Georgetown University

LAW AND SOCIETY ASSOCIATION Delegate (Acting): Mithi Mukherjee F’16, University of Colorado Boulder

LINGUISTIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA CAO: Alyson Reed, Washington, DC Delegate: Sandra Chung, University of California, Santa Cruz

MEDIEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA Delegate: Nancy Partner, McGill University

3

FINAL

METAPHYSICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Delegate: Richard Dien Winfield, University of Georgia

MIDDLE EAST STUDIES ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA CAO: Amy Newhall, University of Arizona Delegate: R. Stephen Humphreys F’80, University of California, Santa Barbara

MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA CAO: Rosemary G. Feal, New York, NY Delegate: Barbara K. Altmann, Bucknell University

NATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION CAO: Nancy Kidd, Washington, DC Delegate (Acting): Carole Blair, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON PUBLIC HISTORY Delegate (Acting): Alexandra Lord, Smithsonian National Museum of American History

NORTH AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON BRITISH STUDIES CAO: Paul R. Deslandes, University of Vermont Delegate: Susan D. Pennybacker G’88, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

ORAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION CAO: Kristine Navarro-McElhaney, Arizona State University

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS CAO: Katherine M. Finley, Bloomington, IN

RENAISSANCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA CAO: Carla Zecher, City University of New York, The Graduate Center Delegate (Acting): Susan Forscher Weiss, Peabody Institute of The Johns Hopkins University

RHETORIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA CAO: Gerard A. Hauser, Boulder, CO Delegate: Susan Wells, Temple University

SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Delegate (Acting): Ayanna Thompson, The George Washington University

SIXTEENTH CENTURY SOCIETY AND CONFERENCE Delegate: Kathryn Edwards, University of South Carolina

SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN MUSIC Delegate: Carol J. Oja F’16, G’88, Harvard University

SOCIETY FOR CINEMA AND MEDIA STUDIES CAO: Jill Simpson, Norman, OK Delegate: Pamela Robertson Wojcik, University of Notre Dame

SOCIETY FOR CLASSICAL STUDIES CAO: Adam D. Blistein, Philadelphia, PA Delegate: Ruth Scodel, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

SOCIETY FOR ETHNOMUSICOLOGY CAO: Stephen Stuempfle, Indiana University Bloomington Delegate: Anne K. Rasmussen, College of William and Mary

SOCIETY FOR FRENCH HISTORICAL STUDIES Delegate (Acting): Katrin Schultheiss, The George Washington University

4

FINAL

SOCIETY FOR MILITARY HISTORY CAO: Robert H. Berlin, Virginia Military Institute Delegate: Gregory J. W. Urwin, Temple University

SOCIETY FOR MUSIC THEORY CAO: Victoria L. Long, University of Chicago Delegate (Acting): Severine Neff, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Emeritus

SOCIETY FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCANDINAVIAN STUDY CAO: Clydette Wantland, Fisher, IL Delegate: Margaret Hayford O’Leary, Saint Olaf College

SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY Delegate: W. Bernard Carlson, University of Virginia

SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE CAO: John F. Kutsko, Emory University Delegate: Jacques Berlinerblau, Georgetown University

SOCIETY OF DANCE HISTORY SCHOLARS Delegate: Nadine George-Graves, University of California, San Diego

WORLD HISTORY ASSOCIATION Delegate: Laura Mitchell F’05, University of California, Irvine

Presidents of ACLS Constituent Societies

AFRICAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION Dorothy L. Hodgson F’05, Rutgers University-New Brunswick

AMERICAN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE ASSOCIATION Yopie Prins, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor

AMERICAN DIALECT SOCIETY Robert Bayley, University of California, Davis

AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH Susan Ackerman, Dartmouth College

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THEATRE RESEARCH Daphne Lei, University of California, Irvine

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES Pamela S. Nadell, American University

COLLEGE ART ASSOCIATION DeWitt Godfrey, Colgate University

COLLEGE FORUM OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH Doug Hesse, University of Denver

DICTIONARY SOCIETY OF NORTH AMERICA Luanne von Schneidemesser, University of Wisconsin-Madison

NORTH AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON BRITISH STUDIES Susan D. Pennybacker G’88, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

SOCIETY FOR ETHNOMUSICOLOGY Anne K. Rasmussen, College of William and Mary

5

FINAL

Representatives of ACLS Affiliates

ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND VOLUNTARY ACTION President: Alan Abramson, George Mason University

ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Executive Director: Mary Ellen K. Davis

ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES Executive Director: Elliott Shore

CANADIAN FEDERATION FOR THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Executive Director: Jean-Marc Mangin

CENTER FOR RESEARCH LIBRARIES President: Bernard F. Reilly

FEDERATION OF STATE HUMANITIES COUNCILS President: Esther Mackintosh

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THIRD-SECTOR RESEARCH Executive Director: Margery Berg Daniels, The Johns Hopkins University

Members of the ACLS Board of Directors

James J. O’Donnell, Chair, Arizona State University

Nicola Courtright F’94, Vice Chair, Amherst College

Jonathan D. Culler, Secretary, Cornell University

Nancy J. Vickers, Treasurer, Bryn Mawr College, Emeritus

Kwame Anthony Appiah, New York University

Donald Brenneis, University of California, Santa Cruz

Nancy Kidd, ex officio, National Communication Association

William C. Kirby F’94, F’84, Harvard University

Richard Leppert F’99, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Leith Mullings, ex officio, American Anthropological Association

Pauline Yu, ex officio, American Council of Learned Societies

Additional Participants

William “Bro” Adams, Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities

Nicholas Allen, Director of the Jane and Harry Willson Center for Humanities and Arts, and Franklin Professor of English, University of Georgia

Jean M. Allman F’14, G’90, G’88, Director of the Center for the Humanities, J. H. Hexter Professor in the Humanities, and Professor in the Department of History, Washington University in St. Louis

Keith Anthony, Associate Director of The Bill and Carol Fox Center for Humanistic Inquiry, Emory University

Yota Batsaki, Executive Director, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

Peter Berkery, Executive Director, Association of American University Presses

Brett Bobley, Chief Information Officer and Director of Digital Humanities, National Endowment for the Humanities

Loni M. Bordoloi, Program Director, The Teagle Foundation

Eva Caldera, Assistant Chairman for Partnership and Strategic Initiatives, National Endowment for the Humanities

6

FINAL

Jane Greenway Carr F’14, Contributing Editor, New America

Dorothy Chansky, Director of the Humanities Center at Texas Tech and Associate Professor in the School of Theatre and Dance, Texas Tech University

Monica Clark, Program Director, Council of American Overseas Research Centers

Helen Cullyer, Executive Director Designate, Society for Classical Studies

Adela de la Torre, Communications Director, National Immigration Law Center

Emily Dufton F’14, Engagement Analyst, The Center for Public Integrity

Jonathan E. Elmer F’91, Director of the College Arts and Humanities Institute, and Professor in the Department of English, Indiana University Bloomington; and Marilynn Thoma Artistic Director of the Chicago Humanities Festival

Cynthia Enloe, Research Professor in the Department of International Development, Community, and Environment, Clark University

Pamela I. Epstein F’11, Assistant Director for Capacity Building, New York City Department of Cultural Affairs

Francesca Fiorani F’09, F’97, Associate Dean for the Arts and Humanities, and Professor in the McIntire Department of Art, University of Virginia

Carolyn Fuqua, Senior Research Associate for Humanities Indicators, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Kim T. Gallon F’15, Assistant Professor in the Department of History, Purdue University; Visiting Scholar at the Center for Africana Studies, The Johns Hopkins University; and Founder and Director, Black Press Research Collective

Cecily R. Garber F’14, Communications Officer, Council of Independent Colleges

Lindsay N. Green-Barber F’13, Director of Strategic Research, Center for Investigative Reporting

Beatrice Gurwitz, Assistant Director, National Humanities Alliance

Sara Guyer, Director of the UW-Madison Center for the Humanities, Professor in the Departments of English and of Comparative Literature and Folklore Studies, and Affiliated Faculty in the George L. Mosse/Laurence A. Weinstein Center for Jewish Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

John Hammer, Project Staff for Humanities Indicators and Senior Program Advisor on Humanities and Cultures, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Caroline Harper F’14, Policy Analyst, United Negro College Fund

Barbara Heritage, Associate Director and Curator of Collections, Rare Book School, University of Virginia; and Secretary, Bibliographical Society of America

Nicole Ivy F’15, Museum Futurist, American Alliance of Museums

Brandon Johnson, Senior Program Officer of Challenge Grants, National Endowment for the Humanities

Cristle Collins Judd, Senior Program Officer for Higher Education and Scholarship in the Humanities, The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation

Catherine Lena Kelly F’15, Program Analyst in the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit, American Bar Association Rule of Law Initiative

Dane Kennedy, Elmer Louis Kayser Professor of History and International Affairs in the Department of History, The George Washington University; and Director, National History Center

Stephen Kidd, Executive Director, National Humanities Alliance

Philippa J. Levine, Mary Helen Thompson Centennial Professor in the Humanities, Professor in the Department of History, and Co-Director for the Program in British Studies, The University of Texas at Austin

Brook Danielle Lillehaugen F’15, Assistant Professor in the Tri-College Department of Linguistics, Haverford College with joint appointments at Bryn Mawr College and Swarthmore College

Joan K. Lippincott, Associate Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information

7

FINAL

Michael Magoulias, Director of Journals, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago

Elizabeth Mansfield, Senior Program Officer, The Getty Foundation

Kevin McLaughlin, Dean of the Faculty, and George Hazard Crooker University Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and German Studies, Brown University

Rikk Mulligan F’14, Program Officer for Scholarly Publishing, Association of Research Libraries

Timothy Murray, Director of the Society for the Humanities, Professor in the Departments of Comparative Literature and of English, and Curator of the Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art in the Cornell Library, Cornell University

Jessica H. Neptune F’14, Policy Analyst in the Division of Economic Support for Families, US Department of Health and Human Services

Robert D. Newman, President and Director, National Humanities Center

Patrick O’Shea F’15, Content and Research Manager for Communications and Development, National Immigration Law Center

Michael Penn F’11, William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Religion, Mount Holyoke College

Margaret Plympton, Deputy Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities

Sally (Sarah) Pratt G’79, Vice Provost for Graduate Programs and Professor in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Southern California

Daniel Reid, Executive Director, Whiting Foundation

Amy Richter, Director of the Higgins School of Humanities and Associate Professor in the Department of History, Clark University

David M. Robinson F’83, Director of the OSU Center for the Humanities, Distinguished Professor of American Literature, and Professor of English in the School of Writing, Literature, and Film, Oregon State University

Matthew B. Roller F’00, Vice Dean for Graduate Education, and Centers & Programs in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, and Professor in the Department of Classics, The Johns Hopkins University

Peter Roudik, Director of the Global Legal Research Center, Library of Congress

Karen Shanton F’12, Staff Writer for Verbatim, Ballotpedia

Colleen Shogan, Deputy Director of National and International Outreach, Library of Congress

James Shulman, President, ARTstor

Emily Swafford, Manager of Academic Affairs, American Historical Association

James Swenson, Dean of Humanities in the School of Arts and Sciences, and Associate Professor in the Department of French, Rutgers University-New Brunswick

Donna Sy, Mellon Fellowship Program Director, Rare Book School, University of Virginia; and Webmaster, Bibliographical Society of America

Kathryn D. Temple F’03, F’97, Associate Professor in the Department of English, Georgetown University; and Founder, The National Center for Student Success

Robert Townsend, Project Staff for Humanities Indicators and Director of Washington DC Office, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Joan Fragaszy Troyano F’14, Public Outreach Manager of “Our American Journey: Smithsonian’s Immigration and Migration Initiative” for the Grand Challenges Consortia, Smithsonian Institution

Matthew Van Hoose, Project Director and Whiting Fellow for the Humanities, National Humanities Alliance

Judith E. Vichniac, Associate Dean of the Fellowship Program, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University

Jennifer A. Vogt F’15, Innovation Manager for Social Financial Services, Ashoka

Laurel Seely Voloder F’11, F’08, Management and Policy Analyst, US Department of State

8

FINAL

Darren Walker, President, Ford Foundation

Jesse S. Watson, Associate Dean for Graduate Academic Affairs, University of Southern California

Scott L. Waugh, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, University of California, Los Angeles

Heidi Wiederkehr, Deputy Director, Council of American Overseas Research Centers

Adam Wolfson, Assistant Chairman for Programs, National Endowment for the Humanities

Marian Zelazny, Administrative Officer in the School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study

Katja Zelljadt, Director of Challenge Grants, National Endowment for the Humanities

Zoe L. Ziliak Michel F’15, Policy Analyst for Job Quality, Center for Law and Social Policy

Jan Ziolkowski F’86, Director, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection; Arthur Kingsley Porter Professor of Medieval Latin and Professor of Comparative Literature in the Department of Classics, Harvard University

ACLS Staff

Pauline Yu, President

Steven C. Wheatley, Vice President

Rachel Bernard, Program Officer, Fellowship and Grant Programs

Sandra Bradley, Director of Member Relations

John Paul Christy, Director of Public Programs

Candace Frede, Director of Web and Information Systems

Matthew Goldfeder, Director of Fellowship Programs

Simon Guzman, Director of Finance

Cindy Mueller, Manager, Office of Fellowships and Grants

Sarah Peters, Administrative Assistant to the President

Katie Smith, Program Associate, International Programs

May 2016

9