Nevada Humanities

2008 Reno Table Summaries

Money, the mother's milk of politics: Is there an answer?- Richard Bryan

How Vital is Philanthropy to Washoe County's Future?- Chris Askin and Sheila Leslie

Is the End of the Book Upon Us?- Christopher Coake

Are artists responsible for creating social justice?- Shaun Griffin

Fearing Fear Itself: America's Response to Terrorism- William Douglass

Raising Kids in a High-Tech World- Joe Elcano

Encouraging Creativity: How Do We Increase Arts in Education?- Tim Jones

How can we create a next generation of global citizens and why?- Carina Black

Money, the mother's milk of politics: Is there an answer?

The discussion on campaign finance demonstrated that there are many issues involving money and the game of politics but that the solutions to those issues are not as easy as one would think.

Senator Bryan opened the discussion with a brief history of money and politics, including the story of Jesse "Big Daddy" Unruh, who brought the issue of campaign finance into the open, and the impact of the Committee to Re-elect the President (official acronym CRP but now known as CREEP) financial scandals during Watergate. He explained that what we have today is primarily a push for more transparency. Senator Bryan expressed his belief that the threshold to run for a public office is too high- it's simply too expensive to run. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has ruled that expenditures cannot be limited as doing so restricts freedom of speech.

For every solution that the guests proffered, a new issue was raised. If the government derived a way for every candidate to get equal funding and expenditures, then the question arises of who is eligible to receive the funds and should we be giving the government the power to decide who gets money, thereby deciding who runs for office. The internet has become somewhat of an equalizer, allowing non-millionaires to raise money. But should there be a limit to the amount that can be spent? A limit to campaign expenditures requires a constitutional amendment, to which the group had mixed reactions.

The group was also torn about the length of the election process. There was a feeling that the parties could play a role in limiting the amount of time spent campaigning. However, it was recognized that by hastening the process, states like Nevada ran the risk of becoming irrelevant. In addition, the extended campaign allows candidates to visit places that might not normally be on a list of stops.

Senator Bryan then wrapped up the session by reminding the group that it wasn't that long ago when cash contributions were given with no accountability. The candidates were free to do with the money what they pleased. Now there are transparency standards and there is significant scrutiny of the process. Regardless of the positive developments, Senator Bryan concluded by stating that he supported a constitutional amendment limiting campaign expenditures because there is simply way too much money in the process and the barriers to entry are too high.

Table Host: Richard Bryan is a former Nevada State Legislator, Attorney General, Governor, and U.S. Senator

How Vital is Philanthropy to Washoe County's Future?

"One Person Can Make A Huge Difference" was a theme agreeable to the entire table. Participants shared personal examples as well as ways the Community Foundation has fostered giving. The group agreed that people give to causes they are passionate about, that share their values, and because someone asks them to give. The appropriate roles of government and philanthropy in funding "safety net" programs was another hot topic, with consensus that government should be responsible for taking care of the neediest in society, while also appropriately providing tax incentives for its citizens to contribute to the charity of their choice. Finally, the table discussed the Nevada libertarian attitude towards independence and self-reliance and wondered if we are reaching a "tipping point" where Nevadans believe that churches and charities cannot provide all that is needed in a community.

Table Hosts: Chris Askin is Executive Director of the Community Foundation of Western Nevada. Sheila Leslie is a Democratic Assemblywoman from Washoe County

Is the End of the Book Upon Us?

Our table talked about the release of the Amazon Kindle, and how it, and devices like it, might alter the reading and publication of traditional books. Our group was uniquely suited to do this: among us were Engish teachers, creative writers, and journalists, of several generations. (Not to mention one enthusiastic Kindle owner, who brought her device for us to examine.) We all agreed the Kindle (and the technology it represents) can do things traditional books can't--that it's more environmentally friendly, that it provides instant access to a vast library of material, that it might very well make reading more "cool" and less daunting to new generations who are used to accessing information through devices. But a plurality of us at the table lamented the possible loss of the book itself, and the culture that surrounds the book. We talked about the possible loss of bookstores and libraries (especially in light of some ongoing projects, by entities such as Google, to digitize libraries and make the body of published work a de facto database), and about whether the Kindle would open up some of the control the publishing industry has on providing writing to the public. We also wondered if removing text from the confines of the book might also render it more changeable--if what readers and writers alike both like about the book is its intrinsic permanence. In short: we had a wide-ranging and absolutely terrific talk, one that left all of us with new questions, in addition to answers.

Table Host: Christopher Coake is a fiction writer and Professor of English at the University of Nevada

Are artists responsible for creating social justice?

When I think about this question Bertolt Brecht comes to mind: Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it.

Of course, artists have lined up on both sides of this perspective and- many who have watched the evolution of art forms- from drama to photography- have wondered what has come of them. Clearly, there are very few, if any limits on the exploration of a given art form. Nonetheless, artists must address this question every time they begin to create.

The poet Hayden Carruth has spoken of his work as having a social utility- a function in the broader community. All of us who practice art, who create art for our well being and, because we must create to stay alive, choose to portray reality with our particular lens. What does a specific piece of art say to you about reality?

My lens cannot be decorative- or as some have said, create art for art's sake. The best art is transcendent; it takes you places where you could not go without it. One of those places is to the larger world, the context in which we live. European poets of the post-war generation could not afford to have this discussion. In Spain, Franco's henchmen killed its poets- Hernández, Lorca- and Machado fled for his life, only to die in France, penniless and without his manuscripts. Does their art transcend reality or extend to the larger world?

Whitman could not avoid the Civil War. His poem to Lincoln is one of the seminal poems of the era. The same is true for Melville. So what has changed? Why is there a public responsibility felt by artists in some times of history and not others? When does art become a tool for "shaping reality?"

In our busy culture, and I mean America, we sometimes cannot afford the "free time" to pay attention to such things as leisure, reading, or art. Consequently, the artist becomes marginalized. Some would say this has always been so, but isn't it curious the moment the public or political will shifts, art becomes, once again, necessary. I think of Octávio Paz who wrote about poetry going underground during his own country's struggle for independence- because the poets feared for their lives. Have you found art or artists marginalized in our culture? How do you see art addressing our social realities?

It is against this backdrop that we begin our discussion: do artists have a responsibility to address social justice? And if not, what then when their art is viewed as irrelevant? Or is the opposite true: is art always relevant, whether or not it is engaged in social justice? Does it diminish art when it is separate from the larger community? These questions remind us that there is no definitive answer, and yet, they haunt artist and citizen alike.

Table Host: Shaun Griffin is a poet and co-founder of Community Chest, dedicated to improving life for youth and families

Fearing Fear Itself: America's Response to Terrorism

It was the purpose of this table to discuss terrorism both globally and within American national life. Given the nature of the phenomenon and the at times acerbic debate of it, we were not expecting consensus or a shared view of the future. In my opinion, there was, however, surprising agreement on many points. We were all hard-pressed to define terrorism and the terrorist, and everyone seemed to desire greater conceptual clarification whether from our political leaders or the media. There was clearly considerable skepticism about the agendas and motives of both government and the press in dealing with the subject. Everyone seemed to regard the confusions and obfuscations surrounding terrorism to have far reaching consequences for our fiscal stability and domestic policies as a nation, as well as our present and future role in world affairs.

Our points of disagreement might be categorized as philosophical. Some were more pragmatic realists who felt that, however inadequate to date with respect to final "victory", our current military and homeland security approaches were essential to protect the American citizenry and its way of life. Two of the proponents of this view invoked the ultimate danger of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons in order to destroy, say, Los Angeles. Others were skeptical that our current policies are efficacious. They were more idealistic in that they believed that the real solutions are to be found in improved education and diplomacy.

I believe that it is fair to state that we had difficulty in maintaining the distinction between the War on Terror and that in Iraq. If anyone at the table supported the latter, they remained silent. Several participants denounced the Iraq War openly and questioned how anyone could be supportive of it (we were obviously not a cross-section of the American public!).

In sum, it was a lively exchange and, while we did not solve the problem(s), we certainly addressed many of them. I felt that we were especially privileged in doing so by our makeup. Our participants included a former citizen of the Soviet Union (who is Russian and raised in Muslim-dominated Kazakhstan), a Hungarian national, a Spanish national from the Basque Country, and a person of Arab-American descent. This meant that we were privy to international views of our War on Terror and considered its demonizing of the Arab world in order to justify our actions and policies. I thank all of the participants for a stimulating evening.

Table Host: William Douglass is professor emeritus in Basque Studies

Raising Kids in a High-Tech World

Since there really is no solution to the issue that we were contemplating, the most important thing is the conversation. And the conversation was spirited with people representing widely different views.

Privacy: Our conversation focuses on what was available to the students that we didn't have when we were young. Therefore, it is difficult for us to be good guides. We did agree that children need to understand that anything they put on the Internet would never go away. More than one person has lost a job opportunity because of what they have written or what pictures they have posted when they were young. It is an imperative that we help them understand this at an early age.

Education/Accessibility Issues: Our conversation on this area focused on the Digital Divide and Formalizing children's informal technology skills. This community (education, parents, and businesses) have an imperative to help educate disadvantaged youth on the business and social skills revolving around technology. Young adults that do not have these skills will have difficulty in college and in the job market. We also decided that the tremendous skills that children develop at home using technology do not translate into skills that can be used in school or in the work place. We have to help our youth to develop these skills.

Virtual worlds: This may be the next major area of concern for parents. A virtual world where you can be beautiful, talented, and popular is very seductive.

Cyber-bullying: This is the number one issue facing our youth. Almost every child will be bullied or be a bully on the Internet. When this happens, parents face a real dilemma. The school won't get involved unless it took place at school and the police won't get involved unless there is a physical threat. Therefore, parents and children are left to fend for themselves.

Social Skills: This was one point that we all agreed with. By our standards students do not show the manners that we expect. But then again neither do parents. We see adults talking loudly all of the time on a cell phone in a restaurant. Still children need to be taught and be expected to exhibit good manners. They may someday change the definition of what good manners are, but they have to grow up in our world. This is particularly true when it comes to texting and instant messaging. Children often are rude and mean when they right in these environments.

POSITIVES: Despite these concerns, our children will be growing up in a world with possibilities that we can not comprehend. They have a high standard of values. They can become world famous authors (MySpace), world famous directors (YouTube), or world famous performers (iTunes).

SOLUTIONS: To help parents of young children navigate through this world, they must remember that "good parenting in the 1960s is still good parenting today." Rules about technology must be set at a young age (no computers in the bedroom, what they do online they must share with their parents, etc.), never talk to strangers, and always maintain open lines of communication.

Table Host: Joe Elcano is Education Technology Director for the Washoe County School District

Encouraging Creativity: How Do We Increase Arts in Education?

All participants eagerly joined in this conversation. Acknowledging that every child is curious and has a creative spark, and that waiting until middle or high school defeats the purpose of arts education, the group hopes to begin to institute change in arts education at the elementary school level through a focus on the importance of creativity and innovation, rather than a specific arts course. Utilizing advocacy at the grassroots level (initially through parents and ultimately at the level of the school board), and using the background materials as resources, our group intends to raise awareness about this issue and build a coalition of supporters. We recognized the significance of individual artists, the use of the Las Vegas model of 'prep time' to introduce more arts, using success stories from charter schools, and engaging business organizations whose employers are seeking graduates who are innovative and creative.

Our group clearly recognized the importance of creating an emphasis on creativity in the classroom, for the arts enable students to observe, analyze, envision and innovate- skills which are critical to identifying and solving current and future problems at all levels of society.

Table Host: Tim Jones is an Associate Director of UNR's School of the Arts and chairs the Nevada Arts Council.

How can we create a next generation of global citizens and why?

The table discussed the concept of a global citizen and how to generate more social and cultural awareness. The group focused on ways in which schools and parents are neglecting this responsibility and what changes could be implemented to create a new generation that embraces a global society. There was agreement that the school district should take a more active role in teaching languages and geography. There are restrictions due to No Child Left Behind that have made the U.S. fall behind on many levels globally- economics, education, etc. Ultimately the idea is simple- the idea that we are part of a much larger society. People came to this country to learn how to be free and the American education system was designed to integrate and create "Americans." However, we have lost our connection to our role as global citizens.

America's strength is its diversity. People come from everywhere. 95% of all graduate degrees in the sciences are non-native scholars. The implications of reducing ourselves to the system that was created very long ago is to limit us. We are still following an agrarian system of education, which is causing students to fall further behind each year.

The group believes that students have been taught that the U.S. is the most important country and as a result we don't teach them respect for other cultures or to take responsibility for how they affect others. As one participant noted, "in 17 years of education those I can remember are those who humanized education and taught about other cultures."

Table Host: Carina Black is the Director of the Northern Nevada International Center