National Council on Public History

Challenging the Exclusive Past at the New Jersey Council for the Humanities

For me, one of the most exciting things about directing a state humanities council is the capacity building part of our work. While we do conduct our own programs, much of our charge revolves around supporting and partnering with other organizations to increase the reach and impact of history and humanities programming. This capacity work is particularly important in a state like New Jersey which boasts an extensive network of museums, libraries, historical societies, and universities. Our job is not to compete with those organizations for an existing humanities audience, but to make that audience grow and prosper.

To better understand the needs of our state and the organizations we support, NJCH conducted a series of focus groups in early 2015. We chose eight locations to represent different divisions in our state—particularly urban/rural/suburban, north/south/central. These locations were Trenton, Camden, Newark, New Brunswick, Teaneck, Bridgeton (southern Jersey), Toms River (shore), and Washington Twp. (northwestern Jersey). The invitation lists were gleaned from board member recommendations, grant recipients, staff contacts, and leaders in the various communities and regions. The mix of discussants varied by locale. Included were leaders of cultural organizations, librarians, staff from university community engagement offices, social justice groups, and leaders of faith-based organizations.

Overwhelmingly, participants emphasized the importance of reaching New Jersey’s racial and ethnic minorities. In many ways, we were not surprised by this finding. Racial and ethnic minorities represent a substantial population in New Jersey—one predicted to become the state’s majority by 2028. Indeed, most of the cultural leaders we spoke with felt that serving such communities was essential to their public mission. Many also noted declining attendance for traditional humanities programming and admitted that without new audiences they would lose their relevance. But the findings also raised important questions of strategy for NJCH. For us, the issue isn’t just a matter of reaching out directly to underrepresented communities, but creating conditions in which other cultural organizations do so as well.

Thinking about our grant program reminds me how challenging it is to create this kind of change. For starters, simply requiring outreach is no magic pill. If we chose to require future project grant applicants to partner with a minority organization, how do we ensure the quality and depth of the partnership? Is there a true partnership based on shared contribution and reciprocal exchange? Partnerships between cultural organizations and community groups necessitate the kind of trust and respect that come with time and mutual understanding. It is a lot of work, and the small sums typical of our humanities grants rarely provide enough incentive. It’s likely too that motivation isn’t the issue. During our focus groups, we found plenty of desire for outreach. Extending the practice beyond those who are already doing it well will require a better understanding of the hurdles and the ways which we can create opportunities and support.

An alternative strategy is to approach the problem from the perspective of grassroots community groups and empower them to create humanities programming. Here, the challenges fall largely into two categories. The first involves the mechanics of applying for and administrating grants. Filling out budget forms, writing project narratives, and explaining a project’s significance in a way that moves the heart of a grant reviewer is not easy for an inexperienced organization. (For a good introduction to the ways in which grant applications disadvantage small, particularly minority, organizations see “Funders, Your Grant Application Process May be Perpetuating Inequity”) While getting at those application hurdles may require a radical rethinking of the way in which organizations apply for and are reviewed for funding, I do believe that clearing administrative problems is possible—particularly because those problems are well within our scope of control as a grant maker. The bigger issue is one again of relationships—in this case, relationships that provide minority organizations access to useful public humanities skills. Again, the success of such partnership hinges on trust and mutual respect.

Finally, we must think about why we build an inclusive past. While it is important for the historical record to reflect our diverse reality, ultimately we embrace inclusivity in order to bridges across cultural and social divides and create opportunities for empathy and understanding. Museum guru Nina Simon has talked about this work as “social bridging,” bringing people together from different backgrounds and experiences. In this sense, a project’s success hinges on its ability to be shared across social divides, underscoring the importance of relationship building central to success. Indeed, only by bringing people together at the start will we be able to bring people together in the end.

~ Briann Greenfield, Executive Director, New Jersey Council for the Humanities

Discussion