The Eye, the Hand, the Mind: 100 Years of the College Art Association

11. Governance and Diversity

193 Purpose 2. To encourage the inclusion among its constituencies of qualified individuals representing a diversity of race, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, and physical disability. Purpose 3. To discourage discrimination based on race, religion, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disability, and age in employment, education, exhibitions, scholarly and programmatic opportunities, the awarding of grants and prizes in the public and private art sectors, and media coverage. The two purposes pertaining to membership, governance, and diversity were formulated as a result of the College Art Association’s strategic planning in the 1990s. These purposes would have been inconceivable in 1911, when CAA was founded. The art historians and artist-teachers who formed the association were mostly white people of Northern European ethnicity. In this early period, the word “diversity” was associated more with the somewhat problematic makeup of CAA in terms of its membership and mission: (1) the uneasy alliance between artists and art historians, (2) the delicate balance between teaching and scholarship, and (3) the awkward geographic surplus of members from the Northeast. In the 1960s, in response to the social upheavals of the time, the issues that are now more commonly associated with diversity became important. During that decade CAA coped with the inclusion of younger members in the profes11 Governance and Diversity judith k. brodsky, mary d. garrard, and ferris olin 194 ∏ Judith K. Brodsky, Mary D. Garrard, and Ferris Olin sion, especially graduate students, and tried to ensure geographic and professional distribution. The board of directors also made a well-meaning but ineffective effort to help art departments in historically black colleges. Starting in 1970, the women members raised the issue of gender discrimination. However, it was not until the period of the culture wars of the late 1980s and 1990s that CAA adjusted its governance and programs to include a stronger sense of diversity regarding race, ethnicity, and sexuality. The modification occurred because the association had undergone what George Stocking has called “domestication.”1 In the early 1990s, the membership and the board itself had become diverse, including more younger members, many more artists, significantly more women, more people representing different races, and art historians who practiced a new art history in which art was interpreted from a broader cultural and social perspective .2 Concentrating on periods of change within the history of CAA’s governance , the three authors of this chapter address the diversification of the organization in terms of the discipline, geography, gender, age, career level, race, ethnicity, and sexuality of its members.3 shuttling between inclusion and elitism: from the beginning to 1973 Judith K. Brodsky From the start, CAA and indeed all the learned societies had governance systems based on representation from the membership. Basically, they followed the democratic model: a board made up of directors nominated by a committee and elected by ballots sent out to the entire body. Standard officers were selected by the board. After an initial period of administration by the volunteer leadership of the new association, a paid director was appointed to carry out the day-to-day business of the organization.4 Choosing a democratic governance for the societies was related to their purpose . They were established with the implicit if not explicit democratic ideal that the advancement of scholarship and education benefited the society at large and meant that people would have better lives from both economic and cultural perspectives. The modern American learned societies were open from the start to membership by all. Earlier societies in the United States, such as the American Philosophical Association, were built around a membership that was nominated and elected, as the European academies of arts and letters had been and still are.5 Gradually, CAA and the learned societies developed into arbiters of standards for professional advancement and practices. Publication in their journals became essential for promotion and tenure, and guidelines for degree programs Governance and Diversity ∏ 195 and professional practices were issued. However, the learned societies never developed enforcement policies for maintaining standards.6 Indeed, over the years, when the issue has arisen, the CAA and the other learned societies have generally issued firm policy statements that they are not enforcers, although every now and then they have flirted with occasional pronouncements. The reluctance to take on enforcement of principles affected diversity, as is particularly evident in CAA’s response to the cases of gender discrimination...