rkpappas

[rkpappas]

NEA - DANCE - RESPONSE BLOG - Lacy Smith

While this reading was somewhat flattering in the sense that I was able to read about a panel of individuals who recognized/continue to recognize the importance of dance and its rightful place in society, I found myself also feeling cynical as well. While it may be true that the NEA gave dance companies $300 million, I could not help but wonder how that compared to the funding of football, basketball, baseball, etc. I realize that the bitterness I feel is not towards the Arts Endowment, they are not responsible for funding sports and the contribution has been crucial to the growth of the art. Rather, I am bitter about the comparison of funding on a grand spectrum and the reading evoked those frustrations within me.

  “Audiences no longer had ready access to the pioneering danes of Doris Humphrey, Charles Weidman, Helen Tamiris, Ted Shawn, and Ruth St. Denis” (180). Whenever I read or discuss the historical pioneers of dance I always wonder if the pioneers themselves knew the impact they were having and if the dance community recognized them as pioneers in their present time or if the recognition did not come until years had passed. Did George Washington know he was going to be a crucial part of history and would be talked about for decades and centuries to come? I often find myself questioning if there are any current day choreographers who are evoking crucial turning points in the field but we will not recognize them until twenty years later. This concept is interesting to me.  

  -Were dance pioneers recognized as pioneers during their time or did the recognition not come until after?

  -Why was the respect Fanny Elssler received not translated onto the rest of the dance field?

[rkpappas]

WHAT IF TRUMP REALLY DOES END MONEY FOR THE ARTS? - RESPONSE BLOG - Lacy Smith

“”A radical virus of multiculturalism,” the foundation wrote,” has permanently infected the agency, causing artistic efforts to be evaluated by race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation instead of artistic merit.”” In response to a San Franciscan theater’s plays supporting gay marriage, The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, wrote “[the plays used] tax dollars to fund a project that many Americans would find offensive.” This leads me to believe that conservative efforts to end funding of the arts potentially has nothing to do with the creation of art itself, but rather their lack of acceptance of LGBTQ and racial equality. Their lack of respect for who people choose to love and the color of people’s skin has tainted their view of the art community which supports all people.

  I truly enjoyed reading this article. It was written in a way that presented both sides of the argument but I could sense a definite preference to continuing to fund the arts. There were hints of sarcasm and subtexts of “this is what they argue, and their argument is ridiculous.” This may have been exaggerated by my own feelings toward the subject but nonetheless, I appreciated how the article was written.

  -Are conservatives really against the arts, or against the acceptance of LGBTQ and racial equality?

  -What was the urine immersed crucifix?

[rkpappas]

What is the NEA-Nicole Popovich

I am glad that I was able to read this and get at least a broad understanding on the NEA and its relationship to dance. Before this, I was unclear of what it was and what it did. I did not realize that the NEA was so involved in the work of the early modern pioneers and their companies. There was one part where the article talked about the NEA’s involvement of establishing management professionals, board of directors, and fundraising opportunities. At this point I realized that I am not very familiar with how companies operate. What did companies look like before having those elements and what role do they play now? Also, I wonder what the relationship between the federal and privet fundraising of these companies are. Is the NEA funds supposed to help them establish ways to privately fundraise? Do companies always use money from both sides? Is it possible to be completely NEA funded or completely privately funded? This makes me think about when we talked about ballet being funded by the government in Russia. We talked about how a down side of this is that ballet became an institution of the state and was controlled by the government. I wonder if this ever plays into the NEA funding. I haven’t ever heard of anything extreme, but maybe in more subtle ways? I would need to look into specifics more, but do companies receive funding if they are doing certain projects? Have they ever been told they need to change something to receive funding? I am just curious as to whether the money comes with any strings attached. That does not necessarily mean that they would be asked to do bad things, or something they were against. I am just curious about if the money is truly a free gift or not. How has the use of management professionals, board of directors, and fundraising changed the way dance companies operate? What difficulties do dance companies face when trying to start and develop their non-profits in smaller cities?

[rkpappas]

Own Article-Nicole Popovich

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/with-elimination-of-nea-and-neh-trumps-budget-is-worst-case-scenario-for-arts-groups/2017/03/15/5291645a-09bb-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?utm_term=.d7d0bb3a2101

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445797/national-endowment-arts-funding-cuts-eliminate-program

How do we decide what art is useful and worthy of government funding?

What would be the next steps of arts groups if they lost government funding? How could overcome the loss and continue to do work?

I had already read the article “What if Trump Does End Money for the Arts” when I received the email to pick our own. I decided that since these articles are short I would still look up other articles and compare them. I purposefully tried to look for an article that was in favor of cutting the NEA to see an opposing view point. The frustrating thing about looking up this issue in general is that it is so emotionally charged that it is hard to find an article that is written without such a strong bias and even anger. One article I found was posted by The Washington Post “Trump wants to cut the NEA and NEH. This is the worst-case scenario for arts groups.” I think that the Washington Post is considered a more conservative news source but the article was not in favor of the budget cuts. This article was probably the calmest article I read and the most informative in terms of explaining the funding cuts and its implications. Another article I found was posted by the national review and was titled “What’s the ‘Public Purpose’ of the National Endowment for the Arts?” This was strongly for cutting the NEA, saying that art that has been funded is frivolous and has no public value, and the art only serves wealthy patrons who would cover the loss of funding anyways. This article did itself a disservice by the allowing it to be filled with so much anger and mockery. When reading it I felt like I was just listening to a disrespectful rant instead of a thought out argument about why they thought the cut was important.

When I think about the issue for myself it feels complicated. I understand and maybe even agree a little with the argument that if the art is going to be publicaly funded it should directly benefit the public. I can understand why people would not want their tax dollars being spent on a dance in the middle of sheep, a piece of work that many would not relate to. But when I find that the NEA funds projects that bring education to areas of the country that do not have easy access to museums and projects that provide therapy to veterans, those projects seem to me to bring great value benefit to the public. On the flip side of the issue I agree that the federal deficit has gotten out of control. Any person who has been involved in running a business or organization knows the importance of budgeting and cutting spending. However, any time a budget is trying to get back under control it will require cuts and any time there are budget cuts someone will suffer. In the end it is impossible to please everyone and it is important to acknowledge that someone will get the short end of the stick and sometimes it will be you. That being said I still do not agree that the NEA should be cut, while still acknowledging the difficulty in deciding what art should be funded or not. Everyone will see value in different things so it is nearly impossible to come to a consensus on what art is worthy of public funding and what is not.

#dancehistory

[rkpappas]

What is the NEA - Adina Stuhlman

3/21/17

I found this article very informative and interesting. Before reading this article I really had no idea when the NEA was founded or how it functioned. After the reading the article, I feel that this is a program that really does need to remain in place. The Arts Endowment provides extremely valuable resources and arts engagement for so many people. Without it, our dance companies would fail, TV programming would be less interesting, and we would not have the necessary support for the preservation of dance. It seems strange that we spend more per year on military defense and warfare than the NEA granted in 40 years. The section that most fascinated me was Preservation. The establishment of the Dance Heritage Coalition seemed to be an incredibly important step in preserving dance in way that is accessible and usable for everyone. I was disappointed that the section did not mention museums as a viable source of preserving dance and presenting it to the public. The article only mentioned libraries, which while extremely valuable, are not as engaging and participatory in the way museums are. I think the idea to broadcast dance on TV across America is a great because it allows so many people to see dance.

1. What would be the economic impact of ending this program? How many companies would fold, restaurants near theaters fail, etc.?

2. How can we continue to support the spread of dance across the nation and into under-served communities?

#dancehistory #NEA #arts #dance

[rkpappas]

Republicans Start Lining Up to Fight for the N.E.A. and N.E.H. - Adina Stuhlman

Republicans Start Lining Up to Fight for the N.E.A. and N.E.H.

By MICHAEL COOPER and SOPAN DEBMARCH 17, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/arts/nea-neh-trump-congress.html?hpw&rref=arts&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

This article explains some of the recent discussion of President Trump’s desire to end support for the NEA. It appeared in the New York Times print edition on March 18th, but was published online on March 17th. It was interesting to read the Republican’s side of things. I’m glad some support it and the programs continuation. What puzzles me is why anyone would be against the arts. We shouldn’t have to twist the Republicans arms to see the significant contributions that art brings to a community. The article did mention how the NEA endowments have changed in the past few years. Now the money goes to all states, but is spread very thin.

Republicans seem to think that the NEA supports East Coast elitism and liberalism in the arts, but that goes against the facts that the NEA gives money to every state, has supported national touring programs and TV programs for national broadcast. The Republicans seem to want to reign in free speech, in the 1990s they tried to abolish the program, and over a fear of “provocative,” possibly offensive work, they abolished grants to individual artists.

This article was quite upsetting, but it was also encouraging. While some Republicans, may baselessly try to eliminate this incredibly significant and influential program, others support it because they understand the value that the arts bring to a community.

  1. What are President Trump’s “completely defensible” reasons for defunding the NEA? Can he articulate them in a clear concise sentence?

2. What do artists have to say about the possible defunding of the NEA? Are there Republican artists?

#dancehistory #NEA #republicans #arts #dance

[rkpappas]

Republicans Start Lining Up to Fight for the N.E.A. and N.E.H.

By MICHAEL COOPER and SOPAN DEBMARCH 17, 2017

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/arts/nea-neh-trump-congress.html?hpw&rref=arts&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

This article explains some of the recent discussion of President Trump’s desire to end support for the NEA. It appeared in the New York Times print edition on March 18th, but was published online on March 17th. It was interesting to read the Republican’s side of things. I’m glad some support it and the programs continuation. What puzzles me is why anyone would be against the arts. We shouldn’t have to twist the Republicans arms to see the significant contributions that art brings to a community. The article did mention how the NEA endowments have changed in the past few years. Now the money goes to all states, but is spread very thin.

Republicans seem to think that the NEA supports East Coast elitism and liberalism in the arts, but that goes against the facts that the NEA gives money to every state, has supported national touring programs and TV programs for national broadcast. The Republicans seem to want to reign in free speech, in the 1990s they tried to abolish the program, and over a fear of “provocative,” possibly offensive work, they abolished grants to individual artists.

This article was quite upsetting, but it was also encouraging. While some Republicans, may baselessly try to eliminate this incredibly significant and influential program, others support it because they understand the value that the arts bring to a community.

  1. What are President Trump’s “completely defensible” reasons for defunding the NEA? Can he articulate them in a clear concise sentence?

2. What do artists have to say about the possible defunding of the NEA? Are there Republican artists?

#dancehistory #NEA #republicans #arts #dance

[rkpappas]

Esther Sarah Bower - What is the NEA?

The idea my mind kept wandering back to, during this reading, was "Where would dance be if the NEA had never come about?". This reading made it so clear that dance was dying. It would have booms, but they wouldn't sustain. Companies struggled to stay alive, consumers did not support the art by going to shows, and no one was taking the initiative to preserve the art form. I find it so scary that what I love to do might never have been made available to me had the NEA not been created? But then, I also wonder why America is a nation that has struggled with the Arts so much? Other countries embraced, funded, and found them so valuable, so why do we, as a society, not see them as important?

Perhaps the most important step the NEA took to keep dance alive was that it welcomed in other fields to be a part of the art form. By reaching out to journalists to train them about dance and create a new profession of dance critic, combining dance with television and media endeavors, and bringing in researchers and historians, they allowed more people to become involved with the art form. If they would have simply funded dance companies and offered grants, that would have brought benefit, but no one new would have necessarily wanted to get involved with being a dance patron. However, by making it a priority to have people writing about the form, putting it on television, and documenting its existence, that puts a much greater importance on the art. The endeavors that are the most successful reach the most people, and it was of great benefit to dance that the NEA had that goal in mind.

1. How did the NEA support jazz companies/works? Or was their focus not on that genre?

2. What happening in society prompted President Johnson to sign the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, and why was something like this not enacted sooner?

[rkpappas]

Esther Sarah Bower - My Own NEA Article

This article opened my mind up to the idea that the elimination of funding from the NEA isn't going to mean less funding from the government but also less funding from other patrons because now they aren't going to be able to write off their donations as tax breaks. That is a scary thing. The NEA only takes up .02 percent of the total $3.9 trillion budget, so it makes me so angry that the Trump administration deems it as necessary to eliminate this from the budget. I know that I am looking at this from a completely bias standpoint because I am a huge supporter of the Arts but feel like eliminating this funding is going to negatively impact these companies and the Arts in ways Trump has not even explored.

As the history of the NEA article pointed out, dance has struggled to stay alive throughout history, and the creation of the NEA was a huge proponent in keeping the art form alive. Now, with the organization possibly being defunded, what would this mean for dance? This article pointed out how keeping the NEA funded costs less than it does to protect Melania Trump with secret service and how making this cut will do practically nothing to the budget. What it comes down to is someone's decision who is in power to make cuts where they deem necessary without understanding who or what will be affected. I hope this cut is not enacted!

1. Will Trump replace the NEA with something if he defunds it?

2. How will this defunding of the NEA affect smaller dance operations more than large ones?

http://www.pennlive.com/life/2017/03/trump_budget_arts_pittsburgh.html

[rkpappas]

What is the NEA

Bethany Winter

Before reading this article, I had no idea what the NEA really was. I thought that it was the National Education Association, which I had read about before, so I was slightly confused, but trying to connect some dots. Then after further reading, I discovered that it is actually the National Endowment for the Arts and everything started to make a lot more sense. I am really kind of shocked that we have had a whole semester and a half of learning about the history of dance and I do not remember one time when the NEA was mentioned or recognized. In the article, it talks about how the NEA granted and funded many of the dancers we have studied in the past, such as Martha Graham, Doris Humphrey, Isadora Duncan, Ruth St. Denis and many others. From what I understood, the NEA was the main reason why dance was able to tour and spread around the states, rather than staying put in major cities. So where I am going with this is I feel like that the NEA should have been mentioned already in previous articles we read because the NEA was such a big help to these big names in the dance world. I feel like the NEA should be something that I already knew about for awhile if the NEA really did help out the dance world in America as much as the article claims that it did.

Something else that came to mind while reading this article involved the money. If the dance companies and dancers could not find the money and recognition to travel the world and spread their knowledge and love for dance, then how was the NEA capable to even begin and where did they get all the money that they gave out as grants to sponsor and help out these dance companies and dancers? The NEA was giving out huge sums of money at that time and it kind of made me think they were just throwing money out of their pockets and putting a lot of hope and trust into these dancers and dance companies to not fall through. How was the NEA capable of getting that money when the dancers and dance companies could not? Where was that money coming from? Also, it made me wonder why the NEA, as far as the article stated, only helped to fund the dancers and companies with their traveling. I feel like some of the money could have gone to advancing studios and other dancers to build their future, but then at the same time I understand why it was so important for dance to travel so that other places could become immersed with dance.

Questions:

1)    How was dance so set and together across the ocean, but so slow to rise in America?

2)    If the arts alone were having difficulty getting recognized, how did they get recognized enough for the NEA to start up?

  #dancehistory

[rkpappas]

Student Choice NEA Article

Bethany Winter

I read an article titled “Who will lose if the US National Endowment for the Arts is Eliminated?” and I am kind of left speechless. I guess I never knew how much the NEA has probably affected my dancing career in my past and currently. The NEA sounds to be a big deal to many places, especially smaller, more underserved places. By eliminating the NEA, I feel like the arts, such as dance, music, theater and others will completely fall apart, except for in the big cities. If schools with less funding and schools that are poorer, the arts will completely disappear and will eventually be forgotten. In a way, I feel like we would be going backwards and repeating history because the arts struggled to get out there and get recognized and now the arts is funded and mostly everyone has an opportunity with the arts, and we are just going to get that cut and potentially lose the arts. Also, even though the major cities would have the arts because they have good money and good location, I feel as if those arts would die out eventually too because a lot of those dancers or musicians and actors are not all from, let’s say, New York. Some of those dancers come from small, rural towns in Colorado for example. So, if we cut funding to the arts, the small locations will lose their programs, and eventually places like New York will lose their famous dancers, actors and so on.

Coming from a small small high school in the middle of corn fields, I understand the stress and worry of potentially losing the arts. I was in concert band, pep band and marching band and there were a lot of rumors going around my last two years that the whole music program might have to be cut because we were running so low on funds and it scared me because music was a huge part of my life and music changed my life. It is really sad to see that President Trump could even suggest such a horrible thing like eliminating the NEA in blueprints. I understand that the article said that blueprints does not mean that it will actually happen, but still it is the thought that makes the difference. To think that President Trump can pull away money and music and other arts from children all around the US is just heartbreaking. Sometimes, music and the arts for kids and teens, is the difference between life and death. So for me to even read that he thought this would be cool or ok is very frustrating and I hope that it does not go through. Maybe it eliminating the NEA will not effect me directly, but I am definitely a people person and I will hurt for all the kids out there who only have the arts, but rely so heavily on the grants and funds from the NEA. And maybe it does effect me directly, because I plan on having kids one day that will dance and I will do anything it takes to let them dance without worrying if their studio that they call home will have to close because of no funding. Someone needs to show President Trump just how much the arts is actually important and change his heart a bit before he makes a big mistake, just like the article said.

Questions:

1)    Has the NEA ever been threated before or is this a very big, new worry?

2)    If President Trump did follow through with eliminating the NEA, how would that effect Ball State’s Dance Department?

  #dancehistory

[rkpappas]

What is the NEA? Blog Post - Hannah St. Aubin

I find it amazing that an organization like the National Endowment for the Arts exists. I had no idea that there was an organization that encouraged and supported artistic excellence. It is good to know that there are people out there who are connected to the government that are on the arts’ side and support our craft. Without the NEA, I don’t think dance would be how it is today; I think many less people would know about dance. I appreciate the fact that not only did the NEA distribute money to dance companies in need, but they did their research and analysis as well. They needed to understand what it took to succeed, and this process required researching about dance. This just shows that the NEA truly cared about what they were doing for the dance programs. They also helped the areas of dance journalism and dance and media arts. The NEA collaborated with many mediums of “social media” in order to get their message out about the dance program. I did not get as distracted in this reading because I was able to focus on all of the amazing things that NEA did for the fine arts. This was a good read because it made me happy to see that someone in the government supported our craft. 

Open Ended Questions:

- Why did the “big dance boom” begin to descend in the late 1980s when the NEA and the field of dance was flourishing in the beginning? - Why didn’t Fanny Elssler’s mark on dance history have an everlasting effect?

[rkpappas]

What is the NEA?

Emily Utz

The NEA is one of the most important aspects of American culture and society.  At one point, the government acknowledged that the arts do need to take a certain priority in our nation.  Many of the arts promote better learning, as well as a more effective mode of education.  From the classes I have taken that study education as well as my own experience in the school system, I know that the government and those in administrative positions merely look at statistical data, rather than long term goals, improvements, and methodologies.  However, the use of the arts proves to be one of the most effective modes of education: singing songs, color association, dancing, etc.  

The NEA provides us with more opportunities to learn, not just about scholarly topics, but also about ourselves.  You don't know if you like poetry if you've never read or heard it. If there are no funds or resources available for a poet to be engaged in the community, then this exposure would not occur.  The resources and funding provided by the NEA allows communities to be more well-rounded.  The NEA can bring together the levels of the social hierarchy by connecting everyone through art.

Discussion Questions:

1. In what way does the country benefit from not protecting and funding the arts?

2. What are the social benefits of bringing art into a community?

[rkpappas]

Republicans Start Lining Up to Fight for the NEA and NEH

Emily Utz

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/arts/nea-neh-trump-congress.html?_r=0

What surprises me most about this article is that it introduces the immediate assumption that all Republicans and conservatives are against funding the arts.  Republican senator Shelley Moore Capito (WV) said through a spokeswoman that she would “advocate for her priorities, including funding for the arts and humanities, which are important to our economy and communities.”  This clearly shows, as well as comments from other Republican senators and representatives, that there is a significant portion of Republicans that do advocate for the arts and the NEA/NEH.

The funding strategy for the NEA has changed significantly since it was established.  Instead of funds being given directly to individual artists, they are now going to arts agencies, which designate the funds as they see fit.  This change occurred due to the fact that some individuals found particular artists' work to be offensive or provocative, causing conflict regarding free speech.  Now that arts agencies unique to each area of the country have the power and ability to give agency to the artists of their choosing, a more diverse group of artists will arise...if the NEA continues to receive funding.

Discussion Questions:

1. How does the support of varied artists and their work reveal the importance of the arts throughout the country?

2. From where do our artistic preferences derive?

[rkpappas]

The NEA

Samantha Conte

One thing in this article that I found extremely interesting was when I read, “...the Arts Endowment quickly identified the difficulty dance faced in trying to extend beyond a few major cities in the United States. Outside of the largest metropolitan areas, there were very few resident dance companies and few theaters that were appropriate for concert dance presentations”. I think it is exciting to read these few sentences and see how far the dance world has grown. These days you can find dance in almost every city, if not every city. I have never really learned about the National Endowment of the Arts before this, so it was good to learn some of the inside details of what it does for dance.

While reading about all of the grants that the NEA supplies for dance I found it interesting how repetitive the recipients were. It makes me curious if only the major companies are still the main recipients of these grants, or if smaller, start up companies have an equal chance of receiving the money. If the NEA doesn’t give the opportunity for small companies to receive money, I believe that is a huge downfall. The larger companies tend to have more money in the first place, due to benefactors, and a wider following.

Discussion Questions:

1. What things do you think could help make the NEA seem more valuable to “non-arts” individuals?

2. If the money for the arts is cut what can we do, as members of the arts community, to find alternative funding?

[rkpappas]

What is NEA?

Christie Bellish

I was never really aware of what the NEA was so this article was particularly helpful, especially because it is a hot topic in politics right now. I did not know that the NEA was responsible for so many aspects of the dance field including company/choreography funding, dance journalists, dance panels, dance grants, and so much more. I still am a little unsure about the structure and process of the NEA so I don’t think I comprehend its complexity. Organizations like this always appear overwhelming because you don’t see all the work when you’re on the receiving end. How do dance companies become involved with the NEA? Does the NEA find you, or do you have to seek it?

I definitely had trouble concentrating on this article because I am tired from Grease rehearsal at Muncie Civic where I am the associate choreographer and we had a double rehearsal tonight. I am also trying to cram in these blog posts this week because I am nervous about finishing the 10 page paper outline this week as well. Needless to say I’m feeling a bit rushed. But I am hoping in the article I get to choose for the next blog post I will have a better understanding of the NEA with a newspaper article, where this felt more like a textbook reading. Maybe something a bit more informal will be easier to relate to?

Questions:

How will dance fund itself if the NEA does not exist?

Who runs the NEA and who specifically is in charge of dance?

#dancehistory #whatisnea?

[rkpappas]

Republicans Start Lining Up to Fight for NEA

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/arts/nea-neh-trump-congress.html?_r=0

Christie Bellish

Okay I still am having trouble understanding the NEA in its entirety, but this article did help a little bit. My initial reaction is that the NEA is a necessary system that keeps the arts alive, which in turn sprouts increase in diversity, education, cultural awareness, creativity, happiness, entertainment, etc. In the media I keep hearing how Trump was able to defund NEA because the Republicans control Congress, so it was interesting to find an article where Republicans were supporting the NEA. Some Republicans reasons for supporting it included: it helps our economy and communities, it gives all states money, NEA is widely supported and liked by the American people, it creates jobs, there are programs to help returning war vets and inner city children, it helps tourism and restaurant business as well.

The article really only provided one major con to the NEA and that is it asks for too much money for an “un-worthy” cause. In researching for an article about the NEA I found this quote in another source as well, (so I’m guessing it’s a frequent argument?) something along the lines of “I hate to ask the steelworker in Ohio, the coal miner in West Virginia, the mother in Detroit, for money and tell them where I will honestly spend it.” First off I don’t really understand the point of this argument. Okay it’s implying that these hard-working Americans don’t want their money taken away to be given to a ballet company, but who are we to say that they hate the arts? The steelworker and coal miner honestly don’t have pleasant jobs so they will probably spend money on entertainment anyway (probably somehow supported by the NEA) to escape their reality. The mother will probably send her children to an after school program (probably supported by the NEA too) to further their education. I don’t know, who are we to judge what these people want, so I do not see the benefit of that argument.

Questions:

Why is there a stereotype that Republicans are against the arts and Democrats are for the arts?

Where will the money go if it is not used for the NEA?

#dancehistory #republicanslineuptofightforNEA