Public Comments to NEH Rulemaking and Other Notices

Notice of NEH National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, 83 FR 52235, published on October 16, 2018

Commenter's Name	Date Comments Received	Comments
Joe Carbone	October 28, 2018	See Attached (PDF)
Jesse Bryant	November 11, 2018	I am a graduate student in environmental governance at Yale University and am worried about the intention of this rule-making. Before graduate school I worked across the world, from the UN in Geneva to NOLS in Wyoming. I have pursued studies in Neuroscience, Agriculture, and now the environment. I have published technical biochemistry papers with the National Academy of Sciences and creative non-fiction with Orion Magazine and through all of this I have come to understand that making the humanities a priority is vital to a functioning democracy. A weakening of the humanities is incompatible with the American experiment, and therefore is unAmerican. Knowing that the Trump administration is working diligently to close NEH,I worry that the intention of this rule is to create more barriers to its success. I work extensively on NEPA and know that it needs updating, and fast. And so I'm not sure why now, especially with NEPA rule-making on the horizon, NEH should be exposed to its process. Further, it is unclear to me which NEH funded projects wouldn't receive a Finding of No Significant Impact. We don't need bigger government of this sort right now. The purpose of this seems to be, at best, politically motivated. Without the humanities we have fascism. Please make the right decision. The wellbeing of future Americans will depend on decisions made in these trying times.
Chris Perkins	November 12, 2018	The National Endowment for the Humanities is a critical cog in the machinery of American culture—it promotes creativity, alternative thought, and community through its programs. Please avoid incorporating overly restrictive NEPA guidelines in the work of the NEH. It will place serious barriers on the ability of arts organizations to do what they do best—create joy in an otherwise challenging world.

Commenter's Name

Date Comments Received

Comments

Joe Carbone

October 28, 2018

See Attached (PDF)

Jesse Bryant

November 11, 2018

I am a graduate student in environmental governance at Yale University and am worried about the intention of this rule-making. Before graduate school I worked across the world, from the UN in Geneva to NOLS in Wyoming. I have pursued studies in Neuroscience, Agriculture, and now the environment. I have published technical biochemistry papers with the National Academy of Sciences and creative non-fiction with Orion Magazine and through all of this I have come to understand that making the humanities a priority is vital to a functioning democracy. A weakening of the humanities is incompatible with the American experiment, and therefore is unAmerican.

Knowing that the Trump administration is working diligently to close NEH,I worry that the intention of this rule is to create more barriers to its success. I work extensively on NEPA and know that it needs updating, and fast. And so I'm not sure why now, especially with NEPA rule-making on the horizon, NEH should be exposed to its process. Further, it is unclear to me which NEH funded projects wouldn't receive a Finding of No Significant Impact. We don't need bigger government of this sort right now. The purpose of this seems to be, at best, politically motivated.

Without the humanities we have fascism. Please make the right decision. The wellbeing of future Americans will depend on decisions made in these trying times.

Chris Perkins

November 12, 2018

The National Endowment for the Humanities is a critical cog in the machinery of American culture—it promotes creativity, alternative thought, and community through its programs.

Please avoid incorporating overly restrictive NEPA guidelines in the work of the NEH. It will place serious barriers on the ability of arts organizations to do what they do best—create joy in an otherwise challenging world.