Music at Linoln Center
<p>To the Editor:<br /><br />
In your May issue there appeared a highly critical evaluation of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, Inc. [“Lincoln Center—Planning for Music.”]</p>
<p>The author, one Joan Peyser, is, of course, entitled to her opinions, but, in fairness to the intelligence of your readers, it must be pointed out that the article is filled with misstatement of fact, misleading innuendo, quotations out of context, and misquotations. While I would not presume to ask you for the space that would be required to correct all these errors, permit me, please, to comment on a few which directly concern the Juilliard School.</p>
<p>To begin with, the author does not even know which institutions are constituent members of Lincoln Center and mistakenly expands the list.</p>
<p>In reference to the move and merger of New York City's High School of Music and Art and High School of Performing Arts to an area adjacent to the Center, the surprising assertion is made that the principals of these schools only learned of the proposed merger from the press. I made the proposal for the merger from the stage of the High School of Music and Art, having been introduced by the principal of that school. I also met with the principal of the High School of Performing Arts and a group of its faculty and parents to discuss the matter. In fact, I asked both principals if I might have the privilege of using their names in the press release that was issued. Wide publicity was given to this merger by the New York <em>Times</em> and other publications.</p>
<p>The author states repeatedly that Juilliard was invited to join Lincoln Center only after another educational institution had declined a similar invitation. This is contrary to the facts. No school but Juilliard was ever invited to join Lincoln Center. Literally hundreds of persons were consulted by Lincoln Center during its formative period, in order to obtain the best thinking and advice. Independent artists and others associated with universities and conservatories were naturally among those consulted on education. The fact that a university music department was not chosen is no reflection on the worth of such a department, but rather that its purposes differ from those of the conservatory. In short, the roles are complementary and in no sense competitive.</p>
<p>There are few paragraphs in the article which do not require correction. The instances cited above suffice, I trust, to illustrate the specious premise on which opinions have been set forth in so cavalier a manner. Surely a project of the magnitude of Lincoln Center, which has enlisted the dedicated energies of some of our most distinguished men of affairs, as well as outstanding artists and educators, is entitled to an evaluation in your pages which is not only factually correct, but commensurate with the seriousness of purpose which characterizes your excellent publication.</p>
<p align="right"><strong>William Schuman</strong><br />
<em>President<br />
Juilliard School of Music<br />
New York City</em></p>
<p align="center">_____________</p><br />
<p>To the Editor:<br /><br />
It has come to my attention that Joan Peyser's article has caused some activity among certain musicians and educators concerned with Lincoln Center.</p>
<p>As a recent graduate of the Juilliard School and winner of the School's highest award in 1959, I wish to thank COMMENTARY for printing Miss Peyser's article. . . . I hope that it led to more open questioning of the goals and the actual achievements of Lincoln Center. . . .</p>
<p align="right"><strong>Howard Lebow</strong><br />
<em>West New York, N.J.</em></p>
<p align="center">_____________</p><br />
<p><strong>Miss Peyser</strong> writes:<br /><br />
Mr. Schuman is specific about three points.</p>
<p>The first is that I expanded the list of institutions in Lincoln Center; unfortunately he does not identify which should have been omitted. The problem here lies in one's frame of reference. Mine was based on location, design, and approach, whereas his, I believe, is based on a particular and complex financial plan. Therefore, I listed not only “constituent members,” but everything that is to be incorporated into the musical activities of Lincoln Center—such as the $7 million Lincoln Square High School which bears a name associated <em>with</em> Lincoln Center, will be designed by architects (Pietro Belluschi & Catalano and Westermann) <em>for</em> Lincoln Center, and will be directly adjacent to Juilliard, which is <em>in</em> Lincoln Center. It will remain, of course, a public school.</p>
<p>Mr. Schuman's second point concerns my criticism of the lack of communication and consultation between Lincoln Center officials and people working in the individual organizations—in this case, the principals of the two high schools involved in the project referred to above. Mr. Schuman indicates that the criticism is invalid because he proposed the merger and move of both schools on the stage of one of them. He did—in December 1958. My conversations with both men took place at the beginning of 1961. Between these dates neither school had received notification of any plans, considerations, or decisions from official sources. In order to obtain definite information I contacted the Board of Education, and Dr. Bernard Donovan informed me that the merger was a fact. Shortly after my conversation with him, on February 23, 1961, the Board of Education announced that both schools would be merged in a multimillion-dollar show-case high school.</p>
<p>Mr. Schuman's third point is that “no school but Juilliard was ever invited to join Lincoln Center.” He is wrong; Columbia was invited. The correspondence between Lincoln Center and Columbia is on file at the university and establishes, without a doubt, all of the facts relating to the invitation contained in the article.</p>
<p>It is, of course, an unfortunate fact that “distinguished men of affairs” are responsible for mishandling a project that might have immeasurably aided music, drama, and dance in this country. Lincoln Center has not only involved the use of people's money, but the destruction of people's homes. Surely one must criticize a “culture symbol” that presents a gleaming, glistening, opulent exterior, and an inner life devoid of warmth and beauty and vitality.</p>
<p align="center">_____________</p><br />
