Opinion

The December 23 editorial in the Citizen-Penguin written by Keats Dieffenbach and Daniel Parker raises profoundly important issues as America attempts to deal with the numerous accusations of sexual misconduct that have taken place in all sectors of our society. I have always believed that the artist should lead the way in addressing the moral issues that confront our nation and our world, rather than being at the periphery of these societal issues. That is why I applaud Keats and Daniel, on the part of many Juilliard students, for sharing their views with our community.

As I have stated on many occasions, The Juilliard School is dedicated to creating and maintaining a safe environment of inclusion and diversity which shows respect for all individuals, as well as developing and acting upon shared community values. My colleagues and I of the faculty and administration have strived to provide that environment in a continuous fashion, both through policies that govern faculty, staff, and student conduct and ongoing training and programming. The Juilliard School has a zero-tolerance policy for any acts of sexual misconduct or any other inappropriate activities that violate our standards of conduct.

Keats and Daniel write that Juilliard, whether consciously or not, was “complicit” in enabling James Levine to act in ways that were harmful to individuals. I do not want to parse definitions of the word in question. I can only state in the strongest possible terms that The Juilliard School would never consciously put young artists under our aegis in any situation which would cause them harm. I can categorically state without hesitation that I was not aware of any credible information that indicated hiring Mr. Levine would put our students or other community members at risk.

However, the editorial addresses larger issues which go beyond Juilliard’s confines. Essentially, the writers ask Juilliard to react to information that was spread word-of-mouth or never reviewed in a legal setting. We cannot act responsibly as an institution on rumor alone. It is my belief that artists, no matter how extraordinary their artistic prowess may be, should also be judged equally on their humanity and their personal actions. Importantly, there is no policy, no set of regulations in a free society that can regulate all human activities.

During my thirty-four years as Juilliard’s president, my colleagues and I have acted quickly and definitively when we have been presented with evidence that an occurrence took place involving a Juilliard community member which was inappropriate or illegal. One need only refer to our various regulations posted for our community which clearly present the processes which exist to address these issues. The standard of proof for investigating and acting upon allegations is based on decades of legal procedures that are now evolving. We will continue to evaluate our policies and procedures to ensure that they meet the needs of our community and are informed by the ongoing dialogue taking place on these issues in our society today.

As we begin a new year, thankfully individuals have been empowered to tell their harrowing experiences in public, some of which date back many years. As Keats and Daniel state, these are “courageous, credible survivors who have publicly detailed the violations and pain they experienced.” Their experiences point to a level of conduct by perpetrators that are abhorrent and unacceptable.

Therefore, how do we act responsibly as an institution within the context of this new cultural paradigm? Clearly, this new cultural shift must prevail. Our writers urge Juilliard to “lead the way” in attempting to right the wrongs of the past and, perhaps just as important, to prevent future acts of misconduct at Juilliard and in our society. I accept this invitation with enthusiasm and look forward to future conversations where all members of the Juilliard community can address these issues and find a way to approach the future with a clarity that permeates our efforts with the best values the Juilliard community can realize.

Joseph W. Polisi
President

I am writing in response to the recent editorial, “Student Concerns re: Residence Hall;” the related article in the New York Post; and subsequent reactions on social media and among the larger Juilliard community. I hope to provide some useful background and contextual information regarding the decision to close the residence hall over the winter break, which was made a year ago. First of all, since this is the first time I am addressing readers of The Citizen-Penguin, I assume some may not know me, and those who do may not be aware that I have recently taken on a new role within the school. As Associate Dean for Student Development, I broadly oversee the offices of Residence Life, Student Affairs, International Advisement, and the Marks Center (where I was stationed most recently as director).

My Student Development colleagues and I are encouraged by the empathy that the author and undersigned citizens have shown for their fellow students, and by the active willingness to speak out in support. I recognize that the decision is unpopular, and I will not be able to allay every concern with this response. However, I would like to attempt to clarify a few of the more critical implications that seem to have caused confusion.

The decision to close the residence hall was made last winter, and the Residence Life staff began reaching out to students who had stayed in the hall over the previous winter break on March 21. Subsequent notifications were sent to all students informing them of the closure prior to reapplication and room selection. New students were also informed that the residence hall would not be open during the break prior to their enrollment. This was not a surprise announcement made just a few weeks before the break.

It is true that last winter about 15 students requested late departures or early arrivals, and a smaller subset of that group requested housing for the entire break. Historically, the majority of residents who have remained in the city over the break have opted to stay with friends, family, or fellow students. Services and amenities during this time are few. The dining hall, health and counseling services, and the fitness center have always been closed over the break, and the school building is also closed for the holidays.

While a number of students, alumni, and friends have rallied online to offer housing assistance to impacted students in the wake of these publications, the residence life staff has received an extremely small number of requests for housing extensions since this decision was rendered and, in every case, those students were able to find reasonable housing accommodations. While this may remain a point of contention or inconvenience, I feel it is important to note that an overwhelming need for winter housing from our residents has certainly not been expressed to us directly.

We know that living in NYC is expensive and complicated, and maintaining a high rise on the Upper West Side is no exception. The residence hall has been open year-round for many years. In addition to the academic year, we provide housing for a number of summer programs for Juilliard as well as external organizations in an effort to generate revenue and minimize increases to cost for Juilliard students. This means we rarely have the opportunity to do building-wide assessments of infrastructure or even take a comprehensive inventory of aesthetic needs. We want to improve the residence hall, and closing the building while school is not in session gives us the opportunity to make strategic plans and substantive changes.

The decision to close was not made lightly, and we were aware that some students might be adversely impacted. We tried to get the word out about this change early and repeatedly, and we have done our best to assist any students who have come to us with their concerns.

The Student Development staff will be hosting community forums, distributing surveys, and asking for your feedback in the coming months about a host of issues. We strongly encourage you to work with us to help make our school a better place. While not all concerns can be addressed 100 percent of the time, we can guarantee that your voices will always be heard. Not every decision that we make as an institution will be popular, but we assure you that we value our students’ perspective and input. My door is open and my inbox is ready. Please never hesitate to speak to me or any of my colleagues if you have a concern. We will do our best to provide you with accurate information, listen, and lend support.

Sincerely,

Barrett Hipes

Sign your name: https://goo.gl/forms/5ZpPzPr2Es5uU5oC2

**If this resonates with you, please SIGN your name with the link above; we need all the support possible**

We, the undersigned students, are extremely concerned with the Office of Residence Life’s decision to close the Meredith Willson Residence Hall for the entirety of winter break this year. We fear that no students were consulted in the decision, so we are voicing our concern now.

Over 30% of our small student population is international; of those, the majority hails from East Asia. It can be financially devastating to travel the globe for a two-week holiday. This situation renders them effectively homeless and puts many students and their families in a position of financial burden. We are concerned by the email sent to the students from the Office of Residence Life, which states, “flight costs are not a reason for which we will grant extension past 8pm on the 22nd [of December] or prior to noon on Sunday, January 7th.”

President Polisi has reiterated the philosophy of the “Artist as Citizen” throughout his 33-year tenure. To charge students $15,990 – $19,970 to reside in the Residence Hall—including the first-year undergraduate students who are required to live on-campus—and then to treat them with such inconsideration for their financial and emotional wellbeing, is antithetical to that philosophy. As citizen artists, we are responsible for the health of our communities, especially within the current socioeconomic climate of this country.

Additionally, there still exists a separation of church and state in this country. So, why must the Juilliard School assume Christmas is a holiday celebrated by all students? Why must these students sacrifice their time and money in light of a religious holiday that is not their own? This assumption isolates many students in an attempt to clear the Residence Hall for thus far unknown reasons.

In previous years, Resident Assistants have been paid less than $50 per day to continue their duties during the winter break in the Residence Hall. Additional professional on-call positions were created this year, which ought to make it easier to staff the dorms. Especially considering that international students paid $150 to stay over during the vacation, we are confused with how these numbers add up.

But even more than financial considerations, we question the considerations as concerns building community at Juilliard. We ask the Office of Residence Life to reconsider their decision and reinstate the option for students to stay in the dorm over future breaks, as well as communicate with the student community on such decisions.

I found the editorial “Four Concerns with the Kovner Fellowship,” recently published in The Citizen-Penguin, to be timely, as economic inequality is an important part of our national conversation right now. At Juilliard, we are keenly aware of the feelings and perceptions surrounding this complex issue. And for a scholarship program that offers comprehensive support, such as the Kovner Fellowship, it is brought into even greater relief. While no amount of scholarship assistance can fully address the complexities of financial disparity, no student should feel more or less valued because of the dollar amount of the scholarship package he or she receives. I would be dismayed to learn of students who assume they are somehow less valued by Juilliard because they did not receive a Kovner Fellowship.

The Kovner Fellowship was established and endowed by Bruce and Suzie Kovner to address a specific problem that became acute soon after the financial crash of 2008: many of the scholarship offers we were making were losing their effectiveness, and excellent applicants were declining our offer of admission for purely financial reasons. While there is not (yet!) a scenario that allows Juilliard to provide every dollar of unmet financial need for our students (e.g., full-tuition scholarships for everyone), the Kovner Fellowship makes a significant impact: There are now 54 Kovner Fellows, a figure that represents nearly 10 percent of the entire eligible music population at Juilliard. That statistic might not mean much to a non–Kovner Fellow, but as a result of the donation of Mr. and Mrs. Kovner’s gift—at $60 million, the largest in the school’s history—it has been possible to more widely distribute scholarship funds to drama, dance, and music students, thus increasing the amount of scholarship assistance in circulation. This is an overall benefit to Juilliard students, since the main goal of our institutional fundraising efforts is to increase the amount of available scholarship dollars.

A common misconception is that “Most Kovner Fellowship recipients come from families that can already afford a Juilliard education.” In fact, the financial profile of Kovner Fellows mirrors that of the overall Juilliard population: a small percentage come from families of means; most demonstrate financial need. It is worth noting that 85% of all college-level Juilliard students receive scholarship assistance.

The editorial is correct to note that there is no application or interview process for the Kovner Fellowship. That is because every eligible student who applies to Juilliard has also applied for the Fellowship by default. The parameters of the Kovner’s gift stipulates that eligible candidates are undergraduate and graduate Classical music majors, including Historical Performance.

Another common misconception is that the selection of Fellows is based solely on a 15-minute audition. This is not the case. After hearing entrance auditions, the faculty, either as a unified group by instrument area or as individuals, recommend applicants for consideration to the Kovner Fellows Selection Committee, which comprises President Polisi, Ara Guzelimian (Provost and Dean), Joan Warren (Vice President for Enrollment Management and Student Development), Adam Meyer (Associate Dean and Director of the Music Division), Kathy Tesar (Associate Dean for Enrollment Management), Tina Gonzalez (Director of Financial Aid), a revolving member of the Liberal Arts faculty who serves a three-year term, and me (as an ex officio member). We convene in mid-March for an extensive meeting to review letters of recommendation, admissions essays, faculty recommendations, high school and college transcripts, and all other aspects of the standard Juilliard application. A similar, second round of selection for continuing students takes place in late May or early June, when the committee also reviews comments on annual jury forms.

Among the many reasons the Selection Committee will choose to recommended an applicant for the Fellowship are a combination of the following: a high school transcript (for undergraduate programs) that reveals the potential to do college-level work; a well-written and creative essay; an academic history that indicates community engagement or leadership potential; a college transcript (for graduate program applicants) that demonstrates a commitment to learning and academic curiosity; strong letters of recommendation; remarks on the faculty’s audition or jury comment sheets that indicate the highest artistic standard; and English language proficiency in accordance with prevailing admissions standards. We also take into account the fact that we are in competition with peer institutions to yield applicants in certain instruments more than in others. We have learned from the editorial that the information about the selection process on our website needs to be updated so that prospective students can better understand eligibility criteria.

The number of nominations from the faculty varies each year, as does the number of open Fellowships, but the latter is usually in the range of 17 to 20. As mentioned above, there are currently 54 Kovner Fellows at Juilliard, 30 undergraduates and 24 graduate students. Once accepted, Kovner Fellows carry that designation for the duration of their enrollment in their degree program, and must exceed the normal Juilliard academic standards in order to retain their status. Kovner Fellows are not guaranteed the continuation of their Fellowship from one degree program to the next (e.g., a bachelor’s degree student applying to the master’s degree program) and are reconsidered along with the incoming applicant pool.

Kovner Fellows do not have their own orientation, as the editorial stated. Rather, they follow the same orientation requirements as any other new-to-Juilliard students. They also have the chance to thank Mr. and Mrs. Kovner in person at the beginning of the year and, in addition to divisional and program orientation meetings, they are required to attend one extra meeting to go over the expectations of the Fellowship. As do many generous Juilliard scholarship donors, Mr. and Mrs. Kovner invite Fellows for various outings, as the editorial mentions.

As the sole merit-based scholarship program that funds the full cost of attendance at Juilliard, the Kovner Fellowship understandably comes under special scrutiny. I appreciate the editorial’s willingness to express a strong opinion, and I hope that this letter provides clarity on several points.

Benjamin Sosland
Assistant Dean for the Kovner Fellowship

UPDATED: Read a note from the author in the comments.

At The Juilliard School, not a week goes by when I haven’t listened to concerns regarding the program that provides full tuition, housing, and special privileges to certain members of the student body, based solely on a 15 minute audition and alleged high school performance. This is the Kovner Fellowship program, or the Juilliard equivalent of winning the lottery. I have written these concerns down so that they are no longer just angry whispers out of fear of being silenced.

As a disclaimer, I should write that this article is in no way intended to criticize or call out Kovner Fellowship recipients themselves. They are entitled to the best possible education. But then, so are the rest of us.

Concern with Transparency

There is a complete lack of transparency in the decision-making process behind the Kovner Fellowship. The Juilliard website states that the following criteria goes into choosing Kovner recipients: “Artistic merit of the highest caliber; a successful academic history; [and] a personal capacity for intellectual curiosity, commitment to the value of art in society, and potential for leadership in the field.” There is no written application for the Kovner Fellowship. There is no interview. There is only the initial 15 minute entrance audition and, allegedly, an inquiry into the applicant’s high school academic achievement, though this can be quickly ruled out after speaking briefly with a survey of Kovner recipients. How can a personal capacity for intellectual curiosity, commitment to the value of art in society, and potential for leadership in the field be determined after a 15 minute audition where there is no more human interaction than a brief “thank you” after playing? Either there are other unspoken considerations taken into account, including which summer programs one has been to and who one might happen to know on the selection committee, or the Fellowship is solely awarded based off of an interpretation of merit, based on a 15 minute audition. Either way, this should be made clear to the Juilliard community.

Concerning Our Community

The Kovner Fellowship is dividing our community. The Juilliard School website states that Kovner recipients benefit from “enhanced programmatic content,” and the following “enhanced” activities have been confirmed: Kovner Fellows are entitled their own entrepreneurship classes, their own orientation, and even go on apple picking trips together. Because these activities are not open to the whole community, it gives the impression that non-Kovner recipients are less valued within the Juilliard community, which very well could be true. This makes excluded students defensive and bitter, and moreover, resentful when a Kovner recipient receives a special opportunity they didn’t audition for, even when it could very well have been earned. Given the already intensely competitive environments that Juilliard students are subjected to, these hierarchical politics should be the last thing on the minds of students, which is why the enhanced programmatic content should be offered to all students, not just the special few.

Concern with Merit

Most Kovner Fellowship recipients come from families that can already afford a Juilliard education. To be worthy of receiving any merit-based award, one first needs money to spend on the best private lessons, money to spend on the best pre-college program, money to spend on the best summer programs, and, of course, money to spend on application fees, audition fees, flights, hotels, and trial lessons. This is a theme for all top-tier colleges and universities: “Roughly one in four of the richest students attend an elite college universities that typically cluster toward the top of annual rankings […] In contrast, less than one-half of 1 percent of children from the bottom fifth of American families attend an elite college; less than [50 percent] attend any college at all.”¹ The same can be said for merit-based awards at The Juilliard School – recipients are essentially being rewarded for their wealth and circumstance, something out of their control, while those with fewer privileges are left footing the bill. This continues the cycle of poverty.

Concerning the Juilliard Endowment

Juilliard has a $980 million endowment. Considering only around 850 students attend Juilliard, it is absurd that there are students paying $60,000 a year, period. The Curtis Institute of Music has an endowment somewhere between $130 million and $236 million, and they are completely tuition-free. Juilliard owes it to their students, who are entering some of the most competitive fields on the planet, to lower, if not eliminate, tuition costs.

What is to be done?

The Kovner Fellowship needs to be much more transparent, so that there is no longer ambiguity or suspicion surrounding the award itself. The enhanced programmatic content Kovner recipients receive should be open to all students on a case-by-case basis. Juilliard boasts a commitment to community building, and in that vein, all students should be treated equally, regardless of their financial aid package. Scholarship funds should also be distributed based on need rather than merit to combat the ridiculous wealth gap at Juilliard.

This essay is meant to make the concerned voices of many within the Juilliard community heard, as well as provide several solutions. This writer hopes that it will lead to a more open and transparent dialogue—no longer whispered, but articulated loud and clear.

¹ Source: Aisch, Buchanan, Cox, & Quealy. “Some Colleges Have More Students From the Top 1 Percent Than the Bottom 60. Find Yours.” The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2017)

CORRECTED 11/18: Curtis endowment data has been updated with information from their latest Annual Report.