----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In his response to me Dr. Jarvik suggests that education is not the mission of PBS. I disagree. The Carnegie Commission and the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 did not obliterate the educational mission of PBS. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which resulted from the Carnegie Commission's efforts, stated that Congress "finds and declares that it furthers the general welfare to encourage noncommercial educational radio and television broadcast programming which will be responsive to the interests of people both in particular localities and throughout the United States, and which will constitute an expression of diversity and excellence....The term 'educational television or radio programs' means programs which are primarily designed for educational or cultural purposes." In fulfilling its mission public broadcasting has, I believe, tried to provide alternatives to commercial programs and has sought to fulfill its special responsibilities to certain audiences, especially children and other groups which are not likely to be well served by commercial broadcasting's economic imperatives. It has broadened its educational mission, as defined and broadened by Congress, to included cultural as well as instructional programs. In short, public broadcasting's educational mission was defined quite broadly by Congress in 1967, and public broadcasting has tried to fulfill that mission through its programming. Public broadcasting's current problems are at least in part a direct result of Congress' failure to follow the recommendations of the Carnegie Commission concerning its funding. The Commission recommended that $200 million in federal funds be provided annually (in 1967 dollars), a figure which has yet to be achieved, and that these funds would come from a tax on new TV sets made available through a trust fund. It noted that such a tax was not new, since the government had levied a 10 per cent tax on TV sets between 1950 and 1965. One Commissioner, Joseph H. McConnel, president of Reynolds Metals, suggested in a separate concurring opinion, that "those who are licensed to use the airwaves in the `public interest' --the commercial television stations-- should at least share in the cost of public television." Needless to say, Congress did not follow either of these recommendations, and as a result funding for public broadcasting has remained tenuous at best and at worst a political football which a number of conservatives and commercial communication interests are continually trying to deflate. Dr. Jarvik suggests that I have an anti-capitalist bias. The truth is that I do not believe that either capitalism or socialism, private enterprise or government can provide answers or solutions to all of our problems. Eliminating worthwhile federal support for public broadcasting that does not even come close to the level of support in 1967 dollars that the Carnegie Commission recommended will create more problems than it will solve. It is a bad idea, a "no-brainer" as Levar Burton referred to it before Congress. There may be fat in the federal budget, but support for public broadcasting is as lean as it can and should be. It is fulfilling the educational mission that Congress set for it as well as it can given the tenuous nature of its federal funding. Commercial broadcasting and cablecasting cannot and will not fulfill its important and broad educational mission. Gorham "Hap" Kindem Department of Communication Studies The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill