Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 18, 1990)
The Battalion OPINION Wednesday, July 18,1990 Opinion Page Editor Damon Arhos 8 Controversy over ‘obscene’ art attracts more attention The United States seems to finally have begun humming about one of its most precious resources that has often been ignored — its artists. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has come under such fire from some citizens that the general public is really beginning to pay real attention to the artists in their country. Sure, not all the attention is good, but it’s still attention. It has gotten to the point at which it is tough to find a national news magazine that doesn’t include an update on the controversy of “art or obscenity.” Stories about the NEA appear weekly, at least, in most urban newspapers. And, as a result, quite a few members of the American public have been exposed to and have learned about what Jesse Helms, the Rev. Donald Wildmon and others with the same views think should be stifled — “obscene” art. And I, for one, get a kick out of it. The big controversy here is that some people believe the NEA should quit giving funds to artists that offend some U.S. taxpayers. Others say that by asking all artists who need funding (and that’s a lot) to sign an agreement to limit the scope of what they can produce, they will be limiting the artists potential and make them afraid to create the art they really want to create. According to Newsweek, a Gallup Poll showed that though 71 percent of people in the United States believe obscenity in the arts has increased, more people are now going to arts events than to live sporting events. Obviously, a large number of MAsa;L.igs POST Americans aren’t all that offended by the arts. And if that great a number of people are interested in the arts, the small number who are offended have no right to change the NEA’s policies. A number of people think that the idea of tampering with genes was bad, but if they got together and threw a big fit about it, would tl e U.S. government consider pulling all tax money used for college scholarships and loans for genetics majors? No way. The government would laugh at the idea of taking away the opportunity from those who want to be a part of the field of genetics. The majority of Americans are not speaking out against art in the United States. Still, the government officials in charge of the NEA are willing to take away, or at least limit severely the types of people who could receive, what amounts to scholarships for people trying to make a career in that field. And that money comes from the same taxpayers as the ones who are paying unwillingly for genetics majors. But what the public really needs to worry about is this: The people working against the NEA are promoting the idea that the art we are funding that they are offended by is obscene. But those people are lumping obscenity and offensiveness together. The courts have yet to define of obscenity, and therefore, laws limiting obscenity have always been dangerous to creative people or groups because they could eventually allow people to censor ideas they find offensive, not just pictures or individual pieces of art. Ideas that some of the people attacking the NEA seem to find offensive are ideas about religion, sexual equality and sexual orientation — ideas promoted by subordinant groups in our society who are trying to fight for their rights as U.S. citizens. Mail Call We cannot start limiting our freedom to express our ideas. If we are offended by someth^ we should tell people we areoffeni We should speak out. We should protest. But if we keep making policiesaL laws that limit other people’s freed: to express their ideas, those policiti and laws could be turned aroundoi us and used to keep us from expressing our own ideas. I have little faith that the leaden the movement against the NEAanf “obscenity” in art will ever think tin 6i' Tl Ai A< AI Ni T I he courts have yettodefii of obscenity, and therefore, limiting obscenity have always been dangerous to creative people or groups becausethej could eventually allow people censor ideas they find offensivi not just pictures or individual pieces of art. Ideas that some the people attacking the NEA seem to find offensive are ides about religion, sexual equality and sexual orientation.” Ni AI AI Ite no tth al on ha what they do to the artists could backfire on them or those that come after them. People in favor of censorship rarely think about the long-term consequences, it seems, that their need to shape the moral integrity of others is immediately satisfied. But it still makes me smile a bitam when I think that now, becauseof their hard work, the art that offend: them so is now being viewed more than ever. Ellen Hobbs is a senior joumalim major. DO I the 1 stol a ti the: 1 wer loci not 1 the: her 1 hov • Rec and nur pro « Chapter seeks veterans EDITOR: Former participants in the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 1933-42, are being sought by a CCC alumni group which is planning to honor the hundreds of thousands of men who built parks and so many other projects during the Depression. Karl E. Busch, program director of a branch chapter of the National Association of Civilian Conservation Corps Alumni, is seeking contact with CCC veterans as part of this effort. Send your name, address, CCC camp number and state (along with a large, self-addressed stamped envelope) to CCC museum, 3623 Rendale Dr., Jacksonville, Fla. 32210. Busch hopes to encourage state and federal agencies to construct CCC museums in locations where the corps worked. The idea is to honor these men and preserve the works of the CCC for future generations. Carl Gidlund Public affairs officer U.S. Forest Service View of poor distorted EDITOR: Rudy Cordova composed a misleading column in which reality was oversimplified to the point of distortion (“Poor don’t deserve our handouts, pity,” The Battalion, July 13). His focus was so scattered as to render his piece inco herent. He conflates the issue of economic aid for development of Third World economics with welfare assistance for the poor in the United States. Aid for international development must be channeled properly so it builds an infrastructure for further eco nomic development. To label countries’ requests for such aid a demand for a “handout,” conjuring up the notion of beggars, is mislead ing. Cordova then makes a cutting comment on Rev. Jack son’s ubiquitousness and appearance at the Poorest Peo ple’s Summit. The truth is that there are millions of people living in poverty in our own country. But the implied argument that foreign aid should be reduced to help those poverty stricken people in the United States is now channeled by Cordova into a vitupera tive attack on these poor who just “sit around” and do not take advantage of the many opportunities in education and business that have been open for centuries. If such grand equality exists, as Cordova believes, why was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 necessary and why do em ployers in their ads claim they are equal opportunity em ployers? And Cordova, in classic manner, blames the victim. “They have no one to blame but themselves for their problems,” rather than those responsible for establishing and maintaining an inequitable system. Cordova in his final statements seems to attempt to link Jesse Jackson’s inexperience for the job of president with a poor person’s inexperience that might render them unable to get work — an astoundingly false analogy. In Cordova’s dream world, plenty of jobs exist, and matching person to task is easy. In his final sentence “What a country!” the reader does not know whether he thinks the United States is crazy for permitting the “likes” of Jackson’s presidential aspiration, or if it is worthy of praise for being a land of opportunity. Tom Ahern Graduate Student Glossary was incomplete EDITOR: Please, Gary Gaither, do elaborate on the connection between the communist government in the Soviet Union and the First Amendment to the United States Constitu tion (Reader’s Opinion, July 10). And while you’re at it, please explain why you failed to include terms such as self-righteous, paranoid, pseudo- moralistic and hypocritical in your glossary. Could it be because they so aptly describe you and your far-right, conservative ilk? A& Tra it’s sho stee bik< and • Uni cioi UP] • bik< call Pre Assc Laura Bagwell ’90 Have an opinion? Express it! Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff re serves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to main tain the author’s intent. There is no guarantee that letters submitted will be printed. Each letter must be signed and must include the classification, address and telephone number of the writer. All letters may be brought to 216 Reed McDonald, or sent to Campus Mail Stop 1111. As with all letters, viewpoints expressed in Mail Call are not necessarily those of The Battalion. Persons interested in subtnitting a letter or a Reader’s Opinion should contact the Opinion Page Editor at 845-3314. Tl Texa into stud< stop tiona said r Fo jurec Altoi scho< Tl there to th said. N n said i The Battalion (USPS 045 360) Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Associated Collegiate Press The Battalion Editorial Board Monique Threadgill, Editor Melissa Naumann, Managing Editor Damon Arhos, Opinion Page Editor Holly Becka, City Editor Meg Reagan, Lisa Ann Robertson, News Editors Clay Rasmussen, Sports Editor Eric Roalson, Art Director Todd Stone, Lifestyles Editor Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-sup porting newspaper operated as a commu nity service to Texas A&M and Bryan- College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of the editorial board or the au thor, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, faculty or the Board of Regents. The Battalion is published Tuesday through Friday during Texas A&M sum mer semesters, except for holiday and ex amination periods. Mail subscriptions are $20 per semes ter, $40 per school year and $50 per full year: 845-2611. Advertising rates fur nished on request: 845-2696. Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col lege Station, TX 77843-1 111. Newsroom: 845-3313. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College Station TX 77843-4111. FAX by Brett Bridgemm M.C. ManiM£F*. fu-t- Fight. X ldvg frt/s saMo ... CAN'T T7XJCH THIS. Cant TbuaH-lMs. CAnY Touch this. - HflM Memr m£\ cbmT Touch Yk/s. C/Wt Touch ~tHis. c/Wt Touch th/s. You WILL THAT Now op. IT'S oid VbuR. fm cies” drive spon res pc In brake third been had brake Pe and the ti gears