Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (July 22, 1997)
uesday 'July 22, 1997 O The Battalion 'PINION uit (he I The jyand 124 118-R Faking the ‘A’ out of liminating the National Endowment for the Arts ‘Art’ rids America of creativity i.i'' Isll e.One nglish poet Austin Dobson once ^ said, “All passes. Art alone enduring stays with us.” As the National En- ivment for the Arts (NEA) teeters on brink of eradication, these words intingly hit home. The end of the NEA uldseal the United States’ fate as a na il of cultural dregs. In 1965, Congress recognized that “an danced civilization must not limit its ef ts to science and technology alone, but . , istgive full value and support to the oth- ;reat branches of scholarly and cultural ivity.” Out of this sentiment, the NEA was born. The NEA has been a driving force in making art liable to all Americans. The organization, under the dership of the Department of the Interior, allocates P® era! funds to benefit art education, theater, litera- e, symphonies and visual arts. Since the NEA’s inception in 1965, the non-profit arts e , he United States have flourished. Before the NEA, yfive state governments had agencies dedicated to arts; now all 50 states report having state art agen- Js,Theaters have multiplied eight-fold, and the num- ets "; :oforchestras has quadrupled. American dance ipanies have grown from 37 to 250 nationwide. na ) 01 Professor Joseph Hutchinson of die College of Archi- (ure wrote his thesis on the NEA. Hutchinson said > lithe organization was created to “help grassroots ^ istsand organizations get started.” Over the years, the program has funded everything mpublic art museums to puppet shows. In addition public art, the NEA is involved with education re in, city design and preserving our cultural heritage. Inrecent years, the NEA has come under fire from liservatives. The debate came to an apex with an ences exhibit by Robert Mapplethorpe that de- :tedgraphic sexual imagery, including homosexual counters. Opponents barked that the NEA was pro- iting questionable or obscene material, and vowed close its doors. Hutchinson said funding an exhibit such as Map- (thorpe’s probably was bad judgment by NEA admin- ration, but said we must look at the larger picture. The world we live in is complex,” Hutchinson said. OS and diverse sexual lifestyles are mainstream today.” Acommon gripe of NEA opponents is that the organi- Itionis economically imprudent. This simply is not eir lie. Recipients of NEA endowments must match federal ndsatleast dollar-for-dollar, and sometimes as much three-to-one, ensuring tremendous returns for en- |side« Columnist Handy Cater Senior psychology major od is racy dowments. The nonprofit arts as a whole gen erate $37 billion in economic activity and re turn $3.4 billion in federal income tax to the U.S. Treasury each year. In other words, ait makes money in the United States. In fact, in recent years, art attendance is more than at tendance for all professional sports combined. So, despite all the hubbub of NEA op ponents, Americans have indicated that art is important to them. Under current legislation, American citizens spend an average of 38 cents per capita to support the arts annually. This amount is embar rassingly low when one considers that Germans av erage $27 per year, and French and Canadian citi zens annually average $32 each. According to a recent Lou Harris poll, 57 percent of Americans said that “the federal government should provide financial assistance to arts organizations, such as museums, dance, opera, theater groups and symphony orchestras.” Furthermore, the study found that 61 percent of Americans would be willing to pay $5 more in taxes per year to support federal govern ment efforts in the arts. Apparently, when Americans speak, their legisla tors do not listen. The House of Representatives re cently passed a bill that completely eliminated fund ing for the NEA for next year. On a more hopeful note, a strong bipartisan wave in the Senate promises not to let the bill pass there, and President Clinton said he will veto any budget that does not include funding for the NEA. As for what will really happen, Americans must just wait and see. No matter what the NEA’s opponents cry is foul, the facts show that the organization has been a national success. NEA funds have helped create works that earned numerous awards, including the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Awards, Academy Awards, Tonys and Emmys. Works such as Driving Miss Daisy and the Viet nam Veterans’ Memorial probably would not have been possible without the support of the NEA. What conservatives fail to realize is that art is sim ply a reflection of society. Doing away with the NEA is not going to eliminate the alternative lifestyles that make conservatives so uneasy. These depictions may seem radical today, but many past masterpieces seemed scandalous in their own times, as well. Hutchinson said these artists are probably “depicting life as honestly as they can, and may have their thumb on the pulse of society.” Eliminating the NEA will not make uncomfortable changes disappear. It will simply take art out of the hands of the public and make it accessible only to the wealthy. Average Americans will not even be able to af ford to take their families to the local museum. One can only wonder what will happen to the 1.7 million Ameri cans who make a living in nonprofit arts. By shutting the doors on the NEA, we are, in effect, taking one more step toward cultural obliteration in America. Culture is what binds us together as a peo ple. It gives societies history and identity. Art is an in- tegral part of civilized societies. It encourages con templation and creativity. It makes us laugh, it makes us cry, it makes us remember. Hutchinson best sums up the value of art: “Art allows us to understand better who we are and where we’ve come from. We better understand others in this global community, and I think it’s also a view to the future. The human spirit is balanced by pragmatism and creativity. We need the arts as well as we need engineering if we’re to survive into the next millennium.” Of Graphic: Brad Graeber [2Private school for lesbians, gays provides student equality ith all the talk recent ly about equality and non-discrimination, negroup has consistently laimed to be left out: homo- duals. Last week, three edu- jli Mors in Dallas, Texas en ounced that they will open a livate high school for gay and (sbian students. Alternative high schools are »tnew, and neither are high chools for gay and lesbian students. a jjne his program is already in place in one erelfr )r m or another in New York, Los Ange- esand Toronto. It’s about time for one \i|obe created in Texas. Last week, an Associated Press report rnust lealing with the idea of a gay and les- litly- ton high school said 28 percent of gay Imusi ind lesbian students drop out of high dew chools because of peer harassment. |mial his is a sad statistic. oorts Gay and lesbian students must be tenet luaranteecl the same right to education nbe | ;ent el Columnist Len Callaway Junior journalism major as everyone else, because without education, an individ ual cannot hope to become a responsible and contributing member of society. Students who harass and berate gay and lesbian students should be the ones made to have a hard time at school. As far as any evidence can suggest, a , person’s sexual orientation has no bearing on his or her ability to learn. An individual’s sexual orienta tion, therefore, has no business being a topic of conversation in the classroom. The new school’s mission statement said that its purpose is “to create an at mosphere of tolerance, an acceptance of sexuality confusion and opportunities for personal growth, so that each indi vidual student can become a fully func tioning and healthy member of society.” Becky Thompson, the school’s director, said the most important aspect of the school is acceptance for all students. “We want to be a school that people are saying, ‘Oh, gee, I want to go to that school because it is tolerant.’” Tolbrance is an important virtue in deed, but at some point, the notion can be more of a hindrance than a help. If an individual dismisses con formity simply because non-confor mity will be tolerated, then the main point of tolerance is lost. All people are different, which is certainly a positive aspect of humani ty. At times, however, a certain amount of uniformity is required to be accepted and successful in society. Schools such as these are important because they provide for flexibility. In a country where dropping out and goofing off seem to be trends among students who are not hell-bent on suc cess, it is necessary to provide some sort of alternative. It is crucial to do everything possible to keep kids in school, including granti ng accreditation for schools with the main goal of providing an equal envi ronment for gays and lesbians. As stu dents grow and mature, they often real ize the value of education and begin to excel in school. It is important to remain supportive of students when they have been put down by society, to allow them a chance to come back to the public eye and succeed. The school in Dallas, as proposed, is private, and students who attend will be required to pay approximately $7,000 in annual tuition. While schools such as these are important because they fill a need for some individuals, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to have these schools funded by taxpayer dollars. Oth er alternative high schools specialize in education for students with specific learning encumbrances, such as physi cal limitations, drug dependencies and behavioral problems. A distinction must be made between physical or mental handicaps and vol untary lifestyles such as drug abuse, de pendencies, behavior problems, teen pregnancy and homosexuality. Taxpayer dollars are freely spent without much cognizance or hesitation on all of the aforementioned situations and specialized programs required to accommodate these types of students — all except homosexuality. The difference is quite simply that some of these situations are imposed without any conscious choice on the students’ part. It is these conditions that are not particularly relevant to the course work of an educational facility, and they should be left outside with taxpayers’ money. We as a society must stop granting second chances and paying for the mis takes of students who do not handle their responsibilities of taking educa tion seriously. If a society rarely holds people accountable for their actions, then it would appear that some people have reasoned that it is seldom neces sary to do the right thing. lirod ® OWN 4 YACHT ? ® PRIVATE JET SEAT EIGHT oR MORE ? (D WINE CELLAR LARGER THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD ? ■ IF 'foil answered "yes; consr atulations >. YOU QUALIFY FOR MY MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT! y* Mtewscliais M AIL CALL PITS offers no parking solutions In response to James Wallace’s July 21 Mail Call: Thank you, Wallace, for demon strating exactly the kind of attitude that makes students at this univer sity hate PTTS so much. In all of my encounters with PTTS “offi cers,” all of them have had the same “holier-than-thou” attitude; most of them are down right rude. The bottom line is this: The University is here to serve the stu dents, therefore, PTTS is also here to serve the students. PTTS, how ever, takes the attitude that stu dents here are no more than a source of revenue. Ask any student not employed by PTTS, and you’ll get the same reaction. For us, PTTS still stands for “Parking, Tick et and Towing Service.” But here’s a suggestion: How about taking all those millions of dollars that you steal from the stu dent body and put them toward something that will make our lives, and yours, a lot easier — more parking spaces. One new garage is not enough. The fact that we have the sec ond highest number of parking spaces in the nation is irrelevant. The simple fact is that 27,000 spaces are not enough for 42,000 students. This seems like simple math to me. Until something helpful is done, I’ll join many other students by emblazoning my truck with the motto “PTTS Sucks!” Brian Bo Is tad Graduate Student Media coverage misleads society In response to Steven Costello’s July .17 Mail Call: I find it rather absurd that so many people such as Costello take what the press says as the genuine truth. The press’ primary goal is not to present the truth to the American public, but to sell panic and fear. Panic and fear generate much more revenue than the truth. Costello described articles depict ing a nuclear weapons build-up of the communist nations of North Korea and China and presented them as an immediate threat to the United States. North Korea’s last interest is to start a war with a country that set up a nuclear arms program de signed to annihilate the Soviet Union. Their economy is in sham bles and they are more interested in the territory they lost in the ’50s, namely South Korea. China is not interested in shooting itself in the foot by threatening its ma jor trading partner with nuclear weapons. If anybody is threat ened, it is Russia. A perpetual animosity has ex isted between China and Russia over territory, and China, with its ever expanding population, will probably want to expand. The Cold War spanned five decades because the people gobbled up the fear that the government pre sented to the press and the press served up to the people. Both sides wasted trillions of dollars building up the military over a paranoia, and we sacrificed thousands of young men’s lives over a paranoia of communist ex pansion. Most people in the ’50s and ’60s did not even know what communism was, but they built bomb shelters and “ducked and covered” in the name of paranoia. Governments start wars, but all wars, cold or hot, have to be sold to the public through the press. Whether the public believes them or not is up to the public. So, in the name of humanity, please do not believe everything the press or Costello has to say. Randall Smith Class of’96