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