Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 13, 1999)
le Battalion O PINION Page 15 • Wednesday, October 13, 1999 'vaiz Mugg slamaba;- •ment jwal Jike 2 miles 2 km Can public funds be denied to art exhibits deemed offensive? The answer is often OF THE AP/Wr. r isers.H> re causii yee’s spo 3n, said, lay in Is! 1 Musk: a red § the hat . Zia Udc ecret sen he army •apital ar„ eaped central Ti and seize: lie has ? size an the ce — topis especial: ducatedw people ictivev:.! depend’ ily size ine ho0 y 2050M p/ay read. n a recent conflict with the Brooklyn Museum of Art, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani revoked funding from the publicly- pported museum because of a jntroversial exhibit. The exhibit, “Sensation: Young Jritish Artists From the Saatchi lollection,” features works like a lust of a man made from his livn frozen blood, a portrait of lie Virgin Mary adorned with a ump of elephant dung and a |iark suspended in a tank of irmaldehyde. Before withdrawing funding, iuliani warned the museum at it would lose monetary sup- lort unless it canceled the exhib- JESSICA CRUTCHER City art museum should not be denied money due to shocking works On Sept. 28, six days after the ayor’s warning, the Brooklyn lluseum of Art filed a lawsuit in leral court accusing Giuliani of [iolating the First Amendment ecause he threatened to with- |raw funding on the basis of of- nsive views. Soon after the Iwsuit was filed, city officials pnceled the next scheduled payment of $497,554. New York City gave the Brooklyn Museum the ight to freedom of expression when it created the nstitution. Guidelines to acceptable content |hould have been put forth at the museum’s cre- tion, not invoked unexpectedly at the appearance fa controversial exhibit. Giuliani’s current ae ons pointedly censor a certain “offensive” view- oint and violate the First Amendment. In a 1998 case involving the National Endow- nent for the Arts, the U.S. Supreme Court ap- iroved a “decency” test that could be applied to etermine who would receive federal arts funding. However, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day Connor’s majority opinion suggested that if the law was used to impose “a penalty on disfavored viewpoints,'” it would violate the First Amendment. The stipulation was added to the law to ensure diveisity of expression, a reason which Giuliani is 'choosing to, ignore,, If the type of censorship being imposed upon lie Brooklyn Museum of Art by Giuliani is accept- /as legal, it will have a chilling effect on pub- ly-funded institutions nationwide. As museums, college newspapers and other tax- ayer-funded organizations become increasingly ;arful of losing funding because of controversial laterial, the viewpoints expressed will become _ss diverse and more narrow-minded. A uniformi- » of beliefs is precisely the opposite of what the [First Amendment intended. Jniversity should enforce prohibition of porn on campus networks I you lontli slike In addition, Giuliani’s deci sion could have a much broader effect than originally thought. If the government is given the right to withdraw public funding for virtually anything it considers offensive, there eventually will be no more college newspapers. Giuliani's actions could, in effect, be used as justifica tion to censor any ideas the government consid ers too controversial that are expressed by a public institution. Mayor Giuliani’s decision is surprising ly lacking in fore sight. Although the content of the art ex hibit is controversial and offensive to many, these grounds alone are not enough to cen sor the display. Even though the government has the right to withdraw public funding from institutions, such as the Brooklyn Muse um of Art, it does not have the right to with draw funding as a di rect means of suppress ing a certain viewpoint. If there are stipulations of con tent that come along with re ceiving government funding, they should be clearly expressed before the funding is granted. Otherwise, the sudden with drawal of funding because of something controversial exhibited by the institution will eventually result in widespread self censor ship and the narrowing of avail able viewpoints. Th.e ideas, expressed by the cre ators of the exhibit may be offensive to many, but the artists’ right to ex press these views should be de fended in spite of the controversy. The First Amendment was meant to protect minority views; majority beliefs seldom require preservation. Jessica Crutcher is a sophomore journalism major. EHOLDER ^ he current conflict between New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and the Brooklyn Museum of Art is an instructive example of what can happen when the line be tween public and private is blurred. The museum has demonized Giuliani for threatening to withdraw its funding because of a controversial art exhib it, which showcases me dia such as frozen blood, maggots and elephant dung. Art advocates have rallied around the museum, cast ing Giuliani as the small-minded censor and defending the featured artists as innovative victims of his unenlightened taste. The debate has become a lighten ing rod for civil-liberty die-hards. But by framing the controversy around the issue of censorship, the museum’s defenders have missed the real point. Giuliani is not claiming the right to indis criminately abridge the freedom of artistic expression, but the right of the government to get what it pays for. If the Brooklyn Museum of Art expects to receive money from tax payers, it cannot be surprised when they express their prefer ences as patrons. And it should not be shocked if those prefer ences do not include an apprecia tion for dung-spattered portraits of the Virgin Mary. Admittedly, Giuliani has not always defended his decision with this valid argument; it is evident he is acting partly because his own sensibilities have been riled. But despite Giuliani’s mistakes in handling the situation, he nonetheless holds the moral high ground in the conflict. The muse um has filed a lawsuit against the city, and even if it changes current legal precedents, the curators ought to lose the case. ROBERT HYNECEK/Thi: Battalion CALEB McDANIEL State funds should not be used to under write offensive artwork Public funds must be distrib uted at the government’s discre tion. When representatives of the people choose not to finan cially endorse art that under mines community values, they are not censoring, they are doing their job. Historically, the courts have not felt this way. But it is time for them to reevaluate legal the ory on this sensitive issue be cause the current body of law contains a multitude of contra dictions just waiting to collapse on themselves. For instance, the judiciary has repeatedly upheld public decency laws, allowing communities to define certain norms of public ex pression. These rulings have wisely made it possible to restrict the display of pornography — which the court has ambiguously defined as identifiable on sight — and the public propagation of cer tain types of hate speech. But at the same time, it has used the First Amendment to pre vent governments from retracting art endowments on the basis of content. The courts cannot have it both ways. Either the government must be given the prerogative to reasonably regulate community ex pression, or anything and everything must be al lowed. The former alternative is clearly preferable, unless the courts want to allow burning crosses on public lands and pornography on billboards. It is better to realize that opening the floodgates of freedom may drown things more valuable than art — things like decency, respect for others and communal values. Ironically, the Brooklyn Museum of Art may be its own worst enemy if it wins the case. A ruling in its favor would put public funding of the arts on the de fensive. Many governments would likely choose not to finance museums to begin with, rather than risk ing litigation when retracting their gifts. As columnist William Safire wrote last month in The New York Times, “If public museums win in Fed eral Court the right to offend egregiously without be ing punished by losing their subsidies, they will lose their subsidies beforehand.” Indeed, a victory for the museum may make gov ernment raise the issue of what they are doing fund ing art in the first place, a question artists certainly do not want their patrons to ponder too long. For their own sake and the sake of principle, artists would be wise to excoriate Giuliani less loudly. They are free to spread dung on whatever they want in pri vate, but they are not entitled to the public support of aesthetically-arranged excrement. Caleb McDaniel is a junior history major. CHRIS HUFFINES r he Constitution guarantees two things to the pos- zssors of pornographic laterial. They are uaranteed the freedom d have porn and the irotection of due rocess before they are leprived of illegal porn, or students who choose to share pornog- aphy on University computers or person- computers connected to ResNet, the ampus local-area network, this double ;uarantee is two too many. The protections of freedom of expres- ion and due process are rights that hould be restricted in the case of students !>r faculty who make pornography accessi on University computer systems. Many readers are doubtlessly crying. Censorship! Fascism! The British are oming!” Unfortunately for the “Thee of iberty,” the unique situation of a univer- ilty campus does not require that it be wa- ered. This denial of rights is not a case of ensorship but of responsibility. Censor- hip, in the popular sense, is done to fur- an aim that is an anathema to its citi- ens. Responsibility may involve actions hat may be labeled censorship, but if lone for the right reasons, censorship can De justified as responsible. No university is an island unto itself. Every university is contained within a Me ther larger community, just as Texas A&M is contained within Bryan-College Station. The total adult population of the Bryan- College Station area is 103,300, and the student population is about 43,400 people. Aggies are less than half of the total population in the area. At most universities, especially those located in urban areas, this ratio is not nearly so disproportionate. As most students may have figured out, the surrounding community is more con servative and decidedly more anti-porn than campus. A quick survey of employees at local establishments including Hastings, Waldenbooks and Blockbuster, which car ry (as some call it) “adult sophisticate” material, established that the local com munity wishes pornography to be as but toned up in a corner as possible. The com munity viewpoint must be taken into consideration. Access to A&M computers is simple for students and a large percentage of community members. If the community does not want pornography flowing out of A&M, then the flow must be shut off. Second, universities, like any entity that derives its existence and financial re sources from the state, must hold itself to a higher standard. Even the appearance of wrongdoing could create a legal and ethi cal stigma the University would be sad dled with for years. A&M is no exception. T0 ^ Yell leader makes oots apology for fable In response to Amy James’ Oct. 12 mail call. The Texas Aggie Yell Leaders strive to serve A&M in a manner in which all Aggies can be proud. The tradition of telling fables at Midnight Yell Practice is one as old as the position of yell leader itself. The purpose of fables is to provide a lighthearted laugh at our upcoming opponent and our- By allowing pornography to be carried by its system, A&M is in in the legal posi tion of being a carrier of what may be ille gal material. Furthermore, as a state insti tution, A&M should not be in the position of carrying material on ResNet that the state legislature or courts may designate 'MAIL CALL JEFF SMITH/The Battalion as illegal. Such shadows of impropriety have brought down bigger and better in stitutions than A&M. Furthermore, to obtain pornography in the real world requires an active effort. Not only are there restrictions on viewing pornography, the actual viewing of the porn requires searching it out and pur chasing it. Even on the Internet, one has to actively go to an adult site. But on ResNet, porn is seen by acci dent by casually surfing from computer to computer. Therefore, pornography on ResNet is more of a menace than it is in the real world. Before the University is called on its lia bility and dragged through the mud, this problem must be splved. Computing and Information Services (CIS) is the solution. CIS employees who wish to can be asked to surf ResNet, looking for porn. Upon finding it, the employee can con tact his or her supervisor. The supervisor can look at the object in question and, if it is pornographic, delete it. Liaisons with the Residence Hall Association, University Police Department and other organiza tions can keep CIS from abusing power and help solve the problem. It is not the job of A&M to be the stu dents’ mother and protect them from the evils of the world. It is the University’s job to protect itself and to regulate the content on its system computers. By continuing to allow pornography to be openly available, A&M is opening itself up to litigation and moral condemnation. Cracking down on porn is not censor ship. It is just common sense. Chris Huffines is a senior speech communication major. selves. Fables are neither intend ed to be offensive toward any indi vidual or group, nor do they reflect the personal opinions of the yell leaders or the University. I would like to extend an apolo gy to anyone who was offended by the content of Friday’s fable. If there are any future concerns or questions about Yell Practice, I encourage anyone to contact me personally, and I will be more than happy to discuss the matter. John Bloss Class of ’00 Editorial on crash gives Aggie pride In response to the Oct. 12 editorial "No Easy Answers.” So many times people com plain about what is written in The Battalion. I want to say something good about it. Yesterday’s editorial touched me because even though we just finished beating Baylor, someone could say this accident that affect ed more than just A&M brings us together in our mourning. This kind of thing makes me proud to be an Aggie. Becky Speer Class of ’03 Redpot should be charged in assault When I read about the Bonfire assault against Ramiro Reyes last week, I was appalled. I was equal ly appalled when I read yesterday that no charges were made. The redpots’ actions were shocking, crude and unacceptable. I believe action should be tak en against the two men accused in the assault. They have not even publicly apologized or expressed any re morse. Josh Broach and Clayton Frady should apologize and take responsibility for their actions, just as the strong, tough men they thought they were. Katiuska Quintero Class of ’99 The Battalion encourages letters to the ed itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in clude the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com
