The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, October 13, 1999, Image 15

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    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