United States Supreme Court
The National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] and its companion agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities
[NEH], were established in 1965 to coordinate federal supports for the arts and humanities. Each endowment
has a chairperson and an advisory council of 26 private citizens appointed by the president, who review
applications and award grants to both individuals and nonprofit organizations such as state historical
societies. Officially these agencies were created to encourage growth of arts and humanities in the United
States while increasing public appreciation and understanding of them. They have been responsible for
the promotion of many young talents—brilliant artists and musicians, the preservation of historical archives
and buildings, and a general dissemination of knowledge to the masses about culture.
In 1990, as the United States was approaching the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, Senator Jesse Helms
introduced legislation to restrict funding for the NEA because a small number of federal grants had been
awarded to art galleries displaying the shocking artwork of Robert Mapplethorpe. Other congressmen and
conservative activists advocated cutting all funding to the NEA because it sponsored "anti-religious
art" and other immoral activities. In response to the orchestrated public outcry, Congress did amend
the NEA charter, declaring that no NEA funds could be used "to promote, disseminate, or produce materials
which in the judgment of the National Endowment of the Arts . . . may be considered obscene." To
implement this change, the NEA began requiring applicants to certify in advance that no NEA funds would
be used to promote "obscenity." This new procedure was rejected in the case of Bella Lewitzky
Dance Foundation v. Frohnmayer. The court ruled the NEA procedures were unconstitutional because
they were too vague, and because the Supreme Court ruled years earlier that local juries could define
obscenity standards. The NEA was not a local jury. In response to this ruling Congress replaced the obscenity
standard with a more general requirement that grant recipients comply with "general standards of
decency." These requirements have also been challenged as a violation of the First Amendment, and
that is the basis for the case of National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley et al.
To some people this is a matter of censorship, of "big brother" watching and regulating your
thoughts and what you learn. To some conservatives this is part of the culture war begun in the 1960s,
a war for the heart and moral soul of America. What is happening in this case? What is the Supreme Courts
ruling on this appeal, and on what grounds do they base their ruling? Do you think this case cries out
for "common sense" as much as it does a set of common values? |
