NEA Coverage

Judging by the letters to the editor, some readers would prefer to “kill the messenger” by attacking Parachini’s coverage of the NEA controversy. Parachini is criticized for posing the debate in terms of “censorship” rather than congressmen “protecting the taxpayers” and for labeling the American Family Assn. as fundamentalist.

Of course, those who seek to impose content restrictions on recipients of NEA grants would prefer to avoid the stigma of censorship. But in 1972, the Supreme Court held that the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests, especially his interest in freedom of speech.” The government can no more prohibit NEA grants for sexually explicit art than it can restrict religious exemptions to only Episcopalians or Social Security benefits to only Republicans.

And as far as the American Family Assn. is concerned, Parachini is certainly not alone; The New York Times (May 16) called it “a fundamentalist religious group.” Its spokesman, the Rev. Donald Wildmon, states that somebody’s values are going to dominate and asks asked whether these values will be humanistic or Biblical.

As a constitutional lawyer who has followed this issue closely, I consider Parachini’s reports to be objective and well-balanced.

STEPHEN F. ROHDE

Los Angeles