A Test Case for Arts Funding?

Eduardo Diaz, the city of San Antonio’s director of arts and cultural affairs, welcomed several thousand university arts educators to their national convention this week with a familiar greeting, but also a sense of apprehension.

The greeting was the standard official welcome to San Antonio’s comfortable multiculturalism--a picture of tolerance that city officials have projected for decades to protect the city’s tourism-driven economy. It’s a motto that Diaz, a nationally recognized authority on Latino arts, has repeated numerous times during his nine years as the city’s culture czar.

But this week, the mantra rang hollow, and Diaz felt some unease in the air as he addressed the Assn. for Theater in Higher Education. The group had considered canceling its conference in the city because of a controversy that has made San Antonio the latest forum for the battle over censorship and public funding of “cutting-edge” art, as Gary Schwartz of the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression calls it, or profane pornography, as conservative critics and lawmakers see it.

On Aug. 4, the controversy landed in federal court in what appears to be the first test since a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of a government agency’s right to withhold public funds from arts groups because of public pressure concerning alleged profane content.

“It’s unfortunate that we’re wrestling with this issue right now,” said Diaz, who has fought successfully during his tenure to expand city funding from mainstream arts groups such as the symphony to Latino artists and filmmakers. “It gives the impression that San Antonio is a closed-minded place and not open to a broad range of cultural expression. That’s just not the case.”

*

The “issue” Diaz refers to concerns the Esperanza Center, an arts and culture organization that supports on-the-edge artists and grass-roots organizations serving the gay and lesbian community and other marginalized groups. One of the organization’s more popular events--and one that drew negative attention last year when an advertising banner was strung across a major thoroughfare--is an annual critically acclaimed Lesbian and Gay Film Festival. Esperanza has also promoted an expansion of Latino arts, including conjunto, once considered simply “cantina” music, but which now occupies a significant niche in the world music scene.

After receiving city funds for a decade and receiving top rankings from the city’s cultural advisory council, Esperanza’s funding was cut from a recommended $76,000 to zero by San Antonio’s City Council for the current fiscal year. The Council’s action culminated a three-year campaign by social conservatives and City Councilman Robert Marbut, who argues that de-funding Esperanza was an act of fiscal conservatism.

“It was a wild showdown,” Marbut, who is considering a mayoral bid, said. He described an incident with then-Mayor Bill Thornton in which a collage of city-funded art was blacked out by the local cable television company because it was considered obscene.

Marbut, who served as an aide to Henry Cisneros during the former mayor’s tenure here, believes that arts programs should be funded primarily based on whether they attract tourism. He has forged a powerful coalition that includes Latino and black council members.

Esperanza turned up the pressure last week when it filed suit in federal court, citing the 1st Amendment’s free speech guarantees and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause to challenge the funding cuts.

On Thursday, the City Council spent three hours in executive session discussing Esperanza and its lawsuit. Marbut argues the city has nothing to fear from the filing.

*

The suit came on the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling in NEA vs. Finley, which has been widely misunderstood in the arts community, according to Robert Lynch, president and chief executive officer of the Washington, D.C.-based Americans for the Arts. Lynch says that many artists and civil libertarians incorrectly inferred that the court “sided with right-wing forces trying to use content restrictions to limit the kind of art that NEA can fund.” While the court upheld Congress’ right to require the NEA to consider general standards of decency in making funding decisions, a close reading of the decision indicates that the NEA, or another government entity, cannot reject a specific grant request “to penalize a disfavored viewpoint.” In its lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas, Esperanza alleges that is exactly what occurred in the de-funding of its programs.

Graciela Sanchez, Esperanza’s founder and executive director, argues that art is really about progressive politics and “giving access to voices that weren’t being heard, voices of the inner city.” She says that the attack on arts funding has moved from Congress and the National Endowment for the Arts to the local level, where the power of the purse has had “a chilling effect” on radical expression. Gary Schwartz of the National Campaign for Freedom of Expression in Washington, D.C., agrees. “People are self-censoring their work,” Schwartz said. “It’s less controversial, less cutting-edge.”

Schwartz, whose organization was a plaintiff in NEA vs. Finley, calls the Supreme Court decision in that case “a loss for arts organizations.” But he also believes that a specific case in which funding was denied or revoked because of an unpopular advocacy will get a close look from the federal courts.

“I’d say Esperanza could be a real test case,” Schwartz said. His organization is among several that are providing financial support for Esperanza’s federal lawsuit. Lynch, on the other hand, believes that the arts community has made progress against the more radical attempts to eliminate public funding for the arts, and his organization “took the lead to save $98 million for the NEA last year.” Rather than searching for a test case, Lynch argues that an educational campaign “to restore confidence in the value of the arts” is a more positive approach.

San Antonio City Attorney Frank Garza does not believe Esperanza has a case under the NEA vs. Finley guidelines, saying the Supreme Court’s decision “gives discretion to governments in the awarding of grants” unless “someone is trying to suppress ideas and viewpoints.”

“There is no evidence of that whatsoever” in the Esperanza case, Garza argued.

The City Council has offered no explanation on the record of why it ignored the advice of its advisory board and de-funded Esperanza. Garza says the city will keep it that way during the court fight. “I’m not one of the decision-makers,” he said.

But, Diaz said, “I can’t recall that this has occurred in the past,” referring to a case in which a highly ranked arts organization was de-funded by City Council. “It’s troubling that San Antonio got a bad rap on this,” Diaz said.

Ironically, Esperanza was again recommended for city funding by the advisory committee for the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. But Garza said that because of the litigation, Esperanza cannot even be considered for renewed funding, due to a city policy that forbids support of any organization pursuing litigation against the city.