What’s new?

Isn’t this the same process by which faculty members can be unanimously approved for tenure by a department and a university tenure committee, and still be denied by a single dean or provost whose been “appointed” by the president to push through his or her own political agendas (or as they call it, their “vision of the university"?). Similarly, a dissertation that’s unanimously approved by its faculty advisors can still be rejected by a department committee or chair. In other words, this evaluation structure is endemic to the academy, and tolerated at every level. The few inevitably overrule the many, and almost always on political or economic grounds. I have no doubt that a Bush-appointee will discriminate against scholarship that reinforces liberal agendas (whether it explicitly aims to or not). I also don’t have any doubt that university committees and deans routinely do the same to scholarship that doesn’t meet their own criteria for “serious” scholarship. Can we fight this battle on multiple fronts?

huntly, at 11:31 am EST on January 9, 2006

Constitutional analysis is already subsidized by the government

Anon has an good point. This Marc Stein might not be the most qualified person to actually analyze Supreme Court rulings. Now, most people who actually need to understand Supreme Court rulings for a reason don’t go around screaming “liberalism” or “conservatism” but engage in a much deeper analysis. Most of us read all of them, and develop theories, and already are paid to do it. Indeed, many people that already work for the government study what the Supreme Court does for a living (either working for the courts, or an agency that must appear before the Supreme Court or the any other court, since they are bound by what the Supreme Court does.)

However, Anon, might not be reading the rulings himself. NEA v. Finley was a first amendment case dealing with a facial challenge to a statute – 20 U.S.C. � 954(d)(1) (“In establishing such regulations and procedures, the Chairperson shall ensure that... artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria by which applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public”). At the time the NEA had not promulgated any regulations. Without any actual cases of viewpoint discrimination to go off of, the court concluded “ It is unlikely, however, that speakers will be compelled to steer too far clear of any forbidden area in the context of NEA grants. As a practical matter, artists may conform their speech to what they believe to be the NEA decisionmaking criteria in order to acquire funding. But when the Government is acting as patron rather than sovereign, the consequences of imprecision are not constitutionally severe... Indeed, to accept respondents’ vagueness argument would be to call into question the constitutionality of the many valuable Government programs awarding scholarships and grants on the basis of subjective criteria such as “excellence. “

As a practical matter, most insiders are not too worried about the continued vitality of Roe v. Wade, but understand that all political viewpoints must troll the outsiders about it. The “pro-choice” crowd probably could not exist without some threat to Roe, and the anti-abortion crowd would cease to exist if, suddenly, it won. But, I don’t see what this has to do with NEA v. Finley.

Larry, at 12:36 pm EST on January 9, 2006

Thanks Larry,

I guess my point was simply this: What’s the point??

Given the limited budget the NEH has to work with, I don’t see how Stein’s retroactive analysis of the Supreme Court’s ostensibly ‘liberal’ rulings is crucial at this particular cultural moment. There may be projects more relevant to the climate in which we live. Not that this is agood reason to reject anyone’s grant app., but it doesn’t seem clear to me that gay bias was involved in his case.

Re the NEA 4, I was merely suggesting that if the rulings of the 1960s and 1970s regarding “obscenity” were as “liberal” as Stein says they were, then there would never have been a reason for Karen Finley and the others to have to bring their grievances to the Supreme Court. Btw, didn’t the Supreme Court and U.S. Congress have some extremely repressive/damning things to say about Jack Smith’s FLAMING CREATURES during the 1960s? And when did acts such as consensual sodomy cease to be crimes? Certainly not in the 1960s and 1970s...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

The 1960s and 1970s don’t strike me as quite the blissfully “liberal” climate that Stein suggests.

Anon, at 1:55 pm EST on January 9, 2006

Finley and the NEA 4

“Geez, I’m not sure what it has to do with NEA v. Finley either, especially since the original post was about the NEH and gay/lesbian/queer scholarship.”

The NEA 4 were Karen Finley, Tim Miller, Holly Hughes, and John Fleck:

http://hometown.aol.com/millertale/timmillerNEA.html

Though Finley’s name is perhaps the most famous, the other three members who lost that battle against the Supreme Court were all gay or lesbian.

Please read the Supreme Court’s ruling against the NEA 4 to find out what their case has to do with Stein’s arguments:http://www.law.stanford.edu/faculty/merryman/law236/finley.html

Stein proposes that Supreme Court rulings of the 1960s and early 1970s were cloaked in a deceptive veil of ‘liberalism,’ but that this infact masked an underlying heteronormativity that did not go far enough in enabling long-term political change.

The NEA 4 is evidence that Stein is correct in his basic premise. But again: so what? Is this really such an interesting or under-explored argument?

Furthermore, every organization (public, private, academic, corporate, etc...) that gives money to people has its inherent biases, and its changing agendas. I hardly see how one person’s rejection is grounds for suggesting a right-wing conspiracy at the heart of the NEH.

There are often cases in which applicants who’ve been awarded high marks on each level do not succeed because of the excellent pool of worthy proposals. I’d be interested to learn the percentage of NEH awards given to projects dealing with “normative” sexual practices, versus those given to “non-normative” studies. Does anyone have a quick breakdown, or know a site where we could obtain this informatioN?

Anon, at 3:47 pm EST on January 9, 2006

Anon — Thanks for the cites/sites. You explained the link well, but I’m still not sure if it’s fair to critique the guy’s scholarship based on a two-sentence description of it. Sure, it doesn’t seem very earth shattering as described, but none of us read his proposal. I’m willing to bet that there’s much more complexity and nuance in the 6-page version (NEH proposal length) of his argument compared to the one found in the web article.

Your point about there being other excellent proposals is well taken, but my understanding is that if the reviewers rate a proposal “excellent” (as opposed to “very good” — the second tier) across the board then that proposal is almost guaranteed funding. As the article noted, some proposals that receive a mix of “very good” and “excellent” were given the award. It seems to me that there was something funny going on if the Endowment was explicitly going against the recommendation of the designated referees.

The links to previous award winners are here: http://www.neh.gov/news/awards/fe...gov/news/awards/fellowships2005.html

Brian, at 4:30 pm EST on January 9, 2006

Netflix doesn’t have Flaming Creatures, but I’ll be on the look out for it.

The Bowers decision and the reluctance to overturn it until the 21st century would seem to suggest that progressive gay rights decisions from the Supremes are few and far between. There was Romer v Evans, but how “progressive” is it to say “sorry Colorado, you can’t outlaw anti-discrimination statutes?” I’m guessing Stein’s argument is something like: “Everyone looks to the Warren Court as a golden era of liberalism and decisions like Griswold as the fountainhead of sexual rights, but gays and lesbians got a raw deal.” Is that a big contribution? Does it deserve NEH funding? I don’t know. I’m certainly not shocked that the decision makers at a federal agency in the year 2006 are homophobic, if that is indeed the case with the situation described on this page. Heck, I wasn’t even shocked that the hot shot (and politically outspoken) anthropologist at Yale was denied tenure. We live in a conservative time. Bummer (I think), but that’s life in the big city.

Brian, at 8:34 pm EST on January 9, 2006

HHS has done same on GLBT science research

Speaking as a Fed. the NEH denials ring hollow (i.e. they are probably lying). NIH, CDC, HRSA and other divisions of HHS have engaged in political level rejection of objectively top rated biomedical and public heatlh research. Please note that this is done mostly by political appointees of repblican career employees who have been advanced due to their political leanings. Much more than Bush I and even Reagan, the purely political based-decision making has reached much further down into all parts of the federal bureacracy. As has been noted, there is NO policy-based domestic policy shop in this white house; everything is political. Which means either short term business interest and/or christian right.

Steve, at 11:21 am EST on January 10, 2006

Fallcious?

Wait. So because you’re not “interested” in critical lines of inquiry such as the history of sexuality means that researchers who are shouldn’t receive funding? A good scholar should be able to impartially assess the merit of a proposal, regardless if they disagree or aren’t “interested” with the subject matter themselves.

Let’s bring this discussion back into focus. The question is whether or not the NEH turned down highly rated applications solely because of the subject matter. It’s about the scholarly merit of a proposal, not about what is or isn’t appropriate to fund.

Peter Mattachine, at 6:10 pm EST on January 12, 2006