(00:00:00) Thomas Paine the great pamphleteer the author of Common Sense the great Patriot wrote In 1787 as he was trying to convince his fellow citizens to adopt a constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights. He that would make his own liberty must guard even his enemy from oppression for if he violates this Duty he establishes a precedent which will reach himself and I think what's significant about Thomas Paine's comment is not that it is high blown philosophy, but rather that it is so intensely practical I will protect your Liberty because I need you to protect mine. And I think it's indicative of the nature of our democratic system that it is always in a state of plasticity that it is never fixed that it is never certain and that it is never secure and because that is true it falls upon each generation to re enfranchise the basic Liberties which we all enjoy. The Bedrock of those Liberties in is in my view the First Amendment and one of the very nice things about having a freedom Forum First Amendment calendar is that every day of the year. It reprints the First Amendment on every page of that calendar and in case you haven't read it today, it says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment tells us that religion and ideas and associations and the manifestation of those in the Press belong to the people not to the government. But the rub then comes when the government under the general welfare article of the Constitution decides that it is going to support the Arts. There's nothing in the Constitution that it says that it must do so. But when it does then the government must support the Arts in accordance with the first amendment that is to say a Level Playing Field without ideological preconceptions and certainly without blacklists. So then comes the artist who may espouse ideas that some find to be radical or dangerous or Blasphemous or crude. And in that situation we find the kind of free-for-all that the National Endowment for the Arts has been involved in in the last four years and just to give you some sense of what kind of a trigger this free-for-all has had on. The American public Congress has received more mail on the National Endowment for the Arts issue than it has on the Savings and Loan crisis. And just to put that into perspective in terms of your pocketbook the Savings and Loan crisis will cost each one of you a minimum of two thousand dollars the National Endowment for the Arts costs you each 68 cents for everything that we did. Do I still kind of think I'm there I guess. The argument that I have frequently heard is that artists can do whatever they want. But not with my tax dollars. Actually, it's not with my hard-earned tax dollars. It's a single word as that great slogan are the congressman from Southern California Dana rohrabacher put it they can do what they want to on their time with their dime. But I think the response to that is that the government does many things with which we may not personally agree in the labor policy for the military policy or the agriculture policy or any other policy in which the government engages itself. But we as Citizens don't have a line item veto and that's true. As far as the Arts go and everything else that the government does. So what about that art that's ofensive Can a citizen be compelled to pay for it. My answer is unequivocally. Yes with but one qualifier and that is the one that I already mentioned. The government doesn't have to be in the Arts business at all. And yet every government that deems itself civilized has chosen to support the arts for the purpose that and for the reason that the Arts help us understand ourselves help us express what it is most fundamentally to be human beings and help us to decipher for our generation and hopefully for generations to come. That kernel of truth that allows us to live together in what we call a civilized society. The word that I heard during the time that I was chairman of the endowment probably more than any other was outraged it was a word that was used so handily and and so thoughtless lie that the word actually became bleached of any meaning. I'm outraged that the twins booted a two-run lead. I'm outraged that the the salt shaker is only half full I even had one person tell me that he was outraged that I should quote from Thomas Jefferson the quote that I used incidentally was the one that surrounds the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC which says I have sworn upon the altar of God Eternal hostility toward all forms of tyranny over the mind of (00:06:11) man. (00:06:13) So this word outrage like many of the other words that we have used so carelessly in our society words, like family values or words like obscenity or decency have allowed us. To skip right from the thing whatever it is the art to outrage skipping the quite necessary step of rational thinking outrage has been substituted for rational thinking in our society and in so doing we have begun to erode the very basis upon which our society exists and that is a common understanding of either articulated or understood beliefs that are the kind of glue that holds Society together. We've developed a sort of social Kabuki that allows us to dance around those issues and never really meet them head-on. It's all a little reminiscent of the statement of Mahatma Gandhi when he was asked what he thought of Western civilization and his reply was that he thought it would be a very good idea indeed. And I regret to tell you that the National Endowment for the Arts in its current manifestation has really Fallen victim to this kind of social Kabuki the statement of an Radicchio. The acting chair was that she would not hesitate to veto any application which was sex at sexually explicit or other projects that dealt with difficult subject matter because she said if we find a proposal that does not have the widest audience. We just can't afford to fund that. And I simply couldn't disagree more vehement Lee it Harkens back to the suggestion that somehow art should only be uplifting that it should make us morally better and indeed that is a long tradition in American thinking which has been discredited in generation after generation. And apparently it's one with which we must again deal. And that prejudice it seems to me is underlined by at least four different kinds of thinking. The first is a feeling that art doesn't have utility. It doesn't have economic value and therefore it should only exist at the tolerance of society to counter that I would simply repeat to you the old Russian proverb that says we must Help The Talented the untalented will make it on their own. The second Prejudice that underlies this whole attack against the Arts in my view is feeling that government shouldn't support art in the first place Reverend wildmon of the American Family Association thinks that he has made a telling argument when he says after all we don't have a National Endowment for truck drivers or a National Endowment for scuba divers. He conveniently of course ignores the Department of Labor and it's 22 billion dollar budget or the Department of Agriculture or any number of departments which deal with specific entities of activity in our government. But I think the point is that we don't have a National Endowment for the Arts specifically for the artists any more than we have a National Institute of Health or a national health policy specifically for the doctor. We have those because the government and the people have made a determination that those things namely good health in our society and good health in our intellectual and cultural and aesthetic. Like (00:10:05) life (00:10:07) are elements of our society which an enlightened government ought to provide or at least help provide for its citizens. Thirdly, there's a feeling that people should not have to stretch for art. If it's tough or it's difficult then we just don't want to have to make that intellectual stretching and we don't want to have to use our minds. We don't have to come home from a play or a movie and and be really concerned about it or worried about it or thinking about it. And of course historically that view is is one that has been reflected from time to time in the art World Rossini. The famous operatic composer said you certainly can't judge vogner's Lohengrin upon just one hearing and I for one never intend to hear it again. and finally Finally, we have an absolute horror at being forced to confront our problems and in this kind of an indictment, I include all of us as well as many of our leaders. So enter the artist whose Duty or predilection it is to stir things up. No one appoints or lexan artist, but in arrogance or in humility the artist speaks the truth as he or she sees it. Willa Cather said the stupid think to be truthful as easy. Only the artist the truly great artist knows how difficult it (00:11:46) is. (00:11:48) And so in every great great age of art there has followed an age of repression. The age of Michelangelo was followed by the Council of Trent and by Savannah Rolla and the first great bonfire of the vanities and in the United States when the book Ulysses was to be imported and Random House told the Customs officers that they intended to import it from France where it had been published. The books were seized on the dock and the case came before the famous judge John Woolsey in 1933. And I quote from his opinion because in my view it's one of the great pieces of jurisprudence in this area and perhaps in all of American jurisprudence. He said The Words which are criticized as dirty are old Saxon known to almost all men and I venture to many women and would be naturally in habitually used I Believe by the types of folks whose life physical and mental Joyce is seeking to describe in respect to the recurrent emergence of the theme of sex in the minds of his characters. It must always be remembered that his Locale was Celtic and his season spring. Judge Woolsey went on to find the book. Not only not obscene but a literary tour-de-force and of course he was right. And there were a new number of other incidents over the years of repression or censorship having to do with the WPA the Hollywood ten an art show that was supposed to go to the Melbourne Olympics in 1956. But which didn't get further than Dallas Texas where the locals they're determined that for of the artists represented were fellow (00:13:45) Travelers, (00:13:48) but bringing this closer to home. I'd like to talk about at least a couple of images which were widely believed to be a Blasphemous during the time that I was at the endowment one the work of David want to rohit's and this was a small piece from a very large collage about a 5-foot collage and Reverend wildmon cut out a small piece of it took it out of context and mailed it to every member of Congress. This was a picture of Christ with a crown of thorns and a syringe in his arm. The arms were down and actually out of the image. Reverend wildmon determined in his wisdom that this was a Blasphemous piece and the real tragedy of that is that no one that I know of from the mainline religions in this country said wait a minute whatever happened. To Christ taking on The Sins Of The World Isn't that an image which is part of traditional Christian theology. Another instance the work of Andres Serrano and titled pissed Christ again found by wild men. Although he didn't ever see it to my knowledge and declared to be Blasphemous. And again, no response. No response that the cross interest in traditional Christian theology has been a symbol of man's inhumanity to the Son of God and how might one Express that in the Contemporary idiom other than perhaps by putting it in human waste. I'm not saying in either instance that this is what the artist intended what I am saying is that the tragedy of all of this is that the art never had the opportunity to do What its function is in our society and that is to make us think to start the debate to allow the discourse back and forth and part of the reason is this race to outrage that we as citizens have allowed to substitute for rational thinking in our society. The first amendment is in existence precisely to protect minority and unpopular ideas. And when we are looking for a fence or when we are looking for decency. We are considering the reaction of the hearer or the Seer rather than the protection of the speaker. Offense is as necessary as it is inevitable necessary because without it we really don't have an index of whether or not the first amendment is working and to worry about the hearer and not the speaker. Is to doubt our ability to solve our problems by vigorous intellectual debate and it is somehow a limitation that is born out of fear and out of a lack of trust in our own steadfastness as human (00:17:08) beings. (00:17:10) One final point about offense those who have found it. So readily have not been confronted with it unexpectedly. They have gone out searching for that offense. Let me give you just one example. And again it has to do with Donald wildmon. Although the Patrick Buchanan's and the pat Robertson's of this world are certainly in the same category. Donald wildmon had the publication called a portable Lower East Side before I saw it at the National Endowment. This is an obscure Lower Manhattan publication that usually doesn't public publish more than 5,000 copies. And in this case. Published a long and epic poem that dealt with the subject of that. You probably read about in the papers of the rape and brutal beating and almost murder of a female jogger in Central Park. By a group of 13 year old boys and the poet was attempting to put herself in the position of one of those young boys and true try to articulate how it was that this kind of act happened in a society that we all would like to think (00:18:27) civilized. (00:18:30) Donald wildmon took six lines out of context from that poem six lines that really described an act of pedophilia on a young boy by a priest sent them to every member of Congress and I am told that it was that act in my defense of this poem and its literary merit to was the final straw that caused my firing. It was a serious poem and one which ought to have been taken seriously about a serious incident in a society that has beset with violence. And it seems to me that that poem should have been given the opportunity to do what it was designed to do and that is to make us think about this issue. And if there was anything that was obscene that certainly was the pedophilia not the description of it. So what is going on in this Earthly Garden of American free discourse seems to me that there are three tensions which I would touch upon briefly that constrict our ability to deal with the First Amendment. The first is the whole idea that somehow we can have a free and open Society without vigorous intellectual discourse anti-intellectualism if you want to use that (00:19:56) term (00:19:59) There was a party that Abraham Lincoln had to deal with in the mid-nineteenth century called The know-nothings Who were against Negroes and foreigners and Catholics. And Abraham Lincoln said that if that party ever were to gain a significant foothold in the United States, he would prefer to immigrate to some country where they made no pretense of loving Liberty where despotism could be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy. The second tension is between the anti-establishment Clause of the first amendment that we should have no State religion and also the free exercise clause and a certain sense that we somehow are chosen in America chosen by God as God's country and you see it in our coinage. You see it in the Pledge of Allegiance. You see it in presidential candidates who have absolutely no hesitancy to call upon God to bless this country and the people with whom they are talking. And of course, there are calls now increasingly for laws against blasphemy. Of course, we've not had laws against blasphemy precisely because both the free exercise and the anti-establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibit them. Third tension third tension is attention of isolation and it is attention against that right of assembly that the first amendment gives us. Groups like this believe me are unusual around the United States very seldom. Do we get together in a community particularly a community that crosses neighborhoods and economic boundaries and religious and social boundaries and allows us simply to talk to each other to discuss with each other these elements these Clauses in the social contract and to try to redefine them. I went to the University of Chicago to sit at the feet of Paul tillich in the mid-60s because Paul tillich at that time was redefining religion particularly in relation to foreign foreign to him other religions Eastern religion and and and he was talking about the necessity that they thought that theology really is the exercise. Of each generation redefining for itself in the Contemporary idiom those Universal truths that have been passed from generation to generation. And that's really what we must do with our own social contract. We must duke it out intellectually and have these kinds of arguments and debates so that ultimately we come to some kind of minimal consensus among the hundred and seventy ethnic groups that we are so proud and privileged to call us our citizens in this (00:23:06) country. (00:23:10) Earlier this year. I was in Anchorage Alaska on one of these junkets that George mentioned and what was there was really quite an extraordinary art show. It was an art show completely composed of works that had been censored at one time or another somewhere in the United States and seeing them all together was an extraordinary experience which led to some Reflections on the nature of censorship. The first being that the work was so incredibly diverse. That even the sensors would not have agreed on what should have been included in that show which leads one to believe that censorship is Whimsical its arbitrary. It is so much defined by what the sensor brings to the particular work. Secondly the sensor above all is impatient. Since the work of any intellectual outpouring that doesn't have intellectual significance has a very short life indeed. It is only by the Zeal of the sensor that it is given additional life and sometimes catapulted into undeserved Fame. third the most shameful chapters in The History of the United States our history our chapters of suppression suppression of Native Americans of African Americans of American Japanese during World War 2. They are all instances in which Zeal has overtaken good sense. And in which decency has been forsaken often in the name of decency? The sensor favors order over freedom freedom is imprecise and it's inefficient. It's ambiguous. And sometimes it is maddening to the sensor order is of a higher magnitude than his freedom and I would say parenthetically that one of the great dangers in the former Soviet Union is that the desire for order will overcome the desire for freedom. Next a sensor once a sensor starts. There is no logical stopping point. And finally what censorship is all about is power. Power and control and it only works when the good and really decent people of a society. Are so inactive or somnolent? Or inattentive or timid that they let it happen. And I felt during the time that I was at the National Endowment for the Arts that in some ways. We were fighting this battle alone. Where were the libraries where were the Chambers of Commerce? Where were the people of Goodwill and labor unions and in in every other Endeavor within our society because one group doesn't get picked off by the sensors without a tremendous deficit for the rest of the society. And now indulge me for just a couple of more comments about censorship and then as Henry the 8th said to his many wives I shan't keep you long the artist is compelled to search for truth to really sail off with an Uncharted course and to bring back whatever cargo she or he finds and then the artist brings that cargo cargo to her Studio or place of work and sort of sets it up on the lab table and says, let's look at this. Let's let's determine what it is we have here. Let's investigate this. (00:27:15) Sensors don't (00:27:16) see artists as (00:27:17) explorers (00:27:19) sensors see artists as advocates of everything that that artist touches. That's the sensors problem, but it ought not to be our problem moreover the suggestion that because the artist deals with grittier Grizzly or difficult subject matter that we or our children will be somehow polluted or sullied by it. Simply does not withstand logical investigation. If that were true, those who have read the Agatha Agatha Christie novels would have pantries full of dead Butlers. And those of you who have seen the interminable Terminator movies would be out creating Mayhem and so forth. It seems to me that if we are going to ban something we ought to ban the sale of handguns to our children that would promote a few family values that I care about such as keeping our children alive. And finally I resent as I suspect you do the suggestion of the sensor that only part of our society is wise enough to make decisions as to what we will see and what we will not see Certainly, if anyone should have become a raving lunatic Sex Fiend and degenerate. It would be Donald wildmon because he wallows in this stuff 24 hours a day. Let's give ourselves some credit the First Amendment does it expects us to use our minds to use our intellect use our education to make our decisions based upon rational thought and clear distillation of the facts as best presented to us. Our common goal. I believe should be to reinvigorate the First Amendment its protection of and from religion the sanctity of ideas and the individual and the Press are right to come together and meet with each other and discuss with each other and decide for ourselves what we value and in that context the National Endowment for the Arts about which I care so passionately can be easily saved. If we simply reiterate and continue to reiterate that, we as a nation desire to be a leader in the realm of ideas and of the spirit. The motto of the old old Chicago Times was it's a newspapers duty to print the news and to raise hell and sometimes it's the artist duty to tell the truth and to raise hell, too. We need it now more than ever. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. John frohnmayer as is our custom Gloria mcclenahan over here and Ken darling over here of the Minnesota meeting will move among you to manage the question and answer session. (00:30:57) We'll take our first question now from John Herman. I have a four-part rational (00:31:04) question for you. (00:31:07) Isn't the only three artists to starving artist know and doesn't. A artist always serve his patron of art with the serves a patron always dance to the tune of the patron (00:31:22) not necessarily. Well, usually they do (00:31:25) and doesn't Congress have the right to actually the duty to control all the funds that they establish that the appropriate. (00:31:36) Let me hear the fourth part and then I'll answer the fourth. The (00:31:38) fourth part is aren't we when we put aside as the Arts by funding it by taxpayers money, aren't we asking for criticism and wouldn't we really be better off with a disestablishment cause that the government completely stays out of art I can supposed to stay out of religion. (00:31:56) Let me like, I think I can amalgamate my answer to all 4 parts of your question. The reason why I think it's critical that the government be involved in the Arts is that the government has the opportunity by a very little money and the national endowments budget is doesn't even show on the macro budget. United States at such an infinitesimally part at a hundred and Seventy-Six million dollars, but what it does that is so very American is to provide leverage and every dollar that comes out from the National Endowment for the Arts has matched here in Minnesota and every place else around the country at about a 10 to 1 rate which is an economic stimulus as well as a cultural stimulus. It seems to me that the government a government in this last decade of the 20th century that's going to really serve its people has to look after their souls their their their health in terms of their their mentality and their culture as well as simply our defense and the fact that we get fed and housed in various other things. I would I would think it to be a weak government indeed that didn't want to see a flowering of culture within its But I don't believe with your premise, but I don't agree with your premise that artists necessarily have to be starving in order to be free the Arts provide the farm club really for the most significant positive balance of trade item that we have in the United States. And that's the collective group of copyrightable items that we export movies television books software and for the last 28 years the endowment has been that kind of a farm club for that industry. So it is it is rationalisable both as a policy question and as a very fundamental economic question (00:33:55) I (00:33:55) think I missed a part but I'll get you afterwards. Mr. Frohnmayer over here. Thanks. This is working now for our radio audience. You're listening to John frohnmayer. The former chairman of the National Endowment of the Arts on the station's of Minnesota Public Radio. We have a question way over here from John Stout. (00:34:16) Seems like we're struggling with diversity in the country right now on a number of fronts choices opinions Lifestyles Etc. And I'm wondering how you see this playing out. It's a political time right now, obviously whether you have some comments about the current politics and how certain choices available to us might impact the future of the endowment. But in a more General sense some of these issues of expression and diversity that you've been talking about. I have (00:34:54) always believed that diversity is one of the great strengths of the United States. It's a strength because we have been willing to welcome people of all beliefs people of all Origins to the United States and to make a place for them. And as a republican that was what I found to be so distasteful and terribly disappointing about the Republican convention in the Republican platform. And that's the reason why I've chosen to disassociate myself from it and I say that because I think that the Republican party has been taken over by the fundamentalist, right which is if anything an exclusionary kind of mentality that says that we know the truth we have the truth and if you don't believe exactly as we do you are somehow outside the fold both politically and spiritually just one other comment the narrowness the the mean S of spirit typically a company's economic depression and you can see that in the history of the world and I would hope that we would see that and recognize it and and fight against it even though Economic Times are bad because pushing people off the ship in hard Economic Times is in my view again, just the opposite of what is needed in order to make us economically strong (00:36:20) again. Thank you. Mr. Frohmeyer, we have a question now from George politis who's the director of theater at the College of st. Catherine's? I wonder if (00:36:31) many of my colleagues and I'm sure many people you run into will tell you that the artists need to defend themselves artists in general need to defend themselves from the new right Etc. And I wonder in your opinion. Do you think the only way to protect the Arts into in America is to (00:36:53) fight force with force? Is there no other way (00:36:57) do we have to go the (00:36:58) same route for example with pressure groups and paid lobbyists and (00:37:04) so on is that the only way to fight the new right? Well, the neuritis extraordinary well organized and and control a very sophisticated Electronic media Network one example being the 700 Club another example being Donald Wildman's tremendous mailing list for the mare the American Family Association, and there is no counterpart to that in in the world of culture. But the re the way the National Endowment was reauthorized in 1990 finally was by a broad-based coalition which included the American Bar Association the American Conference of Mayors the AFL-CIO and many other groups who saw finally it to be in their interest to maintain a unencumbered and vigorous Arts world in the United States. Unfortunately that Coalition melted away almost as quickly as it came together after the immediate crisis. Was passed and to me the real challenge responding to your question is to keep that Coalition together to keep people of intellect and interest and responsibility in the community interested enough in this subject that Congress and the administration will not fall prey to the kind of cultural terrorism that has we've seen over the last three years. Let me just make one other sort of related comment on that because it seems to me that we need to have a sea change in our whole political attitude and that is from a politics of blame to a politics of responsibility to a reaffirmation that whatever happens politically is ultimately our fault or our Victory and if we have that kind of re involvement in in politics from the school board level to the National level. Then I believe that the kind of problems that we have seen in the Arts will will be greatly diminished. Thank you. Mr. Frohnmayer. We have a question now from John kolache who's the curator of Performing Arts at the Walker Art Center? Hello, John. Hi, John, two and a half years ago. We were rather heated discussions about for grants for solo performance artists that eventually were turned down under your leadership and then a year later with as much intense pressure. I sat in a similar room and heated discussions and you reaffirmed and funded those artists two of them. Anyway who had applied why the change and how did that happen? What a good soft pitch for my Book Read All About It John and the well, as you know, John first, why did you turn him down would be my question and I'm glad you stuck up for them the year later. Thank you. Let me just give a very short answer because that matter is still in litigation as you probably know. I think that that it is important to recognize procedure and that really was what I was fighting to establish at the endowment Fair procedures that give a cognizable record which has within it statements about artistic quality that in turn would then give me when I was chairman the ammunition to really defend those grants when they were challenged as everyone knew that they would be regardless of which way the procedure went and I believe that the artistic record the second time around was far better than the artistic record that is the record of the panels and those who deliberated for bed at the second time. That was the first time that's part of the (00:40:58) answer. Thank you. Mr. Frohnmayer. We have a question now from Louis West. Thank you. As I watched with dismay the unfolding following all those events leading to your resignation. I thought neither side really covered themselves with Glory because I saw some parallels in the way that that you were attacked. And then in the response you say the sensors are searching for a fence, but may it not also be said that in this case the artist was seeking to offend thus to make us think and you say that the sensor suggests that only part of our society is wise enough to decide and yet it it sounded to me out in the hustings that there was an artistic Elite saying the same thing only part of us are wise enough to decide and there was a failure to communicate and to educate and thus to help people have the opportunity to respond in the way that you would like which is to think if you had it to do over again, would you approach the Different way (00:42:06) I think that you hit upon an issue, which is really important to the Arts. And that is that when an artist is doing difficult work or when a presenter is presenting difficult work seems to me particularly of public funds are involved. There is some duty to set the stage not to not to explain but rather to give the context from which the artwork evolves whether it's an individual artist or a dance company or anything else and that can be done in any number of ways. It can be done by lectures. It can be done by by news stories that can be done by by literature that's passed out before the performance or whatever. But in that context, then the audience has some some preparation to approach the artwork. I think that's one thing that the artists can do to help get the dialogue going and of course that dialogue can and should continue on after the the performance is over and gone from the other side of the table from from the other side of those who are looking for outrage. What I would hope we would be able to do is really not knock off the edges on either side because it seems to me that intolerance is not a an activity simply of the of the hard right? I believe it is also an activity of the hard left. And so what my goal would be would be to expand the middle to expand those edges and get a greater greater zone of tolerance in the Middle where those ideas can be generated back and forth. And then finally I would say that I don't think it's a bad thing to have committed people on both sides of the political Spectrum. I think that that sort of defines where the boundaries are and helps us all to find where we are somewhere in the middle. And so the beginning of your question was doesn't an artist sometimes set out to offend. Absolutely. I'd some artists feel that that is the best way to convey whatever ideas they might want and you find it even in some pretty mainstream artists the gouging out of the eyes of the Duke of Gloucester and King Lear as an example. It's offense or outrage is within the realm of acceptable responses that that one creating an artistic thing might expect but not the kind of mindless outrage that I was talking about earlier, you know an outrage that's really born of having actually experienced it (00:44:53) Thank you mister frohnmayer. (00:44:54) We have a question now from Mitch pearlstein who heads a conservative think tank here in the Twin Cities. Mr. Omar, you you state your case really quite well, but when you say that the business community and other institutions were not with you. I would argue that the reason they were not outside of the fact that they were busy with other things is that they met the distinction. They made the distinction as most people do between censorship and sponsorship. They have no patience whatsoever for the most part with censorship blade simply don't believe that the government should be sponsoring work such as piss Christ and one can continue I would argue that it would not simply be a matter of some crazies on the right but the rank and file of this country and the rank and file of the leadership of this country who would argue that if piss Christ continue if stars of David would be dumped into jars of urine if other religious symbols would be treated that way they would have no patience whatsoever for continuing to have the Nea fun such Work and it would not be in a spirit of censorship because they would argue I would argue that that work can continue if artist so decide but it is not the right. It is not the responsibility of the government to fund it. How would you respond I would respond to you that the distinction between the sponsorship and censorship is a distinction without a difference. It is absolutely the same thing. And the reason is that no work of art that has been funded with public funds is sponsored by the United States government. The analogy. There is the government provides the soapbox and the artist provides the ideas and how arrogant to assume that the government owns the ideas of any of its citizens just because some of its money is involved there in and as to the second part of your question would would the citizenry standby For a star of David in urine or a picture of Martin Luther King or any of those other symbols. My view is that the outrage would be the same but that ultimately the societal benefit. Is something which the First Amendment framers saw as being extraordinarily valuable to the society and let me let me try to put it in the context not just of the right part of the spectrum but of the left part of the spectrum because this gets into the whole notion of political correctness and of Campus speech codes and that sort of thing that you can't say the word chi core Niger or fag and my my take on that is that while those words are disgusting. They must be uttered by those who would so order them in order for the First Amendment to work because what Society does is to knock off those rough edges precisely by the approbation of one's peers, when those kinds of words are uttered and to say that you can't say them in the first place is to absolutely Denude the value of the First (00:48:10) Amendment a quick follow-up. (00:48:12) I would certainly agree with the second part of your answer but I would argue that sponsorship as I use it does not suggest ownership but if paying for something subsidizing something does not mean sponsorship in some fashion, then I don't know what those words mean. Well you reduce that you reduce that to the Absurd by the argument that was made by the bush justice department under the rust versus Sullivan abortion counseling case and Leslie Southwick. Who is the second in command in the Justice Department Civil Division made the argument that the government because it is he said his sponsor could go so far as telling the public library to which government funds went what kind of books would put on the Shelf now you tell me whether that's consistent with the First Amendment. (00:48:59) Mr. Van Mayer. Thank you very much. We have time now for one last question from Dan Sullivan. I wondered when you took the job coming from Portland where you're ready for all this a and and be looking back. Do you think you spoke out strongly enough at the time? (00:49:19) The answer to the first part of your question is no I don't think anybody who has not been through the grinder of Washington DC recognizes quite what it's like until you have that existential experience as to the second part of your question. I think we can all look back on what we have done in the past and think of a lot of ways that we could have done it better. I know that when I was a trial lawyer, I always remembered the best arguments that I was going to make on my way home from the office. And I think probably all of us would would like to have a second shot at some of the things that we have done in our lives, but one what one hopes or at least what I hope is that I learned something for from it. That will be helpful to me as my life progresses. Thank you very much.