While applying for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts earlier this year, Marta Martinez, executive director of the nonprofit Rhode Island Latino Arts, noticed that she was required to check a box that said that the organization would not “promote gender ideology.” She contacted the ACLU, who took on the case, and earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that the NEA could not disfavor groups based on whether or not they promoted “gender ideology.”
Morning host Luis Hernandez talked with Marta Martinez and Lynette Labinger, one of the attorneys who represented RILA and 3 other arts organizations.
Interview highlights:
What was the case that RILA and the ACLU argued in court?
Lynette Labinger: The purpose of these grants is to promote artistic expression, not to hire people to be a mouthpiece for the government. The statute is very clear and the legislative history underlying it is very clear, that Congress in passing this law did not want the government to control what artists say. The only criteria were artistic excellence and talent and artistic merit; not to tell artists what productions to put on or how to do their artwork. And this particular requirement says that you shall not promote gender ideology, which is in and of itself a somewhat obscure term as to what is and what it’s not. But from our perspective, and the court agreed, it is taking one side of an issue, which is called a viewpoint and saying, “We will favor one viewpoint, but we will disfavor another viewpoint.” And that is fundamental First Amendment activity. And it was something that is contrary to the purpose of this grant process and also contrary to the First Amendment.
Why go to the courts to challenge this policy?
Labinger: We are a firm believer in seeking relief from the courts for government overreach, either at the local level or at the national level. As you see in the last several months, there’s been a lot of actions to try to challenge what we consider government overreach and excessive power, particularly where you see that the legislature is not standing up passing new laws that basically clarify or confirm what they’ve already dictated. This is a classic case where the statute was very clear as to the purpose of these grants. And that was very helpful to us in our arguments that the government was acting contrary to the statutes. And that’s where the courts come in.
As the Trump administration has threatened to target groups and cut funding to the arts, what has that done to artists and organizations?
Marta Martinez: That’s what’s so beautiful about working in the arts and the arts community, is that they don’t sit back. They’re ready to create. The storytellers are expressing themselves even much stronger. The art that I’ve seen is really powerful — the messages that they put in — and it’s those people that I was thinking of. I didn’t want to ever tell them they couldn’t do that. To express themselves through their art form and feel freely and to feel that the courts and the Constitution is behind them now. It’s legal. It’s legal, and it feels so good to say that it’s a law. That they can’t discriminate against us if we choose to express ourselves the way we are and talk about who we are.
Labinger: These are difficult times. It’s very challenging for nonprofits throughout the country that are trying to do good work. It’s something that we all have to continue to be vigilant about and stand up to government overreach.
Martinez: I really want to encourage everyone, not just the art community to speak up, to do what’s right. If it doesn’t feel right, then it’s not right.
