Art funding critic's claims unfounded

To the Daily:

I found the stance of Michael LaFaive, Mackinac Center for Public Policy director of fiscal policy, on the state funding for art very troubling (Film Fest, ACLU sue state, 03/21/07). Setting aside the controversy surrounding the Ann Arbor Film Festival, LaFaive's main point is that art is "subjective" and thus should not be subsidized by taxpayers. This should be cause for concern.

In his original testimony, LaFaive said that no one should be "forced to subsidize what a tiny arts elite in Lansing defines as art and defines as worthy of tax support." This "arts elite" provides funding to controversial programs such as the Portage School System, the Michigan Youth Arts Festival and the University Musical Society. LaFaive also claims that "the arts are too important to depend on politicians for their sustenance," and that taking the time to write grants keeps artists from "honing their respective crafts."

Not only is LaFaive's view of art as the work of individual craftsmen who simply paint or carve wood incredibly misinformed and shortsighted, it also ignores the fact that we live in a world where money matters. Without funding from the state, hundreds of museums, schools, theaters, festivals, symphonies and local art and cultural agencies would be deprived of funding that would be difficult - if not impossible - to obtain elsewhere. Without adequate funding, there can be no "honing of crafts" of any kind.

If LaFaive were to get his way, I would hope that the inconsequential amount of tax dollars he would save would make up for a state without ballet, opera, art museums, concerts, elementary school plays and children's museums - not to mention the hundreds of jobs that accompany these institutions. Somehow I doubt that it would. I can only hope, for the sake of art and all those who appreciate it in its variety of forms, that people like LaFaive are a minority.

Tyson Luoma

LSA sophomore

Let the law handle it, not the courts

To the Daily:

Whitney Dibo's column in Thursday's Daily (Contraception deception, 03/22/2007) provides a perfect example of how the American public misunderstands its own court system. As sad as the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals's decision may be, its job is to interpret the current laws on the books, not to change them as it sees fit. It is our elected representatives who are assigned the task of amending laws, not the courts. To quote Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in his 1996 dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans, "This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected."

The court's decision to deny health care coverage for prescription contraception is not discriminatory because it simply follows Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The dissenting judge, Kermit Bye, even noted that discrimination is inherent because women are the only gender that can become pregnant. Dibo seems to believe that the court was in error when deciding this case, but maybe it is the law that is in error. Maybe the law needs to change to end the inherent discrimination against women. Until the law changes, the court is doing its job by interpreting what is on the books.

Patrick Zabawa

Engineering sophomore