Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 636.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 569 (1998)

591

Scalia, J., concurring in judgment

The phrase “taking into consideration general standards of
decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the
American public” is what my grammar-school teacher would
have condemned as a dangling modiﬁer: There is no noun
to which the participle is attached (unless one jumps out of
paragraph (1) to press “Chairperson” into service). Even so,
it is clear enough that the phrase is meant to apply to those
who do the judging. The application reviewers must take
into account “general standards of decency” and “respect for
the diverse beliefs and values of the American public” when
evaluating artistic excellence and merit. One can regard
this as either suggesting that decency and respect are ele-
ments of what Congress regards as artistic excellence and
merit, or as suggesting that decency and respect are factors
to be taken into account in addition to artistic excellence
and merit. But either way, it is entirely, 100% clear that
decency and respect are to be taken into account in evaluat-
ing applications.

This is so apparent that I am at a loss to understand what
the Court has in mind (other than the gutting of the statute)
when it speculates that the statute is merely “advisory.”
Ante, at 581. General standards of decency and respect for
Americans’ beliefs and values must (for the statute says that
the Chairperson “shall ensure” this result) be taken into ac-
count, see, e. g., American Heritage Dictionary 402 (3d ed.
1992) (“consider . . . [t]o take into account; bear in mind”), in
evaluating all applications. This does not mean that those
factors must always be dispositive, but it does mean that
they must always be considered. The method of compliance
proposed by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)—
selecting diverse review panels of artists and nonartists that
reﬂect a wide range of geographic and cultural perspec-
tives—is so obviously inadequate that it insults the intelli-
gence. A diverse panel membership increases the odds that,
if and when the panel takes the factors into account, it will
reach an accurate assessment of what they demand. But it