Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 626.0

524US2

Unit: $U95

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

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

581

Opinion of the Court

any particular weight in reviewing an application.
Indeed,
the agency asserts that it has adequately implemented
§ 954(d)(1) merely by ensuring the representation of various
backgrounds and points of view on the advisory panels that
analyze grant applications. See Declaration of Randolph
McAusland, Deputy Chairman for Programs at the NEA, re-
printed in App. 79 (stating that the NEA implements the
provision “by ensuring that the peer review panels represent
a variety of geographical areas, aesthetic views, professions,
areas of expertise, races and ethnic groups, and gender, and
include a lay person”). We do not decide whether the NEA’s
view—that the formulation of diverse advisory panels is suf-
ﬁcient to comply with Congress’ command—is in fact a rea-
sonable reading of the statute.
It is clear, however, that the
text of § 954(d)(1) imposes no categorical requirement. The
advisory language stands in sharp contrast to congressional
efforts to prohibit the funding of certain classes of speech.
When Congress has in fact intended to afﬁrmatively con-
strain the NEA’s grant-making authority, it has done so in
no uncertain terms. See § 954(d)(2) (“[O]bscenity is without
is not protected speech, and shall not be
artistic merit,
funded”).

Furthermore, like the plain language of § 954(d), the politi-
cal context surrounding the adoption of the “decency and re-
spect” clause is inconsistent with respondents’ assertion that
the provision compels the NEA to deny funding on the basis
of viewpoint discriminatory criteria. The legislation was a
bipartisan proposal introduced as a counterweight to amend-
ments aimed at eliminating the NEA’s funding or substan-
tially constraining its grant-making authority. See, e. g., 136
Cong. Rec. 28626, 28632, 28634 (1990). The Independent
Commission had cautioned Congress against the adoption of
distinct viewpoint-based standards for funding, and the Com-
mission’s report suggests that “additional criteria for selec-
tion, if any, should be incorporated as part of the selection
process (perhaps as part of a deﬁnition of ‘artistic excel-