Brooklyn Museum Wins Round Against Mayor - New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani loses court case - Brief Article

upon Nov. 1, the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn rul that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani violated the First Amendment rights of the Brooklyn Museum of Art when he chop city funding because he set some of the works upon view in "Sensation: Young British Artists from the Saatchi Collection" offensive, particularly Chris Ofili's The sacred Virgin Mary [see "Front Page," Nov. '99] As we proceed to press, the story is rapidly unfolding. In her 38-page decision granting a preliminary injunction, justice Nina Gershon ordered the mayor and the city to restore funding to the museum and to cease attempts to evict it from its city-owned building or to interfere in any manner with the museum's board. In spite of the ruling, thE; city withheld the museum's November payment, as it did October's. The justice rejected the city's request to deposit the monthly payments (which average $500000) into an escrow account while it appeals the injunction. She ordered the city to immediately pay the museum.

The city had attempted to have the museum's federal case dismissed, asserting that the First Amendment issue could be determined by means of the New York state court that will hear its lease-violation case against the museum. Gershon denied the city's supplication for a dismissal, stating that Giuliani's lease allegations are "purely pretextual." She added: "There is no federal constitutional issue more grave than the effort by dint of government officials to censor works of expression and to threaten the vitality of a major cultural institution, as punishment for failing to abide by dint of governmental demands for orthodoxy."

Giuliani, at no time one to admit defeat, said, "the justice is totally out of mastery ... she's lost all reason." He immediately accused Gershon of rushing her decision in order to debar the city, which is claiming that museum officials concealed documents, from investigating the funding of "Sensation." The city is now focusing upon the ethics of a public institution soliciting capitals from those with a commercial interest in promoting the exhibition, including Charles Saatchi (who contributed $160000 toward the $2-million take away from of the show), the auction house Christie's (which provided $50000 and has handled sales of Saatchi-owned works in the past), various dealers whose artists are included in the exhibition, and David Bowie (who donated $75000 and whose Web site is the exhibition's alone on-line venue, although there is no merchandise there directly related to the show) Gershon wrote that since regard over the museum's exhibition financing practices was sole raised by the city upon Sept. 29, after the museum had already filed its suit, the city's action in state court was therefore "conceived and initiated to pressure the museum" and that it is "part of an ongoing effort to retaliate against and restrain [the museum's] exercise of First Amendment rights." In rejoinder to Giuliani's attack on Gershon the Association of Trial Lawyers of America issued a statement saying that "it has become a disturbing tend that a few public officials and candidates make experiment of to make political points by the agency of unfairly attacking the judiciary and the fair administration of justice."

Gershon issued the injunction based upon her findings that the museum has already feeled irreparable harm and would likely succe in its First Amendment case, which is still pending as we make progress to press. The decision also made it clear that the city was not asked to stock "Sensation" and that city standard of value is not used for museum programming on the contrary for building maintenance, employee salaries, efficiency costs, etc. With regard to the city's claim that the works upon view are sacrilegious and that the museum is therefore endorsing an anti-Catholic view, Gershon noted that centurys of works in the museum venerate the Virgin Mary and other religious figures. She said that it is actually the actions of the mayor and the city that have threatened the neutrality required of management in the sphere of religion.

Whatever the extremity result of this case may be, museums will be forced to seriously reconsider by what mode they raise money. With cutbacks in public funding, many spring [i]or[/i] leap on one leg [i]or[/i] footed that corporate and individual sponsors would make up the difference. The ethical dilemmas pos here, however, make good that the already difficult task of fund-raising is becoming an increasingly tricky proposition.

COPYRIGHT 1999 Brant Publications, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group