At its Aug. 20 meeting the South Carolina Arts Commission board singled out two LGBTQ groups — the Greenville Gay Men's Chorus and Proud Mary Theater Company — for extra scrutiny despite prior grant approval. Emails obtained by the ACLU show board member Jessica Rourke opposed funding on the basis of the groups' sexual orientation and objections to drag. The board then passed a vague resolution requiring staff to evaluate whether projects "promote any ideology," a change that could politicize funding decisions and disadvantage queer artists.
SC Arts Commission Targets LGBTQ Groups, Adopts Vague 'Ideological' Funding Test
A photo of Ed Madden. Forrest Clonts/Provided
At its Aug. 20 meeting, the South Carolina Arts Commission board took a series of actions that critics say threaten artistic freedom and establish a troubling precedent for grant decisions. The board singled out two LGBTQ organizations for extra scrutiny, adopted a vaguely worded resolution on so-called "ideological" art, and signaled that applicants may face political review going forward.
What Happened
The board required the Greenville Gay Men's Chorus and Proud Mary Theater Company (Spartanburg) to "further explain and actually defend" their artistic merit — despite both groups having previously received grants after satisfying the commission's established criteria. Board chair Russell "Rip" Parks and board member Jessica Rourke raised objections to funding these organizations prior to the June meeting, prompting the additional review.
In emails obtained by the ACLU of South Carolina, Rourke wrote she would vote against funding both groups "based on a personal and governance principle that commission funding should not be directed toward organizations structured around specific sexual orientations, nor should public funds support drag performances."
The Ideology Resolution
The board also passed a resolution — drafted by board counsel Ben Ziegler and adopted unanimously without public discussion — that directs staff to consider whether projects "promote any ideology" and to "disfavor any projects that promote any ideology." Though the resolution claims not to make content-based distinctions, its language cites "community standards of decency," obscenity laws, and K–12 age-appropriateness standards, leaving the door open for political considerations to influence grant decisions.
Why This Matters
Observers note several worrisome implications:
- The board conflated "artistic merit" with "community standards" and "subject matter," suggesting art that reflects LGBTQ lives could be deemed unworthy of public support.
- There are no clear, objective criteria in the resolution for determining what counts as improperly "ideological," creating a risk of uneven and politicized application.
- By singling out LGBTQ organizations for extra justification, the board created a precedent for discriminatory treatment and further politicization of cultural funding.
Photo: Ed Madden
Bottom Line
Supporters argue that LGBTQ-related arts should be evaluated by the same artistic merit standards as all other applicants. Without clear safeguards and objective criteria, the new policy risks allowing personal bias and political views to determine which artists and organizations receive public funds.
Help us improve.
