p0n 4 Page 6 Wednesday, July 21, 1982 The Michigan Daily f The Michigan Daily Vol. XCII, No. 44-S Ninety-two Years of Editorial Freedom Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Open the fair T HE ANNUAL ART fair begins today and, as usual, throngs of people are expected to converge on the State, South University, and Main Street exhibits. But this year, the art fair has been tainted by a controversy, involving alleged racial discrimination, that need never have happened. The controversy involves artist Jon Lockard's rejection from participation in the art fair, and his subsequent charge that his disqualification was based on his race rather than on the quality of his paintings. It is up to the courts to decide whether Lockard was discriminated against, but quite clearly he was denied the due process all artists deserve from the art fair organizations. After appearing in the art fair for 22 years, Lockard was cut-without explanation or chance for ap- peal. Clearly, the criteria for both the selection of judges and the works exhibited should be made public. Because the art fair organizations use both city streets and services, they should be accountable to the public. But it took a City Council resolution to force the organizations to release exhibit selection criteria. For four days every year Ann Arbor virtually becomes one big art fair. The organizations that sponsor the fest have a duty to both the city and its artists to see that the art fair is not only enjoyable, but open and just. r 10 BEHM'PV 1 AUL W 4 ' Wu Su31-s up eo*46 Wasserman I LO IM ~It5 RIGT- A DEMOCRAT A SOCAL L\RAL WIT GEE... YOU DON T 4 RUNN\N& FOR A CEO- 0Wo UK i\& TEC)NO C(Y TAE HEART OFA ASCAL LOOK L\KE .CS RSAA LIBERAL? A.. TAX R FOR CONSERvATIVE JIMMy CARTER LETTERS TO THE DAILY: ectc 4 i To the Daily: Street Art Fair Coordinator Richard Brunvand has repeatedly implied in his com- munications with the press and the Ann Arbor City Council that Jon Lockard is out of order for not acquiescing to the decision of the Ann Arbor Street Fair Selec- tion Committee that his work is "unacceptable". In a July 12, 1982 communication addressed to Mayor Belcher and Ann Arbor City Council Members in reference to Resolution' C-6, Brunvand states, "The artist was one of 37 who did not pass the on- street jury during last year's fair. He was one of 800 who was not ac- cepted by the slide jury this past spring ... This is the first time that one of our applicants has tried to makea public issue out of the acceptance or rejection by our acceptance committee into the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair." What Mr. Richard Brunvand is saying is that to be in the majority is right and that to be in the minority is wrong. I find it very insulting that Mr. Brunvand believes that the Ann Arbor public would find this a credible argument. He must think very poorly of a constituency he thinks he can insult on one hand while at the same time requesting public support in his bid for the office of County Commissioner, District No.2. I must also take issue with his above mentioned statement that "this is the first time that one of our applicants has tried to make a public issue out of the accep- tance or rejection by our accep- tance committee." In the entire matter involving his rejection from the 1982 Ann Arbor Street Art Fair, the only thing Mr. Lockard has asked of the selec- tion committee is an explanation of why his work has been found unacceptable. Those who are at- tempting to make a public issue of selection criteria and procedures arequite simply, the public to whom the Street Art Fair Selection Committee is ac- countable. (Perhaps Mr. Brun- vand also reasons that because the public has not demanded or been given an explanation until now that there is no reason why is should be done this year or in the future.) When an. artist enters a juried show he realizes that his work might not be accepted. However, just because a show is juried does not mean that criteria used in selection are a private matter. And if the show is funded by public monies as in the case of the Ann Arbor Street Fair, then selection criteria are a public matter and the artist and his sup- porters deserve an explanation. If Mr. Brunvand is publicly "appalled that people are saying that there is discrimination", and that "There was no discrimination in Mr. Lockard's case" (Daily, June 16) then it would seem that he would be very eager to clear the air by publicizing selection criteria and procedures and by releasing jurors names and qualifications. However, if perhaps there are no established guidelines and the jurying process has indeed been an act of arbitrary discrimination, then his reluc- tance and defensiveness are un- derstandable. Mr. Brunvand and the Ann Ar- bor Street Fair Committee owe Mr. Lockard, as well as other ar- tists a public . apology, not because they have been juried out of the show, but because they have disrespectfully been refused an explanation. Mr. Brunvand and the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair Committee owe the Ann Ar- bor public an apology for being remiss in their obligation of ac- countability to the public. -Sarah Olson July 15, 1982 4 4 Tempered criticism 4 To the Daily: It is unfortunate that an article such as "Reaction to ISMRRD cut" (Daily, July 15) couldn't have been more balanced from my perspective. I have no doubt that space limitations, and the "news" value of representing testimony as one sided are. realities of daily print media. However, fairness dictates a response and a request for equal time for my other views on the. Institute for the Study of Mental' Retardation and Related Disor- ders (ISMRRD) as well. What wasn't printed were the successes ISMRRD has enjoyed, and those quality individuals, both talented and committed, who have ben a part of these programs. I should be remiss for not singling out their Early In- tervention Project and the Dental Screening Programs as exam- ples of successful meaningful ef-, forts. Further, Dr. Henry Kanar, Eleanor Lynch, Gene Handley and Larry Turtin are among a number of competent individuals who have served ISMRRD and the retarded exceedingly well. As was reported, I could not support continuing ISMRRD as presently constituted. A gover- ning board, with representation from non University professionals and consumer groups would be most useful in redirecting their activities and garnering support for their existence. I should hope this letter will temper my criticism and allow it, in some measure, to be construc- tive. -Dohn Hoyle Executive Director Washtenaw Association for Retarded Persons July 19, 1982 I 4