South Carolina Art Grants Before the November 3 Election

By Tom Whitfield

Hyperallergic reports that the South Carolina Arts Commission (SCAC) has distributed more than $132 million in grants since Governor Robert E. McNair established it in 1967. The agency has nine governor-appointed volunteers, and its grants have gone to artists, schools and cultural organizations across the state.

Election Day arrives in South Carolina on November 3, and some residents are considering how their vote could affect the commission. Hyperallergic identifies no candidates, appointment terms or promised revisions to grant policy. The report therefore supports only a narrow point: the vote may matter to an appointed body, but it does not show what a particular result would change.

In August, SCAC established guidelines prohibiting the funding of work that promotes “any ideology.” After an August 20 board meeting, the commission announced that grantees cannot direct funds to “promote any ideology.”

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), in a statement published on October 28, said the rule lacked clear definitions of “ideology” and “promotion.” The coalition then set out the breadth of work its wording could cover.

“Without a clear definition of 'ideology' or 'promotion,' the new rule can be used to suppress almost any cultural activity that touches on society, history, identity, religion, science, or politics,” the National Coalition Against Censorship wrote.

NCAC also said the grant rule echoed President Donald Trump's rhetoric and his targeting of federal grant funding for projects related to “gender ideology.” Hyperallergic described that phrase as a vague term used to push essentialist and anti-trans concepts of gender.

The report gives no SCAC response to that comparison. Nor does it identify any federal project, commission review procedure or explanation of how “ideology” and “promotion” would be judged in practice. The comparison is an advocacy claim, and the report records no answer from SCAC.

Hyperallergic reports that SCAC denied funding earlier in October to one artist and two LGBTQ+ performing arts organizations. The report does not name them, state the amounts sought or give reasons for each decision. Over the past year, it says, the agency has faced scrutiny for singling out LGBTQ+ arts groups in grant decisions and implementing opaque funding restrictions.

“SCAC's adoption of a new grant rule after proposals had been independently reviewed and vetted is a problem in itself,” Elizabeth Larison, director of arts and culture advocacy at NCAC, added in a statement to Hyperallergic.

“But the fact that this rule is vague enough to allow government appointees to veto any projects they don't personally like is a threat to artistic freedom and democratic principles in South Carolina.”

Larison's objection rests on process and discretion. The source names neither the independent reviewers nor the criteria used to vet proposals. If the operative terms remain undefined, her second point becomes the relevant one: an appointed panel could reject work for reasons beyond any published standard.

What does the November 3 vote change for artists?

The immediate change for applicants came in August: grantees cannot direct funds to promote “any ideology.” The report links the November 3 vote to SCAC through its nine governor-appointed volunteers, but gives no candidate, timetable or mechanism for revising the rule. It also records no campaign pledge to repeal it.

That leaves the practical issue with SCAC: the treatment of proposals about society, history, identity, religion, science or politics under the words “promote any ideology.” NCAC says the present wording can encompass all of that work. The source records no SCAC test that would settle the point.

Unless SCAC supplies definitions and a review standard, Larison’s warning leaves artists and organizations exposed to the same discretionary risk after November 3 that she says already exists.