Saying that a federal law prohibiting the funding of "obscene" art work constitutes censorship, a Harvard music professor resigned as co-chair of a National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) music panel late last week.

Ditson Professor of Music Earl Kim said Friday that he "could not remain a part of the censorship process," although he said he supports the NEA and Chair John E. Frohnmayer's opposition to the Congressional restrictions.

"I did it out of a personal conviction," said Kim. "The First Amendment ensures freedom of speech. The Helms amendment is in contradiction with that."

The Helms amendment, adopted by Congress in October and named for Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), requires that all NEA-funded projects meet federal obscenity guidelines. The amendment prohibits funding for works that depict "sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the sexual exploitation of children or individuals engaged in sex acts, and which, when taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific merit."

The Congressional regulations came in the wake of a national controversy last summer over NEA funding of exhibitions by artists such as the late Robert Mapplethorpe, whose work includes homoerotic photographs.

In a statement released last week, Frohnmayer said, "We regret Mr. Kim's decision to withdraw from serving on this Endowment panel. ...His insight will be missed."

Artists and organizations accepting NEA grants are required to sign oaths which now include language from the Helms amendment, according to Marsha Adler, public policy deputy director for People for the American Way, a liberal watchdog group.

Kim, as the co-chair of a NEA music panel, said he did not want to have to take the Helms guidelines into account when deciding which arts projects to fund.

Since the stepped-up Congressional scrutiny of the NEA, one other panelist has resigned and two artists have rejected NEA grants to protest the alleged censorship.

While members of the arts community have decried the Helms-sponsoredregulations, an aide to the outspoken conservativesenator said last week that the guidelines werereasonable.

"The arts community is using censorship as abuzz word," said the aide, who requestedanonymity. "The NEA was created by Congress. Thearts community is saying Congress hasn't any sayin determining where [the funds] go."

He said the amendment was merely designed toforce the NEA to be "more responsible in how itdistributes grants."

But members of the arts community said thatCongress should not have the power to interferewith the grant-giving process.

Loeb Drama Center Director Robert S. Brustein,a vocal critic of the Helms ammendment, said thatwhen the NEA was created, Congress acknowledgedits ignorance of the arts and delegated theresponsibility of awarding grants to the NEA andits panelists.

Both the NEA's authorization and the Helmsamendment will come up for review in September,said Virginia Falck, public affairs specialist forthe NEA. Opponents of the amendment said Congressmay remove the Helms amendment from NEA'sauthorization, or it may eliminate NEA altogether.

"There's been enough noise and enough absurditygenerated that it will be removed," Brustein said."But there is also sufficent anger from theAmerican people about the free spirited artistthat I can see the NEA watered-down ordismantled."

"Our short period of maturity is now coming toan end," Brustein said