For Penn State student Josh Stulman, years of hard work ended in disappointment yesterday when the university cancelled his upcoming art exhibit for violation of Penn State's policies on nondiscrimination, harassment and hate.
Three days before his 10-piece exhibit — Portraits of Terror — was scheduled to open at the Patterson Building, Stulman (senior-painting and anthropology) received an e-mail message from the School of Visual Arts that said his exhibit on images of terrorism "did not promote cultural diversity" or "opportunities for democratic dialogue" and the display would be cancelled.
The exhibit, Stulman said, which is based mainly on the conflict in Palestinian territories, raises questions concerning the destruction of Jewish religious shrines, anti-Semitic propaganda and cartoons in Palestinian newspapers, the disregard for rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners, and the indoctrination of youth into terrorist acts.
"I'm being censored and the reason for censoring me doesn't make sense," Stulman said.
Charles Garoian, professor and director of the School of Visual Arts, said Stulman's controversial images did not mesh with the university's educational mission.
The decision to cancel the exhibit came after reviewing Penn State's Policy AD42 [the policy, which, in my educated opinion, is clearly unconstutionally overbroad even if it actually applies to Stulman's exhibit, can be found here]: Statement on Nondiscrimination and Harassment and Penn State's Zero Tolerance Policy for Hate, he wrote.
....
[Stulman] said he was shocked at the university's decision to cancel the exhibit and that he has tried to meet with Garoian on numerous occasions to discuss his artwork.
"It's not about hate. I don't hate Muslims. This is not about Islam," Stulman said. "This is about terrorism impacting the Palestinian way of life and Israel way of life.
Thanks to Scholars for Peace in the Middle East for the heads-up.
UPDATE: Here is a photo of one of the pieces from the censored exhibit. It depicts is titled “Our Greatest Hero” and depicts Palestinian Nazi (I mean that literally) Haj Amin Al-Husseini, whom Yasser Arafat called "Our Greatest Hero."
Correction, from Mr. Stulman: The name of the painting in the picture is "Ramallah" and discusses the brutal treatment of Israeli soldiers in that specific area on at least several occasions including in 2002.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on the Penn State Censorship Scandal:
- Penn State Backs Down
- Penn State Censorship--The Plot Thickens:
- Censorship at Penn State Update:
- Censoring "Portraits of Terror" at Penn State:
The use of buzzwords to justify silencing dissent *really* reminds me of Soviet Russia. A traditionally effective way of responding to an uncomfortable statement would be to attack the speaker as "anti-Soviet." It's a completely meaningless word most of the time, but gets the job done. A lot like "diversity."
Or even better- accuse the artist of promoting "formalism".
Art as political provocation or critique is hardly irreconcilable with “values." Indeed, for me that's the only way art as political provocation or critique makes any kind of sense. Mr. Rockwell seems to have believed the same, judging from his most affecting work:
He's not a bad example.
On the other hand, this art is pretty crappy. Maybe they can censor him based on that!
As far as this poor kid is concerned, this doesn't appear to be anything that FIRE can't make go away with a well-drafted letter to the dean. Still, it's always disappointing to see such agendariffic close-mindedness in higher ed. I know I should be used to it, but it's disappointing.
It's clear that the banning of this exhibit is a legitimate backlash to the overreaching of the Israeli Lobby. Obvious to any casual observer.
That's not a bad target pistol for ladies - it is easily held/fired by smaller than average hands, has a pleasingly low recoil, is very accurate and fun - very well suited for someone with better than average hand/eye coordination.
But it isn't a reasonable self-defense/carry pistol - for many reasons. None of them relevant to a discussion of censorship of art.
Now, if the Academy was supposed to be relevant....
Jews' and Christians' appearing in public on the campus is offensive, hostile, and intimidating to homosexuals and is an insult to Islam, therefore, Jews and Christians must be banned from the campus.
What a perversion of the word democratic...to think that democratic dialogue requires that a higher power decide what is said? This is simply a display of the authoritarianism inherent in viewpoint-biased views of free speech, not matter what the context, and that they hide behind the mask of furthering "democratic dialogue" is appallingly Orwellian. Imagine a project showing the President as Hitler...can you imagine it being shown anything but reverence?
Smithy, can't agree with you about what art should be...some of my favorite 18th and 19th century painters are anything but uplifting. Either way though, arguing what art should be is a distraction unnecessary to the issue - this is a case of free speech values, not artistic values.
I think most people who see the cariacature of modern artists as rabid anti-christians and proto-stalinists would still be surprised at just how hard the academy tries to indoctrinate that sort of view point. That said, I don't think all artists believe that viewpoint, and wouldn't be surprised if many successful artists slanted their work to get the recommendations from their professors that ultimately open the gallery doors and the wealthy donor base up.
If anyone wants to read an interesting book about the "merits" of the academy, then I really suggest Ben Shaw's The Shape of Content. And yah, I suppose I am a bit jaded about how close-minded my art school experience was, so adjust your perception of my opinion accordingly.
We are letting people who hate America poison the minds of the best and brightest of our children. No wonder we look weak to the rest of the world, no wonder Al Qaeda thinks they can attack with impunity, and the insurgent thugs think they can wait us out. They turn on the television and they see American professors -- supposedly the intelligentsia of the country -- embracing their cause of anti-Americanism. These people want to destroy America, they want to turn this into a Godless, socialist state. Surely they should have their tenure revoked for that.
I'm not an attorney either, but I won't let that stop me from giving you an answer. Under the Constitution, there are no criminal penalties for violating the First Amendment. You are correct that a government institution is liable to some legal action for violating the constitutional rights of an individual, namely an injunction (a court order requiring a party to refrain from some action). Violating an injunction could lead to court sanctions. In addition, if Stulman has suffered some monetary loss (wasted paint and canvas?), he may be able to recover those losses in court. There may be some state or federal laws allowing Stulman to recover punitive damages as well, but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
That said, I'm now convinced that "Smithy" is engaged in a Swiftian parody of far right media nonsense, of a quality that puts the "Colbert Report" to shame.
If not, do I understand him to be calling for the academic promotion of deliberately propagandist art, ala "Der Fuhrer's Face", as a condition of the continued tenure of university art faculty?
RFGS