Josh Stulman, the student whose "Portrait of Terror" art exhibit was censored last Spring (as blogged in detail here), is suing Penn State for violating his First Amendment rights. The lawsuit asks that the university host the exhibit at its cost. Stulman is also suing Prof. Charles Garoian, the professor who, after proclaiming his opposition to censorship of art in a series of articles, censored Stulman's exhibit, for defamation. Details here.
UPDATE: For those interested in this controversy, I strongly recommend reading the complaint, a link to which Eugene has provided. The complaint provides allegations of misconduct by Robert Yarber, a professor at the Penn State School of Visual Arts. Yarber, for example, allegedly admitted removing flyers advertising Stulman's exhibit, and in a private meeting berated Stulman as a "racist" who supported the "racist" Israeli government that has no right to exist. Yarber was apparently Stulman's professor at the time, which would explain why these allegations were not aired last year.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Stulman v. Penn State University:
- Penn State Art Exhibit Censorship Update:
Is there a copy of the complaint available?
Check out the Complaint, to which EV linked, and see the answers to your questions in greater detail. The short answers are that:
1. the exhibit was never held. The university put a precondition to allow it to go forward after the censorship, the university gave a public and false reason for cancelling the exhibit,the university then said the exhibit was not going to happen, the university then said the plaintiff could only meet with university officials to talk about having the exhibit if he came to the meeting alone (several different administrators made this demand), and the university also refused to discuss the repeated harassment and anti-Semitic vitriol to which Plaintiff had been subjected by his professor.
2. The Collegian article, presumably relying on the misstatements made by PSU officials last year, falsely stated that the "Portraits of Terror" exhibit was sponsored by PSU Hillel when that was NOT the case, as Stulman and the Hillel advisor told PSU officials repeatedly. The artwork reflected plaintiff's artistic views and was neither commercial art nor Hillel propaganda despite Garoian's labeling it as such.
3. At least one exhibit of "Portraits of Terror" was cancelled because the local police department told the gallery owner adequate security for the exhibit could not be provided. This decision was the direct result of the misinformation put out by PSU.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus