10. The Art of Censorship

Art is a frequent target of censorship on college campuses. In 1991, Southwestern Michigan College cut theater instructor Patrick Spradlin to a part-time position (after which he quit). People for the American Way reported, "When he submitted a proposal for the 1990-91 [theater] season, his second year with the college, the administration informed him that the treatment of sex in [a] scheduled musical, Baby, was inappropriate for the audience, citing, among other things, the word 'spermatozoa' in a song lyric." Ohio State University considered disciplining three art students who fooled the local media with a press release for a group called, "Arm the Homeless," which aimed to help the homeless "regain their Second Amendment birthrights." (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/19/94)

At Idaho State University, an art gallery exhibit featured paintings of partially clothed women. Campus officials covered the gallery's windows with brown paper and barred people under seventeen. At Baylor University, the regents voted unanimously to prohibit the use of nude models in art classes where physicians would lecture to art students about anatomy and muscle structure (while the women would have been nude, the men would have had on athletic supporters). (Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 7/93)

At the University of Michigan, Flint, Vice Chancellor Dorothy Russell removed a Lawrence Ferlinghetti poem, "Repeat After Me," from the wall of an eatery in the University Center after parents complained that the parody of the Lord's Prayer attacked their religious beliefs; Russell overruled a governing board decision not to remove it. (Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 3/92) At the University of Pittsburgh, art student David Brown was not allowed to show his surrealistic painting called "There's No Place Like Hollidaysburg" because the vice chancellor of student affairs considered it "offensive" and "not in good taste." At McKendree College in Illinois, the Board of Trustees supported President Gerrit TenBrink's ban on the play "Acts of Passion" because "profane and vulgar words will not be allowed in any cultural artistic production." (Chronicle of Higher Education, 10/23/91)

At the University of Oregon, a black curtain was put up around a controversial art exhibit after visitors complained. It included sculptured breasts, children's dresses with holes cut at the crotch, and a painting of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock engaged in bondage.(Campus Report, 11/94)

At Boston University in 1994, photographs by Dana Muchnick and Betsey Gallagher were banned from a school art show as "too controversial" and "not appropriate to hang in the school because it was too publicly accessible." Muchnick's photo was of Michelangelo's David, while Gallagher's photos showed a drag queen and a woman drinking, two men dancing, and a women's topless fashion show. (Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 7/94)

At Ithaca College, officials removed a "conceptual-art project" by a black student featuring nooses hanging from trees and "lynching" placards with the names of famous blacks. Ithaca president James Whalen said, "I saw this as behavior that could create more problems that it solved." (Campus Report, 11/93)

Although most censorship of art is ordered by conservatives who want to silence sexual views that may be offensive, repression is also a crime of the left in some cases. At a conference on prostitution at the University of Michigan in 1992, some anti-pornography activists objected to videos produced by prostitute-rights advocates, and convinced conference organizers to remove them from a gallery.

On May 26, 1994, San Francisco State University destroyed a mural of Malcolm X that was deemed anti-Semitic. The ten-foot tall mural sparked controversy because it included Stars of David with dollar signs and skulls and crossbones and a yellow Star of David near the words "African blood." Defenders of the mural, who twice washed off paint that the university used to cover it, argued that the Stars of David represented Malcolm X's opposition to Israel, not hatred of Jews; however, it would be hard to argue that the symbols were anything but anti-Semitic. English professor Lois Lyles protested the mural by trying to paint "Stop Fascism" next to it. After the Student Union Governing Board failed to act, President Robert Corrigan ordered the mural sandblasted, saying that "this university absolutely will not tolerate expressions of hate." The ACLU refused to oppose the mural's destruction, claiming that the University had a right to destroy an artwork that it had commissioned. (Los Angeles Times, 5/27/94; New York Times, 5/27/94)

But the fact that a university commissioned the mural is not justifiable grounds for censorship. After all, a university may pay the salaries of faculty and financially support a student newspaper, but paying the piper does not entitle them to decide what tune will be played. The essence of academic freedom is the idea that faculty are not mere customers, but that freedom of expression must be given the widest possible protection, even when the ideas expressed are offensive and hateful.

The attacks on the National Endowment for the Humanities show how easily the public is offended by art which challenges the boundaries of conventional thinking (and sometimes good taste). What do we fear more: The offensive piece of artwork, the offensive newspaper column, and the offensive classroom comment? Or the threat of university officials, politicians, and ideological activists imposing their judgments about what can be thought and said?