We recently saw rather bizarre case of a college president having to publicly apologize for saying the “all lives matter” rather than “all Black lives matter” in supporting protests over the Ferguson and New York grand jury decisions. (Ironically, I listened this weekend to protests where leaders chanted “all lives matter” in Washington). Now, Serhat Tanyolacar, a University of Iowa visiting professor and printmaking fellow, has been denounced for a piece of art designed to protest racism after the decision. Iowa officials have declared the art to be the equivalent to hate speech and ordered its removal within hours — with President Sally Mason denouncing the art and apologizing profusely. Now, however, students are calling for the artist to be fired and for a new speech-regulating committee to be established for such public forums.
The Klu Klux Klan figure is covered with newspaper clippings on racial injustice and violence. It is a powerful image that is both artistic and political speech. Tanyolacar sought to create something to “facilitate a dialogue.” He got it. The university however has abandoned any defense of the free speech expression or even tried to understand the obvious purpose of the art. The piece was placed in an area designated as a public forum. Nevertheless, Mason and her staff threw Tanyolacar and free speech under a bus. Smith has said that the school failed “to meet our goal of providing a respectful, all-inclusive, educational environment, the university apologizes.” She has demand that the school “prepare a detailed plan of action” to presumably protect against such expressions of free speech in the future.
Much like law schools supplying professional counselors after the Ferguson decision for students, Mason has ordered university-provided counseling for anyone traumatized by the art work.
I do not question the impact of such an image and I can understand why the image was disturbing for so many. While I cannot say that I share the same cultural and personal pain of African-Americans in relation to such images, I was raised with stories from my mother of how she would often go to sleep with a burning cross on a nearby hill when the local KKK would terrorize her Italian and Catholic community in Ohio. However, this artist was using this well-known image as an important statement against racism an hate. It has now become for many an image of growing speech regulation and intolerance on university campuses.
What is equally shocking is the statement of David Ryfe, director of UI’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication at UI, who supports viewpoint discrimination, stating “If it was up to me, and me alone. I would follow the lead of every European nation and ban this type of speech.” That is the director of a school of journalism.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws. We have seen even comedians targets with such court orders under this expanding and worrisome trend. (here and here). However, it is the appearance of effective speech codes on campuses that are the most worrisome. We have even saw a professor attack demonstrators with the later support of faculty and students who have justified her actions as responding to the “terrorism” of pro-life displays.
The statue tar screen prints of newspaper clippings depicting coverage of racial tensions, riots, and killings dating to the early 1900s was a faculty member’s effort to express his own creative feelings in a place for public discussion. Nevertheless, he was forced to apologize and issued a statement that “I sincerely apologize for the pain and suffering I caused to the African American community on Friday,” he said. “I am hoping that I will be able to be forgiven for the pain I have caused with my sculpture.”
Tanyolacar is the father of a mix-raced 8-year-old boy and has faced “racism and prejudice” in his own life. He recently participated in an exhibition project called, “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot: Artists Respond” in St. Louis.
Nevertheless, students are continuing to protest and complain over the now removed art. Kayla Wheeler, a third year doctoral student in the UI Department of Religious Studies, has criticized the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences for promoting the statue on social media and demanded a “social media oversight committee” to regulate such speech in the future to satisfy the sensibilities of the public. Moreover, she and others want the artist fired. Wheeler stated “If he is not fired immediately and returns to campus next semester, he should not be allowed to teach any students.”
By the way, Nic Arp, director of strategic communications for the college, who earlier attempted to defend the expression of free speech removed that defense from social media and issued his own apology “for contributing to people’s very real and understandable pain. I have learned a lot about how my own privilege and culture bias informed my own initial reaction to it.” He added:
“I’m a white person and responded to it first and foremost as a piece of art and not in the way an African American might — as a very real and scary symbol. I wanted to take personal responsibility and say, hey, I’ve learned a lot and I’m embarrassed by my own insensitivity about it.”
I will confess that I have a “bias” in favor of free speech that shades my view of this incident. Public forums come with all types of speech: good, bad, valuable or valueless. Bad speech is combatted with good speech — not pre-speech approvals or firing artists. Some of us have growing concern over the level of speech regulation that is occurring on our campuses, which were once bastions of free speech.
Source: KCRG
I have not seen it in person. As I wrote upthread I am appalled at the stance of the university and the students. I am for freedom of speech and expression,. That does not make me a liberal or a conservative. It makes me and American
There is NO Constitutional right to not be offended. That journalism professor, mentioned in the piece, David Ryfe, yearns for us to copy Europe in blasphemy and hate speech laws. He commented on this thread last night. He claimed he is “on the record” saying this statue is protected under the First Amendment but offered no proof. He did not recant his yearning for the European model. These are the people training our MSM journalists! Many would be shocked what school of education professors are teaching our educators. It shocked me when I returned to school in the 90’s to get my teaching license.
Indeed I would venture to guess that “7-foot-tall fabric sculpture in the center of campus” by itself means it’s a liberal.
Well Paul I guess if someone calls you on what you write it is “ranting” And I don’t need to answer you. If you bothered reading the comments you could actually find out what people think/where they stand. Maybe you need to open your eyes instead of closing them to all but your own parochial view of things.
leejcaroll – you were all over the place. Are you for or against the statue?
“How about you prove your statement right, that it is “liberals” only?”
Only liberals protest about imaginary offenses like this.
But here are the clues to it being liberals and only liberals:
#1 A public art display
#2 A public art display meant to denounce racism
#3 the professor at the university’s art school erected the 7-foot-tall fabric sculpture in the center of campus join with protesters upset over the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri.
#4 within hours,he was facing angry criticism from students who misunderstood his intent and called him racist.
#5 university statement that referred to his art as “divisive, insensitive and intolerant,” although officials didn’t ask the artistabout its context or message.
#6 A student said, “That kind of art should not be displayed with all that is going on in the black community.”
#7 “We’re all college students … capable of having an intelligent conversation about art,” said Stephanie Hutchins, a UI junior from Brooklyn, N.Y. “But it was too soon. Maybe if he had waited, we’d still have been angry, but we would’ve been willing to listen more.”
Hypersensitive tribalist complainers.
That is, liberals.
Pogo Hears a Who – “Next stop is erasing the artist from old photos.”
doubleplusgood! Be careful though you don’t want to make the “unperson” list.
“Some people are taught to hate their inner liberalism…
… And tend to project their self hate ”
While others justly despise socialism as an inherent evil, responsible for 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone.
“art succeeds when it can constructively create dialogue by challenging norms”
I disagree. It certainly can succeed this way, but art can also fail miserably by merely ‘challenging norms.’
There are few norms left to challenge, in any case, much as the ‘challenging’ seems to be of norms that have largely been laid waste since 1950. Most such art is challenging a straw man, and as a result very boring.
Rembrandt didn’t challenge norms, but his work is still celebrated.
The truly saddening thing here is that art succeeds when it can constructively create dialogue by challenging norms. The reaction was to be expected and I blame the faculty for not forwarding the conversation and instead kowtowing to small minds.
Annie,
Some people are taught to hate their inner liberalism…
… And tend to project their self hate outward towards others.
Anybody burn any crosses in Iowa lately? Now something like that would be cause for concern. Or maybe a reunion of the German American Bund. Anyone recall our history with that group back in the 1930’s?
There was an article on the Volokh Conspiracy blog about some law school where the professor had a question about Burn This Bitch Down on his final exam and posed questions as to whether this was protected speech. This raised an uproar. Law students were apparently emotionally distressed over the Ferguson events to handle a question such as that. Yeah and in a few months they will be out there in the real world practicing law.
Look you young weenies: grow up.
Racehorses wear blinders.
Nags swat flies.
All evidence to the contrary.
Schulte
I’m progressive, sometimes left, and sometimes centrist. I support the statue. I find the conservatives are the ones who prefer blinders.
issac – I support the statue, so lets start a save the statue movement.
That’s not directed @ Professor Ryfe. I’ll leave it @ that.
Psychology Today has a great list of psychological blogs. Just sayn’.
Professor Ryfe, Thanks for your comment. But, you have an opportunity to expand on what you said, unfettered and unedited. Unlike your campus, and most others, free speech lives here. In your comment you state you are “on the record” stating this art display should be protected under the First Amendment. Please direct us to where we can read that record.
I remain awed how closely this college art imbroglio adhered to the standard old communist show trials of the 30s and 60s.
Next stop is erasing the artist from old photos.
Reminds me of this “art” project that was also misconstrued by people too quick on the trigger with their viewpoint bias.
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/02/140206_DX_WellesleyNudeStatue.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/conservative-and-liberal-brains-may-be-wired-differently/2014/11/03/3903c25e-6057-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html
Actually there was a study, which I’m sure is far from conclusive. But as I said, I “tend to think” there may some truth to it. Pogo, you really have a dislike for liberals, don’t you? It colors every single comment you write on this blog. I haven’t seen many conservatives that are so fixated about liberals.
Mr. Ryfe,
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your contribution and perspective.