Why should the educational process of Penn State art students violate the very dictums of "sensitivity toward all" as documented in various University policy manuals? Critics are merely trying to hold Penn State accountable.
The editorial "Creative Differences" (January 23, 1997 COLLEGIAN) stated that "when we ignorantly dismiss foreign ideas because they do not sit well with us, we become part of the very oppression the artist was attempting to expose." In this case the "oppression" referred to was of women in the Catholic Church. The editorial accused the Church of suppressing the challenge presented by the artist to the campus community to think. Accordingly, here is some food for thought.
The University Policy Manual, as quoted in the COLLEGIAN, states that "The University is committed to creating an educational environment which is free from intolerance directed toward individuals or groups and strives to create and maintain an environment that fosters respect for others." Where was this atmosphere of tolerance and respect in the review process for the "art" in question? Did anyone bother to consult the many Roman Catholic sources available which totally debunk the "political statement" of the artist? [Reference Inter Insignores (1976) , Mulieris Dignitatem (1988), Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), and To the Women of the World (1995)]. Moreover, did anyone question how in the name of sanity, such a blatantly obvious vulgar display to Roman Catholics could be seen as "oppression of women?" (To say that this "art" is characterized by some as a bloody vagina is an apology for it. It could be described in no other way as that is exactly what it was, complete with surrounding pubic hair.) The irony is that Mary, according to Catholic teaching, was the most liberated woman of all time being free from Original sin due to her Immaculate Conception, a dogma of the Church. Did she have a tantrum when an obscure biblical figure, Matthias, was chosen to replace Judas in the twelve? No, because she, above all, realized that the ministerial priesthood is inextricably linked to the person of Christ (see previous references and FUNDAMENTALS OF THE FAITH by Peter Kreeft). In short, this "art" failed on all accounts. Can that be the reason why it was labeled "untitled"?
It is understandable how people might feel that the artist's latest effort is offensive given that Christians are used to seeing THE major symbol of their faith in Church sanctuaries as opposed to being stitched to the crotch of female panties. The timing, coming on the heels of the Mary descecration, is interesting.
Penn State is not a private institution funded solely by the National Endowment for the Arts. In a recent court decision, it was declared a public university and to that end receives upwards of $300 million annually from Harrisburg. It must be accountable to the Commonwealth.
Would an art student be allowed to display a caricature of President Graham Spanier with a swastika on his forehead because the student "believed that Dr. Spanier and many Jews were really Nazi sympathizers?" Would this abomination be allowed as "art"? Not if the words of the University Policy Manual are worth the paper that they're printed on. To use the COLLEGIAN's logic, however, the answer would be yes because the student has absolute rights, since "art has no tangible definition" and "is a form of symbolizing some aspect of reality in a way that will draw it out of hiding." Evidently, the "reality" defined can be a fantasy which exists solely in the mind of the artist as opposed to "truth." It doesn't matter that Dr. Spanier and Jews would be unjustly attacked in a libelous fashion in the name of academic freedom.
Courts are faced with contentious lawsuits that grow out of complaints about the public display of Christmas decorations-- a creche, a tree, or even simply a star-- which are assailed by critics as an unconstitutional form of government support for religious belief.
If universities receiving federal and/or state funds are prohibited from promoting displays which encourage religious belief, are they not also prohibited from promoting displays which discourage religion? If the Penn State Policy Manual is to be believed, the answer is yes.
Gary Morella
In regard to the editorial "Defend the Freedom to Learn" and "Censors Target Art Education" in the April '97 VOICES, the statement is made that "Art Flap a Crazy Quilt of Misconceptions and Misinformation." VOICES is one of the main contributors to this confusion.
First, there is no such thing as limitless "academic freedom" and "freedom of speech". Consider what would happen to a mathematics professor who insists in class that "integral calculus requires no knowledge of derivatives". He'd be laughed out of the profession with his "academic freedom" curtailed in no uncertain terms by his department head. At least one would hope so, else "academic freedom" becomes a "license to lie" which has no place at an institution of higher learning, right? Likewise, making threats against the lives of individuals in either a public or private forum gets the attention of the local, state, or federal police quicker than you can say, "don't worry about answering the door, they'll kick it in". Somewhere in the equation common sense has to prevail or anarchy will.
Second, the Catholic League isn't concerned whether the artist was "Catholic". There are many including some clergy who, by their actions, are about as "Catholic" as kangaroos, e.g., "Catholics for a Free Choice" who favor abortion which orthodox Roman Catholicism condemns. Being "Catholic" means more than just saying you are, it's living the Faith. There is a large group of former Catholics living in the diocese of Lincoln Nebraska who, de facto, excommunicated themselves by remaining in the employ of Planned Parenthood. They still call themselves "Catholic" but the Church, under the authority of their bishop and Canon law, DOESN'T!
Third, all of the people VOICES reported as not seeing the artist's original art, in fact, did as it is my understanding that they were sent pictures of the bloody vagina complete with surrounding pubic hair (actually human hair) within which the statue of Mary was displayed.
Fourth, the artist's lack of knowledge about the Church's position on women does not give her license to attack Catholicism with impunity under the aforementioned sacred cows (freedom myths). Penn State is a public university and, as such, is accountable to the Commonwealth - many citizens of which hold Roman Catholicism and the Virgin Mary, in particular, in high esteem as the Church is referred to as "Holy Mother Church" and Mary as the "Mother of the Church". This was the charge which Christ gave her at the foot of the cross on Calvary. This group, numbering in the millions, doesn't take kindly to seeing their religion attacked with their state tax monies. What's sad is that all of this could have been avoided had the words of the Penn State policy manual been worth the paper that they were printed on. It's very hard to believe that similar vulgar portrayals of PSU president Graham Spanier, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Barney Frank would have seen the light of day as "art" at Penn State. The howls from the PC police would have been heard throughout the county as the very same people justifying an attack on a religion in this paper would have been outraged. What hypocrisy!
The real issue can be framed in one sentence. Are universities which receive public funds and prohibited from promoting religions, free to ATTACK religions? That is what happened under the auspices of the PSU Art Department, the artist's ignorance of the Faith notwithstanding. Many have not even addressed two other recent "art" works which were representations of a Catholic confessional and a First Communion dress having citations called "stations" (a play on a Catholic lenten devotional) attached which implied that Catholicism was a stifling experience for the artist in the formative years. (I did not see the "confessional", I DID see the FC dress along with both works of the "Mary-in-the-vagina" artist.) A large number of the world's billion Catholics would disagree with that particular artist's premise in that their Catholic roots are cherished, especially the memory of receiving the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist for the first time.
A religion was attacked on this campus. This is against the directives in the Penn State policy manual regarding sensitivity to religious concerns. It against current judicial interpretations of separation of Church and State. It does NOT have to be tolerated by the tax paying citizenry of this State who subsidize Penn State University to the tune of $300 million annually.
Gary Morella
The Office of the Vice Provost for Educational Equity's Commission on Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Equity has developed a "Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual Support Network" which adds to other University efforts to enhance the climate here for lesbian, gay and bisexual members of the University Community. The Network consists of faculty, staff, and students who are willing to make a personal, voluntary commitment of support to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people on campus. Members of the Network display a symbol of their involvement - a sign, sticker, or button - in a way that lets others know they are involved.
Surveys conducted at Penn State have found that lesbian, gay, or bisexual students, faculty, and staff often feel isolated and unsupported. Some have experienced harassment; many fear negative consequences if others were to learn of their sexual orientation; and many feel that they have a few safe places in which to acknowledge who they are and share their experiences, both positive and negative. The Network is designed to respond to these challenges by providing lesbian, gay, and bisexual Penn Staters with someone to talk to who can provide accurate information about University and community resources. Members of the Network are not counselors; nor are they expected to answer every question. Rather, they are listeners and people who can provide support and information.
To make the network a success, it is important that people throughout the University participate. The Network is open to people of all sexual orientations--the primary requirement is a strong commitment to social equity and diversity and a willingness to show that commitment by helping colleagues and friends. By displaying the Network symbol, a member is simply saying, "Knock on my door. We can talk."
To participate in the Network, one must complete and return the application and send it to the Commission on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equity, 311 Grange Building, University Park, PA 16802. The Commission on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Equity will review the application and notify each person about membership.
Brochures and applications are available in the ARL Human Resources Office. If you would like more information please contact the Commission office at (814) 863-7696.