Spring Break
Editorial: Controversial subjects dealt with civilly
Issue date: 11/18/08 Section: Viewpoints
This past week at UTM has been a critical one in terms of defending our freedoms -- all of our freedoms.
As some of you may know by now, two defining moments in Martin performance art history (and by "defining" we mean "only") occurred last week.
First, a contemporary art exhibit was put on display at the Fine Arts Building and received an abnormally large volume of media coverage from television and print outlets because of the apparently controversial nature of two of its pieces.
Ironically enough, while some people protested those two pieces of performance art, the SGA had its own controversial display in front of the UC with little protest.
The SGA's wall of hate was erected Nov. 10 in front of the UC, "defiled" all week with painted epithets and stereotypes, then ceremoniously torn down on Nov. 13.
Both involved our First Amendment right to freedom of expression, but the art pieces stirred up quite a bit of discord on campus because they showcased an American flag and a holy Bible, both shredded.
It would seem that while one wall was being torn down, another had the potential to be erected in its place.
This "wall" could've silenced the First Amendment rights of not only the artists who created so much controversy, but also those who protested it, albeit fairly peacefully.
Our administrators could have easily attempted to silence the protesters or have the controversial pieces of artwork removed, but they didn't.
Instead, the university handled the situation with neutrality and professionalism despite the difficult situation at Fine Arts and, for that, we salute them.
We especially want to give kudos to all of the staff at the Fine Arts building who maintained decorum despite the gatherings
taking place in front of their workplace.
The bottom line is that The Pacer may not agree with shredding religious and national symbols, but we support the right of artists to create and to court controversy, especially when that controversy may lead to meaningful discovery of the boundaries of our constitutional rights.
We also may not agree with the views of those who protested, but we absolutely support their right to voice their opinions and dissent.
Best of all, The Pacer finds cause for celebration in this situation. After all, both sides were able to have their voices heard, civilly for the most part, by all who would listen.
As some of you may know by now, two defining moments in Martin performance art history (and by "defining" we mean "only") occurred last week.
First, a contemporary art exhibit was put on display at the Fine Arts Building and received an abnormally large volume of media coverage from television and print outlets because of the apparently controversial nature of two of its pieces.
Ironically enough, while some people protested those two pieces of performance art, the SGA had its own controversial display in front of the UC with little protest.
The SGA's wall of hate was erected Nov. 10 in front of the UC, "defiled" all week with painted epithets and stereotypes, then ceremoniously torn down on Nov. 13.
Both involved our First Amendment right to freedom of expression, but the art pieces stirred up quite a bit of discord on campus because they showcased an American flag and a holy Bible, both shredded.
It would seem that while one wall was being torn down, another had the potential to be erected in its place.
This "wall" could've silenced the First Amendment rights of not only the artists who created so much controversy, but also those who protested it, albeit fairly peacefully.
Our administrators could have easily attempted to silence the protesters or have the controversial pieces of artwork removed, but they didn't.
Instead, the university handled the situation with neutrality and professionalism despite the difficult situation at Fine Arts and, for that, we salute them.
We especially want to give kudos to all of the staff at the Fine Arts building who maintained decorum despite the gatherings
taking place in front of their workplace.
The bottom line is that The Pacer may not agree with shredding religious and national symbols, but we support the right of artists to create and to court controversy, especially when that controversy may lead to meaningful discovery of the boundaries of our constitutional rights.
We also may not agree with the views of those who protested, but we absolutely support their right to voice their opinions and dissent.
Best of all, The Pacer finds cause for celebration in this situation. After all, both sides were able to have their voices heard, civilly for the most part, by all who would listen.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
David A. Gibson, Ph.D
posted 11/20/08 @ 1:11 PM CST
You find "cause for celebration", do you? Well, that's fine, go ahead and celebrate but please don't get too carried away. True, nobody (to my knowledge) was threatened, maimed or murdered. (Continued…)
Post a Comment