UNTITLED ART FAILS ON ALL ACCOUNTS
by Gary L. Morella
hy 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" in Thursday's January 23, 1997 Penn State
COLLEGIAN stated that "when we ignorantly dismiss foreign ideas because they do
not sit well with us, we become part of the very oppression Enedy (the artist)
was attempting to expose." In this case the "oppression" referred to was the
oppression of women in the Catholic Church. The editorial went to great lengths
to accuse the Church of suppressing the challenge presented by Enedy to the
campus community to think. Accordingly, here is some food for thought.
In the same issue of the COLLEGIAN was a letter from an individual who objected
to the organization of a group called STRAIGHT. (The president of STRAIGHT said
"I have been told by members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Student Alliance
board of directors that any faculty member who would join or become STRAIGHT's
adviser would essentially be committing career suicide.") STRAIGHT was
objected to on the grounds that it was a "hate" group merely because it
disagreed with the homosexual lifestyle. The author quoted the following from
the University Policy Manual. "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 Enedy's "art"? Did anyone bother to consult
the many Roman Catholic sources available which totally debunk the "political
statement" of Enedy? [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?" The irony in depicting the Mother of God in such a
fashion 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 related to the person of Christ (see previous references and
Fundamentals of the Faith by Peter Kreeft) which is beyond the scope of
discussion of this article.
What was Penn State's response to "tolerance and respect for others" in this
instance? Nothing other than a private statement to a member of the staff
from the Dean of the School of Arts and Architecture that "the student and
faculty member behaved in a responsible and appropriate manner in an
educational process." Enedy, meanwhile, was allowed to display another
"art" work at Penn State, a 5x5 matrix of female panties with a cross stitched
to the crotch of each.
It is understandable how people might feel that Enedy'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 desecration, is
interesting. Penn State was reportedly developing new guidelines regarding
being sensitive to the concerns of Christians on campus while concurrently
allowing an admittedly offensive piece (description by art educator in
COLLEGIAN) to be publicly displayed by the same artist. Does this show that
Penn State was acting in good faith or just doing lip service to Christian
concerns? The most recent statements by Penn State officials in the COLLEGIAN
and the CDT would seem to indicate the latter as the guidelines are described
as "purposely ambiguous" by James Stephenson, head of Visual Arts, and "an
attempt to foster discussion on sensitive issues and not meant to censor
students in any way" by Sallie McCorkle, visual arts faculty member who wrote
them.
What are the worth of "purposely ambiguous" guidelines? 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, in particular to taxpayers who find
themselves subsidizing activities which are anathema to their faith. This
includes the promotion of homosexual lifestyles through the Vice Provost's
office of Educational Equity which is a threat to civil freedoms being a
violation of separation of Church and State, per Supreme Court cases of recent
memory. (Griswold vs. Connecticut established the right to privacy. And Engel
vs. Vitale and Schempp-Murray established freedom from government coercion
when religious issues were concerned.)
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" on this campus? To use the COLLEGIAN's logic, 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." It doesn't matter to the COLLEGIAN,
evidently, that the "reality" defined can be a fantasy which exists solely in
the mind of the artist as opposed to "truth." It doesn't matter to the
COLLEGIAN that Dr. Spanier and Jews would be unjustly attacked in a libelous
fashion in the name of academic freedom. I dare say it would matter to Dr.
Spanier and the Jewish Community on this campus.
Would an art student be allowed to display a caricature of Martin Luther King,
Jr. hung in effigy as a political statement to the "oppression of whites due to
being forced to use the same restrooms as blacks?" Not if the words of the
University Policy Manual are worth the paper that they're printed on. The
Afro-American Community would have been outraged at this defaming of Dr. King
and it would not have taken the COLLEGIAN a month to address this issue as it
did in the case of the statue of the Blessed Virgin. Moreover, those who would
have brought to the attention of this university said desecration of Dr. King
would have been commended as opposed to the COLLEGIAN's ostracism of Fr. Leo
Arnone of the Campus Catholic Ministry for doing nothing more than being what a
Catholic priest should be, a good shepherd to his flock and a source of pride
for Catholics in defending the Faith.
We're taking the COLLEGIAN's advice. We're thinking on our own, not in accord
with the mind manipulators at this university whose main goal is not the truth
but rather the propagandizing of special agendas.
The question has been asked what rights were violated? I refer you to the
Constitution in terms of the freedom of religion clause which allows any group
the free practice of their religion without discrimination in any sense. This
university is hypersensitive to any discriminatory acts at least when
addressed to those under the umbrella of political correctness. Apparently,
there's not enough room under this umbrella, however, for those of religious
persuasion because they hold that absolute moral truths do exist and cannot be
compromised. Churches are not democracies. Ms. Enedy's "art" crossed this
discriminatory line. As such, she, the faculty advisor, the dean of the
school, and the president of this university should accept the responsibility
for violating a dictum which they preach, discrimination of any sort will not
be tolerated on this campus. Instead, they've embraced this violation as
acceptable. What utter hypocrisy? The emperor has been exposed as
having no clothes and he's embarrassed that this little secret has been
revealed.
And finally, would an enterprising art student have been allowed to publicly
display a Nativity creche, considered religious art by anyone's definition in
the tradition of the classic masters, on this campus? The howls from the
pc police would have been heard throughout the entire county. Imagine the
audacity of some poor soul attempting such an affront to the secularist
gospel which is being forced down our throats as a function of a pseudo
"separation of church and state" which cannot be found anywhere in our
Constitution. Freedom of, not from, religion was the principal concern of
the early fathers.
Every year, courts scattered around the United States 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. The results of those lawsuits have varied in recent
years.
But the incident at Penn State might prompt Christians to look at the
church-state question from a very different perspective. 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. If it is illegal to
place a religious icon on university property, isn't it equally illegal to use
university property as a site for desecration?