IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM A LICENSE TO LIE?
by Gary L. Morella
n regard to cries of "Defend the Freedom to Learn" and "Censors Target Art
Education" in the April '97 State College 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
Christine Enedy.) 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.