Libertarian Librarian

I have always believed that discussion is better than silence, even in matters that are volatile and polarizing. If you can't talk about something-- religion, abortion, sexuality, politics, etc., etc.-- what are the odds that any kind of common ground can be discovered? A lot closer to none than to slim, I would say. And if you can't talk about it, the divisions tend to deepen and widen and harden, generating anger, frustration and, eventually, violence.

I have also always believed, until quite recently, that our nation's universities and colleges were bastions of free thought and free expression. Which is why stories like those of Josh Stulman, a Jewish art student at Penn State, drive me nuts.

Stulman's exhibit consisted of ten pieces about terrorism and the Palestine-Israel conflict. Given that subject matter, it is undoubtedly provocative. Given the one example of the art included in the article, the art is more than likely sharply biased against the Palestinian point of view.

But does that justify cancelling the exhibit because it does not "promote cultural diversity"? I mean, come on, is our society so fragile that if something doesn't actually promote cultural diversity it is to be disallowed? That's pathetic. And the university's other justification, that the exhibit does not provide "opportunities for democratic dialogue" is just plain crap.

What better way to generate dialogue than to have something that people can actually talk about? Pretty much the definition of dialogue, no? If Palestinian groups on campus take exception to the exhibit, organize discussion groups or create your own exhibit to present the other side of the issue. Or the campus could sponsor a forum for campus discussion following the opening of the exhibition.

I have always been puzzled when a university prohibits something on the basis of nondiscrimination-- because by the very nature of the action, they have discriminated against the group they prohibited. Ward Churchill's appearances at various campuses were healthy in the sense that those who believed his views were completely wrong-headed (me included) had the opportunity to express that viewpoint, just as Churchill had the opportunity to express his. Much as I was chagrined that UW-Whitewater actually wanted to hear Churchill's twisted rhetoric, I was also happy they did not back down to the nay-sayers. Freedom of speech was served.

Not so much for Josh Stulman.

Labels: Oh That Ivory Tower