Students confront UA’s chancellor on art ‘censorship’
FAYETTEVILLE — An event Thursday billed as an opportunity for University of Arkansas, Fayetteville students to bring their questions and concerns to Chancellor Charles Robinson focused on only one topic — the university’s handling of a student’s art exhibition earlier this week — after roughly two dozen students and staff from the School of Art ensured that would be the only subject.
Programs like Thursday’s function best when “I hear your voice, and I can respond to your questions and [suggestions] about how we can make the university better,” Robinson said in his introduction shortly before the School of Art group burst into the meeting.
Graduate student M’Shinda Abdullah-Broaddus has his thesis exhibition displayed — not an uncommon practice at the university — in the new Studio and Design Center. He claims his work has been “censored” by the university after the chancellor ordered some sight lines to the art blocked and signs put up noting the nature of the art — which involves nudity and sexual acts — that may offend some viewers.
“Censorship is a subjective description of what happened here,” Robinson said. The art wasn’t taken down and “will continue to be in the [building].”
However, “I was hearing from people who were offended, and it’s a public building,” Robinson said. “I wanted to give people a choice” of whether to view the art or not, rather than be “surprised” by it.
“Due to the graphic content, efforts have been put in place to inform potential viewers so they can make an informed choice of whether to view the material,” according to Mark Rushing, associate vice chancellor for university relations.
“In this instance, the student art display happens to be located in a room with walls made of glass, and that is visible to an area of the building where members
of the public (including minors) could be present, and that is also visible to passersby, so appropriate screening measures were undertaken without modifying the work or its location, and without preventing its availability to interested members of the School of Art community.”
As of Thursday, there’s a flyer as one enters the third floor of the building stating, “Please be conscious that you will encounter art from a wide breadth of voices and backgrounds in this building. Art making often engages highly personal and critical content that is essential to contemporary practice. Artwork can elicit a range of responses, each of them valid, and often serving as an acknowledgment of that work’s power.” The notice has the School of Art’s signature line.
Additional flyers are on display before one reaches the exhibition, noting, “The area you are about to enter is restricted to students, faculty, and escorted guests of the School of Art. Individuals should be aware that artwork may include sexually explicit imagery. Due to the mature nature of some of the imagery, minors are not permitted in this area at this time. Alternate routes to the third and fourth-floor areas of the facility are available.”
There are also multiple flyers posted throughout the building stating, “Happy Black History Month! Still Censoring Blackness,” and “Can our School of Art be considered an art school if we are in the business of censoring artists and artworks?”
Abdullah-Broaddus called the chancellor’s actions “deplorable.” He — and several other student-artists represented at the meeting — said the university’s actions were traumatizing.
“I sincerely apologize to anyone who has been re-traumatized through this,” said Romona West, Arts & Sciences Director of Diversity and Inclusion. “I hope we can grow from it.”
There’s “probably nothing we can do to change the way you feel right now, but we can try to learn from this,” West added. “This is something very deep, [and] we’ll have to give it that much attention.”
Robinson said he was attempting to respect both the artist’s freedom of expression as well as the public’s right not to be offended.
“I’m sorry, I really am, you were traumatized,” Robinson said. However, he wouldn’t apologize for the decision itself, because “it was not an attack on the artist.”
“This is a state institution, [so] I have to serve students and the public,” he said. “I fully own the decision.”
Robinson did acknowledge the execution of that decision may have left something to be desired, and he said he wanted to work with students and staff to clarify guidelines on what is and isn’t allowed to be displayed in hopes that problems like this could be avoided in the future. Several members of the art school group also said they would like a clearer set of rules for the future.
Campus leaders “need to get on the same page” regarding how decisions are made and executed, Abdullah-Broaddus said.
“There needs to be a conversation on how we will manage moving forward, [because] if we can have an understanding moving forward, we can avoid this,” Robinson said. “The best way to address a problem is to have a conversation about it.”
This is “a great opportunity for all of us to learn […] how we can all come together to make it better,” West seconded. “I’ve been enlightened and learned things today.”
Abdullah-Broaddus remains angry and disappointed both by the decision and execution.
“What is up right now is not a ‘compromise,’” he said. “It is a punishment.”