Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

Aug. 1, 2005

Anti-Catholic or Just Art?

Related stories

Two years ago, as part of its eighth annual outdoor sculpture exhibit, Washburn University placed in a prominent spot on its Topeka, Kan., campus a statue of what appeared to be a Roman Catholic cardinal. The artist who created Holier Than Thou, as it was titled, said it portrayed what he remembered seeing when he went into a confessional booth for the first time at the age of seven: a potent and scary figure “who had the power to condemn me for my evil ways.”

What the artist intended as an ironic recollection of childhood memory struck others as egregiously anti-Catholic. They took offense at the holy man’s contorted expression and contended that the miter atop his head resembled a penis. A photograph of the statue quickly made the rounds of conservative Catholic sites on the Internet, and Catholics near and far, including the local archdiocese, asked Washburn officials to take the statue down. The university did not, and in October 2003, one professor and one then-student at Washburn sued the public institution, charging that it had violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution by engaging in state-sponsored disapproval of their religious beliefs.

Thursday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the university had done no wrong. In its written opinion, the court avoided weighing in on whether the statue’s content presents a state-sponsored anti-Catholic message; what’s important, the appeals panel ruled, is that “any reasonable observer viewing it in context would understand the university had not endorsed that message.”

To reach that conclusion, the court analyzed whether, in choosing to display the sculpture and in continuing to display it even after objections were raised, the university sought to “denigrate the Roman Catholic religion.”

The court found that neither the jury that recommended the statue nor Washburn’s Campus Beautification Committee, which ultimately selected the five pieces to be in that year’s exhibit, considered anything but the artistic quality of the work. In deciding to keep displaying the statue after the initial protests, the court concluded, Washburn’s president and its Board of Regents had cited a desire to “promote freedom of speech and to avoid academic censorship.”

It added: “There is no evidence in the record showing that the university’s decision to retain the statue was based on improper motives. Instead, the evidence shows that the university chose to keep the statue for reasons unrelated to a disapproval of Catholicism.”

Further, the appeals panel concluded that nothing in the Constitution’s Establishment Clause bars a public university — a place that is “peculiarly the marketplace of ideas” — from dealing with religious themes. “In the university setting,” it said, citing a 1995 Supreme Court case known as Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, ” ‘the State acts against a background and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition.’ “

Officials at the Thomas More Law Center, a nonprofit legal group that represented the former professor, Thomas O’Connor, and former student, Andrew Strobl, who sued Washburn, could not be reached for comment on the case Friday. It was not clear whether they would seek to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Washburn officials said Friday that they were gratified by the court’s ruling. David Monical, executive director for university relations, said that the controversy had not altered the standards the institution uses to choose art works for the annual sculpture show. “You cannot be, in selecting art, all things to all people,” said Monical. “And you can’t be overly concerned that some may interpret a piece differently from others.” But he said that the “awareness of the controversy” has probably made those responsible for selecting the art works “informally a little bit more sensitive to how others may view a piece.”

The university is in the process of reviewing submissions for its 10th annual outdoor sculpture exhibit.

— Doug Lederman

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

Three cheers for Washburn’s president and board of regents! Contrast their principled stand with that of Stanford Univeristy last year. There the president refused to allow an outdoor sculpture of an upside down church, with steeple embedded in earth, called “Rooting out Evil.”

roger bowen, at 9:08 am EDT on August 1, 2005

Yet another shameful example of anti-Catholic and anti-religious bigotry and insensitivity in the academy. Does anyone think for a minute that if it were any other group who was offended the university would not have acted immediately to assuage the concerns of the complaintants?

One of the many sins of academe is that it has allowed Catholic bashing to become an acceptable predjudice. And academics wonder why the outside world holds them and their hypocritical actions in such low esteem.

J. B Dunn, at 10:33 am EDT on August 1, 2005

JB Dunn said, “Does anyone think for a minute that if it were any other group who was offended the university would not have acted immediately to assuage the concerns of the complaintants?”

I do. I think that any school that takes freedom of expression seriously would not alter its policies because someone claimed that they were offended. Some schools are better about this than others. Unfortunately, some schools only censor in the name of a specific agenda. Contrary to what FIRE implies, there seems to be an equal balance between schools that would censor an anti-religious display, and schools that would censor an anti-gay display. Both, in my mind, are missing the point.

Anyway, Mr. Dunn, the fact that people are offended is proof that this art is working. However, I have to admit that since I am not Catholic, I am not really offended by this, and I, quite frankly, don’t get it. So, for me, it fails.

While people claim to hold academics in low esteem, they still gladly send their kids to school, pay taxes for universities, put up with sports scandals, and judge each other by what school they went to. Also, most incidents of censorship are due to the actions of administrators (in my experience) who usually don’t count as academics.

Larry, at 11:01 am EDT on August 1, 2005

JB Dunn is right when he says that the outside world holds academics and their hypocritical actions in low esteem.The phrase “REAL world” is more accurate. One wonders: Is true that the university itself is the last bastion, or perhaps the initial breeding ground instead, of virulent and dangerous prejudices that the rest of the world has succeeded in acknowledging and stamping out?

albertp, at 6:31 pm EDT on August 1, 2005

What is Anti-Catholic?

This piece of art is not anti-Catholic. It is an artist’s personal reaction to an event in his life. “Holier Than Thou” is not a condemnation of the Catholic church. Were the piece named “Catholics are Evil” than those who wish to remove the piece would have a case (it would also just be bad art- propaganda rather than an artistic expression of an experience) but it does not. Those offended have every right to voice their opinions, to sit and picket the work of art, to write columns about it, but they have no right to remove it.

As someone who was raised Catholic and had a good experience with the Catholic Church, I am not offended by the piece. For those who are, there are other recourses than censorship.

Jennette, at 6:31 pm EDT on August 1, 2005

Anti-Catholic or Just Art?

I wonder if Larry would cite an example of an antigay display on a publically funded campus.

Max Jerrell, at 4:13 am EDT on August 2, 2005

“...there are other recourses than censorship.” Precisely, Jennette! And the name of one of them is the Academic Bill of Rights! TRUE diversity is intellectual diversity, or “cognitive freedom,” though the latter term has been co-opted by drug addicts and people who revel in various “mental illnesses.” Among “other recourses” is the freedom to express one’s own contradictory views WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCE OR REPRISAL whatsoever. DESPISE the immaturity, insecurity and intransigence of those segments of the professoriate, administration, artistic communities, etc., who consider themselves above the Constitution wherever it should apply, and who feel they owe no respect for truly independent minds and for a TRUE universe of discourse!

albertp, at 4:14 am EDT on August 2, 2005

AlbertP,

You realize, of course, that the constitution doesn’t bind officials at private universities, so, at best, you would only tackle half the problem. Anyway, since this is a public school the 10th Circuit seems to have resolved the problem quite nicely, and everyone should be happy: the only question is whether it appears that the school is endorsing the message. Since this is “the law” at the moment, administrators within the 10th circuit should have adequate guidance.

Personally, I don’t take a position on the Academic Bill of Rights, because, quite frankly, I question the motivations of those that champion it. Perhaps if everyone that championed it made it clear that they had no problem with public support of blasphemous art without hindrance from others I might think that they are for real. But, at the moment, it seems like a thinly-veiled political campaign. And I don’t do politics.

Max Jerrell, You asked for an anti-gay display on a public campus. The guy “The Ultimate Warrior” (whose talk was sponsored by a campus political group) can provide for us at UCONN. See http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:107862

Larry, at 8:15 am EDT on August 2, 2005

Even though it is legal for Washburn University to display such a statue, is it really the right thing for them to do? If the statue consisted of a caricature of an African-American, a Rabbi, or a Native-American, would it have even gone so far as the appellate court? I don’t think so. How could this be considered anything but unmitigated, anti-Catholic bigotry?

Dave, at 2:46 pm EDT on August 2, 2005

Too bad you are offended

Dave, Why do you think the situation would be any different ? Obviously the creator of this piece wanted to convey a message, so to him it was “right.” The school figured that it was “right” to not censor the piece (probably because they were aware of constitutional concerns, themselves) and this lawsuit ensued. If followers of other faiths wanted to sue, there is no reason to think that the result would have been any different.

It is pretty easy to condemn any expression of opinion about a religion or members of a race as bigotry, but calling an idea “bigotry” doesn’t deny its validity or its protection by the first amendment. In fact, if you want to play a good drinking game, buy a copy of any major newspaper and see if you can construe each article and op-ed to be an example of bigotry. (If you fail, you have to take a drink.) I can stay sober the whole night.

There 10th seems to indicate that a student artist, whose work is rejected by a public university for public display on the pretext that it is not pretty has an establishment clause argument if he argues that the aesthetics argument is really a pretext for a desire not to offend one religion and therefore an endorsement of one religion. O’Conner at * 12 (“At least when there is no evidence of improper motive, campus beautification is a permissible justification for displaying a work of art.”). However, this really isn’t the case before us.

Appeals to the 10th Circuit (from US District Courts within its jurisdiction) are as of right, so there is no reason that any reasonably motivated litigant could not have taken it to the 10th circuit.

Larry, at 4:45 pm EDT on August 2, 2005

“Personally, I don’t take a position on the Academic Bill of Rights, because, quite frankly, I question the motivations of those that champion it.” — Rather, we should question the motivations of those who OPPOSE it. What I said in earlier posts on this article regarding the “real world” and the real need to hear ALL viewpoints should shed light on the real intent of the Academic Bill of Rights. It seems to me that those who are wont to mistrust, misinterpret and oppose it are afraid of real dialogue, an exchange of truly different ideas, aka a “robust free speech” that can nip in the bud any attempt to claim exclusive dominion and the overseeing of everyday life, whether in the hallowed halls of academe (BARF ALERT) or in the wide and wonderful world that never ceases to amaze, aggravate and drive us to distraction AND ACTION. Yes, private groups are not required to observe the Constitution as are public entities, but if the instinct for civil rights and civil liberties is strong enough from generation to generation, as different as our interpretations may AND SHOULD be, then there is hope for the future, if the phrase is not too trite, banal and cornball. So, by all means, bring on the “piss Christ,” etc., but do not think for one moment that those who oppose it vehemently are not going to respond with equal or superior eloquence.

albertp, at 7:30 pm EDT on August 2, 2005

AlbertP, As I said, while I might agree with some of the things you say, many people (myself included) are reluctant to advocate for the “Academic Bull of Rights” because it seems quite political. And, since I don’t care much for politics (not being a member of a political party, and generally not voting) it is just not an issue for me.

“Misinterpretation” will happen with any law, even if everyone has the best of intentions. So, if you condemn people for “misinterpreting” something, especially a legal text, you will condemn many people. (I hope you give me a dollar for every misinterpretation you find, because I need the money.)

What I find curious is that the 10th circuit’s opinion would seem to provide a framework for protecting viewpoints, but somehow you want more from public institutions. You don’t really explain how you want more than this constitutional baseline, instead you say “Barf.”

Perhaps, you could answer this question: what additional substantive rights does an individual in jurisdiction that has adopted your proposed legislation have that he does not have at the moment ?

Larry, at 5:38 am EDT on August 3, 2005

“...but somehow you want more from public institutions. You don’t really explain how you want more than this constitutional baseline, instead you say “Barf.”

Perhaps, you could answer this question: what additional substantive rights does an individual in jurisdiction that has adopted your proposed legislation have that he does not have at the moment ?”

No, Larry, I do not want additional substantive rights, nothing of the sort! What I do expect, and the caseload of free speech advocates such as The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education bears this out, is the protection of equal rights of free speech for all. THAT is the interpretation of the Academic Bill of Rights.

As for expecting MORE from PUBLIC institutions of higher learning, well, YES, it is time for professors, administrators, trustees, hypersensitive students to realize that, either the universe of discourse and free inquiry is dynamic and always expanding, or it will collapse in on itself. That “something more” is an ethical and very practical concern, I suppose. An example: It is possible to be a good or “true conservative” Catholic, for example, and to develop the capacity to listen well to millions of opposing and divergent viewpoints, respecting the personal conscience of others, without compromising or corrupting one’s own values. Does RELIGION have a place in the PUBLIC marketplace of ideas? Most decidedly YES!

As for BARF ALERT, I recall my own college experience a few decades ago, when the FARCE of political correctness was beginning to test its oats in a very big way. And then came essays on REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE (Herbert Marcuse) which said it was right and just to LIMIT and even DENY the free speech of those who opposed revolutionary agendas. Hence, the BARF refers to professors and students who are most decidedly prejudicial and intimidating toward those who disagree with them, perhaps because they fear they may actually one day be convinced about how WRONG they have been!

I’m afraid I still haven’t clarified the issue, but the fact that we are going back and forth on it without hindrance is a good and healthy sign, and a good example of how I (and many others) understand this Academic Bill of Rights. (I, myself, have been across the political spectrum, the one constant being a willingness to engage — and enrage — the opposition with honest, healthy and substantial dialogue!)

albertp, at 2:09 pm EDT on August 3, 2005

specifics, please

You said, “***I do not want additional substantive rights, nothing of the sort! What I do expect, and the caseload of free speech advocates such as The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education bears this out, is the protection of equal rights of free speech for all. THAT is the interpretation of the Academic Bill of Rights.”

This makes no sense. Perhaps you want procedural protections. I am trying to figure out what legal protections for your speech you wish. Do you want a guarantee that individuals expressing certain views can never be evaluated based on those views (and that tenure and grading evaluations must exclude such views)? Do you want guarantees that such evaluations will be conducted by people who don’t fundamentally disagree with your views ?

Indeed, if you were to say, argue that statutes should be passed which would provide for equitable relief against a college that evaluates people using political based on their extracurricular statements, I would support this goal. (Though I also think that tenure committees should not consider blog posts either way.) If, for example, you want a statutory mandate of outside reviewers of graduate theses (and perhaps undergraduate grades by request), I would probably agree with you, too. But saying again and again your views are oppressed without explaining what specific legislative relief you want (other than vague principles) does not advance the conversation.

While I realize that you have strong feelings about these issues, when talking to someone like me (who is open to persuasion on moral and ethical grounds, but not political grounds since I don’t care for or about politics) using words like “barf” won’t make your case. Likewise, since undergraduate are generally not respected by anyone but are convenient political and financial tools (despite what you might have been told as an undergraduate), you might want to frame your argument in terms of graduate students and faculty.

Larry, at 4:37 pm EDT on August 3, 2005

Should the artist have given the Cardinal a makeover?

So, here we have a bust of an officer of the Catholic church. As far as I can tell, displaying such a piece is pretty pro-Catholic in the first place. Has anyone seen any American works of art depicting an Imam or Buddhist monk lately?

Ok, the Cardinal so pictured is not very attractive. Whether the artist is trying to duplicate memory OR make a statement ("that Cardinals are ugly??") really is beside the point here. Not every bust or statue is flattering to the subject, for goodness sake.

As for the idea that the hat represents a penis, well, it’s a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? And let’s not forget that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar — and when a cigar is not a cigar, you have to think of why exactly that is so. Cardinal’s hats represent... what exactly? The distance between man and his god? I’m not sure. I bet there are folks out there who *are* though — we’ll wait for them to chime in.

But I am pretty sure that if the artist really wanted the hat to resemble a penis he could have gone further, and I do agree that the title of the piece indicates that this is a work of art by one man — and not “church-bashing.”

Jaya, Media Relations Director at The Sage Colleges, at 11:57 am EDT on August 8, 2005

The cardinal’s “hat”

It is absurd to even think that the “hat” is a penis—unless that of a whale. I applaud the artist for capturing the stern disapproval of many clerics (Catholics and non-Catholics) who smuggly condemn in others what they carry within their own bosom.

Arthur Ide, PhD, at 6:57 am EST on November 1, 2005

It’s a moot point — sculpture is gone

When the 8th annual outdoor sculpture exhibit ended in July 2004, this sculpture (and all others in the exhibit) were removed from the campus.

It’s a moot point, folks.

Reba Sneed, at 3:05 pm EST on March 13, 2006

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to Anti-Catholic or Just Art?

or search for jobs directly.

Accounting Faculty
Chatham University

Chatham University invites applicants for a faculty position in Accounting starting in fall 2009. This is a 9-month, ... see job

FOREIGN LANGUAGE — Brazilian Portuguese — Associate Faculty Pool
West Valley/Mission Community College District

WEST VALLEY-MISSION COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ACADEMIC PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE — Brazilian ... see job

Industrial Design Assoc. or Full Professor
Appalachian State University

Appalachian State University, Tenure-track, nine-month Associate or Full Professor position in the ASU Department of ... see job

Computer & Information Science (Cis) Instructors (Part-Time)
MiraCosta College

MiraCosta College COMPUTER & INFORMATION SCIENCE (CIS) INSTRUCTORS (PART-TIME) Closing Date: Open until filled POSITIONS ... see job

Instructional Faculty, Film & Animation, IRC24494
Rochester Institute of Technology

Rochester Institute of Technology, College of Imaging Arts and Sciences, 70 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623 BRIEF ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor — Taxation
Robert Morris University PA

Robert Morris University (RMU), founded in 1921, is a private university with an enrollment of approximately 5,100 students. ... see job

Clinical Assistant/Clinical Associate Professor/Pharmacy Practice
Lebanese American University

School of Pharmacy Department: Pharmacy Practice Campus: Byblos Vacancy date: Spring 2009 see job

Assistant/Associate Professor – Educational Research Methodology
Robert Morris University PA

Robert Morris University (RMU), founded in 1921, is a private university with an enrollment of approximately 5,100 students. ... see job

Mathematics (Applied), Assistant/Associate Professor
Florida Gulf Coast University

FGCU, a member of the State University System of Florida, is a comprehensive university created to address the educational ... see job

Noninvasive Cardiac Imaging
University of Pennsylvania

The Division of Cardiovascular Medicine in the Department of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine ... see job