Miami Student

Issue date: 11/2/07 Section: Editorials

By Eric Frey

Last Tuesday night President David Hodge sent out an e-mail in an attempt to clarify and diffuse a situation in which seven nooses and a tire swing were hung from a tree on campus as part of a faculty approved art project titled, "Growing Up: The Death of Childhood." After receiving complaints, the display was taken down by the Miami University Police Department (MUPD). The Miami Student editorial board condemns the poor judgment of the students who constructed the display, despite understanding how it was likely to be interpreted, as well as that of the faculty member who approved the project and yet continues to offer no justification for making such a decision.

While Hodge was correct to defuse rumors regarding the display and cool tensions by quickly sending out an e-mail to the Miami community, it is important to make sure the facts are correct and properly assessed before information is sent out en mass. For example, the e-mail mentioned one student, when in fact three were involved, and gave the impression that the students were ignorant of their project's racist connotations.

Although the students who put up the art display certainly bear responsibility, the fact that this project came to fruition represents a failure on multiple levels.

It is shocking and strangely ironic that a project intended to "signify the death of childhood" could be so naively conceived as to fail to realize the level of outrage that this display would engender. The fact that the students admitted to altering the knots on the nooses is a testament to their knowledge of how their display would likely be interpreted. Unlike an exhibit in an art museum where the viewer has a sense of context from which to interpret controversial works, the nooses were simply left hanging from a tree in a public space for all to observe.

Nor is the claim that they found out about the recent events in Jena, La. or Columbia University too late to change their project a legitimate excuse, as they could have worked with their professor to change the content of their display. While the decision to display the nooses does not appear to be one motivated by racial malice, it is clearly one of insensitivity, horrible judgment and a disregard for historical legacy.

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that, before beginning the project, the students discussed it with their professor and received the instructor's approval to construct the display. So far the faculty member has refused to comment on the issue, and the university will not disclose whether or not the professor was aware that the nooses would be part of the display. The professor's silence on this point is inexcusable and he/she must come forward and justify the reasons why the project was approved.

The faculty member involved had a responsibility toward educating the students about the implications of the display and being forthright about how the work would inevitably be interpreted.

In the end, the project should have been vetoed. On all of these counts it appears as if the professor failed, and in doing so demonstrated a profound lack of leadership. Because of this, there is a need for further investigation into the professor's culpability.

Ultimately, the perceived symbolism of this art project is inescapable. If insensitivity and a lapse of oversight contributed to this incident, it should also serve as a clarion call for students and faculty alike to pay greater mind to the significance of the socio-political issues and events around them, as well as for the different backgrounds of their fellow students. Likewise, the university must use the controversy spurred by this project to foster greater communication and understanding on campus.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools