2008 Woodie Awards
Miami U. officials respond to complaints surrounding controversial art display
Megan E. Weiland
Issue date: 11/9/07 Section: Front Page
While nothing has been decided in the case of the three art students and their class project involving seven noose-like ropes and a tire swing that appeared on campus Oct. 30, Miami University has met with concerned students and launched a fact-finding inquiry into the situation.
"We have been asked to make a movement to seek and label the facts of the case," said Matthew Boaz, director of the Office of Equity and Equal Opportunity. "Once the facts are gathered, I will put them together and present them to the university president."
Boaz added that this is not an investigation, so it will be up to President David Hodge to decide how to proceed once he has the facts.
"There is no specific deadline since I am relying on multiple people to provide information," Boaz said. "But this is my highest priority right now."
Susan Vaughn, director of the Office of Ethics and Student Conflict Resolution, said they cannot disclose whether or not the students involved are being charged under the Student Code of Conduct. Miami University Police Lieutenant Andrew Powers said this is a university issue now.
"We have not filed charges in that case and are not contemplating filing any at this time," Powers said. "That is the extent of our involvement."
Dean of Fine Arts James Lentini said his own investigation into the facts surrounding the event is still underway.
"The important thing to remember is that this was a class critique, not an art exhibit," he said. "No one in the art department found it offensive as a class project, but students who didn't realize what it was understandably were upset and called the police."
Lentini stressed his belief that they are not here to censor art or restrict First Amendment rights.
There is a precedent for cases involving possibly harmful symbols: In 1992, the United States Supreme Court saw the case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, where a juvenile and a few others taped chair legs together to make a cross, placed it inside the fenced-in front yard of an African American family and lit it on fire. St. Paul, Minn. prosecuted him for disorderly conduct under a statute that said whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including but not limited to a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonably grounds to know arouses anger, harm or resentment in others on the basis of color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of misdemeanor.
"We have been asked to make a movement to seek and label the facts of the case," said Matthew Boaz, director of the Office of Equity and Equal Opportunity. "Once the facts are gathered, I will put them together and present them to the university president."
Boaz added that this is not an investigation, so it will be up to President David Hodge to decide how to proceed once he has the facts.
"There is no specific deadline since I am relying on multiple people to provide information," Boaz said. "But this is my highest priority right now."
Susan Vaughn, director of the Office of Ethics and Student Conflict Resolution, said they cannot disclose whether or not the students involved are being charged under the Student Code of Conduct. Miami University Police Lieutenant Andrew Powers said this is a university issue now.
"We have not filed charges in that case and are not contemplating filing any at this time," Powers said. "That is the extent of our involvement."
Dean of Fine Arts James Lentini said his own investigation into the facts surrounding the event is still underway.
"The important thing to remember is that this was a class critique, not an art exhibit," he said. "No one in the art department found it offensive as a class project, but students who didn't realize what it was understandably were upset and called the police."
Lentini stressed his belief that they are not here to censor art or restrict First Amendment rights.
There is a precedent for cases involving possibly harmful symbols: In 1992, the United States Supreme Court saw the case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, where a juvenile and a few others taped chair legs together to make a cross, placed it inside the fenced-in front yard of an African American family and lit it on fire. St. Paul, Minn. prosecuted him for disorderly conduct under a statute that said whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation, characterization or graffiti, including but not limited to a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonably grounds to know arouses anger, harm or resentment in others on the basis of color, creed, religion or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of misdemeanor.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Concerned Parent
posted 12/04/07 @ 10:58 AM EST
Whitewash On Noose "Art"
Why has Miami University whitewashed the responsibility of those who approved the display of nooses as a "work of art"? For this exhibit to gain approval it had to go up the ladder, through a specific chain of approval, through the Art Department and the Grounds Department. (Continued…)
Post a Comment