During President Shirley Ann Jackson’s recent town hall meeting, she announced the plan to create a framework for approving artistic presentations and exhibits before they are brought to the Institute. As RPI continues to broaden its focus as a university to include the arts and humanities, it is crucial that the Institute maintains a commitment to supporting free and open discussion of ideas. While such a vetting process could be implemented correctly and constructively, there is a very real possibility that it could be used to enforce an overly conservative set of policies regarding art on campus, which would severely damage the reputation of the Institute and its growing art program.
During the town hall meeting, Jackson emphasized the importance of pushing the technological and creative boundaries of artistic expression through the Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center program. Based on the recent decision to shut down the Wafaa Bilal exhibit, it seems that political and social boundaries may be an exception to this commitment to the arts.
The importance of free speech should not be underestimated. While it is true that RPI is a private institution and has the ability to allow or deny any sort of conduct they please, the school must recognize that one of the major roles of a university is to allow open discussion of ideas which may be contentious. If we are to advance the state of dialog on modern political and social issues, it is necessary to speak on topics which many may consider controversial. Due to the heated nature of many modern issues, it is to be expected that open discussion of them may result in protest or anger within the population of the school or the community at large. However, possible disputes should not be seen as a reason to avoid discussion on these topics.
A “commitment” to free expression that excludes controversial political and social commentary is not a true commitment at all, and ignores the fundamental reason for protecting speech.
Freedom of expression is protected so that those with unpopular or controversial ideas have a chance to discuss them. If we do not protect the discussion of these ideas, and limit our support of the arts to exhibits which fit into the current zeitgeist, we cannot expect to further any sort of real discussion on these issues. Additionally, if RPI becomes known for only allowing conciliatory artistic expression, it will become difficult to expand the art programs which the Institute has recently placed so much focus upon.
The issue of free speech on campus extends beyond the Bilal exhibit and Statler & Waldorf’s articles. These controversies are only the beginning of an issue which will become of much greater importance as RPI continues to emphasize the arts and humanities. As an Institute, we must be truly committed to protecting freedom of expression on campus if we are to continue to maintain our place as a well-respected institution of higher learning.
If you are interested in supporting and promoting freedom of expression on campus, there will be a forum on freedom of expression organized by the E-Board and the RPI administration. The forum will be held today from 4–6 pm in the McNeil Room.
Editor’s Note: “Liberal Bias” runs biweekly and is an opinion column granted by the Editorial Board to the College Democrats.
