This country is founded on some fundamental rights; we are constitutionally guaranteed several specific freedoms from governmental interference regarding the ways in which we express ourselves. Whenever we sense the slightest infringement, we turn violent. We protest, we riot, and we even start wars. Sadly, we don’t always understand what we are so passionate about.
Two weeks ago, an art exhibition at RPI was suspended, later to be cancelled entirely. The work in question was controversial, involving a video game that followed a young suicide bomber who was modeled after the artist, Wafaa Bilal. It was intended to raise awareness of the conflicts and issues facing Iraqi civilians and their vulnerability to the “travesties of the current war,” according to Bilal’s website.
It wasn’t surprising that several members of the community were offended by the exhibit, given its nature. It did, after all, involve the assassination of American citizens leading up to that of the president of the United States, and it was based off another game distributed by al-Qaida as terrorist propaganda.
Similarly, it wasn’t surprising when other members of the community were outraged when the Institute cancelled the display. Doesn’t Bilal have the right to free expression, just like the rest of us?
Of course he does, and he is free to develop and display his game; he simply does not have the right to do so on the private property of Rensselaer’s campus. This is where one of the fundamental misconceptions of the Bill of Rights lies. The First Amendment merely protects U.S. citizens from federal laws restricting speech, religion, the press, and the abilities to assemble and petition. Private citizens and organizations, however, are able to restrict what happens on their own property.
It is very easy to mischaracterize Bilal’s piece by saying it supported acts of terrorism. With that in mind, I can understand how RPI might be reluctant to use its resources to support the exhibit. the Institute shouldn’t be obligated to sponsor all the artists that are looking for a venue to display their work.
With that said, I do think that the time to make these decisions passed long ago. To close the display after the opening night created an uproar that has drawn incredible negative press to the institution. Predictably, many people have decried the decision as a horrendous violation of the First Amendment—which absolutely isn’t the case. In a year of intense community and even national scrutiny regarding controversial administrative decisions, it can easily be perceived as yet another autocratic decree that alienates the RPI community.
Of course, it isn’t all that, but it is being seen as such, and perception is often more important than reality.
There are ways that Rensselaer could have continued to host this exhibit that would have made clear the fact that the Institute does not support acts of terrorism of any sort. Doing so would have made a clear statement to the world regarding the Institute’s commitment to free speech and thought, but would have minimized the negative connotations that Bilal’s work lent to the university.
I am proud of my degree from RPI, and it pains me to see the school cast in such an undeserved negative light. Her fame may never die; the same may be true of her infamy, if we aren’t careful.
