Objectively Subjective
.jpg)
David Bernstein reports that former Penn State student Josh Stullman has filed a section 1983 action naming the University, its President, the Director of the School of Visual Arts and a visual arts professor in connection with an alleged deprivation of Stullman's First Amendment rights.
In a nutshell, Stullman was to exhibit artwork on campus in an exhibition entitled "Portraits of Terror," which dealt with terrorism themes from a pro-Israeli perspective. Before the scheduled exhibition, Stullman was informed he could not exhibit the artwork because, in the view of the School of Visual Arts, the work "did not promote the tenets of cultural diversity and assuring opportunities for democratic dialogue." During a conference on the issue, a visual arts professor allegedly characterized Stullman and his work as overtly racist. The complaint also alleges that the same professor admitted to having torn down on-campus flyers advertising the exhibition.
Perhaps the most interesting question that may be presented asks whether the state, acting through its university officials, has a sufficiently compelling governmental interest in "promot[ing] the tenets of cultural diversity" to justify content discrimination that the First Amendment otherwise forbids. In order to answer that question, someone, I presume, will explain the objective criteria that are applied to determine whether any given work of art sufficiently "promote[s] the tenets of cultural diversity" to be seen on campus. The PLB, of course, expresses no opinion on what those criteria might be . . .
More background here.
