I know we're all just about ready to put the controversy over Aliza Shvarts' "abortion-inducing" art project behind us, but at the Guardian, Kriston Capps says out loud something I've been thinking to myself since this story broke: As potentially ridiculous, hackneyed, and counterproductive as Shvarts' project was, Yale was absolutely wrong to censor her work because she refused to verify its inauthenticity. (Shvarts was asked to state unequivocally that she did not really induce abortions, and she refused.) The University said, "Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns." But as Kriston writes:
Yale calls into doubt its stated support for performance art by appealing to a set of unstated "basic ethical standards". Worse still, the university's statement - cast before faculty within the department in question had spoken - seems to undercut the autonomy of and confidence in that department. If, as [Yale spokeswoman Helaine] Klasky claims, the project is a fiction, then why has the university disciplined two faculty members (School of Art lecturer Pia Lindman and School of Art director of undergraduate studies Henk van Assen)?
Indeed, wasn't Yale's censoring reaction to the project in large part due to the public scrutiny it received? And didn't the project receive that level of scrutiny only because it was about abortion, one of the most divisive topics in the American discourse? The role of the university should be less about declaring whether or not art is in good enough taste to be shown, and more about evaluating the work of young artists and helping them to grow. As Kriston writes, after all, "They can give her a failing grade."
--Dana Goldstein
