Censoring "Portraits of Terror" at Penn State:
Penn State Digital Collegian:
For Penn State student Josh Stulman, years of hard work ended in disappointment yesterday when the university cancelled his upcoming art exhibit for violation of Penn State's policies on nondiscrimination, harassment and hate.
Three days before his 10-piece exhibit — Portraits of Terror — was scheduled to open at the Patterson Building, Stulman (senior-painting and anthropology) received an e-mail message from the School of Visual Arts that said his exhibit on images of terrorism "did not promote cultural diversity" or "opportunities for democratic dialogue" and the display would be cancelled.
The exhibit, Stulman said, which is based mainly on the conflict in Palestinian territories, raises questions concerning the destruction of Jewish religious shrines, anti-Semitic propaganda and cartoons in Palestinian newspapers, the disregard for rules of engagement and treatment of prisoners, and the indoctrination of youth into terrorist acts.
"I'm being censored and the reason for censoring me doesn't make sense," Stulman said.
Charles Garoian, professor and director of the School of Visual Arts, said Stulman's controversial images did not mesh with the university's educational mission.
The decision to cancel the exhibit came after reviewing Penn State's Policy AD42 [the policy, which, in my educated opinion, is clearly unconstutionally overbroad even if it actually applies to Stulman's exhibit, can be found here]: Statement on Nondiscrimination and Harassment and Penn State's Zero Tolerance Policy for Hate, he wrote.
[Stulman] said he was shocked at the university's decision to cancel the exhibit and that he has tried to meet with Garoian on numerous occasions to discuss his artwork.
"It's not about hate. I don't hate Muslims. This is not about Islam," Stulman said. "This is about terrorism impacting the Palestinian way of life and Israel way of life.
Thanks to Scholars for Peace in the Middle East for the heads-up.
UPDATE: Here is a photo of one of the pieces from the censored exhibit.
It depicts is titled “Our Greatest Hero” and depicts Palestinian Nazi (I mean that literally) Haj Amin Al-Husseini, whom Yasser Arafat called "Our Greatest Hero."
Correction, from Mr. Stulman: The name of the painting in the picture is "Ramallah" and discusses the brutal treatment of Israeli soldiers in that specific area on at least several occasions including in 2002.
Censorship at Penn State Update:
SEE IMPORTANT UPDATES AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST!
I emailed Penn State spokesman Bill Mahon, who was quoted as stating that the Joshua Stulman's exhibit on the culture of terrorism in the Palestinian territories (see linked post below) was not censored for content, but for other reasons, to explain what those other reasons were. Here is the response I received:
This story is dead wrong. The headline in the student newspaper is wrong.
The student may exhibit his class work in the space provided for class projects — as long as he has no sponsor.
There are other places all over campus that sponsored exhibits are displayed. This hallway outside of faculty offices is for class projects not commercial projects.
If the student puts up the exhibit without a sponsor funding the exhibit it is fine with the art faculty. He has been told this.
That has always been the intent for this hallway and that has not changed because of this exhibit or its content.
I hope he puts up the exhibit and the claims that art faculty want to censor his work end.
Thanks for asking.
This cached Google page shows that Mr. Stulman was scheduled to have an exhibit April 23-29 at the Patterson gallery, topic TBA. Mr. Stulman had previously exhibited there in February.
As near as I can tell, no one has denied that Mr. Stulman received an email stating that his exhibit may not go forward as scheduled, or that he was told that his exhibit was objectionable because it "did not promote cultural diversity" or "opportunities for democratic dialogue."
If I'm reading Mr. Mahon's email correctly, however, he is focusing on the fact that Hillel sponsored
Mr. Stulman's exhibit the reception for Mr. Stulman's exhibit, to the tune of $75-$100, which somehow makes it a "commercial project" ineligible for display. However, according to the news story, "Stulman said he created his paintings on his own and he approached Penn State Hillel in February to help with advertising costs and food for the opening. He said the School of Visual Arts did not object to his earlier exhibit, also sponsored by Hillel. Tuvia Abramson, director of Penn State Hillel, said while Hillel sponsored the Stulman's exhibit, the group had nothing to do with his message or content." [Hillel's continuing interest in Stulman's work is documented here.]
So we have two possibilities here: (1) Penn State's art faculty has a rule against displaying any student work that has any sponsorship, including sponsorship by a recognized student organization such as Hillel. However, this rule is only applied when the faculty doesn't like the message the art is sending or (2) there is no such rule, or at least it wouldn't apply to a noncommercial, student organization such as Hillel, but pretending there is such a rule is a convenient excuse for what would otherwise look like pure heavy-handed enforcement of political correctness.
Needless to say, neither option reflects well on Penn State.
UPDATE: I found the Patterson Gallery guidelines for exhibits of student work online, and I don't see any rule prohibiting sponsorship.
FURTHER UPDATE: The Centre Daily Times has more:
Penn State spokesman Bill Mahon said in a separate e-mail that "the heart of this issue is the student never mentioned outside sponsorship" when the exhibit was approved.
But e-mails from Stulman to Garoian, obtained by the Centre Daily Times, show that Stulman wrote March 1 that "the opening is sponsored by Penn State Hillel" and offered contact information for Penn State's Hillel director, Tuvia Abramson. Hillel is a Jewish organization.
On April 11, Garoian e-mailed Abramson and Stulman and suggested the three get together to write a news release about the exhibit. Garoian and Abramson corresponded several more times without mentioning the sponsorship.
Hillel was providing $75 to $100 for a reception, Abramson said. Hillel did the same for a February exhibit, Abramson and Stulman said, and encountered no problems.
YET ONE MORE UPDATE: This is precious. Professor Charles Garoian, who is apparently responsible for refusing to allow Stulman's exhibit to be displayed, published (with a co-author) a series of three articles in 1996 in a journal called School Arts entitled "Censorship in the art classroom," with the final article in the trilogy called "Fighting censorship in the art classroom." The good professor wrote, prophetically:
Increasingly, attacks on learning are also coming from the political left with objections predicated on issues of political incorrectness as in the following: depictions of gender or race which are alleged offensive, such as female nudity; what are perceived as sexist or racist images or language; any kind of religious content; and other politically sensitive subjects. In many cases, teachers have been fired, disciplined or harassed in the wake of such attacks. In some cases, teachers have suffered damage to their careers and reputations.
One result of censorship is that teachers become increasingly reluctant to use materials in their classrooms that may raise difficult social questions, communicate values, portray potentially controversial subject matter or cause students to think about important issues. Is art education in danger of being reduced to the study and creation of decorative images devoid of values, social issues or other content deemed offensive to particular individuals or groups? [School Arts v95.n5 (Jan 1996)]
Compare this to the email Stulman received
[not clear from exactly who] from Garoian stating that his exhibition would be canceled because it "did not promote cultural diversity" or "opportunities for democratic dialogue," and Garoian's reported statement that Stulman's controversial images did not mesh with the university's educational mission!
Even more precious, in Part II of the three-part series, Garoian criticized "self-censorship" at the Penn State School of Visual Arts:
An example of self-censorship recently occurred at the School of Visual Arts on the University Park campus of Penn State University. The undergraduate committee for student exhibits in the Patterson Gallery was asked to develop its own guidelines for exhibitions after several incidents in which the content of previous exhibitions was called into question by administrators and visitors to the gallery.
This committee, composed of students only, was given permission by the director of the School of Visual Arts to take full responsibility for the gallery space and to define its own policy. What the director did not anticipate was the committee's interpretation of the following rule: "Since the exhibit space is in a public hallway, and is the main entrance to the administration office, obscene or inappropriate work will not be permitted. Unlike a traditional gallery space, passersby have no choice in entering or avoiding this area. Every attempt will be made to accommodate all artwork, but sensitivity on your part is encouraged. Work that may fall into this category should be shown to the committee before it is displayed."
Upon reading the acceptance criteria developed by the students, the director and several faculty members advised students to reconsider this rule based on the premise that "a free exploration and expression of ideas and images in art must be preserved," which is a major purpose of art study in the school. Was the students' fear of possible future active censorship by the school's administration and faculty influential in their development of the language of the policy? Was it an acknowledgment of their intent to self-censor their own work? How do we judge between what might be regarded as such or just prudent decision-making?
Yet, regardless of our individual beliefs, we rely on some basic principles to guide our search for solutions. As students enter our art classes, it is important that they be provided with a clear rationale regarding the purpose of art education in the schools. That rationale is to learn that works of are are not created in a void. Instead, the conditions of our culture influence the nature of images and ideas in works of art which, in turn, become part of the discourse that comprises the culture.
Members of the school community, including the students, ought to be clearly informed that in our classes they may experience strange, fantastic and controversial works of art - ones that are conceptually and emotionally challenging. Our intention as art teachers is not to shock nor to deny them their cultural values, attitudes and beliefs. They may not like what they experience, and it is not the art teacher's role to force them to do so. On the contrary, in a cultural democracy, students are taught to understand the purpose of such artworks despite the fact that they may not like or agree with them. Without such understanding, the knowledge of, appreciation and respect for our myriad differences may never be possible. [School Arts 95.n7 (March 1996)]
Penn State Censorship--The Plot Thickens:
Reader Andy Banducci points out that the "harassment" policy AD42 that Penn State has relied on in censoring student Josh Stulman's exhibit of paintings on the culture of terrorism in the Palestinian Territories is under constitutional attack by the Alliance Defense Fund. You can read the complaint here.
According to this news story, Penn State's response to the complaint states: "It is denied that Penn State maintains a 'speech code policy.'" It will be pretty hard for Penn State to maintain that posture when the email Stulman received cancelling his exhibit apparently stated that his exhibit was in violation of AD42 because it "did not promote cultural diversity" or "opportunities for democratic dialogue."
Not to belabor the obvious, but after federal courts consistently invalidated state university "speech codes" in the 1990s, the universities revived these codes in the guise of antidiscrimination policy. There is no reason to believe that the universities will be any more successful in defending the (barely disguised) codes this time, but neither the Constitution nor common sense seems to be much of a barrier to speech regulation at public universities these days.
Penn State Backs Down
regarding Josh Stulman's exhibit on the culture of terrorism in the Palestinian territories, as per this email letter to Ed Beck of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East:
Thank you for your note expressing concern over the proposed art exhibit. President Spanier is out of town and his schedule will make it unlikely that he can respond in a timely manner so I am responding on his behalf, but I will be sure that he sees your note.
I certainly understand your concern, because there has been much confusion on this issue in the media. First, and most importantly, the "administration" does not condone censorship of artwork and had no role in this matter. Indeed, we have worked diligently with the art department to help find a way to ensure that the student has an opportunity to display his work.
On Monday the student was again notified by email and in person that the space was available for his use the rest of this week and that two people from the department were also available to help him set it up. I was informed last night that the student does not feel ready to proceed at this time and would prefer to wait until the fall. We have assured him that the University will help to facilitate the exhibit whenever he is ready.
So let me reiterate that in no way is Penn State blocking the presentation of his work because of its content.
Again, thank you for writing. We appreciate your concern over this matter.
Vice President for University Relations
I like the implict acknowledgement that there was indeed content-based censorship here, contrary to the previous claim by a university spokesman that it was all about Hillel's $75 contribution for a reception. I wonder if Penn State would have ultimately been so forthcoming but for (a) the fact that they are being sued for having an unconstitutional speech code and (b) the attention the matter received on this and other blogs.
More on the Penn State Censorship Scandal:
[Welcome Instapundit readers! If you have not been following this story and want some further background information, you can read my previous posts on the subject here. Ironically, Professor Garoian, responsible for censorship in this incident, previously wrote a series of articles condemning censorship of the arts, including at Penn State!]
A very strong statement by the director of the Penn State Hillel, Tuvia Abramson:
Following eight days of misinformation by the School of Visual Arts and
the Penn State University spokesman, which resulted in misleading
information, I have decided today to issue an official statement as the
executive director of Penn State Hillel.
The university is an open market for ideas, creativity, and sometimes
debates. Penn State Hillel is a place where Jewish students create,
learn debate, grow, and above all feel comfortable to be a Jew. The role
of the Hillel Foundation on campus is to educate the community about
Judaism, to maintain a high profile so in a case like Joshua Stulman's
they will know that there is an organization that supports the students.
The Hillel Foundation, as stated in its charter, must represent the
diversity of opinion (religious, cultural, and political) which are
found in any Jewish community around the world. Hillel has no political
agenda, and as I write this letter today, I have not even seen all of
the pictures for Joshua's exhibit.
In my 23 years in Hillel on three different campuses, I have not seen an
act so blatant as the act of censorship, discrimination, and
anti-Semitism like the one which applies to Joshua Stulman [editor's note: the charge of anti-Semitism seems a bit extreme here, but apparently the Hillel director has been subjected to a flurry of anti-Semitic calls and threats, so you can understand his senstivity to the blame that was put on Hillel].
This was not a single act. This was systematic abuse and intimidation
which was applied by the School of Visual Arts to coerce the student and
force him to cancel his art exhibition all because of its political
The message of Joshua's exhibit was this: When you preach hate, teach
hate, and indoctrinate children with hate, you will have terror. When
you use the airways and the political system to reinforce hate, you
create a mechanism by which these children will learn how and when to
destroy innocent life.
This message was blocked by the director of the School of Visual Arts
and its faculty without discussion or review of most of the artwork with
the student Joshua Stulman. The director issued a statement canceling
the exhibit stating the cancellation was based on Penn State's Policy
AD42 about Zero Tolerance for Hate and that Joshua's work did not
promote a democratic dialogue or cultural diversity.
The second reason stated for canceling the exhibit was due to the
sponsorship of Hillel for the reception on opening night.
Both of these statements were false, misleading, and were never
discussed prior to receiving the letter of cancellation. They were fake
excuses to find justification to shut up the exhibit because of its
political content, which did not go along with the political opinion or
agenda of Professor Charles Garoian and art lecturer and advisor Robert
The mistake was done by the School of Visual Arts, who added insult to
injury when Professor Garoian offered to Joshua on Friday night, the
Jewish Sabbath, that he could put up his exhibit the next day if Joshua
would drop the Hillel sponsorship. Joshua refused to accept the offer of
removing Hillel because doing so would validate their denial of applying
censorship to the artwork.
All the attempts to set the record straight and to have the School of
Visual Arts issue an apology to Hillel for falsely implicating the
Foundation. In February, Hillel sponsored an exhibit by the same artist
in the same gallery with no issues.
An [RTF] attachment to this e-mail details six weeks worth of
correspondence related to this incident.
The Hillel Foundation is thankful to [Penn State President] Graham
Spanier who issued a statement against censorship. The Foundation also
thanks Stephen MacCarthy for understanding the complexity and his
tireless work to resolve this unacceptable situation.
On April 27 Johsua received an email from Professor Garoian, which was
to represent an apology, but rather it was just a letter full of excuses.
Nowhere in his e-mail was an apology to Hillel for falsely using its
name as an excuse to cancel the exhibit, nor was there a specific
apology to Joshua in regard to using the Hate Code as a false excuse to
cancel the exhibit.
As of today no public apology to anyone has been issued to the media.
Additionally the statement from the university spokesman has not been
modified. On the contrary, on April 29 Fox News broadcasted the
university spokesman William Mahon as saying that it was only the
responsibility of one professor.
The Hillel Foundation feels that the School of Visual Arts needs to come
clean. It has given a black eye to the college of Arts and Architecture.
It has given a black eye to the entire university, it mislead the media,
faculty, staff, and above all it projected the university as an academic
center where freedom of expression, academic freedom and freedom of
speech is denied because of political correctness.
Is this the image that Penn State would like to promote? I doubt it.
The mistake was done by the School of Visual Arts. The university needs
to find a way to right the wrong. An investigation is necessary of the
faculty of the School of Visual Arts, administration, and anyone else at
this university who may have been involved in this act of cancellation
and the climate of discrimination.
Attached with this email is a more detailed chronology of events, which I have reprinted "beneath the fold" for those who are interested.
Detailed account of exhibit cancellation from Penn State Hillel
By Tuvia Abramson, Penn State Hillel Executive Director, May 1, 2006
Following the articles in various newspapers and the onslaught of emails from across the country and around the world and following conflicting information, misinformation and smoke-screens, I have decided today to document the facts in regard to Joshua Stulman’s exhibit cancellation.
Should you need to verify the facts mentioned below, a copy of the specific emails supporting the facts and the dates can be sent to you upon request.
In February 06, the Hillel Foundation sponsored a reception and some PR costs (approximately $100) for the exhibit called “Hodgepodge” by Joshua Stulman. Hillel’s name appeared as a sponsor of this exhibit. This exhibit was presented without incident or conflict due to the sponsorship.
It is Hillel’s mission to support Jewish activity on campus, whether it is educational, religious, cultural, etc. Hillel does not pass judgment on content or on religious preference or on political preference, but embraces diversity of expression which also reflects the diversity of the Jewish student body on the Penn State campus, (this consists of approximately 4,000 students).
Hillel understands that Jewish students come from different backgrounds, traditions, political views, and they may have different opinions on the struggle of Israel’s existence. Open dialogue and expression is not only encouraged but also embraced.
After the opening of Joshua’s first exhibit, he approached me with a request for Hillel to sponsor a second exhibit at the same gallery in April 06. I was very happy to see that Joshua was moving ahead in a new artistic field, because I have known him for five years as a Jewish student leader and a cantor for Hillel.
I immediately agreed on behalf of Hillel to sponsor the opening of the second exhibit. On March 1, 2006, Charles Garoian, Director and Professor at the School of Visual Arts, sent an email to Joshua questioning the nature of his exhibit and emphasized that he be prepared. This email had political bias in it and emphasized the possible controversy rather than speaking of the quality of work itself.
Joshua immediately responded to this email and welcomed the professor’s interest. He understood the concern and informed the professor about the process and the classes that he took in preparation for this exhibit during both previous year and this year. In the same email Joshua informed Professor Garoian that Penn State Hillel would be sponsoring the opening and that Tuvia Abramson the Executive Director of Hillel would be more than willing to speak with him about some of the pieces that he had seen in regard to Professor Garoian’s concerns.
Hillel’s phone number was given to the professor at this point. The third email of March 1, 2006 was sent from Charles Garoian to Joshua, thanking him for his quick response and telling him that Charles’ assistant Glenda would be contacting Joshua soon to schedule a meeting.
On April 11, 2006 Tuvia Abramson and Joshua Stulman received a combined email from the professor requesting a meeting to discuss the “provocative images that could become controversial”. Charles Garoian requested a meeting to discuss the content so he can speak about it intelligently. Even this email was tainted with political overtones. In the same email, Charles Garoian suggested that Joshua, “with possible assistance from his professors, you, Tuvia, and me, prepare a press release, which would at least get well conceived information out about the exhibition to prevent it from being distorted by reporters who are not familiar with socio/political art nor Joshua’s intention to create educational dialogue.”
Charles emphasized that he looked forward to meeting with Tuvia and Joshua to discuss the exhibition before the opening on April 23, 2006.
A few emails followed on April 11, 2006, some between Charles and Tuvia in connection with the content of the exhibit and the timeframe for the meeting to take place. In one of the emails, Tuvia tried to make Charles understand that as far as he knows the pictures were not provocative, but were based on images found in pictures that were published in different public media venues.
Purposely, to avoid any misunderstanding or controversy, Tuvia gave Charles his cell phone number and his home phone number, due to the fact the Hillel office would be closed for Passover the following day and a few days the following week.
On Tuesday April 11, 2006, Joshua also responded to the email with a willingness to meet with Charles. On Wednesday April 12th, Tuvia Abramson sent an email to Professor Garoian, explaining that it was Passover eve, and in spite of the holiday, the three of them (or maybe four with addition of Professor Yarber, Joshua’s Art teacher and advisor) will meet anytime during the last two days of Passover. Tuvia emphasized that because of the holiday the Hillel office would be closed, but he would be willing to meet any time on April 19 or 20 to create a dialogue.
Again, Tuvia resubmitted to Charles his cell phone number and home phone number. Joshua also indicated that he would be available during the afternoon of those two days.
On Passover, April 13th, 2006, Joshua received an email indicating that the meeting would take place on Thursday April 20th at 4:00 to discuss the exhibition. Charles indicated in the email that he would copy Tuvia so that he, too, could join them as well if he was so inclined.
On Monday April 17, 2006 Charles sent an email to Joshua, again labeling the subject line “potential controversy” and confirming that a meeting would take place at 4:00pm with the idea of reviewing the paintings and the artist’s statement.
On Tuesday April 18 at 6:25pm, Charles sent a combined email to Tuvia and Joshua with a carbon copy to Dean Durst, the Dean of the College of Arts and Architecture, indicating that he was looking forward to meeting with them on Thursday April 20th at 4:00pm in his office. To the surprise of Joshua and Tuvia, it was no longer a meeting of 3 or 4 people as planned before, but Charles Garoian took it upon himself to invite the following people: Steve MacCarthy, the Vice President of Public Information, Tom Poole, Vice President of Educational Equity in Old Main, members of the painting faculty, plus Mohammed Atiyat, the President of Islamic Student Association and his friend Mansoor Aliedi.
The next day, Wednesday April 19th, Tuvia was driving back from Toronto to attend the meeting when he received a phone call from Joshua informing him about the increased number of participants. No change in agenda or explanation was given to explain the drastic increase and the number of participants. It was very surprising to Joshua and Tuvia that instead of 4 people meeting to discuss the art and the artist’s statement, all of a sudden the meeting took on political overtones as indicated by the additional participants who were now added to the meeting.
Tuvia was traveling and had no access to his email, therefore he asked Joshua to respond to Charles with a combined email from both of them, indicating the surprise and the dismay that was felt about the imposed change of venue without discussing it prior to the email. Because of the Passover holiday, Tuvia and Joshua asked that the meeting be changed to Friday so that they too could invite other Jewish representatives, i.e.: Jewish faculty, students and board members.
This email was sent in the evening; but before the email was even received, Charles Garoian sent an email to all the participants of the meeting with the subject: CANCELLATION. As quoted from Charles’ email “After reviewing the policy and guidelines of the Patterson Gallery in the School of Visual Arts, Penn State’s policy AD42: Statement on Nondiscrimination and Harassment and Penn State’s Zero tolerance policy for hate, I have decided to cancel Joshua Stulman’s exhibition scheduled for April 23rd through 29th 2006 in the Patterson Gallery”.
Again, I reiterate that this cancellation was done before any meeting was held with Joshua, Tuvia, and Professor Garoian. The email also indicated that Joshua’s artwork does not promote the School of Visual Arts’ cultural diversity or assurance of opportunities for democratic dialogues within the context of its classrooms and its exhibition spaces.
To our surprise in spite of knowing since March 1, 2006 that Hillel was sponsoring the reception, and in spite of numerous emails, many of them to Tuvia and Joshua together, inviting Hillel to participate in preparing background information and press releases with the School of Visual Arts, Charles found some guidelines, somewhere, which we have NEVER seen, and indicated that Hillel’s sponsorship was the second reason for the cancellation, (notwithstanding that Joshua’s first exhibit was Hillel-sponsored without ANY question).
On the morning of Thursday April 20th, Charles arbitrarily sent an email to all the participants canceling the meeting.
That same day the media was notified of the cancellation. What followed was a circus of smokescreens, fake explanations, and half-truths on the part of the School of Visual Arts, which eventually culminated in a statement sent from Garoian to Joshua that his exhibit was ONLY cancelled because of Hillel’s sponsorship, but Joshua COULD have his exhibit if he dropped Hillel’s sponsorship
Tuvia was on his way to Friday night services at Hillel. Upon Tuvia’s request the CDT sent a copy of the email to Tuvia. As of today, Tuvia never received that email from Professor Garoian. The audacity of this email is beyond words. Hillel was a participant in Joshua’s first exhibit and was specifically asked by Joshua to participate in the preparation for the second exhibit.
One might wonder why there was a need for a meeting of such size and why the issue of content was mentioned in the cancellation notice. It is also important to notice that Joshua never received an individual cancellation notice from Charles with a clear explanation to the nature of the “hate crime policy” or the guidelines of the Hillel participation issue.
Upon reading the email, Tuvia offered to Joshua to remove Hillel’s sponsorship, which Joshua immediately rejected and called the email and insult pathetic.
Tuvia called the email morally repugnant.
During this week misleading information kept coming from the university’s spokesman. Charles Garoian disappeared and refused to answer any questions or phone calls from the media or from anyone else.
This campaign of distorted truth was the reason why the Hillel Foundation and Joshua Stulman both requested an apology from the university administration and demanded that Joshua’s exhibit be allowed to take place in the fall with the full sponsorship of Hillel.
A promise was issued that the exhibit will be shown in the fall with Hillel sponsorship. The apology from Charles Goroian was received only by Joshua and forwarded to Tuvia Abramson. This apology did not speak about using zero tolerance for hate as its reason for cancellation. It did not apologize for using Hillel as a scapegoat to cover the wrongs that were done to Joshua Stulman.
Another apology was issued by the Dean of the College of Art and Architecture with an offer for Joshua to exhibit his work was reiterated. This email did not include a mention of the hate policy or the sponsorship of Hillel Foundation as well.
As of April 28, as seen on Fox news, the university spokesman still insisted that it was only one professor’s decision