Werbel
4.4 Avoiding harm is the most common justification for placing constraints. The cherished ideal of freedom of artistic expression coexists with many other ideals, including ensuring that a college or university campus is welcoming to everyone, and does not foster a hostile working or learning environment. Avoiding harm to a variety of audiences was most frequently cited by research participants as the justification for constraints their institutions had placed on the exhibition of art, as demonstrated by the answers to Survey Question Thirty-Six. If you have considered prohibiting or removing art from exhibition on the basis of its content and/or viewpoints, which concerns have you discussed as significant? (N=60; Choose all that apply) 40
36
30 25 20
20
17
15 10
10
11
12
10
9
16 12
10
8 5
5
5
Other
Damage to ‘brand’ of the college/university
Vandalism
Lawsuits
Loss of employment or promotion opportunities for gallery/museum sta�f
Local and/or wider o�f-campus protest
Student protest
Administrative displeasure
Loss of funding
Social media criticism
Spiritual / Religious harm
Physical harm / violence directed against campus members
Psychological / emotional harm to museum/gallery sta�f
Psychological / emotional harm to artist
2 Psychological / emotional harm to audiences
0
9
Detrimental involvement of local or state government o�ficials or other politicians
Number of Respondents
35
Survey Question Thirty-Six A few decision-makers elaborated on the idea of making choices thoughtfully to avoid harm to various audiences: Even when there’s the challenging things like sexuality– I almost feel like if there’s issues of censorship, now it’s going to be about being sensitive and the ideas of triggering people. That’s where my awareness is.
I’ve thought a lot about if we’re going to be dealing with really difficult content, I need to be thinking about the person for whom this will be most painful, and then I can construct a series of questions and a path using that as my guide.
25
