After a senior honors thesis art project was taken down in the Center for the Visual Arts on April 17, students are concerned about university censorship and their right to free speech. 

Before its complete removal, the artwork was placed on a window in the Center for the Visual Arts, visible to everyone on campus. The university then installed a screen after hearing about the project’s display, limiting viewing access to students who wished to see the art. According to the university, the student voluntarily took down their artwork after the screen was placed in front of the installation.

Faculty, directors of the art program and the artist declined to comment about the situation, creation of the artwork or process of displaying and removing the piece. 

On April 19, two days after the artwork was removed, Kent State President Todd Diacon addressed the controversy in an email to students and community members. Diacon stated and reiterated that “the artwork was removed voluntarily and quickly.” 

Aaron Corpora, program officer of campus rights advocacy team at Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, said the art is completely protected expression. 

According to Corpora and general First Amendment rights, unprotected actions include speakers who communicate or express intent of serious or unlawful acts of violence. 

“You’ll see a lot of reporting about this being called threatening artwork or incitement artwork … but this lone singular piece of artwork does not fit either of those categories of unprotected expression,” Corpora said. 

Corpora said despite Diacon’s public comments, which did correctly identify the artwork as first amendment protected, covering it before the artist agreed to take it down seems restrictive. 

“The screening and making it behind something and not immediately available to be viewed easily … definitely has a censorious tilt to it,” he said. “It does not capture the spirit of free and open expression.” 

Taking down the piece sparked confusion among students including Amber Trares, a junior public relations major, who feels this is a restriction of free speech on campus. 

“Free speech is a huge thing on campus and restricting that can be really dangerous,” Trares said. “Especially because the student, I don’t think they meant any harm, I think it was just a work of art more than anything.” 

In his email, Diacon stressed Kent State’s history with polarizing political viewpoints that eventually led to violence. Diacon stated that the artist’s voluntary removal of their piece would maintain campus respect for those on all political spectrums. 

“Understand that just because a piece of art is offensive to some or inflammatory to some, that doesn’t mean that it’s not protected by the First Amendment,” Corpora said. “Heated political rhetoric like this, especially in the artistic space, is core First Amendment expression.” 

Along with Corpora, Brian Corrigan, senior English major, said art is open to being presented and interpreted in many different ways. 

“I would argue that all art is inherently political, but there are extreme ways of depicting your political standpoint and you could say this was one of them,” Corrigan said. “But I have also talked to people who have said they wouldn’t consider this extreme because art is art.” 

Junior musical theater major Niko Thomas compared the response to this act of free speech with previous acts on campus. 

“The one time our current president is under fire, it feels a little selective in how they want to address things,” Thomas said. “There’s ways that are acceptable. I just don’t like that one in particular wasn’t acceptable, if they put it on the rock could [the university] have said anything?” 

Diacon said the artwork does not reflect Kent State’s viewpoint while also recognizing the “sensitivities of the history of violence on our campus.” 

“We constantly celebrate May 4 and all of the students who stood up and damn near sacrificed their lives for something they believed in,” Thomas said. 

Trares said the university response led her to believe students might approach expressing themselves in different ways. 

“Working that hard on a project and then having to take it down, I think it could totally be some restraint for [art students] because they don’t want their art to be disliked and don’t want to get in trouble for working that hard,” Trares said. 

Kent State said they will continue to uphold the right to free speech despite students’ uncertainty regarding the situation. 

“I definitely would worry about a chilling effect on campus,” Corpora said. “This kind of thing continues the pace as far as shielding students from offensive imagery or things that make them uncomfortable and that’s not good for the state of free expression. ”

Savana Capp is planning editor. Contact her at [email protected].

Chloe Robertson is opinion editor. Contact her at [email protected].