Indiana University Is Where Academic Freedom Goes to Die

I am sure many faculty and students on the Indiana University at Bloomington campus were heartened last week, as I was, by the provost’s public affirmation of the university’s commitment to academic freedom. The provost expressed support for the renowned but beleaguered Kinsey Institute, which researches sexuality, that the state legislature has now defunded. He also voiced strong reservations about the potential threat to tenure in Indiana’s Senate Bill 202, which threatens to punish faculty who do not provide sufficient “intellectual diversity” in their courses. In the face of these threats, the provost’s statement affirmed IU’s “deep commitment to academic freedom and intellectual rigor.” At a perilous moment for higher education in the state and nationally, it was gratifying to hear the provost assure us that IU is committed to “expansive intellectual inquiry, robust discourse, and the freedom to explore topics that expand knowledge.”

There is only one problem: Right now, IU’s campus leadership has zero credibility when mouthing these platitudes.

Even while affirming a commitment to open inquiry and academic freedom, the university is weathering an enormous storm of criticism for violating those very principles by summarily cancelling an art exhibit that had been slated to open at IU’s Eskenazi Museum of Art this month. In the works for three years, “Samia Halaby: Centers of Energy” promised to enhance the museum’s reputation with a major retrospective of the work of Palestinian American abstract artist, Samia Halaby, an alumna and former teacher at IU. A mere seven weeks before the scheduled opening — with grants procured, borrowed artworks on site, gallery prepped, announcements made, catalog printed — Halaby received a curt note informing her that the exhibit had been canceled, without explanation or apology. No universitywide announcement was ever made; to date, no indication of the cancellation appears on the museum’s website. Many requests by the artist for an explanation from the university president went unanswered. It is as if IU’s leadership wanted to pretend the exhibit had never been slated to take place.

Of course, word of the cancellation got out, despite the university’s silence. Now IU faces a petition with over 15,000 signatures demanding the reinstatement of Halaby’s exhibit. The university’s obvious violation of academic freedom in this instance has earned it rebukes from the National Coalition Against Censorship, PEN America, the American Association of University Professors, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, all defenders of the academic freedom IU claims to cherish. Unflattering stories have appeared in national news outlets, including The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Education, The Nation, and on National Public Radio. Far from lauding IU as a bastion of academic freedom, these reports suggest that the campus has become a poster child for attempts to strangle open discourse and free intellectual inquiry.

Most faculty and students assume that the unspoken reasons for the cancellation of the Halaby exhibit can be found in the artist’s longstanding advocacy of Palestinian rights — advocacy that’s in no way visible in the abstract artworks that would have been on display. This conclusion is supported by the almost-simultaneous disciplining of the faculty adviser to a student Palestinian-solidarity organization, on the basis of his allegedly endangering campus security by failing to follow proper procedure when scheduling an event. To date the IU administration has offered no credible explanation for canceling the exhibit beyond vague intimations of threats to the security and safety of the campus and/or the exhibit itself.

Unspecified anxieties about security do not, however, offer a sufficient rationale for silencing unpopular speech, ideas, or art. The administration’s actions will only encourage others to make threats in the future, and create uncertainty for anyone who wants to invite campus speakers who hold unpopular ideas. The Halaby exhibit received support from the National Endowment for the Arts, support that’s predicated on standard assurances that IU is committed to protecting the exhibit from threats. What funding agencies will support faculty research and creativity in the future if such assurances are so readily tossed aside? The damage to faculty research, not to mention campus culture and IU’s reputation, goes far beyond this one exhibit.

To be sure, some campus stakeholders might find some of Halaby’s views on Palestine and Israel objectionable or offensive; others might find them laudatory. As a community we have now missed a golden opportunity to experience Halaby’s art and, perhaps, to discuss a hotly debated issue that evokes strong beliefs. What else is a university’s professed commitment to academic freedom for?

As the university’s leadership must know, the “freedom to explore topics that expand knowledge” cannot be situational, partial, or maintained only at the convenience and comfort of campus administrators, state legislators, and donors. It cannot be advanced on behalf of ideas one likes only to be scuttled when faced with ideas one finds threatening or controversial. It can only be defended as a universal principle, without fear or favor. IU’s professions to hold the principle of academic freedom dear while directly violating it in action ring hollow.