Park Art Takes a Walk

Censorship rears its ugly head at The Evergreen State College

Commentary by R.T.Landry, Class of 1996

There are strikingly ironic features to "Student Voices of '71: a 25th anniversary retrospective", published by The Evergreen State College (TESC) recently. On the first page within the cover is set this quotation from President Charles McCann's letter to Evergreen's first student body : "...we have a chance to prove to ourselves that Evergreen is as flexible as we believe." This is ironic because in this same publication, three pages have been surgically-removed; or, to put it another way, the first printing was "recalled" as the first stage in the censorship of an alumni's submission. How "flexible" would Charles McCann likely consider censorship of published material?

The artist was very surprised to receive word that several objections had been raised to the Board overseeing the retrospective. The complaint was that two or three of his panels had embedded "racist stereotypes". This was surprising to Park on many levels. For one thing, since he had submitted his months-long art endeavor to the committee he had heard nothing but positive feedback. In fact, there had been many compliments; his entire panel strip, enlarged at College expense, was on display for several weeks in the gallery on the 3rd floor of the Library building. It made people laugh: that's what his foremost intent and motivation remained. Sarcasm and cynicism blend in Park's ascerbic wit to brilliantly describe his experience during those start-up years, and so also in passing, describe the background ambience or atmosphere of the campus in general.

His intact panel was printed in the first issue distributed. And then, just as quickly, the collection was reissued, sans his pages. S.M. Park thus suffered the demeaning fate of seeing his memories, invalidated by this boldly indifferent act of censorship.

And here's where the irony resurfaces: this censorship of three pages of printed materials, this censorship of the fine arts, is performed at the hands of TESC, which broadcasts a reputation as the very liberal, the very alternative campus here in the Pacific Northwest. An image, in fact, connotating educational freedoms not associated with more formal academic settings.

So why was Park's toontown version of Greenersville left on the public relations floor? Well, the portraiture of the Evergreen environment created at the tip of Park's pen would not qualify as a real "image-enhancement". Rather, Park's memories included rampant use of drugs, uninhibited and indifferent casual sex, and absurdly easy curricula that nearly anyone could stumble through in a stupor and still earn their "degree in Nothing!" This may not coincide with the PR image the Provost, publications/public relations personnel, or other administrators would like to see communicated about TESC.

These, clearly, were memories better lost, banished, or forgotten.

The 1st Amendment forbids even Congress from actions that would "punish after publication"; what worse punishment "after publication" for an artist or writer than to see their work recalled, and their contribution eradicated?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to freedom of thought, conscience, opinion, and expression without interference. Again, if we apply these broadly accepted, globally-recognized standards to the policies of TESC, we may be left wondering what really does apply to TESC? Censoring one's article out of a publication AFTER it's already been published/printed is a very overt act. In my opinion, it is also a clear example of interference with expression. (Mr. Park had no audience, hearing, or opportunity to explain his work to committee. He may have been able to explain some of the minor representational flaws which had occured, but no one really bothered to ask.)

So, where does one go from (I can't help myself!) a Mexican standoff like this? Mr. Park deserves to receive a formal apology, as well as some considerable compromise to satisfy his forgiveness. The college would do well to drop the "politically correct" rhetoric as their rationale to deem Park's drawings racist, and just admit they object to the very real, very true, and completely valid picture he painted of the glass institution they live in.