The mural that is being complained about is art. Are we for censoring art? We are a country that does not believe in censorship. To demand the removal of one mural because a few dislike it sets a precedent that could lead to other art being removed. Not only art, but anything that the university holds important. Should we get rid of the Christmas trees on campus because Christmas may offend someone?

There are free expression issues in dealing with the mural. Maybe the ISU Civil Liberties Union will begin a campaign to save the mural because of First Amendment issues.

When art is offensive, what usually happens to it? If it not considered to be religious in nature (like a large granite slab depicting the Ten Commandments or a painting of the Last Supper), it is given funding by the National Endowment for the Arts. That is what should be done with the mural. It offends enough people to deserve NEA funding, so why not fund it? In the past, a depiction of the Virgin Mary made from elephant dung enraged the Catholic Church and therefore was given public funding. Since the mural offends a vocal number of students, the mural could bring the university a $50,000 NEA grant. With such money coming into Iowa State we would be stupid to remove the mural in question.

What should be done with the NEA grant money? It could be used to fix some of the vandalism on the mural. In the past vandals had scrawled “roofies” and “date raper extraordinaire” onto the mural. That should be repaired.

I am offended by that pile of scrap aluminum between the library and Durham Center. Should I protest for them to remove it? It’s ugly, so should it be censored? I would have the right to campaign for its removal just like those who oppose the mural in the dorm demand it to be repainted. However, I would be wrong to want to censor art.

Shouldn’t we embrace and accept the ideals of others? Just because something offends one group of students doesn’t require its removal.

Benjamin Rittgers

Senior

Computer Science