PVCC Puma Press

As the result of employees’ complaints, the Maricopa County Community College District building supervisor ordered removal of PVCC student and faculty art from display cases at the District office building in Tempe, April 17.

Responding to a request from Randy Wright, District supervisor of art instruction, for art from PVCC to be displayed at the District office building, 2411 West 14th St., David Bradley, PVCC director of visual arts, selected and installed the art in two display cases on Thursday, April 16.

“The displays looked good,” says Bradley.

On Friday, April 17, a number of female District employees made complaints to their bosses, resulting in the decision by Darren Stroughter, the District building supervisor to order removal of eight pieces of artwork from the displays cases, says Bradley. “The art pieces removed are ceramic bas-relief (low relief) nudes in classical poses done by students as art class assignments to make flat ceramic pieces that would hang on the wall.”

Connie McBride, a part-time art student who has been studying art at PVCC since 2006, had her work removed from the display.

“This is upsetting that people would be offended by my art of a classic nude pose,” says McBride. “Artists have studied nudes as far back in history as art goes. Artists are required to study the human body and anatomy. No student put art into the show to offend anyone. I'm surprised. These pieces were selected by faculty and shown at PVCC in a public gallery (in the lobby of the Center for the Performing Arts) and viewed by hundreds of people. No one complained.”

Since the display cases are in uncontrolled common areas and employees cannot avoid passing the display cases, the action of removing certain pieces was taken by the District to maintain a certain comfort level for employees, says Tom Gariepy, District director of marketing and communications. “This in not censorship.”

It is OK to voice an opinion, says Rose Ann Colamartini, a part time art student in art studies at PVCC for six years, “but removing my art is going too far.”

Officials at District do not agree.

“We feel that the space (at the District office) is not appropriate for certain types of art,” says Gariepy.

In a conference phone call placed on Monday, April 20, with Wright and Eric Leshinski, District director academic affairs support, Bradley says, they expressed that “we should not make a big deal of this because we could end up with not having display cases to display any art, decided on a whim. There is no rule that there is should be art shown in the District office.”

The location of the display caused employees to encounter the ceramic nudes during the routine of the workday.

“I can appreciate a person who is offended by the nudity in the work and complaining about it,” says Bradley, “but I think there should be a line drawn to where we don't automatically jerk pieces out if somebody says they don't like them.

“The art was done in a community college class and indicative of the work that is created by the colleges in the district. Education, and certainly art, is about showing people what they have not seen before, or to show something in a new way.”

Daniel Barr, consulting attorney with the Arizona First Amendment Coalition and Pete Kishibab, general council for District, both say, students do not have free speech rights in exhibits within the District.

As a result of this incident, people at the District are thinking about displays of artwork at the District office, says Gariepy. “Nobody was trying to pass judgment on the quality of the art.”

“I think there should be some policy in place,” says Bradley.

This action taken by the District is echoed by a multitude of prior incidents. Daniel Bernstein, writes in his book “You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Law,” Cato Institute, 2003, that the cost to litigate and pay legal judgments under the anti-discrimination laws brought by employees upset with issues in the workplace, far outweigh the cost to defend challenges of infringement of First Amendment rights.

“I wonder, do they have a problem with Michelangelo?” says Colamartini.