Below is the complete text of College of William and Mary President Taylor Reveley’s statement on the Sex Workers’ Art Show.
Last February I became William & Mary’s interim president. The College community on campus and off was in turmoil. One factor fueling the turmoil was a recent appearance at W&M of the Sex Workers Art Show (SWAS). Some believed the show had artistic and social value. Others found it degrading and offensive.
Several student groups have asked that SWAS perform again at William & Mary this spring. For the last three years – 2006, 2007, and 2008 – SWAS has appeared on campus. There is no other place in Williamsburg and the surrounding environs for it to perform. In 2006, the show attracted little attention. But in 2007 and 2008, it fed the cultural conflagration in which William & Mary was then caught.
Right now is an unusually critical time in William & Mary’s long life. We are struggling every day with a very bad economy that shows no signs of getting better soon. We have a huge amount of strategic planning to do during the next couple of months. There are significant legislative challenges ahead. Reweaving the ties of trust and affection within the William & Mary family remains a work in progress. In short, diversion of time and energy from the tasks at hand will cost the university dearly.
Against this background, I am personally very disappointed – and quite frustrated — to find that the university must think yet again about SWAS. This breeds controversy. It lessens our capacity to move the College forward. This would have been a good year, in my judgment, for SWAS supporters to have called a time out – taken a break.
Despite my disappointment and frustration, there is a very important William & Mary practice that I support. The College has long placed great faith in its students to choose the speakers and performers they invite to campus. The elected representatives of the student body approve the use of student fees to help fund these events, not the administration. This experience in self-government is part of our learning process.
We let this process run its course, even when it results in controversy, rather than try to play the censor. As most efforts at censorship have shown, they’re hard to run – endless lines must be drawn in the sand, many controversies must be waged, and a lot of energy gets diverted from matters of greater importance. For practical as well as philosophical reasons, I will not play the censor.
It is also true, however, that a very important commitment of the university is to the Jeffersonian notion that the free play of ideas is the best route to truth. An example – one of my early efforts as interim president last winter was to reassure people that William & Mary remained a welcoming community for everyone. Just a few weeks into my tenure, I was appalled to learn that a student group had plans to bring a “white separatist” to campus to speak. Other students came to me, anguished, saying I must block the speaker’s appearance because his views were incompatible with university policy, threatened our core values, and might shatter our still fragile sense of community.
The thought that this speaker might tear the campus fabric was chilling. After struggling with what to do, I decided the best course was to let him come and say his piece but urged that he not get a free kick. If he came, he should take questions and engage in conversation with those who chose to attend the event and contest his views. This is what happened. People showed up and debated. The evening proved to be a living, breathing instance of the Jeffersonian ideal in action.
Repeated performances by a controversial group like SWAS, year after year, without a robust opportunity for the free play of ideas does not serve the Jeffersonian ideal. Such a pattern is a singularly sterile way to explore ideas of artistic expression and sexual exploitation. The sponsors of SWAS and its performers must do much better on the Jeffersonian front than they have to date. In addition to performing, they need to provide means for a serious discussion about pertinent issues, conducted with the intellectual rigor and civility characteristic of William & Mary. By the same token, those who find SWAS degrading and offensive should show up, prepared to articulate and defend their views.
I believe people on both sides of the SWAS controversy have the best interests of the College at heart. That being the case, let’s focus on issues of radically greater importance to the long term success of the university than this one.
RSS Feeds
4 Comments
For all this talk of
For all this talk of censorship, something is being overlooked: The show was censored last year! In all likelihood, unconstitutionally or illegally.
(For those of us who are forgetful, or simply choose to comment without being particularly well informed: The state attorney general stepped in at the last minute and decided the Sex Workers Art Show could not sell merchandise or have certain levels of nudity on stage. This was publicly announced and advertised at the event)
Somehow, it seems like that alone is enough to mean it must come back this year, just to argue a point.“For practical as well as
“For practical as well as philosophical reasons, I will not play the censor. “
Why does he think he has a choice whether or not to play the censor? It would be illegal to censor this show, plain and simple.
How in the world is the SWAS a “diversion of time and energy from the tasks at hand”? Has he forgotten that the entire point of attending school is education? The Sex Workers’ Art Show is a perfect example of an artistic experience that adds to our education and understanding of a large sector of society and the economy—sex workers and sex work. I suppose he thinks the only important thing we should be focusing on is raising money.
“In addition to performing, they need to provide means for a serious discussion about pertinent issues, conducted with the intellectual rigor and civility characteristic of William & Mary.” Is he dense? First of all, there was a forum last year held separately from the actual SWAS performance in which both sides could listen to/ask questions of a panel that had both opinions represented. Secondly, there was a Q&A after the second SWAS performance in which the performers answered questions. This is above and beyond what should be expected of an art show. When someone attends an art exhibit, do they find the painter and debate them on their art? Usually not. I imagine that the same generally applies to lots of performance art. The “white separatist” (supremacist?) was a speaker, not an artist. He came here with the very purpose of debate. The SWAS organizers should be commended for their efforts to go above and beyond what would normally be expected of an art show.
Was Reveley sleeping last
Was Reveley sleeping last year?
“In addition to performing, they need to provide means for a serious discussion about pertinent issues, conducted with the intellectual rigor and civility characteristic of William & Mary. By the same token, those who find SWAS degrading and offensive should show up, prepared to articulate and defend their views.”
Last year, a Free Speech Panel event took place, in which both supporters and opponents of SWAS articulated and defended their views in an open forum, attendees brought questions, and Walter McClean explained how the budget system funds events. Additionally, a Q&A session with the performers took place after the 2nd showing of SWAS last year. Quite frankly, I can’t imagine any event requiring more intellectual justification than this.
I am personally very
I am personally very disappointed – and quite frustrated — to find that the university must think yet again go out of its way to stir up controversy where there need not be any. The only reason this show made such an impact last year was because it applied an easy scapegoat (sex education on a college campus? the lusts of the flesh??) to a current target, Nichol. This year there is no reason why this event should be seen as a “diversion” (from what??) and not a legitimate event. Reveley can’t censor this event because that would be illegal. And for his information, last year there was a forum before the show for the exact purpose mentioned, the free exchange of ideas. I agree we should focus on greater issues and not argue again, but let the many, many people who demanded it see this show.