Iqra’i

Apparently it was easier to blame the student for being sensationalistic than the institution for being careless.

The blogosphere seems to have taken the University at its word, dismissing l’affaire Shvarts as a hoax; as the controversy continues to unfold, though, the school’s position has become increasingly convoluted, and I’d like to spend some time pointing out some cracks in its story. After all, since when do bloggers take a press release at its word, or treat an “official Administration statement” as unambiguous truth?

Yes, this is a messy story. Yes, no one really wants to continue thinking about it. And no, it’s not likely that the “absolute truth” of whether or not one or more abortions took place will ever be determined — that uncertainty is kind of the artistic point. But in the she-said/it-said, the University is being given way too much credit right now, especially when it seems that there are some cracks in its story.

Maybe I’m reading too much into this. I really hope I’m reading too much into this. But comparing the public statements made over the last week (by University spokesperson Helaine Klasky, Yale College Dean Peter Salovey, and School of Art Dean Robert Storr) there seems to be some inconsistency regarding what exactly is inappropriate about Shvarts’ work — and, implicitly, whether she might be telling the truth.

The initial statement, released by Klasky on Thursday, is the one everyone’s been quoting:

She stated to three senior Yale University officials today, including two deans, that she did not impregnate herself and that she did not induce any miscarriages. The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction…

She is an artist and has the right to express herself through performance art.

Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns.

Solid and unambiguous: If Shvarts had done what she says she’s done, it wouldn’t be acceptable, but she hasn’t so it is. (Others may find this position morally problematic; I certainly don’t. Then again, I have a certain fondness for performance art.) After Shvarts maintained that she was telling the truth, Klasky released this statement Friday:

Ms. Shvarts’s continuing repudiation of what she told senior university officials seems a part of her performance…in conversations today with university officials, she reiterated what she had told the administrators yesterday.

But the other two statements released Friday — from Salovey and Storrs — didn’t mention the “She didn’t do it” argument at all. Salovey’s statement engineers an interesting turn from focusing on what the University claims to know for certain (that Shvarts didn’t attempt to impregnate herself) toward treating the “creative fiction” as “appalling” in its own right:

This piece of performance art as reported in the press bears no relation to what I consider appropriate for an undergraduate senior project. The Dean of the School of Art and I are reassessing what constitutes an appropriate senior art project…

Emphasis mine. When he says “as reported in the press,” does he mean that the creation of the “creative fiction” was inappropriate (a far cry from the “right to express herself” from the previous day), or that the actions Klasky claims didn’t happen, but were initially reported in the press as fact, were inappropriate?

The Storr statement of the same day skips the ambiguity and goes straight to condemnation, on the grounds that Shvarts’ project is a health risk:

If I had known about this, I would not have permitted it to go forward. This is not an acceptable project in a community where the consequences go beyond the individual who initiates the project and may even endanger that individual. Yale has a profound commitment to freedom of expression, and I personally am committed to a women’s right to choose. That said, Yale does not encourage or condone projects that would involve unknown health risks to the student.

So Storr’s claiming that the health risks outweigh the right to freedom of expression: an acceptable argument, if you believe there might have been health risks involved. But Storr never explains how Shvarts’ project “would involve unknown health risks” if the University actually knew that she hadn’t done it. Neither Salovey’s nor Storr’s statements describe Shvarts’ piece as a fiction at all. (Furthermore, why wasn’t Storr one of the officials to whom Shvarts talked on Thursday? Who let that happen?)

Salovey attempts to clear up the mess with a further statement today. It attempts to reconcile the “it’s not real” and “it’s inappropriate anyway” strands of argument, and fails:

Dean Storr and I have determined that there were serious errors of judgment on the part of two individuals. In one case, the instructor responsible for the senior project should not have allowed it to go forward. In the other, an adviser should have interceded and consulted others when first given information about the project…

So Salovey’s continuing the argument he and Storr made last week that there is something inherently inappropriate about the project, but doesn’t explain why he didn’t arrive at that conclusion on Thursday, after he himself had first found out about it. He continues:

We will not permit her to install the project unless she submits a clear and unambiguous written statement that her installation is a work of fiction: that she did not try to inseminate herself and induce miscarriages, and that no human blood will be physically displayed in her installation.

So now, again, the problem is that she won’t admit it wasn’t real. But Salovey and Storr have both claimed that the project is unacceptable without discussing its veracity; if the fiction shouldn’t have been green-lighted, why can it be displayed?

At very least, Yale is being unclear and failing to own up to its own administrative shortcomings. If the project is a fiction, and still unacceptable (i.e.for reasons other than the fact that Shvarts claims it’s real), the University needs to release a statement apologizing for the lack of oversight and retracting Klasky’s Thursday statement that Shvarts “has the right to express herself.” If the project is a fiction, and the problem is that Shvarts won’t admit it, Salovey and Storr need to clarify that the “health risks” are not an actual threat, the project would have been entirely appropriate if Shvarts had confessed on Thursday that she was making it up, and that if Shvarts issues the statement they solicit the dispute will be resolved.

If the project isn’t a fiction, Yale’s statements about “health risks” and insufficient oversight require much less in the way of convoluted explanation. But if the project isn’t a fiction, Yale is lying. It’s an awkward position, and until the University offers a straightforward statement explaining why it no longer believes that Shvarts “has a right to express herself” I’m inclined to believe her rather than them.