Campus Free Speech

Students Claim Provocative Art Project Is a 'Hate Crime, an Act of Terrorism'

Was the outrage at the University at Buffalo reasonable?



Students at the University at Buffalo were outraged about the sudden appearance of "White Only" and "Black Only" signs above certain bathroom doors in the College of Arts and Sciences building. But outrage was largely the point, since the signs were part of a black student's visual arts project.

Many did not appreciate the signs, even with the knowledge that they had been deployed as deliberate social commentary. One student tweeted, "Not only is this a hate crime, but it is also an act of terrorism." Others called the police.

According to Campus Reform:

Ashley Powell, a graduate student in fine arts, came forward as the individual behind the project at a meeting of the Black Student Union on September 16. Powell, who is black, hung the signs as a project for her "Installation: Urban Spaces" class, which requires the creation of an art installation in a public space.

Over 100 students appeared at the Black Student Union's weekly meeting later in the day, where Powell admitted to posting the signs. The UB Spectrum reports that some of the participants left the meeting crying.

Micah Oliver, president of the Black Student Union, said the signs evoked, "a past our generation has never seen which I think is why it was so shocking for us to see." One student called the signs "sickening" and that the project "entices a fear no one should ever experience."

Powell apologized for hurting people but defended the project as a work of art.

Powell did not clear the project with the university before posting the signs. Posting on campus is limited to designated bulletin boards, and university policy states that "exceptional situations and/or unique material" require special permission from the Office of Student Affairs.

The university said in a press release that it is "continuing to review this matter through appropriate university policies and procedures."

It may have been wiser for Powell to clear her project with the administration first, although I suppose she would have been shut down. Still, the university has the general right to place reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on public displays, and Powell violated those rules.

I don't blame the students for being disturbed by the signs; they would have disturbed me as well. There's a strong argument to be made for revisiting America's legacy of slavery, of course), and art is an appropriate vehicle to do so, but a classroom, or a clearly marked public space, would have been better places to host such a discussion.

Still, I don't think the university, or other students, should come down too hard on Powell. An art project is not an act of terrorism.

NEXT: Post-Debate Trumping, Federal Reserve Keeps Rates in Place, School Suspends Students over Confederate Flags: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I can’t believe how sensitive people are. I mean as long as my bathroom was the nicer of the two I don’t see the problem.

    1. I’d totally shit in the wrong bathroom and tell everyone. REBELLION!

      1. I poo on a plate and get it published on visionaire.
        What I do, is called art-shit.
        And don’t you dare make fun of me
        Cuz everything I do was featured on the pages of i-d!

    2. I just started 6 weeks ago and I’ve gotten 2 check for a total of $4,200…this is the best decision I made in a long time! “Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways, visit this following website for more details,,, thank you!”


    3. What if my ass is black and my penis is white? Which bathroom do I use?

  2. I don’t quite see the artistic merit of the project. And yeah, you probably shouldn’t treat campus as your own personal platform for your “art.” But crying over this, or calling the cops, or describing it as terrorism, is just…unhinged.

    1. I don’t quite see the artistic merit of the project.

      But — do you *like* it?

    2. the fact that everybody got so fucked up demonstrates that it has artistic merit. What merit, precisely, is harder to say, and it’s still crap in the skeme of things, but definitely, definitely art.

    3. So when they were crying like little bitches and whining to the closest authority figure – did any of these, oh-so-smart, college kids think to just tear down the signs? You know, like humans?

      1. You are microaggressing the vertically challenged!

      2. What? You mean that they should engage in self-help?


      3. I would call tearing down the signs “performance art”

      4. That’s what I wondered. I’d probably have stared at the signs for a few seconds, looked around to see if there was any obvious psych student monitoring the situation, and then torn the signs down and stuffed them in the trashcan. End of story. What the hell is it with these helpless little snowflakes? That’s pathetic. Their parents should be ashamed of themselves for not inculcating a little backbone into their spawn.

        1. “I’d probably have stared at the signs for a few seconds, looked around to see if there was any obvious psych student monitoring the situation, and then torn the signs down”

          You are a philistine

          I would have reversed them, and thus added a dimension of complexity to the project.

          1. Ahh …. +2 sign switches

            1. That would be -2, right?

  3. An art project is not an act of terrorism.

    And that is not art.

    1. Nor is it terrorism.

    2. I think that acts of terrorism are art projects by nature.

    3. Of course it’s art. It might not be good, but it’s art.

      I have to ask, how do you define art?

      1. I define art. You define art. We all define art.

        1. now i want ice cream

      2. “how do you define art?”

        Kant’s critique of aesthetic judgement, Super-Super-simplified =

        – Take grape soda. You like grape soda. it “APPEALS” to you. However, you would never argue that it *should* appeal to others.

        – Take a screwdriver. You like a screwdriver because its *super effective* at screwing screws. Its got a hardened tip that’s magnetic. its got a ratchet system. It has a strong, grippy handle. You say, “This screwdriver kicks the shit out of that cheap chinese one”, and you would point to its objective UTILITY and if anyone said they preferred the cheap chinese one you would call them a moron who knows nothing about screwing screws.

        – Take the Michaelangelo’s David. You may or may not “like” it. Yet you believe that it possesses objective, REAL ‘beauty’ that is inherent in the object, regardless of its ability to appeal to people. You believe some education is needed to fully appreciate its qualities. If someone pointed to their child’s Kindergarten clay-ashtray and said, “This is better than David” you would call them a philistine.

        Kant calls this latter judgement a combination of former ideas of “appeal” and “utility”, and is how we judge Art.

        The ‘utility’ thing he gets pretty freaky with. It has to do with a belief that Art improves the soul.

        1. In case anyone wants the longer-version explanation…. its better than trying to read the source material, unless you get off on that kind of thing

        2. Is that your view of art? I think society generally got away from that definition in the 20th century, for better or worse

          Also, it should be pointed out that artists usually don’t care whether or not their art appeals to anyone. So Kant’s view would be more relevant to people detached from the process than artists’ themselves

          1. “Is that your view of art? “


            Its an argument for what people have been actually doing when they’ve called things “Art” for the last few thousand years.

            Its not any definition of the objects = its a critique of what’s going on in people’s minds when they make those kinds of categorical determinations.

            Nowhere in that argument was there anything about the intent of the artist. In fact, as far as his argument is concerned they don’t really matter at all.

          2. As far as me personally, I like to go to modern art galleries, and stand still staring at something for far too long, then suddenly shout,


            …Then stomp out in a huff.

            1. I like modern art, but it’s impossible to take a lot of it seriously. So I love someone like David Shrigley for mocking the art world – because a lot of them need to be mocked


              1. I used to go to P.S. 1* every summer to their DJ Party, “Warm Up“…every weekend for like 2 months.

                (*MoMA’s more-avante-garde museum in Queens, housed in a former public school)

                It was the only time they’d let you in the museum without a shirt, drinking a beer.

                Sometimes there was some great stuff there. I saw John Lurie’s paintings there and loved them.

                Then there was a photo exhibit of people vomiting. in a white room. different kinds of foods. Super-Hi Definition.

                It was hard not to urinate wildly all over the place while screaming, “ITS A SCAM AND YOU’RE ALL ENABLERS!!!”

          3. side note = “artists usually don’t care whether or not their art appeals to anyone”

            skipping past the LOL part…

            this is technically impossible = “Anyone” always includes themselves.

            Even if they create things for no other purpose than to simply exercise their ability, and then destroy the actual finished product (people actually have done this)…. the work is still an attempt to appeal to their own subjective determination of a quality that they think exists, even if only in their own mind.

            There’s no escaping the point he makes by pretending that Artists are somehow magical robots that have zero social consciousness of what they’re doing.

            1. I guess I could have been more clear that I was referring to the process, but I meant that assessing the larger aesthetic worth of the piece is not generally part of the creative process. That isn’t to say that there isn’t a critical side to an artist, just that this side is discouraged from showing up during the creation process because he’s not useful and is often just a dick.

              So when you’re creating art, the critic is just a backseat driver. Everyone starts out like shit and they just have to plow through and improve until the backseat driver hopefully shuts the fuck up. Listening to him is not conducive to making art

              1. I was reminded of an Ira Glass quote, he says something similar…..ers-i-wish

                1. yep

                  What he’s appealing to is exactly Kant’s point

                  “”All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste””

                  which is the first determination – that “stuff called art” has objective qualities….but ones that can only immediately appeal to people with the *properly refined organs of taste* (unlike Screwdrivers, whose objective qualities are obvious)

                  he’s saying that as artists, “they know the difference”. They can see the “Special Things”.

                  The fact that he believes the quality is in the object, and that only a requisite sophisticated individual can immediately appreciate it (the remainder requiring ‘education’ and experience)…. is an almost verbatim summary of the point above about how the “art” judgement is made.

                  Its a belief that to achieve “art-ness” is to transcend subjective appeal, and achieve a theoretical Universal Utility (though ‘most’ lack the ability to appreciate it, not having equally mature taste)

                  Read the linked paper if you ever get a chance. Its worth it if only for the occasional philosophy-muscle exercise.

                  1. he’s saying that as artists, “they know the difference”. They can see the “Special Things”.

                    The fact that he believes the quality is in the object, and that only a requisite sophisticated individual can immediately appreciate it (the remainder requiring ‘education’ and experience)…. is an almost verbatim summary of the point above about how the “art” judgement is made.

                    Anyone whose argument could be swapped with that of the Tailors from “The Emperor’s new Clothes” is only an artist of bullshit. It is deliberately trying to pre-empt being called out for producing crap by asserting that anyone who can’t see the merit “lacks sophistication” so everyone who wants to be seen as sophisticated gangs up on the truth teller for saying they’re all sitting around praising a pile of shit.

                    This whole disgusting attitude is what has led to the utter degredation of western art to the point where it is indistinguishable from the garbage heap it belongs in.

              2. “the larger aesthetic worth of the piece is not generally part of the creative process’

                Kant’s argument is not about ‘relative value’ at all (Good Art v. Bad Art)

                Its a purely “is/is not” issue in the mind of the person who thinks what they are doing is “Art” versus

                – “Entertainment”
                (or something to merely appeal to people / generate an intended reaction)
                – “Education”
                (or something to achieve some utilitarian, measurable purpose, like a Sword, or a Chair)

                If anybody calls what they are doing “Art” then they’re making the categorical determination that Kant is talking about. Same when anyone who views the thing makes the same judgement.

                its noted by many art historians – there are tons of revered art objects in museums which were actually intended as utility items. The intent of the artist or specifics of the object are mostly irrelevant to any later determination about whether something qualifies as “art” or not.

        3. That’s an interesting take. I don’t know I’ve ever really thought about a definition of art before. I’d guess I’d go towards “something that is intended to primarily (only?) exist to evoke some emotion or thought in others”. But then I think of the screwdriver and can’t help but appreciate an artistic quality to it. Similarly for architecture. So maybe it makes less sense to say something is or isn’t art and instead consider it’s artistic quality, which may or may not exist along with many other qualities.

          1. “But then I think of the screwdriver and can’t help but appreciate an artistic quality to it. Similarly for architecture.”

            You’re moving 1 step farther ahead from kant’s basic first point about how “Aesthetic Judgements” work, and what they pre-suppose about the objects and the viewers.

            He actually later goes into great detail about the relative levels of “Materiality” of artworks, showing that as things become more “useful” (utilitarian) they require less purely-aesthetic judgements

            i.e. the merits of the objects as objects obviates the need for pure aesthetic reasoning.

            Particularly, he points to Architecture. It keeps the rain out! It always serves objective utilitarian purposes. If it fails to serve these purposes we call it ‘Sculpture’ – which makes it *more* purely aesthetic.

            He contrasted architecture, sculpture, painting (material, plastic arts) with Dance, and lastly Music…which in his view was the purest of the pure, being immaterial, and – for people unable to listen in ‘technical’ ways – purely emotional. unlike poetry, there were no concepts to translate, no referential devices as clumsy as words.

            That stuff is not in the paper linked above… If you want to try the original material, its here in Ebook form. Warning = Kant is… uh, dry. (pun intended) Not for the easily bored..

  4. I hope she replaced those ludicrous things with the much more civilized “men only” and “women only” signs.

    1. Hugh, if I wanted to see your penis, I’d ask Epi to send me copies of the dick pics you keep sexting him.

      1. Well, they’re in your inbox now whether you want them or not. Make sure you have a trash bin handy when you open them.

        1. Wow, real fucking original Epi.

      2. I assumed he sent those to you whether you wanted them or not.

    2. These actually are civilized.

  5. So… where were the Asians, Hispanics, Indians … supposed to go?

    1. On the street, like always.

      1. They don’t even know how to use a terlet.

    2. Like any of them could even read the signs or ever bothered using those facilities in the first place.

      1. “And, what-we’re gonna let those savages into our fine institutions of higher learning??”

        /Al Swearengen, maybe

  6. One student called the signs “sickening” and that the project “entices a fear no one should ever experience.”

    One student needs institutionalizing.

    1. Project Decoddling

      We round up these hypersensitive helicopter-parented grown-ass babies and, ironically, load them on helicopters and drop them into places like Somalia or the Sudan or North Korea and see what happens.

      1. Whoa, seems to me you’re mixing up the “libertarian paradise” (Somalia) with the “liberal paradise” (North Korea).


        “Intern” (as in, “Internment camp”)
        “Ship” (as in, “C130 which shoves them out of the back and flies away”)

  7. Ashley, thank you for making me think.

  8. Exposing me to the stupidity of some college students is an act of terrorism, Reason. Expect a Federal subpoena any day now.

  9. I suppose she could have done it better, but at a university of all places, dragging people out of their intellectual comfort zones is not an act of terrorism.

  10. ” some of the participants left the meeting crying”

    Jesus wept.

    1. So, I take it there were parents at the meeting distraught about the tuition dollars they’re spending?

    2. As did an Indian.
      I mean….a Native American.

      Fuck! What do I say here to alleviate my guilt in a semi public manner to garner acceptance from a small circles of assholes who I’ll never see again after I graduate from university?

      Somebody guide me!

  11. Pleeeeze.

    The name of the class she produced the work for was Installations: Urban Spaces. So she installed a performance like piece in an urban space. Art frequently offends. Boo-hoo. Grow the fuck up.

    1. Couldn’t you at least have prefaced that comment with a content warning?

    2. Artists doing urban work typically don’t ask permission to install – that’s the point.

      While the construct of “making people think by offending” is simplistic in my mind, it is standard in art schools.

      1. Then pull the plug on the art schools and replace them with “art requiring training and expertise and a willingness to seek permission from property owners” schools.

    3. Well, the fact that it’s considered “art” offends me, so mission accomplished!

      1. How do you define art?

        I really think that the only reasonable definition is that anything presented as art is art. It might be utter crap, but still art.

        1. The better question is, then, what makes art good? What makes art bad?

          1. If art is any expression of a mood or idea, I’d say good art is how successfully the mood or idea was conveyed.

            Bad art:

            You don’t know if the clown is supposed to be fun or evil. The artist was unsuccessful

            1. Agreed. That’s why I adore Goya.

              His art crossed paths with multiple disciplines. While staying true to the style, he also advanced the style to a higher level while inventing new forms in the process.

              The last great classical painter, the first surrealist, the first great modern artist. Bronze engravings using acid, etchings, ect, ect.

              The Black Paintings…fuck me, the Black Paintings! Godfather of the post Renaissance Macabre.

              Goya was a fucking artist! Any who disagree, I’ll bare knuckle box you behind the bar of your choosing.

    4. I guess the building is on the Main St campus because there is no way anyone could describe the Amherst campus as “urban”.

      1. So your screen name comes from Mickey Rats, the bar? Is that place still there?

        1. The one in Angola is.

        2. I was wondering that too.

          OH NO where do frat boys get 25-cent beers in plastic cups now?!

      2. Liberal arts would be the Amherst campus – probably in the Spine, which is a long line of connected buildings. Urban-esque, if you ignore the dozens of parking lots surrounding it.

        1. I graduated before it was built, but they did put some kind of art center on the Amherst campus, near the gym.

          1. Come to think of it, when I was there the art department was in Bethune Hall, which was an old factory building.…..thune.html

            1. Ah, right. Yeah, I graduated in ’93. They’ve added a bunch of apartment complexes and some new academic buildings. I never lived on the North Campus, though. I just went to class and got the hell out of there.

    5. The people bitching are probably the same sort of people who claim art needs to be “challenging” and “transgressive”. But they always mean *other* (white, middle-class and below, and especially. Christian) people should be challenged. Not them.

      1. Yeah, good point.

    6. Boo-hoo. Grow the fuck up

      *gazes thoughtfully*

      I like the way it’s going, but it’s a bit derivative.

      *sips wine and moves on to the next comment*

      1. I see what you did there.

  12. Hey, that’s not art! Real art is carrying around a mattress for a year and making ugly and baseless accusations against another student.

  13. Maybe someone could paint swastikas and Stars of David with the word “Jew” in the middle since that evokes “a past our generation has never seen which I think is why it was so shocking for us to see”.

    1. Unless you live around a lot of Bask people, with their flipping hexagrams with a svastika in the middle.

  14. OK, I’m going to take the side of the indignant students (without endorsing their crying or their “terrorism” rhetoric).

    I don’t care how much of an aspiring artist you are, you don’t go around messing with university property and giving the impression that the bathrooms are segregated by race.

    Just because students are offended doesn’t mean we can automatically put a story into the category of “PC overreaction.”

    OK, “terrorism” *is* an overreaction. I would use the term “extremely offensive.”

    1. They’re nominally adults. And being to sort that goes to college they should realize that this was in no way real, and was likely a prank. And thus responded with eye-rolling and or removing the signs.

      Not this baby-town shit they’re doing.

      1. Yeah, I’d have removed the sign before going into the “white” bathroom.

        My first assumption would have been that it would have been (white) frat boys so drunk I would be impressed at their ability to fit the sign on right side up.

        I should have known it would be some social-justice PC crap.

        Hardly the worst thing in the world, in the same sense that frat boys peeing off their porches isn’t the worst thing in the world, but still a bad thing.

        1. If you had a 3rd story balcony down the hall facing the freshman dorms you would piss off of it too!

    2. ‘Just because students are offended doesn’t mean we can automatically put a story into the category of “PC overreaction.”‘

      Yes, we can. That there was any response that could be characterised as “offendedness” makes it a story of political correctness gone mad. Also note it’s not the fucking property manager that’s offended here, but random jerkoffs wandering the halls of his building for whatever flipping reason. What the blazes these jerkoffs expect to get when they dribble and treat the things they given like is doing? Don’t be a wankin fool.

      1. No kidding, Limpee. The default should be that whimpering and howling on campus about being offended is PC overreaction unless and until some additional showing is made that a sane, rational person would and should be offended.

  15. At least she didn’t carry around a mattress….

  16. I don’t blame the students for being disturbed by the signs; they would have disturbed me as well. There’s a strong argument to be made for revisiting America’s legacy of slavery, of course)

    What do “black only” and “white only” signs have to do with a “legacy of slavery”? Those signs are a legacy of segregation, a policy primarily advocated and implemented by progressives and eugenicists, half a century after the end of slavery.

    1. THIS

  17. Bathroom and other segregation signs are from the Jim Crow era, not slavery, Robby.

    1. I pretty sure I read somewheres that in slave times the niggers had to use a special bathroom separate from the whites when they were at university.

    2. If he had gone to Columbia, he would know that.

  18. Another story where no one looks good.

    The artist had no right to commandeer campus restrooms without the school’s permission for a rather dubious example of “art”.

    The students had some cause to ask what in the world was going on but the kind of emotional fragility described here should be embarassing.

    1. Looking up the school, the African American Studies Dept is apparently in it.

      So what we have here is an SJW having a bright idea and giving other SJWs the vapors.

    2. The artist had no right to commandeer campus restrooms without the school’s permission for a rather dubious example of “art”.

      Do you know that? Art departments are often pretty open to students using their buildings and facilities as venues for installations, particularly when the work is for a class. It happened quite a lot where I went to college. I myself engaged in putting up odd, confusing and sometimes offensive signs around campus without official sanction.

  19. I thinkShakespeare got his start writing “here I stand all broken hearted/tried to shit but merely farted” on privy walls.

    1. I thought he was the first to write announcements: ‘Ring for Jenny at the Inn by the Creek for a blow job’ on public walls.

  20. Oh boy! Clich?d, superficial, didactic, racial grievance mongering “art” vs. leftist campus snowflakes. Can they all lose?

  21. I treat a every sign I see as a work of art, rather than a command. Maybe that is why I am a less concerned than those who call this terrorism. Let the university punish the student for defacing the walls, without reference to the inflammatory content, and be done with it.

    1. “I treat a every sign I see as a work of art, rather than a command.”

      So you see, Your Honor, you shouldn’t convict an artist!

    2. I treat a every sign I see as a work of art, rather than a command.

      “Officer, I know it says ‘No public urination’, but what does it mean?”

      1. It means don’t get caught urinating in public but if you do, don’t whine and pay the damn fine.

  22. The number of offended would likely have been drastically reduced if the lady had tossed crosses in all the toilets and urinals. Even in the toilet Bertha forgot to flush.

  23. “But outrage was largely the point, since the signs were part of a black student’s visual arts project.”

    Needs Moar Mattress.

    1. So, if a black student put these up, does that mean they aren’t racist and offensive, but if a white student put them up, they would be?

      What about, I dunno, a gay Mexican?

      1. I think the gay Messican would have to make wedding tacos to qualify for for it to be considered True Art under the Kant rule.

  24. “outraged about the sudden appearance of “White Only” and “Black Only” signs”

    “a meeting of the Black Student Union ”


    1. The Campus Aryan Brotherhood Chapter was unavailable for comment

    2. Nicely caught, Ayn.

      “We, the members of this racially exclusive club, are outraged by your racially exclusive bathroom signs!”

      1. *CAN* a Caucasoid utilize the facilities at the Black Student Union?

  25. “entices a fear”


  26. “entices a fear”


    1. I read it “entices a bear”. Makes more sense.

      1. “”oooh, that smell i love…. oh, and look at me, i just happen to have honey all over did that happen…. it would be so nice if something …hairy and….voracious were to just… lap it off me…and maul me… storing energy for winter….””

  27. Man one- “Man, “‘I’ve got to pinch a loaf, what in the hell do I do?”
    Man two- “Fuck if I know, but aren’t these college kids a bunch of pussies these days?”


    1. well played

  28. some of the participants left the meeting crying.

    They must have been emotionally crushed their opportunity to pose as heroic fighters of racism was pulled out from under them. If the art student were a decent person she would have waited a month before revealing herself so they could have their civil rights theater.

    That’s just completely inconsiderate.

  29. It is literally 9/11 times a billion.

    1. The calculator on my phone doesn’t even go that high!

    2. “That was–and I don’t say this lightly–worse than a hundred September Elevens.”

    3. A few kilohitlers?

  30. I just found out Obama tweeted out about the Ahmed thing.

    What an asshole.

    1. That’s what little Palin said

  31. Delighted to see my alma mater finally getting into the spirit of things.

  32. So, basically, university students can be manipulated like horses.

    That’s what I take away from this.

  33. Given the reaction of her fellow students, I think her project was spot fucking on and did her colleagues a great service.

    During a renovation at the texas state Capitol they unearthed some “colored” bathrooms signs. They left them exposed as a reminder of the past. As a kid I found them rather shocking and in hindsight probably the most educational part of the tour.

    1. This.

  34. “I don’t blame the students for being disturbed by the signs; they would have disturbed me as well. “

    OMG! You poor thing. Would you like some milk and cookies.

    1. they need a trigger warning on life

  35. Beware folks very soon these crying, sickened students are going to be the ones deciding how much of your life, money and liberty the government should take for the greater good.

  36. I’m still confused on how hate can be a crime. And act resulting from hate sure but hate shouldn’t be illegal nor controlled by the state. I’ll check with mini love and see if that clears it up.

    1. It can’t. Not unless there are a bunch of mind readers out there that I don’t know about. The absurd thing is people deciding that certain words or actions are inherently hateful regardless of the motivations or intentions of the person doing or saying those things.

      In the US, at least, the only “hate crimes” are things that are crimes anyway, but motivated by hate. Which honestly isn’t the worst thing. The intentions and state of mind of the perpetrator of a crime is typically taken into account when charging and sentencing for any real crime.

  37. The UB Spectrum reports that some of the participants left the meeting crying.

    I’m working on a comment here, but I’m left sans words.

  38. Probably still running around crying hysterically. Someone from student affairs should go capture them, bring them back to their safe space, and make them some cocoa.

    “One student called the signs “sickening” and that the project “entices a fear no one should ever experience.”” Completely improbable that this should happen in present times. If it nonetheless evokes such tremendous fear, then they are delusional, and should not be taken seriously in designing policies.

  39. There’s a strong argument to be made for revisiting America’s legacy of slavery,

    Is there? If so, let’s hear it.

    And if so, what on earth do “Blacks Only” and “Whites Only” bathroom signs have to do with chattel slavery, anyway?

    1. Yeah, “legacy of segregation” would have made more sense. Though I suppose it all has something to do with slavery.

      1. Yeah, I figured as much.

        Not entirely sure what the strong argument is to be constantly revisiting America’s legacy of segregation/slavery/racism, unless you are mostly interested in shoveling coal into the boiler of grievance politics, myself.

        You know something? You can’t move on from a bad episode in your past until you, you know, fucking move on already.


          /no irish person ever

  40. And of course all the black folk gotta make a big deal out of it. Heck I am surprised that idiot Al Sharpton didnt emerge from a crack in the sidewalk and give a big ole “Black Thang” speech!

    1. hahaha wtf Anon for the thread win.

  41. No longer celebrating diversity – comrades?


  42. I remember a time when art was a Michelangelo’s or Cellini’s masterpiece. Now in between mattresses and signs I’m able to see only masterpisses.

  43. I don’t blame the students for being disturbed by the signs;

    “Not only is this a hate crime, but it is also an act of terrorism.” Others called the police.

    some of the participants left the meeting crying.

    *They* weren’t ‘disturbed’ – ‘disturbed’ is seeing the sign and thinking ‘some arsehole’s grandstanding again’, which is all this was for the ‘art’ student who couldn’t think of anything creative so went with the old ‘racism is everywhere’ schtick.

    These people are just insane. There’s simply no other explanation for someone to see a sign that says ‘whites only’ and think its *terrorism* or call the police about it. Only an insane person would think there even needs to be a public meeting, let alone would leave that meeting *crying*.

    Just keep calm, take the damn signs down, and carry on.

    1. There’s a strong argument to be made for revisiting America’s legacy of slavery, of course)

      No there isn’t. half the problems with race we have are *precisely because* we keep revisiting this shit over and over. Every generation is told about the oppression their ancestors faced and have it ground in to them from birth that you can’t get ahead because there’s some nebulous conspiracy holding you back because of the color of your skin.

      We’ve repudiated slavery. Gone so far past repudiation that we actually have *legalized* giving minorities a leg up. But you say we need to go back and ‘revisit’ this shit some more. When, WHEN, can I put the past of some people who have no relation or connection to me beyond sharing a skin tone aside?

      1. There is only one candidate who would ever have the guts to say that. Too bad it’s Trump.

  44. How STUPID do you have to be to call the cops to report art that offends you?

    Aren’t there laws against calling the police to ask for directions or otherwise knowingly wasting their time?

    1. Looks like we’re gonna need a shitload more cops in the future. I think what we need here is a War on Art. Yes, this is art and real art at that. It invoked strong emotions, made intelligent people think, and college students cry and piss their pants. If I were that young ladies instructor I would have given her an A plus. Unfortunately the message to her is to never push the boundaries. The school should have supported her project and used it as an opportunity to teach. I guess that is too much to ask of a college though.

  45. One of the most important considerations before choosing a resort near Delhi is the type of security that it provides. Given the increased crime rates, especially in and around Delhi, looking for a destination that is not only comfortable but safe as well is extremely important. People need to take into account the level of isolation of resorts near delhi and the level of security installed for ensuring maximum protection of the life and property of the guests. This might include used of armed and trained security personal on the premises, especially it is not located in an isolated area.

  46. Oh, for fuck’s sake. Did even one of the precious snowflakes think “I’ll just pull down this stupid sign”, or did they all retreat to their fainting couches?


  47. It’s off-topic but it might be worth to mention, Japan will drop some liberal arts in their universities.

    1. One more article about this…..eral-arts/
      And a good rant about this from a Youtube user named Aaron Clarey.

  48. What I’m baffled about is why EVERYONE isn’t outraged…outraged that this is now what passes for “art” in our culture. Art used to require dedication and skill. Now all it requires in an idea that will offend someone and an Office Depot.

  49. I don’t blame the students for being disturbed by the signs; they would have disturbed me as well.

    Why/ Why would signs that clearly weren’t there the day before disturb you? Would you have seriously believed that President Obama had re-instituted his party’s favored policy of segregation while you slept? And that they had the signs all waiting?

    What the hell is going on? Articles praising Bernie, ENB’s lying Fiorina article, Robby’s endless SJW pearl clutching–is reason morphing into huffpo lite?

  50. Kudos to Ashley Powell! Provocative? Sure. Effective? Absolutely. Clearly, it would have been to no avail to ask permission; college administrators are cowardly at best. Seeking ‘forgiveness’ after the fact was the only viable option. My only criticism is that to be historically accurate, the signs should have read ‘Whites Only’ and ‘Colored Only’.
    Truly an amazing effort!

  51. As outrageous as this is, it should be protected by the first amendment. As “art” it’s not an actual rule requiring segregation.

    If we think it’s OK to prohibit this kind of speech, then what’s next? Well, schools have shut down all sorts of speech under the umbrella of “offense” including, and this is real, a latino-food themed fundraiser called “Phiesta” because a couple of students didn’t like that it was appropriating their culture.

    The artist was provocative but her words should be protected speech.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.