Students in Vermont Law School have demanded that a school get rid
of a mural which depicts the Underground Railroad (in which whites
helped escaped slaves reach Canada and freedom) in a tone they
don't agree with.
I have no opinion on the mural itself, because I have not seen it. I
don't know whether I would agree with the reported criticism. It
doesn't say precisely what aspects of the mural are being criticized,
and I don't know if I would recognize them without more explanation.
I think the court's ruling was correct. To remove a piece of art from
view is not "distortion, mutilation, or … modification", just
as deleting a file does not make a modified version of it.
It would be ludicrous to give whoever painted a mural in a publicly
visible place the power to require it to be preserved there forever.
Imagine if the mural showed adulation for Donald Trump or Vladimir
Putin — should this compel the building's owner to display propaganda
for them? The school must have the choice to cover up or paint over
art that it does not wish to display. Indeed, it may someday wish to
remodel or demolish the building, and eliminate that wall entirely.
Although this means the school has the right to decide to hide the
mural, I disapprove of that decision. It is partly for the reasons
stated in the article, but it is more than that.
Although I am not sure what aspects of the mural some students
criticize, I can tell that it is a matter of nuance. It is _not_ like
a painting that admires Trumputin. That means that the critics are
being demanding more than anyone in a free society has a right to
demand. They must learn to respect disagreement on such points. I
say this without knowing whether I would agree or disagree with them
on their specific criticisms of the mural.