An Escalation in On-Campus Repression
The mural before its removal in June 2024. Photo courtesy of Meg MacKenzie and the Daily Tar Heel.
After popular poet and social activist June Jordan’s untimely death in 2003, a posthumous collection of her poetry was released two years later, named “Directed by Desire: The Collected Poems of June Jordan”. This was a collection of her poems, including books previously published, as well as never-before-published poems. Among these new poems was one titled “Intifada Incantation: Poem #8 for b.b.L.” It contains the following passage:
“I SAID I LOVED YOU AND I WANTED
GENOCIDE TO STOP
I SAID I LOVED YOU AND I WANTED AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION AND REACTION”
Both of these couplets engage in telling the reader they are loved, and detail the most passionate wishes of the author. I would argue Jordan could be asking the government for “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” and for “GENOCIDE TO STOP.” This sentiment was echoed by students who used the first couplet as part of their mural in the Hanes Art Center on the campus of UNC-Chapel Hill. “I TOLD YOU I LOVED YOU AND I WANTED GENOCIDE TO STOP.” This mural was made of various block prints made during the encampment in the spring of 2024. Affixed to the wall of the lobby in the Hanes Art Center in April 2024. On the day before classes for the Fall 2025 semester, the artwork was covered by white plywood blocks screwed onto the tiles of the mural as ordered by the UNC administration.
Dean Jim White of the UNC School of Arts and Sciences claimed it had been destroyed and thrown away after they removed the plywood. The fact that the mural was not just scheduled to be taken down by the Arts Department but was quickly removed signals a sudden shift in the school administration’s perception of the mural. What made them consider the mural so offensive that it had to be immediately covered after an entire year of being up? Dean White claims that the mural was only supposed to be up for one year, but why was it not treated with the care a piece of art needs? Why just leave it empty? If there was not another piece of art that was planned to go in its place, it should not have been removed. The Arts Department’s actions send a message that the university would rather have no art than art that may cause disagreement and discourse, which is arguably what art is supposed to do.
While there is no way of knowing exactly what led to the mural being taken down, this follows a history of arguably authoritarian actions in Spring 2024 by the university’s leadership. They have used police force to disperse protests on campus, banned certain students involved in protests from campus, and temporarily shut down the Campus Y in order to quell more protests. These actions demonstrate a lack of commitment to allowing students to practice their First Amendment rights. Throughout history, universities have been a place where students can freely express their views and have been a breeding ground for new ideas in politics and policy. The university administration doesn’t want to acknowledge that.
This comes at a time when a parallel authoritarian crackdown seems to be happening nationally. President Trump has recently pressured the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), who govern the media and issues licenses for broadcasting, to menace anyone who criticizes him into submission, or be made an example of, like Jimmy Kimmel. The removal of the mural follows the trend that President Trump has been spearheading throughout the nation lately, and may be a result of conservative influences on the University’s administration, whose actions have continually proven that First Amendment rights are not at the forefront of their minds. This unjust removal of the painting acts as a reflection of changes on a national level. Where in the past, the mural would have been planned and removed piece by piece in a way it could be treasured, in the present, we have an administration that mostly ignores past decorum and just does what they want with little respect for other departments or pre-existing systems.. This mirrors the Trump administration, though admittedly not to the same degree. It is important for universities to be a place where people feel free and safe to share their thoughts, and to be a breeding ground for new ideas on social justice, civil rights, and foreign affairs.
The University seems to think that free speech is something they can allow for some cases, but not in others. On the front page of the website for the controversial The School of Civic Life and Leadership, the Dean of that school Jed Atkins, said “SCiLL prepares students for the responsibilities of citizenship and civic leadership by fostering a free-speech culture…” This points to an interesting finding: in certain departments of our school, free speech may be more accepted than in others. The explanation that the painting was only planned to be up for a year feels moot when you learn that the previous painting on the wall was up for four years, and the request to remove it came straight from the Chancellor’s office.
The University’s unwillingness to participate in ideas it disagrees with is alarming and is possibly influenced by the current national political climate. The administration should be encouraging students to speak their minds, instead of suppressing speech. There are still places on campus that are allowing people to speak their minds and speak up about this issue. Many are concentrated within the Campus Y, and students around the world should be looking at how different opinions are being treated by authorities that disagree with them. If everyone is aware and watching, it is harder for governments to get away with restricting free speech.