Near the end of October, senior Vivienne Arango worked on a “Monster Sculpture” project for her Sculpture class. The sculpture showed a man in a crawling pose, completely naked. Instead of a head, however, the sculptured featured a television on top of the man’s neck. The sculpture also displayed male genitalia.

The sculpture has come under scrutiny after Arango discovered the sculpture had been altered without her permission.

Arango said that her teacher, Mrs. Jeremiah, altered the project.

Jeremiah, who had been out of school for the week prior to the incident, was not available for comment.

Unified Arts department head and fellow art teacher Mrs. Casagrande did not deny that the project was altered. Casagrande said that any action taken was because Arango’s progress on the sculpture did not correspond to the assignment.

“This is an issue of a misinterpretation of the assignment,” said Casagrande.

Arango feels differently.

“I felt that I was censored,” she said.

Over the last century, American schools have repeatedly been involved with cases that some see as violations of Constitutional rights.

In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court determined that students are protected by the First Amendment while in school so long as the students’ actions do not interfere with the educational mission of the school.

According to Tinker, “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates” as long as the conduct challenged is not disruptive to the school day.

However, in the 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision, the Supreme Court gave an administrator the right to censor student views where a practice or policy for a public forum for student free speech does not exist.

Although Arango’s sculpture was not yet on display when Jeremiah altered it, the “Monster Sculpture” projects are usually put on display in the library and photos of last year’s sculptures were published in the 2007-2008 Literary Journal.

Arango first found out what had happened to her sculpture when she returned from a week-long leave of absence.

“I walked into the room, [and] saw the project on its side. One finger had been broken off, the head had fallen off, and the penis had been torn off,” said Arango.  

Arango, thinking an underclassman had damaged the piece, said she then went to Jeremiah and told her what happened. 

Casagrande contends that if any parts were removed, the action taken was not irreversible and did not inflict lasting damage.

“It was not a completed part of any sculpture,” she explained. “It was a preliminary portion of the work.”

Although some community members feel that Jeremiah’s actions conflict with Arango’s first amendment rights, Casagrande disagrees. In her view, the teacher was not trying to limit Arango’s right to free speech.

Mrs. Jeremiah had not been present in school for a week while Arango worked on the sculpture. According to Casagrande, before Jeremiah left, the sculpture did not contain a penis. When Jeremiah returned, however, the penis had been put in place. Casagrande maintains that any action taken after this point was taken because Arango’s sculpture did not correspond to the project assigned.

Casagrande maintains that Mrs. Jeremiah acted in an appropriate manner and said that teachers altering students’ work is common.

 “I’ve had it done to me many times in art school and seen it happen to virtually every other art student for various reasons…at a college and graduate level.”

Casagrande thinks that art teachers altering students’ work can easily be compared to other areas of education, such as English.

She posed the question: “is it ok for a teacher to make corrections or alter a student’s writing?”

Arango simply thinks that Jeremiah could have chosen a better method.

“She could have maybe laid a sheet over it and asked me to remove [the penis] later.”

Arango also suggested that Jeremiah could have moved the project to a back room to remove it from the view of “freshman boys.”

 Many students have questioned whether a teacher has the right to alter student work. . According to the U.S. Copyright Office, when an author creates a work “for hire,” the “person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author.”

  Because South Kingstown High School supplied the materials and the sculpture was created in an art class, the teacher and the school possess significant control over the sculpture.

Arango still doesn’t see why Jeremiah wanted to alter the sculpture.

“They never said it was against school rules. It’s not against school rules. There’s nothing about nudity in art,” she said.

To Casagrande, however, the issue was not about nudity. Nudity, she agreed, has a valid place in art class.

“One of the assignments is drawing a Vetruvian man…which is a nude drawing,” Casagrande said. “[Nudity] is never, ever an issue when it’s part of art.”

As for whether or not Arango’s sculpture could be classified as art, Casagrande replied that the sculpture was not finished, and therefore Casagrande did not yet know.

“I may have, at one point in time,” she said, “seen the sculpture that was partially done.”

“It seemed to be turning into something that was not the original intent of the assignment.”

Despite her position that Arango’s case did not involve censorship, Casagrande believes that censorship does have a place in the classroom.

 “Censorship,” she said, “should only occur when a situation becomes uncomfortable for others to view or hear when they do not have the choice to not listen or not see.”

Neither the student handbook nor the South Kingstown Schools website contains a specific rule about nudity in art.

Students in schools nationwide have brought similar issues to the Supreme Court.

In fact, in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, decided on January 23, 1967, the Supreme Court went as far as to say “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.”

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, however, limited that statement, determining that “students’ First Amendment rights are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.”

The Hazelwood case was brought to court by Journalism students in Missouri who were challenging their principal’s decision to withhold an article in the school newspaper that contained explicit sexual details about pregnant students and another article that contained information about divorced parents in the community.

Hazelwood limited the application of previous cases with regards to students’ first amendment rights. However, it did not reverse any previous cases. Tinker v Des Moines still stands.

Arango said that her piece certainly did not have that intention.

“It was about how media controls people, how people can’t think for themselves,” she explained.

In her mind, the piece was clearly art and not pornography.

“Pornography has the intention of arousing the sexual psyche of humans,” she said. “Art has the intention of conveying a concept.”

Arango remains adamant that her intention was solely to convey a concept.

What frustrated Arango the most, however, was the way that she said the art teachers handled the situation. According to Arango, both Jeremiah and Casagrande were aware of what her sculpture would contain.

“I showed all the sketches to Mrs. Jeremiah,” said Arango. “I had gotten positive feedback.”

Arango even says that at one point Casagrande referred to the sculpture as “RISD work.”

Casagrande said that she wasn’t aware of the direction the sculpture took in the week before the incident in question, and that because of Mrs. Jeremiah’s absence, neither was Jeremiah.

“There was not any kind of deliberate destruction or targeted malice,” Casagrande said.

In the SKHS community, the issue has attracted a lot of attention. Laura Elizabeth Jackman, a member of the Minnechaug Regional High network on Facebook, created a Facebook group called “Save The Penis.” The group, open to all who want to join, came specifically as a result of Arango’s case.

The group description is as follows:

“It has come to my attention that recently at South Kingstown High School, Vivienne Arango constructed a nude sculpture for her art class. Now, pretty much every artist from the 18th century on has drawn from a nude model and/or taken a nude figure drawing class. Even if you’re unfamiliar with the art world we’ve all seen the greek statues the old paintings with nude people. We can accept that just like nudity is a part of society it is also a part of art. Despite this, Viv’s teacher decided to take it upon herself to rip the penis off of the sculpture and leave the rest of the sculpture in a rather haggard state, because she deemed the sculpture innappropriate and thought it was making her freshmen class uncomfortable. If this was the case why not cover the sculpture with a sheet or move it to a secluded, nonvisible area? Why not discuss the issue and some alternative resolutions to the problem with the artist? Lastly, why not see it as an oppurtunity to explain the significance nudity has in the art world to her freshmen? None of this was done however. Viv was told she had to discontinue the project as she had envisioned it. When one of her classmates decided to write an article for the school newspaper on the incident he was told he was not allowed to do so by the administration. So, now we have two situations in which authority figures have censored a students freedom of expression in the same public school which according to Tinker vs. Des Moines School District is illegal. Now, I have no idea what to do about this… I just thought it warranted an angry facebook group.”

Jackman’s statement, while it draws on actual events, contains factual errors. For example, the administration has made no move to censor a Rebellion article on the topic from publication. Some say Jackman’s statement, along with other comments on the page, raises issues concerning libel and slander.

According to the Student Press Law Center, “libel is the publication – in words, photos, pictures or symbols – of false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation.”

Some SKHS students also commented on the group’s wall. Unbeknownst to some students, their statements could be considered libelous, while others may be protected under the Fact vs. Opinion clause of libel law. The SPLC writes that “statements of pure opinion cannot be proven true or false,” and therefore cannot be libelous.

To prove libel, however, the accuser must prove that the statement is untrue and has been “reported unfairly.”

There have not been any definitive law cases regarding libelous comments on Facebook.

As of Tuesday, December 9, 2008, the group had attracted 285 members, an overwhelming majority of which attend or once attended SKHS. On the group’s “wall”, a message board where all group members can post their opinions, 45 messages have been posted. Responses vary in quality, but people from local organizations have commented on the Facebook group.

Marylou Butler, photographer and contributing writer to So Rhode Island Magazine, wrote, “this is just another example of how the past 20 years of kow-towing to the religious right has gotten us backward.”

Wayne Bridge, a local artist, appeared even more critical. He wrote, “Is it actually under her purview to complete her student’s artwork? If so, why doesn’t she just do the projects herself in order for her classroom to create art she is comfy with.”

In The South County Independent, reporter Liz Boardman recently covered the issue in the article “Students Cry Censorship Over Altered Art.” The article quoted Facebook along with an SKHS senior close to Arango. It did not, however, feature comments from either Jeremiah or Casagrande. 

Casagrande considers the article biased, pointing to Boardman’s use of Facebook as a source.

Casagrande said that neither she nor Jeremiah submitted to an interview in order to protect Arango.

“The reason that the article became one-sided was because there was no official response…in respect for the privacy of the student.”