Ideology paints itself into a corner

I tried to tell myself that it was OK to intervene because it was my job to do so. I had arrived at the doctrine of "you can have free speech, as long as you agree with me".

It's a cycle of reasoning that many, far superior minds have agonised over through the centuries. If your society chooses to curtail an absolute right to freedom of speech, where do you draw the line? Do you make exceptions in cases of national security? If so, who defines national security and who polices this definition? How can we reconcile a right to privacy with a right to freedom of speech? Where is the line between the public's right to know and an individual's protection against defamation?

Most important for me was how to teach people to think for themselves but still imbue their education with a commitment to democratic principles and respect for humanity. The last thing we want is students with carbon-copy minds.

I went back to my colleagues and discussed the issue. One colleague observed, quite pragmatically, that even if students did produce right-wing work, it would be regarded as ironic in the context of the event. It wouldn't have a literal reading, he argued, when placed alongside the other works (the "irony is all pervasive, all knowing and all powerful" response). Viewers attending a university event would just assume humour was intended.

Another colleague stood firmly behind the "no censorship" principle underlying the event. Her point was that our role was purely curatorial; we were not there to influence students' views, only to help them bring their ideas to fruition (the "Hitler's mother's midwife" response). "Artists need to become politicians in leading this debate about our cultural identity" was her robustly worded view.

Both students were, and are, bright and perceptive. They realised that their images might be considered politically incorrect and asked me directly for my views. For the briefest moment, and I am ashamed to admit this now, I thought about talking them out of it. What if it was embarrassing for the university? Or generated negative publicity for our program or if the public found these works offensive? Then I realised how spineless I was being. I told them they should make their work as planned and they did.

The episode got me thinking about censorship, self-censorship and the desire to conform. If someone like me, who has always prided themselves on being an independent thinker, is so quick to censor another person's point of view, then what about everyone else?

In the end there were barriers to staging the exhibition; we had wanted the event to be a largely student run enterprise but many people were too busy or not sufficiently enthused by the theme to participate. We had a small group of very committed students but not enough to organise the large scale multimedia spectacle we had envisaged.

At the time of writing this article the un-Australian event had been postponed indefinitely.