Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy

I sat down with Brett Colley, a professor at GVSU in the Department of Visual & Media Arts, after he wrote a letter to people who were protesting a mural that was on display at the GVSU campus. 

Before reading the interview with Brett, I encourage you all to read his letter, which you can find at this link.

GRIID – Can you first share when people began objecting to the mural entitled Pétalos De Cambio at GVSU and why they were opposed to it?

Brett – “Pétalos De Cambio” was installed in the Kirkhof Center in the Summer of 2024, and I believe GV officials received concerns about its imagery as soon as September. My understanding is that there were at least two meetings during the Fall semester between Catholic students demanding Grand Valley remove the work from its collection, and university officials. I wasn’t part of those meetings so I can only glean the students’ motives from their statements to various news outlets and the information shared out by GV representatives. 

In the press, students claim the mural is offensive to them due to the fact that in one of three panels a modified depiction of Our Lady of Guadalupe (a Catholic icon originating from Mexico) has an X drawn over its head and a gun floating near its feet. They insist this is an act of violence against Mary, asserting to the Detroit Free Press, “There’s no other interpretation of an X through a person’s face and a gun pointed at them than the total death, destruction and annihilation of that person” – a statement that, as an artist, I find patently absurd. The mural also includes text, such as “homophobia is lethal”, and “my son is homosexual – I am proud of him”. While not mentioned by GV students in any news article I could find, these phrases were described in a petition supporting their protest as “blasphemous” and “offensive to God”. 

In other news coverage the protestors – again, mostly GV students – argue that Grand Valley’s purchase and display of “PDC” is a sign that they’re disrespected and unwelcome on campus.

It is definitely worth noting that the artist provided an eloquent, thoughtful statement about the work which makes its intentions quite clear: 

“The murals are aimed at addressing societal challenges without undermining the core tenants of the Catholic Faith. These murals seek to confront gender-based violence, homophobia, and mental health disorders advocating for a nuanced reevaluation of certain aspects of Catholic teachings to foster a more inclusive and compassionate culture. The intent is not to criticize, but to encourage thoughtful reflection on interpretations that may inadvertently contribute to societal issues.”

This is art from a student who identifies as Catholic themself, with familial connection to Mexico. Motivated by their own religious convictions and deep compassion they created a work intended to raise awareness about systemic violence (femicide) and the oppression of queer folks in that part of the world – the sort of socially-engaged scholarship we purport to celebrate at GVSU. Its installation in the Kirkhof Center near the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center and Office of Multicultural Affairs owes to its thematic relationship with the work of those offices. All of this seems to have been lost (on both protestors and GV leaders who removed the work) in a cacophony of self-righteous voices.

With the involvement of conservative state lawmakers (Luke Meerman, Jamie Thompson) and a far-right national organization (TFP Student Action) this ongoing drama has evolved from a misunderstanding of specific symbolism in “PDC” into a battle from the larger culture war, as those who feel their long-held conservative dominance undermined by social progress in a more tolerant direction. Here’s an instructive quote from Meerman: “We want healthy debate to go on, but I think the real point of what we who call ourselves Christians continue to feel is, that we’re continuing to be ostracized and pushed out of the university realm and this is one more example of, ‘You’re not welcome here. You’re hateful people.’”

GRIID – How did GVSU respond to the demands to remove and destroy the mural?

Brett – As I mentioned earlier, GV officials met with offended students on least two occasions. It is my understanding that these meetings included the Vice President of Academic Affairs, the Dean of Student Affairs, the director of the Kaufman Interfaith Institute, the director of the GV Art Museum, and a representative from our Title IX office. In short, their concerns were met with great seriousness and respect.

In response to those discussions, measures were taken to provide greater context for “PDC”. GV curators added label copy to its display, expanding upon the artist’s own statement with more background regarding the mural’s imagery, and its social significance. 

Several news outlets have reported that GV officials also informed the students “PDC” would not be removed, in keeping with the university’s commitment to the First Amendment. Then, shockingly, the work was removed in the early hours of February 5^th, before the Kirkhof Center had even opened to students for the day.

One of my principal frustrations since this occurred is that there’s been no widely shared explanation for the abrupt change of course. University leadership has been woefully silent in the press on the subject of “PDC”s removal, though the protest has been covered several times since.

The radio silence implies that GV leaders feel they made a mistake (in collecting and/or displaying “PDC”), or that the artist did something wrong, or that we are simply not deserving of an explanation. Additionally, the lack of information makes seeing a clear way forward very challenging. When you don’t know exactly why a decision was made, how can you address it?

What has been shared in small meetings and my individual communications with GV leaders is that several of them were receiving hate mail and threats, and that there were threats to the mural, as well. Evidently there have been offers to purchase the work for the express purpose of destroying it. I’m inclined to believe there were also threats made by conservative donors to withdraw funding.

I wish that GV leadership would simply disclose what the actual pressures were, so that we as a culture could have that learning moment, an opportunity to reflect openly on the greater meaning of this. I think that level of transparency would also be a constructive step toward healing.

GRIID – You wrote a letter to Grand Valley leadership before you wrote a letter to those protesting the mural. What were you hoping the letter to GV leadership would accomplish? And have you received a response from the Catholic group that was protesting?

Brett – My first written reaction to this issue was a message to state rep’ Jamie Thompson, addressing a melodramatic Facebook post she made on January 26, amplifying one GV student’s lamentation that the mural was “stomping on their religion” and condemning the school for displaying it. There were actually dozens of others who, like me, commented on that post immediately to correct misinterpretations, share the artist’s own words, and call Thompson out for exploiting the situation to stir up support with conservative constituents.

Naively, I mistook that single post’s comment section as an indication of where the protest stood in the greater social consciousness, but it was only a few days later (Feb. 7) that my colleagues and I from the Visual & Media Arts received official word of the mural’s removal. With that news I volunteered to compose a letter to GV leadership (on behalf of over 20 colleagues who co-signed) expressing our concerns about the dangerous precedent this move has set. I can share some of that language here:

“We are deeply troubled over the chilling effect the decision to remove “Pétalos De Cambio” will have on the expressive works of both present and future students, staff, and faculty, as well as the message it may send to Latinx students at GVSU who see this work as representative of their experience and concerns. Moreover, we believe that in removing this artwork GVSU signals that it will bow to societal pressures despite freedoms guaranteed in the constitution, and that the institution has somehow made an error in moral judgment by procuring/displaying the piece at all, and that by extension the artist – our student exemplar – has also committed an offense.”

This letter prompted a meeting between concerned VMA faculty, the director of the GV Museum, and GV leaders where we learned there is intention to reinstall the mural, but no designated site or clear timeline. Following that meeting I had more personal exchanges with leadership, wishing to emphasize that – while their email inboxes have likely quieted a bit with “PDC”’s removal – many on campus feel betrayed and demoralized, and the work of VMA faculty, staff, and students has been made more challenging as a consequence.

The most recent letter I wrote and published to social media is directed at the students/protestors themselves, and is my good faith effort to elucidate the unique language of visual art and the power of varied interpretations, while also calling out what I perceive as the actual agenda and extraordinary audacity of folks with immense privilege declaring their persecution at the expense of the artist – a  Catholic peer – and the marginalized communities reflected in the mural’s content.

I shared the letter directly with LakerCatholic (student organization), as well at the pastor and campus minister at St. Luke University Parish. I haven’t heard anything in response.

GRIID – You mentioned that the Catholic group at GVSU received support from TFP Student Action. Judging from its website, it is clearly a far-right organization. Can you say anything more about them and the petition they circulated? https://tfpstudentaction.org/ 

Brett – I’d not been aware of TFP Student Action prior to this protest. It’s the worrisome organization of some ugly, homophobic, misogynist values. In addition to common Catholic positions like being opposed to abortion rights, they are aggressively anti-queer. There is a “victories” page on TFP’s website that lists instances across the country where they targeted schools for organizing Pride celebrations, for listing Planned Parenthood as a potential employer, for displaying other so-called “blasphemous” artworks, etc.

It has been my assumption that the social media firestorm fueled by Luke Meerman and Jamie Thompson attracted the attention of TFP, but it’s possible there is some other affiliation with GV protestors. It is not clear to me how much their own values align with TFP, but regardless they came together for a rally on GV’s campus on February 8, and TFP created and continues to circulate an online petition, which is aimed at GV President Mantella. After being apprised that “PDC” is an attack on the Mother of God, petition signers are also encouraged to call other listed GV leaders and demand with “polite firmness” that it be removed from the collection. Recently I attended a luncheon where President Mantella disclosed that she’d been threatened with bodily harm over this issue. How very polite!

The overall rhetoric of TFP, and of the petition specifically, is alarming to say the least. They describe even the concept of being “trans” or “homosexual” as an insult to the Mother of God. I wasn’t seeing or hearing that sort of extreme language on GV’s campus until the Feb. 8 rally. This rhetoric and behavior is so divisive and wildly off target, not at all in keeping with the stated values of the university, and tragically ironic given that the sustained complaint from these Christian students is that they don’t feel respected or welcome. It seems like a pretty misguided way to earn respect, make friends, or build alliances.

GRIID – With the rightward shift of politics, even before the 2024 Election, it seems as though groups like those protesting the mural have even more space in the cultural and political landscape to impose their far-right views. What do you say to that?

Brett – That’s my perception, as well, and I don’t even think there’s a reasonable argument to the contrary. I mean, the advent of social media platforms like X, Truth Social, and Meta all but assure that – unless we’re very deliberate about countering it – each of us is continually occupying an echo chamber, with slightly distorted versions of our existing beliefs bouncing back at us from all directions. These environments – populated by increasingly isolated people and largely anonymous – are the ideal breeding ground for extreme political species.

I’m thinking again of (state rep) Meerman’s quote from above, about Christians being “ostracized and pushed out of the university realm”. In addition to being so instructive about the protest’s agenda, it’s an unsubstantiated, statistically preposterous claim when two-thirds of U.S. identifies as Christian, and an example of the sort of Orwellian argument we’ve been hearing over the past 10+ years in national politics: the majority claims minority status. It’s laughable, but through social media (like Facebook, where I first saw Jamie Thompson sharing a similar sentiment) one has the instrument to amplify such an assertion. I think it’s more accurate to say that what’s being challenged at some universities – through the introduction of diverse voices and perspectives – is regressive dogma that impedes the ability of many people to flourish.

I’m also thinking about something that happened in 2020 under the proverbial radar, as we were (rightfully) preoccupied with the early pandemic. That year Trump signed an executive order mandating that all future federal buildings conform to Neoclassical architectural styles, and another commissioning a sculpture garden of traditional statues to honor patriots of his choosing (figures like Barry Goldwater and Douglas MacArthur). In other words, he turned his authoritarian attention to arts and culture.

And now this protest against “PDC” is happening against a national backdrop where we find Trump usurping directorship of the Kennedy Center and ordering changes to the language of NEA grant applications that cut off support to any DEI-inflected proposals, overtly fascist efforts to control culture at the level of the arts and humanities. I’m definitely not the first to acknowledge the parallels between what is happening there and Hitler’s campaign against “degenerate art”, a violent determination of what was made, exhibited, and supported in 1930s Germany.

GRIID – Would you say that what happened at GVSU is part of the growing assault on Higher Education in the US?

Brett – I certainly see it as more than a coincidence. No doubt conservative voices across the country feel emboldened by the far-right policies being pushed at our national level. 

I fully appreciate that for most people reading this there are greater concerns facing higher ed, including suspension or cuts to federal funding for critical studies and experiments, the targeting of DEI programs and institutions that have enacted them, the gutting of our Department of Education, which threatens financial aid, violent suppression of pro-Palestinian campus protests and First Amendment rights.

And even these issues are overshadowed by a host of other crises like the imminent threat of deportation facing undocumented students and their families, the precarious status of non-citizen staff/faculty, the open assault on queer and trans folks, a long list of horrible things.

This one act of censorship at Grand Valley may seem insignificant in comparison, and an odd thing to direct such emotional energy toward, but to me it’s a micro sample of a macro concern – the slide toward a less informed, less tolerant, less democratic, less free society.

If you want to undermine democracy, if you want to smooth the path to authoritarian rule, start with education, start with the arts – spaces where people are actively curious and afforded diverse experiences and perspectives, growing socially conscious, critically engaged, and creative about solving problems.

GRIID – How has this whole process impacted your students and how has it impacted you?

Brett – Honestly, I feel disrespected as a scholar and as an artist. At the same time “Petalos De Cambio” was being removed from Kirkhof, the GVSU library was showcasing historically banned books about two hundred yards away. In other words, not only standing behind but celebrating controversial, creative works. Why is that? Why are university’s values being applied so differently from one discipline to the other? 

The students I work with have learned and shared back to me the following lessons:

• A dominant group can cry persecution and get what it wants
• Conservative values over-ride their own
• Bullying is an effective tactic
• Donors have the real power
• Their opinions/desires don’t matter
• GVSU does not support freedom of speech
• GVSU is not a safe space for them

As painful as that list is to share, it’s truly not hard to understand why those are the thoughts/feelings of art students who use their visual language to express complex and sometimes controversial ideas, who are discovering their individual identities through these media, and who’ve now seen one of their own censured due to conservative blowback. 

An art student produced scholarship that so exemplifies the university values – critical engagement, global curiosity, commitment to making the world a better place – we purchased it. A second student found it offensive. That student chose to reject any explanation or interpretation beyond their own, shared their animus with state lawmakers, and from there social media converted it into an ill-informed chorus of censors. Now a smart, significant artwork is in storage. Conservative Christians, not artists, are acting as curators of our culture. It’s an indignity we won’t soon forget. 

It is my charge to encourage and support students in their creative research, and this experience has made that work more difficult. How do I counter the lessons they’ve learned? I find myself in the complex position of being both a mentor and a representative of the institution many students now view as unsupportive, at best (and oppressive, at worst).

I’m simultaneously fired up and fatigued. I have been expending a lot of time and energy toward understanding and addressing this protest and GV’s decisions. The fact that an excellent student has been so negatively impacted by both the protestors and the admin decision (double injury) is depressing and infuriating and distracts me from other work I have to do. At the same time, it feels important to challenge what’s happening on all fronts and redeem this shitty situation somehow, so I haven’t given up yet.