Yale Daily News

I am deeply sorry and disturbed by his project. It was wrong for the student to do this, for the department to approve of this and for the school not to know. I am ashamed as a Yale Student. I am also deeply concerned about the mental stability of this student.

WHAT KIND OF SELF-AGGRANDIZING FOOL DOES THAT???

way to throw the entire pro-choice movement under the bus.

i don't care what kind of severely misplaced avant-garde aspiration she has, or how much repeated exposure to art theory may have damaged her brain (which it obviously has). this is repellent on every level:

physical: this is maybe the most viscerally disgusting thing that i have ever heard of. 'nuff said. the sheer physical danger that she puts herself in by repeatedly inducing miscarriage, not to mention the possibility of STD infection (and yes i know that they got tested, but she was absolutely playing with fire) boggles the mind. you might as well repeatedly induce tumor growth and receive chemotherapy (the analogy carries over into all other ways that i find this insulting).

intellectual: what kind of advisor approves this? it is hands down the most egregious negligence of responsibility that i have ever heard of. all political implications aside (and, since i doubt this pia character could be in ignorance of them, i can only assume she is as self-indulgent and attention-hungry as her advisee), YOU PUT YOUR STUDENT'S HEALTH AT RISK. i hope this woman is fired, not only for having a hand in this travesty, but for the damage she has done to yale's reputation as an institution of intellectual (not to mention moral) integrity.

political: as gabe already noted, the timing of this could not be worse. i can not imagine a situation in which this does not get included as a development in the historical context of the continued erosion of the right to choose (not to mention the effect on sex education nationally, and, insofar as the US is responsible for providing or witholding funding for international programs to empower women in sexual decision making, internationally). she says that she hopes to engage people in dialogue about this project (the "connection between art and the human body"), but she obviously crawled out from under a rock if she think that a conversation about the meaning of art is the only "dialogue" that will result. and the results of this dialogue will be damaging to every woman in this country. the only political logic i can imagine for this is that she is a crazed, kamikaze pro-lifer. if that's the case, she couldn't have done better for herself.

moral: granted, we get into murkier waters here. i am unabashedly pro-choice, if that wasn't already obvious, but this is still arguably the worst offense. congratulations, aliza shvarts '08: you have single-handedly trivialized not only an entire generation and a half's fight to gain and retain the right to choose, through harassment and against massive odds, but also history of women's struggles, not only politically, but with the emotional, moral, and spiritual impacts of the choice to terminate a pregnancy. you also spit upon every couple who has tried, and failed, sometimes repeatedly, to have children. it is the emotional impact of these struggles, emotional impact that you shamelessly exploit, not explore, in your senior project, that informs the disgust i feel on the other three levels already articulated. frankly, the debate about whether or not your project is "art" or not holds absolutely no interest for me. if you, in this act of supreme, at best, thoughtlessness, and, at worst, selfish disregard for good taste, sensitivity, and moral, intellectual, and political responsibility DO manage to become a success in the art world, crowned queen of process-driven concept art, i will think the less of it.

shame on you.

Wow. I don't want to call her an idiot, but I think people should have more respect for their own bodies. But if this is what she wants to do in the name of art, then I guess it's technically her freedom.

this is going to be a DISASTER

How the hell could a Yale professor have approved this project? Even if you set aside for a moment the utter tastelessness and depravity of it (and this is coming from someone who's pro-choice), isn't repeatedly forcing miscarriages a serious threat to the student's health? Pia Lindman should be fired. This is unconscionable.

This is what passes for a senior project these days? Had I known that I wouldn't have wasted countless hours researching and writing a 45 page paper on Anglo-Spanish trade relations in the 16th and 17th Century Americas. I'd have become an art major and shit on something and call it art. I hope the department fires the professor and fails the student.

This girl called what she did 'miscarriages' , but what she had was abortions..Miscarriages are what happens in nature.

What she did was an atrocity and a crime against humanity. But I was reading this article, it says she artificially 'inseminated' herself.

So...that begs the question: where did she get this semen? Did she have sex with a young man, save the condom and after he left, thinking he had 'safe sex' she took a turkey baster and....er.

you know? And did he consent to her doing this, so she could just then kill the 'products of conception'? Probably not.

Or did she have friends collects the stuff for her?

This whole incident is so sleazy, so filthy, so degrading to everything decent and human it makes you ill just to think about it.

This will 'throw the entire pro-choice movement under the bus'???

Molly...this IS the pro-choice movement in all it's vulgar reality. It is after all HER body...she can do what she wants.

According to pro-choice....and she has the right to free speech. Had a proffessor dared to question her validity as an artist, the student would have had the politically correct gestapo on his/her case in no time.

But most likely the proffessor was a liberal pro-choice advocate who thought it was a 'profound and courageous statement.'

dove

Even leaving the moral issues aside (and this pro-choicer personally thinks this is sick), if she really wanted to do something like this she should have waited until she was no longer affiliated with Yale. And I can't believe any adviser would approve a dangerous, purposeless waste of life like this--not only is she wasting the lives of the embryos, she's risking her own life and fertility. As it is, pro-lifers will have a field day and Yale will forever be associated with pro-choice liberalism at its most horrible.

I don't think pro-lifers are looking at this as an opportunity to 'have a Field day...

You haven't a clue what makes pro-lifers tick obviously.

This will make pro-lifers weep.

Tho' I'm glad that at least even avowed pro-choicers are repulsed by this, it is little consolation. Babies still died, and it obviously hasn't really opened your eyes as to how the culture of death (of which the abortion culture is a huge part) has spawned this nightmare.

In spite of the obvious evil splashed before your eyes in vivid technicolor blood and gore....You're still pro-choice.

And that's a tragedy.

dove

This shows what a complete JOKE what "art" has become. To define this as art is to put extreme hardcore pornography which includes bestiality and corprophilia on the same level as Sesame Street.

This student is a SICK, DISTRUBED, TWISTED individual who has no regards for human life. The professor is just as irresponsible for approving such a horrific idea as an "art project."

I thought only intelligent people could get into Yale. You are a waste of daily maintanance and feeding.

As a woman who has made the hard decision of having an abortion, I am appalled by this project. I think it is a mockery of the process in which a woman goes through before, during, and after an abortion. It doesn't provoke discussion or debate, it is purely for shock value.

What, no pics?

The only debate she has provoked is over who or what is to blame for creating this ethical frankenstein monster that is her.

Hopefully her actions have at least rendered her infertile.

This lady is mentally ill!! How sick can you get!?

So when is *this* abortion from Yale running for President?

My reaction to the article and to the comments:

I am at a loss for the proper adjective.

Saddened? Deeply.

Horrified? Yes, and at some fundamental level.

Let me state: I do not care for some of the issues noted by others: I do not care about what this technically adult person does to her own body; I do not care about her risk of STDs; I do not care about fallout on the pro-abortion movement.

I do not care about the reaction of G-d or Any Powers That Be (although, if there is some Judeo-Christian god, he is going to be very, very upset).

And I am not sure I can explain my gut reaction--and gut reactions are often the outcome of both Nature and nurture.

And my gut says--this is wrong.

Fundamentally wrong.

Indeed, a crime against humanity. And I mean that.

This is offensive to all that is human--even at the secular level.

Saddam Hussein's sons were similarly self-indulgent, although their crimes also included fully matured humans and not just embryonic potentialities. Theirs were crimes against humanity--and so are Shvarts'.

And more sadly--she will likely perceive the coming outrage as "good debate" (as if genocide against the Kurds--or the Jews--was simply fodder for the chattering classes).

For all those that cry out "slippery slope argument!" whenever Conservatives wish to preserve what decency is left humanity, well, now you have proof that such slopes exist.

Lastly--while I am not necessarily a proponent of "father's rights" (i.e., a movement by would-have-been fathers who now regret their support of their sexual partner's "choice" to abort), one wonders how many of the young people involved will someday regret what they have done.

I look forward to Dick Levin's response.

absolutley disgusting

This work of "art" is repulsive in many, many ways. I agree with all the other disgusted commenters. I also wanted to say that as a woman who has experienced a real, actual, involuntary miscarriage and the emotional devastation that goes with it, her work is actually anti-woman, anti-feminist, and anti-humanity. It is the most nihilistic action I can remember ever reading about. I have many friends who have experience multiple miscarriages as they try desperately to get pregnant, and the pain is excruciating. All women who have gone through a real miscarriage and lost a much-wanted baby will know how I feel. To mock that pain and suffering is truly reprehensible. This beastly woman does not deserve to be at Yale, for she is clearly an ignorant, ill-educated fool. I just pray she never, never has children of her own. If she lets them live, that is, and doesn't expel them as a sick egomaniacal medical experiment on film.

A typical dumb-ass, who believes that an elite college diploma means that you are above the rest...a better idea for her project would be to have her stand up against a white bed sheet, and have her take a gun and splatter her brains on the bed sheet, now that would be art, and it would also help clean up the gene pool.

I believe she should be tried for premeditated murder or at least put away in a mental hospital. How can anyone defend this behavior?

"This will 'throw the entire pro-choice movement under the bus'???

Molly...this IS the pro-choice movement in all it's vulgar reality. It is after all HER body...she can do what she wants."

No this is NOT the pro-choice movement. I am pro-choice and I'd like to think I stand with a majority of pro-choice supporters here in saying this this woman doesn’t seem to realize is that a lot of pro-choice supporters don’t think abortions are a good idea for for something to do when your bored.

I personally don’t know at what point life begins, At this point that is something still between you and your gods. Further in my opinion it technically doesn’t matter. Even if fetus’s are people, they are taking up space inside you still have the right to evict them. There are plenty of debatably good reasons for doing so.

However doing it to obtain blood for your art project? I honestly would be about as less offended as if you were buying puppies and beheading them in the name of Art.

That this isn't condemmed immediately but is instead embraced by the university (accepted as her senior project and even put on display) shows to me that the supposedly brightest and most educated of our society are not capable of maturely and seriously treating the subject of the unborn. I've always believed life begins at conception but I wasn't ready to take away the ability for a woman to have control over the matter and make what I've always hoped was reponsible personal choices. Our culture has truly 'jumped the shark' if we allow behavior like this to be rationalized as anything other than depraved masochism. She should be institutionalized not celebrated or even tolerated. I'm not religious at all but if there is such a thing as Karma and balance in this world, surely Yale will suffer greatly for tolerating this under the guise of "art".

With Bulldog Days just around the corner, this can't be good news for Yale...

Crazy leftist death merchant.

This is a great example of why a visiting lecturer should not be a project advisor, at least not without senior faculty supervision. What colossally bad judgment this was to permit this to go forward. Bad judgment to allow the student to risk her health. Bad judgment and indifference (hey, she's only going to be there for a year and then off to Berlin, so what does she care?) to the damage this will cause to Yale. If the university allows this to be exhibited in its spaces, it will deserve the protests that should be mounted.

I don't buy dove's argument that these are babies (that is a post-Roe concoction of the anti-choicers)and I am pro-choice myself. But the grossness of this display isn't really that far removed from a future artist displaying the corpse of her own stillborn baby. Based on Lindman's displays in the past, if she were so unfortunate to lose a child in childbirth, I wouldn't put it past her to do such a thing. I sure hope Yale wouldn't display it.

This is just wrong!!! She is insane to do this to herself on purpose. I don't care if she calls it "art"...it is murder. I recently suffered a miscarriage and it was the most traumatic and devastating experience of my life!! She has no regard for human life if she thinks this is normal. There is something terribly wrong with this girl!! It is offensive to me that she is aborting these babies...she is not miscarrying, she is murdering the embryos. Being able to bear children is a gift from God, one that she doesn't deserve, and I seriously hope she is never able to conceive again...for the baby's sake!!! Wake up Yale...this is not right. Do the right thing.

This girl is quite possibly psychotic. These were self-induced abortions, not miscarriages (spontaneous abortion). Quite insulting to those of us who have had miscarriages. This "art" could have been created through other means. After 4 years at Yale, does she not have an ounce of creativity?

Shvarts successfully scandalized herself: regardless of intention. Allow me to transcend generational stigma and suggest that Shvarts is mentally ill. The undergraduate experience is a wonderful time – to find one self – to explore new caverns, but for Shvarts it should be a time to check herself into a mental institution. Picasso and Leonardo can rest once again in their graves. And Darwin can ready himself for another guest for tea.

well, Ned Fulmer is off the hook.

I see two potential outcomes:

1) someone will use her in a SNUFF FILM

2) she will become a "professor"

Nasty little piece of work. Roe v. Wade is already on the chopping block. We women who were adults pre '73 spit on you. Now that would make a good art project.

The comments so far are remarkabaly absent the vehement and vitriol I'd expect, but still absolutely on point and mostly well put as to how absurd, horrific, offesive and depraved this is. As someone who's suffered the difficult situation of going through a miscarriage, I want so much to reach out and shake this person. But on a WTF were they thinking level, did an advisor really approve this? Incredible. Had this not been in the name of art, but instead done in a science program as part of a study involving human subjects, NO WAY would it have gotten approved. Those policies should be broadened from research involving humans to any project involving human trials, even self-inflicted. 15 years ago my application to Yale was rejected...I'm glad not to be a Yale alumnus today.

This is not art. This is a juvenile misinterpretation of what it means to be an artist. This girl clearly hasn't graduated beyond the belief that to truly be an artist means you have to be full of pain and suffering. I'm sure she believes the outcry against this meaningless self-indulgence means that she has succeeded - that she is above us because we clearly don't understand her vision.

Give me a break. Being shocking isn't being an artist. And if shock is involved in art, then at least display enough maturity and growth as an artist to include a valuable statement.

And furthermore, shame on her professor for telling her that this was a worthwhile endeavor. Perhaps this woman should be teaching in some insignificant college with an even more insignificant art department, but as a representation of Yale and the integrity of their art department, this woman has failed.

This is astonishingly depraved. The comments at #2 do a fine job pointing out the horridness of the whole event, but I'll throw in.

I consider myself pro-choice, but not enough to say I'm pro-abortion. I think it's a fair distinction (and one that I've hoped is shared by others who are pro-choice), which is to say: I don't want a government to force a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want; but I believe much more could be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and moral issues are certainly on the line insofar as that, somewhere along the way, you're absolutely dealing with another life. So I can't possibly comprehend how a healthy, sane person would find artistic merit in impregnating herself repeatedly FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF ABORTING the result. I'm no psychologist, just as I am no art scholar. Still, I must question the mental health of this student, and I think she deserves counseling by an adult other than her mindless "advisor."

I write mostly to stress that Yale should separate itself from this "display" as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Yale MUST not be employing faculty who are willing to approve of and "advise" a student toying so cavalierly with her own health. Every indication is that the student inseminated herself, apart from any medical supervision. Details need not be known to realize this was just the first unhealthy choice made. We would not approve of an advisor consenting to a student who starved herself so as to document anorexia. Just as we would not approve of an advisor consenting to a student who went on a steroids binge to document physique. And, for the record, I think what this student did was far, far worse than those two examples. This professor must be fired.

Yale should also not showcase the exhibit. First Amendment protections do not require that a private institution, even one whose goals are to foster the expression of ideas, lend its name to such a production. I think it would be a grave mistake to leave the impression that Yale finds artistic merit in self-insemination and abortion. And I think it would be a step towards acknowledging that the university in no way can support the testing (I would say breaking) of social mores and boundaries when student health is on the line.

Dear Lord,

Please forgive me of my sins. And Lord, please forgive Aliza and Pia, for this is a corrupt world and they know not what they have done. Bless the souls of those beautiful babies and hold them close. In Christ name I pray. Amen.

What we have here is a case of serial murder, committed for sport.

Everyone who has posted recognized the heinous and depraved nature of this woman's actions. There is little difference, though, between her actions and those of anyone else who has an abortion for convenience, except for numbers.

The very thought of abortion should be abhorrent to any rational person. The depravity of this woman's actions highlight that fact, but many on Yale's campus, and elsewhere, will fall back on the equally depraved "it's my body" nonsense.

I hope that the other art students whose presumably worthy work is scheduled to be displayed alongside this mini-holocaust will pull their work from the exhibit in a display of both disgust and freedom of speech.

Aliza Shvarts !!!! You're in detention!!!!

lets be clear. the student didnt break any laws. the councilor did not break any laws. 'babies' are not dead. fetuses with no central nervous system or ability to sustain themselves are. there is nothing in the article to suggest that the student was ever in any danger of doing permanent harm to her body. (these were chemical not physical abortions remember). And if the project did cause damage to her future prospects of childbirth, the student is an adult and has the right to make that decision. (people become legal adults at 18 and must be treated as such no matter what your personal conjecture of their maturity level is. it is not your right to dictate how an adult should act - unless they are committing a legal crime). there is nothing in the article to suggest that the fathers of the aborted fetuses were not in the know, so to suggest so without looking up evidence is foolish. she is perfectly clear about having induced the miscarriages, dina's point is a silly argument about semantics in a much wider moral issue - dina makes a lot of conjecture.

anyone pro-choice who condemns (read: not 'doesnt support') this student is guilty of double standards. It is wrong for this student to terminate multiple births, but not wrong for multiple women to terminate one each? You must decide if you find the act of abortion overall worth standing by. You cant give a liberty and then chose how people use it.

to those who question the artistic validity of the work i would suggest that it is a subjective matter, and pushing its boundaries is an integral part of art itself.

in summary, you not approving of it doesnt actually make it wrong.

Without even entering into the abortion debate think about this: this student went to her advisor, or whomever, and said "my display will have my blood and other bodily fluids smeared over hundreds of square feet of plastic." How could that have possibly been approved.

Full disclosure: I am from outside the Yale community and I am pro-life.

I'm sure her parents are really proud of her. Idiot!!! Ooops, sorry, that might offend her.

She should probably abort herself off the planet.

Human Cloning and Human Dignity, The Report of the President's Council on Bioethics, discusses the moral worth of a human embryo in relation to cloning for biomedical research. Their arguments for the value of embryonic moral worth, however, are not limited or specific to cloning for biomedical research, and are applicable to the issue raised by Ms. Shvarts.

The President's Council on Bioethics does not have a clear consensus on the moral worth of a human embryo at the moment of conception or creation; however, the majority of the members of the council agree that the embryo deserves some sort of "special respect." Even within this majority there is a disagreement on the precise standing of the moral value of a human in this stage of life. They do all agree, however, that it should not be considered equal to any other random individual human cell. The "special respect," the members feel, which is owed to the embryo in its developing stages, must consider the potentiality of that embryonic cell. A conceived cell should be considered to have a developing moral worth because of its potential for "the continued organic development characteristic of human beings."

The members of the council who argue a moral case against cloning for biomedical research (who have a greater respect for developing human life) feel that creation, use, and the disposing of an embryo is morally wrong, as the developing embryo, should be treated as an individual who has the potential of being "a member of the species Home Sapien" and, "a human life in process." This group argues that an embryo is not simply a structure of cells but an "integrated, self-developing whole" which would develop into a fetus, with an individual identity, if left alone. The fact that this human is in its earliest stage of development, and lacks many differentiable human characteristics does not allow us to deny its human nature. The members who argue against cloning for biomedical research argue that at all stages of human life, from the embryonic stage, to the potential senile state of mankind, a human is a human, and a life should be considered to be invaluable, not negotiable for a greater good.

This is the position of many members of the President's Council for Biomedical Research on the creation and destruction of embryos for research. What then would the Council (the majority, remember, agree that the embryo deserves some sort of "special respect,") think of someone who does it for the sake of art—in order to incite dialogue in arena already overflowing with heated opinions? What would they think of someone who does it for fun?

We call an embryo of our species a "human embryo" because we know that it is what we once were. We are and always have been, in every stage of our development, humans. The individual reading this must consider that in his or her life there is some potential for his or her special qualities, skills, or some purpose he or she will fulfill. We cannot place a moral value on individual embryos because we have yet to discover in what way their potential development and life will benefit society. In using human embryonic stem cells for research (or art) we have predetermined the value of these human beings, and essentially forced them into involuntary servitude.

No individual can claim that these embryos would not develop into human beings sharing many of our same characteristics; for this reason we should not attempt to deny the human nature of these individuals. Instead we should encourage them toward their full development and allow them their freedom to choose to do with their lives as they please. Some claim that the embryos are not developed to be destroyed, but are developed to benefit humanity, and for this reason we should respect them. Inherent within this claim is the gross oversight that we have taken away their right to choose to (or how to) benefit humanity and have created them for imminent destruction. The rationalization that is used to comfort individuals because of the knowledge of potential gains is just that--a rationalization. In order to make it acceptable for us to destroy nascent human life, we devalue them. Life should not be conceived, nor created, to be used without consent, and then destroyed, or to use the far more accurate term, life should not be conceived to be

Honestly, it is HER choice to do whatever she wants with her body. She is expressing herself on a completely different level and people are taking this far too personal. Leave her alone - I think she's brave and brilliant as an artist. After all, throughout history artists have always been the forerunners in innovation. If you have a problem with it, don't look.

To: Molly Clark-Barol

I have been shaking with anger and repulsion trying to find the words to express my thoughts. You have hit the nail on the head. Bravo.

If Yale University allows this to happen, they are by default approving this expression of a callous trampling of the sanctity of life. Whether you hold fast to deontology or consequentialism, the reality is Yale has the right and RESPONSIBILITY to govern what is taught and promoted on campus. It is their building and their campus, not this disturbed individual's privately owned dwelling. I hope they act responsibly, and I hope everyone who has payed one dime of tuition or otherwise contributed to Yale's revenue raises cain. This idea would never have been upheld at my undergraduate institution. Don't let it happen at yours!

You cannot tell me this wasn't done for shock value. This is not art and the human body. This is a girl harming her own body, screwing with other people's lives and emotions(the boys, her parents, whoever lived with her) to call as much attention to herself without screaming.

Simply put:

EEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

All this self important girl wants is just what we are giving her..attention. We live in a disposable society...obviously this pathetic megalomaniac thinks life is disposable as well. She deserves nothing more than pity. What a lost little girl.

How can you get pregnant, video tape yourself aborting the fetus, take the remains smear it on something, then repeat and call it art? What ever happened to actually having a skill and a paint brush and a canvas? This is not art this is morbid. Reguardless of religous or spirtual beliefs, she killed living beings with heartbeats, all in the name of art. This is disgusting and make me sick reading it.

As a woman who has had three miscarriages this is one more slap in the face.

There was a moment in the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 when Joe McCarthy lost whatever credibility he had by attacking the loyalty of soldiers who had won medals for heroism. The piercing moment came when an old lawyer from Boston, Joseph Welsh, asked McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?"

Aliza: same question (drop the 'sir'). To one who values academic freedom, artistic freedom, freedom of choice, this is appalling. Have you no sense of decency?

And Yale: abortions for credit? Really?

I think this is a wonderful piece that raises awareness about how beautiful the process of abortion can be.

This makes me weep. This poor girl is such a mess - how did she ever get into Yale. Or have the Ivies become so liberal that their students have become little Goebels under their tutelage? I am glad that she had these boys tested so that she would not become ill while she murdered. Some day, when this girl actually wants to have a child, she will realize that she has conditioned her body to spontaneously abort life. This is a tragedy and I agree the art teacher supervising this project needs to be fired.

This girl should be ashamed of herself!! As a mother of 2 toddler boys and someone who has had a miscarriage, I have to say this girl is pitiful!!! I'll be blunt and if I ever met her I think I'd kick her ass. This isn't art, it's shameful!! She purposely put made her body get rid of the pregnancy, which isn't a miscarriage; it's an abortion!!! I'm pro-choice in certain cases and pro-life in others and this just disgusts me!! Something has to be done so this so-called "art" is not displayed!!! It's totally offensive to people, especially mothers like me who have had a miscarriage. It's a very hard thing to deal with. I was in a deep depression when I had mine. What's she's doing is purposely killing a human life!!!! Something needs to be done about her!!!!

This is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard. The "artist" clearly has no soul or has some type of psychiatric issue. This is a murderous crime against humanity and she is no better than the Nazi "doctors" who experimented on helpless people during the Holocaust and I'm disgusted to see that Yale chooses to support and even showcase this flagrant disregard of the sanctity of human life. It's truly evil.

I am basically on the fence about pro-life pro-choice but this project has utterly disgusted me. I am completely shocked. I will be surprised if Aliza's advisor is not fired for allowing such a careless attempt at playing god. This is the most repulsive thing I have heard of in a very very long time.

I just really don't know what to say. I hope Aliza Shvarts is severly repremanded for this pathetic attempt to pass murder off as "art". Anything can be viewed as art but that certainly does not make it okay.

How can a person say that they are in favor of women's choice when it comes to the life of an unborn child and not extend that choice to this young woman? Can you see the contradiction? Taking the life of an unborn child is either right or it's wrong.

I hope she shows pictures of her inseminating herself. I would definitely attend the exhibition if she showed that!!! And closeups, too!

I AM APPALLED BY THE CONTENTS OF THIS SO CALLED "ART PROJECT". BEING A MOTHER OF 5 BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, I CAN NOT EVEN COMPREHEND HOW A YOUNG WOMAN COULD BE SO CARELESS AND UNCARING WITH THE SANCTITY OF LIFE. I DO NOT CLASSIFY MYSELF AS PRO-LIFE OR PRO-CHOICE, I BELIEVE IN MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION FOR EACH CIRCUMSTANCE. WHAT THIS GIRL DID WAS NOT MISCARRIAGE, IT WAS MURDER. AND FOR HER ADVISOR, WHO IS SUPPOSED TO GUIDE THESE YOUNG, NAIVE COLLEGE STUDENTS TO THE RIGHT WAYS OF THE WORLD, HOW CAN YOU LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND THINK WHAT YOU DID OR "ADVISED" THIS GIRL WAS OKAY? I REALIZE THAT THIS GIRL PROBABLY HAS NO IDEA WHAT SHE HAS DONE TO HER BODY BY PULLING THIS STUNT, BECAUSE IT SURELY IS NOT ART, BUT HOPEFULLY SHE WILL NOT BE BLESSED WITH ANY WONDERFUL CHILDREN IN THE FUTURE. WHAT WILL SHE DO THEN, MURDER HER TWO YEAR OLD AND CALL THAT AN ART PROJECT TOO?

Okay, okay...since no one else has stepped up to the plate, let me be the first with the gumption to say this chick has a screw loose and so does anyone who approves of this. There, I've said it. I don't care if she wants to hide behind the euphemism of "artistic expression", it's still what it is--twisted. If I tack a bunch of used feminine products up on a posterboard and say it is "art", I doubt I'm going to get more than a wrinkled nose as a reaction--unless I show it to a bunch of twisted people who are desperately trying to find redeeming qualities in anything and everything under the sun, no matter how disgusting, depraved, or devoid of meaning. On the other hand, if I hack off my toe, wrap it in cling wrap, and dangle it from my ceiling for a conversation piece, do you think ANYONE who cares anything about me is going to stand back and seriously contemplate its artistic merit? No...they'll bundle me up and cart me off to the nuthouse, er, psychiatric ward--that, or call upon the courts/legal system to do it for them. Why isn't this chick already under sedation/undergoing therapy, and why does any instructor who approved of this still have a job? I'm pro-choice all the way, but that doesn't matter. The girl is just nuts.

This story/project makes me sick to the stomach. I can't believe anyone could have approved this disgusting showcase of unethical, inhumane behavior, and I truly believe that Yale needs to rethink their boundaries on what constitutes "art" and what is downright immoral and the most awful, pitiful exhibition of one of the darkest sides of mankind.

Take action: write your comments to Yale's President: presidents.office@yale.edu

Ask the President to cancel the display and reception. This is deeply disturbing whether you’re a proponent of Choice or Life. I hold Yale accountable for allowing this project to be approved, but going further to display it publicly exacerbates the situation. I hope Yale will have the courage to remove this misfortune from public viewing.

She is one sick puppy.

http://thomashawk.com/2008/04/aliza-shvarts-is-one-sick-puppy.html

To purposely get yourself pregnant just to kill the fetuses for an art project. This person

is a sicko. I can't even think of anything smart-assed to say about it because it's so

unbelievably mind-boggling how you can can create a life just to kill it - FOR AN ART

PROJECT!!! Is this woman insane. But thank God she's practicing her First Amendment Rights!

Her parent's must be proud?

Personally, I prefer using Adobe Illustrator.

This will be all over the national news in the next days. Stop the maddness now before it becomes an all out trainwreck for Yale.

This could very well be one of the saddest things that I have heard.

Someone commented on how sad it is to see this girl harm her body in this way, but so do all abortions. Why do members of the pro-choice movement not recognize that. All abortions are so harmful and leave women scarred

As a pro-life member, I can't see this as anything other than her choice to kill her own children. The womb used to be the safest place for a baby, it has now become, literally, the most dangerous place. This "art" project has proved my point. What gives a women the right to kill her own child? Then, what's even more sad and twisted, to put her children on display, with a movie that shows herself killing her babies.

If this doesn't open the eyes of people, I truly don't know what tradgedy will. Just think for a second, what makes you so angry with this "art" project? Try to imagine now, billions of babies in the womb having this same thing happen to them by their mothers.

I hope you don't think the pro-life movement is out to "win" something with this. That we will have a field day with what she has done. We want to stop the slaughtering of innocent children who don't have a voice. So no, we won't rejoice in this, we will pray for an end and hope that the pro-choice movement will see the harm and danger of a situation like this in order to end all abortion.

Her babies don't have a voice but you do. Do something about this!

It's consoling to see that people will still post honest reactions balanced with their personal poliical opinions while taking account both sides. Well, except dove. You still see the world in black and white, and fail to see the line between legal choices and freedom mediated by morality. A woman has the right to choose, trusting that she appreciates the gravity and consequences of her choice; that's why this 'art' project is so abhorrent to pro-lifers and pro-choicers; this student doesn't get either side. And neither do you, dove. What a troll.

good lord. if this girl and her professor aren't forcefully removed from the premises, consider my transfer app filed...

This is the most revolting and transparent act of self-promotion I have ever heard of. I imagine she thinks of herself as a visionary who is braving the tides of philistinism, but her statement about trying to engage debate is a laughable veil for an ego that requires recognition at any cost to the advancement of humanity.

The connection between art and the human body? Is she serious?! What about the connection between freedom and responsibility? An artist's voice, when thoughtfully cultivated and deployed, can be a powerful instrument of change, but it seems that the only thing she is interested in changing is her anonymity.

Yale should hang its head in shame. Aliza may have a head full of art theory, but her concept of art betrays a stunning lack of respect for the human condition. Without that, her work is nothing more than an agent of shock.

What a self-serving fool. What a sad state of affairs for Yale.

So this is just some sick publicity stunt?

Goes to show even educated people can be absolutely ignorant. All readers will think I'm some sort of pig.....but in a different time and a different place I would give this dummy a tremendous s!*t kicking, put her in a box and show a film on the side of it....of me taking a c@*p on her head. Maybe I would be given an honorary Art Degree?

This woman sounds unstable. I guess Yale has lowered it's standards. She's sickening!

Not only is this trivializing abortion (which I will not speak on here, as others so eloquently have - suffice it to say it is disgusting), but she is also the reality that is miscarriage for so many women world wide; as well as the heartache and trauma that it causes! I'm sickened beyond words at this, and ashamed that any professor at ANY university would come close to commending this!

I liked it better when she bought Paul Rudd new clothes and fixed his nose.

HaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!

Whatever....

I respect free speech and have a great appreciation for art but neither are embodied by Yale allowing this project to be displayed. This "exhibit" is an abuse of our freedom to chose and a blatant disregard for the creation of human life

The real abortion is Aliza Shvarts's termination of the use of her mind. THAT is the true moral crime.

I am horrified that some advisor approved of this. Creating children to be deliberatly destroyed is murder. I think she should be stripped of her credit and her advisor should be relieved of their tenure. Thank God I never got into Yale if this is what your students are taught is art

The article says she "artificially inseminated herself". I'd like to know whose term this is, the artist's or the reporter's. Either way someone is confused about the definition of the term.

Yale really has some brilliant ones in attendance....

"I think this is a wonderful piece that raises awareness about how beautiful the process of abortion can be."

Are you joking?

Hey #16 - WTF does her being jewish have to do with anything? I assure you, plenty of Jews, secular and religous alike, are absolutely appaled by this, and would like nothing better than to see her and her misguided excuses for advisors reprimanded, fired, ostracized, etc. I don't think what she did was illegal, though may certainly wish it had, and those who favor choice know she's done a huge disservice to the cause. So, I suppose she should not be prosecuted. But one has to be able to interpret Yale's student code as prohibiting this kind of abusive behavior. She should be expelled and have no credit. Any lenders should pull her student loans. No book deal. No TV interview (I'm talking to you Oprah!). No future employment. No government provided health benefits when her unemployed ass experiences complications of her moronic actions. Only future item I want to see on this is Drudge letting us know that the appropriate people were fired or expelled.

"How can a person say that they are in favor of women's choice when it comes to the life of an unborn child and not extend that choice to this young woman? Can you see the contradiction? Taking the life of an unborn child is either right or it's wrong.

"

Certainly it is wrong but it would also be wrong to force a women to have a baby if that pregnancy had a high chance of causing her death.

So at what point do the wrongnesses balance? 50% risk to life, 25% risk to life? This seems like an issue to be decided by the person who's life is on the line (the mother) not any outside agency. This reason alone is enough for me to want the Government to keep its hands off. I certainly am unwilling to gamble someone elses life.

lolz

I am soooo thoroughly offended. I too am a pro-life but believe that each woman should make that decision to live with. I just cannot believe that Yale would allow this. Aliza did not get pregnant due to rape, incest or accidental. This was maliciously pre-meditated over and over... And to call this art? This is murder. This is clearly a crime and people need to look at ways to prosecute this...

It was the most beautiful thing I've ever heard of, and I wish I could see it in person.

I have only two years left in my career as a teacher. I have written numerous letters of recommendation for current students and graduates of Yale...If this is what passes for art in New Haven, I cannot in good conscience recommend any others.

And to think Yale began as a Divinity School. I am repulsed and completely offended by this "woman". May God have mercy on her soul.

I'm struggling for words.

What we put out into the universe the universe gives back. She will get what is coming to her as a result of this... I won't even call it an "art project" as it is clearly not.

The comments thus far have mainly focused on a bunch of arguments: "This isn't art," "This artist is mentally deranged," and of course "Abortion is wrong." We should not conflate these arguments. Body art and performance art has a strong history, a strong precedent, and international renown and respect from major galleries and art critics. These artists have been doing work that relates directly to Aliza's project since the 70s and before: Chris Burden and Matthew Barney, who both are Yale College alumni, Marina Abramovic, Carolee Schneemann, Vito Acconci, Kiki Smith, Cindy Sherman...the list goes on. These artists have all explored the boundaries of violence, abjection, self-scrutiny, self-destruction, nihilism…look at any of these artists’ well-known works and you’ll realize that Aliza’s project is not an “cry for attention from a middle-class spoiled Yalie” (which is an unfounded, insanely misogynistic, comment that has nothing to do with the work!)

It is not a fair argument to latch on to some element of art and immediately stop trying in any way to understand it, only to criticize the "moral depravity" that the art contains. The argument that "this is not art" is idiotic, short-sighted, and solipsistic: it can be made about anything anybody finds objectionable. People have been making the same argument about art since the 70s. If it’s not art, then what is? What’s the boundary? Are we stuck looking Monet for the rest of our lives? Only pleasant things?

I understand how somebody can think that abortion is wrong; I don’t think it’s fair in the least to extrapolate anti-abortion sentiment into a personal attack on Aliza, the art she created, or the well-respected tradition of body art/performance art in which she’s operating.

I agree with comment #41, whatever happened to these art majors having artistic talent?

One wonders what her parents think.

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Shvarts:

Is this what you hoped for when leaving Russia? Britain? And coming to the US? Is this the "freedom" you envisioned?

Congratulations; you must be very...proud.

Mr. Shvarts: are you a religious man? Or was any religiosity snuffed by the Party.

"In Judaism, the easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in halacha is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being -- but not quite. In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other "person." Generally, one may not deliberately harm a fetus. But while it would seem obvious that Judaism holds accountable one who purposefully causes a woman to miscarry, sanctions are even placed upon one who strikes a pregnant woman causing an unintentional miscarriage. That is not to say that all rabbinical authorities consider abortion to be murder. The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime4 and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder. There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion."

Uno, I just read an article where a man found a starving dog. He tied it up in an art gallery, and let it die. People gawked and saw his version of 'art'.

I replied to that story, saying something like... this is a travesty, what's next? we kill small children and call it 'art'.

Boy, I guess I was right.

This women should be charged with murder of every life she took. And I hope that someday, she wants to have children and can't because she has scarred her body so.

I have had two miscarriages. I have mourned the loss of two wonderful lives. I have been trying to have another child for over 2 years.

This women has countless, and voluntarily kills them, then calls it art? I am ashamed to have her attending a college that is supposed to be reputable. I don't just blame her. Her professer, and the administration at Yale is to blame as well, for their obvious disregard for human life.

A freakin' travesty.

She will pay for her sins.

Her family must be so proud.

Yes. I'm being sarcastic.

Wow, where is your human subjects committee? I really hope she gets sued or taken to court!

If this is what students are doing in Ivy League Colleges, I am proud of my non Ivy League diploma.

Morally debased, psychologically disturbed, and quite possibly mentally ill. Not to mention the ultimate in attention-seeking self-centeredness. She is to be pitied.

The moral issues of abortion aside, if I were living in New Haven, I would call the Health Department because I have a feeling that this woman's use of the expelled material from her body as a medium for her art project just might violate several public health codes.

I'm being really neutral here because it was just eleven years ago March 12th that we lost our second child to a real miscarriage. It wasn't a work of art and to treat it as such would be a travesty, but then again, perhaps that's what this girl wanted....

No wonder we're getting our asses kicked around the World in education.

I really don't know where to begin with this.

Shock. Horror. Sadness. Amazement. Disgust. Pity.

Then again, considering the 3000+ abortions that take place each day in this country alone, does "celebrating" it in this way really make it more immoral?

Can murder be made worse by turning it into "art"?

Can our cultural pornography of death get much worse?

God, forgive us.

I can understand the concept of wanting to display the human body as a form of art. But I cannot believe that this student seriously thought that such a project was the best, most innovative or original way to do this.

Human body as art? In 2000 Sebastian Horsley had himself crucified for the sake of his art. I am not suggesting that the student ought to have had herself crucified instead, but it seems it would make just as much sense. At least Horsley was only hurting himself.

I don't even consider myself religious or pro-life, but this project involves so much moral turpitude it makes my insides writhe. I agree that action ought to be taken against the advisor, and I hope that the student gets psychological help. This is not an art project.

It was the right thing to do. She HAD to do this.

Well, no "babies" have died. She's aborting embryos/fetuses. I think this is a waste of time and energy...and I think she's just trying to get attention.

This is a slap in the face to those who have worked at maintaining a woman's right to choose. For that reason, it wouldn't surprise me if she was some anti-choice zealot. This makes a mockery of women who make a very personal choice to end a pregnancy. No one pro-choice and who really upholds women's health would at all support GETTING PREGNANT on purpose to have repeated terminations, nor would a pro-choice person even support women using pregnancy termination as a means of birth control. Let alone would a pro-choice person support women using pregnancy termination as a means of art (in my opinion of course).

This woman is absurd. Her project was absurd. There's no justifying it...art or not.

I personally would not shed a tear if someone aborted this student from this life.

Well, at least it's her children that were aborted.

I don't know why all you pro choice people are upset. You keep saying a fetus is nothing but a bunch of cells that you have a right to kill even if the only reason is that the pregnancy is inconvenient. Maybe this will make you rethink your views. Congrats Yale. You now probably have a very tiny feet, hands, fingernails, eyes, ears and brain tissue smeared on an art project and displayed in one of your halls.

What a sad situation this is. An immature young woman risks her health to promote a grotesque display of "art". All this to "inspire some sort of discourse"...discourse on what exactly?

To Ms. Shvarts: The only discourse to result from this will be a discussion on exactly what the hell is wrong with you. If the advisor Ms. Lindman was made fully aware of the details of this "project" and sanctioned it, she should be fired. Immediately. At no time should an adult in a position of leadership and guidance allow a kid to risk their health in such a serious manner.

Wanna-be Frida Kahlo

It appears that the art world, academic or otherwise, is in serious trouble, if for no other reason that this realm could "sponsor" such an unfortunate perversion. The student involved sounds like an absurd--and embarrassing--set of "High Art" world cliches. It's twisted competition for shock value. She is taking her own blood, playing with her health as if it were a sport, and, not accidentally, using yards and yards of plastic to "make her point" in her exhibit. The exhibit--and this senior project--is one reflection of a civilization running off the rails.

If Aliza is dumb enough to think people are gullible enough to believe her when she says it was not done for shock value but to open dialogue on the body a a medium for art blah blah. She has no right to even have a degree from a community college. She fully intended to cause a contraversy nationally to feed her overly bloated ivy leauge ego.

Admissions should be kicking themselves for letting this mouth breathing pin head into your intitiution.

This is right up there with the Monalisa.

I am staunchly pro-choice. But I am disturbed by and disagree with the manner in which Aliza decided to convey her perception of what art should mean (which is ambiguous from the article). What is her goal of producing this art - obviously besides promoting discussion? What is her justification?

I am afraid that Aliza's art will have a backlash on the pro-choice movement and completely justify the cause of the anti-choice movement. The means through which she completed her project -- impregnating herself for the sole purpose of aborting -- only reinforces the stereotype of the irresponsibly sexually active woman that the anti-choice movement feeds upon. Also, people must remember to distinguish pro-choice from pro-abortion.

It is obviously a hoax.

Anyone thought to actually _check_ the veracity of the claims? Wouldn't be the first time that an artist claimed to have done something shocking solely to elicit a strong reaction.

Whether or not this turns out to be a hoax (and I, for one, hope it does), Shvarts' actions trivialize a woman's right to choose, and may end up sending on-the-fencers over to the anti-abortion camp.

As I stated before: Mom & Dad must be so proud.

If generating a reaction is all that art is about these days, I have a doozy of an idea for a senior project. The subject is bowel movements. I can collect specimens for display of various colors and shapes and even include some non-human samples for variety. In all seriousness, "art" has become a joke for most of the last half of the 20th century and now is beyond farce. Vomiting on your neighbor's laptop will get a reaction, but it is not art. Or am I allowed to say that at all in our postmodern sicko university climate?

SICK

I think her message is awesome... she is not afraid of judgment, she doesn't care if other people can't understand why she did it. I think her political message is profound for not only the pro-choice movement, but for the right-to-die movement that seems to be forever stalled in the U.S. Terry Schiavo was one small step for right-to-die... this could be the next big advancement disguised as controversy. Remember the naysayers who declared heresy when intelligent men dared to say the world was round? How awful! How dare they! Well... it takes a brave, controversial act to take baby steps into the realm of freedom and truth and enlightenment. You may disagree and be appalled by what this lady has done, but could that simply be because you've been brainwashed by the "ethics" of the close-minded elite? This woman needs to be applauded... People are trying to condemn her, and judge her, and stifle her views... and she will become a martyr for taking her freedom to new heights. My body... my control. Don't try to call what she did "gambling with life"... statements like those take away gains of the pro-choice movement. Since when are we back to calling fertilization and the resulting cell mass "life" ?

Us women fought for our right to choose and this is just a slap in the face to women everywhere. It's a sad day in America when stuff like this happens just for our entainment. I think this person has gone to far...

I smell a hoax....

Will the Yale administration have the courage not to include this heinous, depraved display in the Senior art exhibit? Will they have the courage to dismiss the advisor and fail the student?

Grotesque. Horrific. Puerile. I’m sure I can come up with a few more adjectives to describe this purported “project.” There’s a difference between being controversial in order to provoke a meaningful conversation that highlights different points of view and something that’s revolting simply because of the fact that, well, it’s revolting. I certainly hope that Mom and Dad Shvarts are proud of the ghoulish little monster they’ve raised.

This is truly barbaric...to intentionally impregnate yourself and then purposely abort it, this is one sick individual...she should seek psychiatric help. I personally think this should be illegal. At the very least, it is highly immoral...I feel sorry for her parents, they must be horrified.

THis woman, Shvarts, is clearly in need of serious mental health counseling. Failing that, her next art project should consist of drilling large holes in her head and discuss what, if anything, comes out.

Are you people nuts?!? This is the caliber of people that Yale accepts these days?!

Shvarts, I will pray for you and any of your dead children. But you're a psycho!

Who wants to bet that she'll be voting democrat (possibly Obama) in the fall?

I think it's really funny how this girl is causing a huge fuss by making videos of herself having her period.

I don't think any abortion drugs are 100% safe or effective, especially if used that many times. She hasn't consulted a doctor or worried about her health because there is no need to do so. Therefore, there will be no record of the fact that she was never pregnant.

thank you #49. Furthermore, I am shocked and appalled that the commenters here can't see beyond their own personal tragedies/dilemmas and can so easily slip into a discourse which advocates violence against this artist. it's you who should be ashamed.

good grief people. you may not agree with her actions, but this comes down to a *fundamental* - either you agree that a woman has the right to govern her own body under any circumstance or you don't.

Re: Victoria

"I think it is a mockery of the process in which a woman goes through before, during, and after an abortion."

but WHY? The important thing is to think hard about WHY you are feeling so disgusted by this. WHERE are your feelings coming from? Your gut reaction is meaningless. Let's talk about why we're appalled so that we can figure out something constructive about ourselves, rather than brush her off as insane.

"It doesn't provoke discussion or debate"

There are over a hundred comments on this article posted only a few hours ago. There will doubtless be hundreds more by the end of the week. How is this not provoking discussion?

I would say there is a difference in the circumstances, wouldn't you?

I feel like Miss Shvarts is the victim here. Is she not just taking the "truths" of our society and drawing them out to their logical conclusions? She has obviously been told that the following things are true:

1. She has the right to do what she wants with her body.

2. Newly conceived human life is only as valuable as its parents say it is (e.g. parents deeply mourn miscarriages of wanted babies, yet unwanted embryos are casually destroyed all the time during in vitro fertilization).

3. It is neither immoral nor criminal to destroy fetuses.

Do we accept these things as true, or not? I feel like she is being further victimized by people who insist that the above three things are true yet insist on shaming her for her actions.

Not ONE person here thinks the entire thing might be fake? Come on, this is ridiculous. I see an apology and pulling of grant funds for fraud in the near future for this girl.

This "professor" should be fired, the student should be put in a mental institution asap. This is just utterly sad. Where was the professor in all of this? What were her friends doing? Her parents? Why did no one stop her?!

How is this disgusting art project any different from a artistic display of lampshades made from the skin of Concentration Camp victims?

Would Yale consider such a disgusting "art" display? If not, then why are they allowing this?

Simple question to all those who decry this as a mockery of art (or something to that effect): what is art? I'm not asking for a dictionary definition or anything absolute necessarily. Rather, I'm suggesting that for someone to be absolutely confident and definitively certain that this is not art because it is obscene, provocative, disturbing, and, quite frankly, shocking, obliges that one to provide a standard by which to deem this not art and thus to say, to some meaningful extent, what art is.

Secondly, for those so confident that any rationalizing of this art is wrong, what standard are you using? Obviously, many people are having visceral reactions to this piece. Clearly, it touches a chord with many people, but I hardly see any reason why that justifies silencing it. If anyone is against Shvarts rationally explaining (or at least attempting to) her artwork, then I question what reasonable grounds that one has to oppose it. Put simply, if you would implore reason to condemn Shvarts, you must allow her to make a case in her defense and then you must give comprehensive reasons as to why her art is 1) objectionable and 2) should not have been approved or should be silenced (points 1 and 2 are two separate and distinct arguments). Do I find her work disturbing? Yes. Why? Because I think it a flagrant disregard for aesthetics and common decency, but I don't buy the arguments that this constitutes murder (life does not start at conception--there is no brain, heart, nervous system, consciousness, etc. at that point), nor do I see how this warrants a reversal of abortion rights. Furthermore, I see no reason to assume procedure wasn't followed in approving this project, nor do I see why the University ought to have opposed it any point, let alone now.

Quite frankly, a lot of people are just spouting emotional sentiments and then demanding that everyone subscribe to these same sentiments and reach the same (irrational) conclusions. Unfortunately for these polemicists, the reasoning doesn't fly. Your emotions, no matter how widely shared, do not justify your attempt to control the actions of any others, and if you think they do, consider how well that reasoning could be used against any number of us in response to any unconventional taste any one of us might have. Again, I understand that this artwork is not trivial, but that some people disagree or are appalled seems to be a terribly useless and counterproductive means by which to judge the expediency or power (or right to exist) of art. Also, the argument that the University approving something as a project/club/activity/etc. amounts to an endorsement, tacitly or otherwise, is demonstrably absurd. Clearly, the University sponsors many contradictory projects (e.g. CLAY and RALY) the existence of which cannot possibly imply any coherent University stance on many issues.

It is unfortunate that so many contributers to this dialog are reckless and/or unrefined in their reasoning, but I nonetheless agree that the dialog promoted by this art supports its existence and approval.