This letter was drafted by a current SFAI student, in response to a formal warning given to her after videotaping the 'Lay Down' event on Friday April 3, 2009.  It has been posted here as per her request.  No part has been omitted or altered.  Please fee free to contact the administrator of this page with any questions or concerns regarding the content herein.     

A FORMAL APOLOGY[i]

April 9, 2009

Dear President Bratton, COO/CFO Sanjana, and Sr. VP Enwezor:

Please consider this letter a formal Apology for my having videotaped the collaborative student art intervention in the courtyard at SFAI on Friday April 3, 2008 at 12:00 p.m..  At 4:30pm that same afternoon two representatives of Administration approached me when I was alone on the quad and duly gave me a “formal warning” for my conduct.  Though I wish to adhere to the Administration’s policies, I trust you will help me to understand the parameters of the censorship I am to observe at SFAI; because I am, in fact, quite confused.  While I want to ensure my compliance is to your satisfaction, I’m not aware of the violation for which I was so solemnly reprimanded, much less of the policy which specifies what the correct course of conduct would be.  I speak not just for myself but for a number of my fellow students in stating that we do attempt to honor school policy.  I would be grateful if you could clarify some of the Administration’s rules for us.    

In response to what was obviously a peaceable, gentle art intervention piece (how much more passivity could you desire than a dozen reposing student bodies on the ground?), the Administration deployed three Administration representatives, including two uniformed security guards, to stand overtly nearby. One security officer proceeded to photograph us with his cell phone (most probably not in attempt to work on an art piece of his own).  Surely, in a school as enlightened as SFAI, these Administration representatives were not sent there for intimidation purposes?  

As the poses and expressions of the three Administration representatives responding to our art piece seemed an integral part of the overall piece being created, I filmed them within the context of the collaboration.  About a half an hour into our project, one of the Administration representatives advised me she didn’t consent to be filmed.  From that time forward I desisted from any further videotaping that focused specifically upon her, although it is possible she may have been inadvertently included in some group shots during camera pans as I endeavored to obtain footage of students coming to join in as well as the reaction of members of the public wandering through the courtyard.

My question remains: what offense did I commit?  Was it that I videotaped the Administration representative initially before she advised me she didn’t consent and I should somehow have divined she would later withdraw her tacit consent? Or is it that when she said she didn’t consent to being photographed, I responded to her that I had thought the courtyard was an area where there was an expectation of a public presence?  Even if my understanding of California law was incorrect, was my utterance to the effect “Oh, I thought this was an area where the public was invited” somehow forbidden speech at SFAI? (Is writing this letter forbidden speech?  Is there a policy at SFAI against the First Amendment?)  Or is my sin that I video-documented a collaborative student art project that isn’t particularly flattering to this Administration?

As a currently enrolled full-time film major in your MFA program (which was, at least historically, internationally recognized for its nurturing of experimental art), I would like to know whether that reputation is no longer valid under the philosophy of the current Administration?  Is experimentation off limits?  Is the exploration of perceived injustice terra incognita now in experimental film at SFAI? Ironically, immediately following your warning to me on Friday afternoon, the graduate lecture was given by an artist who has at times engaged in “radical interventions” and who was kind enough to comment encouragingly on our “laydowns not layoffs” project.  This will perhaps give you a small sense of my confusion about the current Administration’s policies.

Are the various mission statements published by SFAI no longer applicable?  I’m referring to such verbiage as:

“San Francisco Art Institute provides its students with a rigorous education in the fine arts and preparation for a life in the arts through… a vital liberal arts experience, and engagement with the world at large. SFAI also strives to be a leader in promoting awareness of the relevance of the arts in contemporary culture… fosters critical thinking and creative development…promotes artistic and intellectual freedom, imagination, creativity, experimentation, and risk taking in a diverse and heterogeneous environment … engages a broad cross-section of local, national, and international artists, scholars, and communities in mutual exploration of art, and of the roles, responsibilities, and integrity of art and the artist in society . . .”

Though the emphasis added is my own, these words are the product of the Administration and should be honored. 

If my vision of the integrity and responsibility of an artist includes being willing to address injustices and matters of conscience, should I jettison this illusion in order to comply with policies at SFAI?  Am I allowed to express myself verbally and through my art if I were to have the opinion that this Administration is setting a poor example for its students if it were hypocritically professing to encourage our artistic explorations while at the same time employing tactics of intimidation and censorship to staunch artistic expressions critical of the Administration?  

The Freedom of Expression section in your handbook claims: “SFAI encourages the widest variety of personal and artistic expressions possible, knowing they may occasionally be controversial or offensive.”  Through your warning, should I assume you are saying that my actions on Friday exceeded the level of controversy or offense SFAI can tolerate?

Leadership is practiced not so much in words as in attitude and in actions. You now have the opportunity, through a single action, to demonstrate that you are wise enough to change course when you realize you have erred: reinstate our nine tenured faculty.  Renew the confidence that many of us are losing in your leadership before it erodes further; choose not to descend further into the ethical morass of ill-conceived and badly effected layoffs of tenured faculty, a thinly veiled purge dressed in a changing array of guises. With each student poster you rip down, each art piece you dismantle, each new intimidation tactic and act of censorship, you betray the essential principles upon which this magnificent school has fostered creativity and empowered committed artists for decades.

Sincerely,

Marynell Maloney

If this letter is, in and of itself, an offense warranting dire consequences of the sort darkly intimated during the grim warning I received Friday – rather than a protected free speech communication – please bear in mind that, whatever action you take against me, such a course is unlikely to quell the speech of other students who care, as I do, about the integrity of this school.