Letter: Rape = Academic Freedom?

    Published: October 30, 2009, 3:52 pm ET
    Richmond College '10

    “Every woman has a rape fantasy. Every man, deep down … hates women.”
    - Robert Crumb, in a speech sponsored by the Modlin Center for the Arts

    If you didn’t know any better, you might think this unbelievably misogynistic rhetoric was from one of those terrible scenarios you hear about in diversity training, but you would be mistaken. These are actually the long-held sentiments of Robert Crumb, founder of Underground Comix, expressed during an appearance in Richmond on Tuesday night sponsored by the Modlin Center for the Arts.

    Crumb was to appear in Richmond to promote his new work called “Genesis,” which portrays the first book of the Bible in comic format and boasts a “sexually explicit” warning. If that’s not offensive enough, consider this: In 1989, Crumb published an autobiographical compilation of cartoons entitled, “My Troubles with Women.” That book features a number of appalling depictions, such as the raping of a little girl, forced oral sex with a woman chained to a desk, and a picture of Crumb sitting on top of a pile of drugged, raped women dressed as a king. Believe it or not, that book made the syllabus as mandatory reading in professor Bertram Ashe’s English course titled, “Geeks and Social Misfits in Society.”

    Certainly Crumb’s work has played an influential role in world of comics, but being historic doesn’t make it honorable, particularly in a classroom (such as Ashe’s) where, by his own admission, it was a “stretch” to include in the curriculum. Comics have traditionally served as a medium through which society is elevated and the good of the human spirit is proclaimed, but Crumb’s “artwork” delves into the realm of the subversive merely for the sake of being subversive. Drawing himself raping women isn’t the only thing that’s gotten Mr. Crumb in trouble, though. Time Magazine’s art critic, Robert Hughes, notes that many have lambasted Crumb for work which has been widely seen as racially insensitive. Add to this Crumb’s comments both in a documentary about him (also required viewing for Ashe’s class) and the “rape fantasies” comment from Tuesday evening and we have a person who single-handedly contradicts many of the values this university claims to hold dear.

    After a meeting with Dean Boehman on this issue, I was told that professor Suzanne Jones, the chairwoman of the English department, considered Ashe’s decision to a) include the rape scenes on his syllabus and b) make Crumb’s speech mandatory, to be a legitimate invocation of academic freedom. This, of course, begs the question – what are the bounds of academic freedom? Is it really permissible for any professor to include anything he or she desires in any class? In almost every other instance of intolerance on this campus, the university community has answered with an emphatic no.

    As a man of Richmond College, I know that we go to great lengths to prevent violence against women and create a culture where demeaning attitudes and harassment are not acceptable. The Student Conduct Code defines harassment as the “creation of a hostile or intimidating environment … that is likely to affect adversely an individual’s living conditions on campus.” Included in this definition is making “offensive jokes or unwelcome innuendos.” This leads me to believe that if I drew pictures of rape or proclaimed that women have “rape fantasies,” and posted this around campus, I would be in violation of the University’s Conduct Code and (rightly) subject to sanctions. I fail to see how university officials’ decision to invite Crumb, force students to view his drawings of rape and make attendance at his speech mandatory is any different, except that they did it under the guise of academic freedom.

    If we truly believe what we so ardently advocate in our talk, I expect the university to walk the walk and publicly apologize for the invitation it extended to Crumb and for the faculty members who made his speech mandatory. I would also hope that the Modlin Center would stop honoring Crumb and remove their display of his artwork. In response to the misogynistic e-mail from a Kappa Sigma member last year, Steve Bisese, vice president for student development, wrote: “This is a serious incident and signals the need for a broader campus discourse on issues of misogyny and gender stereotyping. We will be working with students to foster important conversations about gender, respect and standards of personal conduct.”

    Crumb has depicted only in pictures what that e-mail said in words, and I hope for an equally forceful and impassioned response. If we are to be taken seriously when we speak as an institution, we cannot retreat when things become uncomfortable and our principles are challenged.

    The cartoons by Crumb mentioned in this article are too inappropriate to put in print. If you would like to see examples of Crumb’s work, use the following links or simply google “Robert Crumb.”

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2005/03/08/crumb8.jpg

    http://www.avclub.com/assets/images/articles/article/2399/crumb_jpg_300×1000_q85.jpg

    http://www.spankingblog.com/spanking-pictures/robert-crumb-spanking.gif

    Comments »
    To post a comment, leave your first and last name and a valid e-mail address. Comments may not appear immediately because they must be approved by a moderator before posting. No registration is required, but you may sign in with DISQUS, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, or OpenID.
    • UR is lucky R. Crumb bothered to pay them a visit. He's only touring the world promoting Genesis and he was gracious enough (or contracted) to stop in at a teeny tiny school in VA. Because of him the University of Richmond has probably seen more press than ever. Be glad he didn't give a boring talk while he was there. I'm sure the same or similar words in question fell from his lips while he was in NYC, LA and abroad and nobody batted an eyelash.
    • Patrick Doyle
      Wow. I am unnerved by this letter and the seemingly unanimous support of its sentiments from my fellow and future alumni.

      The University of Richmond is not a church. It is not a political institution. It is an institution of higher learning.

      I recognize that having an open mind is not something everyone can do. But whether or not this art ("smut" to some) is something that Dr. Ashe or indeed any person associated with the University of Richmond endorses is almost certainly not the point. In exposing students to works of literature, dance, film, or other art, Dr. Ashe attempts to provoke conversation in the classroom. The students in his class are free to respond as they please. Revulsion is one response, and certainly a legitimate one. Classroom conversation is absolutely the lifeblood of academia. Dr. Ashe was more effective in kindling and sustaining classroom conversation than any other educator I have ever had.

      After having taken three classes with Dr. Ashe at the University of Richmond, I doubt that he actually endorses the positions that the author of this letter finds offensive. But again, this is very much beside the point. Having and holding values is one thing; letters designed to shame the University into imposing one's values on others is altogether different. I believe that this letter is an attempt at something almost as offensive as censorship.

      I hope Dr. Ashe responds to the letter. I believe he can defend himself, his teaching methods, and his choice of works on his syllabuses more ably and interestingly than I can.


      Patrick Doyle
      Richmond College, '08
    • Westhampton Alum
      What I find interesting in all of this is that Mr. Patterson seems to be quite a bit more like Mr. Crumb than he would likely care to admit. In order to get people to pay attention to his letter, Mr. Patterson gave it a sensationalist title. Are we really to believe that looking at Mr. Crumb's work in art and English classes is actually equivalent to the act of rape? That's what the title would have us believe, but I don't think Mr. Patterson truly believes that to be the case. Just as Mr. Patterson does with his letter's title, Mr. Crumb relies on symbolism to make a stronger point. I wonder why people are having difficulty understanding that art is not always literal

      Additionally, the version of Mr. Crumb's quotation used in this article has also been edited to strengthen Mr. Patterson's argument. To be fair, this may less an issue of deliberate word shaving and more an issue of hearing this quote second- or third-hand from people who attended the lecture. According to a Comics Worth Reading review (from a blogger who was there), this is how it happened:
      "Finally, a (male) audience member asked about his controversial attitudes about women. The cartoonist’s reply was vintage Crumb: 'Any man, if he’s honest (and you can’t be honest around women), fears and hates women to some degree. I just happen to blurt it out in my work like diarrhea.' "
      I'm not saying I agree with Mr. Crumb's statement (I don't), but it is only fair to present what his words were and in what context they were said.
    • J. Murphy
      Am I very much mistaken in remembering that Crumb specifically referenced Freud after this comment? I believe his words were "At least that's what Freud would say." If anyone else attended the event perhaps they could verify this. Thank you.
    • Westhampton Alum
      This is from the blog of a gentleman who attended the lecture: “Even Freud said all women were masochistic.” So no, you're not mistaken, and you (and the blogger) have a much better sense of what was said and in what context since you actually attended the lecture and aren't relying on hearsay.
    • Jeffrey Hunt
      Hello y'all. Although I very much appreciate what Tim Patterson has done (the organization he's quickly assembled to decry Crumb is simply startlingly impressive) and I am VERY happy to see the apathetic campus (look at how many people voted yesterday!) coalesce around some issue of what's right and wrong, I think that the University was not wrong to sponsor Crumb, or to incorporate his work into the curriculum. I say this not because I find his work to be particularly ingenious - I was never one who appreciated comics - but because it is apparently an important, popular piece of literature. As I scan over a list of the "Hundred Greatest Novels," some particular titles jump out: Lolita, Tropic of Cancer, and A Clockwork Orange. We honor these books, saying they are the among the greatest novels ever. Yet they depict topics so horrifying that none of us could even conceive engaging in what is described. So it is with Crumb. None of us would condone rape or abuse or whatever, but that is not the issue. Crumb's work is here because it apparently has artistic merit. I personally do not see it but that does not mean it's not there.

      A main issue that's been brought up again and again is that this work is offensive. Well, frankly, everything will be offensive to somebody (especially on this campus!!!). So that's not a reason to censor something. In order for something to be censored, it has to be classified as "obscene," and Crumb's work comes nothing close to obscene.
    • T. Bibul
      "Comics have traditionally served as a medium through which society is elevated and the good of the human spirit is proclaimed."

      They have also traditionally served as exploitation narratives and burlesque, pretty much continuously since they were first created.

      Side issue, but it makes me wonder about what else the author is being disingenous or is simply poorly informed.
    • LibbyB
      I agree. It's incredibly frustrating that lesser, student behavior is punished while more offensive, hurtful rhetoric is allowed in by more powerful figures in the university.
    • January Stewart
      I loved my four years at the University of Richmond, and now that life has taken me elsewhere, I proudly tell everyone I meet that I’m a Spider and how wonderful the university is. Yet, I can’t help but worry about the misguided efforts of some who should be the leaders and role models for the students who attend.

      As an English major, I was exposed to my fair share of smut, er literature, during my years at Richmond. Sure, rape, incest, and all other things sordid have their place in books. However, I never expected my education to be so littered with these topics. I never expected to have to read about tantric sex and orgies in order to understand a black man’s mind. I never expected to give a presentation on a rape scene so graphic that it brought me to tears and gave me nightmares for weeks. Nor did I expect to read about a man sticking his genitals into a Wendy’s frosty in order to pleasure himself. I never expected that the study of these topics would contribute to earning my diploma. I deeply regret not questioning the motives of the professors who brought these topics into their classrooms. I applaud Timothy Patterson and all others who are brave enough to question things like Robert Crumb’s talk and the professors who endorse his work for study in their courses.

      It seems to me that Richmond may have jumped on the education bandwagon that embraces all things subversive, perverse and otherwise disturbing a little too soon. So much of what should be celebrated about a school like Richmond is the unique experience it can offer young people. The traditions rooted in Richmond and Westhampton colleges don’t seem to line up with this new agenda of academia that pushes all limits, no matter the cost.

      As an alumna who wants to continue to support her alma mater, I do so with hesitation. I urge the administration and other key leaders to think about the message being sent to students when speakers and materials like this are mandated in classrooms. Back when I picked UR to be my future, I valued the tradition, integrity, and strong education it promised to provide me. What does it promise now?

      January Stewart
      Westhampton College '08
    • Dan Rudary
      To those who have expressed concerns that this protest is an effort to impose a certain morality or worldview on the University, I would counter that the University itself has already decided what will and what will not be tolerated by its faculty, staff, and students.

      There are very clear references in the Student Conduct Code that would sanction any one of us for saying or depicting what is illustrated in Crumb's work. Furthermore, the University has acted in the past to condemn acts that have have violated these standards. While I agree that university studies necessitate understanding individuals, movements, and ideas that many would consider offensive, there is a fine line between studying something and promoting it. For example, while history classes do study Nazism and the holocaust, they do not require students to hear lectures from neo-Nazis or halocaust deniers. And I'm not saying that R. Crumb is a neo-Nazi or halocaust denier- however, I would challenge anyone to show how R. Crumb saying that "every woman has a rape fantasy" is dissimilar from a neo-nazi making an equally degrading comment about Jews. In both cases, those who were forced to listen to these remarks would be justified in demanding an apology from the University.

      Far from imposing a sense of morality on the University, this is about holding the University accountable to its own standards and stated intentions with regard to these acts. Robert Crumb's status as an iconic artist does not lessen or excuse the fact that his work is vile, disgusting, and generally not worthy of Richmond's sponsorship.
    • Anthony Ferguson
      I would agree to some degree that this particular English professor should not have made Crumb's talk a requirement for the course, but only on the grounds that English students are generally less exposed to controversial artists and art movements. He probably should been more sensitive to that fact. As a studio art and art history major, however, I am constantly learning about artists with questionable world views. R Crumb's talk was incredibly tame from my perspective. I can see where it would be more shocking to an English student who hasn't come into contact with the same amount of controversial artworks/artists.

      I just posted this in the facebook protest group, but perhaps a logical compromise to this situation is to ask the University to issue a formal rejection of Crumb's views on society, women, and minorities. This would support U of R's firmly established code of conduct while maintaining Crumb's historical relevance and artistic freedom. With that said, I would be appalled if his works were removed from the gallery space, considering Crumb's achievements and influence on comic book history. And I don't think U of R has anything to "apologize" for, except maybe their assumption that students were more open to thinking about/discussing controversial art, which obviously many are not comfortable in doing.

      I myself am a cartoonist, and I find R Crumb's story incredible. To defy society's parameters so relentlessly and yet still find a way to be artistically and financially successful is kind of amazing to me. You may see it as a demoralization of values, but I see it as a defiant spirit that is inspiring and unapologetic. With that said, I think his subject matter is inappropriate and like you mentioned....vile and disgusting. But if that had not been the case, it is unlikely that Crumb would have made the kind of impact on the art world that he did. Controversy spurs change, for better or for worse. From where I'm standing, Crumb impacted the direction of comics in a very positive way, despite his gratuitous and erotic style that was so problematic
    • Spiderman
      Tim, perhaps you should visit the lodges sometime.

      While I applaud you for taking such a stance, I can't help but ask: Why have you not ever raised the issue of actual mistreatment, harrasment, and--dare I say--rape of female students on this very campus?

      I do not refer to isolated incidents. I am talking about the entire social scene/college culture in which such incidents have become acceptable.

      The university may publish codes of conduct, or express (fake) outrage over a frat email; it is, however, complicit in such tragedies. The university is well-aware of the things that go on, on campus.. it simply turns a blind eye.

      So, perhaps before complaining about cartoons and comics, we should first try to stop the very real violence against women that goes on routinely.
    • Claire Ligon
      Tim, we disagree on many topics but you have gained multitudes of respect from me by writing this piece. I agree completely and I am ashamed that our school would participate in his honoring. He's gross and offensive and shouldn't be allowed to make money from the books and depictions that he presents. If any on of you would even take a second to look at the comic book you would be offended. As a Westhampton woman I can't believe this would be allowed on this campus.
    • Anthony Ferguson
      This is America. And we are a capitalist society. R. Crumb should be able to make money off of anything anyone is willing to buy ---- unless it's illegal contraband or something insane like that. But that's an entirely different issue.

      I just posted this in the facebook group that is protesting Crumb's talk, so I'll repost it here, with some additions I just thought of:

      If we're going to get offended about U of R allegedly "supporting" Crumb's controversial cartoons he drew 40 years ago, then why aren't people getting equally angry about professors teaching about Hitler...? He did unspeakable things. He was a terror on this earth. He was flippin' downright evil. Why don't we just forget about him and move on? Oh yeah....there's that pesky little thing called history! You can't learn history without learning its villains. And let's face it, there are more villains than good guys in history. The same goes for art. R. Crumb is a notorious villain when it comes to underground comics. His work pushed the envelope and brought him widespread outrage, controversy, and fame. His style reshaped the landscape of cartooning forever.

      University of Richmond is not condoning his actions or supporting the messages of his past work by bringing him in. The fact of the matter is that R Crumb is a revolutionary figure in the art world, whether you like his work or not. I think U of R would be neglecting its duties to me as an art major if they passed up on an opportunity to bring him here, and I'm very grateful that they were able to. Obviously rape is a horrific act. I am the last person in the world to objectify women in any way. I think much of his work is grotesque...

      But that's the point.

      His work is all for shock value, and if you paid attention to his personality on stage, even he was shocked by some of the stuff they showed on the big screen. Throughout history, the art that is the most controversial has made it into the text books. Why should cartooning be excluded from this trend? Are we going to look down upon cartoons just because they have historically been regarded as lower in the hierarchy of art? Aren't you guys all about equality and diversity?

      To put it simply, I just don't see how U of R bringing in a prominent figure of art history is in any way marking a double standard. Art is quite different from the fraternity e-mail we all know and hate. It's on an entirely different platform. Reducing Crumb's work to the level of that frat e-mail is offensive not only to Crumb, but also the artists who have been inspired by Crumb's spirit and boldness. I agree that Crumb's mind is a disturbing place, but that shouldn't deter us from learning about one of the art world's most interesting and controversial characters. I don't think anyone in their right mind would honestly stand up and say "Hey, I support Crumb's messages." I'm not even sure if Crumb himself really does. In a Freudian sense, his work seems to be a manifestation of his most private and twisted desires. I'd say drawing comics is a much healthier and positive way to act on these personal fetishes and innate desires than to actually go out and rape someone. If only more drunk U of R guys would simply draw comics about going out to parties and taking advantage of girls, this campus would be a much safer place for everyone!

      Also, you have to wonder how much of this "twisted genius" motif is really just a publicity mask. The way he talked about his family seemed very down-to-earth, loving, and altogether not offensive. It was quite evident that he was a committed father who would rather chill out in the middle of nowhere in France with his family than make appearance after appearance around the world, toting a grotesque set of opinions that he is hoping everyone else accepts as their own. He even admitted that "he was crazy" when he was young.

      But you guys seem to have left all that out and instead have chosen to focus on the cartoons he did when he was 20 years old and tripping off LSD...

      In conclusion, I am in no way trying to convince you that Crumb isn't offensive. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree that he is. And most people would concur. I'm simply suggesting that in spite of his offensive language and imagery, Crumb has risen to a remarkable platform within the art arena, and for that reason alone he should be viewed as a historical figure and therefore should be applicable to any curriculum that a professor sees fit. We learn about disturbing and offensive stuff all the time in our classes. The issue of rape, murder, and misogyny is a regular topic of discussion in my Greek and Roman Mythology class. I don't see anyone raising hell over that! Censorship is a funny thing.
    • Claire Ligon
      you're just bitter because he's a cartoonist. I don't care if he was Picasso and he drew that sort of thing. I would still not want it shown and supported by the University. ALSO, we learn about Hitler, but if he were still alive we would never invite him to talk! We can learn about Crumb in class but PAYING HIM to display his work is too much. I don't understand why if the Women of this campus are offended it can still be allowed. An anti-Semite would never be allowed to speak on campus! I don't understand it, I guess women are still second class citizens at UR. Their personal experiences and opinions just don't matter to this University.

      Anthony get over the fact that the first cartoonist to come here was a pervert... it's not because he's a cartoonist that I can't stand the man, it's because he's vile.

      OH AND P.S. I have never and will never have a fantasy about being raped. I don't know why Crumb is trying to speak for women! HE'S A MISOGYNISTIC MALE! WHY ARE WE LISTENING TO HIM!?!?!?
    • Spiderman
      Claire, as a Westhampton woman, how do you stand by and let some RC men verbally, physically and sexually harrass fellow students?

      i am sure ur aware of all the incidents of sexual assault and rape that goes on on this campus.

      WHY ARE WE NOT SERIOUSLY ADDRESSING THOSE PROBLEMS?
    • spankoz
      I trust that you do not equate consensual adult spanking with misogyny or rape .
    • mlaventure
      I also agree with aborwick on the subject at hand. Clearly any art that we choose to represent must also be a representation of ourselves. I also agree on the viewpoint of class standards. The idea of controversial topics like these is to foster discussion, and possibly even action. Consider the fact that if this artwork and literature were not a mandatory part of this English course, most students would not even know about Crumb's work. Does the fact that we would not know about it make it any less appalling? Absolutely not. The single fact remains that this knowledge has spurred action by the student body, action which is necessary. Realistically, this event has shown just how powerful and responsive a concerned student body can be. One course has shown that yes, one man can be flawlessly demeaning, demoralizing and deluded in his ideals and conventionalism, but also that a united group has the power to change
    • tnl
      Alright, well, what if the Jepson School starts inviting Holocaust deniers to speak? And what if the History Department makes those events a required part of a World War II curriculum? Should my grade hang in the balance if I decide I'd rather not listen to that?

      Yeah, three posts and we've already got Godwin's Law up and running, but it does seem appropriate here. There are certain things that don't get a free pass for being "an exercise in academic freedom," and glorifying rape oughta be among them. And if the point of assigning Crumb was to "explore these issues," I still don't get it; most college students can have a thoughtful debate about sexuality without a date rape drawing to guide them. Heck, the professor himself admitted he only included this in the curriculum after he discovered Crumb was coming here, and that it was "a stretch" even then. Presumably he was going to hold the class this semester anyway, so he really can't make the argument that any shred of this was required to teach effectively.

      And you know, I'm not even sure the students were provided a real opportunity to bail on this. When did this guy decide to include Crumb? Was it after the first week of class? Even if it wasn't, did anyone know who the heck Crumb was at that point? I didn't realize that it was my responsibility to go through the reading list for every course I take to make sure my professor isn't promoting racism, sexism, and Lord knows what else. I just kind of figured that the University administration, in accordance with its own policies on this sort of thing, had my back.

      That's what surprises me the most. Richmond's administration goes to great lengths to stop this sort of thing within the student body, but here it supports its professors when they engage in what would otherwise be sexual harassment. Faculty and administrators, as examples to the rest of the school, should be held to a higher standard than students, not a lower one. I don't care whether it's a public gallery or a private course, everything we do sends a message, and the message here, intended or not, is that this University doesn't care that much about its own guidelines when a professor is involved. That, I'm afraid, is a pretty piss-poor message...
    • Spiderman
      Do you only get pissed if it involves visual depiction?
      How about the readings assigned in core?
      Read "Symposium"?
    • aborwick
      Although the subject is revolting and the ideas the artist proposes are disgusting, I believe we have to make a separation between what a professor can set for a class and what we show in our art galleries. In the galleries we are honoring an individual and attesting to their standards. In our classes however, we are discovering ideas and world views which we may not always agree with or believe deserve merit. Which is one of the things that makes classroom discussions so interesting at UR.

      We muddy the waters of demanding change by demanding that the artist be taken of the curriculum. If you dont like the work, dont take that class, or read that book. However, the UR galleries are open to the public and stand as a representation of the university and its ethos, as such we should demand that they show artwork that deliberately contradicts the Richmond communities ethics.
    blog comments powered by Disqus