On Thursday, Feb. 6, a beautiful and thought-provoking mural outside of the Milton E. Ford LGBT Resource Center was removed by Grand Valley State University administrators. The piece, titled “Pétalos De Cambio,” or “Petals of Change,” was the brainchild of Irlanda Beltrand, who created the piece for her graphic design senior thesis exhibition. The painting utilizes a depiction of Our Lady Of Guadalupe to make poignant social commentary on homophobia, transphobia, attacks on the rights of women and gun violence.
Apparently, this message did not sit well with some GVSU students. Certain students argued the piece promotes violence against Christians at the University. However, the only mentions in the painting of any kind of violence were phrases that, when translated into English, read “no more femicides” and “they are killing us.” I am struggling to see how these calls for an end to violence against women, queer people and other marginalized groups are inciting violence against Christian students at GVSU.
Despite this, on Saturday, Feb. 1, students and community members organized a protest targeting the University’s purchasing and display of the artwork. In addition to this, news of the controversy circulated on social media platforms, and eventually reached some Michigan Republican State House members, such as Jamie Thompson and Luke Meerman, who also expressed their issues with the artwork.
Likely a result of all this right-wing pressure, GVSU quickly caved and quietly removed the artwork for relocation. In my opinion, this was done simply to appease conservative voices who, without a full understanding of the artwork’s meaning, appear to be offended by the concept of reflecting on societal issues that impact marginalized groups.
In light of the far-right attacks on marginalized people greenlit by Trump’s administration, GVSU’s compliance to remove the artwork from its current display is disappointing. It seems like the University caved so as to not become a target of the right-wing outrage machine. In doing this, the University showed a lack of willingness to uphold its own stated commitment to celebrating people “of all gender identities, gender presentations, and sexual orientations.” Apparently, the aforementioned commitment was on the condition that such celebrations would not result in right-wing backlash.
I ask any student reading this article, do these actions demonstrate the actions of an institution willing to stand with marginalized students in the face of attacks on diversity and inclusion? To me, the answer is no. In the wake of a small protest and minor right-wing backlash, the University folded immediately. What happens when these attacks aren’t coming from a few dozen community members, but instead from the White House? How much quicker will they fold?
With this, I would like to address University leadership directly. How is it that a single, moderately attended protest over a painting led to administration jumping to action, while students of color had to organize not just a rally and march, but a town hall to directly address University leadership over a 54.1% retention rate for students of color. How is it that the artwork was met with an immediate capitulation to the demands of demonstrators, while student workers who demanded a wage increase were met with the creation of a lousy “task force” that went nowhere?
As a student who has been participating in on-campus activism for as long as I have been a student here, this is hands down the most willingness I have ever seen from the University to capitulate to protesters’ demands. Ultimately, it is immensely disappointing that administration takes action only comes when it involves the removal of queer and feminist artwork.
