RALEIGH, N.C. — After UNC-Chapel Hill officials removed a student-created, pro-Palestinian mural from a campus building last week, some of the university’s faculty are worried about the precedent the move could set.

The Daily Tar Heel first reported on the removal of the mural from the lobby of Hanes Art Center, writing that campus facilities workers boarded up the work on the evening of Sunday, Aug. 17, following orders from administrators. The administrators and facilities staff did not consult the university’s art and art history department before covering up the work, The DTH reported.

By Monday afternoon, the mural had been removed completely.

It is unclear who, exactly, ordered the mural to be removed. While The DTH reported that the orders came from Chancellor Lee Roberts and interim Provost Jim Dean, a letter from Dean Jim White provided to The News & Observer by a university spokesperson states that “the facilities department consulted with the Office of the Chancellor, but not the Chancellor himself” about the move. White is the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, which houses the art and art history department.

The mural was installed in the spring of 2024, following the forcible disbandment by police of the “Gaza solidarity encampment,” a pro-Palestinian demonstration that lasted four days. The mural — which included pro-Palestinian prints and the phrase “I told you I loved you and I wanted genocide to stop,” per a photo of the work published by The DTH — was not a class project or assignment, but was created by students in professor Hồng-An Trương’s “Art as Social Action” course that semester who had attended the encampment.

“It was not an explicit class project, but it emerged from an activation and strong desire to create in the midst of violence,” Trương said Monday at a meeting of UNC’s Faculty Executive Committee. “That is what art does. It inspires people to create meaningful expression of their ideas based on current events. That is what happened with the mural, and I supported them as their faculty member.”

Trương, who has been at the university for 14 years, said she was not aware of another instance of administrators telling the art department “what we put on our wall, the art that goes up in our building, or any of the exhibitions that we put in into our space.”

“So why now?” she asked.

The removal of the mural, Trương and other faculty members warned Monday, could signal a worrying development at the university. Beth Moracco said Monday she’d heard from more people about the mural than any other issue during her time as chair of the UNC faculty, aside from a recent controversy in which the university’s Board of Trustees delayed votes on conferring tenure to dozens of faculty members.

“Is this setting a precedent for the administration to come into anybody’s building and say, ‘You know what? This student’s research project poster doesn’t align. It needs to come down now,’” Trương said. “That is the equivalent to biology, literature, anything — that is the equivalent of the administration coming in and taking this mural down.”

Mural covered up, then removed

The mural was displayed in Hanes Art Center for more than a year before it was covered up last week.

Per White’s letter, facilities workers initially tried to remove the work before “they discovered that it was affixed with a form of wheat pasting and could not determine how to remove it without damaging the artwork.” After consulting with Roberts’ office, White wrote, the workers decided to instead cover the work with wood boards “until a solution could be found.”

“The decision to cover the art, though well intended, only created more confusion,” White wrote.

White wrote that he was of the “understanding that the mural in question would be on display for about a year, after which time a new mural from a subsequent class would replace it.” Dean, the interim provost, said at Monday’s faculty meeting he believed it was a general practice to display work in that spot for about a year — an idea art and art history Chair Annette Lawrence disputed, telling Dean that a previous mural displayed there was up for four years.

Dean also said “there have been a number of complaints over the last year about the artwork, particularly from Jewish students who felt threatened by the artwork.” Later in the meeting, Lawrence said she had received “repeated emails” about the mural from an individual, which became “progressively aggressive.” Lawrence directed those complaints to White, who consulted with university counsel and determined that the students’ work was “protected” as free speech,” she said.

White wrote in his letter that he did not consult with the art department about a specific date for the mural to come down, but “thought the mural would come down sometime over the summer to make room for a blank canvas for a new student project.”

It’s unclear whether there is another project anticipated or ready to go in the spot. Moracco said “it doesn’t sound like there is,” which made her question the “urgency” with which the pro-Palestinian work was removed.

Moracco also criticized the lack of communication from officials about attempting to remove the work, to which Dean replied: “I accept that criticism. I don’t think anyone thinks that we did a great job on this one, and communication is certainly a big part of it.”

Dean said “there was an effort to reach” Lawrence and Trương before the mural was covered up, another claim Trương disputed, saying she “was never contacted at all about the removal, about the course, about the project, anytime in the last year or since the mural went up.”

“It is a blatant misstatement to say that the administration tried to contact me,” Trương said. “That’s really disturbing to me.”

Was removal ‘censorship’?

Trương contended that removing the mural was “censorship” — an assertion echoed by a mock plaque, similar to those found in art museums and other exhibitions and shown in a DTH photograph, that was attached to the work after facilities workers boarded it up and referred to the covering as “A practice in censorship” by the chancellor’s office.

Andy Hessick, secretary of the faculty and a law professor, said he sympathized with those who believed the action was censoring the mural. But he said it was important to note that the work remained up for more than a year, even with the complaints against it.

White’s letter offered a similar assessment.

“Missteps aside, the mural was displayed for a year. It served its purpose in giving voice to one perspective and helping a portion of the Carolina community grapple with difficult issues,” White wrote. “Decisions were made to strike a balance of perspectives, not censor advocacy.”

Still, several faculty said Monday they are concerned about the message the removal sends.

“I see this as a dangerous precedent and a slippery slope, because where does it end?” said Elyse Crystall, an English professor, adding that she wonders who at the university will have the authority to “police these boundaries” and make similar decisions in the future.

Michael Gerhardt, chair-elect of the faculty and a law professor, urged Dean and other administrators to consider developing clear, “reasonable” time, place and manner restrictions that would apply to any similar scenarios that arise in the future.

Time, place and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations on expression that balance the right to free speech with governmental interests like public safety. The university already has such restrictions in place under a policy regarding demonstrations, but it does not directly address other expressive activities like student artwork.

Free speech on college campuses and alleged acts of antisemitism have become hot topics since the war in Gaza began nearly two years ago. President Donald Trump’s second administration has further fanned flames on the issue, targeting schools like Columbia University and threatening their federal funding over allegations of antisemitism on their campuses. (Columbia last month settled with the administration over allegations that it was not doing enough to protect Jewish students.)

UNC in March was identified by U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon as one of 60 universities around the country under investigation for allegedly violating Jewish students’ rights on campus. Such a violation would run afoul of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity in programs receiving federal funding.

White offered three “guiding commitments” that leaders will follow after the removal of the mural, including the idea that “public universities have a unique obligation to make room for multiple perspectives.”

“Carolina is at its best when we embrace complexity rather than simplify it, when we welcome competing perspectives rather than elevate one above all others,” White wrote. “The arts will continue to be central to that work — challenging us, stretching us, and reminding us of humanity in every story.”

_____

©2025 The News & Observer. Visit at newsobserver.com. Distributed at Tribune Content Agency, LLC.