Currier Portrait Disappearance Called Homophobic by Petition

The mysterious disappearance of a portrait at Currier House sparked controversy last week when more than 75 students signed a petition criticizing the incident as "homophobi[c]."

The missing print was one of eight pieces by Marcus Alonso in an exhibit recognizing Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Awareness Days (BGLAD). The picture, "Shari in Drag," depicts a woman dressed as a man with a fake penis projecting from her pants.

The petition, which "denounce[d] the homophobia that inspired the destruction of the photo," was attached to the site of the original print. The names of Currier House Masters William and Barbara Graham and Resident Tutors Heather Hathaway and Deborah Foster appear on the petition.

The picture later reappeared with a broken frame, provoking a letter from the Grahams and Foster, the senior tutor.

The letter, addressed to the Currier House Community, said "we have to assume...the damage was intentional" because of the failure of any Currier resident to claim "inadvertent responsibility" for the missing photo.

The letter did not attribute the event to homophobia, but pointed to "other acts, many small but no less offensive, that have been directed, often repeatedly, at gays and lesbians in Currier House."

Graham, who said the letter was intended for the Currier community, declined to comment on these other incidents.

Beneath the original petition, students posted a second petition suggesting that other reasons might have provoked the incident.

Signed by 21 Currier residents, the second petition said a "rush to label the action [as homophobia] is more likely to create misunderstanding and bad feeling then it is to create openmindedness in our own community."

"I feel so strongly we need to end homophobia but it's not going to happen by throwing around such potent labels," said Lara Freidenfelds '94, a Currier resident.

Freidenfelds, who helped write the second petition, said "a lot of people were offended by [the picture] not because of their sexual orientation but because of the image itself."

"[The print] was different from other [exhibits] because it was graphic," said Freidenfelds. "You should not say what the motive is unless you know for sure."

"I felt [the picture] wasn't art but pornography," said Currier resident Philip J. Doyle '94. "[Damaging the picture] was the wrong way to handle it, but if it had stayed up, I would have asked to take it down."

Some students said the remaining undamaged pictures were proof that the incident had not been provoked by homophobia.

The other prints, still on display, are portraits of women that are not sexually explicit

Beneath the original petition, students posted a second petition suggesting that other reasons might have provoked the incident.

Signed by 21 Currier residents, the second petition said a "rush to label the action [as homophobia] is more likely to create misunderstanding and bad feeling then it is to create openmindedness in our own community."

"I feel so strongly we need to end homophobia but it's not going to happen by throwing around such potent labels," said Lara Freidenfelds '94, a Currier resident.

Freidenfelds, who helped write the second petition, said "a lot of people were offended by [the picture] not because of their sexual orientation but because of the image itself."

"[The print] was different from other [exhibits] because it was graphic," said Freidenfelds. "You should not say what the motive is unless you know for sure."

"I felt [the picture] wasn't art but pornography," said Currier resident Philip J. Doyle '94. "[Damaging the picture] was the wrong way to handle it, but if it had stayed up, I would have asked to take it down."

Some students said the remaining undamaged pictures were proof that the incident had not been provoked by homophobia.

The other prints, still on display, are portraits of women that are not sexually explicit