In the Wake of Exhibit Removal, ‘There is a Crisis For Artistic Freedom Unfolding at UNT’

On Feb. 16, students and faculty at the University of North Texas solemnly filed into the Art Building courtyard for a funeral. No person had passed, but principles had departed; the loss they mourned was their own right to speak out free from fear.

Days after Brooklyn-based artist Victor “Marka27” Quiñonez’s exhibition Ni de Aquí, Ni de Allá opened at the College of Visual Art & Design on Feb. 3, students noticed brown paper plastered over entrance windows, blocking any view of the art inside. Without telling the artist, the university had canceled his solo exhibition, which included anti-ICE protest art that blended artifacts from Mexican culture, such as a paleta cart and a limón popsicle, with ICE logos modified to read “US Inhumane and Cruelty Enforcement” and “I.C.E. Scream.”

The First Amendment interests of individual artists do not require galleries to yield their own right to curatorial discretion. But by suddenly canceling an already-opened exhibition amid daily ICE-related news headlines, UNT is sending two clear, speech-chilling messages: The administration will bend to political headwinds, and anti-ICE protest has no place on campus.

Leaked transcripts of a private faculty meeting show art school dean Karen Hutzel cited fear of political repercussions and media scrutiny as the reason for the exhibition’s removal. If true, UNT grossly violated its own policy, which claims “The University does not discriminate against works of art based on its content or the viewpoint(s) expressed.”

Hutzel’s comments only deepen the chilling effect of UNT’s decision. She reportedly told meeting attendees that the university will “never” use its attorneys to defend an individual’s free expression. In response to a faculty question, Hutzel further suggested UNT may not allow individual students’ art to be displayed if it contains political messaging.

Worse, this isn’t the first time that the school has allowed politically provocative art to be silenced. In March 2025, after GOP lawmakers requested student artwork with pro-Palestinian messages be removed from an ongoing exhibition, the work was gone within 48 hours. (When the gallery finally reopened in April for a show exhibiting university artists, UNT transformed its entrance to resemble a high-security TSA checkpoint, complete with stanchions and ropes for crowd control, disclaimer signage proclaiming pieces shown were not endorsed by the university, and grey barriers obstructing the view of the art inside for passers-by.)

This time, faculty and students claim the school threatened to punish professors for speaking out. “Silencing the students is not OK, especially silencing the professors,” studio art major Jenny Yanez told the North Texas Daily. She added that one of her professors said, “I feel like I need to tell the students, even though I’m risking my job right now telling you this, it’s not right what they’re doing.” 

As a public school, the University of North Texas is bound by the First Amendment. It may not retaliate against faculty or students for protected expression. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) wrote to UNT urging it to uphold its constitutional obligations. No American university should leave students and faculty wondering about their freedom to criticize government decisions.

Yet that’s exactly what students and faculty worry is happening in Texas, as political pressure from state legislators and system administrators squeezes professors out of their own classrooms. 

Students wrote that the decision to cancel Quiñonez’s show “does not stand in isolation,” arguing it fits a broader pattern that began with the March 2025 incident involving pro-Palestinian works. Since then, the letter continues, campus exhibitions have faced “a troubling pattern of interruptions and cancellations,” which has in turn “created an atmosphere of uncertainty and fear among students and employees.”

In her comments to faculty, Hutzel claimed to personally support the Quiñonez exhibition. She pointed to leadership purges at the University of Texas and Texas A&M University — plus widespread fears of funding cuts under ideological pressure from Texas Republicans and the Trump administration — as her rationale for going along to get along, alleging that the cancellation was a “directive” from an undisclosed authority. 

Online and across the country, outrage over the decision is palpable. The news report that first broke the story of Quiñonez’s cancellation — an Instagram video by Yanez — has racked up thousands of views. A Reddit thread decrying the cancellation as censorship has exploded with likes and comments, and news coverage has gone national.

UNT might think launching a cover-up each time art is displayed on its campus will allow it to evade scrutiny. This past month proves the opposite is true. There is a crisis for artistic freedom unfolding at UNT, and students and faculty have shown they won’t be cowed. Moreover, the public is with them.

UNT should publicly explain the decision-making process that led it to cancel the Quiñonez exhibition and issue an unambiguous statement reaffirming its commitment to free speech and unfettered artistic expression. Either that, or it should openly declare that the students holding this month’s funeral were right: Artistic freedom at UNT really is dead.