The recent removal of a photographic exhibition that had been given the title “Life Under Israeli Apartheid “ from the lobby of the Old Union has elicited protests of censorship by the show’s sponsor, Students Confronting Apartheid by Israel, as well as a number of other students.

Although I am sympathetic to many of the group’s concerns, the Stanford community should understand that the decision here has nothing to do with free speech. The problem is that what is appropriate free expression in one context on campus is not in another. A student can stand in White Plaza and give a speech denouncing Israel (or Hamas), but that same student could not give the same speech in the lobby of Green Library. It would simply be inappropriate in that context, given the purpose and function of the library.

The Old Union is meant to be a welcoming “living room” for all Stanford students. It is intended to be a place where every student can feel comfortably at home. Because of this purpose, certain displays that would be completely appropriate elsewhere on campus are not appropriate in the Old Union. A poster display decrying illegal immigration and opposing legislation to create paths to citizenship for undocumented Mexican immigrants would not be appropriate in the Old Union, though it would be perfectly fine in other campus contexts. And this is not restricted to political displays. A student art display that would be appropriate for the Art Gallery might not be allowed in the Old Union, since it might make certain students feel uncomfortable because of their religious or cultural backgrounds.

When the current exhibit was proposed for the Old Union, the title of the exhibit was to be “Hope Under Siege.” Under this title, the display is focused on individuals suffering because of the situation in the Middle East. As such, it has a universal appeal that should not make any student, regardless of background, feel attacked. It is meant to generate sympathy for other human beings — and perhaps thereby to carry a subtle, but not inflammatory, political message.

The entire point and impact of the exhibit changed when it was given the new title “Life Under Israeli Apartheid.” It then became an intentionally inflammatory statement that was guaranteed to make certain of our students feel uncomfortable and personally attacked in its presence. The addition of captions, which had not been part of the original proposal, exacerbated those feelings. If it were in White Plaza, those students could just walk on by, but if it is in a place that it supposed to be a welcoming part of their “home” — whether in their dorm lounge or the Old Union — it becomes an inappropriate limitation of the space in which they can relax and feel welcome.

It is a distinction that the university community at large needs to appreciate. I would suggest that the students put up the exhibit using the original title and without the captions. It will still carry an important humanitarian message, but will not have the political edge that makes it inappropriate for the Old Union.

By Provost John Etchemendy