Recently, a student on campus paraded down the cut as a pants-less Pope. In response, the National Catholic League demanded that Carnegie Mellon immediately suspend the student for offending their beliefs.
“If CMU tolerates this incident, invoking no sanctions whatsoever, then it is opening a door it may regret,” the organization threatened.
It then reminded CMU that the university had recently suspended some frat members for taking and distributing sexual pictures and videos.
Though details of this investigation are still unclear, the National Catholic League felt safe in comparing the events. To parade around naked as part of an art project for school was far worse than the allegations of distribution of pornography. Even if those sexual videos were made with only dubious consent from the participants.
Since these actions took place “behind closed doors”, as the NCL put it, they were far less reprehensible than the public criticism of the institution with which they are affiliated. Who cared that no individual was harmed by the girl’s actions?
The organization went on to question, ”What if instead of shaved pubic hair in the shape of a cross, a student chooses to depict a swastika?”, incidentally comparing the symbol of their faith to a symbol often associated to hate crimes.
“Then that might be a real issue,” responded everyone not blinded by having confused the art project as a personal attack, adding “What if instead of attacking this art project for criticizing an aspect of Catholicism, we worked to improve our image? Or, you know, we could not.”