Witness: The Testimony of a Beheaded Sculpture

July 8, 2025

Photo courtesy of Ocula

By Emily Ham

The Story: Witness at the University of Houston

About the Work

Standing at eighteen feet tall, Witness (2024) by Shahzia Sikander is a bronze sculpture of a female figure with hornlike braids, arms reminiscent of tree-roots, a lace collar, and a steel skirt adorned with mosaic calligraphy. It is a distinctive anthropomorphic depiction of Justice—both traditional and unconventional. Sikander draws from many influences and visual languages, resulting in a sculpture that seems to resist being categorized into a certain religion or culture. Anna Mayer, an associate professor of sculpture at the University of Houston, said that this work of a “powerful, feminine, non-white European figure” resonated on a campus with a highly diverse student body.^[1]

Witness was installed in a plaza in the center of the University of Houston (“UH”) campus after a five-month installation period at Madison Square Park in New York City.^[2] It was originally co-commissioned by Madison Square Park Conservancy and Public Art of the University of Houston System (Public Art UHS) as a part of a multimedia exhibition.^[3]

Because of some aspects of the statue, such as the ram-like hair, an anti-abortion group called the sculpture a “satanic” memorial. Satanism, however, was not Sikander’s intent. Sikander said, “The rams’ horns are universal symbols of strength and wisdom.”^[5] While the sculpture is not explicitly about abortion, Sikander emphasized the need for a figure that conveys the right to “bodily autonomy.”^[6] The fact that Witness raised controversy “seems to be exemplifying these very fissures in the country,” she noted after Texas Right to Life, a Christian, anti-abortion nonprofit organization, protested against the installation of Witness in February.^[7]

There were mixed reactions from the UH community as well: some students and alumni objected to the installation, saying that it represented demonic themes.^[8] Other students believed that the statue was being misunderstood and that public art should be a catalyst for community engagement and discussion.^[9] A sophomore noted that the controversial nature of the statue should be all the more reason to leave it up,^[10] while another student said that an academic institution should stay away from works with divisive messages.^[11] Although Mayer was initially unfamiliar with Sikander’s works, she began to pay more attention to the artwork as it became increasingly controversial.^[12]

Increased Tensions

Amid the controversy, both an opening celebration and artist talk by Sikander were canceled.^[13] The University of Houston claimed it was due to scheduling conflicts with the artist, despite increased security around the statue.^[14] Sikander and university representatives offered conflicting accounts of what had transpired. Bryan Luhn, a university spokesperson, shared with Houston Public Media that the opening ceremony and artist lecture were canceled because of scheduling conflicts and not because of the protests surrounding the artwork.^[15] On her Instagram, however, Sikander released an official statement saying that this was not the case—she wrote that she “did not ask for the opening event and artist talk at the University of Houston to be cancelled or postponed.^[16]

Was this a silencing, then? Shawn Lindsey, Associate Vice President for Media Relations, said “at no time did UH censor the artist or her work, nor did we yield to pressure from any group.”^[17] But if this really were the case, why did UH never reschedule these events? What does canceling a platform for a controversial perspective mean for the future of diverse opinions and a space for dialogue, both in the university context and beyond? Did UH, as The Art Newspaper suggested, “cave to the threats of a local anti-abortion group”?^[18]

Following the events and the resulting public responses, PEN America, a human rights nonprofit advocating for campus free speech and other forms of free expression, urged UH to reschedule the talk, as “anything less would be a grave violation of [Sikander’s] rights as an artist and the rights of students and faculty who wish to experience her art.”^[19] The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) wrote a public letter to the institution asking them to reconsider the implications of their response and reactions to criticism and protests from anti-abortion and religious groups—which included delaying the installation of the exhibition’s projection component and publishing an online FAQ about the work without collaborating with Sikander.^[20] The online FAQ was argued to be misleading by NCAC because it “privilege[d] the perspective of the small group opposing the exhibition, rather than introducing the work as intended by the artist.”^[21]

Both students and faculty at UH sought more transparency about the decision-making process, as they were learning about developments primarily through external news outlets such as International Art Press.^[22] Natilee Harren, an associate professor at the university’s art school, also suggested that the school had not sufficiently upheld its commitments: “It is UH Public Art’s curatorial responsibility to proactively educate the community about the works it presents,” she stated.^[23] Harren included that the program’s relative silence had allowed willfully ignorant claims about Sikander’s sculpture to circulate, ultimately doing a disservice to both the artist and creative communities on campus.^[24] Harren and Mayer consequently launched a petition in support of Sikander’s work, calling on UH Public Art to reassess their actions, provide a platform for Sikander to speak, and rearticulate the institution’s “commitment to the arts and to free expression.”^[25]

The Beheading

On July 8, the sculpture was beheaded. “The damage is believed to be intentional,” said Kevin Quinn, executive director of media relations for UH. He announced that the university was in contact with Sikander and consulting conservators to determine the necessary repairs as soon as possible.^[27] The institution initially covered the damaged sculpture with a tarp, but Sikander asked them to “remove the tarp and show the violated work” because “the act of violence is part of the history of the work and a testament to its power.”^[28]

The altered state of Witness promoted deeper conversations about the statue and its evolution. Students drew connections to other similar global events, reflecting on the statue’s socio-political relevance.^[29] Crowning, a sculpture depicting the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus, was beheaded a week before Witness was—mere days after it went on display at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Linz, Austria.^[30]

Many students felt that the university did not collaborate sufficiently with the artist and did not provide adequate protection.^[31] One student suggested that, especially in light of the vandalism, inviting Sikander to return to UH would be a timely and meaningful gesture.^[32]

Analysis of the Beheading: Cultural, Religious, and Political Motives

Although there was no definitive motivation behind the beheading, there was an interplay of political, religious, and cultural factors that may have contributed to this act against Witness.

Cultural & Religious Motives

Shahzia Sikander suggested that the negative reactions could be an unconscious xenophobic reaction to the statue, given her inspiration from non-Western iconography, symbols, and other nontraditional or profane themes. The braided hair of Witness resembles ram’s horns and draws from Asian and African visual histories, namely Buddha’s snail shell curls and early twentieth-century Nigerian crest masks, respectively.^[33] Although they represent strength and wisdom, many misinterpreted them as “satanic” due to certain Christian associations with demonic figures.^[34] The statue’s golden coloration evokes religious sculpture in Hindu and Buddhist traditions, where gilding symbolizes divine radiance, purity, and sanctity.^[35] Its monumental scale similarly recalls hierarchic visual conventions characteristic of these traditions, in which larger size signifies elevated spiritual status or sacred authority.^[36]

Political Motives

The lace jabot on Witness is a reference to the feminization of the black judicial robe, which was popularized by the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.^[37] This prompted viewers to think that Witness memorializes Justice Ginsburg, and by extension, women’s rights—especially as they relate to reproduction. The steel skirt references a stained-glass dome at the New York Appellate Courtroom, through which a female figure appears to break—a metaphor for shattering the symbolic glass ceiling.^[38]

This could have been provocative to those who maintain an anti-abortion stance and oppose certain socially progressive values. Sikander’s works also often engage with issues of justice in resisting patriarchal narratives, so the placement of Witness in such a high-visibility area may have angered people who feel threatened by gender equality or the ideological implications of  the work—such as its association with women’s rights, achievements, and power in the legal system. The statue’s female form may itself be an assertion of a feminist perspective, critiquing the patriarchal narrative and traditional religious gender roles in both religious and legal contexts.

Why the Specific Act of Beheading?

Throughout history, the act of decapitation—whether of authority figures such as kings and queens or of political and military adversaries—has not only killed the beheaded but also asserted dominance and superiority over the ideas and values that they stood for. The head is where the brain is—where knowledge and decision-making powers reside. Without the head, a body is deprived of autonomy and individuality. 

Because Witness depicts a female form that is strong and independent—even breaking through the “glass ceiling”—the beheading could be a form of resistance and denial of what Sikander presents and perpetuates through Witness. Mayer discussed the idea that the statue was so powerful it perhaps needed to be taken down in this symbolic and literal way.^[39] Sikander’s decision to leave the statue unrepaired following the incident is a powerful gesture, as the sculpture itself has served as a Witness to the divisiveness of the country and the silencing of certain positionalities. 

Legal Perspective

Because the incident sparked politically charged reactions and raises significant questions about freedom of expression and censorship, it is important to consider the legal perspective and explore the ways in which Witness was—and was not—protected. Doing so can provide insight in better addressing controversial public artworks moving forward. How can this incident shed light on existing gaps in legal protections for both the artwork and the artist? 

Disclaimer: Discussion of contractual provisions is speculative, based on what may likely have been included. Said provisions are outlined in a private contractual agreement between the artist and the commissioning entity, and it is not possible to know exactly what protections were offered. Sikander did not respond to requests for comment on this matter. 

Protection for Public Art

Moral Rights

There are a number of protections offered for public artworks, both for the artwork itself and the artist. The Visual Artist Rights Act of 1990 (“VARA”), which grants moral rights to artists in the United States, derives from droit moral, or moral rights in French, referring to personal rights that creators have in their works.^[40] It grants the rights of attribution—which is the right of Sikander to be credited as the artist—and the right of integrity—which means that the work may not be altered, mutilated, or destroyed without her consent if it affects her honor or reputation.^[41]

Contractual Provisions

Contractual provisions would also be outlined in the agreement between Sikander and the co-commissioning bodies related to the care and maintenance of the work. Insurance provisions are typical because public art is exposed to a greater risk of damage from weather, accidents, or intentional acts. During installation, there would be coverage against damage, and post-installation, the work would be insured against vandalism, theft, and natural disasters. There are likely clauses addressing restoration procedures in the case of damage, including who assumes responsibility for maintenance and repairs. Some questions to consider include: Will the artist be consulted during repairs? Will the artist perform the repairs herself? 

Gaps in Protection

Limitations of VARA

Due to the nature of public art projects, commissioning institutions typically hold greater bargaining power than artists during contractual negotiations, shaping the provisions and scope of the project in a way that best aligns with institutional goals and public interests.^[42] Because public art is at greater risk of intentional or accidental damage, a commissioner and an artist may sign an agreement for the artist to waive their VARA rights.^[43] In the context of the public university in which Witness was installed, it is common for a commissioning institution to request a waiver. Because public art inevitably raises issues such as alteration and destruction, institutions would most likely want to minimize their liability in these situations. 

Insufficient security and emergency measures

Given that the work was already somewhat politically charged—especially following protests and opposition from the community in Houston as well as New York City—the university could have been more vigilant by increasing surveillance: having didactics up at the site in the weeks leading up to the installation, publishing content in the university newspaper, or organizing spaces for public discussion.^[44] While Mayer is not certain that these actions would have successfully prevented the beheading, she did contend that more could have been done.^[45] Mayer commented that “there could have been a lot more introduction and support to understand what the sculpture was.”^[46] In light of this, it does not seem as though sufficient measures were taken to mitigate risk and exposure. The university did not publicly disclose what security measures were in place at the sculpture’s site, which seemed to raise concerns over whether the institution adequately prepared for a situation like this. Although the original contract seems to have had clauses relating to maintenance and restoration, it appears there was no plan in case of the need for emergency restoration and repair procedures, given the tarp that covered the statue. The contract could have been violated with the lack of a plan in the case of damage. 

Thoughts on Censorship and a Violation of the First Amendment

The censorship of art is different from that of speech or text—not necessarily within the scope of First Amendment jurisprudence, but rather in how the meaning of art is interpreted. Artistic expression often employs abstraction and symbolism, which makes it inherently open to interpretation and shaped by the viewer’s perspective and background. As a result, identifying what exactly is being censored may be ambiguous as well. The frameworks that would be typically applied to the censorship of speech and text, then, do not always translate well to visual art outside strict constitutional scrutiny. After all, what does it mean to censor a message that resists clear meaning? 

Sikander’s case underscores these tensions: first, due to the connotations behind the cancellation of the talk and opening ceremony—especially considering how Sikander responded to the situation—and second, viewing the beheading as an act of censorship or silencing of Witness and its message, since censorship can be a latent tool for influencing public opinion and discourse. It is important to note, however, that the beheading itself would fall outside a constitutional scope because the First Amendment applies only to actions taken by government actors. That is, the beheading would fall under constitutional scrutiny only if it were carried out by UH or another state entity. Absent government involvement, the beheading can be best understood as an act of vandalism rather than a constitutional violation.

Canceling the artist talk and the ceremony denied Sikander a platform to express herself to her audience directly, which effectively silenced her voice and perspective. The community was also deprived of an opportunity to engage with the artist, ask questions, and learn more about the themes that Sikander was trying to touch on through Witness. It also could have discouraged students and other stakeholders from speaking up about the artwork and other relevant issues, which could have a spillover effect of censorship in a setting like a college campus where a diversity of voices and perspectives should be represented and even encouraged—potentially exacerbating misunderstanding and hostility toward the statue and leading to a further escalation of the controversy. 

These university-sponsored events—with specific programming, speakers, and content—are classified as a limited public forum, which applies to certain publicly funded spaces like public universities, as opposed to traditional public forums such as parks and sidewalks, where stricter constitutional protections apply. Under Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators Association, this classification grants UH a broader latitude to regulate or cancel such events for reasonable, content-neutral reasons, such as concerns related to safety or disruption. That being said, viewpoint discrimination remains prohibited, even in limited public forums. The timing of the event cancellations, occurring soon after the Christian anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life issued a petition urging the university to cancel the exhibition, raises questions about whether UH’s actions were content-based. If this decision was in fact motivated by disagreement with the subject matter of Witness, this would have notable constitutional implications, because, while universities are not traditional public forums like parks or public streets, they are still deemed state actors under the First Amendment; thus, their decisions on speech and expression can trigger constitutional scrutiny.

It is worth considering the implications of a beheading, especially if understood as an act of symbolic censorship of Witness and what it represents. In cases involving speech or text, there are relatively well-established pathways for legal recourse under the First Amendment. For instance, individuals may seek injunctions to prevent future censorship or to reclaim that which has been censored.^[47] They may seek damages based on how they were affected by the act of censorship.^[48] Solove and Richards argue that courts can recognize reputational, emotional, and economic injuries as real and compensable.^[49] In the case of art—which often falls outside the scope of established First Amendment jurisprudence—proving that censorship has occurred and seeking damages may not be as straightforward. There exist fewer legal precedents and established frameworks for cases of art censorship, making it more challenging to build a strong case. Proving that censorship resulted from a specific reason, idea, or message is more challenging because the interpretive nature of abstract art often introduces ambiguity, making it difficult to pinpoint conclusive evidence of intent.

Even still, this ambiguity does not place art outside the scope of constitutional protection. As the Supreme Court clarified in Texas v. Johnson, a censored party need only show that they intended to express a message and that a reasonable audience would understand the conduct as conveying a message—without the need for the content of the message to be explicit or precisely articulated. In light of this, the cancellation of the engagement for Sikander to come speak and the beheading take on a legal and symbolic significance. Although these acts cannot be directly linked to the messages of Witness, the circumstances and timing of their occurrence still had a chilling effect on expressive activity, making such cases difficult to litigate. In the context of art, proving damages and harm can be more difficult. For Sikander, substantiating a legal claim of censorship would likely require concrete evidence of lost opportunities—such as canceled exhibitions or reputational harm—which may be challenging to demonstrate.

Courts have consistently held that public university employees, acting as state actors, are not permitted to “abridge the freedom of speech” guaranteed by the First Amendment.^[51] While this protection has been held by the Supreme Court to extend to every conceivable form of artistic expression, recent events at UH raise questions about how faithfully these rights are honored in practice.^[52] According to a document released by Public Art UHS about the installation of Witness, temporary art exhibits like these are funded through private philanthropy, specially earmarked for the purpose of public art. This funding structure might have influenced how the university responded to the unfolding controversy—including the cancellation of public events and its reaction to the beheading. In such cases, there are both explicit and implicit ways in which the university might feel accountable to private donors, prompting especially cautious and deliberate responses to preserve institutional relationships.

This raises broader concerns about the future of public art at UH—if institutions like UH do not extend confident support to controversial artworks such as Witness, it risks setting a troubling precedent. Subsequent art commissions may be selected because they are safer—less controversial and thus less likely to provoke backlash and vandalism. Future commissions may lean toward more “palatable” subjects, narrowing the range of ideas and identities represented. This could also shape how such artworks are curated and presented, further diminishing the visibility of diverse or dissenting viewpoints. These shifts would not only undermine artistic freedom, but also jeopardize the values of open inquiry and pluralism that public institutions are meant to uphold.

Moving Forward

It is important to consider preventive measures that are specifically suited to public artworks, as strategies appropriate for works in private collections may not adequately account for the unique conditions and mission of public art. Public art is meant to enhance shared, public spaces and remain accessible to diverse audiences—values that benefit from intentional, context-sensitive stewardship. There was a great amount of ambiguity surrounding the decision-making processes leading up to and following the beheading of Witness. Even the faculty members—those most likely to have an inside perspective—were learning about developments as they were reported by external news outlets.^[54]

So what more could the institution have done? What are some ways in which institutions can adequately protect and present art—and public art in particular? 

Call for a decentralized approach to inviting different speakers

Using their own funding and independently from the rest of the university, the Kathrine G. McGovern College of the Arts invited Sikander back to speak on campus in November 2024.^[55] This talk created a forum for the student body to engage directly with Sikander and pose questions—an opportunity that the campus was not granted earlier in the spring.^[56] Moving forward, it may be advisable for the University of Houston to adopt a more decentralized approach that allows a wider range of voices to be included when inviting speakers. The Williams College ad hoc committee on inquiry and inclusion could serve as a useful model to consult.^[57] By including different members of the institution’s community—such as faculty, students, and administrators—Williams empowered multiple groups on campus to take a proactive role in shaping policies that directly impact campus life and experience. 

Complementing such a committee, it could also be productive to host discussions or panels involving chaplains, deans, or other community members regarding the role of public art and its impact on the campus body. Collaborating with organizations such as PEN America and NCAC can help frame conversations about free speech, expression, and inclusion in ways that are informative, contextualizing, and meaningful. 

Provide more opportunities for awareness and education about public art on campus and beyond

In light of the fact that Witness and its political implications were beginning to draw protests while on view at Madison Square Park in New York, Mayer suggested that it might have been prudent to organize additional opportunities and spaces for UH to engage in discussions about the statue and to foster deeper engagement with Witness and contemporary art practices—not only for students, but also for faculty and administration. Some of her recommendations included installing didactics at the site in the weeks leading up to the installation, organizing a town hall, and publishing announcements or articles in the local or university newspaper.^[58]

Such measures could help better balance the accessibility of public art with the need to protect it. A work like Witness is incredibly complex and open to interpretation by anyone who may encounter it. Given these challenges, institutions under pressure to avoid controversy while supporting diverse voices need careful discernment. The case of Witness highlights the complexity of navigating such sensitive situations.

Establish clear contractual provisions—and acknowledge limitation of liability

From the artist’s position, it is important to be deeply aware of the stipulations outlined in her public art contract. What are the protections that are being offered? If the events surrounding Witness serve as a lesson, it may be in the artist’s best interest to advocate for a consultation clause whereby the commissioning institution will work with the artist to finalize details relating to the presentation of the artwork—including, but not limited to, an artist talk or an opening ceremony. The commissioning institution might seek the artist’s input in crafting publicity materials such as press releases, official statements, or brochures about the art. This clause can be framed as a safeguard that ensures the artist’s moral rights are respected and maintained if there is a case of misrepresentation or alteration of the work that may harm an artist’s reputation.^[59]

When an artist has waived her moral rights, as previously mentioned in the article, this should be outlined in the contract^[60]—specifying, for instance, which moral rights are being waived and the scope of the waiver, such as whether it applies to any modification of the work (in relation to the right of integrity). If the institution requests such a waiver, balancing its desire to limit liability with the artist’s concerns would represent both good practice and an act of good faith. In such instances, an institutional responsibility clause could be included, whereby the commissioning body commits to supporting the artist and taking appropriate action to protect the artist’s reputation in the face of backlash or controversy.

Strategies to address donor hesitancy and adjust fundraising practices

Public art controversies also may present challenges to fundraising because subsequent projects that are subject to criticism or vandalism could deter certain donors from continuing their support.^[61] If donors perceive a lack of planning, effective institutional management, and proactive strategies to protect the work, it is possible they would decide against making future contributions.

In light of this, these are some suggestions that may help restore and rebuild donor trust and support in public art:

• There should be greater transparency about how funds are used, including direct communication of concrete measures that will be taken to prevent future incidents, such as enhanced security protocols.^[62] This transparency is essential to reassure donors that their contributions are being responsibly managed. Establishing well-defined policies for the protection and preservation of public art could further increase donor confidence.
• The university might offer diverse donating opportunities so that donors may feel more in control about what they are donating to specifically. Such opportunities could include supporting specific public art projects, programming, or conservation and protection efforts. 
• Reinforcing the importance of public art through community dialogues and workshops can help donors appreciate its impact. These forums could include stakeholders such as artists, donors, educators, students, and other constituents to foster a deeper understanding of the art and the artist.^[63]
• The university might expand its revenue sources by leveraging public funds, grants, alumni-based gifts, or corporate sponsorships. This approach allows the university to build relationships with a broader range of donors, helping ensure stable and sustained support for the public art program.

Conclusion

Sikander spoke about the relationship between artistic intent and the life a work takes on once it enters the public sphere: “I like to believe that the function of art is to allow multiple meanings and possibilities, to open up space for a more just world…how we experience art, how we respond to it and how we interpret it is an open-ended premise.”^[65] Fostering a pluralistic campus—with strong administrative support—is especially imperative in a country that feels increasingly divided. Art like Witness plays a crucial role in academic spaces by encouraging dialogue across diverse perspectives. By engaging with a range of viewpoints, students are prompted to critically examine their own beliefs and develop more nuanced understandings of relevant social and cultural issues. Even if Witness sparked controversy among certain individuals or groups, suppressing a work simply because it challenges certain ideological assumptions undermines the values of a free society. The discourse surrounding Witness serves as a powerful reminder that institutions must actively uphold artistic freedom and ensure protections for artists whose work engages with complex and thought-provoking ideas. 

About the Author:

Emily Ham is a New York–based arts consultant with experience spanning art museums, galleries, and consulting firms. Her work includes art historical research and market analysis in both academic and commercial contexts. Her art law interests encompass the global art market, museum governance, and institutional responsibilities toward artists. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Art History and Economics from Williams College and can be reached at ejh2@williams.edu.

Select Sources:

1. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (December 4, 2024). ↑
2. Id. ↑
3. Artist Shahzia Sikander Raises New Symbols of Justice in Madison Square Park and Atop Neighboring Courthouse in Major Public Art Commission, Madison Square Park Conservancy (Jan. 17, 2023). ↑
4. Jessica Fuentes, Protestors Oppose Installation of Shahzia Sikander “Satanic” Sculpture; University of Houston Postpones Opening Events, Glasstire (February 24, 2024). ↑
5. Karen Ho, Shahzia Sikander Sculpture Beheaded at the University of Houston, ARTnews (July 9, 2024). ↑
6. Elaine YJ Zheng, Decapitated Shahzia Sikander Statue to Remain at U. Houston, Ocula (July 15, 2024). ↑
7. Id. ↑
8. Logan Linder, Between Good and Evil: Campus Divided over New Public Art Installation, The Cougar (Feb. 20, 2024). ↑
9. Id. ↑
10. Id. ↑
11. Regan Grant, Conservative Groups Hold Rally in Opposition to Controversial Art Installation, The Cougar (Feb. 29, 2024). ↑
12. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (Dec. 4, 2024). ↑
13. Sarah Grunau, Controversial Statue Artist, University of Houston at Odds over Cancelled Ceremony, Houston Pub. Media (Mar. 4, 2024). ↑
14. Id. ↑
15. Id. ↑
16. Shahzia Sikander (@shahzia.sikander), Instagram (February 29, 2024), https://www.instagram.com/p/C376ARIrkh5/?hl=en&img_index=1. ↑
17. Joshua Vasquez, Shahzia Sikander Talks About Beheaded Sculpture, Vandalism, The Cougar (Nov. 18, 2024). ↑
18. Helen Stoilas, ‘Shame on Those that Silence Artists’: Shahzia Sikander Speaks out After Her Opening in Texas is Cancelled, Art Newspaper (Feb. 26, 2024). ↑
19. PEN America Urges University of Houston to Reschedule Talk by Artist Shahzia Sikander and Show Her Film, PEN America (Feb. 29, 2024). ↑
20. FAQ from Public Art UH System, Pub. Art Univ. of Houston Sys. (Mar. 20, 2024). ↑
21. Elizabeth Larison, Letter—Public Art of the University of Houston System, Nat’l Coal. Against Censorship (Mar. 18, 2024). ↑
22. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (Dec. 4, 2024). ↑
23. Sarah Grunau, Controversial Statue Artist, University of Houston at Odds over Cancelled Ceremony, Houston Pub. Media (Mar. 4, 2024). ↑
24. Id. ↑
25. University of Houston School of Art Community, UH School of Art Support for Sikander Public Art on Campus, (last visited June 29, 2025). ↑
26. Zachary Small, Statue Honoring Women and Justice Vandalized at University of Houston, N.Y. Times (July 9, 2024). ↑
27. Karen Ho, Shahzia Sikander Sculpture Beheaded at the University of Houston, ARTnews (July 9, 2024). ↑
28. Leah Dolan, ‘Show the Violated Work’: Artist Requests Beheaded Sculpture Remains on View, CNN (July 12, 2024). ↑
29. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (Dec. 4, 2024). ↑
30. Rhea Nayyar, Sculpture of Virgin Mary in Labor Beheaded in Austrian Cathedral, Hyperallergic (July 7, 2024). ↑
31. Vasquez, supra note 17. ↑
32. Id. ↑
33. Artists at Risk Connection (ARC), Is Censorship Discriminatory?, (YouTube, July 10, 2024). ↑
34. Id. ↑
35. Gold – National Museum of Asian Art, Smithsonian Inst. (2025). ↑
36. Susan L. Huntington & John C. Huntington, The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain (1985). ↑
37. Shahzia Sikander & Shannon Lee, Shahzia Sikander on Using Art to Inspire Possibilities, The Amp (Mar. 21, 2023). ↑
38. Id. ↑
39. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (Dec. 4, 2024). ↑
40. Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States, United States Copyright Office (Apr. 23, 2019). ↑
41. Id. ↑
42. Kevin P. Ray, Moral Rights and the Visual Artists Rights Act, 97 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1399 (2020). ↑
43. 17 U.S.C. § 106A(e). ↑
44. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (Dec. 4, 2024) ↑
45. Id. ↑
46. Id. ↑
47. Rosenberger v. Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). ↑
48. Daniel J. Solove & Neil M. Richards, Rethinking Free Speech and Civil Liability, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 1651, 1665–75 (2009). ↑
49. Id. ↑
50. Robert Simpson, Self-Censorship: The Chilling Effect and the Heating Effect, 1 Pol. Phil. 345 (2024). ↑
51. Speech on Campus, Am. C.L. Union (Dec. 18, 2023). ↑
52. Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998). ↑
53. Temporary Art Exhibit at the University of Houston: FAQ from Public Art UH System, Pub. Art Univ. of Houston Sys. (Mar. 20, 2024). ↑
54. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (Dec. 4, 2024). ↑
55. Vasquez, supra note 17. ↑
56. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (Dec. 4, 2024). ↑
57. Ad Hoc Committee on Inquiry and Inclusion, Williams Coll. (June 5, 2019). ↑
58. Interview with Anna Mayer, Associate Professor of Sculpture at University of Houston (Dec. 4, 2024). ↑
59. Artists Rights 101: Navigating Your Rights, Artist Rights Soc’y (last visited June 30, 2025). ↑
60. Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual Artworks, U.S. Copyright Office (Oct. 24, 1996). ↑
61. Viken Mikaelian, A $65 Billion Wake-Up Call for Nonprofits: Why Donors Are Pulling Back, Philanthropy.Org (Mar. 1, 2025). ↑
62. Shelley Hoss, The Future of Giving: Trends Shaping Next-Gen Philanthropy, Forbes (Dec. 27, 2021). ↑
63. Understanding Donor Behavior: Insights for Increasing Engagement and Charitable Giving, Yale Sch. of Mgmt. (Aug. 14, 2024). ↑
64. Rachel Hutchisson, Ensuring Sustainability with Diverse Revenue Streams, The Giving Inst. (Apr. 15, 2019). ↑
65. Linder, supra note 8. ↑