But how can she? You can’t have a searingly incoherent indictment of the Patriarchy without real bodily fluids, can you? Or maybe you can — after all, we know from some of the blogosphere’s leading intellectual lights that fake menstrual blood is an instrument of “torture.”

Good enough for Gitmo, good enough for Aliza Shvarts.

“In this case, we will not permit her to install the project unless she submits a clear and unambiguous written statement that her installation is a work of fiction: that she did not try to inseminate herself and induce miscarriages, and that no human blood will be physically displayed in her installation,” Yale College Dean Peter Salovey said in a statement released Monday…

Salovey said that after he and School of Art Dean Robert Storr conducted an investigation, they determined two faculty members made “serious errors of judgment” and should be disciplined for the part they played.

“In one case, the instructor responsible for the senior project should not have allowed it to go forward,” he said. “In the other, an adviser should have interceded and consulted others when first given information about the project. Appropriate action has been taken in these two cases.”…

Last week, Storr issued a statement saying that Shvarts’ piece “is not an acceptable project in a community where the consequences go beyond the individual who initiates the project and may even endanger the individual.”

Doesn’t most of the Yale community support abortion as an act of individual autonomy, though? Why, then, this rather patriarchal reflex to the glorious right to choose miscarriage, even at the risk of self-endangerment? And how do the consequences “go beyond” Shvarts herself? Surely he’s not attributing personhood to…