At Princeton’s Bernstein Gallery, a recent exhibit boasted images of naked female torsos arranged over an image of a Cross, a ripped image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and Catholic devotional items linked under the title “Shackles of the AIDS Virus.”

The sponsor? Princeton’s prestigious Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

This official backing of “Ricanstructions” — works in oil, mixed media, and malice by Brooklyn artist Juan Sanchez — outraged Christian students, especially Catholics. Like most colleges, Princeton has a conduct code requiring respect for the rights and sensibilities of all members of the campus community. Behavior that demeans another’s religious beliefs “is subject to University disciplinary sanctions.” So Catholic students naturally wondered: Why did art that disrespects their sensibilities and demeans their beliefs receive not disciplinary sanctions, but official sanction?

Looking for answers, some 60 students and faculty attended a forum organized by Wilson Dean Anne-Marie Slaughter to determine who prevails when artistic vision collides with sacred belief. As several students pointed out, the debate over “Ricanstructions” was not about free speech, the benefits of provocative art, or the alleged sins of the Catholic Church; it was about whether Christians, particularly Catholics, would be treated by the university with fairness and equal respect. By sponsoring “Ricanstructions,” the Wilson School was insulting and defaming a particular faith — Christianity — and singling out Catholic symbols for special abuse.

Dean Slaughter, in a moment of candor she may regret, acknowledged it was unlikely she would sponsor art that abused the symbols of other campus groups, such as Muslims. (I believe her: It’s impossible to imagine the Wilson School welcoming, say, an Islamic crescent in a jar of urine, or Star of David surrounded by elephant dung — although prestigious museums have welcomed “art” featuring such abuse of Christian symbols, to cheers from liberal art lovers.)

It wasn’t just Christians who had a problem with Slaughter’s blatant double standard. Princeton student Daniel Mark, former president of the Center for Jewish Life, suggested she remove offensive “Ricanstructions” elements “or articulate principles based on which she can justify sponsoring art that is offensive to Catholics when, by her own admission, she would not sponsor some other forms of offensive art.”

When I asked Slaughter to reconcile a conduct code demanding respect for Catholics with art that makes profane use of their symbols, she replied via email that “Ricanstructions” has been “displayed without controversy in a number of highly respected museums” including Catholic St. Bonaventure University in New York.

This is the moral equivalent of defending a man who tells dirty jokes in Slaughter’s presence — even if such jokes offend her — because some other women enjoy them. And as it turned out, St. Bonaventure had exhibited only one of the offensive pieces (“Shackles of the AIDS Virus” — and that under a different title). Nevertheless, when St. Bonny alums discovered what now passes for art at their alma mater, they force-fed school officials a heaping dose of belated controversy.

Princeton heard from its own angered alums. Fox News, MSNBC and The O’Reilly Factor showed up to interview Princeton students and faculty. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights weighed in after three Princeton students — one Catholic, one Protestant, and one Jewish — “wrote a sober yet impassioned letter registering their outrage,” relates Catholic League President William Donahue.

Slaughter said she regrets the exhibit “caused pain for some of our students and faculty” but justified inflicting it in the interest of displaying “works that reflect on important public policy issues, have educational value, and stimulate thought and discussion.” Donahue decided to see whether Slaughter was serious about using the exhibit to stimulate discussion: He challenged her to a debate. She declined.

The Dean’s position is both Orwellian and Clintonian. Yes, Princeton’s conduct code forbids attacks on the sacred beliefs of students — but some beliefs are more sacred than others.

Princeton Professor of Politics Robert George invited me to imagine a work titled “Shackles of the AIDS Virus,” identical to the Sanchez work “except that pink triangles are in the place of the Catholic symbols, and the artist is an HIV-infected ex-gay activist who has become a Catholic, renounced his former lifestyle, and blames homosexual promiscuity and the gay movement for the spread of the disease. "There is,” George declares, “exactly no chance that such a thing would be exhibited under University sponsorship”— even though it would arguably challenge far more students than one that attacks acceptable targets like the Catholic Church.

George is right. One of the canons of liberal orthodoxy is that the world is divided up between the powerful and the powerless, oppressor and oppressed. Once assigned oppressor status, you’re not allowed to claim oppression at someone else’s hands. This is why professors who would instantly notice and (rightly) condemn artistic prejudice against Muslims, Jews, gays, women or blacks cannot see anti-Catholic bigotry even when egregious examples of it hang on the wall in front of them.

Princeton could prove its commitment to fairness by torching the conduct code and inviting artists to offend anyone they wish. Or it could urge that all groups be treated with basic courtesy. What’s not an option, for a community claiming respect for all, is a policy that sanctions the abuse of one group’s sacred images while protecting the symbols and sensitivities of all others.

This article is adapted from one that originally ran in National Review Online.