There are so many things going wrong in this story one barely knows where to start. Why were funds intended for a financial aid office used to buy artwork in the first place? Why was it then in a warehouse? Does Chicago State U not have any financial aid office anymore (the article implies this but that's unimaginable for any university)? Just how did Ms. Davis actually end up with the artwork - did she pay someone for it, was it given to her, or what? How could the reporters not have asked her that simple question? Why is the entire focus of the article on whether/when she'll return it and not how she received it?

Great questions by mbelvadi -- I'm afraid this is emblamatic of the push to get things "published" before a story is ready to be published. These questions should have been addressed before the article was posted.

Thank you for your comments! These are all still questions being looked into right now - Rep. Davis did not return calls over the past few days, and the school will not comment beyond a six-line statement they released on Friday (which I've put below - from Patrick Cage, general counsel at Chicago State University).

"Several years ago, under a previous administration, a former employee of Chicago State University authorized the purchase of a statue called 'Defiance.' In October 2009, the statue was identified as missing from campus and was subsequently found in the offices of a state representative. The fact that the statue went missing points out security needs we must address to protect university assets. We're taking appropriate steps to recover the statue.

"Our new president, Dr. Watson, was brought in to move Chicago State University forward with a focus on the fiscal management and controls, academic quality of our legacy institution and the success of our students. That's what our priority is."

-Jill Laster

If the art work was purchased by CSU on their funds, then they are the rightful owners. Why did they not insist that the police deliver the property back to the rightful owner, and work out later how Ms. Davis happened to have it. There may be some questionable under-the-table deals going on. If an ordinary citizen, not a state representative, were found in possession of a valuable piece of art that "disappeared" from its rightful owner, that citizen would probably be arrested for possession of stolen property, and the item confiscated and returned to the rightful owner. Perhaps this is yet more politics "chicago style" rearing its head.

Well, one question is easily answered. Why was this sculpture in a warehouse?

On today's campus, look no further than the most attractive bust of the sculpture. If the piece of art depicted a grossly ugly woman, was a moronic pile of random parts welded by a raccoon with astigmatism, or a bronze of an everyday object like an umbrella? It would be displayed.

But a beautiful woman's bust, stepping out of a dress? One supposed to depict a slave?

Not on today's campus. "It's demeaning to women!" "That sculpture sexualizes the slave experience!" And on and on. Deans and chancellors being the spineless planaria that they are, the statue goes into a warehouse.

That sculpture belongs where it is now. It belongs on display with someone who values it. It does not belong to a modern campus that will just pack it away.

Not on today's campus.

Another peek into the cesspool of Illinois state politics. Who else but an elected official in the capitol of corruption would be holding stolen property, especially if it was purchased with taxpayer dollars.

johntoradze- Thank you for the best laugh I have had from the CHE in many weeks.

johntoradze: It "belongs where it is now" ONLY IF SHE PAYS FOR IT!!! Otherwise, the thief should be prosecuted promptly.