Postcolonial Cliché?

When invited to participate in a show that would examine the the results of political and cultural hegemony, one recent MFA graduate politely declined, based on the feeling that "postcolonial critique had become a cliché at CalArts."

At what point do postcolonial (or other political) issues become cliché? Does this perceived cliché negate the principle critique of works examining these issues? In an effort to carve out a new path through the serpentine "trajectory of western art history," do artists compromise political concern for the sake of "originality" or delusions of originality?

It seems equally fair to reexamine the sincerity of artistic practices that have become commercially identified within a genre of political (in this particular case postcolonial) critique.