SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Comedian Steve Martin is making headlines in La Grande, Oregon. His play Picasso at the Lapin Agile was scheduled to be performed by students at La Grande High School. The school board backed the superintendent's decision to cancel it because of community concerns that the play includes "adult themes and content." Now Steve Martin has offered to pay for an off-campus performance participants had been working to organize.
This is one of many examples of plays and books being banned from school campuses. The National Coalition Against Censorship is actually calling Oregon a "hotbed of censorship." Do you think that is true? What should the limits be?
In Portland a fifth-grader at Llewellyn Elementary School was banned from performing in the school talent show because his act was deemed "insensitive." He wore a mask similiar to one Barack Obama wore on Saturday Night Live and he danced to a rap parody called I Can Do Whatever I Like. After dress rehearsal he was told he couldn't perform the dance while wearing a mask of the president.
And meanwhile in schools across the state, teachers and administrators and parents are trying to figure out what's appropriate in the books kids read. At Crook County High School The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian was pulled from freshman English class because of "inappropriate" content. And in Grants Pass a "Help the Forest" textbook was banned from a first grade class for being anti-logging.
What should be allowed at school? What should be censored? Are you a parent, teacher, student or community member who has concerns about what's shown at schools? Has a book you've always wanted to read been kicked out of school? Has a play you've wanted to do been banned? Or is your neighborhood school allowing material that you think is questionable?
NOTE: Thanks to Keigwyn on our site for suggesting this show! You can suggest your own show here.
GUESTS:
- Kevin Cahill: Teacher and drama coach at La Grande High School and director of Picasso at the Lapin Agile
- Tim Gerdes: Pastor at La Grande Church of the Nazarene and parent of a La Grande High School student
- Scott Lechert: Parent of Dru Lechert-Kelly, a fifth-grader at Llewellyn Elementary School
- Robb Cowie: Director of Communications for Portland Public Schools
Tagged as: censorship · school · theater
Photo credit: SnappED Up / Flickr / Creative Commons
-
I AGREE!!! Fear keeps us from having real conversations with our children, open discussion about these issue, about the fact that we have differences of opinion. Kids can handle alot, especially being spoken with on an equal level, on a level that prompts them to think and consider and look at things from many positions.
In a time of "sexting" it's hard to believe someone is making an issue of a woman in her bra on stage---in the context of a story. It is an opportunity to see someone being comfortable with their body, not showing it off in a strip show type of dirty dancing or a picture senty over cell phone -- but part of a story.
-
The world is getting more complex and dangerous. Isn't it the responsibility of parents and schools to expose children to as much real-world content as possible? High schoolers should be helped to learn how to think critically so they can determine what is beneficial or harmful for themselves.
By censoring what we don't like it, we become more ignorant and fearful. We lock ourselves in instead of locking bad things out. Too poorly paraphrase Buddha: don't believe what I tell you, discover the truth for yourself. But what is the truth? Many things we believe are partially true or mostly false.
I hope La Grande High School students mount Picasso at the Lapin Agile.
-
So, as I understand it, we don't want to expose our high school kids to controversial or adult themes and content in an environment where they might learn how to deal with them maturely and intelligently - it makes more sense to shield them until they are completely independent and have them figure it out by themselves without any guidance.
Am I missing something here?
-
In considering whether to allow a questionable performance at a school, we should look at the context as well as the content. What may be appropriate in high school may be completely inappropriate in an elementary school in front of an audience of 5-10 year old children. In addition, educators should be asking whether the proposed performance really does further the educational mission of the school. And, educators, as with any other professionals, should be given the benefit of the doubt when they conclude that it does not.
Pete in Portland
-
I do think there is a time and place for adult consideration of what the schools offer and allow, the idea that public high schools allow for critical thinking in an age where hormone driven peer pressure rules is a bit incomplete to grossly blind.
That said, presuming that everything that is offensive to someone should be left out is ridiculous. I remember when Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn were dropped from English class reading lists and the reasoning struck me as a wee bit foolish. the problem is balance: allow everything and you are a step away from things that are NOT appropriate. Do you include balanced discussion of controversial topics or do you just let street pressure push the kids reasoning? Isn't there a reason we don't let folks under 18 do a lot of other things? Were you (the greater you) and your peers really that wise at 14-17?
-
Could you post some of the questionable dialogue so that we can have a better understanding of where this woman is coming from? I'm not sure if we have the same idea of what questionable is, and it would be nice to have a context to consider this.
-
We'll be talking about it right after the break — with a few examples.
-
Maybe instead of doing it for publicity, Steve is providing an opportunity for those who disagree with you the ability to watch the show.
-
17 pregnant girls at the school?! Abstinance education: epic fail.
-
That's what happened at a school which even thought about performing this play. That's powerful voodoo!
-
I'm in the Sherwood school district, which has had two notable censorship incidents in the last year: the cancellation of the Sherwood Middle School play "Higher Ground" last year, and the challenge to the novel "Grendel" at Sherwood High School this year. Fortunately the school board was wise enough to resist the request to censor "Grendel" from the 10th grade Advanced Placement class, but I am sure that the parent group that is responsible for both incidents will be challenging other district happenings in the future.
-
Mrs. Jackman doesn't get it. A BIG part of high school is being shown the diffrence between fact and fiction and leteing the students see the diffrence.
Her desire to insulate the students of this high school from such content because it matches her very conservative ideals is bad for the students education. You can not teach about what you refuse to let people know about.
If you want to teach people how to act, sometimes you have to acutally show them how not to act
-
Why would Steve Martin care? Because he apparently has principles about it.
Are we to start banning more books, too, because they include "questionable material," since "Memory can't be erased"?
One of the most important purposes of fiction, including plays, is to play out scenarios DIFFERENT from how we live our lives, so we can start to understand other people's perspectives, and why a reasonable person would think their choices were reasonable. I guess if people wish to ignore and shame those who live differently than themselves rather than try to understand, then we might as well only produce plays based on children's book characters.
Since when has making people uncomfortable, or being uncomfortable yourself, been an unholy sin? It's usually a sign that something productive is going on . . .
Good Luck in La Grande, Mr. Cahill. I appreciate your commitment, we need teachers like you in high schools.
-
Though I've not finished viewing any of them, there are videos of the play posted a YouTube.com.
-
The disclaimer at the beginning of the audition packet should have been enough to steer the girl away from the play. If she and her family are so opposed to such "questionable dialogue" perhaps they should keep her at home in their safe little bubble.
Public education is designed to serve all who attend, but not all who attend should expect to have the curriculum or choices made by their educators, personally catered for them.
If the play was approved for production, then that should have been enough for them to go forward. The family that was offended should have just waited for the next opportunity for their daughter to audition for a different play.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions and is free to express their thoughts and ideas, but raising a stink about this play stifles the abilities of all others involved to voice theirs.
-
You can meet with army recruiters to go to war, but you can't see/perform a vanilla Steve Martin play. Do we even need to bother with this discussion in 2009? Not to mention that if all takes for a human being to begin a path of wickedness and sin is a Steve Martin play---then they aren't much of a human being to begin with! If Steve doesn't get them---something else will.
-
"You can meet with army recruiters to go to war, but you can't see/perform a vanilla Steve Martin play. ..."
Point well made, Scott!
-
I grew up in a fundamentalist church community. I watched some of the kids from the most sheltering families go off the deep end when God didn't strike them dead when they had their first beer. Most of these parents are well meaning in their attempts to protect their children. Sadly it is often the most sheltered kids that have the least defenses to the worst dangers once they are on their own.
-
This "educator" is clearly misguided.
Is she educating to her religious beliefs or to the standards that a public institution should demand.
It seems that with seventeen pregnant girls in this school that the students are pretending to be adults....
Unfortuantely for her and the rural Oregon community she is only furthering an isolationist and ignorant POV that went out with the telegraph.
As far as the ojectionable content....she needs to grow up and expand her experience of humanity to a global scale and limit her prudish behavior to her own home.
Lastly, she needs to lighten up!
-
I find it interestingly ironic that Melissa Jackman is so willing to use her own Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech to suppress and prevent the Freedom of Speech of others.
She has a right to keep her own daughter living in fear and ignorance, which I find offensive and really amounts to child abuse, but she has no right to keep other people living in fear and ignorance.
-
From what I am hearing on the show. The people that are against this play are clueless about what drama is and what the point is: To broaden, enlighten and present that which might be outside of one's life references.
I further suppose that these parents would also find offense with half the plays that include sexual hijinx and questions by Rodger and Hammerstien, Neil Simon (sweet charity, the goodbye girl, barefoot in the park), Steven Soundheim (west side Story, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, Gypsy), and most of the works by Shakespeare.
Please, it's time to stop being so provincial and realize that La Grande's teenagers have to learn there is a great big world outside of it's little tiny small-minded section of Oregon.
-
In response to your comment about the people against this play being clueless.... Most have not read the play and are making judgments without doing their homework.
Case in point, one member of the school board (with the responsiblity of representing our community) actually said he had shown the excepts of the play to a number of people he worked with and all agreed it was inappropriate. They made a judgement without knowing the context it was presented within. ANYTHING can be misunderstood if taken out of context, be it a play or the BIBLE!!!! It was not clear if any of the members actually read the play in its entirity. It was blantly clear the majority of people speaking on both sides were speaking from an emotional response, not an informed one.
Even sadder, none of the cast were allowed to speak. What better way to know first hand how the kids were dealing with the subject matter than to hear direct from them.
I suggest a follow up after the show to see what the kids learned from the whole experience. Not only about the show, but this entire event overall. I think it could provide some great insight into a better direction to take the next time something like this comes along... and it will, no doubt.
-
Yes, all the La Grande School board members did have complete copies of the play (that were bought specifically for this purpose) before the meeting and it is my understanding that they each read it. Also if the cast members had signed up to speak, they would have been allowed. They went in order and one high school student did speak. They cut off the speaking before many people got to speak due to time.
-
lesleyg,
I agree we should sit down with both sides and talk about what we have learned from this experience and from the play. I have already begun to do this by sitting down with Mr. Cahill this morning and discussing our differences. We have agreed to disagree that this time, but we have left the door open for further discussion in the future. Maybe next time we can have more people involved in the dialogue.
-
After teaching in Oregon schools for 30 years and directing students through several levels of theatre projects, I found myself faced with censorship regarding Knappa High School's production of Dark of the Moon, a play that has been performed at several high schools throughout Oregon. Though there was as much support for this production as their was opposition, the school board gave the nod to a clergy's disapproval and censored this play. As a result, the students developed their own project which reflected their consternation over being censored and several other issues that were important to them. Rather than performing this at the high school, they took this work into nearby Astoria where they found a home in the River Theater (a community theater) and performed to sell-out audiences. The entire experience was extremely traumatic and highly educational. But the cost of censorship was so dear that it shook the very foundation of a long-standing and successful high school program.
-
Kudos to you for helping the students perform the play on their own. Our world needs more educators like you and Mr. Cahill.
-
I am surprised this is happening with a high school play!
When I was in elementary school kids were already talking about far worse things amongst themselves. If you want to insulate your children from thoughts and ideas that you don't agree with, you're going to have to homeschool them and not allow them to interact with other children!
-
Melissa Jackman's assertion that La Grande is just a blip on the map and wouldn't matter to anyone like Steve Martin smacks equality in the face. Mr. Martin wants to ensure that the production moves forward so that the members of the community can decide for themselves whether or not the play has merit.
I agree with Mr. Cahill that a range of experiences in high school theatre is a necessary part of the education process. Thank goodness it's not "Little Mary Sunshine" every year.
Joe- Goldendale, WA and parent of a child in the play in La Grande (my hometown)
-
I graduated from La Grande High in the 1990s, and am a former student of Mr. Cahill, who helped prepare me for my own success in college and graduate school. I continue rank him amongst the most influential teachers in my life, as he encouraged me to think critically about all aspects of my life, not just in the classroom.
Theater is a dialog between the actors, the audience, the playwright, and society at large. I am happy that Think Out Loud is taking this dialog to our community.
I also have read Steve Martin's play, and though there are adult themes in this play, those same themes are present in a lot of literature that people hold up as "classics" such as Shakespeare (read "Filthy Shakespeare" by Pauline Kiernan if you are surprised about that).
By the time students are in high-school, they are being confronted with a lot of difficult decisions about what being an adult means. We learn through role-playing and testing things out in a safe environment when we can consider the consequences of our behavior. Asserting that by acting out such behavors equals condoning or supporting them is dangerously naive and condescending towards the ability of young adults to think and consider these issues for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
"Picasso at the Lapin Agile" is not about sex, it is about the nature of scientific and artistic discovery, and the nature of human relationships. Trying to protect our young adults from such themes is a losing propsition, at best, because society at large will do it for you, and will backfire in my experience, at worst.
I am planning on coming to see this play.
Danielle Myers Gembala
-
When I was a Sophomore in HS, I remember another HS group being banned from the statewide thespian competition for the performance of an ensemble number from RENT. The competition is closed to the general public and is intended to advance students craft and challenge them.
The number performed was La Vi Boheme, and parents, teachers and participating students had previously agreed that it was fine for the competition. A parent at the hosting school wanted to watch his child perform in the same category. Upon seeing the RENT performance, he stormed out and demanded that they be cut from the competition. They were.
The problem is that one father thought it was inappropriate to perform a number that had blatant references to homosexuality. It is unfortunate that we succumb to rather antiquated fears of taboo topics. Those kids worked hard on a challenging performance peice and the majority of the schools in the competition felt that they had earned a place in it.
What message do we send to our kids after they put in their own heart and hard work to be told, "sorry, but that guy doesn't like the content, so you can't proceed."?
This example put all of us on notice that we had to back off of challenging themes because it might upset someone. This, I believe, is far more offensive that the content of RENT, Picasso at the Lapin Agile, or a rap dancing Barrak Obama.
-
If the students have the drive to put the play on and succeed in doing so in the face of the school board then I doubt that any of the curriculums that society thinks is important will have taught them ANYTHING nearly as profound and life changing! That is what High School should do rather then what it does.
To the students/actors who are reading this I can only refer you to a line from a popular song that perhaps your administration remembers clearly from the day…
“When I think back on all the crap I learned in High School, It’s a wonder I can think at all.”
Go for it! If you can succeed publicize it because this old conservative SOB will drive HOURS to support you and see the show!
-
"Tim Gerdes: Pastor at La Grande Church of the Nazarene and parent of a La Grande High School student"
I have been told by a very reliable source that this Church teaches that children are born with a black heart and have to be beaten into being good. That of course is child abuse! Now, consider what those children grow up to be like and the disfunctional mental and behavioral strategies they develop to cope with living in such a church and family.
-
Mr. Ford,
I have been in the Nazarene church for over 37 years. In that time, I have never heard, read about in our Manual and bylaws, nor taught(preached) this about children. Nor do I treat my children this way. I am afraid that your "very reliable source" is mistaken and I would encourage you to search out this issue for yourself. If you would like to talk to me about it, I am more than willing. Just let me know.
-
Tom, I can only speak for one such community of about 100 - and that was over 40 years ago. "Spare the rod and spoil the child." , was only a part of some peoples arsenal in child raising. Like most communities, questions that involve 'degrees' of something, produce an internal polarity. This polarity, as in the larger community, was just as likely to be between mom and dad, as it was to be between families.
What does seem to be true, is that the families with the most struggle for impulse control, in the parents, were the ones most likely to cling to black and white rules, etc..
Without the external controls many of these parents would indeed have been worse off, (at least in the short run).
The ideal solution, of coarse, is for everyone to have internal controls. Under the best conditions, people continuously exercise the logical parts of their brains in all the areas that deal with actions, and consequences that extend well into the future. This takes a lot of imagination as well as logical ability.
Shamefully, 'Fundamentalism' is an easy answer for some. Still, it is perhaps a necessary answer for others. As you suggest, it can still be a tragedy for their children. This is especially true when children have the ability to develope internal controls, but are denied the oportunities to develope them.
And what of the more rare situation, where the parents have pretty good internal control on their impulses, and a child who is logically and imaginatively challenged? Time to call pastor Tim?
-
"Mr. Ford,
I have been in the Nazarene church for over 37 years. In that time, I have never heard, read about in our Manual and bylaws, nor taught(preached) this about children. Nor do I treat my children this way. I am afraid that your "very reliable source" is mistaken and I would encourage you to search out this issue for yourself. If you would like to talk to me about it, I am more than willing. Just let me know.
TGerdes — Thu March 19th 11:32a.m. "
Then it is clear to me that members of The Nazarene Church are getting a very different perception than what you think they are. I'm talking about family members and friends and I am very reluctant to call them liars.
-
Mr. Ford,
I am sorry that your relatives, friends, and others, have had that experience in the Nazarene Church. It angers me, as well, when false teachings invade the church (or any organization), especially when it hurts people. I realize that people are not perfect and there are always individuals that take things to extremes. However, I know, from personal experience, that is not the stand or teaching of the Nazarene denomination. I have attended the Nazarene Schools, I have traveled all across the United States (100 churches in 2 years), I have read all of our beliefs and standards and I have never run into this teaching or belief from the denomination. Once again, I am sorry they had to endure these lies. I am still open to talk if you want to.
-
As a recent latecomer to watching reruns of the TV shows, "Friends" and "Seinfeld", I have been rather putoff by the free sexual conversation and behavior on these wildly popular, long-running programs. Even given they are deeply entertaining and well written, acted, and directed, it saddens me if life is actually so sexually free among our young people and therein often subject to comedic focus.
I have two children now in their late twenties who grew up with these shows which I did not censor or watch with them and it didn't apparently do them any moral harm, but still............it just is troublesome to me and that was a generation ago. Lots of other good subject matter and humor in both.
But let us be careful with our current generation and give them some backbone about the beauty, joy, and privacy of their sexual formation and guidance. I am with the school if they forge forward with disallowing too much freedom during still tender years.
-
I think you are kidding yourself if you think refraining from performing a play is going to save the innocence of children regarding sexuality. What you are looking for is a wholesale reform of our media and entertainment industries. I do not entirely disagree with that notion, but by the time kids get to highschool, they have already adopted many ideas about sex, drugs and rock 'n roll thanks to magazines, sitcoms, movies, and NEWS reports. What if, instead, we simply acknowledged the fact that sex is a beautiful fact of life, teenagers take part in it, and encourage responsible behavior? Lets stop pretending that our kids are somehow different than we were in high school, or that they are completely unable to think and reason on their own.
-
Like it or not, teens are having sex. They always have and always will. Even Bristol Palin.
Not having an honest dialogue about sexuality with them (through "controversial" creative works and quality sexual education) just means that teens are doing it without any guidance or perspective.
I hate to be prejudiced, but I'm willing to bet that most of the 17 pregnant girls came from either disengaged or dishonest religiously conservative households.
-
Most of this discussion is about not being ignorant and I see lots of ignorance in the comments being made. People assuming things about churches they know nothing about or your comment that teens will have sex. Some will but many will not. Let's not lump all teenagers together. Also I live in LaGrande and your bet about the girls that are pregnant is wrong.
-
"You can meet with army recruiters to go to war, but you can't see/perform a vanilla Steve Martin play."
scottmil
Ref: above comment
The Army / Military recruiter argument carries no wieght here, the Military is a source that offers higher education opportunities to many people, myself included. A play considered in poor taste by many does nothing to further education. If we all take a look at what is good for our students based off of the end state, I see no comparison between a chance at furthering education, and a chance to spark a debate about taste.
-
ummm the army only educates people? I think your forgetting the controversial part where they train people to kill.
-
uncommonsense,
So now the military is about offering "higher education opportunities to many people." That is absurdly ridiculous. If you don't see the irony then---sorry. But, anyway, anyone who thinks a play should be censored in the year 2009, in a democratic country, is a barbarian and not worth speaking to.This isn't a debate about taste, it is a debate about censorship. I haven't heard anyone attack the play on aesthetic grounds or style. It is about fearful neophytes afraid their spawn will be corrupted by a play. A play! Is that all it takes?
-
So now the military is about offering "higher education opportunities to many people." That is absurdly ridiculous.
scottmil — Thu March 19th 9:54a.m.
Ever heard of the GI bill or say, the GI Bill for the 21st century.
-
Scottmil are you kidding me? I didn't come from a family that could pay for my college, and I didn't want to go deep into debt. The military paid for the majority of my college at PCC and PSU. Often it seems many people forget that the military is a highly educated group. What other Group can honestly say 100% of their 18-22 year olds have either a high school diploma or GED?
-
Cubilist,
Yeah, thanks, I've heard of the GI Bill. Sorry do I really have to explain this? Apparently, so. The main function and indeed the reason for the existence of the Military is NOT education. It is almost like saying Les Schwab is in the popcorn or beef business. I guess if these are the same people censoring things, then no wonder... . -
Scott,
I in no way represent the people infavor of censorship. The play should be performed as is. That being said, I am not arguing function. The obvious function of the military is to protecting our interests and assert our influence around the world. My only disagreement with you is your assertion that there are no "higher education opportunities" offered through the military. That idea is just wrong.
-
I think we got off base here from my point, I feel comparing military recruiters to a play is like comparing apples and volkswagens. One offers a guaranteed path to higher education.
I am now making an assumption but you don't feel recruiters should be allowed on campus?? If thats the case that would also be......Censorship.
and By the Way, You're welcome, people like me have been protecting your 1st ammendment for many years.
-
Cubilist,
Reading comprehension? I never, ever, said there are "no higher education opportunities offered through the military." I don't even know what you are on about, or what your point is. Yes, we all know the military offers education benefits. And?
-
uncommonsense,
No, I won't thank people like you for protecting my rights. What a cliche. The entitled military and their do-goodness. What saints you are. Anyway, I wasn't on about the military, I really don't care about it, at all. I'm not willing to romanticize "our troops." What I was suggesting, is the irony that high-schoolers can be recruited into an army which is a pretty serious life changing and risking business, but they can't see or perform in a Steve Martin play. It seems pretty odd to me. But not to you---to which I'd say "fine."
Not allowing recruiters on campus? I quite frankly, don't know a lot about it, nor do I care. But if solicitation on campus is allowed in general, then yes, military recruiters should be allowed, but I doubt it is. -
so i think the argument is pretty simple here
Highschoolers are not allowed to be exposed to the morally questionable topic of sex because they may be influenced it. But they can be exposed to military recruiters who are not only exposing them to, but also encouraging the moraly questionable act of killing other humans.
So whether you see sex or kiling as right or wrong, there is a double standard over whether a topic can be presented.
-
Scott,
Yes, I do have a problem comprehending people who write in incomplete sentences.
You commented that the military offering higher education incentives as part of its mission was absurdly ridiculous. I disagree. I certainly don't see any irony the fact that recruiters are allowed on campus but a play with adult themes isn't. As a matter of fact, that isn't even ironic.
"Irony revolve around the perceived notion of an incongruity between what is said and what is meant, or between an understanding or expectation of a reality and what actually happens. "(from the almighty wikipedia)
An example of Irony:
Its ironic that you use the word irony without understanding its meaning.
-
It's ironic that people came here to discuss a topic and ended up attacking straw men.
It's pretty simple to see the contradiction inherint in allowing the military on campus but not a play that might be for adults. The military is certainly for adults. In the same way that a conservative might not want the state educating their children about sex through a play, a liberal might not want the state educating their children about war through a recruiter.
-
Cubilist,
Yes. Incomplete sentences. And? Many, many great uses. Got anything substantive?
It is ironic that people protecting children from alleged smut, don't see the need to protect children from risking their lives by joining a military machine. I understand the meaning of irony. Thanks! Unfortunately, you didn't realize its scope was wider then your definition. Dictionary?
It is absurd to propose that the military is in business for higher education opportunities, or that higher education is even part of why it exists. Higher education and the military, is the popcorn at Les Schwab. It is not up for debate.
-
"It is absurd to propose that the military is in business for higher education opportunities, or that higher education is even part of why it exists. Higher education and the military, is the popcorn at Les Schwab. It is not up for debate."First - You made the connection between a play and military recruiters, it is clear you are in left field, the play doesn't offer higher educational opportunities, the military does. That was my point.
Second - Comparing Military education opportunities to popcorn, Enlisted and Officers alike need to meet educational requriments to be advanced in grade, making a well educated military leadership, The GI bill for the 21st Century gives over 100,000 to Soldiers to assist them in thier education.
Third - The military is in business of protecting the constitution and supporting the interests of the United States globally, that requires a well educated professional force.
In Closing, no one said the military exists only for educational advances. To have a successful career in the Military requires higher education, it is a key part of the force. The opportunities it does offer to people aren't elite like yourself (if 100,000 in education is popcorn to you, I am jealous) are tangible and much more important than a play the community finds in bad taste.
-
uncommonsense,
The "play doesn't offer higher educational opportunities, the military does." So military recruiters are on campus because they offer higher educational opportunities. Really? What baloney. Is that why you think they are there?
Metaphors are powerful tools. I can use them as I like. It is unfortunate you don't like the concepts behind them.
I'm elite. Really? Why is that? If I am elite as you alleged, then you should support it, isn't that what the higher education of the military espouses to do? Create elite soldiers? Or is it all about average? -
Why can't people listen and understand each other? The above argument is just a clear example of people ignoring what each other is saying.
Watching the arguments in this post I see reflected the same damn problems we have with every argument - no one really cares about anyone else. Everyone is so intent on their own thoughts and their own perspective that they can't even understand what the other side is saying, never mind trying to see things from their perspective. Then they get so wrapped up in the argument that they stop thinking about the issue at hand and resort to name calling, and especially on the internet insulting each others spelling and grammer.
To the soldier, why would you risk your life to protect your country men when you don't even care to understand them? Or are you only in it to protect people who beleive the things you do?
We are all individuals with our own experience, we have all been given different lessons in life. If we could learn from each other than maybe we could rise above our own simplistic view of life, and stop arguing like little kids. If we have no respect for each other, if we stop listening to each other, if our only desire for communication is to shove our individual thoughts down each others throats, then we only destroy ourselves and our country.
Everyone is so grandiose in these arguments. We act like we know everything and admit no lack of knowledge. People pretend to know each others motives. People outside the military act like they know everything that goes on inside it. People outside of La Grande act like they know the whole story of what happened. But when it comes down to it everyone knows so little cause they don't really care to know. That's why we have such idiotic arguments, instead of learning anything.
Liberals probably listened to this show simply to reenforce their own bias that censorship is a huge problem. Conservatives probably listened to the show to reinforece their bias that the morals of the country are going down hill. This kind of thing is always happening. We listen to what supports our own predispositions and ignore what counters them.
-
Scott,
You are way off target, please refer to the original post I made. In response to yours I will have to break it up.
So military recruiters are on campus because they offer higher educational opportunities. Really? Yes, actually that is the only reason recruiters are allowed on campus. A Supreme Court ruling (on 03/06/06) Very clearly stated that the military does serve a higher education purpose, and any campus that allows scholarship programs, and college/university recruiters on campus had to make it accessable to military for the same reasons.
What baloney. Is that why you think they are there? Well it appears I KNOW why they are there. and now you do too.
Metaphors are powerful tools. I can use them as I like. It is unfortunate you don't like the concepts behind them. Feel free, your metaphors seem based more on emotion or what you would like to belive than what is true. Which brings me to my metaphor -Comparing a Play many consider in bad taste, to the educational opportunities granted by the military is like comparing apples and volkswagens.I'm elite. Really? Why is that? Well I did make an assumption, which I based off of your brilliant metaphor, my apology. I can't see how something as important as college could seem as trivial as popcorn. I have never driven to Les Schawb only for popcorn, No one I know would choose not to go to Les Schwab if they didn't have popcorn, Lot's of people wouldn't join the military without the education.
If I am elite as you alleged, then you should support it, isn't that what the higher education of the military espouses to do? Maybe you aren't elite, military education is intended to make a professional relevant force, today we are in a battlefield surrounded by civilians with the enemy mixed in, and having educated leaders and Soldiers will go great lenghts in preventing collateral damage.
-
Create elite soldiers? Or is it all about average? Being an Elite group of Soldiers is different than being an elitist who can poo-poo at free college, Yes the US has the Most elite fighting force in the world. No it isn't about being average, the military is well on the bright side of the bell curve 100% of 18-24 yr olds in the military have a HS diploma or at a minimum a GED. Every Soldier that completes IET also gains close to 1 term or College level credit which transfers to universities. Not what I would call average at all.
If I havn't made my position clear, Could you try a different metaphor? I will check this this evening, I am going to Les Schwab for some popcorn.
-
To put what I said another way, when someone says something that we disagree with, we automatically challenge it. The problem with this is that it is equally likely that we simply don't understand what their saying.
Some examples in the above argument:
First uncommonsense assumes that he understands scottmill, then asserst that scottmil is wrong. It could be that uncommonsense simply misunderstood scottmils point, but rather then give the benefit of the doubt and assume he missunderstood, or that there is something that he can't see, he asserts that there is simply no way to compare the on campus presence of the military and the play.
Then scottmill further inflames the argument by calling uncommonsense's assertion ridiculous. Again there is no attempt at understanding what uncommonsense means. Does uncommonsense mean that since the military offers to extend education through college, and highschool is about education, that the military presence is relavant and worth while? Then he calls anyone that disagrees with him a barbarian that is 'not worth speaking to'. Then scottmill goes on to interpret just what uncommonsense meant about a debate about taste.
uncommonsense then states that he got an education through the military.
scottmil responds in a condesending way again.
-
Interestingly uncommonsense seems to actually try to get a decent conversation going again. He states that he doesn't understand how you can compare the military recruiters to the play, giving scottmil an oportunity to explain the link. he also asks a question about recruiter censorship. If he'd ended the paragraph there, maybe there would have been some constructive dialogue, but then uncommonsense goes on to explain that he's been protecting scottmils rights, in a condescending tone.
scottmill then responds to cubilist, and instead of respecting cubilist's confusion, he insults cubilists ability to read (when in any dialogue your just as likely to have sent a message poorly as the receiver is to understand it. In fact both these things are quite common and constant throughout the dialogue).
Then scottmill takes uncommonsense's bait, and attacks him because of the earlier condesending tone. But scottmil also further explains his position.
Cubilist, rather than responding to scottmil's explaination of his position, attacks his writing ability, and doesn't ask any questions that would help him understand scottmills point.
and it goes on and on- when someone says something you don't agree with, why don't you try to understand where the difference arises from? Why is it when there is a difference in thought, people attack each other?
It's as if i said "I like donuts", and then some responded, "that's absurd, donuts are terrible. what an idiot. I like donut holes!" Then I could respond, "comparing donuts to donut holes is rediculus, you're and idiot!"
Know one will ever learn anything and they will all be idiots if they don't try to understand each other.
-
Skeptica, as you so clearly stated in your most recent post: "Know one will ever learn anything and they will all be idiots if they don't try to understand each other".
I think I see what your going for, You would like to see good constructive debate. Here is how you come across - I know everything and I can fix these poor un-enlightened people because I am an uppity do-gooder that is well above thier level!
Sadly I chose not to respond to you because your words SCREAM with an unwillingness to find out what people meant. Please reference your quote below, you have no idea what I "care" to do.
"why would you risk your life to protect your country men when you don't even care to understand them?"
Next time you have a strong desire to do a play by play break down include your own lack of willingness to understand other people.
-
uncommonsense - it seemed clear to me that the lack of respect in this conversation, the defensiveness, the name calling, the jumping to conclusions, the arguing over the definition of words - it seemed clear that these things had nothing to do with understanding each other.
It seems strange to give your life to your country to protect them, but when they say something that you don't agree with, or bothers you, or you don't understand, you give little of yourself and only demand that the other person listens to you.
I am just so sick of everyone being so oppionated, so arrogant as to think they know the answer to everything that they don't even llisten to each other. Everyone is so high and mighty about right and wrong, what this country stands for and on and on. They feel like they have the right to insult each other and disrespect each other. If we really cared about each other why wouldn't we try to understand before assuming that the other person is an idiot, that the other person is attacking our identity rather than an idea?
I guess part of the problem is that people so often get their identity wrapped up with ideas - Im a conservative, or a lieberal, or belief in god, or I believe anything at all and that is me, then someone disagrees with an idea and I feel they are attacking them so I fight back and say they can't even spell, so what do they know about me?
-
skeptica, you said
"They feel like they have the right to insult each other and disrespect each other"
Fact, yes we do have a right to insult and disrespect each other. Please refernce the 1st Ammendment. Anything less would be censorship
-
I was refering the permission that one gives oneself, rather than the permission that the government gives one.
Why would you come to a discussion board, not make an effort to understand what people are saying, give no one the benefit of the doubt, and then insult them for having an opinion that differs from your own? Sure you're free to insult people but I don't see how it's anything but destructive, and it undermines the premise that your argument is based on logic.
-
Did Ms. Jackman actually say that there are SEVENTEEN pregnant girls at LaGrande High School? That is nearly 3% of the high school. The LaGrande community has a larger problem than what plays to allow at the school. It is always easier to focus on surface issues than get to the core.
-
Apparently LaGrande buys into the same kind of educational philosphy concerning sex ed that influenced Bristol Palin... and it's working just as well.
If anything, this play would serve to help the community have open dialog and discussion with their youth about the complexities and dangers in sexual activity.
-
You are absolutely right that we have a bigger problem than this play. I don't see however, that putting on a play that promotes casual sexual relationships will help that problem.
-
the parents should have t shirts made up with a quote on it like " I've been thinking about sex all day and i cant get it out of my mind..." and see how long the school allows the kids to wear them... This could stir a contadiction of choices.
-
RE: The situation with an actress taking off her shirt and standing on stage in a bra...
Most High School Cheerleaders WEAR sportsbra tops that are just as revealing! So should cheerleading outfits be censored?
-
GREAT point. Apparently we do sanction inappropriate sexual conduct among high schoolers, as long as it's affiliated with aggressive sporting events.
-
It seems lost on everyone that the offensive lines from the play were not read on the interview. "Because they are not allowed on public airways". The producers of this program, like the sponsors of the Censor watch organizations are using their voice to complain against policies which protect and dignify human interactions.
Censorship of opinion is bad. Censorship of offensive, abusive and bigoted speech and print is a responsibility of a free press and of our public institutions.
-
If you were listening, Mr. Cahill stated his change to the play included removing that word. He also was not going to have the one incident of female partly unclothed. Many of the lines that were deemed offensive by the community WERE read on air.
-
At my high school, I recently performed in the Broadway musical, "Pippin". With some careful editing and staging, we were still able to present the play, staying true to the story. It's not impossible for high schools to do this, but it depends on the comfort level of the cast, as well as the audience. La Grande was not completely out of line.
-
Let he without sin cast the first stone.
-
Pablo Picasso is known to be a womanizer, presumably with women who were not his wives. King David, in the Bible, had a man killed so he could marry his wife, which David had already gotten pregnant. Do we turn our heads to human behavior so as not to endorse? How do we effectively discuss the possibilities with our children? Do we change history so we don't expose children to adult themes?
-
Why are a few religious bigots allowed to dictate policy to a whole community? It is time good people stood up to the evil of religious ignorance. It is clear that a religious minority has bullied the school district.
-
Amen.
(noting the irony of using that phrase)
-
Were you at the LaGrande School Board meeting? There were 300 people there and majority were in favor of canceling the play. It was not a religious minority but a conservative community that most want to stay conservative
-
Parents are pushed into compromising their values and morals to those that lack common decency in our community. Those that advocate this play in its current form show how dumbing down our society is inflicted upon those that stand for high meaning and values. Teachers are MENTORS to CHILDREN and anything less is criminal. Standards must be set with clear goals and achievements. This is a crack to let sex offenders have access to our children. Home schooling must make a comeback since schools refuse to up hold moral values.
Tim Moles - Oregon State
-
Really? How does broadening the experience and knowledge base of a child in a protected environment open the door to sex offender.
Lie to them now and they will never forgive you and ignore whatever else you might contribute even if it has merit....give them the tools and ability to form their own perspectives and they will grow to be more than the sum of their experiences.
-
WHy is it that the 2 examples cited on the show today, Picasso thinking about the grocer's dtr and the young woman changing clothes, perpetuate th myth of female as a sexual object? It is a damaging perspective which shortchanges both genders. I am happy to have sex ed in school and continual discussion at home, but this seems like the same old same old and is inappropriate.
-
Seems like you're for knowledge of the technical details of sex, and even maybe the physical mechanical act, but not for addressing how desire and sexuality actually play out in our culture? I think women being used for the production of babies sounds like more of an objectification than when men look at women and are attracted to each other.
Men and women like to look at each others bodies - how can you deny that, or label it as damaging?
-
leave it to the clergy, once again, to lead the censorship charge without having read or heard the very thing they want censored.
what about the example they set to all those under their guidance that it's better to meet a deadline than to actually understand what it is your censoring.
morality is SUBJECTIVE. religion has no place in school other than as historical or anthropological study.
and the idea that the clergy, with no theatrical experience, should be a co-director (read: censor) of the project is ludicrous.
-
whywob,
It is interesting to me that you would bash me for leading a "censorship charge" without reading or hearing the entire thing I want censored and then make the statement, "with no theatrical experience," later on. The reality is that I do have theatrical experience (though not nearly on the level of Mr. Cahill) and from that experience I know that when you are casting a play you give lines that express the type of material that will be in a play without giving all of them. Based on that experience, I drew a conclusion that there was probably more objectionable material in the rest of the play. Later, I did obtain and read an entire manuscript of the play and found that my conclusions were correct. Had I not been correct, I would have admitted it.
It is also interesting to me that you would say, "religion has no place in school other than as historical or antropological study." Isn't that censorship?
Finally, I want you to know that after I listened to the re-airing of the program last night, I went and met with Mr. Cahill this morning and told him I had mis-spoken with the "yes" answer and that I was not trying to become his co-director, but that I was willing to help him in the future. We have agreed to disagree on the matter of this play and intend to continue the discussion at a later date.
-
Why weren't there any panelists from West Linn, where the play in question was performed and very well received?
-
So.
How about censoring the Bible?
Just think about the offensive things that are taught in it, slavery, sex with slaves, child sacrifice, ritual cannibalism (Communion), God turning people into salt, King Solomon teaching parents to abuse their children by beating them, God impregnating another mans wife and calling it a virgin birth, well, you get the idea. These things are taught to very young children before they even reach school age.
-
Have you read the Bible in its entirety? Yes there is sex, slavery and many other horrible things. But that is NOT what is taught. The evil things are admonished and punished. What is TAUGHT in the Bible is that God loves and accepts everyone, including you and that every person, male or female, slave or free, whatever nationality or religion, you have value to God.
-
I was generally supportive of the women that found the play objectionable, until she said the high school already had 17 girls that are pregnant. Clearly, the kids at this school need to have a discussion about sexuality. A humorous look at Picasso's sexual mores might be a good way to start the discussion.
-
YES YOU DO.... the fear is it may be perceived as blackface. Let's talk about it!
-
So if a black kid wears a nixon mask, is that white face?
-
no! but that's the fear and it's not being addressed
-
also... whiteface isn't offensive because the dominant culture is white. Racism exists between all races, but it is only suppressive when it comes from the dominant culture.
-
I think Dru should've been able to perform, but I'm not black. His dads said that they were sensitive to minority issues because of their experience as white gay men. Did the dads ask blacks within their gay or area community what they thought?
-
The idea that a piece of literature can be edited to be suitable for all audiences and retain its intended purpose is ludicrous. Mr. Cahill has writing experience under his belt, and as an accomplished performer may have more insight than others into what is being communicated… but only the playwright, who has spent years putting these words together in this particular way has any business making edits.
As an actor and a former resident of La Grande (and student of Mr. Cahill’s who had the privilege of performing with him in while attending EOU), this issue has been reinforcing for me so many of the reasons that I, and many like me have left and continue to do so.
-
I totally agree about not editing the intended words of the artist. By posting a rating on movies at the movie theatre, people have a choice to go and watch or not. By writing a disclaimer letter to send home with the children auditioning, the students and/or the parents have a choice as to whether or not to participate. By posting a warning on the program for the show, which I'm sure will be printed on there, the patrons have achoice as to whether or not to watch.
If the words are excluded, the removed "f-word" the exception here, then some of the auditory paint is gone from this picture. The playwright put the words in that he felt best conveyed the characters as he was trying to share them with the audience. If those are changed then the characters are changed. If it's important in the context of the scene that Picasso be protrayed as a sex hungry womanizer then you couldn't exactly pull out the words that referred to his thinking about sex all day.
In the movie Amadeus there is a scene where one of the men in high stature listened to one of Mozart's pieces and afterwords a comment was made that there were "too many notes". Mozart's reply was simply that were nor too many nor too few but just the right amount. It was his vision that was performed. The same should hold true in theatre. We certainly wouldn't chisle the penis off of a statue of David so that it wasn't offensive. We just wouldn't go look at the statue. Of course some just might.
Melissa Jackman has brought some fantastic media attention to La Grande. Now 5 times the people will go and watch this show and really have an opportunity to discuss the issues raised. What a fabulous educational opportunity for so many that would have otherwise not even have known the production was taking place. I think the town may just owe her a debt of gratitude.
Choice, freedom, and education. Sounds like an all-american scenario to me.
-
I've spoken to two black women about this, and they thought he should have been allowed because he wasn't mocking Obama. That of course leads to the question, who speaks for the black community? I know two women are not a reflective sample.
-
I've been directing plays at the community theater level for 30 years, in a relatively conservative town, and I sympathize with Kevin Cahill and his students; the periodic demand that theater be sanitized is one of the real challenges artists face at any level.
One point needs to be made in response to the pastor who called for editing out the "bad" content in Picasso at the Lapine Argile: To do so would very likely violate the contract under which the play is being performed. Most performance licenses prohibit changing the text of the play, and depending on the contract, to do so might well get the school blacklisted from performing other works managed by that particular licensing house.
I question whether we should be teaching students that it's OK to violate copyright in order to render a play "safe" for local consumption.
-
From the Royalties & Rights Information page on the Website of Samuel French, licensing agency for Picasso at the Lapine Argile:
"The play will be presented as it appears in published form and the author's intent will be respected in production. No changes, interpolations,or deletions in the text, lyrics, music, title or gender of the characters shall be made for the purpose of production. . . .
"**Please note: each title is considered separately and whenever you wish to make changes to a script you must always request permission in writing. Not all authors/authors’ representatives allow changes to be made."
(Neil Simon, for example, is notorious for allowing no changes.)
It seems that many parents, and many school administrators, and sorry to say, many drama directors are not aware that these are among the terms of the standard licensing agreement, backed by US copyright law, and they apply to all works not in the public domain -- for most practical purposes "not in the public domain" means first published since 1923.
Probably all school administrators, and most teachers, and many parents are aware that the Supreme Court, in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), affirmed the broad censorship powers of educational administrators over school papers and school plays. Many seem to act as if they think Hazelwood trumps the author's right to choose to not be censored, but probably the better interpretation is that censorship and copyright issues are in play at the same time, that neither trumps the other, and that failure to find a compromise that answers community objections and still satisfies the author means that that play cannot be done in that community -- until the community ceases to object, or the play falls into the public domain.
Recommended reading:
"Censorship and School Theatre" by Don Corathers, Teaching Theatre Winter 2007, archived at http://www.edta.org/pdf_archive/censorship_selection162007113222.pdf.
"Who owns the rights? Copyright, the law and licensing the show" by Kevin N. Scott, Teaching Theatre Summer 1999, available online at http://www.geocities.com/k_n_scott/Copyright4Producers -
What about a nixon mask, If an african american would want to portray Mr. Nixon. Obama is our president if anyone wants to ware a mask of him I have no clue what the issue would be. Maybe we should contact President Obama and get his thoughts on this matter.
Also, Parents who want to protect their kids from reality should just home school them and the see how they turn out when they are 30.
My own mother did everything she could to prevent me form experiencing ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE and I am glad she failed miserably. I wish she would have been able to actually talk to me about adult themes because it would have help with my mental state as a young adult with a lot of question and no good answers anywhere.
-
We have faced similar problems teaching our son English literature prescribed by Beaverton School District. He had to study The Catcher in the Rye which has adult themes (a lot of deviant sex) and now he is studying One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest which is also filled with many adult themes (sexual perversions).
One year he had to study Holes, which I felt was quite disgusting. Sadly, most of the students do not get to read really good literature that we studied in school (like classics).
-
Wait, so Catcher in the Rye and One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest aren't classics?
Listen, just because most moral conservatives get all their ideas directly from one book, doesn't mean the rest of us can't recognize the ideas presented in literature for what they are: Ideas. Not laws, not divine decrees, but ideas to consider and make your own decisions about. Would you rather your children learn about these things in a way that doesn't facilitate a discussion with you and other adults?
-
the catcher in the rye and one flew over the cuckoo's nest are classics.
-
Read Filthy Shakespeare and maybe you will change your mind about many of the "classics." Homer's Iliad begins with two soldiers fighting over a concubine, and a lot of what you call "deviant sex."
Sexual content is present in almost all of the world's literature, "classic" or not. As a parent, you have a right to help control and guide what your child is exposed to, but they will be exposed to things in ways you can never control.
-
Would there be objections of inappropriateness if the child had chosen to wear a George W. Bush mask or a Bill Clinton mask? Is this about the mask being too close to black face? Oregon is a very white state, lacking experience in dealing with such issues. Residents here are very uncomfortable with race issues and sometimes overreact. The fact that school children in Georgia did a similar thing shows that people in this state have a lot to learn about being comfortable with race.
-
Part of the issue is, who decides where to draw the line on this sort of thing? What is offensive, and to whom? Who should we not offend? I'm offended by the disignation of some establishments, performances, language, themes etc. as "adult". I am an adult, and I would not set foot in a place that labels itself as such, knowing what they mean by that label. What is it about some people that causes them to WANT to be exposed to this sort of material? I'm too busy and have better things to do. I guess that as far as so-called censorship of books, plays and movies is concerned, I CHOOSE to vote with my pocketbook and with my presence or lack thereof. What WOULD be considered objectionable? In our society, there is no allowance anymore for the concept of what is sin or evil, except in the minds of some who have a set of values based on "old fashioned" traditions. I suppose I am one of those individuals. I wouldn't have it any other way.
-
You have every right to vote with your pocketbook, and to decline to view material you find objectionable. You have the right to express your opinions on the subject. What you do not have the right to do is decide for others what they should find objectionable.
-
I was in several plays in high school, including some with adult themes. In the play "Anything Goes" I took off my pants and stood in boxer shorts; instead of being ashamed or embarrassed, I look back on that moment as one of the best memories of my time in high school. The next year, the theater instructor chose Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath." After six weeks of intense rehearsal, we performed an excerpt as part of the promotion for the play. This excerpt contained the phrase "miserable sons of bitches," and some in the audience were offended. The play was cancelled, and I recall the emptiness afterward as one of the worst moments in high school. Let the kids read.
-
why would he perform the song to TI " whatever you like" when he could do it to Will I am's song "Yes we Can".
No brainer
-
if sexually suggestive, then why was he able to do it without the mask?
-
What people afraid of? Mr. Cahill is absolutely right that controversy is at the heart of the process of inquiry. Plays, and art in general should be generating an emotional response. This is what creates engagement and meaning when experiencing the art. We have to give our students more credit and realize that they are emerging into adulthood. We cannot shield them from everything controversial until they are 18 years old. If we do this, we end up with a bunch of ignorant citizens incapable of critical analysis of issues, art, media and more. Give the students AND Mr. Cahill a chance, let him as an experienced professional guide the students they way he has in the past.
If people want to protect their child from every indecency, they will have to turn their T.V off, stop walking the streets, stop reading the paper, AND refrain from Public SChool, a microcosm of our communities. If that is the plan for some of these parents who object, then we are well on the way to creating a generation of students who need constant baby-sitting so as not to damage their fragile, shallow existence.
-
People are brainwashed into thinking that sex should be entirely private and embarassing. As was clearly demonstrated by the mother on the program who became "redfaced" while reading passages from the play in front of "men" at the schoolboard hearing. I feel sorry that she can't openly talk about one of the most natural things in the world. This same viewpoint is what causes uproar when a woman breastfeeds her infant in public. It's referred to as "moral outrage," but I call it religious ignorance.
-
I am a parent of a 12 and 9 year old. My husband and I are both artist. We frequent all forms of art in sities big and small with our children. Since our children were very young we have been talking to them about the differences between real life and art. Why it is ok to say a particular "bad" word in poem or song but not everyday. Why it is ok to use words and action in a performance art that would not be ok in real life. What is the bigger message? This open discussion has been extremely educational for our children.
I think the parents in LaGrand should talk to their children. I think it is sad that they feel they should hide this from their children rather than talk to them about it and why their view may be different? What will happen when these high school children go off to college and they are exposed and the parents won't be there then to explain. Do it now. I also highly recommend a trip to a national art museum to study the content in the art. The subject matters are nothing new in the art world.
-
It is hard for people to break the cycle of ignorance and intolerance. Hopefully more people like yourself let their stories be heard to let the others see that it is actually better to talk to your kids about such matters.
-
At Bishop O'Dowd High, a Catholic school in Oakland, Dennis Kohles directed Equus as his first play upon being hired. Equus deals with themes of worship passion sex virginity pornography communism violence bestiality. The principal received anonymous complaints but decided that if the complaints would not be publicly presented he would disregard them. 20 years later they have built a theater for Dennis to produce more plays and musicals. Dennis and the author of the play gladly put there name on the play. Censors and those offended if they are to be listened need to be revealed.
-
If dance moves and gestures were lewd or otherwaise inappropriate thats one thing. But if the "big offense" was wearing a mask of the president then we really need to get over our hyper sensitve need to be PC! Making fun of someone because of their race is wrong, making fun of or satirizing the president is an Amerian tradition.
-
The attempts by religious minorities to censor public school teaching according to the standards of their particular sect should be rejected.
Last year the play Higher Ground was censored by the Sherwood SD. The reason given was that the theme , peer bullying, was too mature for middle schoolers. This judgement was considered absurd by the 40 students in the cast who expressed the opinion that the bullying they observed routinely in the school was far more aggressive than the bullying in the play. The cast voted unanimously to reject censoring the script. They performed the play three times at the Portland Performing Arts Center to standing room audiences. THE TEACHER, MS JENNY BROWN, WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FIRED ON A TECHNICAL PRETEXT BY THE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR.
When I spoke over the phone, Think Out Loud did not allow the majority of my comment to be aired . It is pretty ironic for a program about censorship to censor the on air content.
-
I am intrigued about the potential collaboration :) between Kevin Cahill and Tim Gerdes. It seems reasonable that if Tim Gerdes is willing to collaborate as a director, then Kevin Cahill should be invited to the Nazarene pulpit. I would make the long drive to La Grande to witness this collaboration of art and religion.
-
Yes!!! That would be fun. And I suspect that both men would do better than the other might think.
-
I sat down and spoke with Mr. Cahill this morning in his classroom. We both were able to talk about where we were coming from and our motivations behind our respective stands. We have agreed to disagree at this time, but have left the door open for future discussions. I also appologized to him for the "yes" answer and apparent belittling of his ability as a director. I told him that was never my intention, but that I would be willing to help in future productions if he wanted me to. He was very gracious and I anticipate that we will have many other opportunities for discussions in the future. We are not, at this time, ready to collaborate in either area. However, if you want an example of how drama can be used effectively in the church, I would be happy to send you a copy of last Sunday's service where the "sermon" was actually a monologue. It was great fun and very effective. If you would ever like to talk about any of this feel free to let me know.
-
This is Scott Lechert and I just had to respond to Robb Cowie's comments about the sexual nature of Dru's dance movements. Where did that come from? I've watched Dru's action over a dozen times as he practiced at home and there is absolutely NOTHING sexual about it. This is the first time that I have heard anyone mention that. It's almost like they couldn't explain themselves, so after I left the air, they pull that out. What an incredibly cheap shot. As I mentioned on the show, it would have been nice to turn this into a learning experience, but instead they opt to blame the victim. I am soooo disappointed. As a reminder, the principal had not even seen the act before he made his decision.
-
If anyone needs to explore adult content, especially sexual, it's a high school student. Kids are exposed to vast amounts of sexual and adult concepts and need a place to work out how they feel in a safe environment. When do parents think their high-school aged children are going to learn about sexual situations and concepts? Kids are going to learn from media and their friends, like always.
-
Well said! Let's also not forget that everyone does not subscribe to the same morals or religions in this country. It would be prudent that educators teach about the real world and what goes on in it instead of trying to keep people naive.
-
Offense is in the eye of the beholder.
I reserve the right to be offended. I reserve the right to express my feelings in a civil fashion when I am offended. And most importantly, I reserve the right to offend you.
The notion that there's a magical rulebook out there that defines what's offensive and what is not is perhaps one of the most ridiculous notions accepted by a significant number of Americans but it’s just not supported by psychology, sociology, or cultural anthropology, the three primary sciences that investigate the subject of “offense”. Because I cannot hope to control how you ultimately choose to perceive me, because I cannot choose what you will be offended by and what you will not, I therefore reserve the right to at times offend you. To choose otherwise would be a waste of time and energy. You can't please everybody.
By the time the average kid hits their teenage years they’ve heard as much about sex and drugs as I would have my senior year in high school (’92); statistically, nearly half have already dabbled. That said, it’s not rational for a parent to believe their children aren’t aware or haven’t dabbled--to follow that by abstinence? Pure ludicracy.
Teachers and parents are on the front line. By enabling open conversation and expression about those “adult” subjects children are already talking about on the playground and in the locker room we create a positive environment where our children can openly engage with us about them, where we can teach them what we know and help them make the right decisions. It is correct, right, and logical, to have this conversation over a novel read in English class, in a play practiced after school, in gym class where sex and gender specific issues often come up in relation to different sports, and in science where the nitty gritty details of the birds and bees should be discussed so children are able to make better choices in order to live healthier, more fulfilling lives. In my humble opinion that is something that parents and the public school system should partner in doing.
In conclusion: To be offended is human, to expect not to be is absolutely un-American.
P.S. Read my entire opinion at my online journal, greenpygmies dot com.
-
I wanted to make one final but important note:
I take issue with the drama teacher picking a play that included only half a dozen roles. While I agree with him that most activities aren't all-inclusive, that not all students will make the cut during try-outs, to choose a play with such a small casting for the high school setting is absolutely rediculous and anethema to the whole point of public school: education for the masses. Could you imagine the English teacher saying she's only going to teach the 6 kids she likes? The math teacher saying she's only going to teach those kids with good handwriting? The football coach who wants a team of 3 because that's his lucky number? Or the band teacher who says, "This year I'm only directing a brass quartet, so sorry, the rest of you can sell you instruments on Craigslist for all I care".
A teacher with that singular of an attitude would eventually get canned.
Should a drama teacher be treated any different?
-
While there may only be 1/2 dozen "roles" on stage, there are countless other "roles" involved with any production. Stage mangers, support staff, costumes, lights, sound... there is a way for many more than 6 to be involved. Theatre is collaaborative in nature and takes more than just the "actor" on stage to make it happen.
In addition, the bigger picture is that there may be other performances in the school that afford yet another oppourtunity to "try out"
Furthermore, is it possible there is another kind of lesson to be experienced in this situation as well as countless others.... that not everyone gets picked all the time? There are try outs for sports and not everyone gets picked... Why should a play be any different?
Before you suggest the teacher get canned for a "singular" attitude", think about the big picture and apply your thinking to that. Do you want to "can" the coach because your child dosen't get picked for the team, or do you tell you child there will be another time to come for them to show their stuff?
-
It may be worth noting that at a time when budgets are thin, we are going to see smaller casts simply due to the economics of it.
-
Because of the economics of commercial theater during the last few decades, most of the plays with big casts are period pieces, so even if every character is not an actor with a salary that must be paid, as in commerce, every character is another body that needs a costume that works for the period -- and does the play work in modern dress? Who has access to a set of appropriate costumes and owes someone involved a favor? Are there enough male actors to fill all the male roles in this play? (It's usually safe to assume that there will always be more than enough female actors to double or triple cast all the female roles in the play.) Does it work to change some or all the male characters to female, or males played by females? Is it legal to do that? The answer to that is "yes" for sure only if the play is in the public domain -- back to a period piece. Are there actors who show enough promise that they are ready, deserving and needing to be stretched by roles that most high schools don't touch becuse they know they can't cast? Isn't it as bad to ignore the needs of the six best students as it is to ignore the needs of all the others?
Isn't it amazing that the best teachers can keep all these balls in the air, and more, while parents and administrators are sniping at them?
-
I find it interesting that as the host of Think Out Loud, when reading a portion of the play had to "censor" a portion of the reading. I assume that is due to the radio show being during the day and small children may hear it. When a high school play is preformed, I would assume not just the parents come, but younger syblings and children come. How sad is it that a play would be considered, that a younger sybling wouldn't be able to support their brother or sister in.
-
You all need to talk to you children. There is a great big, diverse world out there and sooner or later your children are going to be exposed to it. I feel sorry for children who are sheltered from the arts. Good thing you don't live in NY, Paris or Rome! My children are very young and I'm very proud that they understand that what is said and/or done in art is ok in that context but not necessarily in everyday life.
-
With respect to the student at Llewellyn Elementary School, his performance wearing a Barack Obama mask, whether he entirely understands it or not, is political speech. Political speech is afforded the highest level of protection under the 1st Amendument of the United States Constitution. President Barack Obama is probaly the most public and political figure in the United States today. Even though the student is a minor, he is guaranteed the right to political speech.
Had the school required him to refrain from apparently, or allegedly, explicit dance moves, its action would have been appropriate and justified. To require the student to remove his mask depicting President Barack Obama is entirely inappropriate, and a violation of the student's Constitutional right to free speech under the 1st Amendiment.
This is more properly called censorship, and is a practice the early Congress guarded against, precisely because speech, whether critical, parody, or otherwise, is fundamental to a functional and free democracy. Freedom is the very idea upon which our nation is built. Freedom from the tyranny of a monarch.
Undoubtedly, the school and its representatives are well-intentioned, and are valued public servants, promoting and promulgating the education of the children of our community. Nonetheless, making people uncomfortable is the very basis of change, the very thing upon which the current President has premised his platform. For this reason, the adults, in this school context, should not impose their biases on the innocence of the children under their tutelage.
-
The discussion of the kid who wanted to wear the Obama mask reminds me of a South Park episode.
In the episode, the city (South Park) was considering changing its city flag because some people found the flag offensive. The flag depicted a black stick-figure being lynched, and several white stick-figures standing around (presumably doing the lynching).
(Aside edit ... yes, it's offensive ... that's South Park for you. Nothing is sacred, and the writers of the show go out of their way to be offensive. That's part of the point of the show.)
The teacher in the show took this opportunity to educate the kids, and asked the kids to prepare a debate about whether or not the flag should be changed. The kids said no. Of course, those of you who know the show can imagine that Chef was outraged. "How can you say that?" he asked. "I thought you were my friends."
The kids said, "Murder is part of human history, and we shouldn't try to hide it just because some people think it's offensive." Turns out the kids didn't even notice the racial aspect of the flag. They thought every one was upset because it depicted murder, not because of the (obvious) racial offense. Because the kids are so far removed from the days of lynching, they didn't even see it.
When I heard the story about the kid in the Obama mask, yes, the first thing that popped into my head was the old minstrel shows with the black face. But that's because I studied Theater History, and I am 40. I doubt most (any?) 11-year-olds have ever seen a minstrel show, and few would "get" the racial offenses they depicted. I suspect none of the kids at the school, and probably few of the parents, would see a white kid wearing a black face. Most would see a kid imitating and poking fun at the President.
And, as many posters have said, if someone is offended ... great! It's an opportunity for education, teaching the kids that there was a time in our nation's history when a white man wearing a black mask said something very specific -- and very degrading -- about blacks. And halleluia that we don't live in that time any more.
Anyway, great program. Thanks.
-
In 2005, we (at Philomath High School) experienced censorship against Neil Simon's play, RUMORS. I directed this play in 1994 at Corvallis High School without any problems. Notably, it is one of the most popular plays frequently produced in our high schools. A few weeks before we were to open complaints were raised about the language (inappropriate) and then a few weeks later complaints were raised about cutting the language (copyright laws). Oddly enough, no-one thought to check with the theatre to see what we were doing about the language -if anything-and most people didn't even know what "language" anyone was referring to (because many people had not taken the time to even read the play). Quite a bit of "drama" surged through the community, school, and editorial section of the newspaper; our play was shut down mid-performances. There were so many ironies that I could point out (then and now), so many times the kids "got it" and the adults didn't, so many adults with personal egoic agendas, so many choices made on partial or faulty information, an almost humorous failure to check accusations against facts, astoundingly angry people putting in their two-cents without information or education on the issue or in the discipline, bizarre hypocrisy, unfounded fear, and well, to quote the master "Much Ado About Nothing." In hindsight it is ludicrous and at the time it was disgusting, actually, especially considering the fact that we neither broke copyright law, nor offended the audience with language, and had no student or community member say, watch, or hear anything he/she did not want to, was not informed of, or was not "allowed" to by their parents, religion, etc. I remember thinking at the time that it would be nice if the students could actually be talked to, rather than "about" and if they were (like the man who called in regarding the "test")....what would or could happen?
-
The continued popularity of Neil Simon's Rumors as a high school play, especially in areas known to be dominated by the kind of thinking expressed by the La Grande objectors, is very curious, and appears that it can only be explained by the widespread [mis]understanding that Hazelwood censorship powers outweigh the author's right to choose whether to submit his (or her) work to those powers.
The author's stated intent is that the script be performed as he wrote it, with every one of the dozen or so F-words, which he calculatedly puts in the mouths of some at times not very nice people, being clearly heard by the audience -- how is it possible to perform this play in a way that satisfies that intent of the author, while still accommodating the sensitivities of community members with "standards" as "high" as those of the objectors in La Grande? Not by cutting or changing text -- maybe "obscuring" it, so that the text is performed, but not heard by the audience? This is perhaps a "bending" rather than a breaking of the copyright law, but which looks to me like a clear violation of what the Berne Convention calls the author's "moral rights" (which have not been adopted into US copyright, but which were so important to citizens and governments of other countries that France banned the TV showing of Turner colorized classic black and movies in response to the objections of their directors: Turner may have purchased the right to so adapt the films along with all other rights from the studios that previously owned the copyrights, but it was found that the adaptations violated the moral rights of the auteurs of the films, the directors, making the adaptations legal under US copyright law, but illegal under French copyright law.)
It seems to me that if authors are worthy of enough respect that you want to produce one of their plays, they are also worthy of enough respect to not change their plays in ways that they find objectionable -- which is why I can think that the LHS Picasso, which was edited, I assume, in ways that were both supported by Mr. Martin and also, in the professional judgment of Mr. Cahill students and his principal, adequate to adapt the play to the needs of Mr. Cahill's students and the intended audience, should have gone forward at the school, while also thinking that the Philomath Rumors should never have gotten as far as it did.
-
Not everything is for everyone. Why should we all be forced to live by this family's "high standards"? I do no speak Spanish, however if I joined a Spanish club I would not expect for everyone to revert to Spanish 101 to cater to my abilities.
This is standard "head in the sand" and "everyone gets a trophy" mentality and it's holding people back so the least of us can stand with the best.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
This comment has been removed by the TOL staff.
-
Comments are now closed.
I am from La Grande and have a child participating in the play that has been banned from the HS. I also attended the school board meeting regarding the topic. In addition, I did actually read the entire play from beginning to end before I made any comments on the topic. That being said, I think the bigger picture regarding this play, and probably a foundation in all things seen as "questionable" is quite likely FEAR. Fear of the unknown, of the loss of "control" over a child, or a situation. (in the case of the child wanting to dance with the Obama mask... the fear of what others will think) In the case of this play, the people concerned might do well to stop a moment and evaluate what they are really worried about. By the time kids get to HS, the foundation of the parents is laid, or it should be. Most of the fear stems from ignorance and trying to bury one's head in the sand and not be real about what these kids are facing.
Fear about what might be read, seen, heard, taught..... Ignorance is not bliss, Its dangerous. Get the facts straight, get informed and be real with your kids and with people in general. Allow for a difference of opinion. But as is evident in the case here, trying to stop someone from reading, seeing, or hearing what is out there does not work. I suggest being realistic and open communication are more useful. And don't underestimate what these kids or any young adult can handle. Give them the truth and be there for them and they will ok.