Quote:
|
Originally Posted by docbungle
I don't find this very disturbing at all. It is a school, and they decided to ban a play to avoid controversy. How negatively will this effect anyone's lives? Probably not very, unless they blow it out of proportion, which it appears is already the case. We all know how easy it is for schools to get in to trouble nowadays for the smallest little thing.
If the government banned the play from being performed ever again in the theater, that would be one thing - but a school making it's own decision? That's another thing entirely. The fact that this is big news is what I find somewhat disturbing.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by docbungle
If the biggest lesson they get from school is from a play (or lack thereof) then there is indeed a problem.
|
Here's the lesson they received, in their own words:
"But in interviews here, students, who had already begun practicing for auditions of "The Crucible," expressed frustration and resignation, along with an overriding sense that there was no use fighting City Hall.
"It's over," said Emily Swenson, 15, after auditioning for "A Midsummer Night's Dream." "We can't do anything about it. We just have to obey."
Both the students and Ms. DeVore seemed unsure of why "The Crucible," which students study in 11th grade, was unacceptable."
If just three people from one organization can effectively remove provocative and widely acclaimed literature like The Crucible from a public high school WITH NO PUBLIC DEBATE OR VOTE, then artistic and thoughtful young adults are denied the very best of materials that stimulate them and encourage their learning. The works were censored in this town without soliciting input from the people who were obviously committed to bringing these performing arts to the stage -- Why? What was the public good? Why is ducking controversy via censorship a good thing? It's cowardly, personally and intellectually and politically. This isn't about conservatism or Christianity either -- it's about officials using authority inappropriately to dictate social standards. If the standard in this town is putting on a play that no more than two people will find inappropriate, there clearly won't be any more plays in Fulton.
The superintendent himself said he was being compared to Joe McCarthy, the very model of small-minded reactionary political bullies. That comparison isn't fair to McCarthy, who was at least more straightforward and public about what he was doing. Public school superintendents are government officials, BTW, and in this case the superintendent made a sweeping decision to kill two productions without seeing more than a dress rehearsal of one of them. In that case, the script was modified to accomodate the objections that were brought to the production crew of the play -- a very fair concession to public concern in the community. He said he asked ten people he knew about The Crucible, but that selective group of opinions is no substitute for an open forum.
Does anyone else see the irony of preventing The Crucible from getting to the stage? From the article -- "The play ... focuses on how hysteria and fear devoured Salem, despite the lack of evidence."
Don't like The Crucible, or Arthur Miller, or anything else provocative in public? Say so, in a public forum -- listen and respect what your neighbors have to say -- vote, if possible -- and then, let your neighbors choose for themselves what to read or see on a stage.