When we last looked in on Ocala, Florida on March 2, the City Council had declined to take any action on the claim by local businessman Brad Dinkins that upcoming performances in city owned sites violated the terms of the venues’ leases. That came after an hour of presentations at a City Council meeting at which the majority of the speakers defended the bookings in question, while only a few voices were raised against them. As a result, a benefit performance of The Vagina Monologues and a burlesque show went on as planned.

Following the meeting, the Ocala Star-Banner quoted Council Chairman Jim Hilty as saying, “We don’t feel (we want) to ban this. We’re definitely not looking to ban anyone’s free speech. I believe at this point we have to allow the shows to go on.” The paper further noted, “In cases where performances were grossly obscene, Gilligan said the city would likely invoke the part of the contract that limits performances.”

A separate editorial in the Star-Banner, titled “A Lesson in Public Discourse,” praised the previous day’s debate. It began, “It was a good day at Tuesday’s Ocala City Council meeting. Not only was a fundamental American principle discussed and debated passionately for more than an hour and left untrampled, but it was done so in a civil manner that our presidential candidates would do well to emulate.”

Katerina Aella in The Vagina Monologues (Photo by Ralph Demilio)

So while it is not entirely surprising that Brad Dinkins remains unsatisfied by the City Council’s action, or rather lack thereof, since none was deemed necessary, it is surprising to find Dinkins garnering headlines on the same subject yet again. He’s now convinced that by standing for the constitutional rights of individuals using city owned property, things are only going to get more “adult” in Ocala.

Dinkins’ prediction: People inclined to produce adult-oriented theater or films are likely to do it again, given the council’s unwillingness to stop last month’s performances of “The Vagina Monologues” at the Reilly Arts Center and a retro burlesque rendition in the Marion Theater. “The way the trend it going it’s very likely (there will be more adult-oriented performances).” (Star-Banner, April 9)

What is remarkable about the extensive new article is that the first 13 paragraphs concern Dinkins’ position exclusively. While many voices are heard from thereafter, explaining why the City Council’s decision was appropriate and legal, the paper has allowed one single person to set the tone for a review of an issue settled a month earlier, at a point when there isn’t even a particular performance or production to debate.

Mr. Dinkins has every right to express his opinion. But why exactly does the Ocala Star-Banner have to give him a platform every time he complains about his worries and fears regarding live performance? Is Dinkins’ Ocala’s own Donald Trump, whose every utterance is worthy of attention, no matter how ill-considered?

If one reads the entire article, “Brad Dinkins still wants City Council to stand against adult shows,” it’s clear that the City Council’s actions in March were made according to local and Constitutional law. Yet now city officials are starting to parrot some of Dinkins’ concerns, and speak of looking for oversight they previously said they didn’t need.

Hilty said it’s possible future performances of adult-oriented films and plays held on publicly owned property could be coming.

“I think it can happen. They could be a little bit more emboldened now,” Hilty told a Star-Banner reporter a few weeks after the March council meeting. “But I would hope they wouldn’t go to that extreme to push the envelope.”

For now, City Attorney Pat Gilligan is reviewing the leases if they should be changed to give the council a stronger hand.

Gilligan said he wants to “give the City Council as much legal flexibility” as possible if it is to grapple over a performance it thinks isn’t compatible with the community’s values. He said the current lease gives the elected officials plenty of authority over what’s performed on city property.

This new hedging towards worry and control is contrary to the message that came out of the City Council meeting. It suggests that Ocala might be looking for legal grounds to censor creative work on city property in violation of the First Amendment. It sends a not-so-tacit message to the operators of the venues in question that they should be careful about what they present, lest they cross a line that they haven’t even come close to.

Could Brad Dinkins be laying the groundwork for a political campaign based upon his highly subjective stance on public decency? If so, it seems that city officials and the media in Ocala are only too willing to give him a hand in building his base. Admittedly, there can be value in a single voice fighting against a status quo, even when the majority think otherwise. But when that solo voice is given a disproportionate platform in order to try and subvert the Constitutionally-rooted principle of free speech, maybe it’s time for everyone to get a grip and remember: nothing illegal or even subversive has taken place in Ocala, and there’s nothing on the horizon either.

If Mr. Dinkins wants to press his cause, let him do so on a blog, or social media, or by buying ad time or space. Let him call in to talk radio if he wishes and flog his censorious efforts endlessly there. After all, in the words of the Star-Banner editorial:

In the end, the City Council appropriately took no action. And while we are pleased to see another unnecessary civic kerfuffle come to its proper end, we cannot help but be proud of how the community handled this issue — or non-issue, as it turned out.

Recapping: this “unnecessary civic kerfuffle” has come to its “proper end.” It’s a “non-issue.” No censorship. Performances in city venues continue. Move on. No matter what Brad Dinkins thinks.

The Nerds cast demonstrating good cheer in the immediate wake of their show’s shut down.

The recent flurry of conversations surrounding theatre chat rooms, prompted in large part by a blog post from Patti Murin in the wake of the premature shutdown of the musical Nerds, have been fierce. The uproar was deemed sufficiently important to rate coverage in The New York Times and there has been a flood of commentary on Twitter, on Facebook, and yes, in chat rooms themselves since the impassioned dialogue began. In the wake of Murin’s essay, BroadwayWorld.com has announced some new approaches to its chat room policies and implemented changes on its site, some of which it says were already in the works but were accelerated by the impact of Murin’s writing.

Many have applauded Murin, but plenty of others have dissented from her opinion, saying she’s advocating an effort to control what can be said about theatre productions and those who work on them. There has been criticism of BroadwayWorld for its rather quick accommodation of some of Murin’s requests. Some devotees of the chat rooms, on Broadway World at least, feel they’re being unfairly deprived of their opportunity to give voice to all of their thoughts.

Mentioned within those conversations at various points are the terms “free speech” and “censorship,” terms that also seem to figure rather prominently in some of our current political discourse. But whether in the national political arena or in the somewhat more narrowly defined community of theatre fandom, the terms are being applied somewhat indiscriminately. That suggests a refresher is in order.

*   *   *

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In an essay on the website of the National Constitution Center, Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh write, “What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.”

It should be noted that the Constitution does not give everyone the right to say anything they want wherever they want and whenever they want. What it speaks to is the fact that the government may not inhibit people’s rights to express themselves. That means that if you own a theatre, you have the right to present the work you choose, or even the right to simply stand upon your stage and state your opinion, and the government cannot interfere. It does not mean, however, that you have to give over your venue to anyone who wishes to use it, to present their own work, or to express their own opinions.

When the government tries to stop someone from writing, or speaking, or performing work, that is an act of censorship. Censorship is, at its core, act of wielding power against speech; of using governmental authority, or some other manner of power, to shut down free expression. The definition on FindLaw.com cites it as an “institution, system or practice” against unfettered speech.

This is not to say that absolutely every form of speech is protected in absolutely every scenario or that every policy which controls speech in every circumstance in censorship. You may have heard such terms as libel, slander and defamation, for example, which are forms of speech that may be deemed intentionally and maliciously injurious to reputations. This doesn’t necessarily restrain free speech, but it can be grounds for penalties for certain speech meeting stringent criteria. You can’t, for example, engage in speech that directly incites or produces imminent lawless action.

This is hardly a comprehensive survey about the laws protecting and in some cases limiting speech. None of us have the time for that, unless one is currently in law school. But this will serve for the subject at hand.

*   *   *

Thank you for your patience. Now back to show biz.

No arm of the government has leapt to the defense of Patti Murin, the cast of Nerds or any artist or production that may have been spoken about unfavorably, or even cruelly, in a chat room. What has happened is that Murin made a plea, struck a chord, and Robert Diamond of BroadwayWorld – who Murin happens to know and who I know casually as well – took her words to heart and decided to take some steps to ameliorate the situation. Because he owns the company and the site, he’s entirely within in his rights to do so; BroadwayWorld is neither a public right nor a public utility. It’s all Diamond’s. In so far as how he chooses to administer BroadwayWorld, there’s nothing anyone can really do about it, unless he was, for example, fostering defamation or providing a platform for individuals to advocate illegal acts.

Those who don’t like new policies at BroadwayWorld can head to Reddit, or All That Chat, or probably any number of other places online, or set up their own theatre chat site. They haven’t had the Internet taken away from them; they’ve just had one online resource, that they’ve gotten used to using in certain ways, changed. Like any consumers faced with a product change, they can take their business elsewhere if they wish. Perhaps if too many of them do, the economic model of Broadway World will take a hit. But that’s Diamond’s decision and should it happen, Diamond’s problem. There’s no abrogation of free speech here, just the assertion of a business’s rights in order to maintain its brand.

That said, how this manner of supervision – which was always BroadwayWorld’s purview –will be administered could be tricky. Will Diamond have someone monitoring the site at all times – 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Given the potential volume of messages to be surveyed, and queries or complaints fielded, what will be considered a reasonable response time? “Snark for snark’s sake,” as stated in the site new message on its practices, isn’t a carefully articulated definition of what will and won’t be permitted to remain online, so what kind of policy manual exists or will be created, and how can it be insured that its guidelines are interpreted consistently by what will presumably be a tag team of arbiters? That’s entirely Diamond’s business too. The ongoing vitality and utility of the BroadwayWorld chat rooms will surely be judged by them. Even when the blocking of speech on a privately owned medium is entirely permissible, its equitable application in the real world can prove extremely thorny.

Part of what allows all manner of internet chat to flourish is the privacy and even anonymity the medium affords. Those who relish their incognito strafing of performers and shows have a great deal of protection, but they may do well to look at what constitutes libel, slander and defamation. If the subject of a verbal assault has a mind to really take exception to something they deem too harsh, too cruel, too just plain wrong, combined with the resources to do something about it, they may yet challenge chat room denizens and the operators of the boards. Take note of the way James Woods is currently bringing suit against a pseudonymous Twitter user for defamation, and seeking monetary damages for online remarks. What happens there could prove informative and influential.

We can always benefit from honest, open, candid, entertaining, and yes, critical conversation about the theatre. With that, there will probably always be people who have those conversations about theatre in ways that can be hurtful, cruel, and ugly. That’s regrettable to some, but that is the byproduct of living in a country founded upon the idea of open speech, and living in an era where everyone has the means to broadcast their opinions. If individuals and companies choose not to provide a forum for such dialogue (or diatribes), that’s well within their right, just as others have the right to build theatresnark.com, if they’re so inclined.

With Murin’s blog post and BroadwayWorld’s response only days old, there’s much to still play out. Some people have made some adjustments and others may have to. That’s just the way it goes when there’s effective advocacy; it’s to be seen whether a well-meaning response proves feasible and even desirable in the long term. But the bottom line is that no one’s rights have been trampled on and no one has been censored. At least so far as that aspect of this issue goes, while you’re welcome to claim your rights are being denied for as long as you like, maybe it’s time to chat about something else.

Howard Sherman is director of the Arts Integrity Initiative.

Civil and respectful comments on all aspects of this topic are welcome; all comments are moderated before they appear.

The recent flurry of conversations surrounding theatre chat rooms, prompted in large part by a blog post from Patti Murin in the wake of the premature shutdown of the musical Nerds, have been fierce. The uproar was deemed sufficiently important to rate coverage in The New York Times and there has been a flood of commentary on Twitter, on Facebook, and yes, in chat rooms themselves since the impassioned dialogue began. In the wake of Murin’s essay, BroadwayWorld.com has announced some new approaches to its chat room policies and implemented changes on its site, some of which it says were already in the works but were accelerated by the impact of Murin’s writing.

The cast of Nerds demonstrating good cheer in the immediate wake of their show’s shut down

Many have applauded Murin, but plenty of others have dissented from her opinion, saying she’s advocating an effort to control what can be said about theatre productions and those who work on them. There has been criticism of BroadwayWorld for its rather quick accommodation of some of Murin’s requests. Some devotees of the chat rooms, on Broadway World at least, feel they’re being unfairly deprived of their opportunity to give voice to all of their thoughts.

Mentioned within those conversations at various points are the terms “free speech” and “censorship,” terms that also seem to figure rather prominently in some of our current political discourse. But whether in the national political arena or in the somewhat more narrowly defined community of theatre fandom, the terms are being applied somewhat indiscriminately. That suggests a refresher is in order.

*   *   *

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In an essay on the website of the National Constitution Center, Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh write, “What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.”

It should be noted that the Constitution does not give everyone the right to say anything they want wherever they want and whenever they want. What it speaks to is the fact that the government may not inhibit people’s rights to express themselves. That means that if you own a theatre, you have the right to present the work you choose, or even the right to simply stand upon your stage and state your opinion, and the government cannot interfere. It does not mean, however, that you have to give over your venue to anyone who wishes to use it, to present their own work, or to express their own opinions.

When the government tries to stop someone from writing, or speaking, or performing work, that is an act of censorship. Censorship is, at its core, act of wielding power against speech; of using governmental authority, or some other manner of power, to shut down free expression. The definition on FindLaw.com cites it as an “institution, system or practice” against unfettered speech.

This is not to say that absolutely every form of speech is protected in absolutely every scenario or that every policy which controls speech in every circumstance in censorship. You may have heard such terms as libel, slander and defamation, for example, which are forms of speech that may be deemed intentionally and maliciously injurious to reputations. This doesn’t necessarily restrain free speech, but it can be grounds for penalties for certain speech meeting stringent criteria. You can’t, for example, engage in speech that directly incites or produces imminent lawless action.

This is hardly a comprehensive survey about the laws protecting and in some cases limiting speech. None of us have the time for that, unless one is currently in law school. But this will serve for the subject at hand.

*   *   *

Thank you for your patience. Now back to show biz.

No arm of the government has leapt to the defense of Patti Murin, the cast of Nerds or any artist or production that may have been spoken about unfavorably, or even cruelly, in a chat room. What has happened is that Murin made a plea, struck a chord, and Robert Diamond of BroadwayWorld – who Murin happens to know and who I know casually as well – took her words to heart and decided to take some steps to ameliorate the situation. Because he owns the company and the site, he’s entirely within in his rights to do so; BroadwayWorld is neither a public right nor a public utility. It’s all Diamond’s. In so far as how he chooses to administer BroadwayWorld, there’s nothing anyone can really do about it, unless he was, for example, fostering defamation or providing a platform for individuals to advocate illegal acts.

Those who don’t like new policies at BroadwayWorld can head to Reddit, or All That Chat, or probably any number of other places online, or set up their own theatre chat site. They haven’t had the Internet taken away from them; they’ve just had one online resource, that they’ve gotten used to using in certain ways, changed. Like any consumers faced with a product change, they can take their business elsewhere if they wish. Perhaps if too many of them do, the economic model of Broadway World will take a hit. But that’s Diamond’s decision and should it happen, Diamond’s problem. There’s no abrogation of free speech here, just the assertion of a business’s rights in order to maintain its brand.

That said, how this manner of supervision – which was always BroadwayWorld’s purview – will be administered could be tricky. Will Diamond have someone monitoring the site at all times – 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Given the potential volume of messages to be surveyed, and queries or complaints fielded, what will be considered a reasonable response time? “Snark for snark’s sake,” as stated in the site new message on its practices, isn’t a carefully articulated definition of what will and won’t be permitted to remain online, so what kind of policy manual exists or will be created, and how can it be insured that its guidelines are interpreted consistently by what will presumably be a tag team of arbiters? That’s entirely Diamond’s business too. The ongoing vitality and utility of the BroadwayWorld chat rooms will surely be judged by them. Even when the blocking of speech on a privately owned medium is entirely permissible, its equitable application in the real world can prove extremely thorny.

Part of what allows all manner of internet chat to flourish is the privacy and even anonymity the medium affords. Those who relish their incognito strafing of performers and shows have a great deal of protection, but they may do well to look at what constitutes libel, slander and defamation. If the subject of a verbal assault has a mind to really take exception to something they deem too harsh, too cruel, too just plain wrong, combined with the resources to do something about it, they may yet challenge chat room denizens and the operators of the boards. Take note of the way James Woods is currently bringing suit against a pseudonymous Twitter user for defamation, and seeking monetary damages for online remarks. What happens there could prove informative and influential.

We can always benefit from honest, open, candid, entertaining, and yes, critical conversation about the theatre. With that, there will probably always be people who have those conversations about theatre in ways that can be hurtful, cruel, and ugly. That’s regrettable to some, but that is the byproduct of living in a country founded upon the idea of open speech, and living in an era where everyone has the means to broadcast their opinions. If individuals and companies choose not to provide a forum for such dialogue (or diatribes), that’s well within their right, just as others have the right to build theatresnark.com, if they’re so inclined.

With Murin’s blog post and BroadwayWorld’s response only days old, there’s much to still play out. Some people have made some adjustments and others may have to. That’s just the way it goes when there’s effective advocacy; it’s to be seen whether a well-meaning response proves feasible and even desirable in the long term. But the bottom line is that no one’s rights have been trampled on and no one has been censored. At least so far as that aspect of this issue goes, while you’re welcome to claim your rights are being denied for as long as you like, maybe it’s time to chat about something else.

Howard Sherman is director of the Arts Integrity Initiative at The New School College of Performing Arts. This post originally appeared at artsintegrity.org.

When a student-devised piece of theatre begins as The Politics of Dancing, an examination of relationships springing from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, and is ultimately produced as This Title Has Been Censored, something is amiss. When a student production scheduled for multiple performances in a college theatre department’s mainstage season ends up as a single workshop performance with rudimentary tech given during a final exam period, something is strange. When an original work of theatre begins to address gender roles and is immediately downsized, something is troubling. When these actions were prompted because an inchoate project was judged by departmental leadership based solely on a few preliminary scenes reviewed  four months before the work was to be finished, something seems wrong.

But those are all aspects of what transpired over the past several months in the theatre department of Oklahoma State University. The Politics of Dancing, which had been announced as part of the school’s 2015-16 mainstage season in the Vivia Locke Theatre, which seats some 500 patrons, was to have been presented in February; the rest of the season included A.R. Gurney’s What I Did Last Summer, and The 25^th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. Instead of The Politics of Dancing, the school produced John Cariani’s Almost, Maine.

So what exactly happened to The Politics of Dancing? In October, Professor Jodi Jinks, who holds the school’s Mary Lou Lemon Endowed Professorship for Underrepresented Voices, shared a few short scenes from the work the students had begun to create with the head of the department, which both she and the students say weren’t necessarily representative of what the finished work would be like, given the evolving nature of any devised theatre.

“Professor Jinks allowed us as an ensemble to explore what we wanted. It kind of naturally flowed in that direction,” said student Jessica Smoot via e-mail. “Honestly I think it just came from the fact that you can’t properly explore romantic relationships without understanding gender, and since it is such a hot topic these days it became a much more fascinating subject to explore.”

Student Joshua Arbaugh said, also via e-mail, “The focus of the show never switched from ‘general relationships.’ Gender was only one subject that the show was going to touch on. There was never a time that we as a group decided that the show would be about gender. However, gender and gender roles play a big part in relationships so we devoted a healthy amount of time early in our devising process to explore the many facets of gender in our research and our work. We had no idea that this would displease anyone and did not believe that it was a divergence in our declared ‘focus’.”

Prof. Jinks says that she shared some very early drafts of Dancing on October 19 and two days later department chair Andrew Kimbrough met with the students involved in the production and, in Jinks’s words, “dropped the bomb, or gave the option.”

“We could change the direction we were heading in and create something for our [mainstage] audience, or the students could say what they wanted to say and move to the studio,” explained Jinks.

The audience, as described by students in their meeting with Kimbrough, was “over 50, white and Republican,” according to Jinks in an interview with the campus newspaper The O’Colly.  Kimbrough told The O’Colly, “I believed the students’ assessment of the audience was accurate.” From The O’Colly:

The theater department advertised the play as a production that “examines the mating rituals of our planet’s most advanced and complicated species,” according to a department brochure.

“I was seeing an evolution of work that was, one, not on the topic that was proposed, (and) two, that tended to be one-sided in its address of transgender issues,” Kimbrough said.

Kimbrough said he visited the class and requested that if the students continued with “The Politics of Dancing,” they keep in mind the type of audience they would be performing for.

“Even though they were moving in a new direction, they were never asked to abandon the topic but simply to proceed from the vantage of mid-October with our current audience in mind,” Kimbrough said. “And I believe when you’re running a business, this is the No. 1 rule. You must create work that has your audience in mind.”

After a weekend of consideration, according to Jinks, the students decided to move the production to the smaller studio. “Ultimately,” said Jinks, “they decided to perform the play they originally wanted to write.”

But that plan hit a snag when Jinks and the students were later informed that their production in the studio would have no production support, because the technical departments, in her description, “could not do two things that close together or at the same time,” with the substituted mainstage show cited as a conflict.

“They were offered the studio and thought they could do that,” said Jinks. “That was the option they were presented, and slowly, bit by bit, it was removed.”

Regarding Kimbrough’s position on the project, Arbaugh wrote, “The idea of him bullying our work until he was ‘comfortable’ with it was too great a cost. However, none of us would have chosen to lose departmental support and our spot in the season. We were all blindsided by the decision and I would say it’s because we gave the ‘wrong answer’.”

Arbaugh continued, saying, “The Politics of Dancing was supposed to be a true test of all our talents. We, as students of the theater, were to use everything we had learned in this in this endeavor. When it was cancelled, it was like a big door was slammed in all of our faces saying, ‘who you are is inappropriate and what you have to contribute has no value.’ So self-esteems suffered and even now there is anxiety in the department.”

So why did the show become This Title Has Been Censored?

“As a class,’ wrote Smoot, “we found that using the source materials we were initially assigned (A Doll’s House and the “Politics Of Dancing” song) were becoming more of a hindrance to our creativity, so we scrapped them from the show. This, along with the struggles we had faced through the process, made the show look completely different from what it was initially intended to be – but that can be expected with devised theatre! We wanted to rename the show in a way that acknowledged the struggles in the process. The final product still discussed gender, but in a much more personal way that drew from many of our personal experiences and life moments interspersed with current events revolving around gender.”

At the show’s single performance, Jinks wrote the following in the program:

During the first few weeks of this current semester the Devised Theatre class was developing a different play than the one you will see today. It was called the The Politics of Dancing and it was to be performed in the Vivia Locke in February of 2016. The devised class would build it and perform it, with me serving as facilitator and director. Over a year ago I made preliminary choices to jump start the process with the class. We were to deconstruct Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House and build a new piece by looking at Ibsen’s work through the lens of gender identification, transgenderism and gender politics – subjects which are omnipresent in the media of late. However other lessons (struggles) interrupted that process.

Jinks believes that some of the problems that arose came from many in the theatre department being unfamiliar with company-created theatre.

“I was working with faculty who have no experience with devising, but I thought we were addressing those needs, “ she said, noting that there was “some rigidity, some pushback even before it was canceled.” Jinks said she discounted that response, calling it “irrelevant.”

“It was so early in the process, the play could have gone in any direction. We had four months. They canceled it because the idea was threatening.”

Jinks described a series of meetings with the dean, the provost, the faculty council and the Office of Equal Opportunity between November and early February.”

“I was met with a wall of silence and denial,” she said, “I’d like them to tell me why it isn’t a denial of academic freedom of speech.”

In February, Jinks met with Kimbrough and the provost.

“I gave both men my action requests, “ she said. “One, Andrew was to acknowledge that an error was made in canceling The Politics of Dancing. Two, Andrew would apologize to the department – faculty, staff and students. Three, the department would write policy so that this doesn’t happen again. Four, there would be a recusal from professional advancement discussion by Andrew over me.”

“Andrew said no to one and two,” she continued. “He did say he would apologize for not having everyone in the same room at the same time to discuss the issue.”

Jinks has been at Oklahoma State University for five years, four of those on a tenure track. She will be up for tenure review in two years.

*   *   *

Dr. Andrew Kimbrough was contacted by e-mail and asked for an on the record interview regarding this situation. His entire reply was as follows

I’ll be happy to speak to you once our challenge is fully resolved and behind us. I’m learning a lot, and would appreciate more professional response. Thanks.

A second request, noting that his replies to The O’Colly would be the only opportunity for his voice to be heard in this article, received no reply.

Since Dr. Kimbrough asked for more professional response, it seems only appropriate to provide him with some.

My first thought is to say that if indeed you are not already well-versed, Dr. Kimbrough, you should become familiar with the process of devised theatre as an evolutionary process that cannot necessarily be given a label more than half a year in advance and be expected to stick to exactly the original premise. That said, devised theatre must have a place in the OSU theatre department with the full resources of the department, because devised theatre is important both academically and creatively; it is essential that theatre students of today learn about and experience devised, collaborative works to prepare them forprofessional careers.

Please reconsider your statements and overall perspective, Dr. Kimbrough, about the audience being the most important arbiter of what students perform at OSU. Your assertion in The O’Colly, “When you’re running a business, this is the No. 1 rule,” seems profoundly misplaced within an academic theatre program. Students should not be educated according to the perceived preferences of the local consumer marketplace, but rather taught in order to develop their talent, their skills, and their knowledge so that they themselves are competitive in the marketplace of theatre. Indeed, if your position on why we make theatre were voiced by the artistic director of most of America’s not-for-profit theatres, that individual would be questioned by many in the field for abdicating the role of an artistic leader and kowtowing to lowest common denominator sentiments. Yes, there are financial demands on all theatres, and theatre cannot survive without an audience, but those concerns need to operate in balance with the creative impulse. To visit those concerns on students who have paid for a complete theatrical education, with audience satisfaction superseding the education imperative,  seems a corruption of the role of academics.

Dr. Kimbrough, your students have the same sentiments as I do.

Jessica Smoot wrote, “He sees this department as a business, and while that has been very beneficial when building the department, it can become dangerous for the creative integrity of the department, which I think is very detrimental to our department. There are ways to warn people to not come if you’re easily offended – add ratings, label shows as avant garde or fringe – but don’t take freedom of speech from the students. We will spend the rest of our lives having to worry about where the money to support our art will come from. Let us have some freedom while we still have the ability to not worry about finance, so that when producing our work becomes harder, we will be creating better quality work from the start because we have already had a chance to practice.”

Joshua Arbaugh wrote, “How could we possibly predict what every audience member came to see and how do we know whether or not there is a completely different audience that has simply been alienated by these ‘choices’ in the past. When someone says, “We need to cater to our audience.” That person is really saying, ‘what’s going to be the most digestible to the kinds of people I personally want to come to these shows.’ My answer is no, the theater season should not be selected to impress Andrew’s hetero-normative white friends.”

Finally Dr. Kimbrough, while one would hope you would do so in all things, it’s particularly incumbent upon you when your department has an endowed chair for underrepresented voices to always demonstrate genuine concern and respect for the students who embody those voices and the professor directly charged with serving them. When you offered the students the opportunity to pursue their vision in a smaller space due to your concerns over the marketability of a piece which appeared to be leaning towards a consideration of gender, and they were subsequently informed that they would receive no technical support and no promotion, you were effectively suppressing art on that subject, regardless of your intent.

I am very fond of Almost Maine (and its author, John Cariani) and I’ve seen Cabaret numerous times, but I don’t think those are shows which deeply explore gender issues and represent efforts at diversity, as you suggested to The O’Colly. You need to redress the impression you have instilled in your students as quickly as possible, by planning for work which explicitly examines that topic, either on the mainstage or for a sustained run in the studio. In addition, you would do well to endorse a new student devised work on the subject of gender in modern society that you will stand behind as firmly as you do The 39 Steps or As You Like It (which does have a bit of gender bending of its own, rendered safe by being 400 years old).

On top of all of this, Dr. Kimbrough, to speak your language for a moment, if money is an important consideration, your actions may be alienating a presumably important donor. To cite an article in The Gayly:

“Literally, the name of this endowed professorship is ‘The Mary Lou Lemon Endowed Professorship for underrepresented voices,’” said Robyn Lemon, daughter of the late Mary Lou Lemon. “Not allowing these students to perform this play contradicts the very reason this entire professorship was set up.”

The bottom line here is that the education of students must come first at a university, and that education must not be simply current but forward-thinking in its philosophy, its pedagogy and its practice. The Politics of Dancing isn’t likely to be resurrected; its moment has passed. But if Oklahoma State University theatre wishes to stand for excellence, if it wants to both compete for students and for the students it graduates to be competitive, it must make very clear that it embraces students no matter their gender identity, their race, their ability or disability – in short, it must be genuinely and consistently inclusive – and it should use its stages to make that clear to the entire university, the local community and beyond.

*   *   *

One last word: as The O’Colly researched its story on this subject, Kimbrough acknowledged that he attempted to have the story quashed. He was quoted saying, “I think it would be in the best interest of the department if there was no negative publicity of this incident.” When there are charges of censoring a piece of theatre by reducing its potential audience significantly and withdrawing support from it, that’s not a very good time to also try to keep the story from being told. As is so often the case, efforts to avoid negative stories only lead to yet more inquiry and more concern. That holds true for decisions to cease answering questions about a subject in the public eye. Theatre is about telling stories and very often, about revealing truths. The story of The Politics of Dancing is incomplete. It is up to Oklahoma State Theatre to bring it to an honest, open, inclusive and satisfying ending for all concerned.

Howard Sherman is director of the Arts Integrity Initiative at The New School College of Performing Arts. This post originally appeared at artsintegrity.org.

When a student-devised piece of theatre begins as The Politics of Dancing, an examination of relationships springing from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, and is ultimately produced as This Title Has Been Censored, something is amiss. When a student production scheduled for multiple performances in a college theatre department’s mainstage season ends up as a single workshop performance with rudimentary tech given during a final exam period, something is strange. When an original work of theatre begins to address gender roles and is immediately downsized, something is troubling. When these actions were prompted because an inchoate project was judged by departmental leadership based solely on a few preliminary scenes reviewed  four months before the work was to be finished, something seems wrong.

But those are all aspects of what transpired over the past several months in the theatre department of Oklahoma State University. The Politics of Dancing, which had been announced as part of the school’s 2015-16 mainstage season in the Vivia Locke Theatre, which seats some 500 patrons, was to have been presented in February; the rest of the season included A.R. Gurney’s What I Did Last Summer, and The 25^th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. Instead of The Politics of Dancing, the school produced John Cariani’s Almost, Maine.

So what exactly happened to The Politics of Dancing? In October, Professor Jodi Jinks, who holds the school’s Mary Lou Lemon Endowed Professorship for Underrepresented Voices, shared a few short scenes from the work the students had begun to create with the head of the department, which both she and the students say weren’t necessarily representative of what the finished work would be like, given the evolving nature of any devised theatre.

“Professor Jinks allowed us as an ensemble to explore what we wanted. It kind of naturally flowed in that direction,” said student Jessica Smoot via e-mail. “Honestly I think it just came from the fact that you can’t properly explore romantic relationships without understanding gender, and since it is such a hot topic these days it became a much more fascinating subject to explore.”

Student Joshua Arbaugh said, also via e-mail, “The focus of the show never switched from ‘general relationships.’ Gender was only one subject that the show was going to touch on. There was never a time that we as a group decided that the show would be about gender. However, gender and gender roles play a big part in relationships so we devoted a healthy amount of time early in our devising process to explore the many facets of gender in our research and our work. We had no idea that this would displease anyone and did not believe that it was a divergence in our declared ‘focus’.”

Prof. Jinks says that she shared some very early drafts of Dancing on October 19 and two days later department chair Andrew Kimbrough met with the students involved in the production and, in Jinks’s words, “dropped the bomb, or gave the option.”

“We could change the direction we were heading in and create something for our [mainstage] audience, or the students could say what they wanted to say and move to the studio,” explained Jinks.

The audience, as described by students in their meeting with Kimbrough, was “over 50, white and Republican,” according to Jinks in an interview with the campus newspaper The O’Colly.  Kimbrough told The O’Colly, “I believed the students’ assessment of the audience was accurate.” From The O’Colly:

The theater department advertised the play as a production that “examines the mating rituals of our planet’s most advanced and complicated species,” according to a department brochure.

“I was seeing an evolution of work that was, one, not on the topic that was proposed, (and) two, that tended to be one-sided in its address of transgender issues,” Kimbrough said.

Kimbrough said he visited the class and requested that if the students continued with “The Politics of Dancing,” they keep in mind the type of audience they would be performing for.

“Even though they were moving in a new direction, they were never asked to abandon the topic but simply to proceed from the vantage of mid-October with our current audience in mind,” Kimbrough said. “And I believe when you’re running a business, this is the No. 1 rule. You must create work that has your audience in mind.”

After a weekend of consideration, according to Jinks, the students decided to move the production to the smaller studio. “Ultimately,” said Jinks, “they decided to perform the play they originally wanted to write.”

But that plan hit a snag when Jinks and the students were later informed that their production in the studio would have no production support, because the technical departments, in her description, “could not do two things that close together or at the same time,” with the substituted mainstage show cited as a conflict.

“They were offered the studio and thought they could do that,” said Jinks. “That was the option they were presented, and slowly, bit by bit, it was removed.”

Regarding Kimbrough’s position on the project, Arbaugh wrote, “The idea of him bullying our work until he was ‘comfortable’ with it was too great a cost. However, none of us would have chosen to lose departmental support and our spot in the season. We were all blindsided by the decision and I would say it’s because we gave the “wrong answer.”

Arbaugh continued, saying, “The Politics of Dancing was supposed to be a true test of all our talents. We, as students of the theater, were to use everything we had learned in this in this endeavor. When it was cancelled, it was like a big door was slammed in all of our faces saying, ‘who you are is inappropriate and what you have to contribute has no value.’ So self-esteems suffered and even now there is anxiety in the department.”

So why did the show become This Title Has Been Censored?

“As a class,’ wrote Smoot, “we found that using the source materials we were initially assigned (A Doll’s House and the “Politics Of Dancing” song) were becoming more of a hindrance to our creativity, so we scrapped them from the show. This, along with the struggles we had faced through the process, made the show look completely different from what it was initially intended to be – but that can be expected with devised theatre! We wanted to rename the show in a way that acknowledged the struggles in the process. The final product still discussed gender, but in a much more personal way that drew from many of our personal experiences and life moments interspersed with current events revolving around gender.”

At the show’s single performance, Jinks wrote the following in the program:

During the first few weeks of this current semester the Devised Theatre class was developing a different play than the one you will see today. It was called the The Politics of Dancing and it was to be performed in the Vivia Locke in February of 2016. The devised class would build it and perform it, with me serving as facilitator and director. Over a year ago I made preliminary choices to jump start the process with the class. We were to deconstruct Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House and build a new piece by looking at Ibsen’s work through the lens of gender identification, transgenderism and gender politics – subjects which are omnipresent in the media of late. However other lessons (struggles) interrupted that process.

Jinks believes that some of the problems that arose came from many in the theatre department being unfamiliar with company-created theatre.

“I was working with faculty who have no experience with devising, but I thought we were addressing those needs, “ she said, noting that there was “some rigidity, some pushback even before it was canceled.” Jinks said she discounted that response, calling it “irrelevant.”

“It was so early in the process, the play could have gone in any direction. We had four months. They canceled it because the idea was threatening.”

Jinks described a series of meetings with the dean, the provost, the faculty council and the Office of Equal Opportunity between November and early February.”

“I was met with a wall of silence and denial,” she said, “I’d like them to tell me why it isn’t a denial of academic freedom of speech.”

In February, Jinks met with Kimbrough and the provost.

“I gave both men by action requests, “ she said. “One, Andrew was to acknowledge that an error was made in canceling The Politics of Dancing. Two, Andrew would apologize to the department – faculty, staff and students. Three, the department would write policy so that this doesn’t happen again. Four, there would be a recusal from professional advancement discussion by Andrew over me.”

“Andrew said no to one and two,” she continued. “He did say he would apologize for not having everyone in the same room at the same time to discuss the issue.”

Jinks has been at Oklahoma State University for five years, four of those on a tenure track. She will be up for tenure review in two years.

*   *   *

Dr. Andrew Kimbrough was contacted by e-mail and asked for an on the record interview regarding this situation. His entire reply was as follows

I’ll be happy to speak to you once our challenge is fully resolved and behind us. I’m learning a lot, and would appreciate more professional response. Thanks.

A second request, noting that his replies to The O’Colly would be the only opportunity for his voice to be heard in this article, received no reply.

Since Dr. Kimbrough asked for more professional response, it seems only appropriate to provide him with some.

My first thought is to say that if indeed you are not already well-versed, Dr. Kimbrough, you should become familiar with the process of devised theatre as an evolutionary process that cannot necessarily be given a label more than half a year in advance and be expected to stick to exactly the original premise. That said, devised theatre must have a place in the OSU theatre department with the full resources of the department, because devised theatre is important both academically and creatively; it is essential that theatre students of today learn about and experience devised, collaborative works to prepare them forprofessional careers.

Please reconsider your statements and overall perspective, Dr. Kimbrough, about the audience being the most important arbiter of what students perform at OSU. Your assertion in The O’Colly, “When you’re running a business, this is the No. 1 rule,” seems profoundly misplaced within an academic theatre program. Students should not be educated according to the perceived preferences of the local consumer marketplace, but rather taught in order to develop their talent, their skills, and their knowledge so that they themselves are competitive in the marketplace of theatre. Indeed, if your position on why we make theatre were voiced by the artistic director of most of America’s not-for-profit theatres, that individual would be questioned by many in the field for abdicating the role of an artistic leader and kowtowing to lowest common denominator sentiments. Yes, there are financial demands on all theatres, and theatre cannot survive without an audience, but those concerns need to operate in balance with the creative impulse. To visit those concerns on students who have paid for a complete theatrical education, with audience satisfaction superseding the education imperative,  seems a corruption of the role of academics.

Dr. Kimbrough, your students have the same sentiments as I do.

Jessica Smoot wrote, “He sees this department as a business, and while that has been very beneficial when building the department, it can become dangerous for the creative integrity of the department, which I think is very detrimental to our department. There are ways to warn people to not come if you’re easily offended – add ratings, label shows as avant garde or fringe – but don’t take freedom of speech from the students. We will spend the rest of our lives having to worry about where the money to support our art will come from. Let us have some freedom while we still have the ability to not worry about finance, so that when producing our work becomes harder, we will be creating better quality work from the start because we have already had a chance to practice.”

Joshua Arbaugh wrote, “How could we possibly predict what every audience member came to see and how do we know whether or not there is a completely different audience that has simply been alienated by these ‘choices’ in the past. When someone says, “We need to cater to our audience.” That person is really saying, ‘what’s going to be the most digestible to the kinds of people I personally want to come to these shows.’ My answer is no, the theater season should not be selected to impress Andrew’s hetero-normative white friends.”

Finally Dr. Kimbrough, while one would hope you would do so in all things, it’s particularly incumbent upon you when your department has an endowed chair for underrepresented voices to always demonstrate genuine concern and respect for the students who embody those voices and the professor directly charged with serving them. When you offered the students the opportunity to pursue their vision in a smaller space due to your concerns over the marketability of a piece which appeared to be leaning towards a consideration of gender, and they were subsequently informed that they would receive no technical support and no promotion, you were effectively suppressing art on that subject, regardless of your intent.

I am very fond of Almost Maine (and its author, John Cariani) and I’ve seen Cabaret numerous times, but I don’t think those are shows which deeply explore gender issues and represent efforts at diversity, as you suggested to The O’Colly. You need to redress the impression you have instilled in your students as quickly as possible, by planning for work which explicitly examines that topic, either on the mainstage or for a sustained run in the studio. In addition, you would do well to endorse a new student devised work on the subject of gender in modern society that you will stand behind as firmly as you do The 39 Steps or As You Like It (which does have a bit of gender bending of its own, rendered safe by being 400 years old).

On top of all of this, Dr. Kimbrough, to speak your language for a moment, if money is an important consideration, your actions may be alienating a presumably important donor. To cite an article in The Gayly:

“Literally, the name of this endowed professorship is ‘The Mary Lou Lemon Endowed Professorship for underrepresented voices,’” said Robyn Lemon, daughter of the late Mary Lou Lemon. “Not allowing these students to perform this play contradicts the very reason this entire professorship was set up.”

The bottom line here is that the education of students must come first at a university, and that education must not be simply current but forward-thinking in its philosophy, its pedagogy and its practice. The Politics of Dancing isn’t likely to be resurrected; its moment has passed. But if Oklahoma State University theatre wishes to stand for excellence, if it wants to both compete for students and for the students it graduates to be competitive, it must make very clear that it embraces students no matter their gender identity, their race, the ability or disability – in short, it must be genuinely and consistently inclusive – and it should use its stages to make that clear to the entire university, the local community and beyond.

*   *   *

One last word: as The O’Colly researched its story on this subject, Kimbrough acknowledged that he attempted to have the story quashed. He was quoted saying, “I think it would be in the best interest of the department if there was no negative publicity of this incident.” When there are charges of censoring a piece of theatre by reducing its potential audience significantly and withdrawing support from it, that’s not a very good time to also try to keep the story from being told. As is so often the case, efforts to avoid negative stories only lead to yet more inquiry and more concern. That holds true for decisions to cease answering questions about a subject in the public eye. Theatre is about telling stories and very often, about revealing truths. The story of The Politics of Dancing is incomplete. It is up to Oklahoma State Theatre to bring it to an honest, open, inclusive and satisfying ending for all concerned.

Hearing the word ‘vagina’ aloud before 1996, outside of a medical setting, was a bit startling. Encountering it in an article was likely to cause many readers more than a bit of surprise. Seeing it in newspaper ads, on posters or even on the sides of buses was seen as downright shocking. I remember it well.

Thanks to Eve Ensler’s groundbreaking The Vagina Monologues in 1996, the perfectly accurate, non-slang term for women’s genitalia became part of widely accepted conversation. The play had a long Off-Broadway run, has had countless professional and amateur productions around the world, and through Ensler’s V-Day initiative, The Vagina Monologues has generated more than $100 million for women’s charities internationally. Oh, and the word vagina has been demystified to the extent that you can hear it mentioned fairly regularly on network television comedies, where it clearly comports with network and FCC standards and practices.

But if you happen to be at the city council meeting this coming Tuesday afternoon in Ocala, Florida, you might think the word vagina, and monologues about vaginas, are something to be ashamed of and indeed silenced, attitudes from the pre-1996 era, if not even earlier. That’s because a local businessman named Brad Dinkins has asked and been scheduled to appear before the council to discuss, in the words of his request, “The respective leases between the city (landlord) and The Reilly Arts Center and the Marion Theatre (tenants) … and possible ‘use’ violations per the lease with the tenants. The issues at hand are in regards to questionable performances at each location, scheduled during March, 2016.”

Mr. Dinkins goes on to cite the performances that he believes breach the lease by being “questionable,” specifically a single performance of The Vagina Monologues at the city-owned Reilly Arts Center, which is leased to and operated by the Ocala Symphony, and The Marion at Midnight, a burlesque performance at another city owned and subleased venue, The Marion Theatre. In his request to speak at the council, Mr. Dinkins has lined up a whole team, which he describes as follows in his correspondence with the Ocala city manager:

“Besides myself there will be other local citizen participants, some of which will include Father Don Curran, Rector of Christ The King Church; Mike Sullivan, former PGA tournament golf champion, and Dennis Camp, attorney, who may or may not speak.”

Clearly Mr. Dinkins’s attempt is at least to have the city remedy what he sees as a breach by canceling the performances. In his request to be heard at the city council, he quoted from the lease agreements for the venues, which he asserts are virtually identical.

6.7.   The following guidelines shall govern the performance and other entertainment that may be shown at, or viewed by the public on, the Premises:

6.7.1 Tenant shall not use the Building (by, without limitation, presenting performances or other entertainment), or permit others to use the Building, in a manner that City, in its reasonable discretion, deems inappropriate or objectionable.

6.7.2  Prior to claiming a default under paragraph 6.7.1, City shall notify tenant that it claims a performance, or other entertainment, or use is inappropriate or objectionable, and, if Tenant no longer presents such performance or other entertainment, or permits such use, no default shall have occurred.

If they don’t immediately agree to fold their tents over this action and cancel these events which Mr. Dinkins finds “questionable,” his next step may well be to assert that the Symphony is acting as a poor steward of the Reilly, and that Carmen and Cesar Soto, who have a five-year lease of the Marion through November 2017, are also remiss, and seek to have both operators’ contracts revoked. It’s hard to say. After all, what does a former golf champion have to do with any of this? Who knows what Mr. Dinkins will want next beyond silencing these particular shows?

Based solely on the above, you might be tempted to brand Ocala a hick backwater town that is simply out of step with the times. But in point of fact, this year’s presentation of The Vagina Monologues would be the show’s fourth run in the city, albeit the first at the city-owned O’Reilly. But clearly its prior presentations by the Insomniac Theatre Company at their own venue in 2012 and 2013 and at the The Brick City Center for the Arts in 2014 apparently didn’t violate any community standards of decency. In fact they sold out, raising money for the Ocala Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Center and the V-Day charity. This year’s presentation is raising funds for the PACE Center for Girls.

As for the burlesque performances, they’ve been taking place at the Marion about three times a year for the past couple of years. Burlesque, of course, has become once again popular and even hip; it’s meant to evoke the tawdry era of burlesque’s heyday, but with a healthy dose of empowerment in performances that are welcoming to all body types and races, and beyond the binary definition of gender. The performances in Ocala are sponsored by, among others, a hair salon, an architecture firm, and a fitness club.

Let’s face it: what on earth does “questionable” mean? How about “inappropriate” or “objectionable”? If no one can agree on exactly what constitutes obscenity, these words are so vague as to very likely be unenforceable. After all, I find a number of the current presidential candidates questionable, but that doesn’t actually say anything about my perception of them. I also find Brussels sprouts objectionable, and the notion that  are appealing to be questionable, but so what? Does that mean if I were an Ocala resident I could attempt to prevent them from ever being served in these venues?

*   *   *

How did this incipient censorship effort reach up to New York? That’s because Chad Taylor, who produced Ocala’s prior productions of The Vagina Monologues and is directing it this year at the Reilly, posted his concerns on Facebook and it spread quickly. In his plea for support (and signatures on a petition), he wrote:

On March 1st at 4 PM at City Hall, this “offended” individual will be speaking before the City Council to get us shut down. He is bringing some “friends” who share his point of view. I don’t ask a lot of out you guys, but I cannot stand by and watch two female-centric shows that empower women be stopped because someone out there has an issue with the word Vagina. We must be heard. For every person who speaks against these shows we must have three voices for them. Let’s pack the place with people who aren’t afraid of giving women a voice OR adults a choice in how they want to be entertained.

It’s worth noting that a new member of the city council, elected in 2015, is Matthew Wardell, the music director and conductor of the Ocala Symphony, which as operator of The Reilly Arts Center is the producer of The Vagina Monologues. While one might make the assumption that he has a conflict of interest in this case, Wardell says he consulted with the city attorney and given that all proceeds are going to charity, he’s in the clear. “I can’t recuse myself,” said Wardell, “because there’s no financial interest.”

Wardell says that he believes the people speaking against The Vagina Monologues haven’t actually read or seen the play. “I don’t think they understand the impact of the piece on women – and men,” said Wardell. “Great art stretches us and and brings us back to a place where we can talk about it together.”

“I just don’t agree that the play is in any way immoral,” he said. “There’s nothing here that’s against the law,” he added, while saying that he didn’t believe anything was going to change the opponents’ minds.

“I err on the side of the First Amendment,” Wardell explained. “When I took the oath to serve on city council, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and you just don’t skip over the First Amendment.”

Wardell cited an event in the past year where the city council agreed to close down an entire city block for a movie promotion: a 50 Shades of Grey “Naught Or Nice” Party. He noted a similar sanctioned event for Magic Mike XXL.

Explaining that he’s not allowed to discuss business with fellow council members outside of actual council meetings, Wardell said that in light of other approved events, “I’d find it objectionable if my fellow council members had any objections.”

*   *   *

In his request to speak, Mr. Dinkins outlines the “meeting intent hoped for”

Following the interaction among the Council members and local citizens, it is hoped the City Council, acting as Landlord of both locations, will take action to investigate and determine if the upcoming events violate the “use” guidelines per their respective leases.

I can only hope that the city council of Ocala will have the good sense to let Mr. Dinkins and his team be heard in accordance with their standard practices regarding time allotted, scheduling and so on, even though Mr. Dinkins has asked to be scheduled early in the meeting for no apparent reason whatsoever other than his own preference. I hope the council insures that the conversation is civil, respectful and entirely fact-based, including recognition of the separation of church and state in all matters. I also hope that equal time will be given to any Ocala citizens who appear and wish to make the case on behalf of these performances, their producers and the venues in which they take place. I hope lots of people appear to speak on behalf of The Vagina Monologues and The Marion at Midnight.

Then I hope the city council will thank all parties and simply go on with the essential business of running Ocala without voicing any opinion one way or another or calling for any vote. They will have already spent far too much time on a retrograde, reactionary effort to deny members of the community access to legal and creative pursuits that they’ve previously enjoyed. I hope the council won’t use some wholly subjective, undefinable words in two lease agreements to dignify a call for censorship. Because that’s what I call, at the very least, questionable indeed.

Update, February 25, 2016, 9 am: Mekaella Lord, also known as Lady Mekaella DeMure, the producer of The Marion at Midnight and other Ocala burlesque events, has posted a Facebook notice of a peaceful protest against the censorious effort that will be brought before the Ocala city council on Tuesday. It reads in part:

This man & his co-speakers will present their case before council that day on our “unwholesome,” “unchristian” and “inappropriate” productions. Myself & others will also be allowed to comment and speak in our defense after his public comment. If you would like to attend, please do. Please keep it civil and polite as we represent an elegant & professional art, let’s keep it that way!
This man seeks to take away something from Ocala. The right to do any art uncensored and to have a voice as women, as artists. This single person is trying to redefine what art is and isn’t and what should or shouldn’t be allowed due to his personal preferences.
Will you allow that?
We are defending a LOT here. Not only our own production & right to work as performers in our own venues that we rented and hometown for our audience, but so much more.
All provocative art is objectionable to someone.
The fact that a person who has not even seen the show has decided to object does not make the show objectionable.
A free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants — or does not want — to create & share. We are defending the right for females & artists to have a voice, to exercise their voice/art.

Update, February 25, 6:30 pm: Playwright Eve Ensler sent the following message to the organizers of the Ocala production of The Vagina Monologues, through her V-Day organization, via the Arts Integrity Initiative:

I stand with all of you who are standing for freedom, for theater, for women, for liberation.

The vagina is out of the bottle and she won’t be put back in!

In deepest solidarity,

Eve

This post will be updated as events warrant.

Howard Sherman is the director of the Arts Integrity Initiative. This post originally appeared on ArtsIntegrity.org.

Hearing the word ‘vagina’ aloud before 1996, outside of a medical setting, was a bit startling. Encountering it in an article was likely to cause many readers more than a bit of surprise. Seeing it in newspaper ads, on posters or even on the sides of buses was seen as downright shocking. I remember it well.

Thanks to Eve Ensler’s groundbreaking The Vagina Monologues in 1996, the perfectly accurate, non-slang term for women’s genitalia became part of widely accepted conversation. The play had a long Off-Broadway run, has had countless professional and amateur productions around the world, and through Ensler’s V-Day initiative, The Vagina Monologues has generated more than $100 million for women’s charities internationally. Oh, and the word vagina has been demystified to the extent that you can hear it mentioned fairly regularly on network television comedies, where it clearly comports with network and FCC standards and practices.

But if you happen to be at the city council meeting this coming Tuesday afternoon in Ocala, Florida, you might think the word vagina, and monologues about vaginas, are something to be ashamed of and indeed silenced, attitudes from the pre-1996 era, if not even earlier. That’s because a local businessman named Brad Dinkins has asked and been scheduled to appear before the council to discuss, in the words of his request, “The respective leases between the city (landlord) and The Reilly Arts Center and the Marion Theatre (tenants) … and possible ‘use’ violations per the lease with the tenants. The issues at hand are in regards to questionable performances at each location, scheduled during March, 2016.”

Mr. Dinkins goes on to cite the performances that he believes breach the lease by being “questionable,” specifically a single performance of The Vagina Monologues at the city-owned Reilly Arts Center, which is leased to and operated by the Ocala Symphony, and The Marion at Midnight, a burlesque performance at another city owned and subleased venue, The Marion Theatre. In his request to speak at the council, Mr. Dinkins has lined up a whole team, which he describes as follows in his correspondence with the Ocala city manager:

“Besides myself there will be other local citizen participants, some of which will include Father Don Curran, Rector of Christ The King Church; Mike Sullivan, former PGA tournament golf champion, and Dennis Camp, attorney, who may or may not speak.”

Clearly Mr. Dinkins’s attempt is at least to have the city remedy what he sees as a breach by canceling the performances. In his request to be heard at the city council, he quoted from the lease agreements for the venues, which he asserts are virtually identical.

6.7.   The following guidelines shall govern the performance and other entertainment that may be shown at, or viewed by the public on, the Premises:

6.7.1 Tenant shall not use the Building (by, without limitation, presenting performances or other entertainment), or permit others to use the Building, in a manner that City, in its reasonable discretion, deems inappropriate or objectionable.

6.7.2  Prior to claiming a default under paragraph 6.7.1, City shall notify tenant that it claims a performance, or other entertainment, or use is inappropriate or objectionable, and, if Tenant no longer presents such performance or other entertainment, or permits such use, no default shall have occurred.

If they don’t immediately agree to fold their tents over this action and cancel these events which Mr. Dinkins finds “questionable,” his next step may well be to assert that the Symphony is acting as a poor steward of the Reilly, and that Carmen and Cesar Soto, who have a five-year lease of the Marion through November 2017, are also remiss, and seek to have both operators’ contracts revoked. It’s hard to say. After all, what does a former golf champion have to do with any of this? Who knows what Mr. Dinkins will want next beyond silencing these particular shows?

Based solely on the above, you might be tempted to brand Ocala a hick backwater town that is simply out of step with the times. But in point of fact, this year’s presentation of The Vagina Monologues would be the show’s fourth run in the city, albeit the first at the city-owned O’Reilly. But clearly its prior presentations by the Insomniac Theatre Company at their own venue in 2012 and 2013 and at the The Brick City Center for the Arts in 2014 apparently didn’t violate any community standards of decency. In fact they sold out, raising money for the Ocala Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Center and the V-Day charity. This year’s presentation is raising funds for the PACE Center for Girls.

As for the burlesque performances, they’ve been taking place at the Marion about three times a year for the past couple of years. Burlesque, of course, has become once again popular and even hip; it’s meant to evoke the tawdry era of burlesque’s heyday, but with a healthy dose of empowerment in performances that are welcoming to all body types and races, and beyond the binary definition of gender. The performances in Ocala are sponsored by, among others, a hair salon, an architecture firm, and a fitness club.

Let’s face it: what on earth does “questionable” mean? How about “inappropriate” or “objectionable”? If no one can agree on exactly what constitutes obscenity, these words are so vague as to very likely be unenforceable. After all, I find a number of the current presidential candidates questionable, but that doesn’t actually say anything about my perception of them. I also find Brussels sprouts objectionable, and the notion that they are appealing to be questionable, but so what? Does that mean if I were an Ocala resident I could attempt to prevent them from ever being served in these venues?

*   *   *

How did this incipient censorship effort reach up to New York? That’s because Chad Taylor, who produced Ocala’s prior productions of The Vagina Monologues and is directing it this year at the Reilly, posted his concerns on Facebook and it spread quickly. In his plea for support (and signatures on a petition), he wrote:

On March 1st at 4 PM at City Hall, this “offended” individual will be speaking before the City Council to get us shut down. He is bringing some “friends” who share his point of view. I don’t ask a lot of out you guys, but I cannot stand by and watch two female-centric shows that empower women be stopped because someone out there has an issue with the word Vagina. We must be heard. For every person who speaks against these shows we must have three voices for them. Let’s pack the place with people who aren’t afraid of giving women a voice OR adults a choice in how they want to be entertained.

It’s worth noting that a new member of the city council, elected in 2015, is Matthew Wardell, the music director and conductor of the Ocala Symphony, which as operator of The Reilly Arts center is the producer of The Vagina Monologues. While one might make the assumption that he has a conflict of interest in this case, Wardell says he consulted with the city attorney and given that all proceeds are going to charity, he’s in the clear. “I can’t recuse myself,” said Wardell, “because there’s no financial interest.”

Wardell says that he believes the people speaking against The Vagina Monologues haven’t actually read or seen the play. “I don’t think they understand the impact of the piece on women – and men,” said Wardell. “Great art stretches us and and brings us back to a place where we can talk about it together.”

“I just don’t agree that the play is in any way immoral,” he said. “There’s nothing here that’s against the law,” he added, while saying that he didn’t believe anything was going to change the opponents’ minds.

“I err on the side of the First Amendment,” Wardell explained. “When I took the oath to serve on city council, I swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and you just don’t skip over the First Amendment.”

Wardell cited an event in the past year where the city council agreed to close down an entire city block for a movie promotion: a 50 Shades of Grey “Naught Or Nice” Party. He noted a similar sanctioned event for Magic Mike XXL.

Explaining that he’s not allowed to discuss business with fellow council members outside of actual council meetings, Wardell said that in light of other approved events, “I’d find it objectionable if my fellow council members had any objections.”

*   *   *

In his request to speak, Mr. Dinkins outlines the “meeting intent hoped for”

Following the interaction among the Council members and local citizens, it is hoped the City Council, acting as Landlord of both locations, will take action to investigate and determine if the upcoming events violate the “use” guidelines per their respective leases.

I can only hope that the city council of Ocala will have the good sense to let Mr. Dinkins and his team be heard in accordance with their standard practices regarding time allotted, scheduling and so on, even though Mr. Dinkins has asked to be scheduled early in the meeting for no apparent reason whatsoever other than his own preference. I hope the council insures that the conversation is civil, respectful and entirely fact-based, including recognition of the separation of church and state in all matters. I also hope that equal time will be given to any Ocala citizens who appear and wish to make the case on behalf of these performances, their producers and the venues in which they take place. I hope lots of people appear to speak on behalf of The Vagina Monologues and The Marion at Midnight.

Then I hope the city council will thank all parties and simply go on with the essential business of running Ocala without voicing any opinion one way or another or calling for any vote. They will have already spent far too much time on a retrograde, reactionary effort to deny members of the community access to legal and creative pursuits that they’ve previously enjoyed. I hope the council won’t use some wholly subjective, undefinable words in two lease agreements to dignify a call for censorship. Because that’s what I call, at the very least, questionable indeed.

Update, February 25, 2016, 9 am: Mekaella Lord, also known as Lady Mekaella DeMure, the producer of The Marion at Midnight and other Ocala burlesque events, has posted a Facebook notice of a peaceful protest against the censorious effort that will be brought before the Ocala city council on Tuesday. It reads in part:

This man & his co-speakers will present their case before council that day on our “unwholesome,” “unchristian” and “inappropriate” productions. Myself & others will also be allowed to comment and speak in our defense after his public comment. If you would like to attend, please do. Please keep it civil and polite as we represent an elegant & professional art, let’s keep it that way!
This man seeks to take away something from Ocala. The right to do any art uncensored and to have a voice as women, as artists. This single person is trying to redefine what art is and isn’t and what should or shouldn’t be allowed due to his personal preferences.
Will you allow that?
We are defending a LOT here. Not only our own production & right to work as performers in our own venues that we rented and hometown for our audience, but so much more.
All provocative art is objectionable to someone.
The fact that a person who has not even seen the show has decided to object does not make the show objectionable.
A free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants — or does not want — to create & share. We are defending the right for females & artists to have a voice, to exercise their voice/art.

Update, February 25, 6:30 pm: Playwright Eve Ensler sent the following message to the organizers of the Ocala production of The Vagina Monologues, through her V-Day organization, via the Arts Integrity Initiative:

I stand with all of you who are standing for freedom, for theater, for women, for liberation.

The vagina is out of the bottle and she won’t be put back in!

In deepest solidarity,

Eve

Update, March 2, 10:30 am: At the City Council meeting, both sides of the content debate shared their thoughts, with opponents of content restrictions outnumbering Brad Dinkins and his supporters. After hearing all concerned, the City Council took no action, other than asking the city’s attorney to review the legality of the pertinent clauses in the city’s venue leases.  “We don’t feel (we want) to ban this,” said Council Chairman Jim Hilty, according to a report on Ocala.com. “We’re definitely not looking to ban anyone’s free speech. I believe at this point we have to allow the shows to go on.”

This post will be updated as events warrant.

Howard Sherman is the director of the Arts Integrity Initiative.

If you’re not familiar with Julia Pascal’s 2003 play Crossing Jerusalem, that’s because the play has only had two productions in the U.S. Or perhaps it is more correct to say that it has had one and a half productions, because the play’s second U.S. run, by J-CAT, the Cultural Arts Theatre at the Michael-Ann Russell Jewish Community Center in North Miami, a community theatre, was shut down by the JCC after giving only half of its scheduled performances.

*   *   *

The play takes place during the intifada of 2002, and focuses on an Israeli family that chooses to take the risk of crossing Jerusalem to dine at a favorite restaurant to mark a family birthday celebration, a restaurant owned by a Christian Arab (in the script’s description) and staffed by two Palestinian Muslims. The characters represent a microcosm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as interpreted by Pascal. In 2015, on the occasion of the play’s first London revival, Pascal spoke about her intention in writing Crossing Jerusalem with The Jewish Chronicle Online.

“I think that it’s the playwright’s duty not to take a simplistic line,” says Pascal. “I’ve been examining what plays have been done on Israel [in Britain] over the past 50 years, and almost all of them have been from an anti-Zionist point of view. So, because of who is allowed to write about Israel and who is commissioned to write about Israel, you only get the simplistic Israel-bad/Palestinian-good point of view through the plays we have seen. I fee it’s my duty to show all sides. Whether that’s comfortable or not is another question. It’s the kaleidoscope that’s important.”

Speaking just this week from London, after the J-CAT production was canceled, Pascal said, “Jews told me, ‘You’re very tough on us.’ Palestinians said, ‘You portray us all as terrorists.’ People tend to bring their own attitudes to the play.”

“I see right and wrong on both sides,” Pascal explained, “and I get it in the neck from both sides.”

As to her Jewish perspective, Pascal says, “I think it’s painful to be a Jew, but we have to deal with it. The way the state of Israel was built up was painful and in the long continuum of history, it’s no one group’s fault.” However, she described the media conversation around Israel in England by saying, “The British press is very anti-Israel. That is the default position.”

Ultimately, Pascal says, she wrote Crossing Jerusalem because, “There was no play in England that represented Israel in all its complexity.”

*   *   *

J-CAT’s production of Julia Pascal’s Crossing Jerusalem

It seems clear that J-CAT and the JCC were fully aware of the potential for controversy in producing the play. Program statements from Paul Kruss and Gary Bomzer, the Chairman of the Board and the President and CEO respectively, began as follows:

“Throughout our history of community theatre, it is not unusual to periodically present a play whose content may be viewed as controversial and be a catalyst to stimulate audience discussion after the performance. For us at the MAR-JCC, it shows an openness to present theatre which may not reflect the views or opinions of the MAR-JCC’s lay leadership and staff, but has the potential to serve as an educational opportunity to delve into social, and even political questions and issues that the production raises. Crossing Jerusalem certainly falls into this category…from family dynamics to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Crossing Jerusalem touches upon subject matters that are heavily discussed in Israel’s open and democratic society. And for you, the audience, we invite you to participate in some of this discussion as part of a talk-back at the end of the show.”

The program also carried a statement from Michael Andron, the head of J-CAT, an employee of the JCC and director of Crossing Jerusalem:

“This is a challenging play. Its setting is in one of the most complex places on the planet. If it were easy to ‘show’ all the history and the political problems clearly, perhaps it might be easier to find solutions to them. Clearly, it is not so easy.”

Later in his program note, Andron continued:

Those in our audience who might care to argue that one actor’s statement, or another’s line or stated idea, is inaccurate (or, as in Politifact’s lingo: true, mostly true, mostly false, pants on fire), or that some clear insight or additional point of view is lacking in the play, would miss the point somewhat, I think. We will try, after the show, to add a layer of factual education on some of those issues.

The company’s website noted that the show contained “mature themes and language.”

*   *   *

With all of that understanding up front, how did it lead Bomzer, the JCC president and CEO, to terminate the run after only four of nine performances had been given? On February 16, he wrote to the JCC community:

We have heard the voices of many in our community advocating passionately to put an end to the show because they feel the message is inappropriate and troublesome. Please know that our intentions in presenting Crossing Jerusalem are good ones, and yet we realize that we have unintentionally caused pain to many in the audience; for this we are sincerely sorry.

The vision of the JCAT leadership was to engage meaningfully with each other on Israel, across lines of difference and to build a culture in which complicated questions are ones we can openly discuss. While we were aware that the play deals with some very controversial issues, the last thing we wanted was to alienate members of our community or damage relationships…

We must together devise constructive and participatory ways forward to get at our differences, even when they remain dramatic. Meanwhile, our leadership has made the decision to suspend performances of Crossing Jerusalem in order to avoid any further pain and to engage in rigorous, vibrant conversation that advances our community.

From being aware of potential controversy in his program note to apologizing for that controversy and accepting and advancing the idea that the play was causing pain, Bomzer’s shift in position and tone is significant. Instead of publicly defending the play, JCAT and his own role in seeing Crossing Jerusalem produced, with the intention of starting valuable discussion, Bomzer quickly disowns it, even though his letter acknowledges receiving many communications from people both in support of and against the play.

Michael Andron issued a statement via his Facebook page regarding the cancelation. It reads, in its entirety:

I want to share two thoughts about the cancellation of JCAT’s “Crossing Jerusalem”. (If you haven’t followed it, search it). Ten months ago, JCC CEO Gary Bomzer and I agreed that we would produce Crossing Jerusalem at JCAT as both a gripping drama and as an educational learning opportunity about the Middle East. We determined this should include my playbill director’s notes to the audience, a few brief remarks before the show about the complexity of a play set in a complicated part of the world, Israel, one that we both love and support, and an opportunity for a talkback with the cast and creative team after the show. I proceeded to direct an incredible cast and honored all the plans Gary and I agreed to.

As far as the cancellation is concerned: Personally, of course I would have preferred to continue the show to the end and let the audience decide for themselves. I directed this powerful play to portray all sides and stimulate discussion, education and insights. But insights shouldn’t incite (as I wrote in the playbill) and I feel horrible that they did. I’m saddened for the actors and crew who worked so hard on this production, as well as for those in the community who didn’t get to see the piece and decide for themselves what they felt and thought about it. This my opinion and I am not speaking on behalf of the JCC. But JCAT is part of the JCC and I understand and accept the difficult decision that the organization had to make.

When contacted, Andron declined to answer any questions regarding the cancelation beyond his Facebook post.

*   *   *

I wrote to Gary Bomzer on Sunday asking for an interview, saying that I planned to write about this situation within two days, and he responded just a few hours later, writing, “Thank you for your email. Please send me your questions and I will respond as best as I can.” I sent him eight questions at 8 pm Sunday evening and as I write on Tuesday morning, I have not heard from him again, even having re-sent the questions at 8 am this morning.

Some of my unanswered questions were:

4. The Miami Herald article cites Avi Goldwasser and Charles Jacobs expressing opposition to the play, with Goldwasser having participated in at least some of the post-performance discussions. How did Mr. Goldwasser and Mr. Jacobs, who as I understand it are based in New York and Boston respectively, come to be involved in speaking at and in connection with your production from the moment it began performances? Did members of your community reach out to them and include them in the dialogue before performances had even begun?

5. Corollary to number 4, I have a copy of a document prepared by Mr. Goldwasser which seems to be framed as a rebuttal to sentiments and statements expressed by the characters. Was this document inserted into programs or otherwise distributed at performances? If so, who made the decision to make this material available? Was any other historical or dramaturgical material available in the program or as handouts?

8. Are you concerned that by canceling the remaining performances in this play’s run, you may face situations in the future where members of the JCC community seek to have other cultural offerings canceled because they differ from their own personal viewpoints? Will this potentially limit the range of the JCC’s cultural offerings in the future?

In the various articles that have come out thus far about the cancelation of Crossing Jerusalem at the JCC, all reporters seem to be relying, as I am, on the same documents, statements and Facebook posts. Very little is being spoken aloud. The Miami Herald’s feature on the cancelation contextualized it by citing other conflicts over politics and culture in South Florida, notably over Cuban artists, but that article also mentions the controversy over The Death of Klinghoffer at the Metropolitan Opera in 2014.

In regards to the portrayal of Israelis, Palestinians and Jews (since not all Jews are Israeli), the Klinghoffer example is certainly pertinent. I would add the controversy over the New York Theatre Workshop’s planned production of My Name Is Rachel Corrie in 2006, which was canceled and ultimately produced else where in New York as a commercial production, and the clashes between Ari Roth during his tenure at Theater J, the resident company at the Washington DC JCC, over the content of his artistic choices which included a range of viewpoints about the social and political situation in Israel, which ultimately led to Roth forming his own company Mosaic Theater. A production of Rachel Corrie was also canceled in 2009 at the Mosaic Theatre Company in Plantation FL (no connection to Ari Roth’s new company), a professional company in residence at the American Heritage School prior to production.

Crossing Jerusalem at the MAR-JCC once again raises the question of whether complex, messy portrayals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the human stories within it can successfully be produced within the context of Jewish Community Centers, or for that matter by artistic institutions in areas with significant Jewish populations. It seems quite possible that based on past examples, JCCs will shy away from this kind of work in the future, lest they be subject to the kind of criticism that has been levied upon the organizations cited above.

Will there be only one kind of approved narrative in the US for exploring this seemingly intractable situation through art? As someone with significant religious training in my youth, I was taught that Judaism is a non-dogmatic religion that values discussion and debate. I do not see those principles being sustained in the censorious actions of the MAR-JCC; I am one of the signatories to a letter developed by the National Coalition Against Censorship urging the JCC to reinstate the canceled performances.

Having read Crossing Jerusalem, I can see why people with strong viewpoints might object to some of the statements and opinions within it, though in my reading every statement is counterweighted by another conflicting one. I have certainly seen plays with which I do not agree, some of which even made me quite angry, but I support their right to be heard and seen by those who choose to attend them. I fear an ever-increasing artistic orthodoxy when it comes to portrayals of Israel in the U.S.

The first step in avoiding a singular viewpoint is for Crossing Jerusalem to be seen and heard once again at the North Miami JCC. If people choose not to attend? That’s OK. If there are protests? Also fine. Based upon my scanning of Facebook commentary, there are plenty of people in North Miami who want to see Crossing Jerusalem, perhaps even more now that it has become a cause celebre. They should have the opportunity to do so, or not, according to their own artistic, political and religious compass. If the play was sufficiently worthy for the JCC to produce in the first place, knowing its potential for controversy, Bomzer shouldn’t be going back on his word now, and should let audiences decide for themselves.

Howard Sherman is director of the Arts Integrity Initiative at The New School College of Performing Arts; this post first appeared at artsintegrity.org.

Respectful debate on all aspects of this column are welcomed, however comments are moderated.

If you’re not familiar with Julia Pascal’s 2003 play Crossing Jerusalem, that’s because the play has only had two productions in the U.S. Or perhaps it is more correct to say that it has had one and a half productions, because the play’s second U.S. run, by J-CAT, the Cultural Arts Theatre at the Michael-Ann Russell Jewish Community Center in North Miami, a community theatre, was shut down by the JCC after giving only half of its scheduled performances.

*   *   *

The play takes place during the intifada of 2002, and focuses on an Israeli family that chooses to take the risk of crossing Jerusalem to dine at a favorite restaurant to mark a family birthday celebration, a restaurant owned by a Christian Arab (in the script’s description) and staffed by two Palestinian Muslims. The characters represent a microcosm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as interpreted by Pascal. In 2015, on the occasion of the play’s first London revival, Pascal spoke about her intention in writing Crossing Jerusalem with The Jewish Chronicle Online.

“I think that it’s the playwright’s duty not to take a simplistic line,” says Pascal. “I’ve been examining what plays have been done on Israel [in Britain] over the past 50 years, and almost all of them have been from an anti-Zionist point of view. So, because of who is allowed to write about Israel and who is commissioned to write about Israel, you only get the simplistic Israel-bad/Palestinian-good point of view through the plays we have seen. I fee it’s my duty to show all sides. Whether that’s comfortable or not is another question. It’s the kaleidoscope that’s important.”

Speaking just this week from London, after the J-CAT production was canceled, Pascal said, “Jews told me, ‘You’re very tough on us.’ Palestinians said, ‘You portray us all as terrorists.’ People tend to bring their own attitudes to the play.”

“I see right and wrong on both sides,” Pascal explained, “and I get it in the neck from both sides.”

As to her Jewish perspective, Pascal says, “I think it’s painful to be a Jew, but we have to deal with it. The way the state of Israel was built up was painful and in the long continuum of history, it’s no one group’s fault.” However, she described the media conversation around Israel in England by saying, “The British press is very anti-Israel. That is the default position.”

Ultimately, Pascal says, she wrote Crossing Jerusalem because, “There was no play in England that represented Israel in all its complexity.”

*   *   *

J-CAT’s production of Julia Pascal’s Crossing Jerusalem

It seems clear that J-CAT and the JCC were fully aware of the potential for controversy in producing the play. Program statements from Paul Kruss and Gary Bomzer, the Chairman of the Board and the President and CEO respectively, began as follows:

“Throughout our history of community theatre, it is not unusual to periodically present a play whose content may be viewed as controversial and be a catalyst to stimulate audience discussion after the performance. For us at the MAR-JCC, it shows an openness to present theatre which may not reflect the views or opinions of the MAR-JCC’s lay leadership and staff, but has the potential to serve as an educational opportunity to delve into social, and even political questions and issues that the production raises. Crossing Jerusalem certainly falls into this category…from family dynamics to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Crossing Jerusalem touches upon subject matters that are heavily discussed in Israel’s open and democratic society. And for you, the audience, we invite you to participate in some of this discussion as part of a talk-back at the end of the show.”

The program also carried a statement from Michael Andron, the head of J-CAT, an employee of the JCC and director of Crossing Jerusalem:

“This is a challenging play. Its setting is in one of the most complex places on the planet. If it were easy to ‘show’ all the history and the political problems clearly, perhaps it might be easier to find solutions to them. Clearly, it is not so easy.”

Later in his program note, Andron continued:

Those in our audience who might care to argue that one actor’s statement, or another’s line or stated idea, is inaccurate (or, as in Politifact’s lingo: true, mostly true, mostly false, pants on fire), or that some clear insight or additional point of view is lacking in the play, would miss the point somewhat, I think. We will try, after the show, to add a layer of factual education on some of those issues.

The company’s website noted that the show contained “mature themes and language.”

*   *   *

With all of that understanding up front, how did it lead Bomzer, the JCC president and CEO, to terminate the run after only four of nine performances had been given? On February 16, he wrote to the JCC community:

We have heard the voices of many in our community advocating passionately to put an end to the show because they feel the message is inappropriate and troublesome. Please know that our intentions in presenting Crossing Jerusalem are good ones, and yet we realize that we have unintentionally caused pain to many in the audience; for this we are sincerely sorry.

The vision of the JCAT leadership was to engage meaningfully with each other on Israel, across lines of difference and to build a culture in which complicated questions are ones we can openly discuss. While we were aware that the play deals with some very controversial issues, the last thing we wanted was to alienate members of our community or damage relationships…

We must together devise constructive and participatory ways forward to get at our differences, even when they remain dramatic. Meanwhile, our leadership has made the decision to suspend performances of Crossing Jerusalem in order to avoid any further pain and to engage in rigorous, vibrant conversation that advances our community.

From being aware of potential controversy in his program note to apologizing for that controversy and accepting and advancing the idea that the play was causing pain, Bomzer’s shift in position and tone is significant. Instead of publicly defending the play, JCAT and his own role in seeing Crossing Jerusalem produced, with the intention of starting valuable discussion, Bomzer quickly disowns it, even though his letter acknowledges receiving many communications from people both in support of and against the play.

Michael Andron issued a statement via his Facebook page regarding the cancelation. It reads, in its entirety:

I want to share two thoughts about the cancellation of JCAT’s “Crossing Jerusalem”. (If you haven’t followed it, search it). Ten months ago, JCC CEO Gary Bomzer and I agreed that we would produce Crossing Jerusalem at JCAT as both a gripping drama and as an educational learning opportunity about the Middle East. We determined this should include my playbill director’s notes to the audience, a few brief remarks before the show about the complexity of a play set in a complicated part of the world, Israel, one that we both love and support, and an opportunity for a talkback with the cast and creative team after the show. I proceeded to direct an incredible cast and honored all the plans Gary and I agreed to.

As far as the cancellation is concerned: Personally, of course I would have preferred to continue the show to the end and let the audience decide for themselves. I directed this powerful play to portray all sides and stimulate discussion, education and insights. But insights shouldn’t incite (as I wrote in the playbill) and I feel horrible that they did. I’m saddened for the actors and crew who worked so hard on this production, as well as for those in the community who didn’t get to see the piece and decide for themselves what they felt and thought about it. This my opinion and I am not speaking on behalf of the JCC. But JCAT is part of the JCC and I understand and accept the difficult decision that the organization had to make.

When contacted, Andron declined to answer any questions regarding the cancelation beyond his Facebook post.

*   *   *

I wrote to Gary Bomzer on Sunday asking for an interview, saying that I planned to write about this situation within two days, and he responded just a few hours later, writing, “Thank you for your email. Please send me your questions and I will respond as best as I can.” I sent him eight questions at 8 pm Sunday evening and as I write on Tuesday morning, I have not heard from him again, even having re-sent the questions at 8 am this morning.

Some of my unanswered questions were:

4. The Miami Herald article cites Avi Goldwasser and Charles Jacobs expressing opposition to the play, with Goldwasser having participated in at least some of the post-performance discussions. How did Mr. Goldwasser and Mr. Jacobs, who as I understand it are based in New York and Boston respectively, come to be involved in speaking at and in connection with your production from the moment it began performances? Did members of your community reach out to them and include them in the dialogue before performances had even begun?

5. Corollary to number 4, I have a copy of a document prepared by Mr. Goldwasser which seems to be framed as a rebuttal to sentiments and statements expressed by the characters. Was this document inserted into programs or otherwise distributed at performances? If so, who made the decision to make this material available? Was any other historical or dramaturgical material available in the program or as handouts?

8. Are you concerned that by canceling the remaining performances in this play’s run, you may face situations in the future where members of the JCC community seek to have other cultural offerings canceled because they differ from their own personal viewpoints? Will this potentially limit the range of the JCC’s cultural offerings in the future?

In the various articles that have come out thus far about the cancelation of Crossing Jerusalem at the JCC, all reporters seem to be relying, as I am, on the same documents, statements and Facebook posts. Very little is being spoken aloud. The Miami Herald’s feature on the cancelation contextualized it by citing other conflicts over politics and culture in South Florida, notably over Cuban artists, but that article also mentions the controversy over The Death of Klinghoffer at the Metropolitan Opera in 2014.

In regards to the portrayal of Israelis, Palestinians and Jews (since not all Jews are Israeli), the Klinghoffer example is certainly pertinent. I would add the controversy over the New York Theatre Workshop’s planned production of My Name Is Rachel Corrie in 2006, which was canceled and ultimately produced else where in New York as a commercial production, and the clashes between Ari Roth during his tenure at Theater J, the resident company at the Washington DC JCC, over the content of his artistic choices which included a range of viewpoints about the social and political situation in Israel, which ultimately led to Roth forming his own company Mosaic Theater. A production of Rachel Corrie was also canceled in 2009 at the Mosaic Theatre Company in Plantation FL (no connection to Ari Roth’s new company), a professional company in residence at the American Heritage School prior to production.

Crossing Jerusalem at the MAR-JCC once again raises the question of whether complex, messy portrayals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the human stories within it can successfully be produced within the context of Jewish Community Centers, or for that matter by artistic institutions in areas with significant Jewish populations. It seems quite possible that based on past examples, JCCs will shy away from this kind of work in the future, lest they be subject to the kind of criticism that has been levied upon the organizations cited above.

Will there be only one kind of approved narrative in the US for exploring this seemingly intractable situation through art? As someone with significant religious training in my youth, I was taught that Judaism is a non-dogmatic religion that values discussion and debate. I do not see those principles being sustained in the censorious actions of the MAR-JCC; I am one of the signatories to a letter developed by the National Coalition Against Censorship urging the JCC to reinstate the canceled performances.

Having read Crossing Jerusalem, I can see why people with strong viewpoints might object to some of the statements and opinions within it, though in my reading every statement is counterweighted by another conflicting one. I have certainly seen plays with which I do not agree, some of which even made me quite angry, but I support their right to be heard and seen by those who choose to attend them. I fear an ever-increasing artistic orthodoxy when it comes to portrayals of Israel in the U.S.

The first step in avoiding a singular viewpoint is for Crossing Jerusalem to be seen and heard once again at the North Miami JCC. If people choose not to attend? That’s OK. If there are protests? Also fine. Based upon my scanning of Facebook commentary, there are plenty of people in North Miami who want to see Crossing Jerusalem, perhaps even more now that it has become a cause celebre. They should have the opportunity to do so, or not, according to their own artistic, political and religious compass. If the play was sufficiently worthy for the JCC to produce in the first place, knowing its potential for controversy, Bomzer shouldn’t be going back on his word now, and should let audiences decide for themselves.

Howard Sherman is director of the Arts Integrity Initiative at The New School College of Performing Arts.

Respectful debate on all aspects of this column are welcomed, however comments are moderated.

Let’s start with the basics: no one can possibly prevent critics from reviewing shows if they want to do. Whether it’s requested or even imposed by theatre company, a venue, a rights holder, or an author, members of the press – just like the public – can always buy a ticket to a theatrical production and express what they think. To actively prevent members of the press from entering a theatre is at least foolhardy if not potentially discriminatory; to prevent anyone from writing or broadcasting their opinion is a denial of their rights to speech. Just so we’re all on the same page.

Ari Fliakos, Kate Valk, and Scott Renderer in The Wooster Group’s production of Pinter’s The Room (photo by Paula Court)

That’s why a recent press release from The Wooster Group and the Los Angeles venue REDCAT quickly stirred up a hornet’s nest. It stated that the license granted to The Wooster Group for the REDCAT run of the Group’s production of Harold Pinter’s The Room, beginning tomorrow, contained the admonition, “There may be absolutely No reviews of this production; e.g. newspaper, website posts etc.” It also appeared in a press release issued by The Wooster and REDCAT, after an opening paragraph which stated “Samuel French, Inc., which manages the United States rights for Harold Pinter’s work, restricts critics from reviewing the world premiere of the Group’s production of The Room at REDCAT.”

Very little angers and piques the interest of the press more than being told what they can’t do, so it’s no surprise that following the initial word of the issue coming from the website Bitter Lemons, both the Los Angeles Times and New York Times did features on the ostensible critical blackout. But there’s more to the story, which both Times recounted.

In short, The Wooster Group acquired a license for “advance” presentations of The Room last fall, at their home The Performing Garage in New York, where it played an extended run in October and November of 2015. At the time the Group announced that engagement, press releases issued by the company spoke of the planned “premiere” at REDCAT, a return run in New York, and plans to make The Room the first of a trilogy of Pinter productions (The Wooster Group has subsequently spoken of plans to take The Room to France).

However, Bruce Lazarus, executive director of Samuel French, which licenses Pinter’s work in the U.S. on behalf of the Pinter estate’s London agent, says that the announcement of any presentation beyond the original New York license caught the company by surprise. The Wooster Group has confirmed that they had not secured licenses for any of the subsequent engagements beyond November 2015, with their general manager Pamela Reichen writing in an e-mail, “Our plans to do further Pinter pieces besides The Room were preliminary and tentative, when we first announced performances of The Room in New York City.  We did not have specific dates for these further productions, and so had not yet made an application for rights to Samuel French.”

Both parties agree that they began discussions about future licenses immediately after French learned of the company’s plans, but the pace and substance of those negotiations and terms are in dispute. What is not in dispute is that by the time rights for the REDCAT engagement were completed, the prohibition against opening the production for review was in place.

When this first hit the press, Lazarus issued a statement that read in part:

Samuel French is licensing agent representing the wishes of the Harold Pinter estate. The Wooster Group announced the Los Angeles production of Pinter’s “The Room” before securing the rights.  Had The Wooster Group attempted to secure the rights to the play prior to announcing the production, the estate would have withheld the rights.

Lazarus maintains that the Pinter estate had not been prepared to grant any subsequent license, because the British agent had lined up a “first class” production in the UK, which had an option for a US transfer. Lazarus points out that French could have simply said no. He said that French persuaded the UK agent to allow the LA production, with restrictions. “We said yes because they begged, said Lazarus, “They said, ‘We’ll lose money’.” At first the license was written so as not to permit any promotion of the production, but that was scaled back to being a limitation on reviews.

Queried about the “no reviews” language, Lazarus says French, “made it clear what we meant: don’t invite the critics and don’t provide press tickets. We were under no illusion that the press couldn’t buy a ticket and that if they did so, it wasn’t a breach of contract. We weren’t denying freedom of speech.” That said, whatever the content of the conversations were, in stark black and white contract language, the suggestion of a press exclusion appeared much more blunt, and became even more so when deployed in a press release verbatim. Lazarus allowed that in the future, should such stipulations be made, the language will be more specific.

Ari Fliakos in The Wooster Group’s production of Pinter’s The Room (photo by Paula Court)

In the Wooster/REDCAT release, Mark Murphy, Executive Director of REDCAT, says that the review restrictions were “’highly unusual and puzzling,’ adding that, ‘This attempt to restrict critical discussion of such an important production in print and online is deeply troubling, with the potential for severe financial impact.’” In point of fact, review restrictions have become increasingly frequent, for any number of reasons. Just last summer, Connecticut critics were strongly urged not to review A.R. Gurney’s Love and Money at the Westport Country Playhouse because the show’s ‘true’ premiere was to take place immediately following its Connecticut run at New York’s Signature Theatre. Several years ago, national press was “uninvited” from the premiere of Tony Kushner’s The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide at the Guthrie Theatre once a commercial producer optioned the piece. Major press was asked to skip The Bridges of Madison County when it was first seen at Williamstown Theatre Festival. I can think back almost 30 years to a time when I pleaded with a New York Times critic not to attend a production at Hartford Stage, even though local press had attended. And let’s not forget how long Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark spent in preview before the press finally got fed up and covered it despite the stated preferences of the production. Whether or not one likes the practice of letting producers decide when reviews are or are not “permitted” (Jeremy Gerard of Deadline, previously of Bloomberg and Variety, stakes out his position in a recent column), whether one feels the press is honorable or complicit in how they handle these requests on a case by case basis, it’s hardly a rare practice.

In the case of how the press was handled in connection with The Wooster Group’s unreviewed advance showings of The Room in New York in the fall, Pamela Reichen, general manager of the company, who responded to e-mail questions, writes, “The New York performances were not open to the press. We develop our work over long periods of time that involve work-in-progress showings – like the October-November showings of The Room – at our home theater, The Performing Garage.  We only open a show for review in New York or elsewhere once development is complete. The decision not to invite press to the advance showings was our decision, not a stipulation from Samuel French.  It was our intention to open the show for review in Los Angeles.”

In a phone conversation about this situation, Jeremy Gerard of Deadline noted, “There’s no other kind of journalism where the journalist says, ‘Is it OK if I report this kind of story?’” That said, the allowance for theatrical productions to be developed and previewed in front of paying audiences has become generally standard practice and important to countless creative artists, the result of a détente between the natural instincts of the press and the creative process of artists.

It’s impossible not to wonder whether the license was actually being denied because of dissatisfaction with the advance presentation in New York by French or the estate. Lazarus says that’s not the case. “No,” he stated, “This is not a value judgment on the production.” That seems consistent with the account by Pamela Reichen, who writes, “We received an appreciative note from the representative of Samuel French who attended an advance showing performance. We have not received any other communication from the estate or Samuel French relating to the concept or execution of our production.”

Asked whether the current denial of right to perform The Room for the foreseeable future after the Los Angeles run would effect their exploration of other Pinter works, Reichen wrote, “Because the rights are not being made available to us, we have no plans to explore other Pinter works. No significant work had begun on them. But our inability to perform The Room in New York or on tour will cause The Wooster Group a significant financial loss. We are a not-for-profit organization, and we fund our own productions. We therefore must recoup our investment over time through long performance runs and touring fees.”

*   *   *

So let’s cull this down to the basics.

The Wooster Group entered into an agreement to premiere their production of The Room in Los Angeles without having secured the rights to do so, and predicated company finances on presentations of the work beyond the original advance shows in New York in the fall 2015. Whatever the circumstances of the negotiations for those rights, The Wooster Group moved forward with an additional engagement, and was planning for yet more, with no assurance that they could do the piece.

In ultimately granting the rights for the Los Angeles engagement, Samuel French, on behalf of the Pinter estate’s wishes, stipulated that the show at REDCAT should not be open for reviews, but with language that can be construed as a broadly sweeping admonition over any reviews appearing, as opposed to being merely that the venue not facilitate the attendance of critics. Could French and the Pinter estate have allowed the brief LA engagement to proceed with no restrictions, without materially affecting the fortunates of a UK first class production and avoiding the resulting fuss? Sure, but ultimately, it was their call.*

In accepting the terms as set forth by French, The Wooster Group and REDCAT apparently still bridled at them, and so instead of asking critics not to attend, they issued a media release which implied an actual, but entirely unenforceable, press ban by French.

I would suggest that The Wooster Group and REDCAT, instead of acquiescing to their agreement and abiding by its spirit, issued the press release they did precisely to incite the press to greater interest in covering The Room, and it worked like a charm. It resulted in more national press than a 10-day run in Los Angeles might have otherwise received, and it prompted the American Theatre Critics Association to issue a statement in support of the right of the arts press to cover work as they see fit. Editors are reportedly debating whether or not to honor – is it a ban or is it a request – the position that the Los Angeles production isn’t officially open for review, even when it’s perfectly clear that they can do as they wish and always could.

Ultimately, The Wooster Group and REDCAT may have won the battle, but they’ve lost the war, since there won’t be any further Pinter work by the company at this time. But they did successfully turn the press account of the situation away from their inability to secure rights on terms they found acceptable into one of press freedom. However, the impact of heightened alertness by the press to requests that work be protected from review in some cases or for some period of time may prove detrimental to other companies and productions in the wake of this scenario. I have always supported the right of artists and companies to explore their work in front of audiences for a reasonable period of time before critics weigh in, and will continue to do so, but in all cases, the press will have the final word. I’m not sure this situation was ultimately beneficial to the arts community because it puts a longstanding, unwritten mutual agreement under the glare of scrutiny that one day may have far-reaching implications.

The two sentences which finish with an asterisk above were inadvertently left out of the post when it first appeared, and were added approximately 90 minutes after this piece first went online. Bruce Lazarus’s title at Samuel French was incorrect in the original post and the text has been altered to reflect his correct position at the company.

Howard Sherman is the director off the Arts Integrity Initiative at The New School College of Performing Arts.