CENSORSHIP v.s. FREEDOM OF ARTISTIC EXPRESSION

During the past several years, American educators have experienced a rising number of censorship attempts, and arts educators in particular have witnessed an alarming number of both blatant and subtle attempts to censor artistic expression. According to the recent December of NEA Today, the Octorara School Board "wants teachers to stick to the 'facts' - as it sees them." That means no classroom discussions of values or religious beliefs and practices - no open discussions of moral issues - no student diaries or self-evaluations" (7). The very same issue carried a report of a Texas teacher who was fired for using Neil Simon's Brighton Beach Memoirs in her 9th grade class (6).

It's easy to read these stories from distant states and think that it will never happen here; but, it has happened, and it will continue to happen. The most recent example is the controversy that occurred this fall at Reynoldsburg High School in the Columbus area over The Crucible. A parent of an RHS student objected to the content of the play and believed that it was inappropriate in the school setting. "I'm concerned because the man in the play was not punished for his affair or acts of molestation, but instead for being a nonconformist" (Topolosky 4).

Those of us well-acquainted with the play and with dramatic literature in general know that the play has been viewed as a story of the Salem witch trials, a play about mass hysteria, and a satire of the McCarthy Red Scare. Upon receiving the parent complaint, Principal Dan Hoffman did his homework. He talked to the parent, talked to RHS drama director Bill Gathergood, reviewed school curricular policy, and read the play. He confirmed that The Crucible was in RHS's own college prep English 11 curriculum and accepted the directors decision to produce the play. [An interesting side note: The Crucible was the second most produced play in America's high schools during the 1992-1993 school year according to Dramatics annual list of ten most produced plays.]

This was not the end of the matter. On October 19, the school play was part of the discussion at the monthly school board meeting. After both "sides" were given the opportunity to present their positions, the board voted 4-1 to endorse the production. One board member noted the lack of profanity and the "good lessons to be learned" in the play (Topolosky 5). The opposition felt the "play [was] a foolish choice" and was "cutting off a major part of the community from viewing a fall school production...Kids can't come to this play" (Topolosky 5). The complaining parent felt that school play choices should be appropriate for the younger siblings of the performers since the plays are open to the public.

Well, the play was presented; however, the controversy prompted the superintendent to propose a play selection committee. The sole dissenting school board member liked this suggestion saying "I don't consider this committee to be a form of censorship" (Topolosky 5). Rightfully, Bill Gathergood is opposed to the committee proposal. "There should be no committee unless they plan on running the whole department. I am the professional hired to choose the play" (Topolosky 5).

Who will win? Who will control dramatic production at RHS? Will school officials begin to exercise more control over future RHS productions or publications? This is not an issue confined to one high school in the center of the state. This is only one example of one person's or one group's attempt to infringe upon others' rights.

We drama-types need to attend to the world around us, particularly what has already happened to our journalism counterparts. In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that school administrators can censor if they provide a valid educational reason - this ruling has become known as the Hazelwood decision. Although this case involved a high school newspaper, it is applicable to high school play production. Could your school administrator find an "educationally sound" reason why you should not have produced your last play?

Sources:

Etlin, Melissa. "Texas Teacher Encounters Censorship.' NEA Today, December 1993: 6.

"Local Look. Pennsylvania - Undermining Values.' NEA Today, December 1993: 7.

Topolosky, Lindsay. "'inappropriate' Choice: Senior's Parent Attempts to Halt Play." 19 October 1993: 4-5.

The threat of censorship raises legal issues, and each case has its own merits, but some general guidelines do apply. The First Amendment applies to artistic expression as well as speech. It is designed to shield the individual against punitive or restrictive measures imposed by government for dissenting or unpopular opinions and activities. In cases where there is a dispute between the individual and the government, the courts have the responsibility to interpret the constitutional rights involved.

Supreme Court decisions have established some limits on freedom of expression. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre has long been the standing example of the "clear and present danger' of violence or injury decision in which individual rights to freedom of speech are subordinate to the public good. Libel and slander are usually not protected by the First Amendment Additionally, obscenity and child pornography are not protected by the First Amendment and can be prosecuted by the government Finally, the Hazelwood decision recently cited four offenses in which school officials would be educationally justified to censor. obscenity, invasion of privacy, libel, or material disruption in the school.

Obscenity can be determined according to the Supreme Court's Miller test in which a work is considered obscene only if the average person (applying contemporary community standards) would find that when the work was taken as a whole, it appealed to the prurient interest - it depicts or describes sexual conduct or organs in a patently offensive way - and, it lacks serious value.

Libel is established when there is identification, defamation, and publication and must be done with malice or negligence. Invasion of privacy can be argued objectively. There are many legal precedents that well-define these two "offenses."

The final justification of censorship in an educational setting is hardly well-defined. What is material disruption in the school? If an administrator had a good imagination, he certainly could find a reason under this criteria to validate censorship. For example, no court has ever banned the singing of religious Christmas carols by public school choirs, yet many of Ohio's schools no longer celebrate Christmas vacation or have changed their "Christmas concerts" to "Holiday or Winter concerts." Administrators who do not understand the permissible constitutional parameters of current court cases and the First Amendment unduly infringe on academic freedom.

Many organizations are available to help Americans defend their rights under the First Amendment. There are many organizations specifically formed to help artists defend their First Amendment rights. The International Thespian Society is concerned with the First Amendment rights of high school theatre students and has developed a "Censorship Statement." The best time for any organization to create or adopt a censorship/free expression policy is before a censorship controversy erupts. If your school does not have an academic freedom clause in your master contract or at least a censorship policy, consider drafting/adopting a policy. ITS has given Ohio ETA permission to reproduce its censorship statement [below].

These are suggested guidelines to help the theatre teacher and school administrators address an objection to a selected dramatic work. It is by no means a dictation of what must be done but should, instead, be adapted to the school's situation.

DEALING WITH CENSORSHIP

As an educational organization, The International Thespian Society upholds the First Amendment rights of high school students. The Society opposes any censorship that silences the expression of ideas or that may seek to impose boundaries on the world of dramatic literature.

If an individual or group objects to a play, the work must not be amended in a manner that clouds the author's intent. Consent must not be given to the arbitrary imposition of an individual's standards on plays that have been selected by the professional drama teacher. Adjusting any script merely to accommodate the wishes of outspoken individuals must not be allowed; in contrast, changes are acceptable when they constitute a consensus of the director and the school district residents.

Concomitantly, the drama teacher bears the responsibility to work within the limits of a school district's definition of unobjectionable material. In selecting a play the teacher must assess its compatibility with the community's standards.

In no instance is it appropriate for school officials to cancel summarily a theatrical production. To avoid constitutionally prohibited prior restraints on students' First Amendment rights, officials must proceed according to well-defined guidelines that will insure free expression.

RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DRAMATIC LITERATURE

If a school district resident requests reconsideration of the use of dramatic material for public presentation or for the classroom, the individual shall contact the drama teacher to discuss the issue.

If the matter cannot be resolved in this way, the participants in the first discussion will meet with the school principal.

If the objection persists beyond these informal steps, the principal shall initiate the following formal procedure.

1.The person initiating the objection to the play shall complete and return to the principal the Request for Reconsideration of Dramatic Literature. (The Society has developed a recommended format for the Request for Reconsideration. A copy is linked herewith.)

2.The principal shall acknowledge in writing receipt of the form and shall inform the drama teacher of same.

3.The principal shall forward the completed Request for Recommendation-as well as correspondence dealing with the objection-to the appropriate school district administrator.

Said district administrator shall proceed as follows:

1.Notify the superintendent of the objection.

2.Appoint a review committee consisting of

• The above-mentioned administrator or designee.
• A member of the drama faculty (other than the person involved in the above-mentioned discussions) or a teacher from a related department.
• A student involved in the school's drama program.
• The school principal.
• A member of the community (other than the person involved in the above-mentioned discussions).

After receiving copies of the Request for Reconsideration, the review committee shall consider the objection to the material.

1.Both those questioning the material and the drama teacher will have an opportunity to meet with the committee to present their positions on the matter.

2.The committee's review shall consider the literacy and educational merits of the play as a whole. Their assessment of the material must be based on the context of their undertaking: educational theatre.

3.The committee's recommendations shall be assembled into report form and shall be submitted to the superintendent, who will determine appropriate action.

The superintendent shall take final action within ten calendar days of the principal's receipt of the Request for Reconsideration.

The action taken in the matter shall be communicated in writing to the person who initiated the Request for Reconsideration and the outcome shall be made known to the school board, the review committee and other parties involved in the undertaking.

Until the formal procedure is completed, the play in question shall continue to be used.

If the issues can be resolved at any intermediate point in the procedures, the process shall be terminated.

If the matter cannot be resolved by the above procedures, an appeal may be made through the superintendent to the school board.