The Censorship Experiences of Theatre Directors in High School Academic Settings - A Phenomenological Study

PROJECT DEMONSTRATING EXCELLENCE
The Censorship Experiences of Theatre Directors in High School Academic Settings:

A Phenomenological Study
by
Brenda Robin Harris
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
with a concentration in Arts and Sciences
and a specialization in Theatre Arts
March 31,2007
Sherry Eve Penn-Crawford, Ph.D.
Union Institute & University

Cincinnati, Ohio
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
UMI Number: 3273544
Copyright 2007 by
Harris, Brenda Robin
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3273544
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the censorship experiences of theatre
directors in academic settings. Open-ended interviews were conducted with six high
school theatre directors who had had direct experiences with censorship in the production
of a play or plays. Analysis and synthesis of the data revealed nine core themes of the
experience of theatre censorship. These themes are: feelings of distress/unease, feelings
of anger, loss of autonomy, reasons for being censored/complaining parties, self-
censorship, concerns about job security, desire to expose students to challenging material,
decisions to produce more/less controversial material, levels of support given by
administrators/colleagues/others. The qualitative research method used was
Transcendental Phenomenology. Transcendental Phenomenology is a systematic
methodology which emphasizes subjectivity and the discovery of the essences of
experiences (Husserl, Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy 5-6). It is based on
the model set forth by Edmund Husserl. This methodology is called “phenomenology”
since it utilizes only data available to consciousness. It is “transcendental” because it
relies on that which can be discovered through reflection on subjective acts and their
correlates (Husserl, Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy 23). The meanings and
essences of the experience of theatre censorship were further clarified by means of
Individual and Composite Textural descriptions, Individual and Composite Structural
Descriptions, and finally, by a Composite Textural-Structural Synthesis. The two most
relevant structural core themes which emerged from theatre directors’ experience of
theatre censorship were relationships to self and relationships to others. Theatre directors
ii
felt responsibility to present students with challenging materials and were shocked when
the autonomy they had experienced in their theatre programs was threatened. Suggestions
for future research on the subject of theatre censorship included the study of theatre
directors in non-academic settings, the study of students’ experiences, the study of drama
directors who have lost their jobs due to censorship issues, and a large survey of high
school drama teachers across the United States. Social meanings revealed in this study
included the effects of censorship on teachers, students, families and colleagues.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 3
The Research Question 5
Definition of Terms 5
Overview of the Study 7
CHAPTER TWO Review of the Relevant Literature 8
Introduction 8
History of Censorship 8
History of Theatre Censorship 24
Recent Censorship Funding Issues 28
Theatre Censorship in Non-Academic Settings 32
Theatre Censorship in Academic Settings 38
Summary of Literature Review 63
CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Framework of Phenomenology 65
Phenomenological Processes 71
CHAPTER FOUR Research Design 75
Co-researcher Selection 75
Collection of Data 77
Organizing, Analyzing, and Synthesizing the Data 79
CHAPTER FIVE Presentation, Analysis, and Synthesis of Data 81
iv
Excerpt from Liz’s Interview 82
Excerpt from Mark’s Interview 86
Phenomenological Reduction
and Imaginative Variation 89
Invariant Constituents for Theme One 90
Invariant Constituents for Theme Two 93
Invariant Constituents for Theme Three 95
Invariant Constituents for Theme Four 101
Invariant Constituents for Theme Five 104
Invariant Constituents for Theme Six 105
Invariant Constituents for Theme Seven 106
Invariant Constituents for Theme Eight 107
Invariant Constituents for Theme Nine 109
Individual Textural Descriptions 110
Composite Textural Description 116
Individual Structural Descriptions 117
Composite Structural Description 121
Composite Textural-Structural Synthesis 122
CHAPTER SIX Summary, Implications, and Outcomes 124
Study Summary 124
Significant Findings 126
Integrating/Synthesizing Findings with
Prior Research and Scholarship 127
Strengths and Limitations 134
Recommendations for Future Research 135
Social Meanings 136
Professional Relevance 137
Personal Relevance 138
Conclusion 138
REFERENCES 140
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Informed consent agreement 151
Appendix B- Letter to co-researchers regarding transcript accuracy 153
Appendix C - Guiding questions 155
vi
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
“We were already five days into rehearsals. We had begun vocals, it was cast, we had
scripts [for Bat Bov, the Musical], and we had rights paid for-the whole ball of wax. I
was told at that meeting, no discussion whatsoever about any aspect of the show-I was
told we couldn’t do it. So I offered my resignation as drama director at the time because
she [the school‘s assistant principal] said, ‘By Friday, I want you to bring me another
script.’” These words, from an interview with one of my co-researchers, an Indiana high
school theatre director, clearly express the problems faced by those encountering
censorship of their productions.
This dissertation is an exploration of the censorship experiences of high school theatre
directors/teachers. In this introductory chapter, I will first explain the autobiographical
background and experience from which my interest in the topic of theatre censorship
emerged. In my statement of the problem, I will explain my research question and define
its terms.
I was introduced to the world of drama at a very early age, and these early experiences
play a major role in my continued interest in the arts, particularly theatre. I still remember
my first live theatre experience (as an audience member) quite clearly, and since I was
approximately five years old, this performance on Broadway of On Your Toes may have
awakened the passion for theatre I still have today.
At about the age of seven, I began to study diction, acting, dance, and singing, and
began to work professionally as an actress. Although I wasn’t very active in performing
2
professionally after graduating from high school, my interest in theatre continued, and I
worked as drama director at several summer camps, schools, and after-school programs.
As an actor, director, and theatre teacher, I have always been involved to some extent
with the arts in my community. Although I had been aware of the increasing threats to
freedom of expression in recent years, which included things such as funding cuts to arts
organizations and the outright banning of books in schools and public libraries, it was one
particular incident which prompted me to study the experience of theatre censorship in
depth.
I was living in Palm Beach, Florida in 2001, when I learned of the problems a local
public university, Florida Atlantic University, was experiencing with its production of the
plav Corpus Christi by Terrence McNally. Florida state legislators felt that the content of
the play, which depicts Jesus and his disciples as gay men, was offensive, and the state
threatened the university with possible funding cuts to its arts program.
At that point, with a censorship issue hitting so close to home in an academic venue, I
realized two things. The first was that I wanted to know more about current issues in arts
censorship, particularly, theatre censorship. The second was that I wanted to know what
the experience of censorship was for theatre directors in academic settings. My first step
was to speak with numerous theatre directors in my community. As a result, I learned that
this type of censorship was not an uncommon phenomenon.
Censorship not only affects those directly involved, but society as a whole. Debates
continue over free speech issues, and individuals and the legal system have been dealing
with this matter since the passage of the First Amendment. Censorship issues involving
things like comic books, songs, television shows, radio broadcasts, and plays are topical
3
and reported by the media almost daily.
Statement of the Problem
The problem of censorship in high school has long been the concern of educators and
parents. Censorship issues in high schools regarding books, yearbooks, student
newspapers, fine arts, and drama are not uncommon.
The School Library Journal informed readers about a relevant book, Censorship: An
Educator’s Guide, in an article with the same title, which “offers practical suggestions to
lead middle and high school students through an investigation of free speech and its
application to their own reading” (575).
In the journal American Libraries, an article titled “Censorship Watch,” by Beverly
Goldberg, explained how a “gay teen novel ’Geography Club’ was ordered removed from
a high school library in Washington State” (18).
An article in the newspaper The Capital, titled “Censorship Hurts Creativity,” was
written by Glen Bumie, Maryland high school student Christine Johnson. Johnson said
that the First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech and of the press don’t seem to
hold sway for “high school-run media such as newspapers, radio shows and yearbooks”
(Cl). Johnson continued to say that “Principals who choose to censor on subjects they are
afraid of are simply confusing their students. In one class we are told we have freedom of
speech, but in the class that actually involves that freedom we are told it isn’t totally true”
(Cl). Johnson also discussed students’ perceived need to self-censor after being faced
with censorship “because they are afraid of being cut down” (C2).
An article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper titled “Playing it Safe. Principal in
Fulton, Mo., canceled ‘The Crucible,”’ by Georgina Gustin, addressed the problem of
high school theatre censorship. Gustin explained how a Fulton (Missouri) high school
canceled a spring 2006 production of the play The Crucible “after receiving complaints
from three local church members about racy scenes in last fall’s musical, ‘Grease’” (Al).
Gustin continued to say that this incident “sent shudders through drama departments
across the country, where some educators viewed it as the latest example of growing
attempts to censor high school plays” (Al). Gustin reported that, according to the
Educational Theatre Association, “Complaints about perceived immorality or overly adult
themes in plays have risen in the past year” (Al). Gustin also reported that theatre
educators all over the country are “increasingly being forced into a repertoire of bland
plays and old, tired standards. They worry the material isn’t challenging enough or
relevant for today’s students” (Al).
As further evidence of the problems of censorship, Kathleen Kennedy Manzo wrote
about “How to Minimize Challenges to Materials,” in the newspaper Education Week.
Manzo said that most complaints regarding appropriateness of materials for students are
aimed at school libraries, and according to the National Council of Teachers of English
“Challenges to curriculum materials such as classroom libraries, films, and assigned
readings have seen an uptick over the past several years” (28). Manzo also mentioned the
book Teaching Banned Books, by Pat R. Scales as a resource for teachers (28).
The World Wide Web site for the organization National Coalition Against Censorship
gave further evidence of the ongoing and persistent problem of censorship, particularly
arts censorship, in announcing the “Colorado Symposium on Censorship of the Arts,”
which took place on April 7,2006. The panel discussion and open forum discussed
“Censorship and the Arts in America’s Culture Wars” (NCAC 1).
p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without p erm ission .
5
The problem of censorship in high schools, and in particular theatre censorship in high
schools, will be more thoroughly discussed in Chapter Two, Review of the Relevant
Literature.
The Research Question
This study is a transcendental phenomenological inquiry into the censorship
experiences of theatre directors in academic settings.
Censorship of the arts is not a recent phenomenon. Censorship by individuals, private
and government groups of the fine and performing arts, including painting, photography,
theatre, dance, and music, and of creative artists like authors and directors, has a long and
varied history. The extent of such censorship at a particular time, or in a given society,
seems to depend on the major societal influences of that time, and/or on the current
political leadership.
For the purposes of my study, I am not attempting to define censorship, but rather to
ask the question, “What is the experience of theatre directors in high school academic
settings who have experienced censorship in the production of plays?”
Definition of Terms
In phenomenological research, the word “experience” denotes a co-researcher’s
unique, personal encounter of an event or phenomenon. I am therefore referring to things
such as personal opinions, knowledge, and feelings of the co-researchers. I will be
endeavoring to obtain rich, detailed descriptions of the experience of theatre censorship
from my co-researchers.
The “theatre directors” in my study are directors of plays in high school settings who
have the primary responsibility as director of the performance(s) in question. My co-
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
6
researchers have had recent experiences with theatre censorship issues.
Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “censor” as “an official with the power to
examine publications, movies, television programs, etc. and to remove or prohibit
anything considered obscene, libelous, politically objectionable, etc.” (227). Therefore,
censorship is the act of censoring. In my study, “censorship” is meant to be any
restrictions which may have been placed on the directors’ intentions in producing a
particular play or plays.
The “production” of a play in a high school setting usually consists of the drama
teacher choosing a play or musical (a play with music/and or dancing) to present at the
school at a specific time in the school year. The drama teacher typically decides on the
play, selects the actors to be cast, creates the design, and coordinates the overall
production. The drama teacher is usually the director of the chosen play.
My roots in the performing arts go deep, having begun as a performer before the age of
seven. I am drawn to arts venues, arts-related literature, and arts people, and have come to
realize and appreciate the value of arts education and experiences for all ages.
Every time I see, hear, or read about an arts censorship issue, my instincts are to find
out more: how, where, why did this happen? Is it a trend? What are the motivating
factors? Is it political? Is it religious?
Sometimes the answers to these questions are ambiguous. However, in delineating the
experiences of theatre censorship for my co-researchers, I hope to shed light on the
answers to some of these questions. The results will be helpful to artists and educators,
as well as to arts and non-arts people, or to any individuals who take an interest in the
religious, social, and political climate of the times.
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
7
Overview of Study
This study has been designed as a transcendental phenomenological study of the
censorship experiences of high school theatre directors in high school academic settings
in three different states. In Chapter Two, I review the literature on the topic of theatre
censorship, citing specific incidents of censorship in both academic and non-academic
settings. In Chapter Three, I discuss the philosophical framework of my chosen research
method, transcendental phenomenology, and outline the specific steps involved in a
phenomenological study. In Chapter Four, I explain the specific methods and procedures I
used in conducting the study. I describe the selection of co-researchers, the method of
data collection, and the methods used for organizing, analyzing, and synthesizing the
data. In Chapter Five, I present a description of the essence of theatre censorship as lived
experience. I present some verbatim interview excerpts. I present and explain the nine
themes uncovered and provide textural and structural descriptions of the experience of
theatre censorship for two co-researchers. I then present composite textural and
composite structural descriptions of the experience. I conclude the chapter with a
composite textural-structural synthesis of the experience of theatre censorship. In Chapter
Six, I present a summary of the study. I discuss how my findings contribute to the
scholarly discussions regarding theatre censorship, the limitations of my study, and I
make recommendations for future research. Finally, I discuss the social, personal and
professional relevance of my study.
8
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE
Introduction
In this chapter, I will discuss the results of my literature review on the topic of theatre
censorship. In order to place the relevant literature into the proper historical context, I
will first discuss the history of censorship, and then, more specifically, the history of
theatre censorship. I will present and discuss censorship issues relating to the fine arts,
music, film, and theatre. I will then examine how censorship has affected the funding of
arts projects. Next, I will review censorship incidents in non-academic and academic
settings, concluding with those most relevant to my study; incidents of censorship in high
school settings. Finally, I will summarize the core findings relevant to my research,
differentiate my study from previous studies, and explain the uniqueness of my study of
theatre censorship.
History of Censorship
Many authors have written about society’s reasons for, and methods of, controlling
human behavior. These kinds of restrictions have existed as far back as prehistoric time.
John E. Pfeiffer, in the book titled The Emergence of Society, explained that as
prehistoric villages increased in size, “Much of the casualness and informality had gone
out of life. A village is a system with built-in tensions, in uneasy and dynamic balance
between opposing forces. Energy, time, and discipline and organization are necessary to
keep such a system in running order” (33).
Several authors discussed society’s censorship of young children. In his book titled
9
Escape from Freedom. Erich Fromm explained how our culture fosters a “tendency to
conform” (266). Fromm stated, “The suppression of spontaneous feelings, and thereby of
the development of genuine individuality, starts very early, as a matter of fact with the
earliest training of a child” (267).
As an illustration of this suppression, Fromm explained that one of the earliest
suppression of feelings “concerns hostility and dislike” (267). Fromm felt that most
children have measures of hostility/rebelliousness and that “it is one of the essential aims
of the educational process to eliminate this antagonistic reaction” (267-68). Fromm
explained that early in a child’s education, the child is “taught” to like people and to be
friendly, regardless of the child’s true feelings towards the particular person/people (268).
Fromm said that, later in life, “Friendliness, cheerfulness, and everything that a smile is
supposed to express, become automatic responses, which one turns on and off like an
electric switch” (269).
J.M.Coetzee, in his book titled Giving Offense, also discussed the censoring of
children. Coetzee said:
We are concerned to protect children, in good part to protect them from the
consequence of their limitless curiosity about sexual matters. But we should not
forget that children experience control of their explorations-control which by its
own premises cannot spell out exactly what it is that is forbidden-not as
protection but as frustration. (12)
In the classic book titled Social Psychology, by Bernard C. Ewer, the author explained
the “social control” of children. Ewer explained that children are reared in the home and
school in the “shadow” of the institutions of government and religion, which Ewer
10
considered to be the “chief regulative forces in society” (303). He went on to say that
“children. . . thus acquire the habits of social submission and cooperation which are
carried over into adult life” (303). In referring to public opinion, Ewer discussed the
“importance” of instructing youth (written in 1929). Ewer said, “The agencies by which
public opinion is formed are numerous and varied. Of first importance is the methodical
and informal instruction of childhood and youth, for basic likes and dislikes, beliefs and
attitudes, are planted like seeds by the example and precept of elders and associates at
that time” (316).
Nathan Miller’s book, titled The Child in Primitive Society, also addresses the
“censoring” of children’s behavior within a particular culture. Miller stated that “the
forces which make for a rigid conformity to the culture-pattem on the part of the child
rule from the cradle on. The child always stands out as the recipient of a tried body of
folkways or as an object of control and manipulation. Nothing else could be expected”
(253).
Hannah Arendt, in her book titled The Human Condition, addressed the concept of the
role of freedom in society. In the following discussions, she pointed out the meaning of
the term “freedom” in ancient Greek society. Ardendt stated:
What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polis [City-state] life, took
for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that
necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenomenon, characteristic of the private
household organizations, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere
because they are the only means to master necessity-for instance, by ruling over
slaves-and to become free. Because all human beings are subject to necessity, they
11
are entitled to violence toward others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating
oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of the world. (29-30)
Arendt continued, “Thus within the realm of the household, freedom did not exist, for
the household head, its ruler, was considered to be free only in so far as he had the power
to leave the household and enter the political realm, where all were equals” (30-31).
In The Human Condition. Arendt also discussed the “rise of the social” in ancient
societies and the expectations of social norms in these societies (35). She said that
“whether a nation consists of equals or non-equals is of no great importance . . . for
society always demands that its members act as though they were members of one
enormous family which has only one opinion and one interest” (37). Arendt continued to
say that “society expects from each of its members a certain kind of behavior, imposing
innumerable and various rules, all of which tend to ‘normalize’ its members, to make
them behave, to exclude spontaneous action or outstanding achievement” (38). Arendt
continued, “The Greeks . . . were quite aware of the fact that the polis, [City-state] with
its emphasis on action and speech, could survive only if the number of citizens remained
restricted. Large numbers of people, crowded together, develop almost irresistible
inclination toward despotism . . . ” (40).
Hannah Arendt also discussed the interesting concepts of the price humans pay for
freedom and of the consequences of freedom. In The Human Condition. Arendt said,
“Man’s inability to rely upon himself or to have complete faith in himself (which is the
same thing) is the price human beings pay for freedom; and the impossibility of
remaining unique masters of what they do, of knowing its consequences and relying upon
the future, is the price they pay for plurality and reality, for the joy of inhabiting together
12
with others a world whose reality is guaranteed for each by the presence of all” (219).
In Arendt’s book titled The Life of the Mind, she stated, “Professional thinkers,
whether philosophers or scientists, have not been ‘pleased with freedom’ and its
ineluctable randomness; they have been unwilling to pay the price of contingency for the
questionable gift of spontaneity, of being able to do what could also be left undone”
(198). Arendt continued to discuss freedom. She stated:
Philosophic freedom, the freedom of the will, is relevant only to people who live
outside political communities, as solitary individuals. Political communities, in
which men become citizens, are produced and preserved by laws, and these
laws, made by men, can be very different and can shape various forms of
government, all of which in one way or another constrain the free will of their
citizens. (Life of the Mind 199)
Bernard Ewer, in Social Psychology, felt that there are instances when censorship can
be justified. Ewer said, “Censorship is probably justifiable in some instances. The
arbitrary suppression of direct incitement to lawlessness, of what is sexually indecent and
demoralizing, and perhaps also of some forms of socially and economically baneful
advertising, makes for public welfare” (320). Ewer went on to discuss censorship’s
dangers. He stated:
But the danger in censorship, as actually performed, is far greater than its merits.
Again and again the ignorant, officius, irresponsible condemnation of ideas and
artistic creations, because they did not agree with established prejudices or with
the censor’s whims, has brought the practice into disrepute. A political treatise on
communism, a scientific sociological and physiological discussion of sex, a literary
13
depiction of the contemporary problem of divorce, may suffer from the intellectual
limitation of the censor. (320)
Erich Fromm, in his book titled Escape from Freedom, discussed the “meaning of
freedom for modem man” (vii). Fromm stated:
It is the thesis of this book that modem man, freed from the bonds of pre-
individualistic society, which simultaneously gave him security and limited
him, has not gained freedom in the positive sense of the realization of his
individual self; that is, the expression of his intellectual, emotional and
sensuous potentialities. Freedom, though it has brought him independence
and rationality, has made him isolated and, thereby, anxious and powerless.
This isolation is unbearable and the alternative he is confronted with are
either to escape from the burden of his freedom into new dependencies
and submission, or to advance to the full realization of positive freedom
which is based upon the uniqueness and individuality of man. (viii)
Fromm examined the reasons people look for ways to give up freedom. He said that
“we have been compelled to recognize that millions in Germany were as eager to
surrender their freedom as their fathers were to fight for it; that instead of wanting
freedom, they sought for ways to escape from it; that other millions were indifferent and
did not believe the defense of freedom to be worth fighting and dying for” (19). Fromm
posed the question of whether, along with an innate wish for freedom, there may also be
an instinctive wish for submission (21). Fromm talked about the dilemma he felt humans
encounter when their sense of freedom grows. Fromm stated:
We see that the process of growing human freedom has the same dialectic
14
character that we have noticed in the process of individual growth. On the one
hand it is a process of growing strength and integration, mastery of nature,
growing power of human reason, and growing solidarity with other human
beings. But on the other hand this growing individuation means growing
isolation, insecurity, and thereby growing doubt concerning one’s own role in
the universe, the meaning of one’s life, and with all that a growing feeling of
one’s own powerlessness and insignificance as an individual. (51)
Fromm went on to discuss the reasons people may, in fact, consider freedom to be
burdensome. Fromm said:
However, if the economic, social and political conditions on which the whole
process of human individuation depends, do not offer a basis for the realization of
individuality in the same sense just mentioned, while at the same time people have
lost those ties which give them security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable
burden. It then becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of life which lacks
meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of
freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and the world
which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual
of his freedom (52).
The word “censor” comes from the Latin word “censere.” This word means “to
count,” “to assess,” or “to estimate.” The first censors were Roman government officials
who counted and registered all citizens, which helped the government to determine taxes,
regulate voting, and raise armies. The office of the censor was created in 443 B.C.
(Steffens 15).
15
In time, the censors’ powers increased. The censors eventually became responsible for
setting standards of behavior and manners. The censors’ domain also included what the
Roman citizens did, said, and wrote. Censors presided at the “Tribunal of Fame” where
they honored citizens whom they found had performed virtuous deeds, or barred from
public life those they felt had violated the “accepted” code of conduct. There were two
censors, and if both were in agreement as to a citizen’s, or even a senator’s unacceptable
conduct, they were powerful enough to punish these “wrongdoers” as they saw fit.
Senators could be removed from office or banished from the city. The censors’ duties
continued in this manner until the end of the Roman Empire (Berger 1).
One of the earliest examples of censorship of religion was that of the Jews in ancient
Egypt who “became slaves, and the worshippers of One God were forced to build
pyramids for their oppressors so that these oppressors might be buried in a suitable
manner in which to meet their pagan gods” (Alpha Development Group Staff 48).
Censorship actually existed before the official Roman “censors.” The ancient Greek
officials, in spite of having a high regard for freedom of religion and freedom of speech,
would not allow free expression of opinions that went against the state religion. This
stemmed from fear of angry gods who would bring harm to the Greek people (Berger 2).
The famous Athenian philosopher and teacher Socrates, whose life was devoted to a
search for truth and goodness, felt it was his duty to awaken the people of Athens to a
need for wisdom and knowledge. His well-known method of questioning his listeners was
not approved of by some of the Athens’ city rulers. With his trial, determined guilt, and
death by poison, one may consider Socrates to be the first known victim of censorship
(Berger 2).
16
In the Middle Ages, the original Roman censors were replaced by the pope in Europe.
He was allowed to suppress words he deemed immoral or untrue. This meant that any
writing or speech that went against church doctrine could be ruled a heresy. In setting
these standards for speech, the pope had widespread support. Bishops, cardinals, nuns,
loyal kings and queens, officials within their governments, and church elders made up
this vast group of censors (Steffens 16-17).
One of the most infamous periods of persecution and censorship, the Inquisition, came
about during the Renaissance, when some zealous Christians believed that the new-found
interest in secular learning would diminish a life of faith. This virtual “army” of Christian
censors tortured and killed many found guilty of heresy for writing, speaking, or creating
art which was considered inappropriate (Steffens 18).
But with the invention of the printing press in the 1400s, censorship became more
difficult. By the year 1500, with more than one thousand printers in use, written
documents could be produced in the thousands before reaching a censor. Therefore, the
European monarchs, who feared any criticism, sought to control the presses through
licensing requirements, which required printers to reveal their documents to government
officials prior to publication (Steffens 30). This practice of “prior restraint” was opposed
by many English writers and publishers, even though the printers enforced prior restraint
themselves by forming the “Stationers Company” to register all printed works (Steffens
22-23).
In the United States, when the colonists won their freedom in 1783 and began to form
a new government, the leaders were determined to find means to ensure the citizens the
right to criticize this government in speech and in the press. When the Bill of Rights was
17
added to the Constitution, the First Amendment guaranteed that freedom of speech and of
the press become law.
Since the passage of the First Amendment, American courts and political leaders have
been struggling with the basic questions of censorship. According to the Constitution, the
Supreme Court is the final arbiter of any disputes that arise over Americans’
constitutional rights. Because the Court has not accepted the idea that First Amendment
freedoms are “exempt from all law,” speakers can be censored when such speakers
infringe on the rights of others (falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre) (Steffens 29).
Throughout history, a belief in the power of words has been generally accepted.
Speech has been known to sway opinions, affect judgment, arouse emotions, and/or move
people into action.
It is also usual that public sentiment towards censorship will change during certain
periods. In times of war or conflict, the public tends to favor more control and
suppression, and censorship at this time may be more accepted (Berger 13). In more
peaceful times, there is usually heightened concern with protecting individual freedoms,
and attempts at censorship are more strongly resisted (Berger 13).
Since the famous Supreme Court case, Schenk v. United States (Steffens 42) in 1919,
when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. helped establish that certain types of speech are
not, in fact, protected by the First Amendment, we have come to realize that these
freedoms of speech and of the press are not absolute. Accordingly, expression can be
punished or even totally stopped if it is believed to conflict with the public’s or the
nation’s safety. Because of differing opinions in interpreting words such as “safety,”
conflicts in what should be viewed as legal abound today. Our freedoms are protected, yet
18
censorship very much exists in our world. These conflicts arise in differing views of the
First Amendment. Those who take the First Amendment’s words literally, strongly
believe that government should be totally prohibited from censoring or controlling
freedom of speech and of the press (Berger 13). Others believe that under certain
circumstances it is acceptable to restrain these freedoms (Berger 13).
The Hays Code
In 1930, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (M.P.P.D.A.),
under Will H. Hays, created a code of ethics for motion pictures. This code became
known as the “Hays Code” or the “Production Code.” Although not considered to be
government censorship, producers had to self-regulate in order for their movies to receive
the M.P.P.D.A.’s certificate of approval (“Production Code” 1).
When the code was first adopted, there was not really any way to enforce it. In 1934,
the code was put into strict effect, with Joseph I. Breen serving as director of the Code
Administration (“Hays Code” 1).
Before the adoption of the Production Code, many Americans viewed motion pictures
as immoral means to glorify vice and violence. In the 1920s, many local censorship
boards had been established, and in addition, there were approximately one hundred cities
that had established local censorship laws (“Production Code” 1).
Three major scandals that had rocked Hollywood in the early 1920s probably
contributed to people’s views of Hollywood movies being immoral. These scandals
included the manslaughter trial of comedy actor Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle, the murder of
director William Desmond Taylor, and the drug-related death of actor Wallace Reid
(“Production Code” 1).
19
By the mid 1930s, enforcement of the Production Code had become notorious and
strict. Some things that the code prohibited included references to illicit drugs, premarital
sex, nudity, suggestive dancing, and profanity. Joseph I. Breen was appointed to head the
new Production Code Administration, and his power to alter scripts did not sit well with
Hollywood writers and directors (“Production Code” 2).
Hollywood did adhere to the Code until the late 1950s, when the times had changed
and American film was in competition with both television and foreign film. At this time,
even a boycott from the Catholic Legion of Decency didn’t hold the clout it had earlier
(“Production Code” 3).
Ironically, the M.P.P.D.A. revised the Code in 1951, making it even more prohibitive.
This action probably inspired many movie-makers to ignore the Code. One such movie
producer was Otto Preminger, whose films at that time violated the Code repeatedly. In
1983, Preminger’s film The Moon is Blue was the first film to use the words “virgin,”
“seduce,” and “mistress.” Several others of his films, as well as Alfred Hitchcock’s
Psycho (1960), were released without the Certificate of Approval, and saw success at the
box office (“Production Code” 4).
By 1966, the pressures for social change, Supreme Court decisions regarding
obscenity, and civil liberties groups were responsible for a much more lenient, revised
code.
In 1968, the M.P.A.A. film rating system, which is still used today, replaced the code
(“Hays Code” 1).
The Hollywood Ten
Seventeen years after the creation of the Hays Code, in October 1947 in Hollywood,
20
California, a list of suspected communists, deemed “subversives,” were summoned to
appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee. This “Hollywood Blacklist”
consisted of mostly film actors, directors, and screenwriters.
West’s Encyclopedia of Law. 2nd Edition, defines the word “Blacklist” as “A list of
individuals or organizations designated for special discrimination or boycott; also to put a
person or organization on such a list” (55). The Law Encyclopedia goes on to say that
blacklists have been used for centuries as a means to identify and discriminate against
undesirable individuals and/or organizations (55).
The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was intent on investigating
communist influence in the Hollywood labor unions. Certain American artists were either
alleged or admitted members of the American Communist Party (“Hollywood blacklist”
1).
Some of the witnesses called before the committee, such as scriptwriter Budd
Schulberg and director Elia Kazan, felt it would be patriotic to expose others, and they
named names. Ten of those subpoenaed cited their rights under the First Amendment and
refused to give evidence (“Hollywood blacklist” 1). Subsequently, the House of
Representatives voted 346 to 17 to hold these men in contempt of Congress for disrupting
the Committee’s proceedings by making political statements and for refusing to answer
the questions asked of them by the Committee concerning their alleged Communist
affiliations (“Hollywood blacklist” 1). They became know as the “Hollywood Ten.”
These men were:
1. Alvah Bessie, screenwriter
2. Herbert Biberman, screenwriter, director
21
3. Lester Cole, screenwriter
4. Edward Dmytryk, director
5. Ring Lardner, Jr., journalist, screenwriter
6. John Howard Lawson, writer
7. Albert Maltz, author, screenwriter
8. Samuel Omitz, screenwriter
9. Adrian Scott, screenwriter, film producer
10. Dalton Trumbo, screenwriter, novelist (“Hollywood blacklist” 2).
They were convicted in 1948, made unsuccessful appeals, and were denied review by
the Supreme Court. All served 6-12 month prison terms in 1950 (Georgakas 1).
Many others, mostly screenwriters and directors, were blacklisted during this time.
These included some of Hollywood’s most famous and successful artists, mostly writers,
who were unable to work at all in their fields during the time of this “red scare.” Most
estimates put the blacklist at between 325-500 employees in film and related industries
(“Hollywood blacklist” 3).
Many of those blacklisted struggled to find work for up to 15 years. Some of the
writers did continue to work, using pseudonyms or the names of friends who pretended to
be the actual writers. Those friends were called “fronts.” The author Dalton Trumbo, for
example, resorted to this tactic. Several screenwriters moved to England or to other
European countries, and others, such as playwright Arthur Miller and actor John
Randolph, were able to work in New York City, since most theatre owners and producers
did not pay attention to the Hollywood studio bosses (“Hollywood blacklist” 2).
These events had immeasurable affects on the lives of the blacklistees. Many families
22
were tom apart, people suffered ill-health both mentally and physically, and some never
recovered their previous career status (Georgakas 3).
After serving prison terms, nine of the Hollywood Ten were blacklisted in the film
community (“Blacklist” 56). Alvah Bessie, a screenwriter, was unable to find any work in
Los Angeles and moved to San Francisco. He worked at various jobs, including a stint
with the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, and a job running
lights at a nightclub (McGilligan and Buhle 110).
Ring Lardner Jr., who had won the 1942 Academy Award for his screenplay of the
film Woman of the Year, left Hollywood after serving ten months in prison. He continued
writing scripts for television under pseudonyms. These television shows were shot in
England and later sold to American networks (McGillan and Buhle 405).
Lester Cole, a screenwriter, in his book titled Hollywood Red, recounted the feelings
of those, like himself, who were called to testify before HUAC. He stated: “The fear,
chaos, and uncertainty were not easy to describe. The reaction among the families of
others subpoenaed could not have been much different from that of mine” (266). After
Cole got out of jail, his wife divorced him, admittedly over fears related to Cole’s
financial problems. According to Cole, “She said, ‘I knew what you’d have to do.
Become a short-order cook, a waiter. . . When what there is in the bank is gone, we’re
through. . . My children in the streets!”’ (345).
Victor Navasky, in his book titled Naming Names, said, “The blacklist involved
hundreds at the center and thousands at the periphery, but the tales about the blacklist that
keep recurring, like entries in a Domesday Book, are Mady Christians, Canada Lee, John
Garfield, Philip Loeb, and J. Edward Bromberg, all of whom seemed to die of blacklist”
23
(340). Navasky went on to explain how Christians, a veteran performer of over sixty
movies, became ill when she stopped being called for work. Navasky says shortly after
being hospitalized she wrote to a friend, “I cannot bear yet to think of the thing which led
to my breakdown. One day I shall put them down as a record of something unbelievable”
(340). Soon after, she collapsed and died of a cerebral hemorrhage (340).
Navasky also recounted the fate of actor Philip Loeb, who had played the role of
“Papa” on The Goldbergs television series. Unable to find sponsorship because of Loeb’s
political affiliations, the show was dropped. Loeb was unable to pay his expenses, which
included paying for the private mental institution in which his son was housed. At the age
of sixty-one, Loeb took his own life. According to Navasky, “His sister wept and said,
’He’s been hurt so terribly. Now see what they did to him. They took his living away.
They took his life away. A person can only stand so much’” (341). Finally, Navasky
discussed actor J. Edward Bromberg, who had a rheumatic heart condition, and on this
basis, asked to be excused from testifying before HUAC in 1951. This request was
refused (341). Navasky explained, “He died in 1952 in London, where he had gone to do
a play. ‘He took the risk of going to London,’ according to his son, ‘because he
considered the job almost a statement, showing that the English would take him when the
Americans wouldn’t’” (342).
The times were ripe for this sort of censorship of ideas, with the roots really going
back to the Wall Street crash of 1929, ushering in the Great Depression (“Hollywood
blacklist 1). Many in Hollywood escaped unemployment due to the fact that the era of the
“talkies” had just begun. In fact, Hollywood was one of the few places in the country
where one could still be offered a decent paying job. However, many in Hollywood
24
seemed to be influenced in their political views by the rise of fascism abroad, in addition
to their perceived views of the “ruthless” business tactics of some capitalists. Stalin’s
communist government was being promoted as one of offering equality for all citizens,
and the communist Soviet Union was part of the Allied coalition fighting against Nazi
Germany (“Hollywood blacklist” 1).
History of Theatre Censorship
Censorship or control of forms of public entertainment, in particular that of theatrical
performances, dates very far back in history. The Theodosian and Justinian codes in
ancient Rome were in effect in order to establish rules for presenting drama (Berger 43).
During the Middle Ages, the Church supervised actors and playwrights (Berger 43).
In England, beginning in 1545, all plays to be presented had to be approved by the
“Master of the King’s Revels” (Berger 43). This government office was replaced in 1624
by that of the Lord Chamberlain. Because of this office, censorship of actors appearing in
classics such as Ben Jonson’s Volpone or William Congreve’s Love for Love was not
uncommon. These actors were often arrested for their appearances (Berger 43). In 1737,
the “Licensing Act” gave the Lord Chamberlain the power to license plays which, by
early 1728, had to be approved by the newly created offices of the Examiner and Deputy
Examiner of Plays (Conolly 15). As a result, many disagreements arose over works that
have since become classics. In more modem times, the Lord Chamberlain has banned
plays such as The Rose Tattoo by Tennessee Williams and A View from the Bridge by
Arthur Miller. In 1968, the power of the Lord Chamberlain to license plays was finally
revoked by parliament (Berger 43).
Censorship of theatre has a long history. The ancient Greeks placed limits on what
25
could be performed in theatres (Steffens 14). In England, during the time when “prior
restraint” was in practice, the Stationers Company would routinely search the print shops
and warehouses for pamphlets or books which were critical of the monarchy (Steffens
23). They did in fact discover a play by the author William Prynne, which made fun of
King Charles I and of Queen Henrietta Maria. Copies of the offending work were burned
and Prynne was arrested (Steffens 23).
There are many other examples of theatre censorship spanning time and the world.
Following is an overview of some examples with the apparent reason(s) for each incident.
In A.D. 66, Aristophanes’ comedies The Clouds and The Birds were considered
obscene by Plutarch. The Clouds, written in 423 B.C., was an attack on the “modem”
education and morals imported and taught by Sophists. The play ridiculed Socrates and
his pupils (Haight and Grannis 1-2).
The Birds, written in 414 B.C., may be seen as a political satire on the imperialistic
dreams that led Athenians to undertake an ill-fated expedition against Syracuse, Sicily
(Haight and Grannis 1).
In 1942, performances of classic Greek plays were banned by Nazis occupying Greece.
These types of censorship may be the result of political, economic, or social reasoning
(Haight and Grannis 2).
Moliere’s play Le Tartuffe ou l’lmnosteur. written around 1664, was a satire on
religious hyprocrisy. In France, the play was banned by Louis XTV from being performed
on the public stage. The church, which called Moliere a “demon in human flesh,” tore
down his posters and closed his theatre. In 1667, the Archbishop of Paris placed a ban of
excommunication on any who would act in, read, or see the play (Haight and Grannis 23).
26
It seems this work was banned for religious reasons.
Some of the world’s most famous plays, those written by William Shakespeare, have
also come under scrutiny. Shakespeare’s works have been subject to censorship ever
since their writing. The reasons for this censorship of Shakespeare vary and continue to
the present day. The first editions of Richard II had a scene showing the deposition of
Richard, which did not sit well with Queen Elizabeth. She ordered this scene eliminated
from copies of the play (Haight and Grannis 18). This is a case of political censorship.
Political censorship was also sometimes invoked in order to avoid any possible offense to
the nobility. Examples would be a reference to a Scottish Lord, which was removed from
The Merchant of Venice (Chambers 372) and certain passages in Hamlet censored
because they could possibly offend Anne of Denmark (Chambers 414).
Profanity was also removed from Shakespeare’s plays by the censor, but the extent of
this removal was left up to the individual censor (Chambers 238).
When discussing censorship of Shakespeare, one cannot fail to mention the well-
known Dr. Thomas Bowdler, who evidently found so much of Shakespeare to be
distasteful that he published an expurgated edition of Shakespeare’s works in 1818
(Perrin 5).
The censorship of Shakespeare’s works did not end in the 1800s, and in fact,
censorship of Shakespeare continued in the twentieth century, but was imposed more
often for the ideas inherent in the works. In 1931, The Merchant of Venice was removed
from the high school currricula in Buffalo and Manchester, New York after protests from
Jewish groups that the play encouraged bigotry (Haight and Grannis 18).
Theresa Lang’s dissertation, which studied the censorship of Boston’s Old Howard
27
Theatre, is titled “Interred in Concrete: The Censorship of Boston’s Old Howard
Theatre.” Her dissertation was not a phenomenological one, but was organized as a
chronological history of events. She described her work as “thematic.” Her study
considered the theatrical and urban censorship that led to the destruction of the Boston
theatre. It was a relevant sociological, anthropological, and historical study of the effects
of censorship on a neighborhood or space, but did not deal with individuals’ experiences
with censorship.
Lauren McConnell’s dissertation, titled “Gray Zones and Black Holes: The Effects of
Normalization Censorship on Czech Playwriting,” argued that normalization censorship
was more devastating to Czech playwriting and the Czech theatrical community than is
generally recognized. By using the combined methods of statistical analysis, case studies,
and historiography, McConnell documented a decline in original Czech play production
and playwriting. She also emphasized the connection between cultural policies practiced
during the normalization period, particularly regarding censorship, and how these policies
impacted Czech playwriting.
Like Lang’s study of the censorship of Boston’s Globe Theatre, in which she stated
that this censorship offered an example of “cultural control” (13), McConnell pointed out
that the Czech communist authorities were willing to “destroy Czech culture in order to
keep control” (5). Unlike Lang, McConnell did conduct interviews with Czech citizens in
order to find out how they felt about the relationship between dissidents and the
authorities. Although McConnell’s study was limited to examining censorship issues in
Czech theatre, its relevance lies in pointing out the influence of governmental interference
in the arts, which is evident throughout my review of the literature. It also gave a fairly
28
recent historical context for my study.
Nadine D. Pederson’s dissertation, titled “Toward an Urban Stage: Law and
Performance in Paris, 1515-1559” described the hierarchy of the different groups of
performers who were legally censored, and she devoted an entire chapter to exploring the
legal reasoning behind the suppression of certain kinds of performance. She pointed out
that this censorship was often based on religion, politics, or urban issues of those times.
Pederson studied Parisian laws and legislation in order to understand the types of
performances and performers which were suppressed, and concluded with discussion of
what these laws reveal about the connection between the development of performance
and the development of a Renaissance urban center.
Pederson’s study was also limited to one specific geographic area, and in fact only to
the city of Paris. It too, examined government’s influence on theatre, and adds further
historical context to my study of theatre censorship.
Recent Censorship Funding Issues
Government censorship of the arts was revealed in several newspaper articles written
after June 25, 1998, when the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled that “indecency”
may be grounds for denying federal funding for the arts (Winn 1). In an article titled “Art
Law” in West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (vol.l). it was explained that this case,
“National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,“ was brought by Finley, an artist, and four
other artists (57). The artists argued that the “decency test,“ a law which Congress
enacted in 1990, was unconstitutional. The law required the NEA to take into
consideration “general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values
of the American public” (57). The court ruled that the law was constitutional and violated
29
no rights (57). According to Winn, in an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, this
ruling was a “deathblow to a meaningful NEA” (National Endowment for the Arts) (C-l).
Winn continued to say, “The impossible question in the decency debate is just who makes
the call. A play that wouldn’t raise a flicker of protest in San Francisco might seem
assaultive somewhere else” (C-l). Winn also referred to the controversial NEA funding in
the 1990s of artists Robert Mapplethorpe, Andres Serrano, Karen Finley, and others (C-
2).
In 1990, obscenity charges were brought against the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts
Center and its director, Dennis Barrie. These charges resulted from an exhibition titled
“The Perfect Moment,” which was a survey of artist Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs
(Flood 1). The case was brought to trial, and on October 5,1990, the jury acquitted Barrie
and the Arts Center of all charges (“Mapplethorpe Controversy” 1). The two defense
attorneys for the case were Louis Sirkin and Marc Mezibov.
On September 28,2006, in a telephone interview with Marc Mezibov, I was able to
find out about his experiences with the censorship involved in the Mapplethorpe
controversy. I asked Mezibov to discuss what stood out most to him regarding the case.
First, he spoke about the jurors. Mezibov said that most of the jurors were rather
unsophisticated regarding art, but were aware that art could “influence.” Mezibov went
on to say that throughout the trial, as the jurors gained familiarity with art in general, they
began to appreciate the value of Mapplethorpe’s photos. Mezibov stated that this showed
how people become more receptive to a subject (such as art) when they gain more
familiarity/knowledge.
Mezibov also shared his personal beliefs regarding censorship and the trial. He said
30
that he sees no benefit to censorship and that the case reaffirmed his belief that censorship
has a negative impact on society. Throughout the trial, Mezibov was struck by the
“ignorance” of the jury, and felt confident in helping to bring about the acquittals
(Mezibov, Marc. Telephone Interview).
Many governments have long-held traditions of subsidizing the arts, but until 1965,
we in the United States had no federal legislation to do so. When the National
Endowment for the Arts was created, our government began to financially assist artistic
endeavors. However, the NEA’s budget has been cut back over the years. The NEA has
often come under scrutiny for the artists or works it supports, and one of its biggest
controversies surrounded its support for the artist Robert Mapplethorpe, whose work has
been labeled by some as “obscene” (Lai). Since then, the NEA has tried to avoid
financing any potentially divisive subject matter, and even eliminated grants to individual
artists in 1995 (“No Show” 2).
The threatened funding cuts which actually sparked my interest in the topic of theatre
censorship, as mentioned in Chapter One, has to do with the play Corpus Christi by
Terrance McNally.
In March o f 2001, Corpus Christi was scheduled to be presented at Florida Atlantic
University (FAU) in Boca Raton, Florida. The director, J. Bany Lewis, was very familiar
with the controversy surrounding the work and stated, “The work of a playwright of
Terrance McNally’s caliber deserves to be openly presented, examined, and discussed in
an atmosphere of intellectual inquiry” (Bems 2). Before the play opened, Florida state
legislators were attacking its content, even though they admittedly had not seen it.
“People at FAU have to realize this is offensive to about eighty percent of the people in
31
Florida,” said State Senator Skip Campbell (Monteagudo 2). “For anyone who’s a
Christian, it’s veiy offensive,” voiced State Senator Debby Sanderson (Monteagudo 2).
Other legislators called the play “tasteless,” “bigoted,” and a sign of “anti-Christian bias
in academia” (Monteagudo 2). State Senator Dan Webster warned of possible financial
repercussions against the university should the performance go on (Monteagudo 2).
FAU President Anthony Cantonese, although defending the right of the production to
go on, decided to create a new committee to review policies and procedures for any future
“controversial” events. He also stated that he would not attend the performance and
would advise others to avoid it (Monteagudo 2). Finally, the show went on, and the
Florida State Legislature did not cut funding (Monteagudo 3).
Another controversial play which faced funding issues is Angels in America by Tony
Kushner. Kilgore College in Texas was defunded by $50,000 when they presented the
play in 1999. Interestingly, both this play and the play Corpus Christi deal with
homosexuality.
Holt, in a San Francisco Chronicle editorial written after the Supreme Court decision
that “indecency” may be grounds for denying federal funding for the arts, said, “The
problem is that you can’t bring ‘decency’ in as an equal factor to ‘excellence’ without
wrecking the very definition of art to begin with. Notions of ‘decency’ close the doors to
art, not open them, and the damage lasts a long time” (2).
Holt went on to say that those who make decisions on funding based on “decency”
will be using that idea in a similar way to which Joseph McCarthy used the idea of
“patriotism” as a means to remove anything not considered “mainstream” (2).
Holt’s negative reference to Joseph McCarthy reminds us of the prevailing political
32
and social views of the 1950s, which were discussed earlier. McCarthy is often referenced
in discussions regarding arts censorship (Laufe 108-09; McGilligan and Buhle 717).
In Back Stage. Woods recounted how the Mecklenberg, North Carolina County
Commissioners voted to cut $2.5 million in government funding from the Charlotte-
Mecklenberg Arts and Sciences Council in April 1997. This decision apparently followed
criticism of homosexual content in productions by the Charlotte Repertory Theater, which
received money from the county through the arts council. According to Woods, “The
withdrawal of funds threatens a number of major arts initiatives, including Charlotte
Rep’s New Plays in America Festival and a partnership with Charlotte-Mecklenberg
schools next year that would have transformed downtown performance space Spirit
Square into a model arts education center” (3).
Theatre Censorship in Non-Academic Settings
Although my study deals with censorship in academic settings, there have been many
reported incidents of censorship in non-academic environments in addition to those
previously mentioned. I will present some of them, beginning with incidents which date
back to the 19th century.
In France, in 1829, the play Marion Delorme by Victor Hugo came under the scrutiny
of King Charles X’s official censors. This play, which deals with a French courtesan who
is famous for her beauty and her many prestigious lovers, is critical of King Charles’
ancestor, Louis XIII. Performance of the play was prohibited because it showed Louis
XID to be a “weak, superstitious and cruel prince” and it was thought that the depiction
could provoke malevolence in the public, thereby leading to disparagement of Charles X
(Haight and Grannis 40-41).
33
In Norway, in the late 1800s, Henrik Ibsen’s play Ghosts, which deals with such taboo
subjects as syphilis, incest, and euthanasia, was probably intended as a reform, but was
met with criticism (Haight and Grannis 48). This play, as well as Ibsen’s play A Doll’s
House, shocked Norway’s conservative readers. Both plays were seen as attacks on
family and home (Brockett 426). Ghosts’ allusions to venereal disease and sexual
misconduct were considered especially offensive to standards of public decency (Brockett
426). In England, in 1892, the applicaton for a license to perform Ghosts was refused by
the Lord Chamberlain. In 1939, in Spain, the play was purged by the government of
Franco (Haight and Grannis 48).
Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House, also caused much controversy when it was published in
1879. In the play’s finale, the main female character, Nora Helmer, leaves her family,
literally slamming the door behind her (Mitchell 11). At the time, when women’s role in
society was viewed as being wholly dependent on fathers or husbands, this ending was
“called by numerous critics the slam that reverberated around the world” (Mitchell 11).
Ibsen’s play became a topic of debate because his perception of women’s role in society
was “out of step with the time” (Brockett 165). According to Mitchell, “One actress
refused to play the last scene because she would never leave her children And a theatre in
Germany even requested that Ibsen rewrite the ending altogether as it was too
controversial for conservative German audiences” (11).
In Boston, a production of Eugene O’Neill’s play Strange Interlude was prohibited in
1929, due to behaviors depicted therein, by the then Mayor Nichols (Laufe 63). Around
the same time, in New York City in 1927, the police stopped three plays: The Captive.
The Virgin Man. and Sex, which had all been running for many months without
34
interruption. All three plays deal with homosexuality (Laufe 59-61).
In 1927, the state of New York passed a law which prohibited any plays in theatres
which portrayed lesbians or gay men. This statute stayed on the books until 1967 (Laufe
61-62).
In 1938, in New York City, The Cradle will Rock, written by Mark Blitzstein and
directed by Orson Welles, became the only Broadway musical to close down for fear of
social unrest. The play deals with union organizers struggling against rich industrialists’
city corruption. Fearing that the play’s pro-labor message might cause further damage to
the WPA (Works Progress Admininstration), which sponsored the production, Federal
authorities shut it down on opening night (Laufe 78).
In the 1960s, several communitites in our country, including Boston, forced the
closing of productions of the musical Hair. In Boston, a district attorney saw a preview
and decided the show was “unfit” to play there. After seven judges of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court also attended a preview, a restraining order was issued against the cast
and crew. The company was ordered to “revise” the show, but the producer refused, and
brought the case before the United States Supreme Court. Six weeks after the show
closed, the Supreme Court handed down a decision which was made by only eight
justices instead of nine. This vote was interpreted as a legal technicality. The decision of
the federal panel was not overriden, but the tie vote indicated that the decision was not
upheld either. Therefore, the way was cleared for Hair to reopen, which it did, and it
continued to play in Boston to capacity houses (Laufe 150-151).
In Chattanooga, Tennessee, previews of Hair were banned based only on the show’s
reputation. This case too went before the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that
35
although the show may have broken Chattanooga’s anti-obscenity laws, the authorities
had exercised “unlawful prior restraint” in the way they handled the case. The United
States Supreme Court eventually ruled that productions of Hair could go on (Harris 5-6).
The publication Jet reported how an interracial kiss in a children’s theatre production
of the play Ramona Ouimbv was removed after a businessman’s complaint (5).
In the publication Back Stage. Salinas wrote about the musical Naked Bovs Singing, in
Provincetown, Massachusetts, which was served with six notices of violating the town’s
zoning laws. This show, according to Salinas, “is a revue of songs performed by young
adult males, usually in the buff. The producers of the New York production, who licensed
the show to Weinstock [producer], like to point out that nudity-not sex-is what it’s
about, and that there is nothing prurient about it.” According to producer Jennifer Dumas,
the show is not “adult entertainment” and has been produced in six other American cities
and several foreign countries with no problem (48).
As previously discussed, Terrence McNally’s play Corpus Christi has been the subject
of much controversy in both academic and non-academic settings. The play, which
depicts a gay “Jesus-like” figure, has been targeted for censorship ever since it was to
open at New York City’s Manhattan Theatre Club in 1998. After the play opened in April
1998 off-Broadway, it was scheduled to move to the more prestigious venue. Before it
did, an organization called the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights demanded
cancellation of the production. The organization stated that the play was a form of
“Catholic-bashing.” Soon after, violent threats against the Manhattan Theatre Club began
pouring in, and Trans World Airlines made the decision to end its financial support
should the production go forward. Bowing to such pressure, the theatre company decided
36
not to produce the play (“Theatre Company Stands Up” 1-2). Finally, community gay
groups and artists took a stand. Among these artists was South African playwright Athol
Fugard, who decided to withdraw his own play’s scheduled opening at the same venue.
“In yielding to the blackmail and threats of the Catholic League, the theater management
has compromised one of the basic freedoms of democracy, Freedom of Speech, and they
have done it by censoring themselves and collaborating in the attempt to silence Mr.
McNally,” said Fugard (“Theatre Company Stands Up” 3). In the end, the Manhattan
Theatre Club decided to go ahead with the production. Among the groups and individuals
who urged the company not to give in to these threats were the National Coalition
Against Censorship (NCAC), Actors Equity, American Society of Journalists and
Authors, playwrights such as Arthur Miller, Tony Kushner, Wendy Wasserstein, and
authors such as Judy Blume, Mary Gordon, and Thulani Davis (“Arts and Free Speech
Groups” 1).
Mary Luckhurst, in the journal European Studies: A Journal of European Culture.
History and Politics, reported how on the island of Guernsey, in 1990, authorities refused
to grant British playwright Julia Pascal a license to perform her play Therese. Die play
deals with the collaborative efforts of Guernsey’s residents in the rounding up and
deportation of Jews during the Second World War. The article’s author explained that the
performance was banned on the grounds of “bad language,” but Luckhurst felt it was a
“thinly-veiled excuse to justify an act of politically motivated censorship” (255-67).
In the journal The New Republic, Robert Brustein wrote about how a Baltimore,
Maryland production of George Orwell’s Animal Farm was excluded from the
international theatre festival, the Theatre of Nations. This came about due to protests
37
from the (then) Soviet Union, amid objections that the work was anti-Soviet. In response,
the president of the sponsoring body, Nigerian playwright Wole Soyinka, asked director
Peter Hall to stage his production under private auspices. Hall felt that this solution was
an obvious incidence of censorship, while Soyinka, after conceding the “justice of the
Soviet complaints,” felt that his compromise was valid. According to Brustein, this
disagreement between the two men “had a positive result in forcing a re-examination, and
new appreciation of Orwell’s prophetic novel. The other positive result was the debate it
stimulated over the question of censorship in the theater in response to real or imagined
insult” (26). Brustein went on to say that Soyinka’s decision “set a dangerous precedent
for the future” and that “nations, like people, communicate with each other best not by
suppressing ideas but rather by exchanging them” (27). Brustein’s most powerful remarks
regarding theatre censorship in this article stated, “Almost any powerful dramatic work
can be construed-whether correctly or not-as an insult to some sensitive group or
individual; but while the rights of peaceful protest must be staunchly protected, so must
the rights of the thing being challenged” (27). Brustein’s words, written in 1986, have the
same relevance today, twenty years later, as evidenced in other more recent censorship
incidents discussed in this literature review.
In the journal Social Forces. Steven C. Dubin’s paper “Artistic Production and Social
Control” examined experiences of artists who participated in cultural components of the
Works Progress Administration (WPA) in the 1930s, and the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act (CETA) in the 1970s-1980s. The focus of Dubin’s study
was on the specific forms social control and censorship have assumed in the
governmental sponsorship of artists. He looked at the ways in which these artists had to
38
give up the authority they might otherwise have had, in order to determine such things as
the form, style, or content of their work. The relevance of Dubin’s work is obvious in his
statement in the final paragraph in summation:
The purpose here has been to identify the limitations imposed on artistic production
under specific sets of conditions. It would be misleading to conclude from this
evidence that constraints are unusual for creative producers, or that they are
otherwise free from social control. Rather, under alternative production
conditions-other locales, time periods, or funding sources, for example-
different kinds of constraints would certainly exist. (684-85)
Dubin’s words are certainly true as evidenced by my review of the literature examined
here, which presents examples of “social control” of artists in different countries, times,
and in academic and non-academic settings. Dubin made another interesting point
involving “self-censorship,” a theme which came up quite often in my co-researchers’
interviews. Artists working in the two government-sponsored programs were given
specific guidelines, but did not always follow them, which, as in the case of The Cradle
Will Rock (discussed earlier), resulted in more obvious explicit censorship by the
authorities.
Theatre Censorship in Academic Settings
Academic Freedom
Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “academic freedom” as “freedom of a
teacher or student to hold and express views without fear of arbitrary interference by
officials” (6). Much has been written regarding the subject of academic freedom in
general, and academic freedom in the arts, in particular. William W. Pendleton, in an
39
article titled “The Freedom to Teach,” in the series New Directions For Higher Education.
wrote that “Academic freedom in the classroom is not merely a matter of constitutional
free speech, nor should it be regarded as a privilege of the faculty. It is a fundamental
requisite of effective education” (11).
Another article in the series New Directions for Higher Education, titled “Academic
Freedom and Artistic Expression,” by Carol Simpson Stem, discussed a statement by the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP), endorsing the statement on
academic freedom formulated at a 1990 conference that the AAUP had sponsored in
conjunction with several arts organizations. Stem said that this statement “asserted that,
insofar as a teacher instructs about art in the classroom-generally verbally but
increasingly with the aid of visual and acoustic media to illustrate ideas-the teacher is
guaranteed the right to ‘free search for truth and its exposition’ in order to promote the
common good” (56).
In the book titled Academic Freedom and the Inclusive University, an article by Loma
Marsden, titled “Academic Freedom, Debate, and Bureaucracy,” discussed the problems
of freedom of speech at Canadian universities (146). Marsden said, “Protecting freedom
of speech and including people with values and behaviours different from those of the
traditional majority are two long-standing struggles in universities” (146).
I will now discuss some recent reported incidents of theatre censorship in academic
settings. Examples of this type of academic censorship are prevalent-beginning in
elementary school settings The most numerous examples were found at the high school
level, but I did find interesting examples of censorship at the college/university level,
some of which have been previously discussed in this chapter.
40
Scott F. Regan, in a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Alliance
for Theatre and Education, titled “The Artist/Educator Responds to Censorship,”
discussed his belief that censorship is on the rise in the United States. He stated:
The censorship takes three forms: (1) formal (i.e., when a school official forbids a
performance or mandates cuts in words or actions); (2) informal (i.e., when a
person or group tries to pressure the presenter to make changes in a production
or influence the kinds of materials chosen for production; and (3) self-censorship
(i.e., when the presenter edits material for fear of its misinterpretation).
Censorship arises because American society is litigious, art is ambiguous,
and good teaching is dangerous (in that its relevance threatens those who
yearn for the simpler times of the past). (2-3)
He went on to say that these controversies can, in fact, become part of the educational
process (8). All of Regan’s points are extremely relevant to my study of theatre
censorship in that I not only report here on many incidents which correspond to his
examples, but in that my co-researchers’ experiences reveal many of the exact
circumstances he mentions.
In the publication American Theatre, Bogan wrote of an incident in a fourth-grade
class in New Jersey. He related how a school-wide performance of an original student-
written piece about the “child labor connections of Nike and Disney was nixed by
Ridgewood, N.J. school officials” (78). Bogan continued to say that:
Its shutdown drew calls to Sweeny (the teacher) from the Village Voice’s Nat
Hentoff, the New York Times and others over the summer. Sweeny, who has
taught reading, writing and social studies since 1986 says that one of her goals is
41
to give kids “social change skills”. The students did learn that their voices
could be heard, however. The play, Labor Play, debuts on Broadway’s Roundabout
Theatre on Oct. 27,1997, through the efforts of (professional) director Scott
Ellis. (79)
An article by John Philip Habib in the magazine “The Advocate,” reported on
problems with the play Cootie Shots: Theatrical Inoculations Against Bigotry for Kids.
Parents and Teachers. This play has been performed in public elementary schools
throughout California and was subsequently published in book form. Eight parents,
backed by the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative Christian-oriented legal defense
organization, sued the Novato Unified School District for allowing selections from the
play to be performed without their prior consent (64). Norma Bowles, editor of the Cootie
Shots book, said in response to the lawsuit, “There is nothing in Cootie Shots to which
any fair-minded, well-informed person would object. The central message of the book [is]
that eveiy man, woman, and child deserves to be treated with respect and dignity” (64).
Theatre Communications Group, the book’s publisher, issued a statement through then-
executive director, saying that the play’s “message of tolerance and inclusion is in
keeping with our own core value of diversity” (65).
Habib’s magazine article, written for a gay and lesbian publication, did point out one
parent’s concerns over gay themes, a concern behind many of the censorship issues
discussed here.
In the journal Voice of Youth Advocates, an article by Cathi Dunn MacRae, titled
“Watch Out for ’Don’t Read This!”’, discussed how a library participation group’s
performance of a play dealing with raising awareness of censorship issues was censored
42
by a middle school principal. The principal’s objections to the script seemed to center
around a single phrase in the play, where one of the characters, a father, reads aloud to his
children from the book Daddy’s Roommate, realizing too late that it deals with gay
parents. MacRae went on to explain how other middle school principals followed suit,
and that the play mentions controversial issues such as racism, religion, teen pregnancy,
and the gay population (80-87). MacRae stated, “Adults were denying youth their voice,
their opportunity to address their peers about issues essential to development as ’free’
Americans” (84). The irony is that the censored play’s complete title is: Don’t Read This!
A Presentation by Teens for Teens to Raise Awareness of Censorship Issues.
An article in the Journal of the Association for Communication Administration by Joe
Filippo is titled “Censorship Problems in Commercial and Collegiate Theatre.” Filippo
commented that, “Every age brings with it some form of censorship in the arts” (192). He
also talked about the “uncertainties of the so-called ‘decency clause’ that has haunted the
National Endowment for the Arts since November of 1990” (192). At that time, Congress
provided that applications for grants to the NEA should be reviewed by taking into
consideration “general standards of decency” (192). Filippo gave a very brief history of
theatre censorship, pointing out some court cases, including the Orange Blossoms case,
which dates back to 1897 (193). He also discussed various interpretations of “obscenity.”
He questioned how interpretations of these obscenity laws may affect those involved in
educational theatre (193-194). As in previous articles discussed here, Filippo similarly
stated that “self-censorship, therefore, may serve as a means of avoiding a collision
course with the university or with the larger community” (194). He also brought up points
which several of my co-researchers touched upon, such as the impact of these self
R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
43
censorship decisions on the students and their learning (194). In conclusion, Filippo said
that the threat and reality of censorship “manifests itself in many ways. From educational
theatre to the commercial stage to television, even to funding agents such as the National
Endowment for the Arts” (194).
David W. Weiss’s paper, “Censorship on College and University Campuses,” in the
journal ACA Bulletin, discussed censorship on campuses of higher education, specifically
at the University of Virginia. He mentioned past controversial productions such as The
Homecoming (presented in the 60s), The Bovs in the Band (1970s), and more recently,
The Curse of the Starving Class. In this latter case, because of a brief nude scene, a
university police officer mentioned a complaint and stated that, according to Weiss, “The
offending parts of the actor’s body would have to be concealed with a towel” (48). Weiss
went on to say that the department chair was caught off-guard and that “he had no choice
but to direct the director and the cast to comply” (48). A local attorney was contacted, and
the attorney stated that the police officer did not behave correctly and was not authorized
to prevent any of the play’s action. The attorney went on to say that the changes could be
ordered only by a magistrate of the courts who would have to observe the event. As a
result, the play went on as intended, and that should have ended the matter. However, a
few weeks later, the local newspaper raised the issue, and university officials refused
comment (48-49). Weiss said that his point is, “The faculty of a department is recognized
as having sense enough to govern itself and to exercise its own good judgment” (49). He
went on to say, “Censorship, if it does exist, should come from within the department and
be a judgment made by the faculty for the best of reasons, whether that be the fear of loss
of box office revenue or the fear of offending patrons” (49).
44
Weiss, in addition to other authors cited in this review of the literature, was also
discussing self-censorship, and summed up in his article that:
Any matter in a play which might be considered censorable involves a choice
on someone’s part. Theatre people choose to do or not to do a particular play,
or scene, or moment, or visual statement. They choose whether or not to play the
play as written or to alter the language of the author, as is done so often with
Shakespeare. Audiences choose to censor by staying away or walking out. What
is needed, then, is the opportunity to choose.
The catch comes with the obligations imposed upon the artist and then,
ultimately, upon the administrator. How far dare one honestly go in removing
material from a play without changing the author’s intent? (49)
The points Weiss made regarding self-censorship and administrators’ decisions on
content in academic settings relate directly to my study, since many of my co-researchers
discussed both of these issues in their experiences with theatre censorship.
Another paper dealing with the issue of self-censorship was presented at the annual
meeting of the American Alliance for Theatre and Education by Jeanne Klein. Klein is
the director of the Kansas University Theatre for Young People. Her paper is titled
“Censorship Battles in University Theatre for Young Audiences,” and she explained the
fear of some parents that what their children learn in school may depart from family
values. Klein stated, “Both sides in the theatre censorship controversy share the
misperception that theatre causes behavioral changes, when in fact there is no proof of
causation” (1). In discussing self-censorship, Klein said:
I find myself “editing” suggestive and loaded words and gestures from my actors’
45
mouths and bodies, because I don’t want to give teachers anything more to
complain about. I don’t want them to focus on one 30-second moment to the
exclusion of the play’s resolution about self-esteem, friendship, or following your
dreams. (9)
She went on to say that in spite of this self-censorship, “We must continue to select
worthwhile scripts based on what we know about children (not adults); to direct plays
which challenge us personally with innovative ideas and styles; and to educate audiences
theatrically with new allegorical interpretations and design approaches to classical
literature” (9).
In my review of the literature, Klein’s paper was the only reference dealing with
theatre censorship issues involving children as young as first graders.
I will now discuss findings in the relevant literature about specific censorship
incidents on the college/university level. Although these articles about censorship in
higher education were not as plentiful as those dealing with censorship on the high school
level, there were many reported incidents in the United States and one in another country.
An incident of theatre censorship at the American University in Cairo is recounted in
The Chronicle of Higher Education by the teacher and theatre director, El Lozy. In Egypt,
there are government censors, and the author explained how every play that is to be
performed publicly in Egypt requires an official permit from the censor, including
university and amateur productions. In 1993, the government censor intervened in a
production of Alfred Farag’s play Marriage on a Divorce Contract, asking the director to
cut or change several crucial parts (B8). El Lozy stated that “The play reaches a climax
with the suicide of the lead actress as an act of rebellion against the oppression of social
46
norms that relegate women to a subordinate role” (B8). The director further stated that he
expected cuts to be demanded relating to the “political and social thrust of the
production,” but instead the censor “wanted scenes struck out in the name of moral
purity” such as “sexual” physical contact between characters. Scenes depicting verbal
and physical violence however, were acceptable to the censor (B8).
This censorship demand echoes many similar ones as stated in reviewing incidents
related in this country. It seems universal, based on my review of the literature, that
“sexual” and “moral” issues often raise the most concerns. This is also revealed in my
co-researchers’ censorship experiences.
In the journal Academe. Larry Rottman wrote about The Normal Heart, a play about
AIDS, which opened on November 15,1989 at Southwest Missouri State University
(SMSU). There was tight security on campus that night, following opposition to the play
in the form of rallies, letter-writing, petitions, and bomb threats. An SMSU junior, Brad
Evans, who had founded the student organization “People Acting with Compassion and
Tolerance” (PACT), led a silent candelight vigil in support of the play. During the
performance, arsonists set fire to Evans’s home, gutting the building, destroying all of his
possessions, and killing his two kittens (30).
There had been other attempts at censorship in Springfield, Missouri, where SMSU is
located. In 1946, a city ordinance had created an official board of censors, who
determined whether “moving picture shows, plays, or vaudevilles...were lewd,
lascivious, or harmful” (34). In 1953, this board censored the movie The Moon is Blue.
citing the use of the word “pregnant” in the dialogue. In 1966, citizens had picketed a
movie theatre showing Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf? and religious pressure seems to
47
have prevented showings of the movies Monty Python’s Life of Brian and The Last
Temptation of Christ.
The controversy over The Normal Heart began when an SMSU theatre student gave a
copy of the play to his minister, who gave it to Missouri state representative Jean Dixon.
Dixon sent certain passages of the play to all Missouri legislators, media outlets, SMSU
supporters, and church congregations. Ms. Dixon encouraged people to protest the play
and asked Missouri lawmakers to withhold money from the university.
However, with support from the university president, the SMSU graduate council, the
faculty senate, and others, the play did go on as scheduled, with eight standing-room only
performances.
It is interesting to note that, almost without exception, the publicity brought about
surrounding these censorship controversies leads not only to increased interest in the
production, but also to sold-out performances.
In an article titled “Washington State University Bankrolls Vigilante Censorship,” as
reported by FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Higher Education), a 2005
production of student playwright Chris Lee‘s Passion of the Musical was shut down
because of hecklers continuously interrupting the performance. These forty hecklers were
shouting out criticisms about the play’s perceived offensive nature, and they allegedly
issued threats leveled at the audience and cast members. The article further disclosed that
the university actually paid for the hecklers to attend the performance. Washington State
University’s president defended the hecklers’ behavior as a “responsible” exercise of free
speech (2). According to David French, president of FIRE, “Students have a right to
leave a play, protest outside of the theater, and condemn a play in the newspaper. But they
48
do not have the right to obstruct and censor other students’ protected expression” (1).
An opinion editorial in the December 6,1990 edition of the Washington Post
discussed the controversy over a court case involving the play Split Second, as part of a
drama course at San Diego Community College. The play involves the shooting of a
white suspect by a black police officer and the officer’s fabrication of evidence that he
acted in self-defense. It seemed that college officials wanted to ban the production after
phone calls alleging that the play would exacerbate tensions in the community over a
current trial involving the murder of a white police officer by a black suspect (art
imitating life/life imitating art?). The decision by college administrators to countermand
faculty’s decision to produce the play was tried in the appellate court. The author of the
editorial stated that:
In the San Diego case, the trial judge found that it was perfectly all right for the
college-a state institution-to take steps to “prevent controversy” and agreed with
administrators that the play was not an appropriate one to be placed in the public
purview. These determinations might be understandable if the students in question
were third-graders or even high school sophomores, but they are adults. The trial
and appeal of this case should clarify this distinction and set a firm precedent
against censorship on college campuses. (22)
According to a March 2003 article in the National Catholic Reporter. Patrick Reilly,
the president of the Cardinal Newman Society, an organization that promotes Catholic
identity at Catholic Colleges, believed the play The Vagina Monologues should not be
allowed on campus. Patrick Reilly was quoted as saying, “This kind of vulgarity has no
academic or social value to students at a Catholic college, and it’s spiritually destructive”
49
(8). Forty-two Catholic colleges performed the play in February and March of 2003. It is
not known whether Mr. Reilly read or saw the play, or how familiar he may be with its
content (8).
David Dean Gatewood, in his dissertation “Exploring Conflict Surrounding the
Production of a Controversial Play on Three College Campuses,” did a qualitative
collective case study which described how three college campuses responded to conflict
surrounding the production of the play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National
Themes; Part One: Millenium Approaches. Like my study, it took a qualitative approach.
Its difference is that it used cross-case analysis to interpret the data, and its main focus
was on analyzing conflict development and management. My study uses a
phenomenological approach based on personal experiences with censorship in high
school environments.
Gatewood’s study was quite extensive, and although his focus was on the conflict
created surrounding controversial arts material and was limited to one specific play, it
uncovered many aspects related to my study. Gatewood conducted interviews with the
principal participants in the conflicts. His was a very in-depth study, since he also visited
and observed the campuses and community cultures where the conflicts took place.
I will now discuss findings from the literature concerning theatre censorship on the
high school level, which are the most relevant to my study of high school teachers’ direct
experiences with theatre censorship.
An article titled “Censored Kids Hit the Road for their Art, ” as reported in the journal
Curriculum Review, told how, at Washington’s Kennewick High School, the principal,
Jack Anderson, cancelled a performance of the play The Breakfast Club after watching a
50
preview. He said, “The explicit language and sexual innuendoes violated school district
policies. It was not appropriate for a school play.” The decision to cancel was made after
actors had deleted several profanities from the script as requested by the assistant
principal, who had given the production the nod.
The students’ response was to present the play at an off-campus venue, after a local
theatre donated $5,000 to the student group. According to Matthew Richter, executive
director of the host theatre, “We don’t normally present student shows, but what it comes
down to for us is the idea that there’s a way around censorship. With high-school kids,
this is a perfect opportunity for a teaching lesson about how censorship is not the end of
discourse” (8A).
This solution to a censorship issue was found in a few other instances in my research.
Although not usual, it is a good way, when feasible, to overcome objections in academic
settings, and I agree with Richter that it teaches a valuable lesson to the students involved.
The m agazine Curve discussed an incident at Handworth Secondary School in British
Columbia which took place over two girls kissing in the play Broken Theory. Several
parents and teachers walked out during this scene, and Ginny Diebolt, school board chair
said, “It was over the top for the community appeal that a high school play should have”
(17). Drama teacher David Beare stated that “it was the most innocuous kiss,” and that
the school board was being homophobic (17). This incident of censorship was another
which seemed to be based on gay issues, which have been the cause of censorship as
related numerous other times in my literature review. It was also another instance of the
drama teacher coming into conflict with the school board, an issue related to my co
researchers’ experiences.
51
Another censorship issue based on homosexual themes was reported by Ellis in
People’s Weekly, who explained how a drama teacher at Flowing Wells High School in
Tucson, Arizona lost her job for trying to produce the play The Shadow Box, which had
parents and faculty complaining about “graphic language and a depiction of a homosexual
relationship” (57).
Etlin, in the magazine NEA Today, wrote of how a drama teacher in Texas was fired
for assigning Neil Simon’s play Brighton Beach Memoirs to her ninth-grade class after a
parent (who is also a school board member) objected to the play because of the passage in
which a fourteen year old boy tells his older brother about his first wet dream (6). Etlin
stated that:
All around the nation there are many thousands of students who’ve been hurt by
censorship incidents. People for the American Way (PFAW), a group that
researches and reports annually on this subject states that this past academic year
(1993) there was a record number-395-of attacks on school and library materials
in 44 states. In almost 40 percent of the cases, PFAW reports, the censors were
victorious. (6)
Kathleen Allen, in the Arizona Daily Star, reported how yet another controversial high
school production was forced to find a non-academic venue in order to perform as
planned. The play Cannibal? The Musical, is a silly, comic-booklike romp about cannibal
Alferd Packer, written by “South Park” creator Trey Parker. The play, originally
scheduled to be presented at Ironwood Ridge High School, was deemed by school
administrators to be too violent, too graphic, and too full of innuendoes for production at
the school. Sophomore Zach Singer, who had permission from drama teacher Joe
52
Borunda to direct the play, got a classmate’s mom to contribute $15,000 in order to stage
the play elsewhere, as long as those involved promised to donate all proceeds to a
Botswana charity for orphaned children (A).
Bill O’Reilly, in a segment of the FOX news show “O’Reilly Factor” on February 16,
2004, interviewed Larry Kelley, who voiced his objections to the play The Vagina
Monologues as presented at Amherst Regional High School in Massachusetts. According
to O’Reilly, the play “contains explicit sexual scenes and language acted by the students
themselves on stage” (1). O’Reilly admitted that he couldn’t find any dissenters except
Mr. Kelley. O’Reilly said that he was reporting on “an outrageous situation” and
commented, “Either they’re frightened [the non-dissenters] or this is the village of the
damned, this Amherst, Massachusetts. You know what I’m talking about? These are
alien people” (1). It was brought out in the discussion that students did need parental
permission in order to attend the play, and Kelley, who interestingly enough was also in
attendance at the performance, said that during intermission “I was walking around out
there, and I saw at least two mini-packs of like six, seven, eight, nine of them that were
prepubescent” (2). Kelley also stated, “It was very disturbing. I mean I went into it-I had
read the play two or three times. I’d seen Ensler perform it two or three times” (2).
O’Reilly’s concluding statement was: “Well, I don’t think Amherst, Massachusetts will
ever recover from this, Mr. Kelley” (3).
O’Reilly did not clearly ascertain whether Mr. Kelley objected to the content of the
play (it would hardly seem so, considering his numerous readings and viewings), or just
to the fact that there were high school-age students in the cast and audience. Obviously
however, Amherst, Massachusetts is still doing just fine.
53
A play which has stirred up controversy regarding its appropriateness in high schools
recently is Bat Bov, the Musical. This play tells the story of a half-boy, half-bat found in a
cave in West Virginia. He is raised in the home of the town’s veterinarian and is
eventually accepted as a member of the family. Bat Boy cannot, however, fit in with the
narrow-minded and ignorant townspeople. As reported in the newspaper LaCanada-
Flintridge Outlook, by Marilyn Kelly on June 9,2005, this play was performed at
LaCanada High School, in LaCanada-Flintridge, California. Parents and students had
previously gone before the school district’s board of education in order to condemn the
production, noting the play’s portrayals of violence, sex, and drug use. Among those
objecting was well-known radio evangelist Dr. James Dobson. Ironically, the play’s
theme is that of tolerance.
The play was performed after the drama teacher made modifications to the script.
Because of the publicity, the weekend performances played to packed houses, and ticket
sales were called “unprecedented” by drama teacher Gale Caswell. Those in attendance
included the play’s authors, Brian Flemming and Keythe Farley (1).
In March 2005, another article, by Rick Farrant in the newspaper The Journal Gazette.
explained how Homestead High drama director, Ed Koczergo did not fare as well in his
attempt to produce Bat Bov.The Musical at the Fort Wayne, Indiana high school. The
play had been cast and was in rehearsals, when the superintendent of Southwest Allen
County Schools, Brian Smith, and Homestead High principal Dianne Moake decided that
the material was too “offensive,” noting themes of “copulation” and “rape” (5C).
Interestingly, these detractors seem to have overlooked the play’s real message-that of
the effects of intolerance. The drama teacher was forced to hurriedly find an alternate
54
production, and chose the 1970s musical Godspell as a replacement for the more modem
and edgy Bat Bov (5C)..
Another recent incident was reported in an article in the Los Angeles Daily News by
Dana Bartholomew titled “Drama Students Learn Tough Lesson: Dubya’s No Joke.” In
May 2005, in Woodland Hills, California, drama students at El Camino Real High School
ran into a problem in promoting the spring production. The award-winning students had
created a poster, paid for by the school, to advertise their new play, The Complete History
of America ('Abridged), which is a humorous spoof of the last five hundred years. The
jacket of the original play shows George Washington done up as Groucho Marx, and the
students decided to update their own version by replacing the former president with the
current one, George W. Bush, complete with Marx’s eyebrows, mustache, and cigar.
After one student complained about the posters, school officials ordered at least one
hundred posters pulled from the campus, stating that the posters promoted “smoking” and
“political preference” (1).
Principal Kenny Lee said, “There’s an issue in the first [poster] regarding the smoking
and endorsing one ideology over another. That’s our take on the student speech and
conduct” (1).
The whole controversy began when a senior and acknowledged Bush supporter wrote
a letter of complaint to the school’s administration for the way the president was depicted
on the poster. The complaining student also said that Bush was made to look “like an
Israeli” (1).
Many of the drama students were vocal in their disagreement over the banning of the
posters. Jes Shar, a junior said, “It taught us that the First Amendment certainly does not
55
guarantee the right of free speech. Instead, we have more restrictions on what we can say”
(2).
Students created new posters which met with Principal Lee’s approval. These included
a silhouette of Bush with a burning cigar along with inscriptions such as: “Free
Expression for All (unless you are in high school),” “What First Amendment?”, “Support
Our Troops,” “ECR Drama Hates Smoking,” and “LAUSD [Los Angeles Unified School
District] v Censorship” (2).
Drama teacher Sue Freitag said that she didn’t think the school district (Los Angeles)
understood the meaning of political satire-a humorous spoof on govemment-and that
probably some Republican didn’t like George Bush resembling Groucho Marx (3).
A June 2005 letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette expressed the opinion
that schools should not censor plays, especially at the city’s specialized High School for
the Creative and Performing Arts (CAPA). Due to a parent’s complaint concerning two
musicals, a Pittsburgh school board member, the Director of Secondary Schools, and the
school principal decided that all scripts must be subjected to review by the Director and
principal. The letter writer stated being “shocked and dismayed over this new censorship
ruling and disappointed in the lack of support that the administration of CAPA offered
their professional theater instructor, Mindy Rossi-Stabler” (B-6). The letter writer felt that
perhaps the parent who complained felt uncomfortable with the subject matter of racism
and its harmful effects on society. The musicals in question were not mentioned,
however, it was pointed out that the school recently presented the musicals Ragtime and
Parade, which deal with racism and anti-Semitism. The writer stated that even if the
parent felt uncomfortable, “.. .this is why we have art-to cause us to think and consider
56
important social and cultural events and then provoke public discourse. I guess the parent
and these public school representatives felt that if we don’t deal with these issues they
don’t exist” (B-6).
My co-researchers used similar words and sentiments in describing their experiences.
They have also talked about issues surrounding “prior review” of scripts.
An October 6,2005 article in the Toronto Star (Ontario, Canada) by Stephen
Pelligrino, discussed how a high school class trip to see the play To Kill a Mockingbird
was cancelled by the regional school board, which claimed that the decision was based on
the fact that the novel of the same name is not listed for use in Nova Scotia schools.
Veteran teacher John Hudson, who had been planning to take 106 students to see the play,
did not accept this explanation, and called the decision “absolute madness.” He went on
to say, “The play talks to people. It changes people. It forces us to confront the essence of
humanity, which is to make us walk in someone else’s shoes, or in this case, someone
else’s skin.” He called the decision “censorship of the worst kind” (B11).
Annapolis Valley regional school board’s superintendent said that the decision had
nothing to do with censorship, but that since the novel was not listed for use in Nova
Scotia schools, it was not appropriate to see the play. An Education Department
spokeswoman claimed the book was not removed from use because of its content, but
because “of a trend to use more Canadian works” (B11).
The spokeswoman, Sue McKeage, also added that “school boards have the option to
teach materials outside the resource list. We don’t ban books” (B11), making the reason
for the cancellation of the field trip even more confusing.
Another incident of high school theatre censorship was reported in the May 23,2005
57
edition of The Washington Post. The article, by Rosalind S. Helderman, discussed several
plays performed at Stone Bridge High School in Loudon County, Virginia, which caused
controversy. The student-written one-act play Offsides caused debate over its homosexual
theme. Later that year, a performance of How to Succeed in Business Without Really
Trying was edited. According to Helderman, “...several lines were changed to soften
cheeky references to sexual tension in the workplace” (B01). The debate over this play
caused Stone Bridge drama teacher Glen Hochkeppel to say, “When this whole story
broke, my radar went up to one hundred times its normal power. It’s natural. You begin to
question absolutely everything you’re putting on stage” (B01). This comment reflects
those of other drama teachers who served as my co-researchers. It is also another instance
o f the many examples I uncovered in my review of the literature, where the theme of
homosexuality continues to stir up debate. John Wells, drama teacher at another Loudon
County high school, commented that this controversy “had teachers across the county
immediately reexamining coming shows” (B01). Wells recalled his previous criticism for
allowing a student to say “for God’s sake” during a production of The Diary of Anne
Frank. Wells added, “I think we’re all walking on eggshells. It really only takes one
person to be upset-one person with a computer can all of a sudden start a real uproar”
(B01).
A month later, in a follow-up to this story, a June 16,2005 Washington Post article by
Michael A. Chandler and Rosalind S. Helderman explained how the Loudon school board
resolved the issue. The board unanimously approved a policy to ban “obscenity in school
plays and require that student theatre take account of community sensibilities.”
According to Chandler and Helderman, “The vote brought to a close a tumultuous debate
58
about free speech and morality that had put the school board in the middle of a national
conversation over homosexuality’s place in society and schools” (LZ01).
Student Amanda Ellis, who serves as president of the International Thespian Society
for 2006, said that she and many other drama students feel such a policy is unnecessary.
Ellis said, “There is no need to shelter us from the concepts of homosexuality, premarital
sex, and religions other than our own, but there is a resounding need to bring these so-
called controversial themes out into the open so that people will no longer have reason to
be afraid of ideas different from their own” (LZ01).
There have been cases, some previously discussed, where school boards have fired
drama teachers for what was deemed to be inappropriate subject matter in their choices of
productions. The Loudon decision was the only incident in the literature where a school
board had formally adopted a policy on high school plays.
A case where a drama teacher was transferred was discussed in an article by Charles J.
Russo and Floyd G. Delon in the journal NASSP (National Association of Secondary
School Principals) Bulletin. The article, titled “Teachers, School Boards, and the
Curriculum: Who is in Control?” discussed the case of Margaret Boring, a high school
drama teacher in Buncombe, North Carolina. Boring had won many awards for
excellence in teaching drama. In 1991, Boring chose the play Independence for four
students to perform in a statewide competition. The play deals with the dynamics of a
dysfunctional family composed of a divorced mom, a lesbian daughter, and an unmarried
pregnant daughter.
Prior to the competition, a scene from the play was performed for an English class.
Boring had obtained parental permission slips explaining the play’s content. One parent,
59
who did not sign, complained, and the principal asked to see the script. The principal then
prohibited the students from performing in the competition, but upon objections from
parents of the performers, the principal gave permission only if certain scenes were edited
out. The revised play won second place at the state finals. Subsequently, Boring was
transferred to a middle school in the same district.
Boring filed suit to try to prevent the transfer, but it was dismissed, and after numerous
appeals, was not successful. In discussing this case, the authors of the article stated:
Teachers’ attempts to make their curricula relevant to a new generation of students
can create controversial situations. The results in Boring lead to the question
about the board’s “legitimate pedagogical concern” about the play. Moreover,
it is important to consider whether the wishes of parents should be trumped by a
board or other parents whose children were not even involved in the activity. The
board’s power to monitor the content of the curriculum and curriculum-related
activities not withstanding, its authority must be tempered by reason. (1026)
In concluding, the authors said that the Boring incident fits into a body of case law that
supports the right of school boards to limit academic and free speech rights of teachers by
retaining control over the curriculum. “Even so,” Russo and Delon stated, “if the nation’s
public schools are to move forward in attempting to meet the needs of students, perhaps it
is time to expand the parameters of control over the curriculum and temper cases such as
Boring by recognizing that teachers who push the bounds of their disciplines would not
have to do so at the peril of losing their employment” (1027).
I found this article to be extremely relevant to my study, since many of my co
researchers did worry about their job security in light of censorship issues, and one, in
60
fact, did not have his contract renewed at two schools because of such controversy. It is
also interesting to note that the Boring incident took place in 1991, although the final
court decision did not come about until 1998. My co-researchers were interviewed in
2005, so it is clear that these “free speech” concerns are still in the forefront four years
later. That fact validates the relevance of my research.
In two more high school incidents, Shakespeare was deemed to be inappropriate
reading matter. In March 1996, Merrimack, New Hampshire schools removed Twelfth
Night from its curriculum after the school board passed a “prohibition of alternative
lifestyle instruction” act. This was probably due to the play’s depiction of many romantic
entanglements, including one in which a young woman disguises herself as a boy
(Ockerbloom 4).
In Savannah, Georgia, in 1999, a teacher at Windsor Forest High School required
students to get permission slips prior to reading Hamlet Macbeth, or King Lear after the
school board had removed these plays from class reading lists. The reasons mentioned
included adult language and references to sex and violence (Ockerbloom 3). Shakespeare
was also mentioned numerous times by my co-researchers.
The rem aining articles I will discuss in this review of the relevant literature all concern
the play Bang. Bang. You’re Dead by William Mastrosimone. One such article was
published in the June 2002 edition of the journal Theatre History Studies. The article, by
Barry B. Witham, is titled “The Voices of Bang. Bang. You’re Dead.” Witham discussed
the debate over whether representations of violence in film, on stage, on television, and in
video games are directly responsible for the “carnage in our streets, on our playgrounds,
and in our schools” (83). This debate became especially heated in the aftermath of the
61
1999 Columbine school shootings.
In June 1999, Hollywood’s most visible lobbyist on Capital Hill, Jack Valenti,
conducted a three-day seminar with screenwriters to discuss ethics and responsibility in
film-writing. Witham said:
There was a lot of heat but, again, the First Amendment and freedom from
censorship emerged victorious. Brian Helgeland, author of Payback and
L.A. Confidential proclaimed that he wouldn’t “know how to respond to a code
or a consensus as to what’s responsible and what isn’t acceptable. That is only
for me to answer in my own work.” One writer, however, had heard enough. (84)
The writer Witham is referring to is award-winning playwright and screenwriter
William Mastrosimone, who was beginning to feel that he, too, had been culpable in the
virus of violence raging in the media. Mastrosimone found himself wondering “even if
one denies that representation causes violence, don’t we still have some kind of
responsibility to the social contract?” (84). Mastrosimone recounted how, three days after
the Springfield, Oregon school shootings in 1998, as the father of high school-aged
children, “Like other parents, my wife and I realized that our kids are no longer
safe...sadly, it is imminently reasonable to assume that there is a potential killer in every
school” (86). That very night the playwright began to write a new play, Bang. Bang.
You’re Dead, as a vehicle by which students could voice their own fears and open up
dialogue among themselves.
The play, based on the story of Kip Kinkle, the teen who shot his parents in
Springfield, Oregon in November 1998, and then killed two classmates and wounded
twenty-five others, begins after the killings. In the play, the dead kids come back and
62
demand to know why Kinkle committed these acts of violence. Mastrosimone estimates
that this play has had at least 15,000 performances within two years. Many parents,
teachers, and students have contacted the author with thanks and appreciation for the
play’s positive impact. However, Witham said that “Bang. Bang has had detractors.
School administrators fear its subject matter or even its title. Some parents are leery of its
‘adult’ themes” (88).
One of Witham’s colleagues reported that she had been denied permission to do the
play with underclass college students at the Mid American Theatre Conference in
Chicago, in March 2001. As reported on the First Amendment Center Website in
September 2005, two teachers quit as high school drama club advisors when the
superintendent banned Godsnell and Bang. Bang. You’re Dead (l).The superintendent
said that the Mastrosimone play ran counter to the district’s zero tolerance for school
violence. In October 2005, however, the Ohio school board voted to allow the play with
the provision that advisors and counselors be present, and that there would be time for
discussion afterward.
In another incident, as reported in the StPetersburg Times by Melia Bowie, King High
School (Tampa, Florida) administrators allowed Bang. Bang. You’re Dead to be
performed at a district drama competition, but not before the student body. According to
Bowie, “Administrators said the play...was inappropriate for high school students” (1).
I found the articles about this play to be both timely and relevant to my study of high
school teachers’ experiences with censorship, especially since one of my co-researchers
made direct reference to Bang. Bang. You’re Dead while being interviewed. This co
researcher, too, was unable to get permission to perform the play at his California high
school.
Summary of Literature Review
Examples of arts censorship, and more specifically theatre censorship, are abundant in
the literature. Much of the literature also points out the concerns of educators,
playwrights, and others over such censorship. My examination of the literature reveals
numerous examples of individuals losing or being in fear of losing jobs over censorship
issues. In dealing with such issues, some individuals have resigned or thought of
resigning positions. The idea of “self-censorship” is mentioned frequently in the
literature.
The literature also reveals that theatre censorship is prevalent in academic settings at
all levels of education, from grade school through university. There are also many
instances revealed where theatrical productions were made to suffer financially over such
controversy. Most often, as revealed in the literature, the problems arose over content
which included homosexuality, sexual themes, or violence.
My literature review concentrated mostly on examples of theatrical censorship in the
United States, and the review revealed that controversies were not limited to any specific
area of the country. There were several examples of issues or concerns in Canada and
other foreign countries.
In reviewing the more recent literature, several specific plays, such as Corpus Christi,
Angels in America, and Bat Bov. The Musical, were mentioned as being controversial in
numerous articles.
Many books were written by or about individuals known as the “Hollywood Ten.” In
reading these memoirs/accounts by Norma Barzman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, and
p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
64
Patrick McGilligan and Paul Buhle, I became more aware of people whose lives were
deeply affected by censorship, and I was able to clearly understand that the inability to
carry on one’s artistic endeavors can be devastating financially, physically, and
emotionally. These personal experiences with censorship, although not
“phenomenological” studies, bore the most similarities to my interviews with my co
researchers in that they dealt with individual experiences involving the phenomenon of
artistic censorship.
The only phenomenological study in the literature involving censorship issues in an
academic setting was Gatewood’s 2002 dissertation. Although he did conduct interviews
with co-researchers, his focus was on the ways in which arts administrators handle
conflict on college campuses. I believe my study, which examines high school theatre
directors’ experiences with censorship of their own productions, has not been attempted
previously.
Therefore, my study provides a unique effort to uncover the essences and meanings of
theatre censorship as experienced by directors of productions on the high school level. I
believe it will be a relevant, original contribution to the existing literature.
65
CHAPTER THREE
PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK OF PHENOMENOLOGY
According to J.J. Kockelmans (24), the word “phenomenology” was used in
philosophical writings as early as 1765. However, a precise definition did not exist until
Hegel described phenomenology in his book, titled Phenomenology of Spirit, first
published in 1807. Hegel described phenomenology as knowledge as it appears to
consciousness, which is the science of descriptions of that which is perceived, sensed, and
known in one’s immediate awareness and experience (Hegel 1977).
German philosopher Edmund H. Husserl is regarded as the founder of
phenomenology. He introduced the term in his 1913 book, titled Ideas: A General
Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Alfred Schutz’s book, titled Understanding and
Social Inquiry, was important in its influence in applying and establishing
phenomenology as a major social science perspective. Other important influences on the
phenomenological traditions have been the books The Phenomenology of Perception, by
Maurice Marleau-Ponty, Modes of Thought by Alfred N. Whitehead, and The Wav of
Phenomenology: Criticism as a Philosophical Discipline, by Richard M. Zaner.
In his book Ideas. Husserl described phenomenology as the study of the ways in
which people describe things and experience things through their senses (246-51). Basic
to Husserl’s idea was the assumption that we can only know what we experience by being
aware of perceptions and meanings that awaken our conscious awareness (120).
According to Patton:
Initially, all our understanding comes from sensory experience of phenomena, but
66
that experience must be described, explicated, and interpreted. Yet, descriptions of
experience and interpretations are so intertwined that they often become one.
Interpretation is essential to an understanding of experience and the
experience includes the interpretation. Thus, phenomenologists focus
on how we put together the phenomena we experience in such a way as
to make sense of the world and, in so doing, develop a worldview. (106)
Husserl, in his book Ideas, emphasized that only the essences of certain special
conscious structures are the proper objects of phenomenological inquiry (62). After 1910,
Husserl’s ideas emphasized that phenomenology is the study of structures of
consciousness that enable consciousness to refer to objects outside itself. Such a study
requires reflection on the content of the mind to the exclusion of everything else. This
type of reflection is called phenomenological reduction. Husserl stated that this reflection
does not presuppose that anything exists, but allows for a “bracketing of existence,” that
is, setting aside the question of the real existence of the contemplated object (108-11).
When Husserl contemplated the content of his own mind, he discovered the acts of
remembering, desiring, and perceiving, and the abstract content of these acts. Husserl
called these “meanings.” He felt that these meanings enabled an act to be directed toward
an object under a certain aspect, and he called this directedness “intentionality.” He held
this to be the essence of consciousness. Therefore, Husserl’s idea was that transcendental
phenomenology was the study of the basic components of the meanings that make
intentionality possible (125-27).
Phenomenologists generally follow Husserl’s ideas in attempting to use pure
descriptions in studies of experience, and subscribe to his main idea, as expressed by
67
German philosopher Martin Heidegger in his book Being and Time. Heidegger said, “The
term ’phenomenology’ expresses a maxim that can be formulated: To the things
themselves!” (24). Different phenomenologists may differ, however, as to whether a
phenomenological reduction can be performed, and as to that which is manifest to the
philosopher who is giving a pure description of experience. Heidegger felt that
phenomenology should make manifest that which is hidden in ordinary, everyday
experience. In Being and Time. Heidegger described what he called the “structure of
eveiydayness” or “being-in-the-world.” He found this “being-in-the-world” to be an
interconnected system of equipment, social roles, and purposes (107-22).
In his book titled Being and Nothingness. Jean Paul Sartre, the French existentialist,
agreed with Husserl in that consciousness is always directed at objects (11). However, he
criticized Husserl’s idea that this directedness is only possible by way of special mental
entities called “meanings” (75).
Another French philosopher, Maurice Marleau-Ponty, totally rejected Sartre’s view
that phenomenological description will reveal humans to be pure, isolated, and to have
free consciousnesses. In Marleau-Ponty’s book, titled Phenomenology of Perception, he
explained his belief in the idea of an active, involved body in human knowledge.
Marleau-Ponty, like Heidegger and Sartre, is considered to be an existential
phenomenologist who denies the possibility of bracketing existence (Marleau-Ponty 67-
199).
According to Moustakas (26), it was not Hegel, but Descartes, who had a major
influence on Husserl’s development of the concept of Epoche. Epoche is the concept
which requires the researcher to eliminate all suppositions and to place the raising of
68
knowledge above all possible doubt.
Moustakas stated that:
For Husserl, as for Kant and Descartes, knowledge based on intuition and essence
precedes empirical knowledge. Although the doubt of Descartes was transformed
into the Epoche of Husserl, both philosophers recognized the crucial value of
returning to the self to discover the nature and meaning of things as they appear
and in their essence. (26)
Moustakas went on to say that:
What appears in consciousness is the phenomenon. The word phenomenon comes
from the Greek phaenesthai, to flare up, to show itself, to appear. Constructed from
phaino, phenomenon means to bring to light, to place in brightness, to show
itself, the totality of what lies before us in the light of day (Heidegger, 1977,
pp.74-75). Thus, the maxim of phenomenology, “To the things themselves.”
In a broad sense that which appears provides the impetus for experience and for
generating new knowledge. Phenomena are the building blocks of human science
and the basis for all knowledge. (26)
There are four core concepts which are of major importance in understanding
transcendental phenomenology. They are intentionality, noema, noesis, and intuition.
The concept of intentionality is very important to Husserl’s transcendental
phenomenology model. According to Aristotle, the term “intention” refers to the
orientation of the mind to its object. The object, therefore, exists in one’s mind in an
intentional way (Moustakas 28).
Moustakas went on to say, “Intentionality refers to consciousness, to the internal
69
experience of being conscious of something; thus the act of consciousness and the object
of consciousness are intentionally related” (28).
Joseph J. Kocklemans said that “Consciousness itself cannot be anything other than
openness, directedness to the other.. ..In this way consciousness appears to be not pure
interiority, but should be understood as a going-out of-itself ’ (36).
Every intentionality is made up of a noema and a noesis. The noema does not refer to
the real object, but to the phenomenon. “.. .not the tree but the appearance of the tree”
(Moustakas 29). Aron Gurwitsch, in his article titled “On the Intentionality of
Consciousness,” said that the particular object that appears in one’s perception will vary
depending upon the angle, with what background of experience, depending upon the
orientation of wishing or judging, all from the vantage point of the perceiving individual
(128).
According to Patton:
Every intentional experience is also noetic....In considering the nomea [sic]-noesis
correlate...., the “percieved as such” is the nomea [sic]; the “perfect self-evidence”
is the noesis. Their relationship constitutes the intentionality of consciousness. For
every nomea [sic], there is a noesis; for every noesis, there is a nomea [sic]. On the
noematic side is the uncovering and explication, the unfolding and becoming
distinct, the clearing of what is actually presented in consciousness. On the
noetic side is an explication of the intentional processes themselves. (484)
Moustakas stated that wherever a noesis exists, it is always related directly to a noema
(69). In his book Ideas, Husserl stated, “The noema, in perception, is its perceptual
meaning or the perceived as such” (69). Ihde, in his book Experimental Phenomenology,
70
offered this distinction: noema is that which is experienced, the what of experience, the
object-correlate. Noesis is the way in which the what is experienced, the experiencing or
act of experiencing, the subject-correlate” (43).
The last core concept of transcendental phenomenology is that of intuition. Descartes,
in his book titled The Essential Writings, described intuition as “an inborn talent directed
toward producing solid and true judgments concerning everything that presents itself’
( 22).
The starting point for Descartes was the “presents itself,” as it was also for Husserl in
his return to the things themselves. Intuition can therefore be thought of as the starting
place in deriving knowledge of human experience, which is free of everyday sense
impressions and natural attitude (Descartes 28-9).
Moustakas stated that:
The self for Descartes and for Husserl is an intuitive-thinking being, a being who
doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wishes for or against, senses, imagines. All
things become clear and evident through an intuitive-reflective process, through
a transformation of what is seen; first intuitively in the common appearance, in
the manner in which something is presented and then in the fullness and clarity
of an intuitive-reflective process. (32)
In describing individual intuition, Husserl said that “Empirical or individual intuition
can be transformed into essential insight (ideation)—a possibility which is itself not to be
understood as empirical but as essential possibility “ (Ideas 54). Husserl continued:
. . . essential intuition is the consciousness of something, of an “object,” a
something towards which its glance is directed, a something “self-given”
71
within it; but which can then be “presented” in other acts, vaguely or
distinctly thought, made the subject of true and false predictions-as is
the case indeed with every “object” in the necessarily extended sense proper
to Formal Logic. . . Thus essential insight is intuition . . . . ” (Ideas 55)
Phenomenological Processes
The four steps in the phenomenological research model are Epoche,
Phenomenological Reduction, Imaginative Variation, and Synthesis.
Epoche is a Greek word which means to stay away from, or abstain. The process of
Epoche means that one enters a pure internal place and is truly open to what is before us.
The Epoche offers a clearing of mind, space, and time, and challenges one to be creative
in ideas, feelings, awarenesses, and understandings (Moustakas 80).
Moustakas explained the Epoche in this way:
The Epoche process inclines me toward receptiveness. I am more readily able to
meet something or someone and to listen and hear whatever is being presented,
without coloring the other’s communication with my own habits of thinking,
feeling, and seeing, removing the usual ways of labeling or judging, or comparing.
I am ready to perceive and know a phenomenon from its appearance and
presence. (89)
The next step in the process is Phenomenological Reduction. In this step, the
researcher must “bracket out” the world along with any presuppositions. This is necessary
so that the researcher is able to identify the data gathered in pure form, one which is left
uncontaminated (Patton 485).
Bracketing is Husserl’s (1913) term. Husserl explained that in bracketing, the
72
researcher holds the phenomenon up for serious inspection. In order to do this, the
phenomenon is taken out of the world where it occurs, and is taken apart and dissected.
The elements and essential structures of the phenomenon are defined and analyzed. The
preconceptions, which were isolated in the deconstruction phase, are put aside during
bracketing so that the subject matter can be confronted on its own terms ( Ideas 110-11).
The next step in Phenomenological Reduction is the process called horizonalization.
In horizonalizing, according to Moustakas, “Every statement initially is treated as having
equal value. Later, statements irrelevant to the topic and question as well as those that are
repetitive or overlapping are deleted, leaving only the Horizons (the textural meanings
and invariant constituents of the phenomenon)” (97).
The third step of the Phenomenological Reduction process involves clustering the
horizons into themes. Here, the most meaningful and significant horizons are organized
into meaningful clusters (Moustakas 97).
According to Moustakas, the last step of this process consists of organizing the
horizons and themes into a coherent textural description of the phenomenon (97). This
final step should begin with the Epoche and go through the process of returning to the
thing itself. If done in an open and free state, one should be able to delineate deeper layers
of meaning of the phenomenon (Moustakas 96).
After the Phenomenological Reduction comes the process of Imaginative Variation on
each theme. Moustakas stated that the major task of Imaginative Variation is to describe
the essential structures of a phenomenon. Husserl explained how the process evolves:
The Eidos, the pure essence, can be exemplified intuitively in the data of
experience, data of perception, memory, and so forth, but just as readily...
73
in the play of fancy we bring spatial shapes of one sort or another to birth,
melodies, social happenings, and so forth, or live through fictitious acts
of everyday life. (Ideas 57)
Moustakas explained that through Imaginative Variation “the researcher understands
that there is not a single inroad to truth, but that countless possibilities emerge that are
intimately connected with the essences and meanings of an experience” (99).
Moustakas listed the following steps of Imaginative Variation to include:
1. Systematic varying of the possible structural meanings that underlie
the textural meanings;
2. Recognizing the underlying themes or contexts that account for the
emergence of the phenomenon;
3. Considering the universal structures that precipitate feelings and
thoughts with reference to the phenomenon, such as the structure of time,
space, bodily concerns, materiality, causality, relation to self, or relation to
others.
4. Searching for exemplifications that vividly illustrate the invariant
structural themes and facilitate the development of a structural description
of the phenomenon. (99)
The final step in the Phenomenological Research Process involves the “intuitive
integration of the fundamental textural and structural descriptions into a unified statement
of the essences of the phenomenon as a whole” (Moustakas 100).
Husserl defined “essence” as “that which is common or universal, the condition or
quality without which a thing would not be what it is” (Ideas 53).
74
Moustakas further believed that the essences of any experience can never totally be
exhausted, but that the researcher’s textural-structural synthesis of the data can only
represent that researcher’s views at a particular time and place (100).
Phenomenology is an important methodology and a valuable tool in researching
human experience. According to Moustakas, in using this methodology, “One learns to
see naively and freshly again, to value conscious experience, to respect the evidence of
one’s senses, and to move toward an intersubjective knowing of things, people, and
everyday experiences” (101).
75
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH DESIGN
According to Patton, phenomenological approaches focus on:
.. .exploring how human beings make sense of experience and transform
experience into consciousness, both individually and as shared meanings.
This requires methodologically, carefully, and thoroughly capturing and
describing how people experience some phenomenon-how they perceive it,
describe it, feel about it, judge it, remember it, make sense of it, and talk about
it with others. To gather such data, one must undertake in-depth interviews with
people who have directly experienced the phenomenon of interest; that is, they
have “lived experience” as opposed to secondhand experience. (104)
This chapter explains the methods and procedures used in preparing and conducting this
study. It will describe the way in which co-researchers were selected, the way in which
the data was collected, and explain the methods for organizing, analyzing, and
synthesizing the data.
Co-researcher Selection
Since my research question was: “What is the experience of theatre directors in high
school academic settings who have encountered censorship in the production of plays?”,
my co-researchers were required to be play directors working in high school academic
settings. In proposing my dissertation question, I had specified that these co-researchers
be working in high school, college, or university settings.
Initially, in order to find co-researchers, I contacted college and university theatre
directors who work at schools in the Orange County or Los Angeles County areas of
Southern California. After numerous phone and/or e-mail communications, the general
consensus among those I communicated with who work in higher education was that
censorship was not a major issue for them. Although I had uncovered several instances of
censorship in college settings in my preliminary research, I was unable to find any
college directors who had recently had such an experience.
Therefore, I decided to limit my interviews to those directors in high schools, where
experiences of censorship were much more prevalent.
I contacted Gai Jones, the president of the California Educational Theatre Association.
Gai was nice enough to put out my search for co-researchers into a general e-mail to all of
the association’s members. The response was very good, from both junior high and high
school theatre teachers. All who responded had had very recent experiences with
censorship issues and were not only willing, but anxious, to talk to me. From this group, I
found four high school teachers who lived in close proximity as co-researchers.
My fifth co-researcher was found through my own research on theatre censorship. I
read a newspaper article from a mid-western state which discussed how a high school
teacher’s production of a play had been banned by the school’s administration. I was able
to contact the teacher, and he was very anxious to talk to me about his experience.
I found my sixth co-researcher through a recommendation of my core advisor, Dr.
Sherry Penn. This individual too, had had experiences as a high school director of
productions which had been censored, and was glad to serve as one of my co-researchers.
The following table further clarifies demographics regarding the six co-researchers:
p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
77
COMPARISON OF CO-RESEARCHERS’ SCHOOL SETTINGS
Co-Researcher Fictitious Name Public/Private Urban/Suburban State
‘JefF public suburban CA
Liz” public urban CA
‘Eugene” public suburban CA
‘Rafael” public suburban CA
‘David” public suburban MN
‘Mark” public urban IN
Collection of Data
Prior to participating in the interviews, each co-researcher was informed of the nature
and purpose of the study, and each signed an agreement obtaining informed consent
which insured confidentiality, explained my responsibilities as the primary researcher,
explained the responsibilities of the research participant, and ensured consistency with
ethical principles of research (See Appendix A).
Co-researchers were informed that there were not any risks expected from
participation in the research project. They were also informed personally that if they
wished a copy of the results of the research they could request one and that they could
withdraw from the study at any time.
I conducted four interviews in person and two interviews by phone, depending on the
location of the co-researcher. I audio taped the interviews and subsequently each
78
interview was transcribed by a professional transcriber who agreed to keep the
information of the audiotapes confidential. Additionally, the transcriber was given only
the fictitious name of each co-researcher and used that fictitious name exclusively in the
transcriptions. Each co-researcher was sent a copy of that individual’s transcribed
interview, and he or she was asked whether or not it was deemed to be accurate (See
Appendix B). I then made the requested corrections/additions.
In preparation for the interviews, I reread chapter seven, “Qualitative Interviewing,” of
Patton’s book Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, and reread the book
Learning from Strangers, by Robert S. Weiss. I also engaged in the process of Epoche in
order to enable myself to investigate the experience of theatre censorship free from
prejudgment, “.. .in a wide-open sense, from the vantage point of a pure or trancendental
ego” (Moustakas 33).
Moustakas stated that “the phenomenological interview involves an informal,
interactive process and utilizes open-ended comments and questions” (114). Moustakas
also pointed out that, as in my case, although the researcher may develop a set of guiding
questions in advance, these may or may not be used, according to the amount of
information the co-researcher is willing to share. I found that my guiding questions were
helpful in conducting my interviews, although I certainly was not limited by them. (See
Appendix C). I found my co-researchers to be, without exception, very articulate and
forthright.
Since the methodology I used was Transcendental Phenomenology, I took what
Moustakas described as “a necessary first step,” the Epoche (34). I did this before each
interview by setting aside my judgments and everyday, ordinary way of looking at things.
79
Therefore, my co-researchers’ descriptions of their experiences were looked upon without
preconceived notions or biases. As Moustakas stated, “Epoche requires a new way of
looking at things, a way that requires that we learn to see what stands before our eyes,
what we can distinguish and describe” (34).
Organizing, Analyzing, and Synthesizing the Data
In order to analyze the data gathered, I chose to use the vanKaam method as modified
by Moustakas (120-21). I chose this method because the steps are clearly outlined and the
results yield the meaning and essences of the experience, which will be a good
representation of the entire group of co-researchers.
After I obtained complete transcriptions of my co-researchers’ interviews, I followed
Moustakas’ outline (120-21). I carefully read and reread each transcript and listed every
expression which was relevant to each co-researcher’s experience of theatre censorship.
Next, I tested each expression for two requirements. These requirements were:
1. Deciding if the expression contained a “moment of the experience that is a necessary
and sufficient constituent for understanding it” (Moustakas 121). 2. Deciding if it was
possible to abstract and label it. Moustakas stated that “If so, it is a horizon of the
experience” (12), and that “The horizons that remain are the invariant constituents of the
experience” (121).
If the co-researcher’s expression met this test, I wrote it on an index card. Next, I
labeled the expressions according to the theme each represented. These were the
important core themes of my co-researchers’ experiences.
I then checked the invariant constituents with their accompanying theme to determine
if they were explicitly expressed and if not, to determine their compatibility. Then, based
80
on this determination, I decided whether to keep or delete them. Next, based on these
relevant themes, I was able to construct an individual textural description of each co
researcher’s experience.
Next, I constructed an individual structural description of the experience for each co
researcher. This structural description was based on the individual textural description
and by the use of the process of imaginative variation. According to Moustakas, the task
of imaginative variation is to “ seek possible meanings through the utilization of
imagination, varying the frames of reference, employing polarities and reversals, and
approaching the phenomenon from divergent perspectives, different positions, roles, or
functions” (97-8).
After careful consideration of the co-researchers’ individual textural and individual
structural descriptions, I was able to construct composite textural and composite
structural descriptions. The composite textural portrayal, according to Patton, is “an
abstraction of the experience that provides content and illustration, but not yet essence”
(486).
Moustakas described the composite structural description as “a way of understanding
how the co-researchers as a group experience what they experience” (142).
My final step in the phenomenological process was to integrate the composite textural
and the composite structural descriptions, which, according to Moustakas, provide “a
synthesis of the meanings and essences of the experience” (144). This integration process
yielded an excellent synthesis and description of the meanings of the group experience of
theatre censorship.
81
CHAPTER FIVE
PRESENTATION. ANALYSIS. AND SYNTHESIS OF DATA
This chapter presents a description of the essence of theatre censorship as a lived
experience. The description was obtained by means of the phenomenological research
method. The data analyzed resulted from interviews with six co-researchers. This analysis
is meant to convey a clear image of the co-researchers’ experiences. Verbatim examples
are included which illustrate the collection of data and its analysis and synthesis.
The sections of this chapter follow the steps of the phenomenological research model
described in Chapter Three. These steps are: Epoche, Phenomenological Reduction,
Imaginative Variation, and Synthesis. Each co-researcher participated in an open-ended
interview. Each interview was tape-recorded and transcribed. Then, Epoche,
Phenomenological Reduction, and Imaginative Variation were used in order to analyze
each of the co-researcher’s transcribed data. Next, using this data, it was possible to
construct individual textural descriptions and individual structural descriptions.
Composite textural and composite structural descriptions were created from these
individual descriptions. Finally, these composites were looked at in forming a composite
textural-structural description. The resulting synthesis, which integrates textures and
structures, clarifies the experience of theatre censorship for this group of co-researchers.
Interviews
I selected six co-researchers to interview after ascertaining that each had had direct
involvement with a theatre censorship issue as a high school theatre director. The plays
that caused the controversies were A Funny Thing Happened on the Wav to the Forum.
82
Bat Bov. The Musical. Waiting for Lefty. The Taming of the Shrew. Grease.
Metamorphoses, The Bard Witch Project, and Private Wars. I asked each to describe
his/her experience or experiences with theatre censorship as the director of a high school
production.
Although I had prepared a set of guiding questions aimed at eliciting a concise account
of my co-researchers’ experiences, I was in no way limited by these questions. The
interviews were open-ended and informal, and many of the co-researchers’ accounts so
comprehensive, that some of the questions proved unnecessary.
In order to illustrate the interviewing process, I am including excerpts from two of the
co-researchers’ transcripts. Each co-researcher was given a fictitious name, as reflected in
the following excerpts. The first excerpt is taken from Liz’s (fictitious name) interview,
and the second excerpt is from Mark’s (fictitious name) interview.
Excerpt from Liz’s Interview
Liz: I’m sorry. Dr. F. is the principal-came to see the show fA Funny Thing
Happened on the Wav to the Foruml. said complimentary things,
congratulations. End the show, and then, I got an e-mail from him the
Monday after we closed that said that he would like me to stop by to see
him. And I did, and he started off by saying that he really enjoyed
the show. The students looked like they put a lot of hard work into it,
etc. However, I feel that we can choose better material for your
students. He felt that a show that centered around a whorehouse,
which I think he fixated on that because that’s not the point of
the show. It’s part of the show. But, if that’s all you focus on,
83
that’s all you’re going to see. It’s about two young lovers. Both of them
are virgins, and that’s part of the whole thing. They’re young and naive,
and that’s the point. The focus is them. But anyway, he focused on that.
And we shouldn’t do a show that was focused on a whorehouse.
Brenda: That’s the word he used?
Liz: That’s the word he used. And he’s very uncomfortable when he uses
these words which is also-I have to keep a straight face, and I know
it’s really-But, when he’s like [whispering], “whorehouse” and
you’re just like, you can say it. It’s okay. We’re all adults here.
Brenda: Were you the only one in the room?
Liz: I was the only one in the room at the time-just him and me. And I
explained to him my reasons for choosing it. Of course, he asked, “Why
did you choose it?” I explained those reasons to him. I said, “Sondheim
is challenging. And I always want my students to be challenged when
they’re on stage. Even if it’s comedy, and they think they’re just high-
jinks fun. This is just goofy. They’re still being challenged. The pacing of
that show-I said, “Also, if you blink, you miss.” That show is so fast-
paced. The students had to be on focus. They had to be in character at all
times. They could not drop a beat. They could not rest during that show.
And I said, “It was they were learning all these great things as they were-
as performers.” And I said, “And plus, I really think it’s a funny show.” I
go, “It’s tongue-in-cheek, and I didn’t feel that it was inappropriate.” I
said, “I did a lot of research. Other schools have done this show.” In
84
fact, K. High School, which is another high school in our district also,
did the same show that same season. We were doing them at the same
time. And I said, “I don’t think that it was inappropriate.” I said, “I
understand maybe things can be maybe a little more toned down.” I
said, “Maybe a little less of this or that. But, I don’t think it was a bad
choice of show, and I would do it again.” And he said that he wanted me
to.. .from that.. .he had talked with the other principals at a principal’s
meeting, and they now-they all told him, no. Let me backtrack just a
little bit, because before I went in to meet with him, I kind of had a
feeling about what was going to be happening.
Brenda: How did you feel at that point before you went?
Liz: I was a little nervous, but I also wanted to be prepared. I wanted to be
prepared going in. I wanted to have background information. I wanted to
talk to my colleagues in the district about what they thought about the
situation; their experiences, because my teaching is only four years. Some
of them have twenty, twenty-five years. So I thought that was a good idea.
So what I did was, I went on line hours and hours. And I e-mailed any
sites I could find on censorship in the classroom or theatre censorship.
And I actually e-mailed quite a few people. And I got a lot of e-mails back
that gave me background information. They gave me legal information
about how, if it went to that level, how I could deal with it. I came in with
my guns blazing. I was prepared, and one of the things-it was kind of a
cataclysm of events because it kind of-everything happened at once. Yet,
another high school, P. High School, had just hired, well what
previously had been an English teacher was now the theatre teacher, and
had been for a year or two. They did One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
which, whoa! That’s a pretty advanced show which I was very impressed
with. But, the language. And it’s hard to take out the language without
affecting the purpose and the focus of the show. Apparently, they did
do some cutting, but there was still one word. I don’t even remember.
I think the word-what was the word? It wasn’t even like “shit” or
anything like that. It was like “God damn.” I think that was it. It was
“God damn,” which a lot of people have issues with. One of the young
ladies in the audience who goes to school there, during a preview show,
told her mother. And her mother is on the school board. So needless to
say, her mother was not very happy. And this edict was issued down that
no play that was produced in any of the high schools in R. Unified
School District could have any profanity at all, profanity including
“damn.”
Brenda: And what was the definition?
Liz: And they defined it. “Damn” was the bottom. To me, that’s like the
bottom. The top being like “mother fucker” and things like that which
we would never. I mean, I don’t know any of us that would go, “Hey,
let’s do this.”
Brenda: No, not in high school.
Liz: “Damn” though, anything that had “damn” all the way up to the big
86
mother word.
Brenda: So, they actually had a list of words.
Liz: They had a list of words.
Brenda: I wonder who drew this up.
Liz: So apparently, this was what we were supposed to do now. However,
this wasn’t in writing. I didn’t receive-nobody received a memo. Nobody
received any, I mean, that kind of thing.
Brenda: How did you find out about the list?
Liz: That was forwarded to me by my principal. And he said that all the other
principals were told to pass it on to their theatre teachers. However, when
I talked to the other theatre teachers, they said, “Yeah, our principals were
like, ‘Don’t even worry about it. We trust you,”’ whereas my principal is
coming into my school. This is his first year there. He’s basically being
told by the board, “We expect you to turn this school around.” He’s under
a lot more pressure. So, do you think that he’s going to ignore something
that they have directly told him to do? No way!
Excerpt from Mark’s Interview
Mark: My assistant principal wanted to talk to me about it, and I explained
exactly how we were going to do this. I walked out of the office. She
said, “I’ll go talk to the principal.” I didn’t hear another word about it.
You’ll recall that I mentioned earlier that she puts out newsletters. On
March 15th of last year, I went into the office to talk to the principal. We
were already five days into rehearsals. We had begun vocals, it was cast,
87
we had scripts [for Bat Boy, the Musical], and we had rights paid for-the
whole ball of wax. I was told at that meeting, no discussion whatsoever
about any aspect of the show-I was told we couldn’t do it. So I offered
my resignation as drama director at the time because she said, “By Friday,
I want you to bring me another script.”
Brenda: Can you talk for a minute about your feelings at that moment when she
said you can’t do it?
Mark: Absolutely. I was so taken aback. I had never experienced anything like
this. I mean people had objected to things before. I’ve discussed things
with principals before and how we were going to handle things, but never
have I been told, in the 32 years that I’ve been doing this-
Brenda: It’s not like you’re new.
Mark: Never have I been told, “You can’t do this show.”
Brenda: So she out and out said, “You can’t do it.”
Mark: Right. There was no discussion. There was not even any discussion that
I had had several- a week before that, with the assistant principal.
Brenda: So she didn’t tell you why, or she didn’t want to discuss it?
Mark: She said, “I understand that you were going to make some changes, but I
can’t see any way that you can make changes in this to be able to make
this acceptable to me,” and that was all the discussion that there was. My
mouth just dropped open when she said, “I want you to bring me another
script by Friday.” So I tried to point out to her that, professionally, I just
wasn’t capable of doing something like this. You plan these things for a
long time. The show was cast. What was I going to do with these people
who were in the cast?
Brenda: Would you call it-you said “taken aback.” I don’t want to put words in
your mouth.
Mark: Oh, I was very upset.
Brenda: I didn’t know if it was sort of just like, “I’m a little disappointed.”
Mark: No. No. I was royally honked off, but I was extremely calm because
I didn’t want to do anything at that point. I didn’t want to do anything
that would suggest to her that I was going to put my job in jeopardy in
any way, shape, or form. I wasn’t going to be insubordinate or anything
along those lines. I knew that could be the next step if I wasn’t careful.
Especially since she, at that time, said I had to bring another script to her
on Friday.
Brenda: What day was this?
Mark: This was a Tuesday. It was the 15th. Now, I immediately went to my union
representative, and we started to talk about this. Actually, I went to the
students first, because we were in the middle of rehearsal.
Brenda: Yeah, that was going to be my next question.
Mark: I went to the students immediately.
Brenda: And you did tell them?
Mark: Right. I told them. At that point I said, “Rehearsals have to stop right now.
The show has been pulled.” I had some inklings about this before. I
actually had told them on the previous Friday, when we first sat down and
began read-throughs. I said, “I’ve been hearing some interesting rumors.
It’s been my experience that people have objected to things before, but it’s
never been a problem. We’ve worked it out.” I said, “I just have an
interesting feeling that there’s something in the works going on.”
Phenomenological Reduction and Imaginative Variation
In order to clearly perceive and describe the meanings and essences in the interviews, I
used a five-step process. The first step was listening to the taped interviews. Step two was
carefully reading each transcript and underlining each statement which seemed relevant to
the experience of theatre censorship (Horizonalization). The third step was rereading the
statements I had underlined and eliminating the repetitive, vague, or overlapping
expressions. I also eliminated those which were impossible to abstract and label
(Invariant Constituents). The fourth step involved clustering the invariant constituents
into themes (Core Themes). For step five, I assembled the core themes into textural and
structural essences and meanings. This was done by using the process of imaginative
variation. I was then able to develop a composite textural-structural synthesis of the
essences and meanings of my co-researchers’ experiences of theatre censorship.
The horizons obtained from the interviews were reduced to 308 invariant constituents,
which were nonrepetitive, relevant statements of the co-researchers’ experiences of
theatre censorship.
After rereading, sorting, and resorting the invariant constituents, core themes of the
experience became evident. The nine themes uncovered were:
1. Feelings of distress/unease
2. Feelings of anger
3. Loss of autonomy
4. Reasons for being censored/complaining parties
5. Self-censorship
6. Concerns about job security
7. Desire to expose students to challenging material
8. Decisions to produce more/less controversial material
9. Levels of support given by administrators/colleagues/others
Explanation of the nine themes, followed by the invariant constituents is presented
below:
Theme One
1. Feelings of distress/unease
All of the co-researchers experienced strong feelings of discomfort when faced
with censorship of productions. Five of the six discuss being “summoned” to the
principal’s office and unexpectedly being faced with a censorship concern. Many
of the feelings they expressed resulted from these “surprise” meetings.
Invariant Constituents for Theme One
“So your initial reaction is to get your dander up a little, you’re pissed, you get a little
upset.”
“It’s kind of, well, I want to be recompensed for all I’ve put in on it already.”
“I guess it’s more like you pick your battles.”
“Yes, going into it. I was really devastated because I didn’t know what to expect.”
“I spend a lot of time sweating and worrying.”
“That’s the difficult thing. Eveiything is questionable.”
“I felt pretty nauseous.”
“I’m pretty much exhausted-physically, mentally, everything. I get a note from the
principal to see him.”
“In Arabian Nights I already worried about certain things.”
“I realized only afterwards, wow! All these plays have to do with incest, so that’s always
a concern.”
“But it’s almost this constant state of dread that I have.”
“I have just as much anxiety about what I’m teaching.”
“Obviously, I felt disappointed. I had never worked as hard at anything before.”
“My overriding philosophy about, especially about drama teachers and principals-I think
almost everyone has a tough relationship-drama teachers with their principals. There’s an
adversarial relationship.”
“I was nervous about the content.”
“That’s something I have to be very careful of.”
“Just being called into the office and just hoping that there wasn’t going to be any follow-
up to it.”
“There’s a big world out there that operates on a level that I have to be careful in my little
world of theatre arts.”
“It just created a little bit of fear.”
“I knew that now I was on the radar of the superintendent who I knew was a very
conservative man.”
“At first, I was very upset about it.”
“Having this thrown at me was nerve-wracking.”
“I felt it was kind of stepping on my toes artistically.”
“I came in kind of hurt.”
“I was really upset.”
92
“Everybody thinks that it’s like a battle was won.”
“But at the same time, it’s so frustrating.”
“I was a little nervous but I also wanted to be prepared.”
“Before I went in to meet with him, I kind of had a feeling about what was going to
happen.”
“That’s just questioning me as a director-teacher.”
“I feel like a little bit of trust was lost.”
“I don’t know if I’ll have another fight on my hands or what the situation will be.”
“There were some moments where I felt like I was the only one fighting this thing.”
“So now I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place.”
“That’s why I was stunned when I walked into the office on Tuesday to have a discussion
about this when she said, ‘You can’t make enough changes to please me, so we’re not
going to do it.’”
“I was very upset.”
“I was so taken aback.”
“Never again do I ever want to go through that.”
“I should be trusted enough after 24 years that I’m not going to put a kid in a situation
that’s going to be uncomfortable.”
“It’s really, really sad.”
“They were sitting there trying to make me play ball their way, and I wasn’t happy about
that.”
“As long as I feel I’m serving a purpose, I’ll continue to battle.”
“Oh, it is just appalling. It was a very sickening feeling. I was upset for several days.”
“I really didn’t have any kind of answer, not knowing what I was going in for.”
“Oh yeah, I was like bushwacked.”
“I think he was threatening.”
“I’m really disappointed in how unprofessional the school, my new school, is.”
“And I was talked down to so much, like a child, in the interview which was the thing
that really disturbed me.”
“There was a mutual lack of appreciation for what I’m trying to do.”
“I felt like a child being scolded.”
“It was a very demeaning experience.”
Theme Two
2. Feelings of anger
Five of the co-researchers reported feelings stronger than mere discomfort when
confronted with censorship issues. Some used very powerful words when
expressing their angry feelings. Some reported feelings so strong they could
imagine coming to physical blows with their censors. All co-researchers
reacted to the bans of their chosen material in personal ways, which probably
accounts for their angry feelings.
Invariant Constituents for Theme Two
“Most people don’t realize the amount of work that goes into putting on a production, and
they think you can instantaneously just change the title overnight and it’s no big deal.”
“It was kind of-you get the momentum going and then things get pulled out from
underneath you, and then you have to start all over.”
“I’m going to make them regret kicking me out.”
“I think I screamed. I wanted to kill.”
“I felt like I could cave his face in or I could just try to be a gentleman.”
“I was pissed off at the parent.”
94
“I was so angiy. Oh, God! I was steaming. So I just avoided her.”
“I felt like we were going to have a physical confrontation.”
“I was just so angry.”
“I was really pissed.”
“I came in angry.”
“When I was in my state of being really angry, I was going, ‘Why do I want to work in a
place where I can’t make my own decisions?’”
“I came in with my guns blazing.”
“Until he trusts me, every show is going to be a battle.”
“I hope people understand that this kind of crap goes on all over the place.”
“I thought they just stabbed me in the back.”
“I thought never has anybody done this. Never has this happened before.”
“I was livid-absolutely livid!”
“I could not believe those words came out of her mouth.”
“I wanted to push her as hard as I could.”
“I said, ‘That was a horrible thing you did.’”
“I said, ‘This is absolutely insane! Why won’t they take my resignation?”’
“I let her have it right between the eyes.”
“I knew that I had that in my back pocket, but I wasn’t going to tell her that because I was
furious.”
“I was royally honked off.”
“Yep, I mean it was just kind of, well now I see where I stand here, kind of thing.”
“I thought it was ridiculous.”
Theme Three
3. Loss of autonomy
All of the co-researchers reported how they were told to change and/or abandon
their planned productions. As previously mentioned, some were told at
meetings with supervisors-meetings for which the co-researchers felt unprepared.
As seen in the final set of invariant constituents presented under this theme,
several expressed their reactions about giving in to their supervisors’ demands.
Invariant Constituents for Theme Three
“Don’t cause controversy. It’s the seniors’ last year.”
“Just do something light, fun, happy, entertaining-family entertainment.”
“We could do it if we wanted to, but he didn’t really want us to, so he didn’t actually say,
‘You can’t do it,’ but he strongly recommended that it would cause great problems within
the community if we did mount it.”
“I’ve spent all this time and effort and you’re telling me I can’t do it.”
“I think in high schools they do one musical a year and they always want them to be
happy.”
“The fact that they were objecting to these things I thought was being oversensitive.”
“Our intention wasn’t to go out and shock the audience.”
“He was the one who was brought into the superintendent and told, ‘We strongly do not
want you to do this show.’”
“I’d put bulletins for the daily bulletin thing and they would be taken out. The principal
didn’t like them because I would have a little tinge of sexual content in the daily
bulletins.”
“I’m not going to tell him what’s going to happen. I’ll try to be ready to defend
everything.”
“I felt defensive. I tried to explain.”
“I had to defend.”
“I rewrote some of the stuff.”
“In the original play, he’s supposed to be completely naked. So obviously, I was willing
to compromise on that.”
“I heard that he was very upset at me about that.”
“So now, because my principal said, ‘That’s as far as I want you to push the envelope.’”
“This script made it to the superintendent’s desk.”
“He was planning to cause a real big stink if he didn’t get his way.”
“He said, ‘Let’s see if we can do something else.’”
“He said, ‘You must cut that from the play.’”
“The principal told me, ‘We’ve got to find some other way for you to do it.’”
“My immediate boss was against the idea of me putting ‘rave’ in the title because he
thought it would be a turn-off to parents.”
“They told me-went on and on about how trashy I was.”
“It didn’t look nearly as good.”
“I had to change it.”
“There were maybe some cuss words that had to be taken out of a play—like no ‘F-word.’”
“We couldn’t have like overt sexuality.”
“All I know is, I wanted to be a smart-ass, and if he wanted me to change it, then I would
have.”
“I didn’t like the idea that parents could dictate, or that anyone could dictate what I
wanted to do.”
“I didn’t have any room to negotiate.”
“I’m responsible for what I do. I take full responsibility for it.”
“I heard that he was very upset at me about that.”
97
“He’s one of those principals that follows the letter of the law which you can’t fault him
for.”
“Those two storms converged and it was just-I think he got real nervous.”
“He’s under a lot more pressure.”
“He’s very uncomfortable when he uses these words.”
“Needless to say, I know what he wants. He just thinks everything should be clean and
wholesome.”
“He couldn’t see the bigger picture.”
“We shouldn’t do a show that was focused on a whorehouse.”
“So apparently, this was what we were supposed to do now. However, this wasn’t in
writing. I didn’t receive-nobody received a memo.”
“They had a list of words.”
“He also said that all shows we do should be family-friendly. They should be for all
ages.”
“And this edict was issued down that no play that was produced in any of the high
schools in R. Unified School District could have any profanity at all, profanity including
‘damn.’”
“He started off by saying that he really enjoyed the show. However I feel that we can
choose better material for our students.”
“End the show, and then I got an e-mail from him the Monday after we closed that said he
would like me to stop by and see him.”
“That was really tough because being where I had been for the last three years, I had had
complete autonomy.”
“I was kind of on the defensive. You know what, you are not going to tell me what is
good or not good for my students.”
“You do not know my job.”
“At the end of that meeting I was, ‘I don’t like to be told what to do.’”
“I didn’t feel that anybody was offended by it.”
“It’s tongue-in-cheek and I didn’t feel that it was inappropriate.”
“I e-mailed any sites I could find on censorship in the classroom, or theatre censorship”
“They gave me legal information about how, if it went to that level, how I could deal with
it.”
“I did a lot of research. Other high schools have done this show.”
“I explained to him my reasons for choosing it.”
“So I was really saying, ‘I’m not going to cut them,’ without saying it.”
“The challenge with taking that out-where do you stop cutting?”
“It makes sense within the context of the play. It’s just a word.”
“So I told him all my reasons for not being able to abide by this new edict.”
“I go, ‘Any Shakespeare would be disqualified.’”
“I came in and he talked and I gave him my point of view.”
“I don’t think it was a bad choice of show, and I would do it again.”
“ ‘Well, I had a couple of questions. They say damn once or twice. They say erection.’”
“He went in to B. and he showed her the word ‘erection.’”
“We’re not putting a spotlight on the word ‘erection.’”
“So when he went to this principals’ meeting, they all talked. And they all said, ‘Well, we
have our theatre teachers show us all their plays before they produce them.’”
“My principal said, ‘Whatever you’re considering doing, give me a copy of it. I will read
it and then if there are issues, we’ll discuss them.’”
“Every opportunity that I have within the context of a show, I can tweak it in such a way
that I’m thumbing my nose at them.”
“We were dealing with the fact that I was being told, ‘You can’t do this show.’ That’s a
horrible thing.”
with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
“In the 32 years that I’ve been doing this, never have I been told, ‘You can’t do this
show.’”
“Having no freedom began to bother me.”
“The principal let me know, ‘I’m going to tell you what you’re going to do.’”
“They didn’t even want to touch the Urinetown script. They thought I put a fetus on the
table or something.”
“About two weeks into rehearsal we got a couple of telephone calls from some of the
local Lutheran churches, and the principal told me about this and said, ‘What in the world
are you doing?”’
“The principal said, ‘Well, I’d better read that.’”
“She wanted to know how we were going to handle a couple of things in the show.”
“I was told at that meeting-no discussion whatsoever about any aspect of the show-I was
told we couldn’t do it.”
“She says, ‘No, that show is unacceptable.’”
“My principal wrote a letter saying, ‘He’s being uncooperative. He chose two
inappropriate shows and wanted them to do them.’”
“Give those of us who have some understanding of what we’re doing in the classroom the
right to be able to do it.”
“You just don’t whip a new show out of your back pocket.”
“I was fully prepared to discuss Bat Bov with the principal.”
“We got together in the office and we talked about it.”
“I said, ‘Well, you know what I’m doing.’”
“So I offered my resignation as drama director at the time because she said, ‘By Friday I
want you to bring me another script.’ My mouth just dropped open.”
“I tried to point out to her that professionally I just wasn’t capable of doing something
like this.”
“You plan these things for a long time. The show was cast.”
“ I told the students, ‘The show has been pulled.’”
“I had never experienced anything like this.”
“Several days before rehearsals began, I had a call from my A.P. who said, ‘Hey, can I
read a copy of the script?’”
“Now I’m facing prior review-is also a form of censorship.”
“My principal told me, ‘This is the show I want you to do.’”
“And they interpret that school board policy to mean they can tell me what to do.”
“And the day after I pass out scripts to everybody, the principal at our school called me in
and it was kind of a surprise- an attack it was.”
“He had him and an assistant principal in at the same time, which is sort of how he does
things.”
“The principal said, ‘Are you teaching this? Do you know this play has the word “nigger”
in it? Do you know this play has prostitution referred to in it?”’
“It’s ‘How dare you! How dare you do this. Well, who do you think you are?”’
“We’re doing, you know, classical literature. It’s what, you change a few notes in
Beethoven, you know? Because you don’t like them?”
“I went in after this incident and pulled some things that I would have had in otherwise.”
“It was kind of a clear picture of, I cannot do challenging theatre here.”
“If I had known what they were bringing me in for, I would have gone in and argued
against them much stronger. I would have fought it. I would have gone to the English
chair and said, ‘This is what I’m doing.’”
“And then, without any warning as to what it was, what the meeting was about, they
brought me in and had the script there.”
“The A.P. asked me to give him a copy of Taming of the Shrew that I was doing.”
“They’re going to want to know what I’m doing and have a look at it.”
“It gets to the point of how much hassle do you want to go through to mount a high
school musical?”
“I felt like I should completely give in to everything that she said.”
. .but I was totally willing to give in.”
“I started to come to terms with it.”
“I just didn’t want to have to deal with that again.”
“My first reaction was to simply wash my hands of it.”
“The shame of it is, I still have a tremendous passion for what I do, but I’m not going to
sit around second-guessing myself.”
“If I’m forced to do it this way, so be it.”
“I acquiesed immediately.”
“I was a first-year teacher and I just was kind of, ‘Okay, whatever you guys want I’ll get
rid of it.’”
Theme Four
4. Reasons for being censored/ Complaining parties
Many of the co-researchers reported having their productions censored due to a
parental complaint or concern. Some reported that it was only one such complaint
that prevented the planned production. Many co-researchers felt that the
complaining parties did not have sufficient familiarity with the “offending”
material. Sometimes, the source of the complaint was unknown to the
co-researcher. Several co-researchers also mentioned possible reasons
for complaints: religious affiliations, homophobia, conservative views, post
9/11 cautions.
Invariant Constituents for Theme Four
“It just showed how it just takes one parent or upset person. All it takes is one angry
parent to really cause a ruckus.”
“So I show up there, and sure enough some parent complained.”
“And one parent can complain and it all becomes about the one complaining parent.”
“.. .and they started a letter-writing campaign and a phone-calling campaign to the
superintendent of the high school.”
“The two main objections they had was that there was smoking in it for under-aged
students and there was premarital sex.”
“We want you to stop the Theatre Department from producing it.”
“Sometimes I don’t even know if the people that object to the show know that much
about the show.”
“They have made their decision long before any research is done, and it’s a kind of
snowball effect.”
“It’s a medium-sized town but had become much more conservative and there had been a
growing contingent of very outspoken religious members of the community.”
“I think sometimes parents underestimate the intelligence or the ability of their children.”
“I rarely, rarely, think that they take the time to do any research on the show or to see a
production of it or talk to me or talk to the musical director.”
“And the day of opening night, I got a call from my boss, the head of the Theatre
Department, and he said, ‘There’s something you’re doing in the play that one of the
parents is up in arms about.’”
“The mom was concerned about her daughter.”
“The parent was worried about the spitting-about her getting some disease or sickness.”
“A parent found it. Instead of going to me-you’re supposed to go to the teacher-if you
don’t get a satisfactory response, you go to the principal.”
“I felt that the parent was a real fucker for doing that.”
“This woman came screaming and yelling in the administration.”
“The mother just wanted my head.”
“I had to listen to her scream at me for an hour.”
“I just felt like the complaining parents are chicken shit.”
“I don’t have respect for a parent who would not state their piece to their kid’s teacher.”
“It was just the country had changed overnight because of 9/11.”
“It also made me realize that there are people out there that have an agenda and that it’s
usually of a religious nature.”
“I think there’s a lot of homophobia in our community.”
“We shouldn’t talk about any of the sordid things that go on in the real world.”
“There were a number of people who objected to the show.”
“So I think there may have been some pressure from the religious group.”
“I think a lot of this came from the office of the superintendent who had pressure placed
on him by several board members.”
“Something in that script set somebody off.”
“I just thought, has our society begun to change so much, and are we influenced so much
by the conservative right that there’s just no freedom of thought anymore?”
“Somebody got his or her hands on the script and decided to call this bestiality.”
“Obviously, a parent had given the script to the principal.”
“I still might not have been able to do it because when a parent complains, that’s pretty
much the end of-you know, they run the deal.”
“I don’t know what was objectionable in Waiting for Lefty, except perhaps the leftist
political point of view.”
“There’s a great sensitivity in our district right now due to lawsuits.”
“It is a very conservative Christian community up here-very Mormony-and Christian

evangelical.”
Theme Five
5. Self-Censorship
The co-researchers were asked, in light of their experiences with censorship,
if they were now more likely to self-censor before any complaints became evident,
and/or if they had self-censored in the past. Most reported that they would be
more likely to self-censor after being faced with a prior censorship issue.
Invariant Constituents for Theme Five
“The main fear is that nobody will come and see it.”
“Yeah, economic and just a hassle having to deal with irate parents.”
“When I first started doing the job, I was good about giving him scripts.”
“There are certain things I can calm down in Arabian Nights.”
“I kind of created my own policy about censorship or about what’s decent or indecent.”
“So I went to the administration myself, veiy proactively.”
“And I said, ‘I would like one of the administration to come and see a preview of it.’”
“Right now I’m planning on going in to give him the shows that I’m considering for the
fall.”
“I’ve got enough material for at least three years that I don’t think is going to give me any
grief.”
“I don’t think I have any choice but to self-censor.”
“That word has such a charge now days that I’d probably change it, personally.”
Theme Six
6. Job Security
Five of the co-researchers mentioned concerns regarding job security
surrounding censorship experiences. Those who were not tenured had
the most concern, although the teacher with the most experience was
threatened with the loss of his position as drama director (he would
retain his English teaching position) due to “insubordination” surrounding
105
a censorship issue.
Invariant Constituents for Theme Six
“I wasn’t too worried. I’m tenured and I think I’d have to do something really bad,
something really controversial.”
“I didn’t want to get fired. I didn’t want to lose my job.”
“I felt that if I didn’t do it, that I would be fired.”
“If I don’t bring them a different script by Friday, they will not accept my resignation as
drama director, and they will fire me because I will be insubordinate.”
“I immediately went to my union rep.”
“I wasn’t going to be insubordinate or anything along those lines.”
“I didn’t want to do anything that would suggest to her that I was going to put my job in
jeopardy in any way, shape, or form.”
“I was fully cooperating.”
“They can’t fire me for that.”
“There’s a potential firing here.”
“I don’t know how I would have felt if I didn’t have tenure.”
“If I did worry, it was only because I put that on myself. I was a little nervous.”
“Being fired is always there in the back of my mind.”
“My first year of teaching I play it sort of safe.”
“The student came up to me and said, ‘Mr. J., you might get in trouble.’”
Theme Seven
7. Wanting to challenge students
Five of the co-researchers talked about their feelings regarding the fact that if
students are limited in their exposure to provocative theatre, they might not be
106
challenged enough as artists. The co-researchers also discussed their ideas that
theatre is meant to be controversial and provocative.
Invariant Constituents for Theme Seven
“The theatre is meant to cause controversy many times or to get people to think or to be
on the cutting edge of issues.”
“That’s what I like about it-is that it is meant to be provocative.”
“I think it’s sometimes really to the students’ benefit to work on something that is not so
pablum-that is not just so saccharine-like.”
“I would much rather do cutting edge musicals, or cutting edge plays, or something that
challenges me more as the director.”
“I just find it surprising that people can still get so annoyed or upset when they know
theatre as an art form is meant to be stimulating.”
“A drama teacher’s job is to shake things up.”
“I’m very tom because part of the fun of theatre is to shake the kids up.”
“It’s important for the world to see and hear these different things that theatre has.”
“It should be provocative.”
“It should open up people’s minds to other worlds that are out there.”
“It was-they were learning all these great things as they were-as performers.”
“It’s important that we show students, when that language is powerful and how it affects
us, because they use all this language in everyday talk.”
“Why do we want to limit ourselves? Why do we want to limit what our students have
experience with?”
“There are things that you have to open your mind for.”
“Sondheim is challenging. And I always want my students to be challenged when they’re

on stage.”
“I am personally very careful, not intensely because I’m a liberal person and I know that
107
kids want to explore these areas in their own world.”
“I turned to Thornton Wilder next, but they’re not as challenging-edgy.”
“They’re not going to allow anything that’s challenging politically or sexually.”
“They want a safe little musical theatre program that doesn’t at all look into the human
soul and its avenues, comers, and parameters.”
Theme Eight
8. Decisions to do more/less controversial material
The co-researchers were asked if they had, or would in the future, be more likely
to choose more controversial or less controversial productions as a result of
dealing with censorship issues. Their answers were varied and were quite
revealing as to their personalities and thought processes as drama directors.
Invariant Constituents for Theme Eight
“One of your thoughts is, we could really shock them and do this show, knowing that you
never would.”
“As artists, you know community standards and you’re always aware of it if you direct a
show at a high school.”
“Depending on the environment, you may play down certain elements.”
“I would hate to think that, ‘Oh, I’m just choosing plays just so they’ll be controversial.’”
“So I knew I had to be a little bit careful, but it didn’t make me become more careful,
much to my foolishness.”
“I challenge that kind of thing sometimes.”
“And of course, I used ‘rave’ in the title, but it was like pretty much in reaction to him.
So to be a smart ass-and I really felt a little more emboldened by this point, I called the
show This is not a Rave.”
“I like to push the envelope as much as I can.”
“I don’t know if I did it intentionally as in reaction to being censored the time before.”
108
“Looking back, I made a mistake. I mean I really shouldn’t have given this scene to a
freshman.”
“I think it just made me aware that if the final production is going to be that parents are
going to see it, I’ve got to be aware of that.”
“It made me want to do stuff like Tartuffe. that really pushed the edge.”
“I’m not for doing any of the typical high school shows.”
“I understand maybe things can be maybe a little more toned down. Maybe a little less of
this or that.”
“I am really affected by how people view me as an artist.”
“I’m not going to sit around second-guessing myself.”
“We’ve never crossed the line and I would never put a student in a situation like that.”
“The shows that I do that I think have any kind of controversial things, in that the kids are
getting enjoyment and benefit out of, I do them underground. I just don’t tell.”
“My Shrew was probably as far as I could go.”
“The Durang thing was the-about as controversial as I got.”
“So I understood where he was coming from. At least for the next few years I just got to
kind of go real safe.”
“The shows that I put up on the main stage I try to make PG.”
“Because it’s such a big stage, I’d have to do things that will have popular appeal and that
won’t offend.”
“I would tone Forum down.”
“I’m not deliberately going to stir up a hornet’s nest again because it’s a battle I can’t
win.”
“I think in terms of sexual content and things like that, I will be careful.”
“I mean, if it’s really inappropriate, I’d be sensitive to it.”
“Shrew occasionally pushed the edge, but I tried to keep it back so that they wouldn’t get
mad.”
Theme Nine
9. Levels of support
The levels of support by colleagues and supervisors felt by the co-researchers
varied. Most were able to report some kind of support when confronted with a
censorship issue.
Invariant Constituents for Theme Nine
“.. .the feeling of betrayal by another teacher.”
“The A.P. supported me 100% and I felt so good about that.”
“The superintendent of the high school was pretty supportive.’
“I felt support from everyone in the Music Department. Everyone I knew and spoke to
thought we should do it.”
“The administration support wavered quite a bit.”
“With Metamorphoses, which did have a certain amount of sexual content, the principal
ended up being very supportive.”
“The other teachers were so behind me. They thought the principal was just an idiot. They
felt he was bringing his own religious ethics into a public high school.”
“I would talk to my colleagues in the district about what they thought about the situation.
That was really gratifying that if things happen they are 100% behind me.”
“The teachers created a close association, and when it first came up, yeah, we got
together. We had never really talked or collaborated in any way, shape, or form this year.”
“No, I haven’t felt supported at that school at all in anything.”
“The principal, the A. P., did not support me.”
“I felt support from every cast member, and every cast member’s parents, and my entire
department.”
Individual Textural Descriptions
After careful review of the themes and delimited horizons of each co-researcher’s
experience, individual textural descriptions were constructed (Moustakas 133). I will now
present and analyze two textural descriptions which emerged from the co-researchers’
transcribed interviews. The textural descriptions are meant to be vivid descriptions of the
experience of theatre censorship, including the thoughts and feelings of the co
researchers. These textural descriptions reflect the themes derived from the invariant
constituents. The names used in the following descriptions are fictitious.
Textural Description of Liz (fictitious name)
Liz had been working as an English/theatre teacher at a high school for four years
when she experienced censorship. She explained what happened at the start of her fifth
year. “We got a new principal this past school year and basically, he came in as from
what everybody understood to be-he was the heavy hitter.” She continued, “He was
going to turn the school around. So I was a little nervous with him coming in, because
you can immediately tell—very soft-spoken, very straight-laced.” The new principal came
to see her production of A Funnv Thing Happened on the Wav to the Forum, which Liz
said “can be a risque show. And we did take some risks.” The Monday after the final
performance, Liz got an e-mail from the principal asking her to see him. As she described
it, “He started off by saying that he really enjoyed the show, ‘However I feel that we can
choose better material for our students.’ He felt that a show that centered around a
whorehouse- which I think he fixated on that because that’s not the point of the show.”
Liz then explained her feelings leading up to this meeting with the principal. “Let me
backtrack just a little bit because before I went in to meet with him, I kind of had a feeling
I ll
about what was going to be happening. I was a little nervous, but I also wanted to be
prepared going in“ [Theme: Feelings of unease]. Liz told me that since she is a relatively
inexperienced teacher, she wanted to talk to colleagues in her school district who had
more experience. She also “went on-line hours and hours. And I e-mailed any sites I
could find on censorship in the classroom or theatre censorship.” She said that after doing
her research, “I came in with my guns blazing.” Her confidence, however, was short-lived
when the principal told her that he would have to read a copy of any play she was
considering doing, in advance. Liz said, “That was really tough, because being where I
had been for the last three years, I had had complete autonomy” [Theme: Loss of
autonomy].
Liz further explained her feelings at the meeting by saying, “I came in on the
defensive. And I came in angry [Theme: Feelings of anger]. And I came in kind of hurt as
well that he would think I would do something to hurt our students because that’s kind of
how it felt like. And I thought, ‘Wow! That’s just questioning me as a teacher, as a
director-eveiything that I stand for.’” I asked Liz to succinctly sum up her feelings at the
end of the meeting with her principal. Her response was, “I don’t like to be told what to
do. He was basically telling me, you can make no autonomous decisions [Theme: Loss of
autonomy]. And I was really pissed [Theme: Feelings of anger]. I was really upset
[Theme: Feelings of distress]. It made me want to to things that I know would piss him
off. I wanted to choose things that I knew were going to push the envelope. I wanted to do
that because I don’t like being told what to do” [Theme: Decision to do more
controversial material].
When I asked Liz if she ever felt her job security was an issue, she replied, “If I did, it
112
was only because maybe I put that on myself. But I went in going, ‘I have tenure. My job
is not at stake.’ I was nervous just in the way that, in the back of your mind, you’re going,
‘Yeah, but.’ So I was a little nervous.” Liz said that she discussed this with her boyfriend,
who told her that if she lost her job over a censorship issue, she may not want to work at
that school. Liz clarified, “If this is the way it’s going to be, I may not want to work here.
When I was in my state of really being angry, I was going, ‘Why do I want to work in a
place where I can’t make my own decisions?’ Autonomy is so important to me. I can’t
stress that enough” [Theme: Loss of autonomy].
Liz is the kind of person who is deeply, personally affected by things such as her
experience with theatre censorship. She said, “I let everything affect me personally-
things that the kids think sometimes. I really am affected by how people view me as a
teacher and as an artist” [Theme: Feelings of distress/unease].
As far as feeling supported by colleagues, Liz stated that, “It felt so empowering to
know that all my-especially the English Department-because I had taught English for the
last few years. They are just the neatest group of people. They were just like, ‘We, as
English teachers, are very familiar with the ideas of censorship. So we are behind you’”
[Theme: Levels of support].
When asked if she had ever lost hope that things with her principal could get better,
Liz seemed unsure. She said, “I really thought my program was going to go to hell in a
handbasket. It’s like, great! Well now it’s going to be the humdrum. We’ll do You’re a
Good Man, Charlie Brown. And I am not for that. I’m not for doing any of the typical
shows.”
Liz summed up her feelings about how censorship issues affected her relationship with
113
her supervisor by saying: “We’re playing a chess game. It’s very civilized, and it’s very
out in the open, but it’s still a chess game. And we are judging and evaluating each
other’s moves. So, I’m going to enjoy the game, because I don’t know if I will work at M.
High School for the rest of my life, and I think whatever lessons I learn here will help
wherever I go.”
Textural Description of Mark (fictitious name)
Mark is an experienced theatre teacher who has worked at his current high school for
twenty-five years. His censorship experience revolved around a planned spring
production of Bat Bov, the Musical. Mark said, “Several days before rehearsals began, I
had a call from my assistant principal, who said, ’Hey, can I read a copy of the script?’”
According to Mark, this was followed by a meeting with the principal where “I was told
at that meeting, no discussion whatsoever about any aspect of the show-I was told we
couldn’t do it” [Theme: Loss of autonomy]. When asked to describe his feelings at that
moment, Mark said, “I was taken aback. I had never experienced anything like this
[Theme: Feelings of unease]. I mean, people had objected to things before. I’ve discussed
things with principals before and how we were going to handle things, but never have I
been told, ’You can’t do this show.’”
Mark went on to explain how he felt after being told that the show was not going to be
produced. He said, “I was very upset. I was royally honked off’ [Theme: Feelings of
distress]. Mark, who also teaches English, was told that he needed to bring the principal
another script within three days. This was so distressing to him, that he immediately
offered to resign as drama director. This attempt backfired because of the
administration’s response, which he explained: “If I don’t bring them a different script by
Friday, they will not accept my resignation as drama director, and they will fire me
because I will be insubordinate.” When asked to describe his feelings at that point, Mark
stated, “I just sat down and said, ’This is absolutely insane! Why won’t they take my
resignation?’ Anybody else doing an extracurricular activity can pretty much resign
anytime he or she feels like it. Football coaches have walked off the field three games
into a season and resigned. I mean, what’s the big deal here? They want to do a show. Get
somebody else to do it. My kids will understand” [Theme: Feelings of distress]. The issue
of job security, in spite of Mark’s years of experience, was present in his experience with
theatre censorship. When asked about his job being on the line, he responded, “It was
dangling in the balance because I kept resisting about bringing a script down there.” He
went on to say:
They think you just whip these things [a new script] out of your back pocket, and
you can just go. But it’s just so ridiculous. So when I walked in on Friday,
because I was shoved up against the wall-when I went in there, and we
started talking, I let her [the principal] have it right between the eyes-how I
felt about this. I was so furious.
Mark went on, “But I told her, I said, ‘That was a horrible thing that you did.’ I told her! I
said, ‘You gave these kids hope that you were going to reinstate this script, and you had
no intentions of doing that‘” [Theme: Feelings of anger].
Mark’s angry feelings increased over the course of his theatre censorship experience,
when he attempted to provide alternate scripts for the principal’s approval. Mark
explained, “So she [the principal] says, ‘Rather than ask you to pick a show to do, I’m
going to tell you what we’re going to do.’” When asked to describe his feelings at that
115
moment, Mark said, “I thought they just stabbed me in the back. I thought, never has
anybody done this-never has this happened before. I was livid, absolutely livid! I could
not believe those words came out of her mouth.”
I asked Mark who supported him during this incident. He replied, “Virtually every cast
member and every cast member’s parent. They were great. With one exception in my
department, my entire department, my orchestra conductor, and my band director-they
were fantastic” [Theme: Levels of support].
When asked about future plans for self-censorship, Mark replied, “I don’t
think I have any choice. But every opportunity that I have within the context of a show, I
can tweak it in such a way that I’m thumbing my noses [sic] at them” [Theme: Self
censorship].
In summing up his theatre censorship experience, Mark said, “I have this tremendous
passion for drama, and as long as I feel that I’m serving a purpose, I will continue to
battle. There were some moments in there where—I don’t know if I would call it
hopeless-I really felt like I was the only one fighting this thing. And I thought, boy, how
long can I string this out and still make this work?” Mark continued:
I just hope that people understand that this kind of crap goes on all over the place,
and it’s really sad. For heaven’s sake, give those of us who have some
understanding of what we’re doing in the classroom the right to be able to do it.
It’s just very sad. When you open the door just a crack and start letting those things
in, they’re going to turn into a floodgate pretty soon.
Composite Textural Description
The experience of theatre censorship brought about uncomfortable feelings for all of
the co-researchers. Although several co-researchers expressed emotions in terms of
feeling upset, it was not uncommon for them to experience much stronger emotions.
These emotions included feelings of dread, worry, being threatened, getting bushwacked,
being stunned/taken aback, and being demeaned. Almost all felt a lack of trust on the part
of their supervisors which precipitated many of these uncomfortable emotions. Several
co-researchers viewed their experiences as “battles” which would continue to be fought.
Most of the co-researchers described feelings of anger. These angry feelings were
expressed quite vividly. They included feeling steamed, livid, and furious. Several co
researchers expressed their anger as being so strong that they described it in terms of
physical interaction with those individuals imposing restraints on their productions. Co
researchers used the terms of wanting to kill, feeling as if the school principal’s face
should be caved in, or feeling like having a physical confrontation with the principal.
All of the co-researchers felt that their experiences with censorship had been
precipitated by a complaint from a parent or another community member. Several co
researchers said that the restraints were due to the concerns of only one parent. All co
researchers felt that the objections were based on religious or political beliefs or ideas.
Co-researchers felt that over the last several years the communities in which they worked
had become more conservative. Several mentioned the influence of certain religious
groups in these communities, and most co-researchers felt that, recently, the entire
country has become more influenced by the conservative right.
All of the co-researchers are dedicated, caring drama directors. All expressed clearly
what they thought would be lost as a result of their censorship experiences. Every co
researcher stated that one of his/her goals is to challenge students, and each felt that this
would not be possible with the restrictions placed on their productions. Co-researchers
felt that theatre is meant to be controversial, stimulating, provocative, and enlightening.
Yet, in spite of these strong beliefs in the benefits of presenting students with challenging
materials, all co-researchers stated that they would engage in some sort of self-censorship
after their experiences, in order to avoid future conflicts with parents or administrators.
All of the co-researchers mentioned that they felt supported by peers and colleagues
during their censorship experiences, and that this was one positive aspect of the
experience. All also felt support from students and most parents. In some cases,
administrative support was mixed, with, for instance, an assistant principal being
supportive when the principal was not. All but one of the co-researchers had concerns
about their job security during their censorship experiences, ranging from nervousness to
fear of losing the position of drama director.
Individual Structural Descriptions
The individual structural description is meant to provide a clear account of the
underlying dynamics of the experience of theatre censorship. The structural description
enables the researcher to understand the “how” of the experience. This is brought about
by the use of im aginative variation, reflection, and analysis. Imaginative variation allows
the researcher to derive structural themes from the textural descriptions previously
obtained. According to Moustakas, “We imagine possible structures of time, space,
materiality, causality, and relationship to self and to others” (99).
After careful analysis of the co-researchers’ interview transcripts, the two most
118
relevant structural themes relating to the experience of theatre censorship to consider
were relationship to self and relationship to others. I will now present an analysis of Liz’s
and Mark’s interviews which reveals these structural themes.
Structural Description of Liz’s Experience of Theatre Censorship
The two structures that appear most relevant to Liz’s experience of theatre censorship
are expressed in her relationship to others and her relationship to herself.
Liz cares very much about how others view her, and is deeply affected emotionally
when, for the first time in her experience as a theatre director, her ideas and intentions are
challenged by her superiors.
Liz sees herself as a caring, competent teacher, and is comfortable with autonomy in
her theatre director role. She feels that in order to maintain the integrity of her arts
program, she must present her students with interesting, challenging material. She is
passionate about theatre and wants very much to feel that she is being true to her art.
Liz is a young, relatively inexperienced theatre teacher. She is not reluctant to admit
that she cares about how she is viewed as a teacher by others. She said, “I let everything
affect me personally.” She continued, “I am really affected by how people view me as a
teacher and as an artist.” Her experience with a theatre censorship issue came about when
a new principal was assigned to her school and Liz was “a little nervous with him coming
in because you can immediately tell-very soft-spoken, very straight-laced.” She said, “I
really didn’t know what to expect.” Liz was concerned with pleasing her new supervisor
while still being able to maintain the integrity of her theatre program. In spite of wanting
to have the new principal on her side, she said that, prior to the meeting where he
questioned her choice of material, “I wanted to be prepared,” and that she consulted other
theatre teachers who “gave me legal information about how, if it went down to that level,
how I could deal with it. I came in [to the meeting] with my guns blazing.” Liz is
prepared to stand up for what she believes is appropriate for her theatre program, even if
she faces opposition from her principal.
Liz explained that she is disappointed in her relationship with her principal because of
a perceived lack of trust on his part. She stated, “I don’t know if I’ll have another fight on
my hands or what the situation will be. But I know that until he starts to trust me more,
it’s going to be-eveiy show is going to be a battle.” Liz also feels that she has to take a
defensive stance with the principal, stating, “I was kind of on the defensive. I was like,
‘You know what? You are not going to tell me what is not good for my students and my
audience.’”
Liz feels that as a theatre teacher, she should be able to decide what material is
appropriate for her students. She said, “Why do I want to work in a place where I can’t
make my own decisions? Autonomy is so important to me. I can’t stress that enough.”
Although Liz said that she is tempted to do productions in the future that will “push
the envelope,” she expressed the fact that the students are her major concern, saying, “I
don’t want my need to get back at him [the principal] to affect my students because that’s
not fair.”
Structural Description of Mark’s Experience of Theatre Censorship
The same two structures, namely, his relationship to others and his relationship to
himself, are evident in Mark’s experience of theatre censorship.
Mark was truly surprised to find himself in an adversarial relationship with his
superiors regarding a theatre censorship issue. His decisions about materials had never
been questioned before. After lengthy explanations to his superiors about the reasons for
his choice of the material, he still was not able to convince them of his intentions. He has
been teaching for more than twenty-five years and was shocked to find himself in this
position.
In order to be true to himself and to his intentions, which he feels are honorable, he
decided to offer his resignation as drama director. Mark is passionate about the purpose
and value of the arts in his students’ lives, but he feels as if he is alone in his fight to
ensure the continuation of these valuable lessons. Through it all, he wants to act in a
professional manner.
Before his meeting with his assistant principal regarding the play in question, Mark
said he was aware of the potential for controversy and he “was fully prepared.” He said,
“I already had some plans on how I was going to handle some scenes.” Mark was trying
to avoid any potential conflict between himself and his superiors. In order to facilitate the
meeting, he said he “explained exactly how we were going to do this [the questionable
material].” Although he felt that things were resolved at that point, he was later called to a
meeting with the principal, where his relationship with her became adversarial as he “was
told at that meeting, no discussion whatsoever about any aspect of the show. I was told
we couldn’t do it.” In order to avoid further conflict at that point, Mark offered his
resignation as drama director. Mark felt that he would be acting in an unprofessional
manner if he were to change shows in midstream, and stated, “I tried to point out to her
that, professionally, I just wasn’t capable of doing something like this.” As a further
statement alluding to his felt integrity as a theatre teacher, he said, “We’ve done really
interesting shows that walk a thin edge, but we’ve never crossed the line, and I would
never put a student in a situation like that.”
Mark continued to explain that although he was “furious” with the principal’s
demands, he was able to “calmly” tell her that, “This was a horrible thing that you did.”
Mark was also stunned when the lack of trust on the principal’s part was made apparent
in stating, “So she [the principal] says, ’Rather than ask you to pick a show to do, since
we can’t do this [show], I’m going to tell you what you’re going to do.’” Mark continued,
“I’d never come across anything like that before. I never thought it would happen to me.”
Mark summed up his experience of theatre censorship by stating, “I have this
tremendous passion for drama, and as long as I feel that I’m serving a purpose, I will
continue to battle.”
Composite Structural Description
Experiencing theatre censorship came as a surprise to drama directors, who previously
had had almost complete autonomy in running their theatre programs. Directors feel a
great responsibility towards their students and want to fulfill this responsibility by giving
those students challenging, cutting edge theatrical material. Directors do not like being
told what materials they will be permitted to use with their students; these sorts of
dictates bring on defensive and angry feelings. Drama directors see themselves as the
experts at their schools as far as making the decisions regarding appropriateness of
materials. They care about the students and would not put a student in an uncomfortable
or inappropriate position. Drama teachers are very concerned about how censorship issues
will affect their students.
The teachers experiencing censorship suddenly found themselves in uncomfortable,
adversarial relationships with their supervisors. The drama directors were disappointed in
an apparent lack of trust on the part of their supervisors. The directors were very
disappointed to find that, even after explanations regarding their choice of materials,
agreement could not be reached.
The theatre censorship experience left drama directors with the unhappy prospect of a
future where they would have to compromise their own ideals for a quality drama
program in order to avoid adversarial relationships with supervisors, parents, and other
community members.
Composite Textural-Structural Synthesis
The experience of theatre censorship is an emotional one involving feelings of general
unease such as worry, fear, distrust, and sadness. Physical sensations like nausea,
sweating, anxiety/nervousness, and a general sick feeling accompany these emotions.
Feelings of anger are not uncommon, and violent thoughts, including desires for some
sort of physical confrontation with the individual imposing the censorship are sometimes
present.
Theatre directors are stunned when supervisors virtually impose “community
standards” on their productions and are gravely disappointed with the perceived distrust
in their abilities to choose appropriate materials.
The experience of theatre censorship at first comes as a surprise to directors who have
previously had complete autonomy over their decisions. They are now told they must not
cause controversy and must consider only materials that are “clean,” “wholesome,” and
“family-friendly.” Upon reflection, the directors realize that there is a growing
conservative attitude in their communities, and those objections to productions may be
based on conservative religious and/or political points of view.
123
Faced with theatre censorship, directors must decide whether to fight their supervisors’
new rules or to give in. Most of the directors, out of concerns such as job security and the
possibility of future adversarial relationships with supervisors, do give in, and in fact,
make decisions to self-censor regarding future productions.
The directors’ experience of theatre censorship does not go unnoticed by peers and
colleagues. The directors are very happy to have the support of their colleagues during
this difficult time, and some directors even find support among supervisors, such as
assistant principals and department chairs.
The desire to allow students to learn about theatre through challenging material is very
important to theatre directors. Feelings of disappointment and of cheating the students out
of the opportunity to experience challenging/cutting edge theatre are evident throughout
the experience of theatre censorship. This leads theatre directors, who are passionate
about art, and who want to do the best they can for their students, to wonder whether they
will ever again be able to expose their students to material which is challenging.
124
CHAPTER SIX
SUMMARY. IMPLICATIONS. AND OUTCOMES
In this concluding chapter, I will summarize my study of the experience of theatre
censorship it its entirety. I will integrate and synthesize my findings with those of prior
research and scholarship, consider the possible limitations of my study, and make
recommendations for future research. I will discuss the outcomes of my investigation in
terms of social meanings and implications. Finally, I will consider the personal and
professional relevance of my findings in studying the experience of theatre censorship.
Study Summary
This research project investigated the phenomenon of theatre censorship. This
phenomenological study posed the question: “What is the experience of theatre directors
in high school academic settings who have encountered censorship in the production of
plays?”
In Chapter One, I explained how, as a performer and theatre teacher, I became
interested in studying the issue of the experience of theatre censorship. In recent years, I
began to observe increasing arts censorship all around the world, and when I learned of
one particular incident of theatre censorship at a university in my own community, I
realized this was a topic of special interest to me.
In Chapter Two, I reviewed the relevant literature on censorship, with an emphasis on
arts censorship and finally, theatre censorship. I presented findings from books,
dissertations, m agazines, newspapers, and journal articles. I discussed how the Hays Code
and the HUAC investigations affected the arts and artists. I examined literature explaining
125
incidents of funding cuts to the arts. Next, I examined censorship issues in academic
settings, noting that these issues are found on all grade levels, from elementary schools to
universities. I reviewed literature which showed how those in academia often self-censor,
and noted the similarities to my co-researchers’ experiences. I discussed the fact that most
of the recent censorship issues in the literature stem from religious and/or political
beliefs, and that these censorship issues are prevalent in academic settings. This
exhaustive search of all related literature and research pointed to the need for this study.
Finally, I noted the lack of phenomenological studies on censorship in academic settings,
and explained why I feel that my study of the experience of censorship is unique and
relevant.
In Chapter Three, I explained the phenomenological research methods used in my
study. I reviewed the philosophical history of phenomenology as explained by
phenomenologists such as Husserl, Schutz, and Heidegger. I discussed the four core
concepts relevant to the understanding of transcendental phenomenology. These are the
concepts of intentionality, noema, noesis, and intuition. Finally, I delineated the four
essential steps in the phenomenological research model. These steps are epoche,
phenomenological reduction, imaginative variation, and synthesis.
In Chapter Four, I described the specific research design I used in my study. I
described the requirements my co-researchers would have to meet, how I contacted and
recruited them, and how I protected their confidentiality as well as how I prepared for
and conducted the interviews. My co-researchers were six high school theatre directors
who had recently experienced censorship in the production of a play or plays. The
interviews were conducted either in person or by telephone. Each of the interviews was
audio taped and transcribed in its entirety. Finally, I explained how I organized, analyzed,
and synthesized the data.
In Chapter Five, I presented a description of the results of my analysis of the structures
and textures of the experience of theatre censorship. I explained how I organized and
analyzed the data by using the process of phenomenological reduction in order to
ascertain the invariant constituents of the experience. I then clustered the invariant
constituents in order to develop textural and structural themes. In this way, I was able to
develop a composite textural and a composite structural description. Finally, I integrated
these composite descriptions and developed a composite textural-structural synthesis
which accurately portrayed the qualities, meanings, and essences of theatre censorship as
a lived experience.
Significant Findings
My study revealed that a high school theatre director’s experience of theatre
censorship had significant impact. All of my co-researchers were career theatre teachers.
In expressing their feelings of distress surrounding these experiences of censorship, each
revealed being affected personally and/or emotionally.
It was made clear by the co-researchers’ words and by the ways in which they
expressed themselves in the interviews that, as professional educators/directors, they felt
that their credentials and experience had been ignored and demeaned. They also made it
clear that they felt that their judgment had been completely discounted.
In addition to these insults to their professional experience and expertise, they suffered
personal consequences as a result of censorship experiences. They were made to feel
patronized and to have their humanity discounted.
My findings, as reflected in both personal interviews and in the review of the relevant
literature, revealed that the experience of theatre censorship often changed the ways in
which theatre directors choose materials. Most admitted the need to “self-censor” in order
to keep their jobs, but they also expressed concerns in self-censoring regarding the impact
on their programs and the fact that their students would not be exposed to challenging
materials. Therefore, the experience of theatre censorship had negative affects for the
theatre directors who experienced censorship, for their students, for their programs, and
not insignificantly, for the audience members who were denied the opportunity of
experiencing challenging/cutting edge theatre.
Nine core textural themes were uncovered relating to the experience of theatre
censorship for my co-researchers. These themes were: feelings of distress/unease, feelings
of anger, loss of autonomy, reasons for being censored/complaining parties, self
censorship, concerns about job security, desire to expose students to challenging material,
decisions to produce more/less controversial material, levels of support given by
administrators, colleagues, and others.
The two most relevant structural core themes to emerge from co-researchers’
experiences with theatre censorship were relationship to self and relationship to others.
Co-researchers felt a responsibility towards their students to present challenging material
and were shocked when they no longer had the autonomy they had previously
experienced as theatre directors.
Integrating/Synthesizing Findings with Prior Research and Scholarship
In Chapter Two I reviewed the relevant literature concerning censorship and examined
censorship issues relating to all of the arts. I will now discuss my findings on the
experience of theatre censorship in relation to the existing research on theatre censorship
issues. Next, I will discuss my findings in relation to research and scholarly literature
surrounding topics relevant to censorship such as limitations to freedom, lack of personal
privacy, and the “cost” of censorship to society.
I found four dissertations which explored theatre censorship, and of those, only one
was based on the production of a specific play. I did not find any dissertations dealing
with censorship on the high school level; in fact, only Gatewood (2002) examined
censorship in academic (college) settings.
Gatewood conducted a qualitative, collective case study which examined the conflict
surrounding censorship on college campuses. Although not a phenomenolgical study, he
did interview several theatre directors, and uncovered several of the same themes that my
study revealed. These identical themes are self-censorship, levels of support, and desire to
present students with challenging material.
Lang’s (2004) dissertation examined censorship of Boston’s Old Howard Theatre. She
considered the theatrical and urban censorship that led to the theatre’s eventual
destruction. Although the differences between her study and mine are obvious, in that
hers was not phenomenological, it didn’t take place in an academic setting, and it
therefore didn’t reveal any themes or essences of the censorship experience, it did offer
insight into how government authority uses its powers to exercise cultural regulations in a
major way. Lang’s study pointed to the need which my study addresses-the need to
continue to examine the powers which government or others in supervisory positions
have in determining freedom of artistic expression.
McConnell’s (2004) dissertation examined censorship in Czech playwriting and play
production since 1968. It was similar to Lang’s study in that it was not phenomenological
research, but did point out the need for my study, since it also examined the effects of
government restraints on freedom of expression.
Pederson (2004) wrote a dissertation examining law and performance in Paris from
1515-1559. Her historical perspective of government censorship in Europe adds to the
numerous examples of theatrical censorship discussed in Chapter Two of my study.
Dubin (1986) examined the experiences of artists who participated in two government-
sponsored arts programs. These were run by the Works Progress Administration (WPA)
in the 1930s, and by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) in the
1970s -1980s. Although Dubin did not interview artists directly involved in these
programs, he was able to thoroughly examine and recognize the limitations imposed on
artists and artistic productions. The themes Dubin found which coincide with those
revealed in my study are self-censorship and loss of autonomy.
Although I was unable to discover any relevant research that involved a
phenomenological study of theatre censorship, I found many of the core themes I
discovered in my study to be present in numerous newspaper, magazine, and journal
articles, as well as in papers presented on theatre censorship.
The theme of self-censorship was the one mentioned most often in the literature and
can be found in journal articles by Filippo (1994) and Weiss (1986), in a paper presented
by Klein (1990), and in a newspaper article by Helderman (2005).
Another of the core themes I discovered in my research, drama directors’ desire to
present students with challenging material, was found in newspaper articles by Barrientos
(2005), Farrant (2005), and Kelly (2005). Both Klein and Regan discuss this theme in
papers presented in 1990.
Finally, the theme of job security uncovered in my research was also present in the
literature review. Articles in journals and magazines by Ellis (1993), Etlin (1993), and
Russo and Delon (1999) told of teachers being transferred or fired as a result of theatre
censorship issues.
In distinguishing the findings of my research from prior research on theatre
censorship, I discovered many identical themes, but I have also explained how I did not
find any studies which utilized phenomenological research methods.
The results of my study showed that censorship of the arts, which has a long history, is
prevalent in today’s society. People are generally aware of cases of censorship such as the
Mapplethorpe controversy or the censorship of Shakespeare’s works. My study revealed
that artistic censorship is a continuing phenomenon, even in smaller, less-known
instances. Although not generally known, these censorship incidents do add up, and as
revealed in my study, are often occurring for the same religious/moral or political reasons
as past censorship issues going as far back as Shakespeare’s time.
Lately, those in the United States are very concerned with the perceived erosion of
civil liberties, which may be placing limits on freedom. According to an article on the
website CNN.com, titled “Two Groups Sue over NSA Wiretap Program,” two lawsuits
were filed this year (2006) against the National Security Agency “over its no-warrant
wiretapping program, claiming the domestic eavesdropping is unconstitutional and that
President Bush exceeded his authority by authorizing it” (1). The article continued to say
that one of the groups filing suit, the American Civil Liberties Union, asked the court to
find that the wiretapping program “violates the Constitution’s First and Fourth
amendments” (2).
If individuals know that their privacy is threatened, they may feel the need to “self
censor,” just as my study revealed artists do when their freedom of expression is
somehow threatened.
There also has been much discussion lately regarding personal privacy in our country.
In an article titled “Balancing Privacy, Convenience,” Douglas C. Curling wrote that
“Advances in technology are having such a profound effect on our lives-and how we
view privacy-that we often change our daily routines because of some new technology
that adds a new level of convenience or reduces a layer of complexity to some common
transaction” (1).
In another article about privacy, titled “Privacy Lost: Does anybody Care?” Bob
Sullivan said, “Privacy will remain in the headlines for months to come, as states
implement the federal government’s Real ID Act, which will effectively create a national
identification program by requiring new high-tech standards for driver’s licenses and ID
cards” (2). Sullivan continued to say, “It is hard to deny, however, that people behave
differently when they’re being watched” (3).
If indeed, people do behave differently when they suspect intrusions into their privacy,
they may feel the need to self-censor activity or speech. This self-censorship is similar to
that of theatre directors who feel the need to avoid controversy in their productions, as
evidenced in my research.
Theatre directors who self-censored also may have given up opportunities to do new or
challenging materials. Similarly, an article in the Journal American Libraries, titled
“Organizations Challenge FCC Wiretapping Rules,” explained a new (2005) Federal
Communications rule that would make monitoring online communications easier for
government agencies (13). This rule was challenged by groups such as the American
Library Association and the Center for Democracy, whose staff counsel said, “We’re
deeply concerned that extending a law written specifically for the public telephone
network to these emerging technologies will stifle the sort of innovation that has been the
hallmark of the internet revolution” (13).
An article in the magazine The Nation, titled “The Insecurity State,” also discussed
recent threats to privacy. The author, Donald W. Shriver, Jr., said, “I do not want to
believe that my own government is the enemy of my freedom. Yet the feelings keep
coming “ (68). Once again, the theme of self-censorship was evident as Shriver continued
to say, “Recently, a highly educated woman remarked, ‘These days I usually watch what I
say. I never know who might be listening.’ It is truly a new American experience. We
who have luxuriated in laws protecting free speech are wondering if those laws really
hold up anymore” (68).
Religious freedom has also been a recent concern. Although the roots of religious
freedom “go back to the settlement of the colonies by the British in the 17th century”
(Religious Freedom 1), according to the article titled “Religious Freedom in the United
States of America,” written by the group International Coalition for Religious Freedom,
this subject is still being debated today. An article in the New York Times Online, titled
“Faith-Based Charities to Be Reviewed,” discussed a lawsuit filed by a group called the
“Freedom from Religion Foundation.” The article said that “The group claims the Bush
administration violates a constitutional ban on state-supported religions by singling out
particular faith-based funding” (1). These debates over different types of freedoms, in
addition to artistic freedoms, continue to be discussed and acted upon.
My study revealed that the concept of censorship, which can also be seen as one of
society’s methods of controlling human behavior, exists today in limiting religious,
personal, and artistic freedom, just as it did in prehistoric times. It seems that many of
those with authority then, as now, felt that these limitations “are necessary to keep such a
system in running order” (Pfeiffer 33).
My study revealed, through my co-researchers interviews, that theatre directors desired
to present innovative, challenging materials. According to Hannah Arendt, ancient society
expected its members to follow rules and “to make them behave, to exclude spontaneous
action or outstanding achievement” (Human Condition 38). This ancient expectation may
not have changed much, based on my co-researchers’ censorship experiences. In The
Human Condition, Arendt also discussed the “price” human beings pay for freedom (29).
It may be that the “price” my co-researchers paid for freedom of expression was high, and
included feeling demeaned, untrustworthy, angry, and hurt, leading to new behaviors
including, in most cases, self-censorship.
According to my co-researchers, they were often censored by those who had little or
no knowledge of the materials in question. According to Ewer, in his book titled Social
Psychology (1929), the censoring parties “are usually not possessed of breadth or depth of
m ind; but are political and social busybodies who find therein a means of exalting their
own small importance, or what is worse, are the tools of a sinister autocracy which seeks
to stifle freedom” (320). My study revealed that today, seventy-seven years later, the
censors’ character is very much the same.
In my study I uncovered nine core themes, developed composite textural and
composite structural descriptions of the experience of theatre censorship, and integrated
these composites into a synthesis of the meanings and essences of the lived experience of
theatre censorship. This phenomenological study revealed the meanings of experiencing
theatre censorship in a way no other study offered.
Strengths and Limitations
The strength of this study lies in the utilization of the phenomenological research
method. This approach allowed co-researchers to express their experiences with theatre
censorship freely, without restraints of language or time. Being “theatre people,” who are
naturally outgoing and very well able to express themselves freely, my co-researchers had
no difficulty giving me the rich descriptions I was seeking.
Another advantage in using my group of co-researchers was that each was very
anxious, willing, and able to tell me of his or her experience. It seemed as if each was
relieved to do so. Another strength of the interviews may lie in the fact that the co
researchers felt that I, as a fellow “theatre person,” could fully understand and relate to
their experiences.
My study was limited due to the fact that I only investigated theatre censorship
experiences in United States high school academic settings. My study was also limited
due to the fact that I interviewed only six co-researchers. Another limitation existed
because I interviewed high school drama teachers, and did not include drama teachers
involved in other levels of academia. Other limitations to qualitative inquiry, as outlined
by Patton, lie in the fact that the credibility of the method depends on the skill of the
person doing the research (14) and that interview data limitations exist due to the
emotional state of the interviewee (306).
Recommendations for Future Research
This study described the experience of theatre censorship among drama directors in
high school settings. Future research endeavors would broaden knowledge about theatre
censorship experiences.
It would be enlightening to study the theatre censorship experiences of directors in
non-academic settings. These could include community theatre and professional theatre
settings. The core themes of these experiences could then be compared and contrasted
with the results of my study.
My study did not focus on the students’ experience of theatre censorship. The drama
directors expressed that the students were aware of and affected by the censorship, and a
phenomenological study about students’ experiences would break new ground and be an
important addition to the existing studies about censorship.
The drama directors I interviewed, although concerned with job security, did not lose
their jobs. Perhaps a study of the experiences of directors who have lost their jobs over
censorship issues would yield different results from my study.
A very large survey of high school drama teachers across the United States would give
insight as to the amount and degree of censorship these teachers have encountered. It
would be revealing to find out if their censorship issues revolved around similar types of
materials as my study uncovered. Similarly, a larger study could point to the
individuals/organizations demanding the censoring, and if reasons for the censorship were
based on religious, ethnic, gender, and/or homophobic reasons.
Finally, a phenomenological study of theatre censorship conducted by a strictly “non
theatre” person might bring out different results from co-researchers than one conducted
by an experienced theatre person such as myself. Additional studies of individuals’
experiences of theatre censorship, such as those outlined, would certainly allow greater
understanding of the ways in which individuals experience the phenomenon of theatre
censorship.
Social Meanings
As a result of conducting this study, it has become obvious that theatre censorship
impacts not only those theatre directors directly involved, but also their students, families,
and colleagues. Being censored, or the fear of being censored, changes the ways in which
theatre directors and drama teachers choose materials, interact with students, and view
their relationships with supervisors.
When drama teachers feel they cannot choose material, are fearful of supervisors’
approval, and have lost autonomy, they cannot possibly work in the creative ways they
believe are vital to their profession. As my study revealed, after being faced with
censorship, directors usually begin to “self-censor” in order to avoid adversarial
relationships with supervisors and/or parents. All of the drama directors I interviewed felt
that this compromised the integrity of their theatre programs. The students were then
impacted by the censorship, since they would no longer be exposed to challenging arts
materials.
Since the performances my co-researchers produce usually draw their audiences from
friends and families of student actors, and the performances are open to the community-
at-large, both of these groups are deprived of the opportunity to see uncensored materials.
It wouldn’t be unusual for this to be a first-time live theatre experience for some of these
audience members, and seeing “unchallenging” productions might have an impact on
137
their future plans as theatre-goers.
Almost all of my co-researchers expressed the knowledge or strong belief that the
censorship they were facing came as a result of either the views of a parent, the
community, school board, or supervisors. All co-researchers pinpointed these others’
views to be religious or political in nature. Many of the co-researchers questioned
whether our society was becoming more conservative lately, both in political and
religious attitudes. Some of the co-researchers told me that they had strong religious
beliefs themselves, but did not see those beliefs as being inconsistent with the theatrical
experiences they had chosen for their students.
Only time will tell regarding the extent to which the current climate of some groups’
conservative viewpoints influences students, educators, artists, and others who are
involved in theatre pursuits.
Professional Relevance
Theatre censorship is a very real issue for anyone involved in theatre. Since beginning
my study, I have become very aware of the abundance of arts censorship issues lately,
particularly those in academic and commercial theatre. Since I consider myself to be an
actor, director, and theatre educator, I can’t help but wonder if and when I will be faced
with a censorship issue. I definitely think that the insights I have gained through my
research, and through the wonderful frankness of my co-researchers will influence my
own reactions if I am faced with censorship. I know that I will be more aware that
material I choose may be deemed inappropriate by some; I can’t help but think that
theatre educators are always aware of this, but like my co-researchers, we never expect to
be prohibited from using it.
Personal Relevance
As I reflect on the process and results of my study of the experience of theatre
censorship, I am drawn mostly to recollections of my experience with my co-researchers.
Although I initially spent only about sixty minutes with each, I feel I got to know them
much more intimately through my reading and rereading of the transcripts and through
listening two or more times to the audiotapes. The co-researchers probably spoke most
convincingly to me through the invariant constituents I had put on index cards and read
over too many times to count. I was, and am still, struck by the integrity these drama
teachers have for themselves as artists, when it may be argued that it is a difficult time to
be an artist. But I was most impressed by the passion, caring, and respect they have for
their students. I heard so many times how they were “fighting” with intensity, in order to
keep alive what they felt was right for their students, and they did so with honesty and
intelligence. It was a pleasure and honor to know them, and to know how much they
value the importance to young people of arts education.
CONCLUSION
As I conclude my study, I believe that the resulting textural and structural descriptions
of the experience of theatre censorship are a unique addition to existing studies. I have
learned to appreciate the knowledge gained from a phenomenological investigation.
When I chose my dissertation topic four years ago, I was motivated by a specific
incident of theatre censorship at a local university. I can’t help but think that my interest
in censorship issues must have already been present, perhaps lying dormant in my
subconscious, and that this incident served to awaken that interest.
Since choosing the topic of theatre censorship, I have become much more acutely
aware of current censorship issues, which do seem to have increased in the last few years.
When I put the call out for teachers who had recently been involved with censorship,
there was no lack of responses. Some of the teachers had to be eliminated because they
taught on inappropriate grade levels for the study, and they seemed genuinely
disappointed that I would not be interviewing them.
The media seems filled with accounts of censorship past, but mostly present. I even
found one of my co-researchers through a newspaper account of his censorship dilemma.
Personally, I was very excited to be conducting research on such a timely, “hot” topic.
The popularity of the subject was affirmed last summer by the release of two films which
dealt with censorship issues: Good Night and Good Luck, and Mrs. Henderson Presents.
In the past week I have read newspaper and magazine articles and editorials regarding
a bill in the senate that would increase FCC indecency fines against individuals by almost
5,000% (James A l), four TV broadcast networks united to challenge an FCC ruling
deeming language in their shows indecent (Rosenberg 8), and the postponement of the
play, Mv Name is Rachel Corre. in New York for political reasons (McNulty E28).
Censorship of the arts is alive, well, and much publicized. Finally, I will quote one of
my co-researchers, who was talking about a complaining parent’s letter to the principal:
“It’s like the line about, ‘The best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with
passionate intensity.’ If the worst are those kinds of parents, they are filled with
“passionate intensity.” I would like to borrow his words and put a more positive spin on
them. I conducted my study of the experience of theatre censorship with “passionate
intensity,” and I hope that the voices of those who oppose censorship are filled with the
same “passionate intensity.”
140
REFERENCES
Allen, Kathleen. “Show School Rejected Will Go On.” Daily Star [Tucson] 12 Apr. 2005:
Accent section.
Alpha Development Group Staff. Complete Idiot’s Guide to Jewish History and Culture.
Indianapolis: Alpha Books, 1998.
Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Garden City: Doubleday, 1958.
“Art Law.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law. 2nd ed. Eds. Jeffrey Lehman and
Shirelle Phelps. 13 vols. Detroit: Gale, 2005.
“Arts and Free Speech Groups Support the Manhattan Theatre Club.” National Coalition
Against Censorship. Oct. 1998. NCAC on the Issues. 13 Jan. 2002. <http://
www.ncac.org/issues/mtc.html>.
Bartholomew, Dana. “Drama Students Learn Tough Lesson: Dubya’s No Joke.”
Ins Angeles Daily News 27 May 2005: N l.
Barzman, Norma. The Red and the Blacklist: A Memoir of a Hollywood Insider.
New York: Thunder’s Mouth P, 2003.
Berger, Melvin. Censorship. New York: Franklin, 1982.
Bems, Terri. “FAU Department of Theatre to Present Terrence McNally’s Controversial
Play Corpus Christi.” Mar. 2001. 27 Jan. 2002. <http://fau.edu/divdept/
schmidt/nr/march3 -14corpus.html>.
“Blacklist.” W est’s Encyclopedia of American Law. 2nd ed. Eds. Jeffrey Lahman and
Shirelle Phelps. 13 vols. Detroit: Gale, 2005.
Bogan, Neill. “Vetoed School Play Won’t Disappear.” American Theatre 14 (1997):
78-79.
141
Bowie, Melia. “Is Student Play Unsuitable for Students?” St. Petersburg Times
17 Jan. 2003: Bl.
Brockett, Oscar G. The Essential Theatre. 7th ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Coll.P, 2000.
Brustein, Robert. “Liberty ad Liberties. On Theatre.” New Republic 4 Aug. 1986:26-28.
“Canadian Girls Can’t Kiss.” Curve Aug. 2004:17.
Carling, Douglas. “Balancing Privacy, Convenience.” MSNBC.Com 16 Oct. 2006.
12 Nov.2006 <http://www.msnbc.msn.eom/id/15200503/page/2/>.
“Censor.” Webster’s New World Dictionary. 3rd college ed. 1994.
“Censored Kids Hit the Road for Their Art.” Curriculum Review 43 (2004): 8A.
“Censorship: An Educator’s Guide.” School Library Journal 52.10 (2006). S75.
“Censorship Watch.” American Libraries 37.1 (2006). 18.
Chambers, E.K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1989.
Chandler, Michael A., and Rosalind S. Helderman. “Board Adopts Policy on Plays.”
Washington Post 16 June 2005: LZ01.
Coetzee, J.M. Giving Offense. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
Cole, Lester. Hollywood Red. Palo Alto: Ramparts, 1981.
“Colorado Symposium on Censorship of the Arts.” National Coalition Against
Censorship. 19 Nov. 2006 <http://www.ncac.org/art/20060314~CO-Denver~
Colorado_Symposium_on_Censorship_a>.
Conolly, L.W. The Censorship of English Drama. 1737-1824. San Marino, CA:
H.E. Huntington, 1976.
Descartes, Rene. The Essential Writings. Ed. J. Blom. New York: Harper, 1977.
Dmytryk, Edward. Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois UP, 1995.
“Drama-Club Advisors Quit Over Banned Plays.” First Amendment Center. Sept. 28,
2005. Associated Press. 31 Jan. 2006 <http://www.firstamendmentcenter.
org/news.aspx?id=15851>.
Dubin, Steven C. “Artistic Production and Social Control.” Social Forces 64 (1986):
667-688.
Ellis, David. “Stars Fall on Arizona; a Stellar Cast Performs a Play Banned at a Tucson
High School.” People Weekly 20 Dec. 1993: 57.
EL Lozy, Mahmoud. “Defying the Theatre Censor on a Campus in Egypt.”
Chronicle of Higher Education 44 (1998): B8.
Etlin, Melissa. “Texas Teacher Encounters Censorship.” NEA Today. 12 (1993): 6.
Ewer, Bernard C. Social Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1929.
“Faith-Based Charities to be Reviewed.” New York Times Online. 2 Dec. 2006. 2 Dec.
2006 <http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Scotus-Faith-Based.html>.
Farrant, Rick. “School Cancels ‘Offensive’ Musical.” Journal Gazette [Fort Wayne, IN]
17 Mar. 2005: 1A.
Filippo, Joe. “Censorship Problems in Commercial and Collegiate Theatre.”
Tnnmal nf the Association for Communication Administration 3 (1994): 192-94.
Flood, Richard. “Case Dismissed.” ArtForum International Magazine Summer 2000.
Fromm, Erich. Escape from Freedom. New York: Avon, 1969.
143
Gatewood, David Dean. Exploring Conflict Surrounding the Production of a
Controversial Plav on Three College Campuses. Diss. U of Michigan, 2002.
Ann Arbor: UMI, 2002.
Georgakas, Dan. “Hollywood Blacklist.” From: Buhle, Buhle, and Georgakas, eds.,
Encyclopedia of the American Left. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1992. <http://www.
writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html>.
Gurwitsch, Aron. “On the Intentionality of Consciousness.” Phenomenology. Ed. J.J.
Kocklemans. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967.
Gustin, Georgina. “Playing it Safe. Principal in Fulton, Mo., Canceled ‘The Crucible.’”
St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10 Mar. 2006: Al.
Habib, John Philip. “Eeew, Cooties! Cootie Shots, a Play about Tolerance, has Kicked up
a Ruckus in Public Schools in Northern California.” The Advocate 16 Apr. 2002:
64-65.
Haight, Anne Lyon, and Chandler B. Grannis. Banned Books: 387 B.C. to 1978 A.D.
New York: R.R. Bowker, 1978.
Harris, Tracy. “The History of Hair.” Sept. 2000. 26 Jan. 2002. <http://www.leland.
Stanford.edu/~toots.hairhistory.html>.
“Hays Code.” From Katz’s Film Encyclopedia. 9 Jan. 2005 <http://courselwinona.msus.
edu/pj ohnson/h 140/hays_code.htm>.
Hegel, Georg. Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. A.V. Miller. Ed. J. Hoffmeister. New
York: Oxford UP, 1977.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. Joan Stambaugh. Albany: State U of NY P,
1996.
Helderman, Rosalind S. “Mincing Words Now Part of Role for Teen Actors.”
Washington Post 23 May 2005: B01.
“Hollywood blacklist.” From Wikipedia. 23 July 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Hollywood_blacklist>.
Holt, Patricia. “No Decency in Supreme Court’s Ruling.” Editorial. San Francisco
Chronicle 5 July 1998: 2.
Husserl, Edmund. Ideas. Trans. W.R. Boyce Gibson. London: George Allen & Unwin
LTD, 1931.
—Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy. Trans. Q. Lauer. New York: Harper,
1965.
Hide, Don. Experimental Phenomenology. New York: Putnam, 1977.
James, Meg. “4 TV Networks Challenge FCC on Indecency.” Los Angeles Times
15 Apr. 2006: A1+.
Jet. “Interracial Kiss in Dallas Children’s Play is Removed Due to White’s Objection.”
4 Oct. 1993: 5.
Johnson, Christine. “Censorship Hurts Creativity.” The Capital. 14 Mar. 2005. F:C1.
Kelly, Marilyn. “Controversy Beckons ‘Bat-Boy’ Playwrights to LCHS Performance.”
La Canada Flintridge Outlook 9 June 2005: Bl.
Klein, Jeanne. “Censorship Battles in University Theatre for Young Audiences.”
American Alliance for Theatre and Education Conference. Minneapolis.
5 Aug. 1990.
Kockelmans, J. J. Ed. Phenomenology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967.
145
Lai, Victoria. The Wellesley News. Vol 100. Issue 12. Dec. 2000. “Censored Writer
Stains Society with Shocking Words.” 6 May 2002. <http://www.wellesley.
edu.Newspaper. 12.01.00. WEB/Arts/arts.html>.
Lang, Theresa. Interred in Concrete: The Censorship of Boston’s Old Howard Theatre.
Diss. Tufts U, 2004. Medford: UMI, 2004.
Laufe, Abe. The Wicked Stage: A History of Theatre Censorship and Harassment in the
U.S. New York: Ungar, 1978.
Luckhurst, Mary. “The Case of Theresa: Guernsey, the Holocaust and Theatre Censorship
in the 1990s.” European Studies: A Journal of European Culture. History and Politics
17 (2001): 255-67.
MacRae, Cathi Dunn. “Watch Out For ‘Don’t Read This!”’ Voice of Youth Advocates.
18 (1995): 80-87.
Manzo, Kathleen Kennedy. “Challenged.” Education Week. 27 Sept. 2006:26-28.
“Mapplethorpe Controversy Reverberates in Cincinnati 10 years Later.” The Associated
Press. 11 Apr. 2000. 11 Nov. 2006.< http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.
aspx?id=7320>.
Marleau-Ponty, Maurice. Trans. Colin Smith. The Phenomenology of Perception.
New York: Humanities P, 1962.
Marsden, Loma. “Academic Freedom, Debate, and Bureaucracy.” Academic Freedom
and the Inclusive University. Eds. Sharon E. Kahn and Dennis Pavlich. Vancouver,
BC: UBC P, 2000.
McConnell, Lauren B. Grev Zones and Back Holes: The Effects of Normalization
Censorship on Czech Plavwriting. Diss. Northwestern U, 2004. Evanston: UMI, 2004.
McGilligan, Patrick, and Paul Buhle. Tender Comrades: A Backstorv of the Hollywood
Blacklist. New York: St Martin’s Griffin, 1999.
McNulty, Charles. “Uncomfortable in Our Seats.” Los Angeles Times 16 Apr. 2006: E28.
Mezibov, Marc. Telephone interview. 28 Sept. 2006.
Miller, Nathan. The Child in Primitive Society. New York: Brentano’s, 1928.
Mitchell, Hayley R. Readings on A Doll’s House. San Diego: Greenhaven P, 1999.
Monteagudo, Jesse. “The Corpus Christi Controversy.” Gay Today. Apr. 2002.
27 Jan. 2002. <http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/viewpoint/040901vi.htm>.
Moustakas, Clark. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 1994.
National Catholic Reporter. “Group Protests Production of Controversial Play.”
7 Mar. 2003: 8.
Navasky, Victor S. Naming Names. New York: Viking, 1980.
“No Show: Funding Delay Sparks Censorship Fears.” The Age Company. Dec. 4,2001.
13 Jan. 2002 <http://theage.comau/entertainment/2001/12/04/FFXA4H14RUC.
html>.
Ockerbloom, John. “The Online Books Page presents Banned Books Online.” 22 Jan.
2002. <http://digital.library.upenn.edu/book/banned-books.html>.
O’Reilly, Bill. O’Reilly Factor. FOX News. “School Releases Controversial Play.”
16 Feb. 2004.
“Organizations Challenge FCC Wiretapping Rules.” American Libraries. 36 (2005): 13.
Patton, Michael Quinn. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3ra ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
Pederson, Nadine D. Toward an Urban Stage: Law and Performance in Paris.
1515-1559. Diss. City U of NY, 2005. New York: UMI, 2005.
Pelligrino, Stephen. “School Board Cancels Trip to See Classic Play.”
Toronto Star 6 Oct. 2005: B 11.
Pendleton, William W. “The Freedom to Teach.” New Directions for Higher Education.
XXII (1994): 11-19.
Perrin, Noel. Dr. Bowdler’s Legacy: A History of Expurgated Books in England and
America. Rev. ed. Boston: Godine, 1992.
Pfeiffer, John E. The Emergence of Society. New York: McGraw, 1977.
“Phenomenology.” 22 Sept. 2005 <http://www.connect.net/ron/phenom.html>.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Letter 15 June 2005, Sooner ed.: B6.
“Production Code.” From Wikipedia.8 Aug. 2005 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Hays_Code>.
Regan, Scott F. “The Artist/Educator Responds to Censorship.” American Alliance
for Theatre and Education Conference. Minneapolis. 4-8 Aug. 1990.
“Religious Freedom in the United States of America.” Prepared by the International
Coalition for Religious Freedom. 4 April 2004.11 Dec. 2006. <http://www.religious
freedom.com/wrpt/Usrpt.htm>.
Rosenberg, Alan. “Letter from the President.” Screen Actor Spring 2006: 8.
Rottmann, Larry. “The Battle of the Normal Heart.” Academe 76 (1990): 30-35.
Russo, Charles J., and Floyd G. Delon. “Teachers, School Boards, and the Curriculum:
Who is in Control?” NASSP Bulletin 83 (1999): 22-29.
Salinas, Mike. “P’Town ‘Naked Boys’ Decision Due Next Week.” Back Stage
42 (2001): 48.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. New York:
Washington Square P, 1984.
Schutz, Alfred. “Concepts and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences.”
Understanding and Social Inquiry. Eds. F.R. Pallmayr and T.A. McCarthy.
Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1977.
Shriver, Donald W., Jr. “The Insecurity State.” The Nation. 5 June 2006: 68.
Steffens, Bradley. Censorship. San Diego: Lucent, 1996.
Stem, Carol Simpson. “Academic Freedom and Artistic Expression.” New Directions in
Higher Education. XXII (1994): 45-58.
Sullivan, Bob. “Privacy Lost: Does Anybody Care?” MSNBC.Com. 17 Oct. 2006.
12 Nov. 2006. <http://www.msnbc.msn.eom/id/15221095/page/3/>.
“Theatre Company Stands Up to Catholic League: Will Proceed with Play Featuring
Gay ‘Jesus’ Figure.” American Atheists. May 1998. Flashline. 20 Jan. 2002.
<http://www.atheists.org/flashline/play.htm>.
“Two Groups Sue over NSA Wiretap Program.” CNN.com. 17 Jan. 2006. 12 Nov.
2006. <http://www.cnn.eom/2006.LAW/01/17/aclu.nsa/>.
“Washington State University Bankrolls Vigilante Censorship.” FIRE. July 18,2005.
5 Aug. 2005 <http://thefire.org/index.php/case/683.html>.
Weiss, David W. “Censorship on College and University Campuses.” ACA Bulletin
56 (1986): 48-50.
“What’s ‘Correct’ on Campus.” Editorial. Washington Post 6 Dec. 1990, final ed.: A22.
149
Whitehead, Alfred N. Modes of Thought. New York: Capricorn, 1958.
Winn, Steven. “High Court’s Art Ruling is Indecent. ‘Decency’ Standards a Deathblow
for NEA.” Editorial. San Francisco Chronicle 26 June 1998: C-l.
Witham, Barry B. “The Voices of Bane. Bane. You’re Dead.” Theatre History Studies
22 (2002): 83-93.
Woods, Byron. “N.C. County Ends Arts Funding Due to Plays.” Back Stage 38 (1997):
3-4.
Zaner, Richard M. The Wav of Phenomenology: Criticism as a Philosophical Discipline.
New York: Pegasus, 1970.
150
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent Agreement
151
Appendix A
Date:
Dear Research Participant:
I am conducting a study of censorship in theatre as part of my Ph.D. program in Theatre
Arts at the Union Institute and University. Information about this research project will
increase our understanding of censorship and will help in future theatre endeavors.
During this research, you will be interviewed. Your involvement will require about sixty
minutes of your time, during which I will audiotape our conversation for research
purposes only. After the research is completed, you will be asked to review your
statements to be assured of accuracy, and you may ammend them.
I am not aware of any risks involved in participation in this project. In fact, it should be
an enjoyable experience for you. You will be identified by a fictitious name and not your
own name. All responses will be confidential and your name will not be used in any
report regarding this research. You are free to decline to participate or to withdraw at any
time.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me at 714-257-0512. Please
leave a message if I am not immediately available. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brenda Harris
I,_____________________________consent to participate in the study of theatre
censorship conducted by Brenda Harris. I understand that I may refuse to participate or
withdraw from this study at any time. I understand that all responses will be confidential.
I understand that I may direct questions about this project to Brenda Harris or her Core
Professor, Dr. Sherry Penn at 561-624-0803.
Signature Date
APPENDIX B
Letter to co-researchers regarding transcript accuracy
153
Appendix B
Date____________________
Dear____________________,
Thank you for participating in the interview last summer. I really enjoyed listening to the
tape. I am enclosing a copy of the interview transcription. Please review it for accuracy,
and let me know if there are any corrections or additions you feel should be made.
Thanks again for your time.
Sincerely,
Brenda Harris
APPENDIX C
Guiding questions
Appendix C
1. What was the production in which you experienced censorship?
2. What were your experiences of the censorship?
3. What was the result of the censorship?
4. Was funding denied or withheld?
5. Did performers or others resign from the project?
6. Did the show go on as planned?
7. How did you feel about the censorship?
8. When did this censorship take place?
9. Who were the censors?
10. Was the media involved?
11. Were you threatened with the loss of your job or with tenure?
12. Who supported you?
13. Who did not support you?
14. How did this experience affect your future choices of materials for performance?

The Censorship Experiences of Theatre Directors in High School Academic Settings - A Phenomenological Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Censorship Experiences of Theatre Directors in High School Academic Settings - A Phenomenological Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PROJECT DEMONSTRATING EXCELLENCE

The Censorship Experiences of Theatre Directors in High School Academic Settings:

Brenda Robin Harris

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Sherry Eve Penn-Crawford, Ph.D.

Union Institute & University

All rights reserved.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

experience of theatre censorship. These themes are: feelings of distress/unease, feelings

of anger, loss of autonomy, reasons for being censored/complaining parties, self-

decisions to produce more/less controversial material, levels of support given by

administrators/colleagues/others. The qualitative research method used was

Transcendental Phenomenology. Transcendental Phenomenology is a systematic

methodology which emphasizes subjectivity and the discovery of the essences of

experiences (Husserl, Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy 5-6). It is based on

since it utilizes only data available to consciousness. It is “transcendental” because it

essences of the experience of theatre censorship were further clarified by means of

Individual and Composite Textural descriptions, Individual and Composite Structural

Descriptions, and finally, by a Composite Textural-Structural Synthesis. The two most

included the effects of censorship on teachers, students, families and colleagues.

CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 3

The Research Question 5

Overview of the Study 7

CHAPTER TWO Review of the Relevant Literature 8

History of Theatre Censorship 24

Recent Censorship Funding Issues 28

Theatre Censorship in Non-Academic Settings 32

Theatre Censorship in Academic Settings 38

Summary of Literature Review 63

CHAPTER THREE Philosophical Framework of Phenomenology 65

CHAPTER FOUR Research Design 75

Organizing, Analyzing, and Synthesizing the Data 79

CHAPTER FIVE Presentation, Analysis, and Synthesis of Data 81

Excerpt from Mark’s Interview 86

and Imaginative Variation 89

Invariant Constituents for Theme One 90

Invariant Constituents for Theme Two 93

Invariant Constituents for Theme Three 95

Invariant Constituents for Theme Four 101

Invariant Constituents for Theme Five 104

Invariant Constituents for Theme Six 105

Invariant Constituents for Theme Seven 106

Invariant Constituents for Theme Eight 107

Invariant Constituents for Theme Nine 109

Individual Textural Descriptions 110

Composite Textural Description 116

Individual Structural Descriptions 117

Composite Structural Description 121

Composite Textural-Structural Synthesis 122

CHAPTER SIX Summary, Implications, and Outcomes 124

Study Summary 124

Significant Findings 126

Prior Research and Scholarship 127

Strengths and Limitations 134

Recommendations for Future Research 135

Social Meanings 136

Professional Relevance 137

Personal Relevance 138

Appendix A - Informed consent agreement 151

Appendix B- Letter to co-researchers regarding transcript accuracy 153

Appendix C - Guiding questions 155

censorship of their productions.