The criteria of exclusion and oppression is borne out of the European enlightenment project which spawned both classic liberalism and marxism (psot modernism claims to have moved beyond this paradigm but I have yet to be convinced). Both ideologies purport to support the development of the individual and his/her freedom. The former seeks to reduce the constraints of the state on individual power and the later seeks to reduce the socio-economic constraints on individual power. In opposition, fascist and totalitarians demand the individual submit to a group ideology let it be the state, race, ethnicity, corporate culture, the guild etc. Culture which perpetuates the domination of the group over the individual is mere propaganda.

Report comment to moderator

material oppression!

Report comment to moderator

I have mentioned a lot of things that should go into consideration and have listed them more than once including: power, personal relationships, culture, and history. This isn’t an exhaustive list by any means but it doesn’t include “offense” for a very good reason.

The “right to not be offended” is a joke conservatives made up to shelter racists.

I largest and most insidious impact of racism is not the offense experience by an indignant audience. It’s the legitimation of race based assumptions and perceptions that give birth to material impression. The offense is a side effect of being a decent and aware person.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

http://www.local12.com/content/breaking_news/story.aspx?content_id=b76b4817-80a1-420e-b1a8-9c332a1d51fa

Luke I am not the voice of free expression. My contention is that liberals claim to be the voice of free expresion and then quash expression that they don’t like.

I AM for reasonable censorship. I admit it. I agree that speech should have a few strictly-defined limits.

Unlike you, I don’t think the limit should be what “offends” somebody. Otherwise, how dare you say that people shouldn’t oppose the Laramie Project if it offends them?

Report comment to moderator

But lets be clear this claim to “free speech” has nothing to do with wanting to protect the efforts of students. It is a reactionary position rooted in white fear that leaps to oppose all pushes against established power systems out of ignorance and self interest.

Were they trying to preform Angels in America (which I do not think is age inappropriate for high school seniors, but that’s beside the point), I do not think Kyle would be adding it to his list of acclaimed classics that should be protected.

We are talking about the same group of people that have consistently protested every performance of the Laramie Project (which was written in order to be high school appropriate). There would be zero bemoaning about the effort those poor kids had put into the play if they were preforming any of the shows above. ZERO.

I haven’t purposed policing speech by some autocratic dictator. A school administrator decided from his/her perspective that it as not in the best interests of the function of the school to continue a traditional hegemonic appropriation of Native American imagery or use the school to give continued voice to a poem that is racist even if its relationship to genocide is questionable.

Whether that action was right or wrong doesn’t interest me. Whether I would have done the same thing, doesn’t interest me. There is a line we walk between our concern for a free society and our responsibilities to people when we are empowered to be editors, and I’m not willing to simplify this issue down to, “free speech is good so clearly this administrator was wrong.”

And YES the content of the play matters. And NO I would not be singing the same tune if it was the Laramie Project that they had canceled. That doesn’t make my position hypocritical it makes it nuanced. The Laramie Project has net benefits, racist stereotypical imagery has a net consequences.

As I said above I don’t think that canceling this play was silencing a voice of protest or of canceling out attempts at meaningful discussion or of challenging oppressive societal norms.

Report comment to moderator

What a joke. Anlir self-righteously asks for “an example,” and then follows that up by predicting that “it would be an isolated incident.”

Which is it, Anlir? And would such a case being an “isolated incident” therefore make it okay?

Kyle is exactly right. You libs decry censorship at every turn (even when it’s justified), but hypocritically practice censorship yourself.

That’s why people really haven’t taken liberals seriously since the days of JFK.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Greek tragedy? Some Christians, Jews, and Musims would consider an ancient Greek play too pagan.

Anne Frank? Some people would be offended that it is about Jewish people.

The Crucible? Some Christians would be offended at how it protrays Puritans, and some Republicans would be offended at how it protrays anti-communists.

My point is that if the limit on free speech is what might offend somebody, we couldn’t produce any plays.

Report comment to moderator

Censorship is, as Luke points out, about power. However, admission of this fact should not allow for a reversal of roles. One does not allow for multiple voices by silencing the dominant one. The libertarian in me does not distinguish between appropriate and oppressive censorship.

The challenge is to allow for new narratives while still allowing the dominant cultural narrative while losing its dominance. The move from a singular American vision to pluralism is not a smooth transition. On a practical level this minor bit of theorizing means little but should point a way to the moderate meridian.

In this dispute, my sympathies lie with the students and I would press to have the play continue. No offense to Anlir but his suggestions are the usual white man’s guilt trip which is rather patronizing for those concerned. While the choir may stay for a panel discussion, the rest of us rush home to catch some stimulating television . Instead of patronizing the minority or oppressed view/narrative, I would encourage new narratives (what the dutch call separate pillars) and narratives that clash. Show up outside the theatre , hand out phamphlets before and after the show, watch the show and write critical reviews for the local media. If anything its an education experience for everyone involved. If you have a problem don’t whine and ask for censorship, get into people’s face so they know your opinion.

Sometimes my Canadian experience leaves me unprepared for the either/or never compromise approach to American cultural differences since my experience has generally been about polite non-offensive compromise on both sides of the fence. Usually we engage in polite censorship, ten little indians and the vagina monologues would both never leave the starting point in a public school. We’d aim for something safe: a greek tragedy, Anne Frank, The Crucible, etc.

Report comment to moderator