The small, but ethnically diverse, town of Deerfield, Illinois, has recently been propelled into the the spotlight by news that seniors of the local high school are being required to read an award-winning play by a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright
The play "Angels in America" has been met with widespread critical acclaim and won, among others, two Tony awards and an Emmy. The central themes of the play are forgiveness, kindness and compassion, but this is not what has conservative groups like North Shore Student Advocacy in a tizzy. The chief objections of the group center around the play's gay characters and scenes laced with graphic sexual content and pervasive expletives.
"It is defended as a literary work that shows forgiveness, kindness and compassion. Of course, the first question that comes to my mind is, how many classical works of literature are there that show these virtues without delving into graphic homosexual sodomy?"
After several weeks of deliberation a school district committee has decided to move the work from the required list to the 'optional title' list, but even this is not enough for some would-be censors.
Lora Sue Hauser of the "North Shore Student Advocacy" group would like to see the award-winning play prosecuted under obscenity laws and banned from publication. Speaking of her group's efforts to ban the work she said:
"The first route we went down was the criminal, because we saw this as distributing material that is harmful to minors. But basically you can't prosecute schools and libraries, because all they have to do is say there is some educational purpose for these materials.
However, her group of vigilantes ran into a brick wall when they tried to get a prosecutor to take the case. As Pat Trueman, who ran the U.S. Justice Department's obscenity enforcement unit from 1988 through 1992, explains:
Federal obscenity law says that material can be prosecuted as obscene if it appeals to a prurient interest - that is, a shameful or morbid interest in sex - and if it is patently offensive, and if it doesn't have any literary, artistic, scientific or philosophical value. That's the situation you run into if it doesn't have pictures and is just the written word."
Since there is no question as to the works artistic, philosophical, and literary value, the group found that they could not get it banned, which upset Hauser who said:
"These laws need to be changed,"
Fortunately there is not much chance of that happening any time soon, particularly given the national reaction against all things Conservative that the last seven years of the Bush administration has helped to foster.
But the case remains a disturbing one because it highlights the never-ending battle that rages in this country between those who would impose their narrow cannon of taste and philosophy on the rest of society and the champions of freedom who seek to stop them.
The hypocrisy of the Religious Right, from among whom most of these assaults on civil liberties arise, is blatantly exposed when one realizes that these self-anointed guardians of other people's morality will seek to ban what offends them. At the same time they demand that their religious and moral beliefs be imposed on society in the form of religious symbols in public buildings, prayers at tax-payer sponsored public events and the inclusion of religion in the science classroom.
It is not enough for people like Hauser and LaBarbera to simply not read things they find offensive or to refuse to allow their children to read them, they also seek to deny the rights of those students whose parents did not object to read these materials as well.
One wonders if smut-smiters like Hauser even have children in the advanced English class at the high school where she seeks to impose her values.
@sumdume
Why are you and others so intent upon the students having to read this play?
Why are you and the other bullies so intent upon stopping the students from reading this play?
The teacher chose the play because he/she thought it was the best tool for teaching. Who are you to say that they are wrong having not even read the play?
Why should academic freedom take a backseat to know nothings, bullies and bluenoses? Why do the ignorant get to set the educational agenda?
The bluenoses who want to ban the play based on a few quotes taken out of context think that it "promotes" a Gay lifestyle. It is actually about the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco in the 1980's, a I time I know a bit about having lived in the city at the time and lost friends to the plague.
Here is one of the "happy" and "sexy" scenes from the play.
What is at stake in this fight? Nothing less than intellectual freedom. What is intellectual freedom? The National Library Association's banned books project defines it this way:
Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.
The intellectual bullies and the hate groups that opposed this play did not want to simply stop them from reading it, they wanted to stop everyone, adults included, from the right to read or see it.
People who oppose this play are nothing less than enemies of intellectual freedom.
Oh, by the way. It should be noted that the town of Deerfield Illinois has a rather long and unsavory history of bigotry.
In 1959 they tried to stop construction of a housing development that planned to offer homes for sale to African Americans.
In 1979 they tried to mandate a "no kissing zone" at the local train station claiming that couples kissing each other goodbye before boarding the train were causing "traffic jams."
I should save the clips for when I write a review of the play but this is a sample of what the know nothings want to keep the students from experiencing.
Of course we could always have them read "Dick and Jane go to summer camp," or "Horton hears a who"---no that one is too controversial.
@lensman67
Oh, by the way. It should be noted that the town of Deerfield Illinois has a rather long and unsavory history of bigotry.
In 1959 they tried to stop construction of a housing development that planned to offer homes for sale to African Americans.
In 1979 they tried to mandate a "no kissing zone" at the local train station claiming that couples kissing each other goodbye before boarding the train were causing "traffic jams."
In the 50s there was still a lot of prejudice against blacks moving into "white" neighborhoods. Laws were made that there couldn't be discrimination when selling a house.
You mean these people were so deprived that they had to go to a train station to see couples kiss?
@Cynthia T. [Picasso]
In the 50s there was still a lot of prejudice against blacks moving into "white" neighborhoods. Laws were made that there couldn't be discrimination when selling a house.
You mean these people were so deprived that they had to go to a train station to see couples kiss?
It is a very small town. Not much to do. The list includes watching couples kiss, watching paint dry or banning books. That's just about it.
@lensman67
It is a very small town. Not much to do. The list includes watching couples kiss, watching paint dry or banning books. That's just about it.
That is pretty bad when one has to get their kicks by going to a train station and watch a couple give a quick kiss good bye as one heads off to work.
But the people who want to ban the play without ever bothering to see it think that it "promotes" the Gay lifestyle!
I don't think one can claim that a play about two couples whose relationships are disintegrating, set in America in the 1980s against a backdrop of greed, conservatism, sexual politics, and the discovery of an awful new disease: AIDS can be thought of as "promoting" any particular "lifestyle."
The whole purpose of an advanced English class is to get the students to engage with important works that cause them to think about the world and explore different ideas.
For that to happen the work must have ideas to explore, which automatically means that it must be controversial (all ideas are controversial), and it must be emotionally gripping, otherwise the students will get bored.
This play fulfills both criteria to perfection. I have been reading some of the script and it blows one's socks off!
Let's not forget that Shakespeare has always been highly controversial which is why Victorians read bowdlerized versions of HIS plays.
@Debra Myers (skyangel)
That scene was intense...not what I expected. But I'm not in this debate...so as Helena says...carry on...
This debate is vital to us all. The whole thing comes down to intellectual freedom--something that scares the bejeezus out of conservatives. The American Library Association puts it like this:
Why Is Intellectual Freedom Important?
Intellectual freedom is the basis for our democratic system. We expect our people to be self-governors. But to do so responsibly, our citizenry must be well-informed. Libraries provide the ideas and information, in a variety of formats, to allow people to inform themselves.
Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas.
What Is Censorship?
Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, “Don’t let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! ” Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.
@Debra Myers (skyangel)
I may not be commenting or adding my two cents, but I am following the thread.
I hope you enjoy the ride! ;o)
The first disk to Angels in America just arrived in the mail a few moments ago so now we shall see what we shall see. Trying to ban a play that one has not even seen is, to me, the height of stupidity.
To try to ban a play that won the Pulitzer Prize for literature and a whole sack full of other awards goes way beyond stupid. When I have seen it all I will write a review.
The first disk to Angels in America just arrived in the mail a few moments ago so now we shall see what we shall see. Trying to ban a play that one has not even seen is, to me, the height of stupidity.
To try to ban a play that won the Pulitzer Prize for literature and a whole sack full of other awards goes way beyond stupid. When I have seen it all I will write a review.
I am looking forward to your review Lensman.
In this report and your comments you seemed to be showing what is the value of the play not just picking out the objectionable parts.
That's not saying that I will watch it though. :-)
I hate to use this term about a report that you have made, but this report and your comments seems more fair and balanced. ;-)
That's right---rub it in! ;o)
Actually I think a whole lot of people are going to be very surprised. I have watched all the clips on YouTube and I have to admit this looks like one heck of a play.
Actually it is really two plays and it comes to a total of six hours out of which those who want to censor it have managed to pick out two or three quotes---entirely out of context I might add.
We have all seen what a hostile person, wishing to discredit Christianity, can do in cherry picking objectionable passages out of the Bible so I do not think that finding a few off color lines in a Pulitzer Prize winning play a valid reason for all the hubbub.
Each year the National Library Association hold banned books read-ins, publicly highlighting the very best items that someone has tried to ban that year. I have a feeling that a whole lot of libraries all across the nation are going to be reading "Angels in America" to large crowds this year.
Taking anything out of context is not a fair and balanced way of reporting anything.
I still have no desire to see the movie or read the play but look forward to your review of the movie.
It looks like there is some really powerful acting in it and the reviews I have read make out to be one of the greatest plays to come out in years. We are not talking "interesting." We are talking classic.
You do not pay attention. Do you? The video is on its way from Netflix and in the mean time I have been watching the rather extensive collection of clips from YouTube and reading the reviews.
Are you telling me that you have been extolling the exquisite artistic merit of a play you haven't read or seen!
BTW- Is the version you are getting from Netflix the HBO mini starring Pacino? How can you judge the literary merit of the play after it has been edited and produced for TV?
What have you been doing to keep yourself informed?
I read and discuss interesting topics with others. Is that acceptable or should I just rent the Hollywood version and let them make up my mind for me?
Why would they want to take the course if they do not want to read the play?
Duh-
To improve their ability write and understand literature.
Can you tell me of any other course where this is any different? Every course that has assigned readings of any sort expects the students to read the assignments---that is why they are called assignments
.
However, those classes do not force the students to read material that has been labelled pornographic.
When the play was shifted to the optional reading list the busybodies and hate groups were not satisfied and tried to get the play banned completely.
Yes, parents objected to the school forcing their children to read material that the felt was unsuitable. Other people weighed in on the argument, much like you are doing because they felt it was important.
Can we at least agree that the hate groups and busybodies stepped over the line when they tried to ban the play completely?
No, because I do not know what you mean by banned completely. Yes, they did attempt to get it removed entirely from the school curriculum. However, I have seen no evidence suggesting that they tried to get the play banned entirely fro society.
Who gives you the right to decide for the teacher what is and what is not "necessary?
"
The same God that allows you to form your opinion and tell the world what is right and just!
It is because this country too often allows the know nothings and the busybodies to set the curriculum that our education system is such a joke.
Or, it could be because jackasses force the school to hire lawyers to defend themselves instead of hiring better teachers.
Bottom line. Just because a work is controversial does not mean that we should water our education down to the lowest common denominator
Never said they should water down the curriculum. I just said they did not need to use this play. There are many other high quality plays that could have been used to teach advanced literature and composition. You have maintained that you benefited from some of these long before Angels in America was written. Or, were you saying your education was not adequate?
Why are you and the other bullies so intent upon stopping the students from reading this play?
Again, you are tossing around accusations that have no merit. Show me where I stated that I wanted to stop students from reading the play?
The teacher chose the play because he/she thought it was the best tool for teaching. Who are you to say that they are wrong having not even read the play?
I have the right to say the teacher used poor judgement in forcing student to read this controversial play, or do you believe that individuals have no rights?
Why do the ignorant get to set the educational agenda?
Please tell us why you and the other ignorant bullies get to set the educational agenda.
Oh, by the way. It should be noted that the town of Deerfield Illinois has a rather long and unsavory history of bigotry
So does San Francisco, why does that matter in this discussion?
October 11: The San Francisco School Board orders the segregation of 93 Japanese school children. After the Japanese government protests, President Theodore Roosevelt forces the Board to rescind the order. The School Board forces a compromise from President Roosevelt to greatly curtail Japanese immigration resulting in the 1908 "Gentlemen's Agreement" between the United States (U.S.) and Japan, which drastically reduces immigration of Japanese laborers from entering the U.S. via Hawaii, Mexico or Canada.
1907: Frequent riots in San Francisco to protest the presence of the Japanese. Anti-Japanese riots are also reported in nearby Berkeley and Oakland.
1913: The California State Legislature enacts the Heney-Webb Alien Land Act. This Act forbids property ownership by "aliens ineligible for citizenship" (at the time, immigrants from Asia were not permitted to become naturalized citizens). This restriction applies almost exclusively to Japanese immigrants and remains in effect until 1952.
In 1959, Seaborn and Jean Burks tried to buy a home on Marietta Drive in San Francisco's hilly Miraloma Park neighborhood. Burks, a veteran and small-business owner, and his wife, a sixth-grade teacher, offered the advertised price of $27,950. But the tract's developer, the Poppy Construction Company, refused to sell to the couple because they were black.
The whole purpose of an advanced English class is to get the students to engage with important works that cause them to think about the world and explore different ideas
Gee, and here I am thinking a course in advanced composition and literature would be aimed at improving the students ability to understand and create literary works.
I just didn't know it was advanced social studies or critical thinking.
Email
Print
Share
Op-Ed: Protecting students from literature in Illinois
