Pennsylvania college cancels play after author objects to white actors

Great Debates
281

However … the whole context of this statement is that he specifically does not wish to have Whites included.

No-one is actually saying, in respect of his play, ‘universal must mean Whites (and only Whites)’. They are, if I understand correctly, saying ‘it’s supposed to be “universal”, so it ought to be able to include Whites, along with non-Whites, because ‘universal’ includes the possibility of both’. He’s expressly denying this.

It isn’t “racist” (in that he’s not asserting any superiority of one race over another) but it is “discriminatory” (in that he’s expressly excluding one race from consideration, and unlike say casting Jim for Huck Finn, it isn’t based on anything allegedly integral to the play). He’s doing it to make a socio-political point outside the context of the play. He may have every right to do that, of course, but it is disingenuous for people not to see why that could be offensive.

282

Huh?

equals

?

No matter. Neither here nor there.

Let us move along accepting that we agree that the college screwed up, there was no executed contract, and that Suh had every right to not allow the show to go on.

You are still missing the point we do disagree on …

Suh is very clear that if the actors were other than White then he would have let the show gone on and even would have tried his best to Skype with them. But since they were White he would not. He is also very clear that this is not because the race of the characters is vital to the meaning or theme of the work (not Huck Finn or Porgy and Bess) but out of the general principle of having roles available to minority performers, his view about how default casting with White actors has “deep roots in ugly racist traditions.”

The issue about the contract is one that gives him the right to do what he did, but it clearly is not the reason for what he did.

His reason was not that he was upset that they screwed up on the contract, or that the race of the characters is important to the meaning of the work, but that he was prejudging this small college casting with the only actors they had as being part of an ugly racist tradition of default casting to White actors, and had a reflexive reaction to that perception that was inconsistent with the specific reality.

Whether or not the race of the character matters to the work as part of its meaning or theme, whether or not there is a minority actor available, whatever the scale of the public production, the principle is that a character written as a minority must be cast a minority (and characters written as White can be anything). To cast any character written as minority with a White actor under any circumstance is enabling that ugly racist tradition.

That belief was the reason he exercised that right that the lack of an executed contract gave him.

Yes, he had the right. Is his reason a good one? Or is it needlessly rigid to stand by that principle (not the principle of having an executed contract) for the sake of the principle when no one involved had any racist intent nor casted in any default fashion and a group of young adults who did nothing wrong are punished as a result of mistakes that were not theirs? Or was there a better option?

283

That isn’t what he said, and I don’t think what he actually did say comes across as racist at all. I think some people are trying very hard to twist Suh’s words to make it look like his only reason for objecting to the casting of white actors as Indian characters is anti-white bias. He did not say it would be fine for actors of any race as long as it wasn’t white to play these characters, he said he wanted their “general ethnicity” to be respected. I think it is unfair and frankly dishonest to treat his remarks about white actors in non-white roles as meaning that Suh has it in for white people or considers all non-white people to be interchangeable. There is a long history of white actors and white actors alone being given the opportunity to play characters of any race.

I don’t believe for a minute that Suh having once described his play as “universal” in an interview caused Michel any genuine confusion with regard to his casting requirements. I think she was counting on him being unwilling to make trouble about a fait accompli. She bet wrong, and her students paid the price for it. That’s on her head, not Suh’s.

No, they weren’t. As I mentioned upthread, I attended an all-female school and the theater department regularly got outside actors to play the male roles that our students couldn’t fill. Clarion could have brought in two South Asian actors. This might have been inconvenient, but it wasn’t impossible. Michel could also have honored her original agreement with Suh and kept their performance of Jesus in India a classroom exercise only. Or she could have chosen one of the countless other plays that doesn’t call for South Asian actors. Instead she chose to go with an option that actually was not legally possible, and attempted to stage a play without having secured the performance rights.

284

Yes, if you read beyond what you clipped you would see that I agree that in context that is what he is saying. What he is not saying is that the characters in his play are anything other than “everyman” roles that happen to be written as Indian. They are “universal”, “everyman” just as John Smith, written as a White character is an “everyman” role. What he is saying that the big sweep picture of an ugly racist tradition of default casting demands that “everyman”/“universal” roles written as White should be cast in a colorblind fashion but that “everyman”/“universal” roles written as other than White should be cast ethnically specifically … and without any compromise for any specific circumstance. For his “everyman” characters White need not apply no matter what.

Edited to add … Lamia, you went to school where there was a community of colleges located close by. That is not the case here. No that was not an option.

And again, presumption of not only malice but that she is lying when she says that someone else takes care of the contracts in their department, not her. Okay.

285

I’m not sure where the disconnect is, but a lot of people in this thread are having a really hard time understanding what you just posted. The digressions into contract law and all the rest are side notes.

So my final thoughts on this whole thing in a probably misguided attempt to at least get some people to see this the way I do, even if they disagree. Heck, maybe someone can point out where I am missing what the other side is seeing.

My opinion is that, based on what Suh had said about “honoring the ethnicity” is that Suh does feel that racially specific casting is particularly important in his play, but I’m not in his head. I might be wrong. He hasn’t pushed that side of the argument. The fact that he is aware of, and feels compelled to fight against, the history of white washing performing arts is not an indication of racism on his part though. That he chose to make that his battle probably does more to raise awareness of the problem than another approach. The people, in this thread and elsewhere, calling him a racist make me really uncomfortable. It should probably always give us all pause when a minority is being accused of oppressing a non minority. Men’s rights activists make me uncomfortable too. I know, thems fighting words. But, yeah. It’s uncomfortable.

The school knew what it was doing from the minute it selected the play. That isn’t in dispute. They knew they didn’t have the cast for it, but didn’t think it mattered, that also doesn’t seem to be in dispute. They felt that casting white people to play ethnic roles, despite the negative history associated with making that choice in film and theatre, and the artistic statement that that choice conveys, was acceptable. Not in dispute.

Many people think that just that choice on its own is potentially an uncomfortably bad move. It is very likely the reason Suh pulled the play, though some argue that it was his hatred of white people. Let me know if if I missed a third (or forth) option.

The school was bad at communicating its intent and maybe if the commutation from both sides had been better this would have ended differently. Slightly disputed, but I think most people agree with this. Suh had the right to pull the production if he didn’t think it was honoring his intention. Not in dispute despite some of the argument. He didn’t have a ton of information so he assumed the worst and pulled the play. Disputed, but I think this is the most reasonable explanation for what happened. He assumed that a bunch of white people at a white college were doing the equivalent of blackface and pulled the plug. Maybe he was wrong, but I can’t blame him. That said, Suh does share some of the blame here and probably should have made a greater effort to find out what was going on if he was going to do something as drastic as halting the production. We don’t know that he didn’t, but indications are that he didn’t. In return the school laying all the blame at his feet continues to look really shady in my book.

The students are being punished for their administration fucking up all the way around and this is sad for them. Not in dispute. There are a hundred thousand really good plays that wouldn’t have caused a problem, and if the college has a diversity issue maybe they need to work on recruiting a more diverse population. In the mean time they probably can’t put on a lot of productions. Most of August Wilson’s works are out unless they have a lot of African American students which seems to not be the case. Doing the Piano Lesson with an all white cast would raise eyebrows and I don’t think people would be quite so quick to call Wilson a racist if he shut it down. We just don’t care as much if it’s South Asians who are being white washed. Also, because Suh is a lesser known playwright he is more likely to have his work messed with so he is likely a bit hyper vigilant. August Wilson probably doesn’t have these problems anymore. (though maybe he does, that would be sad.)
It sucks that someone would assume that a group of white people playing minorities are being racist, but given history, the burden of proof that they are being culturally sensitive really needs to be on the white folks. My opinion. Feel free to tell me why we should assume the other way. My living in rural Pennsylvania where there are a shit ton of horrible racists tends to make me assume the worst, especially about rural Pennsylvania.

I went to a theater school with a diverse population. I taught at a high school with a diverse population. I studied a lot of non eurocentric theatre. I love a lot of non eurocentric theatre. I have never performed in any of the wonderful Chicano or Native American plays I studied. I will likely never be able to produce Kabuki theater as a director. I got the education. I experienced the theater. When I still work (which is rare these days) I do Shakespeare and Brecht. Because I can do them right as a Jewish guy in his 30s working in rural Pennsylvania.

286

He says:

The last one is the nail in the coffin. There are three Indian characters in the play. One of the Clarion actors was mixed raced, but not Indian. So yes, it’s pretty clear Suh has two categories, white and people of color. Any person of color is fine in these roles while no white person is acceptable.

287

…huh?

Yes it does.

I’ve been explicit and at pains to point out what “usage means.” From earlier in the thread:

"Usage rights are granted, in my case, via a usage licence.

Here is the one that I use.

http://bigmark.photoshelter.com/gall...000kqLWccc3EvU

We start by negotiating what usage rights are required by the client. I assign those rights by ticking the appropriate boxes. I send it to them to sign and acknowledge, they send it back to me. I mark down the return date and I file it."

Without a contract or licence usage rights have not been granted.

How exactly are our statements different?

No I’m not. You can go argue with yourself now because what you’ve written doesn’t really address any of the points that I’ve made in this thread.

288

My school probably used community theater actors more often than theater students from the nearby co-ed school, and as I already mentioned on at least one occasion hired a professional actor to come in from New York to play the male lead. I personally thought this was a ridiculous waste of money and that the theater department should have just chosen a different play (this one had three prominent male roles), but doing this particular show was apparently important enough to someone that it was worth the trouble. If Jesus in India wasn’t important enough to Clarion for them to bring in South Asian actors then they should have done a different play.

As I said, I think some people are trying very hard to twist Suh’s words. I do not find your interpretation of his statement to be plausible or convincing.

289

Clarion has said they would have done a different play if Suh had made his position clear from the beginning.

I do not need to twist Suh’s words at all to support my position. He is extraordinarily clear about what his issue is. I don’t see how a statement like “I could not allow the play to be performed with white actors in non-white roles” is open to interpretation.

290

Clarion is in the town of Clarion in rural Hicksville PA, Appalachia district. Last town census population of 5,276. 41% of the town population is below the poverty line. Closest Big City is Pittsburgh, maybe an hour and half away.

It’s a public university with an in-state tuition of $9,778. And at that tuition 88% apply for need-based financial aid. 93% of those who apply get accepted. 90% of the students hail from in-state. It’s graduate programs are for speech language pathology, rehabilitative science, and special education. It is a small poor school that mainly serves the people of Appalachia but they do the best they can with multicultural issues, and have even produced some national championship winning debate teams. But overall it is considered a poor quality college at a good price.

Happy for you that your school had lots of community theater in town and the financial resources to hire actors to come over from the neighboring city and did those things with regularity.

Sad for you that you think that has anything to do with this circumstance. This is not Barnard inviting a boy over.

A small poorly funded public school in Appalachia with a tiny theater department is wanting to put on a little known production for the educational experience of its students, to perform for free to other students, and for a nominal ticket price if anyone else wanted to see it. The less than 1% of their student population that is Asian, mostly international students, were not interested in trying out.

The pretzeling going on here is impressive indeed. Yes Suh was very clear about what his reason was. To his way of thinking the arc of historic oppression, the very real ugly racist roots of default casting, demands a “Whites need not apply.” rule to his “everyman”/“universal” characters in all circumstances, be it professional, large university in a big city, or tiny underfunded rural Appalachian public school. For the greater good. As a blow against White privilege.

291

Then Michel should have known well in advance that there was very little chance that she’d be able to get Asian actors for the play. If she’d been up front with Suh about this when he asked then the whole mess could have been avoided.

He was very clear about wanting actors of the same general ethnicity as his characters to be cast in these roles. This is apparently not an unusual practice, nor does it strike me as unreasonable. What does strike me as unreasonable is your insistence that Suh is motivated purely by anti-white bias. I have read his Facebook statement and I think that this “Suh just hates whitey” interpretation is absurd. You are of course free to disagree, but I think it’s a shame you’re not willing to extend him the same benefit of the doubt that you’ve given to Michel.

292

So the school should get a pass because they’re nothing but a bunch of dumb hillbillies? How demeaning of you.

293

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has reported that Suh wanted his Indian characters to be played by Asian actors, not just any ol’ race but white:

The article also contains what looks to be the full text of an email that Michel received from Suh. In it he says that the Indian roles in his play were written for South Asian actors and that their ethnicity is important to the work:

I don’t see any room to doubt that Suh wanted Asian actors – not just non-white actors – in these roles. He does specifically say he objects to Caucasian actors in these roles and doesn’t mention the mixed race actor, but neither does he indicate that he was aware that a non-white student had been cast. If he did know about the mixed race actor, he didn’t make an exception for this student when he demanded that Michel either “recast the play with ethnically appropriate actors” or shut it down.

294

You may want to zip up. Your prejudices are showing.

No, a fairly isolated tiny school serving rural and poor Appalachia does not equal “hillbillies.”

But the circumstance and perspective and educational needs and resources of such a school is not quite the same as that of a wealthy well endowed woman’s college that is part of a community of colleges in a dense urban corridor with lots of professional and community resources to call upon. Lamia’s position is somewhat akin to “Let them eat cake.” Completely clueless that some other school might not be in exactly the same position as hers was.

Suh’s view is clear and understandable if one views only from his perspective.

He starts out with a view that minority opportunities are too few in professional theater. One of his ambitions with his work is to create more parts for minorities. He sees the industry as a whole having an ugly history of “default casting” to Whites. A show of his casting its “everyman” characters as other than Indian is an affront to one of his missions in his work. It is not unheard of to insist that everyman characters must be the ethnicity as written. From his perspective stating that should not need to be explicitly said, so he didn’t: It is assumed to be understood. “It’s set in India! I asked about whether they’d be able to cast it honoring the general ethnicity of the characters. That is very clear. No Whites for these characters allowed; Asians only!” (No, not exact quotes.) He does not want his everyman characters written as not White cast with other than the ethnicity he named them no matter what … any public performance of such validates that is okay to use Whites for roles he writes as opportunities for minority actors. Again, the college’s screwing up the contract gave him the right to make the decision he made, but it was not the reason he made the decision he made.

No, that is not hating whitey. Not to my read.

Now from the director’s POV. Generally casts shows color blind and which may mean one the 7% of the college population’s Black students getting a role that is written as White and sometimes the opposite. Finds an off Broadway play that might be just at the edge of what this rural community can handle with its irreverent take on Christ. Maybe it reminds her a bit of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolored Dreamcoat, maybe not. Contacts the writer and asks if they can work with it and if he’d be able to participate, he answers have fun but I am too busy right now. Ah well it was worth asking. Went through his agent to make sure that developing it into a musical was okay and was given the blessing by the agent. Asked by the playwright if they’d be able to cast it honoring the general ethnicity of the characters and did not yet know how it was going to be cast. Assumes that whoever usually does the final contracting has done that and gets caught up in the the project, worrying a bit about maybe this play’s irreverence will cause more trouble than she actually can handle, but excited about the show. Asks the playwright again, as the final days before showtime approach, if he has any time to participate in the process, by Skyping? And is blindsided with: either recast now (with actors who do not exist in your student body or even in your broader community) or cancel the show.

Both versions of the same events as viewed through two people both without evil intent. Each of whom misunderstood what the other was thinking, neither of whom communicated flawlessly.

Did the college mess up on the contracting and with being clear to the agent? No question about it. (Unless there is something that has not been shared anyway.) Should they have assumed that everyman characters in a play set in India with Indian names had to be cast with Indian students? Well given that they’ve never had a problem with any other playwright having them cast colorblind with the talent they have and that they were never explicitly told that the writer insists on it, no. The assumption that casting with White or biracial students if that is who tries out would be as okay as it has always been for them is not “outrageous” … it was mistaken, but it was not unreasonable.

Is Suh being excessively rigid exercising his rights where he could be generous? Was there another way that made his greater (and IMHO valid) points better and avoided having a group of students having to bear the brunt of the harm from the faulty assumptions and poor communication skills of others?

Yes.

295

What a vivid imagination you have. It’s really not any of your business, but since you’ve chosen to make a big deal about how I supposedly attended Barnard (I wish!) I don’t mind saying that my alma mater is actually Randolph-Macon Woman’s College. The school has since gone co-ed and changed its name to Randolph College. It is located in Lynchburg, Virginia, which isn’t even near a “dense urban corridor”. There is, believe me, plenty to mock about Lynchburg and RMWC/RC, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from further personal attacks based on my real or imagined educational background.

That said, I don’t doubt our theater department was much better funded than Clarion’s. It is not my position that Clarion should have spent money they didn’t have on hiring professional actors. It is my position that if they could not do Jesus in India properly, they should not have attempted to do it at all.

Clarion was not entitled to do a public performance of this particular play. Out of all the plays in the world, Michel chose a script that is the intellectual property of a living playwright who had specific casting requirements for a public performance. She knew what the department’s resources were and what the racial composition of the student body was. She could have told Suh when he asked back in the spring that there was little chance they’d be able to get Asian actors for the Asian roles. She could have stuck to their original agreement to do Jesus in India as a classroom activity only. Or she could have set aside Jesus in India altogether and chosen some other script that didn’t call for Asian actors she didn’t have. She had a lot of options, and she freely chose one that was likely to blow up in her face – and it did.

That Clarion is a poor, rural school was not an excuse for the theater department to behave in an unprofessional and unethical manner. I feel bad for the students who didn’t get to do the play they had worked hard to prepare, but Suh was not the one who misled them. Michel and her colleagues bear the responsibility for this.

296

Personally, I have a hard time feeling sorry that a bunch of people in Appalachian country were denied their chance for a punk-rock version of Jesus in India. What the fuck was the theatre director thinking?

297

Just logistically it seems very odd to me that the director wanted to try turning an existing, copyrighted play into a musical. If they wanted to do a musical then there are plenty of musicals out there, and if they wanted to develop something new and different then it would have been far less complicated legally to either write the whole thing from scratch or base it on a public domain work. Hamlet: The Punk Rock Musical might also provoke a WTF reaction, but at least Shakespeare is in no position to make trouble about it.

Casting issues aside, the fact that Clarion wasn’t doing a straightforward production of Suh’s play seems like it should have made them extra careful about securing the proper performance rights. Suh says he had only given them permission to do a musical version as an in-class exercise, not a public show. While I don’t have any experience with theatrical contracts, I’d guess that the standard agreements do not cover musical adaptations or other significantly altered versions of a script. Can any of the theater folks here shed some light on that?

298

No, the standard agreements don’t cover adaptation of any kind. You can’t even let actors mess up dialogue. I think I mentioned it before but one of the co-authors of Grease is somewhat infamous for suing high schools who include music from the movie that wasn’t in the original play.

That said, it does seem that the school managed to get proper clearance for the adaptation. Which sort of makes everything else all the stranger.

299

It doesn’t seem like they did to me, but I may be missing something. In his Facebook statement Suh said he’d given them approval to adapt his play as a musical for private, in-class use, and that he didn’t hear they were planning to do a public performance until rehearsals were already well underway.

300

Good point. I guess it isn’t clear what kinds of clearances they had. I was thinking of the back and forth about composers. I assumed that only happened because they got permission for an adaptation. Best not to assume.