At the close of a virtual town meeting with alumni on Wednesday, Washington College President Kurt Landgraf said he would make the same decision again to cancel the performance of The Foreigner–in order to be respectful of the most diverse student body in the college’s history.
“I take full responsibility for what occurred here,” Landgraf said. “I believe we did the right thing; and frankly, if I had to do it all over again today I would still do the same fundamental things that were decided.”
“What we did was fair, equitable and respectful to our student body and reflective of the values of Washington College,” he said in the virtual town hall.
The decision was made while Landgraf was out of town on Thursday, Nov. 6. — when the cast and crew were notified moments before the dress rehearsal that public performances scheduled for Nov. 8 and 9 had been canceled.
Many WC alumni have called the cancellation a blatant case of censorship after it was announced in a letter signed by Provost Patrice DiQuinzio and Dean of Students Sarah Feyerherm.
In responding to outcries of censorship over the cancellation, Landgraf said the college was “unequivocal in its support of free speech.” He said free speech was the foundation of a liberal arts education.
“We are absolutely unwavering in our support of that,” he said.
But he gave greater weight to being “respectful of all our students… to recognize that our student body is more diverse than it ever has been.”
Sitting with Landgraf, Theatre and Dance Acting Chair Laura Eckelman pushed back on criticism that shuttering the play was censorship and said she made the decision after consultations with the administration–and students who were passionate in their objections to portrayals of the KKK in the play.
She said the decision was made “out of a desire not to further injure those members of our campus community who already feel the most marginalized and who already face in many ways the most challenges both on and off campus.”
“In this case, canceling the production felt like the best thing to do,” she said. “I do not see it as an act of censorship but as a course correction and us being more attentive to the members of our community that were likely to be hurt.”
An ’00 graduate challenged Landgraf and Eckelman that the decision was not a case of censorship.
“Let’s stop debating whether or not this was censorship,” the ’00 graduate said. “By the word’s definition, this was censorship…just because the department was consulted doesn’t mean this wasn’t censorship, whether or not you think it was done for a good reason, this was censorship…so let’s just establish that it was censorship.”
The ’00 alumnus asked why The Foreigner was canceled when so many other performances in the past have touched on controversial issues.
“How are we going to protect the arts going forward,” he asked. “How are you going to establish where that line is so that people going forward don’t have to wait to find out if their play is going to be canceled.”
Eckelman responded, “We haven’t made any decisions yet what that would look like because this is all still very fresh…we are planning to explore what might be the best practice in the future, so the short answer is we don’t really know yet.”
A ’17 alumnus said the decision to cancel the play was “cruel” to the student director.
“This was the culmination of her college career,” the ’17 alumnus said. The ’17 alumnus also said this was not the first experience with censorship on campus.
“I personally experienced it while working at the ELM newspaper [and] not from anyone on the ELM or a faculty advisor, but from the administration. The canceling of this play does not reflect good intent, it reflects an implicit racial bias and a lack of willingness to confront our past, especially in a place like Kent County.”
Doug Rose, an ’86 alumnus and winner of the Sophie Kerr Prize, asked why the cast and crew were not included in discussions to cancel the play and why they were not invited to the town hall discussion.
“Where are the students in this discussion, why are we keeping them away from these important discussions,” Rose asked.
Eckelman responded that it was a “time-pressured environment…they were in dress rehearsals.” She said she brought the cast and crew into the conversation “at the earliest opportunity.”
“I respectfully refute your statement that the students haven’t been involved in the conversation,” Eckelman told Rose. “We met with them on the evening of the cancelation and we met with them again a couple of days later.” She said she’s been in contact with the students by email asking for their feedback.
Rose was not satisfied with Eckelman’s answer and noted that every other constituency on campus was part of the discussion, except the students involved in the play.
“You took the time to talk to a lot of other student groups, other faculty, other staff, other administration, but no one bothered to talk to the people in the production itself until the cancelation order came in,” he said.
“Again, a lot of that had to do with the constraints of time…it’s hard to communicate just how pressured all of that was in terms of time constraints,” Eckelman responded.
Eckelman also made note that the student director was upset with the decision, but articulated 15 minutes later that it was the right thing to do.
Later in the day, Communications Director Wendy Clarke told the Spy in an email that there was no guarantee future cancellations wouldn’t occur, even after a new vetting process had been established to consider the content of performances.
“It’s impossible to answer this unequivocally, since we can’t predict the future,” she said in an email.“The college never intends for any public event to be cancelled. We make these decisions only when absolutely necessary. We will continue to make efforts—better efforts—to anticipate potential challenges of content, logistics, or other event-related issues, but some situations will always be unanticipated, and we cannot control that.”
Yesterday the National Coalition Against Censorship strongly condemned the decision to cancel The Foreigner.
“Apparently the very presence of the KKK in the story, no matter how strongly the story condemned them, was upsetting,” the NCAC said. “A university should certainly listen to the voices of the campus community. It should provide opportunities for open conversation around controversial material – in this case, offering talk-backs after the performances would be a simple option. However, a college should no more allow the voices of some students the power to censor a student’s work, than it should allow objections to books taught in class to determine the syllabus. Were such objections to take precedence to academic freedom and educational objectives, there are many plays, films and novels that would have to be banned on campus because of the upsetting villains they present: there are Nazis in The Sound of Music, racists in To Kill A Mockingbird, and a character blinding horses in Equus, to take some of the plays more frequently performed on campus and in schools. Should the college also ban Spike Lee’s BlacKkKlansman and should its film history classes ignore the controversial but historically significant Birth of a Nation? And how would Washington College students deal with history itself, the violence of which far exceeds the caricatured villainy of The Foreigner?”
The statement was co-signed by National Coalition Against Censorship, Dramatists Legal Defense Fund, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
And in a Facebook post yesterday, Jack Gilden ’87, called for new leadership at the college.
“There is but one urgent question that arises from yesterday’s conference call: How does the school continue as a ‘liberal’ arts institution when, antithetically to its own mission, it cancels student work and improperly controls what the community may experience? By continuing on and moving forward with the same leadership the stain of this malpractice will touch everyone in our community. If the students, faculty, alumnus and board do not stop this immediately then all of us are tacitly censors, too. Why? Because we have the power to change course or endorse what happened by keeping the present leadership. When you have a pilot who can’t fly, a bus driver who can’t drive, or a doctor who can’t diagnose or treat, you fire them. They don’t understand the job. A liberal arts president and educators who use and defend censorship tactics do not understand the job. The school needs a new president, provost, dean, and theatre arts leader as soon as possible. Continuing on this path, with this group, labels the school, right now and into the future, The Censorship College. Is that what we want for Washington College? Is that who we are? Change is gravely important and necessary right now.”
Jacquie kendall says
Trying to save face, but the explanations just get worse and worse. You can’t shove important issues under the rug and expect them to just go away. Shameful.
Chris Doherty says
If they stopped changing their story it would help.
George Shivers says
However President Landgraf looks at this action, it is still a blatant act of censorship. Instead of defending their action the administration and the department chair should make a public apology to the Washington College community for acting so hastily and without due consideration. Furthermore, the College missed an excellent educational opportunity to help immature students learn something positive. What the students did learn instead is that free expression apparently does not exist at Washington College. The students can perhaps be excused on the grounds of immaturity. The same does not apply to professors and administrators.
Skip Middleton says
Dr. Shivers –
Exactly.
Thank you.
Sally Murray James says
Dr. Shivers is spot on. My partner and I used this as a teachable moment with our 17-year-old; the college should certainly have done the same.
This time of year, I usually write a small check to the college in memory of my father, who vigorously exercised his freedom of speech as a faculty member from the 1950s through the late 1970s. This year, I’ll be donating instead to institutions that support free expression. Many thanks to the Spy for its coverage.
Karen L Smith says
The administration seems to be digging a deeper hole with excuses for what was clearly a hasty decision. Did any of the administrators ever see the play? Had the students who objected to seen the play, or were they complaining based on hearsay about its content? What’s next? Should we ban showing “Gone With the Wind” because it portrays slavery or listening to “Springtime for Hitler” from “The Producers? Perhaps we should eliminate reading or performances of Shakespeare because “some students” might have a problem with incest, murder, and/or suicide! An educational institution should be able to take the “teachable moment” and provide meaningful discourse.
Wood says
Excellent letter! This appears to be censorship and an unforgivable disregard of a student’s academic achievement.
Ron Brennian says
The administration has failed to see the big picture on this one. Then came the finger pointing, passing the blame around, finding ridiculous excuses, and finally claiming righteousness over reason.
It is indeed censorship no matter how one wants to twist it. In Laura Eckelman’s own words published in The Spy article on Nov 18, 2019 she said “I do not see this as an act of censorship. I view censorship as being shut down against your will. This was a course correction made by and with the theatre department”. Well it was in fact shut down against the will of the many people that wanted to see it as well as the students and others who worked so hard to produce it… by a very few.
It appears that the audience as well as others deeply involved were held hostage by the fears of some “marginalized” members of the student body whether real or imagined. This core problem was not addressed objectively and the price of the ransom was the cancellation of the play. Fears need to be addressed not pacified by controlling others. Another case of political correctness over reason and resolve that we see so often these days.
The outcry has been overwhelming and many examples of this misjudgment have been illustrated and expressed. The result being that the administration has circled their wagons and have taken a self preserving stance. If those in leadership positions cannot admit errors and make corrections what kind of example does that set for the students? One of the greatest opportunities for everyone is to learn from their mistakes.
Perhaps it is felt that no mistake has been made but the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. Sadly this decision will affect the colleges reputation and possibly future funding and support. If this great institution of intellect and liberal arts cannot bring people together and hammer out these types of problems then surely it has lost it’s direction.
Patricia Deitz says
Is it still possible for the play to be performed at another venue in town or elsewhere? The work in itself–that of the playwright and of the students– should be respected, and the opportunity is ripe for community discussion and exploration of difficult issues that continue to wrench our society. The publicity generated during the last week would bring full houses, I would expect. A mix of community members and academics could foster discussions before and after the performances. I would wish that this controversial decision by the college could result in something of more lasting value than the outrage and confusion it has generated in the last week.