Maybe it can be taken for granted at times, but for 238 years Washington College has been a remarkable beacon of enlightenment and tolerance for the Eastern Shore.
Born as a testament of George Washington’s character and citizenship, the 10th oldest college in the country has been a source of exceptional scholarship and distinguished alumni fulfilling the founders’ vision to provide to the new nation citizens and leaders with the gift of critical thinking. The entire Eastern Shore is and should always be grateful for its existence, proud of its accomplishments, and supportive of its centuries-old mission.
The Spy certainly does so. Indeed, to be fair, this publication is a product of Washington College alumni. To paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Spy always has had, and will continue to have, a disproportionate bias in Washington College’s favor.
Nonetheless, the Spy must fulfill its own mission and speak critically about the institution when warranted. In fact, a review of our editorials will show a consistent concern for its future, including challenges with leadership as it refines its mission for the 21st Century. We take no pleasure in these commentaries.
But the events and circumstances leading up to and after the institution’s abrupt cancellation of a student production of “The Foreigner” are alarming.
The use of the word “institution” is intentional here. While there is always an opportunity to point fingers at decision-makers, it is rarely helpful to the school or the community. The administrators and faculty involved in this rushed decision were well-intended. It is best to recognize that all organizations or governments (including the Spy) are capable of systemic folly of the highest order at times.
This was one of those times.
Published in 1983, the play tells a moral tale about confronting xenophobia and racism in a rural Georgia hotel against a backdrop of white supremacy and the KKK who work to take control of the lodge. The protagonists take the moral high ground and vanquish the evil ones from their lives in the final scene.
In short, if one was looking for smoke to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, this would not make the list. The College made a capital error in not allowing the play to be performed as scheduled.
The word folly may be too generous a term when recounting a series of events that led to this act of academic censorship. All of which was compounded by the fact that the play itself stands up to bigots and bullies. It stretches the intellectual imagination to see how this play would be any different from a performance of To Kill a Mockingbird with its racially charged scenes or the equally sinister Nazi characters in The Sound of Music.
Equally discouraging was the rationale that the play’s performance had become a safety issue, when the cancellation came several days before confirmed reports that a driver of a pickup truck had yelled racial slurs at students. The reports appeared to be retroactively conflated as a justification to cancel the play.
In the end, Washington College’s decision to cancel the play may be the byproduct of a complicated world of increasingly heightened political and cultural sensitivity. Nonetheless, censorship, in this case, was a sign of an institution out of sync with its core values. Every time censorship is used, it draws into question a school’s genuine commitment to the liberal arts’ highest purpose to have students think critically.
Adding to this botched process, the College has not provided any serious explanation as to why the concerns about the play were not raised during the 23-months between approval and the point at which the director, cast and crew were ready for dress rehearsal. It seems a substantial misuse of student and staff time and college treasure.
Beyond the fact that the College canceled the wrong play for the wrong reasons, it was the worst kind of intellectual retreat at the worst of times. As the school was shutting down The Foreigner, the nightly news was filled with footage of college students in Hong Kong bravely fighting in street battles to protect their right to free speech. It also came at a time when UC-Berkeley safely allowed the arch-conservative Ann Coulter to speak on campus.
As Washington College picks up the pieces from this most unfortunate moment, there is hope its leaders will share with its community what it has learned and what it must do to reinforce its commitment to liberal arts education and the training of free-thinking citizens.
Jenn Baker says
None of us were there, so how can we backseat drive their decision?
We weren’t there when students of color where threatened by white teenagers screaming out of a truck – twice – on the campus.
We weren’t there when students stepped forward to say that they were feeling marginalized.
We were not there when they had to face the students who were getting ready to put on the play.
Heck, I haven’t even read the play. I doubt most of us who formed an opinion on this actually read the play.
It feels like we need to let the experts be the experts on their student body, student health, and academic prescient for establishing content warnings for controversial content. Times are changing. If we apply a different lens…maybe it isn’t that Generation Z is too “PC” maybe it is that in an effort to reverse the course of political inequalities that have existed since the founding of our great country. Many of these topics – rights for people of color, protections for LGBTQ people, women’s health and reproductive access, disability rights, and more are under attack through the guise of “cultural sensitivity” and “PC.”
My experience working with Generation Z employees is that they are trying to be empathetic, sensitive, and inclusive – and this applies strongly to humanity and the environment. In doing so, they aspire, and are laying the groundwork for, what will be an incredible political and cultural shift in the next 15 – 20 years. A good friend of mine recently said, “Jenn, the world is changing.” How we speak, who tells what story – and how – in years to come is shifting.
We have to recognize that we don’t like change. Which is why we see adverse comments about content warnings, “me too” jokes, and dismissive comments about shifts in contemporary communication. We form opinions through the lens of our own generation and …and because of that we may be a little bias. We’re all thinking “what’s wrong with what we did/how we handled it/what we thought, etc.” Think of all the words that were “ok” in one generation, only to evolve with the next. This is no different.
Is that to say that we should not have difficult conversations? No. But what it signals is that the people who should participate as stakeholders in decision making processes must be involved. Without that we fail at inclusion. When we fail at inclusion we must face the consequences that what we think was “ok” might not be. That is a strong message our Gen Z community members sent through this process.
Since I wasn’t involved and have the benefit of backseat driving…I think it was revolutionary and brave for the people who were there, faced by students who were hurt and alienated, and who had to face the students producing the work, to make an impossible “we should not move forward until we hear all voices” decision. Kudos to them.
It might be revolutionary for the Spy to talk with a diverse group of Generation Z community members. It might provide a new perspective. These are not children, they’re young adults and our neighbors. Let’s stop invalidating their feelings and second guessing the faculty and staff…cause again, we were not there…and we might be a little bias.
An Antioch College “Self, Society, & Culture” major turned Drexel engineer…
A GenX/Elder Millennial cusper…
Jenn Baker
Wesley Winterstein says
So, in the end, you are in favor of administration led censorship on campus?
Jenn Baker says
I am for pausing to gather input from impacted groups. That is not to say that the show couldn’t go on, but in the context of everything that happened on campus and what is happening in the world around us, a pause to address issues makes sense.
I think about these issues through the context of business. If a company set a path, found out that the path might disappointment or offend some of its consumers, the company will most like pause to rethink or rework the strategy. It might not change course, but who is consulted and how it is rolled out might evolve.
Beryl Smith says
A college is not a business. A business would surely reverse tactics if they saw that t hey would lose money by continuing on a certain path. A college is an institution of learning and uncomfortable moments for some can and should become teaching moments. Too often we see colleges only for their role in getting jobs after graduation. It should be more than that. It should teach people how to think and how to live in society and the world. That is why the censorship of the play was a bad move.
Doug Rose, WC Class of 1986 says
Thanks, Jenn. Your heart is in the right place. As someone who belongs to a “marginalized” community, I would not want to be further marginalized (or re-traumatized?) by any activity of the College. The truth is that most of the people engaged in the decision-making process had never read or seen the play. If they had, they might have come to a different conclusion. And I understand (and often value) the efforts made by academic institutions to be more inclusive in their programming. But I think sometimes those academic institutions make mistakes in how they execute those efforts.
Imagine, for example, that the College librarian began to survey students about which books might contain triggering content. She began asking because she is concerned for those of us who come from marginalized communities and traumatic experiences. Based on feedback from students who had never read those books, the librarian decide to remove all potentially triggering books from the library shelves so that potentially affected students would feel safe when visiting the library. Would that make sense? Would that make an institution of learning any stronger?
As I understand it, the faculty and administration followed a similar line of thought when they made the decision to censor the play. The administrators had not read or seen the play. They moved quickly to identify students who also had neither read nor seen the play and who would react negatively to some description of the play. When the faculty and administrators found those student, the faculty and administration decided that no student (or anyone else) should see the show–out of concern for those who expressed fear or anger because of some imaginary experience the administrators had described.
(N.B. If anyone at the College cares to offer a different and truthful description of the events leading up to the cancellation of the play, please do so. I base my understanding on vague and often contradictory description of those events. If my narrative is flawed, I’d love to know what really happened. Really.)
These days, I am encouraging everyone to read The Coddling of the American Mind by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt. If you don’t have the time to read the whole book, you can read an article in The Atlantic that preceded and inspired the book here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ It is a reasoned and thoroughly researched study of why academic institutions need to be inclusive and sensitive to those who come from marginalized communities. But at the same time, learning institutions also need to stop “protecting” students from imagined “triggering” content. I highly recommend the book and the article.
Chris Doherty says
Well said.
Craig Fuller says
Perhaps, in the end, the play wins. While it would have been profoundly beneficial to experience the live performance, the play’s intent is clearly to create an awareness and deeper understanding around some of the most difficult issues communities across the nation are confronting and the unfortunate cancellation may well have allowed an important message to reach even more people who have reacted to something they might not have actually gone to witness. Still, it’s a troubling means to an end.
arlene lee says
Bravo!
Janice Dickson says
Good editorial.
Rumors about WC being in trouble financially, and now the reality of censorship are both worrisome for the 10th oldest liberal arts college in the country. It is most important as we are in the upcoming election season that the exchange of ideas and free expression of thoughts be available for all.
Jacquie kendall says
I don’t live by liberal and conservative. I personally think we are becoming a whinny nation that listens to the few instead of the many. The play is only the latest example of this problem. If people don’t want to see it don’t go, or they could have had an educational town hall at the end. Instead they have set a dangers president. Our country has an ugly history, the present doesn’t look to good, and if we keep trying to erase that we are doomed to repeat the mistakes.
Robert Chauncey says
I completely agree. Perhaps one of our local theaters, civic or religious organizations will work with WC toward performing this play at their facility?
Jack Gilden says
Unfortunately this is not, as you write above, a case of “well-intended” faculty and administrators. Nothing could be further from the truth! Washington College is a fine example of an organization that is rudderless and out-of-control. President Landgraf told us that he was out of town when the decision to censor was made, thus attempting to absolve himself of responsibility. But what does it say that his organization makes momentous decisions without even consulting him in the age of cellular communications? No matter, when he came back to town he admitted that he was in full agreement with his provost in censoring the play, apparently notwithstanding her Alexander-Haig like exertions of control. He supported her decision in a letter to this newspaper. Later, in a call with alumni, it was stated that the senior director agreed with the decision to censor her play. But the student, who worked for more than a year on the production, admitted to her friends that it was a lie. It was a lie, by the administration of her school, about her. SHE SAID that she never agreed with the decision to cancel.
Indeed there seems to be a lot of credence to that since President Landgraf took about a week to respond to two letters from angry production parents. If the students agreed with the censorship why would he duck their parents? Also, too, it is curious that no current faculty members have weighed in on the efficacy of the school’s conduct. Are we to believe that there is not a single professor at Washington College who was troubled by this when the public and alumni are so vocal and up in arms? Perhaps they were bullied into silence at the point of their jobs? The incident and especially its cover-up and quacky explanations are all signs that this administration including President Landgraf and Provost Diquinzio must go immediately. Keeping them on so that they may offer some half-hearted and tardy apology and a playbook for “decent” censorship policy in the future is a disaster that will only continue.
Washington College is harboring a very poor culture and the students are learning more than they bargained for as they take in these lessons of adult misconduct. None of that is ‘well-intentioned.’ It may be painful to do it for a lot of reasons but for the sake of the school it is time to sweep the cupboard clean in Chestertown. Nothing else will do.
Ron Brennian says
Basically a good and factual editorial. Of course no one wanted and probably ever anticipated the firestorm that resulted. The decision to cancel was made without considering all aspects of the situation. It was short sighted. Never once since the play was canceled has the administration come forth with the actual facts as to the chain of events and justification for their decision. As a result, everybody lost.
The theater company lost. What actor and support cast ever wants to perform to an empty theater? Kind of the point of the whole thing not to mention all the work involved and money invested.
The administration lost. The backlash was and still is intense. They suffered damage to their leadership position, embarrassment for their crossed and vague responses, the reputation of the college as a bastion of liberal arts, and possible loss of future funding and support.
The audience lost. Folks from the community, other students, alumni, etc. who were deprived of seeing the play. Some, very much looking forward to it specifically because of it’s subject matter and the message it should have sent.
The black student body lost. They may have suffered the greatest loss of all. They, we don’t know the particulars, opposed a play that opposed the KKK. That is hard for a lot of folks to understand and support. It seems counter productive. It appears the reason was because of some visual offense and fear generated by the costumes. We have also heard statements about confederate flags in Kent county, racial slurs, and other implied concerns. But again we have never heard the facts that actually caused the play to be cancelled, so how can we deal with them?
The emotion of fear is real whether there is any actual threat or not. The black student representatives got what they wanted at a very high cost to others, but the real tragedy here is that they never got to deal with the root causes of the fear itself and all of it’s associated aspects. Not providing the opportunity to explore and hopefully resolve some of these issues means that they will only repeat in other forms as we have already seen.
Even very smart people sometimes make a poor decisions. The question is, do they own up to them and do they learn anything from them? Regarding this one, a lot of folks are still waiting to find out.
Peter Moulder says
“It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears,” Louis Brandeis.
The alumni I speak with on an almost daily basis are extremely disappointed at the decision making of the senior leadership at Washington College. The foundation of a liberal arts education is free expression and the exchange of ideas. The real danger in this turn of events was not the presentation of the play, but it’s cancellation for dubious reasons. Thanks to the Spy for recognizing as much.