NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/48247

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 4.8 KB | 107 lines

Newsgroups: soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!corwin+
From: [e-mail] (Scott Safier)
Subject: Re: discrimination at CMU
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 14 Nov 92 02:03:15 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: morpheus.cimds.ri.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:52:02 GMT
Lines: 88

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Randy Clark) writes:


       As one of our resident actors, I've been meaning to
       jump into this thread, but wasn't sure where to begin.

       I think I'll choose Matthew to agree with (mostly),
       just to throw everyone for a loop.

       As I just said, I agree with Matthew here -- with the
       provision that it is certainly not CMU's business to
       second-guess their students' potential future roles,
       and that while an actor who plays, say, Stanley Kowalski
       (felicitous example!) in a non-butch way wouldn't be
       doing their job, there are probably ten non-macho
       (or not necessarily macho) male roles for every Stanley
       or Hairy Ape.

       Besides, it's the director's business to fit the 'type'
       to the role, more than it is the actor's.

       Finally, contrary to the impression Steve Dyer had, the
       original posting gave me the strong impression that
       CMU was harrassing people for their (perceived!)
       behavoir offstage, not on.  This is completely
       inexcusable -- and so typical of a closet mentality.

       I was appalled by the original story.  I think the
       discussion has gotten seriously sidetracked.

       And now I have a bus to catch.

       -R

I'm going to choose this post to forward a "letter to the editor"
which appeared in this week's Tartan.  It addresses these issues of
"acting" and what is going on at CMU.

Oh, the "controversy" at CMU has been dubbed DRAMAGATE

-- begin included article --
From Michael Witbrock

Dear Readers, and Dear Editor (of the tartan, to which I am CCing this
letter for publication)

I think that there are shades of meaning in the discussion of the
"Bloody monday" affair that do complicate the issues. It is, of
course, perfectly obvious that it should be of no particular concern
to gay, lesbian and bisexual, and woman, students whether or not the
Drama department cuts 10%, 50%, 90%, none, or all of each class, or
whether or not they are motivated by crass commercial concerns or
personal ambition in so doing.  The question is whether or not, in
carrying out this policy, the Department treats some gay men, and some
women, with prejudice.

It is patently clear that an actor should be able to act, and I think
that it is stretching things a little to claim that the ability to
temporarily suppress or reproduce particular mannerisms common in gay
male culture should not be regarded as an acceptable target, inter alia,
of acting.  The question is whether the department treats  mannerisms
associated with the culture of some members of one group (i.e., the
campy mannerisms of some gay men) differently than it would treat those
of other groups (e.g. stereotypical mannerisms and expressions of NY
Jews,  Americans,  Southerners, African Americans, the French ... ).
Would the drama department, for example, attack a black student so
viciously for imperfect adoption of the mannerisms of a culturally white
character? Would the department cut a man for not being able to
impersonate a woman with perfect fidelity?

The core of the charges brought, which I find hard to disbelieve, is
that the Drama Department has singled out campy mannerisms for attention
in a manner which has discriminatory effect against gay men, in much the
same way in which it has (apparently admittedly) used purely venal
criteria to select women with certain body types for exclusion.   Even
if it were not the case that this had been done, and the Department had
with equal enthusiasm attacked straight men and svelte women for not
being able to, respectively, swish and play ample roles, it would be
insensitive of the Department to show no apparent remorse or delicacy in
asking for the suppression of behaviours which are, for many gay men,
part of a gay identity which has been built up in the face of often
brutal attempts at its suppression.

These are certainly questions which deserve serious discussion within
the Department involved, and by the University community as a whole.

Michael Witbrock
School of Computer Science