The play, performed September 19-28, caustically derides Catholics, their methods of worship, and major tenets of the Catholic faith. In fact, several Catholic students who attended the play were so offended that they got up and walked out during the performance.
Christina Hip-Flores ’99 was so disgusted by the derogatory comments that she left only ten minutes into the play. "I thought it was going to be lighthearted, like Sister Act," she said, referring to the Whoopi Goldberg comedy, "but [this play] only invited you to laugh at the religion. The only thing you could say was, ‘Oh what a stupid religion.’" The play, written by Christopher Durang, featured a nun (Sister Mary Ignatius) talking to the audience about Catholicism and the beliefs of the Church on a variety of contemporary issues including abortion, homosexuality, marriage, birth control, and celibacy.
Liadan O’Callaghan ’98 was upset with the content of the play, charging that it ridicules beliefs that are central to her faith. "Within five minutes I felt like leaving; it was horribly offensive," she said. "Sister Mary was making fun of Jesus’ crucifixion, describing blood and gore but in such a way that she had the audience laughing about it. That is extremely offensive to a Catholic--[the crucifixion] is one of the most important parts of the faith and [Catholics] are most reverent about that. And to have the audience laughing at it!"
It would appear that the production of this type of play violates the "University Wide Regulations" from the Rights, Rules, Responsibilities booklet that serves as the guideline of acceptable behavior here at Princeton. (see cover on next page) Presumably, intolerance towards Catholics falls under the purview of these by-laws.
When approached about this issue, however, Dean of Student Life Janina Montero defended Theatre Intime’s right to put on any play they wanted. "Everybody can express any opinion they (sic) choose to express," she insisted.
This policy of neutrality towards student speech is certainly commendable. Unfortunately, it has been contradicted by the actions of the Dean of Student Life’s Office in recent cases of alleged student intolerance. Last fall, both Montero and her assistant, Lesbian Gay Bisexual (LGB) coordinator Jen Handler, wrote letters to The Daily Princetonian condemning a student because of his religious beliefs. Handler described the student's comments as "a blatant form of homophobia" and instructed him to stop being "prejudiced and intolerant" towards others. Montero herself demanded "respect for the rights, privileges, and sensibilities of other students."
In a controversial salutation, Dean Montero concluded by "reaffirming [her] support of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community."
In the face of students' complaints about the ignorance and obvious intolerance towards Catholic beliefs exhibited by Sister Mary, it is unclear why Montero has not reaffirmed her support for the Catholic community here at Princeton. It has been over a month since Pavan Ahluwalia ’99, a columnist for the Daily Princetonian, wrote an editorial criticizing Theater Intime for putting on the play. Last fall it took Dean Montero one day to reaffirm her support for the gay and bisexual community.
"The play was inappropriate," Ahluwalia said in an interview about his column. "It just wasn’t a nice thing to stage on a campus which has a tradition of tensions between various groups and various sections of the student body."
In his editorial Ahluwalia, a Hindu student, cited several of the play’s more inflammatory scenes: Sister Mary describing Jesus as effeminate, Sister Mary fantasizing about castrating a young boy, and Sister Mary shooting two people after confession in order to ‘send them to heaven.' "Those are absolutely ridiculous suggestions," Ahluwalia said.
The highly negative reaction elicited by the play’s anti-Catholic message was unexpected, according to co-director Marc Rosen ’98, who said that he, fellow director Roeg Sutherland ’97, and Theater Program Director Michael Cadden really "didn’t expect that much feedback from the plays. We were kind of surprised."
"We really didn’t think that people would be as offended as they were," Rosen said, pointing out that a director’s note in the playbill disclaimed: Don’t feel you should have to walk out of these plays with a new mission in life. We aren’t trying to correct or even depict the ills of society. We just want you to sit down, relax, and enjoy yourselves. "We just wanted people to come in and laugh and have a good time," Rosen added. He did mention, however that he was "much happier that people in my audience walked away offended than if they’d gone out just thinking, ‘Oh, that was OK.’ At least they were feeling something."
Hip-Flores and other students were displeased with the disparaging tone that was prevalent throughout the play. She suggested, "A good joke will poke fun at people or a given group and their idiosyncrasies or excesses; but a good joke never attacks the dogma." This is where Sister Mary goes wrong, she said. "A good joke never attacks what the people or group believes. That’s the main difference between this show and something that would have been in good taste."
"Durang really misrepresents Catholic beliefs in this play," O’Callaghan stated. "For example, when Sister Mary was answering questions on index cards and asks ‘Why is there suffering if God is all-good and all-powerful? Sister Mary sort of shifts nervously to the next card, implying that the Church has no answer to that question. And of course that’s totally false."
Montero's lack of attention to these issues--despite the fact that there are many more Princeton students who are Catholic than homosexual--exposes an apparent hypocrisy that is consistent with a politically correct agenda. "It really bothers me," O’Callaghan said. "If Dean Montero is unwilling to step in, then that tells me that she’s writing off how offensive [the play] is." "I think there is a double standard," Sister Mary director Rosen conceded. "There is a huge double standard. It’s definitely hypocritical that we say, ‘You can do something that makes fun of the Catholic Church, but when it comes to something like homosexuality, where it’s a minority group, you can’t do it.’"
Although Dean Montero claimed that she does not use a double standard when dealing with student concerns, she remarked "There are some groups, because of historical or current realities are, or perceive themselves to be, more vulnerable than others. I don’t think it’s a double standard, as much as the fact that different groups have gone through different processes and developments; groups have different expe riences."
While it is undeniably true that different groups have different histories, some students said the Dean of Student Life’s Office should not use this stereotyping grouping mentality as justification of a double standard to judge individuals. Many claim this approach abridges the rights of Catholic students and doesn't grant them the equal protection the university guarantees.
Ahluwalia even suggested that Catholics are one of the "more vulnerable" groups that have been historically discriminated against, adding that Dean Montero should be interested in defending them as well. "There is a strong bias against Catholics in this country and worldwide; some people don’t consider it true Christianity," he said.
"If I were the Dean of Student Life, I would definitely write a letter reaffirming my support for Catholics," Ahluwalia continued. "It’s clearly unfair for the administration to reaffirm its support for one group in the campus print media and not for another."
Dean Montero insists that she and "the University [are] trying to establish a very high standard of respect." This standard apparently permits off-color comments making fun of certain minority groups while condemning those remarks offensive to others.
Theater Intime Managing Director Tomika Stevens ’97 explained that plays must be chosen carefully based on who the material might offend. She added that Theater Intime had considered the possible uproar over Sister Mary, but had decided to do the play anyway. "If we didn’t do any touchy shows then we wouldn’t do half of the plays we do," he said.
When asked if it was conceivable that Theater Intime would ever consider doing a play that made fun--just as harshly as Durang made fun of Catholics in Sister Mary--of a minority group, Stevens gave a guarded response. "I really can’t answer that question because it depends on what group you make fun of," she said. "It should be conceivable, but in application we wouldn’t do it."
Rosen was more straightforward. "Being really liberal, which the theater community is, it’s not surprising that these plays (like Sister Mary) come out at Intime," Rosen said. Asked of the prospects of Theater Intime possibly doing a play deriding a minority group, Rosen said, "I definitely don’t think [Theater Intime] would do it."
It disturbed many students to learn that Theater Intime--an artistic group--had a clear political inclination. They noted that the bias seemed to slant the genre of plays that are produced at Murray Theater (Intime’s university-owned home) and thus limits the access of conservative and religious students to participate in mainstream drama here at Princeton. "If a group repeatedly presents one part of the university as being hostile to certain people and certain points of view, then those [excluded] people will feel like they have less access to that part of their education," Montero said. "The university needs to try to make sure there is a proper balance across the institution," she added. Montero said that not enough plays had been done to alienate any one particular group and that there was nothing that she could do. "We need to look at a period of time" before the Office of the Dean of Student Life can do anything, she said. This wait-and-see policy, however, seems oddly out of step with Montero's immediate response to the "homophobia" controversy last year.
The larger question that the university community must consider is whether the administration should remain neutral with respect to all speech or whether it should adopt an active policy of condemning offensiveness. The former is consistent with a respect for students' First Amendment rights as well as an appreciation of the difficulty in determining any objective definition of "offensive."
There is room, however, for the university to place reasonable restrictions on ‘active intolerance’ (e.g. physical harassment, gratuitous insults, incessant defamation). This does not necessarily trample on students’ First Amendment rights.
As O'Callaghan opined, "What I would ultimately like is that there would be an understanding on this campus that [the play] was just unacceptable." Indeed, in an academic environment truly free from intolerance, student groups would not actively malign other groups, demeaning and intimidating each others members.
The important thing is that Dean of Student Life's office maintain a consistent policy on the use of offensive speech. Respect for a diversity of beliefs is achieved only when all students are treated equally -- regardless of their religious, ethnic, or political status.