A little bit of common sense and a lot of stupidity

Yale University has decided that the use of mock weapons in stage productions is not really a danger to others. But before we celebrate such a common sense response to the ridicule Yale was receiving, there is this addendum to the rule.

Administrators decided Monday afternoon to require that audiences instead be informed of the use of stage weapons before the start of every performance, she said.

That's in case there were people out there who got confused between stage violence and the real thing. How ridiculous.

Some students had more common sense than the Dean of Student Affairs who was so worried about the sight of whatever weapon might have appeared in the two productions that were affected, "Red Noses," a comedy about the Black Death and the opera, "Orpheus in the Underworld." Whatever weapons those productions involve, I doubt if the audience would have been reminded of Virginia Tech. Some students pointed out the simple fact that "the policy was unlikely to assuage anxiety about Virginia Tech." Or, as my students might say. "Duh."

But that wasn't the logical argument that turned Yale around. Oh, no. That would have involved too much common sense.

So why did Yale change their minds about this ukase on only using obviously fake weapons like pink plastic swords in their productions? Apparently, it wasn't a return of common sense.

[Yale spokeswoman] Klasky said the University reversed the policy because of concerns about free speech.

"As an institution that has always valued free speech, we wanted to uphold the principles that we have always adhered to," she said.

Would someone explain to Yale that a private institution isn't bound by the First Amendment which applies to what government does, not a private university. That is why some private schools can have speech codes. Both the students complaining about a supposed abridgement of their freedom of speech and the administration agreeing with the argument would do better to just use common sense in their arguments rather than reaching for the "free speech" card. It is rather a stretch to say that brandishing a prop weapon in a play in an expression of speech. It sure seems a far cry from such classic examples of symbolic speech as wearing a black armband in school to protest the Vietnam War or burning an American flag to protest at the Republican convention. How is using a prop in a play an expression of speech? I didn't realize that all those exciting swordfights in Shakespeare and other plays were actually an expression of the actors' freedom of speech.

Of course, Yale hasn't always been so solicitous of free speech rights. In October of 2001, six weeks after 9/11, some Yale students put up a banner saying, "Kill 'em all, Let God sort 'em out," and were made to take it down by Yale officials because they thought it would offend Muslim students. After there were complaints, Yale backtracked and its president at the time, Dick Brodhead (remember him - he's now the president of Duke) mouthed his belief in freedom of speech and that it was wrong for the banner to have been taken down.

Brodhead said freedom of expression is an important principle to uphold.

"When we allow the suppression of speech in cases when it is found objectionable, we implicitly authorize restrictions that could harm free expression on other occasions," Brodhead said. "The right thing would have been to explain why the banner was objectionable and to leave its author to decide: in other words, to have made this an occasion for persuasion and education, not for censorship however well-intended.

"I have been informed that in subsequent events not reported in the Daily, these steps were in fact taken," Brodhead added.

I'm glad that Brodhead recognizes what a slippery slope it can be to ban "objectionable" speech, but what about Yale's speech code which includes this clause?

Sexual Harassment: Guide for Faculty, Students and Staff 06-07
“Hostile environment” harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working or academic environment and has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the victim’s work or study. Hostile environment sexual harassment can include sexual advances, repeated taunts regarding sexual preferences, taunting jokes directed at a person or persons by reason of their sex, obscene posters with sexual connotations and sexual favoritism in work assignments.

Any gesture or remark of a sexual nature that makes you feel uncomfortable, threatened, intimidated or pressured may be a sign that you are experiencing sexual harassment.

It certainly seems that such a code could be variously interpreted and could lead to a limitation on speech that some would find objectionable. As has indeed happened at Yale.

This would apply to the case at Yale University where a man held up a sign mocking a gay pride parade. That is just classic political speech criticizing a public event. Yet, they charged him with harassment.

So, all this concern about freedom of speech is rather elastic depending on if some people would feel offended or upset by what you say or do.

And Dean of Student Affairs, Betty Trachtenberg, made it clear

But over the weekend, Trachtenberg, who is retiring at the end of the academic year, said student criticism of the stage weapons ban had been exaggerated.

"I think people should start thinking about other people rather than trying to feel sorry for themselves and thinking that the administration is trying to thwart their creativity," Trachtenberg said. "They're not using their own intelligence. … We have to think of the people who might be affected by seeing real-life weapons."

I want to know who the people are who would have been affected by seeing Orpheus carry a weapon in the Offenbach opera even if it was staged as an Animal House-style fraternity battle. It sounds Trachtenberg is the only person overthinking such moments. These overly sensitive play-goers must have to really limit their entertainment choices.