The theater faculty recently vetoed a months-old decision to allow a student production of “After the End”— a show featuring sexual and profane situations. The faculty ruled that the show violated Pepperdine’s Christian mission and that another show must be chosen. Because of this decision, there has been a rather healthy amount of discussion among students regarding Pepperdine’s policy of censoring content.
Pardon me if I seem to unduly focus on the Theatre Department, for I’m sure that this event is only one instance, in one department, in which Pepperdine’s code of ethics clashed with the students’ desires to express themselves in the creative arts. Nor do I think it will be an isolated incident. No, because of Pepperdine’s ambiguous, yet clearly conservative values, department heads will always be picky about the content that is displayed on their stages. And they have this right: to control, contain and censor material that they feel does not exude the “Pepperdine Mission.”
It is not my intention to, say, “chastise” the Pepperdine’s faculty or Board of Regents, but instead to acknowledge the pitfalls and setbacks that this atmosphere creates.
So I bet you are wondering, “Well, Zach, what are these so-called pitfalls? Why can’t these individuals just wait until post-grad to explore these off-limit realms?”
My response to that would be: We have and we will, but we shouldn’t have to.
Pepperdine is an academic institution whose credo is “the truth has nothing to fear from investigation.” It should do this in all its realms of academia, not just with the sciences but with the arts as well. By creating an atmosphere of censorship in plays and the visual arts, we are telling students that certain stories are worth telling and others should be hidden from view.
I know the Theatre Department has been chastised by the upper echelons of Pepperdine administration for plays with unseemly language. Take for instance the rather recent production of “Rabbit Hole,” by David-Lindsey Abaire, which included some indelicate words that spurred certain administrators to leave during intermission. Yet, is this language not real? Is this not reflective of real life, real hurt, real anger? That we lash out, that we hurt others, that our words are at times harsher than our actions and that our actions can be ugly?
My mother is devoutly Christian, but when she gets mad she curses like the dirtiest of sailors. Her faults make her human. To characterize her in any other manner would only do a disservice to her and everyone else watching. They cannot learn from her being perfect. We simply cannot be moved by characters that don’t exhibit realistic emotions or reactions.
But to give Pepperdine credit where credit is due, “Rabbit Hole” made it to the stage, meaning it passed the complicated process and its merits eventually outweighed the occasional harsh language. Yet, there is an inconsistency in this choice.
Drawing from past experience in the department, I conclude that Pepperdine will as a whole put up with productions with bloody violence and mild language, but anything sexual in nature is held at arms length. (Is Pepperdine ashamed of this aspect of humanity?)
Following this logic, we should avoid all forms of expression that reveal the flaws and vulnerabilities of the human character. So should we not read Nathaniel Hawthorne’s infamous “The Scarlet Letter” because Hester is an adulterer? I doubt anyone, especially here at Pepperdine, would argue that we should not read the Bible because of its indelicate material.
Meanwhile, as the Art Department is prohibited from sketching live nudes, pre-med students are allowed to study fully nude cadavers over in the Natural Science Division. But this is fitting, because it would be silly for them to go into their field of choice unprepared for what the job entails, which is working with the human body. (“Turn your head and cough.”) Yet, many art students express very similar sentiments of unpreparedness.
It’s not my intention to pretentiously educate about the gloriousness of “the arts,” but simply to postulate that it doesn’t deserve the status of second-class citizen.
Art is our soul trying to connect by any means possible. Whether it be singing at Coffee House or writing for the school newspaper, we want our voices heard. Are only opinions that coincide with the small group of individuals in some boardroom going to be allowed to be shared? If we don’t talk like them or have stories that are too real for them to want to see, do we not get to be heard?
Every story deserves to be heard; every voice, even a whisper, has value. We must listen to them so that we might understand them; understand them so that we might better understand ourselves. We should be a light on the hill for our unabashed attempt to display the world as it is, not only as we would wish it. It is only when we face the evils within our world that we can face them and hope to change them.
