From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: discrimination at CMU
Date: 11 Nov 1992 10:34:31 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <CORWIN+.92Nov11120016@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU> 
corwin+@CMU.EDU (Scott Safier) writes:
> In article <1dp84bINN550@mizar.usc.edu>
> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
> >If an actor is in such poor control of
> >his voice and body that he camps it up during every scene,
> >then I really don't care how much "talent" he has.
>
> CMU's policy of nondiscrimination includes sexual orientation.

That's irrelevant.

> Acting is a form of art.  Art, as with anything creative, is an
> expression of some aspect of one's self. [...]

Yeah, so what?

> To tell an actor or any creative person not to bring something as
> intimate as their sexuality into their work is asking them to deny that
> sexuality.  

Nonsense.  If an actor were to copy *my* voice and physical
mannerisms while playing Stanley Kowalski, I wouldn't hesitate
to give him a big, fat F.  The sexual orientation of the student
actors is not what's in question here.

> If a director/writer/producer/etc does not like their
> expression of a piece, then they have the right to get another person
> for the part.  Those are the breaks.  But CMU's role is to refine a
> person's talent, not criticize their sexuality or ask them to change.

CMU's role is to turn out polished, professional actors.
Their role is to ask students to (re)learn how to walk, 
how to talk, how to move their bodies, how to stand still,
how to cry, how to laugh, how to listen, how to sing, how
to dance.  A student actor who refuses or is incapable of
retraining his or her body and/or voice has failed the
program.  Period.

> I find the implication that it is OK to force someone to deny their
> sexuality repugnant, and that is what I view as going on in Drama.

I don't see that students are being forced to deny their
sexuality.  I see them as being forced to train their
bodies and voices.

> "One of the first things you hear is if they can tell you are gay
> onstage you're in big trouble.  I've seen kids here who are tortured
> about it."  This is what a current told Stantin in his article (too bad
> you didn't read it, David). 

Yeah, so what?  I'm sure the department would single out
students who speak non-standard English, too.  And rightly so.

> This student told Stantin that there are
> times it is the sole response to someone's work.  "There was a student
> who was told, 'Your acting work is fine, you're picking up the
> technique, but you look effeminate and we can't have that."

Again, so what?  The student was told what it was he had
to change.  That's what the big bad world of acting is
like.  I'm sure that a student opera singer whose vocal
production is superb but whose Italian pronunciation is 
abysmal would be told to work on the accent because "we
can't have that." 

> >> Third, from the Theater Week article on the above "campy" student,
> >> "But Eric had not done any "campy" scenes, and in terms of physical
> >> strength, he was one of the more muscular men in our class, the only
> >> one, gay or straight, who regularly visited CMU's gym."
>
> >Oh, puh-leeze. 
>
> So, you believe it is OK for people in the performing arts to be
> discriminated against if they are gay?

No.  I do believe that it's OK for people in acting 
school to be forced to retrain their voices and bodies,
and that if they refuse or are incapable of doing 
that to the satisfaction of the school, then they've
failed.  

Arne


Newsgroups: soc.motss