Free speech surrendered: Corpus Christi at Tarleton State

The cancellation of Terrence McNally’s play Corpus Christi by Tarleton State University, under pressure from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and others, is an affront to academic freedom and First Amendment principles of free speech.

The play was denounced by Tarleton’s president, Dominic Dottavio, who called it “crude and irreverent.”  Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst opined that “no one should have the right to use government funds or institutions to portray acts that are morally reprehensible to the vast majority of Americans.”

Even a play that depicts conduct considered “morally reprehensible” or “irreverent” by some is fully protected under the First Amendment, which prohibits the enforcement of any specific view of religion or morality.  It is deeply troubling that people in leadership roles – a university president and high elected official – should display such disregard for, if not ignorance of, basic constitutional principles.

The University claims that the play’s cancellation was due to concerns over “safety and security” because of threatening emails.  Even if that were the real reason for the cancellation, it is hardly a legitimate excuse.  By giving in to threats of violence, the University only encourages them.  Our constitution envisions reasoned discourse as the way to resolve disputes, not threats designed to intimidate and silence discussion and debate.

The Catholic League has been in the business of attacking Corpus Christi since 1998 when the play premiered at The Manhattan Theater Club; threats of violence were also reported then, but the play was presented without incident.  Corpus Christi has since been produced on college campuses many times without incident, even in the face of a lawsuit to halt production at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne and legislative threats to cut Florida Atlantic University’s funding.  In these and other cases, the play was, correctly, allowed to go on. Tarleton State’s cancellation of the play stands in marked contrast, as an affront to our constitutional right to speak freely and to make our own decisions about the value of a painting, book, or play.

We urge Tarleton State University to re-schedule the play, not only to salvage its reputation as a university that supports the American tradition of intellectual freedom, but to demonstrate its refusal to cave in to the threat of political and religious attacks.

About Blog of the National Coalition Against Censorship

Blogging Censorship is where National Coalition Against Censorship staff weigh in on the censorship issues on their minds.
This entry was posted in Svetlana Mintcheva: Author and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Free speech surrendered: Corpus Christi at Tarleton State

  1. T Hill says:

    ‘The play was denounced by Tarleton’s president, Dominic Dottavio, who called it “crude and irreverent.” Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst opined that “no one should have the right to use government funds or institutions to portray acts that are morally reprehensible to the vast majority of Americans.”’

    I guess no more public-funded Shakespeare, Ibsen, Euripides, Tennesee Williams, etc. in Texas.

  2. Robert says:

    There is a big difference here. People have the right…so long as they are not offending others. This is what everyone seems to forget. You don’t just have “carte-blanche” to do or say anything you want. This freedom of speech and all the other “freedoms” people are claiming is getting out of hand. If you think that freedom is a “right”, make sure you understand how this “right” was originally written into law and the basis of it.

  3. Heather says:

    The limitations to freedom of speech are:
    defamation
    causing panic
    fighting words
    incitement to crime
    sedition
    obscenity

    In this case, the closest limitation may be obscenity, however, the definition for obscenity, quoted from a wiki, is:

    The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[2]

    It is not about making sure others are not offended.

  4. JakeH says:

    And people like to claim that Christians don’t make terrorist threats …

    PS: And don’t give me that “offensive speech is not free speech” crap. The fact that people would threaten death over the concept of a gay Jesus is offensive to plenty as well.

  5. Pingback: A Conversation with Edward Albee, David Henry Hwang, Terrence McNally and Adam Rapp « Blogging Censorship

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s