Master of Two Servants:  the Script vs. the Community

by Miriam Mills
Rider University

During a plenary session in Denver at the last Association for Theater in Higher Education Conference on “Manifestos on Subjects We Don’t Want to Talk About,” Jill Dolan of Princeton University eloquently questioned casting choices in many of our undergraduate theater institutions.   Professor Dolan implied that “color-blind” casting is a simple task and our cultural climate is such that ignoring this practice is unacceptable and even ridiculous (Dolan).  On returning home from Denver, I received a rider to our contract from Dramatists Play Service, which holds the rights to “The Pillowman,” informing us that, under no circumstances, may we change the sex of any character in our production of the play (personal communication, 2008).  These two events began a thought process on casting in educational theater and the legal, moral and ethical implications implicit in our directorial and artistic decisions.  What is the potential clash between the director and the community within which she operates?  I started to question what types of accommodations are acceptable as well as which, if any, non-traditional casting choices are suitable in our educational community.

When considering religious accommodation, it occurred to me that the political demands of the educational environment are often in direct opposition to the artistic demands of the script.  Many examples come to mind.  What if an orthodox Jewish student auditions for a role in a university’s upcoming musical and the young man clearly states on his audition form that he is unable to rehearse on Friday evenings and Saturday during the day?  The young man further states that he is unwilling to perform on Friday nights and is asking for an accommodation.  Is the university required to grant him this?  The effect of this accommodation is not minor.  The student will miss at least 20% of all rehearsals and the cast would be required to adjust to a different actor for every Friday night performance.  A young Muslim woman shows up at an audition for “Sweet Charity” wearing a Hijab on her head.  The director is concerned about the willingness of this young woman to wear a skimpy, revealing costume.  Does the director even have the right to ask about her willingness?  If she refuses to wear a designed costume, are we required to accommodate her religious values?  A conservative Christian student attending a university in Texas is cast in a show and is refusing to utter certain “offensive” words written in the script.  Is the director’s first obligation to maintain the integrity of the script or to accommodate the student’s religious sensibilities?

Casting dilemmas are not limited to religion.  For example, let us imagine that a university in Massachusetts has decided to stage Sean O’Casey’s “Plough and the Stars.”  At the same time, a college in South Carolina is planning to mount Ed Bullins’ “In the Wine Time.”  In the first instance, is casting students of color acceptable or even appropriate?  Clearly, integrating casting in Ed Bullins’ play would distort Mr. Bullins’ intent.  Is race-appropriate casting acceptable under the above circumstances?  When “color-blind” casting defies historic credibility should it even matter in an educational environment and will fear of litigation force public educational institutions to forgo even producing these scripts?

Some might suggest that researching how these issues are handled in the professional world is the first step in deciding on a path towards appropriate action.  It is well known in theater circles that last year Broadway mounted a successful production of William Inge’s “Come Back Little Sheba” with the famous African-American actress S. Epatha Merkerson in the traditionally white role of Lola.  This play was first produced in 1950 and is supposed to take place in a “mid-western city” (Inge; original program).  It is historically accurate that, during this time period, an inter-racial couple in a mid-western city would never be tolerated, and yet audiences and critics were willing to “suspend their disbelief.”  While doing research on this topic, I was struck by how few reviewers even brought up the race issue at all.  For example, Associated Press, Variety and the New Yorker never even mentioned the unorthodox casting.  New York’s two major papers did, but only in passing.  “That Ms. Merkerson is an African-American in a predominantly white cast only underscores the sense of Lola’s enforced passivity,” said Ben Brantley of the New York Times (Brantley, January 25, 2008).  Joe Dziemianowicz of the Daily News had a similar reaction.  “Though never overtly referenced, the fact that Merkerson is black and Anderson is white adds dimension to the Manhattan Theater Club’s presentation and suggests why Doc and Lola are so isolated (Dziemianowicz, January 25, 2008).”  The implication here is that it does not matter what may have been historically relevant 60 years ago; today is a new day and our values have changed.

Artistic casting considerations are complicated by federal and state anti-discrimination laws.  The defense of “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ) allows for intentional discrimination in employment in the narrow circumstances where such discrimination is “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)(1). This provision of Title VII limits the BFOQ defense to intentional discrimination on the basis of gender, national origin, and religion; race is specifically excluded from this section. Id.; Swint v. Pullman-Standard, 624 F.2d 525, 535 (5th Cir.1980), overruled on other grounds by 456 U.S. 273, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982) (“We believe that the omission of race and color as [BFOQs] was deliberate and intentional on the part of Congress.”); Miller, 615 F.2d at 652 (acknowledging that race is “conspicuously absent” from the BFOQ provision). Thus, the BFOQ defense is not available in race discrimination EMPLOYMENT cases. Swint, 624 F.2d at 535.   Where the production is in an academic setting and the actors are unpaid students, this rule doesn’t seem to directly apply.  However, federal law does forbid discrimination in higher education and the federal courts might very apply the same rule in an appropriate case concerning a college production.

The issue of casting outside of historical or realistic boundaries could easily come up when dealing with students who have disabilities.  Can we cast the talented student as Lemmings in “Take Me Out” if that student happens to be in a wheelchair?  Is creating reality our first obligation as educators?  What about equal opportunity?  Is everyone guaranteed equal casting rights?  Most educators would agree that the more stage time a student has, the greater the growth.  If this is the case, is it fair to reject the student who cannot commit to the demands of the script based on his religious beliefs or physical limitations when other, more appropriate, students are available to fill the roles?  How do we evaluate our obligations as educators seeking to promote racial and ethnic blindness and general equality with our artistic obligations to the text and to the playwright’s intent?  On the other hand, what community risks do we encounter if we strictly adhere to the playwright’s wishes?

To further complicate this issue, the next logical question may be:  Should ugly or overweight be treated as a disability?  It is common among colleges to cast the tall, slender, attractive (and often white) student, male or female, as the lead.  The less attractive, heavier albeit equally talented student is often relegated to playing the older characters – mother, father, etc.  We, as directors, are so often driven by superficial, television inspired ideals of beauty that we continue this practice into educational theater casting decisions.  Many of us seem unwilling to accept the traditionally less attractive for leads, perhaps afraid of really daring to be different or of being judged harshly ourselves.  Professor Dolan asked “Why should a university acting program conform to the most egregious racial and body-type profiling practices of the mainstream profession (Dolan)?”  I can imagine that the question of whether ugly is a disability will soon become moot because it is a foregone conclusion that universities will soon have to legally deal with the wealthy, irate father who is threatening to sue the school unless his less attractive daughter is cast in a lead.  “I demand an equal education for my child, and I pay $30,000 a year, just like the father of the thin, attractive student.”  Is there a moral imperative at play here?  Are our casting decisions completely text driven or are they more often culturally based?  If we offer college credit for participation in our productions, as many of us do, are we, therefore, obligated to cast based on talent and nothing more?  If a faculty member’s production serves as the basis for promotion and tenure, will that faculty member be willing to take casting risks?

The first line of defense for some directors might be that we cast all those students who are accepted in our programs and it just so happens that all the students that we choose are white, slender and attractive.  The quick answer here might be the “we only admit students who fulfill certain standards” but isn’t this a dangerous and clearly illegal practice?  Also, even if schools do not discriminate against students of color or certain body types in their admissions practices, what are their behaviors when the students are accepted?  I decided to research this and contacted numerous well-known theater institutions that offer undergraduate degrees from across the country.  I contacted faculty from SUNY Oswego, Brigham Young, U. Of Missouri, U of Colorado and Rutgers University, Mason Gross School of the Arts among others.  The first place I searched for answers was in the process an educational institution undergoes in choosing their theatrical season.  How are repertory choices made?  The process for picking a theatrical season varies from college to college.  In some smaller institutions, the choice is based on the individual interests and talents of the director/faculty member.  In most major schools though, a committee meets and attempts to create a season that takes into account the abilities of the students with the intellectual, artistic and educational wishes of the institution.  For example, a committee will have a basic framework for choosing their season (one classic, one musical, one contemporary play and one BFA was typically cited).  Once the framework is established, the committee takes requests from the directors and balances that with the demands of the community.  These committees then evaluate what has been done recently and assess if it is again time to, for example, “produce another Greek tragedy.”  (personal telephone communications, October 13-17, 2008)

A number of faculty cited huge differences between the desires of the PhD faculty and the MFA faculty.  The battle to balance the scholarly needs of the community with the talents of the students was mentioned numerous times.  Another concern discussed was the need to balance what the community wanted vs. the desires of the artistic staff.  Because so many schools are not totally funded by the university and must count on ticket sales to make budget, being audience driven was an important factor.  What was most comforting to me in talking to the various faculties was the number one cited reason for making repertory choices.  That factor was the ability, resources and time constraints of the technical staff.  In every instance, and in every school contacted, the designers and technical director had veto power over play selection (personal telephone conversations, Oct. 13-17, 2008).

My next question involved accommodation for religious purposes.  I gave each faculty the three examples of the Orthodox Jew, the modest Muslim and the Conservative Christian mentioned in page one.  I was surprised to learn that religious accommodation was considered routine.  Most schools said that in the instance of the Orthodox Jew, an accommodation would be made for rehearsals but not for performances or tech rehearsals.  But one university even said that they would welcome the chance to double cast and have a different actor for Friday evening performances.  As for the modest Muslim example, the schools said that they would be willing to revisit a costume choice for the student and try to accommodate her religious concerns, if at all possible.  The faculty had the most trouble with the third example of the conservative Christian (personal telephone communication, Oct. 13-17, 2008).

The issue of altering the text to accommodate language concerns was an uncomfortable topic for many.  “Never!”  “Never came up.”  “It depends.”  “Is the language part of the character of is it a casual reference?”  “I don’t change scripts.”  “We sign a contract that says we cannot change scripts.”  “If I don’t notice, then I don’t care.”  “Probably not.”  “Is my answer going to be published?”  One faculty reminded me that they have an “as-cast” policy that reflects how casting is done in professional theater.  In an “as-cast” contract, the student has to do it, as long as they are told, upon acceptance to the institution, that this is university policy.  Clearly, the conservative Christian is not easily accommodated at many of the institutions interviewed (personal telephone communications, Oct. 13-17, 2008).

The question of how schools deal with “color-blind” casting was also surprising.  In 100% of the schools contacted, all stated that casting non-traditionally was routine and completely acceptable.  One faculty spoke about her willingness to cast a student of color in “The Diary of Anne Frank.”  None seemed concerned that the production might not be historically accurate.  Every school gave me examples of how students of color were given parts based on their talent rather then the color of their skin.  The only issue that remains unclear is how large of a role students of color receive.  Dr. Dolan stated “I rarely saw graduate students in our program color-blind cast in comparably meaty theatre-historical roles.  The undergrads fared far worse, as the very few students of color routinely turned up as servants or backdrops, in productions that conformed to conventional casting and staging practices (Dolan).”  The schools contacted would strongly disagree with Dr. Dolan’s concerns.  All vowed that they cast based on talent, not color (personal telephone communications, Oct. 13-17).

The one area that showed some indifference to the playwright’s intent was in regard to the changing the gender of a character.  Most schools admitted to doing this routinely and were comfortable with the practice as long as it didn’t get in the way of appropriately telling the story.

Casting a wheelchair bound actor had the most disagreements.  “Under the right circumstances.”  “Sure, we cast handicapped students all the time.”  “It depends on the play.”  “Nope, it doesn’t make any sense.”  “Only if it makes sense with the text.”  “Not for a contemporary play.”  “Maybe, but the circumstances would have to be right (personal telephone communication, Oct. 13-17, 2008).”

Given these practices, what opinions and rights do playwrights have?  The law clearly upholds the rights of the playwright to insist that his or her artistic property be untouched. The fear that lack of adherence to the script can dilute it to the point where it becomes unrecognizable is an understandable concern.  And directors are taught in graduate school that the first job of the director is to respect and adhere to the intentions of the playwright.  I thought it might be useful to ask two playwrights their opinions of the clash between the script and the community in regards to casting.  I interviewed two nationally recognized playwrights for this article.  William Masrosimone is an Emmy Award winning writer whose works include “Woolgatherer”,” Extremities”, “Shivaree” and “Bang Bang You’re Dead” to name a few.  Rebecca Basham is the Sundance Award and Michael Kanin National Playwrighting Award winner of Lot’s Daughters and Wrinkles. Mastrosimone derides the audition process in general.  He does not believe that the limited time given an actor to ‘strut their stuff’ is sufficient to make an intelligent casting choice.  He also views casting to studying chemistry.  He reminded me that if I remembered the periodic table, I would recall that chemicals, when combined with other chemicals, interact and become something else entirely.  When asked if an accommodation was acceptable for the conservative Christian, Mastrosimone responded with “I would not allow anyone to change the language of my play.  I would welcome a conversation but I would not allow it (Mastrosimone personal interview, Oct. 9, 2008).”  Basham was a bit more flexible and noted that if the character spoke a curse word casually, than she might consider some minor adaptations.  “For “Wrinkles”, I would make no accommodation for language but for “Lots Daughters”, I might consider it (Basham personal interview, Oct. 3, 2008).”

The question of non-traditional casting in regards to ‘color-blind’ choices was similar.  “Some choices can be left open to the director, sometimes it must be considered when realizing the text.  For a play like “Trojan Women,” type and race are perhaps less relevant than in “Lots Daughters,” claimed Basham (Basham).  When Mastrosimone was specifically asked if Marjorie, the lead in “Extremities,” could be played by a woman of color, he responded with “absolutely” and told me that when Karen Allen was playing the part in New York and was injured, the producers asked if a very famous African-American actress could replace her.  He was very comfortable with that choice.  This particular actress eventually declined the offer.  Mastrosimone was much more concerned with type then with color when his plays are cast.  He told me that, for example, “Raul must not be too large.  He has to appear non-threatening, charming.  Shivaree can be a woman of color but she must be southern (Mastrosimone).”   Both playwrights were adamant that sometime the script requirements were such that non-traditional casting would alter the intention of the play.  Mastrosimone said that in “The Stone Carver” for instance, the father must look Italian (Mastrosimone) and Basham noted that the preacher in “Lots Daughters” should reflect the ethnicity of rural Kentucky.   “Body type is mostly irrelevant to me.  But, if, for instance, the actor is obese, he has to be so good that to not cast him would be unconscionable (Basham).”    Both playwrights consider audience response to typecasting and are concerned with what the audience will accept.  Basham said that audiences were much more willing to accept change and non-traditional choices then audiences 20 years ago.

The question of casting disabled actors in traditional roles had an interesting response from Dr. Basham.  “”My younger sister is in a wheelchair, so I really don’t want to discriminate.  But if you bring a wheelchair bound person onto the stage and it is not, in any way, acknowledged in the script, that can be a big problem of believability (Basham).”  Mastrosimone agreed and said “I don’t think Marjorie can be effective if she is in a wheelchair, but perhaps some brilliant director can make me believe (Mastrosimone).”

The irony of this dialogue came when discussing gender-changes for the characters they create.  You may recall that when I interviewed faculty from around the country for this article, all admitted to a willingness to change the gender of a character if necessary to create equal opportunities for the female students.  This is the one area where both Basham and Mastrosimone were clear in their dislike of this practice.  “It defeats the purpose of the play to change the sex.  In “Bang, Bang,” to change the sex of the killer defeats the intention of the play (Mastrosimone).”  For Basham, she was even more adamant.  “Cross-gender casting is for me, a non-negotiable issue.  I would not allow it (Basham).”

Philosophically, both writers were concerned with how freedom for playwrights will be viewed in 20 years.  “I think freedom as a writer is diminishing all over the world,” states Basham.  “Good taste should be a consideration but there is a great danger in catering to the community.  It will eventually destroy theater (Basham).”  Mastrosimone quoted a director from Carnegie Mellon Mladen Kiselov who said, “The stage is a battlefield of ideas and it is up to the playwright to see that it is a fair fight (qtd in Mastrosimone interview).”

To help guide us to an intelligent, thoughtful approach to these dilemmas, the governing boards of the Educational Theatre Association (ETA), the Association of Theatre in Higher Education (ATHE) and the American Alliance of Theatre and Education created a document entitled “Statement on Freedom of Expression, to set the stage for a “best-practices” policy.  As part of the text this document suggests that scripts “should be selected for their capacity to inform, educate, enlighten and engage the interest of the school theater community” and that no material should “be excluded on the basis of the race, gender, nationality or sexual orientation of the author or another creative participant (CFTE Statement).”  And yet the third statement of the policy clearly deals with the issue of accommodation in regards to the Christian student who does not wish to utter certain “offensive” words.  “The right of free expression does not encompass a right to make changes in another artist’s work without permission,” warning that to do otherwise is a violation of copyright laws (CFTE).  Alas, the document does not venture into enough detail to answer the questions of the young man in the wheelchair or the Muslim woman refusing to wear a certain costume.  The text does say, “The right of free expression includes the right to refrain from speech or performance that is contrary to one’s personal values.  Theatre educators should be prepared to offer alternative performance opportunities, where practical, to accommodate students who have sincere and conscientious objections to performing specific material in a production (CFTE).”  This allows the student to refuse without being penalized but does not spell out what type of alternative performance opportunities might be acceptable.

The ATHA document also does not give the reader a great deal of guidance in respect to casting concerns.  In item 7 of the Guidelines for theatre faculty and staff, the board states that a goal for educators should encompass the “Consideration of community expectations and attitudes in the selection of study and performance materials (CFTE).”  I take this to mean that it is up to the individual director to make choices that are sensitive to the needs of the community.  But the concern for maintaining the author’s intention is not mentioned and must be taken into account.  The question that needs to be asked is if the artistic decision is based on the needs of the play, the cultural climate of the community, or the prejudices of the individual director.  Is adherence to historical reality vital to maintaining the integrity of the script or, as in the case of “Come Back Little Sheba,” unnecessary and even unwise?  Granted, common sense must come into play here.  Ed Bullins and Sean O’Casey need text driven casting choices but many plays do not.  This author cast an African-American as the prosecuting attorney of Oscar Wilde in “Gross Indecency.”  It was not historically realistic but the needs of the educational community were greater than the need for historical accuracy.   We need, as Dr. Dolan suggested, to analyze our choices.  The 600-pound gorilla is not leaving so easily.

In my opinion, common sense and a basic fairness must be equal partners when making artistic decisions.  Audiences are clearly changing and young people are often willing to accept what is offered.  If an audience can accept a stage ‘freeze’ why wouldn’t they be willing to accept non-traditional casting?

Furthermore, as I noted earlier, the law may take an interest in the choices we make.  In the past few years, we have seen a case in which a very religious student actor refused to recite profane lines and, as a result lost her scholarship (cite); another case in which no less than the US Supreme Court held that a disabled professional golfer could compete, navigating the course in his wheelchair (cite); and still another case in which a Jewish high school student and his parents sued a music teacher for selecting Christian choral music for a school performance. (cite).

But in the final analysis, even in the face of potential litigation, as artists we serve the play.  Sometimes boldly, sometimes, reverentially, but we must never forget our obligations to tell the story as the playwright intended.

Works Cited

Basham, Rebecca.  Interview.  Lawrenceville, New Jersey, 10 October, 2008.

Brantley, Ben.  “So Quiet You Can Hear a Heart Stop.”  Rev. of Come Back Little

Sheba.  New York Times, 25, January, 2008.

Coalition on Theatre Education “Statement on Freedom of Expression in Academic

Theatre.”  ATHE Website.  www.athe.org/resources/advocacyinfobank/cfte express.  September, 2008.

Dolan, Jill.  “Elephants in the Room.”  ATHE Convention.  Denver, 1 August, 2008.

Dramatists Play Service.  Personal communication.

Dziemianowicz, Joe.  “Little Sheba back on B’way.”  Rev. of Come Back Little Sheba.

Daily News, 25, January 2008.

Inge, William.  Come Back Little Sheba.   New York:  Samuel French, 1951.

Mastrosimone, William.  Telephone interview.  9 October, 2008.

Personal telephone communications.  13-17 October, 2008.