Luckily for him, the bank president who wrote this foolishness in 1969 didn’t sign his name to it…Ah, my old college days!
My attention has been drawn recently to two essays by college students, both presumably sent to me on the theory (or hope) that reading them would kill me. The first, published in the Drexel Triangle (the student paper), argues that stage directors should be prevented from casting actors who look the way the playwright envisioned them. The second, published in the Harvard Crimson, makes an even more disturbing assertion: its author asserts that Harvard should stop guaranteeing professors and students the right to advocate controversial views or pursue research that challenges liberal views and assumptions.
I don’t want to devote the bulk of this post to rebutting these two essays, which are, I think self-rebutting. In the theatrical essay, student actress Alyssa Stover argues that a stage director shouldn’t have the right to decide that, say, casting an Asian dwarf as black boxer Jack Johnson in “The Great White Hope” would lead to a less effective production (that is my example, not hers—she objects to a director of “Cabaret” refusing to cast African-Americans as a matter of historical accuracy):
“These arguments are fundamentally flawed. What the audience wants is almost impossible to measure because the “audience” is composed of anyone who can get a ticket. A director or producer’s right to deny someone a role due to their appearance is debatable because this is a judgment based on one person’s preferences and may not actually create something that is stage worthy. The current status quo allows people to be barred from the stage due to physical “flaws,” as determined by the direction. These judgments are not harmless, and when the issue of race is involved, the problem only gets bigger.”
Ugh. The director is charged with deciding how best to craft a production of a play so that it has the entertainment value and impact that the playwright intended and the material is capable of conveying. Choosing actors who are physically appropriate for the role is part of that responsibility. Stover is arguing that a leader has no right to lead—wrong, and obviously so—and that the goal of affirmative action, and race/gender/size/age/appearance neutral casting to further some utopian social goal should take priority over the success and integrity of the art itself. Her argument is, in essence, “my priorities are the right priorities, because I say so.” It reflects single-minded zealotry, leading to absurd conclusions: the goal of art is not good art, but equity of employment opportunities.
Sandra Korn, the Harvard Crimson bomb-thrower, makes just as much sense, which is to say, none. The crux of her well-written, clearly-expressed manifesto is this:
“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”? Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.”
Korn is even easier to rebut than Stover. She is really arguing for censorship by the majority: there is no “university community” with a monolithic sense of what constitutes racism, sexism, and heterosexism….or justice. I’d guess that a majority of Harvard’s professors, grad students and students believe that most criticism of President Obama is racist, for example. Korn would argue, based on her words here, that a political science paper explaining, through theory, research and analysis, why the President appears to be incapable of competent leadership (I would write just such a paper) should be prohibited by policy. Who is she, or anyone, to decide definitively what a university should regard as “justice”? Her belief is that what isolated academics and know-it-all 20-year-olds (I have some experience with this particular community) have decreed as the One Truth should be protected and elevated to the status of gospel….at an institution that purports to teach critical thought, inquiry and debate. She wants Harvard to become an echo chamber of echoes she personally find comfortable. The arrogance is staggering; then again, who among us wasn’t arrogant at her age?
I find myself wondering what forces in the culture lead intelligent young people to embrace such nonsense, but here is the point: it shouldn’t matter. They are young and this is college: holding off-the-wall opinions is what college is for (unless Korn runs the college, in which case no one is allowed to prove what she thinks is true is actually wacko baloney.) The odds are that by the time Stover and Korn have been around the block a few times, they will look back on those published pieces as the intellectually bankrupt and ethically offensive junk that they are. Employers, however, will discover their rantings. If they run for office, or are up for high level appointments, these silly words and rash theories will haunt them, and quite possibly impede their careers. That is wrong and unfair, I think.
College should be a time when a student can take a far left (or far right position), argue it passionately, and wait to have his or her head handed to him on a platter. It should be a time when having a half-baked opinion has no consequences beyond the immediate. It should be a time when mistakes are quickly forgotten, and permitted to become the seeds of growth and wisdom.The internet, however, not only preserves such moments of excess, but also makes students premature targets of professional punditry, and they should not be.
I don’t have a solution, but the colleges, and society in general, need to work on finding one. Students need a place to be safely radical, doctrinaire, passionate, irrational, and stupid without risking serious negative consequences later in life. I forgive you for being idiots, Alyssa, Sandra. I’m sure you’ll come around in time. Everyone else, however, might not be so reasonable.
Ethics Alarms 
The casting one mirrors a discussion I was having with nerd friends about casting in comic book movies. Specifically, the upcoming Fantastic Four movie has cast a black actor in the role of Johnny Storm and a white actress as his sister, Sue (both are white in the comics). The article that sparked the debate snarked a headline to the tune of “It’s easier to believe that a man can fly while igniting himself or a woman can be invisible than to believe one of them is adopted?”
The point being, though, that there’s a range. I don’t particularly care about this casting (well, I don’t care about the FF in general) because sure, whatever, one’s adopted, it’s not part of their character. When Samuel L Jackson was cast as Nick Fury (again, originally white) he was a great choice- his persona so obviously fit the character that his race was irrelevant. Because the current films are set present-day, it’s no longer relevant that the orginal Fury being a high-ranking military official in the 50s would mean he had to be white. Then you have the Thor movies, which cast a black man as the Norse god Heimdall (who, in the comics, is a suit of armor with a black cosmic field in place of a face). That one struck me as weird, because a culture’s gods generally reflect who they are, and it’s jarring to say that the pale norse would come up with a random black god.
Anyway, that’s my nerdy version of saying sometimes changing the standard casting is irrelevant, sometimes you’ve got someone to cast who is so perfect you make the exception even if it’s a bit off, and sometimes there’s a reason that was the standard in the first place.
Agree, and a good director, rather than a political correctness addled actress, is able to tell the difference. Black Willy Loman? No biggie. That play isn’t about race. Asian Jack Johnson? Idiotic. Black jurors in 12 Angry Men, which is about, in part, an all-white jury coming to terms with bigotry? A scar on the play. Black Mozart? Oh, so what? Black Lincoln? Insane. It’s not hard to draw these lines. Personally, I don’t care much for black Josephines with white fathers in “HMS Pinafore,” a story about Victorian class bias, but if the perfect actress/singer for the role happened to be black, yes, I’d cast her—it’s a comedy and Gilbert and Sullivan is in its own world anyway. Heimdall as black—Ok. Dr. Strange? She-Hulk? Sub-Mariner? Batman? Flash? Sure. I would have trouble with a black Wonder Woman. Greek princesses…hard to believe in.
They did a black guy as a Green Lantern, but never would as the Hulk- having a black character that goes on incoherent stamping bestial rampages is just BEGGING someone to accuse you of racism. A black She-Hulk might work, though, since she remains intelligent and coherent in Hulk form.
Well, for the record, Nick Fury being black IS actually rooted in the comics. There was a long-running series (“Ultimate Avengers”, IIRC) where he was drawn that way, and the Marvel movies that featured Lawrence Fishburne just used that version of the Avengers as their basis. They didn’t just cast a black actor at random because he’s a good actor.
Likewise, a black Green Lantern comes directly from the comics, too. Hal Jordan, Guy Gardner, and Kyle Raynor were white but John Stewart (no relation to the Daily Show host) was always a black man.
Casting a black Johnny Storm, on the other hand, IS kind of random. I mean, sure, it’s better than trotting out H.E.R.B.I.E. after all, but still random.
–Dwayne
I was under the impression that the comics wrote in a black Nick Fury to support Jackson’s casting rather than the other way around (and the Ultimate Marvel version of the Avengers is just called The Ultimates). Likewise, I was referring to the comic company making a black GL and not wanting to make a black hulk, not that a movie studio did it, sorry for being unclear. Oh, and Lawrence Fishburne? I’m going to assume that’s humor and not a facepalm 😉
Wait, what??? That was Sam, and not Fish?
Damn, I guess all black people look alike to me.
Ultimate Nick Fury was indeed drawn to look like SLJ, but that was in 2001 long before movies were in the works. It was simply an artistic choice that subsequently influenced the choice to actually cast SLJ in Iron Man in 2008.
And I got what you were saying about John Stewart, I was trying to contrast that against the movie casting of Johnny Storm where there ISN’T a precedent in the comics.
Maybe this is a better way of saying it: A Green Lantern movie starring a black actor? Go for it! John Stewart is a great character. But casting Hal Jordan with a black actor is just plain random.
–Dwayne
I’d take it- Hal always seemed Smarmy to me. Ryan Reynolds should have played Guy Gardner.
Being on fire so often, when you think about it, would tend to not only make The Human Torch black, but also crispy.
And quite frankly a menace to society.
“I’m here to help! Ooops, sorry, bet that hurts!”
Hence his bowdlerization as a robot in the absolutely horrendous cartoon show. Not just a robot rather than a human (like the original Human Torch) but a robot that didn’t catch on fire. Bleh.
Them making him a robot was a nod to the original Human Torch Jim Hammond from the 1940’s. Its still sucked but that’s why.
I think the weirdest part for me of black Johnny Storm is white Sue Storm- if they’d both been white or both been black, it would have made more sense. Sure, adoption is a thing, but you either ignore it and it looks weird, or you specify that one was adopted and then you have adoption advocates mad for implying that adopted siblings aren’t “real” siblings. If we’re allowed to dream-cast dead actors, though, I want Michael Clarke Duncan doing Ben Grimm.
Oh… and tsk tsk tsk, get with the program. Guy Gardner and Kyle Raynor aren’t Green Lanterns (any more)
The problem is that it adds a layer of complexity that still gets in the way of the suspension of disbelief. Sure, Dr. Malcolm could have had a black daughter, as he did in “The Lost World,” but it was a gratuitously confusing plot point, and made it harder to believe that she was Jeff Goldblum’s kid.
Suspension of disbelief? Really? Its a comic book character, real people do not burst into flames and fly, I think there is enough suspension of disbelief going on already to spread around.
But you go into a comic book movie expecting to suspend your disbelief that people can fly or what have you. A black man and a white woman playing siblings or a white man with a black daughter is going to strike a dissonant note- and while if that happened in real life you’d think about it for a minute, realize there must be an adoption/interracial marriage/stepparent thing going on, if you have to stop and think about why something in a movie is how it is you chip away at the smooth veneer that is the movie world. It doesn’t have to be racial- somethign as simple as having someone refer to a bottle of pop as “soda” in a movie set in Michigan has made my immersion stutter. Anything that makes you say “oh, right, this is a movie” is undesirable.
Yes but all those things can be addressed easily. A lot easier then someone calling a bottle of pop a “soda” in a movie set in Michigan or a movie set in Houston but shot overseas and all the engluish actos called it WHOston. lol
“Black jurors in 12 Angry Men, which is about, in part, an all-white jury coming to terms with bigotry?”
I’d love to see a story in which an incident EXACTLY like the Trayvon Martin killing occurs, and a trial EXACTLY like George Zimmerman’s occurs, in which the jury IS ALL Black, they come to the Exact Same Conclusion as the real life jury (the correct decision), but the show covers the discourse as they confront all the biases and prejudices that are currently allowed to govern the black community.
I second that, Tex.
I think that 12 Angry Men with a cast that is all black works but when people do the version called 12 Angry Jurors , which is not only a scar on the play but totally misses the point of the play, it doesn’t.
Luke/Jack
Side thought you two may have a more knowledge or better perspective on.
I had a BBQ this weekend and we got on the topic of depiction of heroes in recent movies and shows as it related to what we let our kids watch. The perception several of us have is that heroes, those with special abilities or superhuman gifts have changed over the years, growing up they almost always wore a costume, uniform or had some visual distinction that identified them as special, you may have pretended that you had those powers and buy the costume but it was clear that they were make believe characters. The newer characters are less distinguishable, more normal looking. One of the mothers there immediately pointed out that her and several of her friends had noticed the same with the female super heroes and that it was much worse than the male characters, that her daughter who rarely watches movies or TV shows and never on her own has several times been convinced that the average looking woman or girl who had some superpower was real. She had a very difficult time adjusting her daughter’s perception. A small thing sure, but I thought about my mid 30 year old nephew who I suspect does think he has undiscovered super powers and on random occasions (not conventions or such) dresses the part and how his reality was never adjusted.
So is our perspective wrong? Just age or technology coloring it?
Sorry Jack for the off topic and the fact that I have the good luck to have weather in which to have a BBQ.
I guess I’m not sure of which heroes you mean, my comics reading is mostly either the classics (Batman, Green Lantern, X-Men) who are all still costumed, or grittier but distinctly not child-friendly titles (Constantine, The Goon), where the characters dress more like regular people but nobody impressionable should be reading them anyway.
My inclination, though, is that not much has changed. It’s hard as an adult to reconcile your current self-image to your memories of childhood- you have always been “you” to you, and your brain doesn’t readily square with the idea that “you” used to be very different. As an adult with a pretty firm grasp on reality, you are convinced that you always knew what was make-believe even as you indulged in playing at it. I suspect you were probably a little closer to the edge when you were actually a child- maybe not as much as your friend’s daughter, who may just be a very imaginative child, but more so than you think when you look back on it.
The “gritty realism” concept of comics that blossomed in the 90’s and the mainstreaming of the medium may also help. Back in the day, comic characters spoke in stilted bombast and never seemed quite real. Now there are legitimately amazing writers working on comics/cartoons, making the characters seem more like real people. I think it’s that shift toward humanizing the characters (rather than having Superman say “I SHALL NOW USE MY HEAT VISION TO DEFEAT THE VILLAIN”) that makes them feel “real,” moreso than their costumes being more subdued.
Oh, and who thinks they could reach the age of 30 and still have undiscovered superpowers? That’s silly, even the X gene manifests by 16 or so at the latest. I am still waiting on my Red Lantern ring to find me though.
I’d be more concerned by the trend of ‘heroes’ pushing the narrative of being “better than the law” or “an improvement over the law”, that somehow due process and equal protection are bad concepts, that the current executive and judicial functions are maliciously and innately corrupt. That vigilantism is the only source of real justice.
Used to be the heroes helped the police and helped the system, now they are seen as more adversarial towards the institutions.
I don’t know about that- Green Hornet, Lone Ranger, Batman- all were classic vigilantes. Vigilante was one too, come to think of it. Most superheroes have been shown to be above the law, or at least a law unto themselves (Green Lantern).
I don’t think that observation conflicts with my assertion.
Just saying… classic Batman for all intents and purposes acted more like a contracted undercover specialist for the police and judicial forces. Classic Lone Ranger was more or less a bounty hunter with a more altruistic and concerned citizen persona.
Neither of the two ever dispensed justice themselves: they either foiled plans or brought the criminals to the officials for actual judicial actions, nowadays, our ‘heroes’ are increasingly the dispensers of justice themselves on their own terms.
The Lone Ranger never accepted any payment for capturing the bad guy. His (and Tonto’s) bounty was good will, and the knowledge that they had done the right thing.
Hence my comment “a more altruistic and concerned citizen persona”, but he still acted LIKE a bounty hunter.
Classic Batman straight up murdered criminals, in his original iteration. Then he got campier and introduced the code of nonviolence with the growth of the Comics Code Authority. He stabbed the Joker do death in J’s first appearance, before Bob Kane (I think) decided to add a panel where paramedics realized he was alive so the character could be reused.
There’s still a lot of “official” superheroes- Captain America, Venom, and Superman are all direct government actors in most modern iterations, and a lot of the major teams operate with some degree of government supervision (Avengers, Thunderbolts, and the JLA especially). Violent lone actors like the Punisher generally are shown as morally ambiguous, rather than straight up admirable heroes.
Again, that doesn’t go against my assertion.
Cultural Trends are not abrupt. I never asserted that in XX time, all heroes were perfectly crafted, then at YY time they were all shown to be dark slightly better than criminal bad people themselves…
I did assert that we should be concerned that our ‘heroes’ are increasingly shown that way. That doesn’t mean they are ALL that way now, but I don’t think you can deny the trend towards darker, less legally bound, heroes, and that should be concerning.
The interesting thing, though, is that those superheroes came more into vogue in part precisely because comic writers were becoming more cynical about superheroes in general (even with regards to guys like Superman); for the most part, their vigilantism is not treated as healthy (just look at how the Nolan Batman movies ended).
I am still waiting on my Red Lantern ring to find me though.
I’m pretty sure Scott J is currently wearing it, but hoping to trade it in for a yellow one someday.
–Dwayne
I don’t know if I see him ever becoming enough of an ORGANIZED force of destruction to ever switch to inspiring fear rather than vomiting rage blood.
Thanks Luke, I guess many of the classics are still that way, most of it is likely perception of the newer stuff on TV and movies, nothing specific I can think of offhand. As for my nephew I think some of his superpower issues are driven by where he is in life and comparing himself with his twin who has a solid career and has a hero job, so his disappointment manifests in his desire for superpowers (catalyst for changing his life) and his rabid atheism.
I’m too cheap for cable and read a lot (of comic books, natch) so I am not super up on current TV. I do know that shows like Arrow and Smallville and Agents of Shield protray superheroes as more “real person”- although probably mostly driven by saving money on huge special effects and costumes, that could have the effect you describe as well.
The problem is probably a dearth of professors to hand them their heads on a platter in order to educate them why they are loons.
I found that to be a problem in the Sixties, too.
Because the professors were believers also.
Whoever controls education controls the future.
Ah, if only the future could be controlled!
Whoever controls education influences the future, and certainly diverts away from certain objectives…
Better?
Yes.
I don’t have a solution, but the colleges, and society in general, need to work on finding one. Students need a place to be safely radical, doctrinaire, passionate, irrational, and stupid without risking serious negative consequences later in life. I forgive you for being idiots, Alyssa, Sandra. I’m sure you’ll come around in time. Everyone else, however, might not be so reasonable.
It is rebellion, the demonization of all things traditional, patriotic, exceptional or spiritual. To be the reasoned or moderate voice that provides balance to these young folks is to set yourself up to be attacked, not just verbally either, doxing, harassment, protests, boycotts and even physical attacks are now common responses. Such responses to criticism create a positive feedback loop insuring that most will not evaluate the criticism and will take refuge in the support. True liberals and moderates are experiencing the same, any position regardless of fact or merit that the mob doesn’t like is classified as evil, racist, homophobic, misogynist………..
Young Sandra Korn doesn’t know what evil is, nor individualism, or oppression. She doesn’t recognize that she is in an institution that is more her ideal then anyplace in the United States ought to be.
Many that seek to highlight and influence those safe places where the young can be safely radicalized, indoctrinated, be passionately and irrationally wrong or just plain stupid realize that a major societal shift has occurred and is becoming more pronounced. The hope that the light bulb will someday come on for these young ladies is fading, there is too much intolerance of those who would have normally provide them moderating guidance.
The first is simple – when she produces and directs a show according to her idea – successfully – then she can state “See? My theory is bourne out – people DON’T care!” Until then, she’s shouting at the wind.
The second chills me. An ivy league school is STILL not isolated and exclusionary enough for her taste, she wants it to become even MORE of an echo chamber? Shudder. She has a great future as a professor, and her tenure is already in the bag.
Sadly, FF is in the same realm Spiderman is in – “Quick! Make more movies so that Disney/Marvel doesn’t get the rights to the characters bacck!” For the remarkable job Marvel is implementing with its string of well-crafted and enjoyably interconnected movies, I glare at FOX for intentionally throwing dreck into the genre.
Also, a pox upon whoever came up with H.E.R.B.I.E.!
Out of curiosity, would our stifler of the free market in the theater industry be cool then, if say, modern renditions of plays/movies that focus on black characters almost exclusively, then be cool with an appropriate amount of white actors cast into black roles?
Maybe if they wore blackface to fit the role better?
I mean, how better to show we are past racial distinctions than to remake Gone With the Wind, starring Halle Berry as Scarlett, owner of her loyal black mammy, played Maggie Gyllenhal?
Who doesn’t think Cuba Gooding Junior, or even Will Smith’s son, could do a better job portraying Colonel Robert Gould Shaw as he leads the 54th Massachusetts Regiment in a Glory remake? Hell, Arnold Schwartzeneggar could play the upstart and rebellious former slave that has to be whipped for deserting his post…
I will pay money for someone at Drexel to cast whites and asians for a production of The Wiz.
Why are you so racist?
How about a remake of Weekend at Bernie’s where all the main characters are black?
Or alive...
Or ONLY Bernie is alive, and you make it a zombie comedy. Oh shit, no screenwriters read this blog do they? MY billion dollar idea, MINE!
Harvard is a private institution, so it does have more legal leeway to follow Miss Korn’s advice than a state university would. However, it can not choose the consequences of following Miss Korn’s advice.
Employers value Harvard degrees due in part to the standards and traditions the university holds. Harvard has been committed to the tradition of academic freedom. abandoning that tradition could change the value of a Harvard degree, and not necessarily for the better.
What I find lacking in Miss Korn’s essay is an argument that following her advice will increase the value of a Harvard degree, making it more valuable for prospective employers. And I do fail to see how abandoning academic freedom would make a Harvard degree even more valuable in the job market.
Finally, I paraphrase Miss Korn’s quote.
– Miss Korn’s counterparts in Saudi Arabia and Iran, translated from Arabic and Farsi, respectively
Oh- I do like in the graphic the thing about striking because there’s no poetry in your classes. I was a microbiology major, I think we’d have walked out if someone DID try to put a bunch of flowery nonsense in with our facts and diagrams.
Strike because you have nothing better to do!
Strike because meaningless stands for meaningless objectives are fun!
Strike so they have time to find your replacement!
Welcome to my world, circa 1968-71.
They had color printing back then? I thought the world was in black and white until the early 80s