I don’t want to be harsh, because Mr. Loh is obviously a sensitive and compassionate young man who means well. However, he is also receiving plaudits on Facebook and in the media for taking a position that is not ethical, and is in fact just more political correctness guilt-mongering and double standard-peddling. It is also likely to provoke disrespectful and arrogant parents to believe that they have a right to impose their problems on unsuspecting theater audiences.
At Broadway’s Vivian Beaumont Theater, a screaming child disrupted a matinee performance of “The King and I.” Some members of the audience agitated for the child to be removed, and the woman with the child indeed left.
One of the understudies in the production, Kelvin Moon Loh, defended the woman who brought the child to the performance in a post on his Facebook page, in which he assumed the kid was autistic and used the incident to argue for compassion and “inclusiveness” in the theater, and compassion. Loh actually praised the woman as “brave.” Brave she may be; she also was selfish, irresponsible, disrespectful and absolutely wrong.
This is not an issue of tolerance. This is not an issue of compassion. The ethical issue is whether one person has a right, and can be right, to ruin a theatrical performance for the rest of the audience, or to unreasonably risk doing so. It’s an easy call: no. Never. It is no more “brave” to take a child who cannot behave properly to a Broadway show (or any show) than it is to take a cranky infant to a movie. This is not like the airplane situation, where the mother has no choice, and the child’s noise doesn’t interfere with the flight’s main purpose, which is to get to the destination. The mother doesn’t have to see “The King and I,” nor does she have to bring her child to potentially disrupt it. Doing so is inconsiderate; defending her conduct, as Loh does, stands for a kind of etiquette affirmative action, in which being the mother of an autistic child relieves one of any obligation to care about anyone else.
In his much acclaimed and viral post, Loh doesn’t make a single coherent ethical or logical argument in his entire (well-written) post. Here are some of his attempts…
“Not more than one week earlier, during the same scene, a young girl in the front row- seemingly not autistic screamed and cried loudly and no one said anything then. How is this any different?”
Well, to begin with, so what? If the audience had objected, it would have been reasonable. The fact that one group doesn’t do something doesn’t mean that a different reaction in a different situation is wrong. Presumably the first mother brought a non-autistic child who reacted to an intense scene. That is alwyas tolerated by theaters. A mother who brings a child with behavioral problems is reckless jeopardizing the performance, and that is obviously different, and materially so.
“I heard murmurs of “why would you bring a child like that to the theater?”. This is wrong. Plainly wrong.Because what you didn’t see was a mother desperately trying to do just that. But her son was not compliant. What they didn’t see was a mother desperately pleading with her child as he gripped the railing refusing- yelping more out of defiance. I could not look away. I wanted to scream and stop the show and say- “EVERYONE RELAX. SHE IS TRYING. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT SHE IS TRYING???!!!!”
It was her responsibility to fix the problem she created by bringing the child when the child was not ready or able to behave properly at a performance. If the disruption continued, the audience was right to blame her—it was entirely her fault. They should be nice about it: she made a mistake. Trying, however, isn’t enough when you have deliberately created a situation that harms others.
“For her to bring her child to the theater is brave…Perhaps she chooses to no longer live in fear, and refuses to compromise the experience of her child.”
Wrong. She has no right to make that choice for a thousand other theatergoers. This is a compromise she is imposing on others: clearly unethical. She is as obliged to be considerate as anyone else.
“Her plan, as was yours, was to have an enjoyable afternoon at the theater and slowly her worst fears came true.”
But her plan wasn’t like the plans of other audience members, because their plans did not risk impinging on her enjoyment of the show.
“Shows that have special performances for autistic audiences should be commended for their efforts to make theater inclusive for all audiences.”
Non sequitur! I agree with the sentiment, but this wasn’t such a performance. Loh appears to believe that any parent should be able to convert any performance of her choosing into a special performances for autistic audiences. Presumably he feels the same way about spontaneous conversions into performances for Tourette’s sufferers, or schizophrenics, or rabies patients.
Did he really think before he wrote this?
“I am in a show that is completely FAMILY FRIENDLY. The King and I on Broadway is just that- FAMILY FRIENDLY- and that means entire families- with disabilities or not.”
A show is obligated to be audience friendly as well. If audiences are expected to tolerate disruptions from special status audience members—Cell phones ringing and candy being unwrapped will NOT be tolerated, but if you bring along a special needs child who might run amuck, that’s fine!—then they must consent, meaning that they have a right to be warned. They weren’t warned. That’s unfair.
“A night at the theater is special on any night you get to go.”
Special, maybe. Whether it is what at you paid for, however, is something else. I gather Loh wouldn’t place any limits on the numbers of disruptive children. Would an audience be reasonable to object to five screaming children? Twenty? A hundred? Do the screaming children have to be autistic to qualify for the Loh Dispensation, or just ill-behaved, badly raised, hungry or too young? By Loh’s reasoning, all of the parents responsible would deserve the audience’s kind forbearance, because they are brave and thus immune from accountability.
“And no, I don’t care how much you spent on the tickets.”
Of course he doesn’t: they are just rich people, and it’s not his money. Loh should care, though: they pay his salary. This oh so compassionate actor has no compassion at all for the patrons of his art who pay large sums of money to hear Rodgers and Hammerstein music and are serenaded by audience screaming instead.
This episode is a pure example of the “Awww!” factor. Loh isn’t ethical or even reasonable, but he’s standing up for a disabled child, and isn’t that nice? Sure, it’s nice, but misguided, and his Facebook post gone viral has made some Americans just a little bit more ethically ignorant than they were before.
Every bit hurts.
Pointer: Jeff Westlake