Providence College bans Vagina Monologues

It is a great example of “free speech”.

The University, being private, can do what it wants.

The students are free to protest.

Who wins is a matter of enrollment/risk of enrollment, or of Alumni Contributions or lack thereof, etc.

And it is actually an intersting battle… The private university ignores the will of its students (read consumers/buyers) at its own financial peril.  The students have the option of attending a different university but choose to try to change the one they are in… at the risk of losing and of financing the things they oppose.

Things were so much easier when I was in college.  At USAFA there was no such thing as protest (if you had some free time, you SLEPT!).  At IUP, everyone as too busy partying (myself included).

@Yanny:

Your facts are a little bit wrong here 221b.

1. 120 students protesting, 30 or so counterprotesting. I was one of the 120 :)

2. The performance was banned after four years of the annual play being run as a successful fundraiser to help combat women’s violence. Many other schools do this as part of V-day.

3. It is not a question of law, nor of business. The promoters of the Vagina Monologues have nothing to do with this as it is a completely student run show. 20 actors and 40 other students work on it every year.

4. Providence College has a major issue of sexual assault and rape. 1 in 3 female students at our school are sexually assaulted during their undergraduate years at PC.

5. The negative precedent is one that we constantly see on this campus coming from the Catholic Church. This school condones drinking and violence, but has a fobia toward sexual matters. Father Shanley, who took over as President of the college at the begining of last semester, has taken this to greater heights than Presidents before him.

6. College students are adults and do not need to be infantalized by some all-knowing Reverend in some vain attempt to make one of the most Catholic schools in the nation even more Catholic.

7. This is an issue being raised at many other Catholic schools around the country.

8. It feels damn good to hear my peers take action against an authority which is overstepping it’s bounds.

Not to down play rape, but your 1 in 3 number is probably missleading.  When I went to college I heard the same song and dance, than I found out where the numbers came from.

1.  If a woman is drinking or not comepetely “straight” it is sexual assault.  I think this is kind of funny, because this makes me both a victem and a rapist since almost all of my sexual experiences happened while me and my partner were drinking/drunk.  So much for taking acountablity for your own actions and not drink to impair your reasoning to start with.

2.  If a woman is not in the right “emotional state” and she is taken advantage of, it is sexual assault.  Or to put it another way, if the next day she regrets having sex, it is rape.

As for the whole vagina thing…  all I have to say to that is

ZIGGY ZOGGY, ZIGGY ZOGGY - OIH OIH OIH!
ZIGGY ZOGGY, ZIGGY ZOGGY - OIH OIH OIH!

If they wanted to raise some serious money they should have put the girls on trampolines  :-D

(Man Show refrence)

First, a disclaimer.  I have never seen the VM, nor do I know much at all about it.  But on to the debate:

@Yanny:

Your facts are a little bit wrong here 221b.

1. 120 students protesting, 30 or so counterprotesting. I was one of the 120 :)

Glad you take interest in this, I thought I read 100 in the Providence Journal…it may have been 120 but I’m not sure.  The exact numbers are really not important however.

2. The performance was banned after four years of the annual play being run as a successful fundraiser to help combat women’s violence. Many other schools do this as part of V-day.

It has run before, fine.  How is this relevant? A new President decided it is inappropriate…can you show me how his reasons for it being inappropriate are incorrect?

3. It is not a question of law, nor of business. The promoters of the Vagina Monologues have nothing to do with this as it is a completely student run show. 20 actors and 40 other students work on it every year.

So you are saying the promoters are students of PC?  OK, but how is this relevant to the question of whether or not the VM is appropriate for PC?

4. Providence College has a major issue of sexual assault and rape. 1 in 3 female students at our school are sexually assaulted during their undergraduate years at PC.

I don’t understand how the VM will reduce sexual assualts.

5. The negative precedent is one that we constantly see on this campus coming from the Catholic Church. This school condones drinking and violence, but has a fobia toward sexual matters. Father Shanley, who took over as President of the college at the begining of last semester, has taken this to greater heights than Presidents before him.

So you don’t believe the Catholic church has the right to its own beliefs?  Or that President Shanley should not act on his principles?  Please clarify because it seems this is what you are trying to say.  Because I think it is obvious they do have this right, even if they are mistaken in their beliefs.

6. College students are adults and do not need to be infantalized by some all-knowing Reverend in some vain attempt to make one of the most Catholic schools in the nation even more Catholic.

President Shanley isn’t saying you can’t see it on your own.  Or discuss it amongst yourselves.  Just that PC won’t be producing it because they think it is inappropriate.  If you feel this strongly about it, go to PPAC and show it there, Shanley won’t mind.

7. This is an issue being raised at many other Catholic schools around the country.

How is this relevant?

8. It feels damn good to hear my peers take action against an authority which is overstepping it’s bounds.

Again, how is PC overstepping its bounds?  I don’t get it.

Also you wrote to Janus1:

Janus, we’re not protesting based on any any illegal action taken. We’re forcing the college administration to look into the national spotlight and say “We hate women”.

How exactly does banning the VM equal hating women?  I think saying this is quite a stretch.

@ncscswitch:

It is a great example of “free speech”.
…

Who wins is a matter of enrollment/risk of enrollment, or of Alumni Contributions or lack thereof, etc.

And it is actually an intersting battle… The private university ignores the will of its students (read consumers/buyers) at its own financial peril.  The students have the option of attending a different university but choose to try to change the one they are in… at the risk of losing and of financing the things they oppose.

I agree, but I think it is somewhat more complex than this.  As there were students for and against Shanleys decision, I’m not convinced that the university is ignoring the will of its students (or alumni).  It is possible that a majority of the students (and alumni) agree or are indifferent with this decision…and if so, then this is the wise choice to make from a financial basis.

Additionally, from Shanleys standpoint, what is the point of being financially well off if in doing so, you lose who you are and what you stand for?  In other words, he isn’t going to sell his soul, or that of the university.  Perhaps being financially secure is not his top priority for the college.

And from the standpoint of the students, sure they might be financing some things they disagree with.  However, they will gain their degree so you could say they don’t lose.  I might be opposed to how my car mechanic smokes in his shop, is very disorganized and otherwise is messy, but if he does good work at a reasonable price I will continue to go there.

Yanny,

Just a question, if your concern is that you beleive it is important to raise funds for the local programs and raise awareness about important womens issues, then why not:

1. Produce an alternative play that Shanley agrees is acceptable?  Surely there would be something that would be agreeable to everyone?
2. Contact the alumni requesting a donation for these programs, rather than asking them to not donate to the school?

Banning VM is just one signal that the Catholic Church (and the Dominicans who run our school) values women as second-class to men. The heirarchy of our college administration is almost exclusively male, because women cannot become Friars. Not only that, but women at this school (as I keep stating) have a long history of being abused without serious action being taken by the college.

I’d really like to know how PC would/does respond to this type of statement, because this is a pretty broad brush you are painting with.  Some things I am pondering:

1. To be sarcastic, perhaps PC should allow the Foxy Lady to open a branch on campus to help fund womens programs.  After all, what could be more empowering to a woman than being a performer on that stage?  Or better yet, open a brothel on campus, make it mandatory for all female students to work there for a semester, with profits going towards womens programs – that should really make women feel important and respected.

My point is that I suspect PC’s position is that the VM do not really empower women…but rather reduce them to merely sexual beings.

2. My wife has seen the VM done by professional actors in Boston.  She says although they may have touched upon violence against women in the play, she can barely remember it.  What she can remember most vividly is the shock value of hearing women talk about their private areas and sexual encounters so vividly and with a vocabulary most decent people would not use in a public arena.  People aren’t paying to support programs to prevent violence against women, they are paying to entertain themselves with often crude "Farelli"esque humor.  So how does this raise awareness?  How is this going to reduce the abuse problem you bring up?

3. Isn’t it counter productive to produce a play which centers on women as sexual beings, while trying to raise awareness that women are more than sexual beings?  If it were the PM, a bunch of men discussing masturbation, orgasms, etc. would you not agree that this does nothing to help women see men as more than pigs?

4. I understand your point about the heiarchy being male.  But it is a private, religious school.  What did you expect?  If you are offended by this, you are free to go to another school.  I also do not agree with your implication here that men are incapable of respecting women…

5. With regards to

women at this school (as I keep stating) have a long history of being abused without serious action being taken by the college.

I’m not going to accept this on face value without some data to back this up, because it is a very serious charge you are bringing against PC.  It is easy to accuse someone without evidence.  Can you show me some cases, statistics or data which supports this claim?

@Yanny:

About the play:

1. VM is ofttimes indirect about some women’s issues it raises. I’ve only read highlights personally. There is no denying that the play is very sexual, and would definately be inappropriate for a High School. But we’re talking about adults here.

So you have never seen it, yet you are criticizing Shanley for banning it.  I’m not sure you can automatically assume only adults will be watching…is the play restricted to only PC students…do the organizers check ID’s before allowing admitance?  But I’d also like to ask why your opinion that it is appropriate is somehow right while President Shanleys opinion that it is not appropriate is somehow wrong.  We are talking about opinions here.

I’d also like to ask the philosophical question, why is it ok for adults to watch something that is inappropriate for children?

2. This is nothing akin to demeaning women in your sarcastic point. This is a women’s liberation play. Father Shanley wouldn’t ban a play with an extreme amount of violence. Violence isn’t taboo. Sex is. Sex hurts no one, and violence hurts everyone.

I’ve seen programs and talk shows where prostitutes say their actions are liberating, and that all women should be a prostitute before getting married.  Liberation and demeaning can be a very difficult thing to precisely define here so be careful in claiming the VM does not demean women…because I can definitely see President Shanleys point based on what I have heard.

But more importantly, how do you know President Shanley would not ban a play for violence?

3. About the data, I honestly cannot back it up. It’s all word of mouth at this point, because very little of this is online/in print (because the College tries to play it down). If you read the article about the protest, every third student was handed a red balloon to symbolize the 1/3 statistic.

Surely there are police statistics? Or surveys that can be reviewed for accuracy and discrepancies. These numbers had to come from somewhere.  But if you cannot back up a claim, then be very careful if you make it.  I don’t think you should be using an unsubstantiated claim as part of an accusation against anyone (such as you are doing to PC).

4. About an alternate option, I think that people are planning to do some other fundraiser to support the group, but it’ll be difficult to match the usual V-day amount on short notice.

Seriously, you are probably right.  This is why I suggested going to the alumni asking for financial support here rather than simply asking them to not give to the school.  If enough alumni stop giving to the school, then perhaps PC will be forced to cut their support of these same womens groups…this is going to be counterproductive.

5. Again, there is no question that Shanley’s actions are legal. But we pay 36,000 dollars per year to come here and we are definately going to get our word in thoroughly.

And you will receive a quality diploma for that $36,000 per year, assuming you get passing grades and take all the necessary coursework.  You are free to express your viewpoint to President Shanley…but he has a responsibility to lead the college in the best way that he can.  Leadership requires that sometimes unpopular decisions must be made.

But my question is: President Shanley has determined that the VM is inappropriate, you still haven’t shown me where he is wrong.  Where is President Shanley incorrect about the VM with regards to his objections to it?

Shanley said he particularly objected to one tale that uses religious language to describe a sexual encounter between a woman and a teenage girl. While the teen narrator describes the episode as “a kind of heaven,” Shanley said it’s “abusive, exploitative and morally wrong.”

He also objected to a description of the work as a “new bible” for women, an accolade that makes him think the play attacks “the traditional Biblical views that inspires the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,” he wrote.

“Doubtless some will reply that this is a violation of artistic freedom. But artistic freedom on a Catholic campus cannot mean the complete license to perform or display any work of art regardless of its intellectual or moral content,” he said.

Unless you can show where he is mistaken, then you don’t have a very strong arguement.

I wonder myself if Shanley has seen it - I guess he’s read it.

Not to backpeddle the argument, but with the Catholic church’s reputation concerning women, gays, etc., it does seem a lot like them to ban such a thing.  “Don’t ask don’t tell” approach to those problems. I haven’t seen the play (my Mom & GF have - together - I know, weird), but I’m aware that it’s pretty lewd in some areas.  My point would be that this is the type of behavior indicative of a problem gone unaddressed.  That, or someone just wants attention and goes for the easiest topic to bring it.

Jermo,

Thanks for bringing up the reputation of the Catholic church, this is another good point regarding this topic.  Consider the following:

Shanley said he particularly objected to one tale that uses religious language to describe a sexual encounter between a woman and a teenage girl. While the teen narrator describes the episode as “a kind of heaven,” Shanley said it’s “abusive, exploitative and morally wrong.”

How is this not glorifying pedophelia?  I think Shanleys description is fitting if the tale is true…and I have no reason to doubt it since the supporters of the VM showing do not deny this.  Aside from the fact that pedophelia is clearly inappropriate regardless of the situation, with the recent problems the Catholic church has had with this lately I gotta ask:  Why on earth would anyone even remotely associated with the Catholic church allow something with this kind of statement?  To allow a production with something like this would add to the criticisms that the catholic church does not take pedophelia seriously.  And if the Catholic church is serious about dealing with their problem in this area, would not the banning of the VM be at least a start?

I’m not buying the arguement that banning the VM is indicative of not addressing the problem – I think not banning it would show they aren’t addressing their problems.