Professor disappointed by dialogue’s timing

To the Editor,

I write to express my disappointment that Saint Mary’s University refused to let students stage Seven Jewish Children
at the Veterans’ Memorial, especially since permission to do so was granted last April.

Yes, the play did go on, but only after the student who directed it as her senior project had to completely re-block it on less than a week’s notice. Furthermore, we may never know who or how many people objected to the play being performed at the memorial. For all we know, one dissenting voice got its way. Judging from the opinions expressed by students and faculty who packed the faculty dining room Oct. 1 to hear about the decision to move the play, a sizable segment of the university community is troubled by the decision.

At that forum, the statement was made that even though the decision disappointed many people, the dialogue that took place was healthy, a sign of things as they should be. I agree it was good that discussion took place, and I respect and admire Chris Kendall for facing a roomful of unhappy people. But I do not consider it true dialogue when the talking takes place only after the decision has been made. If we as a university community want to give ourselves credit for taking up issues that guarantee disagreement, we must make sure that what is said plays a role in what is done. When talking only takes place after decisions are made, it’s only talk, mere window-dressing instead of something of substance.

Steve Schild
Associate Professor
Mass Communication Program