In a bizarre display that seethes with a distinctly Eugenean brand of irony, self-styled “vagina warriors” converged on Agate Hall on Friday, contending that the University’s recent production of “The Vagina Monologues” did not adequately represent “a variety of skin colors, body sizes, abilities and gender expressions.”
Certainly, striving for fairness and diverse points of view among actresses is an admirable and valuable goal in a play that, among other things, celebrates diversity of identities, perspectives and values.
But while the protesters’ arguments may be well-intentioned and may present a rational facade, they are riddled with fallacies that detract from their message of fairness, tolerance and diversity, not to mention the intent of the play itself.
Protest organizer Nicole Barrett, who was offered a part in the play, decided not to perform after a conversation with the play’s producers, who in her view weren’t open enough to talking about race’s role in the play. This deficit of dialogue, according to a statement that Barrett released, prevented the cast from having the sort of diversity she envisioned.
“A safe and welcoming environment was not created for people that I consider to be ‘underrepresented,’” she said in a statement.
Whether that’s true or not, the protesters’ arguments are ultimately divisive, not diversifying.
One of the protesters’ objections was that only two women of color were in the play. While race plays a part in the play, the producers decided to cast without necessarily aligning actresses’ ethnicities with those of characters. In fact, that may have been difficult: Only about 85 people auditioned for the play, and there wasn’t a large pool of “visible” people of color, assistant director Natalie Mays said. And, as of fall 2003, fewer than one in seven matriculated students on this campus identified themselves as ethnic minorities.
Some of those who complained that the play’s cast did not represent them didn’t try out for the play, and some of those who did dropped out.
Exacerbating the group’s displeasure, according to the release, “One of the two ‘visible’ people of color in the cast was kicked out merely one week before the show opened, based on unjustified accusations of ‘hostility.’ Know that what you are seeing tonight is not the result of an inclusive process.”
The producers deny that they called senior Melissa Ballard, the ejected actress, ‘hostile,’ but that’s beside the point: The protesters’ argument smacks of the very sort of discrimination and exclusion that they railed against. If a heterosexual white actress were charged with ‘hostility,’ it would be chalked up as a conflict of vision between herself and the producers, and certainly wouldn’t have earned mention in the statement as an example of excluding whatever that actress’ unique qualities were from the realm of the drama. Extending the protection against allegations of hostility to minorities alone is too divisive to be reconciled with the protesters’ stated philosophy of inclusion.
Worse, protesters claimed that the producers did not select a cast that represents a variety of “gender expressions.” Regardless of how true that claim is, the alternative is necessarily worse: It would be wholly inappropriate for the producers to ask each auditioner what her sexual orientation or gender identity was, and worse yet, cast parts based on her answer. If people are allowed to ask that kind of question, it opens up a doorway for undue discrimination against any sexual preference, which is exactly why asking such during job interviews is illegal in many cities and states.
Whether the play’s producers did a satisfactory job of assigning parts and organizing the play in a way that was both fair to the auditioners and accurately reflected diversity among women (or even whether doing both in this production was possible) is beyond the scope of this editorial. However, unfair expectations and demands for de facto double standards certainly dilute the play’s message of female empowerment and violate the protesters’ stated premise of inclusion.

• Protesters
  undermined the diversity they sought – Feb 17, 2004
• Tensions
  explode at ‘Vagina’ discussion – Feb 17, 2004
• ‘Vagina
  Monologues’ draws large crowds as well as protesters – Feb 16, 2004
• ‘Vagina
  Monologues’ put on in celebration of V-Day – Feb 12, 2004