OPEN LETTERS TO THE DRAMATISTS GUILD ON RACIALIZED CASTING

April 6, 2005

Dear Greg Bossler,

This is a response to the recent DG seminar on "Race and Politics in Theatre:"

My whole outlook upon social life is determined by the question: How can we recognize the shackles that tradition has laid upon us? For when we recognize them we are also able to break them. --- Franz Boas

I WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE RECENT GUILD SEMINAR ON "RACE AND POLITICS IN THEATRE."

I remember that the original sub-title for the seminar was "Casting into Deeper Waters," an inappropriate play on words that defined actors of color as "other," with more than a suggestion that non-racialized casting involves elements of mystery, exoticism, and possible danger. The title was changed to "Race and Politics in Theatre," but the terms of the debate remained offensive.

"TRADITIONAL CASTING" IS A EUPHEMISM FOR RACIALIZED CASTING practices that are the legacy of a culture that was founded on the genocide of one race, the enslavement of another, and the exploitation of Asian, Hispanic, and Latino/a populations. OUTSIDE THE WORLD OF THEATRE, THE EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR IS NOT REFERRED TO AS "NON-TRADITIONAL HIRING." It is generally understood that, HOWEVER "TRADITIONAL" DISCRIMINATION MAY HAVE BEEN in the history of this country, discriminatory hiring is racist and sexist, and the application of EUPHEMISMs for such discrimination CAN ONLY HINDER OUR EFFORTS TO PUT THAT LEGACY BEHIND US.

In the transcript of the seminar, I read over and over again arguments for catering to the prejudices of audiences who might be willing to consider a bare stage a battlefield, but who would not be able to "willingly suspend belief" in the matter of the skin color of an actor. I remember the era when restaurant owners argued that they would lose their clientele if African Americans were seated and served. To my knowledge, the passage of the Civil Rights Act did not result in massive restaurant and movie theatre closings. Just who are and where are these people who are causing the underemployment of thousands of gifted actors of color? If the practice of racialized casting was rendered illegal, would every commercial theatre in New York shut down in a week?

WORDS NOT ONLY REFLECT PARADIGMS, BUT THEY GENERATE THEM. Where discrimination has become institutionalized and atrocity is normalized, language becomes a weapon for labeling and stigmatizing those who stand for freedom and equality. In Nazi Germany, those who opposed the genocide were pathologized as "Jewish sympathizers," and in the South of my childhood, the courageous folks who agitated for the abolition of Jim Crow laws were labeled "[n-word]-lovers." More recently, in this country women who fought for equal rights and protections were characterized as "men-haters," and today, activists for equal rights for gay and lesbians are accused of asking for "special rights." The only thing special about these rights is the fact that they have been traditionally denied.

IN A RIGHT WORLD, THE NAME FOR ALL THESE PEOPLE SHOULD JUST BE "PEOPLE." The labels should fall on the heads of those who deny equality and justice. These are the folks practicing strange "isms" and "ologies." These are the folks who are doing something disruptive, aberrant, anti-social. These are the folks with the agenda.

THE CORRECT TERM FOR NON-TRADITIONAL OR OPEN CASTING SHOULD BE SIMPLY "CASTING." It needs no explanation. The best role goes to the best actor, period. WHERE THE SPECIAL LABEL NEEDS TO BE APPLIED IS TO THE PRACTICE OF ENABLING SKIN-COLOR FETISHES, THOSE TOUCHSTONES OF RACISM, by denying actors employment opportunities based on the color of their skin. THE NAME FOR THIS SHOULD BE "RACIALIZED CASTING," AND THOSE WHO PRACTICE IT SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their discrimination against actors of color. IT IS THEY WHO SHOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY THEIR POSITION. Personally, I would be fascinated to see the studies and stats on theatres which have gone under because of the presence of actors of color. I would like to see the audience polls that quantify what percentage will not support diversity in the casting.

THE DRAMATISTS GUILD SHOULD NOT BE AN ADVOCACY GROUP FOR ONE RACE AGAINST ANOTHER, AND BECAUSE OF THAT I ASK THAT WE ADOPT NON-RACIALIZED LANGUAGE THAT DOES NOT PROTECT OR APOLOGIZE FOR DISCRIMINATION against people of color.

SINCERELY,

CAROLYN GAGE

Cc: Christopher Wilson
John Weidman
Marsha Norman

June 7, 2005

Dear Greg Bossler,

I am writing to you to express my discomfort with the quantity and the quality of the editing of my letter to the editor that was published in the recent issue of The Dramatist.

I am so uncomfortable, in fact, I have shared the enclosed draft of the letter, which shows the Dramatists Guild editing, on international listserves for dramatists and other theatre professionals. The enclosed draft, with the DG editing, is being published in Seasons, the quarterly newsletter of the International Center for Women Playwrights. A member of that organization, who is an academic and the director of a national theatre archive, has requested my permission to use the letter, complete with the Dramatists Guild editing, as a text for a course on censorship. Whatever the intention may have been -- and perhaps it was concern about length -- the result has been unanimously perceived as a gesture protective of racism.

I wrote the letter as a specific response to two distinct concerns.

First, the Dramatists Guild's original subtitle for the panel about racial discrimination in theatre ("Casting into Deeper Waters") was shockingly inappropriate: a pun on the notion that people of color are exotic, mysterious, and/or dangerous. I was relieved that the Guild recognized this and changed the title, but the fact that it was given such a racist title in the first place, and that this was publicized internationally before the renaming, indicates that there is a serious lack of awareness/ inclusivity at the highest levels of the Guild.

Secondly, I wrote to confront the offensive and inaccurate assumptions underlying the panel, assumptions epitomized by the application of the euphemism "non-traditional casting," which would dignify with the status of tradition a discriminatory practice rooted in our country's shameful history of enslavement and genocide. Several panelists repeatedly reified the notion that "the public" will not support non-racialized casting, and, because of this, discrimination is not only good for business, but a mark of professionalism in the industry. My letter specifically challenged these notions, placing them in the context of similar arguments historically used during the Civil Rights era to block integration and to justify discrimination

I was not asked permission about the editing, nor were the readers notified that the letter had been edited. I understand that often letters to an editor are edited for brevity, but the editing of my letter specifically removed mention of the two situations that occurred under Guild sponsorship -- namely the original mislabeling of the panel and the subsequent application of euphemism in the second title. It also removed the historical antecedents of the racist arguments deployed on the panel, as well as examples of how dominant cultures have appropriated and manipulated language in order to control the terms of debate.

In light of the overwhelming whiteness of the Guild and of commercial theatre in this country, it would seem that an additional two column inches advocating for an end to racialized casting might not have taxed Guild readers too severely.

I ask the Guild to publish this letter, and I invite readers to read the full text of my original letter at www.carolyngage.com. I also request that the Guild sponsor a panel by dramatists of color to address ways in which the Guild and other mainstream theatre organizations can become proactive in advocating for and working toward an end to racialized casting and other forms of discrimination in theatre.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Gage

cc: Christopher Wilson
John Weidman
Marsha Norman

June 15, 2005

Dear Carolyn:

I write in response to your letter of 6/7/05. We publish a disclaimer in each issue of The Dramatist’s newsletter section that all letters are subject to editing (see our “Statement of Policy” therein). With regard to the quantity of editing to which your letter was subject, yours was the longest letter printed in that issue of the magazine (and amongst the longest we’ve ever printed). We published as many of your 600+ words as we reasonably could, due to the seriousness of the subject. It is unfortunate, therefore, that you’ve chosen to infer some kind of dark motive at work in our editorial process.

It is regrettable, too, that you took offense at the original title of the seminar that was the subject of your original letter. The title “Casting into Deeper Waters” was meant to suggest that the seminar would be a discussion of the effects of the deepening and broadening of the casting pool beyond perceived boundaries, so producers, directors and playwrights could consider a broader range of casting options than they may have in the past.

That you found the title to have a negative connotation, and that you deemed a reasonable inference from it to be one in which the Guild is supporting racism by suggesting people of color are “dangerous”… well, we obviously disagree, but apologize if our actions have caused you discomfort. You should be aware, however, that the seminar’s title was not subsequently changed because we suddenly discovered alleged racism in its meaning. Seminar moderator James Lapine changed it because he wanted to expand the discussion to race and politics generally, beyond specific issues of casting. I am aware of no other complaints about either the seminar or its original title by any other members of the Guild, including seminar participants Kirsten Childs and Dael Orlandersmith.

You stated that “the Dramatists Guild should not be an advocacy group for one race against another…” and we agree. The Guild advocates on behalf of ALL playwrights. We fight for your right to cast your plays how you will, Carolyn, and we fight for the rights of your colleagues to do likewise.

The publications committee has decided not to print your second lettter, since you're substantive points about racialized casting were already published in the magazine. They feel no obligation to provide you with addtional column inches merely to hurl baseless brickbats at the Guild, since you've already made your position clear by publishing both your letters on your own website. I'm sure you'll want to reprint this response, unexpurgated, right there alongside your letters, and we encourage you to do so.

Ralph Sevush, Esq. Executive Director Dramatists Guild

June 25, 2005

Ralph Sevush, Business Affairs The Dramatists Guild 1501 Broadway, Ste 701 New York, NY 10036

Dear Ralph,

I was surprised and saddened to receive your email of June 15 — surprised, because my correspondence has been about a letter to the editor of the Journal, and saddened because of the Guild's position about institutionalized discrimination in hiring practices in mainstream theatre, as articulated in your email. It saddens me that the Guild appears unwilling to interrogate this position, and specifically unwilling to solicit input from those most affected, in forums that would allow them to frame the terms of the debate.

It also saddens me because I love the Guild. It has been my strongest and most consistent ally in two decades of discrimination that has, on one occasion, been serious enough to force me to leave the state where I was living. I am a "union maid" from the early '70's, and I believe in the Guild and the Guild's mission. I remember being very proactive when the Guild was drafting their anti-discrimination policy, whose original wording had not been inclusive of gays and lesbians. I was very proud to see the Dramatists Guild amend that.

I understand your letter to be saying that "Casting into Deeper Waters" was not meant to imply anything beyond a neutral inquiry into the pro's and con's of enlarging casting options, and that the wording, according to the Guild's perception, is neither racialized nor does it carry any negative connotations, except possibly to someone who has an agenda to demonize the Guild. I disagree with you. Whatever the intentions behind adopting this as a subtitle and the subsequent decision to change that title, the language reflects a sensibility of people of color as "other." The subject position implicit in the wording is identified with a theatre that routinely discriminates against people of color specifically because of skin color.

And the reason theatres can still practice this kind of blatant discrimination, when nearly every other industry has had to integrate, is because of the peculiar nature of the job of acting. As the white members of the panel were so eager to articulate, there is a general belief that audiences require the skin color/race of the character and the perceived skin color/race of the actor to be the same. Where so many other implausible conventions are accepted (fourth wall, minimal set, compression of time, changes in geographic location, etc.), it seems odd that so few folks in theatre are willing to question this notion that audiences suffer a collective and universal failure of imagination when it comes to this one aspect of make-believe. There does not appear to be any research to support this idea, and, as I stated in an edited-out passage from my earlier letter, the argument is similar to the legions of arguments against desegregation made in the early days of the Civil Rights Movement. At that time, it was generally accepted that whites would not patronize restaurants that served blacks, would not sit in seats in church or movie theatres next to blacks, would not drink out of drinking fountains shared by blacks, could not learn in classrooms with black students, and would never buy homes in neighborhoods where homes were sold or rented to black families.

Fortunately, our country did not count on a change in these perceptions before moving forward with legislation for equal rights. As I also noted in the edited-out portion of my original letter, there were no mass closures as a result of this legislation. Apparently, the perception of what people would and would not accept was fallacious. People turned out to be quite capable of adjusting themselves to the new situation.

In your letter, you made the statement, "We fight for your right to cast your plays how you will, Carolyn, and we fight for the rights of your colleagues to do likewise." Ralph, this sounds very valiant and egalitarian, but is it?

I teach anti-racism and I lead anti-racist workshops professionally, and I ask you and the Dramatists Guild if there is any significant difference between that position and the positions espoused by so many "states rights" Southerners four decades ago:

"I support the right of black business-owners to hire whom they want, and I support the right of their white fellow business-owners to hire whom they want." "I support the right of black people to sell their houses to whom they want, and I support the right of white people to sell their houses to whom they want." "I support the right of black people to have their own schools, and I support the right of white people to have their own schools." "I support the right of black people to accept the students they want into their colleges, and I support the right of white people to accept the students they want into their colleges."

These egalitarian-sounding pronouncements mask an array of false syllogisms, which was their purpose. Power between whites and people of color has not been distributed equally in this country. Indulge me in a mini-history lesson that has bearing on the current situation in theatre: In the 1960's, comparatively few black families could afford houses, and those who could had difficulty moving out of all-black, working-class neighborhoods, because of the racist codes of white middle-class neighborhoods. This housing segregation, in turn, was reflected in unequal tax bases, with the result that the black schools were wretchedly under-funded. And the resultant poor education became the excuse for excluding blacks from colleges and universities . . . which was reflected in unequal hiring practices, which takes one back to the housing situation. It was a vicious circle that required legislative intervention.

What your statement fails to address is the fact that only a tiny percentage of first-class theatres, or even amateur and stock companies, are producing work by playwrights of color with substantial roles for actors of color. So-called "traditional casting" ensures the perpetuation of this disenfranchisement. There is a direct connection between discrimination against actors of color and lack of mainstream opportunity for playwrights of color, and it is testimony to the whiteness of the Guild that this connection does not seem to be understood as another vicious circle, and one requiring proactive intervention. How supportive of playwrights of color is it to support the "right" of white producers and directors to cast whom they want, when that "right" results in blatant racial discrimination? What does it mean to support the right of minority producers to cast whom they want, when they lack access to networks of power and opportunities across the board in mainstream theatre?

Historically, institutionalized inequality has given rise to the need for civil rights legislation, for quota systems, for affirmative action offices, for unions -- and, yes, for a guild to protect playwrights. Prior to the founding of the Dramatists Guild, producers could have easily made the free-market argument, "I support the playwrights' right to negotiate for whatever royalty fees they can, and I support the producers' right to negotiate for whatever royalty fees they can."

Your letter uses another familiar argument. In naming playwrights of color who were present on the panel, there is an implication that playwrights of color in the Guild have no problem with the current Guild position. As an active participant in theatre listserves, I perceive the Guild as being badly out-of-touch with the opinions and experiences of theatre practitioners of color on this issue.

Might there be some reason why the Guild is hearing something different from what is being heard on these listserves?

Well, let's look at the current exchange we're having. I have chosen to challenge the Guild's policy and position on racialized casting. What has happened to me?

First, my letter to the editor was heavily edited. I understand the Guild's position to be that this was purely for space reasons. This has not been the majority perception of those who have had the opportunity to review these cuts. If the Guild did cut for space, they demonstrated a gross insensitivity to the issues in the letter of primary significance to playwrights of color and their allies.

Second, I protested that cut in a second letter — and the response to that came, not from an editor or board member, but from an attorney.

An attorney? Let us look at this choice:

What is the effect of having the Guild's attorney respond in a situation about perceived racialized censorship?

What is the effect when that attorney is the head of Business Affairs for the entire Guild?

What is the effect when that attorney has been an advocate and advisor to the member, and has been someone whose work as Guild attorney has been critical to her recovery of royalties on more than one occasion?

What is the effect when that attorney has been personally responsible for that member's recovering over $17,000 of royalties from a Brazilian production — money she had no hope of recovering without Guild services, and money that supported her writing for two years?

What is the effect when that attorney accuses her of demonizing the Guild and "hurling brickbats?"

Well, I cannot speak to your intentions or the Guild's intentions, but I am an authority on the effect it had on me: Chilling. In my experience, when correspondence is referred to an organization's legal department, it is never with the intention of furthering dialogue.

And this is significant when we want to understand why the Guild is hearing such different feedback from playwrights of color than those on the listserves.

Why isn't the Guild hearing what I'm hearing from theatre people of color?

Because the Guild is not generating the conditions that make it safe for those people to come forward with criticisms. Let me recap:

1) The Guild had difficulty in finding neutral language to use in framing a debate about discrimination in the theatre.
2) The Guild editor had difficulty in prioritizing portions of my letter that referred to Guild actions or historical precedents, the portions that gave specificity and historicity (i.e. context) to my position.
3) The Guild chose to have their attorney respond to my challenge, and he chose to accuse me, without foundation, of demonizing the Guild.

These actions, whatever the Guild's intentions, have the effect of controlling and censoring dialogue on this issue. Playwrights of color around the world watching our exchange are not likely to want to replicate my experience.

And why would a protest on racial policy come from a white woman in the first place?

As a lesbian playwright, I have a lot of experience of standing up to institutionalized power. I would be dead if I didn't. Seriously. But I am also white, and my issues are different from those of people of color, even lesbians of color. The violence directed against me has not been so organized, institutionalized, or so blatant as slavery was in this country. I am white and I can disguise my minority status as a lesbian; I can pass. I have chosen to publicly embrace a marginalized identity. This is not true for most people of color. I am aware that the stakes are different for me than they might be for a playwright of color. This is one of the reasons I feel an obligation to speak up.

I appreciate your permission to post your letter, written on behalf of the Guild, on my website, and I also ask your permission to submit it to the newsletter for the International Center for Women Playwrights, whose members have been so engaged in this exchange.

Finally, I ask again that the Dramatists Guild take proactive measures to invite input from playwrights of color, and other theatre professionals of color, in a forum where they represent the majority, not minority voice. I believe in the Guild, and I believe that we are in a position to lead on this issue. And I believe that the Guild and the industry could only be the stronger for it.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Gage

Cc: Christopher Wilson
John Weidman
Marsha Norman

Return to Homepage.