“Gypsy,” the fall musical, runs from Nov. 17 to 19. Below on the left is a letter from a parent questioning the appropriateness of the musical for a high school cast and audience, while on the left is a response from “Gypsy” director Christopher Gerken defending the choice to perform the musical.
Dear Black & White,
As a parent of two girls, I have often been dismayed over the years at the sexual suggestiveness and skimpy attire of the Whitman students appearing in the school plays. As you know, Gypsy is about a young woman who learns to be a stripper.
I am wondering why there are no students at Whitman, particularly all the young intelligent women who attend, who do not object. Clearly there must be some who realize this is the objectification of the female body, and it perpetuates what we see every day in magazines and on television.
There is also a larger problem. As a child, my parents took me to the high school plays. I loved seeing my neighbors, older girls to whom I looked as role models, in the plays. I would dream that I would someday be like them. Is Gypsy appropriate for an elementary-school girl? And if not, do we want to be producing plays that are only “appropriate” to members of the community old enough to attend an R movie?
What about the kids in tech or orchestra? Do they need to watch their classmates strip, even if it is only pretending? Does this perpetuate the objectification of the female body? And as to the girls who take these parts—why do they do it? Do they have any respect for their own bodies? Are they just so glad to get in the play and beat the competition that they will do anything?
There is no doubt that Gypsy has been a staple on Broadway and offers lots of challenges to the actors and actresses. But is a high school stage an appropriate venue for this musical? I just can’t believe there are not better plays out there.
~Anonymous
Dear Black & White,
Some might suppose that the story of the world’s most famous burlesque star is not appropriate for a high school musical, but “Gypsy” is about so much more than burlesque. Based upon the bestselling memoir “Gypsy” by Louise Hovick (AKA Gypsy Rose Lee), the musical focuses on Rose’s unrelenting dreams of stardom in the theater for her daughters and herself. When youngest daughter, June, elopes with one of the dancers from their group at the age of 13, Rose is left with the “no-talent” Louise. Instead of giving up the dream, Rose focuses all of her energies on Louise. As vaudeville slowly dies, they continue their downward spiral and eventually land in the tawdry world of burlesque. Through a series of unexpected events, Louise becomes “Gypsy Rose Lee” and finally finds her niche. She is, however, “always a lady,” doing little beyond dropping a shoulder strap and showing some leg.
Rather than a story about burlesque or stripping, “Gypsy” is about a turbulent mother-daughter relationship played out with the death of a once vibrant art form, vaudeville, as a backdrop.
Much time and energy goes into choosing a musical; the staff has to carefully balance the sophistication our students crave with what is appropriate for our general audience. “Gypsy” is a classic musical with a compelling plot, based on historical people and places, that is matched with a challenging and rewarding score. The original play was produced on Broadway in 1959 and then made into a movie in 1962. Both versions passed the strict censors of the era and were rated PG. I am confident our production will not only be entertaining but appropriate for our wide audience.
~Christopher Gerken, “Gypsy” director
Senior guy • Dec 10, 2011 at 5:17 pm
To say that students auditioning for the show are not given an equal chance is an unfair statement. Without the experience of directing shows, one would not have the same sense of what is required to create the best possible cast. An important note is that one builds a cast to be balanced so the group can most effectively work together. This is key, as a cast spends a great deal of time together in what can often be a stressful environment, so one must consider the social aspect of the group in order for the group to be at its strongest. As for the choice in show, it was well suited for the group of actors that we have at our school. Such a cynical view should not be taken on what is so clearly an enjoyable and memorable experience. While I did not have a lead role, I thoroughly enjoyed everyday day of rehearsal and every show we performed. I can only hope that those who want to take part in these shows would be happy with any role they were given rather than only wanting a lead.
Lizzie Bartlett • Dec 8, 2011 at 11:12 pm
I accepted my role as a “stripper” in Gypsy because I believe Whitman Theater does incredible work. We go beyond putting on stereotypical high school musicals and try to really move our audience members. We work with very complex subject matter that allows the actors to study topics that might not otherwise come up, and do so in a very in-depth and personal setting. We aren’t up there just to sing and dance and make you smile. Beyond that, putting on a show is a really enjoyable experience. The cast and crew members become really close friends during the rehearsal process, we get a chance to perform for the community, and we’re all doing something we love. Yes, there are a lot of things I’d do to be a part of such a community. But such things include taking voice lessons, working hard, practicing, preparing for auditions and the performance, etc., not any sort of sick “casting couch” attempts that seem to be heavily implied here. This theater is run with integrity, and it wouldn’t have the excellent reputation and support that it has if that weren’t the case.
I also think it’s extremely important to note the following: we, the actors, were a large part of the artistic process, not just commanded to do things. When we choreographed our number, if we felt the slightest bit uncomfortable with anything, we could simply say so and the move would be changed immediately. In terms of the costumes, our costume crew and our director both made sure that we were okay with everything. I lost track of the number of times I was asked, “Are you okay?” “Are you comfortable?” “Is there anything you want to change?” There was never a SINGLE MOMENT when I felt objectified.
To be honest, the only discomfort I have felt in this entire process was when I read the words, “And as to the girls who take these parts—why do they do it? Do they have any respect for their own bodies?” in the article posted above. The fact that people are jumping to such conclusions is the real problem at hand. If anything, this show taught me to respect myself more than I did before. If I were someone without any self-esteem or respect and I was shoved up on a stage and given provocative moves to do in a skimpy costume that made me feel naked, how convincingly do you think I would have played a crazy, confident, burlesque dancer who has been in the business forever? Not very. But learning to play such a role teaches you how to look in the mirror, in costume or in regular clothing, and smile at your reflection.
Disagree if you’d like, but I’d rather teach girls to love themselves than reinforce stereotypes of male superiority by declaring that girls must only be up there for a man’s pleasure.
Actor/Techie • Dec 8, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Junior- That is absolutely not the case. There were so many ways to do the show more modestly if the actresses felt uncomfortable, but they individually approved each and every costume and dance move that they used. If an actress felt uncomfortable, they would say so, which only happened a few times because we know what is appropriate for the Whitman stage. There were 46 people in the cast and 4 were strippers. There were so many other roles that they could have played if they were uncomfortable being a stripper, but they weren’t. Also there were only 2 songs in the whole show that had anything to do with stripping at all.
Junior • Dec 8, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I am going to actually respond to a part of the original letter and also what some people have brought up a couple of times.
Some people have been saying that since the girls playing these parts have not objected, there must be no problem with it. Well, what if they didn’t have a choice? What if all they got was “you can take this part, or not be in the production at all” I have a feeling that this may be the case, because this was Gypsy, and that was pretty much all a girl could do, and if she really wanted to be in a Whitman play she will take what she can get, even if it means scanty clothes and suggestive dancing. And what is ironic is that Gypsy is essentially about a girl who used her body to succeed because that was all that was offered to her as a woman, and that in Whitman, in order for a female to get a part, she has to just accept the role, no matter how sexual it is.
Crest • Dec 7, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Guys, this is absolutely ridiculous. This point of the article was just to show two points of a debate about whether Whitman Drama should do a show about the objectification of women.
The show went on. It was watered down. But the show was over like a month ago, why are people even still debating this?
And drama kids, we get it: you love Gerkin. That doesn’t mean that whole freaking cast of Gypsy needs to tell their sob story, it’s just redundant.
tl;dr? Drama kids quit being such drama queens
sr actor • Dec 7, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I am never happier than when I’m acting on the Whitman stage with Chris as my director. And having gotten a part in a play freshman year, not getting anything sophomore year, and then a part again junior year, I don’t think anything about the way Chris casts or directs is unfair. Theater is show business, and in show business there’s tough love and there’s disappointment but that’s a part of life. Theater at this school has become a haven and a joy for so many of us, thanks to Chris and his amazing work. We are incredibly lucky to have him and we appreciate all the work he does for us and his skill. Even beyond his talent as a director, he is a compassionate and caring person who makes us feel at home, and everyone looks up to him. He is an inspiration to all of us and attacking him will not affect how we feel or the spectacular work he does. People should stop attacking Chris and the program and appreciate the beauty of his work and the talent this school nurtures.
Actor • Dec 7, 2011 at 6:17 am
As someone who was involved in the show where actors “undressed onstage and remained in undergarments”, I can vouch that this was something that was run by the cast members before agreed upon and not something that “objectified” them in the least. While some audience members may find it abrasive or offensive, the argument cannot be made that women actors are objectified or feel uncomfortable onstage.
The Whitman Drama program has not only been my home for four years, but it is extremely special to everyone involved and the bad press and rep the program is receiving is not indicative of its reputation or class. Whitman puts on incredible shows with talented students acting and producing who love what they are doing and that’s what the important thing should be here.
amused • Dec 7, 2011 at 5:41 am
I think you mean “pour” the coffee. Deep breath dude
Alex Xourias • Dec 7, 2011 at 2:13 am
Though I do respect each person’s opinion on this thread, I think many of you are mistaken in what Whitman Drama means and represents for those involved. Whitman Drama was where I found my home. I did not participate in any shows my freshman year, primarily because I did not have the self-esteem to do so. I thought I was useless. My sophomore year, I auditioned and got into the musical, Damn Yankees. I slowly became acquainted to everyone in the cast and built friendships that I maintain to this day. Though somewhat cliche (but not any less true!), Whitman Drama was like a family to me, and I felt more comfortable at rehearsal with all of my friends in the program than I was at home. Christopher also treated us like professionals, something we have to get used to in college. We don’t get babied or watched, and we are forced to come up with solutions on our own and act like adults. Christopher values treating us as adults, as equals. I probably learned more things from Christopher than I did from some of my teachers at Whitman.
Some of the comments on here are quite acerbic, and I would like to say that if you aren’t involved in the program, you really lack the perspective that you need to understand Whitman Drama. I would like to say that I did not receive a lead role until my senior year, and even so, I am not disgruntled with the program. I wholeheartedly disagree with k.walsh’s comment regarding loaded resumes for college applications. Though there have been a few students (with exceptional talent) that have garnered more lead roles than others over their four years at Whitman Drama, most students involved tend to share similar experiences in terms of stage time. In regards to the risqué nature of some of Christopher’s shows, I have to say that it is completely acceptable. I have encountered very few students that think the show’s are too inappropriate. Most of the criticism comes from parents. This being said, our generation is different from those preceding it. We are more open and accepting, and in general, our society embraces risqué things more often than they were in previous generations. Shows like American Idiot and RENT are quite popular, especially because they bring important issues to the surface. I saw Whitman’s production of Gypsy, and I must say, I was very surprised how much controversy there was over it. The show IS NOT ABOUT A STRIPPER. That is not the main message, and if you think it is, I suggest you go back and watch it again. Yes, there are scenes that feature the burlesque, but I don’t understand why it is was considered so inappropriate? The girls were all exposing less skin than they would in a bikini, which is considered socially acceptable. We are a high school, and students are most definitely not sheltered from sex and sexuality, and shouldn’t be, for that matter. For example, advertisements and images for stores such as Abercrombie and Fitch clearly objectify the human body and show much more skin than necessary, and students see things like this every day on TV, yet I don’t see parents removing televisions from the house in order to shield their children’s precious eyes. This is the 21st century, and I guarantee that almost every student at Whitman has seen a girl in a bikini or guy with his shirt off, such as at the pool. It is very hard to find a show that doesn’t deal with gender stereotypes or objectification of women. Some argue to choose more appropriate shows, such as Oklahoma. But this show deals with gender stereotypes in the same way that Gypsy and Damn Yankees deal with objectification of women. There is something unappealing and inappropriate in every show, it just depends on how much attention the audience gives it. What Christopher expresses in his shows is a message that delves deeper than just riding the gray line between what is acceptable and what isn’t. He brings to light issues that are very important. He makes the audience think. Personally, I believe Christopher is a creative genius, and I am sure everyone in Whitman Drama will agree with that.
Parent of an actor and an athlete • Dec 7, 2011 at 12:46 am
My response is to the comment from “Senior who doesn’t want to be an actor”. Trying out for anything is hard and from what I see, Whitman drama is not any differnt than the sports programs. Is there a new set of baseball players every season? Do they flip a coin to see who is going to be the quarterback? No, intersted students try out and those who ‘bring it’ on try-out days make it. Do we often see some students returning year after year? Yes – in drama and in sports. Do we ever see new faces? Yes, or at least every year I see new faces on the Whitman stage; some in largge roles. That is not to say that it is an entirely new cast; but then again I’ve never seen a sports team completely new either. I am neither a coach or a drama director but I can only imagine how difficult their jobs must be. There is alot of talent at Whitman and I am sure that making the decision as to who is on the team or in the performances is very difficult. And as for the line about ‘just pouring coffee’ – well, I have often come away from a show remembering a small character as much as the star performer. It is all about what you do with what you are given. Kind of like the relief pitcher that only has to throw a few pitches to ‘save’ the game. And please understand that many of the theater students have been taking classes and or attending camps for many years. Which means they have been practicing for many years. And again, I don’t see this any different than sports. Soccer starts at age 3, T-ball at age 5, Little League football at about age 6 and many of the high school sport stars have been playing for many, many years. I am sorry if I am being cliche in comparing theater to sports but I do find the groups quite similar. So my question to you is would you have written a similar rant about a making a sports team and say that being JV is not good enough even though you only want to play one season? Why is there the perception that theater should be different?
Student • Dec 7, 2011 at 12:31 am
All of these comments are either bullying the actresses, Karen Clarkson, Chris Gerken, or the Black and White, as Actor/Techie said. Parents– Choose if you want equal opportunities for everyone or talent based auditions, because it cannot be both ways. If everyone is given an equal opportunity, everyone would only get one chance to be in one show, and if it is talent based then Sammy Zeisel is always your leading man. Whitman Drama has a great balance as is.
A Techie • Dec 7, 2011 at 12:29 am
People have been slinging around the word crony a lot in this thread and quite frankly it is getting out of hand. The drama program at Whitman is run with and eye towards being professional. Auditioning for a part, interviewing for a staff position or anything else you can think of is done to ensure the success of our productions. When newcomers to the program arrive they typically do not have the experience that would make them a viable candidate to carry a show. That is not to say they are not talented but rather that they still have things to learn. Occasionally an individual has come along that has gleaned experience elsewhere and possesses skills that make them stand out. Chris Gerken is by no means a teacher in the academic sense of the word but he is definitely not a chump, he is supportive to those who make the cut and he encourages those who don’t to try again. Talented individuals get parts because they dedicate themselves to their craft, they prepare and present themselves in an exceptional manner.
The issue here is that far too many people believe in the view of drama shared by people who did not make the cut. “that once your in you have a part for your entire highschool career” this is completely and utterly bogus. Nobody makes this much of a fuss over the starting lineups for JV and then subsequently varsity teams at Whitman which routinely have the same names on the roster year after year. Auditioning for drama is what tryouts are to sports, some people may not make the cut. However there is always an open door should a newcomer want to try out.
The point that needs to get across here is that this purported ‘cronyism’ does not exist. Has anybody asked themselves if maybe, just maybe a lead isn’t the directors best friend but rather an exceptional performer? the quality of Whitman shows is not, nor should it be compromised because certain people haven’t gotten in. Seniors are often stars because they posses an elevated skill set and maturity level. If a new student to Whitman or drama thinks they should not have to start at the perceived bottom and work their way up then they should be confident that they have already worked to a skill level that is competitive with the other prospective performers. Just because they didn’t get to their school play is no reason to point fingers at anybody else, parents have a habit of doing this in a sort of “mother bear” reaction. What I ask is how are these kids going to cope in the real world? They can’t send complaint letters to employers that turned them down and expect to get a job. This whole thread has wondered so far from the original topic it’s silly. Let it rest, people. Give it a few weeks and then we can start arguing about Frankenstein.
another techie • Dec 7, 2011 at 12:23 am
Despite your views,Senior who never wants to be an actor, the Whitman audition process is not an automatic reward for anyone who auditions. I have been close to the Audition process, and as anyone who has auditioned knows, actors are not required to try out for ensemble roles. many actors try out for all the roles, and there is a clear option to only audition for specific roles. Usually newer actors have not yet developed their skills enough to get a non ensemble role, but this is not a law, just a norm. Actors like Erin Craig have been able to get bigger parts due to their skill.
the belief that attempting an Audition shows full dedication is ridiculous. it is merely a display of intrest and skill. The Audition Process is used to select the actors who will best act in the show’s limited roles. the process is voluntary, and at no time is an Actor required to play a part that they didn’t want. The process has equal oppertunity, not because everyone gets a part, but because anyone can Audition, and display their skills. It is completely unreasonable to blame the audition process, or Mr. Gerken on being unfair.
Anon • Dec 6, 2011 at 11:42 pm
This whole thing has gotten way too personal. Whether or not you approve of gypsy (which is what this discussion was originally about by the way) doesn’t matter at this point. The show is over and it went very well. This is starting to become a bunch of immature attacks on people in the thread and on Chris. It may not have been your intention but people are taking it personally. And on top of that, the things being said are completely false. Chris is unarguably a fantastic director. Whitman theater has an amazing reputation because of him. On top of that, the kids in his shows learn so much from him and improve drastically while working with him. Accusing Chris or anyone involved in the drama program of cronyism is so completely inaccurate. There is so much more to being in a Whitman production than being in the spotlight. It’s about being a part of something special. I’m not going to get in to the innumerable benefits of getting involved in drama, but you can ask anyone that has ever been involved about the friends they’ve made or how rewarding closing night feels. But please. Stop pointing fingers and calling names. If you really have an issue, don’t attend the shows, don’t try out. Come on people. Theater is here for us to enjoy, not to fight about over the Internet.
Cynthia Coe Aragon • Dec 6, 2011 at 11:09 pm
I am a parent of two kids who participate in Whitman Drama. I am frankly quite surprised at the remarks criticizing the Whitman drama program and Mr. Gerkin, so I’ll make a few quick points.
First, the suggestion that the same students are chosen repeatedly for lead roles is bizarre. “Equal Opportunity” is how this was described. Sorry to be blunt, but that is like complaining that the football team doesn’t give everyone a chance to be quarterback. Participation in many activities at Whitman is determined through a competitive process to identify the students with the most talent for that activity. If a student feels he or she deserves a larger part in a production or activity, the best advice may be for that student to work harder and improve his/her skills so that he/she is the best.
Second, I am quite pleased that the Whitman drama program does not serve up pablum and treacle. I shudder to think how dull and inconsequential the program would be if it were required to cater to the most delicate of sensibilities. I saw nothing in Gypsy that a reasonable parent in 2011 could find objectionable, and anyone who feels the need to cover their eyes at the site of a female in leotards and tights must have a terrible time walking down the street without bumping into things.
In addition, every Whitman student who attended Gypsy should have left with a greater understanding of vaudeville, burlesque, and the historical figure Gypsy Rose Lee. If one goal of the high school experience is to expand the knowledge of the students and broaden their horizons, we as a community should favor “Gypsy” over, say, “The Little Mermaid.”
I stand behind my comments, and of course you may use my name.
Cynthia Coe Aragon
Actor/Techie • Dec 6, 2011 at 10:46 pm
I just want to say that I have been in tons of prroductions with Chris Gerken as an actor and a techie for 4 years now, and he has given me a whole new life. In Whitman Drama, I have found so many new friends and I have learned so many things about drama. I don’t know how you can criticize Chris without ever working with him. You are just repeating what you hear. You don’t actually know anything about the way he works because you have never seen it.
I have seen it, and let me tell you first of all that Chris is an amazing person. He is funny and nice and very cool, and obviously extraordinarily talented. I feel comfortable around him. We all joke around and have a ton of fun, which makes the rehearsals exciting rather than slow and tedious like other shows I have been in. Whitman is known for having the best high school shows that people have ever seen, and that legacy only started when Chris came to Whitman. He is unbelievably talented, and I am so glad I got a chance to work with him. He has been offered jobs at many other places, but he chooses to stay and work with us at Whitman, and we should be grateful to have him.
The comments on this article are becoming personal attacks against Chris Gerken, the actresses in previous shows, and the Black & White. Why those commenting would want to make these people feel bad about their achievements is beyond me, but I think that the personal attacks need to stop before any more feelings get hurt.
By the way, much fewer people get the chance to be quarterback on the football team, so, parents, why don’t you go and complain about THAT instead of why your child didn’t get the lead role every year.
Senior who never wants to be an actor • Dec 5, 2011 at 12:30 am
Senior Actor Dude, your reasoning is off. Your talking like Mr. Gerken is running his own personal adult theatre troupe. We students at Whitman are very busy and we only have 4 years here, some have less time. By definition, a student’s audition for a public high school performance should be proof enough of the student’s talent, and the fact that a student puts the effort into preparing for an audition should be proof enough of the student’s dedication, anything else is not reasonable for a kid in high school. If a student wants a certain part in the school play he or she should only have to try for that one part, not first try for an ensemble part, and then if he or she plays his or her cards right, hope for a future lead role. This isn’t Walt Whitman High School for the Performing Arts, at this school we also have AP’s. You’re also arguing against yourself when you say that equal opportunity is guaranteed because everyone gets a chance one way or the other, really what does that mean? Does that mean if a student wants to act he or she should be happy if they get to move some props around or “poor the coffee,” you sure that’s equal opportunity to act in a school play? Also, you say most students get only one shot at a leading role, dude that supports cronyism not equal opportunity. Either everyone only gets one shot or no one gets only one shot. Equal is equal. Also, how is it that you know that “attitude” is why sometimes students are not selected for a second production, what kind of insider information do you have? Seriously, you sound like a crony yourself with these kinds of comments. And, what do you mean people get catty and jealous if they don’t get a role so then they make cronyism (k.walsh) accusations? That makes no sense, catty and jealous means the students gossip about each other, and does not mean someone accuses Mr. Gerken of cronyism and suggest that a teacher to do his job. Seriously dude, the more you argued your case the more you convinced me of the opposite.
Sam • Dec 4, 2011 at 12:25 pm
The post below was written by Sam’s dad not Sam.
Sam • Dec 4, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Senior Actor- I was sitting in the third row center at that performance and your description of Lola’s outfit is not even close to accurate. I don’t want to go into the details of her outfit here but that evening my wife and I were stunned. After the show and after a few phone calls I was made aware that I was not the only man uncomfortable watching what my son likes to refer to as ” eye candy for men.” It would be inappropriate for me to discuss it more than to say that the play and the song have been around for a long time and it has always been known as a seductive song– “Whatever Lola Wants, Lola Gets”–there’s no revelation here. As for the vampire play’s nightgowns, braless comes to mind. Limiting myself to what is appropriate here, I will only say that when it’s done right with the proper lighting, the length of the gown is irrelevant.
Senior Actor • Dec 3, 2011 at 12:50 am
Sam- The most naked a girl has been on stage in any of the productions within the last 4 years has been in a leotard and tights, which is more than most women wear at the beach. Usually, undressing on stage consists of wearing a night gown which falls well below the knee. As for Lolas Sex Dance, what made you think it was a sex dance? The actress literally walked around the stage in a fluffy skirt and camisole top covered by a voluminous covering top. The only even mildly sexual part was when the actor playing Joe Hardy was holding her by the ankle. I dont know what baby doll outfit youre referring to, but that is what the actress was wearing.
Sam • Dec 2, 2011 at 1:53 pm
My parents had a discussion about this letter the other day and the overall consensus was that sexy vampires in negligees, Lola’s sex dance in a skimpy baby doll’s outfit, undressing on stage and remaining in under garments, etc. etc. etc. made for too much Whitman High girl eye candy for men. My dad recalled averting his eyes once because he was embarrassed to be forgetting that the girl on stage was just that a girl. Want to know what I said? But dad, what’s wrong with eye candy!? The night did not go well after I said that.
Senior Actor • Dec 2, 2011 at 12:24 pm
I have been acting in the Drama department at Whitman for all 4 years showing in over 15 shows here. Let me say, that my experience with Whitman Drama is that everybody gets a chance in one way or another. It’s true that frequently students are generally chosen for an ensemble role before they get a leading role, but that is just to ensure the dedication and talent of the student. Everybody gets their chance in the program. Most students who have gotten a leading role have gotten only one, and that ensures an equal opportunity for everyone.
Sometimes, students are not selected for a second production, but this typically indicates some kind of an attitude issue.
People tend to get catty and jealous if they don’t get the role that they want and consequently make the kind of accusations that k.walsh has mentioned. The drama program is a fair system, and I can’t see many ways to improve the already nonexistent favoritism.
average student • Dec 2, 2011 at 8:05 am
and it seemed like some poeple were more focused more on the contreversey than the play bc that was the worst whitman play ive seen so far
average student • Dec 2, 2011 at 8:04 am
after seeing the show NO
Marty • Nov 28, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Wow, interesting stuff! Anyway, it all makes sense to me. If you are a girl, you will most probably be treated like an object in a Whitman play, even if it’s a good play. …Glad i’m a guy.
The Nostalgia Critic • Nov 28, 2011 at 9:01 am
Ok this makes no sense. We are required to use our real names yet this is anymous. Gypsy was near flawless and I loved this. So why is this person complaning about it?
k.walsh • Nov 24, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Ms. Clarkson, as you are a freelance journalist you know that the use of anonymity and the use of a pseudo-name have the same results. So, why all the fuss? Could it be that it is your intention to introduce such fallacious concerns as an attempt to change the subject? The anonymous letter to the Black and White addresses Mr. Gerken’s proclivity towards choosing plays that either dress females in scanty clothes or portray them, one way or the other, as sexual. Many of us have been observing this phenomena for years, and there are, indeed, many of us. Of course, Mr. Gerken’s arguments are valid but then walking the gray line is his specialty. On another vein, I should like to mention one matter that well, has come to the attention of the actors at Pyle, and that is that Mr. Gerken tends to cast the same students from year to year in key roles, such that those students have a loaded college application. I don’t purport to know why such cronyism exist in the drama department at Whitman, but as the institution has a fiercely competitive environment it comes as no surprise. To be sure, Mr. Gerken is not a teacher nor was he ever employed as such, so what is his duty to this educational institution? One would hope that it is to encourage, support, and give equal opportunity to every student who wants a part, but sadly, such has not been the case. Perhaps what is missing in the drama department is an individual who warms the air below the wings of any student who dreams of flying–however flawed that student might be, that is to say, a teacher.
anon • Nov 8, 2011 at 7:55 am
Mrs. Clarkson, you’re beating a dead horse. The Black and White has clearly explained why they published the letter.
Stephanie H. • Nov 2, 2011 at 1:25 pm
While I completely agree that the Black & White should be held to the journalistic standards of any other newspaper in the United States, I believe the community needs to remember that the Black & White is a class made up of high school students who are in the introductory phases of learning about journalism. As a former staff member, I know how hard each writer, editor, lay out person and photographer works to make sure that what they’re presenting to the community is of the highest caliber they can create. Even though we like to think that we’re professionals when we’re on the paper, it’s impossible to expect that 16- and 17-year-olds, who also have a plethora of homework and other stresses associated with high school, can produce the same quality of work that the Associated Press puts out. Saying that the editor-in-chief is trying to press some agenda by publishing these two letters is uncalled for. That being said, I see nothing wrong with how these letters were presented or formatted. Better to spark a discussion within the community than have people stew, internalizing their thoughts. For more information about the Black & White’s policy’s see: https://www.theblackandwhite.net/about/.
Nikhil G. • Nov 2, 2011 at 2:56 am
First of all, I want to congratulate the staff of this year’s Black & White. If nothing else, the many critiques the paper has received indicate the increasingly prominent role and readership of the publication. That certainly isn’t easy for a high school paper to achieve, and deserves to be commended.
I want to clarify my potential bias from the get-go. I am a former Black & White copy editor (one of two), a position that would seem to create favoritism towards the paper. Instead I feel that it has caused me to be more critical of staff decisions.
That established, I believe that the staff handled this letter professionally and fairly. They voluntarily (and rightfully) gave the drama director the opportunity to defend his production, creating what I believe to be a fascinating discourse between two compelling sides. The comments that it sparked indicate its controversial nature. I don’t see why there is ever a “right” or “wrong” time for this discourse to occur.
The biggest criticism of commenters was the anonymity of the parent, but most justifications consisted of simple disagreement with the parent’s argument. Print Editor-in-Chief Sarah Cutler clearly explained the reasoning for their decision: “she did not want to embarrass her children, who are Whitman students.” The New York Times redacts the name of a source when their words could hurt themself. In a publication that is attached to a school, a FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE from papers like the NYT, this parent felt she could be hurt by her opinion (and given the comments that followed, I don’t blame her).
While I don’t intend to make this refutation personal, one commenter continues to question the “ulterior motives” of the anonymous Gypsy critic while simultaneously serving a lead role on Drama Boosters. Another parent, who questions the anonymity of the writer and the integrity of the paper as a whole, omits their own name from their comment. With all due respect, I found most comments to be overly aggressive and poorly supported, although I still believe in their fundamental right of each commenter’s opinion to be published.
The Whitman Drama department has flourished under Chris Gerken’s leadership, and I’m sure the show will be great. Still, I believe the anonymous parent had a valid opinion that the Black & White was right to publish in the way it did. Clearly, this issue is indeed controversial, and thus begged to be addressed.
Parent • Nov 1, 2011 at 8:42 pm
I personally think that the Black and White has slipped in their standards for this year. The parent letter is not even news. Whitman teachers receive catty emails from jealous parents and students all the time. How is this any different?
In addition, I am aware of several issues regarding journalistic integrity with the Black and White. I was interviewed for a piece last year through email, and my words were edited and cut so that they had a completely different meaning. The piece made me sound much more intense and closed minded in my views, most probably to make the paper sound better.
The 2011-2012 school year’s paper has been relatively weak so far, and so clearly the journalists were too lazy to go out and find real stories but instead edited and cut this woman’s letter (probably in the same way that mine was) to spice up their issue and gain money and readers.
I think it is truly sad that the paper has been so weak and they are resorting to such sad measures to gain entertainment value. The choice to run an anonymous letter, as Karen said, severely decreased their professional value in my eyes.
Danny McClanahan • Oct 24, 2011 at 7:19 am
this Crest guy sure turned the tables on you!
(in case you couldn’t tell, that means you didn’t read anything before posting)
I actually really liked this article. I feel it gave me a working understanding of both sides of the argument. Beforehand, I was really against this anonymous letter-writer, but the concerns he/she/it raises are actually quite cogent, if uninformed.
Not to side with iggy here, but censorship is censorship, no matter how you look at it. Unless the post is obviously spamming or trolling (or *obscenely* derogatory), I fail to see how not publishing it isn’t contradicting the idea of free speech. I get that you can define whatever freedoms you want on your site, but that doesn’t mean it’s fair or free.
A Techie • Oct 24, 2011 at 1:37 am
I don’t care so much about the motives of B&W so much as the sources this concerned parent is getting their information from. It sounds like a case of selective understanding, they are fixated on the fact that “gypsy” has a small burlesque element (quite small in fact). Also had this person done even a small amount of research on the show they would have found that it is not an R- rated show, honestly a reviewer would be hard pressed to make it pg-13. This is because:
1) the show is not solely about a girl who learns to be a stripper
2) most of the show takes place in the early performance careers of June and Louise (it’s much less disturbing than toddlers and tiaras)
3)HELLO! Mr. Gerken, his associates, and the administrators are aware that it is a high-school production. They have standards for these shows, I know.
Also why is the point about the other participants (tech, orchestra, actors) even relevant? For tech it is not required to work on every show, the pit is a group that is selected through optional auditions and the bulk of the actors who auditioned were at the meeting when the show was announced LAST YEAR! Anyone who felt uncomfortable about this show had several months to either complain about it formally or find an alternative activity to do. If a performer, technician, or musician is really serious about the performing arts Washington does not fail to provide opportunities to young people in these areas. So why is this letter pertinent now? Why after so many months which included auditions for all three major components to the musical( that’s tech, actors, and pit in case you weren’t paying attention) does this letter come about? The timing is suspect and the argument is flimsy, all around pointless addition to the latest issue of B&W obviously meant to incite controversy, can we get back to some real news please? Like continuing developments on those thugs that got arrested on the 20th, that’s news.
Crest • Oct 23, 2011 at 3:01 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with Black & White’s decision to print it anonymously. Questioning that decision is frankly beside the point.
The point is that there has been some controversy and speculation about the choice of Gypsy as a musical, and Black & White presented each side of the argument in a fair and balanced manner
Why should the Black & White’s decision to publish a reaction to something controversial immediately have an ulterior motive? I know that one of the above posters has worked extensively with the Whitman drama program. You motive seems more suspect than Black & White’s
Karen Finucan Clarkson • Oct 23, 2011 at 1:21 am
Sarah Cutler (deliberately?) misses the point. It is unfortunate that The Black & White does not hold itself to the same standards as this nation’s most respected news sources, virtually all of whom have adopted a policy of NOT publishing anonymous letters to the editor. The Associated Press’ Standards & Practices (www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html) regarding anonymous sources serves as a model for newspapers across the country. “Transparency is critical to our credibility with the public and our subscribers. Under AP’s rules, material from anonymous sources may be used only if: 1. The material is information and not opinion or speculation, and is vital to the news report.” How sad that ethics seem not to have a place in The Black & White’s journalistic practices.
Dylan • Oct 22, 2011 at 1:32 pm
I think the mother and the black and white are cowards. If the mother wanted to express her opinion and protect her children why didn’t she address her concerns to the drama people or administration privately? Why did she choose to put her opinion on blast without standing behind her words? She may have protected her kids, but what kind of example has she shown them? Put up or shut up, but hey that’s my opinion.
iggy • Oct 22, 2011 at 1:15 am
I believe anonymous posts are ok as long as they meet a higher bar than signed letters. In fact, I like the way the B&W handled this letter with the accompanying response from Christopher Gerken. However, I question the B&W’s claim that “All comments are read before publishing them.” Sometimes my comments appear a day later but usually they appear instantly. And once I had a comment removed when it was on point – it just stated facts and asked reasonable questions that the article failed to address. This type of censorship is very inappropriate and undercuts the integrity of the newspaper.
Not only don’t I use my name, I don’t even use my real email address because the one time I did, the following day after I had posted, someone posted a scurrilous attack to my blog mentioning my comment. Obviously, the only way they could identify me was from my email address – which is not shown to the public. So it must have been a B&W person with access to the email addresses. What is the policy of the B&W – who gets to see the email addresses? And what is the policy for anonymous letters? Although I’m posting anonymously, both Karen and Debi make excellent points that need to be addressed. The B&W policies should be available online.
Sarah Cutler • Oct 21, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Thank you for your comments.
The writer allowed her letter to be published only on the condition of anonymity; she did not want to embarrass her children, who are Whitman students.
The Black & White read and edited the letter before publication and saw no reason to suspect ulterior motives for writing, as the author states her arguments against the play in the letter.
In the interest of balanced reporting, we asked Christopher Gerken to write a response to the anonymous letter. In this as in all issues, we tried to acknowledge and address both sides of the argument.
Debi • Oct 21, 2011 at 10:31 pm
I find it fascinating that the Black & White requires me to use my real name to leave a comment and yet is willing to publish an “anonymous” letter. Gypsy is a superb musical based on historical fact. I have seen more flesh and inappropriateness on prime time TV . . . Glee. Personally, I am looking forward to another evening of exceptional theater presented by phenomenal students, GO WHITMAN DRAMA!
Karen Finucan Clarkson • Oct 21, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I am dismayed by the Black & White’s decision to publish an anonymous letter. I find both the letter and the decision to withhold the writer’s name suspect.
Anonymous letters instantly call into question the writer’s motive. One must wonder what steps the Black & White took to insure such an alternative motive does not exist?
One must also question the Black & White’s own motive for choosing to run an anonymous letter. Given a community newspaper’s ethical obligation to be transparent in its reporting, presentation of information, operations, and decision making, one would expect that an explanation from the editorial board or an advisor would accompany the anonymous letter.
How unfortunate that readers have not been provided a complete picture.
John • Oct 21, 2011 at 6:04 am
To say Gypsy is about burlesque is reductive to the point of frightening. It is a plot point that comes about by a reluctant character choice, and its consequences are clearly shown. I doubt anyone will be encouraged to objectify themselves based on this performance. The educational opportunities, both in historical and sociological ideas, are bountiful and should not be overlooked. Meanwhile, the centerpiece of this show is perhaps the most compelling character in the musical theatre canon. Has Anonymous seen the show? I hope they do, because clearly they’re missing out on something wonderful.
Moreover, there is not a better play out there, but that may just be my opinion.
And this is coming from a boy who LOVES musicals.