![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
Tim writes: It's been a while since a post here. I am just pulling this blog from beneath the waves to mirror some comments made by Faithful director Thomas Hescott on today's controversy about the Lee Hall/Harvey Brough/Opera North project in Bridlington. (Earlier posts in this blog are my views, not Thomas').
The context can be found in Lee Hall's article going public with the story, then
this later article from The Guardian with quotes from the local authority and Opera North. Opera North issued two statements (at the time of writing a third from their senior mangement is promised). There were also significant blogs from Daniel Bye, condemning ON's position, including an update in response to a later post from Opera North, and a defence of Opera North from Eleanor Turney.
Finally, Hall himself released the complete text of the offending scene on A facebook group supporting his stance.
UPDATE: Opera North have released a third statement, which goes a bit further in support of Hall, but still fails to really take a position on the school's rationale or decision. In the meantime, somebody with a personal connection to the school in question, has published a rational, parsimonius blogpost that carefully lays out exactly what has been alleged and denied (and how this is more heat than light at this moment). Jondrytay has What Opera North Could Have Said.
So those are the story both previous and subsequent to the below, all over about 18 hours or so. The below is quoted, with permission, from Thomas Hescott. I agree with every word.
Thomas Hescott writes:
I was saddened to read that an exciting community project at Opera North involving 400 participants has been axed due to a school having issues with the depiction of homosexuality. I was, however, dismayed and appalled by the response from Opera North and their comment "we can appreciate the viewpoint of the school about when they make the decision to teach PSHE to their pupils".
Schools in general tend to be slow on the uptake. Whilst many have inspirational teachers and a few have extraordinary leaders, schools, as an institution are rarely forward thinking. They conform to the moment and are usually fearful of pushing expectations. For years Section 28 was left unchallenged by formal education, and even now for many schools it is as if Section 28 were still in place.
When I was five, I asked my Mother if two men could get married. I was told no. I then asked if two women could get married. Again my Mother answered no. I persisted asking if it was therefore wrong for two men or women to marry. The answer came back that no it was not wrong – the law was wrong. I was amazed that my mother would tell me that something illegal was good and right, that the law was wrong. This is one of my earliest memories, I was a long way from understanding my own sexuality but even at five I was starting to connect with the adult relationships around me. Formal education is fundamentally wrong to put an age onto discussions about gender, sexuality and homophobia, it confuses these conversations with the ‘nuts and bolts’ conversations of sex education, and it fails to understand that sexuality has very little to do with sex.
At the age of five we are taught about right and wrong, and we are taught about discrimination in broad terms. Plays and literature tackling bullying for this age group are everywhere but the moment the bullying or discrimination being discussed is attached to sexuality teachers become scared – they think they are talking about sex when they are really talking about equality.
I have worked in theatre, and with young people for many years now. Questions of sexuality often rear their head, just as they do for heterosexual people. The only difference is the heterosexual community are so used to answering questions about straight relationships they don’t notice. I was once asked by a boy, of about eight or nine who was playing a Munchkin in a production of The Wizard of Oz if the actress playing Dorothy was my girlfriend. The answer ‘no I’m a friend of Dorothy’s’ was going to go over his head, so I simply responded with ‘no. I have a boyfriend’. He looked at me in amazement and exclaimed ‘But that makes you bifocal’
Time and time again when working with young people and being open when asked I have gently offered a view of homosexuality that is non threatening, and non predatory and I have often been the first openly gay man a young person will meet. I don’t do this in order to be a positive gay role model just as the straights aren’t consciously offering themselves up as positive ‘straight’ role models. I do however see it as an absolute responsibility to answer questions of sexuality honestly when asked. Schools should do the same.
Of course a school objected to the subject matter. As one teacher said to me on twitter "teachers are too narrow minded to be trusted with children’s minds". It was however the responsibility of Opera North the engage with the topic and to educate our educators. Left to their own devices schools will never evolve or change – education partnerships like this have the ability to move the curriculum forward.
Opera North offered hundreds of young people the chance to perform in an opera – what an extraordinary opportunity. This opportunity was coupled with the chance to explore issues and ideas that are hard to discuss in a classroom environment. The school that pulled out deprived their pupils of a life changing educational experience. Within that school there will be many children who will grow up to discover they are gay and this act of censorship will send them a clear message that growing up to be who they are is unacceptable to society. By allowing this to happen, Opera North have condoned a homophobic act. They should have been standing alongside Lee Hall offering to pay to bring Stonewall in to help discuss the issues. They should have been doing everything possible to ensure that the issue of discrimination was treated with the respect it deserved. Instead they condoned homophobia, and their later response confirms that their education department have little or no concept of how important this subject is, and how badly they have dealt with it.
=== end of Thomas Hescott's entry.
Tim again - My own thoughts on the matter are that the school and the local authority are the main villains here, but that Opera North have (at the time of writing)three four times missed opportunities to condemn the school's decision and its basis and instead have taken the mistaken line that the school have the legal and moral right to choose what their children learn through participation in art. Conversely, they have refused to defend the right of the author to write what the topic demands. This is not a neutral position as they claim. They could easily get off the hook by coming out and declaring their disagreement with the school's position. Easily.
UPDATE: The most recent statement does seem to defend the author's rights, and also seems to say that Opera North did not particularly think that the controversial sections needed to be cut. Still little clarity on the reason for the cutting request, however.
The context can be found in Lee Hall's article going public with the story, then
this later article from The Guardian with quotes from the local authority and Opera North. Opera North issued two statements (at the time of writing a third from their senior mangement is promised). There were also significant blogs from Daniel Bye, condemning ON's position, including an update in response to a later post from Opera North, and a defence of Opera North from Eleanor Turney.
Finally, Hall himself released the complete text of the offending scene on A facebook group supporting his stance.
UPDATE: Opera North have released a third statement, which goes a bit further in support of Hall, but still fails to really take a position on the school's rationale or decision. In the meantime, somebody with a personal connection to the school in question, has published a rational, parsimonius blogpost that carefully lays out exactly what has been alleged and denied (and how this is more heat than light at this moment). Jondrytay has What Opera North Could Have Said.
So those are the story both previous and subsequent to the below, all over about 18 hours or so. The below is quoted, with permission, from Thomas Hescott. I agree with every word.
Thomas Hescott writes:
I was saddened to read that an exciting community project at Opera North involving 400 participants has been axed due to a school having issues with the depiction of homosexuality. I was, however, dismayed and appalled by the response from Opera North and their comment "we can appreciate the viewpoint of the school about when they make the decision to teach PSHE to their pupils".
Schools in general tend to be slow on the uptake. Whilst many have inspirational teachers and a few have extraordinary leaders, schools, as an institution are rarely forward thinking. They conform to the moment and are usually fearful of pushing expectations. For years Section 28 was left unchallenged by formal education, and even now for many schools it is as if Section 28 were still in place.
When I was five, I asked my Mother if two men could get married. I was told no. I then asked if two women could get married. Again my Mother answered no. I persisted asking if it was therefore wrong for two men or women to marry. The answer came back that no it was not wrong – the law was wrong. I was amazed that my mother would tell me that something illegal was good and right, that the law was wrong. This is one of my earliest memories, I was a long way from understanding my own sexuality but even at five I was starting to connect with the adult relationships around me. Formal education is fundamentally wrong to put an age onto discussions about gender, sexuality and homophobia, it confuses these conversations with the ‘nuts and bolts’ conversations of sex education, and it fails to understand that sexuality has very little to do with sex.
At the age of five we are taught about right and wrong, and we are taught about discrimination in broad terms. Plays and literature tackling bullying for this age group are everywhere but the moment the bullying or discrimination being discussed is attached to sexuality teachers become scared – they think they are talking about sex when they are really talking about equality.
I have worked in theatre, and with young people for many years now. Questions of sexuality often rear their head, just as they do for heterosexual people. The only difference is the heterosexual community are so used to answering questions about straight relationships they don’t notice. I was once asked by a boy, of about eight or nine who was playing a Munchkin in a production of The Wizard of Oz if the actress playing Dorothy was my girlfriend. The answer ‘no I’m a friend of Dorothy’s’ was going to go over his head, so I simply responded with ‘no. I have a boyfriend’. He looked at me in amazement and exclaimed ‘But that makes you bifocal’
Time and time again when working with young people and being open when asked I have gently offered a view of homosexuality that is non threatening, and non predatory and I have often been the first openly gay man a young person will meet. I don’t do this in order to be a positive gay role model just as the straights aren’t consciously offering themselves up as positive ‘straight’ role models. I do however see it as an absolute responsibility to answer questions of sexuality honestly when asked. Schools should do the same.
Of course a school objected to the subject matter. As one teacher said to me on twitter "teachers are too narrow minded to be trusted with children’s minds". It was however the responsibility of Opera North the engage with the topic and to educate our educators. Left to their own devices schools will never evolve or change – education partnerships like this have the ability to move the curriculum forward.
Opera North offered hundreds of young people the chance to perform in an opera – what an extraordinary opportunity. This opportunity was coupled with the chance to explore issues and ideas that are hard to discuss in a classroom environment. The school that pulled out deprived their pupils of a life changing educational experience. Within that school there will be many children who will grow up to discover they are gay and this act of censorship will send them a clear message that growing up to be who they are is unacceptable to society. By allowing this to happen, Opera North have condoned a homophobic act. They should have been standing alongside Lee Hall offering to pay to bring Stonewall in to help discuss the issues. They should have been doing everything possible to ensure that the issue of discrimination was treated with the respect it deserved. Instead they condoned homophobia, and their later response confirms that their education department have little or no concept of how important this subject is, and how badly they have dealt with it.
=== end of Thomas Hescott's entry.
Tim again - My own thoughts on the matter are that the school and the local authority are the main villains here, but that Opera North have (at the time of writing)
UPDATE: The most recent statement does seem to defend the author's rights, and also seems to say that Opera North did not particularly think that the controversial sections needed to be cut. Still little clarity on the reason for the cutting request, however.
Leave a comment
optimistic