Last fall’s controversy over the staging of To Kill a Mockingbird by the Flagler Palm Coast High School drama department took the school principal and the school board by surprise in part because there was no procedure in place to deal with the issue. The school and the district improvised as they went along, fueling the controversy before resolving it. (After being canceled, the play will be staged in February.) The district has since been working on just such a procedure. Tuesday evening, the school board got its first look at the results—and stumbled over the same issue that fed into the controversy in the first place: how much unilateral power should a school principal have when opting to cancel a school production?
Click On:
- The Proposed Policy and Procedure
- It’s On: FPC Will Stage To Kill a Mockingbird At the Flagler Auditorium Feb. 24-26
- Tale of Two Recommendations: Valentine “Completely” Supports Staging of Mockingbird
- National Coalition Against Censorship Urges Valentine To Reverse Mockingbird Decision
- Mockingbird Appeals Committee’s Challenge: Loyalty to “Protocol” vs. Free Expression
School board member Colleen Conklin and Student Representative Ryan McDermott—who sits on the board but has no voting power—don’t want that power to rest entirely with one principal, at least not when it comes to subjective issues of judgment over the “appropriateness” or “inappropriateness” of works of art. Board member Trevor Tucker and Matanzas High School Principal Chris Pryor don’t want principals to be second-guessed. Those lines were drawn Tuesday evening, preventing the proposed new guidelines from being approved as written. Board chairperson Sue Dickinson directed Conklin to bring back to the board a procedure she could live with.
The proposed policy itself appears to backtrack and contradict a committee’s finding that To Kill a Mockingbird is appropriate for staging by a high school troupe. The proposed policy acknowledges that guidelines developed by the superintendent “shall be designed to support drama presentations that challenge, nurture and extend student skills while adhering to the basic educational mission of teaching students boundaries of socially appropriate behavior, the rights and responsibilities of the exercise of free speech, and the importance of taking in consideration the sensibilities of the communities.”
That language appears to balance the daring productions and free expression with the sometimes necessary limits to the daring in a school setting. But the very next sentence in the policy, had it been in place before the Mockingbird controversy, would have prevented the play from going forward outright: “Theatrical productions involving obscenity […] shall not be permitted. Disclaimers may not be used in place of observing this policy.” Those two sentences would make the staging of any play, however worthy of artistic merit—including Mockingbird—off limits, the moment words like “nigger,” “shit,” “piss” or “damn” are deemed obscenities, whatever their context. That, in fact, was the argument that initially appeared to doom Mockingbird.
FPC Principal Jacob Oliva originally objected to the staging of Mockingbird because in his view the word nigger, used 23 times in the production, is an obscenity no matter how it’s used. Ed Koczergo, the drama teacher, had included a disclaimer in his audition call, and proposed including disclaimers on the play’s program. That’s actually how the play will be staged in February. But if the proposed policy holds, the disclaimers included as part of the play’s presentation will be in direct contravention of the policy.
Remarkably, the proposed policy drew no objections when the matter was discussed Monday. Only the procedure written in addition to the policy did, though the disagreement over the procedure has its seed in the policy.
The section of the procedure that drew Conklin’s and McDermott’s objection was this: “A principal may convene a panel to discuss the play as related to the guidelines above. If the work is student-generated, a student may be added to this panel. This will be an advisory panel only. The final decision on the play’s production will be the principal’s.” The procedure also would ban “plays with vulgar or lewd acts,” though it defines neither.
The word may, as opposed to shall (“a principal may convene…”), is what hung up the debate.
Diane Dyer, the curriculum director who wrote the procedure, downplayed the restrictions, calling them “guidelines.” Conklin didn’t buy it. “If we had gone through these guidelines, would To Kill a Mockingbird have been staged or not?” she asked. There never was a direct answer, though clearly, last fall, the answer was no: the principal did convene a school-based committee, discussions were held—with Dyer in that committee—and the decision was to kill the play. Had the matter not been publicized in the press, the district almost certainly would not have reversed course. Conklin fears that the procedure would formalize quiet censorship. “How do we even know that we’ve ever had an issue with this if the principal says no, we’re not doing that?” she asked. And what process would there be for an appeal? (It was Conklin’s own appeal of the school-based committee’s decision to kill Mockingbird that led to the play’s revival.)
The procedure leaves no avenue of appeal: “The final decision on the play’s production will be the principal’s.”
“What I would suggest,” McDermott said, is “just more than one person make the decision, because that’s more fair, that’s how this committee works, you know, six people on the board”—McDermott was either including himself or the superintendent in that equation—“you have to make some decisions, and I think the same should be true for a decision like that.”
At that point Conklin had to ask Harriett Holiday, the personnel director, to stop audibly approving of everything Pryor was saying from the back of the chambers—a break of decorum on Harriett’s part that reflect the occasional strain between administrative writ and school board oversight: precisely the strain under discussion through the procedure on theatrical productions. Pryor continued: “If you begin doing this type of thing when you’re chipping away at the authority of the principal, then you’re beginning—other things will come along. So, you guys are going to do what you’re going to do, but if I’m ultimately responsible for what happens, I need to have the power to be able to say no or yes.”
“So Chris you think that this document is a means of us micromanaging, no? Be honest,” Dickinson said.
“I think so,” Pryor said.
“The idea behind this though is an appropriate idea,” Valentine, the superintendent, said, “because the idea behind this is giving a guideline to the teachers, that it’s not a surprise to you that all of a sudden the play is being performed. That’s the purpose of this.” Valentine prizes deliberative decision-making.
“But bottom line is, the board is responsible for the policy,” Dickinson said, redirecting Pryor’s buck-stops-here statement.
“Yes,” Pryor agreed. (Oliva, the FPC principal, was absent: he is working on a doctorate at the University of North Florida, and his classes at times coincide with board meetings.)
In the end, Conklin did not agree with the guideline as written. “I’m concerned with things like how do we define plays with vulgar and lewd acts? What exactly does that mean in the world of theater and art and all the rest of that.” She added: “When we look at this and look at statement number 2”—the segment of the procedure in question—“I think it is very dangerous to personalize it. This is not about Dr. Pryor or about Jacob. It can be about anybody and whether or not one individual has that right to say yea or nay, and a piece of instruction materials, art, whatever that might be I think becomes a very dangerous game, and I think we were trying to create a policy, and then guidelines for that policy, so we don’t find ourselves right back in the same situation again.”
“You need to bring us back a policy that you can agree with,” Dickinson told Conklin.
Inna Hardison says
Sadly, exactly as expected… Whatever that policy ends up being, the decisions will rest with the few and in the end, there’ll be no controversy. At least we’ll have our Mockingbird.
Jim Guines says
I can only make one comment which is one word–sad!
K says
I’m liking Pryor less and less. He seems ok with a totalitarian society teeming with censorship.
Does anyone know if he’s a member of the Tea Party by any chance?
Frances says
I think Chris has a point. Principals are the ones that are ultimately responsible for their schools. I do not believe that he wants to be a dictator or any thing like that. It is very difficult to be a principal of a school at this time and they work hard to do what is right for the students and teachers. I think it’s difficult to draw up these guidelines and I think the school board and the school administrators are both trying hard to get it right. A little bit of support sometimes wouldn’t hurt.
Jon Hardison says
At the same moment Chris was supporting the cancellation of Mockingbird, his school was putting on Godspell without a hint of community outrage, or even a question, so I’m wondering why that play is okay for Chris. I’m wondering why anyone’s judgement really needs to come into it. I’m happy that Chris is willing to stand up and make a decision, but I’m pretty sure he isn’t qualified to make it.
This got ugly. Yes, but I’m not sure this comes up enough to warrant a policy. A policy in this instance is simply a rule to fall back on so no one has to claim responsibility for what’s happening in the moment. They can simply say, “I’ love to put the play on, but the rules say we can’t.” It’s a purely political device, and it sickens me.
I think they should leave it just the way it is, and in 50 years when this comes up again, the same thing will happen. We’ll show up to meetings and scream for 5 minutes, and hopefully, when it’s over, the right (correct) thing will happened again.
This is overkill.
On another note: Thank you to Flagler Live for keeping on top of this. This is an important issue and the time you’re putting into it, and all others, is much appreciated! Kisses-
Jojo says
Pryor is a jerk and should have left with his paper toilet buddy. The man is obnoxious.
palmcoaster says
I simply believe that this classical play should not be materialized in a school setting at all. Can ignite old resentments and or bullying given the story and the language of the original play. This is a play to be shown to mature audiences over 18 years old. Not on a school with children in the audience. Not only the language as well as the violence portrayed on it would be of a positive exposure to any child for heaven sake. With so many nice, positive as well as realistic plays available, this one had to be chosen?
Pierre Tristam says
Palmcoaster, To Kill a Mockingbord is primarily a children’s book. Regardless, terms like “nice” and “positive” have no application, other than as tripwires, in the context of art or any attempt at seeking truth. “Guernica” isn’t a “positive” painting, either, but it hangs at the UN Security Council for a reason (not that it’s been of much use there).
Inna Hardison says
At palmcoaster – you had me at “classical”.
These children, both on stage and in the audience, have to read this book as part of their required reading. I think that maybe you are somehow unaware of that small fact. As for realistic and positive – maybe Jim Guines can explain it to you better than could, and he’d certainly have more of a right to, as an educator, that is. Our of curiosity, which “nice, positive and realistic” plays would you have chosen, specifically?
Jon Hardison says
PalmCoaster – I couldn’t disagree more. (respectfully, or course.) It’s a piece of literary work. One of historical significance, and one that is woven into the fabric of our nation. It poses no more risk than the school trips to the Holocaust museum or the reenactments of old civil war battles. These things happened. And to shelter our children from those realities on any level does our community a horrible injustice. I said this at the Mockingbird meeting too, but I feel it needs to said again: Our children don’t have to live in that world, the one we’re trying to shelter them from now, because a small number of people fought to change things. But that doesn’t mean it’s over, and the best defense against ignorance is education. Our children NEED TO KNOW HOW FAR WE’VE COME. They need to know that their American wasn’t the one we grew up in, and ours wasn’t the one our parents lived in. They need to understand that this takes work. They also need to understand the dangers of complacency.
And all of this caution… what do we gain from it? My 10 year old son hears the word “nigger” being screamed back and forth on his bus on a near daily basis. Is this because those children are bigots? No, probably not! It’s because they don’t know any better. Just because it looks and feels better doesn’t mean it is.
Again, respectfully…
Jon Hardison says
Sorry, I didn’t realize my wife was responding at the same time. LOL!
Charlie Ericksen Jr says
If the words mentioned are considered obscenities, when spoken in a play, why it it acceptable , for the students in their personal talks , while in school, to frequently use the “F” word, as part of their “normal” vocabulary ?? Are there no students or teachers offended by this foul language. I guess, the principal, needs to be reminded, that no matter who we are, nor who we supervise, we all have a boss, above us…The Capt. of the aircraft carrier Enterprise learned that yesterday..
True Art says
From my experience everything Pryor does is about him and his personal view of how things should be run. Look out if you don’t agree with him or his staff for cronies. The school board needs to grow a pair and put Pryor and his ego in place. He is after all an employee of the school board not the and not the one in charge. He needs to do what the school board decides just like he expects his teachers to do at his school. If he can’t abide by the rules that the school board has set maybe he should be someplace else. it’s a shame that the Flagler county couldn’t hire a Superintendent or elect a school board that can run the school system with any common sense.
Jon Hardison says
Charlie – If I understand your comment, I can empathize with your view, and I realize that the words in question are obscene today, but not too long ago they were quite common. Even today, when you’re driving south on i95 on a Sunday after 9PM, you can see the KKK fires burning in the west.
When my wife and I moved to Palm Coast full time in 2004, do you know what the first call I got on my new phone was? It was a recruiting call for the KKK. I explained that I was black and the conversation was over. My point is that the words in question aren’t considered obscene. Not by all of us.
But those are little factoids and not really the point. It’s art, and if we’re not mature to confront the realities of our own history by the time we’re in high-school… when is the right time?
Jim Guines says
All of this confusion over a simple policy statement about censorship causes me to wonder who is writing the policy. Looks like some SENIOR DIRECTOR IS AT IT AGAIN. Is there still a school board lawyer in the house? Who develops policy for the board?
palmcoaster says
Charlie I totally agree with you and your great example regarding Aircraft Carrier Enterprise top fired boss Captain Honors and we are talking about navy adult crews, exposed to the rant in those videos. I asked my son if he was ever exposed to similar video shows that could have been created by his officers in command when he served several years in our Navy and to my peace of mind and patriotic pride, he replied, never mom, in all those years of my service, my superiors would not even think about something like that to promote crews morale.
With all my due respect … to the Hardisson’s first of all, I am sincerely sorry of their negative experience arriving in Palm Coast and also the mentioned use of “the N word”
on a daily basis by students. I also agree that any student utilizing derogatory names within school property should be properly discipline and their parents should be called to school also to be addressed about the issue, in order to have those parents collaborate in the proper social education of their children at home also.
When I refer to a restriction for the Kill a Mockingbird, as a school play I do not intent censorship at all…would be as the same as restricting high sexual context plays as is realized today on any movie/film rating not for younger audiences, by the proper authorities…Is not censorship is common sense that we do not expose immature children audiences to certain themes…as they have plenty of time to develop their realistic values and their influence in our current society. Is not to distort, hide or denied a sad account of events in our country history but instead to prepare our children for a formed adult criteria of those painful events for a better realistic understanding, opinion and or judgement. I was not aware that also our students are bussed to Holocaust museums….as my children as students in NJ never were subject to those “educational” trips. Over 80 and 50 years have passed on the above mentioned events and when are we going to bury the hatchet? Haven’t we fought enough and our braves gave their lives in those conflicts to save innocent people from harm, when we made it in time and could? What about promoting some Peace for a change. Any psychologist or medical professional will tell their adult patient about a past event painful enough to cause distress or other mental or physical consequences to let it rest, put it on their back of their mind, lesser its importance so healing and recovery materializes. Then why do we want to do the opposite, to our student children?
I am only suggesting here to the ones that have the power today in our schools, let our children to develop their formed character and personalities, based on historical facts in our text books and classes, that are at times harsher than our current realities, before bombard them with plays about those historical events. Let our children enjoy their childhood please.
palmcoaster says
Pierrre, that to Kill a Mockingbird is a children’s book is on the eyes of the beholder…but not this speaker. Also Picasso’s Guernica hanging in the UN is intended as a message to the world of the inhumanity of wars. Not that avoids any wars by itself unfortunately, but warns of devastation created by these armed conflicts surging constantly allover the world. Maybe Picasso at that point was already tired of witnessing so many war conflicts, where the contenders end up all looking as crazy, fighting their illusionary enemies, as Don Quixote de la Mancha in Picasso’s rendition of Miguel Cervantes Saavedra Spanish classic. Picasso would be frustrated of our wars reality today realizing that his famous tapestry have achieved absolutely nothing as you infer.
To Inna Hardison, sorry about the “classical” should have been “classic for book” but I had Beethoven music on, while typing. Once more sorry I “had” you that way. I still stick to the fact that to Kill a Mockingbird is a “classic” for the following 5 reasons:
1. The timing of its publication. (1960)
2. The story.
3. The way the story is told.
4. The discoveries most characters have in it.
5. The fact the people still read it, enjoy it and learn from it.
And to satisfy your curiosity, instead of this classic I would have advised for example Mark Twain’s humorous Huckleberry Finn for a student audience mostly younger than 17.
Judy Vanderoef says
palmcoaster – are you opposed to students reading the book? Or is just the performance of the play that you’d like to protect them from. It is required reading for freshman (mostly 14 year olds).
The fact that this debate has been ignited yet again is proof that the subject matter is still current. And the main characters are children! We cannot protect them from the harsh reality of life. Seeing the play will help generate dialogue among adults and students and promote understanding and tolerance.
To Mr. and Mrs. Hardison – my respect for you two grows while reading your thoughtful posts. I’m grateful that you are in our community.
To the “powers that be” – I hope that common sense prevails.
Inna Hardison says
PalmCoaster – a few things, if I may (with apologies to Pierre for possibly abusing his generosity here).
You say why not bury the hatchet with respect to the Holocaust… I take offense to this, a personal one. My grandmother’s entire family is buried in Baby Yar, and asking me to shut up about it already to spare people like you the inconvenience of an emotion or a thought is asinine, for lack of a better word. I sincerely hope you don’t make recommendations of this nature under your actual name in real life. I suppose anonymity affords one the privilege of making callous statements.
As for Huck Finn being more appropriate – I have news for you. Huck Finn has “nigger” and “injun” in it – to big no-nos, not just one. Care to pick another classic?
palmcoaster says
To you first paragraph I will refer you to my freedom of speech…. That I do not agree with someone’s view does not deserve me to be label an assassin. Regarding my choice of book thought still has the N word on it, does not portray the same violence and I stand with my suggestion of Huck Finn not that will be taking in consideration either, I know.
Jon Hardison says
WOW! Well one good thing is coming from all this. We’re talking about it, and that’s a start.
Jim – Hello again! I ‘think’ Coleen is writing it, and your legal question is a good one. I would think her draft would go to an attorney or something. I’ll have to ask at the next meeting. Hope to see you there.
Judy – Very well said, and thank you. ;-)~ Kisses to you too.
Palm Coaster – Well… um… To be honest, I don’t really know what to say. I guess I have less of an issue with you speaking your mind than I have with what’s in it, if that makes any sense. I promise you I don’t mean this as an insult or anything, and I’m not trying to bully you or make you stop talking, BUT…
We’re talking about the Holocaust! We’re talking about electing to misrepresent the history of the world, the nature of people and governments and the realities of life to our children, and from what I can gather, you’re recommending we do this for aesthetics? Because the ugly truth is just to ugly? So what value is there in truth? The “Truth, Justice and the American Way” kind of truth that is? To turn a blind eye isn’t truth or justice. I have to insist that it’s ignorance… but not that harmless ignorance like someone not being able to play trivial pursuit. It’s the really bad kind where smart people stick their fingers in their ears and go, “BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA – I CAN’T HEAR YOU!! – BLA BLA BLA BLA”.
There is an easy solution to this problem. We the people need to stop doing sick and disgusting things. We’ll still have our history to contend with, sure. But as time passes there’ll be fewer and fewer new stories to tell.
Well folks. That’s pretty much it for me. I’ve stated my position on this, and I have every intention of seeing it through to the end, because I honestly believe that we’re killing our country by restricting our children’s access to these books, or editing Huck Finn as one publisher plans to do. History should not be revised, and if this generation gets it’s history all cleaned up, they will inevitably be forced to reinvent the wheel as they’ll be unable to refer to the lessons of the past… There won’t be any.
Be well all. :)
Norma Finkelstein says
To define a significant piece of literary work by a single word used 23 times is a feeble attempt at censorship.
Let’s not confuse Ms Lee with Dr. Laura! Ms Lee’s use of the n-word was to accurately capture and put in context a period in American history that reflected the culture of the time. To borrow a line from the New York Times Editorial Board: “It is not the word itself, but everything it has come to represent.” Let’s not cherry pick and sugar coat history to suit our own personal agenda. Let’s bring it out in the open so that we can continue to move forward, we still have a long way to go!
Maybe we can substitue “A People’s History of the United States of America” or ” A Young People’s History of the United States of America” by Howard Zinn
I have both versions also the DVD “Readings from Voices of A People’s History of the United States of America” that I am more than happy to lend.
Inna Hardison says
@PalmCoaster – your last comment left me pretty speechless. I was not aware that the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the ignorant from history. My bad.
palmcoaster says
Now also I am called an ignorant…and the bit goes on. This is what happens when our First Amendment and all our laws are left to interpretation by some, and that really destroys the very essence of our Constitution and/or individual rights.
Jim Guines says
This discussion is getting very rich, one of my heroes is Dr. Zinn.. Ms. Finkelstein, once we get this play finished, I would love to see some of your works about or by D. Zinn. I continue to be impressed with the quality of thought that the play has generated from the community.
Inna Hardison says
PalmCoaster – in the case of my last comment, I was not referring to you as ignorant, only to those kids and everyone else you believe should be ‘protected’ from knowledge of certain events, such as the Holocaust. I am not aware of anyone hiding behind their right to Freedom of Speech while preventing the speech of others. On second thought, I wish you’d reread the comments back to you before commenting, as I never called you an assassin either.
Good day.
Ryan McDermott says
I would like to clarify that at this moment, I am undecided on the opinion of the procedure policy.
Currently, I am straightening out my opinion of whether or not the Principal should have the “final decision” because he is responsible for all that occurs within the school or an appeal committee should be set up to reduce censorship in schools and give many points of view on deciding about the right of that play to be preformed. Looking at these comments above, there are always many points of view, but it is important to remember that no matter what happens in the school, the Principal must take responsibility. I stated in the month of November, “This is a school. Being a student, I know I do not have all the rights I would typically have outside school.” I still feel this way. However, we are entering the field of “The Arts” where there are many different opinions. As long as the Principal talks to peers and employees about the decision of whether that piece of art should be preformed, I am fine with the Principal making the final and ultimate decision (unless School Board changes the decision). After typing this, I suppose I would like there to be a Policy that requires the Principal to ask peers and employees about decisions related to “The Arts”. We must, of course, define The Arts and such in the policy, and this idea isn’t perfect, but it’s a suggestion.
student says
As a student I want you guys to know that I am really disappointed that this is going on in our town and school system. Honestly, did you guys know that there have been many books banned or challenged in this country, such as Catch 22 by Joseph Heller, Catcher in the Rye (1951) by J. D. Salinger, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk, White Noise by Don DeLillo and many more. Why were they banned? Because of certain words or ideas that the books contain. So what are you all going to hide the books from us or pretend that the issues these books bring up don’t exist? I don’t know about the disagreements about what kind of say the principal should have, but I know that it is the job of our teachers to teach us what the world is really like and to prepare us. The reality is that we as kids are already exposed to a lot by the media and those same words are in shows and music that most kids listen to. So why not it be in a play to show kids why those same words shouldn’t be used. And this is just an idea but everyone is taking an English class, why not have the students the required to go see it and then discuss it in class as an assignment so it can be explained in more detail. This can be used as a valuable teaching opportunity, and I believe it already is. Honestly though, you guys can’t protect us forever, so it’s better we learn these things now with guidance than later.
True Art says
Good luck getting someone like Pryor to listen to input from anybody. He does what ever he want and none of HIS teachers at HIS school will say anything that challenges his authority. Even if the school board comes up with a policy that actually makes sense I couldn’t see Pryor actually following it, he doesn’t even follow his own policies. He’s got the philosophy of “Do as I say, not as I do.” when it comes to HIS school, teachers and students.
W.Ryan says
The past should be a lesson to us all. Some of us are thinking archaic when it comes to subjects dealing with Race. It’s like the Victorian Era when it came to Sex. Today”s time dictates that we work with others to decide the faith of many. This is the process of Democracy. Anyone who chooses to hide truths and temper expression should not have the power to do so in an Academic Arena. This new generation has a more harmonious relationship with Race that Prior and others don’t seem to understand. Differences are the norm and they are excepted.
Liana G says
To: Ryan McDermott, student, W.Ryan – I really enjoyed reading your comments and suggestions. And I would very much like for them to be used in this decision process as they are all excellent suggestions. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the discussion. I am so very proud of you all. Thank You.
To: True Art – If what you say is true, then all the more reasons for Mr Pryor to be given authority to make decisions and to take responsibility for those decisions, which is what he is advocating. Thank you for your insight.
While I do not agree with Mr Pryor’s decision concerning ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’, I do agree that school principals should be given the authority to make independent decisions especially when they are willing to accept and take full responsibility for them. That is a very courageous and commendable act. Kudos to Mr Pryor! Now, if there is disagreement with any decisions, then as Ryan suggested, there should be an Appeals Committee that can step in. I don’t see Mr Pryor’s as wanting to micromanage but rather the other way around: And that is not healthy. When a person’s ability to manage/govern is being undermined and curtailed then that can breed disrespect, because the person is perceived as being ineffective. A person in authority should be able to command respect not demand respect.
Big difference!