My earliest memory of Aristophanes’ plays was reading a copy of The Frogs, which my older brother had. Other than the crude jokes early on in it, I don’t remember much. Years later, a friend in college produced a modern adaptation of a Greek play as her senior project. I don’t recall if it was Aristophanes. I seem to remember it using large puppets, having a Greek chorus, and I having something to do with sex and war.
Was it Lysistrata? I don’t know. However, this week, people around Fairfield, CT will have a special opportunity to see a production of Lysistrata, or perhaps more accurately, a documentary about the Lysistrata Project.
In January 2003, two women in New York City, Kathryn Blume and Sharron Bower, thought to organize readings of the ancient Greek play by Aristophanes, Lysistrata, as a protest of the imminent preemptive war on Iraq. Originally conceived as a local event, however, over the course of a several weeks, word of the Lysistrata Project quickly gained momentum and became a worldwide happening for peace. On March 3, 2003 over 1,000 simultaneous productions of Lysistrata were performed in 59 countries around the globe.
The film "Operation Lysistrata" shows how two women transformed their individual aspirations for peace into a movement which allowed the global community to share in their vision, using grassroots activism, conflict resolution, community building and the role of art in a functioning democracy.
There will be a screening on Monday, November 12, 2007 at The Fairfield Theatre , 70 Sanford St, Fairfield, CT at 7:30 PM. It should be a fun evening. It makes me think of the great quote attributed to Emma Goldman, “If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution.” If our political activism, even on matters as important as trying to stop a senseless war, can be filled with fun and art, then I worry people will burn out to quickly and the efforts will fail.
Today, I received an email pointing me to a letter in the Waterbury Republican. I haven't seen the letter; I'm not sure if it is online. However, the email summarizes it and asks me for my thoughts. I thought I would publish them here.
In the Waterbury Republican today (11-10-07) is a letter to the editor on page 6A that makes a good point. It was written by Donna Hudson of Harwinton. She says that Avery D isn't in trouble for calling school administrators a foul name. Instead, she's in trouble for inciting a campaign to harass them and disrupt school. It further says the newspaper reporters failed to thoroughly research the incident. What do you think?
Donna is partially right. I do believe that Avery was punished for encouraging parents to contact members of the school admininistration concerning the way facilities at the school are used. Most significantly, it was an embarrassment to Superintendent Schwartz who had already been criticized for the way the school administration was handling facitilities.
Yet to encourage citizens of a town to speak with the school administrators about how school facilities should be used should not be considered harassment and disruption, it should be considered civic duty.
Likewise, Donna is correct about newspaper reporters failing to thoroughly research the incident. If they had, they would be up in arms and writing good investigative reporting pieces in the local papers about the principal of the school, testifying under oath that she instructed school officials to place false information in students records.
If that was properly investigated and reported on, people would be wondering about what is in their children's records, and calling for a full investigation, possible criminal proceedings and the immediate removal of those involved.
On November 1st, approximately 35 students at Morton West High School in Berwyn, IL staged a sit-in in the school cafeteria. Reports are that around 25 of the students locked arms and refused to move when they were ask to.
As I read stories about this, I can only wonder what Avery Doninger would have to say. Over the past several months, she has learned a lot about what sort of speech is allowed to students, in what locations, and under what conditions.
An article in the Chicago Suburban News uses the word ‘disrupt’ in one form or another half a dozen times to describe the protest. “Officials say their actions disrupted the educational process” the article reports.
The event took place in the school cafeteria, where so many important lessons are learned. The administrations reaction to the protest was to lock down the school and call in the police. One has to wonder if it was the students actions that were disrupting the educational process, or an over reaction by the administration that disrupted the educational process.
The article quotes Rita Maniotis, head of the PTO and parent of one of the protesters as saying, “We don’t want this to come to a lawsuit, but we don’t think it’s appropriate that these children be expelled.”
The article refers to a statement by Superintendent Nowakowski which says,
“Not only do students have a right to express themselves on matters of conscience but we encourage them to do so. In this instance, it is critical to note that the Morton administration did not say that the students could not protest. Rather, we asked that the students simply move their protest to an area of the school that would not disrupt the ability of the other 3,400 students at Morton West to proceed with their normal school day.”
Yet trying to make sure that students can proceed with their normal school day is substantially different with the standards about students’ freedom of speech concerning a substantial disruption of pedagogical intent and this will likely become a key part of this case as it proceeds to court.
Instead, the message that Superintendent Nowakowski seems to be promoting is that of ‘Freedom of Speech Zones”. Yes, students have the right to free speech, and he seems suggest that free speech shouldn’t circumscribed by whether it substantially disrupts the pedagogical intent, but whether or not it is convenient. It is a dangerous trend, runs counter to our history of embracing freedom of speech.
I do hope that Superintendent Nowakowski handles this case better than Superintendent Schwartz has handled Avery Doninger’s case. I look forward to visiting the Second Circuit of Appeals on Avery’s case, but I don’t think I can justify flights out to Chicago.
Yesterday, we went to church. The first reading of the day was from Ecclesiasticus. It is that wonderful section that begins, “Let us now sing the praises of famous men.” It talks about the great variety of famous men, leaders, musicians, writers, and others of home there is no memory. It is a great reading for the Sunday after All Saints Day; a reminder that we are all in this together, the rich and the forgotten.
It is also provided the title for James Agee and Walker Evans monumental book, “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men”. That book was written about poverty in the south during the Great Depression. Now, over seventy years later, we have others to now praise famous men.
John Edwards, as part of his “American Heroes Week” spent last Saturday with a bunch of supporters helping rebuild home in New Orleans. We still have poverty in our country, and Hurricane Katrina briefly blew away the façade that had been hiding it.
This evening, I received an email containing the brief filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the case of Lauren Doninger, P.P.A. as Guardian and Next Friend of Avery Doninger, a minor, Appellant v. Karissa Niehoff and Paula Schwartz, et al., Appellees.
If you are new to this site, I would encourage you to read my coverage in the Connecticut section of this blog. For those of you who like reading briefs, I would encourage you to read the brief filed by Martin Margulies and Daniel J. Krisch of the Center for First Amendment Rights as well as the brief filed by Jon L. Schoenhorn who will be arguing the case at the Second Circuit.