From:     Donald J. Barry <don@isc.astro.cornell.edu>
To:       Kenneth I. Clarke, Sr. <kic2@cornell.edu>
Cc:       editor@cornellsun.com, dean_of_students@cornell.edu
Subject:  Re: An Open Letter on the use of the Sage building for this year's Vagina Monologues
Date:     Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:02:56 -0500

Dear Ken:

We must then agree to disagree over what constitutes censorship. It is not necessarily outright suppression of a message, as you must know -- that most brutal form is often self-defeating. The more pernicious form of censorship occurs when small awkward impediments are constantly placed in the way of a message, lubricated by excruciatingly polite rationalizations couched in the framework of difficult decisions and ineluctable compromise.

Marginalization is both most successful and most invidious when accomplished in this almost invisible way. And it is a powerful response to marginalization of this kind that the content of the Vagina Monologues is specifically intended to address.

The Monologues involve participation of many dozens of students who have committed their time months in advance. Adding a second performance is a strenuous undertaking, particularly when forced at this late date. The costs of hired lighting and stagecraft, which are not inexpensive, add to this. I am told that the Women's Resource Center has, after difficult internal review, decided that adapting their show to your unilateral shift at this late date is not possible, so only one performance will take place. They are seeking sources of replacement funding for their charity. It is difficult enough for them to remake and reprint tickets and flyers for the event reflecting the new venue. I point out that this entire awkward realignment is entirely contingent on your decision, which is both optional and reversible.

What you have made abundantly clear is that your mission in attuning yourselves to the sensibilities of the perceived religious community and ministering to their perceived spiritual needs has placed you in an impossible position vis a vis the stewardship of University physical spaces. This is of course not a new dichotomy for religious versus secular systems and values, either here at Cornell or throughout the world.

I would propose that the University ease your task of this contradictory mission by removing the allocation of University facilities from CURW's purview. Clearly it is a difficult role which your organization undertakes with some trepidation, if not even ill will. Perhaps you might defer this decision of the refusal of Sage space to others and escape some blame from the fallout -- because at this point, fallout over the decision is inevitable. The reaction which has been manifested by three independent colleagues, when told about the CURW decision, is first astonishment that CURW schedules any university facilities, and followed by the term "horrifying." Others have hoped for a quick reversal of an obviously inflammatory decision. At this point the publicity is only likely to increase. That cannot be a positive development for CURW.

Don Barry

-- DonBarry? - 20 Feb 2009