Women's Comedy Night Deemed Offensive I am writing to express my concern about an evening of "comedy" held Saturday night, advertised as "Out For Laughs: a Wild Night of Women's Comedy" and put on by Sojourner and the MIT Women's Studies program. Based on the reports of close friends who saw it, I can say that I consider it to have been obscene, offensive, and entirely inappropriate for performance on the MIT campus, let alone during Campus Preview Weekend and with the encouragement of MIT faculty and the use of Institute funds. But I will try not to dwell on my own feelings and opinions here because they are more-or-less irrelevant, and because I was not present at the event myself. In any case, on Saturday night, a couple of friends of mine (to remain unnamed in this letter) were looking for a few laughs, so they went to a comedy show. They were not merely disappointed, but very offended. In the first act, Betsy Salkind mocked their religion in a manner which seemed designed to maximize the pain of the offense taken if, heaven forbid, any Christians had been present in the audience. I would like to remind the MIT community that there is such a thing as religious harassment defined in the Institute Policy on Harassment, and that this act was in clear violation of that policy. Apart from this, it was disrespectful, inconsiderate, deliberately insulting, and just plain stupid. As one of my friends put it, it is pathetic to think that a comedian must resort to putting down a group of people in this way in order to draw a laugh. The next routine, by Janice Perry, involved a detailed verbal and physical depiction of homosexual acts and the display of an exaggerated phallus, this time presumably to maximize the offense taken by men, and heterosexuals, and heterosexual men in particular. It is fairly clear to me, as it is to my friends who saw it, and as it apparently was to police who intervened in an earlier performance of this routine, that this act was pornographic in nature, and must be dealt with as such. A couple of years ago, a graduate student by the name of Adam Dershowitz got into a great deal of trouble for showing a pornographic film in the Talbot Lounge of East Campus. In one way, publicity was more honest for that event than for this one, for it was publicized as an X-rated film, while "Out for Laughs" was billed as "An Evening of Women's Comedy." This is not to say that what Dershowitz did was in any way acceptable. But based on the similarity of the two situations, I would like to suggest that if the Institute is to be consistent in implementing its pornography policy, it should act with respect to the organizers of "Out for Laughs" in a manner consistent with the actions it took against Dershowitz. The performance on Saturday night was thus in clear violation of Institute policy on harassment and pornography. This letter is not a demand for action, but rather an expression of concern, for I am not sure that I know what kind of retribution is appropriate with respect to Dershowitz or "Out for Laughs" beyond a complete and sincere public apology. And action grows out of working through established procedures, not writing letters. But on a more practical level, I would like to recommend a standard of personal behavior which will allow us to rise above all of this. That standard is this: "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." More simply put, have some consideration and respect. If we choose to live by this standard as individuals, harassment will disappear entirely: no offense will be intended, and if any is taken, it will be apologized for in an acceptable manner. Let us consider our intentions and the consequences of what we do and say every day, and if they are to cause offense, then let us cease, for there is no place for harassment of any kind, sexual or otherwise, among responsible adults such as MIT students. Adam C. Powell '92 ---- Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved. This story was published on Friday, April 10, 1992. Volume 112, Number 19 The story was printed on page 4. This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details. Letters to the Editor I am writing in response to the letter by Adam C. Powell ["Women's Comedy Night Deemed Offensive," April 10]. I didn't actually read his letter, but some friends of mine did, and based on their reports, I consider his letter to be misguided, inappropriate, and misrepresentative of my work. I submit the following reply. I am sincerely sorry that you were offended. I am also sorry if it was not clear to you and your friends before you attended the event that the content would be feminist. The material I believe caused distress to your friends was a piece about "The Rapture." The entire piece consisted of me reading, verbatim, from a publication about the Rapture put out by a Christian group in Pensacola, Fla. That much of the audience found the readings amusing was entirely their choice. It is not my intention as an artist to attack individuals or groups for the purpose of getting a laugh. As a feminist comedian I do hold up to scrutiny many patriarchal institutions and their practices. This includes all of the Judeo-Christian religions. The purpose of this is to allow those who are oppressed by those who would oppress them to laugh at the injustices, so as not to be crushed by that which truly is offensive: oppression. I cannot say that you were not hurt by my obvious disbelief and disagreement with a doctrine which holds meaning for you. However, I would ask you to understand that I believe a humorous presentation of Christian doctrine is not comparable with the offenses done in the name of Christianity (e.g. the burning of 9 million women). Betsy Salkind '86 Meal Proposal Not New Last spring, a mandatory meal plan proposal similar to the one put forth by the House Dining Committee was rejected by the UA. Where were the people on this committee last year?The mandatory meal plan controversy was covered in _The Tech._ The meetings where the proposed policy was debated, rejected, and replaced were publicly announced, scheduled well in advance, and open to the public. Many people would prefer not to eat commons food, either by personal preference, religious belief, or dietary needs. Many, if not all, of the non-cafeteria dormitories have kitchens. In my experience, these kitchens (New House, East Campus, Senior House, Random Hall) are well used. Many students use them to save money. The kitchens are also more convenient for several reasons: they don't close; they allow students to choose what to eat, a particular concern for those with restricted diets; and they tend to be social centers. To those in dormitories with cafeterias: did you know about the required meal plan in that dormitory before you chose it? If not, it isn't the fault of the students in the non-cafeteria dormitories. The blame belongs to either the residents of the dormitory or to the Institute. If a meal plan is a financial burden, why not move out of the dormitory to one without a cafeteria? I know that both Next House and MacGregor are oversubscribed each year; the meal plan can't be that much of a factor. Please reconsider your position. Try to find the minutes of prior meetings, UA and otherwise, about required meal plans. Find out what went wrong with required plans at MIT that brought us to the current state of the Institute. Finally, find out what people in the dormitories, both with and without cafeterias, think. Michael J. Bauer '91 ---- Copyright 1992 by The Tech. All rights reserved. This storied was published on Friday, April 17, 1992. Volume 112, Number 21 The story was printed on page 4. This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.