By Liam Flanagan
The Atkins’s Musical Theater class’s rendition of The Wedding Singer was fantastic, hailed by many of its attendees for its impressive execution, especially as the second-ever musical performed by the Atkins Theater Department.
However, the morning after its first showing a parent posted on Facebook with concerns about the “inappropriate scenes.” Parents in the comments scrutinized several scenes in the musical which included sexual innuendo, references to alcohol, and cursing. This complaint did not stop on Facebook, as a parent reached out to local radio station 102 Jamz, voicing concerns with what they saw as excessively mature material being shown at a public school performance.
In response, another parent on Facebook wrote that the message of the story, “dear friendship based love [overcoming] overt sexualization, casual flings, and monetary greed” makes it absurd to report the musical for minor cursing and sexual innuendo, especially as its message criticizes the actions of characters who participate in this content, rather than supports it.
The musical as it was originally presented on opening night, contained mature content; however, it was heavily edited from the original. Additionally, a warning sign for mature content was placed outside the theater to inform audiences in advance. Atkins Theater removed props of alcoholic beverages to somewhat address parents’ concerns, replacing the alcohol with juice boxes. The only other notable change made was cursing in some scenes, in which harsh language was replaced by monotonous beeping sounds, both addressing parents' objections and seemingly satirizing the censorship.
This situation raises important questions about freedom of speech and censorship in schools. Limiting student speech in schools is only allowed if the speech is deemed, “substantially disruptive,” defined as obscene, libelous, or inciting violence. This can be tricky, as obscenity can seem somewhat subjective.
The Miller Test, established from Miller v. California (1973), established a three-pronged test to determine whether material is obscene. Obscene content appeals to the “prurient interest,” an excessively graphic or shameful appeal to sex, depicts sexual conduct in a “patently offensive way,” one that is clearly offensive by applicable state laws, and/or lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” In the case of The Wedding Singer, its edited version only utilizes innuendo and minor cursing and alcohol references as they contribute to the greater themes of the work in condemning objectification and marrying for wealth.
Further laws apply to public schools, such as the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision of 1988, which says schools can censor school publications without restriction if they are “inconsistent with the school’s educational mission.” Other laws can affect profanity, disruptive conduct, and promotion of illegal activity, which includes the use of marijuana, alcohol, and other substances.
When asked for his reaction to the musical’s censorship, Promotions Manager Isaiah McFarland who designed the flyers, posters, and digital art used for the musical, stated he was “initially distressed by the news of impending censorship, but was greatly relieved upon hearing that only minor changes were to be made to the production.” Upon seeing the production he responded,“I found myself enjoying the changes that accentuated the comedic elements of the play, like the inclusion of juice boxes,” which replaced alcohol in several scenes.
Under no legal jurisdiction could the play have been justifiably censored at all, unless under a previously established school or district rule. In defending their decision to leave the script unedited, Atkins has emphasized their commitment to protecting students’ rights to free speech and expression, which are essential to living and functioning in a free democratic society.