Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

October 25, 1989 - Image 8

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1989-10-25

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

"The Michigan Daily Wednesday, October 25, 1989 Page 8




his Drood lives


CAN you imagine a murder mys-
tery musical where the audience gets
to pick the conclusion and who the
murderer should be? Well The Mys-
tery of Edwin Drood is just such a
show. Rupert Holmes' wickedly
pliyful musical starts off the Ann
bor Civic Theatre's "Sparkling

60th Anniversary Season" with a
great, big bang.
With its rollicking spirit, audi-
ence-involving merriment and vi-
brant score, The Mystery of Edwin
Drood was the 1986 winner of five
Tonys and nine Drama Desk Awards.
After a successful run on London's
West End, it opened as a free show
in New York's Central Park, where
it was so favorably received by the
Fridays in The Daily

press and even more warmly wel-
comed by audiences that Producer
Joseph Papp moved it to Broadway,
with the new title Drood.
Based on an unfinished work by
Charles Dickens, Drood opens with
members of the "Music Hall Roy-
ale" running around and introducing
themselves among the audience.
This is all before the "Chairman"
starts the show's opening number.
They then introduce the "Jekyll and
Hyde" choirmaster, John Jaspers.
And here is where things get tricky.
Jasper's nephew is Edwin Drood
himself. Edwin is engaged to Miss
Rosa Bud who is Jasper's music
pupil and object of Jasper's mad ob-
session. But wait... Rosa Bud is

also sought after by the Reverend
Crisparkle, thus making Edwin and
the secretive Jasper his rivals. A di-
verse bunch of Victorian-era carica-
tures (an Indian princess, a detective,
and so on) round out the musical's
motley cast.
This may sound like a soap
opera-ish setup, but things don't re-
main quite so simplistic. You see,
Dickens never got around to finish-
ing his story. Creator Rupert
Holmes (of "Pifia Colada" song
fame) takes advantage of this fact by
leaving the ending up to the mem-
bers of the audience - by a vote,
they designate the murderer, and de-
cide which two characters will walk
off into the sunset with each other.

This unique ending more than any-
thing is what has made Drood so
This production showcases the
talents of several Ann Arborites.
James Posante, one of Ann Arbor's
better known directors, is the person
behind the troupe of 25. The Chair-
man will be played by Beverly Poo-
ley, a professor at the University
Law school. Professor Pooley is a
veteran of other area shows including
Amadeus, Peter Pan and many
Gilbert and Sullivan Society produc-
Pooley conveyed some of the ex-
citement of the show. "Because the
audience gets very involved in this
rambunctious Victorian play, it re-

ally pumps up the actors and the en-
ergy level." He hinted that he did
have a favorite ending to Drood, but
even Princess Puffer's opium could
not extract it from him. Audiences
for past productions, hoping for en-
cores from their favorites, have been
known to vote for the best singer as
the murderer. Come on, is real vot-
ing any less frivolous for most peo-
DROOD will be performed at the
Mendelssohn Theatre in the Michi-
gan League tonight through Saturday
at 8 p.m., and Sunday at 2 p.m. Stu-
dent tickets are $7 ($9 Friday and
Saturday); one ticket per I.D.



,, , .,

i _ ,

'Share the

-Paid Advertisement-
Interim policy on discriminatory conduct



At the September meeting of the Board of Regents, President James J. Duderstadt
implemented an interim policy on discrimination and discriminatory conduct by
students in the University environment. He noted that "at The University of Michi-
gan it is unacceptable to discriminate, harass, or abuse any person because of his or
her race, religion, ethnic group, creed, sex, age, ancestry, marital status, sexual
orientation, or physical handicap." He also cited the need for campus comment and
debate on this policy before a permanent policy is put into effect. In order to inform
you of the interim policy and stimulate that debate, we print the policy below. Stu-
dent, staff and faculty groups are being formed now for the purpose of hearing
comments and advising the President's Office on the drafting of a permanent policy.

i . _.

k :
, 1 f
t ,


, helsea Hospital is offering an
8-part series for families
┬░having a member with an
'eating disorder; either
:anorexia or bulimia. The
;weekly series begins Monday
,vening, Oct. 30, from 7-8:30
lp.m., at Eisenhower Circle,
Suite H. (next to the

Discrimination, as defined in Regental Bylaw 14.06 and the Presidential Policy
Statement issued in March 1984, is unacceptable on The University of Michigan cam-
pus. Such behavior threatens to destroy the environment of tolerance and mutual re-
spect which must prevail if a university is to fulfill its purpose.
Of equal importance on The University of Michigan campus is a strong commit-
ment to the principle of freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, as stated in the University's Policy on Freedom of Speech,
Section 601. I in the Standard Practice Guide. The University is dedicated to allowing
students vigorous and open academic discourse and intellectual inquiry, including
speech that espouses controversial or even offensive ideas.
In the University context, a commitment to not interfere with free speech may lead
to sheltering speech by students that is repugnant or morally offensive. Because of our
respect for individual freedom and dignity, the sheltering of such speech is allowed in
order to arrive at truth, to promote clearer reasoning by necessitating argument
against opposing views, and in recognition of the fallibility of any one individual or
institution in discerning the one, correct idea. Perhaps most important is that it rein-
forces our society's commitment to tolerance as a value.
It is clear, however, that under existing free speech jurisprudence all speech is not
protected. The United States Supreme Court in Cohen v California (1971) recognized
that the First Amendment would not protect speech when, "substantial privacy inter-
ests are ... invaded in an essentially intolerable manner." In the secondary school
context, the Court said speech can be prohibited that "would materially and substan-
tially interfere with the requirement of appropriate discipline in the operation of the
school." Tinker v Des Moines Community School District, (1969) "Fighting words"
also do not enjoy First Amendment protection. Chaplinskv v New Hampshire, 315 US
568, (1942) The language of these decisions shows that the Supreme Court is strug-
gling to articulate the boundaries of protected speech.
After a thorough review of the issue, The University of Michigan has determined
that it needs to intervene in speech when a student intentionally uses racial, ethno-
centric or sexual invectives, epithets, slurs or utterances directly to attack or injure
another individual rather than express or discuss an idea, ideology or philosophy.
Such attacks go beyond the boundaries of protected free speech. In those instances,
the University must protect the educational environment of the University.
Because there is tension between freedom of speech, the right of individuals to be
free from injury caused by discrimination, and the University's duty to protect the
educational process, the enforcement procedures assume that it is necessary to have
varying standards depending upon the locus of the regulated conduct. Thus a distinc-
tion is drawn among public forums, educational and academic centers, and housing
Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Conduct
A. Discrimination and discriminatory conduct in public forums
Places such as the Diag, Regents' Plaza, the Fishbowl and the area around Burton
Tower are dedicated public forums which lend themselves to facilitating the free ex-
change of ideas within the University community. In many respects they resemble the
public park or street corner. Similarly, the Michigan Review, the Michigan Daily and
other mass media enhance the discussion and debate of important ideas and issues.
The broadest range of speech and expression will be tolerated in these areas and by
these publications. Nevertheless, malicious and intentional verbal threats of physical
violence directed towards an individual, sexual harassment, physical violence and
destruction of property in public forums which is the result of disciminatory behavior
as defined in paragraph B below are misconduct and subject to discipline.
B. Discrimination and discriminatory conduct and harassment in educational
and academic centers.
Educational and academic centers, such as classroom buildings, libraries, research
laboratories, recreation and study centers, etc. are the locus of the University's educa-
tional mission. Accordingly the University has a compelling interest in assuring an
environment in which learning may thrive. Such an environment requires free and
unfettered discussion of the widest possible nature, encouraging expression of all
points of view. The University acknowledges that the frank and open discussion of
social, cultural, artistic, religious, scientific and political issues may be disturbing
and even hurtful for some individuals. In such instances, the principle of free ex-
change and inquiry takes precedence as it is so fundamental to the educational enter-
Discrimination and discriminatory harassment have no place in this educational en-
terprise. Physical acts or threats or verbal slurs, invectives or epithets referring to an
individual's race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin,
ancestry, age or handicap made with the purpose of injuring the person to whom the
words or actions are directed and that are not made as a part of a discussion or ex-
change of an idea, ideology or philosophy are prohibited.
In order to illustrate the types of conduct which this subsection is designed to cover,
the following examples are set forth. These examples do not illustrate the only situa-
tions or types of conduct intended to be covered.

that it was a good thing because it destroyed members of an inferior religion. A Jewish
student in the class files a complaint. Even though the remark may have been intended
to upset Jewish members of the class, it is protected under the Policy because it was
made during a discussion of ideas.
(4)- A student tells a joke during class which slurs members of an ethnic group.
The joke is extraneous to the class discussion at that time. A member of the ethnic
group files a complaint. There is no violation of the Policy. Although the joke is not
part of an exchange or discussion of ideas, it is not directed toward any individual with
the purpose of injuring that person.
Students may not use race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, na-
tional origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era veteranstatus to
affect the terms, conditions, privileges, or benefits of an individual's education, em-
ployment, housing, or participation in a University activity.
Students also may not use threats, whether explicit or implicit, concerning the
terms or conditions of an individual's education, employment, housing, or participa-
tion in a University activity as a way to gain sex and sexual favors. Unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature that inter-
fere with an individual's academic efforts, employment or participation in University-
sponsored activities also are prohibited.
C. Discrimination and discriminatory conduct and harassment in University
All members of the University community who live in or visit University housing
are expected to abide by the same behavioral obligations that residents assume in ex-
ecuting their leases. Residents who violate their contractual obligations are subject to
the full range of penalties provided under their leases including, but not limited to,
termination of the lease, as well as sanctions described in this policy and in the hous-
ing division policy and procedures on discrimination and discriminatory harassment.
Non-resident students who violate the standards of appropriate behavior in University
housing are subject to discipline under this interim policy. Copies of the "Living at
Michigan Credo" and other standards of behavior in University housing are available
in each housing unit.
D. False Accusations
A student who knowingly and intentionally files a false complaint under this policy
is subject to discipline.
Identifying Discriminatory Behavior
Not every act that might be offensive to an individual or a group necessarily will be
considered a violation of this policy. Whether a specific act violates the policy will be
determined with proper regard for all of the circumstances. Due consideration must
be given to the protection of freedom of speech, including offensive speech, and also
to individual rights, religious and moral convictions, academic freedom and ad-
vocacy. The Office of the General Counsel will review all complaints filed under the
policy to guarantee that First Amendment protections are observed.
Responding to Complaints of
Discriminatory Behavior Among Students
Informational posters and brochures will be developed indicating the counseling
resources available and the informal and formal mechanisms for resolving complaints
of behavior which violate this policy. Schools, colleges and units will advise all of
their members of these resources and procedures.
A. Persons or Offices Designated to Receive Complaints
The following University resources are available to members of the University
community who seek information and counseling about University policies on ha-
rassment and other discriminatory behavior, the filing of complaints and the informal
and formal mechanisms for resolving complaints.
-Student Discrimination Policy Administrator, Office of the Vice President for
Student Services, is responsible for receiving and investigating any complaints of dis-
crimination and discriminatory harassment by students, as well as coordinating the
resolution of complaints - either formal or informal. 3000 Michigan Union,
- Deans, department chairs and directors within the various units.
- Counseling Services offers a wide range of programs to assist students in solv-
ing personal problems.
- Affirmative Action Office receives complaints and assists with problems re-
lated to discrimination and harassment and monitors the handling of all such com-
plaints at the University. 108 Fleming Administration Building, 763-0235 (TDD
- Office of the Ombudsman exists to assist students in resolving complaints
throughout the University. 3000 Michigan Union, 763-3545.
- Housing Division Building Directors in cooperation with Housing Security
and/or other university staff, are responsible for handling, investigating, and resolv-
ing complaints of discrimination and discriminatory harassment occurring in Univer-
sity residence halls. Family Housing residents should contact the Family Housing Of-
fice. Residents and non-residents are encouraged to obtain and review housing pro-
- Department of Public Safety and Security will take reports for investigation
under the student policy and/or for criminal prosecution, as well as work in coopera-
tion with other offices. 525 Church Street, 763-1131, EMERGENCY (on-campus
phone - 911).
B. Confidential Personal Counseling and Assistance for Those Affected by Dis-
crimination and Others
The University offers an individual the choice of seeking confidential personal
counseling if he or she desires. Such counseling lies outside the University's mecha-
nisms for resolving complaints of discrimination and discriminatory harassment; the
services are intended solely for the personal benefit of the person. In general, these
offices can offer a setting where it is possible to explore personal feelings and examine
possible courses of action within the context of professional confidentiality. In addi-





Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan