THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 75 Fighting The Culture Wars In Academia

By James Fisher

Social questions are produced ative midwestern town, provided by the conflict of human institu- me, my students, and my colleagues tions with human feeling.1 an unsettling, but perhaps – George Bernard Shaw inevitable, skirmish in what appears to be a struggle for the country’s moral, political, and cul- kirmishes in the culture wars tural soul. have arisen at an alarming Angels in America is perfect Srate on our nation’s campuses, fodder for the culture wars. The usually over the validity of curricu- play deals with such sensitive lar and artistic offerings that issues as religious beliefs, the cul- depart from “traditional” values tural and personal effects of the and the “traditional” western AIDS pandemic, and the struggle canon. for moral clarity and social equity What exactly “traditional” in a complex society. means seems to be in the eye of the Finally, Angels dramatizes the beholder. Conservatives argue for a eternal struggle between Conserva- prescribed set of texts and ideas. tive and Liberal — “the liberal plu- But many artists and scholars ralist solution (everyone do his or would argue that society’s conflicts her own thing) against the conserv- have always been an essential part ative solution (everyone do the con- of the tradition of the academy. servatives’ thing)”2 — and, more The experience of staging Mil- specifically, the struggle over atti- lennium Approaches, the first part tudes about homosexuality in of Tony Kushner’s epic Pulitzer American society. Prize-winning drama Angels in Kushner is a rarity: an Ameri- America, at an all-male liberal arts can socio-political dramatist. The college in a predominantly conserv- lyricism and emotional potency

James Fisher, a professor of theatre at Wabash College, has authored four books, held several research fellowships, and published articles and reviews in numerous periodicals. He edits The Puppetry Yearbook and is book review editor of the Journal of Dramatic The- ory and Criticism. Fisher is the 1999-2000 McLain-McTurnan-Arnold Research Scholar at Wabash and was named “Indiana Theatre Person of the Year” by the Indiana Theatre Asso- ciation in 1996. 76 THOUGHT & ACTION

‘In an era of wrenching social changes, political theatre is important,’ Kushner told my students.

found in plays by Tennessee od that posed potent questions Williams and John Guare have about the future of American soci- influenced Kushner, but he is closer ety. It depicts a “dissolution of rela- in spirit to Henrik Ibsen, George tionships and the various unmoor- Bernard Shaw, and especially ings seem to be the prelude to a Bertolt Brecht, whom he greatly revolution, the creation of a new admires. order.”4 Combining qualities from Kushner wonders if we can con- Ibsen, Shaw, and Brecht — mixing structively embrace the changes starkly realistic lives and natural- that are occurring. He explores the istic language with ambitiously question by examining a few indi- universal themes burnished by ele- viduals in the intimacy of their pri- ments of fantasy and theatricality vate lives at moments of significant — Kushner transcends all of them. personal crisis. These personal lives are interwoven with the cross-cur- his playwright believes that rents of America’s past to create an all art is political and that “I intense historical drama about our Tcannot be a playwright with- recent past. out having some temptation to let I could not recall a time I had audiences know what I think when been as impressed by a play on first I read the newspaper in the morn- reading. As a theatre director with ing. What I find is that the things more than 25 years experience, I that make you the most uncomfort- hoped for a chance to direct it, but, able are the best things to write at first, this seemed an impossible plays about.”3 dream. The furor over Kushner’s plays Kushner came to Wabash in has become vitriolic in many 1995 and met with a class I was instances and seems to focus most teaching on his plays and respond- centrally on the gay content of ed to questions about his entire Angels. body of work. When I first read Millennium In an era of wrenching social Approaches, I was powerfully moved changes, political theatre is impor- by its unique mixture of feverish tant, he told my students. theatrical fantasy and blunt social “Good political theater asks reality, and by the playwright’s abili- complicated questions,” he ty to achieve so much on both the- explained. “It explores. It doesn’t matic and aesthetic levels. offer simple dogma. Those who are The play presents the mid- involved in the struggles to change 1980s as a critical transitional peri- the world need art that assists in THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 77

Kushner’s visit and the production of his play triggered a year-long local skirmish in the culture wars.

examining the issues at hand.”5 was backed by a small but wealthy Kushner attributed his interest group of conservative alumni (and, in political theatre to his childhood as I would later learn, a few mem- in Louisiana, where he encountered bers of the college’s Board of both mild anti-Semitism and more Trustees), and, at various times, its virulent homophobia. banner noted that the publication After his meeting with the received financial support from an class, Kushner gave a dynamic pub- array of national conservative orga- lic lecture to an enthusiastic full nizations. house. The privilege of introducing In the pages of The Commen- him fell to me, and I announced tary, a philosophy course on the that, after all, our Theatre Depart- Holocaust was condemned as ment’s next season would begin “trendy,” reading The Autobiogra- with a production of Millennium phy of Malcolm X was ridiculed, Approaches. and the showing of such films as I didn’t realize it at the time, Martin Scorsese’s The Last Tempta- but Kushner’s visit and the tion of Christ was called “shame- announcement of the production ful.” A faculty member’s voting triggered what became a year-long record was reported (inaccurately), local skirmish in the culture wars. and other staff were treated to biased and offensively personal rightened administrators, reviews of campus lectures and confused alumni and local cit- publications. One particularly Fizens, angry canon-worship- repugnant Commentary tactic: pers, the politically correct, and the those students the publication sus- media all came out of the woodwork pected of being gay were referred in for what became a test of the mean- print as “fragile” individuals. ing of academic freedom and the Snooping in wastebaskets, call- role of the artist in a community. ing past employers of staff in hopes Things spun out of control at of finding “dirt,” and starting once. What might have been a unfounded rumors became stan- minor controversy was exaggerated dard practice. By boldly claiming by the presence on campus of a stu- the right to define the sides and dent-run, right-wing publication frame the issues, The Commentary calling itself The Commentary. caught Wabash College off-guard. Largely the work of two stu- Wabash’s president, Andrew T. dents, this publication had emerged Ford, and his administration were on campus a year or so before in full panic by the time we Kushner’s visit. The publication announced the production of 78 THOUGHT & ACTION

I was drawn most powerfully to the play’s aesthetic challenges and the forthrightness of its arguments.

Angels. There is no question that range of drama and, secondly, that Ford was concerned about the the artistic and intellectual content potential controversy he believed of the plays selected provide signifi- — accurately — that The Commen- cant and multi-leveled challenges tary could whip up among alumni to both student participants and and the parents of students. audiences. The Commentary speculated about my motives in selecting the mong the students and play for production. I was certainly many members of the not unaware of possible fallout, but AWabash community, the expected no more than that some planned production of Angels gen- members of the community might erated as much enthusiasm as not like the play’s subject, some- dread. But I might have suspected thing that to some degree is likely there would be more than the usual with any play selection. fallout for this production when, Wabash, an institution that shortly after Kushner’s campus prides itself on the open and free visit, the dean of the college, P. Don- exchange of ideas, had long since ald Herring, a personal friend, become accustomed to so-called informed me that President Ford controversial material in theatre would like to meet with me to learn and other disciplines at the college. more about our Theatre Depart- The Theatre Department had pre- ment. sented such works for decades, Armed with course descriptions from A Streetcar Named Desire and and such, I was prepared to discuss Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? to the department’s mission and phi- Fortune and Men’s Eyes and Break- losophy. It came, then, as a surprise ing the Code. when the president’s first question, I could imagine that in 1959 A following a pointed reminder that Streetcar Named Desire or in 1969 he and I had always had friendly Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? relations, was about the choice of might well have been more shock- Angels. ing than Angels would seem in His concern focused almost 1996. exclusively on the play’s depiction There had been two basic and of homosexuality. This focus might, unwavering tenets that had tradi- he felt, cause “controversy” and pro- tionally guided the theatre pro- duce a negative effect on donations gram at the college. First, that a to the college. vigorous effort be made to present After I answered a number of students with the widest possible questions about the play and we THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 79

The controversy came to a head when the humanities faculty learned of my meetings with the president.

danced around the issue, I pointed- ical problem for many. ly asked if he was asking the The- Fair enough, I responded, but at atre Department to reconsider the point where their beliefs over- doing the play. rode the rights of others to study The president said no, but made and explore the issues, something it clear that our discussions were of greater significance seemed to be not over. at stake: academic freedom. My second meeting with Ford two weeks later was largely a xamining difficult, controver- repeat of the first, with different sial, unsettling, and unpopu- strategies employed on both sides. Elar viewpoints is, in my view, The president tested the waters essential to a college’s long-term with a game of “What If?” What health, which is why I left my meet- would happen if he should ask us ings with President Ford annoyed not to do the play? I replied that that we had now spent in excess of this question convinced me he three hours with no conclusion in wanted to ask us not to do the play. sight. If the president was not ask- When he didn’t answer, I asked ing us to reconsider, or hoping to if he had, in fact, received negative pressure us into a reconsideration, responses from alumni. He replied why did we need to talk again? that at least one alumnus had This time, I didn’t keep my expressed his “outrage” at discover- meeting with the president secret. I ing Wabash was going to put on “a replayed both encounters to col- play with two guys screwing each leagues in the arts at the college, other.” telling them I felt the president It became clear that the real was applying pressure. No one had problem stemmed from a practical ever challenged a play selection, so brand of homophobia. Ford and what else could it suggest? A sud- other concerned parties might not den interest in drama on his part? actually fear gays, but they did fear The controversy came to a head the presumed impact on “conserva- when the college’s humanities fac- tive” donors and the “marketing” of ulty learned of my meetings with the college. Alumniphobia might be the president. There was a small a more accurate term. uproar that ended with the presi- Ford pointed out that some dent being invited to a division individuals believed putting on the meeting to respond to questions on play was tantamount to condoning, academic freedom. celebrating, or recommending the Annoyed by the president’s “gay lifestyle,” a religious and polit- insistence that I raised the sugges- 80 THOUGHT & ACTION

The president’s view was that work with a public component wasn’t protected by academic freedom.

tion of a meeting to discuss the play vices, and even the library’s pro- in the first place, I wrote asking grams would then become accessi- him why would I initiate a discus- ble to the president’s censoring eye. sion about whether or not to do the How far a leap would it then be into play when I’d just attained the the traditional classroom? rights to do it after strenuously At about this time, The Com- seeking them? mentary stepped up its public assault. The publication posted the egardless of who initiated most potentially shocking scene the talks, I stressed in an E- from Millennium Approaches on its Rmail, he “shouldn’t have Web page, sent it to alumni as an applied pressure, even if it was E-mail message, and published it in unintentional, and having done it The Commentary itself. and realized that it was being felt This scene (Act II, Scene 4) that way––as I clearly expressed in depicts an encounter between each of our meetings––you should Louis, a gay man in despair over have stopped it and indicated that abandoning his AIDS-infected part- it was wrong.” ner, and an anonymous man in There was no reply. Central Park. It is frank and brutal The president did appear at a as Kushner makes Louis’s despair meeting of the Humanities Division and self-destructive impulses vivid- in mid-February 1996, where he ly real: answered general and largely MAN: Relax. polite questions about issues of aca- LOUIS (A small laugh): Not a demic freedom. chance. I kept quiet throughout, even MAN: It . . . when I felt the President’s version LOUIS: What? of our discussions was inaccurate, MAN: I think it broke. The rub- and when it became apparent that ber. You want me to keep going? it was not at all clear in Ford’s (Little pause) Pull out? mind that collegiate theatre pro- Should I. . . ductions were protected by the LOUIS: Keep going. tenets of academic freedom. Infect me. This view, of course, had poten- I don’t care. I don’t care.6 tially enormous ramifications beyond Angels. Out of context, the scene is Music concerts, art gallery indeed powerful. In context, it grows exhibits, poetry readings, lectures, in complexity as it reveals Louis’s publications, college worship ser- faithlessness, and it is essential to THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 81

Despite the controversy swirling about the campus, production work continued.

fully appreciate the level of his hardly seemed satisfied. A few wor- anguish and self-disgust. ried that some faculty members, The actions of a specific charac- who might be bitter about a recent ter in any play may appear shock- negative decision on an institution- ing, but that behavior, when placed al change to coeducation, were in perspective by the playwright “indifferent or worse” to the general and with the entire play around it good of Wabash. to make its meaning clear, may In response, I angrily wrote to seem less shocking and, in fact, sig- the president on February 6, 1996: nificantly illuminating. “You and the trustees need to con- sider if your lack of trust in the fac- n our production I planned for ulty is not hurting the college the two actors in these roles to be much, much more” than doing Iat opposite ends of the stage in Angels might. tight spotlights to suggest Louis’s At another staff meeting, the emotional distance from the president indicated that the the- stranger and, obviously, to make atre department was going ahead the scene a suggestion instead of a with plans to do the play and, graphic depiction, which I felt was according to several individuals inappropriate in a student produc- who attended the meeting, he tion. added “it will hurt the college.” The Commentary’s sensational- Despite the controversy izing of the scene was meant to con- swirling about the campus, produc- vince its readers that we planned to tion work continued. Matters wors- stage it graphically. This was never ened when word leaked out that intended, as I had made clear to the president and at least one of Ford in our first meeting when he, the Wabash trustees had funded too, presumed that the scene would and booked a panel discussion be staged realistically. generically titled “Freedom and Shortly after the president Responsibility in a Liberal Arts appeared at the division meeting, Community,” and that this discus- there was a gathering of the Board sion was scheduled for the night of Trustees on campus, where they before the play would open. discussed the play. Panelists were rumored to It was clear that the announce- include such well-known conserva- ment of the production had caused tive pundits as Gertrude Himmel- a furor. The concept of academic farb and Michael Medved. freedom finally prevailed at the I protested to the president that Board meeting, but the trustees the creation of the panel was an 82 THOUGHT & ACTION

Surely we were not planning to have panels to counter every program on campus that had a point of view.

unfriendly and unfair tactic. It seemed to have focused almost would only succeed in drawing a exclusively on the play. bold red circle around Angels,as The cast and crew of Angels though it had to be apologized for could not attend since our final by costly measures. Surely we were dress rehearsal took place during not planning to have panels to the panel. Ford met with the cast counter every program on campus that same night before the start of that had a point of view (and before the panel and pointedly told the they even occurred!), so why this Angels company that the panel one? “was not about the play.” Ford denied that the panel was about the play. Its scheduling the ut, when area newspaper night before the play’s opening, he accounts appeared the next said, was merely an unfortunate Bday with headlines like coincidence. “Panel Weighs Controversial It was soon announced that the Drama, Excludes Playwright,” the panel would indeed feature Him- students were puzzled by the presi- melfarb and Medved. Himmelfarb, dent’s pointed denial. One anony- commentator for The Weekly Stan- mous cast member posted a clip- dard and American Enterprise, and ping on the callboard with “Huh?” Medved, author of Hollywood vs. written across it in red lipstick. America and radio stand-in for According to the published Rush Limbaugh, would be the “con- accounts, Himmelfarb turned out to servative” panelists. be vehemently opposed to the play, For the “liberal” side, Jonathan claiming that as a Jew she was Rauch, author of Kindly Inquisitors offended by some of the play’s con- and journalist for The New Repub- tent in the spiritual area. lic, Reason, and National Journal, “I do think the play is a deliber- and Nat Hentoff, veteran writer for ate attempt to flout conventional The Village Voice and The Washing- sentiments, beliefs, values, princi- ton Post, were announced. Dinesh ples,” Himmelfarb is quoted as say- D’Souza, described as a senior ing. “And I think the author of the domestic policy analyst for the Rea- play would be very disturbed if peo- gan White House and author of ple said that wasn’t the purpose Illiberal Education: The Politics of and effect of the play. It is purpose- Race and Sex on Campus,was ly and provocatively pornographic, named moderator. obscene and scatological.”7 Whatever its intention, the Medved called Angels “an panel, from all published reports, impressive work,” but questioned THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 83

The local media went into high gear with front page stories, seeking the most sensationalizing voices.

whether it should be presented at a mances “so the play would have a college. For him, the academy chance to speak for itself first.”13 should “avoid deeply offensive sub- He added that he found the jects and promote traditional reli- panel to be a “hanging jury” and gious beliefs and family values.”8 referred to Medved, D’Souza, and D’Souza added that “the play Himmelfarb as “homophobic and has aesthetic merit, but its right-wing.”14 In his view, the panel demanding political message about discussion would “constitute gay- homosexuality goes too far.”9 bashing” and a “tactical strike Hentoff disagreed: “It’s some- against the play, so it isn’t seen as a times necessary for civility and success.”15 responsibility to be superseded by freedom of expression,”10 he said. ord and David Givens, the Rauch pointed out that “a cen- Trustee funding the panel, tral responsibility in a liberal com- Fhad hired a public relations munity, and a liberal arts commu- firm to sell their panel as a story to nity, is to be thick-skinned,” and he local media. This accomplished lit- praised Wabash for “being willing tle other than alerting area to offend some people,”11 adding reporters that the college was that “I am a member of two certi- involved in some sort of pre-emp- fied minority groups — one is Jew- tive damage control. At this point, ish, the other is homosexual. And I the local media went into high gear am personally appalled by the with front page stories, seeking the notion that the best way to protect most sensationalizing voices from people like me is to make rules that various perspectives. allow the majority to repress people Most of the reporters didn’t whose opinions they disagree with even bother to visit the campus, and find offensive.”12 attend a rehearsal, talk to students Kushner did not learn of the (except those from The Commen- panel until The Commentary edi- tary staff), or even read the play. tors called him a few days before it After some of these reports was to take place, deceptively iden- appeared in statewide newspapers, tifying themselves as representa- pro and con letters to the editor tives of the school newspaper and began appearing with regularity. naming only the conservative mem- In the final days leading up to bers of the panel. the performances, I was inundated Kushner was understandably with mail and messages. I was con- furious, saying the panel should gratulated on my courage, lectured have been held after the perfor- about moral and fiscal responsibili- 84 THOUGHT & ACTION

We had the largest audiences ever for a Wabash play, and each performance ended with a standing ovation.

ty, and called every conceivable turned out that these rumors had name from “son of a bitch” to “fag- been started by The Commentary. lover.” We had the largest audiences ever On campus, as posters for the for a Wabash play, and each perfor- play began to go up on doors and mance ended with a standing ova- bulletin boards, a virtual poster tion from the audience. war began. The Commentary added Biemiller’s visit led to a full- its own posters to those announcing page feature/review of the play that the production, featuring negative kept the focus on the work of the quotes about the play. In response, students involved and the play’s anonymous contributions began significance. He wrote that the per- appearing. A particularly amusing formance one was headed “Think For Your- did not disappoint, not self, Part One: Close-Mindedness even–and this is not said light- Approaches.” ly–in comparison with the Broadway production. The 3 1/2 n the day of our opening, I hours, 26-scene performance received a call from a local was humorous whenever it reporter asking about O could be, fabulous when it need- rumors of a planned demonstration ed to be, moving when it should or audience walkout. have been. It would have been After some frantic discussions, an achievement at, say, New two plain-clothes security men York University. At Wabash–an were hired by the college to be on 824-student, all-male liberal-arts duty in the lobby and theatre college in a small town–it was before and during the perfor- stunning.16 mances, and I reluctantly acqui- esced to the administration’s The headline of the Indianapo- request that a warning statement lis Star’s review read “Wabash Cast be added to the programs. Triumphant in Play About Fallibili- Also at this point, Lawrence ty and Forgiveness,” with writer Biemiller, a critic and reporter from Marion Garmel noting that Angels the Chronicle of Higher Education, “opened without incident Wednes- turned up to observe final day night at Wabash College, and rehearsals and the opening. the triumph belonged to the stu- The opening performance, and dents on stage.”17 the three subsequent showings, Noting that the performance went off without a hitch. There had received a standing ovation, were no demonstrations, and it Garmel added, “To get right to the THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 85

point, little is offensive enough to port for the production and the warrant the controversy that has effort to get it on. arisen over presenting this play on One such expression, written by the campus of a conservative mid- Wabash sophomore Joydeep Sen- western men’s college.”18 gupta, took the form of a poem that Eric Pfeffinger, Arts Indiana’s touched me deeply. It seemed to me critic, followed suit, noting: then, and does now, that Joydeep instinctively understood the need Wabash’s funny and moving for a play like Angels in a society, production of Angels conveyed both the small one of Wabash and the intellect and the chutzpa of the larger American community, Kushner’s quite remarkable struggling to know its own mind. play.”19 In utter relief, I was quoted as dialogue, however divisive, saying, “I’m very proud of the stu- had begun and it would con- dents.” That’s been the greatest Atinue. For now, some quar- thing about this.20 ters of Wabash, like American soci- All of us seek to know what of ety in general, resist equality, value can be taken from any experi- respect for, and greater openness, ence, and there were some obvious for gays. lessons to be learned in this case. Joydeep’s view of the future, as The embattled cast became a expressed in his poem and the play family like none I have ever experi- that inspired it, reflects Kushner’s enced, rehearsing and performing belief in the inevitability of change the play in a galvanized state, and the sacrifices that must be admirably committed to the project made: despite the extraordinary external Young man of 2040, Greet- pressures. ings from a darker Time! Out of A few close friends offered the shadows of my crumbling moral support, both publicly and nightmare, I watch your careless privately. My wife, who acted in the Freedom emerge. Not Half- production, and our two children living in an airless closet, You provided unwavering love and are Unafraid and Unashamed encouragement. and Young. Your Body is unfet- Members of the campus and tered, your voice strengthened local gay community, many carefully by all our Anonymous, closeted, found ways to show sup- Unchronicled Wars. ■

NOTES 4 John Clum, Acting Gay. Male Homosexu- ality in Modern Drama, New York: 1 George Bernard Shaw. Shaw on Theatre. Columbia University Press, 1994, p. New York: Hill & Wang, p. 58. 318. 2 Gerald Graff. Beyond the Culture Wars. 5 Kathy Matter, “Playwright Sets Stage for- How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revi- Change,” Lafayette Journal-Courier, talize American Education. New York: October 26, 1995, p. A10. W.W. Norton, 1992, p. 10. 6 Tony Kushner. Angels in America, Part 3 Bob Blanchard, “Playwright of Pain and One: Millennium Approaches. New Hope,” Progressive Magazine, October 1994, p. 42. 86 THOUGHT & ACTION

York: Theatre Communications Group, 16 Lawrence Biemiller, “Notes from Acad- 1992, 1993, p. 57. eme: Angels in America Challenges 7 Barb Albert, “Panel Weighs Controversial Students at Wabash College,” The Drama, Excludes Playwright,” Indi- Chronicle of Higher Education, Octo- anapolis Star, October 9, 1996, p. B7. ber 18, 1996, p. B2. 8 Ibid. 17 Marion Garmel, “Wabash Cast Tri- 9 umphant in Play About Fallibility and Ibid. Forgiveness,” Indianapolis Star, Octo- 10 Ibid. ber 11, 1996, p. E1. 11 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 12 “Freedom and Responsibility in a Liberal 19 Eric Pfeffinger, “Theatre Review: Angels Arts Community,” Wabash Magazine, in America,” Arts Indiana, December Winter 1996, p. 48. 1996, p. 15. 13 Albert, “Panel Weighs Controversial 20 Gammel, “Wabash Cast Triumphant in Drama, Excludes Playwright,” p. B7. Play About Fallibility and Forgive- 14 Ibid. ness,” p. E1. 15 Ibid.

WORKS CITED February/March 1996. Condon, Kevin. “Wabash Downplays The- Albert, Barb. “Panel Weighs Controversial ater Controversy,” Crawfordsville Drama, Excludes Playwright,” Indi- Journal-Review, October 3, 1996. anapolis Star, October 9, 1996. Cotterill, Chris. “This Is What Wabash Is ——— “Play's Gay Subject Matter Puts All About,” The Bachelor, October 10, Wabash College To Test,” Indianapo- 1996. lis Star, October 1, 1996. Cunningham, Chris. “Students Deserve “Andy's Play Thing,” The Commentary, Trust,” The Bachelor, October 10, September/October 1996. 1996. Biemiller, Lawrence. “Notes from Acad- DeJean, Joan. “Culture Wars and the Next eme: Angels in America Challenges Century,” Academe, November/De- Students at Wabash College,” The cember 1997. Chronicle of Higher Education, Octo- ber 18, 1996. Deschner, John. “The Play's the Thing,” The Bachelor, October 10, 1996. ——— “Vitriolic Student Paper Is Causing Lasting Ham, Many at Dartmouth Drukman, Steven. “A Standoff in Char- Say,” The Chronicle of Higher Educa- lotte,” American Theatre, May/June tion, February 8, 1989. 1994. Blanchard, Bob. “Playwright of Pain and Fisher, James. “Affirmation or Hope,” Progressive Magazine, October Hypocrisy?,” American Theatre, April 1994. 1997. Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Foley, David. “The Right to Bigotry,” Amer- Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, ican Theatre, April 1997. 1987. “Freedom and Responsibility in a Liberal Bork, Robert H. Slouching Towards Go- Arts Community,” Wabash Magazine, morrah. Modern Liberalism and Winter 1996. American Decline. New York- Regan- Gemmel, Manon. “Wabash Cast Tri- Books, an imprint of HarperCollins, umphant in Play About Fallibility and 1996. Forgiveness,” Indianapolis Star, Octo- Clum, John M. Acting Gay. Male Homosex- ber 11, 1996. uality in Modem Drama. New York: Graff, Gerald. Beyond the Culture Wars. Columbia University Press, 1994. How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revi- Colson, Gordon C “Anything Goes?,” The talize American Education. New York: Commentary, September/October 1996. W.W. Norton, 1992. ——— “To the Editor,” The Commentary, Howard, Frank. “He Extends Thanks to THE NEA HIGHER EDUCATION JOURNAL 87

Wabash,” Crawfordsville Journal-Re- ber 1996. view, October 22, 1996. Pfeiffinger, Eric. “Angels at Wabash,” Arts “The Issue is an Educational One,” The Indiana, December 1996. Commentary, November 1996. ———. Theatre Review: Angels in Ameri- Knull, Morgan N. “Fallen Angel,” The ca,” Arts Indiana, December 1996. Commentary, November/December Poletti, Jonathan. “Decadent Angels,” The 1995. Commentary, November 1996. ———. “Four Fallacies of Kushner,” The Sengupta, Joydeep. “America, 2040: A Commentary, November/December Young Man Comes of Age,” 1996. 1995. Shaw, George Bernard. Misalliance, The Kushner, Tony. Thinking About the Long- Dark Lady of the Sonnets, and standing Problems of Virtue and Hap- Fanny's First Play, With Treatise on piness. Essays, A Play, Two Poems, and Parents and Children by Bernard a Prayer. New York: Theatre Commu- Shaw. New York: Brentano, 1930. nications Group, Inc., 1995. ——— Shaw on Theatre. New York Hill & Lahr, John. “Beyond Nelly,” The New York- Wang, 1958. er, November 23, 1992. Simon, John. “Angelic Geometry,” New Levine, Lawrence W. The Opening of the York, December 6,1993. American Mind. Canons, Culture, and History. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, Swisher, Kara. “Catholic U. Ejects Angels,” 1996. The Washington Post, September 21, 1996. Matter. Kathy. “Playwright Sets Stage for Change,” Lafayette Journal-Courier, Wynn, Leah. “University Forbids Ads for October 26, 1995. Angels in America,” The Washington Blade, September 20, 1996. Nunns, Stephan. “No Angels at Wabash Campus,” American Theatre, Decem- 88 THOUGHT & ACTION