Humor me. Keep that question in the back of your mind as I talk about the elephant in the room at this month’s presentation of The Vagina Monologues.

Turns out, the elephant has a lot to do with how you answer this question. What struck me most at the end of the day was not what the play says about sexual violence, but what it takes for granted about sex in general. I noticed how you, my fellow students, responded to these assumptions. I noticed what you questioned, but, most of all, what you didn’t.

In her introduction, Heather Hathaway, associate dean of academic affairs in the college of arts and sciences, listed a number of concerns about the play. None of them were based on its view of sex. She didn’t mention that none of the relationships in The Vagina Monologues are depicted as lasting or lifelong or that the play takes it for granted that we’ve all had sex, from an early age, and that we all masturbate frequently.

In fact, it relies on our familiarity with these actions for much of its humor and popular appeal. Nobody asked why none of the sexual encounters claim to be in the context of “true love.” Bob stares at the woman’s vagina meaningfully for hours, but he’s just the guy she met at the grocery store and promptly slept with. The 24-year-old woman seduces the 16-year-old girl, but that was a long time ago.

Apparently, our concept of sex has lost its relationship to, well, relationships – especially committed lifelong relationships. It’s now a recreational pursuit, solely dedicated to finding maximum pleasure, having fun and responding to the ultimatum of the sexual urge. And maybe that doesn’t bother you and Hathaway, but it sure concerns me.

Doesn’t sex belong in the context of true love, not just satisfying some urge? Pope John Paul II was not the first to affirm that it is never acceptable to use another human being as a means to an end. Rather, all expressions of affection should show a disinterested desire to affirm the other person (made in the image and likeness of God) for their own sake. Christians believe sex is meant to show us God’s love. It’s meant to be a participation in the love of God and Jesus, a love so great it becomes another person (the Holy Spirit). This love is identified as a free, total, faithful and fruitful self-gift. When one of these attributes is missing, the whole thing collapses. In human terms, this true love finds its fulfillment in marriage.

Let’s compare this with what we find in The Vagina Monologues. Casual, promiscuous sex? Not total and not faithful: You’re using someone for your own selfish kicks and moving on. Masturbation? Not a gift of self to another person: You’re using a human being (yourself) as a means to an end. Contraception and homosexual sex? Are they really total gifts of self? Are they really fruitful, open to new life? The Church asks us not to do these things, not because the body and sex are bad but because they mean something too good, too significant to water down.

I think it’s important for you to understand the logic behind that stance even if, like one of those Saturday panelists, you flat-out disagree with it. If you’d like to compare these issues more, I’d recommend that you Google Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and get Christopher West’s Good News About Sex and Marriage from our library.

The Christian view of sexuality demands self-denial, maturity and generosity. It promises freedom, fulfillment and lasting happiness: nothing short of heaven on earth. It affirms the beauty of sex and the body. Personally, that’s a lot more appealing than the prospect of getting my heart broken, engaging in meaningless sexual encounters, getting STDs and ending up alone and unloved.

I’d rather love one person forever, for who they really are. I’d rather love as God loves, even if it means making sacrifices, laying down my life for my beloved. I’d rather stay open to nurturing new life and hope in every form, even when it hurts.

I’d rather believe… and live… in true love.

Submitted by Margaret Smith, junior in the College of Arts and Sciences

Popularity: 13% [?]

Considering the controversy over the past weeks, titling the April 14 dramatic reading of the Vagina Monologues “An Academic Conversation on Catholicism, Sexuality, and Human Rights,” seemed a simplistic approach to a complex issue.

The Monologues were hosted off-campus last year, but last weekend was the first time it was ever performed on Marquette’s campus. Before the reading began, the theatre was abuzz with curiosity, yet even the minimal set of the stage itself was a stark contrast to the controversy that circulated in regard to this performance.

There were two major reasons for the controversy surrounding this play’s performance on Marquette’s campus. The first has to do with the Cardinal Newman Society. The Newman Society’s focus is making sure Catholic ideals are upheld in Catholic universities across the country. This year they released a statement on their Web site condemning the play for its content, claiming the play disagrees with Catholic views on sex and sexuality.

Other Christian voices disagreed with the performance as well, including five prominent members of Maruqette’s religious student organizations: John Tadelski, Aaron Morey, Heather Rumple, Benjamin DuMontier and Margaret Smith together wrote a letter to the administration explaining their concern with this performance.

They wrote, “[t]he identification of the woman with her vagina is emphasized so greatly that the play does little more than reduce women’s sexuality to mere physicalism, without respecting the mind or spirit…We believe that the essence of woman cannot be reduced to merely the body or sexuality. We must also note that such an ignorance of the whole person directly opposes the mission of Marquette University, Cura Personalis.” The letter continued on to request that the administration support other forms of sexual education that respects the whole person in regards to Christian values.

The second major reason for the controversy comes from the mixed message that the administration is sending by hosting this play, which is also encompassed in the concluding line of the previous quote. Furthermore, last year, a student group, JUSTICE, tried to host a performance of The Vagina Monologues on campus. But they were denied permission to do so by the administration.

After the annoucement of the performance, Director of University Communicaions defended the decision to allow the Honors Program to host the Monologues, claiming, “academic units are free to host lectures, discussions and symposia that are appropriate to their subject areas.”

Even amidst all of this contradiction, The Vagina Monologues were performed in Helfaer Theatre with the title of “An Academic Conversation on Catholicism, Sexuality, and Human Rights.” The performance began with a foreword, which acknowledged both the positive and negative elements of this play and why in essence it attracts so much attention and controversy.

The night continued with the reading, dinner and finally concluding with a discussion with a panel including professor of political science Richard Friman, professor of Philosophy Theresa Tobin, professor of English Amelia Zurcher, and Rosalind Hinton of DePaul University’s Religious Studies Department.

Popularity: 27% [?]

The Vagina Monologues will be performed in April as the centerpiece of a multi-disciplinary symposium sponsored by the Honors Program.

It would seem opponents of the performance, myself included, need to prove two propositions: First, that at a Catholic university there are limits to academic freedom, and, second, that a reading of the Monologues falls outside those boundaries.

The first premise is a matter of doctrine, while the second is a prudential (situational) judgment.

Ex Corde Ecclesiae was promulgated in 1990 by Pope John Paul the Great as the apostolic constitution governing Catholic institutions of higher education.

In it, the Pope, himself a former university professor, wrote: “Freedom in research and teaching is recognized and respected according to the principles and methods of each individual discipline, so long as the rights of the individual and of the community are preserved within the confines of the truth and the common good.“ (General Norms Article 1 § 5).

So then, does a reading of the Monologues fall outside the “confines of truth and the common good?”

On the one side of the common good ledger is the value of learning about the experiences of women and increased awareness of sexual violence against women. Opposite is the affect on the audience of the obscene and vulgar parts of the play, including extensive foul language and offensive stories about immoral activities.

As to truth, again on the one side is the literal truth of the rightfully shocking nature of violence against women, and the truth of the statements of women interviewed by the playwright. On the other hand there are the larger, transcendent truths of human sexuality, the family, love, and authentic femininity that are assaulted and insulted by the play.

I will grant there are arguments for both sides of the second question (I will assume that Marquette accepts the first premise, though unfortunately that may be a dubious assumption).

Many Catholic college presidents have also been forced to respond to the situation the Rev. Wild now finds himself in. Some have caved and admitted it in under a mistaken notion of “academic freedom,” denying the first premise.

Others have acknowledged the first premise, yet came to a different prudential judgment.

As noted above, there are both costs and benefits to be weighed on the question of truth and the common good. Thankfully, several college presidents have acknowledged that the benefits can be achieved without the costs, because the good of increased awareness of violence against women can be found in programs without the drawbacks of the Monologues.

This is the path Marquette should take – accept the first premise, that at a Catholic school we willingly accept limits to academic freedom for the sake of other, higher values, acknowledge the costs the Monologues impose, and instead support other ways to address the important issue of violence against women.

Popularity: 8% [?]

It is striking how events conspire together so each year a particular topic emerges as the central battleground of university life.

Two years ago, everything centered around the nickname debate. At the end of it, for a brief while, we were stuck with “Gold.” As student outrage gushed , the leadership of the Marquette University Student Government put out a statement supporting the decision.

While the Board of Trustees quickly came around and reverted to “Golden Eagles,” the tone was set for the next year. Student involvement in university governance became a major topic of discussion. Both candidates for MUSG president pledged to fight for a student representative on the Board of Trustees as a visible sign of increased shared governance.

Last year, students lost a lot of steam in their battle for greater representation in university decision-making. While MUSG’s leadership has admirably made the case to the Board for a greater student voice, we’ve seen no tangible progress. And as more of us who were around for “the Gold” graduate, the issue is less and less at the fore.

So far this year, the student theme is academic freedom.

On the one hand, we have the Vagina Monologues. Denied by the administration last year when a student organization asked permission to perform them, they are now permitted because the performance is sponsored by an academic program with faculty present.

I have argued (see the Feb. 14 issue of the Warrior) that the performance is an abuse of academic freedom, and there are limits to current notions of “academic freedom” at a Catholic campus.

The same week that the administration allowed the Vagina Monologues, it denied permission for a student organization to form under the moniker, “Students for Academic Freedom.” SAF would have done rather innocuous things, like advocate for a Student Bill of Rights or ask that students be able to see reading lists before they sign up for classes.

The administration turned SAF’s application down in the name of, ironically, academic freedom. Take the latter example of public reading lists. If faculty had to disclose the lists for their classes, [conservative] students [like myself] may find questionable material on those lists and inquire further or object to their inclusion.

Or, perhaps we would find that certain professors assign overwhelmingly ideologically biased books.This would put pressure on the faculty to change their book lists, thus wrongly (in their minds) crimping the academic freedom of the faculty.

And this is where it all comes together. The argument being advanced by the administration is, again, that students have nothing to contribute to the governance of the University. We should just pay our tuition, show up in class and otherwise do as we are told.

We should not know how the University is run, we should not speak up about ideological bias among faculty and we should not question decisions made by “the adults.”

This battle over academic freedom is a direct outgrowth over last year’s debate about student involvement in University governance.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Drunken pedophilia, adulterous rape, encouragement of masturbation and lesbian seduction are a few of the repulsively tasteless acts performed in the play, The Vagina Monologues, written by Eve Ensler. This performance has no place on the campus of a Catholic institution whose mission is to promote the teachings of Christ as passed on through tradition and scripture. The Marquette Administration should be applauded for banning this performance from campus. Continue Reading

Popularity: 6% [?]

The Vagina Monologues should not be dismissed as pornographic accounts of female sexual experiences. Doing so ignores the purpose behind productions of the play. To clarify, these monologues are not a part of the raunchy culture propagated by Girls Gone Wild; their purpose is much different. The Monologues have become an integral part of the V-Day movement to end violence against women. V-Day celebrations have been spreading across campuses all over the country. Ticket sales for productions of The Vagina Monologues raise money that is donated to organizations such as battered women’s shelters, which work to address the issues of violence against women. Those involved are passionately committed to increasing awareness and dialogue about rape, battery, incest, female genital mutilation and sexual slavery in order to eliminate these forms of violence and abuse. Continue Reading

Popularity: 6% [?]