The Real Fight

Editor’s Note:

In 1962, famed theater professor Paul Baker gained the rights to production of Eugene O’Neill’s play Long Day’s Journey Into Night. However, an agreement was struck, first. An agreement that not a scene, not a character, not a word could be changed. Baker, other theater department faculty and staff, and Baylor theater students prepared to deliver the story in exactly that manner – quite the pursuit, as Long Day’s Journey Into Night contains a few, shall we say, less than “Baptist-appropriate” words and themes. Things went without a hitch and the play was highly anticipated. Except, to one show came a church group. They were quite upset their children were exposed to the haunted tragedy of the story’s Tyrone family – including drunkenness and phrases like “goddamn whore!” President Abner McCall and the administration asked Baker to amend the play, but he refused, resulting in its shuttering and, later, Baker’s departure with 11 other drama faculty members.

Baker was not an outside agitator or liberal provocateur. An acclaimed and lauded professional, he had spent 28 years at Baylor reshaping and transforming the drama department into what Time Magazine called, a “renowned center of experimental theater.” Throughout his tenure, Baker had gained national recognition for his take on Othello in 1953, convinced Burgess Meredith to portray Hamlet, and spearheaded the creation of the Dallas Theater in 1959, which is the only theater designed by famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright. In the past, Baker had made changes to plays with curse words and less-than-appropriate scenes. In this instance, though, Baker was simply sticking to his morals and his professional intuition – and, especially, to the agreement made with O’Neill’s widow, forbidding changes to the play.

I first came across the story of the Long Day’s Journey Into Night saga in 2013, when researching a paper on Baylor Lariat’s coverage of the Ole Miss desegregation disaster. The research introduced me to Ella Wall Prichard (‘63), former editor of the Lariat. Prichard penned an editorial calling for the desegregation of Baylor’s campus in the fall of 1962, something President Abner McCall had expressly warned her not to do. And then – as if defying the administration once wasn’t enough – a few months later when McCall closed Long Day’s Journey Into Night, Prichard published an editorial calling the “censorship” and cancellation a “tragedy.” She called Baylor a “narrow-minded, intolerant denominational school.”

The thing is: McCall had not forbidden Prichard from covering any topic in the news section of the paper, but had explicitly forbade two topics from the editorial section. The first, as stated, was desegregation. The second? Critiquing Baptist principles – what McCall had said were the reasons for shuttering the performance. Luckily, Prichard was not stripped of her editorship for defying these orders.

I’ve learned a lot about morals, courage, and perseverance from my friendship with Ella. I’ve learned a lot about morals, courage, and perseverance from another female editor at the time, Mrs. Frances Provence. She, too, took a stand in the pages of her publication – the same publication you are now reading – but the results were much different for her.What follows is that story… The story of the fight that almost broke Baylor Line Magazine.

 The Original Editor’s Note on “Long Day’s Journey Into Night”

In his commencement address of last August, published in the September-October issue of The Baylor Line, Hilton E. Howell, chairman of the Baylor University Board of Trustees, said:

“Recently, I heard with pride one of the Baylor University department heads make a Rotary club address in which he stated that he has for many years been allowed complete academic freedom in his department, where he has developed revolutionary ideas of international scope in the field of drama.”

On Dec. 6, 1962, four months after this statement was made, the Baylor Theater production of Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey Into Night was closed in mid-run by the administration. Since that time, many words have been written and spoken. This magazine and members of the University community have received inquiries from alumni all over the nation wanting to know what happened. This article will attempt to give the background and to trace the developments chronologically, quoting a fair sampling of the resulting comment and opinion.

Last summer, Paul Baker, director of Baylor Theater, secured the rights to produce Long Day’s Journey Into Night from the playwright’s widow, Carlotta Monterey O’Neill. The theater’s reputation for fidelity to the playwright must have carried some weight in Mrs. O’Neill’s decision, because it is the only non-professional theater in the nation which she would consider giving permission to produce the play. To gain the right to produce it, Paul Baker had to promise not to cut one line nor alter one word. Procuring the right to this play was considered quite a feat back on the campus, since most critics consider the play O’Neill’s greatest work. Kenneth Tynane in the London Observer, in comparing Western playwrights, called O’Neill the greatest dramatist of the 20th Century and Long Day’s Journey Into Night his greatest play.

O’Neill, who died in 1953, is one of the few Americans to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature. He also won four Pulitzer Prizes, one of them for this autobiographical play published posthumously. On their 12th wedding anniversary in 1941, he wrote his wife:

“Dearest: I give you the original script of this play of old sorrow, written in tears and blood. A sadly inappropriate gift, it would seem, for a day celebrating happiness. But you will understand I mean it as a tribute to your love and tenderness, which gave me the faith in love that enabled me to face my dead at last and write this play – write it with deep pity and understanding and forgiveness for all the four haunted Tyrones.

“These twelve years, Beloved One, have been a Journey into Light – into love. You know my gratitude. And my love!”

Mrs. O’Neill in 1931 had founded the Eugene O’Neill Collection at the Yale University Library. It includes notes, photographs, and the original manuscripts of plays, including this one. All royalties from the sale of the Yale editions of the book, Long Day’s Journey Into Night, go to Yale University for the Collection, for the books in the field of drama, and for the establishment of Eugene O’Neill Scholarships in the Yale School of Drama.

The book has been in the Baylor library since it was published in 1956. It is available in the Baylor Book Store. It cannot be said that the Baylor production was unheralded. For several weeks before the opening, it was promoted in campus, local, and state news media.

One news release from the Baylor News and Information Service, dated Nov. 20, said in part:

“Baylor Theater will add new scope and dimension to southern college theatrical production with its presentation of Eugene O’Neill’s Long Day’s Journey Into Night. The play’s running dates will be Nov. 29, 30, Dec. 1, 4-8, and 13-15.

“Baylor Theater will be using the ‘uncut script’ of the play in accordance with the wishes of Carlotta O’Neill, the playwright’s widow. The Drama Department obtained permission to produce the play this summer and became the first non-professional group to obtain the rights.

“O’Neill, considered by many to be the most distinguished American dramatist, wrote the play as a reflection of his tragic family life. Most critics consider the play his greatest work. . .”

Saturday, Dec. 1, was Ministers Day on campus. Other visitors on the campus included around 4,000 young boys attending a Royal Ambassadors meeting, accompanied by church leaders. Whether this coincidence precipitated the premature closing of the play remains a matter of debate. That Saturday night, a Uvalde couple took a group of children to see the performance. The man returned for Tuesday night’s performance, accompanied by an adult group.

The next day, Paul Baker received a call from President Abner McCall, reporting that critics of the play “are camping on my doorstep” and that he was receiving criticism not only from ministers but from some of the faculty and from “town people.” He wanted to attend the play himself before deciding what to do, and he came for the last two acts of the four-act play that Wednesday evening.

The News and Its Reception

A news release from the News and Information Service on Dec. 6 said:

“Baylor University President Abner McCall said Thursday the Baylor Theater’s production of Long Day’s Journey Into Night was to be canceled after Thursday night’s performance because ‘it is felt the language of the play is not in keeping with the University’s ideals.’

“McCall said he had decided to ask the Drama Department to cancel the play’s five remaining performances after he had received numerous complaints of the excessive profanity and offensive words and phrases in the play . . .

“‘The objection is not the general message of the play but to the excessively strong profanity repeatedly used to convey the message. I do not feel it is in good taste for a church-related university to produce.

Since the contract deprives us of the ability to take the customary corrective action, I requested the Department of Drama to discontinue presenting the play.

This action is not intended as a reflection on the literary or dramatic qualities of the play. It is a matter of propriety and good taste,” he said.

Another University news release on Dec. 7 said:

“Baylor University President Abner McCall said Friday he accepts full responsibility for prematurely closing the Baylor Theater’s production of Long Day’s Journey Into Night, and that he is not taking this action because of pressure from Baptist ministers. . .”

He said he had received many complaints from people both on and off the campus, and nearly all of them were laymen.

“There is no delegation of ministers, as was previously reported [in newspapers]. There was one minister who came to investigate the play – he was the only one who complained, to my knowledge,” said McCall.

“‘. . . One of the most incensed protests came from sponsors of a church group of junior teen-age girls who attended the play last Saturday.

“‘The Theater staff showed poor judgment in admitting pre-teen and teen-age students to see the play,’ said McCall.

“He said he attended Wednesday night’s performance, and half of the audience were students from local high school drama classes.

“‘I don’t think that students of this age are mature enough to understand the intended message of the play,’ he said.”

Drama Department Chairman Baker expressed dismay and regret at the order canceling the remaining performances.

“Never before has my integrity been questioned. In the 24 years I have directed the theater at Baylor, I have selected and supervised an average of 10 to 15 full-sized plays and 25 one-act plays per year. I can’t go on selecting plays for production without full authority to do it.”

About Long Day’s Journey Into Night, he said, “Of course, it is a strong play. Never before have I put on a play with such language and atmosphere, but it is the greatest play written by the greatest playwright that America has produced. It is a morality play. Its theme is the understanding of the human soul.

“We have had people coming and calling from all over Texas wanting to see the play. High school teachers have brought their star pupils to see it because they wanted them to see a great production of a great play.

“Our staff is bewildered and shocked at the order to close the play.”

Mr. Baker supervises a total of 40 teachers and artists in the Baylor Drama Department and Dallas Theater Center, an affiliate of the department.

The Theater staff began the job of returning money to the 900 people who had bought tickets for the remaining performances.

The Baylor Lariat in an editorial in the Dec. 7 issue said,

“Its [the play’s] cancellation, because of censorship, marks a tragic end to the more than two decades of dramatic freedom combined with extraordinary quality that Paul Baker has given this University . . .

The forced closing of Long Day’s Journey Into Night after so much effort went into securing the rights to the play, will serve only to brand Baylor as a narrow-minded, intolerant denominational school concerned with religious indoctrination rather than with education.

“The theater must be the training ground for actors and playwrights and the cultural center of the University, or it must be the mouthpiece of religiosity. Whatever it is to be, once the decision is made, it should not be changed in the middle of any major production.”

Student Congress Resolution

On the same day, at a called meeting, the Baylor Student Congress, by a vote of 27 to 4, approved the following resolution:

“Whereas, the December 6 proclamation closing in mid-production the Baylor Theater’s production of Eugene O’Neill’s Long Days Journey Into Night has embarrassed the student body and has raised a storm of protest from virtually every quarter of the student world at Baylor;

“Whereas, the Student Congress expressing general student opinion, regards such an action to be a flagrant violation of academic freedom;

“Whereas, the spirit of the Baptist church, with which this university is connected, is diametrically opposed to the suppression of ideas;

“Whereas, the college community, ought to be, and, we believe, is competent to be exposed to works of art which are world renowned;

“Whereas, we regret and deplore the lack of confidence in the integrity and competence of Paul Baker, who is considered an expert in the field of drama and who is respected throughout the world;

“Whereas, we fear that the precedent set by this action may result in arbitrary censorship of taste and morals, inimical to the democratic spirit of individual judgment;

“Resolved, that we go on record as objecting strenuously to what we consider unjustified interference in the educational process; that we express our enthusiastic support of and appreciation for the laudable work of Mr. Paul Baker in his connection with Baylor and hope for a long continuance of that connection; and resolved further, we urge that in the future educational and cultural events be approached with more maturity and that more respect for and defense of academic freedom be practiced on this campus.”

On Dec. 10, an effigy was found hanging in a tree in front of Old Main bearing signs which read, “Suppression of Academic Freedom,” and “The Best of O’Neill Censored.” Mimeographed papers and letters, critical of the administration’s action, were circulated around the campus. One was called “The New Iconoclast.” Placards were posted. One student was threatened with reprisals for circulating a letter unfavorable to the president.

On Dec. 11, Prof. Baker initiated a meeting with the president. The following statements were issued:

President McCall said, “As far as I am concerned the matter concerning the play, Long Day’s Journey Into Night, is closed. No new principle or policy was involved. The president of the University is responsible to the trustees to see that the many activities on the campus are consistent with general University policies.

“Because of this responsibility the president must have the authority to review and at times reverse the decisions of departmental chairmen. Such reversal does not imply lack of respect or appreciation for any chairman.

“If University policies are defined clearly enough by the administration, reversals will seldom be necessary because departmental chairmen will voluntarily make the decisions accordingly. Perhaps there has been some administrative deficiency here which needs to be corrected so that such incidents will not recur.

“For many years Paul Baker and I have been personal friends. I with other Baylor people appreciate his fine contributions to Baylor in his 28 years of service. Mr. Baker and I have amicably discussed this matter in the light of our mutual interests in the future life of Baylor, and I have confidence that he and the Drama Department staff can and will continue to make further fine contributions consistent with Baylor’s ideals.”

Mr. Baker said:

“I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with Judge McCall. I fully understand the above statements of policy, and I appreciate Judge McCall’s position.

“I want the friends of the Theater, students, and the faculty to know that we will continue to go forward with our plans.”

That day a Lariat editorial said:

“. . . The administration and the faculty have made their peace. They are determined to forget the incident and work toward a better University within Baylor’s Christian framework.

“It is now time for the students to make their peace.

“The Lariat in an attempt to build a unified front with students supporting the administration and the administration respecting the students, will print no news involving the trivial incidents incited by students intent on keeping the issue alive. The letters to the editor in today’s paper are the last on the issue that will be run.

“There is not justifiable reason for widening the breach between equally sincere, though disagreeing, factions. The time has come to mend the gap.”

Comment and Opinion

The president and the drama chairman have both received much mail – most of it sympathetic to the person addressed.

The 192-member Executive Board of the Baptist General Convention of Texas meeting on Dec. 11 passed a motion commending President McCall for closing the play because of its profane language. Dr. E. S. James, editor of the Baptist Standard, also approved.

On Dec. 12, Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, president of the Texas Institute of Letters, wrote President McCall:

“All friends of freedom of thought and intellectual honesty must be dismayed by Baylor’s assault on learning.

“The long struggle of man against the shackles of ignorance, bigotry, and fear should never suffer defeat in a university – an institution dedicated to broadening and cultivating rather than narrowing and beggaring.

“As president of the Texas Institute of Letters I am appalled by your action against Long Day’s Journey Into Night, an action which compromised the scholarly dedication of your university and rejects the principles of intellectual freedom dear to us all.

“You have presumed to censor not just a play, but the minds of Baylor’s students as well. This double affront to enlightenment ill becomes and educator.”

Dr. J. M. Dawson, a former president of the Texas Institute of Letters and former Waco pastor and former Baylor trustee, came to President McCall’s defense:

“As a former president of the Institute and as main speaker at the last session of the Institute when I used censorship as my subject, I object to President Vandiver’s offensive letter to President McCall over the play incident. Dr. McCall acted in response to general demurrer from the public, not from an official denomination pressure, not from protests from big givers, not from any group of self-appointed censors, but solely on his own judgment.”

President McCall’s position can possibly best be realized by this letter he wrote the paster of a Fort Worth Church. It was published in the church paper Jan. 3:

“Thank you for your letter endorsing my action in closing the O’Neill play at Baylor University. I have been somewhat saddened to discover that there are so many people today who confuse academic freedom with the license to stand on a stage and shout vulgar and profane words to the public, including children, but I have also been heartened by the hundreds of fine people who have called and written to express agreement with my action. They have greatly outnumbered the confused critics.

“I have been particularly gratified to hear from so many Baptist pastors and Baptist churches giving their support in this matter . . .”

And in his interpretation of censorship and academic freedom as quoted from the Dallas News of Jan. 13:

“Censorship connotes an unwarranted interference from an outside agency. That’s not what happened. We had a simple internal administrative matter in which I rendered a decision. I do the same thing every day in other departments, and it’s considered routine. The Baylor Theater, no matter how unique or how famous, is still part of Baylor subject to administrative review . . .

“Nobody has a higher regard than I do for academic freedom. I have been a teacher, and I’m a lawyer with knowledge of individual rights in various circumstances. But I say this – not this incident, but in general – academic freedom can be lost by constant abuse.

That is the way things stood at Baylor University the first month in 1963.

—Frances Provence, Editor

The Student View

By Linda Odum (‘63)

On November 29, 1962, against a background of subdued excitement among campus and city theater patrons, the Baylor Theater opened its scheduled nine-performance run of Eugene O’Neill’s play, Long Day’s Journey Into Night. The opening of the play had been attended by several circumstances which prepossessed the student body in its interest. The chief among these circumstances was the difficulty with which Prof. Paul Baker had procured the rights for his “amateur” group of university thespians to produce the play.

Long Day’s Journey Into Night is autobiographical in nature, and O’Neill’s will stated that the play not be released until twenty-five years after his death. (He was born in 1888 and died November 27, 1953.) The will further stated that the play should always be produced uncut. Mrs. O’Neill released the play earlier than the specified date, but no other college group had yet been given the rights when Baylor’s production opened after months of tedious work.

Only at the expressed consent of Mrs. O’Neill, and presumably as a result of Paul Baker’s eminence in the theatrical world, had Baylor secured the distinction of the college premiere, and one of the conditions accompanying the consent was the order laid down by O’Neill himself that the play be produced uncut, verbatim, at its full stage length of four hours.

Eugene O’Neill’s father was an actor of indifferent abilities. His mother accompanied her husband on his tours around the country, but she was not fond of theatrical life and generally disapproved of theatrical people. Their son Eugene tried various pursuits before he turned to the theater, and not until 1913 did he even begin to write. In 1916 he began to act with the Provincetown Play of Massachusetts in his own plays, but it was in 1917 that his dramatic career really began with the production of In The Zone on October 31. On February 2, 1920, he had the satisfaction of seeing his own work produced for the first time by an exclusively professional group. The play was Beyond The Horizon. Subsequent productions are milestones in the career of the man generally regarded as America’s foremost playwright to date. Desire Under The Elms appeared November 21, 1924; Lazarus Laughed on April 9, 1928, and later given by the Baylor Theater; Mourning Becomes Electra appeared on the stage first October 26, 1931, to name only a few.

O’Neill’s childhood was not a happy one, and the subjects portrayed in Long Day’s Journey Into Night are not subjects of delight, nor approbation. It remains, however, for the individual to examine the play in its literary form and on the stage – which Central Texas may soon do at the Alley Theater in Houston – and to reach for himself an estimate of the literary and spiritual worth of the work, a task beyond the confines of this article.

The play opened at Baylor as announced on November 29 and gave the scheduled performances on November 30, and also its December 1, 4, 5, and 6 performances. Inquiries to those who had seen the play produced varying results. To me comments were made on the high dramatic appeal, the tragic import, and invariably on the superb accomplishments of the theater, students, and faculty.

Student Reaction

Late on the Thursday evening of December 6, a confused rumor spread across the campus that the play had been closed by order of the president of the University. Most students with whom I conversly disbelieved the report, but the rumor was confirmed by the headlines in the Friday morning papers of Waco and of the campus. My candid appraisal of student reaction is that most Baylorites received the news with undisguised consternation and puzzlement, which altered during the course of that Friday to take the form of anger, amazement, and indignation. I myself experienced genuine surprise at the individuals who expressed to me their chagrin at this action, and I was surprised also to note the different groups within the large campus group which united their voices in protest. Not all students protested on the same grounds, certainly; some were immoderate in their criticism of President McCall; others, at the opposite end of the spectrum, confined their dissent to observing that were the play to have been censored from presentation, that action ought to have been taken prior to its first showing.

Still other students defended the action of our president on the grounds that he, and no other, is answerable for the public image of Baylor University, and that he operated entirely within his rights in closing the play. Very few persons to my knowledge, ventured to dispute the legal right which enforced the action, however warmly they disapproved it.

There was on that Friday widespread agitation for some means of expressing the general discontent. The closing of the play was the subject of campus conversation, both idle and heated.

In the afternoon a number of persons in the membership of Student Congress assembled to draw up a resolution expressing what was believed to be student opinion.* Others dispersed themselves over the campus in an effort to contact all Congress members and to secure a quorum at a called meeting, scheduled for 4 p.m. At 4:45 p.m. the group, which included a number of people who were not members of Congress, was called and a quorum was declared to be present. There were 43 members on the roll; 30 were present. One member voted by written ballot in absentia.

The resolution, when presented, was both warmly defended and attacked. One congresswoman expressed regret for the “implied criticism of Judge McCall” and opposed the resolution on this ground. Another member replied to this complaint by asserting that no personal attack had been intended, and that the resolution had been worded with some care to direct full attention to the inherent nature of the action, rather than the author of it.

One congressman and several non-members sincerely urged the group not to take any action on the ground that not all the members of Congress had seen the play and were not therefore qualified to judge on the wisdom of its closure. These arguments were opposed by an individual who stated that, in his opinion, not having seen the play was precisely the problem. Students had not been given the opportunity to judge for themselves. This young man closed with a warm plea for approval of the resolution. He was not a member of Congress.

Dean W. C. Perry was in attendance at the meeting. He requested that consideration of the matter be postponed until someone had spoken carefully with President McCall to ascertain the full facts.

Student reporters from the Lariat were questioned regarding the sources of information for the Lariat news story of Friday morning. They replied that when the story broke on Thursday night the staff had placed a long distance call to Mr. Baker in Dallas. They stated that he had been informed a short time before and seemed shocked and bewildered . . . The Lariat, they continued, had carried the full text of an official statement of Dr. McCall’s position, released by Public Relations. Reporters were told he had nothing more to say. Shortly prior to the called meeting of Congress, Dr. McCall had declined an invitation to appear.

Student Congress Action

The chair, occupied now by the vice president, entertained a motion to refer the matter to a committee. Having heard the statements of the reporters, several students opposed this course arguing the decreased effect of the resolution at a later date. During this discussion it was noted that a major London newspaper had carried a front page story of the event, and that both the Associated Press and United Press International wire services carried stories. The motion to refer to a committee was defeated.

Shortly thereafter, a roll call was taken on the resolution. The results were 27 FOR; 4 AGAINST.

The passage of the resolution and the publicity it received served to allay somewhat the urge of the student body to be heard. Not since I entered Baylor in 1959 has any single event produced so united an opinion as did the closing of this play.

During the subsequent weekend signs appeared over the campus scrawled in varying degrees of legibility, expressing discontent with the action closing the play. These were the work of individuals, and so far as I know, were not the result of any cooperative effort.

I know with certainty that the only means used by the Student Congress to express reaction was the aforementioned resolution. The emotion engendered has long since subsided in its overt expression.

I can not fairly state that the action is regarded with more approval, but only with more resignation. A great number of students have mellowed in their judgments even while retaining their former opinion of the action.

The most frequently-quoted comment which I have heard is, in substance, that any American university which can find no place on its campus for the Pulitzer prize-winning play of America’s leading playwright has seriously to examine itself.

offensive language. It is also University policy that plays which ridicule Christian religion shall not be presented.”

“Please Consult”

“I recognize that the above rather broad and can be given various interpretations, but I believe your long experience at Baylor will enable you to apply them without danger of repetition of the recent controversy. If you have a serious question in any instance as to the reasonable application of this policy, please consult with me.”

Resignations

On March 4 Mr. Baker and Mr. Eugene McKinney, professor in Drama Department, came to my office and expressed dissatisfaction with the policy expressed in the letter, particularly as to how the portion forbidding plays ridiculing the Christian religion might be interpreted. Mr. Baker also expressed disappointment in what he regarded as lack of appreciation of his work manifested by the statements by certain trustees and the actions of the Board on January 8.

On the morning of March 8 I was called at my home and advised that there was an announcement on the radio that Mr. Baker and his entire staff had resigned to go to Trinity University in San Antonio. Shortly before I reached my office Mr. Baker delivered thereto the letters of resignation, a joint statement signed by the staff, and a mimeographed news release issued by the public relations officer of Trinity University at San Antonio with an announcement by President Laurie of Trinity University that Mr. Baker had been employed by Trinity. The joint statement declared that the University policy discussed above was an intolerable restriction on the freedom of those resigning and that they could not continue to do effective work thereunder.

Arrangements Already Made

Mr. Baker did not discuss the restonations with me at any time and from every indication had already made arrangements for the resignations and employment by Trinity University at the time of our conversation on March 4.

Only Seven from Drama Faculty

Seven of those resigning have faculty status in the Drama Department at Waco. One Waco staff employee, a costumer, also resigned. Three of the employees of the Dallas Theater Center also submitted their resignation from whatever connection they might have with Baylor University.

They were not on the Baylor payroll and I am not sure just what this relationship might have been. One professor, on leave of absence from the Department, also joined in the statement of resignation. Mrs. Paul Baker, a teacher in the Department of Mathematics, also resigned. The resignations were to be effective as of September 1, 1963.

Approximately a score of applications for positions in the Drama Department have been received from teachers with advanced degrees and experience in college drama departments.

The drama program will be reorganized and continued.

-ABNER V. McCALL, President

COMMENTS

In the public discussion of the play-closing incident the charge of censorship has been leveled against the University. It has been my position that Baylor University is the producer of all plays publicly presented by the Baylor Drama Department and as producer has the legal and historical prerogative to determine which plays shall be produced and under what conditions and for how long. It is a matter of internal policy as to who shall establish the policies and as to who shall have the final decision as to the application of the policies. The Board of Trustees can within their legal and historical right delegate final authority as to such policies to the students, the drama teachers, the chairman of the department, or general administrative officials.

The prerogative of the publisher of a newspaper is analogous. The freedom of the press legally and historically belongs to the publisher, and not to the individual reporters, the division of editors, or even the the editor-in-chief. It is the prerogative to give to each reporter and editor such freedom and such power of final decision as he may see fit. This is a matter of internal policy.

“Censorship” Versus Internal Policy

Censorship is control exercised by an authority outside the organization, and has no application here. If there is any question, it is not one of censorship or control by an outside authority but a question as to the wisdom of internal policy in the determination of policy and assignment of responsibilities for final decision on such policy. 

Charges have been published that the play was a violation of academic freedom. It has been my position that this matter did not involve what is being taught in the classroom. No restraint was placed upon any classroom assignment or discussion of the plays of O’Neill or any other author. This was a play being presented to the public, including children, for an admission charge. By the selection of this play and presentation thereof to the University gives a public endorsement and approval of the play, its message, and its language. This is much different from studying an O’Neill play in class with comments and guidance by a professor, as is done in both the Drama Department and English Department. When the play is presented to the public, it is presented and apparently endorsed without comment.

Blasphemy Not Acceptable Method of Communication

 In this particular play, vulgar, profane, and blasphemous words and phrases are used to convey the author’s message. There are many instances of blasphemy used sometimes casually but often used as a means of emphasis. I have taken the position that blasphemy should not in any way be endorsed by a Christian university or presented to the as an acceptable method of communicating ideas.

Law’s Toleration Versus Christian Standard

It has been argued that profanity is used by many people today and that it is used in many modern plays to present the sordid realities of life. It has been advanced that the use of such profanity is within the legal limits of free speech. I have sought to justify the University policy on the basis that what the law tolerates should not be the standard for Baylor University. The purpose of a Christian university is to encourage a standard of conduct and expression higher than that necessary to escape prosecution. 

Some have argued that there should be no restrictions within a university upon any method chosen by an author or teacher for the effective presentation of an idea. It is contended that O’Neill chose to use profane and blasphemous language and Baylor University should respect this selection. In the play, Jamie, the older brother, leaves the stage and visits a bawdy house. He returns and relates his experience with one of the bawds to the younger brother. He uses vulgar and profane words in the telling. Let us assume that O’Neill had been of the disposition shown by Henry Miller in Tropic of Cancer or Frank Harris in his autobiography and instead of having the older brother tell of the visit to the bawdy house, he had written the visit with all its physical details into the play as a scene thereof. This method of presenting the story would have created a lasting impression upon all who saw it, but I doubt if the choice would be respected by the court in which the producer of the play was prosecuted.

“Where Draw the Line?”

It has been argued that vulgar, profane, and blasphemous language in this instance should have been tolerated because this was a great play which won the Pulitzer Prize. The Drama Department each year presents many plays. Some are written by noted authors, some by the teachers in the department, and some by the students. Where shall the line be drawn? Shall it be NO vulgar, profane, or blasphemous words for students, ONLY vulgar and profane words for teachers and ordinary writers, and ALL categories permissible for noted authors in prize-winning plays? The policy can hardly be made to depend upon such criteria. If Baylor University is morally justified in refusing to publicly present profanity and blasphemy as an acceptable method of communication, such moral justification is equally applicable to all persons. 

It has been argued that there are sordid stories of adultery, murder, and other crimes related in the Bible. However, I have not been able to discover where blasphemy was used by the inspired writers to emphasizing the ideas recorded. 

Fifty-eight Years Later … 

A Closing Comment

In the late 1940s, as Tidwell Bible Building was being planned, a plot was discovered. A plot that would require the ruin of Baylor’s prized theater. According to Judge McCall, then Dean of Baylor Law School, several ministers on the building committee did not like Paul Baker and were determined to bring an end to his authority in whatever way possible. Their attempted secret plan was to set Tidwell right atop the then-location of Baylor Theater, thus forcing the destruction of the theater, its – what they referred to as “secular” – influence on campus, and the career of Professor Baker. Baker, as McCall tells it in his oral histories, “found out about it and hollered and screamed.” In Baker’s corner was the bulk of the faculty, generally, and several influential donors and leaders in the Baylor community, including Abner McCall. So, the destruction of Baylor Theater was stopped. At this point in the interview, we find out why McCall personally helped Baker navigate this conflict. It turns out, McCall considered Baker more than just a colleague.

“I was quite familiar with Paul Baker and his problems and I considered him my friend. He was – I was his friend,” McCall said.

We could probably spend an entire issue examining the relationship between McCall and Baker. There seems to have been a mutual trust, respect, and deep friendship between the two. McCall was a regular guest speaker in Baker’s classes, their families were sociable and dined together, and McCall – from his very earliest interactions with Baker – seemed to be not only on the theater professor’s side, but an adamant defender of Baker’s. The Long Day’s Journey Into Night saga, unfortunately, seems to have been the end of this trust, respect, and friendship. 

It’s a complex ending. According to McCall, Baker knew his errors, but asked his friend to spare him his reputation. McCall obliged and issued the order for O’Neill’s play to close. Then when the press, the public, the students, and the faculty turned on McCall, Baker was nowhere to be found, and, instead, was sorting out employment elsewhere. Without so much as a heads-up to his friend. Perhaps I’m reading too much into McCall’s words, but – under the “Arrangements Already Made” section of his report – I swear there is a tinge of remorse or regret or maybe feelings of betrayal. 

In short, this fight hurt. It hurt a friendship, it hurt the university, it hurt the alumni. And, as you’ve read, this conflict hurt Baylor Line Magazine. Frances Provence was told to toe the party line or members of the administration and board of trustees would personally see the Ex-Student’s Association and Baylor Line Magazine were punished. She, instead, chose to resign.

Abner McCall spent over an hour on Long Day’s Journey Into Night in his oral history. One hour out of almost forty. That’s quite a bit of time,  considering these interviews cover his entire life. Throughout this hour, McCall; his personal assistant Thomas Turner; and the interviewer, Thomas Charlton, each refer to this period as possibly the defining moment of McCall’s presidency. The Judge, himself, says his decision-making and leadership during the crisis is what cemented him in the minds of ministers and the Board of Trustees as a president they could trust. 

Paul Baker sat down with David Stricklin for his own entry in Baylor’s oral history collection in 1990. Three sessions. Two hours and 45 minutes total. Never does Baker, nor his wife, nor Stricklin even bring up the controversy.

Frances Provence, who stood for her principles, pursued truth with courage, kept her duty to provide the full, uncensored story to her audience, and resigned rather than sacrifice her moral obligations… 

Frances Provence was never offered an oral history. The Texas Collection labels the incident as “still controversial, over 50 years later” yet a crucial voice is lost forever.

No matter whose side you fall on in this saga – and, I would like to interject that it feels like one should pick a side, but I would urge you to reconsider that inclination – it’s certain that there is no one true truth available to us. No one person, no one side, no one perspective got it all right. And when we refuse to reconsider, reexamine, and recommit to the better angels of our nature, we will inevitably leave out the whole again and again. In doing so, we do those who followed their convictions, those who follow after us, and – especially – ourselves a true disservice.