n what may be a precedent setting case, Drama Professor Jared Sakren has sued the Arizona State University Board of Regents for violating his federal and state civil rights by discriminating against him because of his European descent and his use of male-authored European works in his teachings.

Sakren is the ASU drama professor featured in the spring 1998 issue of Campus — and subsequently in U.S. News & World Report and other national publications — for having been fired for teaching Shakespeare and other classic works his colleagues declared “sexist” and “offensive to feminists.” Since then, emotions have run so high that one graduate student called the case a “witch-hunt” and a “lynching.”

The stakes have increased considerably since the spring. Sakren’s suit, filed in July 1998, also charges the ASU Regents with breach of contract for the termination of his employment as well as for running afoul of Arizona state constitution provisions regarding academic freedom.

The case asks whether a student’s education can be restricted by the faculty’s biases and whether the curriculum can be determined by a group of professors who can terminate any teacher determined to teach independently of their dictates.

The Sakren saga began in October 1995, when ASU prematurely terminated his employment contract. His performance and qualifications were not issues, and with good reason — Sakren is a graduate of the Julliard School of the Arts who taught at the prestigious Yale School of Drama for twelve years and whose students include Val Kilmer, Annette Bening and Oscar-winner Frances McDormand. So why did the ASU theatre department cut Sakren loose? The reason cited repeatedly by Sakren’s colleagues was his traditional approach to the classic plays of such luminaries as Shakespeare, Aeschylus, and Ibsen.

You read that last sentence correctly.

hen the College of Fine Arts personnel committee met to discuss Sakren’s second year review in November 1995, Lin Wright, the chairwoman of the theatre department, decreed that a college academic program must be determined by faculty “consensus.” The committee then split its vote on the issue of extending his employment contract.

“This consensus,” wrote Wright in a letter to Sakren, “should be based on the mutual respect of peers as equals.” The department’s problem with Sakren was grounded in his choice of curriculum: “The feminists are offended by the selection of works from a sexist European canon that is approached traditionally.” Wright never specified which works of the canon are sexist or by whose standards they were judged.

Soon after this evaluation, the chairman of the committee sent a letter to the dean of the ASU College of Fine Arts stating that Sakren would be extended a “conditional contract” because he “warrants clear counseling on the department’s expectations.” A written summary of the decision stated that although Sakren is a “good director” who has “energized the department’s faculty,” his work “does not match the explicit goals of the department. He has designed and redesigned very good classical acting programs for us. This is not the focus of departmental work.”

The decree of the department reads: “You will not receive another directing assignment — at least for the next year. I suggest that you develop a firm grasp of the pre-production process, including the development of a concept that will lead to seeing the story in a new light and to illuminating the text. Work with student actors should help them all move beyond stereotypes to a personalization of the text — [and] accept the challenge to create a vision for the work that includes the unique contributions of minority artists.”

While Sakren’s traditional Shakespeare productions were targeted as unacceptable, other productions in the department escaped critics — including the play Betty the Yeti, an “eco-fable” of a logger in the Northwest who becomes an environmentalist after having sex with a female Sasquatch in the forest. Also passing muster was The Medea Project, a play featuring six Medea characters that harangue on domestic violence.

If Sakren’s critics have been vocal, his supporters have been even more so. The most dramatic evidence in the controversy is the unqualified support of his students. As one graduate student actor wrote to the department: “I am witnessing what I can only describe as a lynching. I would be as guilty as those who are orchestrating this witch hunt if I did not make my position perfectly clear and extend Mr. Sakren my full support in his defense — [he] is being used as a scapegoat for the problems the ASU theatre department has been facing.”

Another telling excerpt comes from a self-described feminist student: “Mr. Sakren has been part of my positive experiences here. I hope we can keep him. ... Last semester I met with a female professor about a play of mine. She was considering directing a reading of it ... the actual meeting was, as far as I could tell, about getting me to throw the script away because it did not forward her vision of the feminist movement. She told me that my play followed the male paradigm of conflict, and that I am on the ‘boys side.’ [She told me] that I ‘had obviously read the wrong feminist theory’ because if I had read the right theory I ‘wouldn’t have written this play.’”

Maysoon Abdelhady, a disabled student whom Sakren allegedly mistreated, also contributed to the dialogue: “These allegations are misdirected,” Abdelhady writes, “[A]s the student in question, let me appeal to you to clear Mr. Sakren’s records of these false allegations.”

It turns out that Sakren’s departmental nemesis, Lin Wright, has had past difficulties in dealing with her faculty colleagues. Gerald Carey, a former member of the department, objected when he was given additional job responsibilities with no raise in pay or change in the title. Carey commented that he “was given an ultimatum by Lin Wright. I could either perform the new and additional duties and responsibilities in [my] current title and pay grade or she would eliminate [my] position. ... [I]t clearly illustrates Lin Wright's manipulation and total disregard for University policies and procedures while chair of the Department of Theatre.”

Further investigation into the tactics of the theatre department raises questions regarding both its methods and motives.

Two months after the meeting regarding Jared Sakren in January 1996, Chairwoman Wright sent a memo to the Associate Dean of the Center of Fine Arts in which she demanded that the course catalogue eliminate an “out-of-date classical actor training program” course description. Wright says that her own teaching approach leads her to prepare students for “radical changes” that are occurring in the profession rather than “focusing on the development of a style that no longer speaks to our audiences.”

Wright’s actions and intent conflict with the very mission of the university, not to mention the National Association of Schools of Theatre (NAST). A report by NAST states that “Academic freedom prohibits the department from recommending the content or approach to what is instructed in education courses.” In addition, it states “Academic freedom prohibits the director of theatre education from recommending the content or approach to what is instructed in directing classes.”

These fundamental tenets of academic freedom provided the basis for the grievance Sakren files when he received a terminal contract in December of 1996.

Sakren submitted his grievance to the ASU Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT). CAFT found Chairwoman Lin Wright’s method of evaluation fundamentally flawed, criticizing both the “format” and “implementation” of Wright’s procedure. The department, wrote CAFT, relied heavily on a voluntary survey of faculty that was “vaguely written, did not provide specific performance criteria, and did not carry a clear statement of its critical role in the review.”

In addition, the survey’s accuracy was suspect because “Respondents were not identified, and there was no effort to obtain a high response rate.” Regarding the student evaluations of Sakren, which supposedly provided the earlier claims of alleged misogyny and bigotry: “[T]he same poorly constructed survey instrument was used, no students returned it, and there was no attempt to solicit information from those students who had been supervised by Mr. Sakren (as required by Department of Theatre personnel procedures and bylaws).”

The CAFT followed with a recommendation that the Department of Theatre review and revise its instruments and procedures of evaluation to ensure it does not penalize choices that are protected by academic freedom, and also demanded that the ASU Provost implement a re-review of Professor Sakren’s performance.

Sakren’s suit is ongoing, the case so far remaining unresolved. As it works its way through the courts, expect the beginnings of a national conversation on its implications for academic freedom in colleges and universities as we move into the next millennium.

nnette Bening on Jared Sakren, Political Correctness, and the Importance of Being Shakespeare.

[When Academy Award-nominated film star Annette Bening heard that one of her favorite college professors was under siege at Arizona State University for the most dubious of reasons, she had to come to his defense.

Professor Jared Sakren taught Ms. Bening in 1980-82. Since then, Ms. Bening has appeared in many feature films such as “Love Affair,” “Bugsy,” “Guilty by Suspicion,” and “The American President.” She appears with Bruce Willis and Denzel Washington in “The Siege,” released this November, and she will be seen next year in an as yet untitled project directed by Neil Jordan for DreamWorks. She is married to acclaimed actor Warren Beatty.

Ms. Bening is staunch in her support of Professor Sakren, as are other former students such as Val Kilmer and Kelly McGillis.]

Campus: You are a classically trained actress whose career has been informed by the dramas of William Shakespeare. When did you first discover Shakespeare’s plays and what effect did they have on the direction of your life and art?

AB: I began performing Shakespeare directly out of college. I participated in a number of Shakespeare festivals. But before that, Shakespeare was my introduction to the theater. When I was in junior high my school took a trip to the Old Globe Theatre in San Diego; that is when I saw my first Shakespeare play. I loved it. Here were these people speaking in what seemed like another language, but I understood them. It was very moving, inspirational. Some of the people involved in that production eventually became my teachers and my directors.

So Shakespeare was very important to me; it got me interested in theater and acting. For me, Shakespeare was essential to my interest in drama. And I think a lot has to do with the fact that I saw his plays performed so well. Some complain that Shakespeare is inaccessible. I disagree. When Shakespeare is interpreted faithfully and performed with clarity and dedication it is some of the most accessible and true entertainment I have ever seen.

After college I went to an acting school. I studied Shakespeare my entire time there and it had this benefit: when you sit backstage as a journeyman actor playing a bit part, you hear the play, you hear it over and over and over again. I remember I would wait downstairs and I would hear Hamlet performed night after night. As this went on, Shakespeare became second nature — it was in my blood. He touches the deepest, most profound aspects of the human experience, and he does it in a language that is at once poetic and, when performed well, easily understood.

As you know, Jared Sakren was recently fired by Arizona State University (ASU) ostensibly for teaching Shakespeare, or at least for refusing to change his teaching style to suit the politics of feminists in his department. How did you come to know Jared Sakren?

Jared Sakren, or Jed, was my teacher. I was Jed’s student in 1980, 1981 and 1982. He taught me the method of using “masks”to explore dramatic problems. I use the term “dramatic problems” in the best sense. Jed would give us an assignment to act out. For instance, he might take a character from a Shakespeare play and ask us to use the mask to act out a part of the play. The work that resulted was extraordinary. There is something very freeing in putting on a mask, in taking away the face; it adds a larger dimension to the thing. What is so important about Shakespeare for actors is that there is a dimension to the emotion that is potentially immense. You can explore the limits of your physical capabilities, intellectual capabilities, emotional capabilities, spiritual capabilities, and psychological capabilities. Shakespeare created large stories. In order to explore your limits you need that kind of material. Jed would also assign some of the Greek plays in his classes to use great dramatic problems to teach actors how to act things out.

What is important about Jed is that he is exceptionally good and what he teaches very few people can teach. He has a solid command of acting and of technique. Jed is also very gentle, fun, savvy and smart. He is known across the country for his work with masks, with neutral masks and character masks. He is a master. Let me relate one other story. In class we would work with a mirror and put on a character mask and become the character. We would then interact with Jed the teacher and develop the character, using voice and movement. In this exercise we rediscovered playfulness. It was like learning how to be a child again and acting from the heart. That class was extremely helpful to me as an actor. We would have the best time.

So you would take issue with ASU’s characterization of Jared Sakren as somehow unsuited to hold a tenure-track position at a large state university?

Absolutely. Jared Sakren is exceptional. And I am not talking about this in a generic way; he specifically is a very unusual and exceptionally good teacher and has skills most acting teachers don’t possess. That is what is so ironic about his dismissal from ASU. He is Julliard trained and has worked with the best acting schools. I worked with him twenty years ago. He has enormous influence.

How would you respond to professors at colleges and universities who believe Shakespeare is repressive and demeaning to women? Do you consider him injurious to women? Should he be removed from our reading lists?

To discourage the teaching and performing of Shakespeare to theater students is like taking a painting or art student and saying “don’t study Rembrandt because he lived in a patriarchal society.” You would never say that to a painter. It would be tantamount to telling a music student not to study the great composers because they were men. That is a ridiculous argument. Absurd. The conditions of a given society do not take away from the genius or brilliant creativity of the great writers, composers or painters who happened to live in that era.

And most importantly, the great geniuses were not demeaning to women. Quite the opposite. They illuminated women; they probed deeply into their nature and explored the conditions under which they lived, worked and loved. In fact, the greatest roles for women, the profoundest and cleverest portraits of women, are found in Shakespeare: Juliet, Beatrice, Rosalind, Portia, Katherine, Cordelia, Gertrude, Desdemona, Miranda — and yes, Lady MacBeth. The glory and limitations of women are perfectly clear when you read or see Shakespeare performed. He understood the hearts and souls of women. Shakespeare is so far beyond the politically correct attitude. He understood people too deeply to be put in that box.

So you would counsel young women to study Shakespeare?

Absolutely. Shakespeare, and all the great writers for that matter, should be studied by women. And not just by women, by everybody. He should be read deeply. First of all because he is the greatest poet of the English language; and second, because he is a profound doctor of human nature, a psychological genius in exploring and fleshing out our complicated nature. And he goes about it in such a funny, gut-wrenching way. I’m thinking of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It is a play filled with the most luscious, gorgeous poetry. And just look at Titania. She is an enormously powerful, smart, erotic, witty woman who foolishly falls in love. How much more human can you get? Love happens. The smartest women fall in love and can be frail and this is what is important. It’s human. We cannot brush this all aside and over-deify women because of political correctness.

If you had the chance, what would you say to officials of Arizona State University about their treatment of Jared Sakren?

ASU made a gross error. This talented, energetic, caring teacher has fallen victim to an atmosphere of political correctness and this is wrong. The classics are essential for drama and this is a man that is schooled and able to teach them. I would plead the case that now more than ever the classics are important. We are so caught up in a culture of immediate gratification, and the acting world is so much about money and greed, that the careful study of classic texts is a method to reinvigorate acting and the art of acting. Acting is not about seeking fame — it is about exploring the human soul.

In your estimation, who will be the biggest loser in this unfortunate episode?

Beside Jared himself, Jared’s students are the ultimate losers here. They are being cheated of the chance to try themselves out on the great works. Any acting student should have the chance to put on the clothes of a great queen or king. It is a way of exploring their own dimensions as a human being, to explore their own human emotions. It is essential. Any program that doesn’t involve the great works is a mediocre program. It is inconceivable that ASU is compromising their program by this kind of narrow-minded thinking, by pandering to political correctness.

What has been the role of contemporary feminism in ushering in this hostile attitude to the classics, the kind of antipathy to, or at least suspicion of, the great writers of the past that led to Sakren’s dismissal?