Drama Queen

Fiona Faehey November/December 2002
Illustration By Will Terry

If a student swears in acting class, does God hear? * Apparently not, according to University of Utah acting professors. Or, if He does, it doesn't count because, hey, it is acting, after all. It's not like she means it. Right? Well . . . * Christina Axson-Flynn, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, doesn't see it that way; a fact she made clear during an audition, in March 1998, when she applied for acceptance in the University of Utah Actor Training Program (ATP). Her parents, Michael and Jane Flynn, are both professional actors; her interest in acting naturally arose from their involvement. Four professors were present at Axson-Flynn's audition: Sandy Shotwell, Barbara Smith, Jerry Gardner, and Sarah Shippobotham. Axson-Flynn performed two monologues during the course of the audition. * When she was through the professors asked Axson-Flynn if there was anything she felt uncomfortable acting. Axson-Flynn replied, "I do not take the name of God in vain. I do not take the name of Christ in vain. And I do not say the four-letter expletive beginning with the letter f."¹ At this, the professors informed her that sometimes it was necessary to use those words when performing. Axson-Flynn explained that she would rather not be admitted into the program if she was going to be required to use language that violated her conscience and her religious ideals.

Naturally, when her acceptance letter arrived in April 1998, Axson-Flynn assumed it signified that she would not be required to use the language she had specifically identified as objectionable during her interview. She began the ATP program in August 1998 not anticipating any problems. In September she was asked to perform a monologue called Friday, in which were two offensive words. She omitted the words and performed the monologue satisfactorily. The omission was not even noticed.

The trouble began in October when Professor Smith asked Axson-Flynn to perform a scene called "Quadrangle." The dialogue contained religiously offensive words, which Axson-Flynn pointed out to the professor.

"I said that there were some words in there that were concerning me, and that this was going to be an issue. And she asked me why I didn't have a problem performing them in the monologue Friday. And I said, 'I didn't perform them. I omitted them. And no one even noticed.' And she got quite upset by that. She said my behavior was not acceptable. She said that I would have to change. And she said that I would have to get over it, as far as my hang-ups on language. 'Get over it' were her exact words."²

Professor Smith said Axson-Flynn could still be a "good Mormon" and use religiously offensive language when she was performing. Further, Professor Smith said, if she did not use the offensive language and perform the dialogue, she would be choosing to take no credit for the assignment. Axson-Smith opted to take no credit. Professor Smith encouraged her to think about her decision during the weekend, but after the weekend Smith relented, calling Axson-Flynn and telling her that she could remove the religiously offensive language and receive a grade on the assignment.

When she attended a semester review of her work in December, professors Shotwell, Shippobothom, and Smith informed Axson-Flynn that allowances would no longer be made for language and that she would be required to use the religiously offensive language she objected to. She was specifically told to "change her views" and "modify her values." If, they said, she did not comply by the end of the academic year, she would be removed from the acting program.

Axson-Flynn requested a meeting with the department chair, Xan Johnson, and told him how frustrated she was that she would be asked to use language that offended her because it violated her religious principles. But Johnson took no action.

Later, Axson-Flynn was asked by her professors to meet with some Mormon girls who chose to use the language Axson-Flynn objected to when they were acting. The professors explained that meeting with the girls would help her "get over" her reluctance to use that language.

The new semester began in January and with it came consistent reminders by her professors that she would not be able to remain in the program if she did not comply with the language requirement. In desperation, Axson-Flynn approached Professor Shotwell once more to ask if she would be forced to leave the program if she refused to comply regarding the language.

"Recognizing that she would not be permitted to complete the program, Axson-Flynn went to Shotwell's office in a final attempt to resolve the matter. Axson-Flynn stated: 'This is what I understand. If I do not—and this is what you said—modify my values by the end of the semester, I'm going to have to find another program. Is that right?' Shotwell responded: 'Yes. We talked about that, yes.' At this point, Axson-Flynn informed Shotwell that she would leave the ATP, because it was clear that she would fail unless she altered her religious convictions. She told Shotwell: 'I don't want to go, but I am not going to change.' Shotwell replied: 'Well, neither are we.'"³

Before allowing her to leave, Professor Shotwell required Axson-Flynn to speak to her classmates and publicly explain her decision to leave. Axson-Flynn walked into a classroom before her fellow classmates and explained her decision to them, reiterating that she was leaving the program because she would not use the offensive language that violated her religious beliefs and conscience. She told them that she could live with herself if she never became a great actress, but she could not live with herself if she violated her integrity.

Curiously enough, it was Alex Koritz, the opinion desk editor of The College Times, at the Utah Valley State College, where Axson-Flynn entered after leaving the University of Utah, who took umbrage with Axson-Flynn's position. "There is a definite distinction between playing a role on stage and living one's personal life. An actor acts. He plays the role of a fictional character. Fictional, meaning 'not real, fake, pretend.' Sympathizers of Axson-Flynn must ask themselves, what is worse: playing a character who uses profanity, or playing a character who is a murderer or thief. Moral priorities have seemingly been overlooked on this issue."⁴

On the surface this seems like a reasonable argument. Why doesn't Axson-Flynn object to portraying characters and conduct she finds distasteful or even immoral? She didn't make any objection to a vast majority of classroom exercise, never refused to play an assigned role, and willingly performed scripts that involved her portrayal of characters whose actions she personally disapproves of. One role required her to portray a college student who had a brief affair and an abortion.

When asked in her deposition whether playing this role was objectionable from a religious standpoint, Axson-Flynn responded, "No. I guess you would say, But it talks about abortion. Yes. But that's representational. I didn't have to get an abortion onstage to play Danielle. But I would have had to say the f word. You know, if they had said to play Danielle you have to get a real abortion on stage, of course I would have had a problem playing Danielle. But this is representational."⁵

This distinction is crucial. Unlike most morally objectionable behavior, you can't "act" taking the name of the Lord in vain or using religiously offensive language. You can "act" a murderer or a thief without being one. You cannot "act" taking the Lord's name in vain without actually doing it. Actors who are in a scene in which they are making love are not, in reality, making love. However, an actor who takes the Lord's name in vain is simply a person pretending to be someone else taking the Lord's name in vain. Any way you cut it, it's still taking the Lord's name in vain.

In contrast to playing an objectionable role, however—where an actor need only pretend to engage in the offensive conduct—portraying a character who says "God" irreverently or uses the f-word requires use of those words. As one theologian has explained: "Unlike sins such as murder, which a person can describe without committing, to use words profanely is to commit the sin—God's name is no less used in vain by putting it in quotes" (Robertson McQulikin, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics [rev. ed. 1995], p. 164).⁶

This element makes all the difference and is, essentially, what makes forced compliance a violation of the free exercise of religion. A brief filed by a group of theologians points out: "The sin is in the actual statement of the words, it matters not whether she is playing a role. She cannot divorce herself from herself merely to satisfy the requirements of an acting class."⁷

Neither are these views limited to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The amici curiae who contributed to the brief are made up of theologians and scholars of religion from a variety of religious traditions. They argue, "It is hard to see how the invocation of deity in blessing on students can be unlawful, but the invocation of deity in cursing is acceptable, and indeed can be forced on unwilling students. If the state cannot require a student to say, 'God bless you,' how can it require students to utter 'G-d damn you'? Principles of constitutional law, and common sense, say that it cannot."⁸

The Daily Utah Chronicle reported on the results of the first act of this drama. "The curtain closed on Act 1 of Christina Axson-Flynn's religious discrimination lawsuit against the Actor Training Program August 3 (2001). After almost two months of deliberation, U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell sided with the University of Utah on its motion to dismiss."⁹

In addition, "Campbell called the Actor Training Program 'facially neutral' in its education. Since no religious groups are offered exemptions from the curriculum, none are being discriminated against, she ruled."¹⁰ The University of Utah would undoubtedly agree with her assessment. Their mission statement reads, in part: "The right of free inquiry is zealously preserved; diversity is encouraged and respected; critical examination and creativity are promoted; and intellectual integrity and social responsibility are fostered."¹¹

One has to wonder, why were ATP professors so insistent that Axson-Flynn vocalize words that violated her conscience and deeply felt religious beliefs if prejudice was not a motivator? Axson-Flynn's entire objection is exceedingly narrow. She will not say "God" or "Jesus Christ" irreverently, and she will not say, as she put it, the four-letter expletive beginning with the letter f. She never asked to be excused from playing a role. She did not ask professors to change their curriculum. She did not demand that other students modify their language or behavior in her presence. Why, then, couldn't she be accommodated? "I wasn't asking for the whole [ATP] to omit every personally offensive word to me. I was asking that I didn't have to [use such words] in the classroom."¹²

University defendants claim that actors must swear in order to make a living these days. It just ain't so, claim professional amici who filed a brief in support of Axson-Flynn. "It is undoubtedly true that roles exist in which the actor is called on to use the words at issue in this case. But the ATP, and specifically the First Year Acting course, fails to recognize such roles are in no sense mandatory and that alternative career paths exist for actors who do not wish to involve themselves in productions in which such language is required. Indeed, as noted in Axson-Flynn's brief in opposition to summary judgment, Axson-Flynn's own parents have enjoyed successful acting careers while remaining true to their religious beliefs.

"In addition to this evidence, we can attest, based on our broad experience in the profession that one can achieve success as an actor without taking on roles in which the character uses obscenities, profanity, or other offensive language. This is confirmed by the fact that family entertainment industry contributes billions of dollars to the economy, and there is a continuing surge in family-friendly programming efforts reflected in the increase of networks and network divisions devoted to these programs. The value the entertainment industry places on this type of programming is reflected in the recent purchase by Walt Disney Company of Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., in a deal valued at approximately billion."¹³

Good, clean entertainment is undoubtedly big business indeed when 48 of America's biggest companies, heavyweights like McDonald's Corporation, Wal-Mart, Verizon Communication, the Coca-Cola Company, Kraft Foods, Inc., among others, all members of the Association of National Advertisers, Inc., join forces as the Family Friendly Programming Forum (FFPF) to promote family-friendly television programs that parents and children can enjoy together. It's a sure bet none of the programs the FFPF supports with its advertising will contain any of the words Christina Axson-Flynn objects to using. Considering the fact that the Dove Foundation commissioned a study of 2,400 feature-length films shown in theaters between 1988 and 1997 that showed that G- rated films yielded the highest gross profit ( million in contrast to R-rated films, which earned an average of million),¹⁴ it seems that the ATP might do better requiring all students to delete offensive language.

Axson-Flynn's case has been appealed at the Tenth Circuit. According to Attorney James McConkie, they are simply waiting for a date to argue it. And the curtain will rise on Act 2 during which one has to hope that Christina Axson-Flynn will break a proverbial leg, in the theatrical and legal sense.

______________________
Fiona Faehey is a freelance author writing from Mobile, Alabama.

______________________

¹ Deposition of Christina Axson-Flynn, p 20.
² Ibid., pp. 50, 51.
³ Opening brief for appellant, Christina Axson-Flynn v. Xan Johnson et al., p. 12.
⁴ Alex Koritz, "Viewpoint: The Show Must Go On," The College Times, no. 22, Feb. 16, 2000).
⁵ Deposition of Christina Axson-Flynn, p 68.
⁶ Opening brief for appellant, p. 44.
⁷ "Student Actor Who Refused to Swear Asks Court to Reinstate Suit," Associated Press, Mar. 1, 2002.
⁸ Brief of amici curiae, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, J. Budziszewski, Rabbi Shalom Carmy, Louis Dupr

---

Article Author: Fiona Faehey