The settlement reached between Christina Axson-Flynn and the University of Utah this week was so simple and obvious that it makes one wonder why it wasn't reached earlier — say, five years ago.
University officials say their side rarely has been presented during this long legal battle, but it is difficult to understand how they could defend insensitivities that seemed needless from the start.
Axson-Flynn is the former drama student who objected when instructors wanted her to recite lines that including taking the Lord's name in vain. This violated her constitutional right to free speech and the free exercise of religion, she said. From the start, the university's position was to dig in its heels. Axson-Flynn was not being asked to change her religious beliefs. She was merely being asked to recite lines while assuming the role of a character, which is the essence of acting.
Federal Judge Tena Campbell, in her decision three years ago to dismiss the lawsuit, sided with the school. If this were about the First Amendment, she said, "a neo-Nazi could refuse to discuss, write or consider the Holocaust in a critical manner in a history class."
It's a good thing Axon-Flynn decided to appeal, where the case was reinstated. Campbell, like the university, missed the point. Axon-Flynn was not being asked to consider another point of view. She was being asked to commit what, according to her religion, was a sin. The commandment against taking the Lord's name in vain doesn't include exceptions for play acting.
It would be ridiculous to contend that sensitivities never enter into the way characters are portrayed on stage or in film. One need merely watch a war movie from 50 years ago to understand that the dialogue portrayed at that time in film did not necessarily reflect accurately on the dialogue one may hear in actual combat situations. Likewise, today's productions still draw lines. Attitudes and sensitivities change. They also vary from person to person.
In the real world, an actor will accept or reject parts based on his or her own standards. Some don't mind doing nude scenes, for example, while others object. Once a role is accepted, however, the actor performs it as written. In a classroom situation, however, that kind of personal preference is limited. The university ought to have a system in place to accommodate moral objections.
Fortunately, the U. soon will. Unfortunately, it took nearly five years and a lot of money and bad publicity for the school to get there.