At a forum held last night in Roble Hall, members of the Stanford community gathered to discuss this year’s Gaieties performance, the student-run production put on by the Ram’s Head Theatrical Society the week before Big Game.

 

The meeting was in response to the controversy surrounding Gaieties last year, and centered on the walkout of 32 Ujamaa residents during the performance. The forum sought to foster dialogue and was open to the public. The town hall, described by Ram’s Head as a mea culpa, was headed by Olivia Haas ’11 and Michael Rooney ’11, both members of the board of directors of Ram’s Head.

 

While acknowledging the hard work of the Gaieties staff, Ram’s Head executives also said the play was “plagued by a lack of oversight” and suffered from “a failure of responsibility.”

 

Haas began the meeting on an apologetic note, saying it was a regrettable and embarrassing situation.

 

“We see the issue this year as starting with the board’s lack of oversight that we are supposed to exercise,” she said, adding that the board of directors should have been more involved in the writing process.

 

While Haas noted that the members of Gaieties harbored no ill will in writing this year’s play, she acknowledged that, “regardless of the intent, the impact was that harm was caused. That’s what matters and that’s what we are here to address, acknowledge, and accept.”

 

Following opening statements from Rooney and Haas, the floor was opened to members of the panel and audience to ask questions or make statements regarding the future purpose and content of Gaieties.

 

One commenter noted that Gaieties sought to address stereotypes that already exist by lampooning them in an over-the-top manner. Ujamaa RA Yvorn Aswad-Thomas ’11 disagreed with the effectiveness of Gaieties in this regard.

 

“Of all the opportunities to discuss these issues and analyze these divisive stereotypes, why do we choose the series of nights when we are supposed to be bringing campus together?” he asked. “Just putting images up without discussing or getting into it, we fall short of the goal of tearing these stereotypes down.”

 

One of the most commonly suggested improvements was that Gaieties approach members of different community centers on campus to elicit feedback about their production. Haas agreed, also suggesting that a panel of different student groups read over the script and watch rehearsals. She emphasized, however, that the groups would be responsible for providing feedback and not have editorial control.

 

In one of the tensest moments of the night, an audience member accused Gaieties of “blatant sexism, racism, and homophobia,” a charge that went unchallenged by members of Gaieties staff and members of Ram’s Head.

 

When asked about the statement, Haas said in an interview with The Daily after the forum that she agreed with the statement. She clarified that while there were tones of racism, sexism and homophobia, “there was absolutely no intent to be hurtful by any member of Gaieties staff.”

 

Haas also noted that all of the potential producers for next year were in attendance at the meeting, which she said showed that Gaieties will be better moving forward.

 

Moving forward was an important theme for Aswad-Thomas as well. He said that he was happy with the talk, especially because it marked the start of a much bigger movement.

 

“I saw this as the beginning of a process that all parties involved wanted to be a part of, to address the points of hurt and to look towards improving things,” Aswad-Thomas said in an interview with The Daily after the discussion. “One of the most important things is people realizing there’s no one Stanford.

 

“If Gaieties can do a better job including all of the different experiences we’ve all had here at Stanford, it will be a lot more comprehensive, a lot funnier, and much better,” he added.