The policy is a DRAG!

In the wake of last issue's cover story concerning Yeshiva University's policy of denying housing to homosexual couples, I deemed it necessary to do my part as a Commentator culture critic to reexamine YU's artistic policies that may have homophobic origins.

Initially, I intended to review last year's YCDS productions of both Ghetto and Sleuth. I soon realized, being that I became friendly with almost half the actors and crew-members of the Yeshiva College Dramatics Society, there was no way in which I could give an objective theatrical review. After seeing both shows, I think that the cast and crew of both shows deserve a lot of credit for putting in so much effort and for putting out such wonderful performances.

However, I would like to address an issue concerning the YCDS at large. While the productions they put on all contain captivating plots, impressive lighting, and talented acting, they all lack one very essential element…female characters. I understand that this is an all-male college and as such I am not arguing for female actors; this is however no excuse for stopping male actors from playing female characters. We all know that Shakespeare's original productions consisted of all male casts. This was the case even in such plays as Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet, where pivotal characters are female.

I am well aware of the verse in Deuteronomy prohibiting cross-dressing, but as I will soon show, major Poskim, including the Bach and the Ramoh, hold that this prohibition would not apply in our case. Perhaps my most compelling argument comes from the fact that in Stern College for Women, girls are allowed to portray male characters in both their drama and musical productions. There seems to be a contradiction within YU, for the Posuk clearly prohibits women donning male apparel in the same way it prohibits male cross-dressing. If the administration of YU deems it necessary to enforce adherence to the most stringent Shittot when it comes to the men's drama club, why does it take a more lenient stance when it comes to the women's productions? It is my opinion that this very double standard exemplifies a greater homophobic prejudice that is sadly, masked behind Halakhic ideals.

The controversy regarding cross-dressing is based on the Posuk in Deuteronomy 22:5, which states: "The articles of a man should not be on a woman, nor should a man don woman's clothing, for whoever does these, it is an abomination before G-d."

This verse can be interpreted halakhically in a number of ways. For practical purposes, I will go straight to the Poskim. The Bach (Yoreh-Deah:182) concludes that the prohibition is subject to social interpretation. In that, I mean that one is prohibited to wear any apparel of the opposite sex if it is done with promiscuous intent or for sociological beautification. He adds that even if one is wearing a seemingly cross-gender apparel for beautification, it is only prohibited if one is actually trying to pass in society as a member of the opposite sex.

The Ramoh (Orach-Chaim: note 8), agrees with the Bach, holding that when cross-dressing has no intent other than entertainment, it is indeed permissible! Consequently, he permits cross-dressing on Purim, and cross-dressing during wedding festivities. Seemingly the heter would apply to Cross-dressing in a play or musical as well.

Being that most Ashkenazic communities rely on the halakhic rulings of the Ramoh, it would seem from the information given, that there is more than ample basis for halakhically allowing cross-dressing in a theatrical production. When one cross-dresses in a play, he is not trying to realistically pass in society as a member of the opposite sex, instead, he is trying to portray a stage character. A theatrical character, in addition to being in essence not real, has the unique quality that all know he is just an act and hence, the character has no place in a real social environment. As long as the play is not promiscuous in nature, it is logical to infer from these Rabbis' words that it is permissible for students to don costumes designated for the opposite sex during theatrical productions.

The opposing view is held by Maimonides. He is of the opinion that the intention of the transgressor is a non-issue. In both his Sefer Hamitzvot (Neg: 40) and his Guide to the Perplexed (3:37), he describes the reason for this prohibition as relating to magical practices and idolatry, not simply relating to sexual immorality, as one would generally think. Consequently, promiscuous intent is not a factor in transgressing the prohibition. The mere act alone is sufficient. Similarly, the Sefer Hachinuch (542) does not consider intent as a factor in the transgression. Although one can even now kvetch that they are both referring to cross-dressing in normal sociological situations and not to theater (which might not constitute "l'shem cross-dressing"), I admit that these rabbi's rulings allow room for a more stringent approach to this problem. Adherence to this position would mean outlawing cross-dressing in both male and female productions.

The question now transforms itself into one of different issues. Should YU enforce its students to comply with the most stringent interpretation of this law even though it is customary for most of the students to rely on the more lenient rabbinical position regarding this issue? If so, why then should the school decide to be stringent when it comes to this issue, but so very lenient concerning others? The Yeshiva didn't seem to have a problem with an official Seinfeld club…so watching a show that contains both Pritzut and Nivel Peh is fine with YU. I wonder if the school thinks that Maimonides or even the Ramoh would approve of students watching Seinfeld? I think not! Yet concerning the Dramatics society, the school is so vehemently opposed to something that most of Orthodox Jewry find both acceptable and totally permissible.

Why isn't the school sensitive to the needs of its artistic male students? An Orthodox boy in YU who has a passion for the theater is already limited. First of all, there is only one drama club in YC, and it only puts on one play a semester. This severely limits the amount of roles there are (Sleuth only had four characters). The Drama club is itself limited in what types of plays they are allowed to put on. It can't pick plays that are inappropriate for a halakhic institution; which mean no plays about prostitution, love affairs, homosexuality, or sultry romances. More striking, is that even within a halakhically approved play, the drama club is further limited in that no women are allowed to act in YC productions. (I am also opposed to that policy, being that other clubs in YC are co-ed. I don't see why Stern women should be allowed to discuss debate with men but be allowed to act together in a respectable play with men…unless of course the school has some hidden agenda to keep women out of the public life, but I will leave that for another article.) Finally, the YC dramatics student is most severely limited by the intensity of a YC double curriculum.

Despite all of this, the Orthodox actor still comes to YC; a compassionate school would try to make his college dramatic experience as fulfilling as possible, in light of all the previous limitations mentioned. Instead, YC has decided to torment the male artist even further with superfluous limitations. It limits the actor to playing only characters of his own gender, thereby crushing experimental acting opportunities and cheapening the plays by changing all the female characters into male ones. This seems truly out of character for a school that prides itself on compromising within the halakhic circle to adapt to a dialectical existence.

I hope that YC will rethink its policy concerning the men's dramatics society. If we would be allowed to have female characters in the next semester's play, our acting experience, on the whole, would be greatly enhanced. There would be a whole new spectrum of opportunities for YC actors. If however, YC decides to keep the status quo, Stern should in turn change their lenient policy to match YC's stringent stance. If YU fails to be consistent, its ideals will ultimately become meaningless. Without ideals, all is lost.