Play discusses torture

February 25, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Submitted by IL Staff reporter Rebecca Berfanger:

“Sunlight,” a play that examines both sides of the debate on torture of detainees, opens tonight at the Phoenix Theatre in Indianapolis. It will be performed through March 20, including post-performance discussions March 5 and 14 featuring experts on the issues the characters present in the play.

The Phoenix invited me to attend a run-through of the play Tuesday night. After seeing it, I can say it will definitely encourage discussion on the legal aspects of the debate on torture and the rule of law following the terror attacks of Sept. 11.

Three of the four characters in the play are attorneys: Matthew, the zealous liberal president of a prestigious East Coast university; Vincent, the university president’s son-in-law and conservative dean of the university’s law school; and Charlotte, the president’s daughter and Vincent’s wife, herself a conservative lawyer in private practice. The fourth character is Matthew’s long-time assistant Midge, who tends to side with her boss, and provides comic relief from time to time.

The play opens the day after the president has allegedly ransacked the law school dean’s office in retaliation over the dean’s work supporting torture, including a course called, “The Law of Terror.” Due to the allegations following this incident, the university’s board is holding a meeting to vote on whether he should be allowed to stay in his position. Meanwhile, as Matthew’s daughter and lawyer, Charlotte is handling calls from the local media and shredding seemingly irrelevant documents at Matthew’s home.

Eventually Vincent and Matthew face each other in a passionate debate where Vincent explains why he is for torture, and Matthew takes a stand as to why he is adamantly opposed to it. Meanwhile, Charlotte, who has a very personal connection to Sept. 11 that affects both important men in her life, is torn between her loyalty to her father and to her husband, while coming to terms with her own views on the issue.

The play is especially relevant to Indiana’s legal community, considering Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington professor Dawn Johnsen’s nomination is still pending for the Office of Legal Counsel. While the play doesn’t expressly mention Johnsen, it does refer to the OLC’s work in allowing torture during the Bush administration. Johnsen’s reports against the work of the OLC under President George W. Bush are part of why she’s been a controversial nominee. (She was on the schedule for today’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, but was postponed for the fourth time since she was re-nominated earlier this year).

The first post-play discussion will feature Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis School of Public and Environmental Affairs faculty members Sheila Suess Kennedy and Jim White, who will be available following the 8 p.m. performance March 5. Kennedy specializes in civil rights and was executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana from 1992 to 1998. White served on the Indiana State Police for more than 20 years and serves as director of emergency management for Indianapolis/Marion County.

The post-play discussion March 14 will take place after the 2 p.m. performance and will feature history professor Peter DiMeglio. DiMeglio taught for 37 years at the University of Wisconsin, specializing in history of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries and world civilization. He was also the director of the University of Wisconsin’s Institute of International Studies.

The Indianapolis theatre is the second venue to produce the play as part of its National New Play Network’s Rolling World Premiere, following its first production at Marin Theatre Company in Mill Valley, Calif.

Phoenix Theatre is located at 749 N. Park Ave., Indianapolis. For ticket information and show times, visit the theatre’s Web site or call (317) 635-7529.

If you make it to a performance, let us know what you think.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT