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.

Post a comment to this story

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
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues