Freedom Summer, Scene One
Hey kids. I’m writing a historical adapation for my Playwriting class. It’s based on the experiences of Casey Hayden, a Civil Rights activist and early feminist. I have to finish a rough draft by Friday – here’s the first scene.
ACT I
SCENE ONE
(The curtain is closed. In front, stage right, are three lecterns bearing the National Student Association logo. CASEY and two PANELISTS stand behind the lecterns. CASEY is dressed fashionably, in a sun dress, pumps. When she speaks, she speaks passionately. The house lights remain up as they debate. We are at a panel discussion.)
PANELIST
To sum up, what I’m saying is that we’ve got otherwise successful students from respectable universities making fools of themselves in public and getting thrown into jail. How does that make us look? This sit-in movement isn’t progressive, it’s absolutely regressive. We must pass a resolution condemning these anarchists before they throw away whatever progress has been made by the success of the bus boycotts in Montgomery and other cities across the South. We must not allow our emotions to rule our judgment on this matter.
(The curtain opens. BLACKS at a lunch counter, sitting quietly stage left. Lights indicate this is not happening here, in this moment.)
PANELIST
I believe my colleague’s argument echoes my earlier remarks. I certainly agree that we should pass a resolution condemning the sit-ins, though perhaps for different reasons. I believe I speak for many of us when I say that a democracy relies upon the strength and fairness of its laws to prosper, and therein should lie the foundation of our position as regards the Negro question. Are the Jim Crow laws inherently unconstitutional? Of that there can be no doubt. However, and I cannot emphasize this enough, they are still laws. Encouraging students to break laws, no matter how unfair they may be, presents a slippery slope. Which laws, then, are worthy of breaking? Who shall decide? We must trust the courts to strike down these laws. We, as a country, have vested in them the authority to do so. Let us put our trust in the strength of our Judiciary, not in the whims of a few radical students.
(WHITES appear stage-right. Their attention is clearly on the lunch counter.)
CASEY
While I may fall within a certain shade of opinion, I speak neither for the sit-inners nor the Southern white, but only for myself. I find the sit-in question to be essentially an ethical one, not a question of expediency or emotion. I do not mean this to be abstract: an ethical question means a personal decision. None of you can make this decision for me, nor would I attempt to make it for any of you.
An ethical question is both utterly simple and confusingly complex. On this particular question, I hope we do not lose its essential simplicity in its complexity. When an individual human being is forbidden by the legal system and the social mores of his community to be a human being, does he have the right to peaceably protest? Yes. No “buts,” simply “Yes.” Perhaps in this situation protest is the only way to maintain his humanity.
PANELIST
Ms. Cason, though your rhetoric is compelling, I believe this situation is more complex than simply a question of abstract humanity.
CASEY
Then let’s address the complexities.
(WHITES approach the lunch counter, taunting, shoving. BLACKS remain seated quietly, facing forward.)
There is the fear of violence. But should a person who does not strike back be blamed because he was struck? If the presence of Negro students sitting quietly is so infuriating to a mob that they resort to violence, should the students be blamed for the sickness of the mob?
Maybe you simply do not think the sit-ins are wise. Well, wise in terms of what? The amount of discomfort caused? I do not choose to live my life in terms of comfort. I am not free as long as the segregationist keeps me from going where I please with whom I please, and I do not think that fear of him should keep me and others from trying to right the wrong for which he stands.
(WHITES empty ketchup bottles on the BLACK students. They grab them, shake them, but BLACKS remain stoic.)
PANELIST
I don’t think anyone disagrees that the accounts of Southern White violence are abhorrent, but that is a question for the law to decide, as is the question of reversing Jim Crow and the unfair –
CASEY
What about the law? As I see it, a person suffering under an unjust law has several choices. He can do nothing, which we have never advocated in a democracy. He can use legal means, but legal means move slowly. He is a human being now, and the law is unjust now. Should he revolt? I think we should all be proud and glad that this has not been the course of the Southern Negro. Or he can protest actively, as Southern students have chosen to do, and he must take the consequences. The law is not immutable, but rather an agreed-upon pattern for relations between people. If the pattern is unjust or a person doesn’t agree with the relations, a person must choose to do the right rather than the legal. I do not consider this anarchy, but responsibility.
(WHITES pull the BLACKS off their chairs, brutally kicking and punching. BLACKS try to protect each other with their bodies, but they do not strike back.)
PANELIST
But who are we to make that decision? The processes are in motion, the bus boycotts have been relatively successful. Why throw it all away for a dramatic scene at a Woolworth’s?
(House lights begin to fade.)
CASEY
I cannot say to a person who suffers injustice, “Wait.” Perhaps you can. I can’t. And having decided that I cannot urge caution, I must stand with him. If I had known that not a single lunch counter would open as a result of my action, I still could not have done differently. I am thankful for the sit-ins for providing me an opportunity to turn an ideal into action. It seems to me that this is what life is all about. While I hope that the NSA Congress will pass a strong sit-in resolution, I am more concerned that all of us, Negro and white, realize the possibility of becoming less inhuman humans through commitment and action, with all their frightening complexities.
(WHITES drag BLACK protestors off stage right.)
When Thoreau was jailed for refusing to pay taxes to a government which supported slavery, Emerson went to visit him. “Henry David,” said Emerson, “what are you doing in there?” Thoreau looked at him and replied, “Ralph Waldo, what are you doing out there?”
Well? What are you doing out there?