News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
That curious contribution of the actors of America to the new economic nationalism, the Dickstein bill, which would limit the employment of foreign actors to those "of distinguished merit and ability" and to those whose "professional engagements are of a character requiring superior talent" has just been reported back to the House by the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization for final consideration.
Admittedly intended by the Actors Equity as an economic measure, the Dickstein bill is one of the more ridiculous attempts in recent years at the perversion of the legislative function to private ends. In the first place, as an economic measure the bill's validity is practically nil, since the present number of foreign actors in the United States is surely not so enormous as to hinder the possible employment of local talent now out of work. Even as a bit of private weaseling the bill is pitifully transparent. On the one hand, it is a sop to the actors who insist that something must be done for domestic incompetents now out of jobs, and in its magnanimous provision that the presence of distinguished foreign artists in America will be tolerated, it is a concession to producers who would probably not remain altogether silent at being forced a surrender many of their most effective moneymakers to the cause of national planning.
By no means the least striking of the bill's provisions is that one which would entrust to the Department of Labor the responsibility for determining what constitutes superior talent and what actors are sufficiently distinguished to grace the American stage. Tremendously flattered though the Department may be to find itself designated as dramatic critic for the nation, the fact remains that art has never lent itself very well to government supervision. The ban on Ulysses, which was the result of the cultural prejudices of a certain inspector of customs in New York is a good example of the sort of thing which occurs when the state turns to the weighing of talent. But governments will try anything and the Actors' Equity may ultimately come to doubt the wisdom of inviting the government to meddle with the theater.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.