More on the ballet fracas

After the column came out last week about how people were refused entry at the Luce Auditorium for the Lisa Macuja show, the marketing representative hired by the Silliman Cultural Affairs Committee, Pamela Galvez, wrote in defense of what they did. I tried to squeeze her letter in my column but even though it was already edited for brevity, the editors found it too long.

Anyway, the letter was okay in a sense that it sought to provide point-by-point answers to the issues raised in the previous column. The letter started out with a historical account of how the building came to be. Built in 1973 and formally inaugurated in October 1974, Luce Auditorium was meant to be the Center for Culture & the Arts in the Central Visayas region. Through time, it has become a theatre and performance venue not only of the Visayas region, but of the entire Southern Philippines as well. To quote a section from its Vision statement, "It is a source of pride for all Sillimanians and people come from far and wide to see it. It is only but fitting that we also give it its due. Our vision for the Luce is for this world class facility to continue serving Silliman and the larger community as well."

Like any world class facility all over the world, Luce Auditorium has its own set of House Rules and Regulations which have been strictly implemented in the years that followed since its opening. Among these house rules is the Luce Auditorium Dress Code.

For Carmen and Other Ballets, the SU Cultural Affairs Committee allocated one full meeting to thoroughly deliberate on these house rules. They made a resolution to strictly implement the house rules, including the dress code. To quote one member: "It's about time we teach again the members of our community."

I have a friend who wants to write the Luce Foundation to see if indeed, it was their intention to embarrass patrons who were not dressed in accordance with the dress code. I wish my friend well and hope he pushes through with his plan, which he has been postponing for the last several years.

The letter went on to say that for patrons who [were improperly dressed but who] live far, the ushers "helped" them by lending them [pairs of] pants, shoes, etc. "Two of our ushers removed their own black shoes to lend to patrons." Upon reading that part, I was amused, to say the least.

That's why I really wanted to print the letter en toto. However, I got a call from an official of the University, who said that while the letter writer had every right to say her piece, her views simply did not reflect the opinion of the University, nor of the Cultural Affairs Committee.

So this is how that letter's going to end.*

back to top