Sometimes you see a news story and you realize that the people involved have their heads so buried in the own worldview that they can't see how asinine the situation is.
That's the first point at which someone should have questioned the artistic director's judgment.
They included in the play a scene in which an adult man gets naked in front of the audience ... of children. Is this not indecent exposure in front of children? This is the second moment someone should have stepped in. Of course, when some board members objected, it wasn't because of the nudity per se, but because they weren't consulted first. It's really about turf, not appropriateness.
Now the artistic director is screaming censorship because he wasn't allowed to parade a naked adult male in front of children, he's been laid off (maybe temporarily, maybe not), a board member has resigned, and the cast and staff are on strike.
And those of us who are actual parents are aghast at the whole thing. What kind of parent would take a child to one of Boston Children's Theatre performances now given their display of an appalling lack of judgement?
Meanwhile the director is defending his decision to include the nudity.
“We do have shows that are much more traditional children’s fare, and we also do shows that challenge the boundaries of children’s theater,’’ he said.
Why? Why do you need to challenge the boundaries? The boundaries are there for a reason, to protect children and their innocence. This part of the wider trend in society to further sexualize children at younger and younger ages. After all, they want to start sex education in kindergarten. I wouldn't doubt someone is already doing it. By high school, we just assume that they're having hookup sex and there's no use expecting them to do otherwise.
Judge a society by how it protects its children. In our society, if they survive legalized abortion, they can expect have their innocence and childhood assaulted well into their extended adolescence in their 20s.