"Indoctrinate U" poses some uncomfortable questions
Posted at 6:11 PM on October 26, 2007
by Euan Kerr
(3 Comments)
Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary "Indoctrinate U" makes the argument that the free speech activists of the 60's who demanded open debate on US colleges have now become the suppressers of speech they don't like on those self-same campuses.
The film will screen for the next week at the Oak Street in Minneapolis, right on the edge of the U of M campus.
Maloney, who will introduce the film tonight, presents case after case of conservative students who have been harassed, abused, and threatened by other students and in sometimes faculty for presenting their beliefs.
It's a serious charge, and clearly there are some problems which need addressed.
Maloney goes in search of answers several times with his camera rolling, cornering sheepish looking college officials who seem unwilling or unable to answer his questions. Usually each expedition ends with the arrival of campus security who lead him off the premises.
It's good theater, but unfortunately Maloney doesn't dig very deep into the root causes of the situation, nor does he give much of a sense as to how broad a problem it is in reality.
I'm intrigued to see what reaction the film draws at the U.
Comments (3)
So, what did you think about the movie?
As I mentioned in the posting, I really wished there was more depth to the film.
Clearly there are some people who feel they are being silenced on campus because they have conservative views.
Yet the film rarely gets beyond the anecdotal, and for a film dedicated to the idea of open debate of issues, it's pretty one-sided.
What did you think?
Uhh, not just conservative views are being censored, plenty of midstream US citizens views are being censored. Further, not only censored but students are written up for having a dissenting view. Its all done in the name of political correctness and diversity, but is what they are teaching is doublespeak.
Definitions such as racist: All U.S. whites who are not hispanic are racist. If they say they are not racist because they believe no race is superior they are racist. It they say they are not racist because race doesn't exist, they are racist. If they are white and a US citizen they are racist because they are part of the white supremist society.
That definition is not based on your views but on your "race". The definition is itself racist, it does not give whites the opportunity to express their views, it condemns them for being white, and that alone.
| October 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- A summer time move
- "Public Enemies" is a movie for the times
- Take the Movie Natters poll: what will you see this weekend?
- A little more Edinburgh: Sir Sean gets shirty, and "Moon" wins big
- Chinese remake of Coen's "Blood Simple" in production
- Movie criticism in the modern world - at the gas pump
- Random thoughts for the weekend: Depp, Klein, and Maddin
- So did Wisconsin get it right with 'Public Enemies' ?
- Ten Best Picture Nominees: pleasure or pain?
- Football Under Cover takes on a new resonance
Services
In The Spotlight
-
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock