Persistence of Vision

Indoctrinate U is available for download now -- and people are liking what they see.

From Kadnine, a Kentucky blogger: "This is my first internet video download not paid for by corporate advertising sponsors, something I find remarkable. In that respect, Indoctrinate U is as much an experimental new financial model in film making as it is an indictment of academic misbehavior. And though it's an amateur film, it's not amateurishly produced."

From David Thompson: "Indoctrinate U is surprisingly non-party political and, as FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff explains, many mainstream Democrats could well be shocked by how a supposed marketplace of ideas has become so intolerant and congealed." Thompson calls the film "charming" and "alarming" and says "Indoctrinate U is likely to amuse and enrage in more or less equal measure. If you can, see it. Then get angry."

More to come.

The New York Senate has unanimously passed the Libel Tourism Protection Act, which would give New York-based authors substantial jurisdictional protection against spurious libel suits conducted abroad. England is a prime site for libel tourism--and it is interesting indeed to watch the English press following the work of New York legislators so closely. As one commenter to the London Times article noted, "I would like to request THE TIMES to take a similar stand in England and to encourage MPs and government ministers to support legislation to protect our freedom of speech, as well. What's good for the offspring of English freedoms (America) should be relevant for the Mother Country as well: BRING THE REVOLUTION HOME! SUPPORT FREE SPEECH!"

And as the Guardian observed,

For years journalists have grumbled about the libel laws and no one has listened, but when a distant legislature passes a law of its own to counteract the intolerable effects of the British courts then it's time to take notice. The most startling recent legal story comes not from the high court but from Albany, where the New York state legislature has introduced the starkly named Libel Terrorism Prevention Act, intended specifically to guard writers and publishers outside British jurisdiction from the terrors of English libel law.

As New York lawmakers scramble to pass the Libel Terrorism Protection Act to protect authors from spurious foreign libel judgments, Rachel Ehrenfeld--whose own case inspired the law--has suffered another legal blow. In December, the courts rejected her attempt to insulate herself from a British libel ruling, citing jurisdictional reasons. And on Monday, the appellate court upheld the ruling. Newsday has the details, and notes that the court declined to defer ruling until Rachel's Law had made its way through the New York state legislature.

Indoctrinate U may be centered on intolerance and double standards on U.S. campuses, but that doesn't mean it isn't resonating strongly with international audiences. The film is currently enjoying a series of screenings in Canada--and it is touching off some intriguing reflections on Canadian campus p.c. Barbara Kay of the National Post expresses horror at the recognition that the kind of vibrant, intellectually adventurous experience she had in college is no longer reliably available in Canada and the U.S.

And in response to the February 18 screening at Ottawa's Free Thinking Film Society, blogger Scott McClare--a.k.a. the Crusty Curmudgeon--looks back on his comparatively halcion university days:

I attended university from 1989 to 1997. I tend to think of myself as part of the last non-politically-correct class to enter the institute, because 1989 was not exactly a good year for political incorrectness on campus. At Wilfrid Laurier University, a traditional panty raid got out of hand (and was subsequently banned). At Queen’s University, some male students’ satirical response to the Canadian Federation of Students’ “No Means No” campaign against date rape, in which they hung banners reading “No Means More Beer” and similar parody slogans, aroused the ire of feminists. And, of course, it was the year of the Montreal Massacre. So with respect to gender issues, at least, in hindsight it was possible to see which way the wind would be blowing in a little while. But while I was once marked down for using the generic “he” in a paper (a heinous act for which I remain stubbornly unrepentant), there really wasn’t an attempt while I was on campus to formulate or enforce the kind of totalitarian speech codes we see in Indoctrinate U. - and to equate hurt feelings on my part with an act of harassment on your part was practically unthinkable. The idea of the university campus as a “safe space” where particular orthodoxies are left unchallenged (such as the morality of abortion, as we have seen on the campuses of Carleton, Lakehead, York, and other institutions in recent years) was non-existent.

Indoctrinate U was made in the hope that it would start a necessary and constructive debate about what American higher education is--and what it should be. And it is doing just that. At the Manhattan Institute's Minding the Campus website, John K. Wilson offers a pointed critique of Evan Maloney's film--and Maloney responds with sharpness, wit, and incisive clarity. The back and forth is a good thing--part of a dialogue that is beginning to spring up on campuses across the country, thanks to the film's ongoing campus tour. And it's worth noting that despite his criticisms, Wilson calls Indoctrinate U "the best documentary ever made about higher education" and says that "Every college should show this movie to its administrators, faculty, and students, and use it as the start (but not the end) of a conversation about the state of freedom on campus." And how.

As the Libel Terrorism Protection Act makes its way through the New York State legislature, author Rachel Ehrenfeld waits to find out what her future will bring. The bill has run into a snag in the Assembly, as an advisory committee is now questioning its constitutionality. The Chicago Tribune spoke with her recently:

Rachel Ehrenfeld writes about terrorism for a living. But now she is the one who feels targeted.

Her modest midtown Manhattan apartment is filled to the ceiling with books, most having to do with global terror networks and Mideast conflict. Sitting at her desk, she gazes out at the Hudson River. She says she has a hard time placing her work. She says she has been blacklisted. If she travels to England, she fears she will be arrested.

"I feel like a leper," she said.

Ehrenfeld faces a $225,000 judgment obtained in a British court in a libel suit brought by a former banker to the Saudi royal family, billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz. "That's the Damocles sword effect. He's holding it above my head to intimidate me and others," she said.

[...]

And last month a New York court ruled that state courts could not block bin Mahfouz. Ehrenfeld was surprised by the outcome, which led to the effort in the state Legislature to pass a bill to protect her and other writers from foreign judgments.

"She is the example right now," said state Sen. Dean Skelos, who co-sponsored the bill.

The bill passed the state Senate unanimously but has run into trouble in the Assembly. An advisory committee to the state court administrator opposes the bill, saying it may be unconstitutional.

So Ehrenfeld sits in her apartment and awaits news from Albany.

And if she can force bin Mahfouz into an American court, she will seek the answers she has been chasing for years. "If I get this law, I will ask the court to depose him," she said. "This is really why I started this whole thing."

So what do Americans want to see when they go to the movies? Box office returns are revealing--and tell a story quite different from the one Hollywood might like to tell. A survey of 2007 ticket sales and movie viewing habits shows that Americans overwhelmingly want strong moral content and family themes. G-rated movies did more than four times better than R-rated ones, and the overall preferences are quite clear--the films that made the most money had no graphic sexual content and no explicit nudity. These patterns apply to video sales and rentals as well.

"Our annual report to Hollywood shows once again, with relevant financial statistics, that people, including most moviegoers, want good to conquer evil, truth to triumph over falsehood, justice to prevail over injustice and beauty to overcome ugliness," says Ted Baehr, the president of the Christian Film and Television Commission. "They also want to take their whole family to the movies more often (assuming, of course, that ticket prices, concession prices and gasoline prices don't get too high or prohibitive). And they want to see their religious faith respected and celebrated."

Baehr also notes that since 1991, there has been a 238% increase in family-oriented films with strong moral content. In 1991, 18% of films fit this description; today, 61% do. Last year, the top ten grossing films were all rated either "G" or "PG;" the PG-rated films included Shrek the Third, National Treasure, and Alvin and the Chipmunks. "Major Hollywood studio executives are finally getting the message that movies with positive Christian, moral content are great for business," the report notes.

Since it was launched last summer, Stuart Browning's short film, A Short Course in Brain Surgery, has been viewed over 3 million times. It's become a true Internet phenomenon -- and it's not hard to see why. It's sparking debate about health care -- which this country sorely needs -- by offering an alternative perspective on a debate that tends to be dominated by the partial perspective offered in Michael Moore's factually challenged SiCKO. People are circulating the video by email, urging others to watch it: The film "voices my concerns about the healthcare plans that are being discussed by some of our Presidential candidates," one viewer writes; "I don’t care which party you are .... EVERYBODY needs to see this." Of course, some people out there are refusing to address the film's argument, resorting instead to ad hominem attack. But people are smart, and they can tell the difference between reasoned argument and unreasoned smears. It's just a good thing this film is out there, making the rounds, and enabling people to make up their own minds.

The Singing Revolution is making the rounds of U.S. and Canadian cities--and it continues to move people to tears, applause, and praise everywhere it goes. The film is currently enjoying a huge run in Albany, the Tusty's hometown. Response there has been so strong that the theater has held the film over for another week. The film is "simply amazing," declared the Schenectady Gazette; The Singing Revolution is a movie that instills hope and inspires confidence in firm, loud artistic diplomacy." The Gazette also ran a substantial profile of the Tusty's journey in making the film, as did the Albany Times-Union.

In the coming weeks, The Singing Revolution will screen at theaters in Vancouver, Seattle, Chicago, Portland, Denver, Philadelphia, Fort Lauderdale, and more. Keep an eye on www.singingrevolution.com for dates, times, and places.