SALISBURY, N.C. — A community college instructor who was suspended for
showing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in class the week before the presidential
election is offering no apologies and says he was unfairly punished.Davis March showed the Michael Moore documentary critical of President
Bush to his film class. Administrators pulled the plug on the movie
with about 20 minutes left when March tried to show it to English
composition students."This story is now about academic freedom . . . the movie is ancient
history," said March, who served a four-day suspension and returned
Nov. 2 to Rowan-Cabarrus Community College, about 45 miles northeast of
Charlotte.School officials said March disobeyed orders by refusing to meet with
administrators before showing the film, but March said no instruction
to seek permission had been issued
Silly me, I though school was about learning,and facts, and truth, not pushing your personal political agenda to your students. Especially when you were a. told not to do it, and b. no opposing view. No matter what the left says, and I have many friends who bought into the whole thing, it is not factual (it is also copyright encrypted. I tried to do a copy with Nero, and it said "NO! Don’t even try that, evil right wing bastard, you). Rules are rules. Regulations are regulations.
One dated Oct. 25 stated that college employees may not use "the
classroom or college environment as a platform to promote their own
personal, religious, or political views, or to advocate for specific
political candidates."Hovey said March asked school officials in August if he could send out
fliers promoting a screening of Moore’s movie. The school rejected that
request.
This isn’t making your students read Shakespeare. This was English Composition. Did they want to watch the movie? Let’s look at it some more. Was it legal? Fat Mike may say that it is OK to show it, but did March have permission from Sony or Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment? There is a disclaimer about "unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures, videotapes, or videodisks."
There is a right time and place for everything. This was not the right time and place. My BA is in Political Science/Psychology. While, in retrospect, I believe know that many of my teachers/professors influenced much of my thoughts and political leanings (for instance, one was very much into small government, Defense, and strongly pro environment), I cannot envision any of them even going and showing both F9/11 and FahrenHYPE 9/11.
Cross posted without spin at the Command Post Election 2004, sans spin.
Update, 11/30/04: I have been taking a look at some of the other articles on Mr. March, and most say the exact same thing. However, in fairness to Mr. March, this one from the Ka Leo O Hawaii is longer and deeper then the other articles, and includes more discussion and quotes from not only Mr. March, but other members of the faculty of RCCC, and students, including:
"If
that student is dependent on that professor for a grade, what is he to
do?" Newberry asked. March said he acts more as a moderator, because
often students disagree with each other."I
make it abundantly clear that their opinion, whether it agrees with
`Dad’ or not, it’s not going to cost them either way," he said.He
has shown potentially divisive films in class before, such as "Dead Man
Walking," about a nun who reaches out to a convicted murderer on death
row.After
showing that movie, he said, he asked his students: "Did you find your
perspective (on the death penalty) altered by this?""His
classes have always been designed
to open up our minds," said student Kristen Pitel, 21. "He is one to
drop a bomb in the water and see where the fish go."
Academic Freedom?
From the Boston Globe: SALISBURY, N.C. — A community college instructor who was suspended for showing “Fahrenheit 9/11” in class the week before the presidential election is offering no apologies and says he was unfairly punished.Davi…
As an English professor who showed his writing class Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenhype 9/11, I’d just like to point out a few things.
Now, nobody dislikes Michael Moore more than I do. Check my blog posts from around the time the film appeared. For example, as far as I know, I was the first person to publish the George Soros connection to Carlyle, and at least a week or so before Kopel, who you link to.
The article states that the instructor showed the film the week before the presidential election, and seems to imply that the instructor was somehow trying to influence student voters. I would argue that the timing has less to do with the instructor, and more to do with the distributors. They obviously chose the relese date to influence voters, but that’s not the instructor’s fault. The article also makes it clear he was not suspended for “pushing” or promoting the film (he apparently had already shown it in a film class), but only for not seeking permission first. (That’s a crock, of course. I’ve taught film in two and four-year schools for some time. Film choice has always been left to the instructor, just as text choice is in English classes.)
And the argument that it somehow violates copyright law is weak, at best. Films are shown in classrooms all the time. Do you really think that each instructor has gotten express permission for each film? It’s nit-picky.
Now, chances are that this guy is trying to push his political agenda. There is an indication he was trying to promote an earlier screening of the film. If so, then shame on him. However, there is nothing in the article that specifically states that, or even describes the assignment relating to the film. Had he said something like: “I think students should be aware of who they are voting for, blah blah blah…” then yeah–go ahead and bust him.
I showed both films, and asked students to compare them, and to carry out their own research to find out what the “facts” are. Now, if I had not had access to Fahrenhype 9/11, I very well might have shown just the Moore film, with the same assignment: investigate for yourself. That certainly does not mean I was promoting the film. Indeed, if the students do their homework, they will very likely come to the same conclusion about Moore that you and I have–he’s a lying bastard; a propogandist rather than a documentarian.
One final thought. You mention reading Shakespeare. It’s not a literature class, it’s a composition class. Very often in comp. classes, you may have any number of “unusual” texts to work with. You might have them writing film reviews or analyses. You might have them respond to editorials, or letters to the editor. I’ve even used editorial cartoons. The idea of using a film is not that outrageous. And yes, many times the “texts” in question are political, precisely because they are timely, and controversial, and relative to student’s lives.
I’m not trying to shout you down, or chastise you. It’s just that I have come to distrust the media, and I would like to know a little bit more about the situation before I crucify this guy. I’ve seen the way the world of academics works first-hand, and I think there’s more to this than what’s here. For instance, how did the admin. find out? Did a student complain? That puts this into a different context. Now it looks like an admin. selling out an instuctor to “satisfy the customer.” As much as I dislike those who bring their politics into the classroom, I REALLY dislike the idea of administrators putting too much restraint on what I can do in the classroom. Or even worse, disciplining instructors based on suspicion, or “a feeling.”
Wm. Teach (curious moniker:ancestry piratical or academic?) is hereby remanded to the custody of Remedial Assumption 101 (where you’ll find an interminably dull but fundamental drill on Fact v. Opinion).This was PRECISELY the logical time/place; other objections are teeny red herring, serviceable for bait only.The Big Fish’s (MM) endorsement’s adequate warrant–fact, even that’s unnecessary–for ltd. use in a classroom setting, WHICH ISN’T PUBLIC & REQUIRES NO ADMISSION.(Just in case yer ever sufficiently educated yerself to try teaching a movie–advice?start simple:Wizard of Oz,maybe;you cd. even goose things up w/Pink Floyd,a nifty AV stunt that comes with the merit of distracting students from the instructor’s own incompetence.)Better:for starters just read the Constitution–Bill of Rights,Amendment One.A single sentence.Surely you can manage that:you might even learn something.No,no,don’t argue, or thank me:it cd. happen.Maybe not in my lifetime; but youth can always be gauged in inverse proportion to the volume of its arrogance.Shh:lower your voice & you might fool some of them some of the time.Good luck in pre-op.
guys, while I respect your opinions, my point is simply that there was no need to push the movie on his class. Wrong place, wrong time. He broke the rules. Even had he show F 9/11 and Fahrenheipt 9/11, it still would have been wrong. Maybe if he was teaching film class. I could probably reply point by point, but all of us are stating opinions. Freedom of Speech to critisize the government is certainly allowable: yet, again, this was neither the time nor place for it, pushing the film on community college students (public education) in an English Composition class when told not to.
It’s true–this is mostly opinion (although I would argue that my opinion on the workings of a college English class carry a little more weight, since that’s how I make my living), but I think you’re missing my point. You keep saying that he was told not to show the film. There is nothing in that article that specifically states that.
“Hovey said March asked school officials in August if he could send out fliers promoting a screening of Moore’s movie. The school rejected that request.”
This reads that they rejected the request TO DISTRIBUTE FLYERS, not to show the film. In fact, as I said, he had already shown it to a film class. Note:
“Davis March showed the Michael Moore documentary critical of President Bush to his film class. Administrators pulled the plug on the movie with about 20 minutes left when March tried to show it to English composition students.”
So they had already allowed him to show it once. Now THEY say that he “disobeyed orders by refusing to meet with administrators before showing the film.” However, he claims that “no instruction to seek permission had been issued.” Did the administration come back and say “we told him at the beginning of the semester that permission was needed for each film choice”? Or that after showing it to his film course, they told him “don’t do that again without permission”? No. The only response they gave was that a memo had been issued. So it appears they didn’t forbid him directly. The memo may prohibit employees from using “the classroom or college environment as a platform to promote their own personal, religious, or political views, or to advocate for specific political candidates,” but again…they had no evidence that he was doing that except “he was insistent about wanting to show it before the election, which implied some possible political intent.” In other words…a feeling. I also showed the films before the election. Do you want to know why? So that the students would have enough time to research and write their papers and get them in before the Thanksgiving break, which I wanted to grade them. That’s it. Nothing politically motivated, it was simply practical.
It’s important to realize that simply including politcally charged material in a class does not necessarily mean that you approve or promote its content, any more than having students read Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” (which suggests–ironically–that the way to avoid famine while reducing population is to eat infants) means I support infanticide. Reading an Agatha Christie novel does not condone murder, etc. What matters is the context in which the film was shown. The article doesn’t mention that, and we should not assume it.
Ultimately, there is a vast difference between saying “let’s watch this film and discuss its merits and shortcomings,” and saying “if you disagree with this film, and me, then you’re going to fail this class.” The former is what we should be doing in college-level classes. The latter is deplorable, and represents everything that is wrong with higher education today. As I said in the last post, it seems to me that everybody is rushing to include this guy in the latter category, and I’m just not seeing the evidence to support that in the article.
Last thought: I’m not sure why you think this was “the wrong time.” I would argue that it is the perfect time to examine the merits/shortcomings of the film. I’m guessing that the reason you write this blog is the same reason I write mine: to educate, to illuminate, to discuss. Would you want to write about, say, the Dan Rather memo scandal while it was happening, or months afterward? While instructors don’t enjoy the same freedom to express their opinion that bloggers do, they can still benefit from using timely material.
Other last thought: In case you’re wondering if I “pushed” the films upon my class, I didn’t. I gave them the opportunity to vote on it. The choice to watch the films was unanimous. Did anyone ask the students involved in the case in question if they were given the same opportunity?
I just wanted to let you know that I wrote a quick post encouraging people to check this post out. And–this disagreement aside–I think we think alike, so I encouraged them to check out your other posts, and if it’s all right with you, I’m going to add you to the blogroll.
I appreciate that, DS. In regards to the “wrong time,” it is due to several considerations. First, from the article:
The school’s executive vice president, Ann Hovey, said the board of trustees has a clear policy of nonpartisanship regarding political issues.
She said college president Richard Brownell has issued several memos on the topic.
One dated Oct. 25 stated that college employees may not use “the classroom or college environment as a platform to promote their own personal, religious, or political views, or to advocate for specific political candidates.”
Now, there is a slight chance that he wasn’t using this as a political platform, but, I would highly doubt it. Attempting to show the movie so near the election also makes it the wrong time, in my mind. Had he shown an anti John Kerry film prior instead, I would not agree with that, either. My degree is in Political Science, and from a purely personal standpoint, I would not have enjoyed seeing any pro/anti bush/kerry films in class prior to the election in a PS class. Nor even discussing it. To me, it smacks of undue influence.
Teachers can have incredible influence on how students think, as you well know. And, my biggest problem, other then Mr. March showing it against school policy, is the whole English Composition class thing, especially right before the election. Had he been a been a film teacher, and wanted to show it to disect it, even in a pro-Bush manner, I would not agree with it. This attitude probably stems from East Carolina U being relatively non political. Mid to late 80’s, and there were no anti nuke rallies, political rallies, etc.
Well, there is a possiblity that Mr March might actually have had no agenda, and just wanted to kick the movie around. I think it would be worthwhile for the MSM’s to interview some of his past students, though, that will certainly happen during any hearings, either court or school board. I will admit, I can see both sides of this issue, though, I still think that English Composition class would have been the wrong place. His film class would have been a maybe.
Good idea on the former students. I wonder if anyone will bother, or if the story’s dead. Keep us posted if you find anything else out, please.