College of DuPage Bio/Film Class: Education or Indoctrination?

Last spring I was contacted by a remarkable student at the College of DuPage who could teach many adults a thing or two about courage and conviction.

She was enrolled in an integrated biology and film class entitled “Honors Seminar: Biology 1100 (Survey of Biology) and English 1154 (Film as Literature)-Defining Human Health on a Changing Planet” that was described in the course catalogue as follows:

This seminar combines an investigative and interactive approach to biology with the study of film as a literary genre to explore the concept of human health in its broadest sense. Using the medium of film as a commentary on past and current biological issues, we will explore ecological, evolutionary, and hereditary relationships among living organisms, examine lifestyle issues and analyze the relationships between population, agriculture, pollution, biodiversity, and disease. The principles and procedures underlying the modern approach to understanding living processes are emphasized. You will also explore contemporary health issues, and through these investigations come to appreciate the role of biology and film in society. Learning methods for this seminar include reading, film viewing, class lecture and discussion; labs issue deliberations, field trips, and cooperative research projects. All seminar participants will also be involved in service learning to enhance understanding of health issues at the local level.

Reading, film-viewing, lectures, discussions, labs, field trips, research projects, service projects, ecology, evolution, heredity, lifestyles, population, agriculture, pollution, biodiversity, disease, past biological issues, current biological issues, film appreciation–whew–I’m exhausted just reading this exhaustive list of topics and methods. And somehow in the midst of all this verbiage, the film/English professor, Dr. Deborah Adelman, forgot to mention her strident political biases and agenda. She failed to mention that she has a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual political agenda that she uses her Illinois taxpayer- funded salary to promote.

In her course description, she offered no clue that she would require her students to watch what most people consider an intensely pro-abortion film, Vera Drake, or the film Kinsey about the perverted sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, or the pro-homosexual film Brokeback Mountain.

When the teacher finally revealed what films she was assigning, the student wrote her the following:

As an honor student I do not make it a practice of trying to get out of assignments that make me uncomfortable; but rather, it is quite the opposite. I am paying for my own college education, and I am picking classes that I think will not only challenge me but also teach me a lot.

At the beginning of class you stated that you do not like movies with violence in them. Well, just like you, there are certain movies that I do not care to see. I do not like movies with a lot of sexual content and pornographic images. Not only do they make me feel uncomfortable, but the content in these movies morally offends me. These kinds of images are not easily forgotten, but rather they stay in a person’s mind for a lifetime. I do not care to put these images in my mind, because they may color a possible marriage for me in the future.

The whole theme for this seminar is human health and a changing planet. In class, we have discussed how Kinsey’s ideas led to the sexual revolution and gave us more sexual freedom. However, we have failed to look at the other side of the story. Sexual freedom often goes hand in hand with STDs, divorce, abortion, and other terrible consequences.

Instead of watching Kinsey and Brokeback Mountain, may I write a 3-5 page research paper on different views of human sexuality, by looking at academic resources such as books, journal articles, statistics, and films? My request is not to escape this unit on human sexuality because it makes me uncomfortable, but rather to think critically about different views on human sexuality.

Here’s the response of yet another “educator”–Dr. Adelman–who purports to be committed to exploring multiple perspectives:

I do think that work in college will often make a student uncomfortable. That is part of the college experience. I am not in the practice of coming up with alternative assignments because the material makes students uncomfortable. A big part of the college experience is learning to explore material, concepts, issues, etc. from a variety of perspectives.

I also am not in the position nor particularly interested in forcing you to view something you do [sic] want to view. If you don’t view the films, however, you really won’t be able to participate in the discussions. Perhaps you can be more specific and let me know what it is that makes you uncomfortable and why you think it is advisable for you not to view the films. There are a number of films coming up that may also make you uncomfortable. I do think that the best art does challenge us to go beyond our comfort zones.

. . . I do need to warn you that that you probably will not want to see the Spike Lee film I am showing on Monday (She’s Gotta Have It)

One thing I do need to point out right away is that from my end of the class, I am interested in your exploring how the medium of film explores human sexuality. . . We have also emphasized in class the role culture plays in human behaviors. So I am looking at feature films that are attempting to portray the filmmaker’s vision about sexuality. Any possible alternative assignment would have to be about film. This of course will be hard, because most films that deal with human sexuality will have some images in them you might not want to see.

. . . I don’t think you are able to really comment on whether or not the films you don’t want to watch are in some way pornographic because you have not seen them. You would need to define what you mean by pornography, because it is really a stretch to consider the film Kinsey pornographic, or Brokeback Mountain for that matter. There are some graphic scenes in both of them, and while one scene in Brokeback Mountain has been criticized from promoting certain stereotypes of male homosexual behavior, neither film comes anywhere close to fitting all the definitions of pornography I have encountered. Kinsey as a film also does not promote some of the things you are concerned with-it is a biopic which gives a fairly reserved portrayal of Kinsey and his work, and the portrait is certainly far from flattering in many moments. Brokeback Mountain, more than anything, is about how cultural mores towards homosexuality leave two broken lives as a consequence.

Perhaps you are critical of anything that does not condemn homosexuality–I hope not, because that is not critical examination at all (emphasis added).

In addition to “wow,” I have a number of random thoughts regarding Dr. Adelman’s response:

What in the course description would have alerted prospective students to the films they would be required to watch or the bias of Adelman or the emphasis on film depictions of human sexuality? In fact, of all the myriad topics specifically mentioned in the course description, the only one conveniently omitted was the one that Adelman emphasized to the student: human sexuality. Brokeback Mountain could be justifiably included in this course because Adelman’s use of ambiguous phrases like “human health in its broadest sense” and “lifestyle issues” enabled her to include virtually anything her polemical heart desired. The course description gave absolutely no indication that students would be expected to view films that include nudity and simulated sex acts and that espoused liberal assumptions about the nature and morality of homosexual behavior. Students who are spending a lot of money on their education deserve sufficient information to make informed course selections.

What in the course description would have alerted prospective students to Adelman’s theory–articulated in hackneyed, Cliche rhetoric–that “great art should challenge us to go beyond our comfort zones”?

Exposure to images that make people “uncomfortable” is not essential to education. Somehow, students in American Universities managed to be well-educated–some would contend even better educated–for almost 350 years without being exposed to images of nude people simulating sex acts, including deviant sex acts.

There is a difference between being exposed to ideas that challenge one intellectually and being exposed to images that one finds inappropriate and morally offensive.

When was the last time that you heard of a professor selecting curricular resources that challenged only liberal or “progressive” views and that made liberal or “progressive” students uncomfortable?

Many ideologues like Adelman claim that conservative students should be challenged morally and emotionally regarding their beliefs on homosexuality, but these same educators refuse to expose students to conservative perspectives on homosexuality because they may make homosexual students feel “uncomfortable.”

What evidence is there to suggest that Adelman presented a “variety of perspectives” in her class?

Teachers should teach about controversial topics only if they have the integrity to allot equal time to and present equivalent resources from all perspectives. This will ensure that authentic intellectual inquiry is being pursued rather than advocacy.

When Adelman says that “Kinsey does not promote some of the things you are concerned with,” she implicitly acknowledges that Kinsey does, indeed, promote other of the things the student was concerned with.

And when Adelman says that the film Kinsey offers a “fairly reserved portrayal of Kinsey,” she acknowledges–unwittingly perhaps–that the film fails to accurately portray the degree and extent of his depravity. In other words, the film sugarcoats Kinsey’s life.

Adelman tries to conceal the pornographic elements in her film choices through tricksy rhetoric, saying that “neither film comes anywhere close to fitting all the definitions of pornography I have encountered.” So, according to Adelman, it’s not really pornography unless it fits all of the definitions of pornography she has encountered. That odd claim raises the question, can it be considered pornography if it fits just one of the definitions I’ve encountered? I rather like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart‘s definition of pornography which is that “I know it when I see it.”

The fact that Brokeback Mountain depicts cultural impediments to homosexual relationships as tragic is the very reason to avoid the film. The pro-homosexual director, Ang Lee, seeks to use the power of narrative and visual imagery to transform society’s convictions on the morality of volitional homosexual acts. He and Adelman (and Neil Postman) know that emotional experience rather than intellectual or moral propositions are winning the day in our increasingly non-thinking culture.

It is absurd to claim, as Adelman does, that one cannot fairly determine whether a film has objectionable content without seeing it. Since Brokeback Mountain was easily one of the most controversial movies in recent years, there is a plethora of information available that would enable consumers and students to know that it contains offensive imagery and ideas. The same goes for Kinsey.

One hopes that Adelman does not really believe that only positive views of homosexuality can provide evidence of “critical examination.”

What business is it of Adelman’s how her students view homosexuality?

Illinois taxpayers pay College of DuPage professors with PhDs between $96,900-$119,500 annually.

Support IFI’s Division of School Advocacy!

ifi_logo Would you prayerfully consider pledging a monthly gift of $25 or more to support this important division of IFI? A promise of this kind will help us form a strategic plan that budgetary constraints often makes impossible. You can become a Sustaining Member with automatic monthly deductions from your checking account or credit card. Click HERE to access the Sustaining Member form.

If a monthly pledge is not feasible at this time, perhaps you could send a one-time, tax-deductible gift. Click HERE to donate today!

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois.

Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.