Billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein socialized with the rich and powerful, harboring a sordid hidden life that came to light in 2008, landing him in prison for the solicitation of underage girls for sex.  Epstein was infamous for his private Boeing 727 airliner nicknamed the “Lolita Express,” which ferried guests including Bill Clinton and a bevy of young girls allegedly pressed into prostitution at his Caribbean estate dubbed “Orgy Island.”

His laughable 13-month sentence after being accused by more than 40 minor girls of sexual abuse is a testament to his connections in high places.  Those guests included the aforementioned former President Bill Clinton, who reportedly ditched his Secret Service detail to travel to the island.  On July 8, Clinton issued a statement claiming that he “knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York.”  The former president stated that he took “a total of four trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s airplane.” Flight logs, however, reveal that he had been on the plane as many as 26 times.

The list of prominent names alleged to have partaken of the pleasures of the flesh aboard the Lolita Express en route to Orgy Island include former national security adviser Sandy Berger, Naomi Campbell, former Harvard president Larry Summers, actor Kevin Spacey and comedian Chris Tucker.

Justice may yet be served.  This week Epstein was served with a federal indictment charged with the sexual trafficking of minors and one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minor.  The indictment alleges that he “sexually exploited and abused dozens of minor girls,” some as young as 14, describing the victims as “particularly vulnerable to exploitation.”  Miami Herald journalist Julie K. Brown, who helped break the story, believes that Epstein may have also been providing young girls to others as “sex slaves.”

These are serious charges, which according to renowned legal scholar and attorney Jonathan Turley, could “produce a sentence of 45 years in prison if Epstein were convicted.”

It’s important to keep in mind that people are not convicted in the “court of public opinion,” neither does our legal system allow for “guilt by association.”  Yet if true, the charges raise questions about how much Epstein’s associates knew about his sexual exploitation of young girls – and whether they chose to turn a blind eye.

Courtney Wild states that she was 14 when Epstein’s abuse began, and stated after his arrest:  “I have fought so long to finally see Epstein brought to justice. I didn’t believe the news that he was arrested until I saw him in custody with my own eyes. I want my voice to encourage others to come forward,” she said. “We are stronger together.”

Not a few lamented that Epstein’s initial sweetheart plea deal back in 2008 was evidence of the “elite” escaping having to pay for their crimes.  This week’s arrest and indictment give hope that the wheels of justice, while sometimes turning painfully slow, do continue to spin to their inexorable conclusion.  Doubtlessly more famous names will surface in the days and weeks to come. Let the chips fall where they may and let us hope and pray that this scourge of the sexual abuse of minors will be uprooted from our society.

---

---

IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

America was founded as a beacon of light, a refuge to those who only wanted to worship the God of the Bible as they saw fit. Our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, were infused with biblical precepts and a presumption of a Creator and His transcendent Truth.

For over 200 years this experiment in liberty flourished, lighting the world with the light of Truth and Righteousness.

At times during our nation’s history, Americans en masse veered toward the broad path to destruction. And at every departure from upright and moral living, a preacher or prophet of sorts would proclaim the words of God’s inspired Book, people would repent, and our national character would be righted.

God told Israel the truth, which still applies today:

This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. Deuteronomy 30:19

But in the twentieth century, culture-changers assaulted our society, teaching people to exchange the truth for lies, with cascading and calamitous results. The following have deceived people to choose death, rather than life.

Margaret Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966), a nurse and proponent of birth control and eugenics, inspired the Nazis with her notions of breeding and forced sterilization to weed out the less than desirable races. “Nurse” Sanger was the Founder and first president of Planned Parenthood.

As I wrote in 2014:

…she formed the organization, American Birth Control League [est. 1921], which would eventually become Planned Parenthood [est. 1952].

And like the modern day organization, cloaking its true agenda in palatable verbiage such as “family planning” and “choice,” Margaret’s goal was far more evil than the respectable facade she presented.

. . .

Sanger was a Darwinist who embraced a utilitarian view of human life, and proposed to rid our nation of the criminal element and “inferior races” through abortion and breeding programs.

Thanks to Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood has cruelly slaughtered approximately 300,000 pre-born children a year since Roe v. Wade, or about 13.2 MILLION total.

Thanks to Sanger, life has been cheapened, and sexual intimacy divorced from the God-ordained, relationship of marriage.

Sanger pushed America to sow the seeds of destruction and the devaluation of life with abortion and a utilitarian view of human life.

Subsequently we’ve reaped the harvest of catastrophic and crippling depression in generations of women.

Alfred Kinsey (June 23, 1894 – August 25, 1956) was a biologist, professor of entomology and zoology, and a sexologist. He is known as the “Father of the Sexual Revolution” and founded the famed Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. Kinsey shook the nation with his books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

These books revealed to a shocked and somewhat titillated population things they had never known about themselves: That between 30-45% of men had affairs, 85% of men had had sex prior to marriage, that a staggering 70% of men had slept with prostitutes, and that between 10 and 37% of men had engaged in homosexual behavior.

Alfred Kinsey’s studies, in retrospect, paved the way for hedonistic depravity. And how did Kinsey obtain the findings reported in his books?

Kinsey himself was a pervert and a sex criminal.

For example, where did he get all of his data on the “sexual behavior of children”? The answer is nothing short of chilling. Dr. Judith Reisman (whose research has since been confirmed time and time again) explained in her groundbreaking work Sex, Lies and Kinsey that Kinsey facilitated brutal sexual abuse to children as young as two months old, to get his so-called research:

Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal “child sexuality.” Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.

. . .

The Father of the Sexual Revolution was a sado-masochistic bi-sexual sex criminal who facilitated the sexual torture of infants and children.

Thanks in large part to Alfred Kinsey, sexual deviancy and pedophilia were heralded as normal, and any and all sexual activity divorced from the God-ordained, relationship of marriage.

Kinsey taught America to sow the seeds of depraved sexual activity without the good and protective constraints of the previously held Judeo-Christian worldview.

Subsequently our nation has reaped the harvest of lives ruined, marriages wrecked, and all-time high venereal disease — now called Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

More than two million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were reported in the United States in 2016, the highest number ever, according to the annual Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance Report released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“Increases in STDs are a clear warning of a growing threat,” said Jonathan Mermin, M.D., M.P.H., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. “STDs are a persistent enemy, growing in number, and outpacing our ability to respond.”

An epidemic accelerating in multiple populations—impact growing in women, infants, and gay and bisexual men.

Timothy Leary (October 22, 1920 – May 31, 1996) was an American psychologist and writer. He was an enthusiastic advocate of LSD and other psychedelic drugs. Leary’s famous quote “turn on, tune in, drop out” affected a generation of rebellious youth in, for the most part, the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Leary’s disciples turned onto drugs, tuned into sex, rock and roll, and dropped out, in many cases dropped dead, including: Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Brian Cole (The Association), Gram Parsons (The Byrds), Tommy Bolin (Deep Purple), Gregory Herbert (Blood, Sweat & Tears), Keith Moon (The Who), Sid Vicious (Sex Pistols), Lowell George (Little Feat), and more.

Thanks to the influence of Timothy Leary, a generation or more of Americans chose to escape life via drugs, and became enslaved by LSD, heroin, barbiturates, and other dangerous substances. Thousands of young Americans followed Leary’s direction into an untimely death.

Timothy Leary cajoled Americans to sow the seeds of escapism and societal anarchy and substance abuse.

Subsequently America has reaped the harvest of crime, ruined lives, and death.

Helen Gurley Brown (February 18, 1922 – August 13, 2012) was an author, publisher, and businesswoman. She pushed women in America to throw off their sexual inhibitions. Brown’s book, Sex and the Single Girl (1962) “encouraged women to become financially independent and experience sexual relationships before or without marriage.”

Brown gained further prominence as the Editor-in-Chief of Cosmopolitan magazine from 1965 – 1997. Continuing her mantra of sex without boundaries, Cosmo under HGB “set itself apart by frankly discussing sexuality from the point of view that women could and should enjoy sex without guilt.”

To this day Cosmopolitan is known for its edgy (aka immoral) sexual agenda and in September of this year alone reached over 32 million readers.

Thanks to Helen Gurley Brown, millions of young women were led to believe that sexual intimacy can and should be enjoyed without the burden of marriage and fidelity.

Ms. Brown deceived teen girls and women to sow the seeds of wanton, narcissistic sexuality.

Subsequently American women reaped the harvest of babies out of wedlock, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, and ruined lives and marriages.

Hugh Hefner (April 9, 1926 – September 27, 2017) was an American businessman, magazine publisher and playboy. He rejected the Christian faith of his parents in exchange for a life of rampant sexual conquest. “Hef” was Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Playboy magazine. Wikipedia describes Playboy:

Playboy is an American men’s lifestyle and entertainment magazine. It was founded in Chicago in 1953, by Hugh Hefner and his associates, and funded in part by a $1,000 loan from Hefner’s mother. Notable for its centerfolds of nude and semi-nude models (Playmates), Playboy played an important role in the sexual revolution and remains one of the world’s best-known brands, having grown into Playboy Enterprises, Inc.

After his death in September of this year, many in the world were lauding Hugh, such as frequent Playboy model and one-time Playmate of the Year, Jenny McCarthy, who gushed:

[Hugh was] the most good-hearted, caring, generous, supportive friend, and mentor…his zest for life was contagious

McCarthy tweeted:

But what is the truth?

The truth is that Hugh Hefner disseminated the lies that women are playthings (i.e. Playmates), objects of men’s desires and lust, and tools for gratification.

Contrast that with God’s admonition for love within marriage:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. Ephesians 5:25

However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:33

Thanks to Hugh Hefner, pornography became commonplace in America and women were stripped, not only of their clothing, but of their intrinsic worth. Thanks to Hef, sex became a meaningless pastime, a means to a few moments of physical pleasure, rather than the height of intimacy between husband and wife and a means of procreation.

God created sex to be beautiful and meaningful. Satan, the great liar who loves to offer counterfeits, twists it into a vile, animalistic act.

Hugh Hefner and Playboy magazine led our culture to sow seeds of dehumanizing women, and separating sexual intimacy from the safe, loving environment of true marriage.

And subsequently America has reaped a culture teaming with sexual users and predators. Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and the other users in Hollywood and elsewhere didn’t happen in a vacuum, or by accident.

The Apostle Paul tells us in Galatians:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

If we repent, as individuals, and as a nation, we can re-light our beacon. But Americans must follow Truth and Life. We must choose Blessing not Cursing. We must reject the false promises and evil teaching of Margaret Sanger and Alfred Kinsey and Timothy Leary and Helen Gurley Brown and Hugh Hefner and others.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12

If Americans choose Truth, then we’ll reap blessing and life and life abundantly.

But only if we choose Truth.

---

IFI depends on the support of concerned-citizens like you. Donate now

-and, please-

America’s presumptuous, partisan teachers 

Many teachers seek to retain almost absolute autonomy when it comes to curricula. They are presumptuous and elitist in their attitude about their own “expertise,” parents’ rights, curricula, and their autonomy. Yes, they run their text selections by their department chairs, but that’s often a mere formality. It is not uncommon for department chairs to sign off on novels, plays, or films that they have not read or seen. In addition, teachers often bring in “supplementary resources,” which they don’t have to run by anyone prior to teaching. Having nearly limitless autonomy regarding curricula is not particularly problematic in math or science. It’s hugely problematic in English, social studies, theater, and to a lesser extent world languages. 

Perhaps this kind of autonomy worked 40-50 years ago when there was consensus in America on what is good and proper and promotes human dignity and flourishing. But such a consensus no longer exists. Compounding the problem of teacher autonomy is that departments and colleges of education that train future teachers are notoriously liberal, teaching future educators to be “agents of change,” which means using the classroom to promote their personal moral and political visions. 

Teachers as experts? 

There are two pedagogical ideas often used by teachers to defend their controversial curricular choices and, therefore, warrant some analysis: those ideas pertain to  teacher “expertise” and “critical thinking skills.” 

Some people—usually teachers—argue that neither community members nor school board members should have any part in curricula. All deference and trust should be given to them—the teachers—because they are the “experts.” But what confidence should community members have in the expertise of people they didn’t hire and that their school board had only a superficial hand in hiring? Does any community member know what their teachers think about the teaching of highly controversial issues? Does any community member know what their school board members think about the teaching of highly controversial issues? Do school board members try to discern the philosophical views of faculty applicants on teaching texts that include graphic sex, nudity, obscene language, and highly controversial themes? 

If teachers are “experts,” what are their areas of expertise? Is the Hinsdale South High School English teacher who chose American Beauty and Brokeback Mountain an expert in film studies? If so, what qualifies her as an expert? Is she also an expert in the areas of ethics, philosophy, theology, moral development, child development, theology, and psychology—all of which are relevant when choosing controversial, sexually graphic films? 

Critical thinking skills? 

When challenged about cotnroversial text selections, teachers will assert that they chose it in part because it cultivates critical thinking skills, hoping that no one notices that cultivating critical thinking skills does not necessitate the use of graphic or highly controversial texts. One can easily teach students how to think critically and defend their ideas by studying virtually any text. 

Moreover, if teachers really wanted to teach students how to think critically, they would offer a primer in logic. While students graduate from high school well-versed in demagoguery, many have little understanding of what constitutes good or bad reasoning. Most don’t know what an ad hominem argument is, or a false dilemma, or circular reasoning. A basic understanding of logic is more fundamental to effective critical thinking than is watching provocative films. 

Why not respect all student and parents? 

There are scores of exceptional texts from which teachers can choose. Why not choose texts that are unlikely to offend parents and other taxpayers while still providing a challenging and substantive academic experience? If teachers truly valued diversity, they would select resources that don’t expose students to the most controversial and offensive material available in the culture. When schools have Muslim students, Orthodox Jewish students, conservative Catholic and Protestant students, why teach a films that promote the normalization of homosexual acts, use language that no decent person uses (and which schools prohibit), and that show a man masturbating and lusting after a teenage girl. Moreover, if these words, images, and ideas are considered appropriate, what words, images, and ideas are not? Do “progressive” teachers have any boundaries regarding texts? If so, what are they? 

America’s ineffectual, partisan school boards 

That school boards refuse to get involved in curricula is a continual source of frustration for many taxpayers. The only voice community members have in school curricula or virtually any other school issue is the election of school board members. When school board members refuse to take an active role in curricula, other than rubber stamping whatever passes their desk from department chairs, community members are left with no voice. 

Community members have no voice in the hiring of teachers either, and even school boards have little to do with their hiring other than, again, rubber stamping the selections made by each department. 

This inability of community members to have any substantive role in curricula explains why there are conservative communities in which teachers are “progressive.” The point is that conservative communities don’t have teachers who reflect their values or for that matter make any attempt to present controversial topics in an ideologically balanced way. 

School boards should establish policy to prevent teachers from allowing their personal biases to shape curricula. School boards could create policy that requires teachers who present resources that affirm, espouse, or embody one set of beliefs on controversial social and political issues to spend equal time on resources that affirm, espouse, or embody dissenting views. 

School boards should also establish policy that strictly prohibits teachers from expressing their personal social, political, and moral beliefs in class. 

And school boards should establish policy that prohibits the teaching of texts (e.g., films, novels, plays, and essays) that include depictions of graphic sex or nudity or that include pervasive obscene language. 

Revelatory comments from Hinsdale Township School District 86 Superintendent Dr. Wahl on controversial films:

I’m writing today regarding a recent curriculum objection filed by the parent of a Hinsdale South senior regarding the newly reintroduced “Film as Literature” course….The selections screened during this course can contain R-rated films….Any parent who objects to a particular film selection may indicate as such and that student will be provided an alternate assignment in the course with no academic penalty. 

On September 12, the parent of a Hinsdale South high school senior… filed a formal curriculum objection to two selections: “Brokeback Mountain” and “American Beauty.”…This is the first time in my eight years that District 86 has received any curriculum objections. 

Selections in the “Film as Literature” course were chosen based on their ability to achieve the course objectives…. “Brokeback Mountain,” for example, addresses objectives in a unit on text adaptations. The story itself, by Annie Proulx, won multiple awards, and the screenwriters and the director made many decisions for the film that offer valuable topics for discussion. These include the genres of both romance and Western, story-to-film, cinematography, music and themes. In addition, the film helps to balance other films in the course in terms of genres, styles, time periods, themes and techniques. “American Beauty” has similar qualities. It synthesizes many cinematic elements and offers many topics and themes for study. 

…Hinsdale Township High School District 86 is proud of the academic quality and integrity of the curriculum delivered in our schools…. Our commitment is to provide the best possible learning environment for each student and for all students to learn as much as possible in order to maximize their future opportunities. (emphasis added)

Thoughts about Wahl’s statement: 

• Wahl validates my contention regarding the elasticity of the selection criteria English teachers have at their disposal: winning awards; fulfilling course objectives; balancing “other films in the course in terms of genres, styles, time periods, themes and techniques”; synthesizing cinematic elements; and offering many topics and themes for study.” Such criteria would permit virtually any film to be selected. 
• “Winning awards” is a perennial and effective conversation-stopper for public school administrators and teachers. The problem is that there’s never any substantive examination of the award-givers or the criteria used to determine the winners, or the political chicanery that often goes into award-giving. Does the fact that a film has won an award from the Hollywood community mean that it’s automatically suitable for teaching in public high schools? 
• Wahl used the tried and true favorite line of virtually every administrator who receives a curriculum complaint: “This is the first complaint I’ve ever received.” The fact that no one has complained does not mean there are no problems. What this statement exposes is that most parents have no idea what’s going on and/or are too fearful, lazy, or apathetic to address the problems. 
• Wahl’s statement points to the absence of boundaries in curricula-selection criteria. In other words, Wahl states that these films fulfill a number of course objectives related to theme, genre, cinematography etc.which raises the question, shouldn’t there also be criteria related to boundaries or that establish what constitutes prohibited material? Is it the district’s view that as long as a film, novel, or play connects thematically to the course, or represents a certain genre, or presents some particular adaptation challenges, then the presence of graphic sex, or extremely controversial viewpoints, or egregiously obscene language is irrelevant? Why are theme, characterization, genre, and figurative language taken into account, but not obscene and profane language or graphic sex and nudity? Why, do the potentially sexually arousing images of pedophilia in American Beauty not render it unsuitable for teaching in a public school? Why is the fact that Brokeback Mountain is a mixed genre (romance/Western) film a more important positive factor than the graphic sex, obscene language, and controversial themes are negative or prohibitive factors? If these two films are permitted in a high school classroom, what films wouldn’t be allowed? 
• Wahl refers to the school’s willingness to provide an “alternate assignment,” ignoring the fact that this option is irreconcilable with his commitment to “provide the best possible learning environment for each student.” The truth that all teachers understand is that opting out results in an isolated diminished academic experience. Further, most parents are unaware of the controversial elements in the texts teachers are assigning and don’t have time to preview all the films, novels, and plays being offered. Opt-out notifications rarely if ever provide sufficient details about the obscene language, graphic images, and controversial themes for parents to make fully informed decisions. And finally, most students are self-conscious and resentful about being pulled out of class for a couple of days or weeks and will fight their parents about opting-out. This means schools are unjustifiably creating conflict between parents and their children. 
• The fact that the superintendent of a public school is “proud” to show American Beauty and Brokeback Mountain to teenagers and uses the word “integrity” when describing these films reveals just how far gone our schools are and how foolish their leaders. 

I will repeat what I have said many times: Cultural change rarely happens through dramatic single events but rather through the slow accretion of little events that we ignore or dismiss. We have arrived at the cultural point where a teacher would choose films like American Beauty and Brokeback Mountain by our failure to address prior and seemingly lesser offenses. 

---

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Once again, a public high school English teacher pokes a stick in the eye of conservative parents and taxpayers. Hinsdale South High School English teacher Kristin Wimsatt is teaching a senior elective “Film as Lit” class. Her curriculum includes the films Brokeback Mountain, American Beauty, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Fargo. The two most egregiously offensive are Brokeback Mountain and American Beauty.

Just to remind readers, American Beauty is the story of a depressed middle-aged man Lester, played by Kevin Spacey, who becomes infatuated with his 16 year-old daughter’s best friend about whom he entertains sexual fantasies and with whom he flirts. His equally miserable wife played by Annette Bening has an affair.  A secondary story line involves a brutal conservative ex-Marine neighbor who is a closeted homosexual and ultimately murders Lester.

There are a number of questions that school administrators and board members should be asking. While this dark film critiques America, might it also cultivate dark and prurient thoughts in viewers? Might the sexual imagery be sexually arousing to some of Wimsatt’s students? Might the depiction of the neighbor reinforce the stereotype of conservatives as vicious hatemongers? Are subsequent classroom discussions sufficient to mitigate the damage done by the powerful narrative and images?

The other controversial film selected by Wimsatt is Brokeback Mountain, the story of two men who are hired by a rancher to herd his sheep and in the process become enmeshed in a sexual and emotional relationship that lasts for years, including through the dissolution of both of their marriages.

Click here and here to read two short lists of some of the offensive images in these films (warning: descriptions are graphic). As you’re reading the list of images from Brokeback Mountain, you should know that Wimsatt, describes these images as “tasteful.”

Here is Wimsatt’s justification for choosing these two films:

The primary objective in viewing Brokeback Mountain is to evaluate the film from the perspective of the text as an adaptation. In fact, one of the three Oscars it won was for “Best Writing & Adapted Screenplay.” The Annie Proulx short story, originally published in the New Yorker, is quality writing, and both the story and the film are texts that most of the students have not encountered. I like the film particularly because it was originally a short story (as opposed to a novel), thus the process of adaptation posed more of a challenge. I think the class will have a lot to discuss with this one. The prose is challenging, but the film is a good “payoff” for them in terms of viewing, particularly because it has such a good star appeal at this point in our culture.

The sexual element, while provocative, is tasteful. Naturally, we will discuss the standard literary elements of plot, theme, symbolism, etc., but again, the primary focus is on how the film holds up to (or surpasses) the original script….

I have given a lot of thought to these selections and, after consulting with colleagues and my department chair, have chosen a few that do contain more difficult material…. The sexual aspects of the film do not necessarily “advance the teaching of adapting text,” but they are nonetheless an integral part of what is, overall, a valuable and powerful story (as are so many rated R films!)…. I have often contended that when students consume films of a more graphic nature in a safe and structured classroom environment, they have an opportunity to process the content in a more thoughtful way, as opposed to a point in his life when he is more likely to watch it alone or with friends and not be able to have mature conversations about it.   

Ah, yes, the ever utilitarian appeal to plot, theme, and symbolism. As I’ve written before, the beauty of teaching literature is that text-selection criteria are almost infinitely elastic. Literature and film teachers can find “reasons” to justify selecting virtually any film, play, novel, or essay they want to teach. After all, what text can be found that has no theme, no plot, no characterization, no dialogue, no setting, no symbols, and no figurative language? In other words, with the breadth of reasons available, teachers can justify teaching anything their little hearts desire. And if challenged, they simply assume that the reasons offered by critics are subordinate to their reasons for teaching it.

So, let’s look more closely at the reasons Wimsatt offers for her film choices because they echo the reasons proffered by English teachers all over the country for their inappropriate text selections:

• Brokeback Mountain won three Oscars. Films are evaluated on the basis of a number of criteria, but one that Hollywood rarely considers is the moral vision that is depicted in the film. For those who care deeply about sexual morality, who understand that homosexual acts corrupt same-sex friendship and love, and that the presence of love does not render sexual interaction inherently moral, the film Brokeback Mountain is profoundly troubling. Through the interplay of narrative, imagery, and music, the film manipulates audience emotion to move them non-rationally to embrace a subversive and—dare I say—immoral sexual ethic.

  Annie Proulx, author of the short story on which Brokeback Mountain is based—and no friend to conservatism—wrote this about the Academy Awards that so impress Wimsatt:

Roughly 6,000 film industry voters, most in the Los Angeles area, many living cloistered lives behind wrought-iron gates or in deluxe rest-homes, out of touch not only with the shifting larger culture and the yeasty ferment that is America these days, but also out of touch with their own segregated city, decide which films are good. 

• Since Brokeback Mountain was adapted from a short story, the “process of adaptation posed more of a challenge,” which makes it all the more appealing to Wimsatt. Here are some other critically acclaimed films adapted from short stories that she could have chosen: Double Indemnity, The Third Man, The Innocents, The Heiress,  Stand by Me, The Dead, Sleepy Hollow,  2001: A Space Odyssey, and The Birds. 

• Perhaps anticipating that parents may suggest other films adapted from short stories, Wimsatt has a proleptically prepared her “justification”: She argued that Brokeback Mountain has a “good payoff…particularly because it has such good star appeal.” 

  Wimsatt never articulates precisely what she means by “good” or “payoff.” It might behoove parents to ask what she means and to ask her to define her conception of the “good.”

  Wimsatt’s mention of a “good payoff” and “good star appeal” reveals something that may surprise parents and other taxpayers, which is that many English teachers are inordinately concerned with appealing to the “interests” of their students. That is why there are so many books, plays, and films being taught that include subversive ideas, graphic sex, obscene language, and extreme violence. These elements appeal to the baser, untutored sensibilities of adolescents—not to mention the adults who teach them. It’s easier to teach texts about which teens aren’t griping.

  But why not teach films that students are unlikely to watch on their own, that pose adaption challenges, that are critically acclaimed, and that don’t offend the moral sensibilities of any students or their parents—particularly when the class and  teacher’s salary are subsidized by the public? 

• Wimsatt claims that the “sexual elements” in the film, though “provocative,” are “tasteful.”For those, however, who believe that same-sex attraction is disordered, and that same-sex acts are profoundly immoral, referring to homosexual acts as “tasteful” is oxymoronic. There can no more be tasteful depictions of homosexual acts than there can be tasteful depictions of group sex. Certainly there can be more or less graphic depictions of homosexual acts, but being less graphic scenes does not make them tasteful.
  
  One of the serious problems with this film is that it powerfully depicts a homosexual relationship as a good thing. It uses the immense persuasive force of narrative and imagery to depict that which is perverse as good. Even without graphic sex, this film is troubling because its central thesis is flawed. Sex between two men does not ennoble their love; it corrupts it. 

• Wimsatt “thought” a lot about which films to teach. The quantity of thought she’s given to her choices is irrelevant. People can give a lot of thought to decisions and still make terrible ones. 

• She consulted her colleagues and department chair. English Departments are notoriously problematic. This does not mean every English teacher is a problem, but the fact that she consulted her colleagues and department chair is meaningless without knowing more about their discussion and their pedagogical vision. 

• She defends the teaching of “difficult material.” The euphemistic description of subversive, “transgressive” sexuality; obscene language; and graphic images of sexuality as “difficult material” indicates Wimsatt and perhaps the entire English Department needs to define “difficult.” 

• Wimsatt asserts that the “sexual aspects” of these two films are “valuable.” This is a highly debatable claim. Many people find the sexual aspects of the films corrosive. Should publicly funded schools that claim to honor all voices and respect diversity show films that many taxpayers find corrosive? 

• And here’s the crowning rhetorical glory: Wimsatt argues that when students consume graphic films in a “safe and structured classroom environment,” they have the “opportunity to process content in a more thoughtful way” as opposed to when watching it alone or with friends where mature conversations can’t take place. 

  What does this even mean? “Safety” is the go-to term that public school teachers use to silence dissent. They know that if they assert that a resource or activity promotes “safety,” they win the debate. Or alternatively, if they assert that presenting a text will make students feel “unsafe,” it’s out.

  At least as troubling is Wimsatt’s presumption that her students will be watching Brokeback Mountain and American Beauty alone or with friends. Since she already acknowledged that most students will not have seen the films, why would she presume they will be watching them alone or with their friends? She apparently hasn’t entertained the possibility that they might not watch them at all—ever. Wimsatt just might be exposing students to films that they would otherwise never watch, either alone or with their immature friends.

Has she, her colleagues, or her department chair discussed whether viewing and discussing scenes of nudity, masturbation, sodomy, and adultery might desensitize students to such images or efface natural and good feelings of modesty? Did they discuss whether the school-sanctioned showing of films that use egregiously obscene language might undermine school policies that prohibit the use of such language? It’s both absurd and dishonest to imply that words and images have no effect on the hearts and minds viewers.

As usual, parents who are troubled by these films have been offered the inadequate option of having their children receive an alternative assignment during the time the class will be viewing and discussing the inappropriate films. This, obviously, results in an isolated, diminished academic experience. Or they can drop the class entirely.

Here’s a wacky idea: Why not drop both films and replace them with films that will challenge students intellectually, broaden their aesthetic lens, and respect the values and beliefs of all students and parents. 

Take ACTION:  If you object to the decision to teach these two films in a publicly funded school, please click HERE to respectfully express your views to the school superintendent, Dr. Nicholas D. Wahl, and the members of the local Board of Education.  And if you know someone in the Hinsdale South community, please share this information with them. If we do nothing, the texts chosen by public teachers only get worse.