Where’s the Outrage?

Andy Boden, Undergraduate/Political Science

“There are…serious ramifications for sanctioning such speech restrictions….And what of the film A Clockwork Orange?  The protagonist of this movie justifies, condones, and commits rape.  If a campus organization were to screen the film, should they lose their funding?” – Collin Hawkins

To begin, I would like to clarify that I am writing this article on behalf of myself and not The Flip Side or any other group on campus.  I know that in the last article I wrote last year (“A Final Word,” Volume 6 issue 14), I said that I had hoped that there would be no articles submitted to The Flip Side relating to the infamous article “Sexual Depravity,” written by former student Jake Everett that was published in The Flip Side in the spring of 2008 (Volume 5 issue 13).  The article was mostly remembered for containing a joke about rape that many women on this campus perceived as threatening as well as the response that it generated.  My purpose for bringing forth an article against my previous wishes is not to relive old memories or to reignite old (and current) hostilities toward The Flip Side.  Instead, recent events have prompted me to offer an insight on the fairness of the campus dialogue when it comes to criticizing campus media and student organizations.

In the months following the publication of “Sexual Depravity” a campus-wide dialogue had existed that focused on whether publishing the article was the right thing for The Flip Side to do, and whether or not The Flip Side should lose its funding through student segregated fees because of it.  The quote at the beginning of this article comes from an article written by senior Political Science major Collin Hawkins (“Eric Blair’s War,” Volume 6 issue 6) who defended The Flip Side for publishing Everett’s article.  In the aforementioned quote, Hawkins presents a hypothetical situation and calls into question whether or not other groups would receive the same type of treatment as The Flip Side for screening the said film.  Hawkins must have had a crystal ball, because the film that was screened on campus by UAC Films from January 21 through January 24 was, in fact, A Clockwork Orange.

Before I go any further, I would like to state for the record that I personally have no problem with UAC Films, a student organization funded through tuition dollars, for showing this movie.  What I do have a problem with, however, is that while The Flip Side received a firestorm of criticism for publishing “Sexual Depravity,” there has yet to be any public criticism of UAC Films for showing A Clockwork Orange.  Although some may believe that the reason for this is because the “Sexual Depravity” issue was resolved a year ago, I’m not entirely convinced.  Over winter break I received an e-mail from a member of the College Feminists who implored me, as managing editor of The Flip Side, to change our acceptance policy to “exclude the promotion of violence to any particular person/people/animal,” even though it is nearly two years after the fact.

This e-mail has given me indication that ill sentiments for The Flip Side for publishing Everett’s article still exist amongst a number of students.  So why aren’t these same students protesting UAC Films when the same arguments used against The Flip Side could be applied in this situation?

One argument brought up by The Flip Side’s detractors was that by publishing “Sexual Depravity” The Flip Side had essentially endorsed rape.  Even though this assertion simply isn’t true, for The Flip Side’s disclaimer states that the views expressed within the publication are those of the author and not The Flip Side staff, the same assertion can be made about UAC Films for showing A Clockwork Orange.  The Flip Side’s purpose is to provide people with an outlet for free expression and doesn’t endorse the views expressed in the works that get published, and the purpose of UAC Films is to provide people with a source of entertainment and does not endorse the views or actions expressed in the films they show.  Yet, it seems that only The Flip Side is targeted for such false assertion.

Another argument that The Flip Side’s detractors brought up was that by publishing “Sexual Depravity” the campus climate was negatively affected by allowing the exposure of a dangerous and illegal act through the media.  While I do not agree that the publishing of this article had an overall negative effect on the campus climate, I do agree that people can become desensitized to things expressed in the media (still, such desensitization doesn’t necessarily cause people of mature ages to reenact what gets expressed).  So how can this argument be applied any differently to A Clockwork Orange than it has been to “Sexual Depravity?”  And if it can’t, then where’s the outrage?

Some might bring up the argument that A Clockwork Orange is a classic while “Sexual Depravity” was just flat-out obscene.  However, this argument is problematic, and the reasons why are twofold.  For one, obscenity cannot be objectively defined, even though the Supreme Court tried to do so in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), perhaps the most arbitrary decision in the Court’s history (for more information, read my article “Supreme Flaws” in Volume 7 issue 2).  Secondly, many people had criticized A Clockwork Orange on similar grounds when it premiered in 1971.  In fact, the film’s director Stanley Kubric, had his own film banned from shelves in the United Kingdom, Kubric’s home country.  The ban didn’t end until 2000, a year after Kubric’s death.[1]

However, the only argument brought up against The Flip Side (and perhaps the most important argument brought up) that probably cannot be applied to the screening of A Clockwork Orange was that “Sexual Depravity” appeared to be threatening.  While this argument has merit to it, it is independent of all the other arguments and criticisms that were used in trying to justify The Flip Side’s punishment (it is also important to state for the record that The Flip Side took this argument into account last year and adopted a new policy addressing free and legal speech that appears to be threatening).

The point I’m trying to make isn’t that UAC Films should be punished by the administration and Student Senate, or that the same detractors of The Flip Side have to criticize UAC Films.  Instead, the point I’m trying to make is that if some students or faculty decide to criticize an organized activity and have a principled basis for such criticism, they should be critical of all organized activities for which the principle applies instead of singling out particular groups.  Doing so is not only unfair, it is exclusive, which runs counter to the Chancellor’s strategic plan of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusivity (EDI), a policy which The Flip Side’s detractors have championed.

Sources: