A student run movie theatre at the University of Iowa canceled plans to show a pornographic film last week under pressure from the University’s administration. Now, the theater’s governing board is negotiating a “defense system” with the administration, where the theater would ask for approval before screening controversial films. The situation eerily mirrors last year’s controversial film screening at the University of Maryland that led the Board of Regents to consider restrictions on the types of films shown, at the behest of the legislature.
The Bijou theatre at the University of Iowa describes itself as a “non-profit, student-run cinema screening independent, art house, foreign and classic films.” The Bijou is run by a volunteer board of twelve students and three community members who, according to their website, “have final say on film selection, program development and all strategic planning.” In addition to its run of art-house and foreign cinema, the Bijou has a tradition of screening a pornographic film once a year. This year the Bijou had planned to screen a 1970s film it had shown three years prior entitled “Disco Dolls in 3D.” However, a week before the scheduled screening, Thomas Rocklin, Interim Director of Student Services ordered the show be cancelled and tickets refunded.
Rocklin argued that it was not in the “public interest” for “a film of this nature” to be shown at a “public facility,” and that the film had no educational value.
The idea that it is not the campus community but rather the general public that have the power to determine campus programming is inconsistent with the very nature and mission of our public institutions of higher education. Colleges and universities exist to teach students to explore new ideas, challenge conventional wisdom and discover new knowledge. This process necessitates a free exchange of ideas, both inside and outside the classroom. It is inevitable that while engaging in that environment, students will entertain and express views or content that some find objectionable.
Whether in a one-time decision like this one or an overarching policy, restricting students’ ability to create programming outside the classroom invites problems. As the University of Maryland discovered last year that often means choosing to restrict far more content than the Administration is willing while also risking running afoul of the Constitution. After months of consideration, consultations with outside groups, and student pressure, the University of Maryland eventually decided to back down from setting a policy.
While UMD encountered its quandary in attempting to draw up specific criteria for educational content, the proposals at Iowa are far more worrying. The “Defense Process” suggested by Student Services would require the Bijou to submit “controversial” films for approval by the administration. Not only would this seem to encourage self-censorship, but leaving determinations of “educational value” to the arbitrary decision of a handful of administrators invites restrictions on the views of programs—a clear constitutional problem.
Furthermore there is much to be said for activities that do not have apparent educational value. The social, cultural, civic and athletic opportunities available at our public institutions can strengthen a sense of the community, allow students to learn skills they wouldn’t get in the classroom and apply classroom knowledge to real world situations. Giving students the opportunity to have complete control of their own movie theatre seems to meet all three of these goals. Taking away the decision-making capacity of the theater seems to undermine its own educational value.
While the Bijou film board has been complying with the administration’s requests comments on a Daily Iowan Editorial blasting the decision show many students are incensed.