No one cares but me: IWU's R-rated movie policy

“R”

Indiana Wesleyan’s Student Development department has taken upon itself the responsibility of regulating students’ media intake. The Media Policy, as listed in the Student Handbook, is the result of their efforts. The rule, even according to the Vice President of Student Development, represents an imperfect effort to formulate a policy for a thorny subject. Many students and faculty have become frustrated with the rule, a fact that Student Development readily acknowledges. IWU wishes to promote critical thinking and discernment and to provide a “safety net,” and to utilize a hands-on approach that challenges students. However, the current policy defeats each of these goals because of its overbearing attempt to enforce a safety net. The Student Development department needs to recognize the specific pitfalls of the current rule and make the appropriate changes.

Many similar institutions share IWU’s philosophic and denominational views of education. The policies used by other Wesleyan schools provide a suitable starting point for evaluating Indiana Wesleyan’s policy. The Wesleyan tradition has been well-represented in higher education throughout the past two centuries. A large number of colleges and universities have carried the Wesleyan name, and many more stem from a similar Methodist background. Many of these schools have wandered from their religious roots, continuing the Wesleyan and Methodist traditions only in name. Yet a number of schools still faithfully adhere to Wesleyan code and conduct. Many of these institutions have joined the governing body of Evangelical Christian Education—the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). These schools share a vision for excellence in higher education and a faithful dependence on their Wesleyan/Methodist heritage. The CCCU website lists four schools affiliated with the Free Methodist Church: Greenville College, Roberts Wesleyan, Seattle Pacific University, and Spring Arbor University. The Wesleyan Church also has four schools listed with it: Houghton College, Indiana Wesleyan University, Oklahoma Wesleyan University, and Southern Wesleyan University. These eight schools represent higher education in the Wesleyan tradition. Most of these institutions have made their student handbooks available online, and their media/movie policies are listed within them.

When we observe their respective handbooks, these eight schools are clearly similar in their philosophy of eduction. All of the schools echo common refrains concerning beliefs, goals, and the distinctiveness of a Wesleyan education. One consistent theme is an emphasis on Christian living that stems from the Holiness movement. The schools embody a set of values tied directly to Wesleyan doctrine, and these dictates are applied in various forms of “Lifestyle Expectations” through the Residence Life departments. A good example of these principles comes from Houghton’s “Responsibility of Community Life.”

The people of Houghton College comprise a Christian community that has joined together to seek academic progress, personal development, and spiritual growth. We strive to uphold a unity based on the lordship of Jesus Christ, guided by Biblical principles and the moral laws of God. We affirm our commitment to the triune God, perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ. We recognize that the Biblical standards for both individual and corporate life within the body of believers are necessary bases upon which to live.

As members of a community, we expect each other-- trustees, administrators, faculty, staff, and students-- to take seriously the responsibilities mentioned herein. We dedicate ourselves to individual academic progress, personal growth, and the building of a Christ-centered community that will provide spiritual nurture for all.

Together, we seek to honor Christ by integrating faith, learning, and living as we reflect the process of maturing in Him. We choose to live according to the word of God, to respond to one another in love, and to make decisions motivated by unselfish love and divine truth.

Our goal is the ideal of mature self-regulation and active participation in fulfilling community responsibilities. In joining this community, we freely and willingly take upon ourselves the responsibilities outlined in this statement.

This exemplifies the spirit of the schools in question—particularly, the Student Development departments of the schools. Though the phrasing changes from school to school, the basic tenets of Christian education are expressed by each. The specific goals within Residence Life of Christian institutions are worth noting. Unlike non-Christian schools, these colleges and university seek to encourage Christian values in the lives of their students. “Lifestyle Contracts” and “Community Values Contracts” exhibit these goals. Still, within these eight schools, movie policies vary widely. Yet all eight schools address entertainment in some form.

Indiana Wesleyan’s version of the rule, however, differs greatly from the other schools. The school’s history and the current policy serve as a backdrop to the other institutions’ approaches. The Vice President of Student Development at Indiana Wesleyan is Dr. Todd Voss. In our November 1^st meeting, he explained to me the history of Indiana Wesleyan’s movie policy. Since the school first offered classes in 1920, the school had maintained a conservative Wesleyan aversion to film. The national ratings system changed over the years—Dr. Voss quickly pointed out that the changes were enacted to allow for more risqué material to be marketed to young people. This change put the current system in place, giving us “G,” “PG,” “PG-13,” “R,” “NC-17,” and “X.” According to Dr. Voss, the school has not allowed students to watch “R” rated movies at any point since the rating system was put into place. The policy stood unchanged until the summer of 2000. One student’s persistence put into motion a conciliatory effort to allow the viewing of some “R” rated films. The school acknowledged the “redeeming value” of some “R” rated films and wanted to allow students to watch them. At the same time, the school wanted to ensure that students to critically engage the entertainment that they encountered. During our discussion, Dr. Voss told me that Student Development struggled to find a policy that embodied all their goals. This frustration led to the formulation of a new rule—a rule which would contribute to reach all their

The policy has been tweaked slightly since its inception in 2001, and the changes continue as Student Development sees fit to improve the rule. Dr. Voss seemed proud of the steps that IWU had taken towards a more inclusive policy. He listed the improved policy and the recent addition of the Globe Theater in the student center. He contrasted those developments with the staunch disdain of film that characterized the Wesleyan/Holiness movement for much of its history. In comparison, he said, IWU is emerging as a leading proponent of movies within the tradition. A look at other schools policies will shed light on this.

The CCCU has eight schools listed within the two religious affiliations that are most closely associated with the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition. Using these schools, we have a helpful common ground from which to assess IWU’s movie policy. The distinctive aspects of each school’s policy are discussed beneath as they appear in their student handbooks; a few pertinent policies have been included to give examples of helpful distinctions. The policies are listed in Appendix A, excerpted from the student handbooks.

Free Methodist Church

Greenville College uses a policy very similar to Indiana Wesleyan’s. They ban all “R” rated films in residence hall/house lounges and living rooms. If a student wishes to show a movie that is “R” rated, he/she must submit a request to the staff in their building. This policy is different in a few important ways. First, the ban extends only on campus. The students are allowed to make their choice outside of campus living areas. Secondly, if a student wishes to show a movie on campus, he/she must seek approval. This seems similar to Indiana Wesleyan’s policy, but it differs with its individual approach. Movies are approved for watching on a case by case basis, rather than movie by movie.

Roberts Wesleyan lists no official policy regarding “R” rated movies. They do, however, use a rule that is shared by all eight of the schools. They ban all use or possession of pornographic material. The student handbook goes no further, allowing the students to make choices that align with the guiding principles listed in the handbook under “Commitment,” “Wholeness,” and “Excellence.”

Seattle Pacific also gives no specific policy for students regarding rated “R” movies, but they list a few helpful rules regarding student conduct. SPU shares IWU’s ban on alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs. Their rule, however, includes an important clause that IWU’s policy omits. Their student handbook states “SPU makes no attempt to preempt the customs of the family, which may include the use of alcohol at a family meal or family event...” Included in their website is a potentially helpful statement concerning the use of movies in Club activities. They explicitly ban all “NC-17” and “X” rated films, and they make a concession allowing for questionable content to be shown if it has “exceptional moral, social, or ethical message that is well established.” This, again, is addressed to school-based Clubs, not the student population; however, it reveals a look at the school’s stance on movies.

Spring Arbor University uses a rule that seems to combine Greenville’s and Seattle Pacific’s. “X” and “NC-17” movies are not allowed to be watched or possessed, “R” rated movies cannot be shown in lounge areas, and films that are “exceptionally violent, vulgar, or sexual in content” are prohibited. But, it should be noted, this distinction is left up to the student.

The Wesleyan Church

Houghton College, a “sister school” of IWU, gives no formal policy regarding “R” rated movies. The section regarding entertainment sounds much like IWU’s and a number of the other schools’, but they leave the decision-making to the students. “Fellow Christians have urged discretion and restraint in our choice[s]…especially if these…are morally questionable or diminish…sensitivity.” These cautions are made primarily from a standpoint of time-stewardship. In addition to this rule, however, Houghton joins Seattle Pacific by conceding authority to parental standards when students return home. Included with this concession is a request for students to exercise restraint as representatives of Houghton and of God.

Oklahoma Wesleyan University makes another formulation of the rule. Their policy is listed under the “Televisions/VCR’s/DVD Player” heading. They insist that, when used on campus, movies rated beyond “PG-13” are not allowed. This rule disallows “X”, “NC-17,” and “Mature” along with “R” rated films. This rule seems to negate all “R” rated movies, making it more stringent than IWU’s policy; we should note, however, that the rule applies only to movies watched on campus. This leaves open all other venues for student discretion.

Southern Wesleyan University, while addressing the issue from a conceptual standpoint, never explicitly gives a list of allowed/disallowed ratings. They ask students to “avoid activities, entertainment, media establishments or materials that promote violence, pornography, sexually explicit themes and immoral practices.” They also list a series of punishments for “media misuse” that includes the same list of restrictions. Again, this policy leaves the decisions up to the student.

With these seven schools in mind, Indiana Wesleyan’s policy is seen in a different light. Greenville and Spring Arbor have the clearest, and longest, movie policies. Both of these schools have one paragraph concerning students and movies. Indiana Wesleyan’s student handbook gives three full pages concerning students and media. The majority of these pages deal with movies. Clearly, Indiana Wesleyan has expounded on the policy more than the other schools, probably combined. This is understandable as IWU’s policy is much more exhaustive than the other schools. In our meeting, Dr. Voss mentioned the lack of a suitable precedent from other schools. IWU seems to be attempting a flagship effort, providing a more comprehensive approach. The contrasts are readily apparent.

The most glaring difference pits IWU’s policy against all seven of its fellow schools. No other policy extends the rule past the students’ families. A number of schools qualify their policies, allowing students to be under parents’ rules while at home. Indiana Wesleyan extends their policy (on all matters of student behavior) throughout students’ enrollment. Any time spent at home and any time on breaks, students are expected to follow Student Development’s rules—even if they conflict with family customs and traditions. I asked Dr. Thompson, the Assistant Vice President of Residence Life, about this in our discussion, and his response was unsatisfactory. When faced with the conflict of IWU rules versus parents’ rules, he loosely remarked that Student Development doesn’t “actively pursue” rule-breakers at home or during the summer and Christmas breaks. However, he did stand by the school’s ultimate position—students are technically expected to follow the school’s rules at home, even if they conflict with family customs and traditions. This formulation of the rule is certain to frustrate students. The school puts a rule in place technically, but willingly allows students to function outside of it. The frustration lies with the students’ motivation to follow the rule. The school relies on students’ integrity to keep their rule, but they diminish the importance of integrity by, in effect, expecting students to spend the summer at their own discretion. The school wants to use a convenient grey area to avoid the fact that they impose their rules above family customs. The students who heed the school’s call to integrity are left on the losing end of the school’s convenience: forced to exclude themselves from watching movies and from family traditions.

The media policy at Indiana Wesleyan is clearly more involved than those at other schools; unfortunately, the involvement has not brought about the goals the school aimed for. The rules from other schools regulate movies on student-owned electronics and in campus buildings. In fact, every other policy ends on the edges of campus. Understandably, no other school extends a movie policy to include all students’ choices. This extension undermines the school’s goal to “encourage discernment.” Students are asked to discern good movies from bad movies, but the policy allows no chance for that discernment to occur. Every other school encourages students to be cautious in their media selections; Greenville and Oklahoma Wesleyan even join IWU with a ban on “R” rated movies on campus. But only IWU, amidst all eight schools, extends this ban to all students’ choices. Greenville ends its regulation in campus housing; OWU also restricts movie-watching but only when they are viewed on campus. These other schools still acknowledge students’ prerogative to make decisions off campus and at home. This allows students some freedom to do the discerning about available movie choices.

The system erected by Indiana Wesleyan attempts to screen the “R” rated movies before the students are allowed to view them. Once the individual movies are deemed “redeeming,” students are allowed to view them. Obviously, this process is more involved than any other rule in place at the related institutions in the CCCU. The result is a far-reaching ban that defeats the school’s original goals. According to Dr. Voss, the school wants to encourage critical thinking and discernment, maintain the school’s “safety net,” and to utilize a hands-on approach that challenges students. The current policy defeats each of these goals because of its overbearing attempt to enforce a safety net. Critical thinking and discernment are discouraged—denied, even—by the extension of IWU’s policy to students’ decisions off campus and at home. The safety net defeats itself, the way overprotective parents force their children to rebel. Ironically, the school knows this but makes no provision for students at home or off campus. The same principle applies to the “hands on” approach. Too many “hands on” anyone will eventually force them away.

The school should either admit (and justify) their insistence on their own rules over families’, or, following the example of Seattle Pacific and Houghton, make an official provision for students under the auspices of home. IWU’s hesitance to give this qualification comes from the worry that students will abuse the freedom. However, the school should take responsibility for this problem, recognizing that playing on students’ integrity is unfair and exasperating. As for students off campus—the uniformity of the other seven schools gives a convincing illustration. If the school makes those concessions, the resulting policy would allow students an opportunity to think critically and to discern. The current IWU policy shows that a “hands on” approach cannot be successful without an occasional breath of “hands off.” The best safety net is, and always has been, good balance.