The NCSE’s Expelled Exposed site finally got its promised facelift this week. It’s now no longer just a clearinghouse for links to anti-Expelled sites and documents; it’s also a full-fledged quasi-investigatorial research resource regarding the claims presented by Expelled.
I honestly think the NCSE has done a remarkable job of putting all this together, given the relative noise level of harsh rhetoric, apocryphal quotes, and outright falsehoods that have been promulgated from all sides on the web. I still think a bias clearly seeps through, though, when the site lists reviews “from those who have seen it” when they mean “from those who hated it” (though naturally the early Rotten Tomatoes ranking of 14% certainly concurs with EE’s consensus), when it issues triumphalist predictions about “church basements,” or when it conjures up the specter of Elliot Spitzer on the “Silencing Dissenters” page. Again, I would caution readers about swallowing anyone’s Kool-Aid at this point, and to beware derisive entertainment from any source that purports to be interested in education. Still, EE is worth a good read-through if you’re at all interested in preparing for or following up your screening of Expelled (and you should be). I also recommend checking out the Discovery Institute’s commentary about EE after you visit.
Telling, and wisely it appears, EE eschewed covering the “cease and desist” letter sent and distributed by XVIVO regarding the cell animation in Expelled. Today, Premise Media issued a press release announcing that
On April 14, 2008, Premise Media filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. Premise Media also seeks its attorneys’ fees in responding to the XVIVO claims.
It’s curious that both sides are now discussing legal matters publicly rather than just letting lawyers do their thing. Who says this isn’t about entertainment?
In almost wholly unrelated news, the noted skeptic Michael Shermer, who appears at length in the film and reviewed Expelled for Scientific American, is co-authoring a correspondence column this week at the L.A. Times with Greg Lukianoff. The five-part series is called “Dust-Up,” and examines various controversies in America’s education system. Today’s installment directly addresses Expelled, and is worth a read. I particularly enjoyed Lukianoff’s conclusion:
Did you know that most colleges that FIRE surveys maintain oppressive speech codes? Did you know that many colleges maintain tiny and out-of-the-way free speech quarantines called speech zones? We could use some high-profile help here, Ben. With your power and influence you really could help bring a missing dose of liberty back to campuses. But if you only care about ID education, I suspect that you will only be preaching to people who already agree with you.
Curiously, both Shermer and Lukianoff seem very concerned that movie is advocating the teaching of I.D.; but it isn’t. The folks behind it, at some dark level, may be; but the film itself doesn’t.
More curiously, Lukianoff concluded Monday’s column with these statement regarding the political-correctness thought-police on our college’s campuses:
It is chilling that we are raising a generation of citizens who believe it is their right to mandate the appropriate views that other citizens should have. It’s a formula for totalitarianism. … I shudder for the republic if the next generation of leaders brings such fundamentally anti-democratic thinking to America’s institutions of power.
So it’s interesting: Lukianoff is convinced through his work that there is near-epidemic browbeating and intimidation on our college campuses. It’s precisely the kind of atmosphere which Lukianoff documents that spooks the (perhaps paranoid) folks featured in Expelled. Maybe the producers should have consulted with Lukianoff to build a broader case.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
“I still think a bias clearly seeps through, though, when the site lists reviews “from those who have seen it” when they mean “from those who hated it””
I’m not sure an open and forthright position on an issue is best termed a “bias seeping through.”
And its interesting to note that the positive reviews the film has received essentially just restate its main accusations. The reason EE lists the particular reviews it does is because they are listing people that are critical of the film’s claims, which their whole purpose is to debunk. While certainly not balanced position-wise, I’m not sure that the positive reviews: most of which just repeat the film’s accusations, add anything to the debate, and EE is about the debate, not judging the film as a film.
April 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Again, I’m not arguing with their right to selectively present reviews; yes, of course what they’ve done is consistent with the aims of the site.
I’m just pointing out to those who don’t understand the site’s bias where that bias “seeps through,” just as it’s fair to point the bias of the film.
And perhaps you’ve missed the point that I generally praise the way the site has put the information together.
But here’s the thing: the film is entertainment, but the EE site is a function of the NCSE. If its aims are really educational, there’s a higher standard there.
It’s certainly true that the only glowing reviews of the film have come from wholly biased sources that really don’t know movies from sermons. But why not list balanced reviews, like Brett McCracken’s? He writes for Christianity Today.