Porn policy must be enforced fairly

   Porn policy must 
   
   be enforced fairly 
   
   
   
   Dean for Student Affairs Shirley M. McBay created a double standard
   when she allowed the Women's Studies Program to show Not a Love Story,
   an unrated sexually explicit film, without prior review by the Ad Hoc
   Pornography Screening Committee. 
   
   McBay forbade the showing of The Opening of Misty Beethoven, even
   though the Lecture Series Committee (LSC) adhered to requirements
   listed in the MIT Policy Statement on Sexually Explicit Films that she
   created. LSC notified the Dean's Office six weeks in advance, as
   required. 
   
   Yet McBay reasoned that the screening committee had not reviewed the
   film within a six-week limit. The policy does not require the
   screening be held six weeks in advance of its proposed presentation. 
   
   There is no doubt that Not a Love Story is an anti-pornography film.
   There is also no doubt that it is sexually explicit. McBay's policy
   requires the screening committee to review all sexually explicit films
   proposed for showing at MIT. 
   
   McBay's errors concerning the Not a Love Story screening typify and
   demonstrate the disregard she has for students, their activities, and
   her own office. She used the policy as a tool to delay the showing of
   Misty Beethoven -- a film she disapproves of -- and chose not to use
   the policy to require the review of Not a Love Story. 
   
   The Women's Studies Program was not at fault. McBay was responsible
   for creating a poorly worded and unclear policy open to endless
   misinterpretation by student groups and endless reinterpretation by
   McBay. 
   
   Some people are upset by sexually explicit or pornographic films at
   MIT. A problem exists, and the Dean's Office is the proper place to
   address it. The MIT policy's goal is reasonable in itself. But its
   execution has failed, largely because of the ambiguity of the
   guidelines and McBay's refusal to adhere to her own policy. 
   
   It is highly unlikely that Not a Love Story would have had any trouble
   getting committee approval. The only reason the film was not submitted
   is that it simply did not occur to the people involved that this movie
   fell under the regulations. 
   
   The criteria for what movies fall under the guidelines, particularly
   the term "sexually explicit," is inadequately stated. 
   
   It would have been unfortunate if the regulations had prevented or in
   any way impeded the showing of Not a Love Story. But whether or not
   enforcing the regulations would have had any adverse effect, it is bad
   policy to only selectively enforce a set of regulations. 
   
   
   

----
Copyright 1985 by The Tech. All rights reserved.
This story was published on  Friday,  February 8, 1985.
Volume  105, Number 2
The story was printed on page  4.
This article may be freely distributed electronically,
provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes
this notice, but may not be reprinted without the
express written permission of The Tech.  Write to
archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details.