| I'm almost certain that was the name of the show. The subtitle was
"Five tales of PC". It was ninety minutes long. I met a fellow in
Montreal a few weeks ago who also saw it, via a PBS affiliate in
upperstate NY I think.
One of the five episodes took place at Harvard, in which a small group
of conservative students published a newsletter with the gay pink
triangle symbol shown shattered. They were Christians who attended
Harvard chapel. There was a huge rally in favor of the rights of the
gay and lesbian student alliance (?) (seen to be incompatible with the
right of free speech), at which some dean denounced the newsletter as
containing "hate speech", which is a criminal act, and where the
minister at Harvard chapel announced he too was gay. Depressing the
conservative students further, of course.
The show also covered the famous U Penn "water buffalo" incident, the
takeover of a Hispanic student organization by a more radical faction,
at, I think, Stanford, and a case in which a male student took a course
in women's studies and objected to the material in the class and the
way it was presented. He was expelled from the class, was reinstated
after turning down the option of getting a passing grade, and caused a
near-riot by trying to return to the class.
The fifth case was an instance of a professor making remarks that
certain students took offense at. Part of his "sentence", was
attendance at some kind of multi-cultural sensitivity training, which
Alan Dershowitz compared to the re-education camps in China during
the reign of the Gang of Four. It was a horrible example of the power
of the new thought police.
Does the TV Guide description sound like this?
Neil
|
| I checked this week's TV Guide and the only reference to this show I
noticed was in the TV "Ethics" column, forget who writes it, somebody
Stern or Stein I think. He begins his column by referring to the show
that PBS broadcast "some weeks ago".
So if you're going to give WGBH an earful when they call for money,
don't do it because they didn't broadcast this show.
It does seem rather lame that the columnist is writing about something
that was broadcast a month ago. Why not discuss something that is
showing that same week, so readers get a chance to see what you are
talking about? He strikes me as rather pompous anyway, usually ending
with an important-sounding yet uncontroversial conclusion like "We must
take care to continue to watch this type of behavior/mentality/
criticism closely".
Like it's in his contract with TV Guide: sound concerned, but don't
offend anybody.
|