By Sean Huncherick

Two weeks ago, the popular AMC TV series, “The Walking Dead,” moved from a TV-14 to a TV-MA rating (the equivalent of an R-rated film), due to graphic violence and language. Even though Indiana Wesleyan University has a set media policy for movies and video games, television shows aren’t restricted in any way.

In the past year, “The Walking Dead” has been extremely popular with students at IWU. For each new episode, students in Bowman Hall and Scripture Hall gather together and watch the zombie drama.

Rett Huntington (fr) has been watching the show since its start in 2011. Last week, he saw it with nearly 20 other students in the Bowman lobby. Despite the show being a gory zombie series, he sees several morals in the show.

Huntington finds that the show “revolves more around humanity and being civilized in an uncivilized world than on zombies.”

“The main character, Rick, constantly makes sacrifices for his family,” said Huntington. “He is trying his best to be a good father in a bad situation.”

Scripture Hall Resident Director Ian Slater said the role of entertainment should be used for the glory of God.

“The show itself and our generation’s fascination with zombies have both good and bad qualities,” said Slater. “One hand, you can use it to engage in conversations exploring what it means to be human and seeing what humanity really means in a crisis. On the other hand, when we consume media with dark elements, it is important to question if it is praising the dark elements.”

Aspects such as this call “The Walking Dead” into question.

The IWU handbook states that no student is allowed to watch any R-rated movies while enrolled at the school apart from ones on the approved list. Realistic violent films such as “The Patriot,” “The Book of Eli” and “The Last Samurai” are approved, but the fantasy-violence of “Pan’s Labyrinth” is denied.

The handbook is much less clear on the media policy regarding television, books and music. It states that unless the medium contains excessive profanity, sexuality, violence or the occult, it is generally permissible.

The dean of student conduct, Andrew Parker, said an RA or RD can exercise his or her own judgment if a student watches a show that could cross the line of vulgarity. The RD or RA can have the show turned off or even banned.

Parker said the handbook, which is updated every year, is likely to stay the same for now.

“At this point, I would say the university is not going to have a list of shows students can’t watch,” Parker said. “It’s hard enough with movies.”

Tim Witte (sr) is doubtful a ban on TV-MA shows would be successful, because he said he thinks students would continue watching anyway.

“I don’t think students care,” he said. “It wouldn’t be shown publicly in any dorm, but students will still try to get around it.”

Huntington also thinks it would be more beneficial to give students guidelines than a full-out ban.

“I understand regulation to an extent,” Huntington said, “but for the most part it should be left to the students.”

At the same time, Witte also believes a ban could give students a chance to use integrity. If the student handbook ruled out TV-MA shows, he wonders if students would have the respect to say, “No, I signed an agreement that I won’t watch it.”

Parker added that students are encouraged to continue addressing the media policy. Whether they are for or against it, he said their input makes a difference.

There’s yet another Indiana Wesleyan University-specific social media account.

IWU Creep is an Instagram account dedicated to “creeping on” students at Indiana Wesleyan University. The anonymous figures who run the site take and post random pictures of IWU students. Usually, they add a humorous tagline, and sometimes the person is even tagged in the picture.

In February of last year, a Tumblr blog page was started with this same concept. When this academic year started in September, IWU Creep joined Instagram and ended up switching entirely to that alternative social media outlet midway through the semester.

As of now, the Instagram account has 69 random student photos posted and 340 followers.

Lindsey Smart (sr) was featured in a photo recently standing in the cheeseburger line at Wildcat, but she found “creepy” was the wrong adjective to use in describing her reaction.

“Yeah, at first I thought it was creepy, but then I just decided it was kind of lame,” said Smart. “It’s just not as exciting as I thought it would be — I thought it would be funnier.”

From an administrative standpoint, it’s about following the handbook, according to Andrew Parker, dean of student conduct.

Parker said the handbook has no specific policy for social media, but there are many areas that could be considered and apply to sites like this. One example he gave was that the handbook calls for students to exercise self-control and avoid gossip, slander and vulgarity.

“A lot of times, these websites contain things like that,” said Parker. “Then we have to look at: Is it one time or in general? If it’s general, is it pervasive?”

Sometimes the school will temporarily block a website until officials can further review it, but they end up only permanently blocking one or two per semester. Others are blocked separately by iPrism.

Parker admitted that it’s “virtually impossible for us to control Internet activity to that level.”

He called everyone on campus to just remember to think about what he or she is posting online.

“Civility on the Internet is something we’ve largely lost, because we’ve just become so saturated in it,” said Parker. “It’s funny how we view it as the real world, but at the same time we don’t. And I think that another thing we’re missing a little [is] the culture of Christian accountability we are supposed to apply to our lives, being honest with each other and not ignoring it if we think something is wrong.”

“Just remember the Golden Rule: If you wouldn’t want it posted of you, don’t post it,” said Parker.

by: Kendra Emmett (jr)

On Monday night, Oct. 10, 2011, the SGA cabinet hosted an open floor discussion of the IWU Media Policy. As the academic representative for the Division of Communication, I felt a sense of obligation to read the Media Policy beforehand in preparation for the discussion. As I began to read the policy, two different thoughts occurred to me: “Why have I never read the media policy in its entirety before?” and “I can’t believe this.”

Last spring I took “Media and Society,” a required class for every student in the communication division. The class seeks to promote media literacy among those preparing for careers in television, radio, theatre, public relations and journalism. Media literacy is “a set of perspectives that we actively use to expose ourselves to the media and interpret the meaning of the messages we encounter,” according to the required text for the class, “Media Literacy” by W. James Potter. In other words, the class trains students, who will soon be in the world without media consumption rules, to think critically and from a Christian worldview about the messages in the various media. As I read through IWU’s Media Policy, however, the inconsistency between what I learned in “Media and Society” and the policy’s demands alarmed me.

Not only did I disagree with many of the statements in the policy, I was disappointed to find that some of the phrasing seemed vague. My main disagreements, however, are with the section of the policy that discusses “R” rated movies. The policy states, “Although an ‘R’ rated movie rarely provides the educational or redeeming value which would warrant its viewing, we have developed a system for students to request specific movie exceptions to the ‘R’ rated exclusion based on educational, historical or social value.”

The beginning of this statement claims that there are few “R” rated movies with educational or redeeming content. I would contend that this statement is false, as evidenced by the films shown during GlobeFest. Films with deep messages are chosen and screened, and students are asked to think critically, respond and discuss. It is my assumption that those who pick the films for GlobeFest do not set out with the intention of picking only from the pool of “R” rated movies that have recently been released. Rather, I think their objective is to intentionally look for movies with messages that will make students think and that will foster meaningful discussion. The majority, though not all, of the selected movies are rated “R,” suggesting that some of the most relevant and thought-provoking messages in society today are communicated in movies that happen to be rated “R.”

The Media Policy lays out an approval process for “R” rated films. The “Approved” list includes 39 titles, such as “The Book of Eli,” “Dead Man Walking,” “The Last of the Mohicans,” “The Matrix” and “Slumdog Millionaire.”

Students are allowed to possess and view these movies at their own discretion. There are 33 movies on the “Guided Discussion” list. Students may not possess an “R” rated film on this list and, in order to view it, a faculty member must be present, give an adequate introduction to the film, and have discussion questions prepared in advance to lead a talk-back after the film is finished.

The “Denied” list contains 30 titles, including “Crash,” “Fight Club,” “House,” “Munich,” “Pan’s Labyrinth” and “V for Vendetta.” As stated on the Wildcat website, “Movies that have been reviewed and given a Denied rating continue to be RESTRICTED due to inappropriate content or the movie does not contain enough redeeming value as determined by the Movie Review Committee.” Many students (myself included) do not agree with the placement of most of these movies on the “Denied” list.

I understand that the intent of the Media Policy is not to restrict as much as it is to encourage healthy media consumption, and I fully understand that there are films not worth viewing. I am merely making the suggestion that the policy, as it is now, does not reflect an attitude toward media consistent with what I know I have been taught, and I might go so far as to say that it is currently a stumbling block to students who recognize and want to grapple with the important messages found in some films that happen to have an “R” on the cover.

“Without purposefully building critical thinking skills, especially in a college environment, consciences can be badly damaged and thoughtful selection almost non-existent,” claims the policy, and it concludes, “It is our prayer that with this policy creating a higher level of expectation, students will be challenged to think and converse, and thus make selections above and beyond the pressure of pop culture, or media marketing ploys.”

But if the movies we are allowed to watch and even possess are governed absolutely by lists, what “thoughtful selections” are students to make? What are students to “think and converse” about? Will watching only movies that have been selected for us truly put us “above and beyond” pop culture?

I suggest that the University at-large adopt a true attitude of media discernment, which is already being fostered in classes like UNV-180 and “Media and Society.” If the university wishes to help students develop discernment, one way to begin might be to do away with the “Denied” list entirely, while further encouraging settings for guided discussion of films with difficult subject matter. This community may well be the best environment students will ever have to develop media discernment and wrestle with difficult issues. Is that not done best by helping students make wise choices rather than making the choices for them?

by: Phil Herbruck (sr)

I’ll get right to the point: I wholeheartedly agree with Nick Graham’s article about the “In Loco Parentis” rules in the Indiana Wesleyan University student handbook. The media policy, in particular, has been a major frustration during my time at IWU. As a communications major, I am constantly engaged in in-class conversations about how to engage media responsibly, as a believer. But according to the current media policy, I do not have the “freedom” to apply those media-appropriation skills. I think the administration would do well to validate our views on this issue, and consider a dialogue about revising the current media standards.