withallyourmind.net

A commenter on my last post made the following comments:

Having been interviewed under false pretenses by the film’s producers, then being expelled from a public showing of the film for which he’d registered, I think Myers deserved some honest answers from the film’s producers. The problem is they never actually addressed the issues, and have not yet answered his questions. Actually the biggest problem is that he was expecting honest answers from the film’s producers who claim to be promoting dissent but do everything they can to suppress anyone who disagrees with them. Given the behavior of its producers, a more appropriate title would be “Expelled: Do As We Say, Not As We Do”.

I’d like to add that I’m tired of the “Myers is at it again” rhetoric that defenders of the film have been using. Myers crashed the conference call, but he did not crash the film screening. He registered, and was allowed to come. It wasn’t until he was in line to see the film that he was kicked out. If the film screening really was “invitation only”, why didn’t the producers kick out Richard Dawkins as well? Or were the only kicking out people they interviewed under false pretenses?

Many of these objections have been dealt with elsewhere on many sites, but here are a few brief points.

1. The Minnesota screening (and all screenings) have been invitation only, RSVP affairs. Both Myers and Dawkins did RSVP, according to the producers, but were not invited. It certainly is not appropriate to RSVP to an affair to which one is not invited and then be upset that you were denied entrance. The Expelled producers knew that the pair would be attending and chose to allow Dawkins in and keep Myers out. The reason for that decision was related to Myers ongoing, relentless criticism of the film for months. If he was to see it, he would be paying for a ticket.

2. The charge about obtaining interviews under false pretenses is wearing extremely thin. There is absolutely no truth to the allegation, in Ben Stein’s words, “Ludicrous!” Each interviewee was contacted by email and phone and told that the film was involving an issue which is a cultural flashpoint that has aroused the passions of many. They were also told that because they have been outspoken on the subject, the producers wished to interview them. Most received questions well in advance of the interview. They were all paid for their interview. They signed a release stating the contents of the interview could be used as the producers saw fit. There was no deceit or trickery involved. The views presented in the film are the same as those stated by them which are available elsewhere. Nothing was taken out of context. None claim they were misquoted.

3. Perhaps, the most interesting point concerning this whole affair, is that none of those who were interviewed, to my knowledge, have contested that their views were misrepresented. Their has been a smokescreen of cries of foul play and an almost total ignoring of the issues of academic injustice against those who do not bow to the Darwinian god. No one has produced any substantive or persuasive arguments showing that the allegations made in the movie of suppression of academic inquiry and free thought are false. That should be the focus of the opponents of this movie.