After hearing arguments by the RPI College Republicans surrounding UPAC Cinema’s planned showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 on Saturday, the Executive Board chose not to act, allowing the screening to go forward. The College Republicans had argued that in showing the movie and paying $955 for the lease, UPAC Cinema was violating Union budgeting policies by endorsing a political viewpoint, but Cinema and members of the E-Board argued successfully that under the circumstances in question that is not the case.
“I think there was a great discussion,” said President of the Union Peter Baldwin, continuing that he was pleased with the results. “Bob [Fishel] raised some good points.” Fishel is the vice-chairman of the Republicans, and represented the group at the meeting.
According to Union budgeting policy, no funds will be distributed to “any religious or political organization or any group, which claims affiliation with such an organization, nor will it fund any organization that endorses a particular political or religious viewpoint.”
Arguments at the meeting varied from how the movie was being marketed, to Cinema’s intentions in showing the film, to where the money paid for the movie was being sent. Fishel argued at the meeting that in paying to show the film, UPAC Cinema was advocating and affiliating itself with Michael Moore and his viewpoint in a way that was not possible for other, more overtly political groups to do.
However, E-Board member Hansel Baez ’05 contended that the money being paid for the film was being sent to Lion’s Gate Entertainment, which is distributing the film, and not directly to Dog Eat Dog Films, Michael Moore’s company, and continued that as a club that is seeking to earn money with its activities, Cinema must see the film as a “cash cow” after it broke income records this summer. Adam Jubanowsky ’05 also pointed out that Cinema’s purpose is to show popular, recent films, and not to support a political viewpoint.
“I think that UPAC has tried to show that they’re not showing this as a political activity,” Jubanowsky said, referencing UPAC’s posters which include a “for entertainment only” disclaimer.
Mary Kate DiTursi, a graduate student, said that Fahrenheit 9/11 is purely a piece of entertainment, and that while it could change the way someone votes, it would endanger the “quality and characteristic” of Cinema if the E-Board regulates what they show.
Marilyn Jose, chairperson of UPAC Cinema, pointed out that they have shown other controversial films in the past, including Primary Colors, American History X, and The Last Temptation of Christ. She said that there have been complaints in the past, but that have always been brought directly to UPAC, and not to the E-Board.
“We are not trying to anger anyone—we love Republicans, Democrats, and independents,” said Ben Cole, who was chairperson over the summer and thus in charge of recommending films to be shown for the first half of this semester. “We’re here to provide entertainment to the activity-fee paying students.”
“We’re not trying to stifle free speech,” said Fishel. “We just want the Union to be fair in its rules. The whole point of this is to show that the system is flawed, and we’re asking the E-Board to fix it.”
The College Republicans, who do not qualify for funding, have brought similar arguments to the E-Board before. Last year, the activities of five clubs were challenged for supporting political activities.
