I am very interested in this discussion since I had the following experience last year while teaching Critical Reading & Writing (freshman English) at Boston College as a graduate student. In the context of the Drama section of the course, I showed "Paris is Burning" to provoke discussion about how identities are "put on" and how some putting on (like the film's drag balls) takes the form of using the costumes of the dominant culture in order to subvert that culture....blah, blah, blah That was my introduction to them; it was in the very specific context of Drama. What happened was that the students (9 females and 16 males) made a lot of jokes and comments while we were watching the movie, which was fine, and then during our discussion, they expressed shock that such a culture even existed within their culture. That was all to be expected, but then on my teaching evaluations, several of them wrote that they shouldn't have had to watch it because "it had nothing to do with English" and that it was a "bad movie." I now wonder, if they are reading about this University of Iowa case if they are thinking they could have refused to watch that movie they so disliked and if they could have made a similar case at BC. I was so surprised to read the evaluations, but I persisted in thinking it was a good thing I had shown it. Now I wonder though, since those students were very aware of themselves as consumers of education, if they won't be able to turn academia into a supply & demand market in which no one would choose to take a class billed as containing "unsettling" content. The department did not support those students, and as far as I know, the university didn't either, but there seems to be a wave of this kind of thinking (i.e., I'm paying $25,000 per year, and I don't want to support the teaching of this kind of material). Theresa Dolan