Standard Changes in Moviemaking
Kerry Duke

Do you believe that life in America has changed—for the worse? Consider the following excerpts from the production code formerly used by moviemakers in Hollywood:

Crimes Against the Law

The techniques of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation.

Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.

The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld.

Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing.

Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated or justified, or presented attractively.

Scenes of passion should not be introduced when not essential to the plot.

In general, passion should so be treated that these scenes do not stimulate the lower and baser element.

Sex perversion or any inference of it is forbidden.

Vulgarity

The treatment of low, disgusting, though not necessarily evil subjects, should be subject to the dictates of good taste and regard for the sensibilities of the audience.

Obscenity

Obscenity in words, gestures, reference, song, joke or by suggestion is forbidden.

Dances

Dances which emphasize indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene.

Profanity

Pointed vulgarity or vulgar expressions, however used, are forbidden.

Costume

Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact or in silhouette, or any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture.

Dancing costumes intended to permit undue exposure or indecent movements in the dance are forbidden.

Religion

No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

Ministers of religion, in their character as such, should not be used as comic characters or as villains.

National Feelings

The use of the flag shall be consistently respectful.¹

What happened to this code? It was trashed in the rebellion of the sixties. A mindset with virtually no restraint took its place. The evils previously restricted by this code, which reflected our national conscience at the time it was in use, quickly became common screen entertainment during the sexual revolution of the seventies. When this production code met its demise, Jack Warner, owner of Warner Brothers Studios, said, "The studios now have clean toilets and dirty pictures."²

Today, decades later, we are reaping this corrupt fruit in full measure. Moviemakers and television producers with few exceptions are without conscience. Respect and decency have disappeared from the tube and screen, and about the only effective way to curb what is shown is to use the on/off button or to be extremely selective at theaters.

How suddenly and drastically a society can change! And even sadder is the fact that once such a shift has occurred, it is often impossible to reverse it.

The only hope for society is the salt that preserves it (Matt. 5:13). How that salt operates in individual lives is especially clear in two passages. One is Ephesians 5:11: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." The other is Isaiah 33:15, where the prophet describes a righteous man as one who "shutteth his eyes from seeing evil." The production code no longer exists, but this last verse is the viewing code of the Christian.

Endnotes
¹Gene Wolfenbarger, When Hollywood Says Yes How Can America Say No?, pp. 230-232.
²Ibid., p. 184.

Colleges and College Presidents
Malcolm L. Hill

What is the most important institution on earth? Anyone that has read the Bible and understands the fundamentals of it knows that the most important institution on earth is the Lord’s church. Notice I did not say just any church but I said the Lord’s church. This is the only one that He knows anything about and the only one he built (Matt. 16:18).

Many members of the church understand its value. I would like to think that most presidents of our "Christian" colleges and universities understand the value of the church of Christ. If they do not, then they do not need to be presidents of Christian institutions. If, therefore, the presidents of these Christian institutions understand the value of the church of Christ, then pray tell me why they put up with what is taking place in these institutions. They permit false teachers and false doctrines to be taught on campus. They even invite (or permit to be invited) non-Christians to come and speak for various events. To my knowledge there is not a school of higher learning, except one, that has not invited false teachers to be on its lectureship program. Thus these college presidents not only allow false doctrine to be taught on campus but they invite the wolves in which publicizes them and gives them a recommendation to an unknowing and innocent brotherhood.

Now all of us understand that the church is not a Christian school and a Christian school is not the church. But many of our preachers, elders, deacons, and members have been trained at "Christian" institutions. What they are taught at these schools is what, for all practical purposes, they are teaching now. Innocent mothers and dads sacrifice sweat, blood, and tears to get their children a Christian education and what do they get in turn? In many cases the children are sent to school with a strong conviction in Christ and the church. They have been taught the basic fundamentals of the Gospel of Christ while at home but many of the very important fundamentals they learned at home are taken away from them while at the "Christian" colleges or universities.

Someone is quick to deny this and is ready to say that this is just not so. But be careful before you make a quick statement like this. Not too long ago my wife and I kept a student overnight that was in attendance at Harding University. I talked with the young lady about Christian education. She told us that she used to understand what the church was and what Christianity embraced. But she said that since she had been at Harding University the teachers had so confused her that she did not know what to believe. How horrible! How sad! So when Christian parents send their children to our "Christian" universities do not be surprised if they come out with non-biblical positions and poisonous doctrines and, may I add, all mixed up religiously.

If the college and university presidents loved the church like they should, there would be a good housecleaning taking place in them. Someone says if this took place it would close them down and they would go out of business. Frankly, I do not know what would take place but even if it did close the doors of every "Christian" university among us, so be it. We would be better off without them than to have them wrecking the faith of our young people and then turning them loose on the brotherhood to sow discord and false doctrine within the body of Christ. There is nothing in this world as important as the Truth of the Bible (John 8:32). Money is not as important as the Truth. Universities and religious schools are not as important as the Truth. The glory of the world is not as important as the Truth. Being accepted is not as important as the Truth. Great buildings and beautiful campuses are not as important as the Truth. Worldly wisdom and materialism are not as important as the Truth. Let me emphasize again, there is nothing as important as the Truth of the Bible!

I am the President of Tennessee Bible College and I can state a fact without boasting. I would not put up with some of the false teachers that are in our so called Christian universities for even one second. They would either repent or be fired if they were found to be at Tennessee Bible College. Someone is ready to say, "This would close the doors of our ‘Christian’ universities." The church would be better off without them than with them if they are going to teach false doctrine and help wreck the church of the living God. It is my honest conviction that our Christian schools are gone—and I am speaking of our schools of higher learning—and they will never return.

I hope I am wrong but I believe I am right. It would have been better if those who have led them astray had never been born (Matt. 18:6).

Tennessee Bible College is on the Truth and following it. We have no intentions of becoming liberal in doctrine and teaching no matter what. I had rather be right as the President and see her doors close than see her wrong with all the money she needs and the doors open. God help us to love the Truth of the Bible.

Jeremiah the Prophet
M. Hill

All the prophets of the Old Testament were great, but I suppose all of us have a particular prophet that we love and appreciate most. I love and appreciate Jeremiah. He preached for more than forty years but did not have much response. He did have response but it was of the wrong kind.

The people of Jeremiah’s day were given to sin and wrongdoing. Jeremiah preached to them about their religious failure and apostasy (Jer. 19:4-5; 5:30-31; 7:18). He preached to them about oppressing the poor (Jer. 5:28). The people would not do justice (Jer. 7:5).

In Jeremiah’s day immorality was running rampant (Jer. 3:8; 2:33). What did Jeremiah do to try and get the nation right? He preached his heart out. He called on them to repent of their evil (Jer. 4:14). He warned them that if they did not repent, then God would visit them for their wickedness.

Most of Jeremiah’s preaching was negative and the people had a great distaste for it. They tried to get rid of the faithful prophet. They tried to close his mouth. They scorned and ridiculed him. He did not receive any encouragement for his faithful preaching. Little did Jeremiah know that he would affect millions and millions in doing what was right. While the faithful prophet lived the people tried to make his life miserable but now he is greatly appreciated.

“If Ye Bite and Devour...”
Franklin Camp [deceased]

"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed" (Gal. 5:15).

The language used by Paul indicates the differences among the Galatians had turned into a word battle. Here is Thayer’s definition of "bite": "To wound the soul, cut, lacerate, rend with reproaches."

There are two ways of fighting. Paul told Timothy to "fight the good fight of faith" (I Tim. 6:12). James also speaks of fighting (James 4:2). The kind James refers to differs from the good fight of faith. The fight James condemns is a fight of the flesh, controlled by lust of the flesh. The Judaizers were fighting a fleshly battle. Words may wound as well as swords and knives. When we lay aside faith and allow the flesh to control our tongues and pens, it sends forth words which wound the soul. Cutting words can be sharper than a knife.

The Context

The false teachers which followed Paul were being controlled by the flesh rather than the faith of Abraham. Flesh is used eighteen times in Galatians. The Judaizing teachers thought that having Abraham's blood and living by a perverted interpretation of the law was the way of salvation. This opened the door for the flesh to control their words and their actions.

The false apostles in Corinth accused Paul of "purposing according to the flesh and walking according to the flesh" (II Cor. 1:17; 10:2). They were guilty of the charge they made against Paul. Paul agreed he lived in the flesh but denied he fought according to the flesh (II Cor. 10:2-5). Paul was facing the same problem in the churches of Galatia.

The fourth chapter of Galatians closes with a contrast between Abraham’s sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac was a son of faith, Ishmael a son of the flesh. Ishmael, in persecuting Isaac, was symbolic of the Judaizer living according to the flesh. The Judaizing teachers were living according to the flesh like Ishmael, even though they were Abraham’s descendants through Isaac. They belonged to the family of Abraham through Isaac but were walking according to the flesh like Ishmael. One may be Abraham’s spiritual seed by faith (Gal. 3:26-29), and then walk according to the flesh. Some in the churches of Galatia were being hindered by the false teachers and walking according to the flesh (Gal. 5:7).

We do not have to be Abraham’s fleshly descendants to walk according to the flesh. "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:5). Living according to the flesh is a mental attitude. The mind is set on things of the flesh. Living is self-centered instead of Christ-centered. Such individuals are governed by self interest. Here is the source of biting and devouring one another. The cause of brethren biting and devouring one another is letting the flesh control their thinking.

The Contrast

The attitudes of faith and flesh are contrasted in Galatians 5:13-15. The fleshly mind controlled their action instead of a heart filled with faith and love.

Look at an example where love controlled: "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common" (Acts 4:32). This is a far cry from the Galatians biting and devouring. What made the difference in the church in Jerusalem and the churches of Galatia? The church in Jerusalem was "serving one another with love" (Gal. 5:13). Their faith was coupled with love (Gal. 5:6). It is one thing to defend the faith and another to do it in love. Every defender of the faith claims to be doing it in love. Declaring it is done in love does not make it so. I am sure the Judaizing teachers would have claimed they were defending the law in the correct way. If the law had been in effect (which was not the case), they were violating the law of love (Lev. 19:18). Instead of loving, they were biting and devouring. This ought to be a warning to us.

The Consequences

Verses 19 through 21 list the works of the flesh. There is surely a connection between the biting and devouring in verse 15 and the works of the flesh which follow. Error and falsehood are not the only things which divide the church. Look at some of the works of the flesh, "enmities, strife, jealousies, factions, divisions, parties," ASV. The NKJ renders it, "hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies." Can we deny these are found in the brotherhood? Honesty must admit they are. What is their source? It is the flesh. When congregations meeting in the same cities, teaching the same way of salvation and worship, are biting and devouring one another and refusing to fellowship one another, the flesh is in control. I am not speaking of churches which have departed from the faith.

Notice the last listed is heresies. Here is a reference to a self-chosen opinion. Seeking to bind opinions on the brotherhood comes from fleshly minds.

What are the consequences? Good brethren are abused, slandered and misrepresented. Ugly words, a manifestation of ugly attitudes, splinter the church. The plea of the church for unity is ridiculed by the world. Even sadder is that "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:21).

There may be occasions when it is necessary to name someone. Paul did on occasion. This was the exception. The word he used most of the time was "some." We could profit by following his example.

The Cure

The Bible never condemns an evil without offering a cure. What is the cure for biting and devouring one another? Paul gives the answer three times in the book:

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. . .and they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. . .But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. (Gal. 2:20; 5:24; 6:14)

There is no other cure for the works of the flesh. Look at the first quotation. "I am crucified with Christ." The "I" must be crucified. The crucifixion of self is the place to begin in curing biting and devouring. Crucifixion of the old man does not mean one is no longer in the flesh. It reflects the truth that one lives by faith instead of letting the flesh control. Christ lives in the ones who are crucified. It is impossible to think of Christ biting and devouring. Before we use Matthew 23, where Christ called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, there are two things we need to remember. First, Christ could read the hearts and motives of men. We cannot. Second, Christ looked upon them with a broken heart (Luke 19:41). When we say harsh and unkind things of others, are we speaking from a breaking heart?

Consider the second time Paul wrote of crucifixion. "And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts" (Gal. 5;2):

"Affections" are passive susceptibility to evil impressions; "lusts" active—desire for that which is forbidden. (Ellicott)

This is directly connected with the works of the flesh, which include biting and devouring.

Verse 26 strikes a key note. "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another" (Gal. 5:26). The NKJ has "conceited" instead of vain glory. The desire for recognition does not die easily. Crucifixion is necessary to put an end to it. How many ugly words have been spoken and written because of the desire for recognition? Look at Paul, the proud Pharisee. Then view him crucified with Christ. Ponder carefully these words from his pen, "unto me, who am less than the least of all saints" (Eph. 3:8). Paul saw his life in the light of the Sinless Son of God. The brightness of that light stamped on his heart his own unworthiness. Self-righteousness was crucified and the righteousness of the cross recast his life and attitudes.

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Gal. 6:14). The glory of the cross is the opposite of vain glory. The cross of Christ is the only thing to rid the soul of self. Biting and devouring will continue until the cross leads us to crucify self and give our all for His glory. Observe that Paul mentions a double effect of his being crucified. The world was crucified to him. It lost its appeal. He was crucified to the world. The cross he proclaimed was an offense to many in the world. The cross was the center of his preaching, even though "it was foolishness to them that perish" (I Cor. 1:18). When the cross becomes our glory, we will cease biting and devouring. The cross appreciated and applied to life will put an end to biting and devouring. Let us focus our attention on the cross and, like Paul, glory in it instead of seeking vain glory, which is a curse to a great brotherhood. Let us crucify self and cease crucifying one another. Discussion can be profitable if it is done in love and kindness, searching for truth, not victory. Honest hearts studying together can edify. Vilifying one another creates more heat than light.

Government Funds and Brotherhood Woes
Kerry Duke

One of the most long-standing and difficult challenges of brotherhood schools is funding. Education, especially higher education, is expensive. Funds are constantly needed for property, buildings, libraries, salaries, utilities, and other numerous expenses. Most members of the church have no idea of how much money is needed to operate a school. They have even less an idea as to how and where to get these funds.

So where does a school designed to train Christian workers get its financial support? Many generous Christians and churches continue to support brotherhood schools financially. Support from this sector, however, has not been deemed sufficient by some school administrators in terms either of amount or timing. The result has been that administrators in many of our schools have turned to another source of financial support: the government, both on a federal and state level.

Government funding of schools, especially institutions of higher education, has existed virtually since the beginning of our republic in the form of land grants and other donations. Today, government funding of colleges and universities amounts to billions of dollars annually. These schools receive government subsidy for buildings, research, and numerous expenses as well as government-subsidized school loans which account for a substantial part of total government funding for higher education.

Of course, when the government allocates funds of any kind, it does so on the basis of some standard of assessment, and so it is with funding for education. Neither federal nor state governments will release funds toward education unless the educational goals and practices of a particular school adhere to those of the government asked to fund it. It is quite naive to assume that a college or university can be subsidized by the government without satisfying the requirements of government. In the inception of such government subsidizing of colleges in this country, the government of the United States was composed of newly liberated men whose fresh beginning left them less disposed to scrutinize the use of funds to colleges. Also, the general character of people may be said to have been more honest and dependable so that such monitoring was not necessary as it is now perceived to be. And it is true that government funding has provided opportunities for many students that might not otherwise have been available.

But the price universities have paid for this subsidy is great. In order to monitor schools receiving government subsidy the government uses accrediting agencies. These agencies are not government agencies but are associations used by the government to keep a check on schools receiving these funds. So in order to maintain government funding, schools must satisfy the requirements of accrediting bodies. Such a system may seem reasonable and good at first thought. But the results of this arrangement have not even proved to be good for non-religious universities. The subsidized schools have surrendered a significant measure of their freedom. They must submit to accreditation associations or endanger their government support. Universities thus are quick to advertise that their programs are accredited, and many are gullible enough to believe that mere accreditation ensures academic excellence. In fact, the loss of freedom caused by this system of support often means just the opposite. Though accreditation is paraded as a prestigious mark to those outside the school, it frequently causes lack of creativity and encourages mediocrity in education.

It is contrary to experience and good sense to think that government money will come with no strings attached. "Whom the gods subsidize, they also control" is an old saying of those who have observed the effects of government subsidy on education. The control government wields over schools today through accrediting agencies is alarming. One college official wrote that recent legislative actions

. . .have given bureaucrats all the excuse and legal ammunition they need not only to try to micro-manage the day-to-day affairs of public and private campuses, to conduct vague antidiscrimination fishing expeditions, and to operate in a climate of perpetual suspicion, but also to redefine radically the terms on which all colleges and universities must operate. "Toe our line, or we will take away your funds," the regulators say. It is scarcely possible to pose a more naked threat. They might as well announce, "You take our money, so we own you," to colleges and universities. What is especially galling about this is that "our money" means money that really belongs to you and me. When the government gives it back to us, it comes not with strings attached, but with chains.¹

In light of these observations, it is good to add that "public" schools are not as much public schools as government schools. Of course, government control of education is so great today that this is true at all levels, whether in grammar schools, high schools, or universities. This control because of subsidy creates a vicious cycle of expenditures and requests for more government aid. The amount of time, personnel, and money needed to satisfy regulators is enormous:

Government regulations. . .are like quicksand: always unpredictable and always shifting, since federal bureaucrats are constantly re-writing and reinterpreting them. Most campuses have to hire a full-time staff of attorneys and "compliance officers" whose only job is keeping up with the latest edicts from Washington, D.C., and the mountain of paperwork that accompanies them.²

The result of this intervention is that

. . .colleges and universities have turned away from instruction of students in favor of a federally-financed research mission and have, thereby, increasingly become creatures of the state rather than self-sustaining, independent bases of thought and criticism. . .fifty years of enhanced federal funding of universities has guided the growth of the general framework of higher education, redirected the efforts of faculty, diminished the capacity for independent action by administrators, and has likely promoted disciplinary ossification and nurtured rank utilitarianism in place of the search for the fundamentals of critical inquiry.³

The pressures placed on schools by accrediting agencies are sometimes subtle and at other times direct. The effects of their regulations may appear immediately or they may occur gradually. But in any case the effects are real. Even seemingly "indirect" sources of government funding have been used as leverage to control schools. Michigan’s Hillsdale College is a good example. Hillsdale has never been federally subsidized. However, at one time it did permit students to use government loans to attend there. Regulators told Hillsdale officials that adjustments would have to be made to their school. Hillsdale administrators responded that they were under no obligation to obey the dictates of regulators in this matter because Hillsdale does not receive government subsidy. But the regulators argued that since students at Hillsdale were using government loans to pay the college, Hillsdale was receiving government money indirectly and therefore the government had the right to demand changes. This dispute led to a court case that lasted for years. Hillsdale lost the case. Their example should serve as a lesson when politicians push the proposed voucher system.

The Southern Regional Education Board revealed this agenda in the publication "Linking Higher Education Performance Indicators to Goals" (February 2000). Neither the "performance indicators" nor the "goals" are those of individual colleges or universities; they are those of regulators, and it is clear in this booklet that the real link—the missing link—is the one between regulatory standards and government money. The well-known accrediting agency Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is cited as requiring "institutional effectiveness" in order for a school to receive accreditation. Now think of the arrogance of this demand in regard to Christian colleges. Who are these people to decide what constitutes "institutional effectiveness" in a school that is supposed to train students to be Christians? Who are these non-Christian regulators to tell schools how to train men to preach the Gospel? How patently absurd this affair is, and yet brethren have been willing to swallow this line in order to receive money from the government! The report goes on to say:

Accrediting agencies list the following measures that frequently are used to assess institutional effectiveness:

the percentage of entering students who return for their sophomore, junior, and senior years and who complete degrees;

students’ achievements in general education and in their majors;

surveys of students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with their academic programs;

opinions from students, alumni and employers about the quality of graduates;

job placement rates of graduates;

the number of students admitted to graduate and professional schools and their performance in these schools;

the percentage of students who transfer and how they perform after transferring; and

recognition by outside sources of students’ and graduates’ achievements.

Accreditation and program reviews also call for information about faculty qualifications; the number of student credit-hours produced; enrollment trends; the number of degrees awarded; ratios of students to faculty members; faculty members’ research and public service activities; and the adequacy of classrooms, library facilities, student services, and other support services.

Now consider a brotherhood school under these criteria. Take faculty qualifications as an example, particularly those in the Bible and Preaching Departments. The number one qualification of these men in God’s sight is knowledge of the Bible. Does anyone think that this knowledge is the top priority of regulators? Accrediting agencies are far more pleased when a faculty member holds a degree from an infidel school like Harvard or Yale. Consider also the criterion for "faculty members’ research and public service." Now accrediting agencies are not impressed when these same faculty members stand against sin and error and cause a stir in the community like the ones Jesus and Paul caused (Luke 23:5; Acts 14:1-7). Consider too the criterion based on "students’ perceptions of and satisfaction with their academic programs." Any wise teacher will be willing to listen to input from conscientious students, but the practical result of this criterion is that students can easily gripe and rebel, and administrators lose their disciplinary authority.

Some brethren will no doubt say that these scenarios are exaggerated. But here is a challenge: find just one university in the brotherhood that is federally funded and yet has not given in to the current liberal movement! These schools have long since left the design of their founders. If David Lipscomb were alive, he could not even get a job as a professor at the school named after him! Yes, brotherhood universities may argue that accrediting agencies do not exert pressure to compromise, but the results argue differently. The compromise may be gradual and subtle, but it is real. G. K. Wallace warned decades ago that:

The qualifications of Bible teachers in our Bible departments are being set up by a group or men who know little about the Bible and care less. . .Most of our administrators and members of the Board of Directors are aware of this problem but they are so afraid of the rulings and regulations of the Accrediting Association that they are paralyzed. It does not take a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, nor dresser of sycamore trees to see where this leads.⁴

If anyone is still unconvinced, consider some revealing statements in the Southern Regional Education Board’s report:

States increasingly link performance indicators to budgeting and resource allocation. . .Information on performance is considered in deciding whether to provide funding to continue programs or to develop new ones. . .policy makers continue to. . .debate whether the additional funding is sufficient to motivate institutions to change their policies and practices.

Educational institutions which tie themselves to the government in this manner necessarily connect themselves to the corrupting influence of the government. Government interest in education is about money and power. Brethren who have played this game have paid the price and have sold out the greatest institution on earth: the Lord’s church.

But do we not need agencies to monitor schools so we can know which ones are offering the education they claim to offer? Such a question ought to insult the intelligence of any decent citizen. Freedom in education is one of our most fundamental liberties. People have enough sense to know whether or not a school is giving them the education they pay for and desire. Americans voiced their opposition to socialized health care in 1994; why is socialized education any different?

Let the brethren decide whether or not a school is worthy of support, and let their decision be based on the Bible. Let school officials make their decisions to please God, not man. Let the school die rather than to become the pawn of infidels. And pray fervently to God that our freedom to have our own schools will not be taken from us.

Endnotes
¹George Roche, The Fall of the Ivory Tower (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1994), p. 130.
²Ibid., pp. 178-179.
³John W. Sommer, ed., The Academy in Crisis (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995), pp. 3-4.
⁴G. K. Wallace, "Christian College Guidelines," Gospel Advocate, May 20, 1971.