1. Man on the beat (26:07)

Date:
1955
Main contributors:
See Other Contributors
Summary:
"Typical incidents in the daily life of a city patrolman are used in explaining the role of the police force in protecting citizens and maintaining order in the community"-- Library of Congress National Union Catalog, 1953-1957; Volume 28. Motion pictures and filmstrips.

2. Nation's mental health (19:18)

Date:
1951
Main contributors:
See Other Contributors
Summary:
Training of doctors and psychiatric personnel in Topeka, Kansas ; methods of therapy ; work of the National Association of Mental Health in setting up community clinics.

3. Our enemy-- the Japanese (20:53)

Date:
1943
Main contributors:
See Other Contributors
Summary:
"Stridently anti-Japanese film that attempts to convey an understanding of Japanese life and philosophy so that the U.S. may more readily defeat its enemy. Depicts the Japanese as "primitive, murderous and fanatical." With many images of 1930s and 1940s Japan, and a portentious [sic] and highly negative narration by Joseph C. Grew, former U.S. ambassador to Japan."--Internet Archive.

4. Pack trip in Glacier National Park (15:12)

Date:
1958
Main contributors:
See Other Contributors
Summary:
A father and his two sons make a hike a demonstration of conservation and safety practices and introduces the viewer to plant and animal life, geological formations and the physical facilities of the park. A fish biologist working in the park talks to them and introduces the phases of his work.

5. The Constitution and censorship (28:52)

Date:
1957
Main contributors:
See Other Contributors
Summary:
Shows the relationship of the Constitution to the issue of prior restraint on freedom of expression. Presents the case of Burstyn v. Wilson challenging the constitutionality of New York State's film censorship system and Cantwell v. Connecticut involving questions of freedom of speech and religion. Discusses the questions pertaining to freedom of speech when multiplied via recordings or film, and how the claims of free expression can be weighed against claims for local, state, or federal protection.