Judge not, that ye be not judged. Matthew 7:1 KJV
Bearing those words in mind, I do not seek to dictate morality. I merely desire to promote constructive discourse on a matter that has garnered this University a great deal of attention recently.
I love liberty. I support an individual’s positive liberty to engage in a wide variety of sex acts in the privacy of their own home. I support an individual, if they so desire, to employ power-tools in their pleasure seeking activities. I even support those with exhibitionist aspirations to perform in a strip club or other appropriate venue. What I cannot support, however, is the infringement on the negative liberty of Northwestern University students to not be unduly coerced by a Professor into watching a sex act.
Universities must draw a line as to what is acceptable in the classroom. It goes even further to dictate what Professors are able to “teach” students – be it part of a course, adjunct to a course, or unrelated to that Professor’s field of expertise. It is for this reason that Professor Arthur R. Butz does not teach a seminar on Holocaust denial. It is the reason Professor Bernadine Dohrn does not promote a Weather Underground revivalist movement among the Northwestern student body. This line exists because of the coercive power held by Professors.
Professors are authority figures. Not only do they have direct authority over a student’s academic success, but they are also regarded as experts in their respective fields. An invitation to a sex show from a Professor has significantly more coercive pull than that same invitation from a non-authority figure. No amount of caveats and warnings can reduce the high esteem in which a student holds a Professor. Not only does this beg the question of whether or not this violated the University’s Sexual Harassment Policy (Pg. 46), as it clearly meets the standards of implicit coercion and matters of a sexual nature, but also where the boundaries lie for acceptable material in the classroom.
If this matter transpires without reprimand, the slippery slope leaves no telling what might be done next to “push the envelope”. Is a field trip to a strip club educational? How about an optional homework assignment for sexually active students to try a new sex act? Based on the current logic that experience is educational, there would be no reason to prevent those from being adjunct activities to a course. And while we are racking up experience, why not let Professor Butz give a lecture on the Holocaust (or lack thereof as he might say). Sure, it will offend some people – but we’ll just warn them in advance.
Overpriced selective Human Sexuality classes are exactly where questions about sexuality are relevant. That is the whole point no? Shame on Mr. McSmartypants for exposing your pubescent sensibilities to what truly happens when you’re playing Black Ops! Debate and discussion about the thrill, mystery, definition, and value of sex are vital to your development as a free-thinking individual, and there’s no better place to work that xxxx out than within an academic discipline devoted to systematic reason and rational argument. Polish your critical thinking. Develop your logic. Send your rational mind into war against the unanswerable question, why do so many implode over this topic. This isn’t about what you believe, It’s about advancing the level of sophistication of your belief.
Casey, are you kidding me? You just compared a professor showing a sexual demonstration (morally controversial, to be sure, but not in any way harmful)… to a professor teaching holocaust denial (which would be factually incorrect) or a professor involving her students in a radical movement that promotes destruction of public property (which would be factually harmful to the community). Your analogies are completely false.
Aside from that, where exactly is the coercion or sexual harassment here? He held an optional seminar that it seems like over 75% of the class chose not to attend. And several more left after warnings were given about what would be shown.
As to the questions you posed, a field trip to a strip club would be about as offensive as the demonstration, but to my knowledge, not illegal as long as everyone was of legal age and consented to going. Asking students to perform sexual acts on each other would clearly be crossing a line that neither the demonstration nor a strip club trip would cross.
Stop being so sensationalistic and get your head of your ass. Using extreme examples to make your point is careless, illogical and just plain lazy.
Coerced? Are you SERIOUS? Your op-ed is beautifully worded but HOLY SHIT is it under researched. The exercise was after class hours and entirely optional. The professor warned the students 10 times of the upcoming explicitness.
Props to my previous commenter. My sentiments exactly.
Reading all of the media reports, it seems to me no one was “unduly coerced by the professor into watching a sex act.” While I have mixed feelings about the fucksaw demonstration, it was done in full knowledge of the students, and among all consenting adults. The fact that only a sixth of the class was there, and no students, staff and presenters raised any complaints thus far, even after a week of the incident, goes to show that no one was “coerced.” And I’d like to give my fellow students more credit than to describe them as cowed people who bow to all authority figures. We deserve better than your disparaging comments. I can only conclude that your column is an assault on academic freedom and the liberty of students, teachers and consenting adults in doing what by all accounts is legal. I’d like my negative liberty to not have your prudish morality shoved down my throat.
So you’re saying that teaching anything beyond some ambiguous “line” of conservative morals would be an infringement on negative liberty?
But wait … that is what you’re saying!
Your logic is the most flawed I’ve seen in a long time. Separate from my objection to your opinion (although I do admit that would be a difficult jump into objectivity), the threads of logic in this article are so flawed, the facts so misinformed that I am … ugh. Wow. No words.
I also invite everyone to read the linked Sexual Harassment policy. And invite a competition to see if anyone could find a way this optional after-hours exercise that holds no weight in one’s grade could possibly violate this policy or be coercion.
This is an utterly ridiculous comparison. RIDICULOUS. Comparing a man who is very open and welcoming to people of all sexual practices and orientations who perhaps agreed to a presentation that was too explicit for the American public, is nothing compared to denying the holocaust. No one in the presentation complained, they were all warned, and it was not university funded. Sure it probably wasn’t smart, but what envelope is Bailey pushing? That there is sexual diversity and we should try to be accepting of that? that sexuality should not be shameful?
Additionally if you have taken the class you would know that we have watched numerous videos on masturbation, intercourse, arousal, etc that even more vividly showed us similar concepts. Sure it wasn’t in person, but it was a similar concept.
Also, Northwester allows sex week to bring in porn stars, to show pirate in tech (school sponsored), and much more, and here we are all thinking that the presentation is so shocking.
Well put, well written. Your article echoes what a lot of admin, faculty, and students feel. Flawed and inadequate research or not, I have a tough time buying into Bailey and his defenders’ side.
You also misuse the phrase “beg the question.” Just wanted to let you know. Journalism!
Although I fully understand the argument presented by this article, and I commend the journalist’s courage in openly disagreeing with a professor, I must express my own opinion regarding the article.
Buckley says that the students were coerced because of the authority inherent in the title of a professor. What he fails to mention, though, is that anyone so against such a controversial topic would not be taking such a course, nor would he or she willingly attend an optional seminar on “kinky sex”. The professor made it clear to students that all outside lectures had no effect on the students’ grades, nor would it impact his opinions of them. Therefore, they were literally at liberty to attend any or none of the lectures if they pleased. Casey Buckley asks what we would think if the professor assigned the students to perform a new sex act. But, as previously stated, the students were not even required to attend the demonstration, and indeed almost 500 of the 600 students in the class did not. Therefore the two situations cannot fairly be compared, as the circumstances are not equivalent.
Many people may think that the demonstration was “shocking” and that “experience is education” is just talk. What I want to know, then, is how those people explain a college chemistry class? Students experiment with potentially dangerous chemicals because to see the outcomes of certain actions and to learn first hand the consequences are invaluable, and, really, essential to the education of any student. Also, when a dissection is scheduled, are students permitted to abstain if they find the activity a violation of their personal beliefs? They are. Are they viewed any differently by professors? They are not. Are their grades affected? They are not.
Overall, though Casey Buckley makes a valid argument and is generally sound in his own opinions, I implore everyone to explore both sides to the story, and to attempt to see the value in such a demonstration. These students are not being forced to do anything they do not want to do, yet they chose to view the act and generally found it informative and educational. Should not we all learn something completely outside of the normal sundry slideshow once in a while? We should.
While I approve of the promotion of constructive discourse, it seems unfair to allege that this optional presentation was a breach of the University’s sexual harassment policy. According to the handbook, physical conduct of a sexual nature qualifies as harassment when it meets one of three conditions:
1. “Submission to such conduct is made or threatened to be made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual’s employment or education”
Professor Bailey made it clear that attending these after-class events would have no bearing on students’ grades, and that the covered material would not be included in any examinations.
2. “Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used or threatened to be used as the basis for academic or employment decisions affecting that individual”
No students stood to gain or lose anything by choosing to go to the lecture; students who did not attend the event (as well as those who chose to exit before the specific demonstration took place) did not face any repercussions or punishment.
3. “Such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s academic or professional performance or creating what a reasonable person would perceive is an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment, educational, or living environment”
On the contrary of interfering with an individual’s academic performance, the purpose for this demonstration was in fact an educational one. While there are certainly reasonable people who may find the demonstration offensive, Professor Bailey gave repeated warnings as to the event’s nature and urged attendees to leave if they felt uncomfortable. None of the students present have voiced complaints saying they felt the presentation was hostile or intimidating.
I still am not sure where I personally stand in this whole debate. However, regardless of how anyone may feel about Professor Bailey’s decision-making, claims about sexual harassment should be taken seriously and, in complex situations like this, made carefully.
I’m in the class and I find it funny that you mention a field trip to a strip club as the next level of inappropriateness because we got an email today from Bailey that there actually will be an OPTIONAL field trip to a gay night club next week. And as I was with the presentation, I am completely fine with it (I didn’t attend the presentation and won’t be attending next week’s field trip). Why? Because they are OPTIONAL and have ZERO impact on our grade. They are purely educational options designed to enhance our learning experience in the class and they are relevant to what we are studying.
Old news…
Real education requires exploration and questioning.
Hotel/Restaurant Management students do take fieldtrips to stripclubs, bars, casinos, naval ships, prisons, cafeterias, and the most respected hotels in the industry. They also, along with some other majors, take meat science. A class where the student is required to kill and butcher animals to learn the practice properly. Medical students practice procedures on real live people and film students watch movies.
A live sex demonstration in this class is shocking to people? I just assumed (and hoped for that matter) that live sex was part of this type of class. Assignment to go home and try a new sex act? Duh. I wouldn’t take the class unless the syllabus included that assignment.
Thank God this professor is serious and mature enough to have the proper content for his class. I will lose respect for Northwestern if they discipline him.
Zzzzzzzz old news.
Brilliant essay Casey. Sadly, many have indculturated into “all is permissible” under the guise of education and authority. Just like the frog placed in warm water, it will sit there as the water is heated incrementally, never jumping out even as the water approaches boiling and kills him.
I found it interesting that in most of the arguments advanced by supporters, they draw the line at “physical injury”…. as long as it doesn’t hurt. Interesting in that in a Psyche class, they apparently cannot entertain the concepts of spiritual or emotional injury.
There is in fact a coercive effect as you describe, for what is sanctioned by “esteemed others” is seldom rejected by the less experienced, less worldly, who aspire to be like them.
The masochist and sadist are nice complements to one another, often resulting in physical injury, which they find pleasurable. The argument that “we are all consenting” adults and public forays into these areas, by young, relatively inexperienced people, relies on the premise that our behavior does not effect others, that it occurs in a vacuum, not in a social context, that it never spills over into other arenas of the life of others or self.
Contrary to Bailey and supporters, who have seemed to rather easily latched onto the mantra “fear and negativity of sex”, there is also such a thing as obsession, addiction, narrow-minded focus, banality, with sex, all masquerading as “education”.
The stated reason, by Bailey himself, was to demonstrate female ejaculation. How was that singular objective documented and verified? From all accounts supplied to date, it was only by the female participant’s verbal assurance, rendering a “demonstration” of no value whatsoever.
Sex negativity? Maybe some of us just realize that on the grand scale of things, who has what orgasm by what means is probably of interest only to those who can’t/aren’t able to have orgasm by conventional means.
I applaud your ability to voice your opinion. Hedonism is a way of life for some, for sure. But hedonism is hedonism, not education.