This article originally appeared in the Northwestern Chronicle.
"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 Northwestern 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.
I took this class a few years ago and it was interesting. I enjoyed him as a teacher. He's certainly flawed in his conclusions at times, or at least controversial, but his idea of educating has always involved putting people in a situation they're not used to (if they so willfully choose). He offered to take my class to a transvestite show at a club in Boystown. Is he changing the world by offering these types of opportunities? No, probably not. But is there some academic or social value to be gotten from any of it? Sure, for some, maybe.
At the end of the day, I just can't possibly see how you can have an opinion unless you work for the school. Leave the decision of what's appropriate to them. To you, this is no different than this type of thing being displayed anywhere else (and it happens every day).
The author dismissively references the educational value of going to a strip club, but for an anthropologist (or, presumably, a social psychologist), it could teach you a lot (more so to go on your own and avoid the stir and disruption caused by an entire class walking in, of course). An astute ethnographer could make many useful observations about the monetization of sexuality, gender dynamics in the sex industry, and I'm sure several other subjects from such observation. Just because it's dirty doesn't mean it isn't educational.
On the other hand, it sounds like the professor in question created an event that was sexual for the sake of saying "hey, let's watch something sexual to see that things are like that and how we react." Maybe a waste of time, but it's entirely voluntary, non-class time, so who cares? I've been to dinner at professors' houses, and while the event served very little educational purpose, it was optional, and generally enjoyable. This shouldn't be a scandal.
As I said, I haven't been following this story, it sounds like the whole thing was badly handled. Whether or not it could have been treated more appropriately while retaining whatever specific value the professor saw in the specific acts demonstrated, I really couldn't say without being there, although it seems plausible. Thanks for taking the time to share, that cleared it up a bit for me.
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 attending 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”
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.
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.
The need for tenure was established to protect individuals from losing their jobs for advocating or discussing unpopular topics (e.g. Communist professors who were fired for simply being members of the Communist Party or for discussing Communism in a positive light in the classroom). It has nothing to with pushing the limits. It has to do with academic integity. (This is why then you don't have many Holocaust deniers teaching at univerities and why you would have trouble if there were. Their scholarship would not hold up. )
This is basically the Maury Povich show in a classroom at an overpriced college. People say it has value simply by the fact that it has shock value. But shock value may or may not have real value. Crush videos provide shock value but do they provide real value? Understanding that a woman who is an exhibitionist can get off with a weird sex toy manipuated by her boyfriend in front of a room full of 18-22 year olds does not really require seeing it done live.
Finally, as we all know college students are not really adults. Adults don't binge drink and throw up all over themselves or watch drunken boys gang rape a drunken girl or drink horse urine to get into a frat.
Second, Bailey offers his students an unique, out of textbook experience, which one seldom sees in academia. For years Bailey has pulled back the curtain for his students and offered them a glimpse into lifestyles that are diverse. This latest controversy has raised a healthy debate on many different levels and provided a learning experience for all. If nothing else, hopefully, Bailey's students will leave his class questioning norms and accepted attitudes that will serve them well in their careers and futures. There seems to be this stigma in society about asking "why not." DADT in the military, prohibition against same sex marriage, are just two examples of societal norms recently challenged that make no sense except to those who are uncultured, undereducated. Maybe if more of us started questioning the judgement of those in control our government would start being responsive to common sense and stop pandering to special interests the wealthy elite.
It's like if your boss says that he's having a barbeque at his house over the weekend, but that you can choose whether to come or not and you will not be punished if you don't show up....