This is going to be something of a longer post because I have included a couple of texts that matter to the topic. My apologies if my copying and pasting have made the extra text look strange, but it’s important to the story. Today we’re going to talk about a couple of words that have become buzz words in our universities and our society as a whole: open, and open-minded. Before I get too much further into this, let me paste here below a recent WGN news story that is the subject of my ramblings today.
EVANSTON, Ill. — Sex toys take center stage at Northwestern University after a couple demonstrated how an altered electric saw can be used for pleasure.
Students in psychology professor J. Michael Bailey's human sexuality class on February 21st were invited to the unusual post-class activity in which the man and woman demonstrated the use the sex toy and female orgasm.
About 100 students chose to attend the optional demonstration.
Bailey invited Ken Melvoin-Berg, a Chicago tour guide, to discuss human sexuality, fetishes, and female orgasm. He says, "Both Professor Bailey and myself gave them five or six warnings about what was about to happen and it would be graphic."
The woman undressed and got on stage with her male partner who penetrated the woman using an explicit sex device.
Melvoin-Berg says the couple enjoys having people watch them have sex, "It was a fun and educational experience," and the students, "seemed to be incredibly pleased. We had a number of them that got closer and closer."
Although the couple was not paid, Melvoin-Berg said he typically gets paid $300 to $500 for an hour-long lecture.
He declined to say exactly how much Northwestern has agreed to pay him.
Northwestern University Spokesman Al Cubbage confirmed that the university has agreed to pay Melvoin-Berg and released a statement, "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge."
Professor Bailey released a statement Wednesday night saying, "Do I have any regrets? It is mostly too early to say. I certainly have no regrets concerning …
Students in psychology professor J. Michael Bailey's human sexuality class on February 21st were invited to the unusual post-class activity in which the man and woman demonstrated the use the sex toy and female orgasm.
About 100 students chose to attend the optional demonstration.
Bailey invited Ken Melvoin-Berg, a Chicago tour guide, to discuss human sexuality, fetishes, and female orgasm. He says, "Both Professor Bailey and myself gave them five or six warnings about what was about to happen and it would be graphic."
The woman undressed and got on stage with her male partner who penetrated the woman using an explicit sex device.
Melvoin-Berg says the couple enjoys having people watch them have sex, "It was a fun and educational experience," and the students, "seemed to be incredibly pleased. We had a number of them that got closer and closer."
Although the couple was not paid, Melvoin-Berg said he typically gets paid $300 to $500 for an hour-long lecture.
He declined to say exactly how much Northwestern has agreed to pay him.
Northwestern University Spokesman Al Cubbage confirmed that the university has agreed to pay Melvoin-Berg and released a statement, "Northwestern University faculty members engage in teaching and research on a wide variety of topics, some of them controversial and at the leading edge of their respective disciplines. The university supports the efforts of its faculty to further the advancement of knowledge."
Professor Bailey released a statement Wednesday night saying, "Do I have any regrets? It is mostly too early to say. I certainly have no regrets concerning …
Ok, Bailey’s full statement is in a separate PDF document, and I’ll be referring to it. Let’s deal with the obvious. How do you argue against this? How do you say, “this is wholly inappropriate.” Our culture has made it so hard to do so successfully. If you are anything less than absolutely tolerant, even enthusiastic about even the most wild of ideas today, you are labeled as being “closed-minded,” “narrow,” “intolerant,” or “bigoted.” By inference then, being “open-minded,” “fare minded,” “broad-minded,” and even “innovative,” has come to mean embracing almost anything and everything actionwise or thoughtwise, anything at all. Now, I’m not a prude when it comes to sex. I don’t mind discussing it and contemplating it. I even think the church needs to say a bit more about it than it currently does, even within the context of marriage. Ask my exes, or ask Nicole if you don’t believe me. I say again, the topic of sex doesn’t discomfit me in the slightest. So then, reasons our culture, I should have no problem with Bailey’s after-class activities. On the contrary, I do.
Now he worms out of any trouble of course, because the activities were after class, optional, and according to his statement, not exam material of any kind. Fine. I’m not worried about legalities here. What concerns me is a notion that has disappeared from most of our public discussions and, it seems, from the psychology department at Northwestern, common decency. Even within a class devoted to human sexuality, there ought to be standards. This class’s aim is, allegedly, a serious attempt to examine the sexual behavior of humans. So fine, talk about sex toys, orgasms, even gay and transsexual behavior, and show powerpoints if you must, as he has. He could have even shown a porno flick and not gotten my blog response. But my friends and fellow readers, isn’t there a difference between showing a film or a PowerPoint or holding a discussion, and inviting two people to come on stage and have exhibitionist sex in front of a hundred eager, drooling students? I think there is a difference, quite a difference. And I haven’t even touched on the modified electric saw that was used as a toy, see the above headline.
Now let’s consider the professor’s own explanation of his actions. Below is his full statement issued to WGN News. Because of the pdf, I had to copy it word for word, so please do me the kindness of reading it:
I teach a large (nearly 600 person) human sexuality class at Northwestern university. During class I lecture about the science of sexuality. Many days after class I organize optional events. These events primarily comprise speakers addressing interesting aspects of human sexuality. This year, for example, we have had a panel of gay men speaking about their sex lives, a transsexual performer, two convicted sex offenders, an expert in female sexual health and sexual pleasure, a plastic surgeon, a swinging couple, and the February 21st panel let by Ken Melvoin-Berg on “networking for kinky people.” These events are entirely optional, they are not covered on exams, and I arrange them at considerable investment of my time, for which I receive no compensation by Northwestern University. The students find the events to be quite valuable, typically, because engaging people in conversation provides useful examples and extensions of concepts students learn about in traditional academic ways. I recruited Ken Melvoin-Berg, Ken MV henceforth, because past speakers had not been very interesting-they had merely given PowerPoint presentations, of which students get too many already. They were also unwilling to answer questions about their sex lives, which defeated the purpose of that particular presentation. I had met Ken and believe he is articulate, open, knowledgeable, entertaining, and, yes, kinky. Sexual diversity is surely a reasonable thing to address in a human sexuality class. I certainly had no hesitation inviting Ken MB, and I asked him whether he could recruit others as well to give the presentation. (I especially thought it would be useful to have a woman as well as a man). On the afternoon of February 21st Ken MB and colleagues arrived while I was finishing my lecture, on sexual arousal. I was talking about the female G-spot and the phenomenon of female ejaculation, both of which are scientifically controversial. I finished the lecture and invited the guests onstage. On the way, Ken asked me if it would be ok if one of the women demonstrated female ejaculation using the equipment they had brought with them. I hesitated only briefly before saying “yes.” My hesitation concerned the likelihood that many people would find this inappropriate. My decision to say “yes” reflected my inability to come up with a reason why students should not be able to watch such a demonstration. After all, those there had stayed for an optional demonstration about kinky sex and had been told explicitly what they were about to see. The demonstration, which included a woman who enjoyed public sexual interaction with a machine, surely counts as kinky and hence as relevant. Furthermore, earlier that day in my lecture I had talked about the attempts to silence sex research and how this largely reflected sex negativity. I have had previous experiences with these silencing attempts myself. I did not wish, and I do not wish, to surrender to sex negativity and fear. Ken MB and friends spoke to the class for a while and then informed the students they were about to perform their demonstration. The presentation seemed to have lasted about 5-10 minutes of their hour-long presentation. While I watched, I experienced some apprehension. None of this apprehension had to do with the possibility of harm to any observer, and none of it had to do with a lack of educational value. As I alluded, some experiences are educational and interesting in non-traditional ways. Rather, I was worried that there could be repercussions that would threaten the valuable speaker series I have built over the years.
Student feedback for this event (I routinely collect feedback for all events) was uniformly positive. Although most students mentioned the explicit demonstration—which they mostly enjoyed and thought was a singular college experience—most also said that the most valuable part was engaging in a dialogue with Ken MB et al. Do I have any regrets? It is mostly too early to say. I certainly have no regrets concerning Northwestern students who have demonstrated that they are open-minded grown-ups, not fragile children. I have not enjoyed the press, because I have assumed that reporters will sensationalize what happened and will not provide my side. A welcome exception to this, mostly, was the Daily Northwestern article. I suspect that my dean is not enjoying this publicity and I do not like displeasing my dean. TO the extent that this event provokes a discussion of my reasoning above, I welcome it. I expect many people to disagree with me. Thoughtful discussion of controversial topics is a cornerstone … [The PDF text is unreadable to me beyond this point, but this is also the end of the statement text].
Ok, in the best tradition of evenhandedness and collegial refutation, I’ve presented his side. His statement his there, his side shared. I’ve read it, I’ve thought about it, and what he did was still reprehensible professional behavior. Let’s take this discussion for a moment out of the realm of sex, which many people my age take a prurient interest in displaying, and make it relevant to my field. Let’s pretend that I’m not a doctoral candidate, but an assistant professor at my university, and let’s pretend that Andrea isn’t my doctoral advisor, but my dean in the college of liberal arts and sciences. She is, in fact, an assistant dean in LAS. Now let’s translate this event into something equivalent for German studies. Let’s suppose I want, in the course of a class on the holocaust, to talk about Nazi concentration camps and what went on in them. Well let’s think. I could lecture. I could show images, films and recordings. Check. I could bring in guest speakers and ask them to talk frankly about whatever may have happened to them in Dachau or Buchenwald. Check. I can bring in memorabilia, if available, old SS uniforms or a pistol from the period. And none would complain. Nor should they I’m sure. But suppose I did something like this: walk into class wearing the uniform of an SS Obersturmbannführer, replete with swastikas etc, and, as part of my lecture, hired people to come in, set up a scaled replica of a gas chamber and act out the rolls of SS guards and protesting Jews being beaten and forced into the chamber, and then play recorded screams and choking noises as the simulated gas jets begin to hiss. Would you be offended by that? Were you slightly disturbed at my description? I was mildly disturbed by what I just wrote, and I just wrote it! Now let’s imagine a possible conversation with my dean afterwards. She is one of the most innovative, and professional Germanisten I know. But somehow, I don’t think our conversation would be replete with praise for what I’d done. I think it likely that she would be offended, and if she were not, she would make me aware of many others, Germans, Jewish people, Germans of Jewish heritage, and many others, who were deeply offended by it. I would expect her to instruct me to issue a public apology, and it would not surprise me if I lost my job over it. It might not come to losing my job, but I would expect some form of censure. In actuality, I myself would be offended by a display like what I described, and the Nazi period is the period of German history that interests me most. So, why would I be offended then?
Probably for the same reason you might be. The display I just described is over the top. It’s extravagantly graphic and sensationally staged for shock value, gas chamber, screams, beatings, even if they’re mock beatings, and the SS uniform for good measure? Yes if Andrea saw me do that, even after class, I would likely get a thorough and precisely logical dressing down. Not, I repeat, because of the subject matter, the Nazis, gas chambers, concentration camps, and the brutalization of people in the Third Reich. These are legitimate topics of discussion and are still very much the subjects of scholarly study and are very much still lodged firmly in the collective memory of many peoples. No, the reason for my hypothetical censure would stem from the methods I used to make my point. One of the questions that the dean would ask me is undoubtedly, “now, was it really necessary to do all of that in order to discuss this?” And I would have to answer, “nein.”
Now let’s return to Professor Bailey’s area of expertise, sex. Granted, this is a class whose aim is to discuss and explore human sexuality. In principle I’m not bothered by that. I’m also not bothered by Bailey’s wish to explore non-traditional i.e. kinky sex. I’m not sure I’d cover some of those topics myself were it my class, but it’s not my class. What bothers me here is, just as with the example I depicted from my own field, the overly extravagant and kitschy display. Bailey himself says at a number of points in his statement that he hesitated before allowing the display to go on. Let’s think about why that might have been. He claims that he was hesitant because, “I was worried that there could be repercussions that would threaten the valuable speaker series I have built over the years.” What sort of repercussions? Objections such as the one I’m making? Undoubtedly. Most university ethics codes, including the University of Illinois’s and Northwestern University’s, include language that tell you to avoid activities which, while being within the letter of the law, might bring disrepute or the appearance of impropriety or the appearance of illegality down on yourself or your university. This language is there to warn people such as professor Bailey. He might win any legal contest arising from what he’s done, but he’s certainly, as he somewhat acknowledges, dragged his department, his dean, his university, and his university president kicking and screaming into the spotlight. Were I his dean, I’d be thoroughly upset about it. I bet he didn’t ask his dean for an opinion before doing this too. Now then, I notice that the president of Northwestern has launched an investigation into the matter. This article appeared today, March 3, in the Chicago Sun Times:
Brad, Prof. Bailey said his students "enjoyed it and thought it was a singular college experience". He said that Northwestern students have demonstrated that they are open-‐minded grown ups rather than fragile children.
The university supports Prof. Bailey's efforts to further the advancement of knowledge :O Can we only see this in private schools?? I love Northwestern :D”
The university supports Prof. Bailey's efforts to further the advancement of knowledge :O Can we only see this in private schools?? I love Northwestern :D”
Now in all this talk about the subject, I have not, as yet, come to the Christian side of things. I don’t presume that any of my readers are Christians, aside from those I know to be so, and I could not use Christian arguments to persuade them. Nor can I censure this professor as a Christian, because I don’t know that he’s a believer, and you cannot logically or fairly expect a non-Christian to behave like a Christian. However, now I’m going to switch modes and bring the Christian element into this conversation. Let’s leave aside the whole, “no sex before marriage argument.” It’s not really relevant here, since this couple could’ve been married. They’re not, but again we’ll leave that be. Let’s ask ourselves, what sort of message are we sending people about sex? What place does it have or what value are we assigning to it today?
It seems to me that we have observed a moral shift, almost an inversion, concerning the subject of sex over the last half century. In the 1950’s, we saw an extreme of silence. It wasn’t really talked about, contemplated, or studied much. The McKinsey report issued in 1949 shows that most Americans of the day were sexually unaware and uninformed. It was very much a taboo subject. Then, starting in the 60’s, we saw a shift in attitude towards discussing sex, the sexual revolution, rated R movies, etc. I could write pages on that, but I won’t. Suffice it to say, sex became an acceptable thing to talk about, write about, sing about, display in film, and it got into our classrooms. With this more open discourse on sex came a slackening, almost a disappearance, of any moral consensus on the subject. And that has continued to today. In fact, we have taken the matter to the other polar extreme. Now, nothing is too out there, too radical to be displayed in the most open and unabashed fashion. Needless to say, as a society we have wholly done away with any moral notions about sex. Even abstinence, even when discussed solely as a means of STD prevention and not as any sort of moral decision, is largely no longer talked about. Instead, schools hand out condoms and some high schools will even dispense birth control, so I’ve heard. And what sort of people does this climate produce? Well, the short answer is people like Professor Bailey, Jim Marcus and Faith Kroll. People who have not only abandoned any sense of the sanctity for the act of sex or the appropriateness and decency standards, even the minimal ones, we once observed, but people who will lower it to the level of B-rated film, produced for trashy sensation and shock value. My girlfriend said it best not too long ago, “I just wonder why everything has to be extreme. It's either, sex is a bad word and we must not ever mention it for fear of corrupting our minds, or let's display sex to the world. … I mean, it's especially sending young people the wrong message. Teens and young adults are at the point where it's time to make up their minds about their beliefs, whatever they may be, but how can they do that when our society is so skewed? People wonder about the rising rate of teen parenthood or other similar evils...look what we're advertising.” What we’re advertising indeed.
I’m not sure what constitutes an adequate closing statement here. But I take this whole episode as representative of America’s utter lack of a moral compass. It’s crept into the academy too it seems. Or should we not take Professor Bailey’s actions as representing the general tendency of our higher ed institutions. Perhaps I should show this blog entry to a few trusted professors and get their opinions. As for what President Schapiro ought to do, well, everyone’s going to have an opinion on that, and I’m not different. I think at the very least, a public apology is in order, and it would be advisable for this professor’s teaching assignments not to include this course in future. Should he be dismissed? Possibly. It depends on how much of a breach of ethics the president sees this as being. But let’s say that if he were dismissed, I’d have no sympathy for him. None. Now then, your comments should prove interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment