As the Columbia faculty and administration tie themselves in knots trying to denounce Nicholas De Genova's "million Mogadishus" comment while still upholding the sacred value of academic freedom and respecting the First Amendment, it's worth looking at how other schools are handling the complex issues that arise when faculty--and sometimes students--act and speak in ways that embarrass schools and outrage taxpayers.

At Irvine Valley College, the vice president of instruction sent an email memo to department deans advising teachers not to talk about the war in their classrooms. The memo stated that spending class time talking about the war would be "professionally inappropriate if it cannot be demonstrated to this office that such discussions are directly related to the approved course materials." The memo, which administrators insist is neither a ban on war talk nor a threat to discipline those who do not follow it, was issued after several students complained that their instructors were voicing anti-war opinions in the classroom. Administrators say the memo was a reminder to faculty to stay on topic in their courses and to be sensitive to the fact that their students' views may differ from their own. But faculty are calling the advisory an attack on academic freedom. Here's the Reuters report, the AP report, and the piece in the Orange Country Register.

At Arizona State, a new honor code has been instituted that requires students engaged in extracurricular activities to behave with "honor, dignity and integrity." The honor code was created in response to a particular public relations disaster last fall, in which ASU student Brian Buck appeared in a pornographic film that was shot on campus (Maurice Black wrote up the details on Critical Mass last fall). Though Buck broke no laws, ASU threw the book at him, forcing him to resign from his elected position as vice president of student government, sentencing him to community service, forbidding him to continue living on campus, and requiring him to write a letter about integrity. The only reason ASU is not currently being sued by Buck is that he dropped his lawsuit in order to finish school and move on with his life. But ASU is undeterred in its quest to compel students to behave as good little organization men and women, and so has created an honor code that essentially allows the school to sanction any student involved in an extracurricular activity who acts in any way the school does not like. Such acts could include being a vocal activist, getting drunk at a party, or working at a strip club.

ASU students are having none of it. Yesterday the student paper ran two pieces on the code, one an informational feature article (linked above) and the other a staff editorial, both arguing the the honor code's overbroad language has an essentially repressive function and suggesting that the code could be used to punish students for exercising their constitutional rights. The student senate is currently issuing a bill condemning the code for trampling student rights to free speech and due process.

Finally, the Kansas state legislature voted last Wednesday to require public universities to ban the purchase and display of "obscene" material. The ever-ambiguous "community standards" are to be invoked to determine what is and is not obscene, and what does and does not have educational value. University departments found in violation of the ban risk losing all of their state funding. The bill was introduced as an addendum to the state budget for next year, and was inspired by Republican State Senator Susan Wagle's belief that a human sexuality course that has been taught at Kansas for twenty years by social welfare professor Dennis Dailey is "obscene" and should not be funded by the taxpayer. Say what you want about Dailey's course--which enrolls 500 students every time it's taught and which has consistently been one of the most popular courses on campus. You may think it crosses the line with its use of explicit videos and photos of children's genitals; you may think it sounds more like a course in group sex therapy than an academic class. But whatever you think of the award-winning Dailey's pedagogy, one thing is clear: the content and conduct of the classroom at Kansas state schools are now in the hands of the state legislature rather than the hands of the professors who teach the courses. Not good for education, not good for academic freedom, and very probably not properly mindful of the First Amendment.

"....an honor code that essentially allows the school to sanction any student involved in an extracurricular activity who acts in any way the school does not like. Such acts could include being a vocal activist, getting drunk at a party, or working at a strip club."

This reminds me of the case of Leilani Rios, the Cal State-Fullerton athlete who got kicked off her track team for working as a stripper. In a statement, her coach claimed her job "would detract from the image and accomplishments of her teammates, the athletics department and the university." When Playboy did an article on her, she said that "everybody on the team had to sign a code of conduct, saying that on and off the field we would represent Cal State Fullerton in a positive way." So yes, codes like this can be enormously repressive.

The Supreme Court has a three-point test for obscenity:

1) A thing must be prurient in nature.

2) A thing must be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value.

3) A thing must violate the local community standards.

To be considered obscene, material must meet all three of these tests. Surely Kansas can claim that classroom teaching materials have "educational value" and are therefore exempt?

Will this ban on "obscene" material prevent English professors from teaching books such as Lady Chatterley's Lover or Ulysses? By Kansas community standards, the answer is probably yes.

It's worth noting that liberals endorse academic freedom and the First Amendment only when it suits their political or intellectual interests. They'll defend to the death their right to propound anti-war opinions in the classroom, to assign sexually-charged material in courses (my school offered an "English" class on Victorian pornography), or to teach worthless pop culture classes for credit, but they couldn't give a hoot when fraternities, conservatives, religious groups, and the military get denied their rights to free expression. Faculty won't get any credit from me until they start protecting academic freedom across the board. Until that happens, I see them protecting only their own liberal (or, very occasionally, conservative) interests.

Charles --

I object to the axiomatic logic that effectively dignifies with the mantle of "educational value" anything a professor might exhibit in a classroom. Pictures of children's genitalia may have educational value when studied by pediatricians and other health professionals, but when presented alongside explicit homoerotic pornography they're most certainly obscene and illegal.

Jane

I'm with Ms. Jaworski.

It's simply disingenuous to declare pictures of naked children as one step removed from Lady Chatterly's Lover and Ulysses. And even if those books were to be deemed inappropriate for a department receiving public funds in Kansas, I fail to see how Kansans, as represented by their... umm... representatives, ought to be obligated to pay $3.1 million to a department that promotes material to which they object. Professor Dailey is free to relocate... or find $3.1 million elsewhere. As for the student "reality porn" star, as I recall, his appearance was explicitly contextualized in his status as a student.

There are a whole lot of colleges and universities in this country. I see no reason that Manhattanite mores ought to be required to be the standard for them all. If you want your children to have the opportunity to participate in on-campus porno and view naked third-graders, send them elsewhere.

One more thing about Dailey: the longevity of a course and peer accolades are hardly justifying guidelines, these days, and the pretense that they are is increasingly thin.

Full disclosure: I am a resident of Lawrence, KS, the son of a KU professor (political science) and an employee of the Kansas Governor's office. Take that for what it's worth.

This editorial was printed in today's Topeka Capitol Journal and relates directly to the Senate's decision to strip funding from the School of Social Welfare.

http://cjonline.com/stories/040203/opi_sexcourse.shtml

Regardless of what you think of Professor Dailey's class (and may I note that people on this site are reacting exactly as the Legislature did, without ever attending or seeing the material in question) the Kansas legislature is setting a poor precedent by dictating curriculum.

Finally, with the exception of a single dissenting student that gave Sen. Wagle the excuse she needed to justify pulling funding from the entire School of Social Welfare, there has yet to be any other students who have come forward with similar complaints. Many, many students have come to the professor's defense and whatever you may think of supposed liberal higher education, the student body at KU is not a bastion of the left wing.

I'd like to talk more about this with Justin and Jane, but let me just say thank you for defining what is and is not educational based upon no evidence whatsoever and for the argument that if the Legislature finds material offensive (be it pictures of naked third graders or Lady Chatterly's Lover) it's fine to cut its funding because that isn't really censorship, it's just listening to the will of the people (one student).

I can't speak for Jane, Dakota, but the essential point of my post was that the public, by means of the legislature and the government that handles its aggregated funds, has a right to dictate where that money goes. It would cross a line — albeit not necessarily a definitive one — for the state government to declare certain subject matters in the classroom criminal.

However, it is simply not true that one student has decided the fate of $3.1 million of the taxpayers' money. The legislature has, and it is accountable to the people of Kansas. In response to the Kansan-disparaging remarks of Jennie Fiore, above, I didn't find it improper at all, as you so snidely suggest, to suggest that citizens of the state have a right to decide for themselves what is "educational," no matter the opinions of blue-staters. Essentially, you've faulted me for taking a position from a distance against others for their positions from a distance. To wit: if it's justified for folks to support Professor Dailey based on limited information, why is it not justified for me to support Senator Wagle based on the same?

The bottom line is that it is okay for the public to cut public funds at its discretion (within the bounds, of course, of any legal agreements). Professors do not have an inherent right to that money. Furthermore, I didn't introduce the term "censorship," you did. The dictionary definition does not differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate censorship; that is a matter for a social grouping to decide where those lines lie. It's a nice little trick to end debate to wield the term like a weapon, but it's just that: a trick.

P.S. — I'm very impressed that Professor Dailey has taught a sufficient number of students that they constitute a majority of the citizens of Kansas!

An established professor, who is recognized as being an exceptional practitioner, who has been teaching the same course for 20 years, one wherein all of the students choose to be there, is considered to be some form of closet pornographer or moral denigrate corrupting the minds of the young? Come on.

Dakota is not being disingenuous in raising the issue of censorship, of questioning if what's at work here isn't the appropriate exercise of legislative power, but rather the personal dictates of Censors who know what's best for people even if they don't know it for themselves:

Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe, said the popularity of the course meant thousands of students had taken it over the years. "Their minds are being formed, their morals are being formed. We don't need this kind of information. And we sure don't need taxpayer support of this," O'Connor said.

That is a textbook example of someone who believes they know better than another what's appropriate for the other to read, learn or understand -- no-nos in a free country.

The argument that these are "...children [who] have the opportunity to participate in on-campus porno and view naked third-graders.." is simply wrong. These aren't children -- but adults. (You know, turn 18 and be legally responsible for everything but alcohol.) These students are perfectly capable of deciding what they wish to learn about. The pursuit of that is the what free inquiry and higher education is all about. Mislabeling them children is deceptive and misleading.

The logic that you are using Justin, also would allow the people of Kansas to teach that the world is flat, that the sky is red, 1+1=3 and that Evolution is a myth, all based on a consensus of the legislature. None of which is "illegal," all of which though is wrong.

Oh, come on, Jody (to other readers, ours is an ongoing feud).

It is obvious that I meant "children" as in "descendents" (it's in the dictionary). I used it because I was approaching the question from the point of view of the parents. This is a smokescreen on your part.

But the fact of the matter is that the university will still be able to offer the course, and students will still be able to take it, if they choose to do so without the support of public dollars. Just as the students are capable of deciding what to learn, the public, (again) as represented by its state government, is capable of deciding what it wishes to fund.

Simply put, the people of Kansas have a right to fund lessons that 1+1=3 just as much as you would have the right to fund lessons that there is no God. I suspect, however, that as an economic imperitive, the school would opt, in that case, not to take that money. On the other hand, by what right do you dictate public finances and morality in Kansas? I'd say your argument is "a textbook example of someone who believes they know better than another what's appropriate for the other to read, learn or understand -- no-nos in a free country."

Actually, I don't think it's obvious that you mentioned "children" as in "descendents." Given the context of your posting -- the right of the Kansas legislature to protect others from "Manhattanite" teachings -- the more likely interpretation from MW definition are 2a-c, and 5, all all of which contain dependency, and a need for direction. (Also parental concerns, by the by).

The point is that that these are adults in school, with the majority paying their own way. While the popular consensus remains that college is just a four year fun ride of boozing and bumping uglies at parental expense, in this day and age over half of college students fund their own education.

If you are asking me to believe, in this time of budget shortfalls, belt tightening and financial hardship, that the Legislature's action was just the prudent and civilized response of noble stewards of public morality to tame an out of control and evil Insitution grown fat from feeding on the teet of the public trough, then you have a promising future with the Iraqi Ministry of Information. ("Soldiers? What soldiers?)

It returns then that the Legislature is dictating to the university, if not what it is to teach then what should be. It's also telling the majority of students, who pay twice for college through taxes and their own tuition, what they should be learning. That's just not something legislatures -- any legislatures -- are qualified to decide.

This isn't about morality, but academic freedom and the right for public Universities, which by their mandate teach controversial subjects, to decide their own lesson plans without the self righteous injecting their beliefs on other adults. Pointing that out is directing a bit of common towards the Self Appointed.

Justin -

While you have supported Senator Wagle from a distance, I believe my support of Professor Dailey is not from afar, having myself seen some of the material he uses in class, having heard a lecture of his and having read and listened to Sen. Wagle's appropriation amendment that stripped funding from the entire School of Social Welfare. Therefore, your argument that you're arguing from the same position as your opponents rings hollow.

While I would rather not have State Senators dictate morality, it is within their right to take funding from a program they disagree with as Senator Wagle has done. My statement was that this set a bad precedent, not that it was illegal.

I also find it completely disengenuous to fall back on the position that the Senate is just carrying out the public's will. I've spoken with senators who voted for the bill and for those who voted against it, and none had been contacted by their constituents before Senator Wagle raised the issue. However, yesterday three different groups came and spoke with me about why they were opposed to Sen. Wagle's bill while none have called or met with the Governor's office who are in favor of the bill.

Honestly, this is a bad amendment that has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with education. No students are being served by this and it's an infringement (though a legal one) on the Board of Regents and KU. Sen. Wagle's amendment could lead to a chiling of speech and heightened tensions between educators and lawmakers, especially conservative legislators.

Finally, the word censorship is a big, heavy, scary word. It was not however, my intention to stop debate by using that word. If that was my intention I doubt I'd have a problem with censorship in the first place.

Jody,

Very well, then, I was using every sense of the word "children" except the very limited usage that you attributed to me: that of the state of being a minor. As for the students being "adults," I'd say we run into a similar general-usage versus legal-usage difference of opinion. And whether or not students ultimely pay their own way (mostly through loans, probably), I'd say the majority of parents wield some degree of influence over which school that might be.

Furthermore, you're wrong about what I'm asking you to believe. I attribute no qualities or states of mind to the legislators. In our system of government, the people who control those public funds being granted to universities (ostensibly for the public good) are elected officials. Part of the reason we have a representative form of government, rather than a pure democracy, is so that leaders can make decisions, for whatever motivation, without having to put it to a public vote. If those decisions prove contrary to the public will, then the public can choose different representatives. It's not perfect — hardly ever clean — but it's the best that's been found. Unless you want to return the funds to the people and suggest that the colleges request their funds from them individually. Particularly if, as you say, a legislature isn't qualified to perform its job of deciding where to allocate public funds.

(And that Iraqi comment is emblematic of the reason I try to avoid you. That said, I should note that I doubt anybody has a promising future with that particular government.)

Dakota,

Therefore, your argument that you're arguing from the same position as your opponents rings hollow.
— Not at all. You faulted me for my response to people, as far as I know, who are in the same position as I am, that of being distant from the controversy. In short, whatever your qualifications, I wasn't arguing with you (you hadn't entered the discussion, yet).

My statement was that this set a bad precedent, not that it was illegal.
— I wasn't arguing that it's legal; it's obvious that it is. I was arguing that it's "okay." As for the precedent, governments withhold public funds all the time, for many reasons. Being as removed from the situation as I am, I can't argue that removing funds for this particular reason wasn't a bad precedent for the state of Kansas (and, frankly, I don't have the interest to devote sufficient time to research). All I've been attempting to convey is that there exists a point at which — even in an academic setting — it is moral and just for public support to be divorced from the content and that it is up to the people whose funds they directly are to decide where that point is.

I also find it completely disengenuous to fall back on the position that the Senate is just carrying out the public's will.
— Carrying out the public's will is the government's job. If it fails to do so, or simply gets it wrong, the politicians can be held accountable. See my response to Jody for a bit more in this vein.

However, yesterday three different groups came and spoke with me about why they were opposed to Sen. Wagle's bill while none have called or met with the Governor's office who are in favor of the bill.
— This isn't surprising (it would also be relevant to know what groups, specifically, they were that approached you). Not the least because it seems as if the measure has succeeded.

Honestly, this is a bad amendment that has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with education.
— As an aside: how could it be good politics if it's not the will of the people?

No students are being served by this
— It isn't the legislature's job to serve the students except to the extent that doing so serves the public.

and it's an infringement (though a legal one) on the Board of Regents and KU.
— I wasn't aware that Board of Regents and KU have authority over tax dollars.

Sen. Wagle's amendment could lead to a chiling of speech
— To a degree, I guess that's the point: decide whether the classroom content is worth $3.1 million or not. If people not giving one money is the measure of chilled speech, I've hardly spoken even a lukewarm word in my life!

and heightened tensions between educators and lawmakers, especially conservative legislators.
— Why is this a bad thing? Frankly, I feel that governments in our country, generally speaking, have been a bit too cozy with the folks who contribute to the politicians and the organizations that receive tax dollars. A little tension can be a very healthy thing.

"If people not giving one money is the measure of chilled speech, I've hardly spoken even a lukewarm word in my life!" Ha ha ha! Me either, apparently!

I too think a little tension is a healthy thing. The alternative becomes a blank check. That's fine for private charity but it is not fine for tax dollars. Taxpayers are not given a choice about supporting state schools. They expect their legislators to oversee the spending of their money. As far as I know, there are private colleges and universities in every state in the union.

You suggest that Sen. Wagle and the Kansas legislature's actions are legal. I will tell you that they violate the university's 1st Amendment rights, and are therefore illegal.

This piece of legislature is targeted at stopping KU's academic freedom. The 1st Amendment says that "congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...". "Congress" has been interpreted by the courts to mean government at ANY level. Sen. Wagle's legislature specifically targets Prof. Dailey's speech.

And yes, the 1st Amendment does protect what some would consider pornography. It does not protect obscenity or child pornography, but that is not the case here. Dailey uses clinical videos and photographs for the purpose of education. The photographs of children's genitalia are for the purpose of studying human sexual development, much as they might be used in an anatomy course.

"Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the first Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom."--Keynishian v. Board of Regents. In other words, receiving government funding does not mean that we forfeit our constitutional rights of free speech.

Taking away funding for a state educational institution in this case would be the financial equivalent of the heckler's veto. You don't want anyone to hear the message because you don't like it. I am a taxpayer, a registered voter, and a student. Don't decide for me what messages I am allowed to hear.

Well, the moral majority-ites lose again. The final court citation by Anne puts a nail in the coffin.

Congratulations Anne and the rest who defended the right of free speech. You know, that thing many conservatives and liberals don't want their opposition to have...

Well, the moral majority-ites lose again. The final court citation by Anne puts a nail in the coffin.

Congratulations Anne and the rest who defended the right of free speech. You know, that thing many conservatives and liberals don't want their opposition to have...