Yesterday, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius vetoed a controversial amendment to the state budget that would cut state funding to all academic departments that use "obscene" materials in the classroom. State senator Susan Wagle proposed the amendment in an attempt to crack down on a popular University of Kansas course called "Human Sexuality." Taught by social welfare professor and sex therapist Dennis Dailey for over twenty years, the course has recently come under fire--largely at Wagle's instigation--for its use of explicit films and photographs. Wagle has also recently filed a formal complaint against Dailey himself with the KU chancellor, alleging improper and harassing conduct and urging the school to take steps to sanction him.

Wagle's proposed amendment sparked plenty of debate (some of it here on this blog--see the comments here and here), and even moved the University of Kansas' Board of Regents to urge the governor to protect academic freedom by line-vetoing the proposal. Yesterday, Sibelius did just that. Here is the accompanying text:

Human Sexuality Proviso

Section 67(i) has been line-item vetoed in its entirety.

In a democracy, academic freedom in higher education is essential. Nevertheless, every institution of higher learning in Kansas has an obligation to exercise its academic freedom responsibly. The Kansas Board of Regents has in place well-established policies and procedures to provide redress for students, parents, and taxpayers who question the educational value or appropriateness of any material used in the institutions of higher learning under the authority of the Board of Regents. Following such policies and procedures will resolve concerns within the appropriate exercise of academic freedom. Therefore, I veto the above proviso as an inappropriate use of legislative powers designed to impinge upon academic freedom in the State of Kansas.

Thanks to reader Dakota L. for the tip.

The governor's words are well chosen. But it's going to be interesting to see how this will play out in the context of the existing mechanisms that he mentions.

Like many courses nowadays, this one has no intellectual justification other than the fact that some university professor wants to teach it.

The governor may very well have done the right thing, but I can't help but feel that there's a gray area in which the opposing sides are not meeting in their arguments: where granting of public funds intertwines with law and "impingement on freedom."

Personally, I very much dislike the idea that public funds can, by association with a freedom, become a right.

There is no right to public money--or even private money--for pornography.

I am sorry to see that this has been vetoed. Hopefully, the veto is overriden. If not, I wish the oponents better luck next year.

I think that the governor was probably right in rejecting the targetting of a specific class. That's probably a bad precedent that would result in an open war, with every political faction setting out to undermine classes that it found offensive.

Although the academic world seems quite infatuated with porn, I think that it is missing the boat on this issue. And, so, I'll put in my two cents worth. As weird, offensive and downright raunchy as it may seem, I think that porn is the most important intellectual issue before us, and it has been for the past 30 years.

The modern feminist movement took on porn as its primary target in the 1960s. 40 years later, I think that we can say with certainty that porn won, and feminism lost. Middle class Americans have made it clear that they want porn. Even little farm towns in my home state of Illinois have a porn shop on the edge of town.

Why did porn win the ideological battle so decisively? There are a thousand reasons, some of them good and some bad. The most important is this: porn conveys some information that people badly want. What is that information? For the first time, we can see what people actually do. That is a remarkable change. Behavioral changes will ultimately follow.

The academic world seems too locked in ideology to properly understand and comment on this incredible social transformation. Something really remarkable and serious is happening, but this course at KU is not addressing it. I don't think that the academic world can cope with this arena. The Marxist, feminists and Pomos are living in the past of ideology and Utopian idealism, and these modes of thought are dead and buried. The coming century will witness the Americanization of the entire world, and the transformation that porn sets in motion will take place within that context.

Stephen (3:32pm) puts forward a novel and interesting idea about the meaning of representations of sexuality in popular culture (specifically pornography). I think it is evidence that Gov. Sibelius did the right thing by vetoing that budget amendment. (Confession--I tend to think well of a politician who takes a stance that's likely to be unpopular, and explains it on the basis of her view of what's right or proper.)

So, per Stephen, human sexuality may be a legitimate, if contentious, area for serious academic study. If I were a Kansas voter, I would rather see decisions in this area made under the K.U. Regents' guidance than the legislature's. If, indeed, the Regents are corrupt or ineffective, perhaps the legislature should focus on the reform of that body.

AB writes: There is no right to public money--or even private money--for pornography. (emphasis mine)

AB, I honestly don't mean to be nasty, but your obsession with "modesty" kind of reminds me of the woman in Bertrand Russell's anecdote who would climb fully dressed into the tub to take a bath because she didn't want God to see her naked.

I just heard about this on the Radio Factor. what a shame. All I see is one more area that is being affected by a couple of offended loud mouths, mainly the woman that was on th radio (didn't catch her name) If this happened at a private institution, there wouldn't even be an argument, case closed. But since it is at a state funded school, the people should ave a little say as to what their money is used for. On the other hand, is this a required clas for any degree (I don't know all of the details)if it isn't, thenall of his nonsense should stop right here. if enough people sign up for the class on their own, let it go. Wat really bothers me is that the lady I heard mentioned harrassment many times. I'm fet up with harrassment. MOst things that this lady finds offensive, would be laughed off by any self confident American with a good attitude and great self-esteem. This lady is probably a fat porker who can't find anyone to have sex with her anywaya. I'm tired of nonsense, I'm taking my ball and going home.

:)

I commend Susan Wagle for trying to stop the
use of public money to fund the social agenda
of the "more evolved" elitists of Academia.

There is a consortium of intellectuals, progressives as they now call themselves, who want
to build a new utopian society based on intellectualism, elitism, and relativism rather than on the proven values of the past. These are individuals who prise aetheism, abortion, and carnality above life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Taxes are the lifeblood of socialism, so necessary for the furtherance of its agenda.

Education, has become a laboratory for social engineering by the 'left.' who are busy programming your kid with their benighted social values for 30+ hours a week. Go visit www.scaryguy.com to read about the values the public education system believes are more relevant
than what your kids can learn from you.

For those of you who have had behavioral problems with your kids, look to the teachings of public education. Remember, when there are no absolute
truths or standards, and this is what is taught in "situational ethics", then who are you to impose your views on your own kids.

If you don't believe these kids are being taught that there aren't any moral absolutes, and therefore anything goes, go see what Massachusetts parents have had to contend with at www.parentsrightscoalition.org.

The Kansas Governor has rendered the citizens of this State a grave injustice.

Allen K. Williams