Last month, Kansas state senator Susan Wagle convinced the state legislature to adopt a budget amendment requiring state-funded schools to ban the purchase and display of "obscene" materials. The amendment stated that academic departments that defy the ban risk losing their state funding, and its immediate target was a popular human sexuality course at the University of Kansas. For the past twenty years, the course has been taught by social welfare professor and sex therapist Dennis Dailey, and it regularly enrolls 500 students. Wagle contended that the course was crossing the line with its use of sexually explicit films and photographs, and further argued that Dailey himself regularly engaged in behavior that amounted to sexual harassment. The budget amendment was step one in her campaign to shut down Dailey's class. Now she has taken step two, filing a formal complaint against Dailey with the university's Chancellor.

The full text of Wagle's letter of complaint is available on line. It alleges, among other things, that Dailey has been known to give students the finger, that he uses deliberately provocative language (f---, buttf----ing) to "shock" students out of their complacency and into greater acceptance, that he abuses his authority by encouraging his students to consult with him about their personal sexual problems, that he continually embellishes his lectures with lewd asides about women's bodies, that he has instructed women students to masturbate for homework, and that he once said he thought that in order to graduate, women students should have to prove they are capable of having orgasms (this requirement, he allegedly suggested, could be fulfilled by submitting a videotape). It's quite a document, and it has inspired the university to open an investigation into Dailey.

Dailey's supporters--many of them former students--say Wagle is taking just about everything out of context. Wagle for her part has not revealed where she got her information. In her letter, she sidesteps that question by adopting the passive voice, announcing her intent to outline "the concerns I have and the allegations that have been expressed to me about the Human Sexuality class being taught by Professor Dennis Dailey," and later indicates vaguely that she has spoken with "students who have taken the class in the past, and students who are currently taking the class." In earlier coverage of proposed budget amendment, Wagle indicated that she was basing her campaign on information given to her by one of Dailey's students. It would be interesting indeed to uncover who this individual is, and whether he or she has any ulterior motives for initiating what has quickly become a well-organized, state-sponsored witch hunt. As Daphne Patai demonstrates in her devastating book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, universities have developed a nasty habit of encouraging students to file trumped-up sexual harassment charges--charges that in turn destroy the careers of the men (and sometimes women) they falsely accuse.

If Dailey's behavior really fits the account Wagle gives in her complaint, then he certainly has crossed the line on more than one occasion. But Dailey has taught the same course for years, using the same methods, to thousands upon thousands of students. The vast majority of those students are very far from seeing him as the sort of professorial pervert Wagle makes him out to be--so far, indeed, that they have lobbied successfully to have Dailey teach the course twice a year instead of once; so far that Dailey has won numerous teaching awards over the years. Dailey's student supporters argue that some of Wagle's claims are not true (or, at least, that they cannot themselves corroborate some of the things she alleges he has said or done in class), and that other claims wilfully misconstrue Dailey's pedagogy by taking events and comments out of context.

It's a messy business all around, one that will be well worth watching closely in the weeks to come. The academic freedom of professors teaching in Kansas' public colleges and universities is on the line, as is one man's reputation and career. Kansas administrators will have to resist the political pressure Wagle is putting on them to move into witch-hunt mode if they hope to conduct a fair and reasonable investigation of her charges and if they want to avoid placing decisions about what gets taught and how it gets taught entirely in the hands of state politicians.

Yeah sure, but it seems to me the real issue isn't the freedom of a professor to teach anything he wants so long as the students don't complain.

And the underlying issue isn't whether or not the good professor is using four letter words and wants his (presumably female) students to engage in perverse acts on camera, it's simply this:

What's the rationale for this as a college course?

People who get upset about how stupid and malicious legislators are infringing on academic freedom usually end up invoking some sort of slippery slope fear, that this is just the first step towards telling us what we can and can't teach.

But in an academic world where we have this guy on the one hand and what appears to be half the Columbia faculty on the other, where entire freshmen writing programs have been turned into halfbaked attempts to brainwash students politically, it's absolutely going to happen.

A Date With Reality

The university is headed for a collision with the real world. Professors do not have an unlimited right to teach whatever appeals to them. They are hired to teach and form the minds of Americaís young.

They are hired by two main groups: the parents of the students and the state legislature. Although their checks come from the university, the university gets the great bulk of its money from these two groups.

As the gulf opens between the university and society, the support for the university will erode. Eventually, it will erode in the legislature. A state university is at the utter mercy of the legislature. Departments and programs can be createdóor eliminatedóat the whim of the legislature.

Even private universities are heavily dependent on government money.

The Power of the Purse is not to be laughed at. Professors should be careful who they offend.

I'd say that the professors are hired to teach their students the subject matter of the particular course and the critical thinking skills needed to fully understand the subject matter in the context of the student's reality, and definitely NOT to form anyone's mind (however that could be accomplished).

Recent developments and revelations about what's going on in America's colleges have made me realize how thankful I am that I did not attend college.

If you all will forgive me for not posting a serious reply . . .

Back in my day (Manchester - early 1970s)we talked about sex just about everywhere we could (pub, locker room, in other words all the usual places), with the sole exception of the classroom. We certainly never had a tutorial . . . which might explain why one girl friend, in referring to what she felt to be a series of sub-par sexual experiences with British students declaimed: they're so inept they think the missionary position means saying grace before they fumbled (all too briefly) towards ecstasy. (And FYI - I'm not a Brit. :-))

The closest thing to a "sex class" I ever had came in a course entitled "History of British Colonialism." The seminar was taught by a woman who came across as, how should I say, very repressed. Hair in a bun, etc. She talked in a monotone with no inflection or emphasis excxept when she kept referring to Britain and its "IMPERIAL THRUST" into the Indian interior. That expression was the only one with any feeling and was accompanied by a sweeping upward movement of the arms that I thought was hilarious. She repeated this expression with what appeared to be a certain delight at least 3 times - and which delight in turn - thrilled all of us no end.

Okay, sorry about the digression.

Wow, I never thought I'd see my alma mater here.

First thing: Sorry to nitpick, but it should not be "UK Chancellor." It should be KU Chancellor. UK is a country, or the University of Kentucky. The basketball teams meet so frequently that we have to have this distinction or many people will be confused.

I attended KU during the years when this course was restricted to spring-only enrollment from spring and fall. It is a required social welfare degree course, and I do think that it does have a place there. Of course, it is also an immensely popular elective. I knew many people who took Dailey's class, and loved it. Not because he was vile, or ever said any of the things that this lady alleges. In fact, most of my friends liked it because he was honest about a lot of things that many people aren't. The failure rate of condoms, for instance, and real emotional trauma that many people experience with sexual dysfunction. I don't want to side with Dailey prematurely, but the idea that he's been THAT inappropriate for years is a little hard to believe.

Catherine

Don't know where I stand on this one. Did visit the KU School of Social Work site and took a look at their catalog.

The ideological slant is obvious. Courses in feminism and links to Women's Studies are numerous. The do-gooder mentality at work.

Being old enough to observe repetitive patterns in life is one of the benefits of the maturing process. Young people always think that they pioneered the expression of sexuality. So, a myth must be reinvented in every generation that the older generation didn't really know how to do it, or that they were too prissy to do it.

Somehow, I think of my friends who spent all their lives in the liberal enclaves of Manhattan. All are convinced that the hinterlands are still emerging from the dark ages of sexual expression, and that the young cannot possible imagine how to screw correctly without the guidance of the New York avant garde. Of course, the kids in my little hometown of 5,000 in Illinois were excusing themselves to head upstairts to smoke dope and watch porn 30 years ago.

The notion that we are a nation of rubes is essential to the continued existence of an avant garde. If the kids in the Midwest can figure out how to screw on their own, what use is there for Manhattan intellectuals (or Lawrence, Kansas intellectuals who admire Manhattan fashions)?

The probably inaccurate description of Dailey's course reminds me of one that was given years ago at Brooklyn College. The teacher, a short woman with a strange accent, was denied tenure because her chairperson, who also taught a course in sex education, believed the former's course was too "entertaining" and not scholarly enough. And it was certainly entertaining. Once, while passing the classroom in which it was given, I was taken aback by the high pitched voice emanating from it, describing in detail the proper way to bring a woman to orgasim. Clearly, one reason the students loved the teacher was because she was completely uninhibited as well as very knowledgeable about her subject, which accounted for her well deserved popularity with everybody but her departmental chair.

When she failed to get tenure, she pursued a grievance which I, as a union grievance counselor, pitched in to help her with. Unfortunately, she didn't win. But this proved to be a great stroke of luck for her. She quickly found a job on a local radio station and soon became a national celebrity, as Dr. Ruth. Brooklyn College's loss turned out to be the nation's gain.

Once you lose your bearings--the place from which you came, the point at which you have arrived, the point to which to move towards--and I mean this in a larger, historical sense, not just the span of one's own life, then anything is fair game and anything is "worth trying" for, one example, a tenured professor in a university classroom. It is no longer an issue of freedom of speech, but the desperation that comes with being adrift at sea.

"Professors should be careful who they offend."

A truly frightening sentiment. Professors should never be careful who they offend while pursuing knowledge. When professors have to worry about if what they're saying is politically correct students and truth lose. Without the freedom of inquiry and speech, progress and ideas are stifled.

Senator Wagle is attempting to make her own personal ethics and moral standards (ignorance and illiberalism) those of the state of Kansas. She exhibits contempt for opposing viewpoints and liberal science, and stands as a shining example of what all Kansas students will become should her budget proviso pass.

"A truly frightening sentiment. Professors should never be careful who they offend while pursuing knowledge."

Does this also apply to the professor who was excoriated and punished when she used a racial epithet in the context of describing the sentiment of racists back in the bad old days of the 60s? I believe Erin has the particulars of that case. Or is it that only conservatives can be offended since they are ignorant and illiberal?

A final questions, does the license to offend also pertain to students in their pursuit of knowledge without fear of retailiation from sensitive professors?

There are teachers who think they haven't really accomplished anything unless they have offended their students. The offense itself is the goal, not scholarship or enlightenment or search for truth. I've known teachers like that. They risk endangering everyone else's academic freedom and freedom of expression because they have the emotional maturity of middle-schoolers.

I agree wholeheartedly with Stephen. Even us rednecks don't need explicit instructions in doin' what comes natchurly.

Even us rednecks don't need explicit instructions in doin' what comes natchurly.

Absolutely correct Laura. We are all genetically programmed with inherent "instruction manuals" which is very important - particularly for men -who generally don't like to waste time on reading them! :-)

Ivan

Oh, please! This guy loves teaching this class and any woman who's offended is frigid. Why is this dreck even offered as a serious course offering? He'd taught it for years cuz he could and no one ever spoke up before. Who'd want to be labeled as not liking Dr. Sexy's big show? It's an extension course at best--and certainly not for credit. He's ashow-off.