When Dennis Dailey was exonerated by the University of Kansas, Susan Wagle called for an independent investigation of him, and suggested that Attorney General Phill Kline would be the right man for the job. Kline does not agree:

"I'm not aware of any allegations of illegality," Kline said Tuesday.

Kansas law allows materials the state would consider obscene to be used in classrooms, and sexual harassment claims are handled by private litigation, he said.

"I can understand the policy debate," Kline said. "But that's not our role."

Meanwhile University of Kansas history professor Jeffrey Moran, author of a history of sex education, has published a piece in the Topeka Capital-Journal that interprets Susan Wagle's campaign against Dailey and his course as part of the longer history of the religious right's bid for political power:

Far from being an isolated incident, Sen. Wagle's assault on Dennis Dailey is part of a larger strategy by the religious right to organize around issues of sexuality. Sex education, abortion, gay rights -- these are the issues that have launched a thousand direct-mail campaigns since the right "discovered" social issues in the late 1960s. In these crusades against sexual liberalism in all of its forms, the truth or falsity of the accusations has always been secondary to their political usefulness. If Dennis Dailey's reputation is smeared along the way, well, that's just collateral damage in the Christian right's war for political influence.

So far, Professor Dailey's current and former students have been his main line of defense. The silence from most of Kansas's leaders in higher education has been deafening. But it is time for KU's Chancellor Robert Hemenway and his colleagues at Kansas State and the other state universities to swallow their fears that the Legislature may retaliate against them. They need to take a stand for academic freedom and the mission of the university.

It is time as well for the business leaders of the state and other friends of higher education to speak out in support of Dailey and his right to teach. Perhaps the weight of respectability will accomplish what mere facts were unable to do.

Finally, in case Sen. Wagle has forgotten some of what she learned as an undergraduate at Wichita State, I offer a brief lexicon of relevant concepts:

ï Scholarly analysis: Investigating subjects in order to understand them more deeply. Because it is based on facts and not advocacy, often a difficult concept for politicians to grasp.

ï Academic freedom: Right of faculty to teach and research as they see fit, with the faith that only the free sifting and winnowing of ideas can lead to intellectual truth and social progress. Often seen as protection for faculty and students against ignorance and political prejudice, as during McCarthyism.

ï McCarthyism: Making false accusations against innocent persons in order to gain notoriety and score political points. Once thought extinct.

Typical misdefinition of McCarthyism, ignoring the fact that some of McCarthy's allegations about Communists in the State Department (although not the ones about the Army) were true.

"Sex education, abortion, gay rights" are clearly among the targets for Wagle, just as Jeff Moran says.

His article is disingenuous. Yes, Wagle has targeted this course at KU for political reasons. Moran is pretending that KU is not a political player on the other side. This is not true. KU supports a women's studies department (and probably an extensive gay studies curriculum) that is an advocacy wing of the Democratic party. These departments spend public funds publicizing their point of view on "sex education, abortion and gay rights." Everybody who thinks that the women's studies department employs a traditionally conservative Christian woman as a prof please raise your hands. Let's have a show of hands for those who believe that both sides of the abortion issue are presented in the women's studies department.

So, the university is not a dispassionate, even handed player. I think that Moran knows this, and what he is really calling for is an even more overt politicization of humanities at KU.

I can understand Erin's anger at the intrusion of a state rep who is clearly looking for a public issue that will advance her political career. Here's the question. If feminists and gay rights activists can use public funds for their advocacy programs on campus, why can't the dreaded "religious right" target that campus for as a means of dramatizing their advocacy? Tit for tat.

Wagle is well on her way toward becoming the Black Knight of Kansas (I hope I'm getting the reference right - it's from Monty Python and the Holy Grail)--- "Oh, so the university won't take me on, huh? Well, what about the attorney general, huh? Huh? Come on! Come at me, damn you!"

Stephen's got it right, but I think Moran's piece does more than just approach the issue from the disingenuous platform that his side is neutral while the other side is encroaching: it also misses the underlying thrust and trends of the battle (in a sense, it's ahistorical):

Far from being an isolated incident, Sen. Wagle's assault on Dennis Dailey is part of a larger strategy by the religious right to organize around issues of sexuality.
— First of all, the religious right isn't only organized against sexual issues. However, to the extent that they are an area of focus, it is demonstrably a result of the fact that liberalizing forces have emphasized them for "progress."

Sex education, abortion, gay rights
— Funny, the religious folks don't see "abortion" as an issue of sex, but of murder. Nothing like a little solipsism to lump together a procedure of killing early human life (to remain neutral) and classes to teach children the differences between a dingle and a woowoo.

these are the issues that have launched a thousand direct-mail campaigns since the right "discovered" social issues in the late 1960s.
— Professor Moran, surely a supporter of the "common man" and the "working class," apparently believes that inspiring hundreds or thousands of people to have their voices heard is a lesser form of advocacy than convincing a handful of judges to change the law (or to create new ones).

In these crusades against sexual liberalism in all of its forms, the truth or falsity of the accusations has always been secondary to their political usefulness.
— This accusation goes both ways, doesn't it? I think the Good History Professor ought to check the record.

Well, as long as he got a few backslaps in the faculty clubhouse.

To Scipio, McCarthy never actually identified anyone specifically in the State Department. He said he had a list of communist sympathizers in the State Department (this several years after the original Nixon hearings that did identify Hiss and others), but when challenged, never released his list, instead saying he was going to consult with Whittaker Chambers, which he in fact never did. This was a major factor in his fall.

I'm sure that supporters of affirmative action must feel the same sense of betrayal by Jayson Blair that sincere anticommunists felt with Joe McCarthy -- he was a sociopathic opportunist, and created a situation where questions could be raised about the successful, and in light of many later revelations, correct, prosecutions of Hiss, the Rosenbergs, and others. But McCarthy wasn't even involved in these cases.

What about "read the whole thing and..."

Anyone who wants to read a wonderfully scathing satiric treatment of the sort of ideology-laden ìscholarshipî represented by a course like Daileyís ought to check out Walker Percyís futuristic 1971 novel "Love in the Ruins." Youíll be amazed at its prescience. Percy gives all kinds of contemporary cultural and political donnybrooks a run for their money too.

McCarthyism: the act of accusing someone of something that is considered unacceptable by many people, especially when you have no proof.

(As defined by the Cambridge Dictionary)

Is this not exactly what Senator Wagle did? She has never viewed any of the material, no one other than her intern supported any of her accusations, and as this site continually confirms many people find sex scholarship and education unacceptable.

It hurts my head to read all the assumptions being made about people none of you have ever met. A statement that a thousand direct mail campaigns have been conducted on issues relating to sex is not a judgment, but a statement of fact. Read into it what you like, dispute the numbers, but I have a hard time seeing how this statement can be twisted into: I don't believe in Democracy and free expression.

And just because other groups have manipulated the truth doesn't make it any more acceptable for Senator Wagle to use the same tactics now. Especially, when she's standing on a soap box and attempting to set moral standards for the people of Kansas.

Finally, as an active member of the Democratic Party and an employee of the Democratic Governor of the state of Kansas, may I say that I am surprised to find out that Women's Studies departments work for me. I thought these departments were comprised of scholars concerned about issues that impact women, but apparently I was mistaken and they are merely another tool of the Democratic Party. A lot of good they've ever done us.

"I thought these departments were comprised of scholars concerned about issues that impact women, but apparently I was mistaken and they are merely another tool of the Democratic Party."

The issue of which women and which issues is a very important one.

I'll stand by my previous statement. I'm willing to bet that KU's women's studies department does not employ a single prof (or staff) person who is a traditional Christian woman. I'm willing to bet that agreement with abortion on demand is a baseline (unstated) requirement for employment.

The vast majority of American women (if polls are to be believed) reject the label "feminist." They define "issues" that relate to "women" in a manner that probably gets very little notice in any women's studies department. Most of the faculty members at most women's studies departments identify their course of study as a branch of feminism.

I'd even debate whether those who work in women's studies departments are scholars. In fact, they might be more accurately called "McCarthyites." Making absurd accusations against the male population on campus is a standard feature of such departments. This is certainly true at my alma mater, the University of Illinois. One can just about guess when appropriations time comes around. The women's studies department announces a crime wave on campus. The crime statistics for that area are posted online. Those statistics repeatedly show that the statements emanating from the women's studies department regarding crime against women are fabricated.

And, yes, the Democratic Party is the home of these women and the Democratic Pary is wedded to abortion on demand and to the violence against women hysteria.

I think that you are being disingenuous, Dakota. Women's Studies departments in every university openly announce themselves as engaging in "feminist" studies. Thus, they are clearly political advocates. Believe me, there are people who disagree with the basic policy assumptions of feminists. And, yes, there is little doubt that the Democratic Party is the home base of those who identify themselves as feminists.

Dakota, I don't think Sen. Wagle is trying to set moral standards for the people of Kansas. I think the people of Kansas already have moral standards, and she is trying to apply them to UK.

There are two distinct issues here.

One: Does Prof. Dailey's class cross the line into unacceptably obscene material, support pedophilia, etc? I think we've mostly concluded that it probably hasn't. And this is Sen. Wagle's issue.

Two: Given that Prof. Dailey's class doesn't need to be shut down due to obscenity, does it in fact meet the standard of scholarship that we expect of a university class offered for credit? I think we've mostly concluded that it probably doesn't. This is not Sen. Wagle's concern but it should be somebody's.

I personally think this course should be offered (if at all) in a Continuing Ed catalog, under "Personal Development", where you also find classes in finding your best colors and making the most of your closet space.

I agree with Laura here. I would guess that Prof. Dailey's class is a big enrollment bonanza for his department, which is probably why Dailey is seen as a hero here. But if you think about how sexual issues might be dealt with in an atmosphere of conventional rigor in sociology, psychology, literature, history, poli-sci, or religion classes, it seems to me that in contrast, just covering racy subject matter in a popularized form is damaging the academic environment. And UK should not be surprised to get this reaction.

I think it's an example of the academy, once again, failing to keep its own house in order and suffering the consequences.

I'm not sure what I think about Wagle's campaign against Dailey per se, but any argument that relies on loaded terms like "religious right" or "McCarthyism" is presumptively false in my book, and nothing else in the rest of Moran's screed rebuts that presumption.

Laura (9:59pm):

Your analysis is perceptive and succint. If only polarization and weeping would be the precursor to such an eloquent summary on other hot-button issues as well.

A statement that a thousand direct mail campaigns have been conducted on issues relating to sex is not a judgment, but a statement of fact.

Dakota, are you kidding? You work in politics and you don't see the obvious opinion of the writer of that passage? I'm going to second that charge of disingenuousness, because you strike me as more perceptive than that. In case I'm wrong:

The reference to direct-mail campaigns wasn't an objective statement of fact to show the social interest in sexual issues. They are a "strategy of the religious right to organize," a "crusade," reputations threatened are "collateral damage."

C'mon, now.