The University of Kansas has completed its investigation of Dennis Dailey, and has found state senator Susan Wagle's allegations against him to be totally unfounded. Read KU's press release here and also check out the full text of the investigative report, complete with supporting documents. I don't imagine this will stop Wagle, who has been much more interested in using Dailey as a political pawn than she has been in finding out the truth. But perhaps a defamation suit will help Wagle find her conscience--or at least her instinct for self-preservation.

UPDATE: As predicted, the report has done nothing to deter Wagle, who has called it a whitewash and has demanded an independent investigation by the Kansas Attorney General. In an email to the Wichita Eagle, Wagle wrote of the report, "I'm not surprised. I fully expected the University of Kansas to white-wash the allegations.... They are protecting one of their own. I think they should request the Attorney General investigate the charges and issue an opinion."

A reader writes to remind me that Kansas legislators speaking on the floor have constitutional protections against slander and libel. Wagle will have to be held accountable some other way--and I hope she is, since she has shamelessly abused her protected position in her effort to destroy Dailey's reputation and career.

I'm pleased, but I'm not surprised. On the other hand, why immediately speak of defamation suits? Too much of that sort of thing goes on, and it's definitely part of the problem, not the solution. Let history deal with Wagle - she's poised now to become a major object of ridicule.

Purcell, agree as to point 1 - we live in an overly-litigious society.

As to point 2 - I disagree - I think she is now perfectly poised for statewide office and a national platform. She's gotten a taste (O'Reilly) of the 'lush-life' and once you get a taste . . . it is hard to give it up.

Well, I'm, sorry, but after reading the KU report, I'm more convinced than ever that this class has no business being taught in a university to undergraduates as part of a degree program.

That's an issue quite separate from the others that were raised, and I'm not singlng out the course just because it deals with sex--there are a lot of courses out there that shouldn't be taught.

What I regarded as the key issue--his classroom behavior--seems to have been investigated, which it certainly should have been.

The model obscenity statute (which Kansas like most states has adopted) meant that the obscenity issue was a nonstarter, and their report cited the statute.

Note however, that the reasoning used in the report is circular: it can't be because the statute says it isn't. What the statute actually does is to exempt educational and charitable institutions and government agencies.

In fact, as an expert witness I once got a judge and a district attorney to agree that according to the literal wording of the statute, the local fire house could show pornographic movies and sell tickets.

Don't get riled--I was a witness for the defense. As far as I'm concerned, college students can eat all the pornography they want, and it appears that the good senator was taken to the cleaners by one or more students.

I've read the full report, and I'm satisfied.

Being an analytical person, I want to see data. The more time that goes by with a bunch of meaningless rhetoric and no real information, the more suspicious I get that there's some kind of coverup. I also am suspicious when the act of questioning an authority, like a college professor, is discouraged because everyone assumes they can do no wrong and it's an affront to even ask. I think we want our regulating bodies, whether at the university, on the legislature, or wherever, to be prepared to contemplate unpleasant situations that need to be dealt with. Ironically, it looks as if Dailey himself is aware of that necessity: one of his former students said he warned the class that they would eventually encounter pedophiles in their social work and they needed to be prepared; and indeed, she did.

I should have said, satisfied that the report clears Dailey.

Well, case closed for the moment, and it looks as though we all more or less agree, which is nice. Stupid course. Various people and agencies should scrutinize outstandingly stupid courses more than they do. Wagle will become BOTH an object of ridicule and a successful politician (plenty of those about).

I don't know about the successful politician part. She may have a taste for the O'Reilly light, but that doesn't mean the voters have gained a taste for being poorly represented (or, for that matter, that O'Reilly's producers want to continue offering a forum for somebody completely discredited).

So, in some respects, I was wrong on this one. As extenuating factors, I cite the Kansas-rube remarks that were the first reaction of many and the professors-can-do-no-wrong sentiment of others.

What a wonderful blog...than you to Glenn Reynolds for pointing me in this directions...

...anyway, I do not know if there are any other readers here from Lawrence, Kansas (the home of KU), but you may be interested in how this whole controversy is going down here...to be brief, Senator Wagel has been getting absolutely savaged...she has no public support in the area for her crusade. The belief is that this entire series of events was a setup, and the "student" (who is Wagel's legislative aide) signed up for the class specifically in order to help Wagel make a political point.

The most common refrain is "Oh God, Kansas is embrassing itself again -- first evolution, now this!"

But what if the report really is a whitewash? I'm a recent Kansas resident, and the manner in which the professor and his defenders have been comporting themselves doesn't make them look very good. Instead of defending themselves against what Wagle has said (i.e., "We're not teaching obscene material"), they attack and ridicule her as "the morality police" and more. Obscenity shouldn't be funded with taxpayer dollars, and if this class is what Wagle says it is, then it doesn't seem unreasonable for the legislature to want to withdraw funding.

The report doesn't address the issue: is the material obscene. The report calls it a lot of things, and suggests that, because it is shown at a university in a class, it, by definition, cannot be obscene. That's not compelling logic.

The report does pay a lot of attention to the issue of academic freedom, and to the value of students' questioning of their beliefs. But don't believe it. KU doesn't value that. If you don't believe me, google for some history of something called the Integrated Humanities Program at KU. It was shut down precisely because it led people to challenge their beliefs.

For something to be obscene, it needs to be contrary to community standards, appeal to the prurient interest, and be utterly without any social, artistic, or scientific value (this is the Supreme Court's definition, not mine).

I seriously doubt how anything exhibited to hundreds of underclassmen each year by a university professor in one of a school's most popular classes for several decades could possibly meet --- or even come remotely close to meeting -- the definition of obscene.

Mind you, the debate over whether such a class is "valuable" or "worthwhile" is not the same as the debate over whether such a class is obscene or should be shut down. I think much postmodern English theory is trivial and ridiculous, and that classes covering this stuff are generally a waste of time, but I have no problem with the university offering them.

Occam's Razor applies here...the most logical answer is likely the true one...that a right wing student who worked for a right wing senator personally disapproved of the class and "made a federal case of it" to stretch a phrase.

Mike Silverman: My reason for suspecting that Dailey's class materials could be obscene is that it's very possible that his course materials have changed over time. His course could be different than it was even two years ago.

The report puts the specific allegations in context, with what appear to me to be reasonable explanations for each one, which is why I accept their conclusion that his course materials are not obscene. If the complaining student does in fact work for Wagle, that certainly gives weight to the possibility that the whole thing was driven by politics. I'd feel better if I thought the investigation and report would have come about if a student had merely gone to the dean and complained, rather than having to go outside the university and kick up such a public fuss, but I guess we'll never know.

May I add, that the doubts we all seem to have as to the academic merit of this course make me wonder about the prestigious award that Dailey received and Erin posted about a few days ago. Hopefully he teaches some other classes that have a little more substance.

If the material isn't obscene, then the school was never at risk from the senator's amendment, which specifically referenced obscene material, as defined under Kansas law. If KU were confident that there was no risk of a finding of obscenity, they shouldn't have objected to the amendment.

I find it rather easy to imagine that the sorts of things interesting and appealing to undergraduates might be seen as obscene by the larger community.

Is the thought that obscene materails are not appealing? That's not why they are prohibited--they are prohibited because they appeal to base interests, not because they are without appeal.

I have no doubt that this class offended very few people, and that the offended student is the sort who is easily offended. But why does that matter? The question is, why fund obscenity? To say that no one complained until now doesn't answer that question.

It won't do to say that the university believes in free expression and won't shut down classes because of its belief in academic freedom. As I've said, look into the Integrated Humanities Program, shut down by KU. That principle simply isn't one they recognize in practice, though they like the rhetoric when it is useful (as it is in this case).

If the material isn't obscene, then the school was never at risk from the senator's amendment, which specifically referenced obscene material, as defined under Kansas law. If KU were confident that there was no risk of a finding of obscenity, they shouldn't have objected to the amendment.

I find it rather easy to imagine that the sorts of things interesting and appealing to undergraduates might be seen as obscene by the larger community.

Is the thought that obscene materails are not appealing? That's not why they are prohibited--they are prohibited because they appeal to base interests, not because they are without appeal.

I have no doubt that this class offended very few people, and that the offended student is the sort who is easily offended. But why does that matter? The question is, why fund obscenity? To say that no one complained until now doesn't answer that question.

It won't do to say that the university believes in free expression and won't shut down classes because of its belief in academic freedom. As I've said, look into the Integrated Humanities Program, shut down by KU. That principle simply isn't one they recognize in practice, though they like the rhetoric when it is useful (as it is in this case).

The first line of defense in crappy course identification is students. But keep in mind a few things: Many students in college are passive and disengaged from the classroom, and their motives in taking certain courses may have zip to do with content. I suspect Dailey's course, for instance, has a reputation for being a mildly diverting easy A. Who would complain about that? Again, the attention of many students is only tangentially on the classroom - they are centrally involved in things like sororities, alcohol, sports, parties, and so forth. Throw anything at them in the classroom and they're liable to sit there and take it because they don't know how to recognize bullshit and/or they're not really listening.

Keep in mind too that certain sorts of classes attract only certain sorts of students. Why does the imbecile Marxoid in my department continue to attract students to his classes? Because our university's student body always contains twenty or so Che clones who will reliably flock to these sorts of courses. No complaints will show up on the student evaluations of these courses, because no student to the right of Emma Goldman will stay in them for more than five minutes.

Keep in mind also that parents, despite the amazing sums they're shelling out, are incredibly incurious and uncritical about what their children are studying in college. Many seem to care only about a high GPA and a pre-professional major - otherwise, it doesn't matter whether it's Rimbaud or Rambo - it's all nonsense compared to the real estate law they'll be studying soon enough. As long as American parents and students think of college as an expensive indulgence obscurely moving you toward some sort of social polishing, stupid courses will proliferate.

I'm not exempting professors here, by the way - after all, THEY'RE the ones formulating the courses. It's just that this post is already too long.

purcell, it's something I've thought about because in a couple of years I'll be the parent of a college student. I can't go with her and hold her hand.

Here is my thought: I've done the best I can to teach my child how to separate the wheat from the chaff. At some point she's got to spin off and start doing that for herself. If at the end of a semester she wakes up and thinks - I've wasted over 50 hours of my life on a bunch of self-evident claptrap - then that may be a better innoculation against having that happen to her again, than any pressure I might bring to bear on her college.

Dear Senator Wagle:

The amendment introduced and signed into law about sex education raises was certainly initiated out of a real worry that something terrible might be happening. As a licensed developmental and child psychologist who, as a native Kansas, was trained as undergraduate and graduate of the University of Kansas, I understand your worry. Indeed, my work focused around keeping children from all sorts of serious harm and predatory behavior, or helping them heal from such harm.

Because of being a Native Kansan, a KU graduate, and well-known mental health professional engaged in research on prevention, I reviewed the records available to me on the Internet. I was also seriously doubtful that Dr. Dailey could/would have done the things in a large, popular undergraduate course. As a graduate student and as a faculty member, I knew Dr. Dailey.

The legislation passed has created harm, though I am certain that is not what was intended.

As I understand, a person came to you claiming that all sorts of terrible things were happening in the classroom?pornography, pedophilia, etc. The act of coming to you to make a complaint ought to have raised some alarm bells of first order. Of course, bad and outrageous things happen in high places and public places. You may have been had. Permit me to explain.

I cannot find any meaningful information about the person who came to you, but my knowledge of psychological research and behavior suggests something odd. Several possibilities exist.

One common symptom prior trauma exposure is hypersensitivity to stimuli evocative of the original trauma. Over time, smaller and smaller ?bits? of the original trauma begin to trigger behaviors and fear or anxiety cognitions. In basic psychology, this is called classical conditioning, which is at the root of many problems of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. This can be measured even below ?cognitive awareness? by such things as skin conductance, heart rate changes, eye-pupil changes, etc. Child molestation or abuse victims show these changes; raped women often show these changes; and even combat vets show these changes in some cases (I know because of working with the Pentagon). Fundamentally, the mind has become extra-sensitive to perceived danger.

There is another option. As it turns out, some people may
have genetic susceptibility to these kind of trauma responses, which have come to light as a result of twin and adoption studies. Certain polymorphisms of dopamine or serotonin genes increase the risk of adverse consequences from trauma, and appear to alter behavior as a consequence. These are thing not known to anybody until the recent advances in the genetics during the last decade (which some people at KU contributed to). These findings are not exactly the reading material of Time magazine, unfortunately.

There is yet another option. Some people also develop peculiar forms of mental illness as result of exposure to trauma, such as ?borderline personality disorder?, factitious disorders or even Munchausen's?in addition to the more common reactions of anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. People with borderline personality or factitious disorders can create huge drama in the world, which often fills some void for control and attention. You can read about such things in non-technical book from Amazon.com called, Patient or Pretender. Until you?ve been dealt with by such individuals, you have no idea of the amazing stories, behaviors and complexities they will engage in. I had my first experience with such a client as a doctoral student at the University of Kansas, and the person presented for months as perfectly rationale, reasonable and even intelligent?duping scores of people. Even the famous or infamous Dr. Freud noticed these reactions (and he was write on the behavioral manifestation but wrong on this theory). As I read the allegations about Dr. Dailey, they had all the earmarks of someone possibly exposed to trauma or perhaps with some factitious disturbance.

The clues come in the charges made to you. They were apparently way out there. A professor showing pedophilia, engaging in outrageous behavior to hundreds of students. And, there appear to be overtures of conspiracy in the charges, though I cannot be certain from what I read. These kind of things cannot be hidden easily. First, off they would show up in all the student evaluations of instruction, which is something I know a great deal about at KU. I was the student who invented, supervised and started student ratings of instruction at KU which became a national model (See the Spenser Library archives). The student ratings of instruction (which are anonymous) would contain all sorts of info about crazy behavior if evident. Second, gossip and talk happen?especially about sexual matters. These evaluations are accessible by the public records laws, and impossible to fudge without hacking the computer which would leave audit trails. And, if this thing were true, the University would want it stopped quickly because of the huge liability issues in torts law. Interestingly, no civil, let alone criminal, lawsuits have been filed. Nothing stops anyone from filing a civil lawsuit against the University in this case, which you or the informant could do. The danger is losing in court, of course.

By coming to you, making these charges, the person guaranteed lots of attention and control, as witnessed by the appearance on the O?Reilly Factor. Those are hallmarks of factitious disorders. The investigation by the University appears quite thorough, and the people who did the review like Dr. Fawcett-McClusky (who I went to grad school with) are very well regarded and found nothing of substance. Again, if there were serious danger, the University would want to distance itself from Dr. Dailey very fast to avoid liability; a conspiracy theory of cover up doesn?t hold.

Thus, Senator Wagle, I am left with the possible conclusion that you were had in all this. Yes, I know the young person works for you. If you?ve been around the block a few times, you know that employees can have all sorts of baggage. Now, it?s a pickle for you having gone way out on a limb.

Damage has now been done to good professor who has taught many people. I took a course for Dr. Dailey when I was a student at KU, served with him on committees, and developed nothing but respect for him. Issues of sexual exploitation, sexual trauma, and therapy for sexual disturbances or disorders are extremely serious things that that ruin lives and wreak havoc in our culture. I know because I work scientifically to prevent such things from happening with state governments, and I read the case files of such things which can be horrifying. What has happened to Dr. Dailey is terrible, as witnessed by the ?column? at www.american-partisan.com/cols/2003/shenandoah/qtr2/0501.htm saying ??the bearded Dailey has a wide-spread reputation for porn?? No credible evidence suggests that Dr. Dailey has suddenly flipped out and run amok.

I earnestly hope that you can find it in your heart to do the descent thing here, and find a way to apologize to Dr. Dailey for being taken in. Pedophilia and the moral lapse resulting in the sexual exploitation and trauma of children, youth or young adults are not clearly not what?s happening in the undergraduate at the University of Kansas. The tragedy is that this is diverting attention to the terrible crimes against children and youth that are happening right now in Kansas.

Sincerely,

Dennis Embry (KU BA, ?71; KU Ph.D., 1981, KU faculty 1981-1987)