Two different events hitting local media have underscored, for me, the bizarre love triangle between conservatives, freedom, and sex. In both cases, the typical reaction was "The country is ending because of those wanton Liberals." Both of them involved schools.
Up in Evanston, the "OMFS!" moment occurred at Northwestern University, one of the most selective and highly respected private universities in the country. In the psychology program is a course offering titled "Human Sexuality", which is very popular on campus for reasons I would characterize as "duh, they're college students". Professor John Bailey's class is known for being a bit risque, what with its topic and all. For a discussion on fetishes, the professor brought in a guest speaker, Ken Melvoin-Berg, who had a couple who assisted in the display of sex toys along with video depictions. The woman accompanying the guest speaker expressed the opinion that the orgasm depicted in the video was not realistic and -- here's where it starts getting strange -- offers to demonstrate the device herself.
You can see where this is going. And yes, it went there. The professor postponed the offer until after the class was over, made it clear that the demonstration was optional, and gave anyone alarmed by the idea ample opportunity to leave. To my surprise, some actually did. And then, in front of about 120 of the luckiest students on the North American continent, the woman demonstrated the device, a motorized phallus called a "Fucksaw", stimulating herself to orgasm.
The students who attended all said it was a worthwhile experience that added to the educational value of the course, which I know sounds fake, but they're sticking with their story. The professor admitted to being a little unsure how this was all going to play out, and the school administration was two or three different minds about the whole thing before finally settling on "we support our professors' academic freedom". As you might imagine, the response from the peanut gallery ranged from "awesomeness!" to "Liberals are murdering America with their dildos!"
Several people I saw posting to the article about it on Yahoo News were outraged to the point that they exclaimed if that happened at their children's school, they would pull them out immediately (I suppose suddenly forgetting that college students are typically adults -- legally if not emotionally). I asked a few of them what particularly upset them about the demonstration. None of them replied to me. I suppose the most likely reason they didn't is because they took my question as proof that I was mentally damaged. Some of the more reasoned responses seemed to object to the "animalization" of human beings. They compared the spectacle to studying the large intestine and colon in anatomy class by watching someone taking a dump. While I myself would not wish to witness such a thing, just as some students declined to attend the sex demonstration, I can imagine a plausible scenario where students might watch someone take a dump in the name of education.
In this incident, all of the attendees and participants were adults, 18 or over, who willingly attended and/or participated. Contrary to some critics, it wasn't public sex. A college classroom is not "the public". If you don't believe me, try wandering into one off the street. While the demonstration may have been startling, and was certainly explicit, nothing about it was illegal. Immoral, you say? Now we're crossing from science to religion, and let's face it, anyone who looks at it that way probably objects to the very existence of a course titled "Human Sexuality" anyway.
The other incident occurred closer to home. Here in St. Louis, a public school teacher essentially suspended herself (she requested to be placed on administrative leave) after being outed for the second time in her teaching career by her students for once having made pornographic movies. Even though she stopped making sex videos 15 years ago, she lost a job as a teacher in Padukah in 2006 once her students found out. She fought her termination, but teachers can be terminated without cause within their first few years of employment, so she lost, in spite of overwhelming support for her from the community. She changed her name, moved to St. Louis, and went to work for Parkway North in 2007. This time, when she got outed by her students, I suppose she chose not to fight it, knowing it was pointless.
Once again, the response from the public was mixed. Many responders to the news story on stltoday.com (the Post-Dispatch's web site) screeched at Parkway North for not vetting her properly on her background. Several writers applauded her firing, as if it was some small victory against the Liberal teachers unions. (Never mind the fact that in both cases, the union was unable to help her.) But a significant number of people said, "So what? She's not doing it anymore, she's worked hard to reform her life, and so she should be forgiven." At least in this case, more Christians seem to be speaking up for her. A few people have criticized Parkway North for being hamfisted and short-sighted about the whole thing, and feel that Parkway North should have kept her, or at least reassigned her.
This situation is even more tragic. Here is a woman who regrets what she did, got educated, found religion on top of it, and is trying to make the world a better place by being a teacher. The reaction against her is almost incomprehensible. And yet, there they are, trying to turn this into a "Liberal" thing, or dismissing her efforts with "actions have consequences, too bad she didn't know that". The only glimmer of hope for a just, compassionate community someday is that at least some Christians are willing to forgive her and rise to her defense.
Even if she didn't have regrets -- suppose instead she said "Yeah, I made pornos, so what? I'm not doing that anymore. I've moved on." -- why is this an issue? Making an adult movie is, in every state in America, a legal endeavor. Every sex act in an adult movie is, in every state in America (thanks to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional), legal. Gateway North's background check didn't turn up anything because there was nothing to turn up. Background checks are for finding out about criminal activity, and there wasn't any. This woman is being persecuted for no good reason, period. Of course, now she has to leave anyway because she's "a distraction". That's a convenient excuse for the school district so they can take the spineless way out. For how long would her past film work be a distraction? Until the novelty wore off. By that standard, Kurt Warner or Rush Limbaugh teaching high school would have the same issue. Would they not be distractions until people got used to having them around?
This too would have passed, and Gateway North would have gotten to keep a good teacher, but they were too impatient and risk-averse. If only she had gotten past her probationary period and gotten tenure, at least she would have had a chance to defend herself, because then the school would have to show cause, and it's not necessarily a given that having made a porn film 15 years ago constitutes "cause". And then the conservatives would have held this up as yet another instance of the excess of teacher's unions. You all know the song by now.
Up in Evanston, the "OMFS!" moment occurred at Northwestern University, one of the most selective and highly respected private universities in the country. In the psychology program is a course offering titled "Human Sexuality", which is very popular on campus for reasons I would characterize as "duh, they're college students". Professor John Bailey's class is known for being a bit risque, what with its topic and all. For a discussion on fetishes, the professor brought in a guest speaker, Ken Melvoin-Berg, who had a couple who assisted in the display of sex toys along with video depictions. The woman accompanying the guest speaker expressed the opinion that the orgasm depicted in the video was not realistic and -- here's where it starts getting strange -- offers to demonstrate the device herself.
You can see where this is going. And yes, it went there. The professor postponed the offer until after the class was over, made it clear that the demonstration was optional, and gave anyone alarmed by the idea ample opportunity to leave. To my surprise, some actually did. And then, in front of about 120 of the luckiest students on the North American continent, the woman demonstrated the device, a motorized phallus called a "Fucksaw", stimulating herself to orgasm.
The students who attended all said it was a worthwhile experience that added to the educational value of the course, which I know sounds fake, but they're sticking with their story. The professor admitted to being a little unsure how this was all going to play out, and the school administration was two or three different minds about the whole thing before finally settling on "we support our professors' academic freedom". As you might imagine, the response from the peanut gallery ranged from "awesomeness!" to "Liberals are murdering America with their dildos!"
Several people I saw posting to the article about it on Yahoo News were outraged to the point that they exclaimed if that happened at their children's school, they would pull them out immediately (I suppose suddenly forgetting that college students are typically adults -- legally if not emotionally). I asked a few of them what particularly upset them about the demonstration. None of them replied to me. I suppose the most likely reason they didn't is because they took my question as proof that I was mentally damaged. Some of the more reasoned responses seemed to object to the "animalization" of human beings. They compared the spectacle to studying the large intestine and colon in anatomy class by watching someone taking a dump. While I myself would not wish to witness such a thing, just as some students declined to attend the sex demonstration, I can imagine a plausible scenario where students might watch someone take a dump in the name of education.
In this incident, all of the attendees and participants were adults, 18 or over, who willingly attended and/or participated. Contrary to some critics, it wasn't public sex. A college classroom is not "the public". If you don't believe me, try wandering into one off the street. While the demonstration may have been startling, and was certainly explicit, nothing about it was illegal. Immoral, you say? Now we're crossing from science to religion, and let's face it, anyone who looks at it that way probably objects to the very existence of a course titled "Human Sexuality" anyway.
The other incident occurred closer to home. Here in St. Louis, a public school teacher essentially suspended herself (she requested to be placed on administrative leave) after being outed for the second time in her teaching career by her students for once having made pornographic movies. Even though she stopped making sex videos 15 years ago, she lost a job as a teacher in Padukah in 2006 once her students found out. She fought her termination, but teachers can be terminated without cause within their first few years of employment, so she lost, in spite of overwhelming support for her from the community. She changed her name, moved to St. Louis, and went to work for Parkway North in 2007. This time, when she got outed by her students, I suppose she chose not to fight it, knowing it was pointless.
Once again, the response from the public was mixed. Many responders to the news story on stltoday.com (the Post-Dispatch's web site) screeched at Parkway North for not vetting her properly on her background. Several writers applauded her firing, as if it was some small victory against the Liberal teachers unions. (Never mind the fact that in both cases, the union was unable to help her.) But a significant number of people said, "So what? She's not doing it anymore, she's worked hard to reform her life, and so she should be forgiven." At least in this case, more Christians seem to be speaking up for her. A few people have criticized Parkway North for being hamfisted and short-sighted about the whole thing, and feel that Parkway North should have kept her, or at least reassigned her.
This situation is even more tragic. Here is a woman who regrets what she did, got educated, found religion on top of it, and is trying to make the world a better place by being a teacher. The reaction against her is almost incomprehensible. And yet, there they are, trying to turn this into a "Liberal" thing, or dismissing her efforts with "actions have consequences, too bad she didn't know that". The only glimmer of hope for a just, compassionate community someday is that at least some Christians are willing to forgive her and rise to her defense.
Even if she didn't have regrets -- suppose instead she said "Yeah, I made pornos, so what? I'm not doing that anymore. I've moved on." -- why is this an issue? Making an adult movie is, in every state in America, a legal endeavor. Every sex act in an adult movie is, in every state in America (thanks to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional), legal. Gateway North's background check didn't turn up anything because there was nothing to turn up. Background checks are for finding out about criminal activity, and there wasn't any. This woman is being persecuted for no good reason, period. Of course, now she has to leave anyway because she's "a distraction". That's a convenient excuse for the school district so they can take the spineless way out. For how long would her past film work be a distraction? Until the novelty wore off. By that standard, Kurt Warner or Rush Limbaugh teaching high school would have the same issue. Would they not be distractions until people got used to having them around?
This too would have passed, and Gateway North would have gotten to keep a good teacher, but they were too impatient and risk-averse. If only she had gotten past her probationary period and gotten tenure, at least she would have had a chance to defend herself, because then the school would have to show cause, and it's not necessarily a given that having made a porn film 15 years ago constitutes "cause". And then the conservatives would have held this up as yet another instance of the excess of teacher's unions. You all know the song by now.
[Originally commented by buzzchick on 3/9/2011]
ReplyDeleteHow can you even hold someone responsible for what they did 15 years ago? Unless she was 18, all legal.
Now, see, if she had appeared in "Batman Forever".... I could see that as grounds for dismissal.
Also I got a fabulous idea for some kind of demonstration: Beat A Republican With a Dildo Day. I think it could be a big hit (if you'll pardon the pun). If you're not into physical violence, you can squirt lube at them. I've got my dildo made from a mold of John Holmes, complete with balls and a big bottle of Astroglide. Who's with me?