<p>Any thoughts on the live sex-toy demonstration in Professor Bailey's human sexuality class?</p>
<p>All I can say is that most students and other professors here at NU seem to be pretty indifferent to the whole issue. The Daily Northwestern (an unreliable campus news source if there has ever been one) sensationalized this story and tried to make it look like a controversy (causing it to then be picked up by other news sources), though the only real outcry has been from people who are in no way connected with NU. This demonstration was entirely optional, not for class credit or relevant to the class’s exams, and students were well informed about what would be happening. So where’s the issue?</p>
<p>I was hopeful that this was a bunch of media hype, until I heard the statement just released by university president Morton Shapiro (on behalf of the “establishment”, Im sure) that “the faculty member demonstrated extremely poor judgment” and that the matter is under investigation. It is interesting that most of the negative comments are coming from men. </p>
<p>I have no issue with a teacher’s efforts to push the envelop of “higher education”, I have a big issue when the “establishment” members of the universities’ administration attempt to impose their views of what is appropriate in determining what is best for the students.</p>
<p>Northwestern students and administrators are defending an explicit after-class demonstration involving a woman being publicly penetrated by a sex toy on stage in the popular Human Sexuality course last week.</p>
<p>The optional presentation last Monday, attended by about 120 students, featured a naked non-student woman being repeatedly sexually stimulated to the point of orgasm by the sex toy, referred to as a “[f***]saw.” The device is essentially a motorized phallus.</p>
<p>The 600-person course, taught by psychology Prof. John Michael Bailey, is one of the largest at NU. The after-class events, which range from a question-and-answer session with swingers to a panel of convicted sex offenders, are a popular feature of the class. But they’re optional and none of the material is included on exams.</p>
<p>Last Wednesday, Bailey devoted six minutes of his lecture to addressing mounting controversy regarding the incident and articulating his educational intent. He told the class he feared the demonstration would impact the after-class events, which are sponsored by the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences, and he explained the educational purpose of the events.</p>
<p>“I think that these after-class events are quite valuable. Why? One reason is that I think it helps us understand sexual diversity,” he said, according to an audio file obtained by The Daily.</p>
<p>“Sticks and stones may break your bones, but watching naked people on stage doing pleasurable things will never hurt you,” he said to loud applause at the end of his speech.</p>
<p>I just know that $60(k) a year out of my pocket, going for this education is really money well spent. </p>
<p>Even more telling about the education offered at this school would be the outcome of same, as in the comment from bzipp01 (above)</p>
<p>“I have a big issue when the “establishment” members of the universities’ administration attempt to impose their views of what is appropriate in determining what is best for the students”.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I totally agree with this statement! What is wrong with a culture that clearly understands that viewing graphic photos of the holocaust and other war atrocities is critical to our understanding of human nature, yet thinks that viewing nearly any aspect of human sexuality is abhorrent? A broad view of human sexuality is surely as critical to our understanding of human nature as an understanding of violence is!!</p>
<p>My dad was a professor of human sexuality in the 60’s, and he was constantly under pressure to tone down the material. Sad to see that so little has changed since then.</p>
<p>Still… I have to admit when I read the news story I was reminded of John Cleese in “The Meaning of Life”. ;-D </p>
<p>In any case, I’m so glad our D has chosen NU!!</p>
<p>these students certainly DID get “a broad view”
Good luck with that price tag.</p>
<p>I’d think that anyone who decides their tuition is poorly spent should have bigger issues than a single hour-long optional after-school presentation which, if my math serves me, would have cost each of the students present about $5 even if they’d had to pay out-of-pocket. ;-).</p>
<p>It’s not the professor’s fault, it’s the university’s fault for allowing such a class in the first place. This is all attracting negativity toward NU, and Shapiro, seeing how this is hurting NU’s reputation, released his statement about how he is against such demonstrations.</p>
<p>Negativity? Are you serious???</p>
<p>I doubt you’re a Medill kid, so I’ll throw this one at you - “Any publicity is good publicity”.</p>
<p>Hey east and west coast kids: we exist! Look beyond the Ivies
Hey midwest: How’s your quaint college town and raging social scene? We have a $&*%SAW!</p>
<p>As someone coming here from UCSD, I can assure you that “any publicity is good publicity” is not true.</p>
<p>Case in point: “Compton Cookout”</p>
<p>@averby - you’re not seriously suggesting a Psychology major without a human sexuality component? IMHO that’s akin to offering an Engineering major without calculus! Human sexuality is, like it or not, a key driver of human behavior. ;-D</p>
<p>By the way, I’d certainly have been among the 480 students who chose NOT to attend, but unless I’m missing something, no harm, no foul.</p>
<p>^ I second Mom’s analysis. I realize Shapiro had a touchy PR issue that would likely have been inflamed had he defended the professor, but I would sure have a hard time reprimanding a professor taking real risks, broadening views, or challenging undergraduates. I dont know all the particulars but I certainly admire his commitment to teaching. </p>
<p>I just hope it blows over quickly before any damage is done to the curriculum he worked so hard to develop. I also hope the often sensationalistic reporting does not inspire any witch hunts for other NU professors or faculty from other universities.</p>
<p>MomCares, I completely agree with your analysis. While I personally would not have attended such a demonstration, I think it’s great that I go to a school where such progressive forms of education are possible – though thanks to the media, they soon may not be…</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks this is “ruining Northwestern’s prestige” or “wasting their tuition money” needs to get some perspective. This is ONE class, taught by ONE professor, with an OPTIONAL presentation attended by only 100 students out of all the undergrads. If you truly believe that your tuition money has been wasted, let’s look at some facts: the guest lecturer was paid somewhere between $300 and $500, if I remember correctly. Divided by 100 students in attendance, that’s at most $5 per person, as I believe MomCares pointed out.</p>
<p>It’s important to remember that Northwestern students are legal adults capable of making their own choices. People might be able to see that better if they got down off their high horses and stopped looking at this situation through their own lens of personal morals. Professors should not have to teach their classes based upon what others believe to be morally “right” or “wrong.” They should teach their classes based on truth and the intent to further knowledge. And that’s what Professor Bailey has done.</p>
<p>I’ve said this so many times I’m sick of it, but I’ll say it again: This happened a week and a half ago. If it was real news, it would have been news then. Wake up and smell the media firestorm, people. This is all getting blown out of proportion.</p>
<p>It seems some posters like to point out an estimate of " $5.00 a student"
If this is so, then the faculty of this sponsoring institution is even more obtuse than I first thought… </p>
<p>Outside these hallowed halls of learning, this “lecture” would normally run at least $30.00 and involve even more profit in watered down alcohol consumption.</p>
<p>I note that the “price tag” I wrote of earlier is not a monetary one, of course.</p>
<p>I hope the “investigation” and extreme disappointment of Schapiro were to placate the members of the establishment who have judged this professor negatively. Kind of interesting that BYU is suspending or expelling its star basketball player for violating the honor code he signed because he had sex.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alum here and parent to a member of the incoming class.<br>
There’s nothing wrong with a Human Sexuality class, and nothing wrong with the concept of educating about “kinks” in such a class - that’s part of the human condition. I have no objection to the content; it’s the poor judgment of allowing it demonstrated live that I object to. And to be clear, I don’t object because I think it’s immoral (hey, whatever gets people through the night) or because I think the poor NU students who witnessed will be irrevocably scarred. I object because I think it at least temporarily tarnishes the NU brand name. The actual demonstration seems to have had little pedagogical value. Biology class teaches about the digestive tract but professors don’t invite people up on a stage to demonstrate urination, because demonstrating it doesn’t involve adding value versus the discussion. History class teaches about lynchings but professors don’t invite people up on a stage to re-enact one because the live demonstration doesn’t add value. Same principle here. Poor judgment in the demonstration, but that doesn’t mean the course content was “wrong.”</p>
<p>As for the BYU issue, I don’t see how that’s relevant. You know when you sign up for BYU that these are the rules; I don’t possibly see how them enforcing their own rules (as silly as I might think they are) is “controversial” or a story in the least. NU isn’t BYU and thank goodness for that!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you’re mistaken if you think that many of the objectors think it was “morally wrong.” I, and my fellow alums who have been discussing this, think it was poor judgment that had the potential to reflect poorly on the university. An ENTIRELY different thing.</p>
<p>In response to an online dialogue I had with my sister on this topic, she sent me this link. Apparently poor judgement in doing live reenactments exists at the K-12 level as well. This story was out of Ohio.<br>
[School</a> District Apologizes for Mock Slave Auction In Class](<a href=“AOL - News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com”>AOL - News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com)</p>
<p>Read this thread <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1096411-sex-class-nooooooo-5.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1096411-sex-class-nooooooo-5.html</a></p>
<p>I think this is a small story hyped in the media by small people, and I’ll be glad when it dies.</p>
<p>While it seems like an odd demonstration to offer, I’ve heard zero discussion of the context in which it was presented, and in my opinion the context is critical. The demonstration was not provided to titillate the kids, but to educate them, so I am certain the professor provided background and context. Whatever point it was used to illustrate, I’ll bet those students will remember 60 years from now when they’ve forgotten much else. I’d guess that everything they saw in the demonstration, they could have easily seen in Chicago – it might have been better if the prof had arranged a field trip.</p>
<p>I know that my dad’s human sexuality courses literally saved many student’s lives, so if you think this class sounds expendable I assure you that you are very wrong. Years after his death, many of his students stay in close touch and I am constantly reminded of the important impact his teaching had on his students, many of whom have gone on to help many more people.</p>
<p>Honestly – Why is it okay to train 18-year-olds to use weapons to kill people, but it is not okay to show them that some people use sex toys to give their partner pleasure?</p>
<p>In any case, NU is better off having this scandal than the Compton Cookout our many others, since it at least was an attempt at education and good education inevitably invites controversy.</p>