<p>If this subject isn’t quite ready to fade into the oblivion it so richly deserves, here’s the recent discussion. Any way to merge threads?</p>
<p>to the poster who said this isn’t real news, guess you haven’t picked up The NY Times, WS Journal or listened to the news. This has gone global and not in a positive way. One wonders if acceptances of admissions will be impacted. </p>
<p>Here’s where the serious fallout may occur:</p>
<p>Ethics charges</p>
<p>Robin Mathy, who has published four books and more than 50 peer-reviewed articles on human sexuality, notified The Daily Thursday evening of her intentions to bring charges against both Bailey and NU’s psychology department. In an interview later Thursday, she alleged Bailey defied the governing body’s ethical guidelines by potentially exposing minors to a public sex act and knowingly inflicting psychological damage on students.</p>
<p>“I really predict this is going to result in the deaccreditation of the psychology department,” Mathy said. “The APA can’t just tolerate someone who engages in this prurient behavior.”</p>
<p>She added that Bailey’s public exhibition “speaks to a voyeuristic excitement” and is not a legitimate form of sexual education.</p>
<p>While Bailey is not an APA member, the psychology department is accredited by the APA and will be held accountable for the incident, Mathy said.</p>
<p>Well just so you all know this “issue” has brought many eyes on this school. People who never knew this school was around are now taking a look at it and thinking about it as a coolege choice (not because of the sex ed class but because of what they researched about the school because this issue caused curiosity) So kudos to the school. They got publicity.
“Any publicity is good publicity”</p>
<p>NYerr</p>
<p>This is not new news or a new conflict. From a Daily Northwestern article in 2008:</p>
<p>[</a>" + artTitle.replace(“-”,“”) + " - " + “The Daily Northwestern” + " - " + “Campus” + "](<a href=“http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/2.13894/debate-resumes-on-methods-of-psych-professor-s-research-1.1921649]”>http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/2.13894/debate-resumes-on-methods-of-psych-professor-s-research-1.1921649)</p>
<p>“Bailey also provided a string of e-mails to The Daily from Mathy from the summer of 2003, after the release of his book. In the first e-mail, Mathy wrote that while she also had some issues with his research, she was considering applying to study with him at NU. She wrote that her experience as a former transsexual could aid him greatly in studying the community.” </p>
<p>Everyone with an agenda or a strong point of view may as well get in line. You’ll find no dearth of people a good deal more credentialed offering both support and vilification. Pull up a seat :)</p>
<p>I am disappointed that Bailey’s “colleagues” seek to use this media event to serve their narrow views of what higher education is/should become. I see no ethical or moral issues stemming from this professor’s approach to teaching his students–based on the popularity of his classes, he seems to be more than meeting the student’s expectations. </p>
<p>I hope the witch hunt “fades into the oblivion it so richly deserves” but the raging debate over what is and isn’t “appropriate” is just another example of the un-united state of our nation. Other recent indications involving the constitutional right of protesters to blame the death of fallen service men and women on tolerance of homosexuality and the condemnation of an insensitive Muslim who wishes to pursue religious freedom in southern Manhattan. I would rather the strong opinions about this teacher’s class were more responsive to the state of our nation than what tarnishes the university’s reputation. To all the alums that feel this is inappropriate I ask, weren’t there things going on when you were in school that would have tarnished a 1950’s reputation?
I am confident that the university’s good reputation will out last our puritanical, moralistic, negative views of human sexuality.</p>
<p>If the Bill of Rights is to have any relevance, we need avoid limiting the question of “what’s appropriate?” to one single view of the world. By being more tolerant of the views of others, we are more able to peacefully coexist. If we can make the debate a little less raging, the hundreds of comments on this and other threads are truly a teachable moment. Otherwise, see context of unplanned event by bala at:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1096411-sex-class-nooooooo-28.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1096411-sex-class-nooooooo-28.html</a></p>
<p>@bzipp01 - very nicely put. I hope you are exactly the sort of thoughtful and well-spoken person our D encounters at Northwestern.</p>
<p>I like retired NW educator Epstein’s analysis-</p>
<p>Allow here a small attempt at illumination. Because a subject exists in the world doesnt mean that universities have to take it up, no matter how edgy it may seem. Let books be written about it, let research be done upon it, if the money to support it can be found, but the nature and quality and even the sociology of sexual conductall material available elsewhere in more than plentitude for the truly interesteddoes not cry out for classroom study. Students dont need universities to learn about varying tastes in sex, or about the mechanics of human sexuality. They dont need it because, first, epistemologically, human sexuality isnt a body of knowledge upon which there is sufficient agreement to constitute reliable conclusions, for nearly everything on the subject is still in the flux of theorizing and speculation; and because, second, given the nature of the subject, it tends to be, as the Bailey case shows, exploitative, coarsening, demeaning, and squalid. </p>
<p>Difficult to understand how an expert in the field such as Professor Bailey missed the obvious analogy, but in the demonstration he arranged for his students the poor woman is little better than a prostitute, the students pathetic johns-voyeurs, and he himself, quite simply, the pimp. A curious role for a university teacher to play, but I guess its a living.</p>
<p>I completely agree with Pizzagirl’s two posts above (16 & 17). Well stated!</p>
<p>bzipp01 and MomCares - the Bill of Rights and First Amendment have no bearing on this issue. The recent Supreme Court decision about anti-gay protests near servicemen’s funerals involved the First Amendment because state action was concerned. The objection to what Prof. Bailey depicted by means of a live demonstration had nothing to do with state action; the debate concerns whether Bailey showed poor (or no) judgment in having a live pornographic demonstration for his students (or those who chose to be present) in connection with an NU class. (And by the way, even if the First Amendment were implicated, pornography is not protected by it. The anti-gay protesters may have been saying hurtful things, but that was still protected speech, no matter how hateful.)
I think that the debate about what Bailey did is not so much about whether it was or was not permissible, but whether it showed good or bad judgment and whether it reflected well or poorly on NU. I think that an overwhelming majority of people who care about the school would say it showed a lack of judgment and reflected poorly on NU.</p>
<p>It is especially troubling as the lack of judgment and poor reflection on NU was done by a professor. The reality is that there are similar actions that take place much too often, on other campuses, by those with a much less prestigious academic pedigree. Right now, a racist video posted by a UCLA student is causing consternation over there (perhaps in part because it’s finals week and students are looking for a distraction from their studies.)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>IMHO this is EXACTLY why it is important that research institutions actively tackle the subject of human sexuality! The reality is that human behavior, NOT engineering (and I speak as an engineer) or biology, is going to largely determine whether or not our species survives, and like it or not Human Sexuality is one of the key drivers of human behavior.</p>
<p>The fact that the field is still in flux is PRECISELY why open-minded research is desperately needed.</p>
<p>a relative term to be sure, but I would rather not limit the professors to topics the board of trustees or alumni deem appropriate. With wall street bankers getting off scott free and returning to business as usual, I think we have more important headlines than live sex. The interesting part of the debate is the extent to which people become intolerant of different views and don’t want to admit it, instead claiming the moral or pedagogical high ground. Reminds me of the emperor’s new clothes “any person of virtue can see…” </p>
<p>I loved the movie inside job and especially the oscar acceptance speech–must sees if you haven’t already. If we want to talk about poor judgment, why is wall street richer than ever, and how dumb are we to worry about whether a sex ed demonstration was good judgment?</p>
<p>thats poor judgment.</p>
<p>Wow I must be getting old. When I went to college and couples made out in public someone would yell “get a room”. Now they yell “get your parents to pay $50,000 to send you to Northwestern”.</p>
<p>Sorry - but during the 1960’s in our small conservative town there were nude massage classes as part of the university’s human sexuality course.</p>
<p>Sex isn’t a recent invention. ;-D</p>
<p>Interesting article on the controversy:
[Lower</a> Education | The Weekly Standard](<a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lower-education_554092.html?nopager=1]Lower”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lower-education_554092.html?nopager=1)</p>
<p>Ah, The Weekly Standard… yet another bastion of “fair and balanced” reporting.</p>
<p>According to Mr. Epstein, author of what appears to be the cover story in the upcoming weekly standard writes, “One of the most important things that departed from higher education with the old ideal of the university was intellectual authority… The contemporary university presidents main tasks now, as everyone knows, are to siphon off money from the rich and put out little fires with wet public-relations blankets.” </p>
<p>In an attempt at illuminating the reasoning behind the visceral reactions by some to Bailey’s decision, he proffers “the nature and quality and even the sociology of sexual conductall material available elsewhere in more than plentitude for the truly interesteddoes not cry out for classroom study”. I’m not sure what subjects Mr. Epstein supposes cry out louder for classroom study than obtaining a better understanding of the role of human sexuality in understanding human behavior, but the fact that this classroom demonstration has ascended to the lofty heights of a weekly standard cover story leads me to believe that “sex is taboo” is one aspect of the good old days that is still alive and well. </p>
<p>I do find it interesting that the support he offers for dismissing the sociology of sexual content as junky is "epistemologically, human sexuality isnt a body of knowledge upon which there is sufficient agreement to constitute reliable conclusions, for nearly everything on the subject is still in the flux of theorizing and speculation. During all those hundreds of years that higher education was considered an elite endeavor with “with the old ideal of the university as intellectual authority”, not to mention thousands of years of recorded history, the sociology of sexual conduct-especially the negative associations, the flux and theorizing and speculation cry out louder that ever for study in my view.</p>
<p>For those who believe that higher education should be more progressive than “best which has been thought and said” should read Mr Epstein’s personal views and ask themselves if they offer anything other than the conservative party line. I believe that humans continue to evolve and that higher education should not be limited to established views and elite endeavors. For those who fear progressive education, there’s always the latest glen beck insight on why earthquakes happen.</p>
<p>I don’t really “fear” “progressive” education, as much as “fear” footing it.</p>
<p>The demonstration was $300. The rapid increase in the national debt, much of which goes to fund greed, corruption and lavish lifestyles for the ruling class, is what I don’t want to foot. A discussion more germane to our college graduates best interests is: “Why are trillions of dollars advanced by the US taxpayer turning into wall street bonuses each year?”</p>
<p>This story got the A#1 media hype by the rich and very interested media giants to distract our national attention in the most disorienting way possible from the theft of our national net worth by people who see themselves as above the law. As long as we are distracted enough by how out of hand those sex-ed classes have become, we can just assume that all this borrowing can go on forever just like the sub-prime mortgage bonanza did–until it didn’t. Don’t worry, its free money–other people’s money.</p>
<p>Two years after the biggest heist in history, not a single thief has gone to jail, and this is the hottest topic our media giants have to offer. I wish all this debate over what is appropriate could be redirected to bigger issues.</p>
<p>Other facts about the national debt that make me think less about college tuition and more about the world students face upon graduation:</p>
<p>As of March 1, 2011, the official debt of the United States government is $14.2 trillion ($14,172,957,589,857).[1] This amounts to:</p>
<p> $45,860 for every person living in the U.S.[2]
$120,582 for every household in the U.S.[3]
$301,455 for every U.S. household that pays more in federal taxes than they receive in benefits from the federal government[4]</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Combining the figures above with the national debt and subtracting the value of federal assets, the federal government has $56.5 trillion ($56,529,800,000,000) in debt, liabilities, and unfunded obligations as of September 30, 2010.[18]</p></li>
<li><p>This shortfall is 82% of the combined net worth of all U.S. households and nonprofit organizations, including all assets in savings, real estate, corporate stocks, private businesses, and consumer durable goods such as automobiles.[19] [20]</p></li>
<li><p>This shortfall equates to:
$182,914 for every person living in the U.S.[21]
$480,949 for every household in the U.S.[22]
$1,202,373 for every U.S. household that pays more in federal taxes than they receive in benefits from the federal government[23]</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Good article from Bailey’s POV: [Northwestern</a> University Sex - J. Michael Bailey Human Sexuality Class Controversy - Esquire](<a href=“Northwestern University Sex - J. Michael Bailey Human Sexuality Class Controversy”>Northwestern University Sex - J. Michael Bailey Human Sexuality Class Controversy)</p>
<p>My son tells me that Stephen Colbert will speak at this year’s NW commencement. I believe Prof. Bailey is just trying to help Colbert with source material. ;)</p>