<p>^ Yes, it is widely “known” in the medical world. But considering no evidence has ever surfaced, I am inclined to believe it is urban legend.</p>
<p>Without a family or patient’s permission to disclose such information, it can never be confirmed. But, fwiw, even snopes has it listed as “undetermined”. [snopes.com:</a> Jamie Lee Curtis Rumor](<a href=“http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/jamie.asp]snopes.com:”>Jamie Lee Curtis: Male and Female? | Snopes.com) According to the endocrinologist, Jamie Lee did have some surgical procedures in infancy. Again, though, this proves nothing.</p>
<p>“Ethical guidelines for mental health professionals prohibit them doing anything that is not in the interests of the well-being of the research subject or patient.”</p>
<p>But these performers were neither patients nor research subjects. They were, in essence, guest lecturers. I don’t see any ethical duty there. Even if there were, I am very skeptical about the claim that we’re better able to judge what’s in their best interests than they are. They’re probably loving this publicity – I bet their fetish organization is getting lots of new membership inquiries.</p>
<p>A quick look at the Illinois Psychology licensing board does not show that Dr. Bailey is currently licensed to practice in the state <a href=“https://www.idfpr.com/dpr/licenselookup/results.asp[/url]”>https://www.idfpr.com/dpr/licenselookup/results.asp</a></p>
<p>It is not unusual for academicians who do not have a private practice to not maintain licensure. Additionally, he is not listed as a member of APA (the American Psychological Association - I can’t post the link as it is private, so you will have to trust me on that one) so would not officially be required to abide by the ethical standards put forth by that organization either. He would be expected to have to follow the policies of the university’s IRB (Institution Review Board) for approval of research involving humans or animals, but as Hanna stated, this class demonstration would probably not fall under that rubric. </p>
<p>Surely there must be some verbiage in the faculty contracts and university policy about acceptable/unacceptable behavior, but even if his judgement is considered askew, he doesn’t seem to have to comply with the ethical guidelines put forth by the state licensing board and/or APA. Don’t know what other organizations he may belong to that have ethical standards. Can’t tell if he is a member of the Illinois Psychological Association</p>
<p>** The link from the Ill. Lic Bd doesnt seem to take you to the page I found-- you can go back to the main page and just put in the last name “Bailey”. Several are listed-- none are him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was also a rumor around here, as supposedly Jamie Curtis sought treatment for it at one of the major medical centers in our city (that my H is affiliated with, and that I believe Hanna may have connections to as well).</p>
<p>The psychology department is accredited by the APA, so I believe he is responsible for upholding their guidelines. Disagree that the fact that this was supposedly a “lecturer” is a distinction. This was no lecturer. Even Jerry Springer’s show, exploitive as it is, screened participants.</p>
<p>It is probably the graduate program that has APA accreditation. I dont believe undergrad programs are granted APA accreditation. Was this class offered as an undergrad or graduate course?</p>
<p>Based on the professor’s statement <a href=“http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/Baileystatement.pdf[/url]”>http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/Baileystatement.pdf</a> it sounds like this was an undergrad class with hundreds of students in a large lecture hall (even though it does look like he also has an appointment in the clinical psych graduate program). While I do not condone his choice, and question the appropriateness or necessity of such demonstrations, I think that efforts to claim violation of ethical standards will be found to be without merit.</p>
<p>Being forced to view porn or endure suggestive comments by a boss as a condition of employment is sexual harassment and will get said employer in big trouble.</p>
<p>By the same token, wouldn’t being forced to view people engaging in sex acts as a condition of receiving a grade in a college course be taken as harassment, and get the prof into hot water with the state if not his school? </p>
<p>Not to mention that if it is an introductory course full of freshmen, there are at least a few people in that room who are under 18 and he is messing with minors. B I G trouble.</p>
<p>Ah, but he claimed these afterschool sessions were NOT graded and attendance was NOT included in the student’s grade. Have already mentioned that there are indeed young people under 18 on most college campuses, including homeschooled kids as well as young admits and kids doing co-enrollments in HS & college. Complaints do not always have to be made during the event for them to be considered and can occur considerably later, as they still may in this case.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t see how being told, “It will get graphic,” would lead me to believe it would lead to a naked woman stimulated by a power saw to the point of orgasm and possibly release of bodily fluids. The prof’s warning in this case was clearly inadequate to let people make an informed decision about whether to stay or go (and to many of us was not an appropriate or permitted use of school time or premises).</p>
<p>Yes, he said this was one of many optional, after class demonstrations and presentations that he arranges. Again-- here his his “explanation” <a href=“http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/Baileystatement.pdf[/url]”>http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/Baileystatement.pdf</a></p>
<p>JRZ-</p>
<p>Leaving out the live sex act for the moment (which most people like I seem to feel was unnecessary), the the analogy of sexual harassment in the workplace is not necessarily a valid one in comparison to this.</p>
<p>In the case of the workplace, viewing porn, sexually suggestive phrases, etc, do nothing to further the business and is harmful to the person it is aimed at, so there is zero justification for it. </p>
<p>In this case, there could be legitimate reason to show porn or explicit images (again, I am leaving out the live sex act), because those can be construed as education in the nature of the class. If a prof showed a porn movie in a science class or an english lit class, there could be very little argument it was legitimately teaching. The fact that the teacher made the extra session voluntary means that people who wished to opt out, like underage students or those with other objections, did not feel penalized, the fact that 500 didn’t go would contra indicate any kind of coercion. As far as there being underage students on the campus, while I don’t know NU’s standards on that, I suspect they could very easily limit it to students 17 and older, which is generally the range for explicit material (an NC17 rating in movie terms)…</p>
<p>As far as ethical standards with the couple, even if Bailey were a practicing psychologist the ethical guidelines would not apply in this case, the people involved were lecturers, they weren’t research subjects and not under his care. Bailey has a responsiblity to the university and its standards obviously, but professionally? No. A psychologist is forbidden to sleep with a patient or research subject, but they could sleep with someone with a disorder if they weren’t their patient (technically, a shrink can sleep with someone they once treated and aren’t treating now, but that one is kind of in a gray area if what I have been told is true). Even if said couple had mental health issues, Bailey had no responsibility towards them because they had no formal relationship professionally, they simply were invited to lecture. </p>
<p>One final note on the gerbil thing, if that story was true there should have been a number of people arrested. Using a gerbil or other animal in that way constitutes animal abuse, and the hospital or doctor has a duty to report that, there is no shield law when a crime has been committed. Even arguing that some doctors might overlook that, if this really happened in the numbers suggested by the rumors, then an outraged doctor or nurse would have reported it to the authorities, since some of them were likely to be animal lovers. The fact that there has been zero cases like this reported to law enforcement says a lot as well.</p>
<p>“In this case, there could be legitimate reason to show porn or explicit images”</p>
<p>Right – when I was a judicial clerk, I worked on a criminal case where the defendant was accused of soliciting a minor. I had to read and examine the evidence (including explicit emails and child pornography) in order to make a recommendation about its admissibility. No sexual harassment there, because I had to look at these things to do my job.</p>
<p>Now, if the judge had deliberately given me that project because I was female and the judge wanted to watch me react to it – or similarly, if the professor had singled out some students he found attractive to view this “extra credit” material – you’d have a pretty clear case of harassment.</p>
<p>Hey, how realistic could this be. A married couple and there was no begging!!!</p>
<p>Was she awake?</p>
<p>Ok… before anyone else brings this up… the APA ethics code does address, in their introduction and in the section on human relations (sect 3), the following (which includes students):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That said, it is still not clear that Dr. Bailey is required to be subject to the APA ethics code (although he should certainly in principle follow it), and it is also not clear, IMO, that his decision, regardless of whether it was a poor one, would violate the ethics code.</p>
<p>Right, it is hard to find the “harm” where lucid people are claiming they suffered none.</p>
<p>I think the ethical duty the professor violated was the duty to avoid holding his employer up to public ridicule absent a compelling justification. Whatever the educational gain here, it was clearly minimal and outweighed by all the bad publicity. I doubt that there was any legal duty to this effect, but in my own judgment, it’s not right to bite the hand that feeds you unless there’s a darn good reason.</p>
<p>
As he said in his press release statement</p>
<p>This might put a little more sizzle in NU’s rep as semi-conservative home for future professionals/country-clubbers. This event will go down in NU lore and be known as the day NU got a little crazy. Not always a bad thing for a place just a little too neat and tidy.</p>
<p>Huh? Where do you get that rep from? That’s a very odd assessment. Places with major theater and music departments as part of their self-identity don’t typically get the reputation as “semi-conservative homes for future professionals / country-clubbers.”</p>