Sexuality, one of the most controversial subjects in academia, was targeted last week at the University of Kansas. More specifically, the Kansas State Senate passed a bill withholding $3 million in state funding due to displays of educational videos featuring humans engaged in sexual acts. These videos were shown in a long-running and popular sexuality class taught by award-winning professor Dennis Dailey at the University of Kansas. The Kansas State Senate claims that such videos are obscene and should not be funded by taxpayers' money ("Kansas University funds threatened over sex class," CNN.com, March 28). Human sexuality, however, is a legitimate educational field and may in some cases require video materials to fully understand the topics. The Kansas State Senate should revoke its law and allow the viewing of these so-called obscene videos in this University of Kansas sexuality class.
It is understandable that the Kansas State Senate may consider videos showing human sexual behavior to be offensive and obscene. Views on human sexuality have fluctuated throughout history and vary greatly from culture to culture. It is ultimately the government of a locality that defines what is and isn't obscene.
The U.S. Supreme Court has left its definition of obscene materials vague, as evident in the 1972 Miller v. California case. The so-called Miller standard established a three-pronged test to determine whether a work is obscene. A work is obscene only if the work appeals solely to a prurient interest, portrays sex in an explicitly offensive way, and has no artistic or social value. Although an attempt to simplify obscenity laws, words like "prurient" and "social value" are still inherently subjective. In addition, education also has intrinsic "social value" for society.
Clearly, there are many fine lines between tastefulness and obscenity. The Kansas State Senate is incorrect in assuming that these videos, which are used for educational purposes and may in other contexts be seen as offensive, should be considered obscene in this in-class setting.
State Sen. Susan Wagle (R), who presented this amendment, also offered other evidence not having to do with the video presentations. For instance, she claimed, "during the class Dailey displayed pictures of the genitalia of girls at ages 5 and 10, told female students to explore their own genitals as homework, and implied that a woman leaving for the restroom was going to masturbate" (CNN.com) Although this behavior, if proven true, may constitute punishment under other laws, it should not have been presented as evidence for a vote concerning educational sexuality videos.
Dailey shows these videos as a resource to aid his students in learning. As mentioned earlier, human sexuality is a touchy subject for many people and a topic that not only has bred a great deal of wrongful information from several societal and media sources, but can also often be confusing. If Dailey believes that showing these films presents the clearest and most educational method for his students to learn he must be allowed to use them for the good of his students, who are paying to receive an education.
Because of its sensitive nature, views on human sexuality can differ greatly from person to person. Dailey's class, "Human Sexuality in Everyday Life," is not a requirement for a typical student. If a student believes some of the videos that will be shown to be obscene, it is entirely their decision to refrain from taking this class. Additionally, if a student who does not wish to view these films is enrolled in the course, it is that student's prerogative to exit the classroom in order to not see the movie.
Since neither the state of Kansas, nor the U.S. Congress or Supreme Court have ruled educational sex videos to be legally obscene, it is legal for Dailey to be showing these videos -- as long, of course, as the enrolled students are legal adults or have parental permission. Human sexuality is a valid and important field of study that should be taught and researched in greater detail, as it affects nearly all humans, and more importantly, the promulgation of our species. Dailey should be allowed use of these videos as he sees fit, as they are legal materials.
The Kansas State Senate must reexamine this legislation and revoke it. This amendment not only penalizes the University of Kansas for providing the best sexual education possible as defined by Dailey's teaching methods, but also limits the effectiveness of that learning process. Should Dailey be shackled into censorship, his students' learning will be negatively affected.
(Alex Rosemblat's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
RASHID: Noncitizen students are under attack, and the University must act
By Muhammad Ali Rashid | 4 hours agoNow is the time to act, proving our commitment by protecting and expanding programs that keep the University open and accessible to all.
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | January 29, 2025Looking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | January 27, 2025Instead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
