Destroying the University One Sex Demonstration at a Time

Mary Katherine Ham ask us to take this Rorshach test and links to two recent stories about two universities. Which one looks normal and which one looks totally weird to you?

As for me, I find Morman theology to be pretty far out there; but at least they have a civilized attitude toward sex, marriage and family. But at Northwestern University the asylum appears to be have been taken over by the inmates so long ago that nobody even thinks it is strange any more.

The National Post has this story entitled: "Live sex class troubles university president."

"The head of a U.S. university said Thursday he was launching an investigation into an on campus presentation of a live sex act performed for students at an after class event.

Morton Schapiro, president of Northwestern University, a private school in the Chicago suburb of Evanston, said he was "troubled and disappointed" after hearing about the use of a motorized sex toy on a naked woman by her fiancé in front of more than 100 students.

Jim Marcus and Faith Kroll were part of a group of four adults brought to speak about the world of kink and fetish in an optional seminar that followed psychology professor J. Michael Bailey's popular class on human sexuality, the Chicago SunTimes reported.

The live sex act featured a sex toy with a power-saw handle and an attachment representing erect male genitalia in place of the saw blade.

Ms. Kroll and Mr. Marcus said they engaged in the act to help students learn . . . "

OK, we halt this quotation right there. Whatever Ms. Kroll and Mr. Marcus intended the students to "learn" is irrelevant. This is an insult to the university mission of seeking truth. Watching pornographic acts is not learning. It is sinning. It is indulging. It is vicious. It is a lot of things - but it is not "learning."

To misuse language by implying that participating in sexual exhibitionism is a form of learning is irresponsible. What next? Field education in brothels? Science experiments on luscious blonds for all undergraduates? Penthouse as literature? Hooking up as psychology homework? (It takes more and more imagination to mock such people by exaggeration!)

Zoe Romanowsky makes a good point by asking why such a dumb course even exists in the first place:

Northwestern University is getting a lot of heat for the live sex-act segment of an after-class presentation (on campus) on sexual arousal recently.

What's lost in the maelstrom is the absolute farce this course is in the first place. Professor J. Michael Bailey's Human Sexuality class has nothing to do with psychosexual development, morality, biology -- nothing worthy of study; just an excuse for presenting risque and deviant sexual behaviors as normative.

The university initially came out in support of Bailey, but there's nothing like bad press and angry benefactors to get administrators to change their minds. Now officials say they're "investigating" and the president says the incident "represented extremely poor judgment on the part of our faculty member" and was not "appropriate, necessary, or in keeping with Northwestern University's academic mission."

Uh huh. And how about the course itself, Mr. President? You think it's worthy of your academic mission or your students' time and money? What exactly are they learning in a class like this?

I think she has answered her own question. This course has no legitimate purpose; it is "just an excuse for presenting risque and deviant sexual behaviors as normative." That is a purpose central to the cultural Marxist agenda of the 60s radicals who have seized control of many of our cultural institutions in order to destroy them. This is not education but the undermining of all the ideals of education. It is insidious, destructive and juvenile. It is just doing what barbarians do after they break in.

I note the fact that the president pronounces himself "troubled." A real president would be outraged and eager to take advantage of the publicity generated by this event to fire some professors, cancel courses like this and clean out the stables. And disinfect everything . . . with really strong disinfectant. A real president would be spoiling for a fight and ready to make work for some lawyers. A real president would not merely be "troubled." But only a real university deserves to have a real president and there is not much evidence to suggest that Northwestern is really that serious about being a real university.

Universities that reject natural law and basic morality don't work. They degenerate into parodies of real education. Having lost the self-discipline that is necessary to true science, they become self-indulgent, lazy and stupid. This is not a theory; it is a fact. Evidence? Exhibit A: Northwestern University c. 2011.