UNCG loses sight of a University's purpose

Having actually seen Tristan Taormino's February lecture at UNCG I've been a little amused by all the recent controversy. Her talk, which amounted to an anatomy lecture and long question and answer session, was as mild as anything you'd see in a college level human sexuality course.

But, of course, that's not where the trouble lies. Taormino's actual lecture has been completely discounted because of her performance in two pornographic films. Which, to my mind, is a shame.

This woman, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Wesleyan University, best selling author, popular sex columnist, award winning journalist and sex educator, is now being portrayed as nothing more than a porn star passing herself off as a knowledgeable lecturer. And over what, really? Legal, consensual decisions she made about sex.

However it may shock or offend some people, pornography is not illegal. It is, according to the U.S. constitution as upheld by the Supreme Court, a protected form of self expression on a level with political speech. A foolish, liberal-elitist argument? Well, let's consider the facts...

This is a woman who wrote several popular books suggesting women should be free to do whatever they like with their own bodies (and that they should always do it safely), should feel free to enjoy sex and take responsibility for their own sexual pleasure. Having won a number of literary and journalistic awards, she turned an eye to pornography - a genre that has traditionally (and often rightly) been seen as degrading to women and of no social value. Seeing this problem she decided to make a film which stressed safe and consensual sex, was degrading to no one and highlighted female as well as male pleasure. If this isn't an educated, independent woman making a political statement, I don't know what is.

Nothing Taormino's done in her career is illegal - and for every action that would brand her as a porn star she has two impressive qualifications as an award winning sex educator. She's been sought after by mainstream media on networks like CNN, NBC, MTV, The Discovery Channel and even Fox News. For years she's been a popular lecturer at dozens of America's most prestigious universities - including New York University, Yale, Brown, Vassar, Rutgers and the University of California at Santa Barbara. To any rational mind the argument that she is unqualified as a sex educator is absurd.

There were no complaints from the 100 or so students who actually saw the lecture - and there shouldn't have been. Taormino worked for months with UNCG officials to design a lecture that wouldn't offend the community: no discussion of her pornography, no discussion of sex toys, an emphasis only on legal, safe and consensual sex.

So, if she's qualified, competent and gives a great lecture, what's the problem? In the end it comes down to a question of morality and perception. As Chancellor Patricia Sullivan has stated (without asking for student or faculty input), the University doesn't wish to be associated with pornography - which she personally opposes.

And here's where I have a problem.

Each student at UNCG pays into a "student fees" fund. It's this money that brought Tristan Taormino to campus - not taxpayer dollars. It's this money that funds student groups, campus speakers and events the whole year through. As a student you have to accept that when you drop your money into the hat, sometimes it will be used on things with which you disagree. It's part of the bargain in a University environment - where a free exchange of ideas should be sacred.

As a Democrat I'll be downright offended by the political and social opinions of the speakers the campus' Republicans will hire using student fee dollars. As a Catholic I probably won't agree with the way protestant Christian groups will use my money. But no matter how offensive or even dangerous I find their ideas, words and actions, I'll fight to the last breath to defend their right to those views and that money. As long as their actions are legal, they're protected by the same laws that shield Tristan Taormino. The University - and the Chancellor - have no business silencing or banishing them.

But the law is one thing - social stigma is another. With a statement denouncing Taormino Chancellor Sullivan turns her back on free expression and the rule of law because she is concerned about how Taormino's brand of free speech might make the University look.

Well, it might make it look like a University...