Memo on Col 289

For: Board of Trustees, Senior Staff, and Faculty
From: Doug Bennet
Date: May 11, 1999
Subject: COL 289, Pornography

I want to outline my response to concerns about the appropriateness of this
course in the Wesleyan curriculum, especially the final project that
included production of pornography. I am acting pursuant to Section IV, 3, of
the trustee bylaws which states: "The faculty, with the concurrence of the
president, shall have power to determine, subject to approval of the board,
the courses of study, the arrangements of their citations, lectures and
other exercises, the times and modes of examinations, and the general method
of instruction."

I have asked Richard Boyd to review the history of COL 289, Pornography,
including the decision-making process that established the course, and how
the course fits COL's program objectives and those of Women's Studies (with
which it is cross-listed). If any problems are identified, we will use them
only as guidance for the future. For your information, the course is not
scheduled to be offered for next year.
I hope to have Richard's review within a week; it will be confidential. I
will brief the board and faculty.

Under the bylaw quoted above, the faculty are primarily responsible for
Wesleyan's curriculum. It is important to the vitality of Wesleyan that this
responsibility continue to be exercised effectively and with a minimum of
administrative oversight. In the present case, however, the faculty does not
have established procedures for reviewing issues like these if there has
been no student complaint. I am therefore initiating the review and will
make my findings available to the appropriate faculty bodies.

This course and the response to it have raised sensitive issues of academic
freedom. Academic freedom is justified by an unending quest for excellence.
Exploring unconventional territory comes with the mandate for excellence.
Academic freedom therefore requires accountability at all levels of the
University: from the faculty member who proposes a new course; from the
academic departments and programs that sponsor it; and from the faculty and
administration who must insure that the course furthers valid academic goals
and protects the right of students to learn in a noncoercive environment. My
objective in this review is to strengthen Wesleyan's academic freedom.
Some of you are concerned that this review is "media driven." With luck, the
story will be covered largely by nonsensationlist papers like the Hartford
Courant. More likely, the issue will descend to the realm of the
newly-pervasive sex talk shows and last a long time. Wesleyan must operate
in the open and expect scrutiny from the press. In the present case, Wesleyan
courted press coverage by inviting Ms. Sprinkle to address a public
audience. When the press calls to our attention something we think needs
review, we should review it and make whatever changes we think necessary to
handle the matter responsibly.

Transcribed by Brian Edwards-Tiekert
back to WESUNITY News