Bailey said that while he regretted allowing the Feb. 21 sex toy demonstration he also does not believe those who were offended made a good case for why the act should not have been allowed.
“Those who believe that there was, in fact, a serious problem have had considerable opportunity to explain why: in the numerous media stories on the controversy, or in their various correspondences with me,” the statement reads. “But they have failed to do so. Saying that the demonstration ‘crossed the line,’ went too far,’ ‘was inappropriate,’ or ‘was troubling’ convey disapproval but do not illuminate reasoning.”
He adds that if he was grading the arguments against allowing a man to use a custom high-powered sex toy to bring his naked girlfriend to orgasm before 100 students, “most would earn an ‘F.’”
“Offense and anger are not arguments,” he wrote. “But I remain open to hearing and reading good arguments.”
I’m with Bailey on this one; all the students were adults, it wasn’t a requirement, and everyone who watched consented to watch. (As far as I can tell, none of the objections have come from Bailey’s students.) So where’s the problem?
The blogger I linked to disagrees. Responding to “offense and anger are not arguments,” he writes:
Yeah, that line is a good one. He needs a good argument to understand why having a live sex act, after class, at a major university, is wrong. Sometimes you should just know better.
No point in arguing with that, is there?
What’s the coherent and logical argument against what Bailey did? I mean, I can see the argument that it was a bad decision from a practical perspective, due to the reaction it got, but that’s not an argument based on principle.
- Central Connecticut State University Student Paper Prints Cartoon About Urinating and Holding Captive a 14 Year Old Latina
- "Hostage" Scene at York University
- Battling the Trappings of University Life
- Sexual Abuse Survivor Suspended From Eastern Illinois University For Having Flashback
- University of Colorado Pays $2.5 Million To Settle Sexual Harassment Case (UPDATED)