There is an enormous free speech controversy that is
pitting an outspoken North Carolina faculty member against a public university
administration. For once it isn’t me (so keep on reading liberals)! This
controversy involves Jammie Price, a tenured sociology professor at Appalachian
State University (ASU), who previously taught at UNC-Wilmington. The current
controversy also involves porn so it should be a stimulating topic for my
weekly political column (the liberals will surely keep reading now)!
Price has been placed on paid leave from the classroom
after several students complained that she showed (allegedly without warning) a
documentary about porn that actually featured people having sex. There are also
student complaints that she accused the school of showing favoritism toward
athletes (less controversial, I would think). Those statements are alleged to
have been made in connection with sexual assault accusations against a couple
of ASU athletes. Regrettably, the complaints about the athletic controversy
have now coalesced into accusations of racism against Price. Jammie Price may
be many things. But she certainly is no racist. I regret that race has become
entangled in an otherwise interesting free speech controversy.
While I would defend Price against charges of racism, I
would urge others to be cautious before they make Jammie Price a poster girl
for academic freedom. Hundreds of professors have signed a petition on her
behalf. But she has a history of showing poor judgment in the classroom. That history
is certainly relevant to the current controversy. At times, she also has shown
outward contempt for those who do not share her vision of utopia as involving
limitless guilt-free sex for everyone.
Price arguably should have been suspended by UNCW back in
March of 2003 when she cancelled all of her classes for an entire week in order
to protest the Iraq War. Her unprofessionalism was compounded when she offered
extra credit – but only to those who would join her in protesting the war.
Predictably, a student complained and Price was reprimanded. She responded by
correcting the problem. She organized an event for those who supported the war
and gave students credit for participating. But the question remains: why did
it take a student complaint for Price to understand the gross impropriety of
her conduct?
Price is once again accused of using her class as a
political platform. This is one of the many charges bundled together with
showing pornography without warning and showing “racism” against student athletes.
But this is a boring accusation. Sociology is an inherently political
discipline, which is why it is generally regarded as a joke of a discipline. It
is like political science without the science. If we were to fire Price for
espousing politics in the classroom, we would have to fire 99% of the
sociologists in America. Hey, wait, that could be a good thing! Could we look
into that?
The far more important issue is whether Price was
respectful of those who do not want to be exposed to graphic sexual content in
the classroom. It is extremely difficult to apply the presumption of innocence
to someone with such a poor track record for respecting others who have more
conventional views of sexuality.
Around the time of my return to the church, I experienced
Price’s arrogant judgmentalism firsthand. One of our few faculty members of
faith was having relationship troubles when Price recommended to him – in
public, mind you – that he “switch to bisexuality” in order to “double his
chances” of finding a partner. I was sitting just to the left (physically, not
ideologically) of the faculty member at the time. We both reacted visibly. When
Price noticed I was taken aback by the remark, she responded predictably by
calling me a “homophobe” in front of other professors.
One question in the current controversy is whether this
is just another example of Price’s tired old “shock and condemn” tactic with
regard to sexual morality. In other words, did she willingly shock the students
with porn so she could later condemn them for drawing a moral judgment? This is
an ingrained pattern of behavior that Price uses both inside and outside the
classroom. Keep reading.
Over a decade ago, I got a complaint from one of Jammie
Price’s students. It began with an off-campus incident that soon spilled over
into Price’s classroom. It was all predictably orchestrated by Price in order
to pass judgment on those who would dare to pass judgment (against her).
About a month before I received the student complaint,
Price had foolishly shared a hotel room with another married professor while at
a conference in San Francisco. When the travel receipts were turned in, the
department secretaries figured out they had shared a room. False rumors of an
affair began spreading.
Price decided to turn the incident into a teachable
moment by sharing it with students. And that is the reason our mutual student
came to me with the complaint. He considered the discussion unworthy of
academic attention. I agreed. Then, I explained her “shock and condemn” teaching
philosophy to him in simple terms:
1. Shock - Price shocks people with inappropriate
comments and behavior. In this case, her sleeping arrangements with another
married faculty member were a) disrespectful to both absent spouses and b)
inappropriate for classroom discussion.
2. Condemn - Price condemns people for their predictable
negative reactions to her disrespectful and inappropriate behavior.
I fear that the
current controversy is just more of the same. Price probably derived a strange
pleasure from seeing students recoil at the imagery in the porn documentary.
But the real climax of the film was when she got to judge them for being so
judgmental.
Price is setting herself up as a poster girl for academic
freedom. But in reality she isn’t standing up for anything. She’s just trying to
build a utopian society that is nothing more than one protracted porn film. But
in the final scene, the taxpayers are the only ones getting screwed.
No comments:
Post a Comment