Whose revolting behavior?

Academe, May/Jun 1998 by Lehrer, Susan

LAST YEAR, THE WOMEN'S studies program at the State University of New York at New Paltz sponsored a conference whose theme, women's sexuality, continues to generate controversy. Although it is generally conceded that, as SUNY's chancellor John Ryan put it, "complexities of sexuality from many perspectives are clearly appropriate matters for academic study and discourse," we are accused of somehow going too far, or catering to the prurient and sensational. I would like to counter that argument and set the record straight on what actually occurred at that conference. (No, we did not hire a stripper!)

Although women's studies has run conferences for twenty years, we have never attracted much interest from even the Poughkeepsie Journal, let alone the Wall Street Journal. Our conferences typically contain a mixture of academic and informational panels and are attended by a range of college and community people. They all have been substantive, educational programs, including the one that generated the current controversy. What is different now is that the political climate has shifted. This attack is part of a larger political agenda to discredit public education in New York and put curricular matters in the hands of politicians and ideologues rather than academic colleagues.

It is now increasingly difficult and risky to offer educationally frank programs on sexuality from many perspectives, and the conference did explore perspectives that some find beyond the pale of polite discourse, or inappropriate within the academy. Although the chancellor claimed that "expression is free and unthreatened within the state university," the evidence indicates otherwise. As Joan Bertin of the National Coalition Against Censorship noted in a letter to the chancellor, his criticism "situates the debate squarely as one about content and viewpoint and raises serious First Amendment concerns.... In this case, there is simply no way to hide the antipathy to the subject matter of the conference. . behind an alleged concern for academic standards."

We sought to provide an open forum for the discussion of women's sexuality. Because secrecy, silence, and shame have prevented women from making informed choices about our sexuality and denied access to information vital to our health, we created an atmosphere that emphasized open discussion of personal, political, and academic topics. For instance, one workshop dealt with a local community's struggle to get HIV/AIDS prevention education into its schools over the opposition of those who preferred to leave students in ignorance-and shame. A controversial workshop on sadomasochism generated disagreement within our conference planning committee; we decided to offer the panel only after considerable reflection and debate. Some of us opposed it because sadomasochism does not reflect the goals of egalitarian, cooperative relationships. We were ultimately persuaded, however, that it was Important to provide information in an educational, factual environment about a practice some women engage in. We followed the panel with a discussion of the broader implications of sadomasochism in relationships, which was led by a women's studies faculty member who is critical of the practice. The chancellor's investigation concluded that those who attended this workshop for informational reasons found absolutely no "recruitment" and that "safety in the practices was a theme of the presenters." He also noted that "this workshop was intended as primarily informational, but because of the distasteful (to some) topic, was almost certain to cause controversy and offense. Sexual language was inherent in the topic." The conference concluded with the performance of Shelly Mars, an actor who did an autobiographical dramatic piece about a young woman's experience with sex, sexual abuse, and rape. This was not hiring a stripper to do a lewd act.

Following the conference, New York's governor George Pataki condemned it and ordered an investigation into it by the chair of the SUNY board of trustees, Thomas Egan, who, in consultation with the chancellor, appointed a committee chaired by Dallas Beal, president emeritus of SUNY at Fredonia. The committee included a representative of the SUNY legal counsel's office, the president of the SUNY faculty senate, and others. It received testimony from over thirty people, including SUNY trustee Candace de Russy. Although we at women's studies objected to the inquiry on principle, our faculty and students met with committee members. The report that the committee issued in December was moderate and balanced in tone, noting that "little controversy has been generated about nineteen of the twenty-one workshops. They included scholarly presentations of historical, cross-cultural, or research material, as well as `skill-building' and informational workshops." The report pointed out that the intended audience for the conference was students and professionals in the community. The committee was also "repeatedly and powerfully struck by the vast disparities among factual accounts of the same events," which brought a "Rashomon-like quality" to its investigation.