Sex and the College

Three years in a row—four come March 23rd-- W&M faculty supported and students voted to pay for a “performance” by sex workers, ostensibly to teach the College populace about prostitution, sex toys, and sado-masochism.

The first year, the press was uninformed so the local community was unenlightened while students gathered to gawk. The second and third years were chronicled, documented and commented on with vigor--- rightly so.

The students claim, of course, Free Speech rights. And that is certainly true. The College enjoys privileges for “art” and “performances” based on Commonwealth laws, even though such “art” would be pornographic once off campus property and on city terrain. As long as the word “art” or “performance” is in the title or name, it meets the Commonwealth’s litmus test for free speech on college campuses.

The point is, much like the California mother of 6 who just had 8 more children in one marathon fertility-enhanced pregnancy, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

The claim that the show is educational, that seeing it first-hand will create” aha!” intellectual moments for the College that can be had in no other way, is pure rubbish.

If the goal were true academic inquiry, then a lecture by a former prostitute, dressed in appropriate business attire, using an auditorium with stadium seating, a bad microphone, and Power Point slides would be in the realm of academic advancement.  Or perhaps a debate between experts on the pros and cons of legalized prostitution. That makes sense.

But this “art performance” is no more instructional or ethical than having a heroin addict shoot up on stage so everyone can see how it’s done. To the tune of “Ave Maria.”  This is not academic inquiry; this is a puerile fascination with sex, something every adolescent is familiar with and something a lot of faculty members never outgrow.

It devalues and demeans both women and men. It reduces everyone to the lowest common physical denominator—sex—while ignoring the profound glory and truth of human sexuality paired with love, honor, respect and commitment. You don’t have to be religious to see that, just more than a body waiting to fornicate.

So where does that leave us? With Reveley’s long-winded announcement about how sad he is that this “distraction” is back and how he will not “play the censor.”

All power, then, is in the hands of the students who vote each year to fund or not fund any given project or speaker or event. The implication in Reveley’s message is that a NO vote from anyone is censorship, and he’ll leave THAT up to the students who are so clearly capable of rational thought.

Are we to assume all requests are granted? What if the bank account can’t cover all the projects? Is there no selection process? Are they saying that their bank account from student fees is so abundant that all requests are granted every year? With tuition going up every year and everyone’s portfolios going down?

The Student Assembly Senate, a group of almost two dozen elected representatives (four per undergraduate class and one for each graduate school) is the deciding body, the one with all the power.   Forget Reveley. He has no power. Less than 24 people out of 6,000 get to decide what’s worth paying for and what is not, money that comes from student fees .Virtually every student has a stake in this issue.

 I ask the students, then, to ask themselves if their elected representatives are behaving responsibly. If not, then oust them and put in representatives that have more common sense.  Elections are held each spring.

I ask the students to ask themselves if their professors are behaving responsibly in promoting this show without a more public debate with substantive issues and academic rigor.

True academic inquiry carries its weight with dignity and distance. It allows intellect to rule the day. Does the Sex Show meet that criterion? I think not.

It’s time the College learned how to challenge students with something akin to intellectual discussion and not by exploiting used, abused and sad human beings caught up in an inhuman and inhumane world.  If Reveley has no power to influence decisions, then the College is at the mercy of adolescents both in the faculty and in the student body.

Karla K. Bruno is a 1981 graduate of the College. www.kkbruno.com
Published February 4, 2009 in The Virginia Gazette as “No Intellectual Pursuit.”