Academic Abstinence

With the financial forecast darkening, Georgia legislators are making efforts to cut out the pork in their state’s budget. The first target: professors who specialize in, among other things, oral sex.

Faced with deep budget cuts, state lawmakers argue that doling out taxpayer money to professors who specialize in male prostitution, oral sex or queer theory is inappropriate.

They argue that because state universities are funded by money from the legislature, legislators should have a say in where it goes. And in this case, they are saying that it shouldn’t go to teaching controversial subjects.

We say the legislators have overstepped their bounds. Decisions about what should and should not be taught at public universities should rest solely with the universities. Lawmakers should not be able to prevent a student from being exposed to new fields just because they find the subject matter distasteful.

Besides, since the classes in question are not ones students are required to take, we see no reason why state officials should intervene. Students are left, as always, with the opportunity to take or not to take these classes.

As one Georgia Board of Regents representative pointed out, the courses are not “how-to” sessions, but rather critical looks at the issues involved. And since when did learning about a subject mean that we are encouraging students to act accordingly?

If our abnormal psychology courses and criminal theories courses are not breeding social deviants, what makes us think that teaching about oral sex is mandating that our students try it out?

Moreover, the idea of agenda-touting politicians setting college curriculums makes us uneasy. We think that higher education should be about exposing students to a whole range of new ideas and ways of looking at the world. College should not be about force-feeding students whatever subjects the legislators of the moment deem appropriate.

Although we do think it is appropriate for legislators to exercise some discretion in doling out funds – i.e., money earmarked for research and development – the thought of surrendering curriculum oversight to state officials is, well, hard to swallow.