I feel that if a professor never offends anyone, he's not doing a very good job. We attend these colleges in order to learn, and that means that ideas must be challenged, debates must be sparked, and ideally, someone must be offended. If un-popular ideas are not allowed to be voiced, who knows what kinds of thoughts we've failed to incite? How would you know you were against something if you never hear about it, and how can you really effectively debate or understand something you're never allowed to fully explore?

I was surprised and more than a little disheartened that the discussion on the radio centered mainly around the few cases of sex-related topcis, and did not focus on what was the most important question--that of free speech. That's exactly why we have academic freedom, and that's why we have tenure; so the majority cannot take away the free speech and free thought rights of our college professors and researchers. We are so on the verge of losing our privacy and our freedom of expression right now with the excesses of the so-called Patriot Acts. Can't everyone instantly recognize that if an elected official can come into a state university, decide they don't like something that's being taught,and easily pass a law forbidding it, the entire premise of this nation might as well be tossed out the window? Because I guarantee, there are things being said on college campuses every day that would result in immediate legislation against them. How can anyone have such a casual conversation about legislating against "upsetting" topics? Our state legislatures are filled with elected officials having a complete absence of intelligence and of critical thinking ability, with no knowledge of philosophy, history, the arts, or literature that would allow them to see the overarching premises of this nation. They don't know enough about the the constitution, they don't care about the Bill or Rights. They, like the dim-witted Missouri legislator, don't have the reasoning powere to figure their way out of a paper bag! All they care about is finding devisive issues (young people and sex education!) as an excuse to wrap the flag around themselves and get publicity and votes "protecting our youth."

Justice Talking, you should have had more than a mealy mouthed professor supposedly supporting the opposition argument. You should have a a constitutional scholar who could have cut to the heart of the matter--that if we don't protect the free speech rights of the minority, the rights of us all will be destroyed.

The problem with the professor was not his ideas. It was his language. The professor's ideas and persuasive arguments should have been sufficient to understand the issues necessary to the topic.

There is no need to hit someone with a hammer when a needle prick will do. I expect the professor is able to express himself in a candid, eloquent manner and that his students are intellectually able to understand him without resorting to a verbal assault.

I have known people who enjoy shocking others with their language. They get some pleasure from it. His vulgar language would have been an assault for me. If I was required to take the course, I would have protested his use of language with the Department Chair and requested an alternate course.

Apparently some folks have more free speech than others: The Missouri Legislator gets to grab headlines and posture for his constituents by persecuting a professor with some wacky ideas and Bill O'Rielly gets a daily TV program where he has free reign to bully guest he chooses. When you consider that the Constitution clearly states that 'Congress shall make No Law abridging freedom of speech'the least we can do is allow free and open discussion of all ideas in our universities. Lord knows the rest of us outside university life are told to shut up and sit down...

Although my constitutional beliefs generally fall along the more liberal lines, I have to disagree with those on this show who think that this academic freedom issue should be supported and defended no matter what. With respect to sexuality, our culture already has so many issues. We have sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, sexual harassment, date rape, and more. After hearing what the professor teaching this course had said, I was astonished, and extremely offended. I think that any talk of sexuality in an academic forum should be serious, and respectful, paritcularly as it relates to bodily parts, or particular persons in the classroom. Our cultural biases already lead us too often into dangerous waters. His actions and actions like these serve only to propagate an environment where men feel it's alright to derogate women on the basis of their sex, sexual characteristics, and so on. Having not heard what the professor said that was in derogation of the male gender, I, unfortunately, cannot speak to that. Academic freedom has nothing to do with it. This is a subject with which we need to be careful.

Many issues were apparent in the program on "Academic Freedom". Where does one draw the line? Should we legislate for those who are most offended? The least offended? My vote is for taking personal responsibility. I can't imagine professors attempting to teach while keeping in mind everyone's sensitivity level. If I register for a class/course I will assume I will be provided new information and an opportunity to learn. Part of my learning experience is highly personal and not likely shared by anyone else. I have been offended by all sorts of people, bureaucracies, employers, bosses, teachers, etc. How I deal with it is also highly personal, however I would like to believe I can "hear" what ever someone has to say - not matter how they say it. The rest is up to me...

Do college and university students get education about nutrition?

Do college and university students get education about how the brain and mind work?

Do college and university students get education about virtually any subject that influences, impacts or interests the human mind?

Why is human sexuality the one and only subject that seems to raise so much offense? Why can we joke about virtually any subject except sex? Why does this seem to be a problem primarily in the US? For example, sexually-oriented pictures, magazines, books, and toys are openly displayed in streetside kiosks all over Europe, and we don't see European civilizations crumbling.

It seems to me that open, academic, discussion of human sexuality and its various forms of expression are a wholly valid endeavor. If you don't understand it, how can you deal intelligently with it?

The university is a place for HIGHER learning. Students go to a university to learn how to think, form opinions, and become leaders. In studying abnormal psychology it is the schools place to direct the learning NOT the opinion of the students. This professor is accerating growth and stimulating minds. If a professor creates a challenging atmosphere, that's his/her job. If a professor harasses a student, sue him/her, but remember, you give up some of your rights when your rights when you pay tuition. Also, if a student does not desire to participate in higher learning and stretch their minds, they need to go to a community college or a non-reserch based instition.

In order to receive a comprehensive education and in order to fully develop an educated opinion one must allow themselves to be offended. University environments must allow their professors to speak freely and offer information that is contrary to popular belief or popular opinion. Harper Lee's character Atticus from the acclaimed novel "To Kill A MockingBird" projects the idea that in order to truly know a man you must slip inside his skin and walk around for a bit. Without this notion we would still be a society where women were not allowed to vote, where slavery was still in existance. It is appalling to me what is happening in Missouri. Higher education must not be controlled by the right wing or the left wing because then there is no dialogue. If there is no dialogue then there is no education.

Representative Wright does not understand tenure and the protection that it provides. It does not provide total job security so that a tenured Professor may do whatever he wants. Tenure means only that a tenured Professor can be fired only with cause. As a department head, I found cause against a tenured Professor. He chose the option of resigning rather than facing the charges. At the same time, I also saw a tenured Professor protected from a vengeful university president after the Professor had challenged the President on ethical issues, issues that led ultimate to the firing of the president. Tenure is not license to misbehave, but it is a valuable protection of intellectual freedom.

I also think that Representative Wright really does not understand his own job as a legislator. It is not, as he thinks, to represent the views and values of his constituents -- how could he know what they are? -- but to represent their interests and the long-term interests of the state as a whole. it is in the interest of the state that Missouri continue to have a fine university system with academic freedom protected by tenure.

Academic freedom should allow the truth to out no matter how distasteful it might be. If we are to be a truly free people, we need the truth. Then, we can decide wisely. Without the truth, we grope or become discouraged and/or indifferent. "and the end draws near."

I would have to agree with Myles about this. Maybe the truth isn't what society today wants to hear but "the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense." Tom Clancy. So truth may be harder to deal with and may sometimes be topsy turvy but in my opinion, is always the way to go. And I quote from Ralph Waldo, "Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society."

In response to Common Sense, there is no easy way to distinguish beween the content and tone of an article. In some cases, one should adopt a strong tone in order to force readers out of mindsets that prevent them from dealing with the issues at hand. For my taste, I find articles that are understated and intellectual in tone, as opposed to polemic and strident, more convincing; but many poeple take understatement and intellectualism as reflecting weakness -- and for them, a more "sledgehammer" approach is appropriate.

it is not the mere issue of free speech, but the issue of community preference. it would not be appropriate for an anglo professor to lecture on aryan superiority to a predminately non-aryian student population- on public funds. naturally, if such a thing did occur, the public would react so strongly the offending teacher would be fired, and the school would be kissing up to the community for years.

however, the opposite side of this coin is an eleteist self-regulating body of scholars who determine among themselves what is to be tolerated or not, (e.g. think about congress voting to increase next years salary....)

what is the difference between a public and private school?

a private school is run by the representatives of a specific community, to instill the values of that community to its younger generations.

maybe the ideal public school would embody the same principles-let the surrounding community decide the values of its institutions.

privatization of the education industry is inevitable, better to have the community own its institutions than Disney or Marlboro.