DRAFT --  COFSP & COCOA response to the Wagle Amendment as requested by the BOR

I. Background

The following amendment, more commonly known as the Wagle amendment, to HB 2444 was adopted during the 2003 session of the Kansas Legislative regarding the teaching of pedophilia and the use of sexually explicit materials in Regents System coursework:

In addition to the other purposes for which expenditures may be made by the state board of regents for fiscal year 2004, expenditures shall be made by the above agency to assure that each university under the jurisdiction and control of the state board of regents develops a policy on the use of sexually explicit materials, including videos, as part of the curriculum of human sexuality classes or other similar classes for undergraduate students, a policy on teaching about the issue of pedophilia as part of such classes and a policy on sexual harassment as it relates to teaching such classes: Provided, That such policies shall be developed and implemented prior to January 12, 2004, and the state board of regents shall keep on file a current copy of such policies.

Consistent with the implementation directive contained in this amendment, the Board of Regents has developed and implemented the following policy statement to address the use of sexually explicit materials, the teaching of pedophilia and the possibilities of sexual harassment as it relates to all classes.

II. Policy Statement

It is the policy of the Kansas Board of Regents to require each institution within its jurisdiction to adopt the following set of precepts on the use of sexually explicit materials, the teaching of pedophilia and the conduct and management of courses relative to these topics:

"Membership in the academic community imposes on students, faculty members, administrators, and trustees an obligation to respect the dignity of others, to acknowledge their right to express differing opinions, and to foster and defend intellectual honesty, freedom of inquiry and instruction, and free expression on and off the campus. The expression of dissent and the attempt to produce change, therefore, may not be carried out in ways which injure individuals or damage institutional facilities or disrupt the classes or one’s teachers or colleagues. Speakers on campus must not only be protected from violence, but also be given an opportunity to be heard. Those who seek to call attention to grievances must not do so in ways that significantly impede the functions of the institution.

Students are entitled to an atmosphere conductive to learning and to even-handed treatment in all aspects of the teacher-student relationship. Faculty members may not refuse to enroll or teach students on the grounds of their beliefs or the possible uses to which they may put the knowledge to be gained in a course. Students should not be forced by the authority inherent in the instructional role to make particular personal choices as to political action or their own social behavior. Evaluation of students and the award of credit must be based on academic performance professionally judged and not on matters irrelevant to that performance, whether personality, race, religion, degree of political activism, or personal beliefs.

It is mastery teachers have of their subjects and their own scholarship that entitles them to their classrooms and to freedom in the presentation of their subjects. Thus, it is improper for an instructor persistently to intrude material that has no relation to the subject, or to fail to present the subject matter of the course as announced to the students and as approved by the faculty in their collective responsibility for the curriculum.

Because academic freedom has traditionally included the instructor’s full freedom as a citizen, most faculty members face no insoluble conflicts between the claims of politics, social action, and conscience, on the one hand, and the claims and expectations of their students, colleagues, and institutions, on the other. If such conflicts become acute, and attention to obligations as a citizen and moral agent precludes an instructor from fulfilling substantial academic obligations, the instructor cannot escape the responsibility of that choice, but should either request a leave of absence or resign his or her academic position."

Source: AAUP as outlined in its 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure

The faculty within a specific discipline must exercise collective responsibility for the material that is presented to students and the manner in which it is presented. Each Regents university will ensure that existing policy governing sexual harassment is accessible for the purpose of addressing such issues as they might arise from course content or pedagogy.

11/6/03