News

Law School shuts down ‘Sex Toys 101’ talk

Sharing Tools:

E-mail this article:




Share on:

by Nick Penzenstadler
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 01:29

The University of Wisconsin Law School canceled an event with controversial sexual content last Wednesday, and some students are calling the action a possible First Amendment violation.

The Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice had planned an event called “Sex Toys 101” to promote safe alternatives to sex, educate about sexual health and pleasure, and discuss law concerning sex toys, according to the group.

Members of the organization submitted a formal complaint to Law School Dean Ken Davis Friday, requesting a formal apology, refund of event expenses and clarification of student organization event rules.

In an interview Monday, Law School Associate Dean Walter Dickey said the event was canceled for content-neutral reasons, pointing to a Student Organization Office policy that prohibits the promotion or sale of commercial products by a private company.

According to Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice Chair Maria Selsor, the group brought in an expert from local retailer A Woman’s Touch to give a presentation.

“They received no monetary benefit from coming in — they do it as a public service,” Selsor said. “They’re the only people in the Midwest, basically, that know so much about women’s sexuality, so they’re the perfect people to come in.”

In a response letter to the student group Tuesday, Davis expressed regret for the “misunderstandings and miscommunications” related to the event. He said the group’s expenses for food and beverages would be reimbursed, but that the Law School would not be reimbursing the group for the merchandise they had intended to give away.

He also assured the student group that the event could be rescheduled if the group made sure “no commercial products will be sold, promoted, or endorsed.”

In their complaint sent Friday, however, the students contend even after they told Law School administrators the event did not involve any sales or promotions, Dickey indicated the event should be canceled.

“Dean Dickey’s response was that it did not matter whether it was a sale or not, there were to be ‘no sex toys on law school premises,’” the group said, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Badger Herald. The cancellation came just hours before the event was scheduled to begin.

Law School Assistant Dean Ruth Robarts said she was first contacted by the group for clearance in February. She said she told them as long as they stayed within the rules set by the Student Organization Office against selling or promoting material, they could hold the event.

According to the group’s complaint, Robarts accompanied members Wednesday to the room where the event was to have been held. According to the letter, a sign was posted at the room reading, “The event that was scheduled in this room at 3 p.m. is canceled. — Walter Dickey.”

Davis said the signs canceling the event were posted temporarily when administrators were under the impression the event involved the promotion of commercial goods.

Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice maintains throughout their letter the administrative actions were “both procedurally and substantively unjust” and they were “unfairly targeted in a manner that constitutes both discrimination and a possible violation of our First Amendment rights.”

Dickey said Monday the case was a misunderstanding and that the Law School had no intentions of curtailing the event due to its controversial content.

“In terms of speech and content, it’s a free country, and we’re in the business of promoting it,” Dickey said.

Organizers also took issue with the removal of their posters advertising the event within the halls of the Law School. The posters advertised sex toys as trivia contest prizes, included bondage references and said the event was to be “presented by A Woman’s Touch.”

“We believe they were taken down because some people found them offensive,” Selsor said. “If some people did find them offensive, that’s one thing, but to go around ripping them down we don’t feel is the proper way to go about the situation.”

In an e-mail to the student group last week, Dickey said he gave the go-ahead for staff to remove the posters in the building.

“I also asked that the signs — blatantly promotional material (offensive to many staff and students) — be taken down because they so obviously are for the purpose of promoting commercial products,” Dickey said in the e-mail.

Organizers called the cancellation of the event “pretextual” and pointed out that many law student organizations invite speakers from private companies to speak as experts and have never been called into question in the past.

Davis said part of the confusion about the event was due to the fact it was the Law School’s first experience with this particular event although they host “controversial presentations nearly every day.”

Donald Downs, political science professor and chair of the Committee for Academic Freedom and Rights, said the matter boils down to whether or not the event was indeed a promotion. The key issue, he said, is whether the Wisconsin Law Students for Reproductive Justice ran afoul of established Law School policy.

“Whether they had a basis for shutting down the entire presentation would depend upon how central the promotion of commercial objects was to the presentation,” Downs said. “The larger question to be asked is to what extent can the Law School set reasonable limits on presentations that advocate certain sexual practices because they have an interest in basic decency.”

If the group was simply advocating certain aspects of sexual experiences, Downs said, that would fall within basic First Amendment protections.


Feedback
Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 8:02am):

Students think everything is "a possible First Amendment violation."

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 8:04am):

No matter how much they try to hide behind their legalese, it is obvious what their real motives were for shutting down the exhibit.

And here I thought Madison would be more liberal and open-minded than the rest of Wisconsin. Apparently, not as much as I thought.

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 9:41am):

Oh please, it was a sex toy party plain and simple. This is like the Law School Foodie Club bringing in someone from Cutco knives.

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 10:35am):

Don't mess around with law students. Undergrads can be bossed around with administrative and policy games by the University hierarchy. But don't try that with people who know the law.

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 11:35am):

Does anybody ever grow up in this town?

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 11:49am):

It's simple - the department gets to pick what to sponsor. If you want a sex toy exhibition, then become an RSO and book a room through central res...that shouldn't be too tough for LAW STUDENTS to figure out.

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 12:24pm):

I think it'd be hilarious if this was just a set-up for some final exam practical.

"Ok class, here's what we did. Now argue whether or not it's constitutional. Good luck!"

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 12:51pm):

This was just the Law School Dean and does not reflect upon the entire UW Campus. I'm sure given a different location or Dean it would have gone off without a hitch.

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 2:27pm):

No matter how much you try to hide it, it is obvious you are used to getting your way or else you will cry about it.

I did not see the flyers personally, but to people I talked to, their impression was that it was "a dildo show" (their words, not mine).

So, if 3 out of 3 people all used basically the same terminology, and got the same impression...maybe, just maybe, you are the one with the closed-mind.

It would seem to me, that the event was canceled under the impression that "commercial goods" were being presented and marketed. It is one thing to display a dildo, it is entirely another thing to use model name, and describe its' use. It seems like a safe thing to do for the Law School to cancel the event and get "all ducks in a row" on both sides, before allowing it to happen.

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 4:28pm):

Sex Toys

Dean Dickey says they're Icky
Is he just being Picky?
I'm sure he likes a Quicky.
The logic here is Tricky
and the facts quickly get Sticky.

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 5:59pm):

"Dickey" is looking for job security... afraid those things might be putting him out of a job. Heh! No fear, Dean Dickey. The kids wanted a reaction, and you gave it to them. Congratulations.

And front page in the local paper too!

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 6:09pm):

Definitely wasn't a sex toy party. No sales were going to happen, and the event was designed to educate. There has been recent case law regarding sex toys, and part of the mission of WLSRJ is to educate about reproductive rights, safe sex (or alternatives to it), and pleasure. This event fits with that mission. It was to be presented by "A Woman's Touch", which is a Sexuality Resource Center on Willy Street. Perhaps the larger violation here is that the administration is now lying about the cancellation. In fact, the response from the administration is that the event was "Uncanceled", which it certainly wasn't. In fact, the event did not proceed, but rather a discussion of how people felt about it being canceled went on instead. The forum was held because the group had already ordered and paid for refreshments for the original event.

regardless of your views on the subject matter, the cancellation was still discriminatory, as the WLSRJ group followed all relevant RSO procedures and rules, and the event had been given the go ahead from the Dean who normally gives go aheads.

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 6:28pm):

anyone else find it hilarious that a story about dildos and one of the main characters is named dickey?

Anonymous (April 30, 2008 @ 11:55pm):

"obvious what their real motives were for shutting down the exhibit"

Oh, you mean morals. How terribly closed-minded and staid of them.

Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 1:22am):

@11:55
well yes, "morals" were not the given reason for canceling it. And censoring things because it is against a certain persons religion or culture is ridiculous, no matter whose it is, it wasnt endangering anyone and apparently wasnt a promotional event. Its against my morals to have David Horowitz come in and represent all that can be racist in parts of the fringe Jewish community, so much so that Hillel protested against him, yet he was still brought through uw money.

Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 1:36am):

Thank God it got shut down. What a disgusting display. If you want to have a law school orgy, do it in your apartment, not on university property.

Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 6:19am):

geez. people here are so closed minded, this would have been a wonderful experience for everyone had it gone ahead. Educational to both genders and most importantly might ave thined the herds of such morons that condem such things because of their own insecurity and defunct religious values.

Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 6:33am):

“They’re the only people in the Midwest, basically, that know so much about women’s sexuality..."
Just a BIT presumptuous, wouldn't you say?

Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 8:02am):

"anyone else find it hilarious that a story about dildos and one of the main characters is named dickey?"

Or that the Sexuality Resource Center is located on Willy Street?

Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 10:07am):

apparently most of the dildos are in the Dean's office

Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 2:49pm):

What does this have to do with law? It appears that the answer is "nothing at all". There is no reason to hold this event at the law school. Let the students hold it at an apartment or some other, more appropriate setting. It simply has no relation to the mission of the law school. In fact, it's connection to "reproductive justice" is tenuous at best; sex toys are neither for reproductive aid nor prevention.

Anonymous (May 1, 2008 @ 4:59pm):

It's a shame that the event got shut down. How narrow minded people can be. It would be better for a topic like this to be brought out into the open and talked about. Reasonably. Sex is as old as time and some people need to be reminded that their is NOTHING wrong with it. EVERYONE has been in need of a little assistance at one time or another and that's where the toys come in. Different toys for different needs. Here was the perfect opportunity for gaining that knowledge.

Anonymous (May 2, 2008 @ 11:01pm):

Lots of Clorox needed at the Law School. Why not send your son or daughter there to be corrupted by their interpretation of the First Amendment and by their attraction to unnatural law.

Anonymous (October 5, 2008 @ 1:32pm):

I bet they will reopen it, <a href="http://www.sensualdirect.com">sex toys</a> are becoming more and more popular and are taken in a difference way.

Anonymous (October 25, 2008 @ 12:18am):

sex toys are the best! you guys lost out.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.

Login...



   Remember me


Not registered? Sign up now.

It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.

...or Post Your Comment Anonymously

Anonymous

Place a shout-out!
Top Classified Ads (view all)

Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!

DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!

Place a classified ad

Advertising