Dissent: Pornography and USG funds

The majority correctly argues that the University is a place for intellectual inquiry. To that end, it should foster speech that is intended to be a part of intellectual and artistic expression. Several issues arise, however, in airing pornography as part of any presentation meant to foster discussion. In terms of its pertinence to the presentation, pornography is not designed to communicate, persuade or express — it is intended to cause sexual arousal. As such, the screening of the pornography, while providing a visual aid to the speaker, is not necessary for the sake of the talk. It serves merely as a presentational tool. But such utility must be weighed against the larger concern that arises from the screening.

Many of the opponents of pornography find not only its production and existence but also the act of watching pornographic images to be deeply problematic and immoral. Whether or not such convictions and beliefs arise from moral inclination, the screening of pornography prevents many opponents from attending the event. They literally cannot watch the pornography, even in the context of the lecture, for that act of viewing pornographic images is itself immoral.

The addition of pornography to this lecture thus actually undermines its central goal — to foster dialogue. No matter the potential artistic merit or presentational benefit provided by airing pornography, this screening all but prevents its opponents from attending. It undermines both the University and Let’s Talk Sex’ goal of encouraging dialogue, and for that reason, it should be prevented.

— Christine Emba ’10, Oliver Palmer ’11, Chelsea Ayres ’12,  Matt Butler ’12

Shivani Radhakrishnan ’11 recused herself from voting on this editorial.