Terence Kealey: a response to criticism

I agree that freedom of speech is a good thing. I also think that discussion and debate that arise from the things people write given this freedom are a good thing. Given the controversial mix of subects- lust and acadaemia - in Kealey's article, it seems inevitable that it would provoke stong opinion. The overall sentiment presented in Kealey's article- that tutors shouldn't act on lust they may develop for their students- is reasonable, however there are some concerning and offensive elements mixed in with it. Encouraging lecturers not to act on lustful feelings towards students is fine, but encouraging lecturers to gawp at female students and then picture them while having sex with their wives is appalling. In saying "you should look but not touch", it seems to me Kealey has the right idea about not touching, but the wrong idea about it being acceptable to look. I find it concerning that Kealey may be mistaking a student who "asks for advice on her essays" for a student asking to exchange sex for upgrades. His advise to enjoy this without acting on it is not altogether reassuring. Any perceived flashing of assets that goes along with a request for essay advice could easily be only in the mind of the lecturer. Sweeping generalisations like "The fault lies with the females" and "Normal girls- more interested in abs than labs" are also unhelpful. The second of those quotes stikes me as insulting because the context implies that the abs normal girls are supposedly interested in are those of their lecturers. Don't worry girls, you're not abnormal if you don't have sexual feelings for your lecturer! (Also, appologies for re-opening this debate here, but I only read the original article today, and the comments bit for it seems to be locked)

I do not mean to be insulting, but the English seem almost as prim and prudish as the Americans on this topic. I teach at a continental university and such a problem simply does not occur. Now and then a professor sleeps with a student, yes. There is often an inherently sexual component to the relationship between mentor and mentee. Have you not read Plato? Are we not all of the same species? It is simply common sense that this occurs--and silly to think it is wrong. There are two rules of the game: no favour on your grades and this cannot last. Imagine, practically all young women of today are sophisticated to understand this. The game for them has other stakes, and as often as not it is the poor pot bellied bloke who holds his head in his hands at the end of the day, disappointed and wistful. So I go beyond Professor Kealey and the good editor and proclaim that it is not only freedom of speech we should be concerned with, but freedom as such.

What a horrible, horrible nightmare. Female. Computer Science. Post Grad.

Good point Henderson! If we allow conventions to drive the way we perceive ourselves, rather than have an analysis on how we form our morality, then we are proclaiming the end of knowledge. The culture to react to statements picked up from a text, rather than spend some time to analyse its core meaning, could be actually a symptom that freedom in its truest form is fading away in our consciousness. Kealey is indeed provocative, but at the heart of the section on lust he is quite tempered (that is, he tends towards restraint, and a cold appreciation of beauty, rather than an engagement with it). His freedom is expressed in language (the choice of which can lead to a false understanding of libertarian freedom), but what he really stands for is closer to the Kantian model of freedom. A sound mind can easily see that criticising him for stating what the obvious condition of a human being is (i.e. with bodily desires and a rational mind), says more about the loss of freedom on the behalf of the reader, rather than the writer.

The original article is neither humourous nor satirical. Perhaps the failure in this respect is a dependence on obscure references that are not read terribly often by even the more well read members of the public (and I assume that an article written for a newspaper would be aimed at the general public). Perhaps it is because Terence Kealey is out of touch with the real world and the female students living in it. The failings of the original piece are only part of the picture here though. The editor, irrespective of his or her gender, ought to have seen the gap between what Terence Kealey supposedly intended and the reader's interpretation (a considerable gap given their reaction). Perhaps she could have hinted that it wasn't coming across as funny or satirical. Perhaps she is a past student of Dr Kealey's.

Unfortunately, Mr. Kealey is wrong on several counts, as is his editor. The piece is clearly an attempt to be humorous, but it falls far, far short. Kealey's use of humour is very heavy-handed, to the point of being obnoxious. One indication of this is that after being battered over the head--far from "lighthearted" and "wry"--with a series "conventional literary devices," Kealey then tells us, at the end of the piece, that academics should look, but not touch. A sure sign of the fact that the use of satire and sarcasm has failed is when an author must distance himself from that literary device in order to reassure his readers that it is, after all, a "moral piece." The outrage due to misunderstanding this piece as an "immoral piece" is, therefore, totally unsurprising. Next time, the editors at THE ought to find someone "funny" in order to "write" their "wry" pieces on "lust" and other such "sins".

Where, indeed, can we have a "robust debate"? Ms. Mroz, it seems to have escaped your attention that a robust debate, by definition, will include criticism. Such criticism does not infringe on anyone's freedom of speech.. Dr. Kealey is free to write, and you to publish, any sort of appalling stupidity you desire. Your readers are, in turn, free to point out that you have exposed his poor judgment to the world. Freedom of speech does not imply a right to be free from criticism. I expect confusion on that point from the great unwashed, but I am astonished that the editor of an academic publication fails to understand it. I am also free to tell you you're no kind of feminist if you make excuses for middle-aged academics who inform their female students, in writing, that ogling is a "perk" of classroom teaching. Good heavens! It's bad enough that sexual harassment is still rampant. I well remember how angry and discouraged it made me as an undergraduate thirty years ago. I had hoped that men of my own generation might be a little more enlightened: foolish optimism, obviously. But with the memory of those long-ago humiliations called so strongly to mind, I can assure you that If I were unfortunate enough to be Dr. Kealey's wife, a few genteely-worded letters of criticism would be the least of his problems.

I don't know what to make of this response by Kealy. If he's so keen to lecture us on conventional literary devices then I guess he knows he could have expressed them in other ways and not resort to stereotypical views of male academics and female students. Putting Kealy aside, I question the Editor's understanding of freedom of expression and academic debate. For starters, speaking of debate in relation to this would assume that Kealy is in fact defending the idea (not what he claims to have wanted to do based on his response to posters' hoo-hah). Also, I wonder whether the editor would have been as open had a female academic written a piece about lust in relation to female students. Anyway, given the need to justify that both Kealy and Mroz show now, I have not doubt the piece was indeed written thinking that it would be taken in a light-hearted manner but Mroz (more than Kealy as he seems unable to) should recognise that it was not such a good idea because it somehow tries to normalise as ""lighthearted" and "wry"" an issue that should be taken seriously in academia and most of the times isn't. Either that or open the debate and invite academics to publish their views in a central feature at THE.

Anyone approaching such a topic with the genuine intent to use transgressional language to illustrate their point would not do so so clumsily and ineffectively. They'd proof their copy to make sure that the satire shone clearly through to avoid being misinterprete; they would finish up by clarifying their real views in order to highlight the stupidy of what they subsequently claim to be a pretend opinion; that is, if they accepted the invitation to write such a misconceived article in the first place. Just because writing a "seven deadly sins of..." or "ten commandments of..." feature is an accepted literary device to avoid having to think up original ideas it doesn't always mean that an acceptable topic can be found in every case.

There's freedom of speech, then there's... something else. It's one thing to take offence at the original article, but quite another to advocate a witchunt. Many of the criticisms spill over into simple, vicious attacks. This basic idea - that "if right is on my side, anything I say or do is OK"- is the oldest reason for the inflation of conflicts we know of. It isn't actually religion, or difference of opinion, that causes wars- it's this hiding behind righteousness whilst bullying. The antidote? - proportionate response, which in this case would mean reasoned debate.

Don Quixote, nobody has advocated a witch hunt and what you have taken to be simple vicious attacks were in fact incredibly subtle, lighthearted, wry, humourous and satirical quips. The basic idea is not "if right is on my side, anything I say or do is OK", the responses are completely in line with Healey's and the editor's own responses, sharing the same basic idea that "if I say it is humourous and satirical, anything I say or do is OK". This sentiment is quite convenient, any opposing view is either down to the absence of a sense of humour or to a coarse insensitive nature which is incapable of grasping such high intellectual humour.

No, that argument doesn't wash - I'm pointing out a fundamental difference. People may well (and should certainly be free to) disagree quite strongly. However, to take that disagreement to another level, involving personal attacks and so on - doesn't amount to humour and can't really hide behind the "oh I was just being ironic" defence. Failed attempts at humour constitute one thing - calls for sacking/censorship etc and criticisms of personal qualities, targeted at a particular individual, - quite another. They are just not logically equivalent, not proportionate.

Thanks for reminding us that it's our right to be offended and our right to express offence (as if anyone wasn't aware of this). It really is gracious of Mroz to allow us this liberty.

Terence Kealey is a f-ing bastard! To pre-emp possible critical responses to what I just stated I wish to make it clear that I, of course, was just applying a conventional literary device. I'm not sure I'm not wrong in doing so.

Never mind whether it was offensive or satirical - next time you do the Seven Deadly Sins of Academia, just include 'Not Being Funny.'

Mr Kealey, you mean "procrastination," not "prevarication."

First off, my pseudonym shouldn't belie that this kind of thing would set off a firestorm here either. I guess I would rather enter the fray as "confused college student," but hedged as "American" so any yankee diction is spotted for what it is. I guess I will just throw my cards down: I think the phenomenon Kealey describes is real (yes, we haven't done away with testicles yet and no, they aren't culturally constructed. I think feminists would also do well enough to keep away from the existence of the female libido), and I think the legion 'offense taken' troops have washed away any question about the reality of the phenomenon in this question of what is civil to speak about. Yet again, we at that impasse: can we and should we publicly air things that, although very likely true, do not reflect well on certain people. Classic examples include low IQ scores for minorities, lack of females in math / science, homosexuals increased susceptibility to HIV. I'm sorry, beleaguered groups, if the numbers and nature aren't always flattering. Not talking about a phenomenon won't make it go away, no matter how much Butlet you've read. A second point I want to make: the average college girl I meet isn't nearly as hoity-toity about being characterized as lustful. In fact, most college girls I know are pretty sex-positive and as you can't make it through a reading of ratemyprofessors for a young male prof without seeing a bunch of "oh he's hot too!," I think the verdict is in, they think this debate is academic, pun intended.

Since it's supposed to be funny, let's find the humor in the harm this does to women students, who can't seem to be taken seriously as scholars by the same leches (leeches) illustrated in the satirical piece. It's just too damn close for comfort for me.

Undoubtedly the parents of female students at Buckingham University (to say nothing of the students themselves) will be clutching their sides with laughter at the clever (and moral!) ribaldry on display here. Who wouldn't be tickled to pay £3,000 a head to have their daughters leered at by senior members of administration? As for dressing up bog-standard sexism as a "literary device" - Shakespeare you're not, Kealey.

I'm not particularly censorious - I know or know of quite a few relationships between lecturers of both sexes and their students and while I agree that these are not unproblematic neither are they the end of the world. What I really hated about Kealey's piece was its letchy(sp?), smirking, cringe making prurience and objectification of female students. I wouldn't want my daughter taught by this man but less because he might make a pass at her than because he just seems really stupid.

I find the whole argument interesting. I enjoy reading, and wouldn't think twice if a plot regarding university life included a professor discussing the subject in confidence with a colleague, telling him that it's inevitable that some pretty young thing would take a shine to him, and that he should enjoy the attention, (enjoy the view) but to steer clear of any involvement (don't touch). It really depends on how you percieve it. I think it's important to consider the entire article and not just the one part of it, and read it as the piece of entertaining literature, rather than an instruction booklet. Remember the title - the seven deadly sins of acadamia - not the seven benefits of teching. Is there really anyone out there that hasn't seen an attractive person, and appreciated the way they look? Maybe even wondered about what would have happened in a different world, a different time etc etc. Isn't this what he's saying?

Thank you for doing us all a great service and exposing how higher education is infested with moral mullahs, the ideological Inquisition, etc. The disinterested pursuit of truth, an open mind and the capacity to laugh at ourselves seems to have disappeared from the academy.. I’d hate my daughter to be taught by any of these priggish, self-righteous ideologues. Keep up the good work.

Gelding! that's the answer. In this day and age, it is absolutely intolerable that wrinkled old men look at young women. At all. Even if they are provocatively dressed. Such displays are intended for someone else (younger men) and the old men are wrong to be confused. Modern techniques such as eye-tracking software could be used to uncover deviant thoughts, which could then be dealt with once and for all. Not only is there no place for sex in university, there's absolutely no excuse for even thinking about it, or acknowledging gender differences. So I think a dedicated lecherer, sorry, lecturer, should be willing to undergo gelding.

I am a student currently studying at The University of Buckingham. There has been much ado about this now infamous article and much of it taken completely out of context. I hope I represent one of the voices that can clarify this issue. The article was commissioned to be humorous. Anyone bothering to read the original would be hard pressed to associate the satire with an academic mandate propagating taboo lecturer/student relations. The Vice-Chancellor was simply shedding light (or perhaps mirth) on an existing situation in every university and he has been made to pay dearly for it. Indeed no good deed goes unpunished.

I am a new student at the University Of Buckingham who joined just a day ago, I have now read all the articles posted and would like to give my view on these. Being a female myself I see no negative aspects to the original article as it was written to humour the audience and not to infuriate them, I feel the media has misinterpreted the article to cause an uproar about a highly respected university that has won student satisfaction for three years in a row. If the same comments were made by a famous comedian then there is no doubt the audience would be laughing but as per usual the media look for ways to downgrade the views of those who they feel should be politically correct on an hourly basis. There is freedom of speech in this country so let it be used. Read the articles and look at the facts and you should come to the same conclusion that many have now begun to realise.

well, sometimes it happens that people look at the things the way they are shown to them. I never knew unless I visited pyramids of egypt myself, that there is pizza hut and KFC just next to it. As the title itself suggests, seven deadly sins of academy; so considering it we need to get our perspective right that the author here is talkin about the sins which are supposedly not to be done. Infact if you just go through the last para of the article, look and not touch at all. On the second place, the dialogue of which the phobia is being created about, "Enjoy her! She is a perk." is entirely a sign of sense of humour, which might be over the top of some people's level of humour, also as a vice chancellor of the university, I believe you got to have that to achieve student satisfaction except academics. That is what he has been doing wonderfully from last 4 years. Last but not the least at all, as a student over here I can say that with full assurance that it is not like it at all. There is always a healthy relationship among the academias and the students. They discuss things sometimes with a bit of personal touch that is meant in all positive sense just to achieve and ensure maximum learning which is done too. As we are a small university, we can manage that personal attachment which most of the UK universities aspire for but can not manage. That is what a good reason too that we are on top in student satisfaction from last 4 years. So, get a humour guys or atleast do not just give your opinions about something you have not read carefully and in the perspective it is written.

Come on people. Relax and stop taking this article seriously. This was merely a point of view Dr Kealey was expressing his views in his article. He is actually discouraging sexual activities between lecturers and students. Read the article properly and make your own mind up. Do not let yourself be influence by the media. Be a bit open minded and face the reality of life. This is what goes on in most universities and Dr Kealey was brave enought to say it openly.

I cannot believe some people actually could feel "appalled, angry, insulted" and so on. Has he said anything new or untrue? Come on, there will always be some student who will try to use the "sex-appeal weapon", for a reason or another. It has always happened and it won't stop. (Even my dad, who went to University in Bologna in the 1940s told me that such situations were sometimes occurring!) That's how things are, you have to accept it. Did Dr Kealey say it's good for a teacher to sleep with a student? NO. Did he say ALL female students are flaunting their curves to teachers (and therefore think that their body is a good merchandise to exchange for better grades)? NO. Are those people (who got offended by his article) complaining because he said that the occasional female student flaunting her curves is a "perk of the job"? Does it mean that they got cross because he appreciates female beauty? Are they joking??? Somebody defined him as a "reality-challenged idiot", I've just read on the BBC website... definitely that looks to me the case of the person who produced that remark! I think somebody didn't really understand the article. Come on, people, open your eyes, get real and learn to read!!! :-)

the students response: http://www.montydhaliwal.blogspot.com/

If someone were to write a satirical piece that was riddled with racist commentary under the guise of "free speech", would this be tolerable? Would black people be stepping up to "support his freedom of speech?" Shame on the editor. Sexism is the most tolerated prejudice, even by women. Ladies, if we don't support ourselves, WHO WILL!??? Joking or not, don't stand for sexism of any kind! Hate speech is not freedom of speech. Put this in the context of racial "joking" and I think that you would view it differently, and it is not.

Luna there is a big difference between what kealey wrote and what far right wing politicians say. There are gradations of meaning in language and to conflate Kealey with the BNP or those who want to wind back history for women is just plain wrong. At least Kealey wasn't telling people what to think. You are though.

It is a common misconception for profound pioneers in thought to be misunderstood by the masses and mistaken for troublemakers. Has anyone given any thought to this; the true message being conveyed by, and I must stress, the Vice-Chancellor of the United Kingdom's only private University? The man is not only brilliant, in his ability to convey matters so ethically involved and controversial in a witty style designed to shock us into acknowledging the truth, but he is bold for doing so! Humbly, I applaud his ambitious endeavour to publicly call attention to what many have turned a blind eye to. I ask again, is anyone thinking? It seems we've managed to systematically root out and erase the thinkers of the world. True visionaries are becoming extinct and replaced with robots. In this pop-tart culture, where we are being told what, how and when to think, very few are asking why? When reading an article or book (any piece of writing really) does it occasion you to ask why the author has published this? What was his message? Without delving too far into René Descartes's 'cogito, ergo sum,' (I think, therefore I exist), is there anyone who, in reading the article, occaisioned the question: why would Dr. Kealey, Vice-Chancellor of Buckingham University, father, and husband, profer a literary work he knew would be publicly scrutinzed? Surely, as Buckingham University is a private enterprise, relying wholly on its students as income, his aim could not have been to say: " come to Buckingham University and be objectified by our professors" because certainly announcing the existance of lewd and lascivious lecturers would be bad for business. Surely, as a father his aim is not to suggest he would want his own child subject to such a salacious system. Surely, as a husband he is not publicly outting himself and his marriage as having his sex life spiced up by enjoying the perks of his job. Surely, his views are satirically vulgar to the point of amusement. We are meant to, and do, laugh at the truth because it's really only a reflection of some of the underpinnings of a capitalistic society; do what you must to get a head. I suspect those that are most offended by it are probably those caught in such precarious situations, now feeling embarassed that their unethical actions are called to light. I find it disheartening that there are so few people questioning and reasoning, but I understand because it's just that simple. Figuring out the 'why' can prove to be the single most arduous task one is ever confronted with because, so often, it leads down soul-searching paths of deeper understanding. See, the thing is, thinking is hard. It is harder to think about a thing and solve the problem than it is to simply not and be given the answer. This microwave generation wants it all, and we want it all right now! Most of us never bother to read things in their entirety, rather we settle for the head notes and the summaries, the preamble and the précis. Just give us the gist so we can get back to things that take as little thought as possible because after-all thinking is hard an we would rather do easy. And, having said that, admittedly, I too am guilty of concluding on and forming an opinion of prior to reading the source in its entirety. Lately, I found an opinion on Katherine Sellgren's loosely scattered excerpts of Dr. Kealey's prose in her piece entitled "Curvy Students 'Perk of the Job'". However, even in my ignorance, and remembering the spin-doctor tendencies of the media, I occasioned the question: why would Dr. TK publish a work like that? Having read several bloggs about the issue and been subjected to the voiced opinions of the many, it is that the message has been muddled. Most of the opinions forged have come from retorts by the media and not the original article. To allow oneself to be so readily influenced by the comments of the media, who's objective nowadays is not so much to report the happenings of society but rather to sell their product, is nothing short of sheer unadulterated laziness. But, it's our fault. Collectively, as a global society we have bred nations of test-takers, machines, and pupets that slot neatly into their place in society and do a job without ever questioning what it is they are actually doing or why they are doing it. The reason for such stagnant complacency is due to laziness. So, naturally, when presented with satirical literature calling attention to the ethical underside of humanity that flourishes in precarious situations, weak-minded individuals prone to being told what when and how to think having become accustomed to waiting for the answer, do just that. They wait for the answers and when none are offered, the media stands ready to ibue the concocted opinions that encourage more debate, more news and ultimately more profit for them. Poor, unlucky Dr, Kealey fell on the wrong side of this media storm. Having spoken with Dr. Kealey, he said: "perhaps the mistake was not writing the article, but rather it was not anticipating the reaction of the people." I'm sorry sir, you should have known better.

I hope that this dinosaur is forcibly retired.

Invoking "academic freedom" in this context, when all that is at stake is whether or not Dr Kealey's piece is in good taste (answer: it's not), or is an intelligent well-written satire (again, not!), is a true insult to those academics working under conditions of limited academic freedom elsewhere in the world. "Write a stupid article, get a stupid backlash", maybe -- but does the Editor need to add a stupid defense as well??

And I hope that anyone who expresses the opinion that someone should be forcibly retired (and what would that entail, exactly?) for expressing opinions that in no way involved the physical or psychological browbeating of anyone - should be forcibly retired, or, if they haven't yet entered the world of work, should be forcibly prevented from doing so...oh! hang on - that includes me as well.. in that case, I retract entirely...

@J Kitchener, I agree with the points you make. I think calls for Kealy to retire (or be burned in a cross!) are not what this is about but rather acknowleding that allowing his piece, which is indeed in poor taste, to be published, was not the best decision. As for the "freedom of speech" part goes, there have been posts removed on this site by the editors with the argument that may offend some people... so much for freedom of speech when many scholars have indeed expressed they felt offended (some to the point of outrage) by Kealy's piece!

Yes - saying the THES didn't show great taste in deciding to publish the piece is quite different from saying Kealey shouldn't be free to write/publish such things. And I don't suppose most of the people who think the piece was crude and irritating, even offensive, actually want him to be *sacked* (though a few seem to).

I would like to note that some posts left by 'reportedly' students of the University of Buckingham and that expressed dissatisfaction appear to have been removed from this site. They were not offensive and were merely points of views...'freedom of speech'?????

In response to the above posting, I can confirm that only one post was removed from this thread and this was because it was spam. No posts were removed from the other thread. Ann Mroz, Editor

The overriding issue, by far, is Freedom. Without Freedom, humankind is falsified & lost because, without freedom, all conscious product becomes a lie. Those who are critical of Terence Kealey, because of disagreement on the topic, mostly fail to differenciate between the reasonable criticism that disagreement can generate, and the raw urge to set rules for thought, even to the point of imposing Talibanesque prohibitions. Some even regard that the former justifies the latter. Freedom is beyond price; that is to say, no one, nor all of us collectively, could bear the cost of losing even the small amount of it that we currently possess. And that is what is at stake here. The age-old truth that people attract other people, in all sorts of circumstances, is not in need of defence, nor disguise, nor disgust.

I havent time to waste on the overblown, pompous, self-important and rambling responses above. Only the short ones are worth reading. Fact is, Kealey's comments are highly inappropriate in two ways. First, stating the case his way (however humourous the intent) lowers the bar preventing lecherous lecturers from preying upon vulnerable, albeit misguided, undergrads. Second, suggesting lecturers should utilise the experience to spice up their sex lives conjures up a somewhat unwelcome and perverted insight into how male academics like to spend their most intimate moments with partners - or alone! Kealey is a loser in all this: I wonder how his wife/partner feels about the comments - and how their friends now view their relationship.

Really, who cares?

Ann Mroz I know they were as one of the posts removed were in fact mine and under the name of anonymous! It were lengthy and in a nutshell asserted that as a female student at Uni.Bucks I am indeed outraged at the V.C's statements and wish I had never joined! It is sexism and an embarrassment to OUR uni. Very foolish indeed!

I am also a female University of Buckingham student and previously expressed on this thread my dissatisfaction with Dr Kealey's statements, it were not spam nor offensive, it were a personal point of view added in taste. My post is no longer here and I did not remove it, it just vanished!..... Needless to say that I agree with the comments made by Sarah(26.09) and Danny (27.09) and now (anonymous 01.10) above and do question freedom of speech! The VC is making it much worse (judging by other female students on campus) by defending his statements - he has missed the point entirely!

My apologies to the editor - I note I made the comments on the other thread and not this one. My mistake. Please feel free to remove the latter comment I made.

@anonymous and Cassie - I understand your irritation but don't let one person affect your view of your university unduly - it's not great publicity but it's not really the kind of news story which is going to damage your university's reputation.

The thing is, now that I realise this is in jest, the devices are clear and evident; however, because the author presumably knows himself to be innocent of such crimes he has made the assumption that we do too. He is gambling on the fact that we know him to be a person who is different from those he is satirizing and given that many of the readership have never met him the gamble has backfired. This does come across as an article where someone has enjoyed the literary exercise of employing satirical literary devices (which can of course be a highly fun endeavour) and where they have done so to great affect; however, while they appear to have considered the subject matter as another element of ther exercise the readership appears to have been drawn to the emotive subject and this seems to have created a gargantuan misunderstanding.

Surely a man of Kealey's posititon and repuation should not be talking about students in that way whether it is in a form of humour or not. Talking about such things could well put off people coming to the universiy. My opinion is that if he has any repect left inside of him then he should resign. If not, then burn him at the cross!!