PAGE TWO
Sexual Non-education
By Ralph Speas
Following is a very brief
chronological account of the
history of sexual non-educa
tion at Downtown Guilford
College, from the author's
point of view.
When I first began teach
ing at Downtown Guilford
College in the summer of
1969, I proposed to school
authorities that a course in
Human Sexual Behavior b
Human Sexual Behavior be
offered for credit and made a
permanent functioning part
of the sociology curriculum.
The original proposal included
a course description, detailed
subject outline, suggested test
and a bibliographical list of
some 400 resources prepared
and collected over a seven
year period specifically for a
course of this type. A signifi
cant portion of my own grad
uate academic training and
intent had been directed to
ward this specific goal.
In keeping with standard
recommendations for starting
new courses like this in a giv
en community, the course
was to be staffed by a variety
of local and regional guest
lecturers, whose efforts would
be coordinated by myself and
student committee leaders as
discussants. No effort was
mde to elicit support from
anv other segment of the col
legt community since it was
my feeling that the course
was of sufficient value, qua
lity and need that it should
stand on its own. Those of
you older and wiser in these
matters are already sadly
shaking your heads - and
rightfully so. Not only was
the proposal not accepted , it
suffered the fate of benign
neglect for the next two
years. From time to time I
would discreetly bring up the
subject as to how considera
tion of my proposal was com
ing along, and would be just
as discreetly informed the
time was not yet right. Even
tually I got the message - I
was the only one who seemed
to feel the great need for such
a course on our campus and
my tactics of gentle persua
my tactics of gentle persua
sion were being read as weak
ness and indecision in the face
of an opposition which never
had to take me seriously.
Well, what to do? Perhaps
I hadn't done as good a job
as I should have in the first
place in presenting the whole
idea, so I started over. A new
proposal was drawn and sub
mitted in Oct. 1971, with
considerably more extensive
reasoning and support for the
course. An enlarged bibliogra
phy and sample examination
were included. Remaining, of
course, were the plans to uti
lize various Greensboro area
resource people in the in
structional phase, including
some from our own sociology
faculty. Student support was
actively sought and received
for the first time in a concert
ed way. Articles began to ap
pear in the student newspaper
regarding the proposed course
and subject areas. An air of
anticipation and confidence
could be felt by this author
in campus discussions with
interested staff and students
The expressed view of several
was that the subject matter
was simply too important and
needed to be held back further
and that those making the fin
al decision would soon give
the OK to go ahead with the
course.
I was wrong again. Resis
tance stiffened. Word came
from the chairman of the de
partment of sociology that
there was just no way the
course could be offered at
course could be offered at
that time. I requested and re
ceived a meeting (Feb. 18,
1972) between myself and
other members of the socio
logy faculty in an effort to
bridge whatever gaps might
exist in that direction. Per
haps they simply didn't rea
lize what was involved, or the
importance of providing
course material of this nature
at this crucial time to our stu
dents. After all it was so very
clear to me. I must confess
I was surprised at the degree
of antagonism and even out
right hostility expressed to
ward the idea of this course
on the part of some of those
present - a depth of feeling I
hadn't previously realized exist
ed. And some of this hostility
appeared directed at me - the
prepetrator - the troublemak
er. (Yes, Virginia, Ralph is
still pretty naive about some
Photo by Catot
GUILFORDIAN
At The Downtown Campus
things.) I was literally shock
ed, and it took me a bit to re
gain my composure. I back
pedalled by handing around
evidence of my competence
to be promoting such auda
cious subject matter at this
school; (I had a need to pro
tect my bruised ego, and per
haps they hadn't heard!). Ob
viously I had seriously mis
calculated the feelings and
knowledge of the subject mat
ter by these people who were
sitting in judgement of me
and the proposed sex course.
Certainly each of those sitting
in that room on main campus
approximately one year ago
will have their own version
of what occurred, and if ou
are sufficiently motivated (if
you really give a damn) you
should take the trouble to
question each of those involv
ed as to their interpretation
of what occurred.
Well, what would you
have done? I made it clear
that if there were any objec
tion to me personally as in
structor for the course I of
course would withdraw any
connection whatsoever I had
with the project in order to
get it off the ground, if that's
what it would take. Let some
one, anyone they wanted,
take over as coordinator and
get the show on the road. No,
no, that wasn't the problem -
as the meeting changed now
to a mere conciliatory mood.
Certainly my qualifications
were most competent for
what I had been proposing,
f hey said. Well, what then,
wa r the hang up? Briefly, here
is what I have recorded in my
notes of that meeting:
The Dean of Students,
who sat in on the meeting,
indicated that "the adminis
tration," (that rather conven
ient, nameless authority from
on high) was pressuring
against such a course at that
time. The rationnale given
was that this subject matter
of a full-credit, full semester
course in Human Sexuality
was already approached or
covered in the existing Mar
riage and Family course, and
the budget was simply too
tight at this time to allow
another course to be intro
duced into the curriculum. As
I said, there had been a seri
ous lack of communication
here. The sociology depart
ment chairman, in light of
this official attitude of the ad
ministration, was of course re
luctant to introduce any new
course at this time. Therefore,
it was with regret that the de
cision to continue to refuse
the Human Sexuality course
must stand.
Again - what to do? Give
up? "If you push this any
further, Ralph, you're gonna
lose your job for sure." Naw.
it
I said, these people aren't
like that. It's just that they
don't understand yet how im
portant this course is for this
overall benefit of the entire
student body. It's just a mat
ter of presenting them with
enough evidence in a more
convincing way - then they'll
see the light. (I know - you're
saying to yourself this guy
will never learn). At any rate,
I pushed now harder than ev
er. This authority was con
sulted, then that one; and so
on until I had some really
interesting and sometimes
conflicting advice on how to
deal best with this particular
situation. And the introduc
tion of sex education and hu
man sexuality into a given
community or college must
be dealt with as just that
each time a unique situation
strategy designed specifically
for that place and situation.
Putting together what I
had been trained to do as a
professional sex educator and
what advice I was given from
H)C Cjuilfbr&M
Ed 'tor K. Rice
Managing editor L. Swan
Busin ess R. Gelman
s P° rt s J. Shields
Photography C. Fenske, R. Catoe, P. Geraty
Staff D. Baynham, L. Lathrop, S. Meeker, K. Reddick,
K. Sloan
Contributors K. Dempster, A. Berger, T. Potts, M. Neu
hauser, S. Schedin, G. Bunk, B. Shelton
The Guilford ian is published weekly except for lamination per
iods and vacation*. Tha Guilfordian it not an official publication of
Guilford Cottage, and tha opinions expressed harain ara sotafy those
of tha authors and editors. Office: Room 223. Cox Old North, Phone:
292-8709. Mailing address: Guilford College. Greensboro, North
Carolina 27410. Subscription rates: $4.00 per year, $2.50 per seme*
ter. distributed tree of chergs on the Guilford College campus.
various people in the field as
of this particular situation, I
asked the editors and staff of
the downtown campus paper
URBAN WORD to aid in de
termining how many students
actually wanted to take such a
course and would sign up for
it, once offered. Not what
they said they would do --
would they commit themselv
on paper? With an article fea
turing Mary Calderone, a Qua
ker grandmother heading up
SI ECUS - The Sex Informa
tion and Education Council
of the United States (of
which I am a charter member)
a questionnaire was provided
in the next issue asking stu
dents whether or not they felt
the Human Sexuality course
should be offered, and if they
would enroll, should it be in
cluded in the curriculum. The
following issue of the UR
BAN WORD (March 9, 1972)
reported that ot 143 replies,
137 were in favor of offering
the course, but the number
of those indicating willingness
to sign up was not reported.
Also appearing in that issue
were two letters commending
the students for promoting
this needed service for the
well-being of the student bo
dy from two leading teachers
of already successful courses
of this type - one from Chapel
Hill and the other from Mich
igan State University. Nothing
but compliments now from
those who formerly had so
opposed my proposals such a
short time ago. It appeared
the strategy of gathering
about us the strength and sup
port of a national charpcter
was paying off.
In March of 1972 I at
tended my usual annual meet
ing of the AASEC - The Ame
rican Association of Sex Ed
ucators and Counselors, and
reported the meeting in a ra
ther lengthy article in the
April 19, 1972 URBAN
WORD. Again, no adverse
THURSDAY MARCH 29, 1973
comment and quite favorable
reaction from many in the
college community. A few
weeks later, the phone call
from Dr. Zopf came - the
four semester hour credit
course HUMAN SEXUALITY
to be taught and coordinated
by this author, was now offi
cially a part of the Downtown
Guilford College Sociology
curriculum! Needless to say
those of us who had believed
in the need for this course
and had worked so hard for
its acceptance were grateful
that the students would now
have greater access to such
factual information in a posi
tive academic setting. (I was
personally elated!) I didn't
understand thougn, exactly
why we couidn't begin the
coming fall semester of 1972;
but then I was so grateful
just to get the course started
at ii for the Spring 1973 se
mester that I offered no ob
jection. I worked hard at re
fining the course offerings
during the following summer.
In the Oct. 6, 1972 URBAN
WORD the administratively
determined qualifications for
those students enrolling in
the course were printed.
Again, I felt most of the re
structions were unnecessarily
harsh, but didn't question
them for fear of jeapordizing
the course. After all, this was
a pioneering effort that was
finally paying off and I wasn't
about to do anything to upset
the applecart! To be limited
to 15 students maximum, so
ciology majors were required
to have taken Introductory
Sociology, Social Problems,
and Marriage & the Family.
Psychology majors had to
have previously taken General
Abnormal and Development
Psychology. Presumably no
other students could enroll
at this time. Perhaps, I rea
soned, things would loosen up
a bit later as the course gain
ed greater acceptance.
Soon after that article ap
peared, I was informed by a
Downtown Campus official
that the course was cancelled.
ZAP! Just like that. Gone.
Out. Damn near like all that
had gone before had never
happened, had never really
made a difference, I expect
that all the emotions you
would expect me to have sure
ly did run through my mind.
Then I sat down to find out
what had happened this time
(continued on page 6)