VTTW Board Index

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/01/tennessee-lawmakers-fume-over-state-universitys-sex-week.html?intcmp=hpbt4 (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/01/tennessee-lawmakers-fume-over-state-universitys-sex-week.html?intcmp=hpbt4)

Is this the first time you noticed that Sex Week happens at UT, or just the first time you've been outraged by it?

It's always been stupid and embarrassing. When writers with a national voice start paying homage to it, that makes it all the worse.

Well then it's a good thing that morons like Todd Starnes can be easily ignored.

I'll be honest: I don't understand the need to defend every thing the university implements or condones. There are bad decisions that are made on campus. Todd Starnes is a melodramatic hack, but it isn't like he created the controversy that surrounds "sex week." He is far from the only one who has written about the controversy over the past few years. And if not for the state lawmakers who have gotten rankled by it, Starnes' piece probably isn't written in the first place. Now we can argue that state lawmakers go overboard, and I would be the first to agree with that. Frankly, the TNGOP is at times an embarrassment to the conservative movement. But I still don't understand the rush to condone such flippant foolishness. I get that universities, by their very nature, are more liberal than the general populous, but this is still a deeply conservative state so it's no surprise that people are going to be offended by stuff like that. And it isn't hard to see how a piece like Starnes' can really take hold among the general population given the current headlines that are coming out of the university. To that point, Live Orange was spot-on: It really isn't what UT needs right now.

Neither.

Hilarious. I had no idea.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

It simply baffles me what monies are being spent on at UT, given the budget shortfalls that the powers that be within the University are whining and bitching about.  

And while this is ok for monies to be spent on, try to bring in a conservative approach using UT/student fee monies.  We all know that would never happen.  

I certainly don't agree with everything going on with the legislature in Nashville, but the reality is that given leadership at UT right now there is no other recourse for dealing with this kind of stupidity at the University. 

No state money is being spent on this. It is all student activity fee paid and the students (not the university) are responsible. If a student does not want to support it, their pro-rated share goes elsewhere. I am an old retired male and I swear you people sound like a bunch of cranky old Southern women complaining. If I were a student, I would endorse this just to whiz off all those hypocrites in the Legislature.

I am literally standing... please hold... there, applauding this post.  Good for you.   :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

It's really hard to use that as a defense when that is a mandatory fee.  There is nothing voluntary about it and even if a student does oppose using it for that purpose there is no reduction in that fee, or money returned.  

Um, what exactly is sex week?  Purpose?

I just called it "college".   :dielaughing: :dielaughing: :dielaughing:

That's EXACTLY why I asked.   :dance:

They still have to pay the fee but they are not paying for student activities that they disagree with unless they want to. So you can consider this fee mandatory, but supporting Sex Week with the fee is not. If a student disagrees with the way those funds are used, he or she can opt for that fee to go toward other things. The last time a big stink was made about the use of student activity fees-- and it was about Sex Week that time too-- the UT administration bowed to the pressure and made a policy change.

http://spsf.utk.edu/?page_id=23 (http://spsf.utk.edu/?page_id=23)

I understand why UT yielded to politics, but personally I think the policy change is idiotic. This is a college campus. Sex happens. It happens a lot. And the negative consequences of sex among young people are much less likely to occur if there is actually an open and inviting dialogue on the subject, downplaying the idea that it's taboo or bad and that it should be kept quiet and dark-- where abuse is easy and convenient, and where safety takes a back seat.

Is it an Sex Education class or something?

Partly that, partly quirky and fun sex-related seminars/events and such. Contrary to OP's sentiment I think things like this are more important than ever with the Title IX business.

http://sexweekut.org/about/ (http://sexweekut.org/about/)

LOL.

Part of my fee paid for Hitchcock movies on Wednesday nights in the student center ...

I miss out on all this free stuff apparently.  I was too busy drink beer at The Library...

It's a mandatory fee, CO.  No matter how you try to spin it part of that fee is going towards that.  They can say they don't want to contribute to it, but the REALITY is that part of the fee they are paying is, in fact, funding it.  It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. 

And I'll bet you paid for that yourself instead of expecting others to pay for it, too.

And that's the crux of the issue.  If students want to have a "sex week", then by all means have at it, but don't expect common fees to pay for it.  Pony up for it yourself, or find corporate or private monies to fund it. 

I must be missing something.  This is a "series" of lecturers discussing Sex?  I assume safe practices etc??  :dunno:

I wonder....at the Wed. 6pm session will they demonstrate the proper way to butt chug beer? :laugh:

I'll e Orgasmo for $200 Alex.

P/O the 56%

Interesting evening activities ... :dunno:

Sorry, I left my protractor at home. Can you explain to me which part of this doesn't clearly put the onus on the students to voluntarily give part of their fee to the student-driven portion of university activities:


The spin on this is coming from you, Herb. Not me.

So, I wonder what Morals week is like?

Probably an empty canvas, nobody has done that before ...

Hello McFly - if it is a mandatory student fee and monies from those mandatory fees are being used for activities collectively. One can't "direct" where mandatory fees may or may not end up.    

Sorry, CO.  Your spin just doesn't make reasonable nor rational sense.  When you pay taxes you have no say in what part goes to pay what service/entitlement offered by the level of government that is taxing its citizens.  A mandatory fee, no matter what one calls it, is no different.

As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. 

You are entitled to your opinion on whether Sex Week is a good use of student-directed funds or whether the UT administration should allow it. But you are not entitled to your own set of facts on the subject. This fee was once similar to a government tax, used in its entirety by UT Student Life in whatever manner it thought best. But since the 2014 policy change, individual students actually do-- in reality, not in my "spin"-- have the option of locking those funds away from student-dictated programming they think may be objectionable or that they just otherwise don't want to pay for.

Student-Organized Programming (SOP) is one of eight uses of the SPSF fee. If a a student opts out of his fees being used for SOP, then one of the seven other areas will get the portion of their fee that would have been earmarked for SOP if he had opted in. So no, the SPSF is not reduced by the students who fail to opt in, but the portion used for Student-Organized Programming events like Sex Week is.

The math is simple here and so is the English. Insulting my intelligence is not a strong debate tactic and won't convince many people-- me especially-- that you have a handle on facts that I, as a noted dullard, can't seem to grasp.

Good night, CO. 

It's a mandatory fee, correct? 

If one has objection to where any of the fee is spent, are they issued a refund?

No. 

Then stop with the stupid attempt at spinning it. 

Like I said, you can put lipstick on a pig, but that doesn't change the FACT that it is still a pig. 

But of course, those in the academia world are so much smarter than the rest of us, correct? 

I can probably do a better job explaining my position, but it's going to involve fractions. Before I bother, do you have any special rules on fractions that you'd like me to bear in mind, or can I just use the standard operations and methods that generally apply in circumstances where fractional quantities are involved?

Just as an example, if I slice a pie into 8 equal pieces and you specify that you want your share of that 8th piece to actually be removed from that piece and left in another piece, then generally speaking that means the 8th piece is now less than 1/8 of the pie. But just because this is how fractions work in every situation I've encountered doesn't mean there isn't some modification of rules that you are aware of but I remain ignorant of. I am always willing to learn new things about math.

I have (I think) a better example.  Lets assume there are 25K students and each students fees are $2.  That's a total pot of $50,000 for all activities.

Lets also assume there are only 2 activities for simplicity.  Sexweek thing cost $1 per student.  And Moralsweek costs $1 per student.

If only one student says they don't want their fee to go to sexweek, then sexweek gets $24,999 and Morals week gets $25,001

Does that make sense?

Only 77 copies... signed by the Bandit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2_FPuHbEtE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2_FPuHbEtE)

Whaaaat?  Oh, that Bandit.  Hey, we both do like to drive fast.   :naughty:

The pic of the two "instructors" is actually a disincentive to sex.   :hurl:  lol!

Let me join the chorus of agreement that the students can, in fact, direct the $19.79 fraction of their activity fees to areas other than Student Organized activities, and that this includes Sex Week.  Not spin...just a very clear statement of the University policy that is linked above.

Not sure how it's not clear?   :confused: