The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript

A Sexologist Sparks a Furor in Taiwan

Thursday, October 9, at 11:30 a.m., U.S. Eastern time

Should researchers who study socially controversial subjects take moral positions on those subjects? Do universities, or does society at large, have the right to set limits on such research, or penalize a scholar whose views they find offensive or potentially dangerous?

Josephine Ho, a professor in Taiwan, is at risk of being prosecuted under the island's obscenity laws for posting on her online databank of deviant sexual behaviors a hyperlink to a Web site depicting sex acts between people and animals. Ms. Ho is no stranger to controversy. Her outspoken defense of teenage prostitution, and her refusal to pass judgment on many unorthodox sexual behaviors, such as bestiality and pedophilia, have rankled conservatives and feminists alike. Ms. Ho says that she does have limits -- any forced sex act she considers wrong -- but argues that otherwise one must judge people on an individual basis. Her university has maintained a "neutral" stance on the legal case, but it has begun monitoring her work more closely. One high-ranking administrator says that Ms. Ho has behaved irresponsibly as a researcher and overstepped the bounds of academic freedom. Is the university right to take such steps? Is Ms. Ho right to take such positions on her subjects of study?

» No Sex, Please, We're Taiwanese (10/10/2003)

Josephine Ho is an English professor and founder of the Center for the Study of Sexualities at National Central University, in Taiwan. She will respond to questions and comments about her work on Thursday, October 9, at 11:30 a.m., U.S. Eastern time. Advance questions are encouraged and may be posted now.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Beth McMurtrie (Moderator):
Good morning everyone, and welcome to Colloquy Live. I'm Beth McMurtrie, an editor here, and I'll be moderating the chat.

Today's discussion is about controversial research and academic freedom. Our guest is Josephine Ho, an English professor and sex researcher at National Central University in Taiwan. She has been accused of violating the country's anti-obscenity laws because of material she posted on her databank of deviant sexual behaviors.

Among the questions her case raises is whether people who study socially controversial subjects should take moral positions on those subjects, and whether universities have the right to set limits on such research.

Let's get started.

Josephine Ho:
Good morning. Here are the key issues: (1) Many of us are forever grateful for the internet as it has put us in touch with a wealth of information that we had never dreamed of. The control of knowledge flow has always been used as a tool of manipulation, and we are fully aware of the oppression that could result from such a constraint on our knowledge, our imagination, and our sense of reality. (2) Imposing a law on cyberspace that decrees that "the mere provision of hyperlinks" to the so-called obscenity sites is criminal is simply absurd. For hyperlinks are not direct avenues to fantasyland, but moments of choice-making. A person has to initiate the click to effect his decision to enter. That is something totally different from the passive situation in which you are handed a flyer of obscene images on the street corner. (3) If providing a hyperlink to difficult knowledge is a crime, then search engines from Yahoo to Google would all have to be shut down for they all can lead us to numerous unspeakable terrains. Some friends of mine have even suggested that I take these search engines to court to demonstrate the absurdity of such a Taiwanese law. The selective enforcement of this law on me and my webpage thus reveals that the accusation is brought forth not because of the accusing NGO groups' concern over bestiality but because of their urgent need to silence their most outspoken critic. (That's another long story that stretches back into Taiwanese feminist debates over sexuality since 1994.) All in all, I hope this incident would spark discussions and debates over the issue of unreasonable censorship measures imposed on cyberspace as well as ungrounded prejudice against marginal sexualities.

Question from Petra Dierkes-Thrun, University of Pittsburgh:
Hi there, Josephine. I was really interested in reading about your work, both as a researcher and an educator. The article mentioned that you are an impassioned and well-liked teacher. Generally speaking, what are some things you'd most like your students to take away from your classes? In other words, where and how does your passion for your research meet your passion for pedagogy? Thanks, and good luck.

Josephine Ho:
Thank you for being interested in my teaching. Living in turbulent times when various forces -- political, social and cultural -- vie for dominance in deciding Taiwan's present and future, and the forces of globalization and modernity are tossing us around, I would most want to help my students become aware of the need for reflexivity in their thinking as well as actions. As I often teach language training courses, I would challenge students to perfect their speeches or papers by paying attention to how language is employed to produce certain effects on the audience. I also would like them to learn compassion and respect, rather than resentment and prejudice when faced with the new and the different, two things that will continue to surface at ever more rapid speed in this globalizing village. And it is vital for students to acquire a flexibility that will help them deal with such a fast-changing social environment.

Question from Alex Hsieh:
This is only a question about an illegal connection to an obscene web site. That's it. There is no problem about "Do universities, or does society at large, have the right to set limits on such research, or penalize a scholar whose views they find offensive or potentially dangerous? " To be a teacher means that we ought to face the responsibility of our behavior and our sayings.

Josephine Ho:
Thanks for the question. Two things need to be clarified here. Whether something is �obscene� or not is yet to be decided by the law, and Taiwanese supreme court has already decreed in previous cases that a judgment on obscenity issues is to be determined by the context in which the so-called obscenity appears. There had been cases where medical books were censored because they displayed human sexual organs; not to mention sex manuals used by many therapists. Of course, there were also cases where heterosexual images were not considered obscene but as �natural� human sexuality, and gay sex images were considered obscene because they were unnatural acts.

In my case, the hyperlink in question is situated at the bottom of our �animal love� webpage, one among more than 50 webpages on sexuality studies that we are building, preceded by a collection of essays on zoophilia (including Peter Singer�s �Heavy Petting� and some sexological definitions), literary pieces on zoophilia, topical news about cases of bestiality. The hyperlink, when clicked, would reveal a warning message that says, �The following are photos of alternative bestiality sexual acts. Those who may feel offended should refrain from entering.� The hyperlink itself leads to a string of a dozen or so zoophilia photos that I found on one of the bestiality sites in the US. This collection was chosen mainly because it illustrates not only the various types of animals involved but also the clich� scenarios portrayed. BTW, I have never used the databank in my teaching; it was merely a research reserve for like-minded researchers.

If knowledge is to be subjected to obscenity sweeps, I am afraid a large portion of human civilization would be lost, and a major part of our life and ourselves would have to be subjected to the tyranny of guilt, shame, and disgust. Hardly beneficial to the formation of anybody�s emotional and psychical make-up. I am totally responsible for what I do exactly because I believe it is my duty as a teacher and researcher NOT to shy away from difficult topics simply because I myself find them hard to swallow. That kind of honesty and openness, I think, are invaluable lessons for my students if they are ever going to learn to rid themselves of the prejudice and close-mindedness that have been heaped upon them.

My university had in a round-about way threatened to initiate an investigation of my qualifications as a teacher merely based on sensationalized media reports, without even looking into the webpage in question, and the conservatives are waiting for the court decision to make the demand. I am afraid you have oversimplified the complexity of this case when you describe it as a clear-cut case of obscenity.

Question from Beth, large urban university:
No one would deny an individual's privacy and right to engage in whatever kind of consensual sex one chooses. However, by definition, pedophilia (and one could argue bestiality) involves non-consensual sex and should not be categorized with other marginalized sexual groups who do need their civil rights protected. Do you agree that children are not developed mentally or psychically to consent to sexual relations?

Josephine Ho:
Thank you for the vital question on consent. I would have little problem agreeing with you that children are not developed mentally or psychically to consent to sexual relations, if you would agree that in fact they are not developed mentally or psychically to consent to a lot of things that their parents and teachers are asking them to do. Many so-called training or challenges that we adults put kids through everyday are actually devastating for their development as healthy individuals. Such as demanding that they cut off relations with their close friends simply because the parents think the other kids are a bad influence. Or demanding that the kid dress as a boy simply because his biological sex decrees so, despite the kid's self-identification as a girl. In these and other cases, it is quite clear that children are not well-developed to consent to adult requests -- still, that never stopped any parent from carrying on their sacred mission to "protect and discipline." So, why do we only pick out sexual relations as problematic?

Question from Peggy Ann Tartt of Pace University:
In re to The Chronicle's blurb, "Ms. Ho says that she does have limits -- any forced sex act she considers wrong -- but argues that otherwise one must judge people on an individual basis," my question is "Do you, Professor Ho, honestly think that animals are not being forced into sexual acts with human beings? Or in other words, do you proclaim that animals have actually consented to engaging in sexual acts with people?" This sounds utterly preposterous and reeks of animal abuse. Would you, Professor Ho, please clarify and expound your position on this point. Thank you.

Josephine Ho:
Philosophers have conducted quite a bit of arguments on the issue of consent. But let me answer your question in a more commonsensical way. I don't know if you have had much experience with animals. I know of many pet owners, who tell me that it is quite obvious whether an animal is consenting to something or not. If they do not consent, you would feel the pull on the leash, the scratch on your arm, the bite on your leg, the shit on the rug, the kick in your shin, etc. If you have ever visited any zoophilia website, you would see that it takes a whole lot of patience and care -- a lot more than any regular pet owner would bother to spare -- to build toward a moment of intimacy with an animal. The act of forcing a sexual act on an animal, however, is something that I would agree that should be condemned. But you have to agree: not all sexual contacts between people and animals are forced, just as not all sexual contacts between children and adults are forced. We need to recognize the specificity and complexity in each case and avoid making sweeping statements. Let's not forget the days when it was believed that all blacks were criminals and all gays were suicidal.

Question from Jonathan Benda, Tunghai University, Taiwan:
I'm curious about your plagiarism project. What kind of issues were you going to cover in it? Will you still do it even though your school doesn't support it?

Josephine Ho:
Over the years I have noticed that the internet is increasingly changing the way students do research or prepare their papers. And I have felt the urgent need to do more instruction on the proper ""processing" of information as one writes a research paper -- which would probably include practices in critical reading, sensitivity toward positions and problematics, distanced paraphrasing, managing and mapping various positions, etc.. I believe students are not to be blamed for "plagiarizing" if they have been taught only to memorize materials and regurgitate them on exam papers throughout their student career. They have been trained to be passive about information, and they are only applying what they have been taught to do as they move into thesis writing. So I had planned to use this semester's thesis writing course to lead the students through the maze of plagiarism, and I hope learning about plagiarism would in the end set in relief the real hard work of processing information. Now that the university has withdrawn the funding, students all agreed that they still want to do this meaningful activity as their own learning experience. "The school may care more about its image; we students care more about our learning," they said. So, we will go on building our website and help other students and teachers.

Question from Mishelle, Arizona State University:
My answer to the above questions is a "Yes" for moral positions, and a "No" for limits. but my question is for the Taiwanese prof herself. I am curious how she makes her arguement that pedophelia and beastiality are taboos based on our social constructs where sex without consent is morally wrong -- after all can children or animals really consent to sex?

Josephine Ho:
Please refer to my answers to Peggy Ann Tartt of Pace University and to Beth, large urban university

Question from Frank Forman, Bethesda, MD:
I'd like to ask about taboo subjects in education generally. Surely one of the most taboo areas in education is that of innate racial diversity in learning psychologies. When racial diversity comes to mean racial superiority, sensitivity is at least understandable, but as the world's educational systems globalize, we are finding more and more that learning styles are extraordinarily diverse. A superb book on this subject is Richard Nisbet's The Georgraphy of Intellect. One would think it would be very important to know the *extent* to which these cultural differences are innate and not easily amenable to being subsumed under a one-size-fits-all educational model. Imposing one culture's educational ideals on another is both cruel and wasteful. Yet the taboo against investigating biological diversity is extreme, more extreme, I think, than what you are finding in investigating matters of sex. What do you think should be done to overcome this taboo?

Josephine Ho:
My only suggestion for overcoming the taboo that you referred to is to demonstrate through your research more enlightened understanding of the Other, more genuine compassion for the Other--rather than more resentment of the Other or more prejudice against the Other.

Question from Beth McMurtrie:
I'm curious about your relationship to other academics in Taiwan and abroad, especially in light of this lawsuit. Have you received support for your research? Do you feel supported in fighting this lawsuit?

Josephine Ho:
Funny you should ask this question. In April when the news about the webpage hyperlink first broke out, the atmosphere was truly scary for the first few days after that. Rumors were passed around that the university was going to deal with me swiftly to appease public outcry. (I was doing a visiting professorship in Japan at that moment and did not return until September.) My circle of friends and colleagues and other progressive intellectuals were very supportive of me, so they organized a public panel discussion to uphold the integrity and autonomy of academic research as well as internet communication on April 24th. They also put up a petition page on the web for people to sign and show their position on the issue. The petition page gathered over 1300 signatures from Taiwanese residents and close to 800 from all over the world, mostly academics, activists, and students. I will always be grateful for those who showed their faith in me and demonstrated their courage in face of severe sexual stigma. As I have returned to Taiwan and am able to speak for my case in person, the public has also had a chance to hear something much more rational that pure ranting by the conservatives. I am sure this will be a good opportunity for social education.

Question from Trevor Holmes, faculty developer, University of Guelph:
I wonder if you have any sense that the sex of the researcher/teacher makes a difference in public or administrative perceptions of things. Would a man who had a research site that pointed toward "obscene" sites have an even harder time than you're having? Would you yourself feel differently about a man doing this work? My own scholarly work is in a potentially controversial area (queer theory and vampire fiction) but I don't think I'm a threat to students or to society! There are people who would want this kind of work not to be done on university campuses or university computers, though, and I fear that even more of a clampdown is coming in North America (land of many censorship/border crossing troubles with obscenity as a contested signifier).

Josephine Ho:
Thank you for this most provocative question. Yes, I think gender plays an important part in how a piece of research would be received. But that does not mean that people of a certain gender would always have an easier time when it comes to difficult research topics. In my case, as the most outspoken sex-positive feminist on Taiwan, I have only felt more pressure as these so-called child protection groups hound my website for anything that they may find disagreeable. In 2001 they almost took me to court for writing essays to discuss teenage prostitution without adhering to the "just say no" dogma. Taiwanese law has been amended to such an unreasonable extent that you can not even talk about prostitutes' rights or else it would be considered misleading juveniles into joining the sex industry. I fear your hunch is right that a hard rain is looming on the horizon as right-wing concepts and sentiments spread in such times of unrest and uncertainty. But I am also encouraged by the increasing presence and courage of marginal sexualities that have shown great solidarity when cases like mine emerge. So rest assured that the contestation is not yet settled.

Question from Sandra Peng, New York:
I don't agree that internet Speech Freedom is unconditional, but I agree that the limitation should be minimized and carefully justified case by case. In your case of bestiality sex acts, I found the Ministry of Education and your University overacted and should be criticized by all means. I also give you my full support in fighting against the legal charge from the conservative groups. Nevertheless, I also found your framing of this event somehow problematic from a postcolonial perspective. You seemed to imply that the legal charges against you is a proof of Taiwan being less democratic or oppressive. Many western 'critical' scholars, in their endorsement to your petition, also criticized Taiwan or implied to 'teach' Taiwanese what is democray and speech freedom. That makes me quite uncomfortable. May I remind you and them that the right-wing is much more active in the 'democratic' USA and that many publishers (Penthouse or Playboy for instance) are sued now and then. Please don't frame this issue as if you are encountering a political repression and thus reinforce the problematic stereotype that the western academia used to impose on Taiwan. But best wishes again on the prosecution, and thank you for your continuing efforts.

Josephine Ho:
Thank you for the reminder. You are absolutely right in pointing out the implications of such remarks. But I am sure you are also aware of the rhetorical force such wording and arguments may exert on a regime eager to live up to the image of democracy and progress. Sometimes, these are the only words it can hear and understand.

I don't think we are trying to say that Taiwan is less democratic than other countries. What we are trying to point out is that it is exactly because democracies are also exclusive societies -- where social differences are managed and tolerated but some marginalities viewed as the Other excluded and demonized -- that we are witnessing this conservative initiative. In other words, pluralism is exactly the power technique of exclusive societies. In that sense, Taiwan's democracy is working to exclude difficult marginalities. For details, consult Jock Young, The Exclusive Society.

Josephine Ho:
It is well-known in Taiwan that I have been the most articulate critic of recent legislatures of sexual retrenchment brought on by none other than the groups that launched the allegation. These groups have helped Taipei City revoke the prostitutes' licenses to work in 1997, amended rape laws so that merely the age of the person and any form of sexual contact would constitute the necessary condition for "rape" conviction in 1999, revised legislation to outlaw sexual negotiations on the internet to the extent that a simple message on the internet could land you in jail in 1999� -- and all of these were done in the name of "protection" of children and juveniles (a noble cause that has helped the new legislations sail through the otherwise complicated system). The persons leading the "crusade" have said time and again on camera that the present lawsuit had been launched to teach me a lesson. The issue is hardly about bestiality. The real issue here is the regulation of sexual knowledge, esp. as it is disseminated through the internet. In the past two years, laws pertaining to internet communication have tightened dramatically in Taiwan. Personal album space provided to individual net citizens by Yahoo is constantly patrolled by the police, and any sexually explicit self-portraits would be liable to be accused of disseminating obscenities. Chatrooms are also monitored at all times, and any conversation that verges on sexual negotiation is deemed suspect and may face police entrapment. The censorship has led to a rapidly shrinking social space for marginal sexualities. As the most outspoken champion for sexual freedom of speech, I think I am being targeted for good reason.

I have great difficulty understanding the "protection" that many people claim to be necessary for the sake of our children. The telling fact is that the so-called "protection" turns out to be censoring sex-related materials only, instead of applying the same screening to all information so as to truly protect children. (For one thing, the over-glorification of nation-state identity which has been fueling ethnic hostilities in Taiwan in the ugliest and crudest fashion is something that is sure to harm children in their formative years, but nobody wants to censor that kind of information or sentiment in Taiwan these days.) In other words, "protection" is always "protection from sexual information." Such sex-negativity has already been shown, by thinkers as widely different as Welhelm Reich and Gayle Rubin, to be an important power deployment that entails sexual obscurantism as well as sexual oppression. I believe protectionism is only a term that is used to cover up other motives. On the contrary, I think nonchalant exposure to sexual information may be quite healthy for children. Those of us who had been brought up in sex-phobic cultures may find it difficult to come face-to-face with what we had been taught to be degrading disgusting images; the emotional grid is already in place. But the younger generations are becoming increasingly at ease with this kind of material. The latest news in Taiwan is that in two separate cases six-graders were caught building websites on their own and displaying nude pictures of themselves or their friends, not for any commercial purposes but simply to carry out an idea they had. For them, sex is just one of the things in life and not really terrible or harmful. Still, they are now charged with spreading obscenities, the same charge that I face. I am sure if any harm has come their way, it is not from their experience with picture-taking or website-construction. Those are quite self-affirming activities that carry a sense of personal achievement. But terrible harm has already been inflicted on them by all those horrified but "caring" adults who are now taking them to court. Being underage, the children will probably not suffer in the hands of the law. But they are already suffering great humiliation and punishment, the effect of which is sure to follow them throughout their lives if only in the form of social stigma. Is that "protecting" children?

I am not saying that we should "feed" children sexual materials all day long to expose them to this kind of material. I am saying that we should try to treat sexual information the way we treat other kinds of information. If you should find them along the way, don't be alarmed. Deal with it as you deal with any other information. Fixations develop easily in an evacuated life. If we strip our children's lives of a certain kind of information, that usually ends up making them most vulnerable to it. Sex is a highly invested topic only because our culture has made it so. But our culture does not stand still; the younger generations are already developing a more at-ease attitude in regard to sexual matters, which may be a very good thing. At least they are entering their sex lives with less inhibition and may not be so easily traumatized by sexual frustrations. Most importantly, we have a very good chance to work at diluting and phasing out sexual prejudices, for sexual things would not be so much invested as before.

Beth McMurtrie (Moderator):
Our time is now up. I'd like to thank Professor Ho for taking the time to join us today. We had a lot of good questions on this topic. And thanks to all of you for participating.

Josephine Ho:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you out there who have taken an interest in this case. It is your interest and your continued discussion that will promote more enlightened understanding of highly stigmatized subjects. Thank you.