Follow-up questions are more than welcome. While I'm not sure we "started" this controversy, we have certainly gone to considerable effort to publicize the absurdities and hypocrisy and to expose this farse. We are, admittedly, directly responsible for bringing local and national attention to this farse. 1. What about the SWAS makes it so controversial? At Duke there are somewhat unique reasons. First of all, Duke has a rule against strippers being hired by student groups, and that rule was clearly broken while administrators did nothing to enforce it and have in fact openly applauded it (Moneta in the N&O). Second, at Duke it was not only sanctioned but paid for by the university and several campus organizations. Third, the hypocrisy involved here is out of this world when you compare administrative and faculty reactions to this event with their reactions over the last two years. Everywhere else, it is controversial because it is a sex show masquerading as an "art show." It can hardly be described as anything other than a celebration of stripping and prostitution. It is quite clear that the purpose of the show, which Annie Oakley makes little effort to conceal, is to legitimize professions in the sex industry including prostitution. Are people taking offense to the show itself and its content or are they upset because it's university-sanctioned? There is a lot to take offense over. The show itself and its content were remarkably offensive to a number of people, though perhaps not to many that attended. Strip clubs are controversial. However, this show is stirring up astonishment course because it was not only sanctioned by Duke University, but it was held at the University and PAID FOR by the university (University Fund, which gets funding from President's Office, Provosts Office, and Student Affairs, etc. See OSAF website). Moreover, it was paid for in part by a number of programs that have in the past fervently expressed outrage over the hiring of strippers and should have no business sponsoring this kind of an event. 2. There was one comment on the Chronicle website that essentially said if you don't like the show and don't want to attend, then don't go. What response do you have to this comment or to people who say this show's content is protected under the right to free speech? First of all, imagine if people said "if you don't like the lacrosse party at 610 Buchanan, then don't go." Then imagine if you told those people that Duke money will be used for the party anyway. Second, let me point out that there are real questions as to whether this event was illegal according to state law. There are very real questions about whether this is covered under free speech. There are laws about operating strip clubs in North Carolina (see Liestoppers). As far as Duke Students for an Ethical Duke is concerned, however, that comment completely misses the point, so we have little to say to it other than to point out the fact the the party clearly violates Duke's own policy and to point out the extraordinary hypocrisy of the individuals who demanded the heads of lacrosse players for daring to hire strippers. At an ethical institution, you simply cannot have this kind of a monumental double standard. 3. Would there be any circumstances where you would not have a problem with this show coming to Duke? For example, would it be okay if the show took place in Reynolds but did not receive university funding or if it was toned down to contain less nudity and explicit content? Again, the objection of Duke Students for an Ethical Duke is that the university and many working for the university are employing extraordinary, malicious double standards in dealing with students and student events not according to basic principles but according to their own self interests and agendas. This event was in direct violation with university policy. My personal opinion is that if the show carried an ounce of educational value, there could be potential for a legitimate use of university funds. Having seen the show, I can tell you that one could get equivalent education and exposure to art from certain infamous and disgusting video clips on youtube, let alone hiring strippers. At least then there would be Q&A (there was none for this show). If that show was art, then 610 Buchanan was the Sistine Chapel. If that show was educational by Duke standards, then every time a Duke student uses the restroom, Dick Brodhead should hand him a diploma. 4. I suppose you haven't asked me anything about my meetings with Brodhead etc. You also haven't asked me to respond to any statements made by Moneta or Brucato or anyone else (I'd love that opportunity). Most notably, you haven't asked me about our fliers or to respond to any comments about them. Truly shocking :). I'm sure Brucato would love to rant about us to you. She has made some pretty wild allegations about me in private to others, many of which are demonstrably false. I'd also like to preemptively point out that any argument that Duke Students for an Ethical Duke is somehow seeking to censor free speech is pretty absurd, and I would like the opportunity to respond if such an allegation is made. We didn't create the "no strippers" policy. Also, be sure to point out that if people want to decide for themselves (we're always in favor of that), video of the entire event, which we obtained from an anonymous source, is posted on our blog. 5. Peter Lange, Brodhead, Jay Schalin of the Pope Center (see his article on our blog), Martha Brucato, Wheeler Frost, Angela Czahor, Dean Bryan (on the policy against strippers). Let me know if you have any follow up questions. Best, Ken Larrey -----Original Message----- From: trm7@duke.edu [mailto:trm7@duke.edu] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 7:07 PM To: kenneth.larrey@duke.edu Subject: Sex workers' art show controversy story Hi Ken, Thanks for agreeing to take some questions. I think there was a slight misunderstanding on the phone; I wasn't implying that you or Duke Students for an Ethical Duke had started this controversy, but I saw that you had commented on Ruth Sheehan's N&O editorial and thought you would be a good source to talk to for my story. I may have follow-up questions after you answer these questions (if I need something clarified, etc.), but I can just shoot those back to you. Again, I appreciate your cooperation. 1. What about the Sex Workers' Art Show makes it so controversial? Are people taking offense to the show itself and its content or are they upset because it's university-sanctioned? 2. There was one comment on the Chronicle website that essentially said if you don't like the show and don't want to attend, then don't go. What response do you have to this comment or to people who say this show's content is protected under the right to free speech? 3. Would there be any circumstances where you would not have a problem with this show coming to Duke? For example, would it be okay if the show took place in Reynolds but did not receive university funding or if it was toned down to contain less nudity and explicit content? 4. Anything else I didn't ask about that you think deserves mention? Feel free to touch on anything I might have missed. 5. Also, is there anybody else you think I should talk to? Currently, I'm planning on talking to the show's founder Annie Oakley, Larry Moneta, William Purdy, and a few students. If you know someone who might be a good source, that would be a great help. Thanks, Tina