Kansas University is conducting a review of its policies regarding access to some facilities following the publication of the student newspaper's annual Sex on the Hill edition.
Lynn Bretz, a university spokeswoman, said the university took the step after seeing some of the photos in the newspaper.
The University Daily Kansan's annual edition, published on Sept. 18, featured photos of scantily clad people in various locations across the campus, including atop the Campanile and Fraser Hall.
Bretz said that though KU doesn't restrict content in the student newspaper, the university was not pleased with the portrayals in the paper. "We were disappointed by that issue," she said.
After seeing the photographs, the university decided to examine its policies to see whether they adequately addressed concerns about safety and access to valuable equipment, Bretz said.
The Monday after the issue was published, Kansan editor Matt Erickson wrote a column in which he apologized for the paper's failure to consider the Campanile as a World War II memorial. He also said the paper didn't want to deface or disrespect any campus location. "Our goal was not to sensationalize, to offend people or to encourage anyone to go to the top of the Campanile or Fraser Hall - please, please don't," Erickson wrote. "Instead, we hoped to portray sex as what it is - a major topic in the lives of many students, and as much a part of those students' lives at KU as classes, sporting events or the buildings they pass by every day on campus."
Erickson declined to comment Wednesday except to say he had received a report on the issue from the Kansan's board, the faculty and student body that hires the newspaper's editor, and would be formulating his response the next week.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
compmd (anonymous) says…
"Our goal was not to sensationalize"In the sex on the hill edition? Riiiiight."Instead, we hoped to portray sex as what it is - a major topic in the lives of many students, and as much a part of those students' lives at KU as classes, sporting events or the buildings they pass by every day on campus."Clearly, Erickson is out of touch with engineering students. :)
Solomon (anonymous) says…
The future of journalism.
WHY (anonymous) says…
I hope that is the future of journalism.
dweezil222 (anonymous) says…
Are we back in the '40s when it's taboo to even talk about sex in public? I grant you, maybe the means used were a little over the top, but still... sex is a major part of many students' lives, just as religion may be for others, or community service, or any one of a myriad of other subjects. Why shouldn't students feel like they are able to talk about sex in a meaningful way?
BrianR (anonymous) says…
The reason some people are so dysfunctional is that they've never talked about sex. Get over it.
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
"The reason some people are so dysfunctional is that they've never talked about sex. Get over it."You got that in reverse. Dysfunctional people don't talk about healthy sexuality, so they "learn" about sex from porn and in back seats of cars. Don't praise the UDK for pushing even more sexualized content into an already sexually unhealthy culture. We don't have too much sex, or too little sex in our culture (that's the wrong debate to be having): we have a culture that takes something as powerful and holy as sexuality and puts it out in the public alongside a Starbucks. It is powerful, beautiful and personal. Sex "in public" (as in all over campus monuments) does not educate or promote healthy sexual expression. Our "use" of sex today is a symptom of how sexually ill we are as a culture.The best sex anyone has ever had was monogamous, loving, committed and exclusively private. Today we have the worst sex possible: someone new every week with lots of failed "techniques" and no committment or passion toward the other person. This is what our acceptance of pornography and "do what feels good" has left us with. We are pursuing "more, bigger and better" and getting none of the above because we've cheapened the act to photos of half-naked people licking the Campanile.
d_prowess (anonymous) says…
Why is the link in this article to the 2007 edition of Sex on the Hill? And when you search the Kansan site, you can't find the 2008 edition. It seems that they are hiding this latest edition...
domino (anonymous) says…
Why is this so much different than the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition or the Girls of KU Calendar? Haven't seen it, but can't imagine it would be "worse" than either of those.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
OldEnuf2BYurDad,WTF are you talking about?You read way too much into that. Perhaps you need more fiber in your diet?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"Haven't seen it, but can't imagine it would be "worse" than either of those."Neither of those other two have their models engaging in fake acts of copulation. I thought the thing was just silly, and it was totally sensationalized, as its intention, the same intention as always in the Sex on the Hill edition. But whatever, it was harmless, and would have just escaped notice if the University had let it go, and maybe just discussed it with the next UDK staff.
worker_bee (anonymous) says…
domino, this year's edition was particularly explicit, much more so than a swimsuit edition. I'm not new to the college campus or our oversexed society, and I found it offensive. I don't think you need porn to facilitate a healthy discussion of sexuality.
Dejacrew423 (anonymous) says…
I read a couple of the articles and it's actually not that bad. I mean compared to Cosmo and other magazines out there. I think it really gives college students a little insight about sex in other ways besides who they're gonna bang that night. Of course I'm not that much older then college students so maybe that's why I don't think it's a big deal. I mean it's not prize winning journalism but come on, it definitely could be worse.
nobody1793 (anonymous) says…
Someone needs to [explitive] their [explitive] off.
autie (anonymous) says…
I am a bit curious hawkperchedatriverfrontorsomethingllikethat. You said two people were knocking each other up? Isn't that like earthworms? How is that possible?
BrianR (anonymous) says…
"...people were knocking each other up? Isn't that like earthworms? How is that possible?"Snort.
dweezil222 (anonymous) says…
"The best sex anyone has ever had was monogamous, loving, committed and exclusively private."I know people who would dramatically disagree with that statement, but to each his own.
sarahsmilehawk (anonymous) says…
The issue here isn't Sex on the Hill. It's been around a long time and will probably stay around a long time. But KU is probably wise to revise its policies about building access.By the way, I think Sex on the Hill is printed every semester, not annually.
d_prowess (anonymous) says…
As my previous post mentioned, I am still curious as to why the Kansan does not have the 2008 edition in their archives, but it does for everything else including the 2007 edition. Did they realize they crossed a line? Did the university pressure them to not post it? I think this is a question worth asking...
kcjayhawk11 (anonymous) says…
The Kansan did have the 2008 Sex on the Hill online around the time it came out. I downloaded the pdf to read it. Sex on the Hill has been a long standing staple on the KU campus each fall. People love the section. The big problem this fall was the questionable judgment of the editor, who somehow didn't realize the campanile is a WWII monument. As the editor of one of the top student newspapers in the country, you'd think that this moron would know the buildings on his campus. How did this guy get hired? The pictures were in poor taste. Sex on the Hill has always pushed the envelope, and that's why people like to read it. I didn't even really want to open it this year when I saw the cover. Hopefully next year there will be an editor that isn't completely clueless of life outside the newsroom.
em1 (anonymous) says…
Yes, the Kansan removed it from their on-line archives in response to the outcry over the issue. Again, it wasn't the sex itself, it was the fact that they openly defaced a WWII memorial......And the editors excuse of "we didn't know it was a war memorial" is PURE BS