Political science professor
Harris Mirkin's voice mailbox Thursday at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City contained a message from someone calling
him a pedophile and saying he should die.
Another, from a caller in
Texas, said a respected university shouldn't have a
"monster" teaching there.
Mirkin's writings on
pedophilia and child pornography -- which question whether
sexual abuse ruins every child victim's life -- have been
featured in some national media outlets recently as reporters
look into new angles on the Catholic priest sex abuse scandal.
A national news service
called Mirkin a "trailblazer" for the view that some
sex between children and adults is acceptable. The article was
posted on a conservative website, WorldNetDaily, which has
thousands of readers, and the hate mail started coming.
Now Mirkin, who has a
doctoral degree from Princeton University and has taught at
UMKC for more than 30 years, is trying to defend his writings
on the subject.
He said he believes there
needs to be a more real, open discussion of pedophilia and
adult-child sex, not just emotional reactions that call all
such relationships "evil."
He wrote in the "Journal
of Homosexuality" in 1999 that all child molestations
should not be lumped in the same category.
"According to the
dominant formulas the youths are always seduced. They are
never considered partners or initiators or willing
participants even if they are hustlers," he wrote.
He also wrote: "In
sexual politics definitions are characteristically vague, so
that statistics from the mildest activities can be blended
with images from the most atrocious....Though Americans
consider intergenerational sex to be evil, it has been
permissible or obligatory in many cultures and periods of
history."
In an interview Thursday,
Mirkin -- who attended the 1998 World Pornography Conference
and co-hosted a radio show at that time arguing against the
"moral panic" over child sexuality -- said: "I
thought there was a difference if a kid was patted on the butt
...or if somebody raped a kid."
"It doesn't mean you
have to approve of any of them, but there are
differences," he said. "I also thought there was a
difference if the kid was a young kid, say 7 years old, and a
17-year-old. There are different degrees of non-consent,
different degrees of a kid going along."
His writings have been
criticized by groups that fight child molestation, as well as
pro-family organizations. They defend children as immature and
vulnerable, no matter what their age, and believe that sexual
abuse scars children, no matter what its form.
Other academics also have
questioned the predominant view of pedophilia.
In 1998, Bruce Rind, an
assistant professor of pscyhology [sic] at Temple University,
and several co-authors concluded that negative effects on
children who had sex with adults or were coerced into sexual
activity with someone their own age "were neither
pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much
less negatively than women."
However, David Spiegel,
associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at
Stanford University, said that study was "terribly
flawed. As we've seen with people abused by the priests, there
are long-term ill effects. There is a movement to normalize
sexual relationships between adults and children. It is wrong,
empirically, morally, ethically and it's illegal."
The U.S. House of
Representatives passed a unanimous resolution rejecting the
1998 Rind study.
A year later, the American
Psychological Association, which published the Rind article,
passed a resolution saying "sexual relations between
children and adults are abusive, exploitive, reprehensible and
properly punishable by law."
Mirkin, a father and
grandfather who teaches a class called "The Politics of
Sex" said he approaches pedophilia from an academic
viewpoint.
He argued in a 1999 article
that the lack of discussion about adult-child sex is similar
to patterns of misogyny and homophobia that have changed in
the past few decades.
Yet he said it is absolutely
unacceptable for people in positions of power over children --
such as teachers and ministers -- to engage in sexual
relationships with young people.
The abuse of children by
priests, he said, is a "gross violation of trust,"
and "impermissible."
"It's frustrating
because the position I have is distorted," he said.
"It makes me sound like I'm head of a
pro-sex-with-children organization. There is no organization,
I am not the head of it and I don't endorse sex with
children."
He said he has simply tried
to get people to tone down the "hysteria" around
child sex abuse.
Mirkin is a leader on the
UMKC campus, serving as the co-director of the honors program
in the College of Arts and Sciences, and as the secretary of
the Faculty Senate.
Max Skidmore, also a longtime
UMKC political science professor, said Mirkin is respected,
and taking a civil liberties approach to a sensitive topic
that most academics would shy away from because it is so
volatile.
"They see him as an
advocate of adult-child sex and he certainly is not advocating
that," Skidmore said.
The national
attention this week to Mirkin's writings prompted the university
to craft a response to media inquiries: "Harris Mirkin's
view on the subject reflect his First Amendment right of free
speech and in no way represent the views of the
university."
