The professor of desire

Toronto Sun

14 November 1995,  p.11

by Heather Bird

Should adults have sex with children? Under certain circumstances? If the child wants to? How about under policed conditions?

The answer, of course, is no. However, there is a Ryerson journalism teacher who begs to differ. Gerald Hannon believes "intergenerational sex" is not only quite all right, it can also be healthy.

And he holds those beliefs out to his students as an example of how your convictions can make you a better journalist.

"I could never understand ... how children's hockey differed from an organized child-sex ring," he wrote in a 1994 essay. "Both involved children and adults. Both involved strenuous physical activity (adult coaches taking the role of the adult lover). Both involved danger. Both involved pleasure. Yet we approve of children's hockey and deplore child-sex rings."

But it shouldn't be just any kind of sex, he qualifies. The child's desires must be considered.

"Penetration, for example, might be of little interest to most children (though I recall watching some pornography in which two 10-year-old boys f...ed each other, apparently with gusto) and we must find some way to balance a child's needs, an adult's needs ...

"It makes good educational sense to push a child's limits, much as we do in sports or academics, by requiring of them things they might at first feel incapable of doing."

You might say, so what? He's teaching young adults, not children. (He's not attracted to children, anyway, he says.) Besides, he's an award-winning journalist, hired to teach freelance writing and who cares what he thinks on his day off?

That's the problem. Hannon hasn't checked his beliefs at the door. By his own admission, he's raised the issues of child pornography and "intergenerational sex" - a code word for pedophilia - in his classroom.

"I don't think any of my students were shocked, they are friendly and continue coming to class."

In fact, there has been an impact on the young people who, despite his charismatic personality and obvious writing talent, are profoundly unsettled by his beliefs. "Teach me what you have to teach me and let me get out of here," said one.

Recently, Hannon was taken to the Ontario Press Council over an article he wrote about how the London police investigated allegations of a child sex ring. He used his trip to the press council to springboard into a classroom discussion on his beliefs.

The students aren't the only ones revolted by Hannon's view. At least one of his colleagues has grave reservations about Hannon's beliefs - both as a teacher and a parent.

"I don't think academic freedom gives you the right to spout off about anything," says teacher Kathy English.

And there will be those who cite academic freedom to defend Hannon's right to proselytize.

But freedom isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the institution should grant him the power and the platform to influence young minds. With power, there is automatically responsibility, which no one seems to be exercising in this case.

Finally, Hannon's influence reaches beyond his own students. The community at large tends to hold university teachers in high regard. Hannon (and, by extension, Ryerson) is now in the position of appearing to validate the perversity of the pedophilic view. That's the one that says the child benefits from (and craves) sexual congress with an adult.

Two outside organizations are now contemplating formal complaints to Ryerson over Hannon's employment. Both the Learning Enrichment Foundation and the Metro Toronto Special Committee on Child Abuse are deeply dismayed over his statements.

Still, journalism chair John Miller continues to support his teacher, going so far as to suggest anyone who questions Hannon's right to be in the classroom is "homophobic." That's not true. This is not a gay issue. It's about whether adults of either sex should be allowed sexual contact with boys or girls.

"Gerald Hannon is not causing harm to my students," says Miller.

Are you sure about that?

Prof Pushes A Perverse Idea

Toronto Sun

18 November 1995, p.12

by Heather Bird

"Sex before eight, or it's too late."

And that, friends and neighbors, is the motto of NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association. Its views on adult-child sex coincide with those of Gerald Hannon, the Ryerson journalism professor under fire this week.

This is not to say Hannon belongs to the organization. I include it simply to indicate that he is not alone in his perverse belief that intergenerational sex can, at times, be healthy.

Most thinking people disagree. The phone here hasn't stopped this week. There've been calls from teachers, students, alumni, hockey coaches, a Crown attorney, feminists, REAL women and victims, especially victims, who are revolted by Hannon's views and his assertion he will discuss it in class when he deems it relevant.

It is important to be clear about what Hannon believes. A Globe and Mail headline proclaimed Hannon was under the gun for a "teen-sex stand" while the article expanded that to adult men having sex with "consenting teenagers."

That assertion is specious. Hannon's views are well documented (and if there was any doubt, he repeated his stand on Talk 640 Radio Wednesday) and he is talking about child sex. In his infamous essay on this topic - Men Loving Boys Loving Men - a key figure was elementary school teacher Simon and his 12-year-old lover.

Raising the spectre of sex with consenting teenagers is a deft attempt to move the argument into the gay rights arena. Under the Criminal Code, the age of consent differs for vaginal sex and anal intercourse. This is clearly discriminatory and should be changed. (Equal sauciness for the goose and the gander, if you will.)

Bear in mind, however, these are legalities. There is still something immoral about a 14-year-old girl (or boy) having assignations with a 35-year-old male teacher at his apartment.

A curious phenomenon has sprung up as Hannon's supporters have tried to shift the debate. By simply raising the question, author Judy Steed and I are now on a witch hunt which smacks of McCarthyism. I am a "gutter journalist" on a "smear" campaign. One person wanted to know if I had children while another asked if I was a lesbian. (Why do you want to know?)

And then there's the question of integrity. Journalism chair John Miller, in a phone call earlier this week, demanded I reread my notes back to him. When I refused, (I don't work for John Miller) he questioned my integrity. He flat out denied that Hannon had ever raised the spectre of adult-child sex with students. This, despite Hannon's own admission in an interview it had occurred on three separate occasions. Later, it became a "glancing reference" on Talk 640, which was later changed to only when it was "relevant" in a further interview.

For the record, Miller also wanted identifying information about the unnamed student who was quoted in the column. Given that both Miller and assistant chair Don (he'll be fired over my dead body) Obe support Hannon, this provides students an invaluable lesson on the necessity of protecting sources.

What then of the students who have been both loyal and vocal in their support of this popular teacher? Well, it's understandable. They are not yet of an age (most of them) to be parents or uncles and aunts. Students, by nature, are attracted to counter-establishment positions. Besides, they are on the lesser side of a power dynamic. This does not make them milquetoasts. They are simply not fools.

But let the investigation proceed. The inquisition will find no fault; Gerald Hannon will not be fired. (After all, they knew his views when they hired him.) Ryerson, then, in the name of academic freedom will stand four-square behind the professor with the pro-pedophile views.

And if the rest of us don't like it, well, that's too damn bad.