Here are excerpts from a shocking story in the Oct. 24 Chronicle of Higher Education (emphasis added is mine):

quote
———————-
In 1996, two students at Indiana State University filed complaints saying that they had been molested by a psychology professor while taking part in a sex experiment. After an internal investigation, the professor’s laboratory was quietly closed. … But in 2001, the professor asked to reopen his shuttered laboratory and begin performing the same kind of sex experiments on students. …. The application was approved and the professor resumed his research.

The professor, Jerome A. Cerny, 59, was forced to retire last January after a student filed a lawsuit accusing him of sexual harassment and assault. Some of the charges in the latest complaint are remarkably similar to those made in 1996 …

For the university, which is also being sued by the student, the situation has raised some tough questions, many of which will have to be answered in court when the trial is held next year. Among them: Why did the university allow a researcher who had a pattern of “predatory sexual behavior,” in the words of its own investigator, to reopen his sex laboratory? Also, how could a professor conduct sex research for nearly two decades, fail to publish any significant findings, and yet not attract any suspicion?

And, perhaps most troubling, were Indiana State officials more concerned with keeping a lid on a potential public-relations disaster than in protecting students from possible sexual abuse? “…

Most of the participants, all of whom were male, were enrolled in his freshman-level human-sexuality course. The volunteers were not paid. Instead, they received extra credit in the course. It was a good deal — a half-hour in the laboratory in exchange for a better grade — and there was no shortage of volunteers, according to graduate students who helped Mr. Cerny. …
———————-

Can you imagine? You send your child of 18 off to college, and one of the first faculty members he meets is a sexual predator plying “extra credit” for “sex research.” It’s not that far removed from the “nice” man with the candy bar or the lost puppy who preys on younger children. But this happened with the full knowledge of the state and the university as to what kind of man he is. And it’s all because the university has bought into the Emperor’s-New-Clothes thinking behind “sex research.”

Basically, as the CHE article explains, this man’s “research” consisted of hooking up a device to his students’ genitals to measure their “response” to viewing pornography. (His ruse was that the device required constant adjustment that only he could give.)