-255x294.jpg)
STEUBENVILLE, Ohio — Franciscan University of Steubenville (FUS) has come under criticism by members of an unofficial alumni group for a course description in the school’s social-work program.
Members of the Franciscan Gay Alumni and Allies Facebook group — a 106-member group that has no official connection to the university — were offended by the course description for a social-work class. They not only asked the university to change the description, but alerted the country’s only social work accrediting agency of their concerns.
The course description being questioned is for “Social Work 314,” a class on deviant behavior.
“Deviant behavior focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior, such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory and phenomenological theory,” states the course description. “The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior.”
Members of the Facebook group said that they were offended by the description and that they tried to contact university officials just before school began.
“There was an uncoordinated effort to try to contact the university,” explained Gregory Gronbacher, a 1990 graduate of FUS and member of the Facebook group. “I reached out via email, but didn’t hear back. All of the emails bounced back.”
A Franciscan computer technician said that the university employs a content filtering system that prevents emails containing certain words from being delivered.
“We’re asking them to look at and change the course description,” said Elizabeth Vermilyea, a 1991 FUS graduate and founder of the Facebook alumni group. “It lists both homosexuality and mental illness in the same class as deviant behaviors. We felt it was really inappropriate. It’s incredibly marginalizing. It’s an improper characterization of the course, the book and these two conditions.”
According to Gronbacher, the day after they attempted to email the university, he and Vermilyea released a press release, sending it to the Council on Social Work Education, an accrediting agency. National Public Radio (NPR) reported on the story, suggesting that the accreditation for the school’s social-work program could be threatened.
“We found the course description offensive. We were not asking for an apology or for the university to teach anything other than what the Church teaches,” said Gronbacher. “We just want to be sure they’re teaching proper social science and not offering biased science.”
Gronbacher and Vermilyea took exception with the term “deviant.” The press release referred to the course as “pseudoscience.”
“This should be put in a theology class, not a sociology class,” said Vermilyea.
Up until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a mental disorder.
“It strikes me that the gay alumni group, as so often happens, are overreacting to the word ‘deviant,’” said Phil Sutton, a psychologist and psychotherapist in South Bend, Ind., who launched Franciscan University’s master’s degree program in counseling 23 years ago. “Whereas in psychology we talk about ‘abnormal’ or ‘dysfunctional’ behavior, sociologists talk about ‘deviant’ behavior, meaning self-defeating behavior that is outside the norm. Franciscan’s use of the word is consistent with sociology, and, in that sense, they are not wrong to use it.”
“The research shows that same-sex behavior is medically, psychologically and relationally harmful,” added Sutton. “So there is nothing in the ‘deviant’ definition that is unrealistic. There is no doubt that you can talk about those who engage in that behavior as psychologically distressed, and there is no doubt that, in a secondary sense, it’s harmful to those who participate in it.”
Franciscan Responds
“We checked with academics, public relations and the alumni offices, and no one in any of those offices received any emails or phone calls from the group,” said Tom Sofio, associate director of public relations for the university. “We had no contact from them before their press release went out.”
Sofio acknowledged that after the group’s press release was made public, an official from the university reached out to the group.
“The course description for this class, to which some are taking issue, is little more than abbreviated chapter headings from the primary course textbook,” the university stated in its official press release.
That textbook, Sociology of Deviant Behavior, the statement also noted, is “used in more than a dozen public universities and uses the term ‘deviant’ in the sociological sense, simply meaning different from the norm.”
In fact, homosexuality is the topic of one of the textbook’s chapters, as are the other words listed in the course description.
“Changing standard sociological definitions is beyond the scope of our work,” said the university’s release. “So, too, is changing the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
Noting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the university’s statement said that it “bases its educational mission on the teaching of Christ, as proclaimed in sacred Scripture and Tradition and authoritatively interpreted by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.”
“Accordingly, Franciscan University follows Catholic Church teaching in regard to homosexuality and treats homosexual persons with ‘respect, compassion and sensitivity’ (2358), while holding homosexual acts as ‘intrinsically disordered’” (2357).
“This is an example of what the future holds for any faithful Catholic institution. The attacks on religious liberty are coming from all fronts, and Franciscan University of Steubenville certainly did not invite this sort of attack,” said Patrick Reilly, president of the Manassas, Va.-based Cardinal Newman Society. “Whereas Franciscan’s course was in no way an infringement on anyone’s rights, the complaint is a radical infringement on the rights of Catholic institutions to operate within Catholic teaching, or even within the bounds of reason.”
Accreditation Not at Risk
“Unfortunately, I used the term ‘red flag’ in my conversation with NPR,” said Stephen Holloway, director of the office of social-work accreditation with the Council on Social Work Education. “It would be completely inaccurate to say that a course description which may connote a pejorative interpretation of homosexuality because it’s listed with other terms is sufficient to put the accreditation in jeopardy.”
Accreditation, said Holloway, is determined by a 25-member commission that meets three times each year. Holloway said that he has contacted the university seeking additional information about the course, the content and how diversity is handled in the program.
“We do have a standard on diversity, which speaks to some of these issues,” explained Holloway. “Our standard speaks to a curriculum and learning environment that emphasize respect for, and acknowledgment of, all the variables that go to make up human diversity. There is a list with 20 categories, and homosexuality is one of them.”
In response to the concerns, the university plans to review the course description.
“They’re convening a group of academics to consider changing the description,” said Gronbacher of the Facebook group.
Holloway noted that faith-based universities with social-work programs tend to manage the diversity issue well.
“Even the really conservative Protestant ones do a good job with this standard,” said Holloway. “I suspect that’s what we’ll find out [with Franciscan].”
Tim Drake is the Register’s senior writer.
Tim Drake: How Barack Obama Betrayed the Civil Rights Movement
Comments
Post a Comment
Seeing how some 5% or less of the adult population has been identified as gay in the United States, it certainly is behavior outside of the norm.
If homosexuality is not a ‘deviant behavior’ and is considered ‘normal’ then everything else human being do has to be considered ‘normal’ like murder, rape, robbery, being a pedophile etc.
Societies needs to have ‘norms’ by which to compare actions as good or bad for the society.
Not having a deviant definition would be like not being able to call things good or evil etc. Without the one the other means nothing.
Being deviant by you action doesn’t mean you ought to be put in prison etc but it does mean the actions you are doing are not normal for human beings.
Normal for human beings is to reproduce like all other creatures. If you cannot reproduce you are not normal.
The truth is the truth.
Thank you Franciscan UNIV. for NOT APOLOGIZING for the truth!
Per Dictionary.com,
Deviant means something that departs from the norm.
Homosexuality does deviate from the norm. Some gay activist and the politically correct shock troops might like to deny that reality, but it is true.
-
There are connotations to deviant that some might try to classify as socially damaging or dangerous, but that is reading too much into the word.
-
The reaction from the media and statements from the individuals listed in the article do show the extent to which PC fervor and militarism has clouded reason. The reaction is certainly more offensive than the course description using words like:
- really inappropriate
- incredibly marginalizing
- accreditation for the school’s program could be threatened
- We found the course description offensive
- We just want to be sure they’re teaching proper social science and not offering biased science
- The press release referred to the course as “pseudoscience.”
- “This should be put in a theology class, not a sociology class,”
——-
This kind of unrestrained attack, innuendo and abuse is typical of the left when PC “law” is violated
As a proud alumnus of Franciscan University of Steubenville, I support wholeheartedly the University’s stance on deviant behavior in the Social Work 314 course.
These alums should know and realize that Franciscan University of Steubenville is - and always will be - faithful to the Church and the Magisterium. This means that Franciscan will condemn homosexuality as, the Catechism says, ‘intrinsically disordered.’
Franciscan stands up for the Truth, unlike Pontius Pilate when he judged Christ.
Franciscan is, as the University states, “authentically Catholic.” These alums should have realized this fact in their studies at Franciscan University of Steubenville. Franciscan is not going to change due to some disgruntled and dissenting alumni.
For these alums to use Franciscan University of Steubenville’s name in their group’s name - even though it is not connected in any way with the University - is a slam and a dig at the good name of Franciscan University of Steubenville.
These alums should seek out the nearest chapter of Courage.
These alums should re-read their copies of the Catechism, especially sections 2357 and 2358, which deal in regard to homosexuality.
The devil blows where He will. Old Scratch goes after the weak in their faith. This - being weak in faith - is what these alums are.
The truth is now hate speech.
The problem is that Mental Illness, which in the description is not a deviant behavior - some of the manifestations of Mental Illness may be deviant, but as an illness it is not deviant. Franciscan should change the description to eliminate Mental Illness.
Got a phone message the other night from FUS requesting annual contribution. I had put it on the back burner but after reading this I will make it my business to get the contribution in the mail ASAP. Thank you FUS for not buckling. Keep up the Good work and may God bless you all.
We are going to see more and more attacks like this. Thank you Franciscan University for teaching the truth!
Thank you again, Franciscan University, for standing up for the truth with no apology! We need all of our Catholic schools to do the same.
Unfortunately this was all started by a VERY small group of alumni who clearly had intentions of “stirring the pot.”
Any group that takes their “story” to NPR and the Huffington Post before sitting down with any University official is obviously trying to stir up trouble. As an alumni myself, I have had no trouble contacting the University over the years for any of my various needs, concerns, or questions. As a small Unversity staffed by very dedicated hard-working people, they also aren’t in a position to answer every beckon call immediately. School just started back up- don’t you think they are busy? I seriously doubt these members made a strong enough, (or patient enough) effort to contact someone before heading ‘guns blazing’ to the media. As the article states, it appears that no one even received said e-mails! It is unfortunate and frustrating.
I know without a shadow of a doubt that IF they had respectfully and patiently presented their concerns in the proper way, their concerns would have been considered with the same respect back.
Finally, as many as stated “deviant” means departing from the norm. It is a silly little course desciption that about 30 people will probably read. It’s in line with the Catechism…. Don’t we have BIGGER things to worry about in this world?!?!
Bravo to FUS for teaching what The Church teaches—- I’m a proud alum.
Celibacy is outside the norm too.
Being in the minority and not a part of the majority (or norm) does NOT make you diviant.
I’m even more proud to have my son as a student at FUS than I was before (if that’s possible).
Andy and Annie;
yes, Andy, celibacy is outside of the norm and thus sociologically deviant behavior. Does this make you feel better? It shouldn’t, because you are adding some sort of emotional component to a statistical term.
Annie; Being in the minority and outside of the norm does indeed make you deviant (spelling, please) in statistical terms. Again, as I mentioned to Andy, you seem to attach some value or coded meaning to this term.
To a social scientist, all deviance means is something outside of the norm. They view deviancy as the behavior of the outliers in any social group. This is known as the ‘statistical approach’ and is quite common.
Another theory is known as absolutism. This approach relies on the social scientist using his skills in observation to determine and ‘tag’ what a group considers to be good, just, or wholesome and work from there - using the social constructs of the culture he is studying. Anything outside of the bounds of society’s tolerances is considered to be deviant - or outside of the norms.
Functionalists believe that through logic, observation, and reason, they can quantify norms. This is an offshoot of absolutism.
The reactive approach is where researchers observe members of the target group for their reaction. Behaviors that elicit certain responses are tagged and recorded until they can be codified as divergent from the norm of that group.
There is also the legalistic approach. This is where the researchers study laws, observe courts and analyze trials to determine the values that a society’s legal codes have determined to be outside of the norms.
I hope that this explanation helps you and others understand the methodology employed by sociologists and other social scientists. As researchers, they do not code personal meaning or make value judgement when they tag a behavior as deviant. It is merely a term describing behavior as unusual or outside the normal bounds of a given society.
I hope that this makes this issue more clear. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the assertions of people who maintain in this thread that homosexual behavior is deviant. Statistically it is. And - frankly - in a Catholic university that has agreed to the dictates of Ex Corde Ecclesiae - homosexuality is morally deviant as well. Catholics consider homosexuality as a moral wrong. Sorry if you don’t like Catholic teaching.
@Annie Wallace
It is the behavior that is deviant, not people.
Majority and minority has nothing to do with it.
Annie, you’re right! It doesn’t make you diviant. But it DOES make you deviant!
It’s a sociology course; the course description uses the terminology of that social science. That’s ‘social science’ not ‘pseudoscience’. ‘Deviant’= ‘self-defeating behavior that is outside the norm’. I’ve spoken to some celibate homosexuals. They chose to be celibate because they viewed sexually acting on their attractions to be self-defeating behavior. They did not choose to be attracted to others of their own gender any more than someone with OCD chooses that compulsion.
Sociology deals with the behavior of groups of people. Homosexuals are a group who can be validly studied, even the causes and results of such behavior.
I’m glad to see a USA Catholic U. standing up for the teachings of the church. Many so-called Catholic U.‘s do not teach the true doctrines of the church.
“...outside of the norm.” Means nothing other than a statistical data. If homosexuality is 5 per cent of the population, it is ‘abnormal’ in a statistical sense. Abnormal in the same statistical sense as is high intelligence, or low intelligence…outside of a norm. That, however, is not to be regard as ‘unnatural’. Homosexuality occurs throughout the mammal kingdom in all species and as such is natural.
The DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of psychiatry) has long removed homosexuality as a diagnostic category. To state homosexuality as ‘deviant’ is categorically wrong and in error.
The Jesuits have been a rebellious group for as long as I can remember. If you are going to be a Catholic, you have to believe in their teachings. You can’t be a cafeteria Catholic. If you are, then find another denomination with which you believe. Haven’t you read the NT in which homosexuality is called an abomination? You want to compare human beings to the animal world? I didn’t know that the animal world could rationalize. As the church has taught, homosexuality is a disorder.
@Jesuitical graduate: (1) Do you have any scholarly sources to back up the claim that “Homosexuality occurs throughout the mammal kingdom in all species and as such is natural”? I think that is the biggest bunch of hooey I have heard in awhile. People have been studying animals for millennia and I don’t recall any naturalist saying such a thing until recently, when the political correctness movement began. I don’t recall Darwin ever mentioning witnessing homosexual behavior in animals, though he studied countless numbers of them in various parts of the world. Most of us have owned pets, yet can anyone out there say with a straight face that their dog or cat or hamster or goldfish is homosexual? Sure, animals will sometimes engage in behavior that “looks” homosexual. For example, anyone who owns guinea pigs knows that sometimes a male will briefly mount another male. They are not expressing “love,” however: it is a show of dominance. Put 2 male and 2 female guinea pigs together, and you will NEVER see two of the same gender spurn the others in favor of their own when it comes mating time. (2) Don’t confuse natural behavior with moral behavior. Lying, selfishness, and jealousy are all normal human behaviors, but moral law teaches us that these behaviors are immoral. That is why we have to teach our children to avoid these behaviors. (If they came naturally, we wouldn’t have to teach them.) Conversely, bravery is an unnatural behavior, yet the moral law teaches us that it is a virtue. Hence, when we teach our children to show courage, we are teaching them an unnatural behavior, but one nonetheless that is fitting to human dignity.
@Jesuitical
I’ll reply with the case of the pedophile. Say you are attracted sexually to young children. It is outside the norm, statistically, but shows up in a certain percent of the population. Is that natural? Certainly it is naturally occurring.
-
So the first question is one of the initial attraction. I think pedophilia can be described as unnatural because it, like being gay, violates the basic law of reproduction in nature. If organisms in nature must reproduce then non-reproductive or destructive behavior is “unnatural” or outside of the purpose of nature. On whether you call it natural or unnatural, I don’t really care - It exists in nature, but it is opposed to natural law.
-
The second question is should these people act on their feelings. Pedophile or homosexual have the free will and intellect to decide if they will act on their attraction. Is the attraction itself wrong if naturally occurring? (you can debate this), but the decision and the choice to act on that attraction is what is morally wrong.
-
Third is the question of whether society should accept or even encourage this behavior. I think the negative impact of encouraging this behavior is clearly immoral, I think we can accept that people have attractions, but we should take a stand that they should not act on those attractions.
-
Fourth is a question of legal action against these people. This is where the question of injury comes into play. If two adults choose to involve themselves in a relationship, I believe govt should not interfere. If a child’s welfare is at stake then we must intervene and protect that individual. This means protecting children from pedophilia but also means protecting them from people who would teach them that homosexual sex is ok.
—-
Many people will hate that I used pedophilia as the comparison. I do not mean to draw a moral equivalence, certainly harming children is worse than what adults choose to do, but the comparison holds value in that both are naturally occurring attractions, both are counter to natural law, both may be acted on/or not via free-will by a rational person and both may be supported or discouraged by society or law.
Franciscan University is a TRULY CATHOLIC University during a time that many self-proclaimed “Catholic” colleges don’t actually stand up for the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I’m a graduate of St. Bernard College which is now only a middle and high school. But if I wanted to go to a Catholic College today it would be FUS without a doubt. Notre Dame would not even be in the running and I don’t really even consider it Catholic any more. Same can be said for Georgetown and others I’m sure. (And I’m sure there’s other “real” Catholic Universities but I’m not familiar with others as I am FUS.) I guess it’s EWTN and Scott Hahn that I get my info about FUS. Anyway all I meant to say is thank you FUS for you true orthodox Catholicism. Keep up the good work. It’s difficult in this culture and society today to deal with the homosexual issue without being called all kinds of names. Thanks for your courage and assistance in helping all of us with this issue. God Bless.
Natural law does not mean, and has never meant, that if one can find an example of physical behavior in the animal kingdom, that means it is morally acceptable for humans. By that logic, it would be morally acceptable to lop the head off your spouse and eat it after mating. The homosexual agenda, in addition to offending chastity, menacing public morals, and destroying solidarity and friendship between heterosexual men and women, makes people stupid.
Whatever possesses homosexuals to attend a strict Catholic university like Franciscan U of Steubenville when they don’t believe in its major teachings? It is narcissism, the deviant behavior that is a major manifestation of homosexuality. They crave the attention, even if it is in the form of criticism or “abuse.”
The lesbians who got married in New York and then traveled to Vermont and sought out a Christian Bed & Breakfast and then sued when they were refused a room for their reception are a classic example of homosexuals craving attention. And they won lots of money from the owners for their homosexual causes.
Franciscan University Class of 1990. I am a proud graduate and love the school. I wish only for improvement where there may need to be. No institution is perfect and no person for that matter. The course description in question is:SWK 314DEVIANT BEHAVIOR focuses on the sociological theories of deviant behavior such as strain theory, differential association theory, labeling theory, and phenomenological theory. The behaviors that are primarily examined are murder, rape, robbery, prostitution, homosexuality, mental illness, and drug use. The course focuses on structural conditions in society that potentially play a role in influencing deviant behavior. 3 credit hours- The semantics/grammar of the description is poor. It may be a summary of the chapters/course outline/course overview. I find it hurtful when certain imperatives are included that should not be. For example, one behavior listed which I find issue with, (due to the simple fact that I am a father of a special needs child), is: mental illness; and that imperative, to be labeled as a behavior is flawed Further examination of the course description, the ideas may fall within the Roman Catholic Church teaching, however the imperative homosexuality listed in the course description is not a behavior.(Homosexual behavior may fall outside the norm in society, so as do many other things that could: practicing the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a weekly basis, going to Mass every Sunday, praying before every meal, taking your children to CCD instead of sports practice, eating meals together as a family, stay at home mothers, single income families, (the list can continue).I am not a therapist and do not have all the answers. Christ was on the Earth to teach us how to live our lives and to do our best.)
It is laughable to characterize what the alumni group did as an attack. The issue has nothing to do with religious freedom, altering catholic teaching, or changing the freedoms of the school. It is simply about a mischaracterization of conditions and linking items that cannot properly be linked in the manner described by the course description. Anyone who says different is working their own agenda…I can say this with authority as one of the alumni whose name is on that press release. people are making sweeping assumptions and drawing the wrong conclusions. It’s funny, I got a good lesson in critical thinking at FUS. Apparently this is not true for all.
Franciscan University Class of 1990. I am a proud graduate and love the school. I wish only for improvement where there may need to be. No institution is perfect and no person for that matter. It may be a summary of the chapters/course outline/course overview. I find it hurtful when certain imperatives are included that should not be. For example, one behavior listed which I find issue with, (due to the simple fact that I am a father of a special needs child), is: mental illness; and that imperative, to be labeled as a behavior is flawed. The grammar/semantics is incorrect regarding imperatives listed in the description. Deviance/Deviant is not an issue. I am not a therapist and do not have all the answers. Christ was on the Earth to teach us how to live our lives and to do our best.)
Jesuitical;
Nonsense and other stuff. Sorry.
Deviant in social science terms means outside the norm. I explained this in simple terms; I guess I could go into Merton’s Strain theory or Durkheim’s basic insight theory but why bother? You seem to be hung up on mis-defining a word.
As to the psychological and physical components of homosexuality - there is absolutely no clear evidence to make any assertions on the behavior. There are many theories, but your argument is taking advantage of the politically-correct opinion that seems to trump science. The fact of the matter is we do not know why people have sexual identity issues.
Cannibalism is common in many animals - will you advocate that as justification for human cannibals? Your chain of logic is tenuous and frankly not worthy of what one would expect of a product of Jesuit education…though I fear that many of today’s Jesuits are not what Ignatius would be happy to call one of his own. Animals are not creatures possessing intellect - they possess instinct only. If you believe in Genesis, God placed man above all other creatures under, above, or on the earth. He made us different - because we possess intellect. Furthermore, many displays of male sexual activities against other male animals is more an issue of dominance and control. Bonobos and male dogs asserting dominance are a couple of examples. When male dogs are exposed to a female in heat that they cannot reach, it is not terribly uncommon for them to assault another male dog. Is this rational?
Now, I am not saying that homosexuals engaged in sexual acts are following the same instincts as animals - though you are, which is fairly offensive. Indeed, the issue is much more complicated than this simplistic and intellectually substandard thesis.
In reality, homosexuality presents significant problems for many, even in societies that are open and accepting of this lifestyle. Pretending that it’s all good and only natural is not the compassionate approach. The Church has expressed wisdom in this issue. All people are children of God, and we are all sinners - we are all unworthy of God’s grace. But He wants us to be with Him and the Church has been given the wisdom to call people to live chaste and celibate lives outside of marriage.
That would be all of us - gay or straight. Yes, same-sex marriage is forbidden to practical Catholics - this means that homosexuals are called to this life of chastity and celibacy. Many saints have been called to live to higher standards than others. Many among us have had heavy crosses to bear. As a Catholic, this must be our belief and our practice.
So, your thesis is flawed in your application of ‘deviance.’ Your example of ‘natural’ homosexual acts in the animal kingdom is flawed. And - for Catholics - even the value-laden definition of deviance is appropriate and applicable. As an action, not in describing a person.
Sorry.
“It is laughable to characterize what the [Francicscan University Gay] alumni group did as an attack….Anyone who says different is working their own agenda.” Elizabeth, really? By not waiting for Franciscan University to respond (if you really did contact them, as this article states no one at the University received any e-mails from you regarding this issue) and going immediately, if not directly to the media, “shouts” an agenda on your end! You chose to attend the MOST Orthodox Catholic University in the U.S. even though Catholic teaching is against ALL homosexual activity. This just baffles me because I’ve read the other articles and there seems to such disdain for FUS while, I repeat, you all chose to attend. I digress…The Church truly loves ALL PEOPLE but as it requires chastity/purity/virginity from all unmarried members: heterosexual and homosexual alike. The Church also explains that homosexual acts are disordered or “diviant,” not deriving from Natural Law. Unfortunately, the word diviant has taken on such a distasteful connotation that we immediately take offense to the word, forgetting its’ basic definition. By your group’s attack, under your guidence, of a few sentences, (that probably came from the text book company anyway) giving a summary of a course description, without any advance knowledge to or warning to FUS, of going to the head of the accrediting agency and the media, is like throwing the perverbial bloodly chum to the sharks. It is obvious that your agenda included more than changing the wording to SWK 314 in the course catalog. You feel the need to bring some kind of shame, or ridicule or scrutiny upon our beloved University. Again, you chose to go, you stayed and graduated. Why 20+ years later attack? Fortunately, our gracious God has blessed this school with graces beyond measure to withstand theses trite grviences and to stand tall with Truth on her side!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.