Like adultery, faculty-student relationships are not legal issues--they are moral issues.
Everyone involved is an adult--but some adults are more equal, more powerful and more in control than other adults.
To my mind the ultimate responsiblity lies with the faculty member. I would not want to complicate my teaching responsibilities to students and grading responsibilities to the college or university by having an intimate relationship with a student in my class .
The situation is very different for faculty and students who are simply faculty and students rather than specific teacher with student-in-class.
I have known two faculty member who deliberately went hunting for pubic scalps among undergraduate women. Both of them had major insecurities; both of them tended to bullying behavior and neither of them seemed attractive to women of their own ages (late 30's and 50's).
The younger roue was exposed as a tomcat after he "seduced" an independent and unspoken woman who reported him to the administration.
The older man paid blackmail (grades and money) because he chose the wrong sucker.
With luck, young women are not only getting more liberated, they are becoming worldly wise.
Re: overstepping their bounds?
dyslexia wrote:University of California Regents: the regents approved a ban on professors having romantic or sexual relationships with students whom they teach or supervise -- or whom they have a reasonable chance of overseeing in the future. I am just guessing here but i see this being tossed by the first court it shows up in.
I think BoGoWo's last comment takes us back to dys's original speculation. BGW comments above, that this would be unenforcable if it ever went to court. Public universities are especially bound to state and federal laws regarding other things such as discrimination and quotas, etc. and if anybody ever challenged a rule like this in court, it would would, in my opinion have to be thrown out as Dys speculates above.
BoGoWo, The problem with trying to define "adult status" doesn't protect anybody. There are many situations where a individual with title will take advantage of another "adult" if not protected by some rules and regulations. c.i.
Psychologist/psychiatrist with their patients, a cop over a prisoner, a priest over a adult member of their church, a careworker over a develomentally disabled adult client, etc., etc., etc..
cicerone imposter wrote:Psychologist/psychiatrist with their patients, a cop over a prisoner, a priest over a adult member of their church, a careworker over a develomentally disabled adult client, etc., etc., etc..
CI -- you're examples are excellent and almost stopped me in my track.
But the "subbordinate" people on your list have a relationship involving peope who were vulnerable to begin with and who seek out stronger because of that vulnerability, or are in that situation not by choice. If any thing goes wrong, it could be a life or death or seriously life changing situation for the weaker one. I don't think it's that crucial in the student/teacher situation. They both have free will.
I struggle to get my thoughts down in writing, so I don't often debate here. But when I do, let's call it "discuss" I do it not to prove a point, but to learn. I'm one of those whose mind can be changed!
fealola, I've thought about just what you mentioned about the "subordinate" positions of people, but if you think about it, the professor also has "power" over the student. It's really not so much 'power over,' but the ability of adults to do harm to others when they have a title. We can talk about free will and ethics all day long, but that will not change how some people treat others in subordinate positions. A good case in point includes those CEO's that cheated their company, employees, and investors out of millions. We are all vulnerable to some degree. When there are circumstances in which people in 'power' might abuse it, there must be rules and regulations. Not all people are able to defend themselves from people out to do wrong. Many, if not all, college students feel subordinate to their professors. If there didn't exist any abuse, rules would be unnecessary. c.i.
I don't see much difference in this issue and the rules that a lot of workplaces already have in place to discourage couples/relatives working in a supervisory/subordinate role of any kind.
If they want to have a romantic relationship, then either the student or professor needs to follow the same rules. The romantic relationship isn't being banned, what is being banned is the directly-linked influence that exists when people become involved with someone whom they teach or supervise.
In this case, the solution is as easy as the student transferring to a different class or the assistant professor being supervised by someone else other then the professor.
C.I. I know what you're saying. I agree with you for the most part. I think everyone here agrees that abuse of power is a bad thing ,but there are different degrees of power abuse. but the original question was, would it hold up in court? Should it hold up in court?
I'm going to stop and think and listen for a while, I'm begining to see this in another light!
Butrflynet wrote:I don't see much difference in this issue and the rules that a lot of workplaces already have in place to discourage couples/relatives working in a supervisory/subordinate role of any kind.
If they want to have a romantic relationship, then either the student or professor needs to follow the same rules. The romantic relationship isn't being banned, what is being banned is the directly-linked influence that exists when people become involved with someone whom they teach or supervise.
In this case, the solution is as easy as the student transferring to a different class or the assistant professor being supervised by someone else other then the professor.
And there are already sexual harrasment policies that cover some of these situations.
Okay, I said I was gonna stop for a while!!!! Now I will!
dyslexia, on what grounds do you think that this policy could - or should - be tossed out?
There is no constitutional right to exploit those over whom you have power. There is no moral right to exploit kids newly released from parental control.
My 19-year-old daughter is a student at a state college. I do not want her professors to show favoritism to or simply distracted by students with whom they have a relationship. I would not want her in a situation in which sexual favors were included in the competition for grades.
College students may be of legal age, but many of them lack maturity and judgment. A written policy gives everyone guidelines for acceptable behavior and legal protection from violators. It also gives professors a graceful way to decline any offers by students who might have a crush on them.
Here is the policy at her university, and I think it is a good one:
Quote:Policy on Faculty-Student Relationships
The University's educational mission is promoted by professional relationships between faculty members and students. Relationships of an intimate nature (that is, sexual and/or romantic) compromise the integrity of a faculty-student relationship whenever the faculty member has a professional responsibility for the student.
The University prohibits intimate relationships between a faculty member and a student whose academic work, teaching, or research is being supervised or evaluated by the faculty member.
If an intimate relationship should exist or develop between a faculty member and a student, the University requires the faculty member to remove himself/herself from all supervisory, evaluative, and/or formal advisory roles with respect to the student. Failure to do so may subject the faculty member to disciplinary action.
Transgressions of this policy may result in the forfeiture of the legal and monetary protections of the University's indemnification policy.
Definition Note: In this policy, the definition of "faculty member" refers to anyone appointed by the University as a teacher, researcher, or academic administrator, including graduate and undergraduate students so appointed.
Ii believe that sexual harassment/intimidation is a formidable issue of great concern be it the university or the work place, however blanket regulations that are essentially unenforceable demean the regulations themselves. It seems clear, based on the sheer number of universities that are instituting regulations re non- faculty/student relationships, there must be significant problems but the other side of this coin is that i have known personally several current marriages that resulted from student/facultyrelationships.
The problem as i see it, is that we are dealing with legal adults engaging in legal behavior and that one size fits all regulations are ineffective. On a more personal note, my ex-wife (a professor at a large mid-west univ) had an affair with a student that she later went on to marry so i am not without personal experience with this issue.
While I agree generally with the "intent" of the "creed" posted by Terry; I still feel that human beings will adhere to the ancient tradition of "power heirarchy". Someone who can take advantage of another, unless they are more emotionally mature than the piteously low average, will.
I agree also that the most important degree of harm here is if the more mature and cabable student is lowered in achievement status by not participating in the "spring rutt" mentality.
Human beings as a species must learn and develop beyond the vestiges of our "jungle" past, if we are ever to grow to a degree of civilization that will allow us to survive on this planet; and universities are the last bastion of educational opportunity for maturing future leaders.
Being immersed in "situations" that are potentially harmful to an individual in numerous ways, is one of the many ways we learn social skills, and develop a sense of ethical behaviour, by which we will live our lives.
I do not believe this "class" is "programmable"; the skills enabling students to weather such challenges are taught by parents, other teachers, role models, etc., long before the university experience, and as in the jungle, there will be victims, and survivors.
And I will add again, in agreement, having a written creed of expectations does not harm, and can be a fall back source of judicial "clout", but will not change (sub)human nature.
We can argue Adulthood all day long, but that title doesn't guarantee that professors or anybody else with a title will adhere to ethical standards. That's the reason why rules and regulations are necessary. Without them, we would all live in chaos. Just because a professor has 'intellectual' capacity in some field of study doesn't guarantee they have the utmost respect for students, and how they treat them. Rules and regulations will stifle most from deviating into immoral behavior. c.i.
