Faculty-student romance...Which schools have outlawed it?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education said that the faculty senate at UCLA passed a rule in 2003 that outlawed romantic relationships between faculty and students. It also said the number of schools that have adopted such policies is growing.</p>

<p>I think this is a good thing but I am surprised there is a need for it. Does this really ever happen? I have never heard of it. In engineering schools, at least. I don't think it would ever happen at a more elite university.</p>

<p>Maybe it is more common in Arts, Psychology, Anthropology, Literature departments. I think there are more strange ideas and strange faculty in those departments. </p>

<p>In fact, a psychology professer at UCLA has written a book that argues faculty-student romance is protected under the ninth amendment to the constitution. I think the ninth is the one that says, if the constitution doesn't address it, then the right belongs to the people.</p>

<p>Is this really such a problem that universities and colleges have to pass regulations about it? Which schools have done so? There must be quite a few screwy professors out there.</p>

<p>It really creeps me out that some shriveled up old weiner going through a mid-life crisis might be preying on undergraduates. Such conduct might be sexual harrassment. Can you imagine how much it would freak parents?</p>

<p>The idea of it disgusts me. Any advice for college applicants? Who is most vulnerable to this type of thing?</p>

2

<p>You have much to learn and it is probably as common or more so at the elite schools where many women are looking for a strong father figure similar to their own. There are many books that contain some such romances and many profs are married to former students. Women are attracted to achievers and age is less important to many of them. Also often the "preying" is in the reverse direction than you suggest.</p>

3

<p>barrons-
interesting... I just remembered the Donald Sutherland scene from Animal House...I guess it isn't a new phenomenon either.</p>

4

<p>Is the resolution limited to faculty-undergraduate relationships, or does it include faculty-grad student relationships? </p>

<p>I don't think faculty-grad student relationships are particularly great from an ethical standpoint, but at least they sound a little less gross than faculty-undergraduate relationships. And at least in my department, faculty-grad student relationships are rare and shunned enough to be the topic of departmental urban legends told in hushed tones. ("One time, the department head and his new second-year graduate student...")</p>

5

<p>Faculty-student doesn't necessarily only refer to professors, it probably refers to teaching assistants as well (because they are employed by the university). I know some students who have become quite comfortable with their TFs, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if they were dating.</p>

6

<p>molliebatmit-
The Chronicle article did not say whether it was limited to undergraduates. I'll try to find out. My impression was that it was ALL faculty student "fraternization".</p>

7

<p>From the UCLA University Committee on Privilege and Tenure (it is now incorporated into the faculty handbook)</p>

<p>[The policy seems to apply to ALL students. It seems like a weak policy since it applies only when the faculty member is directly responsible for the student. So, you can have an affair with any student at UCLA as long as he/she is not YOUR student...that's my interpretation]</p>

<p>Faculty-Student Relationships Policy (APM 015)
In response to questions raised by the UC Board of Regents, in January 2002 UCP&T began exploring the idea of developing a policy governing romantic or sexual relationships between faculty and students. The committee discussed a number of possible courses of action and reviewed various documents including policies from other colleges and universities and the “Resolution on Faculty-Student Relations Adopted by the Academic Assembly of the University of California on November 30, 1983.”
UCP&T elected to propose that language be added to the Academic Personnel Manual Section 015, the Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II – Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct, Section A. Teaching and Students. This proposal was comprised of two parts:
(1) An addition to the ethical principles governing faculty behavior regarding teaching and students, which states that whenever a faculty member is responsible for academic supervision of a student, a romantic or sexual relationship, even if consensual, is inappropriate and jeopardizes the integrity of the educational process.
(2) The addition of two examples of unacceptable conduct regarding faculty-student relationships. One of these examples prohibits a faculty member from entering into a romantic or sexual relationship with a student for whom the faculty member has academic responsibility or should reasonably expect to have such responsibility. The other example prohibits a faculty member from exercising academic responsibility for any student with whom the faculty member has a romantic or sexual relationship.
In January 2003 UCP&T submitted “Proposed Revisions to APM 015 – Policy on Faculty-Student Relationships” to the Academic Council for review. A revised version of the faculty-student relationships policy was endorsed by the Academic
Council on April 23, the Assembly of the Academic Senate on May 28, and the Board of Regents on July 17.</p>

8

<p>I'm not opposed to faculty-student relationships as long as the student involved never takes a class with the professor or puts him/her in a position to give the student special privileges in terms of grading and discipline. The tricky part is making sure that persons involves in such relationships are honest about this rule. The university probably doesn't want to worry about that, hence the ban. What's your rationale in supporting the ban, OP?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe it is more common in Arts, Psychology, Anthropology, Literature departments. I think there are more strange ideas and strange faculty in those departments.

[/quote]

That's hilarious. Why not include sociology?</p>

9

<p>Here are minutes of a UCSD faculty senate discussion on the topic:</p>

<p>Academic Council Deliberations on Student-Faculty Relationship Policy--Chair Dimsdale drew the Assembly's attention to the handout provided detailing the proposed amendments to APM 015, The Faculty Code of Conduct, Part II--Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct (Attachment 2). He sought the advice of the Assembly on this topic of great importance. The intent of the revision is to address an important aspect of faculty conduct not directly addressed in the Faculty Code of Conduct: the nature of faculty-student relationships. Policy regarding sexual harassment has been articulated, but is subtly, and importantly, different.</p>

<p>As background, Chair Dimsdale noted that work on a proposed revision had begun in 1983 and had been reviewed by Senate Divisions and committees, but the effort was not completed. In 2001 the Academic Assembly approved some revisions to APM 015 regarding procedural matters. When these revisions were presented to the Regents, it was noted that the nature of faculty-student relationships was not specifically demarcated. As it happened, a pertinent situation arose at another UC campus soon thereafter, and now attention is focused on this matter. Obviously, such relationships are ill-advised in general.</p>

<p>Chair Dimsdale said that other universities approach this issue in a variety of ways. Some strictly prohibit faculty-student relationships, some discourage them, some require disclosure, and many have no discernible policy except those specific to sexual harassment. The University Committee on Privilege and Tenure and other Senate bodies have been struggling to define these concepts. The proposed policy draws heavily on reports and policies from Yale University and the American Association of University Professors. Chair Dimsdale asked for comments.</p>

<p>A member commented that the phrase "has, or should reasonably expect to have in the future" (#6, lines 43-44) puts an unreasonable demand on faculty members to anticipate the future and runs afoul of freedoms to freely associate. The issue of abuse of power by a faculty member is a very legitimate concern, but more appropriately falls under harassment. A romantic or sexual relationship between a faculty member and a student can have a corrosive effect on other students. This is also a very legitimate concern, but is probably more effectively dealt with by disclosure to the department chair and alternate supervisory arrangements for other students. Real problems do arise from faculty-student relationships, but the focus of the policy should be to address ways to mitigate those negative effects. He asserted that real problems should be addressed with solutions that directly affect the problems rather than generally forbidding a very human activity.</p>

<p>A member thought the sentence, "The integrity of the faculty-student relationship is the foundation of the University's educational mission" (lines 10-11), is the essence of the added paragraph, and opined that the rest of the paragraph (lines 12-22) did not add much, particularly in the context of lines 1-9. One member remarked that the intent may be well meaning, but the proposed revisions would criminalize personal behavior out of a fear of exploitation and would prohibit fraternization among faculty and students when students already view faculty members as isolated. The key is not to set up situations where exploitation or harassment might occur. He thought that the policy had so many problems that the best that could be said for the proposed revisions is that the policy would be unenforceable.</p>

<p>A member commented that two phrases, "reasonably expect in the future" and "romantic relationship", were particularly vague and ambiguous. It was asked what the impact of this policy would be on a faculty member if he or she violated it. Chair Dimsdale pointed out that the matter would be referred to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure. P&T could recommend to the Chancellor a range of sanctions, including dismissal. Another member thought that the intent of the proposed revision was actually risk management; a policy was seen as necessary in case a lawsuit arose from such a situation. He opined, however, that no institution could relieve itself of liability for actions that have not yet happened. No matter what the policy, the University could conceivably end up with liability. In addition, some experts maintain that it is impossible to have a consensual relationship when a power relationship is involved; all such situations could be legally considered harassment. A member pointed out another ambiguity: no mention is made of supervision of a student with whom a faculty member has had a past relationship, although this may be implied in #7 (lines 46-47). Chair Dimsdale suggested that perhaps the words "has or has had" would be more appropriate in that sentence.</p>

<p>As discussion continued, Chair Dimsdale advised the Assembly that the APM will definitely be revised to address this issue and in the near future. The Senate is being asked to help craft the best language possible. In response to a question, he said he did not think it possible to obtain data from other institutions on whether such a policy had resulted in fewer incidents. A member commented that the proposed revisions had been reviewed extensively and wondered if ambiguity in some places could be intentional. A member said that the sentences, "Whenever a faculty member is responsible for academic supervision of a student, a personal relationship between them of a romantic or sexual nature, even if consensual, is inappropriate. Any such relationship jeopardizes the integrity of the educational process" (lines 19-22), are very straightforward and pertinent to this particular topic. The earlier sentences in that paragraph, while important, apply to many faculty responsibilities. He supported previous comments about including the past tense in #7 and removing the reference to the future in #6. Chair Dimsdale noted that there had been extensive discussion about the future reference in #6 and that the key was the definition of "reasonable".</p>

<p>Chair Dimsdale thanked the members for their comments, which he would convey to the Academic Council. He noted parenthetically that, while people are particularly concerned about the age discrepancy between faculty and undergraduate students, some would argue that graduate students are in more jeopardy and could suffer more from possible corrosive effects of such a relationship.</p>

10

<p>Often, the people who are grossed out by such relationships are those who secretly want to be in one or want to be pursued by someone older. They complain about "creepy" guys when in fact, they <em>love</em> that they're being pursued (I mean, why else do they talk about the so-called "creepy guys" all the time). So annoying. </p>

<p>I definitely think that anthropology professors are more open-minded than professors in other departments, just because of their hyper-awareness of the arbitrary origins of social/cultural norms.</p>

11

<p>yourfather-
I actually thought of including sociology but the professor I had was pretty normal except that he chain-smoked cigars...and inhaled.</p>

<p>My rationale is that the teacher-student relationship has professional expectations and sanctions similar to doctor-patient and attorney-client. Students are isolated, young, and vulnerable. Professors are in position of trust and power and are often afforded more admiration than they deserve. It is clearly unethical and immoral, there is no doubt. Students would be manipulated, used, and thrown away. Parents have the ultimate say in this...I don't think they would like the idea. They are paying the bills.</p>

<p>The fact that college faculty and administrators have to struggle with this moral issue at all tells me how morally bankrupt and ethically confused they are in the "Ivory Tower". The only thing they should see when they look at a student is a young person who needs inspired teaching. </p>

<p>Some faculty and administrators are jerks who would never make it in the real world. They are pathetic losers who would take advantage of vulnerable young people. </p>

<p>Does this help clarify it?</p>

12

<p>If both parties consent, and their isn't any unfair treatment in the classroom, I honestly don't see what the big deal is....</p>

<p>We're not talking about children here. College students are legal adults. They're capable of making their own decisions. Some people may find it "creepy", but said people need to realize that it's really none of their business...</p>

13

<p>love = love</p>

14

<p>No offense, college help, but I disagree with your reasoning. Why do you assume that all college students are naive and vulnerable? To be honest, I find that kind of insulting.</p>

15

<p>A relationship between consenting adults isn't a legal issue. If a school wants to ban it because there are potential conflicts of interest then fine, if a school doesn't then fine with that too. I actually have heard anecdotal evidence of it happening, but with a male student/female faculty member, but I doubt if it is the next big threat to higher education.</p>

16

<p>Here is an exerpt from an interview in the Chronicle with Paul Abramson, the UCLA psych professor who has written a book defending the right to romance between faculty and students.</p>

<p>"Q. Lots of universities put these policies in place because students were accusing their professors of sexual harassment. Isn't that a valid concern?</p>

<p>A. A professor and a student get involved in a relationship; it goes great guns for eight months. They're fabulously in love; they think they'll get married and have kids. Then it somehow implodes. One or the other wants to continue the relationship and keeps pressuring the other. Eventually the one who wants out feels they're being harassed and says, Look you continue with this, and I'm going to sue you. It is basically love gone awry that universities are afraid will turn into civil litigation. Therefore, universities will cut out love completely with these policies in order to protect themselves.</p>

<p>Q. Some parents might wonder whether they should be paying 40-grand a year to provide professors with a well-stocked pool of potential dating partners.</p>

<p>A. We allow any male or female to join the Army and Marines and fight in Iraq at 18. If that 18-year-old can make that decision about giving life for their country, that 18-year-old can make a decision about who they're going to have romance with. People always ask me, How would you feel if your daughter had a relationship with a 40-something professor? My response has been, it's her choice to make.</p>

<p>Q. Don't rules that prohibit sexual relationships between professors and students protect professors as much as students? It is tempting for a 40-something faculty member to fancy himself the romantic partner of an undergraduate woman. But before university rules banned these relationships, there were lots of stories of professors doing and saying ridiculous things with students in the name of "love."</p>

<p>A. I think that's a moralistic crusade under the guise of paternalism. It's always important to make conscientious choices in one's life. But to legislate that in any venue is absurd.</p>

<p>People make foolish sexual choices. People who are religious leaders, how many of them have fallen from grace because of their foolish sexual choices? To me that's testament to the power of love and sex. Sexuality is an enormously powerful motive, and people are going to make foolish choices because of the power, but we don't preclude it. We give freedom of speech despite the rubbish and crap that people air because it's so essential to our survival to protect the freedom of speech. It's essential to our pursuit of happiness and well-being to protect sexual rights, knowing full well people are going to make foolish choices."</p>

17

<p>These things are not always cut and dried. You talk about old professors preying on young coeds. What about young professors? There are quite a few of them out there. We had a friend who was a freshly minted PhD in a science field. He met a graduate student in one of his classes who has started a bit later and they were only a couple of years apart in age. When she finished his class, they began dating. He was very up front about his relationship, never put himself in a position to evalute her, etc. They got married when she graduated and we attended the wedding. </p>

<p>There was nothing sick or explotative about this relationship. Teachers of any kind - professors, TAs, lab directors, etc. - should not date any student who they are evaluating. But if they are not evaluating the student, they should be free to enter into a consenting relationship.</p>

18

<p>I had a Harvard Law professor who "selected" one woman each of several years in succession to live with him. I agree it is a reprehensible practice, as it is in the workplace, when there is an evaluator and evaluatee relationship (and it is very likely to give rise to a civil tort in the workplace, and possible criminal repercussions.) Dartmouth professor told me of one female graduate student whose initial course work was 3 "D's" (of course, uncommonly bad) and one "A." All knew the reason for the good grade....</p>

<p>If there is no influence on the evaluation of the student for good or ill, one might not approve, but we can't and shouldn't police everything. Wise, though, to counsel our children, both boys and girls as to likely bad outcome of such relationships.</p>