Dankprofessor’s Weblog

A weblog examining sexual politics in higher education and beyond.

The official Ohio State University policy on student professor consensual sexual relationships

After a 1 1/2 years of  consideration, evaluation and debate the OSU issued its formal policy on consensual sexual relationships between students and professors on July 1, 2006; the policy can be viewed here.  And a myriad of OSU documents relating to the process leading to adoption can be viewed here.

What ended up in the final policy was essentially proposed in the Work Group Report.  And it appears that the Work Group report was not criticized by anyone or any entity associated with OSU.  The dankprofessor believes that it has been only on the dankprofessor blog that the work of the Work Group has ever been directly criticized.  The reality was that the work of the Work Group was accepted as the final word.  A lot of huffing and puffing occurred when the Task Force released its report to the OSU community, and the changes that did occur were not ultimately of a substantive nature.  And last but not least the consensual policy became a subpart of  the sexual harassment policy of  Ohio State University.  

So now in 2008, faculty and students entering OSU can internalize the OSU sexual norms in a bureaucratized and dehumanized framework. No romance; no passion; no love.  If there be passion, love and romance between a student and a professor, it must be a secret love.  And as I am sure we all know, love will survive and is surviving at OSU.  Such came to be at OSU and so many other universities by the usage of fear tactics, fear tactics that included  farcical beliefs that the permitting of student professor sexual relationships has in some way undermined the quality of academic life.  The quality of academic life was never undermined by allowing for student professor sexual relationships at OSU or any other university.  What has been  diminished is the quality of life since freedom and consent and choice have been diminished and authoritarian thinking has formally replaced independent thinking, and an authoritarian  institutional bureaucratic “ethic” has replaced a personal ethical engagement.

—–
If you wish, you can write to me directly at dankprofessor@msn.com
Guest commentaries should also be submitted for consideration to the same email address.

Barry M. Dank aka the dankprofessorTM
© Copyright 2008

January 9, 2008 Posted by | consensual relationships, ethics, fraternization, higher education, Ohio State University, secrecy, sexual policing, sexual politics, sexual rights, student professor dating | 2 Comments

The Final Chapter: The dissection of the Ohio State University Task Force Report

The Dankprofessor will continue to plow thru the OSU Task Force on Consensual Relationships; it is important for persons interested in determining how a university arrives at a point in time at which a formal prohibition on student professor consensual relationships is adopted.  For the prior post on OSU and relevant documents click hereFollowing is a section of the Task Force Report that merits our attention.
———————————————————-   
“The Task Force was apprised of the variety of harms caused by sexual relationships between faculty and students. Apparently, a familiar pattern involves a faculty member who initiates a sexual relationship with a student, often a student in the same department with whom the faculty member frequently interacts. Initially, the student may be flattered by the attention and may give little thought to the power dynamics in the relationship. When the relationship ends or turns sour, however, the effect on the student changes sharply: the student then experiences hurt, guilt, shame and a lack of connection with her peers as a result of the relationship and worries about the effect of the relationship on her career, particularly if she feels that the faculty member is in a position to influence her future. The Task Force heard reports of faculty members who were known to have had multiple relationships with students, suggesting a propensity to misuse their power as professors.”
———————————————————-
     Note the overt dehumanizing rhetoric employed in this excerpt.  Now we have THE student and THE faculty member presented in completely homogenous terms.  Such is illustrative of the I-it I-thou framework put forth by Martin Buber.  Here, we only have the I-it.  In such a depersonalized world there is only THE student, The professor, THE homosexual, THE Jew.  Once one knows who is who then one
knows the script and therefore without any personal knowledge of any particular student or any particular professor, one already knows how THE student and THE professor will act; what will happen to them once they cross into the forbidden territory of sexuality.  In this fiction as presented by the Task Force, “the student then experiences hurt, guilt and shame…”; no ifs here; such is Her fate.  And what happens to the faculty member? What about “his” experiencing hurt, guilt and shame?  Nothing here; absolutely nothing.  Haven’t we all heard this sort of muckraking?  Didn’t we hear it as children from parents warning us about sex or homosexuality or dating interracially or …?  Do we not know what this sort of rhetoric is all about, that this is about fear and possibly hysteria and ultimately obedience?  In the dankprofessor’s opinion, persons who engage in such rhetoric would be likely candidates for speech writers in the Bush administration.  However, it is hard for me to accept that engaging in this rhetoric  is compatible with being an academic.  What a sorrowful state we are in!
   Unfortunately, there is more from the Task Force illustrating academia’s sorrowful state
———————————————————- 
“The Task Force also discussed the third-party and reputational effects of faculty/student consensual relationships. We were told of a notorious case in which the fallout from a sexual relationship in the department caused the student in the relationship and other graduate students in the department to seek counseling and to consider transferring to other universities to complete their degrees. Persons in the department expressed their belief that the reputation of the department suffered as a result.”

———————————————————-

Is this what it boils down to, reputational effects?  Since something supposedly hurts the reputation of some persons or some entity then the liberty to fraternize is suspended.  Reputations of departments vary from department to department and in the same department over time.  Selecting out student and professors in a sexual relationship who generally just want to be left alone for responsibility for the “reputational” effects is just other worldly!  In any case, the extreme effects of the particular case highlighted by the Task Force may just be academic gossip.  And if the case was so notorious, why didn’t the Task Force specifically name names?

———————————————————-

 And the Task Force continues-

———————————————————-

Regardless of the scope of any new rule, Task Force members were strongly of the view that little would change if the new policy did not have “teeth” or if persons were unaware of the restrictions. To be effective, there must be a duty placed on the faculty member to disclose the existence of any sexual relationship with a student – current or in the past – and to cooperate in making alternative arrangements for the supervision, teaching, grading, advising, counseling or other responsibility relating to the student. Additionally, any supervisor notified of such a relationship or who becomes aware of such a relationship should have a duty to take immediate action to provide an acceptable alternative arrangement. The Task Force was mindful of the potential hazards with requiring disclosure, particularly in cases of same-sex relationships or other socially disapproved relationships. For this reason, the supervisor should take all feasible steps to maintain the confidentiality of such information. Finally, to insure against multiple offenders escaping notice, any action taken in response to a report of a consensual sexual relationship or alternative arrangements made as a result should be reported to Human Resources. The Task Force agreed that policy and procedure for regulating consensual sexual relationships should remain as part of the University’s policy against sexual harassment.”

———————————————————-

 So the Task Force wants to give this policy “teeth”.   And what better way to give it teeth than to bring third parties into the scenarios; informers in the genre of the Linda Tripps; informers who really care about the Monica Lewinskys of the world and have no agenda, emotional or otherwise, concerning presidents and professors of the world.  And in this world of third party informants, the good administrator (police) will take immediate action to correct the so-called problem, no need for for acting in a slow and cautious manner.  Here academic justice and sidewalk justice become one. 

And in a true Orwellian fashion the Task Force urges supervisors to maintain confidentiality of all information.  But if confidentiality mattered, if the privacy of the couple mattered, if one granted even minimal rights to those in the closet, then there would no third party informants.  The truth is as the Task Force apparently does not know that once the couple is compromised there is no confidentiality; confidentiality is history.  The Task Force is engaging in delusional thinking unless what they meant by confidentiality is secrecy and therefore the ability of the so- called supervisors to act knowing that their acts will not be in public view.  So the administrators are given their secrecy and the involved students and professors are stripped of their secrecy.  No sexcrecy(my word); no secret love.  Fortunately there were some OSU professors who saw thru this game at an OSU forum on the Task Force report.  The campus newspaper, The Lantern, reported-

———————————————————-

“Faculty at the meeting voiced concerns on the notification clause in the policy change. Originally, the revised policy required that human resources be notified if a faculty member entered into any consensual relationship with a student, even in cases where the faculty member was not in a supervisory position. Some faculty were concerned with this central reporting mechanism and with the creation of records of the relationships within human resources. In response to these concerns, human resources has revised the policy to require faculty to report the relationships only to their department chairs. No notification of human resources is required and no central records will be kept.With the adoption of the anonymous reporting line on March 1, T.K. Daniels, chair of the faculty council of the University Senate, expressed concerns that third-party reporting would be encouraged in instances of consensual relationships between faculty and students.”It’s a romantic police state,” Daniels said. “It’s even more so a police state because it can be reported anonymously.”Lewellen said the policy needs to be revised to discourage third-party reporting and that he believes this is a matter of professional ethics.”

———————————————————-
 We shall see whether  third party reporting was modified when we look at the policy as adopted.   But suffice to state at this point that Professor Daniels understands what it takes to create an effective police state, it takes informers and more informers, and it takes the true believing ideologues to help the informers rationalize that they are doing the right thing.

  Of course, the Task Force recommended that there be a prohibition on faculty student professor relationships.  We will terminate this post with their summary of their recommendations.

———————————————————-   
“In summary, the Task Force recommends:

(1) That the OSU policy be revised to prohibit consensual sexual relationships between faculty and students or between university employees and students, whenever the faculty member or employee has supervisory, teaching, evaluation, advisory, coaching or counseling responsibilities for the student or would otherwise be likely to be asked to take on such a role in the future.

(a) That OSU implement the consensual relationship policy to impose a duty on faculty and staff to report and disclose any sexual relationship with a student encompassed within (1) above, either to their supervisor or to Human Resources and to cooperate in making acceptable alternative arrangements. The policy should also impose a duty on supervisors to notify Human Resources of any such relationships reported to them or that come to their knowledge and to take immediate steps to provide acceptable alternative arrangements.

(b) That the OSU consensual relationship policy contain a clear statement that disciplinary action will be taken against faculty or staff who violate the policy, either by entering into or engaging in a sexual relationship with a student encompassed with (1) above, or by failing to report such relationship or cooperate in making alternative arrangements.”

—–
If you wish, you can write to me directly at dankprofessor@msn.com
Guest commentaries should also be submitted for consideration to the
same email address.

Barry M. Dank aka the dankprofessor™
© Copyright 2008

 

January 5, 2008 Posted by | consensual relationships, ethics, fraternization, higher education, Ohio State University, secrecy, sexual policing, sexual politics, sexual rights, student professor dating, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Ohio State University Melodrama Continues; Task Force Examining Consensual Relationships

   Once the Ohio State University Work Group completed its report and recommendations, the report was then  forwarded to the OSU Task Force Examining the Policy on Consensual Relationships.  The Task Force issued its report on July 11, 2005 and it was then forwarded to the OSU Academic Senate.  A complete copy of the Task Force report along with the Work Group report can be reviewed by clicking here.
   From the get go the Task Force makes it clear that the report of the Work Group was of critical import to the Task Force:  “Because of the high quality and comprehensiveness of the Work Group report, the Task Force has used it as a foundation for our deliberations.”  Given the specifics of the Work Group’s report, it becomes quite damning that the Task Force accepts this report with absolutely no critical evaluation.  It is therefore not surprising that the Task Force relied on persons who were remarkably similar in background to the members of the Work Group: “We particularly benefited from the expertise of six individuals, including four Task Force members, who reported to our Task Force on their professional experience dealing with OSU students. They were: (1) Deborah Schipper and (2) Rebecca Gurney from the Rape Education & Prevention Program (3) Karen Kyle from the Student Advocacy Office (4) Eunice Hornsby from Human Resources (5) Karen Taylor from Counseling and Consultation Service.”  
   It also should not be very surprising that the Task Force report was to a significant degree just a rehashing of the Work Group report.  Such is indicated by what the Task Force attempted to pass off as data which was used as a basis for their conclusions: “Those persons who supplied information to the Task Force indicated that serious problems relating to faculty/student consensual relationships had come to their attention in the last few years. The number of reported cases clearly seems to have risen, with one respondent indicating that her office received 7 such complaints in one year, involving 7 different departments on campus. Although there is no reliable way to determine the precise incidence of such relationships – now or in the past – we heard reports that consensual sexual relationships were regarded as “not an unusual event.”…All the cases described involved male faculty and female students. For that reason, this report uses the masculine pronoun when referring to faculty or staff and the feminine pronoun when referring to students.”
   The abysmal lack of data did not escape the notice of some OSU faculty at a meeting of the OSU Academic Senate: ” Dr. Carl Allen, an OSU dental professor, said the report is outdated, unscientific and that there’s no evidence to indicate more stringent rules would make a difference. “It’s embarrassing that we don’t have statistics,” he said. “The proper response would be: ‘Let’s find out what the extent of the problem is and let’s educate people about this.’ ” Physics professor Gordon Aubrecht said a prohibition “smacks of a police state.” (Quoted from “Ohio state professors bristle at proposed ban”, COLUMBUS DISPATCH, February 6, 2006.)
   Yes it is embarrassing, but it is something more, I would call it outrageous.  Outrageous that a university would seriously consider suspending basic rights of both students and faculty based solely on anecdotal reports which were anonymous and unverifiable.  I would go one step further and state that those reporting these anecdotes had an axe to grind, a personal investment in the issue, and that just about everyone involved in this situation knew that such was the case.  But so what, as Gordon Albrecht states, this “smacks of a police state”.  
   And at this Academic Senate meeting all Senate members, except for Task Force Group members, opposed the prohibition policy.  But given this opposition, the police mentality immediately came to the forefront  when grad student Inna Caron asked the group, “Why do you have a problem with this being prohibited?  Do you want to reserve the opportunity to do this?”  Then as reported, Caron “…pointed out that everyone who spoke out against the prohibition was male”.(Quoted from Columbus Dispatch article.)
   There we have it.  Speak out against the proposed prohibition, and the motive mongers come into play and the dissenters are discarded since they are all males.  Identity politics at its worse.  University life at its worse.  But the reality is that few are outraged, it’s just business as usual.
TO BE CONTINUED
—–
If you wish, you can write to me directly at dankprofessor@msn.com
Guest commentaries should also be submitted for consideration to the same email address.
Barry M. Dank aka the dankprofessor™
© Copyright 2008

 

January 4, 2008 Posted by | consensual relationships, ethics, fraternization, higher education, Ohio State University, sexual policing, sexual politics, sexual rights, student professor dating, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Back to Ohio State University

   The dankprofessor has put off dealing with the second part of the report of the OSU Work Group on consensual student professor sexual relationships.  Well, now that we are into a New Year I will deal with the last part of the report.  And, there is really not very much to deal with; the core of their argument has already been presented.  In much of the second part of the report, the writers survey the relevant policies of other professions and conclude that universities which do not regulate student professor consensual relationships are professionally out of step.  They conclude their argument in the following terms-
————————————————————————
The professional relationships described above are primarily one-on-one relationships, rather than with groups such as classes of students. However, many would argue that students stand in much the same relationship to their professors as do clients/patients to their lawyers, doctors, and therapists. Graduate and professional students, in particular, frequently work one-on-one with their professors, and undergraduate students have ample opportunities for one-on-one relationships. More importantly, students are in the same vulnerable position with their professors and staff as are clients and patients with other professionals, and hence students are equally subject to unfair exploitation.2″
———————————————————————————
   So boiling down their argument, it becomes that students and professors are pretty similar to the situation of patients and doctors.  My argument with this comparison is that it is patently absurd.  Easy for us to evaluate in the context of our personal experience.  I will frame the situation in terms of a few questions- How similar are your feelings of going into a medical office or a hospital to that of going into a class or going into a university?  Do you see your identity as a student to be quite similar to your identity as a patient?  For you, is university life and hospital life pretty much the same?  Do you hang out by the doctors office?  Do you socialize and dine with other patients?  Do you work with your doctor on evaluating patients or doing medical research?  Do you see yourself as part of a medical community?  Do medical doctors you know have social gatherings consisting primarily of their patients? 
   I could go on and on with these sorts of questions, and I think it is clear that the hospital and medical and therapy worlds are of a different genre from that of the university.  University life simply cannot be subsumed into some sort of homogeneous professional category; university life is in a category by itself.  And it is a shame that all too many persons such as the members of this Work Group want to take that uniqueness away.  Such is consistent with the agenda of some banning advocates with their goal of transforming the university place into just another workplace or corporate place.  God forbid that people will ever view hospital campuses as essentially interchangeable with university campuses.  In the dankprofessor’s opinion, it is hospitals that are anchored into medical schools and into university campuses that makes these hospitals more hospitable, more open places to be.  And, in addition, it needs to be pointed out that the hospitals that are teaching hospitals do not have bans on medical doctor/teacher and student relationships.  Somehow the OSU Working Group overlooked this point and it comes down to this- that in the medical university world students are not equated with patients and med students dating medical professors is viewed as not being subject to regulation.
   Then the Work Group concludes-
———————————————————————————
“The costs to the university are clear. Permitting consensual sexual relations between faculty and students threatens our ability to create and sustain the climate that both the Academic Plan and the Diversity Action Plan view as essential if Ohio State is to attain status as one of the great public research and teaching universities.”
———————————————————————————
   The conclusion is simply one of hyperbole and absurdity.  Can anyone free of a blinding ideology conclude that a university’s greatness can be undermined by students and professors being permitted to date?  Certainly such a freedom did not prevent the members of the Work Group from becoming employees at OSU.  If the Work Group is to be taken seriously, maybe their project is to escape from feelings of mediocrity and then once this policy is passed they would then be propelled into limelight of a great university.
   The Work Group then concludes its report with the following recommendations-
————————————————————————

       “1. 1 The President should appoint a committee with the charge of examining the current consensual sexual relation policy to determine if the policy should be revised.

    1. 2. In addition to any issues the committee determines need to be examined, the following issues should be considered:

      1. a. What should be the standard governing consensual sexual relations between faculty and students?

      2. i. Retain the current strongly discourage standard.

      3. ii. Prohibit such relationships when the faculty member has some professional responsibility for the student and strongly discourage such relationships with other students (following Iowa, Indiana, and Arizona).

      4. iii. Prohibit such relationships with all students even when the faculty member has no professional responsibility.

      5. a. Undergraduate only.

      6. b. Undergraduate, graduate, and professional.

      7. b. Prohibitions regarding minors-clarify that this is illegal

      8. c. Regardless of the standard that is adopted, should faculty be required to report to their supervisors or other university officials (and should it be reported in writing) consensual sexual relationships with students?

      9. i. Privacy concerns, particularly with respect to same-sex relationships.

      10. d. Should the same rule be applied to staff who supervise students?

      11. e. Should the consensual sexual relationship policy be separate from the sexual harassment policy?

      12. f. What are the sanctions for violating whatever policy is adopted?

      13. g. Should students involved in these relationships be subject to sanctions?

    2. 3. The make up of the committee should include the following:

      1. a. Appointees from the following University Senate committees: Steering, Council on Academic Freedom & Responsibility, Council on Student Affairs, Diversity Committee,

      2. b. At least one faculty member with expertise on student development,

      3. c. Representatives from the AAUP, the President’s Council on Women, Office of Human Resources, Rape Education and Prevention Program, Counseling and Consultation Service, the Student Advocacy Center, and

      4. d. Three students – graduate, professional, and undergraduate.

    1. 4. The committee should conclude its work by submitting its written recommendations to the president by June, 2005.

Report to The President’s Council on Women From the Work Group Examining the University’s Policy on Consensual Sexual Relations Between Faculty and Students The Ohio State University, 1/2005 17″———————————————————————————If you wish, you can write to me directly at dankprofessor@msn.com
Guest commentaries should also be submitted for consideration to the same email address.
Barry M. Dank aka the dankprofessor™
© Copyright 2008

January 2, 2008 Posted by | consensual relationships, ethics, fraternization, higher education, Ohio State University, sexual policing, sexual politics, sexual rights, student professor dating, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

From Consensual Relationships to Rape; the Ohio State University Work Group Report

 In my last post on OSU Work Group examination of the OSU policy on consensual sexual relations between faculty and students I may have presented too much as well as too little.  I may have presented too much in the context of having key points overlooked or lost in the mass of this material while at the same time accidentally omitting a key point.

First the dankprofessor must emphasize that the Working Group was appointed by the OSU President’s Council on Women.  The report of the Working Group was then forwarded to the President which led to the creation of the Task Force Examining the Policy on Consensual Relations which issued its report on July 11, 2005.  I have presented the first part of the Working Group report, the second part will follow in an upcoming post; the President’s Task force report will also be examined in an upcoming post.

It should be emphasized that the Work Group functioned to set the basic framework for a possible change in the OSU policy on prohibiting student professor sexual relationships.  What I did not report in my prior posting was the membership of the Work Group.  A listing of the membership follows-

Deborah A. Ballam, Associate Provost of Women’s Policy Initiatives; Director, The Women’s Place; Professor, Fisher College of Business
Olga Esquivel-Gonzalez, Interim Director, Consulting Services and Employee Relations
Rebecca Gurney, Graduate Administrative Associate, Rape Education and Prevention Program of the Multicultural Center
Eunice Hornsby, Assistant Director and OD Consultant, Organization and Human Resource Development
Beth Miglin, Partnership Coordinator, The Women’s Place
Deborah Schipper, Coordinator, Rape Education and Prevention Program of the Multicultural Center

Do note that two of the six members of the Work Group were involved in rape education; two other members were involved in the OSU group, The Women’s Place, and the remaining two were
involved in employee relations.  In the dankprofessor’s opinion, this group was formed with an expected outcome which would employ an anti-rape framework.  Why else have 1/3 of the membership coming out of anti-rape backgrounds?  Or the question can be formulated in the following manner, why on a committee formulating policy on consensual relationships would 1/3 of the membership be involved in rape prevention programs?

Well, if one carefully reads over their report, it should become clear that the members do not believe that the concept of consensual relationships can be applicable to student professor sexual relationships.  The closest they come to employing the concept of consent is to use the concept of  “exploited consent” which in their terms I believe means that such consent would only occur in a power differentiated situation and that if the situation was not power differentiated the female student would then not consent.  As I indicated in my prior posting on OSU, there is absolutely no way of proving that such would be the case.  In any case, where you have one party involved in a sexual relationship who cannot provide consent, then one has a situation of rape or sexual assault.  This does not mean that the party did not verbally consent, but such does mean for them that the “consent” was coerced.  It is in this rape framework that the committee functions.  No wonder that the female student is never viewed as initiating any sexual relationship; faculty initiation functions as a default assumption for them which I find quite understandable since if one believes that one is dealing with a rape victim, it becomes almost axiomatic that the rape victim did not initiate.

One should also note that the only reason given by the Work Group for prohibiting student professor sexual relationships revolves around the power differentiation and the inability to fully give consent, and therefore stopping so-called predatory professors from engaging in predatory behavior. Nothing is mentioned about conflict of interest; nothing is mentioned about avoiding civil lawsuits.  Unquestionably, the report would have been different if there were persons appointed to the Work Group who have some background in civil liberties or had an academic appointment in Political Science or, God forbid, Sociology.  Of course, not one member of the committee was a full-time professor.  And when they called upon persons outside of the Work Group to provide input, the situation was no better; they relied upon counselors to testify about helping grief stricken students who were attempting to cope with a broken relationship with a professor.  For them, better to call upon counselors of the grief stricken than a student or a professor who would testify about how their relationship made a positive difference in their lives.  Obviously,  the OSU President’s Council on Women stacked the deck and got the report they wanted- a report about rape, a report in which the term “consensual” was viewed as being employed as a shield for what they considered the underlying rape reality.

Buying into this rape mythology apparently is quite easy for those within academia who are committed to a victim feminism.  Such a mythology is not accepted and generally given short thrift by the larger society.  For example, in terms of the Clinton/Lewinsky fiasco, even Clinton’s most ardent adversaries, including Prosecutor Starr, did not portray Lewinsky as a victim of sexual assault.  To buy into the rape mythology one must reduce female students to children, and this is what campus victim feminists do, but without calling them children but rather calling them victims.  The larger society has a proneness to accept the rhetoric of equating student professor sex with child adult sex which I have discussed in a previous posting but generally such does not represent an embracing of a rape mythology as presented by the OSU Work Group.

The Work Group in part relies on Professor David Archard’s analysis of consent and on his “exploited consent” concept.  In my last posting, I indicated I would try to access Archard’s article, but was unable to do so; the article is part of an anthology.  However, I did find that Daphne Patai had reviewed the anthology in context of a review essay on victim feminism.  I urge blog readers to click on the Patai article; it is required reading for anyone seriously interested in this subject.

The dankprofessor was taken aback by the Work Group citing the writings of Bell Hooks as being consistent with their analysis of the lack of consent in student professor relationships.  I was taken aback since Bell Hooks is a feminist who has strongly come out against prohibiting student professor relationships.  Such is the case in her article PASSIONATE PEDAGOGY; EROTIC STUDENT/FACULTY RELATIONSHIPS.  And I quote the following from her article-

“Student devotion to a teacher can easily be a context where erotic longings emerge. Passionate pedagogy in any setting is likely to spark erotic energy. It cannot be policed or outlawed. This erotic energy can be used in constructive ways both in individual relationships and in the classroom setting. Just as it is important that we be vigilant in challenging abuses of power wherein the erotic becomes a terrain of exploitation, it is equally important to recognize that space where erotic interaction is enabling and positively transforming. Desire in the context of relations where hierarchy and unequal power separate individuals is always potentially disruptive and simultaneously potentially transformative. Desire can be a democratic equalizing force — the fierce reminder of the limitations of hierarchy and status — as much as it can be a context for abuse and exploitation. The erotic is always present, always with us. When we deny that erotic feelings will emerge between teachers and students, this denial precludes the recognition of accountability and responsibility. The implications of entering intimate relations where there is an imbalance of power cannot be understood, or those relations handled with care in a cultural context where desire that disrupts is seen as so taboo that it cannot be spoken, acknowledged, and addressed. Banning relations between faculty and students would create a climate of silence and taboo that would only intensify dynamics of coercion and exploitation. The moment power differences are articulated in a dialogue where erotic desire surfaces, a space is created where choice is possible, where accountability can be clearly assessed.”

The Work Group also chose not to cite empirical studies of student-professor relationships that are not consistent with their findings.  There are not many empirical studies in this area, and probably one of the best is by Marcia Bellas and Jennifer Gossett, “LOVE OF THE “LECHEROUS PROFESSOR”: Consensual Sexual Relationships Between professors and Students,” THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY, Vol 2, No. 4, 2001, pp. 529-558. Bellas and Gossett did not take a unidimensional approach as taken by the Work Group; they see the situation as being much more complex as indicated in the following quote from their article-

“Both student and faculty respondents universally viewed their relationships as meaningful and justified. Some respondents, both professors and students, saw their relationships as no different than any type of romantic relationship. Although aware of their status difference, for some, the professor/student status represented only one of many ways in which they defined themselves and their partners For these respondents, the relationship seemed to transcend the social categories imposed on them. Indeed, we suspect that for some individuals, their ability to transcend social boundaries contributed to their willingness to cross the student/professor divide in the first place. For many of our respondents, issues related to race/ethnicity, sexuality, and age brought greater challenges to their relationships than did the professor/student status difference. We found that negative reactions from others tended to he most extreme for those who crossed multiple social boundaries

For the most part, respondents were well aware of the benefits and detriments of consensual relationships between professors and students. While some saw no special benefits associated with these relationships, both professors and students cited the rewards of intellectual compatibility and a shared lifestyle. Students, in particular, recognized the benefits of professional socialization. Despite such benefits, respondents also recognized the negative or potentially negative aspects of such relationships, especially the power difference between professors and students, and consequently advised others not to pursue them. Respondents tended to refer to power issues in abstract rather than personal terms, however, or noted that power differences are inherent in most relationships.
Faculty respondents in particular viewed their own relationships as equitable, although female faculty, and especially lesbians, expressed somewhat more concern about power issues than male and heterosexual female faculty. This heightened sensitivity among women, particularly lesbians, may reflect the subordinate position of women and gays/ lesbians in social hierarchies. Students, too, tended to see their relationships as being fairly equitable, although they expressed greater concern than faculty about power issues. Most recognized that students are in a more vulnerable position than professors Most were also cognizant of the ways that power differences are reinforced by other status differences, particularly age. We suspect that the sensitivity of many of our student respondents to power issues probably contributed to their ability to analyze their relationships and to negotiate satisfactory solutions to any conflicts Those who cannot do so may end their relationships. Several students who ended their relationship cited power and control issues as contributing to the demise of the relationship.”

Another excellent empirical study is-Skeen, R.E. and J. M. Nielsen (1983). “Student-Faculty Sexual Relationships,” QUALITATIVE SOCIOLOGY, 6(2), 99-117.
—–
If you wish, you can write to me directly at dankprofessor@msn.com
Guest commentaries should also be submitted for consideration to the same email address.
Barry M. Dank aka the dankprofessor™
© Copyright 2007

 

 

December 22, 2007 Posted by | consensual relationships, ethics, feminism, fraternization, higher education, Ohio State University, rape, sexual politics, sexual rights, student professor dating | 2 Comments

Part 1- The Ohio State campaign to ban student professor sexual relationships

Prior to Ohio State University (OSU) adopting a policy prohibiting student professor sexual relationships, OSU engaged in a lengthy  process of evaluation of such a policy.  It appears to the dankprofessor that the OSU evaluation of said policy is probably more detailed than any other university to adopt a prohibition policy.  In addition, OSU has made available online key documents relating  to this process.  The dankprofessor is going to engage in a critique of some this material. 

We will begin with the first detailed report from January 11, 2005.  My comments will be in the text of the report and will be in bold.  This post will be the first of 2 posts on this report.  For the sake of accuracy, the text of the report is provided without any editing by the dankprofessor.  If one is really interested in this issue, then it is necessary to plod thru this text.  The text does reveal the banning agenda at the grass roots level.

Report To The President’s Council On Women

From The Work Group Examining The University’s Policy On

Consensual Sexual Relations Between Faculty And Students

Introduction

This workgroup of the President’s Council on Women’s Issues has been charged by the Council to explore whether the Council should recommend to the President that the university re-examine its policy on consensual sexual relationships between faculty and students. In carrying out this charge, the work group has considered the following: Ohio State’s current policy, the AAUP’s current policy recommendation, the policies of CIC and benchmark universities, the rationale supporting the policies that strongly discourage but do not prohibit consensual sexual relations between faculty and students, policies of other professions, the climate goals enunciated in both the Academic Plan and the Diversity Action Plan, considerations supporting strict policies on consensual sexual relationships between faculty and students, the human costs for students of such relationships, and the costs for the university, particularly in terms of fulfilling the goals as stated in the Academic Plan.

This workgroup concludes that it is time for the university to re-examine its current policy on consensual sexual relations between faculty and students and recommends that a committee be charged to undertake this task.

Ohio State’s Current Policy (Appendix 1)

The Ohio State University’s sexual harassment policy currently strongly discourages consensual and romantic relationships between supervisor and employee or between faculty and student, but does not prohibit such relationships. The policy prohibits anyone involved in such a relationship from having direct responsibility for evaluating the employment or academic performance or for making decisions regarding the promotion, tenure, or compensation of the other party to the relationship. The policy does note that “these relationships may be subject to concerns about the validity of consent, conflicts of interest, and unfair treatment of other students or employees.” The current policy does not explicitly require the reporting of consensual relationships.

AAUP’s Policy Recommendation (Appendix 2)

The American Association of University Professors’ suggested policy is similar to Ohio State’s current policy-it discourages, but does not prohibit consensual sexual relationships between professors and students. Like Ohio State’s policy, the AAUP suggested policy recognizes that consensual relationships between faculty and students “are fraught with the potential for exploitation. The respect and trust accorded a professor by a student, as well as the power exercised by the professor in an academic or evaluative role, make voluntary consent by the student suspect.”

Report to The President’s Council on Women From the Work Group Examining the University’s Policy on Consensual Sexual Relations Between Faculty and Students The Ohio State University, 1/2005 8

Policies Of CIC And Benchmark Institutions (Appendix 3)

The 15 CIC and benchmark institutions take a variety of approaches to the issue of consensual sexual relations between faculty and students:

     

  1. . Three prohibit such relationships between faculty and students over whom the faculty has some professional responsibility and discourage such relationships with other students (Iowa, Indiana, and Arizona).

     

  2. . Five have policies similar to the OSU and AAUP policies-they strongly discourage but do not prohibit sexual relationships with students (Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin-Madison, Minnesota, and Texas-Austin). However, all five of these institutions, unlike Ohio State, do require that such relationships be reported.

     

  3. . Three neither discourage nor prohibit such relationships, but do require that they be reported if the faculty member has evaluative authority over the student so that that authority can be reassigned (Northwestern, Michigan State, and Illinois).

     

  4. . Two caution in their policies that such relationships can be problematic but neither discourage nor prohibit them (Illinois-Chicago and Purdue).

     

  5. . Two do not address such relationships in any way in their policies (UCLA and Washington).

Rational Supporting Policies That Discourage But Do Not Prohibit

The issue of regulating consensual sexual relations between faculty and students has been controversial throughout the country. Most colleges and universities have policies similar to that suggested by the AAUP and Ohio State’s policy-such relationships are strongly discouraged but are not prohibited.

The arguments against stricter prohibitions center on (1) the right of the student as an autonomous adult to engage in a relationship that is not prohibited by law; (2) preserving freedom of association for both sides of the relationship; and (3) implementation problems-how does an institution enforce such a policy? A number of articles summarize the arguments against strict prohibitions on such relationships. For more information see Appendix 4.

Climate Goals Enunciated In The Academic Plan And The Diversity Action Plan Support A Re-Examination Of OSU’s Consensual Relations Policy

The last revision of Ohio State’s sexual harassment policy occurred prior to the adoption of the Academic Plan and the Diversity Action Plan. Thus, the policy has not been considered within the context of the goals outlined in those plans. Such consideration is now appropriate.

The overarching premise of the Academic Plan is that “The Ohio State University aspires to become one of the world’s great public research and teaching universities.” The Academic Plan acknowledges that the environment in which we teach, learn, and research is critical to achieving our goal:

Report to The President’s Council on Women From the Work Group Examining the University’s Policy on Consensual Sexual Relations Between Faculty and Students The Ohio State University, 1/2005 9

Academic excellence will be enriched by an environment that mirrors the diverse world in which we live. Within this environment, we will come to value the differences in one another along with the similarities, and to appreciate that the human condition is best served through understanding, acceptance, and mutual respect.

The Diversity Action Plan (June 2000) also acknowledged the importance of the university environment when it listed as one of its six objectives creating “a supportive environment that is welcoming for all individuals” both in and outside of the classroom.

In considering how to achieve the climate goals specified in these plans, one must be mindful that inequalities of power exist among the individuals who comprise our university community. Unequal power creates vulnerability to abuse of power that can interfere with creating a climate characterized by understanding, acceptance, and mutual respect which is supportive and welcoming for all individuals. This inequality of power inherent with “consensual” sexual relations between faculty, staff, and students jeopardizes the development of our ideal environment.

Of course, power inequalities are intrinsic to university life.  One of the greatest power inequalities is between tenured and non-tenured faculty.  Such a power differentiation is supported by an array of universities from the elite research universities to the lower status teaching undergraduate colleges and universities.  Although there have been attempts to abolish or limit the numbers of tenured positions in any university, these attempts have been almost uniformly opposed by tenured faculty.  Unquestionably, abolishing tenure and replacing it with contract lectureships, would radically flatten the faculty playing field in terms of power, but tenured faculty, such as the ones in this Work Group, do not want equality amongst faculty.  And, of course, the Work Group does not propose any form of sexual prohibitions between faculty members, no matter how great the power differentiation is between tenured and non-tenured faculty.  I mention this at this point since it is clear that the Work Group is not really interested in diminishing extreme power inequalities in the university.  It would be hard for them to move on fellow faculty since it is taken for granted that faculty are adults, and one cannot attack the ability of faculty to provide consent.

Considerations supporting strict policies on consensual sexual relationships

One of the key considerations in determining whether The Ohio State University should adopt a stricter policy on consensual sexual relations between faculty and students is the issue of whether such a relationship can truly be consensual. For consent to exist, there must be the ability, the option, to say “no.” If a student feels overwhelmed by the rank, prestige, or powerful position of the faculty member, then true consent may not exist.

Of course, in many sexual relationships outside and inside the university, many people feel swept away when they first engage in amour.  So being overwhelmed for many is an intrinsic part of romance, love and sex.  In fact, this feeling of being overwhelmed may be sought out by the romantically inclined.  Are these persons not capable of providing consent?  Should the feelings of surrender and ovewhelmingness be prohibited and sanctioned by any institution?

True consent also may not exist in situations where the student is so influenced by the power, status, or prestige of the faculty or staff member that the student consents to the relationship only because of the power, status or prestige, and absent those would not consent.

If absent the power, the person would not consent.  An interesting idea, but totally a non-verifiable supposition.  In any case, cross-cultural research has demonstrated over and over again that women in general terms are more attracted to men with more resources. Proposing the idea that women should not be attracted to the more powerful would call for a radical overhaul of heterosexuality.  The writers appear to be blinded as to the the dynamics of heterosexual attraction.  Of course, it may be that the consent may be given by some only if the other has power, prestige and status.

For example, Professor David Archard (2001) examines the notion of “exploited consent”. Archard (2001) defines exploited consent as that which is “given because of the unequal nature of the relationship between two people”. The less powerful person consents to the relationship willingly and voluntarily, but only because of the position the more powerful person holds. If the more powerful person did not hold that position, the less powerful would not likely have consented. Archard (2001) describes the concept within the context of professional relationships:

I would suggest three characteristics of professional relationships that are relevant. The first is an ethos of intimacy, closeness, trust, openness, and confidence. The second is the relative dependence and vulnerability of the client. The third is the esteem, respect, and admiration that the client has for the professional. All of these dispose the client to be more open and receptive to the proposals of the professional.

If, Archard (2001)asks, the less powerful person would not have consented to the relationship absent the position held by the more powerful person, can this be true consent?

Again, the answer to the question is unknowable for any particular person in said situation.  However, given the nature of heterosexual attraction, unquestionably the vast preponderance of persons would consent, some quite enthusiatically.  And I can’t help but wonder how many would equally give up their right to consent.  I do not think that Archard speaks to that situation.

Professors and students, particularly graduate and professional students, share the same three characteristics that Archard (2001) attributes to professional relationships. Thus, one can question whether students truly can consent to a sexual relationship with a faculty or staff member.

One can question in numerous contexts.  Questioning is not the issue; prohibition is the issue.  I can question the viability of marriage as representing the best interests of men and women; prohibiting marriage is another matter.

And let us not forget the framework that Archard and the writers of this report employ, it is the professional, and in this case the professor, who is proposing, always proposing.  The student never proposes.  None of the above can entertain this notion.  Unquestionably, such appears to be a default assumption for the aforementioned.  And interestingly enough, as a professor, I seldom proposed, proposals were almost always initiated by the female student who the aformentioned in essence hold incapable of proposing.  In fact, I would go a step further, and state that consensual relationships would not flourish if there were not a significant number of females students who were at one time or the other attracted to one of their professors.  The writers could easily get what they want if they were able to reprogram their female students in their own image.   They may very well want to do this, but they are unable to do so.  So they end up running a power trip on female students.

An imbalance of power is inherent in the teacher-student relationship, as well as the relationship between a student and a staff member. The student may defer to the teacher or staff person as an expert, a respected figure whose authority is unassailable. This power imbalance can be further exacerbated by the existence of other factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, international student/scholar status, command of the English language, and previous sexual victimization.

It’s the same old rant; differential power precludes consent.  And the ones engaging in the rant want to take away power from others so some university administrators (police) can control students and professors.

The age difference that might be encountered in a faculty/staff and student relationship might also indicate a vast imbalance of power based on the cognitive and psychosocial development level of the student. A number of models of development of students during the college years raise questions about developmental issues that might interface with a traditional undergraduate student’s decision to engage in, and the experience of, a consensual relationship with a faculty member (Chickering & Reisser ; Sanford; Perry).

As they say, it is an age difference that might be encountered; of course, they know it might not be encountered.  There are older students and younger profs at Ohio State.  And they know that there are many older grad students, and they also know that the age difference between TAs and undergrads is minimal.  No recognition given to the might nots, and there are many, many might nots.

In Perry’s model, for example, most first- and second-year college students are found to be in the Dualism stage. The hallmark of this stage is a deferral to “authorities,” who are assumed to know the answers to all questions. It is the role of the authority to teach the student the answers and the role of the student to soak up all the information held by these authorities. The “classic” authority at the university is the professor, who is seen as older, wiser, and the possessor of all knowledge in the field (at least all knowledge that is currently known).

If these students are in this “Dualism” stage, this shows the failure of higher education to facilitate critical thinking and independent thinking.  Such should lead to educational reform, not to a sexual prohibition.  After all, no matter how widespread education as a form of indoctrination, there are still some who remain or become independent thinkers and automonous adults.  And there is simply no justification for taking away their autonomy because others are not autonomous.

 For a student who is a Dualist, and who is invited into a consensual relationship with a faculty member, a normal and natural conclusion might be to assume that the faculty member knows best and, thus, that the relationship is desirable and good for the student. Additionally, the Dualistic thinker might believe that such an informed and esteemed professor must see something “special” in the student such that the professor would even initiate such a relationship. A normal and natural Dualistic response would be to defer to the greater wisdom and knowledge of the authority figure. This view of the position of the professor and the role of the student necessarily compromises the student’s ability to analyze the situation at the same level as the professor. At this stage, the student is cognitively unable to process information at a higher level, which would allow for the questioning of the authority’s position and the testing of various perspectives (Hornsby, 2004).

Again it is authority proposing; this default assumption persists.  The student as a person cognitively unable to process information at a higher level could be applied to children but becomes a dangerous stereotype when applied to adult students or adults in general.  Such has been in essence the rationale for book banning and censorship since the vulnerable reader cannot deal with this these writings; too vulnerable while the censors suffer, of course, from no such vulnerability.

 In addition to relative cognitive development, we must not lose sight of other aspects of the “uneven playing field.” We would be naïve to think that characteristics of race/ethnicity, class, gender and sexual orientation do not affect the relative power that individuals bring to any interaction. Many authors and educators have extensively examined how these characteristics affect an individual’s ability to influence and be influenced, to exploit and to be exploited (Kivel, 1996; McIntosh, 1988; hooks, 1994).

I am not sure why gender and race is invoked here.  Are they concerned with racial solidarity or female faculty and students united in a sisterhood which eradicates the student professor boundaries?

Power, and hence the ability to give uncoerced consent, is also affected by the international status of the parties involved. It seems obvious that a student, coming to the United States from another country, with family and friends perhaps thousands of miles away, might feel less powerful than a United States citizen. Furthermore, student visas are often dependent on academic status and enrollment in specific programs of higher education, creating a strong motivation on the part of the student to try to please those who have the power to permit or deny such academic status. In addition, the ability to communicate clearly and to understand the English language, as well as American cultural customs, can also impact a student’s ability to recognize manipulative behavior and respond effectively. Wow!  This is stereotyping run amok.   And in these nativist times, such could be used as a rationale for banning foreign students who are not proficient in English and lacking in the ability to fend for themselves. Finally, if the student has a history of previous sexual victimization, this can influence the student’s ability to recognize and react effectively against sexual exploitation. Lowered self-esteem, feelings of disempowerment and the adoption of faulty coping skills are some of the negative psychological and behavioral outcomes associated with sexual victimization. These outcomes, paired with increases in high risk behaviors are often seen in college students who have survived sexual abuse, and can negatively impact the student’s ability to deal with the manipulative behavior of an authority figure (Miller, Moeller, Kaufman, DiVasto, Pathak, Christy, 1978; Finkelhor, 1984).

However, such is not unique for students.  Professors can also be in the same category.  As well as candidates for higher office. As well as for everyone.  Let’s bring in the sexual police to solve this problem!  But if we bring the police or the sexual police who will protect us from them?  Will the writers of the report step in to protect us from the protectors?  Throughout the writers never see themselves as being on a power trip, and having a naïve faith in the good university administrators (authority figures) to use their power judiciously.  I wonder if they now have faith in our president, President Bush, to use his authority judiciously granted him under the Military Commissions Act to detain whomever he deems an enemy of the state.

Personal Cost to Students and Impact on Educational Experience

In addition to the issue of exploited consent, a strong argument supporting a stricter policy is the cost to students who are involved in such relationships. Archard notes in his article that “what studies there have been suggest that the vast majority of students who enter into affairs with their lecturers suffer as a consequence. They do not subsequently report that they were glad to have had the experience. Quite the contrary” (Archard, 2001).

I will check out Archard’s article.  And in my next post I will present some citations that don’t come up with the same result that Archard came up with. In any case, no one denies that in student professor relationships that there are happy as well as unhappy endings.  What the banning advocates never produce are findings that students in these relationships end up unhappier than if they were in other types of relationships, such as in a relationships with fraternity members, or football players.  In a weird way, I think by their omissions the writers end up implying that these suffering students would be OK in other sorts of relationships.  For some, it may be the case, for others unhappiness may accompany them in all their relationships.

While many faculty and staff know of cases where a faculty/staff/student sexual relationship ended amicably, many of us also know of cases where the relationship ended in disaster with long-lasting negative consequences for the student, department, or institution.

Note that they view all these relationships as ending.  I guess it depends on what one means by “ending”.  The writers must know that student faculty marriages are commonplace but such marriages become unmentionable in this report.  And I find it interesting that the writers hold that students suffer from long-lasting negative consequences, no mention of professors suffering from such consequences.  Apparently the writers simply cannot imagine a male professor being hurt.  No empathy here. For them, professors involved in these relationships are robotic manipulators; they can never be hurt, disappointed in love. The writers consistently dehumanize male professors who are involved in these relationships.

In addition, the offices to which students turn for support are aware of some instances where particular faculty have engaged in a pattern of short-term sexual relationships over the years with a number of students, many of which have ended in disaster for the students. In some of these cases, the relationship did not appear to be the result of spontaneous attraction, but rather the outcome of the premeditated targeting, seduction and exploitation of a vulnerable student. At the end of such relationships, these students often experience severe emotional and psychological consequences, depression, and even suicidal behavior. Students may come to question their own academic accomplishments, wondering if their grades are the result of hard work and talent, or merely the “reward” for their sexual relationship with their professor. They may change majors or drop out of school altogether, sacrificing years of investment in their education and career.

Unquestionably, some instances of this do occur just as they occur in “civilian” life.  Such is the nature of freedom.  I would love a world where there is no manipulation, no rape, but such is not a rationale for taking away freedom, the freedom to decide who to date, who to marry. 

Moreover, it is not just the student in the relationship who is affected. Other students frequently feel negatively impacted by “consensual” sexual relationships between faculty and students: Whether or not there is favoritism in awarding of grades, financial assistance, or special opportunities, there may be the perception or suspicion of favoritism when a consensual relationship is present. This perception or suspicion can impact the extent to which other students in a class or program choose to apply for such opportunities or the level at which they engage in their program or the class (Hornsby, 2004).

Thus, for both the student in the relationship and for other students in the class or program, the quality of the educational experience is negatively impacted by such relationships.

Note how they start out by stating that “other students frequently feel negatively impacted”, then they end up with “other students” without any qualification, end up negatively impacted.  In any case, even if there were not any student prof romantic relationships, student complaints would continue to be rife in the university re favoritism.  I heard from students throughout my professorial career that  so and so prof gave me a poor grade because he or she does not like me, he favored the X student and I am a Y.  And one of the more frequent charges I heard was that so and so grade was received because my prof was a feminist or the student did not tow the feminist line.

In addition, in cases where the relationship ends badly, the faculty and staff, and even the reputation of entire programs and departments, can be negatively impacted. This can affect the ability of the institution to recruit and retain both students and faculty, as well as the ability of the institution to raise funding, both public and private, that is essential for continuing success.

Give concrete examples.  Give specific examples from the history of OSU.  If the reputation was effected, such means that this was known by a wider public, but the writers can provide no examples.

Finally, existing research on the prevalence and consequences of consensual sexual relationships supports the assessment, discussed above, of the damage students can suffer as a result. Existing research primarily investigates relationships involving a graduate student and a faculty member, including instructors, advisors, clinical supervisors, and research advisors. There does not appear to be any empirical research regarding consensual relationships between undergraduate students and university faculty or staff, excluding relationships between collegiate athletes and coaches. Almost all existing research focuses on consensual sexual relationships between female students and male faculty or staff members.

Studies by Pope, Levenson, and Schover (1979) and Glaser and Thorpe (1986) had similar findings, indicating that 17% of females with graduate psychology degrees had sexual contact with at least one faculty member during their graduate training. In the study conducted by Pope et al. (1979), one in four women who received a Ph.D. within six years prior to the study had sexual contact with an educator. Glaser and Thorpe found that two-thirds of these sexual contacts occurred before or during an ongoing working relationship between the faculty member and student. In a survey sampling female graduate students across academic disciplines, male faculty members asked 22% of graduate women on dates, and 60% of these women dated the faculty member. In this sample, 13% of the entire sample dated a faculty member at least once during graduate school (Schneider, 1987). Fitzgerald, Weitzman, Gold & Ormerod (1988) found that 26% of male faculty members across academic departments reported sexual involvement with female students.

OSU staff that counsel students who have been involved in such relationships report many disastrous outcomes for the students.

Of course, they find negative outcomes.  Counselors do not counsel persons who feel great about their relationships.  And here is a major problem with this report and that is that they never attempt to find anyone who feels OK about their relationships.  They solicit counselors and others who try to help the grief stricken, but they never bring forward any persons for whom the relationship has made a major positive difference in their lives.  Anyone can make a fallacious case by citing only examples in support of their position.  The writers see the world through negative tinged lenses.  Any positive relationships would simply be an aberration for them

 This assessment is supported by research that indicates numerous negative consequences for students who have consensual relationships with university faculty or staff members. Negative consequences include feeling coerced or exploited (Irvine, 1997; Plaut, 1993; Schneider, 1987), feeling that there was a “conflict of interest” or ethical problem with the relationship (Glaser & Thorpe, 1986; Jacobs, 1991; Tabachnick, Keith-Spiegel, & Pope, 1991), emotional and psychological consequences (Plaut, 1993), a compromised ability to get the most out of the learning experience (Conroe & Schank, 1989; Plaut, 1993), negative repercussions for one’s academic career after the relationship ended (Irvine, 1997) and in some cases, dropping out of the graduate program or transferring to another program or university, due to the negative impact of the relationship (Schneider, 1987). Other negative impacts on students were dealing with perceptions of favoritism from classmates, having difficulty establishing professional independence, and having disrupted the “ability to acquire those skills that are necessary to become an autonomous professional” (Conroe & Schank, 1989). Women who said “no” to social invitations from professors experienced negative consequences as well, such as receiving fewer opportunities for academic advancement (Conroe & Schank, 1989; Glaser & Thorpe, 1986; Irvine, 1997). Schneider (1987) found that 46% of women who were asked or pressured to date a faculty member “were fearful of jeopardizing their academic futures.” Glaser and Thorpe (1986) asked women to evaluate their feelings about the relationship at the time that it happened, and at the time that they were surveyed. While only 28% felt coerced at the time of contact, 51% agreed with this statement later. Likewise, 36% saw an ethical conflict with the relationship at the time, but 55% agreed with this statement later. Ultimately, 30% of women who had intimate relationships with professors felt somewhat or very coerced, and 33% believed that the sexual relationship “greatly hindered” the working relationship.

It is important to note that several important gaps exist in the research. Existing studies sample women with graduate degrees, or women currently enrolled in graduate programs. It is impossible to determine how many women discontinue graduate studies after such a relationship ends. A few articles and chapters give anecdotal or case examples, but few use quantitative research, and those that do rarely look at impact. For example, no study asked women who were in consensual relationships if they received a lower grade, had slower academic progress on thesis or dissertation activities, or had other specific consequences.

In spite of the gaps in the research, however, both the experiences of our Ohio State professionals who counsel students as well as scholarly research that does exist show the costs to students of being involved in sexual relationships with faculty members.

It does not show “the costs to students”; it shows the costs of some students, and systematically avoids dealing with the positives of such relationships.  The writers ignore empirical studies that are at odds with their stereotypes.  Two studies will be cited in my next post.

And in their report they do not allude to any issue regarding civil liberties, the right to be free from governmental regulation of  ones intimate life.

 

TO BE CONTINUED

 

 

—–
If you wish, you can write to me directly at dankprofessor@msn.com
Guest commentaries should also be submitted for consideration to the same email address.
Barry M. Dank aka the dankprofessor™
© Copyright 2007

 

 

December 18, 2007 Posted by | consensual relationships, ethics, feminism, fraternization, higher education, Ohio State University, sexual policing, sexual politics, sexual rights, student professor dating | 1 Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers

%d bloggers like this: