next »

[Sexy Guy]

There's been a lot of discussion lately about how damaging professor-student relationships can be for the student (thanks, in part, to the recent Chronicle Review article on this topic).  The upshot and group consensus seems to be that even though the students involved are consenting adults, it is still an abuse of the professor's power since power cannot be removed from the equation explaining why/how the relationship began in the first place.  The general argument seems to be that since the relationship didn't occur in a vacuum, there's no way to exclude the possibility that the professor's power over the student contributed significantly to the studen's interest in the professor.

This seems like a broad generalization to make, and automatically assumes the worst-case scenario and gives neither the students nor the professor the beenfit of the doubt of being thoughtful responsible people.  Moreover, if the issue is "abuse of power,"  then why are we not outraged when ANY of the following people EVER have relationships:

Police
Politicians
Any government official
Any two people in the same workplace who do not hold identical positions

since there is almost always a power imbalance in these relationships.

(OK, OK, jokes about the fact that politicians shouldn't be allowed to reproduce notwithstanding).

This is clearly painting with too broad a brush, but it seems to follow the argument that many make for "outlawing" student-professor relationships.

My point is not that students and professors should be allowed to knock boots without anyone batting an eyelash.  It's that these relationships should be discouraged and prevented for ETHICAL reasons related to evaluation, i.e., avoiding conflicts of interests.  The focus on the unfair power imbalance in these relationships is inappropriate--it's not our business to make rules protecting students from an imbalance of power in their relationships, just like it's not our business to make rules to protect students from abusive relationships with university athletes (who, arguably, have more power on campus than faculty).

So, I don't buy the power argument.  I think it's an excuse to enforce some pretty whack puritanical ideals, and a poor excuse, at that.

***Disclosure Statement*** I am very definitely AGAINST student-teacher relationships and would love it if both students and teachers were able to avoid these situations.  But to automatically categorize these relationships as a form of abuse is silly.

[LarryC]

So why is this in "Job Seeking Experiences?"

[Lit Prof]

Well said SG

[Anon]

OK then...  Just think of it as the same as dating someone you work with- always a bad idea because of all the possible messy situations that it can turn into.

Besides, you're way overanalyzing this thing. Lots of people use the power argument / conflict of interest argument / ethical argument terminology interchangeably, without thinking about getting into all sorts of literal arguments and analogies like you have.

I'm always fascinated by people who think their dating pool has to include their classroom or office space..... It's a big world out there, folks.

[kate]

SexyGuy thinks the world is infused with power -- power is everywhere! -- like a first-year sociology student who fails to see that not all power is the same. Which yields a very unsophisticated view of situations such as amorous relationships between unequals, mostly due to a failure to acknowlegde that factors such as proximity in relationship, positions within the same bureaucracy, role of evaluation, make a difference.

[BM]

oooh - Kate smart. Me thinks Kate is sexy (grunt)

Now that you've shown us that you are a sociologist and how well you work within the sociological lexicon, how about noting that SG has a valid point? Who cares really if a student and a faculty member who is not his/her professor date? Power imbalance? Really? Power in a relationship exists independent of professional relationships - the "boss" in the work place may be the "b*tch" in the bedroom.

[kate]

Actually, I'm not even in the social sciences. Nice try though.

[rattus domesticus]

Professors dating (or sleeping with) students is NEVER appropriate. Never. The few who do it get ostracized by colleagues. And the even fewer who marry the student are NEVER forgiven by colleagues. It's just not right.

And puritanical beliefs aside, who wants to date or marry a student? It's like going out with your own child. I mean, Yes, some grad students are smart and have lives, but they are learning from you... the professor. How is that a peer relationship?

Count me out of this rationalization folks!! I've never done it. Will never do it. And I don't respect those that do. Want to hold the line in an industry that is getting sneakier and sneakier? Refuse to date colleagues that date students. Let the sleaze stand alone.

[%sig%]

[U R INSANE]

Stop talking to yourself, Troll.

[Artsearch]

I thought the recent Chronicle article on this topic was great, I agree with every word of it, and I'm considering sending it to a few people who need to be hit with a two-by-four re: this issue.

(Right on, rattus!)

[nonjudgmental]

I thought the PC/lefty types used to say "consenting adults" was all that mattered when trying to thwart *traditional* mores.

Now, they come up with rules that wouldn't have even bothered the most puritanical traditionalist!

I say consenting adults is consenting adults.  Some will judge those who engage in premarital sex, others will judge various other sexual behaviors, and now apparently people judge CONSENSUAL relationships among legal ADULTS merely because of a power disparity.

[%sig%]

[seen it]

I know a couple that began this way a long time ago -- everybody judged it until they got married and lasted a very long time (still together).  They have children and seem quite happy.

Now, most people who judged it concede they have vindicated themselves, though some wackos still say it's wrong, despite the track record retroactively proving the legitimacy of the relationship.

[%sig%]

[curious]

Do people think this should be *illegal*, against institutional policy, and/or just socially unacceptable?

[%sig%]

[wacko]

I know a psychologist who started dating his patient (then 18 years old) and married her three years later. They have been happily married for over fifteen years and have three children.

I guess I'm one of those "wackos" that still finds this disturbing regardless of the outcome.

seen it wrote:

> I know a couple that began this way a long time ago --
> everybody judged it until they got married and lasted a very
> long time (still together).  They have children and seem quite
> happy.
>
> Now, most people who judged it concede they have vindicated
> themselves, though some wackos still say it's wrong, despite
> the track record retroactively proving the legitimacy of the
> relationship.
>

[seen it]

Sorry if my particular colloquialism may have been a tad harsh -- I just meant to express pure shock and dismay at the fact that some people would *still* not concede "legitimacy" after SO many years of marriage and family to vindicate the validity of the relationship, even if only in retrospect...

What do people have to do?  Be married 50 years?  Is the fact that the "wrong" people fell in love simply NEVER going to be OK to some?