next »

[shhhh]

nonjudgmental wrote:

> 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!

Gee, "nonjudgmental" seems pretty judgmental.

I'm a PC/liberal lefty/bleeding heart who's seriously considering whether I should give in to temptation and sleep with a student who's definitely been sending me "interested" signals. He's finally done taking coursework with me, and has only one semester left to finish up his minor. We're 7 years apart in age, so its not like I'm Mrs. Robinson. If I wait til he's an alum, will that be more ethical? P.S. I'm totally serious.

[nonjudgmental]

got me...I should have said "less judgmental" since I'm really only judging the judgers in this case, which is of course admittedly a form of value judgment (as social conservatives are only too quick to point out)...

of course, I could theoretically keep it non-judgmental if I didn't say the judgers were "wrong" in a normative sense, but rather simply pointed out the hypocrisy...

[%sig%]

[hmmm]

Opinions vary quite a bit on this...basically everyone has to decide for themselves whether they're secure enough in their beliefs to go ahead.

I care about:

1) Following any relevant laws
2) Following my OWN moral beliefs
3) Following any social/institutional norms that I strategically decide must be followed for pragmatic necessity

[%sig%]

[tigerlily]

nonjudgmental, what you're viewing as "hypocrisy" may not be such. Some of us are genuinely skeptical that someone in the subordinate position and/or relatively immature can fully "consent" to a sexual relationship with an older superior. It's theoretically possible, but there are so many other factors of power and danger and suchlike that I have grave doubts that either party (professor or student) enters the relationship with realistic or ethical expectations and assumptions.

I assume that the PC rallying cry of "consenting adults" you are referring to involves same-sex relationships. If I'm way off base, let me know. I see that as involving a totally different set of dynamics and ethics. So for me it's not "hypocrisy"--it's called "nuance," "no one at risk for harm" or even "a totally different issue altogether."

[nonjudgmental]

Point taken, tigerlily -- but while you can indeed be "skepical," I don't think you can rule out the possibility of legitimacy -- which means non-consent (or "un-full" consent, whatever that would be) cannot simply be presumed!!  

I don't know how law or policy could take such "probabilities" or "degrees of consent" into account, so people should really just live-and-let-live unless somebody can demonstrate a *true lack* of consent sufficient to trigger some definable legal standard, i.e. direct coersion.  Sexual harassment law requires a "quid pro quo" (or at least a blatantly hostile environment).

If you're old enough to vote, marry, get drafted, smoke, gamble, sign contracts, etc., then you're old enough to make your own relationship decisions without various paternalistic policies freaking out about life's subtle inevitabilities like power imbalances...

[%sig%]

[tigerlily]

I do hear what you're saying, nonjudgmental, but your point about "if you're old enough to do X then you're old enough to do Y' doesn't always hold true. (One can vote for president long before one may legally run for president, after all.) Professor-student relationships are frowned upon for much the same reasons as are relationships in the workplace: there's a power imbalance. That "quid pro quo" may be blatant, or it may be very, very veiled indeed--so veiled that even consenting parties may not discover the "conditions" of the relationship until well into it (or until they try to break up). The ramifications can (and do) ripple outward to harm the rest of the workplace or campus community. And finally, it's not why we're here, whether "here" is the classroom or the office or whatever.  Just my final $0.02.

I also hear those on the right side of the political spectrum voicing criticism about prof-student relationships, so why pick solely on us lefties? It's not like we typically advocate for a free-for-all orgy among whoever, wherever, whenever. Well, not usually....

[nonjudgmental]

It's not that any of our concerns are totally invalid, it's just that I think our very discussion here proves there's considerable gray area, so I'm only arguing for not *blanketly* saying it's *automatically* wrong without even looking into the possibility of a legitimate relationship...

If at any point something is truly nonconsensual, then most of us would stipulate to the premise that that's wrong.  Short of that, it's problematic to pre-judge a potentially legitimate relationship...

I think the right criticizes the relationships because they are extramarital, etc., not because of the power imbalance -- that (by itself) is not deemed intrinsically wrong to anyone but some on the PC left...

[%sig%]

[Artsearch]

from nonjudgmental:
"...I'm only arguing for not *blanketly* saying it's *automatically* wrong without even looking into the possibility of a legitimate relationship..."
***
So who is to be the arbiter of the relationship's legitimacy? The Dean, the President's Cabinet, the Board of Trustees (oh, and the obvious choice, Student Affairs)? Surely not. I think the default position in the institution should be to prohibit. If they must be together, they can at least wait until she graduates.  Certainly a "legitimate" relationship could withstand and perhaps even benefit from that kind of delayed gratification.

____________________
and on another point...

"I think the right criticizes the relationships because they are extramarital, etc., not because of the power imbalance -- that (by itself) is not deemed intrinsically wrong to anyone but some on the PC left..."
***
I beg to differ that being disturbed by the power imbalance is a view held only by the far left.

[MF]

When Clinton was impeached, one French politician claimed that access to women was one of the reasons one wants power in the first place.

I don't have a lot to offer the guys, but the leverage I hold over their grades and law school futures is one of the few carrots I can hold out.  I refuse to let anyone take this away from me.

[nonjudgmental]

I agree that a power imbalance is POTENTIALLY a problem, but not intrinsically or automatically.  Sexual assault or quid pro quo sexual harassment is true non-consent and thus truly wrong by most decent people's moral standards (we all have to judge *some* things I guess).

[%sig%]

[Rob]

Just to share a real world experience, a good friend of mine (full prof) dated and married a grad student from the same school.  They just had a kid, and apparently are doing quite well.  I think his colleagues have had issues with the relationship, but we (grad students) didn't.  At least that was the vibe I got.  It is certainly an unusual relationship, but power wasn't an issue, and they seem to love each other.  The full prof isn't the typical person though, he will occassionally socialize with the grad students (few of the profs do that).  

Anyway not all of these relationships end up badly (it helps that neither he nor she has been previously married).