next »

[wild_rose]

I hate to admit that I was thinking this when I read the few paragraphs of the story that I can, and saw his picture.

Sure, we're not supposed to judge based on appearance, but dang, the guy has a mirror at home, doesn't he?

I can't read the whole article, but I found the second sentence quite interesting: "He says he has never had a serious romantic relationship with one of his students."  (Emphasis added.) 

Yes, I agree that this says volumes....

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I can't read the whole article, but I found the second sentence quite interesting: "He says he has never had a serious romantic relationship with one of his students."  (Emphasis added.) 

This might help, at least for a while:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=xynnmymtbDpwXPjQ3GKwWKVyvdbysWzQ

Oh, I also found this:
http://www.today.ucla.edu/voices/paul-abramson_romance/ - DvF

[georgia_guy]

If this author is even remotely right from a legal basis, then the precedent is somewhat distubing. After all, if the bill of rights prohibits Universities from restricting relationships, which are not specifically protected as rights in the first 8 amendments, would the same not also invalidate any campus anti-gun policies? After all, we have a second amendment that specifically addresses the right to bear arms, and no amendment that addresses the right to shag students.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Hey, an actual argument!  I agree that "want to protect students, therefore a no-gun policy" and "want to protect students, therefore a no-fraternization policy" would seem to be cut from the same cloth.  Aren't no-gun policies being challenged in the courts? - DvF

[georgia_guy]

Thing is, employers have lots of policies that infringe on our freedoms. Some have restrictions on clothing, hairstyles, carrying weapons and I have even seen a retail company that banned all handbags except for seethrough clear plastic ones, which have to be presented for inspection when you leave.

It gets back to the point that the courts have been pretty consistent in allowing the employment relationship to require voluntarily sacrificing individual rights.

[infopri]

Again:  The Bill of Rights addresses only what the government may or may not do regarding any rights we hold.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It says nothing about what universities--especially private universities--may or may not do.

Whether one buys the rest of Abramson's arguments or not, rest assured that his Constitutional analysis has absolutely no merit.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Again:  The Bill of Rights addresses only what the government may or may not do regarding any rights we hold.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It says nothing about what universities--especially private universities--may or may not do.

Just to be clear: are you saying that no entity other than the government can be guilty of abrogating an individual's constitutional rights?  So if a University tells its students that they may not gather in groups of 3 or more on the quad to discuss (say) some pressing political matter, they are not stepping on the rights of free assembly and free speech? - DvF

[georgia_guy]

Why do I not see a picture?

[daurousseau]

The constitution protects professor-student love?

Did love exist when the Constitution was written? I seem to recall Stephanie Coontz arguing that it didn't. But what the heck, the author defending student/faculty romance is a psychologist, not the sort of brain that lets history slow it down.

[artsearch]

I read the article online (missed the photo) to see if it was the hogwash I thought it would be. It was.

I'm kind of surprised the CHE would print it--but I suppose the editors thought it would effectively stir controversy.

[infopri]

Again:  The Bill of Rights addresses only what the government may or may not do regarding any rights we hold.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It says nothing about what universities--especially private universities--may or may not do.

Just to be clear: are you saying that no entity other than the government can be guilty of abrogating an individual's constitutional rights?  So if a University tells its students that they may not gather in groups of 3 or more on the quad to discuss (say) some pressing political matter, they are not stepping on the rights of free assembly and free speech? - DvF

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.  What I'm saying is that it is not the Bill of Rights (nor any other part of the U.S. Constitution) that prevents an employer from stomping on your rights.  There are many statutes (both federal and state) and a body of case law governing what employers may and may not do vis-a-vis their employees.

Search and seizure makes a good example.  The Fourth Amendment prevents the government from searching through your papers (which includes email) without a warrant based on probable cause.  The Fourth Amendment has no bearing, however, on whether your employer can search through your email, even your personal email (if it went through the employer's system).  The courts have determined that such searches are permissible, with no probable cause of any sort, under very broadly defined conditions.

An employer might very well (legally) be able to prohibit its employees from assembling in the way you describe.  There are indeed legal limits to such restrictions; for example, if the "pressing political matter" is unionization of the employees, there are laws in place restricting the employer's actions and rules.  But these laws are not based on the Constitution.

That's what I'm saying.

[avaya]

Why do I not see a picture?

You missed out - it brought to mind the phrase, "A picture is worth a thousand words."  You could look at his picture and you didn't even need to read his article.

[felix_unger]

The snap judgments and hidebound thinking sometimes exhibited on this board by supposedly openminded critical thinkers can be truly amazing.

[busyslinky]

He gets into the issue of fraternization and the workplace.  He says he has no problem with that because of the issue of litigation and liability.  He stated that universities do not do this and make it clear and upfront.  He would be okay with these types of rules if they made them clear as workplaces do.   The issue here is that he is against mandating morality (e.g. the 'power' difference argument). 

You will have to read his book to determine what his arguments are and what type of research he did into constitutional law. 

[wild_rose]

IMHO, there are too many lines being crossed when a faculty member dates a student, especially an undergraduate (I would have to say that grad students are a different story).