The Professor and the Undergrad

[laughing dog]

At Northwestern University, the policy is pretty clear:

When undergraduate students are involved, the difference in institutional power and the inherent risk of coercion are so great that no faculty member or coaching staff member shall enter into a romantic, dating, or sexual relationship with a Northwestern undergraduate student, regardless of whether there is a supervisory or evaluative relationship between them.

(source: http://policies.northwestern.edu/docs/Consensual_Relations_011314.pdf)

So, in the case of undergraduates, no dating etc.... between professor and student is acceptable. The policy for professors and graduate students is more nuanced.

The possible repercussions are:

If any faculty, staff, or student of Northwestern violates the terms of this Policy, disciplinary action will be taken in accordance with relevant disciplinary procedures contained in the relevant handbooks, policies, procedures, practices, or contracts. Violations of this policy will result in disciplinary actions, which can include, but are not limited to, written warnings, loss of privileges, mandatory training or counseling, probation, suspension, demotion, exclusion, expulsion and termination of employment, including revocation of tenure.

(same source as above).

 

[Derec]

If you want to ban relationships where there is a possibility of coercion you might as well ban all relationships. Especially when you define "coercion" very broadly.

It isn't just coercion. It messes up the entire dynamic in a classroom if one of the students is fucking the teacher.

I was objecting to the "possibility of coercion" reasoning. I agree there is definite conflict of interest in the situation you describe. However these policies go much further than banning relationship between students and professors in the same class. Especially in larger schools with 10,000+ students and hundreds of professors many have nothing professional to do with each other and there is no rational reason for a blanket ban.

o you just assume female students filed them? The text says "students".

I think it's very likely they were female. But even if some of them weren't, it doesn't change what I wrote.

 

[ronburgundy]

The absurd Title IX cases illustrate how such regulation often do more harm than good. They give dishonest people with ulterior motives a weapon with which to intimidate and coerce others, which can be for the purpose of a payday, a political statement, or to blackmail the person.

The concern about relationships causing bias are also misplaced. Whether or not there is a relationship, if their is merely interest or attraction (which cannot be regulated), then any bias is as or even more likely to happen than if their is an open relationship. In fact, a regulation just means that if a relationships occurs that the professor will give the student even more favoritism out of fear they student might blow the whistle. IOW, as with most things driven underground by rules, the opportunity for one party to harm and take advantage of another is greater.
Also, the cultural climate has changed a great deal and it is a rather embarrassing thing for a prof to be known to be dating an undergrad, and it is not that common now. Combined with the realities of social media and the immediate public cries for hanging upon any accusation, any student actually being coerced or harmed in any way does not need a blanket preventative regulation to protect them, they just need a twitter account.

 

[Nexus]

Combined with the realities of social media and the immediate public cries for hanging upon any accusation, any student actually being coerced or harmed in any way does not need a blanket preventative regulation to protect them, they just need a twitter account.

Its not just the student in the relationship that has the potential to be harmed. If that student is receiving favoritism in grades, research opportunities etc then all the other students under that professor are being harmed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't just coercion. It messes up the entire dynamic in a classroom if one of the students is fucking the teacher.

I was objecting to the "possibility of coercion" reasoning. I agree there is definite conflict of interest in the situation you describe.

It doesn't have to be a conflict of interest, merely the potential viewing of it being a conflict of interest.

However these policies go much further than banning relationship between students and professors in the same class. Especially in larger schools with 10,000+ students and hundreds of professors many have nothing professional to do with each other and there is no rational reason for a blanket ban.

True, Paris had that relation with the teacher in Gilmore Girls, so why not. Wait... what? What is the basis for starting a relationship in college if you aren't a students teacher? Are teachers supposed to just walk around and browse? Perhaps go clubbing?

Additionally, there is still a rational reason. Just think of a school, where most of the profs are sleeping with students. Does that give an image of an Honorable University? Would parents want their kids going to a school where their son or daughter might be doing a professor that is their own age?

o you just assume female students filed them? The text says "students".

I think it's very likely they were female. But even if some of them weren't, it doesn't change what I wrote.

Yes it does, you mocked those criticizing the idea and filing suit as being "delicate flowers".

- - - Updated - - -

Combined with the realities of social media and the immediate public cries for hanging upon any accusation, any student actually being coerced or harmed in any way does not need a blanket preventative regulation to protect them, they just need a twitter account.

Its not just the student in the relationship that has the potential to be harmed. If that student is receiving favoritism in grades, research opportunities etc then all the other students under that professor are being harmed.

And unless you are doing strictly multiple choice tests, how exactly do you disprove favoritism. It opens up a large can of worms and it is a ton easier to just keep it out of the equation instead of trying of regulate it.

And you'd have to regulate it because people are paying $10k, $20k, $40k a year for their kids to go to these schools.

 

[ronburgundy]

duplicate

 

[ronburgundy]

Its not just the student in the relationship that has the potential to be harmed. If that student is receiving favoritism in grades, research opportunities etc then all the other students under that professor are being harmed.

One student getting a better grade has no effect on other students grades. Getting an otherwise undeserved and limited research opportunities is a potential problem. However, an actual open romantic relationship doesn't make such bias much more likely, and probably less so compared friendships, unrealized attraction, or romantic relations driven underground by regulations. If the relationship is less secret and not in itself already breaking the rules, then the prof is more likely to be careful to avoid special favors because people will be watching for that.

And unless you are doing strictly multiple choice tests, how exactly do you disprove favoritism. It opens up a large can of worms and it is a ton easier to just keep it out of the equation instead of trying of regulate it.

For reasons I explain above, bans do not keep it out of the equation, they make favoritism more likely.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And unless you are doing strictly multiple choice tests, how exactly do you disprove favoritism. It opens up a large can of worms and it is a ton easier to just keep it out of the equation instead of trying of regulate it.

For reasons I explain above, bans do not keep it out of the equation, they make favoritism more likely.

You'll need to back that claim up. I don't believe it. As I noted myself, favoritism becomes an issue not from actual favoritism being there, but the illusion of it possibly existing and the near impossibility of disproving it.

Adding sex into the equation is just asking for trouble. Lots of it.

 

[ronburgundy]

For reasons I explain above, bans do not keep it out of the equation, they make favoritism more likely.

You'll need to back that claim up. I don't believe it. As I noted myself, favoritism becomes an issue not from actual favoritism being there, but the illusion of it possibly existing and the near impossibility of disproving it.

Adding sex into the equation is just asking for trouble. Lots of it.

You'll need to back that claim up. You are claiming something that presumes that people do not do favors for friends, people they like, or people they are attracted to, and only do favors for people they are having sex with. It is a claim refuted by every relevant fact of human interaction.

As for favoritism in open sexual relations (without bans) versus in secret sexual relations resulting from the bans, my claim merely assumes that colleagues and administrators will pay more attention to and thus be able to notice potential favoritism if they know their is a romantic relationship than if they do not because it is kept hidden due to regulations. Do you seriously deny that people pay more attention to something when they aware that it exist? Since all professors will be conscious of this undeniable fact of human cognition, they will be cautious about showing any favoritism. If they already breaking a much bigger regulation by having a banned relationship and they think people are not aware of it because they are hiding it, then giving favors is a small infraction by comparison and less likely to be noticed by others, thus more likely to be given. Again, do you not accept the basic fact of psychology that once a person breaks a rule, they are more willing to violate other rules, especially lesser ones?
Finally, the ban turn any such relationship into a weapon and leverage that the student can use to gain favors. Anyone who has been a student or a teacher knows that students are seeking favors far more than teachers are seeking to give them. The Title IX cases here show how students will take advantage of these rules for personal gain. Thus, the rules do little to decrease favoritism because they do nothing to lower most of the types of "relationships" (including one way attraction) that fuels favoritism. And the bans increase favoritism in 3 ways: 1) They give students coercive leverage to demand favors, 2) They make getting caught for giving favors a lesser deal relative to the more severe wrongdoing of violating the ban to begin with, and 3) They drive relations into secrecy where any potential favoritism is less likely to be noticed and the parities involved know that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You'll need to back that claim up. I don't believe it. As I noted myself, favoritism becomes an issue not from actual favoritism being there, but the illusion of it possibly existing and the near impossibility of disproving it.

Adding sex into the equation is just asking for trouble. Lots of it.

You'll need to back that claim up. You are claiming something that presumes that people do not do favors for friends, people they like, or people they are attracted to, and only do favors for people they are having sex with. It is a claim refuted by every relevant fact of human interaction.

No real sense of perspective there.

As for favoritism in open sexual relations (without bans) versus in secret sexual relations resulting from the bans, my claim merely assumes that colleagues and administrators will pay more attention to and thus be able to notice potential favoritism if they know their is a romantic relationship than if they do not because it is kept hidden due to regulations. Do you seriously deny that people pay more attention to something when they aware that it exist? Since all professors will be conscious of this undeniable fact of human cognition, they will be cautious about showing any favoritism. If they already breaking a much bigger regulation by having a banned relationship and they think people are not aware of it because they are hiding it, then giving favors is a small infraction by comparison and less likely to be noticed by others, thus more likely to be given. Again, do you not accept the basic fact of psychology that once a person breaks a rule, they are more willing to violate other rules, especially lesser ones?
Finally, the ban turn any such relationship into a weapon and leverage that the student can use to gain favors. Anyone who has been a student or a teacher knows that students are seeking favors far more than teachers are seeking to give them. The Title IX cases here show how students will take advantage of these rules for personal gain. Thus, the rules do little to decrease favoritism because they do nothing to lower most of the types of "relationships" (including one way attraction) that fuels favoritism. And the bans increase favoritism in 3 ways: 1) They give students coercive leverage to demand favors, 2) They make getting caught for giving favors a lesser deal relative to the more severe wrongdoing of violating the ban to begin with, and 3) They drive relations into secrecy where any potential favoritism is less likely to be noticed and the parities involved know that.

And presuming that open boinking won't lead to any in classroom problems, a ridiculous assumption, we fall back onto the "Do parents want their college aged students getting fucked by profs their own age?"

 

[Derec]

"Do parents want their college aged students getting fucked by profs their own age?"

It is not their business what other consenting adults do with their bodies.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

"Do parents want their college aged students getting fucked by profs their own age?"

It is not their business what other consenting adults do with their bodies.

But if they're paying for their daughter to attend a course and the daughter doesn't go to the class but instead just gets an A by sleeping with the professor, aren't they entitled to some sort of refund?

 

[laughing dog]

"Do parents want their college aged students getting fucked by profs their own age?"

It is not their business what other consenting adults do with their bodies.

That non-sequitur brought to you by a childless adult.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Do parents want their college aged students getting fucked by profs their own age?"

It is not their business what other consenting adults do with their bodies.

They may feel otherwise with the whole paying a boatload of money for college.

 

[Derec]

It doesn't have to be a conflict of interest, merely the potential viewing of it being a conflict of interest.

And mere "potential" justifies an overly broad regulation?

Yes it does, you mocked those criticizing the idea and filing suit as being "delicate flowers".

And you think that can't refer to male students?

 

[Derec]

They may feel otherwise with the whole paying a boatload of money for college.

And how does that entitle them to control who their adult children are having sex with?

That non-sequitur brought to you by a childless adult.

1. It is not a non-sequitur, it's a direct response to a point made by the "American Rank and File Communist".
2. Do you have children? How old are they?
3. Do you think it is your business to determine who your adult children have sex with?

 

[Derec]

But if they're paying for their daughter to attend a course and the daughter doesn't go to the class but instead just gets an A by sleeping with the professor, aren't they entitled to some sort of refund?

Which is why I think it's appropriate for colleges to ban relationships between students and their professors, but not students and any professor.
Besides, such sex-for-grades schemes are academic fraud and the professor should be fired and the student expelled. That is a much bigger problem than how parents feel about their daughter's choice of sex partners.

 

[Bronzeage]

My mother slept with a professor for 21 years and no one raised an eyebrow.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My mother slept with a professor for 21 years and no one raised an eyebrow.

Well, perhaps if she hadn't and studied instead, she'd have passed the course on the fourth or fifth try instead of retaking it for more than two decades.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And mere "potential" justifies an overly broad regulation?

Yes, based on the likelihood of litigation down the road, most certainly yes. A Teachers, don't fuck the students 1/3 your age rule seems reasonable.

Yes it does, you mocked those criticizing the idea and filing suit as being "delicate flowers".

And you think that can't refer to male students?

*sigh*