Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 21, 1993)
OPINION Student-professor relations should be prohibited By Mary Birmingham and Sandra Newman ho official stance taken by adminis trators at the University, including .A. University President Myles Brand, is that "consensual" intimate relationships that occur between professors and students are private matters of no concern to the University. We disagree. Students' success is heavily dependent on the approval of their professors Pro fessors influence the granting of gradu ate teaching fellowships. They have sig nificant psychological power, as students are dependent upon them for validating their intellectual achievements, in fact, for validating their intellect. Professors can influence a student's social environment and can be effective in creating a positive academic environment or an alienating one. And finally, professors' power extends beyond the campus in the form of the letter of reference. When sex between a professor and a stu dent occurs, generally at least two related power relationships merge and amplify — teacher-student and male-female. Race may also be a factor. The gender powers (including the power to abuse), which men in general exercise over women, is enhanced and exemplified by the bureau cratic and professional power they exer cise within the academy. Without both education and restriction, this combina tion of gender and hierarchical powers tain become disastrous. Research done by P Rutter, author of Sex in the Forbidden Zone (1989). indi cates that most men who engage subor dinates sexually, habitually do so. Sev eral departments at the University have at least one such "predator" sort These pro fessors prey upon particularly vulnerable students, routinely taking advantage of women from other cultures, incest victims, rape survivors or relatively unsophisti cated young women Such students place an extreme amount of trust in professors with thoir psychological, social and intel lectual development. Taking sexual advan tage of this "transference," as it is defined in psychiatric practice, has fawn uniformly uphold by courts as "malpractice or gross negligence" (Corgan v Muehling. 1991). No such legal restraints have been placed upon college professors In many univer sities, including this one, professors remain "officially" free to abuse their stu dents under the auspices of "freedom" and ignorance of the abusiveness of the pow er they exercise. High administrators at the University continue to ignore the power imbalance Imt ween students and professors and argue that "consensual" relations should not be regulated because they are private, and because a professor cannot Iw expected to be aware of a student's vulnerability or his tory. However, well-published research has shown that as much as one-third of the female population has been raped and one fifth has suffered incest prior to college age, so any reasonable person should expect there to be more than one person in a given classroom who has suffered such assaults. Under such circumstances, if a student capitulates to a professor's persistent demands, this should not qualify as "con sent." Professors who regularly violate a stu dent's trust and deference, and the Uni versity administration that allows that to continue, refuse to recognize the differ ent* between anxious, fearful capitulation (giving in) to demands and genuine con sent, just as a rapist refuses to recognize the difference between "yes" and "no.” The fact that some professors lack this understanding should provide a strong argument foroffit rally prohibiting sexual relations between students and professors Instead, it is used ns a reason to excuse the exploitation of students The dominant argument against a non fraternization policy is that sexual rela tionships area "private matter." Howev er. men's right to "privacy" is not a justifiable defense against charges of abuse and exploitation of women Domestic vio lence. date rape and sexual harassment can no longer be hidden behind a veil of men's "privacy." Auess to young women's bodies is not a perk to be made available under the name of "hi ademii freedom” and "privacy " While* the most convincing argument against restricting intimate professor stu dent relations is the apparently success ful marriages that do. on rare ix i asions, result from such relations, such arguments pale when measured against arguments in favor of a reasonable non-fraternization policy. First, if a woman does consent to relations with her professor, the relation ship violates a professional ethic long rec ognized in business. Such relationships present a conflict of interest and fairness Kven if the relationship is one of love rather than exploitation, it is improper so long as the professor is in a position of authority over that student. There is no apparent reason why such Ultimate relations cannot he postponed until the student professor relationship is dissolved Therefore. the slippery slope argument, claiming that efforts to protect one group of women from unwanted advances will unjustly limit the freedom of others to voluntarily engage a particu lar professor in a relationship, is not a sound argument In the absence of more < ompelhng argu ments against a non-fraternization policy, and considering the abuses against women that occur regularly on this i ampus, them is no justifiable reason for the adminis tration not to implement a policy pro hibiting student-professor relations. Businesses, government, and now uni versities are being held legallv liable for the appropriate maintenam e of the pow er relationships that their institutions cre ate Restrictions upon abuses of the pow er are the administration's responsibility. Current conditions require a responsible pro active response, rather than an incom petent reactive response University administrators need to follow the lead of their counterparts nt Tufts University. Humboldt State University. Oberlin Col lege and others, who have recently placed restrictions upon relationships between fat ully and the students whom lie or she "instructs, evaluates, supervises or advis es.” Under these conditions. Tufts' policy claims, "Voluntary consent by the student is suspect.” It seems universities are now having to face what businesses have tieen trying to face for several years It’s time for a change. Mary Birmingham is a graduale student in philosophy at the University Sandra Ne*vman is a former University philoso phy student, who is now a graduate stu dent at another university in the Midwest. Exercise your brain with THE MALLARD MAULERS] THE SODAQUACKERS J If you know four students (or if you are four students), sign up now to compete with other wild and crazy adventurers in College Bowl, the varsity sport of the mind! It’s an exciting game that tests your knowledge in everything from literature to science, from music to film. Two teams with four players each square off in fast-paced rounds dedicated to making you look either extremely intelligent or extremely embarrassed. You might end up representing the University of Oregon regionally and even nationally! So. get a team up (name it anything you want - the wilder the better) and exercise your brain! Register: October 25th-29th. All dormitory teams sign up with your RA, everyone else sign up at the EMU Rec. Center, or call 346-3711. Preliminary Rounds: Wednesday. November 3rd. Campus Finals: Wednesday, November 10th. Cost: $3 per person or $ 12 for a team.