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.