Michelle Locke of the Associated Press reports that the UC faculty is about to vote on whether or not to ban faculty-student relationships:

University of California professors are contemplating a different academic question this spring: Does dating your student flunk the ethics test?

Faculty members are scheduled to vote on new rules this spring, the culmination of a process that began well before the dean of UC's top law school left amid a sex scandal last fall.

The policy, which would make UC the latest in a line of universities to ban classroom courtships, highlights a topic often hush-hush in higher education -- the murky sexual politics of teacher-student liaisons.

"This subject has been shelved, back-burnered and ignored," said Laura Stevens, attorney for the student in the law school case. "It was necessary to have a public furor."

For background on the Boalt case itself, and for a detailed analysis of how one student's belated complaint against one professor has been turned into the basis for an entire program of institutional change, go here. My posts are in reverse chronological order, so you can start at the beginning by scrolling down to the bottom of the page.

It's worth pointing out that a sexual liaison between a doctor and a patient, or a psychotherapist and patient, could potentially result in the professional's removal from the profession. In many corporations, policies exist at least to try to limit liaisons between managers and subordinates -- if they become known, various remedies such as transfers or even termination of one or both may be applied (although such policies naturally may not be consistently applied, or may not be justly applied).

When I was in graduate school in the 1970s, liaisons between students and professors were pretty common. Nobody thought much about it then, but consider various implications: A has a liaison with Professor B. She isn't in B's class this semester, but might be later. But Professor C needs Professor B's support on the Blah-Blah Committee. Will C to anything to cross A? Doubtful. All just another little piece of the petty corruption that makes up the academic world. In most cases, the liaison between A and B is not unethical -- but there's something unprofessional about all of this frigging in the rigging that other environments fullhy recognize and attempt to discourage.

Indeed, when I see my alma mater, a "college" considering becoming a "research university" because the profs want graduate students, I can't help but think the availability of over-21 babes in classes may be one of the amenities the profs have in mind.

My understanding is that UC had long-since adopted the no-liaisons guidelines but never made them effective. To my mind, it's an illustration of the unwillingness of the academic profession to police itself realistically.

Whatever you may feel about libertarianism or academic freedom, if a sexual liaison potentially affects a grade, a degree, a committe decision, an administrative decision, etc. etc., then the potential for corruption is there.

It appears that academia is tracking the relationship management philosophy of most major law firms. These firms either prohibit or frown (really, really frown) upon sexual-relationships between attorneys and staff and between partners (or members as the case may be) and associates and paralegals.

In both instances office/school tension levels increase and morale levels decrease as faculty/students and attorneys/staffers find it increasingly difficult working out their sexual tension.

A possible solution: an academy/industry exchange program. The Sexual Liason Educational Exchange Program (or SLEEP) would encourage and foster sexual liasons between college studensts and attroneys. In return, SLEEP would encourage and foster simiiar liasons between Professors and paralegals and secretaries. Each University could assist in pairing students and faculty with a good match. At American University, for example, this pairing program would simply be known as AU-PAIR.

It is a win-win for all concerned.

I look forward with great eagerness to the first round of interviews for the program.

I took a class with my roommate, years ago. She screwed the prof and got an A, and I worked my butt of and got a B. So I went into him, complained, he argued and I went to the dept. head. I got an A, too. He got a reprimand. I've never forgotten him or her--and his slimey justification for giving her the better grade.

Stolypin, if you can get a grant for this, go for it. Otherwise, of course, the SLEEP program operates in the free market down at the local singles bar! Naturally if attorneys sleep with grad students in Poli Sci and professors sleep with law librarians, where's the overt harm? (The problem is, of course, that the attorney probably doesn't have the time to seek out a grad student, and the professor's too much of a dork to pick up a law librarian, but that's a different problem).

Although I'm certainly not in favor of faculty/student liaisons, I'm beginning to wonder exactly where the feminist/left thinks we should look for sexual relationships -- all that is apparently left is bars and yelling at people on the street.

Met my wife at work. When you meet a person at work you learn something about their personal habits. You know that that person has a job, and that's not always something that you can take for granted. You can take your time to observe another person at work.

Interestingly, the left has completely swapped positions in the space of 40 years. Worrying about sexual morality or decorum was labelled as hopelessly "bourgoise" in the 1960s. Now, the left seems obsessed with the various ways in which it can prohibit sexual expression. It's almost as if, now that the middle class has embraced porn and easy-going morality, the left had to take up puritanism. What's going on here?

When I was a T.A. circa '95, a very attractive A-student of mine came on to me on at least 3 occasions. I declined by playing dumb until someone could rescue me. When I was turning in final grades, the prof, an ardent feminist, noticed she gotten an A and remarked that she was both smart and pretty. When I said "tell me about it" and related what happened, the prof looked me straight in the eye and said "And you said NO! What the hell's wrong with you?!"

The assumption has gone from "you're both adults and if you're teaching, grading and recording your grading correctly you can easily prove there was no favoritism" to "we have to protect these naive young women from lecherous older men." In other words, academic nannyism is extending into the bedroom.

For that matter, I met my wife at work, too. But we were in different departments and at the same general level. And when we got married, I had to leave the company because she dealt with confidential information that would be awkward to deal with if I still worked there. So everything was on the up-and-up -- nobody kept their job because they were sleeping with so-and-so, and in fact I had to get another job because of potential conflicts.

The problem is relationships within a department, especially manager-subordinate, or professor-student, attorney-staffer, etc. etc., where obviously preferential treatment and corruption can be involved. The conventional definition of sexual harassment is either a direct quid-pro-quo deal, sex for preferential treatment, or creating a hostile atmosphere in which one group is demeaned. Conventional sexual harassment law simply enforces what ought to be good policy. It isn't really a feminist issue. Feminists can make things unpleasant, but bees can ruin a picnic, for that matter.

There have been successful sexual harassment cases -- and changes in policy due to threats of cases -- in which people said A is screwing B, that creates a situation in which I'm expected to screw my boss to get the same treatment. This is all to the good. Normally it shouldn't prevent people from meeting a potential spouse at work -- leaving aside the cases I've seen where gold-digger screws boss, gets him to divorce wife to marry gold-digger.

On Tipsy's comment, someone may feel a justification for limiting sexual liaisons might be to protect the students -- and in some cases this might in fact be warranted. But the colorations of these relationships are infinite. The student may not warrant an A, or a favorable decision of some other sort, but may feel having sex would get it. In which case the professor might be the "victim", if blame could be laid.

But the bigger victims are the ones who worked for their grades or promotions or degrees or whatever the old fashioned way. I would not take the comment of the female professor as in any sense clarifying the situation -- she is a successful (by the fact that she is a professor) player of a corrupt game, and she's interpreting the rules as she's seen them. This is not any moral endorsement of a course of conduct.

J.B. I personally agree with you. Even after I found out my prof didn't care I never dated or otherwise hooked up with anyone I was teaching. I also personally think nothing is wrong with homosexuality but I object to speech codes etc. that force that point of view on to others.

I think the point my prof was trying to make was more a long the lines of what Stephen said, "Worrying about sexual morality or decorum was labelled as hopelessly 'bourgoise' in the 1960s." And that if the A-student saw a man she liked, she should go out and get him.

But thanks for working the word "laid" into the discussion ;-)

But this portrays the attractive and intelligent A student as some type of sex-seeking automaton. He's a hunk, no matter if he's my TA or my gynecologist or my priest or rabbi or whomever -- I'm gonna go for the gusto. One thing this could do for the individual is damage her reputation for intelligence and hard work -- whether she worked to get the A in the course or not, it will be assumed she got the A because of the liaison. By the same token, the TA might insist to the skies -- here, look at this excellent research paper -- that sex had nothing to do with it. But the same feminist professor winking at the potential now might get the same TA fired for the same behavior if it suited her, and the university would probably back her up. (Never trust a liberal was what we said in the 1960s, and it's true now as it was then!) The prof is speaking from an amoral universe here. She makes the rules, and they'll be different tomorrow it it suits her, and it will.

I used to kick myself for not taking advantage of equivalent situations, but in retrospect I was completely correct.

If you can't screw a student and still give out a well-deserved C+, you have no business being a teacher.

A great example of "let's all sit around trying to solve an unsolvable problem so we don't have to worry about the solvable ones."

Last time I checked, the Roman Catholic Church was still dead set against priests havng sex, but that doesn't seem to have slowed them down much. It's not solvable, guys.

In fact, the more draconian the rules, the more they'll be flouted--as is the case with plagiarism. Most schools have heavy duty sanctions for students caught cheating, which is one reason why they're not enforced.

Most of the supposed "issues" militating for such prohibitions dissolve on close examination, because there are too many variables involved.

Instead of calling this an example of the nanny culture, we ought to call it an example of the nanny goat culture.

And anyway, how does the UC faculty have time to worry about this problem when they should be busy passing resolutions deploring world hunger, global warming, and the new McCarthyism.

I agree it's not solvable but I would like to make one other point.

I ran into one of the male students I'd gotten chummy with outside of class one evening and out of nowhere he asked "So are you're hooking up with Tina right?" This wasn't true, but because Tina (who wasn't the A-student btw) was attractive and always asking for help after class. The rest of the class just assumed something was going on.

If there had been a sexual conduct code, it would have only taken that rumor to grow a little bit for me to get into a lot of trouble. In other words, I probably would have been afraid of my own students, and would not have been as willing to help them after class.

I don't know how to take this last comment. Is it a friend joking around? Is it true? Is it an inside joke I'm not aware of? Whatever it is, it is typical of the general lack of ability to form coherent, logical arguments. If it meant anything, then no one could ever offer a good argument for something in which they believed or had an interest. Only athiests could be good theologians and other such amusing combinations.

The whole point of logical argument is that we don't care who Erin is (or Nobody), only if we are swayed by her arguments.

To Nobody@noplace.com:

I have deleted your libelous comment about me and have recorded your IP address for future reference. I am saddened to learn that a former student of mine would stoop as low as you did here last night, and further saddened--though not surprised--to see that you paired your eagerness to spread lies about me with a refusal to sign your name.

That's assuming he/she/it even was a former student, as opposed to a random troll. It's too bad a few jerks have to foul up these commenting systems for everybody.

Just so everyone is aware I am not Nobody@noplace.com. I post here often and do not want to be shunned. Maybe I should change my cyber-nom. Thanks.

My secondhand experience with supervisor-student liasons was that it was awkward and tense for everyone in the group. Looking back, it was "one of those things," ranking somewhere in the middle among the other eccentricities of the people involved. Yeah, the work/study environment could have been nicer. Like some other posters, I'm at a loss to see how draconian policies would improve matters. Peer disapproval of mentor-student relationships already exists (at least in the sciences); maybe that's the route to take.

(Now, off-topic) -- Erin, thanks for deleting Nobody's comment, whatever it was. Open comments on web-logs are inherently fragile and subject to abuse of all kinds. As an example, see the archives of littlegreenfootballs.com. As the site got more popular, trolls and insults and gloats began to crowd the worthwhile posts. A few months ago, I stopped reading the comments. By contrast, the thoughtfulness and civility of most back-and-forth at this site have been something of an oasis.

I think it's a mistake to take the position that "you can't do anything" about a problem. The Roman church effectively tolerated concubinage among its priests until opportunists like Savonarola and reformers like Luther made the position untenable, and something was done about it. Did it solve the problem 100 percent? Of course not. Did it help things? Of course it did.

By the same token, every state has disciplinary hearings against physicians for screwing their patients, but even though it happens, it's relatively rare, and (1) penalties probably serve as deterrents in some cases, and (2) those who do it and get caught are removed from the profession, both, it seems to me, laudable objectives.

I've seen the observation made here and there on web sites that sexual liaisons in work environments (the "consensual" type) are a form of narcissistic indulgence that serves to perpetuate the power of those who shouldn't have it. It's often as much about power as straight-ahead sexual harassment -- "consensual" or not, it likely would not happen if one of the parties was not in a position to offer protection or privileges to the other. This is petty corruption, the sort of thing that eventually destroys the credibility of governments, churches, or other institutions.

In fact, if readers support the idea of merit-based grading, hiring, and promotion, the absence of policies against sexual liaisons among faculty and students would be a major factor preventing merit-based assessments -- the hypothetical cases I've cited and the actual experience of posters like Rachel support this.

The fact that something won't solve a problem 100 percent, or even 80 percent, is not an argument against trying to reduce the problem. If there is no policy against a bad practice, you've done nothing even to make a try to solve the problem.

In addition JB, even a hypothetical reduction of 1% would be worth it where there are no real costs to implementing the new rules. Which begs the question, what are the costs of such a regime? Does enforcement impose a large burden on the administration? Will false accusations be used to harm careers? Will healthy develpoment of student-teacher srelationships outside the classroom be chilled? I think these potential costs are worth considering.

On the other hand, if one has a moral objection to faculty-student sexual relationships, then perhaps no costs would be sufficient to overcome the need of instituting a ban on such relationships.

Others have posted that law firms and corporations already have policies against liaisons. In particular, if law firms have policies against it, they would be most likely to have considered the pros and cons, including the need to control for false accusations. In fact, a similar case has been an issue recently for the Catholic Church, with one faction arguing that we basically can't do anything about priests molesting children due to considerations like false accusations, and another faction becoming increasingly enraged at the unwillingness of the church to take reasonable measures to reduce the problem. I don't believe "we can't do anything about it" is a responsible or moral position in either case, and potential objections to fornication per se are not at issue.

A professor is in a position of power and trust. By virtue of his or her position, the potential for abuse of that power and trust exists, including the potential for exploitive (on both sides) sexual liaisons. Society increasingly controls for these in other fields. Even Stanley Fish has acknowledged the need for greater responsibility and attention to such issues by faculty. I think it's increasingly unreasonable -- and immoral in a sense beyond some putative puritantical objections to fornication -- not to take measures to control for this type of abuse and corruption in the academic world.

So why is it that two supposed adults can't be expected to conduct their mutual relationship in an intelligent — adult — manner? How long does the average college course last? Five months, or so?

Here's some boilerplate: "I'm sorry, young attractive [female] who is taking my course toward a degree that will open doors of opportunity to you in the future. Although I'm extremely attracted to you — and flattered by your attraction to me — I'd prefer that we not taint your education or my career, and I'd also prefer that our relationship grant you the respect of its being one between equals. Therefore, why don't we wait until you've completed my course? Perhaps after a summer back home with your parents and high school friends (perhaps even the ex-boyfriend who went directly into the workforce and gained in muscle and resources), you'll return and decide that my chance for sexual gratification has passed. But for the sake of personal respect and professional propriety, that's a risk that I'm willing to take as a mature adult."

For my part, this is the attitude that I would hope to find among professors of their own accord. However, there are many variations of policy, discipline, and enforcement that might encourage it. And they all ought to be under the purview of the individual institutions — not the libertines or prudes in the general population.

JB - the Catholic Church, I think, has different moral considerations, not the least of which is the moral need to police the clergy for fornication as well as the sanctity of sacred vows. Regardless of a man or woman or boy's consent (or lack thereof) to engage in sexual acts with a priest, a wrong (a sin) is committed. This sin is a sin even if no bad press or pyschological harm occurs.

Colleges and univeristies are worried about bad consequences that may occur. If no one's grades are affected, what harm has occurred? In so far as the question is a practical one, and not a moral one, then some cost-benefit analysis is appropriate. In the case of high-profile univeristies, one of the benefits that may outweigh all other costs (and even other benefits is the positive press, or lack of bad press.

As an interesting side note: the California rules of professional conduct for attorneys do not bar attorneys having sexual relationships with their clients (like many other states do). Instead, the rule only requries abstinence where the relationship would create a conflict of interest or inhibit the attorney's ability to represent his client. Of course, this may be the result of a self-regulated profession.

I cetainly agree with you that claiming less than a 100% success rate is not an argument.

I think what we have here is a fairly plain syllogistic case. The more I think of it, those in any position of power and trust are governed by explicit policies that militate against sexual affairs with those for whom they have responsibility. We've covered doctors and managers (the law firm policies cited by stolypin cover liaisons among non-peers within the firm, not lawyer-client, though obviously the spirit of the whole deal is eliminating conflicts of interest -- very reasonable, it seems to me).

Protestant clergy who get into affairs with parishioners -- even though in these days their bishops or other superiors likely would not otherwise object to discreet fornication -- are in fact transferred and otherwise dealt with, again reasonably, because an abuse of a position of power and trust is involved.

Utilities typically have policies against their service personnel having sex with customers, consensual or not, again because an abuse of power and trust is involved.

The objection by Catholic laity and some clergy to the handling of the priest child abuse cases was not that the priest was sinning (theologically this makes no difference; the sacraments are just as valid from a sinful priest) -- the objection was to the abuse of trust. We turned our kids over to Father O'Brien assuming he would not betray this power and trust, not that we assumed he would not sin.

So, syllogistically, society has an interest in controlling the sexual relationships of those to whom it gives positions of power and trust. Professors have a position of power and trust. Therefore society -- in the form of the individual institution, at least at the first level -- has an interest in controlling the sexual relationships of professors with those to whom it entrusts them.

I don't see where the problem is with this position, and as I continue to reflect on this, it's odd that professors have apparently always been such an unregulated exception.

I think the asnwer to your question is that professors are self-regulated and insulated from the public in ways that the other people you mentioned are not. I think this is why attorneys in CA can still have sex with clients.

As for your syllogism, JB, does it apply to all professors, regardless of how attenuated their academic relationships may be with a given student?

Regarding whether professors are self-regulated, I think a number of cases in several areas have for several years been raising the question of whether professors' self-regulation is working, or sufficient. The academic profession was extremely reluctant to police itself in the Bellisles (wish I had a good spellcheck here) matter. The popularity of "speech codes" and other administrative actions that violate due process suggest that insulation combined with an apparent absence of checks and balances has become an increasing problem. If there was ever a situation in which society tacitly gave universities the ability to self-police, it's plain that a social consensus is beginning to form that the current state of affairs isn't working.

But self-policing means nothing without consistent policies. One of the things that's astonished me about the UC proposal is that it reflects a basic absence of ethical standards in a key area, where these standards do in fact exist in other professions, as well as in ordinary work environments. A feature of professions is that they self-police in some areas -- fine!! Medicine has clear standards in the Hippocratic oath: don't screw the patients. Legal ethics says yuo can screw a client if there's no conflict -- fine, but the standard is there, and the disciplinary board will decide in the end if you had a conflict. The problem with the academic profession is that no standard exists.

As Stanley Fish has pointed out, the time is arriving in which the extreme derelictions that can result in loss of tenure are simply no longer the only standards that can control professional conduct. There have been several cogent essays regarding the results of the Iraq war that suggest that society is re-assessing its relationship to the academy (and other institutions) insofar as their judgments have been so far out of whack in connection with important events. I think the demand that professors move into alignment with other professions in sexual ethics as well as other areas will be an inevitable result of this re-assessment, like it or not.

A couple of posts have suggested that the issue is minor as long as a class only lasts three or four months. This may be the case of an undergraduate who only sees a prof or TA once in the course of their stay. But graduate departments are a very different case, and the conflicts are more important. You may never have a particular prof in a class, but that prof could be on your Ph.D. orals, or on any of several committees that could determine if you can stay in the graduate program, keep your assistantship or fellowship, receive an award, or even be hired onto the tenure-track faculty. A sexual relationship would affect any of these decisions (and in my observation, arguably has). Ph.D. candidates can stay in a department for many years, and the potential for conflicts would exist at any of a number of stages. So I would be very skeptical of saying a relationship was in any way "attentuated" as long as there was any possibility of a conflict in any decision regarding the person's career.

I esp. love the profs who'll fuck a student but then give that student anything less than an A (to prove how fair they are). Of course, any student who'll fuck for less than an A, has seriously self-esteem issues.

Yeah, I remember this one. I feel differently now.

I'm against student-teacher relationships. Academia be damned, it is unprofessional. Plus, all of my girlfriends slept with their professors, which ires me so greatly I'll never marry a damned, dirty one of them. Yes, they were only trying to get a better grade, so they tell me... but my heart cries whore, a thousand times, slow and fading, whore. Thus I learned why they saved those words, those books of poetry and wit, the writ of far greater men than those who profess to know; why they've hoarded them like thieves, become bankers upon that stolen gold, and leveraged themselves high amidst the broken pillars of antiquity to sit like vultures upon the ribs of ages -- so that they might whisper those words to your future wife while she gnaws upon their filthy, rat-infested beards.

Kidding. Lol.

People confuse the issue of voluntary good judgment with coercive administrative control of adults' private and intimate lives. Students and faculty have found love, affinity, success in assortative mating, comfort, and satisfaction with each other for centuries, although Abelard paid a steep price. College and university students above the age of consent are free to make what lawful choices they wish in their lives, and laws---including university regulations---should be kept off their bodies. Administrations worry about preference and "the sanctity of the classroom" in matters sexual, but almost never worry about grades being given on the basis of ideological or political conclusion, about the professor who grades being the professor who invites students to political demonstrations, or about a grade inflation in the humanities that leaves students in the sciences penalized by the rigor of their choices. Further, the current system of student evaluations leads to inappropriate grading by professors desperate for high approval as they approach tenure. It is the politicization of sexuality by the "caste system" theorists that truly motivates the crocodile tears shed over the alleged consequences of voluntary relationships between consenting adults at a university. Further, the merest reflection on human nature would conclude---alas---that the worst routine inflation of grades occurs as courtship (even if only if the professor's mind) rather than as reward for consummation. Again, the issue is profesionalism and judgment, which can be addressed openly among colleagues. We do not need the awful regulation of voluntary adult sexuality, let alone the awful attempt to regulate adult love.

I am writing an opinion article about student teacher relationships for my college paper. Thank you to everyone who has posted their opinion. Sites like this one really help me gain some perspective

The UK teaching unions - and many university administrations - have policies whereby if a sexual relationship develops (or indeed any other intimate kind) the professor concerned is expected to withdraw from any activities - teaching/grading/advising/expressing an opinion on committees/etc - that might affect the academic progress of the student concerned. This has been standard practice for a decade or more and is generally recognized as the best way of reconciling individuals' rights to decide for themselves what relationships they do/don't want and the need to ensure that the academic process is not compromised.