NOVEMBER 16, officials at the College of William and Mary banned sexual relationships between faculty and undergraduate students. The consideration and formation of this regulation is not only a ridiculous waste of time but also an unjustified abridgement of members of the William and Mary community's basic personal freedom. Policies that forbid student-teacher relationships only in cases of direct teacher authority are far superior to absolute bans. To protect the interest of the William and Mary community, the insipid new policy must be abolished.
The ban on what William and Mary spokesmen laughably refer to as "consensual amorous relations" is overly intrusive in obtaining its main goal. William and Mary officials say the policy's purpose is to protect relationships between students and faculty. For these relationships to be protected and for objectivity to be ensured, professors only need to refrain from romantic involvement with those students directly under their supervision. This does not require the full force of the College's across-the-board ban on all student-faculty relationships.
The drastic new William and Mary decree is not in the best interests of the College community but rather a desperate attempt to protect the school's image. One year ago, in an article in GQ magazine, a William and Mary professor wrote of his own protracted romantic involvement with a married undergraduate student. This sparked some controversy and concern among College officials who worried that their school would be miscast as a haven for illicit affairs, where older professors preyed on helpless young female victims. One official admitted as much by suggesting that the GQ article was the main factor that prompted the College's decision.
The situation portrayed in the GQ article is of an affair between a single professor and a student. According to the article, the student was married and the affair eventually resulted in her husband committing suicide. This relationship was inappropriate and William and Mary shouldn't have tolerated it. However, this type of involvement is not that which the new policy mainly affects. Such extra-marital affairs are covert to begin with, and if the two participants do not respect state marital laws, they are unlikely to obey the decisions of the school board. Because the GQaffair already was illegal under existing adultery laws, it was not a public relationship. The new ban will fail to prevent harmful non-public relationships while destroying those that are open and legitimate.
Of course the professor's writing deserved some response and some careful scrutiny. But it did not warrant the categorical ban that it triggered.
At the heart of the matter, the ban is a terrible over-correction. Like the motorist who causes a horrendous accident after jerking the wheel too fiercely to get back on the road, William and Mary officials responded in panic and actually have worsened their situation.
The new policy will cause suffering and intrusion in the lives of autonomous adults whose personal habits pose no threat to William and Mary's educational integrity. An authority must have exceptional reason to interfere in the affairs of two people who love each other. Although some student-faculty relationships may not be so serious, destroying even the potential for such love is unforgivable with the shoddy justification to which William and Mary now clings.
The new William and Mary ban is a knee-jerk response to what administrators perceive as a threat to their school's image. In claiming to protect student-faculty relationships, William and Mary officials are making an erroneous assumption regarding exactly what is and is not acceptable in these relationships. This is not due to their own misjudgment but to their frightening willingness to compromise the rights of their students and faculty in the superficial interest of their school's image. Although an institution's reputation is important, it does not outweigh the right of individuals to take part in innocent personal relationships. If William and Mary officials continue to sacrifice basic human liberties in the name of their reputation, perhaps they do deserve to have it marred.
(Anthony Dick's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)
(Anthony Dick's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)By Anthony Dick
Cavalier Daily Columnist
NOVEMBER 16, officials at the College of William and Mary banned sexual relationships between faculty and undergraduate students. The consideration and formation of this regulation is not only a ridiculous waste of time but also an unjustified abridgement of members of the William and Mary community's basic personal freedom. Policies that forbid student-teacher relationships only in cases of direct teacher authority are far superior to absolute bans. To protect the interest of the College community, the insipid new policy must be abolished.
The ban on what William and Mary spokesmen laughably refer to as "consensual amorous relations" is overly intrusive in obtaining its main goal. William and Mary officials say the policy's purpose is to protect relationships between students and faculty. For these relationships to be protected and for objectivity to be ensured, professors only need to refrain from romantic involvement with those students directly under their supervision. This does not require the full force of the College's across-the-board ban on all student-faculty relationships.
The drastic new William and Mary decree is not in the best interests of the College community but rather a desperate attempt to protect the school's image. One year ago, in an article in GQ magazine, a William and Mary professor wrote of his own protracted romantic involvement with a married undergraduate student. This sparked some controversy and concern among College officials who worried that their school would be miscast as a haven for illicit affairs, where older professors preyed on helpless young female victims. One official admitted as much by suggesting that the GQ article was the main factor that prompted the College's decision.
The situation portrayed in the GQ article is of an affair between a single professor and a student. According to the article, the student was married and the affair eventually resulted in her husband committing suicide. This relationship was inappropriate and William and Mary shouldn't have tolerated it. However, this type of involvement is not that which the new policy mainly affects. Such extra-marital affairs are covert to begin with, and if the two participants do not respect state marital laws, they are unlikely to obey the decisions of the school board. Because the GQaffair already was illegal under existing adultery laws, it was not a public relationship. The new ban will fail to prevent harmful non-public relationships while destroying those that are open and legitimate.
Of course the professor's writing deserved some response and some careful scrutiny. But it did not warrant the categorical ban that it triggered.
At the heart of the matter, the ban is a terrible over-correction. Like the motorist who causes a horrendous accident after jerking the wheel too fiercely to get back on the road, William and Mary officials responded in panic and actually have worsened their situation.
The new policy will cause suffering and intrusion in the lives of autonomous adults whose personal habits pose no threat to William and Mary's educational integrity. An authority must have exceptional reason to interfere in the affairs of two people who love each other. Although some student-faculty relationships may not be so serious, destroying even the potential for such love is unforgivable with the shoddy justification to which William and Mary now clings.
The new William and Mary ban is a knee-jerk response to what administrators perceive as a threat to their school's image. In claiming to protect student-faculty relationships, William and Mary officials are making an erroneous assumption regarding exactly what is and is not acceptable in these relationships. This is not due to their own misjudgment but to their frightening willingness to compromise the rights of their students and faculty in the superficial interest of their school's image. Although an institution's reputation is important, it does not outweigh the right of individuals to take part in innocent personal relationships. If William and Mary officials continue to sacrifice basic human liberties in the name of their reputation, perhaps they do deserve to have it marred.
(Anthony Dick's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at adick@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 3 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
