LAST WEEK, the College of William and Mary adopted a policy banning all romantic student-faculty relationships. This move came in response to a "tell-all" article published in GQ magazine, written by a former William and Mary professor who had an affair with a married student whose husband later committed suicide. The University has had a similar policy since 1993, which prohibits relationships between students and any faculty members who may have direct authority over that student. William and Mary's policy is much more encompassing and bars all "consensual amorous relationships." The magnitude of this new ruling restricts the freedom of both faculty and students. William and Mary should reevaluate and modify their policy.
It is understandable that William and Mary's Board of Visitors would want to react quickly and forcefully after the publication of such an embarrassing article. The GQ piece is negative advertising for the school, and the board of visitors was engaging in its best efforts to remedy the situation. Yet, the board did not fully consider the ramifications of its actions.
Most, if not all of the students at William and Mary are over the age of 18 and considered to be legal adults. As adults, they can be drafted into the army, have the right to vote, and can be tried as adults in a court of law. By the same token, they are held solely responsible for their actions and should they decide to engage in romantic activity with another adult, they are regarded as consenting adults. The policy of any university should not interfere with these rights protected by state and national laws.
In addition, the policy restricts the civil liberties of faculty and students. Under the Bill of Rights, citizens of this country are allowed to associate with whomever they see fit. As the cliche "love is blind" implies, physical and personal attraction can strike any person randomly. In our country, any two adult citizens legally can see each other in a romantic context regardless of race, religion or age if they share each other's attraction. However, students and faculty at the College of William and Mary now are not allowed to do so. By barring any amorous contact, William and Mary is imposing a de facto form of segregation.
|
The policy at the University is more reasonable. As stated in the University's conflict of interest policy (www.virginia.edu/provost/conflict.htm): "It is [also] the responsibility of faculty members to avoid engaging in sexual relationships with or making sexual overtures to students over whom they are in a position of authority." By restricting relationships to faculty who are directly in authority over a student, the University is attempting to avoid situations that could lead to conflicts of interest. At the same time, it makes no other provisions as to amorous relationships and does its best to protect the rights of students and faculty to engage in romantic relationships.
In addition, the University's one restriction can be construed as a practical policy instead of an intrusive one. Although people like to think of themselves as reasonable beings, when passion or emotion becomes involved, their logic deserts them. In such cases, dishonorable acts such as cheating or blackmail may seem justified. Although at the University, the honor system forbids any type of cheating, the University's current relationship policy is in place to avoid questionable incidents from arising in the first place and causing any costly legal or disciplinary trouble.
Many people may construe faculty-student relationships to be disgusting or questionable. It is commonly regarded that in a relationship with a large age difference, one person is probably trying to take advantage of the other. However, that can never truly be ascertained unless legal proceedings are filed. As long as the two people in a relationship are over the age of 18, that relationship is completely legal regardless of how people may interpret traditional cultural norms against it.
William and Mary's new policy barring amorous relationships between faculty and students must be modified. It threatens to destroy careers and reputations for something that is completely legal. Perhaps the University's policy would be a good starting point for the revision. Granted, faculty-student relationships can lead to severe problems, but the only instance in which these issues could affect a university would be in incidents where the faculty member involved wields authority over the student. The College of William and Mary should scale down the degree of its policy and focus its jurisdiction on situations that could lead to major problems, as the University has done.
(Alex Rosemblat's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Commit to protecting noncitizens on Grounds
By Editorial Board | 7 hours agoThis has grown into a pattern of failing the rights of noncitizens to due process and overstepping judicial checks and balances on the executive branch.
CASTAGNO: Intensifying security theater in schools does not make them safer
By Conall Costagno | March 24, 2025Adding more stringent security measures will not solve the underlying issue, which is that schools must do more to invest in students’ mental health.
CARTER: Take care selecting U.Va. Health’s next CEO
By Nathaniel Carter | March 22, 2025In this sense, neglecting to publicize the report itself further erodes public trust in U.Va. Health.
