Ottawa Watch: Concordia: Where It's OK for Profs to Have Sex With Students

Friday, April 03, 2009

Concordia: Where It's OK for Profs to Have Sex With Students

Today, I complained to the Dean of Arts about a fellow Concordia university teacher who was allegedly involved in a sexual relationship with a student. The alleged affair is common knowledge among students in one of the university's departments.
I believed I had a fiduciary duty to report what I had heard. To me, this kind of behavior is extremely damaging to the university. I thought I was like a high school teacher who had evidence of sexual or physical assault or exploitation. Turns out I was wrong.
I am quite scandalized by this. The idea of, say, a 40-year-old prof and an 18-year-old student having a "relationship" just boggles the mind. I have a 14-year-old daughter. In four years, she could be "dating" some prof at Concordia, one who may be deciding her marks, sitting on committees deciding whether she gets scholarships, internships, or admission to grad school, and who may be asked to write the letters of recommendation that are the grease of the wheels of academics.
(This latter type of service makes up about a third of the workload of a full-time prof and is an essential but unsung part of the job.)

Quite frankly, I have found academia to be the most disfunctional and downright corrupt thing I have ever come into contact with. Here's a group of people who point their finger at the ethics of scientists, soldiers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, journalists and so many others, then write rules for themselves that are so morally indefensible, hiding behind a completely bogus "consenting adults" concept.

This is the reply I got back from the Dean of Arts, David Graham. Apparently, the Senate of Concordia has considered the issue, and it's OK for profs to have sex with students. Everyone's supposed to shut up about it unless the student complains. Guess where my kids aren't going:

My letter to the Dean:

Dear Prof. Graham,

I have heard from eleven of my female students -- in unprompted conversations -- that a (rank redacted) professor in the (department redacted) is having, or recently had, a sexual relationship with a student.Whether the allegation is true or not, I believe the fact that the rumour now pervades the (department redacted) needs to be addressed. If the professor is guilty, the matter should be dealt with according to policy. If not, the rumour itself needs to be dealt with to prevent unwarranted damage to this (person)'s reputation. (Identifying material redacted) I wish to see that this case is treated with utmost fairness to everyone involved. I wish to meet with you and (department head's name redacted) sometime in the week after Easter to discuss the situation.

This is the Dean's response:

Dear Dr Bourrie,

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. You should be aware that "Concordia does not forbid intimate [consensual] relationships between faculty and students". We recognize that such relationships are intrinsically problematic, and strongly advise both students and faculty members against engaging in them, but they are not forbidden. You should see:

http://rights.concordia.ca/problems.relationships.shtml

If a student approaches you about a matter proscribed under Concordia's Code of Rights and Responsibilities, you should advise him or her to or consult the Advisor or examine the procedures governing how to file a formal complaint:

http://rights.concordia.ca/consult.shtml

http://rights.concordia.ca/problems.shtml

I would strongly caution you and other colleagues against becoming personally involved in any such matters, but to encourage students to take perceived issues to the Advisor.

I hope this is helpful to you. Best regards, DG

David Graham -- Provost and VP, Academic Affairs
Concordia University | Montreal, Québec | Canada
+1 514 848 2424x4847 | david.graham@concordia.ca

My response:

Dr. Graham,

That's outrageous. Your answer is completely unacceptable. The power imbalance between a professor and a student is such that sexual relationships cross the boundaries of exploitation.

I will bring this matter to the attention of the president of the university.

Quite frankly, the conduct and attitudes of administrators and professors at Concordia borders on the bizarre.

Mark Bourrie MJ, PhD
Contributing Editor, Ottawa Magazine

The Dean's response:

Dear Dr Bourrie,

You have misunderstood my position.

I quoted the University's policy, not my own point of view. Whether you or I personally agree with the policy or not is not the issue.

Please be careful to make this distinction in any further correspondence you may address to me or to others, and be particularly careful not to attribute views to me that I have not expressed. DG

I am left pondering the Nuremberg Defence, the idea that functionaries are clear of blame when they enforce or facilitate immoral policies that they do not agree with, but emanate from a higher authority. I guess I won't be going back there next year.

UPDATE:
Here's U of T's policy. At least they recognize the conflict and say the affair must be disclosed, but look at the weasel word "should" in the first paragraph. I would prefer "must":

University policy does not prohibit sexual relations between consenting adults. However, if you form any kind of intimate personal relationship with someone who teaches you or otherwise makes academic decisions affecting you, that teacher has a conflict of interest. She or he should disclose the conflict of interest to their academic supervisor - usually the Chair of the department or the Dean of the faculty - and should ensure that your work is graded by a colleague.

If your teacher does not disclose the conflict of interest, s/he is not simply in breach of University policy: s/he is showing a negligent disregard for your academic interests, and placing the legitimacy of your academic accomplishments in question.

UPDATE:

An American university professor/blogger doesn't get it. He says I want to "coerce" people. Actually, no. I want them to act professionally. I don't want them to come on to, date and/or sleep with someone, then grade their work, decide on their scholarships, etc.

If sex between profs and students is so right, why do the profs involved keep it a secret? I figure anything that can't take public scrutiny tends to be illegal, immoral or fattening. U of T gets that aspect, too, and it's a good start.

59 Comments:

At 4/03/2009 06:52:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Wow.
At 4/03/2009 07:20:00 PM , M.Y. said...

I thought you weren't going back anyway... but you're right. Totally wrong and gross. Profs are supposed to be mentors that we look up to, not fuck buddies! (scuse the language).
ICK.
At 4/03/2009 08:20:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Out of curiosity... is this *code of rights* by Concordia the only one like it? What is the % of universities who abide by this code of conduct pertaining to staff/student relationships? Universities are the monster left wing machines, ya know?
At 4/03/2009 09:56:00 PM , Anthony said...

My degrees will mean so much more now!
At 4/04/2009 09:36:00 AM , Anonymous said...

They've dumbed down education so that nepotism won't ever be challenged by something as trouble some to over come as independent thought and actual intelligence...

Please see details below:
rebel
***

Higher Education Gone Wrong: Universities Are Turning into Corporate Drone
Factories
By Chris Hedges, Truthdig
Posted on March 28, 2009, Printed on March 28, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/133446/
In decaying societies, politics become theater. The elite, who have
hollowed out the democratic system to serve the corporate state, rule
through image and presentation. They express indignation at AIG bonuses
and empathy with a working class they have spent the last few decades
disenfranchising, and make promises to desperate families that they know
will never be fulfilled. Once the spotlights go on they read their lines
with appropriate emotion. Once the lights go off, they make sure Goldman
Sachs and a host of other large corporations have the hundreds of billions
of dollars in losses they incurred playing casino capitalism repaid with
taxpayer money.
We live in an age of moral nihilism. We have trashed our universities,
turning them into vocational factories that produce corporate drones and
chase after defense-related grants and funding. The humanities, the
discipline that forces us to stand back and ask the broad moral questions
of meaning and purpose, that challenges the validity of structures, that
trains us to be self-reflective and critical of all cultural assumptions,
have withered. Our press, which should promote such intellectual and moral
questioning, confuses bread and circus with news and refuses to give a
voice to critics who challenge not this bonus payment or that bailout but
the pernicious superstructure of the corporate state itself. We kneel
before a cult of the self, elaborately constructed by the architects of
our consumer society, which dismisses compassion, sacrifice for the less
fortunate, and honesty. The methods used to attain what we want, we are
told by reality television programs, business schools and self-help gurus,
are irrelevant. Success, always defined in terms of money and power, is
its own justification. The capacity for manipulation is what is most
highly prized. And our moral collapse is as terrifying, and as dangerous,
as our economic collapse.
Theodor Adorno in 1967 wrote an essay called "Education After Auschwitz."
He argued that the moral corruption that made the Holocaust possible
remained "largely unchanged." He wrote that "the mechanisms that render
people capable of such deeds" must be made visible. Schools had to teach
more than skills. They had to teach values. If they did not, another
Auschwitz was always possible.
"All political instruction finally should be centered upon the idea that
Auschwitz should never happen again," he wrote. "This would be possible
only when it devotes itself openly, without fear of offending any
authorities, to this most important of problems. To do this, education
must transform itself into sociology, that is, it must teach about the
societal play of forces that operates beneath the surface of political
forms."
Our elites are imploding. Their fraud and corruption are slowly being
exposed as the disparity between their words and our reality becomes wider
and more apparent. The rage that is bubbling up across the country will
have to be countered by the elite with less subtle forms of control. But
unless we grasp the "societal play of forces that operates beneath the
surface of political forms" we will be cursed with a more ruthless form of
corporate power, one that does away with artifice and the seduction of a
consumer society and instead wields power through naked repression.
I had lunch a few days ago in Toronto with Henry Giroux, professor of
English and cultural studies at McMaster University in Canada and who for
many years was the Waterbury Chair Professor at Penn State. Giroux, who
has been one of the most prescient and vocal critics of the corporate
state and the systematic destruction of American education, was driven to
the margins of academia because he kept asking the uncomfortable questions
Adorno knew should be asked by university professors. He left the United
States in 2004 for Canada.
"The emergence of what Eisenhower had called the
military-industrial-academic complex had secured a grip on higher
education that may have exceeded even what he had anticipated and most
feared," Giroux, who wrote "The University in Chains: Confronting the
Military-Industrial-Academic Complex," told me. "Universities, in general,
especially following the events of 9/11, were under assault by Christian
nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives and market fundamentalists for
allegedly representing the weak link in the war on terrorism. Right-wing
students were encouraged to spy on the classes of progressive professors,
the corporate grip on the university was tightening as made clear not only
in the emergence of business models of governance, but also in the money
being pumped into research and programs that blatantly favored corporate
interests. And at Penn State, where I was located at the time, the
university had joined itself at the hip with corporate and military power.
Put differently, corporate and Pentagon money was now funding research
projects and increasingly knowledge was being militarized in the service
of developing weapons of destruction, surveillance and death. Couple this
assault with the fact that faculty were becoming irrelevant as an
oppositional force. Many disappeared into discourses that threatened no
one, some simply were too scared to raise critical issues in their
classrooms for fear of being fired, and many simply no longer had the
conviction to uphold the university as a democratic public sphere."
Frank Donoghue, the author of "The Last Professors: The Corporate
University and the Fate of the Humanities," details how liberal arts
education has been dismantled. Any form of learning that is not strictly
vocational has at best been marginalized and in many schools has been
abolished. Students are steered away from asking the broad, disturbing
questions that challenge the assumptions of the power elite or an economic
system that serves the corporate state. This has led many bright graduates
into the arms of corporate entities they do not examine morally or
ethically. They accept the assumptions of corporate culture because they
have never been taught to think.
Only 8 percent of U.S. college graduates now receive degrees in the
humanities, about 110,000 students. Between 1970 and 2001, bachelor's
degrees in English declined from 7.6 percent to 4 percent, as did degrees
in foreign languages (2.4 percent to 1 percent), mathematics (3 percent to
1 percent), social science and history (18.4 percent to 10 percent).
Bachelor's degrees in business, which promise the accumulation of wealth,
have skyrocketed. Business majors since 1970-1971 have risen from 13.6
percent of the graduation population to 21.7 percent. Business has now
replaced education, which has fallen from 21 percent to 8.2 percent, as
the most popular major.
The values that sustain an open society have been crushed. A university,
as John Ralston Saul writes, now "actively seeks students who suffer from
the appropriate imbalance and then sets out to exaggerate it. Imagination,
creativity, moral balance, knowledge, common sense, a social view -- all
these things wither. Competitiveness, having an ever-ready answer, a
talent for manipulating situations -- all these things are encouraged to
grow. As a result amorality also grows; as does extreme aggressivity when
they are questioned by outsiders; as does a confusion between the nature
of good versus having a ready answer to all questions. Above all, what is
encouraged is the growth of an undisciplined form of self-interest, in
which winning is what counts."
This moral nihilism would have terrified Adorno. He knew that radical evil
was possible only with the collaboration of a timid, cowed and confused
population, a system of propaganda and a press that offered little more
than spectacle and entertainment and an educational system that did not
transmit transcendent values or nurture the capacity for individual
conscience. He feared a culture that banished the anxieties and
complexities of moral choice and embraced a childish hyper-masculinity,
one championed by ruthless capitalists (think of the brutal backstabbing
and deception cheered by TV shows like "Survivor") and Hollywood action
heroes like the governor of California.
"This educational ideal of hardness, in which many may believe without
reflecting about it, is utterly wrong," Adorno wrote. "The idea that
virility consists in the maximum degree of endurance long ago became a
screen-image for masochism that, as psychology has demonstrated, aligns
itself all too easily with sadism."
Sadism is as much a part of popular culture as it is of corporate culture.
It dominates pornography, runs like an electric current through reality
television and trash-talk programs and is at the core of the compliant,
corporate collective. Corporatism is about crushing the capacity for moral
choice. And it has its logical fruition in Abu Ghraib, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and our lack of compassion for the homeless, our poor, the
mentally ill, the unemployed and the sick.
"The political and economic forces fuelling such crimes against humanity
-- whether they are unlawful wars, systemic torture, practiced
indifference to chronic starvation and disease or genocidal acts -- are
always mediated by educational forces," Giroux said. "Resistance to such
acts cannot take place without a degree of knowledge and self-reflection.
We have to name these acts and transform moral outrage into concrete
attempts to prevent such human violations from taking place in the first
place."
The single most important quality needed to resist evil is moral autonomy.
Moral autonomy, as Immanuel Kant wrote, is possible only through
reflection, self-determination and the courage not to cooperate.
Moral autonomy is what the corporate state, with all its attacks on
liberal institutions and "leftist" professors, has really set out to
destroy. The corporate state holds up as our ideal what Adorno called "the
manipulative character." The manipulative character has superb
organizational skills and the inability to have authentic human
experiences. He or she is an emotional cripple and driven by an overvalued
realism. The manipulative character is a systems manager. He or she
exclusively trained to sustain the corporate structure, which is why our
elites are wasting mind-blowing amounts of our money on corporations like
Goldman Sachs and AIG. "He makes a cult of action, activity, of so-called
efficiency as such which reappears in the advertising image of the active
person," Adorno wrote of this personality type. These manipulative
characters, people like Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, Ben
Bernanke, Timothy Geithner, AIG's Edward Liddy and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd
Blankfein, along with most of our ruling class, have used corporate money
and power to determine the narrow parameters of the debate in our
classrooms, on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress while they looted
the country.
"It is especially difficult to fight against it," warned Adorno, "because
those manipulative people, who actually are incapable of true experience,
for that very reason manifest an unresponsiveness that associates them
with certain mentally ill or psychotic characters, namely schizoids."
Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize-winning reporter, is a Senior Fellow at the
Nation Institute. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America's War
Against Iraqi Civilians.
) 2009 Truthdig All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/133446/
At 4/04/2009 01:25:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Goes on all the time...surprised you are surprised.
Academic freedom, don't you know...just like giving all students A+
At 4/04/2009 01:31:00 PM , Ottawa Watch said...

I think parents would be very surprised to know that, as far as the University's concerned, sex between profs and students is OK. And don't give me guff about it being "discouraged". Eating poutine three times a day is "discouraged", too, but if there are no consequences, there's no prohibition.

As for giving students all A+s, a prof at the University of Ottawa is in the process of being fired for precisely that.
At Concordia, he could have given them something more interesting.
At 4/04/2009 05:07:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Mark, don't most universities have the same policy? I just assume they do, doesn't anybody know? I expect nothing less and am NOT surprised by this, not at all.
At 4/04/2009 05:19:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Mark, also:

"UPDATE:
Comments from Facebook on this post:"

Where's the link to this Facebook page? Thanks.
At 4/04/2009 08:14:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Dear OW

Good on UofO That prof knows nothing of teaching / learning principles only pandering to the LCD

Sorry to mislead you with my tongue in...cheek?
University faculty use AF to permit / excuse a myriad of dumb ass activities
For a group that purports to be so f...ing smart they don't even know the definition let alone the boundaries of AF.
I truly despair about the quality of university teaching.
There are some wonderful teachers at our universities...but you are more likely to get tenure based on your research and your ability to charm fresh(wo)men.
The strength of the system is that senior students see through the crap for what it is...and that is one of the strengths of the system....maturity....eventually
At 4/05/2009 09:35:00 AM , Jason Cherniak said...

Is the student in the prof's class? I would think that you can avoid the consensual issue entirely and just make it clear that this is a conflict of interest that brings academia into disrepute.

If the student is not in the prof's class, then I have to admit that it is not much different than an 18-year old meeting a cougar in a bar. Somewhat disgusting, but also not illegal.
At 4/05/2009 12:31:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Brings me back to the late 80s ... had English with what is now referred to as a cougar. There was an attraction for sure but we didn't act on it ... until class was over and marks were in. Then I was one lucky 19 year old with a saucy Prof and we would go at it like crazy. I still have scars on my back from her finger nails. Man those were great days.

But the moral still was there. We knew it wasn't right for prof and student to get together like we did, at least not until that particular relationship ended.
At 4/05/2009 02:57:00 PM , Ottawa Watch said...

Jason, unless the conflict is declared, you run into other situations, such as scholarship adjudication, recommendations for jobs, grad schools, etc., even if the person isn't in the prof's class. After all, that kind of service work is a third of a prof's job. Plus it has made at least 11 students so uneasy that they've complained to me, and now some of them are thanking me for trying to protect them.
At 4/05/2009 03:04:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Just curious, Mark, about the ethics involved with publishing an email response without that person's permission or knowledge?

Not disagreeing with the issue at hand, mind you. Just wondering if there's a presumption of privacy for email exchanges.
At 4/05/2009 03:37:00 PM , Ottawa Watch said...

Why would there be? When people want their e-mail treated confidentially, they put footers to the effect at the bottom.
Concordia is a public institution. People have a right to know what's happening there.
At 4/05/2009 07:26:00 PM , Anonymous said...

There have been other issues regarding professor/student affairs at this university. Particularly in the MPPA program -it's great you are reporting this.
At 4/05/2009 07:32:00 PM , Anonymous said...

I really, really, REALLY don't think that Rachel Marsden -if it is she that is posting under the name - has any useful insight to offer in this particular situation, given her past. Frankly, I'm surprised they let her out of the nut house.
(name left anonymous largely b/c I don't feel like being her next victim....)
At 4/05/2009 07:46:00 PM , MJ said...

Are you *really* so riled simply because of the possibility that a power imbalance exists? That seems like something we'd want to let the consenting adults hash out and not worry about until it affects your own kids. My kids will know what to do when and if this ever comes up. Will yours? Is that why you are so panicked?

So what's next? No workplace romances? No citizens allowed to date police officers or judges?
At 4/05/2009 08:23:00 PM , Ottawa Watch said...

These are the problems:

1. What is "consent" in a situation with such a power imbalance?
2. What happens when the prof keeps the relationship secret and no one knows whether s/he is making important decisions on marks, internships, scholarships, recommendationd for jobs, grad schools, etc.?
3. What jeopardy does the university face from students who feel they have been coerced, and who take legal action?
4. There is an obvious disruption to the learning environment, which could become extreme if there's pregnancy, STDs, etc. involved.
At 4/05/2009 09:09:00 PM , MJ said...

I don't know what Lifetime movies you have been watching, but any young lady with a normal level of self confidence would be able to not only head ANY potential problem off at the pass, but would not likely find herself in a situation where a decision was warranted. Predators look for invitation, be it overt and intentional or be it intrinsic due to emotional issues. Any young man or woman with a head on their shoulders won't have a problem.

I do agree that though student-teacher relationships and ensuing lawsuits happen, this school seems to be ok with opening itself up to litigation through actual documented tolerance of the bahavior. Maybe not outrageous per se, but certainly not "progressive" which is the flavor I think they are trying to offer.
At 4/05/2009 11:29:00 PM , Anonymous said...

most universities have a conflict of interest policy.. you can't teach your mom, or son, or daughter, or wife, or a student you're having sex with.

But outside of that policy, you cannot prohibit completely sex between students and teachers. They are adults, and if they choose to engage in this relationship, so be it.

If a teacher pushes sex on a student, then the student has legal means to press charges of sexual harassment or rape.

The interesting thing about the so-called "power imbalance" is that students have also been known to initiate these relationships, or at least flirt and fake interest in a professor to get higher grades. Students are not always the victims who have to be protected.

Lastly, I have taught for years in universities and this issue is not commonplace. I have heard of a prof here and there doing this, but it's not an epidemic, and not something to worry about.
At 4/06/2009 03:21:00 AM , Anonymous said...

Who's kidding whom here. The only time it's a problem is when the professor is male and the student is female. Reverse the roles and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
At 4/06/2009 05:44:00 AM , Anonymous said...

I was a TA at Carleton, and as part of our training they told us that sexual relations were not forbidden between either TAs and students, or professors and students.

I believe Carleton's policy is that the professor/TA(person in power) is required to disclose any relationship to human resources so that they have a record of it. The professor/TA is not permitted to mark any of the students assignments if there is a conflict of interest.

So Concordia is not the only university that permits these relationships. It gets tricky to forbid these relationships - what if it's a 29 year old student and a 34 year old professor? Are we to assume that, due to the power imbalance, the 29 year old student does not have the agency or ability to make her own decision to pursue a relationship or respond to advances?

I'm just saying that it's a lot easier to identify the power imbalance when it's an 18 year old and a 49 year old, but the grey area in between makes an absolute ban on student/faculty relationships problematic for many institutions.
At 4/06/2009 06:21:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

Why?
The Law Society of Upper Canada has an absolute rule about lawyers having sex with clients, even previous ones. Unless the situation is disclosed and "supervised" (truly a buzz kill), you can be disbarred.
Same with doctors in Canada.
Age, marital status, etc., are not factors.
Belinda Stronach's corporate lawyer can't sleep with her unless he discloses to the Law Society first.

BTW, I notice everyone is sure I'm talking about male prof-female student. That is an interesting assumption.
At 4/06/2009 08:57:00 AM , Anonymous said...

The issue of power imbalance is critical here.

While I was at the U of O similar questions related to the conduct of a tenured prof arose as a result of his repeated sexual harassment of a student. This case, from the best of my knowledge, was far worse than what is going on at Concordia.

The result? The prof remains tenured because the prof was only accused by a single student, despite the existance of overwhelming evidence of the harassment. The U of O contended that four complaints were required for full disciplinary action.

All that to say, there are genuine questions about ethical standards as they relate to the behaviour of professors.
At 4/06/2009 09:49:00 AM , Mike McCaffrey said...

Mark,

I'm in agreement with you on this one -- it is wrong, plain and simple. In defence of the U of T, however, you should note that the policy goes on to state..

"If your teacher does not disclose the conflict of interest, s/he is not simply in breach of University policy: s/he is showing a negligent disregard for your academic interests, and placing the legitimacy of your academic accomplishments in question."

Mind you, what actually gets done in situations such this is another matter entirely.
At 4/06/2009 02:35:00 PM , Anonymous said...

just fyi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Marsden
At 4/06/2009 02:53:00 PM , Ottawa Watch said...

Look what that case did to the university.
Rachel is a friend of mine, and I believe the story is a lot more complex than Wikipedia lets on. But that's not really relevant. There are so many hazards like this that exist in university. That's why Concordia's policy is so shocking.
At 4/06/2009 03:08:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Blogger Dankprofessor weighs in:

"Of course, what Bourrie wants is the administration to represent authoritarian parents in helping them regulate the lives of their children. Viewing college students as adults is simply out of the question."
At 4/06/2009 07:09:00 PM , Anonymous said...

What about TAs and students?
At 4/06/2009 07:58:00 PM , Ottawa Watch said...

No, Dank, I want professors to act professionally, in the context of the power inequity that exists, the disruptive aspects of these affairs to the rest of the students, the possibility of litigation, the real and perceived conflicts re: marks, scholarships, internships, references, etc.
You need not put words in my mouth. I have made myself very clear.
The legal profession views clients as adults, and it bans sexual relationships between lawyers and clients because of the power imbalance and the coercive power that comes from the lawyer/client relationship. I believe this is the same type of power imbalance that exists between profs and students.

TAs are easier to deal with. As long as they don't do any marking or have the student in tutorials, it's not a problem. TAs don't do departmental service work such as scholarship applications and they don't write reference letters. They also don't even assign the final grade. TAs are, in effect, working students.
At 4/06/2009 11:07:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Seems like the people so upset with _consensual_ relationships between students and faculty are confusing and/or assuming a few things:

1.) That faculty and students can't make decisions for themself. Faculty and students are of the age of majority. In other words, they all can join the military, drive, some can drink alcohol (depends on the jurisdiction), and all can say no or yes to sex or friendship or other behaviors without any of us (or an institution) deciding what is best for them.

2.) That the faculty member is always older than the student. Anyone here ever heard of non-traditional student?

3.) Confusing sexual harassment with consensual sexual relationship. Sexual harassment is a crime and consensual sexual relationship, unless a university (or you), define consensual sexual relationship as unethical is not illegal or unethical. (It all becomes a matter of opinion.)

4.) What about just a close emotional relationship where there is no sex? What if your spouse has a close emotional relationhship with another person? Sometimes this is called "emotional cheating" and can be as damaging to a marriage or another relationship as "sexual cheating." Do you think you can or should have the right to regulate such friendships?

5.) What about friendships? Are these unethical too? I've been honored to serve as a best man in current and former students' weddings. Should these friendships be prohibited because of the power differential? I'll be certain to let all these students (and their spouses and their parents)know that I was abusive to them and that is why they asked me to be in their weddings; they just didn't understand that I was controlling them. Mind control I call it. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

6.) What about faculty and student relationships that begin before the student becomes a student in the faculty member's class? What about a spouse taking a class of a faculty member? Ever heard of objective testing? Perhaps they are both ethical and believe they can remain so through the use of objective testing techniques. Wouldn't this behavior be completely different than sexual harassment or a consensual sexual relationship? I know of faculty who, having been fans of a particular sport, grade those athletes much easier than other students. Grading inappropriately is unethical, but this behavior doesn't necessarily have to occur in these particular relationships.

Please don't confuse these issues. Sexual harassment is a crime and no one can legitimately defend it. However, a consensual sexual relationship is not illegal or unethical unless you try to argue the matter of unequal power, which doesn't always exist between students and faculty. Forbidding a consensual sexual relationship between two adults just because of their status is a slippery slope. An 18 year old can decide for him or herself what they want in life, including whom they want to pursue a sexual or other type of relationship with.

I don't want to offend anyone, but it sounds like the biggest opponents of consensual relationships between faculty and students (over 18) are most fearful of a child doing what they want to do. Sorry, but this just seems to be the real issue here.

What of those offended by inter-racial relationships? Perhaps these should be banned; Some people argue that black men can seduce white women very easily; perhaps even to the point of white women being unable to control their sexuality? Perhaps you know better about the additional discrimination theirmixed" children may experience? Perhaps society knows better about such relationships than the two humans involved?

By the way, Ottawa Watch, the legal profession "bans sexual relationships between lawyers and clients not because of the power imbalance and the coercive power" but because the attorney may not be as effective in representing someone they are in a relationship with. However, the legal professional permits an attorney, who is already in a sexual relationship with someone, to continue that relationship and even serve as that person's attorney.

The arguments you've made about clergy, doctors, and counselors are unrelated to faculty. The clients of these professionals are sometimes incapable of making knowledgeable decisions regarding consensual relationships (and even other important decisions). In fact, I believe that attorneys and doctors may be prohibited from transacting other businesses with their clients. I don't know how many times I've "hired" a student to help me with something around my home or office and paid them quite well...all with the intention of helping that student out financially.

Finally, you state that TA's are different due to several reasons (i.e., don't do departmental service work such as scholarship applications and write reference letters). This is inaccurate. When I was a TA I did both of these things and more. My TA-ship very closely approximates my career as a Professor. You also ignore the fact that faculty can always recuse themselves from such duties for any student; I know that I have for relatives, close friends and others. So...
At 4/07/2009 06:06:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

Well, thanks for the straw men and red herrings.
There is a big difference between friendship and intimacy.
Age difference does not enter into the equation. A 30-year-old prof has the same professional relationship with a 30-year-old student as any prof has with any student.
The key words here is "professional". This is not a discussion about age difference, it's a discussion about power differences.
At 4/07/2009 06:08:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

Also, I notice the people who support prof-student intimate relationships prefer to do so anonymously. Why is that? After all, univerity policies tend to support you. I've always believed that any position that needs to be stated anonymously is a position that's indefensible and cannot stand the cold light of public scrutiny.
At 4/07/2009 10:08:00 AM , Anonymous said...

The University of Ottawa sure didn't waste any time firing that tenured professor for openly giving out "perfect marks" to an entire class. Now they should concentrate on what goes behind closed doors.
At 4/08/2009 06:58:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

UPDATE:
Comments from Facebook on this post:

Dave LeBlanc at 6:55pm April 3
Where were all the hot teachers when I went to school?

Peggy Blair at 7:03pm April 3
WOW! Unbelievalbe response from Concordia. I think you should take this and run with a national story about it. The power dynamics between a professor and student absolutely preclude this kind of relationship. Should I tell my daughter to sleep with her professor if she wants good marks???? Shocking!!!

Dave LeBlanc at 7:05pm April 3
I already copy/pasted it to our BC bureau.

Peggy Blair at 7:11pm April 3
Here's a case from NFLD where the arbitrator at least agreed that such a relationship is a breach of ethics worthy of reprimand, even in the absence of a university policy prohibiting such relationships. Unbelievable!!
http://www.queensu.ca/humanrights/hreb/sexualharassment/mainpages/Memorial.htm

Brenda Raftlova at 7:12pm April 3
I can't believe this. I just can't believe that they actually agree with it. Young women can now be afraid of a professor trying something on them. Horrible!

William Dallas at 7:26pm April 3
Is it a student, or one of his students?

Tim Meehan at 7:32pm April 3
Looks like the fees office is not the only place that is taking advantage of youth.

Leslie Fulton at 8:21pm April 3
Well, there were a few liaisons at Carleton J School back in the 80s, that's for sure.
Though ... ick ... couldn't even begin to imagine.

Graham Moodie at 9:20pm April 3
John Abbott College (CEGEP) in Montreal has a policy which permits such a relationship as long as it is disclosed to a superior-presumably a Dean. You can find the policy on their web page.

Anthony Di Domizio at 9:54pm April 3
aw man i totally missed out

Jennifer Dales at 6:09am April 4
Hmmm, I think it's generally creepy and wrong, esp if the age difference is large. But on the other hand, it might be better for the uni not to forbid such relationships. It's possible that by forbidding them, students would be less likely to come forward to get help if it's needed. Just a thought.

Rachel Marsden at 8:07am April 4
Hey I know of the perfect varsity swim team coach for them!
lol

Mark Bourrie at 8:08am April 4
I don't think the age difference is a factor, except as it involves the power imbalance between the student and prof. What's more important is the control that the prof has over grades, references, scholarship adjudication, etc. It's also extremely disruptive to the teaching environment.
Look at the criteria re: lawyer/client and doctor/patient sexual relationships, which are far, far higher than academia.

Mark Bourrie at 8:10am April 4
And Graham, that's amazing. John Abbott is a high school. The people who go there are teenagers.

Peggy Blair at 8:19am April 4
A disclosure policy is nsf unless it has conflict avoidance provisions - ie former student okay, current student not okay. But the age difference can be a huge factor BECAUSE of the authority/power imbalance. It's one thing for a TA who is roughly the same age as a student to have a relationship with them (and even then, what aboutt marking fairness -- likely to be either too tough or too soft, or to appear to be); another entirely for a tenured prof who is years older to be screwing around with a first year student who depends on him/her for marks, references etc.

Mark Bourrie at 8:29am April 4
Peggy, I never considered for a second the idea that the university might accept these "relationships". It never even crossed my mind. I would have thought the university would have fired me if it came to their attention that I was having an affair with a student. That's what I would have expected, and I would have believed they were right.
In the "zero tolerance" world of universities, the lack of real morality is dazzling.

Peggy Blair at 8:34am April 4
It's really quite unbelievable. From a legal perspective, suppose a student entered into such a relationship and then claimed sexual harassment? How can a professor ever establish consent given the power imbalance? I think it is completely coercive, unethical and inappropriate. Students may well develop such attractions -- it is up to the professor (as the adult) to draw appropriate boundaries.
Here is an article from a US journal that talks about some of these issues:
http://www.collegevalues.org/pdfs/Professional.pdf

Peggy Blair at 8:48am April 4
Mark, I've just read their policy on this: http://rights.concordia.ca/problems.relationships.shtml
They tell faculty members not to do it, then state that the "requirement" is that faculty memberes not have a supervisory or evaluative role if they have such a relationship. So you've complained about someone who continues to have such a role vis-a-vis a student and your Dean has strongly cautioned you that this has nothing to do with you if the student doesn't complain. Forget about the sexual aspect of the relationship, for a minute -- given the power imbalance and coercive aspect of it, how would such a complaint ever be made unless it came from a third party like another professor? Talk about not "getting" the issue!!

Mark Bourrie at 9:33am April 4
The department in question is so small that even if the student is not in one of the prof's classes, the prof will almost certainly be involved in many aspects of scholarship evaluation, etc. And, if the relationship is not disclosed, no one will ever know if the prof has, in fact, recused from any conflict situation.
As well, as I wrote to the Dean, the sitaution may be a rumour, and an untrue rumour about a (married) prof should be dealt with in some way. But that seems to be OK with the Dean, too.
Plus the disruption to the teaching environment is pretty obvious.

Tim Meehan at 10:23am April 4
John Abbott allows that, huh? Got a great topic for the cousins at the family BBQ now. :)

Mark Bourrie at 10:55am April 4
Um, did anyone ever see the movie "Election"?!?

Peggy Blair at 11:51am April 4
He is saying that regardless of the requirements expressed in their policy, he isn't going to pursue it and you shouldn't either. So the student(s) have to complain personally, in his view, before university requirements have to be met concerning recusal from courses etc. In other words, there are no requirements unless someone complains, and not even then, unless it's the student. Oh, and don't accuse him of holding that view, even if he's expressed it ... or what?

Mark Bourrie at 11:54am April 4
I do detect the threat of a libel suit.

Peggy Blair at 12:31pm April 4
Not sure how a university can have a proper investigation into anything if the appropriate official wants to deter whistleblowers. It's quite Kafkaesque. Write an article in the Gazette!

Mark Bourrie at 12:46pm April 4
Don't forget that my complaint has two parts: (1) that an inappropriate relationship may exist and (2) if it doesn't, a faculty member is the innocent victim of a rumour that certainly can't do their career any good. The Dean won't deal with either aspect.

Peggy Blair at 1:02pm April 4
He's essentially accusing you of spreading the rumour, instead of dealing with it.
Are you going to the President?

Rachel Marsden at 1:06pm April 4
Academia is run by liberals...there are no standards when it comes to sex...just when you have the audacity to throw a recyclable can into the garbage.

Mark Bourrie at 1:22pm April 4
I am definitely going to the President, who happens to be a woman. That should be interesting.

Mark Bourrie at 1:25pm April 4
Rachel's right. You get into far more trouble for smoking in the washroom than you will for seducing one of your students.
I think it has a lot to do with moral relativism. They have used those concepts to create a situation in which it is lawful to do something that, in other professions like law, medicine and psychiatry, would get your license yanked.
At 4/08/2009 07:14:00 AM , Anonymous said...

The Nuremberg defence? So Concordia is a nest of Nazis? Please. Whatever your moral views, legally speaking, the university's hands are tied. Consenting adults have the right to do whatever they want in the boudoir. Suggesting that you keep your prurient nose in your own business is simply common sense unless you have good reason -- ie, "evidence" -- that this student is being abused or otherwise taken advantage of.
At 4/08/2009 08:01:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

Bullshit.
The university has left itself open to all kinds of trouble. The university's hands are not tied. It does not have to employ professors who act unprofessionally. The "consenting adults" stuff is just crap. If there was some sort of Charter right in that regard, surely doctors and lawyers who have been disciplined by their professional associations would have relied on it as a defence.

As for the Nuremberg Defence, look it up.

Here's my challenge: if sexual relationships between faculty and students are OK, let's see a show of hands, shall we?

And if I published the names of the prof(s), I'd be sued for libel. Why's that? Because public knowledge of this behavior would hurt their reputation.
At 4/08/2009 07:20:00 PM , Anonymous said...

it's DYSFUNCTIONAL, Mark, DYSFUNCTIONAL.

Really, really dysfunctional behavior.
On your part.

I'm sorry to see you behaving this way. Grammatically and otherwise.
At 4/08/2009 11:22:00 PM , Anonymous said...

I'm anonymous because of people like you that would hang me for your beliefs. Please truly consider the other side of an issue before making up your mind. Until you walk in another's shoes...and all that.... Good policy to use.
At 4/08/2009 11:50:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Hello. I'm the anonymous poster from 4/06/2009 11:07:00 PM above and wondered if anyone could refute anything that I said here--intelligently?

The response I cite below is not much of a response. I was--seriously--hoping to see why you view a relationship between two _consenting_ adults with so much venom. (Anything short of consenting and I'm with you.)

You seem like an intelligent person, but I didn't introduce red herring or straw man fallacies into our conversation. I think you didn't want to take each of my arguments, point-by-point, and answer them. It seems you cut-and-pasted much of your blog over and over to deter others from reading what I wrote(?). You wouldn't have abused your powers, would you?

Therefore, I'll make the polite request again: Would you be so kind as to take my points and explain to me the problem or problmes with each?

Incidentally, in the portion of my argument where I mention age I am only mentioning it in re: to the involved persons being older than 18 (age of consent for sexual relationships) and in the realm of non-traditional students, who presumably are better able to handle power differentials in relationships. (Don't all, and I do mean _all_ relationships have power differentials?)

Finally, it shows how weak your argument is (do you have a coherent argument?) when you continue to fall back onto "professional". Consensual relationships, by _your_ definition of professional, are unprofessional and therefore, in your argument, unethical. This _is_ faulty logic. Perhaps you could argue that consensual relationships are, because you define them that way, unprofessional. But I don't think you can go much further than that.

Although, I do--anxiously--await your reasoned arguments against my original points.

Ottawa Watch said...

"Well, thanks for the straw men and red herrings.
There is a big difference between friendship and intimacy. Age difference does not enter into the equation. A 30-year-old prof has the same professional relationship with a 30-year-old student as any prof has with any student.
The key words here is "professional". This is not a discussion about age difference, it's a discussion about power differences."
At 4/09/2009 08:34:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

I've made my case very clearly.
These are the issues, which I'll list again for the last time:

1. The power imbalance between students and faculty, raising the question of whether real consent can exist. That's why the "consenting adults" argument is a red herring.
2. The real and apparent conflict of interest re: marks, scholarship evaluation, internships, TA and RA hirings and assignments, and other out-of-class evaluations.
3. The disruption to the teaching environment, as other students believe a conflict and favoritism may exist.
4. The discomfort of students who do not want to be approached by professors seeking a relationship.
5. The potential liability of the university when it enables this to take place.
6. The affect of this behavior on the university's reputation, as people in the community believe students can literally screw their way to an A.
At 4/09/2009 08:36:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

BTW, I am certainly not going to walk a mile in your shoes. I will not have sex with my students.
Seriously, I am so glad to be on this side of the argument, and not on yours.
At 4/09/2009 10:03:00 AM , Anonymous said...

I do fundamentally agree with Mark on this point, and I think the point is primarily around professionalism. And arguing that lawyers are prevented from sleeping with their clients because it would affect their judgement and not because of a power imbalance is, in my opinion, a distinction without a difference. The person's judgement (whether giving legal advice, or judging some one's work) is affected by a sexual relationship in a way that it is not by hiring them to paint their house, or pave their driveway.

Having said that, I am wondering how Mark would feel about people sleeping around at work? If they had a relationship with some one who was not their boss, but was more senior in their company?
At 4/09/2009 10:30:00 AM , Anonymous said...

"I figure anything that can't take public scrutiny tends to be illegal, immoral or fattening"

By the way, while respecting the fact that, in this instance, you are correct, I find this comment a bit odd. This was the same logic that some folks a few years back would've used to justify outlawing homosexuality. I realize you feel very strongly about this issue, Mark. But I think it is possible to make an objection to the professor's conduct without those kind of generalizations. Maybe the reason that some people may not automatically jump to your side is that they instinctively don't trust people who become so enthusiastic about people's sexual lives.
At 4/09/2009 11:18:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

The point I was trying to make about secrecy was that profs who engage in this behavior keep it secret because they know it's wrong.

I don't care about other people's sex lives. I do care about abuse of power and the other issues I have outlined above.

I think most workplaces have their act together, with a few exceptions where bosses still prey on employees. Co-workers screwing around with each other can be a bit disruptive, especially when there's a bad break-up. But there's tons of employment law on this, and most of that law makes sense. Access to justice is another issue, one that lawyers should address.

As for gays and lesbians being closeted, it's sad and awful if some gay people feel threatened in the workplace or academia. I've never understood gender discrimination. Being gay or lesbian is pretty much accepted. Acting unprofessionally is not. And it shouldn't be.
What I do object to -- and what this post is about -- is abuse of power imbalances and whether or not it is ethical for profs to have sexual relationships with their students.

While our American friend has spent 30 years campaigning for the right to seduce the men in his classes, I fear he has not come up with anything stronger than the "consenting adults" argument, and my point is that when a prof pops the question "What are you doing Friday night?", there can't possibly be a "right" answer for a student who is, in fact, not interested. Plus the other five reasons I've listed above pertaining to the fouling of the academic workplace and the potential liability issues.
At 4/09/2009 11:57:00 AM , Anonymous said...

Game, set, match... Bourrie
At 4/09/2009 04:43:00 PM , barry m. dank said...

Bourrie states-

"While our American friend has spent 30 years campaigning for the right to seduce the men in his classes, I fear he has not come up with anything stronger than the "consenting adults" argument, and my point is that when a prof pops the question "What are you doing Friday night?", there can't possibly be a "right" answer for a student who is, in fact, not interested. Plus the other five reasons I've listed above pertaining to the fouling of the academic workplace and the potential liability issues."

Bourrie has gone beyond the pale or in his terms, beyond profssionalism.

First of all I have never campaigned for my right seduce men in my class since I am not sexually attracted to men and in terms of the opposite sex I never seduced anyone. In fact, my recollection is that of all the sexual relationships I had with female students, I never approached a student in class and when such approaches occurred in class it was by the student. And it was actually outside of class. And I would go one step further and state that any relationship I have ever had with a woman, student or non-student, I never hit on said woman, I always respected and honored the person. There was never any question of consent, particularly given that I was a non-drinker. For relationships always revolved around love and caring; these are words that are absent in Bourrie's missives. I wonder why. He simply totoally sexualizes student professor relationships. Is such professional? I think not.
People who sexually objectify others tends to be sexually obsessed. Certainly, Bourrie's cartoon imagery of student professor relationships has a tinge of such obsessiveness.
More later on consent and his five poinsts.

And the anonymous prof who has had some great questions for Bourrie- do email me at dankprofessor@msn.com
Would love to chat with you?
At 4/09/2009 11:58:00 PM , Barry M. Dank said...

Bourrie states

"The "consenting adults" stuff is just crap. If there was some sort of Charter right in that regard, surely doctors and lawyers who have been disciplined by their professional associations would have relied on it as a defence."

and in his first point he states-

"1. The power imbalance between students and faculty, raising the question of whether real consent can exist. That's why the "consenting adults" argument is a red herring."

Bourrie find the argument regarding the rights of consenting adults to be "just crap". So much for his version of professionalism. I would argue that almost all persons who have seriously engaged issues regarding sexual behavior would argue that consent is of central concern, ethically and legally. Taking adults ability to consent away by a third party is damn serious business. It is so serious that the burden should be on the third party who argues there is no consent to prove there is no consent. And to emphasize the seriousness of the issue, let's put this in rather stark terms. Where there is no sexual consent, there is rape. Even though Bourrie applies demeaning and degrading rhetoric to these so-called predatory professors, he doesn't call in his terms a spade a spade; he does not call these profs rapists. Calling them rapists might function for some to show how transparently absurd is his argument.

Bourrie invokes the medical and legal professions in defense of his argument that universities can prohibit student professor relationships; doctors are banned from having sexual relationships with their patients and lawyers with clients although I think that the lawyer client ban is more variable, more tenuous. But what Bourrie does not say is that the medical profession does not ban intimacies between medical professors and medical students and the legal profession is far from uniform in banning such relationships between law profs and law students.

Just looking at the medical profession, just about anybody would be able to tell you there is a giant leap from being a patient and a doctor to that of being a student and professor. Patients are not a part of
a medical community; students are part of a university community. Patients don't work, study and assist
medical doctors; students often do all of the aforementioned with professors. Patients don't hang around the doctors office, students hang out throughout the university campus. Patients don't socialize with doctors; professors and students socialize and are often encouraged to socialize by university administrators. Bourrie would like to have the university function like a hospital in terms of standards and practices with students. God help students and professors if such becomes fully the case; unfortunately such is gradually becoming the case.

And I don't want to let the medical and legal professions get a pass re Bourrie's power imbalance issue. Power imbalances are rife throughout the medical world. Does Bourrie really believe that relationships between doctors and nurses are banned and do not occur? That relationships between doctors and med techs are banned and do not occur? Between doctors and medical staff? I will leave it for Bourrie's imagination to determine how the ethically engaged legal profession in the real world deals with the power imbalance issue.

I will say this in the legal area- Bourrie would be laughed out of court if he came and testified that he knew that in all student prof affairs there can be no consent, case closed. As indicated, it would be Bourrie's responsibility to testify regarding a particular case and if he were an expert witness to present
evidence that consent was diminished or abolished in the particular case under consideration.

And if Bourrie is adverse to power imbalances and power abuses, he must know that appointing persons to investigate and control the sexual behavior of others in private requires a power imbalance and is essentially equivalent to power abuse.

I will now skip to Bourrie's point 5 which is relevant to the points I have just made.

5. The potential liability of the university when it enables this to take place.

I do not believe there is an issue here. I know of no case in which a university was sued successfully for not prohibiting consensual relationships. Who would be doing the suing, not the consenting parties, but some third party, such as Dr. Bourrie. Maybe Bourrie might consider suing Concordia for not prohibiting such relationships. Even Bourrie saying that the university enables these relationships is problematic. Where there is a large number of eligible persons in terms of dating and mating concentrated in the same geographic area, relationships will occur; relationships will occur between profs and students, no matter what the university policy. Of course, if female students did not find some professors attractive, there will be no consensual relationships in this area. For this to occur, we will need some coercive mind manipulation and control and I am sure Bourrie would not want that.

Bourrie's point 2-

2. The real and apparent conflict of interest re: marks, scholarship evaluation, internships, TA and RA hirings and assignments, and other out-of-class evaluations.

As for conflict of interest, I believe that Concordia as well as most other universities have conflict of interest policies. Where conflict of interest situations occur, the university should attempt to deal with them. No need for a special sexual conflict of interest policy. Of course, the conflict of interest policy as indicated by Bourrie is directed to having fair and objective treatment of students in terms of their various evaluations. Unfortunately, the university is terribly derelict in this policy, such is so apparent in that the university never ever warns profs or anyone else not to differentially treat students or colleagues in terms of personal attractiveness or in terms of personal relationships. I know Bourrie feels the sexual component is different. I don't. The issue is the same. The issue is creating an environment where it would be unthinkable to grade students based on personal preferences. I know it is an anathema to me.
I know I never let any kind of personal relationship interfere with how I graded a student, etc. And in terms of apparent conflict of of interest, in my case such was not relevant since my private life was private. In any case, universities are terribly delinquent in dealing with conflict of interest policy, particularly when it deals with money. I suggest that people taka a look at the University Diaries blog
and see how medical schools deal with conflict of interest issues.

3. The disruption to the teaching environment, as other students believe a conflict and favoritism may exist.

Unfortunately as I have stated previously, students often feel there is favoritism with student x getting a better grade than oneself. Such is rife amongst students; I got a C because the prof did not like me, etc. etc. Does Bourie think that students do not frequently think that he grades based on personal preference.? This belief generally has little or nothing to do with reality. If, IN FACT, a personal relationship of a professor disrupts the learning environment, the student or students should be able to file a complaint and there should be an investigation. I know that Bourrie thinks such disruptions due to a student prof relationship are frequent. I beg to differ. It is rare. Bourrie will of course know of the exceptions, professors and students who are discreet will not be known by Bourrie.

4. The discomfort of students who do not want to be approached by professors seeking a relationship.

Of course, this can be an issue. And when it occurs, such should fall under the sexual harassment policy.
And, of course, Bourrie seems not to get it- that for a relationship to ensue, the professor does not have to approach. In my experience, the "approach" was by the female student or it was apparent that there was a mutual attraction. Or, on a more pedestrian level- I first dated my wife to be after the class ended, after Spring semester. She was not a student of mine in the Fall and we dated and had a serious relationship. Then she told me during registration for the forthcoming Spring courses,, she wanted to take one of my courses and if it was OK with me. I told her that her question was misdirected; the issue for her is whether it was OK with her. I treat all my students the same and as a student I treat her the same as all other students. It was her call to make, not mine. And, I know, unfortunately, there will always be people who think the worst, that she was prostituting herself for the grade; that she was a gradedigger. If you live for these people, then you will end up leading a horrendous life, trying to please people who always think the worst of others.

6. The affect of this behavior on the university's reputation, as people in the community believe students can literally screw their way to an A.

People will believe what they want, no matter what the policy of the university. I would question if a university's reputation will go up if they adopt such a policy. Will the status or prestige of Concordia or UT, really change due to this policy? Did the prestige of UC Berkeley go up after a policy was adopted.
In any case, reputation and prestige should be no rationale for taking away fundamental rights such as
choice of romantic partner.

And might I ask Bourrie, did Clinton's prestige among the voters at large go down and remain down after his relationship with intern Lewinsky was revealed? And now as a "retired" person living with my wife who was my ex-student and meeting persons from all walks of life, including professors, and in terms of getting acquainted, we often relate how we met to others, and no person has ever responded with any degree of negativity. And if our past was a problem for them, then adios. And if we violated the so-called professional standards of whatever profession, no guilt from this party. I feel sorry for people who forego the opportunity to love and be loved in the name of professionalism. In the name of love, I sign off, at least for now.
At 4/10/2009 06:54:00 AM , Ottawa Watch said...

More red herrings, straw men and decayed logic. Give it up.

BTW, it's "Dr. Bourrie".
At 4/11/2009 05:57:00 PM , Barry M. Dank said...

I have responded to Bourrie's non-response to my critique. See my response on my dankprofessor blog (http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-bourrie-syndrome/) entitled- The Bourrie syndrome.
At 4/12/2009 08:23:00 PM , Ottawa Watch said...

Dank indeed.
I've answered your worthless critique many times.
All you seem to care about is rationalizing your seduction of your students. You are scum.
At 4/14/2009 02:50:00 AM , Rachel Marsden said...

"I really, really, REALLY don't think that Rachel Marsden -if it is she that is posting under the name - has any useful insight to offer in this particular situation, given her past. Frankly, I'm surprised they let her out of the nut house.
(name left anonymous largely b/c I don't feel like being her next victim....)"

1) You're a fucking pussy.

2) If you consider the "nuthouse" making infinitely more income than you do, then no, I'm not "out". I'm very much enjoying, thanks.

3) Don't flatter yourself, dipshit.

4) The kiddie diddler swim coach at SFU (and every man who has crossed me) deserve all they have gotten - and more. It's my style. My particular "je ne sais quoi". I'm proud of how I handle myself when it comes to deserving assholes. So fuck you.

NEXT
At 4/14/2009 08:38:00 PM , dankprofessor said...

FROM THE DANKPROFESSOR'S BLOG-

Well once again Professor Mark Bourrie’s response to the dankprofessor is a non- response.
Here it is unexpurgated, uncensored-

“Dank indeed.
I’ve answered your worthless critique many times.
All you seem to care about is rationalizing your seduction of your students. You are scum”

Bourrie’s usage of the scum rhetoric strips away his cloak of professionalism. No attempt to use professionalism here as a rationalization for his attitudes toward professors who have been intimate with their students. No attempt here for Bourrie to engage in any minimal form of academic or polite or enlightening discourse. His tactics are those of a hatemonger- objectify and dehumanize those who are on the other side. “Create” them in whatever terms the hatemonger wishes. No matter that Dank has never seduced anyone, Bourrie can still create and communicate Dank as a seducer without any need to cite supporting evidence since Dank is a creation of Bourrie’s imagination. Bourrie can imagine Dank and other professors who are intimate with students in what ever terms he wishes. Of course, such tells us more about Bourrie than it tells us about Dank, et .al. The fact that he homogenizes us, makes us all the same, allows no possibility that some of us seduce and some do not, is quite damning of Bourrie. As the philosopher Martin Buber would likely state, Bourrie lives in an I/it world, a world of impersonal categories, a world that is never allowed to transcend into an I/thou framework, a framework where there is personalization, where individuals are experienced as unique beings, where relationships are explored, where people can be appreciated and even loved. It is also a world that has been described by the anthropologist Mary Douglas, as a world of dirt and pollution and scum; a world infected by those who have engaged in violations of what is considered to be sacred.

In this world which Bourrie has created, there is no love. Bourrie along with many others
whose opposition to student professor relationships mainly has an anti-sexual dynamic, cannot comprehend that there can be a loving relationship between a student and a professor. The idea that a mutual love of knowledge can lead to love, a passion for each other is out of their world. The idea that some of these relationships become long term and lead to marriage, and even marriage at times without divorce is not considered. I think that I am on pretty firm ground when I believe that Bourrie has never given any consideration to the possibility that some of the professors and administrators he riles against at Concordia for not advocating student professor bans may very well have fallen in love with and married a student. And I am also quite sure that Bourrie has never entertained the possibility that some of his students may very well be the children of persons who were once in student professor relationships.

The mundane world of love, marriage and children is not there for Bourrie as applied to student professor relationships. Well, this mundane world is and was part of my world, and Bourrie’s writing me off and others like me as scum is not just beyond good taste, it reflects a descent into indecency and degradation. It reflects an attempt to pull his readers into his pornographic imagination.

And more must be said about love. It is striking that Mark Bourrie and his confreres say nothing about love, and nothing about falling in love. Such is striking since their often avowed goals is to preserve fairness and objectivity when it comes to grading. But never once does Bourrie say that the professor who has fallen in love with a student, a love which may be only known to the professor, should recuse oneself from grading the loved student or go to his supervisor to insure said love should not bias the grading process.

And as for barring student professor relationships that entail friendship without sex, Bourrie in his recent posting discounts such relationships as being different, not applicable. But, if ones goal really is to protect fairness in grading, one must know that at times close friendships, loving friendships can produce bonds that could threaten the fairness of the grading process. But Bourrie and apparently many others apparently do not care about love and friendship interfering with grading. What they care about is sex and furthering their anti-sexual agenda. The fairness in grading appeal helps them to rationalize their goals, and that is too stamp out sex between students and professors.

As long as universities are not replaced by online education, there will be love and sex between students and professors. Such has become and will unfortunately continue to be at least into the near future, the love that dare not speak its name. And dankprofessor blog readers can be assured that the dankprofessor will continue to speak its name. Such is my pledge.
At 4/15/2009 09:25:00 AM , Anonymous said...

I think that this post and many of the comments are off-base in assuming that defending student/professor consensual relationships is about professors wanting to be able to seduce students. I'm a grad student who has never been in a relationship in my life because I've been falling in love exclusively with teachers since puberty, and by now (aged 30 or so) I've come to resent and despair about this kind of thing, even to the point where I consider taking my own life. At least the Catholic church lets homosexuals who fall in love have an intimate relationship, so long as it is not a sexual one, but universities don't ban sex, but ban the relationships. If I were to try to imagine a policy crueller and more mutilating of my humanity than an absolute ban on student/prof consensual relationships, banning not only sex but also intimate bonding, I couldn't come up with one.
At 5/19/2009 04:47:00 AM , Keith Reader said...

UK policy - all but universally accepted and applied - is conflict-of-interest based and thus requires any faculty member involved in an intimate relationship to renounce *all* professional contact with the student concerned. The issue of favouritism in marking etc. seems to me paramount, and it may be worth noting that in UK universities all assessed work is seen by a second marker as well as in borderline cases by an external examiner. Work is also submitted anonymously (it bears the student's matriculation number and not his/her name). All very labour-intensive, but worth it in my judgement to obviate allegations of malpractice. I certainly do not criticise such relationships en bloc and in principle (I know many people who are in long-term partnerships with their former students), but share Dr Bourrie's concerns about their potential for abuse, and believe that a recusal/disclosure approach is the besy way of forestalling this. And I don't post anonymously ...

best

k
At 5/20/2009 12:41:00 AM , dankprofessor said...

Keith Reader states that he shares Dr. Bourrie's concern about the potential for abuse in regards to student prof sexual relationships. I suggest that Reader reread Bourrie's comments- for Bourrie there is something more than potential for abuse; Bourrie finds these relationships to be inherently damaging to the university and to be mind-boggling. In his terms and in the terms of most of those who vigorously advocate for the abolition of student professor sexual relationships, these relationships are not simply another example of conflict of interests; they are something more. They are condemned and
special policies are promoted because they are dealing with sexual matters and sexual outrage.

Mr. Reader feels that the UK way of handling these cases is good since
"UK policy - all but universally accepted and applied - is conflict-of-
interest based and thus requires any faculty member involved in an intimate relationship to renounce *all* professional contact with the student concerned."

Renouncing professional contact with the student
seems quite medieval to me since the student appears to end up being of the genre of leper. Is such renouncing public? If not, why not? Does the renounced have any grounds for appeal? If the renouncing is private/confidential, just another personnel matter, how does the university monitor both the student and the professor as to their adhering to the renouncing. And since the policy allows personal interaction, but not professional, how is it possible for the university to know that in the context of an intimate relationship professional matters are not discussed. In the dankprofessor's opinion, the policy as outlined by Reader is patently absurd.

But then Reader goes on to state:

"The issue of favouritism in marking etc. seems to me paramount, and it may be worth noting that in UK universities all assessed work is seen by a second marker as well as in borderline cases by an external examiner."

If favouritism in marking is the paramount issue, then it should be paramount in all cases of professors marking students. But the reality
as described by Reader is that it only becomes paramount in borderline cases. Of course, Reader makes no attempt to differentiate borderline from non-borderline cases. If all cases were treated the same, all cases would have an external examiner, then the problem is solved. No one is treated differentially, no need for a sexual investigation, no need for a renouncing, etc. Problem solved! Uniformity and fairness in grading becomes affirmed.

But I really doubt that Reader and Bourrie would go for this. For Bourrie, no moral outrage, everything uniform, just doesn't fit the Bourrie profile. I expect that Reader will elaborate on why having an external examiner for all would not be a good way to go.

Finally, the dankprofessor wishes to bring up the question as to who would occupy the position of external examiner, and what would be the qualifications of said examiners. Certainly said examiners would not be members of the faculty, too many prejudicial factors would then enter into the situation. And, of course, faculty do not like to have their grading judgments routinely questioned so said examiners may end up in rather tenuous situations. And presently, does one know who are the external examiners? Might Mr. Reader know? Might Mr. Reader be an external examiner? Might someone refer me to an external examiner so I can become more conversant as to the problems facing external examiners? Or is the reality that no one knows anything about external examiners, that no one knows any one who is or was an external examiner, that no ones knows how one can become an external examiner?

Cordially,

the dankprofessor
http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com
At 5/20/2009 02:23:00 AM , Keith Reader said...

Tne external examiner role is a peculiarity of the UK system about which I clearly didn't go into enough detail. Each degree programme has one or two such examiners - invited senior academics from other institutions - who fulfil a quality-control role by having sight of exam questions, adjudicating in borderline cases, attending examiners' meetings at the host institution and so on. They are entitled to see all student work and exercise this right in special cases - mitigating circumstances, conflicts of interest, etc. I have myself exercised this role (in return for distinctly modest remuneration ...) at a number of UK universities. It has formed part of the UK system - facilitated by the country's geographical compactness - throughout the thirty-five and more years I have been a professor. Sorry not to have made this more explicit in my previous post but I hope that this is sufficient clarification.

For the rest, renunciation is monitored by the simple fact of ensuring that the student is never enrolled in the relevant faculty member's class and thet s/he is never asked to look at or express an opinion on the student's work. This side of electronic tagging - and the UK is well on the way alas to becoming a surveillance society - that is all that can realistically be done.

Cordially to all readers (myself eponymously included ...)

Keith Reader
At 5/31/2009 11:33:00 PM , dankprofessor said...

The dankprofessor response to Reader can be found at-

http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/love-sex-and-external-examination/

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>: <$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
<$I18NPostedByBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home

Ottawa Watch

Friday, April 03, 2009

Concordia: Where It's OK for Profs to Have Sex With Students

59 Comments:

Links to this post:

About Me

Previous Posts