What would happen if a student and a professor were attracted to each other and had a relationship?
It might carry on quietly and happily, or it might be exposed.
Would we stab him with a needle and institutionalize him for his sexual perversion? Would we put her in the stocks at Smith Plaza, so that honest folk could splash Starbucks and throw multi-grains at her?
It might be more useful to ask, “What is our campus’ attitude toward student-professor relationships?”
Are they private matters that shouldn’t be pried open, or should we expose the lovers to public humiliation and smear the professor’s reputation ?
We can reasonably suspect that some people prescribe to the latter. Why do they believe that, and do they have reasons?
There is a belief, probably held by the majority, that a sexual relationship compels one or both lovers to treat each other differently than others, even in matters outside of the bedchamber.
For instance, if a professor’s lover is in class, people think the professor might give him or her an A-, even if he or she really deserves a B .
This belief might be why militants encamp against love: They want to preserve equal treatment for all students.
Have the militants declared war against love? Of course not.
They have declared war against rape.
The prevailing narrative depicts slimy professors raping innocent young students while holding F’s to their throat.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
This story is certainly horrible, and these people may exist.
Is it possible to protect innocent students whose college and career ambitions put them at risk of becoming rape victims while still protecting our right to love our professors?
What will it take to protect those who have vile ambitions and are willing to debase themselves because they cherish an A more than justice? Only those with integrity will level a charge of coercion against their professors.
Will an explicit policy against student-professor relationships deter slimy professors from taking advantage of students? Only if they fear exposure.
If their prey choose to protect their perversion, then such a policy will be ineffective.
To protect innocent students, there must be a clear and open recourse for all claims of sexual coercion.
I trust our institution to serve justice in matters of sexual coercion, but I must stress that open recourse wasn’t advertised to me while I was a student.
Recourse should be advertised at freshman orientation and posted conspicuously in every department and on the Internet.
The advertisements should not declare a ban on student-professor relationships, only recourse for allegations of coercion or attempted coercion.
In an October 2008 email, Deputy Provost Richard Holder said the University takes precautions to ensure professors don’t take advantage of students who they are dating, and vice versa.
“We are mindful of how these can affect the teaching environment, and when we know about a specific situation where there is a relationship between a faculty member and a student enrolled in his or her class, we try to intervene to address this conflict of interest,” he said. “Typically, we try to place the student in another section or class, or have another faculty member handle the grading.”
From this, it seems clear that the militants are not encamped with the University’s highest authorities. On the contrary, Holder’s statement makes me believe our institution strives to protect equality in grading and lovers’ rights to be open about their relationships.
On June 7, Holder assured me that the University’s position hadn’t changed. Could any non-policy be more reasonable and just? Could any non-policy address all legitimate concerns more effectively? This is the man and office that look after us. The militants do not have authority. They are mere backbiters, gossipers and slanderers.
The militants are not concerned with equality in grading, or protecting students from coercion. Their true concern, I’m afraid, is to portray college students as children rather than adults.
Our desires are childish fantasies to them. They object to fulfillment. They object to gratification. To them, it doesn’t matter if we’re in our professor’s class or not.
If we’re undergraduates, we’re toddlers — and they run the daycare. Maybe they haven’t had their share from the cup of life; they can do nothing but keep us from ours. The inevitability of disappointment in this life seems to be their curricular maxim.
That’s the final lesson we learn here. We, too, graduate with a flowering burden of contempt, hate and distrust — a doubtful seed when we came here, able to be nurtured or rooted out.
I can’t even trust my own impulses — that’s what they taught me.
I can’t be satisfied. It’s improper. And if I’ve said anything spiteful to her, it was an animal defense, a misdirected counter-attack for treating me less than fully human. It was the progeny of those devils.
The policies are fine. The policies are just. It’s the bigots’ attitude and the culture that needs reform.
Corey Davis is a UNM alumn
