Rutgers University to ban romantic relationships between faculty and students

Relationships between a faculty member and a student, or a staff member such as a coach, adviser, college administrator, or employment supervisor and a student, are considered professional relationships. These professional relationships carry an inherent power differential. Where such a power differential exists, it compromises the real or perceived freedom of the student’s ability to begin, alter or terminate a romantic or sexual relationship. Therefore, for faculty and staff, the initiation of or engagement in a romantic or sexual relationship with a student wherein a power differential exists is prohibited. Therefore, even in cases in which the faculty or staff member does not hold a current position of authority or supervision over the student, romantic or sexual relationships between faculty or staff members and students present the individual and institutional risks and liabilities outlined below, including possible disciplinary action. Faculty and staff who are aware of a romantic or sexual relationship between a faculty or staff member and a student should report their concerns to their supervisors. The student who makes the complaint is entitled to processes specified in Title IX policies. If the process moves beyond consultation or informal resolution and results in a formal complaint process, the faculty or staff member who is accused is entitled to due process as specified in employment regulations and contractual language applicable to their collective bargaining unit. If determined to have engaged in the prohibited behavior, the faculty or staff member could be subject to:.

The policy and ethics of dating a professor

Professionalism is fostered by an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. Trust and respect are diminished when those in positions of authority abuse or appear to abuse their power. Those who abuse their power in such a context violate their duty to the University community.

It’s a generally acknowledged but frequently ignored ethical norm that teachers shouldn’t date or have sexual relationships with their students.

Physical contact is not a required element of such relationships. A Covered Relationship may exist on the basis of a single interaction. The University of Michigan strives to create and maintain a community that enables each person to reach their full potential. To do so requires an environment of trust, openness, civility, and respect. The teacher-student relationship lies at the foundation of the educational process. As a matter of sound judgment and professional ethics, faculty members have a responsibility to avoid any apparent or actual conflict between their professional responsibilities and personal relationships with students.

Faculty have a collective responsibility to the student experience as members and representatives of the University community, and with each class of incoming students who are bound together in space and time. The faculty at the University fulfill their essential role with students in learning, research, and service environments, and do so with a commitment to honoring the highest professional and ethical standards.

Consensual Relationships Policy

This policy was approved by the Board of Trustees on June 21, The University has a duty to provide for the student those privileges, opportunities, and protections which best promote the learning process in all its aspects. The relationship between an instructor [2] and a student plays an important role in accomplishing this mission. Certain responsibilities bestowed upon instructors have long been codified in the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities policy:.

Consensual romantic relationships between undergraduate students and faculty with students, pointing to professional ethics and potential conflicts of interest.

The provisions of this Code apply to persons whose service to the University includes teaching, scholarship, librarianship, and academic administration. The central functions of an academic community are learning, teaching, and scholarship. They must be characterized by reasoned discourse, intellectual honesty, mutual respect, and openness to constructive change. By accepting membership in this community, an individual neither surrenders rights nor escapes fundamental responsibilities as a citizen, but acquires additional rights as well as responsibilities to the entire University community.

They do not require the individual to be passive and silent. They do require recognition of how easily an academic community can be violated.

Faculty Guidelines

Policy Statement Syracuse University is committed to maintaining a healthy, safe, respectful, and productive working, learning, and teaching environment. This Policy provides a framework for defining and preventing inappropriate conduct by University Faculty Members and outlining the available procedural options for those who believe themselves to have been subject to misconduct by a University Faculty Member.

Syracuse University is committed to educating the community about and enforcing the standards of community conduct elaborated below. Further, the University is committed to meeting standards of transparency, fairness, and accountability in acting upon and communicating this policy and the procedures that follow. Scope of Policy Any member of the University community student, staff, faculty, or administrator having a complaint concerning inappropriate conduct by a University Faculty Member may utilize this Policy and the Procedure that follows.

Responsibilities of University Faculty Members University Faculty Members share responsibility for University governance and for the maintenance of the tenets of the University Code of Ethical Conduct.

The Policy also states that faculty or staff employees may not supervise or evaluate students to whom they are related by blood, law, or marriage. Because the.

In Pennsylvania, school attendance is compulsory and thus parents are mandated to entrust their children to our education system. It is from this foundation that the duty of teachers to act as a fiduciary in their students’ best interest and to create and maintain a safe environment for their students derives. The overwhelming majority of educators in Pennsylvania exercise their fiduciary responsibilities with care and conviction.

The few who breach their duties, however, undermine the profession and leave a trail of devastation, particularly with student victims. It has been our experience that when a teacher enters into an inappropriate relationship with a student, the teacher violates the recognized student-teacher boundary and thereby redefines the boundary inappropriately. For example, the teacher-student relationship may initially be appropriate, but at some point the relationship shifts to serving the needs of the teacher and not the needs of the student.

In many cases, the teacher takes on a new role with a student, which causes the traditional relationship to become blurred. When teachers become confidants, friends or counselors of students, a dual relationship is created which creates an ambiguity in the student-teacher relationship where roles are less defined. This ambiguity helps to foster inappropriate actions and educator misconduct. For new teachers, this ambiguity can sometimes be difficult to recognize. In some cases, a new teacher may be just a few years older than the students and may mistakenly view them as peers.

They may share common interests, the same musical tastes, and possibly even an overlapping circle of friends. Moreover, because of the demanding nature of the first years of teaching, a new teacher may spend less time with his or her family and may begin seek students as a support system.

P208: POLICY ON RELATIONSHIPS

When psychology senior Emma Sturm matched with him on Tinder, she knew their common passions and interests could lead to a fun relationship. There was one problem: he was a professor and she was a student. Their relationship was natural and a date that was supposed to last a couple hours turned into an entire day. According to an informal Mustang News poll on the Cal Poly Class of and Facebook pages, of more than students who answered, two claimed to have had a relationship with a professor while at Cal Poly.

While these relationships are between two consenting adults, the potential pitfalls of students dating professors are greater than in the average relationship between two college students and include legal, ethical and social impacts.

There was one problem: he was a professor and she was a student. Their relationship was natural and a date that was supposed to last a.

The answer to an ethics question sometimes becomes obvious when it is apparent that every argument on one side is either a logical fallacy, an unethical rationalization, or the application of an invalid ethics principle. Such is the case here, and thus I somewhat question the motives of the author of the post, Kelly Anders. Wishful thinking, perhaps? Asking the question creates the illusion that there is a real controversy. I addressed this question a long time ago, in an early post here barely seen at the time but among the most frequently visited since.

I wrote:. Dating a student is a professional breach of trust, and one that adversely effects the integrity of the entire educational institution…. A teacher always has superior power over any student by virtue of his or her position of authority, and it is an abuse of that power to use it to entice students into dates or bed…. Will the professor consciously or subconsciously be easier on the friends of his student lover if they are in his class?

‘Abuse of power’: should universities ban staff-student relationships?

The University of North Carolina Board of Governors adopted a system-wide Policy that prohibits amorous or sexual relationships between faculty or staff employees and 1 students they evaluate or supervise by virtue of their teaching, research, administrative, or other employment responsibility and 2 students who are minors below the age of eighteen. The Policy also states that faculty or staff employees may not supervise or evaluate students to whom they are related by blood, law, or marriage.

Because of the sensitive nature of such relationships, every reasonable effort should be made to resolve alleged Policy violations on an informal basis if possible. Concerns about problems related to this Policy may be taken to the administrative official most directly involved, excluding the person alleged to have violated this Policy, or to one of the individuals listed below in Section VI.

Last Revised Date: Relationships with Students Outside the Instructional, Supervisory, or Evaluative Context: Romantic or instruction or certification at the University, including a faculty member or employee so registered or enrolled.

By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie Policy , Privacy Policy , and our Terms of Service. Academia Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for academics and those enrolled in higher education. It only takes a minute to sign up. I am a 32 year old Assistant Professor. I met a girl at a conference. I liked her, but I realized she is a graduate student at the same university where I am faculty member. She is from the same school, but from a different department.

Is it ethical for me to date her? I hope it’s ethical!

Professors, power and predators: why student-teacher relationships should be banned

When Mark lies to a girl about calling her back, he thinks he’s being nice. What are the ethics behind telling the truth? Frank’s friends think he’s depressed when he decides to stop engaging in the hook-up culture. Is it as acceptable to not hook-up as it is to hook-up in the college culture? Lauren regularly checks up on her ex-boyfriend via social media. Should this be considered cyberstalking?

As a matter of sound judgment and professional ethics, faculty members have a may reasonably be described as sexual, romantic, amorous, and/or dating.

This policy ensures freedom from reprisal for faculty and students to examine all pertinent data, to question assumptions, to be guided by the evidence of scholarly research, to teach and study the substance of a given discipline, and to fully participate in the development and debate of institutional policies and procedures and relevant matters in the classroom. While some course materials and activities require a uniform approach, such as assessment of course learning outcomes and accrediting standards, DSC supports faculty innovation and experimentation in the development of pedagogy and course assignments.

Department committees play an important role in setting standards and expectations but their decisions or recommendations should be routinely brought back to the full department for discussion. Faculty who want to experiment with assignments and approaches should be able to, with the knowledge that outcomes will be assessed and effectiveness of the approach must be demonstrable. The Board affirms the principles of academic freedom and responsibility in accordance with the mission of the College.

The principles are rooted in a conception of the College as an environment united in the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom in an atmosphere of tolerance and freedom.

STORYTIME