A Survey of Policies Governing "Consensual" Faculty-student Amorous Relationships at American Colleges and Universities
Consensual amorous or sexual relationships between faculty and students are an emerging policy concern for many colleges and universities. Federal and other law clearly prohibits coercive relationships, and most colleges and universities have established sexual harassment policies that address coercion. Policy with respect to relationships that are not clearly coercive in nature is beginning to be addressed by some colleges.
Survey
A mail survey was conducted during April 1995 requesting information from chief student affairs officers at a nationwide sample of 1,116 campuses concerning the status of policy development with respect to consensual amorous or sexual relationships between students and faculty at their campus. (To limit mailing costs, the sample excluded two-year institutions and those with enrollments smaller than 500.) Responses were received from 189 institutions (as of June 1, 1995) for a response rate of approximately 17 percent.
Issue of Consent
Many people feel that there can be no valid "consent" when there is a power differential in the roles of relationship participants, such as between faculty member and student. For the purposes of this survey, a consensual relationship was defined as one where there is no report or other evidence of direct or overt coercion to induce the student's participation (such as the promise of a good evaluation or threat of a poor one) and where experience of implicit coercion is not reported.
Survey Results
Table 1: Responses concerning policy governing consensual sexual or amorous relationships between faculty and students.
Type of Policy | Institutions | # of responses |
---|---|---|
Adopted written policy permits, but warns against | 34 | 18 |
Adopted written policy prohibits in academic work contexts | 21 | 11 |
Adopted written policy prohibits in all contexts | 6 | 3 |
Under consideration | 17 | 9 |
No explicit, written policy | 118 | 62 |
No response received (by June 1) | 927 | — |
Sixty-one respondents indicated that they had adopted a specific policy concerning this issue (as opposed to a more general sexual harassment policy with no specific reference to consensual relationships). Seventeen respondents indicated that such policies were under active consideration. The remaining 118 respondents had not adopted a specific policy.
While there are many differences (and many similarities) in language among the policies submitted, they are basically of three types:
- Policies that explicitly prohibit sexual and/or amorous relationships between faculty and students in the academic work (instructional and similar) context.
- Policies that explicitly prohibit sexual and/or amorous relationships between faculty and students at least in all contexts.
- Policies that do not prohibit these relationships, but strongly urge that they be avoided and/or warn of potential risks, including presumption of coercion in case of sexual harassment charges.
Table 2: Responses concerning years in which policies were adopted.
Year | Adopted Institutions | Cumulative # of Adoptions |
---|---|---|
1982 | 1 | 2 |
1983 | 0 | — |
1984 | 0 | — |
1985 | 1 |
4 |
1986 | 0 | — |
1987 | 2 | 8 |
1988 | 2 | 12 |
1989 | 1 | 14 |
1990 | 4 | 21 |
1991 | 3 | 27 |
1992 | 4 | 35 |
1993 | 13 | 60 |
1994 | 15 | 89 |
1995 * | 6 * | 100 |
* 1995 results reflect months of January through return of survey (April or May).
Efforts to Measure the Incidence of "Consensual" Student-faculty Relationships
For obvious reasons, the incidence of these relationships is very difficult to measure. There are some efforts that, while limited, are interesting to consider.
In a 1993 national survey (Kuhlman), 54 respondents reported that 189 consensual (as defined above) amorous or sexual relationships between faculty and students had come to their attention (directly or indirectly) during the past five years. Female students were involved in 157 (83 percent) of these cases. The mean (average) number of cases reported for those reporting at least one was 4.4. One hundred thirty-one (69 percent) of these cases developed or continued in an instructional or advising context, and 23 (12 percent) resulted in known disciplinary action against the faculty member. Forty-four relationships (23 percent) involved a faculty member who has a repeat pattern of engaging in such relationships. Twenty-two of 54 respondents reported having been approached directly by a total of 88 students (10 male) with problems or confusion associated with participation in consensual relationships with faculty.
The results of this survey did confirm that both consensual and coercive student-faculty amorous or sexual relationships take place at a broad range of institutions in substantial numbers. The survey return rate was low and, in any case, it would be reasonable to suppose that many additional instances escape the attention of respondents. One university study (Fitzgerald, et al., 1988) found that more than 25 percent of male faculty members reported engaging in at least one sexual encounter or relationship with a student. A survey of chairs, deans and counselors at the Brooklyn College campus found 64 reported cases (32 "consensual" and 32 nonconsensual), during a five-year period on one campus (Kuhlman, 1992).
Almost half of the instances of "consensual" relationships reported in this survey led students to consult with the respondent because of problems or confusion resulting from the relationship.
Even students who have no current conflict or confusion about such involvements may later have second thoughts. Glaser and Thorpe (1986) report that, while most former female graduate psychology students who engaged in consensual relationships with faculty had positive or neutral experiences of these relationships at the time, in retrospect (10 years later) they regretted their participation.
DeChiara (1988) argues that these relationships (arising "free from any intentional threat by the teacher") "may in some cases be harmful to the interests of the student involved, unfair to other students, and bad for the academic process." In addition to potential problems for students directly involved, he cites classmates' perceptions of favoritism as an important issue for academic integrity.
Brief Conclusions
The number of colleges and universities adopting explicit policies has increased markedly since 1993, with 65 percent of policies adopted since that year. Adoptions in 1995 are keeping pace with 1993–94.
The results of this survey confirm that consensual student-faculty amorous or sexual relationships continue to be a policy concern at a broad range of institutions. Over time, increasing numbers of institutions are considering policy adoption in this area.
References
DeChiara, P. "The need for universities to have rules on consensual sexual relationships between faculty members and students." Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 12: 137–62. 1998.
Fitzgerald, L.F., L.M. Weitzman, Y. Gold and M. Ormerod. "Academic harassment: Sex and denial in scholarly garb." Psychology of Women Quarterly 12: 329–40. 1988.
Glaser, R.D. and J.S. Thorpe. "Unethical intimacy: A survey of sexual contact and advances between psychology educators and female graduate students." American Psychologist 41.1: 43-51. 1986.
Kuhlman, G.A. "An anecdotal survey concerning faculty-student amorous relationships at Brooklyn College." Unpublished report, Brooklyn College. 1992.
Kuhlman, G.A. "An anecdotal survey concerning faculty-student amorous relationships at American colleges and universities." Unpublished report, Brooklyn College. 1993.
June 20, 1995
Professor Gregory A. Kuhlman, Director
Personal Counseling
Brooklyn College
2900 Bedford Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889
P: 718.951.5174
F: 718.951.4481