Do professors have a constitutional right to date students? Professor Paul Abramson thinks so. Abramson is a 57 year old psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. His university, like many others, bans romance between professors and students. Abrahamson is about to publish a book Romance in the Ivory Tower that faults such policies as moralistic and outdated.
"For me this is not an issue of who's sleeping with whom," Abramson said in an interview in the current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. "It's an issue about where the power to make the choice resides." According to Abramson, the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. constitution protects what he calls "the right to romance." Intrigued, I picked up my copy of the U.S. Constitution and perused it. No such right. I tried reading the document standing on my head. Still nothing. I squeezed lemon juice and held the paper up to the light. Gee, the right to romance didn't appear anywhere.
Abramson points out that the Ninth Amendment reserves all rights not earlier specified in the document to the people. So do I have a Ninth Amendment right to take drugs? To travel without a passport? To conduct my own foreign policy? How is the right to romance different from these? Abramson goes into high lyrical gear. "We make choices over things that are exceedingly intimate: who to love, what to believe in, the character of our writing and speech. These are part of the fundamental nature of who we are." Abramson aruges that sexuality, like speech and religion, is constitutive of our identity. Yes, but speech and religion are specifically protected in the First Amendment. If the founders agreed with Abramson, why didn't they remember to add, "Congress shall make no law restricting the right to romance?"
The answer, I suppose, is because the founders hadn't listened to too many Peter, Paul and Mary songs. The founders seem to have recognized that sexuality is fraught with the potential both for personal exploitation and social disorder. I don't have any problem with a professor dating a graduate student. But when a professor romances a student in his or her own class, the situation changes. Moreover, how would you as a parent feel if your eighteen-year-old freshman daughter began a sexual relationship with a 57 year old psychology professor? My point is that these situations can become extremely complicated, with lots of competing considerations at stake, and that's why they cannot be settled through the absolutism of "rights."
If professors had a constitutional "right to romance," then a student's refusal to sleep with them would constitute a violation of their rights. The whole concept is a legal absurdity. Professor Abramson is certainly entitled to cruise the bars of Los Angeles looking for love if he wants to. I just think should leave his copy of the Constitution behind.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 5)
1. I absolutely agree with the professor, for a number of reasons.
First of all, there is NO PROOF that the professor is exchanging grades for sex. Zero proof, therefore a dismissal would be a case of guilty until proven innocent.
Second of all, it is ridiculous to mention some sort of "power" difference between a professor and a student for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to:
A: All policemen have power over citizens- power that can be used at gunpoint! Surely that beats the power laid over by politicians, therapists, and CERTAINLY professors (especially since professors at universities who teach ADULTS do NOT have the same sort of moral or authoratative power). Is it illegal for police officers and military personnel to date civilians? NO.
B. The claim that a student (of ANY age) does not have the ability or the resolve to resist the advances of a professor is bullshit. You have the right to say no, if a student, and if you are a professor you probably know that many of the STUDENTS are the ones doing the advancing!
The claim that a student somehow "can't resist" a professor's offer of a relationship is absolute garbage. A student who finds he/she "can't" say no to a professor is the one with the psychological problem, although a professor who holds a "no" answer against the student for no good reason SHOULD be fired, like any other sexual harrasser would.
A professor and a student who want a relationship with each other, futhermore, should not be automatically suspect. There is no proof anyone else has that these two people wouldn't have hooked up otherwise, and, like stated before, to dismiss or punish a professor because of his or her relationship with a student would constitute blatant guilt-before-innocence.
I think that any two consenting people who love each other should be "allowed" (or, rather, "not stopped") from pursuing a relationship. THe worst psychological and emotional problems always, always, always come from people not being able to pursue their love for another (be that a sexual, romantic, or any kind of love).
I find it appalling that Western culture tries to consistantly regulate and control human beings' passions and feeelings, and then innocently whip its head around and ask where all the psychological problems are coming from.
Furthermore, this obsession with power and authority has gotten me physically ill. Maybe its the emphasis on authority and ranking in our society that is confusing and intimidating these poor students and professors such (at least the ones who aren't genuinely in love).
I can tell you from personal experience (people Ive known) that while many times it's a professor's "power" or Daddy/Mommy-ish figure that turns some students on, for the majority of students, the crushes come from other things, such as mutual interest in the subject matter, rejoice feelings at finding another human being at the college who isn't immature (that's why mature-sounding women tend to fall for professors as well!), and simply because the professor and the student may have gone together ell had they never been in the same class otgehter.
All in all, I think the biggest problem here is people who are geniuinelty in love, or who at least want to honestly try out a relationship with someone whom they may one day thank God they came together with, are not allowerd to pursure their relationship. A genuine shame.
Anyone suscribing to these Puritanical "Power" beliefs I have seen on here should be instituted into an asylum immmediately. Literally.
me at 11:16PM on Oct 22nd 2008
2. w3Hi, men! today I found Britney Spears Nude video :) Enjoy..
..
http://sexy-tube-world.net/view.php?Britney_Spears_Nude
..
..
taytaupchh at 10:39AM on Jan 24th 2009
3. its not so much a comment as i am looking for advice more then anything, you see, i like my professor very much and i know he likes me. he is 42years and i am 45 years. the tech collage that we both go to has a policy, suposidly that says that teachers and students can't have any interaction romance wise and can't have any contact outside of school as well, i have read the policy booklet and i have not yet found anything that comes close to anything saying that professors and students can't have interaction or romance inside or outside of school. I and he have not persuded any such thing as of yet, because i think we are both very afraid...
sincerely fearful
Malissia baun at 8:00PM on Nov 26th 2009
4. I retired from a large university as a professor and although there were many oppertunities to date it was/is a NO NO. The complications can cause problems that can/will haunt you and the collegate system. There are many other sources available,so professor teach,that is what you were hired for.
wayneJ voter at 10:30PM on Aug 21st 2007
5. The founding fathers, and the rest of our leaders didn't indulge in the ridiculous idea of a "right to date" or to conduct foreign policy.
Fortunately, what they did do with the constitution was to establish inalienable rights, one of which is the right of choice. This most important of our inalienable rights actually seems to be what your premise is based upon.
Professors and others in authoritative positions are free to choose who they date. Experience has taught many in our society that making the choice to date a student or one that is in a subordinate is frought with peril. In many cases it is banned because it can constitute a conflict of interest, if not criminal or otherwise.
Many organizations even have policies on this matter which would preclude the need for a constitutional debate, unless, as your premise may suggest you are claiming that the RIGHT TO CHOOSE is in itself UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Does a professor or anyone have a right to choose who they date? YES THEY DO
Whether or not it is good judgment, a conflict of interest, etc.. is another question.
dmode16340 at 11:01PM on Aug 21st 2007
6. Excellent! Couldn't have expressed it better myself! To be honest, if I had an 18 year-old son attending any institution of higher learning and his 57 year- old female professor (or and 87 year-old, or 37, or…. etc.,) claimed a “constitutional right” to have sexual relations with him – in exchange for giving him a higher grade, most likely – I would be just as appalled at the idea. This has nothing to do with gender, age, sexual preference, “romance” or “rights” It is pure lunacy and a pathetic attempt to degrade the lofty intentions of the Founding Fathers while justifying his unwholesome obsession. If this man has a need to have sex with girls young enough to be his granddaughters, then he should not be working with students. [Obviously, psychologist Abramson needs the help of a competent psychiatrist!}
PS – Some people would do anything to sell their book! Maybe this is just a publicity ploy on Abramson’s part; perhpas he is just as sane as the average Joe – and hoping to laugh all the way to the bank? Duh... I think not!
Stephann Mohans at 11:15PM on Aug 21st 2007
7. Please permit me to clarify that I was referring to Dinesh D'Souza’s commentary when I wrote, “Excellent! Couldn't have expressed it better myself!” and NOT to dmode16340’s comments. S/he wrote, “Fortunately, what they did do with the constitution was to establish inalienable rights, one of which is the right of choice.”
Some of the comments of dmode16340 seem to be based upon faulty reasoning, especially in relation to… “Abramson points out that the Ninth Amendment reserves all rights not earlier specified in the document to the people.” In that context, one could conceivably replace dmode16340’s words “who they date” with “who they kill” in his comment. Does the RIGHT TO CHOOSE justify muder? Of course not. In order to have a stable and safe society, it is necessary to have limits as well as freedoms. That is why every road in the USA is not a speed-limitless Autobahn. And that is also why it is a punishable crime to rape in the streets, even if someone thinks that it’s OK and they have “the freedom of CHOICE” to do it, rather than not to do it.
Stephann Mohans at 11:53PM on Aug 21st 2007
8. He is missing the point. The prof *has* the right to date the student (provided s/he is of age). He just can't do it while he's a professor and s/he is a student. Nobody is talking about sending him to jail for dating a student. So far as I know the worst thing that's ever happened to someone like that is that they lost their job. Is he next going to argue that there is a constitutional right to a particular job?
Scott M at 12:00AM on Aug 22nd 2007
9. Of course the right to choose doesn't justify murder any more than it justifies the right to choose to yell fire in a crowded theatre or for a Professor or teacher to date a student.
The issue is JUDGMENT. The freedom to choose is constrained by our ability to make sound judgements. If the judgments are not good we pay a price. If you Choose to kill someone... which of course we are... you have to deal with the CONSEQUENCES. Same is true for a professor dating a student.
The flaw I see in your reasoning is that MURDER is a crime. Dating a student is not a crime. Its bad judgment, wrong, stupid, violates some school policies, .. call it what you will.. but not a crime.
Peace
dmode16340 at 12:15AM on Aug 22nd 2007
10. Whuile I agree with DD's end result, his arguments are lacking.
The professor actually has it right. Abramson is quoted, "It's an issue about where the power to make the choice resides." The problem, there are TWO people making a choice here. He can chose whom he wants to ask to go out for a date. However, if it is one of his students, does she REALLY have the choice to say "NO" if that was her desire?
In an ideal world, she would. But, in this real world, with unequal relationships, it is unlikely she would feel comfortable saying "NO". And, if she did muster the courage to say "NO", would she feel comfortable sitting in his class afterwards. Wold she feel comfortable with the professor evaluating her performance as a student.
Sorry, Professor. But, when you accept a position that has some auhority, along with that authority comes responsibility and some constraints.
ray at 12:29AM on Aug 22nd 2007
11. The beauty of the Consitution is that it is adaptable to present times. The founding fathers had the foresight to word the Constitution precisely in contemplation of situations that aren't expressly written about.
In fact, the Ninth Amendment has been used before to grant people powers not expressly granted in any other amendment, most notably the right to lawfully obtain an abortion. But I don't want this turning into an abortion debate...
Just because the founders did not expressly include "the right to date" in the Constitution doesn't mean that it isn't actually there...maybe they thought that the right to choose who to love was SO INALIENABLE that they didn't have to mention it. If they had to conceive of every possible situation and make a judgment call on it, the Constitution would be infinitely long. Instead, it's an incredibly concise document that allows for change with the times. That's why it's the longest-lasting Constitution in the world...
More D'Souza halfway logic - gimme a break!
Jason at 12:50AM on Aug 22nd 2007
12. Professor's should not date their students for obvious reasons. After they are no longer attending the school then I feel it is a different story. Too much professionalism is sacrificed when a Professor does this. When I was in college one of our Music Directors was dating his grad student. To my dismay I got stuck with this man for private music study and I had absolutely no respect for him because of his behavior. Many of the students mocked this man and never took him seriously. They also had absolutely no respect for the grad student and would make derrogatory comments about her behind her back. I kind of felt sorry for her. While I am sure she was a very sweet person, she gave off the wrong idea that instead of her earning her passage, she was sleeping her way up. It was a pretty sad picture. He made a lot of bad judgement calls and he was blinded by the lower half of his body.
For a person to be in the psychology field, Professor Paul Abramson sure has a delusional view of the way our constitution works. People will believe anything if they wish it to be true enough.
E at 1:03AM on Aug 22nd 2007
13. Dingleberry D'Souza, that's exactly what the 9th Amendment was for - to specify that any other rights not covered were also the heritage of free Americans. The professor is exactly right. And yes he should have the right to take drugs and conduct his own foreign policy if he wants to because those are things a truly free person should be able to do.
Unfortunately we have lost sight of freedom and have accepted numerous limitations on our freedoms despite the efforts of the Founders to make that not happen. D'Souza is just the latest goose-stepper to authority.
R. Kohl at 4:15AM on Sep 23rd 2007
14. He sounds like a typical Bruin! Although this garbage goes on at every university. I wonder how the dear ol' man, I mean the dirty ol' geezer professor would feel if his own daughter was dating one of his colleagues, another grandpa figure? I'll bet he wouldn't feel that was too "romantic".
Diane at 4:17AM on Aug 22nd 2007
15. The key phrase in this whole argument is "a student in his or her own class". That is definitely something that should be banned / continue to be banned. However, most colleges are a large community and being barred from dating most people in the community in which you spend most of your time is not right.
FL Chick at 4:50AM on Aug 22nd 2007