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 Abrahamson is about to publish a book Romance in the Ivory Tower that faults such policies as moralistic and outdated.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 2 of 5)
16. The Professor seems to think that the University's policy prohibiting professors from dating students is 'moralistic'. Setting aside for the moment that Universities are private entities with governing bodies that can (and do) decide among other things the moral character of their organizations, such policies are not matters of 'morals' as much as they are a matter of ethics. Ethics--as a college professors should know--is the practice of a standard higher than law. Ethics seeks to avoid not only of violation of a law's letter but of any appearance of impropriety. It sis in this regard that such a policy is prudent. If he didn't like the terms his employer set forth, he didn't have to take the job.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 7:57AM on Aug 22nd 2007
17. Where are the feminist academics who have argued for decades that such relationships are de facto unequal and coerce "choice" because of the inherent "power" imbalance between student and teacher? Probably having coffee with Abramson in the teacher's lounge.
John Gleason at 8:43AM on Aug 22nd 2007
18. Right on, Keith! What a ridiculous topic for a book. Many employers frown on dating within the workplace, not just institutions of higher learning. Whiny is exactly the word for it. If Prof. Abramson is in love, he'll only have to wait 4 years... and that's if the policy states, as does the article, that professors may not date students. If the policy is actually that professors may not date students IN THEIR CLASS, well come ON--we're talking about a few months!
DD has given this trite trash more attention than it deserved with his pseudo-intellectual discussion of the Constitution. The simple phrase "right to romance" with a brief explanation of the context would have discredited the book on its own without DD's dizzying "logic."
Denise at 8:55AM on Aug 22nd 2007
19. Feelings must be discreet by mutual understanding!
Until student has graduated with fair honest hard working application ... sans preference shown by love struck Professor! Nothing can surpass LOVE built on honesty ... respect & control of one's natural "passion filled LUST" for meaningful short or better yet, long term relationship!
Mo at 8:57AM on Aug 22nd 2007
20. "I tried reading the document standing on my head."
Given the Ayatollah D'Souza's utterly upside-down view of the world, I've always assumed this is how he reads EVERYTHING.
Richter at 9:18AM on Aug 22nd 2007
21. As usual, Dinesh is against freedom. At 18 years old, you're an adult and should be free to choose whomever you want to date, even a professor. What gives anyone the right to restrict someone's mutually consensual dating choices? Why are you so quick to take away other people's freedom? They're two adults entering a consensual relationship, and that's what's important.
W at 9:38AM on Aug 22nd 2007
22. This idiot should be fired. "Romance" between an "old fart" adult "authority figure" and an 18 year old student would most likely involve some power or position acquisition implication. Is the professor "teaching" that sexual quid pro quo is the way to get along the "real" world? Let the lover boy teach a night course to 40 year olds at a Junior College in his underwear.
bill at 9:54AM on Aug 22nd 2007
23. Professors dating undergraduates- though not my cup of tea, honestly- is all right in some situations, but definitely not others.
For one thing, when the student is actually in the class, this should be forbidden. There is definitely a chance of the student getting an undeserved grade.
But it is not necessarily "okay" after the student is not a student in the professor's class anymore. Many graduate schools, departmental honors programs, and professional schools require faculty letters of recommendation. The professor can give the student a letter of recommendation they don't deserve- and influence the student's acceptance into a competitive program. We're not just talking one "A"- we're talking the student possibly beating out someone else to do an honors thesis, which can in turn influence the student's chances of getting into a highly competitive graduate program, etc.
On the other hand, if the professor and student simply spot each other across the quad, and don't have any academic relationship, hey, it might be gross (20 year old student and 60 year old professor?!) but to each his own!
Alex_Mack at 10:15AM on Aug 22nd 2007
24. To Waynejvoter, If you were a professor, I am certainly glad that the operative word here is "were". God, you can't even spell. Collegate? Is that a defining term or a toothpaste? Anyone who believes you were a college professor has to have a screw loose!!!!! Get a life, and quit trying to pawn yourself off as a spokesman for those who truly ARE professors and teachers. Geez!!! rick
Rick Mundy at 10:20AM on Aug 22nd 2007
25. Rick Mundy: To be fair to 'Waynejvoter', how well a person types is no indication of their intelligence or their education. I know I make mistakes on a keyboard that I could NEVER make writing with a pen. Some of us never really get used to the 'disconnected' feeling this machine and technology create. Pilots have made the same complaint about modern aircraft and the designers are now putting the 'feedback' back into the controls.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 12:12PM on Aug 22nd 2007
26. True, two consenting adults should have the right to a relationship, BUT whatever happened to good old common sense??? She should not be one of his students!!! This is another case of a old fart wanting to jump into the panties of a young thing!!!
What I have always wondered is why a "young girl would want a "old fart" to put up with in the first place. They both have a mental problem!!
JM Mitchell at 12:15PM on Aug 22nd 2007
27. I take exception to Dinesh's simplistic reasoning.
Dinesh is pandering to the right and attempting to simplify a terribly complex issue--constitutional interpretation. Standing on your head will not inform you about the constitution, nor will looking in the document for a right and determining that it does not exist because you cannot find it. The right to free association exists even though Dinesh would never find it in the text of the constitution. Without out it the right to free speach would be virtually meaningless. Thus, the right to free association exists and is contained within the constitution! It is a legal absurdity to think that anything not specifically enumerated within the constitution was not contemplated by our forefathers.
Dinesh, please leave the legal absurdities to the lawyers and limit your overly simplistic logic to discourses on religion or the stock market because we know you are an expert on both.
Oh, did you notice how Dinesh has not written an article on how the current stock market troubles are Bush’s fault? Funny, since a few months ago he was saying how every time he looks at his portfolio he is thankful he voted for Bush.
Dinesh is a spin-machine masquerading as an academic and nothing more.
Rob at 12:44PM on Aug 22nd 2007
28. Although I have problems with Dinesh's spin and overly simplified reasoning, I don't condone teachers having relationships with their students. Although the constitution may protect our right to associate with and engage in relationships with others, educational institutions also have the right to protect their students and professional environment. Accordingly, a rule prohibiting teacher from engaging in relationships with students, that would be otherwise lawful, is eminently appropriate. The risk to students and the integrity of the institution justifies such a rule.
Rob at 4:18PM on Aug 22nd 2007
29. Abramson got it wrong. The Ninth Amendment doesn't grant the people the ability to invent rights as they see fit. It just confirms that other rights do exist that are not mentioned specifically in the Constitution - clarifying that the enumerated rights are not meant to be the only ones in existence. In the end, it is up to the courts to determine if a "right" is legitimate, not Abramson.
Abramson neglects to mention that he accepted a job with the University on the condition that he comply with their rules. That was his "right", just as it is now his "right" to quit his job if he disagrees with those conditions.
Asa Gage at 1:44PM on Aug 22nd 2007
30. Rob writes: "Oh, did you notice how Dinesh has not written an article on how the current stock market troubles are Bush’s fault? Funny, since a few months ago he was saying how every time he looks at his portfolio he is thankful he voted for Bush."
Good point, Rob. I recall that abysmal post as well. Aside from ignoring the well documented fact that the market historically has performed better under Democrats that republicans, the Ayatollah D'Souza certainly revealed his true colors -- Iraq is devouring American lives, but hey, Dinesh's stock is up so three cheers for Bush!
Disgusting.
Richter at 1:56PM on Aug 22nd 2007