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 Abrahamson is about to publish a book Romance in the Ivory Tower that faults such policies as moralistic and outdated.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 4 of 5)
46. simple conflict of interest; colleges should just say no. Institutions have rights too. I'm a prof., btw. I agree with DD.
michael white at 8:46PM on Aug 22nd 2007
47. To Lawren Cecerf (#29):
In the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that interracial couples have a 'Constitutional Right' to marry, the Court was citing their inherent right as human beings (and as citizens) that is granted to them by the courts current understanding of the Constitution. That is to say that their racial status makes the no less equal under the law and thus has no bearing on their worthiness to marry.
Conversely, what is at issue in this article is whether a private institution--or indeed anyone--can govern behavior of persons currently engaged for other purposes. Indeed it can. For instance, nobody is saying that persons over the age of 21 cannot consume alcohol or drive a car. But for persons to do both at the same time constitutes a crime.
To that end, nobody is saying that the Professor cannot date/sleep with/even marry students. Just that he cannot date students of the college in which he works, while he works there and they are enrolled in that institution. Sounds fair enough.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 8:07AM on Aug 23rd 2007
48. Puritanical "DICK" Nixon maintained a TRICKY illicit goings on with a young vixen across the highseas! DICK ... did WHAT?!! Hehehe
Mo at 10:15AM on Aug 23rd 2007
49. David S. here you go...http;//www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/famdate.htm
Bridget at 10:21AM on Aug 23rd 2007
50. What the professor fails to realize is that the assertion of a supposed "right" does not mean it truly exists. Furthermore, the existence of a "right," does not preclude one from suffering consequences of one's actions. One can choose to date one's student, and then suffer the consequence of losing one's position as a teacher.
The professor does not have any "right" to be a teacher regardless of his actions. If a professor has sexual relations with one of his or her students, as a general rule he or she should be dismissed from the position of instructor. Similarly a manager having sexual relations with a subordinate should normally forfeit his or her post.
Marty Lund at 2:29PM on Aug 23rd 2007
51. Do you have a right to ingest drugs? Yup, you surely do--and any federal attempt to deny that right falls foul of the 9th Amendment. That's why an amendment to prohibit alcohol was necessary; that's why drug legislation didn't initially outlaw drugs, but rather taxed them.
Do you have a right to conduct your own foreign policy? No, because the Constitution gives that power to the federal government.
Do you have a right to travel without a passport? Well, that's debatable, but Congress has the power to 'regulate commerce with foreign nations,' which would seem to include travel.
Now, as to whether or not it's constitutional to prevent professors from dating students, or students from dating professors, is another matter entirely. But sheesh, Dinesh--you're smarter than to be wrong on those three questions earlier!
Bob Uhl at 3:23PM on Aug 23rd 2007
52. I always love it when the liberal left inserts "rights" into the Constitution to justify any and every abomination. There is no "Right To Choose" in the Constitution ... Nor right to date, nor right to choose whom you date for that matter. But the Constitution really isn't involved here because we're not talking about State action ... remember, "Constitutional Rights" really only apply to STATE actions. The State of California has not made it ILLEGAL for a Professor to date a student ... in this case, they're only acting as an employer.
The simple answer to this whole issue is that it is NOT a "Constitutional Question". The reason the Professor can't date his students is a matter of CONTRACT law. His contract contains a clause that gives the instution the right to set policy which he must follow. One such policy is "Don't date your students". He refuses to follow it, he is in breach of his contract and the institution has the right to fire him for misconduct ... period.
Richard at 6:19PM on Aug 23rd 2007
53. Once someone is 18, age differences no longer matter. If two consenting adults agree to a relationship, it is no one's business of one is 18 and the other 80. It may be odd, but it's still no one's business. As to rhondalee, if a parent assualted me for a consensual relationship with her over 18 daughter, I'd press charges.
Corzich at 10:33PM on Aug 23rd 2007
54. Professors dating students sounds really weird, The professor at this college in California is wrong, so wrong although it is true, that in the constitution all citizens have equal rights, and the right to defend her/him self no where in the constitution of the USA does, it say, "Professors have a right to date a college student of their choosing who attends the same college." I will give you an example, say a professor wanted to date some one who didn't attend the college he attended he could date that person, the reason professors and students don't date each other, not now not ever is because, at the age that a teenager is going into college, they are still sorting out their feelings, for college men in their age group, and I strongly feel that dating a professor whether it be the student's choosing or the professor's has a lot to do with age, some people say, Age ain't nothing but a number." But, a person's age can be turned into as well as their thinking at the time of an event occurring can turn into a law suit or jail time, i think the professor the above article, because he wants to date a college student himself, because he wants to feel young and useful. But another issue arises with this and that is an emotional or psychological, or mental attachment an individual, child, or adult can have on a person or group of people. I feel this is the real issue, and should be addressed along with professors dating students or students dating professors.
smartiepantssteffi at 2:28PM on Aug 24th 2007
55. Corzich, apparently you've never benefited from a higher education, perhaps, alas, a GED? You cannot even spell a name properly 3 seconds after, supposedly, reading it. Rhoda nor RhoNda. Did there happen to be an invisible N in my name that caught me unawares?
I also said, my daughter was 17, not 18. Please be as litigious as every other imbecile in this country. Be my guest. You are most likely a 50ish, fat bellied, balding man that a child at the age of 18 would not give a second, let's make it fifth look at. I suppose if you paid for it you'd have a go.
Predators of your ilk make it easy on Mom's that have the soul of a lioness when protecting our chidren, press charges, putz, if you molested my 17 year old daughter it would be HER that would thake your baggy butt down, trained in Kung Fu, 5'9" of pure Cubana strength, of character, wit as well as physical prowess. Who is going to press charges against whom, cochon?
Hmmmmmmmmmm, 17 year old female or old nasty man without proof of any such occurance.
Get a real friggin' life, you dimwit...........
rhodalee at 1:20AM on Aug 26th 2007
56. I would not want to take Professor Paul Abramsons class. It is obvious that teaching is not his priority. He is an embarassment to his entire educational institution.
star d. at 2:35AM on Aug 26th 2007
57. There are so many uninformed and out of this world comments on his column that
one could write a book in response;
however such cannot be in the cards right now. However, I just started a blog that focuses on this issue-
http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com
Feel free to drop by. A few brief comments-
A number of commentators were distressed by age differentiated relationships,the 57 year old prof dating the 22 or younger female student. Such is the stereotype which these policies to ban student prof relationships flourish. If one is so offended , might I suggest that they work to legislate age differential bans? The law regulates minimum age of consent so it is not such a radical legal departure. However, such would probably call for a constitutional amendment. So be it if this is an issue worth fighting for. I do not mean to be humorous about the age thing; I think that the age dynamic is often what fuels the opposition to such relationships. I know; I can speak from experience. As a univ prof I dated a number of students and ex-students; generally but not always
younger. In any case in 1998 when I was 56 I dated a student who was 2 years older than myself. I first dated her after my fall class was over and our relationship continued so she enrolled in my next Fall class and our
dating continued. We were discreet, but not in the closet; all of my puritan feminist colleagues gave me absolutely no negative feedback; in fact, a number
were quite supportive. Age was the major variable. Many of the campus
feminist meddlers just couldn't bring themselves to try to protect a mature 58 year old woman who did not want their protection. Info as to how I dealt with the grading issue, go to my dankprofessor blog. In any case, our
dating led to marriage; universities don't and can't prevent sudents and professors from marrying and then to both of us retiring and living an idyllic life in southern Arizona. Thank
God I didn't let the university radicals
who were mainly on the left and the
amoral bureaucrats determine my choice of mates. And I refuse to follow the
advice-wait till you are married or wait till she graduates. And as for outraged parents, I always had good relationships with paretns of students I dated; some excellent relationships.
There may be some parents out there who would have hated the idea, but none that I met; maybe such was the case since the women I dated were not prone to make categorical judgments, they looked at the individual; maybe their
parents did the same, and didn't see red when their daughter brought home a
prof who was 20 years older or the same age or younger than their daughter.
In fact, I dated students were were daughters of professors.
All for now.
the dankprofessor
barry dank at 2:39PM on Aug 26th 2007
58. Dear Barry Dank:
You miss the point completely. It is not merely the age difference as it is a difference in power. A young college girl is going into the 'real world' for the first time and the potential for manipulation is too great. Anyone who has ever been a boss knows this is true. I have never gotten involved with anyone from my work because the potential for workplace romance-related disaster is just too great. Clergy, bosses, teachers have as much sway over a young woman as a rock star! It just isn't right.
Keith J. Mohrhoff at 8:04AM on Aug 27th 2007
59. The issue is not whether dating between professors and students is constitutionally protected. It is irrelevant as a constitutional question. Every organization has the right to make rules that are in the interest of that organization. Professional sports have a ban on gambling, a perfectly legal activity. A University makes many rules governing the behavior of students, professors and staff that they feel protect the University from the threat of suit as well as contributing to the furtherance of their established goals of education. If a University wished, it could simply change the rules, send out a press release alerting the families and the general public that they now have to add professors to the other danagers their sons and daughters will have to face. Getting a passing grade means never saying no to the prof.
Joe Edgington at 1:39PM on Aug 27th 2007
60. Va Va Va VOOM Vlad der MENSCH!
Mo at 7:17PM on Aug 27th 2007