Regulating Romance

The University of Virginia's president is currently married to one of his former English students. In a month, he will vote on whether to allow current UVA faculty members to pursue similar relationships.

UVA isn't the first institution to engage in such hypocrisy. In 1984, Harvard banned all sexual relations between faculty-this included professors and teaching fellows-and the students they supervised. Harvard was one of the first American universities to institute such a rule, in spite of the fact that one of its most prized professors, John Kenneth Galbraith, was also married to a former student.

Today, other top universities-not limited to UVA-have decided that they, too, must regulate the private affairs of their employees and pupils. Recently publicized case of sexual harassment, including the Navy's Tailhook scandal and University of Oklahoma Professor Anita Hill's allegations against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, may have led to increased concern about sexual intimidation by authority figures.

But the move toward forced abstinence is reminiscent of other movements to control student behavior which have swept across collegiate America in the past few years. The recent flurry of "speech codes" invaded many institutions. And some schools, no longer content with merely condemning free speech, now seem eager to follow Harvard in imposing morality on the members of their communities.

The "platonic relationship" codes that several universities have adopted are disturbing for two reasons. First, recent proposals, such as the one the University of Virginia is considering, prohibit intimate relations, not only between instructors and their own students, but between all faculty members and all students.

An argument against intra-classroom relations has its merits. Obviously, any teacher who makes advances on one of his or her students has an easily abused upper-hand. Fear of receiving lower grades could make any student hesitate before spurning a teacher's advances. Sexual impermissibility codes, like those at Harvard and the University of lowa, have arisen to prevent the undue pressure which could result when professors misuse their power and authority. But what possible harm could come from students dating teachers in unrelated fields?

Some have voiced a second argument against sexual restriction codes which relates directly to constitutional freedom. How can any university justifiably dictate morality to its students? Harvard's policy, though more lenient than the one on which UVA officials will vote next month, still reflects the University's narrow-minded view of sexuality. Though it has never seemed to stop determined students before, Harvard forbids males and females from rooming together. Should it also have the power to tell people with whom they can and cannot sleep?

Despite a recent U.S. News and World Report poll stating that 44 percent of Harvard students have never had sex, it is possible that a portion of the other 56 percent carries on relationships with teachers. Such numbers are impossible to document. Regardless of the frequency of these affairs, or the circumstances surrounding them, former Dean of the Faculty Henry Rosovsky declares such relationships "always wrong."

Yet Harvard's paternalistic view, however well-meaning, fails to take into account the student's free will. Presumably, Harvard enacted its moral code to protect its students. But what about the student who becomes attracted to his or her teacher and wants to pursue an "extracurricular" relationship?

One of the biggest sparks for any relationship can come from shared interests. Isn't it logical that such commonality could be found between an instructor who teaches a particular course and a pupil with enthusiasm for the subject matter? Yet Harvard and other schools would prohibit teacher-student relationships from progressing outside the academic realm.

Few professions exist today which sustain codes, laws, or oaths that prevent members from engaging in personal relationships of any nature. Doctor's Hippocratic Oath, obliges them to refrain from encounters with their patients. But doctors promise to separate business from pleasure as a universal rule. If the problem of student-teacher relations is so pronounced, then why have individual universities been left to formulate their own policies? Except for clergy required to take vows of chastity, sexual restraint and career occupation rarely coincide. For most jobs, there's no reason that they should.

HHarvard should modify its policy. Amherst College has found a workable compromise. Faculty there must declare to their departments any relationships they develop with students. Professors then are asked to withdraw from any conflicting supervisory roles. Of course this policy has flaws-namely, evasion. But the difficulty of enforcement has never stopped states from passing legislation against jay-walking or seat-belt wearing.

Since these restrictions involve individual morality, perhaps universities should let students deliberate for themselves. After all, college is a place where students are expected to develop their own principles. Rather than instituting paternalistic laws, colleges might consider holding referendums to gauge student opinion on the matter.

Universities should avoid meddling in students' private affairs whenever possible. Nor is there room for interference in the personal lives of faculty members. Only then will students and university employees enjoy the freedom and sense of maturity they deserve.