Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Female Teacher and male student sex immoral?

Rate this topic


dadmonson

Recommended Posts

Again, this does not preclude a person from being capable of objectivity. The mind and body are always one, at all times and in places. As such, Objectivism would have no basis as a philosophy if one believes the premise that "the mind and body are one" prevents a person from being capable of objectivity. Under this presumption, one can never know truth, fact or reality because their personal feelings will always taint their view. I disagree.

Some people are quite capable of separating emotional attachments from their conclusions and actions. Objectivity merely requires a conscious focus on relevant facts when evaluating, deciding and/or acting. An objective man can recognize that despite his desire to sleep with someone, that that fact is irrelevant to a person's performance on a test, or in how he relates to that person sitting in a classroom. Objectivism holds that man can indeed know truth, fact and reality, despite his emotions and while keeping his mind firmly attached to his body. Objectivism certainly acknowledges the possibility that emotions can cloud one's judgement, but it does not assume that it is a foregone conclusion, which appears to be the opinion expressed by you, 4reason, and aequalsa.

Again, please clarify if this is not what you are intending to say, or if you have a different understanding objectivity or Objectivism.

I did not intend to imply that a refusal to accept a mind/body dichotomy precluded someone from being objective. But it is because they are one that one has to always exercise extensive cognition in order to arrive at and accept truth, fact and reality. Part of being objective in this matter, however, I believe is taking the reality of one's position into consideration. I also did not intend to imply that people, teachers or otherwise, were incapable of separating emotional attachments from their conclusions ans actions. It seems to me, however, that is they were capable of doing so part of making this separation would be to recognize how personal relations, most especially of the sexual sort, could compromise the educational purpose of one's profession. Most classes have a teacher's pet of some sort; usually it is for academic reasons, but let's say it is sexual. Even if that teacher is able to successfully keep their amorous feelings for that student from affecting their assessment of them, and the student is able to keep it from affecting his/her performance on a test, I can't help but think that the teacher has violated their own integrity in some way by stepping over that line. (I'm addressing this for both male and female students acting with either male or female teachers, even though I realize the topic started asking about male students with female teachers; I'm taking all scenarios into consideration here). I think that when one decides to become a teacher, one implicitly and explicitly accepts that one's purpose in the classroom and in the life of their students (while they are still their students) is to educate them. Education, especially at the higher levels, should appeal to thought first and feelings second. Your purpose and your job is to get your students thinking and to give them knowledge. If you, as the teacher, begin to have sexual realtions with a student-- even if it is outside the classroom and all parties involved are able to make all the necessary separations-- I believe you would be violating your stated purpose as a professional. I don't think you can erase the contextual fact that they are a student and you are a teacher.

This,again, is not to say I think a teacher should be precluded from falling for someone just because they are a student and vice versa for the student, but I do think that the relationship of teacher/student needs to be removed first before any kind of relationship is pursued. In accepting the facts and responsibilities of one's profession, I think that would be the only logical and moral thing to do: to wait. Pursuing relations with a consenting ADULT who is your student would just seem to blur the causes and effects of the relationship, and what good is a blurred relationship?

Maybe part of my confusion lies in my perspectives on sex. I, personally, am NOT an advocate of casual sex, and I wonder if that's why some people are able to argue that these sort of relationships are moral. Sex and love go hand in hand; I would never have sex with someone I was just attracted to. There has to be passion and admiration involved. It's a requisite, as far as I am concerned, though I realize that is not the perspective of all Objectivists. So when I think of two people wanting to sleep with each other, perhaps I am being too personally biased by imaging that true love is part of the equation. If true love were involved, as someone like myself imagines it would be, I can't imagine being able to remain objective in the matter then. That is probably an important factor in my thought process here. Even if the sex was just casual though, I still think the integrity of the position would be violated. But then again, I think casual sex is detestable in any situation. Those of you who disagree may throw scorn at me if you will, but it is something I am convinced of. Sex is meant to be a metephysical celebration of the unity of one's mind and body: to value the person you grasp in passion, to know why you value them, why they value you, and to celebrate that with the physical potential and ecstacies of your bodies... to find your sense of life in the living, concrete form of another person and to pound the heck of them in jubilation. I am willing to admit how my perspective on sex may be affecting my views here.

But my perspective as a teacher remains the same. I intend to open my own school someday, pre-k through 12, and I will tell you right now that I intend to have all my teachers sign a contract that specifically prohibits them from relations with their students. Most teachers sign such a contract, anyways. I know I had to when I accepted my position. Any teacher who vilated that contract would be fired without question. I know some people can successfully separate their feelings from their actions, but not everybody can, and I, for one, am not willing to take that gamble. I would rather have it be understood from the start that "this" is prohibited and clearly state what the consequences would be.

Did that clarify things at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

sorry...it was past my bedtime. I meant to say would. I do not believe in meaningless sex. I certainly believe that some sex can have less meaning then others but do not think it can have no meaning. If so, then it would be proper to expect that everyone else in the class be sleeping with the teacher also. It has no meaning after all. So based on that frame of reference I do not believe it to be possible to be as objective when sleeping with someone as when you are not. This may be why loved ones are not allowed to be on your jury if you "catch a case." It is fair to assume they would not be objective. As I understand, it is preferred that you have no prior knowledge of a case at all nor preconceived notions of guilt or innocence or any relation to that type of case to insure objectivity.

If pressed, I would say that very strictly speaking, someone could be rational and integrated enough that they were able to be objective despite a prior relationship. However, someone that rational would be far wiser then to involve themselves in a circumstance with such extenuating circumstances, so those rare few are a non-issue to me. It is fair to assume that anyone who would use their position of trust for short term personal gain is not rational enough to be objective after the fact.

I agree with your argument and example of the attractive woman with a traffic ticket. In that circumstance a "rational cop" would probably realize the danger of becoming involved with someone under those circumstance. In that particular case, assuming a minor infraction, there is probably little danger of longterm consequences if the cop asks a woman out. Compared to a longterm mentor relationship with more opportunity for undue influence. Worst case scenario, he gets stood up for the second date because she was playing him. No real possibility for longterm psychological damage or pregnancy. If he was requiring sex to let a ticket go, the issue would be more severe.

In order for your second sentence to logically follow from your first sentence it would have to read;

"The teacher would use their position to deny deserved grades to students who refused to comply with their requests."

You totally disagree that he disagrees?

:dough: I disagree with disagreeing without providing reason(s) in the context of a discussion board. The point of them is to discuss and argue and expand understanding more then publicizing your views.

Also, aequalsa discussed undue influence of the teacher over the student. Well, what if the student was not taught by that teacher? What if the teacher just taught in the school and the student had no necessary academic interaction with them? Would it still be immoral then?

It would be less likely to be as damaging, but not without risk. In any school they would be risking at the very least their careers for a piece of ass. Not a bet a rational person would take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

It FEELS wrong to me. I like to look up to men, not down.

And most rational men don't want to look quite that far down to a woman. 3-12 inches is plenty :dough: But seriously, men like to be challenged a bit too, and the likelihood that a 16 year old is going to be interesting or challenging enough for a 36 year old teacher with a masters degree and half a career would require either an exceptional 16 year old..or far more commonly a pathetically immature 36 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify what I said above:

I didn't mean anyone who disagrees with the age of consent is an idiot; I meant that I thought that it was kind of implictly understood that we were talking about the issue of a teacher and a student having sex - not of a teacher and an underage student. If that we the case, I doubt the OP would have started a thread to simply ask, "Well, suppose we had a student and a teacher. Do they gain magic exemption from age-of-consent laws?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify what I said above:

I didn't mean anyone who disagrees with the age of consent is an idiot; I meant that I thought that it was kind of implictly understood that we were talking about the issue of a teacher and a student having sex - not of a teacher and an underage student. If that we the case, I doubt the OP would have started a thread to simply ask, "Well, suppose we had a student and a teacher. Do they gain magic exemption from age-of-consent laws?"

I think that was my fault. I used the term underaged when I should not have. Even though the law may view 16 years olds as old enough to consent to sex, I still view 16 year olds as children, not adults. But I dont think that effects the rest of what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should of asked if it is immoral for a teacher to go out with a college student because now that I really think about it no ADULT in their right frame of mind would ever go out with someone still in High School.

O Well

I wonder what attracts those High School teachers to their students though? Is it the feeling of Power?

Edited by dadmonson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe part of my confusion lies in my perspectives on sex. I, personally, am NOT an advocate of casual sex, and I wonder if that's why some people are able to argue that these sort of relationships are moral.

For the record, I am not one that advocates casual sex either.

Again, this does not preclude a person from being capable of objectivity. The mind and body are always one, at all times and in places. As such, Objectivism would have no basis as a philosophy if one believes the premise that "the mind and body are one" prevents a person from being capable of objectivity. Under this presumption, one can never know truth, fact or reality because their personal feelings will always taint their view. I disagree.

Some people are quite capable of separating emotional attachments from their conclusions and actions. Objectivity merely requires a conscious focus on relevant facts when evaluating, deciding and/or acting. An objective man can recognize that despite his desire to sleep with someone, that that fact is irrelevant to a person's performance on a test, or in how he relates to that person sitting in a classroom. Objectivism holds that man can indeed know truth, fact and reality, despite his emotions and while keeping his mind firmly attached to his body. Objectivism certainly acknowledges the possibility that emotions can cloud one's judgement, but it does not assume that it is a foregone conclusion, which appears to be the opinion expressed by you, 4reason, and aequalsa.

Yes, now this I totally agree with. It's the mind-body dichotomy revisited. Objectivism rejects it in all the forms that it may take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe in meaningless sex.

But nothing about the position I argued requires the sex to be meaningless. However, I have no intention of getting into an argument about casual sex again. :dough:

If so, then it would be proper to expect that everyone else in the class be sleeping with the teacher also.

On the contrary, just because it may have little to no meaning to the teacher does not mean it would have little to no meaning to every other member of the class.

It is fair to assume that anyone who would use their position of trust for short term personal gain is not rational enough to be objective after the fact.

Yes, it is possible that this could be true. But I also recognize that assuming is not knowing. I have no interest in arguing over degrees at this point.

At any rate, I still see no reasoning that indicates a teacher would necessarily use his authority against a student who denied his advances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be immoral for a teacher (of any age) to sleep with one of her students (of any age) simply because of the perceived potential conflict of interest. I don't think it should be illegal, although in many cases it would probably be against the policy of whatever institution of learning was involved in the case. So, if you *did* sleep with one of your students, you would likely be fired and could be liable for damages depending on the nature of your contract.

I wouldn't want to hear about Olympic judges sleeping with figure skaters or employees sleeping with supervisors. It's not because they will *necessarily* fail to be objective, but that the other observers have no way to *know* they are being objective apart from observing their relationships.

If you are a student, would you want to call your good grades into question by boinking the teacher, especially after you worked so hard for them? I wouldn't. If you *really* are attracted to your teacher, you can stand to wait until they're not your teacher any more. If you're so desperate for immediate gratification, transfer to a different school. But don't think anyone is going to listen to you when you proclaim your innocence in the face of the number of options you could have taken to avoid dealing with the situation at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe part of my confusion lies in my perspectives on sex. I, personally, am NOT an advocate of casual sex, and I wonder if that's why some people are able to argue that these sort of relationships are moral.

Because this is in response to my post, I think I should clarify my position (though I'll be upfront that I won't reiterate my argument which already resides in previous threads).

I'm not an advocate of casual sex per se; i.e. "What do we want? CASUAL SEX! When do we want it? NOW!" or "I recommend you go have some casual sex right now!" :dough:

Rather, I am of the dissenting view (on this forum) that casual sex does exist and that it can be beneficial to a person. I also recognize that in can be harmful to a person is well. Like anything else, context is key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had not intended to slightly derail the discussion toward the topic of casual sex (Objectivists sure are fond of the topic of sex in general, aren't we :dough: ) I was just trying to think about why I may have the opinion that I do about the whole matter. To put it simply, sex = passion, so if one is having sex with someone with that in mind I would be amazed if they were able to remain completely objective toward that person in other regards. I'm not going to say it's impossible, I'm just going to say it's not likely (ungh, that sound like the agnostic argument for the possibility of God, doesn't it? I'm sure I just committed some sort of logical error).

Even more simply, teacher/student sex really is, at its base, a conflict of interest. A rational person should understand the responsibilities of their job and the ethics entailed, and thus should also be able to successfully identify situations that would present just that: a conflict of interest. How is it possible for someone to know ahead of time that they can pursue such a relationship with a student and remain completely objective? What if they felt they could, and then realized the passion was so hot, they couldn't? And teenagers are tricky --- I think back to how much I hated high school and why...everybody seemed so fake and obsessed with nothing more than what other people thought of them. Who's to say the student isn't trying to get something out of it for him/herself? It just seems like an awfully big risk. It's like smoking: you know you might get lung cancer; it's not a guarantee but the risk is there. You're better off just not getting involved with the whole matter in the first place.

I think every job, no matter how menial, has situations that present a conflict of interest. Even my night and weekend job as a receptionist can get uncomfortable when one of the sales managers asks me out for drinks after work. He's a nice guy ( a little older than I might otherwise prefer), and it's not like I couldn't use a social outing, but all those red flags went up in my head almost immediately. Not a good idea, even for a part time receptionist (that, and I don't drink anyway). And parents at my school are always desparate for babysitters, and it seems like I have to explain at least once a week to one of the parents from my classroom why I cannot babysit for them. I babysit for other families at the school, even for former students of mine, but never for students who I am held accountable for for their education. It just blurs my purpose, I think. And I say that in regard to just babysitting... I can't even imagine how blurred theh lines would become if sex were involved as it might be with older students.

Being in the unfortunate situation of celibacy that I am at the moment, just the thoughts of sex can become highly distracting. If there was someone in the room who I was actually experiencing those things with, there is no way I couldn't think about it at least once or twice in their mere presence. How could I be objective then? If there are people out there who can be close to someone they're sleeping with, or even want to sleep with, and not think about it, I am astounded at the cognitive strength that kind of supression must take. My desire eats at me every moment of the day, and that's in absence of the man I think about. What those thoughts become even being in the same room with him are too scandolous to mention here, but let it suffice to say I wouldn't be thinking about his answer to a question, or his score on a test...

Edited by 4reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not too sure I understand, what is evidently the principle point of discussion here, the problem of remaining objective in the face of passion. Sure, it can be difficult and it can take training, but it isn't impossible to remain objective in the face of passion. It isn't even unlikely, in the same way that a pig flying through your window is unlikely. It's possible and achievable; for those more emotionally driven (that is, susceptible to having one's thought processes disrupted by ones passions) it is going to be increasingly difficult.

Is it just me? Surely honesty, the virtue virtually parallel to rationality, requires that one face the facts of reality. Just because one is involved sexually, spiritually and physically with someone, does not mean that one has the mental capacity of the teenager one might be involved with.

I don't see how sex would blind one from being able to read an essay and seeing whether or not someone has grasped the themes of 'Pride and Prejudice'; or from being able to mark a maths paper, and see whether someone has understand a complex theorem; or from being able to look at a piece of art and judge whether a student has improved in their sense of composition and overarching ability.

If one is of such a disposition that ones passions override ones judgment, then one isn't a very fit teacher to begin with. Personally, as a policy, if I were headmaster of a school, I would permit teacher-student relations, but only on the basis that I would be a good enough judge of character to hire teachers that, should the occasion arise, would still be able to remain objective. Of course, I could still make a mistaken judge of character, but that is something which is impossible to be completely safe from, no matter what you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how sex would blind one from being able to read an essay and seeing whether or not someone has grasped the themes of 'Pride and Prejudice'; or from being able to mark a maths paper, and see whether someone has understand a complex theorem; or from being able to look at a piece of art and judge whether a student has improved in their sense of composition and overarching ability.

If one is of such a disposition that ones passions override ones judgment, then one isn't a very fit teacher to begin with. Personally, as a policy, if I were headmaster of a school, I would permit teacher-student relations, but only on the basis that I would be a good enough judge of character to hire teachers that, should the occasion arise, would still be able to remain objective. Of course, I could still make a mistaken judge of character, but that is something which is impossible to be completely safe from, no matter what you do.

I think we can all think of specific contexts where one might say this is morally ok. The question I have is, are these conditions in any way common? That is, given the average twenty something teacher do we think that this wonderful state of dispassionate rationality compartmentalized next to passionate ardor for someone is really something that the average teacher can effectively execute? Additionally do we think that this will not affect the students studies??? If not, then I think it woudl be a prudent policy on the part of school administrators who really hold the implied contract with the parents to outlaw such behavior, unless of course they specifically hire people who are paragon's of rationality.

I frankly don't have a particularly high opinion of the average new teacher out of college. The demands of the job are not that high, and the value created is not as high as everyone woudl like to believe it to be (but that is the thread on salaries isn't it???). So, Rory, I'd question your statement above. I think a lot of people might certianly be fit to be teachers but be unable to appropriately compartmentalize such a situation.

Just because it might be moral in very select contexts does not mean that it isn't a good idea to outlaw it in my particular school as policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me? Surely honesty, the virtue virtually parallel to rationality, requires that one face the facts of reality. Just because one is involved sexually, spiritually and physically with someone, does not mean that one has the mental capacity of the teenager one might be involved with.

I don't see how sex would blind one from being able to read an essay and seeing whether or not someone has grasped the themes of 'Pride and Prejudice'; or from being able to mark a maths paper, and see whether someone has understand a complex theorem; or from being able to look at a piece of art and judge whether a student has improved in their sense of composition and overarching ability.

If one is of such a disposition that ones passions override ones judgment, then one isn't a very fit teacher to begin with.

I am not arguing that it does make one unable to carry on in the functions of teacher and requisite evaluation. And yes, maybe there are teachers out there who do have this relationships and keep it out of the classroom, but again, the risks of it becoming a conflict of interest are, in my opinion, just too great.

I am going to assume you did not intend the "passions overriding judgment" as a personal attack on me and my perspectives on romance. I assure you, after having lost the man I love due to confusion on this matter, I am very much in accord with the notion that emotions should supplement thought, and not serve as the tool of cognition in any decision. A sexual relationship starts simply with attraction...hopefully a rational attraction whereby you admire that person and their sense of life and see wisdom in the values they pursue. That person has integrity; he/she makes you smile at how their actions fulfill their words. The more you discover of that person, the more you yearn for them. You carry on with your job, you can go out in public together and appear "normal" or what have you, but somewhere inside you still love that person and you still think of them in that way. Can you think of someone sexually and still remain an objective judge of their course of action and their intellectual output? Yes, but I think one of the greatest rewards of love is the sense of admiration it instills in you for that other person. A great romantic partner is one who does make you think, whether it be about them or anything, really. They should inspire and challenge you. A student and teacher very well could have this relationship--- I'm not arguing that the relationship, even in a pure objective form, is impossible. To me it just seems that the presence of that potential conflict of interest would prevent romantic love from being what it could and ought to be.

It doesn't seem like it would be very rewarding for either party involved. Combine that with what I still believe to be a violation of the integrity of the position of being an educator in the first place, and I still say the whole thing is morally ill-advised. I have very high ideals in the matters of love and sex, but even with those ideals I am still able to keep my judgment at the helm of control over my passions. You would be right to have made that accusation toward me in the past, but I am quite proud to say that no longer holds true. That's one of the great insights that Objectivism has offered me, and it is that ability that allows me to carry on in my life and work on bettering my situation even in the absence of a great love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No mentally healthy adult uses high school as a dating pool.

um, Sophia, I'm not quite sure I agree that the issue is one of mental disfunction, which is why I asked my question before. No mentally healthy mature adult, maybe, but the average college graduate is only 4 yrs different in age from a high school senior, and I could certainly see maturity differences being able to span such a small gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

um, Sophia, I'm not quite sure I agree that the issue is one of mental disfunction, which is why I asked my question before. No mentally healthy mature adult, maybe, but the average college graduate is only 4 yrs different in age from a high school senior, and I could certainly see maturity differences being able to span such a small gap.

Usually yes (if it was 22 and 26 ok) but there are stretches of time within one's life in which even a small age gap accounts for a very significant difference in life experience and development (obviously I don't mean physical). In my opinion this is one of those times.

If the teacher's maturity level matches that of her student to the point that she could feel romantic admiration (which requires for a female looking up to rather than looking down) for a high school boy and strong enough that she would want to act on it (and act on it now) I am not sure she should be teaching. I would consider that a disfunction.

I can see how a high school boy would be attracted to his young, attractive, teacher at that age (isn't that a rather common fantasy of many young boys?) :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4reason, I didn't mean any personal attack against you. I didn't have you in mind at all when I wrote my post. I don't know your situation at all, apart from the fact that you are a teacher. I just meant it as a carte blanche statement.

Kendall, sure, I doubt the average teacher has that ability, but then I doubt the average human does either. We're talking about your average person here, and the average person isn't known for exactly sticking to firm principles or for being morally upright, Roarksome or Galtalicious (or Taggartacullar for that matter).

I'm not saying that average teacher will act rationally or make an objective judgement in such a situation; I guess I'm saying I don't understand why it is necessitated so strongly by them being involved so intimately. Sure, our avergae Joe and Jill will let their judgement slip, but I don't see the temptation as it is being made out to be here.

I think we all have a tendency to see the worst possible way people could possibly behave in a situaiton, and make it the standard by which to then make any expectations of them. I call it Melodramavision. We imagine every single context for morally questionable behaviour will be the worst case scenario and assume people will be having orgies in the middle of lecture halls, whilst screaming, "YES MARJORIE! A+ A+!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to laugh about this now. I actually got in an argument about this whole matter on my date this afternoon. It was my third date with him, but his casual "it's no big deal" perspective disturbed me to the point that I turned down an invitation to attend Cirque de Soleil with him. CIRQUE DE SOLEIL! Maybe I am dwelling on the worst case scenarios, but even still, I feel pretty strongly about that kind of relationship not occuring in that kind of setting.

I like Sophia's observation about the female teacher needing to find something about the male student to look up to (an essential ingredient to love, which is, again, in my perspective the precursor to sex). I think back to the guys I knew in high school, and even most of the guys I knew in college, and I can only think of a token few who deserved such admiration... and those were men my own age. I imagine looking at men younger than oneself, especially when they're in what I like to call "the personal growth years, would make such a find even more difficult. There is a hmuch bigger difference between two people who are say 17 and 24 (just random numbers here...) versus two people who are the same age difference at 30 and 37. I think the high school and college years are really when the enduring individual is formed (stretching into the early career years of the twenties). I, for example, am a completely differnet person than I was in high school. I'm even completely different from who I was when I graduated college. Even my recent experience of getting dumped has helped me grow and mature. In a way I am glad I was, well, ugly, back then becuase had I been more attractive I may have been in some situations I would have regretted. That's because I am willing to admit I was not completely integrated yet. Most teenagers aren't. Hey, most adults aren't. Some teenagers are mature, as indeed these forum hosts many teens who are quite mature, and indeed might merit the kind of admiration a woman could offer. But judging by the kind of women you usually see getting busted for this sort of interlude,, that kind of admiration didn't seem to be part of the equation. Most of the stories I've seen on the matter involve women who, more than anything, liked the reverence the male student gave them which does not jive well with either my personal convictions or my understanding of Objectivist views regarding proper male and female roles in a relationship. These women liked the attention. They weren't in awe of the student's philosophy or sense of life; they just liked feeling loved. It seems like these women of the news stories on this matter all had the same problem: a lack of self-esteem.

As an interesting anecdote for all of this,when I was in college one of my history professors was quite fond of me. He brought me hot chocolate every day, setting it on my desk for everyone to see, and called me his "Irish beauty" ( I had strawberry blonde hair back then, and he was Irish and seemed to be attracted to that aspect of my appearance). It wasn't a secret; my peers teased me horribly for it. He never did ask me out or anything, but he always gave me more attention than he did to others. On our final exam I was one of about five people left in the room, furiously filling out the back cover of the blue exam booklet, when he came up to me, put his hand on my booklet and said, "It's okay, Allison. You don't have to finish.We both know you got an A." He took the booklet away from me before I could even offer an objection. I remember feeling flattered and disturbed at the same time. Was he even going to read my exam, or was he just going to assume I knew the answers anyway and give me an A? And was he assuming I knew the answers based on things I had said in class, or was he saying that just because he liked me. By the time I got back to my room I felt kind of sleazy even though neither of us had DONE anything. I got an A in the course, but I can't help but question where that grade came from: from merit or affection? Maybe that's another reason why I am so opposed to this whole matter,because I know what it made me think and how it made me feel when I was the student involved. I was the kind of student who strives for academic perfection, but I also wanted to know that the grade that resulted from that strive did indeed come from my efforts and not just from my personality and appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually yes (if it was 22 and 26 ok) but there are stretches of time within one's life in which even a small age gap accounts for a very significant difference in life experience and development (obviously I don't mean physical). In my opinion this is one of those times.

I agree with this observation and could see how that in many cases it would therefore be difficult, but not yet convinced it is impossible. We get into heated debates about legal age limits all the time on this forum, because individuals are actually varied.

If the teacher's maturity level matches that of her student to the point that she could feel romantic admiration (which requires for a female looking up to rather than looking down) for a high school boy and strong enough that she would want to act on it (and act on it now) I am not sure she should be teaching. I would consider that a disfunction.

Well, does that logic work if sexes are reversed? I agree with you (more emphatically in fact) that she should not be teaching, and that any smart administrator would and should make refraining form such actions a condition of employment, but disfunction? You started the sentence by making it a difference of maturity levels, and ended by making such difference a disfunction.

I can see how a high school boy would be attracted to his young, attractive, teacher at that age (isn't that a rather common fantasy of many young boys?) :lol:

I think this is another argument against allowing such practice. Not that a teacher shoudl be able to think rationally, but that it is very common for adolescent boys to be irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one is of such a disposition that ones passions override ones judgment, then one isn't a very fit teacher to begin with. Personally, as a policy, if I were headmaster of a school, I would permit teacher-student relations, but only on the basis that I would be a good enough judge of character to hire teachers that, should the occasion arise, would still be able to remain objective. Of course, I could still make a mistaken judge of character, but that is something which is impossible to be completely safe from, no matter what you do.

Ok, T, I'll bite.

Your premise here as I understand it, is that you think on principle the practice is ok, and as an administrator would allow it. This assumes you are an excellent judge of character. IT also assumes (in a capitalistic world of course) that you can recruit enough parents who are not bothered by this policy to actually pay for your school. Do you think that the parents primary concern in the matter is that little Suzie will be given an A+ when she really earned a B? (i.e. the abilty of the teacher to remain objective)

I think the morality of this situation is at the parent - child relationship. THat is, what is moral for a parent in selecting the types of environments their child would be educated in.

Yes, I can think of a few, very limited contexts where a child teacher relationship might be ok, per se, but I cannot think of a reason why a parent would specifically put his child in a place where such behaviour was allowed to happen. Frankly the thought of it turns my stomach. Even if it happens on a very limited basis, the potential for the amount of damage it might cause to my child is too great. And I have about 2 or 3 levels of trust I have to put in some of your very esoteric characteristics that seems wholly. How do I tell if you as an administrator are a good judge of character? How do I know that you can judge the effect that a relationship is having on my child? Thanks no. Knowing that you summarily fire any teacher that tries such crap, and seeing your history of doing so is a much better way for me to judge whether or not my child is going to be safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am a college professor in her 30's, and I would certainly avoid any relationship with a student, so long as he was my student (and probably so long as he was a student at my institution). Moreover, these guys are just kids. Very few of them carry themselves in a way that is attractive anyway, so the temptation is rarely there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a college professor in her 30's, and I would certainly avoid any relationship with a student, so long as he was my student (and probably so long as he was a student at my institution). Moreover, these guys are just kids. Very few of them carry themselves in a way that is attractive anyway, so the temptation is rarely there.

Welcome back to the forum!!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome back to the forum!!! :)

Yeah, of course I jump right in and express an opinion with no argument, but I hear that's OK in some online forums these days.

My reason (besides the personal taste one) is that having affairs with one's students is not part of the job description -- not what I was hired for. And if the relationship is really worth having, it would be worth waiting for until the time was right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a college professor in her 30's, and I would certainly avoid any relationship with a student, so long as he was my student (and probably so long as he was a student at my institution). Moreover, these guys are just kids. Very few of them carry themselves in a way that is attractive anyway, so the temptation is rarely there.
I'm sorry to hear about your students. Anyhow, the problem with the question which this thread addresses is that it mixes too many different issues. There is the "sex with minors" issue, then there is the "sex with someone you have a professional relationship with" issue. Because the question was frames in terms of high school teachers, the question is pretty much decided solely on legal grounds. I think it would be more interesting to re-ask the question in terms of college teachers for example, where we have the presumption of sex between consenting adults rather than sex with a child. But then, I didn't propose the question in the first place.

I don't actually understand the underlying presumption of restrictions on sex when certain kinds of non-sexual relations also exist, although I know the rules that are passed by institutions. What I find very amusing is that one is generally prohibited from having any evaluative or decision-making relation with another person in the institution if you have a strongly positive emotional relationship (sexual relation or documented crush), but the same does not hold if you have a strongly negative emotional relation (hate the guts of, was divorced from, broke up with). The presumption seems to be that there is a danger that you will give an unjustly positive evaluation to the person, but we don't need to be concerned about an unjustly negative evaluation. In terms of the university's general interest (rule 1 is to avoid getting sued), there is actually a much stronger reason to ban any evaluative / supervisory relations when there is hatred, than when there is love. If Smith hates Jones and votes against tenure or fails Jones on an exam, and where tenure or an A was really deserved, then the university is at actual risk of getting sued, when compared to someone getting an unjust A or undeserved tenure. Few faculty or students will sue a university for unjustly rewarding them. Hence I find university no-relationship policies to be generally incomprehensible.

A propos your "not part of the job description" reasoning. I would agree that a teacher should not get extra compensation for having sex with a student or colleague; it's also true that having lunch with a student or colleague is not part of the job description, and it's also not prohibited by rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...