Teachers hold positions of trust. They are expected to design teaching programmes and carry out their teaching duties to help their students develop as mature thinkers. This may involve close working relationships in tutorials or laboratories, individual meetings to discuss projects or essays, and more casual occasions for intellectual give and take. For impressionable young students, the boundaries between intellectual development and personal life may become blurred. In this situation, some academics easily move from intellectual to personal to sexual relationships.
– Martin, 1991
It is clear to most people that a sexual relationship between a student and a teacher when the student is a minor (under the age of 18) is not only illegal but can, and does, cause considerable harm. But what if the student is an adult (over the age of 18) in an adult learning environment? Is it ever acceptable for a student and member of academic staff to enter into a consensual sexual relationship?
The power differential between a student and a member of the academic staff is argued to be the primary concern as it is said to underpin sexual harassment (Bowman, Hatley, & Bowman, 1995). The way in which this power differential may impact on a relationship is not straightforward. For example, it is not always clear to either party when academic/student relationships are harmful, and yet, we must also accept that academics wield considerable power over students making students vulnerable in many instances.
The research literature, though scant, has been exploring the academic/student relationship for more than thirty years (Fitzgerald, Weitzman, Gold, & Ormerod, 1988; Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 1985). However, the recent Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) investigation of sexual assault and sexual harassment in Australian universities found that one in five students had experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment. While the findings indicated that in the majority of cases the perpetrators were other students, academics were not exempt from the statistics. The report has resulted in much media scrutiny and led to broadening the professional debate to include relationships between students and academic members of staff as institutions try to find solutions to protect students.
Academics wield considerable power over students making students vulnerable in many instances
Relationships are not created equal
For a range of reasons academic staff will have very different relationships with various students. There will be many students that an academic will encounter in shared social spaces with whom they will never have a professional relationship, others to whom they might provide teaching or tutoring as part of a larger group, and yet others with whom they will have a direct one-to-one relationship including regular supervision sessions. This latter academic/student interaction in particular can lead to the professional relationship evolving away from the traditional form of contact into a more collegial relationship or even a friendship. For both research and clinical supervision, many supervisors may initially see their role as mentoring and guiding their students, with a long-term view to the student becoming an independent researcher or clinician, hence the more collegial relationship.
Much has also changed with regard to the university context. The expectations placed on academic staff to improve student interaction may also create challenges to the maintenance of strict boundaries. In their essay exploring the boundaries within academic/student interaction, Chory and Offstein (2017) argue that there is a greater expectation for university staff to interact with students outside the traditional learning environment. The growth of common learning areas, new and emerging pedagogies, and design of innovative curricula have increased opportunities for staff and students to interact in “non-traditional contexts and roles” (p. 112). Furthermore, improving the quality of courses and increasing the quantity of the interaction are found to be important factors in students’ sense of connectedness and engagement with the institution (Brint, 2011).
Chory and Offstein (2017) maintain that casual student/academic staff interactions increasingly occur outside the formal institutional context and may involve students visiting academic staffs’ homes or meeting informally over a cup of coffee or lunch (e.g., for supervision purposes), and engaging in other social activities (e.g., both staff and students may be involved in a university sports team). These interactions provide an interpersonal opportunity to socialise, offer support, encouragement, and to develop an aspect of familiarity that does not occur within the traditional teaching environment.
For students that continue to study at the postgraduate level, a sense of camaraderie may also emerge from being part of the broader faculty community. These students may begin to be perceived in the same light as colleagues in research laboratories and as part of study networks. Given the shifting roles that occur as part of a student’s self-development and the opportunities for increased interpersonal interaction, it is hardly surprising that boundaries might become blurred and the potential for a consensual relationship between two adults can form. For these reasons, some writers have argued against the increasing use, by some higher education providers, of policies that ban consensual relationships within the higher education setting (Dank, 2008; McArthur, 2017; Young, 1996). Many of these authors have suggested that doing so violates a basic right to engage in a consensual intimate relationships.
Right to personal choice
One argument against the banning of academic/student relationships is that adult students have a right to make a personal choice about the direction in which a relationship with an academic develops. The key here being that while there is a power differential, this does not necessarily result in ‘coercion’ whether explicit or implicit. In his essay exploring whether academic/student relationships should be banned, McArthur (2017) states that an individual’s right to “consensual sexual activity” is protected by a range of democratic and legal rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights. He further argues that the right to privacy has been tested in the Convention on Human Rights (Article 8), and that the liberty to choose to engage in sexual intimacy is provided for in the US Constitution.
As McArthur clarifies, the constitutional charters and their interpretation are only binding for governments, and not private employers. McArthur (2017) goes further to add that these Rights are limited if there is a risk of harm to others or society. The challenge is to find a balance between the rights to engage in a consensual relationship and the responsibilities that higher education providers have in providing a safe, learning environments to protect their students and staff from risk of harm.
An inconvenient truth
The extent to which intimate relationships occur between academics and students in higher education settings in Australia is unclear. What is clear is that they do occur and can often result in long-term relationships. This is not dissimilar to relationships that emerge in many workplaces between staff working at different levels within an organisation where a power differential may also be at play. In a 2011 study undertaken by Relationships Australia, over 50 per cent of respondents aged 39 and under reported meeting their partner either through study or work. Whereas many of these may not have involved power differentials (e.g., two staff working at the same level in a team) others will have.
Despite the call to ensure that there is a balance between the debate of rights and responsibilities, and the ethical considerations of multiple relationships between academic staff and students, this area has not had the same level of scrutiny in the research literature as that of a therapist and client. The increasing sensitivity of the nature of the relationship, and the pressure for institutions to maintain strict confidentiality as cases are investigated, could in part explain the difficulty in developing research in this domain.
Existing research demonstrates that both academics and students are aware of the potential ethical issues that arise. In a study exploring academic staff and students’ perceptions of multiple relationships, Kolbert, Morgan and Brendel (2002) found that both academic staff and students recognise that a power differential exists. Students in this research held more negative views regarding the impact on the academic staff members’ objectivity and potential for exploitation of the student. Moreover, there were concerns expressed by students regarding the perception of unfair gain and disadvantage from such relationships for those students involved. Ultimately the view was that academic staff should be responsible for ensuring appropriate boundaries are maintained regardless of whether the academic or the student initiated the shift in relationship.
Are students clients?
Research looking at the ethical considerations of multiple relationships between academics and students shows these relationships are largely examined in the context of the therapist/client relationship (Pope, 1991). The way we think about the academic/student relationship and the way it is conceptualised in workplace policies, codes of ethics and regulatory environments are not always in sync.
As a profession, psychology has understood that the differential power balance between a client and a psychologist may diminish the capacity for the client to provide appropriate consent to a sexual relationship. The profession of psychology (and many other cognate professions) have ensured that professional codes of ethics and/or conduct afford protection for the client and members of the public. The APS Code of Ethics (2007) is clear on the definition of a client as including a student defining a client as “a party or parties to a psychological service involving teaching, supervision, research or professional practice in psychology” (p. 8) and goes on to state that “psychologists do not exploit people with whom they have or had a professional relationship” (C.4.1) and specifically, “do not engage in sexual activity with a client…” (C.4.3). With regard to current students and supervisees, The Ethical Guidelines on the Prohibition of Sexual Activity with Clients (2017), refer to students and supervisees under Section 6, stating “psychologists are aware of the Code’s prohibition of sexual activity with clients. Psychologists are also aware of the legal prohibition on sexual harassment in their relationships with students and supervisees” (p. 133).
Similarly, the Psychology Board of Australia defines psychology practice as including “using professional knowledge in a direct non-clinical relationship with clients, working in management, administration, education, research, advisory …” (Psychology Board of Australia, 2016). On this basis, the ethical and professional obligations on academic psychologists in regard to students are equivalent to those that apply to clients.
The profession therefore views students in the same vein as clients, and psychology has stood firm on the nature of the therapeutic relationship between a client and a psychologist. However, in her thesis, Young (1996) challenges the generalisation of the student/academic relationship to that of the therapeutic relationship. She argues that the goals of engaging with an academic in the educational environment are dissimilar to that of a client engaging in a therapeutic relationship and therefore should not be held to the same ethical standards.
While criticising the practice of equating students with clients, Young maintains that students should be protected from coercion, intimidation and unwelcome sexual advances from academic staff. However, rather than be protected under an ethical code of conduct, Young (1996) argues that such misconduct is managed through various institutional polices; for example, sexual harassment and conflict of interest policies. The effectiveness of such policies to safeguard students has been questioned. For example, media commentary in the past has argued that the impetus of these policy directives is largely to guard against potential civil lawsuits in response to claims of sexual harassment rather than to protect students (Gibbs, 1995; Wagner, 1993; Weiss, 1998).
Laying down the law
In the United States (US) there is a growing trend to ban all romantic relationships between academic staff and students. This trend had its genesis in the 1990s (see Gibbs, 1995) but has peaked since the introduction of Title IX, a federal law targeting sex-based discrimination in education. As required by law, universities must protect their students from harassment on campus, though following recent intense media scrutiny, there are allegations from media quarters that they have been ineffective in doing so. It is this potential for harm to students that has highlighted the risks of such relationships, and therefore subsequent calls for complete relationship bans.
Indeed, this is the position taken by a number of universities in the US (e.g., Yale, Harvard) that prohibit sexual relationships between staff and students. A blanket ban such as this assumes that all academics and students in higher education settings have a professional relationship. It also assumes that the adult student does not have the capacity to make an informed decision. Other options for managing academic/student relationships include training and resources to support ethical decision-making.
Exploring solutions
Many academic staff have not received any, or at least inadequate preparation to engage in complex ethical decision-making. For some professional groups there is clearer guidance than exists for psychologists in Australia. For example, the American Counseling Association, have explicitly stated that sexual relationships between their members (who may also be academic members of staff) and students are prohibited (ACA, 2005; Standard F.10.a., p. 16), and that students are not subjected to sexual harassment (Standard F.10.b., p. 16). Similar standards are expressed in other codes, such as the American Mental Health Counsellors Association’s (2015) Code of Ethics which prohibits all forms of sexual behaviour between supervisees, students and employees in their training programs. These codes are explicit in identifying the power differential within an academic/student dyad, and the risk of harm should those boundaries be breached by engaging in a sexual relationship. Following the review by the Australian Human Rights Commission (2017) it is likely we will see changes in policies, and perhaps even similar requirements placed in codes in Australia.
The issue of student and academics engaging in consensual sexual relationships is not straightforward and is fraught with complexity. The need for thoughtful, considerate debate on solutions has never been as pressing given community mandates arising from recent Human Rights Commission findings and the resulting media scrutiny.
We must accept that academics and adult students can equally be physically, emotionally and sexually attracted to one another but in some cases such relationships may be problematic and potentially harmful. Kress and Dixon (2007) have argued that regardless of whether relationships are perceived to be consensual by students at the time, they are often later perceived as coercive or harmful by those very students. Drawing from the common aspects of ethical codes to “do no harm”, and specifically where harm is the result of a sexual relationship, one might conclude that developing specific ethical guidelines for academic/student sexual relationships in the higher education context are well overdue.
Rather than relying upon policy directives to enact blanket bans on academic/student consensual relationships, an alternative approach is to embed sound ethical decision-making principles along with awareness raising and education practices in academic settings. Such an approach provides academics with the tools to draw on to enable them to avoid multiple relationships, while retaining their right to arrive at a decision in contexts where the issues are less clear.
Where research exists, ethical decision-making is at the core of the debate (Kolbert et al., 2002; Kress & Dixon, 2007). Those in postions of power must be mindful of the potential conflicts that can arise and draw on principles and practices that support sound decision-making that have at their heart the safety and protection of all parties. The implementation of training for staff in higher education settings, as one outcome of the recommendations from the Australian Human Rights Commission, offers development in the right direction. This training will support academics and other staff and will be welcomed by higher education providers seeking to improve their profile and proactively address the negative findings of the report.
The author can be contacted at [email protected]