Professor Halligan
ENG-220-08
1 May 2009
Inquiries from Contemporary Ethical Controversies
In the academic environment, college and university professors must partake in ethical decision-making on a daily basis. In addition to more minor decisions – such as whether or not to use outdated material in the classroom, curve exam grades, provide opportunities for extra credit, etc – they are often faced with decisions that have much more substantial ethical implications. Sometimes, their decisions may effect not only the academic wellbeing of their students, but also their student’s personal lives. In this paper, I will examine the question of whether or not it is morally acceptable for a faculty member to establish a romantic relationship with the parent of a student. I take the position that this is unethical both professionally and in a personal sense (with regards to the moral ideals that ought to exist within any social interaction). It goes against the professor’s obligations, undermines the professional and personal ideals (of the institution as well as the student-faculty relationship), and has negative consequences that are potentially damaging to the student and everyone involved. All in all, this type of behavior completely denies the ethical principles which should be considered in college and university teaching, not to mention the respect for persons that ought to shape anyone’s decision in such a situation.
In a personal interview, classmates Rebecca Goodrich and Samantha Messina initially expressed the opinion that although this type of behavior in a faculty member may not necessarily be immoral, it is certainly “weird and immature.” Yet the reason it is seen as “immature” is related to the power balance of the situation, which is precisely what makes it so utterly inappropriate. The professor is supposed to be in the power position of the student-professor relationship; he or she is the one assigned responsibility for the academic setting and to violate that dependability, to step out of the assigned role, is to shirk responsibility and run away from professional duty as if one is a mere child (unable to consider moral ideals, obligations, and consequences) rather than a thinking adult.
In a situation like this, the faculty member makes a shift from occupying a professional role to a personal role. The boundaries between personal and professional roles can be envisioned using the analogy of the “lines on the road” model, where the academic setting is imagined to be a multiple lane highway, with the lines representing the various dimensions of the educator’s position as classroom instructor, advisor, mentor, etc. as well as the possibility of involvement with the student’s personal life (for example, establishing a personal friendship with a student). The faculty member should “make relatively clear transitions between the various dimensions of the job: look carefully in all directions, signal your intention to change lanes, and so on” (Ashby 82). It is common sense not to drive on the line down the middle of two lanes – a driver must choose one lane or the other and make it clear which side of the road he or she is on. Ashby points out that “every relationship involves the dynamics of power,” and, ideally, “as monitor of the relationship the [professor] points out changes in roles and context, and also pays attention to moments of confusion or discomfort as they may arise either in the professor or in the student. At these moments it is the responsibility of the professor to engage in an open conversation with the student about that confusion or discomfort; we need to guard against our tendencies to ignore or deny the confusion or discomfort we detect in a student or in ourselves” (83).
Whether or not the student is comfortable with and/or accepting of the professor dating his or her parent, this type of situation puts everyone involved in an awkward position. Most importantly, it creates a dual relationship (meaning that the student and the professor have more than one kind of relationship between them). Dual relationships, according to the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, should, as a general rule, be avoided:
“To avoid conflict of interest, a teacher does not enter into dual-role relationships with students that are likely to detract from student development or lead to actual or perceived favoritism on the part of the teacher” (Murray 60).
Actual or perceived favoritism is a very real concern in a situation like this. The appearance (or real existence) of conflict of interest can not only upset the student’s classmates, but also cause the student herself or himself to feel as if his or her grades are biased (either positively or negatively), that he or she is being granted special attention by the professor merely as the child of the professor’s significant other (or has been a successful student only because he or she is thought of by the professor as a means to an end), or on the other hand, is being purposely avoided by the professor so as to avoid such an appearance or to avoid an uncomfortable discussion or unpleasant encounter. The student may also feel that his or her classmates have turned against him or her in suspicion of conflict of interest, and may undervalue work he or she has done for the professor’s course(s) and feel that the assigned grade is not genuine. The student may look back on introductions or recommendations from this professor, and feel as if he or she has merely been playing the role of a pawn in the game of the professor. Anything he or she has achieved in relation to this professor will appear to have no inherent value. Self-doubt and loss of academic ambition are very real dangers in this type of situation, and for a professor to cause this is plainly a violation of his or her position within the academic institution. These many possibilities, whether real or perceived, serve to illustrate the delicate balance of power that is easily upset by a decision as important as being involved with a student’s parent.
This type of situation creates the same risks to the professional relationship as does a close friendship or even a sexual relationship between the student and the faculty member. In regards to student-faculty friendships (also a dual-role relationship), Ashby notes, “we are primarily concerned here about whose needs are being served. In a personal friendship, there is a mutuality of needs. In a professional relationship, the relationship exists so that the professional can meet the needs of the person being served by the professional” (qtd. on 86) and “to us it seems a territory ripe with confusion, misunderstanding, and potential disasters” (86). Similar problems hold true, of course, with sexual relationships between students and faculty. The American Association of University Professors has a statement on “Consensual Relations Between Faculty and Students” which indicates “In their relationships with students, faculty are expected to be aware of their professional responsibilities and avoid apparent or actual conflict of interest, favoritism, or bias” (qtd. in Ashby 87). “Such relationships – because of the power differential inherent in the professional-client relationship – constitute significant violations of professional ethics” (87). I bring up the issue here of faculty-student relationships because, in many ways, they present the same problems as does a relationship between a faculty member and a students’ parent. If these types of dual relationships are discouraged, why would the situation of a faculty member dating a student’s parent not also be frowned upon? Surely by posing the same risks to the student’s academic well-being, they must be equally unethical.
There are other reasons why is this such a violation of professional ethics. In a personal interview, classmate Rebecca Goodrich pointed out that the professor “is not supposed to cross that line … especially due to confidentiality.” Here, she is referencing the confidentiality agreement installed by the institution. In Ethical Principles for Teaching,
Student grades, attendance records, and private communications are treated as confidential materials and are released only with student consent, for legitimate academic purposes … This principle suggests that students are entitled to the same level of confidentiality in their relationship with teachers as would exist in a lawyer-client or doctor-patient relationship. Violation of confidentiality in the teacher-student relationship can cause students to distrust teachers and to show decreased academic motivation. (61)
The Employee Information book at
Broome County Charter and Code Article, Code of Ethics, Section 19-3 Standards of Conduct prohibits employees from disclosing confidential information acquired in the course of employment or for using such information to further personal interest. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (Buckley Amendment) establishes specific rights for students and/or their parents and prevents the release of certain information without the written consent of the student. (4-5)
A faculty member in a relationship with a student’s parent could be expected to share confidential information with that student’s parent (either intentionally or unthinkingly). In this position, it would be very difficult (or nearly impossible) not to. Whether or not the professor does, the student would reasonably feel that his or her confidentiality was being threatened. But confidentiality is often an ambiguous abstraction. What is a violation of student-faculty confidentiality is difficult to define. Certainly it is prohibited for a professor to discuss – or even mention in passing – a student’s grade or GPA, or what classes the student has attended or withdrawn from. But confidentiality does not necessarily end there. Even for a straight-A student with a 4.0 GPA, more strict confidentiality is often an important consideration. There are many reasons for this, and in every case the student’s personal feelings and relationship with his or her family will be the deciding factor. Nevertheless, the consequences of breaking this confidentiality (even unintentionally) must always be considered. For example, for many students, hovering, overly-involved, and demanding parents make it seem essential to them that their classes never be discussed at home. Even when the student has nothing to hide, he or she does not want to be hounded for information, reminded to do homework, or constantly offered unwanted advice – all unhealthy contributions that often lead to bad grades and overall disinterest. In addition, many students avoid unnecessary stress by keeping their family lives entirely separate from life at school – for some, college can actually become an escape, were the student can abandon all his or her extra psychological baggage that was loaded on by the parent. In many cases the separation of home and school as important and essential to the preservation of peace and academic excellence as the separation of church and state is to a democracy. For a professor to be suddenly discussing the college goings-on with such a student’s family presents many problems for the student. Whether or not the information a faculty member might share with the parent is of any real importance, or anything to do with the student in question, is not always the issue – what matters more is sometimes the fact that the student’s academic life is being discussed at all. Suddenly, college seems like a branch of the student’s personal life, rather than a separate life he or she may escape to. The type of information the professor may share with a student’s parent is also a concern, even if it has nothing to do with the student in question. What student wants his or her family to be caught up in the university gossip, especially when it comes from such an obviously biased source? Untrue or exaggerated gossip about other faculty members may make the student uncomfortable and is potentially damaging to his or her academic future. There are many, many cases to take into account when considering the moral implications of this situation and its consequences, but for the purpose of this paper, I will stop here and leave the rest to personal reflection.
In a broader sense, the situation of a professor establishing a relationship with a student’s parent is essentially prohibited by more than one moral obligation (restrictions on behavior). Most critical is what Ruggiero refers to as “professional obligations,” since all academic institutions, like most professional organizations, “have detailed codes of conduct that specify the obligations members are expected to honor” (97). For example, the American Association of University Professors Statement on Professional Ethics requires that:
Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students.
As a connotation to this rule, the
In addition to the obligations a professor would not be upholding by becoming romantically involved with a student’s parent, this behavior goes against several moral ideals. The ideal of justice, for example, “opposes ‘playing favorites’ and giving unfair advantage to one person or group” (Ruggiero 107). Temperance (or lack thereof) also comes into play here; Ruggiero explains that “the temperate person … is the one who exercises control over his or her desires and therefore escapes domination by them” (107). The ideal of honesty commands that the faculty member not lie to or conceal the truth from the student in question or from other faculty members (108), which is likely to occur in a situation like this from the knowledge that the professor is making an unethical decision and from fear that he might be judged. Finally, though certainly not the least of the ideals, is compassion. If the professor has compassion, he will understand the students’ difficulties in being a part of this situation, and do his best to alleviate the student’s emotional discomfort (108). This could, of course, mean thinking through the consequences and making a different choice to begin with; but it could also mean that the professor does his best to end the relationship and apologize to anyone who was negatively affected by this unprofessional, unethical conduct. After all, the underlying principle of ethics is respect for persons, a virtue that the professor clearly would not be acting on in this case.
Works Cited
Ashby, Homer U. Jr. and Carol Hepokoski. “ ‘Can We Talk?’: Boundary Crossing and
Sexual Misconduct in Seminary Teaching.” Teaching Theology and Religion, vol. 5 no. 2, 80-89. 2002.
Auster, Carol J. and Jonathan Knight. “Faculty Conduct: An Empirical Study of Ethical
Activism.” The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 70, No. 2 (March/April 1999).
“Employee Information.” Broome Community College, 2008-2009.
“Faculty Code of Conduct.”
Fisch, Linc. (ed.) Ethical Dimensions of College and University Teaching. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 66.
Goodrich, Rebecca. Personal Interview. ENG-220-08, March 2008.
Kidwell, Roland E. and Sean Valentine. “Business Students’ Ethical Evaluations of
Faculty Misconduct.” Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 No 3, 287-300. 2008.
Korschgen, Ann J. and Betsy Levonian Morgan. “The Ethics of Faculty Behavior:
Students’ and Professors’ Views.” College Student Journal, Sept 2001, Vol 35 Issue 3, 418.
Messina, Samantha. Personal Interview. ENG-220-08, March 2008.
Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues.
Hill, 2004.
“Statement on Professional Ethics.” The American Association of University Professors.
Post a Comment