Postings are anonymous–your identity is hidden from the website moderators and the committee. However, you multiply the impact of what you say by indicating your status: ugrad, grad, post-doc, staff, faculty, or better yet, your name.
Comment on CRP-A versus CRP-B
I have voted to support neither option. My reservations concerning possible romantic / sexual relationships between the broadly defined authority figures and undergraduates seem too restrictive to me, while the proposed procedures for dealing with relationships between post-graduates and authority figures seem too cumbersome. Reading the comments, arguments, and rationales posted by some of my colleagues have strengthened my position.
In the current climate, it is worthwhile to re-consider these issues. I think the guiding principal should be whether the faculty or graduate student has an authority over the student or postdoc. This should be the dividing line. In light of this, in the short 1 page summary, I basically agree with P1 and P3, although it should be more specific. On the other hand, P2 is too broad and overreaching. It’s not unreasonable to expect to hire an exceptional assistant professor who is say, 27 years old. He could potentially meet an undergraduate in a dancing class for example, and they could also be the same age. If the student is in a completely different department, so that the professor has no power over the student, what is the problem? Life happens. Love happens. Cornell should not be regulating these kinds of things.
I am also concerned about the potential power of the panel that will decide on such issues. Will there be common sense, or will people’s lives be turned upside down by some panel without due process? These are important questions. On the other hand I would support P2 if there is a fair way to disclose a potential relationship.
Overall, these proposals are too broad and don’t allow for legitimate and innocent exceptions, that will happen, and have to be dealt with some common sense, especially if both parties have no issues with their relations. It’s aimed at dealing with very rare exceptions. Cornell should not be in the business of overseeing people’s private lives where in cases it is perfectly innocent and, frankly, non of its business.
Author of comment 4 from 4/24 here. The power of the panel is a huge concern of mine. Assuming a misrepresentation situation like I described above occurs, would I have to go before the panel with transcripts of all of my communications to prove beyond a doubt that I did not know I was talking to an undergraduate? Would I have to describe potentially intimate conversations to a jury of my peers and have them entered into panel documents forever (confidential or not)? Like you nicely state, Cornell probably shouldn’t be regulating these things with such aggressively defined boundaries when the targets are rare, exceptional cases and not everyday behavior. If you have to reassure people that your panel will behave in a common sense way, then you probably have rules that are too broadly defined or an institutional reach that is extended too far.
I am a faculty member at the Ithaca campus. I fully and wholeheartedly support P1 and P2. The undergrad ban, while sweeping, reflects a higher responsibility we hold towards students. P3 concerns me on a broader level because of the inclusion of “field” and its absolutist language. Given the size of many fields, I am not sure that this ban reflects the core goals behind P1 in a reasonably limited fashion. I question why it contains blanket language when P1 seemingly provides sufficient coverage for the ways that such a relationship could compromise the student/faculty boundary. Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment behind all three rules and the necessity of the update, but I do worry about rules written in such a general and binary way as P3.
My greater concern is in regards to definitions, reporting, and enforcement procedures. I am a single gay man in upstate NY. The nearest dedicated space for gay adults to meet is in Syracuse proper. One primary way that people in my situation connect in pursuit of both romantic and sexual relationships is in the form of web and mobile apps like OKCupid, Tinder, or Scruff. As you might be aware, these sites operate almost entirely on self-reported information and informal communication. Someone declares their age, occupation, interests, and other personal features through a profile posting, and other users must vet their information for truthfulness and authenticity. These days, most apps eschew personal information in favor of more picture content. In many of these communities it is not common practice to include photographs of faces (due to the risk of prejudice or violence) and names are not verified by any authority. Phenomena such as catfishing are common, and as expected people quite regularly misrepresent aspects of their life. These issues, of course, also occur in face-to-face interactions, but are much more acute thanks to the online, distributed mode of communication.
Users of these apps generally begin by communicating informally to vet these trust issues as well as engage in the traditional things someone would do to identify a potential partner. My question regarding the CRP comes from this activity. To what degree of engagement would communications on these kinds of tools become a violation of this policy? Is simply sending a greeting enough of a signal of desire to engage in what might be an unsanctioned relationship that it would violate this policy? Is communicating for several days enough? Is arranging (but not yet attending) an initial date sufficient? Is that first date enough? Very often one does not realize issues of misrepresentation and lying in profiles until quite deep into an exchange (note the common trope in popular media of individuals being unpleasantly surprised by their first physical meeting with an online connection). What might happen if a faculty member communicates with someone who claims to be a final year grad student in Architecture but ends up being a junior in the Engineering college? They might only discover that misrepresentation during the first face-to-face meeting after several weeks of sustained online communication. Even then, I doubt that someone could identify every single Cornell student and their corresponding year/field affiliations at a face-to-face meeting. This is true for me even for members of my own large field.
The rules regarding sanctioning or disapproving of a “relationship” are by necessity somewhat ill defined. Under the CRP rules it seems that most if not all of those situations I mentioned above could risk being litigated and prosecuted as prohibited romantic or sexual relationships even if it is a clear case of someone in category P2 falsely representing themselves. A violation could still in principle have occurred despite such misrepresentation and risks invoking an arduous and potentially career-destroying debate. While the case I mentioned above of a student misrepresenting themselves might in the end be resolved in a faculty member’s favor due to that misrepresentation, the severe damage to career and reputation would already be done. The risk is further compounded when you consider the idea of intentional misrepresentation, retribution, and blackmail.
Once again, I have absolutely no desire to engage in a relationship with an undergraduate student, both due to the exact reasons the CRP rules cite as well as my own personal ethical beliefs. I also have no desire to engage in a relationship with a graduate or faculty member within my field for similar reasons. Yet, the reality of LGBT dating outside of urban areas exposes me to a tremendous amount of risk of inadvertently violating these rules should I encounter a single person online who chooses to misrepresent themselves. There is no reliable test for P2 or P3 violations over the web. There may not even be one that is reliable for early face-to-face interactions. In my own assessment should the rules go into effect I would have to cease any and all dating in Ithaca and surrounds due to these high risks, which introduces what I believe is an unreasonable personal hardship. I already had enough to worry about in terms of avoiding bashings and prejudice. In effect, P2 and P3 have the unfortunate side effect of turning what otherwise is an annoying and awful side effect of online dating (people misrepresenting themselves) into one that risks serious negative career implications due to their broad and binary nature. While the side effects I describe could affect everyone in the Cornell community, they risk unfairly targeting members of minority communities who have fewer means to overcome or mitigate them.
I do not have any explicit fix for this. My primary suggestion is that the definition of what constitutes a prohibited relationship be well defined enough that it is resistant to unfortunate situations like the ones I listed. Claiming that enforcement will be performed in a “common sense” is not sufficient given the potential negative consequences of even being investigated. Given the wide reach of P2 and P3, this is critical. If nothing else, a clearer definition would help delineate when communications cross the boundary from permitted to prohibited. The slide deck talks about the need for rules to change to embrace new conceptions of what constitutes harmful behavior. Likewise, the rules also need to account for the new ways in which people interact today and the reality of minority communities.
Very well articulated.
Comments submitted by Risa Lieberwitz and William Sonnenstuhl (ILR):
We believe that the current Cornell policy on “Romantic and Sexual Relationships” is appropriate and adequate:
The current policy recognizes that “romantic or sexual relationships between students and persons in positions of authority compromise the relationship between students and the university.”
The current policy identifies the areas where an individual should not exercise authority while simultaneously being romantically or sexually involved with a student.
The current policy respects the right of individuals to enter consensual romantic or sexual relationships, as long as the relationship is not prohibited by the policy.
The current policy can be supplemented by increased education (classes, workshops, etc.) that raise awareness about issues of sex and sexuality and about making conscious choices of whether to enter romantic and sexual relationships.
We believe that the proposed new consensual relationships policies are overly broad and intrusive:
The CRP-A and CRP-B total ban on romantic or sexual relationships between faculty and undergraduate students treats all consensual relationships as inherently coercive.
The CRP-B total ban on sexual or romantic relationships between faculty members and graduate or professional students affiliated with the same graduate field or degree program also treats all consensual relationships as inherently coercive.
Total bans prohibit individuals from making their own choices of whether to enter a consensual romantic or sexual relationship.
The required disclosure of permitted consensual relationships invades the privacy of the individuals in the relationship.
Enforcement of overly broad total bans and disclosure requirements creates a threat of the most draconian sanctions, including discharge.
Rather than adopting overly broad total bans, Cornell can retain its current policy supplemented with increased education (classes, workshops, etc.) that raise awareness about issues of sex and sexuality and about making conscious choices of whether to enter romantic and sexual relationships.
I totlay agree!
I support banning faculty-undergrad relations, with the understanding that whatever is banned will occur, and that the punishments should depend on circumstances.
New York’s age of consent laws seem relevant: “In New York State, a person who is under age 16 but older than 13 years old can consent to sex with a person who is no more than 4 years older; the crime of the 3rd degree rape only happens when a person over the age of 21 has sex with a person who is under seventeen years old or younger and that person can or may be punished with up to 4 years in prison. The younger the victim is, the more severe the punishment.”
Relationships with large age differences and where the age of the student is closer to the age of consent should result in termination. Relationships with, e.g., a 4 or 5 year age difference where the student is 21 or 22 might result in no punishment, especially if the relationship is appropriately disclosed.
I support neither option. Let’s protect our students 1) by educating and empowering them. Put in place training as a part of orientation, raise awareness, include in our curricula, fortify resources. And let’s protect our students 2) by managing the behavior of those in positions of authority. Require training, offer workshops, include personal relationships across a power divide in our annual conflict of interest reports, implement a process to manage those conflicts. Let’s not take the “easy” way out by implementing bans. Banning will not prevent relationships across a power divide from forming; it will drive them underground and expose individuals to greater risk of harm. Banning will not empower students to make sound decisions about entering into relationships, which they will continue to need to do after leaving Cornell. Banning will not encourage those in positions of authority to be forthright and to seek assistance in managing relationships that may form across a power divide. Let us engender, empower, and expect good decision making among all members of the Cornell community, rather than attempting to control behavior in draconian, patriarchal ways.