GF debates Sex Policy

GF debated over Sexual Offense policy revisions for three hours

The General Faculty passed a revision to the Sexual Offence Policy after engaging in a heated discussion at last Tuesday's General Faculty meeting.

Professor of Economics James Zinser, a member of the General Faculty Committee and professor of economics, presented the policy with GFC's formal endorsement.

The revision would change several aspects of the SOP. The policy would strengthen the obligation of the College to educate students and faculty about what constitutes a sexual offense. It strengthens the obligation of members of the community to report a sexual offense if they are aware of it and changes the vote required to find a person guilty of an offense from 4-1 to 3-2. The revision would also bring the College into compliance with several Supreme Court rulings. The major debate, however, occurred with a change that would prohibit all sexual relations between faculty or staff and students.

Section two of the SOP revision states that "it is prohibited for faculty members to engage in any sexual relations with students ... even when both parties believe that the relationship is consensual." This is a stricter version of the former policy, which stated that faculty members were not allowed to have sexual relations with students they had in class or advised.

"This is an ethical stance," said President Nancy Dye. The College's lawyer, Michael Franz, who was present for the meeting, noted that the section was not necessary for compliance with the Supreme Court rulings.

Several of the faculty members were at odds with new revisions. Robert Piron, professor of economics, among others, felt that the section was problematic. Within the section, it says that the relations between faculty or staff and students would be "subject to appropriate college adjudication processes and disciplinary action." Critics labeled this sentence ambiguous, and cited it was one reason why the SOP should be more carefully reworded.

"[Disciplinary action] can range from a chat with the chair of the department to a formal hearing," said Dye, trying to clarify.

The ambiguity, as well as the fact that the section was not necessary for compliance with the Supreme Court, caused Piron to motion that the section be removed and voted on separately. Even when the motion failed, however, there were still concerns. Several professors including Norman Craig, professor of chemistry, proposed word changes or rephrasing, but all of the motions failed.

The discussion was heated, and led to harsh words between members of the faculty. Piron asked to step down from the chair in order to address her individually, a request to which she complied.

Debate over the other parts of the revision were not quite as vehement. There was some discussion concerning the duty to report as well as the change in the vote.

The duty to report clause was confusing for many in the context of the prohibition of all sexual relations between faculty or staff and students. Professor of Politics Paul Dawson raised this problem. "Am I obligated to report any relation, or one that has soured or might go sour?" he asked.

"The duty to report is the duty to report a sexual offense," Zinser said in response.

The question about the change from a 4-1 to 3-2 conviction vote was quickly cleared when the college lawyer Michael Franz said that the College could be liable if the vote remained 4-1.

Although the GF meeting began with around 80-100 faculty members, the meeting wound down three hours latter with less than 50. The lack of people present caused one faculty member to move that the vote be postponed. This motion was killed, however, and the GF approved the SOP revision.