Defending Love
Feminists and “liberal” leftists are fighting a war on love- a fight they have angrily waged on every frontier they could imagine since they gained their first inch of influence. They are now targeting colleges, banning professors from dating students, and, when attempts are unsuccessful, leaving in their tracks unofficial but powerful social edicts about the “inappropriateness” (one of their favorite terms) of such relationships. The reasons for attacking love are dire at best- these modernists want to replace love of other human beings with love of abstract and non-living entities such as the state, “society”, ideologies, and “programs”.
Leftists have never cared much for love, or anything too "childish". Love, they say, is passé and patriarchal. They enjoy scoffing at heartwarming movies and works of art for being corny, uninspired, or- who could forget?- “bourgeois”! Love gets in the way of “professional life”, they sneer, Feminists especially, expecting good people to believe that such a choice is conceivable in a world in which closeness and warmth are what we need to survive.
The far-left Feminists have a contradictory way of viewing this issue, as they do most issues. They claim that the idea that a professor should not date a student is inherently obvious and that everyone in every era ever would have agreed with them, yet later complain of the “old days”, in which the “importance” of such rules- to protect women, they claim- did not exist because of the patriarchy so rampant in our society. Apparently, the facts must always be bent to the breaking point.
When their crusades against love between men and women failed to succeed, Feminists and leftists turned their heads towards “inter-hierarchal” love- between persons deemed “higher” and “lower”- forgetting their professed stance: that individuals themselves are not “higher” or “lower” than others.
Although the anti-love war seems relatively new, it is the oldest battle in the world. Since love defies all hierarchies, including the false hierarchy between adult professors and adult students, it is the most common rock in the gears of oppressive societies. The modern anti-love crusade even mirrors 19th Century attempts to keep the poor from marrying the rich. The result of a cultural war on love, which leftists will take farther than our campuses, will help crumble our society. Obviously, the war on love is evil at the root, and we must turn their heads away from our lives, once and for all.
In order to battle the Feminists and leftists, the issue must be understood in depth. If people read about the situation of love on campus, they will keep their hands off innocent teachers, whose careers maybe jeopardized, and students whose lovers are torn away from them. For every “justification”, a common-sense rebuttal can be cannoned back:
*Feminists such as Gloria Steinem and Catharine MacKinnon, who oppose "unbalanced" relationships, forgave Bill Clinton for his affair and defended him for supporting their policies. Also, the Obamas are student and teacher.
Justification- Teachers would undoubtedly favor students they loved.
Answer 1- This is a very assumptive statement. One teacher may grade fairly while some other buffoon can't see through his rose-colored glasses. Also, in our society one is innocent until proven guilty.
A2- Mothers are allowed to teach their own children. No Catholic is banned from teaching Protestants. Is it only possible that lovelorn professors are biased, and professors in other situations?
A3- If the subject being taught is an objective one, such as math, there will be no leeway for unfair grading as there would be in English and history, but only for purposeful mis-grading. (see below)
J- What if a teacher refused to give a student a fair grade unless they decided to sleep with them?
A1- This is a bad defense because the situation can be applied to any profession, not just a college professor's. For example, a plumber could refuse to fix a customer's pipes unless she slept with him, yet we don't ban plumbers from dating non-plumbers. It makes no difference if the service being offered is pipe-fixing or grade giving.
A2- A student harassed in this way should be able to seek help from the college, instead of having their freedom limited because the college is “unable” to do anything.
A3- Get another professor
J- Suppose a teacher and a student broke up while taking a class. Wouldn't that make it uncomfortable or disruptive for them to have to function together?
A1- Once again, there is no need to single out professors. Who would ban two students who broke up and bickered from being in a class together? Bad behavior should be dealt with on a rational basis, with respect to individual cases- not by limiting the actions of responsible people.
A2- The college exists to help individuals further their education since many people find self-education too difficult. It does not exist to shield people from unpleasant experiences which may or may not be a part of a one's life.
J- Suppose a jilted lover came back and bombed the school out of anger, or sued for damages?
A1- The people who do perform such activities would do the same thing were their lovers to work in a mine, the police force, or a Sesame Street On Ice show. There is nothing different about a college.
A2- No one should be allowed to sue a place of employment because of personal problems. This is proof, not of the faultiness of the professor-student relationships, but of the faultiness of modern courtrooms and modern ideas of justice. Then again, what else is new?
A university should deal with those who don't grade fairly and don't handle breakups calmly, instead of punishing those who are innocent of wrongdoing. Dancing around a problem because it is “too hard” to fix and, instead, “solving” it the easy way- by taking individuals' rights away- is the morally cowardly thing to do. If it is possible to successfully find and prevent professor and student romances, then why isn't is possible to only find and prevent bad behavior, and leave innocent couples alone?
J- Shouldn't people keep their personal and professional lives from influencing each other? Wouldn't a student and teacher relationship damage that?
A1- One can have a personal and professional relationship with someone at the same time. Do we consider a husband-and-wife folk duo an instance of personal-professional transgression because they happen to love each other and work together?
A2- It isn't a college's job to force someone to separate professional and personal aspects of life, except as a means of ensuring fair grading. (see arguments 1 and 2)
A3- There is a difference between keeping personal and professional things from influencing each other, and relegating people as mere attachments of personal or professional life. One must keep professional activities and personal activities from corrupting each other while having a relationship with one person. If a person can refrain from dating a student in the first place, then they can refrain from behaving irresponsibly once in a relationship.
J- Feminists say that allowing professors to date students opens the door to sexual harassment against women. Isn't that a good reason to ban the practice?
A1- No. This would mean that it would be proper to ban all relationships because they are all open to possible harassment.
A2- This view suggests that women are too stupid or weak to resist the advances of men. Gee, that's really feminist...
A3- Since when are all professors men and all students women?
A4- It is ridiculous to ban an action because a bad consequence might occur by it. Would a campus ban the use of backpacks because a student got his backpack stolen? The university should take the responsibility to evict wrongdoers, not curtail the actions of possible victims and possible perpetrators.
J- “Wouldn't it create a dangerous power imbalance?” many feminists say.
A1- This is hogwash. A student and a professor both know that the professor's “power” doesn't lie in the ability to coerce a person to have sex, but in the “power” to give grades. Both the parties are adults who should know better.
A2- A professor isn't a power figure. Knowledge doesn't give someone power over someone else- if so, then a fashion designer has power over a non-fashion designer. Besides, we all have knowledge that someone else doesn't.
But the “power” to give out grades, some say, is power over an aspect of someone's life...yet doesn't a carpenter who decides if your house gets fixed hold power over part of your life, too? Suppose a carpenter charged a client with sex, and, when she refused, her roof fell in and hurt her? Would we ban carpenter/non-carpenter romances? No! (And the advice “get another carpenter” can be simply restated as “get another professor.”)
A3- Many people are happy in power-imbalanced relationships, providing they suit each person's true nature.
A4- Many students have the dominant personalities, despite our culture's insistence that professors be the authoritative ones. Not all people fit their roles. Furthermore, professors and students are both adults- the teacher/babysitter role would be silly even as far as high school, and is ridiculous in college.
A5- If we banned relationships between any type of person who likely had more power or prestige (fairly or unfairly) than their lover:
-Politicians wouldn't be allowed to date constituents
-The rich wouldn't be allowed to date the poor
-Whites wouldn't be allowed to date blacks
-Rock musicians and movie stars would undoubtedly not be allowed to date fans (imagine the outcry!)
-70-year-olds would not be allowed to date 50-year-olds (date someone their parents' age?)
-Pretty or popular people could not date unattractive people or outcasts
-Military officials or CIA/FBI agents wouldn't be allowed to date civilians.
-Presidents wouldn't be allowed to date Monica Lewinsky*
-Intelligent people couldn't date retarded or average people
-Men would not be allowed to date women
-Professors themselves wouldn't be allowed to date administrators in the college, and tenured/nontenured relationships would be banned.
A6- No one tells police officers they can only marry other police officers. Wouldn't that be a great power imbalance? Don't even mention the “conflict of interest” that would occur if a citizen broke the law and a police officer charged her sex for bail. A6, in fact, should end this debate once and for all.
J- Wouldn't the age difference create another problem of hierarchy?
A1- It suffices to say that college students and professors are adults and are of all ages, and that many students are older than their teachers. Further explanation is needed only for the mentally challenged.
J- Students and teachers who think they love each other may only be attracted to each other in the role of “student” or “professor”. Those who see each other in those roles aren't really in love.
A1- It isn't the university's job to protect people from making bad relationship choices.
A2- Some people are happy seeing their partner in a certain role, providing no one's true personality is being compensated. Why the need to put a mask on for your job, anyway?
A3- We can't always define a relationship between two persons as predominantly one between professor and student. What if two people who were student and professor while in class were something else outside? For instance:
Suppose you were a teacher and one of your students was the sister of your brother's wife? What if your best friend took one of your classes? What if you saw your student outside the classroom because he plays bongos in a tribal band with your sister? Suppose an older gentleman who wanted to learn another language signed up for a Spanish course you taught at the local college without realizing who taught it...and he turned out to be your teacher from years ago? You may have multiple ways of relating to one person. People tend to forget this and seem to take on the childish attitude of a first grader who can't believe he “just saw his teacher at the mall, like everyone else.”
A4- A person should never be seen through their profession or role in life, but for their individual attributes. While some people may never see each other outside of the roles if they don't meet again, they still can never sum up a unique person as simply a teacher or student, and therefore refuse to have a relationship with them, as if one person could, now, never be anything else to the other.
People all have lives, feelings, hopes, and personalities outside of their jobs which make it impossible and immoral to summarize the connection between two people as a connection of only one type. It takes the humanity out of people to try to do so.
A5- Professors and students who are responsible shouldn't have to give up their individual rights.