Proposed Rules on Love Affairs With Students
Re “No More Amour With UC Faculty?” Commentary, June 18:
The fabric of UCLA psychology professor Paul Abramson’s argument has more fluff than fold. He writes as if sex between faculty and students is only a matter of criminal and constitutional law. I would have loved to hear his arguments when the various professional associations were deciding that therapists could no longer dive on the couch with their clients.
The professions tend to abhor sex between their members in positions of power and authority and those they serve. Not because it is illegal, not because the people have no rights or choice but because of the appearance of impropriety and the possibility of impropriety. This institutional avoidance of lack of due care is a compelling reason for a profession, institution or government to have rules.
Choosing a sexual partner is not a basic right. You can’t wish what the Constitution says and paraphrase it to fit your wish. (Have you heard the income tax is unconstitutional?) Abramson deftly compares the rules against faculty members having random affairs with their students to “burning the house to roast the pig.” I would suggest if one is not a pig, he won’t burn down his house.
Glenn C. Davis
Laguna Woods
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
