The Crimson Letter

Are there dramatic possibilities in the new ban on sexual relations between teachers and undergraduate students at Harvard (“New Harvard Policy Bans Teacher-Student Relations,” NYT, 2/5/15). According to the Times article, “The ban clarifies an earlier policy that labeled sexual and romantic relationships between professors and students they teach as inappropriate.” Anyone who went to college or grad school in the 60’s or 70’s when  professors hitting on students, was almost a requirement for tenure may applaud the decision. In those heady days, few professors or students, thought about the notion of transference, which is the same principle that analysts recognize when they resist the seduction of a love struck patient. It’s the Oedipus thing. Profs become big wigs to students and it can enable them to take unfair advantage. It’s also an abrogation of trust that can ultimately do considerable harm. But let’s get down to brass tax, how is Harvard going to police this? Will professors and students become injected with some sort of dye that allows for urine testing? Will those who are caught be forced to wear a Crimson letter And what happens in cases where real love does develop between a professor and his student, the kind of love that is not based entirely pathological (here’s where a new HBO series, The Crimson Letter, is brewing). At Harvard there are hundreds of geniuses walking around campus who are better qualified to teach the courses they take then their own professors. So it might even be countertransference that’s at work, with students who are in danger of taking advantage of their doe-eyed mentors? And then what happens to those Harvard professors who struck up romantic relations with students before the ban went into effect? Are those relationships also prohibited or will they be grandfathered in under the old policy which simply considered them “inappropriate?”

Pornosophy: Have You Signed a Pre-Coital?

Illustration for Les Sonnetts Luxurieux of Pietro Aretino by Edouard-Henri Avril (1892)

How is our justice system supposed to deal with seduction in the age of "affirmative consent?" California has just passed a law requiring universities to enforce policies insuring that sex is consensual (“California Law on Consent Pleases Many but Leaves Some Doubters," NYT, 9/29/14). Don Juan would probably have been expelled from the University of California—or worse, depending on what stage of his seductions consent was measured. And how about passion and the notion of love as a form of madness? What about the role of idealization which is one of the ways that animal instinct mediates the shoals of consciousness? The notion of sex being a rational decision in which two parties act in a reasoned manner is in fact contrary to well…sex. It’s what philosophers call an aporia to the extent that it’s a supposition containing two mutually exclusive ideas. Perhaps the Harvard Law School faculty recognized the difficulty of adjudicating sexuality in recent protests about Harvard’s new policy on sexual misbehavior  (“Some Harvard Professors Oppose Policy on Assaults,” NYT, 10/15/14). The attempt to protect one person against violations and assaults can result in a violation of another individual’s human rights, particularly in an atmosphere of hysteria, where collective rather than individual emotion and a crowd mentality begin to inform the perception of reality. Even in the most morally relative universe, there's right and wrong. The notion that a woman who wears a revealing outfit invites rape has no more validity than the idea that a person who leaves their front door open should be robbed. But in matters of the heart and the crotch, intention can be exceedingly difficult to determine and with the increasing politicization and ideologization of sexuality by varying campus interest groups, who will render the Solomonic judgement? Affirmative consent is like having Big Brother involved in the sex act. While the safety and protection of students should be a major source of concern, do we want campus versions of the the Salem witch hunt or a situation where the equivalent of pre and post-coital agreements (modeled on prenuptial agreements and specifying exactly what sexual acts do and do not constitute consent) will have to be negotiated by high priced lawyers before a couple can make love?

Yet Another Perk For Harvard Students

Everyone wants to go to Harvard and now there's another reason why the application pool will undoubtedly swell. An article in The Times describes how, “Dozens of Harvard Law School faculty members are asking the university to withdraw its new sexual misconduct policy, saying that it violates basic principles of fairness and would do more harm than good," (“Some Harvard Professors Oppose Policy on Assaults,” NYT, 10/15/14). California recently passed an affirmative consent law which basically insures that most students having sex will have to employ the services of a litigator. However, if the Harvard Law faculty initiative succeeds, Harvard will boast one of the lower legal costs for being a sexually active student than any university in the country. This a truly a selfless act by the law faculty whose action will also result in a reduction of their own billing hours. However, what’s most important is that the action taken by the law faculty is likely to turn Harvard into one of the leading centers of educated and enlightened sex offense. Potential sex offenders will know that once they get that fat acceptance package  their rights will be protected as they attempt to rape their fellow classmates. Of course, those Harvard Law faculty who have raised their voices in favor of sexual misconduct have not dealt with an ancillary issue which is the rights of those Harvard applicants who are wait-listed or who don’t get in at all. It doesn’t seem fair that only accepted Harvard student get to pillage and rape while those who are rejected or wait-listed aren’t free to force themselves on others.