Sexual Enticement in Academia (a Fable)

Sexual Enticement in Academia (a Fable)

Let’s consider a hypothetical case (I emphasize hypothetical). Suppose we live in a society in which a certain problem is perceived to exist in the universities—the problem of sexual enticement. The problem arises when a student, male or female, entices a professor, male or female, into a sexual relationship in exchange for special treatment. The student may feel no such attraction, or they may, but the main motive is to secure professional advantages—good grades, grant money, research assistantships, etc. We can suppose that the targeted professors tend to be lonely types susceptible to such advances. The advances need not be strictly sexual but may extend to romantic but platonic relationships. They may lead to good work being done by student and professor together and to professional advancement by the student; no one is harmed thereby. However, such relationships are frowned upon on grounds of unfair favoritism and are forbidden by the university’s by-laws. Still, they occur. In fact, there is quite a lot of it about—enticement and acquiescence. It’s agreed to be something of a problem.

Suppose now that there have recently been some high-profile rather flagrant cases of sexual enticement that have made the headlines (journalists love these stories). Students have successfully enticed certain famous professors into some egregious reciprocation, amounting to good money going to the student in question. It is getting to be a national scandal. Politicians have gotten involved. The university decides to crack down on this “epidemic of sexual enticement”. Administrators are afraid, with some reason, that it will affect funding: people won’t contribute money to the university if a lot of this sexual enticement nonsense is going on. They thus start to impose strict penalties on this kind of “sexual misconduct”: the student’s working relationship to the professor may be severed, which may derail the student’s career, and the professor may be subject to disciplinary action too (say, pay reduction). In extreme cases, the student may be expelled and her (or his) life ruined, but the crime is deemed sufficiently abominable that these measures are thought justified. This scourge must be stopped; we have zero tolerance for sexual enticement; etc. In a couple of cases harsh treatment has led to suicide on the part of the student (though never the professor), but this outcome is judged acceptable given the gravity of the offence—public ridicule and denunciation of the student are only to be expected in such a case. And indeed, some cases have been notably egregious—like that serial enticer from Bathsheba College who made a fortune from weak-willed professors, male and female (she was thought to be highly alluring). The hope is that such sexual and romantic quid pro quos would be eliminated from the universities: just say no to sexual enticement!

In truth, the atmosphere had become somewhat hysterical, fueled no doubt by the sexual element (people didn’t seem to care too much about simple embezzlement). People started to get rather worked-up about it, seeing it everywhere, even in simple friendship between student and professor. In fact, in a certain instance, things got out of hand. It happened like this. A student and a professor developed a warm relationship while engaged on a certain academic project. The student was very good and the project worthwhile (something in botany). There was no enticement and no sexual dimension (or even romantic) but it might be described as a loving relationship somewhat like a father-daughter relationship. However, another student in the same department grew suspicious and annoyed at their closeness and decided to report it to the authorities. He went to the human resource office and reported a case of sexual enticement (and complicity in enticement). The university officials, on being alerted to the situation, initiated an inquiry, summoning both parties for interview. They had had a couple of recent cases of this infringement of university rules and wanted to get on top of the situation, mindful of issues of public outrage and funding concerns. They concluded, however, that the report was false—there had been no such enticement, sexual or romantically platonic. The student and her professor were just good friends and (yes) quite fond of each other. There had been no impropriety at all. Still, as one seasoned dean pointed out, there could be a perception of impropriety, and the professor was actually rather well-known publicly. They needed to cover themselves in the event of bad publicity and consequent defunding, which seemed all too likely. But they could find nothing in the statutes that they could accuse the pair of, thus opening themselves up to accusations of being soft on sexual enticement. There were warm emails between the two that could be interpreted as verging on the enticing (“It was so nice to see you today” etc.). In the current political atmosphere these could be cited in support of a sexual enticement allegation. So, they decided to accuse the student of intending to initiate sexual enticement—involving what they called “micro-enticements” and “pre-enticement conduct”. They then severed pedagogical relations between the two and issued a reprimand to the professor for tolerating the student’s enticement-related intentions. This way they could claim to have punished the wrong-doers and therefore not face funding cuts for laxity about campus misbehavior. Nevertheless, the story made it to the college newspaper and then to the wider world, leading to the student having to leave the university and her career being destroyed. It was put about (falsely) by assorted enticement activists (generally disgruntled students) that this was a cover-up on the part of the administration, and that the student had blatantly seduced the professor in exchange for professional perks and a glowing reference letter. The last that was heard of her she was working in a Wendy’s somewhere, being unable to find another botany department willing to take her; she had been branded as a “predatory sexual enticer”. No matter that she denied it and that there was no evidence of it. Meanwhile the university administrators kept their jobs and got their pay raises. The sexual morals of the university had been preserved thanks to their zealous actions (and the funding kept coming in).[1]

[1] Let me repeat that this is intended as a cartoonish hypothetical story not a report of an actual course of events. I know of no actual situation that resembles this. The point is to put actual cases in a new light, revealing the political dynamics involved. It is also intended to be funny in a campus-novel kind of way—a satire, if you like.