Professor-Student Relationships: How Close Is Too Close?

[DontHate]

maybe, minus the attraction. When I say attraction I mean desire for sexytimes.

[1Q84]

Thank you. I am not very popular among the English peeps on here.

Yet again, in this I am ronery and sadry arone.

I can see why.

And yes, I get the Team America reference. My thoughts on that? Lololo ahahha Asians can't pronounce the letter L! It's satire, guys!

[DontHate]

oh god, seriously, lighten up. it's a puppet kim jong il, not a real asian. for christ's sake

[DontHate]

You guys can be really insufferable. Insufferable I say!

[DontHate]

1Q84, can I ask why you chose those particular programs (in your signature)? Also, I hated 1Q84, particularly Murakami's portrayal of women in the book, which was downright offensive, if i do say so. A truly awful example of his work. I prefer his short stories.

[practical cat]

1Q84, can I ask why you chose those particular programs (in your signature)? Also, I hated 1Q84, particularly Murakami's portrayal of women in the book, which was downright offensive, if i do say so. A truly awful example of his work. I prefer his short stories.

Ugh. I'm reading 1Q84 right now and am positively sickened by the portrayal of women. I just... ew. It actually really hurts all the more because I kind of really enjoy the book otherwise. It's beautifully written/translated.

But, OK. I think there can be somewhat sexually-charged interactions between professors and students that aren't actually anything more than that. Sometimes there are sexually-charged interactions between adult individuals that just happen regardless of context/environment. It need not also be charged with meaning, you know? "Too close" is not just proceeding with one's life otherwise. And, I only add this because I'm especially careful given how open I am about my institutional affiliation, no. I've been friendly with professors, had lots of companionable conversations with them but I've found my experience to be very strictly professional. (In fact, I'm currently in a situation where I see a former professor/mentor fairly regularly within the context of my new job and it weirds me the hell out.) Which is probably the perfect experience as an undergrad.

[R Deckard]

What if there is a mutual attraction, a mutual platonic admiration and also a mutual desire for respectability?

I feel like we're not getting the whole story here -- what is it that you're not telling us?

[kaykaykay]

maybe, minus the attraction. When I say attraction I mean desire for sexytimes.

I am guessing you are a grad student. ok you are an adult now. guess what you are allowed to have a proper relationship with a professor if you report it and both of you make sure that they are not supervising you.

you are even allowed to marry them if you so wish. This happens in various universities. as you say the attraction is mutual so the prof is not harassing you or anything. If for some reason the two of you decide to keep it platonic though you as an adult should be able to handle it too as most adults do in other close working relationships.

Edited December 9, 2012 by kaykaykay

[kaister]

I think there's that allure of the student-teacher relationship for some people and that may make people feel some "tension" when with professors of the opposite sex. I can say that I have a comfortable relationship with one of my professors from undergrad. Sometimes I wonder why he pays so much attention to me (considering, I'm no longer a student in his department and only had one class with him). He's paid for coffee with me, we email/chat to catch up often, he's initiated many conversations. Now, I could take this all in a way that there may be something more going on, but I honestly think two people can just be genuinely interested in each other in a platonic fashion. I think we both consider each other interesting and enjoy our conversations. It's a great relationship, because I am able to ask for academic advice and it's like I'm just talking with a friend. He's also written me letters of recommendation, so there are benefits to having a professor know you so well and that wants to advocate for you.

Do note that, I didn't go out for coffee with him until I had graduated, because as a young male professor, I'm sure he is really wary of coming off in the wrong light. At first, I was kind of surprised at how friendly he was during our chats in his office or via email, yet when he saw me on campus he'd be very brief and detached, but I can understand why he might be concerned.

I have heard from a friend (who is in grad school, in the hard sciences) that there are professors who do prey on their young lab assistants. For example, there was one who promised funding and publications opportunities in exchange for salacious activities. Also, many professors do know the attention they get as the so-called "hot professors", and some do relish in it. Not saying they're all in bad intent, but just know that they often are aware of that.

[DontHate]

I feel like we're not getting the whole story here -- what is it that you're not telling us?

Well the professor would in this case perhaps be (removed at poster's request), so there's that.

[kaykaykay]

Well the professor would in this case perhaps be married, so there's that.

Then I guess you know that the proper thing is not to get involved. As I said above this situation happens in many adult working relationships. You have to learn how to handle it.

If you two decide to break up the marriage then again you have to report to the university that you have a relationship. I heard this happening too. I am guessing the only thing you should be wary about is to get into an adulterous relationship and be advised/supervised by this person because if that gets out it can jeopardize your academic carrier and in general the prof's marriage .

Then again the final conclusion is that you are an adult so you are free to decide to do so if you are prepared to take the consequences.

Edited December 9, 2012 by kaykaykay

[1Q84]

1Q84, can I ask why you chose those particular programs (in your signature)? Also, I hated 1Q84, particularly Murakami's portrayal of women in the book, which was downright offensive, if i do say so. A truly awful example of his work. I prefer his short stories.

Ugh. I'm reading 1Q84 right now and am positively sickened by the portrayal of women. I just... ew. It actually really hurts all the more because I kind of really enjoy the book otherwise. It's beautifully written/translated.

Why I chose gender studies and early modern lit? Because I happen to enjoy both separately and even more when put together. Or are you asking why I'm not studying contemporary Japanese literature considering my Murakami themed profile?

As for 1Q84, TBH, I'm not actually done the novel yet. I'm trying to read it in tandem with my partner but he reads much, much slower than me so... I'm about 3/4 of the way through. I like to withhold judgement until I finish a work but yeah, overall, not the best when it comes to women so far. It doesn't come as a surprise to me considering his other works (I'm thinking Sputnik Sweetheart and Norwegian Wood here) but I'm trying to be confident that he's making a point with the safe house for women plot point. Anyway, I'm still grappling with the role of women in his works, to say the least...

I would hardly say 1Q84 is the worst of his works but it's not my favourite.

I was wondering if any of you grad cafe'ers had any experience crossing from professional to personal boundaries in your relationships with professors. This doesn't necessarily mean anything salacious.

Well the professor would in this case perhaps be married, so there's that.

I don't know what your definition of salacious is but...

[Phil Sparrow]

Jesus H. Christ, you all. What has happened to this forum in the last few days?

A friendly piece of advice: faculty and grad students read this website. You all are a lot more identifiable than you think you are, especially when you post stats, personal details, and the other bits of information that are often included in "What are my chances?"-type posts. And we recognize you when you come to visit or interview with our programs. It's easy. So, when you are a jerk on this forum, or you throw up red flags that you might be a bad colleague (like you divulge that you may be on the verge of starting an affair with a married professor, or display general and inexplicable belligerence, or are quick to judge/pile on other people), we are less likely to want to be your colleague, and therefore your chances of becoming our colleague diminish significantly. So be careful.

This is not directed toward any one person. There have been a lot of folks being less than collegial around these parts in the last few days. Watch a movie, drink a beer, do some yoga. Whatever will calm you. Don't be a jerk on the internet, because we can see you.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Phil Sparrow

[GuateAmfeminist]

I ran out of up votes for the day, but this is wonderful. Thanks Phil Sparrow!

[Two Espressos]

Jesus H. Christ, you all. What has happened to this forum in the last few days?

A friendly piece of advice: faculty and grad students read this website. You all are a lot more identifiable than you think you are, especially when you post stats, personal details, and the other bits of information that are often included in "What are my chances?"-type posts. And we recognize you when you come to visit or interview with our programs. It's easy. So, when you are a jerk on this forum, or you throw up red flags that you might be a bad colleague (like you divulge that you may be on the verge of starting an affair with a married professor, or display general and inexplicable belligerence, or are quick to judge/pile on other people), we are less likely to want to be your colleague, and therefore your chances of becoming our colleague diminish significantly. So be careful.

This is not directed toward any one person. There have been a lot of folks being less than collegial around these parts in the last few days. Watch a movie, drink a beer, do some yoga. Whatever will calm you. Don't be a jerk on the internet, because we can see you.

Also out of up-votes. +1.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Two Espressos

[thestage]

Don't be a jerk on the internet, because we can see you.

whelp.

I'm fucked.

[thestage]

serious face:

I don't know that we should give 22 upvotes to a post threatening us with a vague and universal spectre of surveillance. this isn't a job interview, this is where you go to get blitzed after you already fucked up the interview. it's the sigh after you walk out of the room. I've got enough on my plate without having to worry about which bored associate professor with access to his school's files and a bizarre desire to cross reference may have been pissed off about something I or someone who may or may not be me said about pet peeve X three months ago.

not that I believe for a second that this is applicable, but the thought behind it is less than productive. there are enough boogeymen in this process, and enough people elsewhere interested in boiling everyone in the world down to the sum of a series of internet-trace vectors.

[practical cat]

serious face:

I don't know that we should give 22 upvotes to a post threatening us with a vague and universal spectre of surveillance. this isn't a job interview, this is where you go to get blitzed after you already fucked up the interview. it's the sigh after you walk out of the room. I've got enough on my plate without having to worry about which bored associate professor with access to his school's files and a bizarre desire to cross reference may have been pissed off about something I or someone who may or may not be me said about pet peeve X three months ago.

not that I believe for a second that this is applicable, but the thought behind it is less than productive. there are enough boogeymen in this process, and enough people elsewhere interested in boiling everyone in the world down to the sum of a series of internet-trace vectors.

It's a public space. It's still in the room because it's in all of the rooms. It's safer to work under the assumption that it wouldn't take extraordinary measures to match usernames to faces/files.

[Eigen]

The internet, especially sites like this, are not anonymous. They're psuedononymous. I've had people from my school get in touch with me about things I've said here, and I'm not being all that obvious.

I also know who several people are that post here.

It's something that's really good to get accustomed to if you stay in academia- it's not that big of a field. This pops up from time to time on the CHE forums with people posting about interviews and job applications, and having it come out that the admissions committee members are reading that board, or are regulars there.

Don't post things on the internet you mind getting associated with you, it's quite simple.

[thestage]

It's a public space. It's still in the room because it's in all of the rooms. It's safer to work under the assumption that it wouldn't take extraordinary measures to match usernames to faces/files.

it certainly is safer. it generally is safer to kowtow to the desires of those who hold power. that doesn't mean its right. it doesn't mean that the economy of the situation is as unquestionable as it is inevitable. you may see the internet as a dance in formality, but I'd rather see it as an unencumbered exchange. the point is not that you or I are wrong or more wrong than the other, the point is that you or I or phil do not have the moral authority to make that call. were this place and this process a precursor toward an existence as thoughtless yesmen, then maybe it wouldn't matter. but if I'm supposed to be working within the notion of a freedom of ideas, then this sets a rather stupid precedent.

look, I'm not trying to say that phil or his friends in the white room are employed in some sinister game to keep us down and in line. I'm sure he's just expressing frustration over behavior that he finds unbecoming. But so am I. I find his behavior just as unbecoming, should he be willing to hold to what essentially amounts to a threat. If the response is "well, he/they hold all the cards, so his/their frustration takes precedence," then the response would be just as childish and inappropriate as it would be correct. you or he may not want to work with the girl fucking the married professor, but I'd rather work with her than with the guy peeking in through the window.

Edited December 11, 2012 by thestage

[Eigen]

How is warning people that a public display of asinine behavior may negatively impact them a threat?

And it's not exactly peeking through the window if you're having sex in the middle of a public park....

[thestage]

Don't post things on the internet you mind getting associated with you, it's quite simple.

all this really means is "don't post anything at all." it's not a black and white issue, there is no big board in which everything you say or do falls under the category of plus or minus. in reality, it is instead a hundred or a thousand or a million little boards, each held by an independent and unknown party. a plus on one of them is a minus on another. if you ever worry about how they all add up, you've already annihilated all discourse. you have removed the system that perpetuates these conclusions from the realm of investigation. and if your <i>job</i> is to investigate and discuss, then any sort of dishonest a priori conclusion along those lines is a failure. if the internet becomes a mere double of what passes for "public" discourse and public behavior in the greater world, we will have spectacularly lost. the analog to the academy itself is rather obvious; if the greater public was privy to all the conversations that take place among academics the pitchforks would've been out long ago. the jig would be up. decorum is one thing, but no one here has behaved in a manner anywhere close to what would be necessary to justify their being removed or silenced on grounds of common sense.

Edited December 11, 2012 by thestage

[Eigen]

No, no it doesn't mean that.

It means don't post something under a pseudonym that you wouldn't want associated with your real name.

I don't mind posting my opinions on issues. But I realize that said opinions can be linked to me. So I think long and hard about whether something I'm posting is something I mind being associated with me in a long-term fashion.

And I'm starting to wonder if you're posting while intoxicated, because your posts are making less and less sense as you go.

[thestage]

I don't mind posting my opinions on issues. But I realize that said opinions can be linked to me. So I think long and hard about whether something I'm posting is something I mind being associated with me in a long-term fashion.

by which you mean: I self censor based on the possible whims of public opinion (no, you don't think this is what you are saying; yes, it is, in actuality, what you are saying). which is fine if you're being interviewed by hysterical automatons on the today show. it is decidedly less fine in the realm of academia, or if you wish to keep the internet intellectually useful. matter of principle.

Edited December 11, 2012 by thestage

[DontHate]

serious face:

I don't know that we should give 22 upvotes to a post threatening us with a vague and universal spectre of surveillance. this isn't a job interview, this is where you go to get blitzed after you already fucked up the interview. it's the sigh after you walk out of the room. I've got enough on my plate without having to worry about which bored associate professor with access to his school's files and a bizarre desire to cross reference may have been pissed off about something I or someone who may or may not be me said about pet peeve X three months ago.

not that I believe for a second that this is applicable, but the thought behind it is less than productive. there are enough boogeymen in this process, and enough people elsewhere interested in boiling everyone in the world down to the sum of a series of internet-trace vectors.

I personally find it less than likely that these posts matter to professors who matter