Board should reject dating policy

By Roey Rahmil

The Santa Clara Faculty Senate recently passed a "Consensual Relations Policy" that would limit relationships between students if one person involved has "any instructional, supervisory, advising or evaluative" responsibility over another. I won't comment on interaction between, for example, professors and students. But, as it pertains to relationships between students, this policy is simply a bad idea. It is unenforceable and counterproductive and reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about how students interact and the larger role of a university experience.

At the outset, it is worth noting that such relationships -- especially when the power dynamic is clear -- are probably bad ideas. These relationships can hurt feelings and lead to job difficulties. But that's not always true; everyone is different, and no two situations are alike. Some relationships might work beautifully, while others might fail catastrophically. That's why there's a need for an honest discussion on the topic, rather than a policy making these relationships taboo. A cookie-cutter approach, like the one the Faculty Senate approved, treats all situations, and all people, alike. That just doesn't work, especially in the context of something as personal and individual as a relationship.

Even assuming the policy is a good idea, it's impossible to enforce fairly. It's a given that these new, "forbidden" relationships would keep happening, especially in less extreme cases.

If that's the case, then supervisors would have to depend on rumors, gossip or other means to figure out who's going out with whom. This means that relationships, and open, honest conversations that should go along with them, will be forced into the dark. Issues will linger unresolved, problems will fester, and personal and professional relationships between partners, employees and supervisors will decay. This is all because, instead of talking about their troubles, student employees will keep quiet for fear of getting fired or other consequences.

The proposal is flawed also because it never defines who exactly is a "student employee." This has to be made clear, despite the committee chair's argument that creating such a definition wasn't the faculty's responsibility. The merits of the policy, and the situations involved, vary widely depending on the definition used. For example, is the president of Associated Students, who receives payment, an employee? If so, can he or she become involved with students in student organizations? A community facilitator could theoretically document any student on campus. Would they be banned from dating? Obviously these examples are extreme, but they demonstrate that definitions are critically important because they determine who is being affected. Approving the policy as binding, which the Board of Trustees could do sometime soon, would be irresponsible, unless there was significant clarification.

But practical issues aside, the policy represents a troubling attitude toward students. We're in college for a number of reasons: to learn, grow, gain skills, meet people and form relationships that could last us the rest of our lives. We're not yet professionals or, for that matter, completely mature individuals. That's why getting involved through clubs, on-campus jobs or other activities is essential to a healthy, meaningful college career. This proposal could have us sacrifice that involvement for a relationship, or the other way around. That's simply an untenable choice for students who are still figuring out what they want.

It's true that, in some cases, you can't have both. But college is the time to learn through experience, not through paternalistic rules. Decisions should be made with honesty and communication, not with uninformed, stereotypical generalizations. When it's time to vote on this proposal, the Board of Trustees should reject the policy.

Roey Rahmil is a junior political science and philosophy major. He is also a community facilitator in Communitas RLC.