Don’t flirt with your students. Ever. Under any circumstances. It is gross and inappropriate, and leads to nothing but trouble. The story of Stephanie Jenkins and her mentor is a prime example.
She and Swem were dropped off by plane in “one of the most remote field locations of arctic Alaska,” according to court documents. One trip in June 2011 lasted 17 days. A second the following month lasted two weeks.
Jenkins’ job was to assist Swem in creating a database on the peregrine falcon population.
During two field trips to Alaska, Jenkins said Swem made “pervasive sex jokes,” told sexually explicit stories and photographed her clothed buttocks.
“He asked me numerous times to be in a relationship with me,” she said.
Swem’s attorney, Thomas Hayes of Milwaukee, declined to comment this week. In court documents, Swem acknowledged making numerous remarks, including the comments about kissing her, but said he continued because of “ambiguous signals he had received from her statements and conduct.”
Swem claimed in court documents that Jenkins laughed at his sex jokes; she said that she laughed because she did not want to offend a man who had influence over her career.
According to court documents, Swem justified his continued romantic approaches, despite her statements she was not interested, because at one point Jenkins told him something to the effect that if Swem were 25 years younger, she would have been “all over him.” Her lawyer, Joe Larson, said her remark was “an attempt at humor” to deflect Swem’s advances and she regretted she said it.
Yes, it was an obvious effort to shut this pushy man down without also shutting down her career. The operative part of that ‘joke’ was “if he were 25 years younger” — she’s not interested in him because of his age — not that she’d be “all over him”. It’s a particularly clueless man who reads that as an “ambiguous signal”.
Now look at the result of those annoying innuendos from Swem. The University of Minnesota is being sued. Swem’s reputation is deservedly tattered — what woman would want to work with him? And worst of all, Stephanie Jenkins’ career in academia is over. She abandoned the Ph.D. program and left the university, all because her mentor was an asshole and the institution was not adequately diligent in supporting her rather than the skeevy guy leading the research.
This is not acceptable.
Look at yourself, faculty. You are old, from a completely different generation. It doesn’t matter how fit you are, how ruggedly handsome or beautifully mature you are. They are young. They have little in common with you. You have responsibilities and obligations to them. You have power that is unethical to exploit. It doesn’t matter if you find them attractive. It doesn’t matter that you’ve persuaded yourself that they must be attracted to your awesomely rich experience.
Hands off.
This should not be so difficult to understand.
Yeah, why would a young woman dependent on his will pretend to laugh at his jokes and attempt to diffuse the situation as non-comfrontationally as possible…?
These people have no awareness of what position they put others in, they don’t fucking care…
I don’t think the age gap is the problem – plenty of people find happy relationships with others considerably younger or older than them. The problem is that a duty of care and a relationship of professional dependency exists in these circumstances. It’s an unequal power dynamic. Were it a mentor in her 30s with a mature student 20 years older than her it would still be just as wrong.
PZ:
No, it shouldn’t be. However, I have no doubt that Swem will have a swarm of defenders, and of course, the blame will land directly on Jenkins. “If she had just told him she wasn’t interested, it would have been fine. It’s her fault because she didn’t speak up.” It was just harmless flirting. If she didn’t want attention, she shouldn’t have played the game.
Cartomancer @ 2:
It may not be the main problem, however, it is one. Jenkins’s attempt to put Swem off, with the remark about age is a common ploy to put someone off without causing offence, and young people should not be placed in that situation by those who are older. Yes, it is a power imbalance, and age is a definite part of that imbalance.
I have seen this kind of stuff as an undergraduate, and as a grad student. There were always a sprinkling of professors (always men, but I know that this can be reversed) who were notorious for unwelcome pursuit of undergraduates or making life and work difficult for their female grad students or technicians. Lets see, about 7 or 8 that I can specifically recall through all this time.
NONE of them faced a single repercussion that I ever saw, while a few of the young people I know were stressed and one graduate student changed professors (and it effected her beyond that).
I want to confess that I was a part of the problem since I did absolutely nothing. My excuses? Not that different from why many women do not also speak up for themselves. There was always a power differential. At the time I was not as socially conscious about the need to step in. But those are just excuses that seem lame now. I should have done something. Dammit.
I believe Swem should have a look at this.
Really, if it’s ‘ambiguous’, why assume the ‘yes’? Considering the consequences, why not assume the ‘no’? Oh, right… considering the consequences…
REally, is it so hard to understand that some people are really out of question for your sexual advances?
And yeah, one of the first rules is that everybody laughs when the boss makes a joke. And no matter how you put it, if you’re the academic mentor/supervisor/teacher you’Re the boss. Deal with it.
And her replies show a deftness with de-escalation that do her proud, really. That’s some of the invisible emotional work that women do that many men never notice (see here for a great summary and link roundup) . She laughed at his jokes so he wouldn’t feel uncomfortable and bad. She gave him a flattering out that was something he couldn’t possibly control (no one can stop time). She did everything possible to deflect him in a way that would let him keep his dignity and plausible deniability, using methods that are ingrained into our social consciousness. She was doing him a favor by reacting that way instead of screaming “NO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM BE PROFESSIONAL” and immediately reporting him. And for all that, he just kept pushing.
I was very fortunate that my Ph.D. mentor was never flirtatious or inappropriate; he did tend to talk to female students in a fatherly manner while talking to male students as “one of the guys”, but that is quite a bit easier to bear, especially if he is treating you with respect and equality in every other manner. Still, it would have been nice to have had that same comradeship…
In my long ago time in academia I witnessed a particularly loathsome mentor/lecher who attempted and often succeeded in having sexual relationships with his female students. It was no secret among the students, and caused havoc in many of their lives and peer relationships.
One of the more odious consequences of this behavior was that students who were entirely deserving of scholarships, grants and other recognition were tainted by the fact that they had been involved with him. They became the targets of antagonism and harassment by their fellow students, and were accused of receiving favorable treatment in trade for sexual favors. I know this remained a bitter point of resentment for years after graduation.
Why would she ever laugh at his horrible ‘jokes’ and reply ambiguously? I dunno… could it be related to the fact that she was (apparently?) alone with this guy in the wilderness with no one around to help her?
Oh, that is the worst. I recently turned down a request to help an instructor on a personal project for basically that reason. Maybe if I wasn’t in his class currently, but I’d just rather not go there. I referred him on to a colleague and told him I was simply too busy. Luckily, he is decent person and wouldn’t give me a hard time for saying no, but I can understand that fear of retribution.
Which is why that never should have happened. I am astounded at how many professors still don’t realize DON’T DO THAT.
Well, if there is one silver lining to this, it’s our growing awareness, sensitivity, and response to the problem. I remember when I was a student there were eminence grises of the Richard Feynman/Harold Bloom/James Watson sort who were infamous for their relentless bird-dogging of what were then known as co-eds. They took pride in it, everybody knew about it, the young women learned to avoid going to office hours alone, or making sure there was at least one other person between them and the famous academic at cocktail parties, etc. And these men’s reputations never suffered a whit (until very recently, and DECADES post hoc). In fact, there was a certain “randy old playboy” lustre to their “peccadillos”, among their fawning circle of asskissers — they were often admired by their male counterparts as sporting a salacious Roger Moore-as-James Bond panache. Every major university had a few, and everybody knew who they were, and young women had far fewer recourses to thwart the inappropriate pawing and innuendo and dangling perks-for-sex propositions.
At the very least we are seeing progress in shining a light on these assholes, and providing a more solid support system for their victims.
IMHO, it’s a bad idea for a professor to hit on or flirt with any student. Even if the professor has no formal power over the student, it’s reasonable for the student to suppose that the professor has influence with people who do.
I once said this in a comment thread on another blog (I think it was even a feminist blog) and got roundly pilloried for it. “You’re interfering with people’s right to romance” and stuff like that. Well, that’s the argument that the Humbert Humberts of the world use, too. IMHO, if it’s really such an undying love, it can wait until the student is no longer a student. What they’re really defending is the professor’s right to sex with whoever he has the hots for.
I’ve been pondering this one. If we, as atheists, understand that we have no souls, and therefore no soul-mates, that should make this easier. If you accept that attraction to many different people is possible, then you might be more comfortable passing up that opportunity to flirt with a student you’re attracted to, because, hey, other fish in the sea. They are times where romantic opportunities are appropriate, and times when they are not.
Minor correction – Jenkins wasn’t Swem’s student and Swem wasn’t faculty, although he had an office at the university. Here’s the relevant order. The harassment occurred on a volunteer research project, a two-person trip led by Swem, a USFWS employee.
It’s worth pointing out that she reported her harassment to her adviser on a Friday, and he claims he provided her new office space the next Monday. (p. 7) In addition, after she filed a formal complaint on January 18, the university’s equal opportunity office found that Swem had violated university policy on February 7. (p. 8-9) That might not be adequate diligence in supporting Jenkins (Jenkins resigned January 27.) (p. 8), but there’s not much evidence in the order that the university supported Swem.
Sixteen comments in, and as of yet no idiots claiming that if men in positions of authority cannot apply pressure to their female subordinates in order to have sex with them that the species will die out or something. How much longer can our good fortune hold?
Nothing to see here, folks. Just another straight man expressing his sexuality in a perfectly natural and healthy manner.
I do a lot of public speaking. It took me…. Oh, 45 seconds to realize that hitting on talk attendees (or tutorial students) is a really terrible idea. For one thing, if it makes someone uncomfortable enough to complain, then you’ve just made yourself less employable. I mean, in a professional conference environment, not an amateur hour mess like TAM. When you’re a teacher you’re in a service business! Fucking your customers is something you should leave to airlines and car companies.
qwints according to PZ’s link he was an adjunct at the University, and certainly had some level of control over her data or access to data considering she had to go on two trips with him to collect data on the peregrines as a central part of her dissertation work. That’s not a “volunteer” research mission for a PhD student by any means.
He was an adjunct and based on the court documents you linked has an office at the University. Her own advisor basically told her that she just had to learn to deal with people like this guy. There’s no way after hearing that she would have had any confidence that her advisor was going to continue to support her work or that Swem wouldn’t have influence over whether/when her dissertation completed.
OK this romance soul soulmate story we all know about.
The morality of these kinds of behavior/relationships is that in the long run they are socially disruptive. They do not foster cooperation nor social cohesion. They introduce a more competitive and adversarial environment and discouraging trust and openness.
They enable exploitation for personal gain.
uncle frogy
I wouldn’t call Swem’s actions “flirting,” anyway. I’d say they were harassment.
That “right to romance” should only begin with equality. Even there, many people’s idea of “romance” is problematic.
Hitting on ten people in a bar, hoping to get lucky, is one thing, and bad enough that it leaves at least 9 people mildly annoyed, but in a situation in which you have some power over others, it leaves at least 9 people worried about their career, disgusted and distrustful of someone they have to work with, and possibly, 9 employees/students with ruined careers.
Sounds like her adviser should undergo about a months worth of sexual harassment training.
He should have read the riot act to Swem, and then called in the proper authorities to deal with the issue. He blew it big time.
@MadHatter – you’re certainly right that Swem had significant power over Jenkins, but the article says that her adviser, David Anderson of the USGS, was an adjunct professor; not Swem, the harasser in this case.
From the order
Jenkins alleged that :
p. 29
The court found that these allegations to be baseless, dismissing her claim against Andersen. Specifically it found:
p. 30
Even putting the second bit aside, so what if she did laugh? Some jokes are funny.
People being raped sometimes have orgasms, too. So what?
Laughter is not consent. (Nor is orgasm. Nor are a lot of things.)
I couldn’t agree more PZ. Mentor and student relationship should be strictly the business at hand and nothing more. And that should be obvious say in a university setting. I am curious as to how broadly should you apply the “student/mentor” relationship. Does it apply to a blog dedicated to science, reason and social justice wherein a Ftb blogger of high stature solicits the audience for a date? Is it arguable that many in the audience can be considered “students” and the blogger a “mentor”?
Why are you even bothering to ask such a question? Unless you can show that the blogger, like a professional mentor, has the power to effect anybody professionally, the analogy fails, making it a category error.
Ragdish @ 27:
It’s rather underhanded to not only try to drag Richard Carrier into this, but also to imply that he’s done something terrible, and surely must be castigated. It’s hardly likely that Richard would have any power* over someone who expressed interest in spending some time with him, don’t you think?
*Specifically, the power imbalance in this situation, the one being discussed – you know, the one in PZ’s post, where a person’s schooling and career can be easily affected in an adverse way.
ragdish, #27
Every single reader of Richard’s blog could have outright refused his request for a date (even harshly or rudely) and there’s nothing he could have done to them in their personal or professional life.
That’s not true of Swem’s case.
They were on a job site.
Swem was Jenkins’s boss.
One thing that makes this particularly awful and abusive is the fact that they were alone together in a remote location. I’ve heard of cases of sexual harassment, or worse, happening during field work in remote areas, which sounds especially terrifying.
ragdish @ 27;
As mentioned by other commenters upthread, The most problematic aspect of a mentor soliciting a student for a date is the power imbalance – the fact that the mentor is in a position of power over the student’s career and future life options. Please explain to me how this is the case with the hypothetical blogger* and the readership of their blog? You seem to think you have some insightful point to make here, and so you must believe we are missing something obvious that shows a clear parallel between a student supervisor having an inappropriate relationship with someone they have actual power over on the one hand, and a blogger asking his general readership (over whom he has no authority whatsoever) if any of them might fancy going on a date with him on the other.
Please, enlighten us. We’re waiting…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
* It is obvious to everyone that you are talking about Richard Carrier here, by the way. You may as well just come straight out and say it.
There are different definitions for the terms “mentor” and “student”.
For the definitions that actually apply to this kind of situation, the answer is NO.
This fudging of definitions you are doing is quite analogous to creationists fudging the definition of “theory”.
There are apparently very unobvious reasons why supervising relationships must be devoid of any ambiguity with regard to that. (unobvious stands for the reasons/explanations, not the consequences, almost everyone agrees the rule is clearly needed).
They are doing science. Early career (studentee) is strongly based on admiration drive, as is romance. All interaction cues are converging to the same ambiguity levels: smart and willingness to prove self worth to peer(s), complimentary trades, exciting results and emotional contrive to challenging work and tasks, aspiration to success and approval behaviour norms, hyperfocus on ideations at the cost of attention to the real world.
The reason why romance must be ruled out in supervisees work relationships is that everyone could be easily deceived by the turn interactions are taking during the process of science. It is very confusing and supervisors must never interpret these as flirt at any time. Not only because there is this high risk of misinterpretation, but also because it is confusing to students too: psychology teaches us that we are easily mistaken by similarity in feelings, and doing science is indeed somewhat very similar to falling in love.
My own experience is that flirtatiousness seems to occur rather frequently at some point during supervision (hotspot when data are analysed and results emerge). As a supervisor, I have a very simple solution when it happens: I speak about my kids immediately (on pragmatic matters it is a very efficient protection against any misunderstanding). Based on the reactions I usually get, I think confusion is often there. Supervisors have to make sure the students manage their experienced feelings toward work efficiency and fondness for what they are doing.
Indeed, there’s no reason why students should not love science.
Seconding Irene. Flirting with your students is a bad idea. But let’s be clear that this:
During two field trips to Alaska, Jenkins said Swem made “pervasive sex jokes,” told sexually explicit stories and photographed her clothed buttocks.
“He asked me numerous times to be in a relationship with me,” she said.
is not a description of flirting.
ijkcomputer @ 35:
That’s a bloody fact, and it’s a pity it needs saying at all.
We a similar conversation/thread on this subject a year or two ago (inspired by a SMBC cartoon). I mentioned that I could not imagine any of my students wanting to be flirted with by me, since I was nearly (or more than) twice their age, etc. Another poster told me I’d be surprised, a thought that I immediately dismissed.
More recently, I was talking to a former student, and she asked me if I’d ever considered an affair with a student. I laughed out loud, and repeated my opinion that the idea was ridiculous. She looked at me in disbelief, and asked, “Do you mean you never noticed those three or four women throwing themselves at you?”
No, I hadn’t, and should it happen again, I will continue to not notice. My delusion is safer, and more professional.
#27: Personally, I would not do such a thing, and it makes me uncomfortable…but I’m a bit sexually conservative, and I can appreciate that other people will happily engage in behaviors that would make me blush, and that’s OK, as long as there is no element of coercion. There is none in that case. It gets trickier when you’ve got a conference speaker who uses the meet and greet as a meat market, but I think being open about it before the event and arranging consensual encounters with agreeable adults is much better than a speaker chatting up the hot young thing he spots in the crowd.
Everyone: About my use of the word “flirt”. I chose it intentionally. Of course the target regards it as harassment in these cases, but the rule is for the perpetrator. If you say, “Thou shalt not harass your students sexually”, all of these people will think it doesn’t apply to them: “Of course I wasn’t harassing them! I was being playful and lively and treating them as an equal and an adult!”
But unwanted “playfulness” to someone who is not your equal, but is actually more vulnerable than you are, is harassment.
Gregory @ 33:
It won’t happen. Ragdish will only respond to PZ (which is why they always address PZ in their comment, as if this was a one on one discussion), and ignores all other commentary.
Everyone: About my use of the word “flirt”. I chose it intentionally. Of course the target regards it as harassment in these cases, but the rule is for the perpetrator.
I don’t think that works, because people who actually know what harmless flirting consists of will think you are being far too draconian. Note: harmless flirting, to me, is not a step down a slippery slope toward harassment; it is highly socially aware behavior that relies on consent and cooperation, and is therefore if anything a step away from harassment. It’s also often quite far removed from actual sexual attraction.
irene @41: The entire point is that a professor’s flirting with a student is not harmless. By definition.
The kind of people who whine about PZ being ‘too draconian’ are people who weren’t likely to listen anyway, because they are unwilling to admit any reason they can’t just go ahead and do whatever they like.
Okay, I’m having trouble phrasing what I mean. I will think about it some more. neverjaunty, I’m pretty sure you and I, and PZ too, would agree on what kinds of behaviors would be inappropriate from a professor to a student. I think it’s just a matter of labels. Or I may have internalized some stuff I shouldn’t have.
Irene @ 41:
Unfortunately, I think most people don’t have the slightest idea of what harmless flirting consists of, and then there’s a large amount of people who don’t care about that at all, and will label any action of theirs to be harmless flirting,”hey, why are you so upset?”
I do know what you’re talking about, I’ve engaged in it myself, and yes, it can be fun, uplifting, stone harmless, and leads nowhere. The problem, however, lies in most people being content with defining flirting in whatever way they need to rationalize their behaviour. That’s why PZ used the word, because too many people attempt to hide sleazy, unethical behaviour behind “I was just flirting! She can’t take a joke!” and other types of asshole excuses. When there is a power imbalance, no one should be allowed to hide behind “flirting!” – it should be considered as wrong behaviour, full stop.
Caine
THIS
“Flirting” is often misconstructed as “anything I do as long as I’m not touching her” and women’S polite turn downs (“I’m waiting for a friend”, “no thanks, I don’t drink alcohol” “I need to go to the bathroom”) are ignored (while being understood). If she becomes more forceful at some point she’s just a stuck up bitch and a cocktease, why didn’t she say anything?
+++
BTW, I once knew a couple whose relationship started when she was a student in his department. They did the one thing that was ethical: she changed universities (Not that big a deal since there was one very close and they moved into a flat in the middle of both universities) so she could finish her degree without being either at his mercy or being accused of getting undue advantages. I lost contact with them in the meantime but a quick google search tells me they are by now working in the same department…
Caine
THIS
“Flirting” is often misconstructed as “anything I do as long as I’m not touching her” and women’S polite turn downs (“I’m waiting for a friend”, “no thanks, I don’t drink alcohol” “I need to go to the bathroom”) are ignored (while being understood). If she becomes more forceful at some point she’s just a stuck up b*tch and a cocktease, why didn’t she say anything?
+++
BTW, I once knew a couple whose relationship started when she was a student in his department. They did the one thing that was ethical: she changed universities (Not that big a deal since there was one very close and they moved into a flat in the middle of both universities) so she could finish her degree without being either at his mercy or being accused of getting undue advantages. I lost contact with them in the meantime but a quick google search tells me they are by now working in the same department…
Giliell @ 45:
That sounds like it was serious right away, but yes, if you’re going to do it, that’s the right way.