By Thea Pilch, Second Year, History
There is an alluring appeal to office rendezvous and coffee dates, a sexually charged relationship borne out of mutual interest for the Napoleonic wars, or, perhaps tectonic plates. I wouldn’t consider it a stretch to assert that a lot of us have allowed our minds to wonder about certain lecturers. However, in a post #MeToo world, one where stories of grooming and exploitation are all too familiar, the debate around the prohibition of student-staff relationships reigns. This article will posit that Bristol should outright ban relationships between students and staff when there is a direct teaching relationship.
Bristol has yet to completely prohibit sexual and romantic relationships between staff and students. In the ‘Sexual Misconduct and Personal Relationships Guidance’, such relationships are ‘strongly discouraged’ as Bristol acknowledges that they risk ‘compromising the trust and confidence that underpins the learning experience and may negatively impact on the student’s educational development.’
The university does not, however, condemn such relationships and sets out the measures that are to be taken if such relationships do occur. These include both the student and staff member declaring the relationship to their head of staff and academic advisor, respectively. It appears Bristol adopts a realist approach to relationships, accepting that with a student body of 32,000, such relationships are almost inevitable. Perhaps it does not wish to impose too far a draconian approach to policing what students can and can’t do. However, if Bristol wishes to maintain its integrity as a world-renowned university, it should prohibit such relationships.
In the spring of 2024, The University and College Union (UCU) in Bristol called for the university to update its policy and completely ban intimate relationships between students and staff. They welcomed the University College London’s (UCL) stance of completely banning such relationships when there is a direct teaching relationship between the student and the staff member.
On both sides of the debate lie arguments of safety, dignity and liberty. An article published by the Guardian in 2015 saw an anonymous academic argue that students and staff should form close and friendly relationships. The author harks back to the 1970s/1980s when it was not uncommon for university teaching staff to invite undergraduates to their homes to discuss topics over a bottle of red or meet for ‘innocent’ coffees on Sunday mornings. The anonymous writer argued that ‘the mollycoddling of students at university is reaching an excessive level.’
Reading this article almost a decade after it was published left a sour taste in my mouth; its inability to recognise the potentially exploitative nature of such relationships, let alone the perhaps inevitable eventuality that such relationships would become romantic, seemed uncomfortably old-fashioned. The writer longs for an era that idolised and romanticised (literally) academics and blurred the lines between right and wrong, which would, often, harm female students, in particular. The writer seemed to be ambivalent to the now seemingly obvious risks of exploitation and harm that come with such relationships. However, it did raise pertinent questions about the power of universities to infantilise and demean students, particularly female students. In 1980, when universities first began to regulate such relationships, it was feminists who rejected the seemingly protectionist and infantilising nature of such. However, if I must choose between feelings of infantilisation or the floodgates left open for exploitation, grooming and the loss of one’s university identity, I will choose the former.
It is not a surprise that the UCU and other bodies seeking to promote the interests of students call for the complete prohibition of such relationships, especially as we live in a world where relationships are used as a means to keep the vulnerable party (generally women) in positions of subversion. Abuse in relationships, be it physical or emotional, continues to proliferate. To then add the added layer of a clear power imbalance between students and staff ultimately would only increase the risk to one’s safety and self-esteem. A study published in 2019 by Springer Nature found that students who had been involved romantically with their professors saw a decrease in their self-esteem, both personally and academically. It is this that is perhaps the saddest consequence of such relationships. The study found that girls, more than boys, struggle to get over such relationships, and they have a corrupting influence on their studies. Bristol should promote a love of learning and academic excellence, that is the sole purpose of university institutions. Students can turn to the triangle, hinge or those sitting on their lecture benches if they wish to enter into romantic relationships.
I do accept that there could be exceptions if there are no academic or supervision relationships between the student and member of staff, for the arguments above would perhaps not apply. However, if Bristol seeks to protect its culture as an institution that prises serious academic pursuits above all else, As well as centre itself in a world that is aware of the real risks of grooming, exploitation and, sexual misgivings, romantic relationships between staff and students ought to be banned.
Ultimately, what does Bristol owe its students? High-quality teaching, not Ezra/Aria love affairs.
