Meeting minutes for Consolidated Student Senate University of Nevada, Las Vegas, March 17, 1997

University of Nevada, Las Vegas Student Government Office of the Senate President Senate President Joe Laxague STUDENT SENATE MEETING 27-12 Monday, March 17,1997 Moyer Student Union Room 201 6:30 p.m. Veronica Perez Senate President Pro-Tempore Liberal Arts Leia Fleischman Fine Arts Terry Moore Urban Affairs Joaquin Trujillo Business Jeremy Aguero Hotel Administration Heather Anderson Business Robert Solomon Education William Price Urban Affairs Margaret J. Persch, R.N. Health Sciences Kyle Lopez Student Development Frank Lideros Engineering •ven Amend usiness Ben Campbell Student Development Stephanie Gonzales Liberal Arts Alesia Hayes Education Nicole Lehman Education Joey Song Business Matt Stark Liberal Arts Heather Hunt Health Sciences Stephanie Poole Hotel Administration Ildiko Lutar Student Development Matthew Knutson Hotel Administration David Shapiro Sciences I. II. III. I V . V. VI. VII. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES ANNOUNCEMENTS BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS XT* A. Director Reports 1. Nevada Student Affairs, DIRECTOR VALERA; 2. Elections Board, DIRECTOR REED; 3. Organizations Board, DIRECTOR BONGHI; 4. Entertainment and Programming, DIRECTOR CASTILLO; 5. Office of Student Information DIRECTOR HAMILTON; B. Senate Committee Reports C. Faculty Senate Committee Reports D. Residence Hall Liaison Report E. Business Manager Report PUBLIC COMMENT[in accordance with N.R.S. 241.020 (2)(c)(3)] UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Action Item: Discussion/Approval of SENATOR LIDEROS using his twelve (12) credit fee waiver as a scholarship for two (2) students of the College of Engineering. Interested students shall submit an application as prepared by SENATOR LIDEROS for the purpose of choosing the two (2) students. (This item was tabled at Senate Meeting 27-11.) B. Action Item: Nomination/Approval of John Gunning to the CSUN Entertainment and Programming Board. (This item was tabled at Senate Meeting 27-11. See Attachment 1.) VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Action Item: Discussion/Approval of referring the following question as referendum on the CSUN General Election ballot. Ballot question: Are you in favor of the UNLV Consensual Relationships Policy as proposed by Provost Douglas Ferraro? CONSOLIDATED STUDENTS • UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA 1 — - — 4505 SOUTH MARYLAND PARKWAY • LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89154-2009 • (702) 895-3477 • FAX (702) 895-4606 (This item was submitted by SENATOR GONZALES. See Attachment 2.) B. Action Item: Discussion/Approval of expending $1,500.00 for a Diversity Workshop to be put on by Pi Sigma Alpha, the Political Science Honor Society, to be encumbered from the CSUN 2702 (Gen) Account. (This item was submitted by SENATE PRESIDENT PRO-TEMPORE PEREZ. See Attachment 3.) IX. EXECUTIVE BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS AND SUMMATIONS X. GOOD OF THE SENATE XI. ADJOURNMENT Posted in accordance with Nevada Open Meeting Law(N.R.S. 241.000) at the following locations: Moyer Student Union, Frank & Estella Beam Hall, Flora Dungan Humanities, Classroom Building Complex and Thomas Beam Engineering Complex. University of Nevada, Las Vegas Student Government Office of the Senate President MINUTES SENA TE MEETING 2 7-12 CJD Monday, March 17,1997 o Moyer Student Union Room 201 6:30 p •tn. txX CALL TO ORDER: SENATE PRESIDENT LAXAGUE called Senate Meeting 27-12 to order at 6:30 p.m.. II. ROLL CALL: PRESENT ABSENT Jeremy Aguero Heather Hunt(excused) Steven Amend Heather Anderson Ben Campbell Leia Fleischman Stephanie Gonzales Alesia Hayes Nicole Lehman Frank Lideros Kyle Lopez Terry Moore Veronica Perez Margaret Persch William Price Robert Solomon Joey Song Matt Stark Joaquin Trujillo Stephanie Poole Ildiko Lutar Matthew Knutson David Shapiro III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion to approve Minutes for Senate Meeting 27-05 and 27-11 made by SENATOR PRICE, seconded by SENATOR SONG. ( CONSOLIDATED STUDENTS • UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA 4505 SOUTH MARYLAND PARKWAY • U s VEGAS, NEVADA 89154-2009 • (702) 895-3477 • FAX (702) 895-4606 SENATE MINUTES 27-12/ MARCH 17 1997 SENATOR ANDERSON corrected the Minutes for Senate Meeting 27-05; she stated that on •\ge 8, it was DIRECTOR CASTILLO instead of DIRECTOR TOLBERT in the discussion about living the Dream". Move into a vote. Motion passes 21:0:1. (SENATOR SOLOMON abstained.) IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS: SENATE PRESIDENT LAXAGUE announced that STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT ROSENTHAL spoke to the Provost at the Regents Meeting and Provost Ferraro will be coming to our Senate Meeting on March 31, the Monday right after Spring Break; Provost Ferraro wants a lot of publicity from us, so we're going to try to promote it through posters, etc.. He asked everyone to spread the word to their constituents. SENATE PRESIDENT PRO-TEMPORE PEREZ stated that Joyce will be bringing up a memo about the itinerary for the Retreat; she'll give it to everyone by the end of the meeting. SENATE PRESIDENT LAXAGUE reminded everyone that the Rebels are playing in the NIT starting at 7:30 p.m.. V. BOARD AND COMMITTEE REPORTS: A. Director Reports: ( 1. NSA DIRECTOR VALERA stated that they went up Thursday to the Carson City Board of Regents meeting; he stated that one of the presidents of the community colleges was transferred. He added that the legislature spoke with some of the interns to some of the leading members of the assembly and told them how some of the Northerners are building an ordinance against the law school. 2. An Elections Board member spoke on behalf of ELECTIONS BOARD DIRECTOR REED. He stated that he is the Assistant Director of the Elections Board and elections are running smoothly. He reminded everyone that the general elections are on April 2-3. 3. ORGANIZATIONS BOARD DIRECTOR BONGHI announced an O-Board meeting tomorrow at 5:00 p.m.. 4. E&P DIRECTOR CASTILLO announced that the CBS College Tour will be here until tomorrow. He expressed his thank you to the ones who showed up to help set it up. He stated that he could use a couple more people. He announced the "Gig" Comedy Night coming up this Thursday night at 8:00 p.m. in the MSU ballroom. 5. OSI DIRECTOR HAMILTON thanked the people who participated in the KUNV Marathon which ends at midnight tonight. She stated that flyers for the "Gig" are out and hoped eryone would have a great Spring Break. 2 SENATE MINUTES 27-12/ MARCH 17 1997 B. Senate Committee Reports: 1. SENATOR FLEISCHMAN stated that relatively Campus Safety and Awareness will be having a meeting the 2nd week of April, Thursday, at 3:00 p.m.. She asked that everyone tell if this is not a good time for them after the meeting and they'll work from there. 2. SENATOR PRICE stated that Ways and Means will meet this Wednesday at 6:35 p.m. in the Senate Chambers. 3. SENATOR AGUERO stated that they had a meeting today, but didn't make quorum. They'll meet again on March 31, Monday, at 5:30 p.m.. SENATE PRESIDENT LAXAGUE suggested that those people, who are on the Bylaws committee and consistently cannot make the meeting, resign because their business is being held up week after week because they can't make quorum. C. Faculty Senate Committee Reports. 1. SENATOR PERSCH stated that the Dean Search committee met last week and they submitted four final names to the Provost's office. 2. SENATOR PRICE stated that the Dean Search for Urban Affairs are down to fifteen indidates); they meet this Wednesday at 7:00 a.m.. 3. SENATOR SOLOMON stated that the Dean Search for Education is bringing two people back to look at again. 4. SENATOR GONZALES stated that Scholarship met last Thursday and they have an important meeting this Wednesday at 2:30 p.m. in the same place; she stated that they will be distributing the awards for each college, so it's important that they have a representative from each college present. She announced that there is also a meeting on April 3. 5. SENATOR AGUERO stated that he will have to resign from the Scholarship committee and asked someone to replace him as his proxy at the meeting this Thursday at 2:30 p.m.. SENATOR STARK volunteered. 6. SENATOR ANDERSON stated that the Dean Search is bringing their final candidate in one more time. 7. Former SENATOR BRIGGS stated that the Parking committee met last Friday and are looking into putting half of a fund aside for anything they want to purchase (i.e., land, etc.) and use the other half of their fees to repair roads, etc.. She stated that they wanted to get together with the Campus Safety and Awareness chair to discuss an issue. 3 SENATE MINUTES 27-12/ MARCH 17 1997 D. Residence Hall Liaison Report: LEAH GRIFFITH stated that the Residence Hall applications are due Wednesday. She answered a question about the soliciting situation. E. Business Manager Report: PRESIDENT ROSENTHAL spoke on behalf of BUSINESS MANAGER JIM MOORE. He announced that Jim is taking care of personal business and won't be back until Thursday; Jim will be on campus tomorrow for about an hour regarding KUNV. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT [in accordance with N.R.S. 241.020 (2)(c)(3)] DARRYL RICHARDSON, News Editor of the Rebel Yell, reminded all of the candidates that the questionnaires are due in their office by 5:00 p.m. on Friday. In response to questions, he stated that the questionnaires are different than the first questionnaires and can be picked up in the office and he will speak with the other candidate not present later on tonight. Former SENATOR BRIGGS stated that the Science department had a petition going around about the lecturers, and as of late they had one lecturer reinstated for another year. SENATOR PERSCH confirmed whether PETER BELLON is an employee of CSUN as far as His contract reads. PRESIDENT ROSENTHAL stated that he is a service provider and is associated ith UNLV, but is not UNLV's attorney; he's the students' attorney for issues that don't relate to CSUN anymore. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Action Item: Discussion/Approval of SENATOR LIDEROS using his twelve (12) credit fee waiver as a scholarship for two (2) students of the College of Engineering. Interested students shall submit an application as prepared by SENATOR LIDEROS for the purpose of choosing the two (2) students. (This item was tabled at Senate Meeting 27-11.) Motion to Remove the Table made by SENATOR PRICE, seconded by SENATOR HAYES. Move into a vote. Motion to Remove from the Table passes 18:1:3. (SENATOR SHAPIRO opposed, SENATORS FLEISCHMAN and MOORE abstained.) In response to a question, SENATE PRESIDENT LAXAGUE stated that we can't do this because the credits have to be awarded to an individual. He suggested that SENATOR LIDEROS pays his bills through other means and then get the money from the credits as a refund. SENATOR LIDEROS asked whether he could use his 15 credits this summer. SENATE PRESIDENT T AXAGUE stated that, in theory, you could be dispersed your Fall credits as early as July 1. He 4 SENATE MINUTES 27-12/ MARCH 17 1997 suggested that the Senate could move to award SENATOR LIDEROS his Fall credits at the end of the °Drmg and award none in the Fall. A brief discussion ensued about whether it is a separate item or an .mendment. Motion to Disapprove made by SENATOR FLEISCHMAN, seconded by SENATOR PERSCH. Move into a vote. Motion to Disapprove passes 22:0:0. B. Action Item: Nomination/Approval of John Gunning to the CSUN Entertainment and Programming Board. (This item was tabled at Senate Meeting 27-11.) Motion to Remove from Table made by SENATOR MOORE, seconded by SENATOR PRICE. Move into a vote. Motion to Remove from the Table passes 22:0:0. PRESIDENT ROSENTHAL spoke on behalf of John Gunning, who wasn't present because he had a class from 6:00 - 9:00 p.m.. He stated that he's a hard worker and pretty motivated. He believes that he will get involved and stayed involved a lot. In response to a question, DIRECTOR CASTILLO stated that he has 3 empty slots now, but John Gunning would fill one of those slots. Move into a vote. Motion passes 21:0:1. (SENATOR HAYES abstained.) VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Action Item: Discussion/Approval of referring the following question as referendum on the CSUN General Election ballot. Ballot question: Are you in favor of the UNLV Consensual Relationships Policy as proposed by Provost Ferraro? (This item was submitted by SENATOR GONZALES.) Motion to Approve made by SENATOR TRUJILLO, seconded by SENATOR PRICE. In response to a question, DIRECTOR HAMILTON stated that she will get together with the E-Board about how they were going to publicize the ballot question. SENATOR FLEISCHMAN stated that this is a great idea in theory, but we won't get a true, informed vote in less than a week. She stated the best thing we can do is publicize it on the OSI page on Thursday. In response to another question, the Rebel Yell News Editor, DARRYL RICHARDSON, stated that it is possible to print the Consensual Relationship Policy (and where the Senate stands on it) along with the Pros and Cons the E-Board wants to put in the Rebel Yell. SENATOR FLEISCHMAN suggested doing a survey to get a good sampling of students. SENATOR MOORE suggested that DARRYL RICHARDSON talk with SENATOR TRUJILLO about the article because he is the leading Senator yarding the policy. DARRYL RICHARDSON suggested that the Senate or Executive Board run a SENATE MINUTES 27-12/ MARCH 17 1997 full statement as another option he has time to do. SENATOR TRUJILLO, in response to a question, "ated that Rules and Ethics will do whatever it takes to get the statement out in time. PRESIDENT ROSENTHAL agreed with SENATOR MOORE; his problem with having the policy sent as a ballot question is that we run the risk of not having the students informed. SENATOR HAYES suggested circulating the policy beforehand. SENATOR FLEISCHMAN reiterated that because of Spring Break, we're not going to get a true, informed vote. SENATOR TRUJILLO agreed with PRESIDENT ROSENTHAL and suggested circulating and publicizing the policy as much as possible through the Rebel Yell instead of bring it up as a ballot question. He stated that there is a danger about asking somebody about a question they're not well informed about and that's the danger we might run into. In response to a question, LEAH GRIFFITH stated that the best way to inform the residents in the Resident Halls is by circulating flyers. Move into a vote. Motion to refer the question fails 5:14:3. (SENATORS AGUERO, SHAPIRO, MOORE, PERSCH, CAMPBELL, LOPEZ, LEHMAN, AMEND, HAYES, SOLOMON, POOLE, LUTAR, FLEISCHMAN, and PEREZ opposed. SENATORS TRUJILLO, ANDERSON, and GONZALES abstained.) B. Action Item: Discussion/Approval of expending $1,500.00 for a Diversity Workshop to be put on by Pi Sigma Alpha, the Political Science Honor Society, to be encumbered from the CSUN 2702 (Gen) Account. (This item was submitted by SENATE PRESIDENT PRO-TEMPORE PEREZ.) Motion to Approve made by SENATOR PRICE, seconded by SENATOR LUTAR. SENATOR PEREZ stated that one of her constituents came to her with this project; originally it was a $4500.00 project and she recommended that the constituent seek other resources; they've gotten it down to $1500.00. She yielded the floor to the constituent, Renee. Renee spoke on behalf of Pi Sigma Alpha and stated that their Honor Society has had many fests this year; they also participated in the Unity Fest to get money for this event. They want to bring in some diversity consultants and this would help to pay for their fee. In response to questions, Renee stated that they'd like this to occur by April 16 in the MSU ballroom; one session - 8:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m. and the second session -1:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.; they are recognized by the Executive Board and they have already received the $500.00 for this year. She added that they had a problem last week, some money was stolen from the money they made at the Unity Fest, so they definitely need everything they are asking for; they are planning on saying that the event is a coalition of several sponsors, including UNLV. SENATOR FLEISCHMAN stated that we have been here before and she doesn't know where she stands on this issue. SENATOR TRUJILLO agreed with SENATOR FLEISCHMAN about having been here before and "that's why we're Senators, we have to make decisions upon something like this. Anything that supports diversity on this campus I think it's something we should support". SENATOR PRICE disagreed that they have been here before because it is something different. 6 SENATE MINUTES 27-12/ MARCH 17 1997 In response to a question, Renee stated that it is an open workshop and there is no charge to fudents; they will advertise it through the CSUN paper and a press release. Further discussion followed about the break down of the funds needed. SENATOR FLEISCHMAN reiterated that she is a little weary about (approving) this without talking to the other organizations; "while I don't think they'll have a problem with this, I would rather get a consensual opinion from them. They're the ones most affected." SENATOR MOORE stated that he just spoke with DIRECTORS VALERA and CASTILLO and they're willing to take $500.00 out of each of their budgets to come out of the general account. SENATE PRESIDENT LAXAGUE stated that this is all one account, but they could specify a budget breakdown. SENATOR HAYES asked the directors to speak on the issue. DIRECTORS VALERA and CASTILLO briefly spoke on the issue and supported it; they support using the money in their budgets. A brief discussion ensued about supporting the item or not. Move into a vote. Motion passes 18:2:2. (SENATORS LOPEZ and CAMPBELL opposed, SENATORS PERSCH and FLEISCHMAN abstained.) Renee expressed her thanks to the Senate. IX. EXECUTIVE BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS AND SUMMATIONS PRESIDENT ROSENTHAL stated that the Provost gave a clear and well-rounded presentation at one of the committees about all of the issues that has been going on, especially the cturers. He announced that the Provost will be here March 31 and wants to advertise it. He stated that the CSUN Leadership Scholarship is forming and asked if anyone is interested to let him know. He stated that the Diversity Workshop that the Senate just approved; his intention is to file a case with the judicial council to see if it does violate any policies to create a clear decision to say how this pertains to the statutes and policies about the $500.00; he's not against it, but a lot of foggy areas arise when this issue (about the $500.00) comes up; this is our opportunity to fix it. SENATE PRESIDENT LAXAGUE stated that he was totally neutral as an Executive Board member on the Diversity Workshop issue, but as a Senator he probably would have voted no because it is a pure political debate; his problem is that often the diversity movement shrouds a political point of view and sells it as education. He asked everyone to be tactful when expressing their point of view, but also not to give in and cling to it until they are proven wrong, when the Provost comes. XI. GOOD OF THE SENATE SENATOR AGUERO had no comment. SENATOR. TRUJILLO stated that it is 15 minutes before the game starts. SENATOR ANDERSON suggested that if they're going to advertise as much to the RHA, to open the other room at the next Senate meeting. 7 SENATE MINUTES 27-12/ MARCH 17 1997 SENATOR SHAPIRO had no comment. SENATOR MOORE stated, "Have a good Spring Break and go Rebs!" SENATOR PERSCH had no comment. SENATOR LIDEROS' comment was unintelligible. SENATOR KNUTSON had no comment. SENATOR SONG had no comment. SENATOR STARK had no comment. SENATOR LOPEZ had no comment. SENATOR LEHMAN had no comment. SENATOR AMEND had no comment. SENATOR PRICE announced $100.00 scholarships going out for African/American students with a GPA above 2.3, recipients will be selected based on level of dedication, commitment; and he -^sked that everyone forward the nominations to him. I SENATOR HAYES stated, "Happy Saint Patrick's Day." SENATOR SOLOMON stated, "Happy Saint Patrick's Day." and he stated that he was in the parade today. SENATOR POOLE stated, "Have a good break." SENATOR LUTAR had no comment. SENATOR GONZALES had no comment. SENATOR FLEISCHMAN stated that the JC is going to be earning their no pay because she does plan on asking them to clarify several campaign issues that haven't come up during this period. She reminded the Senate that it was this Senate that asked President Harter about whether CSUN money went to pay off the Greek Housing bond and she stated no. She asked the Senate to be good with those questions when the Provost comes on Monday, March 31. SENATE PRESIDENT PRO-TEMPORE PEREZ stated that Joyce never came up with the memo, so she'll put in everyone's boxes when it's done. 8 SENATE MINUTES 27-12/ MARCH 17 1997 XI. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting made by SENATOR MOORE, seconded by SENATOR TRUJILLO. Move into a vote. Vote to adjourn passes 22:0:0. SENATE PRESIDENT LAXAGUE adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m.. Tricia L. Nix SENATE SECRETARY Note: All minutes are subject to summation. Consensual Relationships Policy Draft The University of Nevada, Las Vegas' mission is to promote the personal and academic development of students. This mission is promoted by professionalism in relationships between members of the university community. It is the university's goal to create an environment conducive to learning where students, faculty, and staff trust and respect one another. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas prohibits romantic or sexual relationships between members of the university community when one of the individuals involved has direct professional influence or direct authority over the other. In that circumstance, both the university and the person in the position of influence are vulnerable to charges of sexual harassment from the person in the position of lesser power and/or by third parties. Consensual relationships existing between individuals — neither of whom has direct professional influence or authority over the other ~ are not prohibited by this policy. Definition of direct professional power or direct authority A member of the university community is considered to have direct professional power or direct authority over another individual when he or she is in the position to do any of the following: -- Supervise a student in any capacity, including evaluating any academic work, assigning grades, academic advising, personal counseling, or serving on thesis, dissertation, or scholarship committees; — Influence a student's employment, graduate assistantship, housing, participation in athletics or any other University activity; ~ Supervise and/or evaluate the work performance of a member of the faculty or professional or classified staff; — Recommend or award merit or promotions to a member of the faculty or professional or classified staff; -- Serve on promotion or tenure committees. Sanctions When a romantic or sexual relationship exists, both parties involved may be subject to disciplinary action. However, the person in the position of power or authority over the other will bear a greater degree of accountability. Consequently, to avoid disciplinary action, this person should at the beginning of such a relationship report its existence to his or her supervisor. Once the university administration learns of a romantic or sexual relationship, whether through self-reporting or otherwise, it will take immediate steps to eliminate the power or authority of the one individual over the other. This may be accomplished by reassigning duties or responsibilities or requiring withdrawal Reference A .from a committee. If the individuals involved fail to comply with this policy, or if the relationship is not self-reported, the university may impose one or more of the sanctions available through its disciplinary procedures, as outlined in the UCCSN Code (for faculty and professional staff), the Nevada Administrative Code (for classified staff), or the UNLV Student Conduct Code (for students). Groundless or Malicious Charges Persons bringing groundless or malicious charges under this policy are subject to disciplinary action for personal misconduct under the appropriate faculty/staff personnel policies or the Student Conduct Code. Approved by the Task Force on Campus Culture, Equity, and Environment, 4-30-96 Reference A consensu. 496 Recomendations for Consensual Relationships Policy Draft: ( 1.) The Consensual Relationships Policy Draft needs clarity in the following areas: a.) Definition of what constiutes a relationship. b.) Definition of personal counseling. 2.) The Consensual Relationships Policy will not apply to Student employee positions on campus, when the individuals in the relationship are both students. r 3.) In the section under sanctions it is not clear how the university will be able to enforce this policy. In a case where the relationship is not self reported, the unversity has no way of proving a relationship exists. The policy needs more clarity on the procedures that it will be enforced. Rationale for Development of a Consensual Relationships Policy Prepared by the UNLV Subcommittee on the Status of Women April 24, 1996 Background The current policy draft you are considering has been in development for more than three years. The UNLV Subcommittee on the Status of Women has had considerable discussion about it. This version was approved by the subcommittee in March 1995. Delays in advancing the policy have been the, result of the major changes in the UNLV administration over the course of the past year. This draft comes to you now after review (and a few minor changes) by the Provost's Office. It has also been approved by the University Counsel. We recognize that such a policy is bound to generate some controversy on our campus; similar policies certainly have done so on other campuses throughout the country. For that reason, we have prepared the following pro/con statement in the hope that it will streamline our discussions. There may well be other arguments in favor of or opposition to this policy, but the ones we have encountered or have discov ered through our research of the subject thus far seem to fall into the following categories. Pros: 1. Such relationships are unethical and should therefore be prohibited. Such romantic relationships are inappropriate and unethical. They involve inherent conflicts of interest and imperil the academic integrity of the university. Some would argue that there is no such thing as a "consensual relationship" between two people of unequal power; even if they are ostensibly consensual, such relationships are exploitative and always involve an element of power. And, since not all members of the university community may agree with or understand this concept, it is the university's responsibility to make it absolutely clear that such relationships will not be tolerated. 2. Such relationships often lead to sexual harassment complaints. Some of the most egregious sexual harassment cases on campuses have been the result of faculty/student relationships gone sour. If the faculty member is the one rejected when the relationship ends, s/he can use the power of position to make life very difficult for the student. If the student is rejected, s/he can claim that the relationship was not consensual from the start. (However, even consent is not necessarily a defense against a sexual harassment or discrimination complaint.) Also, third party sexual harassment complaints can result when other students in a class-witness one student receiving special treatment. These scenarios can also occur in the work environment involving relationships between supervisors and employees. 3. Without such a policy, the university is legally vulnerable. Reference A Laws regarding sexual harassment continue to place increasing responsibility on the employer for prevention of sexual harassment. Employers are now being held responsible in cases in which the courts find that they should have known about a sexual harassment situation. And, since many sexual harassment cases result from romantic relationships between those in positions of unequal power, a policy prohibiting such relationships should prevent at least some sexual harassment cases. 4. Prohibition of such relationships is necessary. Some would suggest that the university should discourage — rather than prohibit — such relationships. However, without a policy prohibiting such relationships, the university cannot intervene in situations in which someone is clearly abusing the power of his/her position in such a relationship. If the university does not want these types of relationships to occur, then it should take a clear, definite position and not sidestep the issue because it is a difficult one. 5. The policy doesn't prohibit the relationship, just the power arrangement. This policy doesn't prevent the relationship from continuing, just the unequal power situation. If two people find themselves in such a relationship and they want to continue it, the person in the position of greater power must simply change the circumstances of their professional or academic relationship. By reporting the situation and accepting a reassignment of duties, the relationship can continue. Also, though it is stated in the actual policy, it should be emphasized that this policy does not affect consensual relationships in which neither of the individuals involved has direct power or authority over the other. Cons: 1. A university should not attempt to legislate morality. The university has no right to tell its faculty, staff or students what their moral standards should be or how to apply them in their personal lives. All of the individuals on a university campus are adults and should be treated with enough respect as to allow them to handle such delicate personal matters on their own within their own ethical framework. If the university steps into the role of parent, members of the university community will resent it. 2. Such a policy is intrusive. The university has no right to intrude upon the personal decisions of its faculty, staff or students. Romantic relationships are extremely private matters; requiring individuals to report the status of those relationships could be embarrassing, even damaging, to some individuals. 3. The university should discourage, not prohibit, such relationships. Reference A The university is an institution that values education; as such, it would seem more appropriate for the university to educate the campus about the problems that can result from such relationships rather than prohibit them. 4. The university already has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. While it might be true that such relationships can lead to sexual harassment, when the situation does become sexual harassment, the university already has a policy to deal with it. A consensual relationships policy intercedes too early; it is possible that such relationships could exist without ever becoming problematic. As evidence of this, note that there are many married couples on campus who met in the classroom situation when one was the professor and the other, a student. Reference A