I would like to thank the above contributors for their insights and observations. As I stated earlier there are many facts that we are not in possession of and therefore comment is by necessity limited. However from information I have received to date my understanding is that we are dealing with mature students who maintained a strictly professional relationship with Chavez on and off campus. Some commentators elsewhere have read things into photographs that were modeled as advertisements, without any evidence to substantiate their assumptions. These students posses both voice and agency, yet have not been heard in the public forum, and may well have been punished, at least indirectly by the cascade of events.

If we are to have a healthy and constructive debate on the issues raised it would be helpful to hear from all parties. Therefore I respectfully disagree with Professor Dank. We can construct many theories including his, and even suggest, for instance, that there is a moral crusade or panic in process which is being camouflaged as concern for exploited students. However we have little evidence on which to base such theories to date. In fact I have refrained from naming names and apportioning blame, because I believe a systems based approach is required in the face of very real conflict. We need to understand the systemic and structural elements and predeterminants that permitted this to reach the level it has. For instance what were the dynamics in the English Department prior to this and how conflict-aware was it? Were there previous similar episodes.

I have examined what appear prima facie to be constructive university policies (http://www.unm.edu/%7Efacdr/) on conflict resolution and whistleblowing, as well as ethical conduct and misconduct. They refer primarily to on-campus activities but do stress the need for balance mentioned earlier between a safe reporting environment and human rights. Whatever the merits of the policies, to date they have failed to prevent or resolve the situation. Depicting the conflict as being between two protagonists or two ideologies is unlikely to be the full story, nor to lead to successful resolution. In the absence of such an outcome it is likely that many more people will be harmed than has occurred already.

To the best of my knowledge the investigation into the allegations against Chavez has not been made public. Therefore we cannot assess whether due process was followed, and whether due consideration of procedural fairness and natural justice was accorded to all parties. The University would do well to consider being more transparent. This may allay the fears of those claiming justice has not been done. Whether we agree or disagree with any individual’s point of view, they are all entitled to that view and its expression.

Naturally I share some of professor Dank’s concerns regarding the use and abuse of power within universities and regarding academic freedom and freedom of expression. However I remain to be persuaded that tenure is the root cause. We all remain accountable, regardless of tenure.

While we could debate the rights and wrongs of the particular activities engaged in here, as Lady J suggests, I believe that this distracts from the central issue of whether university staff and students’ private lives should be held accountable on campus unless there is clear evidence of illegal or unethical behaviour which may imply an inability to maintain institutional standards. To date we have not seen compelling evidence of either.

There are however some particular issues here that require examination in the light of their general applicability, and that is the relationship of commercial sex and higher education. Were the former not stigmatized or illegal in some parts of the world this would not be an issue. The evidence base shows that many sex workers enter higher educational institutions to further their professional development, broaden their opportunities, develop educational and research skills and contribute to what is known about commercial sex. Some do this openly, some covertly, but many have made important scholarly contributions. Also it is common for students and staff to engage in commercial sex. Numerous studies are consistent in finding that about 3-6% of students engage in this activity, and in some communities up to 50% of sex workers are students. Surveys have shown participation, buying and selling at all levels of the university, overtly and covertly. Some for financial necessity, others out of curiosity, for pleasure or to further their scholarly activities as Chavez implies. Universities should be aware of this reality and be prepared to provide a safe environment for discussion of this topic and ensure that appropriate campus services accommodate the needs of these individuals. Finally institutional harassment and discrimination policies need to be examined to ensure that protections afforded on the grounds of gender and sexual orientation apply to all aspects of an individual’s sexuality and sexual expression.

Disclaimer:

Dr Goodyear serves on the Board of Directors of a sex worker support group, and the steering committee of a campus programme to promote equity in sexuality and freedom from discrimination or harassment. However his views are his own and not necessarily those of either organization.

Michael Goodyear