Sex In The Public Square - higher education - Comments

Liz Derrington's experience

Heather Derrington — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:46:26 -0700

What I find problematic is the fact that a university saw fit to intrude on the privacy on two students and a professor...this was a second job. The university will not pay Liz's bills...but they saw fit to pass judgement. So much for open mindness...the thing that really burns me was the gall of her dissertation advisor saying he/she/it would call the university where she had gained employment...wow, talk about stepping in it...there are legal ramifications there and I hope someone spoke to his RUDE and IGNORANT PERSON ABOUT THEM...their holy than thou attitude could have them their job...because of their BIG MOUTH.

Update

Michael — Fri, 02 May 2008 07:14:31 -0700

We are hopeful that new initiatives by the University of New Mexico will move this unfortunate conflict further towards, if not full resolution, at least an agreement by everyone to work together collaboratively.

In a letter to faculty (April 24) the Provost stated of the Deputy Provost's determination was not successful, and that this did include an Ethics consultation. However a further appeal to the President has been initiated, and as we have commented before, some people have attempted to export the conflict off the campus.

We believe that a real attempt has been made to unpack the issues, and indicate the appropriate channels for individuals to express their specific concerns. Central to this is the consideration of the working and learning environment which needs addressing promptly, and separating this from making it an issue around the role of individuals and their actions. We applaud the efforts to involve an external facilitator to nurture a sense of professionalism in all concerned and to ensure that all viewpoints are heard and respected, and their particular issues addressed.

It will clearly be important that the facilitator address wider dynamic and structural issues within the department that may have contributed to an environemt in which conflict could thrive and escalate. It is to be hoped that goodwill and the pursuit of common goals will prevail over individual differences of opinion.

I find it reprehensible that

Chris OSullivan — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:38:17 -0700

I find it reprehensible that academic professionals would marginalize and persecute an student for sexual misconduct that neither occurred nor was the concern of those involved in such conduct.

That a dissertation advisor who would otherwise claim to be a professional would abandon a student less than three months before her dissertation defense (due to allegations) has greater merit in calling for a conduct review than the original charges. This clearly can be construed as discrimination based upon sexual identity and should damage the reputation of the school as it failed in an institutional duty to the student to provide a non-hostile environment.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions about conduct, but to allow that to affect your professional relationship with a student is a moral and ethical failure in any measure of academic professionalism.

Thanks Heather

Elizabeth — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:22:25 -0700

Spelling has been corrected. Thanks!

This is a good follow up to

heather — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:06:13 -0700

This is a good follow up to the other articles and discussions I've read about this issue. I'd just like to note that the professor in question is named "Chavez," rather than "Chavaz."

Respecting viewpoints and deconstructing predeterminants

Michael — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:18:43 -0700

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.

Mixed messages

LadyJ — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:56:57 -0700

I applaud your support of Professor Chavez and I appreciate Professor Goodyear's balanced comments. I wish the issues were clearer to me because all the lines seem unusually fuzzy when dealing with the incident and subsequent consequences. The issues are important and tug at my emotions and involve freedom of speech and action in all things legal sexually (and to press boundaries when needed), moral responsibility to one's self and students and/or institutions while championing individual rights. It does not seem to me that any student was harmed or coerced and the picture I saw of Chavez and her former student seemed nonoffensive. I agree with the University's position entirely. However, I visited the website involved and found it somewhat sleezy to my tastes and even more so when I realized its mantra that all "our beloved PEP phone counselors — REAL PEOPLE! REAL COMMUNICATION! were selling their "loving counseling and advice of dominant/submissive  ladies for intimate fetish dialogue. ($119/hour, $99/45 minutes, $89/30 minutes. Higher rates to speak to Nancy.)  P.S. Many of our counselors will consider meeting with  you privately, passionately. Please inquire about rendezvous."

As a member of the bdsm community I recognize the enormous variety of information available on the web, much of it very helpful. I subscribe to a site myself where I can share information and meet others. I may find Dr. Chavez's reasoning about the good money she got for "telephone counseling" to supplement the poor money from her teaching salary somewhat questionable in my mind but certainly her right. Unethical -- probably no by my standards. Questionable in light of her position if the University had invoked a previous morals clause about sex work for profit among faculty, sure. And people (some faculty) might be equally (and equally unfairly) irate, Elizabeth, if she were an abortion counselor, but I doubt she'd be proclaiming she was making $40 a hour for her "help".

I agree with Dr. Goodyear that "there are a number of very important issues here that require careful examination and consideration of their implications for the proper conducting of the roles and responsibilities of an educational institution. Let us hope that constructive wisdom and energies will prevail and that all will learn from what happened here and put in place procedures and policies to prevent it happening elsewhere."

I agree with Dr. Wood when she defends sex workers and the legitimacy and value of their work.

I even agree, in part, with Dr. Chavez when she said she "found this work as a dominant incredibly empowering--first in that older women were valued for their sexuality, and that I was able to explore my own dominance. I also learned to be even less judgmental than I had been before about other people’s sexual choices. So many callers had felt years of shame for their particular interests, and often it was a relief for them simply to be able to talk without being judged."

I'm glad she learned these things. From personal experience (without using money as an issue and in free exchange with like-minded others) I've found such experiences rewarding, I hope more people find less costly ways to value their sexuality in all its ramifications.

Lisa Chavez interview, and commentaries

dankprofessor — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:39:36 -0700

Bravo to Elizabeth for her excellent interview with Lisa Chavez. As a result of reading over this interview, Elizabeth's and Michael's commentaries and seeing the TV segment, things have become clearer to me.

What has become most clear is that Sharon Warner is the protagonist. One does not have to read between the lines to figure out that she has de facto communicated that she was the one who broke this "story". There was no story until she came forward. In essence she is the story, not Lisa Chavez. She is the absolutist moral entrepreneur attempting to sell her story at the expense of Lisa Chavez. In essence, Warner's story is summed up in the following quote- "We think a message must be sent out not only to her but to other faculty members because: If this is not unethical, what is unethical?"

Nothing about protecting students from harm; it's primarily about sending out a message to other faculty members, a message reaffirming traditional sexual morality. For her, Lisa Chavez is a sexual outsider. I have no doubt that this woman will not rest until Lisa is exiled or excommunicated from UNM.

Michael Goodyear doesn't quite get it when he states the following-

"Allegations of unethical behaviour have been made but it is unclear as to exactly what these refer to. Is it involvement in sexual activity of a commercial or marginalised nature? This is not inherently unethical, and abuses can occur within it as in any other walk of life. Is it exploitation of students? This has not been proven to date. Questions of ethically problematic behaviour require precise delineation."

Yes, Michael, these questions require precise delineation but such is true for those who really believe in due process and intellectual discourse and is an irrelevancy for those who are committed to anti-sexual campaigns and revitalization movements. All too many academics are unable to appreciate that the university state is turning into a police state. Once we understand this, we will understand what is all too often presented in academia- the omnipresence of a police mentality.

And if such is omnipresent, fear would be widespread. Might I suggest that it is "interesting" that I am aware of no UNM faculty member speaking up publicly in support of Lisa Chavez. Where are the supportive members of the English Department? The silence is deafening even when the university administration has come out and done the right thing.

Michael also observes-

"The reality, and a central tenet of feminisms, is that all relationships have an element of inequality, and the importance of the issue is to recognise it, acknowledge it, make it transparent and mitigate possible abuse of it. Students must be able to have a sense of safety from exploitation and harassment and know that they can safely bring concerns to the attention of the authorities. It is important to determine whether any students have actually expressed any concerns to date"

Well, all too often in university life, feminisms re power inequalities are employed not to empower students but to empower selected faculty and selected administrators. Students are used by faculty at times to get what they want. No matter that students do not complain about whatever situation, the important point for egocentric professors is that they can speak for the students; comes right out of Nixon-Agnew and Reagan, et. al. speaking for the silent majority. In any case, power inequalities are rife at the university and some are sacred, such as tenure. Any critique of power inequalities in university life whether feminist or non-feminist based cannot be taken seriously without dealing with tenure. Do note that Sharon Warner resigned from her position, but did not resign from her tenured professorship.

To date the administration of the University of New Mexico has been exemplary as to how they have dealt with this situation. They merit the support of academics who truly take academic freedom seriously. Unquestionably their power is and will be continued to be challenged. Let us hope that they do not capitulate.

For those who are concerned about the university state becoming more of a police state and the university place becoming just another corporate workplace, do join me at my dankprofessor blog- http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com Particularly see my post on sexual policing.

Barry M. Dank

personal objections are not the same as ethical guidelines

Elizabeth — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 07:05:06 -0700

Warner, the now-former creative writing director at UNM, says in the video attached to this news story "We think a message must be sent out not only to her but to other faculty members because: If this is not unethical, what is unethical?"

The reporting also attributes the initial bringing of the complaint to Warner herself, "saying that she brought the pictures and the web site where she found them" though previous coverage has identified the initial complainant as anonymous.

It seems clearer and clearer that the problem here is that some faculty have a major issue with legal sex work, and that they fail to distinguish working relationships from sexual relationships.

A question: If Chavez and the student in the photos were photographed instead working at a women's health clinic on the weekends, and some faculty were offended that they would be working together at a place that provided a service (abortion) to which those faculty objected, would we be having this discussion?

Chavez and the graduate student apparently had a working relationship. That work was in a legal part of the sex industry. While that may be upsetting to some people, I fail to see how it merits sanction as "unethical conduct."

(Note: The KRQE news story and the video are pretty sensationalistic, and I hesitated to link it, but I did so partly because a graduate student involved in the case speaks out, her identity shielded, and it seems so important to me that her voice is heard. If we listen to her it is very clear that she does not feel like a victim because nothing unethical happened to her.)

unpacking issues

Elizabeth — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:48:18 -0700

Michael, thank you for such a thoughtful "unpacking" of the complicated and multi-layered issues here. I'm especially struck by a few things you wrote, and which I think turn the typical approach to a case like this on its head. For example:

From the University's perspective the question is surely whether anything has been proven which is likely to be harmful to staff, students or the University's ability to function and provide a safe environment within which to carry out its functions. In this respect we should distinguish between the actions of Professor Chavez, and the actions of others subsequently.

It seems that the "actions of others subsequently" have been much more disruptive to the staff, students and department's ability to carry out its functions than were the actions of Lisa Chavez herself. She simply took a job as a phone sex worker and allowed images of herself to be used in advertising the service. While there might be some faculty or some students who, once aware of those photos, would feel uncomfortable interacting with Chavez becasue of their own feelings about sexuality, certainly that is the kind of "disruption" that universities are intended to create -- that is, the disruption of our comfortably held beliefs which are constantly challenged by new information.

I'm also struck by this statement:

Whistle blowing can be important but can be subject to abuse. There needs to be clearly understood processes available which preserve the presumption of innocence yet allow for inquiry in a non-adversarial manner that places the safety and well-being of those on campus as a high priority.

Balancing the interests of those making complaints and those being accused is such a difficult thing to do. When the complaints come from an anonymous source it is even more difficult, and yet as you point out, sometimes anonymity is the only thing that will protect a whistleblower. It seems that in a case like this one the problem is that confidentiality regarding the investigation was not maintained at some level, and that there are a number of faculty who distrust the process engaged in by administration. To what degree is this an "administration trampled faculty governance issue," and to what degree is it a "we're disgruntled because the proper procedures didn't return the result we wanted" issue?

And of course as you point out the fact that the issue involves marginalized sexual activity (sex work, and not only sex work but BDSM phone fantasy work) makes it all the harder for people to be reasonable about.

It points out yet again how academic freedom and freedom of speech must never be understood to cover "everything but sex."

Unpacking conflict in the academy

Michael — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:06:46 -0700

The nature of conflict is complex as might be expected and none of us is in possesion of all the facts of this case and should not rush to judgement. Also since this involves not only sexuality, but marginalised sexuality, it is bound to attract both interest and comment and this is evident from blogs and web media comments to date. It does however raise many issues about academic life that we can learn from, and hopefully the University of New Mexico can also learn from this. However to understand the process that has evolved there requires a degree of unpacking.

All of us have private lives, and many of us are likely to be engaged in matters, whether of morality, belief or politics, with which some colleagues may disapprove. Therefore once again the issue of the boundaries between private and public morality and behaviour arise. From the University's perspective the question is surely whether anything has been proven which is likely to be harmful to staff, students or the University's ability to function and provide a safe environment within which to carry out its functions. In this respect we should distinguish between the actions of Professor Chavez, and the actions of others subsequently.

The next issue is how organisations handle allegations against staff and students, whether anonymously or not, and how we balance creating a safe environment within which to raise concerns about matters that may effect the safety of others, while protecting the rights of individuals. Whistle blowing can be important but can be subject to abuse. There needs to be clearly understood processes available which preserve the presumption of inocence yet allow for inquiry in a non-adversarial manner that places the safety and well-being of those on campus as a high priority.

There is a peculiarity about this case which resembles certain other high profile instances of allegations of sexual or moral impropriety against faculty. That is that one would not expect those who disapprove of the activity in question to normally be searching websites pertaining to such activity. I do not think we know the exact circumstances of how this matter came to light, but the possibility of deliberate malfeasance needs to be considered.

Another aspect that is bound to raise concern and comment is any activity on campus or off campus involving power inequalities. No matter how well meaning, faculty need to consider whether any such behaviour is likely to be influenced by such inequalities. Clearly such abuse has taken place in the past, and all need to take great care to minimise its possibility. The question in this case is what are the reasonablr boundaries in such cases, for instance when are graduate students or postgraduate students considered sufficiently autonomous to make consensual decisions and should this also be extended to relationships between junior and senior faculty? The reality, and a central tenet of feminisms, is that all relationships have an element of inequality, and the importance of the issue is to recognise it, acknowledge it, make it transparent and mitigate possible abuse of it. Students must be able to have a sense of safety from exploitation and harassment and know that they can safely bring concerns to the attention of the authorities. It is important to determine whether any students have actually expressed any concerns to date.

Allegations of unethical behaviour have been made but it is unclear as to exactly what these refer to. Is it involvement in sexual activity of a commercial or marginalised nature? This is not inherently unethical, and abuses can occur within it as in any other walk of life. Is it exploitation of students? This has not been proven to date. Questions of ethically problematic behaviour require precise delineation.

Now let us examine what has happened since these allegations became known. Professor Chavez has apparently been cleared of wrong doing. We do not know if the investigation was in possession of all of the facts and accorded procedural fairness and natural justice to all parties. However it appars that there are many members of faculty who are unhappy with this result.

Mechanisms need to be developed to deal with respecting people's concerns, providing them the opportunity of input into any investigations and a sense of engagement, due process in testing of any evidence advanced, and a transparent communiation strategy. Conflict is inherent in diversity, and encouraged in universities as a creative force - but it needs to be recognised, acknowledged and managed constructively. Whatever the concerns were regarding the effect of Professor Chavez' actions on university life and environment by those who raised the issues, the effect of raising those issues is now far more likely to be detrimental to that environment. Urgent steps need to be taken to de-escalate the conflict and seek common ground in this dispute.

Universities place great emphasis onacademic freedom - the right to hold opinions and to criticise without fear of reprisal or harassment. When colleagues embrace values or lifestyles that may be contrary to our own, those choices may be debated but must also be respected, and the argument not the person made the subject of discussion. Any actions that limit Professor Chavez' ability to pursue her scholarly activities and teaching must be considered in violation of such principles. We also cherish our freedom of expression, and therefore our right to express opinions even when contrary to the dominant discourse, must be protected.

There has been much talk of the need for punishment, but for exactly what, and to what end, it is not clear.

There are a number of very important issues here that require careful examination and consideration of their implications for the proper conducting of the roles and responsibilities of an educational institution. Let us hope that constructive wisdom and energies will prevail and that all will learn from what happened here and put in place procedures and policies to prevent it happening elsewhere.

Michael Goodyear, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Dalhousie University

Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada