Lauren Battaglia Dumont, Jeffrey Barnett, Psy.D., ABPP
Boundaries in Academia: An Examination of Educator-Student Relationship Policy
College students are young individuals in the process of maturing and developing (Murphy,
Blustein, Bohling, & Platt, 2010). They are continually in contact with educators,
and due to a variety of factors, the educator-student relationship has a large power
differential in favor of the educator (Anderson & Shore, 2008). College students
are vulnerable and at risk for exploitation and harm in both sexual and non-sexual
relationships with their educators (Anderson & Shore, 2008). Students become at risk
for exploitation and harm when educators mishandle boundaries, which are meant to
maintain a professional relationship that protects and promotes student welfare (Smith
& Fitzpatrick, 1995). Sexual educator-student relationship boundaries are violated,
as anywhere from 2-25% of educators have engaged in sexual relationships with their
students (Downs, 2003; Fitzgerald, Weitzman, Gold, & Omerod, 1998; Lamb, Catanzaro,
& Moorman, 2003; Pope, Levenson, & Schover, 1979; Zakrewski, 2006). As a result, students
feel harmed and exploited, and report moderate to extreme anxiety and discomfort that
negatively influence their academic and professional careers (Glasser & Thorpe, 1986;
O’Connor, Slimp & Burian, 1994). Non-sexual deviations in the educator-student relationship
can also occur. For example, an educator can enter into more than one relationship
with a student; as the educator can be both a professor and an employer to his or
her student who provides babysitting services. Engaging in such roles outside of the
professional relationship is called a multiple relationship (APA, 2010). Other non-sexual
deviations in the educator-student relationship include gift-giving, sharing meals
with a student, and spending more time with a particular student or group of students
than others (Zur, 2007). These types of deviations occur, as 40% of counseling supervisors
reported engaging in multiple relationships with students, 27% of which were considered
educator-student friendships (Navin & Beamish, 1995). Although these actions deviate
from the traditional educator-student relationship, they are not necessarily inappropriate
in nature. It is important to note these deviations increase the risk of exploitation
and harm by inserting inconsistent goals, objectives, and role dynamics into the relationship
(Lazarus, 1998; Markie, 1994) and become inappropriate when they result in exploitation
or harm to the student (Gottlieb & Younggren, 2004). Therefore, educators must be
provided with guidance regarding boundaries to promote student welfare and avoid student
harm.
College students are extremely vulnerable and at risk for exploitation and harm in
educator-student relationships (Anderson & Shore, 2008), thus educators must be provided
with guidance on how to promote student welfare and avoid student harm. In 1997, Rupert
and Holmes analyzed faculty handbooks of colleges and universities to examine what
type of guidance was provided to educators regarding navigating relationships. In
their sample 55% of universities prohibit, and 33% of universities discourage, sexual
relationships between faculty and students. In addition, they found that 55% of universities
reported encouraging friendships between educators and students. These statistics
highlight only some of the great variability in various institutions’ policies on
educator-student relationships. However, the literature lacks a more current analysis
of institutional policies. Therefore, the purpose of this examination was to update
this information.