John Boot, professor and chair of the Department of Management Science and Systems and chair of the senate's Academic Freedom and Responsibility Committee, told FSEC members his committee continues to grapple with the issue, and sought input from the FSEC.

A version of the proposed code had been rejected by the Faculty Senate at its Feb. 4 meeting, with some senators questioning whether there really was a need for such a code, while other criticized the specific language of the proposal.

That version stated that a faculty member should not have an amorous or sexual relation, consensual or otherwise, with a student who is enrolled in his/her course, or whose performance is supervised or evaluated by that faculty member.

Boot said he personally felt that it would be prudent for UB to have a statement "that states in no uncertain terms that it is unwise for faculty to associate with students in their class or students they supervise in any other than a teaching or mentoring capacity." In the "real world," any company that does not have such a statement is severely disadvantaged if a lawsuit is filed, he said.

Boot questioned how widespread the problem of student-faculty romantic relationships is, telling senators he had polled female students of Western European descent who sought out his help during his regular office hours and asked them if they had ever experienced a situation in any of their classes that they would consider improper.

He said he did not question students of "Eastern" descent because "I know from experience that Eastern students have a different approach to these things and I'm not sure whether I could come across in such a way they would properly understand what I was saying.

"To a person, they said, 'No, they've never noticed anything like it.' To say it's widespread is incorrect."

But, he acknowledged, consensual relationships are "not a non-event on campus." There is a "substantial element of mischief along these lines," he added.

Loyce Stewart, associate director of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action Administration, and several senior female faculty members-all of whom had been invited to the meeting at the behest of Boot and senate Chair Peter Nickerson-disputed the contention that while the problem does exist, it is not widespread.

Stewart noted that consensual relationships are a problem, "not just at UB, but at all universities."

She pointed out that the issue not only affects the faculty member and student involved in the relationship, but also affects other students who may feel that they are being denied opportunities because attention or benefits that are due them are going instead to the student who is involved in the relationship with the faculty member-a situation Stewart called "third-party sexual harassment."

Margaret Acara, professor of pharmacology and toxicology and chair of a subcommittee of the Women's Task Force that is preparing a policy on sexual harassment, told FSEC members she had conducted a poll of six female students. All of the students told her consensual relationships do occur on campus, and that they make the students "very uncomfortable," Acara reported.

Noting the differences between the results of her poll and Boot's, she said she thought the "responses are different, depending on who's asking" the question.

Judith Duchan, professor and chair of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences, called consensual relationships "rampant in the (academic) profession," adding that the existence of one "can make a whole department dysfunctional."

She said she favors having a policy on the issue that department chairs could point to and say "it's not sanctioned."

Bernice Noble, professor of microbiology and chair of the Women's Task Force, said that through her work with the task force, she has talked to female students who recounted cases of consensual relationships among their peers and faculty members. The students were "extremely unwilling" to discuss the issue because the lack of a university policy makes them feel "extremely vulnerable."

Moreover, she noted that when she brought up the issue during a meeting of women full professors, "there was a very heated discussion; everyone had a horror story."

But when Noble suggested the group sponsor an open forum on the topic, "I was disappointed, surprised and educated by the response from my colleagues." Most of them, she said, were unwilling to discuss the issue publicly. "Even as full professors, they still felt extremely vulnerable to retribution and other kinds of professional discipline. We'll never get a good picture of how serious the problem is and how people are affected by it because of the fears of those likely to have a problem," she said.

Boot presented to FSEC members for their consideration a new version of the ethics code that had been presented to the senate in February. The new version states that any relation other than a teaching or mentoring relation with a student in one's class or under one's supervision is unprofessional conduct. The statement, he says, "says what we should be doing, rather than what we should not be doing."

However, several executive committee members preferred the "old version," noting that the new version would exclude "social relationships" between faculty and students, such as meeting for a cup of coffee or an occasional dinner or a tennis match.

William Baumer, professor of philosophy, said that a policy that excludes such social relationships would "put constraints on the teaching relationship that is just 180-degrees opposed to what we want to see in terms of the faculty-student relationship."

Don Schack, professor of mathematics, took the issue a step further, suggesting that faculty members be required to report such social relationships to their supervisors so that the faculty member's authority over the student could be transferred, if necessary.

Baumer recommended that the senate consider the issue of consensual relationships at the same time as it considers the proposed policy on sexual harassment, which Acara said was in draft form and soon would be presented to the administration.

Consensual relations "all too easily fall into harassment when the relationship goes bad," Baumer added.

Acara noted that the draft policy on sexual harassment only addresses consensual relations in the context of "third-party sexual harassment." She suggested the issues be considered separately at this time, with the consensual-relations issue being included later in the sexual harassment policy.

The FSEC rejected a formal motion by Baumer that the senate combine the two issues.

Boot said he would take the input from the FSEC back to his committee and bring a reconfigured statement back to the body for consideration at its Nov. 4 meeting, and possible inclusion on the agenda for the full Senate meeting on Nov. 10.