Faculty–Student Consensual Sexual Relationship Policies: Examining Prevalence and Content using a Nationally Representative Sample of Institutions of Higher Education in the United States

Abstract

The current study uses a nationally representative sample of institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the United States (n = 448) to estimate the prevalence rate of consensual sexual relationship policies (CSRPs) and to examine variation in CSRPs across sectors of IHEs. The concepts of consent and power differentials in CSRPs are also explored. Findings show that the majority of IHEs do not have a CSRP, that there are no significant differences in the prevalence rate or type of CSRPs across IHE sectors, and the most common type of CSRP is a limited ban. The concepts of consent and power differentials underpin the majority of CSRPs.

Keywords

sexual harassment prevention sexual assault support seeking

A substantial body of work has focused on the prevalence rate and context of student-on-student sexual harassment and sexual assault at institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the United States (U.S.) (see meta-analysis by Fedina et al., 2018) as well as IHEs responses to such harassment (see meta-analysis by Sabina & Ho, 2014). More recent research has addressed faculty and staff sexual harassment of college students (Klein & Martin, 2019; Klein et al., 2022) and the impacts of such harassment on student outcomes and IHE climate (Klein et al., 2022). Likewise, prior work has identified the potential role of consensual sexual relationships (CSRs) between faculty/staff and students in fostering sexual harassment at IHEs (Mack, 1999) and the ways in which U.S. IHEs do or do not address CSRs through consensual sexual relationship policies (CSRPs) (Richards et al., 2014; Richards & Nystrom, 2022).

CSRPs aim to provide protection to the IHE community by setting forth standards of acceptable behavior and highlighting the potential for coercion and exploitation in CSRs given the power differentials between faculty and students (Richards & Nystrom, 2022). Prior research on CSRPs has identified the types of CSRPs (Mack, 1999) and common aspects of such policies (Richards et al., 2014; Richards & Nystrom, 2022), but no study to date has attempted to determine the prevalence rate of such policies or whether the prevalence rate of CSRPs differ across sectors of U.S. IHEs (e.g., 4-year public IHEs, 4-year private nonprofit IHEs, community colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities [HBCUs], and Tribal Colleges and Universities [TCUs]). The current study addresses this gap by utilizing a nationally representative sample of IHEs to estimate the prevalence rate of CSRPs and CSRP types in the U.S. and to examine potential variation in CSRPs across IHEs in different sectors. Furthermore, based on prior research examining the role of consent and power differentials in CSRPs (e.g., Richards & Nystrom, 2022), content analysis is used to further understand how these issues are conceptualized in this national sample. Findings are discussed in the context of campus climate as well as future research and policy priorities.

Sexual Harassment of U.S. College Students

A recent systematic review of 10 articles by Klein and Martin (2019) found that estimates of sexual harassment of U.S. college students vary widely across studies in the published literature using different sampling techniques and methods, from 9% (Campbell et al., 2021) to 97% (Yoon et al., 2010). Additional analysis of survey data from nearly 147,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students at 27 U.S. IHEs found that 37–56% of students reported experiencing sexual harassment since entering the IHE (Klein et al., 2022).

Regarding perpetrators of sexual harassment against college students, studies show that while most undergraduate students report being harassed by a fellow undergraduate or graduate student (Klein & Martin, 2019; Klein et al., 2022), both undergraduate and graduate students report sexual harassment from faculty, and graduate students report that faculty are the primary perpetrators of their harassment (Klein & Martin, 2019). While prior research on sexual harassment among U.S. college students outside of 4-year schools is limited, a campus climate assessment of seven community colleges in New Hampshire found that 19% of students reported sexual harassment by a faculty/staff member (Howard, 2019). Furthermore, Richards et al.’s (2022) analysis of 4 years of reports of sexual misconduct to Title IX coordinators at IHEs in Maryland found that more than 20% of reports from student complainants involved faculty/staff respondents, and that community college students reported higher rates of faculty/staff perpetrated misconduct than students at public 4-year schools.

Student reports of faculty-on-student sexual harassment have garnered significant attention by the media as well. For example, a 2018 Chronicle of Higher Education article detailed a series of student allegations against faculty at more than 20 U.S. IHEs, from the University of North Alabama to Columbia University (Gluckman et al., 2018). More recently, media coverage of faculty-on-student sexual harassment at Harvard University showed that the school failed to investigate students’ allegations—including physical and verbal harassment and threats of retaliation—for more than 3 years before ultimately finding the professor had violated Harvard’s misconduct policy and resulting in a civil suit against Harvard by the student complainants (Chuck, 2022; Krantz, 2022).

Consensual faculty–student sexual relationships (CSRs) are also well-documented in the literature (Bellas & Gossett, 2001; Blevins-Knabe, 1992; Sullivan, 2004). CSRs are relationships between two consenting adults, one a faculty member and the other a student. While these relationships do not violate any legal statutes, given the unequal power between parties, there is a robust debate regarding whether faculty–student relationships can be consensual (Blevins-Knabe, 1992; Gossett & Bellas, 2002; Jafar, 2003; Sullivan, 2004). In other words, some argue that even if unintentional, there is always an element of coercion due to the unequal power dynamics in faculty–student CSRs (e.g., Blevins-Knabe, 1992; Paludi, 1990; Sullivan, 2004). Furthermore, it is possible that a faculty–student relationship may begin as consensual, but over time, the student may feel less free to make decisions about the relationship and/or may feel pressured to stay in the relationship due to the unequal power that a faculty member holds outside of the relationship. This debate is further underpinned by survey research suggesting that faculty and students, themselves, may be unclear as to whether faculty–student relationships can be consensual. For example, Crittenden et al. (2021) found that faculty, in particular, often noted that there was a “fine line” between consensual faculty–student relationships and sexual harassment (p. 55).

The inequality between faculty and students stems from the hierarchical nature of the academic environment (Bellas & Gossett, 2001). For example, in a classroom, the professor is in the position of authority owing to their knowledge of the subject and power in assessing student’s work and assigning grades. Regarding faculty–graduate student CSRs, the potential negative impact of this power imbalance may be especially problematic (Richards & Nystrom, 2022). Not only do faculty act as teachers and mentors to graduate students, but the influence faculty members hold in the larger academic community may also directly impact the opportunities graduate students have beyond their IHE (e.g., academic publishing, conference presentations, research funding, post-doctoral positions, and academic employment). It is also noteworthy that the most sought-after faculty mentors are also most often the ones with the greatest power and prestige at their disposal. As Krantz (2022) noted regarding students’ sexual harassment allegations against a prominent Harvard faculty member: “The case raises larger questions about the potential risks of academic hierarchies that are inherently imbalanced, and in which tenured faculty members hold enormous sway over the careers of graduate students they advise” (para. 3). Faculty–graduate student CSRs are further complicated given that faculty may have significant impact on students across their department or even IHE, including students who they do not directly mentor or supervise in any official capacity.

Finally, Mack (1999) also suggested that third parties—students not directly involved in but aware of these relationships—may experience negative consequences from CSRs. It is possible that a CSR may result in real or perceived favoritism of the student involved or a feeling of disadvantage for those not in the CSR (Dixon, 1996; Mack, 1999). In recognition of the complexity of this issue, many IHEs have developed a CSRP.

Consensual Sexual Relationship Policies

CSRPs generally aim to protect the parties involved in CSRs (e.g., students and faculty/staff) as well as to protect the IHE’s educational environment (e.g., third parties, IHE reputation and climate) (Richards et al., 2014; Rhode, 2006). In the U.S., Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, prohibits sex-based discrimination including sexual harassment at all IHEs receiving federal assistance; however, current Title IX guidance notes that harassing conduct must be “. . . so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient's education program or activity . . .” (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2020, p. 30033). As such, behavior that might be perceived as harassing to many individuals on campus may not rise to the level of sexual harassment under Title IX (e.g., single event breast or buttock grabs: not pervasive; sexualized comments about a student’s body: not severe) (see Cipriano et al., 2022; Richards & Rennison, 2022). As such, Richards et al. (2014) suggests that “a consensual sex policy may function as a prudent extension to the sexual harassment policy or as a supplement to the existing policy so there is no gap in protection” (p. 340). While CSRPs often govern both faculty and staff (or other IHE employees) relationships with students, here we will specifically focus on CSRP language pertaining to faculty–student relationships.

Mack (1999) categorized CSRPs as (a) advisory, (b) limited bans, (c) combination advisory and limited bans, and (d) full bans or prohibition policies. Advisory policies warn against CSRs without actually restricting them, while limited bans restrict these relationships in specific contexts—usually when faculty are in a supervisory position, and combination policies ban relationships in specific contexts as well as advise against them in general. Finally, full bans establish blanket prohibitions on CSRs between faculty and students regardless of whether there is supervisory authority held by the faculty member.

Early work by Gossett and Bellas (2002) examined the prevalence rate and type of CSRPs in a sample of 241, 4-year public and private U.S. IHEs included in the 1999 “Faculty Appointment Policy Archive” from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Results showed that 82% of IHEs had no CSRP. The 44 IHEs (18%) that did have a CSRP comprised 19% of sampled private IHEs and 18% of sampled public IHEs. Regarding CSRP type, 16 (7%) discouraged CSRs (i.e., advisory policies), 21 (9%) prohibited CSRs in supervisory situations (i.e., limited bans), and 7 (3%) prohibited CSRs under any circumstances (i.e., prohibitions).

Richards et al. (2014) examined the prevalence rate of CSRPs, type, and content in a stratified sample of public and private 4-year U.S. IHEs (n = 56). Findings first noted that 16% of sampled IHEs did not have a CSRP. Replacement sampling was then completed and 55 IHEs’ CSRPs were assessed for type and content. Findings showed that 82% of CSRPs were advisory policies, 15% were limited bans, and 2% were full prohibitions. Richards et al. also noted that power differentials were discussed in 98% of the policies, 38% discussed faculty or university liability, 44% of CSRPs contained reporting guidelines, and 51% discussed sanctions of some kind for violating the CSRP. Richards & Nystrom (2022) replicated Richards et al.’s earlier work, by reexamining IHEs’ policies 7 years later. Findings showed that 62% of the IHEs had revised their policies during the 7-year period; 18 IHEs had changed their policy type, with 15 of those IHEs adopting a “stricter” policy type regarding faculty–student CSRs. Richards and Nystrom also noted a shift over the 7-year period regarding IHEs specifying faculty member’s legal liability should a CSR result in allegations of harassment or assault.

The existing research on CSRPs has focused solely on samples of 4-year public and/or private institutions, excluding community colleges and minority serving institutions (e.g., HBCUs and TCUs). At the same time, community colleges serve more than 40% of all undergraduate students in the U.S. Community college students are predominantly women, are significantly older on average than the “traditional” college student (i.e., 28 years old on average), and have additional life stressors such as children and/or employment outside of their academic commitments (American Association of Community Colleges, 2020). A majority of Native American and Hispanic undergraduates are enrolled at community colleges as are more than 40% of Black undergraduate students (American Association of Community Colleges, 2020). Furthermore, TCUs and HBCUs primarily educate Native and Black students (National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Post-Education Data System, 2019) and both TCUs and HBCUs, as institutions, were founded with the express purpose of filling an education gap for Native and Black communities. Prior research also notes that community colleges and minority serving institutions—and TCUs in particular—are less resourced when compared to 4-year public and private institutions which may impact efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment (Richards, 2019). Taken together, the omission of community college and minority serving institutions from prior research has resulted in a failure to fully consider the impact of CSRPs on minority students as well as “nontraditional” students.

Current Study

The current study examines a nationally representative sample of U.S. IHEs to determine the prevalence rate of CSRPs and CSRP types and differences across IHE sectors. Additionally, following the work of Richards and Nytrom (2022), this research further examines the context of consent and power differentials in CSRPs. Overall, this work will contribute to a more robust understanding of the nature of CSRPs in the U.S. and shed light on whether IHEs sectors are differently affected by the implementation of CSRPs. The following research questions guided this analysis.

What is the prevalence rate of CSRPs among U.S. IHEs?

Does the use of CSRPs vary across IHE sectors?

What is the prevalence rate of CSRP types among U.S. IHEs?

Does the type of CSRP vary across IHE sectors?

How are the constructs of “consent” and “power differentials” conceptualized in CSRPs among U.S. IHEs?

Methodology

Sample Selection

The sample was drawn from the Campus Sexual Assault Policy Project (CSAPP) data (Richards, 2019). The CSAPP data comprised a nationally representative sample of IHEs in the U.S. that had at least some instruction on a physical campus and were a Title IV participant—an institution that received federal funds and was required to abide by legislation like Title IX and the Clery Act. The CSAPP data were drawn from the 2013 National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) data. The IPEDS survey collects data from U.S. IHEs including institutional characteristics, admission and financial aid data, graduations rates, and more.

Following similar studies (e.g., Karjane et al. 2002), Richards (2019) used a two-stage methodology to develop the CSAPP data. In stage one, all HBCUs (n = 98) and TCUs (n = 34) were identified (n = 132). In the second stage, the remaining schools were divided by sector type and then grouped into seven strata: 4-year (or more) public institutions, 4-year (or more) private nonprofit institutions, 4-year and 2-year private for-profit institutions, 2-year public institutions, 2-year private nonprofit institutions, less than 2-year public and private nonprofit institutions, and less than 2-year private for-profit institutions. Schools were then randomly selected within each individual stratum to represent the strata’s proportion of the population of IHEs; the total sample includes approximately 10% of eligible IHEs. This process produced the CSAPP data (n = 842) which is representative of IHEs by sector type and the total population of HBCUs and TCUs. The working data for the present research includes all 4-year (or more) public institutions, 4-year (or more) private nonprofit institutions, and 2-year public institutions as well as all HBCUs and TCUs in the CSAPP data (n = 450).

Data Collection

Data collection began by locating each IHE’s website and obtaining a copy of their CSRP. A masters level graduate researcher manually searched each IHE’s website using the phrases “faculty to student CSRP,” “consensual sexual relationship,” and “amorous relationship policy.” If no policy was located, these search terms were repeated in a specific search of the faculty handbook and/or IHE’s policy library. This was done to increase the likelihood that a faculty–student CSRP would be found despite variations in policy names and locations on IHE websites (see also Richards & Nystrom, 2022). A copy of each CSRP was saved and uploaded to an Atlas.ti database for analysis.

Missing Data

After an exhaustive search on each IHE’s website, it was determined that two IHEs in the sample closed prior to the beginning of data collection. These schools were 4-year private nonprofit IHEs. Because of their closure, these two IHEs were labeled closed and removed from the working sample. One institution in our sample was duplicated. To correct that issue the second appearance of the school was removed from the sample and replaced with another school from the same strata, 2-year public IHE; this school was randomly selected from IPEDS.

The final working sample (N = 448) consisted of 4-year public (14.5%), 4-year private nonprofit IHEs (34.2%), 2-year public IHEs (22.1%), HBCUs (21.7%), and TCUs (7.6%). A SPSS file was then created that contained the IHE name, state where the IHE was located, 2015 enrollment, IHE sector, CSRP presence, and CSRP type.

Measures

First, using the IPEDs categories, the IHE sector was identified for each IHE (0 = HBCU, 1 = TCU, 2 = 4-year public, 3 = 4-year private nonprofit, 4 = 2-year public). Next, CSRP presence for each IHEs was identified (0 = no, 1 = yes, 2 = undetermined); as previously explained, schools were coded as “undetermined” when their faculty handbooks or policy libraries were not viewable by individuals not associated with the IHE and it was impossible to determine whether the IHE had a CSRP. Then, CSRP type was identified (−99 = no policy, 0 = Advisory, 1 = Limited Ban, 2 = Hybrid Limited Ban and Advisory, 3 = Hybrid Limited Ban and Prohibition, and 4 = Prohibition). Coding for CSRP type was derived from previous work by Mack (1999) as well as from more recent work by Richards and Nystrom (2022), which introduced more nuanced coding that captured the hybridization of two of Mack’s types, that is, Hybrid Limited Ban and Advisory and Hybrid Limited Ban and Prohibition.

Advisory

These CSRPs are the most tolerant of CSRs and generally discourage sexual relationships between faculty and students, but do not disallow such relationships.

Limited Ban

These CRSPs prohibit CSRs, but only when the faculty member has direct academic responsibility for the student such as teaching them in a course or evaluating their thesis.

Hybrid Limited Ban and Advisory

These policies ban relationships where the faculty is in a supervisory role over the student and discourage the relationship when the faculty is not in a supervisory role.

Hybrid Limited Ban and Prohibition

These policies ban consensual relationships between faculty and another category of students in limited circumstances (e.g., a graduate or professional student whom the faculty member has teaching/supervisory authority) and place a full prohibition on consensual relationships between faculty and some students outright (e.g., all undergraduates).

Prohibition

Prohibitory policies ban consensual relationships between faculty and all students outright irrespective of any teaching, grading, or supervisory role held by the faculty member.

Analytic Technique—Qualitative Coding and Analysis

Content analysis was conducted utilizing Atlas.ti (Version 19). Content analysis “requires careful consideration of data to link codes with words or passages within the text to explore overarching themes and/or patterns” (Richards & Nystrom, 2022, p. 1843). Coding was conducted in several stages. First, an initial set of codes regarding CSRP type and whether CSRPs included any discussion of power differentials or consent were developed a priori from previous work by Richards et al. (2014) and Richards & Nystrom (2022). Content analysis may make use of both manifest content “those elements that are physically present and countable” and/or latent content “interpretive reading of the symbolism underlying the physically presented data” (Berg, 2004, p. 229) and both manifest and latent content were analyzed here. Coding latent content was especially important in identifying some CSRP types. For example, advisory policies rarely used the words “advise” or “advisory” and instead noted the “unwise” or “challenging” nature of these. Additionally, in some CSRPs power differentials were discussed in terms of “unequal power” or “uneven power dynamics.”

Next, policies which contained (1) any discussion of power differentials and/or (2) any discussion of consent were further examined. These policies were read several times independently by two coders and a range of emergent codes for the specific elements of consent (e.g., consent changing) and power differentials (e.g., power differences being perceived differently by the involved parties) were identified. These emergent codes were then discussed by the research team and a final set of codes for consent and power differentials were determined. To establish interrater reliability for the final set of codes, just over 10% of polices were independently coded by two researchers and discrepancies were discussed and reconciled.

Analytic Technique—Quantitative Analysis

Chi-square analysis was used to address research questions two and four. Chi-square analysis is the appropriate technique given that the variables of interest are categorical in nature. A chi-square test of independence determines whether the values of one categorical variable depend on the values of another categorical variable. Chi-square analysis was used to estimate the relationship between each dependent variable (i.e., policy presence and CSRP type) and IHE sector: 4-year public IHE, 4-year private nonprofit IHE, 2-year public IHE, HBCU, and TCU. Effect sizes were calculated using Cramer’s V, with larger values indicating a stronger relationship. Alpha was set at p < .05.

Findings

Research question one asked about the prevalence rate of faculty–student CSRPs: 44.4% of sampled IHEs had a faculty–student CSRP while 49.1% of IHEs did not have a faculty–student CSRP; the remaining 6.5% of IHEs were categorized as “undetermined.” IHEs were coded as “undetermined” if the researcher was unable to determine if the institution had a faculty–student CSRP due to password protected handbooks or policy libraries which made locating, or failing to locate, the policies impossible.

Research question two considered whether there was a relationship between the presence of a faculty–student CSRP (i.e., yes, no, undetermined) and IHE sector type (see Table 1). Results showed that for most IHE sectors, a greater percentage of IHEs did not have a CSRP than had a CSRP; 4-year public institutions were the only sector for which there was a greater percentage of IHEs with a faculty–student CRSP (7.6%) than without a CSRP (5.1%). Furthermore, chi-square analysis indicated that there was no significant relationship between having a faculty–student CSRP and IHE sector, χ²(8) = 10.65, p = .22.

Table 1.

Chi-square Analysis Examining the Relationship Between IHE Sector and CSRP Presence (N = 448).

CSRP Presence	4-Year Publicn %		4-Year Private Nonprofitn %		2-Year Publicn %		HBCUn %		TCUsn %		Totaln %		χ²	df	n	p	V
CSRP yes	34	7.58%	65	14.51%	45	10.04%	41	9.15%	14	3.13%	199	44.42%	10.65	8	448	.22	.11
CSRP no	23	5.13%	77	17.18%	48	10.71%	53	11.83%	19	4.24%	220	49.12%
CSRP undetermined	8	1.78%	11	2.46%	6	1.34%	3	0.67%	1	0.22%	29	6.47%

Note. IHE = institution of higher education; CSRP = consensual sexual relationship policy; HBCU = Historically Black Colleges and Universities; TCU = Tribal Colleges and Universities.

Turning to the sample of IHEs for which a CSRP could be located (n = 199), research question three asked which type of faculty–student CSRP was most prevalent. Results indicated that the most utilized type of faculty–student CSRP was limited bans (39.2%). An example of a policy classified as a limited ban reads: “the University prohibits all faculty and staff, including graduate assistants, residents and fellows from pursuing amorous relationships with students whom they currently supervise or teach, or whom they have a reasonable likelihood of supervising or teaching in the future” (Augusta University [Formerly Georgia Regent], 2017, p. 1).

The second most utilized policy type was advisory policies (26.1%), which generally discourage but do not prohibit faculty–student relationships. The advisory policy at one University stated that “. . . for the personal protection of members of this community, relationships in which power differentials are inherent (faculty-student, staff-student, administrator-student, supervisor-employee) are strongly discouraged even in cases of consensual, casual and/or romantic involvement” (Delaware State University, n.d., para. 1).

Prohibition policies were the third most utilized policy type (20.6%). These policies forbid faculty–student CSRs outright. For example, one prohibition policy read,

Romantic and sexual relationships between employees of the College and students are inherently unethical, interfere with the educational mission of the college, and impede the culture of trust and respect at the College and are strictly prohibited; violation of this policy will lead to disciplinary action. (Hamilton College, 2018, para. 2)

The next most utilized CSRP type was the hybrid limited ban and advisory (HLBA) policies (10.1%). HLBA policies prohibit faculty–student CSRs in specific instances, usually when the faculty has supervisory control over the student, and generally discourage these relationships when there is no supervisory control. One example of this type of policy read, “Consensual relationships between employees and students are not recommended or advised. Such consensual relationships are, in fact, prohibited between students and employees with authority” (Gadsen State Community College, 2017, p. 2).

The final CSRP type was a hybrid limited ban and prohibition (HLBP) policy; 4.0% of IHEs used a HLBP. These policies used a limited ban for consensual relationships between faculty and some students, for example, banning relationships with graduate students with whom the faculty member has teaching or supervisory responsibility and placed a full prohibition on consensual relationships between faculty and other students, usually undergraduates. One HLBP policy stated, “The university prohibits Consensual Romantic or Sexual Relationships between Employees and Undergraduate Students. For the purposes of this policy, it is irrelevant whether the Employee is a Supervisor or exercises Academic Responsibilities with respect to the Student,” but later notes, “The university prohibits Consensual Romantic or Sexual Relationships between a Graduate Student and the Student’s Supervisor or any Employee with Academic Responsibilities over the Student” (Rochester Institute of Technology, 2018, p. 2).

Next, the sample of IHEs for which policies were viewable (n = 419) were examined to assess whether there was a relationship between CSRP type and IHE sector. Analysis showed that “no CSRP” was the most prevalent outcome across each sector type: 5.5% of 4-year public IHEs, 18.4% of 4-year private nonprofit IHEs, 11.5% of 2-year public IHEs, 12.7% of HBCUs, and 4.5% of TCUs had no CSRP. Among IHEs with a CSRP in place, results showed that the most prevalent CSRP type across IHE sectors was a limited ban: from 1.7 to 5.5% of IHEs used a limited ban across IHE sectors. Regarding other CSRP types, advisory policies were the second most frequently used policy type at 4-year public, 4-year private nonprofit, and 2-year public IHEs; HBCUs used advisory policies and prohibitions at the same rates (2.1%) and TCUs used prohibitions at a slightly higher rate than advisory policies (0.7 and 0.5%, respectively). Chi-square analysis showed no significant relationship between faculty–student CSRP type and IHE sector, χ² (20) = 15.34, p = .76 (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Chi-square Analysis Examining the Relationship Between IHE Sector and CSRP Type in the Subsample of IHEs Excluding CSRP “Undetermined” IHEs (n = 419).

CSRP Type	4-Year Publicn %		4-Year Private Nonprofitn %		2-Year Publicn %		HBCUn %		TCUsn %		Totaln %		χ²	df	n	p	V
Advisory	10	2.38%	17	4.06%	14	3.34%	9	2.14%	2	0.48%	52	12.41%	15.34	20	419	.76	.10
HLBA	4	0.95%	9	2.14%	4	0.95%	3	0.72%	0	—	20	4.77%
LB	14	3.34%	23	5.49%	15	3.58%	19	4.53%	7	1.67%	78	18.62%
HLBP	1	0.24%	3	0.72%	1	0.24%	1	0.24%	2	0.48%	8	1.91%
Prohibition	5	1.19%	13	3.10%	11	2.63%	9	2.14%	3	0.72%	41	9.79%
No CSRP	23	5.49%	77	18.38%	48	11.46%	53	12.65%	19	4.53%	220	52.51%

Note. HLBA = hybrid limited ban advisory; LB = limited ban; HLBP = hybrid limited ban prohibition; IHE = institution of higher education; CSRP = consensual sexual relationship policy; HBCU = Historically Black Colleges and Universities; TCU = Tribal Colleges and Universities.

Finally, CSRPs were examined for discussions of power differentials and consent. Findings showed that 74.9% of CSRPs (n = 149) included a discussion of power differentials, while 54.3% included a discussion of consent (n = 108), suggesting that these are key features of CSRPs. Further analysis indicated that these concepts were deeply intertwined within the structure of CSRPs, and it was common for these two concepts to be interwoven together in the policy. For example, the policy for Baker University (n.d., para. 1) read, “Although the relationship may appear to be voluntary and consensual, the inequity between the parties in light of their relative positions (power differential) places intellectual and professional trust at risk.”

Further examination of the language surrounding power differentials revealed that 88.4% of the discussions of power differentials included only simple acknowledgement of power differentials. For example, Augustana College in South Dakota has a policy that read, “There are inherent risk in any romantic or sexual relationship between individuals in unequal positions . . .” (n.d., para. 1). Furthermore, 60.8% of the discussions of power differentials identified that the key relationship of interest was the supervisory or evaluative authority that one member of the relationship may have over the other. One TCU policy read,

An employee of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities shall not enter into a consensual relationship with a student or an employee over whom he or she exercises direct or otherwise significant academic, administrative, supervisory, evaluative, counseling, or extracurricular authority or influence (Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College, n.d., para. 1).

The language around power differentials in these policies also revealed that 40.7% of policies that discussed power differentials did so in specific recognition of the potential for abuse that is present in these CSRs. Dillard University’s policy (n.d., para. 1) states “. . . Such relationships, even though ostensibly consensual, can be exploitative, can involve inherent conflicts of interest, and can imperil the integrity of the educational process.” Another IHE acknowledged the potential for abuse by stating “Even when both parties have consented to the relationship, there may be serious concerns about conflicts of interest and unfair treatment of others” (Penn State Berks, n.d., para. 1). Furthermore, 39.2% of examined policies discussed the liability of the faculty member in the relationship. Northwest Missouri State University’s policy read

Where such a relationship exists, the person in the position of greater authority or power will bear the primary burden of accountability and must ensure that he or she—and this is particularly important for teachers—does not exercise any supervisory or evaluation function over the other person in the relationship and must recuse him- or herself immediately from any such function found to exist. (n.d., section A, para. 3)

In addition to discussions of power differentials, language surrounding consent was examined. Consent was discussed in 49.2% of CSRPs. General discussions of consent might read “Consent by the student in such a relationship is regarded as questionable due to the fundamentally unequal nature of the relationship” (Central Washington University, 2017, p. 2, section 2, para. 1). Additional examination of the language around consent revealed two additional themes. First, 21.6% of the discussions of consent acknowledged that consent is fluid and, thus, can change. For example, Glendale Community College’s CSRP read “A consensual sexual relationship may change, with the result that sexual conduct that was once welcome becomes unwelcome and harassing” (n.d., para. 1). Furthermore, there was recognition in 18.1% of CSRPs that consent can be understood differently based on an individual’s role in, and perception of, a relationship. The University of Detroit Mercy’s (n.d., section A, para. 1) CSRP addressed this issue, “These relationships may, moreover, be less consensual than the individual whose position confers power believes. The relationship is likely to be perceived in different ways by each of the parties to it, especially in retrospect.”

Discussion

This study used a nationally representative sample of U.S. IHEs to estimate the prevalence rate of faculty–student CSRPs and examine the relationship between CSRPs and IHE sector type. It also explored the relationship between IHE sector and faculty–student CSRPs and, following prior research by Richards and Nytrom (2022), examined how the constructs of “power differentials” and “consent” are conceptualized in CSRPs. Findings first showed that 44.4% of this national sample of U.S. IHEs, including 4-year public and private IHEs, 2-year public IHEs, HBCUs, and TCUS, had a CSRP. In comparison, an early study examining a sample of 4-year public and private U.S. IHEs in 1999 found that only 18% of IHEs had a CSRP (Gossett & Bellas, 2002). More recently, Richards et al.’s (2014) study found that 84% of the sampled 4-year public and private U.S. IHEs had a CSRP in 2011. Taken together, findings suggest that U.S. IHEs have continued to adopt CSRPs over time, but that IHEs are still more likely not to have a CSRP than to have a policy.

Results further showed that there was no significant relationship between having a CSRP and U.S. IHE sector type; however, 4-year private IHEs, 2-year public IHEs, HBCU’s, and TCUs were all less likely to have a policy than to have a CSRP. Only 4-year public IHEs were more likely to have CSRPs in place (52.3%) than be without a policy (or be unable to determine the CSRP status). No study to date has examined CSRPs among U.S. 2-year public IHEs (i.e., community colleges) or minority serving institutions, but prior research does suggest that community colleges and minority serving institutions have fewer resources to address sexual misconduct (Richards, 2019), most likely due to simply having fewer resources (Yuen, 2020). At community colleges in particular, administrators may not consider sexual harassment and misconduct as problems on their campuses given lower rates of campus risk factors associated with campus sexual violence such as on-campus housing, Greek life, and athletics (American Association of Community Colleges, 2020). Regarding 4-year IHEs specifically, these findings may also reflect unique motivations for 4-year public IHEs to adopt CSRPs or simply a difference in the structure of public IHEs that allow for adoption or change in policies.

Findings also showed that the most common type of CSRP utilized is a limited ban −18.6% of IHEs had a limited ban. These policies explicitly define certain relationships that are prohibited by the IHE (e.g., a faculty member dating a student over whom they have supervisory or evaluative authority), while allowing for faculty–student CSRs outside of those prohibited by policy. This finding may reflect efforts by policy crafters at U.S. IHEs to balance the rights of adults to make individual choices and their mission to provide a safe environment for members of the IHE community. Additionally, in line with previous findings by Richards and Nystrom (2022), the current results support a trend in the implementation of stricter CSRPs: about 35% of IHEs with a CSRP use some type of limited ban or prohibition compared to 12% of IHEs using advisory only policies. As noted by Richards and Nystrom (2022) while restrictions on faculty–student CSRs will not necessarily prevent sexual harassment, they do provide “a uniﬁed campus-wide standard by which faculty should conduct their relationships with students” (p. 16) and by which faculty can be held accountable. Given recent changes in Title IX guidance which raised the threshold for policy violations (i.e., severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive) (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2020, p. 30033), CSRPs may become more important in setting standards for faculty–student relationships on U.S. campuses.

In addition, results showed no significant differences across CSRP type and IHE sector; however, some patterns were noted. Across most U.S. IHE sectors: 4-year public, 4-year private, and 2-year public IHEs, limited bans were the most prevalent type of CSRP, followed by advisory policies. The exceptions to this pattern included minority serving institutions as HBCUs used advisory and prohibition policies at equal rates (after limited bans), and TCUs preferred limited bans followed by prohibitions. As prior research on CSRPs have failed to include community colleges, HBCUs, and TCUs, future research is needed to understand the patterns observed here across community colleges and minority serving institutions. It is notable, however, that community colleges, HBCUs, and TCUs did not significantly differ from 4-year public and private IHEs regarding either their use of a CSRP or the CSRP type. Given the substantial number of students served by these IHEs as well as the concentration of minority students enrolled, future research must examine whether CSRPs are qualitatively different across sector types and make a greater effort to include IHEs across sector types in research on sexual harassment and misconduct broadly. Such examinations will likely benefit from research teams that are inclusive of scholars who are well versed in the missions and cultures of TCUs and HBCUs, and their similarities and differences regarding predominantly White-serving institutions.

Finally, the examination of policy language regarding power differentials and consent revealed some notable findings. First, consistent with prior research (e.g., Richards et al., 2014; Richards & Nystrom, 2022), most CSRPs incorporated discussions of power differentials and consent into their policy language. This finding provides evidence that policy makers at IHEs across sectors recognize that these are key factors that underpin the potential for harm presented by CSRs. For example, discussions of power differentials centered on the concepts of “supervisory” or “evaluative” authority rather than specific roles on campus. This is a departure from previous work by Richards and Nystrom (2022) which noted differences in prohibition policies’ application to undergraduate and graduate students such that policies would prohibit faculty–undergraduate student CSRs but use limited bans for faculty–graduate student CSRs. The present study did not observe such “carve outs” in prohibition policies regarding graduate students. Finding that graduate students are provided equal protection in CSRPs is noteworthy given continued research acknowledging the increased likelihood of faculty sexual harassment of graduate students at U.S. IHEs (e.g., Klein & Martin, 2019) and the potential for far-reaching negative impacts of such harassment (see Richards & Nystrom, 2022).

Discussions of power differentials also centered on the potential for coercion or abuse in faculty–student CSRs that could result in allegations of sexual misconduct. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating that acknowledging risk of liability is a key feature of many CSRPs (Richards et al., 2014). Of note, discussions of liability often centered on faculty liability, specifically that the faculty member holds the burden of proof should a CSR result in allegations of sexual misconduct and/or third-party harassment (see also Richards & Nystrom, 2022). Taken together these findings highlight IHEs’ need to balance policies that protect against the potential dangers of CSRs, but also while also attempting to leave individual rights intact.

Regarding consent, just under half of CSRPs in this sample discussed consent. Policy language on consent included acknowledgements that consent can change over time, for example, a relationship may begin consensually and then over time no longer be consensual, can be viewed differently by different parties in a relationship, and that power differentials likely impact one’s real or perceived ability to withdrawal consent. These nuanced discussions of consent are consistent with previous findings from studies on CSRPs using more limited samples (e.g., Richards & Nystrom, 2022) and are in line with other trends regarding understanding consent in the context of IHE sexual misconduct policies (e.g., the use of afﬁrmative consent policies). At the same time, such discussions of consent are unlikely to be fully understood through policy language alone and should be incorporated into larger sexual harassment and misconduct prevention programming on campus. As noted by previous research (e.g., Richards et al., 2014; Richards & Nystrom, 2022), CSRPs were not consistently named or easily located across this sample of U.S. IHEs. CSRPs are only useful if campus community members know about, understand, and have easy access to them. For a small portion of IHEs, it was not possible to even determine whether the IHE had a CSRP because their policies could not be accessed by individuals outside of the institution. It is unclear why any IHE’s CSRP would not be publicly available like the IHE’s sexual assault misconduct policy per the Clery Act (1991); however, future research might consider attempting to access closed policies through individual requests of IHEs’ Human Resources Departments.

It should be noted that the current analysis cannot be generalized to IHEs outside of the United States. We recognize that academic discussions and empirical research on sexual harassment of college students including faculty–student sexual harassment are underway in countries across the globe, for example, in Australia (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2017), Ghana and Tanzania (Morley, 2011), and the United Kingdom (Bull & Page, 2021; Carter & Jeffs, 1995). Future research may benefit from cross country comparisons of CSRPs to fully unpack the scope of policies and their potential implications. Further, examination of the efficacy of CSRPs regarding student and faculty perceptions of campus climate as well as level of enforcement of CSRPs was beyond the scope of this study. While prior studies have examined student and faculty understanding and support for CSRPs (e.g., Crittenden et al. 2021), future research might examine the relationship between faculty and student’s understanding of CSRPs and reports on campus climate. Finally, potential relationships between CSRP type and reports of faculty-on-student sexual harassment to Title IX coordinators could be explored. Future research might also attempt to glean information regarding enforcement and sanctions for policy violations through media reports. At the time of writing, for example, the firing of the President of the University of Michigan for violating their CSRP was widely covered by media outlets (e.g., Anderson, 2022; Sarkar, 2022). Such future research would help this line of inquiry move beyond an ethical debate about if these policies should exist and begin to develop and advance a set of best practices for CSRPs.

Conclusion

The present research found that overall, the majority of IHEs do not have a CSRP, and there are no significant differences in the prevalence rate of CSRPs across sector types including among community colleges and minority serving institutions. Among IHEs with a CSRP, the most common type of CSRP is a limited ban which aims to strike a balance between individual rights and the safety and climate of the campus community; however, more than 20% of IHEs’ CSRPs included a prohibition on at least some CSRs. Given increasing recognition regarding faculty-on-student sexual harassment, it is likely that more IHEs will adopt CSRPs and/or move to stricter policy types. As such, research must move towards assessing the impact of CSRPs on perceptions of safety and climate as well as the enforcement of CSRPs and sanctions for violations.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iD

Tara N. Richards

Author Biographies

Alyssa Nystrom is a doctoral student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (SCCJ) at the University of Nebraska Omaha and a research assistant in SCCJ’s Victimology and Victim Studies Research Lab. Her research is centered in victimology, with recent articles appearing in Race and Justice Journal and Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Tara N. Richards is a distinguished associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (SCCJ) at the University of Nebraska Omaha and a faculty lead in SCCJ’s Victimology and Victim Studies Research Lab. She received her PhD in criminology from the University of South Florida. Her research is centered in victimology, with recent articles appearing in Psychology of Violence, Criminology & Public Policy, and Justice Evaluation Journal.

References

American Association of Community Colleges. (2020). AACC fast facts 2020. https://www.higheredtoday.org/2020/04/20/2020-community-college-snapshot/

Anderson

(2022, January 16). University of Michigan president fired after probe into alleged affair with a subordinate. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/01/16/mark-schlissel-fired-university-michigan/

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2017). Change the course: National report on sexual assault and sexual harassment at Australian universities. AHRC_2017_ChangeTheCourse_UniversityReport.pdf

Bellas

M. L.

Gossett

J. L.

(2001). Love or the “lecherous professor”: CSRs between professors and students. The Sociological Quarterly, 42(4), 529–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2001.tb01779.x

Berg

(2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Blevins-Knabe

(1992). The ethics of dual relationships in higher education. Ethics & Behavior, 2(3), 151–163.

Bull

Page

(2021) Students’ accounts of grooming and boundary-blurring behaviours by academic staff in UK higher education. Gender and Education 33(8), 1057–1072. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2021.1884199.

Campbell

J. C.

Sabri

Budhathoki

Kaufman

M. R.

Alhusen

Decker

M. R.

(2021). Unwanted sexual acts among university students: Correlates of victimization and perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), NP504–NP526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517734221

Carter

Jeffs

(1995). A very private affair: Sexual exploitation in higher education. Education Now Books.

10.

Chuck

(2022, February 10). Harvard ignored sexual harassment by a professor for years, lawsuit claims. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/harvard-ignored-sexual-harassment-professor-years-lawsuit-claims-rcna15490

11.

Cipriano

A. E.

Holland

K. J.

Bedera

Eagan

S. R.

Diede

A. S.

(2022). Severe and pervasive? Consequences of sexual Harassment for graduate students and their Title IX report outcomes. Feminist Criminology, 17(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851211062579

12.

Crittenden

C. A.

Gimlin

A. M.

Bennett

Garland

T. S.

(2021). Exploring faculty and students’ attitudes about consensual sexual relationships and sexual harassment on college campuses. Educational Policy, 35(1), 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818810522

13.

Dixon

(1996). The morality of intimate faculty-student relationships. The Monist, 79(4), 519–535.

14.

Fedina

Holmes

J. L.

Backes

B. L.

(2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016631129

15.

Gluckman

Read

Mangan

Quilantan

(2018, January 10). Sexual harassment and assault in higher ed: What’s happened since Weinstein. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Sexual-HarassmentAssault/241757

16.

Gossett

J. L.

Bellas

M. L.

(2002) You can't put a rule around people's hearts . . . can you?: Consensual relationships policies in academia. Sociological Focus, 35(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2002.10570703

17.

Howard

R. M.

Potter

S. J.

Guedj

C. E.

Moynihan

M. M.

(2019). Sexual violence victimization among community college students. Journal of American College Health, 67(7), 674–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.1500474

18.

Jafar

(2003). Consent or coercion? Sexual relationships between college faculty and students. Gender Issues, 21(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-003-0021-0

19.

Karjane

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

(2002). Campus sexual assault: How America’s institutions of higher education respond (Final Report, NIJ Grant # 1999-WA VX-0008). Education Development Center.

20.

Klein

L. B.

Martin

S. L.

(2019). Sexual harassment of college and university students: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(4), 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019881731

21.

Klein

L. B.

Stoner

M. C. D.

Bhushan

N. L.

Mulholland

G. E.

Fisher

B. S.

Kupper

L. L.

Alam

I. Z.

Martin

S. L.

(2022). Sexual harassment of students at institutions of higher education: Variations in students’ experiences, knowledge, and perceptions across institutions. Feminist Criminology, 17(3), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/15570851211062572

22.

Krantz

(2022 February, 9). Three graduate students file sexual harassment suit against prominent Harvard anthropology professor. The Boston Globe. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/08/metro/3-graduate-students-file-sexual-harassment-suit-against-prominent-harvard-anthropology-professor/

23.

Mack

M. H.

(1999). Regulating sexual relationships between faculty and students. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 6, 79. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=mjgl

24.

Morley

(2011) Sex, grades and power in higher education in Ghana and Tanzania. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.549453.

25.

National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Post-Education Data System (2019). https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds\

26.

Paludi

M. A.

(1990). Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus. State University of New York Press.

27.

Rhode

D. L.

(2006). The professional ethics of professors. Journal of Legal Education, 56(1), 70–85.

28.

Richards

T. N.

Goldsmith

Branscum

(2022). Sexual misconduct in Maryland’s institutions of higher education. Submitted to the Maryland Higher Education Commission.

29.

Richards

T. N.

Nystrom

(2022). Examining faculty-to-student consensual sexual relationship policies on campus: Have there been changes in the era of# MeToo. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), NP1835–NP1859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520926319

30.

Richards

T. N.

(2019). No evidence of “weaponized Title IX” here: An empirical assessment of sexual misconduct reporting, case processing, and outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 43(2), 108–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000316

31.

Richards

T. N.

Crittenden

Garland

T. S.

McGuffee

(2014). An exploration of policies governing faculty-to-student CSRs on university campuses: current strategies and future directions. Journal of College Student Development, 55(4), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0043

32.

Richards

T. N.

Rennison

C. M.

(2022). Title IX and yellow zone behavior: An introduction to the special issue. Feminist Criminology, 17(3), 315–321.

33.

Sabina

L. Y.

(2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 201–226. https://doi/10.1177/1524838014521322

34.

Sarkar

(2022, January 17). University of Michigan president fired over inappropriate relationship with employee. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michigan-university-mark-schlissel-relationship-b1994405.html

35.

Sullivan

(2004). Perceptions of consensual amorous relationship policies (CARPS). Journal of College and Character, 5(8), 1940–1639. https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1395

36.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1972).

37.

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2020, May 19). Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. 34 CFR Part 106 [Docket ID ED–2018–OCR–0064] RIN 1870–AA14 Federal Register 85, 97, 30026–30579.

38.

Yoon

Funk

R. S.

Kropf

N. P.

(2010). Sexual harassment experiences and their psychological correlates among a diverse sample of college women. Journal of Women & Social Work, 25(1), 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109909354979

39.

Yuen

(2020, October 7). The $78 billion community college funding shortfall. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/78-billion-community-college-funding-shortfall/

40.

Augusta College. (2017). Amorous relationships. https://www.augusta.edu/compliance/policyinfo/policy/amorous-relationships.pdf

41.

Baker University. (n.d.). Consensual relationships. https://www.bakeru.edu/compliance-reporting/

42.

Central Washington University. (2017). Conflict of interest in relationships. https://www.cwu.edu/resources-reports/cwup-2-40-070-conflict-interest-relationships

43.

Delaware State University. (n.d.). Policy expectations with respect to consensual relationships. https://www.desu.edu/sites/flagship/files/document/31/one_policy_one_process.pdf

44.

Dillard University. (n.d.). Discrimination, harassment, professional misconduct. http://dillard.catalog.acalog.com/content.php?catoid=3&navoid=20

45.

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College. (n.d.). Consensual relationships. https://www.minnstate.edu/board/policy/1b01.html

46.

Gadsen State Community College. (2017). Consensual relationships involving employees with authority. https://www.gadsdenstate.edu/skins/userfiles/files/GSCC%20Harassment%20Policy.pdf

47.

Hamilton College. (2018). Consensual relations with students policy. https://my.hamilton.edu/offices/afs/policies

48.

Northwest Missouri State University (n.d.). Consensual amorous relationships. https://www.nwmissouri.edu/hr/PDF/EEO.PDF

49.

Pennsylvania State University—Penn State Berks. (n.d.). Statement on sexual harassment. https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=008764984120410162534:1e5_y56j5ry&q=https://berks.psu.edu/content/2017-faculty-handbook-word&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiknqiWoLz2AhVvj4kEHcT7BloQFnoECAMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3iRJXKOFO1f96RBe–VL8d

50.

Rochester Institute of Technology (2018). Policy on consensual romantic or sexual relationships. https://www.rit.edu/academicaffairs/policiesmanual/c230#:~:text=The%20university%20prohibits%20Consensual%20Romantic,with%20respect%20to%20the%20Student

51.

University of Detroit Mercy (n.d.). Consensual relationships. https://www.udmercy.edu/faculty-staff/hr/files/Sexual_Harassment_Policy.pdf