One of King’s biggest assets is its ability to foster community. It’s a unique school. And it means you might become friends with your professors due to our close quarters and small classes. Between classes, research, excursions and workshops, you may spend long stretches of time together. 

In most cases, this is a great learning opportunity and is beneficial to students and faculty alike. We can bounce ideas off each other, seek out academic support or career mentors and foster connections within our fields of study. The proximity of these relationships makes the King’s community stronger and more supportive. It sets us apart from other universities. 

That being said, sometimes these relationships can go awry. The King’s community is scarred with the trauma of manipulative abuses of power. The wound is deep and has informed the structure of the school itself. In 2023, the results of an inquiry into former professor Wayne Hankey’s history of sexual abuse found King’s responsible for neglecting to do its due diligence in preventing these incidents. King’s is no stranger to the insidious nature of unchecked power dynamics between students and staff.

Despite our school’s history, there is no ban on student-faculty relationships at King’s. They are, however, “strongly discouraged.” I argue that this policy does not protect students as it claims to. Rather, it protects faculty from any consequences while acknowledging the stigma and social consequences students will face. 

The following can be found in the Cultivating Healthy Relations with Students A Faculty and Staff Guide on the policies page of the King’s website: 

“Mindful of the ways in which prohibitions or bans have the potential to further entrench the coercive nature of such relationships, the King’s community has chosen to adopt practices of discouragement and protective measures across all its policy documents, to reduce the risk of harm rather than implement an outright ban.”

At the same time, it recognizes that the power imbalance means that no relationship can be consensual: 

“Any time a student could reasonably think that assessment of their work, support for their academic achievement, funding, or career opportunities depend upon a romantic or sexual relationship, there is no consent.” 

This language could apply to any member of staff, as they are connected to the institution of King’s upon which the students rely for all these things, as well as housing, food and community. 

These guidelines recognize that an authority figure can use institutional consequences to manipulate students into protecting them. It says bans can “further entrench the coercive nature of such relationships.” It’s true that a faculty member could use the prospect of losing their job to force students into silence. A ban could push the relationship into secrecy so the victim has no one to turn to for support.

The policy recognized multiple times that these relationships are inappropriate and are “strongly discouraged” without any actual consequences outlined, but it does state relationships will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 

The policy says these relationships “should generally be avoided,” meaning there is a social stigma.  The frowning-upon of these relationships admits an interpersonal consequence. They are still a taboo and shamed in public. By recognizing and upholding this reality, the policy assumes that institutional disciplinary actions are the only consequences that can be used to manipulate people into silence. 

Social consequences, judgement from peers and other faculty, are quite powerful consequences. Without a ban in place, the consequences remain on the student. They will deal with the looks, rumours and judgements. 

Without a ban, the potential for forced secrecy still exists, but students have no safety net in terms of policy to fall back on. There’s no guaranteed action for the abuse of power. 

I don’t think a ban of student-faculty relationships would inhibit the closeness of the existing relationships at King’s. By holding faculty accountable for potential wrongdoing, I think our culture could continue to thrive while providing students with some peace of mind.

Other universities like Oxford, the model which King’s is based on, have outlined bans in their policies on relationships between students and faculty where the staff has direct responsibility for the student. Oxford’s ban was put into effect April 17, 2023.

If Kings’ policy already risks silencing victims and acknowledges the absence of consent, why not ban them entirely?