Sun 6 Feb 2005
The Yale Herald reports that freshmen counselors (seniors who are paid by Yale) are forbidden to become romantically involved with freshmen. If they do, they are fired. But
[a]t Williams College, Junior Advisors (Williams’ version of the freshman counselor program) are discouraged from having relationships with their freshmen, but are not punished for doing so. The prevailing mentality is that if a relationship happens, there is nothing that can be done to stop or prevent it. There are no official ramifications —- just the embarrassment of exposing oneself to the judgment of fellow students. But Jumi Song ‘05, a former JA, insists that it rarely happens because, “It is very much a self-regulating system in that the entire community frowns upon it. It can be seen as an abuse of power because they are looked upon as role models.” Adds Tseli Mohammed ‘06, a current JA, “The JA Selection Committee generally picks people who can make the right choice.”
Hmmm. I seem to remember that, back in the day, this was an official, albeit sotto voce, policy. If it isn’t, shouldn’t it be? I think that if a JA sleeps with a first year, he has demonstrated such a profound lack of good judgment that his ability to handle other aspects of JA’ness is called into question. Why keep him on as a JA when there are so many excellent candidates to replace him with?
I don’t believe that he should be punished or fined for this transgression, but he certainly does not deserve to stay in a position in which first year women look to him for guidance and advice.
Empirical question: How many JA’s have become romantically involved with first years this school year?
But it is not simply some idealistic faith in the JAs that keeps this system operating. The issue that sets Williams apart from Yale is one of liability. Part of the reason that the Williams administration does not enforce binding regulations on its JA is that the JAs are not technically employees of the college, because they are not compensated in any way for their work. Conversely, Yale freshman counselors are University employees because they receive, as a factor of how many freshmen they are in charge of, a certain discount on their room and board.
Every decade or so, the issue of paying JAs comes up. Fortunately, it is shot down everytime, although the most recent call was too close for my taste.
The problem with paying JA’s is not, of course, that they don’t deserve the money or that the services that they provide aren’t worth anything. In fact, they are easily 50 of the most important students on campus. The problem with paying them is that their relationship to both the dean’s office and to their entries would change, and not for the better. Moreover, the subset of people applying for the position would change, also not in a good way.
I suspect that some of the problems associated with the new CLC/HC system are not unconnected to the (modest) salaries associated with these roles.
February 6th, 2005 at 9:44 am
I agree about not paying JAs.
A bit of ‘88 trivia — one of our ‘88 classmates is married to one of the freshmen from the entry she JA’d.
February 6th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Why would you automatically assume that if a JA was in a relationship with a freshman, the JA would be male and the freshman would be female? Twice in your post you made that assumption. I’m sure you didn’t mean anything by it, but it does implicitly reinforce a power structure I think we’d both agree we’re trying to get away from.
February 6th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
A Male JA of my acquaintance dated 2 of his freshmen… but not until after winter study.
February 6th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Two things: JA’s and their first years generally enforce this rule upon themselves. When they don’t, it’s usually for more than just a meaningless hookup, at least from what I’ve seen.
One of my closest friends had a long term relationship with one of her JA’s in her first year. They were so considerate so as to ask the other JA if they could admit to the entry that they were seeing each other. Needless to say, it was a hot topic in gossip circles for some time to come.
In any case, your whole argument, perhaps unintentionally, assumes that the male JA is always in the power position. Granted, some of these first years may be inexperienced when it comes to intimate relations and how to play the game, but come on, are you seriously implying that these first years are the victims? It takes two.
The conflict of interest is marginal and blown out of proportion, in my opinion.
February 6th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Hey now, JAs are people too. The only way you can get people to stay away from other people they like is if you pay them or castrate them. Forced castrations are illegal and we aren’t being paid, so that about sums up the idea for you.
When you ask the question “Why keep him on as a JA when there are so many excellent candidates to replace him with?” I wonder if you considered what it would be like for an entry to have their JA replaced halfway through the year because *he* (just keeping with your imposed gender roles here) slept with a freshman at some point in time while *he* was a JA. I’ll tell you this much: it would suck.
February 6th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Let me ignore the male/female issue for a moment. Do Dave R and Esa (DE) really disagree with me? JA Tseli Mohammed ‘06 claims that “The JA Selection Committee generally picks people who can make the right choice.” What do DE make of this quote? I understand it to mean that there are situations in which a junior who is not a JA might reasonably sleep with a first year, but in which another male junior (identical except for the fact that he is a JA) should not. Making the “right choice” as a JA means avoiding romantic relationships that would otherwise be unobjectionable if one were not a JA.
If this is not the correct interpretation of Mohammed’s remarks, then I would like to know what is.
The first step in this discussion is to establish whether or not Mohammed’s claim about right choices is correct. That is, would DE agree that there are certain circumstances in which a JA’s romantic involvement with a first year — a first year in his own entry, a first year going through some emotional turmoil, a first year whom he is not really that interested in as a person but whom he is very interested in sleeping with — would be objectionable enough to cause that JA to be removed, even though that exact same behavior by, say, a fellow first year — while morally troubling — would not lead to any sanction. That is, may we reasonably demand more from JAs?
Once we have established this bedrock principle, then we can discuss exactly how and where to apply it. Esa’s comments on entry disruption are well-taken. But perhaps DE have, not just a problem with me, but also a problem with Mohammed, maybe even with the JA Selection Committee. Perhaps they believe that there is nothing wrong with the JA that Lowell cites above who had sex with two of the first years in his entry in one semester.
Clarification of this point would be much appreciated.
February 7th, 2005 at 1:02 am
I will play no part in establishing the bedrock principle that male JA’s who sleep with their defenseless female first years should be sanctioned. Ignoring the whole gender thing, yes, there is something objectionable about one person sleeping with another person in the midst of emotional turmoil.
Now then, is there reason to believe that it is more objectionable for a JA, someone in something of a power position, for weak and impressionable first years in his/her entry to sleep with their froshies in the same situation? I think so. Should we have a moral police in place to remove JA’s from ‘power’ if they commit such an offense? Give me a break.
I think this whole issue is blown out of proportion. If you want to be the person to ask the involved parties whether the JA has taken advantage of the first year for the purpose of meaningless sex, then by all means, go for it. Do you seriously believe that something like this is feasible, or even necessary?
Let’s assume that you could clearly point out instances in which a first year was obviously taken advantage of by their JA. Should we take away their JA-ness? Do you really think the best course of action is to remove them from the entry and replace them with someone else from the JA pool?
Imagine that halfway through the year, a JA is removed from their post and replaced by someone else. What does this do to the entry dynamic? Does it really make a difference? Keep in mind, the importance of the JA in terms of daily life–as your first year wears on–diminishes greatly. What would the replacement gain by being thrust into living with a group of first years that don’t really need him/her around anymore?(other than for trips to Walmart, and in certain cases, booze runs) Who wins in this situation? Does the victim feel vindicated? Does the replacement have a warm fuzzy feeling inside from being around 18/19 year olds still marginally green behind the ears? Does the offending JA feel remorse for such an act?
By the time it is known that such a transgression has taken place, the offending party is vilified by the entire campus within 38 minutes. Gossip travels like wildfire, especially within the same class. What more punishment could you ask for? Can you imagine the headlines on the Record?
“JA Booted for Lying to Get Some”
Yes, yes, this is exactly what the JA deserves. Or maybe you could just forego this entire exercise by following one of Esa’s proposals, namely: castrate all JA’s. Seems silly to me.
From what I’ve seen personally, the JA selection committee puts ridiculously long hours into these decisions, and it shows. The fact that such an act–entry ‘incest’ at its worst–is so taboo only reinforces the fact that this will rarely ever happen. Thus creating a system for investigating such activity and handing out punishments seems mildly ridiculous to me.
February 7th, 2005 at 7:50 am
I never said he had sex with both of them, although that’s not an unreasonable assumption, because to be quite honest, I don’t know and I didn’t ask because it was none of my business what (or whom) he did in the bedroom.
I said he dated 2 of them; I’d have a lot more problem with what he did if it were merely 2 one-night drunkenly-trying-to-get-ass, love-’em-and-leave-’em hookups. And to be quite honest, he really did care for both of them, at least enough to find out if they worked as a couple, and he got the permission of both his co-JA and the others in the entry before each relationship.
But just like my opinion on the CUL paternalism, freshmen can and should make and learn from their own mistakes (provided they’re 18+, of course). Sleeping with a JA is a far cry from a professor, both because of the usual ~2 year age gap, which is fine, and because a JA is an advisor. If it were a college with RA’s, people with an affirmative duty to discipline and control the students, then it might be a problem. However, a JA’s role is advisory, and a JA has no actual power over his or her freshmen.
Consequently, I feel the the taboo and the social stigma accompanying JA/frosh relationships are more than sufficient to deal with the “problem”.
February 7th, 2005 at 8:46 am
I have two empirical questions:
Again, all I am trying to understand is, first, the magnitude of the “problem.” If only 1 JA becomes involved with 1 first year every 5 years then, obviously, there is not a problem. If 10 JA’s become involved with 20 first years every year, then I would be concerned. Second, I want to establish that, comments about castration and moral police not withstanding, that whatever Yale does could be done at Williams. Whether or not that would be desirable is another question.
February 7th, 2005 at 9:30 am
A few interesting points from the linked article.
1) Yale’s “counselors” are forbidden from having romantic relationships with *any* freshman, not just “their” freshmen, which strikes me as a bit silly.
2) In this academic year, 2 Yale counselors have been dismissed from their posts for breaking the no-froshing rule.
From my own recollection (now over 10 years ago), intraentry JA/frosh hookups were rare, and those that happened tended not to be sleazy, so I never perceived it as a problem. I can’t imagine how the issue of payment matters, at least with respect to romantic involvement. Certainly the fact that Yale pays its counselors hasn’t acted as a deterrent to froshing around…
3) Yale’s counselors are strictly forbidden from buying alcohol for freshmen and from drinking with freshmen. In fact, they’re supposed to discourage their frosh from drinking by, among other things, informing hosts of parties that there are frosh present and that they shouldn’t be served drinks.
Now THAT would be a change from Williams JA culture…
February 7th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Give me first years or give me death! Heh, just kidding…
But seriously, the fact that I think I probably know who Lowell has been referring to tells you that it really isn’t a very big problem. The instances in which JA’s hook up with his/her froshies are very few and far between.
The few times that there are JA/frosh relations, they seem to be the more considerate, “I’m going to ask my entry or my co-JA if this is okay first”, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. To ban JA/frosh relations because of the remote possibility seems silly. To follow Yale’s example of banning JA’s from having relations with any frosh seems even sillier.
The solution is to question the illegality of forced castrations!
February 7th, 2005 at 10:36 am
Dave R - really? That’s odd, as you were never on campus at the same time.
February 7th, 2005 at 11:55 am
Yeah, well, it helped that the guy in question was a rugby player (am I right?), and I’m on the rugby team.
February 7th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
Not the one I’m thinking of, as far as I know, as he didn’t do club sports. But perhaps there are others with a similar M.O.
February 7th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Let’s get our minds out of the gutter for a moment. Romantic relationships do not *always* have to be about sex, you fornicating hedonists! Now, that said, of course if we had a frosh and JA banging around the entry, that would be a pretty disgusting/revolting thing. This happened my freshman year between a JA and his frosh in another entry (over in the Odd Quad, where odd things happen) and most of the entry really resented them both for it. But discrete, romantic JA-frosh relationships just don’t bother me that much to say that there should be any rule barring them.
So to answer David, yes I agree with you that there is something wrong with a JA sleeping around with frosh in the same entry. I would be quite disturbed to have such behavior occur in my entry for very much the same reasons you might be. However, given the type of relationships I have personally seen between some JAs and their frosh (flirting, PDA etc.) all in the name of “(s)he’s my frosh” it makes me realize that a close, loving, romantic relationship really might be a less awkward and less revolting scenario than what, by the current self-imposed rules, are theoretically acceptable.
February 8th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Perhaps we are iterating toward agreement. Would anyone object if the JA Selection Committee asked, during the interview process, the following questions of all candidates:
Presumably, there is nothing wrong with asking this question. Who could object?
Of course, I am being somewhat sly here. I would guess that the JA selection committe would look very askance (as well they should!) at any applicant who said that such relationships were okey-dokey. I would expect such applicants to be mostly rejected. I would expect applicants to learn/predict this fact and adjust their answers accordingly.
We would soon be in the happy world in which every JA had claimed — honestly or not — to be against such relationships. In that world, a JA who still dates first years — much less first years in his entry, much less two first years in his entry — would be both a bad person (my view) and a liar (given what he claimed to the selection committee). This would (perhaps) make possible removal much more palatable for all concerned.
But surely no one could object to the JA Selection Committee asking those questions . . .
February 8th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Object? How else will the selection committee fill the ranks of JAs with lecherous WUFO players? This could cause the collapse of society as we know it!