[TrumpCard]

How often do affairs happen and go unreported?

https://padailypost.com/2024/07/13/counc...-stanford/

[TrumpCard]

How often do affairs happen and go unreported?

https://padailypost.com/2024/07/13/counc...-stanford/

[Nan3cy]

My guess is a lot, but probably a lot less than back when we were in school… (That’s pure speculation.)

[Nan3cy]

My guess is a lot, but probably a lot less than back when we were in school… (That’s pure speculation.)

[TrumpCard]

Nan3cy, is your speculation specific to Stanford?  Based on the 2013 change in rules governing faculty conduct?  Or is your speculation about general societal trends, including in response to #metoo?  Is there decent data on the societal trends, or is data collection/comparison over time too difficult to allow for meaningful conclusions?  I would like to think the world is bending in the right direction here, but I have no strong sense whether that is happening or not.

[TrumpCard]

Nan3cy, is your speculation specific to Stanford?  Based on the 2013 change in rules governing faculty conduct?  Or is your speculation about general societal trends, including in response to #metoo?  Is there decent data on the societal trends, or is data collection/comparison over time too difficult to allow for meaningful conclusions?  I would like to think the world is bending in the right direction here, but I have no strong sense whether that is happening or not.

[M T]

Taking the question somewhat seriously in terms of actually looking for an answer, I didn't quickly find a direct answer or survey.  (I don't know of anyone who has confided in me personally about such an affair.)

It is somewhat arbitrary what buckets we categorize people into.  To me, the distinction between a 12th grade student and a college freshman is somewhat narrow.  A 30-year-old grad student, perhaps twice married, is far different. Likewise, consider a 23yo T.A.  Obviously coaches (school, club, college) are in a similar situation as professors, and we've heard many reports about abuse by coaches.  Then there are others in power that might abuse those under their guidance or control (business, military, government, church, psychologist, guru).  We've heard a lot about show business, and, of course, a very infamous government case.

In terms of pre-college students & their teachers/coaches,  this blog entry had disturbing numbers for data from 2015 -- 7% of 8th-11th grade students surveyed "reported having had physical sexual contact from an adult (most often a teacher or coach)" (Obvious caveats: self-selection by respondents?, does this include other adults (e.g. relatives), how was "most often" determined).  Unfortunately, I didn't quickly find the details at that blog's apparent source so consider those numbers as unconfirmed.

I noticed a couple of related Sep. 2021 opinions (1, 2) in the NYTimes, but I don't have access to that source.  I found this 1993 "Boundary Issues in Teacher-Student Relationships" that seemed appropriate for the issues (but no numbers).  Also see these policies or findings: 
Harvard
Yale
McGill University.

Both in grade school and college, the relationship between teachers and students is critical to the development of a student.  In searching this topic, I found an equal number of articles on how important that relationship was (for instance, here).  Both for immature and mature people, relationships can get fuzzy and complicated, but that is no excuse.

[M T]

Taking the question somewhat seriously in terms of actually looking for an answer, I didn't quickly find a direct answer or survey.  (I don't know of anyone who has confided in me personally about such an affair.)

It is somewhat arbitrary what buckets we categorize people into.  To me, the distinction between a 12th grade student and a college freshman is somewhat narrow.  A 30-year-old grad student, perhaps twice married, is far different. Likewise, consider a 23yo T.A.  Obviously coaches (school, club, college) are in a similar situation as professors, and we've heard many reports about abuse by coaches.  Then there are others in power that might abuse those under their guidance or control (business, military, government, church, psychologist, guru).  We've heard a lot about show business, and, of course, a very infamous government case.

In terms of pre-college students & their teachers/coaches,  this blog entry had disturbing numbers for data from 2015 -- 7% of 8th-11th grade students surveyed "reported having had physical sexual contact from an adult (most often a teacher or coach)" (Obvious caveats: self-selection by respondents?, does this include other adults (e.g. relatives), how was "most often" determined).  Unfortunately, I didn't quickly find the details at that blog's apparent source so consider those numbers as unconfirmed.

I noticed a couple of related Sep. 2021 opinions (1, 2) in the NYTimes, but I don't have access to that source.  I found this 1993 "Boundary Issues in Teacher-Student Relationships" that seemed appropriate for the issues (but no numbers).  Also see these policies or findings: 
Harvard
Yale
McGill University.

Both in grade school and college, the relationship between teachers and students is critical to the development of a student.  In searching this topic, I found an equal number of articles on how important that relationship was (for instance, here).  Both for immature and mature people, relationships can get fuzzy and complicated, but that is no excuse.

[TrumpCard]

Taking the question somewhat seriously in terms of actually looking for an answer . . . .

Admittedly, my initial post was rhetorical.  I assumed that affairs happen a lot, I assumed that it's unknowable exactly how often affairs take place, and I didn't really consider whether the number decreased in recent years.

After Nan3cy's response, however, I reflected.  I realized that there might be data, even if flawed in some respects, that addresses whatever social changes may have occurred in power-imbalanced sexual relationships in recent years.  I am not confident is saying that there have or haven't been real changes, but I'm open to believing that #metoo did precipitate change.  I'm hopeful that my daughters will be able to navigate through life more easily than women did in my generation.

[TrumpCard]

Taking the question somewhat seriously in terms of actually looking for an answer . . . .

Admittedly, my initial post was rhetorical.  I assumed that affairs happen a lot, I assumed that it's unknowable exactly how often affairs take place, and I didn't really consider whether the number decreased in recent years.

After Nan3cy's response, however, I reflected.  I realized that there might be data, even if flawed in some respects, that addresses whatever social changes may have occurred in power-imbalanced sexual relationships in recent years.  I am not confident is saying that there have or haven't been real changes, but I'm open to believing that #metoo did precipitate change.  I'm hopeful that my daughters will be able to navigate through life more easily than women did in my generation.

[martyup]

In 1962 at Faber College, Boon's girlfriend had an affair with her English professor and Otter had a fling with Dean Wormer's wife.

[martyup]

In 1962 at Faber College, Boon's girlfriend had an affair with her English professor and Otter had a fling with Dean Wormer's wife.

[newguy]

In 1962 at Faber College, Boon's girlfriend had an affair with her English professor and Otter had a fling with Dean Wormer's wife.

so many things went on at that university, it's almost comical.......

[newguy]

In 1962 at Faber College, Boon's girlfriend had an affair with her English professor and Otter had a fling with Dean Wormer's wife.

so many things went on at that university, it's almost comical.......

[TrumpCard]

Interesting that Faber College did not go with Double Secret Probation for those offenses.

[TrumpCard]

Interesting that Faber College did not go with Double Secret Probation for those offenses.

[Mick]

Dartmouth alum Chris Miller '63 wrote Animal House based in part on his own experiences. He gave an interview that said everything in the movie...and then some...actually, literally happened. So my guess is...yes, the affair and fling probably happened.

BTW, Chris Miller based the Pinto character on himself...

[Mick]

Dartmouth alum Chris Miller '63 wrote Animal House based in part on his own experiences. He gave an interview that said everything in the movie...and then some...actually, literally happened. So my guess is...yes, the affair and fling probably happened.

BTW, Chris Miller based the Pinto character on himself...

[jacket3ree]

I had a chance for something illicit as a TA. Although she was within two years of my own age, it seemed wrong so I didn't take her up on the offer. She received fair grades on her homework, tests, and lab papers even though she was in my office all the freaking time. We got together at a dive bar in Colorado to hear some live music after graduation (her suggestion) and my instincts proved correct. Glad to have missed out.

[jacket3ree]

I had a chance for something illicit as a TA. Although she was within two years of my own age, it seemed wrong so I didn't take her up on the offer. She received fair grades on her homework, tests, and lab papers even though she was in my office all the freaking time. We got together at a dive bar in Colorado to hear some live music after graduation (her suggestion) and my instincts proved correct. Glad to have missed out.

[M T]

I didn't take her up on the offer.

Tip of the hat to you.  I'm sure for many the temptation would be great.

[M T]

I didn't take her up on the offer.

Tip of the hat to you.  I'm sure for many the temptation would be great.

[martyup]

I didn't take her up on the offer.

Tip of the hat to you.  I'm sure for many the temptation would be great.

Depends on how she looked. 

[martyup]

I didn't take her up on the offer.

Tip of the hat to you.  I'm sure for many the temptation would be great.

Depends on how she looked. 

[lex24]

In 1962 at Faber College, Boon's girlfriend had an affair with her English professor and Otter had a fling with Dean Wormer's wife.

so many things went on at that university, it's almost comical.......

But Faber showed it knew what mattered through its motto: “ Knowledge is good.”

[lex24]

In 1962 at Faber College, Boon's girlfriend had an affair with her English professor and Otter had a fling with Dean Wormer's wife.

so many things went on at that university, it's almost comical.......

But Faber showed it knew what mattered through its motto: “ Knowledge is good.”

[Goose]

IMO there are undoubtedly more "relationships" involving Stanford employees at various positions of "power" today than there were in the early 70s. There are many factors in play that produce this result. First, back in the late 60s early 70s Stanford was very heavily male. Same sex relationships were very heavily "frowned upon" to say the least. The relatively small number of women reduced the opportunity to form these types of relationships. That said, quite a few TAs (22 or older grad students) did have relationships with undergraduates. Most of these were not about academic advantage and were "genuine" affection-based relationships. That said, there clearly was a significant power and experience gap present that did lead to at least many broken hearts on both sides of the ledger. These relationships were public and unremarkable. The administration clearly knew it was going on and didn't say a word.

The situation at the graduate school level was a bit different. At that level there were definitely women that at least attempted to use their gender and availability to get academic "special treatment". Most of the time it didn't work because it was transparently "fake". However, there were certain faculty that were publicly known to engage in this kind of activity. One department chair continually had a female graduate student as "consort". Everybody knew about it. His admins kept an office pool on who would be the next "queen" when the current one finished her thesis and moved  on. I was providing computer assistance to his group and therefore was enough of an "outsider" that nobody worried about what I knew. I was surprised none of the other grad students complained. From what I could tell they mildly resented the situation but figured it wasn't worth the downside to rock the boat. Even if the "Administration" did something to stop it, the person who "talked" would always be "questionable" going forward. Better to just finish your degree and keep your mouth shut. All in all, he was a better PI than many others who didn't have a "favorite". At the higher levels of administration it obviously was a "don't ask, don't tell" situation. They had to know, but if it wasn't "official" they could let it go.

A second factor that limited this kind of activity back in the 60s and 70s was the fact that sexual activity outside of marriage was still frowned upon by a significant percentage of the population. While Stanford students and faculty in the main didn't share that belief, the parents and donors did. Therefore it was critical to either not engage in such activity or have enough clout you could hide it in plain sight. TAs were so far down the chain nobody would even notice and the administration could profess shock when and if somebody complained (which was very seldom). TAs were also easily replaceable. Junior faculty and above would be a more serious problem. Handling it as quietly as possible was undoubtedly the approach of choice.

By the 1980s there were lots more female students. There were also more female faculty members. One might think more female faculty members would reduce the problem. In fact, the opposite was true. Power is a heady drug regardless of gender. The female faculty also benefited from the decided reluctance of the administration to question female faculty's behavior. To do so would bring on accusation of a "double standard" (possibly justified) and misogynist behavior. The "don't ask don't tell" was doubly in force and everybody knew it. I can't prove it but I am pretty sure that by the mid 80s there was much more going on than in the mid 70s.

Today many forms of sexual behavior that would have produced horror in "polite society" are normalized and unremarkable. In this background it is hard to imagine that any restriction on student and faculty behavior can really be enforced. The students want to be left alone to do as they wish. Most of the faculty feels the same. History has shown that sanctioning behavior that the majority (or even a significant minority) embrace is doomed to fail. Anything that is inside societal norms is going to de-facto be allowed. As a result, if it isn't literally illegal it will happen. So it is at Stanford, both "then" and "now", no matter what "the rules" may say.

[Goose]

IMO there are undoubtedly more "relationships" involving Stanford employees at various positions of "power" today than there were in the early 70s. There are many factors in play that produce this result. First, back in the late 60s early 70s Stanford was very heavily male. Same sex relationships were very heavily "frowned upon" to say the least. The relatively small number of women reduced the opportunity to form these types of relationships. That said, quite a few TAs (22 or older grad students) did have relationships with undergraduates. Most of these were not about academic advantage and were "genuine" affection-based relationships. That said, there clearly was a significant power and experience gap present that did lead to at least many broken hearts on both sides of the ledger. These relationships were public and unremarkable. The administration clearly knew it was going on and didn't say a word.

The situation at the graduate school level was a bit different. At that level there were definitely women that at least attempted to use their gender and availability to get academic "special treatment". Most of the time it didn't work because it was transparently "fake". However, there were certain faculty that were publicly known to engage in this kind of activity. One department chair continually had a female graduate student as "consort". Everybody knew about it. His admins kept an office pool on who would be the next "queen" when the current one finished her thesis and moved  on. I was providing computer assistance to his group and therefore was enough of an "outsider" that nobody worried about what I knew. I was surprised none of the other grad students complained. From what I could tell they mildly resented the situation but figured it wasn't worth the downside to rock the boat. Even if the "Administration" did something to stop it, the person who "talked" would always be "questionable" going forward. Better to just finish your degree and keep your mouth shut. All in all, he was a better PI than many others who didn't have a "favorite". At the higher levels of administration it obviously was a "don't ask, don't tell" situation. They had to know, but if it wasn't "official" they could let it go.

A second factor that limited this kind of activity back in the 60s and 70s was the fact that sexual activity outside of marriage was still frowned upon by a significant percentage of the population. While Stanford students and faculty in the main didn't share that belief, the parents and donors did. Therefore it was critical to either not engage in such activity or have enough clout you could hide it in plain sight. TAs were so far down the chain nobody would even notice and the administration could profess shock when and if somebody complained (which was very seldom). TAs were also easily replaceable. Junior faculty and above would be a more serious problem. Handling it as quietly as possible was undoubtedly the approach of choice.

By the 1980s there were lots more female students. There were also more female faculty members. One might think more female faculty members would reduce the problem. In fact, the opposite was true. Power is a heady drug regardless of gender. The female faculty also benefited from the decided reluctance of the administration to question female faculty's behavior. To do so would bring on accusation of a "double standard" (possibly justified) and misogynist behavior. The "don't ask don't tell" was doubly in force and everybody knew it. I can't prove it but I am pretty sure that by the mid 80s there was much more going on than in the mid 70s.

Today many forms of sexual behavior that would have produced horror in "polite society" are normalized and unremarkable. In this background it is hard to imagine that any restriction on student and faculty behavior can really be enforced. The students want to be left alone to do as they wish. Most of the faculty feels the same. History has shown that sanctioning behavior that the majority (or even a significant minority) embrace is doomed to fail. Anything that is inside societal norms is going to de-facto be allowed. As a result, if it isn't literally illegal it will happen. So it is at Stanford, both "then" and "now", no matter what "the rules" may say.

[TrumpCard]

In this background it is hard to imagine that any restriction on student and faculty behavior can really be enforced. The students want to be left alone to do as they wish. Most of the faculty feels the same. History has shown that sanctioning behavior that the majority (or even a significant minority) embrace is doomed to fail. Anything that is inside societal norms is going to de-facto be allowed. As a result, if it isn't literally illegal it will happen. So it is at Stanford, both "then" and "now", no matter what "the rules" may say.

I tend to agree with this.  I thought the facts in the article seemed unremarkable, but thought it was notable that it made the news because it's the kind of thing that would not have made the news when I attended college.  IMHO, the only practical limitation that Stanford can impose is to prohibit TAs and faculty from relationships with undergrads, grad students, or other TAs/faculty whom they are teaching/supervising.  That's the line where people doing what they want interferes with the mission of an academic institution.  That said, I do hope that Stanford and other institutions are getting more serious about holding that line because I think doing so would benefit the school and protect people in lower positions from being exploited.

[TrumpCard]

In this background it is hard to imagine that any restriction on student and faculty behavior can really be enforced. The students want to be left alone to do as they wish. Most of the faculty feels the same. History has shown that sanctioning behavior that the majority (or even a significant minority) embrace is doomed to fail. Anything that is inside societal norms is going to de-facto be allowed. As a result, if it isn't literally illegal it will happen. So it is at Stanford, both "then" and "now", no matter what "the rules" may say.

I tend to agree with this.  I thought the facts in the article seemed unremarkable, but thought it was notable that it made the news because it's the kind of thing that would not have made the news when I attended college.  IMHO, the only practical limitation that Stanford can impose is to prohibit TAs and faculty from relationships with undergrads, grad students, or other TAs/faculty whom they are teaching/supervising.  That's the line where people doing what they want interferes with the mission of an academic institution.  That said, I do hope that Stanford and other institutions are getting more serious about holding that line because I think doing so would benefit the school and protect people in lower positions from being exploited.

[82lsju]

In this background it is hard to imagine that any restriction on student and faculty behavior can really be enforced. The students want to be left alone to do as they wish. Most of the faculty feels the same. History has shown that sanctioning behavior that the majority (or even a significant minority) embrace is doomed to fail. Anything that is inside societal norms is going to de-facto be allowed. As a result, if it isn't literally illegal it will happen. So it is at Stanford, both "then" and "now", no matter what "the rules" may say.

I tend to agree with this.  I thought the facts in the article seemed unremarkable, but thought it was notable that it made the news because it's the kind of thing that would not have made the news when I attended college.  IMHO, the only practical limitation that Stanford can impose is to prohibit TAs and faculty from relationships with undergrads, grad students, or other TAs/faculty whom they are teaching/supervising.  That's the line where people doing what they want interferes with the mission of an academic institution.  That said, I do hope that Stanford and other institutions are getting more serious about holding that line because I think doing so would benefit the school and protect people in lower positions from being exploited.

this appears to be Stanford's policy on these sorts of relationships

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapters...prohibited.

how well it is followed and enforced is another question

[82lsju]

In this background it is hard to imagine that any restriction on student and faculty behavior can really be enforced. The students want to be left alone to do as they wish. Most of the faculty feels the same. History has shown that sanctioning behavior that the majority (or even a significant minority) embrace is doomed to fail. Anything that is inside societal norms is going to de-facto be allowed. As a result, if it isn't literally illegal it will happen. So it is at Stanford, both "then" and "now", no matter what "the rules" may say.

I tend to agree with this.  I thought the facts in the article seemed unremarkable, but thought it was notable that it made the news because it's the kind of thing that would not have made the news when I attended college.  IMHO, the only practical limitation that Stanford can impose is to prohibit TAs and faculty from relationships with undergrads, grad students, or other TAs/faculty whom they are teaching/supervising.  That's the line where people doing what they want interferes with the mission of an academic institution.  That said, I do hope that Stanford and other institutions are getting more serious about holding that line because I think doing so would benefit the school and protect people in lower positions from being exploited.

this appears to be Stanford's policy on these sorts of relationships

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapters...prohibited.

how well it is followed and enforced is another question

[Goose]

In this background it is hard to imagine that any restriction on student and faculty behavior can really be enforced. The students want to be left alone to do as they wish. Most of the faculty feels the same. History has shown that sanctioning behavior that the majority (or even a significant minority) embrace is doomed to fail. Anything that is inside societal norms is going to de-facto be allowed. As a result, if it isn't literally illegal it will happen. So it is at Stanford, both "then" and "now", no matter what "the rules" may say.

I tend to agree with this.  I thought the facts in the article seemed unremarkable, but thought it was notable that it made the news because it's the kind of thing that would not have made the news when I attended college.  IMHO, the only practical limitation that Stanford can impose is to prohibit TAs and faculty from relationships with undergrads, grad students, or other TAs/faculty whom they are teaching/supervising.  That's the line where people doing what they want interferes with the mission of an academic institution.  That said, I do hope that Stanford and other institutions are getting more serious about holding that line because I think doing so would benefit the school and protect people in lower positions from being exploited.

this appears to be Stanford's policy on these sorts of relationships

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapters...prohibited.

how well it is followed and enforced is another question

The Stanford policy is very much like typical policies adopted by the military and by many large companies. The restrictions on "teachers" are stronger than typically seen in industry. The lack of a direct reporting relationship being involved is not typical. Otherwise it is similar to industry. As history has clearly shown these policies generally do not work all that well, even in industry where dismissal is the specific consequence of violating the policy. I suspect it will work even less well at Stanford because of the strong "mind your own business" ethos present there. That said, I can't imagine what better policy could be adopted.

[Goose]

In this background it is hard to imagine that any restriction on student and faculty behavior can really be enforced. The students want to be left alone to do as they wish. Most of the faculty feels the same. History has shown that sanctioning behavior that the majority (or even a significant minority) embrace is doomed to fail. Anything that is inside societal norms is going to de-facto be allowed. As a result, if it isn't literally illegal it will happen. So it is at Stanford, both "then" and "now", no matter what "the rules" may say.

I tend to agree with this.  I thought the facts in the article seemed unremarkable, but thought it was notable that it made the news because it's the kind of thing that would not have made the news when I attended college.  IMHO, the only practical limitation that Stanford can impose is to prohibit TAs and faculty from relationships with undergrads, grad students, or other TAs/faculty whom they are teaching/supervising.  That's the line where people doing what they want interferes with the mission of an academic institution.  That said, I do hope that Stanford and other institutions are getting more serious about holding that line because I think doing so would benefit the school and protect people in lower positions from being exploited.

this appears to be Stanford's policy on these sorts of relationships

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapters...prohibited.

how well it is followed and enforced is another question

The Stanford policy is very much like typical policies adopted by the military and by many large companies. The restrictions on "teachers" are stronger than typically seen in industry. The lack of a direct reporting relationship being involved is not typical. Otherwise it is similar to industry. As history has clearly shown these policies generally do not work all that well, even in industry where dismissal is the specific consequence of violating the policy. I suspect it will work even less well at Stanford because of the strong "mind your own business" ethos present there. That said, I can't imagine what better policy could be adopted.

[cctop]

IMO there are undoubtedly more "relationships" involving Stanford employees at various positions of "power" today than there were in the early 70s.

I would be genuinely shocked if such relationships were more common now at Stanford than in the 1970's, even as an absolute number.  There are more female undergrads now but not a lot more. It was about 40% of undergrads in the 1970's rising to about 50% from the the 1980's until now.

From Monica Lewinsky to the USA Gymnastics sexual assault scandal to the "me too" movement, there's a lot more cultural awareness nowadays about sexual harassment and abuse of power.

And honestly my impression is that current teens and 20-somethings are more conservative than before.  All the stats I've seen (for teens nationwide, not specifically Stanford students) show consistently declining rates of drug use and sexual activity over the decades.

I'm the same age as Julie Lythcott-Haims.  Every year for the last 20 years in my corporate job, I've had to attend anti-sexual-harassment training where they hammer how it's possible such a relationship can be cause for termination.  And everyone in my peer group and all the younger people I know consider the relationship to have been inappropriate -- poor judgment on the part of the student and an abuse of power on the part of the dean.

[cctop]

IMO there are undoubtedly more "relationships" involving Stanford employees at various positions of "power" today than there were in the early 70s.

I would be genuinely shocked if such relationships were more common now at Stanford than in the 1970's, even as an absolute number.  There are more female undergrads now but not a lot more. It was about 40% of undergrads in the 1970's rising to about 50% from the the 1980's until now.

From Monica Lewinsky to the USA Gymnastics sexual assault scandal to the "me too" movement, there's a lot more cultural awareness nowadays about sexual harassment and abuse of power.

And honestly my impression is that current teens and 20-somethings are more conservative than before.  All the stats I've seen (for teens nationwide, not specifically Stanford students) show consistently declining rates of drug use and sexual activity over the decades.

I'm the same age as Julie Lythcott-Haims.  Every year for the last 20 years in my corporate job, I've had to attend anti-sexual-harassment training where they hammer how it's possible such a relationship can be cause for termination.  And everyone in my peer group and all the younger people I know consider the relationship to have been inappropriate -- poor judgment on the part of the student and an abuse of power on the part of the dean.

[jacket3ree]

Point of Parliamentary Procedure:

I know this isn't a record, and I hadn't thought about this in 38 years, but what I remembered the other day and posted is mostly right, but not completely right. I feel oddly guilty and that I should clean it up, if nothing else, in my own memory. 

Yes, one of my undergraduate students flirted with me to the point where it was clear I had a "next move" to make, or not make. I chose the latter. For the record, I would have been outkicking my coverage by at least 30 yards. That's why I knew this was something I should not do. It wasn't the genuine mutual attraction Goose writes about, given that we were essentially the same age. TAs are often responsible for a large portion of students' grades and she was worried enough to be in my office all the time. Had I not been the TA, I'm sure I would have said 'why not' and embarrassed myself per usual. But had I not been the TA, she wouldn't be in my office.

Also, I did go to a bar in Denver with one of my (by then) former students after my own graduation, but she was a different person now that I've reflected on some honestly pretty unimportant stuff from way back when. Very casual. 'Hey, I'll be in town, we should hang out.' I read more into that than there was. Again, now that I remember, I think she picked me up with her brother (or boyfriend? anyway some slightly older dude) and the whole thing was awkward. Don't remember the band being good.

OK, I feel better, which is entirely the point of this board, right?

[jacket3ree]

Point of Parliamentary Procedure:

I know this isn't a record, and I hadn't thought about this in 38 years, but what I remembered the other day and posted is mostly right, but not completely right. I feel oddly guilty and that I should clean it up, if nothing else, in my own memory. 

Yes, one of my undergraduate students flirted with me to the point where it was clear I had a "next move" to make, or not make. I chose the latter. For the record, I would have been outkicking my coverage by at least 30 yards. That's why I knew this was something I should not do. It wasn't the genuine mutual attraction Goose writes about, given that we were essentially the same age. TAs are often responsible for a large portion of students' grades and she was worried enough to be in my office all the time. Had I not been the TA, I'm sure I would have said 'why not' and embarrassed myself per usual. But had I not been the TA, she wouldn't be in my office.

Also, I did go to a bar in Denver with one of my (by then) former students after my own graduation, but she was a different person now that I've reflected on some honestly pretty unimportant stuff from way back when. Very casual. 'Hey, I'll be in town, we should hang out.' I read more into that than there was. Again, now that I remember, I think she picked me up with her brother (or boyfriend? anyway some slightly older dude) and the whole thing was awkward. Don't remember the band being good.

OK, I feel better, which is entirely the point of this board, right?

[CowboyIndian]

Well, at least some folks at Stanford were having fun!

[CowboyIndian]

Well, at least some folks at Stanford were having fun!