Don’t put restrictions on love
In response to “Professor critiques academic legislation governing student-faculty romance” (News, Oct. 25), cheers to Professor Paul Abramson for taking the university to task for its “no exceptions” policy to student-teacher dating.
His judgment here is less about the individual “doing what he or she wants” than it is about the university treating its student body as a population of adults on equal footing with its faculty.
The belief that there is an inherent conflict of interest in romances between professors and students has become unquestioned dogma reflective of two contemporary American institutions: first, of the administrative university. In this case, possible sexual harassment lawsuits and a lowered public reputation has once again instituted the lazy way out.
The second idea, though, is of the eternally adolescent youth, reflected inadvertently by Monica Sanchez.
While completely correct in stating that the university should employ clear thinking on a case-by-case basis for decisions on teacher-student dating, she also suggests that our modern undergraduate body is too immature to handle mature relationships.
I would advise she make a trip out to Japan or South Korea, where college students drink openly with their professors.
She could witness societies not only more comfortable with the divide separating professional and private spheres of life, but also with the confidence in trusting that they’ve shaped their youth to marry sense with sensibility.
Bryan Hartzheim
Graduate student
Column misrepresents jazz
It is clear to me that Alex LaRue (in “Reinterpret creativity” A&E, Oct. 24) could not possibly play a musical instrument beyond a rudimentary level and that his unsupported assertions about jazz are based on cursory exposure to, if not complete ignorance of, the genre.
For example, he has somehow conflated improvisation with sampling, a remarkable conceit in itself.
Improvisation is created in real time; sampling is assembled with no time constraints.
Improvising is dynamic; sampling is static.
LaRue’s argument is disappointingly trite and hackneyed.
I recommend that he invest the years necessary to play a musical instrument competently and then reexamine the views he’s expressed.
Billy Bauman
CSU Northridge alumnus