Let me once again pull out that
quote from the Topica list which discusses Rutter, emphasis mine:
Rutter takes the position that a "forbidden zone always exists in the relationship between doctor and patient, therapist and client, clergyman and congregant, lawyer and client, teacher and student. All of these professions carry a special trust not to abuse the seen or unseen dependent elements that inevitably develop." Because of the greater power of the professional, the client is unable to give truly informed consent, and it is thus the responsibility of the person in the more powerful position to control the necessary boundary between the two parties.
"Amorous relationships that might be appropriate in other circumstances are always wrong when they occur between any teacher or officer and any student for whom he or she has a professional responsibility. Further, such relationships may have the effect of undermining the atmosphere of trust on which the educational process depends. Implicit in the idea of professionalism is the recognition by those in positions of authority that in their relationships with students there is always an element of power. It is incumbent upon those with authority not to abuse, nor seem to abuse, the power with which they are entrusted."
Let's now pull up a picture of the circumstances. While still students, these alums were subjected to and participated in an "experiment" (Hyde's term) of thought coercion and behavior modification for a small number of years. During that time, faculty were considered next to God as far as having any kind of moral authority is concerned, and on a more mundane level, had the capacity to determine in very real ways a student's success or failure in the system, let alone their ability to even graduate. Since Hyde's system of awarding certificates, let alone diplomas, is SO subjective and amenable to intervention on the part of even a single faculty member, the power of this position can not be underestimated.
Said alums come back for a visit, or to teach, whatever, after a few years of college. Tell me that you wouldn't be pulled right back into that same mindset you were in previously, during the formative years of your youth! You are right there, in the same environment, the same power structure still in place, most of the same people still there, the same campus, the same smells, the same routine... After all, it has only been a couple of years. And then, while you are there, one of your teachers, or Gauld himself, lets it be known to you that their interest in you is less than platonic. What would
YOU do?
I think most normal people's reaction would be to run for the hills. But... you've been brainwashed to believe that your former teachers are next to God. They, better than you, have the know-how and the moral authority to make those kind of judgments. And, you believe in Hyde -- you
have to, after all, you graduated -- so you believe in them too...
I think this goes far beyond "unseemly," or "smarmy," or "good old-fashioned sex between consenting adults." The power dynamic is far too disparate. In my opinion, the issue of "full consent" is more than severely tainted, at best.
