:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:師生戀--浪漫的自由或倫理的禁忌?
書刊名:教育與多元文化研究
作者:李真文 引用關係
作者(外文):Li, Chen-wen
出版日期:2012
卷期:6
頁次:頁123-166
主題關鍵詞:自由婚戀個人權利師生戀教育專業倫理教師專業倫理Romantic loveRight to free love and marriageTeacher-student loveEducational ethicsProfessional ethics of teachers
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:68
師生戀是教育界中最富爭議的倫理議題之一。有鑑於現今人際關係的多元化,加上終身教育趨勢,校園中的師生關係也似乎不再是以往的固著模式,反而有了多重樣貌。本文藉由相關案例彙整分析,並分別呈現反對與贊成師生態的兩種立場, 一者以不倫、違反師德、有損名譽、損及學生權益等理由來強調師生戀不宜;另一者則以自由婚戀的權利、性自主應受保障、專業不涉教師私下行為等三種理由,主張師生戀應可受保障。筆者以為兩種立場並非絕然對立,故提出在肯認師生皆有自由戀愛的權利前提下,重新釐清教師專業倫理的界線,期能做為顧及權利保障又不失專業倫理,符合規範又適切於當今多元開放的倫理原則,來回應師生戀的爭議課題。
Romantic love affairs between teachers and students are one of the most controversial ethical issues, In this paper, the author analyzed the relevant cases reported in the mass media during 2006-2009 in Taiwan, There are two main kinds of perspectives reflecting common moral views and profession ethical views in the mass media, One view stands against teacher-student love affairs, which states that it is inappropriate to enter into such a duel relationship based on several reasons that such a relationship fails to meet the requirements of educational profession, and would not only humiliate the school's reputation but also offend the rights of students, The other view is grounded in the right to love (including the right for free sex). It deems the right to love and marriage as fundamental human rights, Professional ethics can only limit teachers' conduct in the public sphere, In conclusion, the author suggests that the right of free love has priority over other reasons, but teachers should still avoid intimacy with students under age 16 and not maintain a direct relationship with students, such as supervising, mentoring, or evaluating the student falling in love with them, Following such principles, teacher-student love would be acceptable for the sake of human rights.
期刊論文
1.曾昭旭(19821000)。細說師生戀及其他。鵝湖,8(4),45-49。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.Jorgenson, L. M.、Sutherland, P. K.(1992)。Fiduciary theory applied to personal dealings: Attorney-client sexual contact.。Arkansas Law Review,45,459-502。  new window
3.Plaut, S. M.(1993)。Boundary issues in teacher-student relationships.。Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy,19(3),210-219。  new window
4.Sternberg, Robert J.(1986)。A Triangular Theory of Love。Psychological Review,93(2),119-135。  new window
會議論文
1.林逢祺(2004)。誰在乎學習權?師生戀辜負了什麼?。台北市。53-61。  延伸查詢new window
2.林建福(200305)。教學專業的倫理省思。慈濟大學教育傳播學院舉辦之「教育專業倫理」學術研討會。花蓮縣。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.王世英(2006)。序。台灣教育人物誌。台北市:國立教育資料館。  延伸查詢new window
2.詹棟樑(1993)。教育倫理學導論。台北市:五南。  延伸查詢new window
3.簡成熙(2004)。教育專業倫理信條能提升教育專業地位嗎?。教育專業倫理(1)。台北市:五南。  延伸查詢new window
4.蕭承慎(2000)。師道徵故。台北市:師大書苑。  延伸查詢new window
5.Campbell, E.(2003)。The ethical teacher.。Philadelphia, PA:Open University。  new window
6.Freedman, L. P.(1999)。Ref1ections on emerging frameworks of health and human rights.。Health and human rights: A reader roultedge。New York:Reutledge。  new window
7.Feldman-Summers, S.(1989)。Sexual contact in fiduciary relationships.。Sexual exploitation in professional relationships。Washington, D.C.:American Psychiatric Press。  new window
8.Gallop, J.(1997)。Feminist accused of sexual harassment.。Dukham, NC:Duke University Press。  new window
9.Greenson, R. R.(1990)。The working alliance and the transference neurosis.。Essential Papers on Transference。New York:New York University Press。  new window
10.Heta、Häyry, M.(1994)。The nature and role of professional codes in modern society.。Eillics and the professions。Aldershot:Avebury。  new window
11.hooks, b.(2003)。Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope.。New York:Routledge。  new window
12.Racker, H.(1968)。Transference and countertransference.。New York:International Universities Press。  new window
13.甯應斌(2007)。性無須道德:性倫理與性批判。中央大學性/別研究室。  延伸查詢new window
14.van Dijk, Teun A.(1991)。Racism and the Press。London:Routledge。  new window
15.Beck, Ulrich、Beck-Gemsheim, Elisabeth、蘇峰山、魏書娥、陳雅馨(2000)。愛情的正常性混亂。臺北市:立緒。  延伸查詢new window
16.Giddens, Anthony(1992)。The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love, and Eroticism in Modern Societies。Stanford University Press。  new window
17.賈馥茗(2004)。教育倫理學。臺北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
18.李惠宗(2004)。教育行政法要義。元照。  延伸查詢new window
19.但昭偉(2004)。多元價值社會與教師道德枷鎖的解除。教育專業倫理(1)。臺北市:五南。  延伸查詢new window
20.Koisser, Harald、Schulak, Eugen Maria、張存華(2007)。愛、欲望、出軌的哲學。臺北:商周出版。  延伸查詢new window
其他
1.中華民國全國教師會(2000)。全國教師自律公約,http://forum.nta.org.tw/v362/showthread.php?t=37, 20100716。  延伸查詢new window
2.何春蕤(1994)。不同國女人:性/別、資本與文化,http://intermargins.net/repression/deviant/love/freelove/stutea/index.htm, 20090719。  延伸查詢new window
3.吳志光(2011)。師生戀中的權力控制vs.情慾自主(上) (下),http://pnn.pts.org.tw/main/?p=34961, 20120111。  延伸查詢new window
4.Higgins, C.(1998)。Transference love from the couch 10 the classroom: A psychoanalytic perspective on the ethics of teacher-student romance Philosophy of Education Yearbook.,http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/1998/higgins.html, 20100321。  new window
圖書論文
1.黃藿(2004)。教育專業倫理與道德教育。教育專業倫理。臺北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
2.方永泉(2004)。教師修養與教師專業倫理--德行倫理學觀點的分析。教育專業倫理。臺北:五南。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE