University at Buffalo - The State University of New York

Published: December 8, 2005

By MARY COCHRANE
Contributing Editor

The long-awaited code of conduct for UB faculty received its first look from the full Faculty Senate on Tuesday, and emerged relatively intact, although a few revisions will be made before members revisit the document in February.

The code is being developed at the request by President John B. Simpson, who a year ago asked for a "clearly understood outline of what is to be expected, what is professional behavior" on the part of faculty members at the university.

Samuel D. Schack, Martin Professor and chair in the Department of Mathematics and a member of the seven-person committee that drafted the code, said the panel drew on similar documents at other institutions, including those in the University of California system, in writing about ethical performance.

"There's a sense in which the only thing that's necessary is a one-word code of conduct which is 'behave,' Schack said during the discussion of the document, which he described as a "pulling together in one spot ethical expectations we have of one another for our behavior.

"It matters a lot that this ultimately comes from the faculty and is passed by the Faculty Senate because when that happens it will be a statement that this is what we expect from one another, not what the president expects from us, not what our professional associations expect from us, not what the community expects from us."

In general, the code outlines how faculty members are required to act "as scholars, as teachers, as colleagues," Schack said, but the code also deals specifically with trouble spots in the relationship between faculty and students.

"As teachers, obviously, a large amount of this has to deal with how we treat the students, and that's what most of this addresses, in particular, the elephant in the living room—the issues of sexual harassment and sexual relations with students. I think we come down on the obvious side of that," Schack told the group.

However, the committee missed a key role that many UB faculty play, according to Gayle Brazeau, associate dean for academic affairs, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, who reiterated a suggestion she made during a Sept. 14 Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting, when she said the code should include faculty in their roles as clinicians who work with patients and clients.

"We have health science schools and clinicians have ethical responsibilities and a fair number of our colleagues are clinicians," she said.

Schack responded that the issue had been discussed by the committee writing the code, and members decided that the "general ethical principles that we were noting here applied in those cases" and otherwise, such faculty members could refer to professional guidelines within their schools.

"We tried to make this university-wide document focus only on those things that really are university-wide," Schack said.

Edward J. Fine, associate professor of neurology, said that as a clinician, he finds the document to be "well done, carefully thought out.

"The language is clear. I certainly think that for clinicians it should be quite adequate," Fine said, but then he suggested that the code be more specific regarding activities by faculty members outside of the university, and should quote from actual university policy on the issue.

"I think there should be some statement made that activities outside the university must not interfere with the main functions" of teaching, research and service, Fine said.

Schack noted that because the issue is addressed by official university policies, the committee considered it "already covered."

But other faculty members, including Judith A. Adams-Volpe, director of university and external relations for the Arts and Sciences Libraries, and William H. Baumer, professor of philosophy, disagreed.

Adams-Volpe suggested that a specific statement be added in the "applications of ethical principles" section of the code, while Baumer insisted the document make a clear statement on the issue.

"I do not believe that we can simply walk away and say that is covered by one or another regulation. If that's the case, this whole thing can be thrown in the trash because everything in here is covered by one or another regulation in some sense," Baumer said.

Lee S. Dryden, director of interdisciplinary degree programs in the social sciences, and Shira Gabriel, assistant professor of psychology, also asked for clearer definitions of what the code refers to when it asks that faculty members "disclose preexisting nonprofessional relationships" with students.

Schack responded that this includes a wide range of relationships, but added the intent is for faculty to be open about any kind of ties they have to particular students in their classes in order to avoid favoritism.

"Relationships that you have with students affect not only that individual student, but the other students in your class. If they have a perception of favoritism—whether they think it comes because you are in an intimate relationship or just because the student is your colleague's child—if they think there is some sort of relationship that might cause favoritism to a student in that room, it could be problematical for the morale of the class and so somebody in authority should be made aware of it and should compensate for it in some way. It might be that the way you compensate is as simple as for you, the instructor, to say 'This student is my best friend's child and exams are going to be graded by someone else or my exam grading will be reviewed by someone else to make sure that this is not influenced in any way.'"

Department chairs will determine how to handle these kinds of situations, Schack added.

Powhatan Wooldridge, associate professor of nursing, suggested the committee define at the beginning of the document "exactly what you mean by 'faculty.'

"There sometimes are ambiguous situations. Sometimes a teaching assistant, for example, is 'faculty' and at the same time is a student. When you have somebody who is simultaneously playing both roles, you run into difficulties, particularly with regard to the sexual-conduct issue," he said.

Schack agreed and summarized the discussion by saying that the code of conduct committee will meet again to discuss adding a definition of faculty to the document, as well as comments regarding faculty members' role as clinicians. The committee also will consider rewriting the section that asks faculty members to disclose all funding sources connected to their outside activities to include "any activities, not just scholarly activities," and including a statement about faculty members' "primary responsibility to UB," he added.

The senate will hold its next general meeting on Feb. 7.

In other business, the senate yesterday approved policies for academic integrity and grievance procedures for UB students, sending them on to President John B. Simpson for promulgation, which would make them official UB policies.

Prior to voting on all five policies regarding graduate and undergraduate grievances, the senate approved an amendment offered by James E. Campbell, professor of political science, that would allow students to have attorneys as the one advisor they are permitted to accompany them at grievance hearings. The amendment states that "the hearing(s) is to be conducted in a fair and expeditious manner, but is not subject to rules governing a legal proceeding."