Section II

The Faculty Code of Conduct as Approved by the Assembly of the Academic Senate (Code of Professional Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct of University Faculty, and University Disciplinary Procedures)

Preamble

The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and critically examining knowledge and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom. Effective performance of these central functions requires that faculty members be free within their respective fields of competence to pursue and teach the truth in accord with appropriate standards if scholarly inquiry.

The faculty’s privileges and protections, including that of tenure, rest on the mutually supportive relationships between the faculty’s special professional competence, its academic freedom, and the central functions of the University. These relationships are also the source of the professional responsibilities of faculty members.

It is the intent of this Code to protect academic freedom, to help preserve the highest standards of teaching and scholarship, and to advance the mission of the University as an institution of higher learning.

Part I of this Code sets forth the responsibility of the University to maintain conditions and rights supportive of the faculty’s pursuit of the University’s central functions.

Part II of this Code elaborates standards of professional conduct, derived from general professional consensus about the existence of certain precepts as basic to acceptable faculty behavior. Conduct which departs from these precepts is viewed by faculty as unacceptable because it is inconsistent with the mission of the University. The articulation of types of unacceptable faculty conduct is appropriate both to verify that a consensus about minimally acceptable standards in fact does exist and to give fair notice to all that departures from these minimal standards may give rise to disciplinary proceedings.

In Part II a clear distinction is made between statements of (1) ethical principles and (2) types of unacceptable behavior.

1. Ethical Principles. These are drawn primarily from the 1966 Statement on Professional Ethics and subsequent revisions of June, 1987, issued by the American Association of University Professors. They comprise ethical prescriptions affirming the highest professional ideals. They are aspirational in character, and represent objectives toward which faculty members should strive. Behavior in accordance with these principles clearly precludes the application of a disciplinary sanction. These Ethical Principles are to be distinguished from “Types of Unacceptable Faculty Conduct” referred to in character, and state minimum levels of conduct below which a faculty member cannot fall without being subject to University discipline.

2. Types of Unacceptable Faculty Conduct. Derived from Ethical Principles. These statements specify types of unacceptable faculty behavior which are subject to University discipline because, as stated in the introductory section to Part II, they are “not justified by the Ethical Principles” and they “significantly impair the University’s central functions as set forth in the Preamble.”

Although the listing in neither category of statements is exhaustive, it encompasses major concerns traditionally and currently important to the profession. It is expected that case adjudication, the lessons of experience and evolving standards of the profession will promote reasoned adaptation and change of this Code. It should be noted, however, that no provision of the Code shall be construed as providing the basis for judging the propriety or impropriety of collective withholding of services by faculty. Rules and sanctions that presently exist to cover such actions derive from sources external to this Code.

Part III of this Code deals with the enforcement process applicable to unacceptable faculty behavior. That process must meet basic standards of fairness and must reflect significant faculty involvement. Common guidelines for these enforcement procedures and sanctions are elaborated, and procedural arrangements are suggested which may be employed, at the option of each Division, to satisfy these guidelines.

Part I. Professional Rights of Faculty

In support of the University’s central functions as an institution of higher learning, a major responsibility of the Administration is to protect and encourage the faculty in its teaching, learning, research, and public service. The authority to discipline faculty members in appropriate cases derives from the shared recognition by the faculty and the Administration that the purpose of discipline is to preserve conditions hospitable to these pursuits. Such conditions, as they relate to the faculty, include, for example:

Free inquiry, and exchange of ideas;

The right to present controversial material relevant to a course of instruction;

Enjoyment of constitutionally protected freedom of expression;

Participation in the governance of the University, as provided in the By-Laws and Standing Orders of The Regents and the regulations of the University, including

Approval of course content and manner of instruction,

Establishment of requirements for matriculation and for degrees,

Appointment and promotion of faculty,

Selection of chairs of departments and certain academic administrators,

Discipline of members of the faculty, and the formulation of rules and procedures for discipline of students,

Establishment of norms for teaching responsibilities and for evaluation of both faculty and student achievement, and

Determination of the forms of departmental governance;

The right to be judged by one’s colleagues, in accordance with fair procedures, in matters of promotion, tenure, and discipline, solely on the basis of the faculty member’s professional qualifications and professional conduct.

Part II. Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Unacceptable Faculty Conduct

This listing of faculty responsibilities, ethical principles, and types of unacceptable behavior is organized around the individual faculty member’s relation to teaching and students, to scholarship, to the University, to colleagues, and to the community. Since University discipline, as distinguished from other forms of reproval, should be reserved for faculty misconduct that is either serious in itself or is made serious through its repetition, or its consequences, the following general principle is intended to govern all instances of its application:

University discipline under this Code may be imposed on a faculty member only for conduct which is not justified by the ethical principles and which significantly impairs the University’s central functions as set forth in the Preamble. The “Types of Unacceptable Conduct” listed below in Sections A through E meet the preceding standards and hence are subject to University discipline.

A. Teaching and Students

Ethical Principles. “As teachers, the professors encourage the free pursuit of learning of their students. They hold before them the best scholarly standards of their discipline. Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit. They respect the confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student. They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They acknowledge significant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their academic freedom.” (AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987)

Types of unacceptable conduct:

1. Failure to meet the responsibilities of instruction, including:

(a) arbitrary denial of access to instruction;

(b) significant intrusion of material unrelated to the course;

(c) significant failure to adhere, without legitimate reason, to the rules of the faculty in the conduct of courses, to meet class, to keep office hours, or to hold examinations as scheduled;

(d)evaluation of student work by criteria not directly reflective of course performance;

(e)undue and unexcused delay in evaluating student work.

2. Discrimination against a student on political grounds, or for reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, national origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition*, status as a Vietnam-era veteran or disabled veteran, or, within the limits imposed by law or University regulations, because of age or citizenship or for other arbitrary or personal reasons.

3. Knowing violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying to nondiscrimination against students on the basis of handicap.

4. Use of the position or powers of a faculty member to coerce the judgment or conscience of a student or to cause harm to a student for arbitrary or personal reasons.

5. Participating in or deliberately abetting disruption, interference, or intimidation in the classroom.

B. Scholarship

Ethical Principles. “Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it. To this end professors devote their energies to developing and improving their scholarly competence. They accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge. They practice intellectual honesty. Although professors may follow subsidiary interests, these interests must never seriously hamper or compromise their freedom of inquiry.” (AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987)

Types of unacceptable conduct:

Violation of canons of intellectual honesty, such as intentional misappropriation of the writings, research, and findings of others.

C. The University

Ethical Principles. “As a member of an academic institution, professors seek above all to be effective teachers and scholars. Although professors observe the stated regulations of the institution, provided the regulations do not contravene academic freedom, they maintain their right to criticize and seek revision. Professors give due regard to their paramount responsibilities within their institution in determining the amount and character of the work done outside it. When considering the interruption or termination of their service, professors recognize the effect of their decision upon the program of the institution and give due notice of their intentions.” (AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1987)

Types of unacceptable conduct:

Intentional disruption of functions or activities sponsored or authorized by the University.

Incitement of others to disobey University rules when such incitement constitutes a clear and present danger that violence or abuse against persons or property will occur or that the University’s central functions will be significantly impaired.

Unauthorized use of University resources or facilities on a significant scale for personal, commercial, political, or religious purposes.

Forcible detention, threats of physical harm to, harassment or intimidation of another member of the University community, with the intent to interfere with that person’s performance of University activities.

D. Colleagues

Ethical Principles. “As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debts and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution.” (AAUP Statement, 1966; Revised, 1989)

Types of unacceptable conduct:

Making evaluations of the professional competence of faculty members by criteria not directly reflective of professional performance.

Discrimination against faculty on political grounds, or for reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, national origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition*, status as a Vietnam-era veteran or disabled veteran, or, within the limits imposed by law or University regulations, because of age or citizenship or for any other arbitrary or personal reasons.

Knowing violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying to nondiscrimination against faculty on the basis of handicap.

Breach of established rules governing confidentiality in personnel procedures.

E. The Community

Ethical Principles. “Faculty members have the same rights and obligations as all citizens. They are as free as other citizens to express their views and to participate in the political processes of the community. When they act or speak in their personal and private capacities, they should avoid deliberately creating the impression that they represent the University.” (U.C. Academic Council Statement, 1971)

Types of unacceptable conduct:

Intentional misrepresentation of personal views as a statement of position of the University or any of its agencies. (An institutional affiliation appended to a faculty member’s name in a public statement or appearance is permissible, if used solely for purposes of identification.)

Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty.

* Medical condition, according to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, means "health impairment related to or associated with a diagnosis of cancer, for which a person has been rehabilitated or cured."

(Revised 9-1-88)

RESOLUTION ON FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONS

ADOPTED BY THE ACADEMIC ASSEMBLY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

ON NOVEMBER 30, 1983

WHEREAS, in the special case of faculty-student relationships, a single and even mutually welcomed occurrence of certain kinds of behavior of an implied or explicit romantic or sexual nature can be unacceptable from the standpoint of inflicting irreparable or irremediable damage to the immediate or short run educational environment; and

WHEREAS, Even a single advance to a student by an instructor can dramatically harm the environment not merely between the student and the instructor but between the instructor and other students in the class or under the instructor’s supervision, whether or not the advance is welcomed, invited, or rebuffed; and

WHEREAS, therefore even a single occurrence must be regarded by the academic community as a serious breach of professional ethics and proper standards of professional behavior;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this Assembly adopts as its own the sense of the “Statement of Position” presented in the Annual Report of the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure for 1982/83, Part V;

TO WIT, members of the University faculty have always understood

1. that a faculty member who initiates with a current student a personal relationship with romantic or sexual implications or intentions, or who acquiesces in such a relationship initiated by a current student,

a) can seriously compromise the student-teacher relationship, to which all faculty members have primary professional responsibilities;

b) can, in a course or class environment, seriously impair the educational environment not only for the principals in the relationship but for the faculty member’s other students;

c) can give rise to charges of unacceptable discrimination by the faculty member’s other students in regard to grading, references, access to laboratory equipment or other resources and educational opportunities;

d) may prejudice the faculty member’s defense in the eventuality that sexual harassment or discrimination charges arise from such a relationship;

2. that “current student” shall be understood to mean

a) any student currently enrolled with the particular faculty member in a course offered for credit;

b) any student currently engaged in research under the official supervision or direction of the particular faculty member, in pursuit of undergraduate honors, in graduate research/writing projects for credit, in a doctoral dissertation program, in tutorials offered for academic credit, or field research projects for academic credit;

3. that this Statement of Position does not refer to

a) relationships existing before the faculty/current-student relationship, or

b) relationships that become established after the conclusion of the coursework or the period of supervision or direction of research and writing projects undertaken for academic credit.

It is further RESOLVED that this Assembly instruct the University Committee on Privilege and Tenure to consider proposing legislation or an addition to the Faculty Code of Conduct in order to give force to the position expressed herein.