This code contains two principles, specific behaviors to promote them, and a procedure for addressing code violations for departmental members (faculty, staff, teaching assistants, research assistants, student aides). These principles and behaviors are common to the disciplinary codes of ethics to which we separately commit as Sociologists, Anthropologists and Social Workers (American Sociological Association, Code of Ethics, 1999; American Anthropological Association, Code of Ethics, 1998; National Association of Social Workers, Code of Ethics, 1999).

I. We exhibit respectful behavior toward each other and our students, creating a collegial, non-hostile environment that welcomes each departmental member and student. To accomplish this:

A. We exhibit considerate behavior toward each other and our students.

Example: We compliment each other and our students on work well done and the positive contributions that this work makes.

Example: We share ideas about teaching and research with each other, and we encourage each other and students in our and their work.

Example: We try to build friendships with each other.

B. We are honest in our evaluations of each other’s work and of students’ work. We owe it to each other and our students to be open and up front about our assessments of their work, whether such assessments are positive or negative. But these assessments are delivered respectfully.

Example: If we negatively evaluate the work of a departmental member or student, we avoid use of pejorative oral and written comments which demonstrate lack of respect for that person, or for differences in research strategies, theoretical approaches, and our respective disciplines.

C. We see diversity as enriching and positive. Thus, we do not engage in discrimination in evaluating work based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, power or status differences, or any other basis proscribed by law.

Example: We conduct peer reviews of persons for hiring, tenure and promotion, and other peer assessments without bias and in even-handed fashion, according the same treatment to all persons. We base these reviews and assessments on criteria in each person’s academic field.

Example: We evaluate our students without bias and in even-handed fashion. We recognize that the process of learning may expose some students to ideas and information which challenge them and make them uncomfortable. Without altering course expectations or content so that effective teaching suffers, we try to be sensitive to cultural differences in the teaching process.

D. We do not harass each other or students. According to the ASA Code of Ethics (1999), "Harassment consists of a single intense and severe act, or of multiple persistent/pervasive acts, which are demeaning, abusive, offensive, or create a hostile professional or workplace environment." Harassment may be sexual (including sexual solicitation, physical advance, or verbal or non-verbal conduct that is sexual in nature) or racial (unnecessary, exaggerated or unwarranted attention or attack because of a person’s race or ethnicity). It may also be general harassment--acts defined above as harassment which are not sexual or racial in nature. Some examples of general harassment—uncivil and non-collegial behavior toward departmental members or students—are:

Example: We do not demean departmental members or students by (a) putting them down directly or indirectly (through interaction with other departmental members or students), (b) putting them down directly or indirectly through aggressive symboling--verbal (cursing, yelling, or talking loudly and in hostile fashion) or physical communication (contact and non-contact).

Example: We refrain from jokes or comments to each other which demean or are offensive to any student or departmental member.

Example: We do not use gender, racial or ethnic slurs or slang unless in the context of scholarly analysis.

II. We try to help each other and our students, and we do not exploit each other or our students. For any advantage--personal, economic or professional--we do not exploit persons over whom we have direct, indirect, evaluative or other power. We do not make requests of those over whom we have authority for behaviors outside the expectations of work. We make efforts to even avoid the perception of exploitation, since both exploitation and perceptions of it can lead to untenable and hostile work environments. Examples of behaviors which support this principle:

Example: We avoid physically intimate relationships with a person over whom we have power—as that person’s instructor or supervisor (thesis advisor, major professor, undergraduate advisor, or employer). Such behavior may not only be construed as sexual harassment, it can also produce unpleasant classroom and academic work environments, in which other participants perceive unfairness due to the special relationship of a peer.

Example: We do not ask or require students or departmental members over whom we have power to perform activities not included in their official job description.

III. Procedure for Dealing With Code Violations. This procedure assumes that the Diversity and Ethics (D&E) Committee becomes a standing departmental committee containing four tenured departmental members that is gender-balanced (two men, two women) and discipline-balanced (each of the three departmental disciplines represented). If possible, faculty racial/ethnic diversity should also have representation on this four person committee. It is appointed by the chair every 2 years in consultation with current committee.

A. Complaint by any departmental member or student starts the procedure for dealing with violations of this code. The complainant may informally ask for redress/apology/reinterpretation from the perceived code violator. If the outcome is satisfactory to all concerned, the complaint goes no further. Once a complaint has been lodged with the perceived code violator or any faculty in part B immediately below, retaliation against the complainant for lodging the complaint is prohibited.

B. If the outcome of interaction concerning the complaint between complainant and perceived code violator is not satisfactory to all concerned, or if complainant does not wish to meet with the perceived code violator directly, then the complaint goes to the D&E Committee. This may be accomplished by submitting the complaint to a member of the D&E Committee, the committee as a whole, or to the Departmental Chair (who then notifies the committee of the complaint). The perceived code violator is informed of the complaint, and the D&E Committee attempts to get information about the incident(s), through talking with the people involved. Even though the complaint may end with D&E Committee inquiry, description of any complaint that comes to the D&E Committee and its ultimate outcome becomes documented in writing.

C. The D&E Committee then informs the departmental chair of results of its inquiry concerning the complaint, and the departmental chair determines appropriate action for remedying the complaint and/or preventing such incidences from recurring. The chair may determine that the complaint is without merit, or that it has merit but requires only minor actions. The chair may also find that more consequential action is necessary for more serious or patterned code violations. The complainant, the perceived code violator, and the D&E Committee are all informed of the chair’s final actions.