Ethics code: senators debate its purpose, need

In discussing the code, drafted by the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility and presented by committee chair John Boot, senators said that having written rules regarding faculty members' conduct, without a "pressing need," would "invite lots of problems."

The code states that "all amorous or sexual relationships between faculty and students are unacceptable when the faculty member has professional responsibility for the student, even when both parties have consented, or appear to have consented, to the relationship.

"Specifically, a faculty member should not have an amorous or sexual relationship, consensual or otherwise, with a student who is enrolled in his or her course, or whose performance is supervised or evaluated by that faculty member. Nor should a faculty member be involved in any decisions that may reward or penalize a student with whom he or she has or has had an amorous or sexual relationship, even outside the instructional context."

Consent will not be considered a defense if a complaint is brought, the code states, with the individual in the relationship with the greater power having to "bear the burden of accountability."

Boot, professor and chair of the Department of Management Science and Systems, told senators that although there have been no problems in this regard, he believes that it would be "better to have a statement for our colleagues that certain behavior is so unprofessional as to be, in fact, unacceptable, and to have that statement clearly black on white."

UB now is "in the worst of all possible situations" because the issue has been raised, he said, adding that if the Faculty Senate does not accept a code of conduct, colleagues will not think the issue is important because the senate did not take action.

Don Schack, professor of mathematics, said that he was "somewhat suspicious of things which are going to solve problems that don't exist." According to the proposed code, Schack noted, if his wife were to register for a course that only he taught, "we must get divorced or I have to get fired because nothing in here protects us from the case where it's a prior existing relationship and there are not a lot of alternatives to the parties being a teacher and student. I think that is a hell of a serious liability.

"Once you have a rule like this, you also have a legal weapon. The university will have to have a hierarchy of procedures to deal with (complaints)ŠI think it invites a lot of problems," he said.

Lou Swartz, associate professor of law, said he thought Boot's explanation for why the code is needed was "specious. In my opinion, we should leave things as they are," he said, noting there was "no pressing need for explicit rules."

Provost Thomas E. Headrick agreed with Schack that once a rule is in effect, a procedure for enforcement will have to follow.

"Whether you pass this rule or not, I suspect we're going to have it (a procedure for enforcement) because I think if everybody understands implicitly we believe this is the code by which we operate, and when people violate that code, whether it's written down or whether it's part of our unwritten understanding of our responsibilities, we have to have something to deal with it," Headrick said.

Mitchell Harwitz, associate professor of economics, told senators they can vote for the proposal because its subjunctive language-use of the words "should" and "if"-does not make it a "hard rule. All it says is 'we ought to act in a certain way.' Since we all agree we ought to act in certain ways, and this is all couched in the subjunctive and not the imperative, it seems to me we can vote for this."

Jack Meacham, professor of psychology, supported the proposal, calling it "exactly the right thing to do." The proposed code "alerts our colleagues that the situation in the 1990s is different from the '60s, '70s and '80s," he said. The proposed policy is "not a law or set of regulations," he added."This is a statement of principle, what we believe in, what we would like the world to be," he said. "It's not something to use to police each other."

The proposal will be discussed at the senate's next meeting March 4.

In other business:

· The senate approved a resolution supporting a SUNY review committee's report on the New Paltz sex conference that defended actions of New Paltz President Roger Bowen in allowing the conference to be held, despite its controversial topic.

· A vote endorsing a resolution establishing procedures for review of major reorganizations of academic units was disallowed because the senate had lost its quorum. Another vote will be held on March 4