A long awaited code of conduct for faculty members took the next big step towards fruition on Wednesday, as the Faculty Senate Executive Committee reviewed a first draft of the document, which will set standards for teacher-student relationships and define a university mission for all professors.
The Faculty Senate also amended UB's academic dishonesty policy, allowing accused students to now seek advisement from outside the UB community.
The latter part of the meeting was spent reading and discussing the newly developed Faculty Code of Conduct. Although many universities have similar documents, UB has never had one.
In its first version, the document does not deal with issues like completing individual tasks, such as turning in grades on time, but it rather focuses on a broader mission.
"This is not a statement about performing well. This is a matter of ethics," said math professor Samuel Schack, who was on the ad hoc committee that drafted the Code of Conduct.
Another issue within the code that the Faculty Senate debated was whether clinicians, or health professionals, should be included in the definition of "faculty," or as a distinct group. The first draft did not have a specific section showing how faculty members who are clinicians have different, possibly more extensive or specific, ethical obligations.
The issue of sexual relations between faculty and students also came up when concerning teaching assistants. The Code of Conduct officially and strictly forbids any sexual relations between faculty members and students. TA's, however, are considered both faculty members and students at the same time, and it is very possible that they may be involved with one of their peers who are also in one of their classes.
The committee that developed the document said they would likely lean towards prohibiting those relationships as well, but the document must still go to a vote.
The code begins with a section on UB's "Principles of Community," followed by a segment on ethical principles, with an emphasis on the faculty's "tripartite mission" as scholars, as teachers, and in service. The service section was also split into three sections dealing with the faculty's service to their colleagues, both within and outside the university.
The vote on it will likely be preceded by further debate on these issues and others, as well as revisions.
Finalizing such a code of conduct has been a top priority of President John Simpson since he took office two years ago. The model for UB's new code, in fact, is based on that of faculty guidelines used in the University of California system, where Simpson was previously an administrator at UC-Santa Cruz.
A second reading of UB's Code of Conduct will take place at the next Faculty Senate meeting, after classes resume in January.
Wednesday's meeting also saw the end of an old UB policy that said a student accused of academic dishonesty could only seek the advisement of a lawyer who was a member of the UB community and was not "acting in their capacity as a member of the Bar."
The new rules allow a student to seek advisement from anyone they wish, but the policy clearly states that the hearing does not abide by the rules of a courtroom. The advisor, therefore, may still not act as a member of the Bar.
"It's a matter of students' rights," said James Campbell, a political science professor on the FSEC.
Campbell emphasized the importance of being fair when it came to this particular issue.
"We are adopting a policy that will never apply to any of us," he said.
The topic was raised at the last FSEC meeting regarding how a lawyer could, in fact, not act like a lawyer when put in a trial-like situation.
William Baumer, a philosophy professor and the director of Undergraduate Education, said the distinction of "not acting as a member of the Bar" is important because it does not give the students attorney-client privilege.
In other words, said Baumer, who is also the chair of the grading committee, what an accused student says to an advisor does not need to be kept confidential.
Professor Schack, one of the original supporters of a similar amendment, said he strongly backed the changes.
"I think that fairness says that a student should have any advisor that they trust," he said.
