Code Commentary
Download this entire document in .pdf

The Union and the Academic Senate have received critical commentary on the Administration’s proposed Code of Ethics from nearly 100 members of the faculty and academic staff. Select comments are printed below,along with the section of the Code (in bold italics) to which reference is made.

Peoples’ names have been excised to protect them from administrators who may believe they have “raised questions” that damage the University’s reputation….

4.1:…. Members of the university community shall not engage in conduct or activities that may raise questions as to their or the University's ethics, honesty, integrity, impartiality or otherwise damage its reputation.

“It seems that … a statement as simple as ‘Infrastructure is underfunded at Wayne State’ could be interpreted as a matter of slander rather than as professional judgment.”

“I am especially concerned about the word ‘impartiality.’ In areas of research that affect public policy, points of view that derive from our scholarly work certainly cannot be considered ‘impartial,’ especially by those who may be affected by the very public policies that these views may be relevant to. Impartial? Hardly! Scholarly and well-reasoned? Yes.”

 “It is illegal and nonsensical to ban conduct that ‘may raise questions’ about the actor's honesty or the university's honesty, etc. What about the Lumigen case, when lots of high people in the administration were found by the court of appeals to have engaged in dishonest conduct?”

 “This would mean that we are unable to speak out against what we see as unethical, dishonest or biased behavior on the part of administration.”

“I don't see how this is remotely enforceable. Let’s say I organize a conference and decide to invite a very controversial speaker… on a topic of current, and possibly inflammatory, interest (e.g., Middle East politics and history, international law and Bush administration ‘war crimes,’ the Patriot Act, etc.). Perhaps this might spark a public outcry, that the university was endorsing the speaker's views…. This is not too far from what happened at Columbia recently, when they hosted the president of Iran.”

“It reminds me of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Section 4 of the proposed Code almost seems modeled after Section 2 of the Sedition Act of 1798.  Look at what it says:

SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

 “Laws can only forbid actions, and well-defined actions at that…. The purpose of a code is to prohibit concrete acts that may hurt others and not to prohibit raising questions.”

“….a strongly worded and correct criticism could damage the university’s reputation—not out of malice, but because the criticism is true and the activity by the university is one that no self-respecting university would want known by all.”

 “Surely the General Counsel’s office should be able to see that this is problematic.”

“It was clearly written by someone who either has no idea what a university does… [or] is opposed to it!”

“Given the recent exchange between Charlie Parrish and the administration, he would be fired.”

“It would seem that this article prohibits me from advising a student to attend the University of Michigan for graduate work in preference to Wayne State, even if that advice is in the best interest of my student.”

“It’s vague, it’s meaningless (until they come after you), and it's a limit on academic freedom that entirely conflicts with our collective bargaining agreement as well as general principles held dear in academia.”

 “Someone needs to remind the President that we are not in a corporation, and to some degree the essence of a university is its ‘honest broker’ status….”

“Some criminal law texts, incidentally, refer to extremely broad statutes passed in the 1930s in Germany and the Soviet Union in discussions of the vagueness doctrine….”

4.2: It is the responsibility of each member of the university community to exercise good judgment and to act in a manner that will reflect favorably upon the institution.

“I’d love to see a legally binding definition of ‘good judgment,’ or ‘act[ing] in a manner that will reflect favorably upon the institution.’ This strikes me as … a way to penalize or get rid of anyone who has done something to irk the administration.”

“PS: I hope I didn't just violate paragraph 4.2 by criticizing the University....”

“Suppose that the institution itself is acting unethically (discriminating against minority employees, underpaying women employees compared to male employees, etc.).  In order to ‘reflect favorably on the institution’ in that context, one would have to be unethical by not revealing the truth about the institution.  Surely an ethical rule cannot require unethical behavior.”

“This institution has done some dumb things, and I consider it appropriate for me to point that out in the interest of preventing such behavior in the future.”

4.3: Members of the university community are expected to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of this policy….

“That's pretty nebulous language.  And what if I feel that I have, but someone else feels that I haven't?  Who then gets to decide, and on what basis?”

5.2: A "bribe" or "kickback" includes… an exchange of money, favors or anything else of value, which is promised, given to, or taken from an individual or organization in an attempt to influence his/her decisions….

“This section is far too broad. It prohibits my requesting of an examination copy of a book that I am considering for adoption; and it prohibits my acceptance of an unsolicited examination copy from a publisher. It is plainly obvious that academics were not involved in the formulation of this policy.”

“It is standard for publishers to pay honoraria to faculty for reviews of manuscripts and to participate in focus groups…. I am concerned that the university could accuse faculty members participating in reviews, focus groups, etc. of receiving bribes or gifts, even if (as is usual) they act in good faith.”

5.3: Should there be any situation where a personal gift, favor, service, or gratuity is offered, the employee must decline and thank the individual while advising him/her of the University's policy concerning the acceptance of any such goods or services.

“When I organized a conference…, the hotel involved offered me a free room upgrade. Would this be interpreted as a personal favor?”

“Would a dean’s acceptance of a holiday gingerbread house model of the law school, from a law firm that is mainly made up of alumni but could perhaps be brought on for advice about a particular matter, be a breach?”

“What about desk and examination copies of publications? Or reduced-rate faculty subscriptions (New York Times, for example)? How am I supposed to know if The New York Times is doing business with, or seeking to do business with, the University?

“I believe there are entertainment venues for which higher ups at Wayne State/DMC have tickets to take potential donors?  …Why is this ok?

5.4:  Members of the university community may not take any action [or] participate in any decision… on behalf of the University that will directly result in a benefit to themselves or any person… connected with themselves or the University.

“It is not clear what is meant here. Is it forbidden to do anything that gives a benefit to oneself on behalf of the university? What about me asking for summer salary in my research grant? This is way too vague.”

“If I cannot ‘take any action’ that will directly result in a benefit to myself, then how can I show up for work? Use my HAP card? Write for publication? Or get paid?”

“[This] reads as though it was written by an ill-prepared college student…. Every time I publish an article, it benefits me as well as the university.”

5.5: Relationships with vendors must be for Wayne State University business purposes only. All personal relationships with vendors must be disclosed immediately on the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form.

“So if I have a friend who works for an office supply vendor – I need to tell the Board of Governor’s secretary? This seems like overkill.”

“Many of our medical school faculty have legitimate commercial relationships with drug companies and medical device manufacturers that are also vendors for university related entities.
Are these faculty supposed to be completing university conflict of interest forms…?”

“What is meant by a personal relationship with a vendor? I know all the math publishers' representatives and meet with them regularly to keep up with new publications and trends. Is this a conflict of interest?”

“I don't think I should need to report to the Board of Governors every time I say hello to the Scientific Supply Company Representative who lives down the street.”

5.8: Members of the university community shall use University computer and technology resources solely for university business….

“I think that a plan to micromanage what we can or can’t do with our computers will backfire and make us less productive in the whole.  Faculty may decide to work at home more rather than worry about every move being monitored.”

“What about retired faculty who retain WSU email accounts?  They won't be doing much in the way of University business.”

 “What if I e-mail my wife or my family?... It sounds like I am not allowed to e-mail friends or look up a funny YouTube movie that a colleague sends me. That seems excessive to say the least.”

 “….My use of email to respond to your email on this new ethics policy might not be considered ‘university business’.”

7.1: Members of the university community are expected to report allegations of conduct that are reasonably believed to violate this code to management…. Individuals reporting violations should not discuss or provide copies of their report to others.

“Shall we now have to wonder whether our colleagues are, in fact, informants, lying in wait?”

“I gather that the expectation would be that all of us at least prospectively are spies.  If we do not look for trouble-makers, if we do not tell on people we think are violating rules, even if we think it's none of our business— as it often is not, since we are not always in a position to make good judgments based on partial evidence— we can be fired?”   

“We are encouraged to spy on each other?  Who polices the police?”

“I'm now expected to secretly report when I notice that a graduate student is using the department copier to print a news article or a personal résumé? It's now part of my job to be a professional tattletale?”

“[This] seems to skip the step that the American Psychological Association's code allows and in fact promotes— confronting the individual about the alleged violation and working out a acceptable solution before reporting it to Daddy.”

“[This] is a little scary.  You are supposed to rat out your colleagues, but then in the interests of ‘confidentiality and fairness’ you aren’t to talk about or provide a copy of your report to anyone else.”

“This sort of surveillance environment is predicated on a basic distrust of the faculty... and will seriously damage if not destroy the very essence of collegiality.”

8.2: Any violation of this policy may subject an employee to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment….

“Would ‘conviction’ be in the sole hands of the administration? What about penalties? Is there going to be any provision for a hearing or appeals process? What role would the union play? How will this work with the collective bargaining agreement?”

 “The tone of this document is one of dictation as shown in the use of words such as ‘forbidden’, ‘comply’, ‘shall not’, and ‘must not’ as well as in threats about termination of employment.”

9.1: This University Policy is revocable by the President at any time and without notice.

“How can a President revoke ethical standards without notice?”

General Comments:

“Bottom line - I think rationale needs to be provided for why this policy is being presented in the first place. Without a strong rationale, this comes across as yet another ‘slap’ in the face from administration and implies that there is a lack of ethical conduct from current employees.”

 “There certainly isn't anything in this entire document that suggests a scintilla of mutual respect or cooperation!”

“By the way, is there no one around here willing to tell the President that he's being an idiot, and a dictatorial idiot at that?

“I wonder which third grade class drafted this document.  It ranges from the obvious to the absurd. This might have been circulated in Eastern Europe or Germany during the Soviet occupation.”

“I am shocked at the poor draftsmanship in this document.  It is appalling that the University did not include faculty as a large part of the drafting body, and it is worrisome indeed that this document includes numerous problematic items from a free speech and citizenship perspective.”

“This ‘ethics’ policy is so full of ethical violations that it makes one cringe.  I fear for this university, when a committee of our administrators (including a well-regarded legal scholar) can produce such a document with equanimity.”

“Well, this is an interesting missive from the dictator.”

“It’s déjà vu all over again.  The proposed “Code of Ethics” is reminiscent of some of
David Adamany’s more outrageous executive orders.  It seems to confirm that we again have a control freak at the helm…. Oh my, I think that I may have just violated the Code.  Please don’t turn me in.” 

“It seems likely that this new code should be titled ‘The Prevent Parrish from Calling Me Mussolini Act’…. Noren has been censored twice; perhaps three times is the charm....”

“Its language is a slap on all of our faces.”

“I agree wholeheartedly that the ‘here's a document, what do you think’ approach, without a process for negotiating how we move forward, is hardly the stuff of a functional university.”

“It would be very helpful if the code at least began with an acknowledgment of core and overarching values which define an academic institution.  The principle of academic freedom, for example, is striking in its absence.”

AAUP-AFT, Local 6075 - 5057 Woodward Avenue - Suite 3301 - Detroit, Michigan 48202-4050 - Phone: (313) 577-1750 / Fax: (313) 577-8159