ACADEMIC PERSONNEL POLICY APM-015 FORMAL REVIEW

GENERAL UNIVERSITY POLICY APM - 015
REGARDING ACADEMIC APPOINTEES DRAFT (Clean copy)
The Faculty Code of Conduct 4/3/01

This policy is the Faculty Code of Conduct as approved by the Assembly of the Academic
Senate on June 15, 1971, and amended by the Assembly on May 30, 1974, and with
amendments approved by the Assembly on March 9, 1983, May 6, 1986, May 7, 1992, and
XXXX, 2001, and by The Regents on July 18, 1986, May 15, 1987, June 19, 1992, and
XXXX, 2001. In addition, technical changes were made September 1, 1988.

Additional policies regarding the scope and application of the Faculty Code of Conduct and
the University's policies on faculty conduct and the administration of discipline are set forth
in APM - 016, the University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of
Discipline.

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 of 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 The Faculty Code of Conduct 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 the following paragraph. The Types of Unacceptable
Faculty Conduct, unlike the Ethical Principles, are mandatory 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 the Ethical Principles, these statements specify examples of types of
unacceptable faculty behavior which are subject to University discipline because,
as stated in the introductory section to Part II, they "violate the Ethical Principles"
and they "significantly impair the University's central functions as set forth in the
Preamble."

The Ethical Principles encompass major concerns traditionally and currently important to the
profession. The examples of types of unacceptable faculty conduct set forth below are not
exhaustive. 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.
Faculty may be subjected to disciplinary action under this Code for any type of conduct
which, although not specifically enumerated herein, meets the standard for unacceptable
faculty behavior set forth above. 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. In order to guide each campus in the development of disciplinary
procedures that comply with this policy and Senate Bylaws, Part III provides an outline of
mandatory principles to which each Division must adhere and discretionary principles which
are strongly recommended.

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:

1. free inquiry, and exchange of ideas;

2. the right to present controversial material relevant to a course of instruction;

3. enjoyment of constitutionally protected freedom of expression;

4. participation in the governance of the University, as provided in the Bylaws and
Standing Orders of The Regents and the regulations of the University, including

(a) approval of course content and manner of instruction,

(b) establishment of requirements for matriculation and for degrees,

(d) selection of chairs of departments and certain academic administrators,

(e) discipline of members of the faculty, and the formulation of rules and
procedures for discipline of students,

(f) establishment of norms for teaching responsibilities and for evaluation of both
faculty and student achievement, and

(g) determination of the forms of departmental governance;

5. the right to be judged by one's colleagues, in accordance with fair procedures and
due process, in matters of promotion, tenure, and discipline, solely on the basis of
the faculty members' 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 or administrative actions, 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 violates the ethical principles and which
significantly impairs the University's central functions as set forth in the
Preamble. To the extent that violations of University policies mentioned
in the examples below are not also violations of the ethical principles,
these policy violations may not be independent grounds for imposing
discipline as defined herein. The Types of Unacceptable Conduct listed
below in Sections A through E are examples of types of conduct which
meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively subject to
University discipline. Other types of conduct, not specifically
enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if
they also meet the preceding standards.

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 reflects 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) In this section,
the term student refers to all individuals under the academic supervision of faculty.

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, including harassment, 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 covered veteran,
or, within the limits imposed by law or University regulations, because of age
or citizenship or for other arbitrary or personal reasons.

3. Violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying
to nondiscrimination against students on the basis of disability.

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 research misconduct and/or
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:

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

2. 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.

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

4. Forcible detention, threats of physical harm to, harassment or intimidation of
another member of the University community, that interferes with that
person's performance of University activities.

5. Discrimination, including harassment, against University staff on political
grounds, or for reasons of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, ethnic origin,
national origin, ancestry, marital status, medical condition, status as a covered
veteran or, within the limits imposed by law or University regulations,
because of age or citizenship, or for other arbitrary or personal reasons.

6. Violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines, applying
to nondiscrimination against staff on the basis of disability.

7. Violation of University policies governing the professional conduct of faculty,
including but not limited to policies applying to research, outside professional
activities, conflicts of commitment, clinical practices, violence in the
workplace, and whistleblower protections.

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, 1987)

Types of unacceptable conduct:

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

2. Discrimination, including harassment, 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
covered veteran, or, within the limits imposed by law or University
regulations, because of age or citizenship or for other arbitrary or personal
reasons.

3. Violation of the University policy, including the pertinent guidelines,
applying to nondiscrimination against faculty on the basis of disability.

4. 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:

1. 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.)

2. 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.

Part III - Enforcement and Sanctions

The Assembly of the Academic Senate recommends that each Division, in cooperation with
the campus Administration, develop and periodically re-examine procedures dealing with the
investigation of allegations of faculty misconduct and the conduct of disciplinary
proceedings.

Procedures shall be consistent with the Bylaws of the Academic Senate. Each Division
should duly notify the University Committee on Rules and Jurisdiction and the University
Committee on Privilege and Tenure of the procedures it has adopted and any subsequent
changes therein. These Committees in turn are directed to report periodically to the
Assembly of the Academic Senate on procedures adopted by the Divisions and to
recommend to the Assembly such action as they deem appropriate for assuring compliance
with the Bylaws of the Academic Senate or the promotion of uniformity among Divisions to
the extent to which it appears necessary and desirable.

A. In the development of disciplinary procedures, each Division must adhere to the
following principles:

1. No disciplinary sanction for professional misconduct shall be imposed by the
Administration except in accordance with specified campus procedures
adopted after appropriate consultation with agencies of the Academic
Senate, as prescribed in the introduction to this part of the Code.
Systemwide procedures for the conduct of disciplinary hearings are set forth
in the Academic Senate Bylaw 336.

2. No disciplinary sanction shall be imposed until after the faculty member has
had an opportunity for a hearing before the Divisional Committee on
Privilege and Tenure, subsequent to a filing of a charge by the appropriate
administrative Officer, as described in Academic Senate Bylaw 336.

3. No disciplinary action may commence if more than three years have passed
between the time when the Chancellor knew or should have known about the
alleged violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct and the delivery of the
notice of proposed disciplinary action.

4. The Chancellor may not initiate notice of proposed disciplinary action
unless there has been a finding of probable cause. The probable cause standard
means that the facts as alleged in the complaint, if true, justify the
imposition of discipline for a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct and that
the Chancellor is satisfied that the University can produce credible
evidence to support the claim. In cases where the Chancellor wants a
disciplinary action to proceed, the divisional hearing committee must hold a
hearing and make findings on the evidence presented unless the accused
faculty member settles the matter with the Chancellor prior to the hearing or
explicitly waives his or her right to a hearing.

5. The procedures adopted shall include designation of the following
disciplinary sanctions authorized in the University Policy on Faculty
Conduct and the Administration of Discipline, of which this Faculty Code of
Conduct is an integral part: written censure, reduction in salary, demotion,
suspension, denial or curtailment of emeritus status, and dismissal from the
employ of the University. The Divisional Committee on Privilege and
Tenure shall not have the power to recommend the imposition of a sanction
more severe than that proposed in the notice of disciplinary action. More
than one disciplinary sanction may be imposed for a single act of
misconduct, e.g. a letter of censure and a suspension.

B. In the development of disciplinary procedures, it is recommended that each Division
adhere to the following principles:

1. In order to facilitate the efficient and timely handling of disciplinary matters,
it is recommended that procedures be developed that allow each Divisional
Committee on Privilege and Tenure to sit in hearing panels smaller than the
full committee.

2. There should be an appropriate mechanism for consideration and
investigation of allegations of misconduct received from members of the
faculty, staff, students, the administration, and other members of the
University community. Procedures should be developed which encourage a single
formal investigation of the allegations leading to the proposed disciplinary
action.

3. Because it is desirable that the faculty meaningfully participate in its own
self-discipline, and in order to provide the administration with faculty advice
in the beginning stages of what may become formal disciplinary
proceedings, appropriate procedures should be developed to involve the
faculty in participating in the investigation of allegations of misconduct
and/or in making recommendations to appropriate administrative officers
whether a disciplinary charge should be filed. Divisions are encouraged to
develop procedures to provide faculty investigators with training,
consultation, or legal counsel to assist with the investigation of faculty
disciplinary cases.

4. There should be provision for informal disposition of allegations of faculty
misconduct before formal disciplinary proceedings are instituted.
Procedures should be developed for mediation of cases where mediation is
viewed as acceptable by the Chancellor and the faculty member accused of
misconduct. Mediators should be trained in mediation, be regarded as
neutral third parties and have experience in the University environment. In
cases where a settlement resolving disciplinary charges is entered into after a
matter has been referred to an Academic Senate committee, the Chancellor
is encouraged to consult with the Chair of the Divisional Privilege and
Tenure committee prior to finalizing the settlement.

5. Appropriate precautions should be taken to safeguard the confidentiality of
investigative and disciplinary proceedings. Procedures should be developed
that allow information about an ongoing disciplinary proceeding, including
information about the outcome, to be shared with complainant(s), to the
extent allowable by State law and University policy.

6. There should be provision, to the maximum feasible extent, for separating
investigative and judicial functions. A faculty member who has participated
in investigating an allegation of misconduct or in recommending that a
charge should be filed should thereafter not participate, as a member of the
Committee on Privilege and Tenure, in the hearing of that charge.

7. In the implementation of all procedures, specific provisions should be made
for the time span within which certain actions may or must be taken. Every
effort should be made to conform to reasonable, specified time frames.
Ideally, a hearing should commence within 45 days of the date on which the
accused faculty member has been notified of the intention to initiate a
disciplinary proceeding. A faculty member who is entitled to a hearing
should not be permitted thereafter to delay imposition of discipline by
refusing to cooperate or being unavailable for a scheduled hearing.
A hearing shall not be postponed because the faculty member is on leave or
fails to appear.

8. There should be consideration of provision for the availability of removal or
termination of a sanction, either automatically or by administrative
discretion, in individual cases. The nature and circumstances of the offense
should determine the severity and type of discipline.

9. Procedures should be developed for keeping records of disciplinary matters
in a confidential manner and sharing such records with Senate and
administrative officers with a need to know in accordance with State law and
University policy.

RETURN TO CONTENTS