Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9

To

.........SENATE 

Sub S

0..... 

ci

M99

REPORT 

OF SENATE COMMITTEE 

AWD

TO?

RESPONSIBILITIES 

From. .

cower

TO CONSIDER 

ETHICS AND RESPONSIBLITIES 

Date.. March 22 1982 

MOTION: 

"That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors 

the inclusion of the attached Code of Professional 

Ethics and Professional Relationships as University 

policy. 

The Senate Committee to Consider Faculty Ethics and 

Responsibilities recommends, but does not insist, 

that this code be appended to AC 2." 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

From ......

........CLEVELAND 

?

.

...................

SECRETARY OF SENATE 

Subject.REPORT OF SENATE COMMITTEE TO 

CONSIDER FACULTY ETHICS AND 

R1P(Th1cTRTTTTTPc

Date....... .3 

.

198.. 

Attached is the report of the Committee with a specific motion 

for Senate. ? 

The Committee would appreciate your efforts to have the 

motion placed before the April meeting of Senate. 

Thank you. 

cc. N.M.G. Bhakthan 

M. E. Manley-Casimir 

C.H.W. Jones 

.

DRAFT 

The Senate Committee to Consider Faculty Ethics and 

Responsibilities recommends the adoption of the following 

motion: 

"That Senate recommend to the Board of Governors the 

inclusion of the attached Code of Professional Ethics 

and Professional Relationships as University policy. 

The Committee recommends, but does not insist, that 

this Code be appended to AC 2." 

REPORT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER FACULTY ETHICS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

.

The Committee received three charges - 

I)

To review the need for a University policy on faculty 

ethics and responsibilities; 

II)

To consider relevant policies and procedures in effect 

at other Canadian universities; 

III) 

To consider previous efforts at developing policies In 

this area. 

This report addresses each of these charges. 

I. The Committee concluded that a code of faculty ethics ought to be 

University policy. 

?

The particular code recommended by the Committee 

is a slightly revised version of the CAUT guidelines as adopted by 

the SFU and UBC faculty associations. 

?

The SFU Faculty Association 

executive was consulted by the Committee and has endorsed both the 

proposed code and the recommendation that it become Uni'rersity policy. 

II. The situation at other Canadian institutions - 

S

i. UBC - In 1973, the UBC Faculty Association approved the 

adoption of 'Guidelines Concerning Professional Ethics' for 

inclusion in the Faculty Handbook. 

?

The guidelines are very 

similar to those adopted by the CAIJT and recommended by this 

Committee. ? 

They are not part of UBC official policy. 

2.

U. Vic. - At this institution, a statement headed 'Professional 

Ethics' is included in the tenure document approved by the 

University's Board of Governors. 

?

It is thus part of university 

policy. ? 

The statement itself conforms to the tone of the 

CAUT document. 

3.

York - The collective agreement between the Board and the 

Faculty Association defines the professional responsibility 

of faculty members. Among those responsibilities is the 

establishment of fair and ethical relationships with students 

and colleagues. 

4.

University of Alberta, Calgary - No guidelines on ethics are 

in effect. 

III. Previous efforts at Developing Policies at SFU - 

A persistent effort to deal with the definition and codification 

of standards of faculty ethics was undertaken by an ad hoc Senate 

. ? Committee struck 

in

September, 1968. Known informally as the Day 

Committee, it submitted its first report in 1969, its second 

in

1971, 

and its final one in 1974. 

-2-

In the course of its lengthy deliberations, the Day Committee 

concluded that the CAUT 'Guidelines concerning Professional Ethics 

and Professional Relationships were the most suitable guidelines 

for faculty conduct at SFU. Senate voiced no major objections to 

the 'Guidelines' themselves, and they were eventually adopted by 

the SFU Faculty Association in July, 1981. 

?

A version of those 

guidelines is what is now before Senate.) 

The Day Committee encountered difficulties when it attempted to 

establish rules and procedures which contravened certain provisions 

of the University Act. These difficulties caused the Committee to 

be dissolved and its final report to be withdrawn. 

IV Conclusions 

Since the dissolution of the Day Committee, the University has 

adopted policies which make it unnecessary for the current ad hoc 

Committee to accompany its motion with a series of procedural 

recommendations. 

Any faculty member who feels he/she has been wrongly accused 

of a violation of the proposed code of ethics has recourse to an 

appeal through the mechanisms of AC 41, the University Act, and 

the University Affairs Committee. 

?

In addition, we feel that the? 

informal channels of communication between Department Chairpersons 

and faculty members, between Chairpersons and Deans, and between 

Deans and the President and Vice-President Academic are such as 

to protect faculty members from unjust accusations and to protect 

students and colleagues from the persistence of unethical behaviour 

as defined in the proposed Code. 

The Committee recommends to Senate that these formal and 

informal procedural safeguards be allowed to service the implementation 

of the proposed Code for a period of two years. 

?

If, at the end of? 

two years, more specific procedures are deemed necessary, they should 

be drawn up by the appropriate bodies. 

SIMON FRASER

STUDENT SOCIETY

4

SSOCIATION des ETUDIANTS

is ?

de SIMON FRASER

1981 September 11 

HarryEvanS, Secretary of Senate 

Simon Fraser University 

Burnaby, B. C. 

Dear Harry: 

Re: FacU1L Code 9 

,

f Conduct and Ethics 

Please be advised that the Simon Fraser Student Society Forum, 

on 1981 September 9, passed the following motion: 

"That the Simon Fraser Student Society endorses the development 

of a Faculty Code of Ethics and Responsibilities, and 

that the C.A.U.T. guidelines concerning professional ethics and 

professional relationships is the minimum acceptable such 

.

code, and 

that the Simon Fraser Student Society would greatly prefer that 

the provisions of such a code be mandatory and not advisory, and 

that the Simon Fraser Student Society urges and endorses the 

addition of such a code to the University's policy." 

I trust that you will forward this motion to both the Senate 

Committee on Academic Planning and the Senate Committee on Agenda 

and Rules. 

Respectfully 

bb

Internal Relations Officer 

CUPE 396 

simon fraser university burnaby, b.c. v5a 1s6

I

telephone 291-3181

université simon fraser bur naby, c.-b. v5a 1s6

téléfon 291-3181

1. FACULTY MEMBERS AS TEACHERS 

The first responsibility of university teachers is the pursuit and 

dissemination of knowledge and understanding through teaching and 

research. 

?

They must devote their energies conscientiously to? 

develop their scholarly competence and effectiveness as teachers. 

They must be conscientious in the preparation and organization 

of their subject matter and should revise this periodically in the 

light of developments in their fields. 

They must conscientiously strive to improve the methods of 

presentation of their subjects to their students. 

They must encourage the free exchange of ideas between themselves 

and their students. 

They must always be fair to their students. 

?

It is unethical for 

them to exploit students for their private advantage. 

?

It is 

?

unethical for them to utilize the work of students in a publication 

without appropriate attribution. 

They are guilty of unethical conduct if they act so as to prevent 

the fulfilment of these responsibilities by themselves or by other 

members of the academic community. 

They must keep in confidence all privileged information gained about 

a student, whether concerning academic progress, personal life or 

political and religious views. 

?

Nevertheless, they may reveal 

?

information about the academic standing of students in response 

to a request from a reputable source; they may refer to the student's 

character only insofar as this is relevant. 

?

When actirg as 

referees, they must strive to be fair and objective. 

II. FACULTY MEMBERS AS SCHOLARS 

All scholarly activity conducted within the University must have as its 

primary objectives: (i) the increase of knowledge and understanding; 

(ii) 

the improvement of the scholarly competence of the teacher, and 

(iii) 

insofar as possible, the initiation of students into the 

academic disciplines. 

In view of the first objective, it is essential that faculty members 

be free to disseminate the results of their research through 

publication, lectures and other appropriate means. 

It is unethical for faculty members to enter into any agreement that 

infringes their freedom to publish the results of research conducted 

within the university precincts or under university auspices. 

Notwithstanding this, faculty members may agree to delay, for a 

specific period of time, publication of the results of sponsored or 

contract research, provided that this condition is agreed to by the 

University. 

FACULTY MEMBERS AS COLLEAGUES 

1.

They have the obligation to defend the right of their colleagues 

to academic freedom. 

?

It is unethical to act so as deliberately? 

to infringe that freedom. 

2.

They should refrain from denigration of the character and 

competence of their colleagues. 

?

When presenting a professional 

?

judgment on a colleague at the request of an appropriate university 

committee or authority (e.g. a committee dealing with appointments, 

tenure, dismissal or research grants), or in any other forum, they 

have the obligation both to the colleague and to the University to 

be fair and objective. 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

1.

2.

III. 

....2

-2-

. ? 3. ? 

It is unethical to fail to respect the confidentiality of 

information about a colleague gained during participation in the 

work of committees such as those described in Section IV.2. 

?

4. ? 

They have the responsibility to acknowledge in their scholarly 

lectures and publications, academic debts to colleagues and students. 

?

3. ? 

It is unethical for them to exploit the unpaid work of colleagues 

for personal gain. 

IV. FACULTY MEMBERS AND THE UNIVERSITY 

1.

In accepting a university appointment, faculty members assume 

obligations to the University in addition to their primary duties 

as teachers and scholars. 

?

They have the responsibility to 

participate in the life of the University, in its governance and 

administration, through membership on committees and organizations 

at Board, Senate, Faculty and Department levels, provided that this 

participation is consistent with the discharge of their primary 

responsibilities and with their own abilities. 

2.

It is unethical for them to accept an appointment to an administrative 

position (e.g. Department Chairman, Dean, President) unless satisfied 

that adequate consultative procedures have been employed in filling 

the post. 

3.

They have a responsibility to abide by the rules and regulations 

established for the orderly conduct of the affairs of the University, 

provided that these rules and regulations do not infringe the academic 

freedom of faculty and students or the principles of ethical conduct 

as set forth in this policy. ? 

At the same time, they have a 

responsibility to seek reforms which would, in their judgment, 

improve the University. 

4.

It is unethical to fail to give proper notice of resignation of a 

faculty appointment, in accordance with the appropriate university 

regulations, or to accept another position involving conflicting 

obligations for a period covered under the terms of an existing 

appointment. 

5.

Faculty members should avoid the following potential conflicts of 

interest unless, after full consulation, they have the approval of 

the university officer to whom they are responsible: 

a) ? 

Authorize the purchase by the University of equipment, supplies 

or services from a source in which they or their families have 

a substantial interest; 

b)

?

Hire any member of their immediate family as an employee or 

consultant for any project supported by funds administered 

through the University; 

c) ? 

Be associated with the management of any undertaking which hires 

or proposes to hire university personnel. 

V. FACULTY MEMBERS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE 

1.

?

In statements outside the University, they retain the responsibility 

of seeking the truth andof stating it as they see it. 

?

However, 

they should make clear that except when specifically authorized to 

do so, they are acting in their own names and not in the name of the 

University. 

-3-

2.

Secondary income: The time involved in any consulting or related 

work and the nature of such work, involving payment to the 

professor by any person or organization other than the University 

must be disclosed to the appropriate university authorities in 

accordance with existing university policies. 

3.

When they enter into a special relationship with some sector of 

the community at large, as when they are engaged as consultants 

or when they conduct research under contract, they have a 

responsibility to ensure that these duties are consistent with 

their primary obligation to the University and in no way 

deleteriously affect their duties within the University. 

L^