[[Colleagues, This is a cross-posting; I posted the materials below to the "FacultyRetreat" group. I thought this draft proposal would also be of interest here. dfg]]

[FacultyRetreat Colleagues. Given the original genesis and background of the formation of our group, I thought the following might be interesting. As one kind of faculty obligation or one aspect of faculty obligation, it is a draft of a policy that AAUP's National Council will probably adopt as Association policy at our November meeting. After that, it would be published in our *Redbook,* along with other statements that may be of use to this group. dg]

On the Obligation of Faculty Members to Respond to Misconduct The American Association of University Professors has long emphasized the obligations assumed by all members of the academic profession in their relations with faculty, students, and other members of the academic community. Occasions arise, however, when professors have substantial reason to believe that a faculty colleague has violated standards of professional behavior. When that occurs, professors should take the initiative to respond to apparently unethical conduct. The initiative can take several forms: from discussion with the professor in question, which may suffice to allay concerns that led to the initial inquiry; to an offer to serve as a mediator, to filing a complaint with appropriate faculty or administrative authorities. Some approaches are tentative and exploratory, while others will be inescapably adversarial. Whatever initiative is pursued, professors should take the utmost care to identify, for themselves and for those whom they may approach, the ethical principles, institutional rules, or other policies which they believe may have been violated. They should carefully assess the strength of the evidence upon which their concerns rest. They should also insist that their institutions have in place clear, regular procedures to deal with alleged violations of guidelines regarding misconduct.' Even with these precautions, responding may entail risks. To discuss someone's alleged misconduct with that individual may be neither personally nor professionally easy. It may lead to retaliation and harm to one's career. Moreover, information about the conduct of a colleague may be erroneous or it may be tainted by professional or personal bias. An individual falsely accused may suffer undeserved damage to his or her career or reputation. But the potential risks do not diminish the obligation of professors to pursue what they believe to be well-founded, specific concerns of professional wrongdoing by other members of the faculty, for the failure to respond can be more damaging. It can result in situations where no one acts at all because each hopes someone else will. And if no one who knows about the alleged misconduct responds, a seeming lack of concern may lead to underestimating or denying its seriousness. Not responding may also inadvertently help to sustain conditions in which misconduct is left unchecked or even condoned. The obligation to act is rooted in two considerations. First, in the words of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, institutions of higher education "are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole." The common good is best served when members of the academic community effectively regulate their own affairs, which they do not only when they act ethically themselves but also when they seek to ensure such action by others. Second, faculty members are members of a profession, and as such should guard their own standards of professional behavior. To guard is to call attention to abuses of those standards, for in responding professors exercise their duty, as members of a self-regulating community, to deal with unethical conduct of a member of the community. In so acting, faculty members promote adherence to norms essential to maintaining the integrity and autonomy of the academic profession.

'For the safeguards of academic due process in those cases in which a professor faces disciplinary action because of alleged misconduct, see Regulations 5 and 7 of the Association's "Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure," Academe: Bulletin of the AA UP 69 (January-February 1983): 1 Sa- I 9a.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 1999