A Guide To Professional Ethics in POSC

apsa
the american
political science association
A Guide to
Professional

in
Political Science
Ethics
Second Edition, Revised 2008
APSA Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms
A Guide to Professional Ethics
in Political Science
Second Edition, Revised 2008
The American Political Science Association
1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036-1206
www.apsanet.org
Copyright American Political Science Association 2008
IBSN 1-878147-05-6
Preface
Political scientists share problems in common with practitioners of other scholarly
disciplines. They also frequently encounter ethical problems unique to their professional
concerns. The purpose of this Guide is to provide an authoritative statement of ethical
principles for political scientists, particularly for those newly entering the profession.
In 1967 the APSA created a committee with a broad mandate to explore matters
relevant to the problems of maintaining a high sense of professional standards and
responsibilities. That committee, chaired by Marver H. Bernstein
1
, published its report,
Ethical Problems of Academic Political Scientists, in the summer 1968 issue of PS. An
enduring contribution of this committee was the development of a written code consisting
of twenty-one rules of professional conduct. The Bernstein Report, as it came to be
called, also recommended the appointment of a Standing Committee on Professional
Ethics and such a committee was duly created in 1968.
The title, the work, and the jurisdiction of the Standing Committee have been in a
process of continuous evolution since that time. Its original jurisdiction, for example, did
not include individual cases. The Committee was at frst envisaged as an educational
body to protect the rights of political scientists by the issuance of advisory opinions to
guide the professional behavior of political scientists. Twenty-three advisory opinions
have been adopted since the Committee was established.
In 1989, after some twenty years of experience, the APSA again created a committee to
review the charter of what has come to be called the Committee on Professional Ethics,
Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter Review Committee, chaired by Lawrence J. R. Herson
2
, has incorporated
the advisory opinions into the basic code of the Association, revised and reorganized
the statement of ethical principles, and brought other materials up to date. This newly
revised Guide remains the charter of the Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and
Freedoms, and provides a statement of ethical principles fundamental to the practice of
political scientists.
i
1
Its formal title was the Committee on Professional Standards and Responsibilities. The other members of
the committee were Stephen K. Bailey, Samuel H. Beer, William D. Carey, Manning J. Dauer, David Fellman,
Jack W. Peltason, Douglas W. Rae, Randall B. Ripley, Wallace S. Sayre, Vernon Van Dyke, and Aaron b.
Wildavsky.
2
The other members of the Committee were Gayle Binion, John C. Wahlke, and Nancy H. Zingale. Michael
Brintnall served as Committee coordinator.
Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................... i

I. Grievance Procedures ............................................................................ 1
A. Individual Grievances ..................................................................... 1
B. Reporting Grievances ................................................................... 3
C. Procedures Involving Human Rights of Scholars
in Other Countries ......................................................................... 3
E. Advisory Opinions .......................................................................... 3
II. AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics .......................................... 5
III. Principles of Professional Conduct ................................................... 7
A. Freedom and Integrity of Research by Academic
Political Scientists .......................................................................... 7
Principles for Funding Agencies and Universities .................... 7
Principles for Individual Researchers ....................................... 8
B. Responsibilities in the Classroom and to Students ...................... 10
C. Political Activity of Academic Political Scientists ..........................11
D. Restrictions on the Use of the APSA Name or Offce ................. 12
E. Ethics in the Publication Process ................................................. 12
F. Ethics in the Recruitment and Hiring Process ............................. 15
G. Ethics in Tenure and Promotion ................................................... 18
Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure .. 20
H. Principles Governing Research on Human Subjects .................. 26
I. Principles Concerning Sexual Harassment ................................. 27
J. Principles Governing Graduate Scholars, Fellows,
Trainees, and Assistants .............................................................. 28

Appendix ........................................................................................................ 29
A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science
1 American Political Science Association
I. Grievance Procedures
The APSAs Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms is concerned
about any ethical problem or personal abuse experienced or caused by political
scientists acting in their professional capacity. The primary responsibilities of the
Committee fall into three major areas: (1) handling individual grievances and complaints,
(2) writing ethical guidelines for the Association, usually in the form of advisory opinions,
and (3) helping protect human rights of scholars in other countries.
A. Individual Grievances
Political scientists acting in their professional capacities who face challenges to
professional ethics, academic freedom, or human rights. The Committee on Professional
Ethics, Rights and Freedoms stands ready to be of assistance, and will respond to all
grievances that fall within its jurisdiction. The Committee attempts to give wide latitude to
persons and issues coming before it.
The Committee cannot help until it receives a formal request. Political scientists who
feel they have been mistreated must take the frst step and inform the Committee of the
nature of the problem. After the initial contact is made the aggrieved political scientist
should be ready to provide the Committee with as much detail and documentation of the
alleged abuse as possible.
The Committee encourages political scientists to approach it as soon as they begin to
feel that they are the victims of mistreatment, discrimination, lack of due process, or
other violations of the ethical standards of the discipline. The Committee is prepared to
be of help in what might be termed anticipatory situations. If mediation and resolution of
a problem can be achieved at its inception, so much the better for all concerned.
The Committee always acknowledges and responds to serious allegations of unethical
action.
The Committee will not consider disputes in litigation or disputes being reviewed by
another professional review body such as the American Association of University
Professors. Parties to a dispute are free to bring their allegations to the Ethics
Committee after a dispute has been litigated or after a professional review body has
rendered its decision.
Political scientists and departments of political science are obliged to respond to the
informational needs of the Ethics Committee and its representatives. During its fact-
3
However, APSA does list annually in PS the institutions which have been censured by the American As-
sociation of University Professors (AAUP) and by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT).
fnding, the Ethics Committee does not publicize its involvement, and the information it
receives is treated with complete discretion. In turn, it is the professional obligation of all
parties to a dispute to keep the Committees involvement in strict confdence.
When the occasion warrants, the Committee, after completing its preliminary
investigation, will appoint a Special Representative having the judgment and sensitivity
necessary to win the confdence of those involved to conduct a comprehensive inquiry
into the case.
A Special Representatives frst duty is to try to resolve the complaint. A Special
Representative always approaches a dispute as a fact-fnder and mediator, not as an
advocate for either side. Special Representatives compile a thorough report of their
investigation for the use of the Committee.
At the completion of the fact-fnding done by the Committee and its representatives, the
Ethics Committee will take any actions it can to support those individuals it concludes
have been treated unfairly by other persons or institutions.
The Committee does not have the power to censure individuals, departments or
institutions.It does make every effort to use persuasion and vigorous protest to rectify
situations that violate ethical principles.
Inasmuch as the Committee aims for mediation, situations may arise when the
Committee will advise the complainant that the best course is to pursue the matter
through the American Association of University Professors or to adopt another course of
action.
B. Reporting Grievances
A simple and basic part of the process should not be overlooked: the Committee
cannot help until it receives a formal request. Political scientists who feel they have
been mistreated must take the frst step and inform the Committee of the nature of the
problem. After the initial contact is made the aggrieved political scientist should be ready
to provide the Committee with as much detail and documentation of the alleged abuse
as is possible.
The Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms encourages political
scientists to approach it as soon as they begin to feel that they are the victims of
discriminatory or arbitrary actions. The Committee is prepared to be of help in what
might be termed anticipatory situations. If mediation and the resolution of a problem
can be achieved at its inception, so much the better for all concerned.
Political scientists who wish to get in touch with the Committee on Professional
Ethics, Rights and Freedoms should write or phone its chairperson or the APSA at its
Washington D.C headquarters. For contact information for the Committee chair, visit the
governance pages of APSAs website (www.apsanet.org).
C. Procedures Involving Human Rights of Scholars in
Other Countries.
According to guidelines established in 1982, the Committee will become involved in
cases involving the human rights of scholars in other countries brought to its attention
by reputable sources. All requests for action are frst cross-checked through the
Clearinghouse on Science and Human Rights of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
The Committee will respond to cases of human rights violations involving scholars
whose felds correspond to those subsumed under the phrase political science in the
United States. It will also take up cases that do not directly involve political scientists but
have broad implications for all social scientists.
Given the limited time and resources of the Committee, it will consider only what appear
to be the most egregious cases of human rights violations (the Committee will take up
no more than six cases at a time). The standard to be used in making this choice is the
International Declaration of Human Rights and the two accompanying covenants.
The procedure the Committee follows in human rights cases is to write a letter of
inquiry to the appropriate authorities and to follow up this letter with subsequent letters,
if necessary. Other activities such as visits to embassies and site visits may also be
considered by the Committee.
D. Advisory Opinions
Unlike the individual cases that it considers, which must remain confdential, the results
of the work of the Committee in constructing ethical standards are published in PS.
These advisory opinions usually grow out of individual complaints that are received by
the Committee. If an individual case appears to be indicative of a larger problem, an
advisory opinion is the Committees means of trying to prevent such occurrences in the
future.
II. AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics
As a guide to political scientists teaching and carrying out research in universities and
colleges, the American Political Science Association endorses the principles set forth
in the Statement on Professional Ethics adopted by the American Association of
University Professors (AAUP). The Statement is reprinted here. The AAUPs Introduction
to the Statement is reprinted in an appendix.
Statement on Professional Ethics
I. 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.
II. As teachers, professors encourage the free pursuit of learning in 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 role as intellectual guides
and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic
conduct and to assure that their evaluations of students refect each students true merit.
They respect the confdential nature of the relationship between professor and student.
They avoid any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students. They
acknowledge signifcant academic or scholarly assistance from them. They protect their
academic freedom.
III. 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.
IV. As members 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 of 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.
V. As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of
any citizen. Professors measure the urgency of these obligations in the light of their
responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to their
institution. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the impression
of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged in a profession
that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular
obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of
academic freedom.
III. Principles of Professional Conduct
These principles, adopted by the Council of the American Political Science Association,
embody in systematic form the principles established by the Association, the advisory
opinions of the Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms, and other
governing decisions adopted by the Association.
A. Freedom and Integrity of Research by Academic
Political Scientists
Principles for Funding Agencies and Universities

1. Openness concerning material support of research is a basic principle of scholarship.
1.1 In making grants for research, government and non-government sponsors
should openly acknowledge research support and require that the grantee indicate
in any published research fnanced by their grants the relevant sources of fnancial
support.
1.2 Where anonymity is requested by a nongovernmental grantor and does not
endanger the integrity of research, the character of the sponsorship rather than the
identity of the grantor should be noted.
1.3 Financial sponsors of research should avoid actions that would call into question
the integrity of American academic institutions as centers of independent teaching
and research. They should not sponsor research as a cover for intelligence
activities.
1.4 Political science research supported by government grants should be
unclassifed.
1.5 After a research grant has been made, the grantor shall not impose any
restriction on or require any clearance of research methods, procedures, or content.
1.6 The grantor should assume no responsibility for the fndings and conclusions
of the researcher and should impose no restrictions or carry any responsibility for
publication.
1.7 Funding agencies should include in grants a stipulation that data gathered under
the grants be made available to scholars at cost after a specifed time, e.g., after a
year has passed following the completion of the data-gathering process, or after the
frst substantial research report by the chief researcher has been completed.
2. The university or college should administer research funds according to principles of
the funding agency, and in a manner which protects the integrity of the research.
2.1 A university or college that administers research funds provided through
contracts and grants from public and/or private sources must act to assure that
research funds are used prudently and honorably.
2.2 A university or college should not administer research funds derived from
contracts or grants whose purpose and the character of whose sponsorship cannot
be publicly disclosed.
2.3 In administering research funds entrusted directly to its care, a university or
college should do its best to ensure that no restrictions are placed on the availability
of evidence to scholars or on their freedom to draw their own conclusions from the
evidence and to share their fndings with others.
Principles for Individual Researchers
3. In applying for research funds, the individual researcher should:
3.1 clearly state the reasons for applying for support and not resort to stratagems of
ambiguity to make the research more acceptable to a funding agency;
3.2 indicate clearly the actual amount of time the researcher personally plans to
spend on the research;
3.3 indicate other sources of support of the research, if any; and
3.4 refuse to accept terms and conditions that the researcher believes will
undermine his or her freedom and integrity as a scholar.
4. In conducting research so supported, the individual bears sole responsibility for the
procedures, methods, and content of research. The researcher:
4.1 must avoid any deception or misrepresentation concerning his or her personal
involvement or the involvement of respondents or subjects, and must avoid use of
research as a cover for intelligence work or for partisan political purposes;
4.2 must refrain from using his or her professional status to obtain data and
research materials for purposes other than scholarship;
4.3 with respect to research abroad, should not concurrently accept any additional
support from agencies of the government for purposes that cannot be disclosed;
4.4 should carefully comply with the time, reporting, accounting, and other
requirements set forth in the project instrument, and cooperate with institutional
grant administrators in meeting these requirements; and
4.5 should avoid commingling project funds with personal funds, or funds of one
project with those of another.
5. With respect to any public scholarly activity including publication of the results of
research, the individual researcher:
5.1 bears sole responsibility for publication;
5.2 should disclose all relevant sources of fnancial support;
5.3 should indicate any condition imposed by fnancial sponsors or others on
research publication, or other scholarly activities; and
5.4 should conscientiously acknowledge any assistance received in conducting
research.
5.5 Authors are obliged to reveal the bases of any of their statements that are
challenged specifcally, except where confdentiality is involved.
5.6 When statements that are challenged are based on reproducible data authors
are obliged to facilitate replication. They may expect the challenger to pay the costs
of reproducing the relevant data.
5.7 Challenges are to be suffciently precise to indicate to the author what
documentation or data are needed. Challengers are themselves in the status of
authors in connection with the statements that they make.
6. Scholars have an ethical obligation to make a full and complete disclosure of all
non-confdential sources involved in their research so that their work can be tested or
replicated.
6.1 As citizens, they have an obligation to cooperate with grand juries, other law
enforcement agencies, and institutional offcials.
6.2 Conversely, scholars also have a professional duty not to divulge the identity
of confdential sources of information or data developed in the course of research,
whether to governmental or non-governmental offcials or bodies, even though
in the present state of American law they run the risk of suffering an applicable
penalty.
6.3 Scholars must, however, exercise appropriate restraint in making claims as to
the confdential nature of their sources, and resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of
full disclosure.
7. Political scientists, like all scholars, are expected to practice intellectual honesty and to
uphold the scholarly standards of their discipline.
7.1 Plagiarism, the deliberate appropriation of the work of others represented as
ones own, not only may constitute a violation of the civil law but represents a
serious breach of professional ethics.
7.2 Departments of political science should make it clear to both faculty and
students that such misconduct will lead to disciplinary action and, in the case of
serious offenses, may result in dismissal. Institutional rules and expected standards
of conduct should be published in advance and distributed through such means as
faculty and student handbooks.
7.3 Disciplinary proceedings should conform to norms of fairness and academic due
process as formulated in relevant AAUP statements.
B. Responsibilities in the Classroom and to Students
8. Academic political scientists must be very careful not to impose their partisan views,
conventional or otherwise, upon students or colleagues.
9. Teachers have an ethical obligation to choose materials for student use without
respect to personal or collective gain.
9.1 Publishers are strongly discouraged from offering inducements for textbook
choice apart from making examination copies available and lowering the suggested
retail price of a book.
10. Faculty members must not expropriate the academic work of their students.
10.1 Teachers cannot represent themselves as authors of independent student
research; and research assistance, paid or unpaid, requires full acknowledgement.
10.2 As advisers, faculty members are not entitled to claim joint authorship with a
student of a thesis or dissertation.
11. Political science departments have an obligation to protect the procedural rights of
graduate students.
11.1 Students should be advised at the time of their admittance as to the
departmental and institutional requirements of the degree program they will
be entering. If a department of political science changes the requirements of a
program, students already enrolled and making normal progress toward their
degrees should have the right to be governed by the requirements in force at the
time of their entrance if they so desire.
11.2 Students should be advised at the time of their admittance under what
conditions written or oral major examinations (prelims, comprehensives, etc.) are
given and whether such examinations, if failed, may be retaken.
11.3 After submitting a proposal for a thesis or dissertation, a student should be
informed by the chairperson of his or her committee of its action with regard to
the acceptability of the proposal. Action on a proposal should be taken within a
reasonable time and communicated to the student in writing.
11.4 If, in the opinion of the supervising faculty, a students thesis or dissertation
does not show satisfactory progress and should there arise questions of the
acceptability of the fnal product, the student should be put on notice as soon as
possible and in writing that his or her candidacy for the degree may be terminated.
11.5 Students should be advised of any changes in the composition of their thesis
or dissertation committee. Faculty members should not participate in a thesis or
dissertation examination unless they have had suffcient time to read the thesis or
dissertation.
11.6 A student who fails a written or oral major examination (prelims,
comprehensives, etc.) or has a thesis or dissertation required for the degree
rejected should be informed by the examiners or readers as to the reasons for such
failure or rejection. Upon request, this explanation should be rendered in writing.
11.7 Students should be informed upon entering a graduate program about any
departmental or university grievance procedures for handling disputes that may
arise between faculty and graduate students pertaining to the interpretation of
degree requirements or the administration of the graduate program. Departments
without an established grievance procedure are urged to develop such rules and to
distribute them in writing to all their graduate students. Universities should provide
an appeals process beyond the department level to insure adherence to proper
procedural standards.
C. Political Activity of Academic Political Scientists
12. The college or university teacher is a citizen, and like other citizens, should be free to
engage in political activities insofar as this can be done consistently with obligations as a
teacher and scholar.
12.1 Effective service as a faculty member is often compatible with certain types of
political activity, for example, holding a part time offce in a political party or serving
as a member of a governmental advisory board. Where a professor engages in
full-time political activity, such as service in a state legislature, he or she should,
as a rule, seek a leave of absence from the institution. Since political activity by
academic political scientists is both legitimate and socially important, universities
and colleges should have institutional arrangements to permit such activity,
including reduction in the faculty members work-load or a leave of absence subject
to equitable adjustment of compensation.
12.2 A faculty member who seeks a leave to engage in political activity should
recognize that he or she has a primary obligation to the institution and to grow as a
teacher and scholar. The faculty member should consider the problems that a leave
of absence may create for the administration, colleagues and students, and should
not abuse the privilege by asking for leaves too frequently, or too late, or for too
extended a period of time. A leave of absence incident to political activity should not
affect unfavorably the tenure status of the faculty member.
12.3 Special problems arise if departments or schools endorse or sponsor political
activities or public policies in the name of the entire faculty of the department or
school. One of the purposes of tenure to shelter unpopular or unorthodox teaching
is in some degree vitiated if the majority of a departmental faculty endorses or
sponsors a particular political position in the name of the faculty of the department.
Departments should adhere strictly to the rule that those faculty members who
wish to endorse or sponsor a political position or activity do so in their own names
without binding their colleagues. Departments as such should not endorse political
positions.
D. Restrictions on the Use of the APSA Name or Ofce
13. When offcers, members, or employees of the Association speak out on an issue of
public policy, endorse a political candidate, or otherwise participate in political affairs,
they should make it as clear as possible that they are not speaking on behalf of the
Association unless they are so authorized by the Association, and they should not
encourage any inference that they act for the Association unless so authorized by the
Association. The use of the title of the offce held in the APSA in political advertisements,
even if labeled for identifcation purposes only, may well be seen by others as an
endorsement of a political position by the Association and should be avoided.
14. Offcers and employees of the Association are free to engage in activities outside
their obligations to the Association provided that such activities are consistent with their
duties and responsibilities to the Association. When doubts arise about the activities
of subordinate staff members, they should be resolved by the Executive Director in
consultation with the Administrative Committee of the Association. Similarly, when
doubts arise about the activities of the Executive Director, they should be resolved by the
Administrative Committee.
15. Offcers or employees of the Association should not knowingly participate in
transactions involving the Association, if they have a substantial economic interest in
them. Under such circumstances, they should disqualify themselves from participating in
transactions involving the Association.
E. Ethics in the Publication Process
16. Appraising manuscripts and reviewing books are serious scholarly responsibilities.
16.1 Those invited to make appraisals or to write reviews should disqualify
themselves if they have a reasonable doubt about whether they can exercise the
responsibility with scholarly detachment. Such doubt might be raised, for example,
by an invitation to appraise the manuscript or review the book of a close personal
friend or of a departmental colleague.
16.2 Insofar as possible, editors and book-review editors should themselves act in
conformity with the above principles. Moreover, in connection with the appraisal of
manuscripts, editors should take all reasonable precautions to avoid revealing the
names of the author and the reader to each other.
17. When a piece of writing is jointly authored, it is presumed to be the intellectual
product of the authors collectively, not individually, and this fact should govern its further
use including its use by any of the original authors.
17.1 Passages of text and major themes and ideas used in subsequent work by
any of the authors should be attributed to the original source following accepted
standards for quotation and citation. Exceptions to this practice should occur only
if a portion of the jointly authorized work has been clearly attributed in the original
work to one of the authors.
18. Authors who submit manuscripts to more than one professional journal at the same
time are obligated to inform each editor of the fact.
19. Political scientists seeking to reprint the previously published work of others have an
ethical obligation to make sure that consent is obtained.
19.1 The copyright holder should consent to the inclusion of previously published
work only if the author consents. The copyright holder should either obtain the
consent of the author or require that this be done by the party seeking permission
to reprint.
19.2 In cases where the copyright holder or the publisher of previously published
work has not taken steps to obtain consent, the political scientist involved, as
compiler and editor of the book, should secure the consent of the author of the
material. Political scientists are encouraged to include in contracts with publishers a
provision that the publisher must obtain the consent of the author or authors before
allowing reprinting of the work.
19.3 The copyright holder and the author are each entitled to a fat fee or a share
of royalties in connection with permissions to reprint, specifc terms depending on
agreement with the party seeking permission. Either the copyright holder or the
author may waive his or her right. Each may act on his or her own behalf, or by
mutual consent one may act on behalf of both.
19.4 Permission must be renewed, and fnancial arrangements are subject to
renegotiation, whenever a book goes into a new edition.
19.5 Any work reprinted may be changed only with the specifc consent of the
author. An author ordinarily is entitled to a complimentary copy of any publication in
which his or her work is reprinted.
20. Responsibilities of Editors and Contributors to Edited Volumes
20.1 Prospective editors shall not use the names of any individuals as contributors
to an edited volume unless and until they have received permission of the
contributors for use of their names.
20.2 Once contracts are signed for an edited volume, and solicitations of
manuscripts are made, editors have an obligation to include the solicited work in the
publication if it conforms to the standards of scholarship previously established by
the editors.
20.3 Along with any other guidelines established by the editors, contracts and
instructions to contributors should include clear specifcation of (1) manuscript
length for the individual contributor; and (2) number of days for authors to respond
to editors alterations or suggestions for revision to the manuscript.
20.4 Editors will normally have responsibility and authority for decisions on
acceptability of manuscripts, and should clearly communicate this understanding, or
any departure therefrom, to the contributors.
21. When a thesis or dissertation is published in whole or in part, the following rules
apply:
21.1 Authors are not ordinarily under an ethical obligation to acknowledge its origins.
21.2 Authors are free to decide what acknowledgment, if any, to give to the
professor under whose supervision they worked.
21.3 Any fnancial support for the dissertation should be acknowledged in a manner
consistent with principles for all published research.
F. Ethics in Recruitment, Hiring and Personnel
Practices Process
22. Open Listing Policy
It is the professional obligation of all political science departments to list in eJobs,
APSAs online job database, all positions for which they are recruiting at the Instructor,
Assistant, and Associate Professor levels. In addition, the listing of openings at the
Full Professor level are strongly encouraged. It is also a professional obligation for
departments to list temporary and visiting positions on eJobs.
23. Nepotism Rules.
Institutions employing political scientists should abolish nepotism rules, whether they
apply departmentally or to an institution as a whole. Employment and advancement
should be based solely on professional qualifcations without regard for family
relationships, subject only to appropriate rules governing confict of interest.
24. Part-time Positions.
Institutions employing political scientists should make more fexible use of part-time
positions for fully qualifed professional women and men, just as is now done for those
professionals with joint appointments or part-time research positions. Part-time positions
should carry full academic status, equivalent rank, promotion opportunities, equal rates
of pay, commensurate departmental participation and commensurate fringe benefts,
including access to research resources. The policy of fexible part-time positions is not
intended to condone any practice such as moonlighting or any practice by employers
used to circumvent normal career-ladder appointments.
25. Equal Employment Opportunities.
It is Association policy that educational institutions not discriminate against job
candidates on the basis of gender, gender identity, race, color, national origin, sexual
orientation, marital status, physical handicap, disability, or religion except in those cases
in which federal laws allow religious preference in hiring.
25.1 The guiding principle is that employment decisions should be based on only
those criteria that relate directly to professional competence.
25.2 It is Association policy that educational institutions not discriminate in any
condition of employment (including the provision of domestic partner benefts) on
the basis of gender, gender identity, race, color, national origin, sexual orientation,
age, marital status, physical handicap, disability, or religion except in those cases in
which federal law allow religious preferences in hiring.
25.3 In pursuit of the objective of ending discrimination, it is Association policy to
support the principles of affrmative action and urge political science departments to
pursue aggressively affrmative action programs and policies with regard to African
Americans, Latinos, women, minorities based on self-identifed sexual orientation,
and other minorities. (Appropriate strategies may differ for each group.)
25.4 The Association will not indicate preference, limitation, or specifcation
based upon the categories in paragraph 25.2 in job listings, except that religious
preferences may be indicated when allowed by federal law.
26. Fraud in Claiming Advanced Degrees
26.1 If a person who seeks an academic position falsely claims to have an
advanced degree, and if the falsity of the claim becomes known to the department
or other appointing authorities of the institution in which the position is located, the
chair or other appointing authorities ordinarily have an ethical obligation to report
the fraud to the institution alleged to have granted the degree.
26.2 If those who know of fraud are asked by a potential academic employer for an
oral or written statement concerning the qualifcation of a person falsely claiming
an advanced degree, the statement should ordinarily include an appropriate
description of the fraud, especially if there is reason to believe that the person may
persist in it.
27. Recommending a candidate for faculty appointment calls for honest and responsible
judgment.
27.1 The scholarly achievements and promise of the candidate should be assessed
as fairly as possible.
27.2 Also to be assessed are the characteristics of the candidate that relate to his or
her probable effectiveness in the classroom and to the development of a stimulating
rapport with professional colleagues.
27.3 Should there be clear basis for question about the compatibility of the
candidates past behavior with legitimate expectations of the employing institution,
the fact may be mentioned. It is permissible for the employing institution to expect
that members of its faculty will abide by institutional rules that do not violate
principles of academic freedom or political rights of citizenship. A candidate should
be informed if references to such matters are in his or her record and should have
an opportunity to place in the record a statement relating to such matters. Matters
pertaining to the candidate that have no bearing on the legitimate expectations of
the employing institution should not be mentioned.
27.4 When an academic department requests from a scholar outside the institution
an evaluation regarding a political scientist, the normal expectation in the profession
is that the letter of evaluation will be treated as confdential. If it is the departments
policy to place such matters in an open fle, or otherwise make these letters
available to those who may desire to see them, then the department has an ethical
obligation to inform the individual from whom a letter is requested that the letter will
not be regarded as a confdential document. If one who is requested to write a letter
of evaluation is informed in advance that the letter will be placed in an open fle,
then it is proper to exercise the option of not writing such a letter. Furthermore, the
refusal to write a letter should not be a matter of record.
27.5 Letters of recommendation for political scientists who are still candidate for
a degree, placed in fles at their own or at other institutions, are by law open for
inspection by them, unless they have waived this right of access. If they have
not waived this right, the department has an obligation to inform the individuals
from whom letters are requested that the confdentiality of their letters cannot be
assured.
27.6 Letters of recommendation placed in fles for postsecondary students are open
for inspection by them, unless they have waived this right of access.
28. The Appointment Process.
28.1 Once an employing institution clearly indicates that it is giving serious
consideration to an applicant for a faculty appointment, e.g., by interviewing him or
her, it should inform the applicant of the status of his or her application, and of any
change in status, within a reasonable time.
28.2 Once an employing institution offers a faculty appointment, the individual to
whom the offer is made should respond within a reasonable time either with the
decision or with a statement concerning his or her situation.
28.3 In connection with both points above, two weeks is to be considered a
reasonable time unless the parties specifcally agree otherwise.
28.4 An employing institution that offers a faculty appointment orally should
immediately communicate the offer in writing.
28.5 The employing institution has an obligation to inform fully a candidate for
employment concerning the terms and procedures used in making of offers of
appointment.
29. Once an individual accepts an offer of employment from an institution, it is incumbent
upon the individual not to seek or accept further employment for the same initial contract
year unless a prior release is secured from the hiring institution.
G. Ethics in Tenure and Promotion
Among the most serious responsibilities in the academic community is the assessment
of colleagues for tenure and promotion.
30. As a matter of principle, a department should use the same procedures and, insofar
as possible, similar criteria for all candidates under review for tenure and promotion.
31. The candidate being reviewed has a professional right to know the motivating
principles, customary standards, and principal procedures of the assessment process of
his or her department.
31.1 The department is obligated to provide in writing to the candidate being
assessed a statement that: (i) sets out the principal parts of the assessment
process; (ii) explains the instructions under which external reviewers will operate;
and (iii) provides an account of the process which the department and university will
follow in coming to a decision on tenure or promotion.
31.2 The department is obligated (i) to inform the candidate, in writing, if procedures
to be used depart in any way from the departments customary procedures; and (ii)
to detail how and explain why procedures may differ in his or her case.
31.3 The department has a specifc obligation to inform the candidate of the
materials (e.g. manuscripts, proposals, publication) that are being sent out for
review. The materials to be reviewed need not include all of the candidates
work, but should not exclude material the candidate judges indispensable to an
assessment of his or her case.
32. External reviews are governed by a triad of rights and obligations: those of the
department conducting the review; those of the candidate under review; and those of the
external reviewer. All three parties share certain values; these include a commitment to
fairness, dispatch, and mutual respect. But obligations and rights are not the same for all
parties; each may give these values differing weight, even conficting interpretations.
Guidelines, necessarily, must concern general principles. Guidelines for external review
are not intended to be and should not be read as a uniform code to be applied to all
universities and colleges alike. Academic departments differ, for example, in educational
mission, institutional resources, access to external reviewers and size as well as in the
administrative and legal constraints under which they operate. The proper procedure for
one department or institution may not be the same for others.
Rights of the Candidate
32.1 Where external reviews are used in tenure and promotion decisions and if they
are used in reappointment decisions, faculty members under review have a right to
external reviews that are expert, disinterested, and timely.
Obligations of the Department
32.2 Departments and universities have an obligation to select reviewers who have
appropriate professional competence, and who would provide a fair assessment of
the candidate.
32.3 Departments and universities are encouraged to ask candidates being
reviewed to suggest names of external reviewers who know their work well, and
to give the candidates under review an opportunity to call to the departments and
universities attention potential reviewers that the candidate believes should be
excluded on the grounds of personal bias.
32.4 Solicitation of outside letters of recommendation for promotion and tenure
should always be phrased as an invitation which recipients are free to reject. No
presumption should be expressed that there is an obligation to perform service,
but rather that it is a professional courtesy of assistance to the department making
the request. Refusal to perform this service should not be regarded as a negative
statement about the candidate.
32.5 Departments and universities should exercise restraint in soliciting external
reviews because it imposes an obligation upon other scholars. Ordinarily, no more
than six reviews should be solicited for promotion and/or tenure cases or senior
appointments. No reviews should be solicited for decisions that do not warrant
them (for example, in entry-level and adjunct appointments, renewals of junior
appointments, and special increments at the senior level).
32.6 The department conducting an external review is ordinarily obliged: (i) to
provide external reviewers a copy of the candidates curriculum vita and the
principal materials on which the assessment is to be based; (ii) to ensure external
reviewers suffcient time for a competent and conscientious assessment, as a
rule not less than six (6) weeks; (iii) to protect confdentiality to the extent legally
possible; (iv) to state whether the assessment is a confdential one, and if it is not,
the terms of departure from confdentiality; (v) to explain to external reviewers
the relative importance of external reviews to the overall review process; and (vi)
to inform the external reviewers of the fnal decision without elaborating on the
reasons for the decision.
Obligations of the External Reviewer
32.7 Once they assume responsibility for serving as a reviewer, external reviewers
are ordinarily obliged: (i) to make an assessment that is candid and fair, based
solely on professionally relevant criteria and frst-hand knowledge; (ii) to disclose
to the department or institution conducting an external review any personal
relationship with the candidate being evaluated; and (iii) to honor any deadline to
which they have agreed.
33. In 1947 APSA formally endorsed as Association policy the 1940 Statement of
Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure jointly developed by the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Association of American Colleges
(AAC). The Statement is reprinted here with AAUPs later interpretive comments.
Joint AAUP and AAC Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom
and Tenure
The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of
academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them in
colleges and universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common
good and not to further the interest of either the individual teacher
4
or the institution as a
whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.
Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and
research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic
freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the
teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties
correlative with rights.[1]
5
Tenure is a means to certain ends; specifcally: (1) freedom of teaching and research
and of extramural activities, and (2) a suffcient degree of economic security to make
the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security,
hence, tenure, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulflling its obligations
to its students and to society.
Academic Freedom
(a) Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results,
subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for
pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the
institution.
(b) Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but
they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which
has no relation to their subject.[2] Limitations of academic freedom because of religious
or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the
appointment.[3]
4
The word teacher as used in this dcument is understood to include the investigator who is attached to an
academic instiution without teaching duties.
5
Numbers in brackets refer to Interpretive Comments which follow.
(c) College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession,
and offcers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they
should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in
the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational offcers, they
should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their
utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate
restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to
indicate that they are not an institutional spokesman.[4]
Academic Tenure
After the expiration of a probationary period, teachers or investigators should have
permanent or continuous tenure, and their service should be terminated only for
adequate cause, except in the case of retirement for age, or under extraordinary
circumstances because of fnancial exigencies.
In the interpretation of this principle it is understood that the following represents
acceptable academic practice: (1) The precise terms and conditions of every
appointment should be stated in writing and be in the possession of both institution and
teacher before the appointment is consummated.
(2) Beginning with appointment to the rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank,[5]
the probationary period should not exceed seven years, including within this period
full-time service in all institutions of higher education; but subject to the proviso that
when, after a term of probationary service of more than three years in one or more
institutions, a teacher is called to another institution, it may be agreed in writing that the
new appointment is for a probationary period of not more than four years, even though
thereby the persons total probationary period in the academic profession is extended
beyond the normal maximum of seven years.[6] Notice should be given at least one year
prior to the expiration of the probationary period if the teacher is not to be continued in
service after the expiration of that period.[7]
(3) During the probationary period a teacher should have the academic freedom that all
other members of the faculty have.[8]
(4) Termination for a cause of a continuous appointment, or the dismissal for cause
of a teacher previous to the expiration of a term appointment, should, if possible, be
considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all
cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before
the hearing in writing of the charges against him and should have the opportunity to be
heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The
teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by an adviser of his or her own choosing
who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing
available to the parties concerned. In the hearing of charges of incompetence the
testimony should include that of teachers and other scholars, either from the teachers
own or from other institutions. Teachers on continuous appointment who are dismissed
for reasons not involving moral turpitude should receive their salaries for at least a year
from the date of notifcation of dismissal whether or not they are continued in their duties
at the institution.[9]
(5) Termination of a continuous appointment because of fnancial exigency should be
demonstrably bona fde.
Interpretive Comments
1940 Interpretations
At the conference of representatives of the American Association of University
Professors and of the Association of American Colleges on November 7-8, 1940, the
following interpretations of the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and
Tenure were agreed upon. The numbers below correspond to the numbers in brackets
in the 1940 Statement.
1. That its operation should not be retroactive.
2. That all tenure claims of teachers appointed prior to the endorsement should be
determined in accordance with the principles set forth in the 1925 Conference Statement
on Academic Freedom and Tenure.
3. If the administration of a college or university feels that a teacher has not observed
the admonitions of Paragraph (c) of the section on Academic Freedom and believes
that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave doubts
concerning the teachers ftness for his or her position, it may proceed to fle charges
under Paragraph (a)(4) of the section on Academic Tenure. In pressing such charges
the administration should remember that teachers are citizens and should be accorded
the freedom of citizens. In such cases the administration must assume full responsibility,
and the American Association of University Professors and the Association of American
Colleges are free to make an investigation.
1970 Interpretive Comments
Following extensive discussions on the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic
Freedom and Tenure with leading educational associations and with individual faculty
members and administrators, a Joint Committee of the AAUP and the Association of
American Colleges met during 1969 to reevaluate this key policy statement. On the
basis of the comments received, the discussions that ensued, the Joint Committee felt
the preferable approach was to formulate interpretations of the Statement in terms of the
experience gained in implementing and applying the Statement for over thirty years and
of adapting it to current needs.
The Committee submitted to the two Associations for their consideration the following
Interpretive Comments. These interpretations were approved by the Council of the
American Association of University Professors in April, 1970, and endorsed by the Fifty-
sixth Annual Meeting as Association Policy.
In the thirty years since their promulgation, the principles of the 1940 Statement of
Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure have undergone a substantial amount
of refnement. This has evolved through a variety of processes, including customary
acceptance, understandings mutually arrived at between institutions and professors
or their representatives, investigations and reports by the American Association of
University Professors, and formulations of statements by that Association either alone
or in conjunction with the Association of American Colleges. These comments represent
the attempt of the two Associations, as the original sponsors of the 1940 Statement,
to formulate the most important of these refnements. Their incorporation here as
Interpretive Comments is based upon the premise that the 1940 Statement is not a
static code but a fundamental document designed to set a framework of norms to guide
adaptations to changing times and circumstances.
Also, there have been relevant developments in the law itself refecting a growing
insistence by the courts on due process within the academic community which parallels
the essential concepts of the 1940 Statement: particularly relevant is the identifcation by
the Supreme Court of academic freedom as a right protected by the First Amendment.
As the Supreme Court said in Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 U.S. 589 (1967), Our
Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent
value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a
special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of
orthodoxy over the classroom.
The numbers refer to the designated portion of the 1940 Statement on which interpretive
comment is made.
1. The Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University
Professors have long recognized that membership in the academic profession carries
with it special responsibilities. Both Associations either separately or jointly have
consistently affrmed these responsibilities in major policy statements, providing
guidance to professors in their utterances as citizens, in the exercise of their
responsibilities to the institution and to students, and in their conduct when resigning
from their institution or when undertaking government-sponsored research. Of particular
relevance is the Statement on Professional Ethics, adopted in 1966 as Association
policy. (A revision, adopted in 1987, was published in Academe: Bulletin of the AAUP 73
[July-August 1987]: 49.)
2. The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is controversial. Controversy is
at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster.
The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding
material which has no relation to their subject.
3. Most church-related institutions no longer need or desire the departure from the
principle of academic freedom implied in the 1940 Statement, and we do not now
endorse such a departure.
4. This paragraph is the subject of an Interpretation adopted by the sponsors of the 1940
Statement immediately following its endorsement which reads as follows:
If the administration of a college or university feels that a teacher has not observed
the admonitions of Paragraph (c) of the section on Academic Freedom and believes
that the extramural utterances of the teacher have been such as to raise grave
doubts concerning the teachers ftness for his or her position, it may proceed to
fle charges under Paragraph (a)(4) of the section on Academic Tenure. In pressing
such charges the administration should remember that teachers are citizens and
should be accorded the freedom of citizens. In such cases, the administration must
assume full responsibility and the American Association of University Professors
and the Association of American Colleges are free to make an investigation.
Paragraph (c) of the 1940 Statement should also be interpreted in keeping with the
1964 Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances (AAUP Bulletin, Spring,
1965, p.29) which states inter alia: The controlling principle is that a faculty members
expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it
clearly demonstrates the faculty members unftness for his or her position. Extramural
utterances rarely bear upon the faculty members ftness for his or her position.
Moreover, a fnal decision should take into account the faculty members entire record as
a teacher and scholar.
Paragraph V of the Statement on Professional Ethics also deals with the nature of the
special obligations of the teacher. The paragraph reads as follows:
As members of their community, professors have the rights and obligations of
other citizens. Professors measure the urgency of other obligations in the light of
their responsibilities to their subject, to their students, to their profession, and to
their institution. When they speak or act as private persons they avoid creating the
impression of speaking or acting for their college or university. As citizens engaged
in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors
have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further
public understanding of academic freedom.
6
For a discussion of this question, see the Report of the Special Committee on Academic Personnel Ineli-
gible for Tenure, AAUP Bulletin, Autumn, 1966, pp. 280-282.
Both the protection of academic freedom and the requirements of academic
responsibility apply not only to the full-time probationary as well as to the tenured
teacher, but also to all others, such as part-time and teaching assistants, who exercise
teaching responsibilities.
5. The concept of rank of full-time instructor or a higher rank is intended to include any
person who teaches a full-time load regardless of the teachers specifc title.
6

6. In calling for an agreement in writing on the amount of credit for a faculty members
prior service at other institutions, the Statement furthers the general policy of full
understanding by the professor of the terms and conditions of the appointment. It does
not necessarily follow that a professors tenure rights have been violated because of the
absence of a written agreement on this matter. Nonetheless, especially because of the
variation in permissible institutional practices, a written understanding concerning these
matters at the time of appointment is particularly appropriate and advantageous to both
the individual and the institution.
7
7. The effect of this subparagraph is that a decision on tenure, favorable or unfavorable,
must be made at least twelve months prior to the completion of the probationary period.
If the decision is negative, the appointment for the following year becomes a terminal
one. If the decision is affrmative, the provisions in the 1940 Statement with respect
to the termination of services of teachers or investigators after the expiration of a
probationary period should apply from the date when the favorable decision is made.
The general principle of notice contained in this paragraph is developed with greater
specifcity in the Standards for Notice of Nonreappointment endorsed by the Fiftieth
Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Professors (1964). These
standards are:
Notice of nonreappointment, or of intention not to recommend reappointment to the
governing board, should be given in writing in accordance with the following standards:
(1) Not later than March 1 of the frst academic year of service, if the appointment expires
at the end of that year; or, if a one-year appointment terminates during an academic year,
at least three months in advance of its termination.
(2) Not later than December 15 of the second academic year of service, if the
appointment expires at the end of that year; or, if an initial two-year appointment
terminates during an academic year, at least six months in advance of its termination.
(3) At least twelve months before the expiration of an appointment after two or more
7
For a more detailed statement on this question, see On Crediting Prior Service Elsewhere as Part of the
Probationary Period, AAUP Bulletin 64 (1978): 274-75.
years in the institution.
Other obligations, both of institutions and individuals, are described in the Statement on
Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty Members, as endorsed by the Association of
American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors in 1961.
8. The freedom of probationary teachers is enhanced by the establishment of a regular
procedure for the periodic evaluation and assessment of the teachers academic
performance during probationary status. Provision should be made for regularized
procedures for the consideration of complaints by probationary teachers that their
academic freedom has been violated. One suggested procedure to serve these
purposes is contained in the Statement on Recruitment and Resignation of Faculty
Members: Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure,
prepared by the American Association of University Professors.
9. A further specifcation of the academic due process to which the teacher is entitled
under this paragraph is contained in the Statement of Procedural Standards in Faculty
Dismissal Proceedings, jointly approved by the American Association of University
Professors and the Association of American Colleges in 1958. This interpretive
document deals with the issue of suspension, about which the 1940 Statement is silent.
The 1958 Statement provides: Suspension of the faculty member during the
proceedings is justifed only if immediate harm to the faculty member or others is
threatened by the faculty members continuance. Unless legal considerations forbid,
any such suspension should be with pay. A suspension which is not followed by either
reinstatement or the opportunity for a hearing is in effect a summary dismissal in
violation of academic due process.
The concept of moral turpitude identifes the exceptional case in which the professor
may be denied a years teaching or pay in whole or in part, The statement applies
to that kind of behavior which goes beyond simply warranting discharge and is so
utterly blameworthy as to make it inappropriate to require the offering of a years
teaching or pay. The standard is not that the moral sensibilities of persons in the
particular community have been affronted. The standard is behavior that would evoke
condemnation by the academic community generally.
H. Principles Governing Research on Human Subjects
34. The methodology of political science includes procedures which involve human
subjects: surveys and interviews, observation of public behavior, experiments,
physiological testing, and examination of documents. Possible risk to human subjects
8
The common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects is based on and replaces 1981 regula-
tions of the Department of Health and Human Services. Those regulations were examined by the AAUP
in 1981: Regulations Governing Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institutional
Review Board, Academe, December 1981: 358-370.
is something that political scientists should take into account. Under certain conditions,
political scientists are also legally required to assess the risks to human subjects.
34.1 A common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects became
effective on August 19, 1991, adopted by 15 major federal departments and
agencies including the National Science Foundation (45 CFR Part 690) and the
Department of Health and Human Services (45 CFR Part 46). The Policy has been
promulgated concurrently by regulation in each department and agency. While
the federal policy applies only to research subject to regulation by the federal
departments and agencies involved, universities can be expected to extend the
policy to all research involving human subjects.
8
I. Principles Concerning Sexual Harassment
35. Sexual harassment is an unethical and unprofessional activity involving persons of
unequal power, authority or infuence. Sexual harassment is, furthermore, illegal under
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the 1972 Educational Amendments.
It is the policy of the American Political Science Association to condemn sexual
harassment.
Sexual harassment is a gross violation of professional ethics comparable to plagiarism
or falsifcation of research and should be regarded and treated as such by members of
the profession.
35.1 Sexual harassment is defned as unwelcome sexual advances, request for
sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1)
submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition
of an individuals employment or academic achievement or (2) submission to or
rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment
decisions or academic decisions affecting such individuals, or (3) such conduct
has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individuals work or
academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or
academic environment.
35.2 Sexual harassment that involves coercive sexual conduct, including
suggestions that academic or employment reprisals or rewards will follow the
refusal or granting of sexual favors, constitutes moral turpitude or gross misconduct
in the sense these terms are used in university tenure regulations, and therefore
constitutes grounds for dismissal.
36. The American Political Science Association encourages universities to defne
coercive sexual conduct as a form of moral turpitude or gross misconduct and to
utilize university dismissal procedures to deal with such behavior.
36.1 The Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms does not
and should not have the power to censure individuals. The Committee relies on
employing institutions as well as judicial and quasi-judicial bodies to operate by
procedures that provide due process.
36.2 However, when a political scientist is dismissed, not reappointed or
suspended from employment by a university, college or other employing institution
for the stated reason of coercive sexual harassment, or is legally adjudged to
have committed such acts, the Association, upon recommendation of its Ethics
Committee, shall inform its members through PS.
36.3 The Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights and Freedoms stands ready to
respond to complaints of sexual harassment. If at the completion of its fact fnding,
the committee fnds such complaints to be valid, it will take all supportive action
it can to restore the dignity and professional well-being of the victim, including
preparation of letters and documents to university administrators or others which
dispel any cloud of blame from the sexually harassed person.
J. Principles Governing Graduate Scholars, Fellows,
Trainees, and Assistants
Note: At its April 1992 meeting, the APSA Council adopted the following guidelines set
forth by the Council of Graduate Schools on acceptance of an offer of fnancial support
by graduate scholars, fellows, trainees, and assistants.
Acceptance of an offer of fnancial support (such as a graduate scholarship, fellowship,
traineeship, or assistantship) for the next academic year by a prospective or enrolled
graduate student completes an agreement that both student and graduate school expect
to honor. In that context, the conditions affecting such offers and their acceptance must
be defned carefully and understood by all parties.
Students are under no obligation to respond to offers of fnancial support prior to April
15; earlier deadlines for acceptance of such offers violate the intent of this Resolution.
In those instances in which a student accepts an offer before April 15, and subsequently
desires to withdraw that acceptance, the student may submit in writing a resignation of
the appointment at any time through April 15. However, an acceptance given or left in
force after April 15 commits the student not to accept another offer without frst obtaining
a written release from the institution to which a commitment has been made. Similarly,
an offer by an institution after April 15 is conditional on presentation by the student of the
written release from any previously accepted offer. It is further agreed by the institutions
and organizations subscribing to this Resolution that a copy of the Resolution should
accompany every scholarship, fellowship, traineeship, and assistantship offer.
Appendix
Introduction to the Statement on Professional Ethics
of the AAUP
From its inception, the American Association of University Professors has recognized
that membership in the academic profession carries with it special responsibilities. The
Association has consistently affrmed these responsibilities in major policy statements,
providing guidance to professors in such matters as their utterances as citizens, the
exercise of their responsibilities to students and colleagues, and their conduct when
resigning from an institution or when undertaking sponsored research. The Statement
on Professional Ethics which follows sets forth those general standards that serve as a
reminder of the variety of responsibilities assumed by all members of the profession.
In the enforcement of ethical standards, the academic profession differs from those of
law and medicine, whose associations act to ensure the integrity of members engaged
in private practice. In the academic profession the individual institution of higher
learning provides this assurance and so should normally handle questions concerning
the propriety of conduct within its own framework by reference to a faculty group. The
Association supports such local action and stands ready, through the general secretary
and Committee B, to counsel with members of the academic community concerning
questions of professional ethics and to inquire into complaints when local consideration
is impossible or inappropriate. If the alleged offense is deemed suffciently serious to
raise the possibility of adverse action, the procedures should be in accordance with the
1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1958 Statement on
Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, or the applicable provisions of
the Associations Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and
Tenure.
American Political Science Association
1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036-1206
p: 202.483.2512 | f: 202.483.2657
w: www.apsanet.org | e: [email protected]

A Guide To Professional Ethics in POSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Guide To Professional Ethics in POSC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Guide To Professional Ethics in POSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

apsa

You might also like