Faculty Senate President – Western Washington University

Dear colleagues,

At the final Faculty Senate meeting of the 2018-19 academic year on June 3^rd, the Senate passed a revision to Section 2 of the Faculty Code of Ethics. On October 7^th, concerns arose due to language in the revision that fails to align with legal definitions and terminology, thereby making it unbargainable for purposes of incorporation into the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the University and the United Faculty of Western Washington. This led the Faculty Senate to charge a task force of faculty and student members as follows:

The Faculty Senate moves to form a task force, composed of three student representatives, who are to be compensated for their work, and three faculty representatives, charged with drafting an actionable, legal document, that adheres to the spirit of the paragraph of section 2 of the Faculty Code of Ethics that was voted on in June 2019. The task force is to provide weekly updates and is charged with completing and presenting its work to the Faculty Senate on November 4th. An assistant attorney general should be present to ensure that legal language is used, and a member of the United Faculty of Western Washington and of the University administration are to be available for advisory consultation. Students are also invited to include an advisory consultant of their choosing.

On Monday, November 4^th, the Faculty Code of Ethics Task Force, composed of faculty members Vernon Johnson, Political Science, Bill Lyne, English, and Clayton Pierce, Fairhaven, and student members Lydia Ashenafie, LaShaiah Dickerson, and Abdul-Malik Ford, presented its report and a recommended revision to Section 2 of the Faculty Code of Ethics. The Task Force unanimously recommended revising Section 2 of the Faculty Code of Ethics as follows (red: June 3^rd version):

As teachers, the Western faculty encourage the free pursuit of learning by students and demonstrate by example the best scholarly standards of their respective disciplines. The faculty respect students as individuals and adhere to their designated role as intellectual guides and counselors, make every effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that evaluations of students reflect their actual performance. The faculty are to avoid and condemn racism, sexual harassment, intimidation, the exploitation of students, and discrimination against students based on all protected characteristics. In particular, faculty condemn verbal use of the n-word racial slur in learning environments. Faculty do not participate in discrimination based on all protected characteristics, including the following: Race, Color, Creed, Religion, National Origin, Citizenship, Sex (including pregnancy and parenting status), Gender Identity and Expression, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Age, Veteran Status, Marital Status, and Genetic Information. The confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student is respected, and any exploitation of students for private advantage is avoided by the faculty member who acknowledges significant assistance from them. Faculty strive to help students develop high standards of academic competency and respect for academic freedom. Academic freedom is a right that does not protect or provide cover for racism or any other form of discriminatory behavior.

The faculty recognize that the university community (faculty, staff, and students) is predominantly white. Moreover, the university is the product of a social system born in and shaped by institutional white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, and class inequality. As the society shifts demographically toward the day that the majority of its members are no longer white, our student body is reflecting this demographic shift. Our students are also becoming more insistent that their diverse race, class, gender, and sexuality identities are welcomed in the way that we teach. Faculty members are encouraged to consider student diversity and sensitivity and how best to present material so that the audience can absorb it, reflect upon it, and be edified. In our academic advising of students, and in our collaboration with them on research projects, faculty will accommodate student diversity. The faculty will abide by university policies and state and federal laws regarding harassment and discrimination. However, we recognize that in addressing the inequities of our social system, the United States Constitution has limitations. Therefore, as the faculty abide by the law, we also support student efforts to transform our university and all societal institutions in ways that dismantle those inequities.

In addition, student Task Force members read the following statement:

As Black students, we would like to first acknowledge that from the beginning, we objected to any participation and or formation of committees to solve this issue with student labor. Our wishes were not honored.

Our committee was charged with “drafting an actionable, legal document, that adheres to the spirit of the paragraph of section 2 of the Faculty Code of Ethics that was voted on in June 2019.” After much reflection and discussion, we have concluded that this is not possible, that the master’s tools are still inadequate for dismantling the master’s house.

The Faculty Code of Ethics is a set of rules governing faculty behavior. It may have been written with good intentions and lofty aspirations, but it will always be used to discipline and punish faculty in order to protect Western’s institutional interests, as determined by a Board of Trustees consisting primarily of significant donors to gubernatorial campaigns. Sometimes those interests correspond with those of students and faculty, sometimes they don’t.

Western Washington University, like every other U.S. institution, lives in the long shadow of the racialized capitalism that drives U.S. history. All of our laws, rules, customs, and procedures continue to embody the contradictions and paradoxes contained in the gap between Thomas Jefferson’s “All men [sic] are created equal” and the slave quarters at Monticello. Our laws and our codes continue to imagine a false universalism and objectivity without accounting for the long and sturdy tradition of white supremacy in the U.S. The Faculty Code of Ethics is subject to this U.S. law and thus is incapable of considering historical oppression and exclusion.

As we set out to rewrite the Code, we wanted to hold faculty accountable for racist behavior, but not preempt serious discussions of race and racism. We wanted to curtail participation in the long white tradition of envy and theft of Black culture but not stymie the full investigation of Black history and dissent. We wanted to ban the arrogant and irresponsible use of the most powerful racial slur in the U.S. without banning the novels of Toni Morrison or the plays of Langston Hughes and Lorraine Hansberry. We wanted to ban a word that gets in the way of students’ education without creating the license to ban words and ideas that threaten power.

It has become clear to us that our choice is to either write an unenforceable rule that could be abused or to write yet another vague, vanilla statement of support for diversity and inclusion. We choose to do neither. Once again, we are reminded that we Black students are left to fend for ourselves, there is no justice. There’s just us.

In discussion, students stated the importance of faculty accountability to students and to each other and asked faculty to do more to support students of color and facilitate the inclusion of student voices in conversations about campus climate, to be cognizant of the impact of their pedagogical methods and to incorporate teaching practices that are considerate of the experiences of students as individuals, and to participate in institutional evolution by encouraging colleagues to participate in the process of seeking and instilling change. In response to Senator concerns about the inclusion of language referring to Western’s demographic composition and the use of the phrase, “white supremacy,” task force members stated that the phrase was intended to be a descriptive acknowledgement of history and reality and is used in this manner in many academic disciplines. Senators and members of the administration stated that the incorporation of the proposed revision into the Faculty Code of Ethics would constitute a strong expression of support for students, shifting the framing of Section 2 from discipline and actions faculty should not take to positive steps that faculty can and should take to realize Western’s aspirations and secure its future.

A motion to endorse the new revision to Section 2, and to send it to the full faculty for a referendum vote, was passed by unanimous vote of the Faculty Senate. The referendum will ask faculty to vote on whether the Code of Ethics revision of Section 2, recommended by the Task Force, is preferred to the version approved by the Faculty Senate June 3rd. If the vote of the faculty is to approve the recommended Code of Ethics revision, it will replace the version of Section 2 that was approved in June.

A motion to acknowledge and endorse the statement read by student members of the Faculty Code of Ethics Task Force, and supported by the entire Faculty Code of Ethics Task Force, passed by unanimous vote of the Faculty Senate. Senators expressed appreciation to the Faculty Code of Ethics Task Force for its work.

Students expressed interest in learning more about faculty efforts and initiatives to discuss and promote equity, inclusion and diversity that are occurring in units and departments around campus and the Faculty Senate stated that it will work to compile a list of initiatives and resources.

The referendum to adopt the new version of Section 2 will be held online from November 8^thtill 5 pm November 15^th. Faculty will receive an email with a link to vote, as well as links to supporting documents, on November 8^th.

Thank you for considering this important work… Jeff

Faculty Code of Ethics Referendum Ballots

Faculty Code of Ethics, Section 2 revision

Policy Review: Ensuring Accessible Electronic Information Technology

New RSP Policies and a Call for Nominations