Glendale Faculty Vote Will Decide on Code of Ethics

The faculty at Glendale Community College will vote soon on whether to adopt a much-debated code of professional ethics dealing with such issues as academic freedom, political activism and exploitation of students by teachers.

Proposals for such a code have been discussed on campus for more than four years but never voted on. Faculty leaders say the current proposal grew, in part, out of allegations in 1984 by students that a now-retired business professor defrauded them out of thousands of dollars through investment plans he reportedly ran out of his classroom.

Some professors fear that adoption of the code--and especially an amendment condemning sexual solicitation--will lead the public to wrongly conclude that unethical behavior by teachers is widespread at Glendale Community College. Such cases are rare, they say.

The code’s supporters say it is important to have the “Statement on Professional Standards” on the books, not only to avoid scandal but to help guide the 160 full-time and more than 300 part-time teachers in making daily decisions.

Written Rules

“The vast majority of the faculty here are ethical people. But everybody has times when he asks himself if he is doing the correct thing. It is good to have something in writing to refer to,” explained Jean Lecuyer, a physics professor who is president of the faculty’s Academic Senate and one of the code’s main proponents.

There appears to be little controversy about the main body of the code, which is virtually identical to one adopted in 1966 by the American Assn. of University Professors.

That five-paragraph statement, among other things, allows teachers to pursue outside interests as long as they maintain their intellectual honesty at the school; forbids any exploitation of students for teachers’ private advantage; encourages a free and respectful exchange of ideas among faculty, and asks teachers to avoid creating the impression that they speak for the college when they are expressing a private opinion.

One of three amended “comments” to the basic code states that a student’s race, sex, beliefs or personality should not influence grading.

Debate centers on the two other comments and a proposal to establish an ombudsman office to handle complaints about teachers.

Sexual Exploitation

The most controversial item declares: “Students are entitled to a student/teacher relationship which is free of sexual solicitation or exploitation.”

Supporters of that statement point out that such a clear policy is recommended by the American Council on Education and is simply an affirmation of the legal victories of the women’s movement.

But other professors say the general statement forbidding exploitation would cover any instances of sexual harassment and that approving a separate item about sex would only inflame public curiosity.

“It may give a wrong emphasis, suggesting that this is a problem when I don’t believe it is,” said Jeb Brighouse, a political science teacher who is editor of the faculty newsletter. “There isn’t a circumstance or atmosphere of rampant exploitation. It’s just not going on.”

If any issue needs specific censure, it is financial entanglement between a teacher and student, Brighouse said, referring to the allegations which surrounded the early retirement in 1984 of business professor C. Cecil Abernathy.

Real Estate Promotion

In lawsuits against Abernathy and the college, four students alleged that Abernathy used classroom time to induce them to invest in his private real estate businesses, promising in some cases to double their money in two years. The students claimed that Abernathy bilked them out of a total of $12,500 and that college administrators ignored their warnings about Abernathy.

After a series of appeals to the state Supreme Court, Glendale Community College itself was eliminated as a defendant last year because, the courts said, the students should have known Abernathy’s investments were not connected to his teaching. The cases against Abernathy are still pending but are stalled because he filed for protection from creditors under federal bankruptcy laws.

Another controversial comment discourages teachers from persistently discussing during class time issues that have nothing to do with the course subject.

“In other words, if the student comes to our class expecting a course in basic algebra, we do not have the right to, under the guise of academic freedom, spend half of our time talking about the merits or perils of ‘Star Wars’ or about our latest adventure at home,” Lecuyer wrote in a memo distributed to teachers last week. The idea is not to prevent ordinary digressions or even occasional discussion of subjects outside the scope of the course, Lecuyer said.

Harassment Fears

However, some teachers worry that students could use that part of the code to harass them and that professors could wind up having to defend their use of personal anecdotes.

Another debated item is the establishment of an ombudsman office--to be filled by an individual teacher or a committee. An ombudsman would informally handle complaints about teachers before such matters go to the college’s formal Judicial Board or administration. According to Lecuyer, ombudsmen at other campuses and businesses seem to make their institutions more responsive and prevent “small problems from escalating into big ones.”

Business professor Robert Unterman said he and some other teachers want the ombudsman proposal postponed for two years to see whether the basic code is working without the threat of enforcement. He said that guidance counselors and division chairman now handle most initial complaints and do the job well and with discretion.

Faculty members fear that an ombudsman review of even frivolous complaints will not be kept secret and that reputations will be ruined by gossip, according to Unterman. He said that could lead to defamation lawsuits against the school or other teachers.

Arthur Rasmuson, the college’s vice president in charge of instruction, said that he and division chairmen always try to resolve disputes between teachers and students informally. If that does not work, a student can bring a complaint to the Judicial Board, made up of teachers and administrators, for a hearing, then appeal to the college president and Board of Trustees.

A hearing before the Judicial Board is rare, Rasmuson said, explaining that since September he has dealt with five complaints and that none went to a formal hearing. The complaints all concerned grades and none was about exploitation or ethics, he said.

Two years ago, a previous proposal for a code of ethics at Glendale Community College died amid a salary dispute and fears by teachers that administrators would use the code against them. But the school’s new president, John A. Davitt, has a better relationship with the faculty than did his predecessor, the late H. Rex Craig, according to Richard Harlan, president of the Glendale College Guild, the faculty union.

“I would not say there is no paranoia, but there is less paranoia,” said Harlan, who said he supports the entire ethics proposal and that it would not conflict with the guild’s contract.

The faculty Senate recently approved the code and ombudsman proposals and the entire faculty is expected to vote in secret during the next few weeks, Lecuyer said. The basic code, the three additions and the ombudsman item will be listed separately on the ballot. So it is possible that only the basic statement will pass.

But even if that is the case, Glendale Community College teachers will be among only a handful of the 106 community college faculties in California to adopt any statement of self-regulation, said Mark Edelstein, president of the statewide Academic Senate for community colleges. Among the few with such codes is Pasadena City College, he said.

Most faculty handbooks prepared by administrators deal with ethical issues, but it is fairly rare for teachers to adopt their own codes, said Edelstein, who is an English professor at Palomar Community College.