Glendale College Faculty Adopts a General Code of Ethics

The faculty at Glendale Community College has voted to adopt a code of professional ethics, but to reject amendments that would specifically ban sexual exploitation of students by teachers and the persistent use of class time for irrelevant discussions.

The results of the split vote by secret ballot were announced last week and capped four years of intermittent debate among the school’s 160 full-time and more than 300 part-time teachers. The code went into effect immediately, putting Glendale among only a handful of the 106 community colleges in the state to have such guidelines, officials said.

The code grew, in part, out of allegations in 1984 by students that a now-retired business professor defrauded them of thousands of dollars through investment plans he reportedly ran out of his classroom.

“I wish the whole thing had passed, but you can’t get everything at once,” said Jean Lecuyer, the physics professor who is president of the Academic Senate and who was one of the prime backers of the defeated amendments. Nevertheless, Lecuyer said the adoption of the basic code shows that the campus is “in the forefront” of professionalism.

Opponents said the amendments were not necessary because the basic code covered those topics in general terms. They also said they feared, had the passages been included, that the public might interpret them as proof that there are many instances of sexual harassment on campus; in fact, they said, there are not.

“Some faculty members found it insulting to highlight something when it was not a serious problem,” said business professor Robert Unterman, who had urged the adoption of the main code and defeat of the three amendments, formally called “comments.”

The Academic Senate on Tuesday voted not to release to the press or the public the exact number of votes on each side of the four ballot measures but issued a statement saying that the basic code passed by an overwhelming margin and that each of the three amendments lost by a small number of votes. Sources at the college said the comment banning sexual exploitation lost by only five votes out of about 130 cast.

Another controversial proposal--to establish a faculty ombudsman to review students’ complaints about teachers--was withdrawn before the voting. It will be studied more and may be revived later this year or next, Lecuyer said. Some teachers said that existing grievance procedures within the administration seem to work well and that professors should not have to be judged by their peers.

The basic “Statement on Professional Ethics” is a five-paragraph code virtually identical to one adopted in 1966 by the American Assn. of University Professors.

It 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 members and asks teachers to avoid creating the impression that they speak for the college when they are expressing a private opinion.

According to the code, faculty members must “demonstrate respect for the student as an individual, and adhere to their proper role as intellectual guides and counselors.” They are to “make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that their evaluation of students reflects their true merit.”

One of three defeated “comments” stated that a student’s race, sex, beliefs or personality should not influence grading. More controversial were the other two, one of which declared: “Students are entitled to a student/teacher relationship which is free of sexual solicitation or exploitation.”

The third said that teachers should “avoid the persistent intrusion of material which has no relation to their subject.” That was intended to prevent teachers from regularly wasting class time on irrelevant political issues or personal anecdotes, Lecuyer said.

Unterman said that teachers feared the amendment about irrelevant discussions could have become “a lightning rod for all sorts of ambiguous beefs against the faculty.” Some teachers, he said, thought it might stifle creativity.

Lecuyer said he understood how those comments made some teachers uneasy but added their defeat “doesn’t make us look very good.”

“I would hate for us to look like we are in favor of unethical things,” the faculty Senate president said.

During recent debate on the code, many teachers said the school was badly embarrassed by allegations surrounding the early retirement in 1984 of business professor C. Cecil Abernathy. Some said the code should have specifically banned financial entanglements between faculty and students.

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 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 pending but are stalled because he filed for protection from creditors under federal bankruptcy laws.