D. CONDITIONS OF SERVICE CONTINUED 3

The faculty member has the right to be governed in his/her work by policies and actions that are clear and properly timed. These are contained in the Andrews University Working Policy supplied to every faculty member. It is the duty of the faculty member to know about and comply with this document. Specific employment policies are found in The Employee Handbook (http://www.andrews.edu/HR/emp_handbook.html).

The faculty member is obligated to participate in the legislative or policy-making functions of the faculty by attending faculty meetings regularly, exercising voting privileges conscientiously, contributing to its deliberations, serving on its committees, and advising colleagues and officers as the welfare of the university may require.

Andrews University uses the underlying principle that the highest development of individuals occurs within the ethical code exemplified by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Scriptures. Therefore, the university expects its faculty members to conduct all personal and professional relationships in harmony with this ethical code and encourages them to find in this philosophical framework both inspiration and guidance in their search for truth.

This means that faculty in both their conduct and their cognition are expected to preserve an ethical regard for the inherent worth and dignity of each person as a creation of God, which, among other things, entails respect for views and opinions that are new or different and fairness towards persons who are criticized or charged with wrongdoing.

Faculty members are expected to relate cordially with one another. They will not disparage a colleague in the presence of a student nor engage in gossip about a colleague. They will recommend qualified colleagues for advancements and recognitions of various kinds. On the other hand a faculty member may honestly appraise a colleague under restricted circumstances when such appraisal could improve the educational system and must submit evidence in his/her possession to appropriate authorities concerning the unfitness of a colleague. In fact, it would be unethical not to report to duly constituted authorities matters that are detrimental to the university community.

In relating to students, faculty members should endeavor by teaching and example to inspire students to achieve the highest possible goals and to develop Bible-based values.

While the faculty member should treat knowledge about a student in confidence, this does not preclude the faculty member from honestly appraising a student when asked by a university officer or prospective employers, nor from presenting to appropriate university officers evidence of matters that are detrimental to the student and/or the university.

In pursuit of research and publications, faculty members should not disadvantage their students either by overuse of the student’s time or by failure to acknowledge their contributions.

Harassment in the classroom or learning environment is unlawful (see also policy #2:155).

Non-marital sexual relationships between faculty and students are prohibited. Non-marital romantic relationships between faculty and students are also prohibited because even where such relationships appear to be consensual between the parties, the faculty member’s status may place the student in a disadvantageous position.

The faculty member carries additional responsibilities and privileges as a member of the church and as a resident of the community. Unless authorization has been given to serve as spokesperson for the university, the faculty member should not imply university sponsorship in expressing opinions and convictions.

The faculty member must maintain high standards of truthfulness, decency, and moral integrity. He/she must not invoke the protection of academic freedom or give counsel in areas beyond his/her competence as a scholar (see policy #2:159).

While the faculty member may uninhibitedly investigate and research any matter within one’s discipline or germane to it, the faculty member must recognize the responsibilities that govern who are accorded this freedom (see policies #2:158:2-4 and Appendix 2-B).

Faculty are expected to adhere to high ethical standards in the conduct of research, scholarly publication, and other scholarly endeavors. Clearly formulated policies and procedures affirm and safeguard these standards of ethical conduct. Violations of ethical conduct such as academic fraud, academic misconduct, plagiarism and conflict of interest as defined below in policies #2:158:3:1-4 are subject to university investigation, censure and discipline.

Academic misconduct has been defined by the federal government (Part 689, Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations C Public Welfare) to mean: (1) fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing, carrying out, or reporting the results of research; (2) retaliation of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged misconduct… Failure to comply with Federal requirements for the protection of researchers, human subjects, or the public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals; or failure to meet other material legal requirements governing research will also be defined as academic misconduct.

Fraud, a serious threat to the intellectual integrity of a university, is not honest error or poor scholarship: it is intentional deception. Allegations of fraud therefore involve the intent and motive of the accused.

Fraud has been specifically defined by the Association of American Colleges and Universities as: (1) falsification of data ranging from fabrication to deceptively selective reporting, including the purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to falsify results; (2) plagiarism, the representation of someone else’s work as one’s own (see policy #3:158:3:4); and (3) misappropriation of others’ ideas; the unauthorized use of privileged information however obtained (such as violation of confidentiality from a peer review).

Faculty members found to have committed fraud in scholarly endeavors become liable to a full range of discipline, including termination for unfitness (see policy #2:175:3).

Conflict of interest in academic endeavors arises when a faculty member’s research conduct, research findings and reporting; are influenced by private financial interests or nepotism interests (see also policy #2:115).

The university maintains objectivity in research by ensuring that the design, conduct, or reporting of research is not biased by any conflicting financial interest of investigators employed by the university who are responsible for the research in accord with the provisions of PHS regulations 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart F, and 45 CFR Part 94.

Standards defining conflict of interest are detailed in the Andrews University Scholarly Research Handbook. Applicants for extramural funds are required to sign a statement that no conflict of interest exists.

Plagiarism, the act of representing another person’s work or ideas as one’s own, is a serious form of academic dishonesty for which a faculty member’s employment may be terminated.

For written material, Andrews University expects faculty to respect the intellectual property rights of others. The university endorses the following requirements of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th Ed., 348-350, 387-396. For current information on Ethical Principles relevant to publishing, visit the American Psychological Association web site http://www.apastyle.org/manual/index.aspx.

Quotation marks should be used to indicate the exact words of another.

Summarizing a passage or rearranging the order of a sentence and changing some of the words is paraphrasing. Each time a source is paraphrased, a credit for the source needs to be included in the text.

Substantial portions or elements of another’s work or data should not be presented as one’s own, even if the other work or data source is cited occasionally.

Faculty members who in the presentation or distribution or publication of written material in their own name neglect to specifically or generally acknowledge their indebtedness to sources used shall be guilty of plagiarism and liable to discipline (see also policy #2:445).

The university seeks to provide an environment that promotes ethical integrity by encouraging open discussions and communication of research findings, submission of work for peer review, commitment to self-regulation, emphasis on quality rather than quantity, collaboration and teamwork, maintenance of non-competitive professional relationships, generosity in recognizing the accomplishments and contributions of others. The university requires adherence to well-designed protocols that protect research subjects and safeguard against carelessness before and after scholarly activities. (See also Appendix 2-C).

Plans for research on human subjects must be reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Scholarly Research Council. (See Scholarly Research Handbook ). The conditions under which data are collected must meet the ethical and legal requirements set forth in the Brief Guidelines and any specific directions by the reviewers. No data may be collected from human subjects before written notification of approval is received by the investigator. Individuals undertaking studies with human subjects without such approval are not covered by university liability protection and may be subject to discipline by the university.

Research on non-human living animals is subject to the review and approval of the Animal Use and Care Subcommittee of the Scholarly Research Council. This committee uses ethical and regulatory standards set by state and federal agencies to determine that proposed research requires the use of living animals, that such animals will be humanely cared for, and that pain and suffering entailed in the experiment are minimized. Animals may not be purchased for research or teaching, nor experiments begun, until the protocol, describing their use has been approved by the committee.

Primary responsibility for the ethical conduct of a faculty member rests with the individual faculty member. The principal investigator of a research project shares in this primary responsibility for the ethical conduct of all research activities with which he/she is associated including the authenticity of the research conducted and published in his/her name. He/she should on behalf of the university maintain a high standard of intellectual honesty in his/her environment, give adequate supervision for all staff and students associated with his/her research project and provide due credit to all investigators and associates who have contributed to the work. Such contributors and collaborators, on the other hand, bear their own ethical responsibility for co-authored work and should be prepared to support and defend their conclusions.

To fulfill its own obligations to promote ethical scholarly endeavors, the university makes two requirements:

1. Statement of acceptance of responsibility: First, the university requires a faculty investigator applying for university funding or submitting a proposal for extramural funding and sponsorship to sign a statement accepting responsibility for ethical conduct within the guidelines contained in the Andrews University Working Policy (see also Appendix 2-C).
2. Investigation of Complaints of Unethical Academic Conduct: Second, the university requires prompt, forthright and fair action within clearly established university Policy guidelines for process and appeal when allegations or evidence of unethical conduct is reported either before or after the completion of the research investigation (see also policy Appendix 2-C).

Andrews University expects its faculty members to subscribe to and work within the framework of the statement of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists on Freedom and Accountability, and Academic Freedom in Seventh-day Adventist Institutions of Higher Education as contained in Appendix 2-A and Appendix 2-B. The university espouses the principle of academic freedom, not only to protect a faculty member from intramural and external pressures that hinder the pursuit of truth, but also to foster disciplined and creative investigation in all phases of learning. Like all other freedoms, academic freedom is subject to limitations and requires certain responsibilities of those who enjoy it. Faculty members are assumed to be responsible in the context of their advanced training, education, and experience.

The instructor’s zeal for exploring the growing edge of knowledge must be balanced by his/her concern for the impact of his/her influence in word and example upon others. Academic responsibility includes honesty, differentiation between evidence and conclusions, willingness to re-examine conclusions, openness to new evidence, and respect for differing viewpoints. The greatest breach of academic responsibility is misrepresentation, which occurs either by intent or by failure to investigate sufficiently.

The religious character of the university provides a context for the responsible exercise of academic freedom. Subversion of, or overt disharmony with, the standards or teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church, as contained in its statement of Fundamental Beliefs, are grounds for dismissal. Additional examples of irresponsible use of academic freedom include:

• Bringing discredit to the institution, to an academic discipline, or to an individual in a manner that is illegal, unethical, or violative of individual or institutional rights and processes, as defined in the Andrews University Working Policy.
• Using position and authority rather than convincing evidence to persuade.
• Infringing on the academic freedom of others to teach, to research, to question, or to test hypotheses.

The university also subscribes to the general concept of academic freedom stated by the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors, interpreted as follows within the three settings identified:

1. Freedom to Engage in Research and Publication

The teacher has full freedom to pursue study and research germane to his/her interests, and to that of his/her academic appointment, and to publish the results of his/her research. Those efforts must not diminish the adequate performance of his/her total responsibility in the university as agreed upon by him/her and the school administration.

2. Freedom in the Classroom

The teacher is entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing the subject he/she has been appointed to teach, but should avoid interjecting controversial and non-germane material. The teacher should also avoid discussing controversial matters as an expert when unqualified. Academic freedom is constrained by:

• the demands to adhere to the professional standard of care
• the requirement to present unfalsified evidence even though controversial
• the prerogatives of a department to require a common syllabus and common text for multi-sectioned courses
• the requirement to cover announced content before addressing collateral material
• the requirement to treat with respect students who disagree with the instructor.

3. Freedom as a Private Citizen

When speaking as a private citizen in various publics, a faculty member must exercise appropriate restraint and indicate that he/she is not speaking as a spokesperson of the university. Responsible expression is particularly important in regard to issues of controversy and sensitivity that affect the church. Academic freedom does not extend, of course, to riot or to conduct or speech that destroys the ability of the university, or a part thereof, to function.

When confronted with instances of apparent academic irresponsibility, the university will respond in a manner that is cautious and just, but also decisive.

A faculty member who believes his/her academic freedom has been violated has recourse to the grievance procedure (see policy #2:160 below) without fear of administrative reprisal.

Academic freedom allows a faculty member to question institutional plans, objectives, or policies. Should informal discussions prove unsatisfactory, the faculty member has recourse to due representation through faculty participation in accord with the provisions of the Andrews University Working Policy without fear of administrative reprisal. The faculty member is expected to follow existing policies while seeking their repeal or revision, and to refrain from utilizing the classroom to debate unresolved issues.