Seeking Feedback on “Good Practices Guide” – Part 1

A group of philosophers related to the Demographics in Philosophy challenge have taken up the duty of making a “Good Practices Information” to advance range in philosophy and are in search of ideas, criticisms, and feedback on the preliminary draft.

The draft attracts on “good practices” materials from the American Philosophical Association (APA), the Society for Women in Philosophy (SWIP), the British Philosophical Association (BPA), and the University of Oxford, amongst others.

I’ll be posting a couple of sections of the draft information this week within the hopes of soliciting feedback from readers. Right this moment’s sections are on Sexual Harassment, Caregivers, and Employees-Scholar Relationships. Dialogue inspired.

Good Observe Coverage: Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment could be carried out by individuals of any gender, and individuals of any gender could also be victims. Though harassment of scholars by workers is commonly the main focus of discussions, departments should be conscious that energy differentials of this kind aren’t important to sexual harassment. Sexual harassment might happen between any members of the division. Departments ought to attend equally significantly to harassment dedicated each by college students and by workers, as each can have dramatically unfavorable results on specific people and on departmental tradition. Departments also needs to remember that sexual harassment might work together with and be modified by problems with race, ethnicity, faith, class and incapacity standing.

There’s good proof that the proportion of incidents of sexual harassment that get reported, even informally, in philosophy departments could be very low, and that this has created severe issues for some workers and college students. We due to this fact urge even these workers who don’t imagine that harassment is an issue in their very own departments to present severe consideration to the suggestions beneath.

The US defines ‘sexual harassment’ as undesirable sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and different verbal or bodily conduct of a sexual nature when:

1. Submission to such conduct is made both explicitly or implicitly a time period or situation of a person’s employment
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by a person is used as a foundation for employment selections affecting such particular person
3. Such conduct has the aim or impact of unreasonably interfering with a person’s work efficiency or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working atmosphere.

Institutional definitions of ‘sexual harassment’ differ vastly from each other. Some institutional definitions focus solely on sexual conduct, whereas others embrace additionally embrace non-sexual harassment associated to intercourse.

Whereas departments must attend to their establishment’s definition of ‘sexual harassment’, and to utilize institutional procedures the place acceptable, this isn’t the tip of their tasks. The place sexist or sexual habits is going down that contributes to an unwelcoming atmosphere for underrepresented teams, departments ought to act whether or not or not formal procedures are attainable or acceptable.

We be aware that sexual harassment in philosophy could be current even when it doesn’t meet the formal definitions above. Sexual harassment entails conduct of a sexual nature with the aim or impact of violating the dignity of an individual, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive atmosphere. This consists of each harassment associated to intercourse, sexual orientation, or gender id (e.g. hostile and dismissive although not sexual feedback about ladies, homosexual, lesbian, transgender, or nonbinary folks) and harassment of a sexual nature. Notice that sexual harassment just isn’t restricted to one-to-one interactions however might embrace, for instance, common feedback made in lectures or seminars that aren’t geared toward a person.

Basic Strategies

1. All members of the division—undergraduates, graduate college students, tutorial and non-academic workers—must be made conscious of the rules that govern sexual harassment of their college.
   a. Specifically, they need to know the college’s definition of ‘sexual harassment’ and who to contact in attainable instances of sexual harassment.
   b. They need to additionally know who has standing to file a grievance (generally, and opposite to widespread perception, the complainant needn’t be the sufferer).
   c. They need to be made conscious of each formal and casual measures obtainable at their college.
   d. Departments might want to think about together with this info in induction periods for each college students and workers, and in coaching for instructing assistants.
2. The place the College or School has an inventory of Harassment Contacts (see e.g. www.southampton.ac.uk/range/how_we_support_diversity/harassment_contact s.web page), all workers—together with non-academic workers—and college students must be made conscious of it. If no such record exists, the division ought to think about suggesting this method to the college. It is rather essential for division members to have the ability to search recommendation exterior their division.
3. All members of workers ought to learn the recommendation given at www.oed.wisc.edu/ sexualharassment/information.html on how one can take care of people who method them to debate a selected incident.
4. The entire info listed above must be made completely obtainable to workers (together with non-academic workers) and college students, e.g. by way of a secure URL and/or workers and pupil handbooks, quite than solely within the type of a one-off e mail communication.
5. The division head and others with managerial tasks (similar to Administrators of Graduate and Undergraduate Research) ought to be sure that they’ve full data of college procedures concerning sexual harassment.

Departmental Tradition

1. Significantly think about the harms of an environment rife with dismissive or sexualizing feedback and habits, and tackle these ought to they come up. (It’s price noting, nonetheless, that the best solution to take care of this may increasingly differ.)
2. Domesticate—from the highest down—an environment during which sustaining a wholesome local weather for all division members, particularly these from under-represented teams and together with non-academic workers, is taken into account everybody’s accountability. What this entails will differ from individual to individual and scenario to scenario. However at a minimal it features a accountability to replicate on the implications (together with unintended penalties) of 1’s personal habits in the direction of people from underrepresented teams. It could additionally embrace a accountability to intervene, both formally or informally. (For extra on the vary of responses obtainable, see Saul, op. cit.)
3. Guarantee, so far as attainable, that these elevating issues about sexual harassment are protected in opposition to retaliation.
4. Provide bystander coaching both to workers, or to workers and graduate college students, if that is obtainable or could be made obtainable by the establishment. This will help bystanders to really feel snug intervening once they witness harassing habits. (See the Good Observe web site for extra info.)

Good Observe Coverage: Care Givers

Employees members and college students with caregiving tasks—whether or not parental or different—face constraints on their time that others usually don’t. There are easy measures that departments can take to reduce the extent to which caregivers are deprived.

Basic Strategies

Departments ought to undertake an express coverage regarding caregivers, which covers as lots of the following factors as is virtually attainable:

1. Schedule essential occasions, so far as attainable, between 9 and 5 (the hours when childcare is extra available). When an occasion must be scheduled exterior of those hours, give loads of advance discover in order that caregivers could make the mandatory preparations. Think about using on-line scheduling polls to search out instances that work for as many as attainable.
2. Significantly think about requests from workers of any background for part- time and versatile working. (That is largely, however not completely, a difficulty for caregivers—requests from non-caregivers also needs to be taken significantly.) Even be receptive, so far as attainable, to requests for unpaid depart.
3. So far as attainable, account for caregiving commitments when scheduling instructing tasks.
4. Bear in mind that college students, not simply workers, might have caregiving tasks. Have a workers contact individual for college kids who’re caregivers. Take pupil requests for caregiving lodging significantly.
5. Be sure that college students and workers are made totally conscious of any college companies for caregivers.
6. Be sure that workers have an sufficient understanding of what caregiving entails. (E.g., don’t anticipate a PhD pupil to make plenty of progress on dissertating whereas on parental depart.)
7. Be sure that parental depart funds supplied by the college are literally used to cowl for parental depart, quite than being absorbed into division or college budgets.
8. These concerned in efficiency evaluations must be totally knowledgeable about present insurance policies concerning output discount for caregivers and take caregiving tasks under consideration the place attainable.

Good Observe Coverage: Employees-Scholar Relationships

Romantic or sexual relationships that happen within the student-teacher context or within the context of supervision, line administration and analysis current particular issues. The distinction in energy and the respect and belief which can be usually current between a instructor and pupil, supervisor and subordinate, or senior and junior colleague in the identical division or unit makes these relationships particularly susceptible to exploitation. They will even have unlucky unintentional penalties.

Such relationships also can generate perceived, and typically actual, inequalities that have an effect on different members of the division, whether or not college students or workers. For instance, a relationship between a senior and junior member of workers might increase points regarding promotion, granting of sabbatical depart, and allocation of instructing. This may increasingly occur even when no preferential remedy truly happens, and even when the senior workers member in query just isn’t immediately chargeable for such selections. Within the case of staff-student relationships, questions might come up regarding preferential remedy in seminar discussions, marking, selections regarding graduate pupil funding, and so forth. Once more, these questions might properly emerge and be of significant concern to different college students even when no preferential remedy truly happens.

On the similar time, we recognise that such relationships do certainly happen, and that they needn’t be damaging, however could also be each important and long-lasting.

We recommend that departments undertake the next coverage with respect to the habits of members of workers in any respect ranges, together with graduate pupil instructors.

Please be aware that the suggestions beneath aren’t meant to be learn legalistically. Particular person establishments might have their very own insurance policies, and these will represent formal necessities on workers and pupil habits. The suggestions beneath are meant merely as departmental norms, and to be adopted solely the place not in battle with institutional rules.

Basic Strategies

The division’s coverage on relationships between workers and college students (and between workers) must be clearly marketed to all workers and college students in a everlasting type, e.g. intranet or workers/pupil handbooks. The coverage ought to embrace clear steerage about whom college students or workers would possibly seek the advice of within the first occasion if issues (actual or perceived) come up.

Undergraduate College students

1. Employees and graduate pupil instructing assistants must be knowledgeable that relationships between instructing workers and undergraduates are very strongly discouraged, for the explanations given above.
2. If such a relationship does happen, the member of workers in query ought to:
   a. inform a senior member of the division—the place attainable, the division head—as quickly as attainable;
   b. withdraw from all small-group instructing involving that pupil (within the case of instructing assistants, this may increasingly contain swapping tutorial teams with one other TA), except virtually inconceivable;
   c. withdraw from the evaluation of that pupil, even when nameless marking is used.
   d. withdraw from writing references and suggestions for the scholar in query.
   e. It must be made clear to workers and college students that if an undergraduate pupil has entered right into a relationship with a member of workers (together with a TA), whereas the accountability for taking the above steps lies with the member of workers involved, the scholar is equally entitled to report their relationship to a different member of workers (e.g. Head of Division, if acceptable), and to request that the above steps be taken.

Graduate College students

1. Employees and graduate college students must be knowledgeable that relationships between tutorial members of instructing workers and graduate college students are very strongly discouraged, particularly between a supervisor and a graduate supervisee.
2. If such a relationship happens between a member of workers and a graduate pupil, the member of workers ought to:
   a. inform a senior member of workers—the place attainable, the division head—as quickly as attainable;
   b. withdraw from supervising the scholar, writing letters of advice for them, and making any selections (e.g. distribution of funding) the place preferential remedy of the scholar might in precept happen;
   c. within the case of graduate college students, withdraw from all small-group instructing involving that pupil, except virtually inconceivable;
   d. within the case of graduate college students, withdraw from the evaluation of that pupil, even when nameless marking is used.
   e. As a lot as attainable, the Division ought to encourage a apply of full disclosure within the case of such relationships’ continuance. This avoids actual or perceived conflicts of curiosity, in addition to embarrassment for others.

Educational Employees

Between members of educational workers the place there’s a giant disparity in seniority (e.g. Affiliate Professor/Lecturer; Head of Division/Assistant Professor):

1. Disclosure of any such relationship must be strongly inspired, as a way to keep away from actual or perceived conflicts of curiosity.
2. Any potential for actual or perceived conflicts of curiosity must be eliminated by, e.g., removing of the senior member of workers from related decision-making (e.g. promotions, appointment to everlasting positions).