Situation
Sam Cooper, a new Graduate Assistant in Introductory Sociology, is enthusiastic and well-prepared. He has gone the “extra mile” in having office hours, in meeting students outside of class to discuss their assigned projects, and in preparing materials like study guides and “mock-ups” on projects. He has let students know that they should feel free to call him at home and often calls them to follow-up on questions they have asked him. In the course of one of these conversations, Sam informs one of the female students in the class that he is “available” and, if this student should ever be “interested”, she should let him know. The student calls the Department’s Undergraduate Advisor and then Department Chair to report “sexual harassment”. When called in by the Chair, Sam says that he did not know that there was any problem with this, that he is single and that he is well-intentioned regarding this woman.
Questions
- What are the ethical issues in this case?
- What should the Department’s response be?
- What courses of action could the Department have taken to prevent such situations?
Discussion
In this case, Sam’s insertion of his personal interest in the student is inappropriate. The student may feel pressure to respond positively or compromised no matter which way she responds. At minimum, Sam must avoid any such interests until the class is over and only if Sam has no further professional responsibilities regarding this student. Sam’s claim is that he is “clueless” and his behavior, taken as a whole, suggests that he may well be clueless. But this cases pivots on the actual situation regarding Sam’s preparation for teaching. Specifically, this case raises two issues — the personal responsibility of Sam to know about his ethical obligations as a teacher and, more importantly, the Department’s and Lead Professor’s obligation to provide appropriate training for teaching. On the one hand, if the Department has provided no introduction to the Code, to ethical boundaries in teaching and conduct as a sociologist, then the onus is really on the Department. The Department should move immediately to correct this gap in its program. Sam should be dealt with in a serious manner which informs him about his obligations and the implications of his behavior on students, whether the women he approached or the other students in the class. On the other hand, if the Department has provided students with the Code, introduced it in some setting (e.g., a proseminar) or provided teacher training on more than just assignments and techniques, then Sam’s claim of being “clueless” is not a strong one. In this case, the Department should issue Sam a formal warning.
