Crystal Luong
News Editor
When a sexual relations policy unexpectedly appeared on page 97 of the faculty handbook in fall 2002, it triggered currents of discontent and concern. A lengthy faculty movement forced its formal withdrawal last spring. More than two years after the origin of the controversy, University officials have produced a broader preliminary ethics statement in its stead.
“It should ultimately serve as a vision to which our community can aspire,” said Dr. Bob McQuaid, Graziadio School of Business and Management associate professor and chair of Information Systems.
McQuaid, along with a representative from each of Pepperdine’s five schools, serves on the ethics subcommittee that drafted the statement under the commission of the University Faculty Council. Provost Darryl Tippens leads the group that also includes Dr. Don Shores, Seaver College; Dr. Jack McManus, Graduate School of Education and Psychology; Dr. Shelley Saxer, School of Law; and Dr. Gordon Lloyd, School of Public Policy.
Problems with the sex policy, which essentially stated that Seaver faculty could face disciplinary action if their lifestyles contradicted Scripture, was controversial for more than its content.
“There really was no formal process or procedure to put anything in the handbook,” Shores said.
Page 97 also was thought to be too narrow and many faculty members questioned its enforceability.
“Why did we pick out one specific problem instead of talk about a general lifestyle?” Shores said. “Why don’t we have a much broader statement?”
The preliminary ethics statement applies to all University members, from faculty and students to staff and the Board of Regents. It opens with Pepperdine’s mission statement and affirms a commitment to Scripture and the visions of founder George Pepperdine. The statement also identifies diversity within Pepperdine and adherence to principles of respect, fairness and honesty.
Before drafting the document Jan. 27, the subcommittee met two or three times for brainstorming and discussion.
“We looked at what other schools have done and what the Pepperdine community already has in place to see if we could arrive at a statement that would incorporate the varied policies and needs of our schools and members of our community,” Saxer said.
Example ethics statements from schools such as University of Southern California, Yale and Harvard, were reviewed but used as a model.
“They were often rules of what you can and can’t do,” Shores said. “We chose not to go in those directions.”
At the beginning of February, the statement was sent to faculty for review but response has been limited, according to Shores.
“At this point since the content (of page 97) has been removed, it seems many of those (faculty concerned before) aren’t as concerned anymore,” Shores said. He identified three groups with contrasting sentiments toward the ethics statement: those who feel it doesn’t say anything and want something much more strict, those who feel it’s not necessary and those who view it positively,
McQuaid counters the negative views of the statement by referring to the perspective on ethics presented by Rushworth Kidder from the Institute for Global Ethics, who, in 2003, said, ethical behavior is “obedience to the unenforceable,” and legal behavior is “obedience to the enforceable.”
“Based on that, writing more concrete guidelines seems like law, not ethics,” McQuaid said.
To those who say it isn’t necessary or doesn’t say much, “I’d suggest that a vision that guides desirable behavior is preferable to assuming a commonly held understanding exists in the community,” McQuaid said.
The subcommittee will meet again the latter part of March and pull together comments and responses.
The draft will then be presented at the UFC meeting on April 6 for discussion, sent to University President Andrew K. Benton and the Board of Regents, and eventually, students will have a chance to review it.
Shores estimates at least a year before the statement’s finalization and expects the document will be rewritten and rehashed several times.
Regardless, the process since page 97 has made all involved think in new dimensions.
“Sometimes it might not be the end result that’s most important,” Shores said. “It’s the process we go through.”
03-17-2005