Williams College
Self-Study for Accreditation
Integrity
The integrity of College operations is important in its own right and as a vital component of our mission to instill in students the virtues necessary for them to lead full and effective lives. Many policies and practices are in place to encourage integrity throughout the institution and to identify and take appropriate action in instances when it does not. We review those policies and practices frequently and amend or expand them as necessary, as shown below.
The foundational document in this regard is the College’s Charter (in Team Room).
We express our commitment to fairness in our non-discrimination statement, which appears in the Course Catalog; Student Handbook; the Faculty, Administrative Staff, and Support Staff Handbooks; several places on the College Website; and “Guidelines for Contractors” (all in Team Room). Since the last self study, we expanded the statement to bar discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression. It covers all of our operations, including our practices in recruitment, admission, employment, evaluation, disciplinary action, and advancement, as Standard 11 requires. The statement, by design, lists practices of discrimination that we reject; we plan to develop a parallel statement that lists practices of inclusion that we embrace.
Well developed grievance procedures are in place for members of the College who believe they may have been discriminated against. They are described in the student, faculty, and staff handbooks. The procedure for faculty is consistent with guidelines set by the American Association of University Professors. The Staff Handbooks also describe well established procedures for handling employment-related complaints.
There have been no challenges in recent years to the very wide latitude given faculty in their scholarly and creative pursuits but there have been tests of the College’s commitment to free speech. Despite cries from some quarters to do otherwise, we have consistently upheld our commitment to free speech, however uncomfortable that speech may be, provided it does not constitute verbal assault or harassment (news articles and other documents in Team Room).
The academic honor system, described in the Student Handbook, undergirds the integrity of student academic work. Codes of conduct for faculty and staff are spelled out in their respective handbooks. The honor system and codes of conduct are regularly reviewed by College bodies, including the Honor and Discipline Committees, Dean of the College’s Office, Dean of the Faculty’s Office, Faculty Steering Committee, Human Resources Office, and staff council. One area in which we have recently clarified appropriate practices is that of faculty and staff travel (document in Team Room).
In the Spring of 2007, a student group proposed changes to the Honor Committee’s procedures. Members of the group, called Gargoyle, select their successors from among self-nominees, who then undertake projects of their own design to advance the good of the College. Student members of the Honor Committee, who are elected by the student body, were taken aback by the proposals since most actually described current practices. Those that did raise new issues centered on concerns of whether the committee’s student chair can be properly objective if his or her responsibilities include all of the following: deciding if there is sufficient evidence for a hearing, informing an accused student of an alleged violation, and sitting in judgment as a member of the committee. The timing of Gargoyle’s proposals was such that the Honor Committee could not consider them until the Fall of 2007.
The College’s financial policies, practices, and reporting are independently audited each year and the results of that audit are publicly disclosed (latest audits in Team Room).
With the growing interconnectedness of the world economy and the broadening financial involvements of Trustees and officers of the College, we project a need to review with increased frequency our policies and practices regarding real and perceived conflicts of interest. Responsibility for overseeing these processes lies with the Executive, Audit, and Governance Committees of the Board. In 2006 the Board approved a new “Policy on Conflict of Interest for Trustees and Officers” (in Team Room), which made more explicit the procedure for trustees and officers to report regularly any real or perceived conflicts of interest regarding their Williams duties.
Among other policies in place are those regarding the ethics of computer network use, respect for copyright, the use of human and animal subjects in scientific research, and the ensuring of the physical safety of students, faculty and staff when engaged in College operations (background documents in Team Room). This past spring we tightened policies regarding the electronic sharing of copyrighted material, in light of evidence of continuing practice of this among students. We publicized the new policies on campus and the reported incidence of such sharing subsequently went down, though not enough time has elapsed to draw firm conclusions, and any changes in such behavior are likely also to have been influenced by heightened legal action on the part of groups of copyright holders.
Our commitment to respecting and supporting people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds is addressed in other sections of this Self Study and especially in our Diversity Initiatives Self Study, which is described in the Planning and Evaluation section and a copy of which is in the Team Room.
Another test of institutional integrity in recent years has come in the form of public calls on the College to compromise the confidentiality of its disciplinary and personnel processes, including decisions on faculty reappointment or tenure. People who have learned through unofficial channels about action taken against a student or a faculty or staff member, or about a decision not to grant reappointment or tenure to a faculty member, have sometimes made loud calls on the College to publicize that action or explain the grounds for it. These calls at times have included fanciful alternative explanations for the action taken and claims that the College’s adherence to its confidentiality safeguards represents a form of institutional ill will. Despite it being in the College’s short-term best interests to announce such actions and divulge the reasons, we have not done so out of dedication to the rights of the person in question and to the long-term health of the disciplinary and personnel processes, which requires that all participants believe that their open and honest involvement will not become public record.
Looking ahead, we are likely to face this dilemma more frequently as society places increased value on public disclosure by institutions. We believe that the value of integrity should continue to take precedence while acknowledging that doing so will probably occasion greater short-term criticism.
While we were writing the Self Study, national attention was given to real and perceived conflicts of interest in the student loan operations of many institutions. Williams is a direct lending institution and our Financial Aid Office appears free of the conflicts reported elsewhere. We are prompted, however, by the broader issues that have been raised regarding real or perceived conflicts of interest involving college and university staff and current or potential vendors to examine our current practices even more widely and closely than we have been and to make changes if warranted.
*****
The policies and practices discussed in this standard apply to all conferences, institutes, workshops, or other instructional or enrichment activities that Williams sponsors. We do not hold the same responsibility for outside operations that rent College facilities, typically in the summer.
top