The late unpleasantness in astronomy has rightly led the American Astronomical Society to take a new look at its ethics policy (here) which was adopted in its current form in 2010. The current code lacks any enforcement mechanism, and so a new draft has been adopted that includes one (you can read it here).
I like the current version of the AAS Ethics Statement, but it is primarily aspirational. I have three major concerns with the revised version.
My first concern is the following language, in the preamble:
Upon acceptance or renewal of AAS membership, all members will be asked to acknowledge that they have read this Code of Ethics and will strive to abide by these as an AAS member. (emphasis mine)
This bit about “striving to abide by these [sic]” is new, and problematic. It takes what was an aspirational ethics statement and turns it into a code of ethics, and one that members must pledge to follow as a condition of renewing their membership.
Now, I understand that the AAS would like the statement to have some teeth so that it can sanction very bad actors, and I get that having members promise to follow a code gives the AAS a basis for admonishing and correcting bad behavior.
Now, if the code truly contained, as it states, “the minimal standards of ethical behavior relating to the profession” then this wouldn’t be a big problem, but there’s a lot more in there than that (and there always was — the “minimal standards” language is in the current ethics statement as well).
For instance, the ethics statement (and the new code) states that
Scientists should…promote equality of opportunity and treatment regardless of gender, race, ethnic and national origin, religion, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disabilities, veteran status, etc.
I’m fully behind this statement—I agree with it and I’m proud that my professional society has this as official policy. But the Code of Ethics isn’t a policy statement of the society, it is a set of professional norms that the AAS wants all of its members to agree to when the renew their memberships.
I’m sure there are lots of astronomers who do not agree with the quoted statement (in deed, if not in word). It’s one thing to require these astronomers to acknowledge that the AAS would like them to promote equality (as the current ethics statement does). It’s another to require it of them as a condition of membership, which is what the new language does. Indeed, taken literally, members who do not promote such equality (by, say, doing nothing at all on the topic) are in violation of the code of ethics.
My second concern is the new investigative and punitive powers this policy gives the AAS. Under the new policy the AAS gets a Committee on Ethics that receives complaints, can investigate them, and can act on them with outcomes ranging from no action, to admonishment, to expulsion from the society. All of the committee members are appointed by the AAS president.
I’d really like to know if this is modeled on a successful committee in some closely allied field’s professional society, or is this something new we’re trying in light of recent events? For instance, it does seem sub-optimal that the entire Committee on Ethics will be appointed by a single person (the president). After all, the president could be accused of a violation!
There have been (mostly anonymous) whisperings that the AAS is gearing up for a “witch hunt.” I find such whisperings to be rather paranoid (after all, the salient feature of a witch hunt is that, unlike unethical astronomers, witches don’t actually exist). But this is not to say that a process of investigation and punishment cannot get out of hand or be abused. It would help to know that similar committees have restricted their best efforts to severe cases, held a sense of proportion in their actions, and acted primarily to protect the powerless.
My third concern is this language:
Any AAS member or meeting attendee who experiences or witnesses a violation of the AAS Code of Ethics should report that violation to the AAS Committee on Ethics.
I presume this is just poor drafting, but just to put a fine point on what’s wrong here: taken literally, this unqualified statement means that all members should report all violations of the code of ethics to the AAS that they “experience[] or witness[]”. Combined with the language that led to my first concern, this implies that it is a requirement of membership to report event the most minor infractions (such as not promoting equality). Yikes.
After all, what about people who are being harassed or abused and are fearful of retribution if they report? Or have trauma as a result? Are they in violation of the code of ethics if they don’t report their trauma to strangers at the AAS? Obviously they should not be, but if the language in this document seems to say that they are, then the language is far too broad.
To take another example of infractions that the AAS wants to know about:
“All people encountered in one’s professional life should be treated with respect. At no time is abusive, demeaning, humiliating or intimidating behavior acceptable“
As an aspirational platitude, that’s fine, which is why I’m OK with it in the current ethics statement. As a professional norm that constitutes a basis for investigation and punishment, as in the new code of ethics, this is very problematic, because it’s not literally true.
To take just one example, if a junior member of our society is severely harassed (or worse) by a senior member, one can’t really expect that junior member to treat that senior member with respect. I can easily imagine situations where a junior member vents about the harassment on Twitter or some other public forum in impolite and unprofessional ways. The harasser could then point to the language of this document and report that the victim is violating the ethics code, and have them sanctioned! (Indeed, they have to report it!)
Again, I understand what the AAS is trying to do here, but trying to implement professional norms like this is hard and needs to be done carefully. Imprecise language will lead to overly broad and so unenforceable rules, which will then be applied unevenly or not all.
We do need to have a hard conversation about ethics in our society and the AAS should be able to take action against bad actors. I don’t think this current policy fits the bill. It may be just a few tweaks before it’s in good shape; I’m not sure.
Whether they agree with me or not, I encourage all AAS members to give their feedback to the AAS here.