An email was sent on Wednesday from the President of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), Debra Elmegreen, to all members of that organization (which includes me). Part of that email has caused a considerable negative reaction among astronomers on social media, so I’m taking the liberty of posting the offending section here and commenting on it below.
This is what sparked the reaction:
The Executive Committee modified further details in the Code of Conduct. On p. 6 in the Harassment Policy, a link is given to UN definitions of harassment in different countries.
The most substantive change is on p. 7: “It is a form of harassment to physically or verbally abuse or discriminate against alleged offenders of IAU’s policies, or if such policies are found to have been breached, inflict (or pressure others to inflict) punishments besides those officially sanctioned. In addition, the physical or verbal abuse or discrimination of those who work or have worked with the alleged or sanctioned perpetrator, simply because of their scientific collaboration, is also a form of harassment and as such is covered by this policy.”
(I’ve added the link to the full code of conduct myself).
The first point to make is that the Code of Conduct here can and does apply only to specific IAU activities and meetings, which strictly limits its scope. It is mostly about behaviour during meetings, in fact. I also think much of the reaction to this change has resulted from reading that paragraph in isolation. It does make more sense when read in the context of the whole document. In particular, the paragraph alone says little about other victims of harassment but that is covered in the rest of the document, which runs to 13 pages.
Now to the amended text.
I think everyone agrees that physical or verbal abuse should never be condoned, but (a) that is covered by the Code of Conduct generally so there is no need to repeat it here, and (b) the addition of the word “discriminate” here is troublesome because it is so vague. The first sentence treats those against whom allegations have been made and those against allegations have been upheld in exactly the same way. I think that is fine for the “physically or verbally abuse” part, but extending it to “discriminate” is deeply problematic, depending on how one interprets the word. Is it now harassment for the organizers of a meeting to fail to invite to a meeting someone who has a track-record of sexual harassment? Or for a victim of harassment to refuse to work with a known harasser? Is it not up to individuals to decide with whom they want to work? Should anyone be immune from criticism of their choices?
One could take the view that anyone against whom serious allegations have been upheld should not be welcome at IAU meetings, and probably no longer be a member of the organization, so this situation should not arise within the scope of the Code of Conduct:
The IAU Executive Committee may decide on further disciplinary action for repeat or serious
offenders, such as being banned from participating in future IAU meetings or other IAU related
activities for a period of time, or even having the offender’s IAU membership revoked in
serious cases.
IUA Code of Conduct, p 10.
This of course depends on the interpretation of what “serious” means. Aren’t all examples of harassment to be taken seriously?
In any case I’m bound to say that if I were expelled from the IAU, it would have precisely zero effect on my life, career, or anything else.
The next clause is even worse: apparently it is harassment to “inflict (or pressure others to inflict) punishments besides those officially sanctioned.” Suppose then that a victim of harassment tries to take disciplinary action against the perpetrator through a mechanism outside the IAU (i.e. through the harasser’s employer). Is the victim then guilty of harassment? If a victim of harassment informs an early career researcher about their potential PI’s past behaviour, is that “pressure”?
The second sentence must have been introduced to protect those who may have experienced negative reactions as a result of working with a known harasser; an example testimony of such alleged “guilt by association” is given here; though see here for another view of the same event. Bearing in mind that early career researchers often have no choice with whom they work anyway, this change has some sense to it though one can hardly expect a decision to work with someone with a track-record of bad behaviour to pass without comment from people who have been victims of such behaviour.
My overall reaction to this change, giving the benefit of the doubt to its creators, is that it is badly worded and so muddled that it gives the impression of treating a history of harassment as a protected characteristic which cannot be the intention. I’d suggest getting someone with legal competence to rewrite this part of the changed policy. I’d also encourage other IAU members to write directly to the President if they feel strongly about this change.
P.S. On a procedural point, note that the preamble to the amendment quoted above states “The Executive Committee modified further details in the Code of Conduct.” Such a change is not within the scope of the Executive Committee as defined by the IAU Statutes. Statute 18:
The Officers of the Union are the President, the General Secretary, the President-Elect, and the Assistant General Secretary. The Officers decide short-term policy issues within the general policies of the Union as decided by the General Assembly and interpreted by the Executive Committee.
IAU Statute 18
So it is the job of the Executive Committee to interpret policies, not to create them. I think we need to know who changed what and for what purpose.
Update: An email in response to the criticism has been sent out by IAU President, Debra Elmegreen. It’s not very satisfactory, but at least it includes: “We… will consider suggestions for improved wording to the Code of Conduct to clarify possible misunderstandings”.
Another Update: Physics World has run a story on this (which links to this post).
In the Dark 