Code of conduct: ‘You can’t get away with a few short bullet points’

On 25 November, the whole TU Delft community received a TU News Special in their mailbox (subject: ‘Share your opinion on the code of conduct’). This launched a public consultation on the draft version of the new code of conduct. We have now received many constructive responses, but we have also heard criticism, including in two recent Delta columns:

• Dap Hartmann writes about examples of microaggression and private behaviour, where it is difficult to set clear boundaries;
• Birgit van Driel argues that the structure of the consultation, which asks respondents to read through the entire text and comment on its content, places an unreasonable burden on the TU community.

However, both apparent issues resulted from deliberate choices aimed at improving social safety, which was the main reason for revising the previous code of conduct. I would therefore like to explain why we made these choices.

A code of conduct can be designed in many ways. It can be aspirational in nature, emphasising what the organisation would like to be. However, it can also be directive, with explicit rules and expectations. The current TU code of conduct is very aspirational. In practice, this often proves too vague to hold people sufficiently accountable (or to take action) in cases of social insecurity.

So should we become more directive? There is a lot of resistance to top-down rules, especially at universities. Academics in particular like to do things their own way and look for shortcuts. An overly restrictive code would therefore not be sufficiently supported and enforceable.

The (broadly composed) supervisory committee therefore worked with Berenschot to find a middle ground. On the one hand, we are being more specific about hard minimum standards that must not be breached under any circumstances. On the other hand, we are making room for situations that are more ambiguous, but where serious problems arise if matters are allowed to simmer on without action. Here, we have built extensively on input from the community.

In three open dialogue sessions and 47 interviews, approximately 300 students and employees shared their thoughts with Berenschot. At the request of the supervisory committee, explicit space was given to groups that do not naturally ‘get to the table’ in institutional processes and decision-making, and that are particularly vulnerable in situations of social unsafety (e.g. PhD candidates and internationals).

We noticed how many different views can exist on the same choice of wording

The concept that Berenschot delivered was then extensively reviewed and commented on by the supervisory committee, the integrity office and the social safety sounding board group. This allowed us to incorporate both professional expertise and lived experience. In the first revisions, we already noticed how many different, sometimes opposing views can exist on the same choice of wording. If we as the supervisory committee had to choose between them, we always opted, after joint consultation, for the variant that seemed most likely to contribute to a socially safer university.

The examples of microaggression and private behaviour came from the community. What may seem like a harmless joke to one person may be yet another unpleasant comment to another. That does not mean you cannot make jokes, but it does mean that we expect understanding and learning when someone indicates that they do not appreciate it. What you do in your free time is private, but we ask for awareness and consciousness if you have an examplary role at the university (if you are a lecturer, for example, or are in a higher management role).

In addition to providing concrete examples of issues that we as a TU Delft community need to take more seriously, the code of conduct also must offer a sufficient foundation for taking action in case of problems. Adding all this up, you can’t get away with a few short bullet points; instead, you end up with a longer and more nuanced text.

In addition to this complete code of conduct, there also will be a shorter, more infographic-like version made. However, for the sake of transparency, we wanted to share the complete draft text with the wider community. This will give everyone who wishes to do so the opportunity to provide serious input on the whole document. We deliberately chose not to use a simple survey that could be skimmed through in a few seconds, to do justice to the time, care and expertise that has been put into the draft over the past year.

You don’t have to plough through those 43 pages right now if you don’t feel like it or don’t have the time. But if you do want to, the survey will be open until 19 December. We will incorporate your input into the final revision.