Quiz (see below): Lost in thought, you stare ahead for minutes. The person opposite you says they feel stared at. Are you crossing a line? Photo Mason Kimbarovsky/Unsplash WUR has a new Social Safety Code of Conduct. Its aim is to ‘provide a clear definition of undesirable behaviour’ and give ‘support to employees and students’. The idea is to have a code of conduct based on how behaviour is perceived rather than how it is intended. The big question is: does the code of conduct achieve its aim?
What exactly is undesirable behaviour? When are you straying into a grey area and when are you just indisputably at fault? WUR’s previous code of conduct did not really answer these questions, as it mainly focussed on describing the ideal situation. So the Social Safety working group wanted a new version that would be clearer on what’s okay, and particularly what’s not okay, and what the consequences are of crossing a red line.
That new code is now out, and was drawn up with input from staff and students. In discussion with them, it proved impossible to formulate incontrovertible lower limits for behaviour for the code of conduct. You tend to fall back on the legal frameworks, which are not always value-free either. So the code of conduct still contains some terms that are open to different interpretations, such as ‘malicious gossip’, ‘unacceptable pressure’ or ‘deliberate staring’. It underlines that unacceptable behaviour is not something black and white, but is often context-dependent and therefore includes several shades of grey.
Change of perspective
But what was kept in this code of conduct was the decision to make the perception of behaviour the benchmark, rather than the intention. In other words, the issue is about how behaviour comes across rather than how it is meant. ‘If someone lets you know that you have crossed a boundary for them, you’re going to have to care and have a conversation about it at the very least,’ says programme manager Joyce van der Velde, summing up the approach. Getting away with unacceptable behaviour with the excuse that ‘it was just a joke’ or ‘I didn’t mean it like that’ should be a thing of the past.
WUR is not alone in adopting this new benchmark. Others, including government commissioner Mariëtte Hamer, did the same. She defines inappropriate behaviour as ‘behaviour that the other person does not want’. But there has been criticism of this decision too, for example from Nijmegen professor of Public Administration Michiel de Vries, who specializes in integrity research: ‘So the other person decides: now you are crossing a boundary for me. I find that problematic. You can’t always know what someone else is comfortable with,’ he stated recently in an interview with de Volkskrant newspaper.
Recent examples in Dutch politics – the dubious accusations of inappropriate behaviour levelled at Nilüfer Gündoğan, Gijs van Dijk and Khadija Arib – seem to underline his point: when perception determines how behaviour is judged, there’s a risk of unsubstantiated suspicions hanging over people. On the other hand, there are also plenty of examples – not least in the academic world – of how inadequate protection against inappropriate behaviour can be when such behaviour is too rigidly defined. As the Delft planetary scientist Daphne Stam said of the persistent inappropriate behaviour in the faculty from which she recently resigned: ‘It is often things that are not correct behaviour, but are not obviously against the rules. Because there aren’t any hard and fast rules at all for many things.’
Watertight
Van der Velde agrees that the demarcation of inappropriate behaviour is a tricky issue. ‘But I do think that by turning it around, we end up having more of a discussion about what is desirable and what is undesirable than if we keep things the way they are. Because then, quite simply, not enough will change,’ she says. ‘Besides, the code of conduct is not intended to suggest that if you just stick to it, all will be well. Nor is it a legally watertight document. The main aim of the code is to contribute to a conversation about social safety.’ She realizes that a conversation like that might take some getting used to, ‘especially for people who have never been challenged about their behaviour before.’ So a conversation of this kind should be safe for all parties, she stresses. Because it can be quite painful to be confronted with how your behaviour comes across, whether you intended it that way or not.
Being framed
Van der Velde is not worried that the new ‘perception perspective’ will be abused, for instance by people inventing experiences of inappropriate behaviour in order to frame an unpopular colleague. ‘The code isn’t about finding out the truth of a matter. It only says: let people know when you experience their behaviour as undesirable, and discuss it. Often, people can work it out together. If not, you can bring others into it by reporting the behaviour or filing a complaint. Needless to say, such complaints are dealt with carefully and fairly, with a thorough investigation and both sides getting a hearing.’
Van der Velde also has no truck with the grumble that ‘you can’t do anything these days’. ‘The only thing you can’t do is behave heedlessly, with no consideration for someone else’s boundaries. And they have every right to raise the matter if it does happen. No one else gets to tell you: “Oh no, I haven’t crossed your boundaries.” You’re always the one who decides on that.’
CODE OF CONDUCT QUIZ
Lost in thought, you stare ahead for minutes. The person opposite you says they feel stared at. Are you crossing a line?
a. No, you’re just staring into the distance
b. Yes, that’s what the person opposite you says, right?
c. It depends
You’ve made a silly mistake. Laughing, a colleague or fellow student calls you ‘an imbecile’ in front of everyone. Inappropriate?
a. Yes, I was made a fool of
b. No, it’s just a joke
c. It depends
“We’re OK, right?” asks someone you’re in a conflict with, holding you firmly by your shoulders and giving you a penetrating look. Inappropriate?
a. Yes, it is threatening
b. No, it is unpleasant at the most
c. It depends
A colleague or fellow student whispers in your ear that you look really sexy in the outfit you are wearing today. Is that person being inappropriate?
a. No, it’s a compliment
b. Yes, it is sexual harassment
c. It depends
Results
It’s not always easy to pinpoint the right answer. The code of conduct identifies some zero tolerance behaviours, such as verbal and physical aggression, stalking, threats, sexual harassment and discrimination. Staring, swearing, touching someone or a personal comment, as in these examples, can certainly be considered inappropriate behaviour, according to the code. But it also states: ‘Where the line is drawn between desirable and undesirable behaviour is different for everyone. It will therefore always be necessary to carefully and objectively determine whether unacceptable behaviour has actually occurred.’ The Code of Conduct can be consulted via wur.nl.
Want to respond to this article or share experiences? Send an email to resource@wur.nl
