A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals                       A Case Analysis of Ethics and the Responsibilities of Student Affairs Professionals Christina Hale Bridgewater State University

1

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals Introduction A framework for ethical decision-making in the student affairs profession has been defined specifically within the context of the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) code of ethics as well as the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) code of ethics; which serve as guidelines for professionals. Within student affairs settings, professionals will encounter many different situations that affect the decision-making process. When decisions and actions fall into grey areas, and choosing right and wrong cannot be clearly defined, models of ethical decision-making have been created to apply to ethical scenarios and to the process of finding an ethical solution. As a graduate assistant the potential to encounter ethical dilemmas is just as possible as professionals would in their careers. An example of an ethical dilemma in higher education is the issue of dual relationships, “Because many graduate students hold assistantship positions that mandate interaction with undergraduate students, graduate assistants are likely to encounter the potential for multiple relationships,” serving as an advisor to a campus organization is an example of this potential (Dallesasse, 2010). Decision Making Models While research on ethical decision-making models may be limited, the purpose of developing these models can be traced to the works of K.S. Kitchener. In her work related to ethical decision making in counseling, “Kitchener argued that in the absence of clear ethical guidelines, relying on personal value judgments was not adequate because not all value judgments are equally valid” and that “counseling professionals should develop a deeper understanding of the basis of ethical decision making” (Cottone & Claus, 2000). For the purpose of this analysis, Corey, Corey, & Callanan’s (2007) model will be used to identify the stages for the decision making process. Each step in the model will be explored based on this ethical situation and will be followed by the addition of steps: implement course of action, evaluate course of action, and reflect on the experience which can be found in a number of other models. Ethical Standards Along with NASPA and ACPA, the ACA Code of Ethics was established to serve as an ethical guideline among many other purposes for the counseling profession. Relating to the issue of this case

2

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals analysis, the ACA Code of Ethics can be applied to the supervisor/supervisee relationship between Barrett and Paul. “According to the ACA Code of Ethics, it is the responsibility of the supervisor to define and maintain professional and social relationship boundaries clearly with supervisees” (Herlihy & Corey, 1997). In addition to the ACA, the ACPA (College Student Educators International) also created a statement of ethical principles and standards that would “assist student affairs professionals, in regulating their own behavior by sensitizing them to potential ethical problems and by providing standards useful in daily practice” (ACPA). The purpose of these standards is to guide the behavior of student affairs professionals. With this case analysis, a number of standards are identified that could assist Barrett in his decision-making process. Standard 1.4 states, “monitor their personal and professional functioning and effectiveness and seek assistance from appropriate professionals as needed.” As an employee of the institution, Barrett must be able to separate his personal and professional life and if he runs into a dilemma dividing the two, then he should consult with his supervisor. Standard 2.2 states, “Avoid dual relationships with students where one individual serves in multiple roles that create conflicting responsibilities, etc.” Standard 2.6 could be applicable to this situation since there is a limit of confidentiality, especially on social media sites, and the information Barrett witnessed goes against the institutions’ policies. Standard 2.16 is directed towards Barrett and his position as a graduate assistant at the university. It states, “Educate graduate students about ethical standards, responsibilities and codes of the profession.” As a student and an employee, Barrett is held to the standards of the ACA, ACPA, and NASPA and must react to the situation accordingly. Standard 3.1 states, “Contribute to their institution by supporting its mission, goals, policies, and abiding by its procedures.” As a witness to plagiarism, Barrett must contribute to the institution he works for and attends for graduate school, by bringing the issue to the appropriate authorities. Standard 4.1 states “Assist students in becoming productive, ethical, and responsible citizens.” The decision to punish Paul may be difficult and may have dire consequences on their friendship, but it is Barrett’s responsibility to react to Paul’s admitted actions. NASPA also employs standards of professional practice in the higher education system and the situation that Barrett is facing conflicts with standards set. Standard 1: Professional Services states that

3

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals members must fulfill the responsibilities of their position and support the mission of the institution. As a graduate assistant at Eastern New England University, Barrett is in an authoritative position with the clubs he advises and is therefore responsible for the actions of his students. The institution requires Barrett to maintain its integrity, assumingly there are other students aware of the situation, they’re looking to Barrett to take action and maintain his credibility as a supervisor and member of the university community. Standard 5: Conflict of Interest is an issue with Barrett and the situation he’s involved in. The standard says, “Members recognize their obligation to the employing institution and seek to avoid private interests …” (NASPA, 2010). Private interest in this case can refer to the social and personal relationship that Barrett has with his friend. More specifically, standard 8: Student Behavior has yet to be addressed in this situation. The standard states “Members inform and educate students as to sanctions or constraints on student behavior which may result from violations of law or institutional policies” (NASPA, 2010). Barrett cannot avoid the obligation to inform the institution of the plagiarism issue. The personal and professional relationship that Barrett is trying to maintain in this situation is the dilemma he is faced with. “Helping professionals enter into a dual or multiple relationship whenever they have another, significantly different relationship with one of their clients, students, or supervisees” (Herlihy & Corey, 1997). When Barrett accepted his position as an advisor to a club in which his friends are a part of, he needed to be able to “recognize potential conflicts of interest and ethical means of dealing with multiple relationships” (Herlihy & Corey, 1997). While it may seem unavoidable that supervisors develop interpersonal relationships with their supervisees, having these social relationships “interfere with two priorities: to be consistent and fair with all supervisees, and to feel free to say whatever I need to say in supervision” (Herlihy & Corey, 1997). It is clear that the latter of the two priorities is in jeopardy since Barrett is struggling to make the decision to confront his supervisee. Twelve Principles of Good Practice Although there may not be clear black and white answers to all of the issues professionals will face on a daily basis, Newton and Ender (2010) have established twelve principles they believe can be used in the decision-making process for professionals, better assisting them in identifying examples of

4

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals good practice. The principles include ‘respond within the limits of your training and skill, acknowledge your limits openly, consult, maintain privacy and confidentiality, show respect for others, understand your own biases, continue to deal appropriately when working with those you may feel aversion, act appropriately when working with persons you’re attracted to, know and maintain your emotional response, take action if you learn about illegal behavior, you’re a role model, and maintain integrity’ (Newton & Ender, 2010). While some of these principles may be more applicable to the peer educator population that the book was created for, many if not most of these principles can be applied to student affairs professionals as well. Specifically in regards to the situation with Barrett, some of the principles listed above can be applied to his professional conduct and responsibility. Due to the complexity of personal and professional issues within this situation, Barrett should undoubtedly consult with his supervisor. “Graduate assistants and practicum students should consult with the university faculty and staff when faced with an ethical dilemma or challenge” (Dallesasse, 2010). Barrett should use his supervisor as a resource to refrain from the social media relationship he has with his students, develop other forms of fostering relationships with his students, consult with the issue of the “post” he viewed on Facebook and determine the next steps to take as the advisor and as a friend. “The moments you have questions or doubts are the most important times to get supervisory input” (Newton & Ender, 2010). Perhaps one of the most identifiable principles to apply to this situation is to ‘take responsible action if you learn about illegal behavior.’ The school has policies and procedures in place in regards to actions that are deemed unethical, including plagiarism. When addressing the issue of the Facebook post, for example, Barrett may want to consult with his supervisor to decide who will address the issue with Paul in a way that “point[s] out the clear social expectations and laws that come with being a part of a community or society” such as a college or university (Newton & Ender, 2010). A final principle that can be applied to this situation is the one that states ‘you are a role model.’ The importance of this principle is applicable to the social relationship that Barrett has with his undergraduate friends. The credibility of a professional can be questioned if their professional and personal life conflict and the world via social media is witness to the incongruence.

5

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals Corey, Corey, and Callanan’s Decision-Making Model: Stage One Corey, Corey, and Callanan’s ethical decision-making model begins with stage one, to ‘identify the problem.’ The first problem in this case is boundary issues and Barrett’s dual relationship with the undergraduate students he is responsible for as a graduate assistant, some of which are his personal friends. Another issue is his responsibility as an employee to the institution and what he is obligated to tell his supervisor. Finally another issue that not only Barrett faces but also the university as a whole is the use of Facebook and other avenues of social media, when its use interferes with the integrity of the institution, and how to appropriately confront the behaviors of students that appear online. Stage Two In order to approach the second step, to ‘identify potential issues involved’ one must look at what factors may be influencing or affecting the problem. For instance a potential issue would include the possible severance of a friendly relationship or termination from employment, depending on his course of action. The issues involved include the topic of plagiarism and the fact that Barrett is now aware of inappropriate behavior his students are participating in. Other issues include maintaining his integrity as a professional at the university and as a leader of his student activity groups. He may also want to identify what policy the institution has on the use of social media and how inappropriate use is identified. Stage Three The third step in this model is to ‘review relevant ethical guidelines.’ Each association establishes its own standards and what they mean. While Barrett is responsible for his own personal code of ethics he is also held to the institution’s employment guidelines, and to the standards set by the ACA, ACPA and NASPA code of ethics. The predominant issues in this case refer to conflicts of interest, responsibilities to the institution, and student behavior. Barrett should consult with his job description and the university standards to see where he has to bring this information to. Stage Four In step four, ‘obtain consultation’ Barrett now has the decision to consult with his supervisor over the dilemma he is experiencing. At this point, this would be the most natural sequence of events after he

6

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals has witnessed inappropriate behaviors being admitted online especially by a student he has authority over. The grey areas of this situation lie in the dual relationship Barrett and Paul have, as friends and as supervisor-supervisee. Barrett must disclose to his supervisor the nature of his relationship with Paul and how he had access to the Facebook post. This could all bring up possible implications for graduate assistants with personal profile pages and whether or not they can be “friends” with undergraduate students. If the institution doesn’t recognize the implications and use of social media, then Paul could delete the post and deny the accusation. Stage Five The next step is to ‘consider potential consequences [and] determine course of action.’ As Barrett begins to weigh his options of seeking consultation and how to handle the situation, he must also think of the potential consequences once he decides on his course of action. For example, if Barrett tells his supervisor what he saw on Facebook, there is a chance that the relationship between Barrett and Paul could be negatively affected. Barrett’s relationship with his other undergraduate friends may bear some tension if they disagree with his decision. However, if Barrett does not bring this evidence to his supervisor, he is now diminishing his reputability as a graduate assistant and employee of the college. There is the potential that another student could bring the allegations of plagiarism to authorities and make it seem as if Barrett overlooked the incident because Paul is his friend and that could result in him losing his job. After all of his options are weighed, Barrett must then decide on a course of action, whether telling his supervisor and confronting the issue, or ignoring the issue to protect his relationship with his friends. If he chooses to confront the issue, he must then figure out how to best handle that situation as well. However, it could be out of his hands since the actions of Paul directly conflict with the institution’s policies. Stage Six Step six of this model is to ‘enumerate consequences of various decisions.’ Once Barrett has chosen the possibilities for his decision he then should itemize the consequences that could potentially result from each of the decisions. As previously mentioned, if Barrett speaks with his supervisor about the

7

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals Facebook post, the relationship with his friend Paul will ultimately be changed. This could also have implications on Barrett’s personal social media “life” and whether or not having a profile page linked to supervisees’ is appropriate. If Barrett were to confront Paul on his own, he is still missing the point of alerting appropriate authorities to the “illegal” actions of a student. Barrett could also be influenced by his relationship with Paul and simply brush off the offense yet still feel like he did his job by confronting the issue. If he chooses to ignore the issue at hand then he has jeopardized his personal ethical decisionmaking process. If this issue was brought to the attention of authorities and Barrett was accused of having knowledge that it happened, his graduate assistant position could be terminated along with possible implications to his educational goals. Once a post is made on a social media site, it’s almost viral and anyone can see it. This means that other students may have seen what Paul wrote, some of which could be members of the group that Barrett advises and they may be looking to him to address the issue. Stage Seven Step seven is to ‘decide on best course of action.’ As Barrett reaches this step in the decisionmaking process, hopefully he has attained all of the information and support that would assist him in deciding what the best course of action is. Based on the information at hand, it can be argued that the best course of action would be to bring this information to his supervisor and discuss what his role will be in the discipline process of Paul. He may also want to discuss with his supervisor what he can do to try and avoid placing himself in such an uncomfortable situation. Perhaps he removes his undergraduate supervisees from his Facebook or for the future keeps his personal and professional acquaintances separated. Regardless of what the choice may be, the individual has to determine what his/her action will be and move forward. After this stage, the Corey, Corey & Callahan (2007) model concludes, however the addition of a few steps seemed appropriate when making ethical decisions. Stage Eight The next step would be to ‘implement course of action’ and this step can be found in three of the other models found on the Table 3.1 handout. As previously stated, once Barrett has made his choice on what route to take with his decision he then must implement the course of action. This means he must

8

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals take it upon himself to confront Paul, work with his supervisor, or ignore the situation and move on with his career. Once he has implemented his course of action he then can inquire about the success or failure of his actions in the step of ‘evaluate course of action.’ Based on what the results of his decision are, he now has the opportunity to learn what action(s) worked or didn’t work in the situation and then include them in the meetings of his student club organizations or other students he is responsible for. Stage Nine The final step of this decision-making process will be to ‘reflect on the experience.’ What has Barrett learned about himself, the institution, the effects of social media, and how could this situation have been improved? What will he do differently next time or when he faces an entirely new situation? At this point, it would be important to review the steps taken to solve this issue and how the parties involved handled the situation. He also must realize that as a student affairs professional he is going to face a number of new situations that he may be unfamiliar with, however there will always be someone he can consult with and other situations that may have set precedence for an issue he could be faced with. While it may seem that if Barrett had avoided the situation or was not assigned the club that his friends were a part of, then this ethical dilemma may have never surfaced. However, the lesson is “not to avoid [these situations] at all costs but to be aware of the issues and conflicts that can arise and be prepared to deal with them as ethically and professionally as possible” (Herlihy & Corey, 1997). While many institutions and organizations have created social media policies in response to the growing use of these platforms, many are directed to employee use. However, most “good practice” standards can be applied for student conduct on social media sites as well. As an example, Ball State University created a social media policy that their employees must abide by. Included in this policy are best practices that if slightly altered, could also be implemented towards students, student organizations, and graduate assistant type of positions. One of the standards is to “Think twice before posting - Privacy does not exist in the world of social media. Consider what could happen if a post becomes widely known and how that may reflect both on the poster and the university” (“Ball State University”, 2009). Similarly to this policy, others include being respectful, knowing your audience, and avoid misrepresenting yourself

9

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals or your institution. While this policy may not be directed to Barrett’s actions, this situation poses the opportunity for Barrett to have his undergraduate groups identify what their school’s policy is and how to remain respectful and smart in their use of social media sites. The policy of Ball State did not clearly state their position on employees and students “friending” each other on sites and what responsibilities both parties have on the Internet. The case with Barrett may set precedence for what the response of the institution will be to social media use. Conclusion The importance of student affairs professionals maintaining personal and institutional ethical standards is imperative as they serve as models of support while students are “working through crucial developmental stages and personal choices in their college years, that will affect their lives” (Newton & Ender, 2010). The support they receive at an institution of higher education facilitates the development of their own personal and academic integrity, and it is the responsibility of the professional to “uphold academic integrity standards” (Newton & Ender, 2010). Responding to the varying situations related to social media, each institution has created their own set of standards or policies to address the use of websites by their employees and students. Through the use of an ethical decision-making model, student affairs professionals can identify the issue at hand and follow a checklist of what information they need to be aware of in order to make an appropriate decision they can feel comfortable with. Each model illustrates its own steps and can be applied to a number of different situations. Based on personal preference, a professional can choose which model would be best applied to the ethical dilemma they are faced with. Working through ethical dilemmas such as the one in Barrett’s case leads to interpersonal and professional development. It’s important for professionals to be aware of the standards they are held to in their positions, the standards set by their professional affiliations, and to work on their own personal standards as well.    

10

A Case Analysis of Ethics for Student Affairs Professionals   References

Ball state university social media policy. (2009, November 17). Retrieved from BallState_SocialMediaPolicy.pdf Collge Student Educators International (2006). Statement of Ethical Principles and Standards. Washington, D.C.: Author. Cottone, R. R., & Claus, R. E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A review of the literature. Journal of Counseling and Development,78(3), 275-283.   Dallesasse, S. L. (2010). Managing nonsexual multiple relationships in university counseling centers: Recommendations for graduate assistants and practicum students. Ethics & Behavior, 20(6), 419428.   Herlihy, B., & Corey, G. (1997). Boundary issues in counseling: Multiple roles and responsibilities. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (2008). NASPA Programs & Initiatives: Standards of professional practice. Washington D.C.: Author. Newton, F. B., Ender, S. C., & Gardner, J. N. (2010). Students helping students: A guide for peer educators on college campuses. (2 ed., pp. 264-282). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11