Same code, different perspective

The sudden move by our Executive Board to instruct everyone via InSite to sign the TU/e Code of Conduct, has surprised many people. I understand that one of the ideas behind this is to encourage us to read the code carefully once again. There is nothing wrong with that, but afterward there should also be a discussion about how the code could be improved. Here is a first suggestion.

TU/e is asking all of us to sign the code of conduct, and is putting some pressure behind this by assigning everyone a task through InSite, which we are reminded about regularly. But there is nothing wrong with taking a moment to think before signing. Because what exactly are you signing?

The code of conduct was certainly never drafted with the idea that it would have to be signed. The code was drawn up to formulate a number of basic values for ourselves and for TU/e, values that we can fall back on when developing other, more concrete policies. It is useful to have those values explicitly set out in a single document rather than scattered across multiple places.

It was never the intention for the code to contain anything extraordinary. The text brings together a number of self-evident values. Values that, precisely because they seem so obvious, rarely remain at the forefront of our minds, and that everyone responds to with: “of course.”

That is how I, as a union representative, read the code when it was drafted. The question was: is this good enough? In my view, it was.

Now that signatures are being added, it is necessary to read it again. Because the question is now: do I endorse this? That calls for a different kind of critical assessment.

And since we are talking about criticism: this is, in my view, the code’s biggest shortcoming. It does not call for a critical attitude. Of course, this is a given in a university community, but why is it not stated explicitly?

I see another major shortcoming in the code as well, or rather, a missed opportunity. Near the end, there is a paragraph on inappropriate behavior, and it is explicit: we tolerate “no form of inappropriate behavior or integrity violation.”

A little further on, the code also addresses how this should be handled: through “critical but respectful reflection on or feedback about someone’s behavior.” This may well be the most important mechanism for ensuring that desired behavior actually becomes our behavior.

TU/e has been promoting Active Bystander Training for years, and that is a good thing: the first response should come from bystanders. But surprisingly, this respectful feedback is not expected from the person signing the code.

Instead, there is a warning to be especially careful; addressing someone about their behavior is described as merely “advisable.” Of course, giving and receiving feedback is difficult, but aren't we burying our heads in the sand if we consider this merely advisable?

In my version of the code, I have already corrected this, and then I put my signature under it.

Jan Vleeshouwer is a research policy officer in the Department of Electrical Engineering. The views expressed in this opinion are his own.

This opinion was translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by an editor and the author.

Photo | private