Purpose
This policy sets out the University of Chicago’s longstanding expectations of professional conduct for academic appointees and postdoctoral researchers (collectively, “academic employees”). It also describes the process to address an alleged professional conduct violation as well as the process to address an allegation that an academic employee engaged in disruptive conduct under Statute 21. Allegations of Academic Fraud and Harassment, Discrimination, and Sexual Misconduct are managed under separate policies, which have separate processes.
Policy
The essential and shared professional obligation borne by all academic employees is to the University and advancing its fundamental missions of research and education. Discharging this obligation requires a commitment to fostering a learning, research, and work environment that advances that mission, modeling rational and informed discourse, and complying with applicable institutional policies, while exercising and benefiting from the University’s robust commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression.
As educators and researchers, academic employees serve as exemplars of academic integrity, which includes an obligation to educate students on the tenets of honest scholarship, to evaluate student performance based only on intellectual merit and fulfillment of academic requirements, and to respect professional boundaries and the proper exercise of academic oversight and managerial authority.
In fulfilling their research, teaching, clinical, and service responsibilities, academic employees are expected to use sound judgment and adhere to institutional policies and to longstanding and basic standards of professional conduct that sustain a working community. By virtue of their positions and roles as instructors, mentors, evaluators, recommenders, supervisors, lab and program managers, senior colleagues, and so on, academic employees are vested with academic and managerial oversight authority, which generally means the capacity to direct, assess (including assignment of grades), and/or control a student or supervisee’s academic efforts or their work. Students, staff, visitors, academic employee colleagues at all levels, and the institution itself, trust academic employees to exercise their oversight authority responsibly and in good faith. Abuse of authority is the arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority for purposes inconsistent with the University’s educational and research mission. Academic employees must be mindful of when, where, how, and over whom they exercise their oversight authority, and the University expects them to use good judgment and exercise that authority responsibly and with integrity. (Academic employees are typically also disciplinary authorities in their fields; this latter kind of authority is not the kind of authority that this policy addresses.)
Expression occurring in an academic, educational, or research context is considered a special case and is broadly protected by academic freedom. Academic freedom is the principle that academic employees have the right to discuss, challenge, and investigate issues in their field without restriction or interference; to teach topics in their field or assigned courses in the way they best determine; to conduct research in their field and promulgate the results as they see fit; and to speak freely as participants in institutional governance processes—all without regard to the content of the views expressed within that framework and while exercising their rights with integrity.1 Such expression is protected unless it violates the University policy on harassment.
Procedure for Allegations of Violations except for Statute 21 Allegations
Complaints against academic employees accused of unprofessional conduct under this policy are typically addressed at the most local academic-organizational level possible, namely, by the section chief, department chair, or dean or decanal designee. When that academic leader needs or requests support and/or when the seriousness of the matter warrants, the individual collaborates with the Office of the Provost. This collaboration provides investigatory process experience, serves expediency, and supports more consistent outcomes.
The individual(s) investigating gather the relevant information; inform the respondent; interview the complainant, the respondent, and the witnesses if any; request of the parties supporting evidence if any; examine the gathered materials and notes produced during the investigation; and determine—using a preponderance of the evidence standard—whether the respondent’s conduct violated the professional conduct policy. A “preponderance of the evidence” standard requires that the investigator(s) determine whether it is more likely than not that the alleged actions violated this policy.
If the respondent is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, the Assistant Vice President, Human Resources, provides guidance on the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement and partnership to the extent warranted. If the complainant is a staff employee, the individual(s) investigating will collaborate with the appropriate member of the Human Resources team. If the complainant is an employee of the University of Chicago Medicine (UCM), the investigating individual(s) will collaborate with the appropriate member of the UCM Employee Labor Relations team.
The individual(s) handling the matter will do their best to address matters expeditiously.
Procedure for Allegations of Statute 21 Violations, Disruptive Conduct
When an academic employee is accused of having engaged in disruptive conduct in violation of Statute 21, the local official, typically the dean, collaborates with the Office of the Provost to conduct an investigation.
The investigators gather the relevant information (complaint and evidence submitted, police report, dean-on-call report, etc.); inform the respondent in writing about the fact of an inquiry and substantive allegations or concerns; interview the complainant, the respondent, and witnesses if any; request of both the complainant and respondent additional supporting evidence if any; examine the gathered materials and notes produced during the investigation. Then, using a preponderance of the evidence standard, they determine if the respondent’s conduct violated Statute 21. A “preponderance of the evidence” standard requires that the investigators determine whether it is more likely than not that the alleged actions violated Statute 21.
If the respondent is subject to a collective bargaining agreement, the Assistant Vice President, Human Resources, provides guidance on specifics under the terms of the relevant collective bargaining agreement and partnership to the extent warranted. If the complainant is a staff employee, the individual(s) investigating will collaborate with the appropriate member of the Human Resources team. If the complainant is an employee of the University of Chicago Medicine (UCM), the investigating individual(s) will collaborate with the appropriate member of the UCM Employee Labor Relations team.
The individuals handling the matter will do their best to address the matter expeditiously.
Potential Outcomes
When an academic employee is found not to have violated this policy or Statute 21, they will be informed in writing, as will the complainant. If the investigation determines that the academic employee violated this policy, the academic employee will be so informed, and may face sanctions including:
- an advisory discussion or verbal warning,
- a warning letter,
- withheld salary increase or other pay increase in the next relevant pay period and/or beyond,
- withheld named chair or other honor that was to be bestowed,
- delayed consideration for promotion,
- consideration of the misconduct in the context of a reappointment/promotion,
- required training or other remediation,
- suspension without pay, which may occur in conjunction with a campus ban and deactivation of their CNetID,
- ban from all/part of campus,
- receipt of a No-Contact Directive,
- removal from an administrative role such as chair, associate or vice chair, center director, director of undergraduate/graduate studies, or the like (and the concomitant loss of pay and/or other privileges associated with that supplemental role),
- restriction from teaching in an academic unit or of the right to supervise graduate students and/or postdoctoral researchers,
- initiation of the appointment termination process for a truly grave policy violation or a pattern of problems, and
- other reasonable disciplinary actions tailored to the circumstances. For more serious consequences short of termination, deans may convene a faculty advisory panel.
In compliance with institutional policy on confidentiality, the complainant will be informed that the investigation has been concluded.
For members of the University Faculty (appointments made under Statute 11.1), the Statutes mandate a process for primary academic appointment termination, which can only occur for “inadequate performance of duty or for misconduct,” and requires the convening of a faculty advisory panel by the President.
For other academic employees, the same sanction is available, and the same standard for appointment termination applies, although the Statutes do not require the convening of a faculty advisory panel, and thus historically the President and Provost have made the termination decision (usually but not necessarily at the recommendation of the cognizant dean and chair, and evidence of the indicia of fundamental due process); the same holds true for postdoctoral researchers. Termination of those subject to a collective bargaining agreement will be handled in accord with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In all disciplinary matters, the University aims to calibrate the consequences to precedent and the level of the offense.
Retaliation Prohibition
The University prohibits retaliation against any person who exercises any rights or responsibilities under this policy.
Retaliation means any adverse action taken against a person participating in a protected activity because of their participation in that protected activity. Retaliation against an individual for alleging unprofessional conduct or retaliation, supporting a party bringing a complaint, or assisting in providing information relevant to a claim under this Policy is a serious violation of University policy and will be treated as another possible instance of unprofessional conduct or retaliation.
Acts of alleged retaliation should be reported immediately to the cognizant dean and the Office of the Provost so that they can be promptly investigated.
1This definition of academic freedom draws on the Statement on Academic Freedom Adopted by the Committee of the Council upon Submission by Edward Levi (July 12, 1949) and on the Convocation Address by William Rainey Harper (December 18, 1900).
Dated: November 1996
Last Revised: 30 September 2025