Advising
Ethics and Decisions
Paula
A. Landon
Humanities
Advisement
Center
Brigham
Young
University
Advisors
often face situations with students and colleagues that require
making ethical decisions. There are many factors that must be
considered when seeking a best solution for all involved, including:
- What standards and values should
influence the decision?
- Is this a decision an advisor
has to make alone?
- When ethical decisions impact
students, which advocacy role should carry the most influence?
Ethics
is always an issue for advisors as they have a dichotomous role
at the university: they are advocates for the student as well
as the institutional representative. In other words, advisors
have “no ethically neutral place from which to advise” (Buck,
et al., 2001).
An
advisor’s code of ethics is based on many standards and values.
Although advisors’ own values and ethical beliefs ground their
ethical decisions, two professional documents provide guidance
to advisors. The Council for Academic Standards guidelines for
academic advising require that advisors:
- maintain confidentiality (compliance
with FERPA)
- serve students on a fair and equitable
basis
- avoid any personal conflict of
interest so advisors can deal objectively and impartially with
issues
- handle funds responsibly
- refrain from any form of harassment
- recognize their advising expertise
and refer students when necessary
- impart
accurate information while complying with institutional policies
and rules (CAS
Standards, 2005).
The
NACADA Core Values challenge advisors to:
- treat students and colleagues
with respect
- honor the concept of academic
freedom
- learn about and understand the
institutional mission, culture, and expectations and interpret
the institution’s values, mission, and goals to the community
- obtain education and training
(NACADA Core Values, 2004 and Nutt, 2007, Legal and Ethical
Issues).
Academic
advisors hold a position of trust. As such, ethical behavior and
ethical decision-making are expected. Ethics is reflected by the
“caliber with which faculty and professional advisors render service”
(Fisher, 2006). To be ethical, advisors must: provide the best
advice to each student; present students with all options; get
students to take responsibility in advising and curricular matters;
and not cast aspersions on a colleague, class, or student. In
addition, advisors owe advisees their recommendations and admonitions,
their counsel and the moral responsibility of standing by that
counsel, and the obligation to make things right if the advisor
is wrong (Buck, et al., 2001).
Advisors
especially have the ethical responsibility to never harass or
discriminate against a student in any area: gender, race, culture,
age, sexual orientation, disability, or intellectual ability (Buck,
et al., 2001). Advisees should be treated with respect and equality.
Advisors must not make assumptions nor be judgmental about a student
and should always maintain an appropriate role with advisees.
By
“acting in principled ways, making decisions which are appropriate
and fair, and solving problems based on ethical beliefs and values,”
advisors model ethical behavior for their colleagues and students
(Nutt, 2007, Ethics in Advising). Advisors must be honest, fair,
loyal, and committed to excellence and decency. They must respect
and care for others, keep promises, be principled and faithful,
and be responsible citizens as well as being responsible to everyone
they serve. Modeling these ideals teaches students not only to
act in principled ways but to solve problems and base decisions
on their own core values (Frank, p. 48). In Academic Advising:
A Comprehensive Handbook, Frank states that academic advising
deals in the language of ethical philosophy: advisors help students
with their choices, their beliefs and values, the “shoulds” and
“oughts,” helping students accept responsibility for their actions,
be accountable for those actions, and respect another’s autonomy
(Frank, p. 56).
In
advising, there are three “dialectic ethical tensions” that advisors
need to be aware of: the first is neutral vs. prescriptive (Buck,
et al., 2001). Neutral advisors are reluctant to make recommendations
or tell a student what to do; rather, they try to guide the student
to discover the appropriate action to take. Prescriptive advisors
give their opinions freely and sometimes use their position of
authority to make it happen. Advisors need to determine where
they are comfortable along this continuum and must be careful
of both extremes.
The
second tension is encouraging vs. discouraging. Encouraging advisors
are optimistic and only want to give the advisee positive messages.
Discouraging advisors look for negative consequences. Advisors
usually choose their place on the continuum based on their own
outlook on life; however, advisors should strive to be encouraging
as well as truthful.
The
third tension is judgmental vs. nonjudgmental. This is not a way
of advising but a basic attitude held by the advisor. Buck (2001)
tells us that advisors with judgmental tendencies should keep
those attitudes to themselves and not convey their judgment to
the student.
Ethical
dilemmas or problems arise from many situations such as:
- the differences between an advisor’s
personal values and the moral belief system and goals of the
institution
- the disparity between institutional
values and rules and the student’s set of values and expectations
- the defining of roles and boundaries
of advisor/advisee or advisor/colleague
- the issue of competency
- issues of confidentiality in the
parameters of the advising relationship, appropriateness and
need for referrals, and the duty to warn
- conflict between the actions of
staff and the institution’s policies (Fisher, 2005 and Nutt,
2007, Ethics in Advising).
The goal
is to make ethical decisions that will help solve these dilemmas
or problems. Advisors face complex ethical issues serving the
dual roles of advocate for both the student and the institution.
Advisors must also make ethical choices as interpreters of institutional
goals, policies and procedures, and in assisting students with
career, course, and academic choices (Frank, p. 49).
Ethical
decisions should be guided by an advisor’s core values of honesty
and integrity, respect and fairness, responsibility, and the pursuit
of excellence. Putting one’s self in the other person’s situation
is critical when making ethical decisions. Advisors must consider
not only who will be affected but how they will be affected. The
resulting decision should meet the reasonable needs of all affected
persons (Arizona State University Handbook, 2000). The foundation
of ethical decision-making involves choice and balance. Good choices
should be made in light of what a reasonable person would do in
the situation (Chmielewski, 2004).
The
goal in solving ethical dilemmas is to find a balance that causes
the least harm to everyone involved (Nutt, 2007, Ethics in Advising).
To solve ethical problems, advisors must gather facts and determine
what is at the “heart” of the problem, ascertain relevant policies
and know what rules and laws apply, use guiding principles of
personal and advising values as well as the values of the institution,
weigh principles and facts, and determine what is ethical or unethical.
Cultural differences or expectations that could compound the problem
need to be considered. Advisors should then examine what solution
is best for the student or situation that is allowable within
institutional rules. There may not be one “right” answer; rather,
the best decision will lead to an outcome where the least harm
is done to all involved (Frank, p. 54). Ethical decision-making
strives to reduce “complexity by introducing general principles
that apply across the board” (Frank, p. 55).
The
most effective problem-solving happens in a neutral climate; so
the advisor should try to stay emotionally objective, strive to
choose the best answer, and seek support from others. Making ethical
decisions is a process that takes time. The answer will usually
not be a clear choice between black and white; rather, ethical
decisions are made “in a wide range of grays” (Frank, p. 54).
Even so, the decision must be morally defensible.
Once
an ethical decision is made, those involved may not agree with
the decision and need to be informed of the chain of command for
a grievance process. If the involved parties do not agree with
the decision, the line of authority should be in place for an
appeal.
To
be “strong student advocates, neutral mediators, moral role models,
and conscientious staff representatives,” advisors need training
in ethical decision-making (Fisher, 2005). All advisors, whether
faculty, professional, or peer, must be adequately trained about
legal and ethical issues as well as institutional policies and
procedures. Training videos about federal laws and regulations
(FERPA, ADA ,
immigration, etc.) and institutional handbooks that give direction
and list policies and guidelines are valuable assets.
Comprehensive
advisor development programs must address ethics and the role
cultures and values play in ethical decision-making. Values and
perspective need to be examined as they influence decisions about
ethical dilemmas (Chmielewski, 2004).
One
way to train for ethical decision-making is to think of ethical
situations that have been addressed or that might occur and encourage
discussion of these situations at a staff or advisement meeting.
Each person should work at solving the dilemma by:
- considering what is at the heart
of the matter
- applying relevant policies, rules,
or laws
- weighing guiding principles and
values
- determining what is ethical or
unethical.
Participants
should strive to put themselves in the situation but still maintain
emotional objectivity. Best ethical solutions will uphold principles
and cause the least harm to all involved.
Understanding
ethical issues, being aware of guidelines and standards, modeling
ethical behaviors, and becoming trained and prepared to make ethical
decisions will increase an advisor’s confidence and help them
maintain objectivity as they carefully consider the principles
involved in determining best solutions for ethical dilemmas.
References
