Yes or No Vignette
Commentary by Sandra L. Borden
Western Michigan University
Relevant Facts of the Case
Karen’s vulnerability. Karen is just starting out in her graduate program when she
begins working with Dr. Nemoy. Further, Dr. Nemoy enjoys a higher status within the
department, which gives him considerable power over Karen. Finally, Karen’s choices
are severely restricted because Dr. Nemoy is the only faculty member in the department
who does research in her specialty area.
Utility of relationship. Karen and Dr. Nemoy both have benefited professionally from
collaborating on a variety of projects.
Pressure to publish. Both Karen and Dr. Nemoy are under pressure to produce –
Nemoy, to get tenure and Karen, to obtain a desirable post-doctoral internship. This
produces an incentive for them to work together as well as to look out for their own
career interests. The result is a dysfunctional cycle in which Dr. Nemoy takes advantage
of Karen and Karen is compliant whenever she deals with Dr. Nemoy.
Costs of exiting relationship. Karen finally realizes, by getting feedback from a different
professor, that she may have been unfairly delayed in getting her thesis proposal
approved. Now Karen is questioning whether to take the matter to the department chair.
However, she worries about losing her affiliation with Dr. Nemoy, with all the resulting
negative consequences.
Main Ethical Issues
Dr. Nemoy’s fiduciary responsibility. Karen is vulnerable as a graduate student with
much less power than Dr. Nemoy. Further, she is directly dependent on him for career
advice, research opportunities, professional guidance, academic progress and job
references. Because of this power inequity, and Karen’s extreme dependence on him, Dr.
Nemoy has a fiduciary responsibility to her. This means he must use his position,
experience and knowledge to act in Karen’s best interests, not his own. Karen, after all,
does not have much recourse should Dr. Nemoy choose to abuse his power or neglect her
welfare.
Pedagogical role. Dr. Nemoy has additional responsibilities in his role as a professor. At
a minimum, these include providing accurate and timely feedback on the quality of
Karen’s academic work, nurturing Karen’s growth as a scholar, providing effective
supervision, and keeping Karen on track to graduate in a timely manner. Dr. Nemoy’s
colleagues also have pedagogical responsibilities to Karen. If her mentoring relationship
with Dr. Nemoy fails, the entire faculty has an interest in seeing that Karen’s situation is
quickly repaired so that she can recover academically.
1
Deception. By misleading Karen about the quality of her work, Dr. Nemoy has deceived
her. Besides being inherently unfair, this deception has caused Karen to underestimate
her competence, delay her graduation, and, in general, to make plans that are not in her
own best interest.
Exploitation. Dr. Nemoy has treated Karen as nothing more than a means to his own
ends, without due consideration of her rights and wishes. This is an affront to Karen’s
dignity and autonomy.
Failure to nurture special relationship. Karen would feel angry and disappointed with
any faculty member who behaved like Dr. Nemoy. But the fact that Dr. Nemoy is her
mentor makes his ethical failures that much more egregious. If she is supposed to trust
anyone to look out for her interests, it should be her mentor. Instead of being her
benefactor, however, Dr. Nemoy has actively injured Karen. This is a grave betrayal of
trust and a breach of loyalty.
Benefits from relationship. Karen already has enjoyed some benefits from her
association with Dr. Nemoy. She has gotten increased name recognition in the
department and the field by publishing with Dr. Nemoy. Whenever she finishes her
degree, she can probably count on Dr. Nemoy’s recommendation, which could make the
difference in getting a post-doctoral internship. Given the benefits she has enjoyed and
will continue to enjoy, Dr. Nemoy’s success at her expense could be considered a fair
price to pay or even a token of gratitude.
Harms from relationship. On the minus side, Karen’s progress toward completing her
degree has been delayed, which not only negatively affects her reputation within the
department, but also will be seen as a negative indicator of research productivity by
outsiders. Not to mention that her self-esteem has probably suffered and that she has
made faulty judgments based on misinformation. In addition, she may suffer retaliation if
she takes up her concerns with the department chair. At the least, she may lose her
affiliation with Dr. Nemoy, with all the benefits that it carries.
Collegiality. College professors function as a community of scholars who share
responsibility for maintaining academic standards. This collegial bond is another special
relationship at stake in this case. If it becomes necessary for the department to discipline
Dr. Nemoy, or even just to reassign mentoring responsibilities for Karen to a different
faculty member, Dr. Nemoy has several rights. These include a fair decision-making
process, respectful consideration of his perspective, and sensitivity to the long-term
ramifications this could have for his relationship with other faculty members. One aspect
of graduate education is helping students to gradually attain the competence and status of
full-fledged members in the community of scholars. Therefore, department faculty also
have some collegial obligations toward Karen, albeit less binding ones.
Discussion questions and answers
A. What would you do if you were this student?
2
The stakes are very high for Karen. While she rightfully fears the consequences of
crossing Dr. Nemoy, she cannot afford to be held back indefinitely. Ideally, she would
resolve the situation directly with Dr. Nemoy, both to avoid some of the negative
consequences that could come from reporting him, and also to be respectful of their
special relationship. Karen would be justified in talking to the chair, perhaps with Dr.
Lewis for support and backup, in certain circumstances. For example, let’s say Dr.
Nemoy persists in putting Karen off, effectively making it impossible for her to resolve
the matter with him directly. Another example would be if Karen had good reason to
believe that Dr. Nemoy would be vindictive or otherwise non-responsive. Enlisting Dr.
Lewis would not put her in an unduly difficult position because both she and Dr. Nemoy
are junior faculty members (in other words, Dr. Nemoy would not be in a position to
retaliate against Dr. Lewis).
B. If you confront the advisor, do you worry about retaliation?
As noted earlier, faculty members have significant power over graduate students. Even if
Dr. Nemoy did not do anything to further stymie Karen’s progress directly, he still could
adversely affect her career by badmouthing her to colleagues within and outside the
department. There is no real way to predict whether faculty will retaliate when challenged
by graduate students. This uncertainty, coupled with the power asymmetry between the
two parties, is sufficient reason for Karen to feel threatened.
C. When do students have the ability to say no to work that may impede their
degree completion?
When dealing with students, faculty members should function primarily in a pedagogical
role. This means that students’ academic progress always remains the first consideration.
Students, meanwhile, also are entitled to prioritize degree completion. This is the very
reason they are in school, sometimes at great personal and financial expense. However,
activities such as research collaborations do contribute to degree completion. In addition,
students do commit themselves to completing tasks and projects that they promise to
collaborate on or that they are paid to perform. Such commitments legitimately limit
students’ ability to say no, even when the work may interfere with their degree
completion. However, students might be entitled to say no if they are not already
committed or if the activity in question ultimately hinders the educational experience.
D. What obligations do junior faculty members have to their graduate students?
They have the same basic pedagogical responsibilities as other faculty members.
However, because they themselves are also on probation, it is not unreasonable to expect
senior faculty members to take leadership in mentoring graduate students. Mentoring and
advising usually go together; these are time-consuming and labor-intensive commitments
that actually can endanger a junior faculty member’s career if not balanced appropriately
with other commitments. That being said, junior faculty members still are in a position to
3
provide guidance to graduate students and cannot excuse themselves completely from
mentoring responsibilities.
E. Should the student have known that a new faculty member has many demands
and may not always have the time that’s needed to work with a new graduate
student?
As the parties with the most power, the onus is on junior faculty members to discuss
candidly with mentees the constraints that limit their mentoring relationships, including
the pressure to publish. There is no reason to expect that students would understand
academe well enough to know this on their own.
F. Should there be guidelines on how best to advise students?
Yes. Karen’s problem might have been prevented had the department provided some
structure and guidance regarding mentoring expectations for both faculty and students.
Conclusion
By selfishly using Karen for his own benefit, Dr. Nemoy has abused his power, failed as
a teacher, and betrayed the special relationship he has with Karen. Mentoring implies
stronger bonds of trust and loyalty than the ordinary relationship between student and
advisor. Because he was Karen’s mentor, Dr. Nemoy’s moral offenses are that much
worse. Further, he has imposed a burden upon his colleagues, who now also will have to
deal with the consequences of his actions.
Even though Karen has derived some benefits from her association with Dr. Nemoy,
these do not justify tolerating his behavior. For one thing, she has helped bring about
these benefits herself through her own hard work. For another, the costs of continuing on
the course Dr. Nemoy has set for her are too great. Dr. Nemoy deserves to be reported so
that Karen can get help with her situation and so that he does not exploit other students in
the future. Karen should let Dr. Nemoy know about her concerns. If it is too late for this,
or if Karen has good cause to believe Dr. Nemoy would retaliate, she could seek help
from the department chair.
4