Attempt at parallel summary: DESI, DUNE, SBND, MicroBooNE, and Mu2e

Workshop on CoC

Disclaimer- speak up if I misunderstood, these are written in haste

• Reporter - Person brining a COC complaint /concern
• Respondant - person whom the complaint /concern is about

Shared challenges/gaps/asks

• Power differential is a barrier to reporting. BEST PRACTICE? Some collaborations have multiple ways to report or anonymous.
• BEST PRACTICE: elected positions with junior people
• GAP: Collaborations may not be able to use truly anonymous reporting without FCRS
• GAP: Scientists have no training, need money and from experts.
• ASK? We need this and good if it can be accessed/provided widely through labs or funding for guests at meetings
• Collab has no clear structure to retain institutional memory on violations. ASK? Need for a record system
• GAP: Collabs need to center on the reporter, we need to establish trust.
• Partially done: cases not taken forward withoutreporter. What happens when we believe there is a threat to the collaboration, but a reporter does not want to report?
• SBND clause: we will respect reporters wishes unless we feel, unless due to ethics bound to report. Collab at large is in danger. Requires a lot of trust.
• CHALLENGE: People won’t come forward
• GAP: Anonymous reporting, or reporting with multiple people. What if 2 of students want to say something and 2 don’t? They fear retribution. Need to identify how to treat
• Related GAP: No ombudsperson for DUNE to offer support/guidance centered on reporter. ASK: Expert help or review?
• GAP/ASK: Clarify the legal landscape (see other sessions), but what are best practices to follow, what can we share, and to who. Liability for COC members and collaborations
• GAP: role of funding agencies: How to report to them?
• ASK: "Clearinghouse" is actually what the Community Engagement Frontier is requesting out of P5 --- that there should be a "Collaboration Services Office" at large hub labs like FNAL or LBNL (more details in Section 8 here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.03713.pdf)
• GAP: Many scientists don’t feel this makes the collab a safe space
• ASK: Regular third party survey to assess climate

Shared challenges/gaps/asks

• GAP/CHALLENGE: You can't block people on Slack. Which can be a surprisingly frustrating and difficult process sometimes and can continue harm (retaliation) to the reporter
• CHALLENGE/BEST PRACTICE/EVOLVING?: Process to remove from COC nomination slate - Talk to individual and ask them to recuse themselves. If you accept the nom, then go to a ‘background’ check. They can choose to run anyway.
• This has been uncomfortable BUT it has been effective
• GAP: How we handle rapid response
• SBND: COCC handles this
• BEST PRACTICE? GAP: We need to make everyone responsible for DEI issues. Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03522
• Make the data undeniable
• It boosts their career and they listen to white guys, they have less repercussions when they speak up/speak out.
• Goal? I’d like to identify a few ‘sponsors’ to help with this within the collaborations and to train other people of privilege and get them on board. (this can also be applied for white women supporting underrepresented groups)
• CHALLENGE/GAP: Microaggressions are a good test case for value for the collab, for how we deal with not such egregious behavior ‘oh they didn’t mean it’ so sympathy for perpetrator.
• BEST PRACTICE? Tickboxes at collab meetings acknowledge COC
• BEST PRACTICE? Not have all details to IB for choices. Limit to a smaller group for decisions and liability. But afford IB chance to overturn?
• GAP: Communication between experiments about very bad actors

Shared challenges/gaps/asks

• GAP: How are we rewarding folks who are engaging in DEI / COC committees? Or rather, how are we avoiding punishing them? Are they promoted in the same way within collaboration leadership? Are their hours counted toward, say, shift credits for authorship?
• This is. A lot. of. work (emotional, time) And is invisible. (Related GAP: support for this, increased risk of trauma, training)
• GAP: We’ve been focused on collaborations, but how are DOE Projects handled?
• GAP/NOT DISCUSSED: Should collabs report to the institution?
• BEST PRACTICE? Keep the reporter in the loop and set clear expectations.
• QUESTION: Does

Some solvable gaps

• A sensible recording keeping system + process can go a long way
• We need patterns
• Shared within experiments, and to identify cross-experiment bad actors
• (This workshop has been great for sharing information)

Proposed internal procedure for cases*

7

Internal reporting

avenues

Review Committee

Chair, Secretary

Initial investigation

(as needed)

Committee hears

case in abstract

​

Probable

violation?

​

Violation?

​

Committee hears

case in full

​

Details of past case findings disclosed

Vote on recommendations

Case ends

​

Case ends with statement of disposition

Findings from Fermilab process

Review committee

• Non-voting Chair, Secretary
• Voting Senior + junior members
• All votes are by secret ballot

​

Y

N

Y

N

Spokespeople for ratification, actions

​

​

* Adapted from Caltech Honor System process, ca. 1980

Developed with LZ, DUNE