Some of these things are not like the others: Gaps in codes of ethics
"Ethics are more important than laws." Wynton Marsalis
We’ve talked about morals and ethics before on this Substack as it relates to forensic science*. While you should go back and read that post (and this one, for that matter), here’s the TL;DR: Morals are what constitute permissible behavior, ethics is the discipline and study of morality, and laws reflect and reinforce the morals and ethics of a community but do not create them. Good? Good.1 Let’s move on to this from a previous post:
Organizations should develop and enforce a code of conduct that clearly states what constitutes acceptable and inappropriate behavior. The code should have consequences. The code should emphasize positive behaviors, rather than listing a litany of offenses. While ethical behavior should be its own reward (as Aristotle would remind us), specific actions that avert significant negative outcomes should be praised and that praise should be public…Making the community aware of what good behavior is tends to elicit better behavior from others.
Ethical behavior is learned; it’s not part of the starter package for “human being.” That’s part of why organizations and professions develop codes of ethics to make what constitutes good behavior public and exemplify it to its members and others. Codes of ethics cover a wide range of behaviors, including those related to integrity, honesty, respect, confidentiality, and professionalism. Essentially, codes of ethics outline expected behaviors that align with an organization's values and promote ethical conduct in all aspects of business and professional life.
But what if a code of ethics fails to mention a particular kind of behavior? Does it get a pass? Like, say, I don’t know, sexual harassment?
Codes of ethics: Ought
Codes of ethics2 have evolved over time, often in response to significant events or societal shifts that highlight ethical concerns or failures. The Hippocratic Oath, a pledge attributed to the Greek physician Hippocrates, established ethical principles for physicians, emphasizing patient well-being and confidentiality. Likewise, Thomas Percival’s Code described professional duties and ideal behavior relative to medical professionals and hospitals. The Nuremberg Code established the principle of informed consent for human subjects in research. The law has extensive rules of conduct for its professionals.3 Having the ur-professions of medicine and law develop codes of conduct made all the other professions want to be big, adult professions as well, so they also developed their own. Hundreds, if not thousands, of them now litter the web.
At its core, a code of ethics serves as a structured expression of a profession or organization’s fundamental moral commitments. Several themes consistently emerge that point to what lies at the heart of a code of ethics:
Core Values and Principles: A code of ethics defines and articulates the moral principles, such as honesty, integrity, fairness, respect, and responsibility, that guide behavior within a particular profession or organization.
Moral Guidance: It offers a framework for decision-making, especially in complex or ambiguous situations. This helps individuals align their actions with the overarching ethical commitments of their profession or institution
Professional Integrity and Public Trust: A code of ethics supports the credibility and legitimacy of the profession by demonstrating a commitment to ethical conduct. This in turn enhances public trust and professional self-regulation
Autonomy and Accountability: Ethical codes do not replace personal morality, but rather codify shared standards and provide a mechanism for accountability
Cultural and Contextual Sensitivity: Ethical codes are not free-floating rules, they are responsive to social, legal, and organizational realities, including power imbalances, harassment, and broader cultural dynamics.
In sum, the core of a code of ethics is the formalization of shared ethical commitments aimed at promoting principled conduct, protecting the vulnerable, guiding professional practice, and reinforcing both internal integrity and external trust.
Right. Good. Yes. We all feel jolly-well satisfied about our little set of guidelines, don’t we. Do nice things with nice people for nice reasons. But, notice I highlighted a few words above? Respect, ethical conduct, personal morality, and harassment, to be specific. Why?
Many professions’ codes of ethics specifically mention sexual harassment
Many professional codes of ethics explicitly mention sexual harassment as a form of unethical conduct. These codes often define it, prohibit it, and outline obligations to prevent and respond to it. There is clear evidence across fields, including medicine, law, and nursing, that sexual harassment is not only a legal issue but also an ethical one embedded in formal codes and policies. For example,
Sexual harassment is explicitly addressed in professional standards for medical and nursing professions and healthcare workers. The American Nurses Association (ANA) issued a position statement condemning sexual harassment in all work settings and calling for educational and institutional reforms. The ethical duty to provide a safe environment is emphasized, with zero-tolerance policies being part of broader ethics-driven organizational culture reforms. Ethical codes in healthcare frequently associate harassment with violations of human rights, professionalism, and respect for persons.
The ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) linked above explicitly prohibits lawyers from engaging in harassment or discrimination, including sexual harassment, in the practice of law. This includes conduct targeting colleagues, clients, or others, and is framed as an ethical breach warranting professional discipline. The rule integrates gender equity into the professional identity of legal practitioners.
Codes of ethics in academic and scientific societies are increasingly being revised to address harassment explicitly, especially in light of ongoing failures to protect junior staff and trainees from predatory behavior. These codes go beyond legal compliance and articulate moral obligations to foster respectful, inclusive, and equitable environments. The ethical codes now often include sanction mechanisms for harassment-related violations.
Sexual harassment is explicitly named and proscribed in many professional codes of ethics. It is typically framed as a violation of core ethical principles such as respect, dignity, and integrity. These codes not only define such behavior but also impose ethical duties on individuals and institutions to prevent, report, and respond to harassment. In doing so, they link professional integrity directly to the obligation to address sexual misconduct.
Codes of ethics: Is
Guess what profession doesn’t mention sexual harassment at all in any of their codes of ethics? Forensic science*.
Now, I’m sure lots of other professions don’t mention it in theirs but this Substack isn’t about them.4 But I checked all of the codes of ethics for the main U.S. national forensic professional organizations:
AAFS (American Academy of Forensic Sciences)
ABFT (American Board of Forensic Toxicology)
ASCLD (American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors)
BFDE (Board of Forensic Document Examiners)
IABPA (International Association of Bloodstain Pattern Analysts)
IAI (International Association for Identification)
NAME (National Association of Medical Examiners)
…and zip, zero, zilch, nada. None of them state it specifically. I didn’t go through all the regional groups, but they tend to follow/use their parent organization’s code.
To be fair, they do include general language about professional behavior, discrimination, and conduct detrimental to the profession, which could encompass harassment under broad interpretation, but the term itself is omitted: None mention sexual harassment specifically. This is also true for the:
Australian-New Zealand Society of Forensic Sciences,
Canadian Society of Forensic Science
Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences (UK)
The International Association of Forensic Toxicologists (TIAFT)
The only example I found in forensic-land was a statement for the 2025 Eurpoean Academy of Forensic Sciences conference:
“We do not tolerate any verbal or non-verbal expressions of harassment or discrimination. In particular, sexual language and imagery are not appropriate in any conference venue”
And that’s a one-time conference, not an ongoing professional organization; EAFS hasn’t, as far as I know, adopted this language.5
What would a sexual harassment statement look like, policy-wise?
There are lots of examples out there but, generally, it should go something like this:
Members shall not engage in sexual harassment in any form, including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal, non-verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or professional environment.
Sexual harassment violates the principles of respect, dignity, and professional integrity, and it undermines the trust essential to forensic practice. It may occur in person, in written or electronic communication, or in any professional setting, including conferences, laboratories, or courtrooms.
Conduct may constitute harassment even if the individual engaging in the behavior did not intend harm; the perception and impact on the recipient and on the professional environment are the guiding standards.
All members have a duty to prevent, report, and respond to sexual harassment. Retaliation against individuals who report harassment in good faith is strictly prohibited and itself considered an ethical violation.
Violations may result in disciplinary action, including suspension or revocation of membership, certification, or participation in organizational activities.
That wasn’t so hard, was it? You’re welcome. And, not for nothing, the onus is on each individual; saying, “Well, they didn’t say no, so…” doesn’t cut it.6
“Codes of ettiquette”
Codes of ethics have become the professional world’s equivalent of the “In This House We Believe” yard sign: Earnest, declarative, and, all too often, ignored. While ostensibly created to guide behavior and uphold integrity, these documents frequently fall short when it comes to doing anything meaningful.7 A code of ethics that isn’t enforced, isn’t updated, or isn’t actually used in practice is less a tool for professional conduct than a feel-good ornament for the organization’s public face. It’s a “code of ettiquette,” at best.
One of the most persistent problems is the disconnect between the lofty language of ethical codes and the messy, situational nature of real-world work. These documents tend to be aspirational to the point of abstraction, offering broad moral principles with little practical utility. When it comes time to apply them, they either vanish into ambiguity, get quietly sidelined, or are interpreted in a biased and squishy way (“I’m sure he didn’t mean it like that.”). And when violations are met with vague disapproval or no consequences at all, the message is clear: ethics are optional. Hey! Let’s blame the victim!
Then there’s the bureaucratic flavor of it all. Many codes are structured in a way that rewards obedience over judgment. The emphasis is on compliance, not critical thinking. As a result, professionals are encouraged to follow the letter of the code, even when doing so is ethically questionable or just plain absurd. Worse, when these codes are interpreted legalistically, they can actually be used to rationalize unethical behavior, as long as you can tick the right boxes or point to a loophole. Suddenly, you're not breaking the rules; you’re operating “within policy.”
It’s also worth noting how easily codes of ethics become tools for managing perception rather than behavior. Organizations will proudly point to their ethics policy in press releases, HR onboarding, or during scandals, as if the mere existence of a code immunizes them from critique. But a code that isn’t meaningfully enforced or embedded into day-to-day operations is not a commitment: It’s PR. In some cases, it even serves as a shield to deflect scrutiny while more serious misconduct is buried under the weight of vague language and selective enforcement.
And let’s not forget that many codes are allowed to age ungracefully. Written once, laminated, and left untouched for a decade, they soldier on without so much as a footnote acknowledging that, say, the internet exists.8 Or that social media is, y’know, social…and written…and stored. Meanwhile, professions evolve, technology reshapes entire fields, and ethical challenges become more complex, but the code of ethics still reads like it was drafted on a Olympia SM2 typewriter during the Carter administration.9
At their best, codes of ethics can help clarify shared values and offer a framework for principled action. But that requires regular revision, actual enforcement, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Without that, they’re just moral wallpaper: Decorative, respectable, and completely inert.
The “ought” is from the is/ought problem in ethics which arises when you one say what ought to be based only on what is. Developed by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, who noticed big differences between descriptive statements (“That is pineapple on a pizza.”) and prescriptive statements (“Yuck. Don’t do that.”). Hume found that going from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones was problematic.
Having rules and following them are two different things, of course. I’m not looking at anyone in particular. *sips tea*
Other Substacks can address their own problems; we’re full up here. I’m not my brother’s blogger.
I couldn’t find a code of ethics for EAFS on the web. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
How about I punch you in the mouth, unsolicited? You didn’t say I couldn’t. Should I have asked you if I could punch you in the mouth? Seriously? Are we even having this conversation? If we need to, read this first. Perhaps they’re being polite and not saying, “Get lost.” Maybe they don’t want to embarrass you (unless you did that yourself, already). Maybe—just maybe—take a hint and don’t do it in the first place because it’s the wrong thing to do.
Or are used as personal vendettas against those seeking true integrity in a profession or organization. Ask Mike Bowers. Or me. Buy us a drink and we’ll tell you how to save $195 a year.
https://web.archive.org/
Yes, I’m old. I first voted for Anderson. Get off my lawn.