Engineer A is a volunteer chairman of a university search and screen committee. As part of the search and screening guidelines of the university, Engineer A is asked by the administration to do the following:

Under the university procedure, a pool of candidates from under-represented minorities will first be recruited and only then will non-minority candidates be solicited.

Although the university publicly maintains that all qualified candidates will be considered, the university has a strong financial incentive in selecting individuals from under represented minorities in order to continue to receive federal, state and local financial support. Engineer A believes the university is misrepresenting the process to all candidates.

Is it ethical for Engineer A to participate in the screening and selection process of the university under these conditions?

Code of Ethics - Section II.3.-Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

Section II.3.a. - Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.

Section III.1. - Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

Section III.3.a. - Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.

The key to the discussion of this case is that the engineer has advanced knowledge of possible deception. The ethical approach for the engineer to take in this case is to address the wording of the advertised program in the presence of the University authorities. Engineer A should first offer suggested corrective wording to be used by the University when publishing information concerning procedures for the search and screening committee.

It is incumbent for engineers who know of "deception" or "deceptive practice" being used in his work environment to bring such to the attention of the responsible parties and to advise the administration that the use of deceptive practices is not in the best interest of the institution. In fact, deception in the advertising may position the University (in this case) to have to defend its intentions in a court of law. However, regardless of the possible court actions or fear of such, engineers must at all times be truthful. Thus, if the advertisement indicates that minorities will be considered first, then there should not be a problem in serving on the committee. However, if the advertisement does not so state, all candidates should be treated equally.

Under section II.3.a. of the engineer’s Code of Ethics, it is not ethical for Engineer A to knowingly participate in a program that uses deceptive advertisement regardless whether the engineer is acting in a volunteer or paid position. Furthermore, it is unethical for the University as a whole to misrepresent information to the public which leads to deception.

William A. Cox, Jr., P.E.

James G. Fuller, P.E.

Donald L. Hiatte, P.E.

Robert L. Nichols, P.E.

William E. Norris, P.E.

Jimmy H. Smith, Ph.D., P.E.

William W. Middleton, P.E., chairman

Note: The Board of Ethical Review operates on an "ad hoc" educational basis, and does not engage in resolving disputes of fact between parties in actual cases. That function is left to the state society if members are involved in judging whether a member has violated the Code of Ethics. Being solely educational, the function of the Board is to take the submission of "facts" as the basis for analysis and opinion without attempting to obtain rebuttal or comment from other parties. On that basis, the reader of the opinions should always recognize that the Board of Ethical Review is not an adjudicatory body, and unless indicated otherwise, its opinions are not binding upon the National Society of Professional Engineers, any state engineering society or any individual. Instead, the opinions represent the opinions of licensed engineers as to the reasonable standards of practice within the engineering profession. Board of Ethical Review opinions are intended to provide guidance in actual cases only to the extent of the "facts", stated in the case. Cases many be reproduced for educational purposes as long as the material reproduced provides appropriate attribution to NSPE and the Board of Ethical Review.