Policies and Procedures for Honors Conferred by ACM

On October 22, 2021, ACM Council approved a new “Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM” and related changes to the procedures surrounding award committees. The goal of this new policy is to make clear that:

• ACM expects individuals it honors to abide by the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (The Code);
• ACM will not confer an honor on any individual whose prior conduct has resulted in a current sanction due to a policy violation;
• ACM will defer conferring a proposed honor on any individual whose conduct is the subject of a credible question known to ACM; and
• ACM may revoke a previously granted honor if a violation of the Code has been investigated and confirmed.

What are the implications of these changes and new policies when it comes to the work of individual ACM award committees?

1. Most of what ACM award committees do will be as before ...
   1. Committees will have a preliminary meeting to review nominations held over from the previous year and discuss nominations they would like to see (and how to get them).
   2. Committees will review and resolve conflicts of interest.
   3. Committees will meet to discuss nominations and reach consensus on a recipient(s).
   4. Committees will develop short and long citations for the award.
   5. Committees will honor the fact that all information shared, and discussions held, at award committee meetings are confidential. All interactions between the computing community and an award committee go through the committee chair or ACM HQ.
2. Additional information may be made available to the committee regarding ethical conduct. This information should be discussed by the committee and will likely impact the committee’s decisions. In some situations, the new “Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM” dictates a specific outcome. The additional information a committee may see includes:
   1. An indication of whether any formal complaints have been filed against a nominee and the status of those complaints. These complaints will fall into one of three areas: a code of ethics violation, a harassment violation, or a plagiarism violation.
      1. If a formal complaint (ethics, harassment, plagiarism) was filed against a nominee, and COPE (the ACM Committee on Professional Ethics) has decided a nominee violated the Code, and sanctions are in place, the committee will be informed that the nomination is not eligible for consideration.
      2. If a formal complaint (ethics, harassment, plagiarism) was filed against a nominee and the investigation is ongoing, the committee will be informed that the nomination is not eligible for consideration.
      3. If a formal complaint was filed, and a violation was determined to have occurred, and the related sanctions have played out, and the nominee is in good standing with ACM, the committee will be informed that the nomination can be considered.
   2. If web searches performed by ACM HQ uncover information pertinent to the ethical behavior of a nominee, the committee will be informed.
   3. If the nominator or an endorser check the “yes” box about awareness of unethical behavior, the committee will be informed and will be given any pertinent information available.
   4. ACM HQ may obtain information about unethical behavior from another organization. In this case:
      • If the information is not confidential, the committee will be informed.
      • If the information is confidential, but ACM HQ and the Awards Committee Co-Chairs deem it to be sufficiently damning – that is, on a par with a serious sanction from COPE – the committee will be informed the nomination is not eligible for consideration.
      • If the information is confidential, but ACM HQ and the Awards Committee Co-Chairs deem it significantly less severe than the preceding bullet, the committee will be informed with a reminder that the information is confidential.

In summary, ACM has adopted a new policy regarding the expected ethical behavior of recipients of ACM Honors. This policy has resulted in new procedures (as outlined in #2 above) for informing award committees of relevant information regarding a nominee’s ethical behavior. We expect these new procedures will not dominate or derail the important work of ACM award committees; “business as usual” will generally be the mode of operation. Issues of unethical behavior on the part of award nominees have historically been rare, but should one arise, we believe the new procedures above will allow for fair and appropriate treatment of the nomination.

See the new “Policy for Honors Conferred by ACM.”