Report on Complaints Regarding Violations of the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct

Aggregate Data on Code of Ethics Complaints and Disposition

The current version of the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct was approved in 2018. From July 2018 through June 2021, complaints came in via email and were handled on an ad hoc basis, although in a way that was consistent with the Enforcement Policy for the Code. The Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE) did not have standardized procedures for retaining information about complaints. This is especially true regarding the complaints that were determined to be spurious or better handled as potential violations of a Publications Policy or the Policy Against Harassment at ACM Activities. Beginning in July 2021, the Code Violation Database came online. Given that, Table C1 reports aggregate data that summarizes Code complaints submitted to ACM and their disposition between July 2018 and December 2023, with the data for the period July 2018 – June 2021 being only partially available. Specifically, every row reports on the complaints received in the specified year and the decisions made for them at some point in the future, in the same or subsequent years. 

The structure and semantics of Table C1 are the same as with those of Table H1, the corresponding table for harassment complaints, and are not repeated here. In the five-and-a-half-year period covered by this report, we have records of at least 40 complaints that were filed. Of those, with respect to the reasons why several of them were not investigated, 12 were spurious, 1 and 7 were diverted for handling under the Policy Against Harassment at ACM Activities or Publication Policies, respectively, 4 were determined to be better handled by a different governing body (as outlined in Section D of the Enforcement Policy), 5 were duplicates, and 1 was made against someone who is not an ACM member, ACM SIG member, or ACM award recipient. From the remaining 10 complaints, 8 were investigated and resolved, and 2 are still open. 

Table C1. Report of Complaints for Violations of the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

Year	New Complaints	Complaints Dismissed	Complaints Investigated
			Total	Unresolved*	Resolved Supported	Resolved Unsupported	Months to Resolution
2023	15	13	2	1	1		2
2022	13	10	3	1		2	4 – 7
2021	5	5
2018- 2021	unknown	unknown	5		3	2	unknown
Totals	>40	>30	10	2	4	4

* Unresolved at the end of the reporting period, i.e., 31 December 2023.

Examples of Violations of the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and Resulting Sanctions (short abstract narratives)

Here are high-level descriptions of cases where evidence was found that supported concluding that the respondent had contravened the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. 

Table C2. Code of Ethics Violation Exemplars. 

Cases of Code of Ethics Violations	Sanctions / Remediation
The Respondent, a senior scholar, was found to have engaged in discriminatory behavior over many years.	The respondent was barred from speaking at ACM events and identifying themself as affiliated with ACM when speaking publicly.
The Respondent, a senior scholar, was found to have led collusion rings, manipulating the review process for submitted conference papers.	In addition to sanctions leveled by the Pubs Board, COPE requested that Council strip the respondent of their ACM lifetime membership, which Council did. COPE also barred the respondent from participating in any way in any ACM event or activity as well as publishing in any ACM journal or presenting at any ACM conference for a period of fifteen years.
The Respondent, a senior scholar, was found to have engaged in unwanted and uninvited comments on a student’s appearance and unwanted and uninvited physical contact.	The respondent was barred from attending any ACM conferences for two years and stripped of an honor ACM had bestowed on the respondent.
The Respondent, a lab manager, was found to have engaged in unprofessional management of their lab in ways that were inconsistent with the Code.	The respondent agreed to remediation through better professional incorporation of ethical behavior in their lab.

 

---