Letterhead
The potential for COI related to the use of academic letterhead may seem pretty bizarre, at first glance. Yet as this story about a professor at the University of Maryland (UM professor reprimanded for apparent conflict of interest) helps demonstrate, the inappropriate use of letterhead is not banal.
When I write a letter, say recommending a graduate student for a scholarship, I am doing so in my capacity as a university professor — writing references for my students is part of my academic responsibility — and so using official university letterhead is appropriate. Letterhead is an visual means of formally demonstrating my professional affiliation…and it brings with it the imprimatur (the formal stamp of approval) of the university. That means I should probably be careful how I use this formal affiliation.
So what if I use letterhead when I am consulting for a 3rd party, such as a corporation, or a labour union as in the UM case? Well, it depends on 1) what my role or expertise is (professor?) that is being contracted, and 2) the norms of my institution about doing consulting alongside my academic responsibilities. In the UM case, Mr. Fred Feinstein, an adjunct professor at the School of Public Policy, wrote a letter in the context of a labour dispute, and provided an expert judgment based on his capacity as a lawyer (he had also been a paid consultant for one of the parties involved in the dispute).
“Mr. Feinstein violated university procedures by improperly using university letterhead in the course of his outside work,” Donald F. Kettl, dean of the School of Public Policy, said in a statement. “This activity was wholly unrelated to his work at the University of Maryland, which has no involvement or stake in this outside matter. He should not have written the material on university letterhead nor invoked his title as a university employee. In addition, he should have disclosed the payment he received from one of the parties in the issue on which he commented.”
The conflict arises because Mr Feinstein implied, through the use of institutional letterhead, that he was commenting in his capacity as a professor, and thus also in a sense involving the institution. Now this may seem like a bit of a stretch. Surely academic liberty allows professors to make all sorts of comments, sign petitions, be active in political debates, etc., and use the public credibility given to them by being professors? Maybe, but I think it depends on the context, whether the role (as professor, as academic) is reasonably related to the activity in question, and how the institution is being involved (directly or indirectly).
With the privilege of academic liberty that is provided by my institution, also comes the responsibility to be professional in my behaviour. I can be critical of my own and other institutions, but I should also use good judgment, and think carefully about where my role as academic (professor, public thinker) ends and my personal space begins…