Herbert D. Greggs Awards

See the glossary at the end of this policy for definitions of key terms.

The United States Institute for Theatre Technology (USITT or “the institute”) confers honors and awards, including but not limited to, Fellows, Young Designers, Managers, & Technicians (YDMT) Awards, Distinguished Achievement Awards (DAA), Special Achievement Awards (SAA), Architectural Awards, Publications (Golden Pen & Greggs Awards) (Honors) on individuals for significant contributions to the field or interests of the field, and are determined in USITT’s judgment and discretion. The institute retains the right to grant, defer, or decline to grant an Honor to any person. USITT also retains the right to revoke or suspend an Honor already granted if, in its judgment and discretion, the institute determines that it is in the best interests of the field to do so. Suspension means the Honor (and the ability of the recipient to exercise any associated privileges and rights) are held in abeyance until notice by USITT that the Honor is reinstated or revoked.

If an agreement pre-dates the Honors policy, or otherwise doesn’t expressly incorporate the Honors policy’s suspension and revocation provisions, the agreement’s terms will likely need to be honored, unless they can be amended by all parties.

Underlying Policy Rationale — Interests of Excellence in the Field

While not the only interest that is critical for excellence in the field and is considered by USITT in deciding who should hold an Honor, professional ethics is an important such interest. When the institute awards an Honor, the Honor reflects USITT’s judgment that an individual’s contributions to, and effect on, the field are exemplary. The institute takes into account the effect on the field of the totality of the individual’s work and professional and ethical conduct and reputation. It expects those who hold Honors to demonstrate that participation in and recognition by the field are privileges; and that the field’s leaders, and others it celebrates, embody highly professional and ethical conduct in their work as well as conduct in their personal affairs that does not cast serious doubt on their core ethics. (References to conduct in this policy include professional conduct, as well as such personal conduct.)

Unethical conduct includes but is not limited to, among other acts, sexual harassment and discrimination based on other factors unrelated to ability and promise (e.g., race, religion, ethnicity, sexual preferences and gender identity), whether alone or intersecting with sexual harassment.Sexual harassment or retaliation for declining, objecting to, or reporting harassment or other sexual conduct may constitute a serious breach of professional ethics. These acts perpetuate longstanding structural and systemic barriers to full participation of all talent in the field, which have immediate adverse impact on individuals and undermine excellence in the field and/or is in conflict with USITT’s Core Values. Such unprofessional and unethical conduct may occur in research, learning/teaching, or practice.

Ethics Considerations in Awarding Honors

Capturing Ethical Professional and Personal Conduct

USITT finds, in its discretion, that determined unethical conduct of a current or prospective holder of an Honor—as well as credible, but undetermined, questions about the ethical conduct of such an individual— can contribute to longstanding structural and systemic barriers in the field. Consequently, for the purpose of placing heavier weight on what is best for excellence in the field than what is best for any individual when the two must be balanced, the institute will not confer any Honor on any individual whose conduct has been determined to be unethical. That determination will be based on USITT’s own review or investigation and, if useful in the institute’s discretion, consideration of any others’ determinations (with supporting information) made available to USITT.

USITT also will not confer any Honor on any individual whose ethical conduct is the subject of a credible question known to the institute, so long as the question has not been finally and favorably determined to USITT’s satisfaction, in its discretion. Determined unethical conduct may also justify suspension or revocation of an Honor; and a credible but undetermined question of ethical conduct may justify suspension. When applying this policy in situations of credible but undetermined questions, USITT is withholding judgment and is not making a statement or determination regarding any individual. Rather, USITT is implementing a prophylactic measure to support the field’s priority efforts to break down long standing barriers to excellence.

USITT’s conferral of an honor is an exercise of its discretion, not an obligation. USITT, in its discretion, may suspend or revoke an honor if its assessment of the recipient’s actual or potential impact on the field changes for any reason.

Awareness of Conduct Issues—Required Disclosures:

USITT is aware of conduct issues about the holder or potential recipient of an Honor if its Executive Director (ED) or any individual who participates (whether as a staff, an advisor or a decision-maker) in the official Honors process is aware. These individuals must notify the ED or Ethics Officer/s (see below), who will make the head of the Honors process aware.

Anyone who makes a nomination or recommendation and knows that the nominee has been determined to have engaged in unprofessional or unethical conduct, or that a credible but undetermined question exists about the nominee’s conduct, is required to make a disclosure to the Ethics officer/s as part of the nomination process.

A person who is being considered for an Honor (upon becoming aware of being considered), or who holds an Honor, has a continuing duty to disclose to the Ethic Officer/s the existence of any fact, situation, or circumstance that could be considered relevant to the institute’s decision whether to award the Honor under provisions of this Honors Policy. Failure to make a disclosure may result in USITT withholding, suspending, or revoking an Honor, at the institute’s discretion.

Process for Suspension or Revocation of Existing Honors.

Upon notice by USITT to a person already holding an Honor, a suspension or revocation shall take effect. At least 30 days before a notice of revocation or suspension, USITT will give the holder of the Honor a notice of intent to revoke or suspend the Honor. The notice of intent will include a statement of the interests of the field served by the proposed revocation or suspension, in the institute’s judgment. The holder of the Honor will have an opportunity to submit to USITT, within 14 days of receiving a notice of intent, a written statement of any reasons why they believe it would not be in the best interests of the field for the revocation or suspension to be affected. After that 14-day period, whether or not a statement has been submitted, USITT will act in its discretion. As described in detail in the policy below. USITT, at any time, may review and act on pertinent information that was not available or known to it at the time of its decision.

Ethic Officers

The Ethics Officers serves as the organization's internal control point for ethics and improprieties, allegations, complaints, and conflicts of interest and provides leadership and advice on corporate governance issues.

• Two officers will be appointed to serve in this position.
• One will be appointed by the President from the Board of Directors.
• The second by the Executive Director from the professional staff.

Duties/Responsibilities:

• Develops and disseminates ethics statements, policies and supporting forms/acknowledgements.
• Provides an internal review of other policies to ensure consistency and integration with the company's ethics philosophies. Integrates ethics messages throughout the institute's culture.
• Promptly conducts investigations pursuant to complaints and allegations of ethical wrongdoing or conflicts of interest. Prepares written investigative reports as necessary.
• Creates Ad-Hoc committees to consider ethics issues.
• Develops and maintains confidential procedures for the handling and processing of complaints and allegations. Provides processes for the confidential hearing of issues related to the ethics or conflicts.
• Work with the appropriate professional USITT staff to understand governance requirements, compliance and reporting responsibilities, and related legal benchmarks from federal and state law.
• Consult USITT’s legal team when appropriate.

Process for Suspension and Revocation

This process policy addresses the institute’s response actions to resolve conduct concerns arising from possible violations of the Ethics Policy.

When USITT receives a disclosure from a member that potentially raises a conduct concern, the Ethics Officer of USITT may engage with the member that makes the disclosure, as well as, possibly, with any available identified target and any accused persons, to understand the substance, context and status of the matter disclosed. Engaging the person making the disclosure is required before reaching any conclusion about the need for a fuller investigation, resolution or imposition of any consequence. It also enables such actions if warranted.

• A request for revocation should be made from a USITT member in good standing, in writing to the Executive Director and/or the Ethics Officer.
• The appropriate executive officers of USITT will conduct a preliminary review to determine if the request is substantive, has adequate documentation, and complies with these Procedures.
• As a result of this review, either these Procedures will continue or the request will be dismissed. In either case, the Executive Director will provide a report to the Ethics Officer/s.
• The USITT Ethics Officer/s, in its discretion, will decide whether to proceed with revocation procedures or to dismiss the request. If the Ethics Officer/s proceeds, the Executive Director, in consultation with the USITT President, will appoint an Ad Hoc Revocation Panel.
• The Ad Hoc Revocation Panel will define a timeline for the process. The Individual in question will be given notice of the request for revocation in writing, with the supporting documentation and the names of all Ad Hoc Revocation Panel members and is invited to respond.
• An affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the Ad Hoc Revocation Panel is required for revocation of an award or honor.
• The report of the final determination of the Ad Hoc Revocation Panel is then submitted to the Executive Director. The Individual in question will be given notice of the revocation, with a copy of the Panel’s report and again be provided with the opportunity to respond.
• Any identified target and the accused have an opportunity during a 14-day period that begins when the preliminary determination notice is given to them, to again access the factual record and respond in writing, providing the Ethics Officer/s with any relevant facts or circumstances that the responder believes should inform the final determination and any consequences.
• The Ethics Officer/s reviews any submission received.
• Upon expiration of that 14-day period, whether or not response(s) are submitted, the Ethics Officer/s makes a final determination and, if a violation is found, imposes revocation of award or honor.
• The USITT Executive Office and USITT President may determine, in their sole and exclusive discretion, whether there should be an announcement or publication of the decision to revoke the individual award or honor.

Special Circumstances – Honors Held by Deceased Individuals.

Special circumstances arise when unprofessional and unethical conduct of a deceased person who holds an Honor is raised. USITT will exercise its discretion to address such situations on a case-by-case basis and may determine that no action is needed without heightened concerns. It will consider the following:

• A deceased person is unable to participate in even an informal investigation or process, is unable to defend against allegations, e.g., of sexual harassment, or to participate in restorative remedies.
• A deceased person cannot continue unprofessional and unethical conduct, eliminating threats that the conduct will be ongoing.
• Unless heightened concerns for continuing impact on the field exist, the need to protect the interests of the field in eliminating barriers to inclusion may be limited, and the interest of fairness to the accused may be greater.
• Heightened concerns for impact on the field, even after death, may exist when the act of unprofessional and unethical conduct has been determined during a person’s lifetime (or is established by unequivocal facts) and is highly egregious (respecting a single event or frequency). This is particularly so when the deceased holder of the Honor is very prominent in the field, or the Honor is exceptional, or there is a named Honor continuing to be conferred on others.
• When action is warranted, it may range from revocation of the Honor to a statement about intolerance of the type of conduct raised. Revocation is an extraordinary remedy. USITT will exercise its judgment on a case-by-case basis. If a statement is made, USITT would speak to intolerance of the type of conduct raised, without judging or stating whether the conduct occurred, and without adding commentary to any existing determination made on the subject. When a statement is made, the institute may include examples of types of unprofessional and unethical conduct faced and consequential actions taken under USITT’s current policy generally, to demonstrate the authenticity of its intolerance for the type of conduct and mitigate impact on the field.
• USITT is not expected to newly investigate a question of professional and ethical conduct related to a deceased holder of an Honor.

Restorative Remedies:

In the event of determined conduct inconsistent with an Honor — or in the event of a credible but undetermined question about such conduct —On a case by case basis, USITT may provide opportunities for restorative remedies (that diminish the effect of such conduct or credibly questioned conduct, elevate understanding of harm caused by such conduct, enhance relationships, improve conduct, advance safety for those affected, and prevent recurrence of any undesirable conduct, eventually enabling positive participation in the field and possibly Honors). USITT may pursue or encourage other institutions to pursue such remedies where, in the institute’s judgment and discretion, USITT determines restorative remedies are possible with authentic consent by the accused and the target and without perpetuating barriers to participation of all talent in the field or otherwise undermining excellence in the field. USITT would generally endeavor to consult the accused and the target and consider, among other factors:

• (a) the egregiousness, prevalence, effect, and age of such conduct, the stage of career when it occurred
• (b) whether an individual with determined unprofessional and unethical conduct takes responsibility for the conduct and demonstrates through action (non-repetition) that s/he/they learned the necessary lesson and is unlikely to repeat similar conduct;
• (c) whether an individual appears to be sincerely committed to demonstrating professional and ethical conduct, understanding how the determined conduct or questions of conduct occurred, avoiding repetition, and restoring relationships—not just to qualify for receipt of an Honor, but recognizing the importance of professional and ethical conduct to excellence in the field.

Restorative Remedies Process

• An appropriate amount of time must transpire after the revocation.
• A request for restoration should be made, in writing to the Executive Director and/or the Ethics Officer.
• The appropriate executive officers of USITT will conduct a preliminary review to determine if the request is substantive, has adequate documentation, and complies with these Procedures.
• As a result of this review, either these Procedures will continue or the request will be dismissed. In either case, the Executive Director will provide a report to the Ethics Officer/s.
• The USITT Ethics Officer/s, in its discretion, will decide whether to proceed with restorative procedures or to dismiss the request. If the Ethics Officer/s proceeds, the Executive Director, in consultation with the USITT President, will appoint an Ad Hoc Restoration Panel.
• The Ad Hoc Restorative Panel will define a timeline for the process. The individual in question will be given notice of the request for restoration in writing, with the supporting documentation and the names of all Ad Hoc Restorative Panel members and is invited to respond.
• An affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the Ad Hoc Restorative Panel is required for possible restoration of an award or honor.
• The report of the final determination of the Ad Hoc Restoration Panel is then submitted to the Executive Director.
• Any identified target and the accused have an opportunity during a 14-day period that begins when the preliminary determination notice is given to them, to again access the factual record and respond in writing, providing the Ethics Officer/s with any relevant facts or circumstances that the responder believes should inform the final determination.
• The Ethics Officer/s reviews any submission received.
• Upon expiration of that 14-day period, whether or not response(s) are submitted, the Ethics Officer/s makes a final determination and, if restorative measures are appropriate, submits the recommendation to the Board of Directors for confirmation.
• At the next scheduled Board of Directors meeting a vote of confirmation to restore the award is taken.
• The USITT Executive Office and USITT President may determine, in their sole and exclusive discretion, whether there should be an announcement or publication of the decision to restore the individual award or honor.

Adapted from: © 2018, 2019 American Association for the Advancement of Science for the benefit of and sponsored by the Societies Consortium on Sexual Harassment in STEMM; original created by EducationCounsel, LLC

Glossary of Key Terms

Sexual harassment is a type of discrimination on the basis of sex, and includes one or more of the following:

• Sexual coercion or quid pro quo sexual harassment: when threats or rewards respecting educational or employment benefits, support, or status are conditioned on sexual favors.
• Hostile environment sexual harassment: exposure in work- or education- related settings or activities to gratuitous (i.e., non-work related/unnecessary for the work) (a) sexual images, gestures, or remarks, (b) sexual insults, (c) non-sexual gender harassment (see below), or (d) unwelcome sexual attention—of such pervasiveness or severity as to interfere with a “reasonable person’s” ability to learn or work. (See reasonable person standard.)
  • Gender harassment: is a form of sexual harassment that includes sexism, or other non-sexual behaviors (including remarks and conduct) that demean, denigrate, devalue, and disrespect individuals on the basis of sex.
• Sexual assault and battery, including but not limited to rape (which are crimes).

On the basis of sex: means on the basis of sex, gender identity, gender expression, failure to act according to gender stereotypes, and sexual orientation.

Reasonable person standard: a threshold used in law to determine whether hostile environment sexual harassment has occurred. The facts are viewed through the eyes of a generic “reasonable person” in a similar circumstance, position, and relationship. Behavior (including comments, images, gestures, etc.) is evaluated to determine if it is gratuitous (i.e., not necessary for the work) and of such pervasiveness (frequency) or severity (even once) that it would interfere with a reasonable person’s ability to work or learn. What a reasonable person in similar circumstances would find harmful may change with societal norms and power/knowledge/positional differences among individuals involved.

In some states (such as New York State), and local municipalities, this standard no longer applies. For example, in New York, regardless of whether such harassment would be considered severe or pervasive under precedent, such harassment is unlawful when it subjects an individual to inferior terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The conduct must rise above the level of what a reasonable victim of discrimination with the same protected characteristics would consider petty slights or trivial inconveniences. Where required this more stringent standard will be applied.

Credible question (of professional and ethical conduct): when there is a question about whether or not a person’s conduct meets USITT’s high standards of professional and ethical conduct (e.g., whether the person sexually harassed others). The question may concern whether a person engaged in particular conduct—or whether particular conduct is unprofessional and unethical—or both. References to: questioned conduct; undetermined question; credible but undetermined question; determination of a question not yet made; and like phrases in the policy mean there is a credible question about any one or more of these concerns. A credible question is just that—it does not represent a judgment or conclusion about any person.

Whether a credible question exists, and whether standards of conduct are met, require USITT to make judgments. Some considerations are addressed below, but these judgments must be guided by USITT’s mission, standards and the specific factual situation:

• Typically, for a credible question to exist, there would be enough facts known to USITT, the accused’s home institution, or a government agency or other involved entity to warrant at least one of them conducting an informal or formal review of the questioned conduct and whether the facts are true, accurate and complete. However, a determination of the facts and question, one way or the other, has not yet been made—at all or to USITT’s satisfaction in its discretion.
• A credible question may arise from information provided by someone who is directly targeted or who is indirectly affected by the conduct at issue (e.g., a bystander, witness, or someone else who knows of the conduct). It may exist if the conduct at issue is sexual harassment, whether or not that label is used, or a formal complaint is filed. It may arise in a news report (followed by verifying key points for accuracy).
• If truth of an allegation is impossible—e.g., the accused was elsewhere and could not have been present—there is no credible question.
• Not all rumors raise credible questions. Conclusory, isolated rumors may not, if no salient facts are (even anonymously) provided and no affected people or witnesses come forward. Pervasive (even conclusory) rumors may create a credible question, though, particularly if persistent or if the subject of such rumors is prominent, and in a position of power, and there are reasons to believe those who may have the facts are fearful.

A credible question may be resolved/determined by USITT’s own review, an outside authority’s determination (e.g., home institution, court, government agency) made available to USITT on which USITT relies, or both. USITT must be satisfied, in its discretion, that the question has been answered well enough to decide whether or not the person should hold the relevant Honor.

Determined conduct or determined question of conduct: after a credible question has been raised, there is a determination that a person’s conduct is or is not professional and ethical, meeting USITT’s standards of conduct (or not). This determination may be based on USITT’s own review, an outside authority’s determination made available to USITT and on which USITT relies, or both.

Discretion (USITT’s): means USITT’s decision, determination, judgment or application of criteria, is made in USITT’s sole and absolute discretion in pursuit of its mission. Such discretion is still not arbitrary or exercised for an illegal purpose (e.g. to discriminate on the basis of sex or race).

Restorative remedy: means a remedy for gender harassment and some other forms of unprofessional and unethical conduct, where the individuals involved authentically consent to participate in a non-legal, informal process with aims of (a) elevating understanding of specific conduct-related harm (whether recognized by the “reasonable person standard” or particular to the individuals involved), (b) achieving confidence that the harmful conduct will not be repeated and the target will be safe; (c) restoring relationships and affirming a community that is inclusive and actively intolerant of harassment, and (d) potentially also offering the accused the opportunity to be a community member in good standing going forward. (The remedy may engage two people, together or separately, or a larger community, depending on the scope of those impacted and the circumstances.)

• It is not necessary for gender harassment or other misconduct to be proven to engage in a restorative remedy.
• At a high level, the accused must be willing to acknowledge that the target experienced harm from the accused’s conduct, but does not have to acknowledge all allegations (or, depending on the situation, legal culpability), as long as the accused is committed to understanding what conduct caused the harm and how to avoid repetition—and the target’s objective is to be safe from future harm, rather than to punish the accused.
• Restorative remedies are not adequate when regulations require other action (e.g., Title IX regulations require formal process when desired by a target, and proposed changes may require formal process when a formal complaint is filed unless both parties agree otherwise; and research fabrication, falsification or plagiarism and violation of human subjects research regulations trigger regulatory requirements for formal processes).

Retaliation: means punishing or otherwise engaging in differential adverse treatment of someone in response to that person raising a concern about, or otherwise asserting the right to be free from, discrimination including harassment. Prohibited conduct includes activity that would discourage someone from resisting or complaining about future discrimination/harassment. Retaliation can include actions such as transfer to a less desirable position or assignment; verbal or physical abuse; increased scrutiny; spreading false rumors; or making the person's work more difficult.

The Field: a particular branch of study or sphere of activity or interest. For this document the field covers Entertainment and or Theatrical Design and Technology.

Suspension: to temporarily stop or prevent from continuing a nomination or awarding of an honor or award.

Revocation: the act of stating officially that an agreement, right, or legal document is no longer effective. Ie. an award or honor.

Adapted from: © 2018, 2019 American Association for the Advancement of Science for the benefit of and sponsored by the Societies Consortium on Sexual Harassment in STEMM; original created by EducationCounsel, LLC

‍