FAQs

In one word: Yes.

The IAESDP fully supports the Code of Ethics created by existing members of the ESD community and strongly recommend that ESD Professionals adhere to high standard of practice that has been upheld over the decades prior to the formation of the industry association.

Yes. Because of the nature of the industry association, requirements set forth by our legal designation, and requirements set forth by the National Committee for Credentialing Agencies and the ISO (International Organization for Standardization), the IAESDP has to have additional verbiage that outlines our commitment, and that of of members, to adhere to legal, diversity, equity, inclusion, and impartiality.

The ESD Community document does not have to meet the same strict requirements that an industry association must; therefore, there are differences. This does not mean that the two Codes of Ethics are mutually exclusive. On the contrary! The two documents support each other.

Both documents offer robust ethical frameworks for ESD practitioners, with the Association Code being more formal and research-focused and the Community Code taking a more grassroots, practical approach. Integrating the research-oriented focus of the Association with the more inclusive, socially focused language of the Community Code could result in a more comprehensive and accessible ethical guide for ESD professionals.

Comparison Report: Association of ESD Professionals Code of Ethics vs. ESD Community Code of Ethics 

Introduction 

Both documents outline ethical guidelines for Empowerment Self-Defense (ESD) practitioners but are created by separate groups. The Association of ESD Professionals Code of Ethics (2022) is developed by a formal association, while the ESD Community Code of Ethics (2021) is the result of a broad convening of over 50 practitioners and is designed for voluntary adoption by individuals and organizations. 

Similarities 

• Core Ethical Principles: 

• Both documents emphasize physical and emotional safety, consent, and the prevention of harm in ESD instruction. They prioritize creating safe, harassment-free environments for students. 

• Both codes promote trauma-informed teaching and emphasize sensitivity to students who have experienced abuse, as well as establishing clear boundaries between instructors and students (Association of ESD Prof…) (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Commitment to Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice: 

• Both documents strongly endorse inclusivity. They emphasize welcoming marginalized groups, particularly the LGBTQ+ community, people of color, and people with disabilities. The importance of anti-racist practices and expanding access to ESD for these communities is central to both (Association of ESD Prof…) (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Confidentiality: 

• Both codes highlight the importance of maintaining student confidentiality, especially regarding personal, financial, or sensitive information. This includes being careful with the sharing of images or social media content related to participants (Association of ESD Prof…) (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Professional Boundaries: 

• Both documents stress the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between instructors and students to avoid conflicts of interest, exploitation, or inappropriate relationships (Association of ESD Prof…) (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Financial Integrity: 

• Each document advocates for financial transparency and fairness. Both codes discourage borrowing money from students and emphasize the need to offer scholarships or sliding scale fees where possible (Association of ESD Prof…) (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Scope of Adoption: 

• The International Association of ESD Professionals Code is more structured and formalized, intended to be adopted by a professional body, while the Community Code encourages individual practitioners and organizations to adopt it voluntarily, which makes it more grassroots in nature (Association of ESD Prof…) (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Responsibility to Society vs. Social Justice Emphasis: 

• The Association's Code contains a broader focus on responsibility to society, including advocating for human rights, social justice, and anti-violence policies on a global scale (Association of ESD Prof…). In contrast, the Community Code emphasizes social justice but with a more focused lens on systemic violence, particularly against marginalized groups, and promoting anti-racism within the context of ESD (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Organizational vs. Individual Focus: 

• The Association's Code reflects the perspective of a professional organization, with references to upholding the profession's reputation, advancing research, and peer review for ethical breaches (Association of ESD Prof…). The Community Code takes a more individual approach, focusing on the responsibilities of ESD practitioners on the ground and their relationship with students (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Detailed Ethical Guidelines: 

• The Association's Code provides more detailed sections on several topics, such as research-informed practice, competence, and responsibility to colleagues, while the Community Code provides broader guidelines that focus more on practical implementation in teaching and everyday ESD practice (Association of ESD Prof…) (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Research and Development: 

• The Association's Code emphasizes the need for research-informed practices, encouraging ESD professionals to stay updated on the latest research and to contribute to scholarly work in the field (Association of ESD Prof…). The Community Code also recognizes the importance of professional development but does not emphasize research contributions as strongly (ESD Community Code of E…). 

Areas of Conflict between the Two Codes of Ethics 

Formality and Enforcement: 

• The IAESDP Code positions itself as part of a formal structure where breaches of the code can lead to peer review and discipline within the organization (Association of ESD Prof…). This implies a more structured enforcement of ethical standards. 

• In contrast, the Community Code emphasizes voluntary adoption without any clear enforcement mechanism. It is designed for individual practitioners to self-govern their ethical conduct, which could lead to differences in accountability (ESD Community Code of E…). 

This creates potential conflict between formal enforcement and voluntary self-regulation, with one code being more regulatory and the other being more aspirational. 

Handling of Intimate Relationships with Former Students: 

• The Association Code implies a strict boundary regarding power dynamics between teachers and students but does not explicitly prohibit relationships with former students (Association of ESD Prof…). 

• The Community Code, however, is more specific in outlining the potential risks of relationships with former students, advising clear policies that consider factors like time since the class ended and age differences, especially if the former student was a minor (ESD Community Code of E…). 

This could lead to disagreement, as the Community Code takes a firmer stance on managing these relationships, while the Association Code leaves it more open to interpretation. 

Scope of Social Justice Focus: 

• The Community Code explicitly incorporates an anti-racist and anti-colonial framework, requiring instructors to use anti-racist language and address the systemic roots of violence, such as racism and colonialism (ESD Community Code of E…). 

• The Association Code also mentions inclusion and anti-discrimination but focuses more broadly on responsibility to society and upholding human rights, without explicitly highlighting the need for anti-racist language in its standards (Association of ESD Prof…). 

This difference could lead to conflicting interpretations of how much emphasis should be placed on addressing systemic injustice within ESD teachings. The Community Code is more aggressive in its stance on social justice, whereas the Association Code remains general in its approach. 

Handling Financial Integrity and Economic Fairness: 

• Both documents stress financial integrity, but the Community Code goes further by explicitly stating that students who receive scholarships or reduced-fee classes should not be expected to perform extra tasks, such as cleaning the training space (ESD Community Code of E…). 

• The Association Code addresses economic fairness but does not include this specific prohibition, potentially allowing for more flexibility in how financial matters and participation are handled (Association of ESD Prof…). 

This could lead to a conflict where the Community Code sets a stricter standard, while the Association Code may permit practices that the Community Code prohibits. 

Touch and Consent Protocols: 

• Both documents emphasize the importance of consent regarding physical touch, but the Community Code takes a firmer stance by stipulating that all touch should be "observable and interruptible by others" (ESD Community Code of E…). 

• The Association Code does not specify this condition but emphasizes the necessity of explicit consent for any form of physical touch (Association of ESD Prof…). 

The more stringent guidelines in the Community Code regarding observable and interruptible touch protocols might create tension with the broader guidelines in the Association Code, where it is left more flexible. 

Conclusion on Conflicts 

These differences between the two codes highlight potential areas of conflict, particularly around enforcement, relationship boundaries, social justice focus, financial fairness, and touch protocols. While both codes share the same fundamental goals, their approaches to these issues could lead to differing interpretations and applications in practice, potentially causing disagreements among practitioners who subscribe to one code over the other.