Civility and Anti-Harassment Policy

Association for Applied Sport Psychology
Civility and Anti-Harassment Policy
May 8, 2024

The Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP) seeks to provide a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment for all Participants, regardless of AASP membership status. Incivility and harassment create a hostile environment that reduces the quality, integrity, and pace of our profession. It marginalizes individuals and communities, damages productivity and career advancement, and prevents the healthy exchange of ideas. Thus, all members of the AASP community are expected to:

• Hold themselves to the highest standards of professional behavior, with honesty and integrity, and treat others with equity, fairness, and respect.
• Contribute to an environment that is welcoming, inclusive, safe, open, and professional.
• Comply with all AASP policies related to incivility, harassment, and retaliation.

Note that relationships in academia and in professional practice often involve asymmetries in authority, in which one individual (such as a graduate student advisor or intern supervisor) has a great deal of influence on the career outcomes of another (such as a graduate student or intern). We should all be sensitive to the power differentials inherent in these relationships and the additional care and responsibilities they require.

There are many ways to resolve complaints and concerns. AASP supports resolving issues at the lowest level possible, including self-resolution and informal resolution. AASP also recognizes that certain behaviors and experiences require the support of a formal complaint process. The Civility Resolution Committee (CRC) will hear and adjudicate complaints under this policy. The AASP President (Chair), AASP President-Elect, Immediate Past-President, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Belonging & Justice (DEIBJ) Division Head, and the Professional Standards Division Head will comprise the CRC. If the CRC finds a complaint more likely falls under the AASP Ethics policy, the Ethics Committee will be consulted and the complaint may be referred to the Ethics Committee for adjudication. This Civility and Anti-Harassment Policy is intended to address a variety of concerns.

Policy Scope

This policy applies to all persons involved in any way in AASP Activities, including – but not limited to – AASP members, Association Management staff, non-member CMPCs, and AASP meeting participants (including meeting registrants, speakers, family members, guests, contractors, exhibitors, vendors, volunteers, industry representatives, and members of the media). It applies to misconduct committed in any venue or activity connected to AASP, including conferences, business meetings, workshops, tours, receptions, and other social events. This includes formal and informal settings, such as bars, elevators, and hallways of conference hotels. It applies to incivility, harassment, and retaliation (defined below) instigated in any way – in person, in writing; via telephone, text message, or email; through social media; or any other means.

What Behavior Is Prohibited?

This policy prohibits incivility or harassment of any kind, as well as retaliation against those who complain about such behavior or participate in investigations. The conduct covered by this policy must be unwelcome in the sense that the Participant did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that the Participant regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive. Although cultural factors may be considered, it is the perception and impact on the recipient of the behavior, rather than the intent of the actor, that determines whether the act constitutes incivility, harassment, or retaliation. See Appendix A for detailed description and definition of incivility, harassment, and retaliation. 

Scope of Policy: Covered Behavior

Any AASP Participant who reasonably believes that another Participant has engaged in the following behavior or conduct may address it informally or may pursue a formal complaint:  

• Incivility, harassment, or sexual harassment,
• Discriminatory conduct based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, transgender status, age, national origin, citizenship, language, disability, religion, marital status, veteran status, political affinity, or any other characteristic protected by U.S. law.
• Retaliation against any Participant for reporting activity that they reasonably believed to be in violation of this Policy or for participating in the investigation of such activity,
• Knowingly and falsely reporting violations of behavior or conduct in bad faith, 
• Activities that are dishonest, fraudulent, illegal, or that clearly are not professional or consistent with the mission and goals of AASP and its Code of Ethics, including plagiarism,
• Deliberate intimidation, bullying, threatening, stalking, or pursuing others,
• Exhibiting behavior that is disruptive, or that endangers the health or safety of oneself or others including spam (verbally or in chats), or saying or reposting the same word/content repeatedly to disrupt the conversation,
• Sustained disruption of portions of any AASP Activity, regardless of whether the Participant has been directly asked to cease or stop the disruption,
• Invasion of privacy,
• Actual or threatened pushing, shoving, or use of any physical force whatsoever against any Participant,
• Possession or use of a weapon or any other item in a way that may cause danger to or threaten others,
• Destruction, theft, dismantlement, defacement, abuse, or intentional misuse of property belonging to AASP, a Participant, or a contracted venue,
• Theft, misappropriation and/or violation of property rights including intellectual property,
• Intentional failure to comply with directions of AASP staff, or venue personnel regarding operations or emergency response procedures.  

What if Such Behavior Occurs?

AASP encourages Participants to explore self-resolution and advocacy (i.e., self-, individual, and systems; see Appendix B) to the extent possible. Anyone who believes incivility, harassment, or retaliation is taking place (against anyone) might opt to ask the offender(s) to stop, if they feel comfortable and safe doing so. At any time, a concerned party/parties may lodge a formal complaint. In addition, they may address their concerns outside the AASP organization by reporting to law enforcement at any time.

To the extent possible, anyone experiencing or witnessing potential incivility, harassment or retaliation should keep detailed records of all relevant incidents, including dates, places, photographs, electronic messages, notes, and names of potential witnesses.

Informal Discussions with AASP Civility Resolution Committee Member(s)

Anyone in the AASP community may discuss concerns about possible incivility, harassment, or retaliation with a member of the AASP CRC. Concerns may be shared anonymously, but further details (e.g., names of those involved) may be needed should the concerned party/parties want AASP to take action. There are two confidential processes to share concerns with the CRC: (a) contact a CRC member for consultation, or (b) filing a formal complaint. A CRC consultation may be used to ask a question or request guidance on how to resolve concerns. A consultation request is not the same as a complaint. If you are not sure which process to use, please contact a member of the CRC for guidance. CRC email addresses are available on the AASP website at https://appliedsportpsych.org/about-the-association-for-applied-sport-psychology/executive-board/.

Initial complaints may be received by any of the following individuals who may be able to help the individual navigate the complaint process: 

• AASP Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Belonging & Justice (DEIBJ) Division Head
• AASP President
• AASP President-Elect
• AASP Immediate Past-President
• AASP Professional Standards Division Head
• AASP Executive Director

Informal Resolution Options 

If a concerned party is interested in pursuing informal resolution, that can potentially take a range of forms, including but not limited to:

• Communicating concerns verbally to the alleged offender(s), if they feel comfortable and safe doing so.
• Communicating concerns in writing to the alleged offender(s), if they feel comfortable and safe doing so.
• Having a trusted third party facilitate a conversation among all parties. 

Formal Complaints

Conflict of Interest. CRC members will recuse themselves from all discussions and decisions surrounding a complaint if they are a party to the complaint or have any conflict of interest with respect to any of the parties involved. Conflicts of interest are defined based on: 

• Family relationships (blood or by marriage, adoption, domestic partnership, or cohabitation).
• Strong personal relationships (significant other, close friendship, etc.), either current or within the last five years.
• Employee/employer relationships.
• Mentoring relationships (in contexts such as education, internship, or employment), either current or within the last five years.
• Significant collaboration (project co-investigators, substantive co-authorship, active consultancy, grant or contract, etc.), either current or within the last five years.
• Financial gain – potential or actual.
• Previous conflict, tensions, or affinity with any party in the complaint.

Statement of Complaint. At any time, anyone in the AASP community may file a formal complaint of incivility, harassment, and/or retaliation. The complaint may be verbal or written, but all complainants will be encouraged to put their formal complaints in writing. These complaints may be submitted to any member of the CRC or the AASP Executive Director. If all members of the CRC are implicated in the complaint, or if these individuals are too closely connected to the matter or to the alleged offender(s), complainant(s) may opt to submit their written complaints to another member of the AASP Executive Board.

A formal complaint may be filed against an AASP member by another AASP member or by a non-AASP member (e.g., member of the public). Please note that an AASP complaint cannot be filed against a non-AASP member. If there is a concern about a non-AASP member, please consult with the AASP Presidential Trio (i.e., President, President-Elect, and Past President) or the Executive Director for guidance. 

A complaint should be submitted if it is believed that there has been a violation of the AASP Civility and Anti-Harassment Policy. It is helpful to provide supporting documentation of the allegations, when possible, but a complaint can still be filed without any supporting documentation. The details of the complaint may become known to the AASP Presidential Trio, the Professional Standards Division Head, the DEIBJ Division Head, and/or the Executive Director. The information within the complaint will be kept confidential by the parties mentioned above who have access to the complaint. If there is a special circumstance and the complainant wishes to remain anonymous to the person whom the complaint is against, please contact the CRC Chair to discuss whether that would be possible given the nature of the complaint. In most cases, the person who files a complaint cannot be anonymous to the CRC because the CRC needs to review the complaint details. 

The formal statement of complaint should include the following:

• Name(s) of complainant(s), alleged offender(s), and potential witnesses if any.
• Detailed description of the conduct that forms the basis of the complaint.
• Any supporting evidence, if available, such as photographs, electronic messages, notes, or witness statements (such evidence is not required, however, to file a formal complaint).

Two Formal Complaint Options

After the initiation of a formal complaint, the CRC Chair, another CRC member, and/or the Executive Director will contact the complainant(s) to determine whether they wish to pursue a Level 1 or Level 2 complaint. The following distinctions will be explained:

• Level 2 Complaint: The purpose of a Level 2 complaint is to maintain a record of violations of this policy. This documentation will enable the AASP Administrative Office to track if there are multiple violations by the same individual and if there is a need to escalate the complaint to a Level 1 complaint. The statement of complaint and any supporting evidence will be stored in a secure and confidential manner with the AASP Administrative Office if it is determined to be a plausible violation of this policy, but will trigger no formal investigation.

Investigation of a Level 2 Complaint. The CRC will evaluate in a timely manner the documentation supporting the complaint and the response by the alleged offender, then make a determination of whether it is plausible a violation of this policy occurred. Level 2 complaints should be substantiated sufficiently to enable a plausible conclusion that incivility, harassment, or retaliation likely occurred. The alleged offender should be given up to fifteen (15) business days to provide a written response, if they so choose; a response is not required. The alleged offender should be provided with sufficient information about the allegation to make an informed response; this response will become part of the documentation recorded in the Administrative Office if the complaint is determined to be plausible. To the extent possible and if requested by the complainant, the complainant’s identity should remain confidential. 

The CRC may make a finding of plausible incivility, harassment, or retaliation based solely on the credibility of the complainant’s allegation. The complainant’s account must be sufficiently detailed and internally consistent so as to be plausible, and lack of corroborative evidence where such evidence logically should exist could undermine the allegation. By the same token, a general denial by the alleged offender will carry little weight when it is contradicted by other evidence. A contemporaneous complaint by the victim would be persuasive evidence both that the conduct plausibly occurred and that it was unwelcome. So too is evidence that other Participants were treated with incivility or harassed by the same person. The information within the complaint will be kept confidential by the parties mentioned above.

If the Administrative Office has record of a prior formal complaint against the same alleged offender(s)--or if such a complaint is filed subsequently--the Level 2 complainant(s) will be notified of this fact and asked if they wish to elevate their complaint to Level 1. Complainant(s) will have the option of elevating a Level 2 complaint to a Level 1 complaint at any time, requesting a full investigation. In cases of multiple individuals filing a single Level 2 complaint, that particular complaint cannot be elevated to Level 1 without the express consent of all complainants (any of those complainants, however, may file their own separate Level 1 complaint).

• Level 1 Complaint: Triggers a full investigation by the CRC as described below.

Investigation of a Level 1 Complaint. The CRC Chair will acknowledge receipt of the complaint and inform the Executive Director of the complaint, will review the complaint within 48 business hours of receiving it, and then will send an electronic copy to the full CRC Committee for confidential review. The CRC will have 7-10 business days to review the complaint; discussions and deliberations will remain confidential within the committee. If there is a need to get consultation about an issue from the Executive Board and/or the Executive Director, it may add 1-2 business days to the process. The complainant will be advised of outcomes of these discussions sufficient to explain the CRC’s actions. If the CRC finds the complaint likely represents a violation of the AASP Ethics Code, it will be referred to the AASP Ethics Committee for adjudication. (For information on the Ethics Committee procedure, click here.

Determination of Sanctions, Education, or Training. The CRC will decide (1) whether this policy has been violated and, if so, (2) what sanctions, education, and/or training should follow. Sanctions for violation of this policy should be proportionate to the underlying offense, applied swiftly, and applied consistently across different cases of similar offenses. More severe penalties may be warranted when retaliation occurs following an initial complaint or when offenses are repeated.

Sanctions, in increasing severity, may include but are not limited to the following:

• Written reprimand or warning, including cease and desist notification.
• Completion of training (e.g., sexual harassment training) as a term of continued AASP membership.
• Removal from an AASP volunteer position.
• Temporary or permanent suspension from publishing in AASP journals and other publications.
• Temporary or permanent suspension from attendance at AASP-sponsored meetings and/or events.
• Temporary suspension of AASP membership.

Sanctions for or extreme or egregious violations may include:

• Permanent expulsion from AASP. 
• Revocation of AASP honors and awards, including AASP fellowship.   

Once final decisions are made regarding policy violations and sanctions, the findings and sanction decisions will be shared with the complainant(s) and alleged offender(s), ensuring transparency of process. 

Appeals. After receiving a summary of findings and decisions, the alleged offender(s) will have up to 15 (fifteen) business days to file an appeal with the AASP President (or the Past President and President-elect, if the President is implicated in the complaint or has been recused for any reason). The appeal must be based on new evidence or reconsideration of existing evidence and must include a written narrative justification for the appeal. 

The AASP President (or the Past President and President-elect, if the President is implicated or recused) will appoint an Appeals Panel to adjudicate the appeal, consisting of three AASP Fellows who are not implicated in the complaint and have no conflict of interest with respect to any of the parties involved. CRC members who participated in the initial determination are recused from the appeal. 

One member of the Appeals Panel will contact the original complainant(s) to make the fact known that an appeal has been filed. Complainant(s) will then have up to fifteen (15) business days to provide a written response, if they so choose; a complainant response is not required, however, for the appeal to proceed. 

The Appeals Panel will review all documentation from the original complaint and the appeal process, and will make one of four recommendations to the AASP President:

• Uphold the determination of policy violation and decision on sanctions;
• Uphold the determination of policy violation, but revise the sanctions;
• Revise the determination of policy violation and revise the sanctions;
• Refer the case back to the CRC for further investigation. 

If asked to reopen the investigation, the CRC will receive all documentation from the appeal, interview/re-interview individuals as needed, and will submit a second determination of findings to the Executive Board and Executive Director.

Upon receipt of the Appeals Panel recommendation and investigation report, the CRC will again meet to decide (1) whether this policy has been violated and, if so, (2) what sanctions, education, and/or training should follow.

Once the appeal process is concluded, the AASP President (or the Past President and President-elect, if the President is implicated or recused) will promptly share a summary of findings and sanction decisions with the complainant(s) and alleged offender(s). 

Closure and Double Jeopardy. Once action has been taken by AASP following a formal complaint under this policy, that complaint is considered closed with the exception of a single appeal. The same complaint may not be pursued independently through another AASP process after a decision is made or after an appeal is concluded. 

Confidentiality. Any communication or information gathered in any case, whether a Level 1 or Level 2 complaint, is confidential except to the extent that disclosure is necessary to (1) implement this policy or (2) undertake disciplinary or remedial steps arising from a complaint made under this policy. All of those involved should treat all documents and details with the highest degree of confidentiality throughout and after the complaint process. Failure to do so would be cause for removal from a leadership position and potentially other sanctions depending on the circumstances.

All AASP volunteers (e.g., members of the CRC, Executive Board, Appeals Panel) who have documentation surrounding a complaint, investigation, or appeal on their personal devices will destroy all such documentation.

Tracking of Allegations and Decisions. All formal complaints will be recorded in the same manner as are complaints to the AASP Ethics Committee. That is, the CRC Chair will be responsible for entering data on each formal investigation into the Excel file designated for this purpose on the AASP web platform (currently Google Workspace). This data file will be maintained across years to provide a longitudinal record. The Excel spreadsheet will enable both quantitative and qualitative analyses that can be used to identify trends in complaints. Each entry will include who entered the data, a case number (i.e., Year-number such as 2024-CP-01, 2024-CP-02, etc.), the date the complaint occurred, the date the case was closed, the open/closed status of the case, that the complaint came forward under the AASP Civility policy, the nature of the issue (de-identified), and how the issue was resolved.  

The same case number will be attached to detailed information on formal complaints provided to AASP association management staff that is kept in a secured and confidential location in the Administrative Office. This report includes the identity of the individual(s) involved in formal complaints; as such, it can be determined if the individual is a repeat offender. 

Immediate Action by AASP Leadership

Participants in AASP Activities are expected to follow the reasonable directives of AASP Officers and the Executive Director who are authorized to take immediate action they deem necessary and appropriate, including refused admission or removal at an AASP Activity to ensure the safety, security, and well-being of Participants. In cases where the AASP Professional Standards Division Head, DEIBJ Division Head, President, and/or Executive Director learns of a possible policy violation and believes that immediate action must be undertaken (e.g., a hostile individual must be removed to ensure the safety of an event), they may take such action. Whatever action is taken must be documented in writing, including a justification and explanation of the emergency, and submitted to the AASP Executive Board. The Executive Board will then decide what (if any) follow-up action the situation warrants.

Misuse of the AASP Civility and Anti-Harassment Policy

All formal complaints are taken seriously. AASP reserves the right to address any allegations of egregious behavior as it deems necessary. Knowingly filing a false claim or providing false information in the context of this policy including frivolous/capricious claims, vexatious claims, or malicious claims intended to cause harm, will be considered a violation of this policy and will be grounds for a complaint under this policy. Filing a complaint in good faith, even if not substantiated, does not constitute misuse of this policy.

Misconduct at Other Organizations

When AASP learns through court documents or the public findings of other organizations (e.g., law enforcement, employers) that a member has been formally found responsible for misconduct prohibited by this policy, the Executive Board may consider its own sanctions. For instance, if the AASP Executive Board learns that a member has been convicted of sexual or physical assault, it may wish to suspend the privilege of attending AASP events, revoke AASP fellowship and other awards, and/or terminate AASP membership.

Disclosure of Potential Nominee Misconduct

When individuals are nominated for AASP offices, awards, recognitions, or fellowship, they are required to self-disclose if any organization, including AASP (1) is currently investigating them, or (2) has in the past found them responsible for misconduct prohibited by this policy. 

When individuals nominate others for AASP offices, awards, recognitions, or fellowship, the nominators must disclose whether any organization, including AASP, to their knowledge (1) is currently investigating their nominee, or (2) has in the past found their nominee responsible for misconduct prohibited by this policy.

If a nominee or nominator discloses a current investigation or past finding of responsibility for misconduct prohibited by this policy, that information will be relayed to the AASP leadership in charge of that particular nomination process (e.g., in the case of a fellow nominee, the information will be relayed to the Fellow Review Committee Chair). What follows will be left to the discretion of that leadership, in consultation with the Division Head or the Presidential Trio.

Communications

This policy will be widely publicized (e.g., posted on the AASP website, displayed throughout conference venues, published in meeting programs) so that all AASP members, staff, and others who are part of AASP activities are aware of it. Names and contact information of individuals to whom concerns or complaints may be addressed (i.e., CRC Members, Executive Board Members, Executive Director) will be publicized alongside the policy. 

A summary report of formal harassment complaints and their dispositions, removing all identifying details, will be made available to the AASP membership annually. These summary reports will keep the community informed and demonstrate that AASP takes this policy and complaints filed under it seriously. The reports will be written to protect the identities of all individuals involved in complaints, while also providing minimal descriptions and statistical summaries. If there have been too few complaints in a given year to summarize them without revealing the identities of the parties involved, AASP may aggregate across multiple years in creating the summary report. 

References

• Association for Applied Sport Psychology Ethics Committee Consultation Requests and Complaints (2020). https://appliedsportpsych.org/site/assets/files/1035/aasp_ethics_committee_consultation_and_complaint_format_revised_april_2020.pdf
• Holtgraves, T. (2023). Microaggressions in Context: Linguistic and Pragmatic Perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 733–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221133824
• International Ombuds Association (2023).  Policy Concern and Complaint Policy and Procedures. https://www.ombudsassociation.org/ioa-concern---complaint-policy#concern-complaint-policy
• Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology (2020). Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology Anti-Harassment Policy. https://0-www-siop-org.library.alliant.edu/Portals/84/2020%20Governance%20Updates/SIOP%20Anti-Harassment%20Policy%20April%202020.pdf?ver=2020-04-30-164045-983
• Smith, I. A., & Griffiths, A. (2022). Microaggressions, Everyday Discrimination, Workplace Incivilities, and Other Subtle Slights at Work: A Meta-Synthesis. Human Resource Development Review, 21(3), 275–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843221098756
• Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1999). Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/policy-guidance-current-issues-sexual-harassment
• U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2024). Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/policy-guidance-current-issues-sexual-harassment
• Yao, J., Lim, S., Guo, C. Y., Ou, A. Y., & Ng, J. W. X. (2022). Experienced incivility in the workplace: A meta-analytical review of its construct validity and nomological network. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(2), 193–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000870

This policy was crafted by Elizabeth L. Shoenfelt with input from the 2023-2024 AASP Executive Board, the AASP Ethics Committee, the AASP Advocacy Committee, and the AASP Diversity Committee. The Policy was approved by the AASP E-Board May 2024. 

Appendix A: 
Incivility, Harassment, and Retaliation Explained 

Incivility and microaggressions (i.e., micro-incivilities) both are low-intensity interactions, characterized by subtle disrespect, condescension, and character-based discrimination that would not be uniformly recognized as overt acts of discrimination and, by definition, do not identify the intention (hostile or well-meant) of the person who delivers a slight. It is the perception and impact on the recipient of the behavior, rather than the intent of the actor, that determines whether the act constitutes incivility, harassment, or retaliation.

Incivility refers to low intensity, non-physical forms of mistreatment with ambiguous intent to harm and in violation of professional norms for mutual respect. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others. 

Microaggressions refer to brief, everyday exchanges that are inherently ambiguous that indirectly send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership/identity (e.g., people of color, women, or LGBTQ+ persons). Sue et al. (2007) defined microaggressions as brief, commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or situational indignities, intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults toward people based on their identity. Microaggressions may be characterized as microassaults, microinsults, and/or microinvalidations. Context is critical for the interpretation of microaggressions, including the prior discourse, the roles and statuses of the interactants, and the reactions of the recipient (and bystanders) to a perceived microaggression. Because microaggressions are indirect, the speaker, especially if they are higher in power, may deny any aggressive meaning. The situation should be considered as a whole and the totality of circumstances, evaluating each situation on a case-by-case basis.

Uncivil behaviors take many forms. Because of their ambiguous nature, the interpretation of uncivil behaviors is dependent on context and the impact on the recipient. The same behavior in different contexts may or may not constitute incivility. Thus, it is challenging to delineate uncivil behaviors. However, the list below contains examples of behavior that would constitute incivility in most contexts.  

Examples of Uncivil Behaviors 

Uncivil behaviors take many forms including but not limited to: 

• sending a nasty and demeaning note (hate mail)
• spreading rumors or repeating gossip
• making demeaning or derogatory remarks
• disrespecting individuals by comments, gestures, or behaviors (hostility) based on characteristics such as their race, religion, gender, etc.
• insulting others
• not giving credit where credit is due
• undermining other’s credibility in front of other individuals
• repeatedly talking over others
• continuing criticism for seemingly small issues
• making unwarranted assumptions about a colleague’s honesty
• humiliating teasing / banter
• other forms of cyber-bullying, threats, and other uncivil behavior conducted in virtual spaces, listservs, and on social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, etc.

Harassment refers to unwanted, unwelcomed, demeaning, abusive, humiliating, or offensive behaviors. This policy covers verbal, visual, physical, and electronic harassment. It encompasses both identity-based harassment (e.g., based on sex, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or any other social identity) and identity-blind harassment (that is, generic harassment tied to no particular identity, such as bullying). Simple teasing, offhand comments, petty slights, annoyances, or isolated incidents that are not serious are not prohibited, but this behavior becomes harassment when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive environment.

Examples of harassing behavior include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Derogatory verbal behavior such as epithets, slurs, or negative stereotyping.
• Physical or verbal threats.
• Outbursts of anger, shouting, or profanity directed toward others.
• Comments, jokes, gossip, gestures, or criticisms that have the effect of disparaging or humiliating others.
• Behaviors that exclude, silence, isolate, undermine, or sabotage an individual.
• Physical assault of any kind.
• Conduct, comments, or displaying images that a person would reasonably find offensive, demeaning, or hostile.
• Intimidation or threats, including sharing images or text to threaten.
• Negative, unwelcome, or offensive verbal, visual, or physical conduct directed at any Participant based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression or identity, transgender status, age, national origin, citizenship, language, disability, religion, marital status, veteran status, political affinity, or any other characteristic protected by U.S. law.
• Any activity meant to convey or cultivate hostility including ad hominem insults or other attacks; and encouraging any of the above behavior.

Sexual Harassment includes unwelcomed, unsolicited, or unreciprocated sexual advances or sexual attention including sharing images, graphics, or text that sexually objectifies, denigrates, or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or a group; requests for sexual favors, unwelcomed sexual advances, pressure for dates, sexual exploitation, other verbal, visual, or physical conduct or gestures of a sexual nature that might reasonably be expected or perceived to offend, humiliate, or intimidate another person.

Retaliation refers to negative social or professional actions – or threats of negative actions – taken against those who complain about incivility or harassment, provide evidence of incivility or harassment, or participate in investigations of incivility or harassment. Retaliation can take many forms, including the harassing actions described above. It may seek to interfere with an individual’s job or education (e.g., denying a strong reference despite strong performance, removing resources or opportunities for advancement). Retaliation also may aim to interfere with an individual’s interpersonal relations with others (e.g., ostracism, name-calling, rumor-spreading). 

 
Appendix B:
Types of Advocacy

Advocacy involves promoting the interests or cause of someone or a group of people. An advocate is a person who argues for, recommends, or supports a cause or policy. Advocacy is also about helping people find their voice. There are three types of advocacy - self-advocacy, individual advocacy and systems advocacy. 

Self-Advocacy
Self-advocacy refers to being your own advocate and the ability to effectively communicate, convey, negotiate, or assert your own interests, desires, needs, and rights. Self-advocacy means understanding and asserting your strengths and needs, identifying your personal goals, practicing self-protection and self-determination, knowing your legal rights and responsibilities, and communicating these to others to use your voice effectively to obtain support and needed services. Self-Advocacy is speaking up for oneself, being your own advocate. 

Individual Advocacy
Individual advocacy is being an advocate for another person. This type of advocacy involves making decisions with and on behalf of individuals to support their needs and desires. In individual advocacy a person or group of people concentrate their efforts on just one or two individuals. According to the group Advocacy for Inclusion "Advocacy is having someone to stand beside you if you think something is unfair or that someone is treating you badly and you would like to do something to change it."

There are two common forms of individual advocacy - informal and formal advocacy. When people like parents, friends, family members or agencies speak out and advocate for vulnerable people this is termed informal advocacy. Formal advocacy more frequently involves organizations that pay their staff to advocate for someone or for a group of individuals.

Systems Advocacy
Systems advocacy is actively working toward change in public policy, law, or rules at the local, state, or national level to improve systems of support and services that impact how ones lives their life. This type of advocacy reduces or removes barriers through enhancing public awareness, referral, mediation, legal action, and legislative solutions. The focus can be changing laws, or simply written or unwritten policy. What is targeted depends on the type of problem and who has authority over the problem. 

These three types of advocacy are not mutually exclusive. They can co-exist, be integrated, and build off each other. As AASP members, we value sharing power, amplifying voices, and standing with and for those most vulnerable. 

References

• https://appliedsportpsych.org/media/news-releases-and-association-updates/association-for-applied-sport-psychology-advocacy-committee-position-statement/
• https://cedwvu.org/resources/types-of-advocacy/#:~:text=Advocacy%20is%20also%20about%20helping,individual%20advocacy%20and%20systems%20advocacy