Version dated 04/03/2021 - PDF version - DOC version - French version
History and process du IRIF charter / Charte de l'IRIF (Intranet)

• The Charter
• Examples of specific situations
• Articles of law

IRIF Members Charter by IRIF is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://www.irif.fr/en/informations/charte.

Each of us must be able to develop in the best possible working environment, whether in the laboratory premises or outside (assignments, conferences, committees, etc.). Based on our founding values, such as the principles of equality, transparency, and mutual respect, IRIF seeks to ensure a working environment that guarantees everyone equal treatment and opportunities, open to diversity, safe, respectful, and free from discrimination and harassment.

This charter describes these founding principles and their methods of application. It has an educational mission and aims to ensure that each and every one can become aware of certain situations and question their own behaviour.

Although the charter seeks first and foremost to be of a more general nature, it describes situations that may be encountered by certain populations to which IRIF wishes to pay particular attention, such as women, doctoral students, research support staff, and non-French speakers. Secondly, the charter draws on examples of situations which add specificity to the general statements.

Regarding the ethical aspects of the profession, we refer the reader to the very comprehensive code of ethics of the CNRS (National Centre of Scientific Research)¹⁾.

IRIF wishes to guarantee everyone equal treatment and opportunities, thus creating an attractive environment for a wide variety of profiles: fair working conditions, opportunities for the correct integration into the laboratory with a view to harmonious collaboration, and transparent, objective and impartial assessments.

IRIF endeavours, in decision-making situations, whether in recruitment, employment and working conditions, or career development and progression, to guarantee equal treatment and equal opportunity for all. In particular, in any scientific or professional assessment situation, IRIF requires:

• The production of recommendations in order to avoid bias and discrimination
• The constitution of committees with varied profiles
• The provision of indicators of representativeness of the community
• The use of transparent and objective criteria
• A systematic declaration of any conflict of interest, even slight, whether relational, collaborative, or hierarchical

IRIF categorically rejects any discriminatory act that could, directly or indirectly, hinder the professional career of each and every one. These acts may or may not affect minority groups, and be linked, for example, to their origins, sex, age, disability, opinions, etc.²⁾

In order to better identify specific discrimination against certain minorities present (or not) in the laboratory, IRIF encourages the creation of discussion spaces (committees or events) dedicated to improving the identification of such situations.

IRIF is committed to protecting diversity, which constitutes an asset, both for its work environment and for the development of science, and to maintaining this in its scientific and professional community. IRIF calls for vigilance, in practices and communication, in order to maintain and promote diversity within the laboratory, and encourages its members to do the same.

The laboratory is a multicultural environment, and brings together non-French-speaking members, in particular among its doctoral students, postdocs and visitors, all of whom may find themselves isolated in an environment that is only French-speaking. The laboratory asks not to discredit comments made in a language that a person may not be proficient in, whether it is French or English.

The laboratory also brings together various professions essential to the support of research, who should be respected and integrated. IRIF therefore asks that no-one be isolated, that all of its members be actively included, and that everyone's presence be taken into account in all communication.

IRIF promotes a work environment that guarantees personal dignity and a climate of trust and respect, where everyone is welcome and encouraged to express themselves confidently and naturally. At the same time, each and every one must reflect on their modes of expression, put themselves in the other person's situation, and question the impact of their behaviour on the other. Everyone's work must be respected. The laboratory draws attention to the fact that the points below, without being exhaustive, may harm this climate of confidence and lead to moral harassment:

• Repeated interruptions when someone is speaking
• Attempts at intimidation or undermining confidence
• Any intrusive or disparaging remarks, in particular comments or jokes referring to personal characteristics or stereotypes, whether written or verbal, offending the dignity of the person
• Acts against a person, the object or effect of which is to worsen working conditions that may infringe upon their rights and dignity, alter their physical or mental health, or compromise their future career

IRIF also alerts on situations of moral harassment which can develop more easily than it seems, sometimes without our own knowledge, thanks to over-strong psychological pressures or working methods that do not respect each individual's pace. IRIF is therefore opposed to the following practices, in all settings (administration, teaching, and research), which are particularly harmful when they are carried out against doctoral students or research support staff:

• Setting goals that cannot be reached without help or intermediate targets
• Setting deadlines at the last minute
• Sending several emails per day on the same subject requiring an immediate response or formulating requests without consideration for the person receiving them
• Imposing their work pace on others without taking into account their possible constraints, for example in the evening or at weekends
• Threatening with reprisals in the event of delay or lack of results

During their studies or their careers, and particularly when they occupy temporary positions, the women of our scientific community are too often victims of inappropriate, discriminatory or even violent behaviour or comments. These situations interfere with the course of their professional life, and force some to abandon or change their career. This state of affairs is partly inherited from gender inequalities in society, and is reinforced by the very low number of women in our community.

These behaviours, whether they are sexist acts or sexual harassment, not only affect women but can extend to any type of profile, and take different forms depending on the situation, especially among LGBT+ people. IRIF is therefore implementing a prevention policy against any behaviour of this type, and is fighting firmly against this. The laboratory rejects in particular:

• The circulation of comments, images or videos of a sexual, discriminatory or violent nature in the laboratory
• Inappropriate comments on clothing
• Questions relating to intimacy, orientation, and sexual practices
• Unsolicited physical contact
• Non-reciprocal attentions, or unwanted solicitations, of a sexual or romantic nature, as well as insistent invitations to go out together despite a refusal

IRIF also strongly advises against:

• Romantic relationships between supervisee and supervisor, or between people linked by a hierarchical relationship, which constitute a conflict of interest
• And in particular, for any manager or supervisor, to initiate or encourage them

IRIF also intends to be an inclusive, respectful and welcoming space for the LGBT+ community, and as such supports the LGBT+ Commitment Charter of l'Autre Cercle³⁾.

Whether you are a member or visitor of IRIF, if you are a victim or witness of acts in contradiction of any of the points of this charter, on the laboratory premises or outside, rely on the charter, recalling its principles and examples, and do not isolate yourself, or downplay or reject the situation.

It is also important to inform the laboratory's management, who are there to bring help and assistance to anyone from IRIF, whether a member or a visitor.

If you are a victim, there is also a possibility to contact other intermediaries, closer to you or otherwise more neutral, who are also there to listen to you and help you:

• Thematic team or sectoral managers
• Doctoral correspondents, members of the gender equality committee
• Prevention assistant
• CNRS, University of Paris or Inria medical or psychosocial services
• External partners and associations

The laboratory intranet can also be useful: contacts, possible actions, and related documentation⁴⁾.

These situations, anonymised and often partly fictitious, seek to make the previously mentioned principles more specific. This list, which is not intended to be exhaustive, still lacks diversity and is therefore likely to be added to.

Situation 0

• Having read this charter, I have the impression that I will never again be able to say or do anything in a natural way.

Situation 1

• When I put forward an idea, nobody listens, but when someone with more experience or a man repeats it, the group takes note. I find this very frustrating, what should I do?

Situations 2

• During meetings, a colleague of mine made disrespectful personal remarks against another member of the lab. This attitude creates a tense atmosphere, and his behaviour is insulting. How should I react without sounding like someone who doesn't have a sense of humour?
• A colleague of mine regularly makes sexist or racist jokes that make me uncomfortable. What should I do?
• A colleague of mine regularly makes derogatory remarks about LGBT+ people, without realising that there may be such people around him/her. What should I do?
• In another laboratory, or at a conference, I was the victim of overtly racist / anti LGBT+ comments. Everyone was clearly uncomfortable, but no one spoke up or contacted me afterwards. I felt very isolated.

Situations 3

• The last time there was a terrorist attack, I was asked at work about my position on this subject. I feel that a personal and explicit condemnation of these attacks is expected of me because of my origins and/or real or supposed beliefs.
• I come from a predominantly Muslim country. It is assumed that I am a Muslim myself. I am asked why I am not wearing a veil. Or furthermore, people think that I am oppressed, and that I need to liberate myself as a woman.

Situation 4

• Colleagues systematically exclude research support staff from conversations, carrying on with their scientific conversation, including in the presence of these people (coffee, drink, meal). How should I react, since deep down I want to talk about science?

Situations 5

• A male colleague always gives me a kiss on the cheek in the morning because I am a woman, while another never shakes my hand, even though he does so with other male colleagues present, on the pretext that I am a woman. These two situations make me uncomfortable. How can I remedy them?
• When I arrive in a group, I usually greet people I know with a kiss or a handshake, but I only give a simple hello to those I know less, maybe because I'm more hesitant about their cultural practices. I realise that my behaviour may possibly isolate these people.

Situation 6

• I have natural hair that people often ask me to touch, or they do so directly.

Situation 7

• A retired member of the laboratory is still very present there. He/she is now much more available and ready to help in a number of tasks, where he/she could share his/her skills and “experience”: organisation of events, proofreading of articles or administrative files, etc. He/she is however little sought after, sometimes feels like a “has been”, and often feels suspicious of others. In summary, he/she hears the phrase “why don't you really retire (well deserved)?” rather loudly, even if it is not actually said. What can each of the protagonists (retiree and laboratory) do?

Situation 8

• A member of the laboratory has, at this time, very serious personal or professional constraints/difficulties (return from maternity leave, family obligations, sickness/disability, significant administrative responsibilities, etc.). He/she has the impression that he/she is no longer asked to participate in scientific projects, taking on responsibilities, or organising conferences, and is taking it badly. However, the nearby group adopts this position in order to protect the person, until the moment when he/she is no longer available. Is the person right? What can each of the protagonists do (member in difficulty, nearby group)?

Situation 9

• I have been asked to be on an awards panel. I have worked with one of the candidates, but I think I can be objective in my assessment. I therefore do not intend to mention the conflict of interest, which might cast doubt on my support, especially since I am the most qualified person to defend the candidate's case. Am I wrong?

Situation 10

• An important scientific result comes from the collaboration between two authors, one of whom is much better known than the other. Following and fuelling a stereotyping, the scientific community attributes all the benefits of the result to the most famous author, to the detriment of the other. What can be done to counter this stereotyping? How is one to handle the situation when the co-authors are in a relationship?

Situation 11

• How can I express a romantic attraction to a colleague, without creating a feeling of discomfort that might affect the person and his or her working conditions?

Situation 12

• How does sexual harassment manifest itself? How do you judge that a behaviour is considered sexist or sexual harassment, and that the limits have been exceeded, whether in the laboratory or during a conference?

Situation 13

• At conferences, it is sometimes difficult to find a place to work. My hotel room often becomes a workspace. How can I invite a colleague or a student to work in my room without ambiguity?

Situation 14

• I am supervising the thesis of someone with whom I have, or would like to initiate, a romantic relationship. What problems could arise? Is it appropriate to continue this supervision?⁶⁾

Situation 15

• My thesis supervisor's attitude makes me uncomfortable. His/her communication is ambiguous and lacks empathy. I'm never sure if he/she is criticising me or not, and he/she never gives me a clear lead to help me improve. I feel very affected, and am beginning to doubt my abilities. What should I do?

Situation 16

• I have the impression that my supervisor does not treat all of his/her doctoral students equally, and that I am often excluded from certain projects and collaborations, unlike the other doctoral students.

Situation 17

• The integration of my non-French speaking doctoral students is made difficult due to the language problem: in the laboratory and all around me, communication is mainly in French. Can I ask that we speak English by default?

Situations 18

• Being of foreign origin, when I make an substantive comment on a work in French (for example, the organisation or the content of a presentation, report, request for funding, etc.), my French and my accent are often picked on, or I am told that in France we do things differently, without giving me any meaningful answers. What should I do?
• Colleagues systematically exclude non-French-speaking visitors from conversations, maintaining their conversation in French, including when it concerns these same visitors. How should I react, since speaking French is also an essential right?

Situations 19

• I have to write an email which may concern non-French speaking members of the laboratory but I don't have the time or the capacity to translate it into English, what should I do?
• My level in French does not allow me to understand emails, yet some contain important information and are only written in French. What should I do?

This section groups together the applicable laws, so that everyone can understand the legal definitions of the terms mentioned in the charter.

No distinction, direct or indirect, can be made between civil servants on the basis of their sex.

No civil servant must be subjected to sexist acts, defined as any act related to the sex of a person, the object or effect of which is to undermine their dignity or to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.

I. - Sexual harassment is the act of repeatedly imposing on a person words or behaviour of a sexual or sexist nature that offends his or her dignity by reason of their degrading or humiliating character, or creating against the person an intimidating, hostile, or offensive situation.

The offence also consists of:

1. When these comments or behaviours are imposed on the same victim by several people, in a concerted manner or at the instigation of one of them, even though each of them has not acted repeatedly
2. When these words or behaviours are imposed on the same victim, successively, by several people who, even in the absence of concertation, know that these remarks or behaviours characterise a repetition

II. - Assimilated sexual harassment is the use, even if not repeated, of any form of serious pressure for the real or apparent purpose of obtaining an act of a sexual nature, whether it is sought for the benefit of the perpetrator of said actions, or for the benefit of a third party.

III. - The acts detailed in I and II are punishable by two years' imprisonment and a €30,000 fine.

These penalties are increased to three years of imprisonment and a €45,000 fine if the offences are committed:

1. By persons abusing the authority conferred upon them by their official position
2. Against a minor under 15 years of age
3. Against a person whose particular vulnerability due to age, illness, infirmity, physical or mental disability, or a state of pregnancy, is apparent or known to the perpetrator
4. Against a person whose particular vulnerability or dependence resulting from the precariousness of his or her economic or social situation is apparent or known to the perpetrator
5. By several persons acting as perpetrator or accomplice
6. By the use of an online public communication service or by means of a digital or electronic medium
7. While a minor was present and attended
8. By an ascendant or by any other person having a de jure or de facto authority over the victim

The harassment of others by repeated remarks or behaviour whose purpose or effect is a deterioration of working conditions which may affect their rights and dignity, impair their physical or mental health, or jeopardise their professional future, is punishable by two years' imprisonment and a fine of €30,000.

Any distinction made between natural persons on the basis of their origin, sex, family status, pregnancy, physical appearance, particular vulnerability resulting from their economic situation, whether apparent or known to the perpetrator, surname, place of residence, state of health, loss of autonomy, disability, genetic characteristics, customs, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, political opinions, trade union activities, ability to express themselves in a language other than French, or their belonging or not belonging, real or supposed, to an ethnic group, nation, alleged race, or specific religion.

Discrimination means any distinction made between persons because they have been subject to or refused to be subject to sexual harassment as defined in Article 222-33, or have testified to such facts, even, in the case mentioned in the same article, if the remarks or behaviour were not repeated.