Ethics Newsline®

Last month my wife and I were riding a double-decker bus up London’s Regent Street. It was a Saturday evening, a few days after Harvard University President Lawrence Summers had flabbergasted the world by suggesting that women might be inherently inferior to men in math and science. The outcry, in Harvard Yard and the pages of the U.S. press, was instant and galvanic, as President Summers (who later apologized) was battered by sternly worded statements insisting on the fundamental equality of the sexes.

Around us on Regent Street, by contrast, there was relative calm. The bus was filled with a polyglot array of teenagers, university students, homeward-bound shop attendants, and neck-craning tourists. Below us, the sidewalks were awash with young people taking advantage of a brisk but dry evening. On the bus and outside, many of them were women, in groups or alone. As far as I could tell, their gender had no bearing on the way they experienced their freedom. Whether or not they were accompanied by men didn’t seem to matter. They traveled the streets with a liberty their ancestors would have felt alarming and inappropriate.

What if our bus had contained the proverbial visitor from Mars, curious about gender differences? He would have found Regent Street a fascinating laboratory. Had he stopped those women to ask, “Do you think females are inherently limited in what they can accomplish?” most would have dismissed that notion out of hand. Over the past century, he would have learned, a defining feature of progress has been the extent to which women have taken their rightful places as full and unfettered citizens in Western societies. Like President Summers’ critics in Harvard Yard, those women would have told him that any hint of gender bias was itself alarming and inappropriate.

But the trendy apparel and accessory shops behind the plate-glass windows of Regent Street would have offered a more complex view. At first blush, they too seemed to celebrate women’s emancipation. They bore witness to the freedom of females to earn their own money and spend it as they wish. They celebrated women’s right to live unencumbered by centuries of conditioning that defined them as mere chattel in a man’s world.

Yet under the surface, the mannequins of Regent Street told another story. In their scant garments, revealing cuts, provocative poses, and sensual photographs — and even in such notorious brand names as “French Connection United Kingdom,” whose large-lettered anagram is ubiquitous on sweatshirts and T-shirts here — the message was plain. The body language of Regent Street insists that women are explicitly designed for sexual pleasure. The windows fairly throb with a mind-numbing demand: You must dress for sex, think of yourselves in sexual terms, and use every opportunity to promote sex.

Why? Because, the mannequins whisper, women are essentially objects of allure. As such, they are absolutely dependent on men, without whom their highest objective goes unfulfilled. What if, as Harvard Yard argues, women are fully equal to men of professional acumen and academic prowess. Regent Street couldn’t care less. That equality, it would say, is either irrelevant to a woman’s destiny or strictly subservient to her true hormonal goals.

So change the question. What if our Martian friend asked, “Do you see anything demeaning in these fashions, anything undermining your freedom and dignity?” I suspect he might be surprised by the indifference. So powerful is the message of woman as sexual icon — driven home through movies, music, television, magazines, and every other avenue of pop culture — that the manipulation has become strangely invisible. Where is the voice of outrage, so fervent in Harvard Yard and other global centers of thought? It’s nowhere to be heard along Regent Street nor in thousands of similar shopping arcades around the world.

If President Summers got it wrong, it may be because he confused something innate (the equality of the genders) with something socialized (a disparity in test scores between men and women). If his critics got it right, it was because they knew the disparity stemmed from conditioning rather than genetics.

If today’s generation of young people is to continue this battle for the equal rights of women, it needs to start bringing the moral outrage of Harvard Yard to the demeaning allure of Regent Street. It can’t succeed in rejecting traditional biases while supporting conventional stereotypes. It can’t demand high moral and intellectual parity while buying into a fashionable debasing of woman’s identity. In such confusions freedom is lost.

©2005 Institute for Global Ethics

“Being the chairman of this committee is an enormous responsibility, and truth be told, it will be somewhat of a relief to be free of that load.”

– Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), discussing his departure as chairman the House ethics committee last week. Hefley became a lightning rod for fellow Republicans angry that the ethics committee recently censured powerful Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) three times for ethics violations. DeLay, an architect of redistricting that helped the Republicans increase their hold on the House, may be implicated in illegal fund raising now under investigation by a federal grand jury. Republican leaders replaced Hefley with Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and appointed two new ethics committee members, both of whom have given money to pay legal defense fees for DeLay, sparking criticism that Republican leadership is stacking the panel to protect DeLay and creating conflicts of interest. Republicans rejected the allegations. (“Donors to DeLay Fund Put on Ethics Panel,” Reuters, Feb. 2)

WASHINGTON
Stung by conflict-of-interest allegations and warning that the trust of the public is at stake, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) last week announced a series of reforms designed to block agency researchers from engaging in potential conflicts of interest.

Under the new measures, thousands of the agency’s employees are required to divest themselves of stock holdings in drug, medical, and biotech firms. The rule applies also to employees’ spouses and dependents.

Other reforms announced by NIH Director Elias Zerhouni ban all staff scientists from accepting consulting fees or other income from drug companies, and bar the acceptance of significant cash prizes for research.

Zerhouni said the changes were necessary following revelations that hundreds of NIH workers were pocketing cash from corporate clients, including those regulated by the NIH.

In one case, an NIH scientist working with Pfizer pulled in more than $500,000 over a period of five years without disclosure, congressional investigators discovered, according to the Los Angeles Times.

In a town-hall-style meeting with staff last week, Zerhouni weathered severe criticism from NIH employees who complained that they were being punished for the egregious behavior of a few coworkers.

Zerhouni said he initially tried to “stand up for his troops,” but was “shot in the back” after congressional investigators found that more than 100 NIH staffers had refused to disclose possible conflicts of interest, reported the Washington Post.

“This issue was standing between the prestigious history of the NIH and its future,” Zerhouni told his staff at a meeting marked by significantly widespread and sharp criticism of the new rules.

Angry employees complained that with certain stocks “at the bottom of a cycle,” the 90-day divestiture demand would be costly and that it was ridiculously broad.

“Even my secretary is going to have to sell her stock. How much sense does that make?” fumed one department chairman at the meeting.

Winning cheers from colleagues, another worker asked whether the new rules “apply to the Department of Energy? To the Department of Agriculture? To the Defense Department?” reported the Post. “If we really want to reassure the public, why don’t we apply these to everyone who gets an NIH grant?” she added.

WASHINGTON
Senior officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) abandoned science in favor of politics when formulating new limits on mercury pollution, the EPA’s inspector general concluded in a report released last week.

Inspector General Nikki Tinsley said the EPA’s scientific analysis had been “compromised” by political goals in an effort to dampen the new regulation’s sting on the energy industry and its Washington allies.

EPA officials denied Tinsley’s charges, saying she was unqualified to evaluate scientific evidence and was jumping to conclusions.

Last week’s scuffle centers on mercury, which is released by coal-burning power plants and has been linked to neurological damage in fetuses and young children, reported the New York Times.

While the Bush administration claims its “Clear Skies” legislation would be sufficient to clean up increasing mercury pollution, others say current anti-pollution technology could do a better job.

According to Tinsley’s investigation, senior EPA officials ordered staff members to make sure the agency’s numbers and analysis favored “Clear Skies,” setting that as an end goal and working backwards to validate it.

“I don’t think anyone has ever seen as much political influence in the development of a rule as we saw in this rule. Everything about this rule was decided at a political level,” an EPA staff member who attended meetings between administrators and staff told the Washington Post. “The political level made the decisions, and the staff did what they were told.”

“Maybe we would have come to the same conclusion (anyway), but we didn’t necessarily look at the other options,” a second staff member added. “We were driven by one option.”

EPA spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman disputed the findings and allegations as “not true,” insisting that Tinsley failed to understand all of the factors involved in the decision-making process.

Tinsley’s report recommends that the EPA reconsider the mercury rule, set for release by March 15, and “conduct an unbiased analysis of the mercury emissions data,” according to the Times.

NEW YORK
Benon Sevan, the head of the United Nations’ Oil-for-Food program, was singled out last week for violating ethics rules and engaging in suspect activity involving the $64 billion humanitarian program.

Sevan violated both U.N. rules and “the standards of integrity essential to a high-level international civil servant,” concluded Paul Volcker, who is heading an independent panel looking into allegations of bribery, bid rigging, and kickbacks involving the Oil-for-Food program, which ran from 1996 through 2003.

Volcker’s team released an interim report last week accusing Sevan of repeatedly soliciting oil contracts on behalf of a small trading company, African Middle East Petroleum, reported CNN.

“The Iraqi government, in providing such allocations, certainly thought they were buying influence,” Volcker said, labeling the matter “a grave and continuing conflict-of-interest situation.”

The interim report also faulted the U.N.’s audit processes and procurement system as inadequate, poorly managed, and negligent in following “established rules … designed to assure fairness and accountability,” according to the New York Times.

Investigations continue into Sevan’s actions, as well as into alleged favoritism for Kojo Annan, the son of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan.

“The findings do not make for pleasant reading,” Volcker said.

Sevan’s lawyer, Eric Lewis, last week denied any wrongdoing by his client, saying he “never took a penny” and was being scapegoated, noted the Times.

WASHINGTON
Saying a federal law barring U.S. companies from doing business with terrorist nations does not apply, oil services giant Halliburton last week said it has won a new contract in Iran.

Halliburton will help Iran develop a gas field, producing 50 million cubic meters per day of treated natural gas for domestic use and 80,000 barrels per day of liquid gas for export, reported the Washington Post.

Federal law bars the “direct or indirect exportation of U.S.-origin goods, services, or technology to Iran,” which is one of President Bush’s “axis of evil” nations, reported the Post.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall insists that the law does not apply, saying her firm would comply by hiring only non-Americans and routing the deal through a Halliburton subsidiary in the Cayman Islands.

Halliburton, which has been fined in the past for doing business with Iran and other black-listed nations, collected $30 million to $40 million from Iranian operations in 2003, noted the Post.

In other news, the U.S. Army last week said it would waive its normal rules and provide Halliburton with full payment for services despite allegations of mismanagement and fraud.

Army auditors, who said that nearly $2 billion worth of work in Iraq and Kuwait had not been adequately accounted for, recommended that the Army withhold $60 million per month — advice the military last week rejected.

LONDON
U.K. businesses need better information and more help when it comes to handling pregnant workers, the government said last week, noting that soon-to-be moms continue to face discrimination in the workplace.

New research from the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) found that roughly 30,000 pregnant women are fired, laid off, or leave work under pressure because of their pregnancy.

Rates of reported bias ranged from a high of 53 percent in the retail sector to a low of 42 percent in financial services, reported the BBC.

The EOC is unveiling a new campaign, “Pregnant and Productive,” to help both pregnant workers and their employers come to terms with the situation.

“Although some employers knowingly flout the law, many businesses do face genuine challenges in managing pregnancy and simply don’t know what their responsibilities are or what help is available to them,” EOC chair Julie Mellor said.

Such help includes recovery of “statutory maternity pay” from the government, EOC official Amanda Ariss told the BBC, adding that “most employers want to get this right.”

The report notes that there are more than 440,000 pregnant women in the U.K. workforce each year.

NEW YORK
Wall Street weathered high drama last week, with legal reversals, financial disclosures, and a high-profile settlement putting the spotlight on alleged insider dealing and negligence. Among the developments:

• A federal judge last week scuttled January’s highly publicized settlement requiring 10 former WorldCom directors to ante up $18 million in personal funds for failing to spot bookkeeping fraud at the telecom giant. The deal, which cleared the directors of any further liability, was rejected on a technicality, with the judge saying it unfairly left 16 investment banks holding the bag for the whole fraud when the case goes to court. Due to last week’s decision, the 10 directors may face even higher penalties if the case goes to trial, as scheduled, at the end of the month, reported the Washington Post.
• An independent report into the salary and benefits awarded to ousted New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) head Richard Grasso last week slammed both Grasso and the NYSE board for poor governance and excessive payments. The so-called Webb Report claimed that Grasso had improper and “unfettered authority” to select the board members determining his compensation, leading to a committee populated by people “with whom he had or developed friendships or personal relationships.” The report said Grasso also chose people who were highly paid and therefore unlikely to object to his own unusually high compensation, which the report said was “far beyond reasonable” to the tune of an excessive $113.6 million, reported the New York Times. New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued the NYSE last May in a bid to force the return of much of Grasso’s pay.
• Spitzer also made headway in his efforts seeking atonement for alleged collusion by the world’s largest insurance broker, Marsh & McLennan Cos., which agreed last week to a settlement of $850 million. The payment will be used to compensate the firm’s U.S. clients from 2001 to 2004, reported the Reuters news agency. The settlement, which did not require the company to admit wrongdoing, is roughly equal to the $845 million in fees collected by Marsh on transactions linked to alleged bid rigging.

CHICAGO
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer last week denied accusations that it suppressed a 1999 study linking its lucrative drug Celebrex to serious heart problems, saying the research was flawed.

Pfizer has been taking heat on several fronts over Celebrex, an anti-arthritis drug similar to Merck’s Vioxx. Vioxx was pulled from store shelves last September after being linked to a higher risk of heart attacks and strokes.

One day after Merck’s decision, Pfizer took out full-page ads in USA Today and elsewhere asserting that no study had ever found “increased cardiovascular risk for Celebrex,” reported the New York Times.

Last week, the company fended off mounting criticism that a 1999 study found exactly such results, with those patients taking Celebrex nearly four times more likely to suffer severe heart problems than those taking a placebo.

The study, which was posted to a new web site on clinical trials run by the drug industry’s lobbying arm, was flagged by the consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen, which has asked the federal government to ban the drug.

Pfizer last week denied hiding the research, saying it was presented at a conference in Sweden in 2000 and submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2001.

The Times noted that Pfizer’s submission to the FDA came four months after the agency reviewed the safety of Celebrex and Vioxx, leading to questions about Pfizer’s timing and whether government scientists had access to all appropriate data.

At the end of the FDA review, only Vioxx was required to carry a warning, leading to better sales for Celebrex, which pulled in $3.3. billion last year, according to the Times.

Pfizer insists it did nothing wrong, arguing that other studies have shown no problem with Celebrex and that the 1999 study was methodologically flawed because patients who were given Celebrex randomly happened to be much sicker than those given the placebo.

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

TORONTO
The headquarters of one of Canada’s largest banks, Bank of Nova Scotia, was raided by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) under a 60-day search warrant that gives the RCMP authority to search for thousands of records related to a company, Royal Group Technologies, whose controlling shareholder, Vic De Zen, is under investigation for criminal fraud.

According to a report in the Globe & Mail, the RCMP raid follows a refusal by the bank to hand over documents that may be under solicitor-client privilege.

The actions of the RCMP are being regarded as a signal to the financial community that enforcement authorities are serious about investigating financial wrongdoing.

The raid began with a very large RCMP van, functioning as a mobile command center, pulling up to the bank’s headquarters in the heart of Canada’s main financial district, with another dozen police vehicles following and about 25 police officers involved in the raid.

The Bank of Nova Scotia, or Scotiabank, is the main banker of Mr. De Zen and other company officers. The bank also has accounts for an investment by Mr. De Zen in a casino in St. Kitts that is at the center of the RCMP’s fraud investigation.

The bank is denying any wrongdoing and is reported to have made an offer to the federal Department of Justice to let government lawyers review the sought-after documents in order to ascertain whether it would be appropriate to hand them over to the police.

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama
The FBI is investigating allegations that Boy Scout officials in Alabama have been distorting membership enrollment figures in order to improve their image and pull in increased donations, the Associated Press reported last week.

The Alabama case was opened after volunteer Scout leaders noticed that funding correspondence was arriving for Scout troops that did not exist or were populated by tens of kids with the last name of Doe.

“It was just so blatant,” Boy Scout volunteer Tom Willis told the Associated Press, suggesting that paid Scout officials were behind the so-called ghost units. “They didn’t even try to make up names.”

“You’re seeing all these units on paper, but you’re not seeing any people,” volunteer Susan Backus told the Washington Post. “You can only blame it on bad record-keeping for so long.”

The Greater Alabama Boy Scouts Council, which is at the center of the investigation, said on its web site that it is facing “difficult challenges” and is cooperating with investigators, reported the Guardian.

The federal investigation is the latest in a series of scandals involving Boy Scout membership figures, according to the Washington Post, which cites similar allegations in Chicago in the 1970s.

At least five similar scandals — in California, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — have made headlines since the 1990s, including allegations last month that Scout officials in Atlanta distorted enrollment figures for black children from the actual figure of 500 to a fictitious 20,000.

Higher enrollment figures can help regional councils when applying for funding from the government, individuals, and philanthropic groups like the United Way, which says it lacks the staff to verify all applicants’ data.

The Post notes that the top-ranking executive in the Greater Alabama Council, Ronnie Holmes, was also central to a Dallas-area scandal in 2000, when the local council erased nearly 12,000 names — or a quarter of its list — after an investigation into alleged numbers-fixing was launched.

From the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation:

“A new national study, the largest of its kind, says America’s high schools are leaving the First Amendment behind.

“In particular, educators are failing to give high school students an appreciation of the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and a free press, say researchers from the University of Connecticut, who questioned more than 100,000 high school students, nearly 8,000 teachers, and more than 500 administrators and principals.

“The two-year, $1 million research project, titled ‘The Future of the First Amendment,’ was commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.

“The survey suggests that First Amendment rights — freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances — would be universally known if they were classroom staples.

“‘High school attitudes about the First Amendment are important because each generation of citizens helps define what freedom means in our society,’ the report reads.

“Among its findings:

• “Nearly three-fourths of high school students either do not know how they feel about the First Amendment or admit they take it for granted.
• “Seventy-five percent erroneously think flag burning is illegal.
• “Half believe the government can censor the Internet.
• “More than a third think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

“‘These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous,’ said Knight Foundation President and CEO Hodding Carter III. ‘Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation’s future.’

“In addition, the more students are exposed to the First Amendment and use the news media in the classroom, and the more involved they are in student journalism, the greater their appreciation of First Amendment rights.

“Among those students who have taken courses dealing with the media or the First Amendment, for example, 87 percent believe people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions. Among students who have not taken such courses, however, the number fell to 68 percent.

“Though student journalists are the savviest among all high school students on the First Amendment, a quarter of U.S. schools do not even offer media programs to students….

“Nearly all principals surveyed agreed students should learn about journalism, but said financial constraints block the expansion of media programs….”

“A man is in general better pleased when he has a good dinner upon his table, than when his wife talks Greek.”

– Samuel Johnson (English lexicographer, critic, and poet, 1709-1784)