Ethics Newsline®

Analyzing the deaths of journalists worldwide, the Committee to Protect Journalists found that many reporters are targeted after exposing corruption, with their killers often remaining unpunished. Among the group’s findings:

It’s more than 6,300 miles from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to Mifflin High School in Columbus, Ohio. Both were in the news last week, reminding us that behind every scapegoat there’s a failed policy.

On March 9, two Columbus high-school boys pulled a developmentally handicapped 16-year-old girl behind a curtain in an empty school auditorium and sexually assaulted her — while a third boy videotaped them. Moral ambiguity? Hardly. This is about as clear a case of wrongdoing as you can find.

By April 12, the superintendent had fired the school’s principal, Regina Crenshaw, and suspended three assistant principals for failing to report the incident. It turns out that it was the girl’s father who finally had to call the police — but not before one of the administrators had urged him not to do so. Why that resistance? Because calling the police might alert journalists whose stories could cast the school in an unfavorable light.

Moral ambiguity? No again. Who would disagree that when school administrators put the urge to protect reputations above the duty to protect students, swift and sure must be the punishment.

But punishment for whom? Here’s where the story gets complicated. Speaking in her own defense after more than a month of silence, Ms. Crenshaw put the issue in a larger context. At a press conference last week covered by the Columbus Dispatch, which first broke the sexual-assault story, she recalled a reprimand she’d received from her superiors in February. It followed a lunchroom brawl at Mifflin High between scores of students that ended only after police were called in to help. According to her lawyer’s written statement, Ms. Crenshaw was later “reminded by school administration that the proper procedure to use under such circumstances is to contact the [school district's] Safety and Security Office, as opposed to the police.”

We can agree, perhaps, that Ms. Crenshaw showed a lack of moral courage in failing to report the sexual assault immediately. But was it because she was spooked into silence by school policy? Was that policy designed less to protect students than to shield school staff? If the policy was at best baffling and at worst sinister, shouldn’t some punishment be meted out to those who formulated and sustained that policy?

Which brings us to Iraq. Last month an investigative panel exonerated four of five top Army officers who stood accused of creating or tolerating the climate of abuse at Abu Ghraib, where prisoners were tortured and subjected to demeaning activities. So far, only a small number of more junior officers and enlisted soldiers have been punished. If top leadership did little to stop the abuse — or actively permitted it to help extract information from prisoners — shouldn’t they too have been punished? More to the point: If the overall policy outlining the proper interrogation of prisoners was ill-conceived, shouldn’t those who created that policy share in the blame?

These two stories raise an unsettling but important ethical issue: When failures of policy — including mixed signals, varying interpretations, and unclear training — lead to high-visibility offenses, where does the responsibility lie? Is it right to punish only those charged with implementing the policy? Or are we creating a scapegoat culture, making it too easy for concerted efforts at blame-shifting to trump the honest admission of failures?

To ask those questions is not to imply that the Mifflin administrators or the Abu Ghraib sadists bear no blame. They do. The real question is whether the invisible somebodies who create (or failed to create) proper policies should also be held responsible.

If policymakers — top-level generals or interrogation specialists, school boards or superintendents — were held to such a standard, wouldn’t they quickly become better moral futurists? If they knew they could be held accountable, wouldn’t they be more apt to take time to spot possible policy-driven ethical calamities? If their own careers were at stake, wouldn’t they quickly learn to play out scores of over-the-horizon scenarios based on their policies, to see which ones might raise wrenching ethical dilemmas?

Too often, it seems, we’re mollified by low-level punishments, where culprits are apprehended, penalties enforced, and cases closed. Sometimes we even correct the policy after the scapegoats have been sacrificed: The Army reportedly is preparing to issue revised interrogation policies explicitly barring the abusive behavior documented at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. While that makes us feel good, it misses the point. We don’t need to wait until the unwary get caught in the vise of bad policy. That’s a failure of moral courage. We can think more carefully about our moral future. We can recognize that if a single wrong individual can create significant damage, a single wrong policy can create thousands of similar individuals and spawn massive mayhem. And we can remind our policymakers that unless they vigorously test the ethical consequences of their policies, they themselves deserve to be held accountable when things go wrong.

©2005 Institute for Global Ethics

“This is to avoid inducements for people to do this for a profit motive. It should be an altruistic motive. This should not be a commercial activity.”

– MIT cancer researcher Richard Hynes, discussing ethics guidelines for stem cell research released last week by a panel he co-led. The panel, commissioned by the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine, is moving to “fill a vacuum created by the Bush administration’s limitations on embryonic stem cell research,” reported the New York Times. Federal ethics rules approved by Bush in 2001 apply only to a very small number of stem cell lines studied with public funds, leaving the more expansive work done using private or state funds to proceed without overarching guidelines. (“Stem Cell Research Standards Offered,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 27)

WASHINGTON
Adelphia Communications last week agreed to pay $715 million to resolve allegations of extensive financial fraud that led to the company’s collapse in 2002, with funds going toward restitution for investors.

The owners of the cable firm, the Rigas family, agreed to forfeit 95 percent of their personal assets to the company they founded and then looted. The Rigas family still will have nearly $80 million in assets.

Adelphia will then take $715 million of the surrundered funds and earmark them for bilked investors who lost billions of dollars when the firm declared bankruptcy three years ago, reported the New York Times.

The Rigas family’s forfeiture — an estimated $1.5 billion in privately owned companies, Adelphia securities, and real estate — follows fraud and conspiracy convictions last summer for founder John Rigas and his son Timothy. They were convicted of misusing company funds and misrepresenting the financial health of the firm to investors.

Both men are appealing their convictions while another son, Michael Rigas, awaits retrial on criminal charges after a jury deadlocked, according to the Washington Post.

Last week’s settlement, which must be approved by both a federal district judge and a bankruptcy court judge, would end the company’s prosecution by the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission.

In other news, Adelphia’s former auditor, Deloitte & Touche last week agreed to pay $50 million — a $25 million civil settlement and a $25 million administrative penalty — to resolve federal charges that it failed to do its job in monitoring Adelphia’s books.

“Among our most significant challenges is the early detection of fraud, particularly when the client, its management, and others collude specifically to deceive a company’s auditors,” Deloitte chief executive James Quigley said last week.

SEC official Mark Schonfeld rejected the company’s excuse, noted the New York Times.

“Deloitte was not deceived in this case,” Schonfeld said. “The findings in the order show that the relevant information was right in front of their eyes. Deloitte just didn’t do its job, plain and simple.”

WASHINGTON
After months of taking a political beating in a dispute that has stalled ethics investigations, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives grudgingly voted last week to undo rule changes that they pushed through in January.

The reversal follows a stalemate with Democrats on the House ethics committee, who have refused to work under the new rules, which they say were designed to insulate House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) from investigation.

DeLay was admonished three times by the committee last year for ethics violations. He faces mounting questions over his fund-raising activities, travel, ties to a scandal-plagued lobbyist, and other issues.

In January, House Republicans used their majority status to change the way the ethics committee functions, altering the rules in ways that critics said would cause most ethics complaints to wither and die.

Chief among their criticisms: In the past, a deadlock of the evenly split — five Republicans, five Democrats — committee prompted further investigation of an ethics complaint. Under the new rules, such a deadlock would cause the complaint to be automatically dismissed.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who led the push for changing the rules in January, last week sounded a defiant note, saying the changes were “good, fair things” sacrificed last week so the committee could resume its work.

The ethics committee’s senior Democrat, Rep. Alan Mollohan (W. Va.) disagreed, saying the January rule changes sabotaged the House by eliminating a “credible ethics process.”

Last week, the House voted 406-to-20 to roll back the rules, clearing the way for the committee to resume its work, including an investigation of the funding for travel by DeLay.

While the reversal means the committee will be working again, USA Today last week noted that some problems may remain, highlighting the fact that all five Republicans on the ethics committee have financial ties to DeLay.

Committee chairman Doc Hastings (Wash.), Rep. Judy Biggert (Ill.), and Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.) have each received payments from DeLay’s political action committee (PAC), Americans for a Republican Majority. Rep. Melissa Hart (Pa.), who would chair the investigation into DeLay, also received $15,000 from his PAC, USA Today reported. The other member, Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas), has contributed to DeLay’s legal defense fund.

PRAGUE
Succumbing to a lingering scandal over his financing of a luxury apartment, Czech Republic Prime Minister Stanislav Gross resigned last week after less than one year on the job.

Gross, 35, who took up the post of prime minister last July, became embroiled in scandal two months ago over his purchase of a luxury Prague apartment in 1999 while still on a modest government payroll.

Gross’s evolving explanations of how he financed the deal spun into scandal, splintering the delicate coalition of political parties that he needed to carry a majority of votes in parliament, reported Bloomberg.

Gross has denied wrongdoing, but resigned last week to allow the government to reform the needed coalition, carrying 101 seats in the 200-seat lower house, according to the Reuters news agency.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus last week said that Jiri Paroubek, the government’s regional development minister, would take over as prime minister.

Klaus and Paroubek differ sharply on the fate of the EU constitution, with Klaus strongly opposing the constitution and Paroubek favoring ratification by parliament, where he carries only a slim majority, noted the Agence France-Presse.

Paroubek still faces a required vote of confidence, which must be taken within 30 days.

SAN FRANCISCO
The U.S. government last week agreed to pay $87,500 to a Kenyan woman who fled to the United States but was sent back by officials despite her fears that she would be beaten or killed upon returning to Africa.

Rosebell Munyua arrived in San Francisco in March 2001 with her arm still bandaged from a beating she reportedly received from authorities angry over her political activities, reported the New York Times.

Munyua was denied asylum by officials who failed to initiate asylum proceedings and who later denied that she had been fearful of returning.

The Times reports that such “he said, she said” situations are “not uncommon,” citing a recently released study that found that in 79 independently monitored cases, 12 were mishandled. In more than half of those cases, immigration inspectors wrongly denied under oath that asylum seekers had been fearful of returning.

Munyua said Kenyan police had put plastic bags over the heads of her two daughters and had badly beaten her husband, who now is in hiding in Tanzania.

She flew into Houston on a tourist visa six months after being expelled by U.S. authorities, was granted political asylum in September 2002, then sued the government for failing to follow its laws governing people fleeing persecution abroad.

While a handful of Munyua’s charges were dismissed in January, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte allowed the charge of negligence to be pursued, precipitating last week’s settlement by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which admitted no wrongdoing.

“Our hope is that by providing some measure of accountability, by allowing refugees to sue the United States, it will have tremendous impact in making sure the government follows the correct procedures,” said Munyua’s lawyer, Philip Hwang of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights.

The group also has sued on behalf of a woman sent back to Zimbabwe.

WASHINGTON
Former U.S. prisoners of war who were tortured by Saddam Hussein’s regime during the 1991 Gulf War have no right to collect funds awarded to them in a 2002 lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled last week.

The court refused to consider the veterans’ case, letting stand a ruling that voided a lower court’s $959 million judgment in favor of the 17 former POWs, who endured months of torture in Iraq, reported the Associated Press.

While a 1996 federal law authorized the POWs’ original lawsuit, the Bush administration and Justice Department intervened to fight the award, saying the veterans’ award should be tossed.

While the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein was liable as a named “state sponsor of terrorism,” the second Gulf War toppled him, rendering the POWs’ claim against his government moot, the administration contended.

The Bush administration also insisted that the $1.7 billion in frozen Iraqi assets should be used to pay for rebuilding the war-destroyed country instead of recompensing veterans tortured during the fighting, according to the AP.

The POWs and 37 family members appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but were turned away last week without comment, ending the legal fight.

NEW YORK
Ending a class-action lawsuit, food services giant Sodexho Inc. agreed last week to pay $80 million to settle charges that it denied promotions and limited account offerings to black workers.

Workers complained that they were denied promotions awarded to less-qualified white workers and were shunted into static positions with predominately black clients, reported the Associated Press.

Ten lead plaintiffs and as many as 3,000 other workers employed between 1998 and 2004 will be eligible for payments ranging between $2,000 and $59,000 depending on the length of their time with the company.

“The opportunities that this settlement provides both for African-American employees and for the company are the best possible outcome,” lead plaintiffs’ attorney Kerry Scanlon said last week.

Sodexho president and CEO Richard Macedonia also sounded a positive note, saying his firm is “a stronger and better organization as a result” of grappling with the issues raised by the suit and its settlement.

Sodexho, which did not admit any wrongdoing in heading off the case before next month’s scheduled trial, was part of U.S.-based Sodexho Marriott Services, which was purchased by French firm Sodexho Alliance.

Last week’s deal awaits approval by a U.S. district court judge, noted the Agence France-Presse.

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

NEW YORK
The Canadian government has launched a legal action in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York against the Byrd Amendment, which allows U.S. competitors to receive duties imposed on Canadian goods by U.S. trade authorities who claim the Canadian products were unfairly subsidized or dumped in the U.S. markets.

Canada is arguing that the law violates the North American Free Trade Agreement and that there should be a stop to U.S. companies profiting from duties imposed on Canadian imports.

The Canadian Wheat Board and representatives from the Canadian softwood lumber industry have joined the Canadian government in the legal action.

The Byrd Amendment has been held in violation by the World Trade Organization, which has authorized the European Union, Brazil, and other countries to also retaliate against U.S. goods if the law is not repealed.

NEW YORK
In a bid to stop both crime and its underlying causes, states and cities across the country are creating a new kind of court — part judiciary, part therapist, part social services — according to a report last week from the New York Times.

The Times profiles the growing system of nontraditional courts, which began roughly 15 years ago and address specific problem areas including drug addiction, mental health, landlord issues, nonviolent parolees.

Supporters say the melding of traditional courtroom options with a broader discretion to offer counseling, social services, and personal treatment makes the new system more likely to effect change and correct problems.

Critics warn that the less orthodox approach, which can sometimes seem extraordinarily freewheeling compared to the staid traditional system, gives judges too much leeway in sentencing and too big a window into defendants’ lives.

But in cases where jail time seems like a poor option for people brought to court, as in the case of many people with mental illness, the Times notes that the added discretion may get someone into needed treatment instead of a prison cell.

Hundreds of the new courts have been established across the country with funding coming from private, nonprofit, and government sources, including tens of millions of dollars from the Department of Justice.

From the Committee to Protect Journalists:

“Murder is the leading cause of job-related deaths among journalists worldwide, and the Philippines is the most murderous country of all, a new analysis by the Committee to Protect Journalists [CPJ] has found. Iraq, Colombia, Bangladesh, and Russia round out CPJ’s list of the ‘Most Murderous Countries for Journalists.’

“In issuing its analysis to mark World Press Freedom Day, May 3, CPJ called murder with impunity the most urgent threat facing journalists worldwide. CPJ studied more than five years of death records beginning January 1, 2000, and found that the vast majority of journalists killed on duty did not die in crossfire or while covering dangerous assignments. Instead, 121 of the 190 journalists who died on duty worldwide since 2000 were hunted down and murdered in retaliation for their work….

“In more than 85 percent of these slayings, CPJ found, the killers have gone unpunished. The five ‘Most Murderous Countries’ [-- Philippines, Iraq, Colombia, Bangladesh, Russia --]have the worst records. Of the 58 murders in those nations, all have been committed with impunity. Alleged gunmen have been arrested and charged in a small handful of cases, but no charges have ever been brought against those who directed the killings.

“‘By failing to investigate and punish the killers, the governments in these five countries embolden all those who seek to silence the press through violence,’ CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper said. ‘The violence becomes self-perpetuating and the free flow of information is cut off.’

“Other patterns emerged in CPJ’s analysis:

• “In most cases, journalists were murdered in retaliation for reporting on government corruption, crime, drug trafficking, or the activities of rebel groups….
• “Even in war zones such as Iraq, journalists were frequently targeted in reprisal for their work.
• “Many of the slain journalists were overtly threatened beforehand, illustrating the brazen nature of their killers.
• “And the five Most Murderous Countries stand well apart from the rest of the world. Together, they account for nearly half of the murder toll since 2000….

“‘The problem is enormous, but not intractable,’ Cooper said. ‘Governments must recognize what’s at stake is not only justice for those murdered but also the collective right of society to be informed. Journalists cannot do their jobs in a climate of violence and impunity. Governments, particularly those in the five most murderous countries, must devote the resources and exercise the will to solve these crimes.’…”

“I have found that the greatest help in meeting any problem with decency and self-respect and whatever courage is demanded, is to know where you yourself stand. That is, to have in words what you believe and are acting from.”

– William Faulkner (U.S. writer, 1897-1962)