Ethics Newsline®

On Thursday, May 1, the Institute for Global Ethics will be presenting an Ethical Fitness® Seminar in Seattle, Washington. Facilitated by Institute founder Rushworth M. Kidder, this daylong seminar is an interactive, small-group immersion course that helps participants resolve the ethics issues they face daily, both at work and at home. Participants will learn to:

• Become ethically aware by first exploring and evaluating the current ethical climate in the United States and the world

• Define values important to themselves and their group members by identifying, testing, and ranking a set of global values

• Analyze ethics using real-life, right-versus-right stories

• Resolve dilemmas using practical principles that can be applied to all areas of everyday life

The total cost for the course, including a continental breakfast and lunch, is $425. To register or for more information, please contact John Ragozzine or call 1-800-729-2615.

For more information, see this week’s Research Report.

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Last week’s pyrotechnic transformation of Eliot Spitzer — from governor of the state of New York to Client 9 in an international prostitution ring — left his supporters speechless, his Wall Street enemies elated, and the nation grasping for meaning. As his career pinwheeled into millions of glittering bits, it provoked a shower of responses to the one-word question on everybody’s lips: Why?

Some charge it up to the pride and ego engendered by power. Others see it as the bitter fruits of a neglected marriage. For some, it’s nothing but garden-variety lust. For others, it evinces a deep psychological dysfunction. But on one point the public, the pundits, and the press are in wide agreement: What Spitzer did was wrong.

That, of course, is a moral judgment. It depends on a values-based perspective. But is such a perspective valid? Is ethics (as the relativists want us to think) merely subjective, existing only in the eye of the beholder? Or is there a platform of widely shared values from which to judge right and wrong?

Our research at the Institute for Global Ethics convinces us not only that such a global platform exists but that it can be articulated readily as a kind of five-fingered hand. When Spitzer’s actions are assessed against these five core values, it’s clear why the public is so quick to say he was wrong.

• Honesty. Spitzer’s liaisons with prostitutes betray a calculated dishonesty even with those closest to him — his family, staff, and probably even his security team — in order to cloak his secret life.

• Responsibility. Using his governorship for personal indulgence, he irresponsibly risked extortion, kidnapping, even assassination. Knowing what a prostitute will do for a thousand dollars from a client, what might she do for a million from his enemy?

• Respect. The disrespect for his close associates, as well as for his elected office, is evident. Even more appalling is his apparent contempt for the public, whose trust he betrayed in such an egregious ways by twisting public service into private exploitation.

• Fairness. As a public prosecutor, he demanded exacting penalties for those found guilty. As governor, he placed himself above the law, in blatant disregard of the principle that the law must be fair, even handed, uniform, and equitable.

• Compassion. The most haunting photographs of this saga will include those of his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, whose face captured the enormity of a betrayal of compassion — for her and for their daughters — by the one who should have been the most caring.

Not surprisingly, then, the public confidently reads Spitzer’s story as a tale of moral failure. But what makes it particularly offensive is the searing hypocrisy of his stand. Not only did he set himself up as the reformer. Not only did he go after financial deviousness and constitutional lawbreaking — two charges he himself now may have to face. Not only did he earlier attack prostitution rings in New York. But he clothed his crusade in the garments of high moral outrage and ethical probity.

Of the three salient lessons from his case, that’s the first. Hypocrisy, cynicism, and apathy are the greatest challenges to ethics. But cynicism and apathy are less formidable — the former because cynics are often self-critical and are smart enough to change, and the latter because the apathetic often can be shaken awake when the issues become engaging and relevant. Hypocrisy, however, grows more entrenched with every successful deception. Spitzer’s history as a prosecutor suggests that behind the moral righteousness lay an ego and a will that used the language of the five values without always embodying their spirit.

The second lesson concerns the devastations of unbridled sexuality. As Spitzer’s revelations were unfolding last week, two parallel stories hit the papers. One, based on a survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported that a quarter of the country’s teenage girls have been infected with some form of sexually transmitted disease. Another, from Mexico City, reported that groping and verbal harassment of women on public busses has grown to such proportions that a new women-only bus service is being offered and is scheduled for expansion. At their core, these two stories are about disrespect for the dignity of women and the tendency of men to treat women as objects rather than as individuals. Seen in this light, the Spitzer story is not about a victimless crime. Nor is it about an unwarranted invasion by the public into a man’s private life. It’s about a high-profile example in an epidemic of unpunished sensuality that is global in its scope and devastating in its consequences.

The third lesson is the hopeful one. It concerns David Paterson,the legally blind lieutenant general of New York, who suddenly has become the state’s governor. Apparently as jovial and decent as his predecessor was prideful and harsh, he reminds us that even the worst organizational cataclysms can have positive outcomes. That’s a needed reminder just now, as trust in individuals, institutions, and markets is being tested. Spitzer, falling so suddenly from such a height, made us ask, Can anyone be trusted? Paterson at least gives us hope that the answer is yes.

©2008 Institute for Global Ethics

Questions or comments? Write to newsline@globalethics.org.

“The government is showing more confidence and learning more about spin. They’ve learned more PR tactics from Western people. They see the way the White House and the Pentagon do it.”

– Michael Anti, speaking to the Los Angeles Times about the Chinese government’s increasingly savvy spinning of news events like the current clashes between Tibetan monks, government forces, and local peoples. As the Chinese government faces increasing difficulties in wholly blocking information and coverage from the outside world, it is using videos, terminology, and propaganda to cast its opponents as attackers of the Chinese people, note observers like Anti, “a well-known Chinese blogger on a Nieman fellowship this year at Harvard,” according to the Times.

Source: Los Angeles Times, Mar. 17.

For more information, see: Los Angeles Times, Mar. 17 — New York Times, Mar. 17.

World press speculates on the meaning behind moral blunder

NEW YORK
The resignation of New York governor Eliot Spitzer following revelations that he patronized a high-priced prostitution ring ignited conversation, debate, and acrimony over the ethics implications of the jaw-dropping turn of events.

Among the angles taken by the national and world press:

• From London, the Economist notes that the revelation about Spitzer stood in sharp contrast to the fact that he rose to prominence as an attorney general known for “holding New York’s powerful financiers to the highest of ethical standards.” In an analysis, the Economist notes, “It was this image that convinced voters to elect Mr. Spitzer as governor of New York in 2006 with a sweeping mandate to clean up state affairs. He promised to battle corruption and to usher in a new era of ethical standards. The exposure of his hypocrisy is all the more poignant given that he busted at least two prostitution rings during his time as attorney general.”

• From Mumbai, India, the Economic Times, theorizing that the “ethical tightrope” of U.S. politics “has its origins, in part, in America’s puritanical heritage,” researches the hard numbers behind public sex scandals. After consulting the Chicago-based consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, the Economic Times reports that in the past 30 years, U.S. politics has been rocked by at least 50 major sex scandals, and no less than 60 corporate CEOs have been forced to resign over ethics issues related to their private lives in 2007.

• UPI reports that even before Spitzer was felled by the scandal, most Americans did not put state governors on a high ethics pedestal. In 2006, the Gallup polling organization found that just 22 percent of Americans said they held governors in “high esteem” for their moral character, compared to 26 percent who characterized governors’ ethics as “mediocre.” A spokesman for Gallup told UPI that the Spitzer scandal likely would further erode the reputation of state governors.

• In an analysis titled “Was Spitzer Doomed to Fail?” TIME magazine opines that “like many scolds, Spitzer seemed to believe his burning pursuit of right justified any personal failings — his boorishness, the overweening use of his offices and, one presumes, his philandering. ‘I think he felt he was totally invulnerable and could do whatever he wanted and there would be no consequences,’ says Ed Koch, a former New York City mayor who considers himself a friend of Spitzer’s.”

• In the days after the initial revelation, various New York media began a drumbeat for Spitzer’s resignation. In an editorial, the New York Daily News writes, “Eliot Spitzer brought his once-promising governorship to a crashing end with a display of recklessness and hypocrisy of such magnitude that you had to question his sanity. Three words to the man: Just get out. Spitzer’s patronage of a high-priced prostitution service drained what was left of his moral authority….”

Sources: Economist, Mar. 13 — UPI, Mar. 13 — Economic Times, Mar. 13 — TIME, Mar. 13 — Newsday, Mar. 11 — New York Daily News, Mar. 11.

For more information, see:
Related Newsline commentary, Mar. 17 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 4, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 16, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 1, 2005 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 11, 2005 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 7, 2005.

Panel will have authority to initiate investigations

WASHINGTON
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 229-182 last week to create an independent, outside ethics office with the authority to investigate Congress.

Congressional Quarterly reports that that new Office of Congressional Ethics will be composed of six members, three appointed by the majority party’s speaker and three appointed by the minority leader.

According to the Hill, a publication covering Congress, the panel will have the authority to initiate reviews of house members, conduct investigations, and refer their results, along with a public report, to the House ethics committee.

Current members of Congress, federal employees, and lobbyists would be ineligible for appointment to the six-member panel, CNN reports.

Creation of the independent office, the first of its kind in congressional history, came amid considerable controversy. Congress traditionally has been reluctant to submit to outside oversight, and many who opposed the measure say they fear it will be used as a political battering ram — with the public remembering only the initial charges and any exoneration by the ethics committee being seen as a cover-up.

The vote came as two members elected to the current Congress are under indictment, two have been sent to prison, and several others are under federal investigation, according to the Washington Post.

Sources: Washington Post, Mar. 13 — CNN, Mar. 13 — Hill, Mar. 13 — Congressional Quarterly, Mar. 12.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 18 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 10, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 3, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 24, 2007.

In related news, proposed rules call for more transparency in mortgage terms; also, as economy sours, bill collectors try to clean up their image

NEW YORK
The U.S. Federal Reserve last week decided to use government funding to back a bailout of the securities firm Bear Stearns Cos. in a move that drew criticism from those who say the government has no business rescuing a firm foundering because of miscalculation.

As this issue of Newsline went to press, JPMorgan Chase had agreed to purchase Bear Stearns at fire-sale prices, with the backing of the Federal Reserve, according to a report from MarketWatch.

Vincent Reinhart, a former Reserve official, said the move amounts to “a re-drawing of the relationship of the Federal Reserve with the rest of the financial system,” Bloomberg reports. Reinhart said the risks of so-called moral hazard — where firms are encouraged to be reckless because they count on a government bailout — “are considerable.”

The same moral-hazard argument was invoked over the summer by former Labor Department secretary Robert Reich, when the Federal Reserve lowered the discount rate after the failure of two Bear Stearns hedge funds, according to Investor’s Business Daily. Last week, Reich reiterated his warning, comparing the current bailout with “someone with a helium tank blowing more air into a leaky balloon.”

The collapse of the subprime mortgage industry is blamed for much of the shakiness in financial markets.

Under new rules proposed last week by President Bush and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, mortgage lenders would be required to give more accurate estimates of closing costs and provide more thorough explanations of payments, reports USA Today.

In related news, the debt collection industry, stung by criticism painting practitioners as remorseless predators, is trying to polish its image, according to New York Times reporter David Streitfeld. “They have started calling the indebted ‘our customers,’” Streitfeld writes. “They are pushing consumer tips on the ideal way to respond when a collector comes calling (basically: pay up). They note that debt collecting is an old American tradition. (Abraham Lincoln was a debt collector, some histories say.) They point out how, in a time of rising unemployment, they are hiring.”

While some say the kinder, gentler approach is a reflection of the attracting-more-flies-with-honey-than-with-vinegar approach, there is another reason for the public relations push, reports the Times: tough economic times could bring more scrutiny of collectors and regulators.

“Collectors are in a jam,” Robert Hunt, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, told the Times. “The business is so big and the anecdotes so nasty, they can’t hide.”

Sources: MarketWatch, Mar. 17 — Bloomberg, Mar. 14 — Investor’s Business Daily, Mar. 14 — USA Today, Mar. 13 — New York Times, Mar, 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 10 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline Commentary, Feb. 18 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 18 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 4 — JPMorgan Chase press release, Mar. 16.

But head of company that won the bidding says it’s unfair to change the rules

WASHINGTON
The ethics debate over Boeing, which lost a mammoth government contract, continued on several fronts last week.

Boeing was passed over for a deal worth about $35 billion when the U.S. Air Force awarded a contract for tankers, airplanes used to refuel other airplanes in flight, to a partnership between U.S.-based Northrop Grumman and Paris-based EADS.

Many in the industry speculate that Boeing’s past ethics problems, including the revelation that an Air Force procurement executive arranged a purchase in return for an offer of a job after she left government, made the Pentagon wary of the firm. The Air Force says Boeing lost the new contract because Northrop Grumman and EADS simply offered a better proposal.

The government’s decision to award part of a defense contract overseas predictably did not sit well with lawmakers in states with Boeing factories, reports the Voice of America. Boeing, with help from several congressmen, has protested the decision and the Government Accountability Office expects to issue a report by June 19.

In response, Northrop Grumman’s CEO last week complained of unfair treatment, saying that if Congress steps in and changes the rules, many companies will not want to get involved in government bidding, according to a report from BusinessWeek.

“How do you get companies to bid when you discover at the end of the day that Lucy pulls away the football?” Ronald Sugar said. “It would discourage companies from making significant investments to compete and then the Defense Department wouldn’t get full competition. The stakes here are bigger than just one contract.”

In an interview with CNBC, Sugar said that the tanker planes are going to have more than 60 percent U.S. content and that his company and EADS plan to build four new factories in the United States.

The controversy has worked its way into the U.S. presidential race as critics of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain charged that his ties to EADS will cost U.S. jobs, according to ABC News. McCain had prodded the Pentagon into opening the bidding process to EADS, and critics are questioning whether three former EADS lobbyists who are now on his campaign staff had anything to do with that.

McCain countered that his interest in opening the bidding process would benefit the taxpayer, arguing that his role in the 2004 congressional probe of the Boeing procurement scandal saved taxpayers billions, according to ABC.

Sources: Voice of America, Mar. 13 — BusinessWeek, Mar. 13 — ABC, Mar. 13 — CNBC, Mar. 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 10 — Related Newsline Commentary, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 7, 2006 — Related Newsline story, July 31, 2006.

At issue: doctors who pitch pharmaceuticals to colleagues, medical workers who snooped on Britney Spears’s private records, and Australian sports authorities who are examining prescription records for evidence of doping

VARIOUS DATELINES
The balance between profits and the ethics of medical practice, as well as between privacy and publicity, was the fulcrum of several stories last week. Among them:

• The Associated Press reports that new ethics questions are arising as doctors increasingly are being used to pitch pharmaceuticals to colleagues. In a story last week, the he AP profiled Daniel Carlat, a Boston psychiatrist who is on the “speakers bureau” for pharmaceutical companies — speaking to groups of doctors or meeting with one or two at a time over dinner. He earned about $30,000 in one year for such activities, but said his conscience bothered him and he quit. “My role in the company was not by any means to serve as a source of unbiased medical information…. My role was really simply to be a part of their marketing machinery and that was the value I had for them,” he said.

• UCLA Medical Center has begun firing at least 13 employees and has suspended at least six for allegedly peering into the confidential medical records of singer Britney Spears when she was hospitalized in the center’s psychiatric unit, the Los Angeles Times reports. A source told the paper that six physicians also will face disciplinary action for looking at the records. The Times notes that employees were warned on the morning of Spears’s hospitalization that her records should only be accessed when medically necessary and that snoopers would be disciplined.

• The Australian Medical Association is warning that anti-doping investigators are setting a dangerous precedent by examining the medical records of athletes, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The nation’s Anti-Doping Authority is looking at prescription records held by national health insurers for evidence that athletes could be taking performance-enhancing drugs. While doctors say such inquiries are an invasion of privacy, the government is unapologetic about its vigilance. A government spokesperson, however, did tell the ABC that authorities have yet to receive any data and will consult with privacy experts before examining prescription records.

Sources: AP, Mar. 8 — Los Angeles Times, Mar. 14 — Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mar. 14.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 10 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 10 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 25 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 14.

President of Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Co. admits that “downer” cattle may have made it into food supply

WASHINGTON
Two California senators have introduced a bill that would ratchet up penalties for slaughterhouses that process cows too sick to stand.

Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer introduced the bill last week in response to a scandal at a Southern California slaughterhouse that processed so-called downer cattle, leading to a recall of 143 million pounds of beef, according to reports from the San Jose Mercury News and the CanWest News Service.

The incident was brought to light by a secretly taped video that showed cattle apparently too weak to stand being prodded or moved with machinery into the processing area of a California slaughterhouse.

Using the meat from downer cattle already is illegal. Such meat poses a higher risk of spreading mad cow disease and other illnesses.

The president of the firm admitted last week that downer cattle were slaughtered by his company and could have made it into the food supply. The Chicago Tribune reports that Steve Mendell of Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. made the admission to the House Oversight and Investigations subcommittee after being shown the video.

The newly proposed measure would impose a fine for the first violation, a one-year suspension for the second, and a permanent shutdown after a third.

In a related development, a former worker at the firm, who has been jailed on charges of animal cruelty, told the Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California, that the operations manager at the slaughterhouse knew about cruelty and safety violations, and in at least one case illegally instructed workers to lift a fallen bull with a forklift.

Sources: San Jose Mercury News, Mar. 13 — Chicago Tribune, Mar. 13 — Press-Enterprise, Mar. 13 — CanWest News Service, Mar. 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 3 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 18 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 11 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 4 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 22, 2004.

Wall Street Journal notes that huge chunks of company time are being consumed by employees tuning into YouTube or MySpace, wasting time and burdening company’s Internet bandwidth

NEW YORK
Watching videos on the job is one of the latest dilemmas in workplace ethics, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Profiling the case of Carriage Services, a funeral-services company that recently discovered that 70 percent of its 125 workers regularly watched videos on sites such as YouTube or MySpace for about an hour a day, Journal reporter Bobby White writes that the problem has become endemic.

“Like Carriage Services, companies across the U.S. are starting to prevent their employees from accessing Internet-video services at work,” White reports. “The move follows previous steps by IT departments to shut employees’ access to instant-messaging services, streaming music and Web sites with adult content.”

“Now, online video has become an increasing irritation. Worker productivity is being jeopardized as short, often low-quality video clips popularized by YouTube are being joined by better-quality video services with long-form content.”

The Journal notes that in addition to the fundamental ethics problem of employees being otherwise occupied when they are supposed to be working, high levels of video-watching consume enormous bandwidth and can crash a company’s computer systems.

Source: Wall Street Journal, Mar. 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 14 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 8, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 17, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 17, 2007.

Harris asks the public who has too much — or too little — power in U.S. politics

From Harris Interactive:

“When one thinks of Washington D.C. and the power corridors, smoke filled rooms and shady deals with lobbyists may come to mind. There are certain groups in particular which are singled out by large majorities of the American public as having too much power in those corridors. Leading the list are big companies, as 86 percent of Americans say they have too much power and influence in Washington. These are followed by Political Action Committees (PACs), which give money to political candidates; 83 percent of Americans cite them as having too much power and influence.

“Four in five Americans (80%) say political lobbyists have too much power, while almost three-quarters (74%) say the same about the news media. Rounding out the top five are entertainment and sports celebrities, as over two-thirds (69%) of Americans believe they have too much power and influence in D.C….

“Looking at this from the other side of the spectrum, 90 percent of Americans believe that small business has too little power and influence in Washington. Large majorities also believe public opinion (74%) and nonprofit organizations (65%) have too little power and influence….

“In addition to PACs and big companies, there are three other institutions which majorities of the public believe have too much power — TV and radio talk shows (57%), trade associations (57%) and labor unions (51%). Looking at the reverse side of the issue, just over half of the public believes racial minorities (51%) and churches and religious groups (52%) all have too little power and influence in Washington….

“There some interesting things to note when comparing this year to 1994, the first year The Harris Poll asked this question. First, PACs have seen a five point decrease in the number of people saying they have too much power. Perhaps this is a sign Americans perceive the legislative ethics and campaign finance changes as doing some good….

“Republicans, Democrats and Independents tend to agree on certain issues related to power and influence in Washington. Over 80 percent of all three groups believe that PACs have too much power and influence (83%, 84% and 89%, respectively). Furthermore, similar numbers of Republicans and Democrats believe TV and radio talk shows (55% and 59% respectively) and Trade associations (57% and 55% respectively) have too much power and influence….

“However, there are also some large differences. Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to believe that labor unions have too much power (65% vs. 39%). They are also more likely to think that racial minorities (43% vs. 23%), opinion polls (51% vs. 37%), and the news media (80% vs. 69%) have too much power.

“Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely than Republicans to only think two groups have too much power and influence — churches and religious organization (48% vs. 28%) and big companies (91% vs. 80%)….”

For the full press release from Harris, Mar. 11, click here.

"Do not bite at the bait of pleasure, until you know there is no hook beneath it."

– Thomas Jefferson (3rd U.S. president, 1743-1826)