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

by Rushworth M. Kidder

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.”

President Barack Obama’s words, spoken as he was discussing global issues in his inaugural address last week, apparently were aimed at overseas despots. Only on sober second reading did it become clear that four core words — “the silencing of dissent” — weren’t only about Zimbabwe or North Korea. Nor were they only about the Bush administration, though they can be read that way. In their largest meaning, they point to one of the central ethical challenges of this new century: an unwillingness to confront wrongdoing, an acquiescence to the silencing of honest opposition, and a dangerous failure of moral courage.

How does this silencing show up? Three very different examples come to mind:

• Public libraries. The Patriot Act, voted into law in the wake of 9/11 to combat terrorism, still rankles the nation’s librarians. They see themselves, in the words of the American Library Association’s 70-year-old code of ethics, as “explicitly committed to intellectual freedom” and pledged to “protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality.” So when the FBI demanded in early 2005 that four Connecticut librarians turn over records of patrons’ suspicious computer use — and included a gag order preventing the librarians even from divulging that they had received such a request — they fought back. Only last month did a federal appeals court finally rule, unanimously, that nobody can be kept from discussing the receipt of such requests unless doing so would compromise “an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
• Federal departments. A 2007 law designed in part to prevent the silencing of dissent in eight federal departments and agencies has itself been partially silenced. According to USA Today, three departments — State, Defense, and Health and Human Services — have yet to appoint the required civil liberties officers or to file reports. And an independent Civil Liberties Oversight Board mandated to monitor these departments hasn’t met publicly since 2006 and no longer has any members — a failure President Obama has said he will remedy.
• Private financial institutions. Some of the most costly silencing has happened within the financial sector. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Washington Mutual, Wall Street broker Bernard Madoff, Twin Cities entrepreneur Tom Petters — the list is lengthening of financial entities and actors that have come to grief over issues involving dishonesty in reporting, lack of trustworthiness, and irresponsibility to shareholders and the public. In some cases, insiders broke the code of silence and spoke up to the regulators. But how many other cases are yet to be uncovered? How often will the promises of wealth, power, or pride — abetted by corporate cultures that view dissent as mere disloyalty — prevent those in the know from speaking up?

Fortunately, given our constitutional separation of church and state, the silencing of dissent in the public square can’t be accomplished by excommunication, as it was in earlier centuries — although this very week Pope Benedict XVI finds himself controversially reinstating four bishops excommunicated 21 years ago by Pope John Paul II. Nor can such silencing be perpetrated as easily by elected officials who view dissent as an impediment to their exercise of power — though this very week Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich is bent on proving that his impeachment trial is little more than the work of dissidents.

And yet the silencing persists. How much has it cost the world in this decade alone — in lives lost under foreign tyrannies, in wealth destroyed in economic collapses, in self-confidence shattered among those who let themselves be intimidated by authority? How much does it creep into families run by autocratic despots, for whom the silencing of opposition sometimes morphs straight into domestic violence? How much does it continue to inhabit our clubs, congregations, and schools?

What’s needed to resist this silencing? Two things. First, the recognition that dissent is essential to democracy. It is not an option or a sign of failure or a phase we hope to outgrow. It is the essential guarantor of transparency, the source of illumination that limits the temptations of power as surely as sunlight kills bacteria. Without the tugs and tussles of opposing views, democracy hardens into tyranny. If transparency and a welcoming of opposing views is a fundamental moral tenet of democracy, then the silencing of dissent is clearly unethical.

The second requirement is moral courage — the willing endurance of significant danger for the sake of principle. Those who silence dissent are almost always dangerous, or at least would have us think so. They operate through fear, wanting us to believe that they know best, that we’re ignorant of crucial facts, that we’re endangering the long-term good by our position, that we’re just being stupid or acting impulsively, and that we’ll be punished.

Moral courage sees through all of that. True, it doesn’t usually know as much as it would like to know, so it requires a high tolerance for ambiguity. But it knows enough to know that it can’t permit the silencing of dissent, and that it can’t not act. To do otherwise would be to find itself, in Obama’s words, “on the wrong side of history.”

©2009 Institute for Global Ethics

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

For more information, see: USA Today, Jan. 25 — New York Times, Jan. 24 — Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (ALA) — ALA press release, Dec. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 24, 2003.

“The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears…. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.”

– From a memo issued last week by President Obama, announcing a raft of rule changes and ethics measures intended to restore government transparency. Indicating a sharp break from the secrecy of the Bush administration, the measures were among the first signed by Obama upon taking office last week, reports Wired.

In addition to reaffirming the importance of FOIA, the New York Times notes that Obama “effectively repealed a Bush executive order that allowed former presidents or their heirs to claim executive privilege in an effort to keep records secret.”

“Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known,” Obama said.

Sources: Wired, Jan. 21 — New York Times, Jan. 21.

For more information, see: Slate, Jan. 23 — Washington Post, Jan. 21 — Related Newsline story, June 25, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 19, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 19, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 13, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 4, 2002 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2001.

Obama institutes new rules on lobbying, but immediately carves out an exception; House Ethics Committee confronts first hot potato of 2009; Guantánamo will be closed, but nations that had railed against the camp are now confronted with the question of whether they’ll take some of the inmates; executive order overturns international abortion rule

WASHINGTON
A variety of ethics-related issues dominated news from Washington last week. Among the top stories:

• New lobbying rules imposed by President Obama appear to be more stringent than changes implemented by previous presidents and could result in more open government, according to a variety of ethics experts interviewed by the Washington Post. In a series of executive orders and presidential directives, Obama set limits that will bar appointees from seeking lobbying jobs during his presidency, and will ban gifts from lobbyists to anyone in his administration. Obama also has instituted ethics rules that prohibit people engaged in lobbying, who are subsequently brought into his administration, from working on related issues for two years. Fred Wertheimer, president of the nonprofit finance-reform group Democracy 21, told the Post that the lobbying restriction “constitutes a major step in setting a new tone and attitude for Washington that challenges the lobbyist, special-interest culture.”
• President Obama’s new ethics mandates caused an immediate problem on the Hill as it was learned that William Lynn, nominated as deputy secretary of Defense, was granted a waiver on restrictions prohibiting lobbyists from immediately working in related areas. Lynn is senior vice president for Raytheon, and in that capacity oversees lobbying activities for the nation’s fourth-largest defense contractor, according to Bloomberg. If he is confirmed to his Pentagon post, Lynn would be responsible for reviewing major weapons programs. Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the committee that is vetting Lynn, said he was satisfied with the waiver, a procedure that is allowed and spelled out under Obama’s ethics rules. But John McCain, the ranking Republican on the committee, said he was “disappointed” by the waiver and wants clarification on what matters would require Lynn’s recusal before making a decision on whether to support the nomination.
• Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) was appointed chair of the newly constituted House Ethics Committee. The panel, which is evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, starts the year with a hot potato — the probe into powerful Ways and Means chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), reports Congressional Quarterly. One of the panel’s first tasks will be to determine how to proceed with its investigation into Rangel’s fundraising and finances. The committee is investigating allegations about Rangel’s rent-controlled apartments, failure to pay taxes on rental property, and improper fundraising for a public policy school named after him.
• President Obama pledged to shut the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, but the decision has raised a variety of dilemmas, including whether European nations that railed against the camp will now offer homes to the inmates, reports the Associated Press. Irish foreign minister Michael Martin said EU members should agree to house at least some of the inmates “as a logical consequence of our arguing for the closure of Guantánamo.” He emphasized to the AP, however, that “no one is talking about terrorists or anything like that coming to EU countries. We’re talking about noncombatants — people who clearly have no history of any terrorist activity.” The AP notes: “Diplomatic and security officials across Europe acknowledge that in the Obama era their nations risk exposure of double standards — complaining of American injustice, but presuming that ex-Guantánamo prisoners are too hot to handle themselves. Most nations in the 27-country bloc remain in the position of waiting for an EU request that they might prefer never comes.”
• What promises to be among the most controversial of Obama’s executive orders overturns an eight-year ban on U.S. government funding for family-planning groups that provide abortions or abortion counseling overseas. The Agence France-Presse notes that the “global gag rule,” which was introduced by President Reagan in 1984 and bars family planning groups from receiving badly needed U.S. funds if they even discuss abortion with women seeking reproductive services, has been repeatedly overturned by Democratic administrations and repeatedly re-imposed by Republicans. While Obama’s action drew praise from Democratic lawmakers, family-planning agencies, and women’s rights groups, it drew immediate fire from anti-abortion organizations and Republicans, notes the AFP.

Sources: AFP, Jan. 24 — Washington Post, Jan. 23 — Congressional Quarterly, Jan. 23 — Bloomberg, Jan. 23 — AP, Jan. 23.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10, 2008.

Issues include Israel’s use of white phosphorus shells

VARIOUS DATELINES
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has called for an investigation into allegations of abuses against both sides in the Gaza conflict.

The Voice of America reports that the Agency’s director in Gaza, John Ging, says the process must be credible and must address allegations of human-rights violations lodged by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

According to TIME magazine, the Israeli government actively is trying to protect its citizens from war crimes charges that could be filed in foreign courts over the actions in Gaza.

While Israel is not a signatory to a Geneva Convention that allows courts in uninvolved nations to arrest and prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, many European nations are, and could bring such charges against Israeli citizens.

Attorney general Menachem Mazuz ordered the Israeli media not to reveal the names of military personnel involved in the 22-day offensive because of fears they could be arrested when traveling abroad, reports TIME.

Israel has been accused of illegally firing white phosphorus shells near civilians. While use of phosphorus is legal for making smokescreens in an open military battleground, its use in heavy civilian areas is forbidden.

Phosphorus sticks to the skin and will burn flesh through to the bone, and inhalation can also be fatal.

Israel has admitted using phosphorus but denied that it was deployed improperly.

Sources: TIME, Jan. 23 — Voice of America, Jan. 23 — BBC, Jan. 23 — Times of London, Jan. 23 — New York Times, Jan. 21 — AP, Jan. 19.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 11, 2008 — Related Newsline story, July 24, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 3, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 27, 2006.

Coaches across nation watch the case, wondering about its implications

LOUISVILLE, Ky.
What are the legal and ethical implications of a coach pushing a young player during practice? That question is at the center of a heated debate after a high school football coach was indicted last week for the death of one of his players.

MSNBC reports that Jason Stinson, a coach at a Kentucky high school, was charged in the death of 15-year-old Max Gilpin, who collapsed during an August 2008 practice. Gilpin collapsed on the field and was taken to the hospital with a 107-degree body temperature; he died three days later.

Temperatures were in the 90s, reports MSNBC, and it was alleged that coaches refused to let the players take water breaks. Stinson denies withholding water.

Stinson is charged with reckless homicide, a charge based on a Kentucky law criminalizing behavior that fails to perceive a substantial and justifiable risk, according to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog.

It is believed to be the fist such charge against a high school coach ever lodged in the United States. Attorneys for Stinson say he will maintain his innocence at trial, reports the Louisville Courier-Journal.

According to Louisville TV station WAVE, coaches across the country are following the case, keenly interested in what repercussions they may face.

Pat Forde, an ESPN sports analyst interviewed by WAVE, maintained that “the more light that’s shed on this and what happened, the more it will eventually cut down on these sort of things ’cause it’s an awful thing that every August or every July we hear about some football player that dies.”

Sources: CNN, Jan. 26 — MSNBC, Jan. 26 — MSNBC, Jan. 23 — Wall Street Journal, Jan. 23 — Louisville Courier-Journal, Jan. 23 — WAVE, Jan. 23.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 25, 2008 — Related Newsline story, May 19, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 24, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 17, 2007.

As economy tanks, so does influx of cash into financial scams — and there appear to be more scams than anyone imagined, according to reports

NEW YORK
Bernard Madoff’s alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme spawned a series of ethics-related stories in the world press last week. Among them:

• The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission began issuing subpoenas to people believed to have been affiliated with Madoff, according to a report from MarketWatch. Madoff previously told investigators he had worked alone.
• A CNN investigation reportedly shows that Madoff engineered fictitious trading results for decades, inventing details of trades that never happened. CNN says an analysis shows that Madoff sometimes reported yearly returns of as much as 18 percent, while gains in recent years ranged from 10 to 12 percent. The “investment strategies” Madoff purported to use would — if trades were legitimately conducted — have resulted in returns of only 2 or 3 percent per year, according to the CNN analysis.
• Having savings evaporate into the ether of a scam is apparently much more common that ever before, according to ABC News. ABC profiled a variety of scams it called “Mini-Madoffs” that, while not on the same titanic scale, nevertheless involve millions of investors’ dollars. The scams are being detected, reports ABC, as a result of the economic downturn: With a lack of money coming in, Ponzi schemes have no way to cover their machinations and are crashing left and right.

Sources: CNN, Jan. 23 — MarketWatch, Jan. 23 — ABC, Jan. 22 — Financial Times, Jan. 21 — Forbes, Jan. 21.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 12 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 22, 2008.

In other medial-ethics news, major stem-cell trials scheduled to begin in United States and Britain

VARIOUS DATELINES
Medical-ethics stories made news last week in the United States and Britain. Among the coverage:

• There is a growing trends of scientists using their own children as research subjects, according to a report from the New York Times. Researchers interviewed for the piece say studying their own children allows for a more in-depth research agenda and ensures a reliable participant. Projects profiled include a psychologist using her four children in studies of media effects, a neurology professor scanning his children’s brains, and an M.I.T. researcher who has placed 11 video cameras in his house to study his young son’s speech development. While some studies seem inherently benign, ethicists interviewed by the Times say such relationships could in some cases raise questions about the effect on the child, the relationship with the parent, and the objectivity of the researcher.
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first-ever human trial of a medical treatment using products derived from human stem cells, UPI reports. The current experiment involves attempting to restore movement to victims of spinal cord injuries. Use of stem cells from embryonic tissue has been an ethical flashpoint because critics liken it to abortion. In related news, it is expected that the new Obama administration will loosen rules on stem-cell research and free up federal funding that was restricted under the Bush administration.
• In Britain, a biotech firm has been given approval to conduct a trial into using stem cells to treat victims of stroke, according to the CBC. As in the United States, the procedure has caused a substantial amount of controversy, especially among religious conservatives.

Sources: UPI, Jan. 23 — CBC, Jan. 19 — New York Times, Jan. 18.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 22, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 15, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 8, 2008.

Some call for “moral recovery plan” to accompany economic package

NEW YORK
Many church leaders maintain that the United States is facing not only an economic crisis but a meltdown of ethical values as well, according to a report from Reuters.

As a result, they say, this is an excellent time to bring people back into their pews.

“Honesty is honesty, the Rev. Jerry Johnson told Reuters. “It doesn’t matter if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever. A lot of these debacles we’re seeing can be traced and sourced back to a lack of good old ethics.”

A similar view was echoed by author Ken Eldred, who writes on the role of religion in business. “There has been a crisis of ethics,” he told Reuters, “and I think sadly it is quite significant. People think business has nothing to do with faith, that honesty is not always the best policy. But when you take that away, people end up worse overall.”

And David Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at Atlanta’s Mercer University, argued that the United States needs not only an economic recovery plan but a “moral recovery plan” as well.

“We need … a renewal of the moral compass to do the right thing just because it’s right, obeying not just legal laws but moral laws related to how people need to be treated,” Gushee said.

Clerics interviewed for the piece noted that there often is a resurgence in church attendance in times of crisis, and one said that his church was mounting outreach efforts aimed at businessmen and -women.

Source: Reuters, Jan. 23.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline Commentary, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 8, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 14, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 8, 2008.

Also notes that “environment, immigration, health care slip down the list” of U.S. public’s priority concerns

From the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

“As Barack Obama takes office, the public’s focus is overwhelmingly on domestic policy concerns — particularly the economy. Strengthening the nation’s economy and improving the job situation stand at the top of the public’s list of domestic priorities for 2009. Meanwhile, the priority placed on issues such as the environment, crime, illegal immigration and even reducing health care costs has fallen off from a year ago.

“While it is not unusual for the public to prioritize domestic over foreign policy, the balance of opinion today is particularly one-sided. Roughly seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say that President Obama should focus on domestic policy, while just 11% prioritize foreign policy. By comparison, last January, 56% cited domestic policy as most important while 31% said Bush should focus on foreign policy.

“…The share of Americans saying that strengthening the nation’s economy should be a top priority has risen from 68% two years ago to 75% last January to 85% today. Concern about jobs has risen even more sharply. The 82% who rate improving the job situation as a top priority represents a 21-point jump from 61% a year ago.

“Of the 20 issues people were asked to rate in both January 2008 and January 2009, five have slipped significantly in importance as attention to the economy has surged. Protecting the environment fell the most precipitously — just 41% rate this as a top priority today, down from 56% a year ago. The percentage rating illegal immigration as a top priority has fallen from 51% to 41% over the past year, and reducing crime has fallen by a similar amount (from 54% to 46%)….

“The large decline in the percentage of Americans citing the environment is seen across the political spectrum, but Republicans (20%) remain far less likely than Democrats (54%) or independents (41%) to say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for the president and Congress. The only policy that ranks lower than protecting the environment among Republicans is dealing with global warming (16%)….

“The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities. …A number of domestic priorities declined in importance following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. By January 2003, just 39% called environmental protection a top priority — comparable to today’s 41% — before resurging as a priority from 2006 to 2008, only to fall again this year….

“…A partisan gap has emerged this year over reducing middle-class taxes. At the start of 2008, roughly half of both Democrats (50%) and Republicans (46%) rated this as a top priority. Today, just 31% of Republicans say middle class tax cuts are a top priority, compared with 48% of Democrats….

“The fundamental gaps between Democratic and Republican priorities seen in previous years remain largely the same today. Democrats place a far higher priority on issues related to the poor, on the environment and on education than do Republicans. And Republicans place a higher priority on defense and illegal immigration than do Democrats.

“As was the case a year ago, the single biggest partisan gap comes over how much priority to place on providing health insurance to the uninsured. Two-thirds (66%) of Democrats rate this as a top priority while just 28% of Republicans agree. Similarly, 62% of Democrats say that dealing with the problems of the poor and needy is a top priority, compared with 34% of Republicans. By contrast, Republicans place greater priority on strengthening the military (64% vs. 38% of Democrats) and dealing with illegal immigration (46% vs. 34%)….”

For the full press release from Pew, Jan. 22, click here.

“Anger is a prelude to courage.”

– Eric Hoffer (U.S. social writer and philosopher, 1902-1983)

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

by Rushworth M. Kidder

As Barack Obama takes the nation’s helm, his greatest challenge can be summed up in a single word: ethics.

Really? Not economics? No. The nation’s economic crisis already has outgrown itself. The financial recession has morphed into an ethics recession. Increasingly, as the Madoff case makes clear, the core issue is no longer money and wealth, but character and integrity.

On the surface, of course, Obama’s task will be to bring together the fiscal wizards who can rekindle markets and grow assets. But the underlying challenge will be to find wizards of integrity — canny financial minds imbued with the moral authority to rebuild the nation’s shattered sense of responsibility. The goal is not just to get people to spend. It’s to get them to trust — a requirement for any market to function.

Fortunately, Obama’s greatest resource can also be summed up as ethics. He comes into office on a surge of public goodwill rooted in the perception of his moral character. A November Harris Poll found that 51 percent of voters pegged moral values as “very important in deciding which candidate to vote for.” Asked what they meant by “moral values,” most voters pointed to such personal characteristics as honesty and integrity, rather than to social or religious issues (like same-sex marriage or abortion) or political issues (like immigration or the Iraq war). The strength of that goodwill, evident in the crowds converging on Washington for this week’s inauguration, is evident also in the numbers. The Gallup Organization’s polling last week put Obama’s approval rating at 78 percent, up 10 points since the November election and easily eclipsing the pre-inaugural favorables for George W. Bush (62 percent in January 2001) and Bill Clinton (66 percent in 1993).

It shouldn’t surprise us, of course, that a public deeply troubled by an unprecedented ethics recession is hungering for a leader of integrity. But are his admirers endowing him with impossible attributes? Are they holding him to unattainable standards? Are they setting him up for failure?

I don’t think so, largely because Obama may be one of our most transparent presidents. Unlike Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, there doesn’t appear to be any dark undercurrent swirling below a sociable surface. Nor does he seem to have difficulties aligning reality with truth-telling (Clinton’s challenge) or with ideology (Bush’s problem). To be sure, Obama’s transparency has been heightened by the dissection he endured under the microscope of an exhaustive campaign, but it also grows out of his very nature. Although he possesses one of the most intelligent and nuanced political minds of our era, he appears to be, paradoxically, a surprisingly uncomplicated thinker — dedicated to clarity, decidedly principled, and determinedly pragmatic.

But what about the moral landscape he’s entering? Are the challenges simply too daunting, too demanding of compromise, too corrosive of integrity? Not if he and his administration grasp three things:

1. Given the public’s mood, the issues he faces will need to be framed in moral terms. No solution will feel complete unless it is articulated in the language of ethics and integrity. The argument can’t be phrased in the old ideological polarizations of talk radio (”I’m absolutely right, so therefore you’re dead wrong and stupid to boot!”). It must be delivered in the new language of right-versus-right thinking, where each side receives a fair hearing and the dignity of civil discourse is respected.
2. Such thinking requires penetrating moral analysis of the world’s toughest dilemmas. Some, like the pending question of whether Israel committed war crimes during its invasion of Gaza, will center on the age-old tension between justice and mercy. Others, like the economic bailout, will devolve into questions of short-term benefits versus long-term needs. Still others, like the war in Afghanistan, will focus on the difference between the truth on the ground and the loyalty to certain leaders, policies, or positions. Finally, a wide range of issues — healthcare among them — will pit the needs of the individual against the rights of the community. Such issues can’t be addressed as black-and-white, right-versus-wrong problems; whichever side you’re on, the other side has too much moral credibility to be ignored or shouted down.
3. Resolving these dilemmas requires a consistent set of resolution principles. Under Clinton, the tendency was toward an ends-based, utilitarian principle, where ethics meant that you did the greatest good for the greatest number. In the Bush administration, the decision making was more rule-based, Kantian, and ideological: You invoked whatever precept you wanted everyone to follow, with less regard for immediate consequences. Obama well may draw on his empathetic, community-organizing days to invoke a care-based principle of reciprocity and the Golden Rule, asking what he would want others to do to him.

Given the ethics landscape, this is no country for moral cowardice. The world Obama campaigned in last spring has lost its moorings. It’s searching desperately for its self-confidence, its trust in others. It’s ready for an ethics revolution, not just an inauguration.

©2009 Institute for Global Ethics

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

A reader reacts to last week’s commentary about apportioning blame to those involved in the Madoff scandal:

My personal story reflects at the most micro level what happens when we mistake money for value. With my stockbroker, I traded modestly and esoterically — he sometimes joked that he would get me a t-shirt stating, “I am the market.” My small gains — low five-figure amounts from month to month — enabled me to make modest home improvements and donate generously to my church and other causes with which I sympathized. It made me giddy. It made me smug. My money was making money, and I wasn’t squandering it; I was using it for good.

But pride and greed, like pregnancy, don’t come in degrees. You either are or you aren’t. My pace quickened when I saw the zeros extend, and the reason was digital, not moral. In September, my losses swallowed the six-figure assets it had taken me decades to amass and as well took me deep into margin.

Guilt and blame ill-fit the humble lady on Main Street, but pride and greed nevertheless caught her up in their merry game. We love to be clever. We love thinking we’re special. Did I bother to scrape at the shiny film to find if there was a moral issue at stake? Did I lump together the components of ethics rather than place them piece by piece on the table for close inspection and assimilation?

All of us — me and my mad money; Madoff’s accomplices and victims — must take full responsibility for taking pride in patronage, pride as we see the gap widen between us and the masses. Pride links arms with greed and forms the chain that binds us to a Madoff.

– Sharon Cooper
Des Moines, Washington

Another writer comments on what may be a different level of culpability when comparing classes of investors who placed their money with Madoff:

Perhaps there’s a useful distinction to be made between the legal culpability of institutions (purporting to be accredited, professionally competent, etc.) that invested money from investors who were unaware that the institution they were dealing with was investing with Madoff versus those who, acting on their own, foolishly invested their own money directly with Madoff (without legal culpability).

Interesting question!

– Robert Fles
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

“We tortured Qahtani.”

– Retired judge Susan J. Crawford, breaking with the Bush administration’s repeated denials of torturing detainees, in an interview with journalist Bob Woodward. Crawford serves as the “top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantánamo Bay detainees to trial,” reports the Washington Post.

Mohammed al-Qahtani is believed to have been the missing “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks. While Crawford believes Qahtani to be a terrorist threat, she said she declined to refer his case for prosecution because “his treatment met the legal definition of torture,” she told Woodward in the Post.

The U.S. military interrogated Qahtani with techniques “that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a ‘life-threatening condition,’” reports Woodward. Qahtani’s lawyers say his treatment has rendered him suicidal and too broken for trial.

Sources: Washington Post, Jan. 14 — New York Times, Jan. 14 — AP, Jan. 14.

Estimates put the death toll at 13 Israelis and 1,300 Palestinians, with children constituting at least a third of the dead; U.N. being pressured to investigate for war crimes

VARIOUS DATELINES
Rocket attacks by Hamas and Israel’s invasion of Gaza are raising ethics questions on the world stage about whether either side in the conflict is committing war crimes.

The Voice of America reports that while civilian casualties in war are nothing new, critics are saying that combatants in the current conflict are avoiding their moral responsibility to minimize them as much as possible.

“Where you have war, you have war crimes. And the only question is how many, how frequent and how serious,” attorney Jonathan Drimmer, a specialist in international law who teaches at Georgetown University, told VOA. “Hamas seems to be using human shields. Israel seems to be taking the bait. Whether they are doing so in a way that violates the laws of war is a little bit less clear.”

Israel’s actions have been sharply criticized by the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. In addition the “U.N.’s senior human rights body approved a resolution … condemning the Israeli offensive for ‘massive violations of human rights,’” reports the Guardian.

Before the weekend ceasefire was declared, estimates put the death toll at 13 Israelis and 1,300 Palestinians. “At least a third of those killed were children, according to Gaza Health Ministry figures that the United Nations deems credible,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

Late last week, Arab and Muslim leaders meeting in Qatar accused Israel of “crimes of war and genocide,” according to the Agence France-Presse.

But many Israelis insist that Israel has taken extraordinary measures during the fighting in Gaza to prevent civilian casualties, saying Hamas bears the blame for using civilian shields.

According to a BBC analysis, while public opinion in Israel has remained firmly in support of the offensive against Hamas, the “harrowing pictures of the aftermath of the conflict have raised a clamor of criticism elsewhere in the world and divided Jewish opinion overseas.” The BBC cites recent demonstrations by Jewish protestors in Britain, Canada, and the United States.

Sources: Los Angeles Times, Jan. 19 — BBC, Jan. 19 — Washington Post, Jan. 19 — New York Times, Jan. 18 — Voice of America, Jan. 17 — BBC, Jan. 17 — AFP, Jan. 16 — Jerusalem Post, Jan. 15 — Guardian, Jan. 13.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Aug. 11, 2008 — Related Newsline story, July 24, 2006 — Related Newsline story, July 24, 2006 — Related Newsline story, April 3, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 27, 2006.

Interior designate says he will clean up scandal-plagued department; attorney general nominee says waterboarding is torture; Hillary Clinton hits minor turbulence as Republicans question potential conflicts of interest

WASHINGTON
Ethics figured in the confirmation hearings of several nominees for positions in Barack Obama’s incoming cabinet. Among the issues:

• Colorado senator and Interior Department secretary-designate Ken Salazar vowed last week to fix one of the government’s most ethically troubled departments, reports the Denver Post. During his confirmation hearing, Salazar said his “first and foremost task will be to restore the integrity of the Department of Interior and to bring the highest level of ethics back to the functions of this critical department,” which was hammered last year in a sprawling scandal replete with kickbacks, drugs, and sex between Interior workers and those they are supposed to regulate.
• Eric Holder, Barack Obama’s nominee for U.S. attorney general, last week broke with the Bush administration’s repeated equivocating, unambiguously stating that waterboarding is torture. “If you look at the history” of waterboarding, Holder said, “we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. “Holder said he would conduct an immediate “damage assessment” within the Justice Department, reports the Chicago Tribune.
• Hillary Clinton sailed through the first rounds of her confirmation hearings last week, but was questioned on potential conflicts of interest with her husband’s fundraising work, reports the Associated Press. Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican who is the senior minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, suggested that Bill Clinton’s foundation should reject any future overseas contributions and take other steps to increase its transparency. Sen. Clinton rejected that suggestion, saying her agreement to publish a list of the foundation’s donors and alert ethics officials to potential conflicts eliminates any problems.

Sources: Denver Post, Jan. 17 — Chicago Tribune, Jan. 16 — AP, Jan. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 15, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline Commentary, Nov. 10, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 10, 2008.

Apple’s chief takes a medical leave after months of denial that his health is declining; many feel that because he is so closely linked with the firm’s creative vision, Steve Jobs should be required to release more information

NEW YORK
Speculation about the health of Apple CEO Steve Jobs has raised ethics questions about whether the heads of publicly traded firms have a right to medical privacy.

CNBC reports that the issue is on the minds of many investors after Apple announced that Jobs will take a leave of absence until the end of June due to heath problems “more complex” than originally thought.

Writes CNBC’s Lee Brodie: “Jobs, a pancreatic cancer survivor, dropped his bombshell in a cryptic announcement on Wednesday — only nine days after he soothed jumpy investors somewhat by saying his dramatic weight loss over the past seven months was due to an easily treatable hormone imbalance. He had promised to remain at the helm throughout his treatment.”

For several months, Apple insisted that Jobs’s health was a private matter with no impact on the firm, releasing little information, reports CNET.

While there are no hard-and-fast legal guidelines about disclosing CEO health, CNET’s Steven Musil maintains that any health issue affecting a CEO’s ability to run the company needs to be disclosed to the board of directors and the public.

The problem at Apple, reports ABC News, is that Jobs is closely associated with Apple’s creative vision. His announcement in the last week sent the company’s stock down several points.

Kirk Hanson, at ethicist at California’s Santa Clara University, tells ABC that Jobs is a unique CEO, arguing that “his health affects the interest of so many other people that he gives up some of his right to privacy.”

Jobs’s health has captured media attention partly because Apple has been coy about releasing information, says Fortune senior editor Roger Parloff. “The Apple board appears to have consistently bowed to Steve Jobs’ desire to keep his health issues private. Accordingly, the board has kept investors informed about these matters — to paraphrase a line from the play A Thousand Clowns – primarily by means of rumor. Some have argued that the board’s conduct has actually been illegal or, if it isn’t, ought to be made so in the future,” Parloff writes.

Sources: CNN/Fortune, Jan. 16 — CNBC, Jan. 16 — CNET, Jan. 16 — ABC News, Jan. 16.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 3, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 14, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 4, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 16, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 2, 2007.

It appears that his firm may never have executed a single real trade, according to press reports; also, there is considerable outrage over the decision that allows him to remain free on bail

NEW YORK
There were several new developments in the unfolding story of what appears to be one of the biggest swindles in history. Among the Bernard Madoff coverage:

• The extent of the fabrications engineered by Bernard Madoff became more clear last week after it was revealed that authorities believe he may never have executed even a single trade with his supposed investment fund. The New York Daily News reports that if this is true, statements sent to investors were complete fabrications — something perhaps not surprising given the underlying structure of the alleged Ponzi scheme.
• A judge’s decision to allow Madoff to remain free on bail comes with strings attached, CBS News reports. He cannot transfer assets, must provide an inventory of everything in his Manhattan apartment, and must let authorities open and review all his mail.
• The fact that Madoff was allowed to stay in his luxury apartment outraged many who want him jailed — or worse. According to Boston Globe columnist Scott Burns, more than 3,000 readers have contacted him with suggested punishments, ranging from enforced poverty, imprisonment in Guantánamo, and even the death penalty. Many readers posited that it was unfair for someone to receive five to 10 years in prison for robbing a store while a white-collar crime can incur a lighter penalty yet be much more devastating. According to Burns’s calculations, the dollar value of Madoff’s alleged crime is equal to three full years’ worth of property crimes in America.

Sources: New York Daily News, Jan. 17 — CBS, Jan. 16 — Boston Globe, Jan. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline Commentary, Jan.12 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 12 — Related Newsline Commentary, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 22, 2008.

WIPRO barred from doing business with World Bank; it’s the second major incident to erupt in as many weeks, and observers worry the news may endanger a trillion-dollar industry

NEW DELHI
Recent scandals in India’s technology industry have triggered new scrutiny of the country’s ethics practices and standards.

In the most recent development, WIPRO, one of India’s biggest computer outsourcing firms, was blacklisted by the World Bank for allegedly providing “improper benefits” to Bank staff, reports Forbes.

The Bangalore-based group confirmed it was banned from dealing with the World Bank for four years, according to the Hindu newspaper.

Bloomberg reports that the Bank made the prohibition after World Bank staffers allegedly were offered shares of stock for the firm’s initial share sale in the United States. The action, along with a list of other companies blacklisted, was made public last week.

The news was the second major blow for India’s outsourcing industries. Two weeks ago, Satyam faced controversy after its chairman, Ramalinga Raju, admitted cooking the company’s books for several years, reports Forbes.

It also was revealed last week that Satyam is on the list of firms blackballed from doing business with the World Bank, notes Forbes.

The Washington Post notes that while many in India contend that the Satyam fraud is “an aberration, they concede that cleanup is overdue and that the global image of ‘corporate India,’ which fuels a trillion-dollar economy, is at stake.”

The Post continues: “The scandal has raised fears that there could be other skeletons lurking in Indian corporate practices and comes as the global financial crisis has renewed discussion among business leaders about moving to international financial reporting standards by 2011.”

Experts interviewed by the Post contend that ethics and corporate governance, once considered a boring topic in India, now are holding the interest of business leaders.

Sources: Hindu, Jan. 15 — Financial Times, Jan. 15 — Bloomberg, Jan. 14 — Forbes, Jan. 12 — Washington Post, Jan. 10.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 12 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 22, 2008 — Related Newsline Commentary, Aug. 4, 2008 — Related Newsline story, June 30, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 28, 2008.