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

by Rushworth M. Kidder

You’d think we would have foreseen it. Give a kid a cell-phone camera, and we know they’ll take pictures. Give them messaging capability, and we know they’ll start texting messages and sending photos of themselves to each other — alone or with friends, goofy or serious.

Then why didn’t it occur to us that some of those shots would be in the nude?

Once again we’ve been caught flat-footed by the latest teen fad: sexting. According to a survey last fall by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 20 percent of teens say they have sent or posted nude or seminude pictures or videos of themselves.

This isn’t the first time our lack of moral futurism has tripped us up. Several years ago it was DWT — driving while texting. Only when DWT created headlines with the death of five teenage girls in upstate New York in June 2007 — and then, spectacularly, in the Los Angeles commuter train wreck that killed 25 people last September — did we begin to understand that it could be fatal.

Shame on texting drivers and teenage sexters? Sure. But shame on us as well. We regularly let our technologies leverage our ethics, so that single unethical acts can create enormous, unforeseen ethical problems. Then we act surprised when fads or calamities strike. “Wow!” we say. “Technology has created a whole new ethical problem! Who knew?”

We knew — or at least we should have. Here we’ve got these cell-phone cameras. Here we live in a video culture drenched with explicit eroticism. Here we access an Internet system where pornography is the single most common target of Web searches. How hard would it have been to imagine what would happen if you put these three threads into the hands of teenagers with little instruction and no warnings?

What’s wrong with sexting? For starters, here are seven arguments:

• It constitutes the kind of “lewd and lascivious behavior” that society seeks to avoid and the law generally prohibits.
• When you transmit such images, you may be guilty of circulating pornography — a tough charge, especially when it involves minors and could lead to permanent labeling as a criminal sex offender.
• Sexting surrenders a key aspect of your individuality — the way you invite others to see you — to a medium beyond your control. What keeps recipients from forwarding your picture to dozens of others — or posting it for everyone everywhere to see?
• Sexting may encourage aggressive sexual activity that, absent responsibility or affection, is especially harmful to young minds and bodies.
• Sexting promotes a desensitized peer culture where sexual activity becomes more difficult to resist — even among teens who avoid instant gratification and value abstinence.
• If such a culture leads to teen pregnancy and abortion — or early marriages at high risk of divorce, generating more single-parent families — the psychic and financial burdens to society can be severe.
• If such a culture leads to rape, domestic abuse, and sexual predation, the consequences are enormous.

What should we do? The Vermont Senate recently passed and its House is now considering legislation that, oddly enough, reduces the penalties for sexting. Supporters on both sides of the aisle explain that they aren’t legalizing sexting so much as partially decriminalizing it. Why? Because after 12-year-old Brooke Bennett was sexually assaulted and murdered in Vermont last summer, the legislature crafted one of the nation’s toughest sexual predator laws. The proposed sexting law, its supporters argue, would merely ensure that juveniles caught sending these pictures won’t be subject to punishment under that toughened law. They could still be prosecuted under pornography or lewd-behavior statutes, but they wouldn’t be placed on sex-offender registries for the rest of their lives.

Fair enough. Young people making stupid mistakes deserve reformation, not retribution. But how?

Here’s an idea: What if cell phones came equipped with a feature that, whenever any picture was sent or received, would automatically send a copy to a designated third party? Some parents wouldn’t use it, trusting their teens. Others would have the pictures sent to an archive to access later if they suspected something. Still others would have the pictures sent directly to their own cell phone in real time. Whatever they did, parents would have to make a choice about whether to have that feature permanently turned on or not. And that choice would compel a conversation about sexting with their teens. “Tell me why you want the feature turned off,” parents could say. “If you’re only sending or getting innocent pictures, having it on won’t bother you. But if you plan on sexting — sorry, I’m not paying for your phone.”

Not every parent would opt in, and some teens might buy their own phones. But every would-be sexter would have to suspect that some parents would have access. Would he or she (and most sexters are female) be so quick to send pictures?

Whatever the result, the very availability of such a feature would raise a tough moral dilemma, pitting the rights of teenage privacy against the responsibilities of adult supervision. We don’t want censorship, but we also don’t want pornography. If every parent’s purchase of a phone for a teen would provide the occasion for a serious ethical conversation on that point, we’d be well on our way to addressing sexting. Then, instead of technology leveraging our ethics, we might find that our ethical foresight was beginning to drive our use of technology.

©2009 Institute for Global Ethics

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 6.

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

“In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution…. This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values….”

– U.S. president Barack Obama, explaining his decision last week to release a series of classified memos detailing controversial interrogation techniques — some, like waterboarding, widely deemed torture — approved by the Bush administration. Obama again stated his opposition to pursuing legal action against C.I.A. operatives and other U.S. officials who took the memos’ legal advice in conducting their operations.

Source: Statement by President Obama, Apr. 16, provided by the New York Times.

For more information, see: New York Times, Apr. 18 — New York Times, Apr. 16 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 20 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 13 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 11, 2008.

In related story, saying decision came after weighing competing principles, White House defends release of memos detailing interrogation methods

WASHINGTON
Answering one open-ended question in an ethics issue that has been hanging for several years, President Obama last week said that CIA officials would not be prosecuted for using waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques.

Reuters reports that Obama, who ended the use of the controversial techniques after he took office, said in a statement: “It is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.”

The pronouncement was made shortly after the Obama Justice Department released previously classified memos detailing the interrogation methods, reports the Washington Post. Those methods included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and keeping detainees in a cramped box, sometimes putting insects into the box.

The related incidents drew ethical fire immediately, with human rights groups and former detainees expressing disappointment with the decision not to prosecute, the AP reports.

But critics from the other side of the political spectrum were equally vocal about the release of the memos, saying that Obama endangered national security. CNN quoted Michael Hayden, CIA director under Bush from 2006 to 2009, as saying: “What we have described for our enemies in the midst of a war are the outer limits that any American would ever go to in terms of interrogating an al Qaeda terrorist. That’s very valuable information…. By taking [certain] techniques off the table, we have made it more difficult — in a whole host of circumstances I can imagine — for CIA officers to defend the nation.”

White House senior adviser David Axelrod countered that the decision was made after considering two principles, according to the Agence France-Presse: “One is the sanctity of covert operations and keeping faith with the people who do them, and the impact on national security, on the one hand. And the other was the law and his belief in transparency.”

Obama also rejected such complaints and the reasoning behind them. In a statement, Obama explained: “First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program — and some of the practices — associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.”

Sources: Reuters, Apr. 17 — AP, Apr. 17 — Washington Post, Apr. 17 — AFP, Apr. 17.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 13 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 13 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 22, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 25, 2008.

There’s more trouble relating to the Illinois Senate seat, and Eliot Spitzer is back — crusading about market reforms

WASHINGTON and NEW YORK
Politics and ethics were paired in several major stories last week. Among them:

• The new Office of Congressional Ethics has launched 10 probes into lawmakers or their aides, according to a report from USA Today. While the panel is prohibited from identifying its subjects, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., (D-Ill.) has confirmed that the ethics office has begun a preliminary inquiry into his efforts to secure appointment to the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, reports the paper.
• Roland Burris, who controversially was appointed by former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, has racked up more than $111,000 in debts while defending the legitimacy of his seat, Politico.com reports. Though Burris has begun a fundraising campaign, to date he’s raised only $845, notes Congressional Quarterly.
• Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer is back in crusade mode, despite being forced from office in a prostitution scandal. The American Bar Association Journal reports that Spitzer is attacking high executive compensation and calling for reform of the financial markets.

Sources: USA Today, Apr. 17 — Politico.com, Apr. 17 — ABA Journal, Apr. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 6 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 23 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 16 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 6 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 31, 2008.

An ethics dispute roils soccer’s governing body; baseball improves record of minority hiring, according to report; coach’s get-tough attitude with 6- and 7-year-old girls prompts some outrage as well as some admiration; champion cyclist admits doping

VARIOUS DATELINES
Sports and sporting behavior figured in last week’s news. Among the top stories:

• The ethics committee of FIFA, soccer’s governing body, is investigating claims of vote buying in the election of the body’s executive committee, according to a report from the London Independent. Two leaders fighting for the same seat have traded a variety of allegations that have been turned over to the ethics committee. The executive committee determines host countries for the coming World Cup tournaments.
• African-Americans accounted for 10.2 percent of Major League Baseball players last year, the most since the 1995 season and significantly higher than the all-time low of 8.2 percent in 2007, according to a survey from the University of Central Florida Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sports. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the Institute, which grades teams and sports programs for their diversity efforts, gave baseball an overall B-plus, and an A for its specific hiring practices.
• Tough talk by a girls’ soccer coach led to his resignation and a debate about sports ethics. The Patriot-Ledger of Quincy, Massachusetts, reports that Michael Kinahan said he was joking when he sent an email to the parents of the 6- and 7-year-old girls on his team, saying he had named the team “The Green Death” and noting that the girls will “fall, get bumps, bruises and even bleed a little. Big deal, it’s good for them (but I do hope the other team is the one bleeding)….The political correctness police are not welcome on my sidelines.” The Boston Globe reports that even though he was forced to resign, there was some support for Kinahan’s approach, with Globe columnist Joanna Weiss noting that some observers welcomed his tough words, saying there could be a benefit to children in playing for a realist with a sense of humor.
• Champion U.S. cyclist Tyler Hamilton, who won acclaim during the 2003 Tour de France and a gold medal at the 2004 Olympics, last week admitted using a banned drug and said he would retire from the sport. Hamilton has been fighting doping charges for years, weathering a two-year suspension from 2005 to 2007 after failing a drug test. Now returned to racing, Hamilton last week admitted that he knowingly used an over-the-counter medication for depression that contained a banned steroid, reports the Los Angeles Times. Hamilton said using the drug was “stupid” and “wrong,” but denied trying to cheat. “I took a substance that was on the banned list for my mental health,” he said. “Did I take it for performance enhancement? Absolutely not.” Rather than face a likely eight-year suspension, Hamilton said he would retire, reports the Times.

Sources: Los Angeles Times, Apr. 18 — Independent, Apr. 17 — Philadelphia Inquirer, Apr. 17 — Boston Globe, Apr. 11 — Quincy Patriot-Ledger, Mar. 31.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 16 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 9 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 2 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 26.

Advocacy group for obese says seats are too small to begin with, and if airlines are worried about personal space, why not penalize people who lean their seats back or have big, puffy coats?

CHICAGO
In a continuing controversy over the ethical implications of obesity — and who should bear the costs and inconveniences of the condition — United Airlines last week said it will bump severely overweight passengers from sold-out flights.

Also, reports the Chicago Tribune, passengers too big to fit into a single coach seat will have to buy two tickets or upgrade to first class. If no extra seats are available, the passenger gets bumped, adds the Chicago Sun-Times.

Starting on April 15, 2009, United put in place the policy affecting passengers who “are unable to fit into a single seat in the ticketed cabin; are unable to properly buckle the seatbelt using a single seatbelt extender; and/or are unable to put the seat’s armrests down when seated.”

United spokespeople say the decision, which mirrors policies at several other major carriers, was made after hundreds of complaints from passengers who felt their personal space was encroached upon by extra-large row-mates.

But as Bloomberg reports, not everyone is happy about the policy.

“It’s going to perpetuate that negative stigma that’s already associated with obesity,” James Zervios, a spokesman for the Obesity Action Coalition, told Bloomberg.

Zervios says part of the problem relates to seats that are too small to begin with, and he claims that if obese people are penalized, the same reasoning should apply to people who push back their seats or have big, puffy coats.

Sources: Chicago Tribune, Apr. 17 — Chicago Sun-Times, Apr. 16 — MSNBC, Apr. 16 — Bloomberg, Apr. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Nov. 24, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 3, 2008 — Related Newsline story, July 28, 2008 — Related Newsline story, July 10, 2006.

In other stories about media and morals, a mug-shot site causes controversy, and a media scholar says the digital era points out the need for enhanced ethics

VARIOUS DATELINES
Several stories relating to media ethics were featured in last week’s news. Among them:

• The woman at the center of a bioethics controversy involving her eight children produced by in vitro fertilization started another row last week when she filed an application to trademark her nickname, Octomom. According to the Los Angeles Times, the purpose of the trademark, as stated in the application form, is for “ongoing television programs” and a marketing deal for disposable diapers.
• A website featuring mug shots of people arrested in Florida has sparked an intense ethics debate, according to journalism analysis publication Poynteronline.com. While the site, run by the St. Petersburg Times, has become popular, critics are questioning whether it’s fair to build a site around mug shots, not the crimes themselves. Among the questions being asked, according to Poynter columnist Steve Myers, is whether the site is journalism or voyeurism, and whether it is fair to highlight people who are arrested but not convicted, especially in an age when digital information lives forever.
• A noted media-ethics scholar says ethical judgment is more important than ever as news media migrate to digital platforms. Writing in the Indianapolis Star, Bob Steele, a visiting professor of journalism at DePauw University and an ethics specialist at the Poynter Institute, maintains “the ethical decision-making processes we’ve taught are just as applicable for bloggers and Tweeters and multimedia all-platform journalists as they have been for the editors, reporters and other newsroom journalists of generations past. In fact, it may be even more important digital era to use a sound moral compass and to embrace clear ethical principles” [sic].

Sources: Poynteronline.com, Apr. 17 — Indianapolis Star, Apr. 17 — Los Angeles Times, Apr. 15.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 9 — Related Newsline story, May 19, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 28, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 14, 2008.

British shoppers increasingly demand social responsibility among suppliers, according to survey; food fights have moved into the courtroom as producers and watchdogs argue about truth in advertising; a recent incident shows that in the age of the Internet, isolated incidents of bad behavior can mushroom into PR disasters

NEW YORK and EDINBURGH
Several stories in the major news media last week dealt with the ethics of retailing. Among them:

• Shoppers in Britain and elsewhere increasingly expect retailers to be more accountable when dealing with producers in developing nations, reports the Edinburgh Scotsman. A new survey of 14,500 customers in 15 countries, including the United Kingdom, found that most want companies to actively support community development, particularly in support of Fairtrade, a certification process that screens working conditions in supplier farms and firms. More than half of the surveyed consumers identified themselves as “active ethical consumers” who have higher expectations for social, economic, and environmental responsibilities among businesses, according to the Scotsman report.
• There’s an ongoing trend of food fights in the courtroom as food companies and watchdog groups squabble over whether food producers should make total disclosure of calories and fats in their products — and if they do, whether their numbers are entirely truthful. The Wall Street Journal reports that while several lawsuits have failed to produce big paydays, they have been a thorn in the side of companies marketing foods that claim hefty vitamin fortification or fat-burning properties. Predictably, defendants’ attorneys decry the trend. Attorney Louis Solomon, who represented PepsiCo in a recent case involving bottled water, tells the Journal that “food litigation is part of a larger ‘paternalization of society,’” adding that such litigation “in effect, says the masses aren’t intelligent enough to understand what they are buying.”
• The Internet has the power to turn isolated incidents of bad employee behavior into marketing crises, reports the New York Times. Two Domino’s Pizza employees in North Carolina videotaped a prank in the restaurant’s kitchen — an incident involving one employee wiping his nose on a sandwich. Reports the Times: “In a few days, thanks to the power of social media, they ended up with felony charges, more than a million disgusted viewers, and a major company facing a public relations crisis.” In the aftermath of the incident, independent research found that the public’s perception of the chain’s food quality plummeted. Worse, reports the Times, the company did not initially respond aggressively to the prank, misjudging the capacity of viral videos in cyberspace.

Sources: Scotsman, Apr. 17 — New York Times, Apr. 15 — Wall Street Journal, Apr. 9 — Wall Street Journal, Apr. 9.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Mar. 2 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 24, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Oct.1, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 11, 2006 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 3, 2003.

Author says business schools should make ethics an admission requirement; MBA programs undergo period of self-examination after economic meltdown; in a small school district, four employees pass up health insurance benefit to save music program

VARIOUS DATELINES
Ethics figured in recent news reports about education. They include:

• A noted business educator is advocating that good ethics be a requirement for admission to business school. Writing in Harvard Business Publishing, Claudio Fernández-Aráoz, an author and executive, argues that MBA programs should not only focus on teaching ethics but also “need to do a much better job of filtering the people they invite into their exclusive cadres. I say this as an executive search consultant who has interviewed thousands of MBAs all over the world, and hired and trained hundreds…. In order to assure that the people they line up for positions of power do good for all stakeholders, business schools should drastically revamp their admissions processes. Schools should make sure that they admit a larger proportion of individuals with the right values in the first place. In my book, a demonstration of ethical values is more important than brilliant academic and even professional credential.”
• MBA programs are undergoing a period of self-examination, according to Medill Reports/Washington, a news service operated by Northwestern University’s journalism school. At Georgetown University for instance, the business school is focusing on examining executive behavior during financial crises. At American University, the faculty is beefing up instruction in understanding the implications of business decisions. The story also quotes an incoming student who says he expects that a well-rounded MBA program will give more weight to corporate responsibility and ethics.
• Four staff members at a New Hampshire school have decided to forego the school system’s full coverage of their health insurance — and in the process have saved two part-time jobs in the school’s music department, according to the Lebanon Valley News. The teachers, who were not identified in school board minutes provided by the school, will pay out of their own pockets to be added onto their spouses’ plans. According to the Grantham School website, the move will save the district about $70,000.

Sources: Harvard Business Publishing, Apr. 16 — Medill Reports/Washington, Apr. 16 — Valley News, Apr 12.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Apr. 6 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 23 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 16 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 5 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 15, 2008 — Grantham School Board report, undated.

Pew poll finds more than half of U.S. Hispanics suspect police will use excessive force, treat them unfairly

From the Pew Research Center:

“At a time when Latinos are interacting more than ever with police, courts and prisons, their confidence in the U.S. criminal justice system is closer to the low levels expressed by blacks than to the high levels expressed by whites, according to a pair of nationwide surveys by the Pew Research Center.

“Six-in-ten (61%) Hispanics say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence that the police in their local communities will do a good job enforcing the law, compared with 78% of whites and 55% of blacks. Just under half (46%) of Hispanics say they have confidence that police officers will not use excessive force on suspects, compared with 73% of whites and 38% of blacks. Similarly, just under half of Hispanics say they are confident that police officers will treat Hispanics fairly (45%) and that courts will treat Hispanics fairly (49%)….

“In recent decades, Hispanics’ exposure to all parts of the criminal justice system has risen even faster than their rising share of the U.S. adult population. In state, federal and local prisons and jails, the share of inmates who were Hispanic increased from 16% in 2000 to 20% in 2008…. During this period, the share of Hispanics in the adult U.S. population rose from 11% to 13%.

“Overall, according to the Pew Center on the States, some 4% of adult Hispanics in 2007 were either in prison, jail or on probation or parole. This is larger than the share of whites (2%) who were under some form of corrections control in 2007 and smaller than the share of blacks (9%)….

“Other key findings of the report:

• “…More than three-quarters (78%) of Hispanics say that if they were a victim of a violent crime, they would definitely report that crime to the police….
• “Among all Hispanics, 27% say they or an immediate family member had reported a crime in the previous five years.
• “Nearly one-quarter (23%) of Hispanics say they or an immediate family member had been questioned by the police (for any reason) in the previous five years….
• “Some 17% of Latinos say they or an immediate family member had been under some kind of criminal corrections control in the previous five years.”

For the full press release from Pew, Apr. 7, click here.

“There is no greater calling than to serve your fellow men. There is no greater contribution than to help the weak. There is no greater satisfaction than to have done it well.”

– Walter Reuther (U.S. labor organizer, 1907-1970)