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

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Several years ago, visiting New York City, I became a statistical anomaly. It started when I got out of a cab in Manhattan and unknowingly dropped my wallet on the sidewalk. It ended several hours later with a call from an executive in a midtown office tower, saying he’d found my wallet and would return it to me if I stopped by. I did so, offering profuse thanks and a reward, which he good-heartedly declined as he wished me well.

According to a new poll on community trust from Gallup, New York is not a good place to lose your wallet. Surveying some 170,000 Americans since January 2009, Gallup asked, “If you lost a wallet or a purse that contained $200, and it was found by a neighbor, do you think it would be returned with the money in it, or not?”

Now, pause here and jot down three things. First, what do you think — yes or no? Second, in which of the 50 states do you think people would be most apt to answer yes? Finally, in which state would they be most likely to say no?

Got it? Okay, here’s what Gallup found. The top 10 most trusting states cluster in the northern tier of the West and Midwest, but they also include Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Utah and South Dakota lead the pack, with 85 percent expressing great trust in their neighbors. The top tier also includes Idaho, Montana, Iowa, North Dakota, and Wyoming. In the bottom tier are 10 states that are either large (New York, California), southern (Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana), or both (Florida, Texas). But even in Nevada — the lowest of the bottom 10 — some 60 percent of the public still think the wallet would be returned. So here’s the first key point: Most Americans, wherever they are, trust their neighbors.

Or at least they do in statewide averages. But there seems to be a deep distinction between urban and rural populations. In Washington, DC, which Gallup also surveyed, only 43 percent of respondents express this kind of social trust. Why? The speculation is that the District of Columbia, unlike any of the 50 states, is entirely urban — and that the anonymity of city living makes it harder to know your neighbors, never mind trust them. As the Gallup researchers point out, three of the least trusting states — California, New York, and Texas — are home to seven of the nation’s largest urban population centers. Meanwhile, six of the 10 most trusting states (Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Montana) are among America’s least populous. So here’s the second point: Urban living inhibits social trust.

Which explains why my New York visit was a statistical anomaly. Most people, I suspect, would say that my wallet wouldn’t have been returned. New Yorkers statewide are more than twice as likely (35 percent) as South Dakotans (15 percent) to take a cynical view of their neighbors — and probably even more so in the city. So here’s a third point: If a tally of the naysayers constitutes a kind of cynicism index, then cynicism more than doubles as you move from state to state — and may increase dramatically as you move from rural to urban.

Why does all of this matter? Because since the ethics recession began in 2008, trustworthiness and its twin, trustfulness, have loomed larger than ever in public consciousness. If we can chart a shift from trust to cynicism across U.S. regions, I suspect we can spot a similar decline across time as well. The real issues of trust today relate not to wallets but to houses, jobs, retirement accounts, banks, insurance companies — the whole bonfire of issues that underlie the recession. The real question is not, If some poor Joe lost his wallet, and someone saw what was happening, would they intervene to help him? That’s a surrogate for a deeper question: If some poor sucker signed up for a subprime mortgage and his bankers knew what was happening, would they intervene to save him?

Gallup never asked that question. But we can guess at the levels of cynicism it would provoke. The U.S. public, appalled at the deception and greed underlying the current recession, has lost enormous trust in institutions that are meant to exercise “fiduciary” responsibility — a word which comes from the Latin word for trust. Fourth point, then: The institutions in our culture that we should hold in high trust are provoking instead the greatest cynicism.

So the Gallup survey is not only about whether Sioux Falls is less cynical than Baton Rouge. That’s just a placeholder for a larger discussion: What happens to a nation as its reservoir of trust drains away? If it’s fair to say, by extrapolation, that less than half of the nation’s urban populations believe they would ever see a lost wallet again, how do they feel about the savings accounts, pension funds, and home mortgages they’ve figuratively dropped on life’s sidewalk?

Did we really expect Americans to start investing and consuming again until someone returns their lost wallets — until the institutions they thought they could trust prove trustworthy?

©2009 Institute for Global Ethics

Find this and previous weeks’ commentaries online as a podcast titled Ethicast™ now available on iTunes. Subscribe today!

“The endemic corruption within the Iraqi system — not only the security forces, but the system — is still probably the biggest problem facing Iraq.”

– U.S. general Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq since September 2008, speaking recently with the BBC. The New York Times includes Odierno’s comment in a piece examining the pervasive corruption in Iraq as highlighted in a new report by Iraq’s Interior Ministry inspector general.

While that report focuses on the country’s security forces, the Times notes that Iraqi “corruption runs much deeper, endangering the fragile sense of security in Iraq as America draws down its forces, with security services that seem aimed as much at enriching themselves as protecting average Iraqis.” The report notes that “in the first six months of this year, 1,455 arrest warrants have been issued by the Iraqi Commission of Public Integrity, in charge of corruption prosecutions.”

Source: New York Times, Oct. 28.

In other news from politics and ethics, the White House plays defense over donor access; impeachment resolution against South Carolina governor delayed; New York ethics panel will not recommend charges in case involving Caroline Kennedy leaks

WASHINGTON and NEW YORK
Several major stories dealt with the interplay of politics and ethics last week. Among them:

• More than 30 lawmakers and aides in the U.S. House of Representatives have been under scrutiny by ethics investigators over issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a document that apparently was inadvertently left on a publicly accessible computer network and has since rocketed around cyberspace. The Washington Post reported that the breach revealed details of a process that is normally highly secretive: Ethics committee members and staffers sign oaths pledging not do disclose any activities related to past or present investigations. Among those mentioned, according to the Post, are New York’s Charles Rangel and California’s Jane Harman and Maxine Waters. ComputerWorld reports that the information was leaked inadvertently after a junior staffer put the document on a computer equipped with file-sharing software. In the wake of the breach, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and minority leader John Boehner announced that they have ordered a review of the handling of sensitive data, reports Politico. The Hill, a publication covering Congress, reports that all but two of the lawmakers mentioned in the report are Democrats, leading the GOP to seize on the leak to claim that Democrats are not living up to their pledge of ethics reform.
• The Obama administration last week defended itself against allegations that it has rewarded major donors with too much access to the White House, as the Washington Times claims. ABC News’s senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper reports: “Every White House has rewarded its wealthiest contributors with various insider access and perks. Some of Mr. Obama’s more idealistic supporters may have been under the impression that President Obama wouldn’t be eager to engage in such activities, which good government groups argue tarnished both the Clinton and Bush White Houses.” Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said that contributing does not guarantee access to the White House and that the Obama administration has instituted “the toughest ethics and transparency rules of any administration in history.”
• An attempt to start impeachment proceedings against South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was turned aside last week when the state’s House speaker rejected the action. A lawmaker introduced the resolution calling for Sanford to be forced out of office after his weeklong disappearance in June, when he spent time with a mistress in Argentina, but the speaker said the measure is not appropriate under the limited terms under which the Legislature met last week, according to the Charleston Post and Courier.
• New York State’s ethics board will not recommend bringing charges related to leaks of personal and unsubstantiated claims against Caroline Kennedy, a contender who dropped out of the race for U.S. Senate. The leaks, reports television station WCBS in New York, apparently came from someone close to Gov. David Paterson. A spokesman for the New York Public Interest Research Group, a watchdog agency, complained to WCBS that the ethics board produced only a two-sentence letter saying the panel closed the case after a review. A spokesman for the State Public Integrity Commission says the board comments only on findings of wrongdoing, according to WCBS.

Sources: Politico, Oct. 31 – Washington Post, Oct. 30 – The Hill, Oct. 30 – ComputerWorld, Oct. 30 – ABC, Oct. 28 – Charleston Post and Courier, Oct. 28 – WCBS-TV, Oct. 27.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 26 — Related Newsline Commentary, Oct. 12 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 12 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 21 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 8.

Variety of questions center on priorities for vaccine, risk-benefit analyses, and rhetoric about the virus’ danger

VARIOUS DATELINES
As worries over H1N1, otherwise known as the swine flu, spread as quickly as the virus itself, several ethics angles on the story have been featured in the world press. Among the dilemmas:

• Who gets the vaccine first? The Detroit Free Press reports that a shortage of vaccine in Michigan has, according to some flu experts, left patients too frail to stand in long lines vulnerable to the bug. Vaccination priorities differ from county to county, according to the Free Press, leading to confusion over who should be put at the head of the line.
• Is it worth the risk? Risk-benefit arguments are being played out differently on each side of the U.S.-Canadian border, reports Toronto’s Globe & Mail. In Canada, the vaccination contains what is known as an “adjuvant,” a substance that boosts the overall immune response of the person receiving the vaccine. But in the United States, adjuvants are not approved and there is some concern — though, according to the Globe & Mail report, no hard evidence — that adjuvants are linked to a syndrome suffered by Gulf War veterans who received various vaccinations. But there’s more to the story, according to the report: Using adjuvants allows much more rapid production and usage of vaccine, leading to U.S. shortages while Canadian dosages are plentiful, which has in turn reportedly has led some Americans to lie about being pregnant or having an underlying health condition in order to be given high priority in receiving the shots.
• Should the United States donate swine flu vaccine to poor countries before all Americans have been inoculated? As of late last week, the decision appeared to be no, according to a report from the Agence France-Presse. “As vaccine becomes more available, I think evaluation will be made as to when it’s appropriate for donation to begin, but I can tell you at this point the priority is getting the vaccine to citizens in this country, and that’s what we’re working on 24/7,” U.S. Health secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, according to the AFP.
• Is it really a “national emergency?” The Week magazine surveyed press coverage on the issue, noting that the Obama administration’s decision to invoke emergency status is viewed in some quarters as unwarranted alarmist rhetoric. Critics contend that the escalation of tension, combined with vaccine shortages, is a recipe for panic and frustration. Others, such as Boston Herald editor Jules Crittenden, call it an example of politically “covering your behind.” Others, while admitting that the national emergency proclamation may be overblown, say that it’s the only way for the president to bypass red tape that will hinder the fight against the disease.

Sources: AFP, Oct. 29 – Detroit Free Press, Oct. 29 – Globe & Mail, Oct. 28 – The Week, Oct. 26 – Jules Crittenden’s blog, Oct. 25.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 19 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 24 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 10 — Related Newsline story, July 20 — Related Newsline story, July 6.

Critics say NFL has not done enough to help former players with debilitating mental and emotional conditions

WASHINGTON
The National Football League (NFL) and its union last week agreed to cooperate with a congressional call for an independent review of the effects of head injuries on current and former players.

Questions about players’ vulnerability to dementia and other neurological problems were the focus of a congressional hearing last week that included testimony from doctors and former players.

NFL commissioner Robert Goodell said he would make the organization’s records available for the inquiry, reports the Reuters news agency.

When pressed, Goodell would not say whether he believed there was a link between football and mental and emotional problems among players, but he did say that he could think of “no issue to which I’ve devoted more time and attention,” asserting that the NFL is “changing the culture of the game for the better,” notes the New York Times.

At issue, reports CNN, is whether the league does enough to protect players and to provide care for former players now suffering from debilitating brain injury.

“Surely, an $8 billion a year industry can find it within its budget to make sure players are adequately protected and that any victims of long-term brain disease are fairly compensated,” said Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, reports CNN.

In an editorial, the Boston Globe says it supports an independent probe: “Congress should demand that the league, which has tended to discount the lasting effects of hard blocks and tackles, pay for an independent study of the game’s effect on players’ brains. The federal government should also commission its own research on the sport at all levels.”

As reported in previous issues of Newsline, various critics have claimed that football — both professional and amateur — produces more brain injuries than is widely assumed and that coaches have not always exercised adequate caution in returning head-injured players to the lineup.

Sources: New York Times, Oct. 28 – Reuters, Oct. 28 – CNN, Oct. 28 – Boston Globe, Oct. 28.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 5 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 5, 2007 — Related Newsline story, June 28, 2004.

In other business-ethics news, Uganda’s investment chief urges transparency, pointing to previous bank failures; a research study says a surprisingly simple act may improve ethical behavior

VARIOUS DATELINES
Several stories dealing with ethics came from the U.S. and international press last week. Among them:

• Companies that act ethically are likely to have better results in attracting talent, according to a recent survey by Michigan-based Kelly Services, Inc. According to a report in Crain’s Detroit Business, the Kelly Global Workface Index surveyed about 100,000 people in 34 countries across North America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region. About 90 percent of respondents said they would gravitate toward a company perceived to be ethically and socially responsible. Fifty-three percent of baby boomers said they would forego pay or a promotion to work for an organization with a good reputation.
• A hygienic approach to ethics comes from Investor’s Business Daily, which reports that a study shows workers are more fair and generous when they work in clean-smelling environments. Researchers reporting their findings in the journal Psychological Science found a “dramatic improvement” in ethical behavior when a few spritzes of a citrus-scented cleaner were introduced into a room.
• The Monitor of Kampala, Uganda, reports that the nation’s minister for investment says that transparency, accountability, and ethical behavior are the most important factors in attracting investment to Uganda. Aston Kajara, speaking at the opening ceremony of a corporate governance workshop, said the recent failure of many banks in Uganda came after they neglected to follow those principles.

Sources: Kampala Monitor, Oct. 29 – Investor’s Business Daily, Oct. 28 – Crain’s Detroit Business, Oct. 28.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 19 — Related Newsline story, June 22 — Related Newsline Commentary, Feb. 16 — Related Newsline story, June 23, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 14, 2008.

People cleared of crimes find that digital information lives forever, even when it was expunged by courts; Facebook confronts a ticklish problem involving the pages of dead members; Egypt issues code of ethics for cell phone users

VARIOUS DATELINES
The ethics side-effects of technology were evident in several recent reports. Among them:

• National Public Radio reports that the immortal memory of digital media has created a dilemma for those who have been accused but acquitted of a crime: While many people used to be able to get on with their lives after a not-guilty verdict, that option has largely become obsolete. Defense lawyer Robert Perez told NPR that prospective employers and landlords will find out about criminal records because they use private database services that are unaffected by court expungement orders that typically follow an acquittal. And it’s not only official records that can haunt people: One lawyer, reports NPR, sued — and lost — in an attempt to get his college paper to pull a 25-year-old article about his arrest on a burglary charge.
• Egypt has issued an official code of ethics for cell phone use, reports the BBC. The guide includes warnings against annoying others with loud conversations or ring tones, and notes that users could face legal repercussions if they send “inappropriate words or indecent photos” or post pictures of others on the internet without their permission. Another piece of advice from the government guide: “On receiving a text message, verify the information mentioned in it before circulating it.”
• Facebook is dealing with a sticky situation involving a new feature of its homepage that automatically generates suggestions of people to “reconnect” with. Unfortunately, reports TIME magazine, some of those suggestions were for people who recently had died. Now, Facebook is publicizing a policy in which pages of deceased users are “memorialized” — taken out of public search results, sealed from any log-in attempts, but left open for visitors to pay their respects. According to the TIME report, the new policy actually was crafted after a July report from Canada’s privacy commissioner, who questioned the firm’s handling of deceased members’ information.

Sources: BBC, Oct. 29 – NPR, Oct. 29 – TIME, Oct. 28.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Oct. 26 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 19 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 12 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 13, 2007 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 5, 2007.

Canadian MBA grads take ethics oath; survey says cheating is a lifetime practice; ethics of standardized-test graders questioned; Financial Times looks at question of whether you can really teach ethics

VARIOUS DATELINES
Last week’s headlines included a flurry of reports on education ethics. Among the top stories:

• Following a trend established by Harvard, a business school in Canada last week saw about two dozen MBA graduates take an ethics oath. The Ottawa Citizen reports that the graduates of the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa became the first Canadian MBAs to sign pledges that they would conduct themselves ethically, work for the well-being of all stakeholders, fight corruption, weigh the environmental costs of their actions, and treat public money with the same care as they would treat their own.
• A new survey indicates that people who cheated in high school are more likely to cheat on their taxes, lie to a customer, or pad an insurance claim. The survey of 7,000 people was conducted by the Josephson Institute in Los Angeles. According to a summary from the Los Angeles Times, the study also looked at current behavior of teens and found them five times more likely than respondents over 50 to say they believe that it is necessary to lie and cheat to be successful.
• An opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor examines the ethics of those who score standardized tests and how industry practices impact accountability in education. Todd Farley, author of a book about the standardized testing industry, maintains that he witnessed one testing company drop its standards for hiring test scorers after they realized that they didn’t have enough personnel for a project. He makes other provocative claims: “During my time in testing I was witness to (or party to) every conceivable manner of corporate chicanery and statistical tomfoolery, any shortcut imaginable that would help those for-profit companies get tests scored, deadlines met, and money made,” Farley wrote. He says that during his time in testing “there were few corners I didn’t cut and few rules I didn’t bend…. I fudged the numbers like everyone else. Much of my career managing scoring projects was spent manipulating statistics to give off the appearance of a test-scoring process that was consistent and standardized even when it was not.”
• The Financial Times last week collected views from a variety of academics and executives in a story on the subject of whether you can teach ethics. Among the more incisive comments was an observation from University of Denver business ethics professor James O’Toole: “Alas, the track record of required ethics courses is abysmal: Most students see such classes as routine obstacles they must overcome — or painful rites de passage they must endure — on the road to earning their MBA degrees; hence, they fail to engage seriously with the material. This is particularly true when courses are taught by professors who lack business experience…. Yet, when discipline-based professors integrate ethical considerations into their courses, experience suggests students come to view ethical questions as necessary and integral components of effective decision making. Thus, when ethics is taught in almost every course as part and parcel of good business practice, students may learn to become virtuous professionals.”

Sources: Los Angeles Times, Oct. 29 – Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 28 – Financial Times, Oct. 27 – Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 26.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Sep. 28 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 28 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 21 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 14 — Related Newsline story, June 8.

Majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independent voters all favor making insurance companies subject to antitrust laws

From Rasmussen Reports:

“Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters nationwide say laws should be changed so that health insurance companies are subject to anti-trust regulations. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 12% disagree, while 23% are not sure.

“Anti-trust laws are intended to prevent companies and other business entities from working together in ways that limit competition.

“Support for putting the health insurance companies under the anti-trust umbrella is consistent with another survey finding: 66% say free market competition between insurance companies will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs. Just 23% believe more government regulation is the way to reduce costs, and 10% are not sure….

“Voters continue to believe health care reform is needed, but they also remain skeptical about the proposals working their way through Congress. Fifty-four percent (54%) say major changes are needed in the health care system, but just 42% support the approach proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.

“Eighty-six percent (86%) of Republicans and 73% of unaffiliated voters believe that free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs. Democrats are evenly divided.

“Democrats, however, favor making insurance companies subject to anti-trust laws by a seven-to-one margin. Sixty-four percent (64%) of unaffiliated voters and 58% of Republicans share that view.

“The insurance industry was exempted from antitrust laws by Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled that the industry should be regulated by the government. State agencies have been the primary regulators of the industry….”

For the full release from Rasmussen Report, Oct. 22, click here.

“Those who bear equally the burdens of government should equally participate of its benefits.”

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