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

by Rushworth M. Kidder

Last Saturday, my wife and I happened to bicycle past an elegantly designed and immaculately landscaped car dealership, a usually thriving place that’s been selling Toyotas in South Florida since 1968. That afternoon it was packed with vehicles — and empty of customers. On a patch of grass under a palm tree near the entrance, a lone salesman, sleeves rolled up and tie slightly askew, sat atop a picnic table, his feet on the bench. As we passed by, he slowly opened his cell phone and stared dejectedly at the screen as though seeking a sign that something — anything — was happening. Apparently, there were no messages.

As the nation awaits this week’s congressional hearings, the non-message that’s slowly building is one of distrust and dismay that Japan’s sterling automotive manufacturer — the envy of the world, really, and the benchmark that Detroit sought madly to match — could have fallen into such confusion. Last fall’s recall focused on accelerator pedals that get caught under floor mats. The current recall centers on accelerator pedals that stick. A lawsuit from Michigan contends that the 77-year-old driver of a 2005 Toyota Camry was killed when, in 2008, her car suddenly accelerated out of control and hit a tree — a pattern similar to that of a Lexus that raced uncontrollably into a crash in San Diego in August. Now comes word that the company’s signature green car, the Prius hybrid, has braking problems in its latest models and will need a recall as well.

To the public, all of this smacks of a pattern. It’s not as though one recall were for transmissions, another for headlights, and a third for suspensions. Toyota’s problems are all of a piece: They each involve uncontrollable speed. Yet the company seems to be approaching them piecemeal — and reluctantly. Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda, grandson of the founder, has been nearly invisible in the entire process. Nor have his executives telegraphed a clear, forceful message that recognizes the appearance of a pattern and either confirms or dispels that interpretation. As a result, it appears that some root cause, as yet undiscovered, may be lurking beneath the surface.

Little wonder customers are wary. Their concerns go beyond the obvious questions about whether their car can be fixed. They’re asking whether Toyota really understands what’s happening — and whether the company truly is serious about fixing not only its cars but its reputation. In effect, they’re asking the ultimate — and fundamentally moral — question: Who are these people, and what kind of company is this?

This week’s hearings, done right, can raise some important questions:

• When did Toyota first know about these problems, and did they act immediately and forcefully to remedy them? Problems requiring a recall sometimes come to light slowly, of course. But given the mission-critical nature of this problem — uncontrollable speed — did they get out ahead of it fast enough? Or did they respond only because U.S. Transportation secretary Ray LaHood and his National Highway Traffic Safety Administration arm-twisted them into action?
• What should a Toyota driver do with his or her car? Last Wednesday the blunt-spoken Mr. LaHood gave a congressional panel an answer: “Stop driving it,” he said, “and take it to a Toyota dealer.” When that answer sent shares of Toyota stock spiraling still further into decline, LaHood recalibrated his remarks. But his answer may have been the most honest advice so far, inconvenient though it was.
• What if someone keeps driving an unrepaired Toyota and gets into an accident involving an acceleration problem: Will they be liable for ignoring warnings and driving an unsafe vehicle? How serious, in other words, is this issue — and who bears responsibility for it? Will Toyota step forward and own the problem? Or will they let some of their customers take some of the blame?

In the end, questions like these will help us understand Toyota’s corporate culture. Are they committed to integrity or simply to excellence? The former is a moral and ethical position that has to do with their views of responsibility, fairness, and honesty. The latter is an economic and strategic position that focuses on beating the competition. The two are intertwined, but where, in this company, does the primary weight fall? Does it seek integrity only as a pathway to excellence and the competitive advantage that brings? Or does it seek excellence as an essential expression of its true integrity?

Congressional questioners would do well to ask Toyota executives the following question: “We know you are committed to maintaining an excellent, competitive company with a strong bottom line, but not at the expense of X. In your company, what is X?” Where, in other words, will Toyota not go — where will it draw the moral line in the sand? — in pursuit of its goals? The company’s answers — or, perhaps, lack of answers — may send the clearest message yet about who Toyota really is.

©2010 Institute for Global Ethics

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

“No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

– U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, speaking last week to the Senate Armed Services Committee and urging the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gay military personnel from serving openly.

Mullen and Defense secretary Robert Gates both said the 1993 policy should be repealed, a view supported by President Obama but opposed by critics like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who says the move would strain the military.

Wikipedia notes that “of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, two (Britain, France) permit gay people to serve openly, and three (United States, Russia, China) do not.”

Source: New York Times, Feb. 3.

Among the ethical issues: whether the company failed to respond adequately to problem and whether people should continue to drive possibly dangerous vehicles

VARIOUS DATELINES
Toyota’s chief last week formally apologized for the problems confronted by owners of his company’s vehicles, saying he would lead a special committee to improve quality control.

“I am deeply sorry about the inconvenience and concern caused to our customers and others,” said Akio Toyoda at the company’s headquarters in Nagoya, Japan, reports the Los Angeles Times. “We, the ones supposed to relate to people the attractiveness of automobiles, have instead imparted on them worry. I regret this more than anything.”

Toyota has lost more than a fifth of its market value since the avalanche of recalls began, according to the Financial Times.

At least two ethical questions were part of the coverage of the Toyota crisis: whether the company was slow to react to warning signs, and the implications of continuing to drive vehicles that may be unsafe.

Toyota has rejected accusations that it ignored or responded slowly to numerous reports of sudden unintended acceleration, reports the Detroit News. But a former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration told the News that the agency had asked Toyota about the issue as far back as 2007 and was told that the problem was related to floor mats.

The latest incidents appear related to mechanisms that cause the pedals not to spring back properly, according to the report.

Another controversy erupted after U.S. Transportation secretary Ray LaHood initially said, “My advice to anyone who owns one of these vehicles is stop driving it, and take it to the Toyota dealership because they believe they have the fix for it.”

He later backtracked in the face of headlines proclaiming he warned Toyota owners not to drive the cars at all, according to CBS News, saying he meant that owners should bring their cars into a dealership as soon as possible to have them fixed.

Writes CBSNews.com editor in chief Daniel Farber: “Clearly, the odds of the Toyota accelerator problem causing irrevocable harm are small. But with foreknowledge of a potentially serious problem, expecting people to drive the vehicle is a dicey proposition. It’s similar to asking a person to fly even if they know that some planes in an airline fleet have a potential fatal flaw that could lead to injury or death — but the probability is small so they should just take their chances.”

Sources: Los Angeles Times, Feb. 5 — CBS News, Feb. 4 — Guardian, Feb. 3 — Detroit News, Feb. 3.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 1 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 4 — Related Newsline story, Dec. 14, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 31, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 24, 2009.

Google reportedly asks NSA for help in tracking hackers; Forbes reports on TV-enabled new age guru charged in deaths; organization of television and radio news professionals crafts code of ethics for social media

VARIOUS DATELINES
The intersection of media and technology made for several ethics headlines last week. Among the stories:

• Google reportedly has asked the National Security Agency to investigate the recent hacking attack that company officials say they suspect emanated from China and was aimed at getting access to the accounts of human rights activists, reports Wired. The move has raised concerns among privacy advocates, according to the report, because they fear the combination of national security probes and Google’s vast storehouse of user data. Google recently said it would exit China if the government there continues to insist on censoring search results. Reuters reports there has been no change yet in Google policy abroad, and the company and the Chinese government remain in talks.
• James Arthur Ray, a new-age self-help guru who has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey program, was charged with three counts of manslaughter in the deaths of people who attended a “cleansing ceremony” in which they fasted and then were placed in a heated “sweat lodge,” Forbes reports. Forbes healthcare blogger David Whelan accuses the powerful Winfrey of taking “a highly unskeptical approach when booking guests who make science and health claims.” Whelan writes: “Winfrey helped establish Ray by putting him on her show multiple times to talk about the DVD he appeared in, The Secret, which became a worldwide self-help phenomenon. It’s not the first time that Winfrey has lent credibility to dubious characters, whether in literature (with James Frey’s debunked memoir A Million Little Pieces) or with health advice (Suzanne Somers’ dangerous hormone regimen).”
• The Radio Television Digital News Association last week issued new guidelines for reporters using blogs and social media, trade journal Broadcasting & Cable reports. The new guidelines essentially call on news organizations to apply the same standards as traditional news for fairness, accuracy, and factuality to information posted on Twitter, Facebook, or a blog, according to Broadcasting & Cable.

Sources: Reuters, Feb. 5 — Wired, Feb. 4 — Forbes, Feb. 4 — Broadcasting & Cable, Feb. 3.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 25 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 23, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Oct. 19, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 10, 2008.

In other top stories, there’s continued controversy over the Supreme Court’s corporate speech decision, as well as an end to the career of disgraced Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon

VARIOUS DATELINES
News related to government garnered coverage for ethics themes last week. Among the stories:

• Ethics issues continue to emanate from the “underwear bomber” incident, reports Toronto’s Globe & Mail. The dispute: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man charged with attempting to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day, reportedly was giving valuable information to the FBI when he was read his Miranda rights — at which time he stopped talking and asked for a lawyer. Critics contend that it was inappropriate for a suspected enemy combatant to be granted the same rights as a U.S. criminal defendant. Others rebut that rights are often eroded in times of fear, and say that refusing Abdulmutallab an attorney is the first push down a slippery slope.
• Bush administration lawyers who wrote memos laying the groundwork for aggressive interrogation methods of suspected terrorists, including sleep deprivation and waterboarding, will not face professional sanctions, according to a forthcoming Justice Department determination, the Washington Post reports. John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who were criticized by some civil liberties groups for establishing a legal framework that insulated CIA interrogators and contractors from legal consequences, had faced the threat of sanctions that could have included the revocation of their law licenses under a previous recommendation from the Justice Department’s ethics office. The updated report does not include that recommendation but does say that the two exercised poor judgment, according to the source cited in the Post report.
• In the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling that continues to provoke controversy, prominent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams weighed in last week, supporting the High Court’s split decision that corporations have a constitutional right to spend money to influence elections. Abrams, who defended the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, took sharp issue with the Times’s position on the corporate speech case, reports the Wall Street Journal. The Times, other media, and President Obama have criticized the decision, saying it would allow big-money interests to dominate political speech. Abrams says that the ruling simply extends to all corporations the same speech rights granted to media corporations, and that provisions of the McCain-Feingold law were a clear violation of the First Amendment.
• Former Baltimore mayor Sheila Dixon left office last week following her sentencing on a misdemeanor count of stealing gift cards intended for needy families. Dixon accepted a plea agreement calling for her to step down from office, enter probation, and contribute $45,000 to charity, reports the Baltimore Sun. In return, she will be allowed to keep her pension.

Sources: Baltimore Sun, Feb. 5 — Globe & Mail, Feb. 4 — Washington Post, Jan. 31 — Wall Street Journal, Jan. 30.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 11 — Related Newsline story, Nov. 9, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Aug. 17, 2009 — Related Newsline story, June 15, 2009.

Case raises troubling ethical questions about how and whether to consult severely disabled patients about their care, according to report

LONDON
Researchers in Britain and Belgium, using a newly developed brain-scan technique, have discovered that some patients in vegetative states show signs of awareness, and in one case, could answer yes/no questions.

That patient, according to TIME magazine, had been in a vegetative state for more than five years.

According to the New York Times, scientists say the findings could raise troubling ethical questions about how and whether to consult severely disabled patients about their care.

The study involved tests on 54 patients who had been comatose with severe brain injuries, reports the Irish Times. Five of the patients were able to modulate their brain activities in a way that was perceptible to the scanner and interpreted as a response by the examiners.

Writing in London’s Daily Telegraph, neuroscientist Colin Blakemore speculated on the ethical implications of the advancing science of brain scanning: “We need to think now about the broader implications of the new neuro-technology. Not just because it might impinge on our privacy, on evidence in the courtroom or on shaping products to our preferences; but because it will challenge our fundamental understanding of ourselves.”

“Astronomy, from Copernicus on, has transformed our view of the place of the earth in the heavens. Darwin changed forever our view of the status of humanity. Neuroscience is likely to challenge our very understanding of what it is to be a person,” Blakemore continued.

Sources: Irish Times, Feb. 5 — Telegraph, Feb. 5 — TIME, Feb. 4 — New York Times, Feb. 3.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, June 1, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 7, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 17, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Mar. 10, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Feb. 12, 2007.

Group apparently tried to round up children they presumed to be orphans, but had no training or paperwork; now they have a big legal problem

PORT-AU-PRINCE
The detention on child abduction charges of a group of Idaho missionaries attempting to remove children from earthquake-devastated Haiti has prompted ethical debate over the culpability of people who do something, apparently for the right reason, in the wrong way.

At least one member of the Idaho religious group was warned not to move the children across the Dominican border without proper paperwork, but then tried anyway, according to testimony cited by the BBC.

Members of the group were arrested and now face a lengthy detention in Haiti, reports ABC News, and the incident has become what the Haitian prime minister has termed a “distraction” that may undermine the recovery effort.

Complicating the matter is a claim that the leader of the “Idaho 10,” volunteers from two Southern Baptist Churches, knew of the legal restrictions but did not tell the nine others in the group.

The group’s leader, Laura Sisby, and the others were arrested on January 29 for trying to cross the border with a busload of Haitian children allegedly orphaned by the quake, according to Sisby, reports MSNBC.

Supporters of the missionaries have expressed outrage that their motives have been questioned.

USA Today “Faith and Reason” columnist Cathy Lynn Grossman examined the question of whether the motives and religious beliefs of the 10, who set out on a precarious mission with no training or legal preparation, should matter when it comes to judgment in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.

“Blunder or bluff,” Grossman writes, “their actions and the subsequent kidnapping charges, have become an international incident some say might prompt people to hold back donating to Haiti in protest.”

“Reporters have spoken with many of their parents, some hungry and homeless, who turned their children over for vague promises of a better life. A trial may reveal whether the parents had informed consent to allow their children to go with the Idaho 10, if they clearly understood what the mission group planned or knew whether the group could deliver on its promises,” Grossman notes.

Sources: USA Today, Feb. 5 — MSNBC, Feb. 5 — BBC, Feb. 5 — ABC News, Feb. 5.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Feb. 1 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 25 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, Jan. 19.

Sacramento Bee examines question of when superior equipment constitutes cheating

SACRAMENTO, Calif.
Addressing the problem of steroids in sports is relatively clear cut compared to an emerging ethical dilemma highlighted by the Sacramento Bee: technologically advanced sports equipment that sometimes gives players an edge over their opponents.

The Bee’s Sam McManis writes: “Sacramento native and PGA golfer Scott McCarron’s slam against rival Phil Mickelson for ‘cheating’ with the type of club Mickelson uses highlights the often-changing, and blurred, ethical line concerning athletic performance enhanced through equipment and technology.”

The incident in question centered on a wedge used by Mickelson that has square grooves — actually an old technology that was deemed illegal by the U.S. Golf Association unless the clubs were made before April 1, 1990.

McCarran, according to the Bee, feels that use of the grandfathered equipment constitutes cheating.

While the clubs represent an existing technology that was partially outlawed, emerging technology keeps sports officials scrambling, reports the Bee. Among the dilemmas: drag-reducing swimsuits, high-tech skate blades, and polymer-covered bobsleds.

Sports ethicist Jan Boxhill looks at it this way: “It usually takes one guy to try something, be successful with it, and others follow,” Boxhill told the Bee. “If there’s a golf club they’ll let you use legally, and it helps you, why not use it?”

Source: Sacramento Bee, Feb. 3.

For more information, see: Related Newsline story, Jan. 19 — Related Newsline story, June 8, 2009 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 14, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Apr. 7, 2008 — Related Newsline story, Sep. 17, 2007.

Pew poll finds that “high level of acceptance among Millennials holds true across ethnic and racial groups”

From the Pew Research Center:

“This is part of a Pew Research Center series of reports exploring the behaviors, values and opinions of the teens and twenty-somethings that make up the Millennial Generation

“Over the last several decades, the American public has grown increasingly accepting of interracial dating and marriage. This shift in opinion has been driven both by attitude change among individuals generally and by the fact that over the period, successive generations have reached adulthood with more racially liberal views than earlier generations. Millennials are no exception to this trend: Large majorities of 18-to-29 year olds express support for interracial marriage within their families, and the level of acceptance in this generation is greater than in other generations.

“…Asked about particular groups to which they do not belong, Millennials are about equally accepting of marriage to someone in any of the groups tested: Roughly nine-in-ten say they would be fine with a family member’s marriage to an African American (88%), a Hispanic American (91%), an Asian American (93%) or a white American (92%).

“This high level of acceptance among Millennials holds true across ethnic and racial groups; there is no significant difference between white, black and Hispanic Millennials in the degree of acceptance of interracial marriage.

“Compared with older groups, particularly Americans ages 50 or older, Millennials are significantly more likely to be accepting of interracial marriage. While 85% of Millennials say they would be fine with a marriage to someone from any of the groups asked about, that number drops to about three-quarters (73%) among 30-to-49-year-olds, 55% among 50-to-64-year-olds, and just 38% of those ages 65 and older. And unlike among Millennials, among those ages 50 and older there are substantial differences between blacks and whites in acceptance of interracial marriage, with older blacks considerably more accepting of interracial marriage than are whites of the same age….

“Other demographic characteristics also are correlated with attitudes towards interracial marriage. Both overall and within each generation, acceptance of interracial marriage is positively associated with being female and with higher levels of education. And among older generations, those who can count at least some members of other races as friends and those who live outside of the South are also more accepting of interracial marriage….

“In addition to their racially liberal views on marriage and dating, a majority of Millennials (54%) in Pew Research’s report on race say at least some of their friends are of a different race. The percentage of white Millennials saying they have black friends (56%) is about the same as the percentage of black Millennials who say they have white friends (55%). There is little difference on this question between Millennials and Americans ages 30 to 49. But Americans ages 50 and older are considerably less likely to have cross-racial friendships, and this difference is largely the result of fewer older whites having black friends…. ”

For the full release from the Pew Research Center, Feb. 1, click here.

“You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

– Barry Goldwater (Five-term U.S. senator and Republican 1964 presidential candidate, 1909-1998)