Ethics Newsline®

Several readers commented on last week’s commentary by Rushworth Kidder, in which he asserted that the root causes of the problems faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed institutions guaranteeing the majority of home mortgages in the United States, were the millions of “little gray lies” and “petty fudgings” in mortgage applications and the subsequent investments based on those loans.

One reader had this reaction: “The plague of ‘little lies’ which beset the mortgage market had behind it a stiff wind of profit without risk. I — wink, wink, nod, nod — write the mortgage and collect unreasonable fees, then bundle them and pass along the risk to the aggregator. Obscene profits are made at each step, but there is really inconsequential risk to the profit takers as the market is too big to be allowed to fail. This is simply a pyramid scheme dressed in the cloth of making possible the American dream of universal home ownership.”

Another expressed frustration with U.S. leadership in general and wondered how a government so “deep in red ink and not embarrassed at all” could be expected to impose effective regulation on banks and business that have “grown up in a culture of sharp practices.”

And a reader who maintains that the complexity of the process removed the consequences of the actions from the actions themselves posited that “Jefferson once opined that every generation or two, all institutions should be abolished and started all over. Perhaps he was right.”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

Newsline readers offered some interesting reactions to last week’s column by Rushworth Kidder, in which he questioned whether memorization is passé — and, moreover, whether a generation trained to use the Internet to summon snippets of information will form a hierarchy of knowledge and know, in effect, what to look for when searching for an answer.

In addition, Dr. Kidder asked: “Where will they form the taste for words, the relish for deftly expressed ideas and pithy epitomes of wisdom that help shape thought? And if they find such treasures, will the insistent bleating of the email grant them enough leisure, combined with enough concentration, to memorize anything?”

One reader posits that the problem went beyond the lack of ability to memorize: “‘They’ — being anyone under 30– are certainly techno-savvy with their iPods, iPhones and iBooks; however, when it comes to thinking through a problem to a solution, ‘they’ are totally baffled. If the answer isn’t found in the first screen page of a Google search ‘they’ move on to other issues.”

Another reader claims that there is a deeper problem behind the seemingly random regurgitation of result from search engines: “Google attempts to present you with the most popular search results, not the pages most relevant to your information needs. Google is great at locating the most popular viewpoint on any subject, but to learn

alternative viewpoints, a searcher will often have to click beyond the first five pages of results, something Google’s users rarely do.”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

Rushworth Kidder’s commentary last week drew many responses from readers, not all of whom agreed with his contention that talk-show host Rush Limbaugh made a faulty assumption that “if it’s legal it must be ethical” when urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton in an effort to elongate the bruising Democratic primary season. (The commentary also expressed disappointment with the number of Republicans who followed Limbaugh’s urgings.)

One reader wrote that “Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos asked voters to do what they always do — use their vote to influence an election’s outcome. Republicans simply used their vote to good effect. I saw no ethical lapse here.”

Another reader, while agreeing that Limbaugh’s strategy was unethical, took issue with the assumption that the motive behind a primary is to allow a party’s own voters to decide their nominees: “I don’t think that statement accounts for those states where crossover voting is allowed, where any person, enrolled in any party or independent, can vote in any party primary. That arrangement says to me that something other than allowing the party faithful to determine their candidates was in the mind of the legislature.”

And from a reader in Pennsylvania: “I myself, while being a right-leaning independent, have always registered as a Democrat on the sound advice of my mother, actually. She told me always to register with whichever party most often controlled local politics. That way you are not perceived as bucking City Hall, plus which you have some say in who will run against the preferred (presumably more conservative in my case) candidate in the November election…. Ethical or no, her advice has proven pretty practical over the years!”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

Last week’s commentary by Rushworth Kidder, which examined a parent’s decision not to tell her son’s teachers that the boy had been treated for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), drew an unusually high number of responses.

The moral question at stake involved a parent’s belief that her son, now no longer taking the drug Ritalin, would be labeled as academically and behaviorally deficient if teachers knew that he previously had been treated. The parent based her view on a prior encounter when, she said, a glowing progress report during a parent-teacher conference suddenly went sour after she disclosed that the boy had been prescribed the drug. She decided to conceal the prior diagnosis when moving to a new school.

Several of those who wrote to us echoed the views of a reader from Arizona who maintained that the son’s prior diagnosis of ADD was simply none of the new school’s business.

Many also shared the view of an Indiana reader who maintained that educators may label a student, consciously or unconsciously, if the teachers know of a prior ADD diagnosis: “I think it is fair to give the student a chance to succeed on his own without any of the preconceived burdens associated with this unless problems surface. Otherwise this could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy situation.”

Others, including several educators, contended that it is a stretch to assume that all teachers would react in the same manner as the one who immediately shifted gears when learning of the past diagnosis. But while teachers by and large are capable of seeing past labels, argued another reader, prior diagnoses have a way of coloring their views and might tempt them to stop looking for other reasons behind a student’s problems.

A reader from Canada maintained that “stereotyping a kid does make it easier to justify not solving his or her problem.”

And a reader from Illinois added this thought: “Our systems of education should be celebrating the energetic [students like the one described in the commentary], realizing he is capable of making better choices, and employing new methods to hold his attention, rather than retreating to the read-and-regurgitate, sentences-on-the-board-in-detention, and “grounded for life” mentality of years past. Behavioral problems are best handled by reasoning students, compassionate teachers and school administrators, and actively involved care-givers. Without the understanding of right behavior, we graduate smart young adults without the character to show up for work or too greedy to say no to creative accounting.”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

Rushworth Kidder’s column last week looked at the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans — not just from the standpoint of physical recovery but also from renewal of the nation’s view of ethics and of the responsibility of government.

Among the reactions from readers: “The American Way from the beginning was to stand up and face the challenge and accomplish what we can to the best of our ability.”

And a native of New Orleans offered this observation: “When all is said and done, New Orleans is certainly undergoing a national experiment of grand proportions that warrants sincere attention, because its rise from total devastation will be a landmark in how other cities and communities will need to face if such devastation should occur to them. It will be interesting to watch how Arkansas recovers from this winter’s storms. Remember, hurricane season is not too far away for New Orleans.”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

Rushworth Kidder’s commentary on the fall of former New York governor Eliot Spitzer prompted several responses from readers. Among the comments:

Thank you so much for your piece on Spitzer. It has done much to calm the storm of emotions that has gripped me since these awful revelations.

In my professional life, I knew this man and some of his best and most ethically minded colleagues as we worked together on matters of legal and ethical abuse in the insurance industry on both sides of the border.

The revelation of his duplicity was like a blow to the ethical foundations on which I thought we had all been basing our work all those years ago, several times to our personal danger. Despite being long retired, I felt vulnerable and sick at the thought that the man whom I looked on as the rock and guardian of our efforts might well have been as useless as a wet sheet in a storm.

Reading and re-reading your piece has helped me to regain some sense of hope….

– Antony Cunningham
Toronto, Canada

* * *

The commentary on Eliot Spitzer was 100 percent on target, concise, and well written. Having recently moved into the DC area, I have become increasing aware of the phony image that politicians veneer themselves with, including the abuse of the word “friend,” until such terms have no real meaning in the political environment. We tend to elect the veneer, without knowing what is really behind it.

– Erick Reynolds
Frederick, MD

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

Carl Hausman’s commentary last week, “…But I Play One on TV,” drew many responses from readers, most of whom agreed that that there were ethical problems with the ad, which features Dr. Robert Jarvik, the inventor of the artificial heart, advertising a cholesterol-lowering drug.

A few readers offered a blanket objection to the entire premise of advertising prescription drugs. One reader argued that the advertising industry uses evocative imagery (with risks buried in disclaimers) to send consumers “scurrying to doctors” for drugs they may not need.

Several readers took issue with the fact that Jarvik, though possessing a medical degree, is not licensed to practice medicine and in fact has never practiced. Writes one: “To me, the issue with the Jarvik ad is that because Jarvik invented the Jarvik Heart, I just assumed he was a cardiologist. I was actually shocked when I learned from the Times story that he doesn’t even practice medicine. Turns out he’s just a good pump designer. As someone who is normally immune from being sucked into believing such endorsements, I’m kind of humbled that this one actually worked on me.”

Others were not troubled by the fact that Jarvik is not a practicing physician, pointing out that his academic background would give him the ability to evaluate claims made in the ad.

But what did rankle almost everyone who responded was the use of a double — an experienced rower who physically resembles Jarvik — in a scene that ostensibly showed Jarvik rowing a racing shell as his voice-over extolled the health benefits of the drug. “It is the body double in the boat that kills it and makes it deceptive,” writes a former pharmaceutical company attorney. “Even that wouldn’t be off limits if he did the scull routine regularly, but he doesn’t. Both he and his media critics confirm that.”

A medical professional concurs: “When an actor pretends to be Dr. Jarvik without stating that this is an enactment, that is dishonest. Dr. Jarvik is, in fact, a doctor, but it would have been more ethical to state that he is not a doctor who practices cardiology or even medicine. But the real dishonesty is the first [claim].”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

Carl Hausman’s commentary last week about the effects of the “Daily Me” — the figurative name given to customized media that reflects the user’s preferences, tastes, and worldview — drew several comments from readers.

A retired news executive writes: “Great column. But, alas, it may be too late. That is, unless we can start communicating with those still inside the womb. I have this notion that the little ones hit the ground already hard-wired to Google for Lindsay, Britney, and Paris. Yet, I remain hopeful somehow a culture of change will emerge putting your bottom line goals within reach.”

An attorney comments: “Someone said that the media used to promote knowledge, but now it promotes ignorance. An overstatement, to be sure, but our powerful news and

entertainment industry is sure squandering an opportunity to help edify its

audience and improve our common welfare.”

And a businessman shares this view: “Seems our kids are so entrenched in their own virtual worlds they haven’t a clue, nor do they care, what’s really going on around them.”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

Wrapping up our call for New Year’s moral resolutions came two suggestions: one for more ethical insight into the treatment of animals, and the other for a far-sighted approach to ethical challenges. As to the latter suggestion, the author, a psychiatrist, writes, “Humans are hardwired in our brains to respond to immediate danger…. There is no comparable natural tendency to be concerned with danger many years in the future. Resolution: I will keep writing, speaking, and advocating to cool down global warming.”

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

In last week’s commentary, Rushworth Kidder shared his observations about the year in ethics and how what we’ve learned from the recent past could propel resolutions for the coming year. The areas he suggested for special attention were civility, vigilance, and fairness.

Several readers offered additional thoughts about what we should be paying attention to in 2008. Among the suggestions was “a growing need for humanity to work to evolve its moral base, rather than focus on moral dangers based on existing/past ethical templates. For example, presuming that the world’s population continues to grow, it would seem logical to assume that the principle of ‘living better on less’ will need to become a key component of the ‘moral maze’ of the future — rather than our current ‘high consumption’-based moral templates.”

Another reader wanted to add courage, kindness, and honesty to the list. “Without courage one cannot practice any other virtue. (Someone wise said that, not me.) Without honesty, trust cannot grow or be sustained — plus dishonesty sullies every human encounter and endeavor. Without kindness (compassion, love) — not sure how much the rest matters.”

The month is only a quarter over — it’s not too late to offer resolutions. Do you have any other suggestions for moral values we should pursue? Please let us know.

– Compiled by Ethics Newsline® editor Carl Hausman

We had several responses to Rushworth Kidder’s column last week about the teen’s suicide apparently linked to postings on a social networking site. This letter expresses the main theme voiced by many who took time to write:

One definition of technology is “the place where people meet things.” Technology isn’t stuff, it’s what we do with it. In that regard, we can apply the very same rules we affect in “real life.” Something happening “online” doesn’t allow one to abdicate one’s humanity. There are no special “techno” rules because “techno,” dear user, is us.

So I have to believe this horrible example of a cruelly driven suicide has nothing to do with technology, beyond the extent that the tool allows us to extend our cruel natures beyond face to face. This is no different than making war by dropping bombs from 50,000 feet. It’s not new.

I worry that we will try to apply protective measures to something that is, in its essence, a matter of human nature. Meanwhile, the civil courts could easily handle this as a wrongful death suit, and that’s likely what will happen. How sad that it will come down to measuring culpability with money. But sometimes, that’s what works.

– Rob Oakley
Rockland, Maine

Rushworth Kidder’s column last week on cell phone ethics connected with a lot of readers, who speed-dialed us with comments and suggestions for a Cell Phone User’s Code of Ethics.

Before moving on to the code itself, it’s worth noting that while many readers addressed the basic point that proper public cell phone use is a matter of civility, others raised some deeper and unexpected issues.

One, for example, contended that cell phones have become an “instrument of control” — control of the user’s immediate environment as a result of the infliction of the conversation on everyone nearby, and as a method of controlling the recipient of the call:

“I have friends who have provided all their children with cell phones under the guise of giving them ready access to call Mommy or Daddy in case of an emergency. Very responsible, eh? In practice, however, I have found these parental friends of mine are more interested in knowing where their children are every waking moment of the day, calling them 10 to 15 times per day. Now think about it, how would you have felt at 12 years old receiving a call from your Mommy 15 times EVERY day?”

Another reader observed that careless cell phone use has ripple effects, and once handed a thoughtless cell phone user this note: “Anyone who was sitting near you at the airport in Oklahoma City this afternoon overheard your many telephone conversations and would probably think that you are a friendly, intelligent, and successful individual. Your clients, on the other hand, might not appreciate knowing that others knew about the personal business you conducted.”

Another reader picked up on this angle: “Superior officials tend to become indispensable and underlings get all too few opportunities to learn to pick up responsibility. In the old days, when the boss was away, someone else was in charge, made decisions when needed. Today that happens less and less because the phone-carrying boss is always available. I think there will be a price to pay for that down the road.”

Taking these and other factors into account, what, then, should be written into a Cell Phone User’s Code of Ethics? Here is a first draft, extracted from your suggestions. Let us know your reactions and revision suggestions, and over the next couple of weeks we can craft a final version.

As a responsible cell phone user, I promise to:

• Limit any conversation that is audible to others to short and concise moments.
• Make every effort to move to a private place if I do have to take or make a call.
• Turn my phone ringer off when at public events or meetings.
• Refuse to discuss private matters when others can hear. 
• Not talk on my cell phone while driving, because doing so endangers others.
• Not disrespect my friends and co-workers by interrupting our conversations to take a call.
• When in the presence of others, never use a louder voice on the cell phone than I would in a normal conversation.
• Show, by example, that being respectful helps everyone and hurts no one.

Several readers wrote in reaction to Rushworth Kidder’s commentary last week about how the new digital information infrastructure was confounding attempts by the repressive government of Myanmar, formerly Burma, to keep secret its brutal suppression of dissent. One reader drew a parallel between the commentary and the article that followed — about rights in the United States and the balance of constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure and security concerns addressed by the Patriot Act:

The astonishing care and concern for adherence to our Constitution stands out as a hallmark of our society. Few nations if any transcend us in the time and effort spent on such deliberations. And Burma is certainly not one of those.
But the due deliberation we employ must also be accompanied by a careful consideration of how we apply our Constitution in light of our advanced society —

a society that could not have been forecast in 1776. The threats we face today are unparalleled in recent history….
If we are unable to update our national understanding of [the Fourth Amendment], if we are unable to fold such updated understanding into the fabric of our decision making, then our national decision process will find us slowly losing our grasp on our freedoms….
We could indeed be doomed to a Machiavellian decline from our democratic “form” of government, to the rancorous displays now beginning to be apparent in our leadership which could lead to anarchy, then to become the “spoils of the victor” which could have us looking like present day Burma: Tyranny!
But, of course, that could never happen here, could it?

–J. Peter Rushworth
Roswell, Georgia

Another reader compared the situation in Myanmar with the changing information landscape of the 1980s:

I have for some time held the view that the most important factor behind the downfall of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc was the free flow of information, not all the arms races and saber rattling that took place as part of the Cold War. It was not communism per se that fell, it was the totalitarianism that was exercised, including the control of information, that could no longer succeed. At one time, controlling the flow of information was possible, at least for a considerable length of time. It no longer is. Perhaps the most effective ”weapon” of the twentieth century is the transistor, not the bomb! History will be the judge.

– Bruce Balfe
Valparaiso, Indiana

Last week’s commentary on the ripple effects of the subprime loan implosion asked readers to comment on the moral issues involved in the government stepping in to bail out homeowners facing default and foreclosure.

While there is a lot of latitude in what a bailout would eventually mean (an issue that surfaced in this week’s lead news story), a variety of intriguing ethics issues seem pretty clearly defined in the minds of most of our respondents.

Several writers, for example, cited the ethical obligations of elite investors to consider the overall effects of the new financial vehicles they invent. In the words of one: “In my mind this is the currently most urgent issue concerning ethical behavior. At what point should wealthy, influential, and powerful individuals stop and consider the consequences for the nation and the economy?”

One reader reflected the often-expressed view that those who took the loan should bear the responsibility, though there is plenty of blame to go around: “Many parties are to blame, not the least of whom is the consumer, who chose to believe the bubble would not burst, and that he/she had full control over circumstances that would impact his/her financial resources. While folks may have had unscrupulous lenders/mortgage brokers, nonetheless they had to sign papers that they had read and understood the terms of the loan. Unless a consumer is saying they never signed those papers but happily took the financing, the fault still lies with the consumer. But the creation of such bogus loans and the selling of them reflects the greed of the institutions and their representatives.”

Many writers honed in on the argument that homeowners got themselves into trouble and had no right to expect the government to step in. “If most of these homeowners got their fantastic mortgages with no money down,” wrote one reader, “and now they are ‘losing their homes,’ why should we, through the government, help them out? All they did was pay rent for a time.”

“I am 76 years old,” wrote another, “and always have had the ingrained philosophy that I had to live within my means and I was personally responsible for any debt obligations that I contracted and therefore I do not think the federal government or any other agency should step in.”

“If the government got involved,” echoed another reader, a college professor, “I’d argue it would reinforce the ever-emerging great American rationale: ‘Why take responsibility for my actions when I can blame someone else?’ “

Another reader reinforced the same concept: “One might think that since there is precedent for bailing out a troubled company/industry/sector of the economy, that to do so again would be appropriate. I don’t agree in this case. I think it would be rewarding bad lending practices and greed on the part of the lenders.”

But the view was not universal. While letters ran about eight-to-two opposed, some argued that a bailout would be the right thing to do in the long run. One reader commented: “I know it’s rewarding irresponsible behavior on the part of the monied poobahs but without federal help too many little guys will get hurt and possibly lose everything. Hell, if we have billions for war we can surely spare a few bucks to help some families keep their homes.”

And another offered this assessment: “Shouldn’t a perfect storm have a perfect haven? There must be. And a caring, concerned, and conscientious government (or agencies thereof) will find it, for the benefit of the innocent and the guilty and the world at large.”

A reader responds to Rushworth Kidder’s commentary last week on the doping problems plaguing the Tour de France race:

Your commentary on the Tour was right on. I agree with your point of view and you expressed it wonderfully. I wonder, though, whether or not society at large is really the “victim.” My sense is that we are society and we get what we create.

We live in a world where winning has become everything. From capitalism down to the attention we pay to how we stack up against our neighbors, we have come to equate our self-esteem with winning — at the neglect of doing the “right” thing.

For me it comes down to choices that I make about how to engage the world from an ethical perspective. Sometimes “systems” can be very coercive and encourage the wrong choice; we have all experienced that in our lives.

Commentaries like yours help everyone sharpen the focus of what we are really doing and creating.

– James D. Showkeir
Phoenix, AZ

See this week’s note from Rush Kidder about a recent column and a possible future feature.

In last week’s commentary, Rushworth Kidder speculated on three things that must change in order for the perception of the nation’s moral barometer to rise. He also invited readers to share their suggestions.

Well, share you did. We received many thoughtful letters, some quite lengthy, and it would be difficult to present them in their entirety. What follows are some of the areas for improvement you suggested, edited down to bullet points with an extracted sentence or two for context:

• “Increased respect for human life.”
• “More and improved role models in society. They could be parents, employers, politicians, teachers, coaches, whatever — but the world really needs them now.”
• “Increased number of absolutes that the majority can adopt. This would facilitate agreement on what is moral and what is not.”
• “A government of the people and for the people, and government leaders/politicians who truly represent us and not work only to gratify their own ego and pocket book.”
• “A paradigm shift toward: ‘We are all Brothers/Sisters and there is enough to go around for everyone of us, and we don’t have to hoard and grab.’ “
• “Demand that companies pay their CEOs in accordance with their value, not an over-inflated salary with huge stock options, etc.”
• “Place more value on honesty and ethical behavior by refusing to bow to popular culture.”
• “Greater personal responsibility. We are still blame-shifting, everything from frivolous lawsuits to paying our bills.”
• “An honest free press. Our media seeks the sensational. They build mountains of controversy in order to sell more air, more paper.”
• “Our lack of unity. We are boxed into reds and blues, young and old, black and white, or believers and nonbelievers. Our common ground is rarely, if ever, articulated by our leaders, our press, our educators, or our parents.”
• “Corporate Ineffectiveness. Corporations have fallen back into the rut of a ‘command and control’ mentality (to borrow the expression from Margaret Wheatley). This mindset treats people as ‘things’ and human beings only relate to corporate executives as ‘cost to serve’ margins.”
• “Allow mistakes. Leaders in all arenas — schools, the community, politics, the media, corporations, police departments, parents, whatever — must allow the people/children whom they lead, mentor, or are developing to make mistakes.”
• “Value people who contribute every day to our society as a whole and its future.”
• “Return to traditional moral codes. Our nation continues to drift away from a common definition of morality, and as long as divergent measures of morality exist (and replicate), surveys will continue to show a large block of disenfranchised Americans with a falling moral barometer.”
• “Affirmation of the reality of absolute truth. Our government education system is force-feeding a new generation of Americans with the fallacy that a pluralistic society requires all members to affirm truthfulness of conflicting systems of belief, eliminating their ability (and will?) to discriminate between truth and error.”
• “Be honest enough to be willing to learn more; self-righteousness is a dead end, detrimental to one’s own well-being and also to collective good. Especially learn more about all religions; the effect would reduce fear and promote respect for and appreciation of others.”
• “Be intelligent about the difference between that sense of fairness that benefits all equally, and religiously biased opinions that tilt the balance unequally when allowed to insidiously influence the actions of those in positions of power and authority.”
• “More honesty at the top [in government].”
• “More honesty in business.”
• “More honesty in our personal relationships.”
• “A societal emphasis on collaboration instead of competition. By its very nature, competition not only sends the message that the most important thing is to win, but winning always comes at the expense of another — someone has to lose for me to win.)”
• “Increased tolerance of Christians. While not all who state that they are Christians do not maintain a high moral code in their own lives, true Christianity as taught and practiced by Christ and as observed today by Christ-followers does in fact embrace a very high moral level. Increasing, as a minimum, the media’s tolerance of Christianity would go a long way to encourage greater moral behavior indirectly, if not directly.”
• “Congress must make earmarks transparent to all, instead of having the gall to continue to play earmark hide-and-seek with the public.”
• “Congress must consent to having an external committee monitor its ethics instead of fooling itself that it can correct misdeeds internally.”
• “Greater financial equity.”
• “Comity, which goes beyond civility.”
• “Relativism. We need a ‘dash’ or ‘pinch’ of it. While recognizing the difficulty of creating a line not to be crossed off of an absolute, the strength of a group is in the conversation to define that softer line.”

There were many overlapping responses, some of which were embraced in the list above. To give you an idea of the relative weight of the responses: Several readers cited adherence to the Constitution, in various contexts, as something in need of improvement. Financial equity, especially in terms of executive compensation and corporate greed, was repeatedly cited and woven into at least half a dozen replies. A sizeable percentage of readers cited integrity and truth telling as an area in need of improvement, along with tolerance, both in terms of others’ political beliefs and religions. Topping the list was civility, a quality seen as lacking in entertainment, politics, and the workplace.

Last week’s column about the ethics of Alex Rodriguez distracting an infielder prompted several letters not only about the propriety of his actions but also about the relationship between competitiveness in sports and life in general.

About three-quarters of those who wrote to us agreed that Rodriguez crossed the “unwritten line” when he shouted as he was running the bases, distracting the opposing third baseman into dropping the ball.

One reader, though, argued, “A-Rod was well within the unwritten guidelines. Most interplay of this nature is not so obvious but still there. Bush league or heads-up? Depends on whether you win or lose.”

Another agreed that A-Rod was wrong, then added, “but I can’t help admiring his quick-thinking opportunism.”

A Yankees fan pointed out that the still-unclear contents of the shout make the difference: “Whether A-Rod shouted “ha” or “mine” is more important than it would seem at first glance. Distracting or psyching out another player is common to many sports and literally part of the game. ‘Ha’ would be fine and fair in my book, but ‘mine’ would be an unfair lie.”

One reader recalled a similar incident during a football game where a fan on the sidelines blew a whistle, distracting the defense, who thought the play had been blown dead, and allowing the runner to continue. “This sort of thing is just not right,” concluded the writer. “You can’t let these ’infractions’ of common-sense agreement slide or sporting events will be reduced to slapstick comedy routines.” He also added that “no true golfer would ever go along with such nonsense!”

A tennis fan also weighed in, arguing that the excessively loud grunting that has become common in tennis is not only distracting, but possibly a calculated maneuver that “takes away the possibility of the opponent’s being able to hear the ball being struck, thus removing an important sound that may be a clue to how hard the ball was struck or any other perceived possibility. Most notably, Maria Sharapova’s screaming is so hard on my own ears that I mute the TV when watching her play.”

Finally, one reader contends that while competitiveness is valuable in sports and society in general, the damage comes from an anything-goes approach. But, he argued, organized sports can be “a place where we learn what is proper behavior…. Sports is where one generation can help teach another generation what is right and ethical, not just entertain us.”

The April 2 commentary about the anti-plagiarism program Turnitin prompted many responses, including several from educators and students who are affected in some way by plagiarism and the efforts to stop it.

The commentary essentially argued that it is inconsistent to adopt an honor code while insisting that students submit their works through a plagiarism-detection program. It also held that technological solutions don’t always prove to be accurate or efficient and are not an ideal way to monitor human behavior.

Responses to those arguments broke about fifty-fifty in agreement and disagreement. Among the more commonly cited arguments opposed to the commentary’s view was the fact that technological monitoring provides a net benefit in other areas of society, and that philosophical arguments against it are outweighed by practical results.

One reader, who teaches a course in leadership and ethics, used a traffic-camera analogy: “Lawyers argue a driver’s ‘rights’ are infringed as though it were okay to speed through an intersection because you were talking on your cell phone, eating a burger, and late for an appointment. Legal, yes. Ethical? Let’s see you get T-boned at an intersection and then turn around and argue against stopping people running red lights just ‘because.’ “

A response by the head of an education association also invoked the traffic-control analogy. “We frequently hear complaints by speeders of the ‘unfairness’ of radar cameras catching them speeding. Any moral indignation by the rest of us about that? All the data shows that the vast majority of students at the high school and college level admit to cheating, and the paper mills on the Internet facilitate the dishonesty. Turnitin is one way to discourage what is so tempting. Let’s call it a tool that should accompany the speed limit signs you post in your ethical admonishments to your students as each semester begins.”

But others were less comfortable with technological monitoring. An educator noted that while we (generally) willingly submit to traffic cameras and radar guns, there has to be a point at which monitoring is no longer appropriate: “We could probably reduce fraud by requiring a lie-detector test for the recipients of a bank loan, but would we, or should we, sanction that?”

Some had doubts about the basic workability of systems that monitor plagiarism. A former graduate student writes that he was unjustly accused of plagiarism and as a result failed a class after another system (not Turnitin) used at his institution flagged phrases such as “furthermore, we can see…” and “due to this.” Another reader, a businessman, cited what he saw as the futility of technological dueling: “Look at … recent doping and steroid scandals. They have been testing for years and have had significant finds, yet there is a community of scientists and researchers working right now on new drugs to evade detection.” Another speculated that if you build a big enough database, “everyone will be guilty of plagiarism. Where does it end?”

Some respondents agreed with the premise that an honor code and good role modeling would be more effective than technology, and some also argued that the “presumption of guilt” implicit in the use of a detection system degrades trust between teacher and student.

Regardless of their view on technological monitoring of plagiarism, though, readers’ comments strongly reinforced how corrosive the problem has become in the academic world. Several educators wrote that not only has plagiarism become rampant, but that it apparently has gained a measure of acceptance as well. A college professor concluded that “the most disturbing outcome of this entire furor is the increasing number of students and parents that believe you have to use any means available to you to get ahead, including cheating.”

A high school teacher wrote that she was confronted by an angry parent who didn’t dispute that her daughter’s paper was plagiarized, but insisted that it was unfair that the teacher did not do a blanket search on unsuspicious papers, leading to a suggestion from the administration that the teacher should use Turnitin to avoid the appearance of an unfair situation. “[T]his type of parent interaction is becoming more common, where parents are more concerned with why their child was caught than with what rule their child broke,” she wrote.

A school administrator concluded: “For those who are really concerned, I wish they could experience the audacity of parents who charge into our school and challenge every reasonable effort to discipline — not punish — their children when honor code violations occur. These parents challenge the effort or the method for determining [the plagiarism], no matter that the evidence is clear and often embarrassingly damning in proving no attempt by the student to honorably or honestly complete the assignment.”

Last week, Rushworth Kidder’s column asked whether it is ever justified for a coach to touch a player in a confrontational or violent way. The question elicited as much — or perhaps more — mail than we’ve ever had in response to an opinion piece.

Most of you (about two-thirds) said no.

Many of your no responses were absolute in tone. “Other than the case of jumping in to stop a fight among players, I can’t see a time when it would be ethical,” writes one reader.

Another, a coach from Maine, rules out rough language as well as physical contact. “In my opinion, it is never acceptable to use any level of profanity in the environment of a team sport. It is also never acceptable to use physical touch as a method of coaching a team.” She writes that Maine state regulations prohibit contact and argues that such regulation should be imposed everywhere.

“No touching,” asserts a subscriber from Houston. “It may have been fine at one time, but that was then and this is now. If we weren’t evolving and leaving behind traditional ways of doing things that are now deemed unacceptable, all schools would still allow teachers to paddle students. That practice has been outlawed almost everywhere now because we have learned that violence only breeds more violence and teaches nothing about self-restraint and self-control.”

A reader who coaches youth baseball notes that a coach is also, figuratively and sometimes literally, a parent, teacher, and boss, and needs to realize that “there are better ways” to stop inappropriate behavior.

Another, who endured abusive behavior from a coach as a youth — for which the coach eventually apologized — offers this opinion: “I sometimes think that coaches have little understanding of the places that they hold in the lives of some of the young people for whom they are responsible. In other words, the branch you bend in a certain way in its youth may carry that bend for the rest of their lives.”

Several readers say they believe problems similar to those described in last week’s opinion piece are inescapable byproducts of a sport that conditions young people to, in the words of the column, “smash each other.” A former rugby player from Britain writes that cultural norms in U.S. football precipitate such incidents. “In the form of rugby, the emphasis is on self-restraint (the stiff upper lip of legend). To be injured or hurt or insulted is not an excuse for retaliation. It is an opportunity for an exercise of manliness. The form of American football that ‘teaches smashing’ must, by definition, teach violence.”

While not necessarily endorsing all physical action by coaches, some readers note that the dilemma of whether to manhandle a player carries considerable moral nuance.

One reader, a former professional athlete, admits that touching a player is not always the best solution but notes that we accept — and often endorse — both the seemingly ruthless behavior from lawyers acting as their clients’ advocates as well as the apparent insensitivity to suffering by doctors who must sometimes inure themselves to the situation in order to function. The problem, he maintains, comes when such attributes are applied inappropriately in different contexts.

Physical contact in a sport involving physical contact is “a part of nature,” writes another reader, who maintains that governing bodies of individual sports should establish reasonable guidelines.

A reader from Australia argues that physical contact can be appropriate and necessary, drawing on the parallel between sports and physical discipline of children. “It is clearly better to use rational argument to discipline children. But when your three-year-old is about to put a screwdriver in the power outlet, it is not time for a lecture on the dangers of electricity. Physical intervention is called for. The lecture must follow when everyone has calmed down. Physical contact for both positive and negative reinforcement is hugely powerful. It should be used sparingly, but it has its place.”