Ethics Newsline®

A reader responds to last week’s commentary in which Rushworth Kidder examined the recent meltdown of JetBlue, maintaining that customer pressure on firms to act ethically and responsibly is a better option than layers of government regulation:

While I agree that another bureaucracy laid on top of a failing one would be pointless, I think it’s also been proven that the so-called “free market” isn’t doing a very good job. In situations where failure causes instant negative outcomes, there is no preexisting monetary reason to take precautions and be, as you say, prudent. As long as everything’s going smoothly, there’s no reason to pay for the extra heft in the business.

Many people died in senseless railroad accidents during the nineteenth century partly because the railroads wouldn’t invest in safer equipment, accepted a certain amount of danger as a cost of doing business, and concentrated on collecting dollars instead of satisfied customers. Regulation had to be forced upon them.

Now that we’re returned to the robber-baron way of things, simply going out of business isn’t good enough reason to change, and screw the customer for being stupid enough to buy.

Profit-at-all-cost must end, and I’m afraid it’s definitely a right-wing point of view if you think the “free market” fixes all or, worse, that we have a free market.

– Rob Oakley
Rockland, Maine

A reader responds to last week’s commentary, “Finders, Keepers: It May Be Legal, But Is It Ethical?”:

It concerns me when the terms “legal” and “ethical” are treated as interchangeable. Laws operate only as boundaries — like the lines on a playing field. The game rules are clear concerning what is out of bounds and what behaviors are not permitted. But simply staying in bounds and obeying the rules does not guarantee skilled play; nor does staying within the letter of the law guarantee good behavior in society.

When discussing ethical dilemmas … many will dismiss an issue as too “gray.” To them, the law provides absolutes and seems preferable to unsolvable ethical debate. “What’s the point, if you don’t end up with a ‘right’ answer?” I use the TV weathercasters as a metaphor to explain why considering ethics is worthwhile. We know that weather forecasting, even with all its science, doesn’t generate perfect accuracy. Yet we still rely heavily on these forecasts. Why? Because we benefit enormously from them, however inexact. Imagine what we could do with the same reliance on ethical forecasting!

– Martha M. McCormick
Coordinator for Training and Management Consultation, Capital EAP
Albany, New York

A reader responds to last week’s commentary on the legacy of former U.S. president Gerald Ford:

While I respect your admiration for the late President Ford, I must take exception to your presumption that Mr. Ford did “the right thing” in granting Richard Nixon an unconditional pardon. In so much of the public discussion of the pardon in the media, I believe a central point has been overlooked.

I don’t dispute that Mr. Ford may have honestly acted under the belief that the nation could not withstand a spectacle of the former president on trial. My concern was with the premature timing of the pardon and the fact that the pardon came without any contrition or acceptance of responsibility on the part of Richard Nixon.

In fact, just the opposite occurred. Mr. Nixon took advantage of the moment to arrogantly deny any legal wrongdoing and to water down his crimes to mere misjudgments.

I propose to you that President Ford’s pardon under these circumstances was actually an unethical act. While his action was certainly strong on compassion (for Mr. Nixon, that is) it showed little respect for the American people, Mr. Nixon’s victims, or our judicial system.

– Greg Weinman
Washington,DC

A reader responds to Rushworth Kidder’s recent commentary, “Hunt Down a Perpetrator or Hold to a Principle: A High School’s Dilemma”:

I was in a similar situation many years ago. As a commercial airline pilot, I was flying a trip to Las Vegas. There were horrible delays during taxi out due to a radar outage. Getting to the departure runway took over an hour. Some of our first class passengers started partying early. I was told by one of the cabin crew that three people were exchanging a bag of white powder, and one by one were going into the lavatory, no flush, no running water, and louder and intoxicated when they emerged. At the point of taking the runway, I had to decide whether to take off or return to the gate and summon authorities.

Simple if indeed it was an illegal drug they were inhaling: There could be physiological difficulties and they might die if subjected to pressurization and altitude changes. So return to the gate. But what announcement do I make?

If I am honest, I say that we are returning to the gate because I suspect some of our passengers are using cocaine and might die if we take off and climb to altitude. [But if I do that] the evidence [could be] destroyed and the people who need the help might never get it.

I did make an announcement that we were returning to the gate to get more fuel. By the time we had returned to the gate, I did need more fuel, and the police removed the passengers “for questioning.” They were prosecuted, pleaded guilty, and got counseling along with community service.

With school violence there is no chance for error. Parents, superintendents, and principals cannot afford to wait and see if the rumor is true or false. They also must make sure that the possible offenders receive the help they need. To openly admit an investigation is in progress makes that difficult.

– Al Neil
Marengo, Illinois

A reader responds to Rushworth Kidder’s September 18 column on the reality TV show “Survivor,” in which he discussed this season’s division of cast members into ethnic tribes who then are set against each other for the competition:

I agree wholeheartedly with Kidder’s statements on this fall’s “Survivor” program. I am an African-American woman who has been a fan of the program for some time, but I simply can’t watch it. I was so shocked that anyone would do such a thing knowing all that we know. This is just too dangerous. But I suppose people will do anything for ratings.

– Lora Cooper

A reader responds to last week’s lead article about the sudden death of Enron founder Kenneth Lay — and the resulting questions of justice and retribution:

It seems to me that the verdict should stand and the consequences of the verdict should be carried out, i.e., that the government should proceed with the extraction of assets from the estate.

If people object to this, then, by all means, they should be permitted to appeal the judgment of the jury. But the fact is, Ken Lay was convicted, even if not sentenced,
and he should be treated as a felon unless and until that verdict is reversed by a court of competent jurisdiction.

There certainly is no reason to allow his family to enjoy the proceeds of his criminal activities simply because he died before he could be sentenced. His death does not change the verdict. Only an appeal could do that.

If it is necessary to change the laws to permit this, then it should be done forthwith with a particular clause including the Lay conviction in it. In my mind this is not vengeance, but justice — justice for the workers who were swindled by this man, justice for the stockholders who were swindled by this man, justice for the community that was swindled by this man.

–Arthur Gans
Winfield, BC, Canada

A reader responds to last week’s commentary by Rushworth Kidder, “Is Congress Corrupt?”:

You indicate that there is a culture of bribery in Congress and that changing the names on the doors won’t change the situation. I totally agree. But if I could expand your notion of culture a bit to include the “terms and conditions of governance” we might get at the root cause of dysfunctional congressional behavior.

The terms and conditions of governance (including cultural norms) help explain the prevalence of these behaviors. In particular, campaign finance, relationship of lobbyists to lawmakers, gerrymandering, and some processes for congressional decision making (earmarking and closed-door conference committee sessions that exclude minority party members) have created conditions that make it very difficult for members to consider the broader public interest in decision making. When a corporate sponsor, for example, provides private jets at highly discounted rates, a lawmaker feels obligated to reciprocate these kind acts. The reciprocity may be in the form of earmarking expenditures, intervening in regulatory agencies, and/or providing them extraordinary opportunity to influence the writing of legislation.

This does not meet the formal definition of bribery or corruption — where money is directly exchanged for a specific congressional intervention. In fact, I would argue that far greater harm is generated by this informal system of reciprocity than all the outright examples of bribery. A skillful lobbyist working with clients knows how to create an obligation. This might help explain why we start to deal with issues (immigration, global warming, energy, health care, etc.) only when they reach crisis proportions. Most of the time, lawmakers are addressing the short-term needs of those who played a major role in sponsoring their campaigns.

We have a governance system that is broken. If the processes of governance are not well designed, it is no surprise that our policies rarely address our most compelling long-term problems. As practical idealists, can anything be done about this condition?
Perhaps our only hope is to rethink the terms and conditions of governance that have been invented to implement the Constitution. Develop recommendations that would be considered fair and increase the possibility for civil discourse in political engagement, and lead a good government reform movement that would influence meaningful change. 

– Donald G. Zauderer
Professor Emeritus
American University
Washington, DC

Readers respond to last week’s commentary, “America 1, Moussaoui 0“:

From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, Moussaoui’s life sentence was the only viable option when you consider that had he been executed, he would have risen to the Islamic equivalent of sainthood, with celebrations and acclaim to be used to encourage other young Muslims to follow in his path and to further justify their own quest for blood. I support the death penalty in limited situations, but in his case the harm to us would have exceeded the harm to him.

– J. Peter Rushworth
Roswell, Georgia

* * *

I am mixed about the lack of capital punishment for Moussaoui … and also wonder about our perception in other parts of the world. During Desert Storm [the first Gulf War, initiated by U.S. forces in 1991], terrorists shot at a bus of American soldiers in Jeddah. They were caught, tried, convicted, and beheaded within a matter of days — a definite “show trial” with no time for appeals or stays of execution. Does the rest of the world see us as weak because we refuse to take revenge? Is the fact that we let Moussaoui live going to breed a whole new rash of kidnappings and demands for his release? Are we all going to whimper away at each other, divided, untrusting, and selfish? Do we give in to the desire for revenge, or do we stay rational? Even though we set a good example, have we so compromised our moral authority in other areas, so now no one will trust us or follow?

– Alan W. Neil
Marengo, IL

A reader responds to last week’s commentary about the plagiarism incident involving Raytheon CEO William Swanson:

I have to say that this whole Swanson scandal has me … disappointed. To quote 17 rules verbatim and in order without attributing them is just hubris! 

Now he’s been fined $1 million for plagiarism. I’ve got a copy of “his” unwritten rule myself. I love it, and I’ve recommended it to attendees of many of the seminars that I teach across the country. So yes, I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand, here is a business leader who has shared some of the principles and practices that have brought him success. He, through the company he heads, shares it free with the world. That’s pretty impressive. Yes, he benefits by knowing he is leaving a legacy, but we all benefit as well. I’m glad to have his book. I’m afraid that the book will be taken off of Raytheon’s “shelves” because of this, rather than printed in a second edition that credits the originator of those 17 rules. Then others won’t benefit from the lessons of the book, which would be a shame.

On the other hand, your point on the example this theft sets is not to be ignored or fluffed off. Our leaders are obligated by their positions to set an example for the rest of us. When a leader lets us down, he does far more damage than the original crime in and of itself.

Swanson’s point — that we accumulate wisdom from sources we forget — is well-taken. I wonder how many things I’ve said that weren’t nearly as original as I thought because I’ve absorbed others’ lessons and made them my own. But at least I paraphrase….

– Ted Coiné, CEO
Coiné Corporate Training
Boston, Massachusetts, USA

A reader responds to last week’s opinion piece on Abdul Rahman, the Muslim convert to Christianity who faced the death penalty for his conversion before the case against him was dropped and he was allowed to leaveAfghanistan:

Regarding your piece on the Rahman case, i.e., Islam’s apparent need to execute anyone who may change religions,or more generally, disagree with its religious precepts:

It seems to me your position is so amenable as to be virtually contentless. Just calling for more openness is a rather ineffectual approach to a problem that apparently stems from medieval thinking processes.As ethicists, I think it is our responsibility to clearly delineate thedifference between secular ethics and religious moral pronouncements, andidentify and condemn the influence of superstition and unsupportable"beliefs," of which I think this issue is an example.

On a different but related topic, the Dalai Lama put itwell: "If science contradictsBuddhist beliefs, then Buddhism will have to change." I think we shouldexpect no less of Islam when it is obvious that the religion’s preceptscontradict accepted contemporary foundations of ethics. Relying on medievalthought to address today’s ethical ormoral issues is unacceptable.

– Dr. Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Associate Professor
B.S. and M.S. programs in Pro. Writing & Tech. Comm.
Dept. of English, University of Houston-Downtown

A reader from British Columbia responds to last week’s news item about David Emerson, a Canadian member of Parliament who changed party affiliations and joined the new cabinet after his party lost power in recent federal elections:

I would suggest that the deep anger that has been felt by the people of Vancouver-Kingsway is related to the theft of their ballots by an individual whose ethics might be good in business but whose blindness to the meaning of a vote is dangerous in a political situation. Mr. Emerson crossed the floor even before the writ was returned. He cannot claim that the political scene or the platform that he ran on had changed, because Parliament had not yet met.

One might respect crossing the floor when the party had rejected his positions, but in our system, even though one is elected as an individual, the party is important in making that choice.

Vancouver-Kingsway has not elected a conservative for many, many years, and I can assure you that Emerson would have suffered the same result had he run on the Conservative ticket. The Conservative candidate came in third, after both the Liberal and the NDP. Had there been the slightest hint before the election of Emerson’s action, he would have gone down to a massive defeat.

– Arthur E. Gans, CD, MTh
Winfield, BC

Here is how some readers responded to last week’s opinion piece, “Little Soapy Lies,” about the shuttle-bus driver who castigated public officials for corruption but wasn’t planning to report his tips on his taxes:

I enjoyed the story (”Little Soapy Lies”) including the moral circle and the commentary about the man who held his leaders to an ethical standard, but in his own situation, may not report his tips. The point that we have to speak truthfully to whomever we meet was well made.

– Blythe J. McGarvie, author of Fit In, Stand Out
President, Leadership for International Finance

* * *

I don’t dispute your fundamental point, but at the same time, I believe that those who make laws have an ethical obligation to avoid setting other folks up for dishonesty. For example, is it really necessary to require a shuttle bus driver to report his petty cash tips as income? In fact, one might argue that tips like his should be exempt from the definition of income tax. To make it a legal requirement that a minimum wage bus driver report his tips on his income tax could be viewed as a sort of tax fraud trap. What purpose does it really serve?

Now, if he were a federal employee bus driver (like the public officials accused of not reporting “payments”) this situation would be very different. He would be obligated to refuse the tip. In fact, accepting the tip would be a criminal violation.

Why the difference? The answer is because federal employees own a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers. On their first day of work they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. They are held to a different standard, as they should be.

I understand and appreciate the point you were trying to make, but I don’t fully buy into your conceit, and I’m not sure his limb was as thin as you made it out to be.

– Greg M. Weinman
Senior Legal Counsel
United States Mint

THANK YOU for the adroit and timely commentary on the Frey affair (“Bend It Like Frey,” Jan. 16). Having read the book and the Smoking Gun report, I was appalled at Frey’s minimization of his actions, Larry King’s sophomoric and uninformed questions, and Oprah Winfrey’s willful disregard for the fact that Frey’s lies undermine the “essential redemptive message of the book.”

It looks to me like Frey has recovered from addiction, but not from the penchant for manipulation. Shame on all concerned for their collusion in this charade. Good for you for calling them on it.

– Kimberly Strom-Gottfried, Ph.D.
Professor, School of Social Work
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

As scandals swirl around the White House, President Bush has ordered his staff to take a refresher course in ethics. [See related Newsline story, Nov. 14.] Not a moment too soon, many would say. But there are two problems with the president’s directive. First, as any organization knows, the tone is set at the top. So it is a mistake for the president to exempt himself from such a class. If he thinks that ethics in the White House is important (and who doesn’t?), then he, as the leader in charge, must also attend the session, at least to demonstrate that the classes are serious, not just a public relations stunt.

The second problem with such an ethics course is that it is about ethics in name only. In fact, the course is about compliance with a set of laws that basically address conflicts of interest and, in this particular instance, rules for handling classified information. The assumption behind this kind of ethics class is that ethics is rule-following. It is the mistaken idea that ethics and following the law are the same thing. Most of the time ethics and the law overlap but not always. Just last week Rosa Parks was honored by this nation for having the courage to have broken an unjust law. In hindsight, everyone — from the president to Supreme Court justices to school children — recognized that there are times in which laws are themselves unethical, and the right thing to do is not to comply with them.

But the more serious problem with equating ethics with rule-following is that ethics often demands more than memorizing and living by a set of rules. A study done of law school students, for example, shows that their ability to make sound ethical judgments is impaired by their three years in law school because ethics is presented in a rule-based manner. The conclusion that students reach is that all that is necessary to be ethical is to follow the letter of the law. Anything that is done to further your own case that isn’t illegal is, by this definition, ethically acceptable.

Ethics — real ethics — requires the use of judgment, and this is distinct from rule-following. Judgment is acquired by struggling with situations that aren’t clear-cut; it requires self-reflection and an openness to alternative possibilities.

Refresher courses in ethics is a fine idea — if ethics is broadly defined and if the person in charge of the organization participates in those courses. But courses that focus on ethics as mere rules make matters worse. Ethics classes that discuss the dilemmas of wealth and poverty, war and peace, prosperity and the environment, security and human rights, and immigration and national identity are classes that will make a difference. This is harder than what the president proposes. But whoever thought ethics was easy was fooling more than himself.

– Arthur Dobrin
Professor of Humanities
Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY

RE: “From a Dark Present, a Brighter Future,” Dec. 23, 2002.

Your piece on “Dark Present” is provocative. Your observations of the Pew [Global Attitudes Survey] results track with my own. Moreover, this is the world’s opportunity to bring Islamic culture into clearer relief for better appreciation. The contrasts between our culture and theirs can jolt us into a better awareness of common values and greater mutual respect for what’s constructive in both.

– Robin Widgery
Social Systems Research Institute, Flint, Michigan, U.S.A.

Re: “When Poor Kids Fail, so Does Ethics,” Sep. 16.

Nice commentary. Just a side bar: While I believe subject matter knowledge is critical, I think more emphasis needs to be given to the importance of teacher/pupil relationships, especially in the lower grades. (”If you want to teach math to Mary, it’s more important to know Mary than to know math.”) Caring for and respecting Mary is also a determining factor in Mary’s willingness to learn.

– Luke Austenfeld
Augusta, Michigan

Re: “The Moral Debate on Iraq,” Sep. 3.

For many months, I’ve been growing increasingly suspicious of President Bush’s motives and alarmed at what seems to be a very ham-handed approach to most issues. Your commentary on the Iraqi situation made me think twice. The clarity — and even more, the respectfulness — with which you presented the “long-term” viewpoint has convinced me to hold my judgment until we know more of the facts about Saddam’s war-making capabilities. I hope the President listens to Tony Blair’s suggestion that these facts be made public soon. I applaud your balance. It helped me regain mine.

–David Walton
Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.

Re: “Changing the Post-9/11 World,” Sep. 9.

In the early part of your remarks about healing the cynicism toward corporate ethics, it struck me how similar that attitude is to a longer-held attitude of cynicism toward politics. It has long seemed to me that it is a huge task for a politician, especially a president, to be truthful and forthright with his public. Now, it seems that a similar attitude is developing toward CEOs. But it seems to me honesty and forthrightness is a lot more doable in business, since national security is not in question. In business it is more often the case of being responsible and maintaining integrity.

–Jim Raynesford
Lakewood, California, U.S.A.

RE: “A Vortex of Distrust,” Aug. 19.

Dear Rushworth

I just read your commentary, and I also see the trend you articulate. I would like to add two other ingredients to the mix. One is a cause and one is an effect.

The cause I see is the availability of instant expertise. Suddenly a great number of people, are not dependent upon “experts” to build Web sites, to advise on car purchases, to serve as intermediaries in an incredible number of endeavors. It’s as though universal education has taken a second giant leap forward. Many people simply have less need for experts, and have higher expectations. With this pressure, many individuals in high positions have responded by cheating. CEOs will have an increasingly difficult time justifying seven-figure salaries as their expertise is questioned and transparency is increasingly demanded.

I see these years in which we live as a crisis time — but a time in which the excesses of amoral behavior are brought to light. A time in which great numbers of people start coming to grips with living responsibly.

– Paul Pickering
Slough, Berkshire, England

RE: “Texas Textbook Battles Begin,” July 29.

Rushworth,

I wonder if anyone else caught the irony in the story on Texas and textbooks? I certainly raised my eyebrows when I read that Texas demanded that “textbooks promote democracy” … and then two paragraphs later saw that in determining which books would be allowed in state schools, “David Bradley, a conservative member of the Board of Education, told the Monitor, ‘It’s nice to be king’”!

– Alisdair Smith
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada