Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
John Gellene, a bankruptcy lawyer at the law firm Milbank Tweed, worked directly under Wall Street
attorney Larry Lederman. In 1994, Lederman asked Gellene to represent mining equipment company
Bucyrus-Erie (BE) in a reorganization bankruptcy that became increasingly complicated.
In an attempt to initially ward off bankruptcy, BE had, pursuant to the legal advice of Milbank Tweed
and the financial advice of Goldman Sachs, accepted a $35 million infusion of cash from an investment
fund called South Street. In exchange, BE gave South Street a lien on all of the company’s
manufacturing equipment, putting it ahead of other BE creditors, including Jackson National Life (JNL).
JNL was BE’s largest single creditor, but was unsecured. BE had posted no collateral in return for JNL’s
loan, so JNL was in line in bankruptcy court behind all of BE’s creditors that had demanded collateral.
South Street was controlled by Mikael Salovaara, a former Goldman Sachs banker who had previously
provided financial advice to BE and was advised by Lederman.
When Gellene filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on behalf of BE, he was required to ask the court
to appoint him and Milbank Tweed as BE’s counsel for purposes of the proceedings. At that time, he
filed documents under oath that were supposed to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that
Milbank Tweed had in the proceedings. For reasons unknown, Gellene did not disclose to the
bankruptcy judge (who would appoint counsel) the fact that Milbank Tweed was representing both
South Street and Salovaara regarding various matters.
Legal scholars and attorneys reflecting on this case years later have speculated as to why Gellene did
not disclose what might seem to be obvious connections that could be potential conflicts of interest for
Milbank Tweed. Lawyer Steve Sather suggests that the lack of disclosure may have been inadvertent,
or that Gellene did not see the connections as inherent conflicts, among other possible reasons.
Discussion Questions:
1) What concepts from the video Intro to Behavioral Ethics are apparent in this case study?
2) Why might the connections among Milbank Tweed, South Street, and Salovaara be conflicts of
interest? Why not? Explain your reasoning.
4) At sentencing, the prosecutor in the Gellene criminal case said that he had prosecuted many
bad people over the years, but admitted “John Gellene isn’t a bad guy.” The prosecutor said it
made him nauseous to see how hard Gellene had been working and suggested that Gellene was
“overstressed and overworked.” Is that an explanation for Gellene’s actions in the BE
reorganization? Why or why not?
5) Gellene had opportunities to correct his errors before they came to light, but did not. How
would you evaluate the following statement from Gellene:
“I’ve been recognized as a person with gifts in terms of my intellect and my ability to
deal with problems and I’ve been very good and very competent at the kinds of
problems presented [by] my clients in the practice of law… And that is I think such a part
of me and who I hold myself out to be and who I am that when I am confronted with a
mistake, an act of inadvertence that is stupid that I’m—it is very difficult for me to stand
up and say I did a stupid thing.”
6) What do you think of the following statement by the judge in the Gellene criminal case:
7) Based on the two statements above, where do you think the blame primarily lies and why?
With Gellene individually, or with the system within which he operated? Explain your
reasoning.
Resources:
Obstacles to Ethical Decision-Making: Mental Models, Milgram and the Problem of Obedience
http://www.worldcat.org/title/obstacles-to-ethical-decision-making-mental-models-milgram-and-the-
problem-of-obedience/oclc/809926073
The Sad Case of John Gellene or What It Feels Like to Get Hit By Lightning
http://stevesathersbankruptcynews.blogspot.com/2006/07/sad-case-of-john-gellene-or-what-it.html
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
In 2014, Alan Barron, a white middle school history teacher who taught for 36 years in Monroe,
Michigan, was placed on administrative leave a few weeks before his retirement. Barron’s
administration viewed his history lesson as racist. While teaching about racial segregation laws during
the Jim Crow era, Barron played a video showing a white entertainer in blackface. During the
nineteenth and early twentieth century, white actors commonly painted their faces with makeup to
depict black individuals. Barron explained that the purpose of the video was to show how stereotypes
of African-Americans were portrayed at one point in American history. During the lesson, an assistant
principal who was observing the classroom demanded that Barron stop the video because she
“concluded that Barron’s lesson about how entertainers used to be racist was itself racist.” Barron was
subsequently suspended.
Many parents spoke out against Barron’s suspension. Adrienne Aaron, whose African-American
daughter was in Barron’s eighth grade history class at the time, said that her daughter was not
offended by the lesson and thought that the subject needed to be discussed. Aaron stated, “[My
daughter] was more offended that they stopped the video…History is history. We need to educate our
kids to see how far we’ve come in America. How is that racism?”
After two weeks on leave, the district allowed Barron to return to his classroom. The
superintendent stated, “The teacher in question was placed on paid leave to give the district time to
fully consider what occurred in this classroom. As a result of
incorrect information, a highly respected and loved teacher,
and one who has done much for his students and the
community, has had to endure a public airing of what should
have ended through a district discussion.” Barron was set to
retire soon after being reinstated.
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think Mr. Barron was demonstrating moral awareness or a lack of moral awareness by
showing the video of the minstrel show? Explain your position.
2. Do you agree with the assistant principal’s decision to shut down the video during the
observation? Was she demonstrating moral awareness or lack of moral awareness? Explain
your position.
3. Should Mr. Barron have warned his students that some of them could have been offended by
the racism portrayed in the video? Why or why not? Is it ever necessary for teachers to provide
disclaimers about content that they use in their classrooms? Explain.
4. Should teachers be prevented from showing examples (books, films, photos, etc.) of historical
events and/or practices that are considered racially insensitive by today’s standards? Why or
why not?
Resources:
The Daily Caller – Middle School Teacher Suspended for Showing Video About White Actors Wearing
Blackface
http://news.yahoo.com/middle-school-teacher-suspended-showing-video-white-actors-
122027921.html
Author:
Christina Bain, Ph.D.
Department of Art and Art History
College of Fine Arts
The University of Texas at Austin
In 2003, a research team from prominent laboratory the Boyce Thompson Institute (BTI) for Plant
Research in Ithaca, New York published an article in the prestigious academic journal Cell. It was
considered a breakthrough paper in that it answered a major question in the field of plant cell biology.
The first author of this paper was postdoctoral researcher Meena Chandok, working under her
supervisor Daniel Klessig, president of BTI at the time.
After Chandok left BTI for another job, other researchers in the laboratory were unable to repeat the
results published in Cell, following exactly the same methods described in the article. Klessig,
suspecting possible scientific misconduct, requested Chandok to return to the laboratory to redo her
experiments and confirm the authenticity of her results, but she declined. An institutional investigation
into the experiment concluded there “was no conclusive evidence that Dr. Chandok achieved the
results reported,” but also that there was “no conclusive evidence” of misconduct or that Chandok had
fabricated the results. Klessig and the other co-authors retracted the article without Chandok’s
agreement. Chandok subsequently sued Klessig for defamation, claiming the retraction had caused
significant damage to her career and reputation within the scientific community.
Over several years in court, the case drew attention to a number of issues in scientific research and
publishing. John Travis, an editor at Science magazine, wrote of the case’s consistency with “the
National Institutes of Health’s grant policy that researchers should come forward with concerns about
possible misconduct.” John Dahlberg, director of the Office of Research Integrity’s Division of
Investigative Oversight, believed the case could encourage anyone with fear of being sued for
defamation to come forward. Science writer Eugenie Reich described Klessig as a “whistle-blower,”
while philosopher Janet Stemwedel raised questions surrounding the collaborative responsibility of the
coauthors and Klessig with regard to quality control for the research. She asked, “If credit is shared,
why isn’t blame?”
In 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York dismissed the case. It ruled that
Klessig’s statements were legally protected because they were “matters as to which the speaker [had]
a legal or moral obligation” to notify the journal that his
laboratory could not replicate the results they had published
and were made between “communicants who [shared] a
common interest.” The court found there was no proof of
malice toward Chandok and that the investigation and
attempts requesting Chandok to replicate her work left the
question of scientific misconduct open.
Discussion Questions:
1. The retraction did harm Chandok’s ability to pursue a career in science. Do you think Klessig
should have retracted the article published in Cell without conclusive evidence that Chandok
had fabricated the results? Explain.
Case Study - Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig - Page 1 of 3
2. Do you think Chandok had a moral obligation to return to the laboratory at Klessig’s request to
replicate her results? Why or why not?
3. If the article had been published in a less prominent journal and the results were of much less
significance, do you think this would have altered the decision to retract the publication?
Explain.
4. Klessig’s decision to retract the article was based only on the inability of his laboratory to
replicate Chandok’s results, not specifically on the credibility of her character. Do you think
Chandok was ethically justified in suing for defamation? Why or why not?
5. There were four authors on the Cell paper, including Klessig and Chandok. If another of the
authors besides Chandok also opposed the decision to retract the article, should this have
changed whether or not Klessig should have gone ahead with the retraction? Why or why not?
7. If Klessig had no reason to doubt Chandok’s abilities or honesty, would he have a moral
obligation to write letters of recommendation for her explaining that his retraction did not in
any way reflect on her potential to do quality research and be a significant asset to whatever
laboratory or institute she joined? Why or why not?
Resources:
NIH Grants Policy Statement [see “Research Misconduct” in section 4.1.27, page IIA-40]
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/nihgps.pdf
Scientist Wins Legal Skirmish After Fulfilling ‘Moral Obligation’ to Speak Out
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/01/scientist-wins-legal-skirmish-after-fulfilling-moral-
obligation-speak-out
Author:
Stanley Roux, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular Biosciences
College of Natural Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin
On July 9, 2015, Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill requiring the Confederate flag to be removed
from the South Carolina State House grounds. The flag and the pole on which it was flown were both
removed the following day. Leading up to this removal was heated debate concerning whether or not
the Confederate flag should be taken down. Similar discussions occurred across the United States in
places where Confederate flags or other Confederate symbols were on display, ranging from
governmental properties and university campuses to NASCAR venues and popular television series.
Prior to the flag’s official removal from the front of the South Carolina State House, police
arrested activist Brittany Newsome for climbing the flagpole and removing the flag herself. The activist
explained her act of defiance, stating, “because it was the right thing to do and it was time for
somebody to step up. Do the right thing. We have to bury hate; it’s been too long.” South Carolina
Representative Jenny Anderson Horne, an ancestor of former Confederate President Jefferson Davis,
argued that the Confederate flag should no longer fly in front of the State House. She chastised her
colleagues in an emotional speech, stating, “I cannot believe that we do not have the heart in this body
to do something meaningful—such as take a symbol of hate off these grounds on Friday.”
On the other hand, Confederate sympathizers contend that the flag is a symbol of historical
pride, not of hatred. They claim that efforts to remove the flag are a misplaced reaction to photos of
Dylann Roof posing with a Confederate flag. Roof had been recently charged with the racially
motivated killing of nine black people in a Charleston church. South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright
noted that symbols have been misused throughout history.
Bright said, for example, that he believed the Ku Klux Klan
abused the symbol of the cross, but there has not been a
push to remove all crosses. Similarly, Kenneth Thrasher, the
lieutenant commander of the Sons of the Confederate
Veterans, urged decision makers not to act in haste because,
“The flag didn’t kill anybody. It was a deranged young man
who did.”
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you believe that flying a Confederate flag is ethically prohibited? Why or why not?
2. In what ways is displaying a Confederate flag similar or different to displaying other types of
flags? A tribal flag? A national flag? A corporate flag? A sports team flag? A rainbow flag?
3. Should retailers bow to public pressure to discontinue sales of controversial items even if they
are not illegal, such as toy guns, fur coats, or Native American headdresses?
4. Is it possible to make an objective decision in the case of the Confederate flag? How might you
come to a decision that is both reasonable and defensible?
5. Can you think of an example of another situation in which there were two views that were
strongly opposed to each other? How was the situation resolved? Do you think the ethically
ideal decision was reached? Why or why not?
Case Study – Flying the Confederate Flag - Page 1 of 2
Resources:
Flag Supporters React With a Mix of Compromise, Caution and Outright Defiance
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/supporters-of-confederate-battle-flag-watch-as-
symbol-is-stripped-from-public-eye.html
Author:
Christina Bain, Ph.D.
Department of Art and Art History
College of Fine Arts
The University of Texas at Austin
In March 2014, twenty-seven year old Christina Fallin, daughter of Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin,
found herself at the center of controversy when she posted an image of herself wearing a red Plains
headdress on Facebook and Instagram with the tag “Appropriate Culturation.” Fallin posed for this
photo as a promotional piece for her band, Pink Pony. Public outcry criticized Fallin for appropriating
Native American cultures, sparking uproar on social media and leading to protests at their shows.
In response, Fallin and Pink Pony removed the photo and released a statement on their Facebook page
explaining their aesthetic appreciation for Native American culture. Fallin told the Indian Country
Today Media Network that, “I think Native American culture is the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen,
so I was naturally drawn to it.” Musician Wayne Coyne of The Flaming Lips became involved in the
issue when he fired bandmate Kliph Scurlock for criticizing Fallin online. To show his support for Fallin,
Coyne posted Instagram photos of several friends and a dog wearing headdresses.
Some argue that Fallin’s photo could be an example of artistic appropriation. Throughout history,
artists have borrowed objects and images from everyday life as well as other cultures in order to re-
contextualize the object in a new manner. On the other hand, some argue that non-Native Americans
do not have the right to adorn a headdress at all. Taking a sacred or meaningful object out of context is
problematic even when touted as “art.” Summer Morgan, member of the Kiowa tribe in Oklahoma,
believes that Fallin may have had good intentions, but there are better ways to express her
appreciation of Native American cultures. Morgan believes
that headdresses are not fashion accessories. Following
Kiowa tradition, only men can own war bonnets and each
feather represents a war deed. Female relatives may be given
the right to wear a male relative’s war bonnet, but only after
they understand what’s expected of them when they wear it,
how to treat it properly, and when it is acceptable to wear.
Discussion Questions:
1. Did Christina Fallin do something ethically prohibited in posing in a war bonnet? Does it make a
difference that she claims to love and respect Native American culture? Fallin wrote, “Please
forgive us if we innocently adorn ourselves in your beautiful things.” Do you view her act as
innocent or not? Explain your reasoning.
2. How should educators teach students about cultures other than their own? Do you think it is
possible to avoid perpetuating stereotypes of other cultures? Why or why not?
3. What if Fallin’s record label asked her to pose in the war bonnet to gain publicity for her music?
Would it make a difference if this were simply a business decision to sell records? Explain your
reasoning.
Resources:
The Most Interesting Governor’s Daughter in the Country
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/04/meet-christina-fallin-not-what-the-
public-would-expect-of-a-politicians-daughter/
The Daughter of Oklahoma’s Governor Caused an Uproar After She Posed in a Headdress for her Indie
Band
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/daughter-of-governor-of-oklahoma-causes-an-uproar-after-
she
Oklahoma Governor’s Daughter Mocks Native American Protesters with ‘War Dance’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/29/oklahoma-governors-daughter-mocks-native-american-
protesters-war-dance/
Native Americans React to Christina Fallin’s Fake War Dance Performance
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/04/28/native-americans-react-christina-fallins-
fake-war-dance-performance-154627
Christina Fallin, in Her Own Words: ‘I’m Tired of the Misinformation’
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/05/02/christina-fallin-her-own-words-im-tired-
misinformation-154690
Oklahoma Gov’s Daughter: A Woman in a Headdress is ‘a Beautiful Thing’
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/03/07/oklahoma-govs-daughter-woman-
headdress-beautiful-thing-153915
When Friends Disagree: Debate over Native American Mascot
http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/news/inside-the-classroom-when-friends-disagree
Author:
Christina Bain, Ph.D.
Department of Art and Art History
College of Fine Arts
The University of Texas at Austin
Since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), some parents, teachers,
and administrators have taken their own stand against something that they believe is harmful for
public education and American children: high stakes testing. Under NCLB, every child in the U.S. must
achieve proficiency in reading and math. While each state can determine its own level of proficiency, a
child’s ability to advance to the next grade level, and even graduate from high school, hinges on
passing a standardized test. Across the U.S., children in minority communities have been more likely
not to receive a diploma due to low-test scores on mandated exams.
Opponents, however, firmly believe that high stakes testing is problematic and even ruinous to
our educational system. There is no research to corroborate that standardized testing, a multi-billion
dollar industry controlled by three large U.S. corporations, is effective. Teachers complain that they are
forced to “teach to the test,” leaving little or no time for subjects that are not tested, such as art, social
studies, and science. Parent and former teacher Edy Chamness founded a Facebook group in 2011 to
rally parents in her community to protest against school
accountability and standardized testing requirements. She
also kept her son out of school on testing days. Other parents,
including Maeve Siano of Celina, Texas, similarly felt that the
preparation and stress associated with testing were more
likely to damage her son than help him. Celina Superintendent
Donny O’Dell stated, “Our country was basically founded on
rebellion, so to speak. So I don’t hold that against any of these
parents, but we as educators have to do what we have to do…and we need some form of
accountability.”
Discussion Questions:
Resources:
Author:
Christina Bain, Ph.D.
Department of Art and Art History
College of Fine Arts
The University of Texas at Austin
In 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asked Joseph Wilson, U.S. diplomat and husband of CIA
agent Valerie Plame, to investigate allegations that Saddam Hussein purchased yellowcake uranium in
Niger. Wilson traveled to Niger and found no evidence of this. Nonetheless, during the 2003 State of
the Union Address, President George W. Bush stated, “The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” On July 6, 2003, Wilson
rebutted this statement in an editorial for The New York Times. One week later, journalist Robert
Novak published an op-ed in The Washington Post criticizing Wilson and releasing information
identifying Plame as a CIA agent. Another journalist, Matthew Cooper, wrote in Time Magazine that
government officials informed him that Wilson’s wife was employed by the CIA. Plame was a classified
covert agent and her actual employment was not public knowledge. Her employer, Brewster Jennings,
was thus unmasked as a CIA front company and their employees worldwide were put at risk.
The CIA asked the Department of Justice to investigate the leak. Bush stated if a leak occurred from his
administration “and if the person violated the law, the person will be taken care of.” He later said, “If
someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” A special counsel
examined the legal violations and a grand jury summoned the journalists involved, as well as various
members of the Bush administration, with a focus on presidential aide Karl Rove and Scooter Libby,
Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.
Cooper claimed Rove told him Plame’s name and employment, while Rove contended he only learned
of her name from journalists. Evidence suggested Cheney might have informed Libby. Eventually, the
source was revealed as Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State at the time. Armitage was
ultimately not charged because no evidence existed to prove he was aware Plame’s employment was
covert, and thus, illegal to disclose.
The only person charged over the leak was Libby. He was indicted on two counts of perjury, two counts
of making false statements, and one count of obstruction of justice. These charges all stemmed from
testimony he gave during the investigation, not the initial disclosure of information. He resigned from
his position, and was later fined and sentenced to
thirty months in federal prison. President Bush
commuted the prison time, but left the fines intact.
Cheney aggressively sought a full pardon for Libby
and was reportedly very upset with Bush for
refusing to grant it. Bush publicly stated he
respected the jury’s verdict, but Cheney felt Libby
did nothing inappropriate.
In 2018, President Donald Trump pardoned Libby, stating, “I don’t know Mr. Libby, but for years I have
heard that he has been treated unfairly. Hopefully, this full pardon will help rectify a very sad portion
of his life.” Cheney responded to the pardon, stating, “He is innocent, and he and his family have
suffered for years because of his wrongful conviction. I am grateful today that President Trump righted
this wrong.”
Plame saw the pardon as a dangerous precedent that could further endanger the safety of covert
operatives and the operations of the CIA. In an op-ed, Plame wrote, “The pardon power of the
president cannot be challenged constitutionally; it should be wielded with enormous diligence and
prudence. In granting his pardon to Scooter Libby, Donald Trump seems to have avoided the careful
process of review within the Justice Department that has been established to consider pardons,”
continuing, “Our national security is at serious risk when there is daylight and distrust between the
president and the CIA.”
Discussion Questions
1. Which person involved in this complex case do you think was most subject to bounded
ethicality? Why?
2. How do the situational factors of this case pose challenges for those involved to act ethically?
3. How were the actions of Bush, Cheney, and Libby subject to bounded ethicality? In this case,
what organizational pressures or psychological factors may have influenced each of their
decisions? Explain.
4. President Bush was caught between the interests of Cheney, Rove, and Libby on the one hand,
and Plame, Wilson, and the CIA on the other. Do you think President Bush’s actions were
ethically ideal? Why or why not?
5. If you were in President Bush’s position, how would you have handled this situation? Explain
how your resolution would minimize harm to those involved.
6. Do you think it was ethically permissible to pardon Libby? Why or why not?
7. Does Libby’s pardoning, as Plame suggested, cause further harm? If so, to whom or what?
Explain.
I was outed as a CIA officer. But pardoning Scooter Libby hurts all of us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/04/18/i-was-outed-as-a-cia-covert-
ops-officer-why-it-matters-that-trump-pardoned-scooter-libby/
In a typical year in the United States, the public is urged to get flu shots as a means of protection
against influenza. A report published by an influenza expert at the British Columbia Centre for Disease
Control found that the 2014-2015 rate of effectiveness for flu shots was 23% in the U.S., and that the
shots offered no significant protection in Canada. A related finding published by researchers at the
National Institutes of Health documented that, although the percentage of seniors who received flu
shots in recent decades rose from 15% to 65%, the deaths caused by influenza among the elderly
continued to climb during this period. These researchers concluded “either the vaccine failed to
protect the elderly against mortality… and/or the vaccination efforts did not adequately target the
frailest elderly.”
More recent research has tried to develop a method to assess in advance whether a given flu vaccine
would have any protection benefit. A report published in 2016 in the journal Nature Immunology used
a blood assay and identified a correlation between persons with a certain pattern of gene expression
and the likelihood that such persons would experience adverse events after receiving a flu vaccine. If
this assay could be made economical, and included in blood tests typically done in annual physicals, it
could reduce the number of suits filed with the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. With
these reports in mind, consider the following case:
Dr. Jones works in a hospital and she recently became aware of all the above reports. She belongs to
the American Medical Association (AMA), which strongly recommends that everyone receive flu shots
each year. Moreover, her hospital recently informed her that she herself must take annual flu shots or
risk termination of her hospital privileges or employment. Dr. Jones, however, is aware of the AMA
Code of Ethics, which states that patients have a right of self-decision regarding their health care, and
that this right can only be effectively exercised “if the patient possesses enough information to enable
an informed choice.” She feels a moral obligation to inform her senior patients that she has
reservations about the efficacy of flu shots for their age group and why.
Since the AMA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are strong proponents of annual flu
shots, if Dr. Jones gives contrary advice to her patients, this could jeopardize her standing with the
AMA, in addition to her employment at her hospital. Furthermore, her hospital administrator and
other health officials are concerned that if doctors advise patients about the relative ineffectiveness of,
and potential injury from, flu vaccines, this could feed public doubts about the efficacy or safety of
other vaccines. Such doubts could increase public opposition
to new state laws that aim to promote “herd immunity” by
mandating certain vaccinations.
1. Do you think Dr. Jones should discuss her reservations about flu vaccines with her senior
patients? Why or why not?
2. Do you think Dr. Jones has a greater moral obligation to her family to protect her job security or
to the recommendations of the AMA Code of Ethics, which encourage physicians to help
patients exercise their “right of self-decision” by providing them with enough information to
enable an informed choice? Explain your reasoning.
3. Even if flu shots provide protection less than one fourth of the time, is it ethically permissible
for Dr. Jones to decide that protection for some patients is better than none? And, on that
basis, decide not to discuss the potential benefits and harms of flu shots with her patients?
Explain.
4. Do you think the AMA should promote open discussions about the efficacy of flu vaccines and
support the development of blood tests that could predict that efficacy? Why or why not?
What are the potential outcomes?
5. Both the AMA Code of Ethics and the World Health Organization endorse the primary “right of
self-decision” of all patients regarding their health care. However, to foster “herd immunity,”
the bill SB 277 was recently passed in the state of California, mandating multiple doses of
vaccinations for all students entering kindergarten. Do you think there is a way to reconcile
these two opposing ethical goals? Explain.
Resources:
H1N1 viral proteome peptide microarray predicts individuals at risk for H1N1 infection and segregates
infection versus Pandemrix vaccination
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479535/pdf/imm0145-0357.pdf
Author:
Stanley Roux, Ph.D.
Department of Molecular Biosciences
College of Natural Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin
On June 24, 2004, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Cheney v. U.S. District
Court. Believing that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s handling of an energy task force violated
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and suspecting undue influence in governmental
deliberations by the energy industry, two environmental groups—the Sierra Club and Judicial
Watch—sued to discover official documents relating to the meetings. Cheney and other
government defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, but the federal district court in Washington
D.C. ordered defendants to produce information about the task force. Defendants appealed, and
the Circuit Court also held that they had to turn over the information. Defendants appealed again
to the Supreme Court. A majority of the Supreme Court, for largely procedural reasons, held that
the Circuit Court should reconsider the appeal in light of new legal guidelines that the Supreme
Court set out. Dissenters argued that the lower courts had ruled correctly, and the cas e should be
returned to the District Court where it could go forward. Justice Antonin Scalia voted with the
majority, but also said that he favored dismissing the case and ruling for Cheney and the other
defendants. Justice Scalia also filed a statement explaining why he was refusing requests that he
recuse himself from the case.
Justice Scalia’s opinion in favor of Cheney was controversial. While the case against Cheney was
pending, Scalia had taken a widely publicized duck hunting trip with defendant Cheney and others.
Federal law states that “any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might be questioned.” Critics of Justice Scalia thought it reasonable to question his
impartiality. Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor and expert on legal ethics, noted,
“A judge may have a friendship with a lawyer, and that’s fine. But if the lawyer has a case before
the judge, they don’t socialize until it’s over. That shows a proper respect for maintain ing the
public’s confidence in the integrity of the process.”
Defenders of Justice Scalia argued that these criticisms were politically motivated by people
who wished that Scalia not be able to vote in the case. They said it is common for justices to be
friends with political actors who might be involved in cases coming before the Court. Defending his
actions, Scalia stated, “Social contacts with high-level executive officials…have never been thought
improper for judges who may have before them cases in
which those people are involved… For example, Supreme
Court Justices are regularly invited to dine at the White
House, whether or not a suit seeking to compel or prevent
certain presidential action is pending.”
Discussion Questions:
1) Do you think there is a conflict of interest in this case? Why or why not?
3) Do you think it would be easy to rule against a friend or a former employer in a high -stakes
case? Does this create a conflict of interest between a judge’s natural motivation and the duty to
render justice impartially? Why or why not?
4) What do you think would have been the most ethically defensible action for Justice Scalia to
take? Explain your reasoning.
5) What is your reaction to the following passage by professors Max Bazerman and Anne
Tenbrunsel commenting upon Justice Scalia’s opinion in this case:
“Scalia’s comments [on conflict of interest] indicate that he rejects or is unaware of the
unambiguous evidence on the psychological aspects of conflicts of interest. Even more troubling
than this lack of understanding are the Supreme Court’s rules which, like most guidelines and laws
that are intended to protect against conflicts of interest, guard only against intentional corruption.
Yet most instances of corruption, and unethical behavior in general, are unintentional, a product of
bounded ethicality and the fading of the ethical dimension of the problem.”
Do you agree with their assessment? Why or why not?
Resources:
Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, 541 U.S. 913 (2004)
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/541/541.US.913.03-475.html
Cheney, Vice President of the United States, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of
Columbia et al., 542 U.S. 367 (2004)
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/542/542.US.367.03-475.html
Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions in Business, Law, Medicine, and Public Policy
http://www.worldcat.org/title/conflicts-of-interest-challenges-and-solutions-in-business-law-
medicine-and-public-policy/oclc/939111700
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
During the Holocaust, more than a third of Nazi Germany’s Jewish victims never boarded deportation
trains and did not die in gas chambers. Jewish men, women, and children were murdered near their
homes in surrounding fields and forests by German police forces and their local helpers. Historians
estimate that these so-called mobile killing units shot almost 2 million people during World War II.
After the war, when some of the shooters and their commanders were put on trial, they claimed that
they had to follow orders. Decades later, however, historians studying the interrogation files of one of
these police battalions made a startling discovery. Not only did many ordinary Germans participate in
the mass murder of Jews, they did so voluntarily.
In his book on one group of reserve policemen from the German city Hamburg, Ordinary Men: Reserve
Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, historian Christopher Browning shows that while
the men were expected to follow orders when it came to killing civilians, they could have refused to do
so. In July 1942, before their induction into the mass shooting of civilians in the small Polish town of
Józefów, their commander gave battalion members a choice. If any of the men were “not up to the
task,” they would be assigned to do “other duties,” such as guarding or transportation. When given the
opportunity to opt out, only a very small number of men did. Even though this option remained in the
months that followed, the majority of reserve policemen chose to kill—to do the “dirty work” even if
just for a short time before being relieved of duty—rather than separate themselves from their unit by
refusing to murder civilians.
Most of these ordinary, middle-aged German men became willing, although not enthusiastic, killers. A
small minority consistently excused themselves from the task at hand. Those that killed, Browning
argues, did so because of “the pressure for conformity—the
basic identification of men in uniform with their comrades and
the strong urge not to separate themselves from the group by
stepping out… [The] act of stepping out…meant leaving one’s
comrades and admitting that one was ‘too weak’ or ‘cowardly’.”
Discussion Questions:
1. Why do you think ordinary men would become willing killers? What was the role of conformity
bias in the situation described above? Explain.
2. Although conformity bias refers to our own tendency to take behavioral cues from the actions
of others around us, in what ways do you think conformity was actively encouraged by the
political climate or police forces leading the volunteers? Explain.
3. In hindsight, it is clear to see the wrongdoing of the actions of the men of Reserve Police
Battalion 101. But given the number of men who willingly killed their Jewish neighbors, the
decision to opt out may have been more complicated than simply being “not up to the task.”
Case Study – German Police Battalion 101 - Page 1 of 2
Beyond conformity bias, what other cognitive biases or situational pressures may have
contributed to these men’s decision to kill? Explain. How do you think the men could have
made different choices?
4. Do you think this dynamic is specific to a militarized culture? Why or why not? In what other
contexts do you think conformity bias could play a significant role in shaping people’s behavior?
Explain.
5. Can you think of examples in other parts of the world or historical periods in which conformity
bias may have played a similar role in causing harm on a wide scale? Explain.
6. This case study illustrates an extreme example of the negative effects of conformity bias. On a
more routine basis in your own life, in what situations do you think you might encounter
conformity bias? Explain. Do you think our tendency to conform could ever produce positive
effects? Why or why not?
Resources:
Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland
http://www.worldcat.org/title/ordinary-men-reserve-police-battalion-101-and-the-final-solution-in-
poland/oclc/24010495
Author:
Tatjana Lichtenstein, Ph.D.
Department of History
College of Liberal Arts
The University of Texas at Austin
Egil “Bud” Krogh was a young lawyer who worked for the Nixon administration in the late 1960s and
early 1970s as deputy assistant to the president. Military analyst Daniel Ellsberg leaked the “Pentagon
Papers,” which contained sensitive information regarding the United States’ progress in the Vietnam
War. President Nixon himself tasked Krogh with stopping leaks of top-secret information. And Nixon’s
Assistant for Domestic Affairs, John Ehrlichman, instructed Krogh to investigate and discredit Ellsberg,
telling Krogh that the leak was damaging to national security.
Krogh and another staffer assembled a covert team that became known as the “plumbers” (to stop
leaks), which was broadly supervised by Ehrlichman. In September 1971, the plumbers’ first break-in
was at the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist; they were looking for documents that would discredit
Ellsberg based on mental health. Reflecting on the meeting in which the break-in was proposed and
approved, Krogh later wrote, “I listened intently. At no time did I or anyone else there question
whether the operation was necessary, legal or moral. Convinced that we were responding legitimately
to a national security crisis, we focused instead on the operational details: who would do what, when
and where.”
The break-in, which was illegal, was also unproductive. Nothing was found to discredit Ellsberg.
Importantly, the ties between this break-in and Nixon were much more direct and easy to establish
than the ties between Nixon and the Watergate break-in. Krogh later pled guilty to his role in the
break-in and was sentenced to two-to-six years in prison. At his sentencing, Krogh explained that
national security is “subject to a wide range of definitions, a factor that makes all the more essential a
painstaking approach to the definition of national security in any given instance.” Judge Gesell,
sentencing Krogh to serve six months in prison and remain on unsupervised probation for another two
years, said, “In acknowledging your guilt, you have made no effort, as you very well might have, to
place the primary blame on others who initiated and who approved the undertaking. A wholly
improper, illegal task was assigned to you by higher authority and you carried it out because of a
combination of loyalty and I believe a degree of vanity, thereby compromising your obligations as a
lawyer and a public servant.”
Krogh, who cooperated with the Watergate prosecutors and never bargained for leniency, served only
four-and-a-half months of his sentence. The Washington State Supreme Court disbarred Krogh in 1975,
although he successfully petitioned to be reinstated in 1980 and became partner in the Seattle law firm
Krogh & Leonard. Krogh has spent much of the past 45 years
supporting legal ethics education and writing and lecturing on the
topic of integrity. Writing for The New York Times in 2007, he
stated, “I finally realized that what had gone wrong in the Nixon
White House was a meltdown in personal integrity. Without it, we
failed to understand the constitutional limits on presidential
power and comply with statutory law.”
1. How was ethical fading a part of Egil Krogh’s eventual journey to prison? Explain.
2. At the time the decision was made, what factors caused the morality of the decision to break
into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to fade from view?
3. Krogh has said that he went into his White House job “with tremendous enthusiasm and
commitment—almost to a fault.” Do you think this is reflective of his actions in the Nixon
administration? Why or why not?
5. How might one guard against ethical fading in a high-pressure work environment?
6. Krogh believes that the Bush administration’s policies and practices regarding torture during
the Iraq War reflect the same types of decision-making errors that he was guilty of regarding
the plumbers’ operations. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Resources
Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan
http://www.worldcat.org/title/sidetracked-why-our-decisions-get-derailed-and-how-we-can-stick-to-
the-plan/oclc/807028907
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
With its highly coveted line of consumer electronics, Apple has a cult following among loyal consumers.
During the 2014 holiday season, 74.5 million iPhones were sold. Demand like this meant that Apple
was in line to make over $52 billion in profits in 2015, the largest annual profit ever generated from a
company’s operations. Despite its consistent financial performance year over year, Apple’s robust
profit margin hides a more complicated set of business ethics. Similar to many products sold in the
U.S., Apple does not manufacture most its goods domestically. Most of the component sourcing and
factory production is done overseas in conditions that critics have argued are dangerous to workers
and harmful to the environment.
For example, tin is a major component in Apple’s products and much of it is sourced in Indonesia.
Although there are mines that source tin ethically, there are also many that do not. One study found
workers—many of them children—working in unsafe conditions, digging tin out by hand in mines
prone to landslides that could bury workers alive. About 70% of the tin used in electronic devices such
as smartphones and tablets comes from these more dangerous, small-scale mines. An investigation by
the BBC revealed how perilous these working conditions can be. In interviews with miners, a 12-year-
old working at the bottom of a 70-foot cliff of sand said: “I worry about landslides. The earth slipping
from up there to the bottom. It could happen.”
Apple defends its practices by saying it only has so much control over monitoring and regulating its
component sources. The company justifies its sourcing practices by saying that it is a complex process,
with tens of thousands of miners selling tin, many of them through middle-men. In a statement to the
BBC, Apple said “the simplest course of action would be for Apple to unilaterally refuse any tin from
Indonesian mines. That would be easy for us to do and would certainly shield us from criticism. But
that would also be the lazy and cowardly path, since it would do nothing to improve the situation. We
have chosen to stay engaged and attempt to drive changes on the ground.”
In an effort for greater transparency, Apple has released annual reports detailing their work with
suppliers and labor practices. While more recent investigations have shown some improvements to
suppliers’ working conditions, Apple continues to face criticism as consumer demand for iPhones and
other products continues to grow.
1. Do you think Apple should be responsible for ethical lapses made by individuals further down its
supply chain? Why or why not?
2. Should Apple continue to work with the suppliers in an effort to change practices, or should they
stop working with every supplier, even the conscientious ones, to make sure no “bad apples” are
getting through? Explain your reasoning.
3. Do you think consumers should be expected to take into account the ethical track record of
companies when making purchases? Why or why not?
4. Can you think of other products or brands that rely on ethically questionable business practices?
Do you think consumers are turned off by their track record or are they largely indifferent to it?
Explain.
5. Would knowing that a product was produced under ethically questionable conditions affect your
decision to purchase it? Explain with examples.
6. If you were part of a third-party regulating body, how would you deal with ethically questionable
business practices of multinational corporations like Apple? Would you feel obligated to do
something, or do you think the solution rests with the companies themselves? Explain your
reasoning.
Resources:
Apple ‘failing to protect Chinese factory workers’
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30532463
How Apple could make a $53 billion profit this year
http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/17/technology/apple-earnings-2015/
Global Apple iPhone sales from 3rd quarter 2007 to 2nd quarter 2016 (in million units)
http://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/
Despite successes, labor violations still haunt Apple
http://www.theverge.com/2015/2/12/8024895/apple-slave-labor-working-conditions-2015
Reports – Supplier Responsibility – Apple
https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/progress-report/
Author:
Lucy Atkinson, Ph.D.
Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations
Moody College of Communication
The University of Texas at Austin
Dennis Kozlowski came from modest circumstances. He began his career at Tyco International in 1975
as an auditor, and worked his way up the corporate ladder to become CEO in 1992. Kozlowski gained
notoriety as CEO for the rapid growth and success of the company, as well as his extravagant lifestyle.
He left the company in 2002 amid controversy surrounding his compensation and personal spending.
In 2005, Kozlowski was convicted of crimes in relation to alleged unauthorized bonuses of $81 million,
in addition to other large purchases and investments.
As CEO, Kozlowski was lauded for his risk-taking and the immense growth of the company. He
launched a series of strategic mergers and acquisitions, rapidly building up the size of Tyco. During his
first six years as CEO, he secured 88 deals worth over $15 billion. Strong growth was bolstered by a
booming economy, and Tyco’s stock price soared as the company consistently beat Wall Street’s
expectations. However, when the economy slowed, the company began to struggle.
Allegedly, Tyco paid for Kozlowski’s $30 million New York apartment, as well as personal gifts and
parties, including $1 million of a $2 million birthday party for his wife. After Kozlowski paid a $20
million finding fee to a board member without proper approval, and paintings invoiced for Tyco offices
ended up in Kozlowski’s apartment (among other irregularities), Kozlowski was criminally charged with
looting more than $600 million of assets from Tyco and its shareholders.
While many questioned his lifestyle, others questioned the trial and conviction. Commenting on the
case, civil rights lawyer Dan Ackman wrote, “It’s fair to say that Kozlowski…abused many corporate
prerogatives… Still, the larceny charges at the heart of the case did
not depend on whether the defendants took the money—they
did—but whether they were authorized to take it.” Kozlowski
asserted his innocence of the charges, stating, “There was no
criminal intent here. Nothing was hidden. There were no shredded
documents. All the information the prosecutors got was directly off
the books and records of the company.”
Discussion Questions:
1) Do you think Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco International? Were his actions
ethically permissible? Why or why not?
2) As CEO of a major company, how might entitlement bias have affected Kozlowski’s behavior?
3) What rationalizations do you think Kozlowski might have used to justify his behavior in his own
mind?
5) Can you think of any other examples of leaders who have abused the power of their position?
What similarities and differences do you see between them and Kozlowski?
Resources:
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
Costco is often cited as one of the world’s most ethical companies. It has been called a “testimony to
ethical capitalism” in large part due to its company practices and treatment of employees. Costco
maintains a company code of ethics which states, “The continued success of our company depends on
how well each of Costco’s employees adheres to the high standards mandated by our Code of Ethics…
By always choosing to do the right thing, you will build your own self-esteem, increase your chances for
success and make Costco more successful, too.”
In debates over minimum wage in the United States, many commentators see Costco as an example of
how higher wages can yield greater company success, often pointing to competitors such as Walmart
and Target as examples that fall short in providing for their employees. Other commentators do not
see Costco’s model as being easily replicable for different types of businesses, citing wages as only one
of many factors to consider in companies’ best practices.
Costco tends to pay around 40% more and provides more comprehensive health and retirement
benefits than Walmart and Target, saving large amounts in employee turnover costs. The company
resists layoffs, invests in training its employees, and grants them substantial autonomy to solve
problems. U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez stated, “And the remarkable loyalty that [employees]
have to [Costco cofounder Jim Sinegal] is a function of the fact that he categorically rejects the notion
that, ‘I either take care of my shareholders or my workers.’ That is a false choice.”
While few disagree with the benefits of fair treatment of employees, some commentators credit the
success of Costco to its broader business model that favors higher productivity, not employee
satisfaction. Columnist and economist Megan McArdle explains, “A typical Costco store has around
4,000 SKUs [stock keeping units], most of which are stacked on pallets so that you can be your own
stockboy. A Walmart has 140,000 SKUs, which have to be tediously sorted, replaced on shelves,
reordered, delivered, and so forth. People tend to radically underestimate the costs imposed by
complexity, because the management problems do not simply add up; they multiply.” Furthermore,
McArdle notes that Costco mainly serves as a grocer rather than department store and caters to a
generally affluent customer base in suburban areas.
1. How does Costco, as described, match up to the “best practices” explained in the video? Where
does Costco fall short? Where does Costco succeed?
2. Walmart pays its employees substantially less than does Costco, even though the two
companies often compete head-to-head. How can Costco stay in business when it pays up to
40% more to its employees than its direct competitors?
3. What do you think are the most important practices for a retail company to pursue to foster an
ethical environment for workers and consumers? Why?
4. A stock analyst criticized Costco, saying: “Costco continues to be a company that is better at
serving the club member and employee than the shareholder.” Do you think this a fair critique?
Why or why not?
5. Another analyst complained that Jim Sinegal “has been too benevolent. He’s right that a happy
employee is a productive long-term employee, but he could force employees to pick up a little
more of the burden.” Again, do you think this a fair criticism? Why or why not?
6. Is a company that does not follow the Costco model a “bad” company? Explain.
Resources:
Unselfishness: The World’s Most Ethical Company & Why Collaboration Works
http://www.rohitbhargava.com/2012/05/unselfishness-the-worlds-most-ethical-company-why-
collaboration-works.html
Labor Secretary Thomas Perez Says More Employers Need To Follow Costco’s Example
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/thomas-perez-costco-minimum-wage_n_4174249.html
Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit From Passion And Purpose
http://www.worldcat.org/title/firms-of-endearment-how-world-class-companies-profit-from-passion-
and-purpose/oclc/70167640
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
Offshore oil and gas reserves, primarily along coastlines in Alaska, California, Louisiana, and Texas,
account for a large proportion of the oil and gas supply in the United States. In August 2015, President
Obama authorized Royal Dutch Shell to expand drilling off Alaska’s northwest coast. His decision
brought into sharp relief the different, oftentimes competing views on the expansion of offshore
drilling.
Many proponents of offshore drilling argue that tapping into the vast amount of oil and gas reserves in
the Arctic will help shore up national security interests for the United States, bolster its economy and
workforce, and offer Americans a reliable, safe supply of oil. According to Robert Bryce, senior fellow
at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, there are “enormous amounts of recoverable energy
resources in the Arctic. The Department of Energy estimates them at something on the order of 400
billion barrels of oil equivalent in natural gas and oil. That’s four times the crude oil reserves of
Kuwait.” Framed this way, drilling in the Arctic presents a way for Americans to mitigate risks from
dependence on foreign oil and build the local and national economies by creating jobs and supplying
cheap oil.
A competing point of view charges that offshore oil drilling poses immense risk to the environment
while reinforcing a reliance on dirty, environmentally unfriendly sources of energy. Critics claim that
industrial activity associated with offshore drilling in the Arctic could harm native animals, including
polar bears, walruses, seals, and whales already jeopardized by climate warming and declining levels of
sea ice. Environmentalists argue that oil companies have not demonstrated the capability to clean up
an oil spill in water obstructed by ice. Furthermore, they contend, extracting oil only perpetuates a
fossil-fuel economy and will contribute dangerously to rising global temperature thereby exacerbating
climate change.
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you find one framing of the situation more compelling than the other? Why? In what ways do
your own beliefs or opinions affect your perspective on this issue?
2. If you were in President Obama’s position, how might the different ways of framing this issue affect
your decision-making process? Is it possible to make an objective decision in the case of Arctic
drilling? How might you come to a decision that is both reasonable and ethically defensible?
4. Do you think there are unintended or undesirable consequences of framing Arctic drilling as an
“either-or” issue, i.e. as one that pits environmentalists against business leaders? Why or why not?
5. Can you think of an example of another contentious issue that has been framed in an “either-or”
way? What would be an ethically ideal way to resolve this issue and why?
Resources:
Feds allow Shell to drill for oil in Arctic Ocean off Alaska
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/feds-allow-shell-to-drill-for-oil-in-arctic-
ocean-off-alaska/
Author:
Lucy Atkinson, Ph.D.
Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations
Moody College of Communication
The University of Texas at Austin
In the late 1990s, the state of California deregulated many of its electricity markets, opening them up
to private sector energy companies. Enron Corporation had long lobbied for deregulation of such
markets and would likely have profited greatly had California’s experiment succeeded and become a
model for other states.
Enron CEO Ken Lay wrote a public statement saying that Enron “believes in conducting business affairs
in accordance with the highest ethical standards… your recognition of our ethical standards allows
Enron employees to work with you via arm’s length transactions and avoids potentially embarrassing
and unethical situations.” At the same time, Tim Belden, a key Enron employee in its energy trading
group, noticed that California’s “complex set of rules…are prone to gaming.”
According to Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, authors of The Smartest Guys in the Room: The
Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron, “In one scheme, Enron submitted a schedule reflecting
demand that wasn’t there… Another was a variation of the Silverpeak experiment: Enron filed
imaginary transmission schedules in order to get paid to alleviate congestion that didn’t really exist…
Get Shorty was a strategy that involved selling power and other services that Enron did not have for
use as reserves…”
Some Enron employees admitted that their schemes were “kind of squirrelly,” but used them because
they were profitable. The impact on customers was clear: electricity prices rose and rolling blackouts
occurred. Enron’s profits, however, quadrupled. An Enron lawyer later wrote that the Enron traders did
not think “they did anything wrong.” Another employee admitted, “The attitude was, ‘play by your
own rules.’ …The energy markets were new, immature,
unsupervised. We took pride in getting around the rules.”
Discussion Questions:
1. How did Enron’s CEO and employees frame their business model? How did differences in their
framing affect their actions?
2. How might framing affect people’s approaches to business conduct? Explain your reasoning.
3. Can you think of other framing tactics used by different businesses? How does framing affect
the products they sell and the actions of their consumers?
4. How do you react to the following recorded conversation between two Enron employees?
What does it tell us about framing, if anything?
Case Study – Selling Enron - Page 1 of 2
Greg: “It’s all how well you can weave these lies together, Shari.
Shari: I feel like I’m being corrupted now.
Greg: No, this is marketing.
Shari: OK.”
5. The Enron scandal affected the lives of many employees who had no responsibility in Enron’s
framing tactics. If you were a new employee starting your career at Enron and you learned of
the framing tactics in this case study, what would you do? Why?
Resources:
Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed, and How We Can Stick to the Plan
http://www.worldcat.org/title/sidetracked-why-our-decisions-get-derailed-and-how-we-can-stick-to-
the-plan/oclc/807028907
The Ethical Executive: Becoming Aware of the Root Causes of Unethical Behavior: 45 Psychological
Traps that Every One of Us Falls Prey To
http://www.worldcat.org/title/ethical-executive-becoming-aware-of-the-root-causes-of-unethical-
behavior-45-psychological-traps-that-every-one-of-us-falls-prey-to/oclc/225875973
I Survived Enron
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2006-02-05/i-survived-enron
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
Debates on the distribution, sale, and use of illegal drugs have been prominent in United States politics
for the past several decades. Political commentator and talk show host Rush Limbaugh has become
well known for his outspoken opinions on a number of political and social issues, including drug abuse.
During his talk show on October 5, 1995, Limbaugh stated: “There’s nothing good about drug use. We
know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might
say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs,
importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing
drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”
Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease, and that it should be combatted with
strict legal consequences.
In October 2003, news outlets reported that Limbaugh was under investigation for illegally obtaining
prescription drugs. Limbaugh illegally purchased hundreds of prescription pills per month over a period
of several years. He engaged in the practice of “doctor shopping” by visiting different doctors to obtain
multiple prescriptions for drugs that would otherwise be illegal. When this was disclosed, Limbaugh
checked into a treatment facility. He said, “Over the past several years I have tried to break my
dependence on pain pills and, in fact, twice checked myself into medical facilities in an attempt to do
so…. I have recently agreed with my physician about the next
steps.”
Discussion Questions:
1) How would you describe Rush Limbaugh’s fundamental attribution error in this case? Explain.
2) Do you think Limbaugh’s own drug addiction would change his opinion on drug abuse and his
judgment of people using or affected by illegal drugs? Why or why not?
3) If you were a regular listener of Limbaugh’s talk show, how might the disclosure of his drug
addiction affect your opinion of him? What if you were not a regular listener?
5) Can you think of any examples of the fundamental attribution error from your own life?
Describe and explain.
Resources:
Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545312
Shock Jocks: Hate Speech & Talk Radio: America’s Ten Worst Hate Talkers and the Progressive
Alternatives
http://www.worldcat.org/title/shock-jocks-hate-speech-talk-radio-americas-ten-worst-hate-talkers-
and-the-progressive-alternatives/oclc/213375832
Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves
http://www.worldcat.org/title/toxic-talk-how-the-radical-right-has-poisoned-americas-
airwaves/oclc/471819884
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
In the United States, the Veterans Administration (VA) is tasked with, among other things, providing
quality health care for U.S. military veterans. Chronically underfunded, the agency was having difficulty
providing care in a timely manner. At various locations around the country, veterans were put on
lengthy wait lists before they could receive care.
Turning to a common private sector solution in an attempt to reduce wait times, the VA provided
bonuses to administrators who could reduce veterans’ wait times for doctor and hospital
appointments. While these incentives were meant to spur more efficient and productive health care
for veterans, not all administrators complied as intended.
In one hospital, the goal was to reduce wait times to less than 14 days. Clerks would record a wait time
of how many days there would be between the first available appointment date and the veteran’s
scheduled appointment date, disregarding any days prior to the first available date. In an email to
colleagues, the clerk admitted, “Yes, it is gaming the system a bit. But you have to know the rules of
the game you are playing, and when we exceed the 14-day measure, the front office gets very upset.”
At some locations, veterans were put on an electronic waiting list. After waiting for up to six weeks to
move to the top of that list, they were finally able to call for a doctor’s appointment. If that
appointment occurred soon after the call, it was counted as reducing the wait time; the time spent on
the preliminary electronic waiting list was not counted. At other locations, VA officials used two sets of
books, one recording the real wait times and another recording much shorter wait times that would be
used to report success to superiors.
Discussion Questions:
Note that the investigations into the VA are ongoing as of the time of writing. Assuming that the case
above accurately reflects what happened, please consider the following questions.
1. In what ways does the VA scandal appear to be an example of incentive gaming? Explain.
2. Do you think performance incentives can be effective and ethical ways of increasing
productivity? Why or why not?
4. In the case of the VA, how might incentives be structured so that abuses are avoided?
5. Can you think of other examples of incentive gaming that you have seen in the news or in your
life? What were the incentives, and how did they result in gaming?
Resources:
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
In December 2015, the FBI attained the iPhone of one of the shooters in an ISIS-inspired terrorist
attack that killed 14 people in San Bernardino, California. As part of the investigation, the FBI
attempted to gain access to the data stored on the phone but was unable to penetrate its encryption
software. Lawyers for the Obama administration approached Apple for assistance with unlocking the
device, but negotiations soon broke down. The Justice Department then obtained a court order
compelling Apple to help the FBI unlock the phone. Apple CEO, Timothy Cook, publicly challenged the
court in an open letter, sparking an intense debate over the balance between maintaining national
security and protecting user privacy.
Apple and its supporters, including top technology companies such as Google and Facebook, made the
case on several fronts that the court order threatened the privacy of all individuals. First, according to
Apple, the order effectively required the company to write code, violating its First Amendment right to
free speech by forcing the company to “say” something it did not want to say. Previous court cases had
already established computer code as legally protected speech. Second, such a backdoor, once
created, could fall into the wrong hands and threaten the privacy of all iPhone owners. Finally, it would
set a dangerous precedent; law enforcement could repeatedly require businesses such as Apple to
assist in criminal investigations, effectively making technology companies an agent of government.
Representatives from both sides of the political aisle offered several arguments in favor of the Justice
Department’s efforts and against Apple’s stance. Their central claim was that the U.S. legal system
establishes constraints on the government’s access to private information which prevent abuse of
search and surveillance powers. At the same time, the law still allows authorities to gain access to
information that facilitates prevention and prosecution of criminal activities, from terrorism to drug
trafficking to child pornography. Critics of Apple also rejected the slippery slope argument on the
grounds that, if Apple cooperated, it could safeguard the code it created and keep it out of the hands
of others, including bad actors such as terrorists or criminal groups. Moreover, Apple was accused of
being too interested in protecting its brand, and even unpatriotic for refusing to comply with the court
order.
Ultimately, the FBI dropped the case because it was able to circumvent the encryption on the iPhone
without Apple’s help.
Case Study – The FBI & Apple: Security vs. Privacy - Page 1 of 3
Discussion Questions:
1. What harms are potentially produced by the FBI’s demand that Apple help it open an iPhone?
What harms are potentially produced by Apple’s refusal to help the FBI?
2. Do you think Apple had a moral obligation to help the FBI open the iPhone in this case because
it involved terrorism and a mass shooting? What if the case involved a different type of criminal
activity instead, such as drug trafficking? Explain your reasoning.
3. Apple argued that helping to open one iPhone would produce code that could be used to make
private information on all iPhones vulnerable, not only to the American government but also to
other foreign governments and criminal elements. Do you agree with Apple’s “slippery slope”
argument? Does avoiding these harms provide adequate justification for Apple’s refusal to
open the phone, even if it could reveal crucial information on the terrorist shooting?
4. Politicians from across the political spectrum, including President Obama and Senator Ted Cruz,
argued that technology preventing government access to information should not exist. Do you
agree with this limit on personal privacy? Why or why not?
5. Ultimately, the FBI gained access to the iPhone in question without the help of Apple. Does this
development change your assessment of the ethical dimensions of Apple’s refusal to help the
FBI? Why or why not? Should the FBI share information on how it opened the iPhone with
Apple so that it can patch the vulnerability? Explain your reasoning.
Resources:
Apple’s Rotten Core: CEO Tim Cook’s Case for Not Aiding the FBI’s Antiterror Effort Looks Worse than
Ever
http://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-rotten-core-1456696736
Case Study – The FBI & Apple: Security vs. Privacy - Page 2 of 3
Obama, at South by Southwest, Calls for Law Enforcement Access in Encryption Fight
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/obama-heads-to-south-by-southwest-festival-to-
talk-about-technology.html
Authors:
Robert Moser, Ph.D. and Patrick McDonald, Ph.D.
Department of Government
College of Liberal Arts
The University of Texas at Austin
Case Study – The FBI & Apple: Security vs. Privacy - Page 3 of 3
The Collapse of Barings Bank
Founded in 1762, Barings Bank was a United Kingdom institution with worldwide reach. Even the
Queen of England had an account there. In 1989, Nick Leeson was hired at Barings, where he
prospered. He was quickly promoted to the trading floor and appointed manager in Singapore where
he traded on the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX). Leeson was an aggressive
trader, making large profits in speculative trading. In 1993, his profits constituted almost 10% of
Barings’ total profits. He had developed a reputation for expertise, for near-infallibility, and his
superiors in London gave him little supervision.
In July 1992, a new Barings employee suffered a small loss on Leeson’s watch. Leeson did not wish to
lose his reputation for infallibility, or his job, so he hid the loss in an error account. Leeson attempted
to make back the loss through speculative trading, but this led to even bigger losses, which again were
hidden in this account. He kept doubling up his bets in an attempt to get out from under the losses.
Leeson later said: “[I] wanted to shout from the rooftops…this is what the situation is, there are
massive losses, I want to stop. But for some reason you’re unable to do it. … I had this catastrophic
secret which was burning up inside me—yet…I simply couldn’t open my mouth and say, ‘I’ve lost
millions and millions of pounds.’”
Leeson took out a short-term, highly leveraged bet on the Nikkei index in Japan. At the same time, a
severe earthquake in Kobe, Japan sent the index plummeting, and his loss was so huge that he could
no longer hide it. Barings, a 233-year old bank, collapsed overnight and was bought by ING for £1.
Leeson fled to Malaysia, Thailand, and finally to Germany, where
he was arrested and extradited to Singapore. He plead guilty to
two counts of deceiving bank auditors (including forging
documents) and cheating the SIMEX. Leeson was sentenced to six
and a half years of prison in Singapore, but only served four years
due a diagnosis of colon cancer, which he ultimately survived.
Discussion Questions:
2. Judith Rawnsley, who worked for Barings Bank and later wrote a book about the Leeson case,
proffered three explanations for Leeson’s behavior once the losses had started to pile up: 1)
Leeson’s loss aversion stemmed from his fear of failure and humiliation; 2) his ego and greed
were exacerbated by the macho trading environment in which he operated; 3) he suffered from
common distortions in thinking patterns that often result from high levels of stress, including
overconfidence and denial. Which of these explanations (or all) do you think played a role in
this case? Why?
4. If you were in Leeson’s position after the initial loss made by the employee, what would you
have done? Why?
5. Do you have trouble owning up to mistakes that you have made? Do others whom you know?
Explain with examples.
Resources:
How Will You Measure Your Life?
http://www.worldcat.org/title/how-will-you-measure-your-life/oclc/757483347
The Collapse of Barings
http://www.worldcat.org/title/collapse-of-barings/oclc/35658104
Cheating and Loss Aversion: Do People Lie More to Avoid a Loss
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2502819
Rogue Trader: How I Brought Down Barings Bank and Shook the Financial World
http://www.worldcat.org/title/rogue-trader-how-i-brought-down-barings-bank-and-shook-the-
financial-world/oclc/34262021
How Nick Leeson Caused the Collapse of Barings Bank
http://www.next-finance.net/How-Nick-Leeson-caused-the
Total Risk: Nick Leeson and the Fall of Barings Bank
http://www.worldcat.org/title/total-risk-nick-leeson-and-the-fall-of-barings-bank/oclc/33275953
Eat What You Kill: The Fall of a Wall Street Lawyer
http://www.worldcat.org/title/eat-what-you-kill-the-fall-of-a-wall-street-lawyer/oclc/649743120
Barings Collapse at 20: How Rogue Trader Nick Leeson Broke the Bank
https://www.theguardian.com/business/from-the-archive-blog/2015/feb/24/nick-leeson-barings-
bank-1995-20-archive
Author:
Robert Prentice, J.D.
Department of Business, Government and Society
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
Green consumer products, such as organic food, fair trade coffee, or electric cars, represent a fast-
growing segment of the consumer market. In the area of organic food alone, data from the Organic
Trade Association reveals that consumer demand in the United States has seen double-digit growth
every year since 1990. In 2014, the organic food market reached almost $40 billion in sales. Consumers
of these products tend to be seen in a more positive light—they are deemed more ethical, more
altruistic, and kinder than people who do not buy green products. But is there another side to this kind
of consumer behavior?
Mazar and Zhong, whose study received considerable media attention in their native Canada, as well
as in American and British publications, said the results surprised them. Initially, they expected green
products to provide a halo effect, whereby the positive impressions associated with green
consumption would lead to positive outcomes in other areas. “Given that green products are
manifestations of high ethical standards and humanitarian considerations, mere exposure [to them
would] activate norms of social responsibility and ethical conduct,” said Mazar and Zhong in an
interview.
But as the results indicate, the opposite can be true. “The message of this research is that actions
which produce a sense of self content and moral glow can sometimes backfire,” Mazar stated in
another interview.
These patterns have been shown to extend to other shopping scenarios. For example, one study
tracked scanner data and shopper receipts at a California grocery store. Those shoppers who brought
reusable grocery bags with them were more likely to buy environmentally friendly products, like
organic food. But they were also more likely to buy indulgent products, like ice cream, cookies, candy,
and cake. The researchers followed up this study with a series of experiments that showed these moral
licensing effects only happened when the decision to bring the
reusable bags was at the shopper’s discretion. When shoppers
were told that the store required customers to use cloth bags,
licensing effects disappeared and customers chose not to buy
indulgent products. Only when consumers felt like using cloth
bags was their own idea did the moral licensing effects hold.
1. Beyond green consumption, what other types of products might bring about similar kinds of
moral licensing effects? Can you think of instances in your own life when your purchase choices
have licensed you to make decisions that were less than ethically ideal? Explain.
2. Do you think these moral licensing effects are common across all kinds of green consumers? Or
are there other factors (i.e. demographics, psychographics) that might either exacerbate or
weaken the effects? Why or why not?
3. The authors of the study, Mazar and Zhong, initially thought green consumption would have a
positive spillover effect and encourage positive behaviors. Why do you think they found the
opposite?
4. What steps do you think can be taken to help minimize or mitigate these types of moral
licensing effects among green consumers? Explain.
5. If you were the brand manager for a green product, for example an organic food item or an
energy-efficient appliance, how would you go about marketing the product knowing these
licensing effects were possible?
Resources:
When buying in means selling out: Sustainable consumption campaigns and unintended
uncivic boomerang effects
http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/Atkinson.pdf
The Animal Foundation is a nonprofit organization operating Nevada’s largest open-admission animal
shelter, the Lied Animal Shelter and pet adoption center. The Lied Animal Shelter is located in Las
Vegas and is financed by taxpayers, grants, and individual donors. It provides a refuge for thousands of
lost, unwanted, neglected, and abandoned animals every year.
In recent years, the Lied Animal Shelter has been plagued by a variety of problems from overcrowding
due to a spike in animal intake as residents in the greater Las Vegas area (Clark County) surrendered or
lost their pets. Analysts believed that the recession of 2008 was a major contributing factor to pet
abandonment. April Corbin, writing for Las Vegas Weekly, reported:
“The Las Vegas Valley has a problem with domestic animals: we have more that we
seem able or willing to handle, and those without homes mostly end up at the Lied
Shelter. On any given day, it may be the busiest animal holding facility in the nation.
…Some blame the recession, which led to the foreclosures of more than 150,000 homes
in Clark County between January 2007 and May 2014, triggering the wholesale
abandonment of animals.”
In 2013, the Lied Animal Shelter took in over 40,000 abandoned or lost animals. From that population,
more than 10,000 animals were adopted, nearly 5,000 were reunited with their owners, and over
2,500 were transferred to other facilities. But 21,000 animals—more than half of the animals brought
to the shelter—were euthanized. Many in Clark County were discouraged by the seemingly
insurmountable problems that the Lied Animal Shelter faced.
Leaders at R&R Partners, a full-service, international advertising agency headquartered in Las Vegas,
believed that their persuasive communication skills could help solve Animal Foundation’s problem.
R&R took on the nonprofit as a pro bono client with goals of promoting pet ownership and driving
traffic to the Animal Foundation’s pet adoption website, NewPetNow.com. The agency staff conducted
qualitative research in the form of focus groups with R&R employees who were pet owners. They came
up with the strategy of framing pet adoption not about love and companionship but about pets’ many
household uses (e.g., alarm system, sleeping mask, vacuum cleaner) with a tongue-in-cheek tone. The
agency staff created an integrated communication campaign of “In-FUR-mercial” spoofs that portrayed
pets as multi-purpose products for the home. Below are
links to examples of the “Pet Dog” and “Pet Cat” In-FUR-
mercials, and examples of print ads (Exhibits 1 and 2)
follow in the Reference section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChMYMHvpJ0c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlD3BZHtcqA
The campaign connected with audiences in Las Vegas and generated positive press for the Animal
Foundation and the Lied Shelter, helping them to achieve their goal of increasing pet adoption. The
percentage of available pets adopted increased by 9.39 percent during 2015, which meant that more
than 1,000 additional animals were adopted.
Leaders at R&R Partners acknowledged that the campaign also resulted in important benefits for the
agency that extended beyond the success and visibility of the campaign. Morale and comraderie within
the agency were increased and the agency’s reputation as a responsible corporate citizen was
reinforced. Sarah Catletti, an account supervisor at R&R Partners, described the benefits to the agency:
“Welcoming the Animal Foundation to R&R Vegas’ list of clients was a great way to
boost morale within the agency. The pro bono client was chosen through an employee
voting system. Since the Animal Foundation was the organization that received the
largest number of votes, the entire agency was invested and excited to hear about the
work, even those who weren’t directly involved with the account.”
Discussion Questions:
1. What is moral imagination? In your opinion, did the employees at R&R Partners exercise moral
imagination in the work that they did for the Animal Foundation? Why or why not?
2. What benefits did the “In-FUR-mercial” campaign provide and for whom? Explain.
3. In this case study, what did moral imagination have in common with other types of creativity and
innovation? Explain.
4. This case is about pro bono work that an advertising agency did for a pro bono client. That is, the
agency did the work for free. Do you think that an advertising agency could exercise moral
imagination in its work for corporate clients that pay the agency? If so, how? If not, why?
5. Can you think of an example of another company or advertising campaign that has demonstrated
moral imagination? Explain.
References:
The Animal Foundation’s 2013 Annual Report
https://issuu.com/theanimalfoundation/docs/2014_annualreport
Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2
“Pet Cat” Print Ad “Pet Dog” Print Ad
Authors:
Jenny, a university student studying public relations, accepted an internship position in the fundraising
department at Casa Tia Maria.* Casa Tia Maria is a non-profit organization in the United States that
provides shelter for Central American immigrants while they look for permanent housing and
employment. In addition to shelter, Casa Tia Maria provides food, clothing, and English classes. Most
immigrants stay at the shelter for several months before securing permanent housing.
After Jenny had worked at Casa Tia Maria for two weeks, Mary, the director of development, asked
Jenny to accompany her to a fundraising dinner at a luxurious downtown hotel. Many wealthy and
influential individuals were in attendance. After most of the guests had left, Mary and Jenny were
approached by Robert, a Texas oil baron and one of the state’s biggest philanthropists. Robert was
known to donate to almost any cause as long as he found it to be what he considered “morally sound”
and to the benefit of “hard-working Americans.”
Mary and Robert talked for a few minutes about Casa Tia Maria and its specific needs. Jenny noticed,
however, that most of Mary’s answers to Robert’s questions about the shelter’s clients were vague.
When Robert said that he was happy to lend a hand to any poor American citizen, Jenny knew he
clearly did not understand that immigrants, who were not U.S. citizens, were the shelter’s clientele.
Mary said nothing to correct Robert’s misperception.
Robert pulled a checkbook out of his jacket and wrote a substantial check. As he handed it to Mary, he
said, “I am so pleased to be able to help hard-working Americans.” He then turned quickly and walked
away.
Discussion Questions:
1. What are the reasons and rationalizations that could prompt Jenny to be morally mute in this
situation? Alternatively, what could prompt Jenny to not be morally mute? Explain.
2. Who are the stakeholders, and what is at stake for each party? How might each influence Jenny’s
actions? Explain.
3. Assume Jenny decides to break away from moral muteness, exercise moral imagination, and give
voice to her values. What do you think she should do and why? Your answer should include, but
not be limited to, the arguments that Jenny should make, to whom, and in what context. Present a
plan of action.
5. Do you think that employees in nonprofit organizations are more likely to fall prey to any particular
biases or pressures? Do you think that people generally have higher expectations for employees of
nonprofit organizations than for employees of for-profit corporations? Explain your reasoning.
6. Have you ever been an intern or employee in a situation similar to Jenny’s? What was the
situation? What did you do and why?
Resources:
How Advertising Practitioners View Ethics: Moral Muteness, Moral Myopia, and Moral Imagination
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4189254
Values-Driven Leadership Development: Where We Have Been and Where We Could Go
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15416518.2012.708854
Giving Voice to Values Curriculum
http://www.babson.edu/Academics/teaching-research/gvv/Pages/curriculum.aspx
Teaching Behavioral Ethics
http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Teaching-Behavioral-Ethics-by-
Robert-A.-Prentice.pdf
Behavioral Ethics and Teaching Ethical Decision Making
http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/EthicalDecisionMaking.pdf
Author:
Minette E. Drumwright, Ph.D.
Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations
Moody College of Communication
The University of Texas at Austin
In 2006, Damany Lewis was a 29-year-old math teacher at Parks Middle School in Atlanta. The school
was in a run-down neighborhood three miles south of downtown that was plagued by armed
robberies. Lewis himself had grown up in a violent neighborhood. He empathized with his students and
was devoted to their success. A colleague described Lewis as a “star teacher” and a “very hard worker,
who will go the extra mile.”
Lewis was a teacher when Beverly Hall was Atlanta’s school superintendent. Hall believed that business
approaches and the values of the market system could save public education. She set accountability
measures for the Atlanta school district and created performance objectives that were tougher than
those of No Child Left Behind, the federal program that became law in 2002. Teacher evaluations were
linked to students’ performance on standardized tests. Schools whose students did not make
appropriate progress toward the standardized test goals received escalating sanctions that culminated
in replacement of the faculty and staff, and restructuring or closing of the school.
Parks Middle School was in dire straights because it had been classified as “a school in need of
improvement” for the previous five years. Unless 58 percent of students passed the math portion of
the standardized test and 67 percent passed the language arts portion, Parks Middle School could be
closed down. Its students would be separated and bussed across town to different schools.
“[It] was my sole obligation to never let that happen,” Lewis later told Rachel Aviv in an article about
these events in The New Yorker. Lewis had pushed his students to work harder than they ever had in
preparing for the test. But he knew that it would be very difficult for many of them to pass. Christopher
Waller, the new principal of Parks, had heard that teachers in the elementary schools that fed into
Parks had changed their students’ answers on the standardized tests under the guise of erasing stray
pencil marks. Waller asked Lewis and other teachers to do the same. Lewis found the exams of
students who needed to get a few more questions right in order to pass. He changed their answers. If
he did not change their scores, Lewis feared that his students would lapse into “why try” attitudes.
They would lose their neighborhood school and the community that had developed within it.
Thanks to Lewis and other teachers, Parks students did better than ever on the standardized tests.
Neekisia Jackson, a former student at Parks at the time, recalled, “Everyone was jumping up and
down,” after a teacher announced the school had met the goals of No Child Left Behind for the first
time. Jackson continued, “We had heard what everyone was
saying: ‘Y’all aren’t good enough.’ Now we could finally go to
school with our heads held high.”
This case study is based on an article by Rachel Aviv entitled, “Wrong answer: In an era of high-stakes
testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice,” that appeared in The New Yorker on July 21,
2014.
Discussion Questions:
1. What are the reasons and rationalizations that could have prompted Mr. Lewis to have moral
myopia and avoid focusing on the fact that he was falsifying students’ test scores? Alternatively,
what could have prompted Mr. Lewis not to have moral myopia?
2. Who are the stakeholders in this case study, and what was at stake for each party? How might each
have influenced Mr. Lewis’ actions? Explain.
3. Assume Mr. Lewis decided to break away from moral myopia and gave voice to his values. What do
you think he should have done and why? Your answer should include, but not be limited to, the
arguments that Mr. Lewis should have made, to whom, and in what context. Present a plan of
action.
4. In this case study, what were the benefits of falsifying students’ test scores? What were the harms?
Do you think cheating can ever be ethically justifiable? Why or why not?
5. Have you ever been in a situation in which you were presented with the opportunity to cheat on a
test or other assignment? Describe the situation. What did you do and why? Looking back, would
you have done anything differently? Why or why not?
Resources:
Wrong answer: In an era of high stakes testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/21/wrong-answer
America is criminalizing Black teachers: Atlanta’s cheating scandal and the racist underbelly of
education reform
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/08/america_is_criminalizing_black_teachers_atlantas_cheating_scan
dal_and_the_racist_underbelly_of_education_reform/
Accountability on Trial
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/2015/04/03/atlanta-school-cheating-convictions-
unhelpful-for-education-reform
Why the Atlanta cheating scandal failed to bring about national reform
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/01/atlanta-cheating-scandal-education-reform
Author:
Minette E. Drumwright, Ph.D.
Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations
Moody College of Communication
The University of Texas at Austin
Franz Stangl was born in Austria in 1908. From a working class family, Stangl trained as a master
weaver. Unsatisfied in his career, at the age of 23, he applied to become a police officer. In 1936,
despite his position in law enforcement, he joined the ranks of the then-illegal Nazi Party. When
Germany invaded Austria, and subsequently annexed it in March 1938, he became a Gestapo agent. In
1940, under the order of Nazi leaders, Stangl was appointed as head of security at Hartheim Castle. At
the time, Hartheim was one of the secret killing centers used by the authorities to administer “mercy
deaths” to sick and disabled persons. A special unit within the German administration, codenamed T4,
carried out this so-called “euthanasia” program. T4 employed doctors, nurses, lawyers, and police
officers, among others, at killing centers in Germany and Austria. In all, historians estimate that the
staff at Hartheim killed 18,269 people by August 1941.
After a brief stint in Berlin, Stangl transferred to German-occupied Poland in the spring of 1942. Nazi
authorities appointed Stangl to be the first commandant of the killing center at Sobibór. By September
1942, having distinguished himself as an effective organizer, Stangl was transferred to what would
become the most horrible of these death camps, Treblinka. While there, he managed and perfected a
system of mass murder, using psychological techniques to first deceive then terrify and subdue his
victims before they entered the gas chambers. In less than 18 months, under Stangl’s supervision,
between 870,000 and 925,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka.
After the war, Franz Stangl and his family emigrated to Brazil where he lived and worked under his own
name for decades. He was extradited to West Germany in 1967 and tried for his role in the murder of
900,000 men, women, and children during the Holocaust. During his trial, Stangl claimed that he was
doing his duty and was not a murderer. Stangl defended himself by making three main claims. First,
that he did not get to choose his postings, and that disobeying an order would put himself and his
family at risk. Second, that once in a position, it was his nature to do an excellent job (he became
known as the best commandant in Poland). And third, that he never personally murdered anyone. He
saw himself as an administrator. Stangl claimed that his dedication to his work was not about ideology
or hatred of Jews.
Discussion Questions:
1. How did obedience to authority affect Franz Stangl’s perception of his responsibility? Explain.
What other factors, biases, or pressures may have affected his perception?
2. Based on Stangl’s description of guilt while in prison, do you think he believed his previous
claims in court? Why or why not?
3. What might have helped Stangl at the time to see his actions for what they were? Do you think
this would have led Stangl to act differently? Why or why not?
4. Can you think of other historical examples in which obedience to authority may have played a
significant role in the actions of individuals? Explain.
5. What do you think the moral responsibility of an individual is within a bureaucracy? Explain.
6. Does one’s position in a hierarchy affect one’s moral responsibility? Why or why not?
Resources:
Into that Darkness: An Examination of Conscience
http://www.worldcat.org/title/into-that-darkness-an-examination-of-conscience/oclc/8493122
Som Significant Cases: Franz Stangl - Simon Wiesenthal Archiv
http://www.simon-wiesenthal-archiv.at/02_dokuzentrum/02_faelle/e02_stangl.html
The Roots of Evil
http://www.worldcat.org/title/roots-of-evil/oclc/475233794
The Holocaust and the Revival of Psychological History
http://www.worldcat.org/title/holocaust-and-the-revival-of-psychological-history/oclc/880809015
Author:
Tatjana Lichtenstein, Ph.D.
Department of History
College of Liberal Arts
The University of Texas at Austin
Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States from 1901-1909, embodied what many scholars
typically refer to as the ‘stewardship presidency.’ In the words of Roosevelt, it is the president’s “duty
to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the
Constitution or by the laws.” Under Roosevelt’s expansionist view, anything the president does is
considered acceptable unless it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution or laws passed by Congress.
Roosevelt believed he served the people, not just the government. He took many actions as president
that stretched the limits of the executive branch, including the creation of national parks without
regard for states’ jurisdiction and fostering revolt in Colombia to establish the Panama Canal.
On the other hand, William Howard Taft, President of the United States from 1909-1913, embodied
what many scholars refer to as a ‘strict constructionist’ model of the presidency. Under this approach,
unless the Constitution or Congress explicitly grants a certain power, the president does not have the
right to act. In Taft’s words, “the President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and
reasonably traced to some specific grant of power or justly implied and included within such express
grant as proper and necessary to its exercise.”
While Roosevelt expanded federal power in many areas, Taft felt many of these actions were legal
overreaches. For example, as a “trust-buster” Roosevelt differentiated between ‘good’ trusts and ‘bad’
trusts, using his expanded powers as president to make this distinction unilaterally. He made a
‘gentlemen’s agreement’ with U.S. Steel and told them that the American government would not
attack their corporation as a monopoly since he believed the company was working in the interests of
the American people. Roosevelt did not, however, pass any legislation or make any binding orders to
this effect. Taft took a more legalistic view and later, as president, directed his attorney general to file
an anti-trust lawsuit against U.S. Steel. Roosevelt took Taft’s actions as a personal attack upon
Roosevelt’s presidency and positions.
Although Taft continued many of Roosevelt’s policies, he was inclined to look at the facts of the
situation and make a choice based on evidence. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was more inclined to do
what he felt was “right.” Their disagreements, which hinged on the grey areas of the legal and the
ethical, ultimately propelled the break within the Republican Party during the 1912 elections.
1. What differences do you see between Roosevelt’s and Taft’s views of their ethical
responsibilities as president?
2. How did Roosevelt and Taft each negotiate the line between law and ethics?
3. Between Roosevelt and Taft, do you think one demonstrated overconfidence bias more than
the other? Explain.
4. In the case of U.S. Steel, whose actions caused more harm: Roosevelt by making an informal
agreement, or Taft by violating that agreement? Explain.
5. Whose approach to the U.S. presidency, Taft’s or Roosevelt’s, do you think is preferable in light
of both legal and ethical considerations? Why?
6. Can you think of an example of another president or world leader whose approach to
leadership is similar to either Roosevelt or Taft? How does this leader’s approach affect his/her
political actions?
Resources:
Author:
Shannon O’Brien, Ph.D.
Department of Government
College of Liberal Arts
The University of Texas at Austin
Resources:
Author:
Mitch Sudolsky, MSSW, LCSW
School of Social Work
The University of Texas at Austin
Case
Study
–
Climate
Change
&
the
Paris
Deal
-‐
Page
2
of
3
Resources:
Nations
Approve
Landmark
Climate
Accord
in
Paris
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-‐change-‐accord-‐paris.html
Climate
Model
Predicts
West
Antarctic
Ice
Sheet
Could
Melt
Rapidly
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-‐warming-‐antarctica-‐ice-‐sheet-‐sea-‐level-‐rise.html
What
Does
a
Climate
Deal
Mean
for
the
World?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/12/science/What-‐Does-‐the-‐Climate-‐Deal-‐Mean.html
Peter
Singer
on
the
COP21
Agreement
and
the
Ethics
of
Climate
Change
https://www.good.is/articles/peter-‐singer-‐climate-‐cop21-‐agreement
The
Ethical
Dimension
of
Tackling
Climate
Change
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_ethical_dimension_of_tackling_climate_change/2456/
Here’s
what
political
science
can
tell
us
about
the
Paris
climate
deal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-‐cage/wp/2015/12/14/heres-‐what-‐political-‐science-‐
can-‐tell-‐us-‐about-‐the-‐paris-‐climate-‐deal/
Authors:
Robert
Moser,
Ph.D.
and
Patrick
McDonald,
Ph.D.
Department
of
Government
College
of
Liberal
Arts
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Case
Study
–
Climate
Change
&
the
Paris
Deal
-‐
Page
3
of
3
Ebola
&
American
Intervention
In
2014,
a
highly
contagious
and
deadly
virus,
Ebola,
emerged
in
Western
Africa,
primarily
in
the
countries
of
Liberia,
Sierra
Leone,
and
Guinea.
The
epidemic
caught
world
health
authorities
off
guard,
ultimately
killing
thousands
and
threatening
to
develop
into
a
worldwide
epidemic.
A
broad
range
of
organizations
and
politicians,
from
health
care
authorities
and
Doctors
Without
Borders
to
the
World
Health
Organization
and
Liberian
President
Ellen
Johnson
Sirleaf,
made
dramatic
appeals
for
American
military
intervention.
The
legacy
of
colonial
ties
affected
the
perceptions
of
responsibility
for
provision
of
assistance.
The
United
Kingdom
took
charge
of
relief
efforts
in
Sierra
Leone,
France
in
Guinea,
and
the
United
States
in
Liberia,
a
state
founded
in
the
19th
century
by
former
African-‐American
slaves.
After
initially
receiving
criticism
for
acting
too
cautiously,
President
Obama
responded
by
sending
over
3,000
military
personnel,
mostly
medics
and
engineers,
to
Liberia.
It
was
the
largest
American
intervention
ever
in
a
global
health
crisis.
President
Obama
justified
this
decision
by
arguing
that
the
United
States
had
an
ethical
obligation
as
a
leader
of
the
global
community
to
address
the
humanitarian
crisis
in
Liberia
as
well
as
a
security
interest
in
controlling
the
epidemic
in
Africa
so
that
it
did
not
spread
to
the
U.S.
and
other
countries.
According
to
President
Obama,
only
the
American
military
had
the
resources,
hierarchical
structure,
and
discipline
to
carry
out
such
a
largescale
effort.
Objections
to
the
“militarization”
of
this
relief
effort
came
in
several
forms.
Conservative
critics
argued
that
militaries
are
for
fighting
and
winning
wars,
not
providing
humanitarian
assistance.
Others
argued
the
humanitarian
effort
could
morph
into
security
and
military
engagement.
David
Ridenhour,
president
of
the
National
Center
for
Public
Policy
Research,
worried
that
American
soldiers
could
be
faced
with
difficult
moral
dilemmas,
such
as
“having
to
shoot
unarmed,
possibly
infected
Liberian
civilians
or
allow
Ebola
to
spread.”
Some
critics
were
concerned
that
U.S.
military
intervention
jeopardized
the
principle
of
neutrality
that
health
relief
organizations
try
to
maintain.
Historian
Andrew
Bacevich
argued
that
a
military
response
to
a
humanitarian
crisis,
even
if
successful,
would
mask
and
perpetuate
gross
misallocation
of
resources
toward
building
military
capacity
rather
than
address
global
health
care
needs.
Ultimately,
the
Ebola
epidemic
was
brought
under
control
in
Liberia
and
the
rest
of
Western
Africa.
The
United
States
military
built
11
treatment
units
and
the
government
expended
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
the
relief
effort.
However,
as
The
New
York
Times
reported,
there
is
limited
evidence
that
these
efforts
played
any
significant
role.
Only
28
Ebola
patients
were
treated
in
the
11
treatment
centers
built
by
the
military.
The
number
of
new
Ebola
cases
peaked
at
635
the
week
after
President
Obama
announced
the
military
intervention,
but
dropped
to
just
over
100
by
the
time
the
first
medical
unit
was
opened.
By
the
time
the
additional
units
were
operational,
Ebola
cases
had
dwindled
to
less
than
50.
Case
Study
–
Ebola
&
American
Intervention
-‐
Page
1
of
2
Discussion
Questions:
1. Do
you
think
the
United
States
is
ethically
required
to
respond
to
epidemics
and
other
health
crises
in
foreign
countries?
Why
or
why
not?
2. Should
the
U.K.,
France,
and
the
U.S.
have
concentrated
their
relief
efforts
along
historical
colonial
lines
during
the
Ebola
outbreak?
In
general,
do
the
U.S.
and
other
imperialist
nations
have
particular
ethical
responsibilities
to
aid
their
former
colonies?
Explain
your
reasoning.
3. Do
you
think
it
is
ethically
permissible
to
deploy
the
U.S.
military
in
humanitarian
relief
efforts?
What
are
the
potential
harms
and
benefits
of
such
a
decision?
Explain.
4. Do
you
think
that
President
Obama’s
response
to
the
Ebola
epidemic
was
too
cautious,
sufficient,
or
too
ambitious?
What
policy
would
you
have
followed
if
you
were
in
his
position?
Explain
your
reasoning.
5. Many
of
the
medical
treatment
facilities
that
were
built
by
the
American
military
were
never
utilized
to
treat
Ebola
victims.
How,
if
at
all,
does
this
outcome
affect
your
judgment
of
President
Obama’s
response?
Resources:
Liberian
President
Pleads
With
Obama
for
Assistance
in
Combating
Ebola
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/africa/liberian-‐president-‐pleads-‐with-‐obama-‐for-‐
assistance-‐in-‐combating-‐ebola.html
The
US
military
should
be
winning
wars,
not
fighting
Ebola
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/10/the-‐us-‐military-‐should-‐be-‐winning-‐wars-‐not-‐fighting-‐ebola/
AFRICOM’s
Ebola
response
and
the
militarization
of
humanitarian
aid
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-‐cage/wp/2014/09/25/africoms-‐ebola-‐response-‐and-‐
the-‐militarization-‐of-‐humanitarian-‐aid/
The
Rank
Injustice
of
Sending
U.S.
Troops
to
Fight
Ebola
http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/7059273-‐74/ebola-‐military-‐
soldiers#axzz3HwlUQVDC
Empty
Ebola
Clinics
in
Liberia
Are
Seen
as
Misstep
in
U.S.
Relief
Effort
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/world/africa/idle-‐ebola-‐clinics-‐in-‐liberia-‐are-‐seen-‐as-‐misstep-‐in-‐
us-‐relief-‐effort.html
Authors:
Robert
Moser,
Ph.D.
and
Patrick
McDonald,
Ph.D.
Department
of
Government
College
of
Liberal
Arts
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Case
Study
–
Banning
Burkas:
Freedom
or
Discrimination?
-‐
Page
1
of
2
3. Do
you
think
your
home
country
should
implement
a
ban
on
face
coverings
in
public?
Why
or
why
not?
4. Should
religious
garments
and
iconography
from
all
faith
traditions
be
banned
in
public
schools
as
occurred
in
France
in
2004?
Why
or
why
not?
5. According
to
some
accounts,
the
law
inspired
instances
of
people
acting
violently
against
women
who
continued
to
wear
burkas.
Do
the
principles
of
separation
of
church
and
state
and
the
emancipation
of
women
outweigh
these
consequences?
Defend
your
position.
Resources:
France’s
burqa
ban:
women
are
‘effectively
under
house
arrest’
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/19/battle-‐for-‐the-‐burqa
France’s
burka
bill
-‐
background
to
a
bitter
debate
http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20100526-‐sarkozy-‐and-‐burka
France’s
burka
ban
is
a
victory
for
tolerance
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8444177/BurkaFranceNational-‐
FrontMarine-‐Le-‐PenMuslimFadela-‐AmaraAndre-‐Gerinhijab.html
French
Senate
votes
to
ban
Islamic
full
veil
in
public
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-‐europe-‐11305033
Pourquoi
No
Burqa?
https://www.sandala.org/blog/pourquoi-‐no-‐burqa
Author:
Andrew
Carlson,
Ph.D.,
M.F.A.
Department
of
Theatre
&
Dance
College
of
Fine
Arts
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Case
Study
–
Banning
Burkas:
Freedom
or
Discrimination?
-‐
Page
2
of
2
Appropriating
"Hope"
Artists
commonly
appropriate,
or
borrow,
objects
or
images
and
include
them
in
their
artwork.
Andy
Warhol,
for
example,
is
well
known
for
appropriating
images
of
Campbell’s
soup
cans
for
his
pop
art.
Typically,
the
original
object
or
image
remains
recognizable,
but
the
new
work
of
art
transforms
or
recontextualizes
the
borrowed
image
or
object
in
order
to
generate
new
meaning.
Many
artists
believe
that
without
artistic
appropriation,
creating
new
art
would
not
be
possible.
On
the
other
hand,
the
line
between
copyright
infringement
and
fair
use
is
not
always
clear.
In
2008,
Shepard
Fairey
appropriated
an
Associated
Press
(A.P.)
photo
of
Barack
Obama
to
create
his
well-‐known
“Hope”
image
of
the
presidential
candidate.
In
2009,
Fairey
filed
a
preemptive
lawsuit
against
The
A.P.,
requesting
that
the
court
declare
protection
from
any
copyright
infringement
claims
on
the
basis
of
fair
use.
Fair
use
is
the
copying
of
copyrighted
material
for
limited
“transformative”
purposes,
such
as
criticism,
parody,
or
commentary.
Fairey
acknowledged
that
his
image
was
based
on
a
2006
photograph
taken
by
A.P.
photographer
Mannie
Garcia.
The
A.P.
claimed
that
any
use
of
the
photo
required
permission
and
asked
for
credit
and
compensation.
Anthony
T.
Falzone,
executive
director
of
the
Fair
Use
Project
and
one
of
Fairey’s
lawyers,
said
that
Fairey
only
used
the
original
image
as
a
reference
and
transformed
it
into
a
“stunning,
abstracted
and
idealized
visual
image
that
created
powerful
new
meaning
and
conveys
a
radically
different
message.”
Paul
Colford,
spokesman
for
The
A.P.,
said,
“[The
A.P.
was]
disappointed
by
the
surprise
filing
by
Shepard
Fairey
and
his
company
and
by
Mr.
Fairey’s
failure
to
recognize
the
rights
of
photographers
in
their
works.”
Mannie
Garcia
argued
that
he
actually
owned
the
copyright
to
the
photo,
not
The
A.P.,
according
to
his
contract
at
the
time.
He
stated,
“I
don’t
condone
people
taking
things,
just
because
they
can…
But
in
this
case
I
think
it’s
a
very
unique
situation…
If
you
put
all
the
legal
stuff
away,
I’m
so
proud
of
the
photograph
and
that
Fairey
did
what
he
did
artistically
with
it,
and
the
effect
it’s
had.”
After
two
years
in
court,
Shepard
Fairey
and
The
A.P.
settled
the
case
with
an
undisclosed
financial
agreement.
Fairey
also
gave
up
fair
use
rights
to
any
other
A.P.
photos,
and
both
sides
agreed
to
share
the
rights
to
make
posters
and
merchandise
based
on
the
“Hope”
image.
Case
Study
–
Edward
Snowden:
Traitor
or
Hero?
-‐
Page
1
of
2
Discussion
Questions:
1. What
values
are
in
conflict
in
this
case?
What
harm
did
Snowden
cause?
What
benefits
did
his
actions
bring?
2. Do
you
agree
that
Snowden’s
actions
were
ethically
justified
even
if
legally
prohibited?
Why
or
why
not?
Make
an
argument
by
weighing
the
competing
values
in
this
case.
3. If
you
were
in
Snowden’s
position,
what
would
you
have
done
and
why?
4. Would
you
change
your
position
if
you
knew
that
Snowden’s
leak
would
lead
to
a
loss
of
life
among
CIA
operatives?
What
about
if
it
would
save
lives?
5. Is
there
a
circumstance
in
which
you
think
whistleblowing
would
be
ethically
ideal?
How
about
ethically
prohibited?
Resources:
Whistle-‐Blowers
Deserve
Protection
Not
Prison
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-‐nsa-‐leak-‐case-‐a-‐whistle-‐blower-‐or-‐a-‐
criminal/whistle-‐blowers-‐deserve-‐protection-‐not-‐prison
Eric
Holder:
If
Edward
Snowden
were
open
to
plea,
we’d
talk
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/eric-‐holder-‐edward-‐snowden-‐plea-‐102530.html
Edward
Snowden:
Whistleblower
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/opinion/edward-‐snowden-‐whistle-‐blower.html?_r=0
Edward
Snowden
Broke
the
Law
and
should
be
Prosecuted
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/11/in-‐nsa-‐leak-‐case-‐a-‐whistle-‐blower-‐or-‐a-‐
criminal/edward-‐snowden-‐broke-‐the-‐law-‐and-‐should-‐be-‐prosecuted
Author:
Andrew
Carlson,
Ph.D.,
M.F.A.
Department
of
Theatre
&
Dance
College
of
Fine
Arts
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Case
Study
–
Edward
Snowden:
Traitor
or
Hero?
-‐
Page
2
of
2
Patient
Autonomy
&
Informed
Consent
In
the
context
of
health
care
in
the
United
States,
the
value
on
autonomy
and
liberty
was
cogently
expressed
by
Justice
Benjamin
Cardozo
in
Schloendorff
v.
Society
of
New
York
Hospitals
(1914),
when
he
wrote,
“Every
human
being
of
adult
years
and
sound
mind
has
a
right
to
determine
what
shall
be
done
with
his
own
body.”
This
case
established
the
principle
of
informed
consent
and
has
become
central
to
modern
medical
practice
ethics.
However,
a
number
of
events
since
1914
have
illustrated
how
the
autonomy
of
patients
may
be
overridden.
In
Buck
v.
Bell
(1927),
Justice
Oliver
Wendell
Holmes
wrote
that
the
involuntary
sterilization
of
“mental
defectives,”
then
a
widespread
practice
in
the
U.S.,
was
justified,
stating,
“Three
generations
of
imbeciles
are
enough.”
Another
example,
the
Tuskegee
Syphilis
Study,
in
which
African-‐American
males
were
denied
life-‐saving
treatment
for
syphilis
as
part
of
a
scientific
study
of
the
natural
course
of
the
disease,
began
in
1932
and
was
not
stopped
until
1972.
Providing
advice
related
to
topics
of
bioethics,
the
President’s
Commission
for
the
Study
of
Ethical
Problems
in
Medicine
and
Biomedical
and
Behavioral
Research
stated,
“Informed
consent
is
rooted
in
the
fundamental
recognition—reflected
in
the
legal
presumption
of
competency—that
adults
are
entitled
to
accept
or
reject
health
care
interventions
on
the
basis
of
their
own
personal
values
and
in
furtherance
of
their
own
personal
goals.”
But
what
of
circumstances
where
patients
are
deemed
incompetent
through
judicial
proceedings,
and
where
someone
else
is
designated
to
make
decisions
on
behalf
of
a
mentally
incompetent
individual?
Consider
the
following
case:
A
middle
aged
man
was
involuntarily
committed
to
a
state
psychiatric
hospital
because
he
was
considered
dangerous
to
others
due
to
severe
paranoid
thinking.
His
violent
behavior
was
controlled
only
by
injectable
medications,
which
were
initially
administered
against
his
will.
He
had
been
declared
mentally
incompetent,
and
the
decisions
to
approve
the
use
of
psychotropic
medications
were
made
by
his
adult
son
who
had
been
awarded
guardianship
and
who
held
medical
power
of
attorney.
While
the
medications
suppressed
the
patient’s
violent
agitation,
they
made
little
impact
on
his
paranoid
symptoms.
His
chances
of
being
able
to
return
to
his
home
community
appeared
remote.
However,
a
new
drug
was
introduced
into
the
hospital
formulary
which,
if
used
with
this
patient,
offered
the
strong
possibility
that
he
could
return
home.
The
drug,
however,
was
only
available
in
a
pill
form,
and
the
patient’s
paranoia
included
fears
that
others
would
try
to
poison
him.
The
suggestion
was
made
to
grind
up
the
pill
and
surreptitiously
administer
the
drug
by
mixing
it
in
pudding.
Hospital
staff
checked
with
the
patient’s
son
and
obtained
informed
consent
from
him.
The
“personal
values
and…personal
goals”
of
the
son
and
other
family
members
were
seen
to
substitute
for
those
of
the
mentally
incompetent
patient—and
these
goals
included
the
desire
for
the
patient
to
live
outside
of
an
institution
and
close
to
loved
ones
in
the
community.
This
was
the
explicitly
stated
Case
Study
–
Patient
Autonomy
&
Informed
Consent
-‐
Page
1
of
3
rationale
for
the
son’s
agreeing
to
the
proposal
to
hide
the
medication
in
food.
However,
staff
were
uncomfortable
about
deceiving
the
patient,
despite
having
obtained
informed
consent
from
the
patient’s
guardian.
Discussion
Questions:
1. In
the
case
study
above,
do
you
think
the
ends
justify
the
means?
In
other
words,
does
the
goal
of
discharging
the
patient
from
an
institutional
setting
into
normal
community
living
justify
deceiving
him?
Explain
your
reasoning.
2. Do
you
think
it
is
ever
ethically
permissible
to
deceive
clients?
Under
what
circumstances?
Why
or
why
not?
3. To
what
degree
should
family
members
or
legal
guardians
have
full
capacity
to
make
decisions
or
give
consent
on
behalf
of
those
under
their
care?
Explain.
4. Do
you
think
severely
mentally
ill
people
retain
any
rights
“to
determine
what
shall
be
done
with
[their]
own
[bodies]?”
Why
or
why
not?
5. Are
there
risks
in
surreptitiously
medicating
a
paranoid
patient?
Would
this
confirm
the
patient’s
delusions
of
being
“poisoned”
by
others
or
escalate
his
resistance
to
treatment?
Are
these
risks
worth
taking
in
view
of
the
potential
to
dramatically
improve
his
mental
functioning
and
reduce
his
suffering?
6. Since
psychiatric
patients
have
the
right
to
treatment,
does
the
strategy
to
surreptitiously
administer
medications
serve
this
goal?
Do
you
think
this
is
ethically
justifiable?
Why
or
why
not?
7. Does
the
history
of
the
forcible
treatments
of
persons
with
disabilities
and
other
powerless
populations
affect
how
you
view
this
case?
Explain
Case
Study
–
Patient
Autonomy
&
Informed
Consent
-‐
Page
2
of
3
Resources:
The
Nazi
Doctors:
Medical
Killing
and
the
Psychology
of
Genocide
http://www.worldcat.org/title/nazi-‐doctors-‐medical-‐killing-‐and-‐the-‐psychology-‐of-‐
genocide/oclc/264730584
Medical
Apartheid:
The
Dark
History
of
Medical
Experimentation
on
Black
Americans
from
Colonial
Times
to
the
Present
http://www.worldcat.org/title/medical-‐apartheid-‐the-‐dark-‐history-‐of-‐medical-‐experimentation-‐on-‐
black-‐americans-‐from-‐colonial-‐times-‐to-‐the-‐present/oclc/61131882
Imbeciles:
The
Supreme
Court,
American
Eugenics,
and
the
Sterilization
of
Carrie
Buck
http://www.worldcat.org/title/imbeciles-‐the-‐supreme-‐court-‐american-‐eugenics-‐and-‐the-‐sterilization-‐
of-‐carrie-‐buck/oclc/911171862
Texas
Administrative
Code,
Chapter
404,
Subchapter
E:
Rights
of
persons
receiving
mental
health
services
http://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_view=5&ti=25&pt=1&ch=404&sch=E&rl
=Y
A
history
and
a
theory
of
informed
consent
http://www.worldcat.org/title/history-‐and-‐theory-‐of-‐informed-‐consent/oclc/228168485
Enduring
and
emerging
challenges
of
informed
consent
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1411250
Chapter
“Consent
to
medical
care:
the
importance
of
fiduciary
context”
in
The
ethics
of
consent:
theory
and
practice
http://www.worldcat.org/title/ethics-‐of-‐consent-‐theory-‐and-‐practice/oclc/312625462
CASES;
Advice
rejoins
consent
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/02/health/cases-‐advice-‐rejoins-‐consent.html
Making
health
care
decisions:
The
ethical
and
legal
implications
of
informed
consent
in
the
patient-‐
practitioner
relationship
http://www.worldcat.org/title/making-‐health-‐care-‐decisions-‐a-‐report-‐on-‐the-‐ethical-‐and-‐legal-‐
implications-‐of-‐informed-‐consent-‐in-‐the-‐patient-‐practitioner-‐relationship/oclc/8922324
Author:
Mitch
Sudolsky,
MSSW,
LCSW
School
of
Social
Work
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Case
Study
–
Patient
Autonomy
&
Informed
Consent
-‐
Page
3
of
3
Cyber
Harassment
In
many
ways,
social
media
platforms
have
created
great
benefits
for
our
societies
by
expanding
and
diversifying
the
ways
people
communicate
with
each
other,
and
yet
these
platforms
also
have
the
power
to
cause
harm.
Posting
hurtful
messages
about
other
people
is
a
form
of
harassment
known
as
cyberbullying.
Some
acts
of
cyberbullying
may
not
only
be
considered
slanderous,
but
also
lead
to
serious
consequences.
In
2010,
Rutgers
University
student
Tyler
Clementi
jumped
to
his
death
a
few
days
after
his
roommate
used
a
webcam
to
observe
and
tweet
about
Tyler’s
sexual
encounter
with
another
man.
Jane
Clementi,
Tyler’s
mother,
stated,
“In
this
digital
world,
we
need
to
teach
our
youngsters
that
their
actions
have
consequences,
that
their
words
have
real
power
to
hurt
or
to
help.
They
must
be
encouraged
to
choose
to
build
people
up
and
not
tear
them
down.”
In
2013,
Idalia
Hernández
Ramos,
a
middle
school
teacher
in
Mexico,
was
a
victim
of
cyber
harassment.
After
discovering
that
one
of
her
students
tweeted
that
the
teacher
was
a
“bitch”
and
a
“whore,”
Hernández
confronted
the
girl
during
a
lesson
on
social
media
etiquette.
Inquiring
why
the
girl
would
post
such
hurtful
messages
that
could
harm
the
teacher’s
reputation,
the
student
meekly
replied
that
she
was
upset
at
the
time.
The
teacher
responded
that
she
was
very
upset
by
the
student’s
actions.
Demanding
a
public
apology
in
front
of
the
class,
Hernández
stated
that
she
would
not
allow
“young
brats”
to
call
her
those
names.
Hernández
uploaded
a
video
of
this
confrontation
online,
attracting
much
attention.
While
Hernández
was
subject
to
cyber
harassment,
some
felt
she
went
too
far
by
confronting
the
student
in
the
classroom
and
posting
the
video
for
the
public
to
see,
raising
concerns
over
the
privacy
and
rights
of
the
student.
Sameer
Hinduja,
who
writes
for
the
Cyberbullying
Research
Center,
notes,
“We
do
need
to
remain
gracious
and
understanding
towards
teens
when
they
demonstrate
immaturity.”
Confronting
instances
of
a
teenager
venting
her
anger
may
infringe
upon
her
basic
rights
to
freedom
of
speech
and
expression.
Yet,
as
Hinduja
explains,
teacher
and
student
were
both
perpetrators
and
victims
of
cyber
harassment.
All
the
concerns
of
both
parties
must
be
considered
and,
as
Hinduja
wrote,
“The
worth
of
one’s
dignity
should
not
be
on
a
sliding
scale
depending
on
how
old
you
are.”
Case
Study
–
Cadavers
in
Car
Safety
Research
-‐
Page
1
of
2
Discussion
Questions:
1. According
to
those
opposing
the
research,
what
harm
is
done
by
conducting
crash
tests
with
cadavers?
According
to
researchers,
what
is
the
harm
done
by
not
doing
the
research?
2. Who
are
the
moral
agents
involved
in
this
case?
Who
are
the
subjects
of
moral
worth?
Explain
your
reasoning.
3. Do
you
think
the
idea
of
human
dignity
applies
equally
to
the
living
and
the
dead?
Why
or
why
not?
4. To
what
degree
should
family
members
have
full
capacity
to
make
decisions
or
give
consent
on
behalf
of
their
deceased
relatives?
To
what
degree
should
other
considerations,
such
as
communal
values
or
legal
restrictions,
be
taken
into
account?
5. How
does
research
using
cadavers
compare
to
organ
donation?
Do
you
think
one
is
more
ethically
permissible
than
the
other?
Explain
your
reasoning.
6. How
does
animal
testing
compare
to
this
case?
Resources:
German
University
Said
to
Use
Corpses
in
Auto
Crash
Tests
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/24/world/german-‐university-‐said-‐to-‐use-‐corpses-‐in-‐auto-‐crash-‐
tests.html
German
University
Must
Prove
Families
OK’d
Tests
on
Cadavers
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/322514/GERMAN-‐UNIVERSITY-‐MUST-‐PROVE-‐FAMILIES-‐OKD-‐
TESTS-‐ON-‐CADAVERS.html?pg=all
Auto
Safety
Crash
Testing
Ignites
Furor:
Germany:
The
program
uses
human
bodies.
U.S.
tests
using
cadavers
at
3
universities
are
disclosed.
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-‐11-‐25/news/mn-‐60691_1_safety-‐tests
University
Promises
to
Prove
it
Had
Relatives’
OK
to
Use
Bodies
http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/University-‐Promises-‐To-‐Prove-‐It-‐Had-‐Relatives-‐OK-‐To-‐Use-‐
Bodies/id-‐fe2ecda0c83ffada0d56c232b3a9433b
Author:
Andrew
Carlson,
Ph.D.,
M.F.A.
Department
of
Theatre
&
Dance
College
of
Fine
Arts
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Case
Study
–
Cadavers
in
Car
Safety
Research
-‐
Page
2
of
2
Prenatal
Diagnosis
&
Parental
Choice
In
the
United
States,
many
citizens
agree
that
the
government
may
impose
limits
on
the
freedom
of
individuals
when
individuals
interfere
with
the
rights
of
others,
but
the
extent
of
these
limits
is
often
a
topic
of
debate.
Among
the
most
debated
of
bioethical
issues
is
the
issue
of
abortion,
which
hinges
on
whether
the
fetus
is
a
person
with
rights,
notably
the
right
to
life.
In
conjunction
with
the
legal
right
to
abortion
affirmed
in
the
Supreme
Court
decision
in
Roe
v.
Wade,
the
issue
of
prenatal
diagnosis
has
led
to
decisions
by
pregnant
women
to
pursue
abortion
where
prenatal
testing
has
revealed
genetic
abnormalities
in
fetuses.
However,
this
practice
has
met
with
recent
opposition
in
the
wake
of
research
showing
that
between
60
and
90
percent
of
fetal
diagnoses
of
Down
syndrome
have
led
to
abortion.
In
2015,
legislation
was
introduced
in
the
Ohio
Legislature
that
would
make
it
illegal
to
terminate
a
pregnancy
for
the
purpose
of
avoiding
giving
birth
to
a
baby
with
Down
syndrome.
Those
opposed
to
this
legislation
have
noted
that
such
a
law
would
violate
the
Roe
v.
Wade
decision
by
the
Supreme
Court,
and
that
laws
based
on
intention
or
motivation
to
terminate
would
be
unenforceable.
“This
is
interference
with
a
medical
decision
following
a
complicated
diagnosis,”
according
to
Kellie
Copeland,
executive
director
of
NARAL
Pro-‐Choice
Ohio,
“Not
knowing
the
family
and
the
circumstances,
the
legislature
can’t
possibly
take
into
account
all
the
factors
involved.”
Supporters
of
the
legislation
have
described
this
as
a
way
to
limit
the
number
of
abortions
in
the
state
and
protect
babies
born
with
disabilities.
Mike
Gonidakis,
president
of
Ohio
Right
to
Life,
stated,
“We
all
want
to
be
born
perfect,
but
none
of
us
are,
and
everyone
has
a
right
to
live,
perfect
or
not.”
Rachel
Mullen,
a
member
of
the
Cuyahoga
County
chapter
of
Ohio
Right
to
Life,
said
in
an
interview,
“we
need
this
bill
so
that
[babies
with
Down
syndrome]
can
be
born,
and
not
culled.”
Teaching
Note:
Bioethics
examines
the
moral
dimensions
surrounding
the
use
of
medical
technology,
raising
questions
such
as:
Should
all
scientific
advances
in
medicine
be
made
available
to
all?
Do
some
advances
conflict
with
society’s
values
and
morals?
What
role
should
the
government
play
in
the
moral
decision-‐making
of
individuals
insofar
and
with
respect
to
limiting
or
expanding
choices
available?
These
are
broader
questions
to
keep
in
mind
while
reading
and
discussing
this
case
study.
Case
Study
–
Prenatal
Diagnosis
&
Parental
Choice
-‐
Page
1
of
3
Discussion
Questions:
1. According
to
those
opposing
the
legislation,
what
harm
is
done
by
limiting
women’s
freedom
to
terminate
a
pregnancy?
According
to
supporters
of
the
legislation,
what
is
the
harm
done
by
not
limiting
women’s
freedom
to
terminate
a
pregnancy?
2. Who
are
all
of
the
moral
agents
in
this
case?
Who
are
the
subjects
of
moral
worth?
Explain
your
reasoning.
3. Since
Roe
v.
Wade
holds
that
first-‐trimester
abortions
are
legal,
is
it
ethically
permissible
to
limit
the
freedom
of
women
who
do
not
wish
to
bear
babies
with
birth
defects
if
the
diagnosis
and
the
procedure
take
place
in
the
first
trimester?
Why
or
why
not?
4. If
it
is
legal
to
abort
babies
with
disabilities
like
Down
syndrome,
what
message
does
this
convey
about
the
value
that
society
places
on
the
lives
of
persons
with
disabilities?
5. If
the
Ohio
Legislature
decides
to
criminalize
abortion
in
cases
where
the
motivation
for
abortion
is
a
prenatal
diagnosis
of
Down
syndrome,
does
the
Legislature
have
an
ethical
responsibility
to
ensure
that
poor
families
are
not
driven
into
bankruptcy
by
the
high
medical
and
educational
costs
of
raising
children
with
disabilities?
Why
or
why
not?
6. Should
physicians
be
required
to
divulge
the
motivation
for
terminating
a
pregnancy?
Do
you
think
this
is
an
ethically
defensible
reason
to
breach
doctor-‐patient
confidentiality?
Explain
your
reasoning.
7. Should
parents
have
the
freedom
to
decide
whether
to
abort
for
other
reasons,
such
as
the
discovery
that
the
fetus
will
be
born
deaf
or
diabetic?
In
a
free
society,
should
the
government
limit
the
reproductive
options
of
families
who
will
be
left
with
a
financial,
emotional,
and
physical
burden
as
a
result?
Explain.
Case
Study
–
Prenatal
Diagnosis
&
Parental
Choice
-‐
Page
2
of
3
Resources:
Prenatal
diagnosis
and
selective
abortion:
a
challenge
to
practice
and
policy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508970/
Baby
conceived
to
provide
cell
transplant
for
his
dying
sister
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/04/science/04BLOO.html
The
problem
with
an
almost-‐perfect
genetic
world
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/weekinreview/the-‐problem-‐with-‐an-‐almostperfect-‐genetic-‐
world.html
Ohio
bill
would
ban
abortion
if
Down
syndrome
is
reason
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/ohio-‐bill-‐would-‐ban-‐abortion-‐if-‐down-‐syndrome-‐is-‐
reason.html
First-‐Trimester
or
Second-‐Trimester
Screening,
or
Both,
for
Down’s
Syndrome
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa043693
Prenatal
diagnosis
of
Down
syndrome:
a
systematic
review
of
termination
rates
(1995-‐2011)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.2910/abstract
Ethics
Questions
Arise
as
Genetic
Testing
of
Embryos
Increases
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/health/ethics-‐questions-‐arise-‐as-‐genetic-‐testing-‐of-‐embryos-‐
increases.html
Wanting
babies
like
themselves,
some
parents
choose
genetic
defects
http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/wanting-‐babies-‐like-‐themselves-‐some-‐parents-‐choose-‐
genetic-‐defects/comment-‐page-‐6/
Prenatal
whole-‐genome
sequencing
—
is
the
quest
to
know
a
fetus’s
future
ethical?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1215536
Author:
Mitch
Sudolsky,
MSSW,
LCSW
School
of
Social
Work
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Case
Study
–
Prenatal
Diagnosis
&
Parental
Choice
-‐
Page
3
of
3
The
Miss
Saigon
Controversy
In
1990,
theatre
producer
Cameron
Mackintosh
brought
the
musical
Miss
Saigon
to
Broadway
following
a
highly
successful
run
in
London.
Based
on
the
opera
Madame
Butterfly,
Miss
Saigon
takes
place
during
the
Vietnam
War
and
focuses
on
a
romance
between
an
American
soldier
and
a
Vietnamese
orphan
named
Kim.
In
the
musical,
Kim
is
forced
to
work
at
‘Dreamland,’
a
seedy
bar
owned
by
the
half-‐French,
half-‐Vietnamese
character
‘the
Engineer.’
The
production
was
highly
anticipated,
generating
millions
of
dollars
in
ticket
sales
before
it
had
even
opened.
Controversy
erupted,
however,
when
producers
revealed
that
Jonathan
Pryce,
a
white
British
actor,
would
reprise
his
role
as
the
Eurasian
‘Engineer.’
Asian
American
actor
B.D.
Wong
argued
that
by
casting
a
white
actor
in
a
role
written
for
an
Asian
actor,
the
production
supported
the
practice
of
“yellow-‐face.”
Similar
to
“blackface”
minstrel
shows
of
the
19th
and
20th
centuries,
“yellow-‐face”
productions
cast
non-‐Asians
in
roles
written
for
Asians,
often
relying
on
physical
and
cultural
stereotypes
to
make
broad
comments
about
identity.
Wong
asked
his
union,
Actors’
Equity
Association,
to
“force
Cameron
Mackintosh
and
future
producers
to
cast
their
productions
with
racial
authenticity.”
Actors’
Equity
Association
initially
agreed
and
refused
to
let
Pryce
perform:
“Equity
believes
the
casting
of
Mr.
Pryce
as
a
Eurasian
to
be
especially
insensitive
and
an
affront
to
the
Asian
community.”
Moreover,
many
argued
that
the
casting
of
Pryce
further
limited
already
scarce
professional
opportunities
for
Asian
American
actors.
Frank
Rich
of
The
New
York
Times
disagreed,
sharply
criticizing
the
union
for
prioritizing
politics
over
talent:
“A
producer's
job
is
to
present
the
best
show
he
can,
and
Mr.
Pryce's
performance
is
both
the
artistic
crux
of
this
musical
and
the
best
antidote
to
its
more
bloated
excesses.
It's
hard
to
imagine
another
actor,
white
or
Asian,
topping
the
originator
of
this
quirky
role.
Why
open
on
Broadway
with
second
best,
regardless
of
race
or
creed?”
The
casting
director,
Vincent
G.
Liff,
also
defended
his
actions
on
the
same
grounds:
“I
can
say
with
the
greatest
assurance
that
if
there
were
an
Asian
actor
of
45-‐50
years,
with
classical
stage
background
and
an
international
stature
and
reputation,
we
would
have
certainly
sniffed
him
out
by
now.”
Actors’
Equity
ultimately
reversed
their
decision
and
Pryce
performed
the
role
of
‘the
Engineer’
on
Broadway
to
great
acclaim.
Nonetheless,
the
production
remained
controversial
during
its
successful
Broadway
run.
For
many,
it
is
seen
as
one
of
the
most
famous
examples
of
contemporary
“yellow-‐face”
performance.
Case
Study
–
Freedom
of
Speech
on
Campus
-‐
Page
2
of
4
Discussion
Questions:
1. In
this
case
study,
who
voiced
his
or
her
values?
Do
you
think
each
of
these
people
acted
effectively?
Why
or
why
not?
2. Think
through
the
seven
pillars
of
GVV
in
relation
to
Erika
Christakis’
actions.
Can
you
identify
each
pillar
in
her
actions?
Are
there
any
pillars
that
you
think
she
could
have
engaged
more
effectively?
Explain.
3. How
do
Erika
Christakis’
actions
to
voice
values
compare
to
Jonathan
Butler’s
actions
to
voice
values?
Was
one
more
effective
than
the
other?
Why
or
why
not?
Explain.
4. If
you
were
in
the
position
of
a
student
activist
at
Yale
or
Missouri,
what
would
you
have
done
and
why?
How
might
the
pillars
of
GVV
influence
your
actions?
5. What
if
you
were
in
the
position
of
a
university
administrator
at
Yale
or
Missouri?
What
would
you
have
done
and
why?
How
might
the
pillars
of
GVV
influence
your
actions?
6. If
you
were
in
the
position
to
mediate
the
conflict
between
Tim
Tai
and
the
protesters,
how
would
you
engage
the
GVV
pillars
to
do
so?
Explain.
7. If
you
were
in
Tai’s
position,
what
would
you
have
done,
and
why?
Do
you
agree
with
his
argument
that
freedom
of
speech
protects
his
rights
as
much
as
it
does
the
protesters?
Explain.
8. How
does
voicing
your
own
values
differ
from
voicing
the
values
of
a
group
or
organization?
Explain.
9. Have
you
ever
witnessed
or
been
involved
in
a
protest?
In
what
ways
did
the
group
of
protestors
communicate
their
message?
Do
you
think
this
was
effective?
Why
or
why
not?
10. What
do
you
think
is
an
ethically
ideal
way
to
encourage
dialogue
and
equality
on
college
and
university
campuses?
Explain.
Case
Study
–
Freedom
of
Speech
on
Campus
-‐
Page
3
of
4
Resources:
At
University
of
Missouri,
Black
Students
See
a
Campus
Riven
by
Race
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/us/university-‐of-‐missouri-‐protests.html
Why
a
Free
Speech
Fight
is
Causing
Protests
at
Yale
http://time.com/4106265/yale-‐students-‐protest/
Mizzou,
Yale,
and
Free
Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/opinion/mizzou-‐yale-‐and-‐free-‐speech.html
‘Justice
is
worth
fighting
for’:
A
Q&A
with
the
graduate
student
whose
hunger
strike
has
upended
the
University
of
Missouri
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-‐nation/wp/2015/11/09/justice-‐is-‐worth-‐fighting-‐for-‐a-‐
qa-‐with-‐the-‐graduate-‐student-‐whose-‐hunger-‐strike-‐has-‐upended-‐the-‐university-‐of-‐missouri/
Who
Is
Entitled
to
Be
Heard?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/opinion/who-‐is-‐entitled-‐to-‐be-‐heard.html
There’s
a
good
reason
protestors
at
the
University
of
Missouri
didn’t
want
the
media
around
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/11/theres-‐a-‐good-‐reason-‐protesters-‐
at-‐the-‐university-‐of-‐missouri-‐didnt-‐want-‐the-‐media-‐around/
The
New
Intolerance
of
Student
Activism
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-‐new-‐intolerance-‐of-‐student-‐activism-‐at-‐
yale/414810/
The
real
issue
at
Mizzou
and
Yale
isn’t
free
speech.
It’s
social
equality.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-‐real-‐issue-‐at-‐mizzou-‐and-‐yale-‐isnt-‐free-‐speech-‐its-‐
social-‐equality/2015/11/12/0ead3a34-‐8956-‐11e5-‐be8b-‐1ae2e4f50f76_story.html
At
U.
of
Missouri
and
Yale,
obstruction
of
free
speech
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/at-‐u-‐of-‐missouri-‐and-‐yale-‐obstruction-‐of-‐free-‐
speech/2015/11/10/1358563e-‐87f0-‐11e5-‐be39-‐0034bb576eee_story.html
A
Dialogue
on
Race
and
Speech
at
Yale
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/yale-‐silliman-‐race/475152/
Author:
Ethics
Unwrapped
Staff
McCombs
School
of
Business
The
University
of
Texas
at
Austin
Case
Study
–
Freedom
of
Speech
on
Campus
-‐
Page
4
of
4
Abramoff:
Lobbying
Congress
On
March
29,
2006,
former
lobbyist
Jack
Abramoff
was
sentenced
to
six
years
in
federal
prison
after
pleading
guilty
to
mail
fraud,
tax
evasion,
and
conspiracy
to
bribe
public
officials.
Key
to
Abramoff’s
conviction
were
his
lobbying
efforts
that
began
in
the
1990s
on
behalf
of
Native
American
tribes
seeking
to
establish
gambling
on
reservations.
In
1996,
Abramoff
began
working
for
the
Mississippi
Band
of
Choctaw
Indians.
With
the
help
of
Republican
tax
reform
advocate
Grover
Norquist,
and
his
political
advocacy
group
Americans
for
Tax
Reform,
Abramoff
defeated
a
Congressional
bill
that
would
have
taxed
Native
American
casinos.
Texas
Representative
and
House
Majority
Whip
Tom
DeLay
also
played
a
major
role
in
the
bill’s
defeat.
DeLay
pushed
the
agenda
of
Abramoff’s
lobbying
clients
in
exchange
for
favors
from
Abramoff.
In
1999,
Abramoff
similarly
lobbied
to
defeat
a
bill
in
the
Alabama
State
Legislature
that
would
have
allowed
casino-‐style
games
on
dog
racing
tracks.
This
bill
would
have
created
competition
for
his
clients’
casino
businesses.
Republican
political
activist
Ralph
Reed,
and
his
political
consulting
firm
Century
Strategies,
aided
the
effort
by
leading
a
grassroots
campaign
that
rallied
Alabama-‐based
Christian
organizations
to
oppose
the
bill.
As
Abramoff’s
successes
grew,
his
clients,
political
contacts,
and
influence
expanded.
He
hired
aides
and
former
staff
of
members
of
Congress.
In
2001,
Abramoff
began
working
with
Congressman
DeLay’s
former
communications
director,
Michael
Scanlon,
who
had
formed
his
own
public
affairs
consulting
firm,
Capitol
Campaign
Strategies.
The
Coushatta
Tribe
of
Louisiana
hired
Abramoff
and
Capitol
Campaign
Strategies
to
help
them
renegotiate
their
gambling
agreement
with
the
State
of
Louisiana.
Abramoff,
however,
did
not
disclose
to
the
tribe
that,
in
addition
to
his
own
consulting
fees,
he
also
received
a
portion
of
the
fees
paid
to
Scanlon’s
firm.
In
an
effort
to
protect
his
Coushatta
clients
in
Louisiana
from
competition
by
a
new
casino
near
Houston,
Texas,
Abramoff
successfully
lobbied
for
a
state
gambling
ban
in
Texas
between
2001
and
2002.
Incidental
to
this
ban
was
the
closure
of
a
casino
in
El
Paso,
Texas,
owned
by
the
Tigua
Tribal
Nation.
The
Tigua
were
another
one
of
Abramoff’s
casino
clients.
Later
in
2002,
Abramoff
made
a
pitch
to
the
Tigua
to
work
to
oppose
the
ban
for
which
he
had
previously
lobbied
successfully.
With
the
Tigua’s
money,
Abramoff
took
Ohio
Representative
Bob
Ney
and
his
staff
on
a
golfing
trip
to
Scotland.
Abramoff
hoped
to
convince
Ney
and
his
colleagues
to
slip
a
provision
into
an
election-‐reform
bill
that
would
grant
the
Tigua
gaming
rights.
Abramoff’s
efforts
did
not
pay
off,
and
the
deal
he
sought
fell
through,
but
he
did
not
inform
the
Tigua
of
this
outcome.
Rather,
Abramoff
continued
to
give
the
Tigua
hope
for
the
In 1989, a young woman jogging in New York’s Central Park was raped and beaten nearly to death.
This high-profile attack upon a white investment banker in the heart of the city was quickly called the
“crime of the century.” There was intense public pressure to solve the case and, indeed, the police
quickly arrested five young (14 to 16 years old) men who were black and Latino. They had been part of
a larger group of young men harassing passersby in another part of the park.
After intense interrogations ranging from 14 to 30 hours in length, four of the five confessed to the
crime. The five were charged with the attack. Importantly, (a) the boys soon recanted their
confessions which they blamed on police coercion, (b) no physical evidence linked the young men to
the crime, (c) no physical evidence indicated that there was more than one attacker, (d) the semen
found in the victim did not match any of the young men, and (e) the four confessions were inconsistent
with each other and with the physical evidence from the crime scene. Nonetheless, the young men
were convicted and sent to jail. Real estate developer Donald Trump called for their swift execution in
a full-page newspaper ad.
Thirteen years later, Matias Reyes, who was serving a life sentence for murder, confessed to the crime.
Indeed, his DNA matched the semen recovered from the victim. His was the only semen recovered
from the victim. The attack on the jogger was similar in M.O. to his other rapes, none of which
involved any other perpetrator.
• The lead prosecutor, who claimed that the five young men were indeed still guilty and that
Reyes was simply an additional perpetrator—an “unindicted co-ejaculator.”
• The head detective, who said: ‘This lunatic [Reyes] concocts this wild story and these people fell
for it.”
• Donald Trump who in 2013 tweeted regarding Ken Burns’ award-winning documentary on the
Central Park 5’s innocence: “The Central Park Five documentary was a one sided piece of
garbage that didn’t explain the horrific crimes of these young men while in park.”
• The second chair lawyer in the prosecution who in 2018 still finds the taped confessions “pretty
compelling” notwithstanding their inconsistencies and the fact that of the first 325 DNA
exonerations in the U.S., 27% involved false confessions.
Case Study – The Central Park Five - Page 1 of 3
Discussion Questions
On April 12, 2018, at a Starbucks location in Philadelphia, two black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte
Robinson, were waiting for a friend, Andrew Yaffe. Nelson and Robinson were entrepreneurs and were
going to discuss business investment opportunities with Yaffe, a white real estate developer. As they
waited, an employee asked if she could help them. They said “no,” that they were just waiting for a
business meeting. Then a manager told Nelson that he couldn’t use the restroom because he was not
a paying customer.
Because the two men had not purchased anything yet, a store manager called police, even though
Robinson had been a customer at the store for almost a decade and both men had used the store
location for business meetings before. At least six Philadelphia Police Department officers arrived. The
police officers did not ask the men any questions; they just demanded that they leave immediately.
They declined. The police officers then proceeded to arrest the men for trespassing. As the arrest
occurred, Mr. Yaffe arrived. He said: “Why would they be asked to leave? Does anyone else thing this
is ridiculous? It’s absolute discrimination.” The two men were taken out in handcuffs. They were
taken to the police station, photographed, and fingerprinted. They were held for almost nine hours
before being released from custody. Prosecutors decided that there was insufficient evidence to
charge the men with a crime.
After a video of the arrest went viral, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson released a statement: “We
apologize to the two individuals and our customers and are disappointed this led to an arrest. We take
these matters seriously and clearly have more work to do when it comes to how we handle incidents in
our stores. We are reviewing our policies and will continue to engage with the community and the
police department to try to ensure these types of situations never happen in any of our stores.”
Johnson then announced that every company-owned Starbucks location in the nation would close on
May 29, 2018, for “racial-bias education.” When one customer complained on Facebook that closing
the stores because of just one incident seemed overkill, Starbucks responded: “There are countless
examples of implicit bias resulting in discrimination against people of color, both in and outside our
stores. Addressing bias is crucial in ensuring that all our customers feel safe and welcome in our
stores.” A similar complaint about closing
thousands of stores because of the actions of a
handful of employees prompted this response
1. In a presentation, Professor Will Cox shows two news photos published in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina. One shows a young black man walking through swirling water holding a
carton of soda. The other shows a white couple in similar water, holding a bag of bread. The
caption for the photos read, respectively: “A young man walks through chest-deep water after
looting a grocery store” and “Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread
and soda.” Do you think the writers of these captions thought of themselves as racist?
2. Do you think the manager of the Starbucks in Philadelphia thought of herself as racist?
3. Do you think that what happened to Nelson and Robinson would have happened had they been
white?
5. How did stereotyping influence and/or frame the situation for the manager? For the police? For
bystanders?
6. What is your opinion about Starbucks’ response to the arrest of Nelson and Robinson?
8. Studies show that Latinos receive less pain medication than similarly-situated white patients,
that elderly women receive fewer life-saving interventions than elderly men, and that obese
children are more likely to be assumed by teachers to be less intelligent than slim children. Are
these examples of implicit bias?
10. Do you think that implicit bias is a serious problem? If so, is it more serious than explicit bias?
On September 8, 2016, Wells Fargo, one of the nation’s oldest and largest banks, admitted in a
settlement with regulators that it had created as many as two million accounts for customers without
their permission. This was fraud, pure and simple. It seems to have been caused by a culture in the
bank that made unreasonable demands upon employees. Wells Fargo agreed to pay $185 million in
fines and penalties.
Employees had been urged to “cross-sell.” If a customer had one type of account with Wells Fargo,
then top brass reasoned, they should have several. Employees were strongly incentivized, through
both positive and negative means, to sell as many different types of accounts to customers as possible.
“Eight is great” was a motto. But does the average person need eight financial products from a single
bank? As things developed, when employees were unable to make such sales, they just made the
accounts up and charged customers whether they had approved the accounts or not. The employees
used customers’ personal identification numbers without their knowledge to enroll them in various
products without their knowledge. Victims were frequently elderly or Spanish speakers.
Matthew Castro, whose father was born in Colombia, felt so bad about pushing sham accounts onto
Latino customers than he tried to lessen his guilt by doing volunteer work. Other employees were
quoted as saying “it’s beyond embarrassing to admit I am a current employee these days.”
Still other employees were moved to call company hotlines or otherwise blow the whistle, but they
were simply ignored or oftentimes punished, frequently by being fired. One employee who sued to
challenge retaliation against him was “uncomfortable” and “unsettled” by the practices he saw around
him, which prompted him to speak out. “This is a fraud, I cannot be a part of that,” the whistleblower
said.
Early prognostications were that CEO John Stumpf would not lose his job over the fiasco. However, as
time went on and investigations continued, the forms and amount of wrongdoing seemed to grow and
grow. Evidence surfaced that the bank improperly changed the terms of mortgage loans, signed
customers up for unauthorized life insurance policies, overcharged small businesses for credit-card
processing, and on and on.
Over the next several months, more and more allegations of wrongdoing arose. The bank had illegally
repossessed cars from military veterans. It had modified mortgages without customer authorization.
It had charged 570,000 customers for auto insurance they did not need. It had ripped off small
businesses by charging excessive credit card fees. The total number of fake accounts rose from two
million to 3.5 million. The bank also wrongly fined 110,000 mortgage clients for missing a deadline
even though the party at fault for the delay was Wells Fargo itself.
At its April 2017 annual shareholders meeting, the firm faced levels of dissent that a Georgetown
business school professor, Sandeep Dahiya, called “highly unusual.”
By September, 2017, Wells Fargo had paid $414 million in refunds and settlements and incurred
hundreds of millions more in attorneys’ and other fees. This included $108 million paid to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for having overcharged military veterans on mortgage refinancing.
In October 2017, new Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan was told by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren,
a Democrat, that he should be fired: “You enabled this fake-account scandal. You got rich off it, and
then you tried to cover it up.” Republicans were equally harsh. Senator John Kennedy Texas said: “I’m
not against big. With all due respect, I’m against dumb.”
Sloan was still CEO when the company had its annual shareholders meeting in April 2018. Shareholder
and protestors were both extremely angry with Wells Fargo. By then, the bank had paid an additional
$1 billion fine for abuses in mortgage and auto lending. And, in an unprecedented move, the Federal
Reserve Board had ordered the bank to cap its asset growth. Disgust with Wells Fargo’s practices
caused the American Federation of Teachers, to cut ties with the bank. Some whistleblowers resisted
early attempts at quiet settlements with the bank, holding out for a public admission of wrongdoing.
In May 2018, yet another shoe dropped. Wells Fargo’s share price dropped on news that the bank’s
employees improperly altered documents of its corporate customers in an attempt to comply with
regulatory directions related to money laundering rules.
Ultimately, Wells Fargo removed its cross-selling sales incentives. CEO Sloan, having been informed
that lower level employees were suffering stress, panic attacks, and other symptoms apologized for the
fact that management initially blamed them for the results of the toxic corporate culture, admitting
that cultural weaknesses had caused a major morale problem.
1. What moral emotions seem to have been at play in this case? On the part of the bank’s
employees? The bank’s victims? The bank’s regulators? The bank’s shareholders?
2. What factors contributed particularly to the outrage and anger that legislators, regulators,
customers, and shareholders felt?
3. Clearly inner-directed emotions such as guilt and embarrassment affected the actions of Wells
Fargo employees. Were they always sufficient to overcome the employees’ utilitarian
calculation: “I need this job”?
4. Did moral emotions motivate some of the whistleblowers? How?
5. In the wake of everything described in the case study, Wells Fargo has fired many employees,
clawed back bonuses from executives, replaced many of its directors, dismantled its sales
incentive system and made other changes. Do you think these changes were made out of a
utilitarian calculation designed to avoid further monetary penalties, a desire to avoid the shame
and embarrassment the bank’s managers and employees were feeling, or a combination of
both? If a combination, which do you think played a bigger role? Why?
Resources:
“Elizabeth Warren to Wells Fargo CEO: “You Should Be Fired,”
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/03/investing/wells-fargo-hearing-ceo/index.html
“It’s Been a Year Since the Wells Fargo Scandal Broke—and New Problems Are Still Surfacing,”
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-fargo-one-year-20170908-story.html
“Wells Fargo’s Reaction to Scandal Fails to Satisfy Angry Lawmakers,”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/business/dealbook/wells-fargo-ceo-john-stumpf-house-
hearing.html
“’Wells Fargo, You’re the Worst’: Scenes from Testy Annual Meeting,”
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/wells-fargo-youre-the-worst-scenes-from-testy-annual-
meeting
“How Wells Fargo’s Cutthroat Corporate Culture Allegedly Drove Bankers to Fraud,”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/wells-fargo-corporate-culture-fraud
“Outburst by Angry Wells Fargo Shareholder Halts Annual Meeting,”
http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/25/investing/wells-fargo-shareholder-meeting/index.html