Running head: DR.

LEVIN ETHICAL ANALYSIS

EDUCATION 525 L01 - Ethics and Law in Education

Dr. Levin Ethical Analysis

Nanita Blomquist, Jasmine McBride, Jacalyn Vang and Cheryl Wiltse

July 19th, 2019

Running head: DR. LEVIN ETHICAL ANALYSIS 2

Dr. Levin Ethical Analysis

The definition of ethics can vary depending on who you ask. According to Donlevy &

Walker (2010), ethics involves “actions and attitudes, who we are and how we treat people;

determines right from wrong and the virtuous from the vicious”. How does one determine how

their ethical values are formed? Donlevy & Walker (2010) states that studies have shown ethics

can be taught; through religion, organizations, societal backgrounds and family. We as a person

must then struggle with our own internal “civil war” (Donlevy & Walker, 2010) to ensure we

live up to our own standards and follow our own ethical principles. Leaders are seen through a

lens that labels them as being morally superior and ethically sound (Donlevy & Walker, 2010).

Leaders are not able to ignore situations where the ethical integrity is questioned, as poor ethics

can lead to anxiety, loss of control, suspicion and eventual loss of trust in the leader (Donlevy &

Walker, 2010). Dr. Levin was considered a leader in the field of Education and was in a position

of power, seen as an ethically sound individual with above-average morals and values. However,

in light of Dr. Levin’s criminal charges, it would be impossible to bring Dr. Levin on campus to

teach students when following our own moral values of utilitarianism and postmodern views.

Postmodern School of Ethical Thought

Postmodern school of thought argues that every person has an individual impulse to act

morally or ethically (Donlevy & Walker, 2010). As a group, we felt that we could not have this

individual affiliated with the ABC University or the attending students. His actions were beyond

the scope of morally acceptable in a profession that deals with young vulnerable children.

Although he was a renowned professional in the field, we cannot determine if his work and

personal life were separated enough that we trust the content he was authoring. Morally, we feel

the need to protect the innocent, lending to the idea that “society is moral because of the people
Running head: DR. LEVIN ETHICAL ANALYSIS 3

in it, not vice versa” (Donlevy & Walker, 2010). Dr. Levin was an educational leader and as such

“deserving of trust” (Walker & Donlevy, 2006), which was lost when allegations of pedophilia

arose. As professionals we “endeavor to be good citizens and hold ourselves to high ethical

standards” (Walker & Donlevy, 2006). We are free of preconceptions and have a “concern for

the interests of others that transcends mere avoidance of harm to others” (Walker & Donlevy,

2006). Dr. Levin lacked ethical integrity with his inconsistency of actions and relations. He

participated in the idea of relative filth, where a “particular decision may be wrong but justified

by the possibility of others doing worse (Donlevy & Walker, 2010)” during his time in online

chat rooms with like-minded criminals. He breached his professional code of conduct and

therefore should not be permitted to lecture or have his material referenced. Regardless of the

profound work he contributed to the educational field, people are judged by their worst acts, not

their best intentions or their best work (Donlevy and Walker, 2010). In the field of education we

must uphold strong morals and values. The Alberta Teachers Association Professional Code of

Conduct Section 18 (2018) states “The teacher acts in a manner which maintains the honour and

dignity of the profession”. It is without fail that we should be protecting the children from harm

of a convicted offender. Dr. Levin, a published academic, should have known his actions were

wrong “through self-restraint, pursuit of excellence, and valuing of accountability” (Walker and

Donlevy, 2006). By refusing Dr. Levin and his work to be utilized on campus, we are reinforcing

the lack of Dr. Levin’s “acknowledgement of his civic and professional duty to contribute to the

overall public good” (Walker and Donlevy, 2006). When reflecting on the postmodern view of

ethics we must consider that Dr. Levin committed these actions knowing and understanding that

he made the decision and would be responsible for all consequences (Donlevy & Walker, 2010).

We are acting with the commitment that people matter (Walker and Donlevy, 2006).
Running head: DR. LEVIN ETHICAL ANALYSIS 4

Utilitarian School of Ethical Thought

The utilitarian school of thought states that an action or inaction is ethical if it allows for

the greatest amount of people to benefit (Donlevy & Walker, 2010). In not allowing Dr. Levin to

speak or anyone to utilize his work at ABC University we look to preserve happiness and prevent

any further suffering as would be viewed from the utilitarianism school of thought. We can

accept the utilitarian claim that the right action is the one that makes the most value without

accepting the claim that happiness and the absence of suffering are all that is valuable

(Markovits, n.d). We can break utilitarian into two parts; a theory of what is valuable, and a

theory of right action given what is valuable (Markovits, n.d.). In looking at the case of Dr. Levin

we are acting to ensure absence of suffering and benefiting the greatest amount of people.

According to Donlevy and Walker (2010), “we are living in the so-called ‘Knowledge Age’

where not everything out there is true, reliable, good, and beautiful”. “We need to build

discerning professional learning communities, with people of conscience and critique,

commitment and covenant (Donlevy and Walker, 2010)”, emphasizing the need to remove Dr.

Levin from the educational community. Donlevy and Walker (2010) go on to state that “as

leaders, we must work consciously for continuous improvement in our ethical behaviour and be

examples to others”. As a committee looking at Dr. Levin’s past it becomes imperative to set an

example for our future graduates of this faculty. Markovits (2010) explains

“we are acting for the right reasons; most right actions motivated on utilitarian grounds,

or by commonsense morality, will still have moral worth. In those (many) cases in which

the utilitarian is right to promote the general happiness, and the ordinary moral thinker is

right to protect those he loves, they are non instrumentally motivated by non

instrumentally morally justifying reasons (p.250).”

Running head: DR. LEVIN ETHICAL ANALYSIS 5

Donlevy and Walker (2010) explains that a clear set of ethics must be utilized to ensure a

cohesive population and strong leaders to look up to. We cannot expect faculty or students to

look up to a leader that has been convicted of crimes against children; possibly going against

their own ethics in even studying his published material. Dr. Levin falls into statistical morality

where his actions may be unethical; however, everyone else that he was talking to was doing it in

the chat rooms. This speaks to the integrity of a supposed leader whose ethics we cannot support

or endorse. “A utilitarian cannot abandon the notion of moral worth without embracing an error

theory about much of our ordinary moral discourse” (Markovits, 2010). Allowing Dr. Levin to

speak and have his academic works referenced would affect our own moral worth and that of the

faculty and students alike. If we look at the findings from Josephson Institute for Advancement

of Ethics research project (as cited in Donlevy and Walker, 2010) and follow their questioning

strategy; do we believe in our heart of hearts that Dr. Levin is an ethical person? The short

answer is no.

With regards to the profession of Education and the information in the Alberta Schools

Act (2000) we, a committee of professors, hold a higher level of ethical responsibility to the

social and public sector than other professions (Donlevy and Walker, 2010). The utilitarian

school of thought does not take into account Dr. Levin’s thoughts, hopes, fears or circumstances

when deciding ethical standards but we believe this is less important knowing that deviant

thoughts in sex offenders cannot be cured and only controlled. “As educational or public leaders

we need to become more explicit about ethicality in our training, practice, and personal

behaviour, if we are to provide suitable ethical models and lead by example (Donlevy and

Walker, 2010)”. From a postmodern perspective Dr. Levin does not have the capability to

impulsively choose the most ethical decision. We cannot encourage or condone this behaviour by
Running head: DR. LEVIN ETHICAL ANALYSIS 6

allowing Dr. Levin to continue speaking as an authority figure, or continue using his work as an

academic expert in the education faculty for other professionals. He displayed an inconsistency

in his own ethics straying from the expectation of a leader to be ethical, act ethical and appear to

be ethical. In education we are held to the utmost of high standards, as should the materials we

use, and the speakers we invite to teach our students and pre-service teachers.
Running head: DR. LEVIN ETHICAL ANALYSIS 7

References

Alberta School Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-3. Retrieved from

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s03.pdf

Alberta Teachers’ Association. (2018) Code of professional conduct. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/265761/viewContent/3546045/View

Donlevy, J.K., Walker, K.W. (2010). Working through ethics in education: Two plays and

ethical

analysis. Sense Publications, Netherlands. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/265761/viewContent/3540989/View

Markovits, J. (2010). Acting for the Right Reasons. The Philosophical Review, Vol. 119, No. 2

pp. 201-242. Duke University Press.

Markovits, J. (n.d.). Ethics: Utilitarianism. Retrieved from:

https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/wi-phi/wiphi-value-theory/wiphi-

ethics/v/utilitarianism-part-1

Walker K. W. & Donlevy, J.K. (2006). Beyond Relativism to Ethical Decision-Making. Journal

of School Leadership Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 216-239.