Ethics Sage

Jason Collins Comes Out

What will be the Effect of Collins’ Announcement that he is Gay?

By now you have probably heard that Jason Collins, a professional basketball player in the NBA, probably changed the face of the ‘Association’ for years to come. With twelve words Collins made it acceptable for gay athletes to reveal their sexual preference. There were others before him including Martina Navratilova, the great women’s tennis star, but no athlete has “come out” while active in any of the major team sports in the U.S. – basketball, baseball, football and hockey.

Collins, in an exclusive interview given to Sports Illustrated (SI) stated these words: “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.” Jason Collins, with the help of writer Franz Lidz, told the sports world two things it already knew and one that it didn’t, and in doing so has made history.

Jason Collins is not a superstar as was Magic Johnson when he publicly announced in November 1991 that he was HIV-positive. The announcement sent shock waves throughout the world of sports, in the U.S., and in countries far and wide. Many wondered how the sports world would react to the news. Back then many of us were ignorant about the virus, how it was transmitted, and the possible effects on others who came in contact with someone who was HIV-positive.

To understand how far we have come as a nation – evolved as a society – we need to examine the reaction to Magic’s announcement by the public and compare it to, thankfully, the world-wide acceptance of Collins’s announcement.

The day after his announcement, Johnson appeared on the late-night talk show of his friend, Arsenio Hall. There, he adamantly denied rumors that he was gay. The crowd cheered wildly, as if Johnson had just won another championship, or announced he’d been cured. What a difference twelve years makes, and with twelve short words Jason Collins has shown us our progress as a civilized nation.

Collins has bounced around the NBA for twelve years (there’s that ‘magic’ number again). He just finished the season playing for the Washington Wizards after being traded by the Boston Celtics. He is a free agent this summer, and is nearing the end of his years in the league, but he says he hopes to get picked up by another team next season. If he does, he may be the only openly gay player, but as he notes at the end of the SI piece, he will surely not be the only gay player: “Pro basketball is a family. And pretty much every family I know has a brother, sister or cousin who’s gay. In the brotherhood of the NBA, I just happen to be the one who’s out.”

The NBA league office issued a classy statement after the story broke in Sports Illustrated. The league offered a statement on its official Twitter account: “We have known the Collins family since Jason and Jarron (Jason’s brother) joined the NBA in 2001 and they have been exemplary members of the NBA family. Jason has been a widely respected player and teammate throughout his career and we are proud he has assumed the leadership mantle on this very important issue.” The series of tweets ends with the hashtag #NBAFamily.

As recently as 2007, the sports world, at least one member of it, reacted to a gay athlete coming out in an entirely different way. When the basketball center John Amaechi came out in 2007, three years after he had retired from the NBA, the former All-Star Tim Hardaway said, “First of all, I wouldn’t want him on my team. Second of all, if he was on my team I would really distance myself from him because I don’t think that’s right and I don’t think he should be in the locker room when we’re in the locker room.” Hardaway later apologized, and it is hard to imagine such comments being made or finding much public support today, but they surely hung over Collins’s announcement—and will continue to do so for other male athletes that follow his footsteps.

Gender matters as well. On Wednesday, April 17, Baylor University women’s basketball superstar, Brittney Griner, one of the best female basketball players on the planet, came out of the closet and few people even shrugged at the announcement.  Even though Griner’s announcement received relatively little press, her story is no less one of courage and pride. She is at the pinnacle of her sport; she was just selected No. 1 in the W.N.B.A. draft, and signed a high-profile endorsement deal with Nike. If Collins is a hero, then so is Brittney Griner.

For years I’ve blogged about the lack of role models in society including the sports world. Sports fans have been given two major jolts about their heroes the past few years. In baseball, the two biggest superstars of their era – Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens – allegedly used steroids. Regardless if they are or ever will be found guilty of the charges, most everyone knows they did use the performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Then we have the devastating case of Lance Armstrong who duped the public for many years while using PEDs; denying the charges’ claiming he was the victim of a vendetta against him; and otherwise lying over and over again about the truth of the matter.

So we finally have heroes to look up to. Not because of their statistics. Not because of their athletic talent. But because of their selfless act of admitting being gay and the classy way they handled the announcement. Kudos to Jason and Brittney for showing all of us what it means to have integrity and be a role model for all youth – not just the LGBT community.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 2, 2013

STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES: THE SAGA OF THE TSA

TSA TO ALLOW WEAPONS ON PLANES: SERIOUSLY?

Forrest Gump quotes are uncomplicated, basic and true. They are almost Zen-like in their simplicity. One of the best Forrest Gump quotes is "stupid is as stupid does" which may not be poetry or very deep, but it ends up being true and a more workable metaphor for life than the movie's tag line "life is a box of chocolates". The TSA has now given us a real-life example of stupidity at its stupidest.

As you probably heard by now, federal officials said they will allow passengers to carry small knives, golf clubs, hockey sticks and pool cues into the cabins of commercial jets. The policy change, which will take effect April 25, is being made to help align the list of prohibited items on U.S. flights with those of international carriers and cut the time passengers spend going through security screening. This is an example of using the lowest common denominator to set policy.

The TSA list of prohibited items will no longer include small knives with non-locking blades less than 2.36 inches (6 centimeters) long and 1/2-inch wide. Also removed from the list will be sporting equipment such as golf clubs, billiard cues, ski poles, toy bats and hockey and lacrosse sticks.

The TSA pointed out that other security measures are already in place to protect planes, including hardened cockpit doors, armed federal air marshals, armed pilots and crew members with self-defense training. It is nice to protect planes but what about we, the passengers, who may need help fending off the crazed golfer or hockey player sitting next to us?

The TSA can’t seriously believe that no danger exists to passengers by allowing these potential weapons on planes. Where has the TSA been these past few months while mentally and emotionally-challenged individuals have shot up schools, shopping malls, committed random acts of violence, and caused pain for all too many families?

Someone at TSA should explain to the American people how a small knife is less dangerous than a box cutter. A hockey stick can do great damage. What is to stop one passenger from pulling out his or her stick or club and pounding another passenger because that person is too loud or taking up too much space?

The phrase "blunt instrument" is used to describe a type of weapon that lacks a sharp point or edge. Examples of a blunt instrument include baseball bats, canes, rocks, and hockey sticks. Congratulations TSA for letting blunt instruments on planes.

Here is some interesting information for the TSA to consider as they (hopefully) reconsider this stupid change.

• Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.
• In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
• Michael Skakel lost a bid for freedom on October 24, 2012, since being convicted of beating Martha Moxley to death with his golf clubs.
• Hockey sticks are routinely used in hockey games to injure opponents on the ice.

Brandon M. Macsata, executive director of the Association for Airline Passenger Rights and a critic of airport security screening procedures, said he is not sure how the change will improve security or speed the screening lines at airports. I also can’t understand how the TSA believes the new rule will speed security lines and the boarding process. What will the airlines do when they realize after only one-half of the plane has been boarded, there no longer is any bin space because people are storing what will become fold-up hockey sticks and golf clubs manufactured specifically for ease of transportation on our planes?

Some family members of victims killed in the September 11 terror attacks said they are outraged by the TSA’s decision to let passengers carry pocketknives on planes. The change is an affront to all people of goodwill and it dishonors the memory of those who died on 9/11.

To say the TSA decision seems to be a poorly thought-out decision is an understatement. TSA now stands for "TOTALLY STUPID AGENCY!"

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 8, 2013

Slavery used to teach Math in NYC Schools

Slavery Examples Raise Insensitivity to new Highs (or lows)

It’s not always easy teaching fourth-graders to really get math. Word problems can be especially useful because they give children easily imagined, real-life examples that make numbers and equations come to life. Remember these from your childhood?

“If Susie had four cookies and John had two cookies and they put all their cookies on a plate, how many cookies would be on the plate?” “Jane carried six books. She gave one to Bella and two to Tom; how many books was Jane still carrying?”

Very effective but so old-school! Now we find out about the crassest way I’ve ever heard to teach math to grade students. I’m referring to the inappropriate questions asked by Jane Youn, a New York City teacher, who had asked fourth-graders to write homework questions that blended math and social studies, education officials said. Last month, the fourth-grade teacher sent pupils home with math problems that were based on slavery as submitted by the pupils themselves.

The teacher used the students' questions, including the slave-related ones, as homework for the class. Another teacher, Jacqueline Vitucci, had copied the offensive questions and was going to assign them before common sense somehow intervened.

Question 1 on the sheet, entitled “Slavery Word Problems Homework,” was written as a matter-of-fact subtraction problem. The question asked: “In a slave ship, there can be 3,799 slaves. One day, the slaves took over the ship. 1,897 are dead. How many slaves are alive?”

Another question said a slave was whipped five times a day and asked students to calculate how many times a month he was whipped. The school principal said she's "appalled" by a homework assignment that used scenarios about killing and whipping slaves to teach math. Adele Schroeter, the principal of P.S. 59, a well-thought-of elementary school that draws students from Midtown and the area around the United Nations, told the Daily News that she has ordered sensitivity training for all of the staff. The school is 60 percent white and five percent African American.

The NYC Department of Education said the situation was "obviously unacceptable." It said "appropriate disciplinary action" would be taken.

Parents of students at the school called the lesson inappropriate and offensive. "I don't understand how teachers aren't aware that would be offensive. Why aren't they aware? Why aren't they in touch? Why aren't they concerned with these issues of minorities in America nowadays?" parent Tim Tate told CBS New York. "It's a little unnerving, a little unsettling."

This issue goes beyond insensitivity into the realm of abject stupidity. The NYC Department of Education should fire the teacher, fire the principal, and send a formal apology letter to all parents and students, black or white. There is no place in our society for such an egregious offense.

The Emancipation Proclamation was issued on September 22, 1862. It has been over 150 years since the passage of that incredibly important piece of legislation in the development of our nation as a civilized society. To learn that a fourth grade teacher uses slavery to teach math is nothing short of shocking and disheartening.

As an educator I always look for ways to use inappropriate statements by students as a teaching tool. The only way the assignment could have been salvaged once students were asked to submit the questions would have been for the teacher to use the questions submitted about slavery as a teachable moment so students could learn why it is inappropriate to use such examples given the sensitivity we all share about such an application in a classroom. It could have been used as a teachable moment about choices, respect, civility and character development. The fact that it wasn’t just adds fuel to the insensitivity fire started by the NYC teacher.

What I don’t understand is the lack of coverage in the media of this travesty. I can only wonder what the uproar would have been, and rightly so, if the question had said: A concentration camp occupant was gassed five times a day and asked students to calculate how many times a month he was gassed.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 25, 2013

Ethics Sage -- Expert on Ethics Issues

Press Coverage and Speaking Opportunities

I am a frequent speaker on ethics matters and am called upon from time to time to develop training materials in ethics and serve as an expert witness. To keep interested parties and my readers informed, I have prepared this post of some of the opinion editorials I have written and interviews by media outlets.

I write a monthly opinion editorial column for the Pacific Coast Business Times. One of my first columns was on the role of corporate America in the emerging class warfare and whether capitalism is a moral economic system. My last blog was on the ethics of whistle-blowing.

I also have been interviewed for my expertise in ethics by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune (city ethics), the online publication The Grio, (the ethics of capital punishment), and the New York Times (workplace ethics).

From time to time I am invited to make presentations on ethics issues and lead group discussions. Finally, I  write courses for BISK education that provides continuing education in ethics for CPAs, and I continue to produce published research in a variety of areas in business and societal ethics. My textbook, Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting, is in its second edition and will be revised next year.

I am excited to report that I will be spending three months in Melbourne, Australia during the fall term at La Trobe University while on sabbatical leave from Cal Poly. My goal is to look at ethics from an international perspective, develop case studies in international business ethics, and expand my blog writing to a global audience.

More to come...

Press Notice published by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 2, 2012

 

 

Message to Newt: Character Counts

Newt was the First Speaker to be disciplined for Ethical Wrongdoing

It’s not about his affairs or alleged request for an open marriage. It’s not even about his book deal in 1983 when he established a limited partnership to pull together about two dozen of his biggest campaign contributors to finance his book. Nor is it about other charges of alleged misuse of official resources including using staff and office equipment to develop the manuscript. Don’t get me wrong. These are moral and ethical lapses.

For me, questions about Newt Gingrich’s character center on the improper use of official resources in preparation of a college course. This lapse in judgment deals with the ethical responsibilities of a college professor. It is near and dear to my heart as a professor who teaches ethics. Moreover, it is the only one of eighty-four ethics charges filed against former Speaker Gingrich that he admitted to and for which he was sanctioned. Gingrich is the only House Speaker to resign as a result of an ethics investigation by the House.

Gingrich's rollercoaster ride as a Presidential candidate and remarkable comeback win last night in South Carolina can be attributed to his in-your-face style of debating that includes attacking the elite media. This is exactly what many Republican voters want. The reason is we have become a divided country. We live in a time with an "us against them" mentality; the 1%ers versus the 99%ers.

Given that Gingrich may be the winner of the Republican nomination in 2012, I must raise the question whether such a person should become President of the U.S. Have we slid so far down the ethical slippery slope that one’s character no longer counts in picking a leader of the free world?

Last Friday, Politico posted the several-hundred-pages-long, four-part House Ethics Committee report on the charges against Newt Gingrich from his days in Congress. The report details numerous alleged ethical violations including the misuse of official resources in preparation of a college course "Renewing American Civilization" during 1994-1995. The report is good reading if you are an insomniac.

There were eighty-four ethics charges filed against former Speaker Gingrich during his term. I focused on Part 3 of the report that dealt with the college course. Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Gingrich was reprimanded and required to reimburse the House $300,000 for its investigation expenses. Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee".

The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules. Special Counsel James M. Cole concluded that Gingrich violated federal tax law and had lied to the ethics panel in an effort to force the committee to dismiss the complaint against him. The full committee panel did not agree whether tax law had been violated and left that issue up to the IRS.

Gingrich’s ethical lapses exemplify the persistent problem in politics of using one’s position of power to gain favored treatment with an individual or organization. In this case Gingrich sought to personally benefit from an improper relationship with the Progress and Freedom Foundation that provided financial support related to the course.

In ethics we call this egoistic behavior because the offending party (Gingrich) failed to consider how his actions might affect other stakeholders including Congress as an institution and the American people. An egoistic like Gingrich acts purely out of self-interest. Perhaps this isn’t surprising in Gingrich’s case because he appears to have a “grandiose” ego as evidenced during the Presidential debates.

Gingrich’s major ethical failing is that he had a conflict of interests in using a tax-exempt entity in support of his college course; he also used official government resources for the same purpose. He violated the public trust in using the people’s money for his own selfish interests. The fact that he tried to cover up his actions is nothing new in politics.

Newt is a hypocrite. Going back in time to 1987, and somewhat ironically, Gingrich led the charge against Representative Jim Wright, when he accused the Speaker of ethics violations. Gingrich claimed that Wright had violated House rules in his dealings with a Texas developer and in the manner by which he had profited from sales of a book. Gingrich won a major coup in 1989 when the House Ethics Committee formally charged Wright with sixty-nine ethics violations and Wright resigned from the House. Guess who succeeded Wright?

Should character play a role in choosing a Presidential nominee? I don’t think personal issues should make the difference between supporting and not supporting a candidate. As many have pointed out, Gingrich asked for forgiveness for his extra-marital affairs and he claims to have seen the light. Even hardened criminals are given a second chance after serving time for their crime.

However, character should be an important consideration when a politician abuses his office for personal gain; when a politician lies in an ethics committee investigation; and when a politician hypocritically goes after other politicians when he, himself, is similarly flawed. It’s not only the Jim Wright situation that concerns me but let's not forget that Gingrich led the charge in the House during the 1998 impeachment hearings of President Clinton, all the while he was having his second extramarital affair with his to-be-third wife, Calista.

People who criticize others for the same behavior that they engage in are, in my opinion, not worthy of the public trust because they act as though there are two sets of rules – one for themselves and one for everyone else.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on January 22, 2012

Is Ethical Capitalism an Oxymoron?

Is Capitalism a Moral Economic System?

I write an opinion editorial for the Pacific Coast Business Times, a business publication covering the three-county area of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo. Today's blog appeared in the Pacific Coast Business Times on December 2.

It is quite popular these days to reflect on whether capitalism as an economic system does more harm than good. Critics of capitalism, such as those in the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, claim that the actions of corporate America and Wall Street investment firms contributed to the financial meltdown in 2008 that still affects our ability to recover economically. I have previously written about corporate greed when I supported the OWS movement in an opinion editorial in the Business Times on October 21.

Can capitalism be an ethical system that promotes economic growth and improves the economic standing of all in society? In other words, can the actions of the managers of a corporation (e.g. the CEO and CFO) still lead to the maximization of shareholder wealth and “trickle down” to benefit all of society?

It is important to remember that Adam Smith connected ethics to economics. Smith came to his philosophy of economic behavior described in The Wealth of Nations through his view of moral behavior espoused in his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith, who is generally regarded to be the founder of free market economics, posited that rational self-interest informed by moral judgments based on fairness and justice would lead to promoting the best interests of society guided by the invisible hand of the marketplace.

I believe that what is missing from business today is ethical decision making. We must ask: What are the rights of shareholders and other stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers and the general public, and what are the obligations of CEOs and boards of directors to these parties?

The nature of the present economic crisis illustrates the need for departures from uncontrolled self-dealing for the good of society. Smith had a diagnosis for this: he called such promoters of excessive risk in search of profits "prodigals and projectors,” an appropriate description of many of the promoters of credit default swaps and sub-prime mortgages in the recent past. Yet, more government regulation is not the answer. The fact is we cannot regulate ethical behavior. It comes from within each one of us as individuals and corporate managers who are supposed to act as agents for shareholders.

The Josephson Institute of Ethics identifies six pillars of character. I believe there are Six Pillars of Ethical Capitalism: honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, integrity, responsibility (and accountability), and civic virtue.

Honesty

• Do not lie or deceive stakeholders in conducting business operations
• Fully disclose all the information that stakeholders have a right to know

Trustworthiness

• Act in a reliable manner by exercising diligence in business decision making
• Be consistent and dependable in word and deed

Fairness

• Judge performance in the workplace in an unbiased manner
• Act in accordance with established standards of behavior (i.e. code of conduct)

Integrity

• Keep promises and carry through decisions with ethical action
• Act to prevent improper behavior or to stop it once it has been detected

Responsibility

• Meet obligations to stakeholders
• Accept the consequences of decisions and act to improve corporate behavior

Civic virtue

• Follow the laws and customs of society
• Act in a socially responsible manner

It has been more than forty years since Milton Friedman proclaimed in his in seminal piece, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits,” that any businessman who thinks a corporation should take “seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else” was “preaching pure an unadulterated  socialism.” I suppose this is the basis for criticisms by Republicans of the OWS movement.

Friedman later wrote in his book Capitalism and Freedom that in society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

This is precisely the problem – fraud has been rampant in corporate America for years going back, at least in recent history, to the late 1980s and the failure of 1,043 savings and loan institutions that cost the public about $150 billion. Fast forward to the late 1990s and early 2000s when massive accounting frauds at companies such as Enron, WorldCom and dozens more wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate assets, shareholder and personal wealth. Just a few years later the financial system collapsed under the weight of self-serving, manipulative actions that were designed to enrich the few at the cost of the many (99%ers)?

The problem today is that we have lost our moral compass. Nowhere is this more apparent than in corporate America.  Ethical standards of behavior are set aside for the pursuit of self-interest. Reliable financial reporting is lost in the fog of misinformation and the ambiguous reporting of facts. The traditional notion of corporate social responsibility has morphed into a belief that if the rich simply get richer, all of society will benefit because the movers and shakers in the corporate world will then invest their “hard earned” money in creating jobs and advancing economic development. Anyone who believes this is quite naïve.

The answer to our national dilemma is to first agree on what are the standards of behavior for corporations – the engines of economic development in America and across the world? I don’t mean corporations as entities; instead, my standards apply to the managers of such businesses. It is with this goal in mind that I submit my “Six Pillars of Corporate Character.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on December 8, 2011

 

The G(ing)RI[N]CH who stole Christmas

Newt Says: Poor kids don't work "unless it's illegal"

“I think I’m going to be the nominee, proclaimed Newt Gingrich.” All I can say is “OMG.” Has the Republican Party totally lost its collective minds? Do they WANT to lose to President Obama?

With the holiday season upon us, the G(ing)RI[N]CH who stole Christmas boasted to ABC news "It's very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I'm going to be the nominee." Thanks, Newt, for spoiling all my post-holiday primaries fun.

Newt Gringrich is the G(ing)RI[N]CH who stole Christmas for a number of reasons but the one that irks me most are the comments he made at a pit stop in Iowa last week that: "really poor children have bad work habits and no knowledge of how to make an income unless it’s illegal." In case you missed it, here is the "best" of Newt. I’d say his comments are akin to an outtake in the screening of a movie but, I’m afraid, for Newt it’s truly an in-take.

Newt proclaimed that children in poor neighborhoods should be employed as janitors in schools and argued that "the best way to teach children in poor neighborhoods good working habits is to put them to work as soon as possible. Start with the following two facts, really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash’ unless it’s illegal."

Gingrich said every successful person he knows started working at an early age in explaining his position that schools should hire poor children in their neighborhoods for part-time jobs as assistant librarians or assistant janitors. Seriously?

Newt, have you ever heard of Oprah Winfrey? She grew up in poverty. I don’t think she was a janitor growing up. Instead, she grew up in an abusive household and ran away at home at the age of 13. She worked hard in school aided by the Upward Bound program. Her story is one of going from rags to riches formed by hard work in school and a determination to succeed.  Born into abject poverty in rural Mississippi, Winfrey went from being a young girl clothed in potato sacks to the richest and most powerful female media mogul in the world.  She has been ranked the richest African American of the 20th century and the greatest black philanthropist in American history. YOU SEE, NEWT, POOR KIDS CAN RAISE THEMSELVES BY THEIR BOOTSTRAPS IF GIVEN THE CHANCE AND SUPPORTED BY WELL-THOUGHT-OUT  SOCIETAL PROGRAMS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

Here’s a bit about Gingrich’s early years. He was raised in Hummelstown near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and on military bases. Today, the median family income in Hummelstown is about $53,000 while the national poverty level is $22,000. I don’t think Newt was a janitor growing up. In fact, at the age of 18 he graduated from high school and became interested in politics during his teen years while living in Orléans, France. That’s right – Orléans, France, not New Orleans.

He was disciplined in January 1997 by the House of Representatives for ethics accusations, although a full hearing was avoided. He resigned from the House on November 5, 1998, three days after being elected to his 11th term. Newt acknowledged that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee." The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.

Now, I ask you: Who had a more privileged up-bringing? Who worked harder under more arduous circumstances? Who is a person of greater character – Oprah Winfrey the world- renowned-philanthropist or Newt Gingich, the greedy who was paid $1.5 million as a consultant for Freddie Mac, a government-sponsored entity that has drawn $72.2 billion from government funds for its bailout and has just asked for $6 billion more?

Newt has no right to criticize "really poor children." For the record, based on poverty statistics, children represent a disproportionate share of the poor in the US; they are 24 percent of the total population, but 36 percent of the poor population. In 2010, 16.4 million children, or 22.0 percent, were poor.

In his last speech, the late Hubert H. Humphrey said "...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped." This was Humphrey’s version of a statement made earlier by Mahatma Ghandi: "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

Sorry, Newt, you’re not quite in the category of Oprah Winfrey, Hubert Humphrey, or Mahatma Gandhi. The fact that the Republican Party is seriously considering nominating you to be its “standard-bearer” says more about the Party’s view about character and ethics than anything else.

Let me close with the famous quote by Martin Luther King in his “I have a Dream” speech. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Newt, if you are reading this piece, have you gotten the message yet?

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on December 5, 2011

 

Michigan Anti-Bullying Law: Can Legislation Stop Bullying?

Bullying: A National Disgrace

I have previously blogged about bullying in schools, cyber-bullying, and bullying in the workplace. Action needs to be taken now to put an end to this disgraceful practice. Michigan is attempting to do so.

At the time of this writing, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder was expected to sign into law an anti-bullying bill. The bill is named "Matt's Safe School Law" for Matt Epling of East Lansing, Michigan who committed suicide after being bullied. Michigan is one of only a few states without a state law requiring anti-bullying policies in schools. Public schools will have six months from the new law's effective date to adopt anti-bullying policies.

Critics such as State Senator Glenn Anderson believe the bill will not be effective: “The reporting requirement is ridiculous, there's no review at the state level. It's one of the most questionable things in the bill. It's telling school districts to report to themselves and we'll turn our heads.” According to Anderson, the bill does not include many key components of what would make an effective anti-bullying law. Some of these would have specified potential consequences or remedial action for bullies and those who falsely accuse of bullying, required the reporting of statistics on bullying to the state to determine if the policies are effective, strengthened protections for students against cyber-bullying, and ensured that this bill does not preclude other legal action.

My question is whether anti-bullying legislation can stop the practice. My answer is NO. We’re talking about pre-teen and teen behavior that is motivated by emotion, not rational choice. You can’t legislate ethical behavior. It comes from within each one of us formed by a desire to do the right thing. No one is perfect but ethical people strive for that ideal. There is no way that most young kids have reached the stage of moral development where they fully understand the consequences of their actions and seek the moral high-ground in everything they do. All too many are influenced by the behavior of their peers and it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the bunch.

How ironic it is that the bill will become law at the same time that two recent suicides resulted from bullying. Two weeks ago 10-year old, fifth-grader, Ashlynn Conner was found dead. Conner’s mother said she heard her daughter on the phone with a friend talking about being teased. A half-hour later, Ashlynn’s 14-year-old sister found her hanging in her bedroom closet. Ashlynn had told her mother about the bullying earlier that day and asked if she could be home-schooled. Her mother reportedly told her they would speak to her school's principal at Ridge Farm Elementary about the problem. The Chicago Tribune reported that Ashlynn’s family said she had been teased by children at the school and in her neighborhood for several years. “When she started cheering for youth football, we’d gotten her hair cut in a bob,” Ashlynn’s grandmother, Lory Hackney said. “The kids started making fun of her then. They started calling her a boy.” Since then, she’d often been called fat or ugly, her family said.

Experts say that incidents of suicides among young children under the age of 14 are uncommon but do happen hundreds of times a year. That’s hundreds of times too many! Statistics from the Illinois Department of Health revealed that in 2009, three children in Illinois — one who was 10 and two aged 11 — killed themselves over a three-week period. The deaths weren’t related. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says more than 200 children between the ages of 10 and 14 killed themselves each year between 1999 and 2005, the most recent year for which data is available. It’s safe to assume that number has doubled since then in line with the moral decay in our society.

Earlier this week Samantha West, of Chadbourn, N.C., said she found her daughter, Jasmine McClain, dead in her bedroom, apparently the victim of bullies at Chadbourn Elementary School. West said that other children teased her about her clothes or her shoes. She left the school for a while and dreaded having to return about a month ago. Chadbourn Police Chief Steven Shaw said her death was obviously suicide; he was about to close the case when he started checking  Facebook posts and other social media about Jasmine and her death. "Everyone that we have spoken to said there are little indicators -- not huge indications -- but small indications that she was not happy," Shaw said.

Statistics related to suicide and bullying are alarming.

• Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims
• 10 to 14 year old girls may be at even higher risk for suicide
• Nearly 30% of students are either bullies or victims of bullying
• 160,000 kids stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying

What will it take to reverse the national disgrace of bullying in our society? I have already expressed my doubts that legislating against this practice will do any good. Still, laws need to be passed to have a chance of holding offenders accountable for their actions. If parents won’t teach kids about the wrongness of bullying, or kids won’t listen and learn, then the law has to step in and see that justice is done.  

Perhaps the answer will come from the kids themselves. At least three local girls took action in response to the Michigan bill banning bullying in schools. Earlier this year, three Battle Creek Central High School students launched an anti-bullying social media group called Now!NotNever after being bullied at their schools. Now!NotNever gained the attention of state Representative Kate Segal who invited the girls to speak on her radio program and sought their input on the legislation.

Bullying in schools, cyber-bullying, bullying in the workplace: What will it take to end this disgraceful practice that has taken the long-standing practice of teasing to a new low – off the charts low?

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on December 2, 2011

The Role of Business Schools and MBAs in the Occupy Wall Street Movement

Reform of Capitalism Should be the Underlying Message of OWS

We’ve heard it all before. Corporations have no soul. Critics complain that those with a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree act out of self-interest and not those of employees who work for them, the community affected by its actions, and society as a whole. The bottom line is that corporate social responsibility has been relegated to a secondary role far behind maximize corporate profits and shareholder wealth as the guiding principles of corporate behavior. The problem is these goals are achieved at the same time the wealthy become wealthier, the middle class, poorer, and more and more low income Americans fall into poverty. Does it sound right to you that top corporate officials earn as much as $16,000 per hour, while workers earn well below $16 per hour. Is it right that the average corporate executive earns 350 times the average worker? When is enough, enough?

So I ask in this blog: What role should business schools and MBA students play in the OWS movement? We can draw parallel to the anti-Vietnam War experience when peace movements consisted largely of college and graduate students, and mothers, as well as anti-establishment "hippies".  The first major student demonstration against the Vietnam War took place on May 2, 1964 when hundreds of students marched through Times Square in New York City, while another 700 marched in San Francisco. Smaller numbers also protested in New York; Seattle; and Madison, Wisconsin. Sound familiar?

On October 21 the invasion of The Wharton School’s Huntsman Hall at the prestigious University of Pennsylvania by Occupy Wall Street protestors opened the door to MBA bashers who chided the students for trying to shout down the protesters who were airing their grievances against corporate America and Wall Street investment firms. Wharton students taunted protesters with chants of "Get A Job!" and a banner which read "Get Into Our Bracket" a take-off from the slogan of the protesters that they are in the 99 percent majority.

A posting on "Think Progress" about the 99% movement  includes the following evaluation of what happened at Wharton: “While the students who jeered the protesters certainly do not necessarily represent all Wharton students, it’s important to understand the context of the elite status they likely either come from or graduate into,” the writer of the article noted. “Wharton graduates much of the nation’s corporate elite, with the median starting salary for an MBA graduate being $145,000 — six times the poverty level for a family of four. The school’s Board of Overseers is staffed with multiple Goldman Sachs executives and high-ranking employees of a wide variety of financial firms. Meanwhile, its Graduate Executive Board is staffed with senior employees of Bank of America, Blackstone Financial Management, and PMC Bank. Wharton’s endowment is $888 million, greater than that of many large public universities. Essentially, the students jeering the protesters represented the future financial elite.”

The Occupy Wall Street protests have grown into one of the most powerful grassroots social movements since the Great Depression and has gone international fueled by the power of social media. It seems the movement is picking up steam as Democrats use it for political gain and Republicans brandish the protesters as those who “hate America”. I believe the message of the movement must remain loud and clear that our free market capitalistic system is failing us and must be reformed before it is too late.

Corporate greed, fraudulent financial statements, and Ponzi schemers have wiped out vast amounts of wealth for the average American through job layoffs, massive losses in stock and retirement accounts, and plunging home values fueled by greed driven home mortgage lending practices that shift the risk of homeowner default to outside investors through the packaging and sale of collateralized debt obligations.  

There is no doubt that some individuals and groups have tagged along with the OWS movement to get their message across. The theme of their protest seems to be to rant against income inequality in America. However, this is a symptom and not the crime and it fails to get to the root cause of the problems facing America. We need to reform our capitalist system. It is important to remember that Adam Smith connected ethics to economics. Smith came to his philosophy of economic behavior described in The Wealth of Nations through his view of moral behavior espoused in his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Smith, who is generally regarded to be the founder of free market economics, posited that rational self-interest informed by moral judgments based on fairness and justice would lead to promoting the best interests of society guided by the invisible hand of the marketplace. What is missing from the calculation of recent economic decision making is ethical decision making. We must ask: What are the rights of shareholders and other stakeholders and what are the obligations of CEOs and boards of directors to those parties? How is it in the best interest of shareholders for CEOs to walk away with multi-million severance packages even after leaving a failed firm?

The bottom line is ethical behavior cannot be legislated. It comes from within and a desire to do what is right for society and not to act solely in one’s own self-interests. This is where graduate business schools that train tomorrow’s corporate leaders have an important role to play. The curriculum of every business school should include courses in ethics, leadership, and corporate social responsibility. Even today some of the best schools follow the historical model of teaching the technical skills while shying away from the “touchy-feely” material. Yet it is the latter that plays an integral role in returning America to its core role of promoting economic welfare for all.

The nature of the present economic crisis and Wall Street protests illustrates the need for departures from uncontrolled self-dealing that has infected corporate America and Wall Street. As they say in Texas, “That Dog Won’t Hunt.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on November 4, 2011

Will Teaching about LGBT in California Elementary Schools Lead to Cyber-bullying?

Unintended Consequences of Teaching Kids about LGBT Lifestyle

On July 14, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a measure requiring California public schools to teach the historical contributions of gay Americans. Supporters of the new law believe teaching gay history will help to foster tolerance on campus. UC Berkeley professor Tina Trujillo says a change in instruction can shift students' opinions on a given subject.

"We already have state law that mandates that we teach about women, that we teach about Asian-Americans, that we teach about various other groups, marginalized and non-marginalized, Trujillo says. And the intention behind that law is to make sure that students develop a well-rounded understanding in their communities."

Not everyone is supportive. Randy Thomasson is with the nonprofit group Save California, and he says teaching gay history will simply distract students and teachers. "This is not tolerant, it's promoting something," Thomasson says. "If you go into a classroom with second graders and say, 'Let me tell you about a man, who was really attracted to other men,' those kids will squirm, they'll bust up laughing. Why? They're not even sexually developed."

But others, like Judy Elliot, say it's about empowering kids. Elliot is in charge of curriculum for the Los Angeles Unified School District. She says teaching about influential gay and lesbian leaders sends a message to gay and straight students that they have promising futures. She says teachers should no longer side-step the issue.

Recently, the new law was extended to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender lifestyles (LGBT) and it must be taught as of January 2012. I have previously blogged about the insensitivity of some to this not-so-well-known alternative lifestyle. I believe young children should know about it but I am concerned about unintended consequences of teaching it to children in elementary schools. The moral development of children proceeds in stages according to the famed cognitive developmental psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. I believe most kids during their kindergarten to twelfth grade years are self-centered and may not be ready to accept alternative LGBT lifestyles. They should do so, as should we all. However, the possibility exists that by drawing attention to LGBT contributions to America in history classes the result may be to inadvertently foment underlying distaste for such lifestyles, perhaps instigated by unaccepting parents. In an age of cyber-bullying, I worry about the unintended consequences of teaching about such controversial subject matter that may be looked at as out of the mainstream by immature kids.

Of equal concern is that school districts will have little help in navigating this sensitive and controversial change, which has already prompted some parents to pull their children out of public schools. The California Legislature suspended all adoptions of instructional material through eighth grade until 2015 to save money. Any new textbook with LGBT content is not likely to land in schools until at least 2019 because that process usually takes a minimum of four years, according to a state Education Department spokeswoman.

The transition should be easier in L.A. Unified, which has been a pioneer in LGBT education. The school board passed a resolution directing students and school staff to refrain from slurs about sexual orientation as far back as 1988. In 2005, L.A. Unified used the nation's first chapter in a high school health textbook on LGBT issues covering sexual orientation and gender identity, struggles over them and anti-LGBT bias. A section on misconceptions says sexual orientation is not a choice — a statement many religious conservatives disagree with.

So sensitive is the subject that a children's picture book about a same-sex penguin pair is one of the most controversial books in America today. "And Tango Makes Three" — based on a true story about two male penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo that bond, hatch a surrogate egg and raise a baby together — has drawn the most complaints and requests for removal from library shelves nearly every year since its 2005 publication, according to the American Library Assn.

On a recent morning, teacher Jane Raphael invited her two dozen kindergartners, first-graders and second-graders to sit in a circle and tell a story about their family. The students described a cross section of modern-day America: moms and dads and athletic siblings, crazy dogs, a cat named Lulu, a fish that died, divorced parents, a girl with two mommies. There was no discussion about sex or gay lifestyles. The exercise simply underscored that families come in all sizes, shapes and configurations. I believe this may be a valuable alternative to consider. Rather than treat LGBT as something different that requires a special mandate to teach, why not include it in discussions about the diversity of families in today’s society?

Perhaps middle and high schools are a different matter. Sex education begins in fifth grade, so more specific LGBT instruction may be appropriate — and necessary, experts say, as bullying steps up in these years. That happened at Downtown Magnets High School, where a lesbian student was beaten up on a school bus in 2005. The school responded by launching an anti-bullying poster campaign, a Gay-Straight Alliance club, staff sessions about inclusiveness and a conscious effort by some teachers to integrate LGBT issues into instruction. This is a more effective way to address intolerance, I believe, – through school sanctioned programs and student-oriented advocacy groups. Why not have experts come to campus and make a presentation to the student body discussing alternative lifestyles?

Why does everything have to go through the curriculum at a time when, according to Common Core, a high school advocacy organization, a majority of high school students know little about U.S. history? On a multiple choice test given by Common Core, less than half of high schoolers knew when the Civil War was fought. They didn’t even know the exact dates, just that it was sometime between 1850 and 1900. Other findings were: 10 percent thought that Adolf Hitler was a munitions manufacturer and not a dictator responsible for killing millions of Jews; one in four thought Columbus discovered the New World after 1750, which would be after Plymouth Rock, Jamestown and other early American developments; and about half have no idea why the Federalist papers were written, picking choices like “to win approval for the Revolutionary War” or to “confirm George Washington’s election as the first President” instead of to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn’t we make sure students know about and identify with American history as a way of understanding where we came from and where we are now? Wouldn’t students be better off if teachers discussed discrimination in any form, including based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, along with discrimination that occurred during the Civil War years and slavery? Let’s not forget that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Blog Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 31, 2011

Blame Corporate America and Wall Street for “Class Warfare”

Occupy Wall Street Protesters Motivated by Corporate Greed and Fraud

This blog first appeared as an opinion editorial in the online version of the Pacific Coast Business Times on October 21, 2011.

At the Value Voters Summit on Friday, October 7, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said he is "increasingly concerned" by "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations which began in New York and spread to other major cities. Cantor used part of his address to attack the Occupy Wall Street protests, and he condemned political leaders who are supporting them.

"This administration's failed policies have resulted in an assault on many of our nation's bedrock principles," he said. "If you read the newspapers today, I, for one, am increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and the other cities across the country. And believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans. But you sent us here to fight for you and all Americans."

Unfortunately, some have joined the protesters for their own reasons and to vent their individual anger. Others have used the park near Wall Street at which they are protesting as a place to eat, sleep and generally make a mess of the area. This is wrong and disrupts innocent people going about their daily work. Still, we should not lose sight of what the protests are really about. Cantor, like so many Republicans, has misread the true message of the protesters. I add my voice to the protestors and believe the underlying motivation is to speak out about what is the true cause of the economic decline in the U.S., the financial difficulties facing our nation, high unemployment, and the general malaise that exists on Main Street about the future of our country. It is the greed that infected corporate America in the 1990s and early 2000s by the Enron’s and WorldCom’s. It is the fraud and corrupt policies of these companies and institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is the hyped securitized mortgages that were sold off by financial institutions to unsuspecting investors. It is the ill-advised mortgages made by commercial banks that ignored home buyer ability to repay the mortgage because the banks sold off these mortgages along with the related risk of default. Wall Street investment firms that held these securities hedged their bets by purchasing credit default swaps from AGI thereby betting on both sides of the coin. It is the Ponzi-schemers such as Bernie Madoff. I could go one but you get the point.

If there is a class warfare that has developed in the U.S. it is because the selfish policies of these institutions caused the financial meltdown, economic recession, and massive loss of jobs – all through no fault of us who play by the rules. The unemployed didn’t cause the crisis. Sure, some people overspent and got too deeply in debt, but that was due in part to the belief fostered by the actions of these institutions that the good times would keep rolling along. Instead, the bubble burst and it was the average American that was left holding the bag.

The Republicans attack over-regulation in the form of Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley that, they claim, has created an uncertainty and unwillingness to expand economically by the very companies being regulated. That may be so and there is no denying it is a problem. However, the Republicans need to look in the mirror of those being regulated to see the face of who created the need for more regulation.

Our free market capitalistic system is based on the notion that by acting out of self-interest, business will create a better economic climate for all Americans. Well, it is just not working out as intended by Adam Smith. According to a survey by salary.com, the average salary and benefits paid to the CEOs of the Standard & Poor’s top 500 companies in 2010 was $11.4 million. The average CEO earned 343 times more than typical workers.

Very little has been said this election year cycle about how much the financial crisis has cost the average American in lost wealth. Well, hold on to your chairs as you look at the data provided by The Pew Charitable Trust that covers the period between 2008 and 2009:

• $100,000: Cost to the typical American family in combined losses from declining stock and home prices
• $5,800: Average household income loss resulting from declining economic growth
• $14,200: Average household loss in wealth caused by plunging real estate prices
• $66,200: Average stock market losses for households from July 2008 to March 2009
• $2,050: Average household cost to pay for TARP, the main government program to shore up the economy

Oh, and Representative Cantor, his net worth went from $2.2 to $7.6 million during 2008 to 2009, and he ranks 60^th in the House with respect to personal wealth.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 24, 2011

Troy Davis and Capital Punishment Revisited

Time to End Capital Punishment

I previously blogged about the Troy Davis execution and how I thought it was now time to end capital punishment in the U.S. I was interviewed by TheGrio.com, the first African American news video community featuring original videos and articles on breaking news in opinion, politics, health, money, and other societal issues. The article by Amelia McGriff explores the changing views in society about capital punishment, including mine. Here is that article.

By Amelia McGriff; 10/17/11

Did Troy Davis change death penalty opinion?

Americans and their ever changing stance on capital punishment is prophetically described with an executed man's words:"The struggle for justice doesn't end with me. This struggle is for all the Troy Davises who came before me, and all the ones who will come after me!"

After numerous appeals and more than 20 years on death row, Troy Anthony Davis was executed in Georgia nearly four weeks ago for the 1989 murder of Savannah Police Officer Mark MacPhail.

His supporters continue to stand behind him and sayhis death will crucify capital punishment. Some of those same men and women have taken over Woodruff Park in Atlanta, renaming it Troy Davis Park.The takeover is part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but at the same time is part of a growing push around the country to take the fight against the death penalty from closed doors into the public for past, future, and current Troy Davises.

"One of the homeless men in the park spoke to us about being on death row for 26 year before DNA evidence exonerated him," said Shabnam Bashiri. "Cases like his and Troy Davis put things in perspective when you add a face to people who were wronged by the justice system"

A face to the wronged and falsely accused is how activists describe the fuel for the firestorm of awareness that ensued before Davis execution, and they credit it for a new perceived sway in America's view of capital punishment.

In fact the number of Americans who approve of the death penalty is at thelowest level of support since 1972, according to the Gallup Poll.  Sixty-one percent of Americans who took the poll days after Troy Davis' execution approved of capital punishment for a person convicted of murder, down from 64 percent the previous year.

Steven Mintz, an Ethics Professor at California Polytechnic State in San Luis Obispo, California is among those who say Troy Davis' execution was a metamorphosis of sorts. "I used to believe in an eye for eye justice, but now I'm more like Ghandi, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind," said Mintz.

The execution of a man he perceived to be innocent was the final blow that convinced Mintz to believe inmates should be given the chance to rehabilitate and become contributing members of society. His concern is also for families like the MacPhail family who waited two decades for closure, strung along with each appeal and stay.

"What if this was my daughter or my wife who were wronged? I still wouldn't want the death penalty imposed on someone else. I would prefer to know this person would be in jail for the rest of their lives, no parole," said Mintz, who has now begun to research and blog about the death penalty, says it's impossible to ignore race in death penalty cases because African-Americans are targeted for the prison system.

In his research he tracked the 2010 census and points out blacks make up 35 percent of the population and 12.6 percent are behind bars.

Amnesty International, one of the groups that worked to save Troy Davis, says it's incredible how word about Davis spread and made people more aware of social injustices around them. Laura Moye the Death Penalty Abolition Campaign Director for Amnesty says the case can't be compared to any she's ever seen before and isn't surprised if it has enticed Americans to second guess their opinions. She says the case gave the anti-death penalty movement momentum that must be continually built upon to reach its full potential.

"It's clear to us the state of Georgia did a better job at proving the point we been trying to make for decades. This is what happens when you give states the power to decide life or death. The innocent are killed."

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 19, 2011

Pacific Coast Business Times Op ed - September 30, 2011

Cal Poly Faculty Votes to End International Business Program

This item first appeared in the Pacific Coast Business Times on September 30, 2011 (http://pacbiztimes.com/2011/09/30/guest-oped-cal-polys-international-business-program-closed-to-detriment-of-students/)

By a vote of 34 to 17, the business faculty at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo voted to end its separate international business concentration in the Orfalea College of Business. The vote comes after a year of acrimonious debate about the future of the program. On one side were a few international business-teaching faculty who fought to keep the program. On the other was the Undergraduate Programs Committee that, quite frankly, became fed up dealing with what the Committee felt were difficult and uncooperative faculty. The Committee cited a lack of interdisciplinary faculty involvement in the program and the failure to adequately assess learning goals in the degree concentration.

Prior to the vote, a faculty forum took place at which one representative from each side presented the case for keeping or ending the program. I spoke on behalf of the minority – the faculty who wanted to keep the program. I became involved because I teach a course in International Accounting and I am a strong supporter of comprehensive international business education. Some faculty argued that elements of international are covered in existing courses. While that may be true, and this is a good thing, we are in 2011 and the U.S. is on the verge of losing its position as the global economic leader. In a short period of time we have witnessed the emergence of China as a world economic leader; India is on the same track; and Brazil and other green-energy producers are becoming leaders in developing alternative energy sources. A separate international business program sends the message to students and employers that we value a global perspective in our curriculum.

I made the following points at the faculty forum:

• Cal Poly needs to meet the accreditation standards of the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. The AACSB concluded in a recent study of internationalization of the business curricula that “It is a foregone conclusion that businesses expect business schools to prepare graduates for the global environment.”
• Cal Poly students want the choice of a separate international business curriculum (11.4% of students declared International Business as a concentration last year.)
• Employers want Cal Poly students to have a strong background in international to support their possible movement into international markets.
• U.S. colleges and universities have seen a tremendous increase in international students studying business and engineering in recent years. Evidence suggests the two fields' overwhelming popularity is driven by students' views of which U.S. programs will offer them the best preparation for a good job. About 40 percent of the nearly 700,000 international students in the U.S. last school year were in either business and management or engineering, according to the latest statistics from the Institute of International Education (http://www.iie.org/).

According to an e-mail sent by Dean Dave Christy to the business school faculty after the vote,
“As was stated on the ballot, junior and senior students currently in the IB concentration will be enabled to complete it.  I will ask the advising center to indicate to first and second year students that IB will not be a concentration option for them, pending appropriate review by the Academic Senate.  I will ask our Senate Caucus [and faculty representatives] to work with the Senate on that process, and I will consult with Senate Chair.”

The vote to end the international business program at Cal Poly was motivated by politics and not the interests of our students and employers, the main stakeholders of the program. The fact that an administrative body cannot get along with discipline-based faculty is not a good reason to end a popular, important business curriculum option. To be fair, these faculty could have, and should have, respected the position of the Undergraduate Programs Committee and gone the extra mile to provide what was asked for on a timely basis, even if they felt the requests were unreasonable.

From my perspective this issue has brought out the worst in academic governance where decision-makers on one side take actions based on perceived problems with the leaders of “the other side,” and use issues such as assessment to rationalize their decisions. Rather than solving the problem like adults, the faculty chose to stand by their biases and kill the international business program. The students and potential employers are the losers in this process.

Pacific Coast Business Times Op ed - September 9, 2011

UCLA Accepts $10 million gift from Michael Milken

This blog first appeared as an opinion editorial in the Pacific Coast Business Times (http://pacbiztimes.com/2011/09/09/ucla-sells-its-soul-for-milken%E2%80%99s-gift/) on September 9, 2011.

UCLA announced last month a $10 million gift from Lowell Milken to establish a business law institute in his name. The university described him as a “pioneer in education reform” and a “leading philanthropist.” Many faculty have welcomed the gist at a time when state funds have been drastically reduced to fund hiring education in California. Supporters of the gift add he served his time for his 1990 guilty plea for securities laws violations. Still others criticize the University for accepting the gift from a convicted felon. The ethical question is whether it is appropriate to accept major funding from someone who committed a major crime and paid his debt to society.

Let me beginning with a brief history lesson. Milken was a pioneer in the development of the market for high-yield bonds that became known as junk bonds during the 1970s and 1980s. He was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and securities fraud in 1989 as the result of an insider trading investigation. He pled guilty to six securities and reporting violations but was never convicted of racketeering or insider trading. Milken was sentenced to ten years in prison and permanently barred from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The presiding judge reduced his sentence for cooperating with testimony against his former colleagues and good behavior; he was released after less than two years.

Milken’s critics point to him as the symbol of Wall Street greed during the 1980s, and nicknamed him the Junk Bond King. Supporters point to his philanthropic activities since that time. He co-founded the Milken Family Foundation and philanthropies funding research into melanoma, cancer and other life-threatening diseases. In a November 2004 cover article, Fortune magazine called him "The Man Who Changed Medicine" for his positive influence on medical research.

One of UCLA’s top business law professors, Lynn Stout, criticizes the gift because it threatens the reputation of the institution. She is quoted in a New York Times article as having written the following to the president and chancellor of UCLA: “The creation of a Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy will damage my personal and professional reputation, as I have devoted my career to arguing for investor protection and honest and ethical behavior in business.” Stout, a specialist in corporate governance and moral behavior, decried the short memory of the public with respect to Milken’s business history.

My one criticism of Stout’s position, based on the quote, is the personalization of her position. It will damage her personal and professional reputation. I imagine she extends the argument to harming that of UCLA as well. Still, ethical positions should de-emphasize what is in an individual’s self-interest and focus on the good for stakeholders of the university. Proponents of the gift point more for the need for funds to support faculty activities at a time of severe budget cuts but the bulk of the funds are targeted for a business law institute in his name. Doesn’t anyone see the irony in having a business law institute named after a person who violated a securities law? What message does this send to students at UCLA? Is it that a person can commit a serious crime and then gain stature from naming an institute designed to study the harms to society from those who commit such crimes?

Milken’s self-serving behavior also generated controversy at UCLA in 1984 after the University severed its ties with an education company controlled by him that planned to sell videotapes of a lecture series he gave at the school. The company agreed to remove any identification of UCLA from the tapes after the school said it received many complaints from state officials who did not want the university’s name associated with Mr. Milken.

Precedents exist for a major university to refuse gifts from corporate wrongdoers like Milken. In the 1980s, Princeton returned money from Ivan Boesky to build a Jewish Center after the government charged the Wall Street financier with insider trading crimes. Seton Hall removed the name of L. Dennis Kozlowski from an academic building in 2005, after the conviction of the former Tyco chief executive for looting his company.

My opinion is UCLA has sold its soul in accepting Milken’s gift. The message is convicted felons can profit from such crimes simply by donating money large enough to make the recipient overlook the offenses. In accepting the largest single gift in the University’s history, the UCLA School of Law stated it will enable “the law school to meet and exceed its ambitious $100 million fundraising goal well ahead of its original five-year schedule.” I suppose UCLA then believes the ends justify the means.

It is Time to End Capital Punishment

The Ethics of Capital Punishment

Troy Anthony Davis was executed on September 21 having exhausted all avenues of appeal of his death sentence in August 1991. Davis allegedly murdered police officer Mark MacPhail in Savannah, Georgia. MacPhail was working as a security guard at a Burger King  restaurant when he intervened to defend a man being assaulted in a nearby parking lot. During Davis’ 1991 trial, witnesses testified they had seen Davis shoot MacPhail, and two others testified that Davis confessed to them. Although the murder weapon was not recovered, ballistic evidence presented at trial linked bullets recovered at or near the scene to those at another shooting in which Davis was also charged. By all accounts Davis was at the scene but he had an accomplice who may have been the shooter in both incidents. Davis was convicted of murder and various lesser charges, including the earlier shooting and sentenced to death.

The case drew international attention because seven of nine eyewitnesses signed affidavits changing or recanting all or part of their testimony. Prosecutors argued that it was too late to introduce new evidence that might not even be reliable twenty-two years later. Davis maintained his innocence right up to the time of his execution.

I used to believe capital punishment was warranted for certain heinous crimes such as serial killing, murdering a police officer, and particularly gruesome crimes. Now I have doubts. Like any good professor I discussed these doubts with my ethics class. On the one hand, the taking of a life in such incidents can be ethically supported by the concept of “retributive justice.” Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers that punishment, if proportionate, is a morally acceptable response to crime, with an eye to the satisfaction and psychological benefits it can bestow to the aggrieved party, its intimates and society. However, after reflecting on the circumstances of Troy Davis’ execution and how it affects society I have changed my mind and here is why.

As an ethicist I looked at the issue from a utilitarian perspective. Simply stated, utilitarianism focuses on the consequences that actions or policies have on the well-being ("utility") of all persons directly or indirectly affected by the action or policy. The principle states: "Of any two actions, the most ethical one will produce the greatest balance of benefits over harms." Who benefits from Davis’ execution? The family? Society? I’m not sure. If I had a family member murdered I don’t think I would want to wait twenty years for “justice” during which time appeals are heard, new evidence possibly admitted, and a roller-coaster ride of emotions ensues wondering whether the execution will be stayed at some point in time all the way up to the moment of execution as was the case with Davis. I’d prefer that the killer had been given a life sentence without the possibility of parole and would have the rest of his or her life to reflect on the morality of the deed.

The Report of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice recently issued a study of the extra cost to house an inmate on death row. “The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.” Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The number of cases of innocent people released from years after being found guilty of a crime has skyrocketed since the establishment of the Innocence Project. You may have heard about a Texas man imprisoned 30 years ago on aggravated robbery charges that had his conviction overturned in January after DNA evidence exonerated him. Dallas County Judge Don Adams overturned Cornelius Dupree Jr.’s conviction clearing his name officially. Dupree had served more years in a Texas prison for a crime he did not commit than anyone else in the state who was later exonerated by DNA evidence. Only two other people exonerated by DNA have spent more time in prison in the entire country, the Innocence Project said. Texas has freed 41 wrongly convicted prisoners because of DNA testing since 2001, more than any other state.

Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, over 60% of the world's population live in countries where executions take place, inasmuch as thePeople's Republic of China, India, USA, and Indonesia, the four most populous countries in the world, continue to apply the death penalty (although in India and Indonesia it is used only rarely). Is this the company we want to keep? Australia, Canada and the European Union and other English-speaking countries do not permit executions.

I close with a quote from Katherine Fullerton Gerould from her 1920 book, Modes and Morals. “Many of us do not believe in capital punishment, because thus society takes from a man what society cannot give.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on September 26, 2011

A Pledge For Online Video Responsibility – A Video Code Of Ethics

A Pledge For Online Video Responsibility – A Video Code Of Ethics

By Grant Crowell
Source: A Pledge For Online Video Responsibility - A Video Code Of Ethics http://www.reelseo.com/pledge-for-online-video-responsibility/#ixzz1VU5EP7fd
©2008-2011 ReelSEO Video Marketing

I have been involved in developing a code of ethics in the form of a pledge to meet one's responsibilities for online video marketing. In order to gain wide exposure for the "pledge," I am posting on my two websites -- Ethics Sage and Workplace Ethics Advice. It is long but well worth a read. Here are ways to use or adapt the code to your online business or for general educational purposes:

• We don’t expect anyone to sign the Pledge but, instead, to commit to its principles
• The Pledge can be used as an educational tool to sensitize young people to their obligations when posting online videos and other communications on the Internet including blogging
• The Pledge can serve as a prototype for more profession-specific pledges of responsibility such as marketing and communicating online services
• The Pledge can be used by online video groups to set the proper ethical tone within the organization.

Preamble

Our central mission is to create an environment in the online video space built on mutual respect and trust. We believe that anyone who participates with online video – be they a professional or enthusiast, a creator or contributor, a service provider or user, a publisher or marketer, analyst or blogger, evangelist or critic, entertainer or newscaster – carries a obligation to be mindful of others and behave in an ethically responsible manner. We realize that doing so is essential to providing healthy growth for online video as an industry, and for each of us as part of a larger community.

We also realize that online video provides us with many benefits, some of which we have grown to depend on. That is why we must be committed to keeping online video a prosperous industry; and it starts with each of us making a commitment to learning, practicing, sharing, and leading with responsible online video activities.

For these reasons and others, I solemnly pledge to do no harm to others through my online videos and to act in an ethical manner with any and all online video activities, be they of a personal or professional nature.

I Pledge To Do The Following:

I will not encourage “cyber-bullying”

• I will not video record and post a video online of anyone I know is being intimidated, harassed, assaulted, or harmed in any way that 1) the person neither gave their consent to do so, 2) I cannot defend as being news-worthy, or 3) I am not willing to share as evidence of criminal activity with law enforcement or other local authority figures.
• I will not harass, threaten, or intentionally defame anyone in an online video I am responsible in any way for creating.
• I will not harass, threaten or defame anyone with my comments posted in or around an online video, or linking to an online video.
• I will not create or publish any video to encourage personal attacks against any person or persons featured in a video, or referred to in a video.
• I will not create, publish, or promote any video that is done for the primary intention of causing emotional suffering to someone else.
• I will alert authorities to any act of cyber-bullying captured through online video, and gather and report relevant evidence to local authorities.

I will fully respect others right to privacy

• I will not video record a private individual without that person’s permission.
• I will not edit or remix a video meant for online consumption that involves individuals who are not public figures, or not in a situation that a reasonable person would deem to be “news-worthy,” without each of those individuals’ expressed consent (including wavering their privacy rights).
• I will not share nor distribute a video created by anyone else that is marked “private;” and is not already on a public website, or any publicly accessible location on the Internet.

I will respect the special protection of minors

• I will never video record minors without the expressed permission of parent or guardian responsible for the minor’s well-being.
• I will never video record on a school campus where minors are present, without the expressed permission of the parent or guardian, and of the school administration.
• I will never exploit a minor for personal gain by recording, creating, editing, publishing, distributing or promoting a video featuring any children.

I will respect others’ reputation

• I will not set out to portray anyone in a situation that would appear to a reasonable audience as being highly inappropriate or offensive.
• I will not portray anyone in a false light, nor set out to harm anyone’s reputation or character.

I will respect others’ right of publicity

• I will not use anyone’s image or likeness in my video to imply that they are endorsing or promoting the message of the video without first getting written permission from that person or persons.
• I will not use any video of a person’s image or likeness for commercial or promotional purposes without first securing a signed written permission.

I will read and follow video service provider guidelines

• I will commit to providing any service provider community, including YouTube and other video-sharing-sites (free or paid), video platforms, social media websites, and community-based websites, with my best efforts to comply with both their Community Guidelines and their Terms of Service.
• I will make an effort to notify such service providers of any online videos I come across that I find to be patently offensive and potentially harmful to others, and that may violate the service provider’s guidelines

I will be transparent

• I will reveal my true identity (my actual full name) in any video I publish and in any comments around any video that I may post (either publicly or privately).
• I will provide my audience with a legitimate means of contacting me for any video I post to a public site, and for any online comments to a video or video-sharing site.
• I will be honest with others about my true intentions with shooting and publishing video that involves either private or public individuals, or groups.
• I will inform the affected parties when I am being paid by an advertiser or other sponsor.

I will show a respect the truth and the facts

• I will respect the authenticity of the video images and the message.
• If a video is meant to be a parody or a satire, I will clearly state in plain view of my intended audience that it should be treated as such.
• I will not identify my video with false headlines, thumbnails, keywords, or other copy as a means of misleading my audience as to the actual content and purpose of the video.
• Differences of opinion with others in my video will be dealt with by clearly differentiating between what is my opinion and the provable facts.
• In all matters pertaining to video recording public and private individuals, I will maintain my objectivity and integrity at all times.

Legal Responsibilities

• I am committed to understanding copyright law and the term “Fair Use” to determine the circumstances of when I can feature someone else’s copyrighted work in my video without attribution.
• When so required, I will properly attribute other people’s work in my own video
• I commit to understanding what is meant by “Creative Commons” and identifying how to secure the permission to use other person’s copyrighted work that I will use in my video
• I will obey all licensing guidelines for featuring other people’s videos or any form of media in my own video creation.
• I will learn the basics of trademark law, so as not to misuse another person’s trademark rights in my video or to confuse the public.
• I will seek legal advice, when necessary to ensure compliance with Trademark and Copyright laws and the intellectual and other rights of others with a valid claim under these Laws.
• I will learn about local, state and federal laws that govern the creation, publication, and distribution of online video and commit to following such Laws.
• I will follow legislation involving or affecting online video, or news sources that provide information on such legislation.
• I commit to respecting the rights of others and to intervene when necessary when Laws violate such rights and to act at all times in a socially responsible manner.
• If I am a witness to anyone in the act of video recording an unwilling participant (who is not a public figure and not in a situation that a reasonable person would consider to be “news-worthy,”) I will inform the videographer of the inappropriate action and/or report the incident to law enforcement.
• I will engage others in the online video community in a dialogue to emphasize the rights of all parties and the obligations of those who record, create, edit, publish, distribute, or otherwise promote a videos

Ethical Obligations

My actions are guided by these principles:

• To build trust in those who rely on my independence and objectivity in making and evaluating online videos of others
• To act in a responsible manner and always consider the consequences of my actions before making decisions
• To defend my actions if questioned by others, or if they were to appear in any public media or venue.
• To encourage others to join me in using online video responsibly, thoughtfully, and respectfully – both towards others and ourselves

Special Thanks and Helpful Links

A special thanks goes out to my two editorial advisors on this Pledge For Online Video Responsibility:

• Professor Steven Mintz, Professor at California State Polytecnic State University. Steve has covered and taught ethics for over 20 years. He also runs the blogs Ethics Sage and Workplace Ethics Advice – which cover modern ethics issues in business and society.  (Steven recently featured me in his article, “Cyber-bullying Through Social Media Threatens School Safety.“)

Source: A Pledge For Online Video Responsibility - A Video Code Of Ethics http://www.reelseo.com/pledge-for-online-video-responsibility/#ixzz1VU524bSK
©2008-2011 ReelSEO Video Marketing

Reposting by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on August 19, 2011

The Ethics Party -- A New Direction in American Politics

 Republican, Democrat, and Tea Parties Lack the Foundation of Ethics to Lead the U.S.

I believe we need a revolution in this country. Not a military or citizens' revolt. Not a violent revolution. Instead, a revolution of thought. It is in this vein that I offer up the Credo of a new political party -- The Ethics Party. Let me know what you think...

"We, the American people, in expressing our free speech rights and holding our representatives in Congress responsible for their actions, form a new political party -- The Ethics Party. We do so because none of the current parties represent the values we aspire to and insist they be applied to rebuilding the foundation of our great nation. We are deeply disappointed in our "leaders" in Washington. We abhor the arrogance displayed every time a party leader lays blame for our economic problems, including excessive spending and the accumulated budget deficit, on the other party. These leaders are so disconnected from the American people that we believe nothing short of a new political party can begin to address the economic decline, loss of respect in the world, and the abandoning of the foundational values that built our great nation. The battle cry of  The Ethics Party is: If you believe in these values -- honesty, integrity, personal responsibility, fairness, caring, respect, civic virtue and the work ethic -- we want you on our side as we try to change the direction of this country we love so much.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on August 8, 2011

Goals of Workplace Ethics Advice

Workplace Ethics Advice Answers Your Questions

I have started a new blog on “Workplace Ethics Advice.” This blog expands on the Ethics Sage website to provide reasoned advice how best to deal with workplace ethics issues. Workplace ethics issues may include:

• What to do when you suspect financial wrongdoing by a supervisor or top management
• What to so when you have been told to do something you feel is inappropriate
• What to so when you have been asked to do something you feel is inappropriate
• What to do when you have been ordered to keep quiet about a company action
• How to handle workplace stress issues including: perceived sexual harassment; discrimination; excessive expectations; difficult-to-deal-with bosses; other employees taking credit for your work; sabotage by fellow employees; insensitivity to personal issues inside and outside the workplace; unfair performance evaluation reviews    
• Work-family issues 

These are just examples of conflicts that may test your commitment to act ethically in the workplace. When faced with a dilemma the first step should always be to clarify your organization’s policy on handling such matters. For example, some companies have an ethics hotline where you can report issues of concern on an anonymous basis. Some have an ombudsperson to provide guidance on ethics issues. Also, be sure you are aware of the code of conduct in your organization because you don’t want to deal with someone else’s possible code violation while creating your own violation.

YOU CAN CONTACT THE ETHICS SAGE, aka Steven Mintz, AT ANY TIME DURING THE DILEMMA. Sometimes it’s best to contact me for advice immediately after the conflict arises and tell me about any company policy so that I can best understand the context of your situation and outline steps to take right away. 

Once I receive an inquiry from you I will examine all possible alternative courses of action and respond to you within 24 hours. You can then send me a follow-up question to further clarify my advice. In order to help others, if I believe your question has general applicability in the workplace then I may decide to post your question and my answer on the website. I WILL NOT RELEASE YOUR NAME UNLESS YOU EXPLICITLY REQUEST IT OR INDICATE YOU DON’T MIND IF I DO SO. ALL OUR COMMUNICATIONS ARE COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL UNLESS YOU WAIVE THAT PRIVILEGE!

Let me help you to navigate the sometimes rough waters of trying to be a loyal, ethical employee in the face of pressures to do otherwise.

Workplace Ethics Advice post Ethics Sage on July 8, 2011

Cal Poly Ethics Blogs: Lindsey Franz on the Sexualization of Women in the Media

Cal Poly Student Lindsey Franz Examines Objectification of Women in Ads      

This is the second of a two-part series of postings of blogs by my accounting ethics students on the Ethics Sage website. I selected the two because they illustrate the quality of writing and thoughtfulness of students in the Orfalea College of Business at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. Today's blog is by Lindsey Franz on the sexualization of women as portrayed in media advertising. Yesterday's blog was by Carleigh Lake on the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Alright, I get it. Sex sells. Advertisers and executives alike know that nothing sells a product better than tying it back to the old “hanky panky.” The question is, however, at what point does sexuality in advertising become reminiscent of soft porn? At what point do women go from empowered, sexy females to objectified possessions only useful for male pleasure? And at what point do these advertisements truly affect young, vulnerable female minds?

As Julia Wood, author of Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture, suggests, “Highly sexual portrayals of women and, increasingly girls, of all races pervade advertising...(Advertising) repeats the cultural view of women as dependent, ornamental objects who exist to look good, to please men…and to be sexually desirable and available.”

Opening a Victoria’s Secret catalogue, the first thing I notice is the innocence attempting to be portrayed. The women are, of course, clad in lingerie and swimwear, bodies exposed. That isn’t what bothers me though. There is nothing wrong with being a beautiful, fit female. What bothers me is that each of these women maintains a very submissive pose. Many of them look very young and vulnerable, waiting for a man. They fit into the stereotype that 21^st century society has developed over time: to be a real woman is to have your worth based on your sexuality. You must be hot, sexy, appeal to men, and follow their orders. Buying these Victoria’s Secret bras and panties will make you that woman. All you need is a credit card and an all-liquid diet to look this good!

Even worse than advertisements featuring adult women as sex objects are the products and advertisements directed at young girls and preteens. In an article published in USA Today, researchers reported that advertisements and toys, such as the popular Bratz dolls,  “may make girls think of and treat their own bodies as sexual objects.” If you’ve ever seen a Bratz doll, I’m sure you’ve noticed the rather striking resemblance to a blow up doll. With huge lips, excessive eye makeup, and very revealing clothing, these Bratz dolls are marketed to girls as young as age four. A report by the American Psychological Association says, "Although these dolls may present no more sexualization of girls or women than is seen in MTV videos, it is worrisome when dolls designed specifically for 4- to 8-year-olds are associated with an objectified adult sexuality.” Additionally, the increased likelihood of developing eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression is a very scary reality.

Abercrombie and Fitch, a trendy American clothing store that we are all familiar with, has also contributed to the increased sexualization of young girls. In 2002, the company was criticized for promoting a line of thongs for seven-year-old girls. Eight years later, A&F has introduced padded bikinis for the same age group. I believe Washington Square News columnist Atticus Brigham said it perfectly when he made the following statement in his article discussing the bikinis: “Those with undeveloped minds are least deficient in such surface level judgments, and thus it is most dangerous for society to depict their bodies as the paradigm of sexual attractiveness. A developed sense of consciousness and intellectual depth differentiates humans and animals, and thus must be an essential aspect of human sexuality. Children lack these qualities through no fault of their own, and thus should be out of bounds for corporate marketing ploys.” It is one thing to portray an adult woman - who can decide for herself what type of woman she wants to be - as a sex object, but to make an innocent child feel as though she isn’t good enough is completely irresponsible! Media, advertising, and society as a whole, are constantly insulting women and femininity with such images that tend to broaden the gap of inequality between the sexes.

At this point, I know what you’re thinking. Wait, wait, wait! That’s not true! Men and women are equal! Women’s suffrage! Men respect women! Now, don’t get me wrong; I will be the first to agree with anyone who says there have been significant improvements in gender equality over time. Today, however, we are so engulfed in fighting this inequality that we fail to recognize it. We don’t see the forest from the trees. We don’t look twice at the provocative ads in every magazine on every newsstand. Our society is so used to sex that it doesn’t even faze us anymore. Instead, we buy into these images of right or wrong, hot or not. Sexuality in advertising is as common as beer at a college party.

What I want, then, is not for every sexy ad to be removed from the media. I know that these ads sell products much faster than an ad featuring a bald, beer-bellied South Dakotan would. My hope, however, is that men, women, and children alike can look at these ads, understand their implications, and choose whether to follow this mindset of the idealized, yet rather derogatory, roles of females in society. Even more so, I hope that parents constantly remind their daughters that they are beautiful just the way they are, and continue to encourage healthy sexual development, without padded bras and thongs!

We all must consciously understand that media often belittles women, and understand that it is not okay.  Some companies go so far as to use sex as a blatant selling point for their product. One such company is Obscene Jeans. This is a statement from their website. “In his extensive travels through the party capitals of Europe and the U.S., Obscene Jeans founder Robert Federowicz discovered a simple truth about women’s fashion: No matter how late it gets, there is nothing sexier than the perfect pair of jeans. He developed a vision to create sleek, stylish, great fitting, eye-popping jeans with an irresistible appeal for the world’s sexiest women." Now, you make the call: Clever advertising or the blatant use of the message that women are sexual objects to sell a product?

  Blog by Lindsey Franz posted on Ethics Sage, June 10, 2011

Cal Poly Ethics Blogs: Carleigh Lake on Osama's Death

Cal Poly Student Carleigh Lake Ethically Analyzes the Killing of Osama

I am so pleased to use two of my accounting ethics students' ethics blogs on my own blog site because they illustrate the quality of writing and thoughtfulness of students in the Orfalea College of Business at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. Today's blog is by Carleigh Lake on the killing of Osama bin Laden. Tomorrow, Lindsey Franz will blog about the sexualization of women in the media.

As the news of Osama bin Laden’s death ran viral around the world on May 1, 2011, some people rejoiced while others

were disheartened; still others were deeply saddened by the act. My question is: In a world where ethical values have been diminishing for years, how do we respond to the death of Osama?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you can murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.” Through our violence have we increased hatred of the U.S? Is it right to condone the murder of a person because he was a mass murderer himself? Is it right to question such a murder from an ethical perspective?

We live in a society with the basic values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under our laws, Osama Bin Laden should have received a fair trial with a jury present. Some believe that it was unethical to kill him since he was unarmed at the time of his death. Others believe the killing was justified since it was in the best interest of the world and qualifies as retributive justice – “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."

Osama used his followers as a means to an end by having them kill themselves at the same time they were killing others. This is an ethical issue in itself since he was sacrificing his own people in his pursuit of slaughtering his opposition including fellow Muslims. Many have justified Osama’s death as self-defense of not only the American people but the greater, peace-loving world. This is a debatable proposition but we should realize the normal “standards” of warfare that say we should try and take prisoners and not kill them hardly applies in the case of a mass murder of innocent people, all in the name of a cause – or because of hatred of others.

Another ethical aspect to consider is the method in which Osama was buried. John Brennan, chief counterterrorism advisor to President Obama, informed the American people in a statement shortly after the death, that Osama was buried in accordance with “strict conformance with Islamic precepts and practices.” This included burying the body at sea, performing a ritual prayer, washing and shrouding the body and then burial 24-hours after death. This shows respect for a culture and the person himself. However, a contrarian might question whether Muslims should have been allowed to decide what a proper burial in this situation is. Obama’s failure to follow this path can be criticized from the perspective of the virtues of caring and empathy for another. In other words, how would we like it if one of our perceived heroes was given a burial by our very own enemies who killed that person?

Finally, to me the most interesting ethical issue is whether people, the American public, should have been out in the streets celebrating the murder of Osama as if our team had just won the Superbowl? Does that make us any better than those who celebrate in the streets after the capture of an American soldier? Shouldn’t we hold ourselves to a higher standard? President Obama attempted to set the proper somber, not celebratory tone, in his speech informing the nation of Osama’s death. His position that we shouldn’t release photos of Osama's body and circulate them or treat the death and body as some trophy is ethically proper. To do otherwise would have shown disrespect for the Muslim religion and may have stoked the flames that burn inside radical Islam.

We devoted nine years, lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars in the pursuit of one man. True, he is a symbol, perhaps the most glaring symbol, of hatred for America. True, he committed an unspeakable crime on 9-11. However, we must be realistic about what this one killing may do in the war on terrorism. Dr. King said by killing the terrorist you do not kill terrorism. I suppose the message our leaders want is for the world to learn that America will stop at nothing to hunt down a terrorist and bring him to justice, even if the decision is made to kill the individual rather than capture him to avoid dealing with the consequences of a trial and prolonged ridicule. It’s been almost six weeks since Osama’s death and it has all but been forgotten – at least by the media. But let’s not forget that this shouldn’t become part of our national strategy in fighting an enemy that hates us or we risk being labeled the haters ourselves. 

 Blog by Carleigh Lake posted on Ethics Sage, June 9, 2011

Ethics Resources

Ethics Resources for Academics and Business Professionals

Business ethics researchers may want to check out the Ethics Resource Link on my blog site (http://www.ethicssage.com/) that identifies over thirty websites where you can obtain free information about ethics research, business ethics programs, codes of conduct, on-line ethics magazines, newsletters and other valuable resources for academic and business professionals. Also, some of my favorite blogs that deal with ethics, leadership, values-based decision making and accounting and auditing topics are referenced. Thanks to all my loyal supporters who read my blogs. I hope you find them stimulating, informative and enjoyable.

Individuals and organizations that want to learn more about what I do, expert areas for commentary, availability for speaking engagements, ethics consulting, or just to dialogue directly can e-mail me at steve@ethicssage.com.

Posted on May 15, 2011

Biographical Sketch of Dr. Steven M. Mintz, aka Ethics Sage

Dr. Steven M. Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, Available for Interviews and Speaking Engagements

Steven Mintz received his doctorate from The George Washington University. Dr. Mintz is a Professor of Accounting, specializing in ethics and international accounting, in the Orfalea College of Business at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. He currently serves on the Ethics Education Committee of the California State Board of Public Accountancy.

Dr. Mintz enjoys an international reputation as a leader in academic accounting ethics. His co-authored textbook titled Ethical Obligations and Decision Making in Accounting: Text and Cases (2nd edition) is published by McGraw-Hill Irwin. It is used by 40 colleges and universities in the U.S. and around the world. Dr. Mintz has published more than 20 research papers in accounting and business ethics. He has written about and made dozens of presentations to professional, academic groups, and civic organizations on topics as diverse as the loss of civility in society, the declining work ethic, declining educational achievement, sexual harassment in the workplace, workplace ethics, virtue-based character, government ethics, business ethics, and fraud.

Dr. Mintz has written opinion editorial pieces for major publication outlets and was recently interviewed for a N.Y. Times article on work place ethics (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/jobs/24career.html). His ethics blog under the pen name ethics sage is widely read both in and outside the U.S. The website link is: http://www.ethicssage.com.

Research Paper at the Top of the List

My  paper, "Earnings Management: Causes, Techniques, and Transparent Financial Reporting", was recently listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list for CGN: Finance (Topic) and Corporate Governance Educator: Courses, Cases & Teaching eJournal. As of 12/30/2010, my paper has been downloaded 394 times. You may view the abstract and download statistics at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=951098.

11/20/10

Ethics Sage Speaks Out on a Lack of Ethics in Business and Accounting

The "Ethics Sage," aka Steven Mintz, has been writing, speaking out, and blogging about a lack of ethics in business and society by attacking the decline of moral values in society, a vanishing work ethic, pursuit of self-interests mentality, and a tone at the top of organizations that tolerates and even encourages wrongdoing.

(1888PressRelease) November 20, 2010 - Dr. Mintz enjoys an international reputation for research, teaching, and speaking on ethics in business and accounting. He has published two textbooks and dozens of research papers on business and accounting ethics, and corporate governance. He teaches a course on accounting ethics at California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo.

Dr. Mintz is a widely sought out speaker at ethics, professional and academic meetings. He has presented at: The Board of Director and Corporate Governance Research Conference in Henley, England; Global Finance & Research Conference in London; The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Trinidad & Tobago; Association of Asian-Pacific Accountants in Bangkok, Thailand; and the Asian International Business Association in Shanghai, China.

Dr. Mintz has his own blog on ethics issues under the name of Ethics Sage. The website address is: http://www.ethicssage.com. He was recently interviewed by the NY Times for an article on workplace ethics(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/jobs/24career.html.). Dr. Mintz is available for interviews, speaking engagements, and to develop ethics training programs for your organization.

Ethics Sage Press Release

SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA, October 29, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Ethics Sage was interviewed by NY Times reporter Eilene Zimmerman for an article on workplace ethics in the October 24 Sunday Business Times. The website link for this article is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/jobs/24career.html.

Employees often face ethical dilemmas in the workplace because they uncover wrongdoing by a supervisor. The offending party may pressure the employee not to say anything about the matter and not to take the matter to higher levels within the organization. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, provides advice on how to deal with the ethical dilemma in a manner that protects the employee and, at the same time, enables him or her to act in an ethical manner.

Steven Mintz is a professor in the Orfalea College of Business at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. Dr. Mintz teaches ethics and has written two textbooks on ethics in accounting. The latest is Ethical Obligations and Decision Making in Accounting: Text and Cases. The second edition of the book was published by McGraw-Hill Irwin and has a 2011 copyright date. It is used by about 50 colleges and universities. Dr. Mintz has written more than 20 papers on ethics related matters, develops continuing education and ethics training programs for companies and government agencies, and he is a frequent speaker on ethics. His Ethics Sage blog site is: www.ethicssage.com.

The Ethics Sage provides commentary and is available for writing and speaking engagements in all areas related to societal and business ethics. His website is: www.ethicssage.com.