Ethics Sage

What to do if you are a Victim of Financial Elder Abuse

Elder Fraud a Growing Problem

In Tuesday’s blog I talked about elder fraud and recounted the fraud perpetrated against Jim and Miriam Parker who lost nearly $200,000 of their retirement savings to a fraud scheme. In this blog I look at the techniques used against seniors and what can be done to prevent and report elder fraud.

Financial fraud is the fastest growing form of elder abuse. Broadly defined, financial elder abuse is when someone illegally or improperly uses a vulnerable senior's money or other property. Most states now have laws that make elder financial abuse a crime and provide ways to help the senior and punish the scammer.

Elder financial abuse is tough to combat, in part because it often goes unreported. Many elderly victims are often too confused, fearful, or embarrassed by the crime to report it. One recent study reported by Consumers Digest estimated that there are at least 5 million cases of this financial abuse in the United States each year, but law enforcement or government officials learn about only 1 in 25 cases.

Frauds and thefts against the elderly by people they know and trust are surprisingly common. Examples cited by the Justice Department and other sources include stealing money; cashing checks without permission; transferring the ownership of property; committing identity theft; "borrowing" funds without intending to repay; and denying services to the elderly person – even medical care – to pocket the money.

Friends and relatives also have convinced senior citizens to add their name onto bank accounts, living trusts or wills (perhaps as the sole beneficiary) or grant a power of attorney (giving total control over the person's financial affairs).

Signs of Financial Fraud against Elders

Seniors and their loved ones should be very suspicious if they notice any of the following:

• A relative or caregiver becomes extremely interested in the elderly person's financial affairs.
• A caregiver is reluctant to spend money on necessary medical treatment.
• Someone prevents the elderly person from talking on the phone or doesn't pass along phone messages.
• There are unauthorized withdrawals from checking or savings accounts.
• The caregiver claims that some money is "missing." Or, there are new or recently changed legal documents, such as wills or "powers of attorney" that give this other person rights to conduct transactions.

A recent study by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) highlighted characteristics of people older than 50 that make them easy targets for financial abuse. In general, they: expect honesty in the marketplace, are less likely to take action when defrauded, and are less knowledgeable about their rights in an increasingly complex marketplace. And as people over 50 are more likely to be home than their younger neighbors, they are often within easy reach of devious telemarketers and home solicitors.

Scammers target elders that they perceive to be vulnerable -- those that are isolated, lonely, physically or mentally disabled, unfamiliar with handling their own finances, or have recently lost a spouse.

The scam artists often pose as trustworthy helpers. They can be strangers, such as telemarketers and tradespeople, or have a relationship with the targeted victim, such as friends, family members, doctors, lawyers, accountants, and paid or volunteer caregivers. Abusers who are family members often have money troubles that may be made worse by unemployment, gambling, or substance abuse problems.

Common Financial Schemes

Financial scams perpetrated against older people include a broad range of conduct. Here are some common examples.

Telemarketing or mail fraud. The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that dishonest telemarketers take in an estimated $40 billion each year, bilking one in six American consumers -- and the AARP claims that about 80% of them are 50 or older. Scammers use the phone to conduct investment and credit card fraud, lottery scams, and identity theft. Scammers also use the phone to sell seniors goods that either never arrive or are worthless junk.

Getting unauthorized access to funds. In "Sweetheart Scams," alleged suitors woo older people, convincing them that love and care are their motivations for being included on bank accounts or property deeds; the suitors usually disappear along with the property.

Charging excessive amounts of money. Smooth-talking scammers first convince seniors that they need some goods or services and then overcharge them -- often hiding the high cost in extravagant schemes involving interest and installment payments. This tactic is often used for products that many older people might find essential to their quality of life, such as hearing aids and safety alert devices.

Selling bogus items. In the "Rock in a Box" scam a senior is sweet-talked into buying an item, such as a new color television, at a bargain price, that comes in a box that's suspiciously sealed. What the box actually contains is a well-padded rock.

Getting money or property through undue influence or fraud. Many seniors have been duped into parting with their homes or other property because a scammer convinces them it is for their own good. In one infamous case, three officials from the Detroit-based Guardian Inc. were found guilty of embezzlement and fraud after selling a client's house for $500 -- to the mother of a company officer. The company also collected excessive fees from its wards, sometimes as high as 70 percent of their Social Security checks.

Using fraudulent legal documents. Many scammers cloak their actions in legal authority, procuring a power of attorney or will or other legal document giving them access to a senior's property. They get seniors to sign these documents by lying to, intimidating, or threatening the seniors.

Faking an injury scenario. In this situation, a scammer claims to have a connection to law enforcement and tells an elder that a child or other close family member has been seriously injured or is in jail. The scammer then convinces the senior to give him or her money for medical treatment or bail.

Offering false prizes. A good example of this is the "You have won the lottery" scam operating out of Canada. In this scam, thousands of older people were bilked into believing they became wealthy overnight, but had to wire money in "fees and taxes" before they could collect the grand prize. In another version of this scam, con artists tell an elder that he or she has just won a huge cash prize, but needs to send in some money -- usually in money orders -- to free it up from customs officials. This is what happened to the Parkers.

What to do to protect yourself and Loved Ones

The National Fraud Information Center (NCL) provides tips about how to identify common scams and avoid telemarketing fraud. In addition, NCL has information about identity theft, how to get off marketing lists by signing up for the national “do not call” registry at 888-382-1222, and how to protect your personal privacy.

To better understand legal rights for seniors, the National Center on Elder Abuse (NCEA), has prepared a report which focuses on four components of the legal system: the state and criminal justice system, federal investigative and regulatory agencies, the civil legal system, and the victim witness assistance network. Professionals from each system describe challenges they face in handling financial abuse cases and made recommendations for improving each system's response. To view, click here to download it from the NCEA web site.

Other resources include AARP’s website, the Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect which has one issue is solely devoted to elder financial abuse [(Volume 12 Number 2 (2000)], and. A/PACT: Aging Parents and Children Together. This video is produced by AARP and the Federal Trade Commission and focuses on consumer fraud, daily money management, alternatives to guardianship, and so on.

Fraud against the elderly is a cowardly and despicable act that takes advantage of a vulnerable group of people, and it is one that violates every ethical standard imaginable. Unfortunately, it is likely to continue and grow over time because of our aging population. The fact that we have lost our moral compass as a society feeds into the fraud.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on July 7, 2012

Elder Fraud

Fraud Schemes Bilk Elderly out of Savings

This is the first of a two-part blog on elder fraud. Part two will be posted on Saturday.

CNN Money reported the results of a study last week that senior citizens have been getting swindled out of billions of dollars a year, and the trend is only getting worse.

The majority, or 84%, of experts who deal with financial fraud of elders -- including financial planners, medical professionals and social workers -- have noticed an increase in financial abuses this year, according to a survey released by nonprofit organization Investor Protection Trust.

About 58% of the 762 respondents reported that they encountered investment fraud or financial exploitation of seniors "quite often" or "somewhat often." And 96% of experts said elderly fraud is a serious problem.

Meanwhile, research from insurance provider MetLife has found that Americans over the age of 60 lost about $2.9 billion to financial abuse in 2010 -- up 12% from the $2.6 billion lost in 2008.

About half of that fraud was perpetrated by complete strangers, while family, friends and neighbors accounted for about 34% of financial abuse, according to the report. In many cases, fraudsters stole seniors' Medicare or Medicaid benefits -- resulting in losses of $38 million in 2010.

Childhood actor, Actor Mickey Rooney, now in his 90s, elevated the profile of the problem earlier this year when he won a restraining order against his stepchildren. He claimed they used intimidation to get access to his money and later told Congress how that can happen to a vulnerable senior.

According to the Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, "Many seniors have routines, and their predictable patterns make them easier targets for predators. They can be lonely or overly trusting, and we now have many methods by which perfect strangers can communicate with them, often anonymously or posing as someone they are not."

A MetLife Mature Market Institute study also found that elderly women are nearly twice as likely to be victims as men. The majority are between 80 and 89 years old, lived alone and were dependent on some sort of help around the home or with their health care. Caregivers are often in a position where they can easily take advantage of seniors, especially if they have access to their finances, said Cordray.

Most elderly victims of financial abuse don't report fraud because they are either too ashamed, don't realize they are being duped until it's too late to get their money back, or their adult children fail to recognize the problem in time to intervene.

The case of Donna and Jim Parker illustrates how easy it is to scam seniors. The couple ended up on what people in the industry call the "sucker list" perhaps because of donations to some group. Then the scammers proceeded to "reload" them. You've won this multimillion-dollar lottery, they'd say. All you need to do is send us money to cover taxes, and we'll send you your prize.

So on Dec. 8, 2004, Miriam Parker – then 80 – drove herself to the Wal-Mart down the road to send a MoneyGram to Montreal, Quebec.

And so, over a series of calls, Howard Clark – a man with a warm voice who called her "dear" and "sweetheart" – had learned enough personal information about Miriam to convince her that he was the family's ticket to riches.

Other MoneyGrams followed. Then, on Jan. 12, 2005, Miriam sent a Federal Express package to a "Mr. Stewart" on Papineau Street in Montreal. Inside, as instructed, was a magazine with $12,550 in cash sandwiched between its pages.

By May 2005, the Parkers had blown through their savings. They had tapped into their home equity line and had maxed out several credit cards. They were running out of things to give.

Unwittingly, their children had contributed to the problem. When Miriam asked Donna for a $7,000 loan, the daughter thought little of it.

Through most of their marriage, Charles Parker had taken care of the couple's finances. But in 1989, shortly after his retirement, he suffered a heart attack. That was followed by colon cancer. As her husband's health declined, Miriam stepped to the fore.

Faced with mounting debt – and clinging to assurances that a big payday was coming – she was determined to right their financial ship. That's when she became a "money mule." Clark told Miriam that she'd been "hired" by the Canadian sweepstakes company.

On May 5, 2005, a package from Bloomingdale, N.J., containing $8,275 in cash arrived at the Parkers' home. Others followed and in about a week, Miriam Parker would receive and repackage $60,000 in cash for delivery to Mr. Stewart.

Sometimes, there would be two stacks of bills tucked into magazines. The smaller pile was Miriam Parker's "commission."

Howard said she wasn't to tell her children about their dealings. But the kids had already become alarmed by changes in their mother's behavior.

During visits, her son, Jim, noticed that Miriam would race him to the phone, then prevent him from listening to the conversations.

And then there was the need for loans. When Donna asked what for, her parents were evasive.

When the children finally persuaded their mother to get a credit report, the news was jaw-dropping. Their thrifty parents were nearly $200,000 in debt.

The daughter went to the state Attorney General's Elder Fraud Unit. In April 2006, sitting around the family table, the door-bell rang. A FedEx driver handed Jim a crinkly envelope. He knew without opening it what was inside and turned it over to Kirkman, manager of the Elder Fraud Unit in the Attorney General’s office.

When authorities opened the envelope, they found an old issue of Martha Stewart Living magazine. It contained $5,725 in cash from a Visalia, Calif., widow.

Kirkman called a contact at Federal Express, who ordered a stop on deliveries and pickups at the Parker home. But the crooks just switched to United Parcel Service.

And now, in addition to money, they were delivering and picking up car tires and custom rims, and laptop computers worth thousands of dollars — all purchased by other elderly victims.

Ultimately, with the help of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a visit was paid to Dave Stewart. The Jamaican native acknowledged accepting numerous packages from the American lady on behalf of a man whom he knew as "Roger." Stewart said he was paid $100 per package. Professing ignorance of any illegal activity, Stewart agreed to cooperate.

Howard, meanwhile, gave Miriam a new address to which she should forward items. On Aug. 17, 2006, laptops valued at more than $7,200 arrived from Hayward, Calif. She sent them to a "Joseph Reid" in Montreal. Parcels kept coming.

In December 2006, the Parker kids persuaded their parents to grant Donna a limited power of attorney. A month later, she accompanied them to the credit union, where they took out a 30-year, $179,000 mortgage on their home.

The scam unraveled when the FBI ran a sting operation on Howard.

In Raleigh, North Carolina, a federal grand jury handed up a 35-count indictment against Clar, whose real name was Clayton Atkinson, and two co-defendants – Dave Stewart and Jamaal McKenzie, aka "Joseph Reid." The three were charged with one count each of conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen property, seven counts of wire fraud and 26 counts of mail fraud.

In my next blog I will address the issue of what seniors can do if they feel targeted by elder fraud.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on July 3, 2012

 

Should Soda Sizes be limited by Government?

A Healthy Body Can Lead to a Healthy Mind

Following the lead of New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts is considering limiting the size of sodas and sugar-sweetened beverages in city restaurants.

Cambridge Mayor Henrietta Davis proposed the idea at the City Council’s meeting on June 18, saying she brought the idea forward because of the health risks posed by consuming too much soda.

“In addition to being an obesity threat, soda is one of the contributing factors to an increasing rate of diabetes and heart disease amongst younger people,” Davis said.

Davis said the change she had in mind is similar to that recently proposed by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, which would impose a 16-ounce limit on any sugary bottled or fountain drink that contains more than 25 calories per 8 ounces that is served at restaurants, delis, and movie theaters.

The New York City proposal would not affect diet soda or any drink that is at least 70 percent juice, or half milk or milk substitute.

In this blog I raise the question whether the government has the right to prevent its citizens from consuming soda of any kind in any quantity they want including taking advantage of free refills. On the one hand there is no doubt that obesity is a problem in society and scary with respect to obese youngsters. Research has increasingly pointed to sugary beverages as a prime culprit in the nation’s obesity epidemic.

Public health is being threatened by rising diabetes and heart disease rates among younger people and that’s why New York and Cambridge is looking at taking extreme measures such as limiting choices of those who can’t or won’t moderate their own behavior for their own good and that of society.

Beverage and restaurant ­industry leaders say restrictions on the size of sugary drinks are misguided. They believe other outlets exist and there is no effective way to limit the intake of potentially health-threatening-surgery drinks.

To me a person has a right to put whatever they want into their bodies. If we start to limit the ability of youngsters to drink Coca-Cola or other sugary drinks, where does it stop? What about fast food intake? A new study in the Journal of Health Economics found that the U.S. spends more than $190 billion a year on medical costs associated with obesity.

Corporate Accountability International and Dr. Nicholas Freudenberg of The City University of New York have released a report that addresses the rising epidemic of diet-related disease. The report, Slowing Down Fast Food: A policy guide for healthier kids and families, documents ways in which city and county policymakers can address the toll that diet-related disease is taking on their municipalities and on their communities’ health. It offers specific solutions to curb a primary contributor to the problem – the overconsumption of fast food and the ubiquitous marketing of fast food to children.

It seems to me the health hazards of consuming fast food are much greater than a “Big Gulp” at Seven Eleven. For children, over-consumption of fast food can lead to type-two diabetes, asthma, and liver disease. Adult-onset problems include stroke, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Why don't we limit the size of a "Big Mac" or "Whopper"?

The bottom line is parental involvement and education in our schools through health and nutritional programs are the best ways to address the problem of obesity in our youngsters. If parents don’t care, or are obese themselves, then they might buy the 40-ounce soda for their kids.

The sad reality is schools have had to cut nutritional and sports programs that can make a difference because of budget constraints and other priorities. Just as ethics education is important to create a generation of responsible adults, so is health and sports programming (not to mention the arts). Education should address the whole of the individual. A healthy body can lead to a healthy mind.  

Can it be done? Yes and the Texas “fitnessgram" program is proof that health and fitness education can work. The Texas program mandates daily physical education and annual fitness tests for the state's 2.4 million kids ages 8 to 18.

The idea was proposed in part to help combat the state's troubling childhood obesity rates, but this first-of its-kind study also set out to prove physically fit kids make for better students - and the results are in. After the first year officials say Texas school kids are performing better on standardized tests. And as fitness rates rose, absentee rates dropped, and so did reports of discipline problems.

And there is a direct correlation between more cardiovascular activity and better grades. At the top performing schools - where at least 90 percent of the kids pass the state assessments tests - 80 percent of the students are fit. And at the poorest performing schools? Only 40 percent make the fitness grade. Texas officials believe the harder they can push the kids to become more physically fit, the harder the kids will push themselves in the classroom.

Sometimes it’s the kids leading the parents to become more fit. In the embedded video link,   you can watch (after the obligatory advertisement that precedes it) the inspiring story of twelve-year-old Mason Harvey who was teased in school for being overweight until he turned his life around, losing 85 pounds in one year. CBS reporter Byron Pitts interviews Harvey about his own success story and how it motivated him to promote awareness for childhood obesity.

Perhaps not surprisingly programs like Texas’ fitnessgram and Mason’s story gets little news coverage. I suppose media outlets don’t think the public is interested in what might work to curb childhood obesity and focus instead on the problems – not possible solutions.  

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 30, 2012

Are we raising a Generation of Educational Dummies?

A Culture of Incompetence

You’ve heard it before. The test scores and skill level of U.S. students today is abysmal. Results of a global education survey in December 2010 show U.S. high school students come in 26th out of 65 places worldwide in combined scores for math, science and reading tests. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and development (OECD) Program for International Assessment (PISA) suggests that while America lags, Asia soars: Out of the top 10, eight are in the Asia-Pacific region -- led by Shanghai and Hong Kong in China, Singapore, South Korea and Japan. The rise of education in Asia is no accident. It reflects deliberate policies and long-term investments that recognize the centrality of quality education to a nation's economic growth.

Does that mean if we throw more money at the problem the scores of U.S. students will rise? No. It goes a lot deeper than to say teachers are underpaid; classrooms are too full; funding is lagging. There is no question that recent cuts in education budgets in many states have led to a declining education experience. But the problem goes much deeper. It goes to the core of the value-system that now exists in the U.S. that has infected our school children. We have a value system that rewards outrageous behavior by focusing media attention (social/news) on it and knowingly or unknowingly encouraging young people to act out in the same way.

How else can we explain the attention paid to the likes of Charlie Sheen? Have you seen his new commercials about being under house arrest? What about You Tube videos that glamorize stupidity by giving those who post on it their 15 minutes of fame? Then there is reality TV that depicts incivility and we see it in politics all the time such as when a reporter interrupts the President before he can finish a statement.

Today’s high school kids would rather text and surf the Internet for entertainment than buckle down, study the books, and advance their intellect. The hard sciences and math are not valued for the discipline they teach as was the case years ago. Where will we get the leaders in these fields for the future growth and development of our country and will we ever be able to catch up with the Chinese? I don’t think so because the problem goes much deeper.

On June 20, 2012, a Gallup poll was released that shows confidence in America’s public schools has hit a record low, with only 29 percent of respondents expressing “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in them. The number is down 5 percentage points from last year, and represents a 4 percent decrease from the previous low of 33 percent in 2007 and 2008.

It’s true that the declining confidence in America’s public school system follows a year of budget cuts across the country that have forced the elimination of jobs in the education sector, student transportation and after-school programs. Parents nationwide have also been vocal in expressing their frustration with excessive standardized testing and “teaching to the test.” Some place the blame on President George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind Program” for teaching to the test rather than developing the skills needed for success in the 21^st century. But the problem goes much deeper.

A survey of business executives released on February 13, 2012 from medium and large companies across the country shows they believe a growing skills gap combined with drastic increase in college tuition and fees could have negative effects on the American economy. The survey Hiring and Higher Education was conducted by Public Agenda, a research organization focused on public engagement and national problem-solving, and the Committee for Economic Development, an organization of business leaders and university presidents, which focuses on addressing economic and social issues. The executives said education and the workforce is often the first response they give when asked about keeping the U.S. competitive and innovative, and they don’t feel comfortable with the state of either.

What it boils down to is the “mismatch” between what the system is producing and what the economy needs. While other countries produce more science, technology, engineering, and math graduates, the U.S. might be producing “too many liberal arts graduates.” All types of graduates in general lack the skills employers seek: character, interpersonal skills, motivation, and work ethic, and many come with a very undesirable quality: entitlement. Many are incapable of writing a coherent memo, of having a professional conversation, and of dressing appropriately for the workplace.

So, there we have it. Today’s youth do not want to put in the time and effort with their studies to develop the globally-competitive-skills needed to keep America the leader in innovation and advancement in technology and the sciences. The work ethic that made this country great for about 250 years no longer exists. The problem is one of character and immaturity fueled by social media, television, and the movies.

Can we turn things around before it is too late and we find ourselves lagging not only Asian economies but emerging ones such as in the former Soviet Union? I think that train has left the station. Our politicians seem to have no clue and continue to debate old solutions to continuing problems with our education system. The first step in recovery is to admit you have a problem and that hasn’t happened as yet. The discussion is at the margins and not with the core problem of the lack of a work ethic.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 25, 2012

Ethics Education About the Harmful Effects of Bullying

The Golden Rule and Bullying

Recent bullying-related studies suggest there is a strong link between bullying and suicide. Many parents, teachers, and students learn the dangers of bullying and reach out to help students who may be at risk of committing suicide. Though too many adults still see bullying as "just part of being a kid," it is a serious problem that leads to many negative effects for victims including a damaged self-image, a loss of self-confidence and, in the extreme, suicide.

The most recent victim of bullying was Kenneth Weishuhn who, after telling classmates at South O’Brien High School in Paullina, Iowa last winter that he was gay, began to receive voicemail threats on his cellphone. Kenneth had to endure ant-gay slurs and harassment that got so bad that teachers had to stand guard in hallways. On April 15, Kenneth hanged himself in the garage of his home.

The statistics on bullying and suicide are alarming:

• Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people, resulting in about 4,400 deaths per year, according to the Center for Disease Control. For every suicide among young people, there are at least 100 suicide attempts. Over 14 percent of high school students have considered suicide, and almost 7 percent have attempted it.
• Bully victims are between 2 to 9 times more likely to consider suicide than non-victims, according to studies by Yale University
• A study in Britain found that at least half of suicides among young people are related to bullying
• 10 to 14 year old girls may be at even higher risk for suicide, according to the study above
• According to statistics reported by ABC News, nearly 30 percent of students are either bullies or victims of bullying, and 160,000 kids stay home from school every day because of fear of bullying

Bully-related suicide can be connected to any type of bullying, including physical bullying, emotional bullying, cyber-bullying, and sexting, or circulating suggestive or nude photos or messages about a person.

Some of the warning signs of suicide can include:

• Showing signs of depression, like ongoing sadness, withdrawal from others, losing interest in favorite activities, or trouble sleeping or eating
• Talking about or showing an interest in death or dying
• Engaging in dangerous or harmful activities, including reckless behavior, substance abuse, or self injury
• Giving away favorite possessions and saying goodbye to people
• Saying or expressing that they can't handle things anymore
• Making comments that things would be better without them

The question I deal with in this blog is how best to deal with bullying not from the perspective of the person who has been bullied. It’s quite clear that talking to that person and getting counseling and, perhaps, medical help is warranted. It’s also quite clear that schools need to develop tough policies on bullying and hold the bullies accountable for their behavior. As for the target of bullying, people who are thinking about suicide should be proactive and talk to someone right away. They should talk to a parent, sibling, trusted friend and, most important, the school counselor. They can also call a free suicide hotline, such as 1-800-273-TALK (8255).

In a positive sign, more and more schools have adopted a zero tolerance on bullying. Some state lawmakers are even willing to criminalize the behavior. Unfortunately, many young people do not consider the consequences of their actions before acting so I have my doubts about the effectiveness of legal consequences.

I believe education is a must if we are ever to stop bullying in schools and outside the classroom. It must be targeted to include ethics education to help stem the tide of bullying? After all, a sound program of ethics education should be taught in schools even without a past history of bullying. Ethics education at a young age can teach young people values such as respect, responsibility, accountability, caring, compassion, and empathy – all essential characteristics of an ethical person.

Bullying education is not any different from other types of ethics education. The discussion should focus on the rights of the bullied, that is, freedom to be whatever a person wants to be without derision or harmful behavior targeted against that person. We may not like what a person stands for or how one acts, but that person has a right to be that way and as long as the behavior doesn’t harm another, it should be respected and accepted.

Bullying education should teach young people to examine those harms – to the bullied, the family and the school – so that bullies learn that their actions have consequences. A good tool is a video such as the movie “Bully”. It illustrates the harmfulness of bullying and how communities are getting together to stop it. It should be shown to parents as well as to school children, and no age is too young to start the ethics education.

In ethics we teach the universality of one’s actions. It is based on the Kantian categorical imperative that we should act in ways that we would want others to act in similar situations for similar reasons. In other words, we wouldn’t want to be bullied so we should not bully others. It goes back to the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 19, 2012

The Ethics of “Whiskey Plates”

Privacy Rights vs. the Good of Society

One of the benefits of teaching ethics is I often have discussions with my students about issues that I would not otherwise think of. One such case relates to a paper submitted by my one of my students, Sarah Boudaghians. The paper deals with the ethics of “Whiskey Plates”. I start with some of Sarah’s thoughts and then add my own later on.

About one-third of all drivers convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol are repeat offenders. The statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that driving under the influence of alcohol has been a problem for repeat offenders in the U.S. for years. As a way to deter these arrests, various states have begun trying to enact legislation to require a special license plate after an offender’s driving privileges are restored. The plates have been coined “Whiskey plates” or “Party Plates” but others are calling them a scarlet letter.

Ohio was the first state to use the “Whiskey Plates”. The plates are required for one year from the date of offense or until the violator's driver's license is fully reinstated, whichever is longer. Judges have had the discretion to use the “Whiskey Plates” since 1967 but judges rarely utilized the plates. However, in 2004 the plates became a mandated punishment by state law to all DUI offenders.

Some other states that currently require these plates are Minnesota and Georgia, though the duration of usage is different for each state. Minnesota, an early adopter of such a law, uses the letter "W"—hence the term "whiskey plate"—on a plain white background.

The idea behind the plates comes from the idea behind the Scarlet Letter. The goal is to embarrass the offender enough so that the plates will be a deterrent for those thinking of driving under the influence. Supporters of these laws claim they can help law enforcement be on the lookout for potential repeat offenders as well as providing other drivers on the road notice of a potential hazard.

As with most emotionally-charged issues there are many points of view. Extremists believe people who drink and drive should not be able to drive at all, for a certain probationary period, after they have been arrested. Sympathizers believe these plates bring an unfair stigma to those who are attempting to make up for their past actions. One of the important aspects of this problem is there is no proof that these plates are preventing repeat offenders from getting behind the wheel.

There are alternatives to requiring people who have served their time to have a license plate that somehow indicates they have been convicted of a DUI offense. One alternative is interlock devices. An ignition interlock device is an in-car Breathalyzer. The driver blows into a device the size of a mobile phone and if a measurable amount of alcohol is detected, the car won't start.  The Center for Disease Control concluded that the ignition interlock devices reduce re-arrest rates by 67%. Not only do the devices prevent re-arrests, they also prevent deaths. New Mexico's 6-year-old law requiring ignition interlock devices for all convicted drunken drivers, including first-time offenders, is credited with a 35% reduction in drunken-driving deaths. Arizona, with a similar law, has reduced drunken-driver deaths by 46% since 2007.

Some offenders have complained that the whiskey plates affect their ability to get and keep a job. In one situation a man Lester Compton called the plates “embarrassing” and said at best he has been jeered, at worst he has lost a couple of jobs in his independent contracting business.

Another example of family members being embarrassed was the story of a man who received the whiskey plates and was required to put those plates on all of his family’s vehicles. This particular family ran a daycare center with five vans for picking up children. As you might imagine, the parents of the children at the daycare were upset.

The ethical issue here is the privacy rights of an individual versus the good of society. According to our laws, once a person has served the crime for which he or she is committed they are supposed to be given an opportunity to make something of themselves and live a “normal” life.

There are exceptions such as the Sex Offender Registry” website of the FBI and various states that require those convicted of certain sex offenses and/or crimes against children to register as a Sex Offender. It’s out there for all to see and in all likelihood their lives will never be the same. We tend to sanction the invasion of privacy rights in this case because of the most heinous of crimes committed against those who can’t stand up for themselves. We believe society benefits when all in a community are aware that a past sexual offender is in their midst.

Should we apply this logic to DUIs? After all, they may have seriously injured or killed someone in the commission of their crime. If I were a parent of one of those affected, then I’d probably support the whiskey plates. I imagine it would have the whole-hearted support of Mothers against Drunk Driving (MADD).

On the other hand, people, especially young people, often act impulsively – get into a car and drive while under the influence. In that case does the punishment (whiskey plates) fit the crime or is it over the top?

This is not an easy question to answer because of the understandably high emotions that run ramped on both sides. My concern is where does it stop?  Why not require rapists to have special license plates? After all they have committed what might be considered the second most heinous crime on another person.

It’s an ethical slippery slope once you start requiring one group of offenders to have special plates. In this case I think the rights of the individual outweigh whatever good there is to society of having whiskey plates especially since alternative measures can be taken.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 12, 2012

Doing the Right Thing after You’ve Decided What is the Right Thing to Do

Values-based Decision Making

Assume you are the controller of Nuts & Bolts Company and are approached by the chief financial officer about $100,000 costs incurred related to the acquisition of a new machine to be used in the production process. Since these costs are essential to get the assets in place and ready for use, you tell the CFO that they should be capitalized (added to the asset account) and depreciated over the lifetime of the equipment. The CFO tells you that’s not going to happen and the costs should be expensed against income this year because the newly-hired chief executive officer wants to reduce profits for the remainder of the year by as much as possible.

In a reversal of what is normally to be expected, that is, to always increase profits whenever possible, you ask why? It seems the CEO was hired as a turnaround artist on September 1 of the year and he figures no one will blame him if another $100,000 is added to the loss to be reported for the year. Basically, you are borrowing expenses from the future (i.e. depreciation) to further reduce reported losses in the current period thereby improving operating results down the line. We even have a name for it in accounting – “The Big Bath Theory”. The company already is losing money this year so why not make it look worse since you won’t be blamed in the first four months of your tenure as CEO. And then you look better going forward.

This has happened before and in a big-time way at Sunbeam Corporation. Back in June 1996, Sunbeam hired Al Dunlap to turn around the company after a series of annual losses. Dunlap manipulated the financial results to show greater losses in the year he was hired by accelerating the recording of expenses that would have hurt the bottom line in 1997 had he followed generally accepted accounting principles. After being named CEO of Sunbeam Corporation in June 1996, Al Dunlap brought about dramatic change in the firm’s reported financial performance. In 1996, Sunbeam reported a loss in excess of $200 million --- followed the next year by net income of almost $110 million. We call this “managed earnings.”

Let’s go back to the original example. You are the controller and are asked to go along with the financial manipulation. What would you do? You know the CFO and CEO have views opposing your view of the proper accounting. Your next step should be to go to the board of directors and discuss the matter even though you are internally blowing the whistle on wrongdoing. In fact, if you are a certified public accountant this is exactly the step required by the profession’s ethical standards. Your goal should be to enlist the help of the board whose responsibilities include, through its audit committee, to oversee the proper functioning of the financial reporting system.

The board may not support you because they feel beholden to the CEO for their position or otherwise have conflicts of interest. It may not happen for you in this instance, but you should try to convince the board anyway. Let’s face it by going above your superiors you already have risked your job. However, you have kept faith with your values and it will be easier for you to do the right thing if similar situations occur down the road. Ethics is not easy and it takes practice to develop the skill.

Values-based decision-making requires that we incorporate core values into the decision-making process. You know what the CFO is asking you to do is wrong. There is no doubt about it. However, the hard part is to act on your beliefs and stand up to the pressure to deviate from accounting norms. It takes real leadership skills to pull it off. Leadership and the accompanying core values are rooted in who you are and what matters most to you. When you truly know yourself and what you stand for, it is much easier to know what to do in any situation. It always comes down to doing the right thing and doing the best you can.

It takes a person of integrity and strong character to stand up to your superiors. On the surface you may think to do so would violate your loyalty obligation to the organization. Not so. You may be seen as disloyal to your superiors. However, loyalty in an organization requires that we look at the bigger picture and decide what’s best for the organization and its stakeholders. No one gains by manipulating earnings to make one period look better than another. Typically this leads to further manipulations to maintain or increase the higher earnings level in the second and subsequent years. The shareholders are deceived into thinking the same or better results will continue whereas ultimately the scheme will fall apart when the company runs out of ways to manipulate earnings.

Three critical core values are required in values-based decision making. These values can help you to do the right thing after you’ve realized what the right thing to do is. Here they are:

Gather all the ammunition you can to support your position

• In accounting this means to understand and be ready to explain the implications of the premature expensing on reported results and its effects on shareholders and other stakeholders.

Be prepared to discuss shared values with your superiors

• The company most likely has a code of ethics and possibly a values-based vision statement. Use it to convince your superiors the intended action goes against these values. Play up the need to establish an ethical organization culture.

Think in the long-term and not for short-term gain

• Most corporate managers have a short-term perspective and that’s why earnings are manipulated early on. You should point out the possible long-term negative effects of decision-making based on a short-term-gain perspective.

Perhaps most important is to realize you are not alone. Try to enlist outside support by contacting other professionals who can objectively discuss your position. After all, if others would do the same thing as you in similar situations for similar reasons then your decision has universal appeal -- an essential element in ethical decision-making.

Blog posted by Steve Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on June 5, 2012

 

 

 

Empathy is missing in Society Today

Ethics Requires Us to Feel What Others Feel Before Acting

Empathy can be defined as vicariously perceiving or feeling the experiences and emotions of another person. It incorporates feelings of caring, concern, and consideration as integral to the ethical value of empathy. The following well-known expression describes a perspective on empathy:  'Walk a mile in my shoes'. This means that you should try to understand someone before criticizing them. In other words an empathetic person tries to feel what another is feeling, rather than feeling for that person – which is sympathy.  

I’ve been thinking about empathy lately because I’ve become fed up with the political discourse in our country that has been exacerbated by the current presidential cycle. I sometimes listen to what pundits say about the other side on both the left and the right. Each side believes they have a monopoly on the direction the nation should take during the next four years. Each side believes it has the best interests of the country at heart. Each side believes the other side is made up of creepy people with scary ideas. As with most issues, each side is somewhat right and mostly wrong. I don’t object to what they say, but I do object to how it is said. The debate takes place in a derisive manner that is designed to tear down the other side.

The candidates themselves are no better. We hear about ‘vulture capitalism’ and ‘socialism,’ -- a loaded word at best. The hyper-critical comments fly fast and furious. Rather than try to understand the opponent, Obama and Romney look for ways to criticize their opponent. This doesn’t help the country. This doesn’t suggest solutions to our problems. All it is designed to do is make the other person look bad. What kind of ethics is this? Label it any way that you want; the bottom line is the candidates care more about their perceived image than doing the right thing for the nation. I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising given the explosion in realty television the past ten years or so. Perhaps it is time for a new show – ‘Politics Gone Wild’.

On a grander scale, I’ve always believed men and women are wired differently with respect to empathy. The ‘ethics of care’ has been associated with women. I don’t know that I would go so far as to say women have cornered the market on empathy. On the other hand, I’ve read the seminal book by John Gray, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. Gray asserts that men complain that if they try to offer solutions to problems that women want to talk about, women do not necessarily want to find solutions but only want to talk about these problems. In other words, they want empathy, caring, and consideration for their feelings. This reminds me of one of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People described by Stephen R. Covey: ‘Seek first to understand, then to be understood’. It would great if both Obama and Romney read this book before political debates. It might raise the level of discourse to never-before-seen heights.

I recall a dialogue in a book I once read but, unfortunately, I can’t remember who said it. It is apropos to the discussion and, I believe, a guiding thought to incorporate empathy and, indeed, ethical behavior in all that we do; in all that we say; and in all that we feel:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 29, 2012

Creepy Facial Recognition App Raises Privacy Concerns

SceneTap Scans Patrons and Transmits Age and Gender Information in Real-Time

You’re single and looking for someone to meet so you go to one of the bars in your home town. You decide to use a new app to scan the faces of patrons in the bars in the downtown area to determine the ages and genders of customers in the bars. You then check your smartphone for real-time updates on the crowd size, average age and male-to-female mix to decide whether the scene is to your liking. Then, you pick out the bar that best suits your needs and off you go to mingle with the crowd. Is it fact or fiction?

It is happening right now. On May 17, the Austin, Texas-based makers of SceneTap launched an app that can do just that. The app doesn't identify specific individuals or save personal information. SceneTap's ability to guess how old people are and whether they're men or women relies on advances in a field known as biometrics. A camera at the door snaps your picture, and software maps your features to a grid. By measuring distances such as the length between the nose and the eyes and the eyes and the ears, an algorithm matches your dimensions to a database of averages for age and gender.

SceneTap’s CEO Cole Harper claims that the app doesn't invade patrons' privacy because the only data it stores is their estimated ages and genders and the time they arrived - not their images or measurements. My question is how long will it be until the information does become personalized, available to the highest-bidder, and yet another area of our privacy invaded?

Whether the company's promises are true or not, it opens the door to a situation where when any camera-equipped smartphone will have the ability to recognize faces with a click of the virtual shutter. The threat to privacy from an app like SceneTap depends not just on what's being stored but how easily the system could be manipulated to invade our privacy, whether by a hacker or under a court order.

I have asked myself the question: Why is SceneTap doing it? I guess the company hopes advertisers will pay to gain access to the data and then use it to promote their own products to a target audience. The problem is customers become part of a user base and are not customers anymore.

SceneTap is already in use in six other cities across the U.S., including Chicago and several college towns. It became part of the California bar scene in San Francisco ostensibly to give potential customers another way to interact with the business. The launch was met with severe criticism by the local media, somewhat unexpected in a city that has a reputation for anything goes. Some bars refused to use the system even though they had agreed to do so. They feared the backlash from customers who rightly felt their privacy would be invaded and they had no chance to “opt-out” as is done by many other social media personal data-gathering websites.

I wonder where all of this will lead. In April, Facebook started using facial recognition to suggest the names of friends who appeared in newly uploaded photos. You can opt out of tagging, and only friends would be able to tag each other in albums. Facebook has a history of acting first and then asking for permission later. Its new face-recognition feature seems harmless on the surface but could morph into a serious threat to the privacy of our (visual) data. And, as usual, some Facebook users will like the convenience of the new features so much that they will forget the privacy trade-off altogether, or just choose not to worry about it.

The SceneTap app and Facebook facial recognition are unethical practices because there is no provision for informed consent in advance prior to using the features. How would you like it if the Department of Motor Vehicles sent information about the car you drive – make, model and year – to all major car manufacturers? Just imagine what might happen.

And now Google just revealed plans to link user data across its email, video, social-networking and other services. The changes will piece together information from Gmail to YouTube to the Google Plus social network. Imagine if you spend an hour signed in to a Google account searching the Web for downhill skiing equipment, the next time you log into YouTube, you might get recommendations for videos featuring Bode Miller, along with ads for his merchandise and the nearest place to buy them.

However, this could also apply to searches relating to sensitive topics such as – well, the bar scenes you frequent in your home town.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 23, 2012

What is the Basis for Ethical Decision-making?

Ethical Standards, Values, and Moral Judgment the Keys to Ethical Behavior

Most people think they know what ethics is. However, from my experience that knowledge is limited to statements such: Knowing the difference between right and wrong. Ethics is much deeper because it is diffi­cult to judge what may be right or wrong in a particular situation without some frame of reference. 

The term ethics is derived from the Greek word ethikos which itself is derived from the Greek word ethos, meaning custom or character.   In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is “good.”  The field of ethics or moral philosophy involves developing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.  These concepts do not change as one’s desires and motivations change.  They are not relative to the situation.  They are immutable.

In a general sense, ethics (or moral philosophy) addresses fundamental questions such as: How should I live my life? That question leads to others such as: What sort of person should I strive to be? What values are important? What standards or principles should I live by?

Ethics must be based on accepted standards of behavior.  For exam­ple, in virtually all societies and cultures it is wrong to kill someone or steal property from someone else.  These standards have developed over time and come from a variety of sources including:

(A)       The influence of religious writing and interpretations.

(B)       The influence of philosophical thought.

(C)       The influence of community (societal) values.

Ethics deals with well-based standards of how people ought to act.  Ethics does not describe the way people do act.  It deals with the way people should act. Ethical people always strive to make the right decision in all circumstances.  They do not ration­alize their actions based on their own perceived self-interests.  Ethical decision-making entails following certain well established norms of behavior. The best way to understand ethics may be to differentiate it from other concepts.

Values are basic and fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate attitudes or actions. Values are concerned with how a person will behave in certain situations whereas ethics is concerned with how a moral person should behave.  A person who values prestige, power, and wealth is likely to act out of self-interest whereas a person who values honesty, integrity and trust will typically act in the best interests of others.  It does not follow that acting in the best interests of others precludes acting in one’s own self-interest.  Indeed, the Golden Rule prescribes that we should treat others the way we want to be treated. 

Being ethical is not the same as following the law.  While ethical people always try to be law-abiding, there may be instances where your sense of ethics tells you it is best not to follow the law.  These situations are rare and should be based on sound ethical reasons. Here’s one example:

Assume you are coming home from the store one day and see a fast moving fire approach your neighbor’s house. You notice that the neighbor’s car is in the garage. The garage door entrance to the house is locked as is the main entrance. You bang on the door and no one answers. You call the neighbor on your cell phone and no one answers. You don’t think there is enough time to call the fire department ten miles away before serious damage is done to the house. What would you do next and why? If you break into the house to save your neighbor, you have broken the law. However, you have acted out of concern for the safety of your neighbor in a life-threatening situation thereby acting ethically.

Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), the noted English novelist, debater, and former prime minister, said that, “When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken.” A person of good will honors and respects the rules and laws and is willing to go beyond them when circumstances warrant.  As indicated by the above quote, such people do not need rules and laws to guide their actions.  They always try to do the right thing. On the other hand, the existence of specific laws prohibiting certain behaviors will not stop a person who is unethical (e.g., does not care about others) from violating those laws. Just think about a “Ponzi” scheme such as the one I previously blogged about whereby Bernie Madoff duped others to invest with him promising huge returns that, unbeknownst to the investor, would come from additional investments of scammed investors and not true returns.

Ethical people often do less than is permitted by the law and more than is required.  A useful perspective is to ask:

        What does the law require of me?

        What do ethical standards of behavior demand of me?

        How should I act to conform to both?

An ethical society is one that values a commitment to do the right thing regardless of personal costs. It’s not an easy standard to live by but one worth pursuing.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on April 12, 2102

What is Civility?

Lack of Respect is the Root of Cause of Incivility in Society

The word ‘civility’ shares an etymological root with the idea of ‘citizenship’ on the one hand, and of ‘civilization’ on the other. The first sense of civility, reflecting the link to the concept of citizenship, is found in the idea of ‘civic behavior’. Political theorist John Rawls argues that political legitimacy must be based on public reason. As such, ‘the ideal of citizenship imposes a moral, not a legal, duty—the duty of civility—to be able to explain to one another . . . the principles and policies they advocate and vote for’.

If we look at the Republican nominating process of choosing a candidate to run against President Obama, it is difficult to see any evidence of civil discourse. Civility in this sense requires that we listen to others with fair-mindedness and accord them the respect they deserve. Ah, but there is the rub.

I have blogged before about the issue of civility and pointed out that by age sixteen, George Washington had copied out by hand, 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation. They are based on a set or rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595. The first rule is:  'Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.'

For those directly engaged in politics, this means listening to others, being tolerant of views other than one’s own, and recognizing that the principle of ‘shared governance’ must be put ahead of one’s own ideological claim. In other words, a civil society depends on the ability of its leaders to look beyond self-interest and make decisions based on what is best for the country. Given that Democrats and Republicans typically have different views on this matter, the fact is compromise is the basis for having a civil society because it involves listening to others and recognizing one side or the other cannot always get what it wants but, in the interests of the country, a middle ground must be found.

One June 22, 2010, Weber Shandwick, Powell Tate and KRC Research released new research that explores the state of civility in America. The survey asked 1,000 American adults to express their views about the tone and level of civility in government and traditional and social media. Here are some of the results: (1) two in three respondents believe civility is a major problem while three in four believe the problem has gotten worse; (2) three in four said the financial crisis and recession made the level of civility in America worse; (3) just one in four expect civility to improve while one in three think it will get worse; (4) not surprisingly, the government and politics were identified as having the least civil discourse and a majority characterized America’s high schools, talk radio, and Hollywood celebrities as uncivil.

Have you checked out You Tube lately? More and more we see video clips of teenagers attacking one another and there seems to be a marked increase in girls getting involved in the mayhem. I suppose such actions were the motivation for the Oxygen network developing a television program called Bad Girls Club that is in its sixth season.

The big question is why does society reward bad behavior? Does each of us secretly wish we could do the same thing and have such public exposure? Of course, it’s hard these days to do the right thing and wind up with your own television show. The public doesn’t want to see it and network executives give the public what they want. Or, is it the other way around? People who act responsibly and accept the consequences of their actions typically are not the kind of people who seek out notoriety for their good acts. They do it because of an inner voice or conscience that tells them it is the right way to behave.

I see no hope for civility becoming the norm in American life so long as our leaders act uncivil. Incivility in public discourse seems to create a divide in how talk radio deals with important issues facing the nation. One side or the other makes fun of their opponents; dissects every last word to find a gaffe; and even exaggerates the opposing views to the point of distortion if not outright lying. Incivility then creeps into every day life such as cutting people off on a roadway, shoving others to get to the head of a line, cursing in public and other forms of uncivil behavior.

Civil discourse was an important value to our founding fathers. Perhaps Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best: "There can be no high civility without a deep morality."  

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on April 2, 2012

TebowMania in New York

Will Tebow-ing Play Well in NYC?

The headline of the NY Daily News last Sunday read: “Newest NY Jet Tim Tebow paints the town green on Broadway: 'Wicked' time as quarterback takes in his first Broadway show”

Does this mean his every move will be followed, analyzed, and commented upon in print? I can just see it now:

• Tebow goes grocery shipping at a vegan supermarket
• Tebow caught eating a burger and fries at the Burger Joint inside Le Parker Meridien Hotel
• Tebow prays at Christian City Church in Manhattan
• Tebow caught entering Temple Emanu-El without a yarmulka

This is getting ridiculous people. Tebow is not any different from you or me except that he knows how to play football – quarterbacking aside. There is no doubt that he is an outstanding athlete. That’s why the NY Jets wanted him. His particular skill set and athletic ability open up possibilities on the field including the wildcat formation.

How unusual is it that the other sports mania in recent times just recently occurred in NYC when Jeremy Lin emerged as something of a cult hero after catapulting to stardom as the New York Knicks point guard. Linsanity swept the city like few events before it. What do Tebow and Lin have in common? They both have openly discussed their evangelical faith.

Personally, I don’t get it. What is the big deal that he bows down after a touchdown pass and gives thanks? I’ve seen players pray on the sideline. There are prayer gatherings after a game to give thanks. It must be that Tebow speaks openly about his faith.  Perhaps some people are afraid of it. Their sons and daughters might seek to be like Tebow. I can think of worse role models for young people to emulate.

Critics have pointed out that God does not take sides in football games and to inject God’s name as a form of thanks after throwing a touchdown pass minimizes what God really stands for – it is with the poor; with the down and out; it is with those seeking forgiveness.

However, I did some research and found this quote from Psalm 121 (‘The Lord is Thy Keeper’) of The Holy Bible: King James Version:

“I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills,

            from whence cometh my help.

My help cometh from the LORD,

            which made heaven and earth”.

When viewed in this context I have to believe Tebow is being a good Christian. Now I’m not Christian, and I teach ethics but it is without a religious slant other than to say much of religious thought comes from the biblical passage:  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." By extension, The Golden Rule calls on us to treat others the way we want to be treated – with respect, compassion, kindness, fairness, honesty, and so on.

I tell my students that it does not matter what are your religious beliefs. But, believe in something; believe that it matters what you do and say while on this Earth; know that your actions have consequences and how you treat others triggers those consequences; and embrace the notion that we should strive to leave this Earth a better place than when we arrived.

Tebow demonstrated great character at the news conference this past Monday that introduced him to NY media. When asked about his role on the Jets given Mark Sanchez is the starting quarterback, Tebow said: "However I can help the team, however I can make a difference, however they can use me, I'll be open to it and work as hard as I can every time I step on the field. I will give my whole heart and soul to being the best Jet I can possibly be in trying to help this team win football games."

One thing even Tebow’s most ardent critics can’t fault him for is his charity work.  In addition to his missionary work with orphanages in the Philippines, he regularly brings sick children to his games through his foundation. Tebow brought Joey Norris, a young boy with cancer, to the playoff game against the New England Patriots, and where the Broncos suffered what he called a devastating loss.

“I was extremely disappointed,” Tebow said. “But I still have a kid who is fighting for his life, and I have a choice to make. I can choose to sulk and feel pity after this loss and this disappointment. I can choose to try to go invest in him and try to encourage him and make him smile and be a part of his life. That really changes your perspective as a young man and as an athlete.  For me to try to invest in him, he helped me more than I helped him on that night.”

There is an old expression: "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." When applied to Tebow we can see how he fits the mold of a good role model for youngsters striving to be...well, the next Tim Tebow.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 29, 2012

 

New Orleans Saints Bounty Program: The Tip of the NFL Ethical Iceberg

Bounty Program: Who is Being Held Accountable?

Are you interested in being paid $1,500 for a “knockout” in which an opposing football player is unable to return to the game, and $1,000 for a “cart-off” in which opponents are carried off the field? Did you know payments double or triple during the playoffs? It’s all true. What I find so astounding is the league is just now finding out about such practices by the New Orleans Saints. My guess is other teams do the same although they are obviously more subtle about how they implement sanctioned violence against one’s competitors.

Last week the National Football League suspended New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton for a year without pay for his role in the team’s bounty program, which promised money to players if they knocked opponents out of games. The unprecedented punishment was a stunning blow to one of the N.F.L.’s most recently successful and long beloved teams, but also a strong message about how seriously the league takes the threat to player safety. That’s the party line. There is more to the story and the bottom line is that the NFL has shirked its responsibilities to provide for the safest and healthiest environment for players for years.

Some of you may be too young to remember David Duerson, a former four-time Pro Bowl safety and member of the 1985 Super Bowl champs Chicago Bears. Duerson was found dead at his Florida home on February 17, 2011. The Miami-Dade County medical examiner reported that Duerson died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. He sent a text message to his family saying he wanted his brain to be used for research at the Boston University School of Medicine, which is conducting research into chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) that is allegedly caused by playing pro football. On May 2, 2011 researcher neurologists at Boston University confirmed that Duerson suffered from a neurodegenerative disease linked to concussions.

On December 22, 2011, Jamal Lewis, Dorsey Levens and two other former NFL players say in a federal lawsuit that brain injuries have left them struggling with medical problems years after their playing days ended. Some 12 former football players, including former New Orleans Saints receiver and four-time Pro Bowler Joe Horn, filed a lawsuit against the NFL about its concussion policies, saying there was widespread pregame use of an anti-inflammatory drug that could put someone with a head injury at increased risk.

A group of seven players, including former Chicago Bears Super-bowl winning quarterback Jim McMahon, accused the league of training players to hit with their heads, failing to properly treat them for concussions and trying to conceal for decades any links between football and brain injuries. Later in the month, another group of 18 former NFL players sued the league and helmet makers over head injuries suffered during their careers. To its credit, the league now penalizes "leading-with-your helmet hits."

Earlier, in July 2011, 74 former players sued the NFL, claiming the league intentionally withheld knowledge of the damaging effects of concussions for 90 years.

The NFL’s response about hiding their knowledge of potential quality-of-life issues was: “Any allegation that the NFL intentionally sought to mislead players has no merit. It stands in contrast to the league's actions to better protect players and advance the science and medical understanding of the management and treatment of concussions.” Seriously!

First of all, the NFL did nothing to protect players until highly-publicized medical catastrophes occurred such as what happened to Dave Duerson. In that respect the NFL’s response has been similar to Major League Baseball’s initially turning a blind eye to the use of performing-enhancing drugs. Even after public disclosure in infamous cases such as Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Rafael Palmeiro, it took a long time for MLB to develop a valid drug-testing program. As for the NFL, it took a long time to come to the table with a plan to better protect players including quarterbacks who are susceptible to multiple concussions.

Let me return to the Saints “bounty hunter” program. The NFL suspensions included one year for Coach Sean Payton, the banning of General Manager Mickey Loomis for eight games, and indefinitely barring former assistant coach Gregg Williams for running the bounty program that paid players for injuring opponents.

The punishment for Williams is not severe enough. He should be banned for life from the NFL. As for Payton, he and the Saints should have been fined a lot more than the miserly $500,000. This compares to the lowest salary paid to an NFL player in 2011 of $295,000, and those are third-stringers.

The Saints owner, Tom Benson, should demonstrate integrity and send a clear signal that such violence will not be tolerated in the Saints organization and fire Payton. While Williams is mostly to blame, Payton had to know (or should have known) what was going on. What ever happened to “the buck stops here?” Joe Paterno came to understand that he should have taken action when he had the chance in the same way Payton should have as soon as he learned about the program.

We live in a violent society and the violence has worked its way into sports. We live in a cheating culture and cheating has found its way into sports. We live according to a pursuit of self-interests mentality and it has infected sports. Just ask Bill Belichick, coach of the New England Patriots, who was caught videotaping opponents defensive signals. Just ask Sean Payton. Both of these coaches have brought shame to the great cities they represent. Both have tainted their Super Bowl victories. Both have been guilty of taking and/or tolerating actions that lowers the ethics in sports to yet another low level.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 26, 2012

KONY 2012: Doing the Right Thing

Is there Hope for Victims of Joseph Kony and Other Victims of Unspeakable Crimes in Africa?

We can question the motives of filmmaker Jason Russell in making the film KONY 2012 and how donated funds have been used by the non-profit organization, Invisible Children. We can question his use of mostly white people to tell the uniquely African story of child kidnappings, abuse, forced sexual slavery, coerced mutilations of children’s faces, and forced killings even of one’s parents. We can question the relative simplification of a complicated story that extends beyond Ugandan borders. However, what we cannot dispute is the emotional effect of the twenty-seven minute film that went viral since it first hit You Tube on March 6, 2012, with more than 84 million viewers to date. We cannot dispute it is the right thing to do to bring the matter to the collective consciousness of the entire world.

If you haven’t heard of it, you haven’t been on Facebook or Twitter within the last two weeks. The social media attention that this issue has gotten since its release has shocked everyone, including the producer himself. Perhaps that explains Russell’s recent mental breakdown ("reactive psychosis") following scores of interviews and international attention never before seen.

The twenty-seven minute video can be viewed on You Tube. It is well worth your time given the educational and (anti-) humanitarian story of a man and has actions that led to his being named the world’s worst criminal by the International Criminal Court.

Joseph Kony is the head of the Lord’s Resistance Army, a Ugandan rebel group that has abducted an estimated 66,000 children since 1986 to become soldiers in his army. Kony kidnaps the children and enlists them into the LRA. He forces them to commit atrocities not in the name of a cause but to retain and gain more and more power by driving the population to fear him even more than death itself.

KONY 2012 was released by The Invisible Children group to raise awareness of the criminal acts of Joseph Kony. As stated on their webpage, Invisible Children’s mission is to use “film, creativity and social action to end the use of child soldiers in Joseph Kony’s rebel war and restore LRA-affected communities in Central Africa to peace and prosperity”. Three young filmmakers had traveled to Africa in search of a story, and came back with a documentary that aired in 2005 on the invisible children of the Lord’s Resistance Army. However, very little attention was paid to the story until the video.

U.S. involvement was minimal until Invisible Children urged the government to take action. In May 2010, President Obama signed the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act. Not much happened until November 24, 2010 when Obama sent a document to Congress to acquire more money for the cause. As of October 14, 2011, Obama deployed 100 U.S. military advisors to assist, train, and offer intelligence to the Ugandan forces to help combat the LRA. This is not a military action by the U.S. but one of technical assistance in part to find Kony in the jungle so he can be brought to justice. It is the right thing to do – the humane thing to do.

Current efforts are to publicize the story and plight of Ugandan children including making the Invisible Children visible for the whole world to see the atrocities committed in the name of Joseph Kony. Invisible Children are targeting 20 culture-makers (Hollywood types) and 12 power-makers (with influence on governmental affairs) to lend their name and help spread the word.

Invisible Children wants to make Kony even more famous in the U.S. by having young people plaster their neighborhoods with posters featuring Kony’s picture. At sundown on Friday, April 20, the organization is urging young people to gather together and work all night putting up posters. They have printed hundreds of thousands of posters in preparation for the event. The organization believes once people find out more about what Kony has done then justice will prevail.

The story of Joseph Kony and the Invisible Children is played out endlessly in other African countries. While attention should be focused on the plight of Ugandan children forced into unspeakable acts we must not forget other struggles and atrocities. Most recent are the ethnic clashes between the Murle and Lou Nuer tribes in the world’s newest nation, South Sudan. Fighting continues in the Jonglei region of South Sudan, where battles have claimed thousands of lives since the country gained independence from Sudan in July 2011. According to the United Nations, more than 300,000 South Sudanese were displaced due to internal violence last year.

Then there is Joshua Milton Blahyi, once dubbed to be one of Liberia’s most feared warlords, who was responsible for the killing of nearly 20,000 people during Liberia’s 14-year civil war. Recently he converted to Christianity and proclaimed to be an evangelist, traveling the nation as a preacher and asking for forgiveness from those whom he had hurt in the past. A film documentary was made of his past, “The Redemption of General Butt Naked,” and asks the question whether a transformation so great can ever occur and how will we know it is real.

Africa has been a troubled region of the world for many years. Millions have died in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) during the conflict between warring rebel militias and the national army as they vie for control over the country’s vast mineral wealth and control of slaves, many of whom are women and who are forced to work in the mines and into a life of sexual slavery.

Who can forget the Rwandan Genocide and the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 due to ethnic strife between the minority Tutsi, who had controlled power for centuries, and the majority Hutu peoples, who had come to power in the rebellion of 1959–62 and overthrown the Tutsi monarchy.

Is there hope for Africa to become more peaceful and end the bloodshed formed by many years of ethnic and tribal conflict? One place to look for a useful perspective on the issue is the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who made an impassioned plea for an end to inter-religious strife in his country. Speaking at the official opening of the 11th General Assembly of the World Evangelical Fellowship in Kuala Lumpur on May 4, 2011, Dr Mahathir said that once started, religious disputes often lead to violence over several generations.

"Intolerance breeds injustice. Injustice invariably leads to rebellion and retaliation, and these will lead to escalation on the part of both making reconciliation almost impossible. It would appear that during times of stress, despair and frustration, people become increasingly irrational, and they do things, which they never think they are capable of. And so we see hideous brutality perpetrated by the most gentle people.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 19, 2012

Facebook's Dirty Laundry

Facebook Follows Ethically Inappropriate Actions in Moderating Online Content

On March 2, 2012, The Telegraph brought attention to one of the worst jobs in the digital world. While the Facebook content most users see is innocuous, this is not by chance. Facebook is richer and more populous than many countries, and keeping it sanitized requires a small army of content moderators to strip the site of the darker side of humanity.

With around four billion pieces of content shared daily, Facebook has come to rely upon a system whereby photos or posts may be flagged by regular users as unsuitable. Gawker  notes that this results in a deluge of “porn, gore, racism, cyberbullying, and so on” that must be reviewed for international legality and compliance with the site's terms of use. While removing unsavory content on a site that does not claim to be a forum for unrestricted speech may not seem problematic, the way in which it is being done should be a source of concern.

With a market capitalization upwards of $75B, established digital prowess, and a legion of strategists and legal advisers, one would expect Facebook to have a sound process established for dealing with the unpalatable content that comes to attention, yet this does not seem to be the case. Despite the relatively low number of moderators required to police its content, estimated at around 800 to 1,000, Facebook uses the outsourcing company oDesk to have this work haphazardly carried out by laborers in developing countries for a miserly $1 an hour.

oDesk is a company with a global job marketplace  and a series of tools targeted at businesses that hire and manage remote workers.  Moderators follow guidelines to determine if flagged content should be ignored, deleted, or escalated, which refers to sending it to a Facebook employee in the U.S. who will report it to authorities if necessary.

Even though someone must do the dirty laundry, the brazen manner in which Facebook conducts its moderation process is worrying. New moderators must be proficient in English and they receive basic training by oDesk, but they use their personal, unsecured computers at home, no criminal checks are believed to be in place, and they are given nearly unfettered access to user information for determining the “context” of flagged content. This leads to a horrifying situation: unscreened laborers are flooded with grotesque material that can erode their mental health.

For example, Amine Derkaoui, a 21-year-old man living in Morocco, went public with his experience as a Facebook moderator in February. He found the job humiliating and exploitative, adding that “the job itself was very upsetting – no one likes to see a human cut into pieces every day.” His experience is hardly unique; educated workers in Asia, Africa, and Central America hired through oDesk describe being shaken by the frequent exposure to pedophilia, necrophilia, beheadings, suicides, animal or child abuse, fighting, racism, violent threats, and other troubling content.

Moreover, disgruntled moderators have all the information they need to blackmail users over content they posted (even privately), can easily leak intimate material on the web, may harvest illegal content such as child pornography for redistribution, and can even frame innocent users by escalating falsified content. As if this wasn’t bad enough, the New York Times reports that moderators in the U.S. have struggled to get safeguards for mental health, so it is unlikely those being paid pittance are offered counseling as part of the job.

One of my ethics students provided the following ethical analysis of Facebook’s current moderation practices using utilitarianism and “Rights Theory.” A table exploring the key benefits, harms, and rights for the primary shareholders is presented below:

Facebook
Benefits	Moderation provides a clean outward image. Removing and reporting certain content helps ensure legal compliance in some jurisdictions.
Harms	Inadequate program oversight could pose a significant legal liability. Greater awareness of the program’s details could tarnish the corporate image. Knowingly transferring content that has been identified as illegal, such as child pornography, internationally from the moderators back to Facebook almost certainly conflicts with laws, treaties, and other sources of binding regulation.
Rights & Duties	To operate efficiently to the extent that laws are followed.

 

Facebook Users
Benefits	A minimum of filth provides a sanctuary from darker areas of the internet. Human review of flagged content helps avoid unwarranted content removal.
Harms	Facebook's secretive moderation practices leave most users in the dark. Even content that has been posted “privately” is vulnerable to being leaked on the internet or used for blackmail, and users can easily be framed by the moderators.
Rights & Duties	Regardless of the terms of service, to have their privacy respected when they have a reasonable expectation of it, such as after having marked content as “private.” To know what happens with their self-generated content, including who has access to it. For user-generated content to not be arbitrarily deleted from baseless flagging by users. To have personal information protected through reasonable security policies.

 

Moderators
Benefits	Income is being offered in parts of the world where the pay is competitive even given the nature of the job. The flexible working arrangement is good for students.
Harms	By having illegal content such as child pornography on their personal computers, they are placed in a very precarious legal situation. Their mental health may deteriorate from being subjected to an endless stream of unsettling content, and counseling or mental health monitoring policies may not exist.
Rights	To not be taken advantage of by being placed in a legally-vulnerable situation. To not have their mental health stressed without adequate safeguards.

By following the utilitarian approach and comparing the harms and benefits, at a first glance the current moderation program can be seen to have clear benefits despite the significant harms. However, closer examination reveals that, without fail, every one of the harms identified could be mitigated through more responsible moderation methodology, ultimately rendering Facebook’s current practices deplorable. It is unlikely that it would cost more than $5M annually to have a domestic moderation program in which all activity is carried out on secure company computers and is carefully audited and logged for inappropriate moderator behavior, all employees are screened for criminal histories, and counseling as well as periodic mental health assessments are provided. By having the questionable content stay on company computers, this would also avoid nearly all of the potentially illegal aspects of the current approach.

Facebook does not fare any better under the “Rights Theory” approach. The current approach may operate outside the law, in which Facebook does not have the right to use it and many of the rights of Facebook’s user’s moderators are not respected.  Facebook has obligations to these moderators as agents of the company to provide a safe workplace environment.  

In conclusion, Facebook appears to have chased profitability while sliding down the proverbial ethical slippery slope.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 19, 2012

The Ethics of Using Dolphins to Detect Underwater Mines

U.S. Navy May Use Mine-Detecting Dolphins to Keep Open the Strait of Hormuz

The threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz has reached a fever pitch with U.S. officials warning Iran's supreme leader that such moves would cross a “red line” provoking a U.S. response. Iran could block the strait with any assortment of mines, armed speed boats or anti-ship cruise missiles but according to Michael Connell at the Center for Naval Analysis, “The immediate issue [for the U.S. military] is to get the mines.” To solve that problem, the Navy has a solution that isn't heavily-advertised but has a time-tested success rate: mine-detecting dolphins.

"We've got [MK 6] dolphins," said retired Adm. Tim Keating in an interview with NPR. Navy-trained dolphins would come in handy. They are astounding in their ability to detect underwater objects. Their skills are so precise that it takes six years to fully train the mammals. This three-minute video demonstrates just how the mine-detection process works. There is a 10-second promo so be patient.

The invasion of Iraq was the last time the minesweeping capability of dolphins was widely-touted. "Dolphins - - which possess sonar so keen they can discern a quarter from a dime when blindfolded and spot a 3-inch metal sphere from 370 feet away -- are invaluable minesweepers."

When this was an issue in 2003, lobbying for the rights of dolphins was much more politically sensitive given that scores of U.S. men and women were being sent into battle. "We're not going to second-guess the Navy at a time of war," said Naomi Rose, a marine mammal scientist with the Humane Society. "But we don't support the use of marine mammals for military use." Critics emphasize that it is not a matter of placing the lives of animals above those of troops. But they question the ethics and wisdom of using wild animals to ensure safe passage through hostile waters. Back when the dolphins were first used, petitions were sent to the U.S. Defense Department protesting the use of dolphins. Still, the practice continues ten years later and has become a staple of the Navy.  

In 2010, the Seattle Times reported that the Navy has 80 bottlenose  in the San Diego Bay alone. They are taught to hunt for mines and drop acoustic transponders nearby. According to a report in 2003, the dolphins only detect the mines. Destroying them is left up to the Navy's human divers. Still, the mammals are large enough to detonate a live mine, a prospect that doesn't delight animal rights groups. 

Tom LaPuzza, a spokesman for the San Diego-based Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, cast aside the skepticism about how the dolphins were treated: “By nature, dolphins are naturally reliable and trustworthy animals that seem to enjoy pleasing their human handlers.” Following their release into the ocean for missions, "they come back to the handler, the trainer ashore or on a ship.” LaPuzza’s insensitivity to the ethics of using the dolphins in this way is quite alarming. 

The ethical issues are clear: Is it “right” to use animals that are not able to consent to their use for such a dangerous purpose? Dolphins do have rights under The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. The Act prohibits the capture of wild animals from U.S. waters and it regulates standards of fair treatment. However, the Navy is exempt from the Act. One has to wonder whether this is the case because of the perceived strategic need for the dolphins in times of conflict.

An ethical reasoning approach that was used in a classroom analysis by my ethics students* in a case presentation is to weigh the harms and benefits of using dolphins to detect underwater mines. A utilitarian approach might identify the following benefits:

• Dolphins cost less to train and deploy than human divers
• Dolphins are better at detecting mines than human counterparts
• The use of dolphins can save millions of dollars because it limits damages to Navy ships
• Dolphins can help save thousands of lives
• The deployment of dolphins in strategic areas can serve the public good such as keeping the Strait of Hormuz open

The costs of using the dolphins are more difficult to assess. For example, what is the cost of taking dolphins out of their natural habitat and using them for a dangerous, self-serving purpose? Also, the dolphins can be injured or killed while “carrying out their duties.” Beyond that the costs to society include:

• Mines can be accidentally bumped by the dolphins causing harm to the mammals
• There is a lack of transparency about the Navy’s use of dolphins to detect mines; full disclosure is a basic ethical principle as the public has a right to know
• Little data exists on dolphin casualties

Not surprisingly, animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) object to the use of dolphins for mine-sweeping purposes. In 2003 when dolphins were dispatched to the Persian Gulf to locate underwater mines, PETA activists were outraged, claiming that the animals had not volunteered their services and were unwittingly placed in grave danger. PETA claimed the dolphins don't realize the tasks they are being taught to perform are life and death. True enough and it may seem like a game to the dolphins as they are rewarded with lots of fish to eat after performing well during drills.

The bottom line issue here is why can’t Navy divers be equipped with the same underwater sonar capabilities as the dolphins? After all, if we are going to fight a war shouldn’t we be willing to use our troops in the battle? Some might say it is no different than using drones to hunt out and kill the enemy. However, drones are not living, breathing beings.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 5, 2012

*Thanks to those students for their contribution: Evan Kilbourne, Taryn Kirkwood, Katie Kobayasi, Ben Lis, Melissa Mallett, and Aida Mustacich

Michael Douglas says Gordon Gekko was wrong -- greed is not good

Do the Rich Act More Greedy than those Less well-off?

You may have heard that Michael Douglas came out earlier this week and confessed that greed is not so good after all. Some believe that two memorable lines from the 1987 movie “Wall Street” helped usher in an era of self-serving behavior by investment fund managers that led to the economic collapse in 2008 -- Greed is good and greed is right.

So, what are we to make of the fact that Douglas who played Gordon Gekko, a corporate raider who cheated innocent investors out of their savings in the original movie and 2010 sequel, has discovered the error of his character’s ways? No doubt it is a reaction to the difficult economic times and massive decline in wealth due in large part to the greedy actions of corporate managers and Wall Street investment bankers. But, in the real world do the rich act greedy in their own personal dealings or is it just play-acting portrayed in the movies?

A new study shows that while the poor might seem to have the most reason to cheat and steal, the rich are more likely to be dishonest. In a series of experiments, University of California at Berkeley researchers showed again and again that upper-class individuals were more prone to unethical behavior than people from more deprived backgrounds, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Paul Piff, a doctoral candidate and the study's lead author, says he was surprised at how little incentive it took to get high-income people to cheat.

In one study, for example, people were asked to play a game of chance online. The 195 volunteers were told that a die would be rolled for them five times and that the participants with the highest scores from the five rolls would get more credits toward a drawing for a $50 Amazon.com certificate. The researchers also told the volunteers to keep track of their own scores.

But Piff and his colleagues had designed the game so all players would end up with a score of 12. As it turns out, “the upper socio-economic status people were way more likely to report a score above 12,” says Piff. “It was fairly remarkable. You wouldn’t think that people reporting incomes of $150,000 per year and up would be so motivated to win this prize.”

In another study, the researchers asked 108 volunteers to fill out a survey online. Along with questions about their backgrounds, the volunteers were asked to imagine that they were employers who needed to hire someone at the lowest salary possible. In the hypothetical, they would get a bonus if they negotiated a low enough salary. The job was one that would last just six months.

Then they were asked what they would do if a candidate came in who was willing to work for less if he could be guaranteed the job would last two years. “Thus, if participants (acting as employers) were honest about the six-month limit of the job, chances are they wouldn’t be able to negotiate a very low salary,” Piff says. In this scenario, the wealthier participants were more likely to act unethically to get a reward.

Piff suspects that a combination of factors, including greed and a heightened sense of entitlement, are what spur the wealthy to cheat. While there are examples of rich people who are especially generous such as Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, money seems to have a deleterious effect on ethics in most cases, Piff says.

Now that I’ve explained some of the test procedures and findings, let me tackle the problem of greed in our society. I do believe we have morphed into a greedy, self-serving society. I have blogged about this issue many times before. It has become routine for people to think of themselves first and then, oftentimes only after already acting, to think about how their actions affect others.

I believe the cause of greed that is endemic in our society can be traced back to the 1960s, well before Gordon Gekko came on the scene. It was the era of the hippie movement fueled by the mantra to “do your own thing.” Hippies were not concerned with the way they were viewed by conventional society. This may sound good in principle but doesn’t work very well in practice because we are accountable to others. We do have a civic duty to act in ways that improve society by enabling others who may be less fortunate to get ahead.

Does this mean that the 1%ers are uncaring, greedy, and indifferent to the plight of others as many in the “Occupy” movement would have us believe? Some criticize Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney for just such behavior. For example, about a month ago he responded to a question about helping the poor by saying: "I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it."

In theory there is nothing wrong with Romney’s message. He is, after all, a businessman first and his answer reflects a business approach. Unfortunately, it is lacking in compassion. This is a valid reason to criticize Romney and, I believe, what is behind the results of the Cal Berkeley study.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the study results is an online preference poll conducted by MSNBC after reporting the story. By no means are these results indicative of the entire population of the U.S. However, it is quite curious to have solicited the following responses.

Do you think rich people are more likely to cheat, steal or cut you off in traffic?

• Yes (71%). How do you think they got rich in the first place?
• No (4%). In my experience, rich people aren't less ethical than the poor.
• Not sure (25%). I think it depends on the person, not on the tax bracket.

I, myself, would have answered “not sure.” I do not stereotype people. There are good people and not so good people of all shapes and sizes. Goodness is an end result sought by those who act out of virtue and includes having empathy for others.

There is an old proverb that dates back to the Cherokee tribe of Native Americans, who said “Don’t judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes”. Nelle Harper Lee, an American authoress, was seemingly inspired by the saying of the Amerindians in her book “To Kill a Mockingbird,” where she wrote

“You never really know a man until you understand things from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

This is the most challenging part of being an American today. We have lost touch with those who are less fortunate than us; those who are struggling to make ends meet during the most trying times; and those who need a gentle push to help pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on March 1, 2012

Should Colleges Teach a Course on the Occupy Movement?

What is the Value of a Separate Course on the Occupy Movement?

Last week Chicago’s Roosevelt University announced it is now offering a class on the recent Occupy Wall Street movement, allowing students to enroll in an up-to-date political science course that tries to examine the protest campaign that has spread across the US and the globe.

Jeff Edwards, an associate professor of political science and an expert in social movements, will instruct students with a curriculum that he says will examine essays and articles about the Occupy movement, including pieces penned by the protesters themselves. In New York, demonstrators launched the Occupied Wall Street Journal. In the nation’s capital, it was the Occupied Washington Post. Protest hubs in both cities have been raided by law enforcement, but nearly five months in the movement appears to "still have legs".

“It is exciting and timely to look at a movement as it unfolds in its early years,” Edwards says on the Roosevelt website. To watch the movement grow, he says that his students will attend General Assembly meetings of the Occupy Chicago protests, in addition to studying text that examine the ties between corporate greed and inequality in America.

I’m all for teaching about corporate greed and inequality in America and the original goals of the movement, but those goals have since been co-opted by other groups with their own agendas. Lately we have been witnessing disruptions and even violence at events that occupiers don't like with messages they don't agree with. The occupiers claim it is an exercise in civil disobedience. The problem is oftentimes there is nothing "civil" about their behavior.

From a professorial point of view I have to ask: Wouldn’t it be more pedagogically sound to teach about corporate greed and inequality in America in the context of the study of capitalism as a moral system according to Adam Smith or Ayn Rand’s objectivism?

So far 32 students have signed up for Professor Edwards’ class, Political Science 390, Special Topics in Political Science: Occupy Everywhere. He discusses the objectives of the course in an interview with CNN. In the video a student is asked whether she believes the “Occupy Movement” is as important to society as the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution. Of course the answer is “yes”. This really overstates the importance of the movement that started with the best of intentions to criticize greed in corporate America and the Wall Street banks that brought on the financial meltdown in 2008. Recently the movement has morphed into providing a platform for all kinds of grievances including the need to expand social programs.

Equating the Occupy Movement with other movements that have promoted equal rights for all citizens regardless of color or gender also belittles these humanitarian struggles that have advanced our nation as a civil society and provided lasting change. How can we possibly equate a movement that started just a few months ago with seminal events such as the civil rights movement and the sexual revolution? In the video Professor Edwards is asked whether he thinks the course he is offering will be offered five years from now. He answers “I think so”.

The question is how can a university agree to offer a course that purports to represent a movement based on thinking it still will be offered in five years? How can a university squander resources on teaching something that really should be discussed in a broader course that examines a variety of opinions and in a historical context?

Over the past few years colleges and universities have been pushing the envelope further than ever before in order to teach something that may be of deep personal interest to a professor but that takes us further and further away from our core values and historical beginnings, all in the guise of being relevant to today’s student body. You may recall hearing about the course in Human Sexuality that was taught at Northwestern University by Michael Bailey. If you missed that one the course gained national attention when Professor Bailey invited students to witness a live sex act between a woman, her boyfriend and another woman in a campus building.

I suppose some professors believe that an in-your-face approach to teaching will gain the attention of today’s students who have become accustomed to viewing offensive behavior on You Tube or on reality TV. Perhaps some professors believe such an approach to teaching is necessary to garner student interest in what they teach. However, the real challenge for a professor is to teach societal core values that are main-stream to American culture in a historical context, in a thought-provoking way, and in an intellectually stimulating manner.    

According to Professor Edwards, part of the course readings are the occupy newsletters and social media. How can a college course be offered with such a dearth of epistemological support for its very being? As I thought about this question from a college professor’s perspective I had to wonder what was next. How about a course on the Tea Party? Hasn’t it done as much or more than the Occupy Movement to influence thought especially during this election cycle?

Then again if cooler minds prevailed the Occupy movement would be discussed in a course that addresses the original Tea Party – you know in Boston. Remember that one on December 16, 1773? The one that spawned the American Revolution and led to the mantra: No taxation without representation. Do we even teach about it anymore? The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it. I wonder if Professor Edwards even mentions it in his “Occupy” course.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 13, 2012

Communitarianism as a Solution to our National Divide

Virtue and Communitarianism as the Antidote to Modern Capitalism

I posted a blog last week about our inalienable right to pursue happiness and how virtuous behavior enables us to achieve that goal. One definition of virtue, based on the Aristotelian concept of dispositions or tendencies, is to be able to act in a certain way for a certain reason – for the good of man and to advance society. Virtue enables us to live rightly. Virtue requires us to not only act in particular ways, but to feel in particular ways and to act according to right reason. Traits of character such as honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness enable a person to act with virtue. Integrity is the whole of virtue in that it calls for principled behavior and the courage to not give in to pressure to do something other than what brings oneself inner happiness.

We develop virtue over time and with practice. An honest person becomes honest because he or she acts honestly in all behaviors. Lying in one instance can lead to a cover-up in the next and a gradual descent down the proverbial “ethical slippery slope.” A person becomes trustworthy because they are consistently reliable and tells the truth. To be an ethical person you can’t pick and choose when to be honest; when to act with courage; and when to do the right thing.

Our society is a community that seeks the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are a society of laws and hold up justice as the cornerstone of our legal system because it is essential to bring about liberty. The Aristotelian sense of community praises the inner goods of a life well led through virtuous behavior. We should strive for that inner feeling of having done a good thing; helped people to advance their circumstance; acted responsibly; and engaged in principled behavior.

One problem in society during the past thirty years is we have lost sight of the inner goods and focused on external goods as the road to happiness. We pursue our self-interests without due regard for the interests of others – a basic breakdown in the community that is (was) America. Our goal is to be rich, become famous, obtain power, and influence others not through virtuous behavior but by one’s position or lot in life. Throw in starring in one’s own reality TV show and you basically have an inner glimpse into the soul of America in the decade of the 2000s. Doing right has been replaced by self-gratification. Some would say we have become a nation of narcissists.

We have come to a turning point in our nation’s history. Do we continue to go down the road of hedonism that began in the 1960s when the mantra was to “do your own thing.” Or, do we follow the path of virtue and communitarianism espoused by Amiatai Etzioni to counteract the “me-first” attitude of the 1980s.

Communitarianism can establish a common ground between liberals and conservatives, thus bridging the continual divide in our country. It emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. The movement works to strengthen the ability of all aspects of the community including the families and schools in order to introduce more positive values. In addition, it aims to get people involved in positive ways in all levels of the community and ensure that society progresses in an orderly fashion.

I have written many times before on the decay of capitalism as envisioned by Adam Smith who thought of it as a moral system. The reason is the emphasis on individualism over communitarianism – the personal good over societal good. Individualism is the view that each individual (but only individuals) has, and should regard herself as having, moral significance and inalienable rights. Communitarianism is the view that communities also have moral significance and certain rights. Modern capitalism has morphed into the belief that by acting in one’s self-interest, all benefits will trickle down throughout society. I challenge anyone to prove this to be the case.

In reflecting on the problems of capitalism today I am reminded of something once said by Gandhi: “Capitalism as such is not evil; it is the wrong use that is evil.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 9, 2012

Republicans Ready to Obstruct Obama’s Housing Plan

John “no can do; no way” Boehner Exemplifies Ignorance and Insensitivity of Republicans

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) reacted negatively (no surprise there) and insensitively (less of a surprise) to the news that President Obama is proposing new legislation that would expand on a refinancing plan announced last October by directing federal mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to allow refinancing for mortgage-holders even if their homes are underwater by any amount. But the plan could not be offered to homeowners with mortgages privately held by banks. The new legislation would allow those homeowners to refinance as well, with the associated costs covered by a fee on major lenders.

Boehner criticizes the plan because “none of the president’s previous proposals to help the housing market has worked.” That may be true and the Obama administration is to blame. However, what Boehner doesn’t seem to get is the current proposal is designed to help homeowners with underwater mortgages that have been making their monthly payments on time and are up to date. While previous plans also were designed to help homeowners with underwater mortgages, the loan-to-house-value was limited to 125%. That covers only a small percentage of homeowners who have watched while home values have tanked during the past four years.

I am one of those with a loan-to-house-value greater than 125%. My FICO score is above 800. Yet, I can’t refinance and take advantage of historically low interest rates because of the arbitrary loan-to-house value limitation of the current program.

Homeowners like me have played by the rules whereas other targeted plans to help homeowners were designed to help those in foreclosure by reducing the principal so it becomes a “freebie” for the homeowner, or lower the interest rate. These folks have not played by the rules because they missed payments or just decided not to make them yet these are the folks helped by current government mortgage assistance programs. The problem here is most of these homeowners have gone through or are at the door of foreclosure and in no position to continue to make mortgage payments even after loan modification.

Speaker Boehner, I ask whether you have ever heard of “moral hazard?” Moral hazard occurs when a party protected from risk behaves differently than it would if it were fully exposed to the risk. It arises because an individual or organization does not take full responsibility for its actions so that the consequences of bad behavior do not befall on that party. Instead, responsibility passes to another party (the banks; the public) that covers the cost of the risky behavior. The recent bailout of troubled homeowners in foreclosure is an example of moral hazard.

Why should a homeowner who can stop making payments and modify their loans continue to make the payments? In fact, there is a whole new cottage industry that has been created to help such homeowners skirt their responsibilities. The best known is “Strategic Default.”

Homeowners like me are not asking for a bailout or loan modification. We simply ask for fairness – a subject that is anathema to Republicans. We simply ask to be able to refinance our underwater mortgages without being told by Fannie or Freddie that we can’t because the loan-to-home value is greater than 125%. We simply ask to be able to take advantage of today’s historically low interest rates just like homeowners in foreclosure.

I believe President Obama missed the boat to turn around the economy in the first few months of his administration with regard to housing because programs were developed to help those who, at best, would be in a marginally better position to pay their mortgages on time. Moreover, whatever money they saved on monthly payments after loan modification was probably used to keep them out of any future foreclosure situation. That doesn’t help to stimulate the economy and provide the necessary boost  through an improved housing situation. What’s worse is it simply delays the foreclosure process that is needed before home values can start to recover.

Those of us patiently waiting during the past four years for some help know that the money we save on our monthly payments will be used in large part to stimulate the economy and the economic effect will be ten times greater than heretofore. We are the ones who have paid our monthly mortgages on time and will use the money to buy things. You know, maybe do that home remodeling project long delayed and help create jobs in housing and construction. Maybe we’ll buy a new flat screen TV or computer and provide jobs in the private sector.  Isn’t that what we need to jump-start the economy? We are the ones who will do it because we have the financial wherewithal to continue making our mortgage payments without government assistance.

The Republicans have become so blinded by their desire to defeat President Obama that they have lost touch with average Americans. They think they know what is best for us, but it seems to me they are more concerned with things like the banks having to absorb the money lost by administering the new housing program by paying a fee. Their raison d'être is to beat Obama without regard to how their intransigence harms the average American.

The mind set of Republicans reminds me of an old Zen saying:  “If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.”

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on February 6, 2012

What is meant by Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Virtue is the Key to True Happiness

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.

This, the second sentence in the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, has been called one of the best-known sentences in the English language. It remains to this day the most profound, self-evident, and—to sovereigns everywhere, the most gut-wrenching—sentence ever penned and declared by the citizenry of any country.

Most people agree about the meaning of life and liberty. In one sense life gives us the freedom to pursue happiness. However, disagreement exists over what is meant by the phrase “pursuit of happiness.” I address this issue because of the increased attention placed on the question of how should one go about pursuing happiness in the current Republican primary cycle.

When the Founders spoke of the right to pursue happiness, what they meant, according to Newt Gingrich, was the right to pursue "wisdom and virtue, not hedonism." Rick Santorum's interpretation is that, “Happiness is not enjoyment or pleasure. Happiness means to do the right thing — to do not what we want to do, but what we ought to do.” Putting these two explanations together one might say that in pursuing happiness we should do so in a reasoned way; in a manner motivated by an inner sense that it is the right thing to do -- the right way to behave -- and not solely for our own self-gratification. 

Contrast this explanation with Ayn Rand’s Objectivism that holds the right to pursue happiness protects the individual’s ability to live for her own sake, rather than for the sake of society. It is based on the idea that the pursuit of one's self-interest is one's highest moral purpose.  This belief has been identified with the capitalist ethic that by pursuing one’s own interests the result will be benefits for all in society.

I believe that the pursuit of self-interests notion embedded in modern capitalism is largely responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown whereby financial institutions made home mortgage loans to unsuspecting buyers not qualified for such loans and then sold off a basket of loans as a collateralized debt obligation thereby transferring risk to another party. Why should have commercial and investment banks care about the qualifications of a home buyer when they knew at the end of the day risk would be transferred to some other party?

The ancient Greeks had a very different perspective on happiness. Aristotle spoke about achieving eudaimonia, which is roughly translated into happiness.

Eudaimonia is not an emotional state; it is more about being all that you can, fulfilling your potential. The idea is that by living in a way that reaches your full potential you bloom or flourish and so display the best version of you that you can be. This meant striving for "arete," which loosely translated means excellence or virtue. So, for the ancient Greeks, leading a virtuous life would lead to happiness.

For Aristotle the act of living in balance and moderation brought the highest pleasure. Not in the action itself, but in the way of life. It is this way of life that would lead to the greatest long-term value rather than just a passing amusement. A modern illustration would be the difference between earning a high income, but spending it all and living in more moderation and having great wealth that will last you and provide security.

By virtues, Plato meant developing positive traits of character that would enable one to achieve true happiness. Wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice were the cardinal virtues according to Plato.

I teach ethics and emphasize to my students the explanation of classical Greek virtue espoused by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre. He believed that the exercise of virtue requires “a capacity to do the right thing in the right place at the right time in the right way.” One’s judgment in making these decisions comes from those dispositions (tendencies) that enable choices to be made about what is good for people and by holding in check desires for something other than what will help achieve this goal. For MacIntyre, virtues such as truthfulness and trust, justice, courage, and honesty would direct one’s actions in the betterment of society.

Given the challenges facing our society, each of us must remember that it is one’s actions that lead to true happiness. We gain the ability to act morally through knowledge and reason. We make deliberate choices that move us toward achieving happiness but should do so through virtuous behavior that advances society, not self-indulgent behavior.

As we watch the race for the Republican nomination unfold let us not forget that we have responsibilities to others in a civil society. Our actions affect others and it is through virtuous behavior that we achieve the end goal of happiness.

Let me conclude with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"Self-love . . . is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others."

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on January 30, 2012

Who is Killing the Homeless?

Homelessness Problem is a National Disgrace

Three weeks; four homeless dead; and the police have no idea why. Apparently, not any more. According to Orange County DA Tony Rackauckas, the 23-year-old suspect and Iraq war veteran Itzcoatl Ocampo was a thrill seeker who took pleasure in killing his victims. "He gets a thrill out of it," Rackauckas said. "This is a serious, vicious killer who went out there intentionally going about killing people and terrorizing a whole area."

Ocampo, a 23-year-old former Marine, allegedly killed four homeless men in the Orange County, California area in a two-week period of time. The first of the four victims, James McGillivray, 53, was found on Dec. 20 outside a shopping center in Placentia. The second, Lloyd Middaugh, 42, was found eight days later on the Santa Ana River Trail in Anaheim, and the third, Paulus Cornelius Smit, 57, was found behind the Yorba Linda library on Dec. 30.

The fourth victim was John Berry, a Vietnam War veteran who had stayed in the area for years, sometimes sleeping on a bench beside a river bed or, on rainy nights, in the shopping center where he was killed.

Why target the homeless? This is a question I ask myself all the time. What kind of morally-challenged individual picks on the most vulnerable in our society for their own gratification? The fact that Ocampo apparently dealt with homelessness himself suggests to me that he may have been lashing out at his own predicament by killing others with the same afflictions.

Homelessness is at a critical stage in this country especially with respect to homeless veterans. In a previous blog I pointed out that according to the National Coalition for the Homeless there are between 130,000 and 200,000 homeless people living on the streets of the wealthiest country in the world on any given night, and between one fourth and one-fifth of all homeless are veterans.

The news gets worse for the homeless. According to The National Center on Family Homelessness one in every 45 American children are homeless. That totals roughly 1.6 million kids. Children experiencing homelessness:

• Are sick four times more often than other children.

• Homeless kids have four times as many respiratory infections; twice as many ear infections; five times more gastrointestinal problems; and four times more asthma.

• They go hungry at twice the rate of other children yet have high rates of obesity due to nutritional deficiencies.

• Homeless kids have three times the rate of emotional and behavioral problems compared to non-homeless children.

Out here in LaLa land, some of us still don’t believe what happened in October 2005. Police officers from outside L.A. were observed “dumping” their unwanted mentally ill homeless on the city streets. Apparently, this inhumane “dumping” at the doors of social service organizations already short on staff and funds has been going for years. The reason given is that the cities outside L.A. don’t have the services to serve the homeless, so they travel miles outside their municipal jurisdictions and ‘dump’ them in the downtown area.

According to recent reports, the number of homeless on any given night in Los Angeles County has reached 100,000. The County of Los Angeles is now the homeless capital of the U.S., surpassing the total homeless in New York City, Chicago, and San Francisco. The homeless population of L.A. County is larger than the entire population of the city of Santa Monica.

Housing to provide the homeless with a warm place to sleep and food to eat exists in most communities. They may be homeless shelters, halfway housing, day shelters, and other forms of supportive housing. The problem is all too many homeless can’t find their way to such assistance and many feel ashamed having to use it.

One successful program that has been operating since 1988 in Fairfax, Virginia, is FACETS. FACETS seeks out and identifies people who are living on the streets or in the woods with the goal of helping them stabilize and ultimately move into housing. They also connect the homeless with medical and dental resources. Not surprisingly there is two-month waitlist for families to enter a Fairfax County homeless shelter so groups such as FACETS are critical to help treat the problem.

About three months ago I started to become involved in the homeless issue after reading a disturbing story in the Detroit Free Press that a homeless vet named Charles Duncan, 42, was beaten with a baseball bat and dragged behind a pickup truck on in Corktown, Detroit's oldest neighborhood. Steve J. Diponio allegedly told police he was tired of homeless people sleeping near his house. He pleaded not guilty on December 3 to the attack on Duncan.

I think it’s unfortunate that so little time has been devoted to the homeless problem in the current election cycle. Perhaps it has become that “dirty little secret” that Republicans won’t address. Let’s hope President Obama raises the issue because it is affecting more and more of our citizens every day. How many of us have seen people begging for money, sleeping in the streets, or wheeling a shopping cart with their worldly possessions?  

As a society, what are our ethical obligations to take care of the homeless and, especially, homeless veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country? Let me put it this way: A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on January 24, 2012

US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Cyber-bullying Case

What is the Solution to Regulating Student Cyber-bullying Attacks?

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take two cases involving three separate incidents involving free speech protection for public school students on the Internet.  In all three cases students were punished for posting obscene and derogatory information on students or school officials by using their home computers.

In one "cyber-bullying" case, a female high school student in West Virginia was punished for posting crude and insulting information in 2005 about another female student on a fake page on the MySpace social media site.

A US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July 2011 that officials at Musselman High School could punish the perpetrator without violating her free speech rights because they could reasonably believe that those comments would create a disruption at school.

In a separate case, Blue Mountain School District v. Snyder, two students from Pennsylvania -- one a high-school senior, the other an eighth grader -- were punished for opening parody MySpace profiles of their principals in 2005 and 2007 respectively.

In one fake profile the principal was depicted as a sex-crazed pedophile, while the other that the principal was gay and used drugs.

A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania ruled in June 2011 that the students not be punished because that interfered with their rights to free speech, because the posted information did not disrupt school activities.

The justices give no reasons when they decline to consider a case. However, the denial of certiorari in the two student internet speech case seems to muddy the waters in that the US Circuit Court of Appeals held that schools could punish students for offensive Internet postings while the federal appeals court sided with the free speech rights of such students.  It is indeed unfortunate the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case because cyber-bulling is the most serious problem today in our schools.

On May 7, 2010, the Pew Institute reported the results of its Research Center Internet & American Life Project. Pew found that 32% of online teens have experienced one of the following forms of online harassment: private material such as text or email forwarded without permission; receiving threatening messages; someone spreading a rumor about them online; and someone posting an embarassing picture of them online without permission.

Four cases of cyber-bullying that led to suicides stand out in my mind. On October 7, 2003, 13-year-old Ryan Patrick Halligan of Vermont hung himself in his bathroom after he had been bullied online. Ryan had been taunted and insulted about his allegedly being gay.

In July 2008, Sycamore, Ohio, high-school graduate Jessica Logan hung herself in her bedroom after nude photos sent to her boyfriend were sent to other high school girls after they broke up. The girls were harassing her, calling her a slut and a whore. Her death illustrates the dangers of sending sexually explicit messages or photographs, primarily between mobile phones (sexting).

On March 21, 2010, popular 17-year-old soccer star Alexis Pilkington of New York took her life following vicious taunts on Facebook. Pilkington’s popularity and success in soccer seems to have created a level of jealousy that prompted the cyber-bullying comments.

On September 19, 2010, 13-year-old Seth Walsh of Tehachapi, California hung himself from a tree in his backyard. Tehachapi Police Chief Jeff Kermode said investigators interviewed some of the teenagers who allegedly taunted Seth for being gay and concluded no crime was committed. The chief told radio station KGET several of the taunters broke down in tears while being questioned and said they wished they had tried to stop the bullying.

Like most states, California has been adding laws to the books to protect the bullied. An existing law that gives school officials the right to suspend or expel a student for bullying another student over the Internet or by other electronic means has been updated to include bullying others through social networking websites. The bill, AB 746, sponsored by Assemblywoman Nora Campos (D-San Jose) and signed into law by Governor Brown, goes into effect on January 1, 2012.

Perhaps this is the answer to the problem, that is, to let each state decide how to regulate cyber-bullying activity. However, when it comes to vulnerable school children, I just can’t help but feel that a national standard is necessary to avoid a situation where a student in one state can post anything and everything about another on the Internet whereas it is a crime to do so in another state. When the health and safety of young people are at stake there needs to be a national standard that creates a national value system and societal ethic.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on January 19, 2012

 

Who is telling the Truth in the Republican Debates?

Is Civility in Society a Lost Art?

From time to time I post the same blog on both of my websites for maximum exposure and, hopefully, comments on my blogs. Today’s blog is one of those occasions.

Civility. We hear so much about it today. But what is it? Some would say it is showing good manners. Others might add it is being respectful of others. I like to go back to The Golden Rule for guidance on how to define civility. If each of us simply asked our inner voice whether we would like to be treated the way we were about to treat someone else, we could have a more civil society.

I find more and more that civility in the workplace is no longer a given. Some of the emails I get are downright offensive. Some of those who send me emails just want to vent about a particular issue.  I have no problem with that but the language used to express one’s opinion should conform to societal norms.

Maybe that is the problem. We no longer act in accordance with these norms. I find many people don’t even know what they are. I find more and more people seem to believe that ethics is whatever they want it to be, a method of reasoning known as ethical relativism. If that were true then each of us could define what it means to be honest, trustworthy, have integrity, be a responsible person, and how to treat others fairly.

In my classes I go back to George Washington in teaching civility. Washington, by age sixteen, had copied out by hand, 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior In Company and Conversation.  They are based on a set of rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595.  The first rule is: “Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.” The underlying ethical value of respect is to treat others fairly.

I was watching the interviews with Republican candidates and the debate Monday night from South Carolina with an eye toward assessing the fairness of the statements made by the candidates. There were way too many to mention in this blog but one stands out in my mind. It was a comment made by Newt Gingrich when asked about the truthfulness of an advertisement made by the PAC (supposedly not associated with him). I heard the same comment verbatim made by the person who created the PAC.

The comment was in response to a question about the truthfulness of parts of the PAC advertisement that were highly critical of Governor Romney during his time at Bain Capital. Gingrich and the PAC-man (sorry) said the PAC was going to submit a series of questions to Governor Romney to assess whether the statements the PAC made about Romney’s experiences at Bain Capital are accurate. What? The PAC thinks it is proper to say something critical about another candidate’s record and then check their facts with that candidate after the veracity of the pro-Gingrich advertisement has been challenged? Think about it. This is reverse ethics at its worst.

I don’t know about you but I am tired of the debates, and another one is scheduled for tomorrow night. Yet, I seem to be drawn toward watching the debates. Perhaps it is because it is the ultimate in reality TV. Perhaps it is because I keep waiting for one of the candidates to talk about the decline in civility and ethics in our society. Perhaps tomorrow night will be the night. Then again, I said the same thing on Monday night.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on January 18, 2012

Teacher-Student Sex Raises Ethical Questions

Is it ever acceptable for a teacher to have sex with a student?

I just read an article by Brady Mallory that reports about a middle school teacher in Pierre, South Dakota, George Sazama, who admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old high school girl three times.  According to the complaint, this happened on three separate occasions at his home while the 53 year old's wife was away for the weekend. Sazama was placed on paid administrative leave last fall after the school superintendent received a tip from someone in the community. He resigned in December.

Perhaps you heard the story of Stacy Schuler, a popular Ohio high school gym teacher, who was sentenced to four years in jail last October after a judge rejected her insanity defense and convicted her on 16 counts of sexual battery for sleeping with her former students. Schuler had sex with five former students, some of whom were football players, at the school in suburban Cincinnati, where she taught since 2000. During her trial, Schuler's lawyers defended her actions with explanations ranging from her vegan diet, the use of the antidepressants, blackouts from alcohol and even irritable bowel syndrome, claiming it rendered her unable to determine right from wrong.

Who can forget Debra Lafave, a reading teacher at a middle school in Florida, who was arrested in June 2004 on charges of having sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old boy? During Lafave’s trial her defense attorney stated that she was too pretty to go to jail, saying "to place Debbie into a Florida state women's penitentiary, to place an attractive young woman in that kind of hellhole, is like putting a piece of raw meat in with the lions." Lafave’s attorney claimed insanity on behalf of his client and cited bipolar disorder.  Ultimately, Lafave pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious battery, and received three years of house arrest, seven years’ probation, and was forced to register as a sex offender.

One of the more famous, or should I say infamous, cases of teacher sex with a student is that of Mary Kay Letourneau, the former Seattle school teacher, who was imprisoned from 1997 to 2004 for having sexual intercourse with her 13-year-old student, Vili Fualaau. Letourneau gave birth to two of Fualaau’s children while incarcerated. After her release from prison, she married her former student and took his name.

In each of these cases the arrested teachers violated the ethical bond that must exist between teacher and student. The teacher has a position of trust and any action to take advantage of it is unethical. It doesn’t matter whether the under-aged child consents to the sexual activity. I believe it doesn’t even matter if the student is of the age of consent. Any sexual contact between a teacher and student is wrong.

Teachers are entrusted with having the good judgment, maturity, and professionalism to not act on sexual impulses toward students that may exist because of the daily contact, individual help with schoolwork, and mentoring position they hold. Teachers should be role models to their students and not abuse that relationship.

In reflecting on teacher-student sex, I can’t help but think about the Penn State case where Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator, allegedly raped a 10-year old boy in the Penn State locker room and abused many others. Assuming these allegations are true, as appears very likely, Sandusky not only abused his position of trust but brought physical and mental harm to the boys he abused.

What was going on in the minds of these teachers who took advantage of their positions to harm students? What motivates them to act out sexual fantasies without the self-restraint that is expected of all of us in society, not only teachers?

The foundation of ethical behavior is the Golden Rule to treat others the way you want to be treated. However, that is not enough because one could argue in the aforementioned cases that the perpetrators would have been happy to have been sexually approached by their abusers in the same way they abused these kids.

In ethics, the Golden Rule is a starting point to develop the ethical reasoning skills that enable a person to treat others with honesty, integrity, respect, caring, and trustworthiness to name a few virtues. To do so means that we must develop the moral motivation and wisdom to act in a way that we know is the right thing to do. This comes from having the moral courage to resist pressures and temptations to act otherwise. Each one of us has it within ourselves to be a moral person, but some of us can't see past our own egoistic needs. A basic requirement of ethical behavior is to consider how your actions might affect others before treating them in a certain way. For the abusive teacher such a thought never crosses their mind.

If I were a psychologist I might label such behavior, in the tradition of Casey Anthony, as narcissistic. Narcissism is a personality disorder characterized by the need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. Narcissistic people are extremely self-absorbed, insensitive to others' needs, and indifferent to the effects of their own egocentric behavior.

As a college professor I am well aware of my ethical responsibilities to my students. In fact, we discuss these issues at the first class meeting. As educators we must "walk the talk" of ethics to positively influence the moral development of our students. As noted historian, journalist, novelist and educator Henry Brooks Adams once said: "A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops." 

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on January 16, 2012

SAT Cheating Scandal Is a Low Point in High School Student Ethics

Cheaters Cheat, Honest kids are Harmed, and the Reliability of the SAT is Questioned

Perhaps you saw the 60 Minutes segment last Sunday about Sam Eshaghoff, the Great Neck Long Isalnd, New York, student, now at Emory University, who officials said was paid to take tests for other kids. You can watch a one-minute snipet from the show by clicking on the CBS video in the above link.

In the interview with Alison Stewart, Eshaghoff rationalized his unethical actions with statements like this one:

“My whole clientele were based on word of mouth and like a referral system”. A kid who has a horrible grade-point average, who, no matter how much he studies is going to totally bomb this test”. By giving him an amazing score, I totally give him … a new lease on life. He’s going to go to a totally new college … be bound for a totally new career … new path in life”.

First of all, how can someone who uses so many “totally” words in a sentence be so smart that other kids pay him to take the SAT for them? I’m totally baffled by it. 

Here is more from the interview with our anti-hero who admitted to hearing the notion that deserving students are being left out of those colleges as a result of his fraud.

 “[I] really wasn’t displacing somebody … I feel confident defending the fact that [my clients] getting into the schools that they ended up getting into didn’t really affect other people”. [He] regrets the shame his arrest caused his family and says “if he could start over, he never would have done it”. [Yeah, right. They all say that after being caught].

Eshaghoff accepted up to $2,500 from other students -- per student that is -- to take their tests using easily manufactured fake IDs. His scam came crashing down in fall 2011, when he was arrested for criminal impersonation and fraud.

Later in the interview program Stewart asked Kurt Landgraf, the president of the Educational Testing Service (ETS) that administers the SAT, whether it is easy to cheat on the SAT. Landgraf said “no”. All I can say is OMG! He needs to get his head out of the sand.

Landgraf admitted to discovering 150 impersonators last year who, like Eshaghoff, simply manufactured an ID to take the test for others. I figure if he admits to 150, the real number is closer to 1,500. He said that three million students take the SAT every year. His organization spends $11 million on SAT test security annually. I don’t know about you but his blasé attitude worries me. This is the guy who is in charge of SAT security and he dismisses at least 150 cheating incidents as being immaterial to the overall reliability of the Exam.

It seems to me even one cheat is one too many. We’re talking about basic ethical standards. Honesty is a virtue. Trustworthiness is an essential value in a test like the SAT. Fairness to other students who take the test using their own skills is compromised by the cheats. How would you like it if your son or daughter was denied admission to their college of choice because someone got in as a result of Eshaghoff’s fraudulent results?

You may be wondering how Eshaghoff pulled off the scam. He simply made a high school ID; one of six forms of identification accepted at SAT testing centers. Here is another pearl of wisdom by Eshaghoff:

A school ID is what? Like what is that? It's like, it's some colors with literally a name and picture on it. So what I would do is, I took the template from my high school ID, pasted my picture on top of it, and whatever person's name whose test I was taking, I would have their name and date of birth on it. And it was really as easy as that.

Like wow, is all I can say, Sam. Seriously? I can’t believe it is so easy to cheat on an exam that is so widely used by colleges and universities. As a college professor I am shocked by this incident.

The investigation of the cheaters is ongoing. As of last November, at least 35 students remained under investigation; several had been charged. Criminal defense attorney Robert Gallo who represents one of the charged students made one of the more ethically-challenged comments about this incident. He admitted to being stunned at the ongoing court action. “The student that I represent went on with his life on the supposition that this matter was behind him.” Gallo said, adding that his client is currently in college.

How do we make sense out of the whole Eshaghoff cheating affair? Some blame parents for putting too much pressure on their kids to get into the best schools. Others blame peer groups and the pressure, especially in a wealthy community with high achieving parents like Great Neck, NY, to get into Ivy League Schools. I blame Eshaghoff and the kids who hired him to cheat. They need to accept personal responsibility for their actions. How will they learn that there are consequences for violating the rules, breaking the law, and acting immorally if they are not punished?

Oh, and in case you are wondering, a perfect SAT score is 2400. Eshaghoff scored between 2140 and 2220 for the students. Over the course of nearly three years, he took the SAT over and over again, consistently scoring in the 97th percentile or higher for the students he called his "clients."

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on January 4, 2012

 

Cyberbullying on the Internet

How to Deal with Cyberbullying

I have written several blogs about cyberbullying. Cyber bullies seek to gain gratification from the psychological harm to others by embarrassing, provoking, and tormenting the target of their rants.  Cyberbullying occurs in our schools, in the workplace, and most recently, through the Internet. The effects on the bullied can be life-threatening including suicide. The Internet provides the perfect forum for cyber bullies because of it anonymity, ease of provocation, and the ability to go viral in a matter of minutes.  

Cyber bullies get a perverse sense of satisfaction (called gratification) from sending people flame mail and hate mail. Flame mail is an email whose contents are designed to inflame and enrage. Hate mail is hatred (including prejudice, racism, sexism, and “sexual orientation-ism”).  

My question is why has bullying in general and cyber-bullying in particular become such a problem? I’m convinced it reflects the general breakdown in civility and ethics in our society. The mantra today seems to be “Rudeness Rules.” The word respect is more often attached to the expression “give me my props” than to deferential behavior towards those in authority positions. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard from my ethics students that respect must be earned, not given simply because of one’s position. Does that mean we shouldn’t respect President Obama simply because he is the President of the U.S? I hope not.

It used to be that each of us had an inner voice, called our conscience that made us stop and think twice before saying something we might regret later on. We considered the consequences of our actions before we did something we might regret at a later date. Cyber bullies have no conscience. In fact, they are cowards preying on the vulnerable and trying to bully in a way that they won’t get caught for their actions.

According to Bully Online, the objectives of bullies are power, control, domination, and subjugation. They get a kick out of seeing the bullied person react. It doesn't matter how you react, the fact they've successful provoked a reaction is, to the bully, a sign that their attempt at control have been successful. After that, it's a question of wearing you down. The more your try to explain, negotiate, conciliate, and otherwise fend-off the criticism, the more gratification they obtain from your increasingly desperate attempts to communicate with them. It is simply adding fuel to the fire.

So, what should you do if you, a family member, a loved one, co-worker or friend is being bullied? First, don't respond, don't interact and don't engage. The bully is trying to goad you into action. This is not as easy to do as it sounds. It's a natural response to want to defend yourself, and gain the respect of the bullier. As they say in New York: fuhgetaboutit! That type of reaction encourages more bullying and may widen the circle of bullies.

Next, keep all abusive emails. Create a new folder, perhaps called "Abuse", and move hate mail and flame mail into this folder. You don't have to read it. When the time comes to take action, this folder of hate mail and flame mail is your evidence. As Bully Online points out: “Bullies, especially cyber bullies, are obsessive people and if their account is closed down you may start receiving mail from another address. This can later be compared to the abusive emails you've already received to identify the perpetrator. You'll find the same words, phrases and strategies occurring.”

Third, inform authority figures of what is going on. You need to establish a record of complaints. For schoolchildren this may mean getting your parents involved. Even though the bullying may take place outside of school limits, the school should be informed. Increasingly, state laws are requiring schools to set policies against bullying and deal with reported events. For workers it may mean informing the appropriate person in the organization, perhaps in Human Resources, that you have been the target of bullying.

Lastly, become informed of your rights. There are many helpful websites such as Bully Online that have useful information about what to do if you believe you are being bullied. I provide advice to those who believe they are being bullied through both of my websites: Ethics Sage aand Workplace Ethics Advice. The latter includes a form to use to send questions directly to me. I deal with them on an anonymous basis.

Don’t forget to never take the bait of a bullier. Bullies feel gratification when the have provoked a response. It means they have been successful in getting under your skin. Any response you send via e-mail or by other means is bound to be used to fuel the flames of hatred. Your friends will still be your friends, and if they go over to the “dark side,” then they weren’t true friends to begin with.

Finally, as hard as it sounds I advise you to take the “ethical high road” and stay above the fray. Talk to your parents or co-workers if you are being bullied in the workplace; create a record (file) of emails and bullying events; speak to a trusted adviser; and, remember, you are better than the bullier.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on December 29, 2011

 

Is it Ethically Proper for Asian Students to Lie on Their College Applications?

Asian Students Discriminated Against in College Admissions

Let me say up front I am putting the issue of affirmative action aside for the purpose of this blog which is to evaluate the ethics of college admission policies that discriminate against Asian students.

Perhaps you’ve heard about Lanya Olmstead who was born in Florida to a mother who immigrated from Taiwan and an American father of Norwegian ancestry. Ethnically, she considers herself half Taiwanese and half Norwegian. But when applying to Harvard, Olmstead checked only one box for her race: white.

“I didn‘t want to put ’Asian’ down,” Olmstead says, “because my mom told me there’s discrimination against Asians in the application process.” For years, many Asian-Americans have been convinced that it‘s harder for them to gain admission to the nation’s top colleges.

Studies show that Asian-Americans meet these colleges’ admissions standards far out of proportion to their 6% representation in the U.S. population, and that they often need test scores hundreds of points higher than applicants from other ethnic groups to have an equal chance of admission. Critics say these numbers, along with the fact that some top colleges with race-blind admissions have double the Asian percentage of Ivy League schools, prove the existence of discrimination.

The way it works, the critics believe, is that Asian-Americans are evaluated not as individuals, but against the thousands of other ultra-achieving Asians who possess a work ethic second to none. (It is well known in academic circles that Asian students work hard, spend long hours studying, and strive for excellence in most everything they do).

I have previously blogged about the decline in the work ethic of American students. All too many prefer to play games with their iPhones, text or tweet their friends and family, or watch videos and programs on their laptops. Entertaining oneself has replaced working hard for the sake of working hard – to achieve more and to advance society.

Let’s return to the dilemma of Asian students. Amalia Halikias is a Yale freshman whose mother was born in America to Chinese immigrants; her father is a Greek immigrant. She also checked only the “white” box on her application.

“As someone who was applying with relatively strong scores, I didn’t want to be grouped into that stereotype,” Halikias says. “I didn’t want to be written off as one of the 1.4 billion Asians that were applying.” Her mother was “extremely encouraging” of that decision, Halikias says, even though she places a high value on preserving their Chinese heritage. “Asian-American is more a scale or a gradient than a discrete combination. I think it’s a choice,” Halikias says.

But leaving the Asian box blank felt wrong to Jodi Balfe, a Harvard freshman who was born in Korea and came here at age 3 with her Korean mother and white American father. She checked the box against the advice of her high school guidance counselor, teachers and friends.

“I felt very uncomfortable with the idea of trying to hide half of my ethnic background,” Balfe says. “It’s been a major influence on how I developed as a person. It felt like selling out, like selling too much of my soul. I thought admission wouldn’t be worth it. It would be like only half of me was accepted.”

Other students, however, feel no conflict between a strong Asian identity and their response to what they believe is injustice. “If you know you’re going to be discriminated against, it’s absolutely justifiable to not check the Asian box,” says Halikias.

Wait a minute. This sounds like it is OK to do something wrong because you know something wrong is being done to you. As my mother taught me, two wrongs don’t make a right. If I conclude that lying on one’s college application is wrong, even if it “only” refers to the ethnicity question, then I shouldn’t do it. Ethical people act on principle from a foundation of what they judge to be right or wrong. Our beliefs about what is right and what is wrong develop from a variety on influences including our family upbringing, religious beliefs, peer influences, community, and so on. The point of ethics education is to teach young people that there are commonly accepted standards of behavior that should be followed in all actions and decisions including, trust, respect, fairness, caring, responsibility and accountability, to name a few. Integrity is the whole of ethical behavior because it relies on principles-based decision making.  

It’s unfortunate that Asian students may be discriminated against by some colleges and universities because these students belong to an over-achieving group. It seems to me we should try to rise up those without a strong work ethic (i.e. American students) to the level of those with one (Asian students). The wrong message is sent to all students when some with better credentials are denied admission because they are disproportionately over-represented in the student body.

Ethics is about how you treat other people. Let’s not forget the “Golden Rule” that is the foundation of religious belief – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In other words, would those making college admission decisions want to see their sons and daughters denied admission because their race or religion is already over-represented? I think not.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, December 22, 2011

The Ethics of Fracking

A Cost-benefit Analysis of Fracking

I always tell my ethics students that there are two sides to every issue from an ethical perspective and they need to identify both in making a cogent argument for or against a particular action or decision. Oftentimes the ethical issues are subtle; they don’t jump out at you. A good example is fracking.

Fracking, which is short for ‘hydraulic fracturing,’ refers to a method of recovering oil and gas from shale rock. Here is how it works. An oil company would drill down and then push under great pressure liquids sideways into oil and gas-rich shale rock. Millions of gallons of water, mixed with brine or chemicals, is injected into the shale and the resulting pressure fractures the rock layers which releases natural gas or oil. A proppant (propping agent), usually sand, is injected into the fractures to keep the fissures open and the oil or gas flowing.

According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, 90 percent of all oil and gas wells in the U.S. are “fracked” to boost production. Fracking usually occurs just after a new well is drilled, but many wells are fractured numerous times to get as much production out of a profitable site as possible.

Fracking is controversial because the chemicals, mixed with water, may find their way into aquifers which supply drinking water. Oil companies say that fracking is safe and poses no threat to drinking water. Right now, few groups are calling for an outright ban on fracking. However, shareholders want companies to issue full disclosure about individual fracking operations and the chemicals used during the process. Some companies counter that they already abide by environmental laws and regulations and that further disclosure is not necessary.

Shareholders of two large gas producers — ExxonMobil, and Chevron - recently voted not to require company officials to disclose more information about fracking. Exxon and Chevron had urged shareholders to vote against disclosure. Even so, 30 percent of ExxonMobil shareholders and 41 percent of Chevron shareholders voted for increased disclosure.  ExxonMobil spokeswoman Karen Matusic said that while the company supports the disclosure of chemical composition of hydraulic fracturing fluid, management has urged shareholders to vote against the activists’ resolution. “We believe state-level oversight of oil and gas operations, including hydraulic fracturing, is the most effective approach for protecting human health and the environment, since it best accounts for local geology and other local factors,” she said.

The public has a right to be concerned about fracking. Last July thousands of gallons of fracking fluid spilled following an accident at a natural gas well in Pennsylvania. The well blew near the surface, spilling thousands of gallons of frack fluid over containment walls, through fields, personal property and farms, even where cattle continue to graze.

Two weeks ago the EPA found that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals. The fracking occurred below the level of the drinking water aquifer and close to water wells, the EPA said. The EPA did emphasize that the findings are specific to the Pavillion area. The agency said the fracking that occurred in Pavillion differed from fracking methods used elsewhere in regions with different geological characteristics. Elsewhere, drilling is more remote and fracking occurs much deeper than the level of groundwater that would normally be used.

There are those who support fracking including landowners who have the most to lose if royalties stop flowing because of restrictions on fracking. Some landowners — such as a group with more than 10,000 acres combined in Oneida and Madison counties in New York State — have formed a formal partnership aiming to allow hydrofracking on their land, but they want control how it’s done.

From an ethical perspective we might look at the harms and benefits of fracking. In other words, do the potential dangers of fracking, including contamination of water supplies, outweigh the potential benefits of producing badly needed oil and gas resources at a time when our national security may be in jeopardy because of our continued reliance on unreliable sources of energy. Is U.S. energy independence more important than the potential for harm to those affected by fracking procedures? Do jobs and economic growth trump health and safety concerns?

There can be no doubt that additional studies are needed, more tests must be done, and the industry should be better regulated. (In 2005 the Bush administration chose to keep the industry virtually unregulated). In the meantime, why not release all available information to the public about safety risks and let the public decide? Full disclosure is a basic tenet of ethical behavior. From a “Rights Theory” perspective, those potentially affected by fracking operations have an ethical right to know about the potential harm to their drinking water and other environmental effects.

Energy decisions abound where safety versus economic benefits are pitted against each other. We have been debating the issue for years with respect to offshore oil drilling and now the debate focuses on whether we should extend the Keystone Pipeline that would carry 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from northern Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas, crossing the U.S. states of Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas.

The bottom line on these issues, including practices such as fracking that has transformed the U.S. energy industry, is that energy independence comes at a cost. Increasingly, we as Americans, will be faced with tradeoff-decisions between sacrificing some health and safety concerns in the name of providing economic benefits, including jobs and increasing exports to countries like China that crave safer natural gas energy supplies for its growing economy. It’s a painful decision but one that must be made. We need a national conversation on the issue but, regrettably, the issue is largely on the back-burner this election cycle.

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

Unintended Consequences of Occupy Movement

Port Disruptions Not the Way to Go for the Occupy Movement

Some believe the Occupy Wall Street movement seems to be all about socially engineering our country so that the rich get poorer and the poor get richer. Certainly, there are those in the movement who believe in a more socialistic society and wealth redistribution. Personally, I don’t think this was the genesis of the movement. It was to speak out about corporate greed and hold banks and investment firms accountable for the financial meltdown of 2008 that still causes pain for so many. Nevertheless, a valid question to ask is what motivates the hard core protesters that remain and disrupt work at ports of entry and block roads and streets.

Just this past Monday, thousands of demonstrators forced shipping terminals in Oakland, Portland, and Longview, Washington, to halt parts of their operations. Protesters claim they targeted the ports to focus on the "economic engines for the elite." Protesters are most upset by two West Coast companies: port operator SSA Marine and grain exporter EGT. Investment banking giant Goldman Sachs Group Inc. owns a major stake in SSA Marine and has been a frequent target of protesters.

Demonstrators say they are standing up for workers against the port companies, which have had recent high-profile clashes with union workers. Longshoremen in Longview, for example, have had a longstanding dispute with EGT, which employs workers from a different union to staff its terminal. The longshoremen's union says the jobs rightfully belong to them.

I’ve been a strong supporter of the Occupy movement from the beginning based on its message of protesting greed and the growing inequality of incomes in society caused mainly by the rich, such as corporate CEOs, earning millions while the average working Americans' wages stay stagnant or decline. Moreover, some CEOs earn millions in severance packages even after their company has failed. There is no denying the actions of banks and financial institutions, aided by government-sponsored entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, created a housing bubble that has cut personal wealth by 50% in some cases. Those actions also have contributed to our persistently high jobless rate and disgruntled workers leaving the workforce.

The other side of the issue is that protesters have to think carefully about how their actions affect others – a basic tenet of ethical behavior. By disrupting work at ports and in business communities they may get their message across and bring attention to their cause but it may lead to business slowdowns that ultimately cost jobs and other economic costs.

Few consider the strain the protests put on municipal government. Police details are costly with police union’s often demanding overtime pay for such assignments. In New York City alone, the NYPD reported $2 million in extra security costs due to the protests. Atlanta estimated its costs for policing its own homegrown Occupy movement at $300,000. Oakland, the site of the most violence, claimed costs of $700,000.

Local businesses feel the costs as customers seek alternatives. Unfortunately, it seems the small businesses are hurt the most – the very groups we should be supporting during the economic downturn.

These are “unintended consequences” of the Occupy movement and that seem to be negatively affecting public support for the cause. According to a Gallup Poll taken November 19-20, support for the movement declined from the previous month from 25% to 20% while disapproval went from 20% to 31%. It’s quite possible the results will be lower when the next poll is taken.

I believe the Occupy movement has to take it to the next level and identify positive changes in the way our economy is run. Be a force for change, not disruption. It’s one thing to constantly stare down the opposition. It’s another to formulate solutions to the very problems the movement protests against. And, find a way to get your message across without disrupting the normal flow of economic activity and hurting the very people we should be helping.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on December 15, 2011

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

Obama’s "America Has Become 'Soft and Lazy'" Comments

Declining Work Ethic Threatens Economic Competitiveness in America

You may have heard President Obama’s recent statement with respect to the decline of American economic influence around the world and lagging efforts to promote foreign investment – “We've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades." I want to share my thoughts with you as to why this might be the case.

First, there has been a consistent decline in the work ethic in America over a number of years. One reason is an unwillingness to sacrifice short term benefits for the long term good of society. We all want instant gratification and material possessions fueled by a culture whereby events occur with the click of a button. Our culture no longer emphasizes building the American dream. Instead, we emphasize obtaining it. That was the message of the subprime loans and financial meltdown that have negatively affected so many.

In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville worried that free, capitalist societies might develop so great a “taste for physical gratification” that citizens would be “carried away, and lose all self-restraint.” Tocqueville believed that the genius of America in the early nineteenth century was its pursuit of “productive industry” without a descent into destructive materialism. He pointed to a common set of civic virtues that celebrated not merely hard work but also thrift, integrity, self-reliance, and modesty – virtues that grew out of a sense of morality that informed American democracy and free markets.

Going forward, how can we maintain our preeminence as an economic power in the world? Like an addicted person we must first admit we have a problem. The problem is we have become soft as a nation. This is another point made by President Obama recently when he said: "The way I think about it is…this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and…we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track."

Obviously, the President did not mean all Americans have become soft and lazy. However, we must recognize that we have morphed into a “what’s in it for me” culture influenced by reality TV programs, over-the-top media advertising, government corruption, and business fraud. These negative images have, I believe, affected our willingness to work hard. I see it all the time as a university professor when students shy away from the difficult fields of study in science and mathematics that are so crucial to our global competitiveness and creating sustainable advances in research and development that fuels technological innovation and economic growth.

We need to start a national debate on these issues before it is too late. We need to develop concrete plans to do what it takes to restore the work ethic that existed when this country first thrived and became an economic role model for the rest of the world. Perhaps no issue more than this is crucial to the future of America.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on November 22, 2011

Paterno and Penn State: A Matter of Integrity

Sexual Abuse at Penn State Raises Questions About the Integrity of the Institution

Integrity is a basic characteristic of an honest person – a principled person – one who does not stand idly by while others violate basic societal norms and standards. A person of integrity does not allow another person, such as a supervisor, to make the final decision on a matter that involves moral behavior when such behavior is ignored. A person of integrity does what is necessary to stop harmful acts; goes above the heads of higher-ups who ignore the allegation of a wrongful action; and, as the ultimate step, engages in external whistleblowing to inform those who might put an end to immoral action. A good example is to bring a matter of concern to the attention of the police, a regulatory agency, or even the newspapers. It is in this context that I examine the behavior of Assistant Coach Mike McQueary and head coach Joe Paterno in the Penn State scandal.

Former Penn State defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky, raped a 10-year old boy in the Penn State locker room around 9:30 pm on March 1, 2002, and the crime went unreported for years. The despicable act is that much more despicable because he offended eight  boys over a 15-year period all of whom were part of a charity started by Sandusky for disadvantaged kids known as the Second Mile.

All of the attention is now on Assistant Coach Mike McQueary who had witnessed the inappropriate sexual activity. Under oath, McQueary told a grand jury that he saw the rape take place. Not only did he not break up the sexual assault, he didn't call the authorities. Instead, McQueary called his father, and told head coach Joe Paterno. When faced with a situation of child rape, McQueary chose to leave the scene. If all the reported facts about the case are accurate, the 10-year-old boy needed McQueary's help, and the then-28-year-old aspiring coach chose himself, Sandusky, and the reputation of Penn State at the time, over saving the boy.

From an ethical perspective, it was McQueary's moral responsibility to report and stop Sandusky from harming other boys. He was the main witness to the alleged sexual assault. Though he reported it to Paterno, he knew that Sandusky wasn't brought to justice. Sandusky faces 40 counts of alleged sexual abuse of young boys over the 15-year span.

McQueary, Paterno, and Penn State officials might have prevented several boys from being sexually assaulted if they simply picked up the phone and called the police. McQueary did not act with integrity. His actions were self-serving as he looked out for the interests of Penn State, not those of the abused boy. He did not take the extra step required of a person of integrity and inform those who would have taken action – the police or the local press. A young boy’s mental and physical state was at stake and that trumps bad press for Penn State.

As for the Paterno matter, the decision of the Penn State Board of Trustees to fire legendary and much loved iconic football coach Joe Paterno was painful for some to accept. After all, Paterno had just announced his retirement at the end of the year, after his 46^th season as head coach. He had just become the winningest coach in college football history – 409 victories. He is loved by all at Penn State – by the university community, and throughout the state of Pennsylvania. But, is that a good reason not to fire a coach who was told of the sexual abuse of a 10-year old boy in 2002 and did not take any action that might have prevented such a tragedy in the future? Paterno knew nothing was being done by University higher-ups and didn't take any action other than to make the initial report. This is not how a person of integrity should act.

During the past several days Paterno's reaction to the public disclosure of the scandal has changed from basic denial to basic regret. Responding to the scandal that has overtaken his university and his program, Paterno said in a statement released on Sunday, November 6 that he acted appropriately with the information he had in 2002 regarding child sexual abuse allegations against his former defensive coordinator, Jerry Sandusky.

"If true, the nature and amount of charges made are very shocking to me and all Penn Staters," Paterno said. "While I did what I was supposed to with the one charge brought to my attention, like anyone else involved I can't help but be deeply saddened these matters are alleged to have occurred."

“As my grand jury testimony stated, I was informed in 2002 by an assistant coach that he had witnessed an incident in the shower of our locker room facility. It was obvious that the witness was distraught over what he saw, but he at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report.”

“Regardless, it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky. As Coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators. I understand that people are upset and angry, but let's be fair and let the legal process unfold.”

After almost a week of scrutiny of his actions by the media and with time for personal reflection, Paterno said on Friday, November 6: "It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." To me, this is the reaction of someone who got caught after the fact and is now trying to "save face;" but he did nothing while the reprehensible events took place.

It's hard to feel sympathy for McQueary, Paterno, and the others who were involved with the scandal when considering the irreparable damage their inaction has done to Sandusky's alleged victims. Paterno should have known better. Football coaches are first and foremost, educators. Paterno was viewed as a father figure; therefore the nickname, “Joe Pa.” Paterno failed the integrity test because he was the one person who unquestioningly would have been believed if he had stepped up to the plate and insisted action be taken.

Supporters might say that Penn State should have let him play out the string of remaining games that will include a Bowl game. We could say that Penn State should have allowed him to leave with dignity. However, we also could say he failed to act on egregious behavior by Sandusky that changed the lives of the offended young people in an unspeakable way. ESPN college football analyst Chris Spielman summed it up well when he said Paterno was a good man who made a bad choice and now he has to own it.

Blog by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on November 14, 2011

 

DNA Evidence, the Innocence Project, and the Release of Innocent People from Jail

Courts Increasingly Stay Executions and Release ‘Criminals’

You may have heard that on Monday a Texas court granted a stay of execution for convicted murderer Henry "Hank" Skinner, giving Skinner time to pursue DNA testing his lawyers say could prove his innocence. Skinner had been scheduled to die by lethal injection Wednesday evening for the New Year's Eve 1993 killings of his live-in girlfriend, Twila Busby, and her two adult sons in the Texas Panhandle town of Pampa. But the state Court of Criminal Appeals halted the proceeding Monday afternoon, ruling that it needed time to review the state's revised law on DNA testing. In a written statement, Skinner's lawyer, Rob Owen, said the decision "has ensured that Mr. Skinner's request for DNA testing will receive the thorough and serious consideration it deserves."

Skinner, now 49, has strongly denied any involvement in the crime and claims that the DNA analysis of untested evidence will not only show him innocent but help determine the real killer. He came within 45 minutes of execution in March 2010 before the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and handed him a legal reprieve.

One day later in a separate case, a Cook County Circuit Court judge set aside the convictions of three men who were convicted of a rape and murder in 1991. Robert Taylor, James Harden and Jonathan Barr, all of whom were teenagers when arrested, were represented by the University of Chicago’s Exoneration Project, the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth with private attorney Jennifer Blagg and the Innocence Project.

In June 1994, before any of the teenagers were tried, the Illinois State Police crime lab identified a lone male DNA profile from sperm recovered from the victim’s body. Even though all 5 defendants were excluded as the source of the semen, the prosecution pushed forward rather than seeking the source of the semen recovered from this young victim.

In August 2009, James Harden, through the Chicago Exoneration Project, again sought DNA testing. For more than a year, the Dixmoor Police Department claimed that it was unable to locate the DNA and was threatened with contempt of court for failing to respond to a subpoena. Eventually Judge Michele Simmons ordered the Dixmoor police to allow counsel to view the evidence storage areas and log books for themselves. In short order, the Department informed the lawyers that they had finally located the evidence. DNA testing uncovered a full male profile that was entered into the national DNA database of criminal offenders, matching serial violent offender Willie Randolph.

“It is abundantly clear that overly aggressive police interrogation techniques can cause adults to falsely confess to serious crimes – and when it comes to juveniles, it can happen at a truly alarming rate,” said Joshua Tepfer with the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth. “These techniques don’t only hurt those wrongfully convicted, but as we saw in this case, they allow the real perpetrators to go free and commit other crimes. Hopefully this case will lead the way for much-needed reforms like requiring that all police interviews and interrogations be videotaped in full.”

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.

I have to wonder about the increasingly frequent discovery that DNA evidence was not properly screened during legal proceedings. Is it incompetence? Do those who fail to properly examine DNA evidence have an ulterior motive for not doing so? What that might be? I believe it is a combination of all these factors including the emphasis by some police departments to close cases as soon as possible and the desire by some investigators to maintain a high conviction rate. However, this is doing real harm to our society. Freedom is the number virtue for all Americans and the basis for our Constitution. I can’t imagine anything worse than losing 30 years of your life for a crime you did not commit.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on November 11, 2011

U.S. Failing to Meet Global Education and Competiveness Challenges

Education in the U.S. and Declining Global Competitiveness

The United States has fallen to "average" in international education rankings released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. America has received scores around 500 on a scale that goes up to 1,000: 487 in math, 500 in reading and 502 in science.

The three-yearly OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) report, which compares the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds in 70 countries around the world, ranked the United States 14th out of 34 OECD countries for reading skills, 17th for science and a below-average 25th for mathematics.

A sobering report on the performance of American students relative to their peers in other countries should be a wake-up call for the nation, Secretary Duncan said Tuesday.

 “The mediocre performance of America’s students is a problem we cannot afford to accept and yet cannot afford to ignore” said Education Secretary Arne Duncan. He provided this summary of U.S. students’ performance on the 2009 PISA:

• In reading literacy, 15-year-old American students were average performers. The U.S. effectively showed no improvement in reading since 2000. Overall, the OECD’s rankings have U.S. students in 14^th place in reading literacy among OECD nations.
• In mathematics, U.S. 15-year-olds are below-average performers among OECD nations—ranked 25^th. After a dip in our 2006 math scores, U.S. students returned to the same level of performance in 2009 as six years earlier, in 2003. U.S. students outperformed their peers in math in only five OECD countries.
• The most encouraging finding from PISA is that our average science score is up. In 2006, American 15-year-olds had below-average skills in scientific literacy, compared to their OECD peers. Today, U.S. students have improved enough to become average performers in science among OECD nations, earning 17^th place in the OECD rankings.

“The hard truth,” Secretary Duncan said at Tuesday’s PISA announcement, “is that other high-performing nations have passed us by during the last two decades…In a highly competitive knowledge economy, maintaining the educational status quo means America’s students are effectively losing ground.”

PISA’s high-scorers include South Korea, Finland and Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai in China, and Canada.

At the same time our students are failing to meet the grade, foreign immigrants are sought after in high technology, science, and mathematics. The H1B Visa Program brings in less than one-third of the more than 200,000 applicants. Businesses are clamming for a simpler system that works faster to keep America competitive in these highly-skilled fields.

Throwing money after the problem will not work unless it is targeted to invest in homegrown talent that is educated and trained in the critical science, technology, and engineering and math fields.  On the other hand, we have to wonder why American students are not choosing to study in these fields. I agree with something President Obama said on September 30 that:

"The way I think about it is … this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track."

The U.S. education system must be improved, top to bottom, so that our most precious resource – our children – can compete in the increasingly global world economy.  Statistically our K-12 students are falling farther behind students in Korea, China and elsewhere in the physical sciences.   We can and must do better.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on November 9, 2011

Achieving Happiness through Ethics

Happiness, Ethics and the Occupy Movement

I teach my accounting students about the Greek philosophy of ethics because I believe it provides a roadmap for living the good life. Today’s students are searching to find what will make them happy. However, they all too often look in the wrong places. Most turn to social media to connect with others and hope that it leads to happiness, or at least self-satisfaction. Some go looking in a bottle of beer, wine, hard alcohol, or drugs. Many will grow up believing the attainment of wealth will make them happy. Others will look for fame perhaps by starring in their own reality television show.

The point is young people today lack the moral compass to know that happiness comes from actions taken and goals achieved that benefit others as well as oneself. It’s a feeling that you did something good; helped someone out; achieved success in a worthy endeavor; fought for a just cause; or found the right person in life. Happiness is something fulfilling not something we happen to desire or want. We of course desire to be fulfilled, but the point is not every desire that occurs to us will necessarily fulfill us.  Desires must be examined and tested. Happiness is an internal good not something we measure in dollars and cents or the achievement of power or fame.

According to the ancient Greeks, happiness is the highest good and the end at which all our activities ultimately aim. Aristotle defines the supreme good as an activity of the rational soul in accordance with virtue. Virtue for the Greeks is equivalent to excellence. A virtuous person is someone who performs the distinctive activity of being human well. And this is why virtue eludes so many in today’s society. To achieve excellence through virtue and gain happiness a person must have a strong work ethic. A person must be willing to work hard to achieve a worthy goal even at the sacrifice of self-gratification. The decline in the work ethic of young people has been discussed before and readers might be interested in my take on the issue.

Happiness is a “contact sport.” It is difficult to achieve the state of happiness when we’re too busy texting, tweeting and updating our Facebook page. We need to be engaged in direct communication. We need to be involved with others in a community of like-minded people. We need to take positive actions to achieve happiness. This is why I believe the “Occupy” movement is spreading rapidly to all parts of the world. It gives people who feel disenfranchised an opportunity to speak out with members of their community.  

The just man is happy, and the unjust man is miserable,” Plato declares in The Republic. A noble thought, to be sure, but Socrates’ most famous student didn’t have data to back up his belief. Harvey James, on the other hand, does. The University of Missouri economist finds a relationship between life satisfaction and low tolerance for unethical conduct. He discussed his findings with Miller-McCune staff writer Tom Jacobs.

“I found a correlation between how people responded to ethics questions and their satisfaction with life. As part of the 2005-06 wave of the World Values Survey (which examines attitudes around the globe), respondents were asked in face-to-face interviews: On a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied are you with your life? There were also four ethics questions that ask how acceptable or unacceptable they felt a particular practice is: claiming government benefits to which you are not entitled; avoiding paying your fare on public transportation; cheating on taxes; and accepting a bribe.

James found that people who believe that these particular ethical scenarios are not acceptable also tend to indicate they are more satisfied with life. That’s with controlling for other factors that scholars have shown are also correlated with happiness, including relative wealth. James concluded from his study that happiness is derived from doing well, and from meeting psychological rather than material or hedonistic needs. He states that “While income, personal characteristics and societal values play a role in affecting happiness, so do personal ethics.” James believe that “if the goal of public policy is to improve subjective well-being, and if subjective well-being increases when people are just, then efforts to improve the moral behavior of people will also improve overall societal well-being.”

This is the problem in America today. We do not recognize the importance of ethical behavior to achieve a just, better society for all. We are fighting against the traditional capitalistic ethic that all of society will benefit by allowing corporations to pursue their own best interests guided only be the “invisible hand” of the marketplace. However, the pursuit of self-interest by corporations has brought misery to many and that is why we have the Occupy movement. The answer is not more government regulation. The answer comes from within each of us to commit to being a good person; to treat others the way we want to be treated; to engage in civic virtue; and to act in a way that betters society. I often ask my students: When you die what do you want to be written about you on your tombstone? Is it that you were a powerful, wealthy person who achieved materialistic success? OR: Is it that the world is a better place for your having been in it?

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on November 7, 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

Top 250 Delinquent Taxpayers

CA Franchise Board Posts List of Delinquent Taxpayers

The California Franchise Tax Board released its list of the top delinquent taxpayers and it is quite an eye-opener. The authority to publish this list is pursuant to California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 19195. The complete list can be accessed at the Franchise Tax Board website.

While nearly 90 percent of taxpayers pay the taxes they owe, the rest are delinquent in the amount of $6.5 billion, which represents about one-third of the persistent budget deficit in California during the past few years. When taxpayers do not pay their fair share, it places an unfair burden on those of us who do.  Those of us who play by the rules are harmed by those who don’t because the tax shortfall has led the state to cut essential services, lay off workers, and dial back on infrastructure plans that might stimulate the economy.

The list shows the top 250 individual and business taxpayers with state income tax liens where the total balance owed is greater than $100,000. Bear in mind there are lot more below the $100,000 threshold. The Franchise Tax Board encourages whistle-blowers to come forward and assist the Board in its collection efforts. Good luck with that!

As of October 13, 2011, the amount due on this list totals $152,377,555.74. The Board of Equalization is required by law to post this information every quarter, removing amounts that are being addressed through payment arrangement, bankruptcy, litigation, or appeal. Each taxpayer is notified 30 days before their information is posted. Since the inception of the posting program, the Board of Equalization has received a total of $5.2 million from 37 qualifying taxpayers that came forward to take care of their debts: 26 through installment payment agreements and 11 by making payment in full.

Here is the “Top Ten” of the list of 250 deadbeats published by the Board: (1) Halsey M. and Shannon Minor (L.A.), $14.2 million: (2) Aviv Mizrahi (L.A.), $9.4 million; (3) Van Rex Gourmet Foods (Thousand Oaks), $4.4 million; (4) Randall E. Cohn (L.A.), $3.8 million; (5) Neil A. Scott (Solana Beach), $3.1 million; (6) Scott A. and Kelli A. Walchek (Alamo), $2.9 million; (7) Robert J. McNulty (Henderson, NV), $2.9 million; (8) Stuart J. Gourlay, M.D. a Professional Corporation (Pinole), $2.7 million;  (9) Ilena Joyce Blicker, M.D., a Medical Corporation (Glendale), $2.6 million; and (10) Ronald and Diane Lessem (San Diego), $2.6 million.

Our resident income tax expert at Cal Poly, Professor Rodney Mock, has an interesting perspective on the posting of tax delinquencies. Professor Mock points out that this published “shame list” has become increasingly popular among the various states. However, he wonders whether or not such is “ethically appropriate” for a state entity to publish a tax delinquency list since it may be due to extenuating circumstances such as loss of business, loss of employment, medical crisis, and phantom income. Professor Mock makes a good point. Of course, the opposite argument is that we all have problems to deal with and if everyone who owed taxes stopped paying because of personal circumstances, then the California budget deficit might be $250 billion.

On October 4, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1424, The Delinquent Taxpayer Accountability Act, into law. The bill was introduced by Assembly member Henry T. Perea (D-Fresno) as a way to help the state Franchise Tax Board and Board of Equalization collect some of the $6.5 billion owed to the state that goes unpaid each year. AB 1424 allows the state to suspend the professional and/or driver's licenses of the state's worst delinquent tax debtors until they make payment arrangements. Debtors will have their license reinstated after making payment arrangements with the state or if they demonstrate a financial hardship.

I support the law and note it does allow for financial hardship. Those of us who play by the rules are sick and tired of allowing those who don’t get restructured mortgages, forgiven debt, and selectively enforced tax collection laws. There is a moral hazard element in how the government has made concessions to some during the financial crisis while others are unable to refinance their home mortgage loans at a lower interest rate because of having an underwater mortgage, even though they have made their payments on time and in full. Neither the federal nor state government should be in the business of picking “winners” and “losers.” I say let the free market take care of these problems.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on November 2, 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

AMERICA, CHANGE IT OR LOSE IT

Government Ineptness Underlies Occupy Movement

This is the second in a series of blogs I’ll post on Fridays from now until election day to address critical issues facing our country. My blog last week dealt with the issue of who is to blame for class warfare (Blame Corporate America and Wall Street for “Class Warfare.”). This week I look at the role of our political system and how it creates distrust of our government.

Critics of the “Occupy Wall Street (OWS)” movement rail against what they perceive to be obnoxious protesters looking for a place to vent, and even sleep and eat. Critics charge there is a segment of the protesters who want to tear down capitalism and our government. They miss the point that the underlying goal is to reform capitalism so that it works for all in society and not a chosen few who tend to act in their selfish interests without regard to the consequences of their actions on the public.

There is a meaningful analogy to be made between the protesters in the Vietnam War and those in OWS. Many in the public criticized Vietnam protesters as unkempt, loud, a nuisance, and generally wanting nothing more than to tear down our government. Sound familiar?  Today we look at those protesters in a much different light as ushering in a period of peace and ending an unjustified and, perhaps, unwinnable war. I’ve taken the title of this blog from one of the slogans chanted during the Vietnam War protests – “America, change it or lose it.” The chant was in reaction to anti-protesters whose slogan, “America, love it or leave it,” articulated the view that those who don’t like what America is doing should leave the country.

Much of the criticisms lodged against OWS protesters have the same underlying theme. The anti-protesters are trying to minimize the valid and well-meaning message that corporate greed and government ineptness is to blame for the harm that has befallen so many in society. Millions have lost their jobs not because they no longer can do the job or don’t want to work, as the OWS opposition would have us believe. Let’s not forget that it was financial institutions and investment banks that brought down our financial system thereby leading to massive layoffs. The government through Fannie Mae and Freddie MAC, both of which engaged in accounting fraud, created a bubble in the housing industry that burst and caused the loss of millions in home value. The combined efforts of the perpetrators of the financial disaster that began in 2008 led to the destruction of a massive amount of stock market wealth for the average citizen whose IRAs and 401Ks plummeted in value.

In a poll taken between October 19 and 24 by Real Clear Politics, only nine percent of the public approves of the job Congress is doing, a 75 percent drop in support since the last poll. How could Congress not expect the public to protest with these numbers? I’d be surprised if there were no protests as it would indicate a complacency in society that is not healthy to our tradition of speaking out about wrongdoing. Moreover, compare these results to an Association Press-Gallup Poll that 37 percent support the Wall Street protesters and 58% say they are furious about America’s politics.

Protesters against the Vietnam War changed the public’s opinion about it just as the protesters in New York City and other places will change the public’s position on the rightness of their cause. However, it behooves the protesters to get better organized; keep in check those who are there for their own agenda; and control troublemakers that always latch on to any protest movement.

The legitimacy of the Vietnam protesters who were branded hippies was enhanced when the group Students for a Democratic Society came along and organized into a political force. SDS developed a political manifesto that suggested a series of reforms, some of which are relevant to today’s protesters: it proclaimed a need to reshape the political parties to attain greater representation, for stronger power for individuals through citizen's lobbies, for more substantial involvement by workers in business management, and nonviolent civil disobedience as the means by which student youth could bring forth a "participatory democracy." This was a unifying message. OWS protesters also must develop a unifying message to be successful in the long run.

The support for the anti-war movement was low at first but grew as the war wore on and more and more Americans questioned the values of their government, much as do OWS protesters. Support for the war went from a high of 52 percent in August 1965 to a low of 28 percent in May 1971.

A Fox-News poll taken the week of October 24 indicates that 76 percent of Americans are not satisfied with the direction our country is headed. This is a serious matter. How can Republicans and other critics dismiss the protest movement in light of the lack of support in the public for the political process and results? The unemployment rate has been over nine percent for about thirty months with no decrease in sight. Programs to alleviate the pain have not worked. None of the Wall Street fat cats were charged with any crimes for their role in the financial meltdown. The government is stalemated and we can’t move forward. Some say it will change after the election. I doubt it as our recent past indicates that political posturing by the party not in power will begin the day after we elect a new President. Politicians are more concerned with the ends – get re-elected; get control of Congress; and change the party of the President – than the means used to achieve those ends. This is an unethical approach to decision-making because it ignores how the public may be harmed by the political games played to achieve a goal.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 28, 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

Bullying and a Culture of Incivility

The Ethics of Workplace Bullying

Does incivility lead to bullying? According to a survey commissioned by the Workplace Bullying Institute and carried out by Zogby International, the workplace is increasingly characterized by incidents of incivility and bullying, and this may be part of a general societal trend, exacerbated by tough economic times.

A startling 37% of American workers--roughly 54 million people--have been bullied at work according to the a 2007 survey. The consequences of such bullying have spread to families, and other institutions and cost organizations reduced creativity, low morale and increased turnover. According to the Institute, 40% of the targets of bulling never told their employers, and of those that did, 62% reported that they were ignored.

The survey also indicates that almost 50% of the U.S. workers report they have experience or witnessed some kind of bullying--verbal abuse, insults, threats, screaming, sarcasm or ostracism. One study by John Medina showed that workers stressed by bullying performed 50% worse on cognitive tests. Other studies estimate the financial costs of bullying at more than $200 billion per year.

And bullying is not restricted to male bosses. Cheryl Dolan and Faith Oliver, writing in the Harvard Business Review, report that because women now comprise 50% of the workforce, woman-on-woman bullying is being reported.

The question still remains: Why Now? Why is Bullying occurring at dizzying speeds today? What is Being Done to Protect the Innocent from the Aggressors?

The recent economic downturn, with layoffs and financial pressures on managers to perform may have exacerbated the bullying problem. Research conducted by Wayne Hochwarter and Samantha Englehardt at Florida State University concluded that "employer-employee relations are at one of the lowest points in history," with a significant decline in basic civility.

Is bullying a reflection of a general decline in civility? In poll after poll, Americans have voiced concern over the erosion of civility. According to a poll by Weber Shandwick, 65% of Americans say the lack of civility is a major problem in the country and feel the negative tenor has worsened during the financial crisis and recession.

I believe bullying is just a “natural” extension” of the breakdown of civility in society. I have blogged about this problem before. To be a civil person requires treating others with respect. It harkens back to The Golden Rule that we should treat others the way we would want to be treated. No one wants to be bullied and experience the indignities that go along with such behavior toward another person.

I also believe bullying is on the rise in society because of the decline in ethics in our society. I’ve blogged about this problem many times in the past. Ethical people treat others with respect, caring, empathy, and fairness. Civility and ethics go hand in hand. Those who violate accepted standards of behavior typically are oblivious as to why bullying is wrong in the first place. They may have been bullied at home or in school and have come to believe it is accepted practice. Some in the workplace who bully others believe it is a way to get what they want. The bullied will stay out of that person's way to avoid a confrontation which can not be won.

If you have a problem with bullying in your organization, I recommend a training program to discuss the problem and the protocols in the company to report bullying. Workers must feel comfortable reporting such behavior in a non-judgmental manner. Here is the link to a video posted on You Tube that depicts, in a comedic way,   

workplace bullying that makes it ideal for a workplace discussion.

If you are being bullied in the workplace and want advice, you can submit a question that will be handled anonymously by me and I will respond within one day.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 21, 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

Discrimination Against LGBT Individuals is Wrong!

Dedication of Dr. King Memorial and Discrimination Against LGBT

You may have heard about Viki Knox, the Union Township, New Jersey teacher who referred to homosexuality as "a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation," and a "sin" that "breeds like cancer" on a Facebook thread about her school's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) pride month.

The comments started appearing last Wednesday afternoon, after the school erected a display of "famous gays" like Virginia Woolf, Harvey Milk and Neil Patrick Harris. “I’m pitching a fit!” Knox wrote, before sounding off with more insensitive comments like "I/WE DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT ANYTHING, ANYONE. ANY BEHAVIOR OR ANY CHOICES! I DO NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE ANYTHING OTHERS WISH TO DO. I DO HAVE TO LOVE AND SPEAK AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT!"

It's unclear right now whether Knox was at school, at home or both when she made the comments. Garden State Equality, along with Union Township lawyer John Paragano, are calling for the Board of Education to fire Knox. Even the ACLU, who is defending Knox's right to free speech, said: “Because her postings raised questions about her conduct within school, the school district can and should investigate whether she is performing her job in accordance with school policies and the state’s Law Against Discrimination.” Union Chief School Administrator Patrick Martin said the district is investigating the incident.

Time will tell whether Knox violated any laws, but that is not the point. As I have previously written on my workplace ethics advice blog, it is wrong to discriminate in the workplace because of one's sexual orientation. Moreover, it is wrong to do so in all aspects of life especially in our schools where young people are so impressionable and the bullied may not have a sense-of-self sufficiently well developed to ward off the attacks.

From an ethical perspective I have to raise the question: Why should we, as a society, care about what happens to individuals who are LGBT? We should care precisely because being an ethical person requires that we should be caring and compassionate individuals and not judge someone based on the color of their skin or sexual preference. It is not for us to judge what is right or wrong for another person. We have our own lives to deal with and our own challenges, and I, for one, would not want someone else to tell me how to lead my life. The test of a good person is what is in his or her heart; how he or she treats others; and whether that person tries to leave the world a better place to live in.

Martin Luther King said it best in his remarkable “I Have Dream Speech” delivered on August 28, 1963, in which he called for racial equality and an end to discrimination. One line will live on forever and should shine as a beacon of hope for all who seek the ideal of equality in all aspects of life.

“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.”

How ironic it is that yesterday was the dedication of the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington, D.C. We all can learn a great deal from Dr. King’s legacy. I do not believe this man of great character and vision would want any individual in our society to be on the receiving end of the vitriolic rhetoric spewed by the likes of Viki Knox.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 17, 2011

Harvard University Jumps on the Civility Bandwagon

Harvard Asks Freshmen to Sign a “Kindness Pledge”

Harvard University officials are taking an unusual, even controversial, step to encourage civility and camaraderie on campus. They are asking freshmen to sign what’s being called a kindness pledge, which states that students will uphold the values of the institution and “sustain a community characterized by inclusiveness and civility.” Anyone who signs also commits to making Harvard a place where “the exercise of kindness holds a place on par with intellectual attainment.”

The fact is administrators at Harvard are pressuring the Class of 2015 to do something no other student class has ever been asked to do in 375 years: Sign a civility pledge. The “Class of 2015 Freshman Pledge” was presented to students before an opening convocation last month. The message serves as a kind of moral compass for the education Harvard imparts. In the classroom, in extracurricular endeavors, and in Harvard Yard and Houses, students are expected to act with integrity, respect, and industry, and to sustain a community characterized by inclusiveness and civility. The “Pledge” idea seems a bit odd to me. Is Harvard saying its students have not acted civilly up until now? Has Harvard ignored civic virtue in its teachings?

Many seem to believe that the notion of civility arose after the shooting at the January 8, 2011 event sponsored by Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to meet with her constituents. That is not true. Congresswomen Giffords shooting was the trigger that brought to light the angst many of us feel about the growing lack of civility in society.

So, just what is civility? There is no commonly-accepted definition. I have previously blogged about this issue and gave my perception that civility encompasses four behavioral characteristics: (1) having good manners; (2) not being rude to others; (3) showing respect for others; and (4) tolerating differences whether they are religion-based, nationality, sexual orientation, or political viewpoints.

The fact is civility has long been in our national consciousness, albeit buried deep beneath the surface. It certainly began by the time, at age sixteen, George Washington had copied out by hand, 110 Rules of Civility & Decent Behavior In Company and Conversation.  They are based on a set of rules composed by French Jesuits in 1595.  The first rule is: “Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect, to those that are Present.”

Let me go back to Harvard. Not everyone is thrilled with the civility pledge. Former Harvard dean Harry Lewis wrote on his blog that the pledge “is unwise, and sets a terrible precedent.” He explained that signing a pledge goes against the idea that students should have complete freedom of thought. The pledge is a commitment to view the world a certain way and uphold certain values – which flies in the face of many ideals espoused by the pursuit of higher education.

“It is a promise to control one's thoughts,” he wrote. “A student would be breaking the pledge if she woke up one morning and decided it was more important to achieve intellectually than to be kind.” He also noted that Harvard has rejected pledges and oaths throughout its history.

Now I’m really confused. Does former dean Lewis mean somehow intellectual achievement cannot exist alongside civility? Does he mean a student that has a thirst for knowledge and achievement can do so by stepping over others to gain that knowledge or disregarding their interests? Wouldn’t that negate the quest for intellectual honesty just as would one’s unethical behavior in the pursuit of learning?

Dean Lewis repeats the mistake of all too many educators in society that the “rightness” of one’s behavior and decision-making should be based on whatever one judges to be ethical in a particular situation, a form of ethical relativism.” Philosophers will tell you there are core ethical values such as honesty, trustworthiness, fairness and respect, to name a few, that should guide the actions of an ethical person. It is a short leap to go from that to say civility is a basic ethical value in our society, and it means something similar to what I have already pointed out.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 10, 2011

Internet Ethics

Internet Code of Ethics: Privacy Rights and Intellectual Capital

Ethics deals with standards of human conduct that direct the behavior of individuals and groups. These standards, in turn, are developed by the society within which the individual or group exists. Since the Internet allows access to individuals and groups from a wide and complex range of societies and backgrounds, the ethical standards of the participants can vary widely. However, in order for the users of the Internet community to be able to interact productively through communications and commercial transactions, it is necessary for the community to develop a common set of ethics or standards of human conduct that governs their behavior. In other words legal and ethical standards need to be created to keep up with the pace of technological change. This is especially necessary since those who are interacting are doing so in a virtual community where they cannot see or meet each other physically. Without a common ethical framework, no trust can develop between those interacting, and the Internet will then fail as a medium for interaction.

Questions about appropriate use, ethical and legal responsibilities can be grouped as follows:

• protection of intellectual property
• prevention of fraud
• protection of freedom of expression versus problems of defamation
• protection of privacy
• control of Internet indecency versus free speech

Several groups are trying to develop guidelines for a common ethical framework for the Internet. One examples of such a guideline on the web is given below and is taken from the Internet Advertising Bureau website:

The IAB strongly endorses the view of the Division Advisory Panel of the National Science Foundation Division of Network, Communications Research and Infrastructure which, in paraphrase, characterized as unethical and unacceptable any activity which purposely:

(a) seeks to gain unauthorized access to the resources of the Internet,

(b) disrupts the intended use of the Internet,

(c) wastes resources (people, capacity, computer) through such actions,

(d) destroys the integrity of computer-based information, and/or

(e) compromises the privacy of users.

An examination of these guidelines for ethics on the Internet indicates that they address many of the areas that involve legal implications as well as ethical ones. It is often true that what is illegal is also unethical. However, the opposite is not always true: what is unethical may not always be illegal. For example, it may be considered unethical to sell information regarding your customers to another agency but it may not necessarily be illegal.

Ethical behavior seeks to go beyond legal requirements to ask questions such as: Is it what is best for all concerned and not just for myself? Would I want someone else to do the same thing to me?

It can be seen that ethics is much more difficult to pin down than legality, and is much more a personal decision. This is all the more reason for technology professionals in the computer industry to set high ethical standards and to act in a way that its actions and the basis for them are clear to all concerned. One approach to accomplishing this is to have a clearly stated set of guidelines for the organization that addresses general issues, as well as specific issues prone to ethical problems, and make sure that both employees and customers are familiar with.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 7, 2011

 

Cyber-bullying: Online meanness and Young People

Online Meanness Affects a Young Person's Psyche

I have previously blogged about the dangers of cyber-bullying. This blog is about one aspect of it -- online meanness directed against young people.

Catherine Devine had her first brush with an online bully in seventh grade, before she'd even ventured onto the Internet. Someone set up the screen name "devinegirl" and, posing as Catherine, sent her classmates instant messages full of trashy talk and lies. "They were making things up about me, and I was the most innocent 12-year-old ever," Devine remembers. "I hadn't even kissed anybody yet." As she grew up, Devine, now 22, learned to thrive in the electronic village. But like other young people, she occasionally stumbled into one of its dark alleys.

A new Associated Press-MTV poll of youth in their teens and early 20s finds that most of them — 56 percent — have been the target of some type of online taunting, harassment or bullying, a slight increase over just two years ago. One-third say they've been involved in "sexting." Among those in a relationship, 4 out of 10 say their partners have used computers or cellphones to abuse or control them. Three-fourths of the young people said they consider these darker aspects of the online world, sometimes broadly called "digital abuse," a serious problem.

They are not alone. President Obama brought students, parents and experts together at the White House in March to try to confront "cyber-bullying." The Education Department sponsors an annual conference to help schools deal with it. Teen suicides linked to vicious online bullying have caused increasing worry in communities across the country.

Conduct that rises to the point of bullying is hard to define, but the AP-MTV poll of youth ages 14 to 24 showed plenty of rotten behavior online, and a perception that it's increasing. The share of young people who frequently see people being mean to each other on social networking sites jumped to 55 percent, from 45 percent in 2009. That may be partly because young people are spending more time than ever communicating electronically: 7 in 10 had logged into a social networking site in the previous week, and 8 in 10 had texted a friend.

Devine, who lives on New York's Long Island, experienced her share of online drama in high school and college: A friend passed around highly personal entries from Devine's private electronic journal when she was 15. She left her Facebook account open on a University of Scranton library computer, and a prankster posted that she was pregnant (she wasn't). Most upsetting, when she was 18 Devine succumbed to a boyfriend's pressure to send a revealing photo of herself, and when they broke up he briefly raised the threat of embarrassing her with it. "I didn't realize the power he could have over me from that," Devine said. "I thought he'd just see it once and then delete it, like I had deleted it."

The Internet didn't create the turmoil of the teen years and young adulthood — romantic breakups, bitter fights among best friends, jealous rivalries, teasing and bullying. But it does amplify it. Hurtful words that might have been shouted in the cafeteria, within earshot of a dozen people, now can be blasted to hundreds on Facebook.

"It's worse online, because everybody sees it," said Tiffany Lyons, 24, of Layton, Utah. "And once anything gets online you can't get rid of it." Notably, 75 percent of youth think people do or say things online that they wouldn't do or say face to face.

The most common complaints were people spreading false rumors on Internet pages or by text message, or being downright mean online; more than a fifth of young people said each of those things had happened to them. Twenty percent saw someone take their electronic messages and share them without permission, and 16 percent said someone posted embarrassing pictures or video of them without their permission.

Computers and cellphones increase the reach of old-fashioned bullying. Years ago the bullied party could go home, close the door, and forget about the incident. Today, bullying kids have access around the clock through technology. There's really no escape.

"Sexting," or sending nude or sexual images, is more common among those over 18 than among minors. Fifteen percent of young people had shared a nude photo of themselves in some way or another; that stood at 7 percent among teens and 19 percent among young adults. But almost a fourth of the younger group said they'd been exposed to sexting in some way, including seeing images someone else was showing around. And 37 percent of the young adults had some experience with "sexting" images. And then there is Anthony Weiner who resigned his position on the House of Representatives because he posted on Twitter sexual suggestive photos of himself.

Many young people don't take sexting seriously, despite the potential consequences. Some boys claim that girlfriends and girls who like him have sent sexual messages or pictures — usually photos of bare body parts that avoid showing faces. However, the attempt at anonymity rarely works.

Technology can facilitate dating abuse. Nearly three in 10 young people say their partner has checked up on them electronically multiple times per day or read their text messages without permission. Fourteen percent say they've experienced more abusive behavior from their partners, such as name-calling and mean messages via Internet or cellphone.

Online meanness is a reflection of the declining values in society. Young people feel that they won’t get caught or worse, they don’t care. Rarely are the consequences of one’s action considered before deciding, a prerequisite for ethical conduct to occur. Remember kids, once it’s out there on cyber-space, it’s there forever!

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

Ethical Hacking

Colleges Training Students to be “Ethical Hackers”

Did you know college courses and degree programs are sprouting out on the subjecting matter of “Ethical Hacking?” Ethical hacking can be defined as the methodology adopted by [ethical] hackers to discover the vulnerabilities in existing in information systems’ operating environments with the intent of protecting the security of the target/client. According to the EC-Council, ethical hacking is one the fastest growing areas in network security, and certainly an area that generates much discussion about whether such practice right or wrong; warranted or unwarranted; an invasion of privacy or a necessary security step in this age of cyber-attacks.

Computer hacking skills should be taught to cyber-security students to "know the enemy" and ensure they will be equipped to effectively prevent and defend against attacks in the real world. Both academia and security experts add that schools must emphasize law and ethics so students "don't cross the line" and misuse their hacking abilities.

The growing dependence and importance regarding information technology present within our society is increasingly demanding that professionals find more effective solutions relating to security concerns. Individuals with unethical behaviors are finding a variety of ways of conducting activities that cause businesses and consumers much grief and vast amounts annually in damages. As information security continues to be foremost on the minds of information technology professionals, improvements in this area are critically important. One area that is very promising is penetration testing, a key aspect of Ethical Hacking.

Penetration testing activities focus on the identification and exploitation of vulnerable areas of security and subsequent implementation of corrective measures. According to those within the security field, more information technology professionals are going back to class to learn the "latest hacking techniques." In fact, many consider the three to five day seminars to be less expensive than hiring consultants. The average cost is $2,000 to $8,000 per person while consulting services range from $10,000 to $100,000.

According to a Computer Crime and Security Survey, virus attacks continue as the source of greatest financial loss. Unauthorized use increased slightly over the previous year, while unauthorized access to information and theft of proprietary information significantly increased in average dollar loss per respondent.

A wide range of educational opportunities exist for individuals interested in pursuing information security. Many of these are being offered in the public sector within community colleges and universities. It is interesting to note that while many schools offer such education and training, a number of professionals express concern about teaching hacking techniques. This apprehension stems from a fear that students may use the information unethically. In other words, they may use the information against the very company hiring them to protect their security.

To help government and businesses minimize security risk, colleges and universities are increasingly offering courses and security training programs. Syracuse University offers a Cyber Security Boot Camp to prepare future technology security professionals. Topics include cyber-security, cryptography, steganography, digital forensics, network security, and wireless security. There are stringent rules for entry into the program, and the Boot Camp ends with "Hackfest" which is a hands-on event putting into practice the theoretical concepts covered within the course.

Rochester Institute of Technology offers courses in security education that have been added to the curriculum. Students are divided into two teams; they set up networks and try to hack each other. As security flaws are found, they patch their systems and continue to secure the networks more and more as the semester progresses.

Northern Virginia Community College offers a network security certificate program. Leaders at the college interviewed their community and found that people were being educated at “too high of a level,” and programs were needed to help day-to-day security professional. There are 7 courses, 3 theory and concept, 3 labs, and a capstone course. The capstone is a free vulnerability analysis of a local non-profit organization or small business. The capstone is important in that it provides a hands-on opportunity to put into practice everything learned in the classroom.

George Mason University also offers a course in information warfare. Students divide into different country teams, and attempt to hack into each other’s network. The course motto is that “anyone can hack but defending a system is the real mark.”

In the United Kingdom, a hands-on ethical hacking course called The Training Company is being offered. A variety of topics are included such as social engineering techniques, wireless security, internal hacking, denial of service attacks, and penetration testing.

A group of individuals called the Ghettohackers are trying to change way society views hackers. They enable people that are curious about information security to get hands -on experience without any harm to others. Their mission is to change culture from within and to better educate the public at large concerning hacking. In addition, their main focus is to stress the importance of teaching ethics as well general hacking concepts. Let’s hope they are successful because ethical hackers may be drawn to the “dark side” and wind up hacking the hackers.

Blog posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on October 3, 2011