Ethics Question for the board - USM Forum -- Message Board

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Ethics Question for the board

Atheist · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:

I recently read an interesting quote regarding ethics:

"As far as the workplace is concerned, the ethics that people practice come first from superiors, only a distant second from peers, and an even more distant third from one's internal ethical identity."

I'm not too sure I can agree with any part of this. Thoughts, anyone?

It depends Doct. There are "no rules in a knife fight". The superiors determine if it's a "knife fight". In a football game you expect to be deceived by the other team's players by faking etc. Deceiving is part of the game. The superiors set the rules of the game. of course, you can play by your own rules, but don't expect to do well in the game.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Well, for me . . . the university is a workplace second.

It is a site for intellectual practices first.

Those practices rely on a rigorous application of an ethic of honesty and integrity in order for the university to function. In that sense, for me, the university is only a step below (or perhaps on the same step but of a different category) than the church.

Our entire program is based on . . . not making mistakes, because we are human. But on the rigor of truth we bring to every activity we practice in regard to profession, our practices, and all activities that relate to the university.

The seeping of other ethical practices into the university and our own failure to consistently call those practices into question is one reason the university is no longer viewed as anything particularly special . . . just another flawed institution, to be distrusted in exactly the way we distrust all institutions.

I'm not really bothered if this is somewhat naive --- I actually think calculated naivite is a position we should be taking . . . a university education should not be giving people a license to practice unethical conduct in the workplace -- any workplace. On the contrary, it ought to be giving them the kind of eudcation that enables them to use their resources to identify the best choices in ethically ambiguous situations.

Cossack · Status: Offline

Professor Judd,

I do not think your statement is naive. Since faculty are drawn from the general population, it is not surprising that faculty, including administrators, at the university vary greatly in their ethics. It is only casual empiricism, but I am of the opinion that administrators, and many of their faculty supporters have questionable ethics. For many of them, ethics are very much like bananas; they get bought and sold by the pound. Often administrators become administrators because they have been only marginally successful in the research component and seek to be administrators for the increased salary. Because most do not command the respect of their peers, they resort to "buying" support of faculty who also marginally successful. Once they make that bargain, they are caught in a web of their own making.

Your state that,

The seeping of other ethical practices into the university and our own failure to consistently call those practices into question is one reason the university is no longer viewed as anything particularly special . . . just another flawed institution, to be distrusted in exactly the way we distrust all institutions.

As most on this Board are aware, this has become a contentious issue in COB. Assuming what Professor Depree has uncovered about the use of Foundation money, it affects the whole University. While I may be wrong, it appears to me that many faculty are not concerned with unethical behavior when it is pointed out. Some appear to have a "shoot the messenger" attitude. However, unethical behavior is contagious once it is established in one area and easily spreads to others.

On a personal note, although I have never met you, from your posts on this Board I would feel comfortable letting you "hold my money". Which, of course, is another way of saying, I feel you pass my ethics test. P.S. I am not talking about very much money.

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Cossack:

Thank you for your confidence . . . . the less money the better . . . . I would advise that although I would hope to be as honest with your money as you might wish . . . it is possible that I might not be competent with it (alas . . . I seem to be accountingly challenged).

I agree with you, in general, about faculty and administration coming from all walks of life. Of course, this is not new (although there is a growth in new disciplines and practices). What seems lacking to me is a sense that the university ought to be some place special . . . a place where the rules of getting ahead at any price and cuthroat scholarship are not the prevailing cultural consensus. There have always been scholars and researchers who cheated, but they wouldn't be caught dead admitting it and would have been disciplined if they had been. Now, we seem increasingly to feel that "since everybody does it . . . ."

The issue of cheating, lying, and fabrication isn't simply the damage an individual lie itself might cause, nor is it that it might place a liar in a stronger position than someone who plays by the rules . . .

Instead, in a community which has as its foundation the concept of a "seach for truth" (in the broadest sense) individual and institutional credibility are absolutely critical -- a pre-requisite -- for practice(I realize I am preaching to the choir here). Research scandals, teaching scandals, etc. all undermine the ability of the public not only to respect the insitution of the university, but the notion of scholarship itself. I believe that some of the things that academics view as appalling (the undermining of science in both religion and politics, for instance); the failure of the public to understand what it is about the university as an institution that needs to be protected (an argument applicable only if the university is actively living up to the ideals it claims for itself) are our own fault. We have accepted that the practices of the world outside the university have a place in the university -- or wer have accepted too easily practices which undermine our credibility. When professors actively plce themselves in positions in which they clearly may have conflict of interest in terms of scholarship vs. profit; when administrators get too close to lobbyists and when both academics and administrators easily float in and out of public and private agencies in which they have some financial stake, the public is right to wonder how scholars, researchs and college instructors in any way differ from any other profession, and how the university is different from any "business".

In truth, we may no longer be --

If there is a certain religiosity about this then so be it. I do believe university teaching and researching is a "calling" -- and completely reject the notion that it is simply another job.

As for the COB, like many I have been trying to follow what has been going on there. I think it is a large college grounded in a practice that is inherently problematic.

The object of scholarship (even pragmatic scholarship) must be truth -- even at the cost of discovering the scholarship to be wrong. This is scholarship's prime directive, so to speak. Those of us who teach students must insist on this as the ultimate goal of all student work. Anything else spinning off from the scholarship -- inventions, patents, orginal creative work, etc -- and leading to a profit to the scholar must be viewed as secondary . . . this is the only perspective that can even promise to maintain integrity in the academic community.

The drive to create scholarship/research that turns a profit is understandible in light of financing the modern university. But it potentially inverts the search for truth on its head and potentially makes profit the first motive and truth a potential casuality of the need for profit, whether that is individual or institutional.

I'm not advocating going back to the old days of teaching the quadruvium -- we can't and shouldn't really. But we live in a very complicated world and unless the university clearly stakes out its claim to be an institution dedicated to the production of researchl, scholarship and teaching that is aimed at truth first, the road t maintaining our credibility with the public with be long and very hard.

Invictus · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:
On a personal note, although I have never met you, from your posts on this Board I would feel comfortable letting you "hold my money". Which, of course, is another way of saying, I feel you pass my ethics test. P.S. I am not talking about very much money.

I have met Dr. Judd & will let you know that your evaluation is correct. I'll add that I wouldn't feel uncomfortable letting Cossack have the key to my house, either, although it goes without saying that any sane person would want to stay out of my house.

Returning to the original poster, I'm one of those guys who believes in personal responsibility. Hence, I feel that ethics comes from the individual. Folks who believe in top down ethics are indulging in a cop out.

LVN · Status: Offline

Invictus knows not to trust ME with the keys to his house, or else a certain little dog would have a new home!

However, while I do agree that personal responsibility is key, it is true that leadership sets a certain moral tone for an organization. A leader signals what's ok and what's not ok. A lot of things are legal but not necessarily right (eg the way certain faculty have been treated.) Not only ethics -- the leader signals what is valued (eg Lucas valued the arts, Thames does not.)

PS I love my new title and rank. Where's my MIDAS money?

-- Edited by LVN at 19:07, 2006-08-07

stephen judd · Status: Offline

Invictus:

I agree with you that ethics cannot be dictated . . . but a community, having decided what its collective values need to be in order to maintain itself, can agree to some general practices that it will encourage.

For instance, if credibility and trust is essential to the academic program, then a community can examine its own practices and define how it will identify and monitor those practices which may damage it.

In fact, given the complexity of our world and the powerful pressure that agencies can bring to bear on individuals I think it is extremely important to find a balance between individual ethics and some kind of communty standard of ethical practices.

I watched at least one academic community I belonged to get swept up in an incredible environment of distrust because there were members of the community -- unidentified -- who received security clearances to do work that was secret, with agencies that were not made public, and work which was put forward for tenure and promotion though it could not be reviewed by the conventional faculty and administrative system of peer review.

It was also was extremely embarrassing when some of those administrators and faculty members came under suspicion for using the officially granted secrecy to their own financial and professional advantage.

My somewhat off the point example is a reason why allowing these things to be only up to the individual is not adequate an an era when the university faces powerful government and corporate entities with an entirely different set of objectives for the university and some of its members.

Thank you for the complement -- I not only envy you your spelling but your wit, under which lies a really fine mind that I find challengingly nimble.

I'd let both you and Cossack handle my money . . . although I'd be embarassed to give you so little to work with

Voter · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

PS I love my new title and rank.

Has there been a thread about these "titles"? Do we really have to have them? Don't they impose a kind of decontextualized frivolousness on the posters, and by extension, on the board?

LVN · Status: Offline

As I found when I set up my own board, the titles are attached to the number of posts, and can be changed by the webmaster. I left mine alone. Perhaps you should private-message the webmaster here and say what you think.

Voter · Status: Offline

Seems to me it should be left up to individual posters to generate titles if they wish. That way at least they might relate to the message/agenda/sense of humor of the posters (and presumably could be changed to fit the discussion at hand). We have always been concerned about the impression the board might make on the occasional visitor--I fear that, to many, the "titles" make us look like chronic flippant kvetches rather than serious critics. I am all in favor of sarcasm and acerbic wit (God knows this "adminstration" has done much to merit such)--I just think we should leave it to the individual poster, rather than the webmaster, to express it.

Cossack · Status: Offline

I agree with Voter that a poster should be able to pick his/her title. In a previous post on this thread, I was titled “Assistant Professor of Polymeric Philosophies". It does not fit. Everyone knows I could not spell Polymeric Philosophies. It also was a shock to see that I was demoted to an Assistant Professor although some in my college might celebrate my demotion. Conversely, it might be to my advantage, I could apply for Associate Professor and get the automatic increase in salary.

LVN · Status: Offline

It's not possible to pick your own title. The titles are intrinsic to the way ActiveBoard works. On my board I left them as New Member, Member, etc.
However, the Webmaster can change what title goes with what quantity of posts, but it's done universally, not poster by poster.

Voter · Status: Offline

Well, it's a dumb system. I'm surprised that it hasn't been criticized out of existence, on this and other boards. I thought this board was all about freedom of expression, and that registration was intended in part to thwart those who were impeding it. Basing a bogus title solely on post count seems to me to be adding absurdity to irrelevance. I say ditch 'em both.

Voter
______________________________________
Supreme Peon of Curmudgeonly Kvetching

LVN · Status: Offline

Ok, digging around in the Settings menu, it does look like it's possible to turn off titles altogether, as well as to edit them. That would be up to the Webmaster of course.

Cossack · Status: Offline

Invictus,

I agree with your analysis of ethics as an individual issue, and that one should not adjust one's ethics to match the group. If I read Professor Judd's post correctly, I think his focus was on the problem of an un level playing field when unethical administrators deal with ethical faculty. Once administrators reveal that they are ethically challenged, it changes the playing field and one cannot proceed in the same manner one would if they were ethical. Moreover, by association they taint the ethical reputation of those over which they have control. Hence, one must "fight fire with fire". Lying to a liar may not be ethical, but it is really helpful in time of need. I am sure that Professor Judd will disassociate himself from my post if he disagrees.

Invictus · Status: Offline

Voter wrote:

Well, it's a dumb system. I'm surprised that it hasn't been criticized out of existence, on this and other boards. I thought this board was all about freedom of expression, and that registration was intended in part to thwart those who were impeding it. Basing a bogus title solely on post count seems to me to be adding absurdity to irrelevance. I say ditch 'em both.

Change the context just a tiny bit & Voter's statement sounds exactly like what the folks who would do away with tenure say every day...

Voter · Status: Offline

Invictus wrote:

Voter wrote:

Well, it's a dumb system. I'm surprised that it hasn't been criticized out of existence, on this and other boards. I thought this board was all about freedom of expression, and that registration was intended in part to thwart those who were impeding it. Basing a bogus title solely on post count seems to me to be adding absurdity to irrelevance. I say ditch 'em both.

Change the context just a tiny bit & Voter's statement sounds exactly like what the folks who would do away with tenure say every day...

Greetings, Invictus. I'm used to your wry humor and snarly liberties with language use; but this one has me puzzled. Surely you're not implying that silly titles and their arbitrary implementation carry the same philosophical and societal heft as the institution of tenure...and by extension, that my failure to appreciate the subtle cleverness and clear relevance of these to the central issues of the board brands me as a philistine unable to see the big picture...then again, knowing you...

Voter
Supreme Peon of Curmudgeonly Kvetching (that's S.P.o.C.K. to you)

Invictus · Status: Offline

Voter wrote:

Invictus wrote:

Voter wrote:

Well, it's a dumb system. I'm surprised that it hasn't been criticized out of existence, on this and other boards. I thought this board was all about freedom of expression, and that registration was intended in part to thwart those who were impeding it. Basing a bogus title solely on post count seems to me to be adding absurdity to irrelevance. I say ditch 'em both.

Change the context just a tiny bit & Voter's statement sounds exactly like what the folks who would do away with tenure say every day...

Greetings, Invictus. I'm used to your wry humor and snarly liberties with language use; but this one has me puzzled. Surely you're not implying that silly titles and their arbitrary implementation carry the same philosophical and societal heft as the institution of tenure...and by extension, that my failure to appreciate the subtle cleverness and clear relevance of these to the central issues of the board brands me as a philistine unable to see the big picture...then again, knowing you...

Voter
Supreme Peon of Curmudgeonly Kvetching (that's S.P.o.C.K. to you)

ROTFLMFAO! Of course I wasn't suggesting that the anti-tenure crowd's arguments are valid, not was I suggesting that you were missing some point that has any real social or political import... But when I read your post, I just made a few imaginary substitutions to extrapolate what you said to tenure:

Well, it's a dumb system. I'm surprised it hasn't been criticized out of existence, at this and other universities. Basing a title solely on <INSERT YOUR FAVORITE REQUIREMENT FOR TENURE> seems to me to be adding absurdity to irrelevance.

It's such a drag to explain a joke...

That said, the board where I spend the most time lately posting uses "titles." They work this way: fewer than 100 posts = "junior member" & over 100 posts = "senior member." It's quite funny to watch folks go into a frenzy of short posts when they hit 90 or 95 posts

The main benefit (or shortcoming) of the registration system is that it generally forces posters to use the same nom. Considering what was happening before when one or two people had the ability to make it appear that every faculty member in a particular department was on the board 24/7, I think that it's a benefit, even though I sometimes did enjoy engaging my "multiple personality disorder"...

Polyonymous · Status: Offline

Invictus wrote:

I think that it's a benefit, even though I sometimes did enjoy engaging my "multiple personality disorder"...

You and we both.

LVN · Status: Offline

I did in fact communicate with the webmaster on this topic, and got a terse answer to the effect that said wm was up to her/his/its rear in reptiles this weekend and would deal with you whiny lot later. Or something like that, don't quote me.

Voter · Status: Offline

Invictus wrote:

Voter wrote:

It's such a drag to explain a joke...

The main benefit (or shortcoming) of the registration system is that it generally forces posters to use the same nom.

Well, it's even more of a drag to have to explain that it should have been clear from my post that I GOT the joke--I just thought it was a crappy joke (beneath your otherwise high standards) which ineluctably dragged the seriousness of my post into question (which you apparently did not realize or chose to ignore).

Yaas, it is clear that registration "generally forces posters to use the same nom." But, uh, what does that have to do with these dumb-f... "titles," which were after all the subject? At no point have I questioned registration.

As you point out, certain people reading this board doubtless would equate these "titles" with the entire academic enterprise and the evil institution of tenure. I guess I feel that just because some feel that we're clowns, I don't think we should oblige by putting on clown suits. I know, I know, you probably think it's a deeply clever and cynical thing to do (and surely Dylan wrote a song about it); I think we should still be trying to reach the few genuinely objective outsiders who might be visiting the site seeking insight. [Poking fun at Polymer Science with these "titles" also doesn't help our image, in my opinion.]

Now where the h... did I put that rubber nose?

S.P.o.C.K.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Thanks to all who shared their thoughts.

I guess I'm in more of the mindset that one's internal ethical structure is inextricably linked to one's being, and that external sources of ethics (such as rules from supervisors or the organization leadership) are relatively inconsequential.

I think we've all seen firsthand how important it is to not let those with loose ethics completely dominate.

Web Master · Status: Offline

LVN wrote:

I did in fact communicate with the webmaster on this topic, and got a terse answer to the effect that said wm was up to her/his/its rear in reptiles this weekend and would deal with you whiny lot later. Or something like that, don't quote me.

Whiny lot, indeed.

Cossack · Status: Offline

Whiny lot, indeed.

Quite so, but they are your whiny lot.

Alias · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

Whiny lot, indeed. Quite so, but they are your whiny lot.

Whiny?

What are we really looking at on this board?

Are we not interested in major change at this institution?

Cossack · Status: Offline

Are we not interested in major change at this institution?

Only in the important Colleges according to many posters.

LVN · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

Whiny lot, indeed.

Quite so, but they are your whiny lot.

Please folks, it was sort of a joke.

Cossack · Status: Offline

Please folks, it was sort of a joke.

I took it as such, but even humor must have some underlying truth to be humerous.

Web Master · Status: Offline

If you are a long-time poster, you remember Fire Shelby's explanation of how these message boards work. This one exists right now due to the Web Master and assorted Moderators. If you don't like the way this one works, you are free to start your own. You can also private message the Web Master with any complaints, suggestions, brickbats, or kudos.

Enough explanation for you?

Web Master