I'm on the road, teaching an ethics workshop for some public sector managers.
Ethics training is far different from the normal management fare. First off, few executives and managers are comfortable announcing that they want a class in ethics. (That request could raise some eyebrows.) As a result, the sessions are usually mandatory. Secondly, any ethics program can - and should - spark a great deal of introspection. It is not unusual to see a certain amount of discomfort when the class gets into case examples. Participants start to think, "Gee, perhaps my behavior was less than honorable when Charles told me that humorous story about the boss."
I'm not immune from those feelings - things said or did in elementary and high school still induce gringes and - in general - such guilt pangs are probably healthy. One of George S. Kaufman's friends declared that he didn't understand why people wrestled with the accuracy of income tax forms and Kaufman replied that he understood why his friend had no concerns; the man was a crook. Being unabashedly unethical simplified matters.
One encouraging sign that I've noticed in ethics training nowadays is that you encounter fewer people who are afraid to be judgmental. Years ago, you'd find children of the Sixties who couldn't, as Churchill once observed of some opponents, spot the difference between the arsonist and the fire department. Now, people are wary of becoming narrow-minded zealots but realize that being ethical requires the drawing of boundaries.
Reasonable boundaries, but boundaries nonetheless.
Mr Wade,
ReplyDeleteI agree that there need to be boundaries that are both reasonable and humane. So how should one react when one's directorship is drawing the wrong line in the sand?
In your opinion, is Arizona Proposition 300 and its latest addition, HB2794 sponsored by Representative Pearce, something that can should be challenged legally? If so, who should start that dialogue?
Ben Franklin's words are haunting me - that "if we don't hang together, surely we will all hang separately." At what point should the collective employ of an institution of higher learning say that the law is not reasonable?
I think that any time there is a belief that a law or policy has major flaws, then the dissenting individual or group has an obligation to point out those problems. In most cases, this is done internally but there will be times when a legal challenge is appropriate. The issue that you raise is especially complicated - and would take much more space - because of the number of stakeholders and because it raises related questions such as whether the courts or the ballot are the best solution. My own take is that it is far better to win at the ballot box by convincing the public of your position than to simply persuade a judge. Institutions that encounter difficulty enforcing a law should note those difficulties in discussions with the legislative and executive branches and examine how they can be overcome in a manner that remains in accordance with the clearly expressed desires of the voters.
ReplyDelete