DukeEthicist: hard line on hazing

17 Feb 2012, Posted by Duke Ethicist in Backpages, DukeEthicist, 0 Comments

How should we evaluate the merits of hazing through both an ethical and cultural lens?

Drawing the Line

Standing at the bus stop waiting for a C-2 to roll by, I find myself focused on the many conversations happening around me. I hear similar expressions: “that party last night really sucked…” or “that candidate’s plan to decrease unemployment has no hope for America’s success” and more recently “the house model is really screwing me over.”  Our generation was trained to tear apart what’s wrong with what we see, but we weren’t simultaneously taught the skills to suggest constructive solutions.  Essays earning A’s are the ones that can most skillfully critique theories, not build upon them. “That group of guys is so lame” is socially much “cooler” to say than “they seem to enjoy each others company a lot.” Negativity is hip.

Making decisions of deletion as opposed to correction can be very detrimental in institutions. I believe that “hazing” should not be deleted from our institution, but corrected. Gasp! Obviously, in the most conventional sense of the word, no form of hazing should be permitted on this campus. However, the word “hazing” has been generalized and used to encompass many behaviors that I deem appropriate. Social group’s actions are being criticized without being given a fair analysis – merits not being considered. As is the norm in our society, no adequate alternatives to “brotherhood creation” are being suggested, and all forms of hazing – good or bad – are being done away with. When something is removed without being replaced, it creates a vacuum in which chaos can ensue, or more appropriately for this example, eliminates an integral part of the whole.

In Duke’s history, “hazing” has had positive repercussions. It has created a life lasting connection to this institution, to social groups, as well as other Blue Devils for thousands of our students. Some of Duke’s most generous alumni donors were members of social groups, and arguably would not be as dedicated to the community had they not been “hazed.”

Obviously, there is a line that that needs to be drawn. But that’s the point, that line is not being drawn. We cannot take the easy way out and group all forms of organized camaraderie under the illicit hazing. We must resist the societal tendency and instead analyze, critique, and most importantly, supplant the inappropriate behavior with constructive substitutes. I would encourage the Greek community and the SLG community to work with the administration to draw the line together as to what is appropriate and inappropriate to take place on this campus when it comes to initiating new members into groups. Often, not making a decision is just as bad as making the wrong one. We must draw the line, together, as a community.

The Duke Ethicist is a project of the Honor Council which responds to ethical questions posed by the Duke community. Our purpose is to provide a medium through which students may anonymously seek advice or spark dialogue. Got a question? Send it to dukeethicist@gmail.com, and look out for a response on our blog.

DukeEthicist: sorry for partying.

09 Dec 2011, Posted by Duke Ethicist in Backpages, DukeEthicist, 1 Comments

In light of the recent focus on a certain frat party at Duke, what are the ethical responsibilities of partying?

Simply put, we have a right to party. We have a responsibility to work hard, and a right to unwind. Partying inevitably is one way we do that. Still, that right is accompanied by a responsibility to abide by the same standards to which we are held in class, when we’re working hard to earn our right to party. To “unwind” should not be synonymous with doing away with a regard for basic ethics. Partying should not be a proxy for disrespect. To mock and simulate historical conflicts in such a degrading context is nothing short of offensive, to multiple groups and people. And, in many ways, it is exclusive: “Indians” don’t want to attend a party that belittles them. But don’t they have a right to party too?

In effect, I’m not defending any particular group, or any particular demographic. Rather, I’m defending the right to party, held by all individuals equally. And I’m arguing that when your right to party hurts another’s, you create a problem worth discussing—either in The Chronicle, or on Jezebel. Give our parties the national reputation they deserve—we have fun. But we’re also good people, with good intentions, great ambitions, and a sincere respect for people, places, and cultures of all varieties. We can celebrate these people, places, and cultures without making a mockery of them. More importantly, we can party hard without making a mockery of ourselves.

Happy Holidays, Duke. Stay good.

The Duke Ethicist is a project of the Honor Council which responds to ethical questions posed by the Duke community. Our purpose is to provide a medium through which students may anonymously seek advice or spark dialogue. Got a question? Send it to dukeethicist@gmail.com, and look out for a response on our blog.

DukeEthicist: chain of command

02 Dec 2011, Posted by Duke Ethicist in Backpages, DukeEthicist, 0 Comments

So what about Joe Paterno?

As the sordid details of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal continue to trickle in it’s not a bad idea to take a step back and get some clarity on what transpired.   There is little argument that if grand jury testimony and victim accounts are upheld beyond a reasonable doubt Jerry Sandusky should rot in federal prison: his pattern of behavior was deliberate and contemptible.   The story, however, does not end with Jerry Sandusky and it is here where I would like to focus.

The Sandusky scandal set into motion a series of ethically problematic events, chief being the firing of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.   In the wake of the Sandusky accusations, Paterno, a Happy Valley fixture for nearly half a century, was promptly relieved of his duties for failing to do enough to stop suspected abuse after he caught wind of possible indiscretion from one of his trainers.   This firing occurred despite the fact that Paterno made the athletic director aware of Sandusky’s questionable behavior.   The face of the Penn State program for 8 US presidents, Joe Paterno was not even given the courtesy of being fired in person; instead he was fired over the phone like a stranger.

Poor taste aside, Paterno’s firing brings up important questions about where responsibility falls in multi-level organizations?  Does the buck stop at the top of the hierarchy or does everyone share in responsibility?   A look at the professional world for guidance only muddles the picture of how we as a society assess blame.   When a rogue trader at HSBC, for example, lost the firm $1 billion it was not only the trader who was fired but most everyone on that trader’s desk.   Contrastingly, when a patient files a lawsuit nurses and staff are typically not effected; instead, most of the heat falls on the lead physician who had the power to give “orders.”  Even in our own Duke bubble we’ve had to deal with questions of leadership accountability.   Early this semester Duke administration codified a policy in which student organization leaders, for the first time, can be held liable for the actions of their members.

How then should we think about who should be held accountable for an action?   On a primary level we might say that those directly involved in the decision-making should be held liable.   If Joe Paterno had any power to directly effect the athletic director’s action on Sandusky but chose to protect a friend, he should face culpability.   On a secondary level, anyone with immediate knowledge of impropriety who failed to reveal or act on it should also be held liable.   If Joe Paterno or others, held information of additional possible cases but failed to proffer them to superiors, they too should be held liable.

On the other hand, is it fair to hold someone accountable for an action as a kind of symbolic gesture?  Victims of Sandusky are experiencing incredible pain as details of their childhood trauma are publically revealed but does the university owe it to these families to “clean house” irrespective of culpability?  As a PR move, perhaps but as an upstanding decision no.   Penn State should have waited for more information before terminating an employee that has added tremendous value to their institution.

The Duke Ethicist is a project of the Honor Council which responds to ethical questions posed by the Duke community. Our purpose is to provide a medium through which students may anonymously seek advice or spark dialogue. Got a question? Send it to dukeethicist@gmail.com, and look out for a response on our blog.

DukeEthicist: OccupyAnswers

04 Nov 2011, Posted by Duke Ethicist in Backpages, DukeEthicist, 0 Comments

Movement for the sake of Movement = No Answers.

“The challenge that Occupy Duke poses to the Duke Community is fundamentally an ethical question. We challenge all members of the Duke Community first to explore where the rampant economic and social inequity in our society comes from and then we challenge them to critically analyze the role that they as individuals and Duke as an institution plays in creating those inequities. The movement is, at its core, an ethical inquiry into the ways that our lives shape economic and social inequality. These are not easy questions to ask: they bring into question fundamental assumptions that we make about the world.”
–Jacob Tobia, member of Occupy Duke

The preceding quotation was in response to the question “How is Occupy Duke an ethical movement?” After reading this reply, I felt the best way to paraphrase it was: “It is about inequality, so therefore, it just is.” Not feeling completely satisfied with the answer, I looked into various other resources to discover more about the movement and what it was all about. Yet, every single resource was about as vague as this reply. They said it was about fighting out against the 1 percent that control all of the economic and political power in this nation and making its distribution more equal. But how is this movement trying to do that? Finally, I came across the best answer in an interview printout on the table in front of their campsite. It stated in so many words: this movement has no leaders and is undefined. They are not particularly affiliated with any party, and have no clear goals.

This was shocking to see. Have none of these people learned how to properly critique something? I will take a moment to remind all who have forgotten that the best way to encourage improvement is to point out where someone needs to improve! It is as though a teacher hands back a paper and with a fat red F sprawled across it without telling the student where they went wrong. In this case, the Occupy Duke movement is boldly saying that our economic and political state is bad because it is rampant with inequality, without even beginning to outline how to stop it. Even if that big Wall Street businessman decides to compromise, they will have no solution to offer him. I find this quasi-hypocrisy very frustrating.

As far as the ethics of this movement goes, I feel that denying people information is, in itself, a bit unethical. The movement is asking people to stand behind an issue that many of them have yet to understand, simply because they fall into the category of ‘the 99 percent.’ It is a movement for the sake of movement, which is leading nowhere. (Perhaps I should make a more inclusive movement saying that dying is bad. I am sure I would have 100% support.)

Once Occupy Duke is able to pull itself together enough to actually effect some REAL change, I think that they will be ethically driven. If they can get the big companies on Wall Street to reinvest their excess money into more valuable, social change, then I will support the movement completely. For instance, Gene Isenberg, a CEO of NBR (an oil drilling company) was paid $100 million upon his retirement. Did he really need that extra bonus? Imagine how struggling families would have been helped had it been cut to $50 million. Imagine how many students would no longer be drowning in student loans. Imagine all of the vaccines that could have been administered! Only when Occupy Duke and all the other Occupy Together movements actually change issues like this can they be deemed worthy to wear the crown of ethics.

The Duke Ethicist is a project of the Honor Council which responds to ethical questions posed by the Duke community. Our purpose is to provide a medium through which students may anonymously seek advice or spark dialogue. Got a question? Send it to dukeethicist@gmail.com, and look out for a response on our blog.

DukeEthicist: our fearless leaders

28 Oct 2011, Posted by Duke Ethicist in Backpages, DukeEthicist, 0 Comments

To what extent does the administration have the responsibility to uphold the community standard (i.e. with complete transparency/honesty of administrative expenditures), and would their violations of the community standard be more permissible?

The Duke Community Standard as we know it was implemented in 2003, though the university has boasted an honor system since 1924. Broken down into three bullet points, the community standard spells out the ethical code to which all undergraduates are held: in a nutshell, we are to conduct ourselves honorably in all areas of life, and act if standard is compromised.

Pause for a minute, and note the word undergraduates. Nowhere is administration explicitly mentioned in conjunction with the community standard. That said, they still have a responsibility to act ethically; they play a huge part in “promoting a climate of integrity” as the standard proposes to do.

Acting ethically and being totally transparent, however, are two totally different things. Let’s be real, these deans have a university to run and a prestigious reputation to uphold. Say a little bit of controversial behavior goes on – behavior that, if reported, would threaten the university at large. You won’t hear about it. And frankly, it might be better that way.

You see, Duke, a private institution of higher education, is a business. And though I personally am a staunch believer in corporate transparency, especially at the upper levels; the fact of the matter is that in a cutthroat capitalist society such as ours, it doesn’t work that way. Were Duke administrators to focus only on “acting ethically and transparently,” practical choices with the greatest benefit to the community might not be made. So I’m okay with the gray area.

The end justifies the means; and that end is this great university environment that we’re a part of.

If the means used to realize it weren’t quite up to ethical snuff, they still contributed to making Duke a place where a climate of integrity pervades. That’s a good enough rationalization for me.

The Duke Ethicist is a project of the Honor Council which responds to ethical questions posed by the Duke community. Our purpose is to provide a medium through which students may anonymously seek advice or spark dialogue. Got a question? Send it to dukeethicist@gmail.com, and look out for a response on our blog.