Faculty Speak Out on Controversial Issues

Members of the Jepson faculty, never content to sit idly by while others debate the hot-button issues of the day, have been particularly vocal in the public forum during recent months. 

Philosopher Joanne Ciulla, for example, served on a panel that debated business ethics in an “Ethics in America” program that aired on PBS on April 1 and 8. Using three hypothetical case studies, panelists weighed a number of complicated ethical dilemmas not unlike those corporate executives confront regularly.

Ciulla summed up the challenge for corporate executives thus: “The interesting thing about taking the ethical stand is that it’s always risky. Nobody guarantees that being ethical is going to make you money.”

Ciulla examined another aspect of business ethics in her article “The Work Ethic, in a Modern Guise” published in the New York Times on July 1. The article addressed why some recent graduates disavow the Protestant work ethic, with its emphasis on the intrinsic value of a job well done, in their pursuit of external rewards such as higher salaries and better benefits.  

“For young adults who have grown up in a society that celebrates consumerism and status, the old work ethic seems hopelessly old-fashioned,” Ciulla wrote. Nevertheless, Ciulla maintained that if a company or organization is to succeed, employers must instill in their young employees “the desire and skill to do a job well.” Ultimately, employees who take pride in the quality of their work benefit not only their organization but also themselves by becoming better people who live happier lives, according to Ciulla.   

Ciulla’s colleague and fellow philosopher Terry Price considered critics’ charge about the futility of teaching business ethics. In his article “How to Teach Business Ethics” published in Inside Higher Ed on June 4, he suggested that the operative question should be how to teach business ethics, not whether to teach business ethics.  

Most people understand what comprises morality, but they don’t always understand—nor do business ethics courses adequately address—who must follow the rules of morality, according to Price. “It is not enough for business students to hear yet again that certain behaviors are generally prohibited by morality,” he wrote. “They must also come to see that these prohibitions apply to them even when morality conflicts with self-interest, the bottom line, and the interests of investors.” 

While Ciulla and Price aired their views on business ethics, other faculty members contributed to the public debate of controversial topics in the political arena.  

Political scientist and constitutional scholar Gary McDowell defended the president’s right to make decisions that often run counter to the wishes of Congress as an executive prerogative grounded in the Constitution. In light of recent congressional challenges to the president’s authority, McDowell appealed to the original intent of the Founding Fathers in crafting the Constitution in his article “Congress Overreaches,” published April 2 in the Washington Times. 

“President Bush finds himself in the happy company of the Founders who understood that good government depended upon an executive that would not only be independent, but also energetic and powerful,” McDowell wrote. “Indeed, the president is obligated by his very oath to stand firm [against congressional challenges to his authority]. Constitutional independence is not political imperiousness. Acquiescence is not leadership.”  

Social psychologist George Goethals also reflected on the George W. Bush presidency when he responded to a reporter’s question about whether he agreed with former President Jimmy Carter’s assessment that the Bush administration’s record on international relations was the “worst in history.” In a Richmond Times Dispatch article dated May 22, Goethals, who teaches a course on presidential leadership, stated, “It’s too early to evaluate Bush’s leadership.”  

Goethals said historians constantly reevaluate and reassess presidents. He offered President Reagan as an example of someone who “has been judged among the most underrated presidents and most overrated presidents.”  

Political scientist Thad Williamson, however, takes a decidedly negative view of President Bush and his administration in the opinion pieces he writes. He recently became the editorialist offering the liberal perspective for the political debate column “Agree to Disagree,” published the third Thursday of every month in the online news outlet Richmond.com. Norman Leahy, a former fellow at the Sorenson Institute for Political Leadership, offers the opposing conservative viewpoint.

In his first “Agree to Disagree” column published May 17, Williamson recommended setting a deadline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, arguing that a continued American military presence in Iraq only exacerbates the violence and instability. In the column published June 21, Williamson expressed relief at the failed passage of the Bush immigration bill, writing that although he supported the principle behind the bill’s route to citizenship for illegal immigrants, he objected to what he considered the proposed substandard treatment of guest workers.  

In addition to these online editorials, Williamson’s op-ed piece “No Taxes Would Mean No Prosperity” appeared on the editorial page of the Richmond Times Dispatch on April 30. He rebutted taxation critics’ claims that the government unfairly taxes citizens’ hard-earned income.  

“Citizens are not just legally but morally obliged to pay our stipulated share of taxes,” Williamson wrote. “To pretend otherwise is both to ignore the manner in which public activity helps make prosperity possible, and to deny the obvious truth that our personal rewards come not simply from our individual efforts in isolation, but from our participation in a larger system of social cooperation, of which government is a constituent part.” 

National issues aside, Williamson also likes to weigh in on local issues, such as the long-running debate about more and better public transportation in Metro Richmond. According to a Style Weekly article published June 6, Williamson identified better bus service for poor city dwellers seeking jobs in the suburbs as a key challenge, one often tinged with racial overtones and subject to county-city political jockeying. “It seems reasonable to conclude that residents of these [low-income city] neighborhoods are disadvantaged in trying to find work,” Williamson was quoted as saying. 

Thomas Shields, who holds a doctorate in public policy, also takes a keen interest in local matters. He has closely monitored the highly contentious tenure of Richmond’s first popularly elected mayor, L. Douglas Wilder, a former governor of Virginia and the nation’s first African-American governor.  

Shields co-authored a March 25 Richmond Times Dispatch op-ed piece in which he offered a possible solution to a wrangle between the Richmond School Board and school administration on the one hand and Mayor Wilder on the other, admonishing the city’s leaders that “leadership is not about self-interest, but the interests we hold as a community.”  

Subsequent articles about feuds between Wilder and other city officials quoted Shields as suggesting that Wilder has failed to communicate a vision for the city and region and that a city government with an overly strong executive branch and relatively weak legislative branch runs the risk of despotism.  

Shields’ commentary on Wilder’s leadership provides yet another example of how faculty members have used various media outlets in recent months to voice their opinions on a wide range of issues. But at times the media itself becomes the subject of controversy, as was the case following the April 16 Virginia Tech massacre.   

CBS-affiliate station WTVR-6 interviewed social psychologist Don Forsyth about the media’s decision to air the images sent by gunman Cho Seung-Hui, raising issues of the privacy rights of the victims’ families, the larger community’s right to know the facts and the media’s intentions.   

Forsyth said that although some positive consequences could ensue from airing the gunman’s message on news programs, the news media should have given careful, deliberate consideration to the potential harm it could cause. He cautioned against any person or organization acting in a way that would validate the gunman’s violent message, suggesting that the network had helped to carry out Cho’s plan by broadcasting his tape.  

Whether debating the moral implications of news reporting, the leadership crises at all levels of government or ethical dilemmas in the business world, Jepson faculty members actively participate in the public discourse. In so doing, they not only inform the citizenry, they also bring an added dynamism to their classrooms and serve as role models of civic engagement for their students.