Ethics Dunces: Steven Slater Defenders

You probably have heard about Steven Slater, the Jet Blue flight attendant who snapped like dry twig when a female passenger refused to sit as instructed after a landing at New York’s JFK Airport, pulled out her luggage from the overhead compartment, bonking him on the head, then refused to apologize and cursed at him. Slater, emulating a scene from a Chris Farley movie that never got made, took to the public address system to curse out all the passengers, grabbed a beer, launched the emergency chute, slid down it, and fled the plane and the airport.

He was later arrested at home.  Sources told NBC that he was “having a bad day.”

No kidding.

What has been just as shocking as Slater’s meltdown (imagine this guy in a mid-flight crisis!) is the high percentage on web commenters who are sympathetic with him, calling him a “folk hero,” asserting that it was the passenger who should have been arrested, and in an amazing number of comments, arguing that he should be welcomed back to Jet Blue with open arms.

What is going on here? I think it’s a case of empathy—who hasn’t wanted to go bananas at work when the jerks and fools become overwhelming?—- blotting out the big ethical picture. Yes: the passenger was wrong—rude, abusive, mean, disruptive. Slater, however, was supposed to be a trained and reliable professional, and had the duty of handling the situation rationally and skillfully. Apparently he “demanded” an apology; that was where his breakdown officially started. Ethical professionals don’t demand apologies; that abandons professionalism and places the  encounter on a personal basis. Strike One. Then he lost his temper. Strike Two. He was trained to keep calm and in control of his emotions, but didn’t. This precipitated a tantrum worthy of a five-year old, a complete breach of his professional duty. Strike Three. He acted out his rage by misusing the plane’s equipment (Strike Four) and insulting the innocent passengers who did nothing wrong except flying Jet Blue the day an incompetent flight attendant was on duty. That was unfair, disrespectful, and unforgivable…and Strike Five.  At that point, when he owed everyone else an apology, he breached safety procedures—reckless, irresponsible, and Strike Six—and ran away from his duties and accountability. Strike Seven: cowardly, irresponsible, and a breach of the trust placed in him by his employers.

Flight attendants have remained calm and performed their duties during hijackings, attempted terrorist attacks, storms, emergency landings, unexpected births and more, but Steven Slater threw a fit over one obnoxious passenger and a bump on the head. There is absolutely nothing in his conduct to praise or feel sympathy for. He was a terrible flight attendant, and nothing excuses his actions. Apparently he has some difficult personal issues right now: it doesn’t matter. If he was incapable of handling his duties professionally, it was his obligation to seek a leave of absence. His personal problems, no matter what they were, could never justify breaching his professional duties in so many ways, in such outrageous fashion. Now defenders of his meltdown are citing the fact that he is battling substance abuse problems. Perfect: now his tantrum will cause the reliability of millions of recovering addicts and alcoholics doing exemplary jobs in various professions to be questioned.

Nobody should defend Slater, and if someone you know tries, set them straight, please. There is nothing admirable or excusable about his conduct.

5 thoughts on “Ethics Dunces: Steven Slater Defenders

  1. He is indefensible and I would wager that if you asked him, he’d tell you the same thing. I don’t think he would want to be defended…or at least he shouldn’t. Trying to weasel out of a very clear statement would only degrade his “reputation”.

    With that said, I find the whole thing amusing. (From my armchair that is.)

    Beyond that, I do question why charges aren’t being brought against the woman. She battered a flight attendant after ignoring his clear instructions. His bad behavior doesn’t and shouldn’t excuse hers.

    He’ll get what’s coming to him, that is certain. Will she?

  2. I often picture what would happen if I got a drink thrown at me at the movie theater as the ultimate litmus test of my patience. I hope very much that I could keep it together, and if I couldn’t, I would leave to some other location I could melt down in relative solitude.

    In my first year working there, I got a faceful of the corner of a box full of napkins as the manager tried to turn it around in a narrow corridor. It tore my lip open and hurt a great deal. But it was an accident, and she was repentant. I obviously didn’t demand an apology, but I do wonder what way someone could be raised where they don’t think they should apologize for an obvious infraction.

    But yeah, there’s nothing good about what he did. I thought this would be completely transparent to most people, but apparently not.

  3. Jack,
    Actually, baseball only allows for 3 strikes before the person is called “out,” yet you listed a full 7. I don’t see any umpire allowing a batter to continue swinging after the third, making your whole argument null and void on a technicality. So — I win.


    PS: Otherwise, I completely agree with everything you said.

    • As you know, I know my baseball….baseball is my life; baseball has been berry berry good to me. My point was that the violation went beyond three strikes—he wasn’t just out, he was INCREDIBLY out. I probably should have tried a different metaphor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.