The Second Annual Ethics Alarms Awards: The Worst of Ethics 2010 (Part 1)

Happy New Year, and welcome to the Second Annual Ethics Alarms Awards, recognizing the Best and Worst of ethics in 2010!

This is the first installment of the Worst; the rest will appear in a subsequent post. (The Best is yet to come.)

Unethical Community of the YearItawamba County, Miss. The high school, the public and government officials all conspired to exclude a young woman from experiencing  her senior prom because she was gay.  In the end, they sent her and her date to a fake prom, complete with school chaperons, while most of her classmates attended a privately organized prom in a secret location. Runner-up: Obion County, Tennessee. Ethics Alarms impulsively awarded the “Unethical Community of the Year” title in October to Obian County for letting a man’s house burn down because he had failed to pay a $75.00 fee. But the award can’t stand: Itawamba County was worse.  Obion County only deserves to come in second.

Most Warped Ethical Values: The defenders of Jet Blue flight attendant Steven Slater.

Unethical Website of the Year: Wikileaks, naturally. Runner-up: Cook’s Source, now defunct, which routinely stole the work of others and published it.  When its editor, Judith Griggs, displayed the astounding bad manners and arrogance to insult one author who complained, by telling her that she should be grateful that her original article received badly needed editing, the World Wide Web community rose up in indignation, driving both editor and website to richly deserved oblivion.

Most Unethical Use of Social Media: The Facebook page that promoted “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” This was a juvenile and arrogant stunt that gratuitously offended innocent Muslims by insulting their sacred religious tenets, increased tensions between the United States and Islam, and made a fugitive out of Molly Norris, the cartoonist who came up with the idea in jest and was hit with a fatwah after her satiric “day” was turned into reality by others.  The protest accomplished nothing constructive, but did plenty of damage, all of it predictable. Runner-Up: Hadley Jons, the Michigan juror who used Facebook to tell the world that she was looking forward to pronouncing the defendant guilty—before the trial was finished.

Ethics Villain of the Year: John Edwards. Nobody else is even close, but the Runner-Up has to be Jesse James, Sandra Bullock’s cheating ex-husband

Warped Values of the Year: The Congressional Black Caucus. C.B.C. members saluted Rep. Charles Rangel even as he was disgracing the House of Representatives with multiple ethics violations, and the Caucus sought to weaken the Office of Congressional Ethics when too many of its members came under scrutiny for unethical practices. When you represent the citizens of the United States and take an oath to uphold the laws, being honest is more important than being black. Unfortunately, the Congressional Black Caucus hasn’t figured that out yet. Runner-Up: Rich Iott, defeated Tea Party candidate for Congress in Ohio, who really admires Nazi soldiers.

Corrupter of the Year: Rep. Charles Rangel. Refusing to do the responsible, courageous thing and resign his position, Rangel remained defiant in the face of unchallenged proof that he had used his office for personal gain, misused his high position, and failed to pay taxes. As a result, he forced Democrats, constituents and even the media to support a corrupt Congressman as well as his rationalizations that “everybody does it,” and that he was being unfairly singled out.

Integrity Meltdown of the Year: Sen. John McCain. A sad spectacle indeed: since losing his run for the presidency in 2008 and having to face a strong challenge from the Right in seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate, the celebrated Arizona maverick reversed long-held positions in favor of creating a route to citizenship for illegal immigrants, reversing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and ending the low Bush tax rates on upper-income Americans. He didn’t change his mind because of sudden epiphanies of clarity, either. He just wants to stay in the Senate. True, McCain held fast to other principles, like opposing earmarks, but those were the ones his critics on the Right supported too. Integrity means being true to your core values even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. Once upon a time, that description fit Sen. John McCain. As of 2010, this was no longer true.

Unethical School of the Year: Silsbee (Texas) High School, which kicked a cheerleader off its squad for refusing to cheer a star athlete who had raped her.

Conflict of Interest of the Year: The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is simultaneously running an initiative to reduce the consumption of fatty foods in the diets of increasingly obese Americans, and financing efforts by the dairy industry to get Americans to eat more cheese. Runner-Up: Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tx), who knowingly gave educational scholarships that were supposed to go to needy students in her district to her own grandchildren and the children of her staff members.

Most Ethically Clueless Corporation: Goldman Sachs, which not only sold their clients what the company later admitted were lousy investment products, but made more profits by betting the company’s own funds that the products would fail. Nevertheless, executives told a Senate committee that this was perfectly ethical, despite a company Code of Ethics that promises integrity, honesty, trustworthiness and complete loyalty to customers. This was because a well-hidden provision of the company’s policies allowed it to waive the Code whenever it felt like it. To Goldman Sachs, the waivers made violating the Code of Ethics ethical. Runner-Up: BP

Most Unethical Non-profit Organization: The Republican National Committee. Among other ethical outrages perpetrated by the Committee under its incompetent Chairman, Michael Steele, was a fundraising mailer designed to trick recipients into believing it was the official Census questionnaire. After the U.S. Congress voted unanimously to ban such deception because it threatened to undermine the Census (in addition to being jaw-droppingly sleazy), the R.N.C. put out another fake Census mailing, using the excuse that the law only prohibited misleading words on the envelope, whereas the new mailing had them inside the envelope, showing through a transparent “window.” Runner-Up: National Public Radio, for its hypocritical, biased, unfair firing of Juan Williams for the dual offenses of 1) speaking the truth, and 2) doing so on politically conservative Fox News.

Most Unethical Judicial Decision: Justice Paul Wooten. The Manhattan judge ruled that a four-year old could be sued for negligence, because there is no legal precedent holding otherwise.

Most Unethical Lawsuit: Arturo Carvajal, a Miami doctor who sued a Miami Beach restaurant for serving him an artichoke without warning him that he shouldn’t eat the whole thing, spiny leaves and all. If he wins, and all future diners have to endure spoken or written warnings not to eat lobster shells, steak bones, or plates, we will know who to blame.

(To be continued in The Worst, Part 2)

8 thoughts on “The Second Annual Ethics Alarms Awards: The Worst of Ethics 2010 (Part 1)

      • …I thought we’d belabored this enough, but apparently not.

        Molly isn’t hiding from the people who made EDMD; she’s hiding from radical Muslims whom EDMD is meant to send an unmistakable message to, that under no circumstances will we surrender out fundamental freedoms to follow their rules. If we submit to them and surrender our freedoms when they are under attack, then they never existed in the first place.

        I’m not arguing that drawing Mohammad deliberately to offend is unethical, but this has the purpose of demonstrating that we still have the right to act in such a way. If it makes me unethical to believe this, so be it, but there is scarcely anything more important to me than the preservation of freedom of speech. From it, all other great things of the modern era of enlightenment have arisen. If we don’t protect it, we may slip into a new dark age.

        • But Jeff, we don’t have to do everything we have a right to do to prove we can do it. My point about Molly is that the fatwah was issued in response to EDMD, making her the scapegoat. The point of the Islamic radicals isn’t that we don’t have the right to make fun of Muhammad, but that if we do, someone is liable to get hurt. EDMD was an empty protest, because those drawing weren’t risking anything, and Molly paid the price. Meanwhile, the supposed targets of the protest learned nothing at all. Point?

          • I think this is the metaphorical rock and hard place. I think it would be more regrettable to fail to demonstrate that we wouldn’t be intimidated than it is to allow this one to glance off us. Perhaps the effectiveness isn’t as important and maintaining this line.

            Maybe I’m just in a senseless froth over this, after the Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoon things… as a cartoonist, that was a very bitter time for me. But how I feel in my heart of hearts is crystal clear: if I am going to give up my freedom, I sure as hell am not going to give it up for free. They can fight to take them away, the way our predecessors fought to have them.

            Thunderf00t, a thoughtful atheist on Youtube, has many videos about EDMD. I doubt you’ll find them convincing, but they adequately say what I believe.

  1. I enjoyed Thunderfoot’s You Tube video and was almost won over by it. Almost, because Thunderfoot is advancing a utilitarian argument: it worked, so we were right. Well, if I disagree with Jack over the matter of the green-shirt-Tide-commercial, say, to the point where I’m convinced that he is doing irreparable harm to advertiser’s rights to free speech, and convince enough others to join in an internet vigilante effort to shut down Ethics Alarms, and we succeed, well, that doesn’t make our effort ethical or moral, no matter how right we may have been in our intention. (Side question to Jack: are run-on sentences unethical?)
    Jeff, I have no brief to offer on behalf of Muslim extremists: they are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. and wrong. But we don’t bring others around to a different way of looking at things by insulting them first and then insisting that they shouldn’t feel insulted, or not really, really insulted. (OK, that’s a somewhat utilitarian argument, too, but it’s an *ethical* utilitarian argument,)

    • My only correction I would put is that I’m sure Thunderf00t thought he was right even before it was done, so I wouldn’t think of “it worked, so we were right” as a justification, more just as a continuation of something already believed. This might be, as he would phrase it, “a distinction without an operational difference.”

      I knew TF’s vids were not going to pass any serious ethical muster (and some of them are much more frank in his opposition).

      I also didn’t know they’d autopost the video like that… I wouldn’t have linked to it if I knew it would.

  2. Side answer: if run-on sentences are unethical, I’m in trouble. These are my three New Years resolutions for 2011:
    1. Proof read OUT LOUD twice
    2. Shorter sentences
    3. Avoid petulant responses to commenters who say “get over it” or “who are you to judge”…

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.