Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 6/25/2019: The Greatest Morning Warm-Up Ever Blogged!

The movie “The Greatest Story Ever Told” was far from the “Greatest Movie Ever Made,” as the Duke’s casting as a Roman soldier demonstrated vividly.

OK, not really, but it better be good after yesterday’s potpourri never made it off the launch pad due to a series of unfortunate events. I’m using “The Greatest Legal Ethics Seminar Ever Taught!” as a title for an upcoming program I’m writing now, so the rhetoric is on my mind. My teaching partner complained that the title really puts the pressure on us to be outstanding. And that’s the point…

1. Harvard’s new President punts. Of course. The Harvard alumni magazine this month was notably light on criticism of the Ronald Sullivan fiasco, with only two critical letters on the topic, one of which made the suggestion that it might be a “conflict of interest” for someone who is defending a #MeToo villain to also serve as a residential faculty member (what was previously called a “House Master,” but that triggered some delicate students who felt it evoked slave-holders. No really. I’m serious. I don’t make this stuff up. Organizations capitulate to these complaints now, like Major League Baseball changing the name of the “Disabled List” because disabled rights activists complained). It is assuredly NOT a conflict of interest, though, by any definition but an erroneous one.

Deeper in the magazine, we learn that new President of Harvard, Lawrence Bacow, was asked during a faculty meeting about his views on the episode. His response was essentially a Harvard version of Ralph Kramden’s immortal “huminhuminahumina” when “The Honyemooners” hero had no explanation for some fiasco of his own engineering. Bacow said he would respect “the locus of authority,” meaning College Dean Rakesh Khuratna, who fired Sullivan after joining in student protests over the law professor and lawyer doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do.

So now we know that, not for the first time, Harvard is being led by a weenie. What should he have said?  How about “I am firing Dean Khuratna, and offering Prof. Sullivan his position back. Any Winthrop House students who feel  “unsafe” are welcome to transfer to Yale”?

Most news media gave inadequate coverage to this story, and none, in my view, sufficiently condemned the university’s actions or the un-American values they represent. At least the New York Times is keeping the episode before its readers by publishing an op-ed by Sullivan titled Why Harvard Was Wrong to Make Me Step Down.”

2. Insuring the life of a son in peril. Is this unethical somehow? It honestly never occurred to me. When I had to give a speech in Lagos, Nigeria, one of the most dangerous cites on Earth, my wife tried to take out a policy on my life with her as the beneficiary. I thought it was a good and prudent idea. But in Phillip Galane’s “Social Q’s” advice column, a son writes that he is still angry, decades later, that his late father did this , writing in part,

I served as a combat medic in Vietnam when I was 19. …I came home safe. When I did, my father told me he’d taken a life insurance policy on me for $50,000…. I was so stunned that he was willing to profit from my death that I never said a word about this to anyone. My parents are long dead. I would like to discuss this with my siblings, but I don’t want to cause a rift. Your thoughts?

My thoughts are: “Get over it, and seek psychiatric help, not advice from a columnist.  Are parents of the Sandy Spring shooting victims ‘profiting’ from their dead children’s death when they receive monetary damages and charity grants? Married couples typically have life insurance policies that pay the other partner: is this callous, somehow? The loss of any family member is a horrible blow to loved ones, both emotionally and practically (I know I’m counting on our son to help us negotiate our Golden Years) and insurance exists to cushion the blow, not for ‘profit.'”

3. Good news for the First Amendment and Freedom of Expression: Yesterday, SCOTUS struck down the Lanham Act’s ban on on “immoral and scandalous” trademarks as unconstitutional, concluding that it ran afoul of the First Amendment.

You will recall that Harry Reid,  Democratic Senators, and the Obama Patent Office  tried to use the Lanham Act to force the Washington Redskins to change the team name and logo. This was a 6-3 decision that crossed conservative-liberal lines, and I won a million dollar bet with myself I made before checking that Justice Sotomayor would be one of the dissenters, on the grounds that future trademarks may hurt someone’s feelings. Sure enough, the Touchy-Feely Justice was, along with Chief Justice Roberts (who argued the old-fashioned position that the government should not give “aid and comfort” to those who use obscene and vulgar words) and Justice Breyer, who cited dubious research indicating that swear words and slurs have special  powers to harm. “Just think,” Breyer wrote, “about how you might react if you saw someone wearing a T-shirt or using a product emblazoned with an odious racial epithet.”

That’s a Golden Rule argument for why people shouldn’t use and wear such words, not an argument for laws banning them. Sonya, of course, wrote that  the majority decision will “beget unfortunate results.” This is why progressives and the Democratic Party no longer support freedom of speech. Speech doesn’t always support the results they approve of, so it should be limited.

Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, wrote a passage that should be an “Ethical Quote of The Month,” but since this has to be the The Greatest Morning Warm-Up Ever Blogged, I’ll use it here:

“Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society. But in many countries with constitutions or legal traditions that claim to protect freedom of speech, serious viewpoint discrimination is now tolerated, and such discrimination has become increasingly prevalent in this country.”

4. Confirmshaming. I learned today that there is a name for the obnoxious practice increasingly used by various websites. A box pops up asking you to pay to get past a paywall, or to remove your ad-blocker, or to agree to be flooded with email alerts, and to get rid of it, you either have to agree or check the refusal box. The box doesn’t just say “No thanks,” or “Not at this time.” It says things like, “No, I don’t care about cutting-edge news reporting” or, “No. I’m content to be a freeloader and refuse to pay a minimal price to support the vital work of this site.” These high pressure tactics are frowned upon in my old business of non-profit fundraising (“Sorry, even though my life has been infinitely enhanced by the education I received at _____, I won’t pledge a modest amount so that today’s students can reap the same benefits I have.”), and I resent them. I also think they are counter-productive. As long as there are other options, I will not frequent websites that force me to “sign” self-deprecating statements.

5. Does anybody objective doubt this is true? Let’s begin, as usual, by the Ethics Alarms disclaimer that Project Veritas is an unethical organization that uses unethical methods, primarily dishonesty. Nonetheless, once their unethical methods bear fruit, we have no obligation to pretend they don’t exist.

Project Veritas posted a video of a Google executive, Jen Gennai, head of Responsible Innovation at Google Global Affairs, appearing to admit that the company uses its immense power to place its fist on the political scales. The video shows her saying to an undercover Project Veritas investigator,

“Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better, it will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It’s like a small company cannot do that,”

 Gennai explained: “I was having a casual chat with someone at a restaurant and used some imprecise language. Project Veritas got me. Well done.” Then she called the Project Veritas allegations “absolute, unadulterated nonsense.”

How can they be nonsense? What is the innocent meaning that the “imprecise language” was supposed to convey?

It’s also fascinating that YouTube took down the video, don’t you think? [Pointer: Tyler O’Neill]

 

17 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 6/25/2019: The Greatest Morning Warm-Up Ever Blogged!

  1. #3 Justice Sotomayor is the poster child for “bias makes you stupid”. And, boy oh boy is she.
    #5 I repeat, Sherman Act Google before it is too late (if it isn’t already). If we don’t do it now the Clayton Act compensatory damages will be measured in trillions, assuming the suit ever sees the light of day. What is the proper price for a lost republic? These people are among the chief enemies of civilization.

  2. Regarding Number 2, when I went to Haiti for a week in college, some company coincidentally offered me a “free trial” of life insurance a week before I left. So I signed up, and cancelled as soon as I got home.

  3. 4) I very smugly click the loaded decline button. The disdain of people who use such tactics is as good as a compliment.

    5) I agreed with your assessment of Project Veritas at one time. The success garnered by it and similar activists has been tending to justify their tactics though. A large-scale, corporate public opinion scam is a target toward which I’d excuse such methods. Undercover cops and the CIA aren’t interested in this, for instance, though increasingly it seems they should be.

  4. On point 2. The ethics of insuring a loved one depends on the benefit amount and the relational situation.

    Had dad taken out a million dollar death benefit policy that seems like he is playing the lottery but if that policy was a combination disability and dismemberment accident policy dad may have done the prudent thing if Johnny never thought that if something happens to him and he gets disabled and mom and dad get the costs of being a long term care giver.

    A death benefit far in excess of what it takes to take care of his obligations and final expenses will seem a bit much but no one really knows what will be needed.

    • Even a millions dollars would be a fairly expensive “lottery”. I am not an actuary, but if we play with some rough numbers:

      130,000 deployed to Iraq
      / 4,000 killed
      = 3% chance of death during 16 years of conflict (or 0.19% chance of death per year)

      1,000,000 death benefit
      * 3% chance of death
      = $30,000 total premium (at least $1900 per year, $160/month)

      So, you are spending $2000 a year “just-in-case”. AND this is just the surcharge for military service

      The policy would also consider all other possible modes of death statistically significant for the beneficiaries age. Most policies for a 20-something start around $2000 for a million dollar policy.

      So we are looking at the father spending roughly $4000/year for his son “just in case”.

      If we include injury/disability insurance, the rate of injuries is about 7 times higher than deaths. Depending on how severe the majority of injuries are, the military surcharge rate could easily go up to $10,000/year or higher.

      We are in the $1000/month territory now for the total policy. How much does the military pay?

      That $2000+ per year is a hedge against not only their son’s death, but against any catastrophic medical bills wracked up before his death (should the military fail to pay for his care).

      A $1,000,000 benefit is not free money. It is a significant expense to protect against tragic expense.

  5. “And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better, it will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It’s like a small company cannot do that.”

    As concerning as Google’s political bias is, why isn’t it also, like, a scandal that they have department heads whose, like, speech patterns are indistinguishable from, like, adolescent children? Her “imprecise language” excuse is almost, like, believable, because she clearly takes, like, no care in choosing the words that, like, dribble from her mouth.

    These are the people we’re supposed to trust as information gatekeepers? I wouldn’t trust anyone who speaks like this as a gatekeeper at a miniature golf course.

    • Like perfectly stated.

      In my courses I have a 3 likes rule. I openly count with fingers until 3 is reached and you are officially done speaking. I demand my students speak precisely to avoid becoming perceived the way this person is now.

  6. 2. I have seen too many times on the crime channel where someone takes out insurance on a family member without their knowledge and then kills them for the insurance. No-one should be able to take out insurance on another person without that person’s permission.

  7. Dear Mr. Marshall,

    Congratulations on having survived Lagos!

    If I recall correctly, there was a book entitled _Survive Lagos_, probably written for expats circa 1980.

    A good thing about Nigeria, if you happen to go there as a white person, is that there is general speaking no racial animosity against white people, and in contrast a welcoming vibe, just as there used to be for tourists on the Moscow subway. I certainly got white privilege there.

    But there have been kidnappings of oil personnel for ransom, armed robbery can happen, and ethnic riots erupt periodically.

    Most Nigerians like to welcome visitors and will probably be nice to Americans, Black or White–if they can get pack the Black phenotype and notice the Black American is a stranger who has come for a visit. But anything might happen, as life is generally a bit unpredictable.

    I would like to see the danger quotients for American visitors, comparing Lagos to Rio to Cape Town or Johannesburg. Generally speaking methinks we need more and better data. But Lagos’ bad reputation has been fairly earned. I spent a year in Ibadan and villages in Yorubaland, but liked to avoid Lagos. It was a long time ago and Sani Abacha was still alive.

    The State Department Travel Advisories always made exciting reading, and perhaps they still do.

    Kind Regards,

    Charles W. Abbott

    P.S.: Many Africans are afraid to come to the U.S., partly from TV shows and partly because of the dangerous aspect of many American cities.

    P.P.S.: A good primer on Nigerian current affairs is _Nigeria: Dancing on the Brink_ by the retired American ambassador to Nigeria John Campbell, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. Perhaps you are way ahead on the reading, but if not, it’s worth a look. 2013.

    P.P.P.S.: In many places in Nigeria the danger is the not crime but road traffic!

    • Fear not, though, Intrepid Ethics Alarmists. Chick Foret said this: “The issue’s going to be did she in fact give those individuals, those people accused of crime, did she give them bad legal advice? Were they prejudice? Was she a reason why they lost their case at trial? All of these issues will be examined on a case by case basis,” Foret said. “I suggest some of these cases will result in new trials for these defendants.”

      It would seem to me that if the fair and virtuous Ashley Crawford did, in fact, not have a law license to practice in Louisiana, then any advice or representation she rendered was, by definition, “bad {as in NO) legal advice”.

      jvb

  8. 1. Speaking of organizations capitulating to the ridiculous requests of the oversensitive, the NBA is no longer calling team owners “owners” because apparently calling the person who controls all the equity in a particular company the “owner” of said company is reminiscent of slavery and therefore insensitive and racist or ummm…..?

    https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/adam-silver-on-nba-using-governor-in-place-of-owner-title-we-moved-away-from-that-term-years-ago/

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.