ethics

More Lessons from the Sherrod Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Gordon Peterson, venerable host of “Inside Washington” and long-time Washington D.C. news anchor, began the show’s segment on Shirley Sherrod this way:

“Some of you may remember the good old days of newspapering and TV and radio news when you had hours to work on your story, and your editors and producers had plenty of time to sift through your stuff for accuracy. If you remember that, you’re a dinosaur. Welcome to the blogosphere, the burnout pace of online news and the 24 hour instant deadline. Which brings me to the story of ousted Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod who was let go on the basis of a single piece of internet video that was edited out of context, posted on a conservative website, picked up on Fox News, and bought lock, stock and barrel by the Obama administration.”

That’s right, Gordon. And, as Charles Krauthammer immediately pointed out on the show, you have succumbed to the blogosphere’s unethical standards, because you didn’t check the accuracy of that statement. Continue reading →

Free Speech or Theft? The Law and Ethics of Stolen Valor

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

The U.S. District Court in Colorado ruling in the case of  US v. Strandloff, has found the “Stolen Valor Act,” 18 U.S.C. § 704(b) & (d), to be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech.  Rick Strandloff represented himself as a wounded decorated Iraq War veteran in order to rally support for veterans and opposition to the war. The original Stolen Valor Act of 2005 criminalized the wearing of military medals an individual was never awarded; later, it was expanded to included the crime of falsely saying or writing that one has been given military honors for valor. The Act says, in part, that it is a crime to…

…falsely represent [oneself], verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item …

Deciding an issue like this inevitably comes down to both law and ethics. Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, and deciding how many kinds of speech we can sensibly and reasonably prohibit requires a court and a culture to think about just how bad—how wrong–certain kinds of speech may be, based on their actual and potential harm. Continue reading →

Rebuttal on the Trial Lawyer Deduction

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Following the argument of reader Bob Stone, a trial lawyer blog makes a strong pitch that the Obama deduction for his up-front expenses—criticized in Ethics Alarms—in contingency fee cases is reasonable and fair, because other small businesses can deduct similar expenses. Continue reading →

Fairness to Blago

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Impeached Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich stunned everyone in the courtroom, including prosecutors, when he declined to take the stand in his own defense in his corruption trial. Continue reading →

Doctors and the Deadly Anti-Snitch Reflex

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Everybody, or almost everybody, hates to report friends and colleagues for misconduct. This is the anti-snitch reflex, a strongly programmed response from childhood. Telling authorities about the misconduct of others sets off internal alarms that have been installed by parents and peer groups, ensuring that we feel terrible if we “tattletale.” This is betrayal, a violation of loyalty, and most of all, a breach of the Golden Rule: we’d never want anyone to snitch on us.

For professionals, however, this reflex is false, mistaken and even deadly. The duty to report dishonest public employees, crooked cops, unethical lawyers, conflicted accountants, self-dealing business executives, fraudulent researchers and others in the workplace—even if they are colleagues and friends—trumps childhood codes, personal loyalty and general discomfort. There is nothing noble or admirable about allowing innocent people to entrust their life and livelihood with untrustworthy professionals. Nevertheless, a disturbing large proportion of all professionals can’t bring themselves to do the right thing when it comes to the core ethical duty of stopping workplace dishonesty, incompetence or corruption when it involves a colleague.

A recent survey of doctors is not comforting, but it confirms the problem. Continue reading →

The Ethics of Legalized Gambling: A Debate

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Over at “The Economist” website, two articulate and well-qualified opponents are debating the wisdom of state sanctioned gambling. The debate will be “settled” by a vote of the site’s readers.

The two advocates cover the topic thoroughly and well, and I will  link to the debate rather than attempt to supplement it in detail, except to say this: Continue reading →

Note to Anti-Defamation League: Stick To Dafamation

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Everybody who watches baseball on TV knows that Fox color man Tim McCarver talks too much. He’s smart, sometimes perceptive, but his opinions during a broadcast constitute the sports equivalent of Phil Spector’s “Wall of Sound.” Last week, commenting on a Yankee Stadium game that was preceded by the team’s annual “Old Timer’s Day” parade of superannuated Yankee greats, McCarver chose to express his outrage at what he saw as the Yankees’ banishment of former manager Joe Torre (now managing the L.A. Dodgers after an acrimonious departure from New York, followed by a tell-all book) to relative obscurity: Continue reading →

Fairness Dilemma:When Should Past Misdeeds Affect Present Trust?

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

The Shirley Sherrod case raises a broader ethical question that surfaces frequently, both in current events and in private life. When, if ever, is it fair to lower one’s opinion and level of trust in an individual’s character based on events that occurred long ago?

In Sherrod’s case, an twenty-four year old incident she cited in a speech before the N.A.A.C.P. as a lesson in how not to behave got her fired from her job at the U.S.D.A., condemned by the N.A.A.C.P., and called a racist by conservative news commentators. This is an easy call: her instance of racial anger and bias should not be held against her for several reasons: Continue reading →

Race, Politics and Cowardice: the Unethical Victimization of Shirley Sherrod

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

The forced resignation of Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod, an African-American, is far more significant than it appears. By itself, it is a deplorable example of an innocent citizen being victimized by a convergence of unethical conduct by the media, the Obama Administration, and the N.A.A.C.P. Sherrod’s fate, however, is also a warning, a frightening sign that racial and political tensions are rapidly spinning out of control in America, and that the very institutions we should be able to trust to apply reason, competence, courage and fairness to the issue of race are displaying cowardice, dishonesty and opportunism instead. I hope this is an isolated incident. Everything tells me it is not.

This sudden ethics train wreck developed when Andrew Breitbart, proprietor of the provocative, entertaining and thoroughly Right-leaning website Breitbart.com, posted a grainy video that he said showed Shirley Sherrod, U.S.D.A.’s state director of rural development for Georgia, speaking at a March 27 NAACP Freedom Fund banquet. Continue reading →

Ethics Heroes: The Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Thank you, Commissioners, for avoiding the impulse to support a fellow judge, and standing up for decency, compassion, and common sense in the judicial profession.

In a display of arrogance, rigidity and callousness that has justly haunted her for three years, Sharon Keller, the Presiding Judge of the State Court of Criminal Appeals, told a clerk to close down the courthouse on the dot of  5:00 PM on September 5, 2007, knowing well that attorneys were rushing there to file a last-minute appeal to save a prisoner from execution. Once the doors were closed, there was nothing they could do, and their client, Michael Richard, was put to death that night. Continue reading →