integrity

Atlanta Parents’ Verdict: Cheating’s No Big Deal; Grades Are What Matter!

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Atlanta's integrity is burning, and its students are the victims

Here is one reason American education is in the sorry state that it is.  And speaking of sorry states, how about that Georgia?

After  revelations of a massive conspiracy among teachers and administrators across Atlanta’s schools to fix the scores on state-mandated tests, parents at least one of the schools vocally supported the teachers involved. At a town hall meeting, parents praised the education their children received from the cheaters.

“We’ve been extremely pleased with the instruction my children have received,” said Quinnie Cook-Richardson, a parent at the West Manor Elementary School. Her child’s teacher had him reading within a year, she said. “They are an example of what is right with Atlanta Public Schools.” Cook-Richardson was among a many parents who defended the school, teachers and  the principal who has been asked to resign as a result of the scandal.

Why are parents defending cheating school personnel? They are defending them because the parents don’t care about cheating, ethics or integrity; they just care about their children getting good grades on the tests. They care about results and credentials and their children succeeding, and if cheating helps, that’s just fine with them. This why their children cheat, as they almost certainly do and will; it is also why the teachers and administrators cheated. It isn’t the culture of the schools that is corrupt;  it’s the culture of the entire community, parents and students included.

And are we so naive that we can believe that this corrupt culture, in which education is seen as nothing but marks on a transcript, and values like integrity and honesty are seen as impediments to “education” rather than  part of it, is confined to a few schools, or Atlanta, or Georgia?

This our nation’s culture in 2011.

We had better start recognizing it, and repairing it.

Fast.

Comment of the Day: “The Folly of Sacrificing Integrity to Kindness in Competitions”

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

Today’s Comment of the Day is on the post about using awards and honors to make the less fortunate and unqualified feel good, as Michael carries the issue into the related matter of grading:

“I run into this every semester. I can’t give anyone a C in a class. I can’t give anyone a B in a class. You have to earn it by demonstrating that you understand and can apply the relevant material. You may be the most attractive, most charitable, most loved person on the planet, but if you can’t do this work, you can’t pass. Usually, they still don’t understand, and I have to give a speech I title “What a C student does.”

“Where do my ‘C’ students go? What do ‘C’ students do after they leave? ‘A’ and ‘B’ students go to graduate school, medical, and dental school. They may hold people’s lives in their hands in their careers. But what about the ‘C’ student? Surely there is no harm in letting someone squeak by with a ‘C’? Well… they test your water to make sure it is safe. They determine what amounts of new pesticides can be used without causing harm. They run the tests that determine if you raped someone or if that really was a bag of cocaine in your car, or just some borrowed powdered sugar (as you insisted). My ‘C’ students work jobs where people die if they mess up. The ‘C’ stands for competence. If you don’t have it, you don’t get a ‘C’. Continue reading →

The Folly of Sacrificing Integrity to Kindness in Competitions

/ Jack Marshall / 24 Comments

"Great idea, Mandy! Let's elect President Obama our school Homecoming Queen! He could use a a boost."

Integrity. 

Violate it at your peril. This is especially true if you are running a competition, no matter how trivial it might be.

Not only may a momentary waiver of integrity for what seems like an admirable cause permanently render a competition and the honor of winning it meaningless, it well may inspire the well-meaning and misguided to stretch the questionable logic of your decision to the breaking point.

Almost everyone has seen the heart-tugging TV ad from the mysterious Foundation for a Better Life, in which a high school girl with Down Syndrome is crowned Homecoming Queen. (“True Beauty. Pass it on!”) It bothered me the moment I saw it—at least after I wiped the tear from my eye. Based on a real incident in Missouri in 2008, the spot illustrates an ethical conflict between kindness and caring on one side and fairness and integrity on the other.

Of course this was a nice thing to do. It was undeniably kind, and the student involved will surely regard it as a high point in her life. But what does the Homecoming Queen title mean now, once it has been awarded for purposes completely divorced from its original purpose? If there is another Down Syndrome student in future years who doesn’t get a crown, will this indicate to her that she is less deserving of the award, and somehow lacking, since, after all, a girl like her won in a past year? Continue reading →

Ethics Quiz: Is Bunting to Break Up a No-Hitter Unethical?

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I want to get this on the record for all time, because the controversy comes up almost ever baseball season. it came up again yesterday.

In Sunday’s baseball game between the Detroit Tigers and Los Angeles Angels, Tiger pitcher Justin Verlander was six outs from joining Bob Feller, Sandy Koufax, and Nolan Ryan as the only pitchers since 1900 with three or more no-hitters in their careers. But the Angels’ Erick Aybar tried to end the no-hitter with a bunt single leading off the eighth against Verlander. He got it, too, except that the home town scorer attempted to preserve Verlander’s historic bid by charging an error instead. (Unethical. But I digress.) Continue reading →

Fick* of the Month: Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

 

Rep. Walsh says that President Obama has no shame. He should know: having no shame is something of a specialty of Walsh's.

Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill) is a vocal Tea Party champion dedicated to fiscal responsibility, meeting obligations, protecting the future for our children, and living within our means. How does he reconcile these values with the fact that he owes $117,437 in child support to his ex-wife and three children?

He can’t. It’s impossible. Walsh is the epitome of a political hypocrite, and because he is shameless about his despicable failure to meet his family obligations, he is also a fick. In fact, he is the Ethics Alarms Fick of the Month.

To be fair, Walsh disputes the amount that his wife claims he owes her in the suit she recently filed. You know what? It doesn’t matter how much he owes. Ethically, he is just as much of a fraud and a fick whether he owes $100,000, $25,000, or $500. For this is the self-righteous freshman Congressman who says,  in a video speech lecturing President Obama on fiscal responsibility, “I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” ”Have you no shame, sir?” he asks. Continue reading →

MSNBC Hires Al Sharpton, As “Network” Becomes Reality

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Satire no more.

Noting that MSNBC has given Rev. Al Sharpton his own show, I am compelled to ask: What is broadcast journalism’s accepted criteria now that justifies an individual’s enshrinement as a cable news commentator?

Is it name recognition? The “right” political orientation, in this case, knee-jerk liberal? A ready-made fan base?  Theatrical presence? If these are the criteria, by all means, hire Al Sharpton. Hire Alec Baldwin, Donald Trump, Rod Blagojevich and Jane Fonda, too. Gary Busey. Manny Ramirez. Hulk Hogan. Bozo the Clown.

Or is the proper and responsible criteria credibility, integrity, honesty, fairness, and journalistic credentials? If those archaic standards are still in place, or if MSNBC wants to pretend that they are, then the hiring of Sharpton marks a new low in broadcast news coverage cynicism and recklessness. Continue reading →

Texas: Resisting Creationism, Embracing Enlightenment

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

Uh...NO.

Lost in the hysteria over the U.S. government’s self-created default crisis was some good news for integrity, education, and the advance of human knowledge.The Texas Board of Education unanimously (8-0) approved scientifically accurate high school biology textbook supplements from established mainstream publishers that cover the origins and implications of evolution theory and findings, rejecting the creationist-backed supplements from International Databases, LLC. (The creationist-crafted materials submitted by that group was not only “laced with creationist arguments,” said one reviewer, but was also “shoddy”, “teeming with misspellings [and] typographical errors,”and “mistaken claims of fact.”)

The efforts of creationists and Christian fundamentalist forces to ignore and discredit overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution on earth, along with the many biological, anthropological, geological and historical conclusions that spring from the body of research in the field, have created hurdles for educators, impediments to students, and embarrassment to organized religion for more than a century. Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

So...any chance of you coming out of retirement, Ed?

“Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect.”

—-Edmund Burke, British political theorist, philosopher and statesman, in his speech to the electors at Bristol, November 3, 1774

Why Burke’s principles are relevant today should be obvious. What is depressing is that I have to resort to quoting an 18th Century statesman to express them, because no current elected officials in the United States seems to be capable of either articulating such ideals or acting accordingly.

Thanks to Ethics Bob Stone for reminding me of one of Burke’s best speeches.

Integrity, Soccer, and Ties

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Kissing your sister is better than this.

Honest, this has nothing to do with disappointment over the U.S. women’s soccer team’s loss in the World Cup Finals: I couldn’t care less about soccer of any kind, at any level. But a lot of people do care (my sister and niece are probably under a suicide watch as I write this, so I think that the sport needs to address its integrity deficit.

To be specific: having a major title or tournament in any team sport decided by something as artificial and unteamlike as soccer’s shoot-out tie-breaker is a breach of that sport’s duty to its tradition and its fans. It is solution for solution’s sake, abandoning the purpose of the contest so as to have a resolution, no matter how unfair, cynical, or unrelated to what has gone before. Continue reading →

The Ethics of Stopping the Condemned From Accepting Death

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

In Oregon, a judge has granted death row inmate Gary Haugen’s motion to dismiss his lawyers after they persisted in taking measures to block his execution. They had declared he was not mentally competent to waive his appeals and allow his own state-decreed death to proceed.

Leave it to lawyers to be convinced that they know what’s best, even when it involves someone else’s wishes about his own life and death.

Is the condemend prisoner who approves of his own excecution insane, or courageous?

In an attorney-client relationship, the lawyer is ethically bound to do what the client wants as long as it is legal and within the bounds of the ethical constraints on the lawyer. A lawyer can render advice and should; a lawyer can explain the legal consequences of a course of action. But substituting the attorney’s judgment for that of the client is taboo…except, all too often, in cases like this one, in which a death row inmate decides that letting justice take its course and accepting the state’s death decree is preferable to rotting in prison.  Continue reading →