EDUC 525 L01

Learning Task #2 - The Ethics Assignment

As the hiring committee of ABC University, we have been tasked with negotiating

the ethical implications of having Dr. Ben Levin contribute to student learning as a

guest lecturer and respected author in the Faculty of Education. We must decide the

extent to which Dr. Levin will be allowed to contribute to ABC University. Dr.

Levin was charged and convicted as a sadistic pedophile and has served time in a

penitentiary. He is now on parole and some of our colleagues have suggested that,

having served his sentence, he should be able to return to an academic setting and

share his research and ideas with future teachers in the faculty of Education. As

members of our board, we must make an ethical decision about Dr. Levin’s return

to academia. We have utilized the foundational approach outlined in the paper by

Walter and Donlevy (2006) and applied the five commitments to our decision-

making. We have come to the decision that Dr. Ben Levin should not be allowed to

return to an academic setting and his research should no longer be

referenced. Through this paper we will outline how we applied the five

commitments to our decision-making process and refrained from subscribing

relativism during our decision making process.

Commitment to Common Ethical Principles

As professionals, we adhere to a set of common ethical principles that unite us as a

cohesive group with values and beliefs that trump cultural, religious and socio-

economic differences (Walker & Donlevy, 2006). Therefore, as ethical leaders we

have a responsibility to be fair and responsible and to adhere to notions of justice

such as equity, due-process and procedural fairness (Walker & Donlevy,

2006). When making a decision regarding Dr. Ben Levin, we remained committed
to a set of common principles and ensured that the decision would receive the

appropriate attention required to make an ethical decision that contributes to the

“overall public good” (Walker & Donlevy, 2006. p. 17).

Commitment to Relational Reciprocity

When adhering to a commitment to relational reciprocity it is critical that we

highly value ourselves and at the same time highly value others that are affected by

our decision. By highly valuing ourselves we can avoid being influenced by

popular opinions allowing us to maintain our integrity. When we allow ourselves to

be swayed by public opinions we may be “inclined to unthinkingly conform, [and]

make decisions based on likelihood of personal validation” (Walker & Donlevy,

2006. p.18). We would then be adhering to an “It-Thou” relationship, causing us to

fall into the Miller’s trap outlined in Aesop’s Fable, unable to maintain the integrity

required to make a rational decision in the face of public pressure. Although it may

be a popular opinion to disallow Dr. Ben Levin from participating in academic

settings, our decision was made independent of these varied influences.

We aspired to adhere to the “I-Thou” relationship where we place high value on

ourselves as mentioned above but also highly value others. In this particular case,

the “other” is our students and faculty members at ABC University. While having

the best research available is arguably in the best interest of our university

members, the possibility exists that the utilization of the research and guest lecture

may make some members uncomfortable. Therefore, our decision to disclude Dr.

Levin’s presence and research reflects the high value we put on our students and

faculty.
Commitment to Professional Constraints

When considering a commitment to professional constraints, we must adhere to the

Alberta Teachers’ Association code of professional conduct, which states that we

must “[act] in a manner which maintains the honour and dignity of the profession”

(ATA 2007). Using the research of a convicted sadistic pedophile compromises

the dignity of the teaching profession. Admitting him into the faculty may be seen,

at worst, as condoning his behaviour and, at best, failing to acknowledge the

gravity of the offence. Our decision to exclude Dr. Levin’s research and his

presence from ABC University’s faculty of Education was made regarding the fact

that we are bound to the code of conduct and its constraints.

Commitment to Personal Conscience

We recognize that our personal consciences were developed over time throughout

our lives and can dictate many attitudes and behaviours we have. As professionals,

we have undergone a formative transformation of conscience that compels us to act

in particular ways. These acts are the foundation upon which our relationships with

others are formed. Within these relationships we have expectations of others and

ourselves. Dr. Ben Levin does not meet our expectations for what an educator

should be.

Commitment to Professional Convictions

As professionals we are passionate about providing a safe and supportive

environment in which our students receive high quality education. Our decision

will influence the atmosphere of the university moving forward. Within our

committee, we have a variety of experiences that have led to a variety of

professional convictions. Through in-depth, rational discussions we have come to

a mutually agreed upon decision to disallow Dr. Ben Levin and his research at the

university. The differences among the members of our board contribute to the

strength of our decision.

Conclusion

We have utilized a foundational ethical approach when making our decision

regarding Dr. Ben Levin and his research. The five commitments upon which the

foundational approach rests have been used synchronously to ensure that an ethical

resolution has been reached.

We maintain that our decision was not influenced by relative factors such as

popular opinions, personal feelings, or cultural biases. As acting members of a

committee of professors at ABC University, we have determined that Dr. Ben

Levin will not be allowed to lecture at ABC University under any circumstances.

Further, his research will be banned from required reading lists across the faculty.

We believe that the methods used to evaluate the situation and the repercussions of

our decision, will result in a fair and reasonable outcome that protects the dignity

of our institution and its constituents.

 References

The Law Society of Alberta,. (2007). Code of Professional Conduct.

Walker, K. D., & Donlevy, J. K. (2006). Beyond relativism to ethical decision making.

Journal of School Leadership, 16(3), 216.